It's difficult to escape alarmist speeches about the harms of digital technology. Just spending time in front of a screen, whether it's a phone, computer, or console, seems suspect today. Some governments are even considering banning social networks for minors, convinced of a direct link between overexposure to screens and psychological disorders. But is this concern based on solid evidence? What the latest major studies show is that reality is much more complex than a simple equation between duration and suffering.
Screen time, a false culprit that is too often generalized
The idea that more screen time necessarily means more discomfort quickly took hold, but scientific data largely contradicts it. One of the largest analyzes on the subject, published in Nature Human Behavior in 2019, examined more than 350,000 adolescents. His verdict is final. Screens only explain 0.4% of variations in mental well-being. A statistical impact as low as that of potato consumption, according to the authors.
However, the figures remain worrying. Many studies suggest links with obesity, depression or insomnia. Some even mention an increased risk of suicidal behavior. However, the majority of this work is limited to observing correlations. They never prove the existence of a true causal link. Thus, it remains difficult to know whether screens cause these disorders, or whether people who are already vulnerable turn to them more easily.
The confusion also comes from the fact that the term “screen time” encompasses very heterogeneous activities. Watching a series, sending a voice message, playing online or passively scrolling through a social feed do not produce the same effects. Reducing all of this to an overall duration leads to simplistic interpretations, disconnected from real uses.
When the Effects of Screen Time Become Positive or Toxic
Another recent meta-analysis, published in 2024 in the journal SSM – Mental Health, sought to disentangle the positive and negative effects according to the types of use. It focused on 78 studies focusing exclusively on indicators of positive well-being (life satisfaction, social relationships, sense of meaning, etc.), rather than on symptoms of mental suffering.
Its results challenge preconceived ideas. Using social networks to interact with loved ones, share personal content or receive support is positively associated with well-being. Online communication, digital social interactions and even intensity of use are all factors correlated with better psychological balance.
On the other hand, two uses clearly stand out as harmful: social comparison and problematic use. Endless scrolling while comparing yourself to idealized profiles, or feeling an irrepressible need to constantly connect, leads to a decline in well-being. In these cases, the effect becomes significant, with an impact comparable to that of chronic isolation.
What matters is therefore not the number of hours spent in front of a screen, but the way in which this screen is used, and the state of mind in which we engage with it. Two teenagers with the same screen time can have a radically opposite experience depending on whether they are chatting with friends or exposing themselves to guilt-inducing images.
Educate on uses rather than restricting time
Faced with this complexity, some defend a radical solution. They want to drastically reduce screen time, or even ban certain platforms. However, this global reaction neglects the variety of situations, ages and uses. She also ignores the personal reasons and the sometimes positive effects that screens can have.
New Scientist is also concerned that these restrictions miss out on real beneficial effects, such as access to information, the feeling of connection, creativity, emotional support… all benefits that no time limit can properly evaluate.
Researchers are instead banking on a better understanding of uses. They also recommend education in digital discernment. Instead of imposing rigid time limits, we must spot the signs of unbalanced use. Among them, we find loss of control, social withdrawal or even sleep disorders.
These signals concern a minority of users, but deserve specific attention. Because it is in extreme cases that screens become truly harmful. For the majority, their effect is weak, or even neutral. In other words, the debate on screen time would benefit from shifting to a more relevant question. What do we do with it, and how does it make us feel?
With an unwavering passion for local news, Christopher leads our editorial team with integrity and dedication. With over 20 years’ experience, he is the backbone of Wouldsayso, ensuring that we stay true to our mission to inform.
