Are teens at risk of harming smartphones? Experts disagree
Drazen zigic / getty images
An attempt to reach a science harmony of potential injuries imposed on smartphones and social media that argue researchers to researchers. This failed approval suggests that difficult for policy owners to lean on the existing evidence when deciding how to regulate such technologies.
Valerio Capilero At the University of Milan-Bicocca in Italy and over 100 colleagues, obtained from 11 different disciplines, published a potentially negative use of teen smartphones. “We followed the discussion about the debate, and we thought we might find a common basis between different views,” Carraro said.
Researchers have analyzed 26 detailed claims about the impact of the effects of mental health smartphones, such as severe use of phones or sleep addictions. These claims are removed from The concerned generation by Jonathan Hidt In the New York University, a book influenced by debate on smartphones, but also heavily criticized by some researchers. Hidt himself is also a co-author of the statement.
Each researcher is then rated if they agree with each claim, as well as the strength of evidence that supports claims. Have a wide agreement with many critical points; 99 percent agreed that the teenager’s mental health does not care about the US, with similar trends in other western countries. And 98 percent change that heavy smartphone is used to keep trouble sleeping. More than 94 percent of the surveyed experts agreed that the girls encountered specific issues, including bad comparisons themselves to peers, which should look perfect.
However experts also agree with the same high scale that evidence for these claims is only corcelational, not important. The more strenuous research, including longitudinal studies of smartphone users over time, need to prove a correlation, many have agreed. Overall, while more than 90 percent agreed to have the fault with young people, only 52 supported policy actions such as telephone restrictions at schools.
In spite of that caveat, researchers suggest that no need for an excuse for the discharge of policy makers. “Getting high quality evidence in the effectiveness of policy decisions will always take years, while policies always make decisions in limited environments with limited data,” they wrote.
But researchers who are not involved in the approval statement argues with those who know it, and this also fears social media criticism. For example, Pete Etchells In Bath Spa University, UK, focused about 120 of 288 invited experts from different disciplines participated in the process. He suggested that those who believe that smartphones have a negative effect on teenagers more likely to choose a survey like this – thus plotting the consequences. “I want to see them account for potential experts in their dataset biases,” he said. “I don’t think they do it.”
Etchells, who also Write a book on the subjectWonders how about 288 initially invited experts were selected: “I know I’m not contacting about it any point.” Sonia Livingstone In London schools in economies do not agree to researchers choose to form an aggregate. “The long list is meant to give a sense of balance, but it mainly lists those in one side of the argument. If science is not balanced, it is not,” he said.
Capraro protects the difference in the panel, saying “Thousands of people work on these topics around the world”, and that “cannot contact them all”.
The questions are who participated, Livingstone also uses the issue of claims checked. “The problem is that this is a biased set of questions. They do not ask, ‘There is also evidence (that) social media can improve mental health or a feeling?’ There is also evidence for those, “he said. Capraro said the purpose of research is “represents many views as possible” in a “hot debate subject”.
Topics:
