See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335235803

Neuroticism and Facebook Addiction: How Social Media can Affect Mood?

Article  in  American Journal of Family Therapy · August 2019

DOI: 10.1080/01926187.2019.1624223

CITATIONS READS
37 4,420

2 authors:

Michelle Drouin Irum Abbasi

Purdue University Fort Wayne 25 PUBLICATIONS   380 CITATIONS   
109 PUBLICATIONS   3,305 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project INTERACT (INternet, TEchnology, Romance, And Couple Time) View project

The Prevalence, Predictors, Causes, Treatment, and Implications of Procrastination Behaviors in General, Academic, and Work Setting View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Irum Abbasi on 12 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY
2019, VOL. 47, NO. 4, 199–215
https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2019.1624223

Neuroticism and Facebook Addiction: How Social Media

can Affect Mood?
Irum Abbasia and Michelle Drouinb
a
San Jose State University, Psychology, San Jose, California, USA; bDepartment of Psychology,
Indiana Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Individuals high in neuroticism experience negative affect and Received 5 March 2019
social anxiety, therefore, they may prefer online communications Revised 20 May 2019
where they are able to portray an idealized image of themselves Accepted 22 May 2019
to attract social support, seek validation, and enhance mood.
KEYWORDS
These motivations may lead to greater social media use and Behavioral addiction;
addiction. In this study of Facebook users (N ¼ 742; 474 females, Facebook; negative affect;
268 males) who mostly resided in the United States, we personality; social
explored the association between neuroticism, Facebook addic- networking; social overload
tion, and negative affect. Our mediation model showed a partial
mediating effect of Facebook addiction in predicting negative
affect in individuals who were high in neuroticism. In theory,
individuals who use Facebook as a tool to improve their mood
may actually experience more negative affect due to social over-
load, jealousy, and envy. Individuals high in neuroticism, who
already maintain a higher negative affect than those low in
neuroticism, might be particularly inclined towards increased
Facebook use, which could deteriorate their mood further.
Consequently, individuals and therapists should be aware of the
personality traits that could lead to greater Facebook addiction
and a higher negative mood. Therapists could encourage users
to engage in activities, other than social media use, that can
improve mood without leading to addiction.

Facebook has grown exponentially from 5.5 million active users in 2005 to
2.38 billion monthly active users as of the first quarter of 2019
(Facebook.com). Of these users, 1.15 billion users access Facebook on their
mobile devices (Facebook.com). Self-presentation appears to be a central
motivation for Facebook use (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012), as is the ability to
forge and maintain social connections (e.g., Barker, Dozier, Weiss, & Borden,
2015). Although Facebook and other social networking sites (SNSs) are outlets
for self-expression and social connectedness, excessive and compulsive
Facebook activity can disrupt daily functioning and impair activities related to

CONTACT Irum Abbasi [email protected] San Jose State University, Psychology, San Jose, CA
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of
the article.
This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please
see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2020.1746550)
! 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
200 I. ABBASI AND M. DROUIN

school, work, friendships, and romantic relationship. Such excessive Facebook

use is interchangeably referred to as “Facebook addiction” (Andreassen,
Torsheim, Brunborg, & Pallesen, 2012), “problematic Facebook use” (Marino
et al., 2016), or “Facebook intrusion” (Elphinston & Noller, 2011).
Both neuroticism and negative affect have been linked to behavioral addic-
tions (Sejud, 2013). This is also true for Internet addition: Neuroticism is sig-
nificantly correlated with time spent on the Internet (Amichai-Hamburger,
Wainapel, & Fox, 2002) and is also a predictor of Internet addiction (Hardie
& Tee, 2007), and negative affect is also associated with Internet addiction
(Sejud, 2013). The finding that certain types of people would be prone to
Internet use and addiction aligns with the selective person-environment trans-
action theory, which suggests that individuals select environments, to a cer-
tain degree, as a function of their disposition or personality (Caspi & Roberts,
2001). The current study examines the connection between neuroticism and
negative affect in the context of Facebook addiction.

Background
Facebook-specific behaviors, compulsive Facebook use, and the addiction to
technology are linked to Facebook addiction and adverse interpersonal con-
sequences (Drouin, Miller, & Dibble, 2014, Drouin, Miller, & Dibble, 2015;
Elphinston & Noller, 2011; Marshall, Bejanyan, Di Castro, & Lee, 2012;
McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). Some of the addictive elements seen in
Facebook addiction include cognitive preoccupation, deficient self-regula-
tion, mood modifying experiences, neglect of personal life, tolerance, con-
cealment of addictive behaviors, escapism, loss of control, withdrawal, and
interpersonal conflict (Elphinston & Noller, 2011; Kuss & Griffiths, 2011).
However, not everyone engages in social networking, and some researchers
have found that one’s positive or negative attitude towards social network-
ing is a least partially dependent upon personality traits (Lewis & Fabos,
2005; Spitzberg, 2006). Moreover, certain personality types may be more
likely to exhibit online compulsive behaviors, and this has been an area of
active research (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010; Baek, Holton,
Harp, & Yaschur, 2011; Moore & McElroy, 2012; Ryan & Xenos, 2011;
Smock, Ellison, Lampe, & Wohn, 2011; Tang, Chen, Yang, Chung, & Lee,
2016). Some of the personal characteristics that are linked positively with
online addiction include shyness (Chak & Leung, 2004), external locus of
control (Hamburger & Ben-Artzi, 2000), loneliness (Niemz, Griffiths, &
Banyard, 2005), and low self-esteem (Yang & Tung, 2007). In terms of
motivation towards SNS use, those with low self-esteem indicate that
Facebook is a safe place for self-expression and for connecting with others
and receiving social support in circumstances that would otherwise burden
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 201

