Emily Oster

23 min Read Emily Oster

Emily Oster

Phones and the Importance of Play

Are phones really to blame for the decline in kids’ mental health?

Emily Oster

23 min Read

If you’re a parent who reads the news, over the summer you probably heard a lot about screens. And even now, as kids go back to school, we’re hearing plenty about phones. No phones in schools. Put your phone in a Yondr pouch. Hide your phone in your backpack. Students are doing TikToks in the bathroom. Take their phones away. 

At the forefront of many of these conversations is Jonathan Haidt. His book The Anxious Generation has galvanized a number of these conversations, and although there are other people who have contributed to the discussion, Jon is really in the vanguard of talking about changes that he thinks we need to make around kids and their mental health and phones and schools. 

On today’s episode, I’m speaking with him. Much of what Jon says makes sense to a lot of people, but he’s also gotten a fair amount of pushback, particularly on the question of whether phones are truly the boogeyman for teen mental health. In this conversation, Jon and I get into that. There are many things on which we agree and some where we don’t necessarily agree. And I think having conversations like this — with people who respect each other but don’t agree on everything — is part of how we figure out these hard and thorny questions in parenting and in general. 

Here are three highlights from the conversation:

What does a “phone-based childhood” mean, and how does it impact kids’ mental health?

Emily Oster:

First I want to talk about the issue of decline in play. Because one of the things you talk about is the change from a play-based childhood to a phone-based childhood. Can you paint a little bit of a picture of what you mean when you say “play-based childhood”?

Jon Haidt:

Sure. So, thank you, because that’s the central argument of the book. All young mammals play, and they do that in order to give their brain feedback from the world continuously that allows it to wire up into a competent, capable adult pattern. So play is a biological necessity. And what I observed from writing the book was that free play has been declining since the ’70s or ’80s. Kids are spending a lot more time in parent-supervised or adult-supervised activities, more time in school, and just plummeting time for play, including recess and time after school and on weekends, so this is likely to have some bad effects.

So my argument in the book is that it was the gradual loss of the play-based childhood, which was really from the ’80s and especially the ’90s. You’re taking away this thing that kids need to be stronger.

They don’t get depressed yet. They’re actually hanging out on the internet. And the early internet wasn’t so bad. But it’s between 2010 and 2015 that everything changes, when they go from flip phones to smartphones with front-facing cameras, unlimited data plans, and now you can be on your phone literally all day long, and some kids are. So 2010 to 2015, everything changes, the play-based childhood is gone. And now most kids have a phone-based childhood.

As parents, is it our responsibility to accept that it is better for our children to have phone-free schools?

Emily:

When we come to phones in schools, this is a very basic thing, which is: phones are distracting. And school is for learning. And so even if you thought that kids should have phones at the end of the day so they can interact with their friends on Snapchat or whatever it is, the idea that they need them in third period during math — I have yet to speak to an expert who thinks it is a good idea for people to have phones in math class.

But I think other than the kids themselves, the biggest pushback here is from parents. “What if my kid needs me?” And I almost feel like it’s a responsibility as parents to accept that this is better for our children.

Jon:

Yeah, that’s right. So it’s not just that this is better for their mental health. It’s that childhood is a gradual increase in freedom, responsibility, and competence. And by the time your kid is in high school, they should be able to go six hours without you, especially if there are caring adults all around them in school. And until five minutes ago in world history, we couldn’t talk to our kids while they were in school.

And so a lot of parents have gotten in the habit of that since 2010 or even before, since they had flip phones. But that’s a problem. It’s not an audience we need to cater to. It’s actually a problem. And the kids already have so much trouble focusing. They always do. And they don’t have developed prefrontal cortices. They don’t have full executive control. So if they’re in class, they need to be focusing on the teacher. And okay, if they’re flirting with the person next to them, that’s okay because that’s social skills. They don’t need to be texting with their mother or other kids or strangers in other countries. So yeah, I think those parents just have to get over it. Again, I understand the concern. I have two kids in New York City public schools, but this is where we have to overcome our anxieties. And it’s the same for letting them out to play.

Should you treat social media more like drugs or like driving?

Emily:

Is it advisable to treat social media like drugs? Basically, tell your kids about the danger in the hope that they won’t use it, have the “not while you’re a child and living in my house” mentality? Or is this something where we want to be able to mentor them into doing it in a safe way, because it is part of adulthood [like driving]? Or is it just a no?

Jon:

Yeah, so this is nothing we’ve ever experienced. The reason why is because it is socially addictive. Whereas there’s other things like cigarettes and heroin, those are biologically addictive. Now, there’s some biological addiction for heavy users, but in the peak year of teen smoking in the United States, 1997, 37% of high school kids smoked, which means that two-thirds didn’t. So you didn’t have to smoke when you were in high school. Social media is not like that. Social media is, as soon as a few kids are using it in fifth grade or sixth grade, there’s pressure on everyone to use it. And then each parent faces the same dilemma. “Do I say no?” In which case my kid says, “Well, I’m the only one. I’m left out. I’m alone. Everyone’s having fun without me.”

And then it breaks our heart and we say yes, and that puts pressure on everyone else. And so before you know it, the vast majority of kids in middle school have it. And so it’s not up to individual families, in a sense. Yes, if you’re a very strong parent, you want to set boundaries, you can do it, but it’s going to be a struggle. But if you can do it with the parents of your kids’ three or four best friends, and you say, “Sweetheart, I know you’re going into sixth grade next year, and some of the kids already have iPhones in fifth grade. But you know what? Me and the parents of Billy and Tommy and whoever, we’ve all decided you’re going to get a flip phone and we want you to be able to communicate with each other. We want to be able to text with you, but you’re not getting a smartphone until high school.”

Well, then it becomes much easier. So this is not like any of those other things. Now it’s like driving in the sense that driving is very, very useful and adults need cars in this country to do their adult things. We need them. But 9-year-olds, 10-year-olds, they’d love to drive. It’d be fun, but they don’t need it. It’s not like we have to get it to them. And so for driving, we say, “How about nobody drives before 16? How about we just say that?” And I think social media needs to be the same way. Because as long as some kids are on it, there’s pressure on all of them to be on it.

Full transcript

This transcript was automatically generated and may contain small errors.

Emily Oster:

This is Parentdata. I’m Emily Oster.

If you’re a parent who reads the news, who listens to this podcast, over the summer, you probably heard a lot about screens. And even now, as kids go back to school, we’re hearing a lot about phones. No phones in schools. Put your phone in a Yondr pouch. Hide your phone in your backpack. People are doing TikToks in the bathroom. Take their phones away. 

And at the forefront of many of these conversations is Jonathan Haidt. Jonathan Haidt’s new book, The Anxious Generation, has really galvanized a lot of these conversations, and even though there are other people who’ve contributed to this, he’s really at the forefront of talking about changes that he thinks we need to make around kids and phones and schools and their mental health. 

On today’s podcast, I’m talking to Jon Haidt. A lot of what Jon says makes sense to a lot of people, but he’s also gotten a fair amount of pushback, particularly around the question of whether phones are really the boogeyman for teen mental health. In this conversation, Jon and I get into that. There are a lot of things on which we agree, and there are some things where we don’t necessarily agree. And I think that having conversations like this with people who respect each other, but don’t agree on everything, is part of how we really figure out these hard and thorny questions in parenting and in general. 

If you’re a listener to this podcast, you will remember that we’ve had many conversations over the past few months about these issues of screens and phones, and they’ve come from a bunch of different angles. And incorporating Jon into this conversation is really important because of how central his voice has been in talking through these issues. 

This podcast is a little different than usual. We did it as a live virtual event, so you’ll hear us talk for a bit at the beginning, and then you’ll hear some listener questions. After the break, Jon Haidt.

