Written by Nanaki Bawa

How many times have you been told that snoozing the morning alarm only hurts your sleep cycle and makes you more lethargic and unproductive throughout your day? I certainly have — one time too many, as a matter of fact.

According to new research, snoozing may not be as bad for you as previously believed. The main reason snoozing is believed to negatively affect productivity and overall alertness is due to the concept known as sleep inertia. Sleep inertia is defined as a temporary “decline in performance and/or mood” shortly after awakening from sleep. This decline has the potential to slow reaction times, negatively affect short-term memory, and lead to a slower thinking and learning speed.

In this recent study, researchers concluded that 70% of the 1,700 people surveyed “routinely hit the snooze button.” They then monitored the sleep of 31 individuals and allowed them to hit the snooze button up to three times, adding 10-minute increments of sleep with each snooze. The following week, the same individuals were monitored, but they were not permitted to indulge in additional sleep this time. Immediately after waking up, participants were presented with a series of math problems that tested their cognitive abilities on both weeks.

Data showed that participants scored “slightly better” when they were allowed to hit the snooze button and snoozing did not alter their sleep quality.

According to the CDC, sleep inertia typically persists anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes after waking up but can persist for up to two hours. Much of the previous research supported the validity of sleep inertia and the notion that snoozing alarms decreased the quality of sleep, leading to individuals feeling drowsier upon awakening. Stockholm University and the lead author of the new study, Tina Sundelin, said that snoozing, which is like “half-sleeping, or sleeping rather than being awake and not functioning might actually be helpful to your final wake-up,” minimizing sleep inertia and drowsiness.

In another recent study from 2022, 293 people had the option to use an alarm to wake up. No differences were observed in sleep quantity or quality between those who did and did not until the last 20 minutes before waking up. During this period, those who used a snooze alarm prolonged the N1 stage of sleep, which is defined as non-rapid eye movement sleep and commonly referred to as the “drowsy state.” Thus, it took longer for those with a snooze alarm to wake and go about their days than those who did not use alarms.

Given plentiful research that supports the fact that snoozing exacerbates sleep inertia, more concrete evidence is required to disprove the new combating information. The small sample size of the new study that stated snoozing may be beneficial points to an overarching issue of linguistic effects and research studies, with large media corporations, including the New York Times, NBC News, Time, and People, advertising and definitively concluding that snoozing is undoubtedly healthier than not snoozing alarms based on a study of… a whopping 31 people. Furthermore, the average age of participants was 27 years old, making it difficult to conclude and generalize that snoozing positively impacts cognitive abilities for older adults as well. Yet, with a sample size of 31 individuals and only a few statistically insignificant, lackluster studies existing to support the research, more information and investigation is required until such a generalization can be made.

Research on the issue of generalization and the effects of linguistic techniques on news performance reflects the editorialization and sensationalistic methods used to gain clicks. The misleading nature of scientific news headlines demonstrates the generalization of scientific articles. 

According to a study referred to in an article by the Fred Hutch Cancer Center, the Fast Company concluded that “hair dyes could raise the risk of breast cancer,” while sprinkling dangerous language in their scientific assessment of the article — “a harrowing study of 46,000 women shows hair dyes are heavily associated with cancer.” This overblown assessment of studies misconstrues information and negatively impacts the public’s understanding.

This recent piece of news – snoozing being less detrimental than previously researched – breaking headlines and combating earlier, more thorough information should be a wakeup call (pun intended) for publications and the general public. Journals need to reevaluate their scientific sources to ensure accuracy and minimal sensationalism by recruiting specialized medical and scientific writers and journalists. As always, it remains the public’s responsibility to ensure that they are consuming diverse, accurate, and expert-backed information every time they scroll through the news – perhaps some time after overcoming their irksome alarm.

Edited by Amna Hassan