Smartphones have become near-universal among children, with up to 91% of 11-year-olds owning one. But do children miss out without a phone – or experience surprising benefits?

It is a very modern dilemma. Should you hand your child a smartphone, or keep them away from the devices as long as possible?

As a parent, you'd be forgiven for thinking of a smartphone as a sort of Pandora's box with the ability to unleash all the world's evils on your child's wholesome life. The bewildering array of headlines relating to the possible impact of children's phone and social media use are enough to make anyone want to opt out. Apparently, even celebrities are not immune to this modern parenting problem: Madonna has said that she regretted giving her older children phones at age 13, and wouldn't do it again.

On the other hand, you probably have a phone yourself that you consider an essential tool for daily life – from emails and online shopping, to video calls and family photo albums. And if your child's classmates and friends are all getting phones, won't they miss out without one?

There are still many unanswered questions on the long-term effects of smartphones and social media on children and teenagers, but existing research provides some evidence on their main risks and benefits.

In particular, while there is no overarching evidence showing that owning a phone or using social media is harmful to children's wellbeing in general, that may not tell the full story. Most research so far focuses on adolescents rather than younger age groups – and emerging evidence shows there may be specific developmental phases where children are more at risk from negative effects.

What's more, experts agree on several key factors to consider when deciding if your child is ready for a smartphone – and what you should do once they own one.

The evidence on when is the right time to give a child their own smartphone is poor, but there are key moments where the risks are higher (Credit: Nicolas Asouri/AFP/Getty Images)

The evidence on when is the right time to give a child their own smartphone is poor, but there are key moments where the risks are higher (Credit: Nicolas Asouri/AFP/Getty Images)

Data from Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, show that the vast majority of children in the UK own a smartphone by the age of 11, with ownership rising from 44% at age nine to 91% at age 11. In the US, 37% of parents of nine- to 11-year-olds say their child has their own smartphone. And in a European study across 19 countries, 80% of children aged nine to 16 reported using a smartphone to go online daily, or almost daily.

"By the time we get to older teens, over 90% of kids have a phone," says Candice Odgers, professor of psychological science at the University of California, Irvine, in the US.

While a European report into digital technology use among children from birth to eight years old found that this age group had "limited or no perception of online risks", when it comes to the detrimental effects of smartphone use – and social media apps accessed through them – on older children, solid evidence is lacking.

Odgers analysed six meta-analyses looking at the link between digital technology use and child and adolescent mental health, as well as other large-scale studies and daily diary studies. She found no consistent link between adolescents' technology use and their wellbeing. 

"The majority of studies find no association between social media use and mental health," says Odgers. In the studies that did find an association, the effect sizes – both positive and negative – were small. "The biggest finding really was a disconnect between what people believe, including adolescents themselves, and what the evidence actually says," she says.

The only person who really can judge how social media affects children is often the one closest to them – Amy Orben

Another review, by Amy Orben, an experimental psychologist at the University of Cambridge, UK, also found the evidence inconclusive. While there was a small negative correlation, on average, across the studies included, Orben concluded it was impossible to know whether the technology was causing the dip in wellbeing or vice versa – or whether other factors were influencing both. Much of the research in this area is not of high enough quality to deliver meaningful results, she notes.

Of course, these results are averages. "There's an inherent large variation around that impact [on wellbeing] that has been found in the scientific literature," says Orben, and the experience of individual teenagers will depend on their own personal circumstances. "The only person who really can judge that is often the people who are closest to them," she adds.

In practical terms, this means that regardless of what the broader evidence says, there may be children who do struggle as the result of using social media or certain apps – and it's important for parents to be attuned to this, and offer support.

During the pandemic, mobile phones provided a crucial way for children to access online classes while at home (Credit: Idrees Abbas/Getty Images)

During the pandemic, mobile phones provided a crucial way for children to access online classes while at home (Credit: Idrees Abbas/Getty Images)

IN BRIEF: HOW SMARTPHONES AFFECT CHILDREN

Smartphones are still a relatively new technology in terms of understanding long-term affects, but emerging evidence has revealed some important factors for different age groups:

-       Children from birth to eight years old have "limited or no perception of online risks" when it comes to using smartphones and social media apps, a European study across seven countries showed.

-       Parents have a powerful influence as role models: children often mirror their parents' smartphone use, the same study found.

-       Teenagers may be particularly sensitive to social media feedback. Certain developmental changes during adolescence can mean that young people become more sensitive to status and social relationships, which in turn may make social media use more stressful for them.

