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.