The concept of “screen overexposure” is used in the media, institutional documents, and official reports to address children between the ages of 0 and 12, with a strong focus on 0–3-year-olds, through the widespread dissemination of the “No screens before age 3” norm.
As a medical diagnosis, “screen overexposure” is a controversial reality. Several healthcare professionals working in the field of early childhood (Marcelli et al., 2018) have actively sought to establish it as a clinical category in order to promote the inscription of a new public health issue on the political agenda[1].
The notion of “virtual autism” at the heart of public controversy obscures the efforts made by professionals and parents to distinguish between overexposure to screens and autism in practice.
Their advocacy for a new syndrome called “Early and excessive screen exposure ” (Epee) highlights the developmental impact of screens, with the idea that excessive screen time at an early age (up to 6 or 7 hours per day before the age of 6 months in the most severe cases) suspends the development of psychomotor skills, to the point of producing symptoms similar to those of autism[2].
The notion of “overexposure to screens” reflects a pathologizing approach to the problem and its integration into child protection policies. It does not address the content of digital use, which is understood through the umbrella term “screens,” and the term “exposure” suggests passivity on the part of the recipients (Diter and Octobre, 2022).
An investigation below the public alert threshold
This article does not address the public construction of the problem of overexposure to screens, which has already been analyzed by Stéphanie de Vanssay (2020). De Vanssay showed how the controversy was fueled by the use of the term “virtual autism” by whistleblowers, notably Anne-Lise Ducanda, a key figure in the creation of COSE (Collectif surexposition écrans, or Screen Overexposure Collective)[3].
The pediatrician borrowed the term from Romanian psychologist Marius Teodor Zamfir to highlight the similarity in symptoms between overexposed children and those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)[4]. Organizations of parents of autistic children have protested against this expression on the grounds that it suggests that autism could be linked to screen misuse[5].
In this article, we attempt instead to understand overexposure as an emerging healthcare issue in the field of early childhood. Our analysis focuses on various actors, parents and early childhood professionals, who are involved in different ways in raising health concerns about young children’s use of digital technology. How is this use pathologized through prevention, diagnosis, and treatment practices?
The children referred to in this article are aged between 0 and 11. Teenagers are therefore excluded from the analysis. Within this age group, it is mainly 0–6-year-olds who are concerned, either because the measures are officially dedicated to them (such as the maternal and child health centers), or because they implicitly target them (such as the personalized support offered by an organization), with some professionals (such as a pediatrician who created a specialized consultation) tending to focus more on children aged 0-3.
We focus on the care practices of these multiple actors, while also looking at the link between their clinical framing of the problem and their political framing. Indeed, some of the respondents, both parents and professionals, are campaigning for the recognition of this “contested disease” (Swoboda, 2006).
Overexposure to screens is not – yet – the subject of a well-established field of intervention. Rather, it is a cross-cutting issue that is beginning to be addressed by different early childhood professionals in various contexts. To understand how this new healthcare issue is being targeted at this early stage, we combined complementary research strategies.
Initially, attention was focused on professionals working in settings that explicitly address overexposure to screens. Interviews (N=5) and observations (N=3) were conducted on programs dedicated to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of overexposure (consultation with a pediatrician in a hospital setting, family digital detox coaching program, family support in an organization, and a workshop led by a child psychiatrist at a maternal and child health center).
Then, working at the departmental level on the institutional treatment of this issue, the survey turned to professionals potentially affected by overexposure to screens in the context of more generalist measures. Various professionals were interviewed (N=5) and observed (N=3) to understand their respective treatment methods (maternal and child health, child psychiatry, addiction treatment, digital mediation).
Finally, the study focused on six months of observation of exchanges between parents in a WhatsApp group called “Overexposure to screens: how to help your child,” created by a mother on March 27, 2023, and composed mainly of parents of children considered to be overexposed (178 members).
Cross-referencing different points of view (professionals/parents, activists involved in the cause/non-activists in the field) reveals various issues involved in developing a therapeutic approach to screen overexposure. The survey first shows that there are a number of tensions surrounding the very definition of the problem. Secondly, it highlights the central role of working to relieve parents of their guilt.
Three tensions surrounding the definition of the problem
The survey highlights three main tensions surrounding the definition of the problem: a difficult line to draw between autism and overexposure to screens, uncertainty about the extent of the problem within the general population, and ambivalence about the role to be attributed to parents.
The first tension takes the form of hesitation between autism and overexposure to screens. Even professionals who are most alert to the problem of overexposure guard against the risk of missing an autism diagnosis. They refer patients to public mental health centers, especially girls who are considered less affected by overexposure, anticipating that the professionals at these centers will not overlook an autistic disorder. They construct an argument emphasizing that stopping screen time cannot hurt, that it is always beneficial to remove this dimension from the clinical picture. Finally, and most importantly, they develop a discourse on developmental recovery (restoration of eye contact, language progression, etc.) as a major distinguishing criterion between the two diagnoses. This question of assessing the resumption of normal development is also at the heart of parental uncertainty. Establishing the timeline for this recovery is central to their discussions (dating, order, extent, etc.). The children are compared, while respecting each child’s uniqueness. There is a constant oscillation between repeated calls for patience and the sharing of concerns.
A second tension takes the form of ambivalence regarding the scope of vigilance: is this a societal problem affecting all social categories, or a socially situated problem that affects disadvantaged people more? The same professionals are torn: from a clinical perspective, they tend to point to the problem as mainly affecting the working classes (as most of their practices are located in neighborhoods known to be disadvantaged), while from a political perspective, they identify the problem as affecting everyone.
The third tension takes the form of mistrust towards parents who are involved in addressing overexposure to screens: are they acting for the well-being of their child, or to avoid a diagnosis of autism? Parents seek to have the pathological effects of overexposure to screens recognized. This struggle often pits them against school officials and healthcare professionals. They therefore run the risk of being discredited. Parents repeatedly express their fear of being reported in the WhatsApp discussion thread when they decide to distance themselves from existing institutional mechanisms (not going to the public mental health center or homeschooling their child).
These tensions fuel questions among the professionals and parents we met. Parenting styles are particularly scrutinized when overexposure is treated.
At the crossroads of parental and professional techniques for reducing guilt
The notion of “virtual autism” at the heart of the public controversy hides the efforts made by professionals and parents to distinguish between overexposure to screens and autism in practice. The challenge of framing overexposure to screens as a healthcare issue is to put aside parental guilt for exposing their child to screens, while avoiding a diagnosis of autism. The second part of this article compares parental and professional techniques for relieving parents of guilt.
Parents express guilt for putting their children in front of screens in the WhatsApp group. Jenn confides about her daughter: “She was in front of screens from 1 to 2 years old. Because I was in a deep depression. I feel so guilty.” Lei exclaims: “Oh yes, I can’t sleep, I feel guilty.” Similarly, Bastien says about his son: “Exposed from his first months until almost 30 months […] I feel so worried and guilty at the same time. It really drives you crazy…” But sharing their experiences in an online mutual support group helps to lessen individual responsibility by first blaming early childhood professionals who are not competent enough to raise awareness about this issue, allowing them to shift from being guilty to being victims of uninformed professionals.
Another technique for relieving parental guilt involves downplaying retrospective “responsibility for” the origin of the child’s disorders and investing in another form of prospective “responsibility for” the child’s developmental trajectory, which has also been observed in parents of autistic children (Borelle, 2017). This commitment to the future can go as far as a form of parental substitution for professionals, with the idea that parents must establish themselves as the child’s best therapist. The WhatsApp group is a place for parents to exchange methods and tools to support their child’s development in writing, reading, and verbal interactions. Investing in intensive educational work often means that one parent, usually the mother, takes a break from work for six months to a year to focus on the child’s development. When one mother praises another mother’s son’s progress, the latter replies, “Yes, but you can’t give up. I worked really hard and put everything else aside for six months.” The online mutual support group is a place where this parental combativeness is celebrated, which can involve blaming other parents on whom to shift one’s guilt (those who cannot give up the false tranquility provided by screens, to the detriment of their child’s development). One mother says: “I’m not saying that other parents are bad parents, but honestly, we are exceptional… I’m sure we all have other parents around us who have overexposed children but refuse to stop using screens.”
Professionals also try to intervene without making parents feel guilty. This issue is all the more complex because their discourse often involves questioning the digital habits of the parents themselves, as a form of “technoference.” They use the term coined by Brandon T. McDaniel to describe “the moments and ways in which technological tools intrude upon, interrupt, and/or hinder communication and interactions between couples or families in everyday life.”[6] Nevertheless, not making parents feel guilty is becoming a new professional horizon in the field of early childhood intervention.
Professionals use several techniques to relieve guilt. First, they emphasize parents’ ignorance about the harmful effects of screens at the time they exposed their children to them. A pediatrician working in a hospital explains her approach: “I try to be empathetic. I tell them that parenting is difficult, that it’s hard, that they may have made mistakes, that you made mistakes, that you thought it was the right thing to do.” In this way, they align themselves with the parental framing of responsibility, which can only be assigned with full knowledge of the facts. The valued stance is to open one’s eyes, not to remain in denial, to accept that screens are harmful and to act on this assumption once it has been stated. This is close to the realm of religious belief (believing or not believing), a framing that is all the more palpable when it comes to converting loved ones, particularly spouses, an issue that is the subject of much discussion on the WhatsApp group.
Professionals also relieve parents of guilt by highlighting structural factors that diminish individual responsibility. First, they shift some of the responsibility to the designers of digital devices, denouncing what they call “captology,” the fact that applications are designed to be addictive. They use the term “captology,” derived from an acronym for Computers as Persuasive Technologies, which was developed by Brian Jeffrey Fogg at Stanford University to create a field of research[7]. Professionals may also cite the lack of resources (in terms of medical care and childcare) for young children in France.
Finally, professionals claim that drawing on their personal experience and speaking both as professionals AND as parents is an intervention technique that can defuse the effects of parental guilt. When introducing her workshop on “the place of screens,” for example, one speaker first introduces herself as a mother before assuming her professional status: “This is an issue we all face as parents. Even though I am also a pediatric nurse, it is an issue I have faced as a mother.” This interactional strategy aims to reduce the hierarchy between those who know and those who do not, by framing it as a common problem.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the digitization of children’s lives is currently gaining momentum. By shedding light on the issues surrounding digital technology use in relationships between parents and early childhood professionals and in interactions between parents, this research supports the actions of the Orange Group, particularly its CSR policy. As part of its efforts to protect children, and its “For Good Connections” initiative, the Group aims to play a leading role in facilitating dialogue with stakeholders. The works conducted by Orange’s sociologists provide a different perspective on the subject. The production of original sociological expertise lifts the veil on the reality of overexposure to screens, from the perspective of parents and early childhood professionals, while constructing an analysis of academic significance. It thus provides unique and distinctive material for addressing these critical issues in terms of both CSR and the market.
This text has been translated by an artificial intelligence.
[1] See the opinion piece “La surexposition des jeunes enfants aux écrans est un enjeu majeur de santé publique” (“Excessive screen exposure among young children is a major public health issue”) published in Le Monde on May 31, 2017.
[2] The Maison de l’autisme (Autism Center), a government initiative created in April 2023, defines autism as follows: “Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) that manifests itself in early childhood and persists throughout life. Also known as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it is characterized by two main diagnostic criteria: persistent deficits in communication and social interaction, and restricted and repetitive behaviors, interests, and activities.”, https://maisondelautisme.gouv.fr/fiches-pratiques-autisme/qu-est-ce-que-l-autisme/
[3] https://surexpositionecrans.fr/
[4] Watch her warning video posted on YouTube in 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-eIdSE57Jw
[5] See, for example, the statement by Olivia Cattan, president of the French association SOS Autisme: https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/life/article/en-diffusant-un-documentaire-associant-autisme-et-ecrans-les-medias-vehiculent-une-fake-news_117440.html
[6] McDaniel, B. T. (2015). “Technoference”: Everyday intrusions and interruptions of technology in couple and family relationships. In C. J. Bruess (Ed.), Family communication in the age of digital and social media, New York, Peter Lang Publishing.
[7] Persuasive design can be defined as a digital design method that draws on behavioral social psychology to influence users’ opinions and behaviors.
Sources :
Borelle, C. (2017), Le nouveau régime de responsabilité parentale dans l’autisme [The New Regime of Parental Responsibility in Autism], Sociologie du travail, Vol. 59 – No. 2, published online on June 1, 2017. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/sdt/751
McDaniel, B. T. (2015). “Technoference”: Everyday intrusions and interruptions of technology in couple and family relationships. In C. J. Bruess (Ed.), Family communication in the age of digital and social media, New York, Peter Lang Publishing.
Fogg, B.J. (2003). Persuasive Technology. Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do, Morgan Kaufmann.
Céline Borelle
