The professor of psychology discusses his research showing that social media has no negative impact on adolescent mental health, why science needs contrarians, and the anatomy of a moral panic
Thanks for writing! Well the biggest problem is likely that, as with all moral panics, worrying about technology is likely going to distract people from *real* causes of mental distress in teens such as family discord. Do consider subscribing to my substack as well to learn more!
Really interesting episode for me, as I’ve worked across telecoms, finance, and charity data, often interpreting and advising how to incorporate new datasets into the thinking.
Meta analysis is a fascinating field, and obviously there are well documented refutations to these findings, brought up within the episode, so I wont linger too much on those. I will say that it’s crazy to dismiss the timeframes of the studies as cancelling each other out (abstaining for a day makes a person feel worse, whilst for longer periods makes them feel better), when that so clearly shows that these programs that companies pour millions into to make them addictive, do in fact bring out all the classic addictive traits when it comes to usage and withdrawal. Social media with its expectation of content, and ability to compare with a much wider circle seems to clearly amplify the obligations and the negative feelings.
One last misreading of the data was the comparison of your guest to Semmelweis; for me Haidt is the more accurate comparison as he's spent years challenging how things are done today, going against the establishment and the established norms using a variety of datasets to prove the case. Despite this, progress remains slow, and things such as the KOSA struggle to pass despite bi partisan support, something rarely found these days! Rather than Semmelweis, this feels more like the pushback telling us that there’s not enough evidence that we should be washing our hands!
Anyway, that’s my take, thanks for both of you for taking the time to talk through it all and publishing it for us!
Well, when timeframes are analyzed continuously, there doesn't appear to be a moderator effect there, which is why this doesn't support the withdrawal argument). All the effect sizes were weak anyway, so this is mainly trying to scrape a barrel. Further, this is using one ill-supported theory (withdrawal/addiction) to support another ill-supported theory, creating a tautology. There's probably some moving of goalposts here too, since these rationalizations are made post-hoc in order to support a beloved theory. We can (no offense) see that a bit in your own language "...it's crazy to dismiss...", "....so clearly shows...", etc.
As for the rest, moral entrepaneurs oftentimes attempt to portray themselves as crusaders while actually accumulating significant influence (and money). That the same single name keeps coming up isn't a sign of good science and should worry us in and of itself.
And, of course, moral panics always involve some kind of comparison to some other field that's been well established. At least you used "washing hands" instead of cigarettes (the more typical).
At any rate, the data to support this moral panic is no better than previous. 10-15 years from now we'll have moved on and most people will "forget" that they ever cheered it on.
Interesting - I’ll definitely take the time to research a little further on the effect sizes as it seems people have claimed strong correlations off the back of them.
I’m a libertarian who tends to think that we should just let people make their own choices. My reasons to object in this case are because it affects kids directly in pretty pernicious ways that we can’t see and easily measure. For bonus points, I restrict my usage heavily, as do friends in tech, but it’s the observed experience of all that it provokes persistent negative feelings. Add to that the amount of money that these companies invest to shut any regulation down, and their unwillingness to subject their kids to it, and it’s all a little sinister really. I resisted comparison with cigarettes because it is a little trite, but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…well you know the rest. I’ll have to hold my hands up to being a guy with a reasonably strongly held theory, if not beloved, which I would gratefully see proven out just so we can get the ball rolling on restricting usage for minors and delivering a consistent message to non minors to allow them to make a fair call on their next steps.
As for the moral entrepreneur, I do get that, but I think that in this case, approaching it from a scientific perspective and documenting it so ardently is probably the surest sign that the intentions are to prove correlation to the point where changes have to be made, rather than to create a movement of the people or just create a marketable counter cultural stance. Probably worth remembering that there are also a fair amount of immoral entrepreneurs looking to gain capital politically, financially or otherwise by presenting themselves as anti establishment/elite/intellectual - Alex Jones and the flat earth movement sticking out above the parapet.
As you say though, let’s see how the dust settles on it all. Hopefully, if you’re correct, they categorically disprove the link so we can all move our focus elsewhere!
Adam, thank you so much for listening, and for your thoughtful comments.
I'm a layperson, so I'll leave technical data discussion to you and Chris, but speaking for myself, one of the things I found rewarding about the interview, and a motive I had for reaching out to Chris to have him on as a guest, was that I share with you the personal feeling that social media and devices more generally are addictive, or at least give me the 'slippery slope' experience of becoming easier and easier to resort to, and harder and harder to set aside, and so I found the conclusion that there is no evidence of a negative effect on adolescents to be counter-intuitive and contrary to my own experience.
I see the effects, or at least, I perceive an effect from device use and platforms like YouTube or Instagram on the children in my family and of friends, and I respect very much the effort that Jonathan Haidt has made to look into this question and bring attention to it. I reached out to him and Zach Rausch to invite them onto the show, and they were both too busy, unfortunately, but I'd be very interested to have their perspective.
So it's the counter-intuitive finding that made my conversation with Chris all the more interesting and satisfying, because, at least from his research, the scientific method was yielding up something that I found hard to believe or accept. I suppose that would be why the Semmelweiss comparison seemed apt. I definitely didn't get from Chris the sense that he was indifferent to the mental health of young people (not that I think you were suggesting that), but rather that he wanted to see time, attention, and resources going in a direction that might help deal with underlying issues or give researchers a more granular understanding of how social media acts upon the still-forming brain, if in fact it does.
I do share his resistance to and suspicion of the reflex of moral panic that often creeps in whenever 'the kids' are involved, and it's true that I've lived through enough of them, all over different things that more or less came to naught, to see the sense in taking them as a cyclical social dynamic rather than necessarily valid on their own terms.
I hope that speaks to your points, and not at too great a length. Thanks again.
