What Science Says about Kids and Tech

Are touch screens rotting the brains of our youth? New research is finding some answers

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In my Scientific Americancolumn this month I noted that it’s typically older people who seem to disapprove of the younger ones' immersion in electronics. Of course that's a typical generational reaction; it used to be the radio that would rot young people’s brains…then TV…and now phones and tablets.

But what does science say about the effect of touch-screen devices on children?

Not much; the touch-screen era is still very young. But a handful of studies investigating intensive device use have emerged, including the ones summarized here. Most seem to suggest that moderation in screen time is a good idea, although some point out benefits. Here are more details about what they found—and how:


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Study: Cognitive control in media multitaskers
Published: April 2009
Subjects: 262 college students
Conclusion: “These results suggest that heavy media multitaskers are distracted by the multiple streams of media they are consuming or, alternatively, that those who infrequently multitask are more effective at volitionally allocating their attention in the face of distractions.”

Study: Adolescents' use of instant messaging as a means of emotional relief
Published: January 2013
Subjects: 150 adolescents
Conclusion: “Findings revealed that IM [instant messaging] conversation significantly contributed to the well-being of distressed adolescents. In addition…introverted participants profited from IMing more than did extraverts.”

Study: Do television and electronic games predict children's psychosocial adjustment?
Published: March 2013
Subjects: 11,014 British five- and seven-year-olds
Conclusion: “TV but not electronic games predicted a small increase in conduct problems. Screen time did not predict other aspects of psychosocial adjustment.”

Study (pdf): Parents' perspectives: Children's use of technology in the early years
Published: March 2014
Subjects: 1,028 parents
Conclusion: “Of children who have a touch screen at home, children of lower socioeconomic status are twice more likely to look at stories daily than their more advantaged peers… All children are more likely to enjoy reading more if they use both books and a touch screen to look at stories, compared to books only.”

Study: Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues
Published: October 2014
Subjects: 105 preteens
Conclusion: “Our study suggests that skills in reading human emotion may be diminished when children's face-to-face interaction is displaced by technologically mediated communication.”

Study:Sleep Duration, Restfulness and Screens in the Sleep Environment
Published: January 2015
Subjects: 2,048 fourth- and seventh-graders
Conclusion: “Sleeping near a small screen, sleeping with a TV in the room and more screen time were associated with shorter sleep durations. Presence of a small screen, but not a TV, in the sleep environment and screen time were associated with perceived insufficient rest or sleep. These findings caution against unrestricted screen access in children's bedrooms.”

Scientific American Magazine Vol 313 Issue 2This article was published with the title “What Science Says about Kids and Tech” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 313 No. 2 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican082015-9dUGX16fqezcFABBCcO3I

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe