Discover Pandipedia

Meta selected a stratified random sample of U.S. users aged 18 or older who had logged in at least once during the past month. The invitations were placed at the top of users’ news feeds from August 31 to September 12. Users who clicked on the invitation were informed about the study and asked two key questions: what weekly payment they would accept to deactivate their account for either one week or six weeks. Those agreeing to deactivate for $25 per week and providing consent were then directed to complete a short enrollment survey administered by the National Opinion Research Corporation (NORC)^[1].

After completing the baseline survey, participants were randomly assigned into one of two groups. The randomization was stratified across 36 strata, defined by indicators such as residence in an election swing state, average daily platform use over the previous 30 days, self-reported political party identification, and race. Approximately 27% of participants were placed in the treatment group (Deactivation Group) that was offered a payment of $150, contingent on not logging into the focal platform (either Facebook or Instagram) for six weeks. The remaining 73% formed the Control Group, which received $25 and were asked to deactivate for only one week. This design ensured that all participants perceived themselves as part of a study involving deactivation, thereby reducing the risks of experimenter demand effects and differential attrition^[1].

The experiment was carefully scheduled. Once randomized, Meta deactivated the participants’ focal platform accounts starting on September 23. The Control Group’s accounts were reactivated on September 30, while the accounts of those in the Deactivation Group were reactivated on November 4. This deliberate timing created a clear comparison between a longer deactivation period (six weeks) and a shorter one-week deactivation. In addition to the deactivation incentive, participants were paid $5 for completing the baseline survey and at least $20 for the endline survey. Some participants also received additional compensation for allowing passive tracking of their smartphone app and web browser use, thereby providing detailed behavioral data to complement the self-reported outcomes^[1].

The primary outcome measure of the study was the users’ emotional state. Both baseline and endline surveys included three specific questions addressing how often respondents felt happy, depressed, or anxious during the previous four weeks. The available response options were 'All of the time,' 'Often,' 'Sometimes,' 'Rarely,' and 'Never', which were coded numerically and then standardized to produce the variables ‘happy’, ‘depressed’ and ‘anxious’. For the latter two, responses were re-signed (multiplied by -1) so that higher values indicated a more positive emotional state. An emotional state index was then created by averaging these three variables and re-standardizing the index. This careful measurement allowed the researchers to precisely quantify changes in emotional well-being as a result of the deactivation intervention^[1].

The study design was constructed to minimize potential biases and confounding factors. For example, by offering a short deactivation period for the control group as well, the design isolated monetary and duration differences as the key distinguishing features between the two groups. Pre-specified procedures, including controls based on baseline measures and demographic variables, were in place to adjust for any slight imbalances in the sample (e.g., a minor imbalance in baseline emotional state observed among Facebook users). Moreover, the researchers used an instrumental variables approach to account for imperfect compliance with the deactivation protocol. Passive tracking data were also collected for a subset of participants to assess how deactivation affected overall mobile application use and whether time freed from using Facebook or Instagram was reallocated to other apps^[1].

Robert Stevenson, Alan Stevenson's son and Thomas Smith's stepson, quickly became involved in the field^[1]. Introduced by marriage under his roof was of a character to sympathise; the public usefulness of the service would appeal to his judgment, the perpetual need for fresh expedients stimulate his ingenuity^[1]. Snared by these interests, the boy seems to have become almost at once the eager confidant and adviser of his new connection^[1]. By the age of nineteen, Stevenson already held a position of authority, superintending the construction of the lighthouse on the isle of Little Cumbrae, in the Firth of Clyde^[1].

Both Thomas Smith and Robert Stevenson felt the charm of this occupation strongly^[1]. Thomas Smith was a reformer, and the superiority of his proposed lamp and reflectors over open fires of coal secured his appointment^[1]. As for Robert Stevenson, the public usefulness of the service appealed to his judgment, and the perpetual need for fresh expedients stimulated his ingenuity^[1]. Both men found the life of an engineer appealing: the seas into which his labors carried the new engineer were still scarce charted, the coasts still dark; his way on shore was often far beyond the convenience of any road; the isles in which he must sojourn were still partly savage^[1]. He must toss much in boats; he must often adventure on horseback by the dubious bridle-track through unfrequented wildernesses; he must sometimes plan his lighthouse in the very camp of wreckers; and he was continually enforced to the vicissitudes of outdoor life^[1].

Robert Stevenson continued to advance in his calling and gained familiarity with members of Parliament, judges ofthe Court of Session, and 'landed gentlemen'^[1]. He acquired a ready address and a flow of interesting conversation, and when he was referred to as 'a highly respectable bourgeois,' resented the description^[1]. Thomas Smith, having designed a system of oil lights to take the place of the primitive coal fires before in use, he was dubbed engineer to the newly-formed Board of Northern Lighthouses^[1].

In 1807, the partnership between Thomas Smith and Robert Stevenson dissolved, with Robert Stevenson becoming the sole engineer to the Board of Northern Lights^[1]. He threw himself into the work with ardency and thoroughness^[1]. This involved dangerous and laborious travel; in 1802, Robert visited the coast of England, a distance of 2500 miles, and by 1834 seems to have been acquainted with the coast of France from Dieppe to Bordeaux^[1].

Robert Stevenson's chief claim to the style of a mechanical inventor is on account of the Jib or Balance Crane of the Bell Rock, which are beautiful contrivances^[1]. Smeaton had adopted in his floors the principle of the arch; each therefore exercised an outward thrust upon the walls, which must be met and combated by embedded chains^[1]. My grandfather's flooring-stones, on the other hand, were flat, made part of the outer wall, and were keyed and dovetailed into a central stone, so as to bind the work together and be positive elements of strength^[1].

Robert Stevenson faced many perils and escapes during his career^[1]. His life was marked by hard winds, rough seas, and reliance on the try-sail and storm-jib'^[1]. His work often required him to land on open beaches or among shelving rocks to bring supplies and equipment to the light stations^[1]. At times, he was left in strange berths and with but rude provision^[1].

From 1794 onward, Robert Stevenson’s mind had been exercised with the idea of a light upon the formidable Bell Rock danger^[1]. To build a tower on a sea rock, eleven miles from shore, and barely uncovered at low water of neaps, appeared a fascinating enterprise^[1]. He visited a piece of sea-board; and from the inclination and soil of the beach, from the weeds and shell-fish, from the configuration of the coast and the depth of soundings outside, he must deduce what magnitude of waves is to be looked for^[1].