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.

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.

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.