Blog Post #4

So far, my exploration has been purely researching to understand the effects of increased amounts of screen time (ST) both recreationally and during work, and the more prominent technological mediums of ST. The sentiment from psychologists and doctors are similar in that screen time must always be managed for optimal health, especially for young children in their developmental stages. I still have many questions about not only the effects of screen-based activities brought on by technological advancement but also how humans will incorporate these changes into our lives in a healthy way.

My original question has branched off to exploration in many other aspects of our life, considering a much larger technological presence than the past. Throughout my research, I have found more information that leans toward the negative impact of screen time than positive. For instance, Loss of grey matter, impaired dopamine functioning, and compromised white matter integrity are all associated with internet/gaming addiction (Dunckley). I think it would be very interesting to argue for regulations on screen time for both school students and employees. The benefits of having information at the touch of a button are clear, but with more and more application for technologies, our needs are being digitalized and I question, are we taking into account human biology and our equal needs for physical activity?

In my research paper, I would like to expand my argument to include the decline of sports participation in high schools. For most sports, participation rates on a regular basis keep declining, with only gymnastics, lacrosse and ice hockey experiencing increases between 2008-16 (Aspen Institute). This trend is concerning because as most of our needs are made more easily attainable through technological improvement, our physical needs have not declined, and I would argue neither should our desires to be physically active. It also seems that the overarching phenomenon of sedentarism is a feature of a shift in social priorities.

www.aspeninstitute.org

Dunckley, Victoria. “Gray Matters: Too Much Screen Time Damages the Brain.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mental-wealth/201402/gray-matters-too-much-screen-time-damages-the-brain.

Blog Post #3

In A study conducted by the International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE), a group of 563 Kenyan children between the ages of 9 and 11 were surveyed for associations between recreational screen time and negative health factors. They also examined sedentary time daily such as sitting in a car as well. The studies concluded that “children with the greatest sedentary time (ST) per day have the highest prevalence of overweight and obesity regardless of age, race/ethnicity, or family income.” Correlations were also found between ill health habits and sedentarism. ISCOLE recommends no more than 2 hours daily of recreational screen time, which sounds very limiting compared to the American average of 9 hours a day (Common Sense Media). I think to achieve the healthiest diet of technology, a radical shift in the priorities of the average person would have to change. Technology is embedded in almost every task and increasingly so. How would citizens react to a law that limits screen time required from work?

In an article written in Scientific American, I came across an intergenerational social defect of too much screen time. Catherine Steiner-Adair, a clinical psychologist noted that children learn by watching their parents. Other than feeling ignored, a child may experience what psychologists have called “still face phenomenon” in which a child poorly learns nonverbal cues because his or her parents are always looking at a screen. The article goes on to suggest that if parents use screen time for shared activities with their child, they can actually bond and “enhance the child’s learning.” I’m not sure I agree with this additional point entirely because it seems to draw attention away from the original issue of “still face phenomenon” which I assume could still manifest if habits of screen time are not addressed by parents as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if still face phenomenon becomes more prominent in general as screen use rises. 

In the article by Lucy-joy Wachira, the correlations between sedentarism and obesity/negative health factors were stated clearly, focusing mainly on the physical impacts. Steiner-Adair's article differed in that the focus was on the mental side and I believe she missed her point. Ultimately I think both authors understand the need to increase the power and presence of technology in the world. The correct pace to proceed and how to control the pace is the question I believe to be solved.

Photo- Pexels 

www.scientificamerican.com

https://frccwc.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=130380615&site=ehost-live

Blog Post #2

Only a few young generations have experienced screen time at the level of daily use that is standard today. In “What Screen Time Can Really Do to Kids’ Brains” Liraz Margalit, a Ph.D. in Psychology, states some educational advantages of technology use for children and explores the negative side effects of hours spent viewing and interacting with screens. Among the positives, Margalit mentions the development of communication skills and learning opportunities are intuitive and abundant. 

However, to be an effective tool for the educational development of children, its use must be limited. Dr. Aric Sigman warns that too much screen time may have the adverse effects such as decreased ability to focus and difficulty sensing others attitudes. The key is when and how much, screen time should be most regulated during the first three years of a child’s life, this is the period that “medical circles” refer to as the critical period. 

Margalit then offers fair reasoning that excessive stimuli and “the ability to process multiple actions simultaneously” is what causes the sort of attention deficit warned about.

The advice is actually very lenient by my own standards. Any activity that people conduct so frequently should be studied for addictive properties, especially relatively emergent activities such as screen time.

Sarah Domoff, a research professor at the University of Michigan echoed the same notion that screen addiction was best caught early between the ages of four and eleven. Where Domoff differed from Margalit was the analysis of what constitutes the issue. Domoff listed warning signs of screen addiction that wasn’t dependent on the amount of time spent on screens but on the behavior exhibited because of screen time or lack thereof. Some of the traits listed were a loss of interest in other activities, frustration when screen time is limited, and causing problems with other aspects of their life. “Kids who use media in unhealthy ways have problems with relationships, conduct, and other emotional symptoms,” Domoff said.

So far, my focus has been on the causes of screen time addiction and the related symptoms. I wonder though if the data is skewed by the fact that generally, every child has some exposure to screen time. Behavioral differences would be most evident at the extremes of no screen time vs a lot of screen time. Although, I am unsure if the comparison to a child with no screen time as a controlled variable would be realistic considering that zero daily screen time for anyone is practically unheard of nowadays.

www.psychologytoday.com

news.umich.edu