Beatriz Martínez, psychiatrist: ‘In a few years, letting children be glued to screens will be seen in the same light as dipping their pacifier in alcohol’

The Survival Manual for Parents in the Digital Age, by psychiatrist Beatriz Martínez, could not be published at a more opportune moment. It will be in bookstores on February 18, just a couple of weeks after Spain’s premier, Pedro Sánchez, announced his intention to ban social networks for under-16s. The manual lays out the scientific evidence of the effect of screens and social networks on minors, and offers concrete and practical guidelines to address the phenomenon according to the 40-year-old child psychiatrist, who is also an expert in neurodevelopmental issues as well as being a mother.

Q. Do you agree with the ban for under-16s?

A. I think it’s fine. I do believe that legislation is needed. Like the real world, the internet needs to be legislated and regulated. But I wouldn’t like it to mean that, since under-16s won’t be able to use networks, nothing else needs to be looked at. Quite the opposite. That is why this book is also very pertinent, because it talks about training parents and educators on the need to educate a child on digital issues throughout their life.

Q. The idea is to start digital education from birth.

A. It terrifies me when I see infants in their strollers looking at videos or games on cell phones. Then there is the issue of access to social media; at 16 we can’t be saying: “Well, now you can do whatever you want.” The idea is that they develop critical thinking regarding what they will find on the internet – from artificial intelligence to fake news to deepfakes. More than ever, they will need to question what they see.

Q. Some studies show that the earlier the use of networks begins, the worse a child’s mental health.

A. Yes. We know that those who had a smartphone with free access to internet content before the age of 15 have worse mental health indicators. And, also, serious indicators. We are not only talking about anxiety or depression; we’re talking suicidal thoughts and attempts at suicide as well as self-harm.

Q. Does it make sense that the age limit is 16?

A. It has its logic. Some countries have opted for 15, probably because of these studies. In Spain, the 16-age limit coincides with other milestones such as health consent, the driving of mopeds. Legally, it seems coherent.

Q. You also insist in your book that each adolescent requires personalized guidance.

A. Of course. There are going to be teenagers who need harder, stricter limits. That also happens with house rules. Sometimes I compare internet access to going out socially. As you grow, you enjoy more autonomous and less supervised social meet ups. The internet world should be no different. We have to prepare children so that they can access technology safely in the future. If we do not educate them and are not there to guide them, they will not know how to navigate it irrespective of the fact they’ve reached the age of 16.

Q. What problems can early and uncontrolled exposure cause?

A. There is a lot of talk about time and addiction: infinite scrolling, short videos that are designed to hook. That’s a problem, but the reality is broader. Algorithms dictate what you see, and what you look at is what triggers an emotion, the more extreme, the better. If you are in a stage of crisis, such as adolescence, polarized emotions such as anger and sadness generate greater reaction. If you also expose yourself to content that is not appropriate for your age – including access to adult images – the algorithm will continue to offer you more of that.

Q. Some of your patients come to see you on account of their exposure to internet.

A. I like to compare it to building a bridge. Genetics would account for the foundations, so some bridges are more vulnerable than others. If very few cars go over them, nothing happens. But if you add more traffic, some bridges will collapse. Social media can be like that extra traffic. Those who are more biologically vulnerable may be more affected. For some it is a tsunami.

Q. There is also a positive side.

A. Yes. Before, if you liked anime or manga, you were “the weirdo” and felt isolated. Thanks to the internet you can find communities, and share interests, even with your art. Members of vulnerable groups, such as the LGTBI community, can also find support if their reality is not always understood at home.

Q. Would the solution be to create cell phones for teenagers and regulated social networks with only certain types of content?

A. Yes. Just as a teenager can drive a moped but not a vehicle that can go at 200 km/h, why not have devices that do not allow access to everything? Many parents put parental controls in place, but teens know how to bypass them. Why not have something that can’t be altered? One where you can’t check the “I’m over 18” box because that page just won’t open.

Q. Aside from limits on tech, you insist on the importance of talking to your children.

A. Of course. If you dismiss what they’re looking at as nonsense, then the communication is over. But if you ask why they are interested in that content, what an influencer wants to sell them, what that person earns, you open up dialogue. If your child answers, that’s already a win. The problem is when they don’t answer.

Q. Aside from access to social media, there is access to the device itself. You propose a progressive timetable.

A. Yes. I think it’s terrible that a child of one or two is left alone with a tablet. The brain needs environment and interaction. There are moments in development that cannot be recovered. If you do not detect deafness before the age of five your child will not speak. Similarly, there are emotional and bonding skills that occur in specific stages. We have seen children with language delays due to too much screen time. When that is eliminated, they make progress. Nowadays it would seem crazy to dip a pacifier in alcohol so that the child sleeps – in a few years we will see allowing children to be glued to their screens in the same light.

Q. What would be the right age to have your own cell phone?

A. Not before 14 or 15. And even then, with limitations. I don’t understand that at 14 you have unlimited access to anything outside the home. As for individual tablets, no child should have one before the age of 10. One thing is occasional shared use, such as watching a movie on a long trip. The problem lies with the individual consumption of apps designed to hook you and trigger you emotionally with a never-ending stream of brief experiences.

Q. You and your own daughter will sign a contract when you give her a device.

A. I think it’s an easy way to keep the conversation under control. It also allows for renegotiation. Use at 14 is not the same as at 17. It also makes clear that the device is not the child’s, even if it is a gift. The device belongs to the house and it is the parents who set limits. In the contract you can agree when it is used, for what, what content is accessed and what consequences there will be if it is not complied with. Consequences don’t mean punishment, but we all need limits to grow.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition