Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01724-2

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Parental Influence on Youth Media Use

1
Alexis R. Lauricella ●
Drew P. Cingel2

Published online: 25 May 2020

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Children and adolescents are frequent media users and research regularly examines the consequences of such use. This
research, however, often does not examine parental factors relating to youth media use. Framed by Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems theory, this study examines the role of media in the child’s ecological system by describing how parent
attitudes, behaviors, and own personal media use are related to child media use. This study used data from a nationally
representative sample of U.S. parents of 8- to 18-year-olds (N = 1819). This study documented that parents’ attitudes toward
technology are mixed, suggesting that while parents are worried about certain aspects of technology use, they also see the
positive outcomes of use for both their children and their own lives as parents. Further, the data indicated that parents of
1234567890();,:
1234567890();,:

children and adolescents were heavy and regular media users themselves and that parent media use and media attitudes were
strongly related to youth media use, even during adolescent years. These findings shed light on youth media use and suggest
that, to fully understand media use among young people, researchers must also consider how parent factors influence the
media ecology of the child’s home environment.
Keywords Parents Media use Home ecology Attitudes Youth media use
● ● ● ●

Highlights
● Parent attitudes toward child technology use are relatively positive overall.
● Parent attitudes toward child technology use vary by the type of technology.
● Parents are heavy media users and parent media use is related to child media use.
● Many parents reported having rules about the content their children consume.

Historically, there has been concern about adolescent tele- and Scott 2016). In many of these studies, researchers have
vision use (see Wartella and Reeves 1985) and in particular studied the media platform and the adolescent largely in
its relationship to sexual attitudes and behaviors (e.g., isolation from other contexts. From an ecological systems
Gottfried et al. 2013), body image (e.g., Field et al. 2005), theory approach (Bronfenbrenner 1979), it is important to
violence (e.g., Huesmann et al. 2003) and other negative examine how multiple factors relevant to individuals’ lives
outcomes. Due to increased adolescent use of a range of interact and influence each other to better understand the
media platforms beyond television (Common Sense Media effects of media on development. Parents are one factor that
2015), concerns have been expanded to focus on additional likely influence youth media use through their own media
areas of adolescent media use, including social media, use behaviors, attitudes, and rules (Vaala and Bleakley
smartphone, tablet computer, Internet, and videogame use 2015). Indeed, Vaala and Bleakley (2015) found that parent
(e.g., Gentile et al. 2004; Sasson and Mesch 2014; Woods computer use and engagement in specific activities were
related to child computer use, demonstrating the key role of
parents in youth computer use specifically.
The term “media use” refers to a number of different
* Alexis R. Lauricella
[email protected]
activities that involve the use of media including television
viewing, computer, Internet, or online or tablet game use,
1
Erikson Institute, 451 N LaSalle Ave, Chicago, IL 60654, USA videogame playing, communication via voice or text on
2
Department of Communication, University of California, Davis, mobile devices, listening to music, book reading, newspaper
373 Kerr Hall, Davis, CA 95616, USA or magazine reading, among other activities. Not only are
1928 Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937

the types of technologies included in the term “media use” Additionally, the microsystem interacts with the child
varied but the ways in which youth engage with them differ repeatedly and on a regular basis, thereby having a powerful
as well. For example, media use can include instances when influence on outcomes, experiences, and expectations.
adolescents watch recorded educational video doc- Originally, Bronfenbrenner (1979) theorized that mass
umentaries, check online news, chat with peers via text media influenced the child as a function of its place in the
message apps, or browse content on social media sites. This exosystem and directly through the content that was pre-
variety in technology access and use can make measuring sented via mass media. According to the theory, mass media
and interpreting media use challenging. Children and ado- is more removed from the child but still exerts an influence,
lescents report high levels of access to media technologies as its content permeates the inner systems (e.g. parents and
(e.g., computers, televisions, mobile devices, etc.). Listen- peers) and trickles down to the child (e.g. Atkin et al. 1991;
ing to music and watching television remain among ado- Bronfenbrenner 1979). However, given the now ubiquitous
lescents’ favorite activities (Common Sense Media 2015), use and access to media technology, there is debate about
but social media sites also are popular media activities for whether media still belongs in the exosystem, and if not,
youth. Adolescents report using a variety of social media where media belongs in the ecological system of the home.
platforms each day and nearly three-quarters of adolescents Some writers have argued that because youth are such
report using social media multiple times per week, more heavy, regular users of these technologies, media should be
than doubling from data collected in 2012 (Common Sense conceptualized as being part of the microsystem, along with
Media 2018). family and peer influence (see Bickham 2015).
Despite high rates of youth access to and use of tech- Under this view, media may influence the child and
nology, differences do exist as a function of demographic adolescent directly due to its regular presence in the lives of
variables, particularly gender, age, and race/ethnicity. Both youth (see Bickham 2015). However, multiple contexts and
the Pew Research Center (Lenhart 2015) and Common environments influence child development (Bronfenbrenner
Sense Media (2015) report that girls are more likely to use 1979), thus, it is important to examine the way in which
social media, while boys prefer to play video games. Fur- parents, even of older children and adolescents, perceive
ther, adolescents (ages 13–17) are much more likely to own and use media themselves, as they are likely influencing the
their own smartphone (67%) and less likely to own their home media experiences of their children by enacting and
own tablet (37%) compared to pre-adolescents (ages 8–12; enforcing rules, or expressing or modeling their own atti-
24% and 53%, respectfully; Common Sense Media 2015). tudes and behaviors about media use (Vaala and Bleakley
Moreover, total time spent with media differs as a function 2015). For example, if parents use media regularly and
of race/ethnicity. African American teens spend more than value the role of media, it is likely that children will both
11 h with media per day compared to Hispanic youth (9 h), observe their parents engaging in increased media use and
and Caucasian youth (8.5 h; Common Sense Media 2015). be in an environment in which media use is encouraged or
Therefore, while there are clear differences in child and supported, or at minimum less penalized. This would in
adolescent media use as a function of demographic vari- theory create a very different microsystem for those children
ables, it is not clear how these differences manifest them- compared to individuals growing up in a household in
selves in youth’s home media environments or why these which media is less valued or even feared by parents. Thus,
differences exist. it is important to consider parent media attitudes and rules
During adolescence, although peers do heavily influence as well as their own use of media in order to understand the
adolescent attitudes and behaviors (Brown and Larson family microsystem that may influence the adolescent.
2009), parents and the home environment still play an Parent behavior and attitudes have shown to have a direct
important role in the ways in which many children and effect on children and adolescent behavior largely through
adolescents engage with media technologies (Lauricella observational learning of modeled behavior (Bandura
et al. 2015; Vaala and Bleakley 2015). We have only begun 1986). With regard to drug and alcohol use, research shows
to document the role that parents’ media use behavior plays that parents’ attitudes and own use of alcohol are strong
on youth media use (e.g., Bleakley et al. 2013; Vaala and predictors of changes in adolescent alcohol use (Ary et al.
Bleakley 2015). The home environment is a crucial context 1993). While parent monitoring of adolescent behavior is
that must be considered in light of child and adolescent associated with decreased drug and alcohol use, maternal
development. Bronfenbrenner (1979) recognized and alcohol use positively predicted adolescent alcohol use
articulated the multiple contextual layers, or systems, of a (Dishon and Loeber 1985). With regard to media use, parent
child’s world that impact development. According to attitudes and own media use are strong predictors of young
Bronfenbrenner (1979), the child is heavily influenced by children’s media use (Lauricella et al. 2015).
the systems closest to them, specifically the microsystem, Beyond modeling behavior, parental rules and behaviors
which includes family members, parents, and peers. around technology seem to play an important role in how
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937 1929

children and adolescents are impacted by media experi- predict (H3) that the amount of time parents spend using
ences. For example, parental mediation of media consists of technology will be positively related to reports of their
behaviors that parents engage in to restrict, actively med- children’s technology use.
iate, or co-use media with their children (Valkenburg et al.
1999). Recently, a meta-analysis of 57 studies indicated a
significant relationship between parent restrictive mediation Method
and child outcomes (Collier et al. 2016), further providing
evidence that parent rules and behaviors around media Participants
technology influence how youth use technology. Thus, it
can be argued that parent attitudes and parents’ own use of The data collection for this project was conducted in col-
media will relate to the media use of their children and laboration with Common Sense Media and uses the same
adolescents by influencing their child’s microsystem, much dataset (with different analyses) as reported in the Common
like it has with younger children (Lauricella et al. 2015). Sense Census: Plugged in Parents of Tweens and Teens
Almost annually, large-scale, nationally-representative (Lauricella et al. 2016). Respondents (N = 1819) were
surveys examine how different demographic variables (e.g., recruited through GfK’s KnowledgePanel© in the United
gender, race/ethnicity) influence patterns of child and ado- States. Original KnowledgePanel members were recruited
lescent media use in the United States (e.g., Common Sense using probability-based methods such as address-based
Media 2015, 2017; Lenhart et al. 2015). These surveys are sampling and random-digit-dial telephone calls. The use of
valuable and should continue so that researchers can track probability-based recruitment methods for the Knowledge-
child and adolescent media use over time. We argue, Panel© is designed to ensure that the resulting sample
however, that these surveys of older children largely represents the population of the U.S. geographically,
exclude parents who are still heavily involved in their demographically (e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity, income),
children’s lives through late adolescence (Vaala and and in terms of home internet access. Study-specific post-
Bleakley 2015). Therefore, using data collected from a stratification weights were applied once the data were
large-scale, nationally-representative sample of parents of finalized to adjust for any survey nonresponse and to ensure
children ages 8–18, we examine the role of family demo- the proper distributions for the specific target population (in
graphics as well as parent attitudes and behaviors, and this case, parents of 8- to 18-year-olds). An a-priori power
parents’ own media use on child and adolescent media use analysis for regression models with 15 predictor variables
to examine if we see similar patterns with parents of older indicated that a sample size of at least 201 is needed to
youth as has been found with parents of younger youth detect at least a small effect (0.1) with a power of 0.8 (Soper
(e.g., Lauricella et al. 2015). We first ask two general 2019), indicating that our sample is sufficient to detect
research questions that help provide descriptive data about effects both within and across different groups in the overall
parental attitudes and behaviors regarding technology use in sample.
their homes. First, we ask (RQ1): what are parents’ general Parents in the survey ranged from 19 to 77 years old with
attitudes toward child and adolescent technology use? an average age of 43 years (SD = 8.06). Participants self-
Second, we ask (RQ2): what rules and monitoring beha- identified as the parents or guardians of children and could
viors do parents of older children engage in with regard to include grandparents, step-parents, legal guardians, or bio-
their child’s media and technology use? logical parents. Fifty-six percent of the respondents were
Considering Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems female, and 44% were male. Fifty-eight percent of the
theory, additional theorizing by Bickham (2015), and respondents were White, 11% Black, 22% Hispanic, and
research with younger children (Lauicella et al. 2015) as 10% were of other or of mixed ethnicity. Parent education
well as adolescents (Vaala and Bleakley 2015), we expect ranged from no formal education to a professional or doc-
that parents’ own media use, as well as their attitudes, rules, toral degree, with 13% having no high school degree, 27%
and behaviors around monitoring their child’s technology having a high school diploma or GED, 26% having some
use will relate to their children’s media use. Therefore, we college or an associate’s degree, 21% holding a bachelor’s
predict (H1a) a positive relationship between parental atti- degree, and 10% holding a master’s degree or above.
tudes and parent-reported child time spent with technology, Household income ranged from less than $5,000 to
as well as (H1b) a negative relationship between parent $175,000 or more, with 26% reporting a household income
concerns about child technology use and parent-reported less than $40,000, 23% reporting between $40,001 and
child time spent with technology. Additionally, we hypo- $74,999, 9% reporting between $75,000 and $99,999, and
thesize (H2) that parents who have media rules and engage 31% reporting household income above $100,000.
in monitoring of their child’s technology use will report that For the purposes of this study we focused only on “older
their children spend less time with technology. Finally, we children” (8–18 years) as Common Sense completes a
1930 Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937

separate census on “young children” (ages 0–8). Therefore, Enforcement of time rules
all focal children for this project were between the ages of 8
and 18. Forty-five percent of the children were between the Parents were asked whether they had time rules regarding
ages of 8 and 12 (children) and 54% were between 13 and their children’s technology use, and if they did, how reg-
18 (adolescents). Fifty-two percent of the focal children ularly they enforced rules about the amount of time their
were female, and 47% were male. child could spend using technology (e.g., computers, video
We obtained informed consent for all respondents. The games, television) on a 5-point Likert scale anchored by (1)
university’s Institutional Review Board approved all study never to (5) always (M = 3.94, SD = 1.36).
materials. Respondents received a cash equivalent of $5
for their participation; some African American respon- Checking the child’s device
dents received an additional $5 equivalent to improve
response rates among this lower-incidence demographic Parents were asked how often they checked the content on
group as per GfK’s traditional incentive program. There their child’s devices on a 5-point Likert scale anchored by
are no potential conflicts of interest for the authors of this (1) never to (5) always (M = 3.02, SD = 1.46).
project.
Technology as a supportive tool
Procedure
Parents were asked to indicate, using a 4-point Likert scale,
Upon entering the online survey, parents indicated their their level of agreement or disagreement with eight state-
consent and were directed to the first page of the survey. ments about the impact of technology on children’s social
Here, parents indicated if they were the parent of at least skills, experiences, and development. The scale was
one child between the ages of 8 and 18. If they were not, anchored by (1) strongly disagree and (4) strongly agree.
they were directed to the end of the survey and thanked for Statements included: “Technology supports my child’s
their time. If parents reported having a child in the target social skills”, “Technology helps with schoolwork or edu-
range, they were next asked to report how many children cation”, “Technology increases child’s exposure to other
they had between the ages of 8 and 18, providing the age cultures”, and “Technology allows for expression of per-
and gender of each. If parents only had one child within the sonal opinions and beliefs”, for example. For this measure,
age range of interest, that child was selected as the focal higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward tech-
child for the survey questions. If participants reported more nology’s role as a supportive tool on child development and
than one child in the age range of interest, the survey pro- learning. We used this measure to obtain general attitudes
gram randomly selected one, based on the data provided, towards technology rather than focusing on specific tech-
and this child became the focal child. Parents then entered nologies (e.g., Internet, smartphone, etc.). The responses to
the name or initials of their child, and were reminded to all eight items were averaged to create a parent attitude
answer all survey questions with this particular child in toward technology as a supportive tool variable (M = 2.87,
mind. The child’s name or initials were inserted into the SD = 0.48; α = 0.87). The variable was mean-centered
survey questions (e.g., “Which of the following, if any, prior to analysis.
belong to [child name/initials]?) so that parents were
reminded about the focal child throughout. Parents com- Internet use worries
pleted a battery of demographic measures before complet-
ing the survey. The survey took approximately 20–30 min To measure attitudes toward specific technologies, parents
to complete. In the present paper, we use data from the were asked to indicate how worried they were about their
following measures. child’s Internet use and experiences when using the Inter-
net. They responded to nine different statements on a
Measures 5-point scale anchored by (1) not at all worried and (5)
extremely worried. The nine statements were: (1) receiving/
Content rules sending sexual images or videos, (2) receiving nasty or
hurtful comments from others online (cyberbullying), (3)
Parents were asked whether (yes or no) they had rules about accessing online pornography, (4) over-sharing personal
the type of content (e.g., storyline, lessons, violence, strong details of life, (5) spending too much time online, (6) losing
language) that their child is allowed to see or hear when the ability to communicate well with other people, (7) being
using technology (e.g., computers, video games, television). exposed to images or videos of violence, (8) being exposed
Seventy-seven percent of parents reported that they had to images of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco use, (9) being
content rules. exposed to consumerism (e.g., advertising, content that
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937 1931

emphasizes the importance of material things). The days of the week (6% completed the survey on Thursday to
responses to all nine items averaged to create an attitude 22% completed the survey on Tuesday with percentages for
toward Internet variable (M = 2.72, SD = 1.15; α = 0.94) all other days falling within this range). We summed the
with higher scores indicating increased worry. amount of time for each of these individual questions to
create a total parent media use variable.
Attitudes toward social media use Since modern technologies facilitate media multitasking
—i.e., using two or more devices at the same time—there
If parents reported that their child had social media (n = are individuals with total media-time estimates that are quite
862) they were asked about their attitudes toward their high, some even in excess of 24 h. We defined media-use
child’s social media use. Attitudes toward social media use outliers as individuals who reported using a single device
were measured by asking whether social media helps, hurts, yesterday for more than 24 h. By this definition, 13 parents
or makes no difference on six items using a 5-point scale were outliers in computer usage and 16 parents were out-
anchored by (1) hurts a lot to (5) helps a lot, with (3) liers in smartphone/tablet usage. The rest of these indivi-
indicating makes no difference. The six items were: (1) duals’ time estimates appeared to be credible. Therefore, we
emotional wellbeing, (2) relationships with friends, (3) replaced these individuals’ time estimates for each activity
school performance, (4) physical activity, (5) ability to on their outlier devices with the mean time spent on that
focus, (6) behavior (M = 2.86, SD = 0.58; α = 0.80). activity among respondents of the same age, gender, and
race. We left all other answers provided by these respon-
Media struggles dents unchanged. The final parent media use variable
was mean-centered before being entered into analyses
Parents were asked to indicate if they have struggles getting (M = 638 min, SD = 440).
their child to turn off their devices. Specifically, they were
asked how much they agree or disagree with the statement: Child media use
“Getting my child to turn off a smartphone or tablet is a
struggle.” The scale was anchored by (1) strongly disagree Parents were asked to report “to the best of their knowl-
and (4) strongly agree (M = 2.10, SD = 0.02). edge” the amount of time in which they thought their child
spent doing the following “yesterday”: Using a computer,
Parent media use using a smartphone, playing video games on a console,
watching TV/VDVDS on a TV, reading print books,
Consistent with previous large-scale surveys of parents and magazines, or newspapers, or listening to music. We sum-
youth, we asked about media using a measure adopted from med the amount of time for each of these individual ques-
previous surveys (see Common Sense Media 2015, 2017; tions to create a total child media use variable. We used the
Wartella et al. 2014). Parents reported the amount of time same criteria for outliers described above. By this definition,
that they spent “yesterday” engaging in the following media two children were outliers for smartphone/tablet use. The
behaviors: reading print media, reading on an e-reader, rest of these individuals’ time estimates appeared credible.
playing games on a video game console, watching shows or Therefore, we replaced these individuals’ time estimates for
movies on a TV set, watching streamed shows or movies each activity on their outlier devices with the mean time
(e.g., through Netflix, Hulu, etc.), watching recorded shows spent on that activity among respondents of the same age,
or movies (e.g., OnDemand, DVR, etc.), using a computer gender, and race. We left all other answers provided by
for work purposes, using a computer for social networking these respondents unchanged. The final child media use
sites, using a computer for browsing websites, using a variable was mean-centered before being entered into ana-
computer for playing games, using a computer for watching lyses (M = 351 min, SD = 228).
videos, using a computer for listening to music, using a
computer for anything else, using a smartphone/tablet for Demographic variables
work purposes, using a smartphone/tablet for social net-
working sites, using a smartphone/tablet for browsing A set of standard demographic variables were collected as
websites, using a smartphone/tablet for playing games, part of the survey and used in the following analyses.
using a smartphone/tablet for watching videos, using a Household income was measured as a 19-item categorical
smartphone/tablet for listening to music, using a smart- measurement ranging from less than $5,000 to $175,000 or
phone/tablet for anything else. Asking for media use more. Child age was measured as a continuous variable and
behavior “yesterday” allowed us to capture media use ranged from 8 years to 18 years. Parent age was measured
across all days of the week with approximately equal as a continuous variable and ranged from 19 to 77 years old.
numbers of respondents completing the survey on different Child and parent were both coded in the same way with
1932 Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937

male coded as 0 and female as 1. Parent race/ethnicity was Table 1 Technology access and ownership in the home
self-reported by all participants. The term “Black” refers to Personal device ownership
any respondents who self-identified as Black, non-Hispanic.
In the Tweens Teens Among
The term “White” refers to any respondents who self- Home (8–12) (13–18) all
identified as White, non-Hispanic. The term “Hispanic”
refers to any respondents who self- identified as Hispanic. Smartphone 91% 28% 79%* 56%
The term “Other” is a collapsed category that includes Tablet 80% 58% 45%* 51%
individuals who self-identified as another racial group or as Video game system 81% 39% 51%* 45%
two or more races, none of which is Hispanic. Where TV 98% 35% 49%* 43%
findings are broken out by race/ethnicity, results are only Laptop 74% 14% 43%* 30%
presented for White, Black, and Hispanic parents. Portable game player 39% 31% 28% 29%
Respondents in the “Other” category are included in results Desktop computer 58% 8% 13%* 11%
based on the total sample but not in results that are broken E-reader 30% 9% 11% 10%
out by race, because the cell sizes of each individual group Cell phone without 22% 5% 8%* 7%
in the “Other” category are not large enough to examine Internet
differences among them. *Indicates a statistically significant difference between child and
adolescent technology ownership at the p < 0.05 level
Data Analysis

To describe aspects of the home media environment, we increases their children’s exposure to other cultures (77%),
first provide descriptive statistics regarding parent attitudes, allows for the expression of their children’s personal opi-
rules, and behaviors toward technology. Next, we use nions and beliefs (75%), supports their children’s creativity
hierarchical linear regression analyses to examine the rela- (79%), and allows their children to find and interact with
tionship between parent attitudes, parent rules, media others who have similar interests (69%). Only 54% of
monitoring behaviors, parents’ own media use, and chil- parents agreed that technology supports their children’s
dren’s media use time. social skills. On average, parents held positive general
For each regression, because race was dummy coded, the attitudes about technology (M = 2.87, SD = 0.48).
category “white” was excluded as the comparison group in Parents expressed concern over their children’s Internet
all tables. Analyses were run with other race categories use, but overall the majority of parents were not “extremely”
excluded to determine all race differences and results are or even “moderately” worried about whether their child was
included in the text when there were significant differences spending too much time online, or what types of content
across other racial groups. their child might be exposed to (see Table 2). Importantly,
we saw a difference in parental concerns about Internet use
as a function of child age. Parents of children were sig-
Results nificantly more likely to say that they were either “moder-
ately” or “extremely worried” about their child’s internet use
Data from this nationally-representative sample demon- compared to parents of adolescents (see Table 2).
stratde that technology access in the homes of children and Parents of children who had social media accounts (n =
adolescents was very high. Overall, more than 80% of 862) largely responded that their children’s use of social
families with children between the ages of 8 and 18 owned a media “makes no difference” on a variety of outcome
TV, smartphone, tablet, and videogame system. Youth variables. Specifically, a majority of parents thought that
ownership of personal mobile technology devices was high social media use “makes no difference” in their children’s
as well, and increased significantly with age (see Table 1). emotional well-being, school performance, ability to focus,
and behavior. The remainder of parents were relatively
Attitudes Toward Technology equally split as to whether they thought that social media
“helps” or “hurts” (see Table 3).
Overall, most parents held positive views about the role of
technology to support their children’s education and career Parenting Behaviors and Media Rules
opportunities. A large majority of parents agreed that
technology positively supports their child’s schoolwork and Most parents (77%) reported that they have rules about the
education (94%). Parents also felt that technology supports content that their children can consume, such as rules about
their child in learning new skills (88%) and preparing them the storyline lessons, violence, or strong language. Of the
for 21st-century jobs (89%). Parents agreed that technology parents who had content rules for their children’s
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937 1933

Table 2 With respect to Internet use, percent of parents who are Table 4 Hierarchical linear regression analysis for variables predicting
“moderately” or “extremely” worried about the following: child media use
Among all Age of child Child Total Media Time
8–12 13–18 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
n = 1671 n = 1165 n = 1165
Child spending too much time online 43% 47%* 39% ß ß ß
Child over-sharing personal details 38% 42%* 34%
Child Age 19.29** 17.33** 15.07**
Child being exposed to images/videoes 36% 44%* 29%
of violence Child Gender 1.81 12.37 14.38
Child accessing online pornography 36% 42%* 31% Parent Age 1.32 2.88* 2.27
Child receiving hurtful comments 34% 39%* 31% Parent Gender 52.97** 38.10* 29.62*
Child receiving/sending sexual images 33% 37%* 30% Parent Education −14.31 −0.77 3.50
Child being exposed to drug/alcohol use 32% 38%* 27% Income 3.08 −2.87 −1.40
Child being exposed to consumerism 30% 36%* 24% Black 97.62** 85.52* 34.64
Child losing ability to communicate well 27% 31%* 24% Hispanic 44.73 14.83 3.69
Mixed/Other 10.19 39.33 19.93
*Indicates a statistically significant difference between parent concerns
about the Internet between children and adolescents at the p < Tech as Support 68.58* 56.88** 31.37
0.05 level Internet Worries −0.034 −3.80 −1.35
Device Struggles 25.64** 27.57** 17.26
Table 3 Parent perceptions of the effects of social media on child Content Rules – −37.06 −58.94
outcomes, among those whose child has a social media account
Enforcement of Time Rules – −17.76* −20.08**
Child Outcomes Percent of Parents Who Think Their Parent Total Time – 0.20**
Child’s Use of Social Media: 2
R 0.11 0.13 0.23
“Helps” “Hurts” “Makes no
*Indicates a statistically significant difference at the p < 0.05 level
difference”
**Indicates a statistically significant difference at the p < 0.01 level
Emotional well-being 18% 20% 62%
Relationships with friends 44% 15% 41%
time and content rules, although these rules did not seem to
School performance 23% 22% 55%
differ across different media technologies, and many par-
Physical activity 7% 50% 43%
ents reported that they check their children’s devices
Ability to focus 9% 35% 56%
regularly.
Behavior 10% 24% 66%

