Kiwis feeling panicked over phone notifications
Photo:
123rf
A recent survey from the United States shows half of all adults feel overrun by the number of times their phones pings them with notifications.
Research commissioned by New Zealand telecommunications company 2Degrees also found that 38 percent of Kiwis under the age of 30 feel not just overwhelmed, but panicked and anxious about the number of notifications they get.
Neuroscientist and Digital Wellbeing Expert Kathryn Berkett told
Checkpoint
the data from the US survey is relevant to New Zealand.
"We can get just as many notifications, and we've got teenagers with just the same brains as they have in the US."
The generation most overwhelmed by notifications in the survey was Gen Z, she said.
"One thing we know about the adolescent brain is dopamine, which we all get from those pings, those 75 you got today, you get a little dopamine rush every time," Berkett said.
"Dopamine can be nearly twice as sensitised in adolescence, so of course there's so much more drive to get much more reward."
She said although at first notifications can give a person a dopamine hit, once the notification is opened, anxiety can kick in.
"I don't know if you indulge in a little red wine on the weekend maybe. It feels good at first, but what if you overdo it, or if you don't have it?"
Many notifications are coming from social media, particularly for Gen Z, she said.
"So, informing them that somebody has liked them. Somebody wants to know where they are or be with them," Berkett said.
"That whole connection thing, which is really important to the adolescent brain, but certainly increases the addiction profile and also the unexpected nature of it."
She said being able to control the number of notifications someone receives a day could be positive.
"Obviously, we all want to keep in touch. We all want to be in touch. So, notifications are fantastic," Berkett said.
"But if I choose to go in every half an hour and look at my notifications, I'm still going to find out everything. But I'm in control and that will significantly change the anxiety."
When Berkett does training around self-care, she tells people to restrict the number of notifications they receive late at night.
"We can all get that sort of anxiety from it. But again, it's about if we control it and we're ready to go in and we're nice and calm when we go in, even if it's a negative or difficult thing for work. If we're in the right headspace, we're going to approach it differently."
She said other ways people can restrict notifications is to be aware of how many times they're checking their phones and changing the sounds.
"My kids are older now, but when they were younger, I still remember playing a game. We're playing a board game, and my daughters phone pinged, and she goes, 'I've got to get it.' I said 'no, you don't, you leave it,' and she goes, 'oh, can I?'
"My phone pings and I don't even go and look at it or I don't notice that I've trained myself to not be a monkey to the ping. I'll get to that when I want."
People can re-train their responses to notifications, she said.
"So, maybe you do know there's a notification there. Change the sounds so you know which ones are important which aren't."
"You do want to have them on, but there's so much we can do to just reduce that constant interruption into our world, taking us off task, keeping us in a hyper vigilant space and then we wonder why we can't focus or relax."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Undoing ‘the Great Rewiring'
Smartphones are turning our young people into the anxious generation, Jonathan Haidt tells Tom Faber. The first thing Jonathan Haidt asks when we sit down is my age. I know what he's thinking: he wants to place me, technologically. Am I a member of the "anxious generation", the term he has coined for the young people who he believes have been psychologically harmed by social media and smartphone use at a tender age? Or am I more likely to be one of the concerned parents who are the primary audience for his book? At 33 (the oldest of his anxious generation are currently 28) and child-free, I don't quite fit into either camp. I also don't quite align with either of the two sides that have emerged in response to Haidt's argument. While his book, The Anxious Generation , has undoubtedly made a splash, sparking a heated public debate about adolescent technology use, the science underpinning his thesis has also met criticism from other researchers in his field. So is the book's popularity because Haidt has correctly diagnosed an urgent social ailment? Or because he's spinning parents a story that they desperately want to believe: that there is a simple solution to this complex problem? At 61, with neat grey hair and thick, dark eyebrows, Haidt perfectly embodies the role of affable, credible academic. He currently teaches social psychology at New York University's Stern School of Business. The starting point for The Anxious Generation is the crisis in young people's mental health — in his native US and across much of the West. The proportion of children and young people in the United Kingdom with mental disorders rose from 12% to 20% between 2017 and 2023. The question is: why, and what can we do about it? Haidt says the increase in anxiety and depression among young people is directly caused by their use of smartphones and social media. "Gen Z became the first generation in history to go through puberty with a portal in their pockets that called them away from the people nearby and into an alternative universe that was exciting, addictive, unstable, and ... unsuitable for children and adolescents," he writes. He specifically identifies the period between 2010 and 2015 as a time when smartphones and social media were updated to include addictive and harmful features, corresponding