Descriptive Statistics of Study Scales
Table 4.1 demonstrates descriptive statistics, skewness, and kurtosis values for five factors: Nomophobia, Religiosity, Spiritual Intelligence, Meaningfulness, and Satisfaction with Life. The nomophobia score was m = 21.8 (SD = 9.46), indicating that, on average, participants experienced moderate fear or anxiety about being without their mobile phones. Regarding religiosity, the students had a mean score of m = 14.8 (SD = 6.03), implying a moderate level of Religiosity. Spiritual Intelligence had a mean of m = 52.6 (SD = 25.1), suggesting a wide range of participant scores. Besides, the meaning of life scores had a mean of m = 39.5 (SD = 16.64), indicating a moderate level of perceived meaning in life. Lastly, Satisfaction scores had a mean of m = 19.1 (SD = 8.52), representing moderate overall satisfaction.
Table 4.1
Descriptives of the Nomophobia, Religiosity, Spiritual Intelligence, Meaning of Life, and Satisfaction scales (N = 594)
| Skewness | Kurtosis |
| Mean | Median | SD | Min | Max | Skewness | SE | Kurtosis | SE |
Nomophobia | 21.8 | 22.0 | 9.46 | 8 | 38 | 0.034 | 0.10 | -1.18 | 0.20 |
Religiosity | 14.8 | 15.0 | 6.03 | 5 | 25 | 0.019 | 0.10 | -1.21 | 0.20 |
Spiritual Intelligence | 52.6 | 55.0 | 25.10 | 6 | 90 | -0.158 | 0.10 | -1.23 | 0.20 |
Meaning of Life | 39.5 | 40.0 | 16.64 | 11 | 69 | -0.025 | 0.10 | -1.23 | 0.20 |
Satisfaction with Life | 19.1 | 19.0 | 8.52 | 5 | 33 | -0.046 | 0.10 | -1.26 | 0.20 |
Note. SD: Standard Deviation; Min: Minimum; Max: Maximum |
Comparing means between variables
The analysis examined the differences in several measures across various demographic and behavioural variables. The measures under scrutiny included Nomophobia, Spiritual Intelligence, Religiosity, Meaning of Life, and Satisfaction with Life. The results from our statistical tests are reported in Table 4.2.
Regarding nomophobia, age emerged as a critical determinant, with marked variations observed across different age groups (F(3, 456) = 25.3, p < .001). Similarly, individuals' residential status played a significant role in influencing their nomophobia levels (F(2, 456) = 17.5, p < .001 ). The influence of religion on nomophobia was also evident, presenting a discernible effect (F(4, 456) = 7.02, p = .01). Furthermore, an individual's socioeconomic standing was intricately linked to their susceptibility to nomophobia (F(3, 456) = 19.96, p < .001). Variations in academic achievement further highlighted differences in nomophobia levels (F(4, 456) = 7.72, p < .001). Most prominently, the duration of smartphone usage proved to be a paramount factor in determining nomophobia levels, with a profound effect size noted (F(3, 456) = 355.5, p < .001).
In the context of religiosity, age showed a pronounced influence, with distinct differences emerging across age brackets (F(3, 456) = 18.4, p < .001). Residential status was found to shape religiosity levels significantly (F(2, 456) = 10.1, p < .001). Socioeconomic standing stood out as a pivotal factor influencing religiosity (F(3, 456) = 11.1, p < .001). Additionally, an individual's academic achievement was correlated with their religiosity levels, revealing a significant relationship (F(4, 456) = 5.07, p = .03). Strikingly, the duration of smartphone usage bore a substantial impact on one's religiosity, with a remarkable effect size documented (F(3, 456) = 117.2, p < .001).
In the realm of Spiritual Intelligence, age presented a pronounced influence, with noticeable variations spanning different age groups (F(3, 456) = 23.2, p < .001). The role of residential status was evident, as it significantly shaped spiritual intelligence outcomes (F(2, 456) = 13.4, p < .001). Socioeconomic background also held weight, revealing a clear impact on spiritual intelligence (F(3, 456) = 7.31, p < .001). Moreover, one's academic achievements were intricately linked to spiritual intelligence levels, showcasing a marked relationship (F(4, 456) = 6.74, p = .001). Impressively, the duration of smartphone interaction bore a substantial correlation with spiritual intelligence, indicating a profound effect (F(3, 456) = 192.0, p < .001).
With the meaning of life, age emerged as a salient determinant, with significant variations observed across different age groups (F(3, 456) = 5.01, p = .03). Furthermore, the duration of interaction with smartphones played a prominent role, influencing individuals' perceptions of the meaning of life (F(3, 456) = 10.2, p < .001). Lastly, when considering Satisfaction, the only variable that exhibited a significant difference in satisfaction levels was the time spent with a smartphone (F(3, 456) = 8.25, p = .006).
