Could social media actually be beneficial for kids?
Two years back, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt released his bestselling book, The Anxious Generation, which argues that the surge in social media and smartphone usage is a major factor behind the significant decline in teen mental health since 2010. The book quickly became a rallying point for those critical of social media. Haidt has been instrumental in advocating for Australia’s nationwide ban on teen social media use and has collaborated with grieving parents taking legal action against tech companies. His insights have resonated with influential figures who credit his work with shedding light on a growing online crisis.
However, Haidt’s theory has faced scrutiny from established academics. Candice Odgers, a prominent researcher in adolescent mental health, published a critical review in Nature, acknowledging that while Haidt’s book is likely to be a bestseller, it tells a troubling narrative about children’s development that many parents are inclined to accept. Following this prediction, a former colleague of Haidt, Peter Gray, aims to challenge his theory and present an alternative perspective. The pressing question may not be about the accuracy of Gray’s claims, but whether it’s too late to alter the current trajectory if he is right.
In his new book, Restoring Childhood, Gray contends that the decline in teen mental health is primarily due to a long-term reduction in autonomy, rather than the influence of smartphones and social media as Haidt suggests. He argues that the rigid educational methods associated with the Common Core curriculum and governmental pressure to enhance student performance have contributed to this decline. Interestingly, Gray posits that the rise of home internet access in the 1990s and 2000s actually helped improve teens’ mental health by restoring a sense of freedom and connection that had been lost. He warns that social media bans could be not only a distraction from addressing the real issues but could also inflict additional harm.
In a discussion on The Vergecast, Gray pointed out that Haidt’s book “completely ignored” numerous meta-analyses and research indicating “no significant correlation between the time kids spend on social media or smartphones and their mental health.” He adds that when a connection does exist, studies show that teens often use social media as a coping mechanism for depression or anxiety. He cites a Florida study revealing that 11-to-13-year-olds with smartphones were more likely to engage in real-world interactions with friends. “Taking a smartphone away from your kids could actually make them less happy and reduce their social circles,” he explains.
Gray emphasizes that across various studies, students consistently identify school-related pressure as their primary source of anxiety, not social media. “While it may not be the main source for everyone, every study I’ve found where kids are asked about their top sources of anxiety or stress points to school pressure as the leading factor,” he states. “Nothing else comes close.”
Both Gray and Haidt agree that since at least the 1980s, increased restrictions on children’s independence and unstructured play have negatively impacted their resilience. The trend of unsupervised play has declined, partly due to heightened fears of “stranger danger” fueled by rare but sensational crimes. In 2017, they co-founded an organization called Let Grow, advocating for policies that empower parents to allow their children more freedom, such as not being labeled neglectful for letting kids play outside alone. However, their views diverge sharply regarding the internet’s impact. Gray’s book serves as a direct counter to Haidt’s, leading him to resign from the Let Grow board to avoid conflicts.
While Haidt did not respond to a request for comment, he previously mentioned that the drop in teen suicide rates during the 1990s and early 2000s might be attributed to the phase-out of leaded gasoline, which has been linked to mental health issues. He also criticized Gray for relying too heavily on a minority of dissenting researchers. Many experts consulted by an outlet expressed concern that Haidt may exaggerate the strength of correlational findings and imply causation without sufficient evidence.
Gray accuses Haidt of inciting a moral panic over technology that is not fundamentally harmful. He argues that the Common Core curriculum is the most plausible explanation for the recent decline in teen mental health. At a population level, he believes the effects of social media are mixed, with some kids benefiting while others struggle.
While Gray supports certain restrictions, such as school phone bans and age verification for accessing adult content, he questions the effectiveness of social media bans, knowing that kids will likely find ways around them. He advocates for teaching children how to navigate these platforms instead of imposing strict limitations. “We need to stop treating kids as if they’re incapable of making good choices,” he asserts. “They can benefit from our guidance in learning how to manage these tools.”
However, many parents of younger teens may find themselves without that option. Haidt’s theory has gained significant traction, especially among politicians. Following Australia’s social media ban for teens, the UK and EU are considering similar measures, while states like California and New York have implemented restrictions on certain social media features. Even those who find Gray’s arguments about the Common Core compelling may still view offline time for kids as a harmless precaution.
With the backlash against phones and social media gaining momentum, can Gray’s book still influence the conversation? “I certainly hope it’s not too late,” he responds. He notes that some moral panics have eventually subsided. In the 1990s and 2000s, concerns that video games like Mortal Kombat and Doom were inciting violence among children were prevalent, often linked to school shootings. Over time, research revealed that many mass shooters did not play video games, and attempts to regulate them, such as a California ban on selling violent games to minors, were largely overturned. Many who played these games grew up to be influential figures themselves. “The science ultimately prevailed,” Gray concludes. “It’s not about me winning; it’s about the science winning.”
