Evidence Hub

Feeds, feelings, and focus: A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the cognitive and mental health correlates of short-form video use

Lân Nguyen, Jared Walters, S. Paul, Shay Monreal Ijurco, Georgia E Rainey, Nupur Parekh, G. Blair, Miranda Darrah

Psychological bulletin, 2025

98,299 participants · 66 citations

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 98,299 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free