Written evidence submitted by Dr Peter Etchells (SMH0116)
I am a Reader in Psychology and Science Communication at Bath Spa University. My research focuses on understanding the psychological effects that playing video games (specifically) and using screen-based technologies (broadly) have on humans. Over the past decade, there has been a persistent cycle of moral panic in the national media about the effects of using such technologies, and in many ways, these echo the moral panics that society has encountered in the past, for example concerning ‘video nasties’, comic books, table top roleplaying games, and other forms of entertainment. Over the past year or so, the cycle has started to focus on concerns about childhood and adolescent wellbeing; some commentators have made the argument that wellbeing is currently in decline, and that this is directly attributable to ‘screen-based sedentary lifestyles’. However, the evidence supporting this link is lacking.
The best available scientific evidence that we have for understanding the relationship between screen time and wellbeing is from a research paper from 2017 by Przybylski and Weinstein1. Using data from 120,000 English adolescents, the study found that the relationship between screen use and wellbeing is best described by an inverted U-shaped function. In other words, moderate amounts of screen time are associated with higher levels of wellbeing than no screen time at all. The point at which wellbeing levels start to decline after reaching a peak varies, depending on the type of screen time in question (video games, television/movies, smartphone use, etc.) and the time of week (in some cases higher levels of screen use appear to be more manageable at the weekend, for instance). Critically, this study is one of the very few in this area to adhere to the principles of open science. The data are freely available for anyone to view and assess, and the analysis method was ‘preregistered’ – that is, the analysis was put in place before the data were collected, so as to protect against the possibility that, post-data collection, researchers could ‘tweak’ the analysis method in order to get the results they wanted (for an overview of the importance of preregistration, see Chambers, 20142).
Not only do moderate amount of screen use appear to have a positive impact, but the oft-cited claim that screen use leads to a sedentary lifestyle is also disputed. A number of studies suggest that TV watching and video game play are largely uncorrelated with non-sedentary activities – in other words, it is not the case that screen time and outdoor play are mutually exclusive, and time can be made for both3,4,5. Importantly, some studies6 suggest that the relationship between screen time and physical activity varies from country to country. As such, policy implementations that aim to improve physical wellbeing by recommending reductions in screen time may either (a) not have the intended effect if based on guidelines developed in other countries, or (b) not have the intended effect at all.
In general, psychological research that looks at the effects of screen use is in its infancy; there is very little high-quality research that has been published so far, and the practical effect of this is that there are a number of key gaps in our knowledge. Importantly, we do not have a useful operational language in place to talk about screen time effects – ‘screen time’, in the context of experimental and longitudinal research, is a meaningless term, as is the focus on the amount of screen use. Instead, we currently need much more research looking into two important and interrelated factors. The first is that the context in which children and adolescents use screens will likely play a much more important role in shaping behaviour than sheer quantity of screen time. We currently know very little about the family and peer situations in which screens are used – for example, I have previously argued7 that playing video games alone will likely produce different effects on behaviour than playing a game cooperatively with a friend, or competitively with someone online. Similarly, giving a tablet to a child to use on their own for an hour will arguably have a different effect than if a parent, friend or sibling uses the tablet with them in a shared social experience. However, what the precise nature of these effects are, and whether they are meaningfully different form each other in any way, has not been the focus of serious study.
The second important factor is that of content – namely, is it the case that an hour of watching an age-appropriate television is different to using social media for an hour, or playing a video game for an hour? Some research has attempted to differentiate between these different types of screen time, but there is very little, if any, conclusive evidence that has made serious attempts to quantify precisely how individuals are spending their screen time. Some of this has occurred within domains – for example, work that we have recently conducted looking at the effects of playing violent video games on aggression8 attempted to account for different types of game genre – but we are still at a very early stage in terms of categorising screen content in a meaningful and operationally useful way.
As noted above, future research needs to more specifically focus on the interrelated effects of screen use context and screen content, in order to provide a more complete picture of how using different types of social media, or playing different types of video games, or watching different types of movies/TV/YouTube shows, affect our wellbeing and behaviour. Given that many people do some or all of these things, it is important to take a holistic approach that also considers other, non-screen-related factors that may also impact more directly upon wellbeing. Critically, given the cycle of media hype and scaremongering about the effects of screen time, such research needs to be conducting in accordance with the principles of open science. The best research that we can do in order to support appropriate evidence-based policy guidelines will: (a) make any data, materials and analysis scripts openly and freely available for scrutiny by other researchers; (b) be preregistered; (c) be replicated, and (d) be published in open access journals. In order to conduct this kind of high quality research, targeted funding calls by research councils and charities need to be developed.
April 2018
1. Przybylski AK, Weinstein N. A large-scale test of the Goldilocks Hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychological science. 2017 Feb;28(2):204-15.
2. Chambers C. Psychology’s ‘registration revolution’ The Guardian 2014, URL: https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/may/20/psychology-registration-revolution
3. Biddle SJ, Gorely T, Marshall SJ, Murdey I, Cameron N. Physical activity and sedentary behaviours in youth: issues and controversies. The journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health. 2004 Jan;124(1):29-33.
4. Hinkley T, Salmon J, Okely AD, Trost SG. Correlates of sedentary behaviours in preschool children: a review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2010 Dec;7(1):66.
5. Gebremariam MK, Bergh IH, Andersen LF, Ommundsen Y, Totland TH, Bjelland M, Grydeland M, Lien N. Are screen-based sedentary behaviors longitudinally associated with dietary behaviors and leisure-time physical activity in the transition into adolescence?. International journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity. 2013 Dec;10(1):9.
6. Melkevik O, Torsheim T, Iannotti RJ, Wold B. Is spending time in screen-based sedentary behaviors associated with less physical activity: a cross national investigation. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2010 Dec;7(1):46.
7. Etchells PJ. What is the link between violent video games and aggression? The Guardian 2013, URL: https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2013/sep/19/neuroscience-psychology
8. Etchells PJ, Gage SH, Rutherford AD, Munafò MR. Prospective investigation of video game use in children and subsequent conduct disorder and depression using data from the Avon longitudinal study of parents and children. PloS one. 2016 Jan 28;11(1):e0147732.