This document discusses overdependence on digital technology by children under age 12 and proposes an intervention called QT to promote healthy media consumption. It provides background on increasing technology access and usage among young children. While technology offers benefits, excessive early use is linked to physical, psychological, and developmental issues. The automatic thinking encouraged by fast-paced media disrupts concentration and comprehension. Parents are uncertain about risks due to limited experience but see educational benefits, and moderate usage through rules but struggle with implementation due to their own tech habits. The proposed QT intervention aims to inform parents to improve children's health, development, learning, and social skills.

1. Emerson College
Overdependence on Digital Technology by Children
Under the Age of 12
Introducing QT as a Solution to Promote Healthy Media Consumption Patterns
Eileen Louissaint, Mel Zianne Teo, Nele Rieve
GM603 - Behavioral Economics
Professor Nejem Raheem
04/23/2015

2. i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1
2. Background...............................................................................................................................2
3. Effects of Heuristics and Biases on Parents’ and Children’s Behavior....................................6
3.1. Current Situation ...............................................................................................................6
3.2. Intervention........................................................................................................................9
3.2.1.Obstacles ........................................................................................................................9
3.2.2.Opportunities................................................................................................................10
4. Discussion of Proposed Intervention......................................................................................10
5. Bibliography............................................................................................................................ ii
6. Appendices ..............................................................................................................................iv

3. 1
1. Introduction
Today’s youth are characterized as digital natives—they are born into a world where the
use of digital technologies such as computers, video games, digital music players, video cams,
cell phones are part of their daily lives. Due to innovations such as touchscreens that allow easier
interaction, these technologies are becoming increasingly accessible by younger children
(Rideout, 2013). While there are many benefits to the use of these devices, the risks of excessive
use at young ages tend to be neglected despite proven major impacts on the child’s development
and health. Research shows that parents often are uncertain about associated risks and tend to
overestimate the positive effect that digital technologies might have. This uncertainty paired with
the misconception about its role, due to rapid and unprecedented advances in technology,
contribute to the excessive use of technology of today’s youth.
The purpose of our research is to discover insights behind parental motives linked to the
overdependence on technology by children under the age of 12, in order to develop an
intervention that promotes the improvement of child health, development, learning capabilities
and social skills by informing parents of the risks attributed to overdependence on technology
during key developmental ages.
This paper is structured into three parts: a background section, a section about heuristics
and biases, and a section about the proposed intervention. The background section presents
findings from both primary and secondary research on digital technology use among young
children. As part of the primary research, point-of-view interviews were conducted with parents
and children. The heuristics and biases section addresses possible explanations for the current
behavior of both parents and children and examines obstacles and opportunities which we must

4. 2
be aware of when framing our intervention. Finally, the last section will discuss our intervention
derived from the key insights extracted from our interviews and secondary research.
2. Background
While digital technology can be helpful to children, growing research has focused on the
impacts of the excessive use of digital technology at a young age, the effects of technology on
relationships, the adequate amount of digital technology each day, and current solutions
communicated by child specialists to form healthy consumption habits (Christianakis, 2002).
Having grown up with daily access to digital technologies, contemporary children in
developed countries are often referred to as “digital natives (Prensky, 2001).” 75% of children
age 8 and under (Wartella et al., 2013) have had access to some type of smart mobile device at
home in 2013, compared to 52% in 2011. This research further showed that 72% of children ages
8 and under and 38% of children under 2 have used these devices to play games, watch videos or
use apps. The internet enhances the human ability to scan information at a more rapid and
efficient pace, whereas, in the past the popularity of reading physical books allowed the brain to
practice focusing and imagination. In the pre-digital world, children had to use their imagination
and exercise sensory and motor skills to amuse themselves through “traditional ways of play”
such as outdoor activities, board games, puzzles, and so on, the advances in technology have
changed neurological structures significantly (Rowan, 2013).
As the use of technology increases, studies have correlated it to the rise of physical,
psychological and behavior disorders including child obesity, diabetes, ADHD, autism spectrum
disorders, coordination disorders, developmental delays, speech disorders, learning difficulties,
sensory-processing disorders, anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders (Phillips, 2013). “Physical
therapists are now seeing patients as young as eight years old with symptoms of RSI (Repetitive

5. 3
Stress Injury), a trend that seems to be increasing over time,” threatening the health of children
that indulge in smart devices for long hours (Kim, 2010).
In the earliest stages, children are developing vision, memory, language, thinking and
reasoning skills from simple activities such as reaching out and exploring. These early stages in
child development contribute greatly to life skills which they will take with them into
adolescence such as building stronger friendships and peer relationships, independence from the
parents and family, and a sense of self within the world (CDC, 2014).
The use of technology demonstrates functions of the automatic and reflective systems of
the brain. The automatic system is unconscious and commonly associated with instinct and rapid
decisions, while the reflective system requires more concentration for thorough and analytical
thought process (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009). The hyperactive nature of fast-paced media disrupts
the ability to concentrate and completely comprehend material. The inability to digest
information through conscious cognitive mapping normally attributed to the reflective system
suggests a disconnect between the parallel processing of the two systems. Additionally, the
patience to train the automatic system to succeed in complex activities such as school work,
social settings, and independence is absent (Carr, 2010).
Hogan (2013) suggests the approach to achieving a healthy “media diet” requires the
involvement of parents, educators and pediatricians in media education in order to guide children
towards healthier media consumption habits. Additionally, parents can remove devices from
bedrooms and implement curfews for media devices (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013).
Parents’ Perspective
Childhood experiences often influence the way parents bring up their own child. Since
most parents did not have access to digital technology during their upbringing the way that

6. 4
children have today, this could result in uncertainty in terms of appropriate use of digital
technologies (Plowman et al., 2008). Marketing of many video and software products for young
children intensifies this uncertainty as it makes the parents believe that these products are
beneficial and necessary for their child’s educational success (Rose et al., 2013). Even though
parents are concerned about possible effects that digital technologies could have on their child,
they still consider those technologies as safe if the use is moderated and supervised to a certain
extent (Livingstone et al., 2008; Plowman et al., 2008).
Furthermore, they tend to attribute more value to the educational and social advantages of
digital technology use than to negative impacts (Livingstone et al., 2008; Moore, 2015). Parents
seek to achieve a balance in their child’s activities. By moderating their child’s use of digital
technology, they try to leverage education-related benefits while trying to minimize
disadvantages. Methods of parental mediation include rulemaking, restrictions, supervision and
time limits (Plowman et al., 2008; Plowman et al., 2013; Moore, 2015). However, several factors
hinder the implementation of these regulation efforts. The factors which have been identified
include the proliferation of digital technologies, the increasing complexity that might surpass the
digital knowledge of parents, and the tendency of young children to copy their parents’ behavior
(Barreto & Adams, 2011; Livingstone et al., 2008; Anand & Krosnick, 2005). According to
Euromonitor International (2013), adult users spend at least 15 hours online per week. Gordon
(2007) highlighted that although parents are a huge influence in determining the amount of time
their children spent online, they are often heavy media users themselves: “parents surreptitiously
checking BlackBerrys during their children’s concerts,” making them less able to supervise their
children as closely as they would otherwise. Furthermore, parents use technology to diversify the
child’s activities, as a reward method and to occupy the child to gain time to do chores such as

