Is it meaningful to distinguish between Facebook addiction and social networking sites addiction? Psychometric analysis of Facebook addiction and social networking sites addiction scales

Abstract

Studies conducted on Social Networking Sites (SNSs) addiction have to a large extent focused on Facebook as a prototypical example of SNS. Nonetheless, the evolution of SNSs has spawn conceptual and methodological controversies in terms of the operationalization of SNS addiction. In order to bring more clarity to this field the present study aimed to investigate the construct validity of the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS) in comparison to the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (BFAS) among 1099 young subjects (146 Facebook-only users and 953 who had an account on Facebook and at least one additional SNS). Furthermore, the study aimed to investigate the unique contribution of SNS addiction to stress and general well-being above and beyond personality characteristic and Facebook addiction specifically. Participants completed a survey assessing SNS addiction, Facebook addiction, demography, Big Five personality traits, perceived stress, and general subjective well-being. BSMAS had acceptable fit with the data and demonstrated good reliability. Results showed that the scores of BSMAS were strongly associated with those of BFAS and that the relationship between the two measures was stronger in the group of Facebook-only users than in the group of multisite-social networkers. Moreover, SNS addiction was positively associated with perceived stress and negatively associated with subjective well-being after controlling for Facebook addiction and other study variables. Theoretical and methodological implications of the findings are discussed.

Measuring Problematic Facebook Use among Adolescents and Young Adults with the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale: A Psychometric Analysis by Applying Item Response Theory

“…The association between PFU and problematic Internet use had been previously reported (e.g., [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]), and could be explained by the fact that PFU could be considered a specific form of problematic Internet use [ 9 ]. Along the same lines, the relationship between PFU and problematic SNSs use has been previously reported e.g., [ 40 , 93 ], but the magnitude of the relationship found in the present study was not strong enough to conclude an overlap between the two constructs.…”

“…As the authors of previous systematic reviews stated [ 94 , 95 ], future studies should propose hypotheses specific to different SNSs because not considering the type of sites included under the umbrella term of “social networking” might suppress relevant differences in people’s motivations to use SNSs [ 94 , 95 ], as well as in the negative consequences due to their excessive use, which may be different in relation to the specific type of SNS (e.g., [ 40 , 93 ]. Given its good psychometric properties, the use of the BFAS could be helpful for researchers to better understand the specificity of PFU in relation to other types of problematic SNSs use (e.g., Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter).…”

Psychometric Analysis and Validation of the Italian Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale

“…The results confirm other validation studies of the BFAS demonstrating a one-factor construct (e.g., , alongside good reliability and validity. Furthermore, the positive high correlation between these two scales can be interpreted, as shown by recently published research (Balcerowska et al 2020), that general addiction to SNSs and addiction to Facebook specifically basically refer to the same addiction. However, the assessment of addiction to a specific SNS (e.g., Facebook) should be conducted when researchers are interested in unique aspects of the participant's functioning, which may differ between individuals, dependent upon the specific SNS.…”

Exploring the Dimensions of Smartphone Distraction: Development, Validation, Measurement Invariance, and Latent Mean Differences of the Smartphone Distraction Scale (SDS)

“…Therefore, investigating the role of SD alongside its role in distress and problematic smartphone use ( 133 ) via problematic social media use ( 95 , 134 – 136 ) and its differentiation from similar constructs (i.e., mind-wandering, interruptions) ( 137 , 138 ), is timely because it is the context (smartphone use) and the function which accounts for the renewed scientific interest in the construct. The present authors utilize the term “problematic social media use” (similarly to “problematic smartphone use”) instead of “social media addiction” given that the latter is not currently a formally accepted diagnostic construct ( 139 ) and respective screening measures reflect problematic engagement. “Social media addiction” as a term will only be used in the present manuscript where referenced in other studies.…”