The uses and abuses of Facebook: A review of Facebook addiction

By Tracii Ryan, Andrea Chester, J. Reece, Sophia Xenos. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2014

625 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract Background and aims: Recent research suggests that use of social networking sites can be addictive for some individuals. Due to the link between motivations for media use and the development of addiction, this systematic review examines Facebook-related uses and gratifications research and Facebook addiction research. Method: Searches of three large academic databases revealed 24 studies examining the uses and gratifications of Facebook, and nine studies of Facebook addiction. Results: Comparison of uses and gratifications research reveals that the most popular mo- tives for Facebook use are relationship maintenance, passing time, entertainment, and companionship. These motivations may be related to Facebook addiction through use that is habitual, excessive, or motivated by a desire for mood alteration. Examination of Facebook addiction research indicates that Facebook use can become habitual or excessive, and some addicts use the site to escape from negative moods. However, examination of Facebook addic- tion measures highlights inconsistency in the field. Discussion: There is some evidence to support the argument that uses and gratifications of Facebook are linked with Facebook addiction. Furthermore, it appears as if the social skill model of addiction may explain Facebook addiction, but inconsistency in the measurement of this condition limits the ability to provide conclusive arguments. Conclusions: This paper recommends that further research be performed to establish the links between uses and gratifications and Facebook addiction. Furthermore, in order to enhance the construct validity of Facebook addiction, researchers should take a more systematic approach to assessment.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bfe96702f9f3de44672ebe03ac13d6bde582e725

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

  1. Mark D. Griffiths
  2. Daria J. Kuss
  3. Kağan Kırcaburun
  4. Zsolt Demetrovics
  5. Joël Billieux
  6. Cecilie Schou Andreassen
  7. Ş. B. Tosuntaş
  8. Nazir S. Hawi

In Social Psychology

  1. Daria J. Kuss
  2. Cecilie Schou Andreassen
  3. Mark D. Griffiths
  4. Joël Billieux
  5. Ståle Pallesen
  6. Saleem Alhabash
  7. Ana V. Nikcevic
  8. Marcantonio M. Spada

In Sociology and Political Science

  1. Mark D. Griffiths
  2. Kağan Kırcaburun
  3. Daria J. Kuss
  4. Zsolt Demetrovics
  5. Joël Billieux
  6. Cecilie Schou Andreassen
  7. Ståle Pallesen
  8. Ş. B. Tosuntaş

Citations in the corpus