Redian新闻
>
屏幕时间对孩子有什么影响?| 经济学人

屏幕时间对孩子有什么影响?| 经济学人

公众号新闻

1



 第十八期写作精品课 
写作课共四位老师
全部雅思8+且单项写作7.5+
雅思、学术英语写作,不知如何下笔如有神?
写作精品课带你谋篇布局
带你预习-精读-写作-答疑
从输入到输出写出高质量英语作文
点击下图,即可了解写作课详情!


2



原文阅读

Science and technology | Digital detoxes


What is screen time doing to children?


Demands grow to restrict young people’s access to phones and social media


Two monthsago Daisy Greenwell and Clare Fernyhough set up a WhatsApp group to discuss how to stave off their young children’s demands for smartphones. After they posted about their plans on Instagram, other parents wanted in. Now their group, Smartphone-Free Childhood, has more than 60,000 followers debating how to keep their children away from the demon devices—a debate they are naturally conducting on smartphones of their own.


This group, based in Britain, is not the only one worried about children’s screen time. Last month the state of Florida passed a law banning social media for under-14s. Britain’s government is reportedly considering a ban on mobile-phone sales to under-16s. The concerns are summed up by a recent book by Jonathan Haidt, “The Anxious Generation”, which argues that smartphones, and especially the social networks accessed through them, are causing a malign “rewiring of childhood”.


In a contentious debate two things are fairly clear. First, smartphones and social media have become a big part of childhood. By the age of 12 nearly every child has a phone, according to research in Britain. Once they get one, social media is how they spend most of their screen time. American teens spend nearly five hours a day on social apps, according to polls by Gallup. YouTube, TikTok and Instagram are most popular (Facebook, the world’s largest social network, is a distant fourth).


Second, most agree that in much of the rich world there has been a decline in mental health among the young. The share of American teenagers reporting at least one “major depressive episode” in the past year has increased by more than 150% since 2010. Perhaps such terms have simply become less taboo, sceptics suggest. But it is more than talk. Across 17 mostly rich countries, there has been a sharp rise in suicide among teenage girls and young women, though their suicide rate remains the lowest of any cohort (see chart).

Are the phenomena linked? The timing is suggestive: mental health began to slide just as smartphones and social apps took off, in the 2010s. Some studies also suggest that children who spend more time on social media have poorer mental health than lighter users. But such correlations do not prove causation: it may be, for instance, that depressed, lonely children choose to spend more time doom-scrolling than happy ones do.

A small number of randomised experimental studies are chipping away at the causal question. In 2017 Roberto Mosquera of the Universidad de las Américas, and colleagues, got a group of Facebook users in America to stay off the platform for a week. The abstainers reported being less depressed than the control group and took part in more varied activities; they also consumed less news.

In 2018 researchers at Stanford and New York University did a similar experiment, again in America. After a month away from Facebook their detoxees felt happier than the control group, spent less time online, more time with family and friends and were less politically polarised. (Again, they knew less about the news, and spent more time watching television alone.) The effects on well-being in both studies were modest.

“The really convincing causal evidence we have is quite limited,” admits Matthew Gentzkow of Stanford University, one of the authors of the 2018 study. But, he argues, most points in the same direction as the circumstantial evidence around timing. “If you put all that together, I think it’s enough to say there is a substantial probability that these harms are large and real.”

Much remains uncertain. The best randomised experiments have been done on adults, who are not the main objects of concern. Most studies focus on Facebook, which these days is a small part of teens’ media diet. And they are mostly in America, which is unlike the countries where most of the world’s teenagers live. A 72-country study last year by the Oxford Internet Institute found that Facebook adoption correlated with a small improvement in well-being among the young.

People’s relationship with social media also defies categorisation. The Mosquera experiment found that, although people said they were happier when they didn’t use Facebook, they nonetheless valued its utility at $67 a week—and, after a week of abstinence, the detoxees valued it even more highly. Asking whether social media are good or bad for mental health is the wrong question, argues Pete Etchells of Bath Spa University, author of “Unlocked”, a somewhat more upbeat book about screen time. Perhaps a better question, he says, is: “Why is it that some [children] really thrive online? And why is it the case that others…really struggle?”

Unless that question is answered, banning phones or social media until a later age would simply delay the problem, he fears. It is also unclear what should be covered by such a ban. Social media include everything from Facebook to the chat function in games like “Fortnite”, points out Dr Etchells. Dr Gentzkow, who supports a higher minimum age for some social media, warns against limiting all of it. “Actual communication with your friends”—by phone, text or video chat—“those may well be things we want to encourage more of,” he says. Most social apps offer a mixture of functions, which can be enjoyed or misused.

