The Anxious Generation Page Header

The Anxious Generation – Jonathan Haidt

by Book ReviewsChildren, Teens and DigiTech

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist.

This is different from a CyberPsychologist, in that social psychology takes a broader view of issues (including digital technology) that may or may not affect a collective group of similar people within an environment or context.

A CyberPsychologist will focus more on the individual level of how a person (who has specific traits that are similar to traits others have) interacts with and is impacted by various types of digital technology. 

There are likely to be a number of CyberPsychologists who will disagree with a lot of the concepts, propositions and conclusions within this book. I would suggest that this is partly because the worldview and direction of study differs quite substantially, but also partly because he has not focussed on Digital Technology as his primary psychology speciality.

For those who do disagree with his approach to, and misreading of, the data the suggestion is that he is cherry picking research that fits his theories while ignoring research that contradicts it. Correlation does not imply causation.

Being a relatively new research area, there are many nuances, subtleties and new findings in CyberPsychology that a social scientist may not take into account when diving into these topics. 

I don’t agree with everything he lays out in this book. He seems to veer off the main topic on several occasions, creating a few tenuous links back to his topic or argument. Additionally, some of his explanations are based on his very specific worldview that does not necessarily link back to other research. It seems a one-sided argument, that does not consider or weigh up other contradictory evidence.

However, he does present a number of compelling arguments and data to the reader that showcases a correlation between the launch of smartphones / social media and the increase in mental health conditions amongst teens in the last few decades. 

  • He talks through how the role ‘helicopter parenting’ has delayed the development of a sense of independence amongst teens and how the fear of real-world dangers has played into parents giving their children smartphones at a younger and younger age. 
  • He includes how Big Tech exploits very specific developmental stages and present the case of how different online elements affect teenage girls and teenage boys differently. 
  • He finishes by providing a number of suggested solutions for parents, schools and institutions and how we may be able to reverse the social trends we are witnessing amongst younger children.

Although the book is written for a USA audience, and based a mostly on data and research from the US, the theories and solutions he presents are still mostly relevant for other English speaking Western audiences.

Whether you agree or disagree with Mr Haidt on the issues and solutions he presents in his book, it is still worth a read. But, like any argument, it is always worth balancing it with those who have an alternative perspective on the same issues around how Big Tech, smartphones and social media may be influencing us and our teens.

We still have so much to learn about the longer-term impact of Digital Technology on human behaviour and psychology, especially amongst children, but we also know more than we did a decade ago. 

You can read a review in favour of his book in The Atlantic here, and a critique of his theories, research and book in The Daily Beast here.

Below are a few interviews Jonathan Haidt has conducted explaining more about the theories, concepts and solutions he presents throughout his book.

You can find out more about his book The Anxious Generation here.

About Jonathan Haidt:

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist and the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

He is the author of The Happiness Hypothesis, The Righteous Mind and co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind.

Book Review Related Articles
Ruth Guest

Ruth Guest (Sersha) | Ep 1

by Children, Teens and DigiTechExpertPodcasts

In this episode, Ruth tells us about:

  • Who she is and what got her started on the CyberPsychology journey.
  • Why she started Sersha.
  • What Sersha is and how it is designed as social media training for pre-teens (to reduce the risk of social media) and to help parents have better conversations with their children about social media.
  • Who she’s looking for to help her test the ‘Beta model’ of her education simulator.
  • Where she is hoping to take Sersha in the near future (watch out for the September 2024 launch of the next stage).
  • What her favourite (and recommended reading) CyberPsychology books are.

Parents: Test Sersha’s BETA Game with your 8-13 year old here or scan the QR Code.

Go to Sersha’s website

Visit Ruth’s personal website

Connect on LinkedIn:

Linkedin

Ruth’s recommended reading:

What the acronyms mean:
  • IADT: Institute of Art, Design and Technology (Dublin, Ireland)
  • MVP: Minimum Viable Product
  • TAM: Technology Acceptance Model (the older we are, the less likely we are to accept technology)
  • CMC: Computer-mediated communication (how we communicate online)
Production Caveat:

I am not a journalist, media personality or producer by trade or training. I am a psychologist who used to do corporate marketing.

So, please forgive me the current not-so-professional nature of the videos. I’m hoping the value of the information shared will overshadow the less than glossy nature of the production you watch.

The quality should improve with time and practice.

Do you have any CyberPsychology related questions?

If so, please get in touch. I will do my best to either answer your questions or find another expert who hopefully can. Use any of these options to send through your questions.

Other Podcasts
241. DigiTech at School

Technology, education and pre-teen years

by Children, Teens and DigiTech

I seem to be having a number of discussions with parents (particularly mothers) about the quantity and type of technology that is being used within schools for the purposes of education.

Screentime and homework
The biggest concern, especially for parents of children in younger age groups, has been children only being able to access homework via their smartphones. The parent’s concern is mostly around the issue of limiting their child’s screen time – not being able to do so if they need it for their homework. 
 
Parent’s who have raised this concern with me have expressed the fear that they may be the only parent who has this concern, and they don’t have enough agency to make any change against the school their child attends. 
 
For these parents, I ask them if there are other parents who feel the same and, if there are, to go together to raise their concerns with the school. We often think we are the only ones who feel a certain way and do not want to speak up in case we are a lone voice in a crowd. But, it is often that others feel the same as we do, but are also concerned they are the only ones to be so. 
 
Focus and distraction
From a neuro-cyberpsychology perspective I have a lot of concern for the level of technology / screen based use in the education of young people. Using constantly shifting information and media reduces the brains capacity for ‘deep’ information processing – resulting in rapid attention shifting/decreased ability to sustain attention and reduced ability to deliberate. It reduces the ability to pay attention and focus while increasing distractibility. The brain is still growing at super-speed at this age – and is still building those key neural pathways for overall (although are still neuroplastic in adulthood) brain structure and sets the groundwork for adult behaviour and capabilities. 
 
