Content uploaded by Stephanie M Reich
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephanie M Reich on Dec 03, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 09 October 2020
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.570712
Edited by:
Rachel Barr,
Georgetown University, United States
Reviewed by:
Rachel M. Flynn,
Northwestern University,
United States
Bieke Zaman Zaman,
KU Leuven Research & Development,
Belgium
*Correspondence:
Wendy Ochoa
Wendy.Ochoa@tufts.edu
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Developmental Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 08 June 2020
Accepted: 14 September 2020
Published: 09 October 2020
Citation:
Ochoa W and Reich SM (2020)
Parents’ Beliefs About the Benefits
and Detriments of Mobile Screen
Technologies for Their Young
Children’s Learning: A Focus on
Diverse Latine Mothers and Fathers.
Front. Psychol. 11:570712.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.570712
Parents’ Beliefs About the Benefits
and Detriments of Mobile Screen
Technologies for Their Young
Children’s Learning: A Focus on
Diverse Latine Mothers and Fathers
Wendy Ochoa1*and Stephanie M. Reich2
1Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States, 2School of Education, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States
Young children’s use of mobile screens is increasing despite the American Academy
of Pediatrics’ recommendations to limit screen use. Research on TV has found
that maternal beliefs about the effects of screens on children’s learning and
parental socioeconomic status influence children’s media consumption. However, few
studies have explored parents’ beliefs about mobile screens and whether there are
differences in beliefs by socioeconomic status, particularly within the largest ethnic
minoritized group — Latines. Because Latines are a socioeconomically and linguistically
heterogenous group, but are often represented by low-income mothers in research, it
is important to understand whether there are socioeconomic and linguistic differences
on how and why Latine mothers AND fathers permit their children to use mobile
screens. This study used in-depth, semi-structured interviews to understand how
and why Latine mothers (low-income = 10, middle-to-high income = 10) and fathers
(low-income = 10, middle-to-high income = 10) permitted their children (0–4 years)
to use mobile screens. Specifically, we discussed their beliefs about how mobile
screens support and hinder their children’s learning and how their children used them.
Results from qualitative content analysis showed that mothers and fathers, across
income, education levels, and language use, believed that they, as parents, were the
key decision-makers in determining the extent to which mobile screens supported
and hindered their young children’s learning. They described mediation strategies of
selecting appropriate content, setting time limits, and monitoring use, to ensure that
their children primarily benefited from device use. However, two distinctions were
noted. Parents with a high school diploma or beyond stressed the importance of co-
using devices with their children. This was not mentioned by less formally educated
parents. Additionally, low-income parents with diverse educational levels, mentioned the
importance of continuously monitoring device use to avoid their children encountering
inappropriate content. Findings can inform work seeking to promote optimal media
habits among Latine families.
Keywords: mobile, screens, children, parents, beliefs, Latino, technology, attitudes
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 2
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
INTRODUCTION
Mobile screen technologies, such as smartphones and tablets,
have permeated the everyday lives of most US families with young
children across socioeconomic and ethnic groups, including
Latine1families (Kabali et al., 2015;Common Sense Media,
2017;Pew Research Center, 2017). In fact, as of 2017, 98% of
families with children under the age of 8 years own at least one
smartphone and 78% own at least one tablet device (Common
Sense Media, 2017). Although higher-income families are still
slightly more likely than lower-income families to have access
to high speed internet (96% vs. 74%), low-income and higher-
income families are just as likely to own a smartphone and
have children who own a personal tablet device (Common Sense
Media, 2017). Importantly, recent reports show that children as
young as 6 months old are increasingly being exposed to more
time viewing or using mobile screen devices, especially children
from low-income homes (Kabali et al., 2015;Common Sense
Media, 2017).
The upward trend in children’s exposure to mobile screen
devices is of particular interest because extensive research on
TV and emerging studies on mobile screens have found positive
and negative associations between children’s exposure to screens
and key child outcomes, depending on how the devices are used
(Mendelsohn et al., 2010;Roseberry et al., 2013;Zack and Barr,
2016;Madigan et al., 2019). For example, a study conducted
among a majority of low-income, Latina mothers (94%) showed
that verbal interactions between mothers and their 14-month-old
toddler while using screen media moderated the negative impact
of media exposure on children’s language outcomes (Mendelsohn
et al., 2010). That is, media use was negatively associated with
children’s language outcomes only in the absence of mother-
child interactions while viewing or using screens (Mendelsohn
et al., 2010). More recently, a study conducted by Zack and Barr
(2016) among predominantly White, middle-class mothers and
their toddlers showed that children were able to transfer what
they learned from a 2D touchscreen device to a 3D object when
their mothers scaffolded them during the task (e.g., modeling
device use, talk).
Due to the prevalence of mobile screen devices and the
implications these could have on young children’s outcomes, it
is important that we not only investigate how young children
are using them, but that we also understand factors that might
contribute to patterns of device use in diverse families. From the
extensive research, primarily conducted in the context of TV, it
is well known that maternal beliefs about the role of screens on
children’s learning and parents’ socioeconomic status (SES) are
two of the factors that most consistently predict children’s screen
consumption (Certain and Kahn, 2002;Njoroge et al., 2013;
Rideout, 2014). To date, however, very few studies have focused
1The term Latine is used to refer to individuals whose cultural background
originated in Latin America. In United States academic circles, Latinx is used
as a gender-inclusive term to refer to people from Latin American backgrounds.
Many Spanish-speakers, including the first author of the current study – a native
Spanish-speaker, find the term unpronounceable (see Zentella, 2017). Thus, we
have opted to use the gender-inclusive term, Latine, commonly used throughout
Spanish-speaking Latin American countries.
on exploring parents’ views about mobile screen technologies,
and the few that do exist have primarily consisted of survey
studies.
It is important to explore parents’ views about mobile
screens because mobile devices are nearly ubiquitous in the
lives of children. Further, their portability and multifunctional
capabilities not only permit families to use them in the same
way they would use a TV (e.g., watch a show), but provide
a host of other uses, such as instant access to the Internet,
interactive apps/games, and video chat – all possible in any
place and at any time. Additionally, the touchscreen interface
enables very young children to successfully use these devices,
even without assistance from an adult. Such constant connectivity
and affordances could shape parents’ beliefs about mobile screens
and their role in their child’s learning differently from their beliefs
about TV, and also contribute to differences in the ways families
are taking advantage of these features and allowing their children
to use them. However, because most studies investigating parents’
beliefs about mobile screens have consisted of surveys, our
understanding of their beliefs about the role of mobile screens on
their children’s learning have been limited to the questions posed
by researchers, who are also likely from the majority culture.
