Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Pop Media Cult. 2021 Mar 11;11(1):80–89. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000318

The Role of Envy in Linking Active and Passive Social Media use to Memory Functioning

Neika Sharifian 1, Afsara B Zaheed 1, Laura B Zahodne 1
PMCID: PMC8993128  NIHMSID: NIHMS1656634  PMID: 35402066

Abstract

Social media use has previously been shown to have negative implications for cognition. Scarce research has examined underlying pathways through which social media use may influence cognition. One potential pathway involves the consequences of social comparison, such that those who use social media more frequently may feel worse about themselves and more envious toward others. In turn, these negative socioemotional states could compromise memory. Further, whether an individual uses social media actively or passively may moderate these associations. Using an online adult lifespan sample (n=592), the current cross-sectional study examined whether socioemotional consequences of social comparison (self-esteem and envy) mediated relationships between social media use and memory (everyday memory failures and episodic memory) and whether active/passive use moderated these associations. Mediation models revealed that higher envy, but not lower self-esteem, partially explained the relationship between higher social media use and more self-reported everyday memory failures. Neither envy nor self-esteem mediated the relationship between higher social media use and lower objective episodic memory performance. Additionally, higher social media use was associated with higher envy to a greater extent for active users compared to passive users. These findings may suggest that high social media use has negative ramifications for both subjective and objective memory and that increased feelings of envy may partially explain these effects for subjective, but not objective, memory.

Keywords: Social Media, Envy, Self-Esteem, Active/Passive Use, Memory

Humans are inherently social creatures; however, the ways in which we are maintaining social contact are dramatically changing with the increasing saturation of social technologies. The use of social media sites, in particular, are becoming increasingly prevalent (Pew Research Center, 2018) and may have important implications for cognitive health. For example, when examining daily social media use and everyday memory failures in an adult lifespan sample, Sharifian and Zahodne (2020) found that on days when social media use was high, individuals reported more memory failures both on that day and on the subsequent day. Additional cross-sectional observational and experimental studies have also linked greater engagement with social media to poorer memory (Frein, Jones & Gerow, 2013; Soares & Storms, 2018; Tamir, Templeton, Ward & Zaki, 2018) as well as poorer academic performance (Turel & Qahri-Saremi, 2016), consistent with the possibility that social media use may have negative ramifications for memory functioning.

Despite the link between higher social media use and poorer memory functioning, less is known regarding the underlying pathways by which engagement with these new technologies may influence memory. One potential pathway may involve the consequences of social comparison. Prior research has shown that individuals who use social media more tend to engage in more social comparison (Lee, 2014), and this may lead to greater feelings of envy (Wang, Yang, Gaskin & Wang, 2019) and lower self-esteem (Ozimek & Bierhoff, 2020). The consequences of social comparison may have negative implications for cognition such that experiences of envy may draw cognitive resources toward the source of those envious feelings and away from other tasks (e.g., Hill, DelPriore & Vaughan, 2011). Therefore, the current study aimed to examine whether emotional consequences of social comparison, specifically low self-esteem and high envy, may mediate the relationship between social media use and memory functioning.

Social Media and Socioemotional Consequences of Social Comparison

When engaged with social media, individuals are constantly bombarded with information from people they know personally (e.g., friends, family, co-workers, etc.), as well as those they do not (e.g., celebrities, politicians, etc.). Although social media allows us to be more connected than ever, it may come with unintended negative consequences for how we feel about ourselves and others. Consistent with this idea, prior research has shown that individuals who spent more time on Facebook each week and individuals who had large Facebook networks that included people they did not personally know were more likely to believe that others had better lives than they had, view life as less fair, and think others were happier than they were (Chou & Edge, 2012). Similarly, in an experimental study, individuals who looked at online profiles of more attractive and more successful individuals tended to feel less attractive and less successful compared to individuals who viewed unattractive and unsuccessful online profiles of others (Haferkamp & Krämer, 2011). These findings suggest that social comparison processes are at play when individuals engage with social media.

Individuals tend to portray themselves in the best light on social media sites and therefore may present misleadingly positive depictions of themselves (Ellison, Heino & Gibbs, 2006). For example, in online dating profiles, individuals often try to portray their ‘ideal’ self (i.e., who they want to be) rather than their ‘actual’ self (Ellison et al., 2006). This exaggeratedly positive content may foster feelings of inadequacy in others who view it frequently on social media. Indeed, prior research has shown that viewing selfies is associated with lower self-esteem (Wang, Yang & Haigh, 2017). In a qualitative study, individuals identified feelings of envy/jealousy due to social comparison as a salient negative aspect of using social media such as Facebook (Fox & Moreland, 2015). Overall, spending more time on social media may lower individuals’ positive feelings about themselves (i.e., lower self-esteem) as well as increase their negative feelings toward others (i.e., increase envy).

While scant research has explicitly examined consequences of social comparison as an explanatory mechanism between social media use and cognitive health, some evidence has found that envy and self-esteem mediate the link between social media use and mental health. Specifically, prior research has shown that higher passive Facebook use is associated with greater depressive symptoms (Tandoc, Ferrucci, & Duffy, 2015; Wang et al., 2014) and lower life satisfaction (Krasnova, Wenninger, Widjaja & Buxmann, 2013) through greater feelings of envy. Similarly, problematic use of social networking sites has also been linked to greater depressive symptoms through higher ability-related social comparisons and lower global self-esteem (Ozimek & Bierhoff, 2020), and viewing selfies on social media has been associated with lower life satisfaction through lower self-esteem (Wang et al., 2017).

