,
Technological advancement and increased internet usage have deeply infiltrated all spheres of human life, leading to significant changes in daily behavioral patterns, particularly among Generation Z. This generation, surrounded by technology from a young age, has developed smartphone usage patterns that often lead to excessive reliance on such devices for daily functioning and mood regulation, which can result in compulsive buying behaviors. The COVID-19 pandemic further intensified reliance on technology, highlighting smartphone usage as a means of escaping reality. This paper aimed to investigate the connection between smartphone addiction and compulsive online shopping directly and through the concept of mood regulation. An empirical study using a survey method was conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the beginning of 2025, with a sample of 178 members of Generation Z. The assumed relationships between the variables were analyzed using correlation and regression analysis. The results showed a positive correlation between all investigated variables and that smartphone addiction has a direct effect on compulsive online shopping, as well as an indirect impact through mood regulation via smartphones (partial mediation). Higher smartphone addiction may indirectly intensify compulsive online shopping through mood regulation with smartphones; however, there is also a direct effect of smartphone addiction on compulsive online shopping that is not fully explained by the mediating variable. The obtained results enrich existing knowledge of the considered variables and represent an additional guideline for developing new marketing strategies, both in general and specifically in the context of Generation Z.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
