Reaction papers are thought papers where you critique an article. As you read the assigned articles, 

point out 

1)

at least one interesting fact that you learned from the introduction,  

2)

study’s 

strengths, 

3)

the limitations of their research design (for example, the way they defined or 

measured their variables, the measures’ reliability/validity, their data collection technique [e.g., 

self-report, lab visits, direct observation]), 

4)

implications of their findings (so what do they 

findings mean in real world!. In your implications section you must relate the study’s findings to 

real life, and give it some context to make it relevant for lay people), 

5)

future direction ideas (what 

would you want to test next to build up on the findings of this research, and/or to address its 

shortcomings). 

These are some questions to have in mind as you read the article:



Did they account for confounding factors? 



What other factors could explain their findings? 



Were the findings substantial? Who will benefit from these? 



What were some of the considerations or little things that the researchers took into 

account that strengthened their design? 



If you were to do subsequent investigations, what next steps would you take? 



Also, if the article posed questions in your mind, mention the questions and take a 

stab at giving answers too! 

General guidelines for writing reaction papers

(Read this document fully! It’s 5 pages and contains important information):

Reaction papers are thought papers where you critique an article. As you read the assigned articles, point out 1) at least one interesting fact that you learned from the introduction, 2) study’s strengths, 3) the limitations of their research design (for example, the way they defined or measured their variables, the measures’ reliability/validity, their data collection technique [e.g., self-report, lab visits, direct observation]), 4) implications of their findings (so what do they findings mean in real world!. In your implications section you must relate the study’s findings to real life, and give it some context to make it relevant for lay people), 5) future direction ideas (what would you want to test next to build up on the findings of this research, and/or to address its shortcomings).

These are some questions to have in mind as you read the article:

· Did they account for confounding factors?

· What other factors could explain their findings?

· Were the findings substantial? Who will benefit from these?

· What were some of the considerations or little things that the researchers took into account that strengthened their design?

· If you were to do subsequent investigations, what next steps would you take?

· Also, if the article posed questions in your mind, mention the questions and take a stab at giving answers too!

Show me that you’ve thought the article thorough.
I evaluate your reaction papers based on the

depth of your thoughts and how sophisticated and well explained your arguments comments are.

SUPER IMPORTANT NOTE regarding LIMITATIONS:

When pointing out the limitations, EXPLAIN how addressing the limitation could mean getting different results. For example, if the study’s participants are all socioeconomically advantaged and you see this a limitation because it’s not nationally representative, discuss how results of a mid/low SES sample could be different.
Simply saying that the results aren’t “generalizable” IS NOT ENOUGH.
You must justify your argument for selecting a more diverse sample, otherwise there is not enough evidence to suggest that the study’s findings are not generalizable! Again, please realize that it is your explanations and arguments that I evaluate, so don’t leave your comments unexplained or unsupported.

SUPER IMPORTANT NOTE regarding STRENGHTS:

I have found that students are often confused as to what they should consider a “strength” and what things are just “given (must haves!)” in a work that is published in an academic journal. Below are things that are NOT strengths, and rather “given”, so please don’t include these as strengths of the article! Violation of these can be considered a limitation:

· Random assignment

· Having conditions that differ on only one aspect

· Coders being blind to the study’s hypotheses

· Use of reliable and valid measures

· Citing relevant prior research

· High inter-rater reliability

· Having IRB approval

· Getting a baseline to compare post-intervention results with

To identify strengths, think about what steps the researchers took into account for possible little things that could skew their results. For instance, having “practice trials” before engaging kids in a computer game, to account for differences in familiarity with the game, device, etc. These are extra steps, and thoughtful ones, that researchers take, and are considered true strengths.

One more thing, in your reaction paper, refrain from statements such as “the paper was great”, “I liked this finding”, “I thought this finding was interesting”,
without explaining why
!! It’s okay to like the study, but it’s important to reason why you found the article interesting and important. Also,
even if you really liked the paper, you must still be able to able to play the role of a sceptic and find few points to criticize the paper on.
Your comments must be deep and critical rather than superficial or simply a reiteration of what was mentioned in the article.

Organization and Structure:

Start by summarizing the article in one
very
short paragraph (NO more than 3-4 lines)! And then continue critiquing the article. Reaction papers must be
2-3 pages. Note that most students can’t write a thorough reaction paper in 2 pages, unless they are true “concise writers”, so don’t stop at two pages, unless you’ve touched on several key points about the article (and don’t repeat the points you already mentioned, just to cover a third page!). Be sure to cover the five main key parts that were mentioned in the first paragraph, and know that your focus should be on limitations.

Formatting:

· WORD DOC only! No PDFs please.

· Times New Roman font, 12 point, Double spaced, 1” margin all sides.

· No cover page needed

· Citation of the assigned paper not needed. Any extra sources must be cited

· APA style of writing

· Submit your paper on canvas by the due date

· I will accept reaction papers only if they’re submitted before class time, AND if you are present in class to discuss your paper. If you absolutely have to miss a class where we’re discussing articles, you can make up the reaction paper by choosing an article on the topic of the week and write a reaction paper on the new article. Email me your reaction paper and the article PDF. You may earn a maximum of 40 points (instead of the typical 50 points) for this reaction paper. Only ONE reaction paper can be made up this way. So if you miss more than one article discussion day, I can’t give you the option to make it up again.

· Note that on the week when you are the presenting group, you will submit a single reaction paper collectively as a group. The organizer should upload this reaction paper (under his/her name) and the rest of group members don’t have to worry about uploading anything.

REACTION PAPER GRADING RUBRIC

Performance category Quality	Content (30 pts)	Organization(10 pts)	Grammar (10 pts); Correct choice of verb tenses, words, avoidance of wordy phrases)
Exceeds expectations	Offers several high quality comments about the reading that demonstrate a high level of understanding as well as sophisticated analysis of the material. Embodies originality, complexity, and depth, rather than just a presentation of the obvious; shows evidence of effective inquiry and argumentation. Clearly shows evidence of “Critical” thinking Points: 25-30	Is stellar in construction, with compelling wording, smooth transitions, and organizational clarity. Points: 10	No errors whatsoever! Points: 10
Meets expectations	Demonstrates a good level of understanding and raises many points, but only one or none of the points demonstrate “deep” analysis where KEY factors are discussed (i.e., sticks to discussion of the obvious, like sample size and generalizability). All or most of the points that are raised are accurate Points: 15-25	Language is generally appropriate to a professional audience and organization is sound. Points: 6-9	Between 1-4 grammatical or punctuation errors, or typos, but they are minor and do not detract from the paper. Points: 6-9
Needs improvement	Offers few comments, and they are superficial. Some comments have accuracy issues (e.g., invalid criticisms, or discussion of a limitation that was addressed in the paper by taking a specific measure that resolved the issue completely). Points: 5-15	Quality of writing may be inconsistent (i.e., quite good in some sections of the paper and of lesser quality in other sections. E.g., there are paragraphs containing critiquing points after what seems to be a concluding paragraph); organization needs improvement. Points: 3-6	4-7 grammatical or punctuation errors, or typos. Points: 3-6
Unsatisfactory	Sounds more like a summary than an analysis. Offers only one or two comments which are on the superficial side. Points: 0-5	Paper is incoherent, or unorganized with little agreement between ideas. Points: 0-3	More than 7 grammatical, punctuation errors or typos. Errors impede understanding of content and require multiple readings and guessing to figure out the message that’s being conveyed. Points: 3-6

Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 387–392

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / c o m p h u m b e h

Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen
skills with nonverbal emotion cues

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.036
0747-5632/� 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, University of
California, Los Angeles, 616 Via De La Paz, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, United
States. Tel.: +1 310 526 3316; fax: +1 310 230 7830.

E-mail address: yaldatuhls@gmail.com (Y.T. Uhls).

Yalda T. Uhls a,⇑, Minas Michikyan b, Jordan Morris c, Debra Garcia d,b, Gary W. Small e, Eleni Zgourou f,
Patricia M. Greenfield a

a Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Children’s Digital Media Center @ LA, United States
b Department of Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles, Children’s Digital Media Center @ LA, United States
c Department of Social Welfare, University of California, Los Angeles, United States
d Department of Education, University of California, Los Angeles, United States
e Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, United States
f Department of Education, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Children’s Digital Media Center @ LA, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Available online 15 August 2014

Keywords:
Social media

Nonverbal communication
Emotion
Adolescent
Social interaction
Development

A field experiment examined whether increasing opportunities for face-to-face interaction while elimi-
nating the use of screen-based media and communication tools improved nonverbal emotion–cue recog-
nition in preteens. Fifty-one preteens spent five days at an overnight nature camp where television,
computers and mobile phones were not allowed; this group was compared with school-based matched
controls (n = 54) that retained usual media practices. Both groups took pre- and post-tests that required
participants to infer emotional states from photographs of facial expressions and videotaped scenes with
verbal cues removed. Change scores for the two groups were compared using gender, ethnicity, media
use, and age as covariates. After five days interacting face-to-face without the use of any screen-based
media, preteens’ recognition of nonverbal emotion cues improved significantly more than that of the con-
trol group for both facial expressions and videotaped scenes. Implications are that the short-term effects
of increased opportunities for social interaction, combined with time away from screen-based media and
digital communication tools, improves a preteen’s understanding of nonverbal emotional cues.
� 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

1. Introduction study found that the amount of non-screen playtime decreased

For several millennia, humans’ primary method for social learn-
ing and communication has been face to face. In the 21st century,
as mobile technology and the Internet became available to most of
the world’s population (Internet world stats, 2013), digital media
have become an increasingly prevalent factor in the informal learn-
ing environment (Greenfield, 2009). Children today, ages 8–18,
spend over 7½ h a day, seven days a week using media outside
of school (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010). Moreover, teenagers,
ages 12–17, report using phones to text message in their daily lives
more than any other form of communication, including face-to-
face socializing (Lenhart, 2012). The extensive time that children
and teenagers engage with media and communicate using screens
may be taking time away from face-to-face communication and
some in-person activities (Giedd, 2012). Indeed, one longitudinal

20% from 1997 to 2003, while screen activities (i.e., watching tele-
vision, playing videogames and using the computer) increased
(Hofferth, 2010).

The advent of mobile technology enables today’s youth to
access and engage with screens 24/7 outside of school while in
cars, on vacations, in restaurants, and even in bed. A recent poll
found that children’s access to these kinds of devices has grown
fivefold in the last two years (Common Sense Media, 2013). Extant
research indicates that, today, media exposure begins at early ages,
consumes the majority of youth leisure time, and takes place in
many different environments and contexts. Such extensive use of
new technology has raised concerns that children’s face-to-face
communication skills may be negatively affected (Bindley, 2011;
Giedd, 2012).

