Digital Emotional Contagion: Is Stress Transmissible Through Screens and Social Media?

Stress is defined as an outcome of internal or external stressors that can affect an individual physiologically and psychologically (APA, 2025). But the Digital Age has provided another one, when the stressor is not directly affecting us. We can experience other people’s fear, anxiety and unhappiness many times, sometimes without their physical presence.

Studies in psychology have shown that emotions can be transmitted via social platforms. Within seconds, a worrying post, distressing video, crisis update or message turns into our own emotional world. Like, just a reel before bed can turn into an endless scrolling match. A post by a friend about their upcoming stress-induced test can start the overthinking algorithm of our own brain. Just connecting to a series or movie based on the true crime genre can induce uncomfortable emotions regarding safety, although nothing involves us in that scenario.

It is important to understand that this isn’t the literal “transmission” of stress. Emotions and affects seem to transmit, and then be acted upon by, attention, perceptions, and overall well-being (Ferrara & Yang, 2015; Kramer et al., 2014). The article dives deep into the social media outcomes such as emotional contagion, doomscrolling, secondary trauma response, and social comparison. 

Can Emotions Really Spread Through a Screen?

Emotional contagion is the phenomenon of one’s emotional state affecting another’s emotional state. This has been examined in detail in real life when facial expression, tone of voice and body language indicate emotion. The intriguing option of social media is that some facets of emotional contagion happen when these bodily signals are missing (Ferrara & Yang, 2015; Hatfield et al., 1993).

• One of the best large-scale experiments was a study by Kramer et al. (2014) with 689,003 Facebook users. The researchers manipulated the positive or negative emotion content that was presented to users’ News Feeds and then examined the emotions expressed using the users’ own posts. After the positive content was reduced, the positive expressions decreased. A rise in negative expressions and a reduction in negative content yielded the opposite pattern. The researchers found that emotions might be induced, even without meeting face to face, via online social networks (Kramer et al., 2014).

• Observational evidence can be obtained from Twitter as well. Ferrar and Yang (2015) analysed around 3,800 users. They found that there was a corresponding increase in positive posts following more positive content and a corresponding increase in negative posts following more negative content. Importantly, susceptibility was not equal, meaning digital emotional contagion is not a straightforward process, affecting everyone in the same way (Ferrara & Yang, 2015).

This distinction matters. An anxious post doesn’t actually equal an anxious individual. Constantly consuming emotionally charged content, however, can determine the psychological landscape of a person’s online space. Additionally, their own sentiments can trigger similar reactions in certain situations. How strongly digital exposure affects well-being is therefore likely to vary by individual differences, the content and how it is used (Ferrara & Yang, 2015).

When Someone Else’s Stress Becomes Our Own

Our lives are now jumbled together with those of the people we see in social media. While reading a feed, someone may come across a variety of posts. These could be relating to exams, financial troubles, relationship issues, diseases, crises, job burnout or worries about the future, all in just a few minutes. However, observing someone else’s distress is not the same as experiencing it oneself. But frequently ingesting such content could itself cause mental fatigue (Lopes et al., 2022; Taskin et al., 2024).

The findings of problematic social media use research align with an overall digital engagement-psychological distress correlation. In their systematic review of 1747 papers, Lopes et al. (2022) found a strong link between risky social-media use and anxiety and depression. This link was often bidirectional. Most notably, the review uncovered no simple linear link between the number of hours spent using social media and mental health issues. It seemed usage patterns were more critical than time (Lopes et al., 2022).

This is a significant qualification because it contradicts the ” Internet for several hours equals psychological problems” belief. 51 studies were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024), involving 680,506 participants. It concluded that the relationship between social-media use and well-being is complex especially whether the use, when overdone or problematic, differs from ordinary use (Ansari et al., 2024).

The Downside of Endless Negative News

A specific type of digital exposure is “doomscrolling“. Constantly viewing things that are negative or problematic online. The behaviour may sometimes become self-reinforcing. For example, someone gets a safety alert and tries to Google that safety update, finds another alarming update, and keeps scrolling for more details on what is happening (Taskin et al., 2024).

