New Regulations Addressing Youth Engagement with Technology
In December 2025, Australia set a significant precedent by mandating several leading social media platforms to implement measures preventing individuals under the age of 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. Following this, in September 2026, France expanded its prohibition on mobile phone usage during school hours to encompass all educational levels, from preschool through to secondary education. These initiatives are part of a growing response to the perceived risks associated with technology use during crucial developmental stages.
Peter Gray, an American developmental psychologist, argues that while certain restrictions may be beneficial at specific times, simply limiting access to smartphones or social media will not resolve the ongoing youth mental health crisis. With decades of research focused on play, learning, and child autonomy, he challenges the notion that these technologies are the primary cause of mental health deterioration. His argument is underscored by a critical observation of timelines: issues now linked to the digital realm began to emerge long before the advent of social media.
Gray notes that various indicators of anxiety, depression, and suicide among adolescents in the United States saw a marked increase between 1950 and 1990, a period long before widespread internet access and the emergence of smartphones. This chronology, he posits, weakens the argument that screens are the root cause of the current crisis, even if they may exacerbate existing problems.
A Shifting Landscape of Childhood Freedom
Gray has been exploring these ideas long before digital technology became a focal point of discussion. In his 2013 book, “Free to Learn,” he highlights a gradual decrease in opportunities for children to play, explore, and organise activities independently. This decline coincided with an increasing control by adults over how children spend their time.
Part of this transformation has occurred within educational settings. Gray points out that school days have lengthened, homework has increased, and opportunities for unstructured play have diminished. Outside of school, organised sports, extracurricular classes, and other adult-directed activities have begun to consume hours that once allowed children the freedom to choose their own activities.
The heightened concern for safety has also curtailed various experiences. Activities such as playing unsupervised, walking to friends’ houses, or spending time away from parental oversight have become less common. Gray attributes this shift to fears surrounding crime, accidents, and other hazards. In “Free to Learn,” he emphasises that regaining some of that independence requires communities where families feel children can move about safely.
Gray expresses concern that these changes extend beyond mere reductions in leisure time. He argues that when much of childhood is structured or overseen by adults, the opportunities for children to act independently also diminish. This theme recurs throughout his work on child autonomy and independence.
Understanding the “Locus of Control”
Another critical concept in Gray’s hypothesis is the “locus of control,” which refers to the extent to which individuals feel they can influence events in their lives. He draws upon research showing that, for several decades in the 20th century, American youth shifted towards a more external locus of control, with feelings of powerlessness correlating with heightened vulnerability to anxiety and depression.
Gray interprets this trajectory as indicative of the need for autonomy to be practised. If children have limited opportunities to make decisions and experience the consequences, they also lack the experiences necessary to solve problems, tolerate frustration, or alter situations through their own actions.
While he acknowledges that the correlation between increased anxiety and decreased play opportunities does not alone prove a causal relationship, he believes there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a loss of control over one’s life may contribute to the decline in youth mental health.
The Timeline of Technological Influence
The chronology of these developments informs why Gray questions the common assumption regarding screens. When personal computers and video games began to proliferate, many childhood freedoms had already diminished, leading him to propose that increased digital engagement may partly be a response to a daily life with fewer opportunities for unsupervised action.
In “Free to Learn,” he cites a survey in which children overwhelmingly preferred outdoor play over watching television or using a computer. From these results, he suggests that some children may have turned to digital play precisely because computers represented one of the few spaces where they could still engage freely, whereas outdoor play became more challenging without permission.
Video games, in particular, occupy a unique position in his analysis. Gray characterises certain online games as environments where participants can collaborate, organise groups, solve problems, and develop skills. The internet subsequently expanded these possibilities, enabling young people to communicate directly with friends, find communities aligned with their interests, and learn to utilise tools often more familiar to them than to their parents.
Controversial Perspectives on Technology’s Impact
Given these observations, Gray posits a more controversial hypothesis in light of current trends. He suggests that the rise of computers, video games, and the internet may have, at least in part, contributed positively to youth mental health by providing children and adolescents with spaces where they could exercise greater autonomy, develop skills, and connect with peers.
As part of his argument, he points to improvements in mental health indicators in the United States between 1990 and 2010, a period marked by a significant decrease in the adolescent suicide rate by approximately 40%. While he concedes that the exact causes of this improvement remain uncertain, he presents the potential role of technology as a hypothesis worth considering. This idea is explored in greater detail in his forthcoming book, “Restoring Childhood.”
At this juncture, he diverges from Jonathan Haidt, author of “The Anxious Generation,” a book that has significantly influenced public discourse on childhood and technology, as well as policy initiatives. Both experts agree that children and teenagers have experienced a loss of independence and free play; however, they interpret the role of technology differently.
The Limitations of Prohibitions
Gray’s critique of blanket prohibitions also stems from historical adult responses to youth engagement with popular media. In one of his online essays, he reviews the moral panics triggered by various forms of media throughout history, including novels, films, comics, television, and video games, prior to the emergence of smartphones and social media as central concerns.
He employs the term “moral panic” to describe this recurring pattern, although he does not equate all technologies with the same risks. What he identifies as common is a reaction in which potential harms overshadow the conversation, resulting in scant attention being paid to the benefits of an activity, the variations in usage patterns, or the reasons why young people find value in them.
In the case of mobile phones, he is particularly concerned that the solution again hinges on reducing decision-making capacity. In his critique of “The Anxious Generation,” he notes an almost automatic reaction to assume that any child-related issue can be resolved by taking away “one more freedom.” He advocates for confronting the dangers of the digital world through safety rules and educational measures.
Reassessing Freedoms and Restrictions
Gray argues that the concern for potential dangers facing children outside the home has contributed to the notion that they require adult supervision almost constantly, thus curtailing their freedom to explore the physical world. He perceives a similar reaction emerging towards the internet.
His perspective also raises questions about what is expected to happen after a screen is removed. From his viewpoint, taking away phones will not lead young people to spontaneously roam their neighbourhoods or play outside as previous generations did. He contends that some of the few freedoms still available to them involve communicating privately with friends or navigating independently while remaining in contact with their families.
To regain other experiences, a reassessment of the amount of free time young people have, what activities they can organise on their own, where they can meet others, and the extent to which adults are willing to allow them to face challenges without immediate intervention is necessary.
Balancing Freedom and Responsibility
Gray’s opposition to sweeping prohibitions does not imply he believes in unrestricted phone use at all times. He emphasises that clear restrictions should be in place concerning specific issues or situations. In a list he developed, he includes times such as the evening, meal times, face-to-face conversations, outdoor camps, and classes where phones merely serve as distractions.
Sleep is one of the most evident examples. Gray recommends that both children and adults keep smartphones out of the bedroom, as notifications and the urge to check them can disrupt sleep. He advocates a similar rule for meal times or in-person conversations, suggesting that this should apply to the entire family.
He also supports the idea that phones should be put away in class when they do not contribute to educational activities and distract from learning; however, he critiques current educational practices for failing to leverage a tool that allows for immediate information searching and inquiry exploration, questioning restrictions that treat the device as devoid of value within the learning environment.
Understanding the Complex Nature of Mental Health Issues
While Gray acknowledges that the internet poses risks and believes that children and adolescents should learn to navigate these as they develop greater autonomy, he also holds social media companies accountable. In another of his essays, he stated that social media firms require regulation, but he disputes the notion that they are the primary cause of the recent decline in youth mental health.</