Rethinking the Social Media Hysteria

Despite political warnings and popular books claiming otherwise, the evidence linking youth mental health struggles to social media is weak at best—and dangerously distracting at worst

At a recent conference hosted by the media watchdog group Common Sense Media, Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a warning that felt like déjà vu:

“It…is getting more and more dangerous for kids to be online. We now have irrefutable evidence of all kinds of mental health challenges and problems that are certainly correlated with and even caused by excessive usage by young kids.”

Clinton’s statement echoed a rising chorus of alarm—one increasingly repeated in bestsellers and across dinner tables and school board meetings. But assertions of “irrefutable evidence” are bold claims, especially in scientific discourse. As someone who has studied these issues for over a decade, I was struck less by the fear in her statement than by the certainty. If such evidence exists, it has not made its way into the peer-reviewed literature. Quite the opposite.

The evidence—such as it is—points not to a straightforward, tech-induced youth crisis, but rather to a far more complex story. In some ways, it is a story of adult fears projected onto teenagers. In others, it's a cautionary tale of moral panic distracting us from deeper, systemic problems.

Let’s begin with the most intuitive question: If social media is harming kids, then surely reducing it should help? The empirical answer, however, is disappointing. Two major meta-analyses—studies that aggregate many experiments—have concluded that cutting back on social media use does not conclusively lead to meaningful improvements in youth mental health.

Some small-scale studies have hinted at transient benefits—perhaps a few days of improved mood followed by a return to baseline—but these effects are inconsistent and likely too small to matter. Complicating matters, many of these experiments are poorly designed, making it easy for participants to guess the study’s purpose and skew results accordingly.

In short, the belief that taking phones away from teens will fix their mental health is not supported by the data. At best, the hypothesis remains unproven.

In the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere, school cell phone bans have become policy darlings. The rationale is straightforward: if smartphones are distractions, banning them should improve behavior, grades, and emotional well-being. However, regulatory legislation has thus far been rejected by the courts.

A large U.K. study found no mental health benefits from even the strictest bans. Meta-reviews remain similarly skeptical. Experimental data suggests smartphones do not impair attention or cognition in meaningful ways.

Worse, some bans seem to do active harm. One school district that adopted a cellphone ban saw increased bullying, worsened grades, and deteriorating mental health. The ban also led to hundreds of additional suspensions. Even as outcomes were worsening, school officials claimed that the bans were a remarkable success. Since we do know that suspensions correlate strongly with negative outcomes, this should concern us.

It’s hard to escape the impression that banning phones was more about optics and appeasing adult anxieties than improving student welfare.

Even if causation is elusive, what about correlation? Are kids who use more social media also more likely to suffer mentally?

Here, too, the evidence disappoints. Most meta-analyses find either no relationship or an extremely weak one. We're talking about social media explaining somewhere between 0% and 1% of the variation in youth mental health.

And that’s without adjusting for confounders. When researchers control for factors like family stability, personality traits, or socioeconomic status, the already-weak correlations vanish almost entirely.

Some scholars now believe genetic predispositions—like higher neuroticism—may explain both increased screen use and elevated distress. In other words, the screens may not be causing the problems; they may simply be where kids with pre-existing issues spend time.

It’s true that some self-reported survey data has shown worsening mental health trends. But pinning this on screen time requires an evidentiary leap. Other plausible culprits—family breakdown, income inequality, increased ideological polarization, and educational politicization—have stronger empirical footing.

The reliability of self-reports is increasingly in doubt. Recent research suggests youth mental health self-assessments are inconsistent, unstable, and often misleading. Hospital data, long considered more trustworthy, has also come under scrutiny due to changes in reporting standards.

These are sobering reminders that even “real-world” data can mislead, especially when it confirms our existing fears.

That leaves us with the most concrete—and tragic—metric of mental health: suicide rates.

Unlike survey responses or ER visits, suicide data is relatively robust. If smartphones were triggering a widespread crisis, we’d expect to see a clear rise in suicides.

We don’t.

Across most of Europe, teen suicide rates have remained flat or declined over the last decade. The U.S. does show a rise in teen suicides—but the sharpest increases were not among tech-savvy youth, but among middle-aged white men and Native American men, both demographics more impacted by economic despair and intergenerational trauma than Instagram.

The best predictors of youth suicide, according to CDC data, is parental suicide, abuse and absence. Yet this devastating link rarely features in the media’s discourse about social media harm. That silence should trouble us.

The history of American anxiety over youth is long: comic books, rock music, Dungeons & Dragons, violent video games, even novels were once thought to corrupt the minds of the young. We are repeating the pattern, only now the villain is digital.

What makes this moral panic especially damaging is its capacity to crowd out serious conversations. If we are to serve the next generation, we must look beyond seductive scapegoats and toward root causes—family trauma, educational environments, and the cultural forces shaping identity and resilience.

It is easier to blame a device than to examine what lies beneath. But if we truly care about youth mental health, it’s time to put the phone down—and pick up the evidence.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy. 

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.