{"id":861,"date":"2025-03-18T11:00:28","date_gmt":"2025-03-18T12:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/?p=861"},"modified":"2025-03-20T12:56:41","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T12:56:41","slug":"parents-gravitate-toward-sensationalized-articles-about-kids-screen-time-nyu-study-finds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/2025\/03\/18\/parents-gravitate-toward-sensationalized-articles-about-kids-screen-time-nyu-study-finds\/","title":{"rendered":"Parents gravitate toward sensationalized articles about kids\u2019 screen time, NYU study finds"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Parents are more likely to read articles about the negative impacts of their children\u2019s screen times than those that document a less consequential effect, NYU researchers <\/span>found in a February study<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Steinhardt professor Erin O\u2019Connor and Steinhardt doctoral student Robin Neuhaus, who co-authored the study, evaluated 136 articles about how excessive screen time affects the cognitive development of children. The researchers analyzed social media shares and engagement to quantify each articles\u2019 success, and evaluated the article\u2019s content \u2014 such as alarmist rhetoric and advice for readers \u2014 to measure its sensationalism. They also considered the articles\u2019 scientific framing, assessing how extensively each story referenced a study.<\/span><\/p>\n

Researchers found that articles about children under 10 that use a combination of \u201calarming\u201d language and recommended solutions are most likely to circulate on social media and garner online attention. Neuhaus said the results reflect parents\u2019 heightened anxiety about the long-term effects of tech exposure.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cNegative portrayals of screen time \u2014 especially those using alarmist language \u2014 tend to go viral, reinforcing parental guilt and anxiety,\u201d Neuhaus told WSN. \u201cThis creates a cycle where the most widely shared information often stokes fear rather than providing balanced guidance.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the researchers\u2019 metrics, articles are more successful when they quantify a study\u2019s results and evaluate its credibility. Regardless of their sensationalism, most articles without scientific backing were unsuccessful \u2014 with high validity articles receiving up to 20,000 more shares than their low or medium validity counterparts.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

O\u2019Connor and Neuhaus also co-founded <\/span>Nested Institute for Families<\/span><\/a>, a research institute that focuses on advancing family well-being and advocating for policy changes by expanding the reach of research. At the nonprofit, the two have continuously advocated for more effective communication and media attention to health-related issues that affect families.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cOnce a narrative takes hold, it\u2019s hard to shift,\u201d O\u2019Connor said. \u201cThat\u2019s why we need better ways to ensure parents have access to the full body of research, not just the most viral studies.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

O\u2019Connor also advised parents to understand details about how the study was conducted and to pay attention to the limitations of the research, rather than allowing fear-based narratives to dominate the conversation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The study also found that 43% of the articles relied on just six main studies. While researchers said this represented a predictable pattern \u2014 when one media outlet covers a study, several more will follow \u2014 it causes disproportionate emphasis on few batches of data.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cDespite the complexity of screen time research, media coverage tends to rely on a handful of studies, meaning the public\u2019s understanding is shaped by a narrow slice of the evidence,\u201d Neuhaus said. \u201cThis raises important questions about how research gets amplified and whether critical nuances are lost in translation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Contact Daphne Zhu at dzhu@nyunews.com.<\/em><\/p>\n

This story Parents gravitate toward sensationalized articles about kids\u2019 screen time, NYU study finds<\/a> appeared first on Washington Square News<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Parents are more likely to read articles about the negative impacts of their children\u2019s screen times than those that document a less consequential effect, NYU researchers found in a February study.\u00a0\u00a0 Steinhardt professor Erin O\u2019Connor and Steinhardt doctoral student Robin Neuhaus, who co-authored the study, evaluated 136 articles about how excessive screen time affects the cognitive development of children. The researchers analyzed social media shares and engagement to quantify each articles\u2019 success, and evaluated the article\u2019s content \u2014 such as alarmist rhetoric and advice for readers \u2014 to measure its sensationalism. They also considered the articles\u2019 scientific framing, assessing how extensively each story referenced a study. Researchers found that articles about children under 10 that use a combination of \u201calarming\u201d language and recommended solutions are most likely to circulate on social media and garner online attention. Neuhaus said the results reflect parents\u2019 heightened anxiety about the long-term effects of tech exposure.\u00a0 \u201cNegative portrayals of screen time \u2014 especially those using alarmist language \u2014 tend to go viral, reinforcing parental guilt and anxiety,\u201d Neuhaus told WSN. \u201cThis creates a cycle where the most widely shared information often stokes fear rather than providing balanced guidance.\u201d According to the researchers\u2019 metrics, articles are more successful when they quantify a study\u2019s results and evaluate its credibility. Regardless of their sensationalism, most articles without scientific backing were unsuccessful \u2014 with high validity articles receiving up to 20,000 more shares than their low or medium validity counterparts.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 O\u2019Connor and Neuhaus also co-founded Nested Institute for Families, a research institute that focuses on advancing family well-being and advocating for policy changes by expanding the reach of research. At the nonprofit, the two have continuously advocated for more effective communication and media attention to health-related issues that affect families.\u00a0 \u201cOnce a narrative takes hold, it\u2019s hard to shift,\u201d O\u2019Connor said. \u201cThat\u2019s why we need better ways to ensure parents have access to the full body of research, not just the most viral studies.\u201d O\u2019Connor also advised parents to understand details about how the study was conducted and to pay attention to the limitations of the research, rather than allowing fear-based narratives to dominate the conversation.\u00a0 The study also found that 43% of the articles relied on just six main studies. While researchers said this represented a predictable pattern \u2014 when one media outlet covers a study, several more will follow \u2014 it causes disproportionate emphasis on few batches of data. \u201cDespite the complexity of screen time research, media coverage tends to rely on a handful of studies, meaning the public\u2019s understanding is shaped by a narrow slice of the evidence,\u201d Neuhaus said. \u201cThis raises important questions about how research gets amplified and whether critical nuances are lost in translation.\u201d Contact Daphne Zhu at dzhu@nyunews.com. This story Parents gravitate toward sensationalized articles about kids\u2019 screen time, NYU study finds appeared first on Washington Square News.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":863,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-861","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/861","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=861"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/861\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":864,"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/861\/revisions\/864"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/863"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=861"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=861"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/jtotheb.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=861"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}