Children of this age should not have the kind of exposure they do to screens and content that they do. It is a parent’s prerogative as to how much screen exposure a child gets, but schools and teachers should minimise engagement in online content and should not be giving them homework that can only be/is mostly accessed via a screen.
 
Left-behind or left out?
I often hear the argument that they will be ‘left behind’ their peers if they do not engage in digital technology. But this is not true. Just look at how little exposure the big tech CEO’s (the very people who develop the hard and software used) give their children to digital technology. 
 
What is of greater relevance is the notion of children being teased or ostracised by peer-groups because they don’t have the same access as others in the group.
Post-apocalyptic 'educational' content
The second concern is some the type of content that children are exposed to, as part of their education. A concerned mum recently asked me to review a hyper-realistic animation video her 10 year old son had to watch as part of the English curriculum. The is video part of The Literacy Shed materials available for educational use – and can be viewed here. 
 
Having been disturbed by the video her son had to watch, the mum found other  parents who were equally  concerned about the content. 
 
I suspect that not all parents would like their pre-teen children to be exposed to action-based or violent content – whether animated, AI generated, real or CGI. Even if the content is used for ‘educational purposes’. Surely there is plenty of alternative content that can be used to achieve exactly the same educational purposes that is not of an intense or violent nature or has triggering potential?
De-sensitisation and information processing
I’m guessing a child would need to watch the video a number of times in order to be able to answer the questions. Some psychologists refer to repeated exposure to disturbing/extreme content as ‘fear conditioning’ and studies show that constant exposure to this type of  content can lead to desensitisation to violence, decrease in empathy and suppression of effective information processing. Although the studies were done on older video-gamers, it seems a little ironic to me that children are expected to process information to answer specific questions after repeated watching of post-apocalyptic/violent material that may reduce their ability to process information. 
 
Pre-teens and peer acceptance
Around the double-digit-age mark, children start separating their self-identity-base from the family, creating bonds with peers and are beginning to feel pressure to conform. They are hyper-sensitive to criticism and resist the possibility of being viewed as an outsider. So if a child feels uncomfortable with this type of content, they are unlikely to admit as much to teaches and peers – especially if their peers are playing/watching a lot of violent video games (which a surprising number are at this age). 
 
Developmental pace and emotional safeguarding
Every child is different and develops at a different pace to others – so what will trigger or soothe them differs accordingly. One 9 year old viewing the content as being ‘cool’ is no indication that all children at a similar age will feel just as ‘cool’ about it.
 
The context of the video watching plays a role in how children feel. For some children watching a potentially ’scary’ movie or content could feel safe when they are with a trusted adult/parent – where they know they are physically, emotionally and psychologically protected and safe-guarded.
 
Watching the same content on their own, in front of peers or within a school environment will have a different impact – as they will not feel that same level of safeguarding that comes from those they trust to protect them. 
 
Social developmental and online risk
From a developmental perspective, this is the age range that children are most vulnerable to the internet and online harms/risks. This is when they are starting to learn the differences between right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice. They are not ‘little adult’s’. They are psychologically incapable of making as much sense of the world as grown-ups are.
 
As every child mentally develops at different rates, so what is ok for one, will be very much not ok for another. Boys are also more vulnerable and less resilient than girls at age 9/10 y.o. – so it is interesting that the content in the video is focussed on more male-based characteristics of fighting, defending and conquering. 
 
Personality and hyper-sensitivity
From a personality perspective, some people are a lot more hyper-sensitive than others and more vulnerable when exposed to external stimuli. They feel more deeply and have a stronger brain mirroring network – which means that they are highly socially and emotionally intelligent and are more likely to internally experience similar emotions, feelings and actions of others (virtual or in-person) they are watching or engaging with.
 
Exposure to this type of content for a highly-sensitive 9-10 year old would, therefore, be experienced at a much deeper level than for others of the same age. 
Do phones belong in schools?

This is a highly sensitive and polarising topic. Mobile phones have been banned in schools in France, Italy and Portugal. In October 2023 the UK government announced that ‘Mobile phone use to be banned during the school day, including at break time’, in an attempt to tackle online bullying, decrease distractions and increase attention and focus. 

A recent Guardian article reports on some of the benefits of reducing hyper-connectivity in the school environment and the resulting increase in attention and face-to-face connectivity. It show-cases a Massachusetts (USA) school that has introduced a Light Phone with minimal functionality, that results in less time spent on screens, fewer distractions and more meaningful interactions in and out of classes.  

A Rutgers University–New Brunswick study found that mobile use during educational sessions can reduce overall test scores. 

‘The study found that having a device didn’t lower students’ scores in comprehension tests within lectures but did lower their scores in the end-of-term exam by at least 5 percent, or half a grade. This finding shows for the first time that the main effect of divided attention in the classroom is on long-term retention.

In addition, when the use of electronic devices was allowed in class, performance was also poorer for students who did not use devices as well as for those who did’.

What is the 'digital technology use in schools' solution?

That is not an easy question to answer.

We are still in the middle of a digital technology social experiment – on-boarding all available technology and finding out the longer-term (positive and negative) consequences as we go along. Sometimes after investing a lot of money and social capital into the said technology. 

It will take us a few decades to really understand the human and social consequences of our digital technology use in the education system. But, it does seem that teachers and parents needs to take a more cautionary approach to what and how much digital integration is included.

Maybe we need to revert to a greater degree of ‘non-digital education’. It worked for many generations, and still has that capacity to be a highly effective form of learning. 

Related Articles