Cover not available
Article published In:
Dialogue and Ways of Relating
Edited by Huey-Rong Chen
[Language and Dialogue 10:1] 2020
► pp. 49–73

Is dialogue addictive?

Of loops, pride, and tensions in social media communication

| Université du Québec à Trois Rivières , Canada

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.

Keywords: models of dialogue, social media, social validation, addiction, feedback
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Facebook addiction: A functionalist approach
    • 2.1The social skill model of problematic internet usage (PIU)
    • 2.2The uses and gratification model
  • 3.Limitations of a functionalist approach to Facebook addiction
    • 3.1The dialogical approach
      • 3.1.1What is dialogue?
      • 3.1.2The epistemological model of dialogue
      • 3.1.3The aesthetic model of dialogue
      • 3.1.4The model of open dialogue
  • 4.Dialogue, love and addiction in Facebook
    • 4.1Facebook and epistemological model of dialogue
    • 4.2The five steps of addiction in the digital dialogue
    • 4.3Aesthetic dialogue and Facebook addiction
  • 5.Suggestions for a dialogical approach to Facebook addiction
  • 6.Conclusion: Dialogue and Facebook addiction
  • References
Published online: 19 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00059.kat
References
Arnett, Ronald C.
2004 “A dialogic ethic ‘between’ Buber and Levinas.” In Dialogue. Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, ed. by Rob Anderson, Leslie A. Baxter, Kenneth N. Cissna, 75-90. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Situating a dialogic ethics: A dialogic confession.” In The Handbook of Communication Ethics, ed. by George Cheney, Steve May and Debashish Munshi. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Studies 131: 347–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. Bakhtin. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1979 Esthétique de la création verbale. Paris: Ed. Gallimard.Google Scholar
1970 Problèmes de la poétique de Dostoiévski. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory and Jurgen Ruesch
1988 Communication et Société. Paris: Édition du Seuil.Google Scholar
Baxter, Leslie A.
2004 “Dialogues of relating.” In Dialogue. Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, ed. by Rob Anderson, Leslie A. Baxter, Kenneth N. Cissna, 107-124. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Gregory and Jurgen, Ruesch
1958/1988 Communication et société. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory
1977 Vers une écologie de l’esprit 11. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
1980 Vers une écologie de l’esprit 21. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory, Don D. Jackson, and Jay Haley
1963 “A note on the double bind-1962.” Family Process 21:154–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, Leslie A. and Dan H. DeGooyer, Jr.
2001 “Perceived aesthetic characteristics of interpersonal conversations.” Southern Communication Journal 671: 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavin Bavelas, Janet H.
1992 “Research into the pragmatics of human communication.” Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies 11(2): 15–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benbunan-Fich, Raquel
2001 “Using protocol analysis to evaluate the usability of a commercial website.” Information and Management 391: 151–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohm, David
1996 On Dialogue, ed. by Lee Nichol. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buber, Martin
1965 The Knowledge of Man: A Philosophy of the Interhuman, ed. by M. Friedman. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
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. Flight 5 (4): 475–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplan, Scott E.
2007 “Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic internet use.” CyberPsychology and Behavior 10(2): 234–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Theory and measurement of generalized problematic internet use: A two-step approach.” Computer in Human Behavior 261: 1089–1097. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cash, H., C. D. Rae, A. H. Steel, and A. Winkler
2012 “Internet addiction: A brief summary of research and practice.” Current Psychiatry Reviews 8(4): 292–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Networking 16(11): 806–812. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Telecommunication 5(1): 47–64.Google Scholar
Chou, Chien, Linda Condron, and John C. Belland
2005 “A review of the research on internet addiction.” Educational Psychology Review 17(4): 363–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, Robert B.
2009 Influence: Science and Practice. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Cresci, Elena
2016 “Lonelygirl15: How the mysterious vlogger changed internet.” The Guardian Thu., June 16.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders and Herbert A. Simon
1984 Protocol Analysis: Using Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Martha E., Benjamin Kuipers, and Susan J. Grobe