7. 5
paying the bills or making dinner (Moore, 2015; Wartella et al., 2013). However, a national
study on Parenting in the Age of Digital Technology (Wartella et al., 2013) revealed that 69% of
participating parents think that mobile devices do not make parenting easier mainly due to risks
associated with technology use including failure of the child to develop social skills, addictive
behavior towards the devices, and difficulty gaining the child’s attention while they interact with
the devices. However, the parents who do believe digital media makes their job easier appreciate
the fun activities on mobile devices which often times feature educational components.
Children’s Perspective
While it is important to understand the parent’s perspective regarding this study, it is
equally vital to incorporate the views of the children to ensure its comprehensiveness. We
conducted an interview on a child to find out about his opinions on replacing his tech devices
with outdoor activities. Elgene is a 6-year old boy that lives in Singapore. He has been exposed
to smart devices since the age of two (Appendix A2). Elgene particularly enjoys his iPad because
he can play his favorite games “Angry Birds” and “Thomas & Friends” on the device. When the
interviewer suggested for him to go outdoors to play in the yard, Elgene refused. Additionally,
Elgene expressed how he preferred the iPad over traditional toys as it supports higher
interactivity. The child’s preference to interact online rather than going outdoors is further
supported by a study conducted by Erwina (2013) on the activities of 6–17 year olds, with almost
half (46%) stating they would rather spend their time online over playing outside (Appendix B2).
Elgene mentioned his mother had an iPad, hinting how parents’ behavior can serve as a model of
learning for their children (Gordon, 2007).

8. 6
3. Effects of Heuristics and Biases on Parents’ and Children’s Behavior
Traditional economic theory (Simon, 1995; Slovic, 1995) implies that people are
economic men, homo economicus, who make economic and rational decisions in order to
maximize utility. For a choice to be rational, this economic man is assumed to be completely
informed about the range of choices, alternatives and their consequences, and to have a stable
system of revealed preferences. However, according to research on rational decisionmaking,
people use a heuristic approach to decisionmaking. This suggests that people do not always make
choices that reflect their values since they are not always well informed, demonstrate habitual
behavior and have a tendency to follow drives (Strack & Deutsch, 2004). These boundedly
rational decision makers try “to attain some satisfactory, although not necessarily maximal, level
of achievement” (Slovic, 1995). They use heuristic principles to simplify the complex process of
decision making, especially in situations of uncertainty and are prone to biases (Tversky &
Kahneman, 1974). As parents and young children are considered ‘boundedly rational decision
makers’, this section analyzes the effects that heuristics and biases have on their behavior.
3.1. Current Situation
Availability Heuristic
According to Tversky (1974), people make judgments based on the “ease with which
instances or occurrences can be brought to mind”. This phenomenon is called availability.
Digital technology for children is often marketed in a way that focuses on benefits that children
can derive from using it, while neglecting negative impacts. Furthermore, as technology is
constantly evolving and new products are continuously put on the market, these innovations are
covered in the news and often presented as a must-have to aid in children’s learning
development. Due to the focus on benefits, they tend to be more available to parents than

9. 7
possible negative effects. Therefore, they might not consider the overuse of digital technology as
a risk and might not use it in an appropriate way. This heuristic also relates to the two systems of
the brain. Parents may rely on their automatic system to make a decision on the use of
technology and may not waste time and effort on using their reflective system to completely
analyze this decision and consider disadvantages.
Anchoring Heuristic
The phenomenon of anchoring postulates that “in many situations people estimate an
unknown value by starting from some initial value which is then adjusted to yield a final answer”
(Tversky, 1974). Since the majority of parents did not grow up with the range of technology that
is available to children today, they have no reference point in terms of time limits from their own
upbringing that they can use to make judgments for the amount of time that children should
spend on digital technology. Therefore, they might look for a reference point in either their own
behavior or in the behavior of peers. As the healthy amount of time spent on technology differs
between young children and adults, parents might use wrong starting point for their judgments,
therefore, allow an overuse without being aware of surpassing the healthy time limits. Children
might also use the anchoring heuristic for their judgments. As children mimic the behavior of
their parents, they might use the time that their parents spend on technology as a reference point
for their own use. When they see their parents use technology for a long period of time, they
might assume that they can spend the same amount on time on technology, resulting in overuse.
Collective Conservatism (Bias) & Herding (Heuristic)
According to the collective conservatism bias and the herding heuristic, people tend to
follow leaders in a group and tend to stick to established norms (Kuran, 1987). The collective
conservatism bias builds on the herding heuristic, which “can be defined as a phenomenon of

10. 8
individuals deciding to follow other and imitating group behavior rather than deciding
independently” (Baddeley, 2010). As children’s access to technology increases, more and more
children use digital technology. Therefore, parents see other parents giving their children access
to devices and might perceive that as adequate for their own children. As a result, parents might
then decide to give their own child access to the devices without further examining choices and
alternatives, as they tend to follow leaders in their communities and adopt behavior of other
members. The use of technology amongst children has become a norm in society. Therefore,
parents might feel obligated to adhere to that norm and allow their child access to technology
without further knowledge on the amount of time that is considered appropriate.
Status Quo Bias
The status quo bias suggests that people have a “preference for the current state” and tend
to remain to this status quo, as “the disadvantages of leaving it loom larger than advantages”
(Kahneman et al., 1991). It explains both the parents’ and the children’s behavior in terms of
technology use. Over time, both parties have included digital technologies in their daily routines
and its use has become a default option. People tend to adhere to established norms in order to
avoid effort that would be required to choose an alternative to the default. Therefore, parents
might rely on digital technology as a primary activity for their child. The same applies to
children, as the use of technology also might be their default.
Optimism & Overconfidence (bias)
The optimism and overconfidence bias describes that people tend to overestimate the
probability of achieving an objective and tend to have a favourable attitude towards outcomes of
an event, the so called better-than-average effect (Clark & Friesen, 2009; Kuran, 1987). Parents

11. 9
might not think of their children as part of the statistics and therefore don’t think the harmful
statistics on tech devices will have immediate harm on their child.
3.2. Intervention
Heuristics and biases not only explain the parents’ and children’s current behavior, they also help
identify possible obstacles and opportunities for our proposed intervention that is aimed at
changing behavior.
3.2.1. Obstacles
Since the use of technology has become the default option for children’s activities,
overcoming the status quo bias will be an obstacle for the implementation and effectiveness of
our intervention. As it requires effort on behalf of parents and children to consider and choose
alternatives over their established default option, it might pose a challenge to convince them to
change their current behavior.
According to the principles of loss aversion and the endowment effect, the impact of
losses are generally greater than the impact of equivalent gains and as people therefore try to
minimize the risk of losses more than trying to maximize gains (Kahneman et al., 1991), it could
be expected that the loss both parents and children will feel when reducing the time spend on
digital technology will be more prevalent compared to what both parties can gain, such as more
quality time as a family, diversified activities for the child, and so on. Furthermore, the herding
heuristic (Baddeley, 2010) and collective conservatism bias (Kuran, 1987) could present
difficulties, as parents will still base their judgments on what other people do and what the
accepted norm is, as long as not everybody in their community is changing behavior too.

12. 10
3.2.2. Opportunities
As parents and children irrational decision makers, they can be nudged to overcome
biases and heuristics. The heuristic approach to decision-making also gives room for
opportunities in terms of behavior change. While currently parents are using their own and peers’
technology use as reference point for their children’s technology use, a new anchor could be
developed. Furthermore, the availability heuristic can be seen as an opportunity as well. At the
moment, mostly examples of benefits readily come to mind of the parents. This could be shifted
to a more balanced availability of both benefits and negative effects of technology. Also, while
loss aversion might be a challenge for the implementation of our intervention, it can be overcome
by framing the perceived loss in a more positive way.
4. Discussion of Proposed Intervention
In this part, we will discuss our proposed intervention, Quadruple T (QT), and apply the
NUDGEs framework (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009) in order to design the intervention in a way that
will alter the parents’ and ultimately the children’s behavior. The NUDGEs acrostic provides
tools available to choice architects to help people make better choices by organizing a succinct
path in which to achieve the desired behavior. These tools include incentives, understanding
mappings, defaults, giving feedback, expecting error and structuring complex choices.
Quadruple T “QT”: Time to Talk Technology
Quadruple T (QT) stands for Time to Talk Technology. The QT program is geared
towards parents in order to assist them in establishing healthy media consumption habits within
the household. The program will be hosted by school districts in order to develop a camaraderie
between parents, teachers, and child specialists to support effective changes (Hogan, 2013).
Hogan (2013) and the American Academy of Pediatrics suggest ways in which the parents

13. 11
involvement supports the adoption of healthy consumption habits or “media diets”. Since the
best way to begin altering children’s behavior is to start from the parents, our intervention will
focus on the role of the parents with support from the primary educational system.
This program will provide a cohesive framework between home and school by detecting
all environments which the child will engage with media. At the beginning of each school-year,
schools will host a “QT” seminar with the students’ parents to discuss the healthy habits which
can be established in the home, while also informing the parents how media is being used on
campus. The AAP encourages parents to actively participate in the children’s media intake by
engaging in the program with them, while also discussing the values of the particular segments.
Supporting the anticipated success of our intervention, QT will feature a smart device application
“Hello QT” which parents will be required to download on their phones as part of the child’s
first assignment of the academic year in order to receive weekly academic progress reports from
the school. The app will include a parent and child version which will sync with the most-used
apps on one platform to monitor usage times, assist with app time management, and encourage
parents and children to engage in other activities once the media-usage timeframe is complete.
By creating a parent and child version of the app, this will encourage the adoption of “media
diets” by parents themselves in order to serve as examples for their children.
Default
The requirement of downloading the Hello QT App serves as a default in which parents
are provided the foundation and guidance that will aid the success of their family’s participation
in QT. Often times, parents fail to recognize the harmful effects that digital technology has on
their children due to the optimism and overconfidence bias and the availability heuristic. Push
notifications will automatically appear on the screen of the smart devices when parents have

14. 12
reached the advised time usage. These notifications will enlighten parents on the negative effects
on the health and welfare of children attributed to elongated digital technology use and suggest
other activities which are already on the parent’s agenda. This will then help overcome the
availability heuristic and the optimism and overconfidence bias.
Understanding Mappings
By informing parents about the negative effects in a short and simple way (through the
push notifications), it will help them understand the mappings between the use of technology and
possible outcome – ultimately adopting a more balanced view on the effects of technology.
Structure Complex Choices & Framing
The push notifications will deliver content in a gain frame structure. Outcomes can be
framed as either gains or losses. As humans are loss averse, they will try to avoid losses and
prefer gain-framed outcomes (Kahneman & Tversky, 1981). Therefore, the push notifications
will emphasize the benefits that can be gained by staying below the time-limit. As loss aversion
can lead to inertia, the push notifications will also help overcome the status quo bias and change
children’s and parents’ default. The app will cease activity when the user exceeds the stipulated
time spent, supporting the change in default and priming parents and children to adopt suggested
alternatives. Providing a set of alternatives minimizes the effort required to make a choice
(structure complex choices). For the children, alternatives may include reading their favorite
book, playing outside, or coloring. For parents, it will encourage them to complete tasks which
are on their to-do list such as gardening, working-out, or playing a board game with the child.
Incentives
Overcoming loss aversion will be further supported by providing incentives. QT users
will be rewarded with points each time they stay within the advised screentime of which they

15. 13
can redeem for coupons or discounted admission redeemable at cooperating places such as toy
stores, family musicals, museums, zoos and so on.
Give Feedback
As the “best way to help humans improve their performance is to provide feedback”
(Thaler & Sunstein, 2009), parents will obtain weekly updates to help track the progress of how
their children, as well as the parents themselves, have better maximized free time through
limiting the use of technology. The parents will also receive feedback concerning negative
effects due to the overuse of digital technology, which will allow them to understand the
implications of their actions and help parents establish a new reference point (anchoring
heuristic). While they currently make judgments based on their own behavior or the behavior of
peers, it is important that they develop a reference point that takes into consideration
recommendations for children’s media consumption habits. With this new reference point,
parents can make adequate judgments on the optimal amount of time their children should spend
on technology. Once a number of parents and children change their behavior and once the norm
for technology use changes, the herding and collective conservatism biases will shift as well.
Measurement and Evaluation
We will use the following strategies to measure the success of our intervention: First,
documenting the number of parents who attended the QT Seminars hosted by the schools.
Secondly, utilizing Google Analytics to monitor how many parents have registered for the app as
well as their weekly usage routines. Our team will communicate regularly with the incentives
program partners to inform our team of the number of redeemed rewards that were given in
response to positive behavior. Lastly, it would be beneficial to see how the use of this
intervention improves children’s health, development, learning capabilities and social skills by

16. 14
soliciting the expertise of specialists such as psychologists, child therapists, pediatricians and so
on.
Conclusion
By uncovering and understanding the underlying heuristics and biases of parents’ and
children’s current behavior, the development of Time to Talk Technology provides a cohesive
framework between the school system and household to effectively implement healthy media
consumption habits for children. The support system, designed with the help of the NUDGEs
acrostic, will help improve the decision parents make by actively addressing all aspects of the
decision making context of media consumption in and out of the home.

