背景:社交媒体不仅带来好处,而且带来弊端,比如上瘾的行为。虽然一种矛盾的封闭不安全的依恋风格与互联网和智能手机成瘾有着显著的联系,关于社交媒体成瘾的类似分析仍在等待中。这项研究旨在探索社交媒体成瘾,专注于依恋风格的变化,精神痛苦,以及使用社交媒体和不使用社交媒体的学生之间的个性。此外,它调查特定的依恋风格是否与社交媒体成瘾有关。
方法:数据来自571名大学生(平均年龄=23.61,SD=5.00,65.5%为女性;响应率=20.06%),通过对西格蒙德弗洛伊德私人大学维也纳所有注册学生进行的在线调查。卑尔根社交媒体成瘾量表(BSMAS)区分了沉迷于和不沉迷于社交媒体的学生。使用比勒费尔德伙伴关系期望问卷(BFPE)衡量附件风格,通过简短症状清单(BSI-18),和人格由五大清单(BFI-10)。
结果:在总样本中,22.7%的学生被确定为沉迷于社交媒体。为了个性,研究表明,与非社交媒体成瘾(NSMA)学生相比,社交媒体成瘾(SMA)学生在神经质维度上的数值明显更高.SMA在所有心理健康方面的得分也更高——抑郁,焦虑,和躯体化。SMA比NSMA更频繁地表现出不安全的连接方式,具体来说,一种矛盾的封闭附件风格。两步聚类分析验证了最初的发现,发现三个集群:(1)安全附件,主要与社交媒体成瘾的发生率较低和心理健康问题的发生率较低有关;(2)矛盾的封闭依恋,通常与社交媒体成瘾率较高和心理健康问题水平增加有关;和(3)矛盾的依恋,表现出社交媒体成瘾的中等患病率和相对公平的心理健康状况。
结论:结果与先前关于互联网和智能手机成瘾的研究一致,指出在所有三种情况下,矛盾的封闭附件风格的相关性。考虑到这些发现,应该制定和实施社交媒体成瘾的治疗干预措施。
BACKGROUND: Social media bring not only benefits but also downsides, such as addictive behavior. While an ambivalent closed insecure attachment style has been prominently linked with internet and smartphone addiction, a similar analysis for social media addiction is still pending. This study aims to explore social media addiction, focusing on variations in attachment style, mental distress, and personality between students with and without problematic social media use. Additionally, it investigates whether a specific attachment style is connected to social media addiction.
METHODS: Data were collected from 571 college students (mean age = 23.61, SD = 5.00, 65.5% female; response rate = 20.06%) via an online survey administered to all enrolled students of Sigmund Freud PrivatUniversity Vienna. The Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS) differentiated between students addicted and not addicted to social media. Attachment style was gauged using the Bielefeld Partnership Expectations Questionnaire (BFPE), mental distress by the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18), and personality by the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10).
RESULTS: Of the total sample, 22.7% of students were identified as addicted to social media. For personality, it was demonstrated that socially media addicted (SMA) students reported significantly higher values on the neuroticism dimension compared to not socially media addicted (NSMA) students. SMA also scored higher across all mental health dimensions-depressiveness, anxiety, and somatization. SMA more frequently exhibited an insecure attachment style than NSMA, specifically, an ambivalent closed attachment style. A two-step cluster analysis validated the initial findings, uncovering three clusters: (1) secure attachment, primarily linked with fewer occurrences of social media addiction and a lower incidence of mental health problems; (2) ambivalent closed attachment, generally associated with a higher rate of social media addiction and increased levels of mental health problems; and (3) ambivalent clingy attachment, manifesting a medium prevalence of social media addiction and a relatively equitable mental health profile.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes are aligned with previous research on internet and smartphone addiction, pointing out the relevance of an ambivalent closed attachment style in all three contexts. Therapeutic interventions for social media addiction should be developed and implemented considering these findings.