CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deconstructing the components model of addiction: an illustration through ‘addictive’ use of social media

Fournier, Loïs, Schimmenti, Adriano, Musetti, Alessandro, Boursier, Valentina, Flayelle, Maèva, Cataldo, Ilaria, Starcevic, Vladan, Billieux, Joël·2023·Addictive Behaviors
DOI 10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107694

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107694

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 1 Exploratory factorial structure analyses ' models of the 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale. n = 2,128. BSMAS = 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016); A = Unidimensional exploratory factor analyses; B = Unidimensional exploratory graph analyses; C = Bidimensional exploratory factor analyses; D = Bidimensional exploratory graph analyses. In exploratory factor analyses, circles denote latent variables (i.e., factors), while squares denote manifest variables (i.e., items). In exploratory graph analyses, circles denote manifest variables (i.e., items). In exploratory factor analyses, green doubleheaded arrows indicate positive zero-order inter-factor correlations, while green single-headed arrows indicate positive factor loadings. In exploratory graph ana­ lyses, green edges indicate positive partial inter-item correlations. Arrow and edge thickness represents the magnitude of relationships between objects. Whitecolored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 0 ' in the unidimensional factorial structure of the construct of interest. Sky blue-colored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 1 ' and orange-colored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 2 ' in the bidimensional factorial structure of the construct of interest.
Fig. 1 Exploratory factorial structure analyses ' models of the 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale. n = 2,128. BSMAS = 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016); A = Unidimensional exploratory factor analyses; B = Unidimensional exploratory graph analyses; C = Bidimensional exploratory factor analyses; D = Bidimensional exploratory graph analyses. In exploratory factor analyses, circles denote latent variables (i.e., factors), while squares denote manifest variables (i.e., items). In exploratory graph analyses, circles denote manifest variables (i.e., items). In exploratory factor analyses, green doubleheaded arrows indicate positive zero-order inter-factor correlations, while green single-headed arrows indicate positive factor loadings. In exploratory graph ana­ lyses, green edges indicate positive partial inter-item correlations. Arrow and edge thickness represents the magnitude of relationships between objects. Whitecolored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 0 ' in the unidimensional factorial structure of the construct of interest. Sky blue-colored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 1 ' and orange-colored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 2 ' in the bidimensional factorial structure of the construct of interest.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 2 Confirmatory factorial structure analyses ' models of the 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale. n = 2,128. BSMAS = 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016); A = Confirmatory factor analyses ' unidimensional model; B = Confirmatory factor analyses ' theory-driven bidimensional model; C = Confirmatory factor analyses ' data-driven bidimensional model. In confirmatory factor analyses, circles denote latent variables (i.e., factors), while squares denote manifest variables (i.e., items). In confirmatory factor analyses, green double-headed arrows indicate positive zero-order inter-factor correlations, while green single-headed arrows indicate positive factor loadings. In confirmatory factor analyses, green single-headed dashed arrows indicate positive factor loadings which were standardized to one as a constraint. Arrow thickness represents the magnitude of relationships between objects. White-colored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 0 ' in the unidimensional factorial structure of the construct of interest. Sky blue-colored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 1 ' and orange-colored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 2 ' in the data-driven and theory-driven bidimensional factorial structure of the construct of interest.
Fig. 2 Confirmatory factorial structure analyses ' models of the 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale. n = 2,128. BSMAS = 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016); A = Confirmatory factor analyses ' unidimensional model; B = Confirmatory factor analyses ' theory-driven bidimensional model; C = Confirmatory factor analyses ' data-driven bidimensional model. In confirmatory factor analyses, circles denote latent variables (i.e., factors), while squares denote manifest variables (i.e., items). In confirmatory factor analyses, green double-headed arrows indicate positive zero-order inter-factor correlations, while green single-headed arrows indicate positive factor loadings. In confirmatory factor analyses, green single-headed dashed arrows indicate positive factor loadings which were standardized to one as a constraint. Arrow thickness represents the magnitude of relationships between objects. White-colored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 0 ' in the unidimensional factorial structure of the construct of interest. Sky blue-colored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 1 ' and orange-colored shapes reflect ' BSMAS: Factor 2 ' in the data-driven and theory-driven bidimensional factorial structure of the construct of interest.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 3 Associations between the 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale and psychopathological symptoms. BSMAS = 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016); CCSM = 23-item Adult DSM-5 Self-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure (Narrow et al., 2013); DASS = 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995); SAAS = 16-item Social Appearance Anxiety Scale (Hart et al., 2008); SCL = 90-item Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Derogatis, 1994); BSMAS: Factor 1 = Factor score comprising the two components of addiction (Griffiths, 2005) of salience and tolerance of the 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016); BSMAS: Factor 2 = Factor score comprising the four components of addiction (Griffiths, 2005) of mood modification, relapse, withdrawal, and conflict of the 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016); A = BSMAS & CCSM network analyses ( n = 2,572); B = BSMAS & DASS network analyses ( n = 715); C = BSMAS & SAAS network analyses ( n = 578); D = BSMAS & SCL network analyses ( n = 221). Circles denote factors or psychopathological symptoms. Green edges indicate positive partial inter-factor or inter-psychopathological symptoms ' scores cor­ relations, while red edges indicate negative partial inter-factor or inter-psychopathological symptoms ' scores correlations. Edge thickness represents the magnitude of relationships between objects. All reported (sub-)sample sizes and zero-order correlation coefficients were obtained after listwise deletion of missing data.
