Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:401–410

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1275-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

A Naturalistic Study of Child and Family Screen Media and Mobile

Device Use
1,2
Sarah E. Domoff ●
Jenny S. Radesky3 Kristen Harrison4 Hurley Riley5 Julie C. Lumeng2,3,6 Alison L. Miller2,5
● ● ● ●

Published online: 22 November 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Parental mediation of screen media (e.g., television, video games) is associated with better outcomes for children. Although
much research has examined parental mediation of television (TV), there is a dearth of research examining communication
about mobile media (e.g., Smartphones, tablets) in the digital age. This study seeks to identify themes of family
communication around media and mobile devices using naturalistic observational methodology. The sample consisted of 21
toddlers (ages 12–24-months old), 31 preschool-age children (3–5 years old), and 23 school-age (10–13 years old) children
and their families. Children wore Language ENvironment Analysis (LENA) audio recording devices, which recorded
1234567890();,:
1234567890();,:

vocalizations and other sounds proximal to the child wearing the device in the home environment, as well as audible screen
media use. ATLAS.ti was used to transcribe dialogue from the audio recordings that pertained to screen media. Experts from
the fields of communication, clinical child psychology, and developmental-behavioral pediatrics independently analyzed the
transcripts to identify common themes. Five main themes emerged. First, parental mediation of screen media was primarily
restrictive, reactive, and focused on technology functionality. Second, active mediation was child-driven. Third, siblings
played a more dominant role in mediation than parents. Fourth, parents and children negotiated screen time limits. Finally,
parallel family media use was common. Multiple family members engaged with their own mobile devices while
simultaneously being exposed to background screen media (i.e., media multitasking). Assessing media use in the naturalistic
home environment elucidated current patterns of family media use and communication about media in the digital age.
Keywords Media Mobile devices Parental mediation Media multitasking Naturalistic Parenting
● ● ● ● ●

Mobile media (e.g., Smartphones and tablets) have pro- place. Increased access to, and ownership of, mobile tech-
liferated in the digital age, providing youth and their parents nology by children of all ages characterizes this new digital
with opportunities to use screen media at any time and any age. The number of children 0 to 8 years who have access to
mobile devices has increased from 52% in 2011 to 75% in
2013 (Rideout 2013). Further, well over half of households
with youth ages 8–12 years have smartphones (79%) and
* Sarah E. Domoff tablets (80%) (Rideout 2015). Younger children are gaining
[email protected]
access to mobile technology, with personal ownership of
1
Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University, mobile media devices occurring earlier in childhood. For
Mount Pleasant, MI, USA example, Kabali et al. (2015) found that three-fourths of
2
Center for Human Growth and Development, University of children had their own mobile media device by age 4 years.
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Due to the potential negative effects of screen media,
3
Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School, there has been concern about the impact of newer media on
Ann Arbor, MI, USA children’s development and what parents can do to manage
4
Department of Communication Studies, University of Michigan, children’s mobile media use. Research on children’s tele-
Ann Arbor, MI, USA vision (TV) use over the past two decades has found that
5
Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University parents’ mediation, or the way in which parents engage (or
of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA not) with their children around screen media, may mitigate
6
Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Michigan negative effects and enhance positive effects of children’s
School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA media use (see Collier et al. 2016 for a meta-analysis).
402 Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:401–410

Three types of parental mediation are active mediation, Nikken and Jansz 2014). Other types of mediation strategies
restrictive mediation, and social co-viewing (Valkenburg have emerged with managing adolescents’ use of the
et al. 1999). Active mediation consists of parents’ com- Internet. For example, Nikken and Jansz (2014) revealed
munication with their children about media content, that parents might incorporate supervision strategies to
including characters’ actions and motivations. Active regulate young children’s internet usage, which requires a
mediation of TV has been found to mitigate the risks of nearby parent to monitor the child engaging in internet use.
exposure to violent media (e.g., aggression; Nathanson and Livingstone and Helsper (2008) also identified software-
Cantor 2000), and enhance positive effects of prosocial based techniques, such as filtering and monitoring, that
media (e.g., Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood; Rasmussen et al. were being used by parents to mediate adolescents’ internet
2016). Restrictive mediation, or setting limits or rules about use. Despite this research on parental mediation of video
the content and duration of media use, has also been linked games and the Internet, we still know very little about how
to better outcomes for children and reduced screen time parents and children communicate about mobile media and
(e.g., Gentile et al. 2014). Social coviewing consists of how families use screen media (old and new) in digitally
parent and child viewing media programming together, but saturated home environments.
without active dialogue about content (Valkenburg et al. Naturalistic observational methods are crucial to identi-
1999). Social coviewing may have positive or negative fying phenomena not yet characterized in the literature, and
effects on children depending on the content of the program are uniquely well-suited to the study of family mobile
viewed (e.g., Nathanson 1999). Taken together, parental media use. Just as observational research in the 1980s and
mediation plays an important role in managing children’s 1990s provided deep inspection of family’s television use
media use and potentially influencing media effects. (e.g., Gunter et al. 1995; Krendl et al. 1993; Lull 1980),
Although parental mediation is beneficial for optimizing similar naturalistic studies are needed in our current digital
media’s effects, parents may find it difficult to manage their age. Compelling ethnographic research utilizing interviews
children’s media use, especially for young children. with adolescents and adults has provided a deeper under-
Although technology has the ability to support the learning standing of mobile technology use and potential effects
of young children (e.g., Plowman et al. 2008; Plowman and (Katz 2014; Turkle 2011, 2015) and qualitative research
Stephen 2007), there has been an emphasis by parents to utilizing interviews with parents and adolescents have
support their children’s operational skills (i.e., independent yielded important insights that extend parental mediation
use of mobile devices), which may interfere with joint use theory (Jiow et al. 2016). However, to our knowledge, no
and active mediation of content on these devices (Plowman naturalistic observations of children in their homes have
et al. 2010). Additionally, mediation strategies pose chal- documented how parents, children, and siblings talk about
lenges for parents such as causing in-home conflict and media. Recently, mobile recording devices have been used
making childcare more time-intensive. Limiting media use to capture the home media environment in young children
also requires parents to present alternative entertainment in 2010–2011 (Waters et al. 2016), just as tablets were
sources to their children, which requires resources that may being introduced by Apple and Samsung. This technology,
be unavailable to some families (Evans et al. 2011). Parents known as the Language ENvironment Analysis (LENA;
may also have insufficient knowledge for effectively LENA Research Foundation, Boulder, CO) has the capacity
managing their children’s media usage, such as being to move with the child (an essential feature in order to study
unfamiliar with the technology and lacking information similarly mobile media) and identify electronic media sig-
about media use guidelines (Nevski and Siibak 2016; nals in the child’s environment. Although prior research has
Nikken and de Haan 2015). Additionally, the presence of utilized LENA to quantify duration of media use and its
multiple siblings in the household may further complicate association with parent and child vocalizations (e.g.,
mediation efforts. Although older siblings may expose the Christakis et al. 2009; Zimmerman et al. 2009), no studies,
younger child to age-inappropriate content (Nikken and de to our knowledge, have transcribed the communication that
Haan 2015), older siblings may also serve as guides for the occurs during media exposure in the families’ homes. Given
younger siblings’ media use, demonstrating to the younger its capacity to document the home media environment,
sibling how to use smart devices and choosing the content LENA was used in the current study in a sample of families
which the younger sibling engages in (Nevski and Siibak with children across developmental periods (toddlers to
2016). school-age children). The aim of this study was to facilitate
Most research on parental mediation has focused on TV, a deeper understanding of how families talk about media in
and to a lesser extent video games and the Internet. Parents the digital age in order to build novel frameworks for future
utilize restrictive mediation, active mediation, and co-use study of mobile media in the home, as well as inform
with video games and internet as well, similar to strategies clinical recommendations.
that parents use to mediate TV (Nikken and Jansz 2006;
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:401–410 403

Method Table 1 Sample demographic characteristics

Child characteristics Mean (SD) or n (%)
Participants
Child sex

The current study is part of a larger longitudinal study that Male 41 (54.7%)
occurred in 2014–15 examining predictors of children’s n Children per age group
healthy growth and development; it was approved by the Toddlers (12–24 months) 21 (28.0%)
University of Michigan Institutional Review Board. Recruit- Preschool-age children (3–5 years) 31 (41.3%)
ment flyers were posted in pediatric primary care clinics and School-age (10–13 years) 23 (30.7%)
other health and child agencies within a one-hour radius of the Child race/ethnicity
authors’ institution. Interested families contacted study staff White, non-hispanic 49 (65.3%)
and were screened for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were: (1) Black, non-hispanic 13 (17.3%)
child between the ages of 12.0 to 24.0 months (“toddlers”), Other, non-hispanic 8 (10.7%)
3.00 to 5.99 years (“preschool-age children”), or 10.00 to Hispanic, any race 5 (6.7%)
12.99 years (“school-age children”); (2) at least one legal Maternal characteristics
guardian lives in the home with the child; (3) child lives in Maternal age (years) 33.25 (6.60)
only one home at least five of seven days a week; (4) child Highest level of education completed
has no major medical or developmental concerns; (5) family Did not complete high school 5 (6.7%)
speaks English at home most of the time and is able to speak Graduated from high school 7 (9.3%)
only English on days of recording; (6) child was born at Completed a GED 1 (1.3%)
gestational age ≥36 weeks; (7) child is without significant Completed some college 20 (26.7%)
dietary restrictions; and (8) participating parent and child have Completed a 2-year college degree 13 (17.3%)
no barriers to physical movement. Completed a 4-year college degree 29 (38.7%)
Forty toddlers, 40 preschool-age children, and 52 school-
Household (income-to-needs ratio)
age children and their families participated (N = 132 parent-
Not reported 4 (5.3%)
child dyads). Of the total sample, 89 families (67.4%) sub-
<1.0 27 (36.0%)
mitted audio recordings for analysis; 75 (84.3%) of whom
>=1.0, <2.0 21 (28.0%)
had audible electronic media use during the recordings.
>=2.0, <3.0 13 (17.3%)
There were no significant differences in demographic char-
3.0 or higher 10 (13.3%)
acteristics (e.g., child age, child gender, child race/ethnicity,
mother age, mother education level, single-parent house- Single-parent household
holds, and income-to-needs ratio) between families who did Yes 14 (18.7%)
versus families who did not have recordings (p’s > .10). The No 61 (81.3%)
final sample of children was 54.7% male and the majority Note. N = 75
non-Hispanic White. The sample consisted primarily of
families whose primary caregiver had higher education (i.e.,
82.7% had taken college courses or had a college degree or environment. Children were instructed to wear the device
higher; see Table 1 for full descriptive statistics). from approximately 4–8 pm for three days. This time frame
was chosen to ensure that all participants would be home at
Procedure the time of the recording (i.e., the older children would be
wearing the audio recording device at school if recording
Participants were informed that the audio recordings of began before the end of the school day).
family interactions would be analyzed, and written The LENA device software analyzes the audio data and
informed consent from the legal guardian for all children as calculates minutes of electronic media sounds and indicates
well as assent from the school-age children was obtained when, during the recording, electronic media was audible.
prior to enrollment in the study. Research assistants visited This output was utilized to identify which hours of LENA
families’ homes to collect data and provided LENA audio recording to select for transcription, similar to prior research
recording technology and instructions for use. The LENA observing home media use utilizing LENA (Waters et al.
device audiorecords language and other audible sounds in 2016). Specifically, the Audio Environment Report for each
proximity to the child. Families were instructed to have child was examined and the first hour (e.g., 4–5 pm,
children wear the LENA device either around their neck or 5–6 pm, etc.) in which any amount of electronic media was
in the front pocket of a shirt in order to record parent-child detected (i.e., at least approximately 3 min in the hour) was
conversations and other audible content in their selected for analysis. Because of the resource-intensive
404 Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:401–410

