Student wellbeing drops after move to high school

The move from primary to secondary school is a major transition for many children, marked by new environments, new peers and increasing expectations. But while the jump signals growing up and greater independence, it also triggers a significant decline in student wellbeing, according to new research from Adelaide University.

In a study tracking more than 20,000 South Australian students as they moved from primary to secondary school, researchers found wellbeing declined across every measured domain, including happiness, optimism, perseverance, emotional regulation, cognitive engagement and life satisfaction, while sadness and worry increased.

Researchers also found that negative impacts could persist for more than two years after the move, with some student cohorts – females and students residing in remote areas – experiencing greater declines than their male and city counterparts. 

Importantly, because the study tracked two cohorts of students who simultaneously started secondary school in 2022 – one transitioning at Year 7 and the other at Year 8 – researchers were able to show that the wellbeing decline was independent of the developmental changes often associated with adolescence.

Published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the study analysed more than 104,000 wellbeing records collected through the South Australian Well-being and Engagement Collection census between 2019 and 2025.

Lead researcher and PhD candidate Adelaide University’s Mason Zhou said the study challenges the long-held belief that poorer wellbeing is a simply a natural part of the teenage years.

“People often assume that declines in wellbeing are simply a normal part of growing up, but our findings suggest the transition to secondary school plays a much larger role than previously understood,” Zhou said.

“We know the move to a new school can be challenging. Students are adapting to unfamiliar environments, navigating new social structures, and meeting more demanding academic expectations while often leaving behind close friends and familiar adults.

“But too often, poor wellbeing in the early teenage years is dismissed as part of normal development. Our research suggests the transition itself is a major driver of these wellbeing declines.

“The findings are clear: every aspect of student wellbeing is affected by the move from primary school to secondary school, with poorer wellbeing persisting well beyond the first year of high school.”

Researchers said the findings highlight the need to rethink how schools support students transitioning into high school, particularly as many programs focus heavily on the first few weeks or months of secondary school.

Co-researcher Adelaide University’s Professor Dot Dumuid said the transition to high school should be viewed as more than just an academic milestone.

“Transition support cannot end after orientation week,” Prof Dumuid said.

“Our findings show that for many students, wellbeing challenges don’t disappear after the first term or even the first year of high school. In some cases, students may continue to struggle for two years or more after starting secondary school.

“That means schools need to think about transition support as an ongoing process, rather than a short-term program delivered at the beginning of Year 7.

“We need continued monitoring and support throughout the early years of secondary school, particularly for students who may be more vulnerable to declining wellbeing.

“If schools, families and policymakers can recognise these risks early and work together to respond, we have a much better chance of protecting young people’s mental health over the long term.” 

New Education Scorecard Finds “U-Shaped Recovery”

 

High- and low-income districts improve most since 2022, while middle-income districts (30–70% federally subsidized lunches) lag

In its fourth year, the Education Scorecard (a collaboration between the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University, the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University, and faculty at Dartmouth College) provides a mixed picture of American education: a post-pandemic math rebound and early signals that comprehensive literacy reforms are beginning to pay off, but signs that middle-income districts are lagging behind. 

The Scorecard uses data from the Stanford Education Data Archive (SEDA), which links state test results for roughly 35 million grade 3–8 students in 2022–2025 to a common national scale to track district-level changes in achievement across the country. This year’s findings draw on data through the 2024–2025 school year.

1. A U-shaped recovery suggests the middle has been left behind. 
   The post-pandemic recovery has been U-shaped, with larger improvements among the highest-income and the lowest-income school districts in the country. Middle-income districts (those with between 30 and 70 percent of students receiving federally subsidized lunches) have seen the least improvement on average.

   The recovery in achievement in the highest-poverty districts seems largely driven by the federal pandemic relief funding. Without that relief, the average high-poverty district would have remained at its 2022 level of achievement.
    

2. The “learning recession” began before COVID.
   The U.S. entered a “learning recession” in 2013 — years before the pandemic — as student progress in math and reading stalled and began to decline. In reading, the average annual loss in achievement in the years leading up to the pandemic (2017–2019) was just as large as the loss sustained during the pandemic itself (2019–2022). Grade 8 reading scores in NAEP are now at their lowest point since 1990 and Grade 4 scores are at pre-2003 levels.

   The slowdown in learning coincided with a dismantling of test-based accountability in schools and a dramatic rise in social media use among young people. Although it remains unclear whether and how much each factor caused the decline in scores, both are likely candidates.
    

3. Although math began rebounding in 2022, reading continued to decline. The 2025 scores offer the first signs of a turnaround in reading. 
   After the pandemic, math achievement rebounded immediately, with the annual rate of improvement returning to pre-2013 levels in 2022–2024. In reading, however, achievement continued to decline through 2024. In 2025, we see the beginnings of a turnaround in reading.
    
4. “Science of reading” reforms are making a difference — but not everywhere.
   The recovery in reading appears to be related to state early-literacy reforms. All of the states which improved in reading between 2022 and 2025 were implementing comprehensive “science of reading” reforms (DC, IN, KY, MD, MN, MS, LA, and TN). None of the states which had eschewed literacy reforms as of January 2024 improved in reading between 2022 and 2025 (CA, GA, HI, MA, NH, NJ, RI, SD, WA, and WI). Nevertheless, many states which were implementing multiple elements of “science of reading” reforms have yet to turn around (e.g., AZ, FL, and NE). Evidence-based reading reform may be a necessary but insufficient path to improvement.
    
5. High student absenteeism continues to be a headwind for learning.
   High student absenteeism continues to slow academic progress. 23% of students were chronically absent in 2024–2025, down from the post-pandemic peak, but still higher than the 15% before the pandemic. If student absence rates had returned to pre-pandemic levels, the recovery would have been meaningfully larger (0.03–0.05 grade equivalents) for districts at all income levels.
    

6. We identify over 100 districts that are improving substantially faster than their peers in reading and math.
   There has been dramatic variation in the pace of recovery even among districts with similar student characteristics. This year, the Education Scorecard identifies 108 districts that have had large improvements in reading and math relative to matched peers in their own states: districts of similar size, socioeconomic composition, racial demographics, and urbanicity. To qualify, a district must:

   • Serve more than 1,200 students in grades 3–8,
   • Have at least four peer districts in their state, and
   • Have experienced an increase in achievement of at least 0.3 grade levels in reading and math from 2022–2025 and 2019–2025.

   To ensure that improvement was not driven by a changing student population, districts with large changes in enrollment or demographics did not qualify. Despite facing similar circumstances to their neighbors, these “Districts on the Rise” found a way to accelerate recovery. 

“The pandemic was the mudslide that followed seven years of erosion in student achievement,” said Professor Tom Kane, faculty director of the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University. “The ‘learning recession’ started a decade ago, after policymakers switched off the early warning system of test-based accountability and social media took over children’s lives. In this report, we highlight the work of a small group of state leaders who have started digging out by changing how students learn to read, and 108 local school districts that are finding ways to get students learning again. The recovery of U.S. education has begun. But it’s up to the rest of us to spread it.”

Professor Sean Reardon, faculty director of the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University and developer of the Stanford Education Data Archive, said, “From the early 1990s through 2013, public elementary and middle school students’ math and reading skills improved dramatically — by more than two grade levels in math, for example — and racial/ethnic achievement disparities narrowed. That shows that we can improve our public schools and equalize educational opportunity. But we haven’t been doing much of that for the last decade. It’s time now to make our public schools once again the engine of the American Dream.”

The report highlights four priorities for education leaders:

1. Direct resources to districts with lingering pandemic-era learning losses. Now that federal relief has expired, states should consider achievement losses since 2019 when identifying schools for comprehensive support and improvement. The federal relief dollars were heavily concentrated in the lowest-income districts (with more than 70 percent of students receiving federally subsidized lunches) and higher-income districts (those with less than 30 percent of children receiving lunch subsidies) had greater financial and social capital to draw on. But many middle-income school districts — those with 30–70 percent of students receiving federal lunch subsidies — received little federal aid and remain far behind 2019 levels of achievement.
    
2. Lower student absenteeism. If absence rates had returned to pre-pandemic levels, recovery would have been meaningfully faster. Getting students back into the habit of reliable attendance will continue to pay dividends for years to come.
    
3. The federal government should focus its research dollars in three areas. It is crucial to learn more about the factors that have led to declining scores and the potential of different strategies for improving student performance. To that end, the federal government should support research in three areas:
   • The role of social media. The pre-pandemic decline in achievement was likely partially driven by social media exposure. In the next year, researchers across the country will be reporting on the impact of cell phone bans. The federal government should coordinate efforts to reach consensus and reconcile any differences in findings. Early results suggest positive — but small — impacts on student achievement. There is also evidence of unintended increases in disciplinary actions, especially among minority students. If further research confirms these results, we should be evaluating new approaches to reducing cell phones in schools as well as social media use outside of school.
   • Early literacy reforms. As of March 2026, 42 states, plus the District of Columbia, have passed laws or policies related to evidence-based reading instruction — often referred to as the “science of reading” (Schwartz, 2026). But not every state’s efforts are succeeding. The federal government should provide funding to evaluate specific aspects of state policies — such as literacy coaches or third-grade retention policies — and share lessons learned.
   • Lowering absenteeism. Although there is evidence on effective methods for lowering absenteeism, most of those effects are small. The federal government should support and evaluate new approaches to lowering absenteeism.
      
4. Pair “Districts on the Rise” with peers. The Scorecard calls on states to pair each of the “Districts on the Rise” with one or more comparable districts in their state to share recovery strategies. Facilitating partnerships between districts could yield significant dividends if districts successfully share ideas for improvement. 

“The 108 ‘Districts on the Rise’ are proof that leadership matters and demographics are not destiny,” said Tom Kane. “In districts with high poverty and persistent challenges, local leaders are finding ways to accelerate recovery. We owe it to our children to understand what they are 
doing and help spread it.”

*Due to data limitations, Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Vermont are not included in the 2026 Education Scorecard findings.

Group work and lessons based on problem solving helping students with physics

For many undergraduate students, exploring the complexities of physics for the first time, from wading through advanced mathematics, to absorbing information in a large lecture format, can be a daunting endeavor — one that dissuades many students from continuing their studies. Educators have known for some time that students tend to learn these subjects better in hands-on, or “active learning,” environments — but some are more effective than others. In a paper recently published in Nature Physics, researchers from Drexel University took a closer look at the most successful models for teaching physics. Their findings suggest that group work and lessons based around problem solving could be key to helping students engage with the material.

The study, which drew on video and survey data from 31 introductory courses in physics and astronomy (a course closely related to physics) at 28 institutions across the country, found an association between the type of student-centered activities offered by an instructor and how much the students learned.

"Our findings provide the first set of evidence that some active learning methods may be better for student learning than others,” said Meagan Sundstrom, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in Drexel’s College of Arts and Sciences, who was the study’s lead author. “We also start to narrow down why this might be, which seems to be related to what students and instructors are actually doing during class time.”

Researchers compared four different methods of teaching:

• Peer instruction, which is primarily lecture based teaching.
• Investigative science learning environment (ISLE), which focuses on experiments and scientific processes.
• Student-centered active learning environment with upside-down pedagogies on conceptual learning (SCALE-UP), which blends together lecture, lab and problem solving, often in specific classrooms set up for group work.
• Tutorials in introductory physics, which is an approach where students work together on worksheets.

Instructors participating in the study gathered survey and video data to help the researchers quantify their students’ understanding of content at the beginning and end of semester-long introductory physics and astronomy classes, and to categorize their method of instruction. They also administered a survey at both the beginning and the end of the semester to measure the extent to which students interacted with their peers as part of class.

"A lot of research shows that active learning, where students are engaged with the material and/or their peers, is better for student outcomes than traditional lecturing,” Sundstrom said. “This is the first large-scale study to compare student learning in different kinds of active learning classrooms, with data representing thousands of students at a diverse set of institutions in the United States."

Through this research process, the team was able to get a better look at the aspects of active learning instruction that are most effective. For example, students in courses whose instructor was using the SCALE-UP method of teaching, spent the majority of class time on group work activities such as lab activities or problem solving at whiteboards. While instructors using the Peer Instruction method had students work in small groups to answer questions during lectures prior to the instructor explaining the answers.