Table 4.2
Nomophobia Scale, Duke University Religion Index Scale, Meaning of Life Scale, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale compared with demographic factors
| | Nomophobia | Religiosity | Spiritual Intelligence | Meaning of Life | Satisfaction with Life |
Variables | Levels | m (± SD) | m (± SD) | m (± SD) | m (± SD) | m (± SD) |
Gender | Male | 21.8 (9.12) | 14.8 (6.24) | 53.4 (24.2) | 38.7 (16.1) | 19.2 (8.24) |
| Female | 21.8 (9.80) | 14.9 (5.83) | 51.8 (26.0) | 40.3(17.1) | 19.1 (8.80) |
| t/F; p | − .02; .98 | .21; .83 | − .76; .45 | 1.20; .23 | − .14; .89 |
Age | 23 years and Below | 27.7 (6.33) | 11.4 (4.16) | 37.6 (19.7 ) | 29.6 (11.7) | 24.2 (6.08) |
| Above 23 years | 14.0 (6.86) | 19.3 (5.15) | 72.5 (15.9) | 52.6 (12.7) | 12.3 (6.27) |
| t/F; p | 25.3; <.001 | -20.6; <.001 | -23.2; <.001 | -22.8; <.001 | 23.3; <.001 |
Residential Status | On-Campus | 23.9 (9.94) | 13.6 (6.28) | 47.8 (27.05) | 36.1 (17.52) | 20.9 (8.98) |
| Off-Campus | 20.5(8.90) | 15.6 (5.74) | 55.7 (23.26) | 41.7 (15.67) | 18.0 (8.01) |
| t/F; p | 17.5; <.001 | 15.5; <.001 | 13.4; <.001 | 15.9; <.001 | 15.6; <.001 |
Academic level | Year 1 | 21.8 (9.18) | 14.9 (5.85) | 52.7 (24.4) | 40.2 (16.1) | 19.7 (8.26) |
Year 2 | 21.4 (9.58) | 15.5 (6.13) | 54.1 (25.4) | 40.2 (16.9) | 18.8 (8.61) |
Year 3 | 21.7 (9.64) | 14.8 (6.15) | 52.9 (25.3) | 39.9 (16.8) | 18.4 (8.62) |
Year 4 | 22.4 (9.49) | 14.0 (5.99) | 50.5 (25.5) | 37.5 (16.8) | 19.5 (8.61) |
| t/F; p | .31; .82 | 1.30; .27 | .49; .69 | .83;.48 | .78; .51 |
College | Art and Built Env’t | 20.4 (9.38) | 15.9 (6.03) | 56.5 (24.3) | 42.5 (16.5) | 17.8 (8.35) |
| Humanities and Social Science | 20.8 (9.56) | 15.2 (6.14) | 51.7 (25.4) | 40.1 (16.9) | 18.8 (8.66) |
| Health Sciences | 22.3 (9.00) | 14.8 (5.72) | 53.7 (23.9) | 38.2 (15.8) | 19.1 (8.11) |
| Science | 22.8 (10.2) | 13.8 (6.42) | 50.7 (26.9) | 39.7 (18.1) | 19.1 (9.27) |
| Engineering | 22.0 (9.00) | 14.7 (5.74) | 52.8 (24.3) | 39.4 (15.7) | 19.6 (8.16) |
| Agriculture and Natural Resources | 22.9 (9.63) | 14.4 (6.14) | 49.9 (25.9) | 37.1 (16.9) | 20.3 (8.61) |
| t/F; p | 1.13; .35 | 1.18; .32 | 0.85; .51 | 1.21; .31 | 0.99; .42 |
Religion | Christian | 21.0 (9.15) | 15.2 (5.90) | 54.1 (24.1) | 41.9 (16.0) | 18.2 (8.22) |
Muslim | 22.2 (9.51) | 14.6 (6.06) | 52.5 (25.4) | 38.8 (16.7) | 19.5 (8.61) |
Others | 22.4 (9.71) | 14.6 (6.16) | 51.0 ( 25.9) | 37.6 (17.0) | 19.8 (8.70) |
| t/F; p | 7.02; .01 | 3.00; .052 | 2.72; .07 | 2.58; .08 | 5.18; .01 |
Socioeconomic Status | Low | 20.5 (9.34) | 15.5 (6.06) | 55.2 (24.61) | 41.2 (16.63) | 18.2 (8.50) |
| Moderate | 21.2 (8.96) | 15.2 (5.37) | 53.2 (23.81) | 40.5 (15.79) | 19.0 (8.05) |
| High | 27.1 (9.07) | 11.8 (5.73) | 43.4 (27.21) | 32.4 (16.74) | 22.1 (8.92) |
| t/F; p | 19.96; <.001 | 15.79; <.001 | 7.31; <.001 | 10.65; <.001 | 7.19; <.001 |
Academic Standing (Class) | First | 19.2 (8.74) | 16.3 (5.63) | 59.4 (22.83) | 43.7(15.61) | 16.6 (7.83) |
Second Upper | 23.1 (9.67) | 14.2 (6.21) | 50.6 (25.96) | 38.2 (17.05) | 19.8 (8.77) |
Second Lower | 21.8 (9.30) | 14.7 (5.89) | 50.9 (24.61) | 38.6 (16.34) | 19.8 (8.32) |
| t/F; p | 7.72; <.001 | 5.89; .003 | 6.74; .001 | 5.64; .004 | 7.83; <.001 |
Time spent with smartphone | Less than 1 hour | 11.5 (3.15) | 20.8 (3.97) | 76.4 (11.3) | 53.6 (12.8) | 10.9 (4.89) |
| 1–3 hours | 21.3 (3.88) | 15.1 (2.49) | 51.6 (10.3) | 39.7 (7.34) | 19.6 (3.60) |
| More than 3 hours | 25.7 (10.9) | 12.5 (6.93) | 45.3 (30.6) | 34.6 (19.7) | 21.5 (10.2) |
