I'm William Brangham, and this is "Horizons."

They are in our pockets and our workplaces, in our homes and in our schools.

Screens are everywhere.

Americans are spending more than seven hours a day looking at screens.

What is this doing to our well-being?

And does all this screen time impact different generations differently?

Coming up next.

♪ Announcer: Support for "Horizons" has been provided by Steve and Marilyn Kerman and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Additional support is provided by Friends of the News Hour.

♪ This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from Viewers Like You.

Thank you.

From the David M. Rubenstein Studio at WETA in Washington, here is William Brangham.

William: Welcome to "Horizons."

Screens are everywhere.

They are virtually inescapable in our modern world.

We are conducting a massive social experiment, bringing these devices into our lives with social media apps that compete for our attention every waking moment.

A surging industry of digital detox programs has emerged, where people go to screen-free zones or learn how to put them down or limit their time staring into them.

And with younger people in particular, the mesmerizing pull of these screens has triggered a backlash, forcefully argued in bestselling books like Jonathan Haidt's "The Anxious Generation."

The conviction there is that these devices, coupled with some other factors, are doing serious damage to children's emotional and psychological development.

But there are others who believe that the evidence of real harm is thin and doesn't yet add up to an indictment of our digital culture.

So we wanted to take stock of what we know and don't know about how this experiment is unfolding, especially as it relates to younger people.

For that, we are joined by Kostadin Kushlev.

He leads the Happy Tech Lab at Georgetown University, which explores the role of digital technology in health and well-being.

He's also conducting one of the first federally-funded randomized trials, looking at social media's impact on middle schoolers, and Courtney K. Blackwell.

She studies pediatric mental health and well-being at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine.

Welcome to you both.

Thank you so much for being here.

Kosta Kushlev, to start with you first, there is this big slice of our society, as I mentioned, who thinks we have made a grievous mistake bringing these phones into our lives and putting them in our pockets and in front of our children.

What is the evidence for that case, and what does it actually tell us?

Kostadin Kushlev: Yeah.

So the evidence isn't as strong as it is sometimes portrayed out there in the media, but there is certainly some evidence that suggests that there is a slight negative association between screen time and mental health overall, but other researchers basically find no association.

And so the interesting thing here is that none of these disagreements are about whether, you know, it's bad or good, right?

It's whether it's bad or not bad.

And so in some ways, that should perhaps surprise us more than it does because these technologies were meant to, you know, connect us to each other, make our lives better, make our lives more efficient and so forth.

But we're certainly not seeing that.

So the evidence is clear on that, but it's not exactly clear how bad exactly they are.

William: And, Courtney K. Blackwell, what would you add to that?

I mean, again, the impression if you pull a lot of parents aside, they think, "Oh, my gosh.

"What have I done?

I've let this horse out of the barn.

We've ruined our kids."

Courtney K. Blackwell: Yes.

So I agree partially with Kosta, definitely that there isn't a ton of strong, robust evidence that media is harming the average child, the average adult, kind of the average individual.

I do think there are actually some positive components to technology and media, and we do have some studies that show that.

But really, it comes down to the child or the individual and the content they're using and the context they're using it in.

And so there's so many different variables.

And it's not just that they're using or spending a lot of time on screens.

There's so many more factors that play into whether or not there's any association between their screen use and their mental health.

William: So, Courtney, just staying with you for a moment.

So you mean the point being that the complexity of what each individual and who that individual is and the context in which they're using that device is, is so complex in some way that to simply say "Instagram equals poison for all children is inappropriate."

Courtney: Exactly.

And that is also what we're hearing from some of the large health care organizations, like the American Academy of Pediatrics.

They just came out with their updated policy statement in January around this topic.

And they call it Digital Ecosystem, which I really like, because they place media in the context of children's lives.

And so it's a recognition that it's part of the life, but it's not the whole, entire part of their life.

And it really depends on who that child is and what they're bringing to the media environment, where they're doing it, how they're doing it, what they're using it for.

Because I could spend-- I don't know--an hour or two scrolling on social media, kind of not thinking about anything, just kind of escaping my stress.

Or I could spend an hour creating new content.

And so those are very different and potentially have very different effects on our mental health.

William: I see.

Kosta, I'm sure you're familiar with the psychologist Jean Twenge's research.

She's done this long-term look at youth mental health.

And she quite clearly has documented at the time at which smartphones entered society, a marked rise in depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation amongst young people, as well as a decline in risk-taking behaviors, sexual activity, taking drugs.

Some of those, we can argue, are net positives, but that evidence is often held up as a "Aha!