Thank God I do not have children at home to worry about this issue but it is obviously a huge problem that more people need to understand.
Thanks for writing! Well the biggest problem is likely that, as with all moral panics, worrying about technology is likely going to distract people from *real* causes of mental distress in teens such as family discord. Do consider subscribing to my substack as well to learn more!
Really interesting episode for me, as I’ve worked across telecoms, finance, and charity data, often interpreting and advising how to incorporate new datasets into the thinking.
Meta analysis is a fascinating field, and obviously there are well documented refutations to these findings, brought up within the episode, so I wont linger too much on those. I will say that it’s crazy to dismiss the timeframes of the studies as cancelling each other out (abstaining for a day makes a person feel worse, whilst for longer periods makes them feel better), when that so clearly shows that these programs that companies pour millions into to make them addictive, do in fact bring out all the classic addictive traits when it comes to usage and withdrawal. Social media with its expectation of content, and ability to compare with a much wider circle seems to clearly amplify the obligations and the negative feelings.
One last misreading of the data was the comparison of your guest to Semmelweis; for me Haidt is the more accurate comparison as he's spent years challenging how things are done today, going against the establishment and the established norms using a variety of datasets to prove the case. Despite this, progress remains slow, and things such as the KOSA struggle to pass despite bi partisan support, something rarely found these days! Rather than Semmelweis, this feels more like the pushback telling us that there’s not enough evidence that we should be washing our hands!
Anyway, that’s my take, thanks for both of you for taking the time to talk through it all and publishing it for us!
Hey Adam thanks for your reply.
Well, when timeframes are analyzed continuously, there doesn't appear to be a moderator effect there, which is why this doesn't support the withdrawal argument). All the effect sizes were weak anyway, so this is mainly trying to scrape a barrel. Further, this is using one ill-supported theory (withdrawal/addiction) to support another ill-supported theory, creating a tautology. There's probably some moving of goalposts here too, since these rationalizations are made post-hoc in order to support a beloved theory. We can (no offense) see that a bit in your own language "...it's crazy to dismiss...", "....so clearly shows...", etc.
As for the rest, moral entrepaneurs oftentimes attempt to portray themselves as crusaders while actually accumulating significant influence (and money). That the same single name keeps coming up isn't a sign of good science and should worry us in and of itself.
And, of course, moral panics always involve some kind of comparison to some other field that's been well established. At least you used "washing hands" instead of cigarettes (the more typical).
At any rate, the data to support this moral panic is no better than previous. 10-15 years from now we'll have moved on and most people will "forget" that they ever cheered it on.
Thanks again for your comment!
Interesting - I’ll definitely take the time to research a little further on the effect sizes as it seems people have claimed strong correlations off the back of them.
I’m a libertarian who tends to think that we should just let people make their own choices. My reasons to object in this case are because it affects kids directly in pretty pernicious ways that we can’t see and easily measure. For bonus points, I restrict my usage heavily, as do friends in tech, but it’s the observed experience of all that it provokes persistent negative feelings. Add to that the amount of money that these companies invest to shut any regulation down, and their unwillingness to subject their kids to it, and it’s all a little sinister really. I resisted comparison with cigarettes because it is a little trite, but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…well you know the rest. I’ll have to hold my hands up to being a guy with a reasonably strongly held theory, if not beloved, which I would gratefully see proven out just so we can get the ball rolling on restricting usage for minors and delivering a consistent message to non minors to allow them to make a fair call on their next steps.
As for the moral entrepreneur, I do get that, but I think that in this case, approaching it from a scientific perspective and documenting it so ardently is probably the surest sign that the intentions are to prove correlation to the point where changes have to be made, rather than to create a movement of the people or just create a marketable counter cultural stance. Probably worth remembering that there are also a fair amount of immoral entrepreneurs looking to gain capital politically, financially or otherwise by presenting themselves as anti establishment/elite/intellectual - Alex Jones and the flat earth movement sticking out above the parapet.
As you say though, let’s see how the dust settles on it all. Hopefully, if you’re correct, they categorically disprove the link so we can all move our focus elsewhere!
Adam, thank you so much for listening, and for your thoughtful comments.
I'm a layperson, so I'll leave technical data discussion to you and Chris, but speaking for myself, one of the things I found rewarding about the interview, and a motive I had for reaching out to Chris to have him on as a guest, was that I share with you the personal feeling that social media and devices more generally are addictive, or at least give me the 'slippery slope' experience of becoming easier and easier to resort to, and harder and harder to set aside, and so I found the conclusion that there is no evidence of a negative effect on adolescents to be counter-intuitive and contrary to my own experience.
I see the effects, or at least, I perceive an effect from device use and platforms like YouTube or Instagram on the children in my family and of friends, and I respect very much the effort that Jonathan Haidt has made to look into this question and bring attention to it. I reached out to him and Zach Rausch to invite them onto the show, and they were both too busy, unfortunately, but I'd be very interested to have their perspective.
So it's the counter-intuitive finding that made my conversation with Chris all the more interesting and satisfying, because, at least from his research, the scientific method was yielding up something that I found hard to believe or accept. I suppose that would be why the Semmelweiss comparison seemed apt. I definitely didn't get from Chris the sense that he was indifferent to the mental health of young people (not that I think you were suggesting that), but rather that he wanted to see time, attention, and resources going in a direction that might help deal with underlying issues or give researchers a more granular understanding of how social media acts upon the still-forming brain, if in fact it does.
I do share his resistance to and suspicion of the reflex of moral panic that often creeps in whenever 'the kids' are involved, and it's true that I've lived through enough of them, all over different things that more or less came to naught, to see the sense in taking them as a cyclical social dynamic rather than necessarily valid on their own terms.
I hope that speaks to your points, and not at too great a length. Thanks again.