Plugged In

by Patti M Valkenburg

  Table 14.1. Features of educational apps that may foster learning

  Feature

  Benefit

  Reactivity

  Responds to what a child does

  Interactivity

  Asks for a response from the child

  Customizability

  Allows for adaptation to characteristics of the child such as age, sex, and preferences

  Progressivity

  Increases in difficulty as the child masters the material

  Social facilitation

  Promotes shared use by adults and children, which increases the probability of scaffolding

  Source: Dimitri A. Christakis, “Infants and Interactive Media Use—Reply,” JAMA Pediatrics 168, no. 10 (2014).

  Christakis’s advice regarding screen time for children under the age of two is a usable guideline. But for very young children, exposure to screens, even educational ones, can soon become too much. Therefore, as parents work to manage their young children’s media use, it is important for them to rely on active and restrictive parental monitoring to achieve a media diet that balances quality and quantity. This means that media should be one of many possible activities, and not children’s main activity. It is also important to realize that parents who set limits on screen time must have the means and opportunity to offer their children alternative activities. In families where these alternatives are lacking, educational media may well be the best thing that can happen to these young children.

  Childhood and Media Violence

  As children begin to enter childhood, their media interests change, and opportunities and concerns associated with these media interests change as well. A deluge of educational media awaits this age group, and so opportunities for parents to bolster their children’s academic and social-emotional skills increase (see chapter 11). That said, by the time children reach about age five, parents are also increasingly faced with the task of mitigating negative media effects that can result from their children’s changing media preferences. In particular, children, especially boys, start to take an interest in media violence at around age five. As discussed in chapter 7, we know that an estimated 5–10 percent of children are especially susceptible to the effects of media violence on aggression. Besides boys in general, children with an aggressive temperament and children under seven are most vulnerable to the influence of media violence on aggression. Exposure to media violence can affect more than children’s aggression. It can also stimulate restlessness and, in some children, make it more difficult for them to participate in imaginary play and creative activities.35 Finding ways to combat the effects of media violence is therefore a crucial aspect of parental media monitoring during childhood.

  Restricting Violent Media

  Parents have several ways to combat the effects of media violence. With restrictive monitoring, parents can consider an outright ban on watching or playing certain violent films or games. This strategy is effective with young children, but the likelihood of reactance increases sharply throughout childhood. Nevertheless, many parents do not want their children or preteens playing games like Grand Theft Auto, which is rated for adults in most countries.

  Although banning violent media, especially violent games, is not always easy, especially when a child’s friends are allowed to play the game, the ban will be most effective if parents impose it in a way that promotes the child’s autonomy and if they consistently enforce the rule. In practice, this means that parents must consider their children’s perspective (“but all my friends have that game”), present alternative games, and involve the children in decision making. Media rating systems can help in this. For example, the European rating system for games describes Grand Theft Auto V as follows: “Contains strong language, extreme violence, multiple motiveless killings, and violence towards defenseless victims.” In families in which a ban on media content is imposed in an authoritarian way or in which the ban is not consistently enforced, family conflict and antisocial behavior among preteens increase.36

  Factual and Evaluative Strategies

  In addition to restrictive techniques, parents can consider employing active media monitoring, factual or evaluative, to help offset the consequences of media violence. Factual strategies emphasize the unrealistic nature of violent entertainment or call attention to the formal mechanisms of such entertainment (stunts, camera work, etc.). Factual strategies are often part of formal media education programs that aim to develop critical viewing skills in children. Evaluative strategies, on the other hand, aim to stimulate negative beliefs or attitudes about media violence. Instead of explaining the mechanisms behind media productions, adults attempt to influence children’s beliefs, attitudes, and behavior, for example, by expressing negative opinions about media violence.

  Evidence for the effectiveness of factual monitoring for mitigating media violence effects is inconsistent: some studies show benefits, and others show no effect or even boomerang effects. For example, in a study by Amy Nathanson and Mong-Shan Yang, children from five to twelve years old watched a film with violent content, but were told that the events in the film were not real and that the characters in it were only actors playing parts. With the youngest children (five- to eight-year-olds), they found a positive effect of this commentary on the children’s ideas about violence. But with the nine- to twelve-year-olds there was a boomerang effect. The authors argued that this boomerang effect likely occurred because older children were already well aware that violence in films is staged, and therefore they may experience an adult’s explanation about this as simplistic or even pedantic.37

  Research on evaluative monitoring is a bit more optimistic. Specifically, this research has shown that children who view violent media content with an adult who explicitly disapproves of the violence are less likely to be violent themselves or to tolerate violent behavior. For example, in a classroom experiment, children watched an episode of Batman along with their teacher. The teacher made neutral remarks to half of the children, and comments of disapproval to the other half (for example, “Fighting is bad”). In the latter group, he suggested solving the problem in the film in another way (for example, “It’s better to go get help”). After the viewing, children who had heard the disapproving comments were less likely to think it was okay to steal, hit people, or cause people pain, compared with the children in the neutral-commentary group.38

  Follow-up work on evaluative monitoring, however, suggests that the benefits of evaluative monitoring occur only if the adult watching with the child stays with him or her after the film is over. If the adult leaves the room, the child is just as likely to imitate the violent acts as children who did not receive evaluative commentary.39 This finding is in line with theories about children’s moral development. Children five to eight years old rely mostly on the judgments of external socialization agents to regulate their behavior. Only later in their development do they use internalized behavioral norms to do so.

  Which Active Strategy Works Best?

  The question then becomes which of the two active strategies, factual or evaluative, is most effective at counteracting the effects of negative media (specifically, media violence) in childhood? Unfortunately, little research has compared the two strategies. Most studies have examined the influence of either factual or evaluative monitoring. A handful of studies have looked at the combined effects of both strategies, but in these studies it is difficult to isolate the unique influence of each strategy. Nathanson is one of the few who has compared the unique effectiveness of both strategies.40 Her work suggests that evaluative strategies in general work better than factual ones, because factual strategies are more likely to result in reactance and boomerang effects than evaluative ones. Factual strategies, while capable of increasing children’s critical thinking skills, do not fully protect children against the influence of media—something we saw to be true also in the case of advertising effects and the fear effects of media. Knowing that something is not realistic is no guarantee tha
t the child will be resistant to the influence on his or her emotions or behavior. Although we know that a film is “only pretend,” it can still make us afraid, sad, or agitated. Other studies, on youth and adults, show that knowledge of the reality level of media content is often insufficient to combat its influences.

  Managing Media Use during the Teen Years

  As children enter the teen years, parents face an uphill battle in managing media use. Teens become increasingly sensitive to criticisms about their media use. More than ever before, they see media as part of their personal domain—and thus something that should be off limits to parental oversight. At the same time, teens’ cognitive and social-emotional development makes them particularly likely to engage in risky online behaviors, to struggle with limits, and to place a greater value on peers than on parents or other family members. In doing so, they are particularly likely to consume risky media content and to experience media addiction or addictive-like tendencies. Thus, for parents of teens, one of the biggest challenges is to find ways to ensure their teens’ media use is safe and well balanced.

  In recent years, media-specific parenting has become progressively more complex. One key reason for this is that communication technology has gotten closer and closer to us. The devices with which we communicate have moved from the desktop (on our desks) to the laptop (in our bags) to the smartphone (in our pockets), and are now appearing on our wrists. While the smartphone is a boon for coordinating activities within families and for offering peace of mind to parents, an important shadow side of the smartphone is that it quickly gets too close to us. Most smartphone-based apps are deliberately designed to continually disturb us.41 Apps depend on advertising income, and they obtain such income only when they can entice enough people into using their product. Thus, apps compete for our attention with a cacophony of pop-ups, alerts, vibrations, and beeps,

  And we, youth and adults alike, often have trouble ignoring this cacophony of alerts. The uncontrollable urge to respond to these alerts is a normal human instinct. We are hardwired to be curious about information coming our way. According to the neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp, we all have a built-in reward system that encourages us to be “seekers.” Exciting experiences stimulate our brains to produce dopamine, as does seeking them out.42 The alerts from social media give users a long series of mental mini rewards, thus constantly providing a small energy boost. This experience is said to be analogous to what a gambler feels with every new card dealt on the table.43 The influence of these rewards is powerful and difficult to resist, and they can inculcate habits that we find very hard to change.

  The temptations of the smartphone, challenging for many adults to resist, are considerably greater for teens. Many teens have great difficulty ignoring the alerts.44 This succumbing to the allure of alerts is due, in part, to teens’ growing need for intimacy. With this age group more than any other, the smartphone appeals to a deep-seated need to be in continual contact with friends. Beyond this, teens are more vulnerable than other age groups to the rewards triggered by the alerts. The production of dopamine in adolescence differs from that in childhood or adulthood, which, as noted in chapter 6, translates to increased interest in exciting or potentially exciting events and behaviors.45

  The Shadow Sides of Smartphones

  For parents, the fight against the smartphone can be a difficult one. As discussed in the previous chapter, smartphones, and their social media uses in particular, have many positive influences on teens’ development. But the smartphone also brings with it several shadow sides. Excessive smartphone use, a common complaint by parents, can prevent teens from getting sufficient sleep. Intense back-and-forth communication before bedtime can enhance physical arousal, and it can disturb deep (slow-wave) sleep, or REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, which is needed to recover physically and mentally from the day’s events. After being up late on a smartphone, teens may wake up tired and irritable and, as a result, experience concentration problems during the day.46

  In addition to interfering with sleep, excessive smartphone use leaves teens too little time during the day to relax. The smartphone ensures that they always have something to do, whether in the doctor’s waiting room, while waiting for a bus, or, for some, on the toilet. In the last few years, reports have shown that it is not good for our well-being to have every second of our waking hours be filled in this way. Besides a good night’s rest, we need a good day’s rest, some downtime when we can daydream, think things over, or just listen to the birds singing. This idle time is necessary for us to process our impressions, memories, and thoughts.

  In his book Autopilot: The Art and Science of Doing Nothing, Andrew Smart suggests that the chronic stimulation that results from being continually reachable on the smartphone may be harmful to our mental health. Incessant immersion in smartphone-based activities interferes with reflection, emotional well-being, creativity, and even our ability to be truly social. In the Eastern tradition, the idea of stopping the mind’s “chatter” for a short while has been accepted for thousands of years, and according to Smart, it is high time that we in the Western world give it some thought.47

  As noted in the previous chapter, the smartphone is intricately connected to social media. Indeed, part of the draw of the smartphone is its ability to connect with others at all times of the day. Even for many adults, ignoring social media for a prolonged period requires a considerable amount of self-regulation. But this effort is even greater for teens. Most children have the opportunity to develop their self-regulation skills with the help of their parents. By the age of nine, they are usually able to balance their impulses. But this balance is easily disturbed by the many new urges that result from pubertal development, which place a heavy demand on self-regulatory abilities. Therefore, it is precisely in this phase that teens need their parents to help them set and maintain boundaries, not only for their smartphone use, but also for many other temptations of the teen years.

  As with all humans, teens’ ability to self-regulate is not exhaustive. Self-regulation is often compared with a muscle. Just as exercising for too long leaves muscles drained, the ability to self-regulate decreases when it becomes exhausted—fatigue, strain, and stress can all use up our abilities to regulate our behavior.48 Teens battle fatigue and stress every day, which alone is enough to deplete their self-control muscle rapidly. The probability of depletion is even greater if, on top of all this, teens are not getting enough sleep at night or enough idle time during the day. The question then becomes what, exactly, can parents do? How can they help their teens, even if they do not want help? Thus far, the literature makes two key points: help prevent habit formation, and restrict in an autonomy-supportive way.

  Preventing Habit Formation

  The first tactic—preventing habit formation—is one that parents can begin working toward early. Habits are behaviors that we learned consciously and that became automatic through repetition. Habits in our everyday lives include how we brush our teeth, tie our shoes, or park our cars. Nearly half of our media use seems to be habitual.49 Some people may read the news every morning with breakfast, others might check their e-mail as soon as they arrive at work, and others might watch a series on Netflix before they go to bed. We have habits for a good reason. Once habits are formed, they save us time and energy, since actions that previously required conscious thought can now be performed automatically. In the longer term, our habits help ensure that energy is left for tasks that require thinking and self-regulation.50

  Once formed, habits are difficult to break. Thus, if parents hope to prevent teens from forming the habit of being reachable at all times via media, the best approach is to help them form healthier media habits early on—in other words, be proactive. One way that parents can do this is to set a good example and to behave themselves according to the standards they set. Children whose parents smoke are twice as likely to start smoking, even if their parents are critical of smoking and try to prevent their children’s initiation.51 Likewise,
it is difficult for parents to set rules for teens’ social media use if the parents ignore their own rules.

  Another proactive way to prevent habitual smartphone use is to arrive at agreed-upon policies before the smartphone is purchased. For example, parents can discuss beforehand with their teenage children the types of guidelines that will work best in their familial situation and then come to an agreement about certain house rules. Such house rules might include no smartphone use at mealtimes or after a certain time at night, and completely turning off the phone during sleeping hours. The cocreation of these early agreements enhances the probability that teens will feel a personal commitment to stick to the rules.

  Autonomy-Supportive Restrictions

  One of the challenges that parents face when it comes to helping their teens form healthy media habits is to find ways to do this without eliciting reactance. It is easy to imagine that teens will find ways to sneak smartphone (or other media) use as a means of reacting against restriction guidelines. As noted earlier, media restriction is not always successful. Sometimes it creates the “forbidden fruit” effect, making the restricted behavior even more desirable.52 How then can parents restrict media use in a way that encourages the formation of healthy media habits and avoids reactance? The answer, it seems, lies not in what parents do but rather in how they do it.

  In one of our studies in the Netherlands, we found that if parents restricted media use in a way that supported teens’ autonomy, by taking the teen’s perspective seriously and developing media guidelines together, family conflict and antisocial behavior among teens were reduced. But if parents took a more authoritarian approach, such as threatening with punishment, or were inconsistent in their enforcement of media guidelines, the reverse was true: family conflict and antisocial behavior increased.53 In other words, attempting to make teens feel guilty and threatening them with punishment without taking their needs into account can quickly backfire.54