Massive New Study, Covering 72 Countries, Nearly 1 Million People, Finds Zero Evidence That Facebook Leads To Psychological Harm
from the the-data-says...-we're-in-a-moral-panic dept
Professor Andrew Przybylski from the Oxford Internet Institute is one of the best, most important researchers out there providing thorough, comprehensive, empirical evidence that every tech moral panic is not supported by the data. We’ve covered his work before, including the complete lack of evidence that social media makes kids unhappy, how there’s actually some positive correlation between people playing video games and feeling better (the opposite of what most seemed to believe), and how mandatory internet filters to stop porn don’t work.
He’s now back with a new study (with Professor Matti Vuorre), and the scale of it is astounding:
The independent Oxford study used well-being data from nearly a million people across 72 countries over 12 years and harnessed actual individual usage data from millions of Facebook users worldwide to investigate the impact of Facebook on well-being.
I don’t think we’re going to have a small sample-size issue with this study. Indeed, the global nature of the study is useful as it gets beyond what many studies do, just looking at western college students who are readily accessible to academic researchers.
You can look at the full paper, which is interesting.
Overall, a country’s per capita daily active Facebook users predicted that nation’s demography-aggregated levels of positive experiences positively, and negative experiences negatively. In addition, the associations between countries were similar, but the uncertainty cutoff of 97.5% for posterior probabilities of direction was strictly only met for positive experiences (table 1). Associations between Facebook adoption and life satisfaction were less certain within countries, but stronger when comparing countries to each other. While these descriptive results do not speak to causal effects, they align with other findings suggesting that technology use has not become increasingly associated with negative psychological outcomes over time [8], and that the increased adoption of Internet technologies in general is not, overall, associated with widespread psychological harms [24]. We also found that Facebook adoption predicted young demographics’ positive well-being more strongly than it did older demographics’, and that sex differences in this dataset were very small and not credibly different from zero. These demography-based differences, and lack therein, were notable in light of previous literature that has reported young girls to be more at-risk of screen- and technology-based effects than young males (e.g. [27]; but see [28]). However, those studies focused on younger individuals (from 10 to 15 years old), which likely partly explains the different findings.
The authors are clear not to overstate what their paper is saying. They’re not arguing that “Facebook makes you happy” or anything like that. But they are saying that the evidence does not support the common refrain that it makes people unhappy.
And, in case you’re wondering, the authors are also clear that while they did get data from Facebook, it was not funded in any way by Facebook, nor did Facebook have any idea what their report would show until it was published.
Again, I know that the narrative that you hear about all the time insists otherwise, but it’s nice to see more data that again suggests we’re living through quite a ridiculous moral panic about the new new thing, which in all likelihood we’ll look back on as a silly thing, as ridiculous as moral panics about comic books, or pinball, or rock n’ roll, or radio, or chess, or the waltz (all of which faced moral panics).
Filed Under: andrew przybylski, matti vuorre, mental health, mental well being, social media, studies
Companies: facebook
Three days left! Support our fundraiser by January 5th and




Comments on “Massive New Study, Covering 72 Countries, Nearly 1 Million People, Finds Zero Evidence That Facebook Leads To Psychological Harm”
And the biggest harm of Facebook is, it screws up everyone’s ability to do studies. 🙂
Can we get those professors to do a study on the Impact of MAGA and Q-Anon on mental health? I am sure that would give them something other than does no harm to write about.
This is interesting research… it seems to imply that Facebook acts as an amplifier, but doesn’t directly correlate to changing someone’s mental health — it just amplifies whatever mood/condition the person already has.
This lines up quite nicely with all the other alarmist “X causes Y” stuff, where what X usually does is makes it clear that Y already exists, where people were previously able to hide Y from those who “knew them well.”
Re:
Certainly my experience. I’ve generally avoided groups and “friends” with toxic properties, and I’ve never really had a problem with the platform, except for when a genuine IRL friend brings some baggage over from elsewhere.
I’m sure there’s people negatively affected despite themselves, but my experience has been that if you are able to filter the feeds properly it’s fine. The problem, of course, is what happens when people not old or mature enough to do that have unfiltered access.
Are they saying my paranoia about being spied on online is perfectly rational? Because that is a direct result of Facebook.
Re:
We’re pretty sure it isn’t rational, and isn’t a result of Facebook. Trust us on this. — NSA
Re:
As the saying goes, if you’re not paying for the service (and even then sometimes if you do), you’re the product, not the customer.
There’s many ways to stop the tracking, but the main thing is probably that it’s unlikely someone’s specifically tracking you. As in, it’s not personal, it’s just a part of the way they track everyone.
So, humans being exposed to other humans won’t automatically drive one crazy? …who knew!
Re:
counterpoint – Have you met my mother-in-law?
Re:
I’d say it’d depend on the kind of human. And even then, humans have been driving other humans mad before Facebook was a thing.
You don’t see studies calling for newspapers and other publications to be regulated for their effects on mental health.
No psychological harm. Check.
Now do societal harm.
Re:
A drop in the bucket compared to right-wing media.
Re: Re:
It is right wing media
Re:
Isn’t societal harm basically why they poisoned Socrates?
'It is difficult to get a person to understand something...'
While it’s certainly nice to have more evidence sadly if those engaging in moral panics for personal gain were interested in facts there would be a lot less of them, and history shows that’s simply not the case.
There’s only so much you can do and attention to garner from ‘turns out this thing isn’t a problem after all’, whereas ‘this thing is terrifying for unspecified and/or vague reasons, be afraid’ is a great way to get and keep attention.
