Slashdot Mirror


Smartphones Are 'Contaminating' Family Life, Study Suggests (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: Mobile devices like smartphones and tablets can be distracting from child-rearing, upending family routines and fueling stress in the home, a small, new study finds. Incoming communication from work, friends and the world at large is "contaminating" family mealtime, bedtime and playtime, said study lead author Dr. Jenny Radesky. She's an assistant professor of developmental behavioral pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School. Her comments stem from her team's study involving interviews with 35 parents and caregivers of young children in the Boston area. "This tension, this stress, of trying to balance newly emerging technologies with the established patterns and rituals of our lives is extremely common, and was expressed by almost all of our participants," Radesky said. "We have to toggle between what might be stress-inducing or highly cognitively demanding mobile content and responding to our kids' behavior," she said. The result, said Radesky, is often a rise in parent-child tension and overall stress. Modern parents and caregivers interact with tablets, smartphones and other communication devices for about three hours a day, the study authors said in background notes. Radesky's team previously found that when parents used mobile devices during meals they interacted less with their children, and became stressed when children tried to grab their attention away from the device. The new study included 22 mothers, nine fathers and four grandmothers. Participants were between 23 and 55 years old (average age 36) and cared for toddlers or young children up to age 8. Roughly one-third were single parents, and nearly six in 10 were white. On the plus side, many parents said that mobile devices facilitated their ability to work from home. But that could fuel anxiety, too. Some said smartphones provided access to the outside world, and alleviated some of the boredom and stress of child-rearing. On the down side, caregivers described being caught in a tug-of-war between their devices and their children. The study findings were published in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics.

84 comments

  1. Yeah, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Life was better in the '50s, without the Internet, mobile phones, personal computers, and other assorted electronic gadgetry. Leave it to Beaver, Happy Days. Buddy Holly and the sock-hop.

    1. Re:Yeah, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Single income families could exist, job security, pensions. Yeah, all nonsense, give me pretty pictures instead while I'm being robbed!

      PS: Happy Days was made in the 1970s. Just FYI.

    2. Re:Yeah, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that people don't realize about the post-WW II period (1945-1972, ending when Nixon resigned and OPEC rose up at almost the same time) was that it was one-off period of tremendous prosperity for the USA, just like 2000-2015 or thereabouts was a one-off for the people of India. Enjoy it because you'll never see that again, so don't expect find politicians who can bring it back.

    3. Re:Yeah, yeah by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1


      Gee, our old LaSalle ran great--
      Those were the days...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Yeah, yeah by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yep. Carburetors, point contact ignitions. 16 ton transmissions. Steering more appropriate on the farm than a roadway. Metal dashboards.

      Those were the days.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re: Yeah, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean when bumpers on automotive vehicles weren't optional like today and made from actual metal, instead of styrofoam surrounded by plastic?

    6. Re:Yeah, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stuff a sock in that mocking mouth of yours, jackass.

      Too much technology makes you lazy and dumb. It's the Elephant In The Room that no one wants to admit is there because doing so would mean you have to give up your shiny toys, but it's the truth. Reliance on too much technology is not a good thing. It makes your mind and body lazy. In this particular case it's also making us less connected to the rest of the human race, not more, as people spend more time with their heads down, eyes glued to their damned phones, instead of up, looking at the faces of other people, actually interacting with them. Text messages and the internet are not 'interacting with people', since you could be talking to a 'bot for all you know, and it's devoid of the sideband datastream we get from facial expressions, tone of voice, and body language. Then there's the subject of machines doing too much for us physically; just like in Wall-E, we're headed towards being physically incapable of moving around under our own power because we're too fat and weak and incapable of doing things for ourselves. Smartphones are just the beginning of that; so is so-called 'social media', which is more like 'ANTI-social media'. We, as a race of sentient beings, need to get away from these things and get back to actually relating to each other, live, in-person. Otherwise misunderstandings borne of distance (whether physical or emotional in nature) will continue to grow, and down that road is nothing but trouble. We're devolving socially because of technology, not evolving.

    7. Re: Yeah, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, back when the car would survive the wreck, but the driver wouldn't.

  2. Maybe by HalAtWork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I'm around my kid I just don't use these things, including video game consoles or watching TV. Even if my kid is playing well enough by himself I've got stuff to do anyway like clean or make his meal, only time I really have to pay attention to anything personally for myself is nap time or when he's gone to bed, or off with mom just the two of them.

