Каковы шансы серьезного психологического вреда для подростка от использования социальных сетей?

Каждое число ниже — это то, что сообщил источник, с дословной цитатой, на которую мы опирались, и тем, как мы пришли к нашей цифре. Нажмите на ссылку, чтобы проверить самостоятельно.

1. [1] Office of the U.S. Surgeon General (2023) — Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory Правительственный отчёт

   Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory

   Статистика

   The advisory states there is 'not enough evidence to determine that social media is sufficiently safe for children and adolescents' and calls for urgent action, while noting the evidence base is insufficient to establish causation or quantify per-user risk

   Выдержка

   “"We do not yet have enough evidence to determine that social media is sufficiently safe for children and adolescents." ”

   Данные источника:

   2023-05-23

   Дата обращения

   2026-04-18 · архивная копия

   Расчёт

   The Surgeon General's Advisory is the highest-profile US government statement on teen social media risk. It is cited here as an authoritative framing document, not as a source of a specific probability. The advisory explicitly avoids stating a per-user risk figure and notes the evidence base is insufficient to determine whether social media is safe. It summarises the correlational literature and calls for more research, platform transparency, and legislative action. No native or normalized probability is derived from this source because the entry is flagged no_reliable_estimate.

2. [2] Nature Human Behaviour (Orben & Przybylski 2019) — The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use ↗ 1 other entry Рецензируемая публикация

   The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use

   See all 2 Likelier entries citing this source →

   Статистика

   Across three large-scale datasets (total N > 350,000), the association between digital technology use and adolescent well-being was negative but small: r = −0.035 for social media use specifically, explaining about 0.4% of the variance in well-being — less than the negative association with wearing glasses or eating potatoes

   Выдержка

   “"The negative effect of technology use on adolescent well-being is small — explaining at most 0.4% of the variation in well-being." ”

   Данные источника:

   2019-01-14

   Дата обращения

   2026-04-18 · архивная копия

   Расчёт

   Orben & Przybylski 2019 is the most-cited methodological counterweight to the crisis narrative. The specification-curve analysis across all defensible analytic choices produces effect sizes that are statistically significant (large N) but tiny in practical terms. r = −0.035 for social media use means the association explains roughly 0.12% of the variance in well-being. This is not zero, but it is far too small to convert into a per-user probability of "serious psychological harm" — the outcome variable is a continuous well-being scale, not a binary harm threshold. This source is the primary basis for the no_reliable_estimate designation: the effect is real but not meaningfully translatable into individual risk.

   Независимость

   Fully independent of the Surgeon General's Advisory and the Facebook internal research. Uses UK Understanding Society, YRBS, and MCS datasets.

3. [3] American Psychological Association (2023) — Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence ↗ 1 other entry Авторитетный справочник

   Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence

   See all 2 Likelier entries citing this source →

   Статистика

   The APA identifies social media as neither uniformly beneficial nor uniformly harmful, and notes that effects depend on the content, the adolescent's individual characteristics, and the amount of time spent; it provides no per-user probability of harm

   Выдержка

   “"Science demonstrates that social media use, in and of itself, is not sufficient to be helpful or harmful to young people." ”

   Данные источника:

   2023-05-09

   Дата обращения

   2026-04-18 · архивная копия

   Расчёт

   The APA health advisory is included as a second authoritative institutional statement. Like the Surgeon General's Advisory, it summarises the correlational literature without producing a probability figure. Its key contribution to this entry is the explicit statement that social media use "in and of itself" is insufficient to cause harm — effects depend on content type, individual vulnerability, and usage patterns. This supports the no_reliable_estimate framing: there is no single population-level probability that applies to "a teenager using social media."

4. [4] Wall Street Journal (Wells, Horwitz, Seetharaman 2021) — Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show Новостная статья

   Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show

   Статистика

   Internal Facebook research found that 32% of teen girls surveyed said Instagram made them feel worse about their body when they already felt bad about it; the research also found Instagram was cited as a contributor to anxiety and depression in a subset of teen users

   Выдержка

   “"Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse." ”

   Данные источника:

   2021-09-14

   Дата обращения

   2026-04-18 · архивная копия

   Расчёт

   The WSJ Facebook Files series leaked internal Instagram research that became the public catalyst for legislative and regulatory action. The "32% of teen girls" figure is widely cited but refers to a specific question — "when you already feel bad about your body, does Instagram make it worse?" — not to a base rate of developing a clinical condition. The leaked research used convenience-sampled internal surveys, not population-representative methods, and "felt worse" is a subjective self-report, not a clinical diagnosis of serious psychological harm. Included because it drove the public perception shift, not because it anchors a probability.