Consistent with mental health outcomes, the consequences of social comparison prompted by social media may also negatively influence memory functioning. In line with ego depletion theory (Baumeister et al., 1998), preliminary evidence suggests that engaging in social comparison can be emotionally demanding and potentially deplete cognitive resources. For instance, in one experimental study, individuals who anticipated social comparison after a stressful task demonstrated heightened levels of stress as well as a slower recovery from stress than those who did not anticipate social comparison (Jamieson & Kaszor, 1986). When specifically examining envy, a series of experiments found that envy increased attention toward and memory for the source of that envy (i.e., the more attractive/better off individual) but decreased cognitive resources for other tasks, such as time spent on solving difficult anagrams (Hill et al., 2011). Overall, these studies suggest that the consequences of social comparison (i.e., higher envy, lower self-esteem) may mediate the associations between social media use and memory functioning.

Moderating Role of Active versus Passive Use

Although some evidence links social media use to worse mental health (Krasnova et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2017) and cognitive health outcomes (Frein et al., 2013; Sharifian & Zahodne, 2020; Soares & Storms, 2018; Tamir et al., 2018), others have found the inverse (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007; Kim & Kim, 2014; Myhre, Mehl & Glisky, 2017). These mixed findings may be, in part, explained by the ways in which different individuals engage with social media. Some evidence suggests that those who use social media more actively show better outcomes compared to those who use social media more passively (see review; Nowland, Necka & Cacioppo, 2018). Active use is typically operationalized as using social networking sites to directly communicate, post status updates and engage with one’s social network members, whereas passive use is typically operationalized as lurking behaviors such as scrolling through news feeds and viewing profiles.

In line with the notion that passively browsing through posts and photos may elicit negative feelings about the self and/or envious feelings towards others (i.e., greater upward social comparison), more passive use of social media has been linked to lower self-esteem, higher envy and lower life satisfaction (Krasnova et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2017). In contrast, prior research has theorized that using social media more actively may facilitate better socioemotional outcomes. For example, in one experimental study, individuals who actively updated their profiles reported higher self-esteem compared to those who did not (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011). In another cross-sectional study, greater active use of Facebook was associated with higher self-esteem through higher social support and in turn, was associated with lower loneliness (Lin, Liu, Niu & Longobardi, 2020). Active use may be associated with better socioemotional outcomes as it may provide a platform for individuals to express themselves and receive positive feedback from their social network (i.e., receiving ‘likes’).

Although prior research has examined the impact of active versus passive use of social media on socioemotional outcomes, it is unknown whether active/passive use moderates the cognitive effects of social media use. Of note, an intervention study that instructed participants to actively engage with social networking sites demonstrated cognitive benefits (Myhre et al., 2017), which suggests that active use of these sites may improve cognitive functioning. Overall, it may be that mixed findings regarding the impact of social media use on cognition in observational studies may reflect differences in how individuals engage with social media sites.

The Present Study

The present study aimed to examine whether the consequences of social comparison mediate the relationship between social media use and memory and whether active/passive use moderates this association. We hypothesized that higher social media use would be associated with lower memory functioning. Further, we hypothesized that the relationship between social media use and memory would be at least partially mediated by the consequences of social comparison. Specifically, we predicted that higher social media use would be associated with lower self-esteem and higher envy, which would each be associated with lower memory. Finally, we hypothesized that active/passive use would moderate relationships between (1) social media use and socioemotional outcomes and (2) social media use and memory, such that those who engage more passively will have worse outcomes (lower self-esteem, higher envy, worse memory) compared to those who engage more actively.

Methods

The current study is outlined in a preregistered report (Sharifian & Zahodne, 2019, May 23, Social Technology & Cognition; retrieved from osf.io/aesnk). Specifically, the design of the data collection, the selection of the measures and variables, exclusion criteria and our analytic strategy were identified prior to data collection.

Participants and Procedure

Participants were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk is a crowdsourcing website whose validity for survey research has been demonstrated (see Behrend, Sharek, Meade, & Wiebe, 2011; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Additionally, prior research has shown no systematic differences between online and lab-based cognitive and behavioral assessment (Crump, McDonnell & Gureckis, 2013; Germine et al., 2012; Leding, 2018). Participants on MTurk were restricted to those residing within the United States and those who had previously obtained at least a 95% approval rating from other completed Human Intelligence Tasks. Additionally, half of the sample (n=350) was restricted to the MTurk 55 years or older premium qualification to ensure an adult lifespan sample. All data collection was completed in September 2019. Participants completed a battery of self-report questionnaires including social technology use, psychosocial and memory functioning. All participants provided informed consent, and all study procedures were approved by the University of Michigan’s institutional review board.

Initially, 706 participants completed the survey on MTurk. Of those participants, 114 were excluded because of at least one of the following data-quality issues: (a) a mismatch between chronological age and birth date (i.e., validity check; n = 74), (b) self-reported engagement in other activities during the survey (n = 15), and (c) participants who were 2 standard deviations above or below the average survey completion time (n = 25). Thus, the final sample included 592 adults ranging from 19 to 81 years (Mage = 50.63, SDage = 15.89, 58.40% Female).

