# data[].attributes.headline
Technology distracts people and makes them less productive

# data[].attributes.subject
Technology distracts people and makes them less productive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Digital devices, such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones, are ubiquitous in society, across college campuses, and in college classrooms. A vast majority of college students bring and/or use a laptop in the classroom ( Patterson and Patterson, 2017; Elliot-Dorans, 2018). In many ways, the ubiquity of these devices has been a boon to higher education-students can now respond instantaneously to online polls, collaborate in real time on written work, and engage with a range of media more flexibly than ever before. Using digital devices to teach remotely for a year and a half helped further demonstrate some of the ways they might be used in-person to promote learning.

However, we all know that digital devices can also be an impediment to education, insofar as they enable students who are prone to distraction to indulge in the illusion that they can multitask at no cost to their learning. In a 2015 survey of college students in 26 different states, undergraduates reported using their digital devices for non-classroom purposes an average of 11.7 times per day in class, accounting for an average of 21% of class time ( McCoy, 2016). In a survey conducted by Tindell and Bohlander (2011), 92% of college students reported using their phones to send text messages during class.

Given this tension, how do you create a classroom and course where technology is used to engage, rather than distract, students? Looking at the research and our experiences using technology both in-person and remotely, we've found that using technology well involves being intentional, flexible, and transparent. Below you'll find some advice about how you might use technology to support your learning objectives, supplemented by research on how to prevent technology from becoming a distraction.

Distraction, not the device, is the problem

Let's be clear: the presence of electronic devices in the classroom is not, in and of itself, the problem. Rather, it's the way we incorporate electronic devices into situations in which we are already inclined to pay attention to too many things. Broadly, we are not wired to multitask well (e.g. Mayer and Moreno, 2003), which is precisely the temptation that many students report experiencing when they are in the classroom. Let's take a moment to look at what the research on in-class device usage tells us about multitasking; or, you may wish to jump directly to our recommendations below.

Studies of individual class sessions

A growing number of studies have found that off-topic device usage-whether on a phone or on a laptop-impedes academic performance (e.g. Glass and Kang, 2019; Felisoni and Godoi, 2018; Bjornsen and Archer, 2015; Demirbilek and Talan, 2018). Several studies have compared students who texted during a lecture versus those who did not. Those who texted typically took lower quality notes, retained less information, and did worse on tests about the material (e.g. Kuznekoff and Titsworth, 2013, and Rosen et al, 2011; Lee et al, 2017). Students themselves are aware that in-class multitasking does not promote learning; in one survey, 80% of students agreed that multitasking in class decreases their ability to pay attention ( Sana et al, 2013).

In addition, device usage is distracting to neighboring students. In several surveys, students have reported that texting is distracting to nearby students ( Tindell and Bohlander, 2011). A study on laptops in a simulated classroom found that students in the vicinity of another student who was multitasking on a laptop during class scored worse on a test than those who were not near multitaskers ( Sana et al, 2013). However, a follow-up study found that it matters what one's neighbors are doing on their computers; a neighbor who engages with off-task content has a more harmful effect on one's comprehension than if the neighbor is on-task ( Hall et al, 2020).

Studies of semester-long courses

Much of the above data comes from simulated class situations, correlational studies, or studies of a single class session. What happens when students are not allowed to use computers in class for an entire semester? Two studies comparing actual college classrooms in which students were or were not allowed to use computers over the course of the semester found that students who bring a laptop to class earned lower grades than those who do not ( Patterson and Patterson, 2017; Carter et al, 2017).

However, the evidence is not uniformly against laptops. Elliot-Dorans compared different sections of the same course that either banned or allowed laptops, and found that banning laptops led to lower quality of written work, lower attendance, and lower exam scores ( Elliot-Dorans, 2018). The author surmised that students' note taking was worse without a laptop, which impeded their learning.

Our recommendations

Maintaining focus

Boredom is one of the main reasons that students report using a digital device during class ( McCoy, 2016). By keeping your students engaged, thinking, and doing activities during class, they are less likely to be tempted by digital distractions. Two studies, one that asked students to use clickers to report lapses in attention ( Bunce et al, 2010) and one that tracked students' eye gaze patterns during lectures ( Rosengrant et al, 2012, summarized here), found that students' attention is highest during and immediately after a change in pedagogy or behavior of the instructor. Some examples of changes that can help students maintain focus include:

1. Variety in pedagogical activities. If you want students to pay attention to you, then you have to offer them something more interesting than your slides (which they're perfectly capable of reading for themselves). Look for opportunities to change up the interaction in the classroom. If you're lecturing, why not ask your students to provide examples of the concept you're describing? If you are leading a discussion seminar, why not design activities for students to talk to each other in small groups instead of just answering your questions for the duration of the class? For example, prompt students turn and talk to each other about a question or challenge you've posed. Technology can help promote engagement and collaboration during an activity like this; students could write and respond to each other in a shared Google Doc.

2. Proximity to the instructor. You are not a prisoner of the podium, or the front of the table, or however your classroom is set up. Of course, you can't be proximate to each student all the time-so move around! You can use your position in the classroom to change the flow of the conversation and the way that students direct their attention.

3. Humor. You probably already knew that students typically pay attention to jokes. But there's a lot more behind that surface observation: laughter in the classroom can make students more comfortable, lower their affective filter, encourage intellectual risk-taking, decrease anxiety, and establish a more productive student-teacher relationship.

Using technology for learning and engagement

Our recent experiences with remote learning have reinforced the idea that digital devices can be incorporated into the learning environment to great effect, often in ways that we might wish to continue to deploy in an in-person classroom. Technology can be helpful for collecting instantaneous feedback on student learning, promoting collaboration, and helping students engage more closely with readings and other materials related to the course. For example, students can use a mobile device to respond to questions (multiple choice, open ended, and other formats) through applications such as Poll Everywhere and Learning Catalytics. This encourages class participation and provides instructors with instantaneous feedback about student learning. Collaborative tools such as Google Docs or Google Jamboard allow students to jointly contribute ideas to a shared project or give each other peer feedback, and annotation tools such as AnnotationsX or Perusal enable students to annotate a document. Additionally, students might use their device to look up information on the internet, or engage with a simulation or other educational app.

Furthermore, students may prefer taking notes on their computer rather than by hand. In one survey of college students, 70% of students report that having a laptop in class is helpful for their academic performance, with note-taking cited as the most important benefit ( Kay and Lauricella, 2014). Additional reported benefits include engagement with in-class academic activities, and communication and collaboration with peers ( Kay and Lauricella, 2014; Fried, 2008).

Technology as a technology of inclusion

While for many students banning devices from the classroom may seem like a minor inconvenience, students with dyslexia, ADHD, or visual impairments use computers to take notes and to access cloud-based assistive technologies. People with invisible disabilities are enrolling in higher education settings in increasing numbers, and require access to technologies that assist with their learning. Allowing all students access to a device in class avoids singling out students who have important reasons for using one.

When you do use technology in the classroom, check to see if the digital tools you use are accessible to different students. Consider using sans serif fonts, providing materials for lecture in advance of class for review, and using files that can be read aloud via text to voice software (avoid scanned pictures of text). A Boston Globe article entitled " Digital education shouldn't bypass disabled" highlights and personalizes these issues.

To allow or not allow devices?

Faculty are often hesitant to allow students to use devices in the classroom due to the potential for distraction. However, we note that the challenge with digital devices is not the device per se, but off-topic usage. We can decrease the temptation by ensuring that the class itself is interactive and engaging, and that any use of technology is relevant.

We recommend being intentional, transparent, and flexible about use of digital devices in the classroom.

Start by thinking carefully about your learning objectives, and identify activities that align with your objectives and enhance learning. Sometimes the most appropriate activity might not involve technology, but instead might include students talking to a neighbor, drawing a diagram on paper, or solving a problem on a white board. In other cases, you might see an ideal use case for electronic devices. For example, you might incorporate online tools that provide insight into student understanding (such as polls) or that allow collaborative work.

During some portions of a class, you might encourage students not to use their devices, but to instead maintain their attention on the conversation, for example. (You may wish to apply these directions flexibility, with the understanding that some students rely on digital tools for learning.)

Communicate clearly-and frequently-about when and why to use a device, as well as why not to use a device. Share the research about how off-topic device usage impedes learning.

Include a technology policy on your syllabus. In addition to letting students know what they can and cannot use, it is important to let them know why.

Share advice about good practices for using digital devices. Guidance about turning off extraneous applications and notifications, and closing the device when an activity is completed, will help students not only in your class, but also in their future work environments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Digital devices, such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones, are ubiquitous in society, across college campuses, and in college classrooms. A vast majority of college students bring and/or use a laptop in the classroom ( Patterson and Patterson, 2017; Elliot-Dorans, 2018).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nowhere is the impact of popular culture and technology on children's relationships more noticeable than in families. Both influences have contributed to a growing divide between the traditional roles that children and their parents play while, at the same time, blurring those same lines between parents and children. Over the past two decades, children who, for example, watch television, have received messages from popular culture telling them that parents are selfish, immature, incompetent, and generally clueless, for example, from Malcolm in the Middle, Tool Time, Family Guy, Two and a Half Men, and I Hate My Teenage Daughter, not to mention reality TV shows such as SuperNanny and the Housewives franchise.

