School Counselors’ Perspectives on Social Media and Student Mental Health: A Q Methodology Study

Abstract

Background: Youth mental health concerns have increased alongside the near-universal use of social media among adolescents. Although research has examined links between social media and youth mental health, little is known about school counselors’ perspectives. School counselors are key mental health providers in schools and are positioned to observe students’ digital experiences. Objectives: This study examined how school counselors conceptualize social media’s impact on youth mental health and identified shared patterns in their perspectives using Q methodology. Research Questions: How do U.S. K–12 school counselors perceive social media as affecting student mental health? Methods: We used Q methodology to examine subjective perspectives. Participants completed an online Q sort, ranking 31 statements about social media from −4 (least like my view) to +4 (most like my view). The sample included 50 U.S. school counselors with varied experience, school levels, and geographic regions. Data were analyzed using principal components analysis and varimax rotation in Ken-Q Analysis (Version 2.0.1) to identify shared factors. Results: Three factors emerged: (a) Heightened Concern for Social Media Harm, (b) Social Media Use and Psychological Vulnerability, and (c) Developmental Vulnerability and Structural Risk. These reflected different ways school counselors understand social media’s role in youth mental health, from broad, harm-focused views to more nuanced accounts emphasizing usage patterns or structural factors. Across factors, participants emphasized risks and placed less emphasis on benefits. Conclusions: Findings suggest school counselors view social media mainly as a risk context, although with variation in how harm is understood. Implications include strengthening practice and preparation.

Keywords

school counselors youth mental health social media digital citizenship Q methodology

Youth mental health concerns have increased steadily over the past decade, with rising rates of anxiety, depression, and emotional distress reported among adolescents in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], n.d.). At the same time, social media has become a central feature of adolescents’ daily lives, shaping how young people communicate, form identities, and seek support (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2021). Research suggests that social media can both exacerbate mental health challenges and offer meaningful benefits, including social connection, creative expression, and access to peer support and mental health information (e.g., Agyapong-Opoku et al., 2025; Berger et al., 2021). These mixed findings have fueled ongoing public debate, often characterized by polarized narratives that either frame social media as inherently harmful or overlook the contextual factors that shape youths’ experiences.

School counselors occupy a unique and critical position at the intersection of student mental health, education, and digital life (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2022, 2023, 2025b, 2025c). As the most accessible mental health professionals in many schools, they are charged with supporting students’ social/emotional development while also promoting digital citizenship, ethical technology use, and online safety in alignment with ASCA standards and ethical guidelines. Despite this central role, school counselors’ perspectives on social media’s impact on youth mental health remain largely absent from the empirical literature, which has primarily focused on students, parents, community mental health providers, or generalized population data. This absence limits understanding of how schools are responding to the mental health implications of social media in practice. Addressing this gap, the present study uses Q methodology to explore the range of perspectives held by U.S. K–12 school counselors regarding social media’s influence on student mental health, offering insight into how these professionals make sense of both the risks and potential benefits of youths’ digital engagement. Understanding these perspectives is critical because school counselors’ interpretations shape how they assess student needs, prioritize interventions, and respond to digital-related concerns in practice. Identifying shared patterns of meaning making moves beyond generalized debates about social media to highlight how frontline school-based mental health professionals conceptualize and respond to these issues in real-world contexts.

Literature Review

Youth Mental Health

Youth mental health concerns in the United States have risen steadily for more than a decade, well before the COVID-19 pandemic (Mental Health America, 2020). National data indicate significant increases in depressive symptoms, persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness, and suicide-related behaviors throughout the 2010s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], n.d.). Between 2009 and 2019, reports of prolonged sadness or hopelessness among adolescents increased by approximately 40%, and suicide rates among youth ages 10–14 tripled between 2007 and 2018 (Curtin & Garnett, 2023). Rates of depression and anxiety were already escalating prior to 2020, demonstrating that the pandemic intensified an existing crisis rather than creating a new one (Wilson & Dumornay, 2022). The U.S. Surgeon General similarly noted that youth mental health challenges were worsening and affecting student functioning prior to the pandemic (HHS, 2021).

Although these trends affect youth broadly, they are not evenly distributed. Mental health disparities are particularly pronounced among girls, LGBTQ + youth, youth of color, and youth living in poverty (CDC, 2024; Gay and Straight Education Network [GLSEN], 2019; HHS, 2021). Prior to the pandemic, nearly 80% of youth with diagnosable mental health conditions did not receive treatment, reflecting long-standing gaps in access to care (McCance-Katz & Lynch, 2019). Challenges such as adverse childhood experiences, exposure to violence, bullying, poverty, and social isolation contribute significantly to these inequities (Anderson et al., 2022; Bomysoad & Francis, 2020; Koita et al., 2018; Stickley et al., 2016).

The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated youth mental health concerns through school closures, prolonged social isolation, family stress, illness, and bereavement. Nationally representative data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey showed sharp increases in persistent sadness, suicidal thoughts, and suicide-related behaviors among high school students in 2021 compared to 2019 (CDC, n.d.). LGBTQ + youth experienced particularly elevated risk, with national surveys documenting high rates of depression, suicidality, and unmet mental health needs during this period (The Trevor Project, 2022). Increased reliance on digital technology for learning and social connection also heightened exposure to online risks, including cyberbullying and harmful content, further compounding mental health challenges (António et al., 2024).

In response to these trends, the American Medical Association (2023) declared youth mental health a national emergency, emphasizing that pandemic-related stressors worsened preexisting vulnerabilities. These concerns are especially acute in marginalized and under-resourced communities, including rural areas, where structural barriers and limited access to mental health services persist (Boulden & Henry, 2025; Boulden & Schimmel, 2022; Boulden & Simmons, 2025). Together, these patterns highlight the urgent need for equitable, accessible, and preventive mental health supports for youth. Notably, these increases in youth anxiety, depression, and emotional distress have occurred alongside a period of rapid expansion in adolescents’ access to smartphones and social media, prompting growing concern about the role of digital environments in shaping mental health outcomes (HHS, 2023). Although these trends have occurred at the same time, this does not imply causation; however, they have led researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to closely examine how social media may interact with existing developmental and contextual risk factors.

