Chapter 21: Exercises

Comprehension Check

1. Summarize the Haidt position and the Orben/Przybylski position on social media and mental health. What are the key points of agreement and disagreement?

2. What is the approximate effect size of the association between social media use and adolescent wellbeing? How does it compare to other factors?

3. Why can't correlational studies establish that social media causes depression? What are the alternative explanations?

4. What did the Facebook Files reveal? Why is this evidence concerning but not conclusive?

5. For which subgroups might social media be genuinely beneficial? What does this complicate about the "social media is always harmful" narrative?

Application

6. Track your own social media use for one week (most phones have built-in screen time tracking). Note: total time, passive scrolling vs. active engagement, and your mood before and after use. Do you notice a pattern?

7. Find one article supporting Haidt's position and one supporting Orben/Przybylski's. Compare: - What evidence does each cite? - How does each discuss effect size? - Does each acknowledge the other side's arguments?

8. Apply the toolkit to the claim: "Instagram causes eating disorders in teenage girls." Trace the evidence, note the effect size, and determine whether the claim is causal or correlational.

9. Ask three parents of teenagers what they believe about social media and mental health. Note whether their beliefs are closer to the Haidt position or the Orben/Przybylski position. Where did they get their information?

10. If you were designing a study to determine whether social media causes depression (not just correlates with it), what would the study look like? What ethical constraints would you face?

Critical Thinking

11. Haidt emphasizes trend data (the timing of the increase coincides with smartphone adoption). Orben/Przybylski emphasize individual-level effect sizes (the correlation is tiny). Both are presenting real data. How do you reconcile population trends with small individual effects?

12. The precautionary principle suggests limiting potential risks even when evidence is uncertain. Does this justify restricting adolescent social media use? What are the costs of the precautionary approach?

13. The debate between Haidt and Orben/Przybylski is genuinely unresolved. How should media cover scientific disagreements? Is it responsible to present "the science is settled" when it isn't?

14. Social media may benefit LGBTQ+ youth, isolated youth, and those with niche interests. How should policy account for these benefits while addressing potential harms? Is a blanket restriction appropriate?

15. If the effect of social media on mental health is genuinely small (r ≈ 0.04), is it worth policy attention? Or should resources be directed at factors with larger effects (sleep, exercise, poverty, family relationships)?

Fact-Check Portfolio

16. If any of your 10 claims involve technology, social media, screen time, or digital wellbeing: - Does the claim distinguish correlation from causation? - Does it cite effect sizes? - Does it acknowledge genuine scientific disagreement? - Update your evidence rating.