CBC Radio⁠48%

Screen time can affect children's language development, study suggests ⁠42%

By Bob McDonald⁠0%

3/15/2024, 7:39:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Indoctrination, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 31.1% saturation with 179 hits. Analysis detected 1,642 faulty-reasoning hits from 575 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (12,430 of 21,203 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.60% of the article peer group.

You may have seen the sight of a very young child completely engaged in a handheld device while the parents enjoy a little peace and quiet. 
But a new study shows that too much time alone on those devices could have a detrimental effect on the child's ability to speak fluently. 
According to a recent study in JAMA Pediatrics, the more time toddlers spend on devices, the less they learn to use the kind of words adults use in spoken language. 
Australian and U.K. scientists looked at the effects of screen time on 220 Australian families with children ranging from 12 to 36 months old, checking in once every six months from 2018 to 2021 at their homes. 
Within two weeks of each visit, families were asked to record their child's audio environment for an average 16-hour day using Language Environment Analysis (LENA) technology, otherwise known as a "talk pedometer." 
In the families' own homes, the LENA technology automatically measured the amount of screen time, how often the child vocalized, the interactions between child and parent, and the number of adult words that were used. 
The greatest effects were at 36 months of age where just an additional minute of screen time — compared to those who follow the World Health Organization's guidelines for screen time of one hour per day at that age — was associated with a reduction of 6.6 adult words spoken around the child, 4.9 fewer child vocalizations and 1.1 less back and forth interactions between the parent and child. 
Children need to learn an entire language within the first few years of their lives, which is a remarkable achievement for developing brains, and the best tool to learn vocabulary is by conversing face to face with adults. 
Growing up in a language-rich environment is associated with younger children's language development, their social and emotional development, their IQ and their how their brains develop. 
In addition to words, children learn body language, facial expressions and all the other non-verbal ways humans communicate. 
Electronic devices do a great job of capturing the attention of toddlers, but they don't provide the same quality of learning as direct face time with real people. 
Scientists call it "technoference" when technology interferes with interactions between a parent and a child. 
The Canadian Paediatric Society currently recommends against any screen time for children under two, with the exception of video calls with family members. 
For children between two and five, it recommends limiting screen time to less than an hour per day. 
Other studies have shown that excessive screen time can have negative effects later in life, including an increased likelihood of developing problems with obesity, sleep disorders, depression and anxiety. 
A good place to start dealing with these issues is when children are very young. 
Portable devices have become so ubiquitous in so many aspects of our lives, children have more access to the compelling attraction of the flickering screens and parents find them a handy tool to take a break from the rigours of childrearing, so they are not going to disappear anytime soon. 
With that in mind, the authors suggest parents carefully manage children's screen time and when a device is given to a child for educational purposes, that they share the experience through more interactive, co-operative viewing and keep talking to promote the early use of language. 
After all, nothing replaces real face time. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 2.3%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Bob McDonald: 1.8%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias12.0%This article: 4.5%Bob McDonald: 3.7%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic4.5%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 2.8%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.9%CBC: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 1.6%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Bob McDonald: 4.6%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 1.1%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.7%Bob McDonald: 2.2%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.2%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 4.5%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Bob McDonald: 5.8%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias10.4%This article: 26.3%Bob McDonald: 9.8%CBC: 5.6%Negativity Bias26.3%This article: 7.8%Bob McDonald: 0.5%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.3%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Bob McDonald: 1.0%CBC: 3.7%Halo Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Bob McDonald: 2.3%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.2%Bob McDonald: 4.3%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority20.2%This article: 6.1%Bob McDonald: 1.8%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma6.1%This article: 8.7%Bob McDonald: 1.3%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope8.7%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.0%Bob McDonald: 6.1%CBC: 4.9%Hasty Generalization17.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.0%Bob McDonald: 2.3%CBC: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion13.0%This article: 6.6%Bob McDonald: 0.6%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question6.6%This article: 31.1%Bob McDonald: 3.7%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)31.1%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.6%Bob McDonald: 1.6%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.6%This article: 6.6%Bob McDonald: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature6.6%This article: 4.5%Bob McDonald: 0.8%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division4.5%This article: 4.5%Bob McDonald: 1.6%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal4.5%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.7%Bob McDonald: 2.0%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.7%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.3%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.0%Bob McDonald: 0.3%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading4.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.1%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.2%Bob McDonald: 0.5%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 27.8%Bob McDonald: 9.4%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice27.8%This article: 25.4%Bob McDonald: 4.9%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination25.4%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob McDonald: 0.8%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

575 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers24%attributed speech435writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJAMA Pediatrics • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWorld Health Organization • 69 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageCanadian Paediatric Society • 23 words • 100.0% coverageCanadian Paediatric Society • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
69 attributed words49% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+79.1 ptsWriter: 20.9%World Health Organization: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-24.1 ptsWriter: 24.1%World Health Organization: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.