Social Media and Student Mental Health

Social media has become a central part of adolescent life, with up to 95% of U.S. teens ages 13–17 reporting that they use at least one platform and more than one third saying they are online “almost constantly” (HHS, 2021). Smartphones and widespread internet access make social media easily accessible, positioning these platforms as a key context in which many of the emotional, social, and developmental challenges associated with rising youth mental health concerns may unfold. Research highlights several risks associated with social media use. Passive engagement, such as endless scrolling or consuming videos without interaction, can contribute to emotional distress, social comparison, and feelings of isolation (Agyapong-Opoku et al., 2025; Nesi, 2020; Shannon et al., 2022). Excessive or compulsive use may disrupt healthy routines, including sleep, physical activity, and academic focus, and can exacerbate anxiety and attention difficulties (George & Odgers, 2015; Hamilton & Lee, 2021). Exposure to harmful online content, including harassment, discrimination, misinformation, or material encouraging disordered behaviors, can increase depressive symptoms and, in some cases, suicidal thoughts (Lahti et al., 2024; O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). Social media design, including algorithmically curated feeds and the influence of popular content creators, can increase these exposures, shaping user behavior and potentially increasing risk for emotional distress (Chhabra et al., 2025). These harms are often disproportionately experienced by marginalized youth, including LGBTQ + adolescents and youth of color, who face higher rates of cybervictimization and targeted online harassment (Amadori et al., 2025). Social pressures around self-presentation and the fear of missing out (FOMO) may also contribute to stress and hypervigilance in daily online interactions (Pang & Quan, 2024).

At the same time, social media offers important benefits. Platforms can foster peer support, a sense of belonging, creative expression, and access to mental health resources that may not be available in person, which is particularly meaningful for marginalized youth, including LGBTQ + adolescents (Berger et al., 2021; Knowles & Danzi, 2025). Social media also can help destigmatize mental health issues, because exposure to peers’ public discussions of lived experiences can increase understanding, reduce stigma, and encourage help seeking among adolescents (Chhabra et al., 2025). Evidence suggests that the type and quality of content consumed may have a greater impact on mental health than the amount of time spent online (Sanzari et al., 2023). Thoughtful engagement can help youth develop social/emotional skills, access information, and maintain supportive social connections. Counter to dominant narratives, youth are increasingly aware of both the risks and advantages of social media (Faverio et al., 2025; Hayes et al., 2022). Many actively manage their usage to minimize harm, while others rely on online communities for emotional support instead of seeking help from adults or professionals. An important research emphasis is on the value of involving adolescents in shaping digital environments. When young people have a say in how online platforms are designed and managed, they can help make these spaces safer, limit exposure to harmful content, and feel more confident and in control of their online experiences (Chatlani et al., 2023; Odgers et al., 2022). Taken together, existing research suggests that social media is not a singular or uniform influence on youth mental health, but rather a multifaceted context that can enhance both risk and protection depending on how it is used, by whom, and under what conditions. This complexity complicates efforts to draw direct causal conclusions about the relationship between social media and rising rates of youth anxiety and depression. Instead, it underscores the importance of understanding how key collaborators, particularly school-based mental health professionals, interpret and respond to these dynamics in practice.

School Counselor Role

School counselors occupy a critical position in supporting youth mental health (ASCA, 2025b), often serving as one of the few accessible mental health resources for students within the school setting (Boulden & Simmons, 2025). They are responsible for identifying and addressing social/emotional concerns, providing counseling and crisis intervention, and connecting students to appropriate school-based or community mental health supports (ASCA, 2025a). Further, school counselors promote safe and inclusive school environments, foster resilience, and help students develop coping strategies to manage stress, anxiety, and other mental health challenges. Through comprehensive school counseling programs, they integrate social/emotional learning with individual and group interventions, ensuring that students receive timely and developmentally appropriate mental health support. Their advocacy extends beyond individual students, encompassing collaboration with families and educators to create systemic supports for youth mental health (ASCA, 2025a). School counselors serve as a vital frontline resource in promoting student well-being and preventing crises, helping bridge gaps in mental health access and provision.

In addition to their traditional mental health roles, school counselors are increasingly responsible for guiding students’ digital experiences and promoting digital citizenship. ASCA guidance emphasizes that school counselors should educate students and families on safe, ethical, and responsible technology use, including social media, while helping students understand the psychological and social impacts of online engagement (ASCA, 2023). Several ASCA Student Standards (ASCA, 2021) directly support this work, including developing media and technology skills to enhance learning (B-LS 5.), fostering ethical decision making and social responsibility online (B-SS 5.), promoting effective communication and listening in digital contexts (B-SS 1.), and supporting students’ ability to navigate social relationships and demonstrate empathy both on- and offline (B-SS 4.). Through a comprehensive school counseling program, school counselors collaborate with other educators to deliver direct services, such as classroom instruction on cyberbullying prevention, healthy online communication, and strategies for balancing screen time with offline activities. They also work with the school community to implement policies, respond to incidents, and support interventions that reduce harm while promoting positive student development (ASCA, 2023). In these roles, school counselors advocate for equitable access to technology, guide students in ethical and responsible digital behavior, maintain confidentiality, and help students understand communication norms, boundaries, and the benefits and limitations of online tools (ASCA, 2022).

Statement of the Problem and Purpose

School counselors play a pivotal role in supporting students’ mental health and social/emotional development and are often the most accessible mental health resource within schools. They are increasingly expected to guide students’ digital experiences and promote safe, responsible, and ethical technology use, including social media (ASCA, 2023). Contemporary research has explored the experiences and perspectives of constituents such as students (Popat & Tarrant, 2023; Zeng, 2025), parents (Cohen et al., 2023; Faverio et al., 2025), and clinical mental health providers (Derges et al., 2023; Domoff et al., 2025), but school counselors’ voices remain largely absent from this discourse. This lack of attention creates a significant gap in understanding how school counselors, who are often the first point of contact for students facing mental health challenges, perceive both the risks and benefits of social media. Without their professional insights, we have an incomplete picture of how these professionals perceive the potential risks and benefits of social media and, importantly, how these perceptions may shape the ways they assess, prioritize, and intervene in student mental health concerns within school settings. Understanding how school counselors make sense of social media is essential for informing school counseling practice because differing interpretations may lead to different approaches to assessment, prevention, and intervention.

The purpose of this study was to explore school counselors’ perspectives on the influence of social media on student mental health. This study was guided by the question: “In what ways do U.S. K–12 school counselors perceive social media as affecting students’ mental health?” Insights from this research can offer a deeper understanding of how school counselors interpret the complex mental health challenges associated with social media, identify distinct patterns in how these professionals conceptualize risk and protection, highlight areas where school counseling practice and policy may need support, and guide efforts to promote safe, responsible, and developmentally appropriate digital engagement for students. This knowledge can be used to inform how school counselors assess and address social-media-related concerns in practice, guide the development of targeted interventions and prevention efforts, and support counselor education and professional development focused on digital mental health.

Method

Participants

In Q methodology, participants, not the statements, are treated as the variables of interest (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Accordingly, Q studies do not require large or randomly selected samples. Instead, participants are purposefully selected to capture a diversity of relevant perspectives (Stainton Rogers, 1995). For the present study, participants were recruited based on their professional role as school counselors and their experience working with youth. Recruitment was conducted using a combination of professional outreach and informal networks, including posts in school-counseling-related social media groups, distribution through professional email lists (e.g., ASCA Member Community), and word-of-mouth referrals. We used these strategies intentionally to reach school counselors across a range of geographic regions, school settings, and levels of professional experience to capture a diversity of perspectives.

The study included 50 school counselors working across diverse school contexts in the United States. Participants’ years of school counseling experience ranged from 1 to 27 years (M = 13.2, SD = 8.2). The average school size ranged from 120 to 8,000 students (M = 1,056, SD = 1,660), and participants worked across multiple building levels: elementary school (n = 10), middle school (n = 15), high school (n = 20), and multiple-grade settings (n = 3). Geographically, participants were employed in the Northeast (n = 15), Midwest (n = 16), South (n = 14), and West (n = 3), with school settings distributed across suburban (n = 25), urban (n = 12), rural (n = 10), and mixed (n = 1) contexts. Participants’ ages ranged from 26 to 67 years (M = 45.3, SD = 10.3), and the sample included participants who identified as White/Caucasian (n = 38), Black/African American (n = 5), Hispanic/Latina/o (n = 4), and multiracial (n = 1).

Most participants reported holding a master’s degree (n = 44), with a smaller number reporting a doctorate (n = 3) or Ed.S. (n = 1) as their highest degree earned. Every participant indicated personal use of social media platforms commonly used by students, including TikTok (n = 29), Instagram (n = 46), Snapchat (n = 24), Facebook (n = 40), YouTube (n = 40), Reddit (n = 12), and Twitter/X (n = 21). Comfort navigating social media varied: extremely comfortable (n = 12), somewhat comfortable (n = 24), neither comfortable nor uncomfortable (n = 3), somewhat uncomfortable (n = 6), and extremely uncomfortable (n = 3). The majority reported daily engagement (n = 37), with others indicating use a few times per week (n = 8) or occasionally (n = 3).

Q Set Development and Expert Review

Consistent with recommendations for Q methodology studies (Watts & Stenner, 2012), the Q set underwent expert review prior to participant engagement. We assembled an expert review panel of four members to evaluate the content and structure of the Q set. The panel included: (a) a school counselor educator with expertise in Q methodology, (b) two practicing school counselors with extensive professional experience working with youth in school settings, and (c) a professor with expertise in youth mental health and youth social media use. Following the development of an initial concourse of statements related to social media and youth mental health, we refined the concourse into a preliminary Q set. This preliminary set was shared electronically with expert panel members, who independently reviewed each statement and provided written feedback. Reviewers were asked to evaluate statements for clarity, relevance, balance across viewpoints, and comprehensiveness of the concourse. Feedback included line-by-line comments on wording, identification of conceptually overlapping statements, suggestions for rephrasing ambiguous items, and recommendations for removing or consolidating redundant statements to improve conceptual distinctiveness. In addition to suggesting revisions, consolidations, or eliminations, panel members were invited to propose new or “write-in” statements to address any perceived gaps in the concourse.

We compiled and reviewed all feedback using a structured synthesis process. Suggested revisions were grouped by item and by theme (e.g., clarity, redundancy, missing content areas). When multiple reviewers provided similar suggestions, we prioritized those recommendations in revision decisions. Where suggestions diverged (e.g., differing preferences for wording or emphasis), we resolved these through discussion, guided by the goal of maintaining balance and ensuring that the final Q set represented the full breadth of the concourse. Statements were then iteratively revised through cycles of editing, consolidation, and removal. This process resulted in a refined and balanced Q set of 31 statements used in the present study.

Procedures

Participants completed the Q sort by ranking the 31 opinion statements using a forced-distribution format. Each statement was presented on a digital card using Q-Tip (University of Wisconsin, 2025). Participants were asked to sort the statements according to the degree to which each reflected their own views about social media’s impact on youth mental health. The forced distribution ranged from −4 (least like how I think) to +4 (most like how I think) and consisted of 9 columns arranged in a quasi-normal distribution, with the number of slots per column as follows: 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, 5, 4, 3, 2 (from −4 to +4, respectively). After completing the Q sort, participants were invited to respond to a brief set of open-ended questions designed to capture their reasoning. These responses were used to support interpretation of the factors.