    Even before he was born I found that going online for too long was causing me stress and I'm not sure for what, I mean, at one point I was just refreshing favorite sites, making comments, soaking up any news item or just following trends like memes etc. My wife got pissed off because she wasn't into that and demanded I make time for her, and it got to the point where I had to do that or something in the relationship was going to go real bad. So I just cut back, and found I had a lot more space in my head to think, be creative, and enjoy what I already had. It only took about a couple weeks before I didn't even remember what I was doing all that time. It seems like a waste now.

    But then my wife got a smartphone and Facebook was a thing and suddenly the script has flipped! Now I really see why she was annoyed. :)

    1. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow your wife sounds like a needy bitch.

    2. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

    3. Re:Maybe by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      Haha. It didn't go down exactly like that, anyway I was clearly a little too obsessed and had other problems besides, maybe I just fixated on that part of it? It was a dark time,every relationship goes through some shit

    4. Re:Maybe by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      I probably lost the best relationship of my life back in the 90s when my beautiful girlfriend decided to move out and leave me because I spent waaaay too much time on usenet instead of with her. And honestly, i think she was right. I fucked that one up good and proper. It sadens me how much of my life I've spent staring at a screen when theres so much good life out there waiting to be had.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    5. Re:Maybe by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Funny thing about a lot of wives... Seems that, when they get married, they expect to be marrying an actual husband.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:Maybe by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Talking about things flipping around:

      "This tension, this stress, of trying to balance newly emerging technologies with the established patterns and rituals of our lives is extremely common

      I think for a lot of the young people starting to have families now, the smartphone is the established patterns and rituals, and the baby is the newly emerging technology in this story.

    7. Re: Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes no sense wringing your hands about it now: it's too late. Keep staring at that screen and learn to like it, it's the only life you'll ever know.

    8. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's stupid of them. They get men instead.

      When will women learn?

    9. Re: Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you ran a Usenet business you could still use your net and get the babe.

    10. Re: Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife does the same complaining and I do as you say. I noticed how much time I waste on refreshing favourite sites and reading "news" or latest internet trends.

      Already given up on "social" sites and services except when needed to grab someone's attention.

      I'm also opted to spend more time with wife, children and hobbies. The last two is really a great experience when combined.

    11. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing about a lot of wives... Seems that, when they get married, they expect to be marrying an actual husband.

      I've noticed that among some people. Never really understood why they just assumed the asshat they married would suddenly turn into a good husband once they were married.

    12. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the 90s when my beautiful girlfriend decided to move out and leave me because I spent waaaay too much time on usenet

      And nowadays, she probably spends just as much time on Facebook. But in her mind, that's OK because Facebook has pictures.

    13. Re:Maybe by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      If you have spent time with your wife, you will say, I lost all time I could've spent on Usenet when I had access to it. The point is we do what we enjoy. And 'coz most of us are stupid, complain later about the path not taken. Doesn't matter which path it is. The bottom line, no matter what the path we walk, we always complain about being sad and unfulfilled.

    14. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing about a lot of wives... Seems that, when they get married, they expect to be marrying an actual husband.

      I've noticed that among some people. Never really understood why they just assumed the asshat they married would suddenly turn into a good husband once they were married.

      A lot of women instantly become freeze queens once they are married. I certainly do not want a frigid, control-freak, teenage-boy filthy, bitch in a wife. I had a girlfriend who spent every non-working minute on Facebook and not talking to me at all. Carry on a conversation? Forget it.

    15. Re:Maybe by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      It takes time for social etiquette to develop around any new technology so that it becomes part of culture. It's the process we went through with the automobile and the telephone.

    16. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But of course, if a man wants his woman to change for him, he is a filthy misogynist male patriarchy shitlord.

    17. Re:Maybe by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "I had a girlfriend who spent every non-working minute on Facebook and not talking to me at all. Carry on a conversation? Forget it."

      You may want to reexamine your definition of the word 'girlfriend'.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    18. Re:Maybe by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      The real problem is greed. You gotta 'keep up with the Jones,' else you're gonna look like a caveman... so go buy all those gadgets now that you have your 2.5 SUVs and .5 Hawaiian bungalow.

      Dumb parents just get their kids whatever new device they want –and whatever device they 'think' they need. Then their kids grow up with less imagination and poorer eyesight. Rinse/Repeat.

      Steve Jobs was a low-tech parent and there was a reason behind it... he may have been an assh*le, but he wasn't dumb.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
  3. Changed? Yeah, contaminated? I dunno. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't have any kids, but my sister does. Four of 'em to be exact.

    They're all aged 7-12. They practically live online. One spent the summer with us this year. I couldn't believe how much time he spent on his iPad/iPhone. I'm hesitant to say he was addicted to it, because we were still going out and doing stuff around town and it's not like he was on the device all day long totally ignoring us. In fact, now that I think of it, he never once pulled out his phone while we were busy eating together (unlike some other people I know, who have their handheld out and in front of their face before the SMS alert sound finishes playing).

