2023-11-13 16:00:12
In the 16th century, the invention of the printing press facilitated access to books and, with them, knowledge. However, many scholars of the time were alarmed by the effects of the new technology. Conrad Gessner, who compiled a list of all the books published in the first century following the invention of the printing press, said in 1545 that the abundance of books was confusing and harmful to the mind and asked kings and princes to take measures to control the girigay. More recently, in the 19th century, there were fears that schooling would exhaust children’s brains, and, in the early 20th century, that the radio would distract children from reading. In 1985Neil Postman, director of the Department of Culture and Communication of the New York Universityaccused television of pushing society towards “collective stupidity” and of creating a future in which citizens would live in a framework of useless formal freedoms because no one might exercise them out of pure ignorance.
Now some experts warn that the screens of electronic devices have created the first generation of children less intelligent than their parents and those parents are organizing to restrict the use of electronic devices among schoolchildren. However, despite the widespread alarm, there are no abundant, quality studies that help understand the problem. In an editorial In 2019, the medical journal The Lancet stated that “our understanding of the benefits, harms and risks of our rapidly changing digital landscape is painfully poor.” Today, the magazine Nature Human Behaviour publishes a review of studies on this matter with undramatic conclusions. In a work that includes the results of 2,451 studies and almost two million participants under 18 years of age, the authors conclude that the use of screens is associated with risks and some benefits, but that, in any case, the effects are small.
More information
The results show that the ability to read and write and learning in general worsens slightly when more time is spent in front of screens, that junk food advertisements in digital media encourage children to consume it, or that the use of social networks increases slightly the risk of depression. There were some positive effects, which depend more on the use made of them than on the screens themselves. Watching television with parents increased reading and writing skills, and using screens for educational augmented reality programs had positive effects on learning.
“I don’t think the size of the effects we found in this paper supports [que las pantallas] are such a big concern,” he says. Taren Sanders, researcher at the Australian Catholic University and first author of the article. “We found effects, such as the relationship between depression and social media use, that were somewhat worrying, but in most cases we did not find large effects that would make us think that this should be the number one concern.” [para los padres]”, Add. “That doesn’t mean that for some kids it’s not a big problem, but on average it’s probably not the biggest influence on kids’ lives,” she concludes. The strongest correlation found in all studies is 0.2, the same as other studies have found between intelligence and greater height.
Among the main negative effects, the use of social networks showed a strong relationship with risky behaviors, substance abuse or unsafe sex. The authors point out that the companies themselves suggest that their products may have negative effects on the mental health of young people, especially adolescent girls. Among the positive effects, interventions that use screens to promote learning or healthy habits stand out, although they insist that the benefit may not be due so much to the screen as to the use it is given.
“I am the father of a two-year-old child and I try not to catch this hysteria, because I know that there is no scientific justification,” says Borja del Pozo, researcher at the University of Cádiz and co-author of the study. “The negative effects are not so great, nor is every screen bad, it is more complex than that,” he adds. Guides with screen use recommendations such as that of the WHO are very restrictive, despite the fact that no solid evidence of the damage of screens has been found, for fear that the lack of evidence is due to the fact that there is damage that is not being measured good. “With this meta-analysis we have seen that the effects of the screen depend on what is looked at, with whom and for what purpose. If you look at educational content accompanied by educators, the effect is positive,” says Del Pozo. In the article they suggest that these guides warn once morest excessive use of social networks, but consider adapting their recommendations to promote the use of educational applications or video games.
Despite not finding data to justify the alarm, Sanders recognizes that the field of research changes rapidly and it is difficult for researchers to follow technological and content changes. “Social media has the world’s brightest minds continually thinking regarding how to get us to stay 30 seconds longer on Facebook, so it’s not easy for researchers to keep up,” he concedes.
Historical examples show a tendency to worry regarding the effects of new technologies on the human mind, but, in Sanders’ opinion, that is no reason to simply dismiss the potential risks of technologies as powerful as mobile phones. “Historically, we worry regarding what’s new, and when we learn more regarding it, we adapt and integrate it into our lives,” he says. “This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry, but rather we should stop, breathe, and look at the evidence before we get too nervous regarding screen time,” he concludes.
Luisa Fassi, a researcher at the University of Cambridge who was not involved in the study, also believes that the information provided by the studies so far suggests that a “more nuanced” position is needed. “If there is still no evidence, we should wait before making big statements because it might generate panic and a restriction of technology with negative effects,” she believes. “In this matter the evidence is not clear, so I understand that those responsible for public policies have a difficult time deciding.” Fassi believes that parents have a right to be concerned and that it is necessary for researchers to analyze the effects of such a powerful technology. However, as these are ubiquitous devices, it is difficult to establish cause-effect relationships. A person who may have worse mental health or worse grades in class due to the effect of screens or may take refuge in screens in certain difficult situations. The field, with growing social interest, still has much work to do to evaluate how the use of which screens and in what circumstances affects the health or learning of children and young people.
You can follow EL PAÍS Salud y Bienestar in Facebook, X e Instagram.
1699893872
#review #studies #effects #screen #children #adolescents #small #Health #Wellness