This week a report by the Policy Exchange think tank found that children at secondary schools with a full phone ban in place achieved GCSE results that are one or two grades higher compared with children at schools with less strict policies. This is despite the fact that the schools with complete bans typically tend to have a higher proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals than schools with less restrictive policies.
We now have dozens and dozens of studies that have proven the correlation between smartphone use and every negative behaviour change possible
This is interesting, but hardly surprising, and I highly doubt it will lead to substantial change. The government’s guidance to schools in February has already made little difference: only 11 per cent of schools in England and Wales physically separate students from their phones for the duration of the school day, even though we know the mere presence of a phone is a distraction in and of itself.
Meanwhile, we continue to argue about where the responsibility lies: Big Tech, government regulation, school policies, parents, the users themselves. Some turn to extremes – for example, one school is extending the school day to 12 hours in order to try and break the students’ digital addictions – all the while overlooking the most important reason behind this rewiring of our children’s brains: social media algorithms.
The easiest way to explain this is by looking at the gendered nature of the mental health epidemic amongst teenagers. One US study found that 57 per cent of teenage girl say they experience sadness or hopelessness (up from 36 per cent in 2011), whilst 30 per cent say they have seriously considered suicide (up from 19 per cent in 2011). Boys’ reported rates of depression and anxiety are nowhere near as high, and their increases since 2011 are also smaller.
Some may argue that girls are just more likely than boys to report suffering with their mental health. But this doesn’t explain suicide data from hospitals. In the US, children and adolescents coming to hospital for suicidal thoughts or attempts almost doubled between 2008 and 2015, with the highest increase for adolescent girls.
It is a similar pattern elsewhere: in Canada, girls aged 15 to 17 are twice as likely to be hospitalised for mental health concerns as boys the same age. In Norway, 29 per cent of teenage girls report having issues with depression or anxiety, compared to only 10 per cent of teenage boys. One Norwegian study found that banning phones in schools significantly improved girls’ mental health and academic progress, and yet had little effect on boys.
Girls do spend more time on their phones: one Swedish study found that 60 per cent of teenage girls reported excessive smartphone use, compared to only 35 per cent of teenage boys. Yet assuming that school policies affect boys and girls in the same way, and assuming that parents police their children’s smartphone use in a similar way irrespective of sex, then these mental health discrepancies must be explained by something else: the kind of content they are consuming.
This is where it seems the algorithm comes in. Algorithms create demand rather than reflect it: this manufactured serendipity makes us think social media is showing us our interests rather than manipulating them. For example, compare mine and my husband’s Instagram ‘Explore’ pages. He is shown videos of high-octane skiing and other sports; I am shown pictures of cosmetic surgery before-and-afters. He is given clips of political interviews and news updates; I get adverts for wedding dresses and baby products. I have never once liked or shared or commented on a single ‘What I eat in a day’ video, and yet I am shown them regularly; he has never come across them.
This rabbit hole of recommended content is the problem. We know, for example, that Instagram’s algorithms push teenage girls who even briefly engage with fitness-related images towards a flood of weight-loss content. We also know that girls are more likely to be shown information related to self-harm, eating disorders and body image.
What worries me though is that even if young girls are not being subjected to extreme content, the stereotyping, self-limiting nature of social media algorithms is narrowing their frames of reference. For example, one study found that 68 per cent of teenage girls said their social media interests were limited to beauty, fashion, and reality television. This might seem more depressing than dangerous, but all of these are far more likely to negatively affect their self-esteem than the boys’ reported interests: sport, technology, politics and business. Of course some girls will be actively seeking out that type of content, but it’s impossible to tell how much is intentional and how much is imposed by an algorithm that is assuming that is ‘what girls like’.
We now have dozens and dozens of studies that have proven the correlation between smartphone use and every negative behaviour change possible: poor sleep, poor concentration, poor mental health, poor social skills. Reports continue to be filed, the data continues to mount, and yet very little is done. Until we do something, teenagers – and in particular teenage girls – will continue to suffer.
Comments