    Still...

    When we weren't doing stuff together, he was online with his friends, and almost completely immersed in whatever it was he was doing. Every single day, without fail, he'd be on his iPad in the mornings, and at night (usually until 1-2 AM). If we weren't doing anything together, he'd be off on the internet doing other stuff without us.

    Now, don't get me wrong- there was absolutely nothing rude or wrong about that. My sister did a pretty good job raising her kids. I've just never seen anyone who alternated so definitively between "doing things IRL" and "being online with friends". It made me wonder how someone like that would react to a week long internet outage or any other kind of temporary disconnect from the online world. Would they find other things to do? Would they suffer withdrawal? I dunno. It does seem like social networking is getting baked more deeply into each generation as time goes on, to the point that it's basically become a critical way of communicating and interacting with others.

    To be fair, I have noticed on several occasions that my sister's household is extremely well behaved. I grew up with two brothers and a sister, and none of us really got along that well until later in life. There were plenty of screaming matches and other altercations throughout the years. Oddly enough, it seems like my sister has had to deal with absolutely none of this (unless the WLAN goes down- god help her poor husband when that happens). The kids are very well behaved and the online interactions seem to prevent a lot of the interactions that could cause family friction otherwise. It's almost like everyone lives together in the same house, but at the same time they don't? I'm not sure how to explain it. They still have breakfast/lunch/supper together, and they still watch movies together, and play games together, and all that stuff, but otherwise people are off in their own world doing their own thing online.

    I think technology has definitely changed the way families work. Whether or not it's "contaminated" them, I don't know. Things are different now, but it's hard to say whether or not that's a good or bad thing.

    1. Re:Changed? Yeah, contaminated? I dunno. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Withdrawl is fairly easy (in mine, anyway). I visit a relative in TN, and in that particular area there's no ATT coverage and no "high speed internet" available. The phone lines are so crappy that the dial-up connection barely allows my relative to pull up a lean picture-and-text-only weather forecast. That's pretty much what she uses it for because, well, she's not into listening to the NOAA broadcasts where you never know when the forecast is coming on air. Anyhow, what happens is the following:

      1. I pull out the phone to look at the time occasionally. The fact that I can't check mail at the same time is odd.

      2. We're in a deep conversation about something and a particular issue or object comes into the conversation but we can't remember what it's called, I whip out the phone to look it up on Wikipedia, realizing half way through the 'whip-out' process that I'm just doing what's habitual but unavailable. After about 3-5 times of doing it, I stop. After about 10 times, I push it out of my head as an option and just bask in the conversation where we occasionally can't remember a word/point of significance's name.

      3. I want to check the weather myself (it's what I look at 20+ times per day because I'm into that stuff and also a storm spotter). After reachin' fer the device and realizing it isn't going to produce what I want, it takes about, eh, twice before I stop trying.

      4. I want to look at what's on /. One failure and I don't even have the slightest inkling to do it again.

      5. I want map directions to some place I'm not familiar with the route to. It sort of bothers me that I can't just get that info right away before I leave, but that's a "me thing". All I have to do is go about half way there (meaning about 7-10 miles from her home) before service is available in HSDPA+; enough to get directions. Oh, and check the weather.. and my mail.. Heh.

        The point of it all is that after a few "eh" moments and "umm I can't have that anymore" incidents, it becomes a fleeting thought and eventually I turn the thing off and don't even use it to look at the time. There are clocks in other places. :)

      I'm 36 years old with about 17 years of that having a mobile phone, and only 11 years having a smartphone, and only about 6 with a smartphone that isn't a piece of shit. :) Upon visiting a relative with no service, I can adapt away from it, completely, in less than an hour. Bringing the minds of children and teens into this, it's even easier - they're more malleable. Parents have to take a stand and start giving the young'ns an idea, a process, a light rule set, and adapt them into it. It's sort of akin (in my mind, anyway) of the parents having to tell children when they can/can't be on the (landline) phones with their friends/gfs/bfs. It's a different medium and head count, but the child can develop control. Unless, of course, the parents are too tied up in their own crap to work with their children, but that's another case of if you pull the mobile phone out of the picture, it's happened in other channels/forms before.

    2. Re:Changed? Yeah, contaminated? I dunno. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a kid who lives away from me with my ex wife on the other end of the country. So my only way of seeing him is through FaceTime. Like me, he is extremely phone shy, and has always been unwilling to talk. FaceTime was the only way to get to talk to him, and see him as well.

      For me and my relatives, smartphones have been a godsend. My sister and her family live in India, so I normally use Vonage to talk to her and my parents. Then my brother-in-law got an iPhone, and my sister initially had 1, later 2 iPads - given that my niece and nephew were always on those. So I could arrange to FaceTime with them. Also, a week ago, I just got a new iPhone 7, and so have an iPhone 5s that I just sent to my niece. Now she can FaceTime me, and others in the extended family who have iPhones.

      Aside from FaceTime, the other thing that has been a godsend has been WhatsApp. Among my relatives, only my sister now has the iPhone, which she's getting from her husband, who no longer uses it. She and my niece. Others in the family have Galaxies of various models, so while iMessage may have worked for some, it wouldn't for others. With FaceTime, in 3 parts of the world, I, my son and relatives in India get to share pictures, videos and otherwise communicate. Actually, those pictures alone almost filled up my previous iPhone before I offloaded some of it to the cloud. But now, with 128GB, I'll probably have enough space for messages lasting a few years.

      When we're all with each other, then I do sometimes wish they weren't around. Like last year, when my son visited them, I got back pictures of the 3 kids, each with his own iPad, doing his or her own thing. But the iPhones and iPads are great in capturing great moments together, and sharing stuff online. Also, my sister also puts time limits on how many hours the kids can watch either TV or iPads. With those checks in place, things should be just fine.

  4. Effect on children by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The next interesting study will be about parent mobile usage's impact on children. What person do you become when your parents preferred a machine to you for years?

    1. Re:Effect on children by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Much ado about nothing. My wife and I spend lots of time on our devices, and it didn't turn our daughter into an axe mur

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Effect on children by blindseer · · Score: 2

      That's weird, your post got cut off. Anyway, I was just reading on the internet about a girl that axed her mom and dad to death. She said he did it was because they kept ignoring her and using their smartphones instead of talking to her. Glad to hear things are well with you but you might want to be more considerate to your child or you'll end up like those unfortunate people, right?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Effect on children by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      That's weird, your post got cut off.

      You mean axed to death?

    4. Re: Effect on children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "axed her mom and dad to death"... now there ought to be an app for that.

    5. Re:Effect on children by blindseer · · Score: 1

      What person do you become when your parents preferred a machine to you for years?

      You mean like Dad being more interested in watching a movie on TV than reading me a bedtime story?

      There was a time when my brothers and I thought Dad was illiterate. In school we'd read stories in school about the poor literacy rate of some adults, and see TV shows about how people that can't read but "fake it" by doing things like learning enough to read a road sign, and order food in a restaurant by looking at the pictures on a menu or asking the wait staff about the daily specials.

      I don't know if this is a reflection of dads being dads or of government funded schools and mass media trying to teach kids that their parents are quite likely stupider than their teachers. If a kid thinks that their parents are idiots then they can be made more receptive to what the government tells them if it should conflict with what their parents tell them.

      That's an issue of government trying to destroy the family, which I'm quite certain was not where you were going but I believe to be a related issue. It depends on what these parents are consuming on these electronic devices. If they are getting government approved messages on how they should be freed from the drudgery of making their children breakfast and let them eat it at school then I think that is just as much, or a greater, threat to "family time" than what people complain about with phone calls interrupting meal time with the family. It's kind of hard to share a meal if the kids leave for school to eat. Some schools want to offer evening meals, and meals over the summer.

      Think of school lunch programs too. Should not the feeding of children be the responsibility of the parents? Is it really that difficult to pack a lunch for school kids? There was a McDonald's next door to my high school. Some might consider it child abuse for a parent giving a child money for lunch and instruct them to eat at McDonald's instead of school cafeteria. Some might consider parents forcing children to eat a government mandated meal at school cafeteria as abuse. Either way I believe it should be the parents' choice on what their children eat, even if the school doesn't "approve" of it.

      Also, who is calling these people during meal times? There's a lot of rules on robo-dialing that don't apply to political campaigns. I understand the implications of a campaign being able to communicate with potential voters but does it have to happen at meal time?

      Maybe Dad didn't always talk to us at meals because he was watching TV at the time but at least I saw him every morning and night for meals and while doing chores on the farm. I know this will sound like a combination of tin foil hattery and "get off my lawn" style old man grumpiness but kids these days aren't being pulled from the family by just the electronics but by the government teaching kids them that the government feeds them and educates them, parents don't. Al Gore and such would give talks to kids on how parents are destroying the environment if they aren't using the right kind of light bulbs or driving the right kind of car. That's assuming they have parents (plural) and not a single parent because their dad was replaced by a government single mother subsidy.

