Abstract
BACKGROUND: The widespread use of digital technologies has raised growing concerns about their impact on mental health. While self-regulation has been proposed as a protective factor, little is known about how distinct psychological profiles based on self-regulatory and technology use patterns relate to psychological distress. Person-centered approaches, such as latent profile analysis, may offer deeper insights, particularly in underrepresented populations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify latent psychological profiles based on self-regulation, nomophobia (fear of being without a phone), and problematic use of the internet and social media (defined by behavioral symptoms), to examine their associations with general psychological distress and the presence of emotional symptoms in a Colombian sample. Additionally, the predictive roles of age and gender in class membership were explored. METHODS: Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling strategy aimed at ensuring heterogeneity of the sample in terms of age and gender. A total of 453 participants aged 12 to 57 years (mean 21.03, SD 8.41 years; 257/453, 56.7% female) completed validated measures of self-regulation (Abbreviated Self-Regulation Questionnaire), nomophobia (Nomophobia Questionnaire), internet and social media use (MULTICAGE-TIC, a multidomain screening questionnaire based on the CAGE framework), and psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-12). Latent profile analysis was conducted using standardized scores of continuous variables. Model fit was assessed using the Bayesian information criterion, entropy, and bootstrapped likelihood ratio test. Differences in psychological distress scores across latent classes were examined through variance analysis (ANOVA) and regression models. A multinomial logistic regression tested the predictive value of age and gender for class membership. RESULTS: The optimal solution revealed 4 distinct latent profiles (entropy=0.85). Class 1 showed high self-regulation and low problematic technology use, displaying the lowest psychological distress scores. Class 2 presented moderate levels across all indicators but the highest level of psychological distress. Classes 3 and 4 showed mixed patterns. Class 3 (higher information and communication technology [ICT] use and lower self-regulation) exhibited lower distress than class 2, whereas class 4 (younger individuals with low self-regulation and moderately high ICT use) showed higher distress than class 3. Psychological distress differed significantly across profiles (ANOVA, P<.001). Age and gender predicted class membership. Older males were more likely to belong to class 1, and younger females were more likely to be classified into classes 3 and 4. CONCLUSIONS: Latent profile analysis identified distinct configurations of digital behavior, self-regulation, and psychological distress. Self-regulation consistently differentiated profiles with lower distress scores, suggesting its relevance for understanding how individuals manage ICT use. These findings support the value of person-centered approaches to characterize heterogeneous patterns of technology-related behaviors. The study provides evidence from a Spanish-speaking sample, offering a novel perspective on psychological distress and problematic technology use in contexts that remain underrepresented in the literature.