Feeds, feelings, and focus: A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the cognitive and mental health correlates of short-form video use
Nguyen L, Walters J, Paul S, Monreal Ijurco S, Rainey GE, Parekh N, Blair G, Darrah M
Psychological bulletin · 29 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2025-09-01 · Psychol Bull · vol. 151 · issue 9 · pp. 1125–1146
- Publisher
- American Psychological Association
- Cited
- 63 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 47.4× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 0 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Media Influence and Health · Impact of Technology on Adolescents · Child Development and Digital Technology
- Keywords
- TikTok, Douyin, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, cognitive function, attention, inhibitory control, stress, anxiety, mental health, social media addiction, body image, self-esteem
- MeSH
- humans, emotions, anxiety, mental health, cognition, attention, video recording, social media
8 authors
From AU
- Lan NguyenGriffith University
- Jared WaltersGriffith University
- Siddharth PaulGriffith University
- Shay Monreal IjurcoGriffith University
- Georgia E RaineyGriffith University
- Nupur ParekhGriffith University
Abstract
The resurgence of short-form videos (SFVs), popularized by TikTok and Douyin, has transformed social media platforms, with features like Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts fostering their widespread adoption. Although initially geared toward entertainment, SFVs are increasingly used in education, political campaigns, advertising, and consumerism, yet their design, characterized by endless scrolling interfaces, has raised concerns about addiction and negative health implications. Given the recent surge of studies on SFV apps, a comprehensive synthesis is needed to clarify how SFV use relates to different health indicators. This systematic review and meta-analytic investigation comprised data from 98,299 participants across 71 studies. Increased SFV use was associated with poorer cognition (moderate mean effect size, r = -.34), with attention (r = -.38) and inhibitory control (r = -.41) yielding the strongest associations. Similarly, increased SFV use was associated with poorer mental health (weak mean effect size, r = -.21), with stress (r = -.34) and anxiety (r = -.33) showing the strongest associations. These findings were consistent across youth and adult samples and across different SFV platforms. Relatively few studies examined cognitive domains beyond attention and inhibitory control (e.g., memory, reasoning), highlighting critical directions for future research. Interestingly, SFV use was not associated with body image or self-esteem, which may reflect the diverse content and creators featured on these platforms. Further research is therefore needed to clarify how different types of content exposure may shape these associations. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of understanding the broader health implications of SFV use, given its pervasive role in daily life and potential to impact health, behavior, and well-being. By synthesizing current evidence, this study provides a critical foundation for future research to explore understudied health domains (e.g., cognitive health, physical health) and offers insights to guide public discourse and the development of research-informed approaches for promoting more balanced engagement with SFVs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.