The Role of Parental Style and Self-efficacy as Predictors of Internet Addiction among Israeli-Palestinian College Students in Israel

Abstract

Prior studies have suggested the importance of individual characteristics among youths (e.g., self-efficacy) and parents (e.g., parenting style) that may mediate the risk of the youth engaging in compulsive, addictive behaviors like Internet addiction (IA). The current work was the first to examine the associations of IA with self-efficacy and parenting styles among a unique sample of Muslim college students in Israel. Participants (n = 500) reported on their symptoms of IA, self-efficacy, and their parents’ parenting practices. Consistent with the study hypotheses, authoritative parenting style and self-efficacy were correlated with fewer symptoms of IA (r = −0.34, p < 0.01; r = −0.49, p < 0.01, respectively), whereas permissive and authoritarian parenting styles were correlated with elevated indicators of IA (r = 0.41, p < 0.01; r = 0.46, p < 0.01, respectively). These findings are consistent with previous literature in Western samples, suggesting the cross-cultural importance of these personal attributes for reducing the risk of addictive Internet use.

Keywords

self-efficacy parenting style internet addiction Muslim college students

Introduction

The rapid integration of the Internet into global societies has posed new challenges related to the convenience of accessing aspects of the Internet that can be highly rewarding (e.g., gaming, social networking, pornography). One such issue is a behavioral phenotype called Internet addiction (IA), which is conceptualized as an impulse control problem characterized by an inability to inhibit Internet use to the extent that the usage has an adverse impact on major life domains (e.g., interpersonal relations, physical health) (Cheng & Li, 2014). The clinical application of IA may be supported by prior research that has demonstrated associations with a number of psychological impairments, such as low levels of well-being, self-esteem, and self-control (Mei et al., 2016); poor social support (Quinones & Kakabadse, 2015); sleep problems (Chen & Gau, 2016); and depression, anxiety, stress, and loneliness (Ostovar et al., 2016).

Recent research has focused on examining factors that may increase one’s risk for developing IA, especially among youths and adolescents, as Internet use typically originates within this developmental period. Both parenting style and self-efficacy have been independently associated with symptoms of IA in samples from Western countries, with authoritative parenting style and higher self-efficacy being protective factors against IA (Suh & Choi, 2008; Valcke et al., 2010). However, no prior studies have investigated whether these relationships are relevant to non-Western societies. This may be particularly relevant among Muslims individuals living in Israel, as this environment is experiencing rapid modernization (e.g., greater role of the Internet) (Al-Hajj, 1996). Thus, further investigation is warranted to identify individual factors that may predispose Muslim persons to be at greater risk for IA, which may be inform social initiatives to curb the negative consequences of the growing influence of technology in Israel.

Internet Addiction

IA reflects a constellation of symptoms consistent with a behavioral addiction to Internet use, which may encompass numerous rewarding online activities (Kandell, 1998). Consistent with other addictions (Soule et al., 2003), IA is characterized by an individuals’ inability to control his or her use of the Internet, which eventually causes psychological, social, school, and/or work difficulties in a person’s life (Cao et al., 2007). The prevalence for IA in adolescents has been estimated to be between 2% and 18% worldwide and appears to vary cross-culturally. For instance, the prevalence of IA has been estimated to be between 0.3% and 11.8% in India (Prabhakaran et al., 2016) versus 5% and 15.2% in Europe (e.g., 1.2% in Italy to 11.8% in Israel) and between 2.5% and 26.8% in Asian countries (e.g., 3.0% to 6.7% in Hong Kong, and from 2.4% to 6.0% in China) (Fumero et al., 2018; Kawabe et al.,). The prevalence appears to be especially high in Middle Eastern counties, as 40% of university students in Jordan met the criteria for IA in one study (Al-Gamal et al., 2016), whereas another study estimated a prevalence of 17.6% among Qatar adolescents (Bener & Bhugra, 2013).

In parallel with substance use disorders and behavioral addictions, IA has been associated with psychological and social disturbances that translate to academic, relational, financial, and occupational impairment, as well as psychological (e.g., loneliness, frustration, and depression) and physical (e.g., fatigue related to sleep deprivation, backache, and radial tunnel syndromes) health problems in daily life (Murali & George, 2007; Wong et al., 2015). These significant consequences have motivated researchers to investigate causal and maintaining factors for IA. From a theoretical perspective, Davis (2001) posited that maladaptive cognitions (e.g., rumination, self-doubt, and negative self-appraisal) play a central role in causing IA, whereas others have emphasized the contribution of interpersonal difficulties, such that the online space provides a less intimidating method for achieving the benefits of social contact (e.g., belonging) (Koo & Kwon, 2014). Further, there appear to be specific factors that may increase one’s risk for developing IA.

Internet Addiction and Parenting Styles

Parenting style has been defined as the global climate where a family functions and childrearing takes place (Huver et al., 2010). Baumrind (1971, 1991) identified three patterns of parenting styles based upon two aspects of parenting behavior: control and warmth . Parental control refers to the degree in which parents manage their children’s behavior, ranging from being very controlling to setting few rules. Parental warmth refers to the degree in which parents are accepting and responsive of their children’s behavior as opposed to being unresponsive and rejecting. Combining these two aspects of parenting behavior has yielded four primary parenting styles: authoritative (high control, high warmth), authoritarian (high control, low warmth), permissive (low control, high warmth), and uninvolved (low control, low warmth) (Kopko, 2007). The current study focused on authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles.

Authoritative parents are viewed as demanding but responsive, and these parents exercise firm, negotiated control in a warm and loving environment. These parents praise their child for recognized qualities and competencies, and, in turn, the children show highest levels of internalization of parental standards (Heaven & Ciarrochi, 2008). On the other hand, authoritarian style is characterized by the establishment of rigid norms, with little participation from the child and with severe punishments for non-compliance with those norms. Moreover, communication tends to be poor, the rules are often inflexible, and independence of the child is scarce (Becoña et al., 2012). The third pattern is permissive parenting, in which parents are tolerant and accepting toward the child’s impulses, use as little punishment as possible, make few demands for mature behavior, and allow considerable self-regulation by the child (Dornbusch et al., 1987). There is consistent evidence that the authoritative style is associated with numerous positive outcomes across many domains of child development, including psychosocial functioning, school competence, emotional well-being, and behavioral adjustment. Studies of the effects of the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles indicate that these styles may also impede certain aspects of development (Radziszewska et al., 1996), although the associations appear to vary based on individual differences.

In terms of the four specific parenting styles, authoritative parenting has been associated with the most positive outcomes in terms of low prevalence and risk of IA (Ahmadi et al., 2014; Calafat et al., 2014). Interestingly, permissive parenting style has also been associated with less problematic Internet use (Ahmadi et al., 2014) or compulsive use of social networking sites (Martínez-Ferrer et al., 2018). In contrast, authoritarian parenting style has been associated with higher risk for addictive behaviors (Myers et al., 1997; Radziszewska et al., 1996). However, it is unknown how these associations may differ across cultures, as the majority of studies have been conducted in Western samples (Myers et al., 1997;Radziszewska et al., 1996).

Self-Efficacy and Internet Addiction

Self-efficacy has been defined as the extent to which an individual believes he or she has the ability to organize and perform the behaviors needed for achieving personal/professional goals (Bandura, 1977). This perceived self-efficacy centers around individuals’ beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their own functioning and over events that affect their lives (Bandura, 2010). Relatedly, other researchers have expanded this early definition of self-efficacy to include one’s confidence in his or her ability to cope with negative affective states that arise in response to a wide range of demanding or novel situations (Luszczynska et al., 2005). Self-efficacy has an important influence on various spheres of human functioning, such as cognitive processing, motivation, affect, and selection of environments (Schwarzer, 2014). Further, low self-efficacy has been related to increased depression, anxiety, and feelings of helplessness (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2005).

Self-efficacy appears to be a uniquely important contributor to addictive behavior, as it may increase the likelihood of both developing and maintaining compulsive engagement while also being an important predictor of one’s success in abstinence efforts (Marlatt et al., 1997). Consistent with broader outcomes, poorer self-efficacy has been associated with greater risk and prevalence of IA (Craparo et al., 2014; Suh & Choi, 2008). Furthermore, persons with a stronger sense of self-efficacy to refrain from compulsive Internet use had lower rates of IA (Lin et al., 2008). Yet, there may be cultural differences in these associations. Among Arab youths, findings have ranged from observing weak-to-strong relationships suggesting self-efficacy as a protective factor for IA (Alrekebat, 2016; İskender & Akin, 2010; Odaci, 2011; Odacı, 2013) to finding no relationship between the previous variables (Esen et al., 2013; Tavakoli et al., 2014).

