Adolescents who spend either a significant amount of time—or none at all—on social media may experience poorer wellbeing, according to a new study conducted in Australia. Researchers from the University of Adelaide tracked over 100,000 students from Year 4 to Year 12 over a three-year period, discovering that the relationship between screen time and wellbeing is not straightforward and varies by age and gender.
Lead author Ben Singh explained to ABC, “It’s not simply ‘more social media equals worse wellbeing’.” The study found that moderate social media 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 complete abstinence were linked with poorer outcomes.
Gender and Age Differences in Social Media Impact
The study highlighted a mixed bag of results, especially when considering gender and age. For girls, non-users reported the highest wellbeing in early school years (Years 4 to 6). However, by middle school, moderate users showed better wellbeing than those who abstained from social media entirely. The research assessed wellbeing across eight indicators: happiness, optimism, life satisfaction, worry, sadness, perseverance, emotional regulation, and cognitive engagement.
In general, high social media use was consistently linked to poor mental health outcomes in girls. Meanwhile, the study found that for boys, wellbeing was similar among non-users and moderate users in early adolescence. However, as boys reached mid-adolescence, those who did not engage with social media were increasingly likely to report poorer outcomes, surpassing the risks associated with high use by late adolescence.
Dr. Singh noted, “After entering mid-adolescence, social media becomes a central part of how many boys maintain friendships, coordinate social activities, and feel connected to their peer group.” Moderate social media use appears to support social belonging and connection during this developmental period, he added.
Implications of Social Media Policies
The findings arrive amid Australia’s ban on social media access for children under 16, a policy that has sparked debate over whether such bans and screen-time limits are effective in protecting young people. Dr. Singh’s research challenges the notion 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 advised.
The research was funded by the Medical Research Future Fund, the Australian Research Council, and the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Expert Opinions and Future Directions
Caroline Thain, headspace manager of clinical advice and governance, commented to ABC that a blanket social media ban is only one tool in 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 stated.
She emphasized that evidence suggests education, safeguards, parental support, and accountability for platforms are more effective than bans alone. Additionally, she noted that teenagers’ reactions to the social media ban have been mixed, with many expressing a desire to be part of the conversation rather than being regulated without consultation.
This study follows a similar paper published by Perth’s Curtin University in November 2024, which challenged the perception that heavy social media use significantly impacts mental health. That research, which surveyed over 400 individuals aged 17 to 53, found no link between the amount of time spent on social media and levels of psychological distress.
The ongoing research underscores the need for nuanced approaches to managing social media use among adolescents, taking into account individual differences and the evolving digital landscape.
