Review of: J. Haidt (2024). The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, Penguin Press, 400 pp.
I have read the book on two occasions: first when it was first published, and most recently in the last two weeks. It is a disturbing, thought-provoking, controversial and misleading book.
The book is (and continues to be) a bestseller. It has received a great deal of media attention, and it has been translated into many languages. It examines the rise in mental health issues among the generation born after 1995. Haidt’s central thesis is what he calls ‘the great rewiring of childhood’ that fundamentally changed the experiences of young people and that led to an epidemic rise of anxiety, depression, and other mental health problems. His basic premise is twofold: first, that the introduction of smartphones and the subsequent widespread use of social media has transformed a ‘play-based’ childhood into a ‘phone-based’ one, leading to social and sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, and addiction, and, second, that ‘parental overprotection’ in the real world is matched with ‘parental underproduction’ in the virtual world, leading to youths being confronted with the negatives of social media, like porn, cyber bullying, dangerous challenges as well as ideal types that can never be met. Haidt contends that all of this led to a collective ‘rewiring’ of the young mind, resulting in increased rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and (thoughts of) suicide.
Haidt’s critique focuses on social media platforms, or social networking sites, which he argues are characterized by one-to-many and many-to-one communication. This communication predominantly focuses on the ‘best sides’ (or idealized sides) of user lives to groups of unknown others. Haidt expresses particular concern regarding the use of such platforms by young people (defined as individuals under the age of 18) and asserts that the purported benefits of social media, such as enhanced information management and reputation building, are of negligible relevance to this demographic. Instead, he contends that younger users, particularly those between the ages of 10 and 14, primarily employ social media for the purpose of entertainment. The fact that their brains (particularly the regions involved in regulating behaviour) are not yet fully developed means that this aspect of social media platforms has the potential to become addictive, due to the difficulty of discontinuing usage. Haidt posits that contemporary social media platforms are problematic due to several factors, including the prevalence of endless scrolling, push notifications, the emphasis on enticing video content, and personalization. In my opinion, notwithstanding the tendency to reach premature conclusions given the data and analysis presented, Haidt’s thesis does possess a degree of credibility. Social media is a far more compelling and engaging form of entertainment than reading books or watching television. It is a well-documented fact that young people never dedicated 30-35 hours per week to reading or watching television.
The ‘Introduction: Growing up on Mars’ is an excellent summary of the four parts into which the book is divided, succinctly presenting all Haidt’s arguments and solutions. The four parts that follow explain the trends in adolescent mental health (Part 1); the nature of childhood and how ‘play-based’ has been replaced by ‘phone-based’ (Part 2); the resulting damage of ‘phone-based’ childhood (Part 3); and how to reverse the consequences (Part 4).
Haidt presents many thoughtful anecdotes and is a gifted storyteller and writer. He presents a lot of data, graphs, and conclusions that claim to show a correlation between technology use and mental health problems among teenagers. Besides this data, his evidence is based on experiments where participants, most often university students, agreed to give up access to their phones for a period of several weeks. The result: a better sense of well-being after this period of abstinence. According to Haidt, abstinence of phones leads to an improvement of mental health. Although Haidt’s conclusion may seem convincing to the public, it is based on small samples and contradicts several recent meta-analyses of experimental studies. [i] These studies do not suggest that depression is caused or predicted by social media use. They contend that young people with mental health problems use these platforms more often and in different ways from their healthy peers. [ii]
The many reviews, mostly positive from the public, are more reserved from an academic standpoint. One of the primary criticisms levelled at Haidt’s book is the emphasis placed on correlating data on anxiety, technology overuse, and diminished social connections with data on the pervasive use of smartphones, with its inherent connection to social media platforms. Haidt correlates data that show a downward trend in mental health with data that present an upward trend in the use of smartphones and, subsequently, social media platforms. Based on this correlation he posits that smartphone use (and subsequent intensive social media use) is the primary catalyst for the mental health challenges experienced by young people. As scholars always emphasize, correlation is not necessarily causation, and hasty conclusions based on correlating trends may not be appropriate. However, Tobias Dienlin, an assistant professor of interactive communication at the University of Vienna, asserts that while correlation may not be sufficient evidence for causation, it does not preclude the possibility of causation. The correlations mentioned by Haidt are statistically too large to be unimportant and warrant research. [iii] Nevertheless, it is not known why these correlations exist and their directions are unspecified. The effects may disappear if all the relevant correlation founders are identified. Haidt’s conclusions do not challenge these correlations and ignore the possibility of other relevant founders.
Haidt assumes that there is no alternative hypothesis, and (therefore) his interpretation is the correct one. He barely acknowledges other possibilities that might have increased anxiety, such as school closures during the pandemic, the climate crisis, the deteriorating world politics, and other phenomena. Haidt shows graphs indicating that the mental health of adolescents worsened from 2020, when the pandemic reared its ugly head. But Haidt insists, without evidence, that the pandemic was merely an accelerant for a ‘rewiring’ caused by smartphones. According to Candice Odgers, a professor of psychology and informatics at the University of California (Irvine), Haidt overlooks the wider context and jumps to conclusions. [iv]
Haidt makes extensive use of a 2021 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey report on mental health as one of his main sources for much of his evidence. Yet even he admits, in a peer-reviewed paper in Acta Psychologica, that the statistical correlation between screen time and mental health is ‘very small.’ [v] More importantly, and completely ignored by Haidt as a factor that could affect mental health, is abuse. Sociologist Mike Males reported that a mathematical analysis of the CDC’s 2022 Youth Risk Behaviour Survey shows a correlation between parental abuse and teen depression. This association is 13 times stronger than the correlations associated with screen use. According to this CDC study, teens who are abused by their parents are much more likely to be depressed and much more likely to use smartphones and social media for a much longer time than happier, non-abused teens. [vi] By Haidt’s reasoning, his book should have been about parental abuse. Since this correlation was ignored by the media and not widely communicated, it would not have been a popular topic.