You see?

The phones come in and the kids get more anxious."

What do you make of that type of research?

Kostadin: Yeah, it certainly provides some evidence, but it is not evidence that is definitive, of course, because ultimately, there are other things that happened around the same time.

Obviously, there was the 2008 financial crisis around the time that the first iPhone became available.

And so, we cannot completely rule out other explanations and societal changes, but it certainly suggests that perhaps phones and social media might have something to do with it.

William: And it's also this correlation versus causation, meaning, Did it happen while, in parallel, or was it actually a driver?

Kostadin: Exactly.

Yes.

So this sort of research, again, looking at the overall evidence, provides a piece of the puzzle, but it doesn't provide a definitive answer that it's causally affecting it.

William: So, Courtney, could you help me understand, why do you think it is, then, if, as you both are saying, that the evidence is, is mixed and it's more complicated that we have societally glommed onto this idea that this is a catastrophic mistake that we've made?

Courtney: So we can actually go back in history all the way to the radio and early days of television, and we see the exact same thing.

And so it tends to new technology-- media tends to create this type of moral panic around it that especially for children being more vulnerable and this fear because we don't know necessarily what it is.

We don't know the effects of it necessarily.

And so we see these waves every time a new technology, new media kind of comes out.

And I think this is one of those that we're seeing, especially around social media.

And I'm going to forecast that we'll see it again, or continue to see it with AI.

And so we're kind of riding that wave of we don't really know.

We have this mixed evidence.

It could potentially have negative harmful effects.

It could potentially not have negative harmful effects.

And so I think we're just kind of in that panic mode right now.

And a lot of times, like Kosta was saying, it's correlational research.

And so we think we find small associations, but we can't really say that one caused the other.

But a lot of people interpret the associations as causation.

William: Right.

Kosta, what do you make of that?

Is this an Elvis Presley moment all over again?

Kostadin: Yeah.

I mean, I think the question is, what do we do with this information, right?

That it might have no effect.

It affects some people, perhaps positively, some people negatively.

Maybe overall there are negative effects.

And so the question here is, do we wait until the science is clear, which, you know, science can take a while.

And these technologies are constantly changing.

So we might never have this definitive answer that we are looking for.

And so the argument, then, is, when we're thinking about, you know, banning social media for children under 16 or banning phones in schools and so forth, do we wait until we find out or do we actually err on the side of caution and, I guess, stop this experimenting with our children and, you know, limit their access to these technologies until we find out that there is no harm?

Or there is a benefit and so forth.

William: I mean, this was the argument, Kosta, that the former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy made that the evidence is hard to pin down right now, but let's take the precautionary principle.

He argued that we ought to be putting warning labels, like we put on cigarettes, for social media.

What do you make of that as a strategy?

Kostadin: Yeah.

I mean, I guess it's a good start to start with warning labels.

I think when it comes to cigarettes, there is some evidence that they work.

But, you know, there's various levels of warning labels.

There's certainly lots of apps out there that have shown some promise in limiting how much people, especially adults, use social media.

So for example, you open Instagram and it asks you, "Are you sure?," and gives you the option to close it right away.

That seems to work to reduce the number of times people sort of unintentionally open Instagram while trying to do something else.

William: So these are features built into Instagram itself.

Kostadin: So this is a third party, these digital detox apps.

William: I see.

Kostadin: So it's a feature of those.

And so, you know, it's possible that Instagram might have a feature like this.

I doubt it.

But, you know, or it could ask you, "How long do you plan to spend on Instagram during this session?"

And so you set yourself a timer-- let's say five minutes-- and then after five minutes, it reminds you.

That reduces the amount of time people spend on these apps.

So things like that could work.

But ultimately, we are fighting against an algorithm that is designed and optimized to engage us.

And so ultimately, I think these solutions are a little bit of, you know, treating the symptoms rather than, you know, solving the real problem, which is that, what's different about this technology is that it is algorithm-based and the algorithm is really good at capturing and maintaining our attention on it.

William: Yes.

I mean, Courtney, I know you know this as well as anyone, that those tools are designed to be sticky and grab you and you show an interest in gardening or fishing or Taylor Swift, and you are going to get, like, a dopamine drip of that stuff.

And it's incredibly powerful.

And those are a hard, hard stream to swim against.

Courtney: Yes.

And I would say I'm not convinced by the research that there is a population-level harm.

And I'm also not necessarily convinced by the research that there are claims that, right, these are becoming addictive and the algorithms kind of enforce this addiction.

But I haven't seen good evidence that that is actually the case, especially at the population level.

And I think that's where it comes to play here, where we think about warning labels or we think about mask policies that affect every single child or every single individual versus more of an individual-based sort of intervention.

So like what Kosta was saying, you could download this app.

Well, that's very personal to me.

And so if I think, you know, I don't want to spend as much time, maybe that's going to help me.

But more of these kind of large policies, that's where I tend to get a little bit concerned just because we don't necessarily know that it harms at that population level.

And there's good research showing that when we look at media, and social media especially, really, it only accounts for maybe 1% of the variation in mental health problems, meaning there's a lot of other factors that would differentiate whether I have a mental health problem or not outside of social media, outside of digital media.

So it's maybe a very, very small factor.

Some researchers have called it negligible.

And so I think when we're thinking about the population level and these policies, that's where I tend to take a step back and say, do we really think at the population level these policies are necessary?

Or is it something more on an individual basis based on who the kid is and/or who the individual is and their specific case, that we want to kind of think more about these interventions to decrease media use?

William: I see.

Kosta: Yeah.

Um... William: Kosta, please.

Go right ahead.

Kostadin: And this is a really good point that most of the research, as scientists, we focus on these, like, average effects.

You know, is social media good or bad for everybody on average, right?

And so... William: A very blunt instrument.

Kostadin: Right.

A very blunt instrument.

However, I guess, you know, it's unlike cigarettes and smoking, which social media is compared a lot with, which is that, you know, with smoking, we know that if you smoke, you're going to have health problems later on, right?

With social media, it's not so clear.

But I guess then the question becomes, well, what about those, you know, let's say, 5%, 10% of kids that, you know, are now having suicidal thoughts that they wouldn't have had if they weren't on social media, comparing themselves with other people, with, you know, who look better and so forth?

And so, you know, what do we do about them?

And so as Courtney is saying, you know, one approach would be to identify who they are, which might be a little bit difficult but possible and then, you know, design interventions for them.

But I guess a counterargument to that would be that, you know, if everybody has social media, if all your peers have social media and you are the only one in your group, let's say, that does not have social media, that might actually have negative effects on its own, right?

And so... William: You'd be socially ostracized.

Kostadin: Exactly, yes.

William: You'd be made fun of.

You'd be left out of things.

Kostadin: Right.

So even if social media is, you know, bad for us or for specific people, not having me having it might actually be even worse for the kids that don't have it, because now we live in the world.

So that's where the argument would come for, uh, "OK, let's limit social media for everybody under a certain age..." or in certain places and so forth.

William: So, Courtney, let's say a parent comes to you and says, "I've seen these stories.

I've read this research.

"I do find it troubling.

How do I know, even if I'm hip to the idea..." of a social media-- or the ecosystem that you described before, the full milieu surrounding your child-- what are the things that parents ought to be worried about?

Like, what's a red line that you would say, "You know what, you might want to intervene here"?

Courtney: Right.

So there are some considerations that parents could think about.

One of them is really, is the social media or the digital media, any type of media, getting in the way of the child's daily functioning?

And so that could look like, they're using their media instead of doing other responsibilities that they have to do, like schoolwork or sleep.

And it's becoming the one thing they're doing and nothing else.

So when we think about-- maybe think about a pie.

And so your digital media use is a portion of that pie, and when it becomes a really big portion and starts crowding out everything else or other things, that's a red flag, potentially.

If it's something that is always there as a conflict in your household where you're always fighting about using media, and that's probably-- kind of happens all the time in families.

But if it's a constant and it's really that the child is not kind of changing their habits, they're not able to, and it just keeps coming up and keeps becoming the one conflict that always happens, that's another potential flag.

And then I think you just, you know your child.

And so if you can communicate with them-- and, obviously, that's hard, especially with teenagers-- but really, just getting to know what they're doing.

Why are they using social media?

Because we know that kids and even adults use it for a lot of different reasons.

And so what are they using it for?

One of the things in our research that we found is that kids who use it more for avoiding their problems or kind of to escape their stress or escape their emotional problems, that's often where we see more problematic social media use.

And so, is the child really just using it as that type of kind of escapism to get away from everything else in the world, to de-stress?

And that's their only coping mechanism?

That could also be a red flag.

And so really, it's about building kind of other mechanisms that they could use to cope.

But for a parent to recognize that, "Oh, they are always going to social media "every time they get really stressed "and they're never getting off and they're avoiding everything else they're supposed to do," those are just some things we might look for.

William: Right.

Kosta, can you tell us a little bit about the research project?

I mentioned you're launching this trial.

What are you doing?

What are you trying to tease out?

Kostadin: Yeah.

So, the research in this area, as we said before, is mostly correlational, which, you know, when I started looking at it, really surprised me, right?

Even as... William: That we didn't have better research.

Kostadin: Yeah, that there's basically no actual experiments or trials that, you know, try to isolate the causal effect of social media in the age group that we most care about.

And so what we're trying to do right now is to do that.

And the way we're doing it is we're recruiting parents, who are just about to get their kids their first smartphone, because we don't want to take anything away from the children.

So they get their first smartphone, but before they get it, we've already installed software to block social media or not to block social media.

And so then we track them for essentially these first six months of them having a phone with or without social media.

And then this is an ongoing trial, but we'll be able to look at their mental health, you know, their social interactions and social lives more broadly, as well as how they're using the phone, what apps they're going on and so forth.

So we'll be able to compare those two groups.

And, you know, I should say that even the group that is allowed to have social media, it is ultimately up to the parents.

But overall, there is a difference between the two conditions and how much access they have to social media.

William: And the kids that are given these phones that have social media blocked, they're like, "What's the deal with this?

This thing is terrible!"

Kostadin: Right.

Although they do have to consent or assent to be part of the research.

William: I see.

Kostadin: So, you know, we meet with both the parent and the child to make sure that they are onboard with being assigned to each of the two conditions.

And so far, everybody has accepted the condition they've been assigned to.

William: It'll be so fascinating to see those results.

Kostadin: Yeah.

William: Courtney, this-- the last question to you in the minute we have or so left.

Do you think that we, in this discussion about the overall harms and the concerns that people have, do you think that we--you touched on this before, though-- the idea that we are overlooking perhaps some of the benefits that these devices and these apps can offer us?

Courtney: Yes.

I definitely think we're overlooking that and also overlooking the fact that a lot of times, the research has no positive or no negative influence.

And it's just, it is.

So we often overlook the fact that, you know, I spend an hour on social media, I don't gain anything, but I also don't lose anything.

And so that's also a possibility.

Some of the research, it was interesting about this idea of thinking about restricting technology.

Really, there's opportunities for social support on social media, to learn about other people, to learn about new things, really to expand your horizons, that we've seen in the research, there are some positive [indistinct].

William: All right.

That is Courtney K. Blackwell and Kosta Kushlev.

Thank you both so much for being here.

Really wonderful conversation.

Thank you.

Kostadin: Thanks for having me.

Courtney: Thanks.

William: While we continue to wrestle with these digital devices that we've embedded in our lives, one of them has been cast in a major Hollywood movie as a big bad villain.

Toys: Woody!

Woody: I came here as fast as I could.

Toy: Why are you wearing a dress, Woody?

William: "Toy Story 5" is the latest in Pixar's enormously successful series about the adventures of a motley crew of older, vintage toys.

But now those toys are facing off against a new threat.

Woman: There's a package for you.

Bonnie: Oh, thank you, thank you!

Lilypad: Hi, there.

I'm Lilypad.

William: It's an iPad-like tablet named Lilypad that grabs a hold of the children.

Jessie: I want to talk to you, device.

Lilypad: Please.

Call me Lily.

Jessie: Now, look here.

Me and the toys have been working all summer to try and get Bonnie to make friends.

Lilypad: Yeah.

Jessie: But then you... had to ruin it.

Lilypad: Got it.

Jessie: You're not even listening to me.

Lilypad: I'm always listening.

William: The older toys quickly sense a threat from this digital interloper and wrestle with it for the kids' attention.

Jessie: [Sighs] I'm losing Bonnie to this device.

William: Andrew Stanton, who's the director of "Toy Story 5," doesn't want this film to be seen as anti-technology.

In fact, in a recent interview, he said, "Parents and kids are both struggling "with the positives of devices.

"They wouldn't be glued to them "if there wasn't the attraction of it, "and parents wouldn't be allowing it if they didn't think something was helpful about it."

Stanton went on to say that at least in the "Toy Story" universe, he hoped people would see Lilypad the tablet as having the same goals as the other old-fashioned toys, which was to help the children playing with them grow and thrive.

Maybe.

We all wish that was true, but the real-world evidence of what all these screens are doing to us tells a somewhat different story.

That is it for this episode of "Horizons."

You can watch us on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcasts.

Thank you so much for watching.

We'll see you next week.

Announcer: Support for "Horizons" has been provided by Steve and Marilyn Kerman and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Additional support is provided by Friends of the News Hour.

♪ This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from Viewers Like You.

Thank you.

♪ You're watching PBS.