


*study from last year https://twitter.com/lieberothdk/status/1358738596648292354
A recent preprint that builds on this research did just come out. https://twitter.com/cjsewall9/status/1356601957591441410
*snark alert - Imagine if you had numerous publications which ONLY used self-reports of screen time, wrote a book on it,and started a national moral panic - only to discover that you used a bad assessment.
Really makes you wish you had validated it first, right?
Really makes you wish you had validated it first, right?
I’m almost positive that if talented scholars like @ShuhBillSkee @BritDavidson @davidaellis @OrbenAmy @cjsewall9 (and others) didn’t have to spend so much time debunking this stuff they would have invented teleportation by now.
So, thanks Twenge, for the no teleportation.
So, thanks Twenge, for the no teleportation.
This bad research -and a rush to publish using invalid measures - can have tragic outcomes.
If a well-meaning parent takes away a depressed teens phone,based on this poor research, they are removing a vulnerable teens primary social connection. This MIGHT be a really bad idea.
If a well-meaning parent takes away a depressed teens phone,based on this poor research, they are removing a vulnerable teens primary social connection. This MIGHT be a really bad idea.
This is tragic because parents are just doing what they believe is best for their child based on this shoddy research.
It is something many warned certain researchers about who used invalid assessments of screen time.
These researchers should have known better.
It is something many warned certain researchers about who used invalid assessments of screen time.
These researchers should have known better.
It isn’t as simple as screens are all “bad” or “good.” There is no one size solution when we navigating the pixelated minefield of social media. But suggesting they are “destroying a generation” before validation is not only irresponsible but is outright dangerous.