Last month US TV channel CNBC published an online news story based on a study which it said showed that Instagram is “most likely to cause young people to feel depressed and lonely” out of the major social apps. But the “study” is actually a survey which fails to provide substantive evidence that Instagram is the worst for mental health, or that there is even a relationship between social media use and depression or loneliness. It was another enticing - but misleading - headline.

Over the next days the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH), which published the report in conjunction with the Young Health Movement charity, retweeted and shared news stories like CNBC’s. The society’s report was featured by most national media outlets, and although some pointed out that it was based on a survey, others presented it in a way that could be construed as scientific research. In any case, most included a statement about Instagram being damaging to mental health in the title in a way that made the findings appear more conclusive than the report suggests.





But there are problems with treating a survey as a scientific study given the differences in methodology, even if it is based on nearly 1,500 responses. Researchers have pointed out the important differences in measures and analyses. They also noted that the report also contains unfounded statements - for instance, the research article given as a reference for the claim that social media is more addictive than smoking only examined “media use”, not social media use.

The report’s findings are based on young people’s answers to 14 self-designed questions about how different social media platforms affect their lives. The answers are then summed to create a “mental health ranking” of the various platforms. You cannot truly measure the mental health impact of a social media platform by adding together people’s answers to single questions about how specific sites give them “FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out – feeling you need to stay connected because you are worried things could be happening without you)” or affect their “self-identity” or “sleep”.

Instead, to show mental health impact you need long-term studies that measure mental health with tried-and-tested measures or which examine real-life health outcomes like incidences of diagnosed depression. Combining responses to 14 freely-designed questions to measure health outcomes doesn’t yield meaningful results. It goes against the most basic scientific practice taught to undergraduate psychologists and trainee medics.

While the report is intended to be a call for action to stimulate further, more rigorous research, the way in which it was covered by the media could be misleading for the general public. The problem is that it’s the exciting, shareable headlines which seem to get all the media coverage, even when they are not based on peer-reviewed work.

While I do agree with many of the suggestions put forward in the RSPH report, I think it’s important that the public understand the difference between a survey and research based on scientific methods of inquiry. Psychological researchers are working hard to make their science more robust through transparency initiatives like the pre-registration of scientific research. But if the public keep reading contradictory headlines based on weak research in the media, it won’t be easy to maintain trust in our discipline.

Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered. And if you have an idea for a story, please read our guidelines and email your pitch to us at highereducationnetwork@theguardian.com.



Looking for a higher education job? Or perhaps you need to recruit university staff? Take a look at Guardian Jobs, the higher education specialist