Are Children Really Addicted To Technology?

For youngsters these days, mobile phones, iPads, laptops and other paraphernalia are a part of life. However, are children truly addicted to technology?

Concern about the exposure of young people to screens is not new, but the matter recently took an interesting turn with even some of Apple’s biggest investors, holding $2bn of stock, calling on the company to look at “better controls” of tech use to avoid issues around teenagers’ mental health and self-esteem.

The evidence they cited was worrying: according to a study carried out in the US, “teenagers who spend 3 hours a day or more on electronic devices are 35% more likely, and those who spend 5 hours or more are 71% more likely, to have a risk factor for suicide than those who spend less than 1 hour.” Also, the study found, “teens who spend 5 or more hours a day (versus less than 1) on electronic devices are 51% more likely to get less than 7 hours of sleep (versus the recommended 9). Sleep deprivation is linked to long-term issues like weight gain and high blood pressure.”

I read the results with interest. Over the Christmas break, the McLaughlin family conducted something of an experiment. A ban on all screens – whether on a phone, iPad or TV –was introduced each day until 6pm for a period of one week; TV was then permitted for my three young sons until bedtime. As you might expect, when McLaughlin pater announced this move, there was much wailing and grinding of teeth. The much-anticipated Christmas present of Fifa 18 had just been unwrapped, and there were a variety of gaming apps ready to be downloaded onto my eldest boy’s phone. It took an iron will and a Victorian approach to parenting to enforce the ban on the Tuesday morning.

But, begin it did and the gaping chasm of the last week of the Christmas holiday yawned. One or two events were planned for the afternoons, but aside from that, the post-Christmas lull made for an unspeakably desolate prospect. However, once the initial dismay evaporated, something strange happened: books which were usually only read at bedtime found themselves opened during daylight; long-forgotten board games were dusted off and played with enthusiasm; I even found my youngest child acting out scenarios and stories with his favourite dinosaurs. Truly, a Christmas miracle took place without any sign of Kris Kringle.

What was even more striking was how much more my children spoke to each other. None of them is a teenager, but they do occasionally lapse into silence or monosyllabic utterances when given the opportunity. But no, proper conversations amongst themselves and between them and us as their parents were held. They also played more with each other: cricket and football in the frosty garden, as well as the indoor games.

I would be lying if I said that there never came the plaintive cry to relax the ban; equally, I cannot pretend that the hour when the TV could be switched on was not keenly anticipated. However, what I was struck by was how quickly my children adapted to the lack of electronic distraction. I also noticed, if I am honest, the increased demand on our parenting that the ban required. I daresay that an easy option for busy parents is to (unwittingly or not) passively allow their children to spend rather too much time on devices as a form of babysitting. It’s easily done and it is unfair to be too judgmental.

The final observation on my experiment is also one which is slightly difficult for me to digest. Children model their behaviour on adults, and their parents in particular. The ban reinforced to me how much time I spend on my phone looking at my Twitter feed or “just checking emails”. Castigating children for spending time online can rather remind one of the tale of beams and motes.

So, will the experiment be repeated? I rather suspect it will. School terms are busy, and my children are not able to spend too much time online during the school day, but it feels a good idea for holidays. Also, I have a feeling that the next time we do try it, the resistance will be just that little bit less.