Social Media and Loneliness: Connection, Displacement, and Individual Differences

2 days ago

21 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Social media can make people feel more connected, more lonely, or neither. The best current evidence does not support a simple rule that social media itself causes loneliness. Instead, the relationship depends on what is being measured, how a person uses a platform, whom they interact with, what their offline relationships are like, and whether social media is adding to social connection or displacing more satisfying forms of contact.

That distinction matters because loneliness is not the same thing as being physically alone or having a small social network. The World Health Organization defines loneliness as a subjective, distressing feeling that arises when there is a gap between the social connections a person has and the connections they want or need. Social isolation, by contrast, is an objective shortage of roles, relationships, and interactions. A person can have hundreds of online contacts and still feel lonely; another person can spend substantial time alone without feeling lonely.

The clearest recent synthesis comes from a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 59 studies and 81,344 adolescents and young adults. Overall social media use was associated with loneliness, but the size of the association depended strongly on how use was defined. Problematic social media use had a moderate association with greater loneliness, while time spent on social media had only a small association. The review also found substantial heterogeneity across studies, meaning results varied widely rather than pointing to one universal effect. Feng and colleagues, 2026.

A useful way to interpret the evidence is therefore to ask a more precise question: does a particular pattern of social media use help this person build or maintain meaningful connection, or does it crowd out, fragment, or distort the forms of connection they value? That question captures the tension between connection and displacement without pretending that all screen time, all platforms, or all users are psychologically equivalent.

What the research shows at a glance

Current evidence supports five conclusions. First, average associations between broad social media use and loneliness are generally small and highly variable. Second, problematic or dysregulated patterns of use tend to show stronger associations with loneliness than time alone. Third, loneliness can precede changes in social media use, so reverse causation is part of the picture. Fourth, online interaction can support belonging when it extends meaningful relationships or provides valued support, but it can also coincide with greater loneliness when it becomes socially substitutive, comparison-heavy, compulsive, or centered on weak and unsatisfying connections. Fifth, intervention studies are mixed: reducing use helps loneliness in some samples, has little effect in others, and complete abstinence can sometimes worsen loneliness.

This is consistent with the broader social media and mental health evidence: exposure variables matter. Time, frequency, content, interaction type, problematic use, developmental stage, and individual vulnerability are different variables. Treating them as interchangeable produces misleading conclusions.

Loneliness is a subjective social signal, not a count of contacts

Loneliness concerns the experienced quality and adequacy of social connection. It is possible to feel lonely in a crowded room, in a close relationship, in an active group chat, or while receiving constant notifications. It is also possible to experience meaningful connection through a digital relationship, especially when that interaction is reciprocal, emotionally responsive, and integrated with a person's broader social world.

This distinction explains why platform metrics such as follower count, friend count, posting frequency, or minutes online are weak stand-ins for loneliness. They describe behavior or network structure, not whether a person's social needs are being met. A high volume of interaction can coexist with low intimacy; a small number of exchanges can feel deeply supportive.

Research on adults illustrates this. In a 2026 nationally representative U.S. study of 1,512 adults ages 30 to 70, having a larger proportion of social-media contacts whom participants had never met in person was associated with greater odds of loneliness. Having more contacts who were close personal friends was not associated with lower loneliness. Because the study was observational, it cannot establish that stranger-heavy networks caused loneliness, but it shows why contact quantity and perceived closeness should not be treated as equivalent. Primack and colleagues, 2026.

The connection pathway: when social media can support belonging

Social media can support connection in several ways. It can help people maintain relationships across distance, coordinate offline meetings, sustain weak ties that later become useful or meaningful, reconnect with people they already know, find communities organized around shared experiences, and exchange emotional or practical support when in-person access is limited.

This is sometimes called a stimulation or reinforcement pathway: digital communication adds to a person's social world rather than replacing it. The mechanism is not simply “being online.” The relevant process is whether online activity creates interaction that feels responsive, reciprocal, and socially useful.

