One of the distinguishing features of the 21st century has been the emergence and expansion of online social networking sites (SNS) (Yamin, 2019). Among various platforms, Facebook is the leading social networking site in terms of the number of users (Boudreaux, 2022), and it is used for a variety of purposes (Montag et al., 2019), from educational (Çakiroglu et al., 2020) to social connections (Houghton et al., 2020).

Besides its many functions and advantages, it has been shown that Facebook use can be associated with some psycho-social problems. However, not all Facebook users experience problematic use (Elhai et al., 2021, Marino et al., 2016). Just as many people experience sadness at some point in their lives but only a minority of them would be diagnosed with a depressive disorder (Ferrari et al., 2013), most people use Facebook daily, but only a minority experience maladaptive use that negatively affects their functioning (Biolcati et al., 2018). “Problematic Facebook use” has been defined as a problematic behavior that generates difficulties in various domains of life, such as intimate relations, work, school, and friendships (Marino et al., 2018). Furthermore, Kardefelt-Winther (2014), based on the Compensatory Internet Use Theory (CIUT), conceptualized internet use as a substitute for something which is needed but is not available. Accordingly, “compensatory Facebook use” refers to the use of Facebook as a means of compensation for feelings of inadequacy and personal insecurities (Bodroža & Jovanović, 2016). Furthermore, despite requent Facebook use per se is considered normative and not problematic, some researchers (for example, Coco et al., 2018, Koban et al., 2018, Weiqin et al., 2016) have suggested that very high levels of Facebook use may become problematic (Montag & Hegelich, 2020). For this reason, the present study included daily or weekly counts of “time spent on Facebook” as a further main variable, along with problematic and compensatory Facebook use.

Overall, it should be noted that none of these constructs have been recognized as official disorders by prominent diagnostic manuals yet (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; ICD11 WHO, 2019). The lack of a shared definition and different positions regarding the potential diagnostic criteria have resulted in the development and use of various assessment tools (Griffiths et al., 2015), such as the Facebook Intrusion Questionnaire (Elphinston & Noller, 2011), the Problematic Facebook Use Scale (Assunção & Matos, 2017), and the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale (Andreassen et al., 2012). Montag and Rumpf (2021) have also recommend novel assessment approaches to overcoming recall bias and other limitations of typical assessment approaches. Along with issues related to definition and assessment, the field of problematic Facebook use has suffered from the lack of a gold-standard theoretical model. The I-PACE model might be the most relevant, among the many attempts to provide a theoretical framework, for conceptualising problematic Facebook use (Brand et al., 2019).

Brand et al. (2016) integrated neurobiological and psychological factors to explain the development and maintenance of disorders related to internet use, highlighting that relevant personality characteristics and affective and cognitive mechanisms are implicated. Given the fact that Facebook has the highest number of users among various SNSs (2,375 million active users; Sindermann et al., 2020) and according to epidemiological research findings showing the prevalence of Facebook ‘addiction’ ranges from 4 % to 8.6 % (for example, Khumsri et al., 2015), examining the individual characteristics and differences affecting problematic use of Facebook is considered an important research area. Among the many psychological factors that may be involved in problems related to Facebook use, personality traits have attracted much attention (for example, Abbasi and Drouin, 2019, Garza et al., 2022, Lu et al., 2021, Marengo et al., 2020, Roma et al., 2019; and Sheldon et al., 2021) because they are known to constitute vulnerability factors for the engagement in problematic behaviors as they reflect individual differences associated with patterns of skills and behaviors (Marino et al., 2018). One of the most famous and widely used approaches in the field of personality is the Five-Factor or Big-five model (McCrae & John, 1992), which identifies five dimensions of human personality: extraversion (the quantity and intensity of relationships with one’s environment), agreeableness (the relational sphere and the tone of relationships with others), conscientiousness (orientation, persistency of behavior and control of impulses), neuroticism or emotional stability (inclination to perceive reality as difficult, problematic, or threatening and to feel negative emotions such as fear or anger), and openness (active search for and a love of new experiences). The association between the Big-five personality traits and problematic Facebook use, compensatory Facebook use, and time spent on Facebook is not yet clear.

With regards to problematic Facebook use, a meta-analysis (Marino et al., 2018) showed that neuroticism (positively) and conscientiousness (negatively) were the clearest personality traits associated with problematic Facebook use. Even in the case of neuroticism, there are studies that show a relatively weak (positive) association (like Lee, 2015) or no association (Rajesh & Rangaiah, 2020) between this personality trait and problematic Facebook use. Except for these two personality traits, the other personality traits showed small or insignificant associations with problematic Facebook use. Marino et al. (2016) reported that only extraversion appears to be negatively associated with problematic Facebook use, whilst Błachnio and Przepiorka (2016) found that all of the five big personality traits are negatively associated with problematic Facebook use and only the associations between conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience to problematic Facebook use are statistically significant. Meanwhile, others reported that introversion is positively (though slightly) associated with problematic Facebook use (Bodroža and Jovanović, 2016, Wheeler, 2018).

Concerning compensatory Facebook use, Bodroža and Jovanović (2016) found that it was positively associated with low conscientiousness and agreeableness and high neuroticism and introversion, while Jovanović et al. (2022) reported that low openness to experience was positively significantly associated with compensatory Facebook use.

Finally, regarding the amount of time spent on Facebook, Abbasi and Drouin, 2019, Chow and Wan, 2017 reported that individuals high in neuroticism may be particularly inclined towards spending more time on Facebook for emotion regulation purposes (as a means to improve their mood). Eşkisu et al., 2017, Gazit, 2021 found the highest positive association between openness to experience, and time spent on Facebook, as a means to maintain a wider social environment. Suresh (2013) reported that only low extraversion had a positive and significant association with the amount of time spent on Facebook and attributed this finding to the wider age groups in their study. Finally, Yao (2015) found positive association between conscientiousness and time spent on Facebook and explained the results based on the fact that Facebook has been redesigned and is now a safer and dependable platform.

Some meta-analyses and systematic reviews have already been conducted to understand the magnitude of the associations between the Big-five personality traits and Facebook use. In their meta-analysis, Liu and Campbell (2017) found that extraversion and openness were the strongest predictors of SNS activities (including activities on Facebook), while conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness were only associated with a few of such activities. However, the authors did not exclusively focus on Facebook, problematic and compensatory use, or the amount of time spent on it. Marino et al. (2018), in their meta-analysis of 56 independent samples with a total of 27,867 participants, found that neuroticism and conscientiousness were the personality traits associated with problematic Facebook use. However, they did not distinguish between problematic and compensatory use.

In Huang's (2019) meta-analysis, the results indicated positive and small associations between SNS (including Facebook) use and neuroticism and extraversion, while conscientiousness had a negative and small association with SNS (including Facebook) use. They also did not focus exclusively on Facebook and did not specifically focus on problematic Facebook use, compensatory Facebook use, and time spent on Facebook. Mancinelli et al. (2019) reported in their systematic review that extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience were all associated with SNS (including Facebook) use. They also did not limit their systematic review to Facebook and did not specifically refer to problematic Facebook use, compensatory Facebook use, and time spent on Facebook. Finally, Rajesh and Rangaiah (2022), in their meta-analysis of personality traits and problematic Facebook use, found that agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness were negatively associated with problematic Facebook use. However, they also did not distinguish between problematic Facebook use, compensatory Facebook use, and time spent on Facebook.

Therefore, the present meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive review of the extant literature about the association between the Big-five personality traits and both problematic and compensatory Facebook use, as well as time spent on Facebook since many studies have been published on these topics but not included in the previous meta-analyses. Moreover, in none of the reviews mentioned above, the available data regarding the amount of time spent on Facebook has been analyzed based on self-reported daily hours, self-reported weekly hours, and time spent as measured by validated questionnaires.

Thus, the current study is an updated meta-analysis which includes a large number of studies and employs a novel methodology (i.e., prediction interval calculation) to address heterogeneity (Borenstein, 2019), despite the previous studies that addressed heterogeneity but only with moderator analysis. In line with the earlier meta-analyses reviewed above, regarding the association between the Big-five personality traits and problematic and compensatory Facebook use, and the amount of time spent on Facebook, we have set out the following hypotheses.

H1 = Neuroticism will be positively associated with problematic Facebook use, compensatory Facebook use, and the amount of time spent on Facebook.

H2 = Extarversion will be negatively associated with problematic Facebook use, compensatory Facebook use, and the amount of time spent on Facebook..

H3 = Agreeableness will be negatively associated with problematic Facebook use, compensatory Facebook use, and the amount of time spent on Facebook.

H4 = Openness to experience will be negatively associated with problematic Facebook use, compensatory Facebook use, and the amount of time spent on Facebook.

H5 = Conscientiousnes will be negatively associated with problematic Facebook use, compensatory Facebook use, and the amount of time spent on Facebook.