This renowned professional, who travels across the country giving talks to families in schools, institutes, and all kinds of institutions, has just published Set Limits, Not Screens (Roca Editorial). It is a straightforward contingency manual designed to raise awareness and highlight the vulnerability we experience as a society, which particularly affects the most fragile group: children and youth.
“Every day I meet families overwhelmed by how their children use technology. Mothers and fathers with mistaken ideas about screens. Mothers and fathers semi-analytical who don’t know what a hashtag is or how to set limits to the growing friends on their child’s social networks, yet who surround themselves with technology at home and on the street all day. It is our responsibility that minors learn to use technology safely. We must engage in dialogue tirelessly, supervise, set limits and firm consequences, use parental-control apps as allies and not as substitutes for our work, etc.—and also dedicate time and set a good example. Being a parent in the digital world we live in is not easy, but we have no other choice,” she explains.
Nevertheless, López argues that the weight of this awareness should not rest solely on families. She also calls on the responsibility of public authorities. “If they do not collaborate, families will have a very hard time. It is essential that they develop training campaigns for all family members, help them internalize how to use technology responsibly, draft laws that curb early use, and severely sanction companies that entice minors to inappropriate content or that base their business models on capturing young people’s attention through persuasive designs,” she stresses.
A responsibility that, in the author’s view, must be accelerated because public administrations will lag behind the educational needs without screens. And to support her claim she offers a clarifying example: “How is it possible that European public funds are promoting free digital camps for girls and boys? Doesn’t the Ministry of Youth and Childhood know that the substantial empirical evidence, pediatric societies, family-medicine and psychology associations recommend digital disconnection for minors?”
For López the implementation of this camp comes with spectacular nationwide publicity to promote an activity that data show has a negative impact on the comprehensive development of our minors. “A camp where girls, boys and teenagers aged 9 to 17 will use screens five hours a day for a week. They say the objective is to close the digital gap among those with fewer socioeconomic resources and reduce the impact on their future. In other words, the well-documented brain, social, and health risks of digital device use are not going to be valued in this disadvantaged population that obviously will pay the price with their own bodies (though not with money because it is free) for the administration’s inefficacy. What irresponsibility!”
“Digitalization in minors can cause sleep disturbances, anxiety, cyberbullying, visual and postural problems, sedentary behavior, lack of concentration or deterioration of analytical capacity”
The author of Set Limits, Not Screens taps into memory and wonders how it is possible that the same government presented in 2024 a report urging the prioritization of analog teaching, the removal of educational apps with immediate gratification systems, the limitation of Internet access until the age of twelve, and a push for experiential, sporting activities in contact with nature and the physical, in-person environment, etc. “Who will attend these camps? The most disadvantaged minors. Those with more economic resources and more conscious families will attend activities free of digital devices, even if they do not receive government subsidies,” she adds.
Some of these effects López recalls include “sleep disturbances, anxiety, cyberbullying, stress, visual and postural problems, sedentary behavior, increased distractibility and lack of concentration, deterioration of reading comprehension, decline in analytical capacity and working memory, and a long etcetera.” The Public Administration (ministry, autonomous communities, and municipalities) “ignores the recommendations of scientific societies regarding the types of activities, uses, and exposure times to screens for the child-youth population.”
But beyond this camp example, the educator emphasizes that the public authorities are failing “in relation to regulating the norms on the use of digital applications, device ownership, their use in schools, and the educational value of the applications and educational resources that are used.”
At one point, thanks to the Celaá Law, screens entered classrooms and, according to her, that affects the neurodevelopment of minors. How can that path be unwound now?
Returning to paper books and to de-digitalization. Returning to the analog and keeping digital as an exception for very specific content. The studies conducted are conclusive: the impact of the current use of technology in the classroom is harmful and negatively affects students’ performance. From the scientific community it is recommended that public authorities promote appropriate legislation that safeguards the rights and mental health of minors, even if it costs huge revenues for technology companies. It is a matter so relevant that urgent decisions must be taken.
Are there international cases where some governments have already taken bold decisions?
Yes. Countries like Portugal, France, and Italy have banned mobile phones inside the classroom, France also except for strictly instructional functions. Finland and the Netherlands do not allow the use of technology in class. In the United Kingdom, nearly all schools have banned it. However, in Spain many minors have a phone from nine or ten and start watching adult content from eight. There is an urgent need for nationwide legislation that restricts its use in certain educational stages and bans it in others.
“The State Council of Education in our country, the main advisory body to the Government on education, unanimously approved a proposal to prohibit mobile phone use in Primary and to limit it in Secondary”
The State Council of Education in our country, the main advisory body to the Government on education, unanimously approved a proposal to precisely prohibit mobile phone use in Primary and to limit it in Secondary. Only in cases justified for educational or health reasons could secondary students use their phones.
From my point of view it should also be banned at this stage, just like the rest of the screens. Let us not forget that preadolescence and adolescence are stages in which hyper-connection is particularly harmful and after-school screen time tends to be higher. It is necessary to remove screens from classrooms. They do not use them to learn. They use them to watch videos and play video games. Public money is being wasted.
