Trouble is, it is very difficult for families to hold off.
Why?
Because families are playing a Prisoner's Dilemma with other families. Most families want to delay smartphones and social media, but a family defects on the group by giving their child an iPhone. That causes all the other children in the friend group or class to want an iPhone, putting pressure on their parents. More parents defect, giving phones to their kids. And then finally, there's you, the last holdout, and your kids upset because they are being socially left behind. Why, your kids ask, are we such weirdos?
Now parents, of course, could hold firm at this point. But as any parent will tell you, this isn't an easy choice. Yes, you have to worry about how social media will affect your child's mental health, but you also have to worry about your child's socialization. As much as we'd like to turn our children into little clones of ourselves, that's not healthy. Their peer group is huge. So keeping children out of step with their peers is no small thing. And because of this, many families give in and give their child a phone or social media before they wanted or planned to. The pressure is just too much, so much that it is starting to damage the parent/child relationship.
And so it seems like we're trapped. This drama plays out over and over in every home, and we seem defenseless to stop it. Kids demand and parents capitulate.
But I don't think we're wholly defenseless if we get a better grasp on the problem. And this is why I want to describe what's happening as a Prisoner's Dilemma.
When groups play a Prisoner's Dilemma getting to the best outcomes is largely done by solving a coordination problem. The group has to act together and work to prevent any defections and free riders. We often do this with with compliance measures, like ticketing speeders, signing contracts, or having video cameras in public spaces. Such measures keep us all moving in an agreed upon direction, preventing the chaos if we were free to do whatever we wanted.
I'm suggesting that when it comes to children, phones and social media families are playing a similar game. Specifically, while there is broad consensus that we should delay, as long as possible, giving phones and social media to our kids, families are vulnerable to the first family in a given school or friend group that defects and gives their child a phone. The minute that defection occurs, more follow and the pressure mounts on the holdout families. In short, the problem with children, phones and social media is that we are making this a "family decision." We're forcing families into stressful choices, pitting them against other families and their kids against the peer group. Pitting families against each other like this is an unsustainable situation.
But if this situation is a Prisoner's Dilemma, then children and social media isn't a family problem--When will we, the Smith's, decide to give Jane a phone?--it's a coordination problem. Specifically, the problem only gets solved by dealing with early defection on the group.
How could we do that?
Well, it would be wonderful if we could pass legislation banning smartphones to minors, like we ban cigarettes. But I don't think that is going to happen. But I do think we can think of places where families can work together to solve the coordination problem.
To start, homeschool cohorts and private schools have the ability to lay down rules about phone ownership. And to be clear, I'm not talking about having a phone on campus, I'm talking about owning a phone. A private school, in describing the ravages of social media upon children, could say that students under a certain age are not allowed to own their own smartphone. (Allowances could be made for flip phones if parents needed to call their child in certain circumstances.)
Would the parents of a private school agree to such drastic measures? They might! I think more parents than not want to take those phones away, and the school could help them do that if they worked together. No longer would the Smith's be weirdos, standing alone to face the scorn of their child. Because this is what the entire school is doing.
Churches could also do this. Churches could have, as a part of their covenant, a community rule about when phones can be given to children and when they can have access to social media. Across the board, it's just what families do and expect here. And so if you agree to go to that church you agree to those rules. Of course, this route has its problems as a child's peer group isn't just coming from church. But such a church commitment does help the family take a stand. We're all doing this together.
And lastly, parents can get proactive within the peer group. Of course this is hard, as peer groups are fluid and change. But it is possible when a peer group emerges in elementary or middle school to gather the parents and make a plan together. Working together might buy you another year or two of delay if you work together as a group. Parents of young kids have some control over who their children socialize with, and working as a group parents could create networks where they have agreed upon certain ages for phone ownership and social media usage. Personally, I think such groups, if advertised, would be very popular. Parents are wanting to delay phone and social media use, and working with other families helps them accomplish that goal. Nothing dooms a phone and social media family plan more quickly than a child's best friend getting an iPhone or a social media app.
Of course, at the end of the day, the call is in the hands of the family. My point here is that we can make things easier on families if we think of creative ways to solve the coordination problem of the Prisoner's Dilemma we're all playing. If we could help willing families solve this problem, we can push back the ages when our children get phones and access to social media.
It's either this or abandoning families to fight a lonely, stressful fight all but impossible win on their own.
