Psychologist Candice Odgers, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, with 25 years of experience studying adolescent mental health, argues that the current debate around smartphones and social media is overlooking critical issues facing teenagers. She believes that banning social media for under-16s, as recently implemented in Australia and considered in the UK, could backfire. Instead of focusing on restrictions, Odgers advocates for addressing broader factors such as the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, economic recessions, and the mental health of adult caregivers.
Odgers vs. Haidt: Divergent Views on Social Media's Impact
Odgers directly challenges the narrative popularized by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Anxious Generation, who argues that social media is causing an epidemic of mental illness among youth. While Haidt’s book has sold over 2 million copies and inspired global campaigns for smartphone bans, Odgers points to a lack of robust evidence linking social media use to widespread mental health decline. In a review of Haidt’s book published in Nature, she noted that hundreds of researchers have found only small, mixed, or no associations between social media and adolescent depression. She argues that correlation does not equal causation, and that girls who are already depressed tend to use social media more, not the other way around.
Evidence Against a Ban
Odgers cites research published in the British Medical Journal showing that over 85% of under-16s in Australia continued using social media three months after the ban took effect. She warns that bans could push teenagers into less regulated, more dangerous online spaces and reduce their willingness to report harms. She also emphasizes that cyberbullying often overlaps with offline bullying, and that the most significant risks to children come from trusted individuals in their homes, schools, and communities.
Call for Regulation and Investment
While Odgers opposes outright bans, she strongly advocates for tighter regulation of tech platforms. She calls for prosecuting perpetrators of online harms such as sextortion and image-based abuse, noting that 80-90% of victims are women and girls, while tech company leadership is overwhelmingly male. She also suggests redirecting resources spent on phone pouches and other restrictive measures toward hiring more teachers, school counsellors, and creating safe physical spaces for teenagers. Additionally, she proposes a tax on tech companies to fund community programs and better digital literacy education.
Nuanced Perspectives from Other Experts
Peter Etchells, a professor of psychology at Bath Spa University and author of Unlocked, supports Odgers’ call for nuance. He notes that the debate often becomes binary—either a ban or nothing—and that academics who question the dominant narrative risk being accused of being funded by big tech. Etchells emphasizes that most scientists agree on the need for accountability from tech companies but disagree on the most effective methods.
Odgers' Personal Approach and Final Thoughts
Odgers gave her own children smartphones at age 11 and allowed her daughter to use Snapchat, arguing that parents should make decisions based on their values without the fear that technology will inevitably harm their children. She describes herself as “nobody’s friend in this fight other than kids’” and stresses that young people must be included in the conversation. She concludes that the global disapproval of teen tech use should be tempered with an understanding that digital platforms are a core part of youth culture, and that constructive solutions require moving beyond fear-driven policies.
