Is it really ‘that damn phone?’

Collage by Easton Clark, Photo Editor

It’s a common cliché: the worried parent versus the chronically online teenager. Social media and smartphone use have been blamed for everything from decreasing attention spans to vision loss, but is there evidence to back these claims?

Candice Odgers, associate dean for research and faculty development at the University of California, Irvine, joined Chapman’s department of psychology on March 2 for a discussion on adolescent mental health in the digital age. 

Odgers argued that 90% of the research conducted does not support the prevailing media narrative that smartphones and social media use among teenagers is causing an increase in mental illness.

As a quantitative and developmental psychologist, Odgers has tracked teenagers’ smartphone use since 2008. Surveys, cross-sectional experiments and longitudinal studies conducted by her and her peers have repeatedly failed to find a statistically significant linkage between phone usage and well-being.

“Not to say that (a connection) isn’t there, but when taking a second to put together the fears and the facts, there’s a massive distance,” Odgers said. 

She argued that other factors, such as family hassles, food insecurity and sleep deprivation, have proven effects on children’s well-being, and phone usage may be a side effect of those factors, not a cause.

Monica Dupuy, Ph.D. candidate and graduate student instructor at Chapman’s School of Communication, has reached a similar conclusion in her own research.

“We are in a mental health crisis, and young kids are really struggling. Young women aged 18 to 25 have the highest rates of depression in the country,” Dupuy said. “I think it’s easy to point to tech, but I don’t know that that’s the full picture. Kids have lived through a pandemic, and there’s so much else happening in the world.”

For Chapman students intending to become educators, the issue of mental health is something to be mindful of when working with students.

Malia Matsuura, a senior integrated educational studies major, said that while most of the students she’s observed were in second grade or younger and did not have phones, social media could pose risks for older students.

“I definitely think that devices and social media are correlated with mental health struggles,” she said. “Social media is a place filled with comparing and unrealistic expectations, where students may think what they are seeing is real.”

While some research supports the claim that social media sets unrealistic expectations, Odgers has also criticized mainstream media and books like “The Anxious Generation” by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt for contributing to the current moral panic. She said that the media is priming parents into believing that smartphones are the root cause of mental health issues among adolescents, distracting families and policymakers from addressing deeper issues.

Dupuy said that these narratives create a common cycle when new media is introduced to the public.

“We’ve seen moral panics happen with all new media, like movies, TV and rock music,” she said. “It’s hard to be in the middle of it when it’s happening, but my question is not what tech is doing, but what it’s replacing. Social media isn’t bad on its own, but it depends on what kids are using it to replace, like creative thought or imagination.”

As a result, Odgers’ work urges parents and policymakers to rethink blanket restrictions on technology in favor of smart regulations. For example, she urges parents to watch for offline risks, ask what their children are viewing online and tailor technology use to support individual needs.

“To blame the phone and to think shutting off the phone will stop (mental health issues) is a little bit naive,” Odgers said.

For children in a generation who have overwhelmingly grown up alongside devices, it may also be beneficial for educators to incorporate more technology into their curricula.

Matsuura noticed through her experience as a teaching assistant that the children she worked with, while not owning smartphones, were more focused when screens were used in the classroom.

“In my pre-K class, I have noticed that (students) are a lot more antsy in lessons that do not require screens,” she said. “Their attention span is a lot shorter, and they are constantly seeking that visual stimuli that screens and technology give.”

For many adolescents, though, blanket restrictions have become the norm.

Chapman’s Dodge College of Film and Media Arts recently implemented a no-tech policy, while 2.5 million children in the U.S. must use Yondr pouches that lock their phones in bags during class. Though some are in support of these regulations, Odgers argues that they can raise privacy concerns while enabling kids to find workarounds, and that Black students are more likely to be disciplined for violating policy.

Dupuy isn’t surprised by these regulations, but also believes they may not be fully addressing the problem.

“Moral panics always coincide with regulation,” she said. “But there’s always disconnect (in) creating policies for children. Kids are not all the same and everyone has different tech needs, but there should be some safeguards in place.”

In addition to conducting further studies on the topic, Odgers is trying to disrupt the media narrative surrounding smartphone use and adolescent mental health. Last year, she published a piece in The Atlantic titled “The Panic Over Smartphones Doesn’t Help Teens,” summarizing the same findings.

As a result, Odgers has faced controversy for her work. 

“People accuse me of working for big tech,” she said. “But I have also argued for stricter regulation, child-centered (solutions) and safe design. I’m pro-kid and pro-evidence.”