Experimental evidence shows that changing the form of interaction can matter. In an early online experiment, participants asked to post more Facebook status updates for one week reported reduced loneliness, and the effect was statistically explained by increased feelings of connection with friends. The result does not mean posting more is a universal loneliness intervention, but it demonstrates that a socially connective digital action can have a different effect from passive exposure or indiscriminate time online. Deters and Mehl, 2013.

More recent longitudinal work also suggests that perceived support within social media can coexist with lower loneliness in some groups. A 2026 study of adolescents and emerging adults found that greater perceived social-media-based emotional support was associated with lower loneliness across a 10-month period after adjustment for in-person peer support and other covariates. The effects were small, and the sample included many young people from marginalized backgrounds, making the result particularly relevant to the possibility that online support can complement rather than replace offline support. Escobar-Viera and colleagues, 2026.

At the same time, support delivered through social media should not automatically be assumed to substitute for support available in a person's offline life. In another 2026 nationally representative U.S. adult study, low real-life emotional support was strongly associated with loneliness, whereas social-media-based emotional support no longer had a significant association after both types of support were considered in the same adjusted model. Koneru and colleagues, 2026. The result is observational, but it underscores a practical distinction: online support can matter while still functioning differently from embodied, ongoing, real-world support.

The displacement pathway: when online activity can crowd out better connection

The displacement hypothesis proposes that digital activity can increase loneliness when it replaces interactions that would otherwise provide more satisfying connection. This is plausible, but “displacement” should be used precisely. A minute on social media does not automatically displace a minute of meaningful face-to-face contact. People also use social media during otherwise unstructured time, while commuting, between tasks, or to organize offline interactions.

Displacement becomes more plausible when social media repeatedly intrudes into shared time, interrupts conversations, delays sleep in ways that reduce next-day social functioning, or becomes a default response to boredom that replaces an intended call, visit, meal, walk, or conversation. In romantic relationships, the narrower phenomenon of phone interruption is covered separately in our article on phubbing and technoference.

Longitudinal evidence is mixed rather than uniformly supportive of displacement. A representative German panel study found that communication through social networking sites predicted more later face-to-face and instant-messaging communication, suggesting reinforcement rather than straightforward replacement; those communication channels did not predict later loneliness in that study. Dienlin, Masur, and Trepte, 2017. Other longitudinal studies report different patterns, which is one reason broad claims such as “social media replaces real relationships” are too strong.

A 2025 cohort study of 1,632 young adults provides another example of why the details matter. Social media platform use itself was not associated with loneliness, while compulsive digital technology use and online victimization were associated with greater loneliness. WhatsApp use was associated with lower loneliness, whereas some other online activities were associated with greater loneliness. The authors concluded that online experiences may be more informative than the mere use of a particular platform. Matthews and colleagues, 2025.

Problematic use is more strongly related to loneliness than time alone

The strongest recent quantitative evidence concerns problematic social media use rather than ordinary or high-frequency use. In the 2026 meta-analysis of adolescents and young adults, problematic use correlated with loneliness at about r = 0.29, compared with about r = 0.07 for time spent. That difference is important. It suggests that loss of control, compulsive patterns, conflict with other activities, or distress linked to use may be more psychologically informative than duration by itself. Feng and colleagues, 2026.

Problematic social media use is a research construct, not a conclusion that a person has a formal mental disorder. High use can be purposeful, socially rich, work-related, creative, or temporary. Conversely, a person can spend fewer hours online yet experience repetitive checking, conflict, sleep disruption, distress, or difficulty stopping. Our separate article on problematic social media use explains that distinction in detail.

A systematic review of social media use, social anxiety, and loneliness similarly concluded that lonely people may turn to social media to compensate for missing or unsatisfying offline relationships, while problematic use and loneliness frequently occur together. Much of that literature was cross-sectional, so the direction of influence remained uncertain. O’Day and Heimberg, 2021.

Does passive scrolling make people lonelier?

The popular answer is often “yes,” but the research is more complicated. Passive use usually refers to consuming content without directly interacting; active use can include posting, commenting, messaging, or otherwise producing content. This distinction can be useful, yet it bundles together very different behaviors. Watching a close friend's update, reading a support-group discussion, doomscrolling distressing content, comparing yourself with influencers, and browsing local event information can all be classified as passive use even though their psychological functions differ.