with a marked increase in anxiety and depression for children coming of age during this period. Exposure to these technologies during puberty causes long-term effects on the brain, Haidt argues. He calls this "the Great Rewiring". Haidt outlines four ways in which young people are negatively affected by social media and smartphones: sleep deprivation, social deprivation, attention fragmentation and addiction. Since The Anxious Generation was published, he has come to believe the threat to attention is the biggest concern, both for children and adults. "My argument is that these platforms are clearly, demonstrably, harming children at an industrial scale, by their millions," he says. He offers four simple rules to reverse the course of what he calls the "phone-based childhood". These are: no smartphones before 14; no social media before 16; phone-free schools; and more unsupervised play and childhood independence. The suggestions seem reasonable enough. Even some of his critics agree with them. They all require group mobilisation to avoid the "collective action problem" — it's much harder to enforce a change unless other parents are doing it too. If just one child has no smartphone or social media, they will feel excluded from their peers. As Haidt writes: "Few parents want their preteens to disappear into a phone, but a vision of their child being a social outcast is even more distressing." In the year since the book was published, Haidt says, parental, school and legislative action has taken place at a pace that he describes as "stunning". In the US, Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders sent a copy of the book to every other US state governor as a rallying cry. Haidt is keeping track of each state's actions on his website. There are pushes in various countries to ban phones from schools. In Australia, the wife of a state premier read Haidt's book and told her husband he had to do something about the crisis the author described. Months later: the country passed a bill that will raise the minimum age for opening a social media account to 16. In the UK, there was already momentum to this discussion before Haidt's book. The 2023 Online Safety Act puts more responsibility on tech platforms to ensure they are safe for users, especially children. It is one reason that Haidt calls the UK "the leading country on protecting kids online". Some critics claim Haidt is exacerbating a moral panic. Just as previous generations of adults claimed television, hip-hop, video games and comic books were corrupting the youth, they say Haidt is the latest avatar of the old guard inventing horror stories around new culture and technology they don't understand. Despite his avuncular demeanour and his pleasant habit of murmuring agreement with me while I speak, Haidt has arrived ready to prove every point in his book. "There certainly have been moral panics," he says, "and whatever technology the kids are using, the adults are going to be sceptical of. It's a valid criticism as a starting hypothesis. The obligation is on me to show this time is different. And I can very easily do that." His response to the moral panic accusation is twofold. One: he argues there has never historically been an introduction of new technology followed so directly by a precipitous global decline in youth mental health. Two: in previous generations, if you asked children how they felt about their comic books or video games, they would say they loved them, please don't take them away. But when young people today are surveyed about social media, significant numbers regret how much they use it, find them harmful, and in some cases wish they'd never been invented. So what is the controversy around the data? It boils down to a single, difficult question. Experts agree that mental health problems among teenagers are rising at the same time as smartphones and social media are playing increasingly ubiquitous roles in their lives. But is this mere correlation? Or is the technology causing the mental illness? Several prominent academics have argued that Haidt's claim of causation is an oversimplification; that there is no one simple answer to such a complex sociological problem. A particularly searing review in the academic journal Nature argued that Haidt's central thesis "is not supported by science" and that "the bold proposal that social media is to blame might distract us from effectively responding to the real causes of the current mental-health crisis in young people". Others have argued that the research around this topic is unreliable and ambiguous, or even conducted studies that contradict Haidt's claims. Sonia Livingstone, a social psychologist at the London School of Economics who researches children's lives in the digital age, says we don't know which way the data points: are smartphones causing poor mental health in children? Or are children with poor mental health turning to smartphones for entertainment and escape? Academics have also offered alternative reasons why young people might be struggling, from the state of global politics to the economy, to the environment. Haidt raises a couple of these in his book and claims they don't fit his timeline, but other experts are not so quick to dismiss the other theories. On his blog, Haidt has posted a series of detailed responses to his critics. Ultimately, there's enough doubt to concede that there is no scientific consensus around the topic. So how much public policy and parenting advice do we want to generate from unsettled science? Haidt argues it's better to act before it's too late. He writes: "At a certain point, we need to take action based on the most plausible theory, even if we can't be 100% certain that we have the correct causal theory. I think that point is now." Perhaps part of the reason that Haidt riles up members of the