By age 12, almost all young people own a mobile phone, and many also have access to a TV (97%), games console (77%), tablet computer (74%), or laptop (67%) (Ofcom, 2023). This means that a large number of young people have access to digital technologies and use them regularly for various purposes (Ofcom, 2023). Studies have shown mixed results regarding the impact of frequent digital use on teenagers’ socioemotional wellbeing (e.g., Berryman et al., 2018; Kelly et al., 2018) and academic development (May & Elder, 2018). Research also indicates that parents of higher socioeconomic status (SES) provide richer access and support around digital technology (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Hatlevik et al., 2015).
However, there are still gaps in our understanding. For instance, we need to know how digital use affects outcomes over time, which could reveal important patterns in development. Additionally, the influence of socioeconomic status as a moderator between digital use, academic performance, and wellbeing has been somewhat overlooked. Bohnert and Gracia (2023) sought to address these gaps using longitudinal data.
This study used data from the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) study, which followed a 1998 birth cohort at ages 9, 13, and 17/18 to gather information on digital engagement and outcomes. The study aimed to investigate associations between digital engagement and outcomes, particularly considering the influence of socioeconomic status. The results showed that adolescents from low socioeconomic backgrounds were particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of digital engagement. However, the study also found that certain digital activities, such as learning-oriented activities, benefitted academic performance.
The research provided valuable evidence around digital technology, SES, and longitudinal outcomes. However, it also had certain limitations. The GUI cohort’s lack of generalizability to other contexts and potential methodological drawbacks related to measures of screen time and activity were noted. Additionally, the study may have misattributed causal mechanisms behind the findings.
It is important for future research to address these shortcomings and to uncover the causal mechanisms in the relationship between digital use and outcomes for adolescents. Parents and young people should be aware of the potential risks of frequent screen time on wellbeing, particularly for those from lower SES backgrounds. Support should be provided to young people to engage in learning-oriented activities and to mitigate the potential negative effects of digital engagement. However, the “goldilocks level of digital use” may vary according to SES contexts and should be carefully considered in these efforts.
