Introduction
A recent New York Times article sparked widespread attention with its headline suggesting that the real risk to youth mental health isn’t simply the amount of screen time but rather addictive use of technology. With youth suicide rates climbing and questions arising over the effects of devices, many DBUNK users wanted to verify whether phones are being wrongly blamed and if important contributing factors—like school stress or family dynamics—are being overlooked.
Historical Context
Over the past decade, growing concern over youth mental health has coincided with the massive increase in smartphone use. Public discourse has largely pointed to screen time as a central factor behind rising rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide among teens. Meanwhile, experts have cautioned against simplistic narratives, urging more nuanced research into behavioral patterns, emotional responses to digital use, and broader environmental stressors impacting young people.
Claim #1: Longer screen time at age 10 does not correlate with suicidal behavior by age 14
The article states that a study published in JAMA found no direct link between total screen time at age 10 and suicidal thoughts or behaviors by age 14. This claim is accurate. The peer-reviewed study referenced tracked over 4,000 children using data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, a long-term, federally funded project in the U.S. Researchers concluded that the quantity of screen time alone did not predict suicidal ideation over time.
Reputable sources, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and multiple independent studies, have consistently emphasized that the quality and context of screen use are more telling when it comes to mental health outcomes—supporting this article’s interpretation.
Claim #2: Children showing ‘addictive’ technology use were at greater risk of suicidal behavior
The article highlights that children who exhibited addictive use of mobile phones—such as compulsively checking devices or feeling distressed without access—were two to three times more likely to report suicidal thoughts or behavior. This claim is also supported by the referenced study, which categorized “problematic digital media use” using standards aligned with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria for behavioral addictions.
The JAMA paper emphasized that it was not the presence of a device but the sense of dependency and lack of control in use that drove risk factors. This finding aligns with broader research, such as a 2023 meta-analysis in the journal Pediatrics, which linked compulsive online behaviors to increased mental distress regardless of duration.
Claim #3: Nearly half of American children demonstrated high levels of addictive phone use
The article mentions that nearly half of children surveyed showed signs of high addictive phone use. This point, while rooted in the study, lacks context. The term “nearly half” can be misleading if not interpreted properly. According to the original research, approximately 45% of youth reported one or more indicators of problematic digital use. However, only a subset of these youths met the threshold for “high-risk” behaviors, such as interference with daily functioning or social relationships.
By not clarifying this distinction in the article, readers may infer an exaggerated prevalence of severe tech addiction, when in fact the issue is more nuanced. Overstating the proportion risks creating a moral panic rather than guiding effective interventions.
Conclusion
This article presents scientifically grounded information that counters the widespread assumption that screen time alone drives youth mental health issues. It accurately synthesizes key findings from a robust academic study and provides a valuable correction to common media narratives. However, the lack of deeper context around the broader social and environmental contributors to youth distress—such as family instability, academic stress, and diet—represents a missed opportunity. The exclusive focus on phone addiction, while valid, could inadvertently divert attention from these other important factors. The framing encourages awareness of tech habits but may oversimplify a deeply complex issue.
Take Action Now
Want to separate real research from media spin? Join thousands of others getting clarity from DBUNK’s trusted fact-checks.
Download the DBUNK App
Link to Original Article
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/health/youth-suicide-risk-phones.html
