Screen time isn’t hurting kids socially, study finds
Despite being raised in a screen-lit world, today's children make and maintain friendships as well as past generations.
- The dominate cultural assumption claims screen time devastates children's social skills.
- A recent study in the American Journal of Sociology suggests today's children are as socially skilled as the preceding peers.
- Parents need to set screen limits, but research shows they should set limits for themselves, too.
Every good parent has a worrier in them. They worry whether their children are eating right, staying safe, enjoying school, building self-esteem, maintaining supportive relationships, developing good habits, and brushing their teeth well—well, good enough at least.
Lucky for today's parents, older generations have performed the trial runs and scientific studies for many of these concerns. Such research and folk knowledge can provide guidance as they have already weeded out many of the bad practices from generations farther back. There is a notable exception: screen time.
The first members of Gen Z are only now entering adulthood. Educators, pundits, and specialists—many parents themselves—worry this cohort has become socially stunted due to their increased interaction with, and reliance upon, devices for everything from education to entertainment.
But a recent study published in the American Journal of Sociology suggests this concern is overblown.
Screening the evidence
Douglas Downey, professor of sociology at Ohio State University, wanted to test the pervasive cultural concern that today's children suffer from poorer social skills. He teamed up with Benjamin Gibbs, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University, and they did what good sociologists do: They analyzed the best available data.
That data came from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, a program overseen by the National Center for Education Statistics. Each of the program's studies follows a generational cohort from kindergarten to at least fifth grade. It asks teachers, parents, and administrators to assess children on their cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development at home and in school. Teachers assess the students six times from the start of kindergarten to the end of fifth grade, while parents assess their children three times from the beginning of kindergarten to first grade.
Downey and Gibbs compared the data for the class of 1998-99 (19,150 students) and 2010-11 (13,400 students) because, despite both cohorts falling under the Gen Z label, each was raised in wildly different technological worlds.
The year 2010 saw the release of the iPad, the spread of 4G networks, and the launch of the social media decade. But in 1998, screen time was restricted to home-bound TVs and desktop computers—unless you count the endless hours playing Snake on your Nokia 5110.
Despite these dissimilarities, Downey and Gibbs found little variance in how teachers and parents evaluated the children's social skills.
"In virtually every comparison we made, either social skills stayed the same or actually went up modestly for the children born later," Downey said in a release. "There's very little evidence that screen exposure was problematic for the growth of social skills."
Teachers and parents rated children similarly on self-control, interpersonal skills, the ability to form friendships, and how they handled diversity—even after accounting for factors like screen time use and family makeup. Within the cohorts, social skill trajectories remained similar for heavy-use children as lighter use.
The only exception proved children who accessed online gaming or social networking sites many times a day. These children's excessive screen time did lead to a slightly lower evaluation of social skills.
"Do as I say, not as I do"
Despite concern over kids' screen time, parents can spend up to 9 hours a day on digital devices.
Yet, a predominant social assumption is that screen time makes children socially inept. Common sense views screen time as a blue-lit security blanket, a place for children to tuck themselves away from the difficulties of navigating social reality. Unable to interact face-to-face, these children grow to become adult recluses who'll probably live in a trailer lit dimly only by a lone computer monitor.
It's a view expressed by Victoria Dunckley, M.D. and author of "Reset Your Child's Brain," where she writes, "The more a child hides behind a screen, the more socially awkward he or she becomes, creating a self-perpetuating cycle."
Where does this perspective come from if teachers and parents evaluate today's children as socially competent as their pre-iPad predecessors? Downey attributes it to classic moralizing.
"The introduction of telephones, automobiles, radio all led to moral panic among adults of the time because the technology allowed children to enjoy more autonomy," he said. "Fears over screen-based technology likely represent the most recent panic in response to technological change."
There's the classic parental double-standard to consider, too. While our culture worries over children's screen time, parents spare much less thought on how their media use may degrade their relationships and social skills.
By one survey's count, parents spend a staggering nine hours per day glued to their screens. Roughly three-quarters of that time is for personal, non-work use. Of those surveyed, 78 percent believed they were "good media use role models for their kids," the very kids they worry spend too much time on their screens.
Developing a media plan
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, a healthy family media plan includes setting limits and parental engagement.
Screen time may not harm children's social development as much as we fear, but that's obviously not carte blanche for limitless digital distractions. Children's minds and bodies are still developing, and other studies have correlated excessive screen time with deleterious effects on sleep patterns, physical health, and language development.
In a policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics (APP) acknowledges the educational value of managed, well-designed screen time for young children. But its authors similarly acknowledge health and developmental concerns when it comes to content and excessive use.
To help parents out, the association recommends families create a media-use plan to prevent media from displacing other important activities. A good media plan should set limits, promote parent engagement, and incorporate tech-free zones but resist using screens as "emotional pacifiers."
Such media plans must be appropriate to a child's age, too. Teenagers use the internet to build relationships and explore their place in social networks, while younger children may need it more as a place of fun, educational escapism. Parents should also do their research as many programs marketed as educational are anything but.
"If used appropriately, [digital media is] wonderful," Marjorie Hogan, a pediatrician at Hennepin County Media Center in Minneapolis, told NPR. "We don't want to demonize media, because it's going to be a part of everybody's lives increasingly, and we have to teach children how to make good choices around it, how to limit it, and how to make sure it's not going to take the place of all the other good stuff out there."
Downey and Gibbs's study doesn't suggest parents don't need to worry about balancing screen time with face-to-face interactions. It does, however, suggest that parents are doing a better job than they may think and can worry less—though, of course, they probably won't.
- Parents Who Set Limits on Tech Use Have Smarter, Healthier Kids ... ›
- How to cut down kids' screen time? Cut yours too, study shows - Big ... ›
- How does screen time affect kids' brains? The first results of a ... ›
Join Radiolab's Latif Nasser at 1pm ET on Monday as he chats with Malcolm Gladwell live on Big Think.
University of Utah research finds that men are especially well suited for fisticuffs.
- With males having more upper-body mass than women, a study looks to find the reason.
- The study is based on the assumption that men have been fighters for so long that evolution has selected those best-equipped for the task.
- If men fought other men, winners would have survived and reproduced, losers not so much.
Built for mayhem<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjY2NDIyMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMzk4NTQ2OX0.my6nML12F3fEQu3H4G0BScdqgaMZkRQHxgyj-Cmjmzk/img.jpg?width=980" id="906fc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="dd77af7a881631355ed8972437846394" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Image source: Ollyy/Shutterstock<p>The researchers are, of course, talking averages here, not stating a rule: There are plenty of accomplished female pugilists, as well as lots of males who have no idea how to throw a punch.</p><p>Even so, says co-author <a href="https://www.wofford.edu/academics/majors-and-programs/biology/faculty-and-staff" target="_blank">Jeremy Morris</a> says, "The general approach to understanding why sexual dimorphism evolves is to measure the actual differences in the muscles or the skeletons of males and females of a given species, and then look at the behaviors that might be driving those differences."</p><p>Carrier has been interested in the idea that millennia of male fighting has shaped certain structures in male bodies. Previous research has reinforced his hunch:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://jeb.biologists.org/content/216/2/236" target="_blank">When a hand is formed into a fist, its structure is self-protective</a>.</li> <li><a href="https://unews.utah.edu/flat-footed-fighters/" target="_blank">Heels planted firmly on the ground augment upper-body power</a>.</li> <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24909544" target="_blank">A study examined facial bone structure as being especially well-suited for taking a punch</a>.</li> </ul> <p>(That last one is our favorite. Do you know the German word "<a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Backpfeifengesicht" target="_blank">backpfeifengesicht</a>?" It's an adjective describing "a face that badly needs a punching.")</p><p>"One of the predictions that comes out of those," asserts Carrier, "is if we are specialized for punching, you might expect males to be particularly strong in the muscles that are associated with throwing a punch."</p>
Testing the theory<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjY2NDIzMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzMxMTE2MH0.UXJICMy57UPYUWskhK98alctOrPidJL9yxMkz3HDQrM/img.jpg?width=980" id="98718" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b12287684ac3e740b70392e6433a6b8f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Image source: Ollyy/Shutterstock<p>The researchers measured the punching — and spear-throwing — force of 20 men and 19 women. The assumption was that early humans were punchers <em>and</em> spear-throwers.</p><p>Prior to testing, each participant had filled out an activity questionnaire so that "we weren't getting couch potatoes, we were getting people that were very fit and active," says Morris.</p><p>For punching, participants operated a hand crank that required movement similar to throwing a haymaker. The purpose of the hand crank was to spare participants any damage that might be inflicted on their fists by throwing actual punches. Subjects were also measured pulling a line forward over their heads to assess their strength at throwing a spear.</p><p>Even though all of the participants, male and female, were routinely fit, the average power of males was assessed as being 162% greater than females. There were no gender differences in throwing strength recorded. Other untested, though presumably likely, hand-to-hand combat activities come to mind including tackling, clubbing, running, kicking, scratching, and biting.</p><p>Carrier's takeaway: "This is a dramatic example of sexual dimorphism that's consistent with males becoming more specialized for fighting, and males fighting in a particular way, which is throwing punches."</p>
Boys will be boys<p>It, er, strikes us as odd that, even in science fiction — hi-tech weaponry notwithstanding — the hero <em>is</em> going to wind up duking it out with some bad guy, or alien, in the climactic battle. What is it about men punching, anyway? Are they more sexually attractive? The study suggests so:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>The results of this study add to a set of recently identified characters indicating that sexual selection on male aggressive performance has played a role in the evolution of the human musculoskeletal system and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in hominins.</em></p><p>It's tough to contribute to the gene pool after being killed in battle.</p><p>Also, while the authors aren't <em>quite</em> saying that males' historical fighting role is mandated by biology and not by social expectations, neither are they quite <em>not</em> saying it.</p><p>As Carrier explain to <a href="https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff/carrier-punch/" target="_blank">theU</a>: "Human nature is also characterized by avoiding violence and finding ways to be cooperative and work together, to have empathy, to care for each other, right? There are two sides to who we are as a species. If our goal is to minimize all forms of violence in the future, then understanding our tendencies and what our nature really is, is going to help."</p>
Innovators don't ignore risk; they are just better able to analyze it in uncertain situations.
The Labour Economics study suggests two potential reasons for the increase: corruption and increased capacity.
Cool hand rebuke<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyMTIyNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjY1NTYyOH0.0MCPKN3If94mYCNf3mMNrnTvJXjXN_bKLhgk9203EXk/img.jpg?width=917&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=453" id="1627b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6d76421ba1ea0de4b09956b97e80c384" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A chart showing prison population rates (per 100,000 people) in 2018. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.