You might open your phone to watch one video before bed or during a short break. The first minutes pass as you browse one clip after another in a process that does not seem to have an end, and you may finally lift your eyes from the screen, only to discover that hours have passed without you realizing the time.
This daily ritual has become part of how many people use short videos on platforms like TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, and Facebook.
The question is not only how many hours young people spend in front of screens, but can the speed with which they move from one short clip to another, and the way these platforms are designed, affect their abilities to focus, pay attention, and retain information?
What happens when content doesn't stop?
A recent scientific review of 42 studies, including about 46,900 participants with an average age of 16.8 years, published by Springer Nature in June, under the title “Can Endless Browsing Be Curbed? Short Videos, Digital Routines, and Neurocognitive Outcomes in Youth,” found consistent associations between heavy and unregulated use of short videos (usually for several hours a day) with:
Slight to moderate increases in distraction.
Moderate decrease in working memory capacity and self-regulation ability.
Moderate increase in levels of anxiety, depression and stress.
A moderate to significant increase in addiction symptoms.
But the review does not say that these results prove that short clips cause poor memory or shortened attention spans. The reason is that most of the studies the researchers analyzed were cross-sectional (conducted over a specific period of time), and longer and more rigorous studies are still needed to determine the quality of the relationship.
So what does a viewing pattern that is designed to never end do to you?
Speed and endless browsing
Preclinical studies suggest that excessive audiovisual stimulation early in life can reshape behavior and brain structure. These findings confirm the possibility of biological influences during two critical developmental stages: childhood and adolescence, periods when the abilities to control attention, reward anticipation, and self-regulation are still maturing.
The researchers in the study also focused on three elements used by the designers of these platforms, not as a comprehensive or causal classification, but rather as a practical analytical tool, which are:
The algorithm that selects content for the user.
Endless browsing that eliminates natural pause signals.
The speed at which the user moves from one clip to another.
Algorithms can customize the following clips according to what attracts each user, which may enhance immersion and loss of feeling over time. Speed is also particularly important, because the frequent and rapid transition between clips means that the user is constantly moving from one mental context to another, as the evidence on which the review is based indicates that this type of transition is linked to weak future memory, that is, the ability to remember to do something at a later time.
As for infinite browsing, it makes it easier to continue watching, because the user does not encounter a clear point telling him that the content has ended.
“Behavioral evidence is more convincing than brain images.”
The review also found neurological indicators associated with intense browsing, including differences in some indicators of gray matter (a part of the brain tissue associated with important functions such as attention, memory, and decision-making), changes in the synchronization of neural signals during rest, and a decrease in the amplitude of the P300 wave (an electrical signal in the brain associated with attention, information processing, and response to important stimuli).
Professor Jay Van Bavel, professor of psychology and neuroscience at New York University, told BBC News Arabic: “Currently, neuroscience studies on this matter are still in their preliminary stages, and rely on correlational designs and relatively small samples, especially the EEG study that compared 14 heavy users with 15 regular users, so I do not advise relying too much on these results. As for the behavioral research [included in the review], it is more convincing, as it is based on a larger set of studies and even larger samples. Trace evidence.
Which came first: poor attention or short clips?
This is the most difficult dilemma.
Children and adolescents are going through a stage in which their attention, reward, and self-control systems are still developing. But that doesn't automatically mean that the highly stimulating digital environment caused the attention problems, according to the review.
Van Bavel explains that most existing studies are cross-sectional, so it is difficult to know whether overuse leads to a shortened attention span, or whether children who already suffer from poor attention or hyperactive tendencies are more attracted to fast-stimulating digital environments.
Van Bavel believes that the most likely possibility may be that the relationship goes in both directions, explaining that people who have a better ability to control their attention may be more able to use these platforms, and at the same time, watching short clips does not seem to help improve the ability to pay attention.
To resolve the issue, he believes it is necessary to conduct experiments that follow participants for several months, randomly distributing them into groups that watch short clips or stop at them, and comparing them with groups that use other social media or watch long clips instead of short ones.
The issue is not always direct “harm”.
Professor Victoria Goodyear, Professor of Physical Activity, Health and Well-Being at the University of Birmingham and a researcher studying the relationship between young people, social media and digital technologies, tells BBC News Arabic, “Focusing on the number of hours alone may not be sufficient to understand the impact of social media on attention and memory.”
She explains, "Studies and research have focused primarily on 'screen time,' and that the available evidence shows a negative association - albeit slight, but consistent across the general population - between social media use and negative mental health outcomes."
Goodyear adds that there is evidence to suggest that different types of social media use can have both positive and negative effects.
“Teens who frequently share content - in addition to interacting or browsing - face a greater risk of developing mental health problems. In turn, leisure activities - including playing games, exchanging messages, and searching for information - can be important for a person’s well-being and support other healthy behaviors, such as diet and physical activity.”
In one study prepared by Victoria Goodyear, in collaboration with 12 others, on the mechanisms linking the use of smartphones and social media to psychological health and well-being in adolescents, she explained that her research, which included 177 people, including adolescents, parents, and staff in several schools across England, linked watching short clips “to negative effects on cognitive health, including shortened attention span, decreased attention span, decreased interest in non-screen activities, and poor ability to retain information.”
It also explains that the hours a teenager spends browsing may sometimes come at the expense of hours of sleep, schoolwork, physical activity, play, and direct communication with others or family.
But on the other hand, Goodyear points out that social media is not an entirely negative experience, saying, “Some forms of its use, such as communicating, exchanging messages, and searching for information, can be valuable to young people’s well-being.”
Should parents be worried?
Current evidence does not provide a definitive conclusion that continuous browsing of short clips causes brain damage or permanent memory impairment. But it paints a picture worth noting: that heavy use is associated with a range of cognitive and emotional difficulties, while the causal relationship still needs to be more rigorously tested.