Current Study

In summary, prior literature suggests that the likelihood of youths and adolescents developing IA may be differentially associated with the four parenting styles and negatively related to high self-efficacy. The current study expanded on previous research and examined these associations among Muslim college students. The present work utilized this novel, understudied sample of college students in Arab society in Israel due to the rapid modernization occurring within this culture that may contribute to greater accessibility to and integration of the Internet and, thus, increased risk for youths developing IA. Based on previous studies looking across numerous cultures, it was hypothesized that (1) authoritative parenting style would be associated with lower IA symptoms compared to authoritarian or permissive parenting styles and (2) greater self-efficacy will be associated with lower IA. The findings will be discussed with respect to the unique cultural influences for Israeli-Arab college students in Israel.

Methodology

Participants

The sample consisted of 500 Muslim college students recruited through convenience sampling techniques from six colleges in Israel.

Measures

All of the instruments used in this study were translated from English into Arabic and pilot-tested by five Muslim professional experts in psychology, counseling, Muslim language, and education. They evaluated the clarity and relevance of the questions and the translation, which was done by the researchers with the help of the professional experts. After completion, the translated drafts of the questionnaires were back-translated into English by an independent expert in translation. The translated versions were then pilot-tested with 30 students and further refined for clarity according to their feedback.

Demographic Variables Questionnaire: This instrument’s variables included gender, age, economic status (low economic status until 10000NIS, middle economic status 10001 -20000NIS and high economic status +20000 NIS), academic degree, residence, religion, and academic performance.

Internet Addiction Questionnaire: The 20-item Internet addiction test (IAT) was developed by Young (1998). It measures characteristics and behaviors associated with compulsive use of the Internet that include compulsivity, escapism, and dependency. Questions also assess problems related to personal, occupational, and social functioning stemming from Internet use. Participants respond to each statement on a Likert scale ranging from 1 and 5 to indicate the extent to which they endorse that particular behavior. IAT conceptualizes IA as an impulse control disorder where the term Internet refers to all types of online activity. IAT is the most widely used IA scale in the world and has been translated into several languages including English, Chinese, French, Italian, Turkish, and Korean. The internal consistency of IAT in the current sample was α = 82. The 20 items in the questionnaire were averaged to produce a range of scores between 1 and 5 (M = 3.95, SD = 1.23).

Self-efficacy: The present work used the Arabized copy of Schwarzer and Jerusalem’s (1995) generalized self-efficacy scale that Radhwan (1997) developed and extracted its validity and reliability within the Arab culture. The scale consists of 10 items, with higher scores reflecting higher self-efficacy of the individual. Scores in the current sample ranged from 1 to 4 (M = 3.24, SD = 0.86) and internal consistency was α = 79.

Parental Styles Questionnaire: Parenting styles were assessed using the 30-item parental authority questionnaire (PAQ; Buri, 1991). PAQ measures three styles of parenting (authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative) according to Baumrind’s conceptualization of parenting styles and requires participants to retrospectively reflect on their parents’ parenting practices. As such, PAQ contains three subscales, each consisting of 10 items. Respondents rate their agreement with statements regarding parenting behaviors using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Subscales were scored by averaging across items, with higher mean scores representing greater adherence to the behaviors associated with a given parenting style, and the highest mean score of the three subscales representing parents’ primary parenting style. Buri (1991) demonstrated good internal consistency for each subscale (α = 0.74–0.87), which was also observed in the current sample (α = 0.74–0.80). Each subscale produced the full range of scores between 1 and 5, and average scores were as follows: authoritarian = 3.41 (SD = 1.37), authoritative = 3.81 (SD = 1.46), and permissive = 3.57 (SD = 1.74).

Research Procedure

The study sample was obtained by convenience sampling at six colleges in Israel. The study was conducted in 2019 over the course of six months. After obtaining the necessary clearances from each of the universities and the ethical committee at Al-Qasemi College, the researcher (first author) went into the classrooms on a day when school was in session and explained the goals of the study and outlined participant rights (e.g., anonymity). Ninety percent of the students agreed to participate.

Statistical Analysis

Means, standard deviations, and maximum and minimum values for research variables were calculated first. Correlations among the study variables were then calculated. Lastly, the study hypotheses were tested through the use of a hierarchical linear regression model where gender, age, and socioeconomic status were added as control variables in step 1 and self-efficacy and each of the three parenting style subscales were entered as independent variables in step 2 to predict IAT total scores as the outcome. This regression technique was selected in order to understand the influence of each independent variable on IAT total scores while accounting for the associations of the others, as well as the three participant characteristics (gender, age, and socioeconomic status).

Results

Table 2 illustrates the correlations between the study variables, and Table 3 details the associations of each independent variable with IAT total score as the outcome.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Demographic Variables (N = 500).

Variable	Percentage
Gender
Male	30
Female	70
Academic year
First year	21.80
Second year	23.20
Third year	18.60
Fourth year	19.40
Fifth year	17
Majority
Undergraduate students	78
Graduate students	22
Economic status
Low	22
Middle	55
High	23
Residence
Village	57
City	43
Academic performance: (mean, SD)	75.45 out of 100 (12.45)
Age: (mean, SD)	25.80 (4.48)

Table 2.

Correlations among Study Variables (N = 500).

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
(1) Internet addiction
(2) Self-efficacy	−0.49**
(3) Authoritarian style	0.46**	−0.41**
(4) Authoritative style	−0.34**	0.43**	−0.32**
(5) Permissive style	0.41**	−0.31**	−0.20**	−0.38**

Note. *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01.

Table 3.

Stepwise Regression to Predict Internet Addiction (N = 500).

	B	B	SE	ΔR²
Step1: Control variables				0.01
Gender	0.02	0.01	0.04
Age	0.01	0.01	0.02
Economic status	0.03	0.02	0.02
Step2: Variables				0.41**
Self-efficacy	−0.22	−0.18**	0.07
Authoritarian style	0.20	0.17**	0.08
Authoritative style	−0.27	−0.23**	0.09
Permissive style	0.28	0.27**	0.12

Note. *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01.

The first study hypothesis was confirmed, as authoritative parenting style was significantly correlated with lower IAT total scores (r = −0.34, p < 0.01) and also predicted a uniquely significant portion of the variance in IAT total scores in the regression model (β = −0.23, p < 0.01). Further, authoritarian parenting style (r = 0.46, p < 0.01) and permissive style (r = 0.41, p < 0.01) were both significantly and positively related to IAT total scores. Authoritarian parenting style was positively associated with IAT total scores (β = 0.17, p < 0.01), as was permissive parenting style (β = 0.27, p < 0.01).

The data also supported the second study hypothesis, as there was a statistically significant negative correlation between self-efficacy and IAT total scores (r = −0.49, p < 0.01); the regression analysis found that self-efficacy was a unique, negative predictor of IAT total scores (β = −0.18, p < 0.01).

Discussion

The current study examined the associations of parenting styles and self-efficacy with IA among Muslim college students in Israel. Both study hypotheses were supported, as authoritative parenting style and greater self-efficacy were related to lower levels of IA, whereas authoritarian and permissive parenting styles were associated with increased IA.

Parental Styles and Internet Addiction

Authoritative Style

Consistent with the study hypothesis, authoritative parenting style was related to lower levels of IA among Muslim college students, which also parallels prior research in more general student samples (Martínez-Ferrer et al., 2018). Those with authoritative parenting styles exhibit support, guidance, supervision, and consistency and, thus, may foster an ideal environment for promoting appropriate expectations for students while being sensitive to their emotional experience (Deković et al., 2003). Authoritative parents understand their children’s feelings and teach them how to not only regulate their emotions but also compassionately guide them to learn from their mistakes (Marsiglia et al., 2007). Notably, these parents understand and promote developmentally appropriate activities that might facilitate the development of autonomous problem-solving skills (Baumrind, 1966, 1971). Overall, the characteristics of authoritative parenting style may most logically translate to the lowest risk for the child developing addictive behaviors.

In addition, authoritative parenting style was associated with greater self-efficacy, another protective factor against the development of IA in this sample. Previous research has demonstrated that authoritative parenting style may encourage children to develop self-regulation skills and effectively resist risky or compulsive behaviors (Wills et al., 2003). Thus, it may be implied that the characteristics of authoritative parenting both directly and indirectly (e.g., through increasing self-efficacy) mediate against the child developing risky or addictive behaviors, such as IA. This is consistent with prior literature that has shown more widespread benefits of authoritative parenting, such as overall well-being (Furnham & Cheng, 2000; Steinberg et al., 1994). For instance, children with authoritative parents exhibit lower levels of stress and depression and are thus more likely to feel happy, respected, and appreciated by their parents (Baumrind, 1966, 1971; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). As may be expected, these facets of overall well-being have been associated with fewer risky behaviors in students (Agbaria, 2014; Agbaria & Daher, 2015; Agbaria & Natur, 2018; Agbaria et al., 2016), which may suggest additional, indirect pathways that authoritative parenting may reduce risky, addictive behaviors.

Permissive Style

The current findings parallel prior research that found permissive parenting style was associated with greater student engagement in risky behaviors (Hosokawa & Katsura, 2019; Nikoogoftar & Seghatoleslam, 2015; Rizvi & Najam, 2015) and refute previous work showing the opposite relationship (Azizi et al., 2018; Rothrauff et al., 2009; Wolfradt et al., 2003)). The inconclusive results may be attributable to individual differences in how students respond to limited rules/discipline but high levels of emotional warmth and support (Hoeve et al., 2009). Permissive parents do not impose strict guidelines to inform their child’s behavior (Timpano et al., 2010), which may hinder some children in developing good judgment (Milevsky et al., 2007). However, it is likely that other children may assume greater responsibility at a younger age to make up for their parents’ lack of guidance, which may encourage mature decision making. Furthermore, children with permissive parents may also have other role models from whom they observe and learn, which may counteract potential negative effects of limited supervision at home.

Authoritarian Style

Akin to permissive parenting style, the current data suggested that authoritarian parenting style was associated with greater IA. This finding is supported by prior research suggesting that authoritarian parental style has been associated with other negative psychosocial outcomes that relate to risk for engagement in addictive behaviors (e.g., anxiety, fear, and loneliness) and various risk factors that may affect mental welfare among children (e.g., depression, aggression, and behavioral problems) (Agbaria, 2020); Hosokawa & Katsura, 2019; Naeimavi et al., 2015; Nikoogoftar & Seghatoleslam, 2015; Rizvi & Najam, 2015). Given that authoritarian parenting may be harsh, demanding, and strict, students from these homes may develop delinquent and addictive behaviors in order to compensate for high levels of restriction within the home (Hoeve et al., 2009).

Contrary to the findings of the current research, studies in non-Western samples have claimed that the highly regulated authoritarian parenting style may contribute to harmonious functioning within the family, close involvement of the children, and parents’ willingness to make sacrifices that favor the child (Chao, 1994; Chao & Sue, 1996). It may be that the changing societal values among the Arab population in Israel have contributed to the current findings aligned more with Western, relative to non-Western samples. Approximately a decade ago, Sharabany et al. (2008) found that authoritarian parenting style was the most common parenting style among the Arab population living in Israel. However, changes to family roles, such as more equitable roles of the father and mother, and evolving values (e.g., favoring individualism over collectivism) may have altered typical parenting practices. In support, Agbaria et al. (2017) noted that authoritative parenting style has become the preferred practice, consistent with Western cultures. Thus, it may be that Arab parents living in Israel identify more with Western values and could thus benefit from similar psychoeducation initiatives that have been useful for promoting authoritative parenting style in Western samples.

Self-efficacy and Internet Addiction

The second study hypothesis was also supported, as greater self-efficacy was related to decreased IA, which parallels prior literature (Caraparo et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2008; Suh & Choi, 2008). Students with high self-efficacy generally believe that they are in control of their own lives, such that their actions and decisions shape the outcomes of their lives. Choices affecting health, such as smoking, physical exercise, dieting, condom use, dental hygiene, seat belt use, and breast self-examination, have all been associated with self-efficacy (Conner & Norman, 2005). Self-efficacy may also reflect beliefs relating to goals, such as whether health behavior change will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long the behavior change will be sustained in the face of obstacles and failures. Self-efficacy may thus influence how students set their health goals (e.g., “I intend to reduce my bad habits,” or “I intend to quit risky behaviors”) and how effectively they follow through with these intentions. In the present study, it is likely that Muslim college students with higher self-efficacy may have had greater resolve to commit to appropriate Internet use and ability to engage in goal-directed behavior rather than be reinforced by the Internet in a manner that may lead to IA.

Practical Implications and Limitations

These findings suggest the critical need for sensitive, structured interventions to facilitate the transition away from IA through the development of self-efficacy skills among youths and a greater understanding of the long-term implications of parental styles among parents. This information may be communicated to youths through the development of training programs for students that focus on the development and implementation of self-efficacy practices that foster adaptive cognitive and emotional skills, which would likely translate to a reduced risk of using highly rewarding behaviors (e.g., compulsive Internet use) to cope with social and emotional stressors. It may also be beneficial for adolescents and young adults to connect within their community (e.g., college) that could validate their personal experiences. This peer support may help reduce the intensity of the students’ negative affect and increase distress tolerance, both of which would likely optimize social and cognitive functioning.

This research had several limitations, such as limited generalizability (e.g., participants recruited as a convenience sample, sample consisted of narrow demographic characteristics) and reliance on self-report measures, which may introduce bias. The use of self-report may have been more limiting in this work for the assessment of parenting practices, as the college students were reporting on their parents’ patterns, which may be less valid than asking the parents to describe their own behavior. It may be important in future research to assess both youths and parents to report on their perceptions of parenting practices, as this would not only increase the validity of the information but also permit researchers to investigate whether the child’s or parent’s perceptions of parenting style are more closely associated with outcomes. Lastly, this research was cross-sectional in nature, which does not allow for causal attributions to be made with respect to the observed associations between parenting style, self-efficacy, and symptoms of IA. Thus, longitudinal research is needed to understand the temporal relationships of these variables.

Conclusion

This study examined a unique sample of Muslim college students to demonstrate that authoritative parenting style and self-efficacy may be associated with lower IA, whereas permissive and authoritarian parenting styles were related to higher IA. Thus, early identification of students who may be more or less prone to IA may be possible based on parenting style and self-efficacy capacity, which may foster intervention efforts for both students and parents. Further, the findings were relatively aligned with prior studies in Western societies, which may stem from modernization changes that have occurred in Arab society in recent years, such as a shift from collectivism to individualism and a greater influence of Western values and lifestyles. Despite the unique social, political, and ethnic characteristics of Muslim culture, self-efficacy and authoritative parenting style appear to be protective factors against the development of IA, consistent with findings of Western samples, suggesting the cross-cultural importance of these characteristics.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Qutaiba Agbaria

References

Agbaria

(2014). Depression among Muslim Arab students: The contribution of spiritual, social, and cognitive factors. Psychology Research, 4(6). https://staff.najah.edu/en/publications/8172/

Agbaria

(2020). Parental styles and parental emotional intelligence as predictors of challenging behavior problems among children in Israel. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 0271121420918650.

Agbaria

Daher

(2015). School violence among Arab adolescents in Israel and its relation to self-control skills and social support. Psychological Reports, 117(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2466/16.21.PR0.117c12z2

Agbaria

Natur

(2018). The relationship between violence in the family and adolescents aggression: The mediator role of self-control, social support, religiosity, and well-being. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.016

Agbaria

Mahamid

Ziya Berte

(2017). Social support, self-control, religiousness and engagement in high risk-behaviors among adolescents. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 4, 13–33. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.25215/0404.142

Agbaria

Hamama

Orkibi

Gabriel-Fried

Ronen

(2016). Multiple mediators for peer-directed aggression and happiness in Arab adolescents exposed to parent–child aggression. Child Indicators Research, 9(3), 785–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9346-y

Ahmadi

Dadfar

Nasrolahi

Abedini

Azar-Abdar

(2014). The relationships between parenting styles and addiction potentiality among students. Journal of Paramedical Sciences (JPS), 5(3), 2008–4978.

Al-Gamal

Alzayyat

Ahmad

M. M.

(2016). Prevalence of Internet addiction and its association with psychological distress and coping strategies among university students in Jordan. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 52(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12102

Al-Hajj

M. A.

(1996). Identity and orientation among the Arabs in Israel. State, Government and International Relations. Haifa University (In Hebrew).

10.

Alrekebat

A. F.

(2016). Internet addiction and its relationship with self-efficacy level among Al-Hussein Bin Talal University students. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(32), 123–131.

11.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

12.

Bandura

(2010). Self-efficacy. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0836

13.

Baumrind

(1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887–907. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/1126611

14.

Baumrind

(1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4, 1–103.

15.

Baumrind

(1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. Family Transitions, 2(1), 1.

16.

Becoña

Martínez

Ú.

Calafat

Juan

Fernández-Hermida

J. R.

Secades-Villa

(2012). Parental styles and drug use: A review. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2011.631060

17.

Buri

(1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_13

18.

Calafat

García

Juan

Becoña

Fernández-Hermida

J. R.

(2014). Which parenting style is more protective against adolescent substance use? Evidence within the European context. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 138, 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.02.705

19.

Cao

Liu

Gao

(2007). The relationship between impulsivity and Internet addiction in a sample of Chinese adolescents. European Psychiatry, 22(7), 466–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2007.05.004

20.

Chao

R. K.

(1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65(4), 1111–1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00806.x

21.

Chao

R. K.

Sue

(1996). Chinese parental influence and their children’s school success: A paradox in the literature on parenting styles. In Lau

(Ed.), Growing up the Chinese way: Chinese child and adolescent development (pp. 93–120). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022196274002

22.

Cheng

A. Y. L.

(2014). Internet addiction prevalence and quality of (real) life: A meta-analysis of 31 nations across seven world regions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(12), 755–760. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0317

23.

Chen

Y. L.

Gau

S. S. F.

(2016). Sleep problems and internet addiction among children and adolescents: A longitudinal study. Journal of Sleep Research, 25(4), 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12388

24.