Data Analysis

After all of the Q sorts were completed and collected, we entered the data into Ken-Q Analysis Version 2.0.1 (Banasick, 2023) for analysis. Consistent with standard Q methodology procedures, we used principal components analysis to examine patterns of association among the participants’ Q sorts. In Q methodology, it is the Q sorts themselves, rather than the individual statements, that are subjected to factor analysis. Factor retention decisions were guided by multiple criteria. Factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were initially considered for retention in accordance with the Kaiser criterion. We also examined a scree plot to identify the point at which the curve leveled off, indicating the most interpretable factor solution. Based on these criteria and the conceptual clarity of the resulting factors, we retained three factors for further analysis. The retained factors were subsequently rotated using varimax rotation to achieve a simple and interpretable factor structure. For each factor, we generated a factor array (or model Q sort) to represent the shared viewpoint of participants who loaded significantly on that factor. We examined these factor arrays individually and in comparison with one another to identify defining and distinguishing statements that informed interpretation of the factors.

Results

Analysis of the Q-sort data revealed three distinct patterns of perspectives among school counselors regarding the impact of social media on student mental health. We labeled the three factors (a) Heightened Concern for Social Media Harm, (b) Social Media Use and Psychological Vulnerability, and (c) Developmental Vulnerability and Structural Risk. Together, these factors represent distinct shared viewpoints among participating school counselors regarding the potential risks and benefits of social media use. Of the 50 participant sorts, 24 loaded significantly on Factor 1, 8 on Factor 2, and 18 on Factor 3. We describe the factors with reference to key beliefs, defining statements, and the demographics of the participants represented in each.

Factor 1: Heightened Concern for Social Media Harm

Factor 1 accounted for 39% of the explained variance in the total model. The factor included 24 school counselors from a variety of school settings across the United States. Participants’ years of school counseling experience ranged from 1 to 27 years, with a mean of 19 years (SD = 8.87). Ages ranged from 26 to 67 years, with a mean of 47 years (SD = 10.89). Participants worked in schools ranging from 120 to 2,500 students across multiple building levels, including elementary (n = 4), middle (n = 6), high school (n = 7), and schools serving multiple grade levels (n = 7). Geographically, participants were employed in the Midwest, South, and West, with schools located in urban (n = 5), suburban (n = 11), rural (n = 7), and mixed settings (n = 1).

Factor 1 represents a strongly harm-oriented perspective. Participants defining this factor tend to view social media as a major contributor to youth mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and emotional distress. They strongly endorsed items emphasizing the severity of online harms, including cyberbullying, anonymity-driven risk, and exposure to dangerous content (e.g., misinformation, racism, self-harm content). For example, this group rated “social media is a major contributor to the surge in youth mental health challenges” and “anonymity, constant exposure to cyberbullying, and harmful content . . . are major contributors to student anxiety and emotional distress” at +4, the highest level of agreement. Factor 1 participants also viewed passive consumption (e.g., endless scrolling, auto-play videos) as harmful (+3), and they rated dangerous or distressing content as highly prevalent (+3). These school counselors showed limited confidence in students’ ability to self-regulate or critically manage their social media use, strongly rejecting statements such as “many students are already critically aware of social media’s risks and actively manage their usage” (−4). They also rejected items emphasizing potential benefits, including social media as a source of belonging or community (−3). Factor 1 school counselors endorsed a limited, content-focused view of corporate responsibility to support efforts to reduce harmful material while rejecting broader expectations that technology companies actively promote youth mental health. Further, they remained neutral on regulatory measures like age-appropriate standards (0) and youth involvement in digital safety (0). Overall, Factor 1 is characterized by a cautionary viewpoint in which social media is primarily seen as a direct, multifaceted threat to youth well-being.

Factor 2: Social Media Use and Psychological Vulnerability

Factor 2 explained 8% of the variance in the total model. This factor comprised eight school counselors from diverse school settings in the United States. Years of experience ranged from 1 to 27 years, with a mean of 12.38 years (SD = 10.28), and participants’ ages ranged from 27 to 52 years (M = 43.25, SD = 9.70). School sizes ranged from 250 to 1,000 students, with participants working across elementary (n = 1), middle (n = 2), high school (n = 4), and multiple-grade settings (n = 1). Geographically, participants were employed in the Northeast, South, and Midwest, in urban (n = 2), suburban (n = 4), and rural (n = 2) schools.

Factor 2 reflects a distinct interpretive lens in which the mental health impact of social media is primarily understood through individual patterns of use, compulsive behaviors, and psychological vulnerability, rather than through structural or platform-level explanations. This viewpoint is distinguished by its emphasis on user-level explanations of harm and its relative skepticism toward structural, policy-based, or equity-focused accounts of social media-related risks. School counselors loading on this factor strongly endorsed the idea that FOMO drives anxiety and compulsive engagement (+4) and that passive scrolling reduces well-being (+3). They also highlighted the cognitive consequences of overuse, including sleep disruption and attention difficulties (+3). Like those in other factor groups, these school counselors agreed that social media can contribute to broader mental health challenges (+4). However, unlike Factor 1, they attributed comparatively less importance to dangerous content and systemic platform risks. Instead, they placed moderate importance on content quality (+2) while strongly rejecting the notion that harmful or dangerous content is widely prevalent (−3). Factor 2 participants also expressed low confidence in structural or policy-oriented solutions, rejecting calls for age-appropriate safety standards (−3) and rating youth involvement in designing safer digital environments even more negatively (−4). They similarly minimized structural explanations related to inequality or marginalization, giving strong negative scores to statements about disproportionate harassment of marginalized groups (−4). Overall, Factor 2 is characterized by an individual-centered explanatory framework in which social media risk is attributed primarily to patterns of use and psychological vulnerability, with comparatively less emphasis on platform design or systemic conditions.