Hence, we likely do not yet have a complete understanding
about how and why minoritized parents might believe mobile
screen technologies are beneficial or detrimental to their young
children’s learning. Moreover, despite the prevalence of mobile
screens among socioeconomically and ethnically diverse families,
White, middle-class parents make up the vast majority of samples
in the extant research. In most of these studies, ethnic minority
parents, particularly Latines, have comprised only a small portion
of the entire sample, been disproportionately represented by low-
income households, or their socioeconomic status has not been
stated (Rideout, 2014;Wartella et al., 2014;Radesky et al., 2016;
Common Sense Media, 2017;Sergi et al., 2017;McCloskey et al.,
2018). As a result, it has been difficult to discern whether the SES
or ethnic differences found in parent beliefs are associated with
SES or cultural differences for ethnic minority parents (Cabrera
and The SRCD Ethnic and Racial Issues Committee, 2013). Thus,
we have virtually no understanding about the role of SES on
parents’ beliefs about their young children’s use of mobile screen
technologies among ethnically minoritized parents.
A particular ethnic group who has been largely excluded from
research on screen media are Latine parents, even though they
are the largest minoritized ethnic group in the United States, and
are among the ethnic groups most likely to rely on smartphones
for access to the Internet (Pew Research Center, 2017). Further,
within Latine parents, fathers and Spanish-speaking parents have
been especially underrepresented in screen media research. Not
including fathers in media research among Latines is limiting
because two out of three Latine children live in a two-parent
household (Pew Research Center, 2015), and research has shown
that fathers make unique and important contributions to their
children’s development (Cabrera et al., 2007). Furthermore, it is
important to include linguistically diverse Latine parents because
research in various areas of parenting has shown that English-
and Spanish-speaking parents sometimes differ in their ideas
about parenting practices and child development, likely due
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 3
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
to nativity (Keels, 2009). Therefore, to address some of the
gaps in the literature, this study focuses on obtaining a deeper
understanding of socioeconomically and linguistically diverse
Latine mothers and fathers’ beliefs about the role of mobile
screen devices on their very young children’s learning. Parents of
children ages 0–4 years old are the focus of this study because
this is the age when screens (e.g., TV) have been found to have
a large impact on children’s developmental outcomes (Rice et al.,
1990;Mendelsohn et al., 2010). Additionally, this is also an age
when parents can play a major role in regulating the content and
amount of time children spend viewing or using screens, which
can shape the child’s media consumption trajectory.
PARENT BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROLE OF
MOBILE SCREEN TECHNOLOGIES ON
CHILDREN’S LEARNING
Although research exploring parents’ beliefs about the role of
mobile screen technologies on their children’s learning is still
in its early stages, emerging research suggest that most parents
believe mobile screen technologies could both support and
detract from their children’s learning (Wartella et al., 2014;
Radesky et al., 2016;Common Sense Media, 2017;Sergi et al.,
2017;McCloskey et al., 2018). For example, a national survey
conducted by Wartella et al. (2014) among a socioeconomically
diverse sample of predominantly White (56%), Latine (23%), and
Black (9%) parents of children 8 years old and younger found
that 37% of the parents believed mobile screen technologies had
a positive effect on their children’s math skills and creativity.
However, 46% of these parents also believed that mobile devices
negatively affected their children’s attention span (Wartella et al.,
2014). Similar results were found in a qualitative study among
five highly educated, racially diverse parents of children ages 4–
7 years old. Specifically, most of these parents thought that mobile
screen technologies had helped their children improve their math
and language skills (Sergi et al., 2017). Nevertheless, most parents
also expressed concerns about their children’s excessive use of
mobile devices, the random pop-up advertisements, unlimited
access to entertainment apps, and the possibility that their
children would become socially isolated due to excessive device
use (Sergi et al., 2017). Many of these same concerns were also
voiced by US parents in a recent national survey study (Common
Sense Media, 2017).
Although only a handful of studies have made SES and ethnic
comparisons of parents’ beliefs about the role of mobile screen
technologies on their children’s learning, interesting differences
have been found within these studies. For instance, through
the use of semi-structured interviews among socioeconomically
diverse White (58%), Black (29%), and Latine (5%) mothers
(74%) and fathers (26%) of children between the ages of 0
and 8 years old, Radesky et al. (2016) found that more low-
income parents than middle-to-high income parents reported
feeling good about exposing their children to mobile screen
devices, because they believed they would give their child an
advantage later on in life. Similarly, a national survey of a
socioeconomically diverse sample of Latine (43%), White (39%),
and Black (18%) parents of children ages 2–10 years found that
low-income parents tended to attribute more educational benefits
to mobile devices than middle-to-high income parents (Rideout,
2014). Within this study, the author also found that Latine and
African American parents were more likely than White parents
to consider mobile screen devices to be an important source of
learning for their children (Rideout, 2014).
In contrast to the aforementioned findings, however, a
more recent national survey among a socioeconomically diverse
sample of White (56%), Latine (22%), and Black (10%) mothers
(60%) and fathers (40%) of children 8 years and younger found
that Latine parents tended to express more concerns about the
effects of mobile screen technologies on their children than White
and Black parents (Common Sense Media, 2017). Moreover,
Latine parents were more likely than parents from other ethnic
groups to agree with the statement that the less time children
spent with media the better (Common Sense Media, 2017). These
latter findings align with those found in a recent survey study
among a low-income sample of primarily Latine (78%) mothers
(86%) and fathers (6%) of children in Head Start Centers (age
4 years) (McCloskey et al., 2018). Findings from this study
showed that Latine parents were less likely than parents from
other ethnic groups to say that their children used mobile
screen technologies to learn. Across these few studies, it is
unclear whether Latine parents hold more positive, negative, or
neutral views than other ethnic groups about the role of mobile
screen technologies on their children’s learning. Moreover, we
have almost no understanding on how SES and language might
influence the beliefs of Latine parents, and especially Latino
fathers, of young children because most studies have consisted
of surveys with low-income Latine mothers. Therefore, the aim
of this qualitative study is to use semi-structured interviews
to understand how a sample (n= 40) of socioeconomically
and linguistically diverse Latine mothers and fathers of children
4 years old or younger believe mobile screen technologies support
and/or hinder their children’s learning.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Design
A semi-structured interview design was used to obtain a deeper
understanding of how and why diverse Latine parents of young
children permit their children to use mobile screens, along with
their beliefs about how these devices contribute or detract from
children’s learning. Qualitative approaches are appropriate to use
when the goal is to identify and understand different perspectives
about a given phenomenon (Giacomini and Cook, 2000).
Recruitment and Participants
Recruitment
Latine mothers and fathers of children under the age of five, living
in Southern California were invited to participate in one-on-one
interviews between June 2018 and April 2019. Recruitment was
done in one of three ways. The first method involved asking
participants who were interested but ineligible to participate in
another research study if they would be interested in participating
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 4
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
in this study instead. The second method included posting
flyers at businesses, churches, and grocery stores. Finally, the
third method was through snowball sampling. All parents were
asked to participate in a 45–60-min audio-recorded, in-person
interview in English or Spanish in a place of their choice,
including their home or a local coffee shop. To be eligible to
participate in the study, parents needed to report 1) owning at
least one mobile screen device and having access to the Internet
on it, 2) self-identify as Latine, and 3) have at least one child who
was 4 years old or younger. No restrictions were placed on the
parents’ age, number of children, marital status, nationality, or
primary language spoken.
Given that we were interested in understanding the role of
SES and parent gender on Latine parents’ use and beliefs about
mobile devices, we wanted to ensure equal representation of
socioeconomically diverse Latine mothers and fathers. Therefore,
using the approach of previous researchers, we used income
as a proxy for SES and recruited parents from low-income
and middle-to-high income households (Davis-Kean, 2005;
Bodnar-Deren et al., 2017). Parents’ income was determined by
calculating their poverty index using the following demographic
information: (1) total household annual income, (2) total number
of people living in their household at least 4 days of the week, and
(3) the number of these individuals who were minors and adults.
In total, we purposefully recruited 20 low-income parents (10
mothers and 10 fathers) and 20 middle-to-high income parents
(10 mothers and 10 fathers). Although we initially aimed to
recruit equal numbers of low-income and middle-to-high income
Spanish-speaking mothers and fathers, we were not successful
because all monolingual Spanish-speaking parents who expressed
interest in participating in our study had low incomes and all
middle-to-high income parents were fluent in English (and all but
one father reported speaking Spanish too). Therefore, Spanish-
only-speaking parents are not represented in the middle-to-high
income groups.
Participants
In total, 40 Latine parents (n= 20 mothers, n= 20 fathers) of
children between the ages of 0–4 years of age participated. All
mothers and fathers were distributed equally across the low-
income (n= 20) and middle-to-high income (n= 20) groups.
There were a total of four couples, two in each income group. The
next sections describe the demographic characteristics of parents
from each of the four groups.
Low-Income Mothers
Low-income mothers (n= 10) ranged in age from 22 to 36 years
(M= 28.77, SD = 5.33). On average, they had two children
(M= 2.1, SD = 1.37) and all had at least one child under the
age of 5 years (M= 1.9 yrs., SD = 1.5). Of the target children
that were 4 years old or younger, 21% were female and 79% were
male. Sixty percent of the mothers had a high school education
or less, 20% had some college, and 20% obtained a Bachelor’s
degree. More than half of the mothers (60%) were born outside
of the United States, with most being from Mexico (50%) or
Ecuador (10%). These mothers had been in the United States
for an average of 15 years (M= 15.08, SD = 9.19). Finally,
the majority of mothers (70%) were English-Spanish bilingual
and only 30% were monolingual Spanish-speakers. Noticeably,
two monolingual Spanish-speaking mothers had an elementary
school education and one had a Bachelor’s degree.
Low-Income Fathers
Low-income fathers (n= 10) ranged in age from 26 to 45 years
(M= 31.50, SD = 6.28). On average they had two children
(M= 1.9, SD = 0.87) and all had at least one child under the
age of 5 years (M= 2.0 yrs., SD = 1.2). Of the target children
(i.e., 0–4 years), 36% were female and 64% male. Forty percent
of the fathers had a high school education or less, 50% had
completed some college or a 2-year degree, and 10% obtained
a Bachelor’s degree. Additionally, 40% of the fathers were born
in Mexico and had been in the United States for an average
of 24 years (M= 24.14, SD = 14.45). Finally, the majority of
fathers (70%) were English-Spanish bilingual and only 30% were
monolingual Spanish-speakers. Noticeably, the two monolingual
Spanish-speaking fathers had a middle-school education or less.
Middle-to-High Income Mothers
Middle-to-high income mothers (n= 10) ranged in age from 23
to 35 years (M= 30.60, SD = 4.74). On average they had one child
(M= 1.20, SD = 0.42) and all had a child under the age of 5 years
(M= 2.0 yrs., SD = 1.3). Of the target children (i.e., 0–4 years),
33% were female and 67% male. Twenty percent of the mothers
had completed some college, 20% had a Bachelor’s degree, and
60% had a Master’s degree or beyond. Additionally, all but one of
the mothers were born in the United States. Finally, all mothers
were English-Spanish bilinguals.
Middle-to-High Income Fathers
Middle-to-high income fathers (n= 10) ranged in age from 23 to
41 years (M= 33.50, SD = 5.72). On average they had two children
(M= 1.90, SD = 0.99) and all had at least one child under the age
of 5 years (M= 2.3 yrs., SD = 1.4). Of the target children (i.e.,
0–4 years), 38% were female and 62% male. Sixty percent of the
fathers had completed some college or a 2-year degree and 40%
had a Master’s degree or beyond. Additionally, only one of the
fathers was born in Mexico and had been in the United States
for 20 years. Finally, 90% of the fathers were English-Spanish
bilinguals and only one was an English-monolingual speaker.
Procedure
Once interested parents were confirmed to be eligible to
participate in the study, a date and time was set to interview
the parent. At the start of the interview, the first author, an
English-Spanish bilingual Latina, provided the parent with an
informed consent form. The form included a description and
goals of the study, the parent’s right to stop the interview at
any time or to opt to not answer any question that made them
uncomfortable, and asked for permission to audio-record the
interview. All parents were assured that their confidentiality
would be protected. After the parent signed the informed consent
form, the researcher turned on an audio-recording device and
began the interview. When the interview was over, parents were
compensated with a $10 Target gift card and a bilingual children’s
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 5
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
book. A university Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved all
procedures and materials.
Measures
Parents’ Income Category
Parents were asked to report on their: (1) total household annual
income, (2) total number of people living in their household at
least 4 days of the week, and (3) the number of these individuals
who were minors and adults. Using this information, parental
income level was determined by calculating their poverty index,
which compared a family’s annual household income to an
income threshold level that varied by family size and composition
(i.e., number of children and adults).
The threshold levels are updated every year for inflation with
the Consumer Price Index (United States Census Bureau, Poverty
Thresholds, 2016). A family is considered to be living in poverty
if their household annual income is less than the threshold level
(United States Census Bureau, Poverty Thresholds, 2016). In
their study, Brooks-Gunn et al. (1999) identified five income-to-
needs ratio: (1) deep poverty (income-to-needs ratio less than
0.50), (2) poverty (income-to-needs ratio greater than or equal
to 0.50, but less than 1.0), (3) near poverty (income-to-needs
ratio between 1.0 and 1.5), low income (income-to-needs ratio
between 1.5 and 2.0) and middle income (income-to-needs ratio
greater than or equal to 2.0). However, we only identified two
categories for this study: Low income (income-to-needs ratio:
less than 2.0) and middle-to-high income (income-to-needs ratio:
equal to or greater than 2.0).
Background Questionnaire
Parents were asked to answer a 15-item background
questionnaire created for this study. Questions included
whether they were a mother or father, their and their children’s
gender, ages, ethnicity, family income, number of people living in
their household, their education level, marital status, nationality,
years living in the United States, and language(s) spoken.
Semi-Structured Interview
A Spanish and English semi-structured, in-depth interview
with open-ended questions was created for this study. The
semi-structured interview asked parents about their beliefs and
attitudes about the ways mobile screen devices support and/or
hinder their children’s learning (e.g., Do you think smartphones
and/or tablets have benefited your children’s learning? How? Do
you think smartphones and or tablets can be bad for your child’s
learning, how?). Parents were also asked about the types of device
limits they set for their children (e.g., Do you have specific time
limits for your children to use mobile devices? What kind of limits?
Why?) and to also describe how the target child used mobile
screen devices (e.g., What does your child typically do when s/he
uses the smartphone and/or tablet?). It is important to highlight
that in answering the questions, parents were asked to think about
their child(ren) that were 4 years of age or younger. To ensure
that the questions were clear and interpreted as intended in both
languages, extensive Spanish and English cognitive interviews
were done with other low and middle-to-high income parents in
this geographic region prior to data collection.
Qualitative Coding and Analysis
The audio-recordings were transcribed in their original language.
The transcripts were then coded in their original language using
the MAXQDA qualitative software. All parents were given a
pseudonym to protect their identity. Qualitative content analysis
(Schreier, 2014) was then employed with a blended approach
to answer our main research questions. Open coding enabled
the emergence of new themes (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) while
deductive coding guided the coding of data in light of existing
findings (Saldaña, 2003). For instance, we expected to see key
aspects of parental monitoring (deductive codes were framed in
the literature) but did not have expectations about parents’ views
of benefits and detriments globally (inductive codes were derived
from patterns that emerged from the data). By sorting parents’
own words conceptually (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), we identified
patterns of practices and beliefs about the ways mobile screens
benefit and hinder their children’s learning.
Our initial coding did not consider gender or whether parents
had low or middle-to-high incomes. Instead, patterns were
identified across interviews as soon as they were transcribed.
The main categories were generated through a concept-driven
strategy that used a combination of prior research, logic, everyday
knowledge, and the main research questions (i.e., benefits and
detriments to children’s learning) by the lead researcher. This
resulted in the generation of three main categories (i.e., parents’
beliefs about the ways mobile screen devices benefit children’s
learning, parents’ beliefs about the ways mobile screen devices
hinder children’s learning, and the ways parents regulated their
children’s use of mobile screens). Sub-categories were then
generated within each of these larger main categories using the
data-driven strategy of subsumption summarizing to capture
the specific ways in which parents believed mobile screens were
beneficial (e.g., learning concepts) and detrimental (e.g., lack
of social interactions) to children’s learning, along with the
specific ways in which parents regulated their children’s use of
these technologies. After the lead researcher developed the main
categories and subcategories, a group of independent researchers
were asked to read relevant excerpts of one of four random
interviews that the lead researcher had coded to create their own
main categories and sub-categories. Then, they met to compare
their categories and subcategories. Categories and sub-categories
were compared and discussed, and the most frequently created
main categories and subcategories were then used to develop
the final coding frame. Upon finalizing the coding frame, all
interviews were coded using the coding frame. Then, a subset of
excerpts of the transcripts were shared with five doctoral students
who were asked to code into the coding frame or recommend
different codes, if needed.
To ensure data trustworthiness, not only did the lead
researcher hold peer debriefing meetings with other researchers
but also often asked interviewees if her interpretation of what
they had said during the interview was correct. Finally, after all
transcripts had been coded using the final coding scheme, the
researchers used the features of MAXQDA software to obtain
frequencies and make SES, gender, and linguistic comparisons to
answer the research question. A 2:1 ratio was used to determine
whether there were differences in themes and sub-themes on
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 6
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
income and parent gender. However, because there were only
six monolingual Spanish-speakers and one monolingual English-
speaker compared to 33 English-Spanish bilingual parents, we
only considered there to be differences between monolingual
Spanish-speakers and English-Spanish bilinguals when none of
the six Spanish-speakers mentioned a particular theme or sub-
theme but 30% or more of the 33 English-Spanish bilinguals did.
Similarly, if none of the English-Spanish bilinguals mentioned
a theme but the six monolingual Spanish-speakers did, we also
considered there to be a difference between linguistic groups.
Because there was only one monolingual English-speaker, no
differences or similarities with monolingual Spanish-speakers or
English-Spanish bilinguals were discussed.
RESULTS
Descriptive analyses indicated that the majority of parents
across income and gender had access to the Internet and also
owned about the same number of mobile screen technologies.
Specifically, households across income (M= 2.95 low, M= 2.53
middle-to-high income, pns) and gender (M= 2.68 mothers,
M= 2.79 fathers, pns) groups had access to two smartphones per
household on average. Similarly, no differences were found in the
average number of tablets owned per household across income
(M= 0.95 low, M= 1.10 middle-to-high income, pns) or gender
(M= 0.95 mothers, M= 1.10 fathers, pns) groups. Unexpectedly,
a slightly higher percentage of target children (ages 0–4) from
low-income households (37%) owned a personal tablet device
than children from middle-to-high income households (16%).
Additionally, most households across income (70% low, 80%
middle-to-high income) and gender (70% mothers, 80% fathers)
groups had access to both home Wi-Fi and data through their
smartphones (Income: 85% low, 95% middle-to-high; Parent
gender: 95% mothers, 85% fathers).
Analyses of the transcripts revealed that four themes emerged
that centered around parents’ beliefs about the ways mobile
screen devices benefited their children’s learning. Two themes
captured parents’ discussions about what they believed their
children could learn from mobile screen devices (e.g., academic
concepts, language), and the two other themes captured the
specific activities they believed their child should do on the device
to support their learning (e.g., view videos, use apps/games).
Three themes also emerged that revolved around parents’
beliefs about the ways mobile screen devices could hinder their
children’s learning (i.e., lack of social interactions, dependence,
and accessing inappropriate content). However, in addition to the
specific benefits and hindrances parents associated with mobile
screen technologies, one major theme emerged that centered
on how parents regulated children’s use, which we refer to as
mediation practices. This included such sub-themes as ensuring
the content and/or game used was appropriate for the child,
restricting the amount of time that the child was permitted
to use the device, constantly monitoring the child while using
the device to ensure they did not deviate into inappropriate
content, and co-using the device with the child to scaffold
their learning. Importantly, across income, gender, and linguistic
groups, most parents believed that mobile screen technologies
could both support and hinder children’s learning depending
on the types of mediation practices parents implemented.
Hence, parental mediation practices, as a theme, focused on
parents’ opinions about the specific types of mediation practices
(each sub-theme practice) they believed contributed to mobile
devices being beneficial or detrimental toward children’s learning.
Comparisons across income groups (i.e., low and middle-to-high
income), education level, parent gender, and language groups
are described in more detail for each theme and subtheme
below. Additionally, comparisons across groups are summarized
in Table 1.
Benefits of Mobile Screen Technologies
on Children’s Learning
Virtually all parents (n= 39) believed that mobile screen
technologies could offer some benefit to their children’s learning.
Although we left the term “children’s learning” vague during our
questioning, parents generally described learning from a device
as learning some type of academic concept (e.g., colors, numbers,
shapes, animals, letters) promoting Spanish or English language
learning, and, from watching videos or using apps/playing
games. Though the majority of parents thought children learned
from viewing videos on the device, a little less than half
of the sample also thought young children could learn from
using apps/playing games. The next few sections describe these
themes in more detail.
Learning Concepts
In total, 67% of parents across income (n= 13 low, n= 14
middle-to-high income), gender (n= 16 mothers, n= 11 fathers),
linguistic groups (n= 5 monolingual Spanish-speaking, n= 21
English-Spanish bilinguals, n= 1 monolingual English-speaking),
and education levels (elementary school to Ph.D.) thought their
children could learn academic concepts through the use of mobile
screen devices, with most parents mentioning numbers, letters,
shapes, patterns, body parts, animals, food labels, and music.
For example, Eric, a middle-to-high income, English-Spanish
bilingual father who completed some college, described how his
child had learned how to count through using the smartphone,
“she knows how to count to ten through like. . . what is that guy
called? Bleepy? And then she tries to count to twenty. It’s a little,
you know, but it’s funny. . . it’s cute.” A little over half (55%)
of the academic concepts that parents discussed their child had
learned were attributed to videos. For instance, Carlos, a middle-
to-high income English-Spanish bilingual father with a master’s
degree discussed that his children had learned how to count from
watching videos, “there’s these videos. To me they’re weird but
like a lot of what he watches is educational. So they’ll have all
the marvel characters. All these super heroes, and then the super
heroes are like. . .they teach him how to count.” Additionally, 45%
of the concepts that children had learned were also attributed to
the use of educational apps/games. For example, Aniceto, a low-
income Spanish-speaking father with an elementary education
discussed how his children had learned letters from apps/games,
“usualmente, hay unos juegos que mencionan el nombre de la
letra y basado a eso es como ellos pueden aprender.” [English
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 7
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
TABLE 1 | Comparison of themes and subthemes across groups.
Themes and
Sub-themes
Total % theme
mentioned (n= 40)
Differences in themes by groups
Parent gender Income Language Education Differences
Benefits 97% Mothers
(n= 20)
Fathers
(n= 20)
Low-Income
(n= 20)
Middle-High
Income (n= 20)
Monolingual
Spanish-Speaking
(n= 6)
Bilingual
(n= 33)
Monolingual
English-speaking
(n= 1)
Child learns
academic concepts
67% 16 11 13 14 5 21 1 Elementary-
Ph.D.
No difference
between groups
No difference No difference No difference No difference
Child develops
language skills
87% 15 20 17 18 6 28 1 Elementary-
Ph.D.
No difference
between groups
No difference No difference No difference No difference
Child learns from
videos
77% 15 16 16 15 5 25 1 Elementary-
Ph.D.
No difference
between groups
No difference No difference No difference No difference
Child learns from
apps
40% 6 10 9 7 3 12 1 Elementary-
Ph.D.
No difference
between groups
No difference No difference No difference No difference
Detriments 92%
Social interactions 35% 7 7 4 10 0 14 0 High
School-Ph.D.
Differences across
3 groups
No difference Difference Difference Difference
Dependence or
addiction
45% 9 9 7 11 0 18 0 High
School-Ph.D.
Difference for 1
group
No difference No difference Difference No Difference
Accessing
inappropriate
content
30% 6 6 6 6 2 9 1 Middle
School-MA
No difference
between groups
No difference No difference No difference No difference
Mediation
strategies
85% 18 16 17 17 6 27 1 Elementary-
Ph.D.
No difference
between groups
No difference No difference No difference No difference
Quality content 67% 14 13 12 15 5 21 1 Elementary-
Ph.D.
No difference
between groups
No difference No difference No difference No difference
Time limits 40% 9 7 8 8 5 10 1 Elementary-
Ph.D.
No difference
between groups
No difference No difference No difference No difference
Parental monitoring 22% 3 6 6 3 1 7 1 Elementary-BA Difference across 2
group
Difference Difference No difference No difference
Co-use 20% 5 4 4 5 2 6 1 High
School-Ph.D.
Difference for 1
group
No difference No difference No difference Difference
Mediation
combination
52% 12 9 9 12 4 16 1 Elementary-
Ph.D.
No difference
between groups
No difference No difference No difference No difference
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 8
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
translation: “usually, there are some games that say the name of
the letter and based on that is how they can learn.”].
Learning Language Skills
In addition to learning academic concepts, 87% of parents across
income (n= 17 low, n= 18 middle-to-high income), gender
(n= 15 mothers, n= 20 fathers), linguistic groups (n= 6 Spanish-
speaking, n= 28 English-Spanish bilinguals, n= 1 monolingual
English-speaking), and education levels (elementary school to
Ph.D.) also thought children could learn language skills, such as
develop their English or Spanish skills, from using mobile screen
devices. As Karina, a low-income English-Spanish bilingual
mother with a high school degree explained, “yeah it has
[benefited child]. She learned how to speak English from there.
Cuz I wasn’t speaking English to her at all, so she’s learning, and
now she speaks English and Spanish to me. She says the colors in
English and Spanish to me.” The majority (67%) of language skills
that parents discussed their children had learned were attributed
to videos. For example, Daniel, a low-income English-Spanish
bilingual father with a 2-year certificate, discussed that his child
had learned different languages from watching Youtube videos,
“I mean, there’s a lot of Youtubers. A lot of people that, you know,
are from different ethnicities that speak other languages, you know?
And he [child] tends to copy them sometimes.” Additionally, 33%
of the language skills that parents mentioned their child had
learned were attributed to apps/games. For instance, Anthony, a
low-income English-Spanish bilingual father who had completed
some college described his child’s use of an app to learn Spanish
and English words, “so they can translate. . . cuz I remember, I
remember I had an app for a while they [children] would play with,
and it would like say in English and Spanish like certain things, like
apple, manzana, and stuff like that.”
Viewing Videos to Learn
Most parents (77%) said their children could learn concepts
and/or language skills by viewing videos on the device, and no
differences existed by income (n= 16 low, n= 15 middle-to-
high income), gender (n= 15 mothers, n= 16 fathers), linguistic
groups (n= 5 monolingual Spanish-speaking, n= 25 English-
Spanish bilinguals, n= 1 monolingual English-speaking), or
education level (elementary school to Ph.D.). Additionally, many
parents of children ages 3 months to 4 years thought their
children’s learning could benefit from viewing videos on the
device. For example, Cindy, a middle-to-high income English-
Spanish bilingual mother with a Master’s degree, said, “they could
learn a new language. Um. one of the things I want her to do is,
I want her to learn English and Spanish. So like I talk to her in
Spanish and I try to put like, when I have the phone, nursery rhymes
in Spanish. . . So I go on Youtube and that’s mainly how I’ve used
it. I would say I use it every day.” Table 2 contains a list of the
specific types of videos parents across income and parent gender
groups said their children viewed.
Using Apps to Learn
Almost half of parents (40%) thought their children could learn
academic concepts and/or language skills from using apps. These
parents were distributed across income (n= 9 low, n= 7
TABLE 2 | Specific video platforms, programs, and topics parents said their
children viewed.
Content of videos Low-
income
mothers
Low-
income
fathers
Middle-
high
income
mothers
Middle-
high
income
fathers
Totals
Cartoons 4 3 2 2 11
Teen Titans 1 1
The Magic School Bus 1 1
Sesame Street/Elmo 1 1 2 4
Colors 1 1
Numbers 1 1 2
Shapes 1 1 2
Spanish songs/lullabies 3 1 3 1 8
ABCs 2 1 3
Animals 1 1 1 3
Potty-training 1 1
Fitness 1 1
Children’s toy reviews 1 3 4
Making slime 1 1
Playing with playdough 1 1 1 3
Other children playing 2 2
Family videos 3 2 3 3 11
Lullabies 3 4 5 12
Netflix 1 1 2
Total 29 10 21 20
middle-to-high), parent gender (n= 6 mothers, n= 10 fathers),
linguistic groups (n= 3 monolingual Spanish-speaking, n= 12
English-Spanish bilingual, 1 = monolingual English-speaking)
and education levels (elementary school to Ph.D.). For example,
Ricardo, a middle-to-high income English-Spanish bilingual
father with a Ph.D., expressed his opinion on whether mobile
screen technologies could benefit his children’s learning, “I think
definitely with um. . .there’s a lot of good apps that um. . . teach kids
um. . .how to recognize letters, you know? And how to sound out
words with the letters. Um. . .I think there’s a lot of good educational
apps for kids.” Furthermore, while neither of the two couples
who had infants thought their children could learn from apps at
their very young age, many parents of children ages 1.5–4 years
thought their children could learn from using apps. Table 3
contains a list of the specific types of apps parents across income
and parent gender groups said their children used or viewed.
Detriments of Mobile Screen
Technologies on Children’s Learning
In addition to thinking that mobile screen technologies
could benefit children’s learning, almost all parents (92%)
also thought these devices could be detrimental to children’s
learning. However, parents’ descriptions of “learning” when
discussing detriments associated with mobile screen technologies
encompassed such things as lack of social interactions for the
child, children’s dependence on or addiction to the device,
and encountering inappropriate content. Although the concerns
of children’s dependence on or addiction to the device and
encountering inappropriate content were mentioned across all
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 9
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
TABLE 3 | Specific types of apps parents said their children used.
App type/Name for
the child
Low-
income
mothers
Low-
income
fathers
Middle-
high
income
mothers
Middle-
high
income
fathers
Totals
Patterns, puzzles, and
maps
1 1 2 4
Coloring and art 1 1 4 6
Colors 2 1 3
Animals 2 1 3
Letters and reading 1 1 5 2 9
Spanish 1 1 2
Music 1 1 2 4
Numbers and math 1 1 2 1 5
Shapes 2 1 1 4
Entertainment game 2 1 1 3 6
Unsure 1 1
Total 6 14 18 10
gender, income, and educational groups, being worried about
children’s social interactions was a concern that was more
prevalent among middle-to-high income parents than low-
income parents. The next few sections discuss the themes related
to hindrances in greater detail.