Conner

M. P.

Norman

(2005). Predicting health behaviour (2nd ed., rev. ed.). Open University Press.

25.

Craparo

Messina

Severino

Fasciano

Cannella

Gori

Baiocco

(2014). The relationships between self-efficacy, internet addiction and shame. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 36(3), 304–307. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4103/0253-7176.135386

26.

Davis

R. A.

(2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(2), 187–195.

27.

Deković

Janssens

J. M.

Van As

N. M

. (2003). Family predictors of antisocial behavior in adolescence. Family Process, 42(2), 223–235.

28.

Dornbusch

S. M.

Ritter

P. L.

Leiderman

P. H.

Roberts

D. F.

Fraleigh

M. J.

(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257

29.

Esen

B. K.

Aktas

Tuncer

(2013). An analysis of university students’ internet use in relation to loneliness and social self-efficacy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 1504–1508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.780

30.

Fumero

Marrero

R. J.

Voltes

Penate

(2018). Personal and social factors involved in internet addiction among adolescents: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.005

31.

Furnham

Cheng

(2000). Perceived parental behaviour, self-esteem and happiness. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35(10), 463–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001270050265

32.

Heaven

Ciarrochi

(2008). Parental styles, gender and the development of hope and self-esteem. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 22(8), 707–724. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.699

33.

Hoeve

Dubas

J. S.

Eichelsheim

V. I.

Van der Laan

P. H.

Smeenk

Gerris

J. R.

(2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(6), 749–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9310-8

34.

Hosokawa

Katsura

(2019). Role of parenting style in children’s behavioral problems through the transition from preschool to elementary school according to gender in Japan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010021

35.

Huver

R. M.

Otten

De Vries

Engels

R. C.

(2010). Personality and parenting style in parents of adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 33(3), 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.07.012

36.

İskender

Akin

(2010). Social self-efficacy, academic locus of control, and internet addiction. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1101–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.014

37.

Kandell

J. J.

(1998). Internet addiction on campus: The vulnerability of college students. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.1998.1.11

38.

Kawabe

Horiuchi

Ochi

Oka

Ueno

S. I.

(2016). Internet addiction: Prevalence and relation with mental states in adolescents. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 70(9), 405–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12402

39.

Koo

H. J.

Kwon

J. H.

(2014). Risk and protective factors of Internet addiction: A meta-analysis of empirical studies in Korea. Yonsei Medical Journal, 55(6), 1691–1711. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2014.55.6.1691

40.

Kopko

(2007). Parenting styles and adolescents. https://www.countrysideday.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Parenting-Styles-and-Adolescents.pdf

41.

Lamborn

S. D.

Mounts

N. S.

Steinberg

Dornbusch

S. M.

(1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62(5), 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01588.x

42.

Lin

M. P.

H. C.

J. Y. W.

(2008). The role of positive/negative outcome expectancy and refusal self-efficacy of Internet use on Internet addiction among college students in Taiwan. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 451–457. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0121

43.

Luszczynska

Schwarzer

(2005). Social cognitive theory. In Conner

Norman

(Eds.), Predicting health behaviour (2nd ed., rev. ed., pp. 127–169). Open University Press.

44.

Luszczynska

Gutiérrez-Doña

Schwarzer

(2005). General self-efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590444000041

45.

Marlatt

G. A.

Baer

J. S.

Quigley

L. A.

(1997). Self-efficacy and addictive behavior. In Bandura

(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 289–315). Cambridge University Press.

46.

Martínez-Ferrer

Romero-Abrio

Moreno-Ruiz

Musitu

(2018). Child-to-parent violence and parenting styles: Its relations to problematic use of social networking sites, alexithymia, and attitude towards institutional authority in adolescence. Psychosocial Intervention, 27(3), 163–171.

47.

Marsiglia

C. S.

Walczyk

J. J.

Buboltz

W. C.

Griffith-Ross

D. A.

(2007). Impact of parenting styles and locus of control on emerging adults’ psychosocial success. Journal of Education and Human Development, 1(1), 1–12.

48.

Mei

Yau

Y. H.

Chai

Guo

Potenza

M. N.

(2016). Problematic Internet use, well-being, self-esteem and self-control: Data from a high-school survey in China. Addictive Behaviors, 61, 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.05.009

49.

Milevsky

Schlechter

Netter

Keehn

(2007). Maternal and paternal parenting styles in adolescents: Associations with self-esteem, depression and life-satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9066-5

50.

Murali

George

(2007). Lost online: An overview of internet addiction. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 13(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.106.002907

51.

