Designing for Kids Tag

29 Aug

Posted at 09:34h in Children, Content, Kids, Research, Wellbeing

We’ve all seen it, or lived it. A young child is melting down over wanting “just one more minute” with their tablet. Often, all eyes turn to the parent, silently blaming them for a lack of discipline or control. But is that really what’s happening? Is this behavior simply a part of normal child development, or is it shaped, at least in part, by how the app itself is designed?

A compelling new study by Mallawaarachchi et al. (2025) (full text here) argues it’s not an either/or — it’s both. Their research shows how a child’s self-regulation abilities interact with persuasive app design (PD) to influence how easily (or not) the child can disengage from digital play. 

I heard Dr. Mallawaarachchi present this research at the 2025 Digital Media and Developing Minds International Congress last month, and I was intrigued. “Not all children use screens in the same way,” Dr. Mallawaarachchi explained to me during a recent phone call, “but also screens don’t affect all children the same way.” She noted that some children may come to the experience with a kind of differential susceptibility, meaning their temperament, developmental stage, or disposition might make them more likely to get ‘stuck’ in an app.

As a researcher who helps tech companies do better for children, this interplay between a child’s self-regulation and persuasive design really spoke to me. It reinforced why developmental expertise needs to be present at all stages of design, to ensure that products are not only engaging but also developmentally appropriate.

What is Persuasive App Design?

Persuasive design (PD) refers to features in digital apps or games that are intentionally created to keep users (in this case, children) engaged for longer. These features are intended to capture and hold the user’s attention and make it hard to stop. 

Common examples of PD in children’s apps include:

  • Rewards: Getting virtual coins, new characters, or access to new levels as part of the game experience.
  • Main character pressure: The character might frown or look sad if a child stops playing or makes a certain choice.
  • Locked features tied to in-app purchases: Making certain options of the game only available through payment, prompting children to ask for more time or money to continue playing.
  • Pop-up suggestions for other games: Distractions that encourage children to try an app that is similar to what they are already playing.
  • Autoplay or countdown timers: Creating urgency and discouraging natural stopping points.

While some of these features can enhance gameplay and support learning, they are often used to maximize engagement and revenue, sometimes at the expense of child well-being. Mallawaarachchi emphasized that PD is a continuum of features. ”Of course you want it to promote engagement, but if it’s coming at the cost of the users’ agency, if it’s coming at the fact that you don’t have the freedom to choose what to do, and if it’s coming at the cost of the users’ well-being, to me, that’s deceptive.”

The Study in a Nutshell

Mallawaarachchi et al. looked at how persuasive app design (PD) and children’s self-regulation interact to affect their ability to stop playing a tablet game. Self-regulation is a child’s ability to control their attention, emotions, thoughts, and behaviors, even when faced with distractions or impulses. This skill is what helps a child stop a fun game when dinner is ready, or transition calmly from digital play to another activity. This ability develops throughout early childhood and varies among children.

In the experimental study, 3- to 5-year-old children played one of three apps with similar content, each with low, moderate, or high PD. They also considered each child’s own self-regulation score as assessed by two different standardized measures. 

Study Findings

  • Children liked the apps equally, regardless of the number of persuasive design features. This means that app designers don’t need to rely on manipulative features to make apps enjoyable to children.
  • Children with high self-regulation could disengage from any app consistently, regardless of whether the app employed low, moderate, or high PD.
  • Children with low self-regulation disengaged more easily from low-PD apps, but took significantly longer and needed more support when using apps with moderate or high persuasive design.

“If persuasive features override a child’s available strategies and capacities,” Dr. Mallawaarachchi said, “then the child is no longer in control.”

Why it Matters

This study offers key takeaways for both parents and developers. It shows that:

  • Children aren’t drawn to high-PD apps because they’re more fun. They’re drawn in because of design tricks that make stopping harder.
  • App design interacts with a child’s developmental abilities, meaning some children are more vulnerable to persuasive features.
  • The design of the app and the child’s readiness to engage with it are equally important.

The study reveals that persuasive app design doesn’t make apps more appealing, they just make them harder to leave. This knowledge can empower caregivers to make more informed choices about the apps their children use. But it also makes one thing clear: parents shouldn’t have to shoulder this burden alone. Dr. Mallawaarachchi agrees. “One of our key overarching goals in all things we do is really to remove that burden and responsibility from parents and to move it at least a bit more towards other stakeholders like tech companies, their policies, and also the government.”

Shifting Responsibility

I also believe it’s time for a fundamental shift in responsibility. Just as the Children’s Television Act of 1990 rightly restricted character-based advertising during children’s programming, we need similar protections for children in digital spaces today. That means there’s no excuse for developers to keep relying on manipulative features under the guise of “fun.”

If we want a healthier digital world for all children, we can’t just focus on screen limits; we must also focus on screen design. We need to ensure that tech companies are equipped and motivated to do better. This is where my role, sitting at the intersection of developmental research and tech industry practice, becomes especially important. I work with companies that want to do the right thing, but need research-based guidance to get there. I see my job as translating important studies like this into practical insights that help teams design responsibly, before regulation forces them to change.

We also need the voice of children in the design process. I have spoken with hundreds of children in my work. Their opinions, experiences, and ideas are valuable contributions to the development of content made for them and their peers. It’s important that we not only design for them, but with them. Including children in the design process helps ensure the products we build reflect their actual needs, not just assumptions.

To have a real impact, we need:

  • Clearer regulations that limit how many and what kinds of persuasive design elements can appear in apps for children.
  • Industry standards that prioritize developmental needs over monetization, ensuring children’s well-being comes first..
  • Public investment in high-quality digital media for children, setting a higher standard for content development. This investment would demonstrate that it is possible to create engaging, ethical, developmentally-appropriate content to meet children’s needs.
  • Incorporating children’s voices and input from developmental experts to guide tech companies in creating better, more ethical products for young users.

It’s time to stop expecting parents to fight the screen time battles alone. It’s time to design better, together.

By Allison Caplovitz, Director of Content Research and Evaluation.

24 May

Posted at 11:06h in Children, Kids, Research

One of the most consistent findings I have noticed while studying families and digital media over the years is that parents want their children to be less dependent on them. At the same time, however, parents must also supervise their children and ensure their children’s online safety. In various studies about educational apps, children’s media, digital gaming, non-digital play, and reading, many parents have admitted that whatever the medium, they want their children to be both safe and independent. Therein lies the parenting conundrum.

Parents tend to opt for solo activities and resources for their children that can offer the safest options and the most autonomy. For example, while co-reading is important to parents to allow time to bond, they also want their child to grow to love reading and eventually choose to read independently on their own. Similarly, parents often prefer to send their children to the yard (if one is available to them) instead of a public park, since they can provide supervision while getting other things done at home.

While this idea may seem like a no-brainer (especially to parents), the solutions that research offers as the best and safest options for children—co-viewing and co-playing, for example, which we fully support—can admittedly leave parents feeling that they have to make a hard choice. They feel they have to choose between what they should do to be a “good parent” and what they end up doing in reality, which is often pushing their child toward the easiest solution that gets them out of their hair. We have heard from many parents that they struggle to balance their children’s need for activities that are educational, fun, and physically active —activities that often require supervision—with their own need for time to do what they need to do, which often requires their child to act independently.

According to our research, the capacity for independent play is one of the key drivers for parents to allow technology use among young children, beating out most other anxieties parents report having about screen time and active time. This is a particularly interesting finding to see come up time and again, especially given the vats of ink spilled over screen time since the debut of the iPad in 2010 (not to mention the invention of the television). Complicating the picture further, the levers for safety and autonomy are different for each family. A family most concerned about exposure, for example, might allow their 11-year-old to access any video game they want as long as their device is not connected to the internet. Another family concerned about contact and location might give their 11-year-old a phone so that they can be reached wherever they are, with less concern about how the child uses it.

Regardless of each family’s situation, however, there are certain takeaways tech companies might consider to help parents feel more confident in their child’s safety when using technology independently. Ideally, with this peace of mind, parents might be less anxious about not striking the balance between wanting to engage with their children and needing time to be more hands off.

1) Support the balance of learning and fun.

We have heard from many parents that, if their children are going to be on a screen anyway, they want the time spent to be as educational as possible. For some parents, an engaging educational app is a relief, since the alternatives are “mindless” apps that just waste time. But above all, we have heard that parents take cues from their children about what is engaging for them and worth spending time and money on. If it is educational but no fun, it is not going to be worth the time, let alone the money. App designers should strive for the happy medium. Note, however, that the desire for educational apps seems to change over time: as older children have increased responsibilities at school, parents want their children to relax and are more okay with “mindless” fun.

2) Support parents’ search for appropriate content.

We have likely all experienced the inundation of choices that have resulted from the proliferation of streamers, channels, and podcast networks. The children’s media landscape is no different. There is no shortage of options for devices, apps, or shows to choose from, and parents are operating on a combination of word of mouth, pre-vetting (using the apps themselves for a while), and trial and error. Issues with app store rating systems have been well documented, but in addition to overdue changes to those systems, parents need to be made aware of websites like Common Sense Media (CSM) that include parent and child reviews and media research. Outlets such as CSM can also help parents differentiate high-quality, research-based content from popular apps that claim to be educational. This information can help parents make their own decisions about what is right for their family.

3) Support parents’ efforts to keep their children safe.

Parents trust devices and apps that help them maintain control over what their children are exposed to. While they can control most of what comes into their home in other ways, technology can be a conduit to the wider world that parents have comparatively little control over. We have found that parents are not completely comfortable with company-imposed or set-it-and-forget-it filters, so we suggest clear controls that allow parents to customize and revisit the boundaries they’ve set over time.

4) Support regulations on children’s time.

Although parents like that technology can occupy their children’s time, they also fear and dislike the complete and utter takeover of their attention. Parents we have talked to complain about being excluded from engagement with their child while they are on devices. While some parents have outsourced being the screen time “bad guy” to timers and house rules, many parents wish apps and devices integrated periodic breaks after an appropriate amount of time. This feature would make transitions between activities smoother for everyone.

5) Support optional parent participation.

Although parents want and need their children to be independent, they still see the value of co-engagement and participation in their interests. Multiplayer modes and prompts for optional parent participation in activities invite parents to engage with their children in digital spaces rather than exclude them. Portals or logins that give parents a view of what their child is doing and the progress they have made also help parents feel connected without interrupting their child’s screen time.

Conducting research with parents and children provides me and my colleagues at Fluent with the opportunity to advise tech companies on how their products and services might have a positive impact on kids and their parents. These are some of the most common insights we have heard from families across our research studies. I look forward to seeing how Fluent Research continues to help make new innovations even better for them.

By Tiffany Salone*

21 Jul

Posted at 23:49h in Children, Kids, Media, Methodology, Qualitative Research, Research

Digital contexts are becoming more prevalent in children’s lives than ever before, fueled in part by the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to move various aspects of children’s lives online*. Since human development is a holistic and dynamic process between the developing person and his or her context* and children develop in positive and healthy ways when their strengths are combined with the strengths of their contexts, we have an opportunity as researchers to bring this framework to the changing landscape of children’s lives.

What has become apparent in our company’s recent requests for proposals, is that there is a lack of fit between the knowledge and experience of many designers and the developmental needs and abilities of children. This lack of fit signals a fundamental problem, and an opportunity, given the growing presence of digital technology as a context for children’s development. The virtual world is a new frontier and there has been a land rush of companies looking to stake their claim flag.  This rapid growth has seemed to create holes in the capabilities of these frontier companies. More precisely, the talent needed to design for adults does not adequately translate to designing for kids. In the absence of comprehensive knowledge about child development, current designers may err in using themselves or those close to them as the markers of success and/or “normality”.

“We all have a blind spot and it’s shaped exactly like us.” – Junto Diaz, Author

Short of extensive training in child development, designers can utilize a few central rules of thumb when designing for kids. Keeping these in mind will go a long way to minimizing, or at least acknowledging, our biases:

1) All humans are whole. Sometimes by necessity, we need to zoom in and focus on a specific part of children’s development, such as their literacy level or their ability to swipe on a tablet. But it is important to understand those parts within the context of the whole developing person. We then need to further adjust our lens to view that person as situated within a dynamic relationship with his or her context.

2) There is no ‘typical’ child. Much of what we know and have studied about children is approximations that are gathered from information that has been averaged over large groups from mostly Westernized societies. Expectations about children should be considered approximations that can get you close to understanding.

3) All households are different. A common mistake is to view children’s development as unfolding in a vacuum. Rules and expectations differ greatly by household and are driven by cultural, situational, and practical factors. Just because a child is developmentally capable of something does not mean that they will do it.

4) Child development is less linear than it appears. Because development is an iterative process, there are often regressions that ebb and flow with progressions. Development of a skill or competency may occur steadily over time or rapidly in spurts. While many abilities get better over time, it is not always the case.  Some abilities, like attention span increase gradually over time during childhood while other capacities, like learning a new language, decrease over time. Other aspects of development, like identity development, are latent during younger years and then rapidly develop.

If there is one mantra that we could recommend to all designers and those thinking about how to best support kids, we would strongly offer this:

“Every [child] is like all other [children], some other [children], and no other [child].” – Kluckhohn & Murray, Anthropologist & Psychologist

By Dan and Amy Warren.

==========

1*Responsible Innovation in Technology for Children. UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence, 2022.

*Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdóttir, S. Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A. E., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.