Social Media Anxiety Study: 25,000 Pupils, No Link Found

This social media anxiety study is worth knowing in detail. A University of Manchester team followed more than 25,000 pupils aged 11 to 14 across three school years and asked a precise question: when a young teen spends more time on social media or gaming than usual, do their anxiety and depression symptoms rise the following year? The answer, published in the Journal of Public Health, was no, for boys or girls. It is one of the largest and most carefully designed studies of its kind, and its lead author put it plainly: “our results do not support the idea that simply spending time on social media or gaming leads to mental health problems.” That is an important finding. It is also narrower than the headlines it produced, and it sits alongside other good studies that found harm. Here is how to hold both.

Key Takeaways

• The #BeeWell study tracked 25,629 adolescents in Greater Manchester, average age 12 at the start, over three annual waves.
• Using a design that separates changes within each child from differences between children, it found no evidence that social media time or gaming frequency predicted later anxiety or depression symptoms.
• Active versus passive social media use made no difference to that result.
• The study measured time, not content or experiences. The authors stress that hurtful messages, online pressure and extreme content can still affect wellbeing.
• Other strong studies, including a randomized Facebook deactivation experiment and a natural experiment on Facebook’s college rollout, found negative effects on wellbeing or mental health. The studies ask different questions, which is why they can all be right.

What the #BeeWell Social Media Anxiety Study Found

The #BeeWell study is a large school-based wellbeing survey in Greater Manchester, England. The paper, by Qiqi Cheng, Margarita Panayiotou, Turi Reiten Finserås, Amanda Iselin Olesen Andersen and Neil Humphrey, was published online in December 2025 and publicized by the university in January 2026.

Who: 25,629 adolescents, 51% girls, average age 12 years and 7 months at baseline.

What was measured: self-reported time on social media, gaming frequency, and internalizing symptoms (a composite of anxiety and depression symptoms), once a year for three years.

How it was analyzed: a random-intercept cross-lagged panel model. That is the key methodological choice, so it’s worth explaining. Ordinary analyses compare children with each other: heavy users versus light users. But heavy users may differ in many ways (family life, temperament, prior mental health). This model instead asks whether a child who is above their own usual level of social media use one year shows above their own usual level of symptoms the next year. Each child acts as their own comparison, which removes stable differences between kids from the estimate.

Results:

• No evidence that time on social media or gaming frequency predicted later internalizing symptoms, for girls or boys.
• In girls, more frequent gaming at wave 2 predicted less social media use at wave 3.
• In boys, more internalizing symptoms at wave 2 predicted less gaming at wave 3.
• Sensitivity analyses separating active from passive social media use replicated the main findings.

The authors concluded the findings “do not support the widely held view that adolescent technology use is a major causal factor in their mental health difficulties.” Co-author Neil Humphrey added that young people’s technology choices “may be shaped by how they’re feeling, but not necessarily the other way around.”

What the Study Can and Cannot Rule Out

Every study answers a specific question. Here is what this one answers well and where it is silent.

It can rule out, with reasonable confidence:

• That, for typical 11- to 14-year-olds in this region, an increase in a child’s own social media time is followed a year later by a meaningful increase in anxiety and depression symptoms.
• That the absence of an effect is just because active and passive use cancel each other out.

It cannot rule out:

• Content and experiences. Time is a blunt measure. An hour of group chat with friends and an hour of appearance-focused content register the same. The authors themselves say harmful experiences online matter.
• Shorter-term effects. Annual waves can miss effects that appear within days or weeks and fade.
• Effects in vulnerable subgroups. Average within-person effects can be near zero while a minority of children are harmed. A 2020 Scientific Reports study by Beyens and colleagues found that after passive social media use, 10% of adolescents felt worse, 46% better and 44% no different.
• Other outcomes. The study measured anxiety and depression symptoms. It does not speak to sleep, attention, body image or life satisfaction directly.
• Self-report error. Young people’s estimates of their own screen time are imperfect.

None of these limits undo the finding. They define its scope.

How #BeeWell Fits With Studies That Found Harm

If you’ve read that social media causes teen anxiety and also that it doesn’t, both claims usually trace back to real studies. Here is how the main ones compare.

Study	Design	Who	Finding	Question it answers
Cheng et al., 2026, Journal of Public Health (#BeeWell)	Three-wave panel; within-person model	25,629 pupils, ages ~11–14, England	More social media or gaming time did not predict later anxiety or depression	Does a child’s extra time online predict later symptoms?
Orben et al., 2022, Nature Communications	Longitudinal; within-person model	17,409 participants ages 10–21, UK	Higher use predicted lower life satisfaction a year later at ages 11–13 (girls) and 14–15 (boys)	Are there ages when time online matters more?
Allcott et al., 2020, American Economic Review	Randomized experiment	US adult Facebook users	Four weeks of deactivation increased subjective wellbeing	What happens when use is removed?
Braghieri, Levy & Makarin, 2022, American Economic Review	Natural experiment (staggered Facebook rollout)	US college students	Facebook’s arrival worsened student mental health, apparently via social comparison	What did a platform’s introduction do?
Al-Jbouri et al., 2026, JAMA Pediatrics (umbrella review)	Review of 23 meta-analyses	2.8 million children, 64 countries	Social media use associated with internalizing problems, r = 0.09	How strong is the average association?

Read side by side, the picture is coherent. Average associations are small (umbrella review). Within-person time effects in young teens over a year may be near zero (#BeeWell). Effects may concentrate at specific ages (Orben) or show up as wellbeing changes when use is removed (Allcott). And a platform’s design can matter, as in the Facebook rollout, where the authors point to unfavorable social comparisons. Note that the two economics studies involved adults and college students, not children, so they speak to mechanisms more than to 12-year-olds directly.

The 2023 US Surgeon General’s advisory captured the uncertainty: it said “we cannot conclude” social media is “sufficiently safe for children and adolescents,” while acknowledging gaps in understanding. #BeeWell narrows one of those gaps. It doesn’t close the others. For the larger expert disagreement, see Haidt vs. Odgers, explained fairly, and for how small average effects can still matter, our breakdown of the 2.8 million-child screen review.

What Parents Can Do With This Finding

Ask about experiences, not just minutes

If time alone is a weak signal, ask what happens during the time. “Who did you talk to?” and “Did anything online bother you today?” are more informative than a screen-time report. Humphrey’s advice was to “pay attention to what young people are doing online, who they’re connecting with and how supported they feel.”

Treat a mood change as the signal

The study found that boys with more symptoms later gamed less. That fits a common pattern: when kids feel low, they may withdraw from hobbies, including online ones. A change in how your child uses screens can be a symptom of how they feel, not only a cause. If your child seems persistently anxious or down, talk with them and with their doctor, regardless of how much they use their phone.

Keep the guardrails that address content

Nothing here argues against content filters, privacy settings, or rules about who can contact your child. Those target experiences the study didn’t measure.

Watch the sensitive ages more closely

If the Orben findings hold, early adolescence may be when social media matters most for life satisfaction, especially for girls aged 11 to 13. That’s a reason for extra care when accounts start. We explain that research in why ages 11 to 13 matter for girls online.

What not to do

Don’t use this study to dismiss a child’s distress about something that happened online. And don’t use it as proof that social media is harmless. It shows that time, on average, didn’t predict symptoms a year later in this population. That is valuable, and it is specific.

What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months

• Week 4: Have one conversation about what your child does online, not how long. Note which apps or activities they describe positively and negatively.
• Month 2 red flags: Withdrawal from friends or hobbies, trouble sleeping, persistent irritability or sadness, or distress after specific online interactions. These matter whatever the screen-time total. Talk to your child’s doctor if they last more than a couple of weeks.
• Month 3 self-check: Do you know who your child talks to online and what kind of content their feeds show? If yes, you’re monitoring the variables the research says matter most.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does social media cause anxiety in teens?

The evidence is mixed. The #BeeWell study of 25,629 UK pupils found more time on social media didn’t predict later anxiety or depression. Other studies found harms tied to specific ages, platform design or removing use. Time alone appears to be a weak predictor; content and experiences likely matter more.

What is the #BeeWell study?

#BeeWell is a large school-based wellbeing program in Greater Manchester, England. The 2026 analysis by Cheng and colleagues followed 25,629 adolescents, average age 12 at baseline, over three years, testing whether social media use and gaming predicted later anxiety and depression symptoms.

Why do social media studies disagree?

They often answer different questions. Some compare heavy and light users, some track changes within the same child, some remove social media experimentally, and some study a single age group or platform. A finding about one question doesn’t cancel a finding about another.

Does gaming cause depression?

In the #BeeWell study, more frequent gaming did not predict later anxiety or depression in boys or girls. Boys who had more symptoms tended to game less the following year, which suggests mood may shape gaming rather than the reverse.

Should I stop limiting my child’s social media?

That’s a family decision. This study suggests minutes alone aren’t the main lever for anxiety and depression. Limits can still protect sleep, homework and family time, and content rules address risks the study didn’t measure. Focus on what your child experiences online.

---

About the author

Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.

---

Sources

1. Cheng, Q., Panayiotou, M., Finserås, T. R., Andersen, A. I. O., & Humphrey, N. (2026). “How do social media use, gaming frequency, and internalizing symptoms predict each other over time in early-to-middle adolescence?” Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaf150
2. University of Manchester. (2026). “Time spent on gaming and social media not to blame for teen mental health issues.” January 14, 2026. https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/time-spent-on-gaming-and-social-media/
3. Orben, A., Przybylski, A. K., Blakemore, S.-J., & Kievit, R. A. (2022). “Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media.” Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29296-3
4. Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020). “The Welfare Effects of Social Media.” American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190658
5. Braghieri, L., Levy, R., & Makarin, A. (2022). “Social Media and Mental Health.” American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20211218
6. Al-Jbouri, E., et al. (2026). “Screen Use and Child and Adolescent Development and Mental Health Outcomes: A Quantitative Umbrella Review.” JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.4339
7. Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., van Driel, I. I., Keijsers, L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2020). “The effect of social media on well-being differs from adolescent to adolescent.” Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67727-7
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. (2023). “Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory.” https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html