Skip to content
Back to the collection

Overestimates of social media addiction are common but costly

Ian A. Anderson, Wendy Wood

2025 · Scientific Reports

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
5
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

5 selected excerpts · 5 total mentions

SpicyLemonZest
Neutral mention · rule
From your tone, it sounds like you may just be intending to warn me that it's cringe not to agree with any criticism of Zuckerberg? If that's so, I have to respectfully disagree; I think this is a bad attitude that leads towards being poorly informed about the world. If you're interested in discussing the specific claims you're making, I really don't think that billions of people are hopelessly addicted to social media, and I would love to hear your basis for claiming this. My understanding (from e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27053-2) is that genuine compulsive use of social media is quite rare, and most people who describe themselves as "addicted" are just regular users who enjoy it but kinda feel like it's a waste of time.
pembrook
Neutral mention · rule
> my experiences don’t look like the Instagram shots, my body doesn’t look like theirs, etc Zero difference from the reality TV/tabloid era. "Influencer" is just a rebranding of "celebrity," and instead of seeing their Hollywood Hills mansion and chiseled bodies on MTV cribs and in Abercrombie ads you see them on your phone. Here's a few quick pulls, the best stuff is the meta-analysis studies but don't have time to dig them all out: [1] Effects of reducing social media use are small and inconsistent: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266656032... [2] Belief in "Social media addiction" is wholly explained by media framing and not an actual addiction:…
Read the full comment
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27053-2 [3] No causal link between time spent on social media and mental health harm: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/14/social-media-t... [4] The Flawed Evidence Behind Jonathan Haidt's Panic Farming: https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-statistically-flawed-evide...
RunningDroid
Neutral mention · rule
Framing it as addiction is popular now but it removes user agency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27053-2 >The present research (N = 1204) explored the implications of overusing the addiction label. In Study 1, a national quota sample of Instagram users (N = 380) overestimated their addiction to the app, and those who perceived themselves as more addicted (but not more habitual) experienced less ability to control their use. We show that the perception of addiction likely arises from popular media’s frequent labeling of social media as addictive (vs. habit forming). Study 2 (N = 824) demonstrated experimentally that framing frequent Instagram use as an…
Read the full comment
addiction has deleterious consequences for user self-efficacy, including reducing perceived control over social media use and increasing self-blame for overuse. In addition, misperceiving excessive social media use as addictive potentially diverts users from effective strategies that could be used to curb overuse habits.
pembrook
Neutral mention · rule
> Capitalist social media is exactly as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco. Most actual studies done on this topic find very little evidence this is true. It's a run-of-the-mill moral panic. People breathlessly repeating memes about whatever "kids these days" are up to and how horrible it is, as adults have done for thousands of years. I expect some emotional attacks in response for questioning the big panic of the day, but before you do so please explore: [1] Effects of reducing social media use are small and inconsistent: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266656032... [2] Belief in "Social media addiction" is wholly explained by media framing and not an…
Read the full comment
actual addiction: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27053-2 [3] No causal link between time spent on social media and mental health harm: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/14/social-media-t... [4] The Flawed Evidence Behind Jonathan Haidt's Panic Farming: https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-statistically-flawed-evide...
pembrook
Neutral mention · rule
Your rebuttal is based on the assumption that social media is uniquely manipulative, addictive and designed by a secret evil cabal of geniuses with top hats. This is a media narrative and a popular meme, but it is not reality when looking at the actual studies: [1] Effects of reducing social media use are small and inconsistent: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266656032... [2] Belief in "Social media addiction" is wholly explained by media framing and not an actual addiction: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27053-2 [3] No causal link between time spent on social media and mental health harm:…
Read the full comment
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/14/social-media-t... The idea that social media is uniquely bad is simply the same moral panic that comes up every time we encounter something new. The truth is every person, company and government engages in "psychological manipulation" when trying to get what they want, including the children themselves! Since other children engage in psychological manipulation with each other at school, should we ban schools to protect kids from it? Since the government engages in psychological manipulation with its policies and agendas (all backed by billions of dollars!), should we ban it?

Keep following the thread.

More in Other research

More from the same topics.