Should you take away your kid's phone?

A practical guide to consequences for teens

Welcome to a special ~*Sunday edition*~ of Techno Sapiens! We’ll be back Monday for our regularly-scheduled, once weekly programming.

If you like what you’re reading, please share it with a friend! And if you haven’t yet, subscribe to join thousands of other readers and get research-backed tips for living and parenting in the digital age.

---

Summary for busy sapiens

• We can remember the guidelines for effective consequences using the acronym PRACTICE.

• Consequences (particularly, punishments) should be: Practical, Related to the behavior, (in) Advance, Collaborative, Time-Limited, Infrequent, Consistent, and Equal to the crime.

• 59% of parents of teens (13-17), and 80% of parents of younger kids (5-11) report they at least sometimes take away their kids’ phones or Internet privileges as punishment.

• Taking phones away can be a major consequence for teens, so it’s especially important to keep the PRACTICE considerations in mind.

---

14 min read

Welcome back, techno sapiens! In case you missed it, earlier this week we talked about discipline and its three components: warmth, structure, and consequences. I promised we’d be back later this week to talk more about consequences and one consequence in particular: taking away a teen’s phone.

In the interim, I came down with a truly violent stomach flu¹ (I blame baby germs). As I lay in bed, drenched in a cold sweat and clinging to a bottle of yellow Gatorade, I thought to myself: this is a perfect example of operant conditioning.   

So, before we get into the details on how to use consequences with teens, let’s do a quick review:

Operant Conditioning is the psychological theory behind consequences. It suggests that behaviors will increase or decrease depending on whether they are followed by good or bad consequences. There are four types of consequences:

• Positive Punishment: add something bad to decrease behavior

  Example: I eat pesto chicken pizza. Later that evening, I develop stomach flu. Result: I may never eat pesto chicken pizza again.

• Negative Punishment: take away something good to decrease behavior.

  Example: I get stomach flu, likely the result of the baby shoving his germy (very cute) hands directly into my mouth. I cancel fun plans in favor of hiding under blankets. Result: I vow to avoid letting the baby shove germy hands in my mouth in the future.

• Negative Reinforcement: take away something bad to increase behavior.

  Example: I take Tylenol. My fever goes away. Result: I take Tylenol again (and again).

• Positive Reinforcement: add something good to increase behavior. 

  Example: I get very nice responses from all of you on Monday’s newsletter post. Result: despite stomach flu, I feel very motivated to finish part two. 

And here we are, albeit a bit later than planned. The power of operant conditioning!

A guide to using consequences with teens

Today we’re zeroing in on consequences for teens and older kids—specifically, “bad” consequences (i.e., punishments) designed to decrease “not okay” behaviors.

There’s no way around it: this is a really challenging aspect of parenting. There are many different philosophies on punishment which, if you spend a few hours accidentally spiraling down a deep rabbit role of #parenting TikTok (as I recently did), you will see on full display.² It’s easy to feel judged for your parenting choices, to question whether you’re using (or not using) consequences “correctly,” to be flooded with parent guilt when—God forbid—you say the Not That instead of the This³.

Here’s the deal: research—specifically, this meta-analysis of 1,435 studies—suggests it’s all about finding balance, with parenting that is either too strict or too permissive associated with worse child behavior. We don’t want to be too strict, grounding our teen every time they fail to put a dish in the sink. We also don’t want to be too permissive, having no rules, no consequences, no structure. We want to love them and support them and let the small stuff go, and we also want to help them learn about how to be kind, responsible people by using appropriate consequences. Remember: warmth, structure, consequences.

This balance, of strictness and permissiveness, looks different for every family. And I’d venture to guess it looks different within each family depending on the kid, the week, and how much time you have in between soccer practice and band rehearsal.

That is all okay!

Please, let these guidelines provide inspiration, rather than guilt. Treat them the way I treat my skincare routine. There are soaps and creams and lotions and serums and sunscreens intended to be used in a certain order at different times of day. Some of these, like sunscreen, are probably non-negotiable. For the others, yes, it would it be ideal if I did each step perfectly, every time. But most days, I'm feeling pretty good if I hit, like, 3 out of 5. And I think my skin will turn out just fine.⁴

Here’s what to keep in mind when using punishments (i.e., consequences intended to decrease problematic behaviors) with teens. I’m on a roll with acronyms, so please, indulge me with another one: PRACTICE.

Consequences should be:

• Practical

• Related

• (in) Advance

• Collaborative

• Time-Limited

• Infrequent

• Consistent

• Equal to the crime

Let’s discuss each of these in more detail. Then, we’ll move onto the question of whether to take a teen’s phone away as punishment.

PRACTICE makes perfect(ish) consequences

1. PRACTICAL 

Consequences should be practical to implement for you, the parent. Don’t punish yourself! If a consequence is simply too impractical for you to enforce, it’s not going to work very well.

Situation: You find out your teen has been sending texts using inappropriate language.

An impractical consequence [not-as-good]: You tell them you’re going to read every message they send. This will take hours, given that they send and receive hundreds of messages per day.

A practical consequence [good]: You tell them you’re going to implement “spot checks” of their text messages at random intervals over the course of the next month.

2. RELATED 

Consequences are most effective when they are logically related to the problematic behavior. These also include a special category called natural consequences, in which a bad consequence will simply occur on its own, without any intervention from the parent. Sometimes, depending on the situation, a natural consequence is enough.

Situation: Your teen tells you they are studying for tomorrow’s exam, and you find out later they have been scrolling Snapchat instead.

An unnatural, unrelated consequence [not-as-good]: You make your teen do extra chores around the house.

A natural consequence [good]: They next day, they fail the exam.

A related consequence [good]: You do not allow them to have their phone with them while they study for a specified period of time.

3. (in) ADVANCE

Consequences work best when they’re established in advance. Ideally, your teen already knows that if they break X rule, the consequence is Y. 

This is, of course, not always possible in the real world, but it can be helpful in many situations, particularly when there’s a specific problematic behavior that keeps coming up. By making clear in advance what the consequence will be, teens feel a greater sense of agency (and typically, less resentment) because they’re making an active choice.

Example [good]: You and your teen are constantly arguing about whether they can have their phone in their bedroom at night. You want the phone out of the room by 9pm, but you think they’ve been sneaking it in after that. You might say something like: The rule is that your phone doesn’t go into your bedroom after 9pm. If I find out that you’re using your phone in your room after that time, I won’t allow the phone in your room at all for the rest of the week.

If you’d like to allow some wiggle-room, you might add: If there’s a reason you think you need your phone after 9pm on a certain night, you should come talk to me first.

4. COLLABORATIVE

Some research suggests that what parents do when it comes to their kids and tech may matter less than how they do it. Specifically, the research supports an autonomy-supportive style of parenting—one in which teens feel that their parents treat them as independent people and respect their opinions.

What does this look like in practice? Lots of open conversations, taking teens’ perspective into consideration, giving a rationale for any consequences, and asking teens questions about why a behavior occurred before jumping to conclusions. The goal is for teens to feel that they have some control—that they understand why a consequence is occurring, and that they have the power to avoid that consequence by changing their behavior.

Non-collaborative approach [not-as-good]: You don’t want your child on TikTok, so you don’t allow it. You do not provide a reason, and you do not have a conversation about it. You say: If I ever find out you’re on TikTok, I’m throwing your phone away. When your child asks why, you refuse to discuss it.

Collaborative approach [good]: You don’t want your child on TikTok, so you don’t allow it. You provide a rationale—I don’t want you using TikTok because I’m concerned about the amount of time it will take away from the rest of your life, and because I worry that the content on there won’t make you feel the way I want you to feel about yourself.

You ask your child for their perspective. When they explain that this is extremely unfair, and all their friends have TikTok, you listen. You nod. You validate—I know it seems unfair, and it’s really hard when all your friends are doing something you’re not part of—but stay firm—and this is the rule for now. You involve them in thinking through a consequence—I know I can trust you with this. But if I did ever find out you’re using TikTok, there would need to be a consequence. What do you think a fair consequence would be?

5. TIME-LIMITED

When you put a consequence in place, your teen should understand the timeframe that the consequence will be in place, and it should be the minimum necessary to accomplish the goal.

Another option is to make the release of the consequence contingent on a specific, easy-to-define behavior that a teen can use to earn back a privilege.

What can happen when there’s a consequence with no clear end in sight? A phenomenon called “learned helplessness,” whereby a person stops trying to improve their negative circumstances because they believe nothing they do will make a difference. Teens may give up on improving their behavior, believing the situation is totally out of their control, and the consequence may backfire.

Situation: Your child plays video games (virtually) with his friends everyday after school. When it’s time to stop, it’s a battle to end it. Sometimes, he refuses to stop playing altogether.

