The effects of social media

Now that we’ve identified some of the problems with the concept of “media effects”, let’s put our ideas to the test and consider the effects of social media.

This is a newsworthy topic. Indeed, since the emergence of social media in the mid-2000s, legacy media like news have spent a considerable amount of time telling us how harmful these new platforms are.

And it’s not just news. You’ve probably heard or even participated in conversations about the negative effects of social media: you’ve heard people say that these platforms are addictive, they impact your sleep, they impact your attention and make it hard to concentrate, they lead to polarisation, division, and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.

Somewhat ironically, maybe these conversations have themselves unfolded on social media platforms.

So, how valid are these concerns? And how do we, as communication scholars, navigate this thorny territory?

First of all, it’s problematic to assume that social media has a negative effect on users. And we certainly shouldn’t make any such claims without evidence.

Nevertheless, the effects of social media are of great interest to researchers – and they may also be of great interest to you, personally, if you’ve experienced problems such as cyberbullying, online harassment, or digital addiction. Such problems are both moral panics – mythical evils evoked in cultural discourse (Cohen 2011) – and real issues that people grapple with as part of their everyday lives. Like most moral panics, they are communicated and amplified through the mainstream media. Like most “real issues”, they are individualised, lived, and deeply personal.

Today, researchers continue to investigate the impacts of social and digital media in a way that exposes very real problems. For instance, a 2021 research brief prepared by the Centre for Digital Wellbeing in Australia contends that social media has a negative impact on mental health, especially for young people, and is linked to technology-facilitated abuse including gender-based violence, online harassment, and stalking.

It was also in 2021 that internal research by parent company Facebook (now Meta) found that Instagram worsened body image problems for one in three girls, because the algorithms used by the app created a vortex of damaging content with very real effects on girls’ self esteem. This research received mainstream media attention when it was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, leading to a protracted public discussion about whether social media companies have a duty to protect users from harm.

Once again, you’ll notice the emphasis here is on negative effects. Historically, there has been comparatively little attention paid to the positive effects of media and communication. Yet research today shows that social media can lead to increased feelings of social connectedness, as well as strengthening civic engagement and political participation (Centre for Digital Wellbeing 2021: 24). A strong body positivity movement has emerged through social media activity promoting healthier ways of thinking about one’s physical self. Digital media is used as a tool by communicators with social justice agendas, and once-maligned pastimes like playing online games have been shown to improve memory, creative thinking, and problem-solving.

Still, stories about the negative impacts of media tend to linger for longer in the public’s memory, and are a greater object of cultural fascination (and cultural anxiety). For those with direct experience, the negative impacts of media can be destructive, all-consuming, and unavoidable, whereas we perhaps don’t take as much notice when social media helps us connect with a community or allows us to share a positive message.

Many of the negative effects of social media were catalogued in the 2020 film The Social Dilemma, a documentary directed by American filmmaker Jeff Orlowski. The film details the techniques used by tech giants to ensnare users, with resounding themes of addiction, enslavement, power, and abuse.

The Social Dilemma | Official Trailer | Netflix

Interestingly, the media release circulated by Facebook in response to The Social Dilemma uses a language that harkens back to academic criticisms of the media effects model. “Rather than offer a nuanced look at technology”, Facebook complained, “[the film] gives a distorted view of how social media platforms work to create a convenient scapegoat for what are difficult and complex societal problems”. In other words, to use David Gauntlett’s phrase, The Social Dilemma may well be guilty of “tackl[ing] social problems backwards”.

And, of course, The Social Dilemma is a documentary that itself is designed to have an effect. Like many documentary filmmakers, Orlowski (who also directed the climate-themed documentaries Chasing Coral and Chasing Ice) wants viewers to become more aware of a particular social problem as a result of having watched his film. According to researchers at the University of Annenberg’s Media Impact Project, The Social Dilemma did indeed have a positive effect by improving viewers’ knowledge of the persuasive design techniques employed by social media companies, thereby activating a healthy suspicion of social media products (Rosenthal et al. 2022).

What can we conclude here?

That it’s complicated.

To summarise: the question of whether media has an effect on audiences is a longstanding one that needs to be located within the context of the effects tradition of media research – and the debates it has sparked. We shouldn’t accept effects-based theories without question – but we should acknowledge their continuing power in public discourse. And we always, always need to ask – we need to never stop asking – what assumptions lie within such theories?

Now reflect again, as you did at the start of this chapter, on your relationship with a media object like your phone. Can you look at this relationship through a media effects lens? When you apply this mode of thinking, do new dimensions of your identity as a phone user emerge? Are there problems with this way of thinking? What assumptions might somebody else make about your relationship with your phone – and what arguments could you construct in the face of these assumptions?