17. ii
5. Bibliography
American Academy of Pediatrics (2013). Children, Adolescents, and the Media. (2013). Pediatrics,
132(5), 958-961.
Baddeley, M. (2010). Herding, Social Influence and Economic Decision-Making: Socio-Psychological
and Neuroscientific Analyses. Rationality and Emotions , 365 (1538), 281-290.
Carr, N. (2010). Author Nicholas Carr: The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains | WIRED Magazine.
http://www.wired.com/2010/05/ff_nicholas_carr/all/1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2014). Developmental Milestones.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/milestones/index.html.
Christianaki, M., (2002). Children, Technology, and Culture: The Impacts of Technologies in Children's
Everyday Lives. American Sociological Association Vol. 31, No. 3 (May, 2002) , pp. 346-347
Clark, J., & Friesen, L., (2009). Overconfidence in Forecasts of Own Performance: An Experimental
Study. The Economic Journal, Vol. 119, No. 534 (Jan., 2009), pp. 229-251
Anand, S., & Krosnick, J. A. (2005). Demographic Predictors of Media Use Among Infants, Toddlers,
and Preschoolers. American Behavioral Scientist , 48 (5), 539-561.
Erwina, I. (2013). Activities of Kids and Teens - US - November 2013. Retrieved March 16, 2015 from
Mintel Reports database
Fiona, O’Donnell. (2014). Kids as Influencers. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from from Mintel Reports
database
Euromonitor International. (2013). Technology Habits and Influence Across Consumer Types.
Retrieved March 17, 2015, from Euromonitor Passport GMID database
Gordon, A. (2007). Technology too much for parents; Advances in electronic media overwhelm home
life andseriously reduce facetime, new study finds: [ONT Edition]. Toronto Star . Retrieved
March 17, 2015, from http://search.proquest.com/docview/439309356?accountid=10735
John, P., Smith, G., & Stoker, G. (2009). Nudge Nudge, Think Think: Two Strategies for Changing
Civic Behaviour.Political Quarterly, 80(3), 361-370. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02001.x
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion,
and Status Quo Bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), 193-206.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.
Science, 211 (4481), 453-458.
Kim, P. (2010). Technology in Education: Hurts or Helps? International Examiner, 37 (17), 6. Retrieved
March 17,2015, from http://search.proquest.com/docview/810710677?accountid=10735

18. iii
Kuran, T., (1987) Preference Falsification, Policy Continuity and Collective Conservatism. The
Economic Journal, Vol. 97, No. 387 (Sep., 1987), pp. 642-665
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental Mediation and Children's Internet Use. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 52 (4), 581-599.
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2008). The Technologisation of Childhood? Young Children
and Technology in the Home. Children & Society , 24, 63-74.
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2013). Pre-School children creating and communicating with
digital technologies in the home. British Journal of Educational Technology , 44 (3), 421-431.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Rose, K. K., Viitrup, B., & Leveridge, T. (2013). Parental Decision Making About Technology and
Quality in Child Care Programs. Child Youth Care Forum , 42, 475-488.
Simon , H. A. (1995). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 69
(1), 99-118.
Slovic, P. (1995). The Construction of Preference. American Psychologist , 50 (5), 364-371.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Review , 8 (3), 220-247.
Taylor, J. (2012, December 4). How Technology is Changing the Way Children Think and Focus.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201212/how-technology-is-changing
the-way-children-think-and-focus
Tversky, A. (1974). Assessing Uncertainty . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B
(Methodological) , 36 (2), 148-159.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, New
Series , 185 (4157), 1124-1131.
Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Lauricella, A. R., & Connell, S. L. (2013). Parenting in the Age of Digital
Technology - National Survey. Research Study, Northwestern University Center on Media and
Human Development, Northwestern University.
Whyte, K. P., Selinger, E., Caplan, A. L., & Sadowski, J. (2012). Nudge, Nudge or Shove, Shove
The Right Way for Nudges to Increase the Supply of Donated Cadaver Organs. American Journal
Of Bioethics, 12(2), 32-39. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.634484
Wilkinson, N., & Klaes, M. (2012). An Introduction to Behavioral Economics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and
happiness. New York: Penguin Books.

19. iv
Interviews
Moore, N. (2015, March 25). POV: Parents. (N. Rieve, Interviewer)
Teo, E. (2015, March 25). POV: Children. (L. Lim, Interviewer)
6. Appendices
Appendix A1
POV: Parents
Interviewer: How often and how long do you let your child/ children use technology per day?
(TV, computer, smartphone, tablet, video games, etc.)
Interviewee: Each child uses the computer about 30 minutes a day or less for homework. On
the weekend i would guess they are on some kind of technology for 1-2 hours a
day -that's embarrassing!
Interviewer: Do they have a time limit for using technology? If so, what is the maximum time
within a sitting?
Interviewee: They are supposed to have a time limit, but we don't always follow the rules. My
only rules is NO technology during the school week unless it is for school work.
Interviewer: What technological devices do you let them use? (TV, computer, smartphone,
tablet, etc.)
Interviewee: TV, computer, smartphone, ipad
Interviewer: Do they have their own devices?
Interviewee: They have an old phone (no cell service) that they share, but still need permission
to use.
Interviewer: Why do you let them use technology? (i.e. distraction, reward, to get freedom to
do chores, cook dinner etc.)
Interviewee: ALL of the above.
Interviewer: Are there any particular situations in which you let them use technology? (i.e.
during breakfast/ lunch/ dinner, at a restaurant, in the morning/ at night, in the car,
etc.) NEVER at a restaurant or when it takes away from social interaction. Car
ONLY on long trips.
Interviewer: Do you see any advantages that giving technology to your child/ children could
have over more “traditional” ways of occupying him/her/them? (i.e. puzzles,
board games, books, dolls, etc.) the only advantage is that they have become very
computer savvy which is important since schools are mainstreaming technology
in the classrooms. I think there should be a balance.
Interviewer: Do you feel that your child/ children are getting bored and/ or frustrated if they
are not allowed to use technology?
Interviewee: Sometimes, and I realize this is an issue. Although, my kids are very involved in
sports and other activities.
Interviewer: If there were an alternative that would occupy your child/ children as easily,

20. v
would you be willing to replace technology with this alternative? Why or why
not?I still go back to balance. I think that they should be exposed to lots of things
that will occupy their time. I do not just hand them the devices to keep them
occupied though, I like to wait and allow them to ask me if they want to use it.
Otherwise, I will suggest playing outside, or asking for a playdate etc....
Appendix A2
POV: Children
Interviewer: Lynn Lim (mom)
Interviewee: Elgene Teo (child), 6 years of age
Interviewer: Why do you like your iPad, Elgene?
Interviewee: Because I can play with the Angry Birds and fix puzzles with Thomas & friends
[The Thomas & Friends app].
Interviewer: Shall we play at the yard, and not with the iPad today?
Interviewee: No!! I did my homework and you said you will give me the iPad after my nap
Interviewer: Do you like Thomas & Friends toys or the one on the iPad? You can only choose
one.
Interviewee: I like both. The iPad (reluctantly). Thomas & Friends can solve puzzles with me.
Toys won’t talk to me, it’s not fun. Mommy, you’ve got an iPad too.
Interviewer: Can I buy you another Thomas & Friends toy and have you stop playing on the
iPad?
Interviewee: No mom, can you download more apps for me please?

21. vi
Appendix B1

22. vii
Appendix B2