Health studies and news articles often blame screen time for the mental health issues that plague Generation Z. These reports have tried to link mobile devices and social media to a sharp rise in anxiety and depression among children. But is screen time really the main culprit?
A new study published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour argues that the threat could be more hype than reality and that digital technology use alone may be about as dangerous as eating potatoes or wearing glasses. In other words, it may not be dangerous at all.
While digital technology use accounted for about a 0.4 percent variation in well-being, Oxford University scientists Amy Orben and Andrew Przybylski found other factors such as getting bullied, binge drinking, and marijuana use had much stronger negative effects on well-being.
“Digital technology use in general, in the whole context of a child’s and adolescent’s life, is less important than a lot of the public debate makes it out to be,” Orben found.
As would be expected, traditional self-care activities, such as eating breakfast and getting a full night’s sleep had very strong positive associations. Orben argues that the public should ultimately give more focus on these self-care activities.
Brad Ridout, a University of Sydney psychologist who specializes in the effects of technology on youth well-being, believes the connections drawn between excessive technology use, including social media, is fueled by a fear of the unknown and that quality evidence is lacking in this area.
“Saying screens are bad is like saying food is bad,” Ridout told Australia-based ABC News. “Obviously some foods are better than others, but if you were going to spend all of your time eating, even if it was healthy food, you’re going to run into trouble.”
Ridout believes that the “context and the content” of a young person’s online usage “are far more important than how long they’re spending online.”
Orben agrees with this statement and told Outside that researcher bias has been playing a role in the skewed analysis of data. To avoid any bias in their own research, they used a method called Specification Curve Analysis to analyze the full range of correlations in their data.
“Reading a book on your Kindle, playing sudoku on your iPad, and spending eight hours a day on Snapchat are not the same,” Orben notes. “But it’s important for scientists to speak up and say we don’t actually understand this yet.”
Instead, they’ve created a sense of panic around excessive screen time that has shamed parents and neglected other, potentially more dangerous factors.
The study’s authors believe that given the conflicting studies out there, it’s premature for any group to outline any recommendations around young people and screen time and that more research is necessary.
“Bias and selective reporting of results is endemic to social and biological research influencing the screen time debate,” notes co-author Przybylski.
Perhaps most importantly, the study calls into question the rigor of past research and reveals the subjectivity of the scientific community. Researchers need to be held accountable. Otherwise, they will continue to mislead the public and risk discrediting their profession.
Brendan Pringle (@BrendanPringle) is writer from California. He is a National Journalism Center graduate and formerly served as a development officer for Young America’s Foundation at the Reagan Ranch.
