Abstract
The growing proliferation of digital media over the past few decades has engendered both significant promise and significant concerns regarding children’s development. Digital media have changed the ways young people learn, interact with others, and develop essential cognitive and social-emotional skills. This paper provides school psychologists with a comprehensive literature review about the effects of digital media on various aspects of children’s functioning. It discusses the effects of digital media use on youth’s physical and mental health, attention, and cognition. It further highlights risks for young people’s cognitive functioning associated with multitasking and reviews the outcomes of reading on a screen vs. reading on paper. Special attention is given to the effects of digital media on youth’s social-emotional functioning, including relationships with others and identity formation, and socio-emotional risks such as cyberbullying and aggressive behaviors. School psychologists are provided with recommendations on how to incorporate information about digital media in their work with parents, educators, and youth in order to promote healthy digital media use.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Digital media have become a ubiquitous part of our culture and youth’s lives. In the USA, young people use digital media (e.g., TV, video games, computers) on average about 7.5 h a day every day; and the use of digital media continues to rise (Rideout et al. 2010). Overall, African-American children spend more time watching TV and playing video games compared to Hispanic and White children (Roberts and Foehr 2008). It is estimated that today’s children may spend up to 20 years of their lives engaging with the Internet (Biocca 2000). There is a concerning trend regarding the early exposure of children to TV, as statistics show that 33% of households in the USA have a TV in the rooms of children younger than 6 years of age (Roberts and Foehr 2008) and 43% of children under age two watch TV every day (Rideout and Hamel 2006). Children younger than 2 years of age are exposed to an average of 5.5 h of background TV per day—almost twice as much as 6–8 year-old children; in addition, African-American children, children from single-parent homes and low-income families, and children whose parents have less formal education are at greater risk to be exposed to background TV (Lapierre et al. 2012).
Digital media provide youth access to a vast amount of information and create new opportunities for learning and social interaction. At the same time, they significantly change the socio-cultural context of child development and the ways young people learn, communicate, and interact with others. Excessive digital media use can interfere with important, formative relationships with family and peers (Morimoto and Friedland 2011; Steiner-Adair 2013; Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 2008). Multitasking, associated with digital media, can compromise executive functioning and overtax mental resources (Baumgartner et al. 2014; Courage et al. 2015; Rosen et al. 2012). Additionally, the ease of access to information can lead to exposure to dangerous individuals and scary or violent images (Livingstone et al. 2011; Steiner-Adair 2013; Wilson 2008). The goal of this paper is to provide school psychologists with a comprehensive review of studies examining the effect of digital media on the main domains of youth development including physical and mental health, cognitive processes, learning, and socio-emotional development. Both benefits and risks associated with digital media use will be discussed. In order to provide understanding of the developmental aspect of digital media use, the paper reviews studies pertaining to young children, school-age youth, and emerging adults. It will supply school psychologists with recommendations on developmentally appropriate ways to use digital media at home and school.
Digital Media and Youth’s Physical and Mental Health
There are several health-related benefits associated with using digital media for young people including easy and anonymous access to online health information, joining online support groups for health-related conditions, and using mobile technologies (e.g., cell phones, instant messaging) to adhere to a medication regimen (O’Keeffe et al. 2011). Further, using neurofeedback through a smart-tablet can improve executive function in children with attention problems (Shin et al. 2016) and a smartphone application was found to be useful for the treatment of pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (Whiteside et al. 2014). Technology can be a valuable tool for delivering preventive interventions as it provides an easy access to health information and a possibility to tailor interventions towards recipients’ needs (Ybarra 2014). Examples of such interventions include the Internet-based healthy sexuality program “CyberSenga” which was tested in secondary schools in Uganda and “Stop My Smoking” a text messaging-based smoking cessation program for young adults implemented in the United States and Turkey. Both programs demonstrated promising results in promoting healthy behaviors in youth (Ybarra 2014).
At the same time, excessive digital media use represents an environmental risk factor for youth’s physical and mental health. For example, excessive TV watching is associated with obesity. A longitudinal study with kindergarteners showed that watching TV for 1 to 2 hours a day significantly increases the risk of becoming overweight and obese (DeBoer et al. 2015). In addition to its contribution to a sedentary life style, watching TV may also shape youth’s beliefs and preferences for food as children are exposed to 4400–7600 TV advertisements per year for unhealthy food (Strasburger et al. 2010). Another likely reason for the link between heavy TV viewing and obesity could be eating while watching TV.
A number of studies explored the association between excessive digital media use and youth’s well-being. A national survey in the USA demonstrated that young people with lower life satisfaction and contentment tend to be the heaviest media users (Roberts and Foehr 2008). Adolescents who use social media more than 2 h a day are likely to report mental health problems, including high levels of psychological distress and suicidal ideation (Sampasa-Kanyinga and Lewis 2015). In a 4-year longitudinal study with adolescents, Ciarrochi and colleagues (2016) found that compulsive Internet use predicted mental health problems, especially for female students. Further, adolescents with higher levels of daily stress often seek social support through Facebook. While perceived support is associated with decreased depressive mood, seeking but not receiving online support exacerbates depressive symptoms (Frison and Eggermont 2015). In addition, having too many Facebook friends and the fear of missing out resulting from overusing social media are associated with stress (Beyens et al. 2016; Morin-Major et al. 2016).
The excessive use of digital media can undermine the quality of sleep. More specifically, using digital media in bed before sleeping (e.g., watching TV, playing video games, talking or texting on the phone, and spending time online) is associated with sleep disturbance and depressive symptoms (Lemola et al. 2015). Adolescents with poor sleep due to excessive social networking have lower appraisals of school satisfaction (Vernon et al. 2015). In one longitudinal study, sleep disruption mediated the relationships between the overuse of social networking on one hand and depression and externalizing problems on the other (Vernon et al. 2016). Potential causes of sleep interference due to digital media use include losing track of time, increased arousal, being woken up by upcoming messages, and light emission (Cain and Gradisar 2010). In addition, the excessive use of social media creates a perceived need and pressure to be constantly available and to respond immediately which might cause anxiety and disrupt sleep quality in adolescents (Woods and Scott 2015).
Another risk associated with digital media is receiving inappropriate online content which can shape youth’s attitudes and beliefs about mental health conditions. According to a European survey, 10% of youth were exposed to pro-anorexia websites (Livingstone et al. 2011). Such websites offer “advice” on disordered eating, purging, and excessive exercising (Strasburger et al. 2010). In addition, 7% of youth were exposed to self-harm and drug-taking Internet content and 5%—to suicide content (Livingstone et al. 2011). Sexual content in media can influence youth’s attitudes towards sexual interactions and is associated with increased risky sexual behavior (Parkes et al. 2013). At the same time, parental restrictions on sexual media serve as a protective factor against early sexual interactions and risk-taking behaviors. Social media might also significantly affect the development of body image in young females. In particular, the elevated appearance exposure on social networking platforms (e.g., Facebook) is associated with body image problems in adolescent girls (Meier and Gray 2013).
There is growing concern regarding youth’s compulsive digital media use and engagement in simulated gambling therein (King et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2011; MacMullin et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2015). Digital media compulsion (also known as Internet addiction and Internet-enabled compulsive behavior) involves excessive engagement in a pleasurable behavior, which negatively affects major domains of life and is characterized by the presence of tolerance (a need for greater degree of stimulation) and withdrawal (Greenfield 2011). A large-scale study found that about 4% of high school students in the USA are involved in compulsive Internet use (Liu et al. 2011). Several properties of digital media contribute to its addiction potential including rapid and easy access to highly stimulating content, absence of time- and space-related boundaries, immediate gratification of needs, and a variable ratio reinforcement schedule (Greenfield 2011). The consequences of excessive Internet gaming in adolescents include depression, substance use, aggressive behaviors, diminished cognitive control, and decreased gray matter volume (Liu et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2015).
Several studies identified potential contributing variables to problematic digital media use. Stavropoulos and colleagues (2016) found that adolescents with lower conscientiousness tend to have greater Internet addiction. In addition, classroom hostility puts adolescent girls—but not boys—at an increased risk of problematic Internet use. In another study, low agreeableness and conscientiousness, a lack of emotional stability, and high resourcefulness (similar to openness to experience) appeared to be risk factors for addictive online gaming (Kuss et al. 2013). Furthermore, in boys, low self-esteem and excessive sexual interest and depression predict compulsive viewing of sexually explicit Internet material (Doornwaard et al. 2016). Finally, youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD are at greater risk to develop compulsive digital media use than their typically developing peers (MacMullin et al. 2016; Mazurek and Engelhardt 2013; Weiss et al. 2011). Among of the environmental factors associated with excessive use of digital media is a lack of supervision from parents. One study found that adolescents who have their own (not shared) devices and play video games in their bedrooms tend to spend more hours gaming (Smith et al. 2015). Boys with Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD had greater access to in-room use of video games (Mazurek and Engelhardt 2013). Using digital media as a parental discipline tool also increases screen time (Hawi and Rupert 2015). At the same time, good communication between youth and parents regarding Internet use and parental rules about Internet content serve as protective factors against compulsive Internet use (Smith et al. 2015; Van Eijnden et al. 2010).
The Effect of Digital Media on Cognition
Different types of digital media require and put into practice different sets of skills. A systematic review of correlational and experimental studies indicated that playing video games improves mental rotation, visual attention, processing speed, and reaction time related to perceptual discrimination (Greenfield 2009; Schmidt and Vandewater 2008). While advancing visual skills, digital media might weaken higher order skills such as critical thinking, reflection, and imagination (Greenfield 2009).
Today, professionals are concerned about early exposure of children to digital media and its potential effects on child cognitive development. Research studies suggested that introducing children to screen media before age two is not beneficial for language and cognitive development (Christakis 2009; Kirkorian et al. 2008; Linebarger and Walker 2004). Furthermore, even media programming with educational content may not be suitable for children under 18 months, as they do not yet have the cognitive ability to integrate successive bits of information presented on TV (Kirkorian et al. 2008). Several studies documented that even background TV has negative impact on young children. More specifically, it disrupts children’s play even when children do not pay overt attention to the TV, reduces time children focus on toys, and diminishes child-parent interaction time (Courage et al. 2010; Schmidt et al. 2008; Setliff and Courage 2011).
Several studies explored the potential link between excessive use of digital media and attentional problems. In particular, it was found that watching extensive amounts of entertainment TV before age three is associated with subsequent attentional problems 5 years later; however, this association did not hold for watching educational types of media (Zimmerman and Christakis 2007). In another study, the amount of TV watching (regardless of program type) was associated with inattentiveness at school in fourth and fifth graders, as reported by teachers; however, there was no association between watching TV and inattentiveness reported by parents (Levine and Waite 2000). Swing and colleagues (2010) evaluated TV and video game use and teacher-reported attention problems in middle school students during a 13-month period and found that overexposure to TV and video games is associated with attentional problems. These results confirmed the earlier research by Chan and Rabinowitz (2006) who demonstrated that playing video games for more than 1 hour a day is associated with attentional problems. Furthermore, a study with preschoolers indicated that watching fast-paced cartoons for even 9 min has an immediate negative impact in children’s executive functioning (Lillard and Peterson 2011). This effect was not found for watching slower-paced educational TV programming. It is important to note that although studies discussed above have indicated a link between exposure to digital media and attentional problems, there is no data indicating that overexposure to digital media can cause ADHD.
Electronic books for young children are becoming commonplace in many families; therefore, the public needs to know their benefits and limitations. It was found that preschool children lagging in language and literacy skills benefit from storybooks with multimedia additions (video and sound) (Verhallen et al. 2006). More specifically, children gained better knowledge of characters’ motives and expanded their vocabulary when learning from a story presented in an animated as opposed to a static format. At the same time, animation is beneficial only when visual images are relevant and well synchronized with the narrative; otherwise, they create cognitive overload (Bus et al. 2015). In addition, books with extraneous information (e.g., game-like technical features) might be distracting for young children. Overall, electronic books are not desirable for very young children whose executive functions are still immature because children may have difficulty switching between the text and interactive features (Bus et al. 2015).
The Effect of Multitasking and Information Processing
The availability of multiple digital devices created a perceived need to be plugged in to those devices and resulted in the expansion of multitasking, e.g., simultaneous engagement in two or more activities (e.g., instant messaging, listening to music, checking social media, etc.) (Courage et al. 2015). A national survey in the USA indicated that 30% of adolescents multitask most of the time while doing homework and another 31% reported multitasking some of the time (Foehr 2006). Rosen and colleagues (2012) found that early and late adolescents on average tend to switch from academic tasks to digital media (irrelevant to the task) every 6 min. Those who showed more task switching also had more distracting technologies available and were more likely to be off-task.
