Social media may affect mental health in teens, but on average the link is small. Across 355,358 US and UK teens, all digital technology use combined was linked to at most 0.4% of the differences in well-being (Study). Studies that track timing and compulsive use suggest some teens may be affected more than that average shows.
Governments have now joined the argument. Australia’s ban on social media accounts for under-16s took effect in December 2025 (Study). The UK announced plans for its own ban in June 2026 (Announcement). Australia’s ban is the first real test, and three months of results are now in.
What Is the Teen Mental-Health Crisis?
The worry starts with a real trend. In 2013, 30% of US high school students reported persistent sadness or hopelessness (Report). That means feeling sad or hopeless almost every day for at least two weeks in a row. It was bad enough that they stopped some of their usual activities. The share climbed to a peak of 42% in 2021, then dipped to 40% in 2023.
The gap between girls and boys is wide. In 2023, 53% of girls reported these feelings, against 28% of boys (Report). A 2025 survey of 10,710 students put the overall share at about 33% (Report). That is lower than in 2023, but the 2025 report did not test whether the change was real.
Two camps read this trend very differently. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt blames the rise in teen anxiety and depression on the shift to smartphones and social media. In his account, that shift came roughly between 2010 and 2015. He calls it the “great rewiring” of childhood, and he says it hit girls hardest.
Psychologists such as Amy Orben, Andrew Przybylski and Candice Odgers push back. They say the average link between screens and mood is small, and that nobody knows for sure which way it runs.
Much of the debate comes down to that second point. A correlation means two things tend to show up together. A cause means one thing makes the other happen. If sad teens scroll more, scrolling might be making them sad. Or sad teens might scroll to escape, or loneliness or a hard home life might drive both. Most studies in this field can only show correlations.
The Case for Harm
The strongest case for harm comes from a natural experiment. That is a real-world event that reaches some groups before others, so researchers can compare them. Facebook opened college by college between 2004 and 2006. Economists Braghieri, Levy and Makarin compared students who had Facebook with students who did not have it yet (Study).
When Facebook arrived at a college, students’ mental health got worse. The share expected to have moderate to severe depression rose from 25% to 27% (Report). The number reporting an anxiety disorder rose by about a fifth.
The authors’ analysis suggests the harm came through social comparison, which means judging your own life against what peers show online (Study). The effects were bigger for students more likely to come off worse next to their peers. That included students who lived off campus or carried credit card debt (Study).
These were college students, not 13-year-olds. The Facebook of 2004 to 2006 also came before feeds sorted by algorithm, and before most people used it on a phone. So the study can’t tell us about those later features.
A second line of evidence looks at timing. A team led by Jason Nagata followed 11,876 US children from age 9 or 10 for three years (Study). Their average social media use grew from about 7 minutes a day to about 73 minutes. When a child’s use rose above their own usual level, their depressive symptoms tended to rise a year later. Parents, not the children, rated those symptoms. The reverse did not show up: more depressive symptoms were not followed by more social media use.
That cuts against the idea that sad kids simply scroll more. Kids who used more social media than other kids were not more depressed, once the team allowed for family and background (Study). The link showed up only within each child, as that child’s own use changed.
Even Orben’s own work found a warning sign. Her 2022 study followed 17,409 UK young people aged 10 to 21 (Study). Most of the year-to-year links were small enough that chance could explain them. But at certain ages, heavier social media use came before lower life satisfaction a year later.
The team called these windows of sensitivity. For girls they fell at about 11 to 13, and for boys at about 14 to 15. Both sexes showed one again at 19. The authors suggest the earlier windows may line up with puberty. They could not test that idea, though, and the effects were small.
Trials of cutting back point the same way. A 2025 meta-analysis, which pools the results of many studies, combined 10 trials with 1,491 people (Meta-analysis). In each trial, a coin flip decided who was asked to cut back on social media. Cutting back led to a small drop in depressive symptoms. But no trial lasted longer than three weeks. The average person taking part was 24 years old, not a young teen.
