NPR, the Daily Mail, and other outlets are trumpeting the results of a study published in Computers and Human Behavior: The spin is that digital devices leave kids emotionally stunted. But that conclusion is not supported by the study which is, in fact, pretty poorly designed.
Researchers examined kids' ability to assess non-verbal emotion cues from still photos and from video scenes from which dialog had been removed. These assessments were made pre- and post-intervention.
The intervention is where things get weird. The press has it that the main intervention was the removal of electronic devices from children's lives for five days. In fact, the experimental group went to a sort of educational nature camp call the Pali Institute. While control subjects went to their regular school, experimental subjects participated in activities like these:
Researchers examined kids' ability to assess non-verbal emotion cues from still photos and from video scenes from which dialog had been removed. These assessments were made pre- and post-intervention.
The intervention is where things get weird. The press has it that the main intervention was the removal of electronic devices from children's lives for five days. In fact, the experimental group went to a sort of educational nature camp call the Pali Institute. While control subjects went to their regular school, experimental subjects participated in activities like these:
This study could almost serve as a test question in an undergraduate research methods course. In the results section, the authors conclude "We found that children who were away from screens for five days with many opportunities for in-person interaction improved significantly in reading facial emotion." As should be obvious from the Table, there were a host of differences between what the experimental kids and the control kids experienced.
In the discussion the authors do allow "We recognize that the design of this study makes it challenging to tease out the separate effects of the group experience, the nature experience, and the withdrawal of screen-time." But then go on to say "but it is likely that the augmentation of in-person communication necessitated by the absence of digital communication significantly contributed to the observed experimental effect." That's a mere wish. We in fact cannot draw any conclusions about the source of effect.
It's a shame that news outlets are not more discriminating in how they report this sort of work.
In the discussion the authors do allow "We recognize that the design of this study makes it challenging to tease out the separate effects of the group experience, the nature experience, and the withdrawal of screen-time." But then go on to say "but it is likely that the augmentation of in-person communication necessitated by the absence of digital communication significantly contributed to the observed experimental effect." That's a mere wish. We in fact cannot draw any conclusions about the source of effect.
It's a shame that news outlets are not more discriminating in how they report this sort of work.
