Click the Header to View

Caitlyn Bettenhausen

C. Werry

411 Final Paper

12/13/19

Is Teen Smartphone Use Leading to Health Risks?

            Roughly twelve years ago, consumers were introduced to Apple’s first model of the iPhone. Additionally, ten years ago consumers began to see other forms of the smartphone such as the first Samsung Galaxy. However, it hasn’t been until recently that people have begun to make connections between smartphone use and mental health, specifically in teens. According to recent studies, nearly 39% of consumers in the United States admit to excessive smartphone use. What’s more, according to these studies “an estimated 270 million Americans own a smartphone,” making that 85% of the population (Spangler 2018). With that being said, researchers have become increasingly interested in finding the connections between this digital utopia and the effect it is having on teens and their overall health. Teens are becoming alarmingly dependent on their devices making a lack in smartphone use extremely rare. Psychology professor at San Diego State University Jean M. Twenge insists that smartphones are ruining generations and those to come. In her article, “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation,” Twenge illustrates all of the ways in which smartphone use is negatively contributing to the youth’s overall mental health. For instance, she mentions that children and teens are becoming so dependent on digital lifestyles that they are neglecting relationships and experiences in real time. Nonetheless, Twenge argues that the youth feel more comfortable speaking and typing into screens opposed to face-to-face interactions. In fact, they are avoiding physical interactions all together (Twenge, 2017). Twenge’s argument ultimately poses negative correlations between teens and their smartphones while on the other hand, the issues presented in Twenge’s article have sparked debates for researchers and journalists worldwide. In recent years, consumers have been eager to learn more about the overall effects the digital world is having on teens. Therefore, consumers have seen a spike in articles on the topic at hand sparking debates on whether or not the findings are sound. This paper will examine Twenge’s influential text and her claims of smartphone use in teens. Further, I will explore the debate that has emerged between Twenge and two additional authors, one of which complicates Twenge’s stance and the other challenges the validity of the claims. It is of interest to help readers better understand the debate and in doing so I will reveal major points of agreement, disagreement, and connection.

            To begin, Jean M. Twenge began her research when noticing drastic changes in mood and behavior of teens in 2012. It is evident that Twenge holds the belief that because of the constant need to be connected digitally, teens are lacking physical connections in real-time. When introducing this claim Twenge writes, “The arrival of the smartphone has radically changed every aspect of teenagers’ lives, from the nature of their social interactions to their mental health” (Twenge 2017). Based on her original findings, Twenge aimed to conduct a study to merely understand and analyze the changes occurring in what she calls the “iGen” or “post-millennials” not only physically but mentally (Twenge 2017). According to her article, Twenge inserts an allegation that iGen could quite possibly be on track to a “mental crisis” if continuing on the same digital path. Twenge characterizes the iGen “as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades” (Twenge 2017). Having included such a strong statement poses the following question: Why? Drawing from data, Twenge accounts that since 2011 rates of negative mental health found in teens have been on the rise, ultimately leading to climbs in reported depression and suicide. When analyzing statistics Twenge ultimately shows “the twin rise of the smartphone and social media” that are seriously effecting young teens’ drive, social presence, loneliness, and sleep. Consequently, these effects are leading to spiked rates of negative mental health in teens (Twenge 2017). The graphs placed to the right show substantial declines in social interaction, dating, and driving with rises in loneliness and sleep in teenagers today. According to the article, these alarming statistics can be attributed to teenagers’ desire for staying in. Because the online world of digital media and the convenient connectedness presented through platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat, teens no longer feel the need to leave the house according to Twenge (Twenge 2017). What’s more, the spikes in reported loneliness raise concerns on a psychological level. Twenge discloses that it is not necessarily true that all teens who spend a substantial amount of time online are lonely, but it certainly is forming correlations worth looking in to. Moreover, because of increased rates of loneliness, depression found in teens is, too, sky-rocketing (Twenge 2017). For instance, Twenge mentions that “eighth-graders who are heavy users of social media increase their risk of depression by 27 percent, while those who play sports, go to religious services, or even do homework more than the average teen cut their risk significantly” (Twenge 2017). Additionally, Twenge inserts a statistic touching upon increased suicide rates in teens, stating that “In 2011, for the first time in 24 years, the teen suicide rate was higher than the teen homicide rate” (Twenge 2017). However, Twenge retracts this claim by clarifying that suicide rates have been on the rise since the 1990’s, before smartphones and social media existed (Twenge 2017). On the other hand, she found that, today, Americans are roughly four times as more likely to be seen to be taking some form of anti-depressant (Twenge 2017). Unfortunately, these changes continue to climb due to what Twenge suggests may be attributed to the fact that all “Americans who owned a smartphone surpassed 50 percent” (Twenge 2017). Overall, Twenge poses a strong stance on the issue at hand, however, when evaluating her text it is obvious that crucial information is being left out. For example, we are shown various numbers and statistics linking less dating, sleep, driving, and social activity to current years, but researchers might inquire if it is solely smartphone use causing these aspects to change drastically or if that is just a convenient assumption. Because of Twenge’s confident claims that teens are being destroyed by smartphone use, it has prompted various researchers and writers to look into the investigations. In the following paragraph, I will be breaking down an article written by Alexandra Samuel titled, “Yes, Smartphones Are Destroying a Generation, But Not of Kids: Why parents need to embrace our role as digital mentors: offering kids and teens ongoing support and guidance in how to use the internet appropriately.” The purpose of including Samuel’s position on the matter is to not decide which details are correct, but to evaluate the debate occurring between researchers on the topic of teens and smartphone use.

