Psychologist Candice Odgers, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, has spent 25 years studying adolescent mental health. She argues that the current focus on social media bans for teenagers is misguided and may actually worsen the problem. Odgers believes that the biggest online threats to children come from adult men, who are the primary perpetrators of sextortion and misinformation. While she does not advocate for removing men from the internet, she insists that bans on social media for teens are not the solution.
Odgers vs. Haidt: A Scientific Divide
Odgers’ views starkly contrast with those of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Anxious Generation. Haidt argues that social media causes “industrial-scale harm” to youth and has inspired global movements to ban smartphones in schools and restrict social media for under-16s. Odgers, however, says the evidence does not support such drastic measures. In a review of Haidt’s book in Nature, she wrote that studies show “no, small and mixed associations” between social media use and mental health decline. Haidt has since claimed Odgers did not read his book fully, but she insists she did.
Odgers points to broader factors driving the youth mental health crisis, including the COVID-19 pandemic, economic recessions, rising adult mental health issues, and opioid addiction. She argues that blaming social media “sucks all the air out of the room” for addressing these real problems.
Evidence on Social Media and Mental Health
Odgers cites research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which concluded that the link between social media and adolescent health is “more complicated” than the current cultural narrative suggests. She also notes that over 85% of under-16s in Australia continued using social media three months after a ban, according to a study in the British Medical Journal. “They’ll be using it whether we want them to or not,” Odgers says, adding that bans push kids into less regulated, more dangerous spaces.
Odgers’ own research involves tracking 10- to 14-year-olds via their phones, with consent, to analyze their time use and feelings. She finds that social media is “one of the least influential factors” in teen depression and anxiety. Girls who are already depressed tend to use social media more, not the other way around, she says.
Cyberbullying and Online Harms
Odgers acknowledges that cyberbullying is harmful but notes that most children bullied online are also bullied offline. “The most likely place for children to be harmed is in their home, in schools, in their communities, by people they trust,” she says. She calls for stricter regulation of tech companies to prosecute perpetrators of sextortion and image-based abuse, which disproportionately affect women and girls.
Odgers also criticizes the allocation of resources to phone pouches and bans, arguing that money could be better spent on teachers, school counselors, and safe spaces for teenagers. “All this energy could be going into building things versus banning things,” she says.
Parental Anxiety and the Need for Nuance
Odgers understands why parents are drawn to Haidt’s arguments, as they align with existing fears. “He needs about five seconds to convince people; I need about 15 minutes,” she says. She urges parents to avoid making decisions out of fear and to recognize that social media can be a support community for some teens. She compares the panic to a hypothetical claim that purple dye causes childhood leukemia—a level of evidence that would not be accepted for other harms.
Peter Etchells, a professor at Bath Spa University, supports Odgers’ call for nuance. He notes that the debate often reduces to a binary of ban or nothing, and that it is “wild” how one book has driven global legislation. “If we really care about getting this right, we need to have uncomfortable conversations: what if this person is wrong?” he says.
Conclusion: Building vs. Banning
Odgers advocates for a balanced approach: tighter regulation of tech companies, investment in community spaces, and a tax on tech to fund these initiatives. She also emphasizes the importance of listening to young people. “I’m nobody’s friend in this fight other than kids’,” she says. “I’m a massive nerd who works with data and kids.” She hopes parents can make decisions about technology based on their values, without the fear that it will lead to “horrible outcomes” for their children.
