The net effect of traditional media on well-being is similar to that of social media: too close to zero to be perceived by users, or to have practical significance for people’s lived experience

No effect of different types of media on well-being. Niklas Johannes, Tobias Dienlin, Hasan Bakhshi & Andrew K. Przybylski. Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 61. Jan 6 2022. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-03218-7

Abstract: It is often assumed that traditional forms of media such as books enhance well-being, whereas new media do not. However, we lack evidence for such claims and media research is mainly focused on how much time people spend with a medium, but not whether someone used a medium or not. We explored the effect of media use during one week on well-being at the end of the week, differentiating time spent with a medium and use versus nonuse, over a wide range of different media types: music, TV, films, video games, (e-)books, (digital) magazines, and audiobooks. Results from a six-week longitudinal study representative of the UK population 16 years and older (N = 2159) showed that effects were generally small; between-person relations but rarely within-person effects; mostly for use versus nonuse and not time spent with a medium; and on affective well-being, not life satisfaction.

Discussion

New media like social networking sites allegedly exert an almost addictive effect on their users, whereas traditional media like books are considered a beneficial pastime. However, the alleged benefits of traditional media remain speculative without much evidence of their effects on well-being. We set out to deliver initial evidence of the broad, ‘net’ effect of a range of traditional media. First, we investigated media effects across a wide range of seven traditional media. Second, in a reciprocal analysis we separated within-person effects from between-person relations. Third, we treated use versus nonuse and time spent with a medium as different processes. Last, we analyzed data with a shorter time lag than most previous work, testing which facets of well-being are affected most by media use. Our findings provide little cause for alarm: Almost all differences were between users and nonusers on a stable between-person level, with small to negligible within-person effects in either direction. The few effects we found were comparable across media and largely on the (more volatile) affective well-being, rather than more stable life satisfaction.

Distinguishing use versus nonuse and time spent with a medium proved important. Most differences we observed were on the between-person level between users and nonusers. Likewise, the few small within-person effects incompatible with zero as the true effect occurred when a person went from not using a medium in one week to using a medium the next week. The time spent with a medium played a negligible role. In other words, our findings are not in line with the dominant linear dose–response model that (often implicitly) assumes that going from zero use to one minute of use has the same effect as going from one hour of use to one hour and one minute of use30,31. Instead, the decision to use a medium appears to represent a threshold; once a user crosses that threshold, the amount of time they spend with a medium is of little consequence for their well-being.

This conclusion almost exclusively applies to the between-person level: Media users (i.e., those who have crossed the threshold) in general feel slightly worse than nonusers (i.e., those who have not crossed the threshold). However, those differences were around a third of a point on an eleven-point scale. Such an effect is likely too small have practical significance for people’s lived experience45,46,47. On the within-person level, going from nonuse to use had generally small effects across media. The effects of time spent with a medium were even smaller. Our results speak against pronounced causal effects—neither positive nor negative—of media use during the week on well-being by the end of the week. The pattern of small between-person relations but negligible within-person effects aligns with previous research on new media8,9,23.

There were no substantial differences across the seven traditional media types we studied. (E-) book and (digital) magazine readers as well as audiobooks listeners did not experience less affective well-being unlike those engaging with music, TV, films, and games. That finding applies in both directions: Those with lower well-being were more likely to engage with these media. However, those differences all but disappeared on the within-person level, with most effect sizes close to a null effect. Only TV and music use versus nonuse on the within-level showed a small positive effect on affect. Together, the results stand in contrast to public opinion, where traditional media are valued highly1,48. It appears the broad, net effect of traditional media is similar to that of social media: too close to zero to be perceived by media users45.

Our study also addresses the choice of time lag and well-being indicator. Media effects are typically small49 and it is unlikely that media use will affect long-term evaluations of people’s lives16. If anything, media use should influence short-term affect. Our results deliver weak evidence that this distinction also applies to traditional media. The few differences we observed appeared almost exclusively on the more volatile positive affect, not stable life satisfaction. These results align well with research that shows little to no long-term effects of new media on life satisfaction9,27,28,35. We deliver evidence that traditional media are unlikely to impact life satisfaction within the intermediate time frame of one week that we studied. At the same time, the few effects on affect were small, similar to research on social media with much shorter time lags34,38,39. Either we missed the optimal time lag after which the effects disappeared40 or net effects of traditional media are indeed negligible.

What do our results mean? The straightforward answer is: The effect of traditional media on well-being is too small to matter. However, such an answer might overlook important nuance. First, throughout this manuscript, we have spoken of between-person relations, but of within-person effects. As we have noted, within-person relations can be effects under the assumption that there are no time-varying confounders. Therefore, what we call effects is causal only under that assumption20,21,50. There might well be time-varying factors that mask a true effect51. For example, spending time using media may have a negative effect on well-being which gets balanced out by an indirect positive effect via less time worrying. Similarly, a stable confounder (e.g., employment status) might drive the small negative between-person relation. Alternatively, people who do not feel well might indeed be more inclined to pick up a new medium as a mood management strategy52.

Second, we only investigated the broad, net effect of traditional media. We did not assess what content people engaged with or what their motivation for use was. Although we believe such net effects are important to investigate as first step, they may mask important interactions between content and user motivations31,48,53. Therefore, even though within-effects of traditional media are small, there may be meaningful under certain conditions54. Such an argument aligns with research which found noteworthy variation in the effect of social media34. Third, we looked at an intermediate time lag of one week, which might have missed the effect. Therefore, to revise the answer from above: Under our assumptions of causality, the broad, net effect of traditional media during the week on well-being at the end of the week is likely too small to matter.

Limitations

Besides the questions of causality and scope of media use, there are several limitations to our study. The self-reported estimates of time spent with a medium we relied on will be almost certainly a noisy measure of true media engagement55,56. In addition to that noise, the measures also reminded participants of their response in the previous week. That reminder might have reduced variance or introduced bias. By contrast, we believe self-reports of use versus nonuse in a one-week period have lower measurement error, simply because there are more biases in retrieving exact estimates of the behavior compared to a dichotomous yes/no retrieval. We call for more research directly measuring media use. Similarly, although they displayed decent psychometric properties, the well-being measures in the data set were not validated. The measure of affect in particular referred to affective well-being on the previous day, not the previous week. Although it allows a sensible test of the cumulative effect of media use during the week on well-being at the end of that week, the opposite direction is less plausible: Affect at the beginning of the week might not be strong enough to influence media use during the week that follows. Most important, we did not assess social media use, which prevents us from a direct comparison of the effects of traditional media versus new media. Although our results fit into the larger picture of the literature, a direct comparison will be more informative.