Emily Oster:

I am absolutely delighted to have Jon Haidt join me for this Office Hours podcast recording. Jon’s a social psychologist at NYU Stern School of Business. He received his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania in 1992, and he taught for 16 years in the Department of Psychology at the University of Virginia. Jon is the author of many bestselling books, including his most recent book, which we are here to talk about, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. I think it’s fair to say this is the book of the summer, and I can’t wait to talk about it. Let’s bring Jon on.

Jon Haidt:

Here I am. Hello?

Emily Oster:

Hi, Jon, how are you? Thanks so much for being here.

Jon Haidt:

Oh, my pleasure. No, I’ve been engaged in debates over the date and the experiments, and so it’s going to be a real pleasure to talk with someone like you who just loves to really go deep into what’s going on, but also can talk about it in a way that’s interesting to regular people, so I hope that’s what we’ll be doing.

Emily Oster:

That is what we’ll be doing. All right, so I want to start with the most basic short answer question, which is, why did you write this book?

Jon Haidt:

Well, short answer, I guess, is because I had all this research that I did after writing The Coddling of the American Mind in which that was really about the overprotection and how kids need to grow up and become independent and have a lot to play. And I speculated in that book with Greg Lukianoff, we have a couple paragraphs and maybe social media had something to do with it too, but we don’t know, it’s just correlational data. We don’t really know. And that book came out in 2017. Well, in the years afterwards I got in debates with other researchers, “Oh, there’s no evidence.” I said, “Well, wait a sec, there’s some evidence.”

So, I just started collecting all the studies I could find on all sides, organized them. I put them in these big Google documents, we call them collaborative review documents. And what emerges is a very interesting story where there are some studies that seem to suggest there’s no relationship. But when you dig into them, what you always find is that there is a relationship, it’s just buried. And that’s true in the correlational studies and the experimental studies. So, it began to be clear, wait, something big is going on. That was clear from my experience as a professor and probably yours. We all know our undergrads from about 2017, 2018, rates of depression were extremely high. So, what was going on with that? Anyway, that wasn’t a short answer, I’m sorry-

Emily Oster:

That wasn’t a short note. You’re like, you fail the academic elevator pitch argument. No job for you, but it’s all right.

Jon Haidt:

Our elevators at Stern are very slow.

Emily Oster:

So actually, the book is really about thinking about this decline in mental health among teenagers, about the role of phones, about how phones have changed and digital media has changed the landscape for our kids in a bunch of different ways. But I basically want to talk through three pieces of this, and I’ll say full disclosure. The first two are places where I think we really agree and I want to talk about solutions. And then I want to get into this question about the relationship between phones and mental health and where there is more complicated disagreement in the data, which I’m sure you have heard.

Jon Haidt:

Let’s go.

Emily Oster:

So first I want to talk about the issue of decline in play. Because one of the points of the book is the idea that one of the things you talk about is the change from a play-based childhood to a phone-based childhood. And can you, for the people on this call, paint a little bit of a picture of what you mean when you say play-based childhood?

Jon Haidt:

Sure. So thank you, because that’s the central argument of the book that there was a play-based childhood from maybe two or 300 million BC, whenever it is that mammals evolved. Because if you’re a mammal, it means that you have this longer childhood than previous animals. And part of that long childhood allows you to have a bigger brain that develops slowly, and from writing the Coddling of the American Mind, I reviewed all the research I could find on the importance of play. All young mammals play, and they do that in order to give their brain feedback from the world continuously that allows it to wire up into a competent, capable adult pattern. So, play is a biological necessity. And what Greg and I observed from writing the previous book was that free play has been declining since the ’70s or ’80s. Kids are spending a lot more time in parent-supervised or adult-supervised activities, more time in school, and just plummeting time for play, including recess and time after school and on weekends, so this is likely to have some bad effects.

Anyway, that’s where I was before I started this book. Once I really dug into what the hell happened between 2010 and 2015, why is it … You graph out, chapter one has all these graphs. I have hundreds of graphs on my Google Docs. There’s really no trend in mental health data from the late ’90s to the early 2010s. It’s pretty flat. And then all of a sudden it’s like someone turned on a light switch around 2012 and girls all over the developed world begin checking into psychiatric emergency wards. So, what happened? Why did things change so quickly? So, my argument in the book is that it was the gradual loss of the play-based childhood, which was really from the ’80s and especially the ’90s across. You’re taking away this thing that kids need to be stronger.

They don’t get depressed yet. They’re actually hanging out on the internet. And the early internet wasn’t so bad. But it’s between 2010 and 2015 that everything changes when they go from flip phones, you can’t spend eight hours a day on a flip phone. They go from flip phones in 2010 to smartphones with front-facing cameras, unlimited data plans, and now you can be on your phone literally all day long, and some kids are. So, 2010 to 2015 everything changes, the phone-based childhood is gone. Sorry, the play-based childhood is gone. And now most kids have a phone-based childhood. I picked that term to sound kind of creepy. I used to like Star Trek when I was young, like, “Oh, is it carbon?” “No, captain, it’s silicon-based.” It’s a play-based to a phone-based childhood. It’s creepy.

Emily Oster:

It’s interesting, because the argument is sort of that the phones came in at a time in which we were almost primed to replace this type of socialization kids have been doing earlier with this. And it’s almost as if we hadn’t had that decline earlier that maybe phones would have, the experience with phones would have been maybe less appealing, I don’t know. But interested in this decline piece, because I think it’s something you and I have talked about this, it’s a decline that I … It’s a decline I remember. Or at least I think about my own childhood, which was a lot of running around and being throwing sticks at people and so on, which is really not there anymore. And I think partly because parents are afraid of the outdoors.

Jon Haidt:

Well, that’s right. So, the way we tell the story in the book, and by we I mean especially Zach Rausch, my research partner who helped me with a lot of this, and also we draw on the work of Jean Twenge and also on Lenore Skenazy who wrote Free Range Kids. And so the story that we tell in the book is a tragedy in two acts. But it turns out there’s a third act. Which actually comes first, which is the decline of community. So why did we suddenly freak out in the ’90s and think that our kids will be abducted if we ever … Americans, if you let your kid go to another aisle in the supermarket, we think that there might be some-

Emily Oster:

People come behind them and they’re like, “Your child’s lost. Your child’s lost.”

Jon Haidt:

Yeah, that’s right. How is a kidnapper going to get a screaming child out of a supermarket? I don’t know. But we suddenly-

Emily Oster:

I can’t even do that.

Jon Haidt:

That’s right. We can’t even get a screaming child out of the supermarket. The story, the full story now is, act one is actually the loss of adult solidarity, adult trust. When you and I were kids we were out on our bicycles. Sometimes you’d fall down and if you really got hurt, your friend would go ring up, just knock on someone’s door, “Hey, can you call my mother?” And they’ll call your mother. But we don’t trust our neighbors anymore. And this is all the Robert Putnam stuff, bowling alone, the decline of social capital. So that really is kicking in the ’70s and ’80s, setting us up for declining trust. Now, I’m a little older than you, but if you grew up in the ’70s, remember the ’70s, it was insane. I mean, there was a lot of crime and crazy stuff happening, but we all went out to play.

In the ’90s it gets much safer. Drunk driving plummets, we’re locking up the sexual predators, which we didn’t do in the ’70s, so life gets really safe for kids and deaths from all sources are plummeting in the ’90s. But that’s when we freak out because we don’t trust each other anymore. And that’s when we start saying, “No, you can’t go out. But oh hey, here’s the computer. Computers are good for you, so play on a computer.”

Emily Oster:

All right, so we have this piece, this sort of decline in play-based rise in phone-based childhood. And then your view, and actually now I want to talk a little bit about this core argument about mental health. Because the crux of the book is kind of, we see this decline in mental health, and then your position is that it is about phones, or a lot of it is about phones.

