Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In this study, we shed some light on the thinking behind Facebook addiction. Since social network system are dialogical communication tools, we carve out a space for a theoretical and methodological alternative to the research on social media addiction, as it relates specifically to Facebook addiction. Based on several meta-evaluations and synthesis of extant empirical research, we uncover the two most prominent functionalist approaches sustaining these empirical researches. Upon pointing to their epistemological, theoretical and methodological limitations, we delve into dialogic approach and theory with a view to isolate how and what it is in a dialogic communication that makes it addictive. Finally, we offer some theoretical and methodological alternatives from a dialogical perspective on how to study Facebook addiction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arnett, Ronald C.
    2004 “A dialogic ethic ‘between’ Buber and Levinas.” InDialogue. Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, ed. byRob Anderson, Leslie A. Baxter, Kenneth N. Cissna, 75-90. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. 10.4135/9781483328683.n5
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328683.n5 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2011 “Situating a dialogic ethics: A dialogic confession.” InThe Handbook of Communication Ethics, ed. byGeorge Cheney, Steve May and Debashish Munshi. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203890400.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203890400.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aknin, Lara B., Elizabeth W. Dunn, and Michael I. Norton
    2012 “Happiness runs in a circular motion: a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and happiness.” Journal of Happiness Studies13: 347–355. 10.1007/s10902‑011‑9267‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9267-5 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. Bakhtin. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1979Esthétique de la création verbale. Paris: Ed. Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1970Problèmes de la poétique de Dostoiévski. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bateson, Gregory and Jurgen Ruesch
    1988Communication et Société. Paris: Édition du Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baxter, Leslie A.
    2004 “Dialogues of relating.” InDialogue. Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, ed. byRob Anderson, Leslie A. Baxter, Kenneth N. Cissna, 107-124. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. 10.4135/9781483328683.n7
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328683.n7 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bateson, Gregory and Jurgen, Ruesch
    1958/1988Communication et société. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bateson, Gregory
    1977Vers une écologie de l’esprit1. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1980Vers une écologie de l’esprit2. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bateson, Gregory, Don D. Jackson, and Jay Haley
    1963 “A note on the double bind-1962.” Family Process2:154–161. 10.1111/j.1545‑5300.1963.00154.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1963.00154.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Baxter, Leslie A. and Dan H. DeGooyer, Jr.
    2001 “Perceived aesthetic characteristics of interpersonal conversations.” Southern Communication Journal67: 1–18. 10.1080/10417940109373215
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940109373215 [Google Scholar]
  14. Beavin Bavelas, Janet H.
    1992 “Research into the pragmatics of human communication.” Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies11(2): 15–29. 10.1521/jsst.1992.11.2.15
    https://doi.org/10.1521/jsst.1992.11.2.15 [Google Scholar]
  15. Benbunan-Fich, Raquel
    2001 “Using protocol analysis to evaluate the usability of a commercial website.” Information and Management39: 151–163. 10.1016/S0378‑7206(01)00085‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00085-4 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bohm, David
    1996On Dialogue, ed. byLee Nichol. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Buber, Martin
    1965The Knowledge of Man: A Philosophy of the Interhuman, ed. byM. Friedman. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Butterfield, Lee D., William A. Borgen, Norman E. Amundson, and Asa-Sophia T. Maglio
    2005 “Fifty years of critical technical incident: 1954–2004 and beyond.” Qualitative Research. Flight5 (4): 475–497. 10.1177/1468794105056924
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105056924 [Google Scholar]
  19. Caplan, Scott E.
    2007 “Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic internet use.” CyberPsychology and Behavior10(2): 234–242. 10.1089/cpb.2006.9963
    https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9963 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2010 “Theory and measurement of generalized problematic internet use: A two-step approach.” Computer in Human Behavior26: 1089–1097. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.012 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cash, H., C. D. Rae, A. H. Steel, and A. Winkler
    2012 “Internet addiction: A brief summary of research and practice.” Current Psychiatry Reviews8(4): 292–298. 10.2174/157340012803520513
    https://doi.org/10.2174/157340012803520513 [Google Scholar]
  22. Chen, Hsuan-Ting and Kim Yonghwan
    2013 “Problematic use of social network sites: The interactive relationship between gratifications sought and privacy concerns.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking16(11): 806–812. 10.1089/cyber.2011.0608
    https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0608 [Google Scholar]
  23. Chou, Chien, Jung Chou, and Nay-Ching Nancy Tyan
    1998 “An exploratory study of internet addiction, usage and communication pleasure – the Taiwan’s case.” International Journal Education Telecommunication5(1): 47–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chou, Chien, Linda Condron, and John C. Belland
    2005 “A review of the research on internet addiction.” Educational Psychology Review17(4): 363–388. 10.1007/s10648‑005‑8138‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8138-1 [Google Scholar]
  25. Cialdini, Robert B.
    2009Influence: Science and Practice. New York: William Morrow.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Cresci, Elena
    2016 “Lonelygirl15: How the mysterious vlogger changed internet.” The Guardian, Thu., June16.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ericsson, K. Anders and Herbert A. Simon
    1984Protocol Analysis: Using Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fonteyn, Martha E., Benjamin Kuipers, and Susan J. Grobe
    1993 “A description of think aloud method and protocol.” Qualitative Health Research3(4): 430–441. 10.1177/104973239300300403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300403 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gergen, Kenneth J.
