Media Excess & Mental Health

CLINICAL REFLECTIONS

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health problem in the United States, with prevalence rates increasing over the last 20 years.^1,2 Anxiety rates have also increased, especially in young adults.³ The reasons behind these trends are complex and multifactorial, but our unlimited access to mass media is worth considering.

One specific example is the media’s coverage of news and current events. Historically this was isolated to newspapers, radio, and local television networks, but the emergence of the 24-hour news cycle on cable news networks and the internet has made access virtually unlimited. Negativity in news coverage is common and nothing new, but the trend has been increasing in recent decades.⁴ Researchers have tried to explain this trend and have found viewers show an increase in physiological activation (measured by normalized skin-conductance levels and heart rate variability) when exposed to negative news coverage.⁴ A 2023 study found negative words in news headlines increased user consumption rates online, especially in topics like government and the economy.⁵ Others have shown high valence emotions (such as fear and anger) are related to increased online sharing behavior.⁵ This supports the “if it bleeds, it leads” concept that negative headlines increase viewer engagement and that media organizations respond accordingly, giving their customers what they want.

It is reasonable to consider how much this negativity impacts the mental health of the consumers. Don Grant, PhD, president of American Psychological Association’s Society for Media Psychology and Technology, refers to the constant accessibility of negative news content as media saturation overload, while others have coined the terms doomscrolling, headline anxiety, and headline stress disorder when referring to the associated psychological strain of this near constant exposure.⁶ The American Psychological Association’s Stress in America survey showed that 83% of Americans reported stress over the nation’s future (contributing themes included the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy, and racial injustice) in 2020, and 73% of Americans felt overwhelmed by the number of crises facing the world in 2023.⁶

Politics are a source of overwhelmingly negative news coverage. Politicians routinely engage in negative campaigning, going beyond policy disagreements by personally criticizing others and, more recently, insulting and demonizing their opponents. Why this happens is up for debate. Some feel the public’s negativity bias makes it an effective tool at reducing an opponent’s support and mobilizing one’s own voters.⁷ Others feel they are responding to the media’s willingness to give more coverage to this type of content.⁸ It is unclear how strategically effective this is; the resulting boomerang effect shows potential voters who dislike the negativity become politically disengaged and less likely to vote.⁷ This also has a probable effect on our mental health. In 2019, researchers surveyed 800 respondents about the impact of politics on their lives: 40% reported stress; 20% reported poor sleep, feeling depressed, and problems with friends/family; and 10% to 30% reported an emotional toll by triggering feelings of anger and hate.⁹

This problem is made worse by media bias, as different outlets may cover topics differently depending on their ideology, leading to distrust among viewers. Researchers at the University of Rochester, New York, found increasing media bias in coverage of domestic and social issues when examining 1.8 million headlines from 2014 to 2022.¹⁰ With increased access, consumers can select news content that confirms their existing beliefs and insulate themselves from anything that contradicts these views. As a result, they are no longer exposed to balanced and unbiased information and their own beliefs are further solidified. Complex issues are oversimplified as consumers regress to black-and-white thinking; those who agree with us are “good,” and those who disagree are “bad.”

Some of this can be explained by social identity theory, which suggests some of our personal identity is based on our group membership. While important and necessary, it can also lead to problems when we are confronted with those who appear different. Examples of the negative impact of tribalism include groups avoiding, using stereotypes about, and developing negative attitudes toward other groups who feel differently.¹¹ No one group appears more or less guilty, as research on the ideological-conflict hypothesis has found liberals and conservatives equally intolerant of those who are ideologically dissimilar.¹² As a result, substantive debates become increasingly hostile and vulgar, occasionally leading to physical confrontation and political violence.

Social media is another trend worth considering. The potential benefits include social connection, peer support, and access to educational resources and entertainment.^13,14 But there are also important risks associated, including body image dissatisfaction, cyberbullying, internet addiction, loneliness, and negative impact on mood.¹³ Youth appear particularly vulnerable to these risks. A longitudinal cohort study of 6595 participants aged 12 to 15 years found that those who spent more than 3 hours per day on social media were at higher risk for poor mental health outcomes, including anxiety and depression.¹⁵ The US surgeon general issued a Social Media and Youth Mental Health Advisory in 2023 and called for a surgeon general warning label on social media platforms in 2024.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic seemed to exacerbate these problems. Suddenly, many were unable to work or go to school. We were spending less time in person with friends, family, and coworkers, and spending more time online and watching TV, increasing our exposure to negative content and social media, and retreating further into media echo chambers that reinforce our views. Of course, the pandemic worsened our mental health in other ways, bringing considerable stresses around health, isolation, education, employment, and finances.

Concluding Thoughts

Although we are out of the worst of the pandemic, these problems remain. Media excess, negative headlines, political hostility, network bias, social media, and tribalism are not going anywhere. Most of these problems are beyond our immediate control, but maybe we can shift our collective attitude from judgment and close-mindedness to tolerance and respect. Richard A. Friedman, MD, said, “If we have learned anything about the nature of tribalism and bias, it is that humans can be easily encouraged and acculturated to fear—or tolerate—the Other. Perhaps there is hope for us.”¹⁶

On a more individual and pragmatic level, self-reflection might help. Taking an inventory of our media exposure, specifically considering content, quantity, and emotional impact, could increase insight and lead to a more informed decision about our consumption patterns. Although this task may be relatively straightforward for autonomous decision-making adults, it is more complicated for younger patients and their parents. Perhaps this is where psychiatry can—and should—provide support and guidance.

Dr Anderson is the director of the Clinical Trials Unit at the Institute of Living – Hartford Hospital, and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine.

References

1. Goodwin RD, Dierker LC, Wu M, et al. Trends in U.S. depression prevalence from 2015 to 2020: the widening treatment gap. Am J Prev Med. 2022;63(5):726-733.

2. Witters D. U.S. depression rates reach new highs. Gallup. May 17, 2023. Accessed January 2, 2025. https://news.gallup.com/poll/505745/depression-rates-reach-new-highs.aspx

3. Goodwin RD, Weinberger AH, Kim JH, et al. Trends in anxiety among adults in the United States, 2008-20018: rapid increases among young adults. J Psychiatr Res. 2020;130:441-446.

4. Soroka S, Fournier P, Nir L. Cross-national evidence of a negativity bias in psychosocial reactions to news. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(38):18888-18892.

5. Robertson CE, Pröllochs N, Schwarzenegger K, et al. Negativity drives online news consumption. Nat Hum Behav. 2023;7(5):812-822.

6. Huff C. Media overload is hurting our mental health: here are ways to manage headline stress. Monitor on Psychology. 2022;53(8):20.

7. Haselmayer M. Negative campaigning and its consequences: a review and look ahead. French Politics. 2019;17:355-372.

8. Poljak Ž. Give the media what they need: negativity as a media access tool for politicians. Int J Press Polit. Published online March 3, 2024.

9. Smith KB, Hibbing MV, Hibbing JR. Friends, relatives, sanity and health: the costs of politics. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0221870.

10. Pan J, Qi W, Wang Z, et al. Bias or diversity? unravelling fine-grained thematic discrepancy in US news headlines. University of Rochester. 2023. Accessed January 2, 2025. https://workshop-proceedings.icwsm.org/pdf/2023_25.pdf

11. Kim Y, Hwang H, Kim Y. The “us vs them” mentality: the role of affective polarization in deepening the partisan divide in media bias perception. Journal Mass Commun Q. Published online November 25, 2023.

12. Brandt MJ, Reyna C, Chambers JR, et al. The ideological-conflict hypothesis: intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2014;23(1):27-34.

13. Zsila Á, Reyes MES. Pros & cons: impacts of social media on mental health. BMC Psychol. 2023;11:201.

14. Naslund JA, Bondre A, Torous J, Aschbrenner KA. Social media and mental health: benefits, risks, and opportunities for research and practice. J Technol Behav Sci. 2020;5(3):245-257.

15. Riehm KE, Feder KA, Tormohlen KN, et al. Associations between time spent using social media and internalizing and externalizing problems among US youth. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(12):1266-1273.

16. Friedman RA. Overcoming tribalism. Psychiatr Serv. 2018;69(9):946-947.