A recent study led by Dr. Ben Singh has brought to light the complex relationship between social media use and adolescent wellbeing. The results counter widely-held assumptions. Their results indicate that blanket bans and one-size-fits-all regulations on social media use may be ineffective means of protecting teen mental health. The quantitative and qualitative indicators of wellbeing we research went a long way into framing the complicated reality of social media’s role in attacking or improving young people’s lives.
Dr. Singh’s observational study assessed wellbeing across eight different indicators: happiness, optimism, satisfaction with life, worry, sadness, perseverance, emotional regulation, and cognitive engagement. The findings showed that the impact of social media use on our wellbeing is not black and white.
Wellbeing Outcomes Vary by User Type
The findings demonstrated stark disparities in wellbeing between groups of adolescents who differed in their social media use. For girls in year groups 4-6, non-users had the highest wellbeing scores. When girls moved up to middle school, moderate users had greater wellbeing than non-users.
Dr. Singh emphasized the complexity of the situation, stating, “It’s not simply ‘more social media equals worse wellbeing.’” His key findings demonstrate how over-restriction often leads to worse outcomes. High frequency use had the opposite effect, and this too varied by age and sex. Taking this into account pushes against the prevailing idea that curtailing access to social media is an easy, if not inevitable, way to protect adolescent mental health.
Social media has increasingly grown to be a helpful and necessary resource for most boys in mid-adolescence. Its power comes in keeping you connected with friends and planning social interactions. It helps create a deep camaraderie with your classmates. Rather than detract from social belonging, the study found that moderate amounts of time spent on social media can help foster belongingness—especially as this important development process occurs.
Critique of Blanket Bans on Social Media
Similarly, Caroline Thain — a specialist in youth mental health — responded to what Dr. Singh’s study means for young minds. She argued that a blanket ban on social media is merely one tool in addressing a complex issue surrounding young people’s online interactions. Thain’s action research emphasized the importance of more holistic approaches that address root causes at play in how teens are using social media.
As Thain put it, though some harm reduction is doable, we must address the root causes. These range from platform design to algorithms all the way to online safety. She further noted that evidence suggests education, safeguards, parental support, and accountability for platforms are more effective than bans alone.
It’s a grim situation. Raising points, as Thain has, is right on the heels of a similar study from Curtin University released in mid-November 2024. This new research followed over 400 people between the ages of 17 to 53. It found no meaningful connection between how much time people spent on social media and their psychological distress. This generates even more confusion in the fractious debate over social media’s effects on mental health.
The Need for Inclusive Dialogue
Both Dr. Singh and Thain emphasized the need to have young people at the table when shaping new social media regulations. Thain remarked, “Young people consistently tell us they want to be part of the conversation, not regulated without consultation.”
She noted that some teens may reduce stress and social comparison by taking a break from social media. When they hit a wall with a sudden and unexplained limitation, the first feeling might be anger, disappointment and confusion at being ignored. This underscores the urgency of more customized and precise solutions as opposed to one-size-fits-all mandates that may fail to meet people where they are.