The PISA report always places Spain at the bottom. Do you think screens have affected these results?
Yes, not only do I think so, but the sheer number of studies, investigations, meta-analyses, and expert testimonies shows the distortion of basic learning when digital devices intervene in educational practice. It has been shown that students who use less technology in the classroom achieve better academic results. Specifically, it is estimated that they have about half a year’s advantage over those who use it every day.
Andreas Schleicher, the creator of the PISA study, argues that digital screens are not necessary to teach digital competencies and adds that screen use degrades minors’ ability to develop basic learning. For Desmurget, one of the most critical scientists regarding screens for girls and boys and adolescents, intelligence has been notably decreasing for two decades. And the surprise is that it has not fallen further.
Furthermore, screen time alters verbal interactions, reading, and sleep quality. Because of screens, minors arrive at school less prepared and are thus asked less of themselves. It has also been shown that the changing stimuli of programs encourage impulse-driven response-reward behavior, multitasking, hyperactivity, distractions, and difficulty managing frustration, reflection, and reasoning.
But there are other effects arising from constant exposure to visual and auditory stimuli as well.
Yes. It hinders reflection, concentration, serene observation, and mental recreation—an essential foundation for learning, memory, and the neural connections needed to internalize, memorize, and generate concepts. Data show that one in three students, on average across OECD countries, reported being distracted by using digital devices in most or all mathematics classes, inevitably affecting not only performance in this subject but overall academic performance as well.
The educator asserts that apps are designed to “capture attention.” Photo: Unsplash / Kelly Sikkema
What about the content and interactions on screen in relation to academic results?
Grade deterioration can be linked to the amount of inputs that reach the student through screens and to decreased attention, which influence performance. In Spain, the Basque Country, Navarre, and Catalonia—the three regions that have integrated technology the most in class—are the ones that have fallen the most in the PISA report in the last decade. In other OECD countries, the pattern is similar (aside from students’ socio-economic background), although the negative impact of frequent technology use in the classroom is worse for students from more disadvantaged environments.
Do we infantilize or deny the vulnerability that comes with a digitized life to avoid facing an uncomfortable truth that manipulates us and brings dangers?
I believe we mostly deny reality, out of negligence, convenience, or misinformation. It is very convenient to use technology as a pacifier for emotions or as a digital pacifier. Imagine your child having a fit because they don’t want to eat their lentils—the easiest fix is to give them a screen and keep spooning them in until the moment ends.
“Technology pacifiers are quite effective at temporarily calming a child, but they are not educational at all. Technology deceives the brain and makes it believe that everything is fine”
When you do this, a neural connection will form in the brain. Then, every time the child wants something and cannot get it, the brain will tell them to “act out,” “misbehave,” or “throw a tantrum.” The brain is very smart and knows what the reward will be. We cannot allow minors to get away with this during childhood and adolescence. If they internalize that creating a scene is effective, they will generalize this behavior, and it will be harder to correct later on.
The technology pacifiers are quite effective at soothing momentary distress but are not educational in any way. Technology fools the brain and makes it believe that everything is okay. Screens (social networks, video games, or YouTube videos) are the most efficient behavior-modifying engines ever invented. They can rapidly shape a teenager’s and an adult’s personality, tastes, and way of thinking. People who advised Silicon Valley were very insightful about the likes and how often a content was shared. The algorithm knows a lot about how our brains work. This is why so many people have an unhealthy relationship with their devices.
Using behavioral techniques, specialists in engineering, neuroscience, and psychology helped design apps and create content capable of holding users’ attention on the screen for as long as possible and altering their behavior—without them realizing it! They had found formulas that manipulate our psychological vulnerability and hook us.
Throughout the book you emphasize that education repairs mistakes—which is the most urgent one? Which one is least valued but does matter?
Of course, mistakes are a great opportunity to learn. As a mother, the errors I made in my first motherhood taught me not to repeat them with my others, and with our children we must work in that direction. Historically, error has been seen as something negative to be avoided. Yet making mistakes does not mean failure. Learning is not always a linear process. It is often a path full of trials, falls, and adjustments.
The American psychologist Carol Dweck speaks about this process. She explains that a growth mindset is a fundamental stance for facing challenges. This mindset is based on the idea that abilities and skills are not fixed but can be developed through effort and dedication. If we can help our children grow with a growth mindset, they will see mistakes as opportunities to improve rather than as weaknesses.
“Right now we are not educating them in the need for perseverance and resilience in the face of difficulties to achieve goals. We overprotect too much, and overprotection means underprotection”
It is urgent that students learn to view mistakes as a natural part of their development; on the other hand, I think that today we do not educate them enough about the need for perseverance and resilience to reach objectives. We overprotect, and overprotecting means underprotecting. Out of fear that they might fall and become frustrated, we rush in to resolve every problem for them. This is not discussed openly, but we must seriously consider it. We must stop clearing the path for them and stop removing every stone from their journey.
Parenting is a fundamental part of shaping the women and men of tomorrow, but the reality is that the weight and responsibility often fall on mothers.