Factor 3: Developmental Vulnerability and Structural Risk

Factor 3 explained 6% of the total variance in the model. This factor included 18 school counselors working in a range of school settings across the United States. Years of experience ranged from 2 to 27 years (M = 11.6, SD = 7.4), and ages ranged from 26 to 57 years (M = 42.1, SD = 8.9). Participants served schools of varying sizes, from 275 to 2,700 students, across elementary (n = 3), middle (n = 1), high school (n = 8), and multiple-grade or other settings (n = 6). Geographically, participants were employed in the South, Northeast, and Midwest, with schools located in urban (n = 3), suburban (n = 11), and rural (n = 4) areas.

Factor 3 represents a perspective that views social media as harmful, but in specific and identifiable ways rather than as a blanket threat. School counselors loading on this factor strongly endorsed concerns about overuse and cognitive effects (+4) and the contribution of social media to broader mental health challenges (+4). They also rated cyberbullying (+3) and peer pressure on self-esteem and behavior (+3) as significant risk factors. Unlike those in Factors 1 and 2, Factor 3 school counselors highlighted content-related and design-related mechanisms through which harm occurs. This group endorsed the prevalence of dangerous content (+2), recognized algorithm-driven exposure to harmful material even without active searching (+1), and noted the effects of influencers and unrealistic lifestyle content on self-image (+1). They also supported age-appropriate safety standards for social media platforms (+3), suggesting a belief in the value of structural or design-oriented interventions. Factor 3 school counselors strongly rejected the notion that media narratives exaggerate social media’s negative effects (−4), indicating that they view these concerns as credible. They also rejected positive or protective claims about social media, including destigmatization of mental health (−3), peer support resources (−2), community building (−1), and the idea that students are already effective at managing risks (−4). Finally, they expressed limited confidence in youth involvement in creating safer digital spaces (−3).

Discussion

This study identified three distinct viewpoints among school counselors regarding the impact of social media on youth mental health, highlighting both convergence and divergence in professional meaning making. Across all three viewpoints, school counselors agreed that social media is connected to increases in anxiety, depression, and emotional distress among students. This shared understanding aligns with a substantial body of empirical research documenting associations between social media use and youth mental health concerns (Agyapong-Opoku et al., 2025; Nesi, 2020; Shannon et al., 2022). Notably, no viewpoint in this study emphasized potential positive effects of social media, such as fostering belonging or social support, representing a departure from prior research highlighting these benefits for youth (Berger et al., 2021; Knowles & Danzi, 2025). Instead, school counselors consistently rejected the notion that social media has beneficial impacts, focusing primarily on its potential psychological risks. In sum, school counselors appear less concerned with whether social media affects mental health and more focused on discerning the specific ways it influences students, informing how they support youth in real-world settings.

Another area of agreement across viewpoints involved concern about excessive use and its cognitive and emotional consequences. All three factor groups endorsed statements related to overuse, sleep disruption, and attention difficulties, which closely mirrors findings linking heavy social media engagement to impaired sleep, reduced concentration, and emotional dysregulation (George & Odgers, 2015; Hamilton & Lee, 2021; Pang & Quan, 2024). School counselors may not always agree on what aspects of social media are most harmful, but many of them point to how students use it as a key factor in understanding its impact. Notably, this consensus aligns with professional recommendations that focus on monitoring use patterns rather than eliminating social media altogether (Sanzari et al., 2023). School counselors may be drawing more from their day-to-day experiences with students in distress than from scholarly arguments about how large or small these effects are.

Factor 1, Heightened Concern for Social Media Harm, closely aligns with literature emphasizing social media as a pervasive and escalating threat to youth mental health. School counselors holding this viewpoint strongly endorsed concerns related to cyberbullying, harmful content exposure, anonymity, and passive consumption, consistent with studies linking these experiences to heightened risk for anxiety, depression, and self-harm (e.g., Lahti et al., 2024; Pang & Quan, 2024). A novel aspect of this factor is its limited endorsement of youth-participatory solutions, which departs from a growing body of literature that emphasizes the importance of youth voice in shaping effective and developmentally appropriate interventions (Chatlani et al., 2023; Odgers et al., 2022). This cautious stance may stem from their frequent exposure to students experiencing serious distress, leading them to prioritize immediate protective measures over participatory approaches. As a result, school counselors may favor structured, adult-led interventions that aim to mitigate harm quickly, even if these approaches offer less opportunity for student input or empowerment.

Factor 2, Social Media Use and Psychological Vulnerability, reflects a perspective that is partially aligned with emerging research emphasizing individual differences and patterns of use over platform-level risk. The strong endorsement of FOMO, compulsive engagement, and cognitive consequences aligns with studies identifying problematic use as a key predictor of distress (George & Odgers, 2015; Hamilton & Lee, 2021; Pang & Quan, 2024). This viewpoint’s de-emphasis of harmful content and systemic inequities departs, however, from research documenting the disproportionate impact of online harassment on marginalized youth, including LGBTQ + students and youth of color (Amadori et al., 2025). A novel contribution of this factor is its clear articulation of skepticism toward institutional solutions, framing social media risk as primarily a matter of individual behavior and psychological vulnerability rather than systemic design. This viewpoint is less common in mainstream professional discussions, which usually focus on changing social media platforms or implementing wide-reaching prevention strategies.

Factor 3, Developmental Vulnerability and Structural Risk, aligns closely with integrative models in the literature that recognize both behavioral and structural mechanisms of harm. This group of school counselors acknowledged both overuse and cognitive effects, and highlighted risks related to algorithms, influencers, and unintended exposure to harmful material, echoing studies on how social media design shapes user behavior (Chhabra et al., 2025). This group’s rejection of claims that social media promotes belonging, peer support, or mental health destigmatization departs from literature highlighting potential benefits for some youth populations (Amsalem et al., 2025; Berger et al., 2021; Knowles & Danzi, 2025).

The key distinctions among the three perspectives were how school counselors think about students’ involvement, who should be responsible for addressing risks, and the importance of structural or systemic measures. School counselors seem to understand social media risks through the lens of their professional beliefs about how young people develop, who holds responsibility, and what role schools or other entities should play. This study highlights the perspectives of a group that has been largely absent from discussions of social media and youth mental health, despite their front-line role supporting students in schools.

Implications

Across the three factors, the study’s findings raise meaningful implications for school counseling practice and preparation. Across all three factors, school counselors strongly agreed that social media is a major contributor to youth mental health challenges (+4 across all factors). This shared emphasis suggests that social media is viewed as an important context shaping students’ emotional and social experiences, alongside other established domains such as peer relationships, family systems, and academic stressors. Accordingly, school counselors may benefit from routinely assessing students’ social media use during counseling sessions, rather than addressing it only when specific concerns arise.

Questions about online experiences, exposure to distressing content, sleep disruption, and peer dynamics may become standard components of school counseling practice, rather than optional follow-ups. For example, school counselors might routinely ask students: “What kinds of social media or online spaces do you spend the most time in?”, “Have you seen or come across anything online recently that felt upsetting, overwhelming, or hard to stop thinking about?”, “How does your phone or social media use affect your sleep or ability to focus at school?”, and “In what ways do online interactions with peers impact how you feel about yourself during the school day?”

In another practical application of this study’s results, school counselors can design comprehensive school counseling program interventions to prioritize harm mitigation over benefit maximization. Although the factor groups differed in their explanations for harm, all three assigned relatively low importance to claims that social media meaningfully supports student well-being (e.g., belonging, destigmatization, peer support). This shared skepticism suggests that school counselors are more likely to approach social media primarily as a potential risk context, even while broader research indicates that protective benefits may exist for some students under specific conditions. Rather than framing direct services (e.g., individual instruction, classroom instruction) around encouraging students to simply use social media more positively, school counselors should prioritize helping students assess when and how their social media use becomes distressing, reduce exposure to harmful or dysregulating online spaces, and strengthen coping strategies and support systems both online and offline. This approach emphasizes risk reduction and resilience while remaining open to the possibility that social media may function as a source of connection or support for some students in specific contexts. Last, schools should afford school counselors a larger role in shaping policies related to student digital well-being, such as school or district guidelines on cell phone use during school hours, responses to cyberbullying and online harassment, digital citizenship instruction, and protocols for addressing online safety concerns. Without this support, school counselors must often respond to broad, system-level challenges related to students’ digital lives with limited structural input, which can be stressful and less effective.

For school counselor preparation, the findings signal a need for counselor preparation programs to normalize uncertainty and complexity in digital mental health. Across the factors, even experienced school counselors interpreted the same phenomena differently. This suggests the lack of a single, unifying framework and that expecting certainty is unrealistic. Given this, counselor education programs should prepare trainees to work effectively even when clear-cut answers about social media risks are not available, emphasizing critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and reflective practice. For example, programs can include case studies where students report distressing online experiences but the level of risk is unclear, allowing trainees to practice assessing situations and deciding how to intervene appropriately. Trainees can also engage in role-play exercises to practice conversations with students about online behaviors, balancing recognition of potential benefits with attention to possible harm. Reflective exercises can help trainees examine their own assumptions and biases about social media, and ethical decision-making simulations can challenge them to navigate situations where responsibilities to students, parents, and the school may conflict. These experiences help future school counselors tolerate ambiguity and complexity while still responding decisively to student distress in real-world contexts.

Another implication for school counselor preparation relates to the relatively limited emphasis on the potential benefits of social media across participant viewpoints. Although school counselors consistently recognized social media as a contributor to youth mental health concerns, fewer perspectives emphasized its potential protective functions, such as connection, support, and identity development. This finding suggests that school counselor preparation programs may be an important setting for helping trainees develop a more balanced foundational understanding of social media. In particular, preparation programs can provide structured opportunities to examine both the risks and benefits of digital engagement, ensuring that emerging school counselors are equipped with a more comprehensive framework for understanding students’ online experiences before entering practice.

Last, social media and digital contexts should be embedded across the curriculum instead of a single course or lecture. The consistency of concern across factors indicates that social media affects nearly every school counseling domain: anxiety, depression, sleep, identity, peer relationships, academic performance, and safety. Treating it as a standalone topic underprepares future school counselors. Thus, counselor preparation programs should integrate digital contexts into assessment, lifespan development, ethics, group counseling, and crisis intervention courses, ensuring that trainees learn how online environments intersect with core counseling competencies.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, as with all Q methodology studies, the purpose was to identify shared viewpoints rather than to estimate prevalence. Therefore, the factor distribution should not be interpreted as representative of the broader population of school counselors. The sample, while geographically diverse, was relatively small and may reflect self-selection bias, in that school counselors with stronger opinions or interest in social media and youth mental health may have been more likely to participate. Further, the Q set, although intentionally broad and research informed, necessarily constrained the range of perspectives participants could express. Hence, some school counselors may have held views that were not fully captured by the available statements. The sample was predominantly White/Caucasian, which may limit the extent to which racially and culturally diverse perspectives on social media and youth mental health are represented in the findings. Finally, factor interpretation relied on researcher judgment, which, although guided by established Q methodology procedures, introduces the possibility of interpretive bias.