Fig. 3 Associations between the 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale and psychopathological symptoms. BSMAS = 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016); CCSM = 23-item Adult DSM-5 Self-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure (Narrow et al., 2013); DASS = 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995); SAAS = 16-item Social Appearance Anxiety Scale (Hart et al., 2008); SCL = 90-item Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Derogatis, 1994); BSMAS: Factor 1 = Factor score comprising the two components of addiction (Griffiths, 2005) of salience and tolerance of the 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016); BSMAS: Factor 2 = Factor score comprising the four components of addiction (Griffiths, 2005) of mood modification, relapse, withdrawal, and conflict of the 6-item Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2016); A = BSMAS & CCSM network analyses ( n = 2,572); B = BSMAS & DASS network analyses ( n = 715); C = BSMAS & SAAS network analyses ( n = 578); D = BSMAS & SCL network analyses ( n = 221). Circles denote factors or psychopathological symptoms. Green edges indicate positive partial inter-factor or inter-psychopathological symptoms ' scores cor­ relations, while red edges indicate negative partial inter-factor or inter-psychopathological symptoms ' scores correlations. Edge thickness represents the magnitude of relationships between objects. All reported (sub-)sample sizes and zero-order correlation coefficients were obtained after listwise deletion of missing data.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Aarseth, 2017, Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal, Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6, 267, 10.1556/2006.5.2016.088 · DOI · Paper page
  2. American Psychiatric Association, 2013, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, American Psychiatric Association
  3. Andreassen, 2012, Development of a work addiction scale: Development of a work addiction scale, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 265, 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00947.x · DOI
  4. Andreassen, 2015, The Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale: Reliability and validity of a brief screening test, Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01374 · DOI
  5. Andreassen, 2018, The Development and Validation of the Bergen-Yale Sex Addiction Scale with a Large National Sample, Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 144, 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00144 · DOI
  6. Andreassen, 2018, Tanning addiction: Conceptualization, assessment and correlates, British Journal of Dermatology, 10.1111/bjd.16480 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Billieux, 2015, Can Disordered Mobile Phone Use Be Considered a Behavioral Addiction? An Update on Current Evidence and a Comprehensive Model for Future Research, Current Addiction Reports, 2, 156, 10.1007/s40429-015-0054-y · DOI · Paper page
  8. Borsboom, 2021, Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science, Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 1, 58, 10.1038/s43586-021-00055-w · DOI · Paper page
  9. Bottesi, 2015, The Italian version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21: Factor structure and psychometric properties on community and clinical samples, Comprehensive Psychiatry, 60, 170, 10.1016/j.comppsych.2015.04.005 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Boursier, 2020, Do selfie-expectancies and social appearance anxiety predict adolescents’ problematic social media use?, Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106395, 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106395 · DOI
  11. Brand, 2022, Which conditions should be considered as disorders in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) designation of “other specified disorders due to addictive behaviors”?, Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11, 150
  12. Brevers, D., Maurage, P., Kohut, T., Perales, J. C., & Billieux, J. (2022). On the pitfalls of conceptualizing excessive physical exercise as an addictive disorder: Commentary on Dinardi et al. (2021). Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(2), 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2022.00001. · DOI
  13. Calvo, 2018, May the passion be with you: The addictive potential of collectible card games, miniatures, and dice of the Star Wars universe, Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 727, 10.1556/2006.7.2018.73 · DOI
  14. Cataldo, 2022, Assessing problematic use of social media: Where do we stand and what can be improved?, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 45, 101145, 10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101145 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Charlton, 2007, Distinguishing addiction and high engagement in the context of online game playing, Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1531, 10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.002 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Costa, 2021, The Love Addiction Inventory: Preliminary Findings of the Development Process and Psychometric Characteristics, International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 651, 10.1007/s11469-019-00097-y · DOI
  17. Costanzo, 2021, Attached to Virtual Dreams: The Mediating Role of Maladaptive Daydreaming in the Relationship Between Attachment Styles and Problematic Social Media Use, Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 209, 656, 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001356 · DOI
  18. Dakanalis, 2016, The Social Appearance Anxiety Scale in Italian Adolescent Populations: Construct Validation and Group Discrimination in Community and Clinical Eating Disorders Samples, Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 47, 133, 10.1007/s10578-015-0551-1 · DOI
  19. de Ron, 2022, Quantifying and addressing the impact of measurement error in network models, Behaviour Research and Therapy, 157, 10.1016/j.brat.2022.104163 · DOI
  20. Epskamp, 2018, Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper, Behavior Research Methods, 50, 195, 10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Epskamp, 2022, qgraph: Graph Plotting Methods, Psychometric Data Visualization and Graphical Model Estimation, 1.9.2
  22. Flayelle, 2019, Overcoming the unitary exploration of binge-watching: A cluster analytical approach, Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 8, 586, 10.1556/2006.8.2019.53 · DOI
  23. Flora, 2004, An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Methods of Estimation for Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Ordinal Data, Psychological Methods, 9, 466, 10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466 · DOI
  24. Foygel, 2010, Extended Bayesian Information Criteria for Gaussian Graphical Models, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 23, 2020
  25. Golino, 2017, Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research, PLOS ONE, 12, e0174035, 10.1371/journal.pone.0174035 · DOI
  26. Hart, 2008, Development and Examination of the Social Appearance Anxiety Scale, Assessment, 15, 48, 10.1177/1073191107306673 · DOI
  27. Hittner, 2003, A Monte Carlo Evaluation of Tests for Comparing Dependent Correlations, The Journal of General Psychology, 130, 149, 10.1080/00221300309601282 · DOI
  28. Hu, 1999, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1, 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Isvoranu, A.-M., & Epskamp, S. (2021). Which estimation method to choose in network psychometrics? Deriving guidelines for applied researchers. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000439. · DOI
  30. Kraus, 2018, Specific Forms of Passionate Attachment Differentially Mediate Relationships Between Pornography Use and Sexual Compulsivity in Young Adult Men, Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 25, 380, 10.1080/10720162.2018.1532362 · DOI
  31. Liu, 2009, The Nonparanormal: Semiparametric Estimation of High Dimensional Undirected Graphs, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10, 2295
  32. Mariani, 2021, Maladaptive Daydreaming in Relation to Linguistic Features and Attachment Style, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 386, 10.3390/ijerph19010386 · DOI
  33. McNally, 2021, Network Analysis of Psychopathology: Controversies and Challenges, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17, 31, 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-092850 · DOI
  34. Mihordin, 2012, Behavioral Addiction—Quo Vadis?, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200, 489, 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318257c503 · DOI
  35. Prunas, 2012, Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the SCL-90-R: A study on a large community sample, European Psychiatry, 27, 591, 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.12.006 · DOI
  36. Satchell, 2021, Development of an Offline-Friend Addiction Questionnaire (O-FAQ): Are most people really social addicts?, Behavior Research Methods, 53, 1097, 10.3758/s13428-020-01462-9 · DOI
  37. Schmitt, 2011, Rotation Criteria and Hypothesis Testing for Exploratory Factor Analysis: Implications for Factor Pattern Loadings and Interfactor Correlations, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 95, 10.1177/0013164410387348 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Starcevic, 2016, Behavioural addictions: A challenge for psychopathology and psychiatric nosology, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 50, 721, 10.1177/0004867416654009 · DOI
  39. Starcevic, 2016, Tolerance and withdrawal symptoms may not be helpful to enhance understanding of behavioural addictions: Letter to the Editor, Addiction, 111, 1307, 10.1111/add.13381 · DOI
  40. Starcevic, 2018, Selfitis and behavioural addiction: A plea for terminological and conceptual rigour, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 52, 919, 10.1177/0004867418797442 · DOI
  41. Steegen, 2016, Increasing Transparency Through a Multiverse Analysis, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 702, 10.1177/1745691616658637 · DOI
  42. van Rooij, 2018, A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution, Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 1, 10.1556/2006.7.2018.19 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Whelan, 2021, A casino in my pocket: Gratifications associated with obsessive and harmonious passion for mobile gambling, PLOS ONE, 16, e0246432, 10.1371/journal.pone.0246432 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fournier, L., Schimmenti, A., Musetti, A., Boursier, V., Flayelle, M., Cataldo, I., Starcevic, V., & Billieux, J.
ORCID
Fournier, Loïs
Venue
Addictive Behaviors
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-08
Volume
143
Pages
107694
ISSN
0306-4603
DOI
10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107694
Cited by
112
References
15
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review