What is the right age to give a child a smartphone?

We talk with Prof. Manfred Spitzer about the age at which children should start using smartphones, how smartphones can mess up our lives, and whether changes in the law are needed.

Rafał Górski: At what age should a child be allowed to have a smartphone for the first time? And why at that age?

Manfred Spitzer: Smartphones are harmful to the health of children and young people, and can lead to blindness, strokes, heart attacks and dementia in later life, according to medical literature. The younger the child is when they start using a smartphone, the greater the damage. Smartphones also harm learning processes and cause mental health problems such as attention deficit disorder, anxiety disorders and depression. For these reasons, it would be sensible to keep smartphones out of the hands of children and adolescents, i.e. only allow smartphones from the age of 16, and even then preferably with the proviso that parents should intervene in cases of excessive use (more than 3 hours a day).

Is smartphone as addictive as cigarettes, alcohol and cocaine?

It depends on what we mean by “as addictive”. While addiction to commonly known intoxicants such as cigarettes, alcohol and cocaine arises as a result of these substances’ effects on specific centres in the brain, behavioural addictions are learned on the basis of repetitive behaviours. The process of their formation is therefore different. However, in both types of addiction, very similar patterns of activity are produced in the brain, and addiction to Facebook on a CT scan looks the same as addiction to cocaine.

So much with regard to the mechanism. From a purely clinical point of view, addiction has a specific definition: it is impossible to break free from it, despite being aware of its harmfulness; aggression arises when one has to give it up; addiction becomes more important than contact with friends, siblings or parents, and the behaviours associated with it are no longer pleasurable (as they were at the beginning), but are aimed solely at avoiding withdrawal symptoms.

When we think about treating an alcoholic, we assume that during and after treatment, they should not consume any alcohol whatsoever. With children’s smartphone addiction, it is different. We accept that an addicted child will be given a smartphone for, say, an hour a day. Why?

We still do not take smartphone addiction seriously.

At the Civil Affairs Institute, we are considering preparing a draft legislation on counteracting digital addiction, modelled on the law on counteracting drug addiction. The new law would address behavioural addictions and cover smartphones, social media, online games and digital gambling.

What do you think? Is this a good idea? What should be included in such a legislation for it to make sense?

Such a legislation would be very sensible. As with other addictive substances that are legally consumed (alcohol, nicotine), it should set specific age limits. For example, a ban on smartphones until the age of 14 and a ban on social media and computer games until the age of 16. After all, many countries already have a ban on gambling until the age of 18.

Currently, there is no top-down, government-imposed, nationwide ban on the use of smartphones in schools in Poland. Schools are given free hand to decide for themselves whether to include any restrictions in their statutes. The  Civil Affairs Institute advocates centralised government regulation rather than leaving the decision to individual institutions. Teachers come to us with questions about what to do when a parent threatens to sue the school if it introduces a ban on the use of smartphones. Teachers tell us that a much better solution would be a centrally imposed ban, enacted by the Ministry of National Education.

If you were an advisor to the Polish Minister of Education, what would you recommend?

Introducing a general ban on the use of smartphones in schools would be helpful. It would eliminate the main argument used by pupils, which is that ‘everyone else has their smartphone with them too’. We are not quite there yet in Germany, but at least the first federal state (Hesse) has banned smartphones in schools.

What impact do big business, such as technology corporations (TikTok, Meta, Google), smartphone manufacturers (Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi) and telecom companies (Play, Orange, Plus, T-Mobile) have on children’s smartphone addiction?

We are talking about the largest lobby that has ever existed on Earth. These companies do not care about the health and education of young people, they just want to make money. That is why we must say to our children: ‘You don’t want to sacrifice your attention and time, and thus your lives, for the profit of these companies, do you?’ Perhaps that will give them some food for thought.

What role do NGOs and experts funded by big business play in smartphone addiction? And what role do politicians play?

‘Experts’ who are financed by lobbyists are not experts, but rather paid opinion makers. Politicians, on the other hand, should take their responsibilities seriously and protect young people from negative influences.

The Civil Affairs Institute is postulating that companies profiting from children’s addiction to smartphones and social media should pay a special tax to fund treatment and psychological care for children. What is your opinion on this?

Anything that increases the price of addictive substances and products may reduce their consumption. However, whether such a measure is sufficient requires further research. First and foremost, we need to educate parents. When mothers and fathers are aware of how harmful excessive smartphone use is to health in the long term – once again,we are talking about a significantly increased risk of blindness, strokes, heart attacks and dementia – then they will act sensibly and protect their children from these devices. The most important thing, therefore, is to raise awareness and educate – that is what needs to be done!

Rafał Górski