There has been much discussion about the correlation between the rise in social media consumption by students since 2008 and its connection to youth anxiety, mental health issues, and anti-social behaviors in schools. Some might even say, “Kids today are much less behaved.”
Let’s explore possible factors contributing to behavioral challenges in schools.
The most popular argument is that social media use correlates with increased aggression toward classmates and teachers, it’s important to note that much of this social media use occurs outside school hours. However, we should also examine other changes within schools over the decades that could influence anti-social behavior, assuming correlation is the key factor.
Correlation #1, Less Strict School Discipline.
The methods educators use to manage student behavior have changed dramatically since the mid-20th century. We’ve seen four major generational shifts in school discipline: from corporal punishment to zero-tolerance policies, restorative justice, and now a focus on mental health.
The reality is that aggressive behavioral interventions are not only banned and illegal, but they also create public relations disasters and legal risks. Research has long documented the lasting negative impacts these practices have on mental health (1-4). There’s no denying that discipline through fear from authority figures has been—and continues to be—used in some institutions, such as the military, to enforce compliance, often disregarding mental health concerns.
With physical discipline out of the picture, many schools turned to simply removing the problem. This is where zero-tolerance policies, which became widespread in the 1990s and early 2000s, allowed for the suspension or expulsion of disruptive students. While reports show that the overall percentage of expulsions and suspensions has decreased since 2008, many teachers still report increased disrespect in their classrooms (5-7).
The issue here concerns the right to education for aggressors. In cases we’ve worked on at The White Hatter, for example, when a student is being cyberbullied by a peer, schools may keep the aggressor in the same class. Under current disciplinary models, bullies are less frequently removed, potentially making the educational environment uncomfortable for the victim while balancing the aggressor’s right to education.
Additionally, the behaviors that warrant suspension or expulsion have shifted, and being disrespectful is typically not considered a punishable offense.
This raises an important question: When authority figures are limited to using only non-strict disciplinary methods, does this leave room for more aggressive individuals to exploit the situation? For an analytical perspective on human interactions and negotiation strategies, you might want to explore classic Yale lectures on game theory and human behavior (8).
Today, with physical discipline no longer in use and more students remaining in school, most of the schools we work with opt for a restorative justice and mental health approach. By the mid-2000s and 2010s, as public awareness of mental health grew, schools increasingly recognized the need to address the root causes of behavioral issues. This shift includes using trauma-informed care approaches to discipline, which focus on treating the underlying issues.
Immediate, strict discipline or expelling students doesn’t resolve the core reasons behind misbehavior. Ultimately, addressing the root causes is a more correct way to tackle social and behavioral challenges. However, the main drawback of this method is that it requires significant funding, time, and support—resources that many schools lack.
These issues extend beyond schools into family life. We’ve heard firsthand from parents who are unsure how to discipline their children or limit technology use, fearing public criticism or being perceived as too harsh or aggressive.
Correlation #2, Youth Civil Rights Advocacy
Throughout the 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s, youth rights have become central to public debate, with discussions covering topics such as sexual identity, gender expression, privacy from parents, and reproductive health. Gone are the days when the phrase “children should be seen and not heard,” popular during the Victorian era, held sway (10).
Today’s students are vocal, advocating for social justice but also at times displaying malicious compliance or disrespect Tech Bans, Teens, Malicious Compliance, and Adult Cognitive Dissonance
Newer terms like “quiet quitting” and “malicious compliance” also reflect the mindset that if something isn’t explicitly against the rules or the law, people are free to do as they please. One recent article we shared at The White Hatter highlights the latest social media trend infiltrating classrooms: “What Is ‘Mewing’? The Latest Social Media Trend That Is Infiltrating Classrooms”
“the nonverbal gesture by pursing his lips together while holding his finger up to his mouth as if to “shush” someone and then pointing to his jawline. Lindsay continues, “It just means I can’t answer your question right now, I’m ‘mewing.’”
Is this disrespectful? Is it a power move? What can teachers do about it? Is it an exercise of free speech or expression? Some students might argue that refusing to answer a question or remaining silent when called upon is their way of asserting their rights.
We’ve seen videos online of citizens asserting their rights in confrontations with police—being verbally disrespectful without breaking any laws. Often, no discipline follows, and if an officer reacts, there can be significant legal consequences, including lawsuits. It’s no secret that online videos demonstrate people expressing their rights in ways that, to others, seem clearly disrespectful, yet result in no formal retaliatory action. We live in an era where public awareness of individual rights, for both adults and students, is greater than ever. While some may find these behaviors uncomfortable or disrespectful, it doesn’t necessarily take away the right to act in such ways.
Broadcast standards on TV and radio, which prohibit certain words, often lead hosts to use bleeps or abbreviations like WTF to avoid saying the prohibited word. But does censoring language make the message any less meaningful? Ambiguous words, depending on context, can carry very different meanings—something particularly relevant regarding social media companies enforcing censorship and banning certain words.
Eggplant 🍆 emoji = means penis
Word “Smash” = means sex
Some even refer to this as “algospeak.” The belief is that posting content using words like “kill,” “murder,” or “suicide” triggers app content filters, so users replace these terms with words like “unalive” to bypass the filters while still conveying the intended message. Essentially, people are coding their language, and if the filters evolve, they simply adjust the code. This concept isn’t new—altering language to maintain meaning has long been a tactical strategy (11).
Solutions? Do we ban the eggplant emoji or the word “smash”? What if someone is just looking for a recipe for smashed potatoes?
Not all people like being told what to do when it’s not legally required. Even when forced by law, many comply reluctantly, driven more by fear of punishment than genuine agreement.
Based on the Correlational Evidence Provided
Yes, teachers are reporting student behavioral challenges have been on the rise (12).
Students are increasingly exhibiting distressing behaviors in class, which coincides not only with their use of social media but also with other factors:
- Students today face less strict discipline in school compared to the pre-internet era.
- Students are more aware of the boundaries of what they are and are not allowed to say and do—and what they can get away with.
Interestingly, did you know that ice cream sales correlate with violent crime rates (13)? 😆
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
Sources cited
- Gershoff, E. T. (2002). “Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review.” Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579.
- Bordin, I. A. S., Paula, C. S., Nascimento, R. do ., & Duarte, C. S.. (2006). Severe physical punishment and mental health problems in an economically disadvantaged population of children and adolescents. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 28(4), 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462006000400008
- Mulvaney, M. K., & Mebert, C. J. (2007). Parental corporal punishment predicts behavior problems in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.389.
- Mulvaney, M.K., Mebert, C.J. Stress Appraisal and Attitudes Towards Corporal Punishment as Intervening Processes Between Corporal Punishment and Subsequent Mental Health. J Fam Viol 25, 401–412 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9301 https://www.childtrends.org/publications/schools-report-fewer-out-of-school-suspensions-but-gaps-by-race-and-disability-persist
- https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rda.asp
- https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/CRDC_School_Suspension_REPORT.pdf
- https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/summary-reports/unmasking-school-discipline-disparities-in-california
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM3rTU927io&list=PLDv_VQy7kufe5YMXjf6LkacYBrSjlXQB8
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM3rTU927io&list=PLDv_VQy7kufe5YMXjf6LkacYBrSjlXQB8
- https://phrases.org.uk/meanings/children-should-be-seen-and-not-heard.html
- https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/navajo-code-talkers-and-the-unbreakable-code/
- https://www.wfsb.com/2024/08/27/teacher-survey-reveals-rising-concerns-over-student-behavior-connecticut-schools/
- https://www.parents.com/what-is-mewing-and-why-is-it-taking-over-classrooms-8598847
- https://www.psichi.org/page/262EyeWinter21McMahanResearch