            Researcher and technology writer, Alexandra Samuel was inclined to expand on the claims made by Twenge, agreeing with certain aspects and rejecting others. Looking back to Twenge’s title for her article (“Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?”), Samuel is unconvinced. Samuel does not seek to reject Twenge’s ideas overall, but rather demand more information. Unlike in Twenge’s article, Samuel concluded that much of Twenge’s research is derived from the “Monitoring the Future Survey series.” However, according to Samuel, this source is flawed as they do not “measure anxiety and depression” (Samuel 2017). Having said this, the overall credibility of Twenge’s argument is put into question. Although, Samuel makes it clear that it is not the ideas that Twenge presents as wrong but the lack thereof sound evidence being portrayed to researchers and consumers. When digging into her own research, Samuel found data that raises questions of reliability to the data presented in Twenge’s article. Alas, the past twenty year Samuel found that there “shows no teen happiness crisis” as Twenge previously mentioned (Samuel 2017).  Provided in Samuel’s research, the graph above exemplifies a consistent rate in teen happiness that contradicts Twenge’s insertion drastically. Consequently, this is where the beginning of the debate begins. This paper previously included a quote by Twenge arguing that heavy social media and smartphone usage by eighth-graders is leading to increased depression, however, Samuel says differently. According to Samuel and her findings on twelfth-grade data, “teens report near identical levels of happiness regardless whether they’re on the higher or lower end of social media usage” (Samuel 2017). What’s more, further data suggests that teens who lack a smartphone are indeed less happy. Moreover, data from Monitoring the Future Grade 12 Surveys shows that “high school seniors who are most likely to be unhappy are those who don’t use social media at all” (Samuel 2017). The graph to the left clearly shows percentages suggesting that regardless of the digital world sky-rocketing, current teens show no correlating signs of being unhappy or depressed. Also, as Samuel mentions, the teens who show the most signs of being unhappy are the ones who have the least to do with smartphone use (Samuel 2017). Furthering her argument, Samuel believes that Twenge raises points worth considering but lacks disclosure of contributing aspects. The main claim Samuel makes in her article regarding teens and smartphone use is not asserting that teen behavior is the cause but rather the parents (Samuel 2017). Samuel shapes her argument by inquiring, “you know what smartphones and social media are really great at? Tuning out your children” (Samuel 2017). Overall, Samuel is suggesting that surely teens are becoming “disengaged” with real-time, but why? According to the article, it ultimately comes down to the fact that parents are primarily “disengaged” (Samuel 2017). With that being said, Samuel points out that for parents it is easier to engage in smartphones than it is to attempt to engage with their teenagers. Along with a detailed testimonial from psychologist John Unger Zussman, Samuel confirmed the struggle between parents’ personal smartphone use and paying adequate attention to their children (Samuel 2017). By and large, Samuel’s counters to Twenge’s original arguments are worth noticing, however her stance does not completely disagree with that of Twenge. When concluding her thoughts, Samuel concedes, “But I do think that the concerns Twenge raises are valid (if overblown), if only because I constantly hear from parents who are struggling with their own version of these problems: Teens who are too busy online to come out of their room. Kids who are social butterflies on the Internet, but socially awkward in meatspace. Young adults who may be remarkable adept in front of a computer, but lack some of the practical life skills they’ll need when they step away from the keyboard” (Samuel 2017). Nonetheless, between Twenge and Samuel’s stances, the digital world is having an effect on teens and young adults. Whether these effects are directly correlated between smartphone use and depression is another question. In order to fully understand the issue at hand, it is important to look in to opposing claims on this on-going debate. Being said, the last article that this paper will be evaluating is that of psychologist Sarah Rose Cavanagh, “No, Smartphones are Not Destroying a Generation: The kids are going to be all right.” Comparing two opposing submissions will seek to tie together the debate at hand, ultimately suggesting that research on the debate will continue to grow as more researchers and psychologists join the conversation.

            Like Samuel, Cavanagh frames her side of the debate from Twenge’s text (“Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?”). From Cavanagh’s title alone, it is apparent which side her beliefs fall on. Contradicting, Cavanagh constitutes three general problems pertaining to the credibility of Twenge’s findings: (1) “The data the author chooses to present are cherry-picked,” (2) “The studies she reviews are all correlational,” and (3) “The studies she reviews largely ignore social contexts and how people differ” (Cavanagh 2017). Having mentioned before, the data presented by Twenge is deemed compelling and worth looking in to, however, Cavanagh is correct in her argument that the data may be flawed. It is incorrect to say that the data is generically false information, but rather that it is not specifically tailored to the issue at hand. Cavanagh makes this clear by explaining how Twenge only reviewed supporting data and discarded “studies that suggest screen use is not associated with outcomes like depression and loneliness or that suggest that active social media use is actually associated with positive outcomes like resilience” (Cavanagh 2017). Furthermore, when looking at claims and findings from Twenge’s article, Cavanagh found that Twenge’s studies were only formed through direct correlations between smartphones and depression, observing cases solely on the two variables (Cavanagh 2017). Additionally, Cavanagh suggests that in order to truly find accurate data on the subject, proper and ethical research must be obtained. For instance, Cavanagh includes a suggestion of conducting experiments tailored to independent and dependent variables. In her own words, she recommends assigning “large groups of adolescents perfectly matched on all number of variables to a long period where one group uses smartphones extensively and the other does not, and then watch to see whether depression levels rise more in one group versus the other” (Cavanagh 2017). Having a carefully tailored experiment determining whether or not smartphone use and depression are directly related is crucial to obtaining true findings. Lastly, Cavanagh questions Twenge’s source credibility in that it “ignores social contexts” (Cavanagh 2017). It is without denying that excessive social media and smartphone use to one is merely scratching the surface for another. Teens and young adults may differ socially, hold different jobs and positions, tackle different battles, etc. Twenge’s research does not brush upon these possible differences, making it difficult to assign all teens into one category. Further, Cavanagh continues to review and debate Twenge’s ideas by challenging the positives of smartphone use. On one hand Twenge asserts that smartphone use is “destroying a generation,” while on the other hand Cavanagh points out that Twenge includes positives as well. For example, Cavanagh notes that Twenge mentioned positive effects such as “lower rates of alcohol use, teen pregnancies, unprotected sex, smoking, and car accidents” (Cavanagh 2017). Because Twenge includes this information it is hard to believe that smartphone use is solely negative, according to Cavanagh. In the photo of the Tweet above, Cavanagh as well as Andrew Przybylski say it can be argued that Twenge does not provide enough substantial evidence convincing consumers that smartphone use produces only negative effects. In other words, Cavanagh’s counter to Twenge’s arguments raise questions worth researching.

            In conclusion, Twenge, Samuel, and Cavanagh pose articulate and well-thought out additions to the central issue at hand: Is there a connection between smartphone use and mental health? Should we as consumers take Twenge’s argument more seriously than others? Is there more research needed to be conducted? How do we ensure that the rising rates of teen behavior provided by Twenge aren’t solely related to smartphone use and if so what is needed to be done? All of these questions currently thrown into the conversation only mean obtaining results sooner. It is clear that Twenge’s main argument is not strong enough to declare as credible as Samuel and Cavanagh rose questions diminishing the ethos of Twenge’s sources and position. All in all, technology and modes of technology are only advancing as time goes on. With smartphone use on the rise, it will be important for researchers to continue Twenge’s debate so that teens take precautions when investing all of their time into smartphone and social media use.

Works Cited

Cavanagh, S. R. (2017, August 6). No, Smartphones are Not Destroying a Generation. Retrieved   December 2, 2019, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/once-more-                     feeling/201708/no-smartphones-are-not-destroying-generation.

Samuel, A. (2017, August 8). Yes, Smartphones Are Destroying a Generation, But Not of Kids.    Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://daily.jstor.org/yes-smartphones-are-           destroying-a-generation-but-not-of-kids/

Spangler, T. (2018, November 14). Are Americans Addicted to Smartphones? U.S. Consumers     Check Their Phones 52 Times Daily, Study Finds. Retrieved December 13, 2019, from   https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/smartphone-addiction-study-check-phones-52-           times-daily-1203028454/.

Twenge, J. M. (2018, March 19). Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? Retrieved    December 2, 2019, from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-        smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/.