scientific establishment is because of how he positions himself publicly — as part scientist, part crusader. He is adept at self-promotion and has turned his book launch into a global campaign, telling me his goal is to "roll back the phone-based childhood in three years". This campaigning approach has precedent in his career: he has launched a series of non-profits over the years. He has also written books and taught classes that lean into the idea of self-improvement, casting him as something of a lifestyle guru. He tells me he wrote a personal mission statement in 2011: "To use my research in moral psychology and the research of others to help people better understand each other and to help important social institutions work better. That's my mission on this Earth." While this crusading image may work for getting attention and building Haidt's personal brand, it also flattens how his argument enters the public sphere. Critiques of his work often mischaracterise his thesis as a neo-Luddite assault on all screen time, when in fact his book is quite specific about which technology is harmful to whom, even making some — if not abundant — space to discuss where the argument gets tricky or the science unclear. There is also some blurriness around Haidt's politics, which is tricky considering how easily children's issues become politicised. He grew up in a secular Jewish family in Scarsdale, New York, and once identified as a Democrat. But Haidt now calls himself a centrist and uses conservative-coded language — for example describing himself on Joe Rogan's podcast as "an extremely alarmed patriotic American citizen who sees my country going to hell", and later comparing the revolution he's leading in the digital environment to the fall of communism in 1989. The fact that his book does not mention the threat to boys of far-right radicalisation from "manosphere" influencers, as chillingly depicted in the TV show Adolescence , could be because of a reluctance to alienate his engaged conservative fanbase. When I put this to him, he bats away the question, saying: "that didn't occur to me". Reading Haidt's book, I couldn't help reflecting on my own teenage years online. I had many positive experiences and made significant friends on forums and online video games at a time when I felt I didn't fit in at school. When I was coming to terms with my sexuality aged 14, I found vital resources and community on the internet. The Anxious Generation argues that digitally-mediated relationships are inherently less meaningful than their real-life counterparts. This is not true in my experience. Where the book does bring up the benefits that can come from virtual communities, they are briefly raised and then tossed aside. In our conversation, Haidt points out that I grew up on a different, less harmful version of the web, before social media companies deliberately employed addictive design features such as algorithmic feeds, conversation streaks and auto-playing videos to juice users for maximum engagement, and therefore maximum profit. This is true — the internet of my formative years was a simpler one. But does that really mean young people can't have positive experiences on today's social media? Haidt concedes that the internet can still be a valuable resource for marginalised groups such as queer people, but he also says that these groups are disproportionately the target of online harassment and abuse. In his view, the cons outweigh the pros. Livingstone disagrees. "Haidt puts these two sides on the scales and says the bullying outweighs the expression and finding your community, but there are some really good things here. We need to work out how to regulate big tech so that the bullying stops and the hate is not amplified." We should try to curtail tech companies' addictive, data-driven business models to make social media platforms better, safer places before resorting to an outright ban, she says, while noting it is very hard to mobilise politicians about children's wellbeing when there are major dollars on the table from big tech lobbying. There are benefits to social media too, she says. "Children are absolutely clear that they love being in touch with their friends. They love that when something bad happens, they can get social support. When they're stuck at home and their parents are fighting, they can go somewhere and say: 'Bloody hell, dad's shouting at mum again'." Livingstone believes that we need to look at the question with a wider lens. "What do we think a good childhood looks like?" she asks. "If we don't let children go on social media till they're 16, what is our plan for them being in touch with their friends? Are we going to let them out after school and let them walk home by themselves and hang out at the bus stop, or are we going to report them as hoodlums and menaces?" We live in a world where we have welcomed technology into every crevice of our work, social and leisure time. Countless services force us to create digital accounts to access them; educational technology is being rolled out across schools; AI is being inserted everywhere. "We have invested in tech across the board," Livingstone says. "It's becoming our infrastructure. And in that context, to say 'kids shouldn't be anywhere near it' — what's the vision in terms of restricting them, and what is the vision in terms of providing something better for them?" "We can ban smartphones," she says, "but we're not going to make kids happy overnight." — The Observer
1News
6 days ago
- 1News
Medsafe approves sale of melatonin and prescribing magic mushrooms