offline support providers (Forest & Wood, 2012). Meanwhile, highly

socially anxious individuals identify the Internet as a platform that enables
them to express personal thoughts that may not be expressed otherwise in
their daily lives (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002).
Neuroticism, which is a component of the Big Five personality traits
(McCrae & Costa, 1999) has been identified as one of the main psycho-
logical characteristics associated with Facebook addiction (Andreassen,
2015; LaRose, Kim & Peng, 2010; Tang et al., 2016). It has long been sug-
gested that face-to-face interactions might be anxiety provoking for those
with high levels of neuroticism due to their temperamental sensitivity to
threat, fear of criticism, social isolation, shyness, ease of embarrassment,
and fear of rejection (Abbasi, 2017; Abbasi, Rattan, Kousar, & Elsayed,
2017; Ehrenberg, Juckes, White, & Walsh, 2008; Malone, Pillow, & Osman,
2012; McCrae & Costa, 1997; Wolfradt & Doll, 2001; Zobel et al., 2004).
People high in neuroticism use Facebook for self-presentational needs, spe-
cifically, their need to portray different facets of the self (Seidman, 2013).
Moreover, those high in neuroticism might also experience a wide range of
negative emotions associated with their face-to-face interactions, including
low levels of social support (Hughes, Rowe, Batey, & Lee, 2012; Swickert,
Hittner, Harris, & Herring, 2002), the feeling of being misinterpreted in
face-to-face social situations (Wilson, Fornasier, & White, 2010), and the
feeling of loneliness (Correa, Hinsley, & de Zuniga, 2010). As a conse-
quence of these negative interactions and emotions, those high in neuroti-
cism may then turn to SNSs for social and personal purposes (Andreassen
Torsheim, & Pallesen, 2014), relying on SNSs interactions to develop a
sense of belonging (Butt & Phillips, 2008), get validation (Marshall,
Lefringhausen, & Ferenczi, 2015), and reduce loneliness (Amichai-
Hamburger & Ben-Artzi, 2003). Neuroticism is found to be positively
linked with general self-disclosure, emotional disclosure, and the presenta-
tion of ideal, actual, and hidden self-aspects (Seidman, 2013). Nevertheless,
those high in neuroticism were prone to revealing more about their hidden
self and project more of their ideal self on Facebook (Seidman, 2013), than
those low in neuroticism; thus, SNSs might serve as a venue for people
high in neuroticism to explore potential aspects of their social identity.
Neuroticism is associated not only with certain types of behaviors, but
also with psychological traits such as negative affect (McCrae & Costa,
1997). More specifically, individuals high in neuroticism are prone to expe-
riencing psychological distress, emotional instability, and negative affect
such as anger, tension, self-pity, anxiety, depression, angry hostility, impul-
sivity, vulnerability, and self-consciousness (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Penley
& Tomaka, 2002; Renshaw, Blais, & Smith, 2010). Researches argue that
individuals who experience negative feelings (discomfort and stress) seek
202 I. ABBASI AND M. DROUIN

