An Oxford researcher’s counterintuitive plan for kids and smartphones

Andrew Przybylski, a professor of technology and human behavior at the University of Oxford’s Oxford Internet Institute and a father of two, has adopted an unusual approach to the question many parents face: when a child should get a smartphone. Instead of following the growing Wait Until 8th movement, which urges families to delay handing over devices until deep into middle school, Przybylski says he introduced phones when his children were toddlers — but only after layering in strict limits and gradual functionality.

"The kids have always had phones — since they were 3," Przybylski told a reporter for Vox earlier this year. He added that the strategy was not as simple as giving children fully featured iPhones; the introduction was intentional and staged, likened to "putting a series of training wheels on a bike."

Przybylski described the process as conservative and incremental. The first device given to his child had a single app: a photo album filled with family pictures. Only after children demonstrated responsible behavior did he add further functions, slowly expanding who they could call, what apps they could use and when the device could connect to the internet, according to the account. The approach centers on parental oversight, staged exposure and training in how to use devices safely rather than a binary decision to give or withhold technology.

The method stands in clear contrast to the Wait Until 8th campaign, which has gained traction among parents and educators in recent years by arguing that delaying smartphones reduces exposure to social-media harms, cyberbullying and addictive design features during critical developmental years. Proponents of that movement contend that older children, typically in eighth grade or later, are better equipped to handle the social and emotional complexities that online life introduces.

Both approaches reflect growing anxiety about children’s screen time and the effects of smartphones on development. Families and experts disagree on timing, but many underscore the same priorities: boundaries, supervision and digital literacy. Those who delay devices point to research linking earlier and more intensive smartphone use with emotional distress in some children, while advocates of staged introduction say early, structured exposure can teach skills and create opportunities for guided learning about online behavior.

Przybylski’s view draws on his professional focus on technology and human behavior. He frames early, limited exposure as a form of training that prepares children for the realities of a digital world. By controlling the pace and scope of access, parents can supervise interactions, establish norms for etiquette and privacy and gradually hand over responsibility as children show they can manage it.

Critics of early introduction warn that even heavily restricted devices can create a pathway to broader access, and that the allure of smartphones and apps can strain parental enforcement of rules. They also emphasize the unequal landscape across households: families with fewer resources may lack time or tools to manage staged introductions tightly, and children in those contexts may experience different risks.

Research on the optimal timing for smartphone ownership remains mixed, and experts emphasize there is no universal answer. Some studies and professional organizations highlight associations between high screen time and sleep disruption, attention concerns and anxiety in certain age groups. Other work focuses on potential benefits: access to information, social connection and tools that can support learning. In practice, much turns on how devices are used, the extent of supervision, and the social environment children encounter online.

The debate has practical implications for parents making day-to-day decisions. Families who favor delayed adoption often cite clear cutoff points tied to school grade or maturity markers, while those adopting a staged approach advocate low-tech first steps, explicit rules, parental controls and family conversations about digital safety. Technology companies have added parental control features and time-limiting tools in response to demand, but the effectiveness of those features depends on consistent parental use and communication.

For now, pediatricians, educators and researchers continue to recommend that caregivers think proactively about device rules, model healthy behavior and consider both the social context and individual temperament of the child. Whether parents follow the Wait Until 8th prescription or try an incremental, training-wheels path like Przybylski’s, experts say the central task is active engagement: setting boundaries, monitoring use and teaching children how to navigate digital environments.

As smartphone ownership among young people remains a source of debate, the contrasting strategies — delay versus careful early exposure — reflect broader questions about how families prepare children for an increasingly digital world. Both approaches converge on the need for deliberate decisions rather than deferral to default device settings, and they place responsibility on caregivers to shape how children encounter and learn from technology.