Just when you think journalism from respected news organizations couldn’t sink any lower, the BBC (amongst many other news agencies) is reporting today that “Online networking ‘harms health:'”
People’s health could be harmed by social networking sites because they reduce levels of face-to-face contact, an expert claims.
The rest of the article (which bears no byline) is a one-sided, biased piece of reporting that doesn’t even raise a single skeptical eyebrow.
Had it bothered to do any, well, actual journalism, the reporter may have discovered that Aric Sigman’s (2009) hypothesis relies on a flimsy connection — that Internet relationships are less real and result in greater social isolation and loneliness for people who increasingly turn to them. Here’s the logical reasoning of Sigman:
1. Studies have shown a connection between health problems and loneliness (and not surprisingly, depression).
2. The Internet leads to less face-to-face interactions with friends and family and one study published over a decade ago (Kraut, 1998) showed that, in a study of 73 families who used the Internet for communication, greater use of the Internet was associated with declines in communication between family members, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their levels of depression and loneliness.
3. Therefore, the Internet causes health problems.
(I’ll ignore the fact that there have been zero studies that actually implicate social networking websites — they only looked at Internet use in general. It’s sexier and certainly more likely to draw the media’s attention if you say “Facebook” rather than just “the web” or “email.”)
The biggest problem with this professional’s claims is the tenuous connection of point #2. Citing an 11-year-old study to make your point, while ignoring more recent, contradictory evidence, is not atypical of an article trying hard to “prove” its point. But here’s a few, more recent studies that show this is a claim that has been well-refuted:
Lee & Chae (2007) found that while family face-to-face communications may indeed decline, they are displaced not by the total time spent on the Internet but by functionally equivalent online activities.
Ko & Kuo (2009) found that bloggers enjoyed an enhanced subjective well-being. Far from increasing loneliness, blogging (and its increase in time spent online) was actually found to be positively related to one’s happiness.
Shapira et al. (2007) found that older adults who used the Internet increased their overall well-being and happiness as compared to a control group who did not.
But the biggest argument against Sigman’s reasoning is the Amichai-Hamburger & Ben-Artzi (2003) study that directly contradicted the findings of Kraut’s conclusions:
These results are particularly exciting because they cast a whole new light on the issue of Internet and well-being in general, and Internet and loneliness in particular. These findings clearly demonstrate that it is lonely women who are attracted to the Internet, rather than as was previously argued (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998) that the Internet is the cause of their loneliness.
I could go on, but you get the point. The Internet’s not the problem — the Internet is a solution for lonely people. The argument should be made against the terrible condition of loneliness and how to combat it, not one of the ways people actually use to combat it!
There’s a myriad of additional research studies that show there are many pro-social and psychological benefits of Internet use. The research also shows that there’s a definite correlation between increased compulsive (e.g., dysfunctional) Internet use and loneliness. Do lonely people turn more to the Internet or does the Internet make one more lonely? We don’t know, but for this tiny subset of people, increased Internet use is likely not going to result in positive health outcomes, if left untreated. But if we found a similar correlation between reading books, would Sigman be calling for limits on reading?
Aric Sigman also completely ignores the health benefits associated with online use. That is, researching and finding information about one’s health or mental health condition, and seeking out treatment (or a better, more appropriate treatment) for it. How many countless lives have been saved or improved because of this information availability? Sigman doesn’t even acknowledge these healthy, potentially life-saving benefits of the Internet.
All human behaviors can be viewed on a risk scale, and each behavior should be weighed according to its benefits and risks. Are humans better off with the knowledge of the world (and their health) at their fingertips now? Or as we were 20 years ago, when all of that knowledge first used to pass through a gate-keeper (like a physician or professional)?
Now let’s see if the BBC and other news outlets report on this more balanced conclusion. I won’t be holding my breath.
Read the full BBC article: Online networking ‘harms health’.
References:
Amichai-Hamburger, Y.; Ben-Artzi, E. (2003). Loneliness and Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 19(1), 71-80.
Ko, H-C. & Kuo, F-Y. (2009). Can blogging enhance subjective well-being through self-disclosure? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 75-79. DOI 10.1089/cpb.2008.0163.
Kraut R et al. (1998). Internet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.
Lee, S-J. & Chae, Y-G. (2007). Children’s Internet Use in a Family Context: Influence on Family Relationships and Parental Mediation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(5):640.
Shapira, N., Barak, A. & Gal, I. (2007). Promoting older adults’ well-being through Internet training and use. Aging & Mental Health, Vol 11(5), 477-484.
