Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Increase in Autism and Social Media – Coincidence or Causal?

Opinion

A child looking at a smartphone.

With autism rates doubling every decade, scientists are reexamining environmental and behavioral factors. Could the explosion of social media use since the 1990s be influencing neurodevelopment? A closer look at the data, the risks, and what research must uncover next.

Getty Images, Arindam Ghosh

Autism has been in the headlines recently because of controversy over Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's statements. But forgetting about Kennedy, autism is headline-worthy because of the huge increase in its incidence over the past two decades and its potential impact on not just the individual children but the health and strength of our country.

In the 1990s, a new definition of autism—ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder)—was universally adopted. Initially, the prevalence rate was pretty stable. In the year 2,000, with this broader definition and better diagnosis, the CDC estimated that one in 150 eight-year-olds in the U.S. had an autism spectrum disorder. (The reports always study eight-year-olds, so this data was for children born in 1992.)


But over the past two decades, prevalence rates of children diagnosed with ASD have grown at an alarming rate. By 2012 (children born in 2004), the CDC's estimate had risen to 1 in 68 eight-year-olds. The most recent data available is of children born in 2014 and examined in 2022. The prevalence rate, over a period of 10 years, had now increased to 1 in 31 children (more than doubling every 10 years).

What is Autism/ASD? It is a mental disorder caused by variations in the brain’s development. These disorders are characterized by difficulties in interacting with others—in social-emotional reciprocity, in nonverbal communicative behaviors, and in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships—as well as repetitive behaviors.

What do we know about the causes of autism/ASD? Prior to the 70s, autism was thought to be caused by bad parenting, “unloving mothers.” That theory has been thoroughly debunked.

Instead, research has shown that a number of genes are connected with autism. Further, a number of environmental factors before and during birth that influence early brain development, and thus increase the risk, have been identified. They include advanced parental age, maternal illness, maternal exposure to pesticides, and various other factors.

But these factors could not even begin to explain the rapid increase in the rate of autism/ASD. In looking briefly at several recent symposia on the subject, no new ideas were identified. There was just hope in identifying “modifiable risk factors” as we better understand why the prevalence of ASD has increased.

When I first read the definition of autism noted above, I had a “duh” moment. The definition, with the exception of repetitive behaviors, closely tracks what researchers are finding is the negative result of compulsive use of modern technology…the internet, computer games, smart phones, and social media.

We’ve all seen the phenomenon—people, not just young adults, being glued to their screens. The use of social media and other technology has become an addictive behavior.

I am not a scientist, but I knew from research I had done when writing my book, Raising a Happy Child, that “stress in the womb can affect a baby's temperament and neurobehavioral development. ‘Who you are and what you’re like when you are pregnant will affect who that baby is,’ says Janet DiPietro, a developmental psychologist at Johns Hopkins University. ‘Women's psychological functioning during pregnancy—their anxiety level, stress, personality—ultimately affects the temperament of their babies. It has to ... the baby is awash in all the chemicals produced by the mom.’” So it certainly seemed possible that a pregnant mother's obsessive compulsive social media addiction would have an impact on her baby.

The period of rapid ASD prevalence growth coincided with the period in which internet and social media use took off (in the late 1990s). We know from Pew Research Center data that when it first started tracking social media usage in 2005, the figure was 7%. Ten years previously, there was practically no social media, so the number would have been 0. During that same period, the prevalence of autism doubled.

Since then, internet and media usage have grown exponentially. The Pew study found that between 2005 and 2013, usage by adults increased from 7% to 62%. The increase leveled off after that, and the last reading was 65% in 2015. This survey, however, did not measure frequency or duration of use, which, from observation, appears to have increased significantly.

There’s one more point. The current research focuses on factors impacting ASD development before one is born. It considers no post-birth environmental factors. Yet research has shown that a child’s brain continues significant structural development at least until age 2, with further development continuing through adolescence.

It’s a very common sight these days to see even two- or three-year-olds staring at their little screens, watching a program or game while in their strollers, accompanying their parents at a restaurant, or elsewhere. It’s becoming the new pacifier. I cannot help but think that it will also have an impact on autism prevalence.

There is obviously a coincidence in the timing of the increase in both ASD prevalence and social media use. But to make a definitive statement about causality, more research is needed. Given the ubiquitous nature of obsessive social media use in our society today, I feel that testing this hypothesis is of utmost importance, even urgent, given its potential impact on not just children but our society. If more children are being born with ASD due even partially to this risk factor, then every pregnant woman should be given a health advisory to stay off social media during her pregnancy. This should be treated no differently than advice given to pregnant women to avoid other harmful behavior, whether it’s smoking, taking drugs, or eating fish from contaminated rivers. And the use of devices by toddlers should be restricted.

The CDC, or other appropriate agency, should gather information on the computer/social media habits of mothers during pregnancy. That data needs to include not just how many sites she visits (as was the case with the Pew data), but the frequency and duration of her visits. Since it does not appear that such data would be able to be retrieved through the CDC’s ADDM data gathering system, a survey would most likely have to be employed. Data on toddlers’/young children’s exposure to computer games/programs also needs to be gathered.

I became interested in this issue because a close friend has custody of a grandchild who has ASD. Several years ago, my friend asked me, because I had written the book, Raising a Happy Child, if I had any ideas on what might help his interactions with the child. And so I began my research and analysis. I have also experienced firsthand the impact of ASD on a child, having worked with many children with the disorder as part of my work helping at-risk and special needs kids in elementary schools.

This hypothesis may be unorthodox, but it is no laughing matter.

Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com


Read More

This 3D rendered image shows a central AI processing chip sitting atop a glowing blue printed circuit board.

Can AI profit-sharing help workers? Examining public wealth funds, AI taxes, economic transition policies, and the future of work.

Jason marz / Getty Images

There’s No Easy Path Through the AI Transition

“Trending” policy ideas tend to garner attention for all the wrong reasons: they seem like silver bullet solutions that will save us from taking on much harder reforms. Proposals to share profits from leading AI companies with the public are the latest example. It’s the rare policy scheme that seems to have united President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and CEOs at the leading AI labs. While the proposals for AI profit sharing vary in their precise details, a quick review of their likely outcomes should quickly deflate the popular excitement that has formed in response to calls for new taxes, public wealth funds, and the like. It’s important to reveal such limitations so that the AI policy discourse can move on to mechanisms more likely to address the real concerns of the American people.

In our first hypothetical world, the two leading AI labs—Anthropic and OpenAI—give away 3% of their equity. That’s not nothing! Based on current figures, such a contribution could kickstart a public wealth fund of about $55 billion. Let’s then imagine that fund earns 10% a year (a big “if” but let’s run with it). Per The Economist, this AI would reach a staggering $140 billion within ten years. How much would that benefit Americans? If annual payouts were 4% — what the publication reports is a proper amount to keep the fund going and growing — Americans would have an extra $20 in their pocket.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger
a couple of people sitting at a table with cups of coffee

For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger

The Democracy Architects Council, presented by The Bridge Alliance Education Fund and Civics Unplugged, offers a paid, one-year fellowship for eight fellows ages 18 to 28, each selected for their work across a distinct sector of democratic life.

The youngest member of the Democracy Architects Council is building AI-powered civic tech, but he says the real work of democracy still happens face to face.

Keep ReadingShow less
Vote Badge with Rising Social Media Like Icons and Hearts – Digital Engagement and Online Voting
J Studios / Getty Images

Democratic Autopsy and AI

After every defeat, organizations conduct autopsies. The good ones are honest, like NASA’s Rogers Commission report after the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after takeoff. In addition to identifying the infamous O-rings as the proximal culprit, it looked at organizational culture, communication failures, normalization of risk, management pressures, and institutional blind spots. The best ones are uncomfortable, and make a serious effort to understand “why did we mess this up so badly?” I’ve personally seen both good “autopsies” and bad ones throughout my decades of experience in true life-or-death realms: the SEAL Teams and as an Emergency Medicine physician.

Following the 2024 election, the Democratic National Committee produced a lengthy report titled Build to Win. Build to Last. Yet it is not a serious document because it does nothing to prepare for the unstoppable and very near future staring us right in the face. It is nearly 200 pages long and attempts to explain what went wrong and how the party should prepare for the future. It discusses organizing, communications, coalition building, fundraising, digital strategy, and voter outreach. It is filled with references to data, analytics, and technology.

Keep ReadingShow less
My Generation Can Spot the Deepfake. That’s Not Enough.
Smartphone with ai text in jeans pocket
Photo by Immo Wegmann on Unsplash

My Generation Can Spot the Deepfake. That’s Not Enough.

Thomas Massie, a seven-term Republican congressman from Kentucky, lost his primary on May 19. The race cost $32.6 million, making it the most expensive congressional primary in U.S. history. Among the weapons deployed against him: an AI-generated video showing him checking into a hotel room with Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, with their hands clasped. The narrator called it "worse than adultery." A disclaimer at the bottom of the screen, in small text, read: "This satirical ad was created with artificial intelligence."

I watched the ad. It looks ridiculous. The movements are slightly too smooth, the lighting is off, and the scenario is so cartoonish that I genuinely could not tell at first whether it was meant to be taken seriously. But I'm 17, and I've spent the last four years watching AI-generated content get better in real time. I know what the seams look like. Massie, in his post-loss interview on Meet the Press, was blunt about who the ad actually reached: "It was actually very effective on the boomers."

Keep ReadingShow less