Cited by 342Impact of Technology on AdolescentsPersonality Traits and PsychologySexuality, Behavior, and Technology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 39 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Instagram addiction and the Big Five of personality: The mediating role of self-liking

Open access
Kircaburun, Kagan, Griffiths, Mark D.·2018·Journal of Behavioral Addictions

Abstract

Background and aims: Recent research has suggested that social networking site use can be addictive. Although extensive research has been carried out on potential addiction to social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Tinder, only one very small study has previously examined potential addiction to Instagram. Consequently, the objectives of this study were to examine the relationships between personality, self-liking, daily Internet use, and Instagram addiction, as well as exploring the mediating role of self-liking between personality and Instagram addiction using path analysis. Methods: A total of 752 university students completed a self-report survey, including the Instagram Addiction Scale (IAS), the Big Five Inventory (BFI), and the Self-Liking Scale. Results: Results indicated that agreeableness, conscientiousness, and self-liking were negatively associated with Instagram addiction, whereas daily Internet use was positively associated with Instagram addiction. The results also showed that self-liking partially mediated the relationship of Instagram addiction with agreeableness and fully mediated the relationship between Instagram addiction with conscientiousness. Discussion and conclusions: This study contributes to the small body of literature that has examined the relationship between personality and social networking site addiction and is one of only two studies to examine the addictive use of Instagram and the underlying factors related to it.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This cross-sectional study examined Big Five personality traits, self-liking, daily Internet use, and Instagram addiction among 752 university students using a newly developed Instagram Addiction Scale. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and self-liking were negatively associated with Instagram addiction, daily Internet use was positively associated, and self-liking mediated the links for agreeableness and conscientiousness.

Key findings

  • Among 752 participants, 33.5% were classified as risky Instagram users: 26.5% mildly addicted, 6.1% moderately addicted, and 0.9% severely addicted; 66.5% were non-addicted.
  • In path analysis, agreeableness (total effect β = −0.19), self-liking (β = −0.14), and daily Internet use (β = 0.20) were related to Instagram addiction; conscientiousness had a total effect of β = −0.10 and an indirect effect via self-liking of β = −0.03.
  • Self-liking partially mediated the relationship between agreeableness and Instagram addiction and fully mediated the relationship between conscientiousness and Instagram addiction; extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience were not supported as predictors.
  • The model predicted 21% of self-liking and 12% of Instagram addiction; the Instagram Addiction Scale had two factors (social effect and compulsion) with Cronbach’s α of .90 total, .86, and .85, respectively.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional self-report survey; 1,124 students participated overall, with 372 in Instagram Addiction Scale development and 752 in the main analysis (69% female; age range 18–24 years, mean = 20.30, SD = 1.46).
  • Measures included the short Big Five Inventory, the Self-Liking subscale, and the Instagram Addiction Scale, which was modified from Young’s Internet Addiction Test.
  • Analyses used EFA and CFA, descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations, and path analysis/SEM with maximum likelihood estimation and bootstrapping (2,000 bootstrap samples, 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals).

Limitations

  • The authors state that data were self-report and subject to biases such as memory recall and social desirability; the sample was cross-sectional, self-selecting, and non-representative, so causal relationships cannot be drawn.
  • The authors also note that the model explained only 12% of Instagram addiction variance, meaning other variables were not included, and that the mediation findings may alternatively reflect moderation.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was a convenience sample of university students, limiting generalizability, and only the self-liking dimension of self-esteem was measured rather than global self-esteem or self-competence.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1556/2006.7.2018.15

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 39 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 48 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 36
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 26
47 of 47
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The IAS cut-off points derived from cluster analysis accurately classify Instagram addiction severity.

    “To determine the cut-off points of the scale, two-step cluster analysis was utilized. As a result, cut-off points were determined as follows: non-addiction (15–37), mild addiction (38–58), moderate addiction (59–73), and severe addiction (over 73).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cross-sectional associations among personality, self-liking, and Instagram addiction reflect directional influences from personality and self-liking to Instagram addiction.

    “However, given that these studies are cross-sectional, the direction of effects is unknown. SNS interactions might have led to a change in self-esteem levels or low self-esteem might have been led to such interactions and uses in the first place.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The convenience sample of 752 university students is representative of university students for prevalence and relationships.

    “pencil and paper questionnaires were distributed to a convenience sample of university students by the research team.”
3 of 3

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.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Conflicting direct-effect estimates for agreeableness

    Minor

    The results text reports a standardized direct effect of −0.16 for agreeableness on Instagram addiction, while Table 4 reports −0.17 for the same direct effect.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 86 references

4 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ershad, Z. S. , & Aghajani, T. (2017). Prediction of Instagram social network addiction based on the personality, alexithymia and attachment Styles. Sociological Studies of Youth,8(26), 21–34.
  2. Huang, H. (2012). Social media addiction among adolescents in urban China: An examination of sociopsychological traits, uses and gratifications, academic performance, and social capital. Doctoral thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 342

Metadata

Authors
Kircaburun, K., & Griffiths, M. D.
Affiliations
  • Faculty of Education, Department of Computer and Instructional Technologies, Duzce University, Duzce, Turkey
  • Nottingham Trent University (GB)
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Published
2018-02-19
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
158-170
ISSN
  • 2062-5871 (ISSN-L)
  • 2063-5303
OpenAlex
W2788268593
Cited by
342
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8
FWCI
66.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral Addictions (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
  • DSpace - Düzce (Duzce University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Keywords
Instagram addiction, Big Five personality traits, self-liking, agreeableness, conscientiousness, daily internet use, mediation, university students
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Personality, Personality Tests, Photography, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Self Concept, Prevalence, Behavior, Addictive, Young Adult, Self Report, Social Media

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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