Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Social Media

No, That Viral Study Doesn't Show You Can Improve Your Mental Health by Deactivating Instagram

While a viral post called the results “shocking,” the study itself found little evidence that social media use harms mental health.

Jack Nicastro | 6.30.2025 4:18 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
An illustration of Instagram and a man with his head in his hands | Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Yasser Mutwakil | Midjourney
(Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Yasser Mutwakil | Midjourney)

A study by Stanford's Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) on the effects of social media went viral on X over the weekend. While the post represents the results as "shocking," the study itself found little evidence that social media use hurts its users.

The SIEPR study was published as a working paper in April with the National Bureau of Economic Research. Of the 27 co-authors, most of whom are associated with American universities, eight are researchers from Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook. The researchers recruited 19,857 Facebook users and 15,585 Instagram users to carry out "the largest-ever experimental study on the effect of social media deactivation on users' emotional state."

More than a quarter of the Facebook and Instagram users were assigned to treatment groups and were paid to deactivate their respective accounts for six weeks leading up to the 2020 presidential election. (All other users were part of the control group, which required users to deactivate their accounts for only the first of the six weeks.) Researchers conducted surveys on self-reported happiness, depression, and anxiety before and after the experiment. These metrics were combined to make a joint "emotional state index" (ESI).

The X post emphasizes that users who deactivated Instagram enjoyed an improvement of about 0.04 standard deviations in their ESI while users who deactivated Facebook enjoyed an improvement of roughly 0.06 standard deviations. But the authors themselves reported that the effect of deactivating Instagram on ESI is statistically insignificant after adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing. Moreover, the effect of deactivating Instagram on anxiety and depression was statistically indistinguishable from zero.

In the second case, the effect of deactivating Facebook on anxiety was also indistinguishable from zero. However, the effects on depression and ESI were statistically significant. The authors contextualize their results by explaining that the average of the six effects—Facebook deactivation on happiness, anxiety, and depression and Instagram deactivation on happiness, anxiety, and depression—is 0.038 standard deviations, which is "equivalent to 3.8 percent of people saying they feel happy 'often' instead of 'sometimes.'"

Statistical significance does not necessarily imply substantial real-world differences. In this case, it does not. Christopher Ferguson, a professor of psychology at Stetson University, says that the threshold for distinguishing real psychological effects from statistical noise is much higher (0.21 standard deviations) than what was measured in the study. The standard for clinical significance, which he defines as "an effect people might actually begin to notice in the real world," is higher still (0.41 standard deviations). Ferguson cautions that "a high proportion of nonsense relationships become 'statistically significant' with large datasets" and that "false positives…shouldn't be interpreted as hypothesis supportive." Ferguson also says that while the survey questions appear direct, they "are not clinically validated measures of depression or anxiety."

The study suffers from additional methodological constraints. The fact that the study focuses on a specific historical time period—the six weeks leading up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election—raises questions about external validity; it "tells us very little about day-to-day interactions on social media," says Ferguson. The authors themselves urge caution about generalizing results outside their sample because "less than one percent of the people who were invited to the study completed the experiment."

Ferguson says the study is being widely represented as "supporting the idea that reducing social media time improves mental health outcomes when…it found no reliable evidence for such a relationship."

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The 5th Circuit Rejects Qualified Immunity for a Child-Snatching Texas Cop Who Falsely Alleged Abandonment

Jack Nicastro is an assistant editor at Reason.

Social MediaPublic HealthInformation TechnologyScience
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (8)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 day ago

    'While a viral post called the results “shocking,” the study itself found little evidence that social media use harms mental health.'

    Brought to you by the Social Media Trade Council.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Wizzle Bizzle   22 hours ago

      I, for one, welcome our new social media overlords.

      Log in to Reply
  2. Public Entelectual   1 day ago

    It only damages public taste.

    Log in to Reply
  3. MasterThief   1 day ago

    Ask any parent of teens, especially girls. Taking away social media is a change for the better for them. I question whether this study only involved disconnecting Insta and FB while leaving then on Snap and Tiktok.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   20 hours ago

      Too bad those parents were powerless to control what their kids do.

      Log in to Reply
  4. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   1 day ago

    How could quitting that shit not improve your health?

    Log in to Reply
  5. AT   1 day ago

    Literally picturing Jack shoving heroin into someone's veins right now.

    "Don't you dare quit! I WON'T LET YOU QUIT!"

    Log in to Reply
  6. the   18 hours ago

    Slapping people over the head with some "study" and claiming you've therefore won the argument is the new bible thumping.

    And anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

    With those to caveats out of the way, I deleted Instagram and it absolutely improved my mental health. You do you.

    Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump Says the Courts Have No Business Questioning His Dubious Definition of 'Alien Enemies'

Jacob Sullum | 7.1.2025 5:40 PM

Medicaid Work Requirements Are a Short-Term Fix to a Long-Term Problem

Tosin Akintola | 7.1.2025 4:18 PM

The U.S. Is Closing Every Door on Afghan Allies

Beth Bailey | 7.1.2025 4:00 PM

Trump's Travel Ban Will Not Make Americans Safer

Benjamin Powell | 7.1.2025 3:15 PM

California Enacts Sweeping Exemption to Development-Killing Environmental Law

Christian Britschgi | 7.1.2025 1:10 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!