See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348198864

Technoference: Parent mobile device use and implications for children and
parent-child relationships

Article · December 2020

CITATIONS READS

9 544

1 author:

Brandon T McDaniel
Parkview Health
77 PUBLICATIONS 2,813 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Daily Family Life Project View project

iMom Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brandon T McDaniel on 04 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Technoference and Young Children 1

Technoference:

Parent mobile device use and implications for children and parent-child relationships

Brandon T. McDaniel, PhD

Parkview Mirro Center for Research and Innovation

PLEASE CITE AS:

McDaniel, B. T. (2020). Technoference: Parent mobile device use and implications for children

and parent-child relationships. Zero To Three, 41(2), 30-36.

THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE IS AVAILABLE AT:

https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/3763-technoference-parent-mobile-device-use-and-

implications-for-children-and-parent-child-relationships
Technoference and Young Children 2

Abstract

The increase in the prevalence of smartphones and mobile devices has spurred changes in the
caregiving environment of infants and young children, as phones and mobile devices are used at
times during caregiving and in caregiving spaces. This use could create disruptions and cause
distractions during parenting (termed technoference). This article summarizes the potential
impacts on parent responsiveness and the experiences of infants and young children. Yet, it also
warns that it is important to consider the reason for and type of parent use. Finally, the article
ends with practical tips for working with parents concerning mobile device use.

Keywords: Technoference; phubbing; smartphone use; parenting; child behavior

Technoference and Young Children 3

Technoference:

Parent mobile device use and implications for children and parent-child relationships

The increase in the prevalence of smartphones and mobile screen devices has spurred
changes in the caregiving environment of infants and young children. As of 2019, 96% of U.S.
adults age 18 to 29 years owned a smartphone and ownership was 92% among those age 30 to 49
years (Pew Research Center, 2019). Moreover, 90% frequently carry their phone with them
throughout the day (Rainie & Zickuhr, 2015). It is inevitable that devices will be present during
caregiving times and in caregiving spaces. Simply as an illustration, here are a few statistics:
• 73% of parents used a phone during meal time with their child or children in a restaurant
(Radesky et al., 2014).
• 35% of caregivers were on their phone for 1 out of every 5 minutes (or sometimes more)
during times they and their child were at the park (Hiniker et al., 2015).
• 36% of parents reported spending too much time on their phone (Jiang, 2018).

This phone and mobile device use could create disruptions and cause distractions during
parenting. These disruptions, distractions, and interruptions in face-to-face parent-child time
have been termed “technoference” (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016a; 2016b; McDaniel & Radesky,
2018a; 2018b). For example, mothers report technology interrupting their interactions with their
infant or young child (age 3 years or younger; mean age = 11.74 months) at least sometimes in
various parenting domains, such as 65% during playtime, 36% during book reading, 26% during
mealtime, 26% during bedtime, and even 22% during discipline and limit setting (McDaniel &
Coyne, 2016b). Phone use may be particularly prevalent during infant care, due to the sometimes
monotonous and extended nature of the care tasks (such as feeding). Some studies on mothers of
infants have found that 92% report using screens during daily infant feedings (Ventura &
Teitelbaum, 2017), and 37% report often texting or using apps on a mobile device during infant
feeding (Ventura, Hupp, Gutierrez, & Almeida, 2020).

Impacts on parent responsiveness and sensitivity

Overall, the research indicates at least small negative impacts of parent phone use during
caregiving on parent responsiveness, although this research has primarily been self-report and
observational (e.g., McDaniel, 2019). In interviews, parents and caregivers have expressed
difficulty switching between their device use and attending to their child (Radesky et al., 2016)
and feeling they are better at focusing on their child when their phone is not present (Blackwell,
Gardiner, & Schoenebeck, 2016; Radesky et al., 2016).
Naturalistic and structured observations of parents and young children have revealed
results such as the following, when parents use their device (especially when absorbed in the
use):
• Fewer verbal and non-verbal interactions in restaurants, and at times inappropriate or
harsh responses to the child (e.g., Radesky et al., 2014; Radesky et al., 2015).
• Less likely to respond to child bids for attention at playgrounds (e.g., Vanden Abeele et
al., 2020; Hiniker et al., 2015).
• Lower sensitivity to infant cues during feeding (Golen & Ventura, 2015).
Technoference and Young Children 4

Although currently limited, some experimental work has begun to show impacts on
parent behavior and responsiveness. In an experiment on 200 parent-child dyads during a
museum visit, Kushlev and Dunn (2019) found that those parents who were experimentally
assigned to greater phone use felt more distracted and less connected to their child. Ventura,
Levy, and Sheeper (2019) had 25 mothers engage in infant feedings with and without device use,
and they found that mothers engaged in less cognitive growth fostering during the device use
condition. In other words, mothers talked less often to their infants when using a device during
infant feeding. Reed, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff (2017) performed a word learning task with 38
mother-toddler dyads. Dyads were assigned to either a phone interrupted condition or an
uninterrupted condition, and the researchers found that toddlers were less likely to learn the word
in the interrupted condition. The researchers speculated that this was likely due to the decrease in
contingency, joint attention, and responsiveness to the child.

Parents have always been distracted. How is distraction with devices any different?

Yes, parents have always been distracted at times, and we have often had to multitask as
a human species, so this is a valid question. In a prior review, I answer this question as follows.

“Yes, there have been concerns expressed with the advent of every technology
over the years. However, this is the first time in the history of humanity where we
have devices that are connected to almost all parts of our lives and identities and
that travel with us (often in our pocket or hand) everywhere we go, from private
to public spaces and from individual time to family time. Additionally, some
initial work suggests it is more difficult for us to break our attention with our
mobile devices than with other sorts of distractions, making child needs and bids
for attention less likely to be successful (e.g., Abels et al., 2018; Hiniker et al.,
2015)” (McDaniel, 2019).

In other words, it is different due to the way in which it has permeated our sense of self and our
daily lives as well as the strong use habits that can be formed. In fact, 46% of U.S. adults felt
they could not live without their phone in 2015 (Pew Research Center, 2015), and many
individuals feel anxious when they do not have access to their phone (King et al., 2013). For a
more detailed review of the reasons parents might use their device around their child, see
McDaniel (2019).

What infants and young children see and feel

Overall, a small but growing body of survey, observational, and experimental research
demonstrates that children are aware of and react to their parents’ device use. When researchers
ask children and teens how their parents’ mobile device use makes them feel, they often use
words such as sad, angry, and lonely, and they express dissatisfaction with those parent-child
times (Steiner-Adair & Barker, 2013). In an experiment on 50 parent-child dyads (ages 3 to 12
years), children ran around a softball diamond. Children ran faster and were less likely to make a
mistake when their parent was responsive versus on their phone (Stupica, 2016). Additionally,
teens experience their parents as less warm when distracted by devices (Stockdale et al., 2018;
Xie & Xie, 2020) and may even feel worse about themselves (e.g., Xie & Xie, 2020).
Technoference and Young Children 5

Focusing specifically on infants and young children, researchers have performed the Still
Face Paradigm (SFP; Mesman, van van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2009;
Tronick et al., 1978) with parents and infants, substituting phone use for the still face segment
(Myruski et al., 2017; Stockdale et al., 2020). The SFP consists of three segments: (1) free play,
(2) still face, where the parent stops interacting and goes devoid of emotion, and (3) reunion,
where play and interaction resumes. Generally, during the mobile device use (still face) segment,
these researchers found that infant bids for attention increased, negative emotions increased, and
positive emotions decreased, meaning that many infants reacted to and were uncomfortable with
their parent’s disengagement with a device. Additionally, according to parent self-reports over 6
months in a sample of over 170 two-parent families, greater technoference in parent-child
interactions led to greater externalizing behavior over time, such as child acting out, frustration,
and anger (McDaniel & Radesky, 2018a; 2018b).

Infants and children can also be indirectly affected by parent phone and mobile device
use. There is an ever-growing literature which has linked technoference in couple relationships
with decreased relationship satisfaction, lower quality interactions, greater relationship conflict,
decreased feelings of closeness to one’s partner, and negative emotions in the individual feeling
snubbed (e.g., Amichai-Hamburger & Etgar, 2016; Brown et al., 2016; Dwyer, Kushlev, &
Dunn, 2018; Halpern & Katz, 2017; Krasnova et al., 2016; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016a;
McDaniel et al., 2018; McDaniel et al., 2020; Roberts & David, 2016; Wang et al., 2017).
Additionally, some work has linked technoference with lower coparenting quality, or the ability
of partners to work together in parenting their children (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016b; McDaniel,
Galovan, et al., 2018). We also know that the quality of the couple and coparenting relationship
(in families with multiple caregivers) spills out into the quality of parenting that children receive
as well as how secure children feel in their family relationships (e.g., Davies & Cummings,
1994; Erel & Burman, 1995; Margolin et al., 2001). In other words, technoference could
negatively impact the quality of the interparental or other family relationships which then could
negatively impact parenting quality and the child—yet no research has directly examined the link
yet between technoference in the interparental relationship and child outcomes.

Technoference and bonding with a parent

Although there is no longitudinal or experimental research as of yet which can directly

link certain types and frequencies of parent phone use to worse parent-child relationship quality
or weaker parent-child bonding or attachment, young children’s words and reactions above (e.g.,
Steiner-Adair & Barker, 2013; McDaniel & Radesky, 2018b) indicate that parent distraction with
technology might negatively impact parent-child bonding if it occurs frequently. Focusing
specifically on infants and very young children, researchers and clinicians are at times concerned
about the potential impacts of parent distraction with devices due to the child’s need for
sensitive, responsive caregiving and assistance with the regulation of their emotions (e.g.,
McDaniel & Coyne, 2016b; Radesky & Christakis, 2016; Stupica, 2016). As cited earlier, parent
responsiveness and sensitivity can be negatively impacted by parent phone use, and as I have
stated in an earlier review, “If a parent was distracted by a phone or other device, the parent
might be less aware of their child’s cues and needs, less accurate in their interpretation of their
needs, delayed in their responses (less contingent), less appropriate in their response, or all of the
above” (McDaniel, 2019). Hypothetically, we would expect this decrease in sensitive caregiving,
Technoference and Young Children 6

if frequent, to negatively impact the overall quality of the infant or young child’s bond with the
parent (attachment). We would also expect this decrease to negatively impact the infant’s or
child’s ability to regulate their emotions over time, as the parent is less available to soothe and
assist the young infant or child with their emotions (e.g., co-regulation; Evans & Porter, 2009;
Feldman, 2007). As some initial evidence, survey research indicates that adolescents feel less
attached to, like their relationship needs are not being met, and worse about the parent-child
relationship if their parents are distracted more often by their phones (Niu et al., 2020; Xie et al.,
2019; Xie & Xie, 2020). Finally, there is some emerging survey research that has linked parents’
greater phone use with worse feelings of attachment to their child in samples of parents with
infants, young children, and school-aged children (Gieschen et al., under review; Johnson, 2019;
Linder et al., under review). To be clear, it is unlikely that occasional glances at a smartphone
would cause any meaningful damage to a parent-infant relationship. However, if the distractions
were frequent enough and if they negatively influenced the sensitivity of the parent on an
ongoing basis, then changes in parent-infant bonding would be expected.

Not all phone use is created equal: The importance of considering the reason for and type
of use

There are a variety of reasons a parent or caregiver might get on their device while
around their infant or young child. For a detailed review of these reasons, see McDaniel (2019).
Additionally, see Radesky et al. (2016) for interviews of parents and caregivers about their
reasons for using their devices around their children. As a summary, here are some of the main
reasons for use from my review of the literature that relate to parents: (1) Phones are useful
devices that facilitate many different parts of our lives, such as connection, work, information-
seeking, and much more; (2) To entertain themselves or have something to do when bored by the
parenting task or experience at hand; (3) To deal with negative emotions, such as loneliness or
depression, and/or to seek for support; (4) To virtually escape from stressful parenting
experiences, such as a crying infant or a tantruming toddler; (5) Simply out of a habit that has
formed from frequently checking the device at certain times throughout the day, which habit has
formed over months or even years. Additionally, in a sample of 296 parents with a child age 3 to
6 years old, I recently surveyed parent perceptions of phone use for positive purposes. As a few
examples, I found that (McDaniel, 2020):

• 58% felt their device use helped them calm down when at their breaking point
• 65% felt their device use helped them see the positives in their child again
• 65% felt their device use helped them see what they liked about parenting again
• 75% were able find strategies that made them a more effective parent after the device use
• 79% said the use helped them come up with activities to do with their child

In other words, parent phone use often serves to gratify a need or fulfills a purpose, and we
cannot forget this when intervening or working with parents, nor can we treat all phone use as
the same.

