Study Links Restricting Screen Time For Kids To Higher Mental Performance (washingtonpost.com)

Parents who possess the resolve to separate their children from their smartphones may be helping their kids' brainpower, a new study suggests. A report adds: Children who use smartphones and other devices in their free time for fewer than two hours a day performed better on cognitive tests assessing their thinking, language, and memory, according to a study published this week in the Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. The study assessed the behavior of 4,500 children, ages 8 to 11, by looking at their sleep schedules, how much time they spent on screens and their amount of exercise, and analyzed how those factors impacted the children's mental abilities. The researchers compared the results with national guidelines for children's health. The guidelines recommend that children in that age group, get at least an hour of physical activity, no more than two hours of recreational screen time and nine to 11 hours of sleep per night. The researchers found that only 5 percent of children met all three recommendations. Sixty-three percent of children spent more than two hours a day staring at screens, failing to meet the screen-time limit.

Comments

Duh

[Spy Handler]

Steve Jobs (even though he was an asshole) was a wise man and he wouldn't let his kids touch iPhones or iPads... he didn't want them to become stupid.

Re: Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, he only allowed them to troubleshoot .NET 1.5 code.

Re:Duh

[Guybrush_T]

There we go. One study finds a correlation between lower mental performance and watching phones or TV all day and people conclude that kids should never see a screen before they're 18.

That is as stupid as "Kids who only drink water lack essential nutrients, therefore I'll never give water to my kids.".

Obviously, kids whose parents use phones or TVs as a babysitter are much likely to have lower mental performance than those who interact with their parents.

Which doesn't mean phones, TV, and other stuff should not be part of a healthy, balanced diet.

Playing outside is good for health. Playing video games is good for mental abilities. Watching TV is likely good for other things.

I'm tired of those troll studies.

Re: Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Some degree of their recommendations is pretty common sense, but it does bother me that they are apparently drawing their conclusions from the less than 5% (as reported) of the population they studied that actually met those recommendations. That doesnâ(TM)t sound very sound statistically.

Re:Duh

[piers_downunder]

He may have been wise on this one issue, but there are certainly better people you could get parenting advice from. His first daughter devoted much of her book on how bad a father he was.

Re: Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Some degree of their recommendations is pretty common sense, but it does bother me that they are apparently drawing their conclusions from the less than 5% (as reported) of the population they studied that actually met those recommendations. That doesn't sound very sound statistically.

What do you mean by not statistically sound? TFA said there is a link, not a conclusion. Besides, in statistic, you assume that the sample population represents the whole population because you are supposed to select the sample randomly through out the whole population. Even though 5% of the whole met all 3 criteria, the study was focusing on the 95%. In other words, they looked at the time spent on screen and found a link that the less time the children spent (but still more than 2 hours a day) on screen, the better performance in thinking, language, and memory.

Children who did not meet all three criteria performed worse on thinking, language and memory tests than kids who met the recommendations, according to the study. But reduced screen time was positively linked to superior mental performance, the study found.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual study (linked in the article), states that its objective is to measure compliance with guidelines concerning sleep, physical activity, and screen usage time and discover correlations to cognitive ability. They found that compliance was about 50% or lower for each individual guideline and only 5% met all three guidelines. They showed that children who met (1) all three guidelines, (2) the screen time guideline only, or (3) the sleep and screen time guidelines only all demonstrated improved cognitive abilities over children who met none of the guidelines. They also provide statistical data in the form of beta values, confidence intervals, and p-values for each comparison. Together, that data represents a compelling trend that the interplay of these factors affect overall cognition. The particular content of the screen time was obviously beyond the scope of this study and would probably make a good follow-up study. At no point do they suggest that screen time should be limited to zero or that it has no benefit at all.

If you want to argue that this summary partially misrepresents the research article and contributes to "people" making wildly extrapolated conclusions, I would agree. But this is certainly not a "troll study," and it is unfair to make that critique if you're not going to review the original source.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

So wise, that while he spared his children, he only made an absolutely massive chunk of people stupid.

Thank you, iWise man.

