Social media, self esteem: What's the connection?
Megan Moreno,
Tribune News Service
Ever since social media burst on the scene in the early 2000s, parents and health experts have worried about the potential impact on kids, particularly those in their early teens. Now researchers are asking how the curated content that kids see online makes them feel about themselves. Newer studies show that picture-perfect selfies and videos on Instagram, TikTok and other social media platforms can shake a young person's confidence. Kids who compare their authentic lives to these unreal images may find themselves feeling anxiety, envy and sometimes obsessive thoughts that can harm their health. Celebrities and influencers work hard to attract social followers — usually with an army of stylists, makeup artists, trainers and videographers helping them. But thanks to filters and photo editing tools like Facetune and others, kids may feel they can make themselves look perfect too. More than 70% of social media users refuse to post pictures online before Photoshopping them, one study shows.
This desire to erase all flaws can be especially harmful for kids of colour. Research shows that photo editing apps often use beauty standards modelled on white people, reinforcing racist views of what's attractive and what's not. Setting goals and striving to meet them can be good for kids. But extreme content on social media can push them toward unrealistic standards that encourage dangerous habits. Some trends fueled by social media reflect unhealthy body images. This includes trends such as bigorexia, which drives young people to spend countless hours in the gym and eat a protein-heavy diet to build a 'jacked' body, or ultra-low-calorie eating plans displayed in 'what I eat in a day' videos posted by celebrities and influencers.
Social platforms are designed to keep kids scrolling by serving up the content they like best. Most social media platforms use an algorithm to track what users view and watch to deliver similar content. This means that a teen who views unhealthy content out of curiosity may be shown more and more content of that type. It can become nearly impossible for them to outrun the images and stories that can drive compulsive behaviours. Social media's overall impact on an individual child is fueled by several factors. This includes their temperament, personality, health status, peer group and the content they view. However, it is also important to keep an eye on ways that social media can crowd out healthy behaviours that are also critical to mental health and self-esteem.
For example, social media can contribute to reduced quality and quantity of sleep. It can also crowd out other important responsibilities such as schoolwork and time with family and friends. Even kids who don't fall into harmful eating or workout regimes may experience this crowding out of healthy behaviors and habits.
Here are some suggestions from the American Academy of Pediatrics Center of Excellence on Social Media and Youth Mental Health that can help your child use social media in positive ways to learn, connect and grow. The first step is to engage in open communication. Kids often resist any move adults make to curb their freedom, so aim for a nonjudgmental approach. Ask your child to guide you by asking questions like what types of media they have been enjoying lately or simply asking if any content they've come across worries them or makes them uncomfortable.
As your child opens up, try to listen more than talk. Make this a learning session that will help you uncover possible concerns and topics for future conversations. You don't have to 'solve' everything about social media in one conversation; the goal is to keep the lines of communication open over time. You may find your child knows a lot about the inner workings of the digital world. Still, they may not think too deeply about the content 'bubble' that algorithms create. If they're willing, try this experiment: Open your own social platform and search for something new. For example, if your feed focuses on sports or fashion, search for 'home improvement' or 'coin collecting.' Within a few clicks, you'll start to see new content on those topics.
If your child is showing signs they have been comparing themselves to the unattainable content they see online, it may help to acknowledge that comparing ourselves to others is natural, but perfectionism can harm us. Pointing to examples from your own life may be helpful. For example: 'I used to watch hours of videos showing how to improve my tennis swing. But in the end, it just made me feel nervous about my game. Going out and practicing worked a lot better.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
10 hours ago
- Gulf Today
CDC says COVID vaccine protects pregnant women
Michael Hiltzik, Tribune News Service Here's how one of the well-laid plans of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went blooey. Earlier this month, Kennedy dismantled the all-important Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and remade it into the spearhead for his anti-vaccination campaigns. The rejiggered committee met for the first time Wednesday. Unfortunately for Kennedy's goals, the very first presentation it heard from CDC scientists involved the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, particularly for pregnant women, infants and children. CDC studies found "no increased risk" that the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines caused adverse effects during pregnancy, Sarah Meyer, director of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office, said at the meeting, citing data from 28 analyses of 68,000 pregnant women. The data showed no increases in miscarriages, stillbirths, preterm births, major birth defects, neonatal ICU admissions, infant deaths, abnormal uterine bleeding or other pregnancy-related conditions. In fact, the CDC found that "maternal vaccination is the best proection against COVID-19 for pregnant women and infants less than six months of age," CDC immunologist Adam MacNeil told the panel. The COVID vaccines aren't approved for infants younger than six months, so maternal immunization is their only protection. That's important because Kennedy, on May 17, removed the vaccines from the recommended list for pregnant women and children. "It's common sense and it's good science" to remove the recommendation, Kennedy said in a 58-second video posted on X. "We're now one step closer to realising President Trump's promise to make America healthy again," Kennedy crowed, flanked by Marty Makary, the newly appointed commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Jay Bhattacharya, the newly appointed director of the National Institutes of Health. Neither body plays a role in issuing vaccine recommendations for the government. That's the job of the CDC, which has been operating without a director, and which didn't have a representative on the video. Pediatric and obstetric organisations decried the decision, which ran counter to the findings of extensive research. "Clear benefits of maternal immunisation versus COVID in terms of dramatic reductions in maternal mortality and protecting the newborn infant ... has been detailed in the biomedical literature," vaccinologist Peter Hotez told me by email. I asked Kennedy through his agency's public information team for comment on the CDC presentation, but received no reply. On June 9, Kennedy fired all 17 members of ACIP of the immunization advisory committee and replaced them with eight handpicked members, a cadre that includes "antivaxxers, the antivax-adjacent, and the unqualified," as veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski noted. The COVID vaccines have been a leading target of anti-vaccine activists, including Kennedy, since they were introduced in 2021. They've been blamed for a host of purported health harms, most of which have been found by researchers to be largely imaginary. The anti-vaccine camp maintains that the vaccines weren't adequately studied before rolling them out to the general public and haven't been sufficiently monitored for adverse effects since then. The CDC officials' presentation debunked almost all these claims. Indeed, Meyer said, the COVID-19 vaccines have been subjected to "the most extensive safety monitoring programe in US history." The CDC has investigated more than 65 possible adverse effects of the vaccine, Meyer said, including heart attacks, meningitis, spontaneous abortion, seizures and hospitalisation. Other than pain at the injection site, fainting and other transitory conditions common to most vaccines, it has found evidence for one condition — myocarditis, a heart inflammation seen especially in men aged 12 to 29. That appears to be a short-term condition, with 83% of patients recovering within 90 days of onset, and more than 90% fully recovered within a year. No deaths or heart transplants are known to have occurred, the CDC data show. No confirmed cases were seen in children younger than 5. The myocarditis rate among vaccine recipients aged between 6 months and 64 years appeared to spike in 2020-22, when it seemed to be related to the original vaccine and the original booster. After the booster was reformulated, the rate among those aged 12 to 39 fell to about one case per million doses in 2024-25 — half the rate found in the general population. Despite the relative rarity of myocarditis, the condition has underpinned a campaign by anti-vaccine activists to take the vaccines off the market. Among them is Joseph Ladapo, the Florida surgeon general, who in 2022 advised males aged 18-39 not to get the COVID vaccine. His advisory earned him a crisp upbraiding from the then-heads of the FDA and CDC, who informed him by letter that "the known and potential benefits of these vaccines clearly outweigh their known and potential risks.... Not only is there no evidence of increased risk of death following mRNA vaccines, but available data have shown quite the opposite: that being up to date on vaccinations saves lives compared to individuals who did not get vaccinated."
Khaleej Times
10 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
What is tapping, and can it really improve mental health?
It looks a little goofy. A self-help method called ' tapping,' which involves using the fingertips to perform acupressure while countering negative emotions with breathing exercises and positive affirmations, has elicited eye-rolls from some mental health professionals. 'I'm safe in my car,' a woman on TikTok says as she practices the technique, using a finger to tap the top of her head, then the side of her eyebrow and the middle of her chin. 'I am my safe space.' In the video, she explains that driving by herself is a struggle, but tapping has helped lower her anxiety and refocus her thoughts. Anecdotes like this are easy to find on social media. Over the last 15 years or so, tapping has also popped up on wellness podcasts, TV shows and even the best-seller list. As a result, the practice, also known as the Emotional Freedom Technique or E.F.T., has attracted a devoted following and become a big business. But many experts remain sceptical. Where did tapping come from? Tapping, which falls under the umbrella of energy psychology, originated from a technique called Thought Field Therapy developed by the psychologist Roger Callahan in the 1980s. He conceived of it while working with a patient who had a severe phobia of water, which Dr Callahan tried treating in various ways, including exposure therapy by the pool. One day, when the patient complained that just looking at the water gave her a stomachache, Dr Callahan told her to tap firmly under her eye, an area he knew to be associated with the ' stomach meridian ' in traditional Chinese medicine. According to Dr Callahan, after two minutes of tapping, the patient declared her stomachache had disappeared, along with her fear of the water. Dr Callahan developed Thought Field Therapy from there, contending that some patients required a series of acupressure points to be touched in a specific order. Thought Field Therapy was discredited by psychology experts, in part because there isn't a way to measure energy meridians, nor any evidence that proves they exist. But in the 1990s, Gary Craig, a Stanford graduate who later became an ordained minister, rebranded the technique, creating a simplified version called E.F.T. Proponents suggest that tapping not only relieves stress and anxiety but can also improve symptoms of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction and chronic pain, among other maladies. Practitioners now pay hundreds of dollars to take E.F.T. courses or pursue an official certification. Does it work? Even though there are more than 200 studies that examine meridian tapping, this body of work is not as robust as it might sound. Research that claims to highlight the effectiveness of E.F.T. has been riddled by conflicts of interest, small sample sizes, statistical errors and a lack of rigor. For these reasons, prominent members of the American Psychological Association have said that the push to popularize E.F.T. is based on pseudoscience. 'When you really look at the evidence, it falls apart,' said Cassandra L. Boness, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico and the lead author of a peer-reviewed commentary published in 2024 that raised concerns about the quality of E.F.T. research and questioned the effectiveness of the technique. But that isn't to say that E.F.T. is useless, experts said. Those who try the technique are instructed to think about or do activities they may find scary or uncomfortable — a form of exposure therapy, which is a powerful way of regulating emotions. Tapping also involves taking a moment to explore one's thoughts, which therapists say can help people understand their behavior. In essence, tapping is 'a hodgepodge of interventions, some of which are, I'm sure, quite effective,' said David F. Tolin, the director of the Anxiety Disorders Center at the Institute of Living in Hartford, Conn. But there isn't high-quality research to show that tapping itself is the active ingredient, he added. What's the harm? Despite the lackluster evidence, some patients and therapists insist tapping truly helps. 'It doesn't replace existing best practices for treating PTSD, depression, addictions or other serious conditions,' said David Feinstein, who offers classes and certifications in energy medicine, along with his wife. But, in his opinion, it can make those treatments more effective. Melissa Lester, a psychotherapist in Sandy Springs, Ga., said she found tapping could provide quick benefits, including a calmer, clearer mind. She decided to become certified in the technique because she wanted to give her clients an alternative when methods offered by other therapists, like cognitive behavioral therapy, didn't produce the desired results. Providing an alternative treatment can indeed be useful to patients, Dr Boness said, but she questioned whether it was ethical to do so in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence. Her 'biggest fear,' she added, was that vulnerable people would turn to tapping, and then find that it doesn't work. 'It's not actually a psychological treatment,' she said. (Christina Caron is a New York Times reporter covering mental health.) The article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Many older people are really eager to be vaccinated
Paula Span, Tribune News Service Kim Beckham, an insurance agent in Victoria, Texas, had seen friends suffer so badly from shingles that she wanted to receive the first approved shingles vaccine as soon as it became available, even if she had to pay for it out-of-pocket. Her doctor and several pharmacies turned her down because she was below the recommended age at the time, which was 60. So, in 2016, she celebrated her 60th birthday at her local CVS. 'I was there when they opened,' Beckham recalled. After getting her Zostavax shot, she said, 'I felt really relieved.' She has since received the newer, more effective shingles vaccine, as well as a pneumonia shot, an RSV vaccine to guard against respiratory syncytial virus, annual flu shots and all recommended COVID-19 vaccinations. Some older people are really eager to be vaccinated. Robin Wolaner, 71, a retired publisher in Sausalito, California, has been known to badger friends who delay getting recommended shots, sending them relevant medical studies. 'I'm sort of hectoring,' she acknowledged. Deana Hendrickson, 66, who provides daily care for three young grandsons in Los Angeles, sought an additional MMR shot, though she was vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella as a child, in case her immunity to measles had waned. For older adults who express more confidence in vaccine safety than younger groups, the past few months have brought welcome research. Studies have found important benefits from a newer vaccine and enhanced versions of older ones, and one vaccine may confer a major bonus that nobody foresaw. The new studies are coming at a fraught political moment. The nation's health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has long disparaged certain vaccines, calling them unsafe and saying that the government officials who regulate them are compromised and corrupt. On June 9, Kennedy fired a panel of scientific advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and later replaced them with some who have been skeptical of vaccines. But so far, Kennedy has not tried to curb access to the shots for older Americans. The evidence that vaccines are beneficial remains overwhelming. The phrase 'Vaccines are not just for kids anymore' has become a favorite for William Schaffner, an infectious diseases specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 'The population over 65, which often suffers the worst impact of respiratory viruses and others, now has the benefit of vaccines that can prevent much of that serious illness,' he said. Take influenza, which annually sends from 140,000 to 710,000 people to hospitals, most of them seniors, and is fatal to 10% of hospitalized older adults. For about 15 years, the CDC has approved several enhanced flu vaccines for people 65 and older. More effective than the standard formulation, they either contain higher levels of the antigen that builds protection against the virus or incorporate an adjuvant that creates a stronger immune response. Or they're recombinant vaccines, developed through a different method, with higher antigen levels. In a meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 'all the enhanced vaccine products were superior to the standard dose for preventing hospitalisations,' said Rebecca Morgan, a health research methodologist at Case Western Reserve University and an author of the study. Compared with the standard flu shot, the enhanced vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalization from the flu in older adults, by at least 11% and up to 18%. The CDC advises adults 65 and older to receive the enhanced vaccines, as many already do. More good news: Vaccines to prevent respiratory syncytial virus in people 60 and older are performing admirably. RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants, and it also poses significant risks to older people. 'Season in and season out,' Schaffner said, 'it produces outbreaks of serious respiratory illness that rivals influenza.' Because the FDA first approved an RSV vaccine in 2023, the 2023-24 season provided 'the first opportunity to see it in a real-world context,' said Pauline Terebuh, an epidemiologist at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine and an author of a recent study in the journal JAMA Network Open. In analysing electronic health records for almost 800,000 patients, the researchers found the vaccines to be 75% effective against acute infection, meaning illness that was serious enough to send a patient to a health care provider. The vaccines were 75% effective in preventing emergency room or urgent care visits, and 75% effective against hospitalisation, both among those ages 60 to 74 and those older. Immunocompromised patients, despite having a somewhat lower level of protection from the vaccine, will also benefit from it, Terebuh said. As for adverse effects, the study found a very low risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare condition that causes muscle weakness and that typically follows an infection, in about 11 cases per 1 million doses of vaccine. That, she said, 'shouldn't dissuade people.' The CDC now recommends RSV vaccination for people 75 and older, and for those 60 to 74 if they're at higher risk of severe illness (from, say, heart disease). As data from the 2024-25 season becomes available, researchers hope to determine whether the vaccine will remain a one-and-done, or whether immunity will require repeated vaccination. People 65 and up express the greatest confidence in vaccine safety of any adult group, a KFF survey found in April. More than 80% said they were 'very 'or 'somewhat confident' about MMR, shingles, pneumonia, and flu shots. Although the COVID vaccine drew lower support among all adults, more than two-thirds of older adults expressed confidence in its safety. Even skeptics might become excited about one possible benefit of the shingles vaccine: This spring, Stanford researchers reported that over seven years, vaccination against shingles reduced the risk of dementia by 20%, a finding that made headlines. Biases often undermine observational studies that compare vaccinated with unvaccinated groups. 'People who are healthier and more health-motivated are the ones who get vaccinated,' said Pascal Geldsetzer, an epidemiologist at the Knight Initiative for Brain Resilience at Stanford and lead author of the study. 'It's hard to know whether this is cause and effect,' he said, 'or whether they're less likely to develop dementia anyway.' So the Stanford team took advantage of a 'natural experiment' when the first shingles vaccine, Zostavax, was introduced in Wales. Health officials set a strict age cutoff: People who turned 80 on or before Sept. 1, 2013, weren't eligible for vaccination, but those even slightly younger were eligible. In the sample of nearly 300,000 adults whose birthdays fell close to either side of that date, almost half of the eligible group received the vaccine, but virtually nobody in the older group did. 'Just as in a randomized trial, these comparison groups should be similar in every way,' Geldsetzer explained. A substantial reduction in dementia diagnoses in the vaccine-eligible group, with a much stronger protective effect in women, therefore constitutes 'more powerful and convincing evidence,' he said. The team also found reduced rates of dementia after shingles vaccines were introduced in Australia and other countries. 'We keep seeing this in one dataset after another,' Geldsetzer said. In the United States, where a more potent vaccine, Shingrix, became available in 2017 and supplanted Zostavax, Oxford investigators found an even stronger effect.
