Social Networking Sites (SNS) can be valuable tools to connect people with shared interests worldwide. However, SNS screentime has increased drastically over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic....Show moreSocial Networking Sites (SNS) can be valuable tools to connect people with shared interests worldwide. However, SNS screentime has increased drastically over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Excessive use of SNS has been associated with adverse mental health outcomes in previous studies. Contrary to the majority of studies on SNS, which usually rely on correlations, this study used an experimental approach to examine the relationship between SNS use, depression, and anxiety. Fear of missing out (FOMO) was also investigated as a potential mediating factor. To manipulate SNS screentime a multifaceted intervention was built based on results from previous experimental studies and input from a focus group (N = 3). A convenience sample of first year psychology students (N = 122) had been collected and split into three groups. The intervention group was instructed to follow the smartphone use intervention, while participants in the active-control group received instructions with little expected influence on screentime. Both groups were instructed to reduce their smartphone use as much as possible for two weeks. The waitlist-control group was told their intervention would begin in two weeks. SNS screentime, anxiety, depression and FOMO were assessed pre- and post-intervention. The results show significantly lower post-intervention SNS screentime in both intervention groups but not in the waitlist-control group. Depression scores were significantly lower in the intervention group but not for the active-control or waitlist-control condition. No significant group differences for anxiety were found. The mediation analysis obtained no significant results for FOMO as a potential mediator variable. Overall, the findings suggest participants reduced their smartphone usage regardless of the received set of rules. However, only participants in the intervention group showed fewer depressive symptoms. Limitations and suggestions for future research on SNS use were discussed.Show less
The present study focuses on the amount of brain knowledge that children have, and specifically, which neuromyths they believe. Previous research suggests that brain knowledge, either right or...Show moreThe present study focuses on the amount of brain knowledge that children have, and specifically, which neuromyths they believe. Previous research suggests that brain knowledge, either right or wrong, can influence the way children think about themselves, and how they behave. If this knowledge is negatively framed, this can have a negative effect on their development. Therefore, we investigated whether curiosity, prior knowledge, and science-related curiosity were predictive of correctly distinguishing neuromyths and truths and whether these same predictors were related to the perceived relevance of brain knowledge in their daily lives. Furthermore, we looked at the difference between children in primary school and in secondary school with respect to how much they want to know about the brain, and what they want to know about the brain was examined. To test this, 321 children in primary and secondary schools, aged between 10 and 15 years, filled out a questionnaire about their curiosity and prior knowledge, and they judged whether 25 statements about the brain (13 myths, 11 facts, and 1 opinion) were right or wrong. We found that curiosity, prior knowledge, and science-related curiosity as measured with a questionnaire were not predictive of being better able to distinguish neuromyths and truths. However, in an exploratory analysis we found that a higher number of correctly detected facts predicted a lower number of correctly detected neuromyths. When looking at perceived relevance, higher levels of curiosity and science-related curiosity predicted higher levels of perceived relevance, while prior knowledge did not. No differences between children who go to primary school and secondary school were found in how much they want to know about the brain. Also, the themes they would like to know more about were quite the same, mostly focused on general brain knowledge and brain development. This is the first study that focuses on neuromyths and brain knowledge in children. It is important that more research is done on the effect of believing neuromyths and the influence it has on children’s behavior.Show less
As children start school, more and more emphasis is placed on their academic performance, their cognitive capabilities, and their intelligence. Current forms of intelligence testing – static...Show moreAs children start school, more and more emphasis is placed on their academic performance, their cognitive capabilities, and their intelligence. Current forms of intelligence testing – static testing and assessment – have been heavily scrutinised for being biased due to for example the influence of socioeconomic status (SES), leading to unequal educational outcomes. Therefore, different forms of testing – dynamic testing and assessment – are being investigated, with this study focusing on a new form of the Dynamic Screener (DS). This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the DS to increase children’s test performance. A second aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of SES for learning potential and DS outcomes. Participants included 52 children (mean age = 13.14) in the first year of secondary school. The study employed a single-session experimental test-training-test design. Half of the children (n= 27) received a graduated prompts training between the pre-test and post-test, while the other half (n= 25) were the control group and did not receive the training. Five different tests were administered, including a test for working memory, mathematics, language, planning, and inductive reasoning. No significant results were found for trained participants’ performance in comparison with the control group on any of the subtests. Furthermore, no significant difference was found for the predictive value of SES for learning potential, nor for results on pre- versus post-test for the training group. Overall, no definitive conclusions on the effectiveness of the DS, nor on the predictive value of SES for learning potential and DS outcomes, can be drawn from the current study. Future research is needed to determine whether these results are due to the small sample size or are inherent to the DS.Show less