      You want to see your family life less "contaminated"? Then eat breakfast with your children instead of sending them off to school to eat. Pick them up at school instead of having them walk or ride a bus. Pack their lunches. Also, turn off the TV and cell phones at meal time. When (or if) you let your children watch TV then watch TV together. Play games with your kids, read them books. If this is cutting in on your time to do dishes and such then make them part of it. Have them fold their own clothes and help with dishes. Tell them they can watch TV with Mom and Dad after the dishes are washed, the floors swept, and everything put away. Oh, and make sure Dad is around to watch TV, no government check can replace a father.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re: Effect on children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uneducated black people love to ax me to death with their dumb queshteeions.

    7. Re:Effect on children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Effect on children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... parents preferred a machine to you ...

      Well, it was a job at a factory for my mother and ham radio for my father. That's because my father wanted us to play the games he liked and my mother lost interest in parenting once we turned into pre-teens (since the word 'tweenies' hadn't been invented). Children need an adult around alot to do the 'adult' tasks: Since my town didn't have a transit system, travel would be the most important one. That means I didn't go to work and didn't spend time with friends or a romantic interest, plus no sporting activities: No economic identity and no social independence. That's a big part of growing-up I didn't experience.

    9. Re:Effect on children by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      That's an issue of government trying to destroy the family, which I'm quite certain was not where you were going but I believe to be a related issue.

      Well, that sure popped up out of nowhere.

      You should put out a newsletter or something.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:Effect on children by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      That's weird, your post got cut off.

      thatsthejoke.jpg

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    11. Re:Effect on children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty clear he got it... and that you did not get his.

    12. Re:Effect on children by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I got his... I just got the impression he didn't realise that the joke had already been made.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  5. I'd try and write a post by burtosis · · Score: 1

    But these d@m* kids won't quiet down enough to hear myself think.

  6. What a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So much for children "being seen but not heard".

    In the "traditional" Western family model, kids pretty much had to put up with whatever their parents gave them. Bad food, lots of chores, and lots of time being ignored by the parents (especially the father)? Too bad, so sad, suck it up. You had a roof over your head (when you weren't getting shooed outside so Mom could get some stuff done for once) and clothes on your back (albeit hand-me-downs) and that was good enough.

    Sure some parents were wise, insightful, and pretty awesome during those few hours of the day when Dad wasn't working 50-60 hour weeks and Mom wasn't, you know, cleaning stuff or . . . whatever. Others weren't. It doesn't take cell phones and tablets for parents to find ways to ignore their children. My paternal grandfather would read sci-fi novels in the basement while drinking beer instead of interacting with anyone . . . including his kids (my dad & aunt).

    About the only difference here is that parents would almost all have a few moments of face time with the kids that they could hardly avoid: dinner, and church on Sundays. So if you are using your phone during those times then yeah it can make a difference. But if they are getting more time with you during other parts of the day . . .

    1. Re:What a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      church on Sundays

      Do people still do that? Weird.

    2. Re:What a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going with the OP is almost 100% from the US. It's still a big thing there, apparently.

    3. Re:What a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, point was that "in the old days" you had dinner & church as two big 'murican things that even aloof parents could hardly avoid. Outside of that they could hide in a den or a basement or an office or wherever and avoid the chilluns, especially if they happened to be menfolk.

      Or they could just put in a few more hours at work or on a hobby to achieve the same effect.

      Today far fewer families attend church, and various forms of pre-made ready-to-eat meals have chipped away at dinnertime. So make of that what you will.

  7. Not new by blindseer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember watching The Waltons on TV (a show about a family living in a Virginia rural community through the Depression and WWII) where one episode focused on the family getting a telephone. It was a big deal and not without people being concerned about how it might affect their life. A rather humorous, and quite realistic, scene involved the patriarch having to leave the bathtub to answer the phone. I believe the episode ended with them getting rid of the telephone but it reappears later in the series with much less fanfare.

    Then came television. People were concerned about how that might affect the family too. I lived through some of this as I remember Dad bringing home a second TV after Mom demanded the one TV we had be removed from the kitchen. Dad did not want his TV viewing to be interrupted by supper. Come to think of it I was probably watching The Waltons while eating supper.

    Computers, internet, video games, all technology that was going to invade "family time". That's just the electronics. Some of you may have read enough history to know how big of a deal clocks were to how society worked. Automobiles were also supposed to ruin "family time" or something.

    Same stuff on a different day. People learn to turn the stuff off when they should or suffer the consequences.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really,. History doesn't just repeat itself. The same thing doesn't just reappear with a new skin periodically.

