Inverse article on Social Media and Mental Health

Skanky Vamp

Sniffin' the Slayer
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
26,460
Black Thorn
It's a long article, but I think some would appreciate reading it.
Reposted from
Inverse

Intricate screen-time trackers have made it possible to know exactly how many hours, minutes, and seconds you use social media each day. If all the time you spend liking, scrolling, and sharing happens to reach certain thresholds, new research from a team of psychiatrists suggests that it can affect mental health even when you’re logged off.

A paper published Wednesday in JAMA Psychiatry shows evidence that for teenagers, using social media for more than 30 minutes a day was linked to increased mental health risks. But the most powerful effects were seen in teens who used social media for more than 3 hours per day. Teenagers in this study who immersed themselves in social media for 3 hours or more each day had a 60 percent higher risk of mental health problems compared to teens who didn’t use social media. Those who spent 6 or more hours more increased their risk by 78 percent.

Three hours of social media use per day may seem like a lot, but it’s not so farfetched. In one sample of 1,125 teens in this study, 30.7 percent reported using between 30 minutes and 3 hours of social media each day, and 12.3 percent reported using between 3 and 6 hours each day.

The study’s authors warn that this 3 hour cutoff may not be an iron-clad rule, but the bigger picture is that that much social media use appears to take a toll in a very specific way: It affects the way teenagers process their stresses, anxieties, and problems.

Three or more hours of use in particular was associated with a specific type of behavior called internalizing. Internalization is like a negative internal dialogue that causes someone to withdraw emotionally, and it’s often linked to depression, anxiety, or loneliness.

Teens who spent more than 3 hours on social media are at higher risk for mental health issues.
The opposite of internalization is externalization is when someone acts out, sometimes aggressively, in response to a problem. In the study, social media use was associated somewhat with externalization, but it was more powerfully linked to internalizing behavior in the long term and after adjusting for other factors.

Kira Riehm, the study’s lead author and a Ph.D. candidate at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, tells Inverse there are three leading ideas that explain why social media may be connected with internalizing behavior:

“This pattern of findings may be explained by a number of potential mechanisms, including exposure to cyberbullying, poor quality sleep, or exposure to idealized self-presentations, which have been found in other studies to be associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms,” she explains.

These three ideas come from very different places, scientifically speaking. There are connections between lack of sleep and mental health issues like depression or anxiety (also linked to internalization behavior). Studies on social media’s effect on sleep has produced mixed results: some showing that use can cut into sleep time, in part, because lights from screens (including TVs) do affect sleep time.

Other studies that specifically looked at social media have shown non-significanteffects, but there may be impacts that have yet to be discovered.

Social media use at night has been linked to poor sleep before. Riehm adds that lack of sleep may be one way that social media impacts mental health.
But Riehm also mentions one of the most basic critiques of social media: that it exposes use to idealized versions of ourselves and others that make reality feel drab by comparison.

In the paper, the team goes so far as to suggest that it might be worth re-evaluating the way social media sites are designed — specifically, they applaud instagram’s efforts to hide “like counts” from some posts.

At least going by these early results, a system that’s run on the currency of a like, share, or retweet does seem to have some damaging effects on mental health, especially when teenagers spend hours immersed in that world. In the paper, they propose that it might be time to rethink these models, for the sake of mental health.

“We believe that technology companies and regulators responsible for social media platforms should consider how these platforms can be designed to minimize risk of mental health problems,” they write.

Snapchat's filters, for example, can create an idealized version of a person's face that they have a hard time living up to.

At first glance, it feels logical that spending endless hours gazing at VSCO girls or celebrity dream vacations would make someone feel bad about their own life by comparison. Social media use has been consistently linked to mental health issues, but there’s still some debate about which way this goes. Does social media actually change the way we feel about our own problems, or are people prone to internalization turn to social media more frequently?

Riehm says that her study tried to address this directly, to find out whether social media has unique effects.

“In our study, we measured mental health problems before social media use and controlled for this in our analyses, so we can be more certain (but not completely certain) that reverse causality does not account for our findings,” she says.

In other words, she and her team propose that social media may actually influence the way people deal with their problems. At the end of the day, they believe that if teenagers limited their use of social media to less than 30 minutes per day, there would have been 9.4 percent fewer internalization problem cases and 7.3 fewer high externalizing problem cases.

Riehm’s team’s paper is just one of many that are delving into how digital social lives can affect our mental health — sometimes in positive ways too. But it’s contributing to a growing field that’s showing just how powerfully an app can affect our lives, and even our health.