-       Experts say communication and openness is key when it comes to how parents deal with young people's smartphone use, including talking about what they're seeing and experiencing online.

On the other hand, for some young people, a phone can become a lifeline – somewhere to find a new form of access and social networking as a person with a disability, or a place to search for answers to pressing questions about your health.

"Imagine you are a teenager worried that puberty is going wrong, or your sexuality isn't the same as your friends', or worried about climate change when the adults around you are bored with it," says Sonia Livingstone, professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics, UK, and co-author of the book Parenting for a Digital Future.

For the most part, though, when they're using their phone for communication, children are talking to friends and family. "If you actually analyse who kids are talking to online […] there's a very strong overlap with their offline network," says Odgers. "I think this whole idea that we're losing a kid in isolation to the phone – for some kids, that can be a real risk, but for the vast majority of kids, they're connecting, they're sharing, they're co-viewing."

In fact, while smartphones are often blamed for children spending less time outdoors, a Danish study of 11- to 15-year-olds found some evidence that phones actually give children independent mobility by increasing parents' sense of security and helping to navigate unfamiliar surroundings. Children said phones enhanced their experience outside through listening to music, and keeping in touch with parents and friends.

Of course, the ability to be in near-constant communication with peers doesn't come without risk.

"I think that the phone has been a fantastic unleashing of what was always an unmet need on the part of young people," says Livingstone. "But for many it can become coercive, it can become incredibly normative. It can pressure them into feeling that there is a place where the popular people are, which they are struggling to get into, or might be excluded from, where everyone is doing the same kind of thing and knows about the latest whatever-it-is."

In fact, in a paper published earlier this year, Orben and colleagues found "windows of developmental sensitivity" – where social media use is associated with a later period of lower life satisfaction – at specific ages during adolescence.

For many phones can become coercive – Sonia Livingstone

Analysing data from over 17,000 participants aged between 10 and 21, the researchers found that higher use of social media at ages 11 to 13 for girls, and 14 to 15 for boys, predicted lower life satisfaction a year later. The reverse was also true: lower social media use at this age predicted higher life satisfaction the following year.

This aligns with the fact that girls tend to go through puberty earlier than boys, the researchers say, though there's not enough evidence to say this is the cause of the difference in timing. Another window appeared at age 19 for both male and female participants, around the time that many teenagers leave home.

Parents should take these age ranges with a pinch of salt when making decisions for their own families – but it's worth being aware that developmental changes could make children more sensitive to the negative side of social media. During the teenage years, for example, the brain changes massively, and this can influence how young people act and feel – including making them more sensitive to social relationships, and status.

Many parents choose to introduce their children to social media from a young age (Credit: Richard Baker/Getty Images)

Many parents choose to introduce their children to social media from a young age (Credit: Richard Baker/Getty Images)

FAMILY TREE

This article is part of Family Tree, a series that explores the issues and opportunities families face today – and how they'll shape tomorrow. You might also be interested in other stories about children and young people's health and development:

Climb other branches of the family tree with BBC Culture and Worklife.

"Being a teenager is a really a major time of development," says Orben. "You're much more impacted by your peers, you're much more interested in what other people think about you. And the design of social media – the way that it provides social contact and feedback on, more or less, a click of a button – might be more stressful at certain times."

As well as age, other factors could influence the impact of social media on children and teenagers – but researchers are only just beginning to explore these individual differences. “This is really a core area of research now,” says Orben. “There will be people who are more negatively or positively impacted at different time points. That might be due to living different lives, going through development at different points, they might be using social media differently. We really need to tease those things apart.”

While research can provide food for thought for families deciding whether to buy their child a smartphone, it can't offer specific answers to the question of "when?".

"I think by saying that things are more complex, naturally it does push the question back to the parents," says Orben. "But that might actually not be such a bad thing, because it's so heavily individual."

The key question parents need to ask, says Odgers, is: "How does it fit for the child and for the family?"

For many parents, buying a child a phone is a practical decision. "In a lot of cases, parents are the ones that want the younger children to have phones so that they can keep in touch throughout the day, they can coordinate pickups," says Odgers.

It can also be seen as a milestone on the road to adulthood. "I think for children it gives them a sense of independence and responsibility," says Anja Stevic, researcher in the department of communication at the University of Vienna, Austria. "This is definitely something that parents should consider: are their children at a stage where they are responsible enough to have their own device?"

