Slashdot Mirror
Screen Time Has Little Impact On Teen Well-Being, Study Finds (sciencedaily.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Science Daily: Data from more than 17,000 teenagers show little evidence of a relationship between screen time and well-being in adolescents. The study, published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, casts doubt on the widely accepted notion that spending time online, gaming, or watching TV, especially before bedtime, can damage young people's mental health. The research found that adolescents' total screen time per day had little impact on their mental health, both on weekends and weekdays. It also found that the use of digital screens 2 hours, 1 hour, or 30 minutes before bedtime didn't have clear associations with decreases in adolescent well-being, even though this is often taken as a fact by media reports and public debates.
Unlike other studies, the Oxford research analyzed data from Ireland, the US, and the UK to support its conclusions. The researchers used a rigorous methodology to gather how much time an adolescent spends on screens per day, including both self-reported measures and time-use diaries. This is important as many studies are based solely on self-reported digital technology use, even though recent work found only one third of participants give accurate accounts of how much time they spend online when asked after the fact. The researchers were also able to create a comprehensive picture of teens' well-being, examining measures of psychosocial functioning, depression symptoms, self-esteem, and mood, with data provided by both young people and their caregivers. Additionally, the final of the three studies conducted was preregistered, meaning that the researchers publicly documented the analyses they would run before they analyzed the data. This prevents hypothesizing after the results are known, a challenge for controversial research topics.
Unlike other studies, the Oxford research analyzed data from Ireland, the US, and the UK to support its conclusions. The researchers used a rigorous methodology to gather how much time an adolescent spends on screens per day, including both self-reported measures and time-use diaries. This is important as many studies are based solely on self-reported digital technology use, even though recent work found only one third of participants give accurate accounts of how much time they spend online when asked after the fact. The researchers were also able to create a comprehensive picture of teens' well-being, examining measures of psychosocial functioning, depression symptoms, self-esteem, and mood, with data provided by both young people and their caregivers. Additionally, the final of the three studies conducted was preregistered, meaning that the researchers publicly documented the analyses they would run before they analyzed the data. This prevents hypothesizing after the results are known, a challenge for controversial research topics.
Weighs the same as a duck.
Keep on gamin
weighs much less.
Teenagers have to learn how to drive, how to save (money), how to say 'no', how to fuck, how to be (legally) responsible, how to deal with dishonest adults (in authority), how to perform mindless tasks for 8/10 hours. Those lessons require the voice of experience, so the lack of a (honest and helpful) role-model is a serious impairment to growing up. Any teenager not living inside her Facebook or Twitter account, has far bigger problems than Facebook/Twitter.
You may be a counter-example to the findings of this study. Clearly, screen time has had a great impact on your well-being. Now get to bed. You're still a growing boy and you need your sleep. You can leave the light on if you're scared.
You are welcome on my lawn.
YAY!
Fairing that their screen time would be reduced and just generally being teenagers.
Though it seems like this study had a reasonably strict study design, and may be a welcome addition to the body of literature, this claim belittles the adverse findings in systematic reviews and clinical guidelines:
Screen time and sleep among school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic literature review., Sleep Medicine Reviews, 2015:
Effects of screentime on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: a systematic review of reviews, BMJ Open, 2019:
American Academy of Pediatrics Announces New Recommendations for Children’s Media Use, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2016:
I think is a pretty good question.
Slightly on topic, and just posting this here for visibility:
This study was done with the premise of only screens, nighttime usage and specifically adolescence mental wellbeing. There has been a lot of studies but ruling the technology itself out can be helpful so care can be placed properly.
The CONTENTS or more specifically, the usage, of the screen might still be harmful, i.e social media use and mental health[1], video game use and lack of sleep and mental health[2], etc.
Citation: 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... 2: https://www.ingentaconnect.com...
I wonder if there is a correlation between those who are poor at tracking time spent online, and those who are unhappy, though. Time management is the root issue, it's just manifesting as dependence on the tech.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Health wise I think kids spend too much time sitting around watching screens. Maybe their is a physical problem with too much screen time. As well as the negative effects of texting and driving of course which may get you in a serious accident. Since I read more schools are banning smartphones in classrooms, I would say they are at least a distraction if not a limiting factor in education.
That the hullabaloo around screen time before bed and sleep quality sounded a little sketchy. Now what did make absolute sense was the idea that many people, especially teens, were doing things like sleeping with their phones close at hand and waking up to answer texts or whatever in the middle of the night and that was what was killing their sleep quality.
And sh*t. That's how this 'study' can be summarized. Was it sponsored by Google? If you would like to see the evidence to the contrary all you have to do is walk out the door. Developmentally, it is also significantly more so for younger kids.
First, for anyone wishing to read the full study, here is the link.
Second, for those claiming the study may be biased, either through the researcher or its funding, I see no evidence of such. The study came from Amy Orben, a researcher at the University of Oxford, and Andrew Przybylski, a research professor at the University of Oxford.