Young people might believe that performing two or more tasks simultaneously is an effective use of their time with no detrimental impact to their task performance. However, in reality, multitasking increases demands placed on information processing resources and creates cognitive overload thus compromising learning. More specifically, the negative effects of multitasking are associated with switching costs, cognitive overload, and interruptions (Courage et al. 2015). Further, research indicates that multitasking leads to longer time spent on a primary task (Bowman et al. 2010; Kirschner and van Meriёnboer 2013). For example, college students engaged in instant messaging (IM) while reading spent 1.5 times longer to complete the reading passage (not including time spent instant messaging), although reading comprehension was not affected (Bowman et al. 2010). Another study by Fox and colleagues (2009) arrived at similar results and additionally demonstrated that reading comprehension scores were lower in those who reported more frequent engaging in IM conversations in general. Multitasking also increases the probability of committing errors: Even a 4.4-s interruption can triple the rate of errors in tasks that require following a sequence of steps (Altmann et al. 2013). Early adolescents who are often engaged in multitasking report more problems with goal-oriented behavior (Baumgartner et al. 2014). In one study with adults, heavy media multitaskers demonstrated poorer interference control and task-switching ability and had difficulty filtering out not only irrelevant environmental stimuli but also irrelevant representations in memory (Ophir et al. 2009). Further, heavy multitaskers have smaller gray matter density in the anterior cingulate cortex involved in cognitive and socio-emotional regulation; however, additional studies are necessary to identify the direction of causality between brain functioning and multitasking (Loh and Kanai 2014). Research with college students showed that multitaskers tended to be more impulsive and sensation seeking, had weaker working memory, and were overconfident in their multitasking abilities (Sanbonmatsu et al. 2013). Moreover, media multitasking is linked with depression and social anxiety symptoms in young adults, possibly disrupting attentional control involved in affect regulation (Becker et al. 2013).
In addition to causing cognitive overload, multitasking can affect the quality of acquired knowledge, as it is likely to result in implicit knowledge which lacks conscious awareness of what has been learned (Foerde et al. 2006). On the contrary, performing a single task results in explicit knowledge which one can flexibly generalize to new situations and identify its underlying principles. Moreover, learning without distractions activates the hippocampus involved in memory storage; however, learning while multitasking engages the striatum which is involved in implicit learning (Foerde et al. 2006).
Digital Media and Learning
Research evidence consistently demonstrated that educational TV programing has learning potential while general programing does not. One longitudinal study revealed that watching educational TV programs was positively associated with reading achievement, while watching entertainment TV had a negative association with gains in reading skills (Ennemoser and Schneider 2007). Another longitudinal study documented that children from low-income families who viewed educational programming at ages two and three had better subsequent performance on the measures of early academic skills and school readiness compared to their peers who viewed general programming (Wright et al. 2001).
The Internet offers immense opportunities for learning, creativity, and discovery; at the same time, “this great gift of easily accessible, readily available, rich information has the potential to form a more passive…and more easily ‘deluded’ learner” (Wolf and Barzillai 2009, p. 34). In addition, it can affect the quality of knowledge young people acquire. In the Internet, information is presented in non-linear and associative ways that can easily seduce one’s attention by the visual aspects of the presentation (Salomon and Almog 1998). Such features prompt shallow exploratory behavior rather than deep and systematic search and may lead to the so-called butterfly defect, an ill-structured, frail, and superficial network of associations rather than a well-structured knowledge base. Therefore, without digital literacy skills, using the Internet as an informational source may result in a fragmented knowledge network and compromise deep comprehension processes (Kirschner and van Meriёnboer 2013; Salomon and Almog 1998; Wolf and Barzillai 2009). In addition, easy access to information online can affect retention as people are more likely to remember where to find information online rather than the information itself (Sparrow et al. 2011). Successful use of the Internet for educational purpose requires critical thinking necessary to evaluate the reliability of Internet sources, select relevant information, and integrate information obtained from different sources (Leu et al. 2011; Wolf and Barzillai 2009). It further requires good self-monitoring and executive attention skills in order to combat distractions (Wolf and Barzillai 2009). Although today’s young generation is often called “digital natives,” “Homo Zapiens,” or the “Net and Google Generation,” many children and adolescents are not proficient using the Internet as an educational source (Kirschner and van Meriёnboer 2013).
Screen features of digital technology offered new affordances for reading, i.e., digital reading. As a result, reading behaviors in the past 10 years have changed with decreased linear, sustained, in-depth, and repeated reading and increased keyword spotting and scanning (Liu 2005). Although it is reasonable to assume that such changes may have a negative impact on reading comprehension, empirical data are inconclusive. Jones and Brown (2011) in a study with third graders did not find any differences in reading comprehension, enjoyment, and motivation in paper vs. e-book conditions. Dundar and Akcayir (2012) arrived at a similar conclusion with fifth-grade students who scored equally well on the measures of reading speed and comprehension in print and electronic reading conditions. Another study with fifth graders came to a different conclusion: Reading on a screen required more time than reading on paper (Kerr and Symons 2006). Although after reading on a screen children recalled more information, their comprehension was better after reading on paper. Mangen and colleagues (2013) in their study with high school students found that reading text on paper was associated with significantly better reading comprehension than reading texts in PDF format on a screen. The need to navigate within a document and having limited access to the text in its entirety result in difficulty grasping text organization and likely impair reading comprehension. It is believed that reading comprehension might be impaired by embedded hypertext as hypertext navigation increases cognitive load by adding decision-making and visual processing demands (DeStefano and LeFevre 2007). This is especially true for readers with weak working memory and limited prior knowledge. In addition, reading on a screen is associated with poorer metacognitive control regarding prediction of performance and study-time regulation (Ackerman and Goldsmith 2011).
There is an emerging research body about the impact of typing vs. handwriting on learning. Although typing might look appealing, it is not beneficial for young children. Handwriting, as opposed to typing, is important for letter processing and, therefore, facilitates reading acquisition in young children (James and Engelhardt 2012). Furthermore, fine motor skills, especially those involved in writing, are positively associated with elementary school children’s reading and math achievement (Dinehart and Manfra 2013). Interestingly, a study with college students also pointed to the superiority of handwriting over typing: Students who took notes on laptops had lower scores on the measure of conceptual understanding than those who wrote by hand (Mueller and Oppenheimer 2014). It is likely that typing involves less information processing which negatively affects learning.
Finally, new technological affordances have challenged educational practice. Educators often assume that interactive computer programs are undoubtedly beneficial for students’ learning, so they readily incorporate those programs in teaching. Yet, research does not confirm this belief; in reality, computer-based educational programs are no more effective than traditional teaching (What Works Clearing House, as cited in Schmidt and Vandewater 2008). A recent systematic literature review by Haßler and colleagues (2016) found some evidence supporting the benefits of using tablets for academic learning; at the same time, the authors concluded that the current research base is still fragmented and lacks rigor.
Digital Media and Socio-emotional Development
Digital media have a significant impact on youth’s socio-emotional development (Conners-Burlow et al. 2011; Morimoto and Friedland 2011; Saleem and Anderson 2012; Sampasa-Kanyinga and Hamilton 2015; Steiner-Adair 2013; Wilson 2008; You et al. 2015). Without a doubt, social networking opens opportunities for self-exploration, improving self-esteem, practicing self-presentation and self-disclosure, obtaining support, alleviating rejection in the off-line world, and gaining a sense of control (Best et al. 2014; Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 2008). Further, social media are an important platform for creating and sharing ideas, community engagement, and global education (O’Keeffe et al. 2011). In one study, adolescents reported that the Internet is a private space where they can practice autonomy, explore their identity, develop interests, and connect with peers (Borca et al. 2015). Using Facebook allows adolescents to satisfy their needs for belonging and popularity and is associated with a higher peer relations self-concept (Beyens et al. 2016; Košir et al. 2016). Social media can also facilitate social interaction for individuals with social anxiety and those who lack socio-emotional skills (Pierce 2009; Ziv and Kiasi 2016). In addition, online support groups are an important platform for sharing emotional experiences and receiving support. For example, young members of an online support group for siblings of children with special needs shared a wide range of emotions including love, hate, embarrassment, hurt, fear, and jealousy and openly expressed difficulty dealing with their conflicting emotions (Tichon 2015). For emerging adults, social networking serves as a space for identity exploration and consolidation (Manago et al. 2008). More specifically, presenting and experimenting with possible selves and receiving feedback might help them to solidify their identity. At the same time, since participants in a social network often compare themselves with idealized images of others, one’s deficits can become apparent and internalized (Manago et al. 2008).
Along with apparent benefits, digital media can present many risks, which we will discuss next. It is well documented that watching violent TV programs and playing violent video games contribute to aggressive behaviors, diminishes children’s perspective taking abilities, and hinders moral development (Wilson 2008; You et al. 2015). Violent media content affects youth’s aggression by modeling, increasing tolerance towards aggression, and decreasing empathy towards victims of violence (Saleem and Anderson 2012). Additionally, aggressive behavior in media is often not only unpunished but rewarded. It was found that preschool-age children who viewed inappropriate TV content (regardless of the amount of time) demonstrated more aggressive and hyperactive behavior and lower social skills at school (Conners-Burlow et al. 2011). Viewing aggression on TV has a long-term impact on relational aggression (Coyne 2016). In addition, exposure to profanity through TV and video games also contributes to relational aggression and profanity (Coyne et al. 2011).
Anonymity in online social networking can diminish self-control and, as a result, disinhibit racist behavior, sexual harassment and solicitation, and cyberbullying (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 2008). Unfortunately, many parents are not aware that their children have been recipients of hurtful or sexual messages through digital media (Livingstone et al. 2011). Cyberbullying victimization has long-lasting negative effects including psychological distress, anxiety, depression, and suicidality (Cassidy et al. 2013; O’Keeffe et al. 2011; Sampasa-Kanyinga and Hamilton 2015). Moreover, exposure to cyberbullying as a bystander predicts lower levels of empathic responsiveness towards distressed others (Pabian et al. 2016). Protective factors against cyberbullying involve an ability to empathize, ethical media consumption, and parental supervision. In particular, adolescents with low empathy tend to be more involved in cyberbullying (Ang and Goh 2010). However, young people who possess ethical media competence, e.g., socially responsible computer-mediated communication, are significantly less engaged in cyberbullying (Müller et al. 2014). In addition, parental monitoring and the regulation of Internet time and content were associated with reduced rates of online harassment as reported by adolescents (Khurana et al. 2015).
Today, “technology is redefining the fundamental cues, content, and cadence of our communication and the improvisational, uniquely human dimension of connection” (Steiner-Adair 2013, p. 20). In one study, elementary school children participated in a 5-day overnight nature camp where they were engaged in traditional social interactions and did not use any digital media (Uhls et al. 2014). After the intervention, children in the experimental group significantly improved their ability to read non-verbal emotional cues compared to the control group who used digital media on a regular basis. The overuse of cell phones and social networking decreases the quality of family time and causes significant child-parent conflicts (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 2008). An observational study conducted in fast-food restaurants indicated that many caregivers used mobile devices during their meal, and when caregivers were absorbed with the device, children began to seek attention (including misbehaving) or entertained themselves (Radesky et al. 2014). Those caregivers who were highly absorbed with devices tended to respond harshly to child misbehavior. Another study with adults yielded interesting results: Simply the presence of a cell phone (on the table or in one’s hand) during a conversation diminished its quality and reduced empathy (Misra et al. 2016).
Living in a digital world may significantly change the sense of community as young people are no longer included in traditional communities defined by physical place and face-to-face interactions. Instead, they are “embedded in networks of personal relationships that are relatively loose, more flexible, and portable” (Morimoto and Friedland 2011, p. 554). Such a cultural shift may change the way young people construct their identities and contribute to a culture of individualism as opposed to orientation towards others. Further, online social networking can change the concept of friendship and youth’s self-esteem as information about the number of friends is easily available for everyone involved in online social circles (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 2008). Digital media might replace other activities important for child development. For example, about one-third of European children and adolescents reported that excessive use of the Internet took the place of socialization with friends and schoolwork (Livingstone et al. 2011).
Recommendations for School Psychology Practice
Digital media itself is not dangerous for young people; however, its impact depends on when, how much, and to which contents children are exposed. “The media give … youngsters almost instantaneous access to more information than has ever been available to any previous generation – access that, by the teen years, is generally unsupervised – suggests that the scrutiny should be intense” (Roberts and Foehr 2008, p. 32). Youth’s developmental stage and needs and the importance of face-to-face interactions with peers and adults for healthy development and well-being should be taken into serious consideration when determining the place of digital media in youth’s lives. Below, we have provided recommendations for school psychologists on how to address digital media use when working with parents, educators, and youth.
Consultation of Parents
Parents play a crucial role in youth’s media consumption as they purchase, model, and monitor digital media use. Therefore, they have to be well informed about the positive and negative effects of digital media and be equipped with strategies to promote healthy media use for their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics (2013) recommends limiting entertainment screen time to 1 to 2 h per day and not to expose children younger than two to screen media for any amount of time. In addition, they should keep all media screens out of children’s bedrooms and make sure that the place where children complete homework is free from technological distractions. Establishing healthy sleep routines and controlling media use before bedtime are important for minimizing the negative effects of social media use on sleep (Vernon et al. 2016). It is not recommended to use digital media as a discipline tool or for companionship as it can increase screen time (Hawi and Rupert 2015). Parents are also advised to delay the ownership of digital devices and encourage their use in shared rooms (Smith et al. 2015).
A recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that the majority of parents promote appropriate media usage via discussion and monitoring rather than using technical safety guidance methods (Anderson 2016). However, an earlier large-scale survey study found that talking to a child about Internet use and being in close proximity when the child is online were not very effective in reducing online risks (Livingstone and Helsper 2008). On the other hand, parental restrictions of online social interactions were effective in reducing such risks. These findings bring a challenge associated with keeping young people safe while respecting their desire for freedom. Another research found that adolescents do not oppose automatic monitoring of social media sites for safety reasons when they perceive a situation as uncontrollable or they cannot solve it on their own (Van Royen et al. 2016). At the same time, they expressed a desire that their privacy and autonomy be maintained. Parents are recommended to build a support network among themselves to ensure that children follow consistent rules regarding digital media use when visiting friends (Dunckley 2015).
Parents should model a healthy “media diet,” as parents who spend a lot of time engaged with screen technology have children with similar habits (Vaala and Bleakley 2015). Co-viewing programs with children may give children an opportunity to ask questions about what is being viewed. In addition, co-viewing educational programs with parents enhances the educational benefit of those programs (Kirkorian et al. 2008). Finally, parents should encourage children to spend time interacting with people rather than being engaged in independent digital media consumption. This can be done by increasing quality family time, imposing a rule about not using digital media during meal time, and having “tech-free” days when the family turns off all digital media available at home.
Consultation of Educational Personnel
School psychologists should educate the school community about the positive and negative effects of digital media on students’ academic and social lives. More specifically, educators need knowledge about the effects of digital media on students’ ability to pay attention and learn. For example, multitasking can significantly add to students’ cognitive load and compromise learning (Courage et al. 2015). In addition, students with weak working memory and insufficient background knowledge might have difficulty comprehending when reading online (DeStefano and LeFevre 2007). These students should be provided with extra time or with a paper version of the text. Teachers should also be familiar with and teach students online reading comprehension skills including the ability to search for relevant information, evaluate the reliability of the source, synthesize information from multiple online sources, and communicate information effectively (Leu et al. 2011). Educators should put a greater emphasis on teaching students higher order thinking and problem solving skills, abstract vocabulary, reflection, and deep reading (Greenfield 2009; Wolf and Barzillai 2009).
School psychologists can inform educators about the advantages and disadvantages of using tablets as an instructional tool. Tablets provide high quality visual images and allow the integration of multiple features (e.g., built-in cameras and dictionaries) which can facilitate immersive learning experience, especially valuable for learning history or geography (Haßler et al. 2016). At the same time, educators should be aware that entertaining features of tablets could be distractible, especially for young students or those with deficits in executive functioning. Additionally, tablets might be better for individual work than for collaborative learning, unless the content in individual tablets is well-synchronized (Haßler et al. 2016).
School psychologists can also assist schools to develop effective practices and policies regarding digital media use which balance student autonomy, privacy, safety, legal rights, and restrictions. Simply banning cell phones and access to websites allowing social networking may not be effective (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 2008). Both students and teachers can be empowered by active engagement in collaborative media production (Cheung 2016). Additional efforts should be taken to foster traditional, face-to-face interactions among students in order to develop their prosocial skills and a sense of community.
Interventions with Children and Adolescents
School psychologists should take an active role in designing and implementing psychoeducational programs aimed at teaching youth healthy media use, digital citizenship skills, cyberbullying, Internet safety, and responsible online behavior. One experimental study found that adolescents’ excessive computer gaming behavior decreased after participating in a four-session media literacy program delivered by trained teachers (Walther et al. 2014). The program focused on discussing with adolescents their online communication behavior, online risks, and gaming addiction. Another 8-week whole-school cyberbullying awareness program increased youth’s negative attitudes towards cyberbullying and decreased moral disengagement (Barkoukis et al. 2016). This program involved lectures, watching videos about victims of cyberbullying, interactive discussions, and printed materials aimed at de-normalizing cyberbullying, encouraging reporting incidences of cyberbullying, informing young people about the negative impacts of cyberbullying, and teaching them appropriate digital media use.
Both youth and parents need information about the laws regarding the possession of content defined as child pornography and the emotional risks of sexting (Segool and Crespi 2011). Youth should be further aware that online social exploration (i.e., initiating online relationships) and sexy self-presentation put them at risk for receiving negative peer feedback in social media (Koutamanis et al. 2015). In addition, there are risks associated with digital footprints and the potential implications of posting inappropriate messages, pictures, and videos on one’s future career, reputation, and personal life (O’Keeffe et al. 2011). School psychologists should be prepared to provide services to children and adolescents impacted by sexting and cyberbullying. Finally, information about digital media use (e.g., the amount of time spent on a daily basis, types of programming, parental control, etc.) should be routinely incorporated into psychological assessment. Such information will provide an important context for understanding youth’ cognitive, social, and academic functioning.
As children grow and live in a world of interactive media, they will be further immersed in technology. Assisting the public to develop balanced views and practices regarding digital media can amplify benefits while reducing the potential risks associated with digital media.
References
Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32. doi:10.1037/a0022086.
Altmann, E. M., Trafton, J. G., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2013). Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 215–226. doi:10.1037/a0030986.
American Academy of Pediatrics (2013). Digital media and your family: television and other screens. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-H10w3hWogibXRRNXc2bWlGdU0/edit?pli=1.
Anderson, M. (2016). Parents, teens and digital monitoring: Parents monitor their teen’s digital behavior in a number of ways, but using technical means like parental controls is less common. Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/01/07/parents-teens-and-digital-monitoring/.
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: the role of affective and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 41(4), 387–397. doi:10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3.
Barkoukis, L., Lazuras, D., Ourda, H., & Tsorbatzoudis, H. (2016). Tackling psychosocial risk factors for adolescent cyberbullying: evidence from a school-based intervention. Aggressive Behavior, 42(2), 114–122. doi:10.1002/ab.21625.
Baumgartner, S. E., Weeda, W. D., van der Heijden, L. L., & Huizinga, M. (2014). The relationship between media multitasking and executive function in early adolescents. The. Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(8), 1120–1144. doi:10.1177/0272431614523133.
Becker, M. W., Alzahabi, R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). Media multitasking is associated with symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(2), 132–135. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0291.
Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: a systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 27–36. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.001.
Beyens, I., Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2016). “I don’t want to miss a thing”: adolescents’ fear of missing out and its relationship to adolescents’ social needs, Facebook use, and Facebook related stress. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 1–8.
Biocca, F. (2000). New media technology and youth: trends in the evolution of new media. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(2), 22–29. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(00)00136-1.
Borca, G., Bina, M., Keller, P. S., Gilbert, L. R., & Begotti, T. (2015). Internet use and developmental tasks: adolescents’ point of view. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 49–58.
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927–931. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024.
Bus, A. G., Takacs, Z. K., & Kegel, C. A. T. (2015). Affordances and limitations of electronic storybooks for young children emerging literacy. Developmental Review, 35, 79–97. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.004.
Cain, N., & Gradisar, M. (2010). Electronic media use and sleep in school-aged children and adolescents: a review. Sleep Medicine, 11, 735–742.
Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: a comprehensive review of current international research and its implications and application to policy and practice. School Psychology International, 34(6), 575–612. doi:10.1177/0143034313479697.
Chan, P. A., & Rabinowitz, T. (2006). A cross-sectional analysis of video games and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in adolescents. Annals of General Psychiatry, 5, 16. doi:10.1186/1744-859X-5-16.
Cheung, C.-K. (2016). Media literacy education in China. Singapore: Springer.
Christakis, D. A. (2009). The effects on infant media usage: what do we know and what should we learn? Acta Pediatrica, 98(1), 8–16. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01027.x.
Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P., Sahdra, B., Marshall, S., Jackson, C., Gloster, A. T., & Heaven, P. (2016). The development of compulsive internet use and mental health: a four-year study of adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 52(2), 272–283. doi:10.1037/dev0000070.
Conners-Burlow, N. A., McKelvey, L. M., & Fussel, J. J. (2011). Social outcomes associated with media viewing habits of low-income preschool children. Early Education and Development, 22(2), 256–273. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.550844.
Courage, M. L., Murphy, A. N., Goulding, S., & Setliff, A. E. (2010). When the television is on: the impact of infant-directed video on 6- and 18-month-olds’ attention during toy play and on parent-infant interaction. Infant Behavior and Development, 33, 176–188.
Courage, M. L., Bakhtiar, A., Fitzpatrick, C., Kenny, S., & Brandeau, K. (2015). Growing up multitasking: the costs and benefits for cognitive development. Developmental Review, 35, 5–41. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.002.
Coyne, S. M. (2016). Effects of viewing relational aggression on television on aggressive behavior in adolescents: a three-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 52(2), 284–295. doi:10.1037/dev0000068.
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L. A., Nelson, D. A., & Fraser, A. (2011). Profanity in media associated with attitudes and behavior regarding profanity use and aggression. American Academy of Pediatrics, 128(5), 867–872. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-1062.
DeBoer, M., Peck, T., & Scharf, R. (2015). Viewing as little as 1 hour of television daily is associated with higher weight status in kindergarten: the early longitudinal study. Presented at Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting, April, San Diego.
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: a review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012.
Dinehart, L., & Manfra, L. (2013). Associations between low-income children’s fine motor skills in preschool and academic performance in second grade. Early Education and Development, 24(2), 138–161. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.636729.
Doornwaard, S. M., van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Baams, L., Vanwesenbeeck, I., & ter Bogt, T. F. M. (2016). Lower psychological well-being and excessive sexual interest predict symptoms of compulsive use of sexually explicit Internet material among adolescent boys. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(1), 73–84. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0326-9.
Dunckley, V. L. (2015). Reset your child’s brain. Novato, California: New World Library.
Dundar, H., & Akcayir, M. (2012). Tablet vs. paper: the effect on learners’ reading performance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 441–450.
Ennemoser, M., & Schneider, W. (2007). Relations of television viewing and reading: findings from a 4-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 349–368. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.349.
Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American Youth: prevalence, predictors and pairings. Retrieved from http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7592.pdf.
Foerde, K., Knowlton, B., & Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Modulation of competing memory systems by distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(31), 11778–11783. doi:10.1073/pnas.0602659103.
Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: does instant messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 51–53. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0107.
Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2015). The impact of daily stress on adolescents’ depressed mood: the role of social support seeking through Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 315–325. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.070.
Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Technology and informal education: what is taught, what is learned. Science, 323, 69–71. doi:10.1126/science.1167190.
Greenfield, D. (2011). The addictive properties of internet usage. In K. S. Young & C. N. de Arbeu (Eds.), Internet addiction: a handbook and guide to evaluation and treatment (pp. 135–153). Hoboken: Wiley.
Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016). Tablet use in schools: a critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 139–156. doi:10.1111/jcal.12123.
Hawi, N. S., & Rupert, M. S. (2015). Impact of e-discipline on children’s screen time. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(6), 337–342. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0608.
James, K. H., & Engelhardt, L. (2012). The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1, 32–42.
Jones, T., & Brown, C. (2011). Reading engagement: a comparison between e-books and traditional print books in an elementary classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 4(2), 5–22.
Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: effects on children’s reading of informational material. Reading and Writing, 19(1), 1–19. doi:10.1007/s11145-003-8128-y.
Khurana, A., Bleakley, A., Jordan, A. B., & Romer, D. (2015). The protective effects of parental monitoring and Internet restriction on adolescents’ risk of online harassment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(5), 1039–1047. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0242-4.
King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., Kaptsis, D., & Zwaans, T. (2014). Adolescent simulated gambling via digital and social media: an emerging problem. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 305–313. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.048.
Kirkorian, H. L., Wartella, E. A., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). Media and young children’s learning. The Future of Children, 18(1), 39–61. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0002.
Kirschner, P. A., & van Meriёnboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.804395.
Košir, K., Horvat, M., Aram, U., Jurinec, N., & Tement, S. (2016). Does being on Facebook make me (feel) accepted in the classroom? The relationships between early adolescents’ Facebook usage, classroom peer acceptance and self-concept. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 375–384.
Koutamanis, M., Vossen, H. G. M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Adolescents’ comments in social media: why do adolescents receive negative feedback and who is most at risk? Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 486–494.
Kuss, D. J., van Rooij, A. J., Shorter, G. W., Griffiths, M. D., & van de Mheen, D. (2013). Internet addiction in adolescents: prevalence and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 1987–1996. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.002.
Lapierre, M. A., Piotrowski, J. T., & Linebarger, D. L. (2012). Background television in the homes of U.S. children. Pediatrics, 130(5), 839–846. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2581.
Lemola, S., Perkinson-Gloor, N., Brand, S., Dewald-Kaufmann, J., & Grob, A. (2015). Adolescents’ electronic media use at night, sleep disturbance, and depressive symptoms in the smartphone age. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(2), 405–418. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0176-x.
Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., O’Byrne, W. I., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett-Cacopardo, H., …, Forzani, E. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5–14. doi:10.1598/JAAL.55.1.1.
Levine, L. E., & Waite, B. M. (2000). Television watching and attentional abilities in fourth and fifth grade children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 667–679. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(00)00060-5.
Lillard, A. S., & Peterson, J. (2011). The immediate impact of different types of television on young children’s executive function. American Academy of Pediatrics, 128(4), 644–649. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-1919.
Linebarger, D. L., & Walker, D. (2004). Infants’ and toddlers’ television viewing and language outcomes. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 624–645. doi:10.1177/0002764204271505.
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of Documentation, 61(6), 700–712.
Liu, T. C., Desai, R. A., Krishnan-Sarin, S., Cavallo, D. A., & Potenza, M. N. (2011). Problematic internet use and health in adolescents: data from a high school survey in Connecticut. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 72(6), 836–845.
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2008). Parental mediation and children’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581–599. doi:10.1080/08838150802437396.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full findings. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/.
Loh, K. K., & Kanai, R. (2014). Higher media multi-tasking activity is associated with smaller gray-matter density in the anterior cingulate cortex. PLoS, 9(9), 1–7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106698.
MacMullin, J. A., Lunsky, Y., & Weiss, J. A. (2016). Plugged in: electronics use in youth and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 20(1), 45–54. doi:10.1177/1362361314566047.
Manago, A. M., Graham, M. B., Greenfield, P. M., & Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 446–458. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.001.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61–68. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002.
Mazurek, M. O., & Engelhardt, C. R. (2013). Video game use in boys with autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, or typical development. Pediatrics, 132(2), 260–266. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3956.
Meier, E. P., & Gray, J. (2013). Facebook photo activity associated with body image disturbance in adolescent girls. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(4), 199–206. doi:10.1089/cyber.2013.0305.
Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., & Yuan, M. (2016). The iPhone effect: the quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and Behavior, 48(2), 275–298. doi:10.1177/0013916514539755.
Morimoto, S. A., & Friedland, L. A. (2011). The lifeworld of youth in the information society. Youth & Society, 43(2), 549–567. doi:10.1177/0044118X10383655.
Morin-Major, J. K., Marin, M. F., Durand, N., Wan, N., Juster, R. P., & Lupien, S. J. (2016). Facebook behaviors associated with diurnal cortisol in adolescents: is befriending stressful? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 63, 238–246.
Mueller, P., & Oppenheimer, D. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25, 1159–1168.
Müller, C. R., Pfetsch, J., & Ittel, A. (2014). Ethical media competence as a protective factor against cyberbullying and cybervictimization among German school students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 644–651. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0168.
O’Keeffe, G. S., Clarke-Pearson, K., & Council on Communication and Media. (2011). The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. American Academy of Pediatrics, 127(4), 800–804. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0054.
Ophir, E., Nass, C. I., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 106(37), 1583–1587. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903620106.
Pabian, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., & Bastiaensens, S. (2016). Exposure to cyberbullying as a bystander: an investigation of desensitization effects among early adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 480–487. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.022.
Parkes, A., Wight, D., Hunt, K., Henderson, M., & Sargent, J. (2013). Are sexual media exposure, parental restrictions on media use and co-viewing TV and DVDs with parents and friends associated with teenagers’ early sexual behaviour? Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1121–1133. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.08.019.
Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367–1372.
Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C. J., Zuckerman, B., Nitzberg, K., Gross, J., Kaplan-Sanoff, M., …, Silverstein, M. (2014). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics, 133, e843–e849.
Rideout, V. J., & Hamel, E. (2006). The media family: electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their parents. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7500.pdf.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527859.pdf.
Roberts, D. F., & Foehr, U. (2008). Trends in media use. The Future of Children, 18(1), 11–37. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0000.
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2012). Facebook and texting made me do it: media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948–958. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001.
Saleem, M., & Anderson, C. A. (2012). The good, the bad, and the ugly of electronic media. In J. Dvoskin, J. L. Skeem, R. W. Novaco, & K. S. Douglas (Eds.), Using social science to reduce violent offending (pp. 83–101). New York: Oxford University Press.
Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: a matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 222–241.
Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., & Hamilton, H. A. (2015). Social networking sites and mental health problems in adolescents: the mediating role of cyberbullying victimization. European Psychiatry, 30(8), 1021–1027. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.09.011.
Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., & Lewis, R. F. (2015). Frequent use of social networking sites is associated with poor psychological functioning among children and adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(7), 380–385. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0055.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PloS One, 8(1), e54402. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054402.
Schmidt, M. E., & Vandewater, E. A. (2008). Media and attention, cognition, and school achievement. The Future of Children, 18(1), 63–85. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0004.
Schmidt, M. E., Pempek, T. A., Kirkorian, H. L., Lund, A. F., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). The effects of background television on the toy play behavior of very young children. Child Development, 79(4), 1137–1151.
Segool, N. K., & Crespi, T. D. (2011). Research based practice: sexting in the schoolyard. Communiqué, 39(8), 30–31.
Setliff, A. S., & Courage, M. L. (2011). Background television and infants’ allocation of their attention during toy play. Infancy, 16, 611–639.
Shin, M. S., Jeon, H., Kim, M., Hwang, T., Oh, S. J., Hwangbo, M., & Kim, K. J. (2016). Effects of smart-tablet-based neurofeedback training on cognitive function in children with attention problems. Journal of Child Neurology, 31(6), 750–760. doi:10.1177/0883073815620677.
Smith, L. J., Gradisar, M., & King, D. L. (2015). Parental influences on adolescent video game play: a study of accessibility, rules, limit setting, monitoring, and cybersafety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(5), 273–279. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0611.
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333, 776–778. doi:10.1126/science.1207745.
Stavropoulos, V., Kuss, D., Griffiths, M., & Motti-Stefanidi, F. (2016). A longitudinal study of adolescent internet addiction: the role of conscientiousness and classroom hostility. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(4), 442–473. doi:10.1177/0743558415580163.
Steiner-Adair, C. (2013). The big disconnect: protecting childhood and family relationships in the digital age. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Strasburger, V. C., Jordan, A. B., & Donnerstein, E. (2010). Health effects of media on children and adolescents. American Academy of Pediatrics, 125, 756–767. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-2563.
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online communication and adolescent relationships. The Future of Children, 18(1), 119–146. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0006.
Swing, E. L., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2010). Television and video game exposure and the development of attention problems. American Academy of Pediatrics, 126(2), 214–221. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1508.
Tichon, J. G. (2015). Exploring how children express feelings and emotions in an online support group. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 469–474. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.013.
Uhls, Y. T., Michikyan, M., Morris, J., Garcia, D., Small, G. W., Zgourou, E., & Greenfield, P. M. (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387–392. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.036.
Vaala, S. E., & Bleakley, A. (2015). Monitoring, mediating, and modeling: parental influence on adolescent computer and internet use in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 9(1), 40–57. doi:10.1080/17482798.2015.997103.
Van Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Spijkerman, R., Vermulst, A. A., van Rooij, T. J., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Compulsive internet use among adolescents: bidirectional parent–child relationships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(1), 77–89. doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9347-8.
Van Royen, K., Poels, K., & Vandebosch, H. (2016). Harmonizing freedom and protection: adolescents’ voices on automatic monitoring of social networking sites. Children and Youth Services Review, 64, 35–41. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.02.024.
Verhallen, M., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2006). The promise of multimedia stories for kindergarten children at risk. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 410–419.
Vernon, L., Barber, B. L., & Modecki, K. L. (2015). Adolescent problematic social networking and school experiences: the mediating effects of sleep disruptions and sleep quality. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(7), 386–392. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0107.
Vernon, L., Modecki, K. L., & Barber, B. L. (2016). Tracking effects of problematic social networking on adolescent psychopathology: the mediating role of sleep disruptions. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 00(00), 1–15.
Walther, B., Hanewinkel, R., & Morgenstern, M. (2014). Effects of a brief school-based media literacy intervention on digital media use in adolescents: cluster randomized controlled trial. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(9), 616–623.
Wang, H., Jin, C., Yuan, K., Shakir, T. M., Mao, C., Niu, X., et al. (2015). The alteration of gray matter volume and cognitive control in adolescents with internet gaming disorder. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 64. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00064
Weiss, M. D., Baer, S., Allan, B. A., Saran, K., & Schibuk, H. (2011). The screens culture: impact on ADHD. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, 3(4), 327–334. doi:10.1007/s12402-011-0065-z.
Whiteside, S. P. H., Ale, C. M., Vickers Douglas, K., Tiede, M. S., & Dammann, J. E. (2014). Case examples of enhancing pediatric OCD treatment with a smartphone application. Clinical Case Studies, 13(1), 80–94. doi:10.1177/1534650113504822.
Wilson, B. J. (2008). Media and children’s aggression, fear, and altruism. The Future of Children, 18(1), 87–118. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0005.
Wolf, M., & Barzillai, M. (2009). The importance of deep reading. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 32–37 Retrieved from https://www.mbaea.org/documents/resources/Educational_Leadership_Article_The__D87FE2BC4E7AD.pdf.
Woods, H., & Scott, H. (2015). #sleepyteens—is social media use related to sleep quality, self-esteem, anxiety and depression in adolescence? Abstract retrieved from https://hollyscott248.wordpress.com/publications/abstract-devsoc2015/.
Wright, J. C., Huston, A. C., Murphy, K. C., St. Peters, M., Pifion, M., Scantlin, R., & Kotler, J. (2001). The relations of early television viewing to school readiness and vocabulary of children from low-income families: the early window project. Child Development, 72, 1347–1366.
Ybarra, M. (2014). Technology and public health interventions. In A. B. Jordan & D. Romer (Eds.), Media and the wellbeing of children and adolescents (pp. 147–160). New York: Oxford University Press.
You, S., Kim, E., & No, U. (2015). Impact of violent video games on the social behaviors of adolescents: the mediating role of emotional competence. School Psychology International, 36(1), 94–111. doi:10.1177/0143034314562921.
Zimmerman, F., & Christakis, D. (2007). Associations between content types of early media exposure and subsequent attentional problems. American Academy of Pediatrics, 120(5), 986–992. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-3322.
Ziv, I., & Kiasi, M. (2016). Facebook’s contribution to well-being among adolescent and young adults as a function of mental resilience. The Journal of Psychology, 150(4), 527–541.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The authors certify that no funding has been received for the conduct of this study and/or preparation of this manuscript. The authors do not have any interests that might be interpreted as influencing the research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Savina, E., Mills, J.L., Atwood, K. et al. Digital Media and Youth: a Primer for School Psychologists. Contemp School Psychol 21, 80–91 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0119-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0119-0