Table 1 Comparison of multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA) subscale scores and smartphone addiction scale short version (SAS-SV) scores between groups with and without consistent attentional bias toward smartphone stimuli

	Group 1 Mean	Group 2 Mean	Group Difference t₅₆	Uncorrected-p	Effect Size d	Correlation rho	Uncorrected-p
MAIA
Noticing	3.516 ± 0.971	2.327 ± 1.319	3.951	<0.001	1.043 ± 0.301	–0.411	0.001
Not Distracting	2.859 ± 0.971	2.327 ± 0.999	2.024	0.048	0.534 ± 0.274	–0.208	0.117
Not Worrying	2.594 ± 0.871	2.205 ± 0.953	1.621	0.111	0.428 ± 0.271	–0.218	0.108
Attention Control	2.330 ± 0.618	2.049 ± 0.681	1.644	0.106	0.434 ± 0.271	–0.315	0.016
Emotional Awareness	2.438 ± 0.962	1.769 ± 0.868	2.747	0.008	0.725 ± 0.283	–0.273	0.038
Self-control	2.453 ± 0.750	2.000 ± 1.155	1.802	0.077	0.476 ± 0.272	–0.237	0.074
Body Listening	2.198 ± 0.957	1.551 ± 0.952	2.565	0.013	0.677 ± 0.280	–0.307	0.019
Trusting	2.687 ± 1.002	1.782 ± 0.800	3.740	<0.001	0.987 ± 0.297	–0.376	0.004
SAS-SV total	28.063 ± 7.103	32.269 ± 5.640	–2.455	0.017	-0.648 ± 0.279	0.336	0.010

Two-sample t tests were conducted for each variable, and Spearman’s rho was calculated to assess correlations between attentional bias (interaction index) and questionnaire scores. Group 2, which exhibited a consistent attentional bias, reported significantly lower scores on the noticing and trusting subscales of the MAIA, reflecting reduced interoceptive awareness, and significantly higher scores on the SAS-SV, indicating greater self-reported smartphone addiction. Multiple comparisons for MAIA subscales were corrected using the Bonferroni method. Mean value with standard deviations, t values, uncorrected p values, effect sizes (Cohen’s d) with standard errors, and Spearman’s rho values with their associated uncorrected p values are presented.

Quick links

Search