A new meta-analysis, in press, from @drjthrul et al, using data from the @CJFerguson1111 analysis, finds that "interventions of less than 1 week resulted in significantly worse mental health outcomes (d=-0.168, SE=0.058, p=.004), while interventions of 1 week or longer resulted in significant improvements (d=0.169, SE=0.065, p=.01)." Researchers and journalist should stop saying that the evidence is "just correlational." There is experimental evidence too. We can certainly debate what this all means, but there is a body of experiments that points, pretty consistently, to benefits from reducing social media use, as long as the reduction goes on long enough to get past withdrawal effects. You can't combine the one-day abstinence studies (which produce negative mood and well-being effects) with the studies that run for at least 2 weeks (which find benefits) and say that there is no effect, on average. It is just not right to tell young people that quitting or reducing social media will not have any effect on their mental health, according to the academic literature. osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/de…