Impacts of social media on children and young people

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58248/PN780

Social media use (SMU) among children and young people has become a growing topic of public and political debate. Research published by Ofcom in 2025 found that 79% of 3–17-year-olds had a profile on at least one social media platform, video sharing platform, messaging or livestreaming app, increasing to 97% for 13–17-year-olds.  

Potential impacts of social media on children and young people

Children use social media for a range of reasons including entertainment and relaxation, social interaction, and engagement in news and current affairs.

Research examines associations between social media use and a range of possible impacts on children and young people, although most evidence cannot determine direct causation.

Research has identified several potentially beneficial associations between SMU and:

• community building, friendship and social connection
• identity exploration, affirmation and solidarity
• opportunities for learning, creativity and the development of financial literacy
• providing access to sources of support

Research has also identified several potential adverse consequences such as associations between social media use and:

• mental health issues including anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, self-harm, and suicidal ideation
• physical health issues relating to poor sleep and health risk behaviours (such as smoking and unhealthy diets)
• harassment, grooming, and abuse
• financial harms relating to gambling, marketing, and misleading financial content
• behavioural issues including hate and violence
• lower educational attainment

However, evidence for these associations is not conclusive. Benefits and harms may also co-exist, and different people may experience the same content in different ways.

Potential vulnerabilities and protective factors

While research is limited on what factors affect the risk of potential negative impacts of social media for children and young people, experts have outlined possible groups who may be more vulnerable.

These groups typically reflect those who already experience inequalities. While some academics report that minoritised young people particularly benefit from connecting with people they can identify, and have things in common, with online through social media, others say that such groups may be at greater risk of exposure to harms (such as hate and discrimination) and being targeted by abusers.     

Platforms may be able to reduce risks for children by complying with legislation and undertaking impact and risk assessments.

Non-governmental organisations and academic experts have also emphasised how platforms can reduce risks to children and young people by employing safety-by-design and addressing persuasive design features.

Besides policy, experts highlight several local factors which may protect children and young people from potential social media harms including:

• digital, algorithm and social media literacy
• parental engagement, co-use and digital literacy
• strong offline social and emotional resources

Strength of evidence

Much of the research is cross-sectional, observational, and short-term, meaning evidence can show associations between social media use and specific outcomes but not causation, and observed effects can often be small or inconsistent. Where researchers do suggest causality in individual studies, they often note that the direction of causality is unclear. Many studies rely on broad screen-time measures which focus on duration, rather than nature, of usage and often rely on self-reported usage and outcomes. Some experts suggest that the strength of the evidence is over-estimated, mis-communicated or selectively reported.

Evidence gaps

There are gaps in available evidence that make it difficult to draw robust conclusions about the impacts of social media on children and young people. These include:

• How does social media use affect younger children (and how interventions may mitigate those impacts)?
• What are the long-term effects of usage (assessed through longitudinal studies)?
• What are the effects of social media use beyond mental health (such as physical health and behaviour)?
• What other ways can be used to measure usage beyond ‘time spent’ (such as the nature of usage, and the role of platform design and commercial incentives)?
• What further usage data could support understanding of children’s social media use?
• Are there inequalities in experiences or impacts between groups?
• How can policy stay relevant in a context of fast-paced technological change, for example, innovations such as AI?
• What are the effects of stopping using social media?

Scope of this briefing

This briefing considers evidence around the impacts of social media on children and young people aged 0-24.

There is no official definition of social media, and there is some contestation around which platforms fall into these definitions. For example, the government classes YouTube as social media, which YouTube contests, and has not included the platforms WhatsApp or Signal in its proposed ban on social media for under-16s.

In this briefing, “social media” refers to any website or application through which users can create and share content or participate in social networking.

The briefing considers national and international evidence around the impacts of social media on children and young people aged 0–24, though most research is based on adolescents (ages 10–19) and young adults (ages 19–24). It draws upon research on wider digital harms around social media where relevant.

Children’s use of social media operates in a wider online context, and stakeholders comment that impacts can span platforms and communities. This briefing does not cover in detail the role of schools and other public services. It does not cover the potential impacts of online environments beyond social media such as forums and gaming sites. See POST’s complementary briefing, The impacts of screen and AI use on children and young people (2026), for the broader context.

Section 4 in this briefing non-exhaustively outlines some potential policy approaches which stakeholders suggest may be beneficial for developing safer digital environments for children and young people.

Corrections and clarifications

A correction was made for accuracy and clarity in section 2, sub-section ‘Mental health support on social media’ on 27.8.2026. The text now reads:

Data from the 2025 OxWell student survey found that 12% of the 24,188 students who reached this section of the survey had used social media for mental health support in the past year. [footnote](94) The research, some of which is unpublished, showed that of these students, this percentage increased for vulnerable, minoritised and isolated groups including for: (94; 95)

• 24% of those with eating difficulties
• 26% of those with histories of self-harm
• 24% of trans/ gender diverse students

However, this was a cross-sectional study limited in its capacity to establish causation. The researchers also acknowledged the possibility of reverse causation. (58)

Footnote: Qualitative interviews with young people suggested online spaces like social media were perceived as offering support and connection. (94)

The text previously read: “The 2025 OxWell student survey found that 12% of their sample of more than 35,000 students in England used social media as a perceived accessible, confidential and non-judgemental platform for support which supplemented, but did not replace, formalised options for support. This usage increased for vulnerable, minoritised and isolated groups including for:  • 24% of those with eating difficulties • 26% of those with histories of self-harm • 24% of trans/ gender diverse students However, this was a cross-sectional study limited in its capacity to establish causation. The authors also acknowledged the possibility of reverse causation.[footnote]”

The footnote previously read: “Reverse causation would mean that poorer pre-existing mental health conditions lead to higher SMU, rather than high SMU leading to mental health conditions.”

The references in this text have also been updated; previous reference numbers have been removed to avoid confusion.

Acknowledgements

This briefing was produced in consultation with experts and stakeholders, who are listed at the end of the briefing. POST would like to thank everyone who contributed their expertise.