There are some signs that, while experts ponder how to rein in the worst of social media, ordinary users are working out how to do so themselves. Posting about oneself in public is becoming less common: last year only 28% of Americans said they enjoyed documenting their life online, down from 40% in 2020, according to Gartner, a research firm. Messages are moving from open networks to private chats. On Instagram, more photos are now shared in direct messages than on the main feed, the company says. As middle-aged folk identify the problems with the social networks they grew up with, youngsters may already be moving on.

3



愿景


打造

独立思考 | 国际视野 | 英文学习
小组


01  第十八期写作精品课 
写作课共四位老师
全部雅思8+且单项写作7.5+
雅思、学术英语写作,不知如何下笔如有神?
写作精品课带你谋篇布局
带你预习-精读-写作-答疑
从输入到输出写出高质量英语作文
点击下图,即可了解写作课详情!


02 经济学人打卡营 

每周一到周五阅读经济学人

并在群里以及小鹅通内写分享

分享是文章的总结或者观点或者语音打卡

字数不少于100字,中英文都可以

群里每周免费分享最新外刊合集


03 早起打卡营 
两年以来,小编已经带着25000多人早起打卡
早起倒逼自己早睡,戒掉夜宵,戒掉手机
让你成为更好的自己,创造早睡早起的奇迹!
早起是最简单的自律!
早起打卡营
欢迎你的加入!
点击下图,即可了解早起打卡营详情!

微信扫码关注该文公众号作者

戳这里提交新闻线索和高质量文章给我们。
相关阅读
饮食、方言、文化 - 香港人和广东人限制中国人在美国搞 AI,美众议院提案对AI产业带来什么影响?“霉霉经济学”:一周时间提振一个国家的经济?《龙珠》创作者鸟山明 | 经济学人讣告第一期经济学人打卡群热火朝天,大家到底在打卡什么,一起来看看吧闻得到味道的屏幕已经有了?你甚至可以舔屏幕来尝味道?奢侈品集团疯狂买楼的背后 | 经济学人财经1万亿特别国债发行计划,对普通人到底有什么影响?日本执政党四面楚歌(二) | 经济学人突然跳水!2600亿汽车股大跌超8%,什么情况?日本17年来首次加息,对各类资产有什么影响...门当户对婚姻,不向上攀跃,不向下兼容;亚马逊Ber招人难困扰直播预告:好的经济学,会烛照社会前进的方向——5月25日,请刘业进、张是之为我们聊聊“奥派经济学”中美举行了人工智能政府间对话首次会议是谁在对上市公司“指手画脚” | 经济学人财经第一期经济学人打卡群到底打卡什么,一起来看看吧还有什么能阻挡英伟达?| 经济学人商业命运动力学:时空双胞胎寿命更长帝国终有落幕时!美国彻底衰落,世界真的会变得更好吗?霸权的丧钟正在敲响......外面的世界对孩子都是新鲜的,家长好好把握和他在一起的时间,充分培养他各种能力AI总结的时空阶梯理论华尔街集体取消Diversity项目,对留学生有什么影响?AMD与英伟达,谁更胜一筹? | 经济学人商业体育娃值得培养吗?山海间对话陈行甲:人生上半场的山顶在哪?经济学人:私募股权枯竭的现金流将会引发更加严重的经济衰退米莱能从秘鲁的经济成功中学到什么? | 经济学人哈佛医学博士:语言暴力会改变大脑结构,对孩子影响巨大数学真正好的孩子有什么特征?深入分析:新“国九条”发布对金融人有什么影响?美国经济能否笑到最后? | 经济学人社论东北文艺复兴丨《经济学人》精读丨文化中国的经济学博士,为什么不懂经济学?上班族和做生意的家庭,培养出的孩子有什么区别?莫斯科恐怖袭击会有什么影响?房地产佣金大变革, 对你有什么影响?
logo
联系我们隐私协议©2024 redian.news
Redian新闻
Redian.news刊载任何文章,不代表同意其说法或描述,仅为提供更多信息,也不构成任何建议。文章信息的合法性及真实性由其作者负责,与Redian.news及其运营公司无关。欢迎投稿,如发现稿件侵权,或作者不愿在本网发表文章,请版权拥有者通知本网处理。