respite in SNSs to disconnect with their feelings (Koc & Gulyagci, 2013).
Others, however, describe a causal effect of social networking on mood,
suggesting that engaging in Facebook activity corresponds to more negative
affect immediately afterwards (Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014). These
researchers examined the direction of causality through an experimental
design that involved randomly selecting participants to one of the three
conditions: 20 minutes Facebook activity (actively chatting, posting, liking,
commenting) or browsing the Internet for 20 minutes but not using social
media, or no activity. A casual direction was demonstrated between
Facebook activity and increases in negative mood. Essentially, Facebook
activity caused deterioration in the user’s mood, compared to the two con-
trol conditions, and this effect was mediated by the feeling of having
wasted time on something useless (Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014).
Theoretically, the mood management theory may explain the connection
between neuroticism and negative affect in the context of social media. The
mood management theory posits that individuals with a pessimistic mood
consume more media entertainment hoping that pleasing entertainment
would help them improve their mood (Nabi, 2009). It is notable that
although unhappy people may be consuming media to take respite from
interpersonal troubles; nevertheless, such media consumption may make
them unhappier (Bruni & Stanca, 2008). There are other models that may
offer insight into the connection between neuroticism and Facebook addic-
tion, irrespective of the negative affect. These include the online disinhib-
ition effect (Joinson, 2007; Suler, 2004, 2005) and the social skills model
(Caplan, 2005). The online disinhibition effect refers to the reduced psy-
chological restraints and behavioral inhibitions in an online social environ-
ment as opposed to the offline world. Online disinhibition provides an
opportunity for self-expression to people who may otherwise be reluctant
to disclose information in face-to-face interactions such as people who are
introverts or are high in the neuroticism personality (Orchard & Fullwood,
2010), who exhibit shyness (Amichai-Hamburger, 2007) or a social phobia
(Carlbring et al., 2007), who are socially stigmatized (McKenna, 2008), or
who are lonely (Whitty & McLaughlin, 2007). As mentioned, it is plausible
that people high in neuroticism may experience less cognitive and behav-
ioral constraints in an online environment, and they are able to portray an
ideal image of themselves, freely disclose their opinions and emotions, and
also receive social support (e.g., Seidman, 2013).
Alternatively, the social skill model contends that people who experience psy-
chosocial problems (loneliness, social anxiety) lack social skills and experience
maladaptive cognitions, such as a preference for online interactions, and that
these preferences can lead to adverse outcomes, such as Internet addiction (e.g.,
Caplan, 2002; Davis, 2001). Social skill, or competence, is the ability to effectively
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 203

and appropriately interact with people, and its dimensions include emotional
control, social expressivity, emotional expressivity, emotional sensitivity, social
sensitivity, and social control (Caplan, 2005). Essentially, people high in neuroti-
cism dimension experience anxiety about self-presentation (Seidman, 2013).
Lacking social self-presentational skills predisposes individuals to prefer online
social interaction, over face- to-face communication, where an ideal image can
be projected. This preference, rooted in a maladaptive cognition (feeling positive
about oneself in an online setting), may lead to compulsive Internet use and
adverse outcomes such as Internet addiction (Caplan, 2003, 2005; Davis, 2001).
Due to the maladaptive cognition regarding an improved mood through online
interactions, people high in neuroticism may be more attracted to cyberspace
communications and eventually develop a behavioral addiction.

Present study
Previous research indicated that high levels of psychological vulnerability,
which is positively correlated with negative affect (Sinclair & Wallston,
1999) is associated with higher levels of Facebook addiction (Satici, Saricali,
Satici, & Çapan, 2014). There is a discrepancy in previous findings explor-
ing the direction of causality between negative mood and Internet addic-
tion. For example, evidence suggested that neurotics may turn to Facebook
to improve their mood; however, they instead increase their negative affect
and commit an affective forecasting error (Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014).
On the other hand, evidence also suggested that individuals who exhibited
lower emotional stability (trait of neuroticism) may use Facebook as a
means of coping with negative mood and to forget daily hassles (Marino
et al., 2016). The relief from negative mood state (mood alteration) due to
Facebook use can consequently lead to deficient self-regulation (Ryan,
Chester, Reece, & Xenos, 2014) and eventually become a behavioral addic-
tion. Still others did not link high level of neuroticism with an increased
SNSs use or addictive tendencies towards SNSs use (Wilson et al., 2010).
We extended the existing research that explored the relationships
between personality types, negative affect, and online addiction. The pre-
sent study aimed to examine the relationship between Facebook addiction
and negative affect in the context of neuroticism. We explored a mediation
model and expected that neuroticism would predict Facebook addiction
and Facebook addiction in turn will predict negative affect.

Method
Participants
From an original sample of 856 participants (534 females, 322 males), we
analyzed data from only those participants who indicated that they used
204 I. ABBASI AND M. DROUIN

Facebook (N ¼ 742; 474 females and 268 males). Participants’ ages ranged
from 18–74 years (M ¼ 27.44, SD ¼ 10.49). In terms of race/ethnicity, the
sample was diverse: White (39.9%), Asian (37.7%), Hispanic (17.5%),
African American (4.1%), and Native American (0.8%). Participants also
showed educational diversity: 38.2% had a high school diploma, 16.2% an
Associate’s degree, 31.0% a Bachelor’s degree, 11.7% a Master’s degree,
1.9% a Doctorate degree, and 1.0% a Post-Doctorate degree. The partici-
pants were mostly from the United States (76%). Other countries included
India (16%), Pakistan (1%), United Kingdom (1%), Canada (0.5%), and
other miscellaneous countries. In terms of differences between our original
and reduced sample, we found that the samples were similar overall; how-
ever, the dropped participants were less likely to be White (X2 ¼ 17.42,
df ¼ 4, p < .01) and more likely to be male (X2 ¼ 5.33, df ¼ 1, p < .05).

