Social psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Zachary Rausch from New York University's Stern School of Business released findings in chapter three of the 2026 World Happiness Report concluding that social media is not safe for adolescents. The pair conducted a meta-analysis rather than original research, examining prior studies into mental health effects of social media on those aged 10 to 19, alongside comments from kids, parents, teachers, and clinicians.
The research draws on what Haidt and Rausch characterise as seven distinct lines of evidence. Academic studies show heavy users face elevated depression risk in cross-sectional work, while longitudinal research indicates early social media use predicts depressive symptoms later. When adolescents reduce their time on social media, they generally report being happier, the researchers found.
Beyond academic literature, the analysis incorporated internal corporate documents. Meta's leaked research included an experiment designed to establish causality, where the company's researchers concluded that social media causes harm to mental health. Similar documentation exists from TikTok and Snap, the researchers note.
The clinical significance here is substantial. Internal research from Meta suggests 13% of Instagram users aged 13 to 15 receive unwanted sexual advances every week, while 45% of US teens report social media negatively impacts their sleep. An estimated 10% of adolescents suffer from problematic use, amounting to nearly 4 million US teens.
What the data actually tells us about scaling these individual harms to population level requires some methodological caution. Proving social media's harms reach population scale requires extrapolation; Haidt and Rausch estimate harm levels based on study results and population totals. Adolescents spend an average of 2.5 hours a day on social media, creating a large exposed population.
The researchers argue their evidence justifies comprehensive action. Haidt and Rausch advocate for "freeing kids under 16 from the social media trap", noting that while there will be difficulties in early months, many other nations should follow Australia's lead. Australia became the first country to introduce a social media ban for users under 16 years of age in December 2025.
Before drawing final conclusions, important caveats apply. Some experts interpret experimental evidence as inconsistent, contending that if you examine the right outcomes like depression and anxiety over timeframes of 2 or more weeks away from social media you see large effects, while others argue all mental wellbeing outcomes are comparably informative and experimental evidence suggests spending less time on social media is good but isn't conclusive.
The authors acknowledge a genuine tension: young people who use social media for less than one hour per day report the highest wellbeing levels, higher even than those who don't use it at all. This suggests the relationship may be dose-dependent rather than categorical. For some young people, social media is integral to how they form and maintain social identity and online friendships, yet limiting it could improve emotional regulation.
The research, informed by the peer-reviewed World Happiness Report, arrives as Australia's age restrictions become operational. The question now becomes not whether evidence of harm exists, but whether restricting access before maturity represents sound policy, and whether enforcement can function across borders where digital innovation moves faster than regulation.