Rule 1: You''re in Charge RULE 1: YOU''RE IN CHARGE Imagine that when you were a kid you went to your parents and said, "Now that I''m 10, I want you to buy me a gadget that costs $1,000 plus $40 for every month I have it. I''ll be able to communicate with my friends and with adults I''ve never met every second of every day. And by the way, I''ll never look up from my hand again." They would have said no. Or, maybe you''d try going to them and saying, "Now that I''m 12, I want to take 200 pictures of myself in a skimpy bikini and put them someplace where everyone in my school can see them and tell me if they like how I look." (A fairly accurate definition of Instagram.) Again, they would have said no. Today, most parents say yes to these requests.
Or they say yes without knowing what they''re saying yes to when they hand their kids a smartphone. They''re not bad parents--they''re often the same parents who set rules for their kids in the real world. But with smartphones and social media, it''s become very easy for parents and kids to get swept up in what everyone else is doing. And everyone is doing it: On average, kids now get their first smartphone around age 11, and 38% of 10- to 12-year-olds use social media. As you saw in the last chapter, the results have been catastrophic. With use so pervasive and the dangers so dire, parents are in a tough spot. But there is a way out: You have to be in charge. For a previous generation of parents, that was obvious (and if you didn''t like it, well, sonny, you can get out of the car and walk).
For us, it''s not. Being an authority figure seems a little strange. We left behind the harmful practices of our parents and grandparents, like spanking and shaming. We vowed we would never say "because I said so." We want to show our kids we love them, and we don''t want them to be upset. Is it working? Only sort of. THE BEST PARENTING STYLE Parenting styles are a favorite topic in popular media, so you may have heard of helicopter parenting (hovering over kids), snowplow parenting (removing all of the obstacles in their way), gentle parenting (never saying no), or lighthouse parenting (being a source for insight but not interfering too much). Academic research has instead focused on four parenting styles.
Each is low or high on affection and low or high on rules. It looks like this, with my addition of an ocean animal name for each, so they''re easier to remember: Uninvolved (fish) Permissive (sea sponge) Authoritarian (tiger shark) Authoritative (dolphin) Figure 1.1: The four parenting styles What does each of these mean in practice? Uninvolved parenting (Fish parenting). These parents provide for children''s basic needs but then offer little nurturance or expectations. They are a little like fish, who lay eggs and then swim away, leaving their offspring to fend for themselves. Fish parents don''t set rules but also don''t show much affection or love. Permissive parenting (Sea sponge parenting). Sea sponges have no backbone, and neither do permissive parents.
They are affectionate and nurturing, but don''t set limits for their kids. Elsewhere I''ve seen them called jellyfish parents, but since jellyfish sting, this doesn''t fit. Permissive parents have no sting. "Gentle parenting" is a type of permissive parenting--lots of affection but few rules and little enforcement. Authoritarian parenting (Tiger shark parenting). These parents enforce rigid rules, rarely explain anything, and punish harshly. They seldom show affection and aren''t very nurturant. This is the old-school parent who answers questions with "because I said so.
" They''re like the shark who goes straight for the bite. Authoritarian parenting overlaps with the "Tiger Mom" idea of expecting kids to obey so they can succeed in ways the parent deems important (such as getting all A''s or making a sports team). Authoritative parenting (Dolphin parenting). This is the best of both worlds: a parent who shows affection but also sets boundaries and rules. That also means parents usually explain why the rules are there instead of resorting to "because I said so." The "dolphin" label comes from authoritative parents being firm but flexible, like the body of a dolphin. This analogy is admittedly what my kids call "cringe," but it''s also memorable. The research is clear that authoritative (dolphin) parenting works the best and leads to the most well-adjusted children, because it includes both affection and rules.
The other parenting styles all fail in one way or another. Permissive (sea sponge) parenting sounds fun and loving, but doesn''t work out well in the short term (kids who are never told no are often terrors) or the long term (what happens when they go to school or have a job and are told no?). Uninvolved (fish) parents are the worst of both worlds: They don''t set rules or show affection. Both of these parenting styles set few limits on kids, which often leads to unhealthy choices (like Cocoa Puffs for dinner or staying up until midnight on a school night). Tiger shark authoritarian parents set rules but end up with children who misbehave when they''re left on their own without the parent there to enforce the rules. The children of tiger shark parents often develop into adults who need external pressure to get motivated. The parent-child relationship also suffers when parents don''t show affection. Authoritative (dolphin) parenting also works the best for device use.
It means setting reasonable rules and enforcing them, while also being affectionate and empathetic to children''s needs. Clinical psychologist and parenting expert Becky Kennedy calls this type of parenting "Sturdy Leadership"--it''s a combination of validating feelings but also holding boundaries. She suggests parents should respond to kids pushing back on rules with something like this: "One of my main jobs is to make decisions that I think are good for you, even when you''re upset with me. This is one of those times. I get that you''re upset, I really do." LONG-TERM GOALS Most modern parents are on board with the validating feelings and empathy part of authoritative parenting. We want to show our kids we love them, and we empathize with our kids more than our parents did with us. We want our kids to be happy.
That''s a good goal, but there''s a difference between short-term happiness and long-term happiness. Your job is not to make your kids happy at every moment. It''s to raise competent adults who will be happy in the long term. Your most important job as a parent is giving your children experiences that help them grow. Sure, there can be childish fun along the way, but not so much that it overwhelms healthy long-term development. That means having rules and enforcing them. Parenting is different from other relationships: It is not a partnership of equals. Kids'' brains aren''t equipped to make the best choices for the future, so you have to guide them.
Forget about always giving them what they want; give them what they need--not just for now but for the long term. That''s the balance struck by authoritative (dolphin) parenting. Yes, we want to be close to our kids, but we''re not their friends. We''re their parents. Thinking long-term, how can your child spend their time so they grow into a healthy, independent adult? More time on devices is not usually the answer to this question. The ultimate test is the opinions of young adults who grew up with these technologies. In a recent poll, half of 18- to 27-year-olds said they wished TikTok and Snapchat had never been invented. It is difficult to imagine that this many young adults in the 1990s wished TV was never invented.
Nearly 6 out of 10 young adults think parents should not give children smartphones before high school. Activist groups like Design It For Us and LOG OFF, led by young adults, have lobbied Congress for more regulation of social media. Even many kids are asking for more rules and less technology--this is not solely the province of parents and other older people. That should give you confidence in your decisions to limit your kids'' device use. "Why do parents give their children smartphones?" asked middle school student Anushka Trivedi. "I think I finally know the answer now. Parents want to have a good relationship with their children, so they give them everything they want to make them happy." Her peers, she writes, "do not know how to control their smartphone usage.
When I look at my classmates'' faces, absorbed in their smartphones, they look eerily expressionless, even hollow. Their eyes look tired and droopy; their faces look drained and sulking. They look like they have no choice." When UK journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked sisters Edie, 15, and Rose, 13, if they loved social media, they looked at her like she was crazy. "You know it''s all fake but you still feel like it''s real. You still can''t help comparing yourself with everyone who looks pretty and feeling bad about yourself," said Rose. When Aitkenhead asked the girls to join a group of teens giving up their phones for a month, they jumped at the chance. "It gives us an excuse," Edie said.
"We get to escape this trap for a whole month without looking weird. We can say we''re doing it for The Sunday Times ." Overall, kids are surprisingly self-aware that the time they spend online is often not beneficial or healthy. They''ve even come up with a name for the reality-bending effects of being chronically online: brain rot. The phrase is so descriptive of life today that the Oxford English Dictionary named it the word of the year for 20.