A nine-year longitudinal study of Dutch adults reported that greater passive social media use predicted higher loneliness over time, while active use also showed a positive relationship with loneliness in some analyses, challenging the idea that active use is automatically beneficial. Roberts, Young, and David, 2026. The 2026 meta-analysis of adolescents and young adults, however, did not find a significant difference between active and passive use in their associations with loneliness. Feng and colleagues, 2026.

Taken together, these findings make a simple active-good/passive-bad rule difficult to defend. A stronger framework asks what the user is doing, with whom, toward what goal, with what emotional response, and what the activity is replacing.

Social comparison, FOMO, and perceived exclusion

Loneliness can increase when social media repeatedly exposes a person to signs of other people's belonging while highlighting their own unmet needs. Photos of gatherings, vacations, romantic relationships, parties, professional success, or tightly bonded friendship groups can become social information about who appears included and who appears absent. For someone already sensitive to exclusion, these cues may intensify the subjective gap between desired and actual connection.

Fear of missing out, or FOMO, can operate in the same territory. It describes concern that others may be having rewarding experiences without you and can motivate repeated checking. FOMO should not be treated as a diagnosis, and its relationship with loneliness is not a one-way mechanism. People who already feel lonely may monitor social information more closely; repeated monitoring can in turn expose them to more cues of exclusion or comparison.

Social comparison also depends on target and context. Comparing yourself with polished public content from strangers differs from checking a close friend's update before messaging them. The same feed can therefore function as a bridge to interaction for one person and as a stream of exclusion cues for another.

Loneliness can change social media use, not only result from it

One of the most important causal cautions is reverse direction. People who feel lonely may seek more online contact, use social media more frequently, prefer online interaction, join more communities, browse more social information, or rely more heavily on digital communication. If a cross-sectional study finds that heavier users are lonelier, it cannot determine whether use increased loneliness, loneliness increased use, or both were influenced by another factor.

A conceptual review of loneliness and social Internet use proposed exactly this reciprocal model: online communication can support reconnection when it enhances existing relationships or helps create meaningful new ones, while avoidance-oriented use that substitutes for offline social activity can deepen loneliness. Nowland, Necka, and Cacioppo, 2018.

A 2025 review focused specifically on loneliness and social media reached a similarly restrained conclusion. Across the literature, social media use was only weakly related to trait loneliness and explained little variance compared with broader predictors of loneliness. The review emphasized multiple possible pathways through which digital interaction can support belonging, as well as the need to distinguish stable individual differences from short-term changes. Hall, 2025.

Individual differences change the meaning of the same digital behavior

There is no psychologically neutral unit called “one hour of social media.” The same hour can involve direct messaging with a sibling, a hobby-group discussion, professional networking, political conflict, watching strangers' highlight reels, coordinating an in-person event, receiving harassment, or scrolling without a clear goal. Individual characteristics and circumstances influence which of these experiences occur and what they mean.

Baseline loneliness and unmet social needs

People who already feel lonely may enter social media with a stronger need for reassurance, belonging, or contact. That can make supportive interaction especially valuable, but it can also make ambiguous feedback, delayed replies, visible exclusion, and comparison more emotionally salient. Baseline loneliness is therefore both an outcome of interest and a possible predictor of later online behavior.

Existing offline relationships

Social media may work differently for someone using it to maintain strong relationships than for someone who lacks dependable offline support. The “social enhancement” idea predicts that people with stronger existing social resources can extend those resources online. The “social compensation” idea predicts that people with fewer offline resources may benefit by finding connection online. Evidence exists for both patterns under different conditions; neither should be treated as a universal law.

Motivation for use

Using social media to contact a particular person, ask for support, coordinate a meeting, share something meaningful, or participate in a valued community is different from opening an app automatically because discomfort, boredom, or uncertainty appeared. Motives are difficult to infer from screen-time data alone, which is one reason observational studies based only on duration produce limited conclusions.

Interpersonal sensitivity and social comparison

People differ in how strongly they respond to rejection cues, status information, and perceived exclusion. A feed rich in social comparison may therefore have little effect on one user and a substantial effect on another. This heterogeneity is not statistical noise to be ignored; it is part of the phenomenon being studied.