Yet, although the parent’s device use may help them and/or serve a purpose, we should
still carefully consider whether the device use (and the type of device use) is the most effective
way for the parent to accomplish their purpose or fulfill their need. For example, if a parent
Technoference and Young Children 7

needs to calm down, considering and helping a parent to implement strategies that are
empirically supported to help alleviate anger and frustration within the parenting context would
be better than the parent pulling out their phone and scrolling through social media. However,
there may also be times when the device use is effective and helpful for the parent. For instance,
a parent does not know what to do in that parenting moment and has a trusted friend who they
can call and who will help them to quickly overcome this moment of need. Finally, parents
should also consider whether using their phone during that moment (e.g., to control their
emotions, to distract themselves from an experience they do not enjoy, to respond to a work
email during family time) is the behavior they want to teach their children, as one of the
strongest predictors of how children will use technology is how their parents use technology
(e.g., Lauricella et al., 2015; Paudel et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2015).

Additionally, depending on the content and activities engaged in during the device use,
we may see different impacts on or associations with parent mental health and well-being. For
example, if a parent uses their device in a passive way—“consuming information without direct
exchanges (e.g., scrolling through news feeds, viewing posts)” (Verduyn et al., 2015, p. 480)—
this use may prove to be detrimental to, or at least not helpful for, their mental health. Passive
use tends to be linked with greater depressive symptoms and worse well-being over time
(Escobar-Viera et al., 2018; Verduyn et al., 2015; 2017). Furthermore, use of phones or social
media to cope by disengaging from or avoiding life stress has been associated with worse life
satisfaction (van Ingen et al., 2016). Therefore, passive use with no specified purpose or simply
to escape may be ineffective and perhaps detrimental to mental health over time.

On the other hand, active use—such as “direct exchanges with others (e.g., posting status
updates, commenting)” (Verduyn et al., 2015, p. 480) or reaching out to a trusted friend for
help—could be beneficial (Deters & Mehl, 2013; Escobar-Viera et al., 2018), especially if
individuals perceive that others are engaged with them or supporting them (Frison & Eggermont,
2015). Indeed, individuals can feel connected to and supported by their friends and family via
technology, which can lead to or be associated with lower stress levels and better mental health
(Lenhart et al., 2015; McDaniel et al., 2012). Indeed, in contrast to passive use, active use has
been linked with fewer depressive symptoms over time (Escobar-Viera et al., 2018; Verduyn et
al., 2015; 2017).

Practical tips for working with parents concerning their mobile device use

Overall, parent mobile device use and distraction with devices is a complex issue, and we
should not simply view all parent device use around children as problematic. If parent device use
around children happens frequently and if it interferes in parent-child interactions or parent
sensitivity (such as awareness of child cues and needs, timeliness of parent responses, etc.), there
is the potential for negative effects on infants and children. However, it is also possible for phone
and device use to improve outcomes at times, if the use empowers the parent to be better in the
moment such as through having access to social support and other resources or maintaining more
sensitive caregiving (e.g., reducing harsh reactions such as yelling at the child). Finally, it is
likely that many of these different types of uses (positive, negative, and neutral) will happen in a
single day within a parent, and we do not know the exact consequences for parents and children
based off of different combinations of parent distraction, use for pleasure, and use for
Technoference and Young Children 8

empowerment. We need to further explore both the potential positives and negatives of parent
device use around their children and combinations of this use.

As we live in a device saturated world, it is easy to become stuck in patterns that may not
be the best for our own well-being and the well-being of our children and family. As researchers,
clinicians, and educators, we must assist parents in developing what I term “healthy digital
habits.” Below are some suggestions for working with parents concerning their phone and
mobile device use.

1. Remember that phone/mobile device use often serves a purpose or fulfills a need.

We should not approach parents with the mindset that all use is bad. Instead, work with
parents to understand their reasons for use and what they do on their device when they
use it around their children. Seek to understand them, not only to change them.

2. Work with parents to recognize how they might accomplish the task or fulfill the need
utilizing a more effective strategy.

If they would like to change their phone and mobile device habits, show and teach them
effective strategies to accomplish what they need. For some, this might mean changing
the type of device use to be an active support seeking (such as calling a friend directly)
instead of mindlessly scrolling through social media. At other times, it may be that the
device use needs to be removed entirely. If the device use is removed, a different activity
or strategy will need to be used to replace it. Otherwise, we may have removed the
parent’s only strategy for fulfilling that particular need, which could set the parent up for
failure.

3. Help parents to set up clear boundaries for their phone and mobile device use.

Things often go better when there is a plan. The American Academy of Pediatrics (2016)
recommends implementing screen-free times or screen-free zones. These are times of the
day or areas of the home in which devices will be put away in order to minimize
distractions and hopefully maximize connection and relationship building. Assist parents
in identifying realistic goals as well as barriers for screen-free times and zones.

4. Stress the importance of sensitive caregiving for infant and child development.

Help the parent understand the why behind examining and potentially changing their
mobile device use—i.e., infants and children need caregivers that are aware of their needs
and that give timely and appropriate responses, at least most of the time. The occasional
distraction with a device will likely not cause harm. However, help them to recognize that
a frequent pattern of distraction might impact bonding with their infant or young child,
potentially increase child behavior problems, and more. Finally, do not overstate these
effects. We do not wish to create fear or exaggerate the potential impacts of their device
use. Instead, focus on how relationships can become stronger when parents focus on
creating ways to connect and on their children’s needs.
Technoference and Young Children 9

Author Biography:

Brandon T. McDaniel, PhD, is a research scientist at the Parkview Mirro Center for Research
and Innovation in Fort Wayne, Indiana. He received his MS and PhD in Human Development
and Family Studies from The Pennsylvania State University. He has published extensively on the
intersection of technology and family life and is a nationally recognized expert on the impacts of
technology use on children and families. Dr. McDaniel’s research on technoference—the
interference of device use in our face-to-face interactions and family relationships—has attracted
international attention. He also regularly engages in community education in the promotion of
healthy digital habits.
Technoference and Young Children 10

References

AAP Council on Communications and Media. (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138,

e20162591.

Abels, M., Vanden Abeele, M. M. P., van Telgen, T., & van Meijl, H. (2018). Nod, nod, ignore:

An exploratory observational study on the relation between parental mobile media use

and parental responsiveness towards young children. In Eva M. Luef & Manuela M.

Marin (Eds.), The talking species: Perspectives on the evolutionary, neuronal, and

cultural foundations of language (pp. 195-228). Graz: Uni-Press Verlag.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Etgar, S. (2016). Intimacy and smartphone multitasking—A new

oxymoron? Psychological Reports, 119(3), 826-838.

Blackwell, L., Gardiner, E., & Schoenebeck, S. (2016, February). Managing expectations:

Technology tensions among parents and teens. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM

Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1390-

1401).

Brown, G., Manago, A. M., & Trimble, J. E. (2016). Tempted to text: College students’ mobile

phone use during a face-to-face interaction with a close friend. Emerging Adulthood,

4(6), 440-443.

Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional

security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 387-411.

Deters, F. G., & Mehl, M. R. (2013). Does posting Facebook status updates increase or decrease

loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Social psychological and

personality science, 4(5), 579-586.

Dwyer, R. J., Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2018). Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of

face-to-face social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 233-239.

Technoference and Young Children 11

Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A

meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 118(1), 108.

Escobar-Viera, C. G., Shensa, A., Bowman, N. D., Sidani, J. E., Knight, J., James, A. E., &

Primack, B. A. (2018). Passive and active social media use and depressive symptoms

among United States adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(7),

437-443.

Evans, C. A., & Porter, C. L. (2009). The emergence of mother–infant co-regulation during the

first year: Links to infants’ developmental status and attachment. Infant Behavior and

Development, 32(2), 147–158.

Feldman, R. (2007). Parent–Infant Synchrony: Biological Foundations and Developmental

Outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 340–345.

Frison, E., & Eggermont, S. (2015). The impact of daily stress on adolescents’ depressed mood:

The role of social support seeking through Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44,

315-325.

Gieschen, D., Parris, L., McDaniel, B. T., Braswell, G., & Zimmerman, C. (under review). Social

learning in the digital age: Associations between technoference and mother-child

attachment and child social skills.

Golen, R. B., & Ventura, A. K. (2015). Mindless feeding: Is maternal distraction during bottle-

feeding associated with overfeeding?. Appetite, 91, 385-392.

Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2017). Texting's consequences for romantic relationships: A cross-

lagged analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 386-394.

Hiniker, A., Sobel, K., Suh, H., Sung, Y. C., Lee, C. P., & Kientz, J. A. (2015, April). Texting

while parenting: How adults use mobile phones while caring for children at the
Technoference and Young Children 12

playground. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in

computing systems (pp. 727-736).

Jiang, J. (2018). How teens and parents navigate screen time and device distractions. Pew

Research Center. Retrieved on February 15, 2019 from http://www.pewinternet.org/wp-

content/uploads/sites/9/2018/08/PI_2018.08.22_teens-screentime_FINAL.pdf

Johnson, C. M. (2019). Effects of Problematic Smartphone Use, Smartphone Interference in

Parenting, and Parental Attachment to Their Young Child (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue

University Graduate School).

King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C. O., Baczynski, T., Carvalho, M. R., & Nardi, A. E.

(2013). Nomophobia: Dependency on virtual environments or social phobia? Computers

in Human Behavior, 29(1), 140-144.

Krasnova, H., Abramova, O., Notter, I., & Baumann, A. (2016). Why phubbing is toxic for your

relationship: Understanding the role of smartphone jealousy among “Generation Y” users.

Twenty-Fourth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), İstanbul,Turkey.

Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2019). Smartphones distract parents from cultivating feelings of

connection when spending time with their children. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 36(6), 1619-1639.

Lauricella, A. R., Wartella, E., & Rideout, V. J. (2015). Young children’s screen time: The

complex role of parent and child factors. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,

36(2015), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.12.001.

Lenhart, A., Smith, A.., Anderson, M., Duggan, M., Perrin, A. (2015, August). Teens,

technology and friendships. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/06/teens-technology-and- friendships/
Technoference and Young Children 13

Linder, L., McDaniel, B. T., Stockdale, L., Coyne, S. M. (under review). The impact of parent

and child media use on parent-child attachment in early childhood.

Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict

and parenting in two parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3–21.

McDaniel, B. T. (2020). Parent perceptions of positive and negative impacts of phone use on

parenting and associations with stress, depression, and child behavior. Poster

presentation: National Council on Family Relations. St. Louis, MO.

McDaniel, B. T. (2019). Parent distraction with phones, reasons for use, and impacts on

parenting and child outcomes: A review of the emerging research. Human Behavior and

Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 72-80.

McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016b). Technology interference in the parenting of young

children: Implications for mothers’ perceptions of coparenting. The Social Science

Journal, 53, 435-443.

McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016a). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in

couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being.

Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 85-98.

McDaniel, B. T., Coyne, S. M., & Holmes, E. K. (2012). New mothers and media use:

Associations between blogging, social networking, and maternal well-being. Maternal

and Child Health Journal, 16, 1509-1517.

McDaniel, B. T., Galovan, A. M., Cravens, J., & Drouin, M. (2018). Technoference and

implications for mothers’ and fathers’ couple and coparenting relationship quality.

Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 303-313.

McDaniel, B. T., Galovan, A. M., & Drouin, M. (2020). Daily technoference, technology use

during couple leisure time, and relationship quality. Media Psychology, 1-29.
Technoference and Young Children 14

McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. (2018b). Technoference: Parent technology use, stress, and child

behavior problems over time. Pediatric Research, 84, 210-218.

McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. (2018a). Technoference: Parent distraction by technology and

associations with child behavior problems. Child Development, 89, 100-109.

Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2009). The many faces of

the still-face paradigm: A review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 29, 120-162.

Myruski, S., Gulyayeva, O., Birk, S., Pérez‐Edgar, K., Buss, K. A., & Dennis‐Tiwary, T. A.

(2018). Digital disruption? Maternal mobile device use is related to infant social‐

emotional functioning. Developmental Science, 21(4), e12610.

Niu, G., Yao, L., Wu, L., Tian, Y., Xu, L., & Sun, X. (2020). Parents’ phubbing and adolescents’

mobile phone addiction: The role of parent-child relationship and self-control. Children

and Youth Services Review, 105247.

Paudel, S., Jancey, J., Subedi, N., & Leavy, J. (2017). Correlates of mobile screen media use

among children aged 0–8: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 7(10), e014585.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014585

Pew Research Center. (2015). U.S. smartphone use in 2015. Retrieved from

http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-

content/uploads/sites/9/2015/03/PI_Smartphones_0401151.pdf

Pew Research Center. (2019). Mobile technology fact sheet. Retrieved from:

https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/

Rainie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2015). Americans’ views on mobile etiquette. Pew Research Center.

Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/08/2015-

08-26_mobile-etiquette_FINAL.pdf
Technoference and Young Children 15

Radesky, J. S., & Christakis, D. A. (2016). Increased screen time: Implications for early

childhood development and behavior. Pediatric Clinics, 63(5), 827-839.

Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C., Eisenberg, S., Gross, J., Block, G., Zuckerman, B., & Silverstein, M.

(2016). Parent perspectives on their mobile technology use: The excitement and

exhaustion of parenting while connected. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral

Pediatrics, 37(9), 694-701.

*Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C. J., Zuckerman, B., Nitzberg, K., Gross, J., Kaplan-Sanoff, M., ... &

Silverstein, M. (2014). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during

meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics, 133(4), e843-e849.

Radesky, J., Miller, A. L., Rosenblum, K. L., Appugliese, D., Kaciroti, N., & Lumeng, J. C.

(2015). Maternal mobile device use during a structured parent–child interaction task.

Academic Pediatrics, 15(2), 238-244.

Reed, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2017). Learning on hold: Cell phones sidetrack

parent-child interactions. Developmental Psychology, 53(8), 1428-1436.

Roberts, J. A. & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone:

Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in

Human Behavior, 54, 134 – 141.

Steiner-Adair, C., & Barker, T. H. (2013). The big disconnect: Protecting childhood and family

relationships in the digital age. Harper Collins: New

York.Stockdale, L. A., Coyne, S. M., & Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2018). Parent and child

technoference and socioemotional behavioral outcomes: A nationally representative

sample of 10- to 20-year-old adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 219-226.

Technoference and Young Children 16

Stockdale, L. A., Porter, C. L., Coyne, S. M., Essig, L. E., Booth, M., Keenan‐Kroff, S., &

Schvaneveldt, E. (2020). Infants’ response to a mobile phone modified still‐face

paradigm: Links to maternal behaviors and beliefs regarding technoference. Infancy.

Stupica, B. (2016). Rounding the bases with a secure base. Attachment & Human Development,

18(4), 373-390.

Tronick, E., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, T.B. (1978). The infant’s response to

entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. Journal of the

American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17, 1–13.

van Ingen, E., Utz, S., & Toepoel, V. (2016). Online coping after negative life events:

Measurement, prevalence, and relation with internet activities and well-being. Social

Science Computer Review, 34(5), 511-529.

Vanden Abeele, M. M., Abels, M., & Hendrickson, A. T. (2020). Are parents less responsive to

young children when they are on their phones? A systematic naturalistic observation

study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(6), 363-370.

Ventura, A. K., Hupp, M., Gutierrez, S. A., & Almeida, R. (2020). Development and validation

of the Maternal Distraction Questionnaire. Heliyon, 6(2), e03276.

Ventura, A. K., Levy, J., & Sheeper, S. (2019). Maternal digital media use during infant feeding

and the quality of feeding interactions. Appetite, 143, 104415.

Ventura, A. K., & Teitelbaum, S. (2017). Maternal distraction during breast-and bottle feeding

among WIC and non-WIC mothers. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 49(7),

S169-S176.
 Technoference and Young Children 17

Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., ... & Kross, E. (2015).

Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal

evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480.

Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Résibois, M., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2017). Do social network sites

enhance or undermine subjective well‐being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy

Review, 11(1), 274-302.

Wang, X., Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., & Lei, L. (2017). Partner phubbing and depression among

married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship length.

Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 12–17.

Xie, X., Chen, W., Zhu, X., & He, D. (2019). Parents' phubbing increases Adolescents' Mobile

phone addiction: Roles of parent-child attachment, deviant peers, and gender. Children

and Youth Services Review, 105, 104426.

Xie, X., & Xie, J. (2020). Parental phubbing accelerates depression in late childhood and

adolescence: A two-path model. Journal of Adolescence, 78, 43-52.

Xu, H., Wen, L. M., & Rissel, C. (2015). Associations of parental influences with physical

activity and screen time among young children: A systematic review. Journal of Obesity,

Article 546925: 23. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/546925.

View publication stats