Procedure
The present study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at
a public university in the United States. The study included an online sur-
vey administered through the SurveyMonkey website. The survey link was
shared on the research website of the approving university, Facebook,
LinkedIn, and Whats-app. Additionally, Amazon Mechanical Turk
(MTurk) was employed to recruit a wider demographic of participants;
MTurk is an online service that offers “requesters” to post “Human
Intelligence Tasks” (HITS) for “workers” who independently visit the web-
site. The goal was to recruit a broad range of participants from all over the
world. To keep the study anonymous, no identifying information was
recorded. Once the participants clicked on the link, they were directed to
the consent form after which they were directed to the main survey. The
results reported in the current article are based on the demographic ques-
tionnaire, the neuroticism subscale, negative affect scale, and the Facebook
intrusion questionnaire.

Measures
Demographic questionnaire
The demographic questionnaire included a number of items assessing age,
gender, marital/relationship status, ethnicity, education level, occupation,
and the diagnosis of mental illness.

Negative affect
The positive affect and negative affect schedule (PANAS) is a 20-item self-
report measure developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988) to
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 205

provide a brief measure of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA).
The 20 items originated from a principal components analysis of Zevon
and Tellegen’s (1982) mood checklist. Each subscale contains 10 items.
Watson et al. (1988) claim that both positive and negative affect scales are
internally consistent, which gives PANAS high internal consistency (coeffi-
cient a ¼ 0.84–0.90). For this study, we administered the complete negative
affect subscale with a few random fillers from the positive affect subscale to
avoid priming mood. The negative affect subscale includes 10 items with a
negative connotation, such as afraid, ashamed, distressed, guilty, and ner-
vous. For this study, participants rated the degree to which they were expe-
riencing each of the mood conditions on a 5-point scale (1 ¼ Not at All to
5 ¼ Extremely). Internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s a ¼.88).

Facebook intrusion questionnaire (FIQ)

We used FIQ to measure Facebook addiction. Elphinston and Noller
(2011) developed an eight-item scale to determine the level of Facebook
addiction (behavioral addiction) in Facebook users. The observed reliability
of the scale in the present study is 0.85, which is the same as indicated by
the developers. The eight items assess the link between the tendency
towards Facebook involvement and eight aspects of behavioral addiction
such as cognitive salience, behavioral salience, euphoria, interpersonal con-
flict, conflict with other activities, withdrawal, relapse/reinstatement, and
loss of control. Responses are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly
disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree), which are summed to indicate the level of
addiction. The FIQ scores range from 8 to 53 with the mean score of
25.89, which suggests moderate levels of Facebook addiction. Higher scores
represent higher Facebook addiction.

Neuroticism
The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) contains 44
short and easily understandable items. For the current study, we adminis-
tered only the neuroticism subscale (Cronbach’s a ¼ .82). The response
format is based on a 5-point scale (1¼ disagree strongly, 5 ¼ agree strongly).
Some items are reverse scored and then all items are summed, with higher
scores indicating greater neuroticism.

Results
Table 1 shows the Pearson’s bivariate correlations of the variables and con-
trols. Neuroticism is significantly correlated with negative affect and Facebook
addiction. For the main analyses, we conducted the mediation analyses using
the Hayes’ PROCESS Macro. For this procedure, Model 4 with 5000
206 I. ABBASI AND M. DROUIN

Table 1. Pearson bivariate correlations among variables of study.

1 2 3 4 5
1 Age – #.12$$ #.18$$$ .17$$$ #.15$$$
2 Gender – .26$$$ .02 #.02
3 Neuroticism – .10$$ .30$$$
4 FB intrusion – .13$$$
5 Negative Affect –
Note:
$$$p < .01.
$$p < .01.
$p < .05. Gender is coded 1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female.
N ¼ 742 participants.

bootstrapped resamples is used to compute 95% asymmetric confidence inter-

vals (Hayes, 2013). In this model, neuroticism was added as a predictor vari-
able (X) and Facebook addiction was added as the mediator (M), and
negative affect was added as an outcome variable (Y). Age and gender of the
respondents were added as the control variables. The PROCESS macro results
shows that neuroticism significantly predicts Facebook addiction (path a:
b¼.20, t(738) ¼ 3.53, p < .001). Moreover, Facebook addiction predicts nega-
tive affect (path b: b¼.08, t(737) ¼ 3.60, p < .001).
The relationship between neuroticism and negative affect in the absence
of the mediator (Facebook addiction) is the total effect, which is also sig-
nificant (path c: b ¼ .28, t(738) ¼ 8.35, p < .001). The relationship
between neuroticism and negative affect when the mediator is present rep-
resents the direct effect. After including the mediator, the direct path was
still significant (path c’: b ¼.26, t(737) ¼ 7.89, p < .001). Therefore, we
report partial mediation of Facebook addiction. The indirect effect is com-
puted using 5000 bootstrap samples at .01 level of significance (Hayes,
2009, 2013; Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). Facebook addiction significantly
mediates the relationship between neuroticism and negative affect (a " b)
(b¼ .02, 95% BCa CI [.01, .03]. The present results suggest that Facebook
addiction acts as a significant mediator in the association between neuroti-
cism and negative affect. The difference between total and direct effects is
different from zero, which is confirmed by the Sobel test (normal theory
test) which is significant (z ¼ 2.47, p < .05). Figure 1 shows the total and
direct effects of neuroticism on negative affect.

