Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Do Teens Secretly Want Phone Boundaries More Than Adults Think?

Ask a parent about phones and teens, and you’ll hear the same story: “They’re glued to that thing and don’t care.” But when you ask teens themselves, a different picture emerges. A recent Pew Research Center study found that about 95% of U.S. teens have access to a smartphone — and around 4 in 10 say they spend too much time on it. (Pew Research Center) Coverage of the same data notes that over 70% of teens say they feel happiness or peace when they’re not tethered to their device, even as they rely on it for social life. (KTUL) Psychotherapist Harshi Sritharan, MSW, RSW, who works with teens and young adults on digital dependency, sees that ambivalence every day. “I have 12- to 15-year-olds who come in and say, ‘I know I’m kind of addicted to my phone,’” she says. “When a teenager says that, I’m relieved — it means we have something to work with.” She stresses that most young people don’t actually want to be left alone with endless scrolling — they want help making sense of it. Teen Limits Work Better Than Parents Think New data suggests that reasonable limits can help and that many teens benefit when parents set them thoughtfully. A tool parents can use is collaborative problem solving. This involves parents and teens working together to come up with a plan for the best strategies that combat everyone’s concerns while compromising. A 2024 Springtide Research Institute survey of 1,112 13-year-olds found that teens whose parents limit their screen time are less likely to be heavy users: only 32% of those with limits use their phone 5+ hours a day, compared with 55%of those with unlimited time. Just 24% of teens with limits said they’d felt like they had a mental health problem, versus 32% with no limits.(Springtide Research Institute) In other words, boundaries are mildly protective, not cruel, especially when they’re explained instead of imposed. Sritharan cautions against “no phones ever” rules that ignore school and social realities: “We can’t make blanket statements of ‘no screens’,” she says. “We shape how kids use devices so they can still get things done and spend more time engaging with their family.” That might mean agreeing on tech-free windows (like family dinners or the hour before bed) and tech-friendly ones (like a 45-minute bus ride where a teen can listen to music or message friends). Teens Are Leading a Quiet “Cutback” Movement Parents often feel like the only ones craving less screen time, but surveys show Gen Z is already trying to dial things down. A global survey cited by Tech Times and ExpressVPN found that about 46% of Gen Z are actively taking steps to limit their screen time, more than older generations.(Tech Times) Another U.S. poll commissioned by ThriftBooks found half of respondents are cutting back on screens, with Gen Z and millennials leading — and 84% adopting analog habits like printed books, paper planners and board games.(New York Post) Reporting on the “board game revival” among Gen Z echoes the same trend: young people are consciously seeking offline, face-to-face ways to connect.(Woke Waves) For Offline.now experts, this adds up to a simple message: teens aren’t fighting all boundaries — they’re fighting feeling controlled or misunderstood. Parents as Co-Pilots, Not Phone Police Executive Function Coach Craig Selinger, M.S., CCC-SLP says the real leverage point isn’t just new rules; it’s how parents model and co-create them. “If you want behavior change in kids, start with the parent model,” he says. “A 12-year-old will not put their phone away at dinner if their parents won’t.” He encourages families to focus on “little moments” where phones quietly block connection — especially car rides and in-between times when kids might naturally open up: “In the car, your kid is trapped with you,” Selinger says. “That’s when they start talking. If they’re on their phone the whole time, you lose those big conversations hiding in the boring moments.” Both experts emphasize co-designing boundaries with teens: agreeing together on tech-free times and how late-night scrolling affects mood and school performance. When teens feel heard — and see adults following the same rules — boundaries feel less like punishment and more like shared protection. For journalists, the story isn’t “teens vs phones” or “parents vs teens.” It’s that both sides are quietly overwhelmed, and many young people are more open to limits than adults realize — if those limits are built with them, not against them. Featured Experts Harshi Sritharan, MSW, RSW – Psychotherapist specializing in ADHD, anxiety, insomnia and digital dependency. She helps teens and young adults understand dopamine cycles, distinguish passive vs active tech use, and build realistic phone boundaries that support sleep, school and mental health. Craig Selinger, M.S., CCC-SLP – Executive Function Coach and child development specialist (Brooklyn Letters). He focuses on how tech use shapes learning, attention and family dynamics, and how parents can model healthy habits and co-create screen rules that actually stick. (Expert interviews can be arranged through the Offline.now media team.)

Study: What makes a smell bad?

You wouldn’t microwave fish around your worst enemy — the smell lingers both in kitchen and memory. It is one few of us like, let alone have positive associations with. But what makes our brains decide a smell is stinky? A new study from UF Health researchers reveals the mechanisms behind how your brain decides you dislike — even loathe — a smell. Or as first author and graduate research fellow Sarah Sniffen puts it: How do odors come to acquire some sort of emotional charge? In many ways, our world capitalizes upon the importance of smells to influence emotions, running the gamut from perfumes to cooking and even grocery store design. “Odors are powerful at driving emotions, and it’s long been thought that the sense of smell is just as powerful, if not more powerful, at driving an emotional response as a picture, a song or any other sensory stimulus,” said senior author Dan Wesson, Ph.D., a professor of pharmacology and therapeutics in the UF College of Medicine and interim director of the Florida Chemical Senses Institute. But until now, researchers have puzzled over what circuitry connects the parts of the brain vital to generating an emotional response with those responsible for smell perception. The team started off with the amygdala, a brain region that curates your emotional responses to sensory stimuli. Although all our senses (sound, sight, taste, touch and smell) interact with this small part of your brain, the olfactory system takes a more direct route to it. “This is, in part, what we mean when we say your sense of smell is your most emotional sense,” Sniffen said. “Yes, smells evoke strong, emotional memories, but the brain’s smell centers are more closely connected with emotional centers like the amygdala.” In the study, researchers looked at mice, who share neurochemical similarities with people. They can learn about odors and categorize them as good or bad. After observing their behavior and analyzing brain activity, the team found two genetically unique brain cell types that allow odors to be assigned into a bucket of good feelings or bad feelings. Initially, the team expected that one cell type would generate a positive emotion to an odor, and another would generate a negative emotion. Instead, the brain’s cellular organization gives the cells the capability of doing either. “It can make an odor positive or negative to you,” Wesson said. “And it all depends upon where that cell type projects in your brain and how it engages with structures in your brain.” But why is knowing more about how we categorize smells important? Well, for starters, smells — and our reactions to them — are a part of life. Sometimes, however, our reactions to them can be outsized, or take on a negative association so strong it disrupts how we live. “We’re constantly breathing in and out and that means that we’re constantly receiving olfactory input,” Sniffen said. “For some people that’s fine, and it doesn’t impact their day-to-day life. They might even think, ‘Oh, odors don’t matter that much.’ But for people who have a heightened response to sensory stimuli, like those with PTSD or anxiety or autism, it’s a really important factor for their day-to-day life.” In the future, the research could help clinicians adjust for heightened sensory response that some people struggle with in their everyday lives, Wesson added. One example? A patient associating a clinic’s smell with transfusions that made them queasy. Based upon the receptor systems in these specific brain pathways, the team members believe they might be able to change those associations. Potentially, medications could suppress some of these pathways’ activity to allow you to overcome stressful and aversive emotional responses. Conversely, these pathways could be activated to restore enjoyment to things that people might have grown indifferent to — like those who lose their appetite from illness. “Emotions in part dictate our quality of life, and we’re learning more about how they arise in our brain,” Wesson said. “Understanding more about how our surroundings can impact our feelings can help us become happier, healthier humans.” This research was supported by funding from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Sarah Sniffen was supported by a fellowship from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.

“Give Me My Phone Back!”: Why Parent–Teen Phone Fights Miss the Real Problem

If it feels like every other night ends with “Give me my phone back!” you’re not alone. A recent Pew Research Center report found that about 4 in 10 teens and parents (38%) say they argue about phone time, and nearly half of parents admit they spend too much time on their own phones. Executive Function Coach Craig Selinger, M.S., CCC-SLP says those blow-ups often miss the real issue. “If you want behavior change in kids, start with the parent model,” he says. “It starts at the top: kids are watching how you use tech.” He notes that conflict usually shows up in the “in-between” moments — after school, in the car, at breakfast — when a phone becomes an invisible wall between parents and kids. “Those little moments are actually big moments,” Selinger explains. “If you can pull out tech during those kind of banal, whatever moments, that’s when kids start talking to you.” Research shows the stakes go beyond eye-rolling. A 2025 CDC analysis of U.S. teenagers found that higher non-school screen time is linked with irregular sleep, less physical activity, more depression and anxiety symptoms, and weaker social support.(CDC) And yet, many families don’t have clear, consistent rules: Springtide Research Institute’s 2024 survey of 13-year-olds found that only about half say their parents limit screen time, but when limits exist, teens are less likely to be heavy users and report slightly better mental health.(Springtide Research Institute) For Selinger, the takeaway is simple: filters and confiscation can’t replace family systems. What works better: Parents go first. Phones out of bedrooms at night, off the table at meals, and away during key “micro-moments” sends a stronger signal than any lecture. Agree on the rules together. Teens are far more likely to respect boundaries they helped design, for example, “no phones at dinner and after 11 p.m. on school nights”  than rules dropped on them mid-argument. Link boundaries to what teens care about. Sleep, sports, grades, mood and friendships are all directly affected by late-night and all-day screen time; making that connection reduces the sense that rules are “random.” Instead of asking “How do I make my teen stop?” Offline.now’s experts encourage parents to ask, “What are we modelling and what shared routines would actually make life better for everyone in the house?” Featured Experts Craig Selinger, M.S., CCC-SLP – Executive Function Coach, CEO of Themba Tutors and child development specialist. He focuses on how phones reshape learning, sleep and family dynamics, and helps families build “digital sunset” routines and mealtime/bedroom rules that stick.

Expert Available: The Tech Tantrum: What parents can do when screen-time conflict turns explosive at home

It's a recent news story that has captured international attention and  has parents, experts and child care advocates swirling:  US boy, 11, allegedly shoots father to death after Nintendo Switch taken away  If you’re planning a story on screen-time conflict, Harshi, a Digital Dependency therapist, is available for on-the-record comment, rapid written quotes, and short interviews on practical de-escalation and safer screen-limit routines. “The headline is about a device. The deeper story is what happens when a predictable boundary becomes an unplanned confrontation without a de-escalation routine.” Offline.now is a new wellness platform dedicated to helping families achieve healthy digital balance. What Harshi can help journalists cover On-the-record context and practical guidance for stories touching screen-time conflict, including: Why device removal moments can trigger outsized reactions in some kids (transition & regulation) How parents can de-escalate safely without turning limits into power struggles How to design screen rules that rely on systems, not willpower What to do after a blow-up (repair & resetting the plan) When “this-is-bigger-than-screens” and families should seek professional support Insights from our expert Use any of these as on-the-record quotes: Start with regulation, not the rule. “When emotions spike, it’s not a teachable moment. The first goal is to help everyone get calmer, then you can talk boundaries.” Don’t match intensity with intensity. “If you argue, lecture, or negotiate in the heat of the moment, you keep the conflict alive.” Use a short script - and stop talking. “Two sentences is enough: ‘I’m not debating this. We’ll talk when we’re calm.’ Then pause. Silence can be a tool.” Avoid surprise confiscations. “Taking a device without warning can feel like an ambush. Predictable routines reduce the power struggle.” Offer an off-ramp, not a cliff. “Transitions are hard. A timer, a closing ritual, and a clear ‘what’s next’ can prevent escalation.” Make boundaries about the system, not the child’s character. “This isn’t ‘you’re bad’ or ‘you’re addicted.’ It’s ‘our home has screen rules and we follow them consistently.’” Repair matters more than punishment. “After a blow-up, repair is the reset - name what happened, reset the plan, and practice the next transition.” Know when this is bigger than screens. “If threats, aggression, or extreme reactions show up, that’s a signal to seek professional support - not just enforce a stricter rule.” What parents can do right now Create a neutral device ‘parking spot.’ Devices live in one predictable place (not a tug-of-war in someone’s hand). Use a consistent transition routine. When time’s up, share a  “shut it down” cue, park the device, and then move on to a 2-minute action (teeth, pajamas, snack, shower). Pick one calm script and repeat it verbatim. “I’m not debating this. We’ll talk when we’re calm.” (Then disengage and model calm.) Important context Harshi does not speculate about individuals involved in the news story and does not claim that gaming or screens “cause” violent behavior. Her focus is on what families can do - before conflicts escalate - using practical de-escalation tools, predictable routines, and supportive repair strategies.

You Can’t Reconnect with Family Through a Screen You Won’t Put Down

When families say, “We never really talk anymore,” the holidays are supposed to be the fix, the one time of year everyone gets under the same roof, sits around the same table, and finally catches up. But in 2025, most people arrive at those gatherings with a second guest in tow: their phone. New behavioral data from Offline.now, a digital wellness platform founded by author and CEO Eli Singer, shows 8 in 10 people want a healthier relationship with technology, yet more than half feel too overwhelmed to know where to start. That makes the holidays a natural “reset” moment; if parents and other adults are willing to change their own habits first. Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist Gaea Woods says phones have quietly become the “third party” in many households: “Phones are killing interpersonal relationships - not because tech is evil, but because we use it unconsciously at the moments connection matters most. When you’re scrolling at dinner, you’re sending the message, ‘My phone is more interesting and important than you.’” Research on “phubbing” aka phone snubbing backs this up, linking partner and family phone use during conversations with lower relationship satisfaction and more conflict. Offline.now’s experts see the same pattern: when screens show up at the table, intimacy and meaningful conversation drop. Executive Function Coach Craig Selinger argues that the real leverage point isn’t screen-time rules for kids; it’s modelling by adults: “If you want behavior change in kids, start with the parent model. A 12-year-old will not put their phone away at dinner if their parents won’t. Kids copy what you do, not what you say.” When kids see parents physically turn phones face-down and set them aside, it creates permission, even relief. Over a few days of holiday visits, those small moments can add up to something families say they miss most: unhurried conversations, shared jokes, and the feeling that the people in front of you are more important than the feed on your screen. For journalists covering holiday family dynamics, tech and relationships, or digital wellness, Offline.now can offer expert interviews on: How to design realistic, family-wide phone rules for gatherings Why parental modelling matters more than any app setting Simple scripts parents can use to set expectations without shaming kids Featured Experts Gaea Woods, MA, LMFT – Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist specializing in digital dependency, intimacy, and communication in modern relationships. Craig Selinger, M.S., CCC-SLP – Executive Function Coach and child development specialist focused on how tech impacts learning, attention, and family systems. Expert availability can be arranged through Offline.now’s media team.

Charities spend big to defend their board’s corporate agendas, new study reveals

Charities with corporate leaders on their boards spend an average of $130,000 a year lobbying on behalf of their connected companies. That’s according to a first-of-its-kind study that shows how companies benefit from their charitable work — and how charities may be all-too-happy to support their powerful board members in return for lucrative connections. The researchers behind the study say the findings could help policymakers and charity stakeholders keep tabs on a previously hidden form of political influence, but that such arrangements are perfectly legal for now. “Charities stand to gain something by behaving in this way. It doesn’t always have to be corporations pushing charities to behave in a way they don’t want to,” said Sehoon Kim, Ph.D., a professor of finance at the University of Florida and senior author of the new study. “It’s a natural quid pro quo arrangement that arises from the incentives corporations and charities have.” The American Medical Association shows one example of these incentives in action. In the 2010s, they actively lobbied against efforts by federal agencies to curb opioid prescriptions. This benefited companies like Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin widely blamed for exacerbating the opioid epidemic in the U.S. It turned out that Richard Sackler, the former president of the company, sat on the board of AMA Foundation, a relationship viewed by many as controversial at the time. But Sackler had arranged for millions in donations to the foundation, and other charities are likely looking to corporate board members to help engineer large donations for their charitable work by connecting charities to other companies and leaders with deep pockets. Lobbying on behalf of their new friends, then, may simply be the most efficient way to ensure those donations keep flowing. Kim collaborated with UF Professor Joel Houston, Ph.D., and Changhyun Ahn, Ph.D., of the Chinese University of Hong Kong to conduct the analysis, which is forthcoming in the journal Management Science. They painstakingly hand collected data covering more than 400 charities and over 1,000 corporations that identified board connections, donations and lobbying activities that fell both within and outside of the charities’ typical political activity. The researchers focused on larger charities that already engage in some lobbying on their own behalf. These lobbying charities are three times larger than smaller nonprofits that never lobby. After a new corporate board member joined, these charities changed their behavior. They were far more likely to lobby outside of their own interests and to even work to support or defeat legislation that affected their new board member’s company, even when that legislation had nothing to do with their charitable mission. It worked out to about a 14% increase in the charity’s lobbying expenditures. “These were the smoking guns that there’s something going on that’s not supposed to be happening,” Kim said. Because lobbying is such an efficient use of resources, and because charities may lend their friendly brand to these lobbying efforts, this help from charities could significantly benefit these connected corporations. “These are previously unrecognized channels at play in terms of corporate political influence that policymakers need to be mindful of when assessing how influential corporations are likely to be,” Kim said.

Sun-Sentinel: What happens when parents go beyond sharenting?

So many parents routinely share photos and news about their kids on social media that the behavior has a name: sharenting. Usually harmless and well-meaning, it can also take a dangerous turn, exposing children to online predators, allowing companies to collect personal information and creating pathways for children to become victimized by identity theft. The risks are most pervasive when parents overshare to profit from their social media accounts. Whenever parents share, they are the gatekeepers, tasked with protecting their children’s information, but they are also the ones unlatching the gates. When parents profit from opening the gates, it is especially challenging to balance protecting their kids’ privacy against sharing their stories. Federal and state laws typically give wide deference to parents to raise their children as they see fit. But the state can and does intervene when parents abuse their children. Those laws protect children in the physical world. However, few laws shield children when parents risk harming them online. Let’s consider this hypothetical situation based on a composite of real-life events. Mia (fictional name) is a 7-year-old girl growing up in Orlando. Her mother is a stay-at-home parent who has a public Instagram account and considers herself an influencer. Many lingerie brands pay Mia’s mom to model their clothing. When a lingerie company from overseas offers Mia’s mom some money to have Mia also pose in their clothing, Mia’s mom says yes. Over the next few weeks, Mia and her mom model the clothing together in pictures and videos, sometimes wearing the outfits while reading together in bed, having pillow fights or being playful around the house — always in clearly intimate but arguably appropriate settings. Mia’s mom’s social media page explodes with new followers, many of whom appear to be grown men. The images on the page receive hundreds of likes and multiple comments. Mia’s mom deletes the most inappropriate comments but leaves others, hoping to increase engagement. As Mia’s mom’s social media following grows, so does the amount of money she earns. Mia tells her teacher about the social media page. Her teacher reaches out to Mia’s parents, to no avail. Mia’s mom keeps sharing. The teacher sees this as a potential form of abuse and neglect and, according to her obligation as a mandatory reporter of abuse, she calls in a report to the state’s central abuse registry. The teacher isn’t trying to get Mia’s mom in criminal trouble, but she thinks the family could use some education surrounding safe social media use and possibly access to financial support if they need this type of online exposure to pay the bills. The intake counselor declines to accept the hotline call. The counselor explains that the posting of pictures is not grounds for an abuse, abandonment or neglect investigation. The parent is sharenting, the counselor says, and that is within a parent’s right. Of course, child sexual abuse material is illegal, but the photos posted by Mia’s mom fall into a gray area — not illegal material, but likely harmful to Mia. Should there be a law to stop this? I believe there should be. Just as our views regarding child abuse have evolved, so must our views on sharenting. Merely 150 years ago, it was legal for parents to beat their children. It wasn’t until 1874, when a little girl named Mary Ellen was beaten severely by her caregiver, that courts began to step in. Drawing from existing laws prohibiting animal cruelty, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals argued that Mary Ellen had the right to be free from abuse. At the time, there were laws protecting animals from harm by their caregivers but no laws protecting children from such harm! Back to the present: Mia’s disclosure to her teacher could have changed her life and led to her family getting online safety help, if only the child welfare laws were suitably tailored to protect her in the online world as they attempt to do offline. Child protection laws should be expanded to include harms that can be caused by online sharing. The law can both protect parental autonomy and honor children’s privacy through a comprehensive and multidisciplinary new approach toward protecting children online — one that allows for thoughtful investigation, education, remediation and prosecution of parents who use social media in ways that are significantly harmful to their children. This conduct, which falls beyond sharenting, is ripe for legal interventions that reset the balance between a parent’s right to share and a child’s right to online privacy and safety. Stacey Steinberg grew up in West Palm Beach and now lives in Gainesville, where she is a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law; the supervising attorney for the Gator TeamChild Juvenile Law Clinic; the director of the Center on Children and Families; and the author of “Beyond Sharenting,” forthcoming in the Southern California Law Review. This piece was also published in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

The Annual Reset: Why We Try to Change Every January

Every January, the world collectively decides to become a better version of itself. We swear we’ll exercise more, eat better, save money, quit bad habits, and finally tackle that one thing we’ve been avoiding. And yet—by February—most New Year’s resolutions quietly disappear. This isn’t because people lack willpower. It’s because resolutions often aim too big, too fast, and ignore how change actually works. Resolutions tend to fail when they’re built on motivation alone. Motivation is emotional and short-lived, especially when routines, stress, and real life return. “I’ll go to the gym every day” collapses the first time work runs late or energy dips. Research consistently shows that successful change depends more on systems than goals—small, repeatable behaviors that fit into daily life. People who frame resolutions as habits (“I’ll walk 10 minutes a day”) rather than outcomes (“I’ll lose 30 pounds”) are far more likely to stick with them. Still, there’s a reason resolutions endure. Psychologists call it the “fresh start effect”—the mental boost people feel at symbolic moments like birthdays, Mondays, or a new year. These moments help us psychologically separate our past selves from our future ones, making change feel possible. Even when resolutions fail, the act of reflecting, resetting, and trying again serves a real purpose: it helps people take stock of their lives and imagine improvement. The trick isn’t to stop making resolutions—it’s to make them smarter. Start small. Tie goals to existing routines. Focus on consistency over perfection. And most importantly, allow room for flexibility. Change isn’t linear, and falling off track doesn’t mean failing—it means adjusting. Journalists covering wellness, psychology, productivity, or lifestyle trends: connect with experts who study habit formation, behavior change, and motivation to explain why resolutions fail, what actually works, and how people can turn fresh starts into lasting change. Expert insight can help readers move beyond guilt—and toward progress that sticks. Connect with our experts: www.expertfile.com

Can You Reboot Your Family’s Screen Rules Before Going Back to School?

As kids head back to school after the holidays, many parents notice the same pattern: bedtimes drifted, screens crept into bedrooms, and mornings feel like a battle. Executive Function Coach Craig Selinger and Personal Development Coach Mark Diamond, both experts in the Offline.now directory, say the answer is yes; but only if families treat the last week of break as a “tech reset,” not just a scramble for school supplies. Selinger points out that today’s devices are structurally different from the TV many parents grew up with: “Phones and tablets are more addicting than the old living-room TV. There’s no natural ending — no episode, no credits, no ‘we’re done now.’ When the ‘TV’ lives in your child’s pocket, transitions to homework or sleep become a lot harder.” That matters because late-night screen habits have real consequences in the classroom. Reviews of adolescent media use consistently link bedtime and late-evening screen time with shorter sleep, poorer sleep quality, and worse next-day functioning; including attention, memory and mood that kids need to learn. On top of that, education and cognition research shows that media multitasking: juggling schoolwork with notifications, chats, and apps is associated with reduced sustained attention and weaker academic performance. Diamond, who ran a tech-free summer camp for 25 years, has seen how quickly kids’ brains and behavior respond when screens are dialed down and real-world activity is dialed up: “At camp, we watched kids go from anxious and distracted to confident and connected in a matter of days — without phones. Outdoor play, hands-on projects, chores, even just walking and talking with friends reset their mood and focus in a way no app can.” “Micro-routines make a macro difference,” says Diamond. “If you reclaim just an hour a day from screens for real-world activity, most kids feel the change in their bodies and brains within a week.” Selinger adds that the reset only sticks when adults go first: “You can’t tell a teen to stop scrolling at 11 p.m. while you’re answering work email in bed. Kids are watching how we transition off our own screens. If parents lead by example, the new school rules stop feeling like punishment and start feeling like the new normal.” For journalists covering back-to-school, kids’ mental health, learning and technology, this story connects the dots between holiday screen creep, sleep, attention, and how a simple, family-led “tech reset week” can set kids up to actually learn once they’re back in class. Featured Experts Craig Selinger, M.S., CCC-SLP – Executive Function Coach and child development specialist (Brooklyn Letters). He focuses on how kids actually learn, and how digital dependency, sleep loss and multitasking erode attention and academic skills. Mark Diamond – Personal Development Coach and former director of a tech-free summer camp. He specializes in outdoor wellness, behavior change, and helping families translate “camp magic” into everyday routines at home. Expert interviews can be arranged through the Offline.now media team.

Chasing followers makes crypto traders perform worse on social investment sites

Whether excited about gaining new followers or desperate to win back lost subscribers, investors who saw changes to their subscriber count performed worse than before their subscribers changed, according to a new study. The research tracked performance on social investment sites, where individuals can trade assets like cryptocurrency while attracting audiences based on their performance — like YouTube, but for investments. Both gaining and losing followers led investors to make more frequent, riskier trades. The upshot is that traders performed about 10% worse in the weeks after their subscriber counts changed. “If the number of followers increases a lot, it creates an overconfidence effect. You are more aggressive in trading, and your future trading performance will be worse,” said Liangfei Qiu, Ph.D., a professor in the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business and co-author of the new study. “So logically we thought that if more followers leads to worse performance, then if we reduce the number of followers, it will reverse the effect, reduce overconfidence and lead to higher trading performance,” Qiu said. “But that’s not what we found. If we reduce the number of followers, they trade even more aggressively and their trading performance becomes even worse.” Qiu and his collaborators at the University of Maryland and University of Washington worked directly with an anonymous social trading platform to examine the impact of gaining or losing followers on traders’ cryptocurrency trading behavior and performance. The research revealed the power of social pressure. This study was focused on cryptocurrency, which is highly volatile and may exacerbate the risk of social trading. But social trading also exists for traditional investments like stocks and bonds, and chasing followers could hurt these types of investments, too. The researchers say that both platforms and investors should guard against the downsides. “If platforms emphasize the social functions too much, it might backfire. Eventually it will hurt the long run performance of the platform,” he said. “The investors should realize their inherent bias and make sure their trading strategies are not too affected by social attention.”