Online victimization and conflict

Harassment, exclusion, unwanted contact, public conflict, and cybervictimization can transform social media from a connection tool into a source of social threat. The 2025 young-adult cohort study found online victimization to be more clearly associated with loneliness than social media use itself. Matthews and colleagues, 2025.

Age and life stage

The evidence does not generalize cleanly from adolescents to middle-aged adults or older adults. Developmental needs, relationship structures, mobility, work and family roles, and platform habits all differ across age groups. For adolescents and young adults, the 2026 meta-analysis found a small association between time spent and loneliness and a stronger association for problematic use. Among older adults, meta-analyses have reported either no significant overall association or a very small association in the direction of lower loneliness among social media users, again with substantial heterogeneity. Jin and Kim, 2025; Chen and colleagues, 2025.

What experiments can and cannot tell us about causality

Randomized experiments are valuable because they can test whether changing social media behavior changes loneliness over a defined period. They are also narrower than headlines often imply. Most manipulate one aspect of use for days or weeks, recruit selected samples, and cannot reproduce every social consequence of long-term digital life.

In a well-known 2018 experiment, 143 university students were assigned either to limit Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat to 10 minutes per platform per day or to continue normal use for three weeks. The limited-use group showed larger reductions in loneliness and depression than controls. Hunt and colleagues, 2018.

A 2026 randomized controlled trial in 260 young people with anxiety or depressive symptoms asked the intervention group to reduce social media use to one hour per day for three weeks. Among completers, loneliness decreased more in the reduction group than in controls, with a modest effect. Goldfield and colleagues, 2026. This strengthens causal evidence for that specific population and intervention, but it does not establish a universal one-hour medical threshold for healthy social media use.

Other experiments point in different directions. A randomized study of complete social media abstinence found increased loneliness and lower life satisfaction in the abstinence group. Vally and D’Souza, 2019. A 2024 14-day abstinence experiment found no significant group difference in loneliness even though screen time decreased. de Hesselle and Montag, 2024. Another randomized trial found that a tutorial designed to improve connectedness reduced loneliness, while abstinence produced different benefits, suggesting that changing how social media is used can matter independently of simply removing it. Mikami, Khalis, and Karasavva, 2025.

The intervention literature as a whole remains methodologically uneven. A 2026 scoping review of 45 social-media reduction studies found substantial variation in intervention design, adherence, causal architecture, and participant age, with many studies not closely matching the child populations targeted by policy debates. The authors concluded that the evidence is insufficient for sweeping causal claims about social media reduction and youth mental health. Calvert and colleagues, 2026.

This is why a social media break is best understood as a possible behavioral experiment, not a universal treatment for loneliness. Some people may discover that reducing use creates space for richer contact; others may lose an important source of community or support.

Why “screen time” is a weak explanation for loneliness

Screen time is easy to count and easy to communicate, which gives it disproportionate influence in public discussion. Yet duration alone leaves out the psychological content of the exposure. Two people with identical screen-time totals may have completely different social experiences.

Time can still matter. If use expands enough to crowd out sleep, exercise, work, caregiving, or valued relationships, duration becomes part of the mechanism. But the relevant claim is then about opportunity cost and context, not that a particular number of minutes is intrinsically toxic.

The 2026 meta-analysis makes this distinction visible: time spent had a small correlation with loneliness, whereas problematic use had a substantially larger one. Feng and colleagues, 2026. No authoritative clinical body has established a universal adult social-media cutoff above which loneliness or a psychiatric disorder can be inferred.

Connection quality matters more than follower count

Digital networks can create the appearance of abundant connection while delivering little felt reciprocity. A follower, view, reaction, or weak tie may be socially meaningful in some contexts, but these metrics cannot by themselves establish emotional support, intimacy, trust, or belonging.

The 2026 U.S. studies of adults make this point from two directions. Social-media contacts who were strangers in offline life were associated with greater loneliness, while a greater share of close-friend contacts was not associated with lower loneliness. Separately, real-life emotional support showed a much stronger association with lower loneliness than social-media-based support after adjustment. Primack and colleagues, 2026; Koneru and colleagues, 2026.

These studies do not prove that online-only relationships are inherently shallow. They instead show that broad digital-contact metrics should not be equated with the protective qualities of dependable, responsive relationships. Online relationships can become close, enduring, and consequential; the relevant evidence concerns what the relationship actually provides.

Can social media reduce loneliness in older adults?

Older adulthood deserves separate attention because social media may serve different functions when mobility, retirement, bereavement, geography, caregiving, or health conditions make in-person contact harder. In this context, digital communication can preserve access to family, friends, communities, and information.

Two 2025 meta-analyses reached somewhat different quantitative conclusions. Jin and Kim found no significant overall relationship between social media use and loneliness across 19,134 observations in older adults, while Chen and colleagues found a very small association between social media use and lower loneliness across more than 24,000 participants. Both analyses emphasized heterogeneity and limitations in the underlying literature. Jin and Kim, 2025; Chen and colleagues, 2025.

The practical conclusion is not that older adults should use more or less social media by default. It is that social media can be one component of social connection when it is accessible, wanted, and integrated with relationships that feel meaningful.

Can social media reduce loneliness for marginalized people?

For people whose local environment offers limited access to peers with shared identities or experiences, online communities can provide recognition, information, emotional support, and a sense of belonging that may be difficult to obtain nearby. This can include people living in geographically isolated areas, people with uncommon health conditions or disabilities, and young people seeking identity-relevant peer support.

The 2026 longitudinal study by Escobar-Viera and colleagues is relevant here because its national U.S. sample included a high proportion of sexual-minority adolescents and emerging adults. Greater perceived emotional support on social media was associated with lower loneliness after accounting for in-person peer support and other factors. Escobar-Viera and colleagues, 2026.

That finding should be interpreted as evidence of association, not proof that social media support caused the difference. It nevertheless illustrates why blanket prescriptions to disconnect can overlook the social functions platforms may serve for people whose most accessible communities are partly online.

When social media use may be linked with greater loneliness

Social media is more plausibly part of a loneliness problem when use repeatedly leaves a person feeling excluded, inadequate, ignored, or socially depleted; when checking is difficult to control and displaces chosen activities; when online interaction substitutes for desired contact without satisfying the same need; when harassment or conflict dominates the experience; when the person repeatedly compares their private life with curated public lives; or when large amounts of weak contact create noise without dependable support.

None of these patterns is a diagnosis. They are clues about the function and consequences of behavior. The useful question is whether the pattern reliably moves a person's social life toward or away from the kind of connection they actually want.

When social media use may support connection

Social media is more likely to function as a bridge when it helps someone contact specific people, maintain valued long-distance relationships, participate in reciprocal groups, ask for or provide support, organize in-person activity, reconnect with existing ties, or access communities unavailable locally. It may also help when a person uses online interaction as a step toward broader social engagement rather than as a permanent substitute for all offline contact.

The benefit is not guaranteed by “active use,” just as harm is not guaranteed by “passive use.” The defining feature is the social result: does the activity create belonging, reciprocity, support, and opportunities for meaningful interaction?

How to use social media when loneliness is the problem

There is no universal prescription, but the evidence supports a practical, testable approach.

Start with the unmet social need

Ask what is missing. Is it companionship, emotional intimacy, shared activity, practical support, belonging to a group, romantic connection, contact with family, or simply more frequent interaction? “I need less social media” is often less informative than identifying the relationship need that feels unmet.

Turn consumption into contact when contact is what you want

If scrolling makes loneliness worse, use the platform to initiate a specific interaction: message someone, propose a call, invite a friend to meet, respond thoughtfully rather than only reacting, or participate in a group where reciprocal conversation is possible. The goal is not maximum activity. It is moving from observation toward meaningful exchange when that serves your social need.

Protect high-quality shared time from interruption

If phone checking repeatedly fragments meals, conversations, visits, or other valued time, changing notification settings, placing the phone out of reach, or creating device-light periods can protect existing connection. The value comes from what the freed attention is used for, not from abstinence itself.

Notice the emotional aftereffect

Different activities on the same platform can produce different outcomes. Pay attention to whether a session leaves you more connected, neutral, agitated, excluded, envious, or numb. Repeated patterns are more useful than a moral judgment about the app as a whole.

Change the social environment, not only the timer

Unfollow or mute accounts that reliably trigger painful comparison when they add little value. Prioritize people and groups that produce reciprocal interaction. Reduce exposure to conflict-heavy spaces. A time limit can help if use is crowding out other activities, but curation and interaction quality may matter just as much.

Experiment rather than assume

If you suspect social media is worsening loneliness, try a defined change for one or two weeks and observe what actually changes. Reduce a particular platform, remove it from the home screen, stop using it during certain social periods, or replace some scrolling time with a call, group activity, exercise with someone, volunteering, or an in-person routine. A break that simply removes stimulation without adding connection may feel very different from a break paired with intentional social activity.

Keep useful online relationships

Reducing problematic use does not require discarding meaningful online relationships. If a digital community provides genuine companionship or support, the goal can be to preserve that function while changing the parts of use that feel compulsive, comparison-heavy, or socially empty.

When loneliness deserves broader support

Loneliness is common and can be temporary, especially after relocation, bereavement, relationship change, illness, unemployment, caregiving transitions, or disruption of a social network. Persistent or severe loneliness can also coexist with depression, anxiety, grief, social anxiety, trauma, disability, chronic illness, or major life stress.

A social media change may help one part of the situation while leaving the underlying social need untouched. If loneliness is persistent, intensely distressing, or accompanied by significant impairment, consider speaking with a qualified health or mental-health professional and looking at the broader social context: relationships, community access, work or school environment, transportation, physical health, finances, safety, and opportunities for repeated contact.

Social media use, loneliness, and mental health influence one another through multiple pathways. A screening score, amount of screen time, or feeling of loneliness by itself does not establish a psychiatric diagnosis.

Frequently asked questions

Does social media cause loneliness?

Research does not support a universal one-way claim. Cross-sectional studies often find associations, but loneliness can also change how people use social media. Longitudinal and experimental findings are mixed. The strongest current evidence suggests that problematic patterns of use are more strongly associated with loneliness than time alone, and effects vary by interaction type, person, and context.

Is more screen time always linked with more loneliness?

No. In the 2026 meta-analysis of adolescents and young adults, time spent had only a small positive correlation with loneliness, while problematic use showed a stronger association. Duration can matter when it displaces valued activities, but hours alone do not reveal what happened during use or whether it met social needs.

Is passive scrolling worse than active social media use?

Sometimes, but not consistently enough for a universal rule. A nine-year longitudinal study linked passive use with later loneliness, while a 2026 meta-analysis found no significant active-versus-passive difference overall. The content, relationship context, motive, and emotional response may be more informative than the label alone.

Can online friends reduce loneliness?

They can contribute to meaningful connection, especially when relationships are reciprocal and supportive. Evidence does not show that simply having more online contacts reduces loneliness. Recent U.S. adult research found that a higher share of contacts who were strangers offline was associated with greater loneliness, while having more close-friend contacts was not by itself associated with lower loneliness.

Does deleting social media cure loneliness?

No. Complete abstinence has produced mixed experimental results, including lower loneliness in some interventions, no significant change in others, and increased loneliness in at least one randomized study. A social media break can be useful as an experiment, but it is not a universal treatment.

Would using social media less help?

It may help if current use is crowding out desired relationships, repeatedly triggering exclusion or comparison, or becoming difficult to control. Randomized trials have found reductions in loneliness in some groups after reducing use. Other studies find little or no effect. What replaces the removed social-media time matters.

Are teenagers affected differently from adults?

Possibly. Adolescents and young adults are at a developmental stage where peer evaluation, identity, belonging, and social comparison can be especially salient, while older adults may use social media more as a tool for maintaining access to relationships across distance or mobility limitations. Evidence should therefore be interpreted within the age group actually studied.

Is loneliness the same as social isolation?

No. Loneliness is the subjective feeling that desired social connection is missing. Social isolation is an objective lack of relationships, roles, or interactions. They can overlap, but one does not automatically imply the other.

