The theory of points of contact with reality: sending children outside is not enough

‘Put that phone away and go outside.’ Imagine a child obeying. Where will they go? Their friends have made no arrangements, the adults are working, and somewhere they could simply spend time is far away or closed. They have put the phone down. An opportunity to do something has not appeared by itself.

I support schools without personal phones and would not give children unrestricted access to digital content. At the same time, asking them to put away a device and then taking no further interest in their day seems insufficient. Adults must try to offer something a child can actually take hold of. A person with time. A place they are allowed to come to. A chance to start something even if they cannot do it yet. Sometimes helping with the first arrangement and then staying out of the way is enough.

This is what my theory of points of contact with reality addresses. It is an original model I use in talks: it helps us think about how a young person pieces together a relationship with the physical world from their experiences. I draw on my own work with young people and also on research into relationships and social withdrawal. That supports some of the connections I discuss; the model as a whole has not yet been validated.

Optional reality

By ‘optional reality’, I do not mean a person can get rid of their body or that children no longer need to attend school. I mean the growing possibility of bypassing some face-to-face encounters and activities. Watching a film at home, ordering shopping, meeting friends in a game. An evening can be full without someone going out of the door.

I do not consider digital friendships false simply because they began through a screen. Online arrangements can lead to a shared outing, and the internet can help someone find people with the same interest. I am mainly interested in situations where the option of staying home becomes an increasingly frequent choice and experiences outside the digital environment diminish.

For Generations Z and Alpha, I see an important change precisely in the availability of this alternative. My theory is not built on a claim that young people are naturally less resilient. I ask what can happen when, after an unpleasant experience, someone need not try another face-to-face contact for a long time. When they have few reasons to go outside, our conviction that they should will not provide those reasons.

What we build our relationship with the world from

I borrow the term touchpoint from marketing. Customers do not form their relationship with a brand only from what it says about itself. Staff behaviour, experience with a product or how a problem was resolved also enter it. This is an analogy I bring to another question: what does a young person base their view on of whether entering a particular environment is worthwhile?

I call a specific experience with people, an activity or a physical environment that can affect the desire to return to it a point of contact with reality. It might be a first training session, repairing a bicycle together, a conversation with a teacher, trying to grow something themselves or an afternoon outside with a group of friends.

Imagine a first visit to an activity club. The child knows nobody and does not know what is expected. Someone might welcome them, show them a first step and give them a place in the group. Or they might remain on the sidelines, watching everyone else the whole time. In both cases, they have completed the same item in the parental calendar. From the perspective of the theory of points of contact, however, they have received a different answer to whether they have a place there.

It need not always involve people. With manual work, I would be interested in the chance to try things, make mistakes and see something remain after my effort. With movement, in whether I know only comparison of performance with others, or also pleasure in what my body can do. The number of hours away from a screen tells me little about such an experience.

When someone ‘checks out of society’

I have also worked with several young people whose withdrawal I describe as ‘checking out of society’. This experience leads me not to underestimate how fundamental hurtful encounters can be. I do not want to explain rejection of further contact automatically through the internet being more entertaining. I also need to know what someone has experienced among people and what they fear about the next encounter.

Boredom on an outing and humiliation in front of a group are not the same kind of negative experience. Losing a game, a demanding task or disagreement belong among situations children need to learn to manage. I would not present bullying, humiliation and repeated exclusion as useful resilience training.

To understand the effect of a particular encounter, we also need to take an interest in what preceded it. Imagine a young person joining a new group after long hesitation. They try to say something, and the others ridicule them. Those around them may see one foolish joke. They have just taken a risk they feared, and may understand the result as confirmation that staying away was better. The next declined invitation may then be an attempt to protect themselves from a repeat of the experience.

The connection between hurtful experiences and withdrawal is not only my supposition. Research following 2 772 adolescents at ages 11, 13 and 16 found that negative peer experiences predicted a later increase in social withdrawal. In some relationships examined, the opposite direction also applied: greater withdrawal preceded further peer problems. The study therefore captured a relationship over time, not a simple story of one cause. ¹

A Japanese questionnaire survey of 4 000 people aged 20–34 found an association between harmful school experiences, including bullying and teachers' conduct, and severe social withdrawal. Participants reported retrospectively on the past, so the finding cannot establish causation. But it is a reason to take seriously the possibility that the significance of school experience does not end with the final report card. ²

Why some encounters carry more weight

I formulate one of the theory's central ideas like this: the fewer other experiences a person has to rely on, the greater the weight one hurtful encounter may acquire. This is a hypothesis about connections, not a law by which points can be added up.

Imagine two young people whose first visit to a youth group went badly. One also has friends and another place where they feel welcome. The other had put their hopes in that visit of finally belonging somewhere. The same event need not mean the same to them. I am interested in when someone concludes ‘I don't like it here’ and when they start expecting things to turn out similarly everywhere.

Research into 294 young people also examined the importance of relationships for an individual. The association between peer rejection and later rejection sensitivity was strongest among those who valued relationships highly. The study did not test the number of points of contact, but shows why an external description of an event alone is not enough. ³

Even regular school attendance does not, therefore, automatically mean enough good points of contact in my model. A child can be among people daily, but we need to know whether they also experience acceptance, the chance to influence something or a success that means something to them.

I do not want this reflection to become a threat to every parent who sometimes loses patience. What we do afterwards matters to me too. Can we acknowledge behaving badly? Do we return to what we dismissed? Are we interested in how the other person experienced it? I would also count repairing a bad encounter among the experiences we want to offer children.

The phone need not be the start of the whole story

For part of this model, I use the following possible course: someone experiences something hurtful, begins limiting further encounters and finds a way to manage the day in the digital environment. When they subsequently spend most of their time at a screen, we easily see mainly the phone. The beginning of their withdrawal may no longer be visible.

Research likewise gives no reason to treat association automatically as causation. In a small Japanese adolescent study comparing 20 young people with severe withdrawal and 88 peers in a control group, excessive internet use was associated with the severity of withdrawal. The authors explicitly acknowledge it may also be a consequence of withdrawal. ⁴

When seeking help, I would therefore distinguish what the person does online. Mindless video-watching and talking to a friend are not interchangeable. If a young person has one trusted contact online, I would want to preserve access to them while changing the routine. At the same time, I would seek an accessible option for face-to-face encounters. Firm boundaries around technology do not lose their value; they should not, however, be the only response to severe withdrawal.

Offer something at all

When I speak of the appeal of the physical world, I mainly mean a real offer. It is hard to build on ‘find a hobby’ when a child does not know where, with whom or how to start. A specific offer might be: ‘I'll be repairing the bike on Saturday. Come and help me; I'll show you.’ Or: ‘You can meet at our house on Wednesday. We'll make room for you.’

The adult need not remain the organiser of the whole activity. I recommend helping overcome the first obstacle: arranging a meeting, ensuring transport, preparing materials, introducing the child to someone who welcomes them. Then give them space to bring their own idea. A teacher can make equipment available for children to try something with. A group leader can give a newcomer a clear role instead of leaving them to wait until they join in independently.

‘Offering something’ does not mean filling a child's calendar. I would leave unscheduled time. But I would take an interest in the difference between free time when a child has options and emptiness when they do not know whom to approach or where they belong. An expensive trip is not a requirement here. An available friend and a place at the table may matter more.

Nor would I leave responsibility only with parents. A school, youth group or municipality can also decide whether there is somewhere to go, whether it can be reached and whether the offer is accessible without a large family budget. When planning activities, I would ask about children who do not yet go anywhere too. A registration form on a website alone may not be enough of a beginning for them.

Three As for preparing a good encounter

For parents and teachers, I use the simple 3-A tool: Authorship, Attractiveness and Adaptation. These are questions we can ask about a particular activity.

Authorship: can the child influence something? They need not decide everything. They can choose a task, suggest a rule or adjust a plan. What matters is that their choice is real. If we ask for an opinion only to impose a predetermined answer afterwards, little authorship remains.

Attractiveness: what could have value for them? Sometimes it is adventure, at other times a friend, something they make or quiet. I would not base the choice only on what I see as valuable. A child wanting to make something may not need another outing, but someone who shows them how to begin.

Adaptation: do we notice how it is going, and can we change something? If the child is lost, perhaps they need a clearer task or smaller group. If bored, the task may be too easy. Sometimes it becomes apparent that the whole activity does not suit them. Adapting need not mean yielding immediately at the first difficulty; it can mean helping them manage the next step.

This tool has no point score or guaranteed outcome. It should remind us that even a well-intentioned activity needs the perspective of the person for whom we prepare it.

A phone-free school should also offer a place among people

I support a ban on personal phone use during the school day, including breaks, with health-related and essential support exceptions. At the same time, I would want the school to consider what children are allowed to do during breaks. Do they have somewhere to sit together? Can they play something, move about or read quietly? Does anyone notice a child who regularly remains on the sidelines?

This does not require every break to be a guided activity. The school can prepare spaces and equipment, enable children's own ideas and offer contact where joining in is difficult. It seems equally important that teachers intervene against humiliation rather than present it as an ordinary way children build resilience.

Technology has its place in such a school. I want children to learn about AI too and work with it through age-appropriate activities, on prepared school devices and with a clear goal. A personal phone ban is not a demand for a school without technology.

I think similarly about our camp experience. For the third time, we held a phone-free camp, and over two weeks observed more playful and content children; parents also mentioned changes. I consider the ban an important condition. At the same time, the children have people, a programme and shared time there. I cannot separate the contributions of individual influences from this observation. In practice, though, working with both makes sense to me: the boundary around the phone and the environment that opens up for children once they put it away.

When another invitation is not enough

With a child avoiding contact, I would first try to understand what is hard about it for them. Fear of further humiliation will not be solved by a new registration with the same group. We need to find out what happened and whether the harm continues. NICE recommendations for assessing social anxiety in children also include relationships at home, at school and among peers, including bullying. ⁵

Taking the child seriously does not mean automatically confirming the conclusion that everyone wants to hurt them. We can acknowledge the pain of a particular experience while seeking whom they might meet, and under which conditions, for a different next encounter. Sometimes a shared activity with one familiar person may be a suitable beginning, rather than immediately entering a large group.

If a child withdraws significantly, avoidance prevents school attendance or everyday functioning deteriorates, contact a paediatrician, child psychologist or psychiatrist; the school psychologist can help coordinate support. Do not wait until you have tried every leisure opportunity. Professional approaches exist for social anxiety, and returning to difficult situations may need guided help. ⁵ But let us not consider solitude itself a problem. Let us ask whether it offers the child rest, or whether fear or other difficulties prevent the life they would like to have.

The theory of points of contact reminds me that we cannot demand a young person's trust in the physical world while taking no interest in their experiences of it. Next time, alongside ‘put that phone away’, let us offer something specific. An agreed time, an open door, a person who will begin with them. And if they do not come, let us try to find out what prevents them before explaining it as disinterest in everything except the screen.

Sources and supporting material

The theory of points of contact with reality, the concept of optional reality and the 3-A tool are Jakub Roh's original model. The research below documents individual connections; it does not validate the model as a whole or claims of greater vulnerability across entire Generations Z and Alpha. The article's practical recommendations are the author's, not a diagnostic or treatment protocol.

1. Barzeva, S. A. et al. (2020; online 2019): The social withdrawal and social anxiety feedback loop and the role of peer victimization and acceptance in the pathways. Development and Psychopathology, 32(4), 1402–1417. Longitudinal monitoring of 2 772 adolescents at ages 11, 13 and 16. Documents temporal connections between peer experiences and withdrawal, not validation of the theory of points of contact or a causal effect of digital media. DOI: 10.1017/S0954579419001354. Source.

2. Wakuta, M. et al. (2023): Adverse childhood experiences: impacts on adult mental health and social withdrawal. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1277766. A cross-sectional online survey of 4 000 Japanese adults aged 20–34, with retrospective assessment of childhood experiences and questionnaire assessment of severe withdrawal. Association is not proof of causation; the finding cannot be automatically applied to Czech children. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1277766. Source.

3. Wang, J. et al. (2012): Peer Rejection as a Social Antecedent to Rejection Sensitivity in Youth: The Role of Relational Valuation. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 939–942. A study of 294 young people during transition to a higher school stage. Examines the value placed on relationships as a moderator of the association between rejection and later rejection sensitivity. Does not test the hypothesis of scarce points of contact. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.007. Source.

4. Hamasaki, Y. et al. (2021; online 2020): Identifying Social Withdrawal (Hikikomori) Factors in Adolescents: Understanding the Hikikomori Spectrum. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 52, 808–817. A small cross-sectional study of 20 adolescents with severe withdrawal and 88 peers in a control group; parents provided the data. The authors note the unclear direction of the relationship between internet use and withdrawal. Their findings are not a diagnosis of people from the author's practice. DOI: 10.1007/s10578-020-01064-8. Source.

5. NICE: Social anxiety disorder: recognition, assessment and treatment (CG159). Professional recommendations for assessing and treating social anxiety, particularly sections 1.4 and 1.5. Assessment includes school, family, relationships, bullying and possible co-occurring difficulties. Listed in support of recommending professional help, not as proof of the theory of points of contact. Source. NICE information on treatment for children and teenagers.

Experiences with young people who withdrew from social life and with three phone-free camps are the author's observations. They are not case studies with established causation or a controlled experiment. The scenes of a child sent outside, visiting an activity club and being ridiculed in a new group are hypothetical examples.