Two additional exclusion criteria were implemented only for analyses examining the objective episodic memory outcome to ensure data quality. First, individuals who self-reported the use of an external aid to help them with the memory task were excluded (n = 20). Second, as the survey was self-paced, participants who completed the delayed recall trial outside of the published administration rule of 3–5 minutes after completing the immediate recall trial (see Lezak, Howieson, Loring, Hannay & Fischer, 2004) were also excluded (n = 202). Therefore, the final sample size for analyses involving objective episodic memory was 370 participants.

Measures

Social Media use was assessed using the social networking subscale of the Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale (MTUAS; Rosen, Whaling, Carrier, Cheever & Rokkum, 2013). Nine items asked participants how often they engaged in activities such as checking their social networking sites such as Facebook and Instagram and browsing profiles and photos, using a 10-point scale ranging from never (1) to all the time (10). An average was taken across the nine items and demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .94).

Active and Passive Use was measured with a single item. Specifically, participants were asked, “In general, would you say you mostly view, mostly post and/or comment, or both equally on social media?” Individuals who reported mostly viewing were categorized as passive users (0=passive). As endorsement as a purely active user was low (i.e., mostly post and/or comment, 6.80% of the sample), individuals who reported any active use (e.g., mostly post and/or comment, or equally both) were categorized as active users (1=active).

Socioemotional Consequences of Social Comparison were assessed using two measures: self-esteem and envy. Self-esteem was measured using a 10-item self-esteem questionnaire (Rosenberg, 1965). Items such as, “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” (reverse-coded) and “I feel I do not have much to be proud of” were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4). An average across the eight items was computed and demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .92).

Envy was measured with the 8-item dispositional envy scale (Smith, Parrott, Diener, Hoyle & Kim, 1999). Items such as, “The bitter truth is that I generally feel inferior to others” and “It is so frustrating to see some people succeed so easily” were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). An average across the eight items was computed and demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .95).

Memory was assessed with measures of both subjective (i.e., self-reported) and objective (i.e., performance-based) memory. First, self-reported memory functioning was assessed using the 13-item Everyday Memory Questionnaire (Royle & Lincoln, 2008; Sunderland et al., 1983). Items such as, “Forgetting important details of what you did or what happened to you the day before” and “Forgetting where things are normally kept or looking for them in the wrong place” were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from Once or less in the last month (1) to Once or more a day (5). An overall score was calculated by averaging across all items, and higher scores indicate greater memory failures. The self-reported everyday memory failures score demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .95).

Second, objective memory performance was assessed using the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) Word List task (Morris et al., 1989; Mirra et al., 1991), adapted for web-based self-administration. Ten words were visually presented for 1.5 seconds each, and then participants were asked to immediately recall as many of the 10 words as possible by typing them in. Participants were not informed that they would be asked to recall the words again. After completing a series of psychosocial questionnaires, delayed recall and recognition trials were administered. The delayed recall trial asked participants to type in as many of the original words as they could remember. The recognition trial visually presented participants with a series of 20 words, and participants responded by indicating whether each word was present in the prior word list (Yes/No response). Immediate recall and delayed recall scores were the number of correct responses (ranging from 0–10). Recognition scores were calculated as the number of correct responses (hits and correct rejections) and could range from 0–20. Consistent with prior research and recommendations (i.e., Song, Lin, Ward & Fine, 2013; Zaheed et al., 2019), immediate recall, delayed recall, and recognition scores were converted into z-scores and averaged to create a composite episodic memory score where higher scores represent better episodic memory.

Covariates included in all analyses were age (self-reported and continuous), gender (Male = 0, Female = 1), education, and self-reported health. Education was assessed with a single item asking participants to self-report the highest grade of school they completed ranging from No school / some grade school (1) to Ph.D, ED.D., MD, DDS, LLB, LLD, JD or other professional degree (12) and included as a continuous variable. Self-reported health was assessed with a single item asking participants to rate their overall physical health on a 7-point scale ranging from poor (1) to excellent (7).

Statistical Models:

Descriptive statistics and correlations were conducted using IBM SPSS (Version 26), and mediation models were conducted in Mplus (Version 8). Initially, a mediation model was conducted to examine whether self-esteem and/or envy mediated the relationship between social media use and memory functioning, controlling for covariates on all predictor, mediator, and outcome variables. Self-esteem and envy were allowed to covary. Separate models examined self-reported everyday memory failures and objective episodic memory performance1.