    1999Le constructionisme social. Lonay, Suisse: Delachaux and Niestlé.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gergen, Keneth J., Mary M. Gergen, and Frank J. Barrett
    2004 “Dialogue: Life and death of the organization.” InThe SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse, ed. byDavid Grant, Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick, and Linda L. Putnam, 39–59. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781848608122.n2
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608122.n2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Guadagno, Rosanna E., Nicole L. Muscanell, Lindsay M. Rice, and Nicole Roberts
    2013 “Social influence online: The impact of social validation and likability on compliance.” Psychology of Popular Media Culture2(1): 51–60. 10.1037/a0030592
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030592 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hawes, Leonard C.
    2004 “Double binds as structures in dominance and of feelings.” InDialogue. Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, ed. byRob Anderson, Leslie A. Baxter and Kenneth N. Cissna, 175–190. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub. 10.4135/9781483328683.n11
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328683.n11 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kahane, Adam
    2010Power and Love: A Theory and Practice of Social Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Pub.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kuhn, Timothy, Karen L. Asshcraft, and François Cooren
    2018 “What work can organizational communication do?” Management Communication Quarterly33(1): 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuss, Daria J., Mark D. Griffiths, and Jens F. Binder
    2013 “Internet addiction in students: Prevalence and risk factors.” Computers in Human Behavior29: 959–966. 10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.024
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.024 [Google Scholar]
  36. Latour, Bruno
    2004Politiques de la nature. Paris: La Découverte.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Levinas, Emmanuel
    1971Totalité et infinité. Paris: Kluwer Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983/2011Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  39. Macït, Hüseyin Bilal, Gamze Macït, and Orhan Güngör
    2018 “A research on social media addiction and dopamine driven feedback.” Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Science5(3): 882–897.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Markova, Ivana
    2003Dialogicality and Social Representations. The Dynamics of Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pandey, Erica
    2017 “Sean Parker: Facebook was designed to exploit human ‘vulnerability’.” Retrieved fromwww.axios.com/sean-parker-facebook-was-designed-to-exploit-human-vulnerability-1513306782-6d18fa32-5438-4e60-af71-13d126b58e41.html
  42. Pearce, W. Barnett and Kimberly A. Pearce
    2004 “Taking a communication perspective on dialogue.” InDialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, ed. byRob Anderson, Leslie A. Baxter and Kenneth N. Cissna, 39–56. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. 10.4135/9781483328683.n3
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328683.n3 [Google Scholar]
  43. Popescu, Adam
    2018 “Keep your head up: How smartphones addiction kills manners and moods.” The New York Times, Jan25.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ryan, Tracii, Andrea Chester, John Reece, and Sophia Xenos
    2014 “The uses and abuses of Facebook: A review of Facebook addiction.” Journal of Behavioral Addictions3(3): 133–148. 10.1556/JBA.3.2014.016
    https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.016 [Google Scholar]
  45. Seikkula, Jakko
    2005 “Dialogical analysis of theme sequences in open dialogues for psychotic crises: comparing good and poor outcome cases.” InFocus on Psychotherapy Research, ed. byM. E. Abelian, 103-119. New York: Nova Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Seikkula, Jaakko and David Trimble
    2005 “Healing elements of therapeutic conversation: Dialogue as embodiment of love.” Family Process44(4):461–75. 10.1111/j.1545‑5300.2005.00072.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2005.00072.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Seikkula, Jaakko, Jukka Aaltonen, Birgitta Alakare, Kaauko Haarakangas, Jyrki Keränen, and M. Sutela
    1995 “Treating psychosis by means of Open Dialogue.” InThe Reflecting Team in Action: Collaborative Practice in Family Therapy, ed. bySteven Friedman, 62–80. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Stephenson, William Y.
    1988The Play Theory of Mass Communication, 2nd ed.New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tsoukas, Hardimos
    2009 “A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations.” Organization Science20(6): 941–957. 10.1287/orsc.1090.0435
    https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0435 [Google Scholar]
  50. Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Helmick Beavin, and Don D. Jackson
    1972Une logique de la communication. Paris: Édition du Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Weigand, Edda
    2017 “The mixed game model. A holistic theory.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand, 174–194. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2010Dialogue. The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wellman, Barry
    1996 “For a social network analysis of computer networks: A sociological perspective on collaborative work and virtual connectivity.” Proceedings of SIGCP SIGMIS, 1-11. Denver: ACM Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. White, William J.
    2008 “The interlocutor dilemma: the place of strategy in the dialogic theory.” Communication Theory18(1): 5–26. 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2007.00311.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00311.x [Google Scholar]
  55. Whitting, Anita and David Williams
    2013 “Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4): 362-369.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Whiting, Anita, David Williams
    2013 “Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications approach.” Qualitative Market Research16(4): 362–369. 10.1108/QMR‑06‑2013‑0041
    https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041 [Google Scholar]
  57. Woolsey, Lorette K.
    1986 “The critical technical incident: An innovative qualitative method of research.” Canadian Journal of Counseling20 (4): 242–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Wolf, Montrose M.
    1978 “Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how is it applied?” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis11: 203–214. 10.1901/jaba.1978.11‑203
    https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203 [Google Scholar]
  59. Wong, Julia Carrie
    2017 “Former Facebook executive: social media is ripping society apart.” Retrieved fromwww.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/11/facebook

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): addiction; feedback; models of dialogue; social media; social validation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error