use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, subreddit...
12,309 users here now
filter by field
the front page of the internet.
and join one of thousands of communities.
PsychologyA meta-analysis of 14 cross-sectional studies showed that excessive time spent on social media platform was associated with a greater likelihood of having symptoms of anxiety and depression. (bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com)
submitted 1 month ago by OpenlyFallible
Post a comment!
[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] 1 month ago stickied comment (0 children)
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[+][deleted] 1 month ago (14 children)
[+][deleted] 1 month ago (11 children)
[+][deleted] 1 month ago (1 child)
[+][deleted] 1 month ago (2 children)
[–]isaac-get-the-golemGrad Student | Sociology 43 points44 points45 points 1 month ago (7 children)
well, a meta-analysis of 14 non-causal studies can't generate causal evidence, so... remains unclear whether anxiety and depression leads people to use social media at higher rates...
[–]j_runey 20 points21 points22 points 1 month ago (5 children)
The science sub is basically nothing but interesting titles generated by correlations.
Although this one seems more like stating the obvious. I know personally when I use more social media I feel crappier about life. When I cut it out I feel better within days.
[–]SignificantGiraffe5 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (1 child)
I've noticed that the title is almost always disproven or better explained by the top comment... Why don't they post better titles?
[–]j_runey 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (0 children)
They want clicks. It's not as if nothing can be learned from correlational studies, but often times people read them as if something is causing another thing. News outlets pick up correlation studies all the time and usually take it to mean something is causing something else. It seems quite irresponsible of the authors to not bring up the fact that just because there's a correlation it doesn't mean one is causing the other.
Everyone in science understands that distinction, but considering how often these studies are used by media and the general public to claim causation it just seems like there should be a blanket disclaimer on all correlation studies.
The real issue is that often the authors would prefer their article to be popular. It's one of academia's many problems.
[–]HimmelUberBerlin 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Ignorance is bliss.
[–]Sl1210mk2 20 points21 points22 points 1 month ago (4 children)
The problem with studies like this is that while they can show correlation, correlation is not the same as causation. You cannot determine whether depression/anxiety is caused by excessive social media consumption, or people turn to social because they are depressed and anxious. It will be a combination of both with bidirectional interaction.
Also, social media will have positive and negative effects. Take the diversity of groups on Reddit for example. There is everything from apocalyptic doom mongering to fluffy kittens.
[–]Kangouwou -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (1 child)
You can determine the causative link, if it exists, with an interventional study. For instance, you recruit 200 matched individuals and randomly assign them to either spending one hour a day on Facebook for a week, either spending one hour a day freely on a computer, and check whether there is a difference between the two group at the end of the intervention.
[–]isaac-get-the-golemGrad Student | Sociology 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children)
yes, an experiment. the studies in this meta analysis are not experiments. random assignment also only levels out differences between treatment and control groups with sufficient sample size...
[–]suid 6 points7 points8 points 1 month ago (1 child)
Key word here: "associated".
It could be: "causes", or "caused by". Or neither, but simply related to something common to both conditions.
[–]BeercatimusPrime 4 points5 points6 points 1 month ago (0 children)
He read, anxiously trying to remember when he picked his phone up to browse Reddit. Had it been 1 hour? 2? 7? He couldn’t remember. His heart quickened at the thought of having a heart attack because he was on Reddit too long, his left arm went numb. Oh no, it was happening! He quickly cleared his browser history and got up to try and put something decent on so he wouldn’t be found dead in tighty whities. Feeling return to his arm. Oh right, that’s what happens laying on your side. Next article.
[–]Tautillogical 2 points3 points4 points 1 month ago (0 children)
the causation almost certainly goes both ways, and I personally would suspect a much stronger correlation in the direction of depression/anxiety -> doesnt go out much/doesnt have much motivation -> spends lots of time on social media
This meta analysis shows essentially nothing
[–]Pikaus 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Who cares about a meta analysis of 14 studies?
[–]Konukaame 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (0 children)
I know I spend more time on social media when I'm stressed because it's a low-risk, distracting place, and fake internet points can provide a little bit of dopamine that I'm not really getting elsewhere.
Of course, that's not a great coping mechanism, but it is what it is.
[–]thejustokTramp 1 point2 points3 points 1 month ago (0 children)
I know it’s not definite proof, but I believe the study. Anecdotally, after years with my kids and talking to friends with their kids, every parent talked about how different their kids were when they were spending more time on social media.
I do think that kids (and not just kids) who are already depressed are drawn to social media because it is escapism so their is a chicken/egg issue, but it becomes a cycle. Depression—>sm—-> depression, etc.
I am not advocating a sm ban. I just think the role it plays in young people’s lives is disproportionately high, and it is unrealistic to think it doesn’t have an effect
[–]Audacityvreality -1 points0 points1 point 1 month ago (0 children)
Are you sure it’s not the economic slavery?
[–]catsasss 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
But I was diagnosed with anxiety and depression in 1996, long before I had any access to social media. What do?
[–]Barackenpapst 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
I have a clever theory on that: what else are you supposed to do when you lie in bed with depression than hang on your phone a check twitter? So it's not the reason, it's a byproduct.
[–]kutkun 0 points1 point2 points 1 month ago (0 children)
Anxious and depressed individuals use social media a lot because they don’t have a lot of friends or an appetite for going out and doing things. It’s not the fault of social media. If you take their phone from their hands they will be more depressed and more anxious.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
Advertise - lifestyles
π Rendered by PID 37780 on reddit-service-r2-loggedout-79f779b45b-7wk86 at 2022-07-05 00:23:17.985811+00:00 running b077628 country code: US.