Let kids go outside

[alvinrod]

I think part of this gravitation towards more screen time is an unwarranted fear by parents that something awful will happen to little Johnny if he's allowed to go outside. Gangs, pedophiles, drug dealers, Jehovah's witnesses, or other unsavory individuals will sure get poor little Johnny and cause him irreparable harm.

The wold has only become a safer place since we grew up. Somehow all of us (and the generations before us) managed to survive playing outside for most of the day. Maybe a few of us ran into what might be considered a dicey situation for a child of that age, but part of growing up is learning to navigate those situations. Expecting anyone to turn 18 and magically become an adult is foolhardy. All we've done is created developmentally delayed individuals who are only starting to grow into adults when they go to college and get the hell away from their overprotective parents.

If you trap kids inside all day, it shouldn't be any surprise that they turn to screens to give them something to do. Allow kids the opportunity to play outside and I suspect that many of them will naturally use screens a lot less frequently.

Re:Let kids go outside

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah sure everyone is "trapping" kids inside all day and that's what's driving this. You assume it so what else could it be?

Re:Let kids go outside

[cayenne8]

he wold has only become a safer place since we grew up. Somehow all of us (and the generations before us) managed to survive playing outside for most of the day. Maybe a few of us ran into what might be considered a dicey situation for a child of that age, but part of growing up is learning to navigate those situations. Expecting anyone to turn 18 and magically become an adult is foolhardy. All we've done is created developmentally delayed individuals who are only starting to grow into adults when they go to college and get the hell away from their overprotective parents.

If you trap kids inside all day, it shouldn't be any surprise that they turn to screens to give them something to do. Allow kids the opportunity to play outside and I suspect that many of them will naturally use screens a lot less frequently.

I wish I had mod points for you...so much THIS!!

Sadly, I've heard that in some parts of the US, they have actually charged parents with crimes for letting little Johnny/Susie run about the neighborhood and play unsupervised, like I and all my peers did as children.

Geez, I guess if I were raised by my parents today like I was a few decades back, my parents would be in jail, I'd be in child protective services, and they'd drug me, because I was always running around and "acting like a boy" as they termed it back in my days of childhood.

I actually feel a bit sorry for kids today....and thank God I grew up in an era where there wasn't a fucking camera everywhere to get you into trouble when getting into mischief....

Re:Let kids go outside

[Anonymous Coward]

Cayenne the well-known slashdot INCEL also has no children, has never been involved with anything except nazis. ^^ Republican pedos and rapists want more children victims running around unsupervised. Disgusting GOP rape cultists.

Re:Let kids go outside

[Anonymous Coward]

Read a story recently (might have been on reddit) about how back in the day this person's brother fell off a piece of playground equipment, hit their head on the hard blacktop, and died when they were both kids. So it's not so simple as "a few of us ran into dicey situations". Bad things can and did happen back then that has made parents cautious....

Re:Let kids go outside

[cayenne8]

..the well-known slashdot INCEL

Ok, I hate to feed a troll, but I've seen this a couple times....WTF is an "incel"? I'm guessing some sort of insult, but I've never heard of the term before....something you made up?

Re:Let kids go outside

[tepples]

All we've done is created developmentally delayed individuals who are only starting to grow into adults when they go to college and get the hell away from their overprotective parents.

If you trap kids inside all day, it shouldn't be any surprise that they turn to screens to give them something to do. Allow kids the opportunity to play outside and I suspect that many of them will naturally use screens a lot less frequently.

I doubt it's entirely the parents' fault. I imagine parents are keeping their kids indoors in order to keep them away from Child Overprotective Services.

• "5 Things Everyone Did Growing Up (That Now Get You Arrested)" by Chan Teik Onn
• "5 Things Your Parents Did (They'd Be Arrested For Today)" by C. Coville
• "Neighbor calls cops, child services on Texas mom for letting son play outside" by Philip Caulfield
• "Mom Lets 4-Year-Old Play Outside, Faces Jail"
• "When 'Stranger Danger' is actually the police and CPS" by Katherine Martinko

Re:Let kids go outside

[alvinrod]

I didn't say it was the only cause, merely that I think it's a part of the overall problem. I think it's one that's particularly easy to fix as well.

Re:Let kids go outside

[alvinrod]

I think it's relatively new, or at least I hadn't heard about it until this year or so. It's a portmanteau of "involuntary" and "celibacy" and is a group of men that have created their own little part of the internet where they complain about how life is unfair because they can't get laid and how it's the fault of the women who don't find them attractive. It's almost like the male equivalent of radical feminists that want to blame everything on men.

I'm assuming that the implication in labeling someone an incel is that they're a sad, pathetic, little man that can't get laid because no one wants them.

Re:Let kids go outside

[Anonymous Coward]

I think part of this gravitation towards more screen time is an unwarranted fear by parents that something awful will happen to little Johnny if he's allowed to go outside. Gangs, pedophiles, drug dealers, Jehovah's witnesses, or other unsavory individuals will sure get poor little Johnny and cause him irreparable harm.

And not least of them: someone alerting Social Services (or whatever it's called in US) that there is a loose 13 year old kid wandering the neighbourhood, and them swooping in and curtailing your parental rights or straight away taking Johnny away from you, and putting him into a foster family or an orphanage, because of your "gross negligence and abandonement of the child". And that fear is very real, not unwarranted.

Re:Let kids go outside

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely there are at least a few people like that who post on Slashdot?

Re:Let kids go outside

[Anonymous Coward]

I think part of this gravitation towards more screen time is an unwarranted fear by parents that something awful will happen

Actually, I would disagree .. for the simple fact that the parents are also burying their faces in phones.

On far more occasions than I can count, I've seen a family out for dinner ... mom, dad, and children all have their faces buried in a device. All of them, faces buried in a screen. If it was supposed to be quality time, it isn't, not by a long shot.

On numerous occasions I've seen the parents shove a tablet into the kids face to keep it quiet and occupied (sometimes it's pretty clear the kid carries it with them everywhere they go), and it is fairly clear that is the default position. As in, as soon as you get the kid in the shopping cart you give them a phone.

I routinely see adults who stop in the middle of the door into a store like WalMart and check their phone ... as in "get the fuck out of the way you drooling idiot and stop blocking the fucking door so you can check your email". They are literally just walking zombies who have no situational awareness.

I also see parents with their faces buried in the phone while their children howl or run around a restaurant .. take some responsibility for your children so the rest of us don't have to listen to this shit.

I'm not willing to attribute this to parental fear, I'm attributing it to lousy parents who themselves are always buried in the phone, and for whom it's just easier to make their mewling brat shut up by giving them a phone

You're being far too generous to blame it on parental fear. I blame parental stupid.

Re:Let kids go outside

[cayenne8]

think it's relatively new, or at least I hadn't heard about it until this year or so. It's a portmanteau of "involuntary" and "celibacy" and is a group of men that have created their own little part of the internet where they complain about how life is unfair because they can't get laid and how it's the fault of the women who don't find them attractive. It's almost like the male equivalent of radical feminists that want to blame everything on men.

Interesting.....I've never heard about this before.

What's so hard about getting laid? Geez....

Re:Let kids go outside

[lgw]

And, really, Slashdot is the last place to use "incel" as a non-ironic insult. If you're not posting from your mother's basement while watching anime*, you're letting down the side.

*Xena tapes are also acceptable.

Re:Let kids go outside

[lgw]

Also worth linking: free-range parenting is the movement to push back on all this.

Re:Let kids go outside

[ShanghaiBill]

Interesting.....I've never heard about this before.

Read about the Toronto van attack and the UCSB incel murders. In both cases, incels murdered multiple women ... because women in general weren't having sex with them.

Incelism is likely biggest in Japan, where millions of men are not having sex, or even relationships, and their race is asymptotically dwindling away.

what's so hard about getting laid? Geez....

It is not so hard if you are willing to lower your standards. But incels want to have sex with supermodels.

Re:Let kids go outside

[cayenne8]

It is not so hard if you are willing to lower your standards. But incels want to have sex with supermodels.

Unless you as a man, are truly hideous....mutated, if you keep in decent shape, and practice basic hygiene....you can easily approach women, GOOD looking women and get laid.

It takes a bit of confidence, and it is a numbers game, just remember rejection won't kill you....just keep working on it and after awhile, you notice it just isn't that hard to engage women, and get in their pants after awhile.

Who knows, along the way, you might find one you want to stick with....but that's not a necessity.

Re:Let kids go outside

[ShanghaiBill]

if you keep in decent shape, and practice basic hygiene ...

So ... victim blaming?

...you can easily approach women, GOOD looking women and get laid.

You need to understand Stacy, Becky, and Chad. I find Becky more appealing, but the incels want Stacy. Unfortunately, Chad is a
cockblocker.

Re:Let kids go outside

[cayenne8]

So ... victim blaming?

LOL...nah...but c'mon, you gotta meet them at least half way, eh?

No one wants to be intimate with someone that hasn't bathed in a week, smells bad, has soiled clothing on, etc....I'm talking basic, common sense hygiene at least!!!

Would you want to sleep with a chick that was that nasty?

At least have the same standards of cleanliness, etc....as those you are looking to as potential mates to have sex with or more.

Just have at least a little common sense here, eh?

I think it would depend more on WHAT they do

[Opportunist]

It's less the amount of time spent with computers and other electronic devices, it's more how they are used. I can of course only offer my own experience, but I had my first computer when I was 10. I learned programming, and I did learn building periphery for it, simply because that was a necessity back then. Before I was 20, I was already pretty good at both of those things, developing hardware and programs to disable certain routines in software that aren't too useful for the user and sometimes even detrimental to his plans concerning the application of the hard- or software he wanted to use.

Both of these things kinda let me reach the position I'm in now. Back then there was no college courses for IT security and certainly none for malware analysis. But the skills you develop when redesigning code other people wrote to facilitate the use of aforementioned code translates pretty well into those fields.

Of course if all you do with your screen time is to tap the screen to rack up some points in a clicker game, the net benefit of such an activity is quite negligible. And it also isn't quite stimulating for your higher brain functions to watch some clips or exchange emojis instead of actually talking to people.

The problem isn't so much that our kids use electronic devices, the problem is in what they do with them. And an even bigger problem is that them being mindless, consuming drones without any incentive to actually create something themselves is pretty much what pretty much every corporation out there wants them to be. You're fighting an uphill battle there.

Re:I think it would depend more on WHAT they do

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It is certainly possible to get huge positive benefits from "screens". But it is not realistic to expect such to happen, especially for young children. Even educational software is very gamified and of dubious positive value. It is only when you get to more real courses that computers offer significant educational value, which is for older children, and even those just do not work for everyone.

Furthermore, the screen world is full of entertainment, infortainment, and edutainment. I would say getting used to being entertained is a significant negative lesson.

To put it another way, Mister Rogers was right and Sesame Street was wrong. Sesame Street tried to use the modern media techniques to deliver educational content, and I think it was mostly (but not completely) a failure. Mister Rogers tried to keep it very very simple and slow and real, treat the viewers as human beings rather than eyeballs that needed to be grabbed by dazzling cinematic craft, and trust that simply showing interesting things is even better when not trying hard to entertain.

Of course, better than Mister Rogers is getting outside and digging in the dirt.

Re:I think it would depend more on WHAT they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Screens these days are consumption devices. iPhones, iPads, smart TV, laptops, etc. A desktop is a creation tool. Everyone else is a consumer.

Re:I think it would depend more on WHAT they do

[Anonymous Coward]

"developing hardware and programs to disable certain routines in software that aren't too useful for the user and sometimes even detrimental to his plans concerning the application of the hard- or software he wanted to use."

No need to walk on eggshells, friend. This is slashdot. We know what you were doing.

That explains the trolls.

[Anonymous Coward]

they obviously spent forever in front of the screen.

Darn shame about that

[bobstreo]

whole CBT thing, and the hours of required homework including word processing.

I do tend to agree with physical activities being important, and if a kid is tired enough, they'll sleep.

Starting times for students (pickup at 6:00am) also seem to screw with sleep cycles. Include after school activities (sports, music...) and a 10-12 hour school day becomes the norm.

Re:Darn shame about that

[Anonymous Coward]

I do tend to agree with physical activities being important, and if a kid is tired enough, they'll sleep.

Starting times for students (pickup at 6:00am) also seem to screw with sleep cycles. Include after school activities (sports, music...) and a 10-12 hour school day becomes the norm.

I don't know how parents raised their kids back before Internet time (but still had TV). What you said is a norm because nowadays both parents tend to work (not only one works and the other stays home). I saw some couple divided their responsibility by having one works early and the other works later. So the one who works later would drop their kids at school and the one who works early would go and pick them all up. Thus, the 10-12 hours a day become 8-10 hours or less a day for kids. Though, many parents like to let their kids playing on a device because these kids will be quiet and don't bother them. This is, I believe, the main reason of all for doing so. Sad but true.

10$ says Alvinrod isn't actually a parent.

[Anonymous Coward]

10$ says Alvinrod isn't actually a parent. Thanks for the "advice" though lol, GFY.

Paywalled?

[rot26]

Is there any way around the paywall?

Let's not link to articles behind paywalls. Ok?

My anecdote says other wise

[jader3rd]

We all know we parents are losing the war against screens. The best we can do is make sure that the kids consume semi-educational things on their screens. Now that my kids are in elementary school the teachers make comments about the whole class being more and more advanced by the time they start. I attribute that to the screen time the kids get.

Re:My anecdote says other wise

[cayenne8]

We all know we parents are losing the war against screens. The best we can do is make sure that the kids consume semi-educational things on their screens.

Or, you could you know...assert your authority of being a parent and NOT giving the kids everything they want, including "screens"....or at the very least, be very judicious about when you ALLOW them to use them, and then, take them away.

And your elementary kid does not need a fucking smart phone.

You as a parent has the authority, control and responsibility to make these decisions for your kids....

If you don't have the control over them, then you have more problems you need to catch up and fix than screen time.

Re:My anecdote says other wise

[Anonymous Coward]

While your attribution may (or may not) be correct, do you have more evidence than a correlation?

Because my wife just chatted with an elementary school teacher, and that teacher was quite certain she was seeing a notable degradation of focus skills over the last 15 years, with a sharp drop circa 8 years ago when screens for small children starting becoming common.

Re:My anecdote says other wise

[Anonymous Coward]

This study just refuted your anecdote from a barely educated elementary school teacher. Your desire to not look like an idiot for letting your kids use screens is making you look like an idiot right now.

Re:My anecdote says other wise

[jader3rd]

Why? They seem to be more prepared for entering school than previous generations.

Re:My anecdote says other wise

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, you don't want the screen to be the norm, with taking it away being a punishment. When you try, after the kid spends every waking moment obsessing about it, including during all the school classes, you might find that the reaction is less than desirable.

My 14 yo stepson is completely addicted. This kid can't keep himself occupied without a screen of some kind, and tries to sleep if we take them away, refuses to do anything else, and sneaks around trying to use them. He acts just like a junkie.

We tried to take away his cell phone, which his father secretly gave him, but my wife busted him using. He refused and started physically threatening my wife and i stepped in to hold him back, to which he went on a temper tantrum for about 5 minutes trying to fight with me while I held him, then pulled a knife on us and ran to the neighbors to call the cops. He fabricated a story about how we beat him and were choking him, and punching and kicking him while he was trying to get away, none of which happened. Now we have lost him to CPS and his father and I'm paying thousands to lawyers and psych bills and my wife is facing possible felony criminal charges for it.

All about a damned cell phone.

Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped watching creimer videos and my IQ nearly doubled!

Balance is Key

[scubamage]

I honestly think that balance is key. No, your kid shouldn't be in front of a screen all day every day, and TV and games are never a substitute for parental attention. Kids need socialization, kinesthetic learning, etc. However, the AAP says my 15mo daughter shouldn't get any screen time except for video calls until she's 18mo. I think that's a bit too far. We DO spend a few minutes a day with some learning apps, usually 10min or less. Because of it, she's starting to associate letters with the sounds they make, and she's starting to differentiate different numbers and letters. For her age, that is absolutely awesome. We use endless academy, khan academy kids, and as stupid as it sounds, purina makes a "cat fishing" game for cats which is super simple but seems to be helping our daughter build hand-eye coordination. There are probably a ton more simple things that would be helpful. So, I believe some amount of purposeful screen time used well can definitely benefit even very young children. But it should never be the "only" thing.

