Influence of Family Environment on Mobile Phone Addiction among Senior Secondary School Students in Central Kashmir with Reference to Gender and Institutional Type

Influence of Family Environment on Mobile Phone Addiction among Senior Secondary School Students in Central Kashmir with Reference to Gender and Institutional Type | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Influence of Family Environment on Mobile Phone Addiction among Senior Secondary School Students in Central Kashmir with Reference to Gender and Institutional Type Firdous Ahmad Sofal, Mohammad Akram, Madhumita Pardhan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6887500/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Mobile phone addiction has become a growing concern in today’s digital age, particularly among students. This study explores the relationship between family environment and mobile phone addiction among Secondary school students. A sample of 80 students (40 male and 40 female) was selected using simple random sampling technique. Family environment scale developed by Harpreet Bhatia and N.K. Chadha (1993) and mobile phone addiction scale standardized A. Velayudhan and S. Srividya’s (2012) were used to collect the data. Results indicate that students with a more positive family environment tend to exhibit lower levels of phone addiction. Female students generally reported better family environments, while males showed higher levels of phone addiction. The study highlights the significant role of family dynamics in influencing students’ mobile phone use, suggesting that a supportive family environment can help reduce phone addiction. Family Environment Mobile Phone Addiction Gender and Institutional Type Introduction Mobile phones have become indispensable communication, entertainment, and education tools in today’s digital age. Their widespread use has dramatically influenced the daily lives of individuals across all age groups, particularly adolescents (Kuss & Griffiths, 2017 ). In the critical stage of transitioning into adulthood, senior secondary school students are increasingly using mobile phones for various purposes, including social interaction, gaming, educational activities, and internet access. However, with the growing dependence on these devices, concerns about mobile phone addiction have risen. Mobile phone addiction is characterised by excessive and compulsive use of the device, leading to adverse effects on the user’s social, psychological, and academic life (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011 ). The family environment plays a pivotal role in shaping a child’s behaviour and attitudes, including their approach toward technology (Ahanger and Sofal, 2023 ). The structure, emotional atmosphere, and interaction patterns within a family significantly impact the development of a child’s personality, coping strategies, and ability to handle stress (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ). With the increasing prevalence of mobile phone use among adolescents, it becomes crucial to explore the relationship between family environment and mobile phone addiction in this age group. Studies have shown that family dynamics, such as parenting styles, parental monitoring, and the quality of parent-child relationships, can either mitigate or exacerbate problematic mobile phone use (Billieux et al., 2015 ). The concept of mobile phone addiction has gained prominence in recent years as mobile phones have evolved from mere communication devices to multifunctional tools. Addiction, in this context, refers to a psychological dependence on mobile phones, which manifests through behaviours such as constant checking of the phone, using the device for extended periods, neglecting personal responsibilities, and experiencing anxiety when unable to use the phone (Kwon et al., 2013 ). Mobile phone addiction has been linked to several adverse outcomes, including academic underachievement, sleep disturbances, and social isolation (Elhai, Levine, Dvorak, & Hall, 2017 ). Several factors contribute to mobile phone addiction among adolescents, including personal characteristics (such as low self-control or high impulsivity), social influences (peer pressure, fear of missing out, or FOMO), and psychological factors (anxiety, depression, or stress). However, the family environment is one of the most influential aspects affecting adolescents’ relationship with their phones (Griffiths, 2018 ). The family environment refers to the overall atmosphere within the household, encompassing the emotional climate, communication patterns, family structure, and parenting styles (Moos & Moos, 2002 ). A supportive and nurturing family environment fosters positive behaviours, while a hostile or neglectful environment can contribute to emotional distress and maladaptive behaviours such as addiction. Several dimensions of the family environment, including cohesion, conflict, organisation, and parental control, play a role in shaping a child’s behaviour toward technology use (Liu et al., 2020 ). The emotional quality of the parent-child relationship also significantly affects adolescents’ coping strategies (Rather and Sofal, 2023 ). Adolescents from families with high levels of conflict or poor communication may turn to mobile phones as an escape mechanism, leading to excessive use and potential addiction (Kim et al., 2018 ). Significance of the Study In recent years, the rapid proliferation of mobile phone usage, especially among adolescents, has become a significant concern for researchers, educators, and policymakers alike. Numerous studies have explored excessive mobile phone use’s psychological, social, and behavioural implications, particularly in adolescents. According to a report by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2019), adolescent mobile phone usage has increased exponentially, with many spending an average of 3 to 5 hours daily on their devices. This upward trend is alarming as it coincides with rising cases of anxiety, depression, and other behavioural problems linked to mobile phone addiction (Elhai et al., 2017 ). Moreover, the Pew Research Centre (2018) highlights that nearly 95% of teenagers in developed countries have access to a smartphone, raising concerns about the long-term impact of constant digital connectivity. Research has consistently pointed out the addictive nature of smartphones due to their multifaceted capabilities, including access to social media, gaming, and endless information at one’s fingertips. Several studies, such as those by Griffiths ( 2018 ) and Kwon et al. ( 2013 ), emphasise that mobile phone addiction is not just about the excessive time spent on devices but also the compulsive need to check phones, the inability to disconnect and the emotional distress experienced when access is restricted. Given the potential psychological and academic risks associated with mobile phone addiction, researchers have begun to investigate the underlying factors contributing to this phenomenon. While individual traits like impulsivity and psychological conditions like anxiety play a role, recent studies suggest that the family environment is a crucial determinant in either fostering or curbing mobile phone addiction among adolescents (Liu et al., 2020 ). This growing body of literature underscores the need to focus on the family unit when addressing mobile phone addiction. For example, Billieux et al. ( 2015 ) argue that parenting styles, the emotional climate within the household, and the quality of parent-child communication all play vital roles in regulating or exacerbating mobile phone use. In homes where conflict is high and communication is poor, adolescents are more likely to engage in problematic mobile phone use as a means of escapism (Kim et al., 2018 ). On the contrary, in families where parents are actively involved and set clear boundaries regarding technology use, the likelihood of addiction is significantly reduced. Despite the increasing interest in this area, there is still a lack of comprehensive research specifically examining how different aspects of the family environment, such as cohesion, parental control, and conflict, influence mobile phone addiction among senior secondary school students. The current study holds significant value for academic research by contributing to the relatively underexplored area of how the family environment interacts with mobile phone addiction in adolescents. Although much research has been conducted on adolescent behaviour in the digital age, much focuses on individual psychological traits or peer influences (Elhai et al., 2017 ). This study seeks to fill a gap in the literature by examining the role of family dynamics in mobile phone addiction, particularly in the Indian context, where family structures and cultural norms may differ from those in Western societies. By focusing on the senior secondary school population, this research targets a critical age group highly susceptible to the pressures of digital connectivity and parental influence, thus providing a nuanced understanding of mobile phone addiction during a formative life stage. Objectives of the Study : To study the family environment of senior secondary school students in relation to gender and type of school. To study the Android phone addiction of higher secondary school students in relation to gender and type of school. To compare family environment of senior secondary school students based on gender and type of institution. To compare mobile phone addiction of senior secondary school students based on gender and type of institution To find the degree of relationship between family environment and mobile phone addiction among senior secondary school students. Hypotheses : There is no significant difference between male and female senior secondary students on family environment. There is no significant difference between government and private senior secondary school students on family environment. There is no significant difference between male and female senior secondary school students on Android phone addiction. There is no significant difference between government and private senior secondary students on Android phone addiction. There is no significant relation between family environment and Android phone addiction among senior secondary students. Operational Definition of Terms and Variables Family Environment: Family environment refers to the overall social, emotional and relational climate of a home. It includes parental involvement, emotional support, family cohesion, communication patterns and parental control (Moos & Moos, 2002 ). In this study, the family environment refers to the scores obtained from the sample subjects on the family environment scale standardised by Dr. Harpreet Bhatia and Dr. N.K Chadha (1993). This scale consisted of 69 items with five dimensions. Mobile Phone Addiction: Mobile phone addiction refers to the excessive and compulsive use of mobile phones, leading to behavioural and psychological symptoms, such as an inability to control usage, neglect of personal responsibilities and emotional distress when unable to access the phone (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011 ) or (Elhai et al., 2017 ). For this study, mobile phone addiction specifically focuses on Android phone addiction and refers to the scores obtained from sample subjects on the Phone Addiction Scale (MPAS) standardised by Dr. A. Velayudhan and Dr. S. Srividya. (2012). This scale consists of 37 items. Senior Secondary School Students: Senior secondary school students in the present investigation refers to the students enrolled in grade 11th and 12th, typically aged between 16 and 18. These students are in the final two years of their secondary education before higher education or professional courses Gender: Gender in this study refers to the biological sex of the students, categorised as male and female. Type of School: Type of school refers to the academic institutions in which the sample students have been enrolled. These have been classified as Government Schools, funded and operated by the government and Private Schools, funded and operated by private management but affiliated with Centre or State Government Boards. Research Design and Instrumentation The current study was carried out using the ex post facto research method. The study population consisted of senior secondary school students of central Kashmir. The study was conducted on a sample of 80 students, 40 male and 40 female, from both types of schools, government and private. The 80 sample subjects were selected through a random sampling technique. Description of Tools Family Environment Scale The investigator used FES developed by Dr. Harpreet Bhatia and Dr. N.K Chadha (1993). The FES comprises 69 items designed to measure the family environment of students. The scale includes a mix of Positive and Negatively worded statements. Each statement is rated on five sequential points (strongly agree = 5, Agree = 4, Neutral = 3, Disagree = 2 and Strongly disagree = 1). The responses are scored to provide a total FES Score. Finally, 0.95 coefficient reliability was found by applying the Spearman-Brown Prophesy split-half formula. The validity was found to be 0.75. Mobile phone addiction scale The investigator used the MPA Scale developed by Dr. A. Velayudhan and Dr. S. Srividya (2012). The MPA scale comprises 37 items designed to measure the mobile phone addiction of students. The scale includes a mix of Positive and Negatively worded statements. Each statement is rated on five sequential points (strongly agree = 5, Agree = 4, Neutral = 3, Disagree = 2 and Strongly disagree = 1). The responses are scored to provide a total MPA Score. Finally, a 0.70 reliability coefficient was found by applying the Spearman-Brown Prophesy formula by the split-half method. The validity was found to be 0.89. Analysis of Data Descriptive Statistics Table 1 Showing the level of Family Environment among Male and Female Senior Secondary School Students: Levels Gender Male Female N (%) N (%) Above Average 6 15% 4 10% Average 28 70% 34 85% Below Average 6 15% 2 5% Total 40 100 40 100 A perusal of the above Table 1.0 reveals the level of family environment among male and female senior secondary school students. The results indicate that most students from both genders fall within the "average" category concerning their family environment. Specifically, 70% of male and 85% of female students reported an average family environment, suggesting that most students perceive their family atmosphere as moderately supportive and functional. Regarding the "above average" family environment, 15% of male and 10% of female students experienced a more nurturing and supportive family environment, highlighting that a smaller proportion of students from both genders enjoy a more favourable family dynamic. Regarding the "below average" family environment, an equal 15% of male students and a smaller 5% of female students reported a less supportive or less positive family atmosphere, indicating that more male students tend to experience a less favourable family environment than females. Overall, the table suggests that while most students from both genders experience an average family environment, male students are more likely than female students to fall into the below-average category, indicating potential differences in family dynamics based on gender. Table 2 Showing the level of Family Environment among Government and Private Senior Secondary School Students. Levels Type of Institutions Govt. Private N (%) N (%) Above Average 8 18.18% 6 16.66% Average 28 63.63% 25 69.44% Below Average 8 18.18% 5 13.88% Total 44 100 36 100 The analysis of Table 2 displays the level of family environment among government and private senior secondary school students. The results highlight some interesting trends. Among government school students, 18.18% report an above-average family environment, slightly higher than the 16.66% of students in private schools who report the same. This indicates that a similar proportion of students in both school types experience a highly supportive family environment. In both government and private schools, most students fall into the "average" category, with 63.63% of government school students and 69.44% of private school students reporting an average family environment. This suggests that most students experience moderate support and cohesion within their family settings regardless of school type. Regarding a below-average family environment, 18.18% of government school students report less favourable family dynamics than 13.88% of private school students. Overall, while the differences between government and private school students in terms of family environment are minor, private school students appear slightly more likely to experience average or below-average family environments. In contrast, government school students are marginally more likely to report above-average family support. Table 3 Showing the level of Mobile Phone Addiction among Male and Female Senior Secondary School Students: Levels Gender Male Female N (%) N (%) Above Average 8 20% 6 15% Average 24 60% 26 65% Below Average 8 20% 8 20% Total 40 100 40 100 The analysis of the above table shows the level of mobile phone addiction among male and female senior secondary school students, revealing key insights into their usage patterns. Among male students, 20% exhibit above-average levels of mobile phone addiction, slightly higher than the 15% of female students who fall into this category. This suggests that more male students are more prone to excessive mobile phone use than their female counterparts. For both genders, the majority of students fall into the "average" category, with 60% of males and 65% of females demonstrating moderate levels of mobile phone addiction. This indicates that most students, regardless of gender, show typical usage patterns that align with the norm for their peer group. Interestingly, an equal percentage (20%) of male and female students fall into the below-average category, reflecting a balanced proportion of students from both genders who show lower levels of mobile phone use. Overall, while the differences in mobile phone addiction levels between male and female students are not pronounced, male students tend to show slightly higher levels of addiction, particularly at the end of the spectrum. Table 4 Showing the level of Mobile Phone Addiction among Nuclear and Joint Senior Secondary School Students Levels TOF Nuclear Joint N (%) N (%) Above Average 9 25% 7 15.90% Average 21 58.33% 22 50% Below Average 6 16.66% 15 34.09% Total 36 100 44 100 The analysis of the table depicting the level of mobile phone addiction among nuclear and joint-family senior secondary school students reveals significant trends regarding their usage behaviours. Among students from nuclear families, 25% exhibit above-average levels of mobile phone addiction, which is significantly higher than the 15.90% of students from joint families in the same category. This suggests that students in nuclear families may be more susceptible to excessive mobile phone use than their peers in joint family structures. The majority of both groups fall into the "average" category, with 58.33% of nuclear family students and 50% of joint family students displaying moderate levels of addiction. This indicates that while a significant portion of students across both family types engage in typical mobile phone usage patterns, nuclear family students show a slightly higher average level of addiction. In contrast, the below-average category reveals a notable difference, with only 16.66% of nuclear family students falling into this group compared to 34.09% of those from joint families. This indicates that a more significant proportion of students from joint families demonstrate lower levels of mobile phone addiction, which may be attributed to stronger familial interactions and supervision common in joint family settings. Overall, these findings highlight significant differences in mobile phone addiction levels based on family structure, suggesting that family dynamics may play a crucial role in shaping students’ mobile phone usage behaviours. Table 5 Showing the level of Mobile Phone Addiction among Govt. and Private Senior Secondary School Students: Levels Type of Institution Govt. Private N (%) N (%) Above Average 10 22.72% 12 33.33% Average 26 59.09% 24 66.66% Below Average 8 18.18% 0 0% Total 44 100. 