The DOI matches its Crossref record; 109 of the 111 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are Social Media Ruining Our Lives? A Review of Meta-Analytic Evidence
Abstract
A growing number of studies have examined the psychological corollaries of using social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter (often called social media). The interdisciplinary research area and conflicting evidence from primary studies complicate the assessment of current scholarly knowledge in this field of high public attention. We review meta-analytic evidence on three hotly debated topics regarding the effects of SNSs: well-being, academic achievement, and narcissism. Meta-analyses from different laboratories draw a rather equivocal picture. They show small associations in the r = .10 range between the intensity of SNS use and loneliness, self-esteem, life satisfaction, or self-reported depression, and somewhat stronger links to a thin body ideal and higher social capital. There is no indication for potential devastating effects of social media on school achievement; social media use and school grades are unrelated for adolescents. The meta-analyses revealed small to moderate associations between narcissism and SNS use. In sum, meta-analytic evidence is not in support of dramatic claims relating social media use to mischief.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Meta-analyses have identified small or negligible negative links between social media use and well-being6,7”
From Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media (2022) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“Usually, new technologies tend to have complex and multilayered effects on individuals and societies, which are not simply black or white; that is, the question whether digital technologies have desirable or problematic effects on autobiographical remembering is likely to be too superficial to account for the complexity of reality (cf.Appel et al., 2020;Orben & Przybylski, 2019).”
From Understanding Autobiographical Memory in the Digital Age: The AMEDIA-Model (2024) · cites this paper as Appel et al., 2020
In the citing paper
“A power analysis using G*Power based on a small-to-medium effect size (f2 = 0.09) between social media use and each of our dependent variables indicated that a sample size of 200 provides 90 percent power (α = 0.05) to detect a significant effect; we intentionally oversampled and aimed to recruit 250 participants to account for participants who opt out of providing blood samples.”
From Social Media Use and Its Link to Physical Health Indicators (2022) · cites this paper as [42]
Citations
Cites
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education.
O'Shea, D. W., & Richardson, J. G. (1987) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2069964 · Cited by 15,197
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x · Cited by 9,939
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890 · cited 3×
“Under these circumstances, meta-analyses appear to provide greater clarity (Glass, 1976).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0035618 · Cited by 3,266
THE INTERPERSONAL THEORY OF PSYCHIATRY
&NA; (1954) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-195407000-00064 · Cited by 2,915
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Bangert-Drowns R. L., 1997, Meta-analysis of drug abuse prevention programs. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 170, 234
- Lanier J., 2018, Ten arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now
- 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.128 · DOI · Paper page
- Plato, 1997, Plato: Complete works
- Postman N., 1985, Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of television
- Turkle T., 2011, Alone together
- Twenge J. M., 2014, Generation me-revised and updated: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before
- 10.1017/S1754942600006799 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence.
Valkenburg, P. M., Meier, A., & Beyens, I. (2022) · Current opinion in psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.017 · Cited by 767
Meier, A., & Reinecke, L. (2021) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650220958224 · Cited by 534
“Yet, the fast-paced, interdisciplinary, and fragmented nature of the field requires researchers to keep track of a staggering, ever-growing, and seemingly incompatible evidence base (for initial meta-reviews, see Appel et al., 2020; Orben, 2020).”
BackgroundSocial comparison on social networking sites
Verduyn, P., Gugushvili, N., Massar, K., Täht, K., & Kross, E. (2020) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.04.002 · Cited by 500
Social Media and Well-Being: Pitfalls, Progress, and Next Steps
Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Sheppes, G., Costello, C. K., Jonides, J., & Ybarra, O. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.005 · Cited by 474
“One review estimated that overall social media use explains 1% of the variance in well-being [6].”
BackgroundInfluentialWindows of developmental sensitivity to social media
Orben, A., Przybylski, A. K., Blakemore, S.-J., & Kievit, R. A. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29296-3 · Cited by 387
Metadata
- Authors
- Appel, M., Marker, C., & Gnambs, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Würzburg (DE)
- Johannes Kepler University of Linz (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Appel, Markus
- Venue
- Review of General Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-10-16
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 60-74
- ISSN
- 1089-2680 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1552
- OpenAlex
- W2981075629
- Semantic Scholar
- cbd4f71d3c79a5521394000d393dd6917cb231b8
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 111
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 14
- FWCI
- 48.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Review of General Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (AP 207/2-1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Social Sciences › Communication › Digital Media and Philosophy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Keywords
- social media use, social networking sites, well-being, loneliness, self-esteem, life satisfaction, depression, thin ideal, social capital, academic performance, narcissism, adolescents, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter
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
