RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Social media bring not only benefits but also downsides, such as addictive behavior. While an ambivalent closed insecure attachment style has been prominently linked with internet and smartphone addiction, a similar analysis for social media addiction is still pending. This study aims to explore social media addiction, focusing on variations in attachment style, mental distress, and personality between students with and without problematic social media use. Additionally, it investigates whether a specific attachment style is connected to social media addiction. METHODS: Data were collected from 571 college students (mean age = 23.61, SD = 5.00, 65.5% female; response rate = 20.06%) via an online survey administered to all enrolled students of Sigmund Freud PrivatUniversity Vienna. The Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS) differentiated between students addicted and not addicted to social media. Attachment style was gauged using the Bielefeld Partnership Expectations Questionnaire (BFPE), mental distress by the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18), and personality by the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10). RESULTS: Of the total sample, 22.7% of students were identified as addicted to social media. For personality, it was demonstrated that socially media addicted (SMA) students reported significantly higher values on the neuroticism dimension compared to not socially media addicted (NSMA) students. SMA also scored higher across all mental health dimensions-depressiveness, anxiety, and somatization. SMA more frequently exhibited an insecure attachment style than NSMA, specifically, an ambivalent closed attachment style. A two-step cluster analysis validated the initial findings, uncovering three clusters: (1) secure attachment, primarily linked with fewer occurrences of social media addiction and a lower incidence of mental health problems; (2) ambivalent closed attachment, generally associated with a higher rate of social media addiction and increased levels of mental health problems; and (3) ambivalent clingy attachment, manifesting a medium prevalence of social media addiction and a relatively equitable mental health profile. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes are aligned with previous research on internet and smartphone addiction, pointing out the relevance of an ambivalent closed attachment style in all three contexts. Therapeutic interventions for social media addiction should be developed and implemented considering these findings.