Influence of childhood trauma on adolescent internet addiction: The mediating roles of loneliness and negative coping styles

Table 1 Sample characteristics (n = 1044)

Variable	Option	n	n
Gender	Male	612	58.6
	Female	432	41.4
Age	12	16	1.5
	13	156	14.9
	14	175	16.8
	15	135	12.9
	16	286	27.4
	17	227	21.7
	18	49	4.7
Structure	Single parent	105	10.1
	Parents	937	89.8
Only child	Yes	70	6.7
	No	969	92.8
Stay-at-home children	Yes	458	43.9
	No	586	56.1
Residence	Village	591	56.6
	Town	449	43.4
Relationship with classmates	Poor	28	2.7
	General	506	48.5
	Good	509	48.8
Relationship with teachers	Poor	52	5.0
	General	662	63.4
	Good	329	31.5

Table 2 Correlations of variables and mean ± SD

Variables	mean ± SD	EN	PaEB	SB	BN	NCS	Loneliness	IA
EN	2.37 ± 0.85	1
PaEB	1.44 ± 0.44	0.509a	1
SB	1.17 ± 0.43	0.098a	0.273a	1
BN	1.5 ± 0.47	0.293a	0.449a	0.252a	1
NCS	2.22 ± 0.58	0.092a	0.217a	0.212a	0.263a	1
Loneliness	2.26 ± 0.47	0.347a	0.336a	0.108a	0.258a	0.246a	1
IA	2.43 ± 0.43	0.154a	0.254a	0.167a	0.307a	0.379a	0.334a	1

^aP < 0.01.

EN: Emotional neglect; PaEB: Physical and emotional abuse; SB: Sexual abuse; BN: Body neglect; NCS: Negative coping style; IA: Internet addiction.

Table 3 Model fit test

Model	CMIN/DF	RMSEA	RMR	CFI	GFI
Childhood trauma and loneliness and negative coping styles and IA	4.616	0.059	0.040	0.926	0.937
Fitting standard	< 5	< 0.08	< 0.05	> 0.90	> 0.90

RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation; RMR: Root mean square residual; CFI: Comparative fit index; GFI: Goodness of fit index; IA: Internet addiction.

Table 4 Structural equation modeling results

Effect	Path	Estimate	P value
Ind2	IA < loneliness < childhood trauma	0.093	0.005
Ind2	IA < negative coping style < childhood trauma	0.104	0.001
Ind3	IA < negative coping style < loneliness < childhood trauma	0.044	0.001
Direct	IA < childhood trauma	0.241	0.001
Total	IA < childhood trauma	0.476	0.001

IA: Internet addiction.