Discussion
Many individuals are motivated to use SNSs for mood enhancement
(improving mood) and coping (diminishing bad feelings) (e.g., Marino
et al., 2016). In fact, a meta-analysis of Facebook addiction research found
that Facebook is often used to escape unwanted moods (Floros & Siomos,
2013; Ryan et al., 2014). Nevertheless, Facebook activity actually depletes
happiness (Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014). Moreover, using Facebook as a
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 207

Figure 1. Total and direct effects of neuroticism on negative affect. Total effect in parentheses.
$p < 0.05, $$p < .01, $$$p < .001.

means of escaping unwanted moods may lead to more frequent Facebook

use (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011).
It is notable that people high in neuroticism maintain a higher baseline
negative affect and also take longer to recover from heightened negative
affect after a stressor, than those low in neuroticism (Abbasi, 2016). In the
current era, Facebook use has surfaced as one of the factors that causes
stress in the form of social overload induced by the virtual social environ-
ment through social stimuli (notifications, posts, pictures; Maier, Laumer,
Eckhardt, & Weitzel, 2012). Therefore, negative affect that is accompanied
with neuroticism may be exacerbated after Facebook use due to stress
caused by the social overload. Our study proposed that those with high lev-
els of neuroticism might be using Facebook to improve their mood, but
become vulnerable to technological addiction, and eventually experience
more negate affect. The latter prediction is in line with past research, which
found that Facebook use caused a deterioration of mood after Facebook
use (Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014).
Our mediation model highlighted a potential partial mediating role of
Facebook addiction between neuroticism and an increased negative affect.
Based on previous literature, we posited that the fear of rejection in offline
environments motivates those high in neuroticism to use Facebook as a
safe place for sharing details and promoting an ideal self (Seidman, 2013).
Therefore, people high in neuroticism may be using social media more
often for mood alternation and support. Next, it will be important to exam-
ine why those high in neuroticism have negative affect after Facebook use.
Previous research has linked Facebook with user’s negative emotional
states, which may stem from the feeling of envy, reduced life satisfaction,
and social overload (Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, & Knox, 2011; Krasnova,
Wenninger, Widjaja, & Bruxmann, 2013; Maier et al., 2012). Future
research should explore these potential explanations more directly.

Clinical implications
There are several clinical implications of these findings. Neuroticism is a
stable personality trait, and emotional instability is one of its hallmarks.
208 I. ABBASI AND M. DROUIN

People who are high in neuroticism are temperamentally sensitive to threat

and may experience self-consciousness and social anxiety in face-to-face
social interactions (Trapnell & Campbell, 1999). Social media offers an
alternative to the face-to-face meetings that those high in neuroticism
might find uncomfortable or aversive, and Facebook specifically, is increas-
ingly being used for developing and maintaining online social connections
(Barker et al., 2015). In clinical settings, therapists working with clients
who are high in neuroticism, and by default are in a higher negative affect
state (Abbasi, 2016), should counsel patients regarding the consequences of
their neurotic behaviors and assist them in taking control of their emo-
tions. Therapists should also caution patients against committing an affect-
ive forecasting error (i.e., expecting social networking to help alleviate
distress), as Facebook activity actually increases negative affect and lowers
personal and relationship well-being (Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014),
rather than vice versa. Therefore, it is pertinent that therapists educate their
clients about Facebook activity being potentially harmful to their mood.
Therapists should also discuss the dangers of excessively using Facebook,
which can steal time and emotional investments from family relationships.
This is especially true for romantic partners, whose excessive Facebook use
in linked with emotional infidelity (Abbasi 2018a), romantic disengagement
( Abbasi, 2019a) , and low relationship commitment (Abbasi, 2018b).
Couples rarely establish restrictions around Facebook use, even if they have
faced relationship problems in the past due to inappropriate Facebook
behaviors (Cravens, 2013). Researchers have coined the term ‘netiquette’ to
refer to the online interaction rules (spoken or unspoken) that distinguish
between appropriate and inappropriate behaviors (Helsper & Whitty, 2010).
Therapists should encourage couples to establish netiquette boundaries
regarding Facebook use and should also discuss ways to manage Facebook
posts and status updates (Cravens & Whiting, 2014). Finally, because age is
inversely related to SNS use, infidelity behaviors, and SNS addiction
(Abbasi, 2019b), therapists should be especially aware of these potential
issues in their young adult populations, as individuals from this demo-
graphic are likely to take risks and disclose freely online versus in a face-
to-face setting (Gray, 2016).