| t/F; p | 355.5, < .001 | 115.0, < .001 | 192.0, < .001 | 65.3; <.001 | 137.3, < .001 |
Device Consumption | Desktop | 22.2 (9.43) | 14.5 (5.99) | 51.9 (25.4) | 39.4 (16.6) | 19.0 (8.57) |
| Laptop | 21.8 (9.74) | 15.0 (6.25) | 54.2 (25.5) | 40.0 (17.2) | 18.8 (8.74) |
| Smartphone | 21.5 (9.22) | 14.9 (5.87) | 51.6 (24.4) | 39.1 (16.2) | 19.6 (8.27) |
| t/F; p | 0.24; .79 | 0.43; .65 | 0.67; .51 | .16; .86 | .45; .64 |
M = mean; SD = Standard Deviation; f = Frequency; L = level; Other = divorced, cohabiting etc. Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 |
Correlational Analysis
A Pearson product-moment correlation was computed to examine the relationships among students’ scores of nomophobia, religiosity, spiritual intelligence, meaning of life, and satisfaction with life scales. Table 4.3 shows the correlation matrix for the variables. The nexus between Nomophobia and Religiosity is significant and negative (r = -0.764, p < .001), suggesting a strong inverse relationship between these variables. Students who report higher levels of religiosity tend to experience lower levels of nomophobia. Besides, a significant and negative nexus exists between Nomophobia and Spiritual Intelligence (r = -0.730, p < .001), indicating that nomophobia scores tend to decrease as spiritual intelligence scores increase. Similarly, nomophobia has a significant and negative correlation with the meaning of life (r = -0.772, p < .001), suggesting that individuals who find more meaning in life tend to experience lower levels of nomophobia.
Further, there is a statistically significant and positive nexus between nomophobia and satisfaction with life (r = 0.798, p < .001), implying that students with higher nomophobia tend to report higher satisfaction levels. Religiosity and spiritual intelligence showed a significant and positive correlation (r = 0.658, p < .001), indicating that students with higher spiritual intelligence scores also tend to report higher levels of religiosity. Likewise, the meaning of life had a significant and positive nexus with both spiritual intelligence (r = 0.694, p < .001) and religiosity (r = 0.623, p < .001), suggesting that students who perceive more meaning in life are also likely to have higher spiritual intelligence and religiosity scores.
Lastly, satisfaction had a significant negative nexus with Spiritual Intelligence (r = -0.667, p < .001) and Meaning of Life (r = -0.746, p < .001), as well as a highly significant negative correlation with nomophobia (r = -0.803, p < .001). These nexus demonstrate that higher spiritual intelligence, more excellent perception of meaning in life, and lower levels of nomophobia are associated with higher satisfaction.
Table 4.3
The correlation matrix of students' scores of Nomophobia, Religiosity, Spiritual Intelligence, Meaning of Life, and Satisfaction scales (n = 594)
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
1 | Nomophobia | — | | | |
2 | Religiosity | -0.764*** | — | | |
3 | Spiritual Intelligence | -0.730*** | 0.658*** | — | |
4 | Meaning of Life | -0.772*** | 0.623*** | 0.694*** | — |
5 | Satisfaction with Life | 0.798*** | -0.667*** | -0.746*** | -0.803 *** |
| Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 |
Multiple Linear Regression |
A multiple linear regression analysis in Tables 4.4a, 4.4b, and 4.4c was performed to predict Nomophobia employing Religiosity, Spiritual Intelligence, Meaning of Life, and Satisfaction with life as predictors.
