Cited by 19Impact of Technology on AdolescentsDigital Media and PhilosophyEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Social media ills and evolutionary mismatches: a conceptual framework

Open access
Lim, Amy J., Tan, Edison·2024·Evolutionary Psychological Science

Abstract

From the erosion of mental well-being through incessant comparison, unrealistic portrayals, and addiction, the negative effects of social media are well-documented. However, it is necessary to move beyond the simplistic characterizations of social media as inherently either beneficial or detrimental and, instead, underscore the nuanced mechanisms that underlie its adverse outcomes. To this end, this paper delineates a conceptual framework grounded in evolutionary psychology, designed to explain the prevalent negative repercussions often linked to the utilization of social media. Specifically, we argue that these “social media ills” are manifestations of evolutionary mismatches between social media features and our evolved mechanism designed for social living. We start by reviewing how our psychological mechanisms—sociometer, social monitoring system, and social comparison—facilitate living within complex social situations and fulfill our fundamental need to belong. We then identify features of social media that may hijack these processes to produce the consequences we observe today. We have also recommended several evolutionarily informed directions policymakers and social media companies can undertake to treat social media ills at their root cause. This article concludes by discussing the theoretical implications and interventions the evolutionary mismatch hypothesis provides.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40806-024-00398-z

Cites

214 of 214 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our findings are in line with the mismatch hypothesis, which suggests that SNSs hijack our evolved social comparisons mechanisms by offering (too) abundant opportunities for upward comparisons.

    “Indeed, our findings are in line with the mismatch hypothesis (Lim and Tan, 2024), which suggests that SNSs hijack our evolved social comparisons mechanisms by offering (too) abundant opportunities for upward comparisons.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

35 of the 249 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lim, A. J., & Tan, E.
Affiliations
  • Murdoch University (AU)
  • Singapore Management University (SG)
Corresponding author
Lim, Amy J.
Venue
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Published
2024-07-11
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
212-235
ISSN
2198-9885 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400566489
Cited by
18
References
249
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8
FWCI
12.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Evolutionary Psychological Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Murdoch University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Digital Media and Philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
evolutionary mismatch, evolutionary psychology, social comparison, need to belong, social media addiction, social media design, psychological well-being, conceptual framework

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review