New Study In The Journal Of Pediatrics Says Maybe It’s Not Social Media, But Helicopter Parenting That’s Making Kids Depressed - TechDirt

Interesting coverage on how maybe it’s not so clear-cut that social media is an instant negative on mental health

Full paper referenced:

1 Like

Interesting hypothesis and appears to be quite valid in it’s theory. However, there are many critiques that can be made about this paper.

First I want address the elephant in the room, this isn’t a study, it’s a review paper; it simply reviews the literature and proposes a theory. No quantitative link has been tested nor attempted. Moreover, one must critique it’s literature review for lacking coverage of social media and screen time, although it is later briefly discussed in a single paragraph in the discussion area. Moreover, this paper used a induction approach all the while not attempting to disprove any conflicting theories.

Overall, this paper lacks academic rigor and even uses the incorrect reference style at two points, I’m surprised it got published, which is a concern when judging the validity of the research. Furthermore, the correlation proposed was unsupported by any provided data, not even a linear regression analysis. Additionally, I would have liked to see some analysis on modern society in reference to the evolutionary perspective and analysis of mental health in the past where parents were much more conservative and strict.

There are other critiques that can be made but it’s honestly not a awful paper, although it simply is not high quality, certainly not high-impact either. Bottom line of my review is; the hypothesis that independence positively influences mental well-being, is argued sufficiently, although lacks enough evidence to prove right or wrong. I believe some critical litreture and perspectives were missed out and the whole review lacked critical analysis of sources, it simply accepted it’s secondary sources as the gospel.

Small note, I briefly looked at the attached article and immediately noticed the incorrect figures. Figure 1.0 proposes that “boys” suicide rate is greater than the total suicide rate, clearly improper labeling, or worse completely wrong data.

TLDR: This paper proposes a valid theory which explains one influence on well-being, although it is not sufficiently evidenced as a theory, nor has it scientifically proven anything.


I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true to be honest, but I have to agree that this paper doesn’t really add much to the overall discussion. Journalists love a clear-cut academic paper though lol

This graph is actually correct, but I can see why it’s confusing. It’s showing the rate per 100K, so the total rate would include a mix of boys and girls in each “100K bucket”, and therefore would be an average of the two (if the population is 50%/50% M/F).

1 Like