MEZIESBLOG

In response to the limitations of the concept of “social media use,” the clinical-psychological paradigm has introduced the idea of social media addiction or problematic social media use. This concept is modelled on behavioural addictions, such as gambling, and aims to identify extreme, dysfunctional patterns of engagement (Andreassen et al. 243). While this model has value in recognizing cases of genuine pathology, its extension to cover a broad spectrum of high engagement is controversial and potentially misleading.

A critical examination of the concept reveals two central tensions: its acknowledged utility and its substantive critique.

Explanatory Value of the Addiction Framework

First, the addiction framework provides a clinical vocabulary for understanding genuine cases of compulsive engagement. Instruments like the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS) have been used to identify individuals whose social media use leads to significant distress, withdrawal symptoms, and neglect of real-world responsibilities (Pontes 78). Beyond diagnosis, the model also illuminates the role of platform design features, such as variable rewards, notifications, and infinite scrolling, which can exploit psychological vulnerabilities and reinforce compulsive engagement. By highlighting these mechanisms, the addiction model draws attention to how social media platforms may structurally encourage problematic patterns of use.

Key Limitations of the Addiction Framework

However, the addiction framework is not without serious limitations. One primary concern is its tendency to medicalize and decontextualize behaviour. By framing excessive engagement as an individual psychopathology, the model risks labelling adaptive, strategic, or culturally normative behaviour as “addictive” (Schmuck 142). As Buchi observes, this “colonization” of heavy engagement by addiction discourse obscures the structural, social, and agentic dimensions of digital behaviour (21).

For example, many Nigerian youths engage in high-frequency, intensive platform use as part of “digital hustling,” an economically rational strategy for income generation. In this context, intense engagement is not necessarily a symptom of impaired self-control but rather a response to economic necessity and social opportunity. Focusing narrowly on individual deficits, therefore, ignores how social context, cultural norms, and platform political economy shape usage patterns. The addiction model, by emphasizing pathology, fails to resolve what has been called the “agency paradox,” in which users’ intentional, goal-directed engagement is mischaracterized as compulsive or addictive behaviour.

In conclusion, while the addiction paradigm offers useful tools for identifying extreme, clinically significant cases, its broad application risks over-medicalizing social media behaviour. A nuanced approach is required—one that recognizes both the structural and agentic dimensions of engagement, particularly in socio-economically complex contexts like Nigeria. Understanding high-frequency, salient engagement as potentially adaptive rather than inherently pathological provides a more accurate and socially sensitive framework for analysing contemporary social media practices.