Jon Haidt:

It’s the loss of the play-based childhood and transferring it to a phone-based is my argument.

Emily Oster:

I think my sense is that there is a fairly widespread agreement that there’s been a decline in teen mental health over the past 15 years. I mean, it’s not that … Some of the pushback to your book, people will say, “Well, it hasn’t really happened.” But I think if you look out in-

Jon Haidt:

Kids are all right. No, they’re not.

Emily Oster:

Right. And I think one could argue about the magnitude. But a lot of people would say something has gone a bit awry with mental health for kids. And then I think the question is, how much is it linked to phones? And one of the pieces of your evidence is literally time trends. Can you talk a little bit about how you are seeing, how important you think these time trends are, and how almost definitive you think the time trend is as evidence for this?

Jon Haidt:

Okay, sure. First, let me make a major distinction that is almost never made. The researchers talk about population level effects, which is, did we have a giant increase, really a doubling on many measures of mental illness, including a doubling of suicide for younger teen girls? Did we have a big increase? And the answer is yes. And then the question is, what caused that big increase? That’s one set of causal relationships that we can study. And that’s very hard to answer, because we can’t do experiments to know what happened 20 years ago. But that’s a big one. Now, there was a report put out by the National Academies of Science that said, “Well, we can’t know that. We don’t find evidence that the phones cause this population level effect.” But there’s a very different set of questions, which is, “Is this thing hurting children and might it hurt my child?” That’s very different. And there there’s a lot more evidence of direct harm through 10 or 15 different routes to kids. Wait, what was your question again?

Emily Oster:

There’s this idea about the time trends and that basically on, there’s this sort of hit in the time. And I think in some ways … From a social science standpoint there are many different explanations one could have for a decline in mental health. And I think the idea that it is about phones or that phones are a major portion of it does in some ways rely in your argument on the idea that there is this sort of sharp time trend. Or maybe I’m not right about that.

Jon Haidt:

Let’s talk about that. So, what do we see? We see these hockey stick shaped curves in the U.S., and the inflection point is 2012, it’s very clear, especially in the girls’ date, 2011, no sign of a problem. In 2013, almost all the indicators are going towards problems. It’s very, very sharp, especially in the U.S. And so a lot of people say, “Well, 2012, well that was the Newtown massacre and then kids had all these scary lockdown drills. And so that might be why it is.” Okay, fine. That’s perfectly plausible. It does fit the timing. But why did the exact same thing happen in Canada, UK, Australia, Scandinavia? I mean, no, there’s no way that Newtown affected mental health of girls all over the developed world.

Other people say, “Well, 2012, I mean, that was in the wake of the financial crisis.” Like no, because mental health was actually unaffected by kids at all. There’s no sign of a problem during the worst days of the financial crisis. And then basically throughout the 2010s life is getting better and better economically, but the kids are getting worse and worse. So, we can go through, and we have this in our Google Docs, we have got 15 different alternate hypotheses people have told us, and none of them can explain both the timing around 2012 and the international scope. So, you got to start thinking, when you have a global change, either it’s something about the sun, and I literally have looked into sunspots, like was there a huge increase in sunspots. Or it would be some chemical that somehow was released into the atmosphere over North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand at the same time. Unlikely. It’s not going to be the food supply, even if we use GMOs here, they didn’t use them in Europe and New Zealand.

So, if we’re just looking at the correlations, granted correlations don’t prove causation, but something huge happened to the mental health of our species practically. There is no other explanation for it. I’ve got an explanation. It fits perfectly, and I keep waiting for someone to say, “No, it was something else.” No one’s come up with anything. Do you have one? Seriously, have you heard one that you think is possible?

Emily Oster:

Sure, I have. So, the one argument I’ve heard people make timing wise is about diagnosis and the Affordable Care Act.

Jon Haidt:

Okay.

Emily Oster:

That is the one other kind of direct, kind of, here is something that happened at the same time or almost exactly the same time that might have changed things.

Jon Haidt:

Okay, good. So, I go to our document, we have a document called the State of the Debate. That argument is argument number 1.1.2, which is it’s just changes in screening and diagnostic criteria. And yes, it fits the Affordable Care Act. You’re right, it could be. That’s just in America we just changed the insurance codes and that caused lots of kids to be diagnosed with something that a year ago they wouldn’t have been. Okay, fits the timing. Why did that happen in Australia, New Zealand, everywhere else at the same time? Again, it just doesn’t work.

The other one people point to, the one that could be global is the ICD, the International Classification of Diseases. They did do a major update between ICD nine and 10 in 2015, and that would be global. Because it would affect mental health professionals in all the countries. But the numbers didn’t go up in 2015, 2016, they went up in 2012, 2013, and then they go up again around 2018 there’s another maybe an acceleration. So, we don’t see any sign in the data of a 2015 2016 change. Yeah. Okay, hit me with another one.

Emily Oster:

No, no. That was the only one I had.

Jon Haidt:

Okay.

Emily Oster:

But then I want to get into the second piece of this, which is, so we could say, “Okay, we have these time trends.” But I think time trends as a piece of evidence are always a little tricky. Because of course-

Jon Haidt:

It’s not sufficient.

Emily Oster:

They’re not sufficient. And so then I think we had to go to, “Okay, what do the studies look like?” And there are billion correlational studies. I think let’s just set the stage that there are a lot of correlational studies that show that kids who use the internet all the time that are on their phones, if you’re on your phone for 23 hours a day, that you are way more likely to be depressed than if you’re not. But are you on your phone because you’re depressed? I mean, this is the time, if you do happiness studies, the time people are least likely to be happy is when they’re watching television eating Ben & Jerry’s in their underwear. But that’s the reason they’re watching television eating Ben & Jerry’s in their underwear is because they got dumped. And so, I think the question here is, of these studies, put aside all the correlation. Let’s say that I want to tell you, I think every one of the studies is just like hot garbage, I learn nothing from it. What do you see as the compelling causal evidence?

Jon Haidt:

Okay, sure. In the Google Docs that we started creating, we organized them by correlational studies. And yes, there are thousands, because any intro psych teacher in Singapore can just give their kids a questionnaire and they’re like, “Look, there’s a point to correlation.” So no, that’s right. Correlational studies like that are not very compelling. But there are a lot of them, and they tend to actually come in on the fact that the correlations are larger for girls than boys in the ballpark of 0.1 to 0.2. That’s we find in correlation studies, but that’s just section one.

Section two is more compelling. It’s the longitudinal studies. If you have a population of thousands of kids that you’re tracking over time, you can look and you can see what’s their mental health over time. Then you can see, did this kid bump up her social media use at time three? Okay, yes. Well, what happened to her mental health? Oh, then her mental health got worse at time four. Conversely, if some kid’s mental health got worse at time three, and then you can see, oh, did her social media use bump up at time four? Oh, yes, that would be reverse correlation. So that’s theoretically possible. There are some studies that find it, but there are a lot more that find the forward correlation. I’m not doubting that once you’re depressed and anxious, many of the kids, especially girls, will spend more time on social media.

But there are many, many studies we have. Again, we have a whole section. There are many, many more studies that find forward core. When you do a time lag study, they find that the increases in phone use or social media use specifically I should say, they’re leading indicators of mental health problems, not the other way around. [inaudible 00:17:51], who’s one of the skeptics claims that it’s all reverse correlation. And sure, there are a couple of studies that show that, but there are many more studies that are showing forward correlation.

Emily Oster:

What about my favorite study about Facebook introduction in college? I mean, we have a few things that look a little more randomized, right?

Jon Haidt:

Perfect. Right. Okay, so good. So, let’s get to the third section of our review, and you can find all my reviews if you go to anxiousgeneration.com/reviews. We’ve got more than a dozen Google Docs.

Emily Oster:

We’ll put it in the chat-

Jon Haidt:

… that correlate.

Emily Oster:

May’s going to put it in the chat.

Jon Haidt:

We’ve organized thousands of studies, and we’re not cherry-picking. We’re not saying, “Look, these studies support us.” We’re saying, “Let’s get all the studies on. Here’s both here, here’s side A, here’s side B.” So, we’re collecting everything we can find. If there are other researchers out there, if you know of other studies, please, you can put them in the comments. You can get commenting access. Please add. These are collaborative review documents. We did the correlational studies in section one, the perspective or time lag studies in section two, and section three is the experiments. There are two kinds of experiments. There are standard experiments where you use random assignment. Those are hard to do, especially with under-18, because it’s hard to get access to kids under 18.

And then are quasi-experiments where the world randomly assigned, let’s say different towns or different cities to get high-speed internet at a different time. Or the one you referred to, I think it was by Alcott, I can’t remember. The first author was-

Emily Oster:

Gentzkow.

Jon Haidt:

… Facebook. Oh, Gentzkow, that’s right. Yeah. Matthew Gentzkow. The Facebook of course, originally was just for elite college students. That was part of the strategy, just the Ivy Leagues. Well, then we’ll expand it to other schools, then other schools. And so you see, when a school got it, what happens to the mental health of the students in the following six months compared to schools that didn’t get it until say the next year? And so, now this study was done at a time when Facebook wasn’t that toxic. I mean, it was new in that now suddenly-

Emily Oster:

It was really boring. It was just pictures of people and you got to decide if they were attractive.

Jon Haidt:

That was very original.

Emily Oster:

It was very [inaudible 00:19:52]-

Jon Haidt:

Well, at that time there was no newsfeed, there were no algorithms. But it was you would look at photos of your friends from high school who went to some different college, let’s say or something, and they’re all having a great time, and you’re like, “Oh, my life sucks compared to theirs.” So people talked about it, how it would make you depressed. And anyway, the authors found some evidence of that. I forget the exact dependent variables they used. But that was one of the, we have about seven or eight prospective quasi-experiments like that. There are also several where you look at, so high-speed internet gets rolled out in Canada to different parts of British Columbia at different times. And so a Canadian researcher looked and sure enough, she finds that whenever it comes, you find an increase mostly for girls. It’s really the young women whose mental health collapses when they start spending all day on the internet, on high-speed internet through their phone.

So, there’s correlational studies, there are time lag studies, there are lab experiments, there are quasi experiments. I’m like, “Oh, you keep saying it’s just correlational, but it’s not. What else can I do?”

Emily Oster:

Okay, so I actually think we could talk about this for an hour, and I think that it would be, I would enjoy it. Not sure everybody would stay on the call. But I mean, I think, let me ask you one other question before we talk about phones in schools, which I actually do want to make sure we get to-

Jon Haidt:

That’s an easy one.

Emily Oster:

That’s an easy one. But I want to ask one more question about this. One of the pieces of one, the things I see, one of the pieces of pushback is let’s say on average this is bad for kids’ mental health, but some kids benefit from it. There are some kids particularly, maybe they’re particularly kids in marginalized groups or maybe they’re not just in general, there are some kids who really benefit from the access that they get on social media. And I think the truth is, there has to be some of those people. It seems implausible to me that every child would be hurt by social media. I think it’s likely some of them are helped. Now, maybe you disagree with that. But I wonder then how we think about that trade off. Maybe your answer is, all kids are harmed.

Jon Haidt:

Yep. No, no, let’s go. Okay, so first, there’s an incredible double standard where I have to jump through hoops and face incredible opposition to show causality of harms. But what’s the evidence for benefits? It’s basically on some surveys, more kids say, oh yeah, it makes me happier versus sadder. Really, that’s your evidence for benefits. No one. I’ve not seen any studies that show any sort of anything beyond just like, yes, it makes me feel better. So the evidence for benefits is extremely weak. Secondly, the benefits that are supposed to come from social media can come from the internet.

You don’t need social media. So Meta is trying to control the narrative here. Meta is trying to put out the line that COSA hurts LGBTQ Kids. COSA is the Kids Online Safety Act. Meta really doesn’t want any regulation. And their main argument to the left, they speak to the right by saying, “Oh, it’s free speech violations.” To the left they say, “Don’t regulate us, because social media is a lifeline for LGBTQ and other kids from marginalized communities.” Well, guess what? To say that it’s a lifeline, the early internet was, so if you’re a gay or trans kid in a rural area in 1998, yeah, the internet was a lifeline. You could get information, you could meet people, you didn’t feel alone.

So the internet solved that problem. Now the internet evolves, and it used to be this open internet, it was all nonprofit, and the internet evolves into three or four giant companies that suck up everyone’s attention. How did they do this? By using a newsfeed that was algorithmized and engineered to keep you on it. Now, do LGBTQ kids need that? Is that what they need to find information? Hell no. Is that what they need to find community? No, there are so many other ways.

So, that’s my second point is that the purported benefits are almost all available. If we were to raise the age to 18, I argue for 16, if we raised the age of 16 for opening a social media account, no kid would suddenly be like, “How can I find information I would never think to go to Google? Or how could I find other people? I would never think to go to all sorts of other ways that people can connect.” And here’s the third, here’s the kicker, and it is that when you actually look at the evidence, when you look at young teens generally have a lot of regret. A lot of them say that it’s harmed them. A lot of them say that they wish it was … About half of them say they wish it was never invented. On all those measures of regret, LGBTQ kids are higher than non-LGBTQ.

In other words, it’s the LGBTQ kids who are especially on exploring interactions with strange men around the world who are sextorting them and humiliating them. So, it’s the LGBTQ kids who are really getting harmed by this insane open online world where you’re interacting with strangers who want sex from you. How can we be doing this to the kids? So again, sure, I’m sure some kids are benefiting, but the harms are enormous. The harms are intrinsic to social media and the benefits are not very well documented and easily available. Even if we were to raise the age to 16.

Emily Oster:

More of my conversation with Jonathan Haidt, including whether there’s any value to phones in schools, our disagreements about how much Cocomelon is too much Cocomelon, and an audience Q&A, after the break.

Emily Oster:

Let’s talk about phones at school, because I actually … My view on this is that we got a little … We could debate this and you could get on here with someone who is probably more skeptical than I am about these harms and talk and talk and talk and talk about this study and that study and whatever. When we come to phones in schools, this is a very basic thing, which is, phones are distracting. And school is for learning. And so even if you thought that kids should have phones at the end of the day so they can interact with their friends on Snapchat or whatever it is, the idea that they need them in third period during math, I have yet to speak to an expert, and I have talked to a lot of people about this. I’ve yet to talk to someone who thinks it is a good idea for people to have phones in math class. Have you spoken to anyone who thinks people should have phones in math class?

Jon Haidt:

I once heard of someone who said, “Well, I can do lesson plans that have them take out their phones.” So, that’s the only thing I’ve ever heard. But of course, they could do all sorts of other things.

Emily Oster:

There are other ways.

Jon Haidt:

I think it’s important to understand. So first big picture here is in my book, I propose four norms by which we can roll back the phone-based childhood, they’re very simple. No smartphone until high school, no social media until 16, phone-free schools, far more independence replay and responsibility in the real world. Four norms. On the more free play, there’s been zero pushback, 0.0. Nobody has said, “No, kids don’t need more play.” On the phone-free schools there’s been pretty much zero pushback. You always get the thing, “Oh, but what about a school shooter?” To which the answer is, if there’s an emergency in your kid’s school, do you want to be in a school where the teachers have phones and the kids are doing what they’re supposed to do?

Or do you want to be in a school where as soon as there’s an emergency, everyone’s on their phone crying to their parents? That’s not going to school Security experts say that is not helpful. It is not safe for everyone to be on their phones. So phone-free schools, other than that argument, there is no pushback at all. Amazingly, not amazingly. A month ago two surveys come out, one from teachers, and it’s like over 90% say they don’t want phones in class. But here’s the big thing people don’t understand. They think, “Oh, don’t let your kids use phones in class.” But they can use them in between classes and at lunch, hell no. Because first of all, they’re missing out on socializing, on talking with their friends, on playing, on touching. There’s very little touch anymore. Kids don’t touch each other because they’re always on their phone.

So, the phone policy has to be bell to bell. I’ve been advocating for phone-free schools. At the beginning of the day, it’s useful to get to school at the beginning of day. You put it in a Yondr pouch, you put it in a phone lock or you put it in a basket-

Emily Oster:

You want to Yondr, you want, I mean, I think, I almost think we get into, what is the way to fix this. So you like the Yondr pouch, which is one of these you dump your phone in, which costs money.

Jon Haidt:

There are a couple of main ways. So Yondr is the most popular because it’s the easiest in that there’s very little … There’s much less parent pushback because the kids literally have their phones with them all the time. So my kids go to New York City public schools. When my daughter started seventh grade, her school went to Yondr pouches. I think you had to buy it for $15 or something. But you get a yellow pouch with a magnetic lock, like the anti-theft devices in clothing stores. And so you lock it at the beginning of the day, but you keep it with you. So in theory, it’s perfect. In theory, it’s the ideal system. The problem is that you go on YouTube, here are five ways to open it. Now, all the ways damage the pouch.

When I talked to the Yondr people about this, I said, “Look, this is what’s happening. My daughter says most of the kids can get their phones out.” They said, “Well, yes, but it damages the pouch.” If the school will do inspections, then that cuts it way down. Bottom line is that schools that use Yondr seem to really like it, but they do need to enforce it. You have to do some pouch inspections, but it works. And it’s pretty straightforward. A better way I think would be phone lockers, but I don’t actually hear of many schools that are using them. So I don’t really know. But in theory, phone locker, you lock it in the morning in your home room or the front and then you get it back at the end of the day, that would be the most reliable.

Emily Oster:

Yeah, I mean it seems to me basically if we can get people to accept that this is the right solution, then we are up against a technology problem. And this feels like something where we could probably figure out some kind of technology or ask Meta to pay for Yondr pouches for all 60 million of American school children, which I would be fine with doing.

Jon Haidt:

If they lose the lawsuits. Maybe that’s something that will be [inaudible 00:29:47]-

Emily Oster:

Yeah, that should be the remedy. Everybody gets a Yondr pouch and we’ll see. Do you see much push? Let me ask you the last question and then we’re going to move to people’s questions. So, put your questions in the Q&A. But do you think … I think the biggest pushback here is from parents. And there’s the school shooting thing, but then there’s also just the general sense of I want to be able to get in touch with my kid. What if my kid needs me? What if I need to change something during the day? I mean, that is the only constituency other than kids themselves, where I really see much pushback. And I almost feel like it’s a responsibility as parents to accept that this is better for our children.

Jon Haidt:

Yeah, that’s right. So it’s not just that this is better for their mental health. It’s that childhood is a gradual increase in freedom, responsibility, and competence. And by the time your kid is in high school, they should be able to go six hours without you, especially if they’re caring adults all around them in school. And until five minutes ago in world history, we couldn’t talk to our kids while they were in school. I mean, it’s insane. Was insane to think why should parents be able to be asking their kids, what do you want for lunch?

Emily Oster:

What do you want for dinner?

Jon Haidt:

Yeah, what do you want for dinner tonight? And so a lot of parents have gotten in the habit of that since 2010 or even before, since they had flip phones. But that’s a problem. It’s not an audience we need to cater to. It’s actually a problem. And the kids already have so much trouble focusing. They always do. And they don’t have developed prefrontal cortices. They don’t have full executive control. So if they’re in class, they need to be focusing on the teacher. And okay, if they’re flirting with the person next to them, that’s okay because that’s social skills. They don’t need to be texting with their mother or other kids or strangers in other countries. So yeah, I think those parents just have to get over it. Again, I understand the concern. I have two kids in New York City public schools, but this is where we have to overcome our anxieties. And it’s the same for letting them out to play.

Emily Oster:

The same for letting them out to play.

Jon Haidt:

Yeah, it’s really frightening when you do it. The first time I let my son walk to school in New York City in fourth grade, end of fourth grade, he was I guess nine, my wife and I, it was really scary. And we gave my old iPhone, we got a data plan so we could track him. We didn’t realize there’s a lot of simple phones that you can track. We didn’t know that. We gave him an iPhone. We could track him and our hearts were in our throats the first day or two watching his dot walk to PS three in New York City. But by the third day, it was actually much better because that’s what happens with anxiety. You habituate and you realize, Hey, I was out at seven. You know what? My son can walk to school at nine. He’s able to do that.

Emily Oster:

All right, so I’m going to answer few of your questions. I’m not, Jon’s going to answer a few of your questions. Let’s start with this one. So is there anything in the data regarding phone use in childhood and attention span? They go on to point out that this is hard or impossible to study, but I wonder if we can talk a little bit about that direct possible link?

Jon Haidt:

Yeah, yeah. It seems plausible that there would be, and I suspect that there is. Now, when I was writing the book, I had to find clear evidence. And so I spent a couple of days looking into that. And my recollection of what I found, this would be in chapter five of the book, which is on the foundational harms. The foundational harms of having a phone-based childhood are social deprivation, sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, which is this one, and addiction. And what I found, because I was thinking, “All this time on devices and the scattering and all the interruptions, is this going to increase ADHD?” And I wasn’t able to find evidence that it literally will cause a kid to have ADHD who didn’t have it before. That could be true, but I didn’t find evidence of that.

What I did find evidence of is that for kids who have ADHD, this makes it a lot worse. The constant interruptions, the fragmenting of attention. Now, I should point out the way that you really learn something here would be an experiment where we randomly assign a bunch of kids to be constantly interrupted, to always to never have 30 seconds free to think, to be constantly pinged. And we do that for two or three years from say age 12 to 15. And then we test them at age 15, who’s got better concentration. Now, of course you could never do that experiment. That would be the most unethical experiment. And so in the absence of that, I can’t tell you that, oh yes, we’ve proven this. But I think teachers see it. So one actually we bring in addiction. One of the things about addiction here, we’re especially talking for the boys. So the girls, their lives are getting messed up in a dozen ways through social media. I have a whole chapter on that, chapter six.

The boys’ story is a little different, and it’s much more about video games and pornography. The boys are spending huge amounts of time on video games and pornography. They’re not as depressed as the girls. They’re actually having fun. They’re enjoying the video games, they’re enjoying the pornography. But what happens over time is the quick cheap dopamine hits, the incredible beauty of these games and the eroticism of the porn. I mean it’s beyond anything that we could have imagined when I was a kid. It conditions them to quick dopamine, which means that dopamine circuits down regulate, you need more dopamine to get to feel normal, which means that when they’re not on video games or porn, everything’s kind of just boring and uncomfortable. And it’s very hard to focus or concentrate or enjoy anything, because it’s not video games and porn. It’s not exciting. So I think my belief is that just looking at the nature of addiction, we see enough that it is affecting the way the kids are thinking.

Emily Oster:

So let me ask, this is an interesting question. Is it advisable to treat social media like drugs? Basically tell your kids about the danger and the hope that they won’t use it, have they not while you’re a child and living in my house mentality? Another way I would sort of think about this question as, is this something where we want to just be like, do not use cocaine. No, I’m not going to help you learn how to use cocaine. I’m not going to talk about a responsible way to use it. Just like we don’t use that. Or is this something where we’d want our kids to maybe alcohol or driving or something where our kids to … We want to be able to mentor them into doing it in a safe way, because it is part of adulthood. Or is it just a no?

Jon Haidt:

Yeah, so this is nothing we’ve ever experienced. The reason why is because it is socially addictive. Whereas there’s other things like cigarettes and heroin, those are biologically addicted. Now there’s some biological addiction for heavy users, but in the peak year of teen smoking in the United States was 1997, 37% of high school kids smoked, which means that two thirds didn’t. So, you didn’t have to smoke when you were in high school. I never smoked. Some kids did, most of us didn’t, you could do that. Social media is not like that. Social media is as soon as a few kids are using it in fifth grade or sixth grade, there’s pressure on everyone to use it. And then each parent faces the same dilemma. “Do I say no?” In which case my kid says, “Well, I’m the only one. I’m left out. I’m alone. Everyone’s having fun without me.”

And then it breaks our heart and we say yes, and that puts pressure on everyone else. And so before you know it, 95% of kids by the age of 11 or 12, again, I don’t don’t know the exact numbers now, but it’s around there. The vast majority of kids in middle school have it. And so, it’s not up to individual families in a sense. Yes, if you’re a very strong parent, you want to set boundaries, you can do it, but it’s going to be a struggle. But if you can do it with the parents of your kids’ three or four best friends, and you say, “Sweetheart, I know you’re going into sixth grade next year, and some of the kids already have iPhones in fifth grade. But you know what? Me and the parents of Billy and Tommy and whatever, we’ve all decided you’re going to get a flip phone and we want you to be able to communicate with each other. We want to be able to text with you, but you’re not getting a smartphone until high school.

Well, then it becomes much easier. So this is not like any of those other things. Now it’s like driving in the sense that driving is very, very useful and adults need cars in this country to do their adult things. We need them. But nine year olds, 10 year olds, they’d love to drive. It’d be fun, but they don’t need it. It’s not like we have to get it to them. And so for driving, we say, “How about nobody drives before 16? How about we just say that?” And I think social media needs to be the same way. Because as long as some kids are on it, there’s pressure on all of to be on it.

Emily Oster:

So somebody asked, I’m not going to put it up, because it’s long, it’ll block the whole thing. But it’s related to this question, our society, I mean this quarter gets back to the issues of trust, but we’re actually quite fragmented. And this idea of like, /;I’m going to get together with the other parents of the kids in my elementary school,” I may not know those people. And the school is not giving out a directory. So I can call the other parents and be like, “Hey, let’s all not give our kids phones Is there a sort of practical way that you expect that you would suggest people try to coordinate across this?

Jon Haidt:

Oh, yes. So the wait until eighth pledge was brilliantly designed. The only issue is that you shouldn’t wait until the beginning of eighth because that’s middle school. We’ve got to get this out of middle school. But Brooke Shannon, the founder of it, she’s changed it to wait until the end of eighth. So it was brilliant, her original idea, which is, parents sign up from all over the country, all over the world, and as soon as 10 families in a grade in a school have signed the pledge, now there’s 10 other families in your kid’s grade that are doing this. And then the pledge goes live and you all learn each other’s email addresses. That’s the first thing.

Second thing is, we do know the other parents, because we had to arrange pickups at birthday parties. So, we all know who’s Tommy’s mom and who’s … So we already are connected by text or on other devices.

And then the third thing is schools are the logical place to start this. Schools are the center of parents and teachers’ attention on a defined group of kids who know each other. And so that’s why phone-free schools is so important, so powerful. Listen, everyone in the audience, if your kid’s school allows them to keep a phone in their pocket during the day, it is probably going to reduce what your child learns. And it is going to increase the odds that your child will have anxiety and depression later, especially if they’re a girl. So if your school allows that organize with other parents, I promise you the teachers hate the phones. They want to get rid of them. The principals hate the phones. They want to get rid of them. The only reason they’re not acting is because some parents are objecting. But if you coordinate, you will get that.

And if we get our kids going six hours a day without phones, imagine if they had six hours a day to listen to a teacher and to talk with other kids. They’ve never had that before, but imagine if they did. Well, now it’s going to be a lot easier to have them do other activities in the afternoon. They won’t be as addicted if they just went six hours without it.

Emily Oster:

Yeah. Okay. I have two more questions. So this one, because I know a lot of the audience here is parents of young kids, and I actually don’t know your answer to this question. Which is how you feel about non-social media screen time for little kids. So how do you think about whether your kid can watch Dr. Rachel, Ms. Rachel, or Cocomelon or Sesame or whatever. What’s your feeling on that?

Jon Haidt:

Yeah, so I’m not an expert in that. I really focused on what was happening to adolescents and mental health, but I did do some reading on it. And it seems pretty clear that for young kids, especially in the first 18 months to two years, there is no benefit and possible harm to spending a lot of time on screens. So FaceTime with your grandparent, totally fine. It’s not that the screen is going to be poison watching cartoons or stories. There’s no reason to do that. There’s no benefit. Probably don’t do that in the first two years.

Emily Oster:

What about for parents? No, no wait. Now, okay, now we’re getting to something where I know a lot about this. What about the benefit for parents?

Jon Haidt:

You mean of having a babysitter that keeps the kid quiet?

Emily Oster:

Of having a half … And I’m not talking about using it as a babysitter, but I’d like to take a shower. And I haven’t gotten a chance to take a shower and I’m going to be a much better parent if I get a chance to take a shower and my kid’s going to wash 20 minutes of Cocomelon.

Jon Haidt:

Yeah. Well, if your kid is 10 or 12 months old, again, maybe you know more than me, but if we’re talking in the first year, I think the research is showing that any amount of screen time now, the correlations are very small. It’s not like if you let your kid watch something.

Emily Oster:

Or very small correlations that are-

Jon Haidt:

Yeah, yeah, no, that’s right. So look, if you do it occasionally, that’s fine. What I’m really coming to see, it’s not the occasional thing that’s going to matter. It’s the daily thing. If your kid has an hour of screen time a day at the age of two, that is probably not a good idea. Now by three or four, it’s much more acceptable, I think. Again, not my area of expertise, but from the things I read and there’s this French researcher, [inaudible 00:42:52] oh, I forgot the title of his book. At any rate, he lays out all kinds of evidence that at every age you at least find the correlations. The kids with heavy use have worse cognitive outcomes. But it had one other comment. Because it really is the … Oh, yes. Final point is stories are good things. Human beings evolve with stories. We tell stories all over the world. We raise kids with stories.

So if your four, five, six-year-old is watching the cartoon, if your nine-year-old is watching things on Netflix, those are stories. Those are good. You pay attention to a story for 15 minutes, 40 minutes, two hours? That’s okay. It’s the short-form videos. It’s TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts. Those are terrible. There’s no benefit. And my students, a lot of them are … There’s a 19-year-old undergrads. They’re hooked on it. They waste four to six hours a day a lot of them on it. There’s no benefit. They’re not stories. So don’t let your kids start on TikTok till they leave your home, I’d say.

Emily Oster:

Till they’re out of your house. All right, here’s my last question. I got this. This isn’t even from here. This is from, somebody asked me this on Instagram today. I want to raise our son somewhere that all the parents agree to no smartphones until they’re 16. Do these communities exist?

Jon Haidt:

Yeah. Move to Utah. Utah is fantastic. Utah really is becoming a family-friendly place. The governor, Spencer Cox, that’s been one of his goals. So there are certainly places also, let me say this. If you ask that question a year ago, I’d say, well, you better move to Utah because that’s the only place I know of where this is happening. But guess what, all over, not just America, but all over the world now, adults, teachers, everybody sees the problem now and it’s changing very quickly. So, I think you’re going to find a lot more options other than Utah, as of today. There are going to be a lot of communities where the parents are acting.

