Дозволити дитині створювати акаунти в соціальних мережах vs. затримати або заблокувати доступ
Якщо ви дієте
Дати дитині доступ до соціальних мереж (Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat тощо)
54%
Якщо ви не дієте
Відкласти або заблокувати доступ до соціальних мереж
10%
Відсоток тих, хто згодом шкодує про кожен вибір. Стовпчики та повний реєстр показані нижче.
Family
Остання перевірка 2026-06-14
Якість доказів 4.63/5
Восьмивимірна оцінка перевірки за
рубрикою якості
. Кожен вимір оцінений 1–5.
D1 Перевірка джерел
5/5
D2 Авторитет та незалежність джерела
5/5
D3 Точність частоти жалю
4/5
D4 Порівнянність джерел
3/5
D5 Шаблон Гіловича
5/5
D6 Якість прози
5/5
D7 Повнота застережень
5/5
D8 Якість вибірки
5/5
Середнє4.63/5
Прямі докази
Жаль за дію
Дати дитині доступ до соціальних мереж (Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat тощо)
54%
54 % батьків, які дозволили доступ до соціальних мереж, шкодують про це
американські батьки 18+ принаймні з однією дитиною до 18 років, які вже дозволили доступ до соціальних мереж, національно репрезентативна онлайн-панель
поперечне, лютий 2025
Жаль за бездіяльність
Відкласти або заблокувати доступ до соціальних мереж
10%
~10 % батьків, які відклали доступ до соціальних мереж, повідомляють про значне соціальне тертя або сумніви щодо обмеження (оцінка-проксі)
американські батьки, які відклали або заблокували доступ дитини до соціальних мереж; ставка є консервативною оцінкою-проксі — прямого ретроспективного опитування цієї групи для специфічно соціальних мереж не існує
поперечна оцінка-проксі, 2024
% шкодує про цей вибір
Дати дитині доступ до соціальних мереж (Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat тощо)Відкласти або заблокувати доступ до соціальних мереж
54%10%
action dominates — Дія переважає — більшість шкодує, що діяла.
Пов’язані рішення
Семантично близькі рішення — та сама сфера, інші компроміси.
54% of US parents said they felt they had to give their children social media because so many other families already had, according to a Harris Poll of 1,013 US parents conducted for Let Grow in February 2025. That figure measures felt social compulsion rather than retrospective regret — the survey’s nearest direct “wish they hadn’t” item is a separate 39% figure about smartphones, not social-media accounts, and it too is framed as parents who “felt that they had to give in.” This entry covers the social-media-account decision specifically; the companion entry giving-child-smartphone-early-vs-waiting covers the device-provision decision.
The teen and parent perspectives both lean negative. Pew Research’s April 2025 report found that 45% of teens say they spend too much time on social media, up from 36% in 2022. In a separate April 2026 Pew report, parents were more likely to think social media hurt rather than help their teen’s mental health (24% vs 8%), and roughly four-in-ten said it hurt their teen’s sleep and productivity. In general, parents lean more negative than positive about social media’s impact on their teen’s lives — but these are impact judgments, not measured decision-regret about granting access.
Inaction regret — regretting the choice to delay or block social media account access — is harder to measure because no survey has directly asked parents who delayed access whether they regret it. The estimated 10% proxy is an upper bound derived from the same Pew finding that parents lean net-negative on social media (24% say it hurt their teen’s mental health vs only 8% who say it helped), which implies that the large majority of parents who chose to delay are unlikely to second-guess that choice. The American Psychological Association’s 2023 Health Advisory frames potential risks as greater in early adolescence (ages 10-14) and advises adult monitoring of younger teens’ use, reinforcing the inference that inaction regret is uncommon in this domain. The 44-point gap between action (54%) and inaction (10%) is directionally stable across the available evidence, but both figures carry construct caveats — the action figure is a felt-compulsion measure and the inaction figure is a proxy — and both are sensitive to the child’s age, the platforms involved, and the degree of supervision that accompanied any access granted.
Джерела: дія
Реєстр тверджень
Кожне число нижче — це те, що повідомило джерело, з дослівною цитатою, на яку ми спиралися, та тим, як ми дійшли до нашої цифри. Натисніть на посилання, щоб перевірити самостійно.
