Impact of Social Media Platforms on Physical Characteristics and Psychological Profiles
Mariana Merino,
José Francisco Tornero-Aguilera,
Alejandro Rubio-Zarapuz,
Carlota Valeria Villanueva-Tobaldo and
Vicente Javier Clemente-Suárez
Global Journal of Health Science, 2025, vol. 17, issue 5, 1-12
Abstract:
This study explores the complex relationships between social media platform usage and psychological outcomes, focusing on how different platforms impact users' mental health. Data was collected from 6,104 participants across a variety of platforms, including Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube. The analysis focused on key psychological variables, including anxiety (STAI1), perceived stress (PSS4), psychological flexibility (AAQ1), and loneliness (UCLA1). Our findings show that visually driven platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok are associated with significantly higher levels of anxiety, perceived stress, and psychological rigidity. In contrast, platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn, which prioritize personal relationships or professional networking, were linked to lower levels of psychological distress. Snapchat users reported the highest anxiety scores (16.39 ± 2.50), while Facebook users exhibited the lowest anxiety levels (13.71 ± 4.17), indicating platform-specific differences in psychological outcomes. Additionally, the study found that YouTube users experienced the highest levels of perceived stress (2.27 ± 1.23), followed by Snapchat (2.11 ± 1.01), while Facebook users reported the lowest stress levels (1.76 ± 1.26). These results highlight the psychological risks associated with visually focused platforms, which encourage social comparison and can exacerbate anxiety and stress. The findings suggest that specific platforms may contribute to negative psychological outcomes, potentially influenced by their emphasis on appearance and curated content. The study also points to the need for targeted interventions, such as digital literacy programs and mental health resources, to mitigate these risks.
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/download/0/0/52050/56664 (application/pdf)
https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/view/0/52050 (text/html)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ibn:gjhsjl:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:1-12
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in Global Journal of Health Science from Canadian Center of Science and Education Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Canadian Center of Science and Education ().