What if social media isn’t hurting kids? | The VergeSkip to main contentThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.The VergeThe Verge logo.TechReviewsScienceEntertainmentAIPolicyNotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.NotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonNavigation DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Login / Sign UpcloseCloseSearchLightSystemDarkTechExpandAmazonAppleFacebookGoogleMicrosoftSamsungBusinessSee all techReviewsExpandSmart Home ReviewsPhone ReviewsTablet ReviewsHeadphone ReviewsSee all reviewsScienceExpandSpaceEnergyEnvironmentHealthSee all scienceEntertainmentExpandTV ShowsMoviesAudioSee all entertainmentAIExpandOpenAIAnthropicSee all AIPolicyExpandAntitrustPoliticsLawSecuritySee all policyGadgetsExpandLaptopsPhonesTVsHeadphonesSpeakersWearablesSee all gadgetsVerge ShoppingExpandBuying GuidesDealsGift GuidesSee all shoppingGamingExpandXboxPlayStationNintendoSee all gamingStreamingExpandDisneyHBONetflixYouTubeCreatorsSee all streamingTransportationExpandElectric CarsAutonomous CarsRide-sharingScootersSee all transportationFeaturesVerge VideoExpandTikTokYouTubeInstagramPodcastsExpandDecoderThe VergecastVersion HistoryNewslettersArchivesStoreVerge Product UpdatesSubscribeFacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSThe VergeThe Verge logo.What if social media isn’t hurting kids?NotificationsNotificationsComments DrawerNotificationsCommentsLoading commentsGetting the conversation ready...PolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPodcastsClosePodcastsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PodcastsReportCloseReportPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ReportWhat if social media isn’t hurting kids?A new book says modern schooling, not phones, are behind youth mental health declines. Will anyone listen?A new book says modern schooling, not phones, are behind youth mental health declines. Will anyone listen?by Lauren FeinerCloseLauren FeinerSenior Policy ReporterPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Lauren FeinerSep 15, 2026, 8:13 PM UTCLinkShareGiftImage: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty ImagesLauren FeinerCloseLauren FeinerPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Lauren Feiner is a senior policy reporter at The Verge, covering the intersection of Silicon Valley and Capitol Hill. She spent 5 years covering tech policy at CNBC, writing about antitrust, privacy, and content moderation reform.Two years ago, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt released his New York Times bestseller The Anxious Generation. The book posits that the rise of social media and smartphone use is largely to blame for the prominent decline in teen mental health since 2010. It quickly became a central rallying cry of the social media backlash. Haidt has been credited with helping inspire Australia’s nationwide teen social media ban. He has joined forces with bereaved parents who are fighting tech companies in court. His name comes up unprompted in conversations with people in power who say his book opened their eyes to an online crisis.Haidt’s theory has received regular critiques from recognized academics. Candice Odgers, a leading adolescent mental health researcher, wrote a scathing review of Haidt’s analysis in Nature that opened by conceding, “this book is going to sell a lot of copies, because Jonathan Haidt is telling a scary story about children’s development that many parents are primed to believe.” Now, in the wake of that highly accurate prediction, a former colleague of Haidt’s seeks to not only take down his theory, but also offer an alternative. The biggest question may not be whether he’s correct — but whether it’s too late to change course if he is.In his new book Restoring Childhood, psychology researcher Peter Gray argues that teens’ mental health declined thanks to decades of steadily reduced autonomy, and after a brief period of reprieve, fell again in the 2010s not — as Haidt argues — because of phones and social media, but because of rigid schooling methods linked to the Common Core curriculum and government pressure to improve children’s performance. And far from being damaging, Gray also argues the adoption of home internet in the 1990s and 2000s actually drove a rebound in teens’ mental health by restoring freedom and connection lost in earlier decades. He fears social media bans aren’t just — as Odgers has argued — a distraction from real solutions, but a new harm in themselves.“You take a smartphone away from your kids and that study suggests you’ll make them less happy”In an interview on The Vergecast, Gray told me that Haidt’s book “completely ignored” dozens of meta-analyses and other research that’s found “not even a meaningful correlation between the amount of time kids are on social media or on smartphones and their mental health.” Where there is some connection, Gray adds, studies suggest that teens may use social media to cope with their depression or anxiety. He references a study in Florida that found 11-to-13-year-olds who owned smartphones were more likely to spend real-world time with friends. “You take a smartphone away from your kids and that study suggests you’ll make them less happy and they’ll have less friends,” he says.Gray says that in studies through the years, kids consistently identify school pressure, not social media, as their top source of anxiety. “That doesn’t mean it’s the primary source for everybody, but when you’re looking at the population at large, every single study that I’ve been able to find where kids are asked, ‘What’s the primary source of your anxiety or your stress or your depression?’, in every single one of them, school pressure comes out on top,” Gray tells me. “Nothing else comes close.”Gray and Haidt both believe that since at least the 1980s, increased restrictions on kids’ independence and unstructured play have damaged their resilience. While it used to be common for kids to play together unsupervised, that practice has diminished in part due to the rise of “stranger danger” narratives fostered by rare, but high-profile, crimes. In 2017 the pair helped cofound an organization called Let Grow, which advocates for policies that make it easier for parents to let their children play freely, like ensuring they can’t be considered neglectful for letting kids outside by themselves. But the two have split sharply over the impact of the internet. Gray’s book is intended as a deliberate rebuttal to Haidt’s — after The Anxious Generation’s release, Gray resigned from the board of Let Grow to avoid conflict within the organization.Haidt did not respond to a request for comment from The Verge, but he told The Atlantic’s Kaitlyn Tiffany in a July article that the 1990s and early 2000s dip in teen suicide rates may be credited to a phase-out of leaded gasoline, since lead exposure has been linked to mental health issues. He also told Tiffany that Gray relied too heavily on a minority dissenting group of researchers. Tiffany writes that many of the more than a dozen tech and child development researchers she spoke to “expressed concern that Haidt overstates the strength of correlational findings and suggests causation where it hasn’t been proved.”Gray accuses Haidt of stirring a moral panic over technology that isn’t, on the whole, harmful. Looking across research, he says, Common Core is the clearest explanation for the sudden decline in teen mental health. And at the population level, the impact of social media “balances out. Some kids are doing better, some kids are doing worse because they’re on social media.”“We need to stop treating kids as if they’re idiots”Gray says he’s not opposed to all guardrails, including school phone bans and the concept of age verification for accessing pornography. But he questions the effectiveness of bans on social media, knowing kids are likely to get around them, and is hesitant to restrict platforms that let kids express themselves — suggesting instead that parents focus on teaching their children to navigate them. “We need to stop treating kids as if they’re idiots,” he told me. “We need to start understanding that kids are pretty good at knowing what’s good for them and not good for them and they can benefit from our help in learning how to do these things.”But increasingly, parents of younger teens may not have that choice. Haidt’s theory holds undisputed dominance in many circles, including among politicians. Since Australia’s social media ban for teens, the UK and European Union are among those considering their own bans or platform limits. In the US, states like California and New York have enacted limits on certain social media features, and a federal proposal would restrict algorithmic feeds for kids under 17. Even among people who find Gray’s arguments about Common Core convincing, some might still see taking kids offline as a harmless precaution.With so much momentum behind the backlash against phones and social media, can Gray’s book still make a difference? “I certainly hope it’s not too late,” he says. He points out that some moral panics have petered out. In the 1990s and 2000s, for instance, many people worried that video games like Mortal Kombat and Doom were making kids more violent, connecting their rise to that of school shootings. Eventually, research showed many mass shooters didn’t play video games after all. Attempts at regulation — including a California ban on the sale of violent games to children — were largely overruled. And many kids who did play them grew up to become those in charge. “The science won out eventually,” Gray says. “So it’s not me that’s going to win out. It’s the science that’s going to win out.”Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Lauren FeinerCloseLauren FeinerSenior Policy ReporterPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Lauren FeinerPodcastsClosePodcastsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PodcastsPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyReportCloseReportPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ReportSocial MediaCloseSocial MediaPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Social MediaTechCloseTechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All TechVergecastCloseVergecastPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All VergecastMost PopularMost PopularThe Dell XPS 13 is the first real competitor to the MacBook NeoApple releases iOS 27 with Siri AI overhaulThe Steam Frame is made for irresponsible hardware nerds like meApple Home’s new security camera features cost as much as $60 a monthMicrosoft issues emergency Windows 11 update to fix its record-breaking patchThe Verge DailyA free daily digest of the news that matters most.Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adMore in PolicyIs Big Tech’s AI slowdown a safety pact or a cartel?What execs and politicians are saying about slowing down AI developmentTrump throws out power plant climate pollution rulesJensen Huang puts Trump on speakerphone onstage to announce robots won’t take over the worldWhat happens after a town de-FlocksTrump and Mike Johnson think the AI industry is overreactingIs Big Tech’s AI slowdown a safety pact or a cartel?Hayden FieldSep 14What execs and politicians are saying about slowing down AI developmentJay PetersSep 14Trump throws out power plant climate pollution rulesJustine CalmaSep 14Jensen Huang puts Trump on speakerphone onstage to announce robots won’t take over the worldJay PetersSep 14What happens after a town de-FlocksGaby Del ValleSep 14Trump and Mike Johnson think the AI industry is overreactingTerrence O'BrienSep 13Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adTop Stories1:00 PM UTCThe premium AirPods 5 are the best open-ear earbuds Apple has made4:18 PM UTCHow The Oregon Trail became a generational icon11:00 AM UTCGM found a way to coexist with CarPlaySep 14Apple Home’s new security camera features cost as much as $60 a monthThe VergeThe Verge logo.FacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSContactTip UsCommunity GuidelinesArchivesAboutEthics StatementHow We Rate and Review ProductsCookie SettingsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy RightsYour Privacy ChoicesCookie NoticeAdChoicesLicensing FAQAccessibilityPlatform StatusPenske Media CorporationThe Verge is a part of PMX Global, LLC, a subsidiary of Penske Media Corporation.© 2026 VM Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved.Our SitesThe American PavilionARTnewsArt in AmericaArtforumArt Week NYCBeauty IncBillboardDeadlineDick Clark ProductionsThe DodoEaterFlow SpaceFNGold DerbyGolden GlobesThe Hollywood ReporterIndieWireLife is BeautifulPopsugarPunchSJ DenimRobb ReportRolling StoneSB NationSHE MediaShe KnowsSourcing JournalSoapsSporticoStyleCasterSXSWThrillistVarietyThe VergeVibeWWDNotifications DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Sign in to see your notifications or create an account to join the conversation.Sign in

A debate exists regarding the impact of social media on youth mental health, as articulated in the book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt, which posits that the rise of social media and smartphone use is largely responsible for the decline in teen mental health since 2010. This theory spurred public backlash, including the Australian nationwide teen social media ban, and drew criticism from researchers such as Candice Odgers, who questioned the strength of Haidt's correlational findings. In response, psychology researcher Peter Gray argues that the decline in teen mental health is more accurately attributed to decades of reduced autonomy stemming from rigid schooling methods, such as the Common Core curriculum and government pressure for performance improvement. Gray suggests that the adoption of home internet access during the 1990s and 2000s actually fostered a rebound in mental health by restoring freedom and connection.

Gray contends that social media bans may be a distraction from deeper issues, and he points out that meta-analyses have found only a weak correlation between time spent on social media or smartphones and mental health. Instead, Gray suggests that when examining the population as a whole, school pressure consistently emerges as the primary source of anxiety and stress for children in various studies. Furthermore, Gray hypothesizes that while the impact of social media is complex, studies indicate that teens may utilize these platforms to cope with depression or anxiety. For instance, a study in Florida suggested that adolescents who owned smartphones were more likely to engage in real-world interactions with friends. The contrasting viewpoints highlight a fundamental disagreement over causality: whether social media is the primary driver of mental health decline or a symptom of broader societal and educational constraints.

Both Haidt and Gray acknowledge that increased restrictions on childhood independence and unstructured play have historically damaged resilience. While Haidt's theory gained traction, Gray’s work aims to offer an alternative framework, suggesting that understanding how children navigate these technologies is more beneficial than outright restrictions. Gray advocates for a focus on teaching children self-awareness and navigation skills rather than simply removing access to platforms, noting that children possess the capacity to determine what is beneficial for them. Despite the strong momentum behind social media restrictions in policy circles, the debate remains unresolved regarding the ultimate cause and the most effective path forward for safeguarding youth well-being.