Relief is on the way for Kiwis struggling with insomnia and treatment-resistant depression, with Medsafe approving the sale of over-the-counter melatonin and the prescription of medicinal psilocybin. Melatonin – used to treat insomnia and jet lag – would be available for purchase in pharmacies without a prescription in due course. The medicine has previously been tightly restricted in New Zealand. Currently, only a handful of melatonin products were approved for people aged over 55. 'Many New Zealanders have asked me why people can buy melatonin overseas but they can't buy it from their local pharmacy. Medsafe has assessed this and decided there's no reason why it shouldn't be available on pharmacy shelves right here at home,' Associate Health Minister David Seymour said. 'In time, adults will be able to buy melatonin directly from a pharmacy with no prescription needed. This is a common sense decision that will make melatonin more accessible in New Zealand than in many other countries and encourage suppliers [to] bring more products to our shelves." ADVERTISEMENT Melatonin would remain prescription-only for children and adolescents, following expert clinical advice to ensure proper oversight when used by younger patients. For the first time in New Zealand, Medsafe has also approved the prescribing of medicinal psilocybin outside of clinical trials, Seymour said. Also known as magic mushrooms, psilocybin was a naturally occurring psychedelic compound found in more than 100 species of mushrooms. While psilocybin would remain as an unapproved medicine, a psychiatrist with prior experience prescribing magic mushrooms in clinical trials has been granted authority to prescribe it to patients with treatment-resistant depression. The prescriptions would be under strict reporting and record-keeping requirements. Seymour said the decision is "huge for people with depression who've tried everything else and are still suffering". "If a doctor believes psilocybin can help, they should have the tools to try." The move brought New Zealand in line with Australia, where "authorised prescribers have been using psilocybin in clinical settings for some time". 'Kiwis shouldn't be left counting sheep or desperate for options when other countries are already using these medicines," Seymour said. "The Government is committed to putting patients first.'
Otago Daily Times
6 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
'For jet lag and insomnia': Psilocybin to be prescribed, melatonin to be sold over-the-counter
The government has signalled melatonin will become available over the counter, and psilocybin - magic mushrooms - will be available for patients with treatment-resistant depression. Psilocybin will still be an "unapproved medicine" but will be able to be granted under the authority of one specific highly experienced psychiatrist. Melatonin is a natural hormone that helps induce sleep, and is used to treat insomnia and jet lag, but has been classified as a prescription-only medicine in New Zealand. It will be available in pharmacies as pills up to 5mg in packs with up to 10 days' supply, or pills up to 3mg. "Modified release doses" - pills, capsules, gels and medical devices which allow the drug to be administered over a specific period - could also be available with dosages of up to 2mg. No specific date has been set for when the changes will take effect. Associate Health Minister David Seymour announced the decisions on Wednesday afternoon, noting they were made by MedSafe rather than politicians. "Certainly I've discussed with some of them ... some of them were very enthusiastic about the melatonin but ultimately they respect that it's a technical decision for MedSafe." He said melatonin would become available once manufacturers began to export it to New Zealand. "You'll be able to go to any pharmacy and buy melatonin for jet lag and insomnia just as soon as it's available over the counter in New Zealand. Part of the purpose of my announcement today is to call on the melatonin manufacturers of the world to apply to bring their products into our country," Seymour said. "When we did this with pseudoephedrine, it was a matter of months before products were on the shelves and I hope we can beat that record. "Kiwis shouldn't be left counting sheep or desperate for options when other countries are already using these medicines. The government is committed to putting patients first ... this is a commonsense decision that will make melatonin more accessible in New Zealand than in many other countries." The change for psilocybin was a huge win for people with depression who had tried everything else, Seymour said. "If a doctor believes psilocybin can help, they should have the tools to try. The psychiatrist involved has previously prescribed psilocybin in clinical trials and will operate under strict reporting and record-keeping requirements." He said it would initially only be available from one specific psychiatrist, but he hoped more would apply. "Psilocybin is a medicine that can treat untreatable depression. It was first researched in the 1950s and '60s and more recently there's been extensive research and approvals by the FDA in the United States to be able to use these types of medicines. "Fair to say it's been driven by people in the profession - there's a lot of people very passionate about this because untreatable depression's an awful thing and there are clinicians who say there's stuff happening in the rest of the world and we need to be part of it." He had never taken either of them, nor pseudoephedrine. "No. No I have not inhaled melatonin but maybe I will. I've had some recent issues with jet lag of my own so hopefully in the future I'll be able to," Seymour said. "I used to go mushroom hunting with my dad as a very small kid, but I don't think we found any." The melatonin changes were confirmed in regulations gazetted by Medsafe group manager Chris James. The psilocybin changes were not yet gazetted, but it will mark the first time psilocybin will be legally available in New Zealand outside of clinical trials.