      The web and smartphones are vastly more impactful on our social lives than television or landlines could have ever have been. Society and the way we live our lives individually has changed at an unprecedented pace, since the Waltons were on t.v. The newer technologies are insidious and disconnecting isn't a frequent option for many people.

      It sounds like you're at least as old as I am, and I think if you reflected on this in a larger context that just "family time" it's clear. The complaint may be the same at a high level, or at least articulated the same, but the issue is the latest stage of decades-long change, not just a non-issue that's come up again.

      Good night, John Boy.

    2. Re:Not new by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obviously such complaints aren't new, and there are always complaints about how new technology is ruining X aspect of society. But I do think we need to recognize that something is a bit different about how much smartphones (and to a lesser extent other devices like tablets) are transforming our ability to have an uninterrupted face-to-face interaction.

      People have always had distractions. And even if they didn't, they'd "space out" and stop listening when they weren't interested in a portion of the conversation. So distraction isn't new. But smartphones provide numerous possible personalized and customized entertaining distractions (many of which, like social media, tend to encourage continuous interactivity), so each individual at, say, the dinner table can be tempted to use his/her phone for some different distraction. Rather than having a kid or dad space out for a couple minutes and then rejoin the conversation, now the kid can find an entertaining thing which can pull his attention away until someone else "breaks the spell."

      And oddly social etiquette had suddenly changed just in the past few years so people aren't insulted when others do this frequently. If you were having a conversation with someone and they suddenly pulled out a book and started reading while you were trying to talk to them, you would likely be annoyed. But when someone pulls out a phone these days, we are increasingly accepting that they must be doing something important (e.g., responding to a critical message) and also can " multitask" (hint -- that doesn't really work well). But they might just be checking Facebook or whatever.

      So yeah, distractions have been around forever, and people have always complained about "the new thing." But if you haven't noticed, smartphones ARE significantly changing social interactions in unprecedented ways. Whether or not the changes are good or bad is a matter of debate, but they are disruptive in new ways.

    3. Re:Not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really,. History doesn't just repeat itself. The same thing doesn't just reappear with a new skin periodically.

      The web and smartphones are vastly more impactful on our social lives than television or landlines could have ever have been. Society and the way we live our lives individually has changed at an unprecedented pace, since the Waltons were on t.v. The newer technologies are insidious and disconnecting isn't a frequent option for many people.

      It sounds like you're at least as old as I am, and I think if you reflected on this in a larger context that just "family time" it's clear. The complaint may be the same at a high level, or at least articulated the same, but the issue is the latest stage of decades-long change, not just a non-issue that's come up again.

      Good night, John Boy.

      Cool opinion. It's just a shame that's all it is.

    4. Re:Not new by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      new technology is ruining X aspect of society

      I think this is actually true. How much of modern society looks like society of 1980? A society exists, but it is not the same one.

    5. Re:Not new by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

        But when someone pulls out a phone these days, we are increasingly accepting that they must be doing something important (e.g., responding to a critical message) and also can " multitask" (hint -- that doesn't really work well).

      Ah, no, I'd still be irritated. If a family member has an emergency, they'll call. Otherwise, there's no reason for you to be constantly checking your phone. That's just compulsive behavior, and I still think it's rude to do it in front of company that you're engaged with. Or supposed to be, I guess. Am I old-fashioned? Maybe so, if that's the new norm.

      Technology can certainly become a distraction to your life and relations if you let it. People have ruined their lives because of addictions to online games - more notably when they were new, but I'm sure it still happens. Same with social media, no doubt, and lots of other things.

      All things in moderation, as they say. I still think it's pretty good advice, and applies to just about any new disruptive tech that comes along. That's because it's human nature we're dealing with, and our frequent tendency to get obsessed to the point of distraction with interesting new things, if we let ourselves.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    6. Re:Not new by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Automobiles were also supposed to ruin "family time" or something.

      But they did. If you had an automobile, you could feasibly commute to a job in another city. So now... we're all commuting. And the lost time is taken away from our loved ones, if we even have time for those. The automobile outcompeted rail with anticompetitive behavior, and now we're trying to figure out how to have self-driving cars to solve the problems caused by not extrapolating rail to PRT, but instead going back and extrapolating the horse-cart out to the automobile. We had the technology for self-driving cars in the 1800s, and it was called rail. Combine it with the concepts behind automated looms and you get automated transport networks. Instead we have... this.

      Same stuff on a different day. People learn to turn the stuff off when they should or suffer the consequences.

