Abstract
This study uses prospectively collected data from the ABCD study to assess the relationship between longitudinal patterns of social media use (hours per day) and cognitive performance after 2 years in a diverse US sample of younger adolescents.
Social media is an increasingly important aspect of early adolescent lives, and trajectories of use have been correlated with negative psychosocial outcomes.1,2 Studies of the link between total screen time and cognitive performance in those aged 9 to 11 years from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study have shown mixed results.3,4 However, unlike passive screen time, social media use typically involves interactive, personalized, and cognitively demanding activities, yet there is a paucity of studies that have analyzed the associations between distinct longitudinal social media usage patterns and multiple domains of cognitive functioning.
This study examined the relationship between longitudinal patterns of social media use and cognitive performance 2 years later in a diverse, national sample of early adolescents. The study hypothesis was that greater social media use would be associated with lower cognitive performance.
Methods
Prospectively collected data from the ABCD study were analyzed from 3 time points: baseline (2016-2018, ages 9-10 years), year 1 (2017-2019), and year 2 (2018-2020). Institutional review board approval was obtained from the University of California, San Diego, and each study site. Written informed consent and assent were obtained from guardians and children, respectively.
Social media time (hours per day) trajectories from baseline to year 2 were determined using group-based trajectory modeling (eMethods in Supplement 1). This modeling characterized distinct patterns of social media use over time. Cognitive performance was determined using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery. Multiple linear regression analyses with robust standard errors estimated the association between social media trajectories and year 2 cognitive performance scores (5 subtests and composite). Models adjusted for baseline variables including age, sex, race and ethnicity, household income, parent education, attention-deficit/hyperactivity symptoms, depression symptoms, respective baseline cognitive score, other screen time, and study site. Analyses were weighted to approximate the American Community Survey by the US Census.
Results
In the analytic sample of 6554 adolescents, 51.1% were male and 48.9% were female. Three trajectory groups emerged over ages 9 to 13 years: no or very low social media use (57.6%, +0.3 h/d by age 13 years), low increasing social media use (36.6%, +1.3 h/d), and high increasing social media use (5.8%, +3.0 h/d) (Figure). The following findings are comparisons with the reference group, no or very low social media use. Low increasing social media use was associated with lower performance scores (negative differences in mean) on the Oral Reading Recognition Test (ORRT) (−1.39 [95% CI, −2.10 to −0.68]), Picture Sequence Memory Test (PSMT) (−2.03 [95% CI, −2.91 to −1.15]), Picture Vocabulary Test (PVT) (−2.09 [95% CI, −2.78 to −1.41]), and total composite score (−0.85 [95% CI, −1.30 to −0.40]) (Table). High increasing social media use was associated with poorer performance on the ORRT (−1.68 [95% CI, −3.08 to −0.28]), PSMT (−4.51 [95% CI, −6.48 to −2.54]), PVT (−3.85 [95% CI, −5.34 to −2.37]), and total composite score (−1.76 [95% CI, −2.72 to −0.81]).
Figure. Social Media Time Trajectories by Age.
Table. Cognitive Functioning Scores Across Social Media Trajectories (Ages 9-13 Years) in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study (N = 6554)a.
| Social media time trajectory | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No or very low use, unadjusted mean (SD) | Low increasing, unadjusted mean (SD) | High increasing, unadjusted mean (SD) | |||
| Flanker test | 97.6 (14.2) | 95.4 (14.0) | 94.3 (14.6) | ||
| Oral reading recognition | 103.5 (16.9) | 99.4 (15.9) | 96.7 (14.1) | ||
| Picture sequence memory | 108.2 (16.2) | 104.7 (16.5) | 100.3 (16.1) | ||
| Pattern comparison processing speed | 108.3 (20.8) | 107.8 (20.7) | 106.9 (21.3) | ||
| Picture vocabulary | 106.3 (15.6) | 99.6 (14.6) | 94.8 (14.4) | ||
| Total composite score | 104.8 (10.6) | 101.4 (10.4) | 98.6 (10.4) | ||
| Adjusted mean (95% CI) | Adjusted mean (95% CI) | Adjusted mean (95% CI) | |||
| Flanker test | 96.9 (96.4 to 97.4) | 96.2 (95.7 to 96.8) | 96.0 (94.3 to 97.7) | ||
| Oral reading recognition | 102.2 (101.8 to 102.7) | 100.8 (100.3 to 101.3) | 100.5 (99.3 to 101.8) | ||
| Picture sequence memory | 107.5 (106.9 to 108.0) | 105.4 (104.8 to 106.1) | 103.0 (101.1 to 104.8) | ||
| Pattern comparison processing speed | 107.7 (107.0 to 108.4) | 108.4 (107.5 to 109.2) | 109.3 (107.1 to 111.6) | ||
| Picture vocabulary | 104.2 (103.8 to 104.6) | 102.1 (101.6 to 102.6) | 100.3 (98.9 to 101.7) | ||
| Total composite score | 103.6 (103.3 to 103.9) | 102.8 (102.4 to 103.1) | 101.8 (101.0 to 102.7) | ||
| Difference in mean (95% CI) | Difference in mean (95% CI) | P value | Difference in mean (95% CI) | P value | |
| Flanker test | [Reference] | −0.67 (−1.45 to 0.11) | .09 | −0.90 (−2.72 to 0.92) | .33 |
| Oral reading recognition | [Reference] | −1.39 (−2.10 to −0.68) | <.001 | −1.68 (−3.08 to −0.28) | .02 |
| Picture sequence memory | [Reference] | −2.03 (−2.91 to −1.15) | <.001 | −4.51 (−6.48 to −2.54) | <.001 |
| Pattern comparison processing speed | [Reference] | 0.65 (−0.48 to 1.78) | .26 | 1.61 (−0.75 to 3.98) | .18 |
| Picture vocabulary | [Reference] | −2.09 (−2.78 to −1.41) | <.001 | −3.85 (−5.34 to −2.37) | <.001 |
| Total composite score | [Reference] | −0.85 (−1.30 to −0.40) | <.001 | −1.76 (−2.72 to −0.81) | <.001 |
Sampling weights based on the American Community Survey were used to represent population estimates for unadjusted and adjusted means. Models represent the abbreviated output from the linear regression models with adjustment for age, sex, race and ethnicity, household income, parent education, attention-deficit/hyperactivity symptoms, depression symptoms, respective baseline cognitive score, other screen time, and site location.
Discussion
This analysis found that both low and high increases in social media use throughout early adolescence were significantly associated with lower performance in specific aspects of cognitive function, supporting a prior finding that greater screen time was negatively but weakly associated with adolescent cognitive performance.5 Overall, the differences in mean scores were small relative to the NIH Toolbox standard deviation of 15. Previous literature has hypothesized that social media use replacing more educational activities or schoolwork may explain the association between social media use and lower cognitive performance.6 The specific associations between increasing social media use and poorer performance on the ORRT and PVT, which tests stored language knowledge, support this hypothesis. The finding that even low levels of early adolescent social media exposure were linked to poorer cognitive performance may suggest support for stricter age restrictions. Limitations of this study include self-reported social media data, potential residual confounding, and an observational study design that precludes inferring that social media trajectories cause worse cognitive performance. Future studies should examine how specific social media platforms and content relate to cognitive outcomes.
eMethods
Data Sharing Statement
References
- 1.Xiao Y, Meng Y, Brown TT, Keyes KM, Mann JJ. Addictive screen use trajectories and suicidal behaviors, suicidal ideation, and mental health in US youths. JAMA. 2025;334(3):219-228. doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.7829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Boer M, Stevens GWJM, Finkenauer C, van den Eijnden RJJM. The course of problematic social media use in young adolescents: a latent class growth analysis. Child Dev. 2022;93(2):e168-e187. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Miller J, Mills KL, Vuorre M, Orben A, Przybylski AK. Impact of digital screen media activity on functional brain organization in late childhood: evidence from the ABCD study. Cortex. 2023;169:290-308. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2023.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Chen YY, Yim H, Lee TH. Negative impact of daily screen use on inhibitory control network in preadolescence: a two-year follow-up study. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2023;60:101218. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2023.101218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Stiglic N, Viner RM. Effects of screentime on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: a systematic review of reviews. BMJ Open. Published online January 1, 2019. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gordon MS, Ohannessian CM. Social media use and early adolescents’ academic achievement: variations by parent-adolescent communication and gender. Youth Soc. 2024;56(4):651-672. doi: 10.1177/0044118X231180317 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
eMethods
Data Sharing Statement