Now, especially certainly in the elite wealthy areas where all you’ve got these intensive parents focused on their kid’s private school, those are all acting. They might have other problems in the culture there, but those are pretty quickly going phone free. Oh, move to Silicon Valley. If you move to Silicon Valley, the people who made the stuff, they know how bad it’s for kids. They don’t let the kids use it. They want your kids to use it.

Emily Oster:

It’s totally fascinating aspect. You probably, it’s critical, more likely to get a phone free school in Silicon Valley.

Jon Haidt:

That’s right. Exactly. The Waldorf School of the Peninsula that it’s right between, it’s right near Google and Apple. They send their kids there. No technology, no computers. Now there’s a computer in a separate room, so you learn to program, but in the classroom, nothing. No screens.

Emily Oster:

Jon, thank you so much for joining me. This was absolutely fantastic. I so appreciate you being here.

Jon Haidt:

Oh, well thank you, Emily. Thanks for having me on, and thanks for your great work bringing research out to the world.

Emily Oster:

And thank you everybody for joining us. It was a treat.

Emily Oster:

ParentData is produced by Tamar Avishai with support from the ParentData team and PRX.

Our virtual office hours event was produced by Meg Bradshaw and Kellie Lin Knott, and again, with support from our team.  Keep your eye out for next month’s office hours.  And remember, these virtual conversations are a perk offered for our subscribers at the plus tier. So head on over to parentdata.org to learn more about both our subscription tiers and our events.

If you have thoughts on this episode, please join the conversation on my Instagram, @profemilyoster. And if you want to support the show, become a subscriber to the ParentData newsletter at parentdata.org, where I write weekly posts on everything to do with parents and data to help you make better, more informed parenting decisions. 

For example, earlier this summer, I wrote about screens and social media, particularly in schools and what the data, so far, says about how involved parents should be in monitoring it. Check it out at parentdata.org.

There are a lot of ways you can help people find out about us. Leave a rating or a review on Apple Podcasts. Text your friend about something you learned from this episode. Debate your mother-in-law about the merits of something parents do now that is totally different from what she did. Post a story to your Instagram, debunking a panic headline of your own. Just remember to mention the podcast too. Right, Penelope?

Penelope:

Right, Mom.

Emily Oster:

We’ll see you next time.

Community Guidelines
1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JenAnnBee
JenAnnBee
19 days ago

As I listened, I found myself wondering if Jon has kids, and if so how old are they/how were they interacting with cell phones during their younger years?

A stack of smarphones on a wood table.

Dec 16 2022

4 min read

Is It Bad for Parents to Use Phones Around Their Kids?

I just finished reading the book Baby, Unplugged, which I would describe as half-memoir, half-research regarding technology usage in the Read more

Emily Oster
A parent and child make funny faces while taking a selfie in their living room.

Jun 08 2023

7 min read

How to Manage Your Family’s Relationship With Social Media and Smartphones

The past few weeks have seen a huge amount of discussion on social media and teens. This topic has been Read more

Emily Oster
ParentData podcast art

Aug 15 2024

11 min read

Kids, Screens, and Schools (Part One)

Kids, Screens, and Schools with Jessica Grose

Emily Oster

Instagram

left right
Do men really get worse colds? Not really, but they definitely think so! 

#mancold #perceptionvsreality #sickday #staystrong #emilyoster

Do men really get worse colds? Not really, but they definitely think so!

#mancold #perceptionvsreality #sickday #staystrong #emilyoster
...

💧 Is your kid drinking bathwater? Here’s the 411: It’s gross but not dangerous! Comment “Link” for my full guide to bathtime.

 A little soap or mold from toys isn’t harmful, and diluted pee is no big deal. Eating a lot of poop can make you sick, but in small amounts, it isn’t toxic.

Bottom line: Bathwater isn’t your kid’s best drink option, but don’t stress too much! Just keep an eye on them during bathtime for safety. 

#kidsbathtime #bathtoys #bathtimefuntime #emilyoster #parentdata

💧 Is your kid drinking bathwater? Here’s the 411: It’s gross but not dangerous! Comment “Link” for my full guide to bathtime.

A little soap or mold from toys isn’t harmful, and diluted pee is no big deal. Eating a lot of poop can make you sick, but in small amounts, it isn’t toxic.

Bottom line: Bathwater isn’t your kid’s best drink option, but don’t stress too much! Just keep an eye on them during bathtime for safety.

#kidsbathtime #bathtoys #bathtimefuntime #emilyoster #parentdata
...

Why is it that schools always call mom, even when dad’s the one with more availability? Comment “Link” to dive into the data on inequality in parental workloads.

A study shows just how deep the gender divide runs when it comes to household labor—even in something as simple as a phone call. Does this ring true for you? Share your experience in the comments 👇

#gendergap #momstruggles #parentsupport #emilyoster #parentdata

Why is it that schools always call mom, even when dad’s the one with more availability? Comment “Link” to dive into the data on inequality in parental workloads.

A study shows just how deep the gender divide runs when it comes to household labor—even in something as simple as a phone call. Does this ring true for you? Share your experience in the comments 👇

#gendergap #momstruggles #parentsupport #emilyoster #parentdata
...

Is your child getting enough sleep? 💤 Kids need 9-11 hours of rest for better focus, behavior, and health. Comment “Link” for an article on the importance of sleep and how to help your kids get more of it. It’s time to make sleep a priority!

#childsleep #childhooddevelopment #parentingtips #emilyoster #parentdata

Is your child getting enough sleep? 💤 Kids need 9-11 hours of rest for better focus, behavior, and health. Comment “Link” for an article on the importance of sleep and how to help your kids get more of it. It’s time to make sleep a priority!

#childsleep #childhooddevelopment #parentingtips #emilyoster #parentdata
...

Here’s my rant on motherhood inspired by the Barbie movie. Motherhood is hard enough without the unsolicited expectations we’re constantly assigned. As I always say, there is no secret option c. You’re doing great, and I hope you know that! 

Share this with a mom you think is doing great!

#parentdata #emilyoster #motherhood #barbiemovie

Here’s my rant on motherhood inspired by the Barbie movie. Motherhood is hard enough without the unsolicited expectations we’re constantly assigned. As I always say, there is no secret option c. You’re doing great, and I hope you know that!

Share this with a mom you think is doing great!

#parentdata #emilyoster #motherhood #barbiemovie
...

Ever seen a headline that makes your heart race, but when you dig deeper, the study behind it doesn’t hold up? That’s a panic headline! It’s designed to grab attention and spark fear, but the research it’s based on is often weak or irrelevant. Next time you see one, take a breath, look closer, and don’t let sensationalism get you stressed out.

What’s the most recent panic headline you’ve seen? Drop it in the comments and let’s break it down together! ⬇️

#parentdata #emilyoster #panicheadline #datadriven #riskmanagement #parentingstruggles

Ever seen a headline that makes your heart race, but when you dig deeper, the study behind it doesn’t hold up? That’s a panic headline! It’s designed to grab attention and spark fear, but the research it’s based on is often weak or irrelevant. Next time you see one, take a breath, look closer, and don’t let sensationalism get you stressed out.

What’s the most recent panic headline you’ve seen? Drop it in the comments and let’s break it down together! ⬇️

#parentdata #emilyoster #panicheadline #datadriven #riskmanagement #parentingstruggles
...

Is constant phone access impacting your child’s development? 📵 Today on the ParentData podcast, listen to @profemilyoster and @jonathanhaidt discuss the impact of phones and social media on learning and child mental health.

Listen to this episode now and subscribe to ParentData with Emily Oster in your favorite podcast app 🎧

#parentdata #parentdatapodcast #theanxiousgeneration #kidsmentalhealth #screentime #jonathanhaidt #emilyoster

Is constant phone access impacting your child’s development? 📵 Today on the ParentData podcast, listen to @profemilyoster and @jonathanhaidt discuss the impact of phones and social media on learning and child mental health.