1. To begin, both of these articles were very different in how they established ethos and pathos. In Malcolm Gladwell’s article (“Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted”), Gladwell uses history and stories of the beginning and middle of the Civil Rights Movement to establish both ethos and pathos. Gladwell first provides ethos by including facts, dates, and specific quotes on the subject matter revolving around the Civil Rights Movement. On the other hand, those same three components establish pathos as well. Further, his credibility comes from the specifics: specific quotes, events, and comparisons between what he refers to as real activism and activists on social platforms. Moreover, I think that in his article, “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook,” Chris Hughes holds credibility to the fact that he knows Mark Zuckerberg on a personal level, therefore having strong credibility. Hughes mentions things such as, “I’m disappointed in myself and the early Facebook team for not thinking more about how the News Feed algorithm could change our culture, influence elections and empower nationalist leaders. And I’m worried that Mark has surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.” This reinforces his credibility because he was originally there and watched Facebook change from good to bad in his opinion. Further, Hughes also includes some forms of ethos in his opinion article by stating the needs of all America: checks and balances. In this, I believe that people understand their constitutional rights therefore agreeing with Hughes. Additionally, various statistics and graphs are shown in the article that, too, appeal to ethos. Lastly, Hughes includes appeals to pathos by encouraging us not to think of Zuckerberg as a bad person, but rather an entrepreneur gone wrong.

2. I think both of these authors had very strong claims. However, in some ways they differ from one another. Gladwell’s main claim was that with the internet and social media, “true activism” is sort of declining. He believes this is due to the social platforms not having one particular leader, or someone controlling the system. However, Hughes believes the opposite when it comes to platforms, specifically Facebook. Hughes believes that Zuckerberg is in control of the entire platform, as well as Instagram and WhatsApp. Both of these differing opinions make their claims strong but also it makes me want to do further research into whose theory is correct. I slightly agree with claims made by both. I think that Gladwell has an interesting point in that activism should involve true action, but I also agree with Hughes that activism or accountability is shown on the internet just as strongly.

3. It is hard for me to have a strong opinion on Hughes solutions because I partially think that the government should not get involved with social media due to freedom of speech and a citizens right to consume the information they desire. However, I do think when it comes to politics and swaying voters by algorithms and false articles that regulation can be very helpful. Regardless, I would like to learn more on this specific debate so that I may be able to form a strong opinion.

4. Although I do not agree with some claims made by Gladwell, I think the main take-away would be that if people want to see change then they need to make it happen rather than sit behind a screen and complain. A great example that Gladwell provided was peaceful protests. These not only unite others, but allow that demand to be heard.

. . .

When reading Tufekci (“How Social Media Took us From Tahrir Square to Donald Trump”) and Taylor (“Democracy’s Dilemma”), both authors made great points and solutions. The underlying theme in both of these articles is that platforms are powerful to an extent. Both authors favor traditional journalism and all that it stands for, however traditional journalism is being threatened by the internet. With that being said, Tufekci and Taylor both highlight the issues the internet has on politics. Lastly, both authors suggest dropping the internet and social media’s way of distributing information due to convenience and that anyone can produce it, and adopt a more unbiased and traditional way of political advertising. As mentioned in the articles, checks and balances are crucial to combatting the issues of online algorithms and “cheap speech.”

When reading the article “Advertising Stereotypes and Gender Representation in Social Networking Sites” by Tortajada et al., it was easy to make connections with what kind of images I see on a daily basis. Because Fotolog is not a comment social networking site for anyone I know, I can relate this site to Instagram. On Instagram we are able to follow and like photos from supermodels, Instagram models, influencers, musicians, actors/actresses, etc. Obviously, these famous individuals are constantly being sexualized and photographed. Because consumers like me are constantly exposed to these images, we feel the need to imitate certain poses, styles, and behaviors of the models in our own photos. If I were to guess, the imitations made by everyday people exist so that they may feel attractive or important. Two photos I found that did a great job of relating to Tortajada’s article are:

The first image is a photo of Victoria’s Secret Models before or after walking the runway. The positioning of these females shows the arguments made by Tortajada et al. For example, the finger in between the lips and the kneeling positions. These poses have been hardwired in teenagers brains to be considered ‘sexy’ or ‘desired.’ On the other hand, the image of the male model exemplifies Tortajada et el.’s claim that in order for men to appear desired they must exhibit power and strength. I think that this image does a great job and highlighting those traits.

When analyzing the text (“Do artifacts have politics”) by Langdon Winner, it primarily led me to believe that this was a complex claim worth discussing. From what I can understand from the article, Winner’s main claim is that artifacts such as “technologies and society” have a political value. Winner makes this claim when he includes the example of Robert Moses and his political attribution to the city of New York. Winner argued, based upon stories, that Moses’ racist politics led him to create shorter overpasses so that buses (filled with minorities) could not reach those sides of town. Further, Winner ultimately believes that attaching politics to artifacts is unavoidable. This is apparent when he writes,

“According to this view, the adoption of a given technical
system unavoidably brings with it conditions for human relationships that
have a distinctive political cast – for example, centralized or decentralized,
egalitarian or inegalitarian, repressive or liberating” (Winner, 33).

Additionally, another quote that stood out to me was when Winner suggested,

“The idea we must now examine and evaluate is that certain kinds of technology do not allow such flexibility, and that to choose them is
to choose a particular form of political life…” (Winner, 33).

I have never thought of artifacts and/or technology as having political meaning. Some of the claims Winner makes in this article make sense, however, I still would like to understand more. I think that his main argument was clear but the article was very challenging for me to comprehend, so I was only able to pick out the main claims. I think I have many questions but am unsure where to begin.

However, I can agree that we see political attachment to artifacts in media. Today it seems that everything has political value, whether we mean for it to or not. Tweets, articles, Facebook posts, Buzzfeed quizzes, and even music all hold some sort of political aspect. I think that the media is constantly highlighting all of the various ways technology or artifacts hold such political attachments.

In Werry’s text, “Imagined Electronic Community: Representations of Online Communities in Business Texts,” I was very impressed. It was very interesting to read the take of online communities and how they related to business in the 1990’s because everything is much more advanced now. I would rate this paper an A because of its’ organization and strong claims.

As a journalism major, I have brushed upon the topic of fake news often. Further, as an avid user of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook it is clear that fake news is very present in our lives today.

A. I can argue that fake news has been a problem for quite some time. Although the coined term ‘Fake News’ is somewhat new, the concept has been around since 1895 with ‘Yellow Journalism.’ Yellow Journalism simply has to do with propaganda and the spreading of false information to get consumers to invest. Originally, the concept of all of this began in 1895 with Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst when feuding for more attention to their papers. The ‘Yellow Kid’ was born and published in both of their papers insinuating that they would not stop the spreading of exaggerated content. This, however, is just where the concept began. Today, politicians and journalists have coined it as “Fake News” and we are seeing it more often. Back in 1895 it was more controlled opposed to today. Now with so many freelancers, user-generated platforms, Twitter, Facebook, etc., it is easier to create and spread fake news which is why I argue that it is a huge problem in the world today.

B. Defining fake news can be very tricky. To journalists, it is just negligent ethics regarding minimal fact-checking and ignorance of sources. To politicians, it is a threat and they treat it like one. To everyone else and myself, it is an inconvenience in our daily lives where we must always be wary of its presence and work harder to narrow down the truth. The way Cory Doctorow describes fake news in his article (“Fake News Is an Oracle”), can be summed up to it being inevitable if there are reasonable conspiracies out there. Doctorow suggests that it isn’t fake news that should be worked on, it’s the conspiracies themselves (Doctorow). Additionally, Doctorow describes it as, “the spread of a given hoax, or unfalsifiable statement, or truth delivered under color of falsehood, or conspiracy, or objectionable idea undeniably tells you that the idea has caught the public imagination. The fake news that doesn’t catch on may have simply been mishandled, but the fake news that does catch on has some plausibility that tells you an awful lot about the world we live in and how our fellow humans perceive that world” (Doctorow). I am agreeable with certain parts of his definition and disagree to others. I do argue that fake news is “the spread of a given hoax,” however I do not believe that it is entirely the conspiracies or illegal manners that are at fault. When it comes to news organizations, unfortunately we are seeing more of an agenda and more organizations affiliating with certain parties, which is unethical in journalism. I think that this sort of agenda-setting plays a huge role in fake news.

C. As mentioned above, unethical journalism is a huge cause in the rise of “fake news.” Of course, in 2016 we began to see more of it in headlines or on Twitter feeds. For example, Donald Trumps run for office was the peak, in my opinion, of fake news. However, this is only political fake news. We also see fake news with clickbait, advertising agendas, and more. The effects all of this has on consumers is extreme. People are either becoming less trusting of the internet or are believing everything they are reading. In my opinion, it is causing dramatic hedges between people and groups, especially political parties.

D. When it comes to diminishing the spread of fake news, I think education is key. Students, especially journalism and writing students, are being taught the basics of fake news and how to avoid it, but other than that no one is really trying to learn about it. I think if more people were taught to better decipher between fact and hoax as well as learn how to research multiple sources, then fake news could be better dealt with.

The insight I have on fake news comes from three years of journalism classes as well as being an avid user of the internet. Facebook and Twitter appear to have the most cases of fake news stories. The types that I am most familiar with are clickbait and misleading headlines. For example, some press stories or magazines involving celebrities will have a somewhat accurate story written, but the headline will include a claim that is unrelated and untrue. This type of fake news is what I think most people see on social media today.