Re:Balance is Key

[fropenn]

You can do plenty of learning activities for young kids that do not require screens.

Re:Balance is Key

[scubamage]

And we do. That doesn't mean we can't also do activities that do require screens. It isn't a zero-sum game.

It depends

[Anonymous Coward]

My son is a late talker. I got him a Nintendo 2DS when he was 4. I thought he would like playing Mario (and he does a little bit) but I was surprised to see him gravitate toward the voice recorder app. That app is now far and away the one he uses most. He records himself saying things and then plays it back. I have no doubt that this has helped him with his speech issues.
So maybe it is not kids looking at screens that is the problem. Perhaps it is what they are doing with the screen (or not doing - just staring at it like a zombie).

Make the kids go outside and Supervise them

[Anonymous Coward]

"The wold has only become a safer place since we grew up."

Ok please be a bot otherwise.....Where do you live ffs?
Who in their right mind believes that phrase?!
I could walk alone at night through my old neighborhoods back in the day...but now?
I'm Canadian, almost sixty and immune to nonsense like this but it still gets my blood boiling.
Travel a little and get off the DroneScreen, it's making you say dopy things!

Re:Make the kids go outside and Supervise them

[mmphs]

Well, it really depends on where you live. I am in a central European country, a city of 200k population, and it is MUCH safer than, say, 20 years ago. Of course you can always get into trouble, but in general, it is getting better and better. Somehow, I did not feel even remotely as comfortable when I was traveling the US this year. Especially in larger cities.

In retrospect

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a kid I was limited to 2 hours of 'electronics' per day. This included video games, computer time (one family computer) or watching the television. I was allowed to earn more hourly 'credits' by completing chores above and beyond my typical ones. Also come report card time for each A I earned, I received 8 hour banked hours I could use how I wanted.

I hated this limit when I was younger, however now that I am older I am grateful for this as it forced me to go outside and be a kid more than I would have if I was allowed to sit inside all day. It also made it hard for me to procrastinate as I feel I have to "earn" that time to do pet projects or play games. I saw a lot of peers just play games and procrastinate all day long and I cannot enjoy my free time if I have stuff pending in the back of my mind.

Just my anecdotal experience.

What about for adults?

[BarneyGuarder]

I get way more screen time than I used to and, uhh..., now I, umm...

Oooh! Look at that cat video!

"Study Links..." is tabloid crap for the gammas

[Anonymous Coward]

We can see what the zi-onist owners of slashdot really think of their diminishing willing 'regulars' with this constant laughable yellow journalism that alternates with copy demonising Russia and lionising Is-real.

Even the editors of the Daily Mail have more respect for their visitors that the wahhabi loving owners of Slashdot do.

Do yourself a favour. Go read (or listen- Youtube has so many unabridged audiobooks) 1984, Brave New World, or perhaps Plato's Republic. You'll discover the satanic games played by the owners of Slashdot et al are nothing new.

Remember that Slashdot celebrated the extermination of freedom of conscience in Syria, and then howled like a beaten dog when Russia pushed back the hordes of zi-onist controlled wahhabi butchers and saved the people of Syria from the TRUE face of Torvald's 'political correctness'.

Slashdot uses the ancient FUD method. make the betas and gammas as 'guilty' and 'uncertain' about their life choices as possible. "your kids are this"- "your kids are that". And dribblers waste their lives arguing about the 'merits' of the FUD, rather that dismissing it out of hand.

bullshit study

[jsepeta]

study was conducted by coordinating parents who want their kids to do well in school and don't want them on the computer or cellphone. that's a self-selective group. this study is bunk.

Correlation vs Causation

[gerald.edward.butler]

I think it more likely that the children who listen to their parents about limiting screen time and other harmful activities are the brighter, more creative children. You can only tell a dip-shit so many times to stop wasting their time on garbage and apply themselves to something useful. You can lead a horse to water, but, you can't make them drink.