Oxford Researcher Urges Parents to Introduce Phones Early — Slowly and Intentionally

A University of Oxford researcher who studies technology and human behavior is urging parents to reconsider the dominant advice to delay smartphones until middle school, arguing that early, tightly supervised exposure can help children learn to navigate digital life.

Andrew Przybylski, a professor at Oxford’s Internet Institute and a father of two, said his own children "have always had phones — since they were 3," but stressed that his approach was deliberate and protective rather than permissive. He said he did not hand his toddlers internet-enabled iPhones; instead, he compared his method to putting training wheels on a bicycle.

Przybylski described the first device as a pared-down object whose lone app was a photo album filled with family pictures. As his children aged, he added functions and connectivity in stages, allowing them to practice basic interactions and learn boundaries under parental supervision before granting access to broader online services. He framed the process as intentional scaffolding rather than early, unrestricted access.

The recommendation stands in contrast to a growing national effort known as Wait Until 8th, which encourages families to postpone smartphones until deep into middle school. Advocates of that movement point to concerns about social pressure, mental health, distraction and the influence of social-media platforms. Some families, the movement’s organizers say, are able to delay device ownership even longer.

Przybylski’s proposal intersects with a wider debate among researchers, pediatricians and parents about how best to prepare children for a world in which algorithms and artificial intelligence shape much of their online experiences. Supporters of staged, supervised introduction say it offers opportunities to teach critical skills — such as privacy choices, how to recognize misinformation and norms for respectful online communication — while limiting exposure to potentially harmful content.

Critics of early exposure caution that even limited access can normalize constant connectivity and that parental controls are imperfect. They note that instant messaging and social platforms often become desirable long before parents feel children are ready, creating pressures that families must manage. Experts advising delayed adoption have argued that waiting can reduce risks associated with social comparison, cyberbullying and problematic usage patterns.

Przybylski’s approach emphasizes active parenting: selecting which features children can use, setting time and contact limits, and progressively loosening restrictions as competence and judgment are demonstrated. He has framed each incremental step as an opportunity for teaching and supervision rather than a single threshold event.

The debate is unfolding as digital platforms increasingly rely on automated systems that personalize content and surface recommendations. Those systems can amplify both beneficial and harmful material, complicating parental efforts to shield children while still allowing them to acquire digital skills. Researchers say there is no one-size-fits-all answer; family circumstances, temperament, community norms and school environments all shape whether and when a device is appropriate.

Policy discussions and pediatric guidance have begun to reflect the complexity. Some professional groups advise parents to consider a child’s developmental readiness and to impose structural limits on device use. Other organizations back broader, communitywide approaches aimed at reducing platform harms and improving digital-literacy education in schools.

For now, parents continue to navigate competing schools of thought. Some follow the Wait Until 8th recommendation, choosing to delay ownership and use. Others, like Przybylski, favor an incremental model that starts early with heavily restricted functionality, then builds responsibility and skills over time. Both approaches, proponents say, require active engagement from caregivers, not passive reliance on devices or default settings.

Przybylski’s example adds a distinctive voice to the conversation: a researcher who pairs empirical interest in technology’s effects with a hands-on parenting strategy. As children’s lives become more entwined with algorithmically curated content and AI-driven tools, families and policymakers will continue to weigh how best to introduce devices while protecting young people’s development and well-being.