Wie hoch ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines ernsthaften Schadens für einen Teenager durch Bildschirmzeit?

Jede Zahl unten ist das, was die jeweilige Quelle berichtet hat — mit dem wörtlichen Zitat, auf das wir uns stützen, und wie wir zu unserer Zahl gelangt sind. Klicke auf einen Link, um direkt zu prüfen.

1/3 Quellen unabhängig wortwörtlich mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen

1. [1] Nature Human Behaviour (Orben & Przybylski 2019) — The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use ↗ 1 other entry Peer-Review

   The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use

   See all 2 Likelier entries citing this source →

   Statistik

   Specification-curve analysis across three large datasets (N > 355,000 adolescents) found that all digital technology use — including TV, gaming, smartphones, and social media — was negatively associated with well-being at r = −0.035 to −0.04, explaining at most 0.4% of the variance; the effect was smaller than that of wearing glasses or eating potatoes

   Auszug

   “"The negative effect of technology use on adolescent well-being is small — explaining at most 0.4% of the variation in well-being." ”

   Quelldaten von

   2019-01-14

   Abgerufen

   2026-04-26 · archivierte Kopie

   Berechnung

   Orben & Przybylski 2019 is the most rigorous large-scale analysis of the association between digital technology use (broadly defined: TV, gaming, smartphones, social media) and adolescent well-being. The specification-curve approach tested all defensible analytic choices across three datasets (Understanding Society, YRBS, MCS). The headline finding — r ≈ −0.04 for all technology use combined — is statistically significant given the sample size but practically negligible. Critically, this study measures total digital technology use, not just social media, making it the primary anchor for this entry's broader "screen time" framing. The outcome is a continuous well-being scale, not a binary harm threshold, so no per-teen probability of serious harm can be derived. This source is the primary basis for the no_reliable_estimate designation.

   Unabhängigkeit

   Uses UK Understanding Society, YRBS, and MCS datasets. Fully independent of the Hale & Guan sleep review and the Paulus et al. neuroscience review.

2. [2] Sleep Medicine Reviews (Hale & Guan 2015) — Screen Time and Sleep among School-Aged Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Literature Review Verifiziert Peer-Review

   Screen Time and Sleep among School-Aged Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Literature Review

   Statistik

   A systematic review of 67 studies found that screen time — across TV, computers, video games, and mobile phones — was adversely associated with sleep outcomes in 90% of studies examined, with the most consistent finding being shortened sleep duration and delayed sleep onset among adolescents

   Auszug

   “"In 90% of studies, screen time was adversely associated with sleep outcomes — primarily shortened duration and delayed timing." ”

   Quelldaten von

   2015-06-01

   Abgerufen

   2026-04-26 · archivierte Kopie

   Verifizierung

   Der Auszug wurde bei unserer Grounding-Prüfung unabhängig erneut abgerufen und Wort für Wort mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen.

   Berechnung

   Hale & Guan 2015 reviewed 67 studies (1999-2014) covering all major screen types — TV, computers, video games, and mobile devices — in school-aged children and adolescents. The 90% figure refers to the proportion of studies finding a negative association between screen time and at least one sleep outcome. The review is included because it establishes sleep disruption as the most consistently documented mechanism linking screen time (broadly, not just social media) to adverse outcomes in teens. However, the review is correlational, and the authors note that causal direction is unconfirmed: teens who sleep poorly may also use screens more. No per-teen probability of harm can be derived from a systematic review of heterogeneous correlational studies with varying outcome definitions.

   Unabhängigkeit

   Independent review of 67 primary studies. No overlap with Orben & Przybylski 2019 datasets. Different outcome domain (sleep vs well-being).

3. [3] Journal of Mood and Anxiety Disorders (Paulus, Zhao, Potenza et al. 2023) — Screen media activity in youth: A critical review of mental health and neuroscience findings Peer-Review

   Screen media activity in youth: A critical review of mental health and neuroscience findings

   Statistik

   A critical review of mental health and neuroscience evidence found that screen media activity has both immediate and long-term associations with sleep quality, mood, and anxiety in youth, but that effects are moderated by content type, context, and individual vulnerability, and the relationship is best understood within an ecological systems framework rather than as a simple dose-response toxin model

   Auszug

   “"The multifaceted relationship between SMA and various aspects of adolescent life is influenced by a wide range of environmental and contextual factors." ”

   Quelldaten von

   2023-08-01

   Abgerufen

   2026-04-26 · archivierte Kopie

   Berechnung

   Paulus et al. 2023 is included as the most comprehensive recent review that covers all screen media activity in youth — not just social media — integrating both mental health and neuroscience findings. The review explicitly adopts Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems framework, which positions screen time within a web of individual, family, school, peer, and environmental factors. Its key contribution to this entry is the finding that the screen-time-to-harm pathway is not a simple dose-response relationship: content type (passive vs interactive), context (solitary vs social), and pre-existing vulnerability all moderate effects substantially. This supports the no_reliable_estimate designation — a single population- level probability cannot capture such heterogeneity. No probability is derived.