The title of Modernity does not exaggerate too much. A Griffith University-led meta-analysis of 71 studies and 98,299 participants confirms what many have long suspected:
Heavy use of short-form videos (TikTok, Reels, Shorts) is consistently associated with poorer attention, inhibition, and mental health.(PubMed)
But lest we ourselves become zombies of moral panic, let’s get the facts straight: what the research actually says, what it doesn’t say – and how all this relates to civilisation, politics and what kind of electorate we will have in the future.
What the researchers really did – and what they found
This is not a single ”TikTok is bad” survey, but a systematic review and meta-analysis in the psychologically peer-reviewed journal Psychological Bulletin(ResearchGate).
A short summary of the findings:
- Data: 71 studies, with a total of 98 299 participants from different countries
- Platforms: TikTok/Douyin, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, etc. SFV feeds
- Main results:
- More SFV use → poorer cognition (medium association, r ≈ -0.34)
- Those who are particularly hard hit:
- attentional control(r ≈ -0.38)
- inhibitory processes / inhibitory control(r ≈ -0.41)
- More SFV use → poorer mental health (weaker but clear association, r ≈ -0.21), especially
- stress(r ≈ -0.34)
- anxiety(r ≈ -0.33)(PubMed)
The associations were in the same direction in both adolescents and adults and across all platforms examined.(PubMed)
In other words:
- the more life revolves around an endless scrolling video feed,
- the more likely it is that your concentration will falter, your self-regulation will stagnate and your mental well-being will crack.
Important note: the researchers stress that it is a question of correlations, not a directly proven causal relationship. Some people may seek SFV content precisely because they are already in a low concentration or low mood. Yet the association is so consistent and strong that it cannot be overridden by a whisper(PubMed)
What does ”brain frying” mean cognitively?
”Zombie brain colic” is a good image because it’s catchy, but let’s break it down into cognitive language. Short-form videos specifically hit the executive functions area:
- Management of alertness
– SFV feeds are built on rapid context switches, jumping information and continuous micro-rewards.
– Several experimental studies have shown that short video addicts underperform on Stroop tasks, reaction time and filtering distractions(ResearchGate). - Inhibitory control (inhibitory control)
– In the meta-analysis, it was the inhibitory control that suffered most(r ≈ -0.41)(PubMed)
– In other words: ”i know i should stop after this video, but my hand still keeps swiping” - Prospective memory (”remember to do X later”)
– a separate laboratory experiment found that a TikTok-type feeder impaired the ability to recall previously set tasks, while no effect was found in the Twitter/Youtube/Nothing groups.(arXiv)
This does not yet mean irreversible brain damage, but it means something else, almost worse:
basic everyday skills – concentrating, keeping decisions in mind, restraining impulses – quietly languish in the background.
The ”zombie generation” – hysteria or realistic risk?
It is easy to say that ”all generations have been concerned about the brains of young people”:
- from comics,
- on TV,
- video games,
- on the internet.
The difference is that the TikTok format is not just content, but a whole neurochemical operating system:
- endless feedi, no natural stopping point
- the algorithm optimises the maximum hook for that moment
- instant feedback (likes, comments, new clips)
The research evidence is starting to stack up:
- meta-analysis (71 studies) – big picture – poorer attention and mental health(PubMed)
- several individual studies – SFV addicts perform less well on attention tasks and report more concentration problems, stress and procrastination(PMC)
Modernity (and many other commentators) takes this one step further:
a fragmented, dopamine-connected mind is a more manageable mind.
When people learn to consume reality in 15-second chunks, it’s much easier:
- sell them simplified narratives
- sell them products
- sell them a policy that doesn’t stand up to two paragraphs of deeper scrutiny
Is it ”the decline of civilisation”? Depends who you ask – but the direction does not look particularly promising.
Is there hope? Short videos are not inherently a bad medium
It is important to note that the format itself is not automatically destructive.
For example, a recent study of the ReelsEd system showed that short-form, well-designed instructional content improved student test performance and efficiency without increasing cognitive load compared to traditional long lecture videos.(arXiv)
The difference is this:
- entertainment- and ad-driven feeds → optimised hooks, not for learning
- pedagogically designed short videos → limited content, clear objective, no intentional endless hooking
In other words:
The basic logic of TikTok is ”keep the person on the screen as long as possible”.
The logic of learning would be ”give it enough attention and then let the person get on with their life”.
At the moment, the former wins the funding, while the latter is mainly preached by teachers, researchers – and the occasional nutter who still has the energy to read books.
How does this relate to politics and democracy?
At this point, ”zombie electorate” is no longer just a throwaway. If:
- deep reading becomes more difficult
- working through complex problems feels overwhelming
- attention is silently fragmented into 15-30 second contexts
…it will inevitably show:
- the ability to understand economic and energy policies
- willingness to work on treaty texts, directives, draft legislation
- in the way the media and politicians packaged their messages
When the audience is used to emotional, visually overheated micro-clips, rational argument is easily lost. The winner is the one who offers:
- the simplest enemy image
- the most spectacular cut
- best memorability
Of course, the study does not say that ”TikTok is destroying democracy”. It is saying that when concentration and inhibition deteriorate on a large scale, the cognitive bedrock of society as a whole begins to crumble.(PubMed)
What an individual can do – without moving into a cave
If you’ve read this far, you’re already a statistical rarity – congratulations.
But what do we do with this information?
- Raise consumption awareness
- disable automatic access: no thumbnail on the home page
- put use in limited ”slot-work” (e.g. 10-15 min 1-2 times a day)
- Use SFV on purpose, not as background noise
- follow educational, analytical and deep-dive content
- avoid endless browsing of the ”anything goes” feed
- Exercise your counter-strengths
- long reading (books, long articles)
- tasks that require hours of immersion (programming, painting, writing, crafts)
- Switch off – for real
- a screen-free day now and then does more than any mindfulness app
It’s not that TikTok is ”sinful”, it’s that SFV feeds are built directly against the parts of the brain we need most to remain human, not extensions of algorithms.
📊 What do the numbers really mean?
The meta-analysis r ≈ -0.34 for cognition does not sound crushing at first glance, but:(PubMed)
- when squared(r² ≈ 0.12), it means that about 12% of the variation in cognitive performance is explained by SFV use in those studies.
- this is a fairly large effect in psychological research, especially when we are talking about one behaviour among many others.
Mental health r ≈ -0.21 gives r² ≈ 0.04 – about 4% variation. It’s smaller, but when you’re dealing with millions of people, even a small average shift for the worse means a huge amount of additional anxiety, stress and depression at the population level.(madinamerica.com)
In addition:
- this is only the starting point – most studies only looked at attention and inhibition
- memory, reasoning and other higher-level functions are just coming under the radar
In other words: when the headline screams ”TikTok fries your brain”, the underlying science is not just a clickbait headline. It may not prove a zombie apocalypse – but it does show a statistically clear, recurring and worrying trend.
📚 Sources
- Nguyen, L. et al. (2025) Feeds, Feelings, and Focus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Examining the Cognitive and Mental Health Correlates of Short-Form Video Use – Psychological Bulletin / PsycNet & PubMed
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41231585/(PubMed) - Arouch, S. et al. (2025): The Impact of Short-Form Video Use on Cognitive and Mental Health – medRxiv preprint
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.08.27.25334540v2(medrxiv.org) - Mad in America: Short-Form Video Linked to Worse Cognitive and Mental Health
https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/11/short-form-video-linked-to-worse-cognitive-and-mental-health/(madinamerica.com) - Chen, Y. et al. (2022): The effect of short-form video addiction on users’ attention – Behaviour & Information Technology
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2151512(ResearchGate) - Yan, T. et al. (2024): Mobile phone short video use negatively impacts attention and executive control – Frontiers in Psychology / PMC
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11236742/(PMC) - Chiencharoenthanakij, R. et al. (2025): Short-Form Video Media Use Is Associated With Greater Inattentive Behaviors – Journal of Attention Disorders / PMC
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12230358/(PMC) - Xie, J. et al. (2023): The effect of short-form video addiction on undergraduates’ academic procrastination – BMC Psychology / PMC
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10756502/(PMC) - Chiossi, F. et al. (2023): Short-Form Videos Degrade Our Capacity to Retain Intentions: Effect of Context Switching On Prospective Memory – arXiv
https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03714(arXiv) - Stavrinou, L. et al. (2025): The Reel Deal: Designing and Evaluating LLM-Generated Short-Form Educational Videos – arXiv (ReelsEd system)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05962(arXiv)