| Title |
An exploration of the link between adult attachment and problematic Facebook use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychology, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40359-018-0245-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sally Flynn, Chris Noone, Kiran M. Sarma |
| Abstract |
Previous studies have reported on positive and negative psychological outcomes associated with the use of social networking sites (SNSs). Research efforts linking Facebook use with depression and low self-esteem have indicated that it might be the manner in which people engage with the site that makes its use problematic for some people. The aim of the current study was to test a theoretical model of problematic Facebook use, using adult attachment style as the predictor variable of interest. A cross-sectional design was employed wherein adult Facebook users (n = 717) completed measures of psychological distress, self-esteem, and adult attachment, in addition to measures of problematic Facebook use (i.e. social comparison, self-disclosures, impression management, & intrusive Facebook use). Data were analysed using hierarchical multiple regression and mediation analyses. The results of this study indicated that attachment anxiety was predictive of all facets of problematic Facebook use, and that attachment avoidance was predictive of impression management, and social consequences of intrusive Facebook use. Further analyses confirmed the mediating influences of psychological distress and self-esteem on these relationships. Users of Facebook with higher levels of attachment insecurity may be gravitating towards the site in order to fulfil their attachment needs. This tendency is likely to be particularly prevalent for those individuals with low self-esteem who are experiencing psychological distress. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 9 | 28% |
| United States | 3 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Russia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 84% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 9% |
| Scientists | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 167 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 66 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 50 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 21 | 13% |
| Unknown | 68 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 117. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2019.
All research outputs
#362,734
of 25,712,965 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#27
of 1,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,649
of 342,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,712,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.