CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 108Impact of Technology on AdolescentsInnovative Human-Technology InteractionMedia and Digital Communication

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Habits and the electronic herd: The psychology behind social media’s successes and failures

Open access
Anderson, Ian Axel, Wood, Wendy·2020·Consumer Psychology Review
DOI 10.31234/osf.io/p2yb7

Preprint — published as 10.1002/arcp.1063 · Paper page

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

If platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are the engines of social media use, what is the gasoline? The answer can be found in the psychological dynamics behind consumer habit formation and performance. In fact, the financial success of different social media sites is closely tied to the daily‐use habits they create among users. We explain how the rewards of social media sites motivate user habit formation, how social media design provides cues that automatically activate habits and nudge continued use, and how strong habits hinder quitting social media. Demonstrating that use habits are tied to cues, we report a novel test of a 2008 change in Facebook design, showing that it impeded posting only of frequent, habitual users, suggesting that the change disrupted habit automaticity. Finally, we offer predictions about the future of social media sites, highlighting the features most likely to promote user habits.

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 · 10.31234/osf.io/p2yb7

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Smartphone applications are designed to keep users hooked.

    “Smartphone applications are designed to keep users ' hooked. ' While engaging design features contribute to the product appeal, they also promote distraction and automaticity of use (Anderson & Wood, 2020; Flayelle et al., 2023).”

    From Is life brighter when your phone is not? The efficacy of a grayscale smartphone intervention addressing digital well-being (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson & Wood, 2020

    Section 4.2 (Design feature cues; page not provided) says social media sites use features such as endless feeds and autoplay that encourage continued use and form habits. It also links design cues to automaticity. The source does not establish this for smartphone applications generally or say that these features promote distraction. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Engaging design features promote distraction and automaticity of use.

    “Smartphone applications are designed to keep users ' hooked. ' While engaging design features contribute to the product appeal, they also promote distraction and automaticity of use (Anderson & Wood, 2020; Flayelle et al., 2023).”

    From Is life brighter when your phone is not? The efficacy of a grayscale smartphone intervention addressing digital well-being (2024) · cites this paper as Anderson & Wood, 2020

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 88

  1. Agadullina Elena R., Lovakov Andrey, Kiselnikova Natalia V. (2020). Does quitting social networks change feelings of loneliness among fresh- men? An experimental study. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jarhe -11-2019-0283. · DOI
  2. Alexander, D. L., Lynch, J. G., & Wang, Q. (2008). As time goes by: Do cold feet follow warm intentions for really new versus incrementally new products? Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 307-319. https://doi. org/10.1509/jmkr.45.3.307 · DOI
  3. Alhabash, S., & Ma, M. (2017). A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students. Social Media and Society, 3(1), 1-13. https://doi. org/10.1177/20563 05117 691544 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Alter, A. (2017). Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the busi- ness of keeping us hooked. Penguin.
  5. Amodio, D. M., & Ratner, K.G. (2011). A memory systems model of im- plicit social cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 143-148.
  6. Anderson, B. A. (2016). The attention habit: How reward learning shapes attentional selection. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1), 24-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12957 · DOI
  7. Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a Facebook addiction scale. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 501-517. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.09.18.PR0.110.2.501-517 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Archambault, A., & Grudin, J. (2012). A longitudinal study of Facebook, LinkedIn, & Twitter use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, USA, pp. 2741-2750. https:// doi.org/10.1145/22076 76.2208671 · DOI
  9. Ash, J., Anderson, B., Gordon, R., & Langley, P. (2018). Digital inter- face design and power: Friction, threshold, transition. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(6), 1136-1153. https://doi. org/10.1177/02637 75818 767426 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Avni-Babad, D. (2011). Routine and feelings of safety, confidence, and well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 102(2), 223-244. https://doi. org/10.1348/00071 2610X 513617 · DOI
  11. Baraković, S., & Skorin-Kapov, L. (2015). Multidimensional model- ling of quality of experience for mobile web browsing. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 314-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2015.03.071 · DOI
  12. Bayer, J. B., & Campbell, S. W. (2012). Texting while driving on automatic: Considering the frequency-independent side of habit. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2083-2090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2012.06.012 · DOI
  13. Bayer, J. B., & LaRose, R. (2018). Technology habits: Progress, problems, and prospects. In B. Verplanken (Ed.), The psychology of habit: Theory, mechanisms, change, and contexts (pp. 111-130). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-97529 -0_7 · DOI
  14. Brady, W. J., Gantman, A. P., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). Attentional cap- ture helps explain why moral and emotional content go viral. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(4), 746-756. https://doi. org/10.1037/xge00 00673 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Brevers, D., & Turel, O. (2019). Strategies for self-controlling social media use: Classification and role in preventing social media addiction symptoms. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 8(3), 554-563. https:// doi.org/10.1556/2006.8.2019. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Chan, E., & Briers, B. (2019). It's the end of the competition: When social comparison is not always motivating for goal achievement. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(2), 351-370. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ ucy075 · DOI
  17. Cohen, J. Y. (2015). Dopamine and serotonin signals for reward across time scales. Science, 350(6256), 47-48. https://doi.org/10.1126/ scien ce.aad3003 de Vries, D. A., Möller, A. M., Wieringa, M. S., Eigenraam, A. W., & Hamelink, K. (2018). Social comparison as the thief of joy: Emotional consequences of viewing strangers' Instagram posts. Media Psychology, 21(2), 222-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213 269.2016.1267647 · DOI
  18. DeRusso, A. L., Fan, D., Gupta, J., Shelest, O., Costa, R. M., & Yin, H. H. (2010). Instrumental uncertainty as a determinant of behavior under interval schedules of reinforcement. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 4(17), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2010.00017 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Deters, F. G., & Mehl, M. R. (2013). Does posting Facebook status up- dates increase or decrease loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5), 579- 586. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485 50612 469233 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Dindar, M., & Yaman, N. D. (2018). #IUseTwitterBecause: Content analytic study of a trending topic in Twitter. Information Technology and People, 31(1), 256-277. https://doi.org/10.1108/ ITP-02-2017-0029 · DOI
  21. Docherty, N. (2020). Facebook's ideal user: Healthy habits, social capital, and the politics of well-being online. Social Media and Society, 6(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563 05120 915606 · DOI
  22. Evanschitzky, H., Eisend, M., Calantone, R. J., & Jiang, Y. (2012). Success factors of product innovation: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 21-37. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00964.x · DOI
  23. Eyal, N. (2014). Hooked: How to build habit-forming products. Penguin.
  24. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The rea- soned action approach. Taylor & Francis.
  25. Fu, S., Li, H., Liu, Y., Pirkkalainen, H., & Salo, M. (2020). Social media overload, exhaustion, and use discontinuance: Examining the effects of information overload, system feature overload, and social over- load. Information Processing and Management, 57(6), 1-15. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102307 · DOI
  26. Garaialde, D., Bowers, C. P., Pinder, C., Shah, P., Parashar, S., Clark, L., & Cowan, B. R. (2020). Quantifying the impact of making and break- ing interface habits. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 142, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102461 · DOI
  27. Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Lally, P., & de Bruijn, G. J. (2012). Towards par- simony in habit measurement: Testing the convergent and predictive validity of an automaticity subscale of the Self-Report Habit Index. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-102 · DOI
  28. Hall Jeffrey, A., Xing Chong, Ross Elaina, M., & Johnson Rebecca, M. (2019). Experimentally manipulating social media abstinence: results of a four-week diary study. Media Psychology, 1-17. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/15213 269.2019.1688171. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Itzchakov, G., Uziel, L., & Wood, W. (2018). When attitudes and habits don't correspond: Self-control depletion increases persuasion but not behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75(481), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.011 · DOI · Paper page
  30. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology, vol. 1. Holt. Ji, M. F., & Wood, W. (2007). Purchase and consumption habits: Not necessarily what you intend. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(4), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057 -7408(07)70037 -2 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119-132. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x · DOI · Paper page
  32. Kim, M. (2014). The effects of external cues on media habit and use: Push notification alerts and mobile application usage habits [Dissertation, Michigan State University]. Retrieved September 2, 2020, from https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/3263/datas tream/ OBJ/downl oad/The_ effec ts_of_exter nal_cues_on_media_habit_and_use___push_notif icati on_alerts_and_mobile_appli cation_usage_habits.pdf
  33. Köse, D. B. (2020). Rolling or scrolling? The effect of content type on habitual use of Facebook. In Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems 2020 Proceedings, Dubai. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ pacis 2020/57
  34. Labrecque, J. S., Wood, W., Neal, D. T., & Harrington, N. (2017). Habit slips: When consumers unintentionally resist new products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 119-133. https://doi. org/10.1007/s1174 7-016-0482-9 · DOI
  35. Lally, P., Van Jaarsveld, C. H., Potts, H. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998-1009. https://doi. org/10.1002/ejsp.674 · DOI · Paper page
  36. LaRose, R. (2010). The problem of media habits. Communication Theory, 20(2), 194-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01360.x · DOI
  37. LaRose, R. (2015). The psychology of interactive media habits. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 365-383). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 97811 18426 456. · DOI
  38. ch16 · DOI
  39. LaRose, R., Kim, J., & Peng, W. (2010). Social networking: Addictive, com- pulsive, problematic, or just another media habit? In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social net- work sites (pp. 67-89). Routledge.
  40. Lee, E., Lee, J. A., Moon, J. H., & Sung, Y. (2015). Pictures speak louder than words: Motivations for using Instagram. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(9), 552-556. https://doi. org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0157 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Lewis, S. C. (2015). Reciprocity as a key concept for social media and soci- ety. Social Media and Society, 1(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563 05115 580339 · DOI
  42. Limayem, M., & Cheung, C. M. (2008). Understanding information sys- tems continuance: The case of Internet-based learning technol- ogies. Information and Management, 45(4), 227-232. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.im.2008.02.005 · DOI
  43. Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems con- tinuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705-737. https://www.jstor.org/stabl e/25148817
  44. Lin, P. Y., Wood, W., & Monterosso, J. (2015). Healthy eating habits protect against temptations. Appetite, 103, 432-440. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.11.011 · DOI
  45. Lindström, B., Bellander, M., Chang, A., Tobler, P. N., & Amodio, D. M. (2019). A computational reinforcement learning account of social media engagement. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/ osf.io/78mh5 · DOI
  46. Luqman, A., Cao, X., Ali, A., Masood, A., & Yu, L. (2017). Empirical in- vestigation of Facebook discontinues usage intentions based on SOR paradigm. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 544-555. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.020 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I., & Lüdecke, D. (2020). Methods and algorithms for correlation analysis in R. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(51), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.21105/ joss.02306 · DOI
  48. Malik, M. M., & Pfeffer, J. (2016). Identifying platform effects in social media data. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Web and Social Media, pp. 241-249. Retrieved September 2, 2020, from https://www.momin malik.com/malik_icwsm 2016.pdf
  49. Mazar, A., Itchakov, G., Lieberman, A., & Wood, W. (2020). The unin- tentional nonconformist: Habits promote resistance to social influence. Manuscript under editorial review.
  50. Meier, A., Reinecke, L., & Meltzer, C. E. (2016). Facebocrastination? Predictors of using Facebook for procrastination and its effects on students' well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.011 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Murray, K. B., & Häubl, G. (2007). Explaining cognitive lock-in: The role of skill-based habits of use in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1086/513048 · DOI
  52. Nah, F.-F.-H. (2004). A study on tolerable waiting time: How long are web users willing to wait? Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(3), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449 29041 00016 69914 · DOI
  53. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
  54. Oh, S., & Syn, S. Y. (2015). Motivations for sharing information and social support in social media: A comparative analysis of Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, YouTube, and Flickr. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(10), 2045-2060. https://doi. org/10.1002/asi.23320 · DOI
  55. Parker, H. J., & Flowerday, S. V. (2020). Contributing factors to increased susceptibility to social media phishing attacks. South African Journal of Information Management, 22(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4102/ sajim.v22i1.1176 · DOI
  56. Perloff, R. M. (2014). Social media effects on young women's body image concerns: Theoretical perspectives and an agenda for research. Sex Roles, 71(11-12), 363-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1119 9-014-0384-6 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Gratifications of using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat to follow brands: The moderating ef- fect of social comparison, trust, tie strength, and network homophily on brand identification, brand engagement, brand commitment, and membership intention. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 412-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.06.004 · DOI
  58. Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E. (2012). Shackled to the status quo: The inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and in- ertia on new system acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 3(1), 21-42. https:// doi.org/10.2307/41410404 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Quinn, J. M., Pascoe, A., Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2010). Can't control yourself? Monitor those bad habits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 499-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461 67209 360665 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Rusz, D., Le Pelley, M. E., Kompier, M. A. J., Mait, L., & Bijleveld, E. (2020). Reward-driven distraction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(10), 872-899. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul00 00296 · DOI
  61. Ryan, T., Chester, A., Reece, J., & Xenos, S. (2014). The uses and abuses of Facebook: A review of Facebook addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(3), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1556/jba.3.2014.016 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Schnauber-Stockmann, A., & Naab, T. K. (2019). The process of form- ing a mobile media habit: Results of a longitudinal study in a re- al-world setting. Media Psychology, 22(5), 714-742. https://doi. org/10.1080/15213 269.2018.1513850 · DOI
  63. Schonberg, T., Bakkour, A., Hover, A. M., Mumford, J. A., Nagar, L., Perez, J., & Poldrack, R. A. (2014). Changing value through cued approach: An automatic mechanism of behavior change. Nature Neuroscience, 17, 625-630. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3673 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Seo, M., Kim, J., & Yang, H. (2016). Frequent interaction and fast feed- back predict perceived social support: Using crawled and self-re- ported data of Facebook users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(4), 282-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12160 · DOI
  65. Snap, Inc. (2019). Apposphere: How frequent social media use impacts your daily life and emotions. Snap, Inc. Retrieved September 2, 2020, from https://forbu siness.snapc hat.com/blog/appos phere -how-the-apps- you-use-impac t-your-daily -life-and-emotions Southern, M. (2017). Facebook removes ticker news feed for monitoring friends' activity. Search Engine Journal. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from https://www.searc hengi nejou rnal.com/faceb ook-remov es- ticke r-news-feed-monit oring -frien ds-activ ity/22723 3/
  66. Spottswood, E. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2016). The positivity bias and proso- cial deception on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 252- 259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.019 · DOI
  67. Stawarz, K., Cox, A. L., & Blandford, A. (2015). Beyond self-tracking and reminders: Designing smartphone apps that support habit forma- tion. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, USA, pp. 2653-2662. https://doi. org/10.1145/27021 23.2702230 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Tam, L., Wood, W., & Ji, M. F. (2009). Brand loyalty is not habitual. In D. J. MacInnis, C. W. Park, & J. R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships (pp. 5-23).
  69. M.E. Sharpe. Thorson, K., Cotter, K., Medeiros, M., & Pak, C. (2019). Algorithmic in- ference, political interest, and exposure to news and politics on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 1-18. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/13691 18x.2019.1642934. · DOI
  70. Torkjazi, M., Rejaie, R., & Willinger, W. (2009). Hot today, gone tomor- row: On the migration of MySpace users. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Online Social Networks, USA, pp. 43-48. https://doi. org/10.1145/15926 65.1592676 · DOI
  71. Tromholt, M. (2016). The Facebook experiment: Quitting Facebook leads to higher levels of well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(11), 661-666. https://doi.org/10.1089/ cyber.2016.0259 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Turel, O., & Serenko, A. (2012). The benefits and dangers of enjoyment with social networking websites. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(5), 512-528. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012. · DOI · Paper page
  73. Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.076 · DOI
  74. Vally, Z., & D'Souza, C. G. (2019). Abstinence from social media use, sub- jective well-being, stress, and loneliness. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 55(4), 752-759. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12431 · DOI · Paper page
  75. van Deursen, A. J., Bolle, C. L., Hegner, S. M., & Kommers, P. A. (2015). Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 411-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Vanman, E. J., Baker, R., & Tobin, S. J. (2018). The burden of online friends: The effects of giving up Facebook on stress and well-be- ing. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(4), 496-507. https://doi. org/10.1080/00224 545.2018.1453467 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., Ybarra, O., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2015). Passive Facebook usage under- mines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480-488. https:// doi.org/10.1037/xge00 00057 · DOI · Paper page
  79. Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Résibois, M., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2017). Do social network sites enhance or undermine subjective well-being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 274-302. https:// doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12033 · DOI · Paper page
  80. Vernuccio, M., Pagani, M., Barbarossa, C., & Pastore, A. (2015). Antecedents of brand love in online network-based commu- nities. A social identity perspective. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 24(7), 706-719. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JPBM-12-2014-0772 · DOI
  81. Verpanken, B., Roy, D., & Whitmarsh, L. (2019). Cracks in the wall: Habit discontinuities as vehicles for behavior change. In B. Verplanken (Ed.), The psychology of habit (pp. 189-205). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-97529 -0_11 · DOI · Paper page
  82. Vishwanath, A. (2015). Habitual Facebook use and its impact on get- ting deceived on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12100 · DOI
  83. Vishwanath, A., Harrison, B., & Ng, Y. J. (2018). Suspicion, cognition, and automaticity model of phishing susceptibility. Communication Research, 45(8), 1146-1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936 50215 627483 · DOI
  84. Vishwanath, B., Mislove, A., Cha, M., & Gummadi, K. P. (2009). On the evolution of user interaction in Facebook. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on online social networks, USA, pp. 37-42. https://doi. org/10.1145/15926 65.1592675 · DOI · Paper page
  85. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/ scien ce.aap9559 Wang, J., Zheng, B., Liu, H., & Yu, L. (2020). A two-factor theoretical model of social media discontinuance: role of regret, inertia, and their antecedents. Information Technology and People. Advance online pub- lication. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2018-0483 · DOI
  86. Wood, W., & Rünger, D. T. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289-314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annur ev-psych -12241 4-033417 · DOI · Paper page
  87. Wood, W., Tam, L., & Witt, M. G. (2005). Changing circumstances, dis- rupting habits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 918-933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.918 · DOI · Paper page
  88. Zell, A. L., & Moeller, L. (2018). Are you happy for me … on Facebook? The potential importance of "likes" and comments. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2017.08.050 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, I. A., & Wood, W.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Wood, Wendy
ORCID
Venue
Consumer Psychology Review
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2020-11-23
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
83-99
ISSN
2476-1273 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.31234/osf.io/p2yb7
OpenAlex
W3108514068
Cited by
108
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
14.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Consumer Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Digital Communication
Keywords
social media, habit formation, cues, reward, social media design, consumer behavior

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