Adolescents who spend either a lot of time—or no time at all—on social media may be more likely to report poorer wellbeing, according to a new Australian study. Researchers from the University of Adelaide tracked over 100,000 students from Year 4 to Year 12 across three years, discovering that the link between screen time and wellbeing is not straightforward and varies by age and gender.
“It’s not simply ‘more social media equals worse wellbeing’,” lead author Ben Singh explained to the ABC. The study found that moderate use—defined as more than zero but less than 12.5 hours a week after school—was associated with the best wellbeing. In contrast, both heavy use (12.5 hours or more per week) and no use at all were linked with poorer outcomes.
Gender-Specific Trends in Social Media Use
The research revealed a nuanced picture of social media’s impact on wellbeing, particularly when dissected by gender. For girls, non-users reported the highest wellbeing in Years 4 to 6. However, by middle school, moderate users exhibited better wellbeing than those who abstained from social media altogether.
In this study, wellbeing was assessed across eight indicators: happiness, optimism, satisfaction with life, worry, sadness, perseverance, emotional regulation, and cognitive engagement. The peer-reviewed research consistently linked high social media use to poor mental health in girls.
Meanwhile, the study found that among boys in early adolescence, wellbeing was similar between non-users and moderate users. However, from mid-adolescence onward, boys who did not use social media were increasingly likely to report poorer outcomes, surpassing the risk associated with high use by late adolescence.
“In contrast, moderate social media use appears to support social belonging and connection during this developmental period,” Dr. Singh noted.
Broader Implications and Policy Challenges
The findings emerge amid Australia’s ban on social media access for children under 16, a policy that has reignited debate over whether bans and screen-time limits are the best way to protect young people. Dr. Singh’s findings challenge the efficacy of one-size-fits-all rules and blanket bans.
“Policies and parenting advice should move beyond simple screen-time limits and instead focus on balanced, age-appropriate, and purposeful use of social media,” Dr. Singh advocated.
The research, funded by the Medical Research Future Fund, the Australian Research Council, and the National Health and Medical Research Council, suggests that both heavy social use and abstinence might pose risks for young people vulnerable to social comparison and isolation.
Expert Opinions and Future Directions
Caroline Thain, headspace manager of clinical advice and governance, emphasized that a blanket social media ban is only one tool for addressing a complex issue. “While it may reduce some harms, more needs to be done to address underlying factors such as platform design, algorithms, and online safety,” Ms. Thain told the ABC.
“Evidence suggests that education, safeguards, parental support, and accountability for platforms are more effective than bans alone,” she added.
Young people’s reactions to the social media ban have been mixed, with many expressing a desire to be part of the conversation rather than regulated without consultation.
This study follows a similar paper from Perth’s Curtin University, published in November 2024, which challenged the perception that heavy social media use significantly impacts mental health. Researchers found no link between the amount of time spent on social media and a person’s level of psychological distress after surveying more than 400 individuals aged 17 to 53.
As the debate over social media’s role in adolescent wellbeing continues, this latest research underscores the need for nuanced approaches that consider the diverse experiences and needs of young people.