Sigman, A. (2009). Well connected? The biological implications of ‘social networking.’ Biologist, 56(1), 14-21.
24 comments
Here is more fuel for the “Internet can help people stay in touch & help each other” fire:
Networked Families (Pew Internet Project, 2008)
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/266/report_display.asp
The Strength of Internet Ties: The internet and email aid users in maintaining their social networks and provide pathways to help when people face big decisions (Pew Internet Project, 2006)
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/172/report_display.asp
If Aric Sigman had done his job right he would have referenced the follow-up research from Robert Kraut, Internet Paradox Revisited (PDF who negated his first observations and concluded on the overall positive effects of using the Internet on communication, social
involvement, and well-being!
@Susannah – Thanks for the additional research citations… I meant to include some of the Pew research in there, but ran out of room! 🙂
@Gilles – Wow, good catch. I completely forgot about that!
I’ll go ahead and state the obvious and take the articles sarcastic undertones as a reference to how idiotic this study is. I’m gonna have to side with the author on this one. It’s as if this study was conducted by an 8 year old. “The internet causes health problems.†Wow. Great conclusion. That’s about as accurate as saying “Diet Coke causes Alzheimer’s,†or “cell phones cause cancer.†And there is nothing more scientific than using out of date studies to back up your flawed hypothesis. Let’s stick with research in the modern world. I have a feeling that will lead to more reasonable conclusions.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I like the original article. Sure, if you scrutinize, lots of flaws will crop up. But in the end, it does pose a warning while this article denies it. And I, being prone to check my Facebook profile every 5 minutes, will happily continue to do so knowing that “All those warnings are just a smokescreen. Carry on, me”. Yet I’m subconsciously sure this eats up all my precious time and I’m desperately trying to stop…
Dr. Grohol, I saw this article on BBC too. you make an excellent point. Indeed it seems the author needs to improve his logic skills. with more and more people, and especially young people accessing health information online, the argument could be made that the internet has actually helped spread health knowledge and thus potentially improved people’s health.
Also check out this 2001 report:
Generation Rx.com: How Young People Use the Internet for Health Information. Informationhttp://www.kff.org/entmedia/20011211a-index.cfm
Thank you for this clear and convincing exposition of what many people (me included) have felt while reading the above-mentioned article. The BBC piece is right to claim that Facebook reduces the “levels of face-to-face contact”, it just forgets to mention that this calculated, hypothetically non-reduced “level” is in many cases reached by the use of facebook. in my case, without facebook there would be no “level of face-to-face contact” to reduce at all (and therefore no reduction :-S).
Social science has a lot of homework to do insofar as new technologies are concerned.
Thank goodness for people like you who debunk this kind of alleged “research”. And thanks for the current references.
Here is another study that suggests that shy individuals increase offline interactions when they participate in online interactions: Roberts, L. D., Smith, L. M., & Pollock, C. M. (2000). ‘u r a lot bolder on the net’: shyness and internet use. In W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness: Development, consolidation and change (pp. 121-138). London & New York: Routledge.
As a psych student, I blogged about this myself a few days ago, with much the same viewpoints as you have.
As an ex-BBC employee who is now back to further studies, I do however see this media / science deal from both sides.
As a matter of editorial policy, the Beeb never byline online news stories unless they are clearly a personal opinion piece (such as “From our Correspondent” and the like). This is no attempt to shirk editorial responsibility on behalf of the journalist.
Many of the science journalists in the Beeb at any rate come from the science journalism postgrad course running at I think City Uni. They mostly have at least a bachelor, if not a further degree, in a science subject, and if they still fail at their task, I am not sure who could do it better.
Also, it is remarkable how few scientists are willing to take time to actually inform the public. My friend is an academic, and was recently on TV talking about something which wasn’t really her field, because 13(!!!) of her colleagues had refused to appear, saying they were too busy. Riiiight…
In general, I find that a lot of academics complain of the coverage of science in the mainstream media, but then when they are asked to formulate their findings in language understandable to lay people, they bail. It’s almost like they think it’s beneath them. They might fear being misquoted, but this is partly a matter of not feeling confident in their own ability to communicate clearly. Which leaves a lot of science column inches to fill with people like our friend Aric.
I am not disputing that this is a rather poor piece of journo work by the BBC, but I am also questioning the peer reviewers who allowed this research to get published in the first place! They, if anyone should know better, surely?
Also, I noted on the day that this was the 2nd highest emailed story. Lots of ppl read this crap, which means the Beeb is likely to reward them with more of the same. People get the media they deserve, sadly.
