What the Study of 5,227 Italian Students Found

Adolescents who open their first social media account by the age of 11 or 12 tend to score significantly lower in Italian and Mathematics in later school years, according to a new study published in the scientific journal Nature Human Behaviour. Researchers tracked 5,227 students across 28 schools in northern Italy, linking the age at which each student created a first account on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to their results on standardised tests.

The pattern is consistent. Students who joined a platform in the 6th grade — between ages 11 and 12 — scored about 0.22 standard deviations below their peers in Italian and 0.18 standard deviations below in Mathematics by the 8th grade, compared with classmates who waited until the 9th grade or later. The authors estimate that a gap of 0.2 standard deviations corresponds to roughly six months of school learning. The disadvantage persisted: in the 10th grade, the Italian gap remained at 0.22 standard deviations while the Mathematics gap widened to 0.27.

Students who opened their first account in the 7th or 8th grade showed smaller but still measurable differences in the same two subjects. Notably, the researchers found no comparable effect on English results. The study also recorded a link between earlier account creation, more frequent phone checking and lower parental supervision of social media use.

Led by researcher Marco Gui, the team stresses that this is an observational study and does not establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship. They nevertheless describe the results as consistent evidence of an association between early social media use and weaker performance in two core subjects, and argue the findings strengthen the case for more research into the appropriate age for platform access and the role of parental oversight.

Advertisement

Interpreting the Gap: Effect Size, the English Anomaly and the Supervision Signal

Putting the 0.2 Standard-Deviation Effect in Perspective

The headline gap of 0.22 standard deviations in Italian and 0.18 in Mathematics is, by the authors' own estimate, equivalent to about six months of learning. In education research that is a moderate effect: meaningful across a population of thousands of students, but not one that predicts any individual student's outcome. The more notable detail in the data is persistence. The Italian deficit held at 0.22 standard deviations into the 10th grade, while the Mathematics deficit widened to 0.27. An effect that fades with time would be easier to dismiss; one that holds or grows is harder to explain away, even though an observational study cannot prove the platforms caused it.

The English Result is a Check on a Simple Story

If early social media use eroded learning generally, English scores would be expected to suffer too. They did not. That asymmetry does not disprove the association — subjects with more demanding, attention-heavy content may be affected differently. But it does caution against reading the study as evidence that all platform use harms all learning. The authors themselves flag that other individual, family and school factors shape academic trajectories, which is consistent with the uneven subject pattern.

Parental Supervision is the Factor Families Can Act On

The data show early adopters were more likely to check their phones frequently and to have less parental supervision of social media. The authors suggest heavier engagement and frequent attention interruptions are plausible pathways from early access to weaker performance. Of the variables in the study, supervision is the one a parent can change directly. The study does not prove that more oversight closes the gap — it only reports the association — but it is the most concrete practical signal in the findings.

What the Study Means for the Age-Access Debate

The paper deliberately stops short of naming an ideal minimum age, and the authors stress that the scientific debate over social media and education is ongoing. What the research contributes is scale: 5,227 students across 28 schools, linking the timing of a first account to standardised test results in two core subjects. For researchers and the wider policy discussion around adolescent access to platforms, that provides a reference point for future work rather than a settled answer.

Advertisement

What Parents and Schools Can — and Can't — Take From This Research

The study's direct audience is parents and schools, and its findings point to specific — if provisional — choices.

  • Consider postponing the first account. Students who joined a platform in 6th grade (ages 11–12) showed persistent score gaps in Italian and Math through 10th grade, while those who waited until 9th grade or later had the best average results. The observational design means delaying is not a guarantee of better grades, but it is the clearest lever the data point to.
  • If a child does join earlier, address supervision explicitly. Early adopters in the study reported less parental oversight and more frequent phone checks. Families who allow access before 9th grade can respond to the study's signal by setting clear rules on phone use and platform time — the study cannot prove this closes the gap, but it is the factor most directly under parental control.
  • Watch for effects on core subjects, not just overall time online. The measured gap was specific to Italian and Mathematics; English results showed no similar association. That suggests attention during study of the most demanding subjects may be where early platform use is most likely to show up.
  • For schools, treat this as one input, not a mandate. The association between frequent phone checking and lower Italian and Math scores in the 10th grade supports attention-focused classroom policies, but the authors stress that other individual, family and school factors influence outcomes — so this finding will carry more weight as part of a broader body of evidence.