Adolescents’ Digital Technology Use, Emotional Dysregulation, and Self-Esteem: No Evidence of Same-Day Linkages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Concerns regarding the potential negative impacts of digital technology use on youth mental health and well-being are high. However, most studies have several methodological limitations: relying on cross-sectional designs and retrospective reports, assessing technology use as an omnibus construct, and focusing on between- instead of within-person comparisons. This study addresses these limitations by prospectively following young adolescents (n = 388) over a 14-day ecological momentary assessment study to test whether adolescents’ digital technology use is linked with self-reported emotional dysregulation and self-esteem and whether these relationships are stronger for adolescent girls than boys. We found no evidence that adolescents experienced higher emotional dysregulation (b = − .02; p = .07) and lower self-esteem (b = .004; p = .32) than they normally do on days where they use more technology than they normally do (within-person). Adolescents with higher average daily technology use over the study period did not experience lower levels of self-esteem (between-person, b = − .02; p = .13). Adolescents with higher average daily technology use across the two-week period did report higher levels of emotional dysregulation (p = .01), albeit the between-person relation was small (b = .08). There was no evidence that gender moderated the associations, both between and within adolescents (bs = − .02–.13, p = .06 − .55). Our findings contribute to the growing counter-narrative that technology use does not have as large of an impact on adolescents’ mental health and well-being as the public is concerned about.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".