Rising Anxiety & Overprotection in Today’s Youth
I’ve been a big fan of Jonathan Haidt for some time. It started with his book The Coddling of the American Mind, a brilliant, but dark account of the negative impacts of modern parenting styles that have started to emerge as kids become more independent and enter university life. In short, many are failing to cope and Haidt has some plausible ideas as to why?
More recently Haidt has been on the speaker circuit again of late promoting his latest book: The Anxious Generation.
Recent appearances (in the UK) have included a speech at Intelligence Squared entitled The Youth Mental Health Crisis and at Nudgestock 2024 (organised by Ogilvy Consulting’s Behavioural Science Practice).
(I watched both online as I couldn’t make the events in-person).
The Main Argument
His main argument is that SmartPhones + Social Media are a recipe for disaster for our kids generation. Especially when they are essentially used as substitute for unsupervised play.
“Kids need to take (physical) risks. We’ve taken away their independence.”
Of course, there is much more to his work than that one statement but it does capture the essence of it.
And what is most alarming is the sharp decline in mental health of young people mapping closely to the timelines of when the mass adoption of smartphones took off.
So what is so compelling about his work?
Firstly, I can fully relate to his core arguments.
Alongside Scott Galloway he has argued convincingly that there are some serious issues that politicians have failed to address when it comes to what he deems the ‘largest uncontrolled experiment humanity has ever performed on its own children’.
They both have been pushing back against ‘big tech’.
But not all ‘big tech’.
Primarily the likes of TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram.
Why these three in particular?
Well, firstly they are all very popular with teenagers (and younger kids) despite their claims to the contrary.
Secondly, their attempts to manage age limits are ‘just BS’.
- Pick your date of birth.
- Just make sure that you claim to be older than 13.
- Click accept.
Not exactly a 6ft 5 bouncer checking your ID.
Or as Sophie Winkleman points out in The Spectator:
Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge have forensically demonstrated the mirror symmetry between smartphone use and teen malfunction — but put simply, TikTok is a brain liquidiser, Instagram a self-loathing factory, Snapchat a petri dish of OCD, ADD and addiction, and even the innocent-seeming WhatsApp a trench of bullying. In short, any place where the herd can stampede is a danger zone — and the sooner our children are rid of it, the better.
My fight to get screens out of schools — Sophie Winkleman, The Spectator
Galloway goes on to point out the absurdity of the whole failure of these platforms to age-gate adequately:
What’s more challenging, figuring out if someone is younger than 16, or building a global real-time communication network that stores a near-infinite amount of text, video, and audio retrievable by billions of simultaneous users in milliseconds with 24/7 uptime? The social media giants know where you are, what you’re doing, how you’re feeling, and if you’re experiencing suicidal ideation … but they can’t figure out your age. You can’t make this shit up.
Haidt’s insights are compelling, as he describes the all too common battle against screen time in most homes with school age kids.
Not just any screen time of course.
The problem with the apps on these platforms is how they are designed:
Think
- Anonymous by default
- Weak ineffective age gating (see above)
- Infinite scrolling
- Disappearing messages (leaving no audit trail)
- Autoplay by default
- Alerts and notifications
- Rewards for engagement (Gamification)
- Peer comparisons and judgement
- Inane creatives (short videos)
- Lack of effect oversight (‘We are not responsible for the content’)
Add these together and you create a perfect storm.
Dopamine hit after dopamine hit.
And one big-time suck.
Now layer these on top of a vulnerable user, aged 10–18 and we are in a very different place.
As Haidt argues:
“We have over-protected our children in the real world, and under-protected them online.”
By way of an aside — it is not just children who are suffering.
Many parents are also struggling with the issues resulting from overuse of Smartphones but at least they are responsible adults and in many/most cases are mature enough to deal with some of these.
In short, from a parenting perspective, smartphone use in the home is leading to continuous partial attention.
Being there but not being there.
And that is but one of the downstream issues resulting.
But I digress. Back to the children.
In parallel, with the above, we are seeing a significant decline in the mental well being of younger people. And herein lies the crux. Haidt argues that it is highly plausible that the primary causes are due to smartphone use, social media use and the reduction in unsupervised play (alongside some other linked factors).
Cause and effect.
I’d like to think so — but those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo would like to argue differently.
“Correlation does not imply causation”
The Displacement Effect
However, despite some push back from ‘vested interests’ as to the causes of the growing anxiety rates amongst today’s kids, I fall very much on Haidt’s side of the argument.
It is not just the activities taking place on these devices that are concerning.
It is also the broader issues from the displacement effect.
As Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix once declared:
Asked about the company’s competitors at Netflix’s earnings call, Hastings said that he isn’t really concerned about Amazon and HBO “because the market is just so vast”.
“You know, think about it, when you watch a show from Netflix and you get addicted to it, you stay up late at night. We’re competing with sleep, on the margin. And so, it’s a very large pool of time.
Competition is for attention, and the definition of competiton is pretty broad as Hastings alludes to.
In short, more device time means less physical play, less in person socialising and less unsupervised play — all key elements that help kids transition to adulthood.
Similarly, more screen time equates to a more sedentary and less active life.
And when you add up the hours the average teenager is spending on smartphones the displacement (or substitute effect) is pretty stark.
Recent data shows that teens spend up to 9 hours a day in front of screens, including smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles, TVs, and computers.
(Source: AACAP) (American Psychological Association).
Is it any wonder our young people are struggling?
As Scott Galloway argues:
Social media is unprecedented in its reach and addictive potential — a bottomless dopa bag that fits in your pocket. For kids, it poses heightened risks. The evidence is overwhelming and has been for a while.
He goes on to add:
It presents dangers. And one of the things a healthy society does is limit the availability of dangerous products to children, who lack the capacity to use them safely. Yet, two decades into the social media era, we permit unlimited, all-ages access to this dangerous, addictive product.
Of course, Galloway is spot on.
Smartphones = Clever Branding
We also need to confront the reality of the ‘clever branding’. These are not ‘phones’ as we know them.
In fact, I suspect the number of minutes spent on calls is negligible when set against the actual use of these ‘entertainment devices’ especially amongst Gen-Z’s (born mid-to-late 1990s — early 2010s).
These same devices provide ready access to content that is designed to hook you in.
“Companies intentionally design their products to create user habits. Social media platforms are particularly adept at this, as they are built to draw users in and keep them engaged by continuously presenting new and variable content tailored to their interests and behaviors.” Nir Eyal, Hooked
Content that lacks the filter of a regulator or robust age-gating.
Content designed to shock.
Content designed to consume attention.
Content designed to keep you on the platform, where revenue is driven by session times and daily active usage.
As Johann Hari argues in Stolen Focus:
“People began to fantasize about what they would do with all the time they spent on their phones if it was all suddenly freed up […] For the average American, it’s three hours and fifteen minutes. We touch our phones 2,617 times every 24 hours.”
In short, these are not really ‘phones’. Instead they are highly powerful, versatile entertainment devices that offer a whole host of different entertainment formats.
Bringing an entertainment device with unlimited music, video and games to school is a very different proposition to bringing a phone!
What Can Be Done?
So what can be done?
Haidt proposes the following four collective actions to help improve matters.
The word ‘collective’ is important here as he acknowledges that if every kid in the classroom has a smartphone then everything breaks down.
No one wants to be the odd one out.
Hence the need for collective action.
I’d argue while these represent a start some additional elements can help improve matters further:
1- Insist on much more constrained access to devices rather than normalising that they need to be with you the whole time.
- Do kids really need to bring entertainment devices to school?
2- Delay initial access. Once a kid has a smart phone it is very difficult to reverse the decision. Delaying access as long as possible is the key.
3- Lobby schools to help with enforcement (ideally by banning use) or failing that insisting on Yondr pouches (or equivalent) is a vital element.
4- Turn off alerts and smart notifications.
5- Remove certain (social media) apps from the home screen.
6- Role model good behaviours i.e. no phones at the kitchen table or when out at restaurants.
7- Recognise the unique issues with the three main problem apps — TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram. Limit access to all three of these.
What are some of these unique issues with these three applications in particular?:
Instagram — can undermine self-confidence, consists of many ‘influencers’ pedalling beauty products and much much more
TikTok — algorithms serve content (often inappropriate) without adequate protections and much much more
SnapChat — disappearing messages, anonymous participants and much much more.
I could go on.
Summary
In summary, Haidt’s messages are timely.
The battles playing out in homes around the world with teenage kids (and younger) when it comes to smartphone access is one many people can relate to.
As Haidt points out collective action is the best route forward.
Social norms and peer pressure means that ‘being the only kid without a smartphone’ is a tough sell. The same applies to being ‘the only kid without Snapchat/ WhatsApp/ TikTok’.
But we do need to act.
Doing nothing is not an option.
And acting collectively trumps acting alone.
About the Author
Alan Gleeson is a Fractional CMO specialising in supporting growing and scaling B2B SaaS businesses. With 10 years + experience Alan has been fortunate to work with some of Europe’s fastest growing companies.
Recommended Resource: https://smartphonefreechildhood.co.uk
