# Well-Being and Social Media: A Systematic Review of Bergen Addiction Scales
## 3 Results: Facebook and Social Media Addiction Effects on Well-Being
### Other Well-Being Measures  
The distinction rooted in philosophy between HWB and EWB does not necessarily translate well to science [73]. For this reason, the relationship between Facebook/Social Media Addiction and well-being was also explored relying on other well-being measures. These measures distinguish themselves from the previous in several ways. Measures like the Positive Mental Health Scale (PMH-Scale) [74] take at the same time both the hedonic and the eudaimonic approaches into account, while the Wellbeing Process Questionnaire (Student WPQ) [75] and [PERSON]'s Psychological Well-Being scale (PWB) [76] use psychosocial concepts to assess well-being in a more comprehensive manner. Psychological well-being is defined in terms of human functioning and thus in some way is very close to EWB, but also encompasses typical aspects of HWB (for instance, the cognitive evaluation of one's life) [77]. Overall, four studies used well-being measures that did not fall within the dichotomy HWB and EWB [42; 44; 46; 50]. The PMH scale showed a negative linear relationship with BFAS (Pearson's r = \(-0.27\)) [44]. A similar result emerged from the [PERSON] work [42], which employed the Student WPQ measure to assess well-being's relationship with social media addiction. BSMAS presented a positive linear correlation with the negative well-being score from the Student WPQ (i.e., Pearson's r = \(0.28\)), a smaller correlation with the positive well-being (i.e., Pearson's r = \(-0.13\)), while no relationship emerged with the positive appraisal which represents people's life satisfaction (i.e., Pearson's r = \(0.06\)). For the sake of clarity, we specify that scores of depression, negative affect, and anxiety define the negative well-being in the Student WPQ, while the positive well-being is described by both positive affect and positive appraisal. The same author tested the same relationships with a sample of workers employing the dedicated WPQ version [78], obtaining quite similar results. Negative well-being showed a higher correlation with BSMAS (i.e., Pearson's r = \(0.45\)). The relationship between BSMAS and positive well-being resulted in a lower and not statistically significant Pearson's r value (i.e., r = \(0.03\)). No information was directly provided for the positive appraisal; nonetheless, since neither the positive well-being (which is the composite measure of positive affect and appraisal) nor the positive affect (i.e., [PERSON]'s r = \(0.06\)) presented statistically significant correlation values, we can assume that also in this case BSMAS did not appear to affect people's life satisfaction. A further study [50] has investigated the relationship between BSMAS and well-being employing the [PERSON]'s Psychological Well-Being Scale, showing a small negative correlation ([PERSON]'s r = \(-0.34\)). BFAS was also put in relation to psychological well-being but only accounting for the relational aspect (i.e., positive relations with others dimension) of the [PERSON]'s scale [46]. In this case, a very small (i.e., negligible) correlation ([PERSON]'s r = \(-0.13\)) was reported with BFAS scores. In Table 1, the full picture of the relationships entertained by Bergen's addiction scales with well-being measures in the included studies is presented. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**ID** & **Author** & **Year** & **Country** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sample** \\ **Size** \\ \end{tabular}  & **Sample Description** & **Measure of WB** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Correlation** \\ **Coefficient** \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (BFAS)**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{1} & Turel and & \multirow{3}{*}{2018} & Turel & \multirow{3}{*}{2018} & Israeli college & \multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} WHO five item Wellbeing \\ Index (WHO-5; [72]) \\ \end{tabular}  } \\  & [PERSON] & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-7}  & \multirow{3}{*}{2} & [PERSON] and & \multirow{3}{*}{2015} & [PERSON] & \multirow{3}{*}{311} & Turkey university & \multirow{3}{*}{