There is so much information to contradict Haidt’s position that it is quite possible that other phenomena are amplifying or even causing much of the distress, and constant phone use is a symptom and often a necessary response. danah boyd, for instance, after interviewing and observing more than 150 teenagers and young adults, found an increase in surveillance of their thoughts and actions, combined with a loss of public and play spaces. Haidt is right about the ‘overprotection’ of children by more well-to-do parents, but not about the smartphone as the reason why a ‘play-based’ childhood has been replaced by a ‘phone-based’ one. Surveillance and restrictions have led to a gravitation towards digital platforms out of necessity. How else could teens reach out beyond their environment and find role models, guides and peers? Especially for those in unreasonable or uncaring families or intolerant communities and churches, social media platforms are lifesavers. [vii] And let’s not forget that in the USA a ‘phone-free’ life is a luxury for the privileged and comfortable, but not for those without a safety net, job security, childcare, and a decent commitment to ensuring that their children have a safe and secure life. [viii] For them smartphones are a necessary tool for survival. They cannot opt out from a smartphone life, nor can their children. [ix]
Haidt proposes four well-known solutions: [1] No smartphones before high school. [2] No social media before 16. [3] Phone-free schools. [4] Far more unsupervised play and childhood independence. [3] and [4] are not unreasonable. [3] is ‘easy’ to realize, and [4] expects a culture-shift, at least in the USA. Schools have seen positive results when smartphones are banned. [1] and [2] are more controversial because many teenagers do not live in the luxury of a safe and secure life.
Tobias Dienlin, based on reliable evidence, denies Haidt’s assumption that mental health is globally deteriorating. There might be a possible problematic development in mental health in the USA, but that is not mirrored in other parts of the world. Haidt ignores these data and ‘gives a false impression regarding the general development of adolescents globally.’ [x]
In conclusion, two things are true. First, there is no convincing evidence that the use of smartphones and social media platforms is ‘rewiring’ children’s brains or causing mental illness. Second, given the addictive nature of these platforms and the amount of time young people spend on them, significant reform is needed. Haidt has a point, but he overstates his case, ignores a wider context, and jumps to conclusions. The mental health crisis is likely to be largely confined to the USA, and even there it is not as severe as suggested. It is still wise to remain critical of the use (and overuse) of social media. And while I recommend reading The Anxious Generation, the same goes for this book, which, despite all the data presented, is not really convincing on its main thesis.
[i] For instance, C.J. Ferguson (2024). ‘Do social media experiments prove a link with mental health? A methodological and meta-analytic review’, Psychology of Popular Media. Advance online publication. Online source, retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000541. Also: T. Böttger, M. Poschik, and K. Zierer (2023). ‘Does the brain drain effect really exist? A Meta-Analysis’, Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 11. Online source, retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs1309075. M. Vuorre, and A.K. Przybylski (2023), ‘Estimating the association between Facebook adoption and well-being in 72 countries’, Royal Society Open Science, 10: 221451. Online source, retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221451, found no evidence of the spread of social media and mental illness, but did find some positive trends in young people’s wellbeing thanks to the use of Facebook. T. Heffer, M. Good, O. Daly, E. MacDonell, and T. Willoughby (2019). ‘The longitudinal association between social-media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents and young adults. An Empirical Reply to Twenge et al. (2018)’, Clinical Psychological Science, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 462-470. Online source, retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618812727, found in surveys of over 500 teens and over 1,000 undergraduates that social media use did not precede the onset of depression.
[ii] C.L. Odgers (2024). ‘The Great Rewiring. Is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness?’, Nature, Vol. 628, No. 8006, March 29, pp. 29–30. Online source, retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00902-2.
[iii] T. Dienlin (2024a). ‘Depressed kids or over-concerned Boomers? My review of the Anxious Generation’, tobiasdienlin.com. Online source, retrieved from: https://tobiasdienlin.com/2024/05/20/depressed-kids-or-over-concerned-boomers-my-review-of-the-anxious-generation/. Also: T. Dienlin (2024b). ‘Book Review: The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness by Jonathan Haidt’, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 101, No. 4, pp. 1051-1053. Online source, retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990241268990.
[iv] Odgers (2024).
[v] J.M. Twenge, J. Haidt, J. Lozano, and K.M. Cummins (2022). ‘Specification curve analysis shows that social media use is linked to poor mental health, especially among girls’, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 224, April. 103512. Online source, retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103512.
[vi] M. Males (2024). ‘America’s focus on teen social media use is obscuring the biggest causes of youth depression and suicide’, San Francisco Chronicle, Open Forum, July 1. Online source, retrieved from: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/teen-social-media-use-depression-19542027.php. Males refers to the specific CDC data used for his analysis. For Males: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_A._Males.
[vii] d.m. boyd (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, New Haven.
[viii] S. Vaidhyanathan (2025). ‘Are cell phones really destroying kids’ mental health?’, New Republic, Logging of, Janyary 23. Online source, retrieved from: https://newrepublic.com/article/190384/cell-phones-really-destroying-kids-mental-health.
[ix] J. Ticona (2022). Left to Our Own Devices. Coping with Insecure Work in a Digital Age, Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York.
[x] Dienlin (2024a).