In a study of 400 social media users, Taskin et al. (2024) found that doomscrolling was correlated with comorbid mental health issues. They proposed that this relationship was mediated by mindfulness and secondary traumatic stress. They found that higher doomscrollers were linked with higher secondary traumatic stress and lower wellbeing (Taskin et al., 2024).

Secondary traumatic stress is a tricky concept. The personal upset shared in reading another individual’s story of trauma does not equate to an individual’s personal trauma. But repeated exposure to triggering content can elicit stress responses that mimic those of indirect exposure (Taskin et al., 2024). In the study by Taskin et al. (2024) found that sustained exposure to negative media led to secondary traumatic stress symptoms. Generally indicating one single possible mental route by which disturbing digital material might impact the viewer. 

The broader message: Emotional impact of digital content can be influenced by how vigorously people interact with it. Distressing updates, if repeated, can keep one focused on threat information. This can cause psychological stress. This is especially poignant because of the way some online experiences can drain and feel emotionally debilitating, in contrast to some others causing isolated exposure (Lopes et al., 2022; Taskin et al., 2024).

The Algorithms and The Intensification of Emotions

Unlike regular communication, people interacting with digital platforms see content in a set of algorithmically chosen and arranged feeds. Emotional contagion studies in the context of social media indicate that there are a couple of reasons. What people are emotionally exposed to can be correlated to the emotional mood in their subsequent online expression. More importantly, it also gives rise to the possibility of getting reinforced a certain way of emotionalisation with repeated exposure to them (Ferrara & Yang, 2015; Kramer et al., 2014).

The studies of emotional contagion show that emotional tone in a social network can be related to emotional expression later on. That does not mean that platforms intentionally create stress or design every site to increase rage or annoyance. Researchers must support these statements with evidence specific to the platforms involved (Ferrara & Yang, 2015; Kramer et al., 2014). The research does show that with a digital network, users can exchange emotional information at a rapid pace (Ferrara & Yang, 2015).

This process can be very apparent in times of collective crisis. Natural disasters, pandemics, and wars generate tremendous amounts of information. It contains authentic updates and personal experiences, as well as speculations and emotionally charged reactions. Taskin et al. (2024) mentioned that through online platforms, large-scale events can be the cause of exposure to negative news for people around the world. The implications of chronic exposures for psychological effects are worthy of investigation. 

Comparisons Can Be a Source of Stress

Digital contagion doesn’t only apply to circumstances in which others suffer. Social media may also provide stress due to the comparisons that occur in it.

• In a study of 200 young children aged 10–14 who filled out a 14-day diary, there was a relationship between upward social comparisons and daily social media use. People who perceived others as better off reported poorer well-being (Irmer & Schmiedek, 2023).

• Researchers supplemented this finding with experimental evidence by reviewing 48 studies involving a total of 7,679 participants. They found there was a significant overall negative effect of exposure to upward-comparison targets on social media. Researchers linked all these factors to outcomes such as subjective well-being, mental health, self-esteem, and satisfaction with body image (Liu et al., 2023).

Therefore, the digital environment can send out meaningfully different psychological messages to an individual. The distress of others can add to a sense of threat to the world. Apparently successful peers can stimulate upward social comparison and create the idea of a less favourable situation. In both contexts, the information acquired from other people’s experiences could influence people’s interpretations of their own social and emotional world (Ferrara & Yang, 2015; Irmer & Schmiedek, 2023). Social media, then, isn’t just a window showing us what others are thinking; it can be a mirror for our own assessment of ourselves and our situation (Irmer & Schmiedek, 2023; Liu et al., 2023). 

Read More: Trapped in Social Comparison?: The Psychology Behind Luxury Consumption

Is It the Screen, or The Way That We’re Using It?

The notion that social media causes stress is getting more lost with the evidence. A 2022 systematic review concluded that the amount of time people spend on social media does not have a clear linear relationship with anxiety or depression. The patterns of use that were more problematic were more consistently related to poorer outcomes (Lopes et al., 2022). Likewise, the current meta-analysis conducted by Ansari et al. (2024) highlighted the intricate connection between social-media-use and well-being. 

