CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 286Impact of Technology on AdolescentsMental Health via WritingHealth disparities and outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 39 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The Relationship Between Online Social Networking and Depression: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies

Open access
Baker, David A., Algorta, Guillermo Perez·2016·Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
DOI 10.1089/cyber.2016.0206
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Online social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace are used by billions of people every day to communicate and interact with others. There has been increasing interest in the potential impact of online social networking on wellbeing, with a broadening body of new research into factors associated with both positive and negative mental health outcomes such as depression. This systematic review of empirical studies (n = 30) adds to existing research in this field by examining current quantitative studies focused on the relationship between online social networking and symptoms of depression. The academic databases PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched systematically using terms related to online social networking and depression. Reporting quality was critically appraised and the findings discussed with reference to their wider implications. The findings suggest that the relationship between online social networking and symptoms of depression may be complex and associated with multiple psychological, social, behavioral, and individual factors. Furthermore, the impact of online social networking on wellbeing may be both positive and negative, highlighting the need for future research to determine the impact of candidate mediators and moderators underlying these heterogeneous outcomes across evolving networks.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review of 30 quantitative studies found mixed evidence on the relationship between online social networking and depression, with most studies suggesting a complex relationship involving mediators and moderators. The authors conclude that how people use social networking sites and what they do online may matter more than frequency or duration alone.

Key findings

  • Of 30 studies, 5 (16%) found a positive correlation between online social networking engagement and depressive symptoms, with small effect sizes (r = .15 to r = .26); 2 (6%) found a negative correlation (POR = 0.50, r = −.303); and 4 (13%) found no significant correlations.
  • The majority suggested a complex relationship involving usage variables (frequency, quality, type of SNS use), individual differences (gender, personality), and social factors as candidate mediators or moderators; examples include positive correlations with negative interactions, Facebook addiction/intrusion, social comparison, and rumination, and negative correlations with Facebook social support satisfaction, positive social comparison, number of Facebook friends, and perceived connectedness.
  • Reporting quality using STROBE ranged from 48% to 93%; sample size or power calculations were reported in only 5 of 30 studies, and funding sources in only 11 of 30.
  • The review included 35,044 total participants across 14 countries, with participant age ranging from 15 to 88 years; 27 studies were cross-sectional and only 3 were longitudinal or had longitudinal components.

Methods

  • Systematic review of empirical quantitative studies (n = 30) comparing measures of SNS use and depression; databases searched were PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, with searches completed in April 2016.
  • Eligibility required a quantitative design comparing SNS use and depression; articles were not excluded by age, gender, publication date, or country, but were excluded if unavailable in English. Search terms included “online social network*,” “online social media,” “Facebook*,” “Twitter,” “MySpace,” and “depression.”
  • Reporting quality was appraised with the STROBE tool for cross-sectional studies; findings were synthesized narratively, and no meta-analytic pooling is described.

Limitations

  • The paper states that conceptualizing online social networking was challenging due to evolving platforms; there was a significant bias toward Facebook research, limiting generalisability across platforms; the high prevalence of cross-sectional studies prevents determination of causation; and reporting issues included limited discussion of bias, selection bias, social desirability, confounding, and self-report measurement bias.
  • Evident from the text: only 3 of 30 studies were longitudinal or had longitudinal components, so causal direction remains unclear; the review was also restricted to quantitative English-language studies, excluding qualitative evidence by design.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/cyber.2016.0206

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 39 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 29 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 10
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 23
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
31 of 31

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The findings of the included studies are reliable enough to support the review's synthesis.

    “All studies were interested in the relationship between depression and online social networking but some focused on specific variables such as time spent engaged in social networking, e.g.34 social networking features such as the number of Facebook friends, e.g.21 the frequency of social networking behaviours such as the number of self-portrait photographs shared on Facebook, e.g.24 or the impact”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The STROBE percentage score is a valid indicator of reporting quality for the reviewed studies.

    “Studies were scored on relevant items and assigned an overall percentage to indicate an appraisal of the reporting quality.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Depression is influenced by many variables.

    “Depression was shown to be influenced by a large number of variables”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The functionality and nature of social networking sites is constantly changing.

    “as the functionality and nature of SNSs is in constant change”
4 of 4

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?

Self-check

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

  • Five of 30 studies is not 16%

    Minor

    Five of 30 studies is 16.67%, which rounds to 17% at the reported precision, not 16%.

    Reported 16 · recomputed 16.666667

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 60 references

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2011, Pediatrics, 127, 802
  2. Eysenbach G, 2008, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10
  3. Pantic I, 2012, Psychiatric Danubina, 24, 90
  4. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.04.002 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Rice SM, 16, Journal of Medical Internet Research 2–14;, 190
  6. HM Government/Department of Health, 2011, No health without mental health: a cross-government mental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Baker, D. A., & Algorta, G. P.
Affiliations
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
ORCID
Baker, David A.
Venue
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2016-11
Volume
19
Issue
11
Pages
638-648
ISSN
  • 2152-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 2152-2723
DOI
10.1089/cyber.2016.0206
OpenAlex
W2531561814
Semantic Scholar
812f8d91109038313abddeef624b6bbff0d39828
Cited by
286
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 1
FWCI
8.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.liebertpub.com/nv/resources-tools/text-and-data-mining-policy/121/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
online social networking, depression, depressive symptoms, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, mental health, well-being, social media use, mediators and moderators
MeSH terms
Depression, Humans, Social Networking, Social Media

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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