Efforts to Bridge the Gap Between Teens and Phone Experts Conclude in Debate

Efforts to achieve a scientific agreement concerning the potential risks associated with smartphones and social media among youth have sparked ongoing debates among researchers. This lack of consensus highlights the challenges policymakers face in relying on current evidence to regulate these technologies.

Valerio Capraro from Italy’s University of Milano Bicocca, alongside over 100 colleagues from various disciplines, has launched a “consensus statement” addressing the adverse effects of smartphone usage on teenagers. “Instead of prolonging the debate, we aimed to find common ground among different viewpoints,” Capraro explains.

The team evaluated 26 specific assertions concerning the impact of smartphone use on teens’ mental health. These included concerns that extensive mobile phone use may result in sleep deprivation and behavioral addiction, drawn from the book Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. While this work has significantly shaped discussions surrounding smartphones at New York University, it has also faced substantial criticism. Haidt is a co-author of the statement.

Researchers individually rated their agreement with each assertion and evaluated the robustness of the supporting evidence. Notably, 99% concurred that adolescent mental health has worsened significantly in the US, with similar trends observed in other Western nations. Additionally, 98% acknowledged a strong correlation between heavy smartphone use and sleep disorders. Over 94% identified specific challenges faced by young girls, such as peer comparison, pressure to appear perfect, and exposure to online sexual harassment.

Despite high agreement on these points, experts noted that the evidence merely indicates correlation and not causation. Many believe that further rigorous research, including longitudinal studies tracking smartphone users over time, is necessary to establish causality. In total, over 90% affirmed that there are issues affecting young people, yet only 52% supported implementing policy measures like age restrictions or limitations in schools.

Nevertheless, researchers argue that this does not justify inaction from policymakers. “While obtaining high-quality causal evidence for effective policymaking may take years, decision-makers often need to act quickly in a rapidly evolving landscape with limited data,” they emphasize.

However, scholars not involved in the consensus statement are challenging its findings. It has also drawn backlash over its stance on social media. For instance, Pete Etchells from Bath Spa University in the UK highlighted that out of the 288 invited experts, only approximately 120 engaged in the process. He suggests that those inclined to believe in the negative impact of smartphones are more likely to participate, potentially skewing the results. “I want to clarify the biases present in the expert dataset,” he notes. “I don’t believe this is intentional.”

Etchells, who has also authored a book on the topic, questions the selection process for the invited experts. Sonia Livingstone from the London School of Economics criticizes the chosen researchers for the consensus. “The extensive list was meant to ensure balance, but it predominantly reflects one side of the debate. If science lacks balance, it loses its integrity,” she argues.

Capraro defended the diversity of the panel, stating that “countless individuals are researching these topics worldwide,” making it impractical to reach out to all of them.

Concerns regarding participation have also arisen from Livingstone’s critiques. “The problem lies in the biased nature of the questions posed. They don’t consider,” she points out, “[whether] social media can enhance mental health, friendships, or a sense of belonging?” Capraro maintains that the study aimed to present as many perspectives as possible on this “highly debated topic.”