The ‘Social Media Addiction’ Narrative May Be More Harmful Than Social Media Itself – Above the Law

This
week,
a
major
trial
kicked
off
in
Los
Angeles
in
which
hundreds
of
families
sued
Meta,
TikTok,
Snap,
and
YouTube, accusing
the
companies
of
intentionally
designing
their
products
to
be
addictive (though
Snap
and
TikTok
both
settled
on
the
eve
of
the
trial)
.
From
the
Guardian:

For
the
first
time,
a
huge
group
of
parents,
teens
and
school
districts
is
taking
on
the
world’s
most
powerful
social
media
companies
in
open
court,
accusing
the
tech
giants
of
intentionally
designing
their
products
to
be
addictive.
The
blockbuster
legal
proceedings
may
see
multiple
CEOs,
including
Meta’s Mark
Zuckerberg,
face
harsh
questioning.

A
long-awaited
series
of
trials
kicks
off
in
Los
Angeles
superior
court
on
Tuesday,
in
which
hundreds
of
US
families
will
allege
that Meta, Snap, TikTok and YouTube’s
platforms
harm
children.
Once
young
people
are
hooked,
the
plaintiffs
allege,
they
fall
prey
to
depression,
eating
disorders,
self-harm
and
other
mental
health
issues.
Approximately
1,600
plaintiffs
are
included
in
the
proceedings,
involving
more
than
350
families
and
250
school
districts.

The
lawyers
involved
are
explicitly
using
the
tobacco
playbook,
comparing
social
media
to
cigarettes.
But
there’s
an
important
point
here:
“social
media
addiction”
isn’t
actually
a
recognized
clinical
addiction.
And
a
fascinating
new
study
in
Nature’s
Scientific
Reports
suggests
that our
collective
insistence
on
using
addiction
language
might
actually
be
making
things
worse
for
users who
want
to
change
their
behavior.

The
researchers
conducted
two
studies.
In
the
first,
they
surveyed
a
nationally
representative
sample
of
adult
Instagram
users
and
found
something
striking:
only
about
2%
of
users
showed
symptoms
that
would
put
them
at
risk
for
addiction
based
on
the
clinical
criteria
in
the Bergen
Social
Media
Addiction
Scale.
But
when
asked
directly
if
they felt addicted,
18%
of
users
agreed
at
least
somewhat.
In
other
words,
people
are dramatically
overestimating whether
they’re
actually
addicted.

This
matters
a
lot,
because
calling
yourself
addicted
can
have
serious
consequences.
The
study
found
that
users
who
perceived
themselves
as
more
addicted
(but
not
necessarily
more
habitual)
reported
feeling
less
control
over
their
use
and
had
made
more
unsuccessful
attempts
to
change
their
behavior.
From
the
study:

Self-labeling
of
clinical
conditions
(e.g.,
I
think
I’m
depressed)
has
proved
to
be
associated
with
maladaptive
responses,
including
lowered
self-efficacy
and
perceived
control
over
the
pathology

To
test
whether
the
addiction
framing
actually
causes
these
problems
rather
than
just
correlating
with
them,
the
researchers
ran
a
second
study.
They
had
some
participants
reflect
on
their
own
“addictive”
Instagram
use
after
reading
language
from
the
U.S.
Surgeon
General’s somewhat
questionable report
warning
that
“frequent,
excessive
social
media
use
is
addictive.”
The
control
group
answered
the
same
questions
but
without
the
addiction
framing
first.

The
results
were
clear
and
somewhat
striking:
simply
priming
people
to
think
about
their
social
media
use
as
an
addiction reduced
their
perceived
control,
increased
both
self-blame
and
blaming
the
app,
and
made
them
recall
more
failed
attempts
to
cut
back.
The
addiction
framing
itself
creates
a
feeling
of
helplessness!
The
addiction
to
“addiction
framing”
may
be
a
big
part
of
the
problem!

It
is
impressive
that
even
the
two-minute
exposure
to
addiction
framing
in
our
research
was
sufficient
to
produce
a
statistically
significant
negative
impact
on
users.
This
effect
is
aligned
with
past
literature
showing
that
merely
seeing
addiction
scales
can
negatively
impact
feelings
of
well-being.
Presumably,
continued
exposure
to
the
broader
media
narrative
around
social
media
addiction
has
even
larger
and
more
profound
effects.
In
conclusion,
the
addiction
label
does
not
empower
users
to
regain
control
over
their
use.
Instead,
it
hinders
users
by
reducing
feelings
of
control,
increasing
self-blame,
and
making
the
experience
slightly
less
positive.

Perhaps
one
could
argue
that
everyone
screaming
about
social
media
addiction
is
doing
more
real
harm
than
any
actual
social
media
product
itself.

This
matters
because
for
the
vast
majority
of
heavy
social
media
users,
the
problem
isn’t
addiction
in
any
clinical
sense.
It’s
habit.
Habits
and
addictions
are
different
psychological
phenomena
requiring
different
interventions.
As
the
researchers
note:

For
the
majority
of
social
media
users,
however,
curbing
excessive
use
involves
primarily
controlling
habits.
Like
any
other
habit,
social
media
habits
can
become
misaligned
with
the
original
motivations
for
use
(e.g.,
to
obtain
social
rewards),
or
conflict
with
other
goals
(e.g.,
sharing
true
information).
Strong
habits
are
notoriously
difficult
to
control
with
willpower
alone.
For
habitual
social
media
users,
the
narrative
of
addiction
and
willpower-based
attempts
to
control
behavior
could
profitably
be
replaced
with
habit
change
strategies
to
realign
their
social
media
use
with
their
current
preferences.

Habits
are
context-triggered
automatic
behaviors.
You
pick
up
your
phone
in
certain
situations
because
you’ve
done
it
a
thousand
times
before,
not
because
you’re
experiencing
withdrawal
symptoms
or
uncontrollable
cravings,
like
an
addiction.
And
habit
change
strategies—like
removing
triggers,
changing
your
environment,
or
practicing
substitute
activities—are
fundamentally
different
from
addiction
treatment.

But
you
wouldn’t
know
any
of
this
from
the
media
coverage.
The
researchers
analyzed
three
years
of
news
articles
and
found
that
stories
about
“social
media
addiction”
vastly
outnumber
stories
about
“social
media
habits.”
The
addiction
framing
is
everywhere.
And
every
time
the
Surgeon
General
warns
about
addiction,
every
time
a
lawsuit
alleges
platforms
are
designed
to
be
addictive,
every
time
a
news
story
describes
teens
as
hooked,
it
reinforces
the
idea
that
users
are
powerless
victims.

Indeed,
the
study
found
that
the
very
lawsuits
that
went
to
trial
this
week are
likely
contributing
to
the
problem.

In
addition,
over
the
36
assessment
months,
the
number
of
articles
discussing
“social
media
habits”
never
approached
the
number
of
articles
including
the
term
“social
media
addiction”
(see
Fig.
2). The
stories
driving
these
effects
were
often
lawsuits.
For
example,
the
May
2022
and
October
2024
peaks
for
“social
media
addiction”
related
to
news
reporting
on
multiple
lawsuits
against
Meta
(owners
of
Instagram).
In
addition,
the
May
2023
Surgeon
General’s
warning
about
social
media
addiction
seems
to
have
contributed
to
the
steady
drumbeat
of
new
articles
during
the
April-June
2023
period
for
“social
media
addiction.”

To
be
clear:
most
social
media
companies
absolutely
design
their
products
with
increasing
engagement
in
mind.
There
are
plenty
of
corporate
incentives
to
keep
you
using
the
app
longer.
And
some
people
genuinely
do
use
social
media
in
ways
that
harm
their
lives.
Both
things
can
be
true
while
“addiction”
remains
the
wrong
frame.
The
question
is
whether
calling
it
an
addiction
actually
helps
anyone,
or
whether
it
just
makes
people
feel
powerless.

But
there’s
a
meaningful
difference
between
“this
product
is
designed
to
form
habits”
and
“this
product
is
chemically
addictive
like
heroin.”
A
chemical
addiction
involves
tolerance,
withdrawal,
and
physiological
dependence.
The
study
found
that
only
about
4%
of
users
reported
experiencing
anything
akin
to
withdrawal
symptoms
(restlessness
or
trouble
when
prohibited
from
using)
often
or
very
often.
The
most
common
“symptom”
was
simply
thinking
about
Instagram
a
lot—which
probably
describes
anyone
who
uses
any
service
frequently.

I
think
about
Techdirt
a
lot.
Am
I
“addicted”
to
it?

The
addiction
framing removes
human
agency
from
the
equation.
It
treats
users
as
helpless
victims
who
can’t
possibly
resist
the
siren
song
of
the
infinite
scroll.
But
the
same
study
that
found
2%
of
users
at
risk
for
addiction
also
found
that
50%
of
frequent
users
recognized
they
had
habits
around
Instagram
use.
Those
users
aren’t
powerless.
They
can
change
their
environment,
their
cues,
their
routines.
But
first
they
have
to
believe
that’s
possible—and
the
addiction
narrative
tells
them
it
isn’t.

Misclassifying
frequent
social
media
and
technology
use
as
addictive
has
muddled
public
understanding
of
the
psychology
behind
these
behaviors
and
likely
inhibits
users’
understanding
of
the
ways
to
effectively
control
their
own
behavior.

It
also
makes
the
technology
appear inherently harmful,
when
(as
pretty
much
every
study
keeps
showing)
only
a
very
small
percentage
of
people
seem
to
have
truly
negative
experiences
with
it.
That
should
be
cause
to
create
targeted
solutions
for
those
who
are
genuinely
struggling,
not
to
declare
an
entire
category
of
technology
dangerous
for
everyone.

So
here
we
are:
lawsuits
claiming
to
protect
users
from
social
media’s
harms
may
themselves
be
contributing
to
those
harms
by
amplifying
the
addiction
narrative.
The
lawyers
will
get
paid
either
way.
But
if
we
actually
want
to
help
people
develop
healthier
relationships
with
technology,
we
could
start
by
not
telling
them
they’re
powerless
addicts—and
instead
give
them
the
tools
to
change
their
habits.

The
‘Social
Media
Addiction’
Narrative
May
Be
More
Harmful
Than
Social
Media
Itself

+263 242 744 677

4 Gunhill Avenue,

The ‘Social Media Addiction’ Narrative May Be More Harmful Than Social Media Itself – Above the Law