Why Some Scientists Say It’s Small
In their 2019 study, Orben and Przybylski did not pick just one way to slice the data. Instead, they ran tens of thousands of versions of the analysis on three big surveys and looked at every result (Study). None linked technology use to more than 0.4% of the differences in teen well-being (Study).
To make that number concrete, they compared it with everyday habits (Study). In one survey, regularly eating potatoes was tied to lower well-being almost as much as technology use was. In another, wearing glasses was tied to it even more. Being bullied or smoking marijuana had far bigger links to lower well-being. Getting enough sleep and eating breakfast had stronger links to higher well-being.
Critics argued that other choices in the analysis would reveal more harm. So the authors reran the numbers with most of the changes the critics asked for (Reply). Technology use was still tied to only a fraction of a percent of the differences. Wearing glasses still had a stronger link. For girls, the figure for technology came close to half of one percent.
Another big study zoomed out to whole countries. Matti Vuorre and Przybylski tracked Facebook’s spread across 72 countries from 2008 to 2019. They matched it with well-being answers from 946,798 people (Study). As Facebook spread, well-being did not get worse. If anything, the links leaned slightly positive. But they were small, and chance could explain some of them.
This study has clear limits. It used averages for groups within each country, not each person’s own use. The authors say it cannot show cause (Study). Its youngest well-being group ran from 15 to 34. So the 11- to 13-year-olds at the center of the debate are left out, and older teens are lumped in with young adults.
Not every pooled analysis of experiments agrees with the 2025 one. In 2024, psychologist Christopher Ferguson pooled 27 social media experiments (Meta-analysis). He posted his plan in advance. Overall, the effect on mental health was small enough that chance could explain it. He also questions whether experiments like these can settle the matter, since people can often guess what the researchers expect.
A 2025 commentary notes that Ferguson’s analysis was examined closely after it came out (Review). It also points to a gap that weakens both sides. In a set of 32 trials of cutting back, none focused on children or teens. Most lasted only a week or two, and the volunteers were people who already wanted to cut back.
Finally, the link may run both ways. In Orben’s 2022 study, young people with lower life satisfaction went on to report more social media use a year later (Study). That held at every age and in both sexes, and both directions were small. So a teen who feels low may reach for the phone more, not just the other way around. Nagata’s younger US group showed no such reverse link, so this question is still open.
Australia’s Ban Is the First Test
Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act took effect in December 2025. It bars under-16s from holding accounts on 10 major social media platforms. A study in the BMJ surveyed Australian teens just before the law began and about three months after (Study). In all, 408 teens answered both times.
Three months in, more than 85% of under-16s were still using at least one restricted platform. Between 54% and 68% were using their own accounts, and about 15% to 19% used a fake one. Of the under-16s still on the apps, 66% said they had gone through an age check. Most often, that meant typing in an age or taking a selfie.
The team also compared teens just under 16 with those just over it. If the ban worked, use should drop sharply at the age-16 line. There was no clear drop in daily use or in time spent (Study). Daily use fell somewhat among 14- and 15-year-olds, from 78% to 69%. It held steady among 12- and 13-year-olds.
This study measured social media use, not mental health (Study). It also covers only three months. The authors say health gains are unlikely, especially in the short term. They add that the law’s full effects may not show for a decade. The study was small and relied on teens’ own reports. A 12-month follow-up is planned for December 2026.
The UK is next in line, though its ban is not law yet. On 15 June 2026, the government announced plans to ban social media for under-16s (Announcement). The ban would cover apps like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube. The government does not plan to include messaging apps like WhatsApp.
The government intends to put the first rules before Parliament by the end of 2026. It expects them to take effect in spring 2027 (Government response). Before that, the regulator Ofcom owes Parliament a review of how to check reliably that a user is over 16. That review is due by the end of October 2026 (Ofcom report). Australia’s early numbers suggest those checks will matter.
Watch Compulsive Use, Not Hours
Some research steps around the fight over hours. The problem may be less about time online than about how hard it is to stop.
A 2025 study in JAMA followed 4,285 US children from about age 10 for four years (Study). Instead of only counting hours, it asked kids about addictive use. That meant trouble stopping, a growing need to use the apps, and feeling upset when cut off. Nearly one in three showed a pattern of compulsive social media use that kept rising from about age 11.
Those kids were about twice as likely to report suicidal behaviors as kids with low compulsive use (Study). About 5 in every 100 children in the whole study reported suicidal behaviors at the four-year check-in. Total screen time at the start was not linked to any of the outcomes.
A 2026 study in Pediatrics points the same way for phones. Among 10,588 US children, owning a smartphone at 12 was linked to depression, obesity and too little sleep (Study). Kids who first got one between 12 and 13 were more likely to have clinical-level mental-health problems at 13. That held even after allowing for how they were doing at 12. The authors stress this cannot prove cause, and they are not calling for limits on phones.
The JAMA study measured addictive use with short questionnaires (Study). An earlier paper on the same group of US children lists those questions (Study). They make a useful checklist for parents. Watch for a teen who thinks about the apps constantly, needs ever more time on them, or uses them to forget problems. Other signs are failing to cut back, getting upset when access is blocked, slipping schoolwork and arguments about the phone.
One caveat covers all of this. These are observational studies, where researchers watch what happens without changing anything. They show patterns, not proof of harm.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Social Media Affect Mental Health in Teens?
It may, especially at certain ages. A UK study found that heavier use came before lower life satisfaction a year later. This showed up at about 11 to 13 for girls and 14 to 15 for boys (Study). The effects were small, and the study could not prove cause.
Is Social Media Bad for Mental Health?
On average, the link looks small. Across 355,358 teens, technology use of all kinds was linked to at most 0.4% of the differences in well-being (Study). That figure covers all screen use, not social media alone. It also cannot show what causes what.
Does Social Media Cause Mental Health Issues?
That has not been proven either way. In 11,876 US children, rises in social media use came before rises in depressive symptoms, not after (Study). That timing fits the idea that social media does harm. But the researchers only watched what happened, so other factors could explain it.
How Much Does Social Media Affect Mental Health?
It may depend more on the pattern than the hours. In 4,285 US children, a rising pattern of compulsive social media use was linked to about twice the risk of suicidal behaviors (Study). Total screen time at the start was not linked to the outcomes.
Key Takeaways
- The average link is small. Technology use of all kinds was linked to at most 0.4% of the differences in well-being across 355,358 teens (Study).
- Timing hints at harm. In 11,876 children, rises in social media use came before rises in depressive symptoms, not the other way around (Study).
- A natural experiment found harm. Student mental health got worse after Facebook arrived at US colleges, likely through social comparison (Study).
- Australia’s ban is leaky so far. Three months in, more than 85% of under-16s still used restricted platforms, and mental health was not measured (Study).
- Watch the pull, not the hours. Rising compulsive use was linked to about twice the risk of suicidal behaviors, while screen time was not (Study).
- Nearly all of it can’t show cause. Trials of cutting back are short, and none focused on children or teens (Review).
What Parents Can Do Now
You don’t have to wait for the science or the bans to act at home.
Start by noticing the pull. Does your teen struggle to put the phone down, or get upset when they can’t use it? In the research, those patterns mattered more than total hours at the start (Study).
Protect sleep, too. Owning a phone at 12 was linked to too little sleep (Study). Kids who got one at a younger age were more likely to sleep too little or have obesity. The link to depression was not clear. None of this proves the phone is the cause. Charging the phone outside the bedroom is a simple step to try, though no study here tested it.
Then talk about how the feed makes your teen feel. Ask which accounts leave them feeling worse about their own life. In the Facebook study, comparison was the likely path to harm (Study). If your teen’s school is weighing a phone rule, read our look at what school phone bans do and don’t change.
A rule or a ban is unlikely to fix a teen’s mental health on its own. If your teen talks about self-harm or suicide, contact a doctor or a crisis line right away.
Noticing the pull and asking about it costs nothing, and it keeps you on your teen’s side.
Neither camp has the final word yet, and both may turn out to be partly right. The evidence is still building, and it’s worth following with an open mind.
This article is for educational purposes and is not medical advice. Talk to a qualified clinician before changing your health regimen.
Leave a Reply