Frontiers in Psychology, volume 11, article 617140, 16 December 2020
- Open access
- 584 social media users
- Online survey
- Stepwise regression
- Brief research report
- Open access
Free full text: the open access article (CC BY 4.0), re-typeset as a clean PDF with the same content as the published version. Please cite the published version.
- problematic social media use
- social media motives
- problematic behaviour
- well-being
- self-esteem
- affect
- problematic consumer behaviour
- social media addiction
- social networking sites
- uses and gratifications
- intrapersonal motive
- surveillance motive
- negative affect
- positive affect
- psychological well-being
- Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS)
- Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
- PANAS
- Scales of Psychological Well-Being
- online survey
- stepwise multiple linear regression
- convenience sample
People who use social media to escape everyday problems or to record their own lives are the most likely to use it problematically. In a survey of 584 adult users, this intrapersonal motive and negative affect were the strongest predictors of problematic social media use, and 6.7% of users were classed as problematic.
Key findings
- Using social media for yourself predicts problematic use. Among 584 social media users, the intrapersonal motive (using social media to forget everyday complications, pass time and record one’s life) was the strongest predictor of problematic social media use (β = 0.38) (Schivinski et al., 2020).
- Negative affect also predicts problematic use. Negative affect (β = 0.22), daily social media use (β = 0.18) and the surveillance motive (β = 0.12) raised problematic use, and positive affect lowered it (β = −0.09); together they explained about 37% of the variance, over and above age and gender (Schivinski et al., 2020).
- About one user in fifteen is a problematic user. 6.68% (n = 39) of the sample scored 4 or more on all six items of the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Schivinski et al., 2020).
- Problematic users differ on well-being, self-esteem and motives. Problematic users used more platforms, reported more negative affect (d = 1.08) and stronger intrapersonal motives (d = 1.07), and had lower psychological well-being and self-esteem than other users (Schivinski et al., 2020).
At a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional online survey (Qualtrics), advertised on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, May to June 2017; no incentives
- Participants
- 584 English-speaking social media users aged 18 or over (67.8% women; mean age 32.3, SD 12.6), from 759 respondents after excluding missing data
- Measures
- Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale; Scales of Psychological Well-Being (18 items); Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; social media use motives (adapted Motivation for Twitter Use Measure: surveillance, network expansion, intrapersonal motive, relationship maintenance); PANAS
- Problematic use
- Scores of 4 or more on all six BSMAS items (strict monothetic cut-off)
- Analysis
- Pearson correlations, Welch-type t-tests with Bonferroni correction, and stepwise multiple linear regression controlling for age and gender (IBM SPSS 26)
- Ethics
- School of Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee, Nottingham Trent University
Predictors of problematic social media use
Tables
Table 1. Structure of the sample, social media (SM) patterns of use and preferences, and descriptive statistics (n = 584)
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Gender (female, %) | 396 (67.81) |
| Age (years) (mean, SD) | 32.28 (12.62) |
| Not in a relationship (n, %) | 157 (26.88) |
| Most used SM platform (n, %) | |
| Facebook (including “Messenger”) | 326 (55.82) |
| 117 (20.03) | |
| 60 (10.27) | |
| Snapchat | 58 (9.93) |
| Other | 23 (3.91) |
| Number Of SM Platforms Used Daily, (n, %) | |
| 1 | 227 (38.86) |
| 2 | 133 (22.77) |
| 3 | 131 (22.43) |
| 4 | 69 (11.81) |
| 5 | 19 (3.25) |
| 6 or more | 5 (0.85) |
| Daily SM Use, (n, %) | |
| Very rarely | 24 (4.11) |
| Rarely | 88 (15.07) |
| Frequently | 155 (26.54) |
| Very frequently | 203 (34.76) |
| Access to SM via smartphone (n, %) | 564 (96.58) |
| Daily SM occurrences (mean, SD) | 18.58 (63.30) |
| Minutes spent per each session (mean, SD) | 5.58 (38.76) |
| Problematic SM use (n, %) | |
| Non-problematic SM use | 545 (93.32) |
| Problematic SM use | 39 (6.68) |
| Descriptive Statistics for Overall Scale Scores | |
| Problematic SM use (mean, SD) | 13.41 (4.98) |
| Psychological well-being (mean, SD) | 79.30 (12.24) |
| Self-esteem (mean, SD) | 28.33 (6.32) |
| SM use motivation: Surveillance (mean, SD) | 19.65 (5.98) |
| SM use motivation: Network expansion (mean, SD) | 12.59 (4.20) |
| SM use motivation: Intrapersonal motive (mean, SD) | 17.26 (5.18) |
| SM use motivation: Relationship maintenance (mean, SD) | 10.35 (2.70) |
| Positive Affect (mean, SD) | 31.42 (7.29) |
| Negative Affect (mean, SD) | 21.52 (7.52) |
Problematic SM use risk was computed using a strict monothetic cut-off approach, which considered scores ≥ 4 on all six items of the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS).
