Caveat – Yet again, we see a claim being widely shared that, upon closer examination, is not supported by the research cited to justify it. At The White Hatter, we remain committed to challenging such claims when they are not grounded in fact or when research is misrepresented, specific to youth and their use of technology and the internet!
You may have heard this common claim circulating online about technology in schools – “A study from the University of California showed it takes just over 23 minutes to refocus after checking a smartphone.” This statement is often used to support phone-free environments in classrooms, with the implication that smartphones significantly disrupt a child’s ability to focus on their studies. It is important to note that many who are making this claim do not provide an actual link to the University of California study.
At first glance, this sounds compelling. After all, as parents and caregivers, we want our children to remain focused in learning environments. But is the claim accurate? We decided to dig deeper and look at the study that supposedly supports this widely repeated statement.
The Origin of the “23-Minute Refocus” Claim
In our investigation into the origins of the quote, we found that it likely references two studies conducted by researchers at the University of California, Irvine.”
- A 2005 study “No Task Left Behind? Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work” (1), and
- A 2015 follow-up study to the above noted research titled “ The cost of Interrupted Work: More Speed and Stress” (2)
Interestingly, neither study involved smartphones at all! Let us repeat that sentence – neither study involved smartphones. Unless there is another study done by researchers at the University of California, Irvine that supports the 23-minute refocus claim specific to the use of cellphones that we are unaware of, such a study does not exist that we could find.
The researchers analyzed interruptions in a simulated office work environment where 48 subjects, with an average age of 26, were tasked with answering 12 demanding emails while performing other office-related work. The interruptions were delivered in two ways:
- Phone calls to a desk phone
- Instant messages via computer
The participants were told to respond to these interruptions immediately, and researchers measured the time it took to refocus on their primary tasks after being interrupted
The studies revealed some important insights:
- Contextual interruptions (ones related to the main task) felt less disruptive to participants, even though the actual “disruption cost” was the same as unrelated interruptions.
- After 20 minutes of interrupted work, participants reported increased stress and perceived difficulty.
- People compensated for interruptions by working faster to catch up.
While these findings provide valuable information about workplace productivity, it’s important to once again note that smartphones were not part of the study. The interruptions mimicked office scenarios, not a classroom environment or smartphone usage.
Claiming that these studies prove it takes over 23 minutes to refocus after checking a smartphone is misleading. Here’s why:
- No smartphones were used in the studies. Extrapolating findings about desk phones and instant messages to modern smartphone use is a stretch.
- The context of the interruptions (work-related tasks) matter and may not translate to the way students interact with phones in a classroom setting.
- The participants were working adults, not children or teens in a school environment.
The misrepresentation of the statement that spawned this article, highlights a growing trend – taking complex research findings and oversimplifying them to push a political narrative about technology and its impact on learning.
Parents and caregivers deserve accurate, evidence-based information when deciding how to approach technology use with their children. While it’s fair to discuss concerns about smartphones and distractions, it’s equally important to separate fact from exaggeration.
- Context matters: Not all interruptions are created equal. For example, a student using a smartphone to search for information related to a classroom discussion is not the same as aimlessly scrolling social media.
- Skills and balance are key: Instead of banning devices entirely, teaching kids digital literacy, time management, and self-regulation helps them build healthy habits around technology.
- Be skeptical of oversimplified claims: When you hear statements about studies, take a moment to ask: Does this actually apply to my child’s situation?
As parents and caregivers, we know that distractions, whether from technology, peers, or even our environment, are part of life. Rather than focusing on fear-driven narratives, let’s equip our children with the skills they need to thrive in a world where technology is a tool, not a hindrance.
The “23-minute smartphone refocus” claim may sound persuasive, but now you know the truth – it’s based on research that didn’t involve smartphones at all. Let’s rely on facts, not assumptions, as we navigate conversations about technology, learning, and focus.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
