Journal of Cyberspace Studies

Journal of Cyberspace Studies

Online and divided: Social media's effects on American life

Document Type : Original article

Authors
1 Department of Social Communication Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Department of Cyberspace Studies, Communication Research Institute Research Institute for Culture, Art, and Communication, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Background: Social media is deeply embedded in American political and social life, yet evidence about its consequences remains fragmented across single outcomes, specific platforms, and predominantly younger populations. It therefore remains unclear whether its associations extend broadly across social life or are concentrated in particular domains and operate through distinct communicative and psychological mechanisms.
Aims: This study examines the relationships between social media engagement and five domains of American social life— political polarisation, institutional trust, subjective wellbeing, racial attitudes, and religious practice— and tests the mediating roles of online political talk, cross-cutting exposure, and anticipated loneliness without internet access.
Methodology: Data were drawn from the 2024 General Social Survey (N= 3,986), with model-specific subsamples resulting from its split-ballot design. Descriptive statistics, Spearman correlations, multivariate ordinary least squares regressions with demographic controls, and observed-variable path analyses were employed.
Findings: Given the cross-sectional design, the findings are interpreted as associational rather than causal. Greater social media engagement was associated with higher ideological extremity (β= 0.058, P= 0.044) and greater anticipated loneliness without internet access (β= 0.375, P < 0.001). Path analysis indicated that the relationship between social media engagement and polarisation was primarily channelled through online political talk (indirect effect: β= 0.230, P < 0.001). Cross-cutting exposure also produced a smaller positive indirect effect (β= 0.034, P= 0.026), suggesting that encountering opposing views online may intensify rather than reduce polarisation. Social media engagement had no significant direct association with happiness but showed a significant negative indirect association through anticipated loneliness (β= −0.018, P < 0.001). No significant associations emerged for institutional trust or religious practice, while only a small negative association was found for endorsement of innate explanations of racial inequality. Overall, social media’s associations with American social life appear selective and mechanism-dependent rather than universal.
Conclusion: They are concentrated in politically expressive interaction and psychological dependency, shifting analytical attention from exposure alone to platform affordances that reward adversarial participation and continuous connectivity. These findings support a domain-sensitive and mechanism-centred approach to digital media effects while underscoring the need for longitudinal and experimental verification.
Keywords
Subjects

Main Object: Humanities & Social Sciences; Social Media Engagement; Political Polarisation

Allcott, H.; Gentzkow, M. & Song, L. (2022). “Digital addiction”. American Economic Review. 112(7): 2424-2463. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20210867.
Bail, C.A.; Argyle, L.P.; Brown, T.W.; Bumpus, J.P.; Chen, H.; Hunzaker, M.B.F.; Lee, J.; Mann, M.; Merhout, F. & Volfovsky, A. (2018). “Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115(37): 9216-9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115.
Bonilla, Y. & Rosa, J. (2015). “#Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States”. American Ethnologist. 42(1): 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12112.
Davern, M.; Bautista, R.; Freese, J.; Herd, P. & Morgan, S.L. (2025). General Social Survey 1972–2024: Codeboo k(Release 3). NORC at the University of Chicago. https://gss.norc.org/get-documentation.html.
Fuchs, C. (2014). “Social media and the public sphere”. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. 12(1): 57-101. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v12i1.552.
Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Burger, T. MIT Press.
Lorenz-Spreen, P.; Oswald, L.; Lewandowsky, S. & Hertwig, R. (2023). “A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy”. Nature Human Behaviour. 7(1): 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1.
Mundt, M.; Ross, K. & Burnett, C.M. (2018). “Scaling social movements through social media: The case of Black Lives Matter”. Social Media + Society. 4(4): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118807911.
Pew Research Center. (2025). “Social media and news fact sheet”. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/
Sunstein, C.R. (2017). “#Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400884711.
Twenge, J.M. (2017). iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, more Tolerant, Less Happy— and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. Atria Books.
Twenge, J.M. & Campbell, W.K. (2019). “Media use is linked to lower psychological well-being: Evidence from three datasets”. Psychiatric Quarterly. 90(2): 311-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-019-09630-7.
Valkenburg, P.M.; Meier, A. & Beyens, I. (2022). “Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence”. Current Opinion in Psychology. 44: 58-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.017.
Whiting, A. & Williams, D. (2013). “Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach”. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 16(4): 362-369. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041.

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 26 July 2026

  • Receive Date 04 May 2026
  • Revise Date 06 May 2026
  • Accept Date 07 May 2026
  • First Publish Date 26 July 2026
  • Publish Date 26 July 2026