doctordeeg@gmail.com
Our use of devices-and especially the potential influence of screentime on adolescent mental and physical health-is a current topic of robust discussion (Williams, 2022), investigation (Ferguson, et al., 2022), controversy (Armitage, et al., 2023), and even legislation (Frechtling, 2023). Experts including the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry have offered their screen behavior recommendations for adolescents and teens, which given our current state of experience and data, appear-at least for now-to seem reasonable (AACAP, 2020). Across the globe, a cry for stronger regulations, accountability, protection, safety, and safeguards have been vociferously increasing from elected officials (Goggin, 2023), public and private citizens (Chen, 2021), creators (CFHT, 2023), and even school districts (Johnson, 2023).
Parents, in particular, have solicited support ranging from simple requests for regarding device use guidelines for their children, to litigious actions against social media platforms which they believe responsible for the mental health dysregulation and-in worst case scenarios-the self-harm of their children who have engaged with them (Sataranio, 2022). Although this issue is certainly expected to continue significantly evolving, be examined, and face challenges, lesser focus has been dedicated to how a primary caregiver’s device use may be impacting their children-especially in terms of attachment bonding.
The idea that a primary caregiver’s device use may be a significantly contributing variable in reinforcing an insecure attachment bond with their child has been an idea I have been exploring for several years. Although proposing a new form of insecure attachment style may seem presumptuous, after working with adolescents and teens for years and listening to their complaints of feeling a double standard exists between their parent’s/caregiver’s expectations, rules, and boundaries of the child’s versus parent’s device use (i.e. “I’m not allowed to bring my phone to the dinner table but my (parent) does it all time, because it’s… you know…‘work’”), and also noticing how often a parent can be seen engrossed with their device in “absent presence” while in the bleachers at their child’s sports event, monitoring playground activity, or even together with them in restaurants, I began to realize that these kids may have a real point and also that my concerns about the potential impact of a primary caregiver’s device use on attachment bonding also might not be altogether unreasonable.
The concept of “absent presence” (i.e., being physically “present” in a space or environment with others but not mentally focused or sometimes even cognizant of your surroundings or the people within them) is not new to humans. Some people refer to it as “spacing” or “zoning” out. When occasional and in a safe space, it can be a completely normal temporary state of being-or in some cases even serve as an appropriate and healthy coping mechanism.
The portability of the internet on devices which began with the first iPhone in 2007 however, created our ability to fade into absent presence at any time, any place, and when with anyone-even when it might be unhealthy, inappropriate, unsafe-or even perceived by others as just plain rude. This opportunity to disappear into our devices, combined with what we are now learning to be an alleged primary goal of tech companies and apps to leverage our limbic system to lure us into their platforms and keep us languishing there (Haugen, 2021), can prove an almost impossible temptation to resist-even for parents and caregivers. A simple search of the keywords “parent on device” harvests pages and pages of images illustrating this behavior. Even if they include many stock images, the fact that these even exist suggests that this phenomenon has some credence-or they would not even be so abundantly discoverable, right?
With the encouragement of exceptional scholars, attachment experts, and after conducting some preliminary research and talking with literally hundreds of kids and parents/caregivers themselves, I began to formulate a study to investigate the legitimacy of my theory. I also shared it with Dr. Barbara Nosal, a nationally recognized expert on attachment and Chief Clinical Officer of Newport Healthcare. Dr. Nosal is extremely familiar with my device-centric studies and experience due to our many conversations surrounding it, my employment with Newport Healthcare, and my work with our clients and their families in this area. Her agreement was both immediate and absolute, and together we developed the following hypotheses:
- There is an emergent new category of insecure attachment which is device driven as opposed to correlated with emotional states (anxious, avoidant, or disorganized).
- Devices have become a cause of insecure attachment rather than mental health issues, stress, substance use or trauma. If not for their device use, these parents-children would have a secure attachment bond.
- Parent/caregiver’s use of technological devices can create an insecure attachment in later years when a secure attachment existed in early childhood.
- Parent/caregiver’s use of technological devices trigger trauma responses from early childhood.
Our research questions are as follows:
- Can a parent’s/caregiver’s use of technological devices be the cause of an insecure attachment bond that would otherwise not exist?
- Did parents with secure attachment with their children develop insecure attachment bonds that can be correlated to device use?
- Did parents who had a secure attachment with their children prior to 2007 when the iPhone created mainstream online portability, create an insecure attachment with their younger children due to this new device use opportunity?
- Can a parent/caregiver’s use of technology create an insecure attachment bond later in the child’s development replacing early childhood secure attachment?
The Center for Research and Innovation (https://www.newporthealthcare.com/center-research-innovation/) is an outgrowth of Newport Healthcare’s dedication to scientific investigation, in partnership with Guy Diamond, PhD, Director of Drexel University’s Center for Family Intervention Science and the co–model developer of the empirically supported Attachment-Based Family Therapy modality. Upon learning of my theory and our research goals, Dr. Nosal and I were invited to conduct our investigation in collaboration with the Center, and with their full support. We were beyond grateful for this tremendous opportunity, happily accepted their generous offer, and are currently at the data collection stage of our investigation.
When people ask me why this study is so important to me, the answer is quite simple. If our research team can prove that a parent/primary caregiver’s device use could be (even if completely unintended) the primary variable pivoting what would have otherwise been a secure attachment bond, to an insecure one with their child, we can then inform, educate, and offer strategies to (a) heal any resulting attachment ruptures, (b) avoid creating future correlational ones, and (c) maybe even completely cauterize this unhistorical-but potentially real-new negative device generated effect.
#StayTuned
References
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. (2020, February 20). Screen Time and Children. AACAP. Retrieved March 25, 2023, from https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Children-And-Watching-TV-054.aspx#:~:text=Between%2018%20and%2024%20months,limit%20activities%20that%20include%20screens.
Armitage, H., Bai, N., Slack, G., Vaughan, C., & Leggett, H. (2023, February 7). Screen time: The good, the healthy and the mind-numbing. Scope. Retrieved March 25, 2023, from https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2022/12/09/screen-time-the-good-the-healthy-and-the-mind-numbing
Center for Humane Technology (CFHT). (2023). For policymakers. Holding Social Media Platforms Accountable – Center for Humane Technology. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from https://www.humanetech.com/policymakers
Chen, B. X. (2021, September 16). The Battle for Digital Privacy is reshaping the internet. The New York Times. Retrieved March 25, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/technology/digital-privacy.html
Ferguson, C. J., Kaye, L. K., Branley-Bell, D., Markey, P., Ivory, J. D., Klisanin, D., Elson, M., Smyth, M., Hogg, J. L., McDonnell, D., Nichols, D., Siddiqui, S., Gregerson, M., & Wilson, J. (2022). Like this meta-analysis: Screen Media and Mental Health. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 53(2), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000426
Frechtling, D. (2023, March 8). Council post: Will the U.S. update laws for children’s digital privacy? Forbes. Retrieved March 25, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2023/03/07/will-the-us-update-laws-for-childrens-digital-privacy/?sh=357d2a43f170
Goggin, B. (2023, March 23). Utah governor signs parental consent laws for minor social media use. NBCNews.com. Retrieved March 25, 2023, from https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/social-media-law-utah-parent-consent-age-verification-curfew-rcna76178
Haugen, F. (2021, October 4). Statement of Frances Haugen. Haugen, F. (2021). statement of Frances Haugen, October 4, 2021. – references – scientific research publishing. Retrieved March 25, 2023, from https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkozje))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=3358647
Johnson, G. (2023, January 9). Seattle Schools Sue Tech Giants over Social Media Harm. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 25, 2023, from www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-01-08/seattle-schools-sue-tech-giants-over-social-media-harm
Satariano, A. (2022, October 1). British ruling pins blame on social media for teenager’s suicide. The New York Times. Retrieved March 25, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/business/instagram-suicide-ruling-britain.html
Williams, N. (2022, June 29). Screen Time and Mental Health. News. Retrieved March 25, 2023, from http://www.news-medical.net/health/Screen-Time-and-Mental-Health.aspx