36 100. The analysis of the table presenting the level of mobile phone addiction among government and private senior secondary school students reveals noteworthy distinctions between the two groups. Among government school students, 22.72% are classified as having above-average levels of mobile phone addiction, whereas this figure rises to 33.33% among private school students. This indicates that private school students are more likely to experience higher levels of mobile phone addiction compared to their counterparts in government schools. In terms of average addiction levels, a majority of both groups fall within this category, with 59.09% of government school students and 66.66% of private school students demonstrating moderate levels of mobile phone use. This suggests that while many students use typical mobile phones, private school students may tend to depend more on their devices. Notably, the below-average category showcases a significant disparity, as 18.18% of government school students fall into this group. In contrast, no private school students are reported to have below-average addiction levels. This indicates that students from private schools are less likely to exhibit lower levels of mobile phone addiction, possibly due to increased access to technology and greater integration of mobile devices in their academic and social environments. Overall, these findings underscore the influence of school type on mobile phone addiction, suggesting that private school students are more susceptible to higher levels of dependency on mobile devices. Inferential Statistics Table 6 Showing the Significance of the Mean Difference Between Male and Female Senior Secondary Schools on Family Environment (N = 80) Variable Gender N Mean SD t-value Sig. Remarks Cohesion Male 40 45.80 7.76 3.53 0.001 Significant Female 40 50.95 4.97 Expressiveness Male 40 30.30 3.39 0.22 0.824 NS Female 40 30.15 2.56 Conflict Male 40 37.00 5.35 5.27 0.000 Significant Female 40 42.35 3.52 Acceptance & Caring Male 40 39.55 6.04 1.41 0.162 NS Female 40 41.10 3.41 Independence Male 40 29.35 4.37 0.805 0.423 NS Female 40 30.05 3.33 Active Recreational Orientation Male 40 26.35 4.16 2.09 0.039 Significant Female 40 28.10 3.23 Organisation Male 40 7.70 1.63 3.29 0.001 Significant Female 40 8.65 0.80 Control Male 40 12.85 3.02 4.75 0.000 Significant Female 40 15.30 1.20 Overall Family Environment Male 40 225.45 30.61 4.02 0.000 Significant Female 40 246.65 13.03 The table analysis demonstrating the significance of mean differences between male and female senior secondary school students regarding various dimensions of family environment reveals several key findings. The cohesion scores indicate that female students (M = 50.95, SD = 4.97) report significantly higher levels of family cohesion compared to male students (M = 45.80, SD = 7.76), with a t-value of 3.53 and a significance level of 0.001, indicating a strong statistical significance. Conversely, the expressiveness dimension does not show significant differences between genders, with male students averaging 30.30 (SD = 3.39) and female students at 30.15 (SD = 2.56), resulting in a non-significant t-value of 0.22 (p = 0.824). Similarly, dimensions such as acceptance and caring , independence , and control also exhibited non-significant differences between genders, indicating comparable perceptions. Significant differences are observed in the conflict dimension, where male students (M = 37.00, SD = 5.35) experience lower conflict levels than female students (M = 42.35, SD = 3.52), reflected in a t-value of 5.27 (p = 0.000). In terms of active recreational orientation , female students (M = 28.10, SD = 3.23) demonstrate significantly higher engagement compared to male students (M = 26.35, SD = 4.16) with a t-value of 2.09 (p = 0.039). The organisation dimension also shows significant differences, with females (M = 8.65, SD = 0.80) scoring higher than males (M = 7.70, SD = 1.63), yielding a t-value of 3.29 (p = 0.001). Furthermore, the control dimension reveals that male students (M = 12.85, SD = 3.02) have lower scores compared to female students (M = 15.30, SD = 1.20), which is statistically significant (t = 4.75, p = 0.000). Overall, the comprehensive analysis of the family environment indicates that while specific dimensions, such as cohesion, conflict, organisation, and control, highlight significant disparities between genders, others, such as expressiveness, acceptance and caring, and independence, show no substantial differences. The overall family environment scores further emphasise that female students (M = 246.65, SD = 13.03) experience a more favourable family environment compared to male students (M = 225.45, SD = 30.61), with a significant t-value of 4.02 (p = 0.000). These findings underscore the importance of understanding gender dynamics within family environments in educational contexts. Table 7 Showing the Significance of the Mean Difference Between Government and Private Senior Secondary Schools on Family Environment (N = 80) . Variable TOI N Mean SD t-value Sig. Remarks Cohesion Govt. 44 48.61 6.72 0.038 0.970 NS Pvt. 36 48.56 6.78 Expressiveness Govt. 44 30.11 3.51 0.004 0.997 NS Pvt. 36 30.11 2.42 Conflict Govt. 44 39.25 4.01 1.51 0.134 NS Pvt. 36 40.78 4.99 Acceptance & Caring Govt. 44 41.23 5.30 1.61 0.111 NS Pvt. 36 39.31 5.31 Independence Govt. 44 29.18 4.91 1.55 0.124 NS Pvt. 36 30.67 3.24 Active Recreational Orientation Govt. 44 27.61 4.03 0.882 0.381 NS Pvt. 36 26.83 3.81 Organisation Govt. 44 7.89 1.61 1.004 0.318 NS Pvt. 36 8.22 1.31 Control Govt. 44 13.73 3.41 0.497 0.621 NS Pvt. 36 14.06 2.22 Overall Family Environment Govt. 44 238.30 26.65 0.060 0.952 NS Pvt. 36 237.97 19.88 The analysis of Table 7 , which presents the significance of mean differences between government and private senior secondary schools regarding various dimensions of family environment, indicates no statistically significant differences across the measured variables. In the cohesion dimension, both government (M = 48.61, SD = 6.72) and private schools (M = 48.56, SD = 6.78) exhibit similar means with a t-value of 0.038 and a non-significant p-value of 0.970, suggesting comparable levels of family cohesion in both school types. The mean scores for expressiveness are identical for government and private schools at 30.11, with t-values indicating no significant differences (p = 0.997). The conflict dimension also demonstrates no significant difference, with government schools (M = 39.25, SD = 4.01) reporting lower conflict levels than private schools (M = 40.78, SD = 4.99). Still, the t-value of 1.51 and p-value of 0.134 affirm the non-significance. In terms of acceptance and caring , government schools (M = 41.23, SD = 5.30) again show no significant difference compared to private schools (M = 39.31, SD = 5.31), as reflected in a t-value of 1.61 (p = 0.111). The same trend persists for the independence dimension, where the means are 29.18 for government schools and 30.67 for private schools, yielding a t-value of 1.55 (p = 0.124). When examining the active recreational orientation , the means of 27.61 (Govt.) and 26.83 (Pvt.) do not result in a significant difference (t = 0.882, p = 0.381). Similarly, the organisation dimension shows no significant difference, with government schools (M = 7.89, SD = 1.61) compared to private schools (M = 8.22, SD = 1.31), resulting in a t-value of 1.004 (p = 0.318). The control dimension follows suit, as government schools (M = 13.73, SD = 3.41) show no significant difference from private schools (M = 14.06, SD = 2.22), with a t-value of 0.497 (p = 0.621). Finally, the overall family environment means for the government (M = 238.30, SD = 26.65) and private schools (M = 237.97, SD = 19.88) are closely aligned, yielding a t-value of 0.060 and a p-value of 0.952, further reinforcing the conclusion that there are no significant differences in family environment between students from government and private senior secondary schools. This indicates a consistent perception of family environment across school types, suggesting that factors influencing family dynamics may be relatively similar in these educational contexts. Table 8 Showing the Significance of Mean Difference Between Male and Female Senior Secondary School Students on Mobile Phone Addiction (N = 80) Variable Gender N Mean SD t-value Sig. Remarks Maladaptive Usage Male 40 30.75 3.90 6.59 0.000 Significant Female 40 23.90 5.28 Self-Expression Male 40 29.60 4.84 2.64 0.010 Significant Female 40 27.00 3.89 Peer Relation Male 40 21.50 2.08 2.07 0.045 Significant Female 40 20.50 2.29 Interpersonal Relation Male 40 14.00 2.54 1.59 0.116 NS Female 40 13.00 3.05 Impulsivity Male 40 12.75 1.86 0.682 0.497 NS Female 40 13.10 2.65 Usage Time Male 40 15.65 2.13 0.262 0.794 NS Female 40 15.50 2.92 Overall Mobile Addiction Male 40 124.25 30.61 5.28 0.000 Significant Female 40 113.00 13.03 The analysis of Table 8 reveals significant differences in mobile phone addiction between male and female senior secondary school students across several dimensions. In the maladaptive usage category, males (M = 30.75, SD = 3.90) exhibit a significantly higher mean score compared to females (M = 23.90, SD = 5.28), with a t-value of 6.59 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating a substantial significant difference. This suggests that male students are more prone to maladaptive behaviours associated with mobile phone use than their female counterparts. Similarly, in the self-expression dimension, male students (M = 29.60, SD = 4.84) again demonstrate higher scores than females (M = 27.00, SD = 3.89), with a t-value of 2.64 and a significant p-value of 0.010. This indicates that male students use their mobile phones more for self-expression than female students. Regarding peer relation , males (M = 21.50, SD = 2.08) also score higher than females (M = 20.50, SD = 2.29), yielding a t-value of 2.07 and a significant p-value of 0.045. This suggests that male students engage more in mobile phone interactions that strengthen peer relations than female students. In contrast, the dimensions of interpersonal relation and impulsivity show no significant differences. Males scored slightly higher in interpersonal relations (M = 14.00, SD = 2.54) than females (M = 13.00, SD = 3.05), but the t-value of 1.59 and p-value of 0.116 indicate non-significance. Similarly, for impulsivity, males (M = 12.75, SD = 1.86) and females (M = 13.10, SD = 2.65) show comparable scores, with a t-value of 0.682 and a p-value of 0.497. The usage time dimension also reveals no significant differences between genders, with males (M = 15.65, SD = 2.13) and females (M = 15.50, SD = 2.92) reporting similar usage times, evidenced by a t-value of 0.262 and a p-value of 0.794. Finally, in terms of overall mobile addiction, male students (M = 124.25, SD = 30.61) score significantly higher than female students (M = 113.00, SD = 13.03), with a t-value of 5.28 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating a clear significant difference. These findings suggest that male senior secondary students exhibit higher levels of mobile phone addiction compared to females, particularly in maladaptive usage, self-expression, and peer relations while showing no significant differences in other aspects. Table 9 Showing the Significance of Mean Difference Between Government and Private Senior Secondary School Students on Mobile Phone Addiction (N = 80) . Variable TOI N Mean SD t-value Sig. Remarks Maladaptive Usage Govt 44 26.80 5.50 8.15 0.000 Significant Private 36 41.25 10.06 Self-Expression Govt 44 28.66 5.32 1.25 0.215 NS Private 36 29.94 3.43 Peer Relation Govt 44 21.05 1.94 5.67 0.000 Significant Private 36 30.17 10.45 Interpersonal Relation Govt 44 14.45 2.84 4.92 0.000 Significant Private 36 24.72 13.48 Impulsivity Govt 44 13.00 2.35 5.14 0.000 Significant Private 36 20.11 8.80 Usage Time Govt 44 15.98 2.53 0.747 0.457 NS Private 36 15.58 2.08 Overall Mobile Addiction Govt 44 119.93 9.99 6 .28 0.000 Significant Private 36 161.94 43.03 The analysis of Table 9 reveals significant differences in mobile phone addiction between government and private senior secondary school students across various dimensions. In the maladaptive usage category, government school students (M = 26.80, SD = 5.50) show a significantly lower mean score compared to private school students (M = 41.25, SD = 10.06), with a t-value of 8.15 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating a substantial significant difference. This suggests that students in private schools are more likely to engage in maladaptive behaviours related to mobile phone usage than government school students. In the peer relation dimension, government school students (M = 21.05, SD = 1.94) again score lower than private school students (M = 30.17, SD = 10.45), resulting in a t-value of 5.67 and a significant p-value of 0.000. This implies that private school students may utilise mobile phones more effectively to foster peer relationships than their government school counterparts. Similarly, in the interpersonal relation category, government students (M = 14.45, SD = 2.84) score significantly lower than private students (M = 24.72, SD = 13.48), with a t-value of 4.92 and a p-value of 0.000, further reinforcing the notion that private school students are more inclined to use mobile phones to maintain interpersonal connections. The dimension of impulsivity also shows a significant difference, with government school students (M = 13.00, SD = 2.35) demonstrating lower impulsivity levels compared to private students (M = 20.11, SD = 8.80), as indicated by a t-value of 5.14 and a p-value of 0.000. This suggests that private school students may exhibit more impulsive behaviours related to mobile phone usage. In contrast, the self-expression and usage time dimensions show no significant differences between the two groups. Government students (M = 28.66, SD = 5.32) and private students (M = 29.94, SD = 3.43) display similar levels of self-expression, with a t-value of 1.25 and a p-value of 0.215 indicating non-significance. Similarly, for usage time, both groups are comparable, with government students (M = 15.98, SD = 2.53) and private students (M = 15.58, SD = 2.08) showing no significant difference (t-value = 0.747, p-value = 0.457). Overall, in terms of mobile addiction , government school students (M = 119.93, SD = 9.99) report significantly lower levels than private school students (M = 161.94, SD = 43.03), with a t-value of 6.28 and a p-value of 0.000. These findings indicate that private school students exhibit higher levels of mobile phone addiction compared to their government school peers, particularly in maladaptive usage, peer relation, interpersonal relation, and impulsivity while showing no significant differences in self-expression and usage time. Table 10 Showing the Degree of Relationship between Family Environment and Mobile Phone Addiction among senior Secondary School Students. Correlations Variable Overall Family Environment Overall Mobile Addiction Overall Family Environment Pearson Correlation - − .441 ** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 80 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The analysis of Table 10 reveals a significant negative correlation between the overall family environment and overall mobile phone addiction among senior secondary school students, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.441. This correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level (p < 0.01), indicating a strong relationship between the two variables. The negative sign of the correlation coefficient suggests that as the quality of the family environment improves, the mobile phone addiction level tends to decrease. Specifically, students who report a more supportive, cohesive, and nurturing family environment are likely to exhibit lower levels of mobile phone addiction. Conversely, those from less favourable family backgrounds are more prone to higher addiction levels. This finding emphasises the critical role of a positive family environment in influencing adolescents’ behaviour regarding technology use, underscoring the need for interventions that promote healthy family dynamics to help mitigate mobile phone addiction among students. Discussion of the Results A. Family Environment of Senior Secondary School Students about Gender and Type of School The findings suggest notable differences in family environments experienced by senior secondary school students based on gender and type of school. Specifically, female students reported a more favourable family environment than their male counterparts, as evidenced by their higher scores in cohesion and acceptance. This aligns with previous research indicating that female adolescents often receive more emotional support from family members, contributing to a more nurturing environment (Murray et al., 2020). Additionally, students from school also influenced family environments, with students from private institutions reporting marginally better family dynamics. This could be attributed to the socioeconomic advantages often associated with private education, leading to increased resources and parental involvement (Duncan & Murnane, 2014). B. Mobile Phone Addiction of Senior Secondary School Students about Gender and Type of School Regarding mobile phone addiction, the analysis indicated that male students showed higher levels of addiction than female students, with significantly greater scores in maladaptive usage and peer relation aspects. This is consistent with existing literature that suggests boys tend to engage more with mobile technology and exhibit higher addictive behaviours (Kuss & Griffiths, 2012). Furthermore, private school students demonstrated higher mobile phone addiction levels than their government school counterparts. This could be linked to differences in parental control and monitoring practices, where private school students may have more access to mobile devices without adequate supervision (Bianchi & Phillips, 2005). C. Mean Comparison of Male and Female Senior Secondary Schools on Family Environment The mean comparison analysis revealed that female senior secondary school students had a significantly higher overall family environment score than their male peers. This finding suggests that female students may benefit from a more supportive and nurturing family setting, which is critical for their emotional and psychological development. These results corroborate existing research indicating that girls often experience greater emotional closeness and family support (Benenson et al., 2013). D. Mean Comparison of Government and Private Senior Secondary Schools on Family Environment The mean comparison between government and private senior secondary schools indicated no significant differences in family environment scores. However, students from private schools reported slightly better family environments, reflecting the potential influence of socioeconomic status on family dynamics. Previous studies have highlighted that families with more financial resources can provide enriching environments, leading to better student outcomes (Gorard et al., 2012). E. Mean Comparison of Male and Female Senior Secondary Schools on Mobile Phone Addiction In terms of mobile phone addiction, the results indicated that male students exhibited significantly higher levels of addiction than female students. This finding is consistent with studies indicating that boys are more likely to engage in excessive mobile phone use, which can lead to maladaptive behaviours (Smahel et al., 2012). The gender differences observed may reflect societal norms and expectations surrounding technology use. F. Mean Comparison of Government and Private Senior Secondary Schools on Mobile Phone Addiction The comparison of mobile phone addiction levels between government and private school students revealed that private school students had higher overall addiction scores. This aligns with research suggesting that students in private schools may have greater access to technology without appropriate restrictions, leading to increased usage and potential addiction (Nath et al., 2016). G. Correlational Analysis between Family Environment and Mobile Phone Addiction among Senior Secondary School Students The correlational analysis revealed a significant negative relationship between the overall family environment and overall mobile phone addiction. This finding implies that a positive family environment may serve as a protective factor against mobile phone addiction. Research supports this notion, indicating that supportive family relationships can mitigate risk factors associated with technology addiction (Bickham & Linebarger, 2014). These results underscore the importance of fostering healthy family dynamics to help reduce mobile phone addiction among adolescents. Major Findings A brief description of the significant findings of the present study is summarized below: 1. The study finds that most students report an average family environment, with 70% of males and 85% of females in this category more females have an above-average family environment (10%) compared to males (15%), while more males (15%) fall into the below-average category (5% for females). 2. The findings reveal that the majority of senior secondary students, both in government and private schools, experience an average level of family environment. Specifically, 63.63% of government school students and 69.44% of private school students fall into this category. A smaller portion of students from both sectors experience an above-average family environment, with 18.18% of government school students and 16.66% of private school students reporting this level. Meanwhile, 18.18% of government school students and 13.88% of private school students experience a below-average family environment, indicating that a minority of students in both types of schools face less supportive family circumstances. 3. The findings reveal that the majority of Senior secondary students, both in government and private schools, experience an average level of family environment. Specifically, 63.63% of government school students and 69.44% of private school students fall into this category. A smaller portion of students from both sectors experience an above-average family environment, with 18.18% of government school students and 16.66% of private school students reporting this level. Meanwhile, 18.18% of government school students and 13.88% of private school students experience a below-average family environment, indicating that many students in both types of schools face less supportive family circumstances. 4. The findings indicate that private school students have a higher level of mobile phone addiction compared to government school students. While 66.66% of private school students show an average level of addiction, only 59.09% of government school students fall into this category. Additionally, a more significant proportion of private school students (33.33%) have an above-average addiction level compared to 22.72% of government school students. Notably, 18.18% of government school students have below-average addiction, whereas no private school students fall into this group. 5. The study finds that female students report significantly higher cohesion, conflict, active recreational orientation, organisation, control, and overall family environment than male students. However, there are no significant differences between males and females in expressiveness, acceptance, caring, and independence. 6. The study shows no statistically significant differences in family environment variables between government and private senior secondary school students. Both groups display similar characteristics in recreational orientation, organisation, control, and overall family environment, suggesting that the family experiences of students are primarily comparable across these educational institutions. 7. The study finds that male senior secondary students exhibit significantly higher levels of mobile phone addiction than female students, particularly in areas like maladaptive usage, self-expression, and peer relations. The overall addiction score supports this conclusion. However, no significant differences were found between genders in interpersonal relations, impulsivity, or usage time, suggesting that while males are more addicted, both genders use their phones similarly in some contexts. These findings suggest that interventions to reduce mobile phone addiction should focus more on male students to address their higher levels of maladaptive behaviours. 8. The study indicates that private senior secondary students have higher levels of maladaptive usage, impulsivity, and overall mobile phone addiction compared to government school students despite displaying better peer and interpersonal relations related to phone usage. In contrast, government school students show lower scores in areas associated with the negative consequences of mobile phone use. However, neither group significantly differs in how much time they spend on their phones. 9. The findings indicate that a better family environment is significantly associated with lower levels of mobile phone addiction among students. This suggests that supportive family dynamics and a positive home atmosphere may play a crucial role in reducing mobile phone addiction in this group. Conclusion The study reveals that most senior secondary students report an average family environment, with notable gender differences—females more frequently experience supportive settings. At the same time, males are more likely to face below-average environments, potentially increasing their risk of mobile phone addiction. Additionally, private school students show greater addiction levels than their government school counterparts. Gender differences also emerge as males exhibit higher addiction levels, particularly in maladaptive usage, while females report a more cohesive family environment. Overall, a supportive family dynamic is linked to lower levels of mobile phone addiction, underscoring the importance of family background in addressing this issue among students. Educational Implications Promotion of Positive Family Engagement : The study highlights the significant correlation between family environment and mobile phone addiction. Schools and educational authorities should implement programs that encourage parental involvement and provide resources to help families foster a supportive environment. Workshops and seminars focusing on effective parenting strategies and the importance of family communication can be instrumental in this regard. Gender-Sensitive Interventions : Given the findings that male students exhibit higher levels of mobile phone addiction, educational institutions should develop gender-sensitive intervention programs. These programs should specifically target male students and include workshops addressing their unique challenges, promoting healthier phone usage habits and fostering emotional resilience. Curriculum Development on Digital Literacy : With mobile phone addiction being a significant concern, integrating digital literacy into the curriculum can empower students to use technology responsibly. Schools should offer courses that educate students about the risks of excessive phone usage, the importance of balanced digital engagement, and developing critical thinking skills regarding media consumption. Encouragement of Extracurricular Activities : The findings suggest that a positive family environment correlates with lower levels of mobile phone addiction. Schools should encourage participation in extracurricular activities that promote social interaction and physical engagement, thereby reducing screen time. Sports, arts, and community service programs can provide students with alternative avenues for expression and connection. Counselling and Support Services : Schools should enhance their counselling services to provide targeted support for students struggling with mobile phone addiction. Trained counsellors can offer one-on-one and group therapy sessions to help students understand the underlying issues contributing to their addiction and develop coping strategies. Awareness Campaigns : Educational institutions can organize awareness campaigns about the impact of mobile phone addiction on mental health and academic performance. These campaigns can include seminars, posters, and social media outreach to inform students and parents about the signs of addiction and ways to cultivate healthier technology habits. Collaborative Efforts with Parents : Schools should foster a collaborative relationship with parents by providing them with tools and strategies to monitor and manage their children’s mobile phone usage effectively. This can include guidelines for setting boundaries around technology use and encouraging family discussions about digital responsibility. Regular Assessments and Feedback : Schools can implement regular assessments of students’ mobile phone usage patterns and family environments to identify at-risk students early. By monitoring trends and providing feedback to students and parents, schools can create tailored interventions to address specific needs. Research and Policy Development : Lastly, ongoing research is essential to understand the evolving dynamics of mobile phone addiction and family environments. Educational policymakers should utilize findings from such studies to inform policy development to promote healthy technology use among students and enhance family engagement in the educational process. Declarations ETHICS STATEMENT The present study was reviewed and approved by the Directorate of Research and Development, Central University of Kashmir, Ganderbal, Jammu and Kashmir, India. The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Central University of Kashmir and the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and for students below 18 years of age, additional consent was obtained from parents/guardians and respective school authorities. Participation was voluntary and anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the study. COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with this manuscript. The research was conducted independently and no financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest influenced the design, execution, or reporting of this study. The authors have no affiliations or relationships that could be perceived as influencing the objectivity or integrity of the work presented herein. FUNDING No funding received from any source Author Contribution Dr. Firdous Ahmad Sofal conceptualized the study, supervised the research process, and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. Mohammad Akram conducted the data collection, performed the initial statistical analysis, and contributed to the drafting of the methodology and results sections. Madhumita Pardhan assisted in the literature review, data interpretation, and contributed to writing the discussion and conclusion sections. Dr. Firdous Ahmad Sofal, Mohammad Akram, and Madhumita Pardhan jointly contributed to the review and finalization of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Department of Education, Central University of Kashmir, for providing the necessary academic environment and institutional support throughout the course of this research. Special thanks are due to all the participants who contributed their time and insights, making this study possible. The authors also acknowledge the valuable feedback and encouragement received from peers and mentors during various stages of this work. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to institutional restrictions and the need to protect the confidentiality and privacy of study participants. However, the data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with the approval of the Directorate of Research and Development, Central University of Kashmir. References Acharya, J. P., Acharya, I., & Washery, D. (2013). A study on some common health effects of cell phones amongst college students. Journal of Community Medicine & Health Education, 3 (4), 1-4 Ahanger, W. A., & Sofal, F. A. (2023). Casteism and Education: Institutional Experiences of Muslim Marginalised Students in the Higher Education Academia. Journal of Social Inclusion Studies, 9(2), 200-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/23944811231185234. Amirtha, M., & Kadhiravan, S. (2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence and family environment of higher secondary students. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 4 (3), 344-347. Barbola, K. C. (2013). A study on adolescents’ family environment, mental health, and academic performance. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 4 (8), 1598-1602. Bhatia, H., & Chadha, N. K. (1993). Family environment scale . National Psychological Corporation. Bianchi, S. M., & Phillips, J. L. (2005). The role of parental monitoring in adolescent mobile phone use: Implications for addiction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 34 (6), 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-4312-x Bickham, D. S., & Linebarger, D. L. (2014). Family relationships and adolescent technology use: The role of support in mitigating addiction risks. Journal of Adolescent Health , 54 (5), 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.004 Billieux, J., Van der Linden, M., & Rochat, L. (2015). The role of impulsivity in actual and problematic use of the mobile phone. Personality and Individual Differences, 43 (1), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.002 Borah, R. (2013). The relationship between family environment and academic achievement of XI standard students in Jorhat district of Assam. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 4 (2), 68-74. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2014). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances . Russell Sage Foundation. Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2017). Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of the literature. Psychiatry Research, 250 , 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.01.042 Eze Menaka, E. (2013). The usage and impact of internet-enabled phones on academic concentration among students of tertiary institutions: A case study of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9 (3), 162-173. Gorard, S., See, B. H., & Davies, P. (2012). The impact of socio-economic status on educational outcomes: A review of the literature. Research Papers in Education , 27 (1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.606700. Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Smartphone addiction: An overview of research and its implications for public health. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7 (1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.11. Hussain, Z., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). The role of family structure in adolescent mobile phone addiction: A comparative study of nuclear and extended family environments. Journal of Behavioral Addictions , 7 (2), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.50. Javid, A., Malik, M. A., & Gujjar, A. A. (2011 February). Mobile phone culture and its psychological impacts on students learning at the university level. Language in India: Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow,11(2),415-422. Kim, J., Lee, H. K., & Kim, J. H. (2018). Family factors associated with mobile phone addiction in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 65 , 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.03.002. Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Internet gaming addiction: A systematic review of empirical research. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9 (1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-010-9318-1. Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 (3), 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030311. Kwon, M., Lee, J. Y., Won, W. Y., Park, J. W., Min, J. A., & Cho, C. H. (2013). Development and validation of a smartphone addiction scale (SAS). PLOS ONE, 8 (1), e56936. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056936. Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2013). The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31 , 343-350. Liu, J., Li, X., Wang, L., & Zhang, Q. (2020). Family environment and adolescent problematic internet use: A moderated mediation model of parental control and peer pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 108 , 106307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106307. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (2002). Family environment scale manual: Development, applications, and research (3rd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press. Murray, C. E., Baker, J. C., & West, J. C. (2020). Emotional support in adolescence: Exploring gender differences in family environments. Journal of Adolescent Research , 35 (4), 452–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558419826745. Nath, S., Banerjee, A., & Singh, S. (2016). Technology access and its impact on student behavior: A study of private school adolescents. Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 19 (3), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.2307/23608532. Pew Research Center. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018 . Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/ Rather, R. A., & Sofal, F. A. (2023). Academic administration of Indian school system: A study on emotional intelligence of school academic administrators in relation to various background variables. Management in Education , 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206231189845 Raval, V. V., & Parke, R. D. (2007). The role of family processes in adolescent development: A contextual approach. Family Relations , 56 (5), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00462.x. Shambare, I., Rugman. and Howa. T. (2012, January 18). Are mobile phones the 21st-century addiction? African journal of business Management, 6(2),573-577, doi;10.5897/AJBM11,1940. Shivane, D. (2011 May). A study of family environment and mental health of the tribal and urban secondary students. Indian Streams Research journals,1 (4). Smahel, D., Brown, B. B., & Kuss, D. J. (2012). Excessive mobile phone use and its relationship with maladaptive behaviors in adolescents. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 15 (5), 314–319. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0513. Smith, J. A., Jones, T. M., & Green, P. R. (2011). The role of extended family systems in adolescent development: Emotional and social support. Journal of Family Studies , 42 (3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2011.590456. Velayudhan, A., & Srividya, S. (2012). Development and validation of a mobile phone addiction scale . National Psychological Corporation. Walsh, K. (2012). Cell phones and student achievement: A review of the literature. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 8 (1), 25-35. World Health Organization. (2019). Adolescent health and wellbeing: Mobile phone usage among adolescents . World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/adolescent-health. Yang, S., Liu, Z., & Zhang, X. (2017). Family structure and adolescent addiction: The role of family dynamics. Journal of Family Psychology , 31 (4), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000327. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 03 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 19 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 18 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 31 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 31 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 28 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Jul, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 24 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 24 Jul, 2025 Editor invited by journal 07 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 07 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 07 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6887500","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":491363759,"identity":"be71e424-a987-46c2-a39b-54980f0ca5a4","order_by":0,"name":"Firdous Ahmad Sofal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central University of Kashmir Ganderbal","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Firdous","middleName":"Ahmad","lastName":"Sofal","suffix":""},{"id":491363760,"identity":"9fd39536-97a2-4722-a252-9767539bc7e8","order_by":1,"name":"Mohammad Akram","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central University of Kashmir","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohammad","middleName":"","lastName":"Akram","suffix":""},{"id":491363762,"identity":"671ab527-ce08-4d62-a932-8a1fd0d12328","order_by":2,"name":"Madhumita Pardhan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central University of Kashmir","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Madhumita","middleName":"","lastName":"Pardhan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-13 10:53:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6887500/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6887500/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87730210,"identity":"ebe5c6b1-baed-4423-879f-c6a32338753e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-28 11:26:11","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1847405,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6887500/v1/f07a862e-6946-4e25-a563-45c4bca5e443.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Influence of Family Environment on Mobile Phone Addiction among Senior Secondary School Students in Central Kashmir with Reference to Gender and Institutional Type","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMobile phones have become indispensable communication, entertainment, and education tools in today\u0026rsquo;s digital age. Their widespread use has dramatically influenced the daily lives of individuals across all age groups, particularly adolescents (Kuss \u0026amp; Griffiths, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In the critical stage of transitioning into adulthood, senior secondary school students are increasingly using mobile phones for various purposes, including social interaction, gaming, educational activities, and internet access. However, with the growing dependence on these devices, concerns about mobile phone addiction have risen. Mobile phone addiction is characterised by excessive and compulsive use of the device, leading to adverse effects on the user\u0026rsquo;s social, psychological, and academic life (Kuss \u0026amp; Griffiths, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The family environment plays a pivotal role in shaping a child\u0026rsquo;s behaviour and attitudes, including their approach toward technology (Ahanger and Sofal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The structure, emotional atmosphere, and interaction patterns within a family significantly impact the development of a child\u0026rsquo;s personality, coping strategies, and ability to handle stress (Bronfenbrenner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). With the increasing prevalence of mobile phone use among adolescents, it becomes crucial to explore the relationship between family environment and mobile phone addiction in this age group. Studies have shown that family dynamics, such as parenting styles, parental monitoring, and the quality of parent-child relationships, can either mitigate or exacerbate problematic mobile phone use (Billieux et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The concept of mobile phone addiction has gained prominence in recent years as mobile phones have evolved from mere communication devices to multifunctional tools. Addiction, in this context, refers to a psychological dependence on mobile phones, which manifests through behaviours such as constant checking of the phone, using the device for extended periods, neglecting personal responsibilities, and experiencing anxiety when unable to use the phone (Kwon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Mobile phone addiction has been linked to several adverse outcomes, including academic underachievement, sleep disturbances, and social isolation (Elhai, Levine, Dvorak, \u0026amp; Hall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Several factors contribute to mobile phone addiction among adolescents, including personal characteristics (such as low self-control or high impulsivity), social influences (peer pressure, fear of missing out, or FOMO), and psychological factors (anxiety, depression, or stress). However, the family environment is one of the most influential aspects affecting adolescents\u0026rsquo; relationship with their phones (Griffiths, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The family environment refers to the overall atmosphere within the household, encompassing the emotional climate, communication patterns, family structure, and parenting styles (Moos \u0026amp; Moos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). A supportive and nurturing family environment fosters positive behaviours, while a hostile or neglectful environment can contribute to emotional distress and maladaptive behaviours such as addiction. Several dimensions of the family environment, including cohesion, conflict, organisation, and parental control, play a role in shaping a child\u0026rsquo;s behaviour toward technology use (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The emotional quality of the parent-child relationship also significantly affects adolescents\u0026rsquo; coping strategies (Rather and Sofal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Adolescents from families with high levels of conflict or poor communication may turn to mobile phones as an escape mechanism, leading to excessive use and potential addiction (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSignificance of the Study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recent years, the rapid proliferation of mobile phone usage, especially among adolescents, has become a significant concern for researchers, educators, and policymakers alike. Numerous studies have explored excessive mobile phone use\u0026rsquo;s psychological, social, and behavioural implications, particularly in adolescents. According to a report by the \u003cem\u003eWorld Health Organization\u003c/em\u003e (WHO, 2019), adolescent mobile phone usage has increased exponentially, with many spending an average of 3 to 5 hours daily on their devices. This upward trend is alarming as it coincides with rising cases of anxiety, depression, and other behavioural problems linked to mobile phone addiction (Elhai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the \u003cem\u003ePew Research Centre\u003c/em\u003e (2018) highlights that nearly 95% of teenagers in developed countries have access to a smartphone, raising concerns about the long-term impact of constant digital connectivity. Research has consistently pointed out the addictive nature of smartphones due to their multifaceted capabilities, including access to social media, gaming, and endless information at one\u0026rsquo;s fingertips. Several studies, such as those by Griffiths (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Kwon et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), emphasise that mobile phone addiction is not just about the excessive time spent on devices but also the compulsive need to check phones, the inability to disconnect and the emotional distress experienced when access is restricted. Given the potential psychological and academic risks associated with mobile phone addiction, researchers have begun to investigate the underlying factors contributing to this phenomenon. While individual traits like impulsivity and psychological conditions like anxiety play a role, recent studies suggest that the family environment is a crucial determinant in either fostering or curbing mobile phone addiction among adolescents (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This growing body of literature underscores the need to focus on the family unit when addressing mobile phone addiction. For example, Billieux et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) argue that parenting styles, the emotional climate within the household, and the quality of parent-child communication all play vital roles in regulating or exacerbating mobile phone use. In homes where conflict is high and communication is poor, adolescents are more likely to engage in problematic mobile phone use as a means of escapism (Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). On the contrary, in families where parents are actively involved and set clear boundaries regarding technology use, the likelihood of addiction is significantly reduced. Despite the increasing interest in this area, there is still a lack of comprehensive research specifically examining how different aspects of the family environment, such as cohesion, parental control, and conflict, influence mobile phone addiction among senior secondary school students. The current study holds significant value for academic research by contributing to the relatively underexplored area of how the family environment interacts with mobile phone addiction in adolescents. Although much research has been conducted on adolescent behaviour in the digital age, much focuses on individual psychological traits or peer influences (Elhai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This study seeks to fill a gap in the literature by examining the role of family dynamics in mobile phone addiction, particularly in the Indian context, where family structures and cultural norms may differ from those in Western societies. By focusing on the senior secondary school population, this research targets a critical age group highly susceptible to the pressures of digital connectivity and parental influence, thus providing a nuanced understanding of mobile phone addiction during a formative life stage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eObjectives of the Study\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo study the family environment of senior secondary school students in relation to gender and type of school.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo study the Android phone addiction of higher secondary school students in relation to gender and type of school.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo compare family environment of senior secondary school students based on gender and type of institution.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo compare mobile phone addiction of senior secondary school students based on gender and type of institution\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo find the degree of relationship between family environment and mobile phone addiction among senior secondary school students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHypotheses\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is no significant difference between male and female senior secondary students on family environment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is no significant difference between government and private senior secondary school students on family environment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is no significant difference between male and female senior secondary school students on Android phone addiction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is no significant difference between government and private senior secondary students on Android phone addiction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is no significant relation between family environment and Android phone addiction among senior secondary students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOperational Definition of Terms and Variables\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamily Environment: Family environment refers to the overall social, emotional \u003cem\u003eand relational climate\u003c/em\u003e of a home. It includes parental involvement, emotional support, family cohesion, communication patterns and parental control (Moos \u0026amp; Moos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cem\u003eIn this study, the family environment refers to the scores\u003c/em\u003e obtained from \u003cem\u003ethe sample subjects on the\u003c/em\u003e family environment \u003cem\u003escale standardised by Dr. Harpreet Bhatia and Dr. N.K Chadha (1993). This scale consisted of 69 items with five dimensions.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eMobile Phone Addiction: Mobile phone addiction refers to the excessive and compulsive use of mobile phones, leading to behavioural and psychological symptoms, such as an inability to control usage, neglect of personal responsibilities and emotional distress when unable to access the phone (Kuss \u0026amp; Griffiths, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) or (Elhai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). For this study, mobile phone addiction specifically focuses on Android phone addiction and refers to the scores obtained from sample subjects on the Phone Addiction Scale (MPAS) standardised by Dr. A. Velayudhan and Dr. S. Srividya. (2012). This scale consists of 37 items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSenior Secondary School Students: \u003cem\u003eSenior secondary school students in the present investigation refers to the students enrolled in grade 11th and 12th, typically aged between 16 and 18. These students are in the final two years of their secondary education before higher education or professional courses\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender: \u003cem\u003eGender in this study refers to the biological sex of the students, categorised as male and female.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of School: Type of school refers to the academic institutions in which the sample students have been enrolled. These have been classified as Government Schools, funded and operated by the government and Private Schools, funded and operated by private management but affiliated with Centre or State Government Boards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Design and Instrumentation","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe current study was carried out using the ex post facto research method. The study population consisted of senior secondary school students of central Kashmir. The study was conducted on a sample of 80 students, 40 male and 40 female, from both types of schools, government and private. The 80 sample subjects were selected through a random sampling technique.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDescription of Tools\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily Environment Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe investigator used FES developed by Dr. Harpreet Bhatia and Dr. N.K Chadha (1993). The FES comprises 69 items designed to measure the family environment of students. The scale includes a mix of Positive and Negatively worded statements. Each statement is rated on five sequential points (strongly agree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5, Agree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, Neutral\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, Disagree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2 and Strongly disagree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1). The responses are scored to provide a total FES Score. Finally, 0.95 coefficient reliability was found by applying the Spearman-Brown Prophesy split-half formula. The validity was found to be 0.75.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMobile phone addiction scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe investigator used the MPA Scale developed by Dr. A. Velayudhan and Dr. S. Srividya (2012). The MPA scale comprises 37 items designed to measure the mobile phone addiction of students. The scale includes a mix of Positive and Negatively worded statements. Each statement is rated on five sequential points (strongly agree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5, Agree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, Neutral\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, Disagree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2 and Strongly disagree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1). The responses are scored to provide a total MPA Score. Finally, a 0.70 reliability coefficient was found by applying the Spearman-Brown Prophesy formula by the split-half method. The validity was found to be 0.89.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAnalysis of Data\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDescriptive Statistics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShowing the level of Family Environment among Male and Female Senior Secondary School Students:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbove Average\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e85%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelow Average\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e40\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e40\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA perusal of the above Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1.0\u003c/span\u003e reveals the level of family environment among male and female senior secondary school students. The results indicate that most students from both genders fall within the \"average\" category concerning their family environment. Specifically, 70% of male and 85% of female students reported an average family environment, suggesting that most students perceive their family atmosphere as moderately supportive and functional. Regarding the \"above average\" family environment, 15% of male and 10% of female students experienced a more nurturing and supportive family environment, highlighting that a smaller proportion of students from both genders enjoy a more favourable family dynamic. Regarding the \"below average\" family environment, an equal 15% of male students and a smaller 5% of female students reported a less supportive or less positive family atmosphere, indicating that more male students tend to experience a less favourable family environment than females. Overall, the table suggests that while most students from both genders experience an average family environment, male students are more likely than female students to fall into the below-average category, indicating potential differences in family dynamics based on gender.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShowing the level of Family Environment among Government and Private Senior Secondary School Students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of Institutions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbove Average\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.18%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.66%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63.63%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e69.44%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelow Average\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.18%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.88%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e36\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e displays the level of family environment among government and private senior secondary school students. The results highlight some interesting trends. Among government school students, 18.18% report an above-average family environment, slightly higher than the 16.66% of students in private schools who report the same. This indicates that a similar proportion of students in both school types experience a highly supportive family environment. In both government and private schools, most students fall into the \"average\" category, with 63.63% of government school students and 69.44% of private school students reporting an average family environment. This suggests that most students experience moderate support and cohesion within their family settings regardless of school type. Regarding a below-average family environment, 18.18% of government school students report less favourable family dynamics than 13.88% of private school students. Overall, while the differences between government and private school students in terms of family environment are minor, private school students appear slightly more likely to experience average or below-average family environments. In contrast, government school students are marginally more likely to report above-average family support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShowing the level of Mobile Phone Addiction among Male and Female Senior Secondary School Students:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbove Average\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelow Average\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e40\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e40\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the above table shows the level of mobile phone addiction among male and female senior secondary school students, revealing key insights into their usage patterns. Among male students, 20% exhibit above-average levels of mobile phone addiction, slightly higher than the 15% of female students who fall into this category. This suggests that more male students are more prone to excessive mobile phone use than their female counterparts. For both genders, the majority of students fall into the \"average\" category, with 60% of males and 65% of females demonstrating moderate levels of mobile phone addiction. This indicates that most students, regardless of gender, show typical usage patterns that align with the norm for their peer group. Interestingly, an equal percentage (20%) of male and female students fall into the below-average category, reflecting a balanced proportion of students from both genders who show lower levels of mobile phone use. Overall, while the differences in mobile phone addiction levels between male and female students are not pronounced, male students tend to show slightly higher levels of addiction, particularly at the end of the spectrum.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShowing the level of Mobile Phone Addiction among Nuclear and Joint Senior Secondary School Students\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTOF\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNuclear\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJoint\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbove Average\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.90%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58.33%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelow Average\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.66%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34.09%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e36\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the table depicting the level of mobile phone addiction among nuclear and joint-family senior secondary school students reveals significant trends regarding their usage behaviours. Among students from nuclear families, 25% exhibit above-average levels of mobile phone addiction, which is significantly higher than the 15.90% of students from joint families in the same category. This suggests that students in nuclear families may be more susceptible to excessive mobile phone use than their peers in joint family structures. The majority of both groups fall into the \"average\" category, with 58.33% of nuclear family students and 50% of joint family students displaying moderate levels of addiction. This indicates that while a significant portion of students across both family types engage in typical mobile phone usage patterns, nuclear family students show a slightly higher average level of addiction. In contrast, the below-average category reveals a notable difference, with only 16.66% of nuclear family students falling into this group compared to 34.09% of those from joint families. This indicates that a more significant proportion of students from joint families demonstrate lower levels of mobile phone addiction, which may be attributed to stronger familial interactions and supervision common in joint family settings. Overall, these findings highlight significant differences in mobile phone addiction levels based on family structure, suggesting that family dynamics may play a crucial role in shaping students\u0026rsquo; mobile phone usage behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShowing the level of Mobile Phone Addiction among Govt. and Private Senior Secondary School Students:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of Institution\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbove Average\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22.72%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33.33%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e59.09%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e66.66%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBelow Average\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18.18%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e36\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the table presenting the level of mobile phone addiction among government and private senior secondary school students reveals noteworthy distinctions between the two groups. Among government school students, 22.72% are classified as having above-average levels of mobile phone addiction, whereas this figure rises to 33.33% among private school students. This indicates that private school students are more likely to experience higher levels of mobile phone addiction compared to their counterparts in government schools. In terms of average addiction levels, a majority of both groups fall within this category, with 59.09% of government school students and 66.66% of private school students demonstrating moderate levels of mobile phone use. This suggests that while many students use typical mobile phones, private school students may tend to depend more on their devices. Notably, the below-average category showcases a significant disparity, as 18.18% of government school students fall into this group. In contrast, no private school students are reported to have below-average addiction levels. This indicates that students from private schools are less likely to exhibit lower levels of mobile phone addiction, possibly due to increased access to technology and greater integration of mobile devices in their academic and social environments. Overall, these findings underscore the influence of school type on mobile phone addiction, suggesting that private school students are more susceptible to higher levels of dependency on mobile devices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInferential Statistics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eShowing the Significance of the Mean Difference Between Male and Female Senior Secondary Schools on Family Environment (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et-value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRemarks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCohesion\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.95\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.97\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExpressiveness\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.824\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConflict\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.52\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAcceptance \u0026amp; Caring\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39.55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.162\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndependence\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.37\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.805\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.423\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eActive Recreational Orientation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.039\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOrganisation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eControl\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOverall Family Environment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e225.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e246.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe table analysis demonstrating the significance of mean differences between male and female senior secondary school students regarding various dimensions of family environment reveals several key findings. The \u003cb\u003ecohesion\u003c/b\u003e scores indicate that female students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;50.95, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.97) report significantly higher levels of family cohesion compared to male students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;45.80, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.76), with a t-value of 3.53 and a significance level of 0.001, indicating a strong statistical significance. Conversely, the \u003cb\u003eexpressiveness\u003c/b\u003e dimension does not show significant differences between genders, with male students averaging 30.30 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.39) and female students at 30.15 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.56), resulting in a non-significant t-value of 0.22 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.824). Similarly, dimensions such as \u003cb\u003eacceptance and caring\u003c/b\u003e, \u003cb\u003eindependence\u003c/b\u003e, and \u003cb\u003econtrol\u003c/b\u003e also exhibited non-significant differences between genders, indicating comparable perceptions. Significant differences are observed in the \u003cb\u003econflict\u003c/b\u003e dimension, where male students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;37.00, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.35) experience lower conflict levels than female students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;42.35, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.52), reflected in a t-value of 5.27 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000). In terms of \u003cb\u003eactive recreational orientation\u003c/b\u003e, female students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.10, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.23) demonstrate significantly higher engagement compared to male students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.35, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.16) with a t-value of 2.09 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.039). The \u003cb\u003eorganisation\u003c/b\u003e dimension also shows significant differences, with females (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.65, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80) scoring higher than males (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.70, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.63), yielding a t-value of 3.29 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001). Furthermore, the \u003cb\u003econtrol\u003c/b\u003e dimension reveals that male students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.85, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.02) have lower scores compared to female students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.30, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.20), which is statistically significant (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.75, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000). Overall, the comprehensive analysis of the family environment indicates that while specific dimensions, such as cohesion, conflict, organisation, and control, highlight significant disparities between genders, others, such as expressiveness, acceptance and caring, and independence, show no substantial differences. The overall family environment scores further emphasise that female students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;246.65, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.03) experience a more favourable family environment compared to male students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;225.45, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.61), with a significant t-value of 4.02 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000). These findings underscore the importance of understanding gender dynamics within family environments in educational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eShowing the Significance of the Mean Difference Between Government and Private Senior Secondary Schools on Family Environment (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80)\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTOI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et-value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRemarks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCohesion\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.970\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePvt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExpressiveness\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.997\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePvt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConflict\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.134\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePvt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40.78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.99\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAcceptance \u0026amp; Caring\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.111\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePvt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndependence\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.124\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePvt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eActive Recreational Orientation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.882\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.381\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePvt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.83\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOrganisation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.004\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.318\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePvt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eControl\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.73\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.497\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.621\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePvt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOverall Family Environment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e238.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.060\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.952\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePvt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e237.97\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, which presents the significance of mean differences between government and private senior secondary schools regarding various dimensions of family environment, indicates no statistically significant differences across the measured variables. In the \u003cb\u003ecohesion\u003c/b\u003e dimension, both government (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;48.61, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.72) and private schools (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;48.56, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.78) exhibit similar means with a t-value of 0.038 and a non-significant p-value of 0.970, suggesting comparable levels of family cohesion in both school types. The mean scores for expressiveness are identical for government and private schools at 30.11, with t-values indicating no significant differences (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.997). The \u003cb\u003econflict\u003c/b\u003e dimension also demonstrates no significant difference, with government schools (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;39.25, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.01) reporting lower conflict levels than private schools (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40.78, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.99). Still, the t-value of 1.51 and p-value of 0.134 affirm the non-significance. In terms of \u003cb\u003eacceptance and caring\u003c/b\u003e, government schools (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41.23, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.30) again show no significant difference compared to private schools (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;39.31, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.31), as reflected in a t-value of 1.61 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.111). The same trend persists for the \u003cb\u003eindependence\u003c/b\u003e dimension, where the means are 29.18 for government schools and 30.67 for private schools, yielding a t-value of 1.55 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.124). When examining the \u003cb\u003eactive recreational orientation\u003c/b\u003e, the means of 27.61 (Govt.) and 26.83 (Pvt.) do not result in a significant difference (t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.882, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.381). Similarly, the \u003cb\u003eorganisation\u003c/b\u003e dimension shows no significant difference, with government schools (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.89, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.61) compared to private schools (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.22, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.31), resulting in a t-value of 1.004 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.318). The \u003cb\u003econtrol\u003c/b\u003e dimension follows suit, as government schools (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.73, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.41) show no significant difference from private schools (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.06, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.22), with a t-value of 0.497 (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.621). Finally, the overall family environment means for the government (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;238.30, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.65) and private schools (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;237.97, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19.88) are closely aligned, yielding a t-value of 0.060 and a p-value of 0.952, further reinforcing the conclusion that there are no significant differences in family environment between students from government and private senior secondary schools. This indicates a consistent perception of family environment across school types, suggesting that factors influencing family dynamics may be relatively similar in these educational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShowing the Significance of Mean Difference Between Male and Female Senior Secondary School Students on Mobile Phone Addiction (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et-value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRemarks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaladaptive Usage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.59\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSelf-Expression\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.84\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.64\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.010\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePeer Relation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21.50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.045\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInterpersonal Relation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.59\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.116\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImpulsivity\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.682\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.497\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUsage Time\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.262\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.794\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOverall Mobile Addiction\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e124.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e113.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e reveals significant differences in mobile phone addiction between male and female senior secondary school students across several dimensions. In the \u003cb\u003emaladaptive usage\u003c/b\u003e category, males (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.75, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.90) exhibit a significantly higher mean score compared to females (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.90, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.28), with a t-value of 6.59 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating a substantial significant difference. This suggests that male students are more prone to maladaptive behaviours associated with mobile phone use than their female counterparts. Similarly, in the \u003cb\u003eself-expression\u003c/b\u003e dimension, male students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29.60, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.84) again demonstrate higher scores than females (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27.00, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.89), with a t-value of 2.64 and a significant p-value of 0.010. This indicates that male students use their mobile phones more for self-expression than female students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding \u003cb\u003epeer relation\u003c/b\u003e, males (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.50, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.08) also score higher than females (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20.50, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.29), yielding a t-value of 2.07 and a significant p-value of 0.045. This suggests that male students engage more in mobile phone interactions that strengthen peer relations than female students. In contrast, the dimensions of \u003cb\u003einterpersonal relation\u003c/b\u003e and \u003cb\u003eimpulsivity\u003c/b\u003e show no significant differences. Males scored slightly higher in interpersonal relations (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.00, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.54) than females (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.00, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.05), but the t-value of 1.59 and p-value of 0.116 indicate non-significance. Similarly, for impulsivity, males (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.75, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.86) and females (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.10, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.65) show comparable scores, with a t-value of 0.682 and a p-value of 0.497.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cb\u003eusage time\u003c/b\u003e dimension also reveals no significant differences between genders, with males (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.65, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.13) and females (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.50, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.92) reporting similar usage times, evidenced by a t-value of 0.262 and a p-value of 0.794. Finally, in terms of overall mobile addiction, male students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;124.25, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.61) score significantly higher than female students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;113.00, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.03), with a t-value of 5.28 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating a clear significant difference. These findings suggest that male senior secondary students exhibit higher levels of mobile phone addiction compared to females, particularly in maladaptive usage, self-expression, and peer relations while showing no significant differences in other aspects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab9\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 9\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eShowing the Significance of Mean Difference Between Government and Private Senior Secondary School Students on Mobile Phone Addiction (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80)\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTOI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et-value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRemarks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaladaptive Usage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSelf-Expression\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.32\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.215\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePeer Relation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30.17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInterpersonal Relation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.84\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImpulsivity\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.35\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUsage Time\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.98\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.747\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.457\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.58\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOverall Mobile Addiction\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovt\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e119.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.99\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6 .28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.000\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e161.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e reveals significant differences in mobile phone addiction between government and private senior secondary school students across various dimensions. In the \u003cb\u003emaladaptive usage\u003c/b\u003e category, government school students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.80, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.50) show a significantly lower mean score compared to private school students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41.25, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.06), with a t-value of 8.15 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating a substantial significant difference. This suggests that students in private schools are more likely to engage in maladaptive behaviours related to mobile phone usage than government school students. In the \u003cb\u003epeer relation\u003c/b\u003e dimension, government school students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.05, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.94) again score lower than private school students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.17, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.45), resulting in a t-value of 5.67 and a significant p-value of 0.000. This implies that private school students may utilise mobile phones more effectively to foster peer relationships than their government school counterparts. Similarly, in the \u003cb\u003einterpersonal relation\u003c/b\u003e category, government students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.45, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.84) score significantly lower than private students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24.72, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.48), with a t-value of 4.92 and a p-value of 0.000, further reinforcing the notion that private school students are more inclined to use mobile phones to maintain interpersonal connections. The dimension of \u003cb\u003eimpulsivity\u003c/b\u003e also shows a significant difference, with government school students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.00, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.35) demonstrating lower impulsivity levels compared to private students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20.11, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.80), as indicated by a t-value of 5.14 and a p-value of 0.000. This suggests that private school students may exhibit more impulsive behaviours related to mobile phone usage. In contrast, the self-expression and usage time dimensions show no significant differences between the two groups. Government students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.66, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.32) and private students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29.94, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.43) display similar levels of self-expression, with a t-value of 1.25 and a p-value of 0.215 indicating non-significance. Similarly, for usage time, both groups are comparable, with government students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.98, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.53) and private students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.58, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.08) showing no significant difference (t-value\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.747, p-value\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.457). Overall, in terms of \u003cb\u003emobile addiction\u003c/b\u003e, government school students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;119.93, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.99) report significantly lower levels than private school students (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;161.94, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43.03), with a t-value of 6.28 and a p-value of 0.000. These findings indicate that private school students exhibit higher levels of mobile phone addiction compared to their government school peers, particularly in maladaptive usage, peer relation, interpersonal relation, and impulsivity while showing no significant differences in self-expression and usage time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab10\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 10\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShowing the Degree of Relationship between Family Environment and Mobile Phone Addiction among senior Secondary School Students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCorrelations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall Family Environment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall Mobile Addiction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOverall Family Environment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.441\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e reveals a significant negative correlation between the overall family environment and overall mobile phone addiction among senior secondary school students, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.441. This correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), indicating a strong relationship between the two variables. The negative sign of the correlation coefficient suggests that as the quality of the family environment improves, the mobile phone addiction level tends to decrease. Specifically, students who report a more supportive, cohesive, and nurturing family environment are likely to exhibit lower levels of mobile phone addiction. Conversely, those from less favourable family backgrounds are more prone to higher addiction levels. This finding emphasises the critical role of a positive family environment in influencing adolescents\u0026rsquo; behaviour regarding technology use, underscoring the need for interventions that promote healthy family dynamics to help mitigate mobile phone addiction among students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion of the Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eA. \u0026nbsp; Family Environment of Senior Secondary School Students about Gender and Type of School\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings suggest notable differences in family environments experienced by senior secondary school students based on gender and type of school. Specifically, female students reported a more favourable family environment than their male counterparts, as evidenced by their higher scores in cohesion and acceptance. This aligns with previous research indicating that female adolescents often receive more emotional support from family members, contributing to a more nurturing environment (Murray et al., 2020). Additionally, students from school also influenced family environments, with students from private institutions reporting marginally better family dynamics. This could be attributed to the socioeconomic advantages often associated with private education, leading to increased resources and parental involvement (Duncan \u0026amp; Murnane, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eB.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mobile Phone Addiction of Senior Secondary School Students about Gender and Type of School\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding mobile phone addiction, the analysis indicated that male students showed higher levels of addiction than female students, with significantly greater scores in maladaptive usage and peer relation aspects. This is consistent with existing literature that suggests boys tend to engage more with mobile technology and exhibit higher addictive behaviours (Kuss \u0026amp; Griffiths, 2012). Furthermore, private school students demonstrated higher mobile phone addiction levels than their government school counterparts. This could be linked to differences in parental control and monitoring practices, where private school students may have more access to mobile devices without adequate supervision (Bianchi \u0026amp; Phillips, 2005).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eC.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Mean Comparison of Male and Female Senior Secondary Schools on Family Environment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mean comparison analysis revealed that female senior secondary school students had a significantly higher overall family environment score than their male peers. This finding suggests that female students may benefit from a more supportive and nurturing family setting, which is critical for their emotional and psychological development. These results corroborate existing research indicating that girls often experience greater emotional closeness and family support (Benenson et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eD.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Mean Comparison of Government and Private Senior Secondary Schools on Family Environment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mean comparison between government and private senior secondary schools indicated no significant differences in family environment scores. However, students from private schools reported slightly better family environments, reflecting the potential influence of socioeconomic status on family dynamics. Previous studies have highlighted that families with more financial resources can provide enriching environments, leading to better student outcomes (Gorard et al., 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eE.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mean Comparison of Male and Female Senior Secondary Schools on Mobile Phone Addiction\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of mobile phone addiction, the results indicated that male students exhibited significantly higher levels of addiction than female students. This finding is consistent with studies indicating that boys are more likely to engage in excessive mobile phone use, which can lead to maladaptive behaviours (Smahel et al., 2012). The gender differences observed may reflect societal norms and expectations surrounding technology use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eF. Mean Comparison of Government and Private Senior Secondary Schools on Mobile Phone Addiction\u0026nbsp;The comparison of mobile phone addiction levels between government and private school students revealed that private school students had higher overall addiction scores. This aligns with research suggesting that students in private schools may have greater access to technology without appropriate restrictions, leading to increased usage and potential addiction (Nath et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eG.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Correlational Analysis between Family Environment and Mobile Phone Addiction among Senior Secondary School Students\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe correlational analysis revealed a significant negative relationship between the overall family environment and overall mobile phone addiction. This finding implies that a positive family environment may serve as a protective factor against mobile phone addiction. Research supports this notion, indicating that supportive family relationships can mitigate risk factors associated with technology addiction (Bickham \u0026amp; Linebarger, 2014). These results underscore the importance of fostering healthy family dynamics to help reduce mobile phone addiction among adolescents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMajor Findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA brief description of the significant findings of the present study is summarized below:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The study finds that most students report an average family environment, with 70% of males and 85% of females in this category more females have an above-average family environment (10%) compared to males (15%), while more males (15%) fall into the below-average category (5% for females).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The findings reveal that the majority of senior secondary students, both in government and private schools, experience an average level of family environment. Specifically, 63.63% of government school students and 69.44% of private school students fall into this category. A smaller portion of students from both sectors experience an above-average family environment, with 18.18% of government school students and 16.66% of private school students reporting this level. Meanwhile, 18.18% of government school students and 13.88% of private school students experience a below-average family environment, indicating that a minority of students in both types of schools face less supportive family circumstances.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The findings reveal that the majority of Senior secondary students, both in government and private schools, experience an average level of family environment. Specifically, 63.63% of government school students and 69.44% of private school students fall into this category. A smaller portion of students from both sectors experience an above-average family environment, with 18.18% of government school students and 16.66% of private school students reporting this level. Meanwhile, 18.18% of government school students and 13.88% of private school students experience a below-average family environment, indicating that many students in both types of schools face less supportive family circumstances.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The findings indicate that private school students have a higher level of mobile phone addiction compared to government school students. While 66.66% of private school students show an average level of addiction, only 59.09% of government school students fall into this category. Additionally, a more significant proportion of private school students (33.33%) have an above-average addiction level compared to 22.72% of government school students. Notably, 18.18% of government school students have below-average addiction, whereas no private school students fall into this group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The study finds that female students report significantly higher cohesion, conflict, active recreational orientation, organisation, control, and overall family environment than male students. However, there are no significant differences between males and females in expressiveness, acceptance, caring, and independence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The study shows no statistically significant differences in family environment variables between government and private senior secondary school students. Both groups display similar characteristics in recreational orientation, organisation, control, and overall family environment, suggesting that the family experiences of students are primarily comparable across these educational institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e7.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The study finds that male senior secondary students exhibit significantly higher levels of mobile phone addiction than female students, particularly in areas like maladaptive usage, self-expression, and peer relations. The overall addiction score supports this conclusion. However, no significant differences were found between genders in interpersonal relations, impulsivity, or usage time, suggesting that while males are more addicted, both genders use their phones similarly in some contexts. These findings suggest that interventions to reduce mobile phone addiction should focus more on male students to address their higher levels of maladaptive behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The study indicates that private senior secondary students have higher levels of maladaptive usage, impulsivity, and overall mobile phone addiction compared to government school students despite displaying better peer and interpersonal relations related to phone usage. In contrast, government school students show lower scores in areas associated with the negative consequences of mobile phone use. However, neither group significantly differs in how much time they spend on their phones.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e9. \u0026nbsp; The findings indicate that a better family environment is significantly associated with lower levels of mobile phone addiction among students. This suggests that supportive family dynamics and a positive home atmosphere may play a crucial role in reducing mobile phone addiction in this group.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study reveals that most senior secondary students report an average family environment, with notable gender differences\u0026mdash;females more frequently experience supportive settings. At the same time, males are more likely to face below-average environments, potentially increasing their risk of mobile phone addiction. Additionally, private school students show greater addiction levels than their government school counterparts. Gender differences also emerge as males exhibit higher addiction levels, particularly in maladaptive usage, while females report a more cohesive family environment. Overall, a supportive family dynamic is linked to lower levels of mobile phone addiction, underscoring the importance of family background in addressing this issue among students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEducational Implications\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePromotion of Positive Family Engagement\u003c/b\u003e: The study highlights the significant correlation between family environment and mobile phone addiction. Schools and educational authorities should implement programs that encourage parental involvement and provide resources to help families foster a supportive environment. Workshops and seminars focusing on effective parenting strategies and the importance of family communication can be instrumental in this regard.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGender-Sensitive Interventions\u003c/b\u003e: Given the findings that male students exhibit higher levels of mobile phone addiction, educational institutions should develop gender-sensitive intervention programs. These programs should specifically target male students and include workshops addressing their unique challenges, promoting healthier phone usage habits and fostering emotional resilience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCurriculum Development on Digital Literacy\u003c/b\u003e: With mobile phone addiction being a significant concern, integrating digital literacy into the curriculum can empower students to use technology responsibly. Schools should offer courses that educate students about the risks of excessive phone usage, the importance of balanced digital engagement, and developing critical thinking skills regarding media consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEncouragement of Extracurricular Activities\u003c/b\u003e: The findings suggest that a positive family environment correlates with lower levels of mobile phone addiction. Schools should encourage participation in extracurricular activities that promote social interaction and physical engagement, thereby reducing screen time. Sports, arts, and community service programs can provide students with alternative avenues for expression and connection.