In courses where instructors created an Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE) in their classes or labs, students worked in small groups, observing, making predictions and conducting new experiments before revising their explanations upon completion. When using Tutorials, students completed worksheets in small groups intended to elicit, confront and resolve common misconceptions.

Ultimately, the researchers found that students whose instructors were combining group work with lab activities and problem solving, via the SCALE-UP method, performed better on the post-course survey and had meaningful interactions with more of their peers, which is also an indicator of learning success.

“This study represents a shift,” said Eric Brewe, PhD, a professor of physics in the College of Arts and Sciences and its associate dean for Assessment, who was the pricipal investigator and a co-author of the study. “We have long known that what students do in physics classes is really the key to helping them learn and enjoy the subject. But this study helps to establish what are the things that students should be doing and how does that impact their learning and success. Further, focusing on active learning is really going to help us to address challenges that AI will pose in education.” 

---

Journal

Nature Physics

DOI

10.1038/s41567-026-03307-2 

Digital environments generate moderate levels of psychological overload among university students

An international research team, led by the University of Warwick and the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), in collaboration with Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, recently published a scoping review in the journal Cogent Education. The review analyses the wellbeing of the academic community at universities in an educational environment surrounded by digital tools, in what researchers call “the post-pandemic digital education era”.

The study concludes that, although levels of psychological discomfort have stabilised when compared to critical peaks seen during the pandemic, the digital education scenario still represents a moderate psychological load for students. In addition, the study warns that there is an alarmingly low amount of data on the mental health of lecturers, the very professionals who made digital transition at universities possible.

Stabilising student wellbeing

The research encapsulates the data of seven international transversal studies conducted with a total of 3,744 students and indicates that the psychological discomfort of undergraduate students—measured through indicators of stress, anxiety, depression, insomnia and burnout—is currently at low or moderate levels. This data suggests that the mental health of students in the post-pandemic digital scenario is more stable than during the 2020 emergency situation, in which uncertainty and sudden changes caused the indicators of psychological discomfort to spike.

According to their findings, student satisfaction with digital tools is directly related to better mental health. In addition, in some cases online learning is perceived as a less stressful option when compared to classroom-based or hybrid versions, thanks to its flexibility. Nevertheless, researchers suggest that digital tools help only when they are well structured and easy to use.

Risk factors: "false" omnipresence, digital fatigue and social isolation

Despite this stabilisation, the report points to mental health risk factors. Access to virtual learning environments (VLE) "at any time and place " was described as a "double-edged sword". Although it offers autonomy, it also fosters overexposure and blurs the boundaries between academic and personal life, generating a hyperconnectivity that overburdens students and produces mental fatigue. The pressure of having always to be available and connected to digital environments, technical difficulties in managing new technologies, or too much information at once can generate an increase in technostress, stress associated to the constant use of digital devices.

Not only that, the lack of physical interactions and real social connections continues to be a negative factor within the educational experience, and loneliness once again resurfaces as a risk factor for psychological wellbeing, based on online learning and the abusive use of new technologies.

Insufficient data on lecturers’ mental health

One of the most relevant conclusions of the review is the lack of studies on the wellbeing of lecturers in the post-pandemic stage. Although lecturers were key players in the digital transformation, especially at universities, which were closed for almost two academic years from 2020 to 2022, current research has focused almost exclusively on undergraduate students.

The research team emphasises that support for lecturers is vital to mitigate students' technostress, but that it is still not known how this burden affects the mental health of the lecturers themselves.

Towards a comprehensive institutional approach

The study recommends that universities not only provide technological tools but also adopt a "whole institution" approach. This includes, on the one hand, establishing disconnection policies to schedule time to complete tasks within working hours and ensure scheduled digital disconnection, as well as usage reminders to avoid digital fatigue. On the other hand, carrying out self-management training is also recommended: i.e., helping students acquire the skills needed to manage distractions generated by mobile devices. Similarly, institutional support must be strengthened, since it has been shown that the help of the university and its tutors acts as an essential buffer against technological stress. It is therefore necessary to balance degrees and subjects with specialised support technicians to offer structured solutions that do not overload either students or lecturers.

According to the authors of the research, “post-pandemic digital education is not an emergency measure, but a permanent ecosystem”. Therefore, “there is a need for longitudinal studies that analyse more in depth the impact of digital learning throughout a student’s academic career and that include both lecturers and students, to guarantee a healthy and sustainable educational environment and optimal psychological development capable of mitigating mental fatigue and technostress associated with the abusive use of screens and digital devices", they conclude.

Journal

Cogent Education

DOI

10.1080/2331186X.2026.2652188 

National study finds kratom use is rising

 

More than 5 million people in the U.S. have used kratom in their lifetime, including more than 100,000 children ages 12-17 

A national study of kratom use in the U.S. found rising popularity among young adults, and it is linked to addiction and mental health issues, according to new research from the University of Michigan and Texas State University.

 

This is the first known national study to examine the use patterns of kratom and its association with mental health and addiction, researchers say. Kratom is a plant from southeast Asia that's sold online and in some stores in powders, liquid shots, pills and teas. Opponents of kratom argue that it is addictive and widely available to children, while proponents say it is a safe, natural alternative for managing a host of ailments. 

 

Given the changing policy landscape involving kratom in the U.S., it was an important time to conduct a national study with recent data to examine how many people—including children—use kratom, and its associations with mental health and substance use disorder, said Sean Esteban McCabe, Carol J. Boyd Collegiate Professor in the U-M School of Nursing, and principal investigator. The study appears in the Journal of Addiction Medicine.

 

 Takeaways:

• More than 5 million people in the U.S. say they have used kratom in their lifetime, including more than 100,000 children ages 12-17.  

• Kratom use is at an all-time high and is increasing in the U.S., which is particularly notable given that about half of U.S. states ban or regulate kratom.  

• Most people who have used or currently use kratom have a substance use disorder, report cannabis use, and many have serious psychological distress and major depression.  

• The findings reinforce that policy action is warranted to limit access to kratom by children and that better addiction and mental health treatment is needed.

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved kratom for any medical use, and federal agencies have warned about potential risks, including addiction and serious side effects. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has also flagged kratom as a drug or chemical of concern, said McCabe, who is also the director of the Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, or DASH. 

 

Products like 7-OH, or 7-hydroxymitragynine—a synthetic derivative of the kratom plant—are often sold in gas stations, smoke shops and online in tablets, gummies and drinks—can be five to 50 times more potent than regular kratom. It is sometimes marketed as legal morphine.

 

The researchers emphasized that the study does not prove kratom––whose

main psychoactive chemical, mitragynine, comes from the plant's leaves and stems––causes addiction or mental health problems.  Because the survey captures a only a snapshot in time, it cannot determine which came first: kratom use or the mental health symptoms.

 

While the study examined mental health issues, a striking secondary finding was the increase in use, McCabe said. The share of Americans ages 12 and older who said they had ever used kratom rose from 1.6% in 2021 to 1.9% in 2024. 

 

Adults ages 21-34 reported the highest use: About 3.4% said they had used kratom at least once, and about 1% said they used it in the past year.

 

"Policy changes regarding kratom and 7-OH products are needed in all states if we are serious about protecting our children," McCabe said. "Five million people is more than the entire population of the six smallest states in the U.S. combined:––Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota and Delaware."

 

Kratom use is likely under-reported in clinical settings because it does not show up on standard drug tests and requires specialized testing, McCabe said. At the same time, rules about kratom vary widely across the U.S.—some states regulate it, while others do not—which can complicate public health and policy decisions, he said.

 

The study analyzed data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health collected from U.S. households from 2021 to 2024. It was supported by grants R01DA031160 and R01DA043691 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

 

Co-authors include: Ralph Bogan and Nathan Menke, U-M Medical School; Vita McCabe, DASH and U-M Medical School DASH; Kara Dickinson, DASH and Rush University; and Ty Schepis, Texas State University.

 

Study: Kratom use and associations with mental health in the U.S.

Steroid use falls, but creatine use climbs rapidly

Findings dovetail with the trends of 'looksmaxxing' and teen fitness culture

U.S. teens report far less anabolic steroid use than they did two decades ago, but creatine use has risen rapidly in recent years, according to a new University of Michigan study.

 

Combined with declining perceptions of steroid harm and slightly softer disapproval of steroid use, the findings suggest teens may be growing more accepting of muscle-enhancing products, including legal supplements and potentially steroids.

 

"I did this study given the rise in social media trends that glorify toxic gym culture, along with the rise in 'looksmaxxers,'" said study author Philip Veliz, research associate professor with appointments at the U-M School of Nursing and Institute for Social Research. 

 

Looksmaxxing refers to an online subculture and self-improvement practice—often geared toward boys and young men—that focuses on maximizing physical attractiveness, sometimes by extreme measures.

 

The study, published in Annals of Epidemiology, examines trends in past-year steroid use, past-year creatine use and attitudes toward steroid use among U.S. adolescents from 2001 to 2024. Creatine is a naturally occurring compound produced by the body and obtained through diet that supports muscle growth; it is also available as a supplement.

 

Key takeaways

 

• The rapid increase in creatine use among adolescents is concerning because pediatric guidance recommends that adolescents avoid these products due to limited evidence on safety and efficacy in youth.  

• While creatine is legal, its rise may be accompanied by other pre- and post-workout routines that can be harmful for teens, including highly caffeinated pre-workout mixes or energy drinks.  

• The decline in perceived harmfulness of steroids is concerning given the serious health risks associated with steroid use. These declines were greater among boys, which may suggest increased risk for future use.

 

"What surprised me was that steroid use did not increase over the past five years among adolescents," Veliz said. "This is a positive finding, but additional research is needed."

 

What if my teen uses creatine?

 

The rapid rise in creatine use, he said, may reflect the growth of social media influencers—both men and women—who create gym content and share what they do to build muscle, including the use or promotion of supplements. These influencers are sometimes called looksmaxxers, who may promote extreme methods to achieve physical attractiveness. 

 

Interestingly, the study found that girls' creatine use increased 168%, compared with a 90% increase among boys, though boys still made up the largest share of users.

 

Veliz said teen creatine use is not necessarily cause for alarm, but it may be a cautionary signal that someone is using products to enhance muscularity or performance. That could potentially lead to riskier behaviors, including overconsumption of energy drinks, use of other supplements or, in some cases, illegal substances such as steroids.

 

The fact that steroid use is down while creatine use is up points to a shift in the importance of muscularity and fitness among teens, Veliz said. Social media is teeming with influencers peddling these messages. 

 

"What is yet to be determined is whether this will eventually translate into steroid use as they age into young adulthood," he said. 

 

Steroids and attitudes

 

The substantial decline in adolescent steroid use since 2001 may reflect the broader decline in adolescent drug use, Veliz said. Still, it is concerning that perceived harmfulness and disapproval of steroids declined slightly even as use fell.

 

More accepting attitudes, he said, could increase the risk of future use.

 

Gender, body image and looksmaxxing

 

Although looksmaxxing is often framed as an issue affecting boys and men, Veliz said body image pressures affect both boys and girls.

 

"There is a big emphasis on body image regardless of sex, particularly for girls," he said. "Further, many adolescent girls lift weights and try to increase muscularity in gendered ways—for instance, lifting to target leg muscles to increase size or definition."

 

The study drew on nationally representative data from Monitoring the Future, a long-running survey of U.S. adolescents conducted by scientists at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research.

 

Co-authors: Jingze Li, Karam Mattar, Ryan Pero and John Jardine, U-M School of Nursing.

Study: Recent trends in past-year steroid use, past-year creatine use, and attitudes toward steroid use among U.S. adolescents

60% of U.S. teens have tried AI chatbots, 11.4% use them almost daily

 

As AI chatbots become increasingly part of daily life for American teens, a new national study documents widespread exposure to harm. While many use them for school, entertainment and support, researchers warn they may also expose youth to harmful content, encourage risky behavior and blur the line between human and AI relationships. The youngest teens in the study, especially 13 year olds, appeared among the most exposed.

The peer-reviewed study by Florida Atlantic University and the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, provides one of the first large-scale looks at how adolescents are using – and being influenced by – rapidly evolving AI chatbots. Researchers examined how often and why teens use these tools, as well as the risks involved, including exposure to unsafe content and whether chatbots may be encouraging problematic behaviors.

They surveyed 3,466 teens – 13 to 17 year olds – nationwide, analyzing usage patterns across demographic groups including gender, race, age and sexual orientation. Researchers also assessed exposure to 13 types of harmful or unsafe interactions, from problematic content to concerning behavioral suggestions, to better understand the risks teens may face and which groups could be more vulnerable.

Results of the study, published in the Journal of Adolescence, reveal that CAI chatbot use is widespread among U.S. teens, with 60.2% reporting they have used one at least once or twice, and about 1 in 20 saying they use them daily. Male teens were significantly more likely than females to report use, and white, African American and multiracial youth reported higher usage rates than Hispanic youth, while no meaningful differences emerged by age or sexual orientation.

Among teens who had used CAI chatbots, entertainment was by far the most common motivation, cited by 85% of users. Many also turned to these tools for more personal reasons, including advice or guidance (65.6%), friendship (60.1%) and even emotional or mental health support (49.2%).

More than one-third reported using chatbots for romantic companionship. Male youth were consistently more likely than female youth to report each of these motivations, and some differences also appeared across race and sexual orientation, particularly in the use of chatbots for emotional support and relationships. The researchers note that CAI chatbots can offer real value to young people, with prior research documenting benefits including educational support, creative exploration, mental health assistance and companionship for those who feel isolated.

At the same time, a substantial share of teens reported troubling interactions. Nearly one-third said a chatbot had asked for personal information that made them uncomfortable, while others described feeling monitored, being drawn into inappropriate conversations or being pressured to reveal secrets.

About 23% said they felt manipulated or pressured by a chatbot and 17% reported that a chatbot shared false information about them. Notably, between 13% and 19% said chatbots had encouraged behaviors with real-world consequences, including unethical or illegal actions, risky activities and even self-harm or suicidal thoughts.

These negative experiences were not evenly distributed, and the youngest teens in the sample were among the most exposed. Higher rates were reported by 13 year olds more than older age groups across multiple harm categories, including being asked for personal information that made them uncomfortable, being pressured to reveal secrets, and being encouraged toward unethical, illegal or risky behavior, as well as self-harm and suicidal thoughts.

“Conversational AI is not inherently dangerous, but it is not yet consistently safe for young people,” said Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., senior author, a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College of Social Work and Criminal Justice, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. “These systems engage, respond and even affirm users in highly personalized ways, which can make their influence especially powerful. For adolescents – who are still developing critical thinking skills and a sense of identity – that can create a situation where they’re more likely to trust, internalize or act on what the chatbot is saying without fully questioning it.”

Findings also show male youth were also more likely to report many of the harms, as were heterosexual youth, a pattern researchers note as counterintuitive given prior work showing higher online risk exposure among LGBTQ+ youth and one that warrants further study. White youth generally reported higher exposure to a range of negative interactions compared to other racial groups.

Overall, nearly half of the teens surveyed – 47.1% – reported experiencing at least one of the 13 risks examined in the study, underscoring the dual nature of CAI chatbots as both widely used tools and potential sources of harm for a significant portion of youth.

The results show that adoption is moving faster than the broader response, as teens increasingly turn to these tools for advice, emotional support and companionship.

“These findings make a strong case for prioritizing youth safety in how conversational AI is built and deployed,” said Hinduja. “When nearly half of young users report experiencing harm, it signals that existing safeguards are falling short. We’re not just talking about isolated incidents. We are seeing patterns that affect a meaningful number of young users, and that is what makes a coordinated response across families, schools and companies so important.”

The researchers also note that AI responses perceived as empathetic or human-like may carry particular weight for adolescent users.

“Adults need to stay engaged and curious about how teens are interacting with AI, creating space for open, judgment-free conversations about both the benefits and the risks,” Hinduja said. “At the same time, we need stronger AI literacy education in schools, content filtering and mental health response protocols designed into these platforms from the start, reliable age verification, and regular independent audits to confirm that safety measures are working as intended. AI is here to stay, so our responsibility is to make sure young people are equipped and protected as they navigate it.”

DOI

10.1002/jad.70164