Habits in social networks are partially inherited – genetics found out

Recent work of scientists published Behavioral Genetics She showed that genes can affect not only what eyes we look at the world, but also How we hang in social networks and how it reflects in our spiritual state. Some of the connections between the use of platforms and psychological well -being are not explained at all by the networks themselves, but by a general genetic background.

The study was conducted using a register of twins – it has more than six thousand people, among them both one -eating and multi -tier twins. This approach allows you to separate the influence of the environment from hereditary features. Participants asked questions about the time on the Internet, the number of accounts, the frequency of publications, as well as the mood, anxiety, depression and the sense of meaning in life.

The results were curious. Yes, there really are connections between activity in social networks and mental health, but they are so tiny that they can hardly reach the statistical significance. On average, the coefficients ranged somewhere around −0.09 to 0.10. For example, people who often lay out posts are slightly less likely to feel satisfaction from life, but the difference is scanty. The explanation of these numbers is much more important. Scientists have found that A noticeable part of associations is associated with hereditary factors.

In other words, the same genes that make a person inclined, say, anxiety, can affect how actively he sits in social networks. It turns out that the point is not so much in the platform as that we bring to it initially.

Interestingly, the habits themselves on the Internet are also inherited. The time spent in the networks turned out to be “sewn up” in genes by about 72%, the frequency of publications by 54%, and the number of accounts – by 32%. The rest is already explained by the personal environment – the events and circumstances that even the Gemini do not share.

There were unexpected strokes. For example, an indicator of “conscious well -being” – a sense of meaning and involvement in life – is positively connected with the number of accounts and time in social networks. But other indicators of happiness and satisfaction showed feedback. This leads scientists to the idea that social networks can play both a bright and dark role, depending on which aspects of well -being we are considering.

The picture came out motley. People with a high level of well -being are more likely to sit on several platforms at once, but look more than they write. Those who are harder, on the contrary, publish posts more often, but do this on a limited number of sites. However, the authors are immediately stipulated: any such conclusions should be checked additionally.

Researchers themselves emphasize that they were not able to show a direct causal relationship. It is impossible to unequivocally say that social networks spoil the psyche, or vice versa, that the mood dictates activity on the Internet. One thing is clear: the general genetic soil significantly affects both.

Scientists note that the alarming headlines about the “catastrophic influence” of social networks on adolescents and adults are clearly exaggerated. There is influence, but it is weak, fragmented and largely depends on personal characteristics, including genetics. According to the leading author Selim Sametoglu:

“Social networks are more like a TV or a phone: yes, they change everyday life, but do not automatically turn our life into a tragedy.”