Parents are more likely to read articles about the negative impacts of their children’s screen times than those that document a less consequential effect, NYU researchers found in a February study.
Steinhardt professor Erin O’Connor 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’ success, and evaluated the article’s content — such as alarmist rhetoric and advice for readers — to measure its sensationalism. They also considered the articles’ scientific framing, assessing how extensively each story referenced a study.
Researchers found that articles about children under 10 that use a combination of “alarming” language and recommended solutions are most likely to circulate on social media and garner online attention. Neuhaus said the results reflect parents’ heightened anxiety about the long-term effects of tech exposure.
“Negative portrayals of screen time — especially those using alarmist language — tend to go viral, reinforcing parental guilt and anxiety,” Neuhaus told WSN. “This creates a cycle where the most widely shared information often stokes fear rather than providing balanced guidance.”
According to the researchers’ metrics, articles are more successful when they quantify a study’s results and evaluate its credibility. Regardless of their sensationalism, most articles without scientific backing were unsuccessful — with high validity articles receiving up to 20,000 more shares than their low or medium validity counterparts.
O’Connor 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.
“Once a narrative takes hold, it’s hard to shift,” O’Connor said. “That’s why we need better ways to ensure parents have access to the full body of research, not just the most viral studies.”
O’Connor 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.
The study also found that 43% of the articles relied on just six main studies. While researchers said this represented a predictable pattern — when one media outlet covers a study, several more will follow — it causes disproportionate emphasis on few batches of data.
“Despite the complexity of screen time research, media coverage tends to rely on a handful of studies, meaning the public’s understanding is shaped by a narrow slice of the evidence,” Neuhaus said. “This raises important questions about how research gets amplified and whether critical nuances are lost in translation.”
Contact Daphne Zhu at [email protected].