Limitations
The present study adds to the literature on Facebook and indicates a pos-
sible pathway to increased negative affect through addictive Facebook use,
in the context of neuroticism. However, the scope of the present study is
limited because we used self-report scales and responses were collected via
Internet. Such responses could be more subjective and biased due to social
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 209

desirability. This study also employed the correlational research design and
a cross-sectional sample; thus, a cause and effect relationship cannot be
ascertained from these findings.

Future directions
We suggest future work to extend these findings using mixed method, lon-
gitudinal, and qualitative research design. Longitudinal study can help us
ascertain the extent to which personality traits affect individuals’ use of
social media and the effects of this social media use across the life course.
Qualitative design research can also help decipher some of the underlying
pathways that contribute to Facebook addiction.

Conclusions
Neurotic personality traits are closely linked with negative affect. It was
previously reported that the negative affect of individuals who are high in
neuroticism increases after they use Facebook. The present study suggests
that Facebook addiction is a partial mediator in the relationship between
neuroticism and negative affect. The exact cause of mood deterioration is
unknown; however, social overload, envy, jealousy, and relationship dissat-
isfaction can be explored as pertinent factors in future research.

References
Abbasi, I. S. (2016). The role of neuroticism in the maintenance of chronic baseline stress
perception and negative affect. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3(1), 1–9. doi:10.1017/
sjp.2016.7
Abbasi, I. S. (2017). Personality and marital relationships: Developing a satisfactory rela-
tionship with an imperfect partner. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International
Journal, 39(3), 184–194. doi:10.1007/s10591-017-9414-1
Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamdi, N. G. (2017a). The pursuit of romantic alternatives online:
Social media friends as potential alternatives. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(1),
16–28. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2017.1308450
Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamdi, N. G. (2017b). When flirting turns into infidelity: The Facebook
dilemma. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 45(1), 1. doi:10.1080/01926187.2016.
1277804
Abbasi, I. S., Rattan, N., Kousar, T., & Elsayed, F. K. (2017). Neuroticism and close rela-
tionships: How negative affect is linked with relationship disaffection in couples. The
American Journal of Family Therapy, 46(2), 139–152. doi:10.1080/01926187.2018.1461030
Abbasi, I. S. (2018a). Falling prey to online romantic alternatives: Evaluating social media
alternative partners in committed versus dating relationships. Social Science Computer
Review, 1–11. doi:10.1177/0894439318793947
210 I. ABBASI AND M. DROUIN

Abbasi, I. S. (2018b). Social media and committed relationships: What factors make our
romantic relationship vulnerable? Social Science Computer Review, 37(3), 425–434. doi:
10.1177/0894439318770609
Abbasi, I. S. (2019a). The link between romantic disengagement and Facebook addiction:
Where does relationship commitment fit in? The American Journal of Family Therapy,
46, 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2018.1540283
Abbasi, I. S. (2019). Social media addiction in romantic relationships: Does user’s age influ-
ence vulnerability to social media infidelity?. Personality and Individual Differences, 139,
277–280. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.038
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2003). Loneliness and Internet use. Computers in
Human Behavior, 19(1), 71–80. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00014-6
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2007). Personality, individual differences and Internet use. In A.
Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U. D. Reips (Eds.), Oxford handbook of
Internet psychology (pp. 187–204). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1289–1295. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.018
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). “On the internet no one knows
I’m an introvert”: Extroversion, neuroticism, and internet interaction. Cyberpsychology
and Behavior, 125–128. doi:10.1089/109493102753770507
Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a
Facebook addiction scale. Psychological Reports, 110 (2), 501–517. doi:10.2466/02.09.18.
PR0.110.2.501-517
Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., & Pallesen, S. (2014). Predictors of use of social network
sites at work—A specific type of cyberloafing. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 19(4), 906–921. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12085
Andreassen, C. S. (2015). Online social network site addiction: A comprehensive review.
Current Addiction Reports, 2(2), 175–184. doi:10.1007/s40429-015-0056-9
Baek, K., Holton, A., Harp, D., & Yaschur, C. (2011). The links that bind: Uncovering
novel motivations for linking on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6),
2243–2248. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.003
Barker, V., Dozier, D. M., Weiss, A. S., & Borden, D. L. (2015). Harnessing peer potency:
Predicting positive outcomes from social capital affinity and online engagement with
participatory websites. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1603–1623. doi:10.1177/
1461444814530291
Bruni, L., & Stanca, L. (2008). Watching alone: Relational goods, television and happiness.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65, 506–528. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2005.12.
005
Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control
intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(3), 1162–1167.
Butt, S., & Phillips, J. G. (2008). Personality and self reported mobile phone use. Computers
in Human Behavior, 24(2), 346–360. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.019
Caplan, S. E. (2002). Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being: Development of
a theory-based cognitive-behavioral measurement instrument. Computers in Human
Behavior, 18(5), 553–575. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00004-3
Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic inter-
net use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30(6), 625–648. doi:10.
1177/0093650203257842
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 211