Table 2. Correlation matrix across the main variables of the study (n = 584)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Problematic social media use | – | −0.30** | −0.27** | 0.25** | 0.29** | 0.51** | 0.31** | −0.08* | 0.37** |
| 2. Psychological well-being | – | 0.78** | −0.04 | −0.09* | −0.22** | 0.01 | 0.45** | −0.52** | |
| 3. Self-esteem | – | −0.09* | −0.12** | −0.26** | −0.08 | 0.38** | −0.55** | ||
| 4. Surveillance | – | 0.40** | 0.21** | 0.17** | 0.12** | 0.13** | |||
| 5. Network expansion | – | 0.47** | 0.49** | −0.01 | 0.13** | ||||
| 6. Intrapersonal motive | – | 0.50** | −0.03 | 0.28** | |||||
| 7. Relationship maintenance | – | 0.13** | 0.10* | ||||||
| 8. Positive affect | – | −0.08 | |||||||
| 9. Negative affect | – | ||||||||
| Age | −0.29** | 0.12** | 0.19** | −0.13** | −0.10* | −0.28** | −0.16** | −0.09* | −0.25** |
| Gender | 0.03 | 0.12** | −0.02 | −0.09* | −0.10** | 0.07 | 0.15** | −0.01 | −0.03 |
Zero-order Pearson correlations; **p < .01, *p < .05 (two-tailed). Social media use motives: surveillance, network expansion, intrapersonal motive, relationship maintenance. Gender reference 1 = female.
Table 3. Main differences across social media (SM) users presenting with low and high risk of problematic social media use (n = 584)
| Measure | Low risk | High risk | t | df | Diff. | CI lower | CI upper | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of SM platforms used | 2.15 (1.19) | 2.90 (1.29) | −3.48 | 42.77 | −0.74 | −1.17 | −0.31 | 0.60 |
| Psychological well-being | 4.43 (0.66) | 4.00 (0.73) | 3.64 | 42.66 | 0.44 | 0.20 | 0.68 | 0.61 |
| Self-esteem | 28.59 (6.19) | 24.74 (7.19) | 3.25 | 42.12 | 3.84 | 1.46 | 6.23 | 0.57 |
| Surveillance | 19.43 (5.90) | 22.69 (6.22) | −3.17 | 43.05 | −3.26 | −5.33 | −1.19 | 0.53 |
| Network expansion | 12.46 (4.19) | 14.41 (3.91) | −3.00 | 44.47 | −1.96 | −3.27 | −0.64 | 0.48 |
| Intrapersonal motive | 16.92 (5.07) | 22.03 (4.38) | −6.95 | 45.62 | −5.11 | −6.58 | −3.63 | 1.07 |
| Relationship maintenance | 10.28 (2.69) | 11.38 (2.59) | −2.56 | 44.10 | −1.10 | −1.97 | −0.24 | 0.41 |
| Positive affect | 31.52 (7.22) | 30.03 (8.18) | 1.11 | 42.35 | 1.49 | −1.23 | 4.21 | 0.19 |
| Negative affect | 20.96 (7.16) | 29.31 (8.22) | −6.17 | 42.23 | −8.34 | −11.07 | −5.62 | 1.08 |
Mean (SD). Low risk n = 545; high risk n = 39. Diff. = mean difference; d = Cohen’s d. The article notes that results are statistically significant after Bonferroni correction (p < .006). SD, standard deviation; df, degrees of freedom; CI, confidence interval.
