Let’s be honest, social media isn’t driving a teen mental health crisis
Social media is an easy target for society’s woes, but there is little hard evidence for its link with bad mental health, writes Matthew Lesh
A new book has ignited debate on social media this week. It is perhaps appropriate that the book, The Anxious Generation, is itself about social media.
Author Jonathan Haidt, a high-profile social psychologist, argues that childhood development has been disturbed by replacing play and in-person socialising with screen time, driving a youth mental health crisis. This book will undoubtedly bolster the campaign from those aiming to ban social media use for under-16s.
There’s just one big problem: the evidence does not support Haidt’s apocalyptic claims.
In a review of The Anxious Generation in Nature magazine, psychology professor Candice Odgers warns that assertions about social media driving an epidemic of mental illness are “not supported by science”. Odgers says that research consistently finds a “mix of no, small and mixed associations”. Many studies find correlation rather than proven causation. It’s quite possible that young people who use social media in an unhealthy manner already have mental health problems.
Haidt has responded to this criticism by listing the number of studies linking youth mental health issues with social media. But this is hardly exemplary of the scientific method. Science is not a democratic process, with whoever publishes the most papers winning the argument. Rather, it’s necessary to weigh the strength of each individual paper.
One such study that sought to review the reviews (that is, analyse metastudies in the field) found that the claimed links between social media and mental health are ‘weak’ or ‘inconsistent’. One such review, from Amy Orben of the University of Cambridge, found links in both directions and claimed negative associations are at best “‘very small”. One study, for example, found that wearing glasses negatively impacted youth mental health more than screen time.
If the internet has a big negative impact, we expect to see worsening mental health globally. But that’s not the case. The most reliable statistic to assess is teen suicide, as it addresses variations in self-reporting of mental health issues across time and place. On this front, there has been a clear increase in teen suicide over the last decade in the United States, but elsewhere, including the United Kingdom, teen suicide rates remain low or stable.
But even when you look at self-reported survey findings, the impact of social media is still far from clear. Matti Vuorre and Professor Andrew K Przybylski of Oxford University examined life satisfaction and internet uptake among 2m people in 168 countries over two decades. Looking at this broader data set and cross-national measures, unlike many narrower studies that claim negative effects, they find minor and inconsistent shifts in global mental health.
It’s important not to oversimplify in this debate. Social media and screen time may have been harmful for some children. For many, however, technology is used to connect with friends and family, explore new
ideas and build communities. One study by Andrew K Przybylski and Netta Weinstein, which analysed
social media among English adolescents, found that moderate use may be good for mental health, while high levels had a measurable, small negative impact.
Technology is a tool that enriches our lives when used properly. The challenge for parents and schools is to ensure teens understand the risks and encourage positive behaviour. Broad generalisations and unrealistic knee-jerk bans will achieve little and could do much harm to healthy childhood development.