Caitlyn Bettenhausen

C. Werry

411 Proposal

10/20/19

As a five-year-old in 2002, a typical day would include attending to pre-school, coming home to an afternoon snack, and playing outside with the neighborhood kids until it was time for dinner and bed. The only times we had available to watch TV or go on the internet were the days our friends were busy. Today, however, things differ completely. A typical day for my five-year-old niece includes attending to pre-school, coming home to demand her iPad, and simultaneously viewing a television screen whilst exploring YouTube until it is time for dinner. Of course she enjoys days at the park or in the back yard with neighbors, however, at least one point throughout her day she asks for her iPad or iPhone. Despite her shocking need for her smart device, the real concern is the content she’s viewing and how addictive it is. For example, after spending hours going down the YouTube rabbit hole she has at least five new things she wants or five new learned phrases and behaviors. She will watch videos of young influencers and then suddenly demand the same exact outfit or toy shown in the video. Further, she will learn and absorb the phrases of those speaking into the screen. Surely this is becoming a ‘norm’ for young children and teens today, but to what extent is it exactly normal? Children and teens are becoming more dependent on technology and smart phones as the years progress. Schools are incorporating more frequent use of smart devices for learning purposes and many day-cares are filled with TV’s and iPads. On the other hand, parents, too, are allowing unhealthy smart device use in the household. And why? Children, and especially teens are demanding it and unable to carry out the day without it.

By all means, technology and the use of smartphones have led to beneficial advancements in learning, competency, and staying connected, but where is the line drawn for the toxic aspects of smartphone use? Psychology professor at San Diego State University Jean M. Twenge insists that smartphones are ruining current generations and those to come. In her article, “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation,” Twenge illustrates all of the ways that smartphone use is negatively contributing to the youth’s overall mental health. For instance, children and teens are becoming so dependent on digital lifestyles that they are neglecting relationships and experiences in real-life and real-time. Nonetheless, the youth feel more comfortable speaking and typing into screens opposed to face-to-face interactions. In fact, they are avoiding it all together (Twenge, 2017). In this regard, anything children or teens need can be easily taken care of with their use of smartphones. Unfortunately, this means speaking less, preferring solitude, and adopting unhealthy, independent lifestyles.

Twenge links excessive screen use to depression in children and teens when she writes, “the more time teens spend looking at screens, the more likely they are to report symptoms of depression” (Twenge, 2017). She further provides statistics suggesting significant increases in reported symptoms of depression and suicide rates (Twenge, 2017). Although the topic of depression in teens is broad, the use of smartphones seems to be spiking the statistics. There are thousands of studies out there, but what Twenge knows for sure is that there is a relation between depression and social media or smartphone use. In the long run, children and teens are going out less, failing to keep relationships, distancing themselves from reality, and fundamentally finding comfort alone with a smartphone.

Proposal

            My final project will analyze the negative effects of smartphones and social media on the youth through the lens of Jean M. Twenge in her article, “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” This project will attempt to find direct correlations between smartphone/social media use and depression. Further, it will serve to explain the reasons why social media has driven children and teens to becoming ironically less socially present and more socially awkward. Twenge’s views and ideas provide substantial evidence of these two claims, making it a quest to find more information on the topic.

Method

            In order to fully analyze the negative effects of smartphone and social media use on children and teens, I will conduct further research while referring back to Twenge’s ideas and beliefs. I hope to find additional statistics and testimonials regarding social media related depression as well as correlations linked to negative mental health. Much of this is attributed to the addictive nature of social media and our phones, consequently leading to an interdependence with this digital lifestyle. In conjunction with Twenge, writer Max Bloom highlights in his article (“Smartphones Are Destroying My Generation”), “phones are addictive, they’re not good for us in large doses, and they may do considerable damage to the mental health of young America” (Bloom, 2017). Inexorably, there have been thousands of cases in which depression is caused by some form of addiction whether that be drugs, alcohol, etc. With that being said, addiction of social media and screens may also be to blame. All in all, my final project aims to clarify and analyze these correlations of smartphone use, addiction, and depression through supplemental texts and studies relating to the ideas of Twenge.

Evaluation

            In order for my paper to successfully analyze the association between smartphone use and an increasing negative mental-health on the youth from the lens of Twenge, I will have to fulfil the following:

1. Provide a detailed background on the presented issue such as: statistics of increased smartphone use in children in teens, advantages and disadvantages of social media, and the suggested reason of doubt.
2. Introduce Jean M. Twenge (“Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?”) and her stance on smartphone and social media use on the youth.
3. Establish a connection between smartphone use and rising rates of depression and suicide.
   1. Includes analyzing various texts and studies through the lens of Twenge.
   1. Provides concrete examples and testimonials.
4. Offer connections between addiction and depression.
5. Affirm Twenge’s ideas by explaining her rhetoric and comparing it to the rhetoric of similar texts.

Challenges

            When analyzing causes of depression and addiction, I am predicting to run into some challenges. Because I am solely focusing on the link between smartphones and addiction/depression, it might be misconstrued that there are no other causes of addiction and depression. This is simply not the case, however this specific tie is what I will be focusing on. Understanding the sensitivity of this topic, I will aim to remain objective and factual, relying on published texts and statistics. Additionally, I am expecting the analysis of Twenge’s rhetoric to be challenging because I fully agree with the facts and ideas she has provided. I hope to analyze her stance in a way that removes biases and focuses only on the facts at hand.

Works Cited

Bloom, M. (2017, August 10). Smartphones Are Destroying My Generation. Retrieved from             https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/millennial-smartphone-usage-social-media-          loneliness/.

Twenge, J. M. (2018, March 19). Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? Retrieved from             https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-     generation/534198/.

When reading Jennifer R. Merceia’s scholar essay regarding demagogues and weaponized communication, I understood that Merceia believes that there are two types of demagogues: heroic and dangerous (Merceia, 266). For example, Merceia believes that dangerous demagogues used weaponized language to refuse accountability “for their words and actions” (Merceia, 266). In this sense, Merceia is arguing that the main objective for weaponized communication and demagoguery is to get away with spreading fake news, claims, propaganda, etc. For example, Merceia provided examples such as Alex Jones and Donald Trump to shed light on her idea of dangerous demagogues. Both of these said demagogues used specific tactics in order to refrain from being held accountable.

When comparing the articles by Merceia and Roberts-Miller, it is clear that there are some similarities and differences. First, both argue in different ways that “demagoguery is polarizing propaganda” (Roberts-Miller, 1). Second, both Merceia and Roberts-Miller argue that this kind of language and discourse arouses hatred and works to eliminate democracy by speaking without intention of consent or discussion. In other words, this can be speaking over someone with opposite ideas and having no intention to listen to the counter. Both writers provide examples of demagoguery that relates to each others ideas and claims on the topic. However, there are a few differences in the claims made by Merceia and Roberts-Miller. The first being that Merceia introduces readers to the “heroic demagogue.” Merceia believes that there are ways to engage in public discourse and healthy demagoguery without using weaponized communication. Further, Merceia argued that having consent is a way to diminish dangerous demagoguery whereas Roberts-Millers provided a lengthy list of ideas that are considered demagoguery such as polarization, scapegoating, and demonizing. Although Merceia and Roberts-Millers have similarities and differences in their claims, putting both their ideas together gives us a better understanding of this topic.

The article I chose to examine was published by Michael Singer in The Washington Post on March 8, 2019. Here is the link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/yes-trump-is-undignified-demagogues-have-to-be/2019/03/08/bd8d8d9c-4109-11e9-a0d3-1210e58a94cf_story.html

It was clear that this article related to Merceia’s claim of dangerous demagogues based on the very title of the article, “Yes, Trump is undignified. Demagogues have to be.” The first similarity that stood out to me was the word ‘undignified.’ Merceia argues that dangerous demagogues stay unaccountable for their words or wrong-doings. ‘Unaccountable’ and ‘undignified’ can arguably go hand in hand. When someone refuses to be accountable for their actions, it diminishes dignity and cohesiveness. Just like Merceia and Singer argue on President Donald Trump. Both insist that Trump is classified as a demagogue and back their reasonings with examples of Trump allowing his supporters to act in an undignified way while denying the criticism. Both articles share great similarities on the term ‘demagogue’ and how it has been shown throughout history in democracy.

1. I think that Roberts-Miller’s ideas analyzing demagogic discourse are well-said and backed by great examples. Much of what she says is valuable information, especially in a world today when we see this sort of negative propaganda often. Roberts-Millers provides a detailed list of all of the topics that are considered demagoguery including ideas of polarization, scapegoating, victimization, and many more.

To start, I think it was important that Roberts-Millers included the clarifying information that “… all demagoguery is propaganda, but not all propaganda is demagoguery” (Roberts-Millers 1 & 2). This was important for the author to begin with because we, as consumers, are always seeing propaganda. However, I don’t think many people know the difference between propaganda and demagoguery. At least, I didn’t until reading this article. Further, one type of demagoguery I found interesting was the idea of scapegoating. I think many of us can understand this concept with the example of Osama Bin Laden on the United States or Hitler with the Jews that Roberts-Millers inserted in parentheses for us (Roberts-Millers 4). This idea of pushing guilt or responsibility on the out-group party is a demagoguery tactic that powerful leaders often use to justify their actions or beliefs. This is a type of propaganda that we must never give in to.

2. Furthermore, when reading George Wallace’s inauguration speech, one particular concept from Roberts-Millers came to mind: the idea of god and devil terms. In Wallace’s speech we hear this concept when he refers to himself and his in-group opposed to the out-group, that according to him ought to be shamed. Some examples include:

” We find we have replaced faith with fear and though we may give lip service to the Almighty, in reality, government has become our god. It is, therefore, a basically ungodly government and its appeal to the pseudo-intellectual and the politician is to change their status from servant  of the people to master of the people, to play at being God without faith in God and without the wisdom of God.”

(Wallace, 3).

” It is a system that is the very opposite of Christ for it feeds and encourages everything degenerate and base in our people as it assumes the responsibilities that we ourselves should assume. Its pseudo-liberal spokesmen and some Harvard advocates have never examined the logic of its substitution of what it calls “human rights” for individual rights, for its propaganda play on words has appeal for the unthinking.”

(Wallace, 3).

” … a government first founded in this nation simply and purely on faith, that there is a personal God who rewards good and punishes evil, that hard work will receive its just deserts, that ambition and ingenuity and inventiveness, and profit of such, are admirable traits and goals that the individual is encouraged in his spiritual growth and from that growth arrives at a character that enhances his charity toward others and from that character and that charity so is influenced business, and labor and farmer and government.”

(Wallace, 4).

These quotes spoken by George Wallace illustrate Roberts-Millers claim on god and devil terms. The demagoguery tactic Wallace uses is through this. He wants it to be known that his beliefs are justified by God and anyone who doesn’t agree with him is “ungodly” (Wallace, 3). Moreover, Wallace categorizes God and the founding fathers in the same category: right. Because Americans respect their founding fathers and their religious God, these words become very powerful. Ultimately, Wallace using the specific words he did, makes his audience question whether they are right or wrong.

3. I think that we, today, are seeing an increase in demagoguery propaganda due to presidential elections and political campaigns. With issues of fake news, various media outlets, Twitter and other platforms, it is easier to spread this kind of information without even checking whether or not it is true. Without getting into specifics, the 2016 presidential election dug up many instances of demagoguery propaganda. It forced some consumers to learn to question everything they see, but it also led some consumers to make the switch to more radical beliefs. Roberts-Millers offers many different examples of leaders and situations where we have seen certain types of demagoguery. This kind of propaganda is extremely powerful and wide-spread, however, we must not give into it. We must learn to question things and challenge those who fall for the set-ways of thinking. I think that this article is very relevant and more people need to learn about this type of public discourse.

After reading Boyd’s article, “It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens,” I think the most important claim she is making is that the youth being able to navigate and work well with technology is not the issue. Rather, the issue that Boyd is trying to express is that the youth aren’t being educated enough to understand the media or internet. Boyd is arguing that the youth’s “media literacy” should be the main concern when it comes to teens and digital technologies (Boyd, 181).

Having grown up with technology myself, I can say that like others I am very proficient in the digital world. However, understanding what I was reading or creating was not clear until I learned more about it in college. I think this is the point that Boyd is trying to make about educating teens rather than limiting their time online. Nonetheless, there is a lot we can all learn about the digital world according to Boyd. Some of what he mentions is becoming more aware of algorithms, advertising tactics, trustworthiness, etc. I agree with Boyd’s claims and insist that media literacy is crucial with the way technologies are heading.

Furthermore, Boyd’s main claim on the “rhetoric of digital natives” is strong. As said above, Boyd believes that the youth are indeed able to navigate well throughout the digital world, but are they educated enough to understand what they are navigating through? Boyd goes on to put the blame on the educators, adults, and parents of the youth for thinking that they are knowledgable in everything online. This is not the case. The article mentions that being media literate is not just something the “digital natives” must possess, but also “digital immigrants.” For example, Boyd provides a list of tasks and day to day functions that require one to be knowledgable in the digital world. Many elders have the wrong interpretation of these ideas (178-181).

Lastly, Boyd insists that there must be a change in the thought process of digital natives. In my own life, it has become apparent that elders expect us to be literate in all forms of media even though they have not taught us to do so. Boyd presses this idea when she writes:

“In other words, a focus on today’s youth as digital natives presumes that all we as a society need to do is be patient and wait for a generation of these digital wunderkinds to grow up”

(Boyd 197).

Ultimately, Boyd is trying to argue that we must not rely completely on these “digital natives” when we have not taught them the proper ways to decipher between technology and information online. She insists we create a new digital literacy (198).

In addition to Boyd’s claims, the article by Mike Caulfield titled, “Yes. Digital Literacy. But Which One,” highlights the confusion people have with being literate in the digital world and just being able to navigate through the digital world. Caulfield insists that people need to become more educated when surfing the web. Boyd and Caulfield had many similar viewpoints and hope for a world where people start to ask questions on the material they are reading. Caulfield explains that there is a lot online that we often have no idea about. The way we coin the term “digital literacy” is wrong and we need to create our own, new form of digital literacy. People must educate themselves more, take more classes, ask questions, and surf the web in a new way. Caulfield ultimately wants the youth and people in general to understand more.