Does media use have observable effects on well-being? Historically, the public and scholars have been skeptical of new media and technologies1. For example, there is a lively debate on the harmful effects of digital devices (e.g., smartphones) or new media (e.g., social networking sites)2–5. The lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic reignited that narrative of overreliance on technology, because people were using media much more than previously6,7. That narrative is ambivalent: Technology use is considered an enjoyable pastime and simultaneously harmful. Additionally, this discourse places high value on ‘traditional’ media like books but considers ‘newer’ media, such as social networking sites, of low value1. The literature reflects that discourse; most work investigates effects of newer media8–10. Highlighting the alleged benefits of traditional media without a comparative evidence base of their effects on well-being runs the risk of perpetuating an elitist view of media use1. It also fails to deliver actionable evidence to policymakers who need to decide whether to encourage or discourage media use11,12. Here, we present such evidence. Media effects can occur on different levels13. When asking about the effect of using a medium on well-being, we typically begin on the most general level to study the ‘net’ effect of a behavior11. In the case of new media, this general level is represented by screen time10,14,15. Subsequently, researchers have studied new media with increasing nuance. They have come to understand that the motivation of users is just as important as the content they engage with3,5,14,16. For example, users might compare themselves to others on social media; depending on their motivation, that comparison can make them feel better or worse17. This level of nuance is critical. However, it must build upon a robust understanding of broad, net effects. An investigation of this broad effect is lacking for more traditional media. Consequently, we cannot compare the net effects of social media to those of traditional media. That comparison is important because societal discourse often takes a form of technological determinism12 for granted: People are helpless in the face of social media and attention-demanding notifications, but benefit from traditional media, such as reading books1. Therefore, our first research question asked about the effects of media use on well-being over a broad range of traditional media. Dominated for a long time by cross-sectional work, recent longitudinal studies have begun adding nuance to the analysis of net screen time efects15,18. For one, they distinguish within-person and between-person relations. Between-person relations represent stable differences, but not effects; within-person relations can represent efects19, depending on whether there are time-varying confounders20,21. Therefore, several scholars have recommended applying this distinction to the study of media efects16,22. Second, researchers routinely acknowledge that it is unlikely that screen time affects well-being, but not vice versa. Therefore, most work now models reciprocal relations. Between-person relations between screen time and well-being are negative, but small, with those reporting higher technology use also showing slightly lower well-being8,9,23,24. On the within-person level, effects are negligible: If a person uses technology more than they usually do, any effects on well-being are too small to matter practically8,9,25–28. Tese negligible effects appear to be reciprocal8,9,29. Unfortunately, we do not have such insights into traditional media. Therefore, our second research question asked about the reciprocal effects between media use and well-being, distinguishing between-person relations from potential within-person effects. OPEN 1 Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2 University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3 Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC), Nesta, London, UK. *email: [email protected]
You must be logged in to post a comment.