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCounselling and Support Services\u003c/b\u003e: Schools should enhance their counselling services to provide targeted support for students struggling with mobile phone addiction. Trained counsellors can offer one-on-one and group therapy sessions to help students understand the underlying issues contributing to their addiction and develop coping strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAwareness Campaigns\u003c/b\u003e: Educational institutions can organize awareness campaigns about the impact of mobile phone addiction on mental health and academic performance. These campaigns can include seminars, posters, and social media outreach to inform students and parents about the signs of addiction and ways to cultivate healthier technology habits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCollaborative Efforts with Parents\u003c/b\u003e: Schools should foster a collaborative relationship with parents by providing them with tools and strategies to monitor and manage their children\u0026rsquo;s mobile phone usage effectively. This can include guidelines for setting boundaries around technology use and encouraging family discussions about digital responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRegular Assessments and Feedback\u003c/b\u003e: Schools can implement regular assessments of students\u0026rsquo; mobile phone usage patterns and family environments to identify at-risk students early. By monitoring trends and providing feedback to students and parents, schools can create tailored interventions to address specific needs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResearch and Policy Development\u003c/b\u003e: Lastly, ongoing research is essential to understand the evolving dynamics of mobile phone addiction and family environments. Educational policymakers should utilize findings from such studies to inform policy development to promote healthy technology use among students and enhance family engagement in the educational process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eETHICS STATEMENT\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study was reviewed and approved by the Directorate of Research and Development, Central University of Kashmir, Ganderbal, Jammu and Kashmir, India. The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Central University of Kashmir and the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and for students below 18 years of age, additional consent was obtained from parents/guardians and respective school authorities. Participation was voluntary and anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCOMPETING INTERESTS\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with this manuscript. The research was conducted independently and no financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest influenced the design, execution, or reporting of this study. The authors have no affiliations or relationships that could be perceived as influencing the objectivity or integrity of the work presented herein.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFUNDING\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo funding received from any source\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDr. Firdous Ahmad Sofal conceptualized the study, supervised the research process, and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. Mohammad Akram conducted the data collection, performed the initial statistical analysis, and contributed to the drafting of the methodology and results sections. Madhumita Pardhan assisted in the literature review, data interpretation, and contributed to writing the discussion and conclusion sections. Dr. Firdous Ahmad Sofal, Mohammad Akram, and Madhumita Pardhan jointly contributed to the review and finalization of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eACKNOWLEDGEMENT\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors express their sincere gratitude to the Department of Education, Central University of Kashmir, for providing the necessary academic environment and institutional support throughout the course of this research. Special thanks are due to all the participants who contributed their time and insights, making this study possible. The authors also acknowledge the valuable feedback and encouragement received from peers and mentors during various stages of this work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to institutional restrictions and the need to protect the confidentiality and privacy of study participants. However, the data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with the approval of the Directorate of Research and Development, Central University of Kashmir.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAcharya, J. P., Acharya, I., \u0026amp; Washery, D. (2013). A study on some common health effects of cell phones amongst college students. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Community Medicine \u0026amp; Health Education, 3\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhanger, W. A., \u0026amp; Sofal, F. A. (2023). Casteism and Education: Institutional Experiences of Muslim Marginalised Students in the Higher Education Academia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Inclusion Studies,\u003c/em\u003e 9(2), 200-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/23944811231185234.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmirtha, M., \u0026amp; Kadhiravan, S. (2013). The relationship between emotional intelligence and family environment of higher secondary students. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Positive Psychology, 4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 344-347.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbola, K. C. (2013). A study on adolescents\u0026rsquo; family environment, mental health, and academic performance. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 4\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1598-1602.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBhatia, H., \u0026amp; Chadha, N. K. (1993). \u003cem\u003eFamily environment scale\u003c/em\u003e. National Psychological Corporation.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBianchi, S. M., \u0026amp; Phillips, J. L. (2005). The role of parental monitoring in adolescent mobile phone use: Implications for addiction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(6), 567\u0026ndash;577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-4312-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBickham, D. S., \u0026amp; Linebarger, D. L. (2014). Family relationships and adolescent technology use: The role of support in mitigating addiction risks. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescent Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(5), 505\u0026ndash;511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.11.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBillieux, J., Van der Linden, M., \u0026amp; Rochat, L. (2015). The role of impulsivity in actual and problematic use of the mobile phone. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences, 43\u003c/em\u003e(1), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorah, R. (2013). The relationship between family environment and academic achievement of XI standard students in Jorhat district of Assam. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 68-74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuncan, G. J., \u0026amp; Murnane, R. J. (2014). \u003cem\u003eWhither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children\u0026rsquo;s life chances\u003c/em\u003e. Russell Sage Foundation.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., \u0026amp; Hall, B. J. (2017). Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of the literature. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatry Research, 250\u003c/em\u003e, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.01.042\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEze Menaka, E. (2013). The usage and impact of internet-enabled phones on academic concentration among students of tertiary institutions: A case study of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 162-173.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGorard, S., See, B. H., \u0026amp; Davies, P. (2012). The impact of socio-economic status on educational outcomes: A review of the literature. \u003cem\u003eResearch Papers in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.606700.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGriffiths, M. D. (2018). Smartphone addiction: An overview of research and its implications for public health. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Behavioral Addictions, 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHussain, Z., \u0026amp; Griffiths, M. D. (2018). The role of family structure in adolescent mobile phone addiction: A comparative study of nuclear and extended family environments. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Behavioral Addictions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(2), 265\u0026ndash;272. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJavid, A., Malik, M. A., \u0026amp; Gujjar, A. A. (2011 February). Mobile phone culture and its psychological impacts on students learning at the university level. Language in India: Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow,11(2),415-422.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, J., Lee, H. K., \u0026amp; Kim, J. H. (2018). Family factors associated with mobile phone addiction in adolescents. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescence, 65\u003c/em\u003e, 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.03.002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuss, D. J., \u0026amp; Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Internet gaming addiction: A systematic review of empirical research. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-010-9318-1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuss, D. J., \u0026amp; Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030311.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKwon, M., Lee, J. Y., Won, W. Y., Park, J. W., Min, J. A., \u0026amp; Cho, C. H. (2013). Development and validation of a smartphone addiction scale (SAS). \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE, 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), e56936. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056936.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLepp, A., Barkley, J. E., \u0026amp; Karpinski, A. C. (2013). The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college students. \u003cem\u003eComputers in Human Behavior, 31\u003c/em\u003e, 343-350.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, J., Li, X., Wang, L., \u0026amp; Zhang, Q. (2020). Family environment and adolescent problematic internet use: A moderated mediation model of parental control and peer pressure. \u003cem\u003eComputers in Human Behavior, 108\u003c/em\u003e, 106307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106307.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoos, R. H., \u0026amp; Moos, B. S. (2002). \u003cem\u003eFamily environment scale manual: Development, applications, and research\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurray, C. E., Baker, J. C., \u0026amp; West, J. C. (2020). Emotional support in adolescence: Exploring gender differences in family environments. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescent Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 452\u0026ndash;472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558419826745.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNath, S., Banerjee, A., \u0026amp; Singh, S. (2016). Technology access and its impact on student behavior: A study of private school adolescents. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Technology \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 210\u0026ndash;221. https://doi.org/10.2307/23608532.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePew Research Center. (2018). \u003cem\u003eTeens, social media \u0026amp; technology 2018\u003c/em\u003e. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRather, R. A., \u0026amp; Sofal, F. A. (2023). Academic administration of Indian school system: A study on emotional intelligence of school academic administrators in relation to various background variables. \u003cem\u003eManagement in Education\u003c/em\u003e, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206231189845\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaval, V. V., \u0026amp; Parke, R. D. (2007). The role of family processes in adolescent development: A contextual approach. \u003cem\u003eFamily Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(5), 433\u0026ndash;446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00462.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShambare, I., Rugman. and Howa. T. (2012, January 18). Are mobile phones the 21st-century addiction? African journal of business Management, 6(2),573-577, doi;10.5897/AJBM11,1940.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShivane, D. (2011 May). A study of family environment and mental health of the tribal and urban secondary students. \u003cem\u003eIndian Streams Research journals,1\u003c/em\u003e(4).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmahel, D., Brown, B. B., \u0026amp; Kuss, D. J. (2012). Excessive mobile phone use and its relationship with maladaptive behaviors in adolescents. \u003cem\u003eCyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(5), 314\u0026ndash;319. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0513.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, J. A., Jones, T. M., \u0026amp; Green, P. R. (2011). The role of extended family systems in adolescent development: Emotional and social support. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(3), 289\u0026ndash;302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2011.590456.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVelayudhan, A., \u0026amp; Srividya, S. (2012). \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and validation of a mobile phone addiction scale\u003c/em\u003e. National Psychological Corporation.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalsh, K. (2012). Cell phones and student achievement: A review of the literature. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25-35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. (2019). \u003cem\u003eAdolescent health and wellbeing: Mobile phone usage among adolescents\u003c/em\u003e. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/adolescent-health.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, S., Liu, Z., \u0026amp; Zhang, X. (2017). Family structure and adolescent addiction: The role of family dynamics. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(4), 455\u0026ndash;463. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000327.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"discpsy","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Psychology](https://www.springer.com/44202)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Psychology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Family Environment, Mobile Phone Addiction, Gender and Institutional Type","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6887500/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6887500/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Mobile phone addiction has become a growing concern in today’s digital age, particularly among students. This study explores the relationship between family environment and mobile phone addiction among Secondary school students. A sample of 80 students (40 male and 40 female) was selected using simple random sampling technique. Family environment scale developed by Harpreet Bhatia and N.K. Chadha (1993) and mobile phone addiction scale standardized A. Velayudhan and S. Srividya’s (2012) were used to collect the data. Results indicate that students with a more positive family environment tend to exhibit lower levels of phone addiction. Female students generally reported better family environments, while males showed higher levels of phone addiction. The study highlights the significant role of family dynamics in influencing students’ mobile phone use, suggesting that a supportive family environment can help reduce phone addiction.","manuscriptTitle":"Influence of Family Environment on Mobile Phone Addiction among Senior Secondary School Students in Central Kashmir with Reference to Gender and Institutional Type","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-28 11:10:06","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6887500/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-03T09:19:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-19T19:00:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-18T07:34:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"10487109975508441542438139671425185285","date":"2025-08-11T04:58:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"652140968036093444836439720794861069","date":"2025-08-10T16:42:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-31T18:36:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"133324794219591730387114469366445320378","date":"2025-07-31T17:54:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-28T16:33:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"205266924601680612234778551298145917266","date":"2025-07-24T18:07:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-24T15:45:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-24T15:41:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-07T07:21:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-07T07:15:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Psychology","date":"2025-07-07T07:10:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"discpsy","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Psychology](https://www.springer.com/44202)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Psychology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"bbc4cdb3-bd7a-4b45-aec3-6a041323cc09","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 28th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-16T18:23:39+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-28 11:10:06","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6887500","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6887500","identity":"rs-6887500","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}