How Social Media Affects Teens: Psychologist Challenges the Harm Theory

Developmental psychologist Candice Odgers has spent 25 years studying the impact of social media on teenagers — and her findings challenge the popular narrative about the "reformatting of childhood." Research from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences shows that the relationship between social platform use and adolescent mental health is far more complex than commonly believed. For brands working with influencer ads and blogger advertising, this means reconsidering assumptions about youth audiences and their online behavior.

Correlation versus causation in social media research

Since 2008, Odgers has been collecting daily data from the phones of children aged 10–14: time spent in apps, sleep quality, step count, and academic performance. The results do not support the thesis that social media is the primary cause of rising depression and anxiety among teenagers. In a Nature review, the psychologist notes: "Hundreds of researchers, including myself, have looked for the large-scale effects that Haidt describes. We've found a mix of absent, weak, and contradictory correlations."

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences spent a year analyzing the impact of social media on child and adolescent health. The expert committee's conclusion: "Contrary to the prevailing cultural narrative about universal harm from social media for teenagers, the reality is more complex." The data show correlation, but do not prove causation — girls who already have depression begin spending more time on social media, not the other way around.

"Designating social media as the primary culprit is manipulation, because in the vast majority of research, the picture looks different. And this sucks all the air out of the room when it comes to finding solutions."

Banning social media for teenagers: evidence from Australia

Australia introduced a ban on social media use for users under 16, and the United Kingdom is preparing to follow suit. Odgers believes that bans will make things worse. Research published in the British Medical Journal found that more than 85% of teenagers continued using social media three months after Australia's ban took effect. "They will use platforms regardless of whether we want them to or not. The more we make it a forbidden place, the less likely they are to tell us about problems, report harm, or ask for help," the psychologist explains.

Ban proponents, including Haidt, interpret those same 85% differently: if a law reduced alcohol consumption or smoking by 30–40%, that would be considered a huge success. Odgers disagrees: social media cannot be compared to tobacco — for some teenagers it's a support community, and the effects are mixed. The risk of cyberbullying exists, but research shows that the majority of children who experience online bullying are also bullied offline — at school, at home, and by acquainted adults.

Real factors in the youth mental health crisis

Odgers and Haidt agree on one thing: adolescent mental health has deteriorated. But the Canadian psychologist sees a broad spectrum of causes: the aftermath of recessions, rising mental health problems among adult caregivers, the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the U.S., the opioid crisis. Meanwhile, today's teenagers show declining teenage pregnancy rates, are better educated, and are less prone to violence than their parents' generation. "Today's teenagers are amazing," Odgers emphasizes.

The psychologist considers bans on phones in schools an inefficient use of resources. Money spent on special cases to block devices would be better directed toward hiring teachers and school psychologists and creating safe spaces for teenagers. "All this energy could go into building, not bans," she says. Social media restrictions do not address the question of fostering healthy relationships between children and artificial intelligence — an issue that is coming to the forefront.

Regulating platforms instead of restricting users

Odgers advocates for strict regulation of tech companies rather than users. Sexting, non-consensual image sharing, and bullying — 80–90% of victims of these phenomena are women and girls, while 90% of tech company owners and developers are men. "We need to prosecute those responsible for online harm and tech companies that allow terrible things to happen," the psychologist insists.

Odgers has faced freedom of information requests from journalists for three years as they seek evidence of tech company funding. She receives grants from U.S. federal agencies and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. "Few people speak up publicly because there's a price to pay. There's an assumption that I'm somehow funded by Big Tech, which is absurd," she comments. The researcher herself gave smartphones to both her children at age 11 and allowed her daughter to use Snapchat at the same age — to help her stay connected with friends who were grieving a loss.

Conclusions for brands working with influencer marketing

Odgers' research shows that youth audiences remain on social media regardless of legislative restrictions, and their behavior and needs are more complex than stereotypes suggest. For brands, this means a targeted approach to selecting communication channels and influencers — universal strategies like "social media is harmful, teenagers are leaving" simply don't work. When planning campaigns with blogger advertising, it's important to consider actual data on audience reach and engagement rather than rely on cultural narratives. Professional media buying and KPI forecasting based on current research, which the ETC team specializes in, help build effective campaigns based on real, not mythologized, youth behavior in the digital environment.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it true that social media causes depression in teenagers?

Research shows correlation, not causation. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded that the reality is more complex than the universal narrative about harm — girls who already have depression spend more time on social media, not the other way around. Psychologist Candice Odgers and her colleagues have spent 25 years looking for large-scale effects of social media on mental health and have found a mix of absent, weak, and contradictory relationships.

Is banning social media for teenagers effective?

Data from Australia suggest otherwise: three months after the ban was introduced for users under 16, more than 85% of teenagers continued using platforms. Psychologists warn that bans may worsen the problem — teenagers will move to less safe and less regulated spaces and stop reporting online problems to adults.

What affects adolescent mental health besides social media?

Researchers cite a wide range of factors: the aftermath of economic crises, worsening mental health among adult caregivers, the COVID-19 pandemic, and in the U.S., the opioid crisis. Most children who experience cyberbullying are also bullied offline — at school, at home, and by acquainted adults — suggesting deeper social problems.

In Brief

• 25 years of research show: the link between social media and depression in teenagers is more complex than the popular harm narrative — data demonstrate correlation, not causation
• Three months after the social media ban in Australia, more than 85% of teenagers under 16 continued using platforms
• The U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded: contrary to cultural narrative, the actual impact of social media on teenagers is far more complex
• 80–90% of victims of sexting and non-consensual image sharing are women and girls, while 90% of tech company owners are men
• Psychologists propose regulating platforms and prosecuting those responsible for online harm rather than restricting user access
• Today's teenagers show declining teenage pregnancy rates, are better educated, and are less prone to violence than their parents' generation
• For brands, the key takeaway: youth audiences remain on social media regardless of bans, and campaign planning requires relying on real data, not stereotypes