By Andrew McPeak
I grew up in the late 1990s and early 2000s. If you were around then, you will recall, as I do, the joy of exploring the options in your local video store. I vividly remember the shelves of VHS tapes (and later DVDs) with dozens of copies of each movie. It was effectively a maze of wonder — you never knew what might be around the corner. As I was surfing Netflix a couple weeks ago, it hit me how different this experience was from the way we choose entertainment today. Certainly, we are now scrolling pages rather than strolling aisles, and we are subscribing to services rather than renting tapes, but of course there is much more to the story.
In fact, the more I thought about it, the more I realized there is one fascinating and important difference between Blockbuster then and Netflix now that shapes the way all of us make decisions. This force, which was once so natural and powerful in our video rental stores, is one that, if we chose to, we could bring back and leverage to motivate and direct our students toward making better choices.
To put it simply, movie rental stores (as well as other more analog businesses) offered a social factor to the way entertainment choices were made in their aisles. Along with choosing what video (or game) we would rent in a Blockbuster, we also had to contend with the social expectations of those around us. What would the person standing next to us think if we picked up THAT movie? What would our mom say when we met her at the counter holding a “rated M” game? This social component subtly (and in the case of my mother — not so subtly) adjusted our choices. We thought twice as to whether picking up a “controversial” movie was worth the possible social backlash.
This social force is not a hard barrier like a rule; instead it acts as a directive barrier, subtly directing people toward making more socially positive choices. Unsurprisingly, in a world without aisles and shelves, this social force is conspicuously absent from decision-making today.
Young people surfing personal devices make daily and sometimes hourly decisions about what media to consume, what comments to leave, as well as how much content to consume without the pressure of social forces “over their shoulder.” I would argue that this missing social force is making it easier for today’s kids to make unhelpful and even antisocial decisions without thinking. After all, if no one sees it, I can’t ‘get in trouble.’
I was recently reading researcher John Palfrey’s book, Born Digital, where he made this connection even more clearly: “In the analog world,” he says, “a small metal shield in the corner store stands between the idle young teen and the magazines on the top shelf. Back before Blockbuster and other video stores filed for bankruptcy, the physical segmentation at the video store between the Disney section and the adult titles — which were often in a separate room or had their graphic covers removed — was enough to keep children from perusing the adult selections. Online, no such separation necessarily exists, unless an Internet company has chosen to take great care to create such barriers — or if someone, a parent or a teacher, has installed special commercial software to filter out pornographic material.” What Palfrey is essentially saying is that barriers that were once natural now must be planned and created by caring adults.
Where Have the Directive Barriers Gone?
Today, two factors have removed the weight of this social pressure: access and anonymity. Each of us has access to unlimited information. Streaming services and high-speed mobile internet mean that there are very few barriers in our way as we seek to consume more and more content. The second, and more important, factor for the sake of our conversation is anonymity. Each of us makes our consumer choices in the absence of positive social factors. We watch YouTube on our phone alone, we stream shows on our iPad alone, and we scroll through content on social media alone. This is the first time in recorded history that these social forces have been absent — especially for our children. In their absence, it is easy to see how these now missing obstacles to mindless consumption were serving as “directive barriers.” Directive barriers slow down our decision-making long enough to bring most people in line with contemporary ethics. Without them, (especially under-formed) minds tend to wander into unhealthy territory.
The upside to a directive barrier is that it isn’t a command. No one told me not to pick up that movie or video game; I made that decision myself. The social pressure didn’t make a decision for me; instead it challenged me to “think twice” before making a decision. When you think about it this way, a “directive barrier” is far superior to other forces we might use to coerce certain behaviors from our students. Classroom rules, posted signs, and even laws are all lower forms of motivating behavior — they require no critical thinking or social intelligence on the part of the participant. You follow them or you get in trouble. Utilizing directive barriers, on the other hand, gives us the opportunity to direct student behavior while still letting them possess their own agency. It’s also a great way to help them build their social and emotional intelligence.
Let me give you a few examples of different types of directive barriers. After explaining each type, I’ll make a suggestion for how to utilize it to help shape the decisions of the students we lead.
Four Types of Directive Barriers
1. Communal Accountability
The preverbal curtain at the video store blocking the pornographic content wasn’t just a physical barrier — it was also a social one. Communal accountability is accomplished by making sure that decisions aren’t made in private spaces.
How to bring it back? At home, kids should do their fun or school computing in daylight hours and/or general family areas. At school, computer labs should design layouts to make sure someone is always behind the child in front of the screen. In the workplace, companies should design fun general spaces where work can be done with screens facing toward open areas.
2. Social Contracts
I’ve written about social contracts before. They can be a powerful way to socially normalize positive behavior without needing to write a single rule. A social contract is an 18th-century idea contrived by John Locke, the famous American philosopher. The idea of a social contract was created to ease any hesitancy in participating in a binding contractual agreement, especially for the parties that would be beholden to that agreement. As Dr. Adam L. Saenz says in his book, The EQ Intervention, “What differentiates the rules of a social contract versus the rules of an institution is that the rules of a social contract are created by group members, and not imposed by a higher authority. This results in a greater sense of ownership and responsibility.”
How to bring it back? Try setting aside time at the beginning of a year or school semester to ask students the question: “What kind of classroom do you want to have this year?” Allow time to create a list of classroom expectations and values like “respect” and “kindness.” Then have students establish consequences if these social expectations are broken.
3. Curated Content
Being alone with a book is very different from being alone with the internet. The book is a curated linear experience designed by a named and trusted source, while the internet is a place for wandering and meandering. You also can’t know if the information has been verified or if the author is even qualified. Like a movie or museum, linear curated experiences are directive barriers that keep us focused and moving toward a productive, positive, and well-thought-out end. The best “curated experiences” are designed by trusted experts.
How to bring it back? Parents and teachers should encourage reading and push kids toward online experiences that are designed to be positive and to lead to a specific outcome. Companies should create baseline onboarding experiences that all team members go through to create aligned narratives and taxonomy across the organization.
4. Social Experiences
Experiencing media along with a group is a classic method of building social intelligence. In socialized experiences like a movie theater, a Broadway show, or even around the family television, we naturally learn from the group what to laugh at, cry at, and be upset about. Today, media consumption happens alone, allowing each of us to consume content without the accompanying social cues. This is why young kids who are overexposed to graphic media are often desensitized and undisturbed when they later see things that should make them upset.
How to bring it back? Parents and teachers should create opportunities for group media experiences like family movie nights, or social games like Scattergories or Mad Gab. Companies should encourage group social opportunities inside and outside of the workday like company retreats, experiences such as escape rooms, or shared meals.
While these are three great examples of directive barriers, they aren’t the only ones. What other types of directive barriers can you think of? How do you introduce social factors to help your students process their experiences? How might those be implemented in your context to encourage better decision-making and more alignment?
I once heard a high school principal I love and respect say that in her experience, “‘No’ is the schoolhouse for self-control.” The best versions of ourselves are discovered not when we choose what to say yes to, but when we choose what we are going to say no to. Our “no’s” must be discovered, and by instituting directive barriers in the lives of our students, we can find a subtle way to help them learn to find where their “no’s” are going to begin.
