# Well-Being and Social Media: A Systematic Review of Bergen Addiction Scales
## 3 Results: Facebook and Social Media Addiction Effects on Well-Being
### Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being  
Historically, the multi-dimensional construct of well-being [55] has been categorized by psychologists [56] into two clusters: hedonic well-being (HWB) and eudaimonic well-being (EWB) [57; 58; 59]. HWB is usually represented by two main aspects: a cognitive evaluation component (i.e., satisfaction with life) [60] and an affective evaluation component (i.e., the prevalence of positive emotions over negative emotions) [61]. Instead, EWB is rather framed in terms of individuals' optimal functioning and self-realization (e.g., meaning in life, flourishing) [58; 62; 63; 64; 65]. In our dataset, six studies [43; 45; 47; 48; 49] employed a well-being measure that falls into the hedonic well-being framework. BFAS (or the version for Weibo) was used in all of them. Three studies [47; 15; 48] investigated the relationship of Facebook addiction with satisfaction with life (i.e., cognitive evaluation component of HWB) reporting a Person's r coefficient ranging from \(-0.324\) to \(-0.11\). For the sake of clarity, [PERSON]'s r is interpretable as it follows [66]: we have a negligible correlation for coefficient lower than \(|0.30|\), a low correlation for values between \(|0.30|\) and \(|0.50|\), a moderate correlation for r values ranging from \(|0.50|\) to \(|0.70|\), a high correlation for coefficients between \(|0.70|\) and \(|0.90|\), and a very high correlation for values ranging from \(|0.90|\) to \(|1.00|\). Thus, in our case, we have a small (from negligible to low) negative correlation between BFAS and people's satisfaction with life. The effect size of BFAS on Life Satisfaction is roughly estimated as ranging from \(1.2\%\) and \(10\%\) across the three studies. Interestingly, in [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [15], for people that do not excessively use Weibo social media, the correlation value is \(0.05\) and resulted in being not statistically significant, which highlights the absence of any sort of linear relationship between addiction and well-being. [PERSON] and [PERSON] study [48], together with Satisfaction with Life, also employed other two hedonic well-being measures, namely: The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) [67] and the Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS) [68]. Both scales presented correlation values around \(-0.30\). More precisely, \(-0.287\) for happiness and \(-0.32\) for vitality. A further measure related to the cognitive component of HWB has been derived from the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Brief scale [69] and asks people to rate their perceived quality of life [70]. In [PERSON] and colleagues'work [43], the relation between BFAS and Quality of life resulted in being negligible (i.e., [PERSON]'s r = 0.07). In our dataset, three studies [45; 47; 49] investigated the BFAS relationship with the affective component of HWB. These works each employed a different instrument for assessing well-being, which were the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) [61], the Activation-Deactivation Adjective Checklist (ADACL) [71], and the WHO-5 Well-Being Index [72]. Figure 1: Diagram showing the flow of information through the review: the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for the exclusions. Three studies investigated how BFAS affects the affective component of HWB. Two out of three works [45; 47] found statistically significant but negligible correlations. In particular, BFAS entertained a negative relationship with positive affect and a positive one with the negative affect component, both measured by the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), while the Activation-Deactivation Adjective Checklist (ADACL), which explores at the same time positive and negative feelings, correlated \(-0.10\) with BFAS [45]. A different result emerged in [PERSON] et al. [49], in which BFAS accounted for approximately 32% of the variance in the World Health Organization Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) score. Finally, only one study put together EWB and BFAS [48] using the Flourishing Scale [62].