Tatiana Íñiguez Berrozpe
Is the study of good quality?
“We can say that this is a well-designed study, but one that measures very little. The study design, research question, sample, etc., are all clearly defined. However, we can raise several objections to the results: firstly, the analysis presented is cross-sectional, so we cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship, only associations (do social media cause anxiety, or do teenagers turn to social media because of their anxiety?). Secondly, and more importantly, the effect size is very small, as social media accounts for only between 1 per cent and 5 per cent of mental health in this age group. Thirdly, and related to the above, it is precisely what the law prohibits that appears in the study as being least associated with distress.”
How does this study fit in with the existing evidence?
“It fits perfectly with the existing evidence, but this is not a positive thing. Indeed, one of the points most frequently raised by researchers who are critical of the moral panic surrounding this issue is that there are a large number of studies attempting to demonstrate the harmful effects of social media on children’s mental health using cross-sectional analyses (which do not prove causality) and with very small effect sizes, as is the case here. Generally speaking, all these studies conclude that an association between social media and mental health exists, but it is very small.
However, the analysis of users’ intentions following a ban is interesting. But this also confirms what we already knew: despite bans, teenagers will continue to use social media.”
Have the authors taken confounding factors into account? Are there any significant limitations that need to be considered?
“In this respect, the study is also consistent with a vast number of previous works on the subject: it does not control for key socio-demographic variables which disciplines such as sociology have already shown to have a much greater impact on young people’s mental health. Socio-economic status, family structure and dynamics, support networks, etc., are factors that have not been taken into account in the analysis and which account for a much greater variation in mental health than social media, the effect of which, as we have said, is very minor. What’s more, the sample itself focuses on urban boys and girls from affluent families, who are not exactly the group most at risk.”
What are the implications for the real world?
“Undoubtedly, this is something we have been discussing ever since the measure was introduced in Australia, as we outlined in this article: that measures banning social media are ineffective, as young people will continue to use them, but now with less oversight, given that they can circumvent the restrictions. It is essential to focus on the platforms’ actual obligations regarding content moderation, transparency of their algorithms, and preventing harmful passive consumption such as endless scrolling; and, ultimately, their responsibility for protecting children. Furthermore, supporting families and promoting critical digital literacy from an early age must be the primary focus of these measures. A ban, as well as being ineffective, may have the opposite effect: creating less safe spaces for children and failing to protect the vulnerable groups who use these platforms as a support network.”