Should Handheld Devices be Banned?

 

With the overflow of videos, articles and how-to tidbits that flood social media today, consumers are bombarded with conflicting information that boast confident, matter-of-fact claims. This can be very dangerous for all consumers, but it is especially damaging to parent consumers who are looking for parenting resources on limited free time. Parents who are quickly scanning the internet for resources may be at high risk for noticing a title or summary of a resource and following the recommendations without vetting the quality of the article. I strongly urge parents not to do this, and here’s why:

Recently, a friend sent me the article “10 Reasons Why Handheld Devices Should Be Banned for Children Under the Age of 12” by Cris Rowan, a Pediatric Occupational Therapist. She thought I would be interested in what it had to say, and she was very right. When I saw the title, I was intrigued and was excited to learn about why we should ban handheld devices for children so that I could share this information with my followers. However, as I continued to read on, I found that the research that Rowan was citing didn’t seem to support her specific claim. As I read the article I asked myself,

“What does this have to do with the author’s recommendation to ban handheld devices for children under the age of 12?”

“Why is she recommending a complete ban of handheld devices, which, let’s be honest even the most well-intentioned of parents won’t be able to follow?”

After I finished reading the article a few times, I found that I had no answer to either of these questions. I found that the article provided very little empirical support for her claim and therefore I didn’t understand why or how she could jump to such a bold claim to ban handheld device for children under the age of 12.

Here are just a few of the thoughts that I had as I was reading this article. Believe me, you don’t want the whole list of thoughts that I had because you won’t have time to read it! Below are what I found to be the most important critiques of the article and its conclusions:

1. In most of her sections, Rowan talked about the overall impact of technology on children, including handheld devices, TV, video games, etc. I was confused how this research helped her to draw the conclusion that all children under 12 should not have access to handheld devices if all types of technology were a culprit in causing the problems cited in the research. Basically I’m asking the question, “If all technology equally caused the problem, why did Rowan select handheld devices to be banned and not all technology in general?” In reading the rest of the article, I didn’t find my answer.
2. In various sections, Rowan cited articles that discussed the negative impact of overusing technology. Very few people are going to disagree with these findings because they are consistently replicated in the research. Overuse of technology does seem to lead to obesity, poor brain development and cognitive functioning, mental health disorders, and impulse control disorders like ADHD or aggression. But what do these studies have to do with Rowan’s claim to completely eliminate handheld devices? The answer is NOTHING. These studies suggest that overuse of technology cause these concerns, but Rowan isn’t talking about overuse of technology as a whole she is talking about any use of handheld devices. If Rowan wants to claim that handheld devices should be eliminated because they harm children, she needs to cite some sources that show what she is trying to argue: that any time spent on a handheld device is harmful for physical, emotional and cognitive development. In my opinion, she didn’t even come close to citing research that supports her claim.
3. In a few of her sections, Rowan talked about the role of parents in technology. She is spot on to point this out because parents should monitor almost everything that their child does, whether it is technology use, friends or eating habits. However, just because most parents don’t supervise technology use (60% of them don’t, as Rowan cites) doesn’t mean that handheld devices need to be eliminated. It means that parents need to be better parents and monitor what their children are doing. Let’s not blame handheld devices when the research cited clearly indicated that lack of parental supervision is the problem.
4. Rowan talks about the impact of violent games and TV on the developing child and her assessment is again spot on. I agree wholeheartedly that a child who plays a game or watches TV with excessive violence will come to believe that this type of violence is acceptable and will become more aggressive. But, again, what does this have to do with completely eliminating handheld devices? Again, the answer is NOTHING! Just because Grand Theft Auto is an incredibly violent game does not mean that handheld devices should be eliminated. Review Section 3 of this blog for the answer on how to accurately handle this problem!
5. In the last section, Rowan concludes that the reason to ban handheld devices is because “The ways in which children are raised and educated with technology are no longer sustainable.” She gives no future explanation of what this means. Quite honestly, I’d like to learn more about this because it sounds serious, but without research to back it up, I can’t jump on board.

So, in conclusion, I believe that this article did not provide enough evidence to support the very bold recommendation that handheld devices be banned for children under 12. What it did do was support the recommendation that children should not overuse technology of any kind and that parents should closely monitor technology use, among other things.