Subsequently, multiple group mediation models were conducted to assess whether active/passive use moderated associations between social media use and social comparison processes or associations between social media use and memory. All pathways were first constrained to be the same across active and passive user groups (i.e., fixed model). Next, paths were individually freed one at a time allowing variation across active and passive user groups. The chi-squared difference between each pair of fixed and freed models was calculated to determine whether a particular parameter differed across the two groups (i.e., a change of 3.84 or greater). A separate series of multi-group models were conducted for each memory outcome.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables of interest are described in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Associations between covariates and the variables of interest are shown separately for the everyday memory failures (Model 1) and objective episodic memory (Model 2) in Table 3.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Main Variables of Interest

M SD Range
Age 50.63 15.89 19–81
% Female 58.40 - -
% Active SM Users 24.90 - -
Education 8.28 2.05 3–12
Self-Reported Health 4.77 1.47 1–7
Social Media Use 4.94 2.11 1–10
Self-Esteem 3.12 1.08 1–4
Envy 1.93 1.08 1–5
Everyday Memory Failures 2.10 0.99 1–5
Objective Episodic Memory 0.00 0.88 −3.05–1.93
Open in a new tab

Note.SM = social media. Sample size is n=592 for all variables except objective episodic memory, for which sample size is n=370.

Table 2.

Correlations among Main Variables of Interest

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Social Media
2. Active SM Use .27***
3. Self Esteem −.09* −.01
4. Envy .40*** .07 −.65***
5. Everyday Memory Failures .47*** .10* −.40*** .59***
6. Episodic Memory −.12* −.13* −.02 −.03 −.05
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

= p < .05

**

= p < .01

***

= p < .001

SM = social media. Sample size is n=592 for all correlations except those involving episodic memory, for which sample size is n=370.

Table 3.

Standardized covariate associations for self-reported everyday memory failures and objective episodic memory performance mediation models

Model 1
 Model 2
β SE β SE
Social Media Use
 Age −.40*** .04 −.34*** .05
 Education .00 .04 −.05 .05
 Female .10* .04 .12* .05
 Self-Reported Health .12** .04 .06 .06
Self-Esteem
 Age .30*** .04 .26*** .05
 Education −.15*** .04 −.11* .05
 Female −.02 .04 −.03 .05
 Self-Reported Health .36*** .04 .38*** .05
Envy
 Age −.32*** .04 −.30*** .05
 Education .12** .04 .02 .05
 Female −.03 .04 −.00 .05
 Self-Reported Health −.18*** .04 −.20*** .05
Everyday Memory Failures
 Age −.13** .04 - -
 Education .03 .03 - -
 Female −.10** .03 - -
 Self-Reported Health −.00 .04 - -
Episodic Memory
 Age - - .00 .06
 Education - - .14** .05
 Female - - .16** .05
 Self-Reported Health - - .05 .06
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

= p < .05

**

= p < .01

***

= p < .001.

Aim 1: Mediation Models

Everyday Memory Failures.

The total effect of social media use on everyday memory failures was significant and positive (standardized total effect= .38, SE = .04, p < .001) such that higher social media use was associated with more self-reported everyday memory failures. When examining indirect effects, envy mediated the association between social media use and everyday memory failures (standardized indirect effect = .10, SE = .02, p < .001). Higher social media use was associated with higher envy (β = .30, SE = .04, p < .001), and higher envy was associated with more everyday memory failures (β = .33, SE = .06, p < .001). Social media use was not associated with self-esteem (p = .518). Therefore, no indirect effect of social media use through self-esteem emerged for everyday memory failures (standardized indirect effect = .003, SE = .01, p = .531). Higher self-esteem, however, was significantly associated with fewer everyday memory failures (β = −.12, SE = .05, p = .021). After accounting for mediators and covariates, a direct effect of social media remained (β = .27, SE = .04, p < .001), such that higher social media use was associated with more everyday memory failures independent of socioemotional mediators.

Episodic Memory.

The total effect of social media use on objective episodic memory performance was significant and negative (standardized total effect = −.13, SE = .06, p = .034). Consistent with the previous model, higher social media use was associated with higher envy (β = .22, SE = .05, p < .001), but not self-esteem (β = .06, SE = .05, p = .257). Neither envy (β = .001, SE = .08, p = .991) nor self-esteem (β = −.03, SE = .07, p = .653) was associated with episodic memory and therefore, there were no indirect effects of social media use on episodic memory through envy or self-esteem (ps > .65). Finally, there was a significant direct effect of higher social media on worse episodic memory (β = −.12, SE = .06, p = .039) independent of the socioemotional mediators.

Sensitivity Analyses

Social Network Size.

As social media is often used to keep in touch with offline social relationships, it may be the case that some of the effects of social media use are driven by offline social relationships. Therefore, we conducted sensitivity analyses additionally controlling for social network size. Social network size was controlled for on all our exposure, mediator, and outcome variables. Social network size was calculated by summing the self-reported number of living children, other relatives, and friends. Initial correlations revealed that having a larger social network was associated with higher social media use (r = .11, p = .006). Importantly, controlling for the effects of social network size did not change the pattern of results.

Exclusion Criteria for Episodic Memory.

We additionally ran sensitivity analyses examining whether the strict exclusion criteria for episodic memory impacted our pattern of findings. Specifically, our exclusion criteria initially excluded 202 participants who were outside of the published 3–5 minute delay time for the episodic memory task (Lezak et al., 2004). In order to assess whether this exclusion criteria impacted our findings, we widened our inclusion criteria to allow participants with delay times of 2–6 minutes to be retained in our analytic sample while still excluding outliers (i.e., those with 0–1 minute delays or delays 7+ minutes). Results from this model (n = 498) demonstrated no total effect of social media use on objective episodic memory functioning (β = −.09, SE = .05, p = .084) and no evidence of mediation through envy or self-esteem (ps > .69).

Aim 2 Moderated Mediation Models

For analyses involving self-reported everyday memory failures, a majority of participants reported passive use (n=444), and a smaller proportion reported active use (n=147). As shown in Table 4, freeing associations between social media use and either self-esteem or envy led to significant improvements in model fit and therefore, these associations were both freed in the final adjusted model of self-reported everyday memory failures. Higher social media use was associated with higher envy to a greater extent for active users (β = .35, SE = .06, p < .001) compared to passive users (β = .27, SE = .05, p < .001). The association between social media use and self-esteem was nonsignificant for both passive users (β = −.05, SE = .04, p = .231) and active users (β = .02, SE = .09, p = .830). Freeing associations between social media use and everyday memory failures did not lead to improved model fit.

Table 4.

Fit Statistics for Multi-Group Models by Active/Passive Use for Self-reported Everyday Memory Failures

Model x 2 Δx2
Fully Constrained Model 50.33 -
Unconstrained social media → self-esteem path 46.23 4.10
Unconstrained social media → envy path 45.55 4.78
Unconstrained social media → episodic memory path 49.65 0.67
Final Adjusted Model 44.77 5.55
Open in a new tab

For analyses involving objective episodic memory, a majority of participants reported passive use (n=289) and a small proportion reported active use (n=80). As shown in Table 5, active/passive use did not moderate any of the associations between social media use, envy, self-esteem, and episodic memory. That is, freeing associations between social media use and envy and self-esteem or between social media use and episodic memory did not lead to significant improvement in fit.

Table 5.

Fit Statistics for Multi-Group Models by Active/Passive Use for Objective Episodic Memory

Model x 2 Δx2
Fully Constrained Model 44.06 -
Unconstrained social media → self-esteem path 42.26 1.80
Unconstrained social media → envy path 43.89 0.17
Unconstrained social media → episodic memory path 44.24 −0.18
Final Adjusted Model 44.06 -
Open in a new tab

Sensitivity Analyses

Active/Passive User Classification.

In our initial analyses, we classified active users as participants who either self-reported “mostly post/comment” or reported “equally both.” Individuals, however, may differ dependent on whether they were primarily active users (i.e., mostly post/comment) or equally both. As such, we ran two sensitivity analyses. First, we excluded those who reported ‘equally both’ and found the same pattern of results as in our primary model. Second, we compared those who reported ‘equally both’ and those who reported ‘mostly post/comment’ to assess whether associations differed across the two groups. This multi-group model revealed no significant moderation, suggesting that those who report ‘equally both’ and those who report ‘mostly post/comment’ did not differ in associations between social media, envy, self-esteem and memory functioning.

Discussion

The current study aimed to assess whether socioemotional consequences of social comparison (i.e., greater envy, lower self-esteem) contribute to associations between social media use and memory functioning and whether these associations differ for individuals who use social media actively versus passively. We found that higher social media use was associated with worse self-reported everyday memory and worse objective episodic memory performance. Higher envy, but not self-esteem, mediated the association between higher social media use and more self-reported everyday memory failures, but neither envy nor self-esteem mediated the association between higher social media use and worse objective episodic memory performance. After accounting for covariates and mediators, significant direct effects of social media use for self-reported everyday memory failures and objective episodic memory performance remained, suggesting that other mechanisms also contribute to the association between social media use and memory. Further, we found active/passive use to moderate the association between social media use and envy. Greater social media use was associated with higher envy to a greater extent in active users relative to passive users, contrasting with our original hypothesis.

Envy: Mediator for Everyday Memory Failures but not Episodic Memory Performance?

Although we found partial support for our initial hypotheses in that higher envy mediated the association between higher social media use and more everyday memory failures, neither envy nor self-esteem was associated with performance on the objective episodic memory task. These contrasting findings may potentially be due to the pathways by which envy influences memory functioning. Envy may affect memory functioning through real-time attentional pathways and therefore inhibit memory to a greater extent in more ecologically relevant settings (i.e., everyday life). When individuals are using social media and are engaging in day-to-day tasks simultaneously, this may inhibit memory functioning to a greater extent rather than in controlled testing environments (i.e., objective episodic memory tasks) when individuals are focusing solely on the task at hand. Indeed, prior experimental research has shown that upward social comparison towards self-evaluative threatening information has been associated with attentional focusing (Normand & Croizet, 2013). That is, individuals increase attention towards the central source of this self-evaluative threatening information and away from peripheral information (i.e., self-evaluation threat model; Muller & Butera, 2007). Consistent with this notion, higher envy has been associated with increased brain activity linked to the allocation of cognitive resources (Zhong, Liu, Zhang, Luo & Chen, 2013), as well as increased memory and attention toward the source of envy in the context of decreased cognitive resources for unrelated tasks (Hill et al., 2011). Being presented with information that is threatening to one’s self-evaluation may also increase rumination (Koole, Smeets, van Knippenberg & Dijksterhuis, 1999), which has also been associated with worse memory functioning (Exner, Martin & Rief, 2009).

Social media sites are a platform in which individuals are consistently presented with information regarding known and unknown others. As an important motive for posting on social media sites is impression management, posted content may be posed (i.e., photos; Hum et al., 2011; Krämer & Winter, 2008), positively framed, and strategically managed to curate self-presentation (Ellison et al., 2006). Thus, individuals who use social media may experience upward social comparison and in turn, allocate attentional resources toward this information. It is important to note that this study is observational and cross-sectional in nature, and therefore, additional experimental and longitudinal studies are necessary to disentangle these associations.

Social media use was not significantly associated with self-esteem, contrasting with our original hypothesis and prior evidence that suggests that higher social media use negatively impacts self-esteem (Hawi & Samaha, 2017; Vogel, Rose, Roberts & Eckles, 2014; Wang et al., 2017). This finding may potentially be attributed to downward social comparisons that occur on social media sites. That is, downward social comparison may occur when a person views another individual’s social media profile that they consider to be worse off than themselves (i.e., I’m doing better than that person). Social media platforms allow for upward as well as downward social comparisons. Prior research has shown that upward social comparison is associated with lower self-esteem whereas downward social comparison is not (see Study 1, Vogel et al., 2014). Additionally, individuals may use online profiles to selectively highlight positive aspects of their own lives and subsequently increase feelings of self-esteem. For instance, in an experimental study, individuals who exclusively looked at their own profiles had higher self-esteem than individuals who viewed profiles of others. Similarly, individuals who updated their profiles had higher self-esteem compared to those who did not (Gonazales & Hancock, 2011).

Higher self-esteem was, however, associated with fewer everyday memory failures. This finding is consistent with our hypothesis that the socioemotional consequences of social comparisons processes, such as higher envy and lower self-esteem, may involve greater experiences of negative affect and rumination that may have negative implications for cognitive functioning. Overall, future research should investigate the specific upward or downward social comparison activities occurring as a result of social media use that may facilitate increases or decreases in self-esteem. Further, future research should directly explore the associations between social comparison processes and cognitive functioning.

Above and beyond envy and self-esteem, significant associations between social media use and both memory outcomes were found, consistent with prior experimental (Soares & Storm, 2018) and observational research (Frein et al., 2013). As envy was only a partial mediator for everyday memory and was not a mediator for objective episodic memory, other mechanisms may play a critical role in explaining these associations. For instance, prior research has shown that other psychosocial pathways such as the experience of negative affect (Sharifian & Zahodne, 2020) and poor sleep quality (Xanidis & Brignell, 2016) mediate the relationship between social media use and cognitive outcomes. Future research should explore other psychosocial mechanisms that may explain the links between social media use and memory functioning.

Moderated Mediation: Active versus Passive Use Influences Envy

Active/Passive use significantly moderated the link between social media use and envy but in the opposite direction of our original hypothesis. Higher social media use was associated with higher envy to a greater extent for active users compared to passive users. This finding contrasts with prior research suggesting that being active on social media sites is linked to better socioemotional outcomes compared to passive use (Escobar-Viera et al., 2018; Krasnova et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2017).

These contradictory findings may potentially be due to the cross-sectional design of this study and/or bidirectional/cyclical relationship between social media use and envy (i.e., envy may drive social media use rather than vice versa). Prior research has also suggested that individual characteristics, such as cognitive biases (Macrynikola & Miranda, 2019) and the type of activity engaged in on social media (Berry, Emsley, Lobban & Bucci, 2018), may predict more maladaptive outcomes. For example, in one experience sampling study following younger adults with and without psychosis, posting about daily activities was associated with higher positive affect and self-esteem. In contrast, posting about their feelings was associated with increased negative affect, paranoia, decreased positive affect, self-esteem, and lower perceived social rank (Berry et al., 2018). Therefore, future research should examine whether individual characteristics as well as the types of activity engaged in influence the association between social media use and envy.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the current study has several strengths, such as the use of an adult lifespan sample and the examination of multiple mediators, there are still notable limitations. First, the current study is cross-sectional and therefore, caution is warranted regarding the directionality of our findings. Future research should utilize experimental and longitudinal designs to examine the short-term and long-term implications of social media use for memory functioning in various settings. Second, the current study assessed self-report engagement on social media sites. Future research should verify whether the same patterns exist when using more objective measures of the quantity of social media use and whether use is active/passive. Self-report measures may be subject to recall bias or socially desirable responding (i.e., don’t want to seem like they are addicted/using frequently during work hours).

Third, although the procedures used in the current study are consistent with prior research distinguishing users as having active or passive use (i.e., Escobar-Viera et al., 2018; Nowland et al., 2018), other prior research studies have further distinguished active use as social or nonsocial (Gerson, Plagnol & Corr, 2017). Additionally, the current study utilized a single, self-reported item to classify participants as active or passive users. Therefore, future research should use more in-depth assessments to obtain more continuous measures of active versus passive use as well as further disaggregate active use as social or non-social, which may clarify some of our unexpected findings.

Fourth, the current study focused on memory functioning; however, social media use may have differential associations with other cognitive domains that warrant exploration. Fifth, the current study utilized an online platform for data collection and therefore, the CERAD was modified to exclusively present the list of words visually rather than its traditional oral-visual presentation. Additionally, as the survey was self-paced rather than administered in-person, the delay time between the immediate and delayed recall trials varied across participants. This may have impacted our pattern of findings and may partially explain the low correlation between everyday memory failures and objective episodic memory. Further research is needed to assess if the same pattern of findings is present when alternative measures are used (i.e., verbal vs. visual presentation, self-paced vs. administered). Finally, although the current study found social media use to be linked to worse memory functioning and higher envy, it is important to note that these results do not indicate that social media use is universally bad or should be avoided. Prior research has linked social media use to socioemotional (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007; Gonzales & Hancock, 2011) and cognitive benefits (Kim & Kim, 2014; Myhre et al., 2017). Future research is necessary to disentangle the underlying factors that may influence whether social media use leads to consequences or benefits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, higher use of social media was associated with more everyday memory failures and lower objective episodic memory. Negative feelings of envy that may stem from increased upward social comparison may partially explain the relationship between social media use and self-reported everyday memory failures, but not objective episodic memory. Further, although both passive and active use was associated with greater envy, higher social media use was found to be associated with even greater envy for active users, suggestive that active use may not always be protective. Future research is necessary to clarify the contexts in which social media use influences memory functioning.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Mediation models depicting associations between social media use, envy, and self-esteem on (A) Self-Reported Everyday Memory Failures and (B) Objective Episodic Memory. Nonsignificant pathways are depicted as gray, dotted lines. For simplicity, covariate associations are not depicted. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001.

Public Significance Statement.

High social media use may have negative ramifications for both subjective and objective memory and feelings of envy partially explained this association for subjective memory, but not objective memory. Future intervention research should investigate whether targeting social media use may benefit socioemotional as well as cognitive outcomes in adulthood.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Institutes on Aging [grant number R01AG054520]. Data collection was supported by a pilot grant to the PI from the Michigan Center on the Demography of Aging (MiCDA; grant number P30 AG012846)

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

1

A sensitivity analysis was conducted running a mediation model including both everyday memory failures and episodic memory simultaneously and allowing them to covary. Result from these analyses did not alter our pattern of findings.

References

  1. Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M & Tice DM (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Behrend TS, Sharek DJ, Meade AW, & Wiebe EN (2011). The viability of crowdsourcing for survey data. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 800–813. 10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berry N, Emsley R, Lobban F, & Bucci S (2018). Social media and its relationship with mood, self-esteem and paranoia in psychosis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 138, 558–570. 10.1111/acps.12953 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Buhrmester MD, Kwang T, & Gosling SD (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high quality data. Perspectives of Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. 10.1177/1745691610393980 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chou HG & Edge N (2012). “They are happier and having better lives than I am”: The impact of using facebook on perceptions of others’ lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 117–121. 10.1089/cyber.2011.0324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Crump MJC, McDonnell JV, & Gureckis TM (2013). Evaluating amazon’s mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLOS One, 8, 1–18. 10.1371/journal.pone.0057410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ellison NB, Steinfield C & Lampe C (2007). The benefits of facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ellison N, Heino R & Gibbs J (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 415–441. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Escobar-Viera CG, Shensa A, Bowman ND, Sidani J, Knight J, James E, & Primack BA (2018). Passive and active social media use and depressive symptoms among united states adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21, 437–443. 10.1089/cyber.2017.0668 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Exner C, Martin V, & Rief W (2009). Self-focused ruminations and memory deficits in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Cognitive Therapies and Research, 33, 163–174. 10.1007/s10608-007-9162-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fox J & Moreland JJ (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 168–176. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.083 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Frien ST, Jones SL & Gerow JE (2013). When it comes to facebook there may be more to bad memory than just multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2179–2182. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Germine L, Nakayama K, Duchaine BC, Chabris CF, Chatterjee G, & Wilmer JB (2012). Is the web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments. Psychon Bull Rev, 19, 847–857. 10.3758/s13423-012-0296-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gerson J, Plagnol AC & Corr PJ (2017). Passive and active facebook use measure (PAUM): Validation and relationship to the reinforcement sensitivity theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 81–90. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.034 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gonzales AL & Hancock JT (2011). Mirror, mirror on my facebook wall: Effects of exposure to facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 79–83. 10.1089/cyber.2009.0411 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Haferkamp N & Krämer NC (2011). Social comparison 2.0: Examining the effects of online profiles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 309–314. 10.1089/cyber.2010.0120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hawi NS & Samaha M (2017). The relations among social media addiction, self-esteem, and life satisfaction in university students. Social Science Computer Review, 35, 576–586. 10.1177/0894439316660340 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hill SE, DelPriore DJ & Vaughan PW (2011). The cognitive consequences of envy: Attention, memory, and self-regulatory depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 653–666. 10.1037/a0023904 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hum NJ, Chamberlin PE, Hambright BL, Portwood AC, Schat AC & Bevan JL (2011). A picture is worth a thousand words: A content analysis of facebook profile photographs. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1828–1833. 10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jamieson JL & Kaszor ND (1986). Social comparison and recovery from stress. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 18, 140–145. 10.1037/h0079979 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kim HJ & Kim J (2014). The impact of senior citizens’ use of online social networks on their cognitive function. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 2, 1–10. 10.5861/ijrset.2014.844 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Koole SL, Smeets K, van Knippenberg A & Dijksterhuis A (1999). The cessation of rumination through self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 111–125. 10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.111 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Krämer NC & Winter S (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 20, 106–116. 10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Krasnova H, Wenninger H, Widjaja T & Buxmann P (2013). Envy on facebook: A hidden threat to users’ life satisfaction? Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI), Leipzig, Germany. [Google Scholar]
  25. Leding JK (2019). Intentional memory and online data collection: A test of the effects on animacy and threat on episodic memory. Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 10.1080/20445911.2018.1564756 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee SY (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites? The case of facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 253–260. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Loring DW, Hannay JH, Fischer JS (2004). Neuropsychological assessment. (4th ed.) Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lin S, Liu N, Niu G, & Longobardi C (2020). Active social network sites use and loneliness: The mediating role of social support and self-esteem. Current Psychology. 10.1007/s12144-020-00658-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Macrynikola N, & Miranda R (2019). Active facebook use and mood: When digital interaction turns maladaptive. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 271–279. 10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mirra SS, Heyman A, McKeel D, Sumi SM, Crain BJ, Brownlee LM, Vogel FS, Hughes JP, van Belle G & Berg L (1991). The consortium to establish a registry for alzheimer’s disease (CERAD). Part II. Standardization of the neuropathologic assessment of alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 41, 479–486. 10.1212/wnl.41.4.479 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Morris JC, Heyman A, Mohs RC, Hughes JP, van Belle G, Fillenbaum G, Melits ED & Clark C (1989). The consortium to establish a registry for alzheimer’s disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical and neuropsychological assessment for alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 39, 1159–1165. 10.1212/wnl.39.9.1159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Muller D & Butera F (2007). The focusing effect of self-evaluation threat in coaction and social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 194–211. 10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Myhre JW, Mehl MR & Glisky EL (2017). Cognitive benefits of online social networking for healthy older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 72, 752–760. 10.1093/geronb/gbw025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Normand A & Croizet J (2013). Upward social comparison generates attentional focusing when the dimension of comparison is self-threatening. Social Cognition, 31, 336–348. 10.1521/soco.2013.31.3.336 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Nowland R, Necka EA & Cacioppo JT (2018). Loneliness and social internet use: Pathways to reconnection in a digital world? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 70–87. 10.1177/1745691617713052 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Ozimek P, & Bierhoff H (2020). All my online-friends are better than me – three studies about ability-based comparative social media use, self-esteem, and depressive tendencies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39, 1110–1123. 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1642385 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pew Research Center. (March, 2018). Social Media Use in 2018.Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. [Google Scholar]
  38. Rosen LD, Whaling K, Carrier LM, Cheever NA, & Rokkum J (2013). The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2501–2511. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rosenberg M (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. Royle J & Lincoln NB (2008). The everyday memory questionnaire – revised: Development of a 13-item scale. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, 114–121. 10.1080/09638280701223876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Sharifian N & Zahodne LB (2020). Social media bytes: Daily associations between social media use and everyday memory failures across the adult life span. The Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 10.1093/geronb/gbz005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sharifian N & Zahodne LB (2020). Daily associations between social media use and memory failures: The mediating role of negative affect. The Journal of General Psychology. 10.1080/00221309.2020.1743228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Smith RH, Parrott WG, Diener EF, Hoyle RH & Kim SH (1999). Dispositional envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1007–1020. 10.1177/01461672992511008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Soares JS & Storm BC (2018). Forget in a flash: A further investigation of the photo-taking-impairment effect. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 154–160. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.10.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Song MK, Lin FC, Ward SE & Fine JP Composite variables: When and how. Nursing Research, 62, 45–49. 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3182741948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sunderland A, Harris JE, & Baddeley AD (1983). Do laboratory tests predict everyday memory? A neuropsychological study. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav, 22, 727–738. 10.1016/s0022-5371(83)90229-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Tamir DI, Templeton EM, Ward AF & Zaki J (2018). Media usage diminishes memory for experiences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 161–168. 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.01.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tandoc EC, Ferrucci P, & Duffy M (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: Is facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 139–146. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.053 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Turel O, & Qahri-Saremi H (2016). Problematic use of social networking sites: Antecedents and consequences from a dual-system theory perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33, 1087–1116. 10.1080/07421222.2016.1267529 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Vogel ER, Rose JP, Roberts LR & Eckles K (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3, 206–222. 10.1037/ppm0000047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang H, Yang T, Gaskin J, & Wang J (2019). The longitudinal association between passive social networking site usage and depressive symptoms: The mediating role of envy and the moderating role of life satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 38, 181–199. 10.1521/JSCP.2019.38.2.181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Wang R, Yang F & Haigh MM (2017). Let me take a selfie: Exploring the psychological effects of posting and viewing selfies and groupies on social media. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 274–283. 10.1016/j.tele.2016.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Xanidis N & Brignell CM (2016). The association between the use of social network sites, sleep quality and cognitive function during the day. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 121–126. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zaheed AB, Sharifian N, Kraal AZ, Sol K, Hence A, & Zahodne LB (2019). Unique effects of perceived neighborhood physical disorder and social cohesion on episodic memory and semantic fluency. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 34, 1346–1355. 10.1093/arclin/acy098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhong J, Liu Y, Zhang E, Luo J & Chen J (2013). Individuals’ attentional bias toward an envied target’s name: An event-related potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 550, 109–114. 10.1016/j.neulet.2013.06.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES