ArticlePDF Available

Parent Distraction with Phones, Reasons for Use, and Impacts on Parenting and Child Outcomes: A Review of the Emerging Research



The current article reviews the emerging research related to parent distraction with phones and mobile devices. From this review, it is clear that parent distraction with phones and mobile devices while around children has become common. This is concerning, as the evidence suggests links with parenting and child outcomes—such as lower awareness and sensitivity, fewer verbal and nonverbal interactions, less coordinated parenting and coparenting, dissatisfaction with time spent together, and negative child reactions (e.g., problem behaviors). The issue is complex, however, as many reasons may drive parents to use devices around children, such as strong habits, device notifications, work/social pressures, parenting stress, and boredom or loneliness. Ultimately, parenting is affected due to displacement of time with children, difficulty of multitasking between device and child, and the emotions and stresses that can come from device use. Research gaps are found and future directions are proposed. Most findings come from self-reports or observations. More longitudinal and experimental work is needed to establish causation. Furthermore, as parents and children are concerned about phone use during family time, it is important for evidence-based programs to be developed to address healthy device habits specifically during family time and social interactions.
Parent Distraction with Phones 1
CITATION: 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. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.139
The final publication is available at Wiley via
Parent Distraction with Phones, Reasons for Use, and Impacts on Parenting and Child
Outcomes: A Review of the Emerging Research
Brandon T. McDaniel
Illinois State University
*Corresponding Author: Dr. Brandon T. McDaniel, Campus Box 5060, Normal, IL 61790.
Parent Distraction with Phones 2
The current article reviews the emerging research related to parent distraction with phones and
mobile devices. From this review, it is clear that parent distraction with phones and mobile
devices while around children has become common. This is concerning, as the evidence suggests
links with parenting and child outcomessuch as lower awareness and sensitivity, fewer verbal
and nonverbal interactions, less coordinated parenting and coparenting, dissatisfaction with time
spent together, and negative child reactions (e.g., problem behaviors). The issue is complex,
however, as many reasons may drive parents to use devices around children, such as strong
habits, device notifications, work/social pressures, parenting stress, and boredom or loneliness.
Ultimately, parenting is affected due to displacement of time with children, difficulty of
multitasking between device and child, and the emotions and stresses that can come from device
use. Research gaps are found and future directions are proposed. Most findings come from self-
reports or observations. More longitudinal and experimental work is needed to establish
causation. Furthermore, as parents and children are concerned about phone use during family
time, it is important for evidence-based programs to be developed to address healthy device
habits specifically during family time and social interactions.
Keywords: Technoference; phubbing; smartphone use; parenting; child behavior
Parent Distraction with Phones 3
Parent Distraction with Phones, Reasons for Use, and Impacts on Parenting and Child
Outcomes: A Review of the Emerging Research
It is clear that family interactions are shaped by the technology present in the home.
Technology use is common in familiesfor example, American families have on average five
internet-connected devices in their home (Pew Research Center, 2017a). Although families can
bond over shared technology use (such as TV watching or video game playing; Padilla-Walker et
al., 2012), devices can also interrupt or intrude upon parent-child time. Indeed, some research
has shown that 73% of parents engaged in phone use during time spent with their children in a
restaurant (Radesky et al., 2014), 35% of caregivers spent 1 out of every 5 minutes (or more) on
their phone while at the park with their child (Hiniker et al., 2015), 65% of mothers reported
technology intruding upon parent-child interactions during playtime with their young child
(McDaniel & Coyne, 2016b), and some are concerned that the increase in child injuries may be
due to parent smartphone use as well (Palsson, 2014). None of this is surprising, as 92% of
American adults now own a cell or smartphone (Anderson, 2015), and 36% of American parents
say they spend too much time on their phone (Jiang, 2018). With the increase in phone
penetration rates, the ever-present nature of our devices, and the possible interruptions and
distractions occurring in relationships, it is quite possible that parent and child well-being may be
affected in significant ways. In fact, fears and opinions about parent distraction with phones
abound in the public domain (e.g., Christakis, 2018). Therefore, it becomes important for
researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and even parents to understand the reasons for device use
while around children and the potential impacts of this use on parents and children. Armed with
this knowledge, better informed and evidence-based programs and interventions can be designed
to address these potential problems.
Parent Distraction with Phones 4
In the current article, I review the emerging research evidence related to the reasons
behind what could be termed problematic technology use in adults and parents and examine
parent and child feelings and outcomes in regards to this use. I organize the review into
answering four specific questions:
(1) Why do parents use phones while with children?
(2) How does this use impact parents and parenting quality?
(3) Why does phone use affect parenting quality?
(4) How does parent phone use impact children?
Through searching academic databases (e.g., PsycInfo, ERIC) and Google Scholar
through February 2019, I was able to identify 33 research articles, chapters, or conference
presentations or published proceedings that addressed parent distraction with mobile devices
and/or interruptions due to these devices in parent-child interactions. I mark these sources with
an asterisk (*) on the Reference page. Sources were included in the review if they included the
collection and/or analysis of data (i.e., review or summary articles or chapters were excluded)
and at least part of the data dealt with parent distraction with mobile devices or parent use of
mobile devices in the presence of their children or family. Sources also had to be in English.
Studies examining the following things were excluded, as they did not address the points
mentioned above: the frequency of parent and/or child phone or media use in general, using
mobile devices while driving, parent or family television use, parents’ perspectives on and
management of their children’s phone or media use, parents’ use of devices to regulate children’s
behavior or emotions, parents’ and children’s interactions with tablets or e-books, device use for
child learning, device use to assist children with disabilities or other needs, parents’ and
Parent Distraction with Phones 5
children’s interactions via the Internet, interventions designed for parents or children utilizing
phones or mobile devices, and device use for distraction in medical settings.
Why Do Parents Use Phones While With Children?
To truly understand why parents may turn to phone use even during interactions with
their children, we must first understand the factors that may lead adults in general to phone use.
The cell or smartphone is a multifaceted, multipurpose device with many attractive features for
its users. To name a few, individuals can now (a) connect with others via calls, texts, or social
media, (b) check or respond to email messages, (c) work, (d) listen to music, (e) read, listen to, or
watch the news, (f) watch TV shows or movies, and much more. Just these examples illustrate
how our lives can quickly become entangled with our phone use, such that we begin to rely on
our phones for so much that they become an extension of ourselves (Belk, 2013; Campbell &
Park, 2008; Carbonell, Oberst, & Beranuy, 2013; Srivastava, 2005). Indeed, in interviews parents
have expressed how much of their lives are on their device and how emotionally connected they
are to the device, more so than other types of technology in the past (Radesky et al., 2016).
Many individuals experience anxiety over being without their phone (termed “nomophobia;”
King et al., 2013) and have trouble disconnecting (e.g., Cheever, Rosen, Carrier, & Chavez,
2014; Clayton, Leshner, & Almond, 2015), and 46% of American adults report that they could
not live without their phone (Pew Research Center, 2015). There are a variety of reasons
individuals may experience this anxiety, but one is a fear of missing out—i.e., “being out of
touch with…their extended social circles” (Przbylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013, p.
1482). Individuals may also feel pressure to respond to work messages and notifications
(Harmon & Mazmanian, 2013; Mangan, Leavy, & Jancey, 2018). There are also simply all of the
everyday, normative beeps and buzzes produced by our phones which draw attention back to the
Parent Distraction with Phones 6
device (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016a). Radesky et al.’s (2016) interviews with parents also reveal
many of these same concerns.
Not only do our phones become an integral part of our lives, but our phone use can
become an addiction, or at least a strong habit. For example, some estimate that the average user
checks their phone around 80 times per day (Asurion, 2018). Additionally, the beeps, buzzes,
notifications, and messages may lead to dopamine responses or changes in the brain similar to
that found in internet addiction (e.g., Liu & Luo, 2015; Wang et al., 2016; Zhu, Zhang, & Tian,
2015; see Brand, Young, & Laier, 2014 for a review). In a sense, individuals are intermittently
rewarded for their phone use, which may serve to further reinforce the behavior or create
cravings for use. Moreover, devices, apps, and games are often designed to be attention grabbing
and to get users to spend more time on the device (Eyal, 2014). Thus, the times in between
events, appointments, and various tasks of the day often become filled with phone use
(Dimmick, Feaster, & Hoplamazian, 2011; Kruger et al., 2018; Oulasvirta, Rattenbury, Ma, &
Raita, 2012), and individuals form strong habits drawing them to pick up the device many times
each dayeven when the use is not necessary (e.g., Oulasvirta et al., 2012).
As individuals experience boredom or a lack of interest in the happenings around them,
they express that they utilize their phones to entertain themselves. Parents of young children are
not immune to this experience. Indeed, many tasks throughout the day such as feeding and play
can become monotonous over timeleading many parents to express they pick up their phones
during these times, with some even pretending to be busy on the device while around family
members (Golen & Ventura, 2015; Hiniker et al., 2015; Oduor et al., 2016; Radesky et al., 2016;
Radesky et al., 2018; Ventura & Teitelbaum, 2017).
Parent Distraction with Phones 7
There is also a link between other negative emotional experiences such as loneliness and
depression and phone use. Human beings desire to feel connected to others and therefore at times
turn to phone use and Internet use, especially social media use, when they are feeling
disconnected or lonely (e.g., Kim, LaRose, & Peng, 2009; Takao, Takahashi, & Kitamura, 2009).
As one example, mothers of young children, especially first time mothers of infants, have been
shown to turn to social media and blogging in an attempt to connect with family, friends, and
others (Bartholomew, Schoppe-Sullivan, Glassman, Kamp Dush, & Sullivan, 2012; McDaniel,
Coyne, & Holmes, 2012). One mother expressed it like this, “If I’ve had a…long day with the
kids and it feels so insular…[the phone provides] the reward of…a life beyond this” (Radesky et
al., 2016, p. 697). This is also true of experiencing negative emotions such as depressive
symptoms. Work suggests that individuals turn to their phones to escape or regulate these
emotions. For example, recent survey results have linked maternal depressive symptoms
specifically to mothers’ greater problematic use of their phones (Newsham, Drouin, &
McDaniel, 2018). Unfortunately, using phones or social media can have the opposite of their
intended effectmaking them feel worse after use (e.g., Sagioglou & Greitemeyer, 2014). This
is likely due to feelings of wasted time (Sagioglou & Greitmeyer, 2014) and social comparisons
that are inherently made with one’s social network on social media sites (Vogel, Rose, Roberts,
& Eckles, 2014)many of whom are presenting their best selves. Mothers also make these
social comparisons on social media (Coyne, McDaniel, & Stockdale, 2017).
Parents, especially those with the primary care of young children (who are often mothers,
Kan, Sullivan, & Gershuny, 2011; Moreno-Colom, 2017), experience a variety of stressors
related to childrearing in the home. In interviews, parents express withdrawing to their devices at
times to escape the stresses they experience (Radesky et al., 2016), and mothers who feel their
Parent Distraction with Phones 8
children are more difficult have also been found to be more likely to engage in phone use during
meal times (Radesky et al., 2018). Additionally, recent longitudinal work (over months) also
suggests that experiencing greater parenting stress may increase parental phone use in the
presence of the child which then exacerbates stressful child behavior, and the process likely
continues over time (McDaniel & Radesky, 2018b).
How Does This Use Impact Parents and Parenting?
Radesky et al. (2016) conducted in-depth interviews with 31 parents and 4 grandmothers,
and they consistently felt conflicted over their phone use while with their childrenexpressing
both positive and negative aspects of their use. For example, phones can provide them with many
benefits such as increased access to support, schools, doctors, information, and social networks;
emotional relief from boredom or the stresses of parenting; and perceived reductions in family
conflict as it can be low stress and more peaceful when children are using media. However, they
also report feeling overloaded by the amount of notifications and information, expectations for
and exhaustion over constant connection, finding it difficult to cognitively switch between what
they are doing on their phone and interactions they need to have at home, conflicting feelings
over using their phone as an escape, and recognizing that they (and often their family as well) are
happier if they put their phone away during time with their family. These interviews are
important as they give us a glimpse of the complexity of cognitions and emotions experienced by
parents surrounding their phones and phone use in their home.
There is work to suggest that parenting responsiveness and quality may suffer when
attention is divided between phones and children. Anecdotally, parents believe they are better at
focusing on their children when they intentionally put their phones away or do not use them
during family time (Blackwell, Gardiner, & Schoenebeck, 2016; Radesky et al., 2016), and on
Parent Distraction with Phones 9
average adults rate phone use as less appropriate when a child is present than when no child is
present (Moser, Schoenebeck, & Reinecke, 2016). Experimental work also corroborates these
anecdotes. Kushlev and Dunn (2018) assigned parents spending time with their children at a
museum to either frequently use their phones or infrequently use their phones. Afterward,
parents in the frequent phone use group felt more distracted and experienced less connection and
sense of meaning out of their time spent with their children. Furthermore, observations have been
done at restaurants, playgrounds, doctor offices, and in the lab, and all of these observational
studies suggest very similar conclusionsi.e., parent phone use is associated with less verbal
interaction, lower parental responsiveness, and at times harsher parental responses (Abels et al.,
2018; Davidovitch et al., 2018; Hiniker et al., 2015; Kellershohn, Walley, West, & Vriesekoop,
2018; Radesky et al., 2014; Radesky et al., 2015; Reed, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2017).
Parental daily survey reports also suggest parents feel less connected to their children when their
time together involved parent phone use (Kushley & Dunn, 2018). Recent parent-report data also
suggests an association between greater parent difficulties with managing their phone use while
with their children and worse overall parenting qualityi.e., greater parenting laxness and
overreactivity (McDaniel, Everest, & White, 2018). It is interesting that adolescents also
corroborate these findings, perceiving their parents to be less warm with them as a result of
parent distraction with phones (Stockdale, Coyne, & Padilla-Walker, 2018).
Not only is distraction linked with parenting behaviors, but it is also linked with family
interactions and relationship quality. Researchers in the literature on technoferenceor the
everyday intrusions and interruptions of devices in our face-to-face interactions (McDaniel &
Coyne, 2016a)have found that parents perceive that technology interruptions are happening in
their interactions with their romantic partners, with their children, and in their parenting and
Parent Distraction with Phones 10
coparenting interactions (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016a; 2016b; McDaniel, Galovan, Cravens, &
Drouin, 2018; McDaniel & Radesky, 2018a; 2018b). Not only are these interruptions happening,
but more frequent interruptions are connected with perceptions of lower quality couple and
coparenting relationships.
Why does phone use affect parenting quality?
There are a variety of reasons, many of which can occur simultaneously, that can explain
the impacts of phone use during parent-child interactions on parenting quality. First, one simple
explanation is that time spent on the device is time that is not being spent on parenting the child,
which leads to fewer interactions and responses (e.g., Radesky et al., 2014; Radesky et al., 2015;
Hiniker et al., 2015). This is termed displacement (e.g., McCombs, 1972).
Second, parents report difficulty switching between paying attention to their device and
being responsive to their child (Radesky et al., 2016). This could be seen as multitasking, where
attention is divided and individuals are attempting to complete multiple tasks simultaneously.
Multitasking research has shown that this divided attention can lead to inefficiencies and more
errors (e.g., Chen & Yan, 2016; Dindar & Akbulut, 2016; Fox, Rosen, & Crawford, 2009; van
der Schuur et al., 2015). Indeed, in interviews, parents have expressed how they find it difficult
to accurately interpret and respond to child cues when they are distracted with their device
(Radesky et al., 2016).
Third, parents also describe that some of the tasks they are involved in on the phone may
induce a variety of emotions or emotional engagement with the device or tasks (Radesky et al.,
2016). Indeed, individuals may feel stressed, overloaded, or negative emotions due to the phone
use (e.g., Ayyagari, Grover, & Purvis, 2011; Lee, Chang, Lin, & Cheng, 2014; Misra & Stokols,
2012), and this may decrease their emotional availability in their interactions with family and
Parent Distraction with Phones 11
children. For instance, researchers have observed sometimes harsher parenting responses when
children attempted to obtain the parent’s attention from the device (Radesky et al., 2014), and
some parents have expressed getting angry at their children over interrupting their phone use
(Radesky et al., 2016).
How Does Parent Phone Use Impact Children?
One of the most important bonds a child can form in their lifetime is with a caregiver.
Indeed, attachments early in life with one’s caregiver(s) and the quality of these attachments are
crucial to the course of development across the life course (Sroufe, 2005). One of the reasons is
that children form an internal working model of relationships through these early interactions
i.e., views on what a relationship is, how it is formed, how they should be treated, and how they
should treat others in relationshipsand this continues with them, influencing their relationships
throughout their life (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). Considering the emerging evidence cited
thus far on how parent distraction with phones may impact parenting behavior and quality, this
evidence would suggest that parenting sensitivity would be negatively altered. Sensitivity
involves four main components of awareness of child cues, accurate interpretation of cues,
contingent responsiveness, and appropriateness of response, and sensitivity has been found to be
one important determinant of attachment quality (termed security; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978; Ainsworth, 1979). Indeed, 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. In turn, distracted parents may have children that form a more insecure attachment
with the parent. These concerns have been raised by a number of researchers (e.g., McDaniel &
Parent Distraction with Phones 12
Coyne, 2016b; Radesky & Christakis, 2016; Stupica, 2016), although no research has directly
linked parent phone distraction with child attachment security as of yet.
Children notice or react to parent distraction with phones. Recent national reports have
found that 51% of U.S. teens felt their parents are at least sometimes distracted by their phones
during their conversations (Jiang, 2018), 28% feel their parents are addicted (Rideout & Robb,
2018), and 33% wish their parents would spend less time on the device (Rideout & Robb, 2018).
Additionally, in interviews with 1,000 children and teens about their parents’ phone use, Steiner-
Adair and Barker (2013) found that they often used negative emotion words, such as lonely, sad,
and angry, and they felt dissatisfied with their time with their parents when devices were in use.
Researchers have also found that children expect parents to model good device behavior and
habits surrounding mealtimes (Hiniker et al., 2016). Overall, these results suggest that children
and teens experience negative emotions surrounding their parents’ use. Furthermore, a recent
study of teens’ perceptions found that when teens perceive their parents as distracted more often
by their devices they also feel they experience less parental warmth, and then this is ultimately
tied to a host of negative outcomes in these teenssuch as anxiety and depression (Stockdale et
al., 2018).
Parents are noticing changes in their children’s behavior as well. For example, in
interviews some parents talked about noticing that their children are less relaxed, more upset, or
unsatisfied when the parent is using a device (Radesky et al., 2016), with some children and
teens actively trying to get the parent to put the phone away (Oduor et al., 2016; Sharaievska &
Stodolska, 2017). In studies of young children, parents perceive greater problem behaviors, such
as externalizing (e.g., acting out, anger) and internalizing (e.g., withdrawal, sulking), when more
technological interruptions occur in their interactions with their children (McDaniel & Radeksy;
Parent Distraction with Phones 13
2018a; 2018b). Parents also perceive child behavior to be more difficult on days when parent
device use is more problematic and absorbing (McDaniel & Radesky, 2017). The behavior
exhibited likely differs depending on child age and ability to regulate their emotions; however, it
affects children of all ageseven young infants react to parent phone use. For example, the still
face paradigm has been used for many years to examine how infants respond to parents’
responsiveness to the infant. In this experiment, the parent and infant go through three phases,
including free play, still face (where the parent goes devoid of emotion and stops interacting),
and reunion (Mesman, van van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2009; Tronick et
al., 1978). Recently, researchers have adapted this procedure by introducing parent phone use as
the still face phase, and during this phone use infants display increased negative affect, decreased
positive affect, and increased bids for the parent’s attention (Myruski et al., 2017; also see Bohr,
Khourochvili, & Zita Lau, 2017).
There is also some emerging evidence which suggests that child learning and/or
achievement may be affected in a variety of domains by parent distraction with devices. Through
experimental work, Reed, Hirsh-Pasek, and Golinkoff (2017) found that 2-year-olds did not learn
words that were taught by parents during segments where parents were distracted by a phone
call. Additionally, if parents are distracted during mealtimes, they are less likely to encourage
children to try new foods (Radesky et al., 2015), while mothers who are distracted during infant
feeding may overfeed their infants perhaps leading to infants who do not learn to listen to their
satiety cues (Golen & Ventura, 2015). In observational work in doctor offices, Davidovitch et al
(2018) found that parents who were distracted with phones during developmental screening visits
had children with higher rates of developmental delays (e.g., language/motor). Another
interesting piece of evidence deals with sports performance. In observational data, it was found
Parent Distraction with Phones 14
that children perform better at sports when their parents paid attention to them and worse when
their parents used their phone (Stupica, 2016).
From this review, it is clear that parent distraction with phones and other devices while
around children has become a common phenomenon. This is concerning, as the emerging
evidence suggests links between this distraction and parenting and child outcomes. For example,
we see lower awareness and sensitivity, fewer verbal and nonverbal interactions, less coordinated
parenting and coparenting, dissatisfaction with time spent together, negative child reactions (e.g.,
problem behaviors), and much more.
Additionally, although parents have been distracted in various ways and moments
throughout the course of history, the emerging trend of device distraction feels more alarming
due to its prevalence (it can affect any parent to at least some extent) and the strong habits (and
perhaps addictions) that have been created with our devices. 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).
What is most alarming, however, is the potential for this to impact the forming of strong
and secure bonds between parents and children. It is currently unclear whether children are less
likely to form a secure (healthy) attachment relationship with their parent or caregiver when
Parent Distraction with Phones 15
device distractions are common. Yet, the emerging evidence suggests impacts on parenting
sensitivity and behaviors, all of which theoretically would impact the formation of healthy
attachments. If the effects are strong enough, it is possible that a greater proportion of children
(and eventually adults, as these children grow) would attend to the world with an insecure view
of themselves and relationships. The importance of this cannot be stressed enough, as one’s
views on relationships could potentially affect many aspects of one’s life, such as friendships,
romantic relationships, work relationships and productivity, and mental health.
Limitations & Future Directions
Although the research reviewed in this report contains a variety of methodologies, much
of this work is based on self-reports and often retrospective self-reports. It is quite possible that
individuals may make errors in their recall as well as inaccurately report the frequency of their
device use. For instance, it is likely that the more distracted one is the less accurate one’s report
would be, as one was perhaps not even aware of some of their immediate experiences (e.g., child
needs; that the device produced a disruption in the interaction in that moment). The real-time
tracking of device use (via apps or other internal software) could provide more accurate data.
This tracking combined with observational or survey measures seems especially promising,
especially if the types and amount of device use could be linked with individuals’ and children’s
perceptions, feelings, and behaviors.
The field is also in need of more experimental work to better establish causation in these
processes (for example, see Reed, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2017; Lanette, 2018), especially
since we know that depression and other factors may be confounded with parent phone use,
parenting quality, and child outcomes. For instance, depression may lead to more phone use as
well as worse parenting quality, lower responsiveness, and lower sensitivity. Some studies have
Parent Distraction with Phones 16
statistically controlled for this, such as McDaniel & Radesky (2018a; 2018b) but the possibility
of confounding remains.
Future work should examine the potential influences of parent distraction with devices on
child attachment security. Although researchers have expressed concerns related to the potential
for effects on attachment security, there is no empirical evidence as of yet. This research would
be best accomplished via longitudinal and observational research, which can better determine the
directionality of effects.
The nuances of parent distraction with devices need further examined. Some work has
begun to examine why parents turn to their devices (e.g., Radesky et al., 2016). However, there
are likely some reasons that draw parents more powerfully away from their children or
individuals in front of them. It is also possible that different types of use (e.g., texting, social
media use, phone calls, viewing shows or movies) may be more absorbing than other types,
which would likely produce different effects in families and parent-child relationships.
The personal attributes of parents and children also need to be examined in order to
understand whether effects are universal. Like with most phenomenon, it is more likely that
characteristics (such as, but not limited to, child age, child temperament, parent views on
technology, parent attachment orientations) moderate these associations. This also illuminates
another limitation in the current researchthe lack of diversity. The majority of research on
parent distraction with devices has been done on predominantly White, middle-class parents and
families. Future work should examine the prevalence of parent device absorption and distraction,
reasons for use, feelings about use, and child outcomes in more diverse samples. Furthermore,
there is often a lack of child or teen perspectives on the issue (although there are a few notable
exceptions; e.g., Hiniker et al., 2016; Jiang, 2018; Stockdale et al., 2018). It is also clear that the
Parent Distraction with Phones 17
processes can differ depending on the child’s age, especially as older children and teens also
have their own devices (e.g., Stockdale et al., 2018).
Finally, although the current review examines parent distraction with devices, it is also
important to examine how devices can be used to further strengthen family relationships. Along
with this, it could be examined whether certain amounts of parent distraction with devices can
help to teach children various skills needed in an ever-connected world, such as how to deal with
distractions in relationships and how to delay the gratification of needs and wants. Additionally,
researchers and organizations (such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, 2016) often make
recommendations such as creating technology free times or zones. Yet, the effectiveness of such
recommendations should be empirically tested. Work such as this could inform clinicians and
educators on how to better assist families in utilizing devices in healthy waysinstead of only
informing families of the potential negatives and asking them to reduce or stop use.
Parents and children are grappling with these issues on a day-to-day basisdraws toward
use, rules over use, and so forthand parents feel conflicted about their use as well (Radesky et
al., 2016). There are a variety of programs or resources for parents and families in regards to
managing family or child media use, content of media use, etc. (e.g.,
However, effective programs and recommendations need to be designed to help parents and
families to form healthy device habits specifically during family and social interactions. For
example, it is not known what would be most effective in the moment to help children feel
valued if a parent had to get on their device for a moment. Research and intervention work (such
as Hiniker, Hong, Kohno, & Kientz, 2016; Okeke, Sobolev, Dell, & Estrin, 2018) is needed to
design evidence-based programs and recommendations, and this is needed quickly.
An ever-changing technology landscape
Parent Distraction with Phones 18
Although the current review examined parent distraction primarily with cell or
smartphones, technology is ever-changing and seems to become more embedded in our lives
each and every year. If other devices produce similar influences on individualsi.e., diverting
attention from the child in front of them, encouraging multitasking in the presence of others, and
so forththen it would seem that the quality of parenting would still be negatively altered.
However, it is clear that the use of technology does not produce only negative effects. Indeed,
technologies can provide a variety of advantages for individuals and relationships as well, such
as increasing connection throughout the day, increasing the ease of communication, and so forth
(e.g., Coyne et al., 2011). It would depend on how the technology is used.
One new frontier for technology involves in-home smart technology and/or digital
assistants, such as Alexa or Google Home (e.g., Wiederhold, 2018). It is currently not known
how these will influence parents, children, and families, although there is becoming widespread
use of digital voice assistants on smartphones (Pew Research Center, 2017b), with some reports
suggesting that by 2021 there will be as many digital assistants (such as Alexa) as people on the
Earth (Shulevitz, 2018). It likely depends upon how much the family actually utilizes the device
in their daily lives. However, there is the potential for bonding over activities with the device
(e.g., playing a game), increased time with family (as the device may save the parent some time
as it takes care of some tasks for the parent), impaired or lower quality interactions (e.g., Alexa
reading books to the child instead of the parent; adaptations in types of language used in families
due to simple language needed to talk to the device; Beneteau et al., 2019), and much more.
Furthermore, there are likely many more technological advances to come that we have not even
imagined yet. Our quickly evolving and technological world presents unique advantages and
Parent Distraction with Phones 19
challenges, and we must continue to consider and research the ramifications of emerging
Parent Distraction with Phones 20
*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.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M. S. (1979). Infantmother attachment. American psychologist, 34(10), 932.
AAP Council on Communications and Media. (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138,
Anderson, M. (2015). Technology device ownership: 2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
Asurion (2018). Americans don’t want to unplug from phones while on vacation, despite latest
digital detox trend. Retrieved on February 15, 2019 from
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and
implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831858.
Bartholomew, M. K., Schoppe‐Sullivan, S. J., Glassman, M., Kamp Dush, C. M., & Sullivan, J.
M. (2012). New parents' Facebook use at the transition to parenthood. Family relations,
61(3), 455-469.
Parent Distraction with Phones 21
Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-
Beneteau, E., Richards, O., Zhang, M., Kientz, J. A., Yip, J. C., & Hiniker, A. (2019).
Communication Breakdowns Between Families and Alexa. In Proceedings of the 2019
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems-CHI (Vol. 19, pp. 1-14).
*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-
*Bohr, Y., Khourochvili, M., & Zita Lau, T.-W. (2017). Technology and caregiver-child
interaction: An exploration of the effects on infants of mobile technology involved
parents. Paper presentation: Society for Research on Child Development. Austin, TX.
Brand, M., Young, K. S., & Laier, C. (2014). Prefrontal control and Internet addiction: A
theoretical model and review of neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 375.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment
relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89-111). New York, NY,
US: The Guilford Press.
Campbell, S. W., & Park, Y. J. (2008). Social implications of mobile telephony: The rise of
personal communication society. Sociology Compass, 2, 371387.
Carbonell, X., Oberst, U., Beranuy, M. (2013). The cell phone in the twenty-first century: A risk
for addiction or a necessary tool? In P. M. Miller (Ed.). Principles of addiction:
Parent Distraction with Phones 22
Comprehensive addictive behaviors and disorders, Vol. 1 (pp. 901909). New York:
Academic Press.
Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Chavez, A. (2014). Out of sight is not out of
mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low,
moderate and high users. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 290-297.
Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 34-42.
Christakis, E. (2018, July/August). The dangers of distracted parenting. Retrieved from
Clayton, R. B., Leshner, G., & Almond, A. (2015). The extended iSelf: The impact of iPhone
separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, 20(2), 119-135.
Coyne, S. M., McDaniel, B. T., & Stockdale, L. A. (2017). "Do you dare to compare?"
Associations between maternal social comparisons on social networking sites and
parenting, mental health, and romantic relationship outcomes. Computers in Human
Behavior, 70, 335-340.
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). “I luv u :)!”: A
descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family
Relations, 60, 150162.
*Davidovitch, M., Shrem, M., Golovaty, N., Assaf, N., & Koren, G. (2018). The role of cellular
phone usage by parents in the increase in ASD occurrence: A hypothetical framework.
Medical Hypotheses, 117, 33-36.
Dimmick, J., Feaster, J. C., & Hoplamazian, G. J. (2011). News in the interstices: The niches of
mobile media in space and time. New Media & Society, 13(1), 2339.
Parent Distraction with Phones 23
Dindar, M., & Akbulut, Y. (2016). Effects of multitasking on retention and topic interest.
Learning and Instruction, 41, 94-105.
Eyal, N. (2014). Hooked: How to build habit-forming products. New York, NY: Penguin
Random House.
Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging
affect college students' performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task?
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 51-53.
*Golen, R. P., & Ventura, A. K. (2015). What are mothers doing while bottle-feeding their
infants? Exploring the prevalence of maternal distraction during bottle-feeding
interactions. Early Human Development, 91(12), 787-791.
Harmon, E., & Mazmanian, M. (2013, April). Stories of the Smartphone in everyday discourse:
conflict, tension & instability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1051-1060).
Hiniker, A., Hong, S. R., Kohno, T., & Kientz, J. A. (2016, May). Mytime: Designing and
evaluating an intervention for smartphone non-use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4746-4757).
*Hiniker, A., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Kientz, J. A. (2016, February). Not at the dinner table:
Parents' and children's perspectives on family technology rules. In Proceedings of the
19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing (pp.
*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
Parent Distraction with Phones 24
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
Kan, M. Y., Sullivan, O., & Gershuny, J. (2011). Gender convergence in domestic work:
Discerning the effects of interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data.
Sociology, 45(2), 234-251.
*Kellershohn, J., Walley, K., West, B., & Vriesekoop, F. (2018). Young consumers in fast food
restaurants: Technology, toys, and family time. Young Consumers, 19, 105-118.
Kim, J., LaRose, R., & Peng, W. (2009). Loneliness as the cause and the effect of problematic
Internet use: The relationship between Internet use and psychological well-being.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 451-455.
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.
Kruger, D. J., Juhasz, D., Saunders, C., Misevich, S., Duan, A., Heyblom, A., & Phaneuf, C.
(2018). Factors predicting observed cellphone use in a Midwestern USA university
campus area. Human Ethology Bulletin, 33(2), 5-12.
*Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2018). Smartphones distract parents from cultivating feelings of
connection when spending time with their children. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships. Advance online publication.
Parent Distraction with Phones 25
*Lanette, S. (2018). The Mere Presence of Mobile Phones During Parent-Teen Interactions
(Doctoral dissertation, UC Irvine).
Lee, Y. K., Chang, C. T., Lin, Y., & Cheng, Z. H. (2014). The dark side of smartphone usage:
Psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Computers in Human
Behavior, 31, 373-383.
Liu, M., & Luo, J. (2015). Relationship between peripheral blood dopamine level and internet
addiction disorder in adolescents: A pilot study. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Medicine, 8(6), 9943-9948.
*Mangan, E., Leavy, J. E., & Jancey, J. (2018). Mobile device use when caring for children 0‐5
years: A naturalistic playground study. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 29(3),
McCombs, M. (1972). Mass media in the marketplace. Journalism Monographs, 24.
*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.
Parent Distraction with Phones 26
*McDaniel, B. T., Everest, J., & White, C. (2018, April). Parent distraction with technology and
its impact on parenting quality. Poster presentation: Illinois Council on Family Relations.
Normal, IL.
*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., & 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.
*McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. (2017). “I can’t stop thinking about my phone”: A daily diary
study of parents distracted by technology and child behavior difficulties. Paper
presentation: Society for Research on Child Development. Austin, TX.
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.
Misra, S., & Stokols, D. (2012). Psychological and health outcomes of perceived information
overload. Environment and Behavior, 44(6), 737-759.
Moreno-Colom, S. (2017). The gendered division of housework time: Analysis of time use by
type and daily frequency of household tasks. Time & Society, 26(1), 3-27.
*Moser, C., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Reinecke, K. (2016, May). Technology at the table: Attitudes
about mobile phone use at mealtimes. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1881-1892). ACM.
Parent Distraction with Phones 27
*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.
*Newsham, G., Drouin, M., & McDaniel, B. T. (2018). Problematic phone use, depression, and
technology interference among mothers. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. Advance
online publication.
*Oduor, E., Neustaedter, C., Odom, W., Tang, A., Moallem, N., Tory, M., & Irani, P. (2016,
June). The frustrations and benefits of mobile device usage in the home when co-present
with family members. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing
Interactive Systems (pp. 1315-1327).
Okeke, F., Sobolev, M., Dell, N., & Estrin, D. (2018, September). Good vibrations: Can a digital
nudge reduce digital overload? In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (p. 4).
Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2012). Habits make smartphone use more
pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(1), 105114.
Padilla‐Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2012). Getting a high‐speed family
connection: Associations between family media use and family connection. Family
Relations, 61(3), 426-440.
*Palsson, C. (2014). That Smarts!: Smartphones and child injuries. Retrieved on February 20,
2019 from
Parent Distraction with Phones 28
Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational,
emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29, 18411848.
Pew Research Center. (2015). U.S. smartphone use in 2015. Retrieved from
Pew Research Center (2017a, May). A third of Americans live in a household with three or more
smartphones. Retrieved from:
Pew Research Center (2017b, December). Nearly half of Americans use digital voice assistants,
mostly on their smartphones. Retrieved from
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.
Parent Distraction with Phones 29
*Radesky, J., Leung, C., Appugliese, D., Miller, A. L., Lumeng, J. C., & Rosenblum, K. L.
(2018). Maternal mental representations of the child and mobile phone use during parent-
child mealtimes. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 39, 310-317.
*Radesky, J., Miller, A. L., Rosenblum, K. L., Appugliese, D., Kaciroti, N., & Lumeng, J. C.
(2015). Maternal mobile device use during a structured parentchild 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.
*Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2018). Social media, social life: Teens reveal their experiences.
Common Sense Media. Retrieved from
Sagioglou, C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2014). Facebook’s emotional consequences: Why Facebook
causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it. Computers in Human Behavior,
35, 359363.
*Sharaievska, I., & Stodolska, M. (2017). Family satisfaction and social networking leisure.
Leisure Studies, 36(2), 231-243.
Shulevitz, J. (2018, November). Alexa, should we trust you? The Atlantic. Retrieved from
Sroufe, L. A. (2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth
to adulthood. Attachment & Human Development, 7(4), 349-367.
Parent Distraction with Phones 30
*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.
Srivastava, L. (2005). Mobile phones and the evolution of social behaviour. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 24, 111129.
*Stupica, B. (2016). Rounding the bases with a secure base. Attachment & Human Development,
18(4), 373-390.
Takao, M., Takahashi, S., & Kitamura, M. (2009). Addictive personality and problematic mobile
phone use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(5), 501507.
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, 113.
van Der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). The
consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in Human Behavior,
53, 204-215.
*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),
Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media,
and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206.
Wang, Y., Zou, Z., Song, H., Xu, X., Wang, H., d’Oleire Uquillas, F., & Huang, X. (2016).
Altered gray matter volume and white matter integrity in college students with mobile
phone dependence. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 597.
Parent Distraction with Phones 31
Wiederhold, B. K. (2018). “Alexa, are you my Mom?” The role of artificial intelligence in child
development. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21, 471-472.
Zhu, Y., Zhang, H., & Tian, M. (2015). Molecular and functional imaging of Internet addiction.
BioMed Research International, 2015, 1-9.
... Apart from that, adolescents may be at an increased risk of internet addiction and mobile phone use as a result of parental phubbing (Hong et al., 2019). However, the use of mobile smart phones to deal with various trivial affairs has now been made commonplace and leads to parents spending less time caring for their children (McDaniel, 2019). Therefore, conducting research on the negative impact of parental phubbing is certainly conducive to understanding how this behavior exerts influence on our domestic lives and the development of children. ...
... This is believed by substitution theory that parents spending time on mobile phones and other media devices rather than taking care of their children are unable to give children a good emotional response and interaction (Hiniker et al., 2015), thus reducing the quality of parent-child communication and undermining the parent-child relationship. Parental phubbing is regarded as a cold rejection of children (McDaniel, 2019). In some studies, it has also been revealed that parental phubbing is closely associated with parental neglect (Mun and Lee, 2021;Xie et al., 2021). ...
... Given the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears that people have become increasingly reliant on their mobile phones. The high incidence of use of mobile phones by parents in the process of caring for children has a significant impact on children (McDaniel, 2019). In theory, the results of this study provide a basis for the intervention study regarding the negative impact of parental phubbing on adolescents while revealing the important role of self-esteem and basic psychological needs satisfaction. ...
Full-text available
Objective To reveal the relationship between parental phubbing, basic psychological needs satisfaction, self-esteem, and depression and to explore the impact of parental phubbing on depression. Methods A total of 819 junior high school students responded to the parental phubbing scale, basic psychological needs satisfaction scale, self-esteem scale, and depression scale in combination. Results (1) Parental phubbing was significantly correlated with satisfaction of basic psychological needs, self-esteem, and depression. (2) Parental phubbing can not only be used to directly predict depression in junior middle school students but also has an indirect impact on depression through three pathways: a separate mediating effect on basic psychological needs satisfaction, a separate mediating effect on self-esteem and a chain mediating effect on both. Conclusion Parental phubbing is a risk factor for depression, which can negatively affect the mental health of junior high school students.
... This includes periods of time when a parent checks a technological device during family interactions that creates feelings of intrusion [11]. Technoference has become common among families with children [13], and researchers are beginning to identify that extended parental time on technological devices can have negative effects on parent-child relationships and children's health and developmental outcomes [14]. ...
... This systematic review excluded children's outcomes other than parent-child interactions. One review on the impacts of parental distraction with phones on parenting and child outcomes was found [13]. However, this review did not follow a systematic review method, include impacts on parent-child relationships, nor was a comprehensive search of the literature conducted; all of which we will perform for this scoping review. ...
Full-text available
Background With increases in the use of technological devices worldwide, parental technoference is a potential threat to the quality of parent-child relationships and children’s health and development. Parental technoference refers to disrupted interactions between a parent and child due to a parent’s use of a technological device. The aims of this scoping review are to map, describe, and summarize the existing evidence from published research studies on the impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and children’s health and development and to identify the limitations in the studies and gaps in the literature. Methods This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. A search for relevant research studies will be undertaken in APA PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Central, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, JBI EBP, and Embase (OVID). CINAHL (Ebsco) and Scopus will also be searched. Grey and popular literature will be excluded. This review will include primary research studies and review papers published in English with no time limit that identify the impacts of technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes. Parent participants include primary caregivers, either biological, adopted, or foster parents, of children under the age of 18 who engage in technoference. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles, abstracts, and full texts of studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion with a third researcher. Data will be extracted into a data charting table including author(s), year of publication, country, research aim, methodology/design, population and sample size, variables/concepts, and corresponding measures and main results. Data will be presented in tables and figures accompanied by a narrative summary. Discussion The goal of this scoping review is to present an overview of the evidence on the impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child and health developmental outcomes, highlighting the current risk of children of today. It will identify gaps in the literature, inform future research, advise recommendations for parents on technological device use, and possibly guide the development of interventions aimed at addressing parental technoference. Trial registration Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/QNTS5
... These posts also articulate with the increasing popularity of online parenting interventions [10,[13][14][15]. However, parental preoccupation with social media has diverse consequences, from how parents define the nature of parenting [16], communicate parenting strategies with others [17], and cope with parental stress [18] all the way to how distracted they are when interacting with their offspring [19,20]. Parents' displays of their children online expose a conflict between consent and privacy and the age of children being posted [21][22][23][24], highlighting the ethical issues of sharenting especially when parents make a career out of their social media profiles of their children [3,25,26]. ...
Full-text available
“Sharenting” is an internet trend in which parents report detailed information or repeatedly post pictures, videos, and other content about their children on social media. Due to the duality of sharenting, which takes place online but has offline consequences, it is essential to understand the implications of sharenting for real-world parenting and child development. The present work analyzes references in the existing literature and links among published articles to better understand sharenting, evidence for it, and major topics associated with it and to uncover the gaps in the literature. Citation analysis of the current literature mainly focuses on risks and benefits related to sharenting practices, especially for the children, and on ethical and privacy concerns. Future studies should investigate the psychological mechanisms that drive sharenting-related behaviors in parents and multidisciplinary approaches to the phenomenon. With a broader perspective on these issues, practitioners and professionals in family studies will be able to delineate guidelines for informative interventions to increase awarenes about the causes and consequences of publicly sharing child content.
... Research on parental media use, and in particular mobile media use, has increased in recent years. Unfortunately, such use has been shown to have a negative association with parent-child interaction quality, with parental phone use in particular associating with children's externalizing and internalizing problems (for reviews, see Knitter & Zemp, 2020;McDaniel, 2019). Of note, no studies to date have associated parental digital media use with child EI, child empathy, or child emotion regulation. ...
Full-text available
Emotional intelligence (EI) is comprised of a set of critical life skills that develop, in part, through practice in social interaction. As such, some have expressed concern that the heavy screen media diet of today’s youth threatens the development of those crucial abilities. This research assesses how the media diet of children and the media use of their parents relates to child EI levels to assess what, if any, specific patterns exist. Four hundred parents of children aged 5–12 reported on, among other variables, their child’s EI, empathy, and emotional regulation skills along with their child’s various digital and non-digital media use, and non-media activities. Parental EI, screen use, media emotional mediation, and media co-use with their children were also assessed. Analyses revealed no significant relationships between child EI and screen use of any kind, though reading positively associated with child EI. Especially interesting, children whose parents used their mobile device more frequently in the presence of their child had lower EI, and parents who engaged in emotional mediation around their child’s media use reported higher EI levels in their children. These findings suggest that concerns about children’s digital media usage are perhaps overblown in terms of impeding emotional skill development. Further, and especially critical, parents’ own media-related behaviors around their children could have significant impact on child EI development.
... The ubiquitous nature of technology and its increasing presence in daily life means the primary challenge for parents is striking the appropriate balance for their child despite conflicting directions regarding what the right balance is [8]. The dynamic and expeditious nature of technology has meant parents have found it difficult to keep up and to pivot their parenting practices to align with new information [42,45]. Notably, many parents fear their child will miss out on digital skills or educational opportunities if they are denied access to technology [2]. ...
Full-text available
Children demonstrate increasing early engagement with mobile media facilitated by its portability and interactivity. Parents are known to employ a range of mediation strategies for mobile media use but continue to have limited awareness about the impact of mobile media on their child’s executive functioning. Mobile media use has previously been shown to be negatively correlated with the executive functioning development of a child; however, little is known of how parents approach their child’s mobile media use. This study employed a survey design ( N = 281 ) to examine how parents access information related to mobile media and document their perspectives about the impact of mobile media on their child’s behavior and executive functioning. Correlational analyses and cooccurrence graphs showed that parents implement several mediation strategies but rarely access guidelines on mobile media use. A confirmatory factor analysis examined the model fit for four latent constructs of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF®), which included the Inhibit, Emotional Control, Initiate, and Working Memory scales. Structural equation modelling substantiated the association between parental perception of negative impacts of mobile media related to their child’s behavior, academics, and/or attention and a lower observed executive functioning. Overall, these findings suggest that parents recognize the negative impacts of mobile media on their child’s behavior, and this is associated with how they see the development of their child’s executive functioning. The results emphasize the importance of educating parents as to the role of mobile media in shaping their child’s behavior and associated executive functions.
... 24 Empirical studies have found that parents using smartphones could increase the rate of language and motor delay in children, form unsafe attachments, reduce satisfaction and increase negative behaviours. 25 According to social learning theory, individuals learn specific behaviors by observing the behaviors of others, especially family members. 26 Intergenerational transmission is evident in the conduct of parents and their children. ...
Full-text available
Purpose: COVID-19 has affected the health and well-being of tens of millions of people and contributed to smartphone addiction. The prior studies found several characteristics that influenced smartphone addiction, but little research was undertaken on the epidemic. This study aims to test a moderated mediation model of smartphone addiction. Methods: Three classes in each grade from grade 7 through grade 9 at random were recruited in the target junior high schools. A total of 931 Chinese adolescents (M age=13.54 years, SD age =1.08) completed valid questionnaires via online surveys from February 5-19, 2021. Results: Parent phubbing had a positive effect on smartphone addiction. Boredom proneness played a mediating role in this relationship. Additionally, refusal self-efficacy moderated the effect of parent phubbing on smartphone addiction. Refusal self-efficacy moderated the effect of boredom proneness on smartphone addiction. Conclusion: Findings of this study shed light on a correlation between parent phubbing and smartphone addiction. Moreover, this study emphasizes the value of intervening in adolescents' boredom proneness and increasing the ability of refusal self-efficacy to prevent and intervene in the context of COVID-19.
In the interconnected family context, caregivers' digital media use holds important implications for children's developmental outcomes via parent-child relationships. This may be particularly salient during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, when caregivers were more reliant on technology than ever before. This study examined caregivers' psychological well-being, digital media use, and parenting practices, with a particular focus on specific aspects of media use. Caregivers (n = 549) with at least two children aged 5–18 participated in a multinational project examining family functioning and well-being amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Parents completed questionnaires assessing their psychological distress, media use habits, and parenting practices. Comparisons of structural regression models revealed that operationalizing caregivers' media use as a single general construct disregards important nuances in its relations to psychological distress and parenting. In a more detailed model, higher psychological distress was related to more screen time and media use for relaxation. Intrusions of media in interactions with family members and media use for relaxation were associated with lower-quality parenting. Lastly, less distressed caregivers were more likely to use media for maintaining social connections, which was associated with more positive and less negative parenting practices. These findings offer insight into how caregivers may be relying on media to cope during the pandemic and the implications of these behaviors for parent-child relationships, particularly during times of stress and adversity.
Problematic media use, or media use that interferes with daily functioning, is most often studied in adolescent or young adult age groups. Less research has examined problematic media use within the family system, among parents and young children. The current three-year longitudinal study examines associations between symptoms of maternal postpartum depression at Time 1 and parent and child problematic media use and parental depression at Time 3, with parent-child dysfunctional interactions at Time 2 as a potential mediating variable. At Time 1, 491 mothers of children less than one year old responded to survey questions involving maternal postpartum depression and parent-child dysfunctional interaction. One year later, mothers reported on parent-child dysfunctional interaction, and two years later reported on parent and child problematic media use and parental depressive symptoms. Results suggest that symptoms of postpartum depression at Time 1 is associated with parent-child dysfunctional interaction at Time 2, and parent and child problematic media use and depression at Time 3. Parent-child dysfunctional interaction at Time 2 mediated associations between postpartum depression at Time 1 and parent depression at Time 3. Parent-child dysfunctional interaction did not mediate associations between postpartum depression at Time 1 and parent or child problematic media use at Time 3. Discussion focuses on the implications of problematic media use in the family setting.
Smartphone use is ubiquitous in the lives of parents, and an emerging area of research is investigating how parental smartphone use during parent–child interactions affects children’s language outcomes. Findings point toward negative outcomes in language development, but it is less clear what processes affect language outcomes. Gaze following, parental responsiveness, and joint attention are also reduced when parents use their smartphone, and all are critical to language development. In this article, we propose that these factors may mediate the effects of technoference due to parents’ smartphone use on language development in children from birth to 5 years. Because of methodological differences in the limited research conducted on this topic, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about this proposal. We discuss these considerations and suggest directions for the field.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
We investigate how families repair communication breakdowns with digital home assistants. We recruited 10 diverse families to use an Amazon Echo Dot in their homes for four weeks. All families had at least one child between four and 17 years old. Each family participated in pre- and post- deployment interviews. Their interactions with the Echo Dot (Alexa) were audio recorded throughout the study. We analyzed 59 communication breakdown interactions between family members and Alexa, framing our analysis with concepts from HCI and speech-language pathology. Our findings indicate that family members collaborate using discourse scaffolding (supportive communication guidance) and a variety of speech and language modifications in their attempts to repair communication breakdowns with Alexa. Alexa's responses also influence the repair strategies that families use. Designers can relieve the communication repair burden that primarily rests with families by increasing digital home assistants' abilities to collaborate together with users to repair communication breakdowns.
Full-text available
Humans are uniquely characterized by having a complex language and the ability to speak. Studying the cognitive foundations of language is one of the most challenging endeavors in linguistics and related fields as it spans a wide range of research disciplines which all contribute to our understanding of language. The goal of this volume is to present current reviews and research reports which examine the phenomenon of language from different perspectives. To be specific, the biological, neuronal and social pillars of linguistic cognition are discussed within their different theoretical and methodological frameworks, offering a diversity of perspectives that will contribute to meaningful cross-fertilization across several disciplines. Divided into five sections, this volume provides the reader with insights into the evolutionary dynamics underlying the phylogenetic emergence of language, the psychological and physiological factors influencing language acquisition and development during ontogeny, the cognitive constraints on second language learning imposed by neurobiology, and the interactive relationship between cultural predisposition and language use. Given the multi-disciplinary nature of the 18 contributions, this liber amicorum will interest researchers and students in the fields of cognitive linguistics, psychology and evolutionary biology alike.
Full-text available
Background and objectives: Heavy parent digital technology use has been associated with suboptimal parent-child interactions and internalizing/externalizing child behavior, but directionality of associations is unclear. This study aims to investigate longitudinal bidirectional associations between parent technology use and child behavior, and understand whether this is mediated by parenting stress. Methods: Participants included 183 couples with a young child (age 0-5 years, mean = 3.0 years) who completed surveys at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Cross-lagged structural equation models of parent technology interference during parent-child activities, parenting stress, and child externalizing and internalizing behavior were tested. Results: Controlling for potential confounders, we found that across all time points (1) greater child externalizing behavior predicted greater technology interference, via greater parenting stress; and (2) technology interference often predicted greater externalizing behavior. Although associations between child internalizing behavior and technology interference were relatively weaker, bidirectional associations were more consistent for child withdrawal behaviors. Conclusions: Our results suggest bidirectional dynamics in which (a) parents, stressed by their child's difficult behavior, may then withdraw from parent-child interactions with technology and (b) this higher technology use during parent-child interactions may influence externalizing and withdrawal behaviors over time.
Full-text available
There are concerns that contemporary caregivers are so absorbed by their mobile devices that it hampers their responsiveness to their children. Recent ethnographic work suggests that these concerns are warranted. Scholarly work on this issue is scarce, however, and systematic observations of the phenomenon are lacking. This chapter presents an exploratory study in which caregiver-child dyads were systematically observed to assess whether the tendency to respond and the timeliness, strength and emotionality of caregiver responses to children's bids for attention are negatively affected by phone engagement (Hypothesis 1), and whether the relation of phone engagement to caregiver responsiveness is different than the relation of other distracting activities that caregivers might engage in when caring for a child (Hypothesis 2). We observed caregivers and children between the ages of zero and five in Dutch consultation bureaus and playgrounds. Drawing from observations gathered from 25 caregiver-child dyads, the results show that the likelihood to respond, the timeliness and the strength of caregivers' responses are each negatively affected by phone use. In addition, phone use appeared to be more engaging and therefore affect responsiveness more strongly than being engaged in other distractive activities. Given the importance of parental responsiveness for child development, these findings indicate an urgent need for further research on the issue and on how it can be addressed.
In this study, we examined problematic mobile phone use, depression, and technology interference among 223 mothers of children aged 1 to 5, who were recruited from Amazon’s mTurk. As an extension of previous work on the topic, we also examined the time mothers reported spending in each of the parenting domains. Most mothers (76.7%–100%) reported that they engaged in the measured parenting activities with their children, and many (41.9%–71.8%) reported that technology interfered with those activities. Maternal depression was positively related to time spent with children during mealtime and joint technology use (e.g., TV viewing), and it was also related to technology interference in playtime and in doing chores with the child. Meanwhile, problematic phone use was positively related to time spent with children during meals, but it was significantly and positively related to technology interference in 9 of 11 parenting domains (e.g., playtime, mealtime, and playtime excursions). Finally, maternal depression was associated with problematic phone usage, which in turn was associated with technology interference in parenting.
Conference Paper
Digital overuse on mobile devices is a growing problem in everyday life. This paper describes a generalizable mobile intervention that combines nudge theory and negative reinforcement to create a subtle, repeating phone vibration that nudges a user to reduce their digital consumption. For example, if a user has a daily Facebook limit of 30 minutes but opens Facebook past this limit, the user's phone will issue gentle vibrations every five seconds, but the vibration stops once the user navigates away from Facebook. We evaluated the intervention through a three-week controlled experiment with 50 participants on Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform with findings that show daily digital consumption was successfully reduced by over 20%. Although the reduction did not persist after the intervention was removed, insights from qualitative feedback suggest that the intervention made participants more aware of their app usage habits; and we discuss design implications of episodically applying our intervention in specific everyday contexts such as education, sleep, and work. Taken together, our findings advance the HCI community's understanding of how to curb digital overload.
"...the role of AI in child development should not be taken lightly. Parents are being asked to place a large amount of trust in technology companies and their capacity to provide meaningful, research-backed resources and interactions for children..."
Technoference has been defined as interruptions to social interactions because of technology. Previous research has examined technoference in parent-child relationships, but little research has been conducted examining the influence of technoference on parent-adolescent relationships. Previous researchers have shown that parental technoference in parent-child relationships is related to increased negative behaviors by children. The current study examined the effect of adolescents’ perceptions of their own and their parents technoference on adolescent positive and negative behaviors, including anxiety, depression, cyberbullying, prosocial behavior, and civic engagement, as mediated through adolescent perceptions of parental warmth. Teens perceptions of their parents technoference was related to increased anxiety, depression, cyberbullying, and prosocial behaviors, as mediated through parental warmth. Interestingly, adolescent technoference was not related to perceived parental warmth, but was related to increased cyberbullying, anxiety, depression, and decreased prosocial behavior and civic engagement. Implications of technoference in a parent-adolescent context are discussed.
Over the last few decades there has been a significant worldwide increase in the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the causes of which are unknown. The biggest environmental change over this decade has been the massive introduction of cellphones. Eye contact is fundamental for infants' development, and parent-infant eye contact is impaired when parents are pre occupied by cellphones. We speculate that children with a pre-existing vulnerability to autism may be adversely affected by this pattern of parental behavior. As a first step toward exploring our hypothesis, we wished to document the extent of cellular phone usage by parents during their child's diagnostic developmental assessment. We speculated that, if under these stressful circumstances of awaiting their child's crucial assessment the parent is not fully engaged with his/her child, then in real daily activities this phenomenon is likely much more pronounced. Of 111 developmental sessions, 73 parents (66%) engaged their phone during the assessment, between 1 and 20 times. Of 62 observations in the waiting room, 52 (83.9%) parents used their phone, 1–19 times. Nine parents (17.3%) used their phone for 10–50% of the time and 16 (30.8%) for more than 50% of the time in the waiting room. In our analysis, the rate of language/motor delays was twice more common among children of cell phone users than among non users (p = 0.04) as an initial support of our hypothesis. Parents' focus and full attention toward their cellphones can adversely affect the development of joint attention in infants and may contribute to the development of autistic features among a vulnerable subgroup of infants. While more research is needed to prove causation, it would be reasonable to advise parents to decrease to minimum the usage of cellphones when interacting with their young children.