Kids and Smartphones

If we could do it over again we would not allow our kids to have smartphones so early—Grade 7 and Grade 9.

At the time, we were not thinking of the dangers lurking in those devices.

In a 2020 paper, Jean Twenge concludes:

After remaining stable during the early 2000s, the prevalence of mental health issues among U.S. adolescents and young adults began to rise in the early 2010s. These trends included sharp increases in depression, anxiety, loneliness, self‐harm, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide, with increases more pronounced among girls and young women. There is a growing consensus that these trends may be connected to the rise in technology use. Increased digital media and smartphone use may influence mental health via several mechanisms, including displacement of time spent in in‐person social interactions, individually and across the generation, as adolescent cultural norms evolve; disruption of in‐person social interactions; interference with sleep time and quality; cyberbullying and toxic online environments; and online contagion and information about self‐harm.

Consider this chart showing poor mental health among U.S. girls and young women from 2001-2018:

What caused the dramatic spike in poor mental health? After considering economic factors, Twenge writes, “There is a growing consensus that the decline in mental health may be linked instead to the increasing popularity of smartphones and social media around this same time.” Twenge is not claiming to prove causation between technology use and depression, but she is pointing to a correlation.

What happened in the years preceding the spike in 2012? Jonathan Haidt says social media platforms added the like and share features, which increased engagement, and provided data for algorithms to feed personalized content to users.

However, in a 2021 paper, Susan Tang finds the evidence linking technology use and poor mental health inconclusive:

Current findings regarding the association between social media and internalising mental health symptoms were mixed. Past systematic reviews have concluded that social media is positively associated with depression, anxiety and psychological distress in adolescents (Keles et al., 2020; McCrae et al., 2017). However, unlike the current review, these past reviews consisted predominantly of cross-sectional studies.

So Tang acknowledges that previous studies show a positive association, but she critiques them for being cross-sectional. (Cross-sectional studies analyze different groups during the same time period whereas longitudinal studies follow the same group over a long duration.) Even with that criticism noted, Tang still admits that there is some truth to the previous results. She continues:

It is possible that there are individual differences in the effect of social media on internalising mental health symptoms. For instance, it has been shown that social media use may be associated with higher levels of loneliness among adolescents who are already low in in-person social interaction, but not those high in in-person social interaction (Twenge, Spitzberg, & Campbell, 2019). Furthermore, the use of social media for the purpose of social comparison and feedback seeking (Nesi & Prinstein, 2015), and passive, rather than active use of social media (Frison & Eggermont, 2016; Thorisdottir, Sigurvinsdottir, Asgeirsdottir, Allegrante, & Sigfusdottir, 2019) have been shown to be associated with higher subsequent depressive symptoms among adolescents. Use of social media for such reasons may lead young people to feel sub-standard or failing in aspects of their personal lives. Together, these findings suggest that motivations underlying the use of social media, and indeed other screen types/uses, may moderate the relationship between screen time and internalising symptoms.

Tang raises important questions: How lonely was the teenager before they starting using social media? Were they using the platforms actively or passively? This is a helpful critique and shows why controlling all the confounding variables is most likely impossible, meaning we cannot run a true experimental study.

It’s also important to note that the studies focus on screen time and not social media use because no one is looking over people’s shoulders to see exactly what they are doing on their screens. But the point remains that even for Tang social media has a negative impact on particular segments of the teenage population: “it has been shown that social media use may be associated with higher levels of loneliness among adolescents who are already low in in-person social interaction.”

Additionally, Haidt says we are not limited to correlational studies because we also have survey data from teenagers. According to these self-reports, teenagers claim to have more stress because of social media. (For an example of self-report data, read this article about Emma Lembke, the founder of the Log Off Movement.) In addition to the stress teenagers have in relating with each other and preparing for their future, they now must handle a whole other world of interactions. And while they are on their screens, they are missing out on in-person interactions, which they desperately need.

We can also add common sense to survey data. What content can people access on smartphones? Violence, pornography, political extremism, gender confusion, etc. Of course, there are filters, but kids find ways around them. So handing a kid a smartphone is giving them access to all the dark sides of the internet. Do you really want to do that?

What’s the solution?

Wait until your child is older before giving them a smartphone. Until then get them something like a Gabb phone—no internet, no social media, no games. (Don’t worry, I’m not a paid sponsor.)

This may be a hard road to take and will likely require many conversations with your child, especially when their friends have smartphones, but it may be the best path for their mental health.