Do Phones Really Wreck Kids' Lives?
"If your kids went through puberty on a smartphone with social media, they came out different than human beings before that," argues psychologist Jonathan Haidt.

I am addicted!
To my phone.
I check an email and before I realize it, I'm watching TikTok videos: lions fight hyenas, military dads reunite with kids, athletes do amazing things.
I look up, and an hour has passed.
I've wasted time, ignored my family and friends, and accomplished nothing.
But who cares? I'm old. I've already achieved what I'm likely to achieve.
Still, what about kids?
"Attention spans are declining," says psychologist Jonathan Haidt. "Levels of anxiety, depression, self-harm were pretty stable…all of a sudden, the rates go way up, especially for girls."
His bestselling book (on bestseller lists for more than a year!) blames smartphones.
"Once they get a smartphone…time with friends plunges. One of the best things you can do as a kid is hang out with friends, joke around, have adventures. If your kids went through puberty on a smartphone with social media, they came out different than human beings before that."
My son, Max, once worked for social media companies. Now he makes his living speaking to students about how phones hook them. He compares smartphones to casino slot machines.
"All the things we love about social media, those are the reward in the slot machine…we get that 'hit' once in a while….That's there to keep us scrolling for hours."
Haidt agrees, calling smartphones a "gambling machine."
They say some apps are worse than others.
"Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok. Those really shatter attention spans. In terms of exposure to things that are really dangerous, Snap is the worst," says Haidt. "In terms of destroying your ability to pay attention, TikTok is the worst. In terms of destroying a teenage girl's sense of confidence, self-esteem, body image, Instagram is the worst."
He says social media affects boys and girls differently.
"Check in on the kids at age 14, girls are doing worse. They're more depressed and anxious, more messed up."
But a few years later, he says, "Girls are more likely to have gone to college, gotten a job, and moved out of their parents' home. Boys are more likely to still be in their parents' basement playing video games. They never grew up. Real life is incredibly boring compared to a video game or porn."
Teachers say phone addiction makes it harder to teach.
"When you and I were in school," says Haidt, "suppose they let you take your TV into class. You couldn't possibly learn."
These are big problems, but I'm a skeptic. Do phones really wreck kids' lives?
We don't know that, say researchers like psychologist Chris Ferguson. "Correlation does not equal causation."
"But teen depression is skyrocketing," I push back, "up 145 percent for girls since 2010!"
"Teen suicide was actually very high in the early 1990s," he replies, "then it decreased…way before social media….Dr. Haidt has cherry-picked a lot of data and presented only the data that support his narrative."
"I am not cherry-picking!" Haidt replies. "I'm the only one in this debate who has picked all of the cherries and laid them out on a blanket."
He does lay out alternative possibilities, like teen marijuana use and the decline of marriage.
"My theory is the only plausible one out there," he says. "No one's even proposed one that will work across so many countries. When you ask people to get off of social media for more than a week, their levels of depression, anxiety, go down."
His book suggests that parents ban phones until high school.
I push back. Kids will complain, "All my friends have one!"
"But what if it was only most of your friends?" he replies. "Then it's much easier."
He wants schools to ban phones, and many have.
I ask Ferguson, "What's the cost of banning it in schools?"
"Unintended negative consequences," he replies. "Are we suspending kids for cellphone use? A lot of schools are, and that can cause real harm to the kids."
Haidt insists, "When schools ban phones, the results are overwhelmingly positive….Kids know that life would be better if they didn't spend five or six hours a day on social media. They know that, but they can't help it."
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Let's see. Nervous helicopter parents locked their kids inside, with only phones for social contact. Then parents blame phones for all sorts of mental issues kids developed.
What else could it be?
Trump?
I think Haidt is off base here. I'm getting a Satanic Panic vibe from this. Comic books, Rock and Roll, Dungeons & Dragons, cell phones, etc.
No, it was clearly Elvis and poodle-skirts. Showing all that shameful ankle & calf.
"I've wasted time, ignored my family and friends, and accomplished nothing."
Aw, c'mon John! How about, "I went to a movie theater, watched a movie, wasted two hours, and accomplished nothing." Or how about, "I sat down with a good book, read two chapters and wasted an hour, accomplishing nothing." It's called leisure, John. It doesn't matter HOW you wasted an hour or two, it's the fact that we HAVE the leisure time to enjoy ourselves that we value. My father was raised on a farm, got up before dawn, milked the cows and then spent the rest of the day until sunset working the farm.
A phone, like a car or a gun, just sits there until a PERSON does something with it.
The phone is not the problem, the content, and the parents permissiveness is.
The car is not the problem, the drunk driver is.
The gun is not the problem, the criminal is.
Funny how the left only would agree with the phone and the car analogy. Guns are capable of coercive persuasion.
Unless it's a red SUV, then it's the car, not the driver.
Smart phones are basically portable libraries.
A cell phone:
A pocket sized computer more powerful than the one that got man to the moon and back, able to access nearly all knowledge, and communicate with nearly every human on earth.
We use it to trade snarky comments with total strangers and look at videos of cats.
able to access nearly all knowledge
That is far from the truth. It's able to access only a carefully curated and censored outline of human knowledge.
If they were just that it would be fine.
Someone wants to have control over others.
Smart phones are basically portable libraries.
Makes me wonder what you're doing in the library.
Smart phones are a problem for everyone, not just kids.
Nope, they are just a thing.
No need to demand control over others.
Gen X was the last generation to be free.
Duh.
Change a few words that Haidt has written, and it will sound almost exactly like what people were saying about broadcast television 50 years ago. Or video games 30 years ago.
General rule of life: whatever becomes popular among teenagers will inevitably be deemed a public health threat.
Or dime store novels
“Do Phones Really Wreck Kids' Lives?”
No, democrats wreck kids lives.
A drunken father can wreck his innocent daughter's life.
Kids and young adults are depressed and shit because we wrecked their normal psycho-social development cycle. Before circa 1970-something-ish, young kids were much more independent. Ten year-olds might easily have jobs either at dad's shop or a newspaper route or similar. Was a time that it was totally normal for boys to take a .22 rifle or 410 shotgun to school with them and then go vermin hunting after school. After thirteen or so, adolescents were generally treated as young adults, often starting apprenticeships.
Eighth or Tenth grades were commonly the end of formal education. Kids that graduated high school were most likely college-bound. Otherwise, they went to trade schools, apprenticeships, or started working in the family business.
By and large, they had learned the life skills necessary to be economically independent adults before they were legally allowed to vote. Generally, America's youth, before the 1990's, had far more independence and responsibility. They were prepared for adulthood.
Now, since a bungled report determined that college graduates earn more over their lifetime than those who never attended college, the
educationindoctrination industrial complex decided that every kid, regardless of aptitude or interest, must graduate high school and go to college.We forced them into an artificially prolonged dependency period. As a result, we stopped treating our youth as young adults and began treating them as overgrown toddlers. Then threw them into a college environment they weren't prepared to handle. Rather than reverse course, colleges began accommodating these adult children, even coddling them, further delaying their development into adulthood.
Mix in helicopter parenting and calling the police for every unattended youth walking down the street, frolicking alone at the neighborhood playground, or just doing anything independently, and we have two plus generations of Peter Pan Lost Boys incapable of adulting.
Humans aren't meant to be swaddled and coddled into their twenties or beyond. They need independence and responsibility as adolescents to properly develop into independent adults. We've broken that development process, and the kids are suffering for it.