“The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness,” a new book by Jonathan Haidt, rapidly gained popularity. However, despite its catchy headlines, academic critics argue that the scientific evidence does not support the extraordinary claims made in the book.

In his latest book, Jonathan Haidt blames smartphones for rewiring childhood and igniting a global epidemic of anxiety and depression among youth. He identifies four main harms: sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, and addiction. He writes, ‘This great rewiring of childhood, I argue, is the single largest reason for the tidal wave of adolescent mental illness that began in the early 2010s.’

His sweeping conclusions have garnered significant criticism from scientists in the field. The primary critique targets the foundation of Haidt’s arguments, particularly the flawed methodology underlying them: cherry-picking research and purposefully adjusting studies that fit his opinions, drawing causal conclusions from correlational data, and overgeneralizing beyond the data. In her reviews, Dr. Candice L. Odgers warns that the current state of research on smartphones and mental health does not support Haidt’s arguments, and many studies, in fact, conflict with his claims. Similarly, other scientific teams caution against ignoring these fundamental flaws, as they can distract us from the real causes of mental health problems among young people.

Correspondingly, Professor Andrew Przybylski from the Oxford University has pledged for a more meaningful discussion on social media and mental health, suggesting that Haidt prioritizes a compelling narrative over scientific accuracy, deliberately ignoring the broader context of smartphone usage, social media, and mental health. Young people are not a homogenous group with the same behaviors and characteristics. The context—which is overwhelmingly missing in Haidt’s book—matters, and Haidt blatantly ignores underlying drivers such as economic and social circumstances impacting mental health. 

Finally, Haidt has faced criticism for oversimplifying the complexity and nuances of the social worlds in which young people live and use their smartphones. Digital anthropologist Payal Arora criticizes Haidt’s stance on the Internet’s impact on well-being as flawed and techno-pessimistic, blaming him for ignoring the profound human need for connectivity, and the creative ways the Internet has been used, for example in the Global South, or in social movements mobilizing across the world. 

The critique of Haidt’s book transcends a mere discussion of methodologies. While simple advice may make for a better bestseller, young people deserve more than cheap scapegoating, and public policies should not be founded on moral panic. This debate underscores the need for a well-informed discussion that delves into the root causes of mental health challenges facing young people today, as well as broader issues of digital citizenship.