      It's more true with smartphones because fairly simple means can be used to avoid the problems; anyone who really has to stay in touch can use do-not-disturb mode to permit the office to reach them while otherwise enjoying their dinner. But you can't just wave a magic wand and make commuter culture go away. You still have to pay your bills.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Not new by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      And oddly social etiquette had suddenly changed just in the past few years so people aren't insulted when others do this frequently. If you were having a conversation with someone and they suddenly pulled out a book and started reading while you were trying to talk to them, you would likely be annoyed. But when someone pulls out a phone these days, we are increasingly accepting that they must be doing something important (e.g., responding to a critical message) and also can " multitask" (hint -- that doesn't really work well). But they might just be checking Facebook or whatever.

      You got it reversed. Pulling out your smartphone in the middle of a social time with others is considered to be very unacceptable these days, compared with a few years ago where burying your noses in your phone besides your friends was considered OK.

      It's why there are recent phenomenon like putting your phones on the table and the first person to reach for it pays the entire table, to putting your phone under your glass of beverage, to just putting it away completely.

      What IS acceptable is to see a notification then to quickly glance at it and put your phone away. So if your phone rings, and it's unimportant, you see that and silence it. If it's an emergency, then you excuse yourself from the group and take the call away from your friends. If it's a text, you can read it, but not reply, and you can't look at it when the screen turns off. Just glances. And no, checking frequency is not allowed - if you need to, put it on the table and let everyone see.

  8. What's the upside? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    What benefits are people getting out of their technology addictions?

    1. Re:What's the upside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Typical answer is instant gratification. Social validation for some. Anxiety avoidance is closer to the truth.

    2. Re:What's the upside? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Boredom is a great incentive for creativity. Social media is not exactly interesting, but it fills up your time in a way that you hardly notice it slipping through your fingers. You can easily spend all day checkout what people are saying about Trump, yet you figured out what you thought about him months ago.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:What's the upside? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      yet you figured out what you thought about him months ago.

      My parents do this 24 hours/day, but with a tv.

  9. Toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This post comes to you from my bathroom, where I sit on the toilet....which I've done a lot of this week, thanks to some bad food (Jack Astor's in Toronto, thanks).

    I can tell you, sitting on the toilet with a phone reading the Internet beats the pants off having to bring in newspapers, magazines, a book or whatever other reading material one can come up with. With the smart phone, life in here is a lot better. The only thing being contaiminated is my toilet....which, frankly, is going to look pretty fucking disgusting until it is flushed.

    1. Re:Toilet by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      This post comes to you from my bathroom, where I sit on the toilet....which I've done a lot of this week, thanks to some bad food (Jack Ass tour's in Toronto, thanks).

      FTFY

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  10. Every generation has a similar problem by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    There are always things that distract parents from family time. Work, TV, sports, bar-hopping, whatever. We simply insisted that our boys not use devices at meals or other family times, and we led by example. Parents who are committed to raising good families are still quite able to do so today.

    1. Re: Every generation has a similar problem by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Your family 'bar-hops' ???

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Every generation has a similar problem by speedplane · · Score: 1

      There are always things that distract parents from family time.

      Television has been far more harmful than smartphones or the internet. An entire generation grew up from the 70s to mid 90s totally glued to television programming and their sponsors. Smartphones have a bad side, but they are at least moderately active, requiring users to search and find content they like. TV is as passive as it gets, total brain rot.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    3. Re:Every generation has a similar problem by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Smartphones ARE Television v2.1. For the vast majority of people they are passive consumers, absorbing curated adverts and programming.

      The major form of interaction appears to be the tweet. This has probably been done already and never posted because the results never varied from baseline (or expired fish), but I'd like to see a functional MRI of a person tweeting.

      (For those of you not keeping up, reread this thread.)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  11. Sample Size by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    A sample size of 35? That's pretty pathetic. Not even 35 families, just 35 individual 'caregivers'.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    1. Re:Sample Size by hey! · · Score: 2

      Reasonable sample sizes depends on the nature of the study you are conducting. If you are looking for drug side effects, you want very large study sizes because very rare events can be show-stoppers for you. In most social science contexts, on the other hand, modest sample sizes are both more practical and desirable.

      Smaller studies are not only more financially efficient, excessively large sample sizes can lead to results that are statistically significant but are not very practically interesting (i.e., you can disprove the null hypothesis at a p < 0.05 level but the magnitude of the effect you're looking at is so weak nobody should care about it).

      So sample sizes in the 15-30 range are usually a pretty good choice for many social science purposes. If you design the study protocol correctly and choose the proper statistical tests you shouldn't get many spurious positive results from a modest sized sample. You will get many spurious negative results, but if the study is well-designed the effects you miss will be relatively weak. This is a reasonable tradeoff in a world with limited funding.