Model 1, employing only Religiosity as a predictor, accounted for 58.4% of Nomophobia's variance (R2 = .584, F(1, 592) = 830, p < .001). Introducing Spiritual Intelligence in Model 2 heightened the explained variance to 67.5% (R2 = .675, F(2, 591) = 613, p < .001). Model 3, improved with Meaning of Life, explained 74.5% of the variance (R2 = .745, F(3, 590) = 575, p < .001). Model 4, including all predictors, explained 76.6% of the variance (R2 = .766, F(4, 589) = 481, p < .001).
Upon model comparisons, the addition of Spiritual Intelligence in Model 2 led to a significant increase in R2 of 0.091 (F(1, 591) = 165.2, p < .001). Introducing Meaning of Life in Model 3 resulted in a significant increase in R2 of 0.071 (F(1, 590) = 163.4, p < .001). The addition of Satisfaction in Model 4 showed a significant increase in R2 of 0.021 (F(1, 589) = 51.7, p < .001). Besides, omnibus ANOVA tests affirmed the statistical significance of all predictors: Religiosity (F(1, 589) = 143.7, p < .001); Spiritual Intelligence (F(1, 589) = 15.3, p < .001); Meaning of Life (F(1, 589) = 52.2, p < .001); Satisfaction with life (F(1, 589) = 51.7, p < .001).
Regarding Model Coefficients, Religiosity significantly predicted Nomophobia (β = -0.342, t(589) = -11.99, p < .001). Spiritual Intelligence was a significant predictor(β = -0.126, t(589) = -3.91, p < .001). Meaning of Life showed a significant prediction (β = -0.251, t(589) = -7.22, p < .001). Satisfaction with life was also a significant predictor (β = 0.274, t(589) = 7.19, p < .001).
Ultimately, the four predictor variables (Religiosity, Spiritual Intelligence, Meaning of Life, and Satisfaction with life) were significant predictors of Nomophobia, with Religiosity observing the most robust negative association.
Table 4.4a
|
Overall Model Test
|
Model
|
R
|
R²
|
Adjusted R²
|
F
|
df1
|
df2
|
p
|
1
|
0.764
|
0.584
|
0.583
|
830
|
1
|
592
|
< .001
|
2
|
0.821
|
0.675
|
0.674
|
613
|
2
|
591
|
< .001
|
3
|
0.863
|
0.745
|
0.744
|
575
|
3
|
590
|
< .001
|
4
|
0.875
|
0.766
|
0.764
|
481
|
4
|
589
|
< .001
|
Note: 1: Religiosity; 2: Spiritual Intelligence; 3: Meaning of Life; 4: Satisfaction
|
Table 4.4b
Comparison
|
|
Model
|
|
Model
|
ΔR²
|
F
|
df1
|
df2
|
p
|
1
|
-
|
2
|
0.0910
|
165.2
|
1
|
591
|
< .001
|
2
|
-
|
3
|
0.0705
|
163.4
|
1
|
590
|
< .001
|
3
|
-
|
4
|
0.0205
|
51.7
|
1
|
589
|
< .001
|
Note. 1: Religiosity; 2: Spiritual Intelligence; 3: Meaning of Life; 4: Satisfaction
|
Omnibus ANOVA Test
|
|
Sum of Squares
|
df
|
Mean Square
|
F
|
p
|
Religiosity
|
3029
|
1
|
3029.1
|
143.7
|
< .001
|
Spiritual Intelligence
|
322
|
1
|
321.7
|
15.3
|
< .001
|
Meaning of Life
|
1100
|
1
|
1099.8
|
52.2
|
< .001
|
Satisfaction
|
1090
|
1
|
1089.5
|
51.7
|
< .001
|
Residuals
|
12418
|
589
|
21.1
|
|
|
Note. Type 3 sum of squares
|
Table 4.4c
Model Coefficients - Nomophobia
Predictor
|
Estimate
|
SE
|
t
|
p
|
Stand. Estimate
|
Intercept
|
32.0743
|
1.6914
|
18.96
|
< .001
|
|
Religiosity
|
-0.5356
|
0.0447
|
-11.99
|
< .001
|
-0.342
|
Spiritual Intelligence
|
-0.0474
|
0.0121
|
-3.91
|
< .001
|
-0.126
|
Meaning of Life
|
-0.1427
|
0.0198
|
-7.22
|
< .001
|
-0.251
|
Satisfaction
|
0.3046
|
0.0424
|
7.19
|
< .001
|
0.274
|