1.1. Face-to-face and mediated communication

When engaging in face-to-face communication, social informa-
tion is conveyed by vocal and visual cues within the context of the
situation. Nonverbal communication, defined as communication

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.036&domain=pdf

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.036

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

mailto:yaldatuhls@gmail.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.036

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

388 Y.T. Uhls et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 387–392

without words, includes apparent behaviors such as facial expres-
sion, eye contact, and tone of voice, as well as less obvious mes-
sages such as posture and spatial distance between two or more
people (Knapp & Hall, 2010). The understanding of these kinds of
nonverbal social cues is particularly important for social interac-
tion because of the need to modify one’s own behavior in response
to the reactions of others (Knapp & Hall, 2010). The capability to
effectively process emotional cues is associated with many per-
sonal, social and academic outcomes (Knapp & Hall, 2010;
McClure & Nowicki, 2001). In addition, children who better under-
stand emotional cues in a social environment may develop supe-
rior social skills and form more positive peer relationships
(Blakemore, 2003; Bosacki & Astington, 1999).

Long before digital media became ubiquitous, investigators
developed theories, such as the Cues-Filtered-Out theory, which
postulated that the lack of nonverbal cues in computer-mediated
interactions could lead to impersonal communication, (Culnan &
Markus, 1987), while others pointed out deficits in computer-med-
iated communication due to the lack of social-context cues (Sproull
& Kiesler, 1988). More recently, an experiment exploring the differ-
ence in emotional connectedness experienced by emerging adults
using either in-person or digitally mediated communication
showed that bonding and affiliative cues were significantly stron-
ger when friends communicated in person rather than by text
(Sherman, Michikyan, & Greenfeld, 2013). The extensive use of dig-
ital media, often text-based and thus inherently lacking nonverbal
emotional cues, may thus curtail the face-to-face experiences nec-
essary to master important social skills, even though they are used
for social communication (Giedd, 2012).

1.2. The video deficit

Research regarding what children do and do not learn about the
social world through screen-based media, in particular television,
is robust (Guernsey, 2011; Richert, Robb, & Smith, 2011;
Wartella, 2012; Wartella, O’Keefe, & Scantlin, 2000). Much of the
research concentrates on early learning from imitation, socially
contingent interaction (e.g. joint attention and gaze following),
and word learning (Flom & Johnson, 2010; Moore & Dunham,
1995). This body of research shows that young children learn bet-
ter from live interaction than from screens. For example, Hayne,
Herbert, and Simcock (2003) performed a series of experiments
using matched live and videotaped models who performed a series
of actions with a rattle and stuffed animals. Although children imi-
tated televised models, the mean imitation scores were signifi-
cantly higher in the live condition. This discrepancy in imitation
appears to last until 30 months of age and was coined the ‘‘video
deficit.’’

1.3. Reading nonverbal emotion cues: processes of development and
learning

Features of face-to-face communication such as eye contact and
pointing are crucial when teaching young children about social
interaction and the world they live in. For example, gaze following,
a well-studied mechanism in the literature on human develop-
ment, guides infants from around one year of age to learn about
objects and humans (Flom & Johnson, 2010). Humans also learn
from cues such as pointing when interacting socially (Moore &
Dunham, 1995). Once a child is able to attend to an object that
another person highlights, their ability to learn through social
interaction increases. These means of learning are available only
when a child can see another’s face and physical being (Gross &
Ballif, 1991).

In-person interaction also develops the accurate understanding
of nonverbal emotion cues. For instance, cooperative interaction

among siblings in the third year of life has been shown to predict
skill in affective labeling of facial expressions and understanding
of emotions in dramatized puppet scenarios in the fourth year of life
(Dunn, Brown, Slomkowski, Tesla, & Youngblade, 1991). The chil-
dren’s positive behavior toward their siblings in the third year of life
continued to predict more advanced understanding of emotions at
six years of age (Brown & Dunn, 1996). These longitudinal findings
point to in-person peer interaction as a key learning experience in
the early acquisition of skill in reading nonverbal emotion cues.

As children grow older, their peer focus shifts from siblings to
unrelated peers, whom they usually meet in school. In preadoles-
cence, the period under investigation in the present research, social
interaction skill with peers, assessed in an in-person school situa-
tion, was correlated with an understanding of feelings presented in
narrative (Bosacki & Astington, 1999).

2. Research question and hypothesis: the present study

In the present study, we designed a field experiment to ask the
research question: Does children’s frequent screen use—and the
possibility that this extensive use replaces critical face-to-face com-
munication—promote the development of emotion understanding
to the same extent as in-person interactions? If not, a shift in chil-
dren’s activities to solely in-person peer and adult communication
could enhance skill in understanding the emotions of other people.

Our experimental condition was a naturally occurring environ-
ment where children experienced extensive opportunities for social
interaction, combined with no access to screens, for five days. Our
participants were preteens in the sixth grade. We chose this age
group because: (1) by the time they reach early adolescence, chil-
dren are able to integrate information from many nonverbal cues,
including face, gesture and tone, to make inferences about social sit-
uations (Knapp & Hall, 2010); (2) the understanding of social emo-
tions and the ability to take into account another person’s
perspective are some of the most dramatic changes during adoles-
cence (Dumontheil, Houlton, Christoff, & Blakemore, 2010); and
(3) this is an age when many children begin to access personal
mobile technology and media use peaks (Rideout et al., 2010).

We investigated whether an absence of screens, and, accord-
ingly, increased opportunities for face-to-face communication,
gave children the context to be more sensitive in comprehending
nonverbal emotion cues. Our hypothesis was that, relative to a
matched control group that continued their usual daily activities
–including screen-based activities– both in and outside of school,
children’s skill at recognizing emotion from nonverbal cues would
improve after five days of increased opportunity for face-to-face
interaction in an environment without screens.

3. Method

3.1. Design and Participants

The study design involved a pre- and post-test, and a no-inter-
vention matched control group. Both the experimental and control
(i.e., no-intervention) groups were comprised of sixth graders
recruited from the same public school in Southern California. The
experimental group included 51 children from the Spring 2012 class,
and the control included 54 children from the Fall 2012 class. Given
that the two groups attended the same public school, the groups
were drawn from the same population and therefore matched on
many important demographic variables. In an average day of the
week during the school year, both groups reported spending approx-
imately 4 1/2 h a day outside of school texting, watching television,
and playing videogames (see Table 1 for key demographic variables
for both groups).

Y.T. Uhls et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 387–392 389

The experimental group participated in the Pali Institute, an
outdoor education overnight camp facility, located 70 miles out-
side of Los Angeles, where neither electronic devices nor access
to any kind of screens was permitted. Opportunities for face-to-
face social interaction included living together in cabins, going
on hikes together, and working as a team to build emergency shel-
ters. Our choice to use the camp as an intervention, rather than ask
children to stop using media on their own or bring them into a lab
environment, was a deliberate strategy that provided control, as
well as ecological and external validity.

The camp is educational; schoolchildren spend the day
immersed in activities meant to teach science through outdoor
instruction (see Table 2 for a description of the daily activities).
The school signed up their entire sixth-grade cohort to attend the
camp (and planned for the control group to attend in the Spring
of 2013), and thus there was virtually no self-selection. In choosing
the control group, we considered other groups, such as an over-
night camp that integrated screens into the daily activities, but
we determined that the selection effects outweighed the benefits
of matching on the overnight experience; in other words, children
who are interested in these kinds of technology-oriented camps,
and whose parents could afford the cost (e.g., currently, UCLA Tech
overnight camps are approximately $2000 for one week), would
not be a good match for children who were sent to an outdoor nat-
ure camp underwritten by a public school district. In addition, the
children’s social network was controlled for, because the same
children were together at camp with their peers from their sixth-
grade classes at school.

Participants in the control group attended school, with a typical
week of instruction at a California public elementary school (i.e.,
history, English, math instruction, etc.), each day between the
pre- and post-test with no restrictions placed on their media use
by our research team. While we did not collect information about
after school, beyond asking children about their typical day’s
media activities, a teacher at the school polled her class and shared
with us that the majority of the children participate in sports two
to four times a week. UCLA’s Institutional Review Board approved
this study.

Table 1
Key demographics for the experimental and control groups.

Camp

Sample size and gender 51 (25 Boy
Age (yrs; mean ± SD) 11.86 ± .46

Range 11–
Ethnicity� White 26

Hispanic 9
African Am
Asian 9 (1
Other/mix

Parents’ education Mother:
Finished h
Some colle
Finished c
Beyond co
Father:
Finished h
Some colle
Finished c
Beyond co

Media use/ownership 22 (43%) O
51 (100%)

Media use (mean ± SD) hours per school day Texting: .9
Watching
Playing vid

Note: no variables were significantly different between experimental and control groups
with change scores on the dependent variables. Percentages of parents’ education do no

3.2. Measures

Participants in both conditions began by taking a one-time
online media-use survey to measure their daily media activities.
We created this Media Use Questionnaire using items from pre-
existing surveys (Pea et al., 2012; Uhls, 2013). In order to create
a media-use variable to employ as a covariate, we added together
the amount of time during an average school day participants
reported spending on computers, television, video games, and cell
phones. For computers and cell phones, amount of time was calcu-
lated by summing amount of time reported for specific activities
using these media (e.g., video chatting, texting, posting videos).
This measure was used as a control in our analysis.

After comprehensive piloting, for our dependent variables, we
chose two well-validated tests, also extensively tested with chil-
dren, to assess the ability to decode emotional nonverbal commu-
nication. Because the ability to accurately read emotion in the
facial expression of others is one of the most important nonverbal
communication skills, we used the Faces subtests of the second
edition of the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Behavior (DANVA2)
(Nowicki & Carton, 1993). This test has been validated with partic-
ipants differing in age, gender, ethnicity, intellectual ability and
cultural background in over 385 studies (Nowicki, 2010). The Faces
subtest includes 48 photos of faces (24 children and 24 adults)
with happy, sad, angry, and fearful emotions in both high and
low intensity. These photos of children and adult faces were each
flashed onto a screen for 2 s after which participants recorded on
a sheet the emotion the actor exhibited. Scoring assessed the num-
ber of errors made in the identification of emotions. Approximately
half the children in the control group and half the children in the
experimental group were given adult faces first; the other half in
each group were given the child faces first.

Our second test examined children’s ability to integrate and
accurately interpret different kinds of nonverbal cues within a set-
ting that more clearly reflected real life. The Child and Adolescent
Social Perception Measure (CASP), a measure that has been vali-
dated for several different populations (Clikeman-Semrud,
Walkowiak, Wilkinson, & Minne, 2010; Guiltner, 2000; Magill-

Control

s; 26 girls) 54 (26 Boys; 28 girls)
11.81 ± .52

13 Range 11–13
(51%) White 11 (20%)

(18%) Hispanic 9 (17%)
erican 1 (2%) African American 1 (2%)

7%) Asian 19 (35%)
ed 6 (12%) Other/mixed 14 (26%)

Mother:
igh school 5 (10%) Finished high school 7 (12%)
ge 10 (20%) Some college 10 (18%)

ollege 15 (29%) Finished college 21 (37%)
llege 6 (12%) Beyond college 5 (9%)

Father:
igh school 6 (12%) Finished high school 9 (16%)
ge 9 (17%) Some college 7 (12%)

ollege 18 (35%) Finished college 21 (37%)
llege 5 (10%) Beyond college 3 (5%)
wn phone 26 (48%) Own phone
Computer at home 52 (96%) Computer at home
± 1.3 Texting: 1.1 ± 1.6

TV: 2.4 ± 1.4 Watching TV: 2.1 ± 1.6
eo games: 1.2 ± 1.3 Playing video games: 1.4 ± 1.4

except for *ethnicity: t(105) = �2.95, P < 0.01. However, ethnicity was not correlated t total 100% because some subjects did not know their parents’ educational history.

Table 2
Sample list of classes in a day at Pali Institute.

Class name Description

Forest
ecology

Students hike through the forest to explore and learn about the ecosystems around them. They identify flora and fauna and participate in hands-on
activities. Through these various activities, students understand the history of the forest as the ecosystems come alive before their eyes

Outdoor skills Mixing nature’s beauty with outdoor survival, students learn the Ten Essentials for any outdoor trip. They learn fire-building and cooking food in an
outdoor setting. While in the forest, they will band together as a team to build emergency shelters. By the end of this class, students understand basic
principles of exploring the great outdoors

Animal
survivor

Students are taught the importance and dynamics of food chains/webs and how species depend on one another for survival. In a fast-paced activity,
students are assigned an identity: carnivores, herbivores or omnivores. They must search for food while avoiding predators (their peers). Each student
begins the game with a certain number of lives and must have at least one life remaining at the end to be a ‘‘survivor’’

Day hike Schools have the opportunity to select their focus for a hike, such as birding, visiting a nature center and greenhouse, or shortened versions of a double-
session forest ecology or outdoor skills class

Archery Students learn the history and mechanics of archery, one of the oldest arts and means for survival. They are introduced to the basic physics of a bow
and arrow, as well as the proper handling of this ancient device. With this knowledge, they participate in target shooting. Students gain an
understanding of the importance of archery and its influence on society

Orienteering Students find their sense of direction while engaging in one of several orienteering courses. During the expedition, they learn how to navigate through
the forest by using compasses and coordinates. They gain an understanding of the various skills involved in planning travel from point A to point B

Note: (each lesson approximately 90 min); link to curriculum for Pali Mountain outdoor education program: .

390 Y.T. Uhls et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 387–392

Evans, Koning, Cameron-Sadava, & Manyk, 1995), assesses the
social perception skills of children and adolescents using ten video-
taped scenes in which actors (children and adults) perform a rep-
resentative scenario in different situations typical of an
adolescent’s life (e.g., school, home) (Magill-Evans et al., 1995). In
each scene, the verbal content is removed, requiring participants
to receive and interpret nonverbal social cues without speech cues.
After watching the videotaped scenes, the test-taker is asked to
make a judgment about the emotional states of the actors.

To adapt the CASP for our design, we randomly separated the
videos into sets of five. The two sets were counterbalanced as pre-
test and posttest in both the control and experimental groups. Chil-
dren watched each of the five videos in sequence and were given
several minutes to record a written description of the emotions
of each actor before moving on to the next one. These forms were
then scored.

We used the existing coding system of the CASP to create a total
emotion score based on the sum of number of accurate, partially
correct, or wrong answers for each character and scene. A partici-
pant was given two points for each correctly identified emotion,
one point for a partially correct identification, and zero for an
incorrect identification or no identification. Different videos had
different numbers of actors; in some videos an actor would mani-
fest more than one emotion in different parts of the scene. There-
fore, the maximum score varied from video to video. Because the
maximum score on one form was 41, whereas the maximum score
on the other form was 45, for our analysis, all scores were con-
verted into percentages, so that change scores would be compara-
ble across both orders of administration.

The forward Digit Span (Wechsler, 2004) a subset of the Wechs-
ler Intelligence Scale for children, was administered as a distracter
task between the CASP and the DANVA2.

3.3. Procedure

3.3.1. Experimental group
Upon arrival to the camp on a Monday morning, and immedi-

ately after exiting the school bus, the entire sixth-grade class took
the media use survey. Next, children were randomly assigned to
one of two administration groups to take the pre-test. A moderator
in each group followed a scripted protocol to administer each test.
In both groupings, children completed the DANVA2 and watched
five videos from the CASP, with the distracter task in between
the measures. Group 1 first completed the DANVA2, followed
by the Digit Span, and next the CASP; whereas Group 2 first

completed the CASP, followed by the Digit Span, and concluded
with the DANVA2.

The post-test was also administered at the camp, on the Friday
immediately before the children mounted school buses for their
ride home. Children stayed in the same groups that were assigned
for the pre-test. We followed the same procedure of testing as in
the pre-test but did not re-administer the media use survey.

3.3.2. Control group
Children were kept with their classes (each class was one

group). Testing occurred on Monday and Friday at approximately
the same time of school day as during the camp. We followed
the same procedure for administering the tests for the control as
we did for the experimental.

In both the experimental and control groups, we counterbal-
anced the testing order across two administration groups and pre
and post-tests (i.e., adult or children faces first for the DANVA2
and set one or set two of the CASP videos).

3.4. Analysis

We began our analysis by conducting independent-sample t-
tests to compare each administration group within condition on
key socio-demographic characteristics, dependent variables at
pre-test, media use and social variables. Finding no significant dif-
ferences, we combined data from the two administration groups
and next conducted the same analysis to confirm equivalent soci-
odemographic characteristics and media use across conditions. We
found only one significant difference between the experimental
and control condition; and that was a difference in ethnic compo-
sition (t(105) = �2.95, P < 0.01) (see Table 1 for ethnic breakdown in each group). Following up this significant difference, we ran a cor- relational analysis to determine whether ethnicity was related to any of the dependent variables; it was not, and thus was not con- sidered a significant factor in our analysis.

Statistical literature indicated that the reliability of gain scores
is higher than other variables in many practical situations with
designs similar to our experiment (i.e., nonrandomized control
group pretest and posttest designs); thus we chose change scores
as our dependent variable (Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003). We calcu-
lated change scores by measuring the difference between pretest
and posttest scores on each measure.

The DANVA change scores were calculated by subtracting post-
test errors from pretest errors and ranged from �10 to 31 with
positive numbers showing error reduction. The CASP change scores
were calculated by subtracting the total emotion percentage cor-

http://www.paliinstitute.com/oe.html

Y.T. Uhls et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 387–392 391

rect on the pretest from the total emotion percentage correct on
the posttest and ranged from �14% to 31% with positive numbers
showing improvement in the total emotion percentage correct.
Three coders achieved inter-rater reliability on 20% of the CASP
responses (Cronbach’s alpha = .93).

We used these scores to investigate potential differences
between the experimental and control condition for both the DAN-
VA2 and CASP. For both dependent variables, we ran univariate
analyses of covariance, the preferred method of analysis for this
design (Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003), using gender, ethnicity, and
age, as well as a composite variable called media-use sum (i.e.,
sum of time spent watching television, playing video games, using
cell phones, and using computers) as covariates, in order to control
for demographics and prior media use.

4. Results

We found that children who were away from screens for five
days with many opportunities for in-person interaction improved
significantly in reading facial emotion (DANVA 2), compared to
those in the control group, who experienced their normal media
exposure during an equivalent five-day period (F5,88 = 4.06,
p < .05, d = .33). In the experimental condition, participants went from an average of 14.02 errors in the Faces pretest (including both child and adult faces) to an average of 9.41 errors in the posttest (a reduction of 4.61 errors), while the control group went from and average of 12.24 to 9.81, which was a reduction of 2.43 errors (we attribute this change to a practice effect). Thus, the group that attended camp without access to any screen-based media improved significantly more than the control group, who experi- enced their usual amount of screen time. Fig. 1 illustrates these change scores.

We found a similar effect when using the videotaped scenarios
(CASP). Ability to correctly identify the emotion of actors was sig-
nificantly greater for the children who had experienced five days of
camp without personal media than for the control group
(F5,86 = 8.75, p < .01, d = .66). In the experimental condition, scores improved between pre- (i.e. M = 26% correct) and post-test (i.e. M = 31% correct); in the control group, children’s scores stayed flat at 28% correct on pre- and posttest. Thus, children in the experi- mental group showed significant improvement in their ability to recognize the nonverbal emotional cues in videotaped scenes, while the emotion-reading cues of the control group showed no change between pretest and posttest.

Fig. 1. Error reduction from pretest to posttest in assessing emotion on DANVA2
faces in experimental and control group (F5,88 = 4.06, p < 0.05).

5. Discussion

In today’s world, digital media use begins at a very early age
(Common Sense Media, 2013) and takes up a large proportion of
the informal learning environment (Greenfield, 2009), making it
essential to assess the effects of the substantial amount of time
children engage with media. This study provides evidence that,
in five days of being limited to in-person interaction without
access to any screen-based or media device for communication,
preteens improved on measures of nonverbal emotion understand-
ing, significantly more than a control group.

We recognize that the design of this study makes it challenging
to tease out the separate effects of the group experience, the nature
experience, and the withdrawal of screen-time; but it is likely that
the augmentation of in-person communication necessitated by the
absence of digital communication significantly contributed to the
observed experimental effect. In other words, the time the partic-
ipants spent engaging with other children and adults face-to-face
seemed to make an important difference. The absence of screens
meant children could rely only on face-to-face interaction when

communicating during camp activities. Accordingly, the results
suggest that digital screen time, even when used for social interac-
tion, could reduce time spent developing skills in reading nonver-
bal cues of human emotion.

Another possibility for the observed effect is that nature activi-
ties could have caused the improvement in reading emotions com-
municated through nonverbal cues. While other studies have
demonstrated the cognitive benefits from interacting with nature
(Atchley, Strayer, & Atchley, 2012; Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan,
2008) it is counterintuitive (and counter to the research on com-
municative learning) that being in nature, which is not an inher-
ently social activity and often is more isolating than urban
settings, could help someone learn to understand the emotions of
other individuals.

Our findings are in line with developmental research pointing
to the importance of in-person peer interaction as a learning pro-
cess that leads to skill in understanding the emotions of others
(Bosacki & Astington, 1999). These results are also in line with find-
ings in neuroscience. For example, recent brain imaging with adult
participants showed that the neural synchronization during face-
to-face dialog does not exist when communicating back to back
(Jiang et al., 2012).

5.1. Limitations and future research

As mentioned above, a limitation to our study is that we cannot
disentangle the effects of the three factors: the group experience,
the nature experience, and the absence of screens, as these vari-
ables were all features of the experimental condition. We hypoth-
esize that the effect of being in a setting that included potentially
more opportunities for face-to-face group interaction than were
afforded in the control group was the critical factor. But even with-
out being able to delineate all the conditions under which social
skill improvement would take place, this experiment does suggest
that day-to-day, media-saturated environments interfere with a
preteen’s understanding of face-to-face communications, while
rich opportunities for in-person social interaction enhance under-
standing of nonverbal emotion cues.

A next step is to attempt to generalize our findings by testing
the effects of eliminating screen time in the presence of a different
set of activities, to determine whether withdrawing media expo-
sure or adding daily face-to-face interactions underlies the
improvement in recognizing nonverbal emotion cues. Because skill
in reading emotional cues is essential to an individual’s ability to
function in society (Gross & Ballif, 1991) further research is called
for. In addition, it would be important to understand the extent to
which these kinds of effects are lasting; one would expect that it
would be necessary to reduce screen time and increase face-to-face

392 Y.T. Uhls et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 39 (2014) 387–392

time on an ongoing basis in order to maintain or build on the
effects demonstrated in this short-term field experiment.

6. Conclusions

The results of this study should introduce a much-needed soci-
etal conversation about the costs and benefits of the enormous
amount of time children spend with screens, both inside and out-
side the classroom. Given that a pre-requisite for effective sociali-
zation is learning and practicing how to communicate with others
in person (Eder & Nenga, 2003), face-to-face experiences must be
emphasized in the socialization process. While digital media pro-
vide many useful ways to communicate and learn, our study sug-
gests that skills in reading human emotion may be diminished
when children’s face-to-face interaction is displaced by technolog-
ically mediated communication. Today, even children under
2 years of age use mobile devices (Common Sense Media, 2013).
Moreover, computers and mobile tablets are rapidly entering class-
rooms and being put in the hands of every child beginning as early
as kindergarten (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009; Rotella,
2013) without sufficient attention to the potential costs (Cuban,
2001). Our hope is that this study will be a call to action for
research that thoroughly and systematically examines the effects
of digital media on children’s social development.

Author contributions are as follows. YTU, GS and PMG came
up with the idea. YTU and PMG developed and designed study.
YTU, MM, DG and PMG piloted the study and developed group
protocols for the measures. YTU, MM, JM, DG and EZ ran
participants. YTU, MM, JM, DG and EZ coded data. YTU, MM and
PMG developed and/or ran data analyses. YTU and PMG wrote
the manuscript. All authors read and offered criticism of the
manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank Andy Wechsler, Jolie Nelson and Michael Urbach at
Pali Institute for welcoming our study at their outdoor camp. We
also express our appreciation to the counselors who helped us
and to the campers who participated in the research, as well as
the school, the teachers, administrators, parents and students.
Thank you to research assistant Christine Clemmons for helping
with pilot testing and to Bridget Roy for helping run participants
and code the CASP. All participants who contributed substantially
to the study are listed in these acknowledgments.

References

Atchley, R. A., Strayer, D. L., & Atchley, P. (2012). Creativity in the wild: Improving
creative reasoning through immersion in natural settings. PLoS ONE, 7(12).

Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting
with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1212.

Bindley, K. (2011). When Children text all day, what happens to their social skills?
Huffingtonpost.com. (Retrieved 13.03.13).

Blakemore, S. J. (2003). How does the brain deal with the social world? Neuro
Report, 14, 1–10.

Bosacki, S., & Astington, J. W. (1999). Theory of mind in preadolescence: Relations
between social understanding and social competence. Social Development, 8,
237–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00093.

Brown, J. R., & Dunn, J. (1996). Continuities in emotion understanding from three to
six years. Child Development, 67, 789–802. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8624.1996.tb01764.x.

Clikeman-Semrud, M., Walkowiak, J., Wilkinson, A., & Minne, E. P. (2010). Direct and
indirect measures of social perception, behavior and emotional functioning in
children with Asperger’s disorder, nonverbal learning disability, or ADHD.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 509–519.

Common Sense Media. (2013). Zero to Eight: Children’s media use in America. .

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Culnan, M., & Markus, M. (1987). Information technologies. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K.

Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizatinal communication
(pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. (2003). Pretest–posttest designs and measurement
of change. IOS Press, 20, 159–165.

Dumontheil, I., Houlton, R., Christoff, K., & Blakemore, S. J. (2010). Development of
relational reasoning during adolescence. Developmental Science, 13, F15–F24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01014.x.

Dunn, J., Brown, J., Slomkowski, C., Tesla, C., & Youngblade, L. (1991). Young
children’s understanding of other people’s feelings and beliefs: Individual
differences and their antecedents. Child Development, 6, 1352–1366. doi:
0.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01610.x.

Eder, D., & Nenga, S. K. (2003). Socialization in adolescence. In J. Delamater (Ed.),
Handbook of social psychology (pp. 157–175). New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers.

Flom, R., & Johnson, S. (2010). The effects of adults’ affective expression and
direction of visual gaze on 12-month-olds’ visual preferences following a 5
minute, 1-day or 1-month delay. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29,
64–85.

Giedd, J. N. (2012). The digital revolution and adolescent brain evolution. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 51, 101–105.

Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Technology and informal education: What is taught, what
is learned. Science, 323, 69–71.

Gross, A. L., & Ballif, B. (1991). Children’s understanding of emotion from facial
expression and situations: A review. Developmental Review, 11, 368–398.

Guernsey, L. (2011). Screentime: How electronic media – from baby videos to
educational software – affects your child. Basic Books.

Guiltner, V. D. (2000). Validation of the child and adolescent social perception measure.
Edmonton, Alberta: Department of Education Psychology.

Hayne, H., Herbert, J., & Simcock, G. (2003). Imitation from television by 24- and 30-
month-olds. Developmental Science, 6, 254–261.

Hofferth, S. L. (2010). Home media and children’s achievement and behavior. Child
Development, 81, 1598–1619.

Internet world stats. (2013). Internet World Stats. .

Jiang, J., Dai, B., Peng, D., Zhu, C., Liu, L., & Lu, C. (2012). Neural synchronization
during face-to-face communication. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32,
16064–16069. doi:10:1523/JNEUROSCI.2926-12.2012.

Knapp, M. L, & Hall, J. A (2010). Nonverbal communication in human interaction
(Seventh.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, smartphones and texting. Washington DC: Pew Research
Center.

Magill-Evans, J., Koning, C., Cameron-Sadava, A., & Manyk, K. (1995). The child and
adolescent social percetion measure. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 151.

McClure, E., & Nowicki, S. Jr., (2001). Associations between social anxiety and
nonverbal processing skill in preadolescent boys and girls. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 25, 3–19.

Moore, C., & Dunham, P. J. (Eds.). (1995). Joint attention: Its origins and role in
development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nowicki, S. Jr., (2010). Manual for the receptive tests of the DANVA2.
Nowicki, S., & Carton, J. (1993). The measurement of emotional intensity from facial

expressions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 749–750.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). 21st Century student outcomes.

Washington DC.
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., et al. (2012). Media

use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being
among 8–12 year old girls. Developmental Psychology, 48, 327–336. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027030.

Richert, R. A., Robb, M., & Smith, E. I. (2011). Media as social partners: The social
nature of young children’s learning from screen media. Child Development, 82,
82–95.

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of
8–18 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Rotella, C. (2013). No child left untableted. New York Times. NYC, NY. .

Sherman, L. E., Michikyan, M., & Greenfeld, P. M. (2013). The effects of text, audio,
video, and in-person communication on bonding between friends.
Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7. Article 3.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2013-2-3.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1988). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in
organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.

Uhls, Y. (2013). Values and new media: How social media relates to preteen values.
Seattle, Wa: Presented at the Society for Research on Child Development.

Wartella, E. (2012). The influence of media on young children’s development. Zero
to Three, 18–22.

Wartella, E., O’Keefe, B., & Scantlin, R. (2000). Children and interactive media: A
compendium of current research and directions for the future. Markle Foundation.

Wechsler, D. (2004). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children. Pearson Assessment.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0005

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0005

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0010

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/children-texting-technology-social-skills_n_1137570.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/09/children-texting-technology-social-skills_n_1137570.html

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0020

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0020

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00093

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0215

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0215

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0215

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0035

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0035

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0035

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0035

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-to-eight-childrens-media-use-in-america-2013

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-to-eight-childrens-media-use-in-america-2013

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-to-eight-childrens-media-use-in-america-2013

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0045

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0050

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0050

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0050

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0055

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0055

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01014.x

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0220

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0220

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0220

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0220

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0070

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0070

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0070

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0075

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0075

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0075

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0075

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0080

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0080

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0085

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0085

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0090

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0090

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0095

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0095

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0100

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0100

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0105

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0105

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0110

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0110

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0120

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0120

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0120

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0125

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0125

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0130

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0130

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0135

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0135

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0140

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0140

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0140

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0145

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0145

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0150

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0155

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0155

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027030

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027030

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0170

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0170

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0170

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0175

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0175

http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2013-2-3

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0190

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0190

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0195

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0195

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0200

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0200

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0205

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0205

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(14)00322-7/h0210

• Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues

1 Introduction
1.1 Face-to-face and mediated communication
1.2 The video deficit
1.3 Reading nonverbal emotion cues: processes of development and learning
2 Research question and hypothesis: the present study
3 Method
3.1 Design and Participants
3.2 Measures
3.3 Procedure
3.3.1 Experimental group
3.3.2 Control group
3.4 Analysis
4 Results
5 Discussion
5.1 Limitations and future research
6 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References