Listen to this episode now and subscribe to ParentData with Emily Oster in your favorite podcast app 🎧

#parentdata #parentdatapodcast #theanxiousgeneration #kidsmentalhealth #screentime #jonathanhaidt #emilyoster
...

Here’s your Monday reminder for the start of the school year: You’re doing a great job, rice bunnies or not!

This is a sneak peek from the Saturday newsletter on ParentData. Want more parenting tips and insights? Subscribe now at the link in bio.

#parentdata #emilyoster #parentingadvice #parentingtips #parentingquotes #parentingishard

Here’s your Monday reminder for the start of the school year: You’re doing a great job, rice bunnies or not!

This is a sneak peek from the Saturday newsletter on ParentData. Want more parenting tips and insights? Subscribe now at the link in bio.

#parentdata #emilyoster #parentingadvice #parentingtips #parentingquotes #parentingishard
...

Reflux: It’s more common than you think! Comment “Link” for an article by @thepediatricianmom breaking down the information we have about reflux — what it is, what you can do, and red flags to look out for.

This graph shows how reflux changes with age. Nearly half of all babies experience reflux by 3 months, often peaking around 4 months before improving by their first birthday. And remember, if you’re struggling, you’re not alone. The most effective treatment for infant reflux is time. It will get better!

#parentdata #refluxbaby #babyreflux #spitup #parentingadvice #emilyoster

Reflux: It’s more common than you think! Comment “Link” for an article by @thepediatricianmom breaking down the information we have about reflux — what it is, what you can do, and red flags to look out for.

This graph shows how reflux changes with age. Nearly half of all babies experience reflux by 3 months, often peaking around 4 months before improving by their first birthday. And remember, if you’re struggling, you’re not alone. The most effective treatment for infant reflux is time. It will get better!

#parentdata #refluxbaby #babyreflux #spitup #parentingadvice #emilyoster
...

We’re heading into a three-day weekend, which means a lot of you might take the opportunity to do some potty training. 

Here are some things to keep in mind:
🚽 It takes longer than three days (based on the data!)
🚽 Your child will have trouble staying dry at night.
🚽 Poop sometimes comes later than pee – this is common, you just have to work through it.

Comment “Link” for an article that breaks down potty training data from ParentData readers,  along with helpful tips and tricks.

#pottytraining #pottytrainingtips #pottytrainingproblems #parentdata #emilyoster

We’re heading into a three-day weekend, which means a lot of you might take the opportunity to do some potty training.

Here are some things to keep in mind:
🚽 It takes longer than three days (based on the data!)
🚽 Your child will have trouble staying dry at night.
🚽 Poop sometimes comes later than pee – this is common, you just have to work through it.

Comment “Link” for an article that breaks down potty training data from ParentData readers, along with helpful tips and tricks.

#pottytraining #pottytrainingtips #pottytrainingproblems #parentdata #emilyoster
...

Trampoline parks: great way to get the sillies out or injury haven? Or both? Comment “Link” for an article breaking down a 2023 study on injury trends in trampoline parks.

Here’s a visualisation based on the paper, showing the injury rate by area. Beware the foam pit and the high-performance areas! Slam-dunking, though, seems fine.

#parentdata #emilyoster #trampolinepark #childsafety #trampolinefun

Trampoline parks: great way to get the sillies out or injury haven? Or both? Comment “Link” for an article breaking down a 2023 study on injury trends in trampoline parks.

Here’s a visualisation based on the paper, showing the injury rate by area. Beware the foam pit and the high-performance areas! Slam-dunking, though, seems fine.

#parentdata #emilyoster #trampolinepark #childsafety #trampolinefun
...

I’m teaming up with @Wholefoods to remind you that even though school lunches can be tricky, they have everything you need, from conventional to organic, to give you peace of mind about the foods your kids eat. Through their rigorous Quality Standards, they ban 300+ ingredients from food. 

Does your kid have any special or weird lunch requests? Share in the comments! Tap the link in my bio for more tips and inspiration #WholeFoodsMarket

I’m teaming up with @Wholefoods to remind you that even though school lunches can be tricky, they have everything you need, from conventional to organic, to give you peace of mind about the foods your kids eat. Through their rigorous Quality Standards, they ban 300+ ingredients from food.

Does your kid have any special or weird lunch requests? Share in the comments! Tap the link in my bio for more tips and inspiration #WholeFoodsMarket
...

Travel is already stressful. Add kids to the equation, and it becomes even more complicated. Here are 3 tips and considerations for handling jet lag in kids.

#travelwithkids #jetlag #melatonin #parentingtips #parentdata #emilyoster

Travel is already stressful. Add kids to the equation, and it becomes even more complicated. Here are 3 tips and considerations for handling jet lag in kids.

#travelwithkids #jetlag #melatonin #parentingtips #parentdata #emilyoster
...

Happy 11th birthday to #ExpectingBetter 🎂🎉 Writing this book completely changed my life. I could never have imagined the opportunities and community it would lead me to. Grateful to all of you for reading and being here!

To celebrate, you can use the code “expectingbetter” for 15% off Web or Plus subscriptions on ParentData.org 💛

#bookbirthday #pregnancyadvice #parentdata #emilyoster

Happy 11th birthday to #ExpectingBetter 🎂🎉 Writing this book completely changed my life. I could never have imagined the opportunities and community it would lead me to. Grateful to all of you for reading and being here!

To celebrate, you can use the code “expectingbetter” for 15% off Web or Plus subscriptions on ParentData.org 💛

#bookbirthday #pregnancyadvice #parentdata #emilyoster
...

Screens have become a ubiquitous part of classroom life. Is this a good thing? Today on the ParentData podcast, I talk with @jessgrosewrites from the @nytimes. She recently ran a survey asking about kids’ screen usage after not being able to find studies and data on the subject.

“Nothing is all bad or all good. But I think overall, there just has been very little scrutiny into something that has been a massive shift in the way kids learn in the past, let’s say, two decades.”

Comment “Link” for a DM to listen to today’s podcast episode. 🎧

#screentime #technologyintheclassroom #parentdatapodcast #parentdata #emilyoster

Screens have become a ubiquitous part of classroom life. Is this a good thing? Today on the ParentData podcast, I talk with @jessgrosewrites from the @nytimes. She recently ran a survey asking about kids’ screen usage after not being able to find studies and data on the subject.

“Nothing is all bad or all good. But I think overall, there just has been very little scrutiny into something that has been a massive shift in the way kids learn in the past, let’s say, two decades.”

Comment “Link” for a DM to listen to today’s podcast episode. 🎧

#screentime #technologyintheclassroom #parentdatapodcast #parentdata #emilyoster
...

We surveyed the ParentData audience and here’s what you said about the worst baby products. Bottom of the list: unnecessary warmers. Don’t get your kid used to having warm diaper wipes! Nothing good can come of that.

Comment “Link” for the best baby items and other parenting wisdom from the ParentData community. Best general advice: get things used, and you do not need as much as you think. 

Add your advice below! What do you wish you’d known about in advance, and what was a waste? ⬇️

#parentdata #emilyoster #babyproducts #babyitems #newparents #firsttimeparents

We surveyed the ParentData audience and here’s what you said about the worst baby products. Bottom of the list: unnecessary warmers. Don’t get your kid used to having warm diaper wipes! Nothing good can come of that.

Comment “Link” for the best baby items and other parenting wisdom from the ParentData community. Best general advice: get things used, and you do not need as much as you think.

Add your advice below! What do you wish you’d known about in advance, and what was a waste? ⬇️

#parentdata #emilyoster #babyproducts #babyitems #newparents #firsttimeparents
...