of Electronic Screen Syndrome itself. They want scientific proof behind the claims I make. After all, how could something so pervasive have been overlooked as a problem until now, and don’t “positive” studies regarding interactive screen-time come out on a regular basis? I have two answers to this question. The first is to emphasize that despite seemingly conflicting studies presented by the popular press, there is a solid consensus in the medical community that screen-time is associated with multiple adverse outcomes — including academic, emotional, sleep-related, behavioral, and physical health issues — and that these effects may be long-lasting.12 Indeed, this now rather large body of research is cited throughout this book, and there has been a push by the American Academy of Pediatrics to encourage physicians to discuss screen-time health risks with parents.13 And positive studies? Even I admit there may be special cases where video games might be helpful, such as rehabilitating a limb after a serious injury. But those instances are the exception, not the norm. The vast majority of positive findings don’t transfer to real-life functioning or are conclusions from studies that aren’t considered methodologically sound. There will never be 100 percent consensus among researchers in any field, but with screen-related research, studies are often funded by powerful corporations or organizations with vested financial and political interests. These studies’ findings are suspect to begin with, and they are also “spun” in terms of significance.
For instance, regarding the use of technology in education, it may appear that there is a division of scientific opinion regarding risks versus benefits. However, despite much hype and many promises, there is as yet no solid evidence that educational software enhances learning or brain development, while there is increasingly clear evidence that computer use may hamper both. Meanwhile, virtually all the “positive” research studies are industry funded.14 Educational policy makers are often misled by such research, whose decisions trickle down to school administrators, who then buy software and licensing agreements, and so it goes.
In contrast, whether their focus is medical, psychological, or educational, serious researchers who don’t have skin in the game also don’t have huge public relations departments — which is why you don’t always hear about their work. There is nothing inherently radical about linking screen-time usage with behavioral problems. Perhaps the most radical thing I’ve done is to gather a wide range of diverse symptoms under a single name and created an effective program to address it.
Which leads to my second answer to this question. Whatever specific studies show, whatever you believe about screen-time usage, the Reset Program works. That it works is the best evidence that screen-time usage, in itself, can cause behavioral, mood, and cognitive problems. Even if parents are unsure, the risks of trying an electronic fast are virtually nonexistent. The Reset Program involves no real expenses, no medicine, and has no side effects. It’s safe, widely applicable, and is shown to be highly effective across multiple domains. Yes, there are inconveniences, but what are they next to the difficulties your child is experiencing? Which, ultimately, is more inconvenient, losing the screen-time status quo or having a child who rages, who can’t focus enough to learn, or who drives others away because of behaviors? What about the inconvenience of not sleeping at night because you’re worried, of endlessly driving to fruitless appointments, or of spending money on treatments because you don’t know what else to do? Acting on the information presented here requires mental energy and a leap of faith — but the payoff can be enormous.
Throughout the book, I present the stories and case studies of real children. Many of these stories are based on my formal work with my own patients and on my informal experience with children of friends and family, and some are from reports I’ve received from parents, grandparents, teachers, and therapists who’ve completed the website course, read my articles, or heard me speak. To protect identities, I’ve changed descriptive details and occasionally created composites, but the effects of screen-time and of the Reset Program are accurate to what actually happened. That said, even though I took pains not to exaggerate results, I realize that some stories sound a little too good to be true. Is it possible that something as simple as an electronic fast could resolve so many issues and situations so neatly? In fact, yes. Done properly, the Reset Program is that effective, and its benefits are that widespread. Further, these benefits can be maintained as long as the appropriate screen-time restrictions are maintained. That doesn’t mean it’s always easy, but for many parents, the most convincing proof that Electronic Screen Syndrome is real is seeing how the Reset Program improves the life of their own child.
Chapter 1 Take-Home Points
• When traditional mental health or educational resources are ineffective or insufficient for treating children with psychosocial issues, an environmental cause might be screen-time usage, manifesting as Electronic Screen Syndrome (ESS).
• The introduction and ubiquitous use of interactive screen devices represents a widespread new source of environmental toxicity, and it’s capabilities to produce nervous system dysregulation are largely underestimated.
• Symptoms and issues associated with ESS are not due solely to screen addiction or violent content; even “moderate” screen-time can trigger fight-or-flight reactions.
• The concept of ESS was developed to capture the unifying features that explain the variety of symptoms and dysfunction that screen-time can induce.
• ESS is characterized by overstimulation and hyperarousal and defined by the presence of mood, cognitive, and/or behavioral symptoms that are relieved with strict removal of electronic devices (the Reset Program).
• Interactive screen-time is more likely to create hyperarousal and dysregulation compared with passive screen-time, and it is more likely to disrupt sleep and be associated with mood, cognitive, and social problems.
• Electronic devices create electromagnetic fields (EMFs), but whether and how EMFs negatively impact the brain is controversial and complicated; for more, see appendix B, “Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and Health: A ‘Charged’ Issue.”
• Uncertainty about ESS and reluctance or resistance to trying an “electronic fast” are normal. The Reset Program requires changes in everyone’s daily life in terms of screen-time usage. Anticipating these changes, and acknowledging and accounting for resistance, is essential for success.
* I note this particular activity because many of my adolescent female patients spend substantial time scrolling through pictures or filming short segments of things around them, and then view them throughout the day; using a phone or camera for this purpose represents a source of screen-time that may be overlooked.
* The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under the age of three be screen-free (of both passive and interactive screen activities).
ALL REVVED UP AND NOWHERE TO GO
How Electronic Screen Media Affects Your Child’s Brain and Body
It is not stress that kills us, it is our reaction to it.
— Hans Selye
On the eve of his big sister Liz’s high school graduation, nine-year-old
