New study challenges assumptions about social media’s harm to mental health

A new study published in Social Science & Medicine challenges widespread beliefs about the effects of heavy social media use on mental health. Contrary to popular opinion, the researchers found that the amount of time spent on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook has little to no significant impact on mental health indicators such as depression, anxiety, or stress. In some cases, the effect of social media use may even be neutral or positive, suggesting that the relationship between these platforms and mental health is more complex than previously thought.

Social media has become a central part of daily life for billions of people worldwide, sparking debate about its psychological consequences. Some researchers have raised alarms about potential harms, linking excessive use to issues like depression, anxiety, and stress. Others have highlighted its benefits, such as fostering connections and providing entertainment.

However, many studies rely on self-reported data, which can be prone to bias and misrepresentation. The new study sought to address these gaps by using objective data on social media usage to provide a clearer picture of its relationship with mental health.

“We were interested in this topic because there has been a growing narrative, both in popular media and policy, about the negative impact of social media on mental health,” said study author Chloe N. Jones, a PhD candidate at Curtin University.

“However, much of the research supporting these claims relies on self-reported estimates of social media use, which can be inaccurate. We wanted to take a more objective approach to measure social media use and its relationship with psychological distress and cognitive functions like attentional control.”

The research involved 401 participants, primarily undergraduate psychology students and community members, aged 17 to 53. The sample was predominantly female, with an average age of 22. Participants’ social media use was measured objectively over one week using smartphone screen time tracking tools. The researchers focused on five popular platforms: Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, and Twitter (now X).

In addition to tracking social media usage, participants completed the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21), a well-established questionnaire used to assess psychological distress. This measure evaluated symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress to gauge participants’ mental health. To assess attentional control—a cognitive ability linked to focus and inhibition—participants performed an antisaccade task. This task required them to direct their attention away from a distracting stimulus and focus on a target, providing a measure of their ability to manage competing visual inputs.

The data collection occurred over several years, allowing for a robust sample size and a variety of testing environments. Participants were guided through the procedures either in person or online, ensuring consistency in how the measures were administered.

The researchers found that overall time spent on social media had little to no impact on mental health indicators such as depression, anxiety, and stress. Contrary to many previous findings, the researchers observed no significant relationship between total social media use and psychological distress.

While there was a very small positive association between social media use and anxiety, this accounted for less than 1.5% of the shared variance, suggesting it was not a meaningful factor. There were no associations between social media use and symptoms of depression or stress.

Interestingly, the study did not support the idea that heavy social media use impairs attentional control. In fact, the researchers observed a small positive association between social media use and attentional control, particularly among TikTok users.

“One surprising finding was that the relationship between social media use and attentional control, though small, was positive, challenging the common assumption that social media negatively impacts attentional control,” Jones told PsyPost.

The researchers also tested whether attentional control moderated the relationship between social media use and psychological distress. Contrary to some earlier findings, attentional control did not influence the association between social media use and mental health outcomes. This suggests that individuals’ ability to manage their attention does not significantly change how social media use impacts their psychological well-being.

Overall, the results indicate that the link between social media use and mental health is weaker than many assume. The small associations observed were platform-specific and unlikely to represent significant risks or benefits for most users.

“The main takeaway is that social media use does not have the strong negative relationship with mental health or attentional control that is often assumed,” Jones said. “Our study suggests that, when objectively measured, the relationship between social media use and mental health indicators like depression, anxiety, and stress is minimal, and the link to attentional control is slightly positive. This could help reduce unwarranted fears about social media and encourage people to consider its role in a more balanced way.”

While the study provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. For instance, the research focused exclusively on mobile phone usage, which may not capture social media activity on other devices like computers. Additionally, the attentional control task used in the study measured only one specific aspect of this cognitive ability. Future research could explore other dimensions, such as sustained attention or memory, to build a more comprehensive understanding.

The study also did not differentiate between active and passive use of social media. Active engagement, such as posting or direct messaging, may have different psychological impacts compared to passive scrolling. Investigating these nuances could reveal more about how various types of social media use influence mental health.

“It is important to note that these findings are based on objective measures of time spent using social media,” Jones noted. “There could still be other factors, like content type, user characteristics, and/or individual differences in how people use social media, that may potentially influence mental health in ways our study did not capture.”

Another avenue for future research is examining platform-specific effects in greater detail. Each platform offers unique features and user experiences, which may contribute to distinct mental health outcomes. Understanding these differences could help individuals make more informed choices about their social media habits.

“Our long-term goal is to further investigate the relationship between social media use, mental health, and cognitive functioning,” Jones said. “Specifically, we aim to explore various cognitive abilities such as memory and other attention-related processes, as well as psychological factors like personality and usage patterns. We also plan to conduct experimental studies to better understand the potential causal links between social media use and these outcomes.”

“While our findings suggest social media use doesn’t have the catastrophic effects often claimed, it’s important to maintain a balanced perspective,” she added. “Like any technology, social media may have both positive and negative effects depending on how it is used. Our research invites readers to question the prevailing ‘doom-and-gloom’ narrative and instead think critically about how social media fits into their lives and how it can be used in healthier ways.”

The study, “Investigating the links between objective social media use, attentional control, and psychological distress,” was authored by Chloe N. Jones, Daniel Rudaizky, Tamsin Mahalingham, and Patrick J.F. Clarke.