That being said, here's the problem with this study: it used an open data set. In other words, the researchers did not gather and collect the data themselves, but rather looked through and analyzed publicly-accessible statistical data sets. The two data sets used were "Growing up in Ireland", collected in Ireland between August 2011 and March 2012, from students aged 12-14. The other came from "United States Panel Study of Income Dynamics", collected between 2014 and 2015, where the data contained statistics from children ages 8-17, though the study isolated the data to students ages 12-15 to match the other data set. (More thorough description of the data set can be found in the study, page 6-7.)
Now, in statistics, open data sets -can- be useful. When done correctly, the data can be unbiased, as the data collection is separate from its analysis. Researchers can focus more attention on data analysis and conclusion. But, it has some major downfalls. In particular, if a researcher is not disciplined in understanding what the data sets are measuring, and the data measurements don't align with what the research is trying to measure, well, you're comparing apples and oranges. Such is the case here.
So, let's look at the data sets in this study. "Growing up in Ireland" stats were collected in 2011 through 2012. The most glaring problem is the period of time in the data set. The digital universe was very different eight years ago; far fewer percentages of children had smartphones, modern social media website designs didn't exist (in particular, the infinite scroll), and there was less digital-engagement per day. With the other data set, ""United States Panel Study of Income Dynamics", the data set itself is flawed, because it is not randomized. From the study: "The sample was collected by involving all children in households already interviewed by the PSID who descended from either the original families recruited in 1968 or the 1997 new immigrant family sample. Those participants in the child supplement that were selected to receive an in-home visit, were asked to complete two time-use diaries on randomly-assigned days." So, the data sample was collected from families who were already involved in a previous data sample. I don't have the time to look for an explanation as to how this PSID organization recruited families back in 1968, but my hunch says that there's a strong chance there's serious bias in who they recruited for their study. (I'm picturing white middle-class suburbia.) So, limiting your data sample to descendants of a biased sample leads to another biased sample.
And if the data is corrupt, so goes the study.
In fact, I find it so humorous how the study cities multiple studies that go against this studies conclusions. From the study: "Previous
research found negative effects when adolescents engage with digital screens 30 minutes (Levenson, Shensa, Sidani, Colditz, & Primack, 2017), 1 hour (Harbard, Allen, Trinder, & Bei, 2016a) and 2 hours (Orzech, Grandner, Roane, & Carskadon, 2016) before bedtime. This could be due to delayed bedtimes (Cain & Gradisar, 2010; Orzech et al., 2016) or difficulties in relaxing after engaging in stimulating technology use (Harbard et al., 2016a)." That much research does indicate a s
Maybe Harry, who wants to ban Fortnite, should read the study.
Goddamit I'm trying to drink my coffee!
I hab doe tate bud id by dode.
Thanks.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Good point.
Screen time and screen content: Next study should be about the effects of content.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
This is important as many studies are based solely on self-reported [use or identification], even though recent work found only one third of participants give accurate accounts of how much time they spend online when asked after the fact .
True story, although I read it many years ago in stat class:
Students, as a project for class, covered a medium-small town and collected self-reported church attendance. Sure enough, the "40% attended church each week," figure surfaced.
The students took that information to area churches and the leaders there (several sects) said, "We wish that were the case!"
Suspicious, the team of students surveyed the parking lots of the various churches during hours of worship and counted the cars in the parking lots.
Conclusion? "60% of the population did not attend church in the last week, 20% of the population did, and 20% were liars."
Here's a link to a similar finding:
We should not expect religious behavior to he immune to such misreporting.
Several years ago we teamed up with sociologist Mark Chaves to test the 40 percent figure for church attendance.
Our initial study, based on attendance counts in Protestant churches in one Ohio county and Catholic churches in 18 dioceses, indicated a much lower rate of religious participation than the polls report. Instead of 40 percent of Protestants attending church, we found 20 percent. Instead of 50 percent of Catholics attending church, we found 28 percent. In other words, actual church attendance was about half the rate indicated by national public opinion polls.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
This is just a repeat of same absolutely worthless study, not long ago!!!
If screen time by itself was bad for mental health, what would happen to all office workers who are spending all day in front of screen???
How about study mental effects of spending time on FaceBook/Social-Media ONLY, instead, next time???
(If the goal is really to make a useful study, for common good of general public, that is!!!)
Study funded by Facebook finds screen time has no effect on teen mental health. Study funded by tobacco industry finds no health complications in long term smokers. Study funded by the sugar industry finds fat consumption deleterious. Study funded by the fast food industry finds no correlation between regular fast food consumption and physical well-being.
The big mistake here is in not studying the effects of "social media" usage! Screen time can be good or bad depending on what activities are being pursued. Most mental health professionals agree that "smart" phone addiction is a real mental problem, and is detrimental. Much of the problem is caused by overuse of "social media".
Yay! I didn't break my kids, they did that all on their own!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Just like the 'smoking is safe for you', 'climate is actually cooling' research which were paid by industry insiders...
fortnte, epic, riot games, etc.
You would think slashdot readers would be smarter than fall for this crap.
I am tired of all of this ping-ponging back and forth with them
Screen time is bad
Screen time will make your kid into a drooling zombie
Screen time isn't so bad
Screen time will make your kid into the next Einstein
- so which one is it? These 'studies' are just being done to line their own pockets, and to create scare peices for the media to profit from, and nothing more.