nature of LENA transcription, only 1 h from each partici- although over-arching themes of family media use and
pant was transcribed. The majority of hours selected for communication about media that were identified occurred
transcription occurred on weekdays (n = 67; 89.3%) and across all age groups, nuances of the themes emerged
during the hours of 5 pm–8 pm (n = 43; 57.3%). Twenty among specific child age groups. Thus, supporting quotes
percent of the hours occurred between the hours of and examples are also presented from each age group in
2 pm–5 pm (n = 15) and 22.7% of the hours occurred after order to illustrate some of the similarities and nuanced
8 pm (n = 17). differences in family media use and communication across
Modeled after a prior protocol developed for character- developmental stages.
izing media exposure using LENA technology (Waters et al.
2016), research assistants were trained to transcribe all
instances of “media talk.” Media talk was defined as words Results
spoken by the child or other family members regarding any
aspect of media use, including rules or regulations about use Five over-arching themes emerged in the analysis: (1)
(e.g., restrictive mediation) and discussion of the media Parental mediation is primarily restrictive, reactive and
content being viewed (e.g., active mediation). “tech-focused;” (2) Active mediation is child-driven; (3)
Using ATLAS.ti (Version 7.5.9; ATLAS.ti Scientific Siblings play a primary role in mediation; (4) Parent-child
Software Development GmbH, 2015), research assistants negotiations about media use are common; and (5) High
synced each utterance of media talk to the audio recording. degree of parallel family media use. We illustrate how each
Research assistants detailed other contextual information theme presented within the context of three different age
about the recording (e.g., types of media used) in notation ranges: toddlers, preschool-age children, and school-age
format, giving the transcripts for analysis an anthropologic children when nuanced differences emerged (notably for
field note quality. Themes 1, 2, and 4).

Data Analyses Parental Mediation was Primarily Restrictive,

Reactive and “Tech-Focused”
To investigate and characterize the communication about
media (i.e., the content of “media talk”), we conducted a Across ages, parental mediation of screen media was pri-
thematic analysis of the media talk, using the constant marily focused on restricting child access, reacting to child
comparative method (Glaser and Strauss 1967). This demands, and consisted of comments or directives about
method consists of using a grounded theory (i.e., inductive managing the technical aspects of devices (“tech-focused”).
approach) in order to identify novel themes relevant to the In the toddler cohort, there was very little parental active
lived experiences of families (akin to methods outlined by mediation of content (but there was communication about
Nowell et al. 2017). In other words, a priori codes were not technology use). Restrictive mediation dominated the
used when identifying themes. That is, in thematic analysis, parent-child interactions around media. In this young
themes are generated inductively from the data until cohort, restrictive mediation consisted primarily of com-
saturation is reached, unlike content analysis where fre- mands about how to use (or not use) media and mobile
quency of a priori themes is documented (see Vaismoradi devices.
et al. 2013 for an overview of the differences between
thematic and content analyses). Three experts from the Mother: “You can’t touch that TV, you are too close.”
disciplines of communications, child clinical psychology, “Hit the top and turn him back on.”
and developmental-behavioral pediatrics independently lis-
tened to the synced audio recordings and read the transcripts Mother: “That’s not how you turn on the TV. Put my
of media talk concurrently. In accordance with accepted control down little boy, put my control down.”
methods in qualitative research (e.g., Perrin 2005), these
readers independently identified themes of family media use Mother: “It’s going to play by itself, baby” [referring
and communication about media within each cohort of to DVD player when toddler makes a sound].
children in the study, met to discuss themes, iteratively
refined those that recurred, and applied these thematic The nature of the tech-focused talk among the preschool
concepts while analyzing subsequent audiofiles. This and school-age children focused on instructing how to use
occurred until theme saturation was achieved. Supporting mobile devices. Parents instructed children in their use of
quotes reflecting the themes and descriptions of the media mobile technology and other functions. For example, par-
environment observed were shared by the readers to aid in ents explained how to use a phone app, how to charge a
thematic analysis. The readers came to a consensus that phone, and their rationale behind their use of mobile device
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:401–410 405

functions (e.g., social networking). Consistent with the Mother: “Oh.”

younger cohorts, rarely did parents of school-aged children Child: “I don’t like the villain.”
discuss content restrictions or actively mediate the content Mother: “Ok, well turn it. You turn it off and we’ll
of programming. turn it back on for Wild Kratts.”

