1699892788 The analysis of studies shows that the effects of screen

The analysis of studies shows that the effects of screen use on children and young people are small

The analysis of studies shows that the effects of screen

In the 16th century, the invention of printing made it easier to access books and thus knowledge. However, many scholars of the time were alarmed at the impact of the new technology. Conrad Gessner, who listed all the books published in the first century after the invention of printing, said in 1545 that the abundance of books was confusing and harmful to the mind and called on kings and princes to take measures to control the nonsense. . More recently, in the 19th century, there were fears that school time would exhaust children’s brains, and in the early 20th century, that radio would distract children from reading. In 1985, Neil Postman, director of the Department of Culture and Communications at New York University, accused television of driving society toward “collective stupidity” and creating a future in which citizens would live within a framework of useless formal freedoms would live because no one could do it out of pure ignorance.

Now some experts are warning that electronic device screens have made the first generation of children less intelligent than their parents, and that those parents are pushing to limit the use of electronic devices among schoolchildren. However, despite widespread concern, there are no sufficient, high-quality studies to help understand the problem. In a 2019 editorial, the medical journal The Lancet stated that “our understanding of the benefits, harms and risks of our rapidly changing digital landscape is woefully poor.” Today, the journal Nature Human Behavior is co-publishing a review of studies on the topic undramatic conclusions. In a paper that includes the results of 2,451 studies and nearly two million participants under the age of 18, the authors conclude that screen use carries risks and some benefits, but in any case the effects are small.

More information

The results show that literacy and learning ability in general deteriorate slightly with more time spent in front of screens, that junk food advertising on digital media encourages children to consume it, or that the use of social networks slightly increases the risk of depression. There were some positive effects that depend more on usage than on the screens themselves. Watching TV with parents increased literacy skills, and using screens for educational augmented reality programs had positive effects on learning.

“I don’t think the magnitude of the effects we found in this paper confirms this [que las pantallas] are such a big problem,” says Taren Sanders, a researcher at the Australian Catholic University and lead author of the article. “We found effects, such as the association between depression and social media use, that were somewhat concerning, but in most cases we did not find large effects that would lead us to believe that this should be the biggest concern.” [para los padres]”, Adding. “That doesn’t mean it’s not a big problem for some children, but on average it’s probably not the thing that has the biggest impact on children’s lives,” he concludes. The strongest correlation found in all studies is 0.2, just as other studies have found between intelligence and larger height.

Key negative effects included social media use being strongly linked to risky behavior, drug abuse, and unsafe sex. The authors point out that the companies themselves suspect that their products could have a negative impact on the mental health of young people, especially adolescent girls. Among the positive effects, interventions that use screens to promote learning or healthy habits stand out, although they insist that the benefits may not be due to the screen so much as to its use.

“I am the father of a two-year-old child and I try not to get caught up in this hysteria because I know that there is no scientific justification for it,” says Borja del Pozo, a researcher at the University of Cadiz and co-author of the study. “The negative impact is not that big, and not every screen is bad, it’s more complex,” he adds. Guides with recommendations on screen use, such as those from the WHO, are very restrictive, despite no hard evidence of harm from screens having been found, for fear that the lack of evidence is due to the fact that there is harm that is not well measured become. “With this meta-analysis we saw that the effect of the screen depends on what is being viewed, with whom and for what purpose. If you look at educational content that is accompanied by educators, the effect is positive,” says Del Pozo. In the article, they suggest that these guides warn against excessive use of social networks, but consider adapting their recommendations to encourage the use of educational applications or video games.

Although Sanders doesn’t find data to justify his concerns, he recognizes that the research field is changing rapidly and it is difficult for researchers to track technological and substantive changes. “Social media has the world’s brightest minds constantly thinking about how to make us stay on Facebook 30 seconds longer, so it’s not easy for researchers to keep up,” he admits.

Historical examples show a tendency to worry about the impact of new technologies on the human mind, but in Sanders’ view that is no reason to simply dismiss the potential risks of technologies as powerful as cell phones. “Historically, we worry about what’s new, and as we learn more about it, we adapt it and incorporate it into our lives,” he says. “This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry, but rather that we should stop, take a breath and look at the evidence before we get too nervous about screen time,” he concludes.

Luisa Fassi, a researcher at the University of Cambridge who was not involved in the study, also believes that the information from the studies so far suggests that a more “nuanced” position is needed. “If there is still no evidence, we should wait to make big statements because that could cause panic and a restriction of technology with negative consequences,” he says. “The evidence is inconclusive on this matter, so I understand that those responsible for public policy find it difficult to make a decision.” Fassi believes that parents have a right to be concerned and that it is for researchers is necessary to analyze the impact of such a powerful technology. However, because these are ubiquitous devices, it is difficult to establish cause-and-effect relationships. A person who may experience poorer mental health, poorer grades in class due to the effects of screens, or seek refuge from screens in certain difficult situations. Given growing societal interest, there is still much work to be done in this area to assess how which screens are used and under what circumstances impacts the health or learning of children and young people.

You can follow EL PAÍS Health and well-being on Facebook, X and Instagram.