watch TV shows or movies on an iPad, laptop, or handheld device, but because viewing media this way is more stimulating and dysregulating (for reasons I’ll get into later), I consider this to be interactive screen-time.
Generally speaking, both interactive and passive screen-time are associated with health issues. Research indicates both types are involved in obesity, attention problems, slower reading development, depression, sleep problems, diminished creativity, and irritability, to name a few.1 What is somewhat counterintuitive with ESS, however, is that interactive screen-time is much worse than passive. Many families I work with already limit passive screen-time (such as television) but not interactive. This is because we associate passive viewing with inactivity, apathy, and laziness. In fact, parents are often encouraged to provide interactive screen-time (particularly in favor of passive screen-time), with the rationale that surely this type of activity engages the child’s brain. Children are forced to think and puzzle rather than just watch, so it must be better, right? But interaction is in and of itself one of the major factors that contributes to hyperarousal,2 so sooner or later, any potential benefit of interactivity is overridden by stress-related reactions. Furthermore, interactivity is what keeps the user engaged by providing a sense of control, choices, and immediate gratification, but unfortunately these attributes are the same ones that activate reward circuits and lead to prolonged, compulsive, and even addictive use.3
Burgeoning research comparing the two supports this theory that interactive screen-time is more dysregulating to the nervous system than passive. A 2012 study surveying the habits of over two thousand kindergarten, elementary, and junior high school children found that the minimum amount of screen-time associated with sleep disturbance was just thirty minutes for interactive (computer or video game use) compared to two hours for passive (television use).4 A 2007 study demonstrated that sleep and memory were significantly impaired following a single session of excessive computer game playing, while a single session of excessive television viewing produced only mild sleep impairment and had no effect on memory.5 And a large 2011 survey of American adolescents and adults demonstrated that interactive device use before bedtime was strongly associated with trouble falling asleep and staying asleep while passive media use was not.6 Notably, this study also revealed that adolescents and young adults under thirty were the age group most likely to use interactive devices before bedtime, and they also reported the most sleep disturbance. Moreover, of those experiencing sleep problems, 94 percent also reported an impact on at least one area of functioning: mood (85 percent), school/work (83 percent), home/family life (72 percent), and social life/relationships (68 percent). Not coincidentally, these are the very areas of functioning the Reset Program addresses! And finally, we know that actual brain damage occurs from excessive Internet and video game use that looks remarkably similar to that from drug and alcohol abuse,7 so something about the interactive nature either directly (through hyperarousal) or indirectly (through addiction processes) makes interactive screen-time more potent as well as distinct.
When implementing the electronic fast in the Reset Program, I typically allow small amounts of television or movies under certain conditions (as discussed in chapter 5). If these conditions are met, the fast is still highly effective. On the other hand, allowing even small amounts of gaming or computer play often renders the Reset useless. Thus, for the Reset Program, we are primarily concerned with eliminating interactive screen-time. Additionally, most parents become overwhelmed at the thought of taking away all electronics, so allowing a small amount of passive viewing of appropriate, calm content provides parents with a bit of a respite. That said, I do not take television’s effects lightly, especially on the very young,* and I applaud anyone who removes all passive screen-time in addition to the other requirements of the fast. Regarding computer use for school purposes, I typically allow it during the Reset, but certain exceptions and rules apply (as discussed in chapters 5 and 10).
Common Misconceptions about Problematic Screen-Time
Misconceptions abound when it comes to screen-time, even among mental health professionals. For starters, it’s not just violent video games that can cause dysregulation, but any video game — including educational or seemingly benign games, like puzzles or building games. Another myth is that it’s only children who are “addicted” to gaming, Internet use, or social media who experience issues, or that screen-time only becomes a problem when parents don’t restrict it. In fact, many children display symptoms from screen-time without being addicted per se, and some children become overstimulated and dysregulated with only minimal amounts of screen exposure. I see many families in which the parents limit usage to levels at or below what the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends (no more than one to two hours total screen-time daily),8 but if some or most of that time is interactive, it can easily create a problem.
The truth is, every child is affected differently. Comparing your child’s screen-time to his or her peers isn’t helpful either, as it doesn’t necessarily provide protection if it’s less than others’. The average child is exposed to several fold–higher levels of electronic screen media compared to just one generation ago — not to mention the constant bombardment of wireless communication that often accompanies it.
This fact bears emphasizing: “moderate use” today amounts to exposing your child to levels of electronics use never before seen in history.
This is why I caution parents against trying to distinguish between “good” and “bad” screen-time or between “too much” and “only a little.” Though understandable, this mind-set is risky. The purpose of the Reset is to provide the brain with a clean break and adequate rest to return to its natural state. The reality is that there are likely many variables — too many to sort out — between various screen activities and each individual child’s makeup and vulnerabilities. But even if we could distinguish them all, these differences would likely be meaningless in the larger picture. Among all the various kinds of problematic screen-time, research is uncovering more similarities than differences. Thus, when approaching a Reset, the easiest and most productive thing to do is to lump all interactive screen-time together.
Kindle, Cartoons, and Cognitive Load
So why is it that reading a book before bed is soothing, while viewing an e-reader can be just the opposite? In either case, we are reading the same content, whether that be an adventure story or an historical account. It’s that the medium itself affects the amount of energy needed to process and synthesize information, a factor researchers call cognitive load. Parents often ask if e-readers like the Kindle or Nook “count” as interactive devices. After all, these particular devices do not emit light, they use electronic “ink,” and they are supposed to read like a regular paper book. Only they don’t. Studies show that reading is slower and that recall and comprehension is impaired when using an e-reader, suggesting that the brain doesn’t process the information as easily.9 Conversely, research suggests that the sensory feedback of a real book helps us incorporate information: the weight, texture, and pressure felt from holding a book; the cracking of its spine and flipping of its pages; the buildup of turned pages that provides a sense of how far along you are in the story — all reduce the cognitive load needed to absorb the information. Finally, while e-ink displays are less visually fatiguing than LCD screens, they are still hard to visually and cognitively process because they are pixelated, display a “flash” when refreshing between pages, and don’t provide 3-D input.
High cognitive load is also the reason I eliminate fast-paced cartoons for the Reset. If some TV is allowed, what’s watched should be, above all, slow-paced. Cartoons of all kinds are typically much more rapidly paced today. Scene changes, movement within scenes, and plot points unfold very quickly, and all of this the brain must digest. A recent study demonstrated that just nine minutes of viewing