Mother: “Alright, the computer is still waking up so

give it a second.” Siblings Played a More Dominant Role in Mediation
Child: “Hey, mom wonder what it’s doing?” than Parents
Mother: “It’s trying to turn on a couple programs.”
Across age groups, siblings were more active in engaging
with media than parents. When active mediation or pro-
Mother: “Okay, someone needs to plug the phone in.” cessing of media content did occur, it was primarily driven
Child: “It is plugged in!” by siblings. For example, older siblings in the home would
Mother: “You have to just jiggle it a little. If it initiate such talk from parents by asking a question. Thus,
vibrates that means it’s plugged in.” younger children who have older siblings may benefit from
such explanations, despite their own more limited verbal
skills, which could restrict their capacity to express confu-
Child: “But why did you put us on Facebook?” sion about media content or request more information.
Mother: “Because I thought it was really funny that
you guys made up this huge huge challenge so I wrote Mother: “Oh no, they died because they drowned
that I didn’t know if we should be more excited about from the water.” [in response to older sibling of
your huge challenge or more embarrassed…” toddler asking why a parent died in a movie]

Among the school-age children, sibling bonding occur-

Active Mediation was Child-Driven red around joint media use. Media communication among
siblings was lengthier compared to media talk between
Rather than parents proactively mediating their child’s adults and children. The content of this communication also
media content, we observed that there was more child- reflected scaffolding of use, such as teaching a sibling how
driven active mediation, with preschool-aged children in to use a video game controller, as well as joint media use.
particular seeking parental attention and facilitation of
content processing. Given the limited verbal capacity of the Child: “They changed the texture of the blocks.”
toddlers, we heard less child-driven active mediation in that [talking about different game features]
cohort. We heard preschool-age children bid for help with Child: “You use this to steer, you use A to go forward,
processing by asking questions about content, TV char- you use B to go backwards…”
acters, and expressing their feelings about characters. Thus, [child helping sibling learn to play video game]
when we heard parents processing media content, it was
often in reaction to a child’s bid for active mediation.
Child: “This is what (name of peer at school) looks
Child: “What happened?” [in response to a scene in like.” [child showing sibling photo of peer on
James and the Giant Peach] Facebook]
Mother: “He tripped and they all fell out.”

Parent-Child Negotiations about Media Use were

Child: “What are they? What are they?” Common
Child: “Now who’s walking on the TV in the
camera?” Interactions around getting more screen time involved
Mother: “I don’t know.” bargaining and negotiating from both the parent and child,
Child: “Who’s talking in the camera?” and such discussions were most apparent among preschool-
aged children and school-age children (due to more limited
verbal abilities in the youngest cohort). Such negotiations
Child: “I can’t watch this one.” also appeared to arise in part due to the multiple options
Mother: “Is it scary?” open to the child (e.g., different devices, ease of internet
Child: “Uh huh.” access). For example, one mother and preschool-aged child
406 Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:401–410