Set aside time to go though what's on the phone together – Sonia Livingstone

One factor parents shouldn't overlook is how comfortable they feel with their child having a smartphone. In one study by Stevic and colleagues, when parents felt a lack of control over their children's smartphone use, both parents and children reported more conflicts over the device.

It's worth remembering, though, that having a smartphone need not open the floodgates to every single app or game available. "I'm increasingly hearing, when I interview children, that parents are giving them the phone but introducing requirements to check and discuss which apps they get, and I think that is probably really wise," says Livingstone.

Parents could also, for example, spend time playing games with children to make sure they're happy with the content, or set aside time to go through what's on the phone together.

"There's some amount of supervision, but there has to be this communication and openness to it, to be able to support them for what they're seeing and experiencing online, just like offline," says Odgers.

Discussing which apps children can have and how they use their phone can allow parents to support their child's phone use (Credit: Edwin Remsberg/Getty Images)

Discussing which apps children can have and how they use their phone can allow parents to support their child's phone use (Credit: Edwin Remsberg/Getty Images)

When setting house rules for smartphone use – such as not keeping the phone in a child's bedroom overnight – parents also need to take an honest look at their own smartphone use.

"Children hate hypocrisy," says Livingstone. "They hate feeling they're being told off for something that their parents do, like using the phone at mealtimes or going to bed with a phone."

Even very young children learn from their parent's phone use. A European report into digital technology use among children from birth to eight years old found that this age group had little or no awareness of the risks, but that children often mirrored their parents' technology use. Some parents even discovered during the study that children knew their device passwords, and so could access them independently.

But parents can use this to their advantage by getting younger children involved during smartphone-based tasks, and modelling good practice. "I think this involvement and co-use, that's actually a good way for them to learn what's happening on this device, what it is for," says Stevic.

Ultimately, when to buy a smartphone for a child comes down to a value decision for parents. For some, the right decision will be not to buy one – and, with a little bit of creativity, children without a smartphone don't have to miss out.

"Children who are reasonably confident and sociable will find workarounds and be part of the group," says Livingstone. "After all, mostly their social life is at school, mostly they see each other every day anyway."

In fact, learning to cope with the fear of missing out they feel by not having a phone could prove a useful lesson for older teenagers when – no longer constrained by their parents – they inevitably buy one for themselves, and need to learn how to set limits.

"The trouble with the fear of missing out is that it's never ending, so everyone's got to learn to draw a line somewhere," says Livingstone. "Otherwise, you'd just be scrolling 24/7."

--

Join one million Future fans by liking us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter or Instagram.

If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called "The Essential List" – a handpicked selection of stories from BBC FutureCultureWorklifeTravel and Reel delivered to your inbox every Friday.



What's the right age to get a smartphone?

The illusionist Derren Brown has studied the philosophy and psychology of happiness - and he argues that many of us could take a radical new approach to improving our wellbeing.


Imagine that you are standing on one side of a river, and you want to reach a village on the other side.
You have a group of cheerleaders behind you, egging you on. So you set off, full of determination. But you have forgotten to take the river’s current into account – and no matter how hard you strain your muscles, you can’t quite overcome it. By the time you reach the other bank, you have been pulled far from the place you intended to be.
We may not like to admit it, but our life follows a similar trajectory – as forces beyond our control drag us from our chosen path. And the importance of recognising this fact is just one of the many lessons I learnt from Derren Brown, the illusionist, "mentalist" (mind-reader) and writer, whose book Happy explores the philosophy and psychology of wellbeing.
Most self-help books would suggest that you can fight life’s currents with determination and positive thinking. But taking inspiration from ancient Greek and Roman philosophers like the Stoics and 19th Century German thinker Arthur Schopenhauer, as well as modern scientific research, Brown believes that this is simply a recipe for disappointment and frustration. “We’re better off making our peace with the fact that that is the dynamic of life – rather than creating a false idea that we can somehow control everything to bring it in line with what our goals are,” he says.
As part of BBC Reel’s new Rethink series, I sat down with Brown to discuss the inspiration for his book and the reasons that ancient philosophy is essential to cope with the peculiar demands of the 21st Century.
The concept of Happy might seem like a departure from Brown’s well-known stage shows and TV programmes, but he points out that his illusions have often played with the mind’s blindspots. “Magic is a great analogy for how we edit our experiences.”
How so? Magicians, he says, try to tell a convincing narrative that dismisses certain inconvenient facts – and that’s exactly what the brain does as it compiles our life story. “It took me a long time to realise that. When I did realise that, I saw that magic wasn’t just this childish way of trying to impress people, but actually it sort of held a clue as to how we how we process reality and therefore might better live in accordance with it.”