Table 4. The relationship between problematic social media use and key related predictors
| Predictor | Step 1 B | Step 1 SE | Step 1 β | Step 2 B | Step 2 SE | Step 2 β | Step 3 B | Step 3 SE | Step 3 β | Step 4 B | Step 4 SE | Step 4 β | Step 5 B | Step 5 SE | Step 5 β |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intrapersonal motive | 0.50 | 0.03 | 0.51*** | 0.43 | 0.03 | 0.43*** | 0.39 | 0.03 | 0.40*** | 0.37 | 0.04 | 0.38*** | 0.37 | 0.03 | 0.38*** |
| Negative affect | 0.16 | 0.02 | 0.16*** | 0.16 | 0.02 | 0.24*** | 0.16 | 0.02 | 0.23*** | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.22*** | |||
| Daily social media use | 0.79 | 0.14 | 0.19*** | 0.74 | 0.14 | 0.18*** | 0.77 | 0.14 | 0.18*** | ||||||
| Surveillance | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.10** | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.12** | |||||||||
| Positive affect | −0.06 | 0.02 | −0.09** | ||||||||||||
| R²: .263 (26.3%); .320 (32%); .354 (35.4%); .364 (36.4%); .373 (37.3%) | |||||||||||||||
| ΔR² (steps 2–5): .057 (57%); .034 (34%); .010 (10%); .009 (0.9%) | |||||||||||||||
| Model: F(1, 581) = 207.66***; F(2, 580) = 136.36***; F(3, 579) = 105.79***; F(4, 578) = 82.72***; F(5, 577) = 68.54*** | |||||||||||||||
| Steps: ΔF(1, 580) = 48.20***; ΔF(1, 579) = 30.69***; ΔF(1, 578) = 9.08**; ΔF(1, 577) = 7.88** | |||||||||||||||
Stepwise multiple linear regression. ***p < .001; **p < .05 (as defined in the article). The final model (step 5) excluded age and gender (control variables), psychological well-being, self-esteem, network expansion and relationship maintenance. Percentages for ΔR² as printed.
The question
Research on problematic social media use has focused mostly on Facebook, although people now use many platforms. We examined which factors predict problematic use of social media in general: the motives for using social media, psychological well-being, self-esteem, and positive and negative affect, over and above age, gender and patterns of use.
Implications
Practical implications
The motive for using social media, and especially using it to escape problems or pass time, may help identify users at risk; negative affect was a strong predictor, which matters at times such as the COVID-19 pandemic when exposure to distressing information on social media is high. Problematic users also reported lower self-esteem and used more platforms.
Theoretical implications
The study links broad social media use motives, drawn from uses and gratifications research, to problematic social media use across platforms, and supports the associations of problematic use with lower well-being and self-esteem and with negative affect.
Limitations and future research
- The cross-sectional design does not allow causal conclusions.
- Self-reports may not reflect actual use, and the convenience, self-selected sample was relatively small.
- The strict BSMAS cut-off lacks evidence of diagnostic accuracy, and only four social media use motives were examined.
Questions this paper answers
What predicts problematic social media use?
In a survey of 584 users, the strongest predictors were the intrapersonal motive (using social media to forget everyday complications, pass time and record one’s life) and negative affect, followed by daily use and the surveillance motive (Schivinski et al., 2020).
How common is problematic social media use?
In this sample, 6.68% of users met a strict cut-off on the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale; earlier studies report rates from 1.6% to 18% (Schivinski et al., 2020).
Is self-esteem related to problematic social media use?
Yes. Problematic users had lower self-esteem (d = 0.57) and lower psychological well-being (d = 0.61) than other users, although self-esteem did not remain in the final regression model (Schivinski et al., 2020).
What is the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale?
A six-item questionnaire measuring the core components of addiction applied to social media: salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict and relapse (Andreassen et al., 2016).
Key concepts
- Problematic social media use (PSMU)
- Excessive, poorly controlled social media use that shows addiction-like symptoms and causes problems in daily life.
- Intrapersonal motive
- Using social media to forget the complications of everyday life, remember what was done, pass time and record everyday life.
- Surveillance motive
- Using social media to follow social issues, current affairs and professional information.
- Positive and negative affect
- Trait-like tendencies to experience pleasant (enthusiasm, alertness) or unpleasant (distress, nervousness) emotions.
Open science and materials
- Full text (PDF) Open access article re-typeset as a clean PDF, including all tables
- Published version Frontiers in Psychology (open access)
Study materials
- Social media use motives
- Adapted from the Motivation for Twitter Use Measure (Lee & Kim, 2014) by replacing ‘Twitter’ with ‘social media’: 14 items rated from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, covering surveillance (5 items), network expansion (3), intrapersonal motive (4) and relationship maintenance (2).
- Data
- The data set is not publicly available because of confidentiality limits set by the ethics committee; requests can be made to the first author.
How to cite
Schivinski, B., Brzozowska-Woś, M., Stansbury, E., Satel, J., Montag, C., & Pontes, H. M. (2020). Exploring the role of social media use motives, psychological well-being, self-esteem, and affect in problematic social media use. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 617140. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.617140
Open access under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 licence.