were watching streaming video, and spent several minutes Discussion

going through the viewing options, with the child refusing
most of them. Negotiations also revolved around the par- Utilizing methods that allowed us to assess naturalistic
ticular devices available to the child: interaction in the home, our study identified five key fea-
tures of family media and mobile device use: (1) active
Mother: “You also get 5 min of TV, It’s too late mediation of content was rare and “tech-focused talk” was
already today.” more common; (2) active mediation was child-driven; (3)
Child: “I want to watch TV for 10 min.” siblings played a more dominant role in mediation than
Mother: “No.” parents; (4) parent-child negotiations about media use were
Child: “What about 9 min?” common; and (5) parallel family media use and media
Mother: “No.” multitasking by family members were common for house-
Child: “5?” holds with mobile technology. Our findings have implica-
Child: “Can I watch, can I play on my iPad?” tions for the study of family and parent-child interactions
Mother: “Yes you may play on the iPad.” around mobile media use, as well as barriers that researchers
Child: “Yay! Get the iPad.” may encounter in quantifying media use with traditional
(self-report) methods. This study found that, in the context
of multiple media options, parental active mediation of
Child: “Mom can I see your phone?” content was limited, across all ages of children. Parents
Mother: “Why would you do that?” more commonly expressed rules or regulations about chil-
Child: “Because I know we get 30 min of electronics dren’s media use than actively processed the content of
today.” media. Statements about restriction or regulation of use
Mother: “Nope, you don’t.” were often in reaction to a child’s request for assistance or
Child: “Well how about I get 20 min?” the parent observing the child’s inappropriate use of media
or mobile technology. We used the term “tech-focused talk”
to reflect communication about media focused on how to
Parallel Family Media Use: Multiple Family Members use various technologies or devices (i.e., the mechanics or
Used Own Devices Simultaneously and with Other nuances of accessing or viewing media). In sum, we found
Background Media Exposure that instead of mediation of content, parents engaged in
tech-focused talk. The level of detail provided by parents
We observed children being exposed to multiple screen during tech-focused talk varied by child age, with the
media in the home, with devices being used at the same youngest cohort hearing brief commands on how to use
time by different family members, across all age groups. non-mobile media and more elaborate descriptions of fea-
Examples of this “parallel family media use” included: a tures and functions of technology in the older cohorts.
mother watching the news as her child played games on Flynn and Richert (2015) have reported on similar tech-
her mobile phone; children playing on the iPad while focused talk in their laboratory research on parents’ scaf-
mother was on her mobile device; and father playing folding of young children’s use of a novel interactive device
music on iTunes with one child, while other sibling (i.e., Leapfrog). Flynn and Richert (2015) identified that
watched television. Similarly, children were exposed to parents use a range of scaffolding strategies to facilitate
other family members using their own devices while they their preschool-age children’s use of the device. In their
independently viewed media. For example, in one family, study, Flynn and Richert found that more than half of the
we heard three siblings using separate devices at one time parents focused more on providing device-related support
(computer, mother’s smart phone, and Wii). Often, the strategies (e.g., directives such as “push the key” and
TV was on in the background while children and parents instructions about device use) than content-specific strate-
were using iPads, computers, and other mobile devices. In gies. In addition to directives around mobile device use, we
other words, media multitasking by family members at also observed tech-focused talk (what Flynn and Richert
the same time was observed. Another example of parallel refer to as device-related) with other novel functions in non-
family media use occurred when siblings played separate mobile media, including how to access streaming content on
video games in the same room. However, joint use of TV and play movies. In older children, the tech-focused talk
media was also observed when siblings were present. For was more complex (e.g., explanations for why the computer
example, in one family, siblings were heard playing was going slow or benefits to a newer operating system).
Minecraft together, with TV on in the background (i.e., This is an important finding in light of the fact that early
media multitasking). digital literacy is thought to comprise understanding how to
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:401–410 407

learn from technology and use it to create and access new media in the digital age may be especially important
information, rather than the mechanics of touching and because older siblings may be more adept than their parents
clicking (Rogow 2015). at understanding newer media (as suggested by Austin and
We observed evidence that mediation efforts were often Kistler 2016) and the mobile device preferences of their
child-driven, across the preschool and school-age children younger siblings. It may also be that with co-use, there are
in the study (likely due to their verbal capacity). In other more opportunities for siblings to mediate the media being
words, children elicited parental active mediation of media viewed. As others have found, children more commonly co-
by initiating dialogue or clarification about the content of use media with their siblings than their parents (Roberts
media. Parents reacted to children’s bids for content clar- et al. 1999) and there is evidence that co-playing video
ification or elaboration but rarely initiated active mediation games may be associated with positive (e.g., affection) and
of content on their own. To our knowledge, prior research negative (e.g., hostility) outcomes in the sibling relationship
has not yet examined who typically initiates active media- (Coyne et al. 2016). It may also be that having older sib-
tion (i.e., the parent or the child or other family member). It lings could significantly influence content of media that
is possible that certain active mediation practices (e.g., younger siblings desire to watch. As such, surveying sibling
explaining what is happening on TV or helping the child dyads and observing sibling dyads using media are parti-
understand what he/she is seeing on TV; Valkenburg et al. cularly recommended to inform our understanding of family
1999) may be more likely to occur after a child indicates mediation in the digital age.
confusion or requests assistance with processing the con- Given the ubiquity of media and mobile technology in
tent. On the other hand, there is an assumption in media households today (e.g., Kabali et al. 2015), our finding
research that parents are the active socializers around media about the frequency of parent-child negotiations around
use (children are the passive recipients), and, as such, less media use may not be surprising. Both parents and children
attention has been paid to child-driven or bidirectional bargained about amount of use and type of media use (e.g.,
effects (Van den Bulck et al. 2016). As Van den Bulck et al. TV vs. tablet). The endless possibilities of streaming TV
(2016) argue, future research should consider the effects programs to watch that are not restricted by a certain time
that children have on parents’ media use and family media slot or format (i.e., standard TV set) may increase the
rules. Given the findings in our study that children initiated opportunities for parents and children to access their pre-
active mediation, we likewise propose that such research ferred choice of media at any time and any place. In recent
also considers child factors that yield greater active med- research, parents have expressed the challenges they
iation on behalf of the parent. It is also important to note experience with decision making around children’s mobile
that, as mobile device use continues to grow in toddlers and media use. Radesky et al. (2016) interviewed parents of
preschool-age children, one could envision that parents may children 0–8 years old about their beliefs regarding their
experience challenges in active mediation unless there is child’s mobile technology use and identified several ten-
joint use (co-viewing content). That is, with mobile tech- sions that parents wrestle with in the digital age. Consistent
nology, children can play or use devices independently, and with our finding about bargaining and negotiating about
the content on the smaller screens may not be readily use, parents in Radesky et al.’s (2016) study reported
observable or audible to parents (contrary to more tradi- feeling powerless in the face of child demands for mobile
tional media such as TVs or movies). Future research technology use and the appeal of such technology to reduce
should examine whether active mediation is more challen- conflict and disruption in the home. As such, following
ging or less common regarding content viewed on mobile through with restrictive mediation and other rules about the
devices. duration and timing of technology use may become ever
Another key finding was that siblings played a significant more challenging for parents, particularly when children
part in co-using media and mediating content, across age and other family members have their “own” readily avail-
groups. Older siblings facilitated parental mediation by able devices. It is not yet known how prevalent parent-child
asking for clarification on media content that younger sib- conflict around mobile technology is and if general par-
lings were viewing. Although prior research has examined enting style or parental efficacy associates with such con-
the association between sibling presence or birth order and flict. Similarly, parents’ own dependence on mobile phones
amount of TV viewed (Hardy et al. 2006), content of TV may also influence decision-making around children’s
viewed (Pinon et al. 1989), and perceived susceptibility to mobile device use (Hwang et al. 2017). Future research
media effects (Davies and Gentile 2012), none to our should seek to fill those gaps and, importantly, identify
knowledge have examined how siblings mediate media. guidelines or best practices to support parents in order to
Yet, as others have reported, there has been limited research prevent or reduce the frequency of child demands and
on sibling-to-sibling mediation of media (Austin and Kistler negotiating for mobile technology. For example, with
2016). Understanding the role of siblings in mediating growing options available to parents for digital monitoring
408 Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:401–410

and management of children’s mobile devices, future stu- challenge to researchers seeking to quantify amount of
dies could examine parents’ perceived utility of such pro- children’s time with screens based on retrospective parent
ducts and whether they facilitate more consistent mediation. report. With multiple family members using different media
The first four themes that emerged largely reflected simultaneously, it is likely challenging (if not impossible) to
communication about media in the home; our final theme accurately report on which family member was using which
detailed patterns of use observed among family members of media and for how long. Furthermore, with concurrent
all ages. We observed “parallel family media use,” or media use by parents (i.e., parallel family media use), it is
instances of family members independently using different possible that distraction or preoccupation with their own
media simultaneously. This often occurred when a parent personal media use may interfere with attending to their
used a mobile device (often a phone) and the child/children child’s media. Given the ubiquity of media that is mobile
were viewing media on other devices or platforms, such as and immersive, it is recommended that researchers use a
watching a TV program or playing video games. Other variety of methods to assess screen media use, including
instances of parallel family media use were observed mobile passive sensing, observational methods (recording
between siblings, such as when siblings used separate technology that facilitates mobile recording; e.g., LENA),
devices or viewed other media simultaneously. Parallel and time use diaries delivered via ecological momentary
family media use sometimes coincided with media multi- assessments. It is also recommended that researchers assess
tasking, wherein children were exposed to/were using two media multitasking (we refer readers to the recent research
or more types of media at the same time. Examples of this conducted by Common Sense Media that has measured
included children using mobile devices with TV or video media multitasking: e.g., Lauricella et al. 2016; Rideout
games audible in the background. It is not known how 2015). Regarding parental mediation of media, future
prevalent parallel family media use is, but a recent study on research may seek to continue to assess children’s percep-
media use by parents in US households indicates that this tions of parental mediation (as others have suggested—e.g.,
pattern of family media use warrants further investigation. Gentile, Nathanson, Rasmussen, Reimer and Walsh, 2012)
Common Sense Media recently conducted a study on par- and the role of children in engaging in dialogue about media
ents’ media use and found that parents have high amounts content.
of screen media use, with most of their screen time (over
7 h/day on average) used for personal (i.e., non-work rela-
ted) reasons (Lauricella et al. 2016). Although it is not Limitations and Future Research
known exactly how much of this screen time occurred in the
home, it seems likely that a proportion of these hours Although observational methodology allowed us to exam-
occurred outside of work. Another finding in their study ine naturalistic family media use and communication about
was that large proportions of children (ages 8–18 years) media use, there are limitations to this study design that
owned multiple devices (Lauricella et al. 2016). For should be acknowledged. First, despite having a relatively
example, Lauricella et al. (2016) found that 63% of youth large sample for an observational study, the sample size,
owned their own cell phone, 51% owned their own tablet, high educational attainment by the mothers, and relative
and 45% owned their own video game system. Pairing the homogeneity of the participants limits our ability to gen-
amount of personal screen media use endorsed by parents eralize our findings to other populations. Research on
and the plethora of devices owned by children and teen- demographic differences in parents’ co-use of media with
agers, the parallel family media use observed in our study their children indicate that while few education level dif-
may be a phenomenon common to many homes in the US. ferences emerge (Connell et al. 2015), racial/ethnic differ-
Future research should thus investigate the prevalence of ences in co-use do occur (which are consistent with our
parallel family media use further and examine the associa- findings with a predominantly White sample). Specifically,
tion between parallel family media use on family relation- Connell et al. (2015) found that White parents were less
ships and parent-child interactions, across children of all likely than non-Hispanic racial minority parents to co-use
ages. computers and smartphones with their young children.
In addition to the implications of findings for future Similarly, White parents were also less likely to co-use
research on communication about media and family media tablets with their young children, compared to Hispanic
use in media-saturated households, our observations have parents (Connell et al. 2015). Thus, it is possible that if our
yielded factors about current media use practices in natur- sample was more racially/ethnically diverse, different pat-
alistic home contexts that researchers may wish to consider terns of parent co-use may have emerged. Second, although
when measuring children’s media use and parental media- informative, our transcription procedures were time-
tion of media. Our findings regarding parallel family media intensive and thus we were unable to review all recorded
use and media multitasking in households present a hours in order to identify themes. Thus, it is not known
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:401–410 409

whether parent-child communication about media occurred 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable
in hours during which a media signal was not present or ethical standards.
during other instances of media use. Another limitation is
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from participants in
that recordings were limited to the late afternoon and early
the study (see Methods section for complete parent consent and par-
evening hours (approximately 4–8 pm). As one may expect, ticipant assent details).
how parents mediate TV may differ depending on the time
of day. For example, parents may engage in more restrictive
mediation if the child is getting ready for school in the References
morning or preparing for bedtime at night. Similarly, for the
youngest age group, older siblings may not be able to Austin, E. W. & Kistler, M. (2016). Family mediation of children's
mediate media when they are at school. Future research media/internet use. In C. H. Berger, M. E.Roloff, S. R. Wilson, J.
P. Dillard, J. Caughlin, D. Solomon (Eds.), The international
should examine whether the themes that emerged in this
encyclopedia ofinterpersonal communication (pp. 1-10). John
study exist during other times of the day. This is especially Wiley & Sons, Inc.
recommended for the youngest cohort, toddlers, for whom Christakis, D. A., Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Zimmerman, F. J.,
little research has considered media parenting practices. For Garrison, M. M., Xu, D., & Yapanel, U. (2009). Audible tele-
vision and decreased adult words, infant vocalizations, and con-
that age group, utilizing video recording equipment in the
versational turns: a population-based study. Archives of
home may be best to observe media parenting of toddlers in Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163, 554–558. https://doi.org/
future research. Finally, with audio-recordings, we could 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.61.
not determine if children were viewing media with head- Collier, K. M., Coyne, S. M., Rasmussen, E. E., Hawkins, A. J.,
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Erickson, S. E., & Memmott-Elison, M.
phones on (thus, without sound to the recording device) or
K. (2016). Does parental mediation of media influence child
if children or parents were using mobile devices to text or outcomes? A meta-analysis on media time, aggression, substance
engage in other mobile phone activities without sound. use, and sexual behavior. Developmental Psychology, 52,
Although the contextual cues informed us that this was not 798–812.
Connell, S. L., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2015). Parental co-
likely in the younger cohorts (12–24 month and 3–5 year
use of media technology with their young children in the USA.
olds), this could not be ruled out with the oldest cohort Journal of Children and Media, 9, 5–21.
(10–13 year olds), which could mean an underestimation of Coyne, S. M., Jensen, A. C., Smith, N. J., & Erickson, D. H. (2016).
types of media, particularly mobile phones, used. Future Super Mario brothers and sisters: Associations between coplaying
video games and sibling conflict and affection. Journal of Ado-
research should include passive sensing on mobile devices
lescence, 47, 48–59.
to redress the concern about non-audible media or mobile Davies, J. J., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Responses to children’s media
device use with audio and video recording technology. use in families with and without siblings: A family development
perspective. Family Relations, 61, 410–425.
Author Contributions S.D.: designed and executed the study, assisted Evans, C. A., Jordan, A. B., & Horner, J. (2011). Only two hours? A
with data analyses, and wrote the paper. J.R.: assisted with the data qualitative study of the challenges parents perceive in restricting
analyses and contributed to writing the Results and Discussion. K.H.: child television time. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 1223–1244.
assisted with the data analyses and contributed to writing the Results Flynn, R. M., & Richert, R. A. (2015). Parents support preschoolers’
and Discussion. H.R.: assisted with data analyses and contributed to use of a novel interactive device. Infant and Child Development,
writing the Introduction. J.L.: assisted with the design, analysis, and 24, 624–642.
writing of the paper. A.M.: designed and collaborated with the Gentile, D. A., Nathanson, A. I., Rasmussen, E. E., Reimer, R. A., &
execution of the study and writing of the paper. Walsh, D. A. (2012). Do you see what I see? Parent and child
reports of parental monitoring of media. Family Relations, 61,
470–487.
Funding All phases of this study were supported by the National
Gentile, D. A., Reimer, R. A., Nathanson, A. I., Walsh, D. A., &
Institutes of Health (NIH) grant number R03HD083656 and The
Eisenmann, J. C. (2014). Protective effects of parental monitoring
Momentum Center and the MCubed program at the University of
of children’s media use: A prospective study. Journal of the
Michigan. Additionally, Dr. Domoff was supported by a National
American Medical Association Pediatrics, 168, 479–484.
Research Service Award from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery grounded theory:
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD; grant
strategies for qualitative inquiry. Brunswick, NJ: Aldine
number F32HD085684).
Transcation.
Gunter, B., Furnham, A., & Lineton, Z. (1995). Watching people
Compliance with Ethical Standards watching television: What goes on in front of the TV set? Journal
of Educational Television, 21, 165–191.
Conflict of Interest S.D., K.H., H.R., J.L. & A.M. declare that they Hardy, L. L., Baur, L. A., Garnett, S. P., Crawford, D., Campbell, K.,
have no conflict of interest. Dr. Radesky is paid to write for PBS Shrewsbury, V. A., & Salmon, J. (2006). Family and home
Parents. correlates of television viewing in 12–13 year old adolescents:
The Nepean study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition
and Physical Activity, 3, 1–9.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving
Hwang, I., Choi, Y., Yum, J.Y., & Jeong, S.H. (2017). Parental
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of
mediation regarding children’s smartphone use: Role of
the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and with the
410 Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:401–410

protection motivation and parenting style. Cyberpsychology, Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2008). Just picking it up?
Behavior, and Social Networking (epub ahead of print). https:// Young children learning with technology at home. Cambridge
doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0555 Journal of Education, 38, 303–319.
Jiow, H. J., Lim, S. S., & Lin, J. (2016). Level up! Refreshing parental Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2010). The technologisation
mediation theory for our digital media landscape. Communication of childhood? Young children and technology in the home.
Theory, 27, 309–328. Children & Society, 24, 63–74.
Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2007). Guided interaction in pre-school
Mohanty, S. H., Leister, K. P., & Bonner, R. L. (2015). Exposure settings. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 14–26.
and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics, Radesky, J. S., Eisenberg, S., Kistin, C. J., Gross, J., Block, G., Zuck-
136, 1044–1050. erman, B., & Silverstein, M. (2016). Overstimulated consumers or
Katz, V. S. (2014). Kids in the middle: How children of immigrants next-generation learners? Parent tensions about child mobile tech-
negotiate community interactions for their families. New Bruns- nology use. The Annals of Family Medicine, 14, 503–508.
wick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Rasmussen, E. E., Shafer, A., Colwell, M. J., White, S., Punyanunt-
Krendl, K. A., Troiano, C., Dawson, K., & Clark, G. (1993). O.K. Carter, N., Densley, R. L., & Wright, H. (2016). Relation
Where’s the remote? Children, families and remote control between active mediation, exposure to Daniel Tiger’s Neighbor-
devices. In J. Walker & R. Belkdmy, Jr. (Eds.), The remote hood, and US preschoolers’ social and emotional development.
control device in the new age of television (pp. 137–1541). New Journal of Children and Media, 10, 443–461.
York: Praeger. Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America
Lauricella, A. R., Cingel, D. P., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., Robb, M. B., 2013. Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.
Saphir, M., & Wartella, E. A. (2016). The Common Sense census: org/research/zero-to-eight-childrens-media-use-inamerica-2013.
Plugged-in parents of tweens and teens. San Francisco, CA: Accessed 1 January 2017.
Common Sense Media. Rideout, V. (2015). The common sense census: Media use by tweens
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of chil- and teens. Common Sense Media. http://www.
dren’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, commonsensemedia.org. Accessed 1 January 2017.
52, 581–599. Roberts, D.F., Foehr, U.G., Rideout, V.G., & Brodie, M. (1999). Kids
Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication & media @ the new millennium. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family
Research, 6, 197–209. Foundation.
Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship Rogow, F. (2015). Media literacy in early childhood education:
between parental mediation and children’s aggression. Commu- inquiry-based technology integration. In C. Donohue (Ed.),
nication Research, 26, 124–143. Technology and digital media in the early years: Tools for
Nathanson, A. I., & Cantor, J. (2000). Reducing the aggression- teaching and learning (pp. 91–103). Washington, DC: National
promoting effect of violent cartoons by increasing children’s Association for the Education of Young Children and New York,
fictional involvement with the victim: A study of active med- NY: Routledge.
iation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from tech-
125–142. nology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
Nevski, E., & Siibak, A. (2016). Mediation practices of parents and Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a
older siblings in guiding toddlers’ touchscreen technology use: digital age. New York: Penguin Press.
An ethnographic case study. Media Education Studies & Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Qualitative
Research, 7, 320–340. descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15, 398–405.
Nikken, P., & de Haan, J. (2015). Guiding young children’s internet https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048.
use at home: Problems that parents experience in their parental Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M.
mediation and the need for parenting support. Cyberpsychology: (1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles of television
Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9, article 3 mediation: “Instructive mediation,”“restrictive mediation,” and
https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2015-1-3. “social coviewing”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2006). Parental mediation of children’s 43, 52–66.
videogame playing: A comparison of the reports by parents and Van den Bulck, J., Custers, K., & Nelissen, S. (2016). The child-effect
children. Learning, Media and Technology, 31, 181–202. in the new media environment: Challenges and opportunities for
Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2014). Developing scales to measure parental communication research. Journal of Children and Media, 10,
mediation of young children’s internet use. Learning, Media and 30–38.
Technology, 39, 250–266. Waters, N., Domoff, S. E., & Tang, S. (2016). Parenting of preschool
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). children’s media use in the home. In P. Davis-Kean & S. Tang
Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. (Eds), Socializing Children through Language, Chapter 5 (pp.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13. 111–146). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier, Inc.
Perrin, J. M. (2005). Qualitative research and ambulatory pediatrics. Zimmerman, F. J., Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Christakis, D. A., Xu,
Academic Pediatrics 5, 129. D., Gray, S., & Yapanel, U. (2009). Teaching by listening: The
Pinon, M., Huston, A. C., & Wright, J. C. (1989). Family ecology and importance of adult-child conversations to language develop-
child characteristics that predict young children’s educational ment. Pediatrics, 124, 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.
television viewing. Child Development, 60, 846–856. 2008-2267.