Genes, Not Just Screens: Twin Study Finds Only Small Links Between Social Media and Well‑Being

Genes, Not Just Screens: What a Twin Study Reveals About Social Media and Mental Health

Dutch researchers report that the relationship between social media use and personal well‑being is weak overall—and that genetic differences help explain part of even that modest link. Analyzing data from a Netherlands twin registry of 6,492 people, the team finds measurable heritability for social media habits and only small correlations between those habits and mental‑health outcomes.

"We shouldn't let headlines like 'social media is toxic' distract us from what really matters: each person's unique background and current state of life," lead author Selim Sametoğlu told the Max Planck Society.

The paper, published in Behavior Genetics, examined multiple social‑media measures—including number of platforms used, daily time on social media, and posting frequency—alongside well‑being indicators such as anxiety and depression symptoms, life satisfaction, happiness, flourishing, and quality of life. Participants were 6,492 twins (both identical and fraternal) aged 16 to 89 (mean age 35); 71% were women.

Key findings

• Overall correlations between social‑media behavior and well‑being were modest: "statistically significant, yet small," the researchers write.
• Some well‑being measures—most notably flourishing—were positively associated with using more platforms and with greater time spent on social media in this sample.
• The twin design suggests genetic influences on social‑media habits: heritability estimates reached as high as 72% for daily time spent on social media and up to 54% for posting frequency.
• Behaviorally, frequent posting on a small number of platforms was linked to lower well‑being, while passive engagement across a larger number of platforms showed weaker associations with poorer outcomes.

What this means

The authors argue these results undermine simplistic, one‑size‑fits‑all claims that social media is universally harmful. Sametoğlu and colleagues caution against policies based on the assumption that broadly shielding people from platforms will cure social or psychological problems. Instead, they call for interventions that account for individual differences—genetics, life circumstances, and social support.

"Our research helps move the conversation away from simplistic claims that social media is either 'good' or 'bad' for everyone," Sametoğlu said. "We show that the effects are modest, and more importantly, at least partly shaped by individual genetic differences."

Limitations and caveats

Important caveats apply: the study is observational and cannot prove causation; social‑media measures relied on self‑report; the sample is Dutch and majority female, which may limit generalizability. The findings show that genetics and personal context are part of a complex mix of factors determining how social media relates to mental health—not that genes fully determine outcomes.

In short, the study suggests nuance: some people may be affected negatively by certain social‑media behaviors, others not, and genetic predispositions partly shape both online habits and their psychological correlates. Policies and clinical responses should reflect that complexity rather than assume universal harms or benefits.

Source: Paper in Behavior Genetics; reporting by the Max Planck Society and Reason.