Caplan, S. E. (2005). A social skill account of problematic Internet use. Journal of

Communication, 55(4), 721–736. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03019.x
Carlbring, P., Gunnarsd! ottir, M., Hedensj€ o, L., Andersson, G., Ekselius, L., & Furmark, T.
(2007). Treatment of social phobia: Randomised trial of Internet-delivered cognitive–be-
havioural therapy with telephone support. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(2), 123–128.
doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.105.020107
Chak, K., & Leung, L. (2004). Shyness and locus of control as predictors of Internet addic-
tion and Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior : The Impact of the Internet,
Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 7(5), 559–570. doi:10.1089/cpb.
2004.7.559
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The
intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(2), 247–253. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
Cravens, J. D. (2013). Social networking infidelity: Understanding the impact and exploring
rules and bound- aries in intimate partner relationships (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttuir/bitstream/handle/2346/58640/CRAVENSDISSER
TATION-2013.pdf?sequence=1
Cravens, J. D., & Whiting, J. B. (2014). Clinical implications of internet infidelity: Where
Facebook fits in. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42(4), 325–339.
01926187.2013.874211
Davis, R. A. (2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Computer in
Human Behavior, 17(2), 187–195. 10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00041-8
Drouin, M., Miller, D. A., & Dibble, J. L. (2014). Ignore your partners’ current Facebook
friends; beware the ones they add!. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 483–488. doi:10.
1016/j.chb.2014.02.032
Drouin, M., Miller, D. A., & Dibble, J. L. (2015). Facebook or memory: Which is the real
threat to your relationship? Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 18(10),
561–566. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0259
Ehrenberg, A., Juckes, S., White, K. M., & Walsh, S. P. (2008). Personality and self-esteem
as predictors of young people’s technology use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11,
739–741. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0030
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to Face It! Facebook intrusion and the impli-
cations for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, &
Social Networking, 14(11), 631–635. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0318
Facebook.com. Retrieved from https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/
Floros, G., & Siomos, K. (2013). The relationship between optimal parenting, Internet
addiction and motives for social networking in adolescence. Psychiatry Research, 209(3),
529–534. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2013.01.010
Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not working: Individuals
with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on
Facebook. Psychological Science, 23(3), 295–302.
Gray, L. (2016). Exploring How and Why Young People use Social Networking Sites.
(Doctorate in Applied Educational Psychology), Newcastle University, Newcastle univer-
sity e-theses.
Hamburger, Y. A., & Ben-Artzi, E. (2000). The relationship between extraversion and neur-
oticism and the different uses of the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4),
441–449. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00017-0
Hardie, E., & Tee, M. Y. (2007). Excessive internet use: The role of personality, loneliness
and social support networks in internet addiction. Australian Journal of Emerging
212 I. ABBASI AND M. DROUIN

Technologies & Society, 5(1), 34–47. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.libac-

cess.sjlibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25121069&site=ehost-live&scope=
site
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. doi:10.1080/036377509033
10360
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Helsper, E. J., & Whitty, M. T. (2010). Netiquette within married couples: Agreement about
acceptable online behavior and surveillance between partners. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26, 916–926.
Hughes, D. D., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs.
Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(2), 561–569. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a
and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and
Social Research.
Joinson, A. N. (2007). Disinhibition and the Internet. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology
and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (2nd ed., pp.
75–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Koc, M., & Gulyagci, S. (2013). Facebook addiction among Turkish college students: The
role of psychological health, demographic, and usage characteristics. Cyberpsychology
Behavior and Social Networking, 16(4), 279–284. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0249
Krasnova, H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., & Bruxmann, P. (2013). Envy on Facebook: A
hidden threat to users’ life satisfaction? Presented at the 11th international conference on
Wirtschaftsinformatik. Leipzig, Germany.
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Online social networking and addiction-a review of
the psychological literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 8(9), 3528–3852. doi:10.3390/ijerph8093528
LaRose, R., Kim, J., & Peng, W. (2010). Social networking: Addictive, compulsive, problem-
atic, or just another media habit. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.) A networked self: Identity, com-
munity, and culture on social network sites (pp. 59–81). New York: Routledge.
Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading
Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470–501. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.4.5
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2012). When social networking turns to
social overload: Explaining the stress, emotional exhaustion, and quiting behavior from
social network sites’ users. ECIS 2012 Proceedings. Paper 71. http://aisel.aisnet.org/
ecis2012/71
Malone, G. P., Pillow, D. R., & Osman, A. (2012). The General Belongingness Scale (GBS):
Assessing achieved belongingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 311–316.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.027
Marino, C., Vieno, A., Moss, A. C., Caselli, G., Nikcevic, A. V., & Spada, M. M. (2016).
Personality, motives and metacognitions as predictors of problematic Facebook use in
university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 70–77.
Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G., & Lee, R. A. (2012). Attachment styles as pre-
dictors of Facebook-related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relationships. Personal
Relationships, 20(1), 1–22. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01393.x doi:10.
1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01393.x
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 213

