This will also interest you
(ON VIDEO) “Children’s Brains, infinite potential? »: learn to be In this extract from the documentary Children’s Brains, infinite potential? by Stephanie…
If we listen to what people in the mainstream media say, exposure to screens is a real scourge for children. Maternal and child protection doctor Anne-Lise Ducanda suggests in a recent interview for Le Figaro, that a child suffering from an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) whom she received for consultation, transformed when his exposure to screens decreased. Michel Desmurget, neuroscience researcher at the Marc Jeannerod Institute of Cognitive Sciences, warns us during a TV appearance at Daily on the stupefying effect of screens which would create “digital morons” and proposes a remedy: reading great literature because comics and manga would not have any positive effects.
These two personalities express themselves outside their area of expertise: in fact, neither of them regularly publishes in the psychology literature concerning the use and effects of digital tools on children. Dr Anne-Lise Ducanda confuses clinical observation and scientific fact and Dr Michel Desmurget publishes in the scientific literature mainly in the field of fundamental neuroscience.
It seems that the mainstream media have not learned much from the acute period of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the chloroquine affair. We can therefore legitimately wonder if the alarming assertions they make are scientifically based (spoiler alert: they are not). To discuss these complex questions, we interviewed Séverine Erhel, lecturer in cognitive psychology and ergonomics at the University of Rennes who regularly publishes on the use and effects of digital tools and who has just co-published a work on the question of children and screens published by Retz.
The benefits of rational use of screens
Before starting, it is necessary to take a short terminological detour: “the effects of screens” taken in isolation does not mean much. Séverine Erhel prefers to speak “ set of digital activities and practices in a situated context and within a given population”. Clarifications made, Séverine Erhel reminds us that there is no longer any real debate today concerning the negative nature of excessive exposure to screens in general on the whole development: “ It is clear that from 4 to 5 hours of screen time per day for a child between 2 and 3 years old, we observe negative associations between this overexposure, learning and cognitive development.”
Concerning reasoned use, this is much less obvious according to the researcher: “ in the scientific literature, there are numerous results which support that a reasonable amount of time – one hour at 3 years old and up to two hours for older children according to national recommendations – of certain digital activities can be positively associated with certain spheres of the child and adolescent development. Séverine Erhel refers here in particular to a literature review published in 2019 by the team of Yemaya Halbrook, an Irish researcher who studies the psychology of video games, which demonstrates that they can have a positive impact on socio-emotional development and social interactions.
In reality, like any activity, the use of digital technology requires conditions to be effective: “ several meta-analyses highlight the importance of parameters other than just exposure time, such as the quality of the programs offered to the child and especially the co-viewing (literally co-vision, editor’s note). The most beneficial activities are generally those which are targeted at learning and which support the transfer of skills and knowledge to the desired context. explains Séverine Erhel, who refers here to the meta-analyses (on language skills and cognitive development) of the team of Sheri Madigan, a Canadian teacher-researcher who is interested in the determinants of child development and by Christothea Herodotou, a British teacher-researcher in learning technology and social justice.
The excesses of digital
As we said from the outset, digital technology does not only have benefits, and here again, exposure time is not the only relevant variable: “ certain uses of digital tools are problematic: it is not a nanny and ideally it should not hinder parent-child interactions at the risk of leading to cascading reactions which will harm the socio-emotional development of the child “, recalls Séverine Erhel. The researcher is referring here to sadly commonplace behaviors like leaving the TV on in the background or being on our phone while our child seeks to interact with us. More broadly, Séverine Erhel points to the problem of technoference – daily interruptions to interpersonal interactions or time spent together that occur because of digital and mobile technology devices – conceptualized by Brandon Mcdaniel, an American researcher who studies the dynamics family relationships.
Despite these excesses, we must move away from this caricatured and negative image of digital technology because it is no longer in line with what research shows us: “the theory of displacement, which suggests that every second spent looking at a screen is necessarily harmful because we could be doing something else instead, is no longer really taken seriously today. Instead, we prefer the so-called Goldilocks theory, which suggests that the impacts of screens follow an inverted bell curve. In other words, there would be an optimum time for digital activities which would be more beneficial than no screen at all for the emotional and social functioning of children and adolescents. explains Séverine Erhel.
Indeed, we are immersed in digital technology – everyone born in the 1990s grew up with a computer at their fingertips – and therefore not using screens at all would amount to a colossal form of deprivation. This Goldilocks theory allows us to think about digital technology beyond a binary vision where digital uses are either strictly positive or absolutely harmful. Séverine Erhel recalls the words of Bruno Latour, French sociologist, anthropologist, theologian and philosopher of science: “Technique is neither good, nor bad, nor neutral. It does not exist as such, it is part of the capacity to build social relationships. »
The big problem with unfounded alarming messages
You are now able to understand that the alarming messages presented at the beginning of this article are unfounded. They are also dangerous and stigmatizing. “ By taking this type of message seriously, some health professionals could end up not following the recommendations of the High Authority for Health when a child does not have verbal interaction and ASD may be suspected. It is not enough to go see a “screen coach” to manage this type of neurodevelopmental disorder,” says Séverine Erhel indignantly.
For comments concerning reading, Séverine Erhel points out several problems: “ The best predictor of reading skills is the socio-economic level of the parents. It is a problem of social, economic and cultural inequalities. Regarding the type of work, the scientific literature is not clear regarding the effects of manga or comics. However, if we analyze this through the prism of Allan Paivio’s dual coding theory which suggests that we better retain what we learn by associating verbalization with images, we can legitimately have doubts about the total absence of positive effects of these contents”, suggests Séverine Erhel.
Furthermore, Michel Desmurget’s advice seems to completely deny the importance of conative factors, motivational regulations and cultural dynamics. An “effective” activity is above all an activity that provides pleasure. Reading under duress will probably alienate children more from reading than trying to transmit to them the desire to learn and read through elements that are socially and culturally relevant to them.
An essentially political problem
At the end of this analysis, we arrive at this bitter observation: the problem is essentially political. Séverine Erhel develops: “Most of the time, when we look at the statistically negative associations between screens and children’s development, they are greatly diminished by socioeconomic variables. The problem lies mainly in social, economic and cultural inequalities. »
The researcher also deplores the lack of resources in media education. “Digital technology follows the development of children and adolescents. For example, concerning sexting of adolescents which presents certain risks, there is a peak of use around the age of 16 which is very strongly correlated with the start of sexual life. There has always been sexuality between adolescents but most are not properly prepared for the opportunities but also for the dangers that this practice can hide: cyber-harassment, non-consensual transmission, grooming… »
Finally, we must hope that the political body does not use alarmist speeches to place the burden of managing inappropriate uses and the dangers of digital technology on parents or on adolescents and young children instead of proposing policies that reduce the risks. social inequalities (free access to cultural and sporting activities for all, for example). It must also not limit its actions solely to the regulation of technologies with age verification systems in the purest tradition of technosolutionism. They must take stock of the upheaval that took place more than 20 years ago and provide adequate means for media education, preferably at school, with a view to helping the coming generation to better understand and manage your relationships with the digital world.
