A few weeks ago I was scrolling through social media, and Andy Murray (I am one of his 2 million followers) posted a graphic showing the average number of hours a teen in the US spends per day on their phone or other screens. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated it to be six hours for eight- to 10-year-olds, nine hours for 11- to 14-year-olds and 7.5 hours for 15- to 18-year-olds. These are shocking numbers. Although the irony of using a screen to make me reflect on how much time we’re spending on screens isn’t lost on me.
Like many people, I check my smartphone’s screen-time usage and am surprised at how many hours are logged. But I also feel uncomfortable with the blanket demonisation of these devices, as if the creation of mobile phones has been, overall, terrible for humanity. At their core, they are useful, practical tools for communication and connection. Somehow the positives that they bring are too easily forgotten.
There is definitely emerging scientific evidence that extended periods of screen time, as well as certain social media experiences, have negative consequences, especially for younger users. Smartphones distract children from learning and other real-world experiences. Quite simply, they drain valuable time. Constantly observing other people’s filtered posts and lives can give us Fomo and lead to constant comparisons with others, a recipe for feeling low. At their most extreme, phones can be used for cyberbullying, for targeting vulnerable teens with algorithms promoting self-harm and suicidal aspirations, and for online grooming.
Much of the discussion on the impact of phones has focused on adolescence, a crucial developmental stage when the brain and body go through major changes. Experts have debated the role of smartphones in the rise of teen depression and anxiety since 2010. While the pandemic accelerated rates of mental health issues, these trends were evident almost a decade before. In 2017, Prof Jean Twenge from San Diego State University shared research from 2010 to 2015 that documented increases in depression, suicide attempts and suicide among teens from every background and linked this to smartphones.
The crude reaction to these types of studies is to move towards banning smartphones for under-16s. Aside from being hard to implement, decades of public health research has shown that banning certain products, especially those which bring positive benefits too, can lead to a backlash from the public, polarising the issue and heading off the possibility of any regulation. People are entitled to a certain level of freedom and choice about how they spend their time and what they do (including how they parent their children), as long as it doesn’t harm others.
In addition, simply banning phones wouldn’t prepare teens for a world increasingly reliant on tech and screens. I’d prefer to see open conversations about how to keep the positive aspects that phones have brought – and more education and awareness on how to reduce the negatives.
We need more guidance for parents, teachers and those in pastoral roles about how to talk to young people about their screen-time usage and how it makes them feel. Adults can help by putting limits on screen time or establishing parameters, like putting away phones at an agreed time – for example, to charge overnight in the kitchen. Education about online safety, social media apps and algorithms, and the constant marketing of products and “influencing” through posts should be standard within schools. Schools can also help by creating and enforcing no-phone policies so that students can focus on learning and in-person experiences.
Perhaps our focus shouldn’t be on the phone itself, but what teens are using them for. Certain apps (and the companies behind them) that are targeted towards young people, such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram, have a lot to answer for. Where we need strong government involvement is with social media companies, which should be compelled to keep certain apps unavailable to younger users.
My home state of Florida has moved towards adopting a bill that would ban social media accounts for under-14s and require parental permission for 14- and 15-year-olds from 1 January 2025. Republican state house speaker, Paul Renner, said “A child in their brain development doesn’t have the ability to know that they’re being sucked into these addictive technologies and to see the harm and step away from it, and because of that we have to step in for them.” Regulating social media is an issue that enjoys cross-party consensus and isn’t seen as a partisan issue, which means progress is possible.
When smartphones first emerged, and then social media apps on them, it was a wild west with no oversight or regulation. We know enough now to start creating some boundaries, and public policies, to maintain the positive aspects of this technology while reducing the negative consequences. One starting point we can all agree on is that teens spending more than six hours a day on screens is worrying – and I’m grateful to Andy Murray for pointing this statistic out.
Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh
