Study Links Smartphones With Declining Fertility Rates (ktla.com)
- Reference: 0183754278
- News link: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/26/06/11/2044208/study-links-smartphones-with-declining-fertility-rates
- Source link: https://ktla.com/news/new-studies-show-phones-may-lead-to-lower-fertility-rates/
> The one from May, authored by two University of Cincinnati professors, posits that teen fertility "collapsed globally" starting around 2007 -- the same year the first iPhone was released. "Smart phones changed how teens spend time with each other ... this change in turn drove the collapse in teen fertility," the study's abstract reads. "Once enough teens are on the phone, being on the phone is where the peer network is; in-person time falls sharply, and with it the unstructured contact in which most unintended teen conceptions occur." The study claimed that countries "across the income and policy spectrum" were affected by the teen fertility drop, and that researchers used data from multiple countries, including the U.S., England and Wales, to rule out "country-specific contraceptive access and welfare reform stories." "This model predicts that the shift towards the phone-mediated equilibrium affects multiple aspects of teen behavior," the abstract continues, concluding that "the same instrument that produces a collapse in teen fertility produces a surge in teen suicides."
>
> The study published on Monday looks more closely at the United States, explaining that nationwide general fertility rates have fallen 22% since 2007. "[This is] a sustained decline not readily explained by economic conditions, contraceptive use, housing or childcare costs, or other commonly cited factors," the National Bureau of Economic Researchers study states. "We assess the potential role of a different shock: the diffusion of the smartphone." As mentioned before, the first iPhone was rolled out in 2007, and this study makes use of that timeframe as "a natural experiment" by using data from 2007 through 2011, when iPhones were only sold on AT&T. "From June 2007 through February 2011, the device was sold only on AT&T, allowing us to identify its effect from variation in AT&T's mobile broadband coverage," the study says. "Entropy-balanced Poisson and synthetic difference-in-differences event studies imply that access to the iPhone reduced births by 4.5-8.0% at ages 15-19 and 3.2-6.6% at ages 20-24, with statistically significant but smaller declines among older cohorts. Placebo analyses applied to Verizon and Sprint's pre-2011 coverage footprint are null.
>
> Taken together, these cohort effects imply that the diffusion of the iPhone deepened the decline in births among women under 30 while suppressing the rise in births among older women." "Overall, the diffusion of the iPhone explains 33-52% of the decline in the general fertility rate among women aged 15-44," researchers continued. "National-survey evidence on time use and sexual behavior is consistent with the iPhone reducing in-person interactions, increasing pornography use and reducing sexual frequency."
[1] https://ktla.com/news/new-studies-show-phones-may-lead-to-lower-fertility-rates/
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6676839
[3] https://www.nber.org/papers/w35310
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/08/us/iphone-birthrate-decline-studies.html
[5] https://slashdot.org/~sabbede
Why is slashdot posting these garbage articles? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a garbage framing of the issue. The article takes a real demographic fact — birth rates have been falling — and gives the most headline-friendly tech explanation: smartphones. But that is a weak causal story compared with the much more direct variables everyone is living through: housing costs, wage stagnation, student debt, childcare costs, healthcare costs, delayed household formation, and wealth being increasingly captured by the top of the economy. Yes, smartphones may be associated with reduced in-person socializing or changed dating behavior. But that does not make them the root cause. They could just as easily be a proxy for urbanization, class, education, income, broadband access, cultural change, or other regional differences. AT&T iPhone coverage from 2007–2011 is clever as a study design, but it is still not magic. Coverage maps are not randomly assigned social experiments. The more plausible causal chain is simpler: wealth concentrates -> assets inflate -> housing and adulthood become unaffordable -> people delay marriage/children -> fertility falls Blaming the phone is convenient because it turns a structural economic problem into a consumer-behavior story. It lets everyone avoid the harder conclusion: people are not having fewer kids because Steve Jobs invented the iPhone. They are having fewer kids because stable adult life has become too expensive and too insecure.
Better Betteridge [Re:Why is slashdot posting ...] (Score:3)
The [1]CBS story [cbsnews.com] on this had the headline "America's birth rate has plunged. Are smartphones to blame?" .
I read that and immediately thought, "Betteridge's Law of Headlines confirmed again."
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iphone-birth-rate-fertility-decline-study/
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right as far adults go -- adults are having fewer children because children are unaffordable.
Teens, OTOH, were almost never making a conscious decision to try to conceive children anyway -- if they got pregnant, that was an unintended side effect of having recreational sex. So if the teenage fertility rate is falling, the most likely explanation is that teens are either having less sex, or they are using contraception more effectively (or both). It's quite plausible that teens are simply sp
Re: (Score:2)
Ok but what about the recent conservative plan to force unwanted teen pregnancies to full term? Why did that backfire, and how exactly is it related to the 2007 launch of the iPhone?
Headlines (Score:3)
The real clickbait headline would be that AI and Data Centers are leading to declining fertility rates.
Every couple I know whom don't have kids just don't want to have kids. It's not phones or money or socioeconomic factors or social media. They just don't want kids.
Re: (Score:2)
> But that is a weak causal story compared with the much more direct variables everyone is living through: housing costs, wage stagnation, student debt, childcare costs, healthcare costs
Many civilized countries that don't have these problems anywhere near the extent of the U.S. have also seen birth rates as bad or worse than the U.S.: Italy, Norway the Netherlands, South Korea, Japan, etc. And all of their governments have provided significant financial incentives to have children and they've all failed mi
Re: (Score:1)
Read through the rest of the article -- the researchers directly tackled each of the possible other explanations that you suggested and ruled them out. Your instincts are good for hypothesis testing, but the data in the article says those were tested.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why is slashdot posting these garbage articles
Because people vote for that.
And publishing such an article allows readers, like you, to argue for or against it and to put the article's accuracy and relevance into perspective.
The Real Reason (Score:2)
Obviously, the real reason for the population decline is the lack of pirates sailing the high seas.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct to recognize that cell phones don't work well for a bunch of reasons as the cause. But your causes suffer some of the same problems. In particular, fertility rates are going down throughout the world, and have been since the 1970s, while almost everything you've listed is US specific in the last 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, a study reveals that [1]Annual US spending on pork correlates with Lululemon's stock price [tylervigen.com].
[1] https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Re: (Score:1)
Desperation for funding at best. Maybe the next study will say that AI is corrupting the youths.
Re: (Score:2)
> Is this slashdot or a garbage tabloid?
Isn't that basically applying the Identity Principle? /s
Teen fertility (Score:2)
Any article that mentions the decline of teen fertility as a problem is a propaganda piece. Its authors are awful human beings and deserve to rot in hell for all eternity.
In 2026, teens should not ever be getting pregnant. We don't live in that world any longer. Whoever that bothers needs to rethink their life choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever met any Mormons?
Re: Teen fertility (Score:2)
Thankfully very few people are Mormon
Re: (Score:2)
The researchers started off thinking this was a medical problem. If it was a toxin or virus, that would be a concern. I don't think their intention was to say that teen pregnancies were something to champion, only that it was concerning that it was happening and we didn't know why.
"Isolated shut-ins got no game!" (Score:3)
Film at 11:00.
Throw in a decline in the use/abuse of alcohol, and you've got declining fertility, which should surprise nobody. :)
Im sure this discussion (Score:2)
will be calm, fact-based and respectful of peoples opinions.
So That's Good! (Score:1)
I guess if you just let teens have access to porn, they get each other pregnant less. Maybe that's not such a bad thing after all then! Like, the only time we want people to have successful, productive, reproductive sex is like, maybe between one and four times in their mid-30's, right? Who cares if they're looking at porn for every other private heavensent orgasm of their life? Who actually fucking cares?
Re: (Score:2)
The assumption (incorrect) is that frequency of conception has a fixed relationship to the frequenvy of engaging in sexual conduct. It's this second number that we need to get a better handle on. And thanks to cell phones, conducting a survey should be simple. Just ask for the number and substantiating proof in the form of video clips.
I'm certain that such a study would in no way be found to be contreversial.
Good, I guess! (Score:2)
If humans have to rely on unintenional/accidental/forcible conception to maintain sustainable birth rates then it's probably a good thing that the birth rates are tanking.
That said, blaming smartphonnes on this is obviously bupkis, considering Japan fell down the sub-2 hole in late 1970s; very much before even cellphones.
I personally like to believe (and this is very much a matter of faith, as nature itself couldn't care less how many generations of slightly above average lemmings drown themselves million t
Conflicting issues (Score:2)
A) We don't want teens getting pregnant as a general rule.
B) We don't want adults to be socially inept.
Smartphones are not an amusing solution to A when they develop into a problem with B. Beyond that, the kids aren't as happy as they used to be either.
So teen fertility rates are perhaps a useful proxy for socialization at the moment, but we need to work to divorce the two things so that "happy, social teens" aren't "at risk of pregnancy teens".
Re: (Score:2)
But are they really socially inept when they're adept at using the same social interaction methods their peers use? They may be inept at what previous generations consider social interaction, but from their perspective, aren't the socially inept ones the people of previous generations that are inept at (or choose not to engage with) the methods of social interaction they use?
It's true. (Score:3)
The iPhone launch is also partly responsible for microplastics in everyone's balls. It's a double whammy.
I've got AT&T service (Score:3)
No bars? May as well jump the wife again.
Re: I've got AT&T service (Score:2)
That only works if she has no bars too.
Young people aren't partying and drinking alcohol (Score:1)
They also aren't going to bars. They are also using fewer recreational drugs than previous generations. They are also hooking up and having sex far less frequently. They are measurably less intelligent than previous generations. Fewer of them enjoy reading, and the ones who do, read less than previous generations, and at a lower grade level. Fewer of them are able to write an entire paragraph in English at grade level.
It just keeps going and going.
Re: (Score:2)
Phones are worse for you than binge drinking, reefer, and promiscuity combined. Imagine that!
Re: Young people aren't partying and drinking alco (Score:2)
I'm afraid I don't follow. Could you rephrase that as a four hundred millisecond video, vertical format, poorly lit, and shaky?
Re: Young people aren't partying and drinking alco (Score:2)
Maybe kids should participating in more risky behavior. And spending your birthday money on in game loot boxes is not the risky behavior I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Weed is cheaper than alcohol and you don't feel like shit afterwards.
Nonsense (Score:2)
It's a correlation not causation. The real cause is high taxes. When you tax people too much, they cannot afford to raise as many children to the standards they expect.
This basically peels your civilization back, tearing off the most intelligent first, and leaves an idiocracy of angry morons.
the papers do not rule out all the possibilities (Score:2)
When I first read this post, I thought the same as you: garbage framing.
You've nicely posited some alternative explanations -- NONE OF WHICH are addressed in the first paper linked (Is the iPhone Birth Control? Causal Evidence from AT&T’s 2007–2011 Carrier Monopoly), contrary to one reply below yours.
Correlation, as we know, is not causation. Until proven otherwise, those research efforts are just blind to many other possible causes.
Violent crime too (Score:2)
There's also evidence that violent crime has reduced during this timeframe. The hypothesis is that it's due to people not being so bored, or finding alternative things to do. I don't have a citation, but crime has dropped a lot since the smartphones have become available broadly.
Re: Violent crime too (Score:2)
People who were once excluded from much of society because they were too poor to participate can now afford to connect online. In-person society is on the decline, it won't go to zero but real life is not going to be the dominate culture for humans in the very near future.
Re: (Score:2)
Violent crime peaked in the early 90s and has been steadily declining (with a slight bump during the pandemic). With low crime and advances in modern medicine this is the safest time to be alive.
Forget it (Score:2)
Correlation is not... Oh forget it.
Oh good (Score:2)
I guess we've moved on from moral panic over Tinder and "hookup culture."
Birth rates have been falling globally for fifty years and in many western countries for more like 250 years.
birth rates (Score:1)
Teach girls marriage is slavery. Teach boys approaching girls is harassment. Subsidize divorce. Take away mens support networks. Tell women if they're not working something is wrong with them. Tilt college entrance and careers heavily toward the graphic that only wants to date up. Give all the wealth to the upper, upper class. Make housing expensive. Make health care prohibitive.
Why are birth rates collapsing? Must be smart phones.
Data (Score:2)
A quick search says that in 2011 only 35% of American adults owned a smartphone of any kind. Only the wealthiest teens would've had them, and those are the least likely teens to experience unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Did teen fertility decline first among the wealthy and then later and to a lesser extent among the poor? That could be evidence. But if you're doing a study purely of iPhones, especially from 2007-2011, you're not getting the data to compare different socioeconomic classes.
Ban smartphones in school... (Score:5, Funny)
Bring back unwanted teen pregnancies!
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt!
I read the conclusions of the study as a good outcome! Well, for teens anyway. For older adults, it might be more of a problem. On the other hand, people all my life have been wringing their hands about Earth's overpopulation. So maybe no real down sides.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you missed the part of the article that mentioned that the iPhone also directly links to the rise in teen suicides.
Re: (Score:3)
Every technology has a dark side, to be sure. Reducing teen pregnancy is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what confuses you here: everybody has an EoL, age related if nothing else, and they don't live on either through their class or their descendants. What do you gain by throwing more poor bastards into a sucker's game when you could just not?
Re: Ban smartphones in school... (Score:2)
Our economic system does not cope with population decline. So something has to give, and I don't think given how we treat women or screw over the younger generation that they're going to start raising extra children.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with much of your comment, it doesn't mean that teen childbirth is a net good.