A non-time-limited consequence [not-as-good]: You take away the PlayStation indefinitely.

A time-limited consequence [good]: You take away the PlayStation for the rest of the week.

A time-limited, contingent consequence [good]: You take away the PlayStation until he can show, for one week, that he can follow your instructions around using (and stopping to use when it’s time) other tech in the house.

6. INFREQUENT

Remember, consequences can be include both reinforcement (i.e., rewards) and punishments. In fact, it’s a good idea to think about reinforcements being the default, with punishments coming into play only when necessary. When we use punishments too frequently, they lose their effectiveness. Not to mention, if a consequence needs to be used repeatedly, with no change in behavior, it’s likely not a very effective consequence in the first place.

Example [good]: Occasional “negative” punishments (i.e., limiting screen time, removing access to certain apps, turning off Wifi) and “positive” punishments (i.e., adding new screen time rules) can be effective, and necessary. But it’s a good idea also to lean into reinforcements for the tech behaviors you want to see.  You don’t need to reward them with ice cream every time they put down their phone [but actually, could someone do that for me?]. It can be as simple as labeled praise, like: Hey, thanks for being so responsible with how you use social media. I’m so glad I can trust you, and Hey, I appreciate you putting your phone down just then so we could talk. That was really thoughtful. They may roll their eyes, but they’ll still hear you.

7. CONSISTENT

A good consequence is one you can stick with. This means that if you threaten a consequence, it’s important to actually follow through with it. Consistency is also important (though, often, incredibly challenging) when it comes to multiple caregivers. Try not to undermine a consequence put in place by your co-parent (if you have one). Or do what my mom/dad used to do when we’d ask them for things: respond, simply: what did your [other parent] say? Infuriatingly effective.

Situation: Your teen is texting at the dinner table. You tell them to stop. They don’t stop. You tell them, this time louder, to stop. They don’t stop.

An inconsistent consequence [not-as-good]: Totally exasperated, you tell them that if they do that one more time, I’m taking away the phone. They stop. Then, 10 minutes later, they start texting again. At this point, you’re more calm, and you’ve changed your mind about the consequence. So you don’t follow through.

A consistent consequence [good]: You’ve discussed this in advance, so you say (very calmly): We’ve talked about this before, and you know the consequence. If you text at the table one more time, I’m taking away your phone for the rest of the evening. Ten minutes later, they start texting again. You say: I see you’re texting again, so I’ll need to take away your phone for the rest of the evening. You can have it back tomorrow morning.

8. EQUAL to the crime 

A quick story: when I was living in Providence, I once tried to go to the gym and couldn’t find a parking spot. I chose a questionable space on the side of the street and squeezed in. An hour later, I had a $50 ticket. I was annoyed, but it seemed a fair punishment, and I was more careful about where I parked next time. 

Now, let’s imagine the consequence for illegal parking was that I got my license taken away. This would feel unrealistic and unfair. I would become resentful, start to question the motives of the powers that be, and—because I still need to drive to work, and felt the punishment did not fit my crime—might sneakily find a way to keep driving anyway.    

When a punishment is too extreme in comparison to the offending behavior, it can backfire. Teens can become resentful, and may go behind our backs, because the consequence feels unrealistic and unfair.

Situation: Your child rudely insults a friend over text message. This is the first time this has happened.

A consequence that does not fit the crime [not-as-good]: You take away their phone indefinitely.

A consequence that fits the crime [good]: The friend no longer wants to text with your child for the time being (natural consequence). In the meantime, you ask your child to apologize (in-person) to their friend whenever the friend is ready.

The ultimate consequence: Taking a teen’s phone away

With the PRACTICE guidelines established, let’s now turn to the specific consequence that’s been on all of our minds: taking teens’ phones away.

Taking away a teen’s phone or “digital grounding,” is an example of negative punishment. We take away something good (the phone) with the hope that we will decrease a child’s unwanted behavior. 

How common is this form of punishment? The best data we have comes from surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center, where they asked parents a version of the following question: “How often do you take away [your child’s] cell phone or Internet privileges as punishment?” In my mind, these two things (cell phones vs. Internet privileges) are too different to combine into a single question, but it does give us some initial insight.

Turns out, it’s common: 59% of parents of teens (13-17), and 80% of parents of younger kids (5-11) report they at least sometimes take away phones or Internet privileges.

