Social versus solitary: Making sense of today's trends

Children are losing all semblance of being social beings these days. They just sit by themselves watching TV, clicking around on the computer or locking into the games on their Game Boys, oblivious to the real world.

Children are more socially active than ever. They play videogames with their friends, either sitting together on the couch, laughing and jostling each other over friendly competition, or interacting in online spaces that give them a broad sense of the world in which they live.

Which of these statements reflects what is really going on? That's what social scientists want to know. Two reports released this month, which I mentioned in my earlier post, highlight the discrepancies. A Harris Interactive poll showed that the vast majority of children play with their favorite toy by themselves. A Pew poll showed that 65 percent of game-playing teens play with other people who are in the room with them, and that only 24 percent say they only play alone.

I'd venture that 1) both statements can be true, and we need to figure out which children have a harder time finding activities and resources that encourage socialization and 2) we are talking about apples and oranges. The Harris poll asked about children 8 years and up about their favorite toys. The Pew poll asked teens about videogames.

I'm intrigued by the path taken in Grand Theft Childhood, the new book by Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson. Using solid data from a large federally funded study, they were able to separate the strands and see which children may need more real-life support, and which ones are able to use technology in positive ways. For example, one of the four reasons that kids give for playing videogames is because it helps build friendships. But for kids who play M-rated (translation: violent) games, the four top reasons were different. They wanted to compete and win, they wanted a way to get their anger out, they wanted to tinker and 'mod' games and they liked the with weapons. (For more, see p. 114 of the book). Could there be a way to use data like this help to pinpoint helpful interventions for different children with different needs?