You might tell yourself that you’re an awkward misfit, for instance – and so you only remember the times when you acted embarrassingly. Or you might only ever pick bad relationships, because your overarching story is that you are “unlucky in love”.

We often adopt these stories from a young age, he says. “A lot of the narratives we inherit come from when we’re really small, from our parents, who have their own set of frustrations – their own unlived lives,” he says. “And for better or worse, we take all that on board and we go out in the world thinking that maybe we have to be successful to be loved, or that we have to always put other people’s needs first, or that we have some big secret that we couldn’t possibly tell people.” Recognising the sources of these narratives can go some way to reducing our anxiety and unhappiness, Brown says. (For more on the power of storytelling to shape our health and happiness, see our recent in-depth story on the subject.)
Today, the stories that we tell ourselves may also be shaped by the self-help industry’s promotion of positive thinking, determination and self-belief. While it might initially feel empowering to see ourselves as the beleaguered hero who relentlessly pursues their goals through sheer willpower, Brown argues that for most people, it will only lead to disappointment. (In Happy, Brown is particularly scathing of Rhonda Byrne's The Secret.)
One problem is that we often aren’t very good at choosing the right goals. “We have a terrible understanding of what fulfils us.” Many people set their sights on money, for instance – but psychological research has shown that, beyond the certain level of wealth needed for basic comfort, riches do not bring greater happiness.
View BBC Reel’s video of Derren Brown explaining the downsides of relentless optimism, and the difference between the “experiencing self” and the “remembering self”
If you’re not convinced, Brown suggests the following thought experiment: imagine that you woke up one day to discover that you were the only person left living on Earth. With no one else around, you’d be able to go and live in any house you wanted – Buckingham Palace even. But would you want to? “You would probably find somewhere that was just comfortable and practical.” The same goes for your expensive clothes, fancy cars, or the latest technology. “When you really follow that thought through, it’s amazing how much we acquire and want only to impress other people.”
Even if we do choose the right goals, the positive-thinking movement can place too much responsibility on the individual; if we haven’t succeeded, it’s our own fault for not having wanted it enough. Worse still, the kind of inflated personal belief that is promoted by certain gurus may cause us to ignore the criticisms of those around us, even when they might be offering a more realistic view of our chances.
Ultimately, the success stories we hear are the anomalies. Just think of all the motivational autobiographies out there: all giving the impression that determination was the key to success. “You just never read the biographies of businessmen who have failed,” he says – yet there will be many out there who had all the self-belief, but just never managed to make it. After all, as many as nine out of ten start-ups end up bombing.
Brown, of course, isn’t arguing that we should simply give up on our dreams. But if we return to that idea of the swimmer crossing from one bank to the other, it’s no good ignoring the currents pushing against us or believing that our force of will alone will overturn them – it is inevitable that you are going to be dragged off course.
If positive thinking can’t make us happier, what can? Brown argues that a healthier attitude to life comes from the Stoics, the ancient Greek philosophers who argued that we should actively and deliberately distinguish between the things that are within your power to change, and the things that aren’t – which we should learn to accept as a necessary part of life.
“I find myself doing this a lot that when something’s really bothering and frustrating me. I just think which side of the line is it on? Is it my thoughts and actions? Or is it something out there? It’s always something out there, it’s someone else’s behaviour. So then I think well, what if it was fine that that person is an idiot, or that my partner can’t handle stress well, or something like that – things that kind of end up having an effect on me, but actually, what if it’s fine, that that’s just their thing? It’s a very helpful thought, because then you take all the stress off yourself. You can then still work out how to help that person if you want, if that’s appropriate, but you kind of emotionally just disconnect from the pain of it.”
He gives an example of a game of tennis, but he says that same applies to any major challenge. “If you go into the game thinking ‘I must win’, that's out of your control. So if you start to lose, you feel like you're failing and then you become anxious… But if you go into a game of tennis thinking ‘I'll play as well as I possibly can to the best of my ability’ – that is under your control, and it doesn't matter if you start to lose – you won’t feel the frustration of failure, because you’re not failing, you’re still sticking true to your goals.”
Similarly, you can go into a job interview with the full knowledge that even if you perform your absolute best, the employer’s final decision is still beyond your control, and you can afford yourself a little compassion if you don’t make it. Brown says that this lowers our emotional “centre of gravity”, making us more resilient to life’s challenges. “[The Stoic’s] model of happiness was about avoiding disturbance.”
Brown also advocates the Stoic practice of premeditation every morning to prepare the mind for the day ahead. “It is, quite simply, spending a few minutes every morning, thinking about the day that lies ahead, and what the kind of traps are likely to be where you’re likely to let yourself down, and just anticipating them and thinking them through,” he says. This deliberate self-reflection – taken from a distanced perspective, when we are in a more rational frame of mind – reminds us that some things will be out of our control, and need not be the source of upset. At the same time it helps us to navigate the challenges that arewithin our control more wisely, so that we don’t just make the same mistakes again and again.
One of the best ways of achieving this, he says, is to leave the phone out of the bedroom. “It’s a little reminder that okay, instead of just browsing Twitter, I’ll think about what’s going to happen today and how I can meet those things in a more useful way.”
A sceptic might question whether these ancient philosophies can be relevant in today’s turbulent times, but Brown argues that it is just as relevant today as ever before. “The Stoics appear during a huge time of constant wars and real political strife. And it became very popular, I think, because it’s a way of distancing yourself from strife and keeping your centre of gravity within you.” He emphasises that this is not an excuse to remain passive or apathetic – it simply helps you to find some personal peace in the turmoil, and some perspective in the battles we do choose to fight, rather than resorting to outrage in every disagreement.
The more detached approach might also help us to deal with the trials of social media and to remember that the truth of someone’s private life is often very different from the perfect exterior we present to the world. “It must be very difficult growing up, when that [social media] is really all you know, and you’re comparing that to this sort of horrible, ugly, messy version of yourself that you know, exists,” he says. “It’s hard to remember that everybody else has one of those as well.”
With that in mind, I wonder how much we are simply seeing a public facade of Brown himself. But as far as you can tell from our short conversation, the Stoic approach of accepting our lack of control certainly seems to bring him moments of relief in his hectic life.
“It’s like that feeling when you’re a kid and you think you’ve got to get up for school and you realise it’s a Saturday,” he says. And that’s the kind of contentment that we could all hope to achieve.
--
David Robson is a senior journalist at BBC Future. He is @d_a_robson on Twitter.
Join more than one million Future fans by liking us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter or Instagram.
If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called “If You Only Read 6 Things This Week”. A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Capital, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday. 

courtesy of BBC 



A mentalist's guide to being happy

By Alex Hannaford
    1 May 2019

    (Credit: Getty Images)

    Sometimes we just know something will happen and it does. But experts say channeling that experience into decision-making is an error that leads to mistakes.


    On 8 November 2016 – US election night – the betting odds of Donald Trump winning the presidency had narrowed to five to one. By the following morning, he'd managed to pull off a feat many thought impossible, but that didn't stop the I-told-you-sos – friends, family members and even online soothsayers – who claimed to have known all along that Trump would triumph despite such bad odds.

    To a lesser extent it happened in November 2008 too, when Barack Obama won the election. After accepting the Democratic nomination three months earlier, his chance of victory hovered around 60%. When he won, you may well have been one of those who ‘knew’ that was going to be the outcome, and imagined that his odds of winning had been much, much higher. But just because he won didn’t change his odds of winning prior to his victory.

    This is hindsight bias – a phenomenon in which we revise probabilities after the fact or exaggerate the extent to which past events could have been predicted beforehand. Politics doesn’t have a monopoly on this: we’re guilty of hindsight bias when we talk about the weather (there’s only a 20% chance of rain, but you say it’s going to rain and it does, and suddenly you have better forecasting ability than the experts); it happens at sporting events, in court rooms, in medical decisions and in business.

    In fact, hindsight bias is one of the most widely studied of what are known as ‘decision traps’, in which people routinely employ mental shortcuts to simplify decisions when they're not certain; decisions that are often skewed by cognitive biases: we guess something improbable will happen and it does, but those probabilities never changed – and, believe it or not, nobody possesses supernatural abilities.

    Causes and consequences

    According to Nobel Prize-winning American economist Richard Thaler, businesses may be more prone to hindsight bias than other entities. In one study, researchers found that 77.3% of entrepreneurs in charge of failed start-ups believed that – before the failure – their company would grow into a successful business. After they failed, only 58% said they had originally believed their company would be a success.

    In an interview Thaler gave to business magazine McKinsey Quarterly, he said if a CEO decided to gamble on an idea that looked good, then a few years later it turned out a competitor came up with a better product, “the CEO is going to remember, ‘I never really liked this idea’”.

    Thaler says a simple fix could be to write things down; to make a record of how a decision was made at the time so that companies can learn lessons after the event. “Any company that can learn to distinguish between bad decisions and bad outcomes has a leg up,” he says. “Memorialise the fact that the CEO and the other people that have approved this decision all have the same assumptions, that no competitor has a similar product in the pipeline, that we don't expect a major financial crisis.”

    Kathleen Vohs, a social scientist at the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management, co-authored a 2012 paper on hindsight bias which found that its consequences included “myopic attention to a single causal understanding of the past (to the neglect of other reasonable explanations) as well as general overconfidence in the certainty of one’s judgements”.

    Vohs says some are more prone to hindsight bias than others. If, for example, you are in the kind of profession where you receive a lot of timely and clear feedback before you render a decision, like accounting, you’ll tend to show a smaller level of hindsight bias.

    Much of the business world, though, is unclear in terms of what causes success or failure – which is often due to multiple factors. “When you have ambiguity like that…  people can come up with a mental causal pathway in which they believe they can see how something would have occurred - ‘oh, I can see very clearly how that would have happened’ – [then] you have a higher level of hindsight bias,” she says.

    Drew Boyd, executive director of the University of Cincinnati’s MSc Marketing programme, says one direct result of hindsight bias is something called stereotypy. “It happens in business a lot when you think that something that has happened before is going to happen again. It seems to make sense. But then it doesn’t happen again and you wonder what happened.”

    “Business people will decide on a strategy because it worked for them before. But the conditions in the next environment are going to be different: it’s a different market situation, different people, and it’s a mistake to immediately assume that what worked before is going to work again.”

    How to de-bias and improve your decision-making

    Boyd says a good way to avoid such errors is to start again: “Consider what happened before, but fold in new pieces of information, widen the field, incorporate new data along with old data. What people have to remember is they’re succumbing to an even broader bias called omission neglect – a tendency to consider only the evidence we have available to us.”

    The saying goes that hindsight is 20:20, but Boyd says it’s worse than that. “It makes people think they can look back at past events and interpret something; it makes them think they have new ability to predict.” He says that in order to correct for hindsight bias, you have to realise you don’t possess a crystal ball.

    “We try to teach people to use what we call Bayesian thinking. [Eighteenth Century English statistician] Thomas Bayes’s premise was to consider all sources of information but weight them: some information is more valuable, but all information has some value. Weight that information appropriately and you tend to make the best decision… make decisions based on what the data says is likely to happen, not what you think is going to happen.”

    American businessman Warren Buffet, Boyd says, has a formula he calls ‘value investing’. “He follows it, but he knows the odds of succeeding are what they are. He doesn’t always hit magic; he loses occasionally, but he doesn’t say the odds were against him those times. Successful people understand risk for what it is and don’t make revisions in hindsight. Go with the odds, not the gods.”

    Kathleen Vohs says there is one de-biasing tactic she favours known as the ‘consider the opposite strategy’. Before rendering a decision you should flip it and think: how could this not have gone the way you anticipated? “Once you have your little narrative in your mind, think: how could the outcome go in a different direction or not occur at all?” she says. “If you flip the script like that in a number of ways you can reduce hindsight bias.”

    Vohs says this method has the effect of disrupting your confidence. “Anything that reduces people's confidence in predicting something will happen or the pathway in which something will happen is a good way to go about it.”

    To comment on this story or anything else you have seen on BBC Capital, please head over to our Facebook  page or message us on Twitter.

    If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter called "If You Only Read 6 Things This Week". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Capital and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.




    HOW HINDSIGHT BIAS SKEWS YOUR JUDGEMENT

    Why do names matter so much?


    Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

    When it comes to politics and international diplomacy, names matter. We know they matter because people are always changing them. Two important addresses changed this week
    The Russian Embassy in Washington DC
    The Russian embassy in Washington found itself situated not on Wisconsin Street but Boris Nemtsov Plaza, named after a Russian opposition politician.
    And in Turkey, the embassy of the United Arab Emirates is now on Fahreddin Pasha Road.
    The Turkish situation was very 2018 in that it was the result of a Twitter feud.
    The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahyan, shared a tweet alleging that a century ago, the Turkish Ottoman military commander Fahreddin Pasha had mistreated Arabs while he was governor of the holy city of Medina.
    The allegation was compounded by an accusation that ancestors of the current Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan were involved in the mistreatment too.
    Mr Erdogan was not happy.

    A new street sign near the UAE embassyImage copyrightAFP/GETTY
    Image captionTurkish television carried footage of the street signs being changed

    The minister should "know his place", replied the president, adding that he considered the United Arab Emirates spoilt by "money and oil". So now its embassy in Turkey sits on a street renamed after that long-ago governor.
    "Good luck with it," added the mayor of Ankara, in a tweet, naturally.
    One day later, in the US, the Russian embassy's official address changed from Wisconsin Avenue to Boris Nemtsov Plaza thanks to legislation championed by DC council members Mary Cheh and Phil Mendelson.
    Mr Nemtsov was an opposition politician, murdered outside the Kremlin in 2015.
    One politician in Moscow called the name change "a dirty trick".

    Floral tributes at the site where opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was fatally shot on a bridge near the Kremlin, in Moscow, pictured on 10 January, 2018.Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
    Image captionA fierce critic of Vladimir Putin, Boris Nemtsov was fatally shot near the Kremlin in 2015

    These are just the latest examples of the centuries-old recognition of the power and importance of names.
    If you search online for the address of the United Kingdom embassy in Tehran, Iran, you'll be told that it's 198 Ferdowsi Avenue.
    Iranians got good at changing names in the early 1980s. Thousands of streets and buildings named for the regime of the deposed shah were instead dedicated to mark the Islamic revolution.
    In what was originally a prank, a group of students changed the signs where the British embassy was located to read "Bobby Sands Street", after the high-profile IRA activist who died in prison on hunger strike while serving a sentence for firearms offences.
    Weirdly, the name stuck. So instead of having an official address which memorialised someone who considered the British state the enemy, British embassy staff decided to start using the back door instead, thereby changing their postal address.
    And as Ferdowsi is considered to be the Persian national poet, perhaps they reasoned a street named after him was safe from being changed.
    If renaming streets is controversial, renaming whole countries is critical.
    You don't hear the phrase Upper Volta on the BBC any more. Burkina Faso - or land of the upright people - tells us that this is a country no longer colonised by another nation - the French - who decided that the best way to denote the territory would be a purely geographical one.
    The break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s revived the idea of Macedonia as a nation. But Macedonia is also the name of the bordering region of Greece. So what to call the new country?
    Independent Macedonia? Republic of Macedonia? Negotiations over the use of the name have been going on ever since with little sign of a breakthrough - until now.

    Matthew NimetzImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
    Image captionMatthew Nimetz is hopeful that Greece and Macedonia can settle their naming dispute

    Earlier this week, Matthew Nimetz, the UN envoy who's been trying to resolve the issue for more than two decades said he was hopeful they were now moving towards settling the dispute.
    So the clock may be ticking for "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", or FYROM, the inelegant fudge which has been used in the meantime.
    Names matter whether you're talking about a street, a country or a human being.
    When he became a Muslim, it meant a lot to Cassius Clay that he be known to the world as Muhammad Ali.
    It took six more years until US newspapers stopped calling Ali by what he deemed his "slave name". And the reason we attach so much importance to names is that they tell the world something about us.
    It can be something unique. Brazilian footballers traditionally go by nicknames. Edson Arantes do Nascimento means almost nothing. Pele means everything.

    Pele, pictured in 1963Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
    Image captionEdson Arantes do Nascimento, aka Pele

    That's despite the man considered by some to be the greatest ever football player saying in his autobiography that he has no idea where the name came from.
    So there's power in choosing a name, power in changing it, and - as both religion and mythology tell us - power in guarding it.
    My partner and I are being assessed as prospective adopters at the moment. We've been told about the importance of identity to a child who has suffered loss and trauma.
    We're told that changing a child's birth name, no matter how much you might dislike it, could be damaging.
    Imagine having nothing but your name, and having that taken away by the new parents you were told would love and protect you.
    In Jewish tradition, only the high priest in the Temple of Jerusalem was allowed to utter the four-letter name of God - and even then only once a year.
    The Egyptian goddess Isis gained complete power of the sun god Ra when she learned his true name.
    So what we call things can border on the magical. Names matter.

    Why do names matter so much?