Smartphone bans do not appear to work

To the extent that smartphone bans may result in increased discipline, including suspensions for youth, smartphone bans may do more harm than good for youth, as suspensions are associated with negative outcomes for youth [21]. Pediatricians would do well to speak out against them until more evidence is available.

Be wary of effect sizes

Significant miscommunication has occurred in this area because of two issues. First, too many studies rely on P values to make binary decisions about hypothesis support. Second, too many studies fail to consider whether a reported effect size is large enough to be a true effect or merely the product of unreliable responding, hypothesis guessing and other statistical noise that can create false-positive results, particularly in large sample studies. Taken together, this means that there are many false positives across research studies. This can be spotted in several ways:

(1)

This statistical issue is more common in studies with larger sample sizes. When reading a study with a large sample, one must already consider that any results may be false positives and consider the remaining three points.

(2)

For large sample studies, P values should be ignored. P values account for only sampling error, not the kind of statistical noise that can create small effect size false positives, particularly in large sample studies. Just because study authors state they found an effect does not mean they actually did if that decision is based on P values.

(3)

Does the relationship control for third variables such as adverse childhood events, bullying, neurotic personality, or prior mental health? An effect that does not will have a high probability of false-positive results.

(4)

Effect sizes below r = 0.10 or odds ratio (OR) = 1.44 have a high probability of being statistical noise [22]. These should never be considered hypothesis supportive. Furthermore, I generally recommend a cutoff of r = 0.20 or OR = 2.0 before an effect is likely to be clinically significant.

Examining the literature review of a study can also be a warning sign. Authors who only cite studies supporting their own view may be particularly prone to researcher expectancy effects that can create false-positive results.

Furthermore, meta-analyses should be held with particular suspicion. Too many meta-analyses rely on bivariate correlations, rather than controlled effect sizes, or, even more remarkably, still rely on P values. Both are common but bad practices that artificially inflate confidence in weak results.

Advocate for families not against technology

The CDC and other data make clear that the problems youth face primarily originate from within their own families, not from technology. Unfortunately, parents generally do not want to hear that their own problems trickle down to their youth, particularly when a technology moral panic offers a more palatable explanation. However, we can see from patterns in suicide in the US over the past two decades that the rates of suicide among young people and their parents tend to rise and fall in combination. These data were retrieved from the CDC’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) database and are presented in Fig. 3. Interestingly, with respect to all the concerns about youth suicide, the number of middle-aged adults who commit suicide (particularly Caucasians) is far greater and experiences steeper increases than do teenagers. The good news is that the number of suicides among teens has decreased in recent years, beginning before the widespread implementation of smartphone bans or social media bans, and with no evidence teens have reduced their smartphone or social media time.

Fig. 3

Suicides among teens, young Native American men, and middle-aged adults. These data were retrieved from the CDC’s WISQARS. CDC center for disease control and prevention, WISQARS Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System

Advocate for media literacy, not bans

There is little evidence that bans help kids. In contrast, teaching young people healthy ways to manage their phone and social media time is likely to be far more productive. Media literacy programs could focus on specific aspects of social media hygiene, such as privacy, scam awareness, setting notifications, avoiding foolish arguments, etc.

Beware false consensus claims

During moral panics, it is common for scholars on the scare/concern side to attempt to claim a consensus, in most cases simply excluding scholars who disagree with them (for example [23, 24]). Most often, these papers succeed simply in causing acrimony when no such consensus exists [25, 26]. Not surprisingly, such a paper has already been reproduced on social media [27]. Predictably, there has been controversy, noting that among the planning committees for the paper were individuals with potential financial conflicts of interest and a general failure to solicit opinions from more skeptical scholars. Even some authors on that paper have expressed concerns about the process and how it was presented [28]. Thus, such a paper represents no consensus at all, and it is unclear what motivates such claims by some scholars.

Don’t be seduced by fearmongering

Most scary claims about media and technology prove to be false [29]. Fearmongering books such as Anxious Generation and fictional television shows such as Adolescence should never be used as the basis for policy at any time, anywhere, under any circumstances.

Smartphone bans were implemented as a means of improving youth grades, behavior, and mental health. Current evidence suggests that they do not work. Furthermore, to the extent that they increase student suspensions or distract from real causes of youth problems, they may do more harm than good. The most likely benefit from smartphone bans is that they reduce reminders to teachers that kids often find them boring. There should be a moratorium on further smartphone bans until their impacts, whether positive or negative, are better understood.