The co-author of a study cited by the nation’s communications minister to argue for a social media ban for teenagers says his research does not justify the policy, suggesting the government “misunderstood” the document .

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland explained during Question Time on Monday why the Albanian government is implementing a plan to ban Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media.

Rowland pointed to a British study that she said showed the “dangers of overuse” for young people using social media.

“In 2022, a group of British psychologists, the neuroscientist (sic) analyzed longitudinal data on 17,400 young people. They found that young girls experienced a negative link between social media use and life satisfaction between the ages of 11 and 13; a negative link between social media use and life satisfaction between ages 11 and 13; and for young boys, it’s between 14 and 15 years old,” she said, according to the transcription published online.

It appears Rowland was talking about a 2022 article published in Natural communications called “Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media”, although she did not mention him by name.

One of the paper’s co-authors, Andrew Przybylski, a professor of human behavior and technology at the University of Oxford, said he was unaware the work was being used to support the policy and that its findings did not support a ban on social media for teens.

“I don’t agree that this justifies this policy. I think they misunderstood the purpose and results of our research,” he said in an email to Crikey.”

Rowland said Crikey that the government has adopted a “pragmatic approach”.

“In reaching the age of 16, the Government has taken a pragmatic approach, we have consulted widely with experts, parents, youth organisations, academics and our state and territory colleagues,” she said declared in an email.

“Our approach strikes a balance between minimizing the harm suffered by young people, whilst enabling connection and social inclusion. »

The article found, as Rowland mentioned, that there are age- and gender-specific windows of sensitivity to social media use at the population level. But the authors added that these “most likely significant differences across individuals,” meaning that each person reacts differently to social media based on factors such as their personality, social circle and environment.

Rather than leading to the idea that we should ban children from social media altogether, the article’s authors suggest that these findings “could pave the way for targeted interventions that address the negative consequences of media social while promoting their positive uses.”

The authors’ nuanced conclusions are consistent with the concerns raised by the electronic security commissioner – the government regulator of Internet security – and in a letter of 140 Australian and international experts who challenged the brutal nature of the ban. A parliamentary committee examining the impact of social media did not explicitly recommend an age ban in a report released this week due to “contrasting views” on whether it would make young Australians safer.

Przybylski said Crikey that he would be happy to work with the Australian government to help them understand their study and how it relates to the ban.

“It’s really a shame that they didn’t contact Dr. Orben or me before including our work in this way,” he said.

Do you have something to say about this article? Email us at [email protected]. Please include your full name for publication in Crikey’s Your word. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.