Myers

H. F.

Newcomb

M. D.

Richardson

M. A.

Alvy

K. T.

(1997). Parental and family risk factors for substance use in inner-city African-American children and adolescents. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 19(2), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02229038

52.

Naeimavi

Maktabi

Tofanizadeh

Rahimi

(2015). A comparative review of personality traits and depression in diabetic and kidney patients in Shadegan City. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 4(4), 716–724.

53.

Nikoogoftar

Seghatoleslam

(2015). The role of parenting styles in predicting adolescent behavioral and emotional problems. Journal Practice in Clinical Psychology, 3(1), 23–30.

54.

Odaci

(2011). Academic self-efficacy and academic procrastination as predictors of problematic internet use in university students. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1109–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.005

55.

Odacı

(2013). Risk-taking behavior and academic self-efficacy as variables accounting for problematic internet use in adolescent university students. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(1), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.011

56.

Ostovar

Allahyar

Aminpoor

Moafian

Nor

M. B. M.

Griffiths

M. D.

(2016). Internet addiction and its psychosocial risks (depression, anxiety, stress and loneliness) among Iranian adolescents and young adults: A structural equation model in a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 14(3), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-015-9628-0

57.

Prabhakaran

M. A.

Patel

V. R.

Ganjiwale

D. J.

Nimbalkar

M. S.

(2016). Factors associated with internet addiction among school-going adolescents in Vadodara. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 5(4), 765. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4103/2249-4863.201149

58.

Quinones

Kakabadse

N. K.

(2015). Self-concept clarity, social support, and compulsive Internet use: A study of the US and the UAE. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.019

59.

Radhwan

(1997). Expectations of self-efficacy: Building conceptual and measurement. Social Affairs Magazine, 55, 25–51.

60.

Radziszewska

Richardson

J. L.

Dent

C. W.

Flay

B. R.

(1996). Parenting style and adolescent depressive symptoms, smoking, and academic achievement: Ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01857770

61.

Rizvi

S. F. I.

Najam

(2015). Emotional and behavioral problems associated with parenting styles in Pakistani adolescents. VFAST Transactions on Education and Social Sciences, 8(2). https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.21015/vtess.v8i2.361

62.

Rothrauff

T. C.

Cooney

T. M.

J. S.

(2009). Remembered parenting styles and adjustment in middle and late adulthood. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64(1), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbn008

63.

Schwarzer

(2014). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Routledge.

64.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Weinman

Wright

Johnston

(Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-Nelson.

65.

Sharabany

Eshel

Hakim

(2008). Boyfriend, girlfriend in a traditional society: Parenting styles and development of intimate friendships among Arabs in school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407084053

66.

Soule

L. C.

Shell

L. W.

Kleen

B. A.

(2003). Exploring Internet addiction: Demographic characteristics and stereotypes of heavy Internet users. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44(1), 64–73.

67.

Steinberg

Fletcher

Darling

(1994). Parental monitoring and peer influences on adolescent substance use. Pediatrics, 93(6), 1060–1064.

68.

Suh

B. D.

Choi

Y. H.

(2008). Impulsivity and self-efficacy according to internet addiction. Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing, 19(2), 310–316.

69.

Tavakoli

Jomehri

Farrokhi

N. A.

(2014). The relationship between attachment styles and social self-efficacy with internet addiction in Iranian students. BEPLS, 3, 302–307.

70.

Timpano

K. R.

Keough

M. E.

Mahaffey

Schmidt

N. B.

Abramowitz

(2010). Parenting and obsessive compulsive symptoms: Implications of authoritarian parenting. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 24(3), 151–164. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1891/0889-8391.24.3.151

71.

Valcke

Bonte

De Wever

Rots

(2010). Internet parenting styles and the impact on Internet use of primary school children. Computers & Education, 55(2), 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.009

72.

Wills

T. A.

Gibbons

F. X.

Gerrard

Murry

V. M.

Brody

G. H.

(2003). Family communication and religiosity related to substance use and sexual behavior in early adolescence: A test for pathways through self-control and prototype perceptions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(4), 312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.17.4.312

73.

Wolfradt

Hempel

Miles

J. N.

(2003). Perceived parenting styles, depersonalisation, anxiety and coping behaviour in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(3), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00092-2

74.

Wong

T. Y.

Yuen

K. S.

W. O.

(2015). A basic need theory approach to problematic Internet use and the mediating effect of psychological distress. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1562. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01562

75.

Young

K. S.

(1998). Caught in the net: How to recognize the signs of Internet addiction and a winning strategy for recovery. John Wiley & Sons.