Youth Media Use

technology use (n = 1402), only one-third of those parents We used hierarchical linear regression analyses to test all
differed their rules based on the technology the child used. hypotheses. As suggested above, we were interested in the
Of parents who indicated that they had time rules (n = ways in which demographic variables, parent attitudes, par-
1148) about their children’s use of technology (e.g., tele- ent behaviors, and parents’ own media use were related to
vision, computers, video games), 62% enforced these rules children’s media use. Therefore, we included these main
“all” or “most of the time.” Just under one-quarter of par- variables in separate steps of the hierarchical linear regression
ents (23%) reported that they “never” check the content on to determine the differential relations of these variables on
their child’s devices; however, a similar number of parents our main outcome variable. In model 1, we included demo-
(22%) reported that they “always” check the content on graphic and parent attitudes as independent variables. In
their child’s devices. model 2, we added in parent media use rules as an inde-
In summary, and in answer to RQ1 and RQ2, these pendent variable, and in model 3 we included parents’ own
descriptive data demonstrated among a nationally- media use time as an independent variable (see Table 4).
representative sample that media technologies were read- Model 1 was significant, R2 = 0.11, F (12, 1659) =
ily available in the homes of 8–18-year-old American 100.56, p < 0.01 (see Table 4). Child media use was posi-
children and adolescents. Further, parents saw great tively predicted by child age, parent attitudes of technology
potential in technology as a supportive tool for their chil- as a tool, parent technology concerns, and parent struggles
dren, and in general, did not seem to be too concerned with controlling the child’s device. Black parents, as well as
about their use of the Internet or social media. Further, a mothers, reported significantly higher child media use.
majority of respondents indicated that they enforced both There was a positive relationship between parent
1934 Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937

technology attitudes and children’s media use; thus, H1a is and ownership only partially explain adolescent media use
supported. There was no significant relationship between behaviors.
parent concerns and child media use, therefore, H1b is not More substantially, many parent-related factors influence
supported. In Model 2, parental media use rules were added and predict youth media use, supporting the theoretical
to the model. All of the previous variables remained sig- argument that a variety of aspects of the child’s home media
nificant, and parental enforcement of time rules was nega- ecology influence how the child uses technology. Prior to
tively related to child media use time. Thus, H2 received including parent media use time in the models, parents who
support. For Model 3, parent media use time was added to viewed technology as having a more supportive role on
the model, and the overall model remained significant, R2 = youth, those who report that they struggle getting their
0.23, F (13, 1658) = 15.17, p < 0.01. With the addition of children to put down their devices, and those that do not
parent media use time to the model, only child age, parent enforce media time rules reported having children who
gender, and parent media use remained significant pre- spent more time with technology. Once parental media use
dictors of child media use. The addition of parent media use was added into the model, only parent gender, enforcement
into the model nearly doubled R2 term resulting in ΔR2 = of time rules, child age, and parents’ own media use pre-
0.10, which supported H3, predicting that parent media use dicted child’s media use. Each of these variables detail
would predict youth media use. aspects of parents and the home media environment that
play a direct role in child’s media use. Consistent with
previous research on children under age 8 (Lauricella et al.
Discussion 2015), this study demonstrates that even among older
children and adolescents who presumably have more inde-
Media technologies, including televisions, smartphones, pendence and choice with their own media use, parental
and computers, have become an integral part of young media use time is still the strongest predictor of youth media
people’s lives and use has been associated with a range of use time. This mirrors the results found by Bleakley et al.
negative outcomes (e.g., Lin and Tsai 2002; Morahan- (2013) which found that parent TV use was highly corre-
Martin and Schumacher 2003). The results from this lated with child TV use from ages 5 to 17 but expands the
nationally-representative survey provide empirical data findings to other media use variables within the analysis as
about variables that are crucial to consider, but are often not well as parental attitudes and media use rules.
examined, when focusing on media use and youth within Second, this study documents important nuances about
this age range. Specifically, this study indicates that parent parent attitudes toward technology that likely influence the
attitudes toward technology use vary by the context and home media environment. While parents admittedly have
type of technology being used, but overall are relatively concerns, especially regarding Internet use with younger
positive. Moreover, this study demonstrates that parents’ children, parents also see the positive ways in which tech-
own media use behavior is highly correlated with their nology is supporting their children. This provides a more
children’s media use behavior even through adolescence, nuanced understanding of the struggles that parents face
which is consistent with earlier findings by Vaala and when making decisions about their adolescent’s media use.
Bleakley (2015) in the context of computer use. These Furthermore, while popular press has focused on parental
findings confirm the importance of considering aspects concerns about adolescent technology use and behavior,
related to the greater context in which children are growing calling attention to the “dangerous levels of cell phone use”
up and how the contexts in which they live play a role in (Ungar 2018), and regularly using the term “addiction”
their own media use experiences. (Homayoun 2018; Walton 2018), parents in this study
There are two main findings from this study. First, youth appear to hold a more balanced perception of the costs and
media use behaviors are related to a variety of factors benefits related to their children’s media use, which likely
including parental media attitudes, media rules, and most influences their parental practices and behaviors regarding
strongly, parents’ own media use. This is consistent with media use in their home.
previous research on parent media use and young children’s Coupled with recent findings from Common Sense
media time (Lauricella et al. 2015), but provides new Media Reports (2019a, 2019b), these data suggest simila-
insight into the important role that parental media use plays rities and differences in terms of attitudes among parents
in the lives of older children and adolescents. This is around the world. For example, parents of adolescents in
important to note as our study and others document that Mexico report greater level of concern about their child’s
adolescent ownership of their own personal devices media use in comparison to parents in the current sample,
increases with age yet their behaviors with regard to time and other research reports that they feel that their children
use are still heavily related to their parents’ media use are distracted by the use of media (Common Sense Media
regardless of age. These findings suggest that device access 2019a). Conversely, and similar to the data reported here,
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937 1935

parents of adolescents in the United Kingdom report that even as children age into adolescence. For example, the
media technologies are important in the lives of their chil- more parents utilize media themselves, the more media
dren, and see value in their use (Common Sense Media becomes a salient part of the child’s microsystem, or closest
2019b). Taken together, these studies suggest that layer of influence (Bronfenbrenner 1979).
researchers must take cultural differences into account to Thus, the home media ecology seems to relate to child
fully understand the role of parents, parent media attitudes, and adolescent media use. Our data support this conclusion
and parents’ own media use on the media use of in the following ways. First, the data demonstrate that
adolescents. parents who are heavier media users have children who
spend more time with media. Second, parents who have
Theoretical Implications more positive attitudes toward technology have children
who spend more time with media, although concerns about
While adolescence is a developmental period that is child media use are not related. Importantly, these parent-
heavily influenced by peer behavior and attitudes (Brown level variables explain significantly more variance in chil-
and Larson 2009), parental behaviors, attitudes, and rules dren’s media use than a number of demographic predictors
still heavily influence child and adolescent behaviors. that have been used in previous studies. Therefore, these
Users of Bronfrenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems data suggest that previous research focusing on demo-
theory have struggled to determine where the influence of graphic differences may only be reporting a portion of the
media should be situated within the model (see Bickham overall story. Youth media use does differ as a function of
2015). Indeed, research has demonstrated many ways in key demographic variables but it appears that it is not
which media influences children and adolescents through because a child is low-income or of a particular race/eth-
direct use (Field et al. 2005; Huesmann et al. 2003); nicity that they spend more time with media. Rather, some
however, less research has considered how parents, as part children spend more time with media because their parents
of their children’s microsystem, can influence older chil- simply value it more and use it more themselves.
dren’s and adolescents’ media use. The exception to this is
the body of research on parent mediation of their chil- Limitations
dren’s and adolescent’s media use at the actual moment of
exposure (see Krcmar and Cingel 2016; Nathanson 2002). This study provides insight into the important role of parents
This is valuable research, but it tends to consider the role and the home media environment on youth media use
of parents only in the moment of media use or exposure, behaviors but is not without limitations. First, this is a parent
rather than examining the greater influence that the parent self-report survey, thus we are limited in our interpretation of
may have over time though the way that they integrate media use times, as this is a difficult question for parents to
media into the home environment. answer regarding their own media use time and that of their
The findings of the present study extend our under- adolescent. Moreover, measuring media use as a collective
standing of how parents influence youth media use patterns. variable has its limitations as we lack detailed information
First, it is clear that parents are themselves active media on the content and ways in which both parents and adoles-
users, spending about 10 h per day with media, not unlike cents are using the media. Additionally, given that we are
children and adolescents (Common Sense Media 2015; relying on the same person to report their own media use
2018), and their own media use is significantly related to time and that of their child, there is potential for these
their children’s media use. When considering the home responses to be related based on an external variable that is
media ecology, parental media use, attitudes, and rules are not accounted for or measured in our dataset. Relatedly, we
important factors to explore as they likely act as proximal know there are challenges to self-report measurements of
processes or the reciprocal factors that over time continue to media use time given the vast amount of time that is now
influence the child and their environment. Parents who have spent on various devices. Second, while we included many
more positive attitudes toward media use may engage in demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral variables in our
media use in their home more often, thus providing models model, we are still limited in the variables we can use as a
of media use for their children. The present study suggests proxy of home media ecology. Other variables related to the
that, in order to fully understand adolescent media beha- child’s peers, school environment, cultural background, and
viors, researchers must consider the role of parents in others are not included in the model, and should be con-
integrating and normalizing media behaviors in the home. sidered in future research. In this paper, we have argued that
Beyond direct modeling behavior, parents have a powerful it is important to consider parent factors, as part of the
influence on the home environment in which their children child’s microsystem, to understand their use of media
grow up in and this likely extends to the home media technologies, but Bronfenbrenner’s model suggests that each
environment (e.g., Jordan 1992; Lauricella et al. 2015), of the systems are influencing the child concurrently; thus, a
1936 Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937

more complex model should be examined in future studies the new video environment. Journal of Communication, 41,
to further explicate the role of child, family, and other 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02322.x.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social
environmental factors in children’s media use. Despite these
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
limitations, we did use data from a probability sample of Bickham, D. S. (2015). Applying the Ecological Model of Human
American parents, which clearly indicate that parent vari- Development to the Study of Media’s Effects on Children. In E.
ables are important predictors of child media use; therefore, Handsley, C. MacDougall and M Rich (Eds). Children’s Well-
being in the Media Age. The Federation Press.
future research must continue to examine such variables and
Bleakley, A., Jordan, A. B., & Hennessy, M. (2013). The relationship
their relation to child and adolescent media use. between parents’ and children’s television viewing. Pediatrics,
In conclusion, using a nationally-representative sample 132, e364–e371.
of parents, this study documented the relation between Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:
experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
parental-level variables and child and adolescent media
University Press.
use and demonstrated that the context of the home envir- Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescence.
onment and the media use behaviors of parents impacts In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds), Handbook of adolescent
adolescents and their own media use behaviors. This study psychology (Vol. 2). NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/
10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004.
demonstrates that variables beyond those directly related to
Collier, K. M., Coyne, S. M., Rasmussen, E. E., Hawkins, A. J.,
the adolescent are important to consider when trying to Padilla-Walker, L. M., Erickson, S. E., & Memmott-Elison, M.
both understand what factors predict media use. We hope K. (2016). Does parental mediation of media influence child
that future research will continue to consider media use outcomes? A meta-analysis on media time, aggression, substance
use, and sexual behavior. Developmental Psychology, 52,
from an ecological perspective, and further examine how
798–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000108.
family and home context are related to the effect that media Common Sense Media. (2015). The common sense census: media use
has on children and adolescents. by tweens and teens. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.
Common Sense Media. (2017). The common sense census: media use
Acknowledgements We would like to thank Common Sense Media by kids age zero to eight 2017. San Francisco, CA: Common
and specifically Michael Robb and Vicky Rideout for their involve- Sense Media.
ment in the development of the survey and the collection of the data. Common Sense Media. (2018). Social media, social life: teens reveal
their experiences. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.
Common Sense Media. (2019a). The new normal: parents, teens, and
Author Contributions ARL: designed the survey and oversaw the data
mobile devices in Mexico. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense
collection process in collaboration with Common Sense Media’s
Media.
Director of Education, Michael Robb, conducted the statistical ana-
Common Sense Media. (2019b). The new normal: parents, teens, and
lyses and co-wrote the paper with second author DC. DC: co-designed
mobile devices in the United Kingdom. San Francisco, CA:
the survey, supported the statistical analyses, and co-wrote the paper
Common Sense Media.
with second author ARL.
Dishon, T. J., & Loeber, R. (1985). Adolescent marijuana and alcohol
use: the role of parents and peers revisited. The American Journal
Compliance with Ethical Standards of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 11, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.3109/
00952998509016846.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of Field, A. E., Austin, S. B., Camargo, C. A., Taylor, C. B., Striegel-
interest. Moore, R. H., Loud, K. J., & Colditz, G. A. (2005). Exposure to
the mass media, body shape concerns, and use of supplements to
improve weight and shape among male and female adolescents.
Ethical Approval The original survey and study was approved by
Pediatrics, 116. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-2022.
Northwestern University’s Institutional Review Board and adhered to
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The
the approved ethics of the institution.
effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility,
aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of Adoles-
Informed Consent All adult participants completed an informed con- cence, 27, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.002.
sent for themselves prior to completing any survey questions. Gottfried, J. A., Vaala, S. E., Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., & Jordan, A.
(2013). Does the effect of exposure to TV sex on adolescent
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to sexual behavior vary by genre? Communication Research, 40,
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211415399.
Homayoun, A. (2018). Is your child a phone ‘addict’. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/well/family/is-your-child-a-
phone-addict.html.
References Huesmann, R. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C. L., & Eron, L. D.
(2003). Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV
Ary, D. V., Tildesley, E., Hops, H., & Andrews, J. (1993). The violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young
influence of parent, sibling, and peer modeling and attitudes on adulthood: 1977-1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, 201–221.
adolescent use of alcohol. International Journal of the Addic- https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.201.
tions, 28, 853–880. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826089309039661. Jordan, A. B. (1992). Social class, temporal orientation, and mass media
Atkin, D. J., Greenberg, B. S., & Baldwin, T. F. (1991). The home use within the family system. Critical Studies in Media Commu-
ecology of children’s television viewing: parental mediation and nication, 9, 374–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039209366840.
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020) 29:1927–1937 1937

Krcmar, M., & Cingel, D. P. (2016). Examining two theoretical Soper, D. S. (2019). A-priori sample size calculator for multiple
models predicting American and Dutch parents’ mediation of regression models [computer software]. http://www.danielsoper.
adolescent social media use. Journal of Family Communication, com/statcalc.
16, 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2016.1181632. Ungar, M. (2018). Teens and dangerous levels of cell phone use.
Lauricella, A. R., Cingel, D. P., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., Robb, M. B., Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/
Saphir, M., & Wartella, E. A. (2016). The common sense census: nurturing-resilience/201801/teens-and-dangerous-levels-cell-
plugged-in parents of tweens and teens. San Francisco, CA: phone-use.
Common Sense Media. Vaala, S. E., & Bleakley, A. (2015). Monitoring, mediating, and
Lauricella, A. R., Wartella, E., & Rideout, V. J. (2015). Young chil- modeling: parental influence on adolescent computer and internet
dren’s screen time: the complex role of parent and child factors. use in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 9,
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 36, 11–17. 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.997103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.12.001. Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M.
Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media, and technology overview, (1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles of television
2015. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. mediation: “Instructive mediation,” “restrictive mediation,” and
Lenhart, A., Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2015). Teens, technology and “social coviewing”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
romantic relationships. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & 43, 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159909364474.
American Life Project. Walton, A. G. (2018). Phone addiction is real and so are its mental
Lin, S. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2002). Sensation seeking and internet health risks. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/
dependence of Taiwanese high school adolescents. Computers in 2017/12/11/phone-addiction-is-real-and-so-are-its-mental-health-
Human Behavior, 18, 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747- risks/#7a3efe313df3.
5632(01)00056-5. Wartella, E., & Reeves, B. (1985). Historical trends in research on
Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2003). Loneliness and social children and the media: 1900–1960. Journal of Communication,
uses of the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 35, 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1985.tb02238.x.
659–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00040-2. Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Lauricella, A., & Connell, S. (2014). Revised
Nathanson, A. I. (2002). The unintended effects of parental mediation parenting in the age of digital technology: a national survey.
of television on adolescents. Media Psychology, 4, 207–230. Evanston, IL: Center on Media and Human Development,
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_01. Northwestern University.
Sasson, H., & Mesch, G. (2014). Parental mediation, peer norms Woods, H. C., & Scott, H. (2016). #Sleepyteens: social media use in
and risky online behavior among adolescents. Computers in adolescence is associated with poor sleep quality, anxiety,
Human Behavior, 33, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb. depression and low self-esteem. Journal of Adolescence, 51,
2013.12.025. 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.008.