The Cognitive Cost of a Digital-Only Future
Before we fully embrace a digital future, we must consider the impact on our cognitive development. Research shows that reading digitally can lead to lower comprehension compared to reading print materials. In New Jersey, legal notices are currently required by law to be published in print newspapers. However, Senate President Nick Scutari’s bill suggests moving these notices to public entities’ websites. While this shift towards digital can enhance accessibility—offering features like translation and audio options—it raises concerns about the long-term cognitive effects, particularly for younger generations who are increasingly drawn to digital media.
Legal notices might seem trivial, but they reflect a significant shift in how we interact with information, a shift that is also being codified into law. A meta-analysis by researchers at the University of Valencia revealed a surprising statistic: for younger readers, comprehension from physical texts can be “6 to 8 times greater” than from digital devices when the reading time is the same, say professors Cristina Vargas and Ladislao Salmerón. Although young people aren’t legal notices, this is a plea for discussions that need to be had about what should and shouldn’t be digital.
Sen. Andrew Zwicker (D-Middlesex) advocates for an inclusive approach, suggesting that the term “newspaper” should extend to online platforms, requiring legal notices to be shared in both print and online. His proposal takes into account the “technophobia” some older adults may experience—a demographic that should continue to access physical newspapers when possible. Older people, particularly those with dementia, may find it challenging to process visual and linguistic information quickly. Given that print media tends to enhance comprehension, it may play a crucial role in preserving cognitive function over time.
The issues extend beyond comprehension, but to media literacy too. The failures of mainstream media outlets to provide unbiased coverage on key issues have, in part, contributed to this concerning trend. In 2013, it led to 31% of adults wanting to abandon them, and with the levels of dissatisfaction Americans feel, that number is likely higher now. Young people now turn to social media platforms to consume the news. Not all social media influencers spread disinformation, but there is limited credibility and accountability online, which complicates the matter. Media literacy—critically thinking through information and discerning fact from fiction—has become deeply important for our brains and overall development.
Access to legal notices is especially important for people with disabilities, where digital platforms can significantly improve accessibility. On the other hand, people in rural areas can face inconsistent internet connectivity, where print media might be more accessible. Those realities don’t change the conversations that need to be had surrounding digital media. Those are systemic issues within a society that has historically neglected the needs of disabled or low-income people, rather than an inherent flaw in print or digital media.
This is less a critique of the current state of digital and print media and more a call to action to have conversations about when media should be digital and when it shouldn’t, or to find a middle ground between the two. Now that lawmakers are making these decisions, it is imperative to strike a balance between accessibility and the long-term implications for cognitive health.
This article is an editorial written by Carlita Eastman