What matters more: number of followers or quality of relationships?

The evidence favors relationship quality and social function over raw network size. Follower counts and contact numbers do not measure reciprocity, emotional support, trust, or whether a person feels understood and included.

What is the most useful takeaway?

Evaluate social media by what it does in your social life. If it helps you maintain meaningful ties, find valued community, and convert online contact into satisfying interaction, it can support connection. If it repeatedly substitutes for the connection you want, intensifies comparison or exclusion, or becomes difficult to control, changing the pattern may be more useful than focusing on screen time alone.

References

Calvert, E., Vaidya, S., Ilagan, G., et al. (2026). Mapping the methodological landscape of social media detox intervention through a scoping review of evidence relevant to social media restriction policies. Communications Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-026-00540-6

Chen, R., Zhang, K., Cui, L., Chen, S., & Feng, N. (2025). Lonely older adults in the era of social media: A meta-analytic review. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 80(7), gbaf080. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaf080

de Hesselle, L. C., & Montag, C. (2024). Effects of a 14-day social media abstinence on mental health and well-being: Results from an experimental study. BMC Psychology, 12, 141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01611-1

Deters, F. G., & Mehl, M. R. (2013). Does posting Facebook status updates increase or decrease loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5), 579–586. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24224070/

Dienlin, T., Masur, P. K., & Trepte, S. (2017). Reinforcement or displacement? The reciprocity of face-to-face, instant messaging, and social network site communication and their effects on loneliness and life satisfaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12183

Escobar-Viera, C. G., Yamada, T., Porta, G., et al. (2026). Associations between social media-based emotional support and internalizing symptoms: A longitudinal study in a national sample of U.S. adolescents and emerging adults. Frontiers in Developmental Psychology, 4, 1811938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdpys.2026.1811938

Feng, H.-P., Lien, Y.-J., Cian, S.-Y., et al. (2026). Exploring the relationship between social media use and loneliness in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 61, 1345–1359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-026-03175-4

Goldfield, G. S., Lopes, M. V. V., Mahboob, W., Perry, S., & Davis, C. G. (2026). Reducing social media use decreases loneliness regardless of gender or level of social comparisons in youth with anxiety and depression: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Affective Disorders, 403, 121331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2026.121331

Hall, J. A. (2025). Loneliness and social media. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1543(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15275

Hunt, M. G., Marx, R., Lipson, C., & Young, J. (2018). No more FOMO: Limiting social media decreases loneliness and depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 37(10), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2018.37.10.751

Jin, J., & Kim, H. K. (2025). Exploring the effect of social media use on loneliness among older adults: A meta-analysis. Journal of Health Psychology, 30(11), 2844–2859. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053251316673

Koneru, G., Kim, H., Aslam, M., et al. (2026). Real-life emotional support, social-media-based emotional support, and loneliness among US adults: A nationally representative study. Journal of General Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10660-8

Matthews, T., Arseneault, L., Bryan, B. T., et al. (2025). Social media use, online experiences, and loneliness among young adults: A cohort study. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1548(1), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15370

Mikami, A. Y., Khalis, A., & Karasavva, V. (2025). Logging out or leaning in? Social media strategies for enhancing well-being. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 154(1), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001668

Nowland, R., Necka, E. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2018). Loneliness and social Internet use: Pathways to reconnection in a digital world? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617713052

O’Day, E. B., & Heimberg, R. G. (2021). Social media use, social anxiety, and loneliness: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 3, 100070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100070

Primack, B. A., Kim, H., Koneru, G., Aslam, M., & Gorman, J. R. (2026). Closeness of social media contacts and loneliness among US adults: A nationally representative study. Public Health Reports, 141(5), 671–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549261443288

Roberts, J. A., Young, P. D., & David, M. E. (2026). The epidemic of loneliness: A 9-year longitudinal study of the impact of passive and active social media use on loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 52(5), 1111–1125. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241295870

Vally, Z., & D’Souza, C. G. (2019). Abstinence from social media use, subjective well-being, stress, and loneliness. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 55(4), 752–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12431

World Health Organization. (2025). Social connection. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/social-connection

Psychological Encyclopedia