But thanks for an interesting angle! Now if you’ll excuse me for so rudely hijacking your blog, I have to go get my daily / lethal Facebook injection.
Just like there are high quality news organizations (like the New York Times) and low quality ones, there are high quality journals (like the New England Journal of Medicine) and low quality ones. Low quality ones will publish virtually anything sent to them, as long as it falls within their subject matter and “looks” like a legitimate journal article. Most scientists and researchers know which journals are which, but sadly, most journalists (even health journalists) do not.
As for researchers taking the time to explain the results, I can speak from my own experiences with TV. My time is valuable, as I can spend 10 or 12 hours a day working. So imagine how fun it is for me to take 4 hours out of my day to tape one interview for TV, when inevitably my on-camera time is less than 30 seconds in a total 4 or 5 minute piece. Yes, it’s extremely frustrating and while it might work for people “in” TV, it does not work for most normal folks who have busy lives and schedules. TV is hard work, but it’s also extremely time expensive to produce good segments and most people just don’t have that kind of time to give unfortunately…
I will gladly take 30 minutes to talk to a journalist on the phone, however, assuming they’ve done some background legwork on the topic they’re talking to me about first.
Yes, I agree that TV can be time consuming to make. All I am saying is that a lot of academics seem to think that “the media” are solely responsible for informing the public, and that they themselves don’t have to bear any responsibility in the process. Which is fine, I guess, but then you get the media you are given.
And point taken about the journals.. Handy tip if I want to publish an article based on my thesis ;oD
Any new technology has always had a certain level of risk – flying, driving, even building two story houses – but these are always balanced by the benefits they bring, and reduced over time.
Thank you for this. It’s good to see that when some media moron throws some gobble-de-gook togehter there is at least one articulate voice raised in disagreement.
In my opinion, you could have gone a little further and included the social benefits that Social media and the Internet provide for not just the lonely, but also the timid, the shut-ins, and people with physical deformities, who otherwise are shunned by the “real” world. Yet, I see you were staying on point.
Great article — well written and cited.
I am not buying these arguments. The way social networking may harm your health is due to the time constraints some people have. Spending more time on these sites may take away from the amount of exercise one receives, or even the exercise one would get from going to meet someone even for a coffee. Good article, lot of background information. I just can’t take this in and really believe it.
I liked the original article.
Social networking sites are not a substitute for face to face social contact. It couldn’t do anyone any good to sit in front of a computer on a chat site. I’d rather go out and meet people personally. On that note I’m closing my computer and heading out to a yoga class in the park.
Bye folks!
Dr. Grohol, I’d be interested in finding any information on the “cyber life” of one who is constantly on the web. As in, do they truly represent themselves for who they are, do they take on different personality characteristics while in their online persona, and how is their level of tolerance for disagreement affected? Have any studies of this nature been performed?
Oh yeah, technology has absolutely zero impact on us psychologically. Technology is neutral. It’s just a tool so it has no consequences socially. Etc., etc.
Sitting in your room alone all day reading anonymous messages that appear on your computer screen is “technically” the equivalent of having a social life, and if there is a technical equivalence then I guess that is all that matters, right? Never mind emotional or psychological equivalence.
Yeah, totally believable… For someone completely alienated.
GeneB – There exists some research that has looked into that question already and I think we’ve actually mentioned it here on the blog.
Kalevi – I’m sure people said the same thing about both the telephone and the television when they came out. Imagine how much of kids’ childhood is now spent in front of the television (and 30 years ago, without video games). So have the generations that grew up being essentially raised by TV hurt us in some way?
Your real motivation behind writing this article is to justify your over-use of social networks, otherwise why would it rattle your cage so much?
I have found that people who excessively use social networking sites (to me excessive is more than 20 minutes a day) are narcissists and tend to be self-centred… a case of “look at me, I have XYZ friends”, where XYZ is greater than 50.
Social networking should really be called anti-social networking. Sitting in front of a computer is a poor form of socialising… face to face is the highest quality of all social interactions… hopefully nobody needs an academic article to realise this.
It’s better to speak from experience and not studies. To each their own. I love online social networking. Far from narcissistic (spl???) as selfishness is a negative judgement. As long as u do things in moderation, it’s not anyone’s business to judge. People are busy and live in different states. It’s like passing notes in high school under a microscope for others to read. I will continue to enjoy online chatting with my friends. And we do interact with others and actually face the real world. Sharing pics has been the best.
Very interesting. Thank you for your thougths about this thread. I think is very imporatant nowadays.
I made this short video about “social networking” issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EroyX5Fl9NI
Hope i will be helpful.