The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 44 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time”
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Debates concerning the impacts of screen time are widespread. Existing research presents mixed findings, and lacks longitudinal evidence for any causal or long-term effects. We present a critical account of the current shortcomings of the screen time literature. These include poor conceptualisation, the use of non-standardised measures that are predominantly self-report, and issues with measuring screen time over time and context. Based on these issues, we make a series of recommendations as a basis for furthering academic and public debate. These include drawing on a user-focused approach in order to seek the various affordances gained from “screen use”. Within this, we can better understand the way in which these vary across time and context, and make distinction between objective measures of “screen time” compared to those more subjective experiences of uses or affordances, and the differential impacts these may bring.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This critical review argues that “screen time” research suffers from poor conceptualization, non-standardized self-report measures, and context/time measurement problems, producing mixed and weak evidence. It recommends retiring “screen time” and adopting user-focused, affordance-based “screen use” measures, including objective data and control groups where feasible.
Key findings
- Definitions of screen time vary widely; the WHO definition focuses on sedentary screen time and excludes active screen-based games such as exergaming, while the field often treats screen time as a unidimensional construct.
- Self-report estimates are inaccurate: Ernala et al. found participants were most accurate—only 34%—when reporting number of Facebook visits per day, but very inaccurate for “time,” “minutes,” or “hours” spent on Facebook; smartphone users tend to underestimate use, and Facebook users overreport time but underreport visits.
- Evidence for causal or long-term effects is weak: reviews and meta-analyses report mixed findings, and longitudinal studies observe either no or very small effects of screen time on depressive symptoms, video games, social media, and passive screen use.
- The authors recommend retiring the term “screen time,” differentiating numerical screen time from goal-directed “screen use,” and using user-focused, affordance-based measures, objective data, taxonomies, and control groups.
Methods
- Design: conceptual/critical review and commentary; no primary data, sample, or empirical study are reported.
- Evidence base: cites existing reviews, meta-analyses, longitudinal studies, and measurement studies; no systematic search strategy or inclusion criteria are described.
- Main analysis: narrative critique organized around four issues—conceptual chaos, poor estimates, variation across contexts, and change over time—followed by recommendations.
Limitations
- The paper does not state formal limitations of its own approach.
- Evident from the text: it is a critical/conceptual account rather than a systematic review, with no reported systematic search, data extraction, or quality appraisal.
- Evident from the text: the recommendations—such as retiring “screen time,” adopting affordance-based measures, and using control groups—are proposals not empirically tested in this paper.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
16 Not checked yet · 14 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given · 3 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“there lacks clear longitudinal evidence that they represent a pure causal effect driven by screen media [5,6,7]”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [5] Jensen, 2019, Young adolescents’ digital technology use and mental health symptoms: Little evidence of longitudinal or daily linkages, Clin. Psychol. Sci. source
The Discussion says much of the literature is cross-sectional, which prohibits causal inference, and that the few longitudinal and experimental studies have yielded mixed results with small effects. The Conclusions report little evidence of either a correlational or causal linkage in this longitudinal study. The supplied passages do not give page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites [6] Orben, 2019, Social Media’s Enduring Effect on Adolescent Life Satisfaction, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA source
The Abstract says that cross-sectional associations cannot be assumed to reflect within-person effects over time, and that research has had few means of separating longitudinal effects from modeling artifacts. It also describes the observed social-media effects as small and potentially reciprocal, supporting the caution against treating the associations as a pure effect of screen media. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites [7] Orben, 2019, The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use, Nat. Hum. Behav. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the discussion (p. 14), the paper says its analyses cannot establish whether technology use causes lower adolescent well-being: most large-scale datasets permit only cross-sectional correlations, and confounding or reverse causation remains possible. That supports the caution against treating observed associations as a pure screen-media effect, but the paper does not establish the more specific claim that the literature lacks clear longitudinal evidence. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“a growing consensus has emerged suggesting that the associations observed between screen time and psychological or health outcomes are very small in size”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [5] Jensen, 2019, Young adolescents’ digital technology use and mental health symptoms: Little evidence of longitudinal or daily linkages, Clin. Psychol. Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion says that prior studies of adolescents’ technology use and mental health have yielded mixed results with small effect sizes, and the Introduction describes small effects on mental well-being even at high levels of use. These passages support the claim for mental-health outcomes, but do not establish it for health outcomes more broadly. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [6] Orben, 2019, Social Media’s Enduring Effect on Adolescent Life Satisfaction, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports a small cross-sectional correlation between adolescent social media use and life satisfaction (ψ = −0.13), and describes most effects as tiny (Abstract; page unavailable). That supports the claim for this particular use and outcome, but the paper does not establish it for screen time generally or for health outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [7] Orben, 2019, The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use, Nat. Hum. Behav. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The opening summary (p. 1) reports that the association between digital technology use and adolescent well-being is small, explaining at most 0.4% of variation; the Discussion (p. 12) likewise describes a small negative association. The paper supports the claim for adolescent psychological well-being, but these passages do not establish the same conclusion for health outcomes generally or a growing consensus across that broader literature. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“other factors tend to explain far more variability when researchers adopt more theoretically-aligned approaches that explain the link between screen time and psychosocial well-being [3,7]”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Odgers, 2020, Annual Research Review: Adolescent Mental Health in the Digital Age: Facts, Fears, and Future Directions, J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Orben, 2019, The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use, Nat. Hum. Behav. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is wide variation in the self-report measures used to capture screen time.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 2. Issue 1—Conceptual Chaos—What Is Screen Time?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“accumulating evidence indicates that timing functions are impaired in a variety of developmental disorders including ADHD [32,33], dyslexia [34], and autism [35,36].”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 3. Issue 2—Estimates Are Not Good Enough
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Marx, 2017, Living in the fast lane: Evidence for a global perceptual timing deficit in childhood ADHD caused by distinct but partially overlapping task-dependent cognitive mechanisms, Front. Hum. Neurosci. source
- Not checked yetcites [33] Noreika, 2013, Timing deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Evidence from neurocognitive and neuroimaging studies, Neuropsychologia source
- Not checked yetcites [34] Gooch, 2011, Time perception, phonological skills and executive function in children with dyslexia and/or ADHD symptoms, J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry source
- Not checked yetcites [35] Isaksson, 2018, Is there a generalized timing impairment in autism spectrum disorders across time scales and paradigms?, J. Psychiatr. Res. source
- Not checked yetcites [36] Karaminis, 2016, Central tendency effects in time interval reproduction in autism, Sci. Rep. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“recent reviews and meta-analyses repeatedly conclude that the evidence base is difficult to interpret and presents mixed findings [3,4]”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Existing research presents mixed findings, and lacks longitudinal evidence for any causal or long-term effects.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Odgers, 2020, Annual Research Review: Adolescent Mental Health in the Digital Age: Facts, Fears, and Future Directions, J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Orben, 2020, Teenagers, Screens and Social Media: A Narrative Review of Reviews and Key Studies, Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“evidence suggests that these can be particularly ill-fitting for the purposes of gaining accurate data on people’s technology-related use [27,37,38]”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 3. Issue 2—Estimates Are Not Good Enough
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Ernala, S.K., Burke, M., Leavitt, A., and Ellison, N.B. (2020, January 25–30). How well do people report time spent on Facebook? An evaluation of established survey questions with recommendations. Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA. source
- Not checked yetcites [37] Ellis, 2019, Are smartphones really that bad? Improving the psychological measurement of technology-related behaviors, Comput. Hum. Behav. source
- Not checked yetcites [38] Sewall, C.J.R., Bear, T.B., Merranko, J., and Rosen, D. (2020). How psychosocial well-being and usage amount predict inaccuracies in retrospective estimates of digital technology use. Mob. Media Commun. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Definitions of screen time vary, which poses a myriad of issues relating to harmonisation, measurement and comparison.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 2. Issue 1—Conceptual Chaos—What Is Screen Time?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“when comparing smartphone users’ estimates of their own smartphone use, and checking behaviours with their actual use (garnered from smartphone data), they tend to underestimate these behaviours [39]”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 3. Issue 2—Estimates Are Not Good Enough
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] Andrews, S., Ellis, D.A., Shaw, H., and Piwek, L. (2015). Beyond self report: Tools to compare estimated and real-world Smartphone use. PLoS ONE, 10. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is unclear how applicable any given measure of “screen time” will be for the duration of a given piece of research.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 5. Issue 4—Screen Use Changes over Time
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The WHO, therefore, does not include screen activities like exergaming”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 2. Issue 1—Conceptual Chaos—What Is Screen Time?
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [14] World Health Organization (2020, April 17). Guidelines on Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour and Sleep for Children under 5 Years of Age. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/311664. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Scope and Purpose section says the guidelines limit “screen-based sedentary activities,” which supports distinguishing sedentary screen time from physically active activities. But our copy does not mention exergaming or explicitly say whether WHO excludes active screen-based games from that category (searched: exergaming, active screen-based games). (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“for social networking sites such as Facebook, compared to actual use garnered from log data, people tend to overreport how much time they spend on Facebook but underreport how many times they visit per day [27]”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 3. Issue 2—Estimates Are Not Good Enough
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Ernala, S.K., Burke, M., Leavitt, A., and Ellison, N.B. (2020, January 25–30). How well do people report time spent on Facebook? An evaluation of established survey questions with recommendations. Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“adversity in childhood consistently predicts poor psychosocial functioning and long-term health outcomes [12]”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Bellis, 2014, Adverse childhood experiences: Retrospective study to determine their impact on adult health behaviours and health outcomes in a UK population, J. Public Health source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is far from clear whether participants can accurately estimate the amount of screen time they engage in or whether this estimate is systematically biased by screen use itself.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 3. Issue 2—Estimates Are Not Good Enough
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“social support garnered through screen-based activities [8], types of social interactions [9], pre-existing levels of social anxiety [10], and fear of missing out [11] might be more influential in predicting well-being outcomes than screen time directly.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Wang, 2018, The exacerbating role of perceived social support and the "buffering" role of depression in the relation between sensation seeking and adolescent smartphone addiction, Pers. Individ. Dif. source
- Not checked yetcites [9] Twenge, 2019, Less in-person social interaction with peers among US adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness, J. Soc. Pers. Relat. source
- Not checked yetcites [10] Hong, 2019, The mediating and moderating roles of social anxiety and relatedness need satisfaction on the relationship between shyness and problematic mobile phone use among adolescents, Comput. Hum. Behav. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“even simple screen time measures can be expected to include a high degree of measurement error, which is likely to contribute toward contradictory and inconsistent empirical results.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 2. Issue 1—Conceptual Chaos—What Is Screen Time?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders have higher rates of social media use [28] and may use screens to support social and communication skills [29]”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 2. Issue 1—Conceptual Chaos—What Is Screen Time?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Nereim, 2019, A primary care pediatrician’s guide to assessing problematic interactive media use, Curr. Opin. Pediatr. source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Petrou, 2016, A trial of an iPad™ intervention targeting social communication skills in children with autism, Autism source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is a tendency to assume that screen time is a largely unidimensional or homogeneous construct, with little work to unify definitions or ensure that conceptualisations are agreed upon.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 2. Issue 1—Conceptual Chaos—What Is Screen Time?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“participants were most accurate (albeit only at a rate of 34%) when reporting on number of times per day they visited Facebook, but very inaccurate when gauging how many “time”, “minutes” or “hours” they had spent on average per day on Facebook”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 2. Issue 1—Conceptual Chaos—What Is Screen Time?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Ernala, S.K., Burke, M., Leavitt, A., and Ellison, N.B. (2020, January 25–30). How well do people report time spent on Facebook? An evaluation of established survey questions with recommendations. Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such studies are lacking because ensuring participant compliance is challenging [4,49], and those published fail to show consistent results [50,51,52].”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 5. Issue 4—Screen Use Changes over Time
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Orben, 2020, Teenagers, Screens and Social Media: A Narrative Review of Reviews and Key Studies, Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. source
- Not checked yetcites [49] Allcott, 2019, The welfare effects of social media, Am. Econ. Rev. source
- Not checked yetcites [50] Vanman, 2018, The burden of online friends: The effects of giving up Facebook on stress and well-being, J. Soc. Psychol. source
- Not checked yetcites [51] Tromholt, 2016, The Facebook Experiment: Quitting Facebook Leads to Higher Levels of Well-Being, Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. source
- Not checked yetcites [52] Hunt, 2018, No more FOMO: Limiting social media decreases loneliness and depression, J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An affordance-based approach avoids relying on the commercial success of platforms or devices and instead establishes measurements which should theoretically remain more stable over time.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 5. Issue 4—Screen Use Changes over Time
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there has been little movement in the field to develop high-quality screen time measures because this involves a variety of methodological, security and privacy challenges.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 3. Issue 2—Estimates Are Not Good Enough
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“researchers may also start to realise new opportunities by teasing out causal relationships between screen time and psychological impacts with observational data alone [54].”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 5. Issue 4—Screen Use Changes over Time
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [54] Rohrer, 2018, Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data, Adv. Methods Pr. Psychol. Sci.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“studies of this nature would necessitate the use of control groups where subsets of participants are asked to refrain from using screens (or a certain subset of them).”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 5. Issue 4—Screen Use Changes over Time
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“repeated data collection can become disruptive for participants’ education and this can make it more likely that researchers will seek out measurements that are quick but which are less psychometrically substantive to draw strong conclusions.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 5. Issue 4—Screen Use Changes over Time
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“no research to date has used a profiling or cluster-based approach to explore how these various screen time proportionalities may map out onto psychological or behavioural outcomes.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 4. Issue 3—Screen Use Varies across Contexts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While recording screen time on individual devices such as a smartphone, or a specific smartphone app is now possible, even these approaches will struggle to address how much time is spent on different forms of screen-based engagement which take place on multiple screens.”
§ The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time” > 4. Issue 3—Screen Use Varies across Contexts
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Concerns that screen time negatively impacts psychosocial functioning, health and behaviours are widespread.
“concerns that screen time negatively impacts psychosocial functioning, health and behaviours remain widespread, and are routinely voiced in academic, policy and media circles.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Most used self- or parent-reported data on total screen use rather than assessing specific device or activity types that might have differing associations with sleep.2,13”
From Screen Use at Bedtime and Sleep Duration and Quality Among Youths (2024) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Screen time does not capture the content or context of screen use, which could be examined in future research [20, 128].”
From Screen time and mental health: a prospective analysis of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (2024) · cites this paper as [128]
Citations
Cites
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702617723376 · Cited by 1,705
The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use
Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1 · Cited by 1,500
Self-citationTwenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018) · Preventive Medicine Reports · doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.003 · Cited by 1,304
Odgers, C. L., & Jensen, M. R. (2020) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.13190 · Cited by 1,189 · cited 2×
“Whilst some evidence routinely shows negative correlations between screen time and well-being [1,2], recent reviews and meta-analyses repeatedly conclude that the evidence base is difficult to interpret and presents mixed findings [3,4].”
BackgroundResultElhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079 · Cited by 1,020
Thinking Clearly About Correlations and Causation: Graphical Causal Models for Observational Data
Rohrer, J. M. (2018) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245917745629 · Cited by 1,002 · cited 1×
“Alternatively, researchers may also start to realise new opportunities by teasing out causal relationships between screen time and psychological impacts with observational data alone [54].”
BackgroundNo More FOMO: Limiting Social Media Decreases Loneliness and Depression
Hunt, M. G., Marx, R., Lipson, C., & Young, J. (2018) · Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1521/jscp.2018.37.10.751 · Cited by 947
The welfare effects of social media
Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20190658 · Cited by 857 · cited 1×
“Such studies are lacking because ensuring participant compliance is challenging [4,49], and those published fail to show consistent results [50–52].”
ResultNesi, J., & Prinstein, M. J. (2015) · Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10802-015-0020-0 · Cited by 758
Teenagers, screens and social media: a narrative review of reviews and key studies
Orben, A. (2020) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s00127-019-01825-4 · Cited by 706
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford English Dictionary (2020), Oxford University Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Parry, D. A., Davidson, B. I., Sewall, C. J. R., Fisher, J. T., Mieczkowski, H., & Quintana, D. S. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5 · Cited by 793
Digital Wellbeing as a Dynamic Construct
Vanden Abeele, M. M. P. (2021) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1093/ct/qtaa024 · Cited by 516
Eirich, R., McArthur, B. A., Anhorn, C., McGuinness, C., Christakis, D. A., & Madigan, S. (2022) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0155 · Cited by 293
Tang, S., Werner-Seidler, A., Torok, M., Mackinnon, A. J., & Christensen, H. (2021) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102021 · Cited by 284
Mechanisms linking social media use to adolescent mental health vulnerability
Orben, A., Meier, A., Dalgleish, T., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2024) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-024-00307-y · Cited by 220
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- K. Kaye, L., Orben, A., A. Ellis, D., C. Hunter, S., & Houghton, S.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk L39 4QP, UK
- MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
- School of Management, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
- Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK
- The University of Western Australia (AU)
- Venue
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2020-05-22
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 3661
- ISSN
- 1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7277381
- OpenAlex
- W3026494741
- Semantic Scholar
- fa852005bc52ac924df6ef97a29a2222d469469b
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 10
- FWCI
- 56.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ResearchOnline (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Edge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
- Keywords
- screen time, screen use, self-report measures, objective measures, longitudinal effects
- MeSH terms
- Screen Time, Humans
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
