According to the statistical characteristics of the respondents, out of 250 participants, 96 (38.4%) and 154 (64.6%) subjects were male and female, respectively. The average age of the participants was 26.99 years. Moreover, 68% and 32% of the participants were single and married, respectively. The highest educational level was undergraduate, accounting for 54.4% of the sample population. All the participants answered the questions, and the frequency distribution showed that the participants have generally used social networks. Since the SEM defaults were met, the SEM method was considered to compare the appropriateness of measured models with theoretical models.
| Variable | Mean | Standard Deviation | Subject |
|---|
| Neuroticism | 34.6680 | 4.64111 | 250 |
| Extraversion | 38.6800 | 4.37518 | 250 |
| Openness | 36.6360 | 3.90442 | 250 |
| Agreeableness | 37.5920 | 4.21909 | 250 |
| Consciousness | 35.6920 | 3.99763 | 250 |
| Psychological vulnerability | 19.4480 | 4.38408 | 250 |
| Social network use | 68.0040 | 16.57440 | 250 |
- The distributions of neuroticism, extroversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and vulnerability are moderate.
- The distribution of social network usage varies from moderate to high level.
The correlation matrix of the studied variables was obtained as described in
Table 2.
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|
| Neuroticism | 1 | | | | | | |
| Extroversion | -0.14a | 1 | | | | | |
| Openness | -0.03 | 0.27b | 1 | | | | |
| Agreeableness | 0.15a | 0.18b | 0.11 | 1 | | | |
| Conscientiousness | -0.08 | 0.30b | 0.24b | 0.11 | 1 | | |
| Psychological vulnerability | 0.36b | -0.37b | -0.26b | 0.18b | -0.21b | 1 | |
| Social network use | 0.35b | -0.34b | -0.31b | 0.15a | -0.32b | 0.67b | 1 |
- The relationship between neuroticism and social network use is positive and statistically significant (P < 0.05).
- The relationship between agreeableness and social network use is positive and statistically significant (P < 0.01).
- The relationships between extroversion, openness, and conscientiousness with social network use are negative and statistically significant (P < 0.05).
- The relationship between psychological vulnerability and social network use is positive and statistically significant (P < 0.05).
- The relationship between psychological vulnerability and neuroticism is positive and statistically significant (P < 0.05).
- The relationships between psychological vulnerability with openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness are negative and statistically significant (P < 0.05).
For the examination of the direct relationship between personality traits and psychological vulnerability, the regression coefficient of personality traits was measured (
Table 3).
| Model | R | R-Squared | Adjusted R-Squared | Standard Error of Estimate |
|---|
| 1 | 0.56 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 3.66654 |
According to the findings, the correlation coefficient was equal to 0.56, and the determination coefficient of personality traits was obtained at 0.31.
| Model | Un-standardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | P |
|---|
| B | Standard Error | Beta |
|---|
| Constant | 12.26 | 3.81 | | 3.22 | 0.001 |
| Neuroticism | -0.25 | 0.05 | -0.27 | -5.02 | 0.000 |
| Extraversion | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.30 | 5.25 | 0.000 |
| Openness | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.17 | 3.00 | 0.003 |
| Agreeableness | -0.23 | 0.08 | -0.22 | -4.07 | 0.000 |
| Conscientiousness | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 1.46 | 0.143 |
In addition, according to
Table 4, the calculated
t-values through the regression analysis of personality traits, including neuroticism (
t = 5.02), extraversion (
t = -5.25), openness (
t = -3.00), and agreeableness (
t = 4.07), were significant (P = 0.01). Nonetheless, the measured t-value of conscientiousness was not significant (
t = 1.46 ; P = 0.14).
| Index | Value | Acceptable Domain | Result |
|---|
| χ2 | 2968.02 | - | Fit model |
| DF | 2920 | - | Fit model |
| χ2/df | 1.016 | 6 > | Fit model |
| P.VALUE | 0.00 | 0.05 > | Fit model |
| The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) | 0.07 | 0.1 > | Fit model |
| NFI | 0.80 | 0.80 < | Fit model |
| NNFI | 0.85 | 0.80 < | Fit model |
| CFI | 0.85 | 0.80 < | Fit model |
| GFI | 0.85 | 0.90 < | Fit model |
| AGFI | 0.75 | 0.70 < | Fit model |
| IFI | 0.85 | 0.80 < | Fit model |
As it is shown in
Table 5, the measurement indices indicate a relative fit and mediating role of using smartphone social networks concerning personality traits and psychological vulnerability; However, not all the relationships in the original model were significant. Subsequently, all non-significant relationships were removed from the model to determine the final values of the model parameters. Finally, considering the acceptable range of goodness-of-fit indicators, the modified model was presented (
21).
Structural model 1 shows that the dual personality traits (i.e. neuroticism and extraversion) can explain psychological vulnerability through social networks in the form of causal-structural relationships. The values of the fit indices of the measurement model were all located at the optimal position; therefore, the root value of RMSEA was at the desired level (< 0.09) where the ratio of χ
2/df at the desired level was equal to 2/5103 (< 6), and this ratio was significant at 5% probability level (P < 0.05). On the one hand, GFI, CFI, AFI, NFI, and TLI were all desirable (> 0.70) (
22). On the other hand, the explanatory coefficient value (B) and the t-test demonstrate the following issues:
(a) The neurotic agent with an explanatory coefficient of 0.39 and t-value of 2.13 can implicitly explain 39% of the changes in social network use (P > 0.05).
(b) The openness factor with an explanatory coefficient of 0.76 and t-value of 7.09 can explain 70% of negative and significant changes in social network use (P < 0.05).
(c) Using social networks with an explanatory coefficient of 0.76 and t-value of 7.09 can significantly explain 76% of psychological vulnerability (P < 0.05).