1993 “A description of think aloud method and protocol.” Qualitative Health Research 3(4): 430–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergen, Kenneth J.
1999 Le constructionisme social. Lonay, Suisse: Delachaux and Niestlé.Google Scholar
Gergen, Keneth J., Mary M. Gergen, and Frank J. Barrett
2004 “Dialogue: Life and death of the organization.” In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse, ed. by David Grant, Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick, and Linda L. Putnam, 39–59. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Culture 2(1): 51–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawes, Leonard C.
2004 “Double binds as structures in dominance and of feelings.” In Dialogue. Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, ed. by Rob Anderson, Leslie A. Baxter and Kenneth N. Cissna, 175–190. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahane, Adam
2010 Power and Love: A Theory and Practice of Social Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Pub.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Timothy, Karen L. Asshcraft, and François Cooren
2018 “What work can organizational communication do?” Management Communication Quarterly 33(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Kuss, Daria J., Mark D. Griffiths, and Jens F. Binder
2013 “Internet addiction in students: Prevalence and risk factors.” Computers in Human Behavior 291: 959–966. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno
2004 Politiques de la nature. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel
1971 Totalité et infinité. Paris: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983/2011 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Science 5(3): 882–897.Google Scholar
Markova, Ivana
2003 Dialogicality and Social Representations. The Dynamics of Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pandey, Erica
2017 “Sean Parker: Facebook was designed to exploit human ‘vulnerability’.” Retrieved from [URL]
Pearce, W. Barnett and Kimberly A. Pearce
2004 “Taking a communication perspective on dialogue.” In Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies, ed. by Rob Anderson, Leslie A. Baxter and Kenneth N. Cissna, 39–56. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popescu, Adam
2018 “Keep your head up: How smartphones addiction kills manners and moods.” The New York Times, Jan 25.Google Scholar
Ryan, Tracii, Andrea Chester, John Reece, and Sophia Xenos
2014 “The uses and abuses of Facebook: A review of Facebook addiction.” Journal of Behavioral Addictions 3(3): 133–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seikkula, Jakko
2005 “Dialogical analysis of theme sequences in open dialogues for psychotic crises: comparing good and poor outcome cases.” In Focus on Psychotherapy Research, ed. by M. E. Abelian, 103-119. New York: Nova Science.Google Scholar
Seikkula, Jaakko and David Trimble
2005 “Healing elements of therapeutic conversation: Dialogue as embodiment of love.” Family Process 44(4):461–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seikkula, Jaakko, Jukka Aaltonen, Birgitta Alakare, Kaauko Haarakangas, Jyrki Keränen, and M. Sutela
1995 “Treating psychosis by means of Open Dialogue.” In The Reflecting Team in Action: Collaborative Practice in Family Therapy, ed. by Steven Friedman, 62–80. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Stephenson, William Y.
1988 The Play Theory of Mass Communication, 2nd ed. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, Hardimos
2009 “A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations.” Organization Science 20(6): 941–957. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Helmick Beavin, and Don D. Jackson
1972 Une logique de la communication. Paris: Édition du Seuil.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2017 “The mixed game model. A holistic theory.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 174–194. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2010 Dialogue. The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
White, William J.
2008 “The interlocutor dilemma: the place of strategy in the dialogic theory.” Communication Theory 18(1): 5–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Whiting, Anita, David Williams
2013 “Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications approach.” Qualitative Market Research 16(4): 362–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolsey, Lorette K.
1986 “The critical technical incident: An innovative qualitative method of research.” Canadian Journal of Counseling 20 (4): 242–254.Google Scholar
Wolf, Montrose M.
1978 “Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how is it applied?” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 111: 203–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, Julia Carrie
2017 “Former Facebook executive: social media is ripping society apart.” Retrieved from [URL]
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Zhao, Xinyan & Yi-Ru Regina Chen
2022. How brand-stakeholder dialogue drives brand-hosted community engagement on social media: A mixed-methods approach. Computers in Human Behavior 131 ► pp. 107208 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.