That well-intentioned screen time limit you set for your child? It might actually be making screens more desirable. This video dives into the science behind this paradox and reveals what actually works.

The insights are based on a fascinating study by Michal Maimaran and Yuval Salant called “The effect of limited availability on children’s consumption, engagement, and choice behavior”.

The revealing LEGO Experiment from the study:

Researchers gave two groups of four- to five-year-old children LEGOs to play with.

– Group 1 was given a 10-minute time limit.

– Group 2 was given no time limit at all.

The stunning result: The children with the time limit played significantly longer. They averaged 494 seconds of playtime, while the group with no limit played for only 390 seconds. The restriction itself increased their engagement and desire for the activity.

So, what are better strategies than constant time limits? This video explores alternatives grounded in psychology:

Curate Their Environment: Proactively manage which devices and apps are available in the first place.

Foster Positive Alternatives: Create engaging offline activities that naturally compete with screen time.

Use Natural Consequences: Link the end of screen time to a logical next event rather than an arbitrary timer.

Collaborate on a Plan: Create a media usage schedule with your child to foster autonomy and self-regulation.

Source:
Maimaran, M., & Salant, Y. (2019). The effect of limited availability on children’s consumption, engagement, and choice behavior. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(1), 72-79.

How should you praise children? Research results from motivational psychology provide important information…

__________________

Studies (only a small selection):

Dweck, C. S. (2002). Messages that motivate: How praise molds students’ beliefs, motivation, and performance (in surprising ways). In Improving academic achievement (pp. 37-60). Academic Press.

Dweck, C. S. (2007). Boosting achievement with messages that motivate. Education Canada, 47(2), 6-10.

Gunderson, E. A., Sorhagen, N. S., Gripshover, S. J., Dweck, C. S., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2018). Parent praise to toddlers predicts fourth grade academic achievement via children’s incremental mindsets. Developmental psychology, 54(3), 397.

Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin‐Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1‐to 3‐year‐olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later. Child development, 84(5), 1526-1541.

Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental psychology, 35(3), 835.

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(1), 33.

Even small language variations can have a big impact on the behavior of our fellow human beings. So we should pay close attention to our formulations in communication …

Studies (small sample only):

Cimpian, A., Arce, H. M. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect children’s motivation. Psychological science, 18(4), 314-316.

Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 17(5), 644-650.

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Biggers, D. R., & Hendry, D. J. (2016). A field experiment shows that subtle linguistic cues might not affect voter behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(26), 7112-7117.

Rhodes, M., Leslie, S. J., Yee, K. M., & Saunders, K. (2018). Subtle Linguistic Cues Increase Girls’ Engagement in Science. Psychological Science, 0956797618823670.

Educational psychology: are there effective alternatives to “yelling and scolding”?

A recently published meta-analysis, in which quite a few studies were summarized and analyzed, provides impressive evidence:

Leijten, P., Gardner, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Van Aar, J., Hutchings, J., Schulz, S., … & Overbeek, G. (2019). Meta-analyses: key parenting program components for disruptive child behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(2), 180-190.

The researchers concluded that parenting training programs in which natural or logical consequences had been taught were significantly more effective on average. But what do we mean by “natural” or “logical” consequences? And what are the advantages over some other common parenting methods?

__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Azoulay, D. (1999). Encouragement and logical consequences versus rewards and punishment: A reexamination. Individual Psychology, 55(1), 91.

Dinkmeyer, D., & Dinkmeyer, D. (1976). Logical consequences: A key to the reduction of disciplinary problems. The Phi Delta Kappan, 57(10), 664-666.

Leijten, P., Gardner, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Van Aar, J., Hutchings, J., Schulz, S., … & Overbeek, G. (2019). Meta-analyses: key parenting program components for disruptive child behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(2), 180-190.

Robichaud, J. M., Lessard, J., Labelle, L., & Mageau, G. A. (2020). The role of logical consequences and autonomy support in children’s anticipated reactions of anger and empathy. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29, 1511-1524.

Robichaud, J. M., Mageau, G. A., & Soenens, B. (2020). The role of logical consequences in adolescents’ cognitive precursors of compliance and internalization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 192, 104777.

Even though our lives would certainly be dull and boring without emotions, everyone has probably wished at some point that he or she no longer had to bear a negative emotion (e.g., fear, sadness, or anger) or at least to be able to mitigate it. Fortunately, after decades of research, hundreds of studies are available from which we can learn which emotion regulation strategies really work and which strategies are even counterproductive! In this short 12-minute video, you will learn the essence of this research based on huge studies (meta-analyses).
__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Augustine, A. A., & Hemenover, S. H. (2009). On the relative effectiveness of affect regulation strategies: A meta-analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 23(6), 1181-1220.

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical psychology review, 30(2), 217-237.

Buhle, J. T., Silvers, J. A., Wager, T. D., Lopez, R., Onyemekwu, C., Kober, H., … & Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Cognitive reappraisal of emotion: a meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies. Cerebral cortex, 24(11), 2981-2990.

Compas, B. E., Jaser, S. S., Bettis, A. H., Watson, K. H., Gruhn, M. A., Dunbar, J. P., … & Thigpen, J. C. (2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological bulletin, 143(9), 939.

Hu, T., Zhang, D., Wang, J., Mistry, R., Ran, G., & Wang, X. (2014). Relation between emotion regulation and mental health: a meta-analysis review. Psychological reports, 114(2), 341-362.

Kross, E., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Park, J., Burson, A., Dougherty, A., Shablack, H., … & Ayduk, O. (2014). Self-talk as a regulatory mechanism: how you do it matters. Journal of personality and social psychology, 106(2), 304.

Levitt, J. T., Brown, T. A., Orsillo, S. M., & Barlow, D. H. (2004). The effects of acceptance versus suppression of emotion on subjective and psychophysiological response to carbon dioxide challenge in patients with panic disorder. Behavior therapy, 35(4), 747-766.

Liverant, G. I., Brown, T. A., Barlow, D. H., & Roemer, L. (2008). Emotion regulation in unipolar depression: The effects of acceptance and suppression of subjective emotional experience on the intensity and duration of sadness and negative affect. Behaviour research and therapy, 46(11), 1201-1209.

Moser, J. S., Dougherty, A., Mattson, W. I., Katz, B., Moran, T. P., Guevarra, D., … & Kross, E. (2017). Third-person self-talk facilitates emotion regulation without engaging cognitive control: Converging evidence from ERP and fMRI. Scientific reports, 7(1), 1-9.

Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological bulletin, 138(4), 775.

What can be done when children simply do not listen? Are there effective alternatives to yelling and scolding?

Educational psychology provides a variety of effective tips (supported by intensive research) that make it possible to give children guidance without having to use verbal or non-verbal violence. Three of these tips are presented in the video:

1. Natural/logical consequences

2. play in the same team

3. nature stimuli

__________________

Studies and books (only small selection):

Burck, E. (2020). Was tun, wenn Kinder nicht hören?: Wie die psychologische Forschung Eltern und Lehrern dabei hilft, die beste Erziehung zu finden (Erziehungspsychologie, Klassenführung, Pädagogische Psychologie). Books on Demand.

Faber Taylor, A., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of attention disorders, 12(5), 402-409.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 98.

Han, K. T. (2009). Influence of limitedly visible leafy indoor plants on the psychology, behavior, and health of students at a junior high school in Taiwan. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 658-692.

Leijten, P., Gardner, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Van Aar, J., Hutchings, J., Schulz, S., … & Overbeek, G. (2019). Meta-analyses: Key parenting program components for disruptive child behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(2), 180-190.

Tyerman, A., & Spencer, C. (1983). A critical test of the Sherifs’ robber’s cave experiments: Intergroup competition and cooperation between groups of well-acquainted individuals. Small Group Behavior, 14(4), 515-531.

University of Oklahoma. Institute of Group Relations, & Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150-198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.

Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 35(10), 1315-1329.

Wells, N. M. (2000). At home with nature: Effects of “greenness” on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and behavior, 32(6), 775-795.

Does your smartphone make you dumb?

Can the mere presence of a smartphone affect our intelligence? Does a smartphone that is next to us on the desk make it harder for us to concentrate? A very interesting study delivers amazing results:

Ward, A.F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M.W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (2), 140-154.

How can you motivate children? Many parents and teachers despair of this question again and again in everyday life. If you take a look at the relevant advice literature, you will rarely find scientifically proven tips. The video therefore presents 5 motivational tips that have proven to be very effective in studies:

1. reframing difficulties (for more frustration tolerance).

2. promotion of a growth mindset

3. praising the effort (instead of the person)

4. question-behavior effect

5. flexible goal setting

Of course, some of these tips are not only useful for motivating children (or students), but can also be used by us to motivate ourselves.

__________________

Studies and books (only a small selection:)

Autin, F., & Croizet, J. C. (2012). Improving working memory efficiency by reframing metacognitive interpretation of task difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 610.

Burck, E. (2020). What to do when children don’t listen: How psychological research helps parents and teachers find the best education (Educational psychology, Classroom management, Educational psychology). Books on Demand.

Miles, L. M., Rodrigues, A. M., Sniehotta, F. F., & French, D. P. (2020). Asking questions changes health-related behavior: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 123, 59-68.

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(1), 33.

Spangenberg, E. R., Kareklas, I., Devezer, B., & Sprott, D. E. (2016). A meta-analytic synthesis of the question-behavior effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 441-458.

Wilding, S., Conner, M., Sandberg, T., Prestwich, A., Lawton, R., Wood, C., … & Sheeran, P. (2016). The question-behaviour effect: a theoretical and methodological review and meta-analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 27(1), 196-230.

The Door-in-the-Face-Technique is one of the most famous influence techniques. It’s effectiveness could be shown in many different studies.
But does it work with children as well?