Talk:Screen time

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Screen time article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Health and fitness Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Dthomsen8, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on July 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The content of Electronic media and sleep was merged into Screen time on 22 February 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Awalcant. Peer reviewers: Niphapone Chisouvanh, Mei0908, Darrendi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MMireles-usc, Charlieblambert, Melissvr, Salomeyosef. Peer reviewers: Ntakru, Akishigo, YasminHZ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'll be back to fix it up. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am a college student who over the next few days will be adding some information and revising this article, I will start in my sandbox and plot my strategies for organizing the data then I shall bring it over to the published page. Awalcant (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

This article provides a good connection between screen time with sleep disturbance and the impact is has on a child and obesity. From this review, the statistics were impressing and at the same time concerning with the increasing use of screen time among children and adults. The phrase, " too much screen time can affect a child's health," described the subject in a clear way because it provided the topic of of the subject and the cause and effect all in one sentence. Although, I would suggest to re-word some sentences such as the last sentence in the second paragraph and add a sentence or two about the statistics related to screen time and obesity if you can find one. The most important thing that you can do to improve this article is to add a sentence about the average amount of sleep a child gets to compare with the amount of screen time and how it is making their sleep time decrease. Niphapone Chisouvanh (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Fellow Wikipedians, I am a new wikipedia contributor. I have been interested in the digital healthcare space, and recently followed the likes of Apple/Google launching efforts to manage digital screen time (or as they call it 'digital wellbeing'). Since I found an existing topic on the subject, I was wondering whether it could be worth adding a sub-section to this topic regarding screen-time management (i.e. efforts to manage use of technology devices for better digital wellbeing). If you think it could be worth adding the sub-topic, I would be happy to draft an outline- look forward to your thoughts!Akhilk27 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilk27 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Akhilk27 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:NOTHOWTO as a starting point. It is perhaps reasonable to add a section regarding the development of screen time management applications, but be careful not to veer into the realms of instruction or advocacy. Wikipedia isn't here to tell people what applications to use, or that they should be using any at all, or how to use them. You must also be careful not to advocate for one application over another, and to use reliable, independent third-party sources, not primary sources and not regurgitations or republications of press releases that emanate from application developers. I am very concerned that this topic is going to become a vehicle for covert promotional content, whether intentionally or unintentionally. (Also be cognizant that your usage of the word "space" above and in comparable contexts is marketing/bizspeak jargon that shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia. "Digital wellbeing" is a garbage buzzphrase and your use of "idiot quotes" around it in the first instance was appropriate; it should never be used seriously in the encyclopedia.) Thanks for your appropriate talk-page suggestion! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I propose to merge Electronic media and sleep into Screen time, given that there is already a section here on screen time and sleep disturbances. Allopathie (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the merge proposal,@Allopathie: --E.3 (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Y Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 16 October 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CUStudentFJ (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CUStudentFJ (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello - I was hoping to add the below sentence to the environmental affects section. Please let me know your thoughts.

"With studies showing an increase of screen time occurring and nature inspired activities simultaneously decreasing for youth in financially stabilized countries, mental health issues were becoming a connection to high screen time levels. The higher the count in activities spent experiencing the outdoors produced positive results in mental health among adolescents."https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237725

Based on information from source under : 1.1 Background (Paragraph 5) & 3.5 Delineation of reciprocal effects of ST and GT on psychological outcomes (first 3 paragraphs) CUStudentFJ (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bluebird107 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bluebird107 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I am a new editor, and I am looking to add the following to the section written on academic performance. I am very interested in health and psychology, so this article is of great interest to me. I feel as though this article could benefit from a bit more information about the negative effects of screen time on academic performance. It talks more about the positive effects, so I found some research for the other side. Please share any thoughts or opinions.

"Research shows that children who lack guidance from their mothers are more likely to overuse screen time and also to struggle academically. Those with more prevalent maternal interference in their online activities tend to have more controlled screen time. These children also watched more educational content when online versus their counterparts with less parental control. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/6/596 Educational content consumed during time allotted for digital use is shown to be positively associated with academic achievement. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/6/596 Their lower academic performances were marked by decreases in grade averages in both math and in literature." https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/6/596

I will appropriately cite sources both in-text and in the references section if this content looks appropriate to add to the article. Bluebird107 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

MDPI is a predatory publisher. It would be better to cite almost anything else. MrOllie (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for telling me! I will look into a different source and will not use MDPI. Bluebird107 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, I'm not sure what happened, but MDPI was only supposed to be linked once out of the three links in my previous post. My other sources were https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/118/4/e1061/69068/Association-Between-Television-Movie-and-Video and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/24694193.2019.1675805 Bluebird107 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jellycat98 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jellycat98 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Myraslopez03 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DoctorBeee (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 8 November 2024 and 16 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Victoria.hudak (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Reneehobbs (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 3 March 2025 and 11 June 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IsabelleK925 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by IsabelleK925 (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question What is the origin of the “screen time” construct, and what is the current scientific opinion on that topic? Answer Great question — the term “screen time” has quite an interesting history, and its status in current research is more controversial than it might seem. 📖 Origin of the “Screen Time” Construct Early Public Health & Pediatrics (1980s–1990s) The term screen time (originally “time in front of the screen”, later shortened) emerged mainly in public health and pediatric research in the United States. Focus: television viewing. Concern: links to obesity, sedentary lifestyle, attention problems, and lower academic performance. Example: the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in the 1990s recommended no screen time for children under 2 years and a strict daily limit for older children. Expansion in the 2000s As computers, video games, and later smartphones spread, the umbrella term screen time was broadened to include all screen-based activities. → This was mostly a pragmatic choice for surveys and epidemiological studies, not a theoretically refined concept. 🔬 Current Scientific Opinion 1. Criticism of the Concept Researchers argue that screen time is too crude a measure: Heterogeneity: Passive TV watching, interactive gaming, creative coding, and video calls are lumped together. Context ignored: Co-viewing with parents vs. solitary use, educational vs. entertainment content, active vs. passive engagement. Dose–response fallacy: The assumption “more screen time = more harm” doesn’t hold up consistently. Many scholars now consider “screen time” an outdated or blunt construct. 2. Evidence from Recent Meta-Analyses Large-scale studies (e.g., Twenge & Campbell, Przybylski & Weinstein, Orben & Przybylski) show very small or inconsistent correlations between total screen time and outcomes like mental health, well-being, or cognition. Often, other factors (family context, socioeconomic background, content type) explain more variance than hours of use. 3. Nuanced Approaches Emerging Researchers increasingly shift from “how much” to “how, what, and with whom”. Content: educational vs. violent, prosocial vs. antisocial. Context: alone vs. with friends/family, supervised vs. unsupervised. Function: creative production, social communication, or passive consumption. The concept of “digital well-being” is gaining traction: balancing benefits and risks rather than focusing on time limits. ✅ Summary Origin: Screen time was introduced in 1980s–1990s pediatrics and public health as a simple risk indicator, mainly for TV. Today: The concept is seen as oversimplified and increasingly obsolete. Most researchers argue for a qualitative, contextualized view of digital media use rather than crude hourly caps. Would you like me to give you a couple of key references (APA style) so you can cite this in an academic text, or do you prefer a more general overview without citations?   Question Does the Wikipedia article on “screen time” in its current form ( [1] ) adequately present the current scientific debate on that topic? Answer I had a look at the current Wikipedia article on “Screen time” (at the URL you gave) and here’s my assessment: it does a decent job in many respects, but it does not fully reflect the nuance and current debate in the scientific literature. Below are what I see as its strengths, its gaps/misrepresentations, and suggestions for improvement. ✅ What the Wikipedia article does well 1. Broad coverage of effects The article talks about physical health effects (sleep, obesity), mental health effects, language / brain development, etc. That matches what many studies investigate. Wikipedia 2. Includes limitations section There’s a section on Limitations on screen time for both children and adults, plus a Limitations subsection under “Effects” etc. So there is some recognition that screen time isn’t unambiguously bad, and that effects depend on context. Wikipedia 3. References to guidelines The article cites e.g. WHO, AAP, etc., about recommended limits for children under certain ages. Wikipedia 4. Historical / statistical data There are data/statistics on screen ownership, changes in media usage over time, etc. Wikipedia ⚠️ What the article misses or where it’s weak relative to the scientific debate 1. Overemphasis on negative correlations / harms The article tends to present many correlations as implying risk or harm, but doesn’t always adequately qualify how weak, how inconsistent, or how uncertain those associations are. For example, it cites many studies linking screen time with poorer mental health outcomes, but not always the counter-studies or ones showing minimal or no effect. In cutting-edge research, many meta-analyses find small effect sizes, a lot of moderators (e.g. content, context, socioeconomic status), and sometimes null or very weak findings. The Wikipedia article doesn’t fully present that debate. 2. Lack of nuance about what kind of screen time matters Much current literature distinguishes between: passive vs active use (e.g. watching vs creating), content quality (educational vs entertainment; violent vs prosocial), context (co-viewing vs alone; time of day; parental mediation; whether screen use displaces other important activities), device type (TV, smartphone, tablet, etc.) While the article acknowledges some of these, it does not integrate them deeply into the effect‐sections. Some effects are presented as though “screen time” is a monolithic thing, which is contrary to how many current studies frame their hypotheses. 3. Lack of discussion of issues with measurement In many recent papers, one of the big challenges is how screen time is measured (self-report, parental report, device logs), and how that measurement error or bias might blur or inflate effects. Also, “screen time” often lumps everything together, which reduces interpretability. The article doesn’t sufficiently emphasize these methodological issues. 4. Effect sizes, causation vs correlation The article often uses phrasing like “screen time has been associated with … negative outcome”, which is good, but readers might misinterpret as implying causation. The article would benefit from more explicit discussion of how many studies are cross-sectional vs longitudinal, what the risk of confounding is, etc. Also, more mention of studies that do not find an effect, or find small effects. 5. Recent literature / more up-to-date meta-analyses Some very recent reviews (2022-2024) that more critically examine the “screen time harms” thesis, especially among older children/teens, are not deeply reflected. The article does include some recent sources but may not adequately present the shift toward more nuanced or even skeptical views among researchers. 6. Alternative frameworks The current scientific trend is to move beyond “screen time” as a key metric toward frameworks like “digital wellness”, “media use quality over quantity”, “contextual and content moderators”, etc. These frameworks are underrepresented in the article. 🎯 Conclusion: Adequacy So, does the article “adequately present the current scientific debate”? It partially does: yes, it gives readers an overview of the main concerns and some guidelines, some statistics, and mentions limitations. But it is not fully adequate if by “current scientific debate” one means the rich set of nuances, mixed findings, measurement challenges, competing interpretations, and shifting emphases in recent years. If you like, I can prepare a summary of current meta-analytical findings (including effect sizes, moderators, controversies) that could serve as a checklist / input for improving the article. Do you want me to do that?   -- Sloyment (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't there be more links to research or opinion pieces criticizing the push to reduce screen time? Namely, that many of these studies often can't be replicated, and that they conflate many activities (technically including programming, which has cognitive benefits). Is "screen time" someone's addiction, or someone's prerogative? Perhaps calling it "screen time" is like calling driving "tachometer time." Maybe "button time" or "transistor time" is a better name for it, especially considering that as far as the output goes, speakers or headphones are a big part of it. This article also seems to mention very little of the pro-electronics side. And of course, correlation is not causation; you won't get fat watching TV on a treadmill. And didn't the AAP once have an even stricter standard? AKA "2 hours a day, not counting computer time used for school." ~2026-21875-72 (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply