logo
Screen time is both a cause and symptom of kids' bad behavior, according to new research

Screen time is both a cause and symptom of kids' bad behavior, according to new research

CNN17 hours ago

Editor's note: Kara Alaimo is an associate professor of communication at Fairleigh Dickinson University. Her book 'Over the Influence: Social Media Is Toxic for Women and Girls — And How We Can Take It Back' was published in 2024 by Alcove Press. Follow her on Instagram, Facebook and Bluesky.
Does your child not listen to you? Do they kick and scream when they get angry? You may need to rethink their screen time, according to an article published Monday in Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association.
The more time kids spent looking at a screen, the more likely their actions and feelings didn't meet expectations for their stage of development, according to a meta-analysis of 117 studies of kids younger than 10½ when the research began.
These socioemotional problems included anxiety, depression, hyperactivity and aggression. The association was small but significant, especially for girls.
The studies were designed in different ways but the overall picture showed that trouble occurred when kids under age 2 had any screen time (other than video chats), when kids ages 2-5 had more than an hour per day of screen time and when older kids had more than 2 hours per day of screen time.
Kids who spent a lot of time on games were particularly at risk. And 6-to-10-year-olds were more likely to develop socioemotional problems than children age 5 or younger.
What's more, kids who experienced these challenges tended to turn to screens even more to cope, which could exacerbate the problem. This was especially the case for boys.
'High screen use isn't just a cause of problems — sometimes, it's a symptom,' said lead author Roberta Pires Vasconcellos via email , noting one of the most striking findings.
'In many cases, children who are already struggling emotionally turn to screens, especially video games, as a way to cope or escape,' said Vasconcellos , who is an associate lecturer at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. 'While that might offer short-term relief, over time it can trap them in a cycle that reinforces those emotional difficulties.'
One of the largest of its kind, the meta-analysis has limitations, however, because it couldn't account for factors such as parenting style or socioeconomic status, Vasconcellos said. And since the studies looked at screen time more broadly, they couldn't pinpoint the effects of social media use on kids' mental health.
Nevertheless, this latest data on kids and screen time suggests specific actions parents or guardians can take to have a real, positive impact on their kids' mental health.
Adults often give kids screens to help them calm down, especially during work time or in other situations when children need to be quiet, such as at a restaurant.
'While this may offer short-term relief, it can lead to longer-term problems,' Vasconcellos warned. That's because it may prevent kids from learning how to behave appropriately and handle their emotions.
'Instead of developing self-regulation skills, they come to rely on screens for comfort and distraction,' she said. 'This can reinforce a harmful cycle where emotional difficulties are masked rather than addressed, making it even harder for children to cope without a screen over time.'
Look for signs that children are reaching for screens when they have a problem. Rather than assuming the problem is the screen itself, look at the bigger picture, Vasconcellos said.
'If you notice your child turning to screens more often when they're upset or withdrawn, it might be time to check in on how they're doing emotionally,' she advised. 'In some cases, they might be seeking the sense of connection or support they're not finding in their face-to-face relationships — at home, at school or in other social settings.'
That's when they need parental support and guidance the most — 'to help them feel heard, understood and emotionally safe, both online and offline,' Vasconcellos said.
School guidance counselors or therapists are also good sources of support.
The amount of time kids spend gaming is also important to note, according to the study.
'Online games, in particular, pose additional risks because they often function like social media platforms,' Vasconcellos said. 'Since these games continue even when a player logs out, children may feel pressure to stay connected for longer periods, which can lead them to neglect important real-life activities like sleep, schoolwork and face-to-face interactions.
'For this reason, gaming may require extra attention and clearer boundaries — especially for older children, who are typically granted more independence in how they use their time.'
It's important to set rules for kids' screen time and stick to them. 'Keeping rules consistent helps children know what to expect and makes limits easier to follow,' Vasconcellos said.
Parental controls on phones and apps are also useful. 'Most devices offer built-in tools to help you manage screen time and filter content,' she said. 'Use these settings to set reasonable daily limits and ensure your child is only accessing age-appropriate material.'
To help prevent kids from depending too much on devices, Vasconcellos suggests removing apps such as video streaming platforms that are particularly tempting. Instead, give kids content that is educational or that serves a good purpose.
The results of this study didn't surprise me. In my research, therapists and teachers often complain that parents or guardians aren't willing to set limits and say no when their kids ask for screens.
When I say no to my own kids, their reactions aren't always pleasant. I have to remind myself that, as their mom, it's my job to know what's best for them and to make decisions that will keep them healthy in the long run — even if it leads to short-term distress for us all.
Limiting kids' phone use is also wise. A newly published consensus statement I coauthored with experts around the globe offers evidence that heavy use of social media and smartphones by young people is linked to problems with sleep, attention, addiction and body dissatisfaction.
When I speak to parents about how to handle their kids' social media use, they often tell me they feel they need to give their younger kids a phone at the same age their older siblings got one. That's not true.
Tell younger kids who make this argument that you are more experienced now and have more data showing how screen time can be harmful.
Also consider attractive alternatives to a phone. One mom told me she offered her daughter $1,600 to wait until she was 16 to get a phone. Her daughter took the cash. While many people don't have that kind of disposable income, you can still be creative and propose other things that kids would like. Sleepovers with friends, or a family camping adventure are just some examples.
No matter what you offer, it's important to rethink the way you let your kids use technology. Since screen time may be both a cause and a symptom of behavioral and emotional problems in children, get comfortable saying no. It may provoke kicking and screaming in the moment, but it will likely lead to better mental health in the long run.
Get inspired by a weekly roundup on living well, made simple. Sign up for CNN's Life, But Better newsletter for information and tools designed to improve your well-being.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse
HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse

Medscape

time43 minutes ago

  • Medscape

HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse

Robert F. Kennedy Jr has threatened to bar federal scientists from publishing in top medical journals. This move risks backfiring on two major fronts. First, it will only accelerate private industry's sway over the scientific record. Second, launching new, government-run journals will demand vast resources and years of effort — and still won't earn the credibility of established publications. With nearly five decades in medical and scientific writing, editing, and publishing — across nonprofit and commercial organizations, legacy print and digital platforms, and both subscription-based and open-access models — I write from experience. To see the flaws in Kennedy's proposal, we need to understand what works and what doesn't in science publishing. Primary, peer-reviewed medical/scientific literature has evolved and thrived in a culture of self-criticism, through letters columns, corrections, retractions, and open debate. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) , The Lancet , and JAMA remain the gold standards in medical publishing because of their rigorous peer review, global reach, and editorial independence from government or corporate influence. Here's where RFK Jr's main objection with the current system seems to lie. The Secretary has portrayed medical journals as hopelessly corrupted by industry. Extensive firewalls, guidelines, and rules have been established to govern the relationship of industry to medical journals. They rest largely on honest disclosure with authors, editors, and readers paying attention. Cracks in those barriers are not unknown. But the solution lies in strengthening these firewalls, not sidelining them. A ban on government employees from submitting to NEJM , The Lancet , JAMA, and other top-tier titles will deliver more power — not less — to pharmaceutical, device, and biotech companies to set the scientific agenda. Far from reducing 'corruption,' such a misguided policy would magnify the role of the very stakeholders RFK Jr decries. And if federal grant support diminishes, the research that is published will become increasingly supported by industry, compounding the mistake. The notion of creating new government-owned medical journals from scratch is not an absurd idea. But Kennedy's illusion of fast-tracking NIH-affiliated "preeminent journals" that stamp federal‐funded work as unquestionably legitimate is a gargantuan endeavor. Building editorial boards, peer‐review standards, submission platforms, indexation in PubMed, and marketing to researchers worldwide takes years of work from countless individuals and would cost a substantial amount of money. Even then, a journal's reputation rests on trust and perceived independence. Readers judge not only the science but also the integrity of the editor–owner relationship. The hazard is that the owner (the government) would have to be trusted by the readers, or no one would bother reading these publications. A government 'house organ' would likely be viewed skeptically if the federal government can withdraw or prohibit publications at will. Banning federal scientists from submitting to journals the administration doesn't like does not cleanse the literature of industry influence — it deepens those ties. And while government-run journals might one day exist, they won't arrive fully baked, credible, or conflict-free. Better to invest in the proven mechanisms of editorial independence, enhanced peer review, and clearer disclosure than in a rushed, state-controlled alternative destined to struggle for trust and impact. If RFK Jr wants a better list of reforms, here's what I suggest: Take on predatory publishers and their fake journals, fake authors, and fabricated institutions and references — a threat that existed even before generative chat powered by artificial intelligence (AI). Take aim at rapacious mainstream publishers, whose excess profit margins and subscription price gouging represent a financial drain on researchers, readers, and academic libraries. Crack down on excessively large author fees to have an article considered/reviewed/published. Promote the publication of reproducibility studies. Raise the alarm about the use of AI in peer view and the creation of manuscripts — including the data in them. These steps aren't as sexy as proclaiming publishing bans for government scientist or launching new journals on whose mastheads you can put your own name. But they have the virtues of solving real problems and not making existing problems worse — which, as a physician, seems like something I've heard before somewhere …

Musk Is the $350 Billion Rocket Man Who Fell to Earth
Musk Is the $350 Billion Rocket Man Who Fell to Earth

Bloomberg

time2 hours ago

  • Bloomberg

Musk Is the $350 Billion Rocket Man Who Fell to Earth

The popcorn emoji is out in force as the world's richest person feuds with its most powerful leader. Even Thierry Breton, the European regulator who was a frequent target of Elon Musk's ire, is at it. Still, as entertaining as the billionaire's spat with Donald Trump may be, it also carries costly lessons for a $630 billion space economy dominated by Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp. — such is the danger of codependence between de facto monopolies and increasingly protectionist states. This danger wasn't high on the agenda at the peak of Trump's bromance with Musk, when the president-elect described SpaceX's reusable rocket revolution in the way a Renaissance monarch might have praised a successful colonial expedition — with a mix of national pride, geopolitical influence and financial potential: ' I called Elon. I said, 'Elon, was that [landing maneuver] you?' He said, 'Yes, it was.' I said, '...Can Russia do it?' 'No.' 'Can China do it?' 'No.' 'Can the United States do it, other than you?' 'No, nobody can do that.' 'That's why I love you, Elon.''

Sen. Warren asks for contingency plans on national security after Trump and Musk's social media fallout
Sen. Warren asks for contingency plans on national security after Trump and Musk's social media fallout

CBS News

time3 hours ago

  • CBS News

Sen. Warren asks for contingency plans on national security after Trump and Musk's social media fallout

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is asking Secretary of State Marco Rubio for information on the Trump administration's contingency plans if billionaire Elon Musk breaches his companies' current contracts with the U.S. amid the ongoing public fallout between him and President Trump. In a letter to Rubio as acting national security adviser and obtained by CBS News, Warren said Mr. Trump and Musk's public disagreements about the upcoming reconciliation bill that escalated into a public online spat could "have serious implications for U.S. national security." The Massachusetts Democrat mentioned Mr. Trump's proposal to terminate Musk's government contracts and subsidies, which the world's richest man followed with a threat that SpaceX would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Musk has since walked back his threat. "No petty social media fight between the president and a billionaire should jeopardize U.S. national security," Warren said. In addition to contingency plans for SpaceX, the senator asked for information regarding the impact on U.S. agencies' satellite communications if Musk's Starlink is turned off. Additionally, she asked Rubio to provide any analysis that the Trump administration has conducted "of its authorities and options under the Defense Production Act to address vendor lock, monopolies, or contractor refusal to meet national security needs." She asked to receive answers to her questions by June 14, whether through a classified briefing or preferably a public response that can be released to Congress and the public, the letter said. Warren has been a vocal opponent of Musk and his involvement in the Trump administration. Last week, she released a report that outlines instances her office has found of Musk benefiting from it. Musk's rocket company has received tens of billions of dollars from the federal government over the last decade, including $3.8 billion in the 2024 fiscal year alone, according to federal records. The bulk of those federal grants are from NASA, which has paid SpaceX billions over the last decade to ferry astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. The agency has also awarded SpaceX upwards of $2 billion in recent years to design and build a lunar lander, as part of NASA's Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon for the first time in a half-century. While the public spat appears to have cooled somewhat, Mr. Trump told NBC News' Kristen Welker in a phone interview on Saturday that he has no plans to make up with the mega-billionaire. "I'm too busy doing other things," Trump continued. "You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him." When asked by a reporter Friday if he's still considering rolling back subsidies to Musk as a money-saving move, Mr. Trump suggested he was open to it. "He's got a lot of money, he gets a lot of subsidy. So we'll take a look at that," the president said on Air Force One. "Only if it's fair for him and for the country. I would certainly think about it, but it has to be fair." This isn't the first time the president has needled Musk over his companies' federal subsidies. In a 2022 feud, Mr. Trump claimed Musk would be "worthless" without hefty subsidies for "electric cars that don't drive long enough" and "rocketships to nowhere." The two mended their relationship then and Musk spent hundreds of millions to help elect Mr. Trump in 2024. The billionaire went on to lead the Trump White House's cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency until last week. contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store