Trying to take a smartphone away from a teenager is like fighting Gollum for his “precious” ring, because that’s precisely what it is.
We as educators are constantly trying to implement cell phone policies, and it’s hard to enact consequences when parents are also tired of fighting these same battles or are pushing back themselves. Schools have been struggling with this for years, and attempted solutions have ranged from the ineffective, such as leaving it up to teacher discretion, to the outright nuclear, like state-wide bans on phones in schools.
However, if we are going to tackle this issue, we need to change our mindset and approach to it. When solutions are not working, it’s time to rethink the problem. We have been approaching phones in school like a behavioral issue, but we may need to start framing it as a mental health issue. We need to accept that, for many, technology is an addiction, and we need to treat it like one.
Here I will share some of the studies about smartphone addiction, reflect on how its impact on student behavior mirrors that of people suffering from substance addiction, and finally propose a possible template for school phone polices that address the issue as the addiction it is.
People can be and are addicted to technology. Numerous studies, including those by the National Institute of Health, have shown that phone usage triggers the same regions of the brain and neurochemical transmitters as other addictions such as gambling, sex, and cocaine.
An NIH study concluded that, much like any addiction, “people at a high risk of smartphone addiction have difficulty endogenously shifting their attention from distracting stimuli toward goal-directed behavior, and the frontopolar cortex (FPC) plays a critical role in this self-regulatory control of attention” (NIH, 2022).
For our students, these alterations to the pleasure and reward centers occur when they are most susceptible. Combine this with the fact that the prefrontal cortex – which handles decision making, planning, executive function, and emotions – is not fully developed until the mid-twenties, and you can see we’re up against a “perfect storm.”
“Facebook has realized that if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they’ll click on less ads, they’ll make less money.”
In his book The Anxious Generation, social psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt states, “Pornography, social media, and video games are the three categories of activity most likely to lead to problematic use among adolescents, and years of problematic use may lead to lasting changes” (Haidt, 2024).
Haidt goes on to say that while these addictions may not be chemical like drugs and alcohol, behavioral addictions still leave people in a vicious cycle of “problematic use” where they may even be unable to act on their conscious desire to stop (Haidt, 2024). The idea of wanting to stop but being unable to is central to the very definition of “addiction.”
Even the signs of technology addiction mirror those of drugs and alcohol. Just a few of the symptoms listed by Northwestern Medicine are:
- Preoccupation with use
- Withdrawal symptoms such as restlessness and irritability
- Lying about use (and lying to use)
- Losing a sense of time
- Risky behaviors such as jeopardizing work and educational opportunities
Sound familiar? Now, this list is about more “traditional” addictions, like drugs and alcohol, but I know I’ve seen all of these behaviors in students over phones. We’ve all had a student say they’re going to the bathroom, disappear for twenty minutes, and then, when someone checks on them, they’re sitting in the stall looking at TikTok or playing Fortnite.
Now, they’ve missed instruction, which jeopardizes their grades and learning opportunities, and some even become irritable and aggressive when they’re caught and called out. It may not be as bad as finding them using drugs, but the story checks so many of the same boxes you could cut and paste and make it an After School Special.
We may not be used to looking at it that way because there have not been any “very special episodes” of sitcoms about the dangers of smartphones. At least as far as I know. But, I do know we’re all picturing more than one student who is obsessed with theirs. Maybe a few dozen.
This is no accident. This is by design. For years, whistleblowers in the tech industry – such as former Meta data scientist Frances Haugen – have been calling attention to the fact that these companies have been intentionally employing psychological principles and behaviorist techniques to addict users, teens especially.
In a 2021 interview with 60 Minutes, Haugen stated, “Facebook has realized that if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they’ll click on less ads, they’ll make less money.” Indeed, algorithms are designed to supply us with an endless stream of tailor-made “content,” which keeps us engaged no matter how many of those minutes we later regret, because there is money in it.
Haugen and Haidt overlap on the topics of “problematic use” and “vicious cycles” as well. Referring specifically to young women’s addiction to the Meta-owned Instagram app, Haugen stated, “Facebook’s own research says as these young women begin to consume this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed and it actually makes them use the app more and so they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more.” (Haugen, 2021).
Much like drugs or alcohol, teens continue to engage with phones and social media not just despite the fact that it makes them depressed, but because of it. It’s rooted in a disturbingly similar vicious cycle. Haugen has called attention to the fact that this was, at best, ignored and, at worst, intentional. Although something that makes the phone addiction worse is its ubiquity. It’s easier to abstain from drugs and alcohol. It’s much harder to abstain from something our society has built itself around.
Most schools at this point have some kind of phone policy in place. Generally, the policy goes something like this: parents and students are made aware of the policy at the start of the year. Some schools might allow cell phone use during lunch or passing periods, but generally, it’s made clear that phones should not be used during class time. Consequences are typically a warning followed by confiscation.
This is where things generally fall apart. There are always those students who will react as if you’re about to hack off a limb. Which, perhaps subconsciously, is what it feels like to them. We can put them on phone contracts and call home about it, but some parents have given up the fight, too. Some schools have reported gradual buy-ins to voluntary phone collection. All these policies have had varying degrees of success, but even with relatively successful plans, it’s a constant and exhausting struggle. Let’s face it; if teachers fought every phone that came out, no teaching would get done.
So the question is… then what? What’s the next step?
The “next step” could be addiction counseling.
If cell phones are an addiction, we should treat them like one. I think we can all agree that technology addiction is real. But did you know there are support groups for it, like there are for drugs, alcohol, sex, and gambling? One such group is Internet and Technology Addicts Anonymous (ITAA). ITAA follows similar principles to Alcoholics Anonymous and even has a 12-step program.
My suggestions would be this:
- Establish a cell phone policy team at your school (should have some students)
- Partner with the parents of the identified students
- Stage an intervention
- This is key in that it helps establish this as restorative.
- Establish a set number of cell phone offenses in a given number of days that constitute “high risk” for cell phone addiction. For example: _ offenses in _ days.
- A set number of offenses in a given time will result in a referral for technology addiction counseling.
- Options: Certain privileges (e.g., attending school events, participating in extra-curricular activities, going to the open gym, etc.) will be revoked until a set number of counseling sessions are completed. For example, you need _ sessions before you can do open gym again.
- Depending on the endorsements of staff (social workers and counselors), students can get this counseling in-house or be referred to outside organizations
- Similar to court orders for alcohol and drug-related offenses, the counselor running the meeting would sign off as confirmation
- When drafting a cellphone policy, include these steps so that students and families are aware of them.
- Obviously, get approval from the legal department in your district before sending anything out.
This approach addresses the root problem of the cell phone issue: that people are addicted to them, and counseling has been a successful way that millions of people have navigated their reliance on drugs and alcohol.
Also, this is a restorative practice, not necessarily a punitive one. Some teens know full well that their use has become problematic and want to quit or reduce their smartphone use, but struggle to do so. Some surveys, including those by The Center of Technology and Internet Addiction, have shown that 60% of teens surveyed said they were addicted to their phones. And let’s also keep in mind that’s just the ones able to recognize and willing to admit it.
When it comes down to it, phones are drugs now. They are scientifically proven to be addictive, and they are this way by design. We know this. And since we know this, let’s approach the issue as an addiction by identifying the most at-risk students with interventions and counseling. Maybe this plan has holes, and there are people more qualified to speak to the ways to approach helping with addictions than I am. But we need to start having that conversation. Because while “doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome” may not be the actual definition of “insanity”, it’s still plenty ridiculous. We need a new approach. This might be a place to begin.
Recent Comments