ArticleBMC psychology2026
Attention fragmentation and emotional distress: a mixed-methods study of social media use among Indian adults aged 18-45 years.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe extensive use of short-form video platforms and instant messaging among Indian adults aged 18-45 is increasingly linked to attention fragmentation-the repeated interruption of sustained focus-and emotional distress, including anxiety and impaired regulation. While international studies connect media-induced attentional lapses to poorer mental health, national mixed-methods evidence from India remains limited. Integrating modern digital-community paradigms, this study aimed to quantify fragmentation, examine its association with emotional distress, and test its role as a mediating associate.
methodsA sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was conducted between May and December 2025. A quantitative survey of 582 adults was performed using stratified quota sampling across 18 Indian states. Attention fragmentation was operationalized through the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), where reverse-scored items served as a proxy for frequent task-switching and awareness lapses. Emotional distress was assessed via the DASS-21 and PANAS scales. This was followed by 32 purposive semi-structured interviews to explore lived experiences. Quantitative data were analyzed using PROCESS Model 4 with 5,000 bootstrapped resamples, while qualitative data underwent reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsHigh fragmentation (lowest MAAS tertile) affected 46.4% of participants and correlated significantly with daily social media hours (r = -.42) and emotional distress (DASS-21 total r = -0.61). Mediation analyses indicated that attention fragmentation is a significant associated mechanism, accounting for 68% of the relationship between engagement and anxiety, and 63% for depression. Qualitative themes revealed that perpetual context-switching, driven by Instagram Reels and WhatsApp pings, leads to "mental clutter" and sleep disruption. Cultural factors, such as family expectations for instant responsiveness, were found to amplify fragmentation-related stress.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that attention fragmentation is a significant pathway consistent with a mediation model linking social media use to emotional distress in the Indian context. Results indicate that interventions focusing on attentional recovery, notification batching, and culturally tailored mindful digital habits may be more effective for protecting emotional wellbeing than simply reducing total screen time. Expanding digital mental health ecosystems, such as Tele-MANAS, to address fragmentation is recommended.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.