Therefore, the what and how of people’s use of social platforms and what function it serves psychologically is more significant. Persisting with negative news, even just seeing it on television, is a distinct exposure from being in a positive community to communicate or get useful information (Ansari et al., 2024; Lopes et al., 2022). 

That is not to say that digital contagion is necessarily a negative thing, though. Ferrara and Yang (2015) found evidence of both positive and negative emotional contagion. The Facebook experiment successfully showed that positive or negative manipulation could affect emotional expression that followed it (Kramer et al., 2014). The same networks that spread fear can also spread reassurance, humour, encouragement, and social support.

Building Boundaries Around Emotional Exposure

It is evident that digital contagion has both positive and negative emotional aspects to it. This also signifies that the impact of stress on an individual is circumstantial or contextual to them. For instance, under-preparation or nervousness can make an individual feel highly stressed before a practical viva. On the other hand, another student might actually be calm and collected due to their ability to handle the prompt nature of the exam. Although similar stressors, for the former, it results in distress and for the latter, it is eustress (Kramer et al., 2014; Lopes et al., 2022).

Thus, certain factors influence how individuals experience stress. The way an individual perceives and interprets a situation with whatever means they have to cope with it shapes their response to the very situation. Similarly, people can reduce the impact of digital exposure on their everyday emotional well-being by becoming more aware of the content they consume (Wolfers & Utz, 2022).

We can be empathetic towards others but also draw a line when it starts affecting us. Being present and aware of what type of content is in front of us and how that makes us feel is a great start. Staying informed about the latest updates is generally important, but constantly checking for updates can become extremely draining.

Having a “psychological or cognitive distance” from any content that may project uncomfortable emotions is really important (Rempala, 2013). Understanding the most basic idea that others’ world does not equal our own can provide a highly effective psychological boundary. These resources can help avoid the distressing emotions of digital exposure from entering our own reality (Wolfers & Utz, 2022).

Read More: Emotional Contagion in pets: How dogs and cats can absorb Human stress 

Conclusion

Is stress “catchable” as a screen transmission? It’s not that emotions and stress information actually travel through digital networks, but rather these emotions and information can affect individuals’ feelings, thoughts and actions. Researchers have demonstrated the phenomenon of online emotional contagion. Research on doomscrolling, harmful social-media appropriation, and social comparison reveals other ways in which online experiences can negatively affect well-being (Kramer et al., 2014; Lopes et al., 2022; Taskin et al., 2024).

However, social media is not inherently or automatically bad or good. Researchers view its effects on individuals in terms of the content, how individuals engage with it, and their susceptibility to its influence. The reality is that in our world, others’ fears and frustrations touch us in a matter of moments. Our digital well-being may increasingly depend not on disconnecting from others, but on learning how much of their emotional world we allow into our own.

References +

• American Psychological Association. (2025). Stress. https://www.apa.org/topics/stress
• Ansari, S., Iqbal, N., Asif, R., Hashim, M., Farooqi, S. R., & Alimoradi, Z. (2024). Social media use and well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 27(10), 704–719. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2024.0001 
• Ferrara, E., & Yang, Z. (2015). Measuring emotional contagion in social media. PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0142390. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142390 
• Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 96–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953
• Irmer, A., & Schmiedek, F. (2023). Associations between youth’s daily social media use and well-being are mediated by upward comparisons. Communications Psychology, 1, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-023-00013-0 
• Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111 
• Liu, X., et al. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effects of social media exposure to upward comparison targets on self-evaluations and emotions. Media Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2023.2180647 
• Lopes, L. S., Valentini, J. P., Monteiro, T. H., Costacurta, M. C. de F., Soares, L. O. N., Telfar-Barnard, L., & Nunes, P. V. (2022). Problematic social media use and its relationship with depression or anxiety: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 25(11), 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0300 
• Rempala, D. M. (2013). Cognitive strategies for controlling emotional contagion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(7), 1528–1537. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12146
• Taskin, S., Kurtulus, H. Y., Satici, S. A., & Deniz, M. E. (2024). Doomscrolling and mental well-being in social media users: A serial mediation through mindfulness and secondary traumatic stress. Journal of Community Psychology, 52(3), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.23111 
• Wolfers, L. N., & Utz, S. (2022). Social media use, stress, and coping. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101305