1/2 джерел незалежно перевірено дослівно за вказаним джерелом
[1]The Harris Poll / Let Grow — What Parents Think About Their Kids' Social Media and Smartphone Usage↗ 1 other entry
Первинне дослідження
54% of parents felt they had to give their children social media because so many other families already had; 39% of parents who had given their child a smartphone wish they hadn't
Витяг
“"54% felt that they had to give their children social media, because so many other families had already done so. 39% of parents who had already given their child a smartphone said they wish they hadn't but they felt that they had to give in because so many of their children's friends already had one."
”
Дані джерела:
2025-02-27
Дата звернення
2026-06-30
Розрахунок
Harris Poll conducted February 21-27, 2025 for Let Grow. N=1,013 US parents aged 18+ with at least one child under 18, nationally representative online panel. IMPORTANT CONSTRUCT NOTE: the verbatim 54% figure measures felt social compulsion — "felt that they had to give their children social media, because so many other families had already done so" — NOT retrospective regret. The closest direct regret item in the same survey is the 39% smartphone figure ("said they wish they hadn't"), which is itself entangled with felt-compulsion and refers to smartphones, not social-media accounts. The action-side regret_rate (0.54) is therefore labeled as a felt-compulsion rate, not a clean "wish they hadn't" regret rate. The survey was commissioned by Let Grow and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who publicly advocate delaying social media access; Harris Poll is an independent polling organization, but the commissioning party should be weighed when interpreting the result.
[2]Pew Research Center — Teens, Social Media and Mental Health
Перевірено
Первинне дослідження
45% of teens say they spend too much time on social media, up from 27% in 2023 and 36% in 2022
Витяг
“"More than four-in-ten teens (45%) say they spend too much time on social media. This is up from 27% in 2023 and 36% in 2022."
”
Дані джерела:
2025-04-22
Дата звернення
2026-06-30
Перевірка
Витяг незалежно повторно отримано та дослівно підтверджено за вказаним джерелом під час нашого аудиту обґрунтованості.
Розрахунок
Pew Research Center nationally representative survey of US teens ages 13-17 and their parents, conducted September-October 2024 and published April 22, 2025. The teen self-report (45% say they spend too much time on social media, up from 36% in 2022) corroborates the action-side regret direction. The parent net-negative impact figures (24% hurt vs 8% help; roughly four-in-ten hurt sleep/productivity) are NOT in this 2025 teen-focused report — they come from Pew's separate April 15, 2026 report "What parents say about their teens' uses of social media" and are cited on the inaction side. This source does not supply a direct parental regret rate; the Harris Poll figure is the action-side anchor for social media account access.
Джерела: бездіяльність
Реєстр тверджень
Кожне число нижче — це те, що повідомило джерело, з дослівною цитатою, на яку ми спиралися, та тим, як ми дійшли до нашої цифри. Натисніть на посилання, щоб перевірити самостійно.
1/2 джерел незалежно перевірено дослівно за вказаним джерелом
[1]Pew Research Center — What Parents Say About Their Teens' Uses of Social Media
Перевірено
Первинне дослідження
Parents lean net-negative on social media's impact: 24% say it hurt their teen's mental health vs 8% who say it helped; roughly four-in-ten say it hurt sleep and productivity
Витяг
“"Parents are also more likely to think social media hurt rather than help their teen's mental health (24% vs. 8%). Roughly four-in-ten parents say social media hurt the amount of sleep their teens get and their productivity. In general, parents lean more negative than positive when it comes to social media's impact on their teen's lives."
”
Дані джерела:
2026-04-15
Дата звернення
2026-06-30
Перевірка
Витяг незалежно повторно отримано та дослівно підтверджено за вказаним джерелом під час нашого аудиту обґрунтованості.
Розрахунок
Pew Research Center nationally representative survey of 1,458 US teens ages 13-17 and their parents, conducted September 25-October 9, 2025 and published April 15, 2026. No survey directly asks parents who delayed social media access whether they regret the delay. The 10% inaction-regret proxy is an estimated upper bound: Pew shows parents lean net-negative on social media (24% say it hurt their teen's mental health vs only 8% who say it helped; roughly four-in-ten say it hurt sleep and productivity), which indicates the large majority of parents who chose to delay or restrict access are unlikely to regret that choice. The true direct-regret rate for parents who delayed social-media (not smartphone) access may be lower than 10%; this construction likely overstates inaction regret relative to any direct question that would be asked.
[2]American Psychological Association — Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence↗ 1 other entry
Авторитетне довідкове видання
APA recommends adult monitoring of social media in early adolescence (ages 10-14) and frames potential risks as greater in early than late adolescence, supporting delayed/paced access for younger teens
Витяг
“"In early adolescence (i.e., typically 10–14 years), adult monitoring (i.e., ongoing review, discussion, and coaching around social media content) is advised for most youths' social media use... In general, potential risks are likely to be greater in early adolescence—a period of greater biological, social, and psychological transitions, than in late adolescence and early adulthood."
”
Дані джерела:
2023-05-01
Дата звернення
2026-06-30
Розрахунок
American Psychological Association 2023 Health Advisory on Adolescent Social Media Use. This source does not supply a direct regret figure for parents who delayed access, but its professional framing (delay is developmentally appropriate) supports the inference that inaction regret in this domain is rare and that the proxy 10% figure is a conservative upper bound rather than an underestimate.
Застереження
This entry is specifically about the decision to grant a child social media account access (Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and similar platforms) — not about smartphone provision generally. The companion entry giving-child-smartphone-early-vs-waiting covers the device-timing decision. The two decisions partly overlap in practice (most social media access occurs via smartphone).
CONSTRUCT CAVEAT (action side): the headline 54% is NOT a clean retrospective regret figure. The Harris Poll item it comes from measures felt social compulsion — "54% felt that they had to give their children social media, because so many other families had already done so." The nearest direct "wish they hadn't" item in the same survey is the 39% smartphone figure, which is itself tied to felt-compulsion and refers to smartphones rather than social-media accounts. The action-side rate (0.54) is therefore presented as a felt-compulsion rate, not a personal-decision regret rate, and should be read that way. The survey was commissioned by Let Grow and Jonathan Haidt, who publicly advocate delaying children's social media access; Harris Poll is an independent polling organization, but the commissioning party should be weighed. A separate global HMD/Perspectus Global survey (n=10,092, July 2024, UK/US/India/Germany/Australia) found that more than half of smartphone-giving parents regret exposing their child to a smartphone at a young age — a directionally convergent finding, though it is global and smartphone-specific rather than US social-media-specific.
The inaction-side rate (0.10) is an estimated proxy upper bound — no survey has directly asked parents who delayed their child's social media access whether they regret the delay. The estimate rests on Pew's finding that parents lean net-negative on social media (24% say it hurt their teen's mental health vs only 8% who say it helped), which indicates the large majority of delaying parents are unlikely to regret that choice. This construction likely overstates inaction regret compared to a direct question. The APA's 2023 Health Advisory framing potential risks as greater in early adolescence further supports the inference that inaction regret is uncommon in this domain.
The 44-point gap between action (54%) and inaction (10%) is directionally robust but the inaction figure's proxy status means the exact delta should be read with caution. Age of the child at access, specific platform, and degree of parental supervision post-access all likely affect regret rates in ways existing surveys cannot disaggregate. The data do not distinguish supervised from unsupervised social media use, which likely have very different risk profiles.
A distinct 2024-2026 sub-decision sits adjacent to this one: allowing a teen to use an AI companion or romance chatbot (Character.AI, Replika, Nomi, and similar) versus blocking or delaying it. Common Sense Media's April-May 2025 nationally representative survey of 1,060 US teens aged 13-17 found about 72% (nearly three in four) have used AI companions, with roughly half using them regularly; the organization concluded the peril outweighs the potential and recommended no one under 18 use these platforms. This profile differs from feed-based social media: it centers on a parasocial bond with a responsive character rather than peer comparison, and it carries documented acute-harm cases. On January 7, 2026, Character.AI and Google disclosed mediated settlements (terms confidential, pending court finalization) in five wrongful-death and teen-harm suits, including Garcia v. Character Technologies, brought after the 2024 suicide of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III. No retrospective parental regret survey exists for the allow-versus-block AI-companion decision, so this entry's action (54%) and inaction (10%) rates and the 0.44 delta are unchanged by it and do not cover AI companions.
