Given the likelihood that novel vaccines will be developed to respond to future pandemics, conducting rigorous research in a timely fashion can help shape the development and implementation of programs offering financial incentives to increase vaccine uptake.
it will be interesting to see if this experience makes people trust or distrust researchers more
herefore, although we found that the positive impact of incentives on COVID-19 vaccination tends to be small, similar to a previous review (Schwalbe et al., 2022), these effects may be meaningful at a population level.
extrapolated across 8 billion people, the seemingly insignificant results become much more apparent
sociodemographic characteristics
to me, these are the most interesting influences and some of the strongest, as the word of peers and what media you consume has such a stronghold on the things that make up your personality. the heaviest influences are from those who we know and trust, and we of course always want to do what the leaders we trust say to do.
Additionally, findings indicated that awareness of incentives due to media reporting may have increased vaccine uptake for the first lottery compared to the second two, which were much less publicized.
this is a small glimpse of what media can do for the experiment, as they can also twist the wording of the lottery to make it seem like a very good or very bad thing depending on the program, which can affect the thinking of their viewerbase
one used an observational design and two used correlative analytic frameworks.
like i said, my statistics knowledge is limited, but why would they use an observational and correlative design since they cannot establish causation?
Specifically, most studies of vaccine uptake (12 out of 19) supported positive effects of incentives on uptake while studies of vaccine intentions were inconclusive.
i think this is probably the main takeaway from this whole experiment: money will get people to take the vaccine, but it wont convince them to change their ideals
$49–75
this is about the range i had in mind as well before reading of what would make most people agree to take the vaccine regardless of their beliefs
No studies found that incentives negatively influenced vaccine uptake.
interesting and a pretty telling sign of the grip that money understandably has on people as a whole
Vaccine intention: costs of incentives
this entire paragraph is a great way to compare the different social climates and viewpoints towards money in different countries, as they have differing opinions of what constitutes a lot of money
Two found that incentives increased intentions (Robertson et al., 2021b; Iyer et al., 2022) while the remaining found null or mixed effects.
this is a pretty telling detail of how timing of the incentive can greatly effect the amount of people that take it, as people would likely be less inclined to take the vaccine with an incentive if more people have not taken it, because then they would see that and doubt its effectiveness
Notably, two of the three studies concluding that incentives may weaken vaccine intentions (one a randomized survey design (Serra-Garcia and Szech, 2022) and the other an observational design (Sargent et al., 2022)) found that those less supportive of the vaccine overall, as measured by trust in the vaccine or political views, were also more likely to respond negatively to incentives
this also makes sense, as someone who is skeptical of the vaccine would likely only grow more skeptical of its efficacy if they "need" to pay people to take it
As the same participants were exposed to all incentive conditions, participants' comparisons of small to large incentives may have biased their responses.
this could also be due to some class differences i mentioned earlier, as a millionaire will not be as likely to take a 25$ or even a 5000$ incentive to take a vaccine compared to a struggling college student who would more likely gladly take any opportunity to earn more money to help them financially. different people have different viewpoints of what constitutes "a lot" of money.
These studies also found that different lottery structures did not impact vaccine intentions
this makes sense as most people would simply be motivated by the money, since being paid is usually independent of any values or beliefs you hold
While one study found that Republican-leaning states were less responsive to incentives
this is the political ideology difference i was eluding to earlier, as I have noticed that Republicans generally lean more anti-vax nowadays and would be more paranoid and apprehensive about being paid to take a vaccine
these programs were effective in some states but not others.
what could cause effectiveness of a lottery to be higher in one state compared to another?
The authors concluded that geographically targeted vaccine lotteries have an upper bound of a 9% increase in vaccine uptake.
This makes me want to learn about what it is about lotteries that are so intriguing to humans as opposed to guaranteed money
lotteries as opposed to guaranteed payments
this is another interesting way to test the brains of the participants at the same time, as most people are intrigued by the idea of a lottery compared to guaranteed money as basic human nature, so its interesting to see that tested in this study as well
$10 to $5 million
again, this is a very wide range and will produce very interesting results based on what incentive was distributed where, as well as the class of the person it was distributed to
300 to 37 million
this is a very wide range of participants and could possibly produce some skewed results in lower sample sizes
Sweden, Germany, India, Israel, Serbia
these give 5 extremely different settings politically, geographically, and socially, and would produce very interesting results to compare to each different location
Vaccine intention was typically measured by asking participants to rate their intention, willingness, or likelihood of getting vaccinated.
as long as the participants are truly honest, a self report is the only true way to get results on opinionated topics such as this one
Methods
after reading, it sounds like a very complicated and sound way of analyzing the studies to come to a convincing conclusion. There are instances where I dont 100% understand the language they use since statistics has never been a strong point, but I can understand most of it and can tell that it is a well made and strong study.
only quantitative studies were included in the review
while i obviously understand why quantitative studies were included since they wanted to find how much money would be needed to convince them to take it, couldn't they also have added a qualitative dimension to it on a more basic level by simply measuring if they took it after being offered an incentive, regardless of how large the incentive is? It would give much broader, context independent information, but could have added another layer to the study regardless.
When abstracts were deemed relevant to the review topic, we screened full texts; a total of 98 full texts were reviewed. At each stage, two authors reviewed each abstract or full text and disagreements were resolved by a third author. We identified 38 studies for inclusion in the review.
this is an extremely strong way of ensuring strong data from these studies, having multiple proofreaders and still coming away with a sample larger than 30 to fulfill the requirement for statistical significance
Prior reviews also reached varying conclusions, finding that the evidence for incentives is mixed
this is to be expected as incentives and money in general makes everyone act in their own, unpredictable ways; they are variables that can be thrown into any experiment and produce wildly different results than expected
Several reviews have shown that financial incentives can increase health behaviors, including exercise, attendance of medical appointments, and abstinence from substances
While not terribly surprising, it is slightly sad to me that some people truly have to be offered financial incentives in order to simply take care of their body
have significant health risks
this is my main gripe with the people that become more hesitant about the vaccine once it becomes clear that the developers want everyone to take it no matter what: if they truly, truly had doubts about its effects or thought that it would harm more than hurt, why would they desperately want to distribute it? Theres no real reason for them to badly want to distribute a vaccine that is going to hurt the general population, not even a financial one
Overall, fears about financial incentives decreasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake are not supported by the evidence. Financial incentives likely increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.
These results are not overly surprising, but if the opposite results of each study outcome had occurred, that wouldn't be terribly surprising either.
Additionally, income and political affiliation may moderate responses to incentives.
This also makes sense for reasons noted earlier, as vaccines have sadly become a political tool used by opposing viewpoints rather than being seen as a common good that is a miracle of modern medicine
While three studies concluded that incentives may negatively impact vaccine intentions for some individuals
This would also make sense for a lot of the same reasons noted before, as incentives could be seen in the viewpoint of "wow, if they have to pay me to take it, then that means nobody is taking it and I shouldn't either".
For studies of vaccine uptake, none found that financial incentives had a negative effect on uptake, and most rigorous studies found that incentives had a positive effect on uptake
This does make sense, although if the incentive had a negative effect it wouldn't be the most surprising thing, since I could absolutely see some people interpreting this as desperation to distribute a costly mistake and being turned away from it completely.
(k = 18)
In my limited statistics education, I remember being taught that a sample size of 30 was the minimum necessary in order to make convincing conclusions, is this any different? Wouldn't 18 and 19 studies not be enough studies to be analyzed in order to draw conclusions? If I am missing something, please correct me.
March 2022
Well within the 5 year limit I have always bee told to follow in order to be considered relevant research, as well as possibly being more relevant for this specific topic since the articles would be taken from a period where the COVID vaccine was relatively new and facing more scrutiny from the public than nowadays, likely due to it's relatively quick development.
the cost of incentives per additional vaccine administered
before reading the rest of the article, the main question that springs to mind is, what is the price that makes most people change their mind? Even if the incentive makes them decide to get it, does it truly change their mind about the vaccine? Do they hold their same values and are just more motivated by money?
Financial incentives are a controversial strategy for increasing vaccination.
combining 2 large talking points in modern society (COVID and vaccines) adds fuel to the flames of many already divisive talking points in both a medical and political sense, as opposing stances on such issues have become integrated into opposing political ideologies.
In summary, positive psychological cognition, as a form of psychology, is important for theprogress and development of students in the computer industr
promoting healthy screen usage can help foster a love for screens without becoming an addiction, which can lead to technology being used for its intended purposes
eachers shouldactively guide students to set industry role models and help them to plan their careers in the daily teachingproces
this is a good thing to reinforce later in schooling but elementary schoolers should still be open to many careers rather than focusing specifically on one since they can still change so much in the years leading up to adulthood
Fourthly,
not relevant but thats the second time they say fourthly and i find that funny
Positive emotions are the key to a healthy mental state and can be highly effective in improving the qualityand efficiency of learning.
this has been proven true in psychological studies: you learn better when in a good mood compared to a bad mood
so that they canbetter accept their own shortcomings
this could be taken a few ways; on one hand its good to have an attitude of "everyone is different, play to your own strengths" but on the other hand, it seems like theyre saying only focus on your strengths rather than improving your weaknesses, which shouldnt really be a teachers philosophy especially in elementary schoolers
ach student has certain characteristics in learning, soteachers need to guide students in the teaching process to digest negative emotions and work positively tobuild self-confidence and reduce the impact of external factors on themselves.
this is how tech should be used in the classroom but most teachers and parents just give them largely unsupervised ipad time that can hinder development
The integration of positivepsychological cognitive behaviour, a psychological theory developed in the 1980s, into the teaching ofcomputing requires teachers to look at problems with appreciation and encouragement, to explorestudents' potential strengths, to increase the quality of students' self-awareness, and to further promotethe development of computing education
it at least seems like china is very dedicated to developing a positive attitude towards screens and teaching people the most effective way to use them rather than how it is in the USA
students will later work in related industries, which aremore competitive in society, and therefore need to pay more attention to self-cognition and students'psychological health in the preliminary education wo
this is true since technology is a growing industry but we shouldnt force kids to be more tech proficient just banking on the fact that theyll go into tech when theyre older
this stage,however, there are serious gaps in educators' understanding of students, and this lack of understandingcan reduce students' understanding of themselves
this echoes the sentiments i share in the fact that a lot of the problem with technology's effects on children stems from adult negligence, and it shouldnt be expanded upon if we cannot trust everyone to use it responsibly
interactive and noninteractive
because so many things nowadays have built in screens that allow you to navigate them electronically, children will be working with interactive videos more and more as they grow older, which makes this a relevant topic of discussion despite the article being nearly a decade old
Findings from the current experiment build on the extant literature by demonstrating that toddlers may learn more from interactive media than from noninteractive video
therefore, dont leave your child unattended with a screen, help them
when asked to find the toma, suggesting that they mapped the word to the object but only in the context of the video
the specification of the object helps imprint it in their mind better
The nonlinear age effect may be explained by differences in the amount of information encoded.
i also wonder if it has something to do with the ability of toddlers to recognize any language sounds no matter what is spoken at home, an ability that decreases with age but is very prevalent in young infants
Studies using other types of tasks also suggest that 30 months is a transition point for children with respect to learning from video
this is the beginning of the preoperational stage in psychology, where children begin to use symbols and word association as well as understanding logical operations, which is why learning basics is so important in this stage
While specific contingency facilitated learning by the youngest 2-year-olds
this is because 2-7 years is the age range where they begin to develop the ability to differentiate between reality and fiction
This is consistent with findings that young children fail to disambiguate when using noninteractive video
they also have troubles doing this at such a young age anyways, not just with screens but with scale models converted to real life
One potential explanation for the benefit of contingency is that it increases engagement and enables self-pacing.
yes, and can be expanded upon with adult intervention as well
However, learning increased only with contingency that required specific responses,
deliberation in the decisions you make and the things you click imprints the knowledge in your brain more and makes you pay more attention to what you are learning
Finally children in the oldest age group performed above chance in all three conditions, and chi-square tests revealed nonsignificant differences between conditions (ps > .500).
this is what i predicted would happen, it makes sense that it occurred in the oldest age group
The pattern was such that performance was high for the youngest children, decreased with age until about 30 months, and then increased for older children.
this is an interesting curve to generate, you would obviously think it would be a positive slope the entire way
7.43 with interactive media
this also is probably far far higher nowadays
81.72% reported that they let their child use tablet computers.
this number is probably closer to 100% now unfortunately
She then asked the child to identify the modi.
this would most likely confuse the child who hasnt been given this label, but maybe they are too young to understand they havent been told this
toma
this will make them remember it more because it was specified earlier on, and therefore differentiated from the rest
the toma
it seems like they chose this so that it would be a word the child had not heard before since it doesnt actually exist, as well as making it different from the other objects since none of the other ones were labelled as anything other than general terms
Specific contingent: The actress instructed children to “touch the box” to see the object. The video paused until children touched the box that was indicated by the actress (Figure 1); touching anywhere else on the screen had no effect.
this should hypothetically work the best since it gets the childs brain working and engaged
Parent education averaged 19.23 years
this feels like its way above the national average, as that implied that theyre sampling parents with at least a little bit of graduate school experience
For instance, if the benefit of contingency requires true social interactions with a live social partner (responds reciprocally; supplies accurate, personally relevant information), then we would expect performance to be similar in all three conditions, given that all conditions used pre-recorded video that lacked real social interactions with a live partner.
before reading the rest of the article, this is what i would predict to happen, with generally better results from the third condition. however, i think the results generated in this study would be dwarfed by the amount learned with real social intervention rather than just on a screen
with instructions to touch a specific spot on the screen.
logically, this seems to be the obvious answer for the optimization of learning
During the search task, children who pressed a button outperformed those who passively watched the video
this is the same reason that taking notes works so well even if you dont study them later; writing it down imprints it in your mind stronger and helps you remember it later
They showed 30- and 36-month-olds videos of puppets hiding in an adjacent room, and then asked children to enter the room and find the hidden puppets.
lots of studies show that this actually wouldnt be possible until the child is 7
Children who experienced live interactions—either in person or via video chat—learned more than those who watched yoked video
yet again proving that the key to technology is moderation and monitoring the usage
Despite claims that videos (Garrison & Christakis, 2005) and mobile applications (Shuler, Levine, & Ree, 2012) are educational,
they are educational when paired with adult intervention and assistance in learning
38% of infants (0–2 years)
zero reason for any child of this age to have one
8% in 2011 to 40% in 2013
this is almost certainly far higher today in the wake of the pandemic and the fact that technology is more easily accessible than ever
with instructions to touch a specific spot (location of labeled object)
this is more what i want to see since a majority of computers built into objects have menus that tell you what to do
found that hospitals with CPOE did not havelower error rates than hospitals that used nurse or pharma-cist order entry.
this is about as good of evidence youll find for technology being a hinderance to the betterment of humans
Computerizing the prescribing process makes intui-tive sense, and the belief that CPOE systems will reducethe high reported numbers of medication errors stokes thatenthusiasm.
prescriptions seem like something that shouldnt be automated
This example shows a general problem of tight com-puter control over complicated medical processes
its probably better to have tight deadlines for things like that than it is to not have them
and it definitely increases theirworkload and takes more time away from direct pa-tient care,
this is a pretty important argument to adding technology to everything because it directly affects human to human interaction, one of the most important things to teach people
This can happen during keyboard entry of patientidentification numbers when the operator hits a wrong key(and the identifier does not include a check digit) andduring selection of a patient’s name from a menu when thecursor slips to the row above or below the intended patientduring the mouse click.
human error again
Mix-ups ofSocial Security numbers between spouses occur at registra-tion at a rate of 2% to 3%
again, this is human error, a theme for most of the problems in this article
Nei-ther of these errors occurred because of the many redun-dant checking and review processes in the system
great example of how technology can help but only when paired with large amounts of human intervention
Thumbprint technology is being used in institutions toverify the identity of users who log on to a computer, and1 company is marketing a similar product for patient iden-tification
there isnt really a benefit of the thumbprint vs the barcode system, the issue is distributing them correctly to patients which falls into the hands of the caregivers. This article is a great argument for the benefits of adding more technology to things and why the issues are largely human rather than computerized
ome have proposed im-planting such chips in humans
while not a terrible idea in theory, it would rightfully raise huge ethical concerns with a majority of the population of the world and would only serve to divide an already polar country
They do not like disturb-ing the patient’s sleep at night when they move the pa-tient’s arm to scan the wristband and log the hanging ofeach intravenous bottle
i think the patient would understand being woken up if it meant that they werent accidentally almost given a fatal dose of the wrong medication
Two kinds of errors can lead to wrong wrist-band information: errors at registration time, such as se-lecting the wrong patient from a menu of many patientswith the same name, or placing a wristband on the wrongpatient
both of these are largely the fault of the caregivers and not at all a testament to the barcode system
hecorrect wristband was lost in transit to the general surgicalward and was never placed on Mr. D.’s wrist
this just seems to be more and more on low quality of providers than it does the barcodes fault
The nurse, not noticingthat Mr. D.’s 2 wristbands differed,
this is why its important to check the wristbands very thoroughly and often times the doctor or nurse will have you state your name and date of birth before an appointment like this just to avoid situations like these. This case probably could be blamed more so on the doctor and nurse for failing to notice than it does the barcode system, but it certainly didnt help
well-implemented cross-check processes and aculture of safety
This is how they should be used. they are best as a tool to help the humans do the work, but many people are trying to find ways for them to replace humans, which rarely if ever works
he present case,a diabetic patient admitted to a teaching hospital was mistakenlygiven the bar-coded identification wristband of another patientwho was admitted at the same time.
This is bad but doesnt support my argument too much because this could happen with the old system as well
The results reinforce the importance of parent-child interaction even at a relatively older age (8–12 years), including screen exposure
this shouldnt have to be reinforced at all
screen exposure was measured using a questionnaire and not by direct measurement
this is a part i read earlier and made me slightly skeptical about the study, since parents cant really know for sure how much their child is using screens, and they were also paid to take the questionnaire
the critical role of exogenous factors (such as screen exposure) on child cognitive development
exogenous vs endogenous factors for development is a fancy way of saying nature vs nurture, and I tend to side with the fact that nurture heavily influences development more than nature does, so this study would be a great reference for me to support my argument
To avoid gender bias, as we had more male participants (20) than females (9), we re-analyzed the behavioral and neuroimaging correlations while controlling for gender.
are males more susceptible than females in terms of screen addiction? i didnt notice them mention this earlier
The result of this study may suggest that when interacting with an adult, the child might be able to monitor errors better, leading to better learning patterns
This provides pretty solid evidence that the screens are not necessarily the problem, it is the laziness of parents and teachers for not using it with their children in a responsible manner that allows them to learn better. Obviously they will perform better and learn better when an adult is helping them, thats the point of a teacher, but we cannot replace teachers and interactions with real people with youtube videos or online tutors because they dont learn social skills and facial recognition patterns best that way
this study’s findings demonstrate a significant negative correlation between the Screen-Q dialogic subcomponent and CO and cerebellar between networks functional connectivity.
in simpler terms this basically means there is a strong correlation between screen time and decreased brain function
Sleep deprivation can subsequently lead to dysfunction in cognitive and learning abilities.
its kind of a snowball effect: screen usage leads to poor cognitive development including loss of sleep, when you cant sleep you use your phone as a distraction, which leads to worse development and sleep patterns, etc.
Previous studies suggested that the presence of a TV in the child’s bedroom may cause sleep disturbances
there are many studies that show mobile screen usage right before bed is about as harmful to your sleep schedule as can be, so i would assume tv falls into that category as well but not as bad
This finding indicates that networks related to higher-order cognitive abilities were not engaged during higher screen exposure. This may be linked to the fact that screen exposure was assessed only during activities that required basic attention.
if screens only attack the basic attention skills, then it will be so much harder for them to develop more complex attention skills and severely stunt their cognitive development. it also gives strong proof that the fact that screens dont make you use complex thought can suggest that they are very mindless activities that have no real benefit that outweighs the massive negatives
This result implies higher access to screens was related to decreased functional connectivity of neural networks supporting basic attention and modulation of cognitive control abilities.
again, this should be strong enough evidence for at least monitoring childrens screen time and the content that they see, but most parents are too lazy and look for ways to avoid parenting no matter how much it will affect the childs development
In line with our hypotheses, significant correlations were found between screen exposure subcomponents and cognitive control abilities.
i feel like most people could tell you this just by looking at the average person nowadays, but it is good to know that the evidence backs it up as well with strong testing
Results
this section sounds very convoluted if you dont know about the different regions of the brain and statistics tests, but basically it says the results of all of the tests showed at least some correlation that more screen usage related to lower networking between cranial regions and lower attention span
(r = 0.400, P = .039)]
these are definitely correlations that suggest significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis, but i dont know that i would say it is a significant correlation compared on a grander scale. it is a fairly strong correlation and enough evidence to conclude this, but it isnt as strong as they make it seem in this article in my opinion
Images presenting the maps for neural networks: cingulo-opercular (CO) in light green, salience network in purple, default mode network (DMN) in dark green, dorsal attention (DAN) in yellow, ventral attention (VAN) in dark blue, frontoparietal (FP) in red, and the cerebellum in light blue. Images are presented in transverse orientation (L=left, R=right).
these images are very interesting to me because for how objectively small the brain is and how even smaller the parts of it are, they all work so sophisticatedly and with each other, all controlling different pathways of thinking
(1) access to screens: portable monitor devices, excluded from bedrooms, (2) frequency of use: age of exposure to screens, limitation to 1 hour per day, (3) content: nonviolent, slow pace, (4) dialogue: promote parent-child interaction and co-viewing
unfortunately i think if you were to ask the average parent if they follow literally any of these rules with screens with their children, most of them would say no
Participants and their parents signed written informed assents and consent, respectively, and were compensated with $75 for their time and effort.
this is generally fine but there can be some issues that arise with paying research participants if not done correctly
We only recruited participants that met our inclusion criteria
recruiting participants makes me think this may not be the most reliable experiment due to the lack of random sampling but maybe theres something I dont know about that allows them to do this without worrying about skewing the sample
all right-handed,
im interested to learn what relevance the handedness of the user would have to the rest of the experiment
The overall goal of the current study was to explore the relations between the type of screen exposure (level of access, content, frequency, and parent-child interaction) using the Screen-Q questionnaire (Hutton et al., Citation2020) and children’s cognitive abilities, focusing on attention and cognitive control
they unfortunately dont focus very much on background usage or focused usage like the other article does, which is something I wanted to learn about a bit more but since I have a source that does focus on that it should be ok
Screen exposure was also related to reduced attention abilities in children
this and the decrease in social abilities are the things I have noticed the most even in myself as well as others I grew up around
These findings point at the reliance on more basic attention networks while viewing animated content, rather than higher order cognitive networks.
this makes sense to me because at least the real life content is something that you would see not on a screen, while animated content kind of doubles down on the technology used in the media
uggested that children ages 8-12-years who viewed violent television content recruited several brain regions involved in emotional regulation, attention, and episodic memory, such as the amygdala and the precuneus
i dont think the type of media is so much of the problem as the simple exposure to screens at a certain age is
including obesity
this was a point in the article about values that I read for the synthesis essay as well
while exceeding the recommended 2-hour limit in kindergarten
this seems to point to an issue with the school system becoming far too dependent on screens to teach, similar to how many parents use them instead of parenting
including social interactions
other than cognitive development this is the part that I am most interested in due to my previous experience with younger generations
Higher access to screens was related to lower functional connectivity between neural networks associated with basic attention skills and cognitive control (i.e., DAN and salience). In addition, higher levels of parent-child interaction during screen exposure were related to increased functional connectivity between networks related to cognitive control and learning
this is a perfect example of the difference between productive screen usage and destructive screen usage
Resting-state functional MRI data were collected in 29 native English-speaking children (8–12 years old),
this article focuses more on the adolescents affected by screens rather than toddlers like the others focus on, so this is more interesting to me because I want to see the difference in screen addiction developed at a younger age where they know no different vs children developed without it in their toddler years that are exposed to it later
Different technologies provide limitless access to a wide range of content.
this is a large factor into why screens are so bad: theyre always going to be the most entertaining thing you could do at any given time, so why spend time doing anything else?
At the moment, we can state that at least two studies established a solid case in favor of some causality of screen viewing on the toddler’s cognition. While the debate is still open, only experimental research can bridge the remaining gap to a definitive answer.
i hope i can one day be a researcher working on this topic
It is also possible that the parents of toddlers with attention control issues use the screens more often as a nanny, in which case viewing is not the cause of attention control disorders but a consequence.
2 things can be true; the attention control issues certainly dont make parenting easier, which makes the parent give them screens to distract them, and creates a snowball effect. not that it should be done, but they are both things that happen, not one or the other
some showing a positive effect of electronic books in engaging children in the story and in the interaction with the parent compared to classic paper books
this is the opposite of how i am
Studies investigating the context of learning show that interaction with the parents enhances learning from touchscreen and transfer between-dimensions: infants were 19 times more likely to succeed and transfer learning between the touchscreen and real object if they were in a high-quality interactional dyad during a semi-naturalistic teaching task
this is the way it should be done and how screens can be optimized towards learning growth
Indeed, 15-month-old infants who have learnt from touchscreens only transferred their learning to touchscreens, and those who have learnt from real scenes only transferred their learning to real scenes, arguing for a video deficit effect extending to touchscreens, as experimental studies show
i wouldnt necessarily look too deep into this as a widely recognized psychological theory is that most children cannot transfer ideas between models and reality until they are at least 2 years old
A recent meta-analysis (Xie et al., 2018) showed that young children (0 to 5) could learn from touchscreens.
again, this should be taken with a grain of salt, because obviously they can learn from the millions of educational programs available, but they should be supplemental rather than taking place of parenting like most people use it as
touchscreens have opened the doors to more interactivity
constant interactivity is something i want to look into with my topic because constantly having something to do takes away from the ability of a child to simply relax and unwind because of the higher dopamine levels caused by constant screen usage. i am going to try and study whether the addition of screens to everything contributes to this issue or whether it doesnt really have that big of an effect
Another issue associated with background television is that it distracts the child from the action in progress, diverting their attention from play and learning.
this could be a cause of some attention disorders since the distraction of the tv would make it difficult for them to focus on one thing at a time early on, which would embed itself into their brain
Concerning attentional skills, the number of hours of television watched daily at ages 1 and 3 predicted measures of hyperactivity at age 7, according to a large longitudinal survey
this is another glaring issue today: kids doing whatever in public based on higher energy levels because of higher dopamine levels associated with screens that cause them to go through withdrawals when they dont have a screen and makes them act antsy and more hyper in public, which causes their parents to calm them down by giving them an ipad or whatever other screen, and it just continues in a downward spiral
On the contrary, early exposure to child-directed content was not associated with cognitive ability at age 4. Along similar lines, exposure to educational programs before age 3 was not linked to attention issues when reaching age 7 (Zimmerman and Christakis, 2007), while exposure to adult television content was negatively associated with executive functioning and cognitive skills at older ages
this is slightly surprising to me, i wouldnt think the actual content would negatively correlate with cognition if it was an adult program, it doesnt seem like the actual media would negatively affect attention anymore than childrens media would help it
Regarding school readiness, Wright et al. (2001) collected time-use diaries of television viewing and found that 2-year-olds who were exposed more to child-directed educational programing, such as Sesame Street, reached higher scores on general measures of school readiness (knowledge of letters, numbers, colors, shape, spatial and size relations) at ages 3 and 4, than those who were primarily exposed to adult directed television programs.
i dont necessarily think this is such a shocking factor because the sole intention of shows like Sesame Street is to teach children, obviously a show meant for general viewing isnt going to teach as much because thats not what its meant for. the harm of those types of programs would come in during young childhood if the program has more mature themes because it can affect the ideas that children can get, not affect their cognition moreso than any other screen driven program would
One possibility to explain the negative effects is that young children have reduced interactions with adults while watching television. This point seems important, as interactions are known to be the core format for language development in young children
this is where the issues i have experienced come in. kids cannot communicate healthily with others because they are so used to having their head buried in a device that they cannot make eye contact or hold normal conversations with normal vocabulary because they never have interacted with adults, or have had very limited interactions
Nonetheless, other authors (Ferguson and Donnellan, 2014) reanalyzed Zimmerman et al. (2007a)’s dataset and showed that opposite conclusions could be drawn depending on the chosen statistical analysis. For one of them, infants exposed to no screen actually had lower levels of language development compared to infants with some exposure
this could be due to extraneous factors such as neglectful parenting not caring at all about their child enough to give them the resources required to learn in a healthy way or learn anything at all
Indeed, 2 h a day spent watching television between 15- and 48-months of age multiplied by four the probability of a delay in language development. This delay was multiplied by six when children started watching television before 12-months
further proof that heavier monitoring of screen time is needed to save the next generation. the use of screens at that young of an age interferes with their abilities to form associations between things and doesnt teach them about long term goal building, only short term satisfaction with a dopamine hit
To summarize, learning from screens in infants appears to be negligible without parental or adult guidance
the use of screens is fine for younger children to a certain extent when heavily monitored and used for good things like education, but most parents dont use it this way, they use it as a substitute for actual parenting, which is where the issues with it come in
Therefore, it is not clear that infants can understand speech from video before the age of 2
this further proves the point that infants dont need screens for any reason at that age; it cannot be informative for them, they dont understand what is being said
In general, these studies show that 15–24 months old infants have difficulties generalizing an action learned on a TV screen to a real situation and vice versa, or to locate an object in the room when clues are given through a screen.
this makes sense, from what i have read this skill isnt usually developed until the child is at least 2 years old
and is negatively correlated with the caregiver’s level of education
this makes sense, a person with less knowledge on how to take care of a child is going to look for any possible way to get out of having to take care of them because it is too difficult and they dont understand the downsides
its used as a nanny (21%), the belief that programs are entertaining for infants, its use as a means of relaxation (23%),
these are both harmful strategies devised for parents to not have to parent for awhile, and is extremely challenging in the long term. screens may seem relaxing now, but when they are unable to function in public and social settings without a screen, it will be much more of a headache
roughly 30% of 5-month-old infants use touchscreens and this percentage increases to 90% at 2 years (Cristia and Seidl, 2015). Frequency of exposure did not increase with age and between 5 and 24 months, 21% of infants used touchscreens daily, 32% weekly and 48% less than once a month. Another large, recent French survey showed similar results with 21% to 28% of 2-year-old children playing with a touchpad, a computer or a smartphone at least once a week and 10% to 12% of toddlers doing so daily
this is almost certainly extremely harmful for their development. there really is no reason for a child so young to be having interaction with a touchscreen
A recent large study conducted with a French population shows that 84% of 2-year-old toddlers watch television at least once a week, and 68% every day (Gassama et al., 2018). The average time of exposure to television for 2-to-24-month-old infants is 40 min per day and only half of the programs are educational programs, according to the parents
this feels similar to what i would have had growing up, but with the large added factor nowadays of having a mobile device at all times, tv seems to not be so much of the problem
We will end up with a discussion on the potential effects of screen exposure and the early development of cognitive abilities and communication
i also want to try and find a study that would test the effects of a cognitively strong child before and after constant screen exposure to see if the effects are truly only on infants or if the people i was interacting with in high school were fine before the huge jump to online learning in the pandemic, though it might be a tough thing to find since it may be unethical
screen interactivity and screen in the background
for this specific class, this is what i really want to focus on. does the addition of screens to everyday appliances at home (smart fridges, washing machines, etc.) as well as adding more screens to cars (tesla being the biggest example) actually have a large impact on childs cognition because they are so interwoven in culture to the point that they dont notice it, or do they really count as adding to the mobile screen epidemic taking place over the last decade or so
the causality in the effects of screen viewing on cognition.
this is the thing that most interests me regarding this topic and is what i hope to one day do my own research on
excluding entries linked to the effects of violence in the media or in video games on the child’s emotions
this is a good thing to eliminate since most of those articles on that topic are known to overblow facts and make correlation seem like they equal causation without any real evidence to support them, so they wouldnt be the most trustworthy sources
Here, we will refer to television and mobile devices generally as screens and indicate the type of screen discussed where relevant.
i am objectively uneducated on the subject, but i feel like mobile devices are very much so worse than television for children
screen exposure in children under 3 years of age can be both harmful and beneficial for their cognitive development, depending on the context in which viewing occurs
there are definitely many scenarios where i can understand giving a young child an ipad or other screen for beneficial purposes, but 99% of parents do it to avoid having to parent for awhile and give them free, unmoderated, unlimited use of one, which is extremely harmful
eported that the average age of first exposure to television was at 4 months
this will severely impair brain development if sustained exposure to screens at that age is continued
resulting in infants spending more time watching screens and an earlier exposure
even without any extensive background knowledge on the subject, this has to be alarming for most people. theres no way anyone actually thinks giving free use of an ipad to an infant without extreme monitoring is a good idea
The past decade has witnessed a rapid increase in the use of screen media in families, and infants are exposed to screens at younger ages than ever before.
I noticed this in my high school as more and more grades became dependent on technology, mainly phones, and couldnt function without them. this is the main thing that made me choose this topic