Recently, Dr. Jonathan Haidt, author of, “The Anxious Generation – How The Great Rewiring Of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic Of Mental Health” (1) has publicly argued against the use of educational technology (Ed Tech) in schools, suggesting that it negatively affects learning by altering dopamine responses in students. His statement, which has been widely shared online, claims that gamifying a quarter of a child’s school day with screen-based rewards may increase engagement initially but ultimately makes non-screen activities seem more boring. As a result, he argues, children may end up learning less than if technology had not been used at all because of the dopamine effect. (2) In fact, in a recent Instagram reel Dr Haidt stated:
“if you gamify a 1/4 of a child’s school day with screen based rewards you will get more engagement during that part of the day it will work or it will seem to work, but their dopamine neurone will then “adapt” to that and everything not on a screen will now be more boring that it would have been if you didn’t gamify it for a 1/4 of the day, so the child will end up perhaps learning a lot less if you hadn’t used ed based tech to teach them” (3)
In this YouTube video (4), Dr. Haidt made the same statement at the 36-minute, 13-second mark. However, he prefaced it by saying that after reading Dr. Anna Lembke’s book, Dopamine Nation, he formulated the above noted opinion in the form of a “Haiku”. Having read Dopamine Nation ourselves, we found no evidence-based research supporting such a statement, nor did we find any instance where Dr. Lembke made such an assertion in her book.
While this claim may sound compelling on the surface, our research, and consultations with the PhD experts who actually study dopamine suggest otherwise, so our spider sense started to tingle . Given our experience in digital literacy and internet safety, we sought input from PhD researchers who specialize in dopamine studies. Their responses directly challenge Dr. Haidt’s assertions and highlight the importance of basing arguments on actual scientific evidence rather than assumptions.
Understanding Dopamine’s Role in Learning
Dopamine is often misunderstood as a “pleasure chemical” when, in reality, it is more accurately described as a neurotransmitter involved in motivation, learning, and reinforcement. (5) The idea that dopamine neurons “adapt” to screen-based rewards and cause children to disengage from non-screen learning does not align with established neuroscience.
Dr. Mark Humphries, a Professor of Computational Neuroscience who studies dopamine, explained that dopamine neurons do not simply “adapt”. Instead, they respond to unexpected rewards but stop firing when a reward becomes predictable. In an email to us, Dr. Humphries elaborated:
“Sounds like the quote is invoking the fact that we expect dopamine neurons to stop signalling once a new reward becomes predictable: they fire to unexpected rewards, but once one can reliably predict the reward AND gets the reward predicted, the dopamine neurons do not respond. They do not “adapt”, but are signalling there has been no error in the prediction.”
He further pointed out that if there is a decline in engagement with repeated screen exposure, it may be due to simple satiation, much like how food is less appealing when one is full, not because of any fundamental change in dopamine signalling.
So, specific to Dr Haidt’s statement mentioned above, Dr Humphries stated:
“So, spider sense is on the money I think: a lot of assumptions in there that would need strong evidence to stand up to scrutiny.”
We also reached out to Dr Steven Quartz, a researcher who also specializes in the study of dopamine, about Dr Haidt’s statement. His reply:
“Regarding the statement in question, I don’t think there’s much evidence that dopamine neurons themselves ‘adapt’ in the way the statement suggests. That is, video-based instruction is not causing the non-screen instruction to be less engaging due to some effect the video instruction has on dopamine neurons.”
Dr Quartz further went on to share with us:
“No doubt video games and potentially video-based instruction can be very engaging because they incorporate markers of progress towards goals (eg accumulating points towards completing a level), which do engage dopamine-based learning. They can also be very visually engaging, which promotes attention. It’s possible there’s a general contrast effect, but that would be due making the less engaging aspects of non-video instruction more salient rather than an effect on dopaminergic neurons. A potential strategy would be to use non-video instruction first in the day followed by video-based instruction.”
Also, in a recent online posting, according to Dr Steven Quartz a recent study found no evidence of dopamine “tolerance”, which leads to dopamine deficiency. (6) As Dr Quartz stated, this 2024 study cautions against simplistic parallels between addictions and ordinary rewards. (7)
Where Is the Evidence?
The primary issue with Dr. Haidt’s statement is that it lacks empirical and researched based evidence. While concerns about overuse of technology in education are valid and worthy of discussion, claims about the negative neurological impact of Ed Tech on dopamine and learning need to be backed by rigorous scientific studies.
When we examined the available research, and consulted with the experts who study dopamine, we found no conclusive evidence linking Ed Tech to the kind of dopamine-driven disengagement that Haidt describes. In fact, studies have shown positive effects of dopamine on learning (8) Many researchers have found that technology, when used as a supplement rather than a replacement for traditional teaching methods, combined with evidence based educational pedagogy surrounding the use of technology in the classroom, can enhance motivation, engagement, and comprehension, especially for students who struggle with conventional instruction. (9)
Dr. Haidt is not a neuroscientist, nor is he a researcher specializing in dopamine studies. This does not mean his opinions should be dismissed outright, but it does mean that his claims should be subject to the same scrutiny as any scientific hypothesis or opinion. When influential figures make broad claims about technology’s impact on children, it is crucial to demand evidence rather than accept assertions at face value based on very loose interpretation of research.
The assumption that screen-based learning inherently diminishes a child’s ability to focus on non-screen activities because of dopamine is an “opinion”, not a proven evidence-based fact. Until robust research supports such claims, caution is necessary before advocating for drastic changes, such as outright banning Ed Tech in schools, based on Dr Haidt’s opinions on this issue.
Dr. Haidt’s claim that Ed Tech negatively impacts learning by disrupting dopamine responses is not supported by neuroscience experts we consulted with or any current research we could find. While concerns about excessive screen time and digital distraction in schools are valid, broad claims about neurological harm need substantial evidence. As we navigate the evolving role of technology in education, it is essential to base decisions on rigorous research rather than assumptions or fear-driven narratives.
The conversation about Ed Tech should not be framed as a binary choice between full adoption and outright rejection. Instead, we should focus on best pedagogy practices that maximize educational benefits while addressing potential drawbacks. Only by taking an evidence-based approach can we ensure that technology serves as a tool for enhancing, rather than hindering, learning.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References
2/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l_pIVJwgFI&t=1s
3/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGdb11jJSIk/
4/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_GY-cW4-Dc&t=1s
5/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/dopamine-facts-vs-fear/
6/ https://x.com/stevenquartz/status/1899843884664148240?s=46
7/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40043691/
8/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/06/230606111734.htm