But should parents do this?

On the one hand, taking away the phone may seem like a very effective (and for some parents, the only effective) negative punishment for teens. Many parents feel it’s the only privilege their teen truly cares about, so taking it away is the only option. 

On the other hand, taking away the phone is, by nature of the world we live in, a major consequence. If our own relationships to our phones are any indication (see my entire 2500-word post on how to use them less), losing access can feel like a crisis. For teens, it means simultaneously cutting off socialization, blocking all entertainment, shutting off music, potentially limiting access to school apps and homework help, and eliminating daily conveniences (alarms, to-do lists, maps).

As with many parenting questions, there’s no hard and fast rule here. But because this can be such a lightening rod issue for teens, it may be especially important to keep the PRACTICE considerations in mind.

If you do decide that taking away your child’s phone is a consequence you will use, here are some questions to consider:

• Practical: Do you need your child to text you after school so you can pick them up? Does your child need their phone to complete homework assignments on a school-based app? Will taking away the phone create a massive inconvenience for you? If so, it may be worth considering another consequence, or narrowing the parameters (e.g., no phone use when at the house, but they can still bring it to school).

• Related: Is taking away the phone logically related to your teen’s offending behavior? In some cases, it may make sense to limit a more specific aspect of their technology use so as to better match the behavior. For example: if your teen posts an inappropriate video on TikTok, perhaps you do not allow them to use TikTok, specifically—or, maybe, to post any photos/videos on any social media—for a period of time.

• (in) Advance: Does your child know which behaviors will result in having the phone taken away? This is a consequence that might best be used for ongoing, problematic or safety-related behaviors for which you’ve given repeated warnings.

• Collaborative: Have you discussed when you might take the phone away in advance? Have you given the rationale? Have you listened to your teen’s perspective, and explained why you believe a rule and this consequence are appropriate/necessary? Have you asked why the misbehavior is occurring?

• Time-Limited: Have you specified how long the phone will be taken away? The rest of the day? The rest of the week? Longer? If relevant, have you explained what your teen needs to do to earn back the phone, and over what timeframe?

• Infrequent: Have you reinforced tech behaviors that you want to see in your teen? Are you repeatedly taking the phone away without seeing any change in behavior? If so, you might adjust the type of consequence or the way it’s implemented.

• Consistent: Will you be able to stick with the timeframe of taking away the phone that you’ve specified? Will you be able to follow through?

• Equal to the crime: Does the magnitude of the consequence (taking your teen’s phone away) fit the magnitude of their problematic behavior? Remember, this can be a serious consequence for many teens, so the offending behavior should be serious, too.

Teens—and our own—level of reliance on our phones may not always be healthy. And there are many strategies, from tech vacations to problem-solving, we can be using to keep device use in check. But for now, reliance on phones is the reality for many of us. And this makes the issue of taking phones away one we should be thinking carefully about.

Thanks for tuning into this week’s two-part series on discipline. We’ll be back to our regularly scheduled programming tomorrow. Til next time, techno sapiens!

---

A quick survey

What did you think of this week’s Techno Sapiens? Your feedback helps me make this better. Thanks!

The Best | Great | Good | Meh | The Worst

---

In case you missed it

• How to talk to kids about porn

• Help! My kid won’t get off their phone!

• How to discipline kids effectively

1. I’ve learned a few lessons this week. (1) I don’t like breaking promises. (2) It is risky to promise a second post in a given week when one has not yet written said second post. (3) “This one will be nice and short!” is a thing I tell myself, but not a thing that always happens in practice. (4) I am very lucky to be generally healthy on all the days of my life that don’t involve the stomach flu.

2. Ah, #parenting TikTok. A truly wild place. Lots of #gentleparenting, #respectfulparenting, and #consciousparenting. Lots of Southern accents. Lots of dancing. I can’t look away.

3. What do my fellow techno sapiens think of those Say this, Not That (or Instead Of, Try) parenting graphics that have flooded the Internet (see, for example)? I do find the scripts helpful, but I also sometimes wonder about the “Not That’s”. Is it really so bad to say “Good job!” to your child? Seems a bit extreme to rule that out completely?

4. Will my skin be fine? I am becoming more concerned as I watch my friends adopt increasingly elaborate skincare routines. Sunscreen, I know. But what about clay masks? Jade rollers? Eye tighteners? Liquid exfoliants? Toner? (Do I need toner? What even is toner?) Snail mucin?