Instagram's 'Big Tobacco' tactics? Eyebrow-raising study (funded by the tech ... trends now
Academic research has long suggested that Instagram harms users' mental health.
But a new eyebrow-raising study has claimed the social media app does not trigger anxiety, loneliness or depression.
Critics today accused Meta, which owns Instagram and funded the study, of using 'Big Tobacco' tactics by bankrolling the research, saying it 'paints a highly selective picture to lawmakers and regulators'.
It even jars with Meta’s own internal research, which found that UK teenagers traced suicidal thoughts back to the app.
Previous studies found a negative link between mental wellbeing and social media use, but researchers say it often had a female bias and a focus on younger adults
The paper's publication comes as Ofcom consults on tough new powers under the Online Safety Act that will punish Big Tech platforms if they fail to protect users from harmful content.
The paper was presented at the prestigious Cyberpsychology Section Conference, run by the British Psychological Society.
It looked at 372 people with Instagram accounts and 100 without, with an average age of 44.
First they were asked how much they used the platform to interact, browse, and broadcast.
Then they were asked to fill out a questionnaire to assess their levels of anxiety, depression and loneliness.
It concluded that 'adults who use Instagram are no more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression or loneliness than that those who don't'.
Buried deep at the end of the 7,000-word study, however, it revealed the study's authors, Professor Thomas Pollet and Dr Sam Roberts, had received funding from 'Facebook Research'.
In a statement, under the heading 'conflict of interest', it claims the company played 'no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript'.
Researchers say adults who use Instagram are no more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression or loneliness than that those who don't
After being contacted by the Mail, the authors added that if they had found the opposite conclusion they 'would have been published in exactly the
