Does Objectively Measured Social-Media or Smartphone Use Predict Depression, Anxiety, or Social Isolation Among Young Adults?

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Despite a plethora of research, the link between digital-technology use and psychological distress among young adults remains inconclusive. Findings in this area are typically undermined by methodological limitations related to measurement, study design, and statistical analysis. Addressing these limitations, we examined the prospective, within-persons associations between three aspects of objectively measured digital-technology use (duration and frequency of smartphone use, duration of social-media use) and three aspects of psychological distress (depression, anxiety, and social isolation) among a sample of young adults ( N = 384). Across 81 different model specifications, we found that most within-persons prospective effects between digital-technology use and psychological distress were statistically nonsignificant, and all were very small—even the largest effects were unlikely to register a meaningful impact on a person’s psychological distress. In post hoc subgroup analyses, we found scant evidence for the claim that digital-technology use is more harmful for women and/or younger people.

Related collections

Most cited references 61

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives

Li‐tze Hu, Peter M. Bentler (1999)

0 comments Cited 11089 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant.

Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, Uri Simonsohn (2011)

In this article, we accomplish two things. First, we show that despite empirical psychologists' nominal endorsement of a low rate of false-positive findings (≤ .05), flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting dramatically increases actual false-positive rates. In many cases, a researcher is more likely to falsely find evidence that an effect exists than to correctly find evidence that it does not. We present computer simulations and a pair of actual experiments that demonstrate how unacceptably easy it is to accumulate (and report) statistically significant evidence for a false hypothesis. Second, we suggest a simple, low-cost, and straightforwardly effective disclosure-based solution to this problem. The solution involves six concrete requirements for authors and four guidelines for reviewers, all of which impose a minimal burden on the publication process.