Partial Abstract
Design, Setting, and Participants:
This longitudinal cohort study of 6595 participants from waves 1 (September 12, 2013, to December 14, 2014), 2 (October 23, 2014, to October 30, 2015), and 3 (October 18, 2015, to October 23, 2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study, a nationally representative cohort study of US adolescents, assessed US adolescents via household interviews using audio computer-assisted self-interviewing. Data analysis was performed from January 14, 2019, to May 22, 2019.
Exposures: Self-reported time spent on social media during a typical day (none, ≤30 minutes, >30 minutes to ≤3 hours, >3 hours to ≤6 hours, and >6 hours) during wave 2.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported past-year internalizing problems alone, externalizing problems alone, and comorbid internalizing and externalizing problems during wave 3 using the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs–Short Screener.
Results: A total of 6595 adolescents (aged 12-15 years during wave 1; 3400 [51.3%] male) were studied. In unadjusted analyses, spending more than 30 minutes of time on social media, compared with no use, was associated with increased risk of internalizing problems alone (≤30 minutes: relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.30; 95% CI, 0.94-1.78; >30 minutes to ≤3 hours: RRR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.36-2.64; >3 to ≤6 hours: RRR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.74-3.49; >6 hours: RRR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.88-4.26) and comorbid internalizing and externalizing problems (≤30 minutes: RRR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.82; >30 minutes to ≤3 hours: RRR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.83-3.00; >3 to ≤6 hours: RRR, 3.15; 95% CI, 2.43-4.09; >6 hours: RRR, 4.29; 95% CI, 3.22-5.73); associations with externalizing problems were inconsistent. In adjusted analyses, use of social media for more than 3 hours per day compared with no use remained significantly associated with internalizing problems alone (>3 to ≤6 hours: RRR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.11-2.31; >6 hours: RRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.15-2.77) and comorbid internalizing and externalizing problems (>3 to ≤6 hours: RRR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.51-2.66; >6 hours: RRR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.73-3.43) but not externalizing problems alone.
 
ILLYRIAN
ILLYRIAN
I didn't appreciate reading that, I have started yawning though.
According to this study, I must be a total basket case.

Are they counting forums like this or just direct communication like Twitter, Facebook or any of the others that do not have a core theme.
 
Skanky Vamp
Skanky Vamp
The Facesbook, Twitter and Instagram. This forum is a little different. Though there was a big issue with likes and dislikes at one point which would seem to support their position.
specific type of behavior called internalizing

Personal experience essay... and if you thought that article was long you're lucky I didnt let myself go all out here!

This was absolutely a problem for me on facebook when I was stuck on the loo for like 3 years in withdrawal. I asked someone on here once after a thread went bad, why words on a screen affected me so much more than abuse face to face does, and this is the answer. Face to face words pass. On a screen they are read, sometimes over and over again. Especially if at first I think I must have misread because I don't expect one to be so nasty, and then it turns out, they really are. Their words are for ALL to see, not just in passing face to face, and the likes compound that big time - if 12 people like what the nasty person said about me "it must be true"...

Now, even if I read comments in threads that are completely unrelated to me (not on this forum) I will still internalise them. Most so for being on disability payments. People post how those on disability payments are slackers, burdens on the tax system etc etc and I just end up thinking, well why is there so much money going into anti- suicide programs if we are all such burdens to society, shouldn't they just let us die? And thats when the worst of the worst thoughts start for me. It also makes me push myself well beyond my physical capacity because I start to think I am just not trying hard enough. And then the burden on the tax payer is even more when I am hospitalised. This is why it is best for me to stick to moderated forums.

Disability and boredom factor into this. If there were other things to do that were in the capacity to achive, I wouldnt have been on the iphone reading so much and reading what everyone else was consuming (on facebook) feeling more and more disconnected and isolated for having differing opinions and world view. I am finding more within my capacity to do now - I used to be so active so when I lost the ability to be as active as I would like, I just looked for stimulating distraction. Social media is exactly that - but stimulating for the worst thoughts. Reading and tv is all one sided, it doesnt give feedback but music and interactions with animals and nature seem to work like building blocks for the injured brain. I did not have access to either of those things with city living which many of the teens with media related mental health issues are restricted to.
 
There is one site I am on (rarely) that allows people to give dislikes as well as likes. For many years, they showed the cumulative total of likes and dislikes and a lot of people were in the negative range. Now they only show likes and dislikes for each post. This policy kept a lot of people away including people who wanted to advertise on it - your ad won't go over that well if you have more dislikes than likes, so that particular forum screwed itself as far as revenue went. I and one prospective advertiser I know treat it as read-only for specific problems and ignore it the rest of the time.
 
@Octavia

First of all, people say things online that they're too cowardly to say in public. Which means some common sentiments expressed online are still a minority sentiment. Aggravating this is many people love drama so pay attention, and that encourages people to be nasty online, rewarding them (and thus they might even post things they don't really mean just to feel validated by the thumbs up), whereas in real life they'd suffer such consequences that they wouldn't dare (or even seeing a human face can generate empathy they wouldn't for a computer screen).

Furthermore, too many charities (at least some of them not real charities) will use guilt (*), which means it works, which means they know very well there are people who are hurting and disabled. In at least some cases they even support welfare and charity as long as you're part of the tribe, they just don't want "those people" out there to get it.

(*Btw, I've learned some even try to guilt those on disability or welfare into giving to charity. Don't let them do this to you. Walk away or hang up on them. As someone who has worked with charities, I can't help but feel they're probably fake charities anyway.)


That said, a lot of people read negative that isn't present. I've given genuine compliments and been chewed out for "sarcasm" and seen that happen to others. Some of these people will get even angrier if you tell them you were being sincere because then you're "invalidating" them. (Of course they're free to invalidate your words to their heart's content.)


Anyway, I'm glad you explained what you did. I've known it to hurt kids, and for kids to actually gang up when they think they're anonymous, and they really abuse the Like button to destroy others. What you say makes more sense of it for me.


There's a bit more...I ALMOST shared this on the "shootings" thread and "loneliness" thread but felt it was just a bit much. But it applies even more for here, and I think you'll appreciate this, Octavia (even if you don't like the guy overall):


Where it gets particularly to the negative content of social media is just after 2:30 talking about how phones with text and internet was supposed to connect people but instead turned them into alienation machines leaving people feeling more lonely than ever, and that so many people are trying to impress people that it makes it look like that others are doing much better than they are (and that last line, "If you knew how fake most of them were you wouldn't want to be them") combined with the boards for the alienated to make them feel even worse about themselves. (After seeing that, it might be worth watching the season 3 Buffy episode Earshot as it has a similar message from before iphones.)

Also, you might like this:


Note the real life incident that inspired it...and people tried to pay there for the one on welfare as well but the cashier wouldn't allow it. That is to say there are many more decent people than jerks out there, though it's easier to remember the jerks as it is for them to get away with it online.
 
Were there were too many multisyllabic words for you?

When people use long, unnecessary words (in an attempt to look more intelligent) it's rather like hitting speed bumps in a road for the reader. Especially when shorter, more concise words would do the job. It's about the flow of a sentence; not the number of letters a writer can squeeze into a paragraph.
 
Note the real life incident that inspired it...and people tried to pay there for the one on welfare as well but the cashier wouldn't allow it. That is to say there are many more decent people than jerks out there, though it's easier to remember the jerks as it is for them to get away with it online.

Basics cards have only just started here and are aimed at first nation/aboriginal people living in generational poverty. The cards can only be used at big corp shops when many live 100's of kilometres away. The shops are lined with posters that say "check your balance before shopping" and the funds on them are so limited, only cheap packaged food can be purchased to last the fortnight. The push towards self check outs limits the ability of others to be aware of the situation and beggers are arrested. These cards will eventually be extended to all welfare/ disability. The future is bleak.

The gov rolled all this out when people were distracted by rainbow flags. It was quite literally "look over there at the pretty people whole we systematically strip the poor of basic human rights".

I prefer not to be involved with the city friends I had. Its also why I was cut off from my family. Real life friendship isnt the greatest thing when the real life friends are blind elitist arseholes. It was from them that I initially read such horrid things on facebook in the first place. It wasnt anonymous to start with, it came from people I knew in real life (who when confronted would say "oh i didnt mean you, I meant the drug addict bludgers... " My drugs just came in a pretty packet from a clean doctor and getting off meds was not at all supported, not to mention ruok day and the massive push towards medicalising poverty related anxiety. Their media driven concern caused more distress). Real life friends did not see the world as I did. And they still cant seem to figure out why I dumped them to live here. Its hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys..

'Lonliness' is the latest cop out. Many that are 'at risk' cant afford to be social or participate in activities. Study costs money. Clubs cost money. Volunteering costs money. Even national parks have fees ( that ya cant pay for with a basics card). I went to schools with very rich people who thought nothing of a cafe brunch or dinner and drinks - thats a whole weeks petrol and groceries! Which was especially isolating in my early 20's as a rotating inpatient. I had a job, I just also had a boatload of medical bills.

The nbn (internet connection) here is better than I've ever had in the city opening my world up to online study, music and gardening resources I'd never had access to. The net itself isnt a problem but the way people have evolved to use it is. Real people.

I agree some wouldnt have the guts to abuse like that face to face, and we all come from such different worlds it can be a challenge to understand how lives are shaped in different countries but overall, international forums have been far kinder than the irl people I know. I was just more easily able to brush off the face to face abuse because it wasnt solidified in writing. Forever.

You're right about the tribe @thrasherpix. Belong, conform, or dont get the benefits. Thats gotten worse with hashtags and filter frames - "be with us, or against us". Acceptance is less. That could be another long post, but one I am interested in, perhaps because formal study hasnt shaped my view. Experience has.

(I've written this on my phone cos driving wiped me out so it may come across more blunt than I intend, I do like to discuss the limits of poverty and causes of isolation right now!)
 
Back
Top Bottom