Marshall, T. C., Lefringhausen, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2015). The Big Five, self-esteem, and
narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates.
Personality & Individual Differences, 85, 35–40. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.039
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. The
American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin, &
O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 139–153). New
York, NY: Guilford.
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology
in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well- being.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85–98. doi:10.1037/ppm0000065
McKenna, K. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. (2002). Relationship formation on the
Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9–31. doi:10.1111/
1540-4560.00246
McKenna, K. Y. A. (2008). Influences on the nature and functioning of online groups. In
A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications (pp.
228–242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, K., & McElroy, J. C. (2012). The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall
postings, and regret. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 267–274. doi:10.1016/j.chb.
2011.09.009
Nabi, R. L. (2009). Emotion and media effects. In R. L. Nabi, & M. N. Oliver (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 131–143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 243–249. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007
Niemz, K., Griffiths, M., & Banyard, P. (2005). Prevalence of pathological Internet use
among university students and correlations with self-esteem, the General Health
Questionnaire (GHQ), and disinhibition. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8(6), 562–570.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.562
Orchard, L. J., & Fullwood, C. (2010). Current perspectives on personality and Internet use.
Social Science Computer Review, 28(2), 155–169. doi:10.1177/0894439309335115
Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. (2011). Toward a new(er) socia- bility: Uses, gratifica-
tions and social capital on Facebook. In S. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Media perspectives
for the 21st century (pp. 212–230). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the big ve, emotional responses,
and c oping with acute stress. Personality & Individual Differences, 32, 1215–1228. doi:
10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00087-3
Renshaw, K. D., Blais, R. K., & Smith, T. W. (2010). Components of negative affectivity
and marital satisfaction: The importance of actor and partner anger. Journal of Research
in Personality, 44(3), 328–334. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.005
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship
between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658–1664. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004
Ryan, T., Chester, A., Reece, J., & Xenos, S. (2014). The uses and abuses of Facebook: A
review of Facebook addiction. Journal of Behavior Addiction, 3(3), 133–148. doi:10.1556/
JBA.3.2014.016
Sagioglou, C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2014). Facebook’s emotional consequences: Why
Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 359–363. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.003
214 I. ABBASI AND M. DROUIN

Satici, B., Saricali, M., Satici, S. A., & Çapan, B. E. (2014). Social competence and psycho-
logical vulnerability as predictors of Facebook addiction. Studia Psychologica, 56(4),
301–308. doi:10.21909/sp.2014.04.738
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influen-
ces social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3),
402–407. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009
Sejud, L. R. (2013). The differential role of impulsivity, neuroticism, and negative affect
within and across scores on measures of behavioral addiction and substance abuse.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 74.
Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (1999). The development and validation of the psycho-
logical vulnerability scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23(2), 119–129. doi:10.1023/
A:1018770926615
Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A
uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(6), 2322–2329. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.011
Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer
mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11(2), 629–666. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
Swickert, R. J., Hittner, J. B., Harris, J. L., & Herring, J. A. (2002). Relationships among
Internet use, personality, and social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(4),
437–451.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
Suler, J. (2005). The online disinhibition effect. International Journal of Applied
Psychoanalytic Studies, 2(2), 184–188. doi:10.1002/aps.42
Tang, J. H., Chen, M. C., Yang, C. Y., Chung, T. Y., & Lee, Y. A. (2016). Personality traits,
interpersonal relationships, online social support, and Facebook addiction. Telematics
and Informatics, 33(1), 102–108. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2015.06.003
Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five- factor
model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76(2), 284–304. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.76.2.284
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief meas-
ures of positive and negative affect The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
Whitty, M. T., & McLaughlin, D. (2007). Online recreation: The relationship between lone-
liness, Internet self-efficacy and the use of the Internet for entertainment purposes.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1435–1446. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.05.003
Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young adults’
use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(2),
173–177. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0094
Wolfradt, U., & Doll, J. (2001). Motives of adolescents to use the Internet as a function of
personality traits, personal and social factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
24(1), 13–27. doi:10.2190/ANPM-LN97-AUT2-D2EJ
Yang, S. C., & Tung, C.-J. (2007). Comparison of Internet addicts and non-addicts in
Taiwanese high school. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 79–96.
Zevon, M. A., & Tellegen, A. (1982). The structure of mood change: An idiographic/nomo-
thetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (1), 111–122. doi: doi:10.
1037/0022-3514.43.1.111
 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY 215

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. doi:10.
1086/651257
Zobel, A., Barkow, K., Schulze-Rauschenbach, S., von Widdern, O., Metten, M., Pfeiffer, U.,
… Maier, W. (2004). High neuroticism and depressive temperament are associated with
dysfunctional regulation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical system in healthy
volunteers. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 109(5), 392–399. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.
2004.00313.x

View publication stats