This divide has grown due to the increased use of technology among children in several ways. First, children's absorption in technology, from texting to playing video games, does by their very nature limit their availability to communicate with their parents. One study found that when the working parent arrived home after work, his or her children were so immersed in technology that the parent was greeted only 30 percent of the time and was totally ignored 50 percent of the time. Another study reported that family time was not affected when technology was used for school, but did hurt family communications when used for social reasons. Interestingly, children who spent considerable time on a popular social networking site indicated that they felt less supported by their parents.

Second, as digital immigrants, parents can struggle to gain proficiency and comfort with the new technology that their digital-native children have already mastered. This divergence in competence in such an important area of children's lives makes it more difficult for parents to assume the role of teacher and guide in their children's use of technology. Because of the lack of technological acumen on the part of many parents, they lack the authority, at least in the eyes of their children, to regulate its use. Due to parents' anxiety or apprehension about the use of technology, they may be unwilling to assert themselves in their children's technological lives. Because of their children's sense of superiority and lack of respect for parents' authority in these matters, children may be unwilling to listen to their parents' attempts to guide or limit their use of technology.

Third, computer and mobile technology have provided children with an independence in their communications with friends and others. Consider this. In previous generations, if children wanted to be in touch with a friend, they had to call them on the home phone which might be answered by a parent. Thus, parents had the opportunity to monitor and act as gatekeepers for their children's social lives.

Times have changed. New technology offers children independence from their parents' involvement in their social lives, with the use of mobile phones, instant messaging, and social networking sites. Of course, children see this technological divide between themselves and their parents as freedom from over-involvement and intrusion on the part of their parents in their lives. Parents, in turn, see it as a loss of connection to their children and an inability to maintain reasonable oversight, for the sake of safety and over-all health, of their children's lives. At the same time, perhaps a bit cynically, children's time-consuming immersion in technology may also mean that parents don't have to bother with entertaining their children, leaving them more time to themselves.

There is little doubt that technology is affecting family relationships on a day-to-day level. Children are instant messaging constantly, checking their social media, listening to music, surfing their favorite web sites, and watching television or movies. Because of the emergence of mobile technology, these practices are no longer limited to the home, but rather can occur in cars, at restaurants, in fact, anywhere there's a mobile phone signal.

It's not only the children who are responsible for the growing divide between parents and their offspring. Parents can be equally guilty of contributing to the distance that appears to be increasing in families. They are often wrapped up in their own technology, for example, talking on their mobile phones, checking email, or watching TV, when they could be talking to, playing with, or generally connecting with their children.

Interestingly, parents have attempted to counteract this growing divide not with actual face-to-face communication with their children, but by joining their children in cyberspace. A phenomenon that has caused considerable debate involves parents "friending" their children on Facebook (about 50 percent). Some parents use Facebook to keep track of their children's coming and goings. Other parents friend their children as a means of feeling closer to them. So what is their children's reaction to being "friends" with their parents? An informal survey I conducted of dozens of teenagers found that the dominant reaction can best be characterized as "EEEWWW!" Most children don't want their parents to be their "friends" or their friends, for that matter.

The fact is that family life has changed in the last generation quite apart from the rise of technology. The size of homes has grown by 50 percent, meaning family members can retreat to their own corners of the house, so there's less chance that parents and children will see each other. Because everyone is so busy with work, school, and extracurricular activities, there's less time for families to spend together. At technology to the mix and it only gets worse. It's gotten to the point where it seems like parents and children are emailing and texting each other more than they're talking-even when they're at home together!

The ramifications of this distancing are profound. Less connection-the real kind-means that families aren't able to build relationships as strong as they could be nor are they able to maintain them as well. As a result, children will feel less familiarity, comfort, trust, security, and, most importantly, love from their parents. There is also less sharing which means that parents know less about what is going on in their children's lives and, consequently, have less ability to exert influence over them. Parents are also less able to not only offer appropriate supervision and guidance, but, at a more basic level, they are less able to model healthy behavior, share positive values, and send good messages to their children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is little doubt that technology is affecting family relationships on a day-to-day level. Children are instant messaging, checking their social media, listening to music, surfing the Web, and playing video games. Parents can be equally guilty, often wrapped up in their own technology, for example, talking on their mobile phones, checking email, or watching TV.

# data[].attributes.headline
Technology and Relationships: The Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.subject
Technology and Relationships: The Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram have long since stopped being the sole domain of the young. More than half of the people in a 2018 survey, regardless of age, said they could not go a day without using platforms like these.

This is not always a bad thing. Social media can provide opportunities to reunite with long-lost friends and relatives, meet potential romantic partners, stay connected to casual acquaintances - all from the comfort of your living room couch.

But it can become a problem if you never leave your couch to connect with other human beings in real life. In-person interaction is key to our well-being and most people don't do well without it, says Elisabeth Netherton, MD, and psychiatrist at Mindpath Health.

Beyond that, if you spend too much time on social media, you risk giving up a huge chunk of your time, attention, and energy for very little return in terms of your quality of life, Netherton says.

In some cases, it can even start to chip away at your sense of emotional well-being.

It can make us feel bad when we forget that our friends' feeds are often more "highlight reel" than real life, Netherton says. Seeing "where everybody's on vacation and things that look really rosy," makes it easy to fall into the comparison trap, especially if your social connections are weak.

Still, with care and attention, Netherton says, you can use social media to enrich rather than weaken your social connections. You simply need to pay attention to the way you use social media and the time you spend on it.

How Much Social Media Time?

It's no secret that social media can gobble up huge blocks of time. You can lose hours a day just trying to keep up with what other people are doing and saying.

Studies have shown that more time on social media can lower mood and increase mental health issues.

There is a simple solution: Try to limit your time online. A 2018 study found that people who limited social media use to 30 minutes a day appeared to gain "significant improvement in well-being" and reduction in loneliness and depression compared with their peers who used social media as much as they wanted.

There are numerous apps that can help you do this by tracking your usage and even shutting off access to certain social media apps after a certain amount of time.

What Should You Do on Social Media?

Research shows that it's not just the amount of time you spend on social media that makes the difference, it's how you use that time.

"Most of us can relate to sitting down at night after the kids go to bed, and just scrolling. Just scrolling Instagram, scrolling TikTok, and feeling crummier about themselves when they finish than they did when they started," Netherton says.

This is what scientists call "passive social media use" - endless scrolling without posting or making plans with people you know. It can lower your sense of well-being.

Older people may be more vulnerable to these issues than younger people, Netherton says,

"I think there are a lot of younger people who grew up with social media who have reached the point of really trying to disconnect from it," she says. That's less the case with older users, Netherton says, and it continues to take a toll.

According to a 2019 study, older adults who showed signs of "problematic social media use" (as measured by the BSMAS addiction scale) were more likely to feel more lonely, no matter how much time they spent on social media.

But different use of social media can have different effects.

One healthy way to use social media is to use it to strengthen casual connections with people you see, at least now and then, in person, says Lisa D'Ambrosio, PhD, a research scientist at MIT's AgeLab.

For example, you can use Facebook, Instagram, and even text messaging to send memes or thoughts to someone who you may not be able to see for a while.

This can be especially helpful for older adults, D'Ambrosio says. Older adults who don't get out as much may feel more connected to their families and their communities through social media. If they can see and comment on pictures of children and grandchildren or connect with others around shared interests, it can help keep isolation at bay, she says.

But these types of online interactions should help nurture in-person relationships, not replace them, D'Ambrosio says.

How Can You Build a Healthy Relationship With Social Media?

Healthy social media interaction can also happen in more unexpected ways. For example, when Karen Arrington, 62, posted about her dad's death on Facebook, roughly 400 people sent her messages of support and sympathy. Many sent flowers and food gifts as well, says Arrington, a success coach in Marlboro, MD.

It really made a difference as she worked through her grief, she says. "It was really inspiring to know that there are people out there who just really care."

Arrington tries to avoid the pitfalls of social media by carefully curating what she sees.

Anything that appears to be negative, I unfollow," she says. That means she can remain friends with someone without having their posts appear in her newsfeed. She also creates specific lists to customize her experience even further.

For instance, when she wants to feel uplifted, she clicks on a list of people whose posts inspire her. (You can learn how to create specific lists of your on Facebook.com.)

Of course, each person is different and what works for one person may not work for another. But there are some general guidelines that may help you build a healthy relationship with social media:

Be intentional: A set of general questions can serve as a good starting point, says Netherton: "What matters to me? Where do I want to be active with my time? What feels meaningful and purposeful?" And remember, she says, the goal of healthy social media use is to strengthen your in-person relationships, not weaken them.

Check in with yourself: Ask yourself how you feel after using social media. Are you having FOMO because you feel like everyone is having fun without you? Or do you feel excited to join a new online community or conversation? If you relate more to the former than the latter, it may be time to cut back on your social media use, Netherton says.

Look at your calendar: "Look at how you're spending your time," Netherton says. Have you made regular plans for in-person interaction? Your social media use should never be a replacement for real-life interactions with friends and family. If you're spending more time with your phone than your friends, consider making plans to meet up.

Use social media to meet people: If you've recently relocated or just want to expand your social circle, you can use your online social networks to find in-person events. Netherton suggests using resources including Facebook, NextDoor, and Meetup to find groups who share your political beliefs, hobbies, or faith.

Get help with technology: If you're older and less handy with technology, reach out to younger friends and family who may be able to help you navigate new social media platforms. It may be easier than you think. Some apps are even able to address problems with hearing or vision. Other apps may specialize in helping older people socialize with each other in a friendly or even romantic way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Use Social Media to Help, Not Hurt, Your Mental Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram have long since stopped being the sole domain of the young. More than half of the people in a 2018 survey, regardless of age, said they could not go a day without using platforms like these. This is not always a bad thing.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Will you turn the parlour off?" he asked. 

# data[].attributes.subject
"Will you turn the parlour off?" he asked. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Technology Ruins people's closest relationships

# data[].attributes.subject
Technology Ruins people's closest relationships

# data[].attributes.headline
A  University of Michigan study found that Facebook use led to a decrease in happiness and overall life satisfaction.

# data[].attributes.subject
A  University of Michigan study found that Facebook use led to a decrease in happiness and overall life satisfaction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ethan Kross,

Philippe Verduyn,

Emre Demiralp,

Jiyoung Park,

David Seungjae Lee,

Natalie Lin,

Holly Shablack,

John Jonides,

Oscar Ybarra

Subject Areas

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!

Abstract

Over 500 million people interact daily with Facebook. Yet, whether Facebook use influences subjective well-being over time is unknown. We addressed this issue using experience-sampling, the most reliable method for measuring in-vivo behavior and psychological experience. We text-messaged people five times per day for two-weeks to examine how Facebook use influences the two components of subjective well-being: how people feel moment-to-moment and how satisfied they are with their lives. Our results indicate that Facebook use predicts negative shifts on both of these variables over time. The more people used Facebook at one time point, the worse they felt the next time we text-messaged them; the more they used Facebook over two-weeks, the more their life satisfaction levels declined over time. Interacting with other people "directly" did not predict these negative outcomes. They were also not moderated by the size of people's Facebook networks, their perceived supportiveness, motivation for using Facebook, gender, loneliness, self-esteem, or depression. On the surface, Facebook provides an invaluable resource for fulfilling the basic human need for social connection. Rather than enhancing well-being, however, these findings suggest that Facebook may undermine it.

Citation: Kross E, Verduyn P, Demiralp E, Park J, Lee DS, Lin N, et al. (2013) Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults. PLoS ONE 8(8): e69841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841

Editor: Cédric Sueur, Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, France

Received: January 31, 2013; Accepted: June 12, 2013; Published: August 14, 2013

Copyright: © 2013 Kross et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Online social networks are rapidly changing the way human beings interact. Over a billion people belong to Facebook, the world's largest online social network, and over half of them log in daily [1]. Yet, no research has examined how interacting with Facebook influences subjective well-being over time. Indeed, a recent article that examined every peer-reviewed publication and conference proceeding on Facebook between 1/2005 and 1/2012 (412 in total) did not reveal a single study that examined how using this technology influences subjective well-being over time ( Text S1) [2].

Subjective well-being is one of the most highly studied variables in the behavioral sciences. Although significant in its own right, it also predicts a range of consequential benefits including enhanced health and longevity [3]-[5]. Given the frequency of Facebook usage, identifying how interacting with this technology influences subjective well-being represents a basic research challenge that has important practical implications.

This issue is particularly vexing because prior research provides mixed clues about how Facebook use should influence subjective well-being. Whereas some cross-sectional research reveals positive associations between online social network use (in particular Facebook) and well-being [6], other work reveals the opposite [7], [8]. Still other work suggests that the relationship between Facebook use and well-being may be more nuanced and potentially influenced by multiple factors including number of Facebook friends, perceived supportiveness of one's online network, depressive symptomatology, loneliness, and self-esteem [9], [10], [11].

So, how does Facebook usage influence subjective well-being over time? The cross-sectional approach used in previous studies makes it impossible to know. We addressed this issue by using experience-sampling, the most reliable method for measuring in-vivo behavior and psychological experience over time [12]. We text-messaged participants five times per day for 14-days. Each text-message contained a link to an online survey, which participants completed using their smartphones. We performed lagged analyses on participants' responses, as well as their answers to the Satisfaction With Life Questionnaire (SWLS) [13], which they completed before and immediately following the 14-day experience-sampling period, to examine how interacting with Facebook influences the two components of subjective well-being: how people feel ("affective" well-being) and how satisfied they are with their lives ("cognitive" well-being) [14], [15]. This approach allowed us to take advantage of the relative timing of participants' natural Facebook behavior and psychological states to draw inferences about their likely causal sequence [16]-[19].

Methods

Participants

Eighty-two people ( M age = 19.52, SD age  = 2.17; 53 females; 60.5% European American, 28.4% Asian, 6.2% African American, and 4.9% other) were recruited for a study on Facebook through flyers posted around Ann Arbor, Michigan. Participants needed a Facebook account and a touch-screen smartphone to qualify for the study. They received $20 and were entered into a raffle to receive an iPad2 for participating.

Ethics Statement

The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation.

Materials and Procedure

Phase 1.

Participants completed a set of questionnaires, which included the SWLS ( M = 4.96, SD = 1.17), Beck Depression Inventory [20] ( M = 9.02, SD = 7.20), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale [21] ( M = 30.40, SD = 4.96), and the Social Provision Scale [22] ( M = 3.55, SD  = .34), which we modified to assess perceptions of Facebook support. We also assessed participants' motivation for using Facebook by asking them to indicate whether they use Facebook "to keep in touch with friends (98% answered yes)," "to find new friends (23% answered yes)," "to share good things with friends (78% answered yes)," "to share bad things with friends (36% answered yes)," "to obtain new information (62% answered yes)," or "other: please explain (17% answered yes)." Examples of other reasons included chatting with others, keeping in touch with family, and facilitating schoolwork and business.

Phase 2.

Participants were text-messaged 5 times per day between 10am and midnight over 14-days. Text-messages occurred at random times within 168-minute windows per day. Each text-message contained a link to an online survey, which asked participants to answer five questions using a slider scale: (1) How do you feel right now? ( very positive [0] to very negative [100]; M = 37.47, SD = 25.88); (2) How worried are you right now? ( not at all [0] to a lot [100]; M = 44.04, SD = 30.42); (3) How lonely do you feel right now? ( not at all [0] to a lot [100]; M = 27.61, SD = 26.13); (4) How much have you used Facebook since the last time we asked? ( not at all [0] to a lot [100]; M = 33.90, SD = 30.48); (5) How much have you interacted with other people "directly" since the last time we asked? ( not at all [0]to a lot [100]; M = 64.26, SD  = 31.11). When the protocol for answering these questions was explained, interacting with other people "directly" was defined as face-to-face or phone interactions. An experimenter carefully walked participants through this protocol to ensure that they understood how to answer each question and fulfill the study requirements.

Participants always answered the affect question first. Next the worry and loneliness questions were presented in random order. The Facebook use and direct social interaction questions were always administered last, again in random order. Our analyses focused primarily on affect (rather than worry and loneliness) because this affect question is the way "affective well-being" is typically operationalized.

Phase 3.

Participants returned to the laboratory following Phase 2 to complete another set of questionnaires, which included the SWLS ( M = 5.13, SD = 1.26) and the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale [23] ( M = 1.69, SD = .46). Participants' number of Facebook friends ( M = 664.25, SD = 383.64) was also recorded during this session from participants' Facebook accounts ( Text S2).

Results

Attrition and compliance

Three participants did not complete the study. As the methods section notes, participants received a text message directing them to complete a block of five questions once every 168 minutes on average (the text message was delivered randomly within this 168-minute window). A response to any question within a block was considered "compliant" if it was answered before participants received a subsequent text-message directing them to complete the next block of questions. Participants responded to an average of 83.6% of text-messages (range: 18.6%-100%). Following prior research [24], we pruned the data by excluding all of the data from two participants who responded to <33% of the texts, resulting in 4,589 total observations. The results did not change substantively when additional cutoff rates were used.

Analyses overview

We examined the relationship between Facebook use and affect using multilevel analyses to account for the nested data structure. Specifically, we examined whether T ₂ affect (i.e., How do you feel right now?) was predicted by T ₁₋₂ Facebook use (i.e., How much have you used Facebook since the last time we asked?), controlling for T ₁ affect at level-1 of the model (between-day lags were excluded). Note that although this analysis assesses Facebook use at T ₂, the question refers to usage between T ₁ and T ₂ (hence the notationT ₁₋₂). This analysis allowed us to explore whether Facebook use during the time period separating T ₁ and T ₂ predicted changes in affect over this time span.

When non-compliant cases were observed, we used participants' responses to the last text message they answered to examine the lagged effect of Facebook use on well-being to maximize power. So, if we were interested in examining whether T ₂₋₃ Facebook use predicted T ₃ Affect controlling for T ₂ Affect, but did not have data on T ₂ Affect, then we used T ₁ Affect instead. Excluding trials in which participants did not respond to the previous texts (rather than following the aforementioned analytical scheme) did not substantively alter any of the results we report.

Significance testing of fixed effects was performed using chi-squared distributed (df = 1) Wald-tests. All level-1 predictors were group-mean centered, and intercepts and slopes were allowed to vary randomly across participants (see Table 1 for zero-order correlations). We tested for moderation by examining whether each moderator variable was related to the slope of T ₁₋₂ Facebook use when predicting T ₂ affect, controlling for T ₁ affect.

Data from one person who scored 4SDs above the sample mean on the BDI were excluded from the BDI moderation analyses; data from one person who scored 4SDs above the sample mean on number of Facebook friends were excluded from the moderation analyses based on Facebook friends.

The relationship between mean Facebook use and life satisfaction was assessed using OLS regressions because these data were not nested. Both unstandardized ( B) and standardized ( β) OLS regression coefficients are reported (see Text S3).

Facebook use and well-being

Affective well-being.

We examined whether people's tendency to interact with Facebook during the time period separating two text messages influenced how they felt at T ₂, controlling for how they felt at T ₁. Nested time-lag analyses indicated that the more people used Facebook the worse they subsequently felt, B = .08, χ² = 28.90, p<.0001, (see Figure 1, top). The reverse pathway (T ₁ Affect predicting T ₁₋₂ Facebook use, controlling for T ₀₋₁ Facebook use) was not significant, B = −.005, χ² = .05, p = .82, indicating that people do not use Facebook more or less depending on how they feel (see Text S4, S5).

Cognitive well-being.

To examine how Facebook use influenced "cognitive well-being," we analyzed whether people's average Facebook use over the 14-day period predicted their life satisfaction at the end of the study, controlling for baseline life satisfaction and average emotion levels over the 14-day period. The more participants used Facebook, the more their life satisfaction levels declined over time, B = −.012, β = −.124, t(73) = −2.39, p = .02, (see Figure 1, bottom).

Alternative explanations.

An alternative explanation for these results is that any form of social interaction undermines well-being. Because we also asked people to indicate how frequently they interacted with other people "directly" since the last time we text messaged them, we were able to test this idea. Specifically, we repeated each of the aforementioned analyses substituting "direct" social interaction for Facebook use. In contrast to Facebook use, "direct" social interaction did not predict changes in cognitive well-being, B = −.006, β = −.059, t(73) = 1.04, p = .30, and predicted increases (not decreases) in affective well-being, B = −.15, χ² = 65.30, p<.0001. Controlling for direct social interaction did not substantively alter the significant relationship between Facebook use and affective well-being, B = .05, χ² = 10.78, p<.01.

Another alternative explanation for these results is that people use Facebook when they feel bad (i.e., when they are bored lonely, worried or otherwise distressed), and feeling bad leads to declines in well-being rather than Facebook use per se. The analyses we reported earlier partially address this issue by demonstrating that affect does not predict changes in Facebook use over time and Facebook use continues to significantly predict declines in life satisfaction over time when controlling for affect. However, because participants also rated how lonely and worried they felt each time we text messaged them, we were able to test this proposal further.

We first examined whether worry or loneliness predicted changes in Facebook use over time (i.e., T ₁ worry [or T ₁ loneliness] predicting T ₁₋₂ Facebook use, controlling for T ₀₋₁ Facebook use). Worry did not predict changes in Facebook use, B = .04, χ² = 2.37, p = .12, but loneliness did, B = .07, χ² = 8.54, p<.01. The more lonely people felt at one time point, the more people used Facebook over time. Given this significant relationship, we next examined whether controlling for loneliness renders the relationship between Facebook use and changes in affective and cognitive well-being non-significant-what one would predict if Facebook use is a proxy for loneliness. This was not the case. Facebook use continued to predict declines in affective well-being, B = .08, χ² = 27.87, p<.0001, and cognitive well-being, B = −.012, β = −.126, t(72) = 2.34, p = .02, when loneliness was controlled for in each analysis. Neither worry nor loneliness interacted significantly with Facebook use to predict changes in affective or cognitive well-being ( p s>.44).

Moderation.

Next, we examined whether a number of theoretically relevant individual-difference variables including participants' number of Facebook Friends, their perceptions of their Facebook network support, depressive symptoms, loneliness, gender, self-esteem, time of study participation, and motivation for using Facebook (e.g., to find new friends, to share good or bad things, to obtain new information) interacted with Facebook use to predict changes in affective or cognitive well-being ( Text S6). In no case did we observe any significant interactions ( p s>.16).

Exploratory analyses.

Although we did not have a priori predictions about whether Facebook use and direct social contact would interact to predict changes in affective and cognitive well-being, we nevertheless explored this issue in our final set of analyses. The results of these analyses indicated that Facebook use and direct social contact interacted significantly to predict changes in affective well-being, B = .002, χ² = 19.55, p<.0001, but not changes in cognitive well-being, B = .000, β = .129, t(71) = .39, p = .70. To understand the meaning of the former interaction, we performed simple slope analyses. These analyses indicated that the relationship between Facebook use and declines in affective well-being increased linearly with direct social contact. Specifically, whereas Facebook use did not predict significant declines in affective well-being when participants experienced low levels of direct social contact (i.e., 1 standard deviation below the sample mean for direct social contact; B = .00, χ ² = .04, p = .84), it did predict significant declines in well-being when participants experienced moderate levels of direct social contact (i.e., at the sample mean for direct social contact; B = .05, χ ² = 11.21, p<.001) and high levels of direct social contact (i.e., 1 standard deviation above the sample mean for direct social contact; B = .10, χ ²  = 28.82, p<.0001).

Discussion

Within a relatively short timespan, Facebook has revolutionized the way people interact. Yet, whether using Facebook predicts changes in subjective well-being over time is unknown. We addressed this issue by performing lagged analyses on experience sampled data, an approach that allowed us to take advantage of the relative timing of participants' naturally occurring behaviors and psychological states to draw inferences about their likely causal sequence [17], [18]. These analyses indicated that Facebook use predicts declines in the two components of subjective well-being: how people feel moment to moment and how satisfied they are with their lives.

Critically, we found no evidence to support two plausible alternative interpretations of these results. First, interacting with other people "directly" did not predict declines in well-being. In fact, direct social network interactions led people to feel better over time. This suggests that Facebook use may constitute a unique form of social network interaction that predicts impoverished well-being. Second, multiple types of evidence indicated that it was not the case that Facebook use led to declines in well-being because people are more likely to use Facebook when they feel bad-neither affect nor worry predicted Facebook use and Facebook use continued to predict significant declines in well-being when controlling for loneliness (which did predict increases in Facebook use and reductions in emotional well-being).

Would engaging in any solitary activity similarly predict declines in well-being? We suspect that they would not because people often derive pleasure from engaging in some solitary activities (e.g., exercising, reading). Supporting this view, a number of recent studies indicate that people's perceptions of social isolation (i.e., how lonely they feel)-a variable that we assessed in this study, which did not influence our results-are a more powerful determinant of well-being than objective social isolation [25]. A related question concerns whether engaging in any Internet activity (e.g., email, web surfing) would likewise predict well-being declines. Here too prior research suggests that it would not. A number of studies indicate that whether interacting with the Internet predicts changes in well-being depends on how you use it (i.e., what sites you visit) and who you interact with [26].

Future research

Although these findings raise numerous future research questions, four stand out as most pressing. First, do these findings generalize? We concentrated on young adults in this study because they represent a core Facebook user demographic. However, examining whether these findings generalize to additional age groups is important. Future research should also examine whether these findings generalize to other online social networks. As a recent review of the Facebook literature indicated [2] "[different online social networks] have varied histories and are associated with different patterns of use, user characteristics, and social functions (p. 205)." Therefore, it is possible that the current findings may not neatly generalize to other online social networks.

Second, what mechanisms underlie the deleterious effects of Facebook usage on well-being? Some researchers have speculated that online social networking may interfere with physical activity, which has cognitive and emotional replenishing effects [27] or trigger damaging social comparisons [8], [28]. The latter idea is particularly interesting in light of the significant interaction we observed between direct social contact and Facebook use in this study-i.e., the more people interacted with other people directly, the more strongly Facebook use predicted declines in their affective well-being. If harmful social comparisons explain how Facebook use predicts declines in affective well-being, it is possible that interacting with other people directly either enhances the frequency of such comparisons or magnifies their emotional impact. Examining whether these or other mechanisms explain the relationship between Facebook usage and well-being is important both from a basic science and practical perspective.

Finally, although the analytic approach we used in this study is useful for drawing inferences about the likely causal ordering of associations between naturally occurring variables, experiments that manipulate Facebook use in daily life are needed to corroborate these findings and establish definitive causal relations. Though potentially challenging to perform-Facebook use prevalence, its centrality to young adult daily social interactions, and addictive properties may make it a difficult intervention target-such studies are important for extending this work and informing future interventions.

Concluding Comment

The human need for social connection is well established, as are the benefits that people derive from such connections [30]-[34]. On the surface, Facebook provides an invaluable resource for fulfilling such needs by allowing people to instantly connect. Rather than enhancing well-being, as frequent interactions with supportive "offline" social networks powerfully do, the current findings demonstrate that interacting with Facebook may predict the opposite result for young adults-it may undermine it.

Acknowledgments

We thank Emily Kean for her assistance running the study and Ozlem Ayduk and Phoebe Ellsworth for their feedback.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: EK ED JP DSL NL JJ OY. Performed the experiments: HS NL. Analyzed the data: PV ED. Wrote the paper: EK ED PV JJ OY. Discussed the results and commented on the manuscript: EK PV ED JP DSL NL HS JJ OY.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over 500 million people interact daily with Facebook. Yet, whether Facebook use influences subjective well-being over time is unknown. We addressed this issue using experience-sampling, the most reliable method for measuring in-vivo behavior and psychological experience.

# data[].attributes.headline
Team, Fisher-Titus Healthy Living. “The Effects of Technology on Mental Health.” 

# data[].attributes.subject
Team, Fisher-Titus Healthy Living. “The Effects of Technology on Mental Health.” 

# data[].attributes.headline
How Technology Affects our Mental Stability

# data[].attributes.subject
How Technology Affects our Mental Stability

# data[].attributes.body
Technology is a very two-sided topic that involves many different ideas, but if we as a society keep up on the same track who knows what else could go wrong. Even now, technology has gone too far in certain aspects as it has affected people’s mental stability, distracts and makes people less productive, and affects their relationships.