      The bigger problem is getting a representative sample to test. You can't fix a skewed sampling methodology throwing even more oddball bodies into your study; in fact that makes problems worse. Better to conduct a modest sized study and then confirm it with a similarly sized study whose subjects are recruited in a different way.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  12. Plus side by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    "On the plus side, many parents said that mobile devices facilitated their ability to work from home."

    That explains why, on so many web forums, I keep seeing unsolicited testimonials from young mothers who make $5000 a week working part-time from home.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re: Plus side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prostitution can be quite lucrative.

    2. Re: Plus side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mobile phones have also done awesome things to women.

      Now they're solipsistic, narcissistic, selfie-taking sluts that you can Tinder for a night and move on to the next one. Seriously, how exactly did this work before mobile technology?

      I hear people used to go to bars and hope women walked in. Can you imagine?

      Pigs like me couldn't have asked for a more powerful slut-making, hookup-facilitating device than the mobile phone.

      I think I'll Tinder-me-up a little bit of poon right now. Woohoo!

  13. This is fucking hilarious by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    60 hour work weeks for both parents are "contaminating" family life. Smart phones are just the means we stay in touch with our kids during those long work hours.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is fucking hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanting to work less for more money is why your job is being outsourced.

  14. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's nailed it.

  15. True, but not like it's never happened before. by bobjr94 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I was little I would want to keep playing with my trainset and not want to go sit down and eat dinner. 10 years later computers and video games kept me in my room. 10 years later internet and online gaming kept me up allnight. Some people watch tv all night and don't even like the shows. There is always something new and exciting to do.

    But I do see a difference with personal devices. You can't bring your trainset, console video games or desktop computer to the restaurant or to bed. It happens to us, my wife can spend a whole dinner on facebook, checking every 30 seconds for new notifications and feeling the need to instantly respond to everyone. We may as well be eating separately. Work emails and texts from coworkers 24 hours per day don't help either. Same thing at home, the bedroom is not as active as it once was, facebooking or playing candy crush until she falls asleep and hardly any 'special' together time.

    1. Re:True, but not like it's never happened before. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      People do what they find most interesting/entertaining. You need to have a serious talk with your wife why she prefers Candy Crush to conversation.

  16. Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But still not as much as black men who live their children fatherless.

  17. The end of the world by pellik · · Score: 1

    Smartphones are interrupting and contaminating our valuable TV time at home. How will we adapt?

    1. Re:The end of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the issue is more that your employer can, for instance, text you at 9 in the evening and ask if you can cover a shift tomorrow.

      There's that joke about how someone sends someone else a text and they start panicking because they've gone a whole five minutes without a response - we might laugh at it now as a humorous exaggeration, but as little as ten years ago it would have come off as just plain stupid because response times were expected to be within the same day, not within the same minute.

      The problem is we're moving towards a deeply inconsiderate world that assumes everyone is available 24 hours a day - even if you're on good terms with your boss, friends and family, the constant expectation that you're available for a "5 minute chat" or a "quick question" has made setting aside a solid chunks of uninterrupted time more and more difficult for those with any sort of active work and social lifer.

  18. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roughly one-third were single parents, and nearly six in 10 were white.

    Add the numbers up.

  19. Kindle Fire Ad and Babysitting by wjcofkc · · Score: 2

    Not long ago there were a couple of ads for the Kindle Fire where a child needed attention, so the parent, home alone, just turned on the parental controls and handed the tablet over with a sigh of relief.

    I found those ads to be highly offensive. Yet I have seen that happen myself. A parent will buy one of those built like a tank sub $50 Android tablet for this reason alone. I have seen people do this to kids as young as two just to shut them up when the poor kid needs human interaction when crying. Inevitably the kid breaks it but because they are so cheap the parent just buys another if the don't already have another in waiting. I have seen this stunt language skills in children with no other sign of developmental disability.

    I wonder what these kids brains are going to be wired for as adults. It's a safe bet it will be something we have never seen before. Autism move over. There is a new game in town.

    Two disclaimers: I own the latest Kindle fire and love it. I have seen that very situation benefit kids with autism.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  20. The solution is simple, really by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Ya just gotta unplug Doctor's advice, after watching a hospital video on hypertension and heart disease, the so-called "Silent Killer"

    And tell your friends to leave you voice mail or messages, like in the old days, remember?

    Let 911 take care of real emergencies. Enjoy the unplugged life, or stay off-grid and under the radar

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  21. "New Thing We Do = Less Old Thing We Did Shocker" by Maritz · · Score: 1

    A study that found the opposite of this would be much more newsworthy. Everything here is exactly what you'd fucking expect. As research goes, I can see that it has to be done, but fucking hell it's boring and the results are obvious.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.