Re:
“Facebook is bad, using it is bad, you use and so you should feel bad.”
“Oh, sure. Where did you get that information?”
“Facebook, why?”
But but but this doesn’t confirm what the politicians and everyone selling the only solution to the problem say!!!
Doesn’t jive with my personal experiences as a parent and member of society. I am so much completely happier since cutting Facebook and other engagement-focused social media platforms out of my life, as is everyone I know. Just because there is a statically neutral impact on mental health and wellbeing at the population level doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous. Studies also show that a glass of red wine a day is healthy. That doesn’t mean that alcohol isn’t dangerous. And it doesn’t mean that Fuckerburg isn’t preying on the worst of human nature for engagement money, or that we should consider it -harmless-. It just means enough people can see through the bullshit and/or use it responsibly to offset all the damage it also causes.
Re:
Why do I feel that you’re making a disingenious argument here…
Theobromine is a fucking poison and people still consume chocolate. Guns kill people if inappropriately used but, guess what, people still buy and sell and use guns.
The Zucc will do Zucc things. Facebook just makes what humanity does “privately”, ie, gossip, defame, backstab and all the bad evil human things public, writ large, and for everyone to see.
Let me tell you about the Murdoch media empire… which exactly is just that as well. And with even less ethics than the Zucc. And the Zucc has not much in the way of ethics to begin with.
Again, guns kill, and proper firearms training is the bare minimum that should be taught to gun owners so that they don’t off themselves cleaning their fucking guns.
It doesn’t “offset” the fact that guns kill, it just means people need to know how to use the damn thing safely.
Again, why do I have the feeling you’re making a bad faith argument here…
Re: Re:
I really don’t see how they’re making a “bad faith” argument just because you don’t agree. Yes guns are also dangerous and Fox News also peddles lies. And sure, some people derive real satisfaction from social media that, in aggregate, probably offsets the negatives. That doesn’t mean that any discussion of the negatives is “bad faith”
Re: Re: Re:
I’m fine with the discussion of the negative jarm, but unfortunayely, alluding to a nebulous harm amd insisting that social media is harmful due to said nebulous harm feels like a bad faith argument.
List some actual real-world harms Facebook has done, like “selling your fucking data to the highest bidder, who may or may not be a belligerent agent for America’s enemies, because we gotta make that fucking line go up at all costs”.
And as for “but it harshes my vibe!”, well, Japan hides a shit ton of the bad stuff and it negatively affects people. Like, for example… radiation hotspots. And social issues. It’s one thing to have a 24-hour of news cycle of nothing but the bad stuff like in the States. It’s another when your press fucking lies to you just to “not harsh your vibes”.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Influencer culture”
The idea that you can take pictures of yourself and tell people what to do for a living is the very embodiment of cultural rot.
Re: Re: Re:3
Ah yes, the whole “new thing bad” non-argument.
Look, celebrity culture was the precursor of influencer culture. And that’s been around, in some form, in MANY CULTURES, THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
You ever heard about the tournament knight who became the guy who helped write the Magna Carta? There were at least some people who hated him too.
Jesus? The condescending attitude of quite a few surviving Greco-Roman historians is very well-noted. And Jesus was a minor prophet of his time.
And yes, the conservatives looked negatively on every new thing. Movies, rock and roll, blues, video games, comics…
Even going to the city to work.
Your argument only reveals how hideously “conservative” you are.
Re: Re: Re:4
Hideously conservative? Now who’s making straw man arguments? Pretty sure I said guns are dangerous and Fox News peddles lies… two hideously conservative positions indeed.
I’m also not saying that celebrity in general is a bad thing. The culture of shameless self promotion that Facebook, Instagram, etc incentivize is what I don’t like and that is why I don’t use those platforms.
I’m not saying there is no value to be found or that you personally shouldn’t use it. Take a chill pill. Not everyone who disagrees with you hates you.
Re: Re: Re:5
…and it has its roots in celeb culture. Celebs also did their fair share of shameless self-promotion, you know. Sometimes at the urging of their managers.
And I can add more examples from across history.
That sort of shamelessness is, sadly, how one finds a fucking job.
You arguing that the sort of shameless self-promotion that has always been a part of humanity is cultural rot reeks of the same conservative bitching about anything they don’t like.
And unfortunately, I’ve seen too many people who’s more than willing to use violence to express those opinions.
Re: Re: Re:6
Well, I won’t resort to violence. Let’s agree to disagree.
Re: Re: Re:3
And whose Facebook page did you read that from?
Re: Re: Re:4
Haven’t been on Facebook for over a decade as I don’t find value in it. That was kind of the point. You use it? Great! I won’t tell you not to. I was just stating my opinion.
Now do Insta
Well that’s good news for everyone as far as Facebook is concerned!
I’m interested in how Instagram or TikTok would fare in this sort of rigorous study. The audience and types of interactions are rather different, and I hope it’s being done.
If Facebook helps 100 people and harms 100 people, are its effects neutral? Or can it be true that, in aggregate, there is no effect (or maybe even a positive one). But that it still has harmful effects for some people that should be addressed.
Re:
A more serious problem is the effect that the GOP and Q-Anon are having on society, along with other cults seeking members, deal with those and many of the bad effects of Facebook go away.
Show your math...
Before taking away any Rights, legislators should be required to prove harm, the degree of harm, and how much of that harm would be mitigated by denying the Right.