Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38324033›Full record

ReviewJournal of behavioral addictions2024

From greenwashing to screenwashing?

Ina Maria Koning, Regina J J M van den Eijnden, Helen G M Vossen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ina Maria Koning1Educational and Family Sciences, Clinical Child and Family Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0305-0487
Regina J J M van den Eijnden2Interdisciplinary Social Science, Youth Studies, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5353-8440
Helen G M Vossen3Education and Pedagogy, Clinical Child and Family Studies, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 1, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3931-6195

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this viewpoint, we introduce the term 'screenwashing', which describes the phenomenon whereby social media platforms, such as TikTok and Instagram, pretend to be more socially responsible than they actually are. That is, social media platforms pretend to be thoughtful about children's health and the prevention of problematic social media use, but this often turns out to be nothing more than "a lick of paint". We describe how features like the one-hour notification on TikTok and Instagram are considered screenwashing and why we believe so. Screenwashing, an unethical practice, has the potential to mislead parents and young users. Consequently, we advocate for increased government intervention to protect our youth from the potential hazards associated with problematic social media use.

Indexed as

ParentsSocial MediaAdolescentChildHumansadolescentsscreenwashingtech industrytime-notification

Identifiers

PMID38324033
PMCPMC10988409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.