Custodes Futurifor the advancement of humanity

Technological factor, barrier 6 of 7

Digital technology and adolescent wellbeing (debated)

Orben and Przybylski (2019) analyzed three large datasets totaling 355,358 adolescents.

Evidence

  • Size of the association. The association between digital technology use and wellbeing was negative but small, explaining at most 0.4% of the variation in wellbeing.
  • Authors' conclusion. The authors concluded the effects were too small to warrant policy change.

Note: This topic remains actively debated. Other researchers argue that specific uses, such as heavy social media use among girls, show larger harms. The evidence does not yet settle the question.

Proposed and experimental methods

Methods that are proposed, under trial, approved in some places, or tried and then failed. Each shows a stage label and an evidence rating. A stage label shows how far a method has progressed, not whether it works. The stage labels are explained on the technological factor page.

  • Family-wide screen media reduction (Early trial, C). In a Danish cluster randomized trial of 89 families with 181 children and adolescents (mean age about 9), families who cut leisure screen use to 3 hours per week or less per person and handed over smartphones and tablets for 2 weeks saw a reduction in total behavioral difficulties of 1.67 points versus controls (Cohen d = 0.53), mainly in emotional and peer problems (Schmidt-Persson et al., 2024). The outcome was parent-reported, families knew their group, the analysis was secondary, and the follow-up was only 2 weeks.
  • Paid social media deactivation (Early trial, B for adults, C for adolescents). In a U.S. randomized experiment, adults paid to deactivate Facebook for the four weeks before the 2018 midterm election spent more time offline, became less politically polarized but also less informed about news, reported higher subjective well-being, and used Facebook less after the experiment ended (Allcott et al., 2020). Participants were adults, so the findings do not directly apply to adolescents.
  • Age-appropriate design codes (Approved but not scaled, C). The UK Information Commissioner's Children's Code sets 15 standards for apps, games, and websites "likely to be accessed by" children under 18, including high-privacy settings by default, geolocation off by default, and no nudges that lead children to weaken privacy (ICO, n.d.). No published study has measured its effect on wellbeing. Minimum ages for social media and school phone restrictions are covered in "Fear, anxiety, and depression" in the psychological factors.
  • Reversed: California's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (Failed or reversed, B). California enacted a version of the UK code in 2022, but courts issued preliminary injunctions in September 2023 and March 2025 after a technology industry group sued on free speech grounds, and on March 12, 2026, the Ninth Circuit kept five of six challenged provisions blocked and returned the sixth to the district court (NetChoice, 2026).

Sources cited on this page

  1. Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(2), 173-182. DOI B Moderate
  2. Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020). The welfare effects of social media. American Economic Review, 110(3), 629-676. link B Moderate: C for adolescents
  3. Schmidt-Persson, J., Rasmussen, M. G. B., Sørensen, S. O., Mortensen, S. R., Olesen, L. G., Brage, S., et al. (2024). Screen media use and mental health of children and adolescents: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 7(7), e2419881. link C Limited

Every source for this factor is listed on the technological factor page.