While calls for increased social media restrictions for teens are rising, with many nations now looking to follow Australia’s lead in enacting higher age limits, two new studies (highlighted by TechDirt) have added more fuel to the debate, with both showing that social media isn’t definitively harmful for teens.
In fact, in many cases, it’s the opposite.
The first new study, which was conducted by researchers from the University of South Australia, and incorporates responses from over 100k Australian teens over a period of three years, found that heavy social media usage can indeed be linked to bad outcomes, and poorer mental health. But for the majority of users, social media usage is actually a positive, with teens deriving significant benefit from online connection.
As per the report:
“Moderate social media use was associated with the best well-being outcomes, while both no use and highest use were associated with poorer well-being. For girls, moderate use became most favorable from middle adolescence onward, while for boys, no use became increasingly problematic from mid-adolescence, exceeding risks of high use by late adolescence.”
The theory here is that as kids reach mid-adolescence, social media becomes a more central element of how friendships are maintained, which means that having no access can lead to negative outcomes.
Which is interesting in the context of the current social media ban discussions, many of which are focused on increasing the age of access to 16. The data from this report shows that this could have a negative impact, but then again, some element of these findings relates to exclusion, in that older teens lose out by not being able to stay in touch.
But if all of their friends are also banned, that could be reduced. But if they’re connecting with older teens…
Basically, the data shows that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach that best aligns with the research, though heavy social media usage, it suggests, should be limited.
Maybe, then, a more effective approach would be social app usage limits for younger teens, or a broader campaign to raise awareness of parental controls.
The second study was conducted by the University of Manchester, which looked at the social media usage habits of 25 kids aged between 11 and 14, and it also concluded that there’s no definitive link between social media and gaming time spent, and negative mental health outcomes.
As per the report:
“The lack of evidence linking social media use or gaming frequency to later internalizing symptoms suggests that these activities may not play a causal role in the development of adolescent mental health difficulties. Our findings challenge the widespread assumption that time spent on these technologies is inherently harmful and highlight the need for more nuanced perspectives that consider the context and individual differences in their use.”
So, similar to the Australian study, the data essentially shows that different people will have different outcomes, in some cases good, some bad, but that the evidence, based on a very large data set, does not support the idea that social media, or gaming in this second report, leads to mental health impacts.
Of course, this is nothing new. Many studies have been conducted seeking definitive correlations between social media usage and mental health impacts, and all of them have essentially found the same, that some people, particularly heavy users, are more susceptible to harm, while for the majority, the connective benefits largely outweigh any risks.
Which points to the fact that we should be investing in digital literacy education instead, and accepting the reality that online connection is now a critical element of social interaction more broadly, and no matter what people might hope for, we’re not going back to a pre-internet time.
This out-of-date perspective was highlighted in Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s statement ahead of the enactment of Australia’s under-16 social media ban, with Albanese suggesting that kids “start a new sport, learn a new instrument, or read that book” as alternatives to social media use.
That’s not happening. No matter how much you might think it’s better for them, or how much you might prefer it, kids aren’t going back to kicking a ball and building cubby houses, they’ll just find another online service which enables them to connect.
Because online connection is now a part of the structure of our society, and it’s only logical that we operate with that principle in mind.
Yet, politicians see attacking social media as an easy win, because older voters believe it to be the enemy, as the key difference between then and now, and as such, the main focus for their ire at the state of the world.
And social media has been harmful, but more so to older users than youngsters who’ve grown up with it.
Older users are more likely to spread misinformation, are more likely to believe AI fakes, and fall for more scams online than younger audiences.
Younger audiences are more skeptical, more wary, and generally have a better sense of such due to growing up in the digital world.
Of course, these are in variance to the mental health impacts, which are the main focus of concern, but again, the evidence suggests that the real impacts of social media are being felt due to older people being impacted by such, as opposed to younger groups.
Which, again, points to the need for improved digital literacy training, at all levels, to ensure that people are aware of concerns, that they question what they see, and are conscious of limiting their use.
Basically, you can’t spend all day online, you do need to break out of those bubbles where you can, and that applies to all age groups.
As such, teen social media use, in itself, shouldn’t be the main focus of concern.