We still have a long way to go to achieve real shared parenting. It is a fact that mothers dedicate more time to caregiving and education. I speak with many women each week after conferences and they acknowledge that their homes lack shared parenting and the distribution of household chores.
The invisible mental load many women carry involves planning, organizing, and managing parenting from every angle: thinking through the weekly menu, educating, acting as a taxi driver, attending birthdays and activities, daily packing of bags or adjusting wardrobes to the seasons and growth, keeping track of homework and a long etcetera.
Studies show that women continue to shoulder a disproportionately high share of caregiving. On average they are responsible for about 72.57% of the mental load and 63.64% of all domestic physical labor compared with their partners, which correlates with higher rates of stress, anxiety, depression, relationship problems, physical and emotional exhaustion, among others.
Would shared responsibility make it easier to set boundaries to protect against the digital world?
When responsibilities are shared, everything becomes easier. When both partners share the load, the outcomes improve. Women frequently carry a double burden—on the street and at home—making their educational task enormously harder. That is why screens are often used as babysitters or as pacifiers for emotions. This overload would find a solution if men took on their duties and distributed household tasks more evenly. Setting boundaries and disciplining is not easy; it’s one of the most challenging tasks of home education, but if mother and father work as a team, their children will have fewer ways to slip up.
Why is it more difficult to set limits today?
From my experience, four reasons stand out. First, many parents were raised with an authoritarian style. They think the best approach is to swing to the opposite extreme: a permissive, peer-like style with few rules and responsibilities, which, in the short term, may seem to ease their educational task.
The second reason is uncertainty. They fear they may harm their children, that they may cause frustration and unhappiness. What they don’t realize is that setting boundaries is the greatest act of love and protection. They don’t know that if we approach each situation with patience, consistent rules, respect, communication, firmness, and tolerance, the results will be remarkable.
Third, they don’t know how to do it without shouting and punishment. And the truth is that it is a difficult task. But it can be learned because there are reliable techniques with excellent results. Finally, they don’t set limits out of convenience. I meet families who don’t want to complicate their lives, avoid saying no, avoid waiting. They live in a world of constant happiness, and limits make that way of life very difficult. There are no schedules, no obligations, no responsibilities; if they dislike a meal, they switch to another; they buy rewards for good behavior and a long etcetera.
The first place where we learn is home, a home increasingly mediated and with less time for dialogue. If we keep going like this, what kind of society are we going to create?
Numerous empirical works and studies have shown that the first place where we learn to manage emotions is the family. Lack of involvement or attention, negligence, overprotection, lack of communication, or mistreatment can have long-term negative consequences. Our children need us to establish with them, day by day, a secure communicative bond. This means showing through our actions and our words: “You are in my heart and in my mind; you are the most important thing to me, which is why I tell you no.”
“Our children need us to establish with them, day by day, a secure communicative bond. This means showing through our actions and our words that we have them in our heart and in our minds”
To do this we must be available, attentive, as close as possible, prioritizing their needs. We must promote the release of oxytocin by seeking physical contact (kisses and hugs), set routines, follow schedules, be consistent, play, talk, reason, discuss honestly and sincerely, value them, and say: “No, because I love you” as many times as you deem necessary. We must build solid foundations based on bonds.
Is digital life during adolescence fostering greater instability for the future?
Indeed, misused digital life, the lack of rules governing its use, overexposure from early ages, addictions, and inappropriate content are creating an insecure, emotionally unstable adolescent generation with behavioral problems. Adolescence is a transitional phase marked by major bodily, sexual, intellectual, and emotional changes; it is when our personality, self-esteem, our way of relating, how we perceive ourselves, how we understand the world, how we position ourselves, and our first decisions are formed.
The best defining idea for any adolescent is that they are a work in progress. Adolescence is governed by the principle of pleasure and immediate reward. Girls and boys want to do whatever they want, right now, without weighing the consequences. They resist control and boundaries. They are not able to self-regulate because they are still building their identity. They are educated under a model of constant exposure where their self-esteem and their bodies have been shaped by constant external validation.
They have a lot to learn, and that is why we must demand they take on responsibilities and respect the rules, even if they are not to their liking. This stage is a great opportunity to influence their development before their brains fully mature, around twenty-five. If the brain is immature and cannot regulate well, it means they will need their mother and father—or their attachment figure—more than ever. We must motivate them at this crucial moment to have willpower and delay gratification. Make them aware that they do not deserve everything and that they will have to fight to reach their goals. However, reckless and abusive use of screens is disabling many of our tasks with the terrible consequences this can have on the maturation process of a minor.
In an era when the 2.0 connection is constant, how do you define intergenerational communication?
It is complicated. There isn’t a single conversation with a mother or father in which their adolescent doesn’t insist that they talk little or nothing, are moody, have “a mood,” are hypersensitive, or want to be left alone. It is a fact that during this stage communication wobbles; they have reservations, jealousy about their privacy, speak in monosyllables, and keep repeating that “you don’t understand me.” Perhaps it is true that they speak little and communication is difficult. However, we may not make it as easy as we should; perhaps we react harshly to their emotional rollercoaster moments, listen poorly or misinterpret and judge too much, lack understanding, and seek information without real bidirectional communication instead.
