The effects of social media restriction: Meta-analytic evidence from randomized controlled trials

Calls to limit social media use permeate public discourse, with the fundamental assumption that limiting social media use will improve subjective well-being. This meta-analysis quantifies whether social media restriction affects subjective well-being. Included studies were those that were randomized controlled trials, instructed participants to limit or entirely abstain from social media use for a discrete period, and had at least one subjective well-being outcome. Thirty-two articles fit our criteria and were included in analyses (5544 individuals; 91 effect sizes). All studies included college student or adult samples (M_age = 23.38) and samples skewed female (70 %). Random effects models revealed that restricting social media use significantly improved subjective well-being (ḡ = 0.17, 95 % CI [0.08, 0.27]). Effects were observed across both positive subjective well-being indicators (ḡ = 0.17, 95 % CI [0.04, 0.29]) and negative subjective well-being indicators (ḡ = 0.18, 95 % CI [0.08, 0.27]). There was some variability in estimates based on individual indicators (e.g., life satisfaction, depressive symptoms). Moderation by study characteristics (age, gender, length of intervention, type of intervention) was not consistent. Although significant, the pooled estimates were small in magnitude, suggesting only weak support for the effectiveness of restricting social media use. Implications are discussed in the context of theoretical mechanisms in which negative (and positive) social media effects are expected to emerge. Future studies should focus on these mechanisms, rather than broadly restricting time spent using social media.