Future research could build on this study’s findings in several ways. Quantitative studies with larger, representative samples could examine the prevalence of the perspectives identified here and explore how they relate to school counselors’ demographic characteristics, training experiences, or school contexts. Longitudinal research might help clarify whether school counselors’ attitudes toward social media shift over time in response to emerging research or policy changes. Future studies could also explore how school counselors’ beliefs about social media influence their actual professional practices, decision making, and advocacy efforts within schools. Researchers could further examine the relatively limited emphasis placed by participating school counselors on the potential benefits of social media for youth mental health. Although extant literature highlights the role of digital platforms in facilitating peer support, identity development, and access to mental health resources, the present findings suggest that these dimensions were less central in school counselors’ interpretations. This may reflect the practice context of school counseling, where professionals are more frequently exposed to students experiencing distress related to social media use. Further research is needed to explore how professional role, case exposure, and training influence how educators and mental health professionals construct narratives about digital media, and whether targeted professional development can support a more balanced understanding of both risks and benefits. Finally, incorporating student and family perspectives alongside those of school counselors would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how social-media-related mental health concerns are experienced and addressed across the school community.

Conclusion

Overall, this study offers a meaningful contribution by centering school counselors’ voices in ongoing conversations about social media and youth mental health, an area in which their perspectives have been largely absent despite their frontline role as primary mental health supports in schools. Using Q methodology, this study identified shared ways that school counselors understand social-media-related risks and responsibilities. The three perspectives identified reveal that, although school counselors broadly agree that social media plays a significant role in students’ mental health, they differ in how they interpret the sources of harm and appropriate responses. Highlighting these distinct yet overlapping perspectives underscores the complexity of school counselors’ professional judgment in navigating digital contexts that continue to evolve. Together, the findings point to the importance of school counseling practices and preparation programs that recognize this diversity of perspectives and intentionally support school counselors in addressing students’ mental health needs in an increasingly digital world.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Rawn Boulden, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at North Carolina State University, in Raleigh, NC, USA.

Yolanda Jarrett is a doctoral candidate at North Carolina State University, in Raleigh, NC, USA.

Appendix

References

Agyapong-Opoku

Greenshaw

A. J.

(2025). Effects of social media use on youth and adolescent mental health. Behavioral Sciences, 15(5), 574. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050574

Amadori

Real

A. G.

Brighi

Russell

S. T.

(2025). An intersectional perspective on cyberbullying: Victimization experiences among marginalized youth. Journal of Adolescence, 97(4), 931–940. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12466

American Medical Association . (2023). AMA adopts new public health policies to improve health of nation. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-adopts-new-public-health-policies-improve-health-nation-6

American School Counselor Association . (2021). ASCA student standards. Mindsets and Behaviors for Student Success. Author.

American School Counselor Association . (2022). ASCA ethical standards for school counselors. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/44f30280-ffe8-4b41-9ad8-f15909c3d164/EthicalStandards2022.pdf

American School Counselor Association . (2023). The school counselor and student safety with digital technology [Position Statement]. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/Standards-Positions/Position-Statements/ASCA-Position-Statements/The-School-Counselor-and-Student-Safety-Digital

American School Counselor Association . (2025a). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs (5th ed.). Author.

American School Counselor Association . (2025c). ASCA school counselor professional standards & competencies. Author.

American School Counselor Association . (2025b). The school counselor and student mental health [Position Statement]. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/Standards-Positions/Position-Statements/ASCA-Position-Statements/The-School-Counselor-and-Student-Mental-Health

10.

Amsalem

Martin

Dixon

L. B.

Haim-Nachum

(2025). Using Instagram to promote youth mental health: Feasibility and acceptability of a brief social contact-based video intervention to reduce depression stigma. JAACAP Open, 3(4), 1025–1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaacop.2024.12.004

11.

Anderson

J. R.

Mayes

T. L.

Fuller

Hughes

J. L.

Minhajuddin

Trivedi

M. H.

(2022). Experiencing bullying's impact on adolescent depression and anxiety: Mediating role of adolescent resilience. Journal of Affective Disorders, 1(310), 477–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.003

12.

António

Guerra

Moleiro

(2024). Cyberbullying during COVID-19 lockdowns: Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes for youth. Current Psychology, 43(2), 1067–1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04394-7

13.

Banasick

(2023). Ken-Q Analysis.(Version 2.0.1) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8310377

14.

Berger

M. N.

Taba

Marino

J. L.

Lim

M. S. C.

Cooper

S. C.

Lewis

Skinner

S. R.

Chung

K. S. K.

Bateson

(2021). Social media’s role in support networks among LGBTQ adolescents: A qualitative study. Sexual Health, 18(5), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH21110

15.

Bomysoad

R. N.

Francis

L. A.

(2020). Adverse childhood experiences and mental health conditions among adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(6), 868–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.04.013

16.

Boulden

Henry

(2025). Rural school counselors’ experiences responding to the rural youth mental health crisis. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 15(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2025.v15n1p28-65

17.

Boulden

Schimmel

C. J.

(2022). Factors that affect school counselor retention in rural settings: An exploratory study. The Rural Educator, 43(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.55533/2643-9662.1334

18.

Boulden

Simmons

(2025). Rural school counseling competencies: A Delphi study. Professional School Counseling, 29(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X241310866

19.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . (2024). Youth risk behavior survey: Data summary and trends report. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/YRBS_Data-Summary-Trends_Report2023_508.pdf

20.

Chatlani

Davis

Badillo-Urquiola

Bonsignore

Wisniewski

(2023). Teen as research-apprentice: A restorative justice approach for centering adolescents as the authority of their own online safety. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 35, 100549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100549

21.

Chhabra

Pilkington

Benakovic

Wilson

M. J.

La Sala

Seidler

(2025). Social media and youth mental health: Scoping review of platform and policy recommendations. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, Article e72061. https://doi.org/10.2196/72061

22.

