Paying people to leave Facebook for four weeks made them a little happier, less informed and less polarised
In a randomised trial before the 2018 US midterms, 1,661 users were paid to deactivate for four weeks. Well-being rose 0.09 standard deviations, news knowledge and polarisation fell, and they used Facebook less for weeks after.
Well-supported by good-quality research. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: A small effect (0.09 SD) in self-selected users paid to deactivate during an election; mood measured by daily texts did not move significantly. The companion Hunt trial is 143 students over three weeks.
The largest randomised experiment on social media and well-being, and why its result is both real and small.
Significant findings
Allcott, Braghieri, Eichmeyer and Gentzkow recruited 2,743 US Facebook users through ads and offered them money to deactivate for the four weeks before the November 2018 midterm election. The 61 percent willing to deactivate for less than $102 were randomised to a paid treatment group or a control group; 1,661 were in the impact sample, and compliance exceeded 90 percent. Deactivation freed about 60 minutes a day. Treated users spent more time offline, "watching TV alone and socializing with family and friends", and less on other online activity. It "increased subjective well-being": the overall index rose 0.09 standard deviations, with the largest gains in life satisfaction, which the authors benchmark at "25-40 percent of the effect of psychological interventions" in a 2013 meta-analysis. It also "reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization" (0.19 and 0.16 standard deviations). Afterwards the treatment group used the Facebook app 11 to 12 minutes a day less, about 22 to 23 percent below control, and 80 percent said deactivation was good for them.
A smaller trial points the same way. Hunt, Marx, Lipson and Young (Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 2018;37:751) randomised 143 Pennsylvania undergraduates to cap Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat at 10 minutes each a day for three weeks, about 30 minutes in total. The limited group showed "significant reductions in loneliness and depression"; both groups improved on anxiety and fear of missing out, which the authors attribute to self-monitoring.
The other direction
0.09 standard deviations is small. Daily text-message mood measures moved in the right direction but not significantly. Participants were self-selected, willing to quit for money, and studied during an election; the median person still wanted $100 to give Facebook up for a month, so they valued it. Deactivation also cost people news knowledge. The Hunt trial was 143 students for three weeks. Funding for the Allcott trial: Sloan and Knight foundations; it was preregistered in the AEA registry.
What this does not show
It does not show that quitting social media treats depression or anxiety, and it is not a reason to change any treatment.
Worth asking
What would I do with an extra hour a day, and would I notice the difference?
Source
The Welfare Effects of Social Media — Allcott H, Braghieri L, Eichmeyer S, Gentzkow M (2020)
Top-tier peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190658
DOI: 10.1257/aer.20190658
How this was scored
- Study design
- Randomised controlled trial
- Funding
- Independently funded
- Published in
- Top-tier peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- 1,661
- Preregistered
- Yes
- Conflicts disclosed
- not recorded
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published October 7, 2026.
Where we put this study in context
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
veisund rates this source "strong evidence". Well-supported by good-quality research. It scores 84 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: A small effect (0.09 SD) in self-selected users paid to deactivate during an election; mood measured by daily texts did not move significantly. The companion Hunt trial is 143 students over three weeks. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
The Welfare Effects of Social Media — Allcott H, Braghieri L, Eichmeyer S, Gentzkow M (2020). Published in: Top-tier peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20190658. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Randomised controlled trial. Funding: Independently funded. Independence from the proponent is not recorded. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.