Frontoparietal functional connectivity moderates the link between time spent on social media and subsequent negative affect in daily life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence on the harms and benefits of social media use is mixed, in part because the effects of social media on well-being depend on a variety of individual difference moderators. Here, we explored potential neural moderators of the link between time spent on social media and subsequent negative affect. We specifically focused on the strength of correlation among brain regions within the frontoparietal system, previously associated with the top-down cognitive control of attention and emotion. Participants (N = 54) underwent a resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging scan. Participants then completed 28 days of ecological momentary assessment and answered questions about social media use and negative affect, twice a day. Participants who spent more than their typical amount of time on social media since the previous time point reported feeling more negative at the present moment. This within-person temporal association between social media use and negative affect was mainly driven by individuals with lower resting state functional connectivity within the frontoparietal system. By contrast, time spent on social media did not predict subsequent affect for individuals with higher frontoparietal functional connectivity. Our results highlight the moderating role of individual functional neural connectivity in the relationship between social media and affect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".