Cohen

Bendelow

Smith

Cicchetti

Davis

M. M.

Heffernan

(2023). Parental attitudes on social media monitoring for youth: Cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 6, Article e46365. https://doi.org/10.2196/46365

23.

Curtin

S. C.

Garnett

M. F.

(2023). Suicide and homicide death rates among youth and young adults aged 10–24: United States, 2001–2021. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/128423

24.

Derges

Bould

Gooberman-Hill

Moran

Linton

M. J.

Rifkin-Zybutz

Biddle

(2023). Mental health practitioners’ and young people’s experiences of talking about social media during mental health consultations: Qualitative focus group and interview study. JMIR Formative Research, 7, Article e43115. https://doi.org/10.2196/43115

25.

Domoff

S. E.

Armstrong

Rollings

Mancuso

Janney

(2025). Perspectives of clinicians on the potential impact of social media on social and emotional wellbeing, training needs, and screening recommendations: A preliminary examination. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1484456

26.

Faverio

Anderson

Park

(2025). Teens, social media and mental health. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social-media-and-mental-health/

27.

Gay

Straight Education Network . (2019). The 2021 national school climate survey. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/NSCS-2021-Full-Report.pdf

28.

George

M. J.

Odgers

C. L.

(2015). Seven fears and the science of how mobile technologies may be influencing adolescents in the digital age. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 832–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615596788

29.

Hamilton

J. L.

Lee

K. S.

(2021). Social media, bedtime technology use, and daytime sleepiness in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 88, 104–114. https://doi.org/10.2196/26273

30.

Hayes

James

Barn

Watling

(2022). Adolescent perceptions of the risks and benefits of social networking site use. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCBPL.306646

31.

Knowles

E. A.

Danzi

B. A.

(2025). The role of online social support in mental health: Comparing rural and urban youth. Children, 12(2), 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12020113

32.

Koita

Long

Hessler

Benson

Daley

Bucci

Thakur

Harris

N. B.

(2018). Development and implementation of a pediatric adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and other determinants of health questionnaire in the pediatric medical home: A pilot study. PLoS One, 13(12), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208088

33.

Lahti

Kokkonen

Hietajärvi

Lyyra

Paakkari

(2024). Social media threats and health among adolescents: Evidence from the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-024-00754-8

34.

McCance-Katz

Lynch

(2019). Guidance to states and school systems on addressing mental health and substance use issues in schools. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/pep19-school-guide.pdf

35.

McKeown

Thomas

(1988). Q methodology. Sage Publications.

36.

Mental Health America . (2020). Addressing the youth mental health crisis: The urgent need for more education, services, and supports. https://mhanational.org/sites/default/files/FINALMHAReport-AddressingYouthMentalHealthCrisis-July2021.pdf

37.

Nesi

(2020). The impact of social media on youth mental health: Challenges and opportunities. North Carolina Medical Journal, 81(2), 116–121. https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.81.2.116

38.

Odgers

C. L.

Allen

N. B.

Pfeifer

J. H.

Dahl

R. E.

Nesi

Schueller

S. M.

Williams

J. L.

National Scientific Council on Adolescence . (2022). Engaging, safe, and evidence-based: What science tells us about how to promote positive development and decrease risk in online spaces (Council Report No. 2). UCLA Center for the Developing Adolescent. https://developingadolescent.semel.ucla.edu/assets/uploads/research/resources/Engaging%2C_Sage%2C_and_Evidence-Based_What_Science_Tells_Us_About_How_to_Promote_Positive_Development_and_Decrease_Risk_in_Online_Spaces_for_Early_Adolescents.pdf

39.

O’Keeffe

G. S.

Clarke-Pearson

(2011). Clinical report: The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. American Academy of Pediatrics, 127(4), 800–804. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0054

40.

Pang

Quan

(2024). Assessing detrimental influences of fear of missing out on psychological well-being: The moderating role of self-presentation, upward contrast, and social media stalking. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 19(3), 881–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-024-10272-6

41.

Popat

Tarrant

(2023). Exploring adolescents’ perspectives on social media and mental health and well-being: A qualitative literature review. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28(1), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591045221092884

42.

Sanzari

C. M.

Gorrell

Anderson

L. M.

Reilly

E. E.

Niemiec

M. A.

Orloff

N. C.

Anderson

D. A.

Hormes

J. M.

(2023). The impact of social media use on body image and disordered eating behaviors: Content matters more than duration of exposure. Eating Behaviors, 49, 101722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2023.101722

43.

Shannon

Bush

Villeneuve

P. J.

Hellemans

K. G. C.

Guimond

(2022). Problematic social media use in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mental Health, 9(4), Article e33450. https://doi.org/10.2196/33450

44.

Stainton Rogers

(1995). Q methodology. Sage Publications.

45.

Stickley

Koyanagi

Koposov

Blatny

Hrdlicka

Schwab-Stone

Ruchkin

(2016). Loneliness and its association with psychological and somatic health problems among Czech, Russian and U.S. adolescents. BMC Psychiatry, 16(128), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0829-2

46.

The Trevor Project . (2022). National survey on LGBTQ youth mental health. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/assets/static/trevor01_2022survey_final.pdf

47.

University of Wisconsin . (2025). Q-TIP: Q-method testing and inquiry platform. https://qtip.geography.wisc.edu/#/

48.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . (2021). Protecting youth mental health: The Surgeon General’s advisory. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-youth-mental-health-advisory.pdf

49.

Watts

Stenner

(2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. Sage Publications.

50.

Wilson

Dumornay

N. M.

(2022). Rising rates of adolescent depression in the United States: Challenges and opportunities in the 2020s. Journal of Adolescent Health, 70(3), 354–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.12.003

51.

Zeng

(2025). The impact of social media on adolescents’ mental health. Communications in Humanities Research, 85(1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/2025.HT27388