5. [5] Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (Odgers & Jensen 2020) — Annual Research Review: Adolescent mental health in the digital age: facts, fears, and future directions Рецензируемая публикация

   Annual Research Review: Adolescent mental health in the digital age: facts, fears, and future directions

   Статистика

   Synthesising six prior reviews/meta-analyses plus large-scale preregistered cohort and momentary-assessment studies, the review finds the link between digital technology use and adolescent mental health to be a mix of conflicting small positive, negative, and null associations (e.g. Huang 2017 meta-analysis r = −0.07 overall, depression r ≈ −0.11; McCrae 2017 r = 0.13), with no support for causal claims at the population level

   Выдержка

   “"At present, narrative reviews and meta-analytic work do not support causal claims, or even strong and consistent correlational patterns, linking adolescents' digital technology usage with mental health problems." ”

   Данные источника:

   2020-01-17

   Дата обращения

   2026-04-18 · архивная копия

   Расчёт

   Odgers & Jensen 2020 (J Child Psychol Psychiatry Annual Research Review) synthesises three evidence streams: narrative reviews and meta-analyses (2014-2019), large-scale preregistered cohort studies, and intensive longitudinal / ecological-momentary-assessment studies. Across them the reported associations are small and inconsistent in direction — the Huang (2017) meta-analysis (N = 19,652) found a mean SNS-well-being correlation of r = −0.07 (depression r ≈ −0.11), and the McCrae (2017) meta-analysis found r = 0.13 for depressive symptoms. The review's key contribution to this entry is its conclusion that the evidence base does not support causal claims, "or even strong and consistent correlational patterns," and does not warrant the widespread panic — while the outcome measures remain continuous well-being and symptom scales, not binary harm thresholds. (Earlier drafts of this entry mis-cited this review under a Clinical Psychological Science DOI that in fact resolves to Vuorre & Przybylski 2023, "Global Well-Being and Mental Health in the Internet Age" — a separate paper; the identifier was corrected to the real Odgers & Jensen 2020 DOI 10.1111/jcpp.13190 in 2026.)

   Независимость

   Independent review drawing on a broader evidence base than Orben & Przybylski 2019, including six prior systematic reviews/meta-analyses, large-scale preregistered cohort studies (e.g. Understanding Society, N = 12,672), and diary/EMA designs.

6. [6] Common Sense Media (2025) — Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs: How and Why Teens Use AI Companions Авторитетный справочник

   Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs: How and Why Teens Use AI Companions

   Статистика

   In a nationally representative survey of 1,060 US teens aged 13-17 (April-May 2025), nearly three in four teens (72%) had used an AI companion at least once and roughly half were regular users; the figure is an adoption rate, not a rate of resulting psychological harm

   Выдержка

   “"Our new research reveals that nearly three in four teens have used AI companions, and half use them regularly." ”

   Данные источника:

   2025-07-16

   Дата обращения

   2026-06-14 · архивная копия

   Расчёт

   Added 2026-06-14 to document AI companion chatbots as a distinct emerging teen-harm vector separate from feed-based social media. Common Sense Media's nationally representative survey establishes that the exposure is now mainstream (72% of teens have tried one; ~half are regular users). It is cited strictly as an adoption-prevalence figure: the survey measures how many teens use companion bots, not how many are harmed by them. No native or normalized probability is derived because the entry remains no_reliable_estimate — surveys report adoption, not crisis incidence.

7. [7] UNICEF (2026) — 'Deepfake abuse is abuse' — Statement by UNICEF on AI-generated sexualised images of children Авторитетный справочник

   'Deepfake abuse is abuse' — Statement by UNICEF on AI-generated sexualised images of children

   Статистика

   In a UNICEF, ECPAT and INTERPOL study across 11 countries (Disrupting Harm Phase 2, ~1,000 internet-using children aged 12-17 surveyed per country), at least 1.2 million children disclosed having had their images manipulated into sexually explicit deepfakes in the past year; in some countries this represents 1 in 25 children

   Выдержка

   “"In a UNICEF, ECPAT and INTERPOL study across 11 countries, at least 1.2 million children disclosed having had their images manipulated into sexually explicit deepfakes in the past year. In some countries, this represents 1 in 25 children — the equivalent of one child in a typical classroom." ”

   Данные источника:

   2026-02-04

   Дата обращения

   2026-06-14 · архивная копия

   Расчёт

   Added 2026-06-14 to ground the AI-synthetic-media caveat. The original change brief attributed this 1.2-million figure to Thorn; that attribution could not be verified. The figure is actually from the UNICEF/ECPAT/INTERPOL Disrupting Harm Phase 2 study, cited here from the verbatim UNICEF statement. It is a cross-national exposure-disclosure rate (children reporting their images were manipulated into sexual deepfakes), not a per-user probability of psychological harm, so it does not change the no_reliable_estimate status. It documents that generative-AI synthetic media is a victimisation channel distinct from, and sometimes embedded within, social-media platforms.