Wired Child

by Richard Freed

  Why do many kids gravitate to the virtual world? It happens because real life is difficult. It’s tough to pay attention to not-so-exciting school tasks, to struggle through homework, and then to get up the next day and do it all again. Months and months of hard work are required to obtain a single report card grade stamped on a transcript. In contrast, kids’ increasing access to phones and other handheld devices means that they can get a big shot of dopamine just about any time they want. Unfortunately, evolution has led our brains to often choose easy rewards over tough ones: Why walk over a hill to get water when it’s available at your feet?

  Parents I work with tell me that despite their best efforts they can’t interest their tech-obsessed kids in anything but more entertainment technologies. The latest neuroscience research suggests why. Imaging studies show that the brains of tech addicts appear to get used to the very high level of dopamine that gaming releases into the brain by raising the threshold for what feels pleasurable.28 The result is that, just like drug addicts, video game and Internet addicts may have a diminished ability to enjoy real-life experiences. Doing well in school or going on a family outing doesn’t feel good, so kids refuse to put effort into these activities.

  Why don’t kids recognize they’re wasting their time in these virtual wonderlands, that they’re reducing their chances of going to college or becoming successful? It’s for the same reason that an alcoholic keeps drinking despite losing a job and family. He suffers from an addiction. The overpowering rewards provided by certain entertainment technologies can rewire the brain and overwhelm its judgment center.

  PREYING ON WEAKNESS

  An increasing number of industry insiders are questioning the use of behavioral psychology methods to manipulate the members of the public, especially children.

  Adrian Hon, the neuroscientist who became a game designer, suggests that the industry should become more socially responsible and acknowledge its ability to influence and potentially harm users. Hon says that in the current environment there’s simply too much economic incentive for exploitation, because it’s in the interest of corporations to “keep people playing as much as possible, for as long as possible. With investors and shareholders’ demands for constant growth, it’s hard to resist the siren call of techniques like compulsion loops and avoidance. The question of ‘fun’ becomes incidental—what matters is making money.”29

  This “anything goes” ethic shows in the advice of video game designer Teut Weidemann, who outlines how to profit in an increasingly competitive environment: “We have to bring them in and keep them addicted and make them keep playing.” He, too, is up front about the methods used, saying, “We are monetizing all the weakness of people.”30

  PROTECTING OUR KIDS FROM ADDICTION

  Ramin Shokrizade is a game designer originally trained in neuroscience who is troubled by the gaming industry’s manipulation of children, noting: “I think it is inevitable that some companies will iterate towards even more exploitation of children in games. The most aggressive companies will hire soft and hard scientists like myself, in addition to quantitative scientists, to optimize the exploitation of youth. The ultimate result will be national regulation, which is already happening in some parts of Asia. In the meantime, such agents will try to make as much money as possible in this Wild Wild West of gaming.”31

  What about regulating the industry’s use of behavior manipulation methods on kids? Corporations would surely fight such efforts tooth and nail, claiming their products are protected under the First Amendment as art forms and speech. However, the industry’s increasing reliance on the same techniques the gambling industry employs to hook users shows us something more is taking place. It’s also illogical to believe that children can protect themselves from rooms filled with neuroscientists who use lab-tested techniques to keep kids staring at screens.

  The makers of children’s tech products will also try to frame their argument as a case of government telling parents how to parent, that government shouldn’t be Big Brother and that parents should be the only ones to guide their children’s tech use. Yet how can you help your kids when all you hear from industry is that their products are safe and fun—not potential sources of addiction? It’s also clear that Big Brother is already here—not in the form of government, but in tech companies that study kids like lab rats and control their behavior the same way.

  A NASTY COMBINATION

  Quite intelligent, fifteen-year-old Jake could get by in school with minimal effort, and this allowed him to devote himself to his primary passion of video gaming. Jake’s parents, however, felt strongly that school, not gaming, should be Jake’s primary focus and they were increasingly disappointed by his slipping grades. Getting mostly Bs and Cs, and an occasional D, Jake said he was “passing his classes” and that this should be enough to keep his parents from “nagging” him about his gaming and a lack of school effort.

  In the weeks before they came to see me, arguments between Jake and his parents had escalated after the latest progress report showed that he was failing two classes because of missing and late homework. One night, fed up, Jake’s father walked into the teen’s room and told him to pull off his headphones, shut off his computer, and said that he couldn’t play video games until his grades got better. Jake became enraged, and during the ensuing fit threw his chair against a wall with all his might and threatened to kill himself. Understandably fearful of their son’s behavior, Jake’s parents called the police. By the time the officers arrived, Jake had calmed down. He convinced the police he wouldn’t hurt himself or his parents, so the officers suggested the family follow up with counseling.

  Jake’s parents were hopeful that bringing him to me would be helpful, that I could help him understand why school should take precedence over gaming, and that I could help him “see the light.” I also was hopeful and did my best to get to know Jake and help him and his parents. Nevertheless, it was clear from our meetings that Jake saw no reason to change. He insisted that he would find a career in gaming, although Jake could not realistically outline how this would become a reality. He also insisted that school “isn’t that great” and saw little reason to put in any effort. During one session, when I tried to suggest that school is a kids’ primary “ job,” Jake responded by saying he didn’t feel therapy was helping and therefore wanted to stop coming.

  What I confronted with Jake, as I do many other tech-addicted teens, is a profound struggle with insight and judgment. As we discuss in Chapter 9, dramatic changes that normally occur in the adolescent prefrontal cortex and other brain areas compromise these abilities in teens. But adding a tech addiction to the mix is a nasty combination, as addictions hijack the same brain structures that are already compromised in teens, further diminishing their ability to recognize they have a problem and make good decisions about their future.

  As my work with Jake had stalled, I informed his parents that the method of treatment would need to shift so that I could work with them to set limits on their son’s gaming at home. Jake’s parents rightfully understood that such limit setting risked further explosions from Jake and the possibility of more violence in the home, the police being called, and Jake being psychiatrically hospitalized as the result of being a danger to himself or his parents. Jake’s parents said they couldn’t tolerate these risks and as a result gave up treating their son’s video game addiction and stopped attending counseling.

  WHY RELYING ON THE TREATMENT OF TECH ADDICTION FAILS KIDS

  There are two basic options for protecting children from technology addiction: prevention or treatment. America, following the industry’s lead to load up ever younger kids with more and more alluring devices, has unwittingly eschewed prevention, which leaves treatment as the default option. Yet as we saw in the case of Jake, the treatment of tech addiction holds many perils:

  •Consequences that can’t be undone: The effects of a technology addiction are serious enough that they may not be fully reversible. One or more faile
d semesters of high school can dramatically alter a teen’s life trajectory. The breach of trust that results from a child’s habitual lying (e.g., claiming that school is going well when homework isn’t being done or sneaking devices in the middle of the night) may take years to heal.

  •Addicted kids don’t want help: Tech-addicted kids generally don’t wake up one day and say, “Video games are ruining my life. I better quit.” Like other addictions, obsessive tech use is associated with intense denial. Kids insist they don’t have a problem and are certain that everything’s their parents’ fault. Moms and dads resort to dragging their children to treatment where kids often refuse to participate. Alternatively, teenagers in particular may refuse to attend counseling at all. Parents end up doing much or all the work themselves by attempting to limit their addicted children’s use of entertainment technologies—a daunting prospect for any parent.

  •Video game/Internet addiction is exceptionally difficult to treat: As psychiatrist Jerald Block notes in an article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, tech addiction is resistant to treatment.32 Parents may therefore, after numerous unsuccessful efforts to help their child, decide that the struggle isn’t worth it. They may end up compromising with their child, e.g., “All we ask is that you pass your classes and you can play all the games you want.” As a result, even if kids’ school performance gets marginally better, many never reach the potential that existed prior to the addiction.33

  •The dangerous consequences of a technology addiction: Those who are unfamiliar with child tech addiction sometimes suggest to parents, “Just take it away.” Parents of addicted kids know that their problems are much more serious than that. Trying to limit an addicted kid’s access to video games or the Internet frequently results in threats of, or actual, violence. Doors are broken down, parents are bullied, moms and dads are pushed or hit, and the police may need to be called. Kids faced with the loss of their beloved devices also can experience depression or thoughts of suicide. There are no easy, sometimes not even good, solutions to these problems once they’re well established.

  WHAT TO DO IF YOUR CHILD IS ADDICTED

  If you believe that your child or teen shows signs of technology addiction (as described earlier in the chapter), I suggest that you not attempt to treat this problem yourself. Seek professional help. Treating addicted children and teens poses the serious challenges and risks outlined in this chapter. Pediatricians and school counselors or principals are often good resources for finding a counselor.

  In looking for a prospective counselor to treat a child’s or teen’s technology addiction, I suggest finding someone with experience in that area, or someone willing to research the problem. You also need a counselor who is comfortable working with both your child and you, as this is a problem that kids can’t overcome without parents’ help. And look for someone who understands the seriousness posed by tech addiction. Be concerned if a prospective counselor attempts to minimize the issue by telling you how easy treatment should be.

  It’s always a good idea to meet with a counselor for an initial session to decide if you feel comfortable continuing to work with him or her. Judgments about the counselor’s effectiveness should be made by parents because tech-addicted kids generally don’t like anyone who is trying to get them to change their habit. Also, don’t expect immediate results as treating a tech addiction is remarkably challenging for the reasons I’ve described. If the addiction proves to be severe, out-of-home wilderness and residential treatment programs that have traditionally treated oppositional kids now increasingly offer specific therapies for technology addiction.

  Many families I’ve worked with have hoped their struggles could be brought to light so that other parents would be able to learn from their experiences. What these families consistently say is that they’d give anything to turn back time, to have been able to act in a way that prevented the problem.

  TWO TECH POLICIES THAT PUT KIDS AT RISK

  Clearly, relying primarily on treatment to address kids’ tech addiction is a flawed strategy, and instead we should be looking at how to prevent this increasing problem. However, before I mention steps to prevent tech addiction, I want to show how two policies commonly applied to children’s use of technology—increased access and moderation—may do more harm than good.

  The Failings of Increased Access

  Digital-age myths have helped convince many parents that typical technologies bring kids closer to their family, build better brains, and help kids learn. All the while, the risks posed by technology addiction either are not mentioned in the media or downplayed. So it makes sense that many parents believe kids will benefit from gaining increased access to tablets, phones, and more of the latest gadgets. Is this really true, or does increased access put our kids at risk for addiction?

  A known risk factor for substance addiction in kids is greater physical access: the more easily kids can get their hands on cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs, the more likely they will develop an addiction to them. Does providing kids greater physical access to technology similarly put them at greater risk for tech addiction?

  Research suggests that’s the case. As reported in “Internet Addiction in Adolescents: Prevalence and Risk Factors,” “Widespread Internet accessibility appeared to contribute to the likelihood of being addicted to the Internet, as adolescents who used it in the kitchen, on their mobile phones, and via WiFi were more likely to be addicted to the Internet than the adolescents who did not have extensive access.”34 This makes sense, as the child and teen brain has not yet developed the self-control abilities to limit using devices in easy reach.

  Another type of access relates to the age at which kids are provided digital devices. As we know from studying substance addiction, the earlier kids start to use alcohol and drugs, the more likely they will become addicted later on. Not surprisingly, we see that the younger children are when they start playing video games, the more likely they will show signs similar to tech addiction as they grow older.

  The study “Dependence on Computer Games by Adolescents” reports the following: “The earlier children began playing computer games it appeared the more likely they were to be playing at ‘dependent’ levels.”35 Similarly, as noted in the study “Pathological Video-Game Use Among Youth Ages 8 to 18”: “Pathological gamers had been playing for more years, played more frequently and for more time.”36 Again, this makes perfect sense. Young brains are more likely to be captivated by powerful, dopamine-triggering technologies than mature brains with a better-developed judgment center. The bottom line is that the policy of increased access appears to put kids at greater risk of technology addiction.

  Why Moderation Doesn’t Prevent Tech Addiction

  Another commonly used policy to guide children’s use of technology is moderation, a line of thinking that suggests providing a child of any age with any device is fine, as long as parents attempt to keep its use under control so as to ensure kids lead a balanced life. Unfortunately, parents who attempt to moderate their children’s use of digital devices frequently find this fails. The plan to have kids use their tablet or phone for only a few minutes a day quickly spirals out of control, and kids’ lives end up revolving around a device.

  Why? Because the addictive draw of today’s gadgets overrides parents’ ability to have kids use technology in a limited fashion. Six-year-old Jonathan’s example, shared by his mother, is common in my practice: “He got a tablet for his birthday and we didn’t think much of it. But it became increasingly difficult to pry from his hands. Now even though we try to limit its use, he only wants to game.… I can’t get him to do anything else. And when we won’t let him play his games he clenches his fists and scowls at us. Recently, he’s hit me when upset.”

  Unfortunately exposure to even small amounts of technology can lead to disturbing craving symptoms. A US News report highlights the issue. Seven-year-old Ollie’s parents struggled to limit his use of Webkinz, a social networking site designed specifically for child
ren. “The issue is not the amount of time,” Ollie’s father, Brian, said. “We can control that. It’s the fact that he gets up before everyone else and sneaks onto the computer. It’s like he sets his internal clock so he can play Webkinz.”37

  As parents describe to me nearly every day, the hunger that children show towards entertainment technologies is unmatched. The very high levels of dopamine triggered by video gaming make it extremely difficult to find alternative activities that kids find equally gratifying. Many parents say they do their best to provide children with a variety of activities (e.g., sports, reading, outdoor and creative play), while permitting minimal entertainment technology. Yet the same parents become immensely frustrated because the child’s desire for phone or video game play time overwhelms his or her interest in other activities. Even on child-oriented vacations, all kids can say is, “When can I play my game?” Such cravings deprive children of the ability to appreciate real-life rewards.

  These cravings may also form the underpinnings of future addiction. As tech-obsessed kids grow older, smarter, and increasingly able to circumvent limits, they no longer put up with their parents’ rules. Instead, they become progressively more willing to do anything to get what satisfies them most, even if it causes significant problems in the rest of their life.

  As parents, we instinctively know moderation isn’t a good way to protect kids from drug and alcohol addictions. Responsible parents don’t consider giving children—especially when they are young—moderate amounts of alcohol, tobacco, or recreational drugs, because we know young brains struggle mightily with self-control. Our increased understanding of the addictive potential of entertainment technologies suggests that we also rethink the use of the policy of moderation to prevent video game/Internet addiction.

  MAKING THE PREVENTION OF TECH ADDICTION A PRIORITY

  Given the failings of both moderation and treatment, we need to focus our attention on preventing kids from ever developing a tech addiction. How can this be achieved? We need to greatly limit kids’ access to tech gadgets and the entertainment they offer. We especially must (1) reverse the move to provide younger and younger kids with amusement-based technologies, and (2) as kids grow older, curb their access to these technologies.