#122. Online Resilience and Wellbeing in Young People

Dear friends,

A concept that we who are concerned about youth mental health should talk more about is resilience. Resilience is the ability to bounce back when bad things happen.

We all experience bad things. To avoid them completely would be to avoid life. The main difference between mentally healthy and mentally suffering people is resilience. The former experience bumps, register them, learn from them, and go on with life. The latter exaggerate the significance of bumps, catastrophize, and go on with a sense of permanent harm and increased fear of life. Clearly, a major goal for parents and others who are involved with children should be to help them develop resilience.

In previous writings I have documented the rise of anxiety and depression among young people over recent decades and presented evidence that much of this rise derives from overprotection (e.g. here and here). One way to understand the link between overprotection and the decline in youth mental health is to realize that overprotection interferes with children’s development of resilience.

When we empower children to play and explore independently, we are giving them the message that they are powerful, capable, and can deal with bumps, i.e., are resilient. As children experience bumps and work through them successfully, their sense of power increases; their fear of future bumps declines, they become even more resilient.

If our children have a trusting relationship with us, so they can freely tell us about the most bothersome bumps they experience, we can help them through those bumps and in that way strengthen their resilience. We can sympathize, maybe offer suggestions about how to right some wrong that has occurred, help them reduce any guilt or shame they may feel for getting into the bumpy situation, reinforce the love and respect we feel toward them, and reinforce their sense of strength for making it through. Seeking social support and reassurance is a huge component of resilience. We can be sources of such support and reassurance only if we do not overreact or punish the child for opening up to us.

We interfere with children’s development of resilience if we guard them constantly from experiencing bumps, or if we overreact to their bumps and make them think the harm is more than it really is, or if we treat them as if they are fragile.

In searching for research on how adults can help kids develop resilience, I came across a relatively recent short book, by British researchers Andy Phippin and Louisa Street, entitled Online Resilience and Wellbeing in Young People: Representing the Youth Voice.

The book begins by pointing out that adults commonly fail to appreciate the benefits that kids get from their online activity and exaggerate the harm. Adult views are too often founded on untested assumptions, conjectures, misinformation, and biased reporting by the media. The book aims to help us adults understand young people’s online experiences, so we will be more able to promote their online resilience and less inclined to impede it.

The data presented in the book come from qualitative analyses of focus group meetings with approximately 1000 young people, about 700 of whom were teenagers in secondary schools. In the group meetings, the participants responded to and discussed questions about (a) why they are online so much, (b) their experiences of online harm, (c) their willingness or lack of willingness to reveal negative online experiences to their parents or other adults, and (d) their views about how adults could help them deal with negative online experiences. In these group meetings, the researchers posed the questions and listened to and recorded the ensuing discussion among the teens, without suggesting any answers themselves. In what follows I’ll summarize the findings regarding each of these, focusing on the responses by those of secondary school age.

In response to this question, most teens acknowledged that they spend many hours a day online, though the amount varied considerably from teen to teen. Some said they were online 6 or more hours a day. When adults hear of such reports, they often act shocked and suggest that this must represent some sort of pathology, “addiction.” In the discussion groups, teens suggested that adults would not be so shocked if they understood the many diverse things they were doing online.

They pointed out that a lot of schoolwork is done online, and this is not something they have a choice about. In a world where it is hard for teens to socialize with friends anywhere else, a lot of their socializing is online. They also go online to consume media, watch films, play games, interact with family (e.g. grandparents), search for useful information, and arrange offline meetings and events. The teens were quick to point out that they are living in a world where online and offline are very much intertwined. Online and offline are intermixed parts of the “real world.”

My own further comment here is that the computer is now the vehicle of much of what used to be done with books, newspapers, magazines, television, movie theaters, board or card games, telephones, pen and paper, typewriters, and more. My guess is that if you added all that up to account for how previous generations of teens spent their time, it might well average to more than 6 hours a day.

Adult conjectures about dangers to kids online tend to focus on upsetting content they may come across (e.g. pornography and depictions of violence), sexual solicitations, bullying, and addictive effects of social media algorithms or video games. In the focus groups, kids were acutely aware of these adult fears and, while not dismissing them, argued that they were overblown. Most of the teens felt that adults greatly exaggerate such online dangers and fail to recognize online benefits.

The consensus among the teens was that most of their upsetting online experiences came not from content imposed on them from strangers or media companies, but from conflictual interactions with their peers, other teens they knew. This should not be surprising. Teens have always, for good evolutionary reasons, been concerned about fitting in, being liked, being accepted as part of the “in group,” and sometimes this concern can lead to pain. Learning how to deal with the fact that others are not always nice and not everyone likes you is part of growing up.

Adults often refer to such conflict and meanness as “cyberbullying,” but the teens’ discussions made it clear that this term is unhelpful, because it covers too wide a range of experiences. [Parenthetically, I add that another researcher, dana boyd (see here) who spells her name without capitals, found that much of what adults call online bullying is what teens call “drama.” Some of that drama is exciting and kids seek it and promote it, but some of it is truly annoying.] A common response to the question of how to deal with truly upsetting online meanness was to ignore it, to block or avoid interacting with the source of that meanness. To respond is to get a response in return, which augments the drama.

Related to teens’ desires to be popular, some noted that comparing one’s online presence to that of others can be a source of anxiety. Such comparisons might have to do with physical appearance, descriptions of social activities, or number of “likes” to social media posts. Teens were, however, aware that photos may be touched up and social activities exaggerated, and that seeking “likes” can interfere with authenticity, so they had some mental tools to counter these anxieties.

In response to questions about online sexual solicitations from strangers, most teens were aware of these even if they had not personally experienced them. They talked about “pervs” or “pedos” and, again, said that the most effective way to deal with them would be to ignore or block them.

When asked specifically about pornography, the general response was that pornography has become a normal part of young people’s experiences. Although they felt that younger children might be upset by pornographic images, they did not report being upset by them themselves. If they didn’t like something, they could just turn it off.

They also, however, recognized that some versions of pornography could have harmful effects if people began to compare their own bodies to those of porn stars or if viewers took what they saw online as appropriate or normal for real-world sexual behavior. All in all, the teens came across as more sophisticated about pornography than adults might believe.

(Parenthetically, I personally believe that misogynic, violent pornography should be illegal, just as child pornography is illegal. While such pornography has been defended constitutionally as free speech, I think it could be banned as hate speech. But I recognize the problems in enforcing such bans, and this did not come up in the focus groups with teens.)

A topic that led to much discussion in the focus groups was that of sending nude pictures of oneself to a boyfriend or girlfriend. Although only a small percentage of teens had done this, the teens recognized that when it happens it can create serious problems. The biggest problem arises when the supposed friend shares the image publicly or threatens to share it as a form of blackmail. I’ll return to this problem in the section on how adults can be helpful in remedying an online problem.

Interestingly, concerning online photos, a common complaint by teens was about photos of themselves that their parents had posted, some of which were embarrassing. Teens, understandably, would rather be in control of what gets posted concerning them.

Finally, it is worth noting that some teens indicated that the truly disturbing messages they get online come from news about the state of the world—about global warming, threats or realities of war, economic disasters, and the like. The world we have created for our kids to grow up in is a legitimate cause of concern, and many teens are concerned.

When asked if they talked with parents or other adults about disturbing online experiences, the majority said no or rarely. When asked why, they had a simple, almost uniform, obvious answer. They said that adults generally do not understand the online issues teens face and tend to overreact to situations. Instead of providing support, parents might blame the teen for getting into a troubling situation or might even take away some of the teens’ online freedom.

One girl, in response to a question about asking parents for help in a hypothetical case of a boy threatening to make public a nude photo of her, said she absolutely would not say anything about this to her parents. Why? “Because my father would kill him.”

Teens were much more likely to seek support and help from their friends, because their friends understood the situation better, would be less likely overreact, and less likely to punish.

In theory, there are three routes to reducing online harm to kids:

(1) Deny kids access to the putative sources of harm (e.g. don’t allow them on social media or don’t allow them to have smart phones).

(2) Prevent harm at its source, through restrictions on what can be made available online and algorithms to filter out what should not be made available.

(3) Help kids understand the potential dangers and how to deal with them and provide constructive support and help when they do report negative experiences, thereby helping to build their online resilience.

Movements initiated by adults aimed at reducing potential harm to teens, especially those stimulated by the publication of The Anxious Generation, have focused almost entirely on the first two approaches. What do kids think of these approaches?

Not surprisingly, in the discussions, teens almost universally rejected the first approach. To limit their online freedom is to limit their ability to experience, understand, and learn to deal with what has become an essential part of the real world. It would disrupt their ability to take part in the teen culture, which is so essential to their wellbeing. They agreed that limits for younger children might be reasonable, but not for those aged about 12 or above. Moreover, such limits send a message of lack of trust, of disempowerment rather than empowerment. As pointed out by the authors, Phippen & Street, even if bans were imposed, whether by parents or governments, kids would get around them, as has been shown by the high number of young teens on social media in states and nations where such bans have been made.

Teens, and authors Phippen and Street, also described limitations of the second approach. The internet is so vast and complex that controlling its content is, at best, very difficult. Any algorithm aimed at stopping pornography will also stop non-pornographic images or messages that happen to contain the cues that the algorithm uses and will therefore disrupt legitimate free speech. Teens generally agreed that there is no way to prevent disturbing things from going out on the internet, so a better approach is to support kids in dealing with the disturbances. Teens believed strongly, therefore, that the focus should be on the third approach.

When teens were asked what adults can do to help teens deal with online disturbances, they had three almost unanimous resounding responses:

• Listen.

• Understand.

• Don’t judge.

Teens said that if their parents or other adults, such as school counselors, would do those things they would feel comfortable about talking with those adults about their online problems and seeking help.

Some of the discussion of this centered on the hypothetical example, introduced previously, of a girl who has sent a naked picture of herself to her supposed boyfriend, who then blackmailed her with threats to make the photo public unless she sent him more such photos. Most teens said they would not go to an adult for help in such a case because the adult would blame them for sending the nude photo in the first place (as if the girl isn’t already suffering enough from self-blame), would over-react (make the consequences seem even worse than they are), and perhaps punish the girl further by taking away some or all of her online freedom.

To illustrate what might be the ideal dialogue between child and parent about such an incident, derived from the teens’ discussions, I’ve invented the following (which, of course, is an abbreviated and somewhat stylized version of what would be a real conversation):

Daughter: I’m really upset about something that has happened and don’t know what to do about it. I made terrible mistake—I know it was a mistake. I sent a nude picture of myself to John, you know, the boy I have been seeing. Now John wants me to send more such pictures and says if I don’t he’ll distribute this one widely on the Internet.

Parent: Ouch. My darling, I’m so sorry. I can see how this is upsetting. But blaming yourself too much doesn’t help. We all make mistakes and get into trouble from them. That’s part of life. Now, I wonder if there is any way I can help you deal with this one. … Can you tell me more about John, about your relationship with him, about his family if you know them?

The daughter responds with her impression that John is usually a decent person, though this incident will lead her to end her relationship with him. He seems not to understand why she won’t send more nude pictures to him. If she loves him, she should do so. He’s threatening her to get more such pictures, and she doesn’t really know if he would follow through on the threat or not. She doesn’t know how serious he is.

From this and further discussion, the parent and daughter explore possible solutions together. Are there ways to get photos removed from the internet? What would happen if the daughter told John that she had told her parents about what he has done, and her parents will inform his parents about it unless he removes that picture immediately and revokes the threat? Or: “What if you invited John over to the house and we as a family sat down with him and confronted him directly about what he has done and how it hurts? We won’t kill him, promise; we’ll talk with him. We’ll start with the assumption that he himself doesn’t know how much this hurts you and has made a mistake, which he can now rectify.”

The point here is that parents really can be helpful in reducing teens’ psychological pain if they listen, strive fully to understand, don’t judge, and then engage respectfully with the teen in thinking about solutions. In the process, they are helping the teen build resilience. You can make mistakes, get into trouble and recover, but sometimes you need help. Resilience is not always a solo activity.

This letter is, to some degree, designed as a follow-up to Letter #121, where I suggested that the same “free range” principles that apply to kids’ outdoor explorations should apply to their online explorations. I went on to point out that there are dangers in both of those spaces, so it would be irresponsible to set kids completely free in either without preparing them for those dangers. We need to understand the dangers ourselves, realistically, meaning that we don’t inflate them out of proportion but also don’t blind ourselves to them. In response to Letter #121, some who commented implied or said directly that, perhaps because of my age, I’m unaware of what kids experience online today. I’m not unaware. I’m a parent to step-kids who were teens in the digital age and are now parents to my grandchildren. More significantly, I’ve paid attention to multiple research studies—not just the study described here—in which kids are surveyed or interviewed about both the harm and benefit from their online experiences. I’ve come to the conclusion that kids are often more sophisticated about all this than are the adults waving the flag to ban them from social media or take their smartphones away. And where they aren’t more sophisticated, our responsibility should be to help them become so.

To those who think I must be behind the times, I report that I am very much a part of today’s “real world.” We live in the digital age. Kids, as has always been true, know instinctively that to adapt to the world they are growing up in they must play and explore in its various spaces. Kids are not as fragile, or as vulnerable to manipulation, or as stupid as some seem to think they are, though our assumptions can in some cases, admittedly, become self-fulfilling prophesies. We made a terrible mistake as a society, around the year 1980, when we decided that kids should not be allowed to play and explore independently outdoors because of “stranger danger” and other overblown adult fears, spread by the media and various crusaders. Let’s not make the same mistake now because of exaggerated fears about online dangers. Let’s empower our kids, not disempower them.

For those who have been regular readers of Play Makes Us Human, I note that there are limits to my ability to dig deeply and widely into the research evidence, and elaborate fully, in these necessarily brief letters. There are no such limits, however, in my forthcoming book, Restoring Childhood: How to Set Kids Free in the Age of Anxiety. The book will be available, published by Penguin Random House, Sept. 15, but you can preorder it now. By preordering you can be certain to be among the first to get a copy, and your order will send a message to marketers that this is a book they should stock up on and put front and center in their displays.

One more message. I have been holding monthly meetings—on Saturday afternoons—with paid subscribers. You can join those meetings by becoming a paid subscriber. The meetings are billed as “Ask Me Anything,” but I usually begin by responding to questions that people have posed in one or more of my letters. In the August meeting I will begin by addressing questions and counterpoints that readers have raised regarding this letter and Letter #121.

With respect and best wishes,

Peter