Lack of Social Interactions
In total, 35% of parents expressed concerns about how mobile
screen technologies could be detrimental to their children’s social
interactions. For example, Yaritza, a middle-to-high-income
English-Spanish bilingual mother with a Master’s degree, said,
“I still feel like, yes the technology and everything is great in her
age but I feel like it does. it can interfere with it in terms of social
interactions or them wanting to go out and be social and wanting
them to go out and play.” Noticeably however, slightly more
middle-to-high income parents (n= 5 mothers, n= 5 fathers)
than low-income parents (n= 2 mothers, n= 2 fathers) expressed
concerns about the negative effects mobile screen technologies
could have on their children’s social interactions. Furthermore,
none of the monolingual Spanish-speaking parents expressed this
concern, but two of the six Spanish-speaking parents (education
level: high school – bachelor’s degree) had an infant and might
not have experienced this issue yet. However, there might still be
differences by language that should be further explored in future
studies. In looking at the education level of the four monolingual
Spanish-speaking parents who had children older than 1-year-
old, the highest level of formal education attained was some high
school. Thus, overall, it appears that education of a high school
degree or higher was associated with worrying about mobile
screen technologies interfering with children’s social interactions.
Dependence on or Addiction to the Device
A large percentage of parents (45%) also worried about the
possibility of their children becoming dependent on, or addicted
to, the mobile device. For instance, Yvonne, a low-income
English-Spanish bilingual mother who completed some college,
described, “when he wants to go to sleep, he will just grab my
phone and demand that I put something for him. That’s the
downside. I don’t want him to like get addicted to it. And I
don’t know he just sees it as, as something that he has to be
on all the time now.” This concern was spread across income
(n= 7 low, n= 11 middle-to-high income) and gender (n= 9
mothers, n= 9 fathers) groups, but not linguistic groups. That is,
none of the six monolingual Spanish-speaking parents (education
level: elementary – bachelor’s degree) expressed the concern that
their child could become dependent or addicted to the mobile
device. This suggests that this concern might be more prevalent
among parents of children older than one who have a high
school degree or more than among parents with lower levels of
formal education. It could also reflect differences in access to
information about technology dependence based on language.
Accessing Inappropriate Content
In addition to sharing concerns about children’s lack of social
interactions and dependence on the device, 30% of parents
also expressed concern that their child would come across
inappropriate content while using the device. This concern was
dispersed across income (n= 6 low, n= 6 middle-to-high
income), gender (n= 6 mothers, n= 6 fathers), linguistic groups
(n= 2 monolingual Spanish-speaking, n= 9 English-Spanish
bilinguals, 1 = monolingual English-speaking), and education
levels (middle school – Master’s degree). For example, Gerardo,
a low-income English-Spanish bilingual father who completed a
2-year certificate, captured the anxiety of many parents when he
said, “like advertisements or there’s this one program. I don’t know
if it’s still there anymore. I know there was a lot of complaints
from parents, cuz I saw it on the news as well, that it was on
some show where it’s like Spider Man and Anna from Frozen and
um. . . they did some things that are not like meant for children.”
Most of the parents who expressed concerns about their children
coming across inappropriate content also reported monitoring
their children’s use of the device. However, these parents felt
that they had little control over the random ads that suddenly
appeared when their child was viewing a video or video links their
children would click on when they turned their attention away.
It should be noted that half of the parents that brought up this
issue (n= 6) had a high school degree or beyond and used content
restrictions (e.g., parental controls) on the device.
Importance of Parental Mediation
Practices
Although most parents believed that mobile screen devices both
benefited and hindered their children’s learning, the vast majority
of parents (85%) across income (n= 17 low, n= 17 middle-
to-high income), gender (n= 18 mothers, n= 16 fathers),
linguistic groups (n= 6 monolingual Spanish-speaking, n= 27
English-Spanish bilingual, 1 = monolingual English-speaking),
and education levels (elementary school to Ph.D.) also discussed
their important role, as parents, in determining the extent to
which mobile screen technologies could support and limit their
child’s learning. As Luis, a middle-to-high income English-
Spanish bilingual father with a Master’s degree explained, “it’s
gotta be hand in hand with um, what the parent is doing.” Parents’
descriptions of mediation strategies included the importance
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 10
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
of appropriate content or apps, setting time limits, monitoring
children’s activities with the device, and assisting or helping
the child understand the content encountered when using the
device (i.e., co-use). However, although all of the aforementioned
mediation strategies were cited, some were mentioned more
frequently than others.
Quality Considerations of Content of Video or App
Across income (n= 12 low, n= 15 middle-to-high income),
gender (n= 14 mothers, n= 13 fathers), linguistic groups
(n= 5 monolingual Spanish-speaking, n= 21 English-Spanish
bilingual, 1 = monolingual English-speaking), and education
levels (elementary school to Ph.D.), most parents (67%) talked
about the importance of ensuring children were viewing
“appropriate” or “educational” content in videos and or apps.
When prompted, most parents described “educational” content
as videos or apps that taught children specific academic concepts,
such as numbers, colors, shapes, or language, such as letter sounds
or Spanish/English vocabulary. Olga, a low-income English-
Spanish bilingual mother with a high school degree, stressed the
importance of ensuring the content was age-appropriate when
she stated, “um. . .que no tengan mucha violencia para su edad.
Y que sean entretenidos, que sean adecuados a la edad de el
niño.” [English translation: “um. . .that they [videos/apps] don’t
have a lot of violence for his age. And that are entertaining and
appropriate for the child”].
Setting Time Limits
The second most frequently mentioned mediation strategy by
parents across income (n= 8 low, n= 8 middle-to-high
income), gender (n= 9 mothers, n= 7 fathers), linguistic groups
(n= 5 monolingual Spanish-speaking, n= 10 English-Spanish
bilingual, 1 = monolingual English-speaking), and education
levels (elementary school to Ph.D.) was setting time limits for
children when they used mobile screen technologies (40%).
Parents saw setting time limits as a way to maximize the learning
benefits of the device while minimizing its detriments. For
example, Chayo, a low-income monolingual Spanish-speaking
mother with an elementary school education, gave the following
response when asked if she thought mobile devices could benefit
her children’s learning “creo que. . . les ayudaría un poco pero no
tanto. Creo que cierta. . .media hora. . . um. . . pero no demasiado
tiempo. Si les serviría un poco.” [English translation: “I think
that. . .it would help them a little bit but not a lot. I think that
certain. . .half an hour. . .um. . . but not too much time. It would
help them a little bit”]. Similarly, most parents also mentioned
limiting the amount of time or the frequency of device use
by their child. For example, Jennifer, a middle-to-high income
English-Spanish bilingual mother who had completed some
college stated, “we’re not specific with minutes but we try to not
go more than like 30 or 35 min.”
Parental Monitoring
The third type of mediation strategy that was mentioned by
22% of parents across groups was monitoring their children’s
use of mobile devices. Parental monitoring was often described
as the importance of constantly checking or knowing what
children were doing on the mobile device without necessarily
co-using the device with children. For this category, slightly
more low-income parents (education level: elementary school-
bachelor’s degree) (n= 6) than middle-to-high income parents
(n= 3) talked about the importance of parental monitoring.
Additionally, more fathers (n= 6) than mothers (n= 3) also
mentioned this strategy. Nevertheless, parental monitoring was
mentioned by Spanish- and English-speaking parents (n= 1
monolingual Spanish-speaking, n= 7 English-Spanish bilingual,
1 = monolingual English-speaking). Olga, a low-income English-
Spanish bilingual mother with a high school degree, illustrated
the importance of monitoring what her 2-year-old child did
with the device in response to the question about mobile screen
technologies being bad for children’s learning, “no si tu estas al
pendiente de, de lo que el esta mirando.” [English translation: “not
if you are aware of, of what he is watching”].
Co-use
Finally, the fifth type of mediation strategy that was only
mentioned by a fifth of the parents (20%) stressed the importance
of co-using the mobile device with the child in order to assist
them or to help them understand the content they were viewing
or using. Although fewer parents mentioned this mediation
strategy as being important for children’s learning, the parents
who did mention it were distributed equally across income (n= 4
low, n= 5 middle-to-high income), gender (n= 5 mothers,
n= 4 fathers), and linguistic groups (n= 2 monolingual Spanish-
speaking, n= 6 English-Spanish bilingual, 1 = monolingual
English-speaking). In contrast with patterns from previous
mediation strategies, however, only parents with a high school
degree or more discussed the importance of co-use for their
child’s learning. For example, Luis, a middle-to-high income
English-Spanish bilingual father with a Master’s degree talked
about an experience when his son asked him a question about the
show he was viewing on his tablet, “so my son is learning about the
brain, so because I know that he’s watching the Magic School Bus,
I’ll say, yes son. You go in through the nose and did you see that they
went and they got, and they learned about the brain’s connections,
and that the brain has all these connections, right? And that the
brain has all these capacities, right? So he is learning, right? But
that learning is not happening if I’m not closing those gaps, right?”
Combination of Mediation Strategies
In addition to most parents talking about the importance of using
some form of mediation strategy to ensure children benefited
from mobile screen technologies, slightly more than half of the
parents (52%) also mentioned the importance of using multiple
types of mediation strategies. Notably, these parents were spread
across income (n= 9 low, n= 12 middle-to-high income), gender
(n= 12 mothers, n= 9 fathers), and linguistic groups (n= 4
monolingual Spanish-speaking, n= 16 English-Spanish bilingual,
1 = monolingual English-speaking), as well as education levels
(elementary school-Ph.D.). Nevertheless, it should be noted that
more middle-to-high income mothers (n= 8) discussed the
importance of using a combination of mediation strategies than
middle-to-high income fathers (n= 4) and low-income parents
(n= 4 mothers, n= 5 fathers). In the following excerpt, Jennifer,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 11
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
a middle-to-high income English-Spanish bilingual mother who
had completed some college, talked about the importance of
using several types of mediation strategies (i.e., appropriate
content, time limits) with her daughter, “it just depends how
the parents um, how long they let their child use it and what
they’re doing with it.” Similarly, Leslie, a bilingual middle-to-
high income mother with a master’s degree mentioned using
the mediation strategies of monitoring content and setting time
limits for her child, “of course, I check his videos before so it’s
very, you know, talks about friendship. And I set limits to that. . .
I went to the APA and took what they recommended for children
on screen time. He has 30 min for educational videos and 30 min
for activities.” Likewise, Luis, a middle-to-high income bilingual
father with a Master’s degree, also mentioned the strategies of
monitoring, content, and time limits when he stated, “we’re
very aware of the game apps. Like my daughter for example,
downloaded an app, like two so she’s played on apps. But again,
it’s not an everyday thing. She might do it once every other
week for about 20 min.” It is important to remember that Luis
also mentioned co-using the device with his children in the
previous section. Thus, Luis engaged in the mediation strategies
of monitoring, ensuring content was appropriate, setting time
limits, and co-using the device with his children.
In sum, most parents (85%) across income, gender, linguistic
groups, and education levels viewed parental mediation strategies
as the key factor in determining whether mobile screen
technologies benefited or hindered their children’s learning.
DISCUSSION
This study investigated diverse Latine parents’ beliefs and
attitudes about the ways mobile screen technologies supported
and/or hindered their young children’s learning and development
(ages 0–4). For the most part, our findings showed that parents
across income levels, gender, linguistic groups, and education
levels thought that they, as parents, played a key role in
determining the extent to which mobile screen technologies
positively or negatively influenced their children’s learning, and
only minor differences were noted across groups.
In general, parents thought that by using mediation strategies,
such as ensuring their children viewed appropriate content,
setting time limits for their children’s use of devices, and
continuously monitoring their children while they used a
device, they could ensure that their children primarily benefited
from using mobile screen devices. Although research exploring
parental mediation strategies in the context of mobile screen
technologies is still limited, the forms of mediation practices
parents in our study described using are consistent with those
found in the limited but growing body of research on mobile
screen technologies and young children (e.g., Beyens and
Beullens, 2017;Tang et al., 2018;Domoff et al., 2019), and those
found in the extensive research on TV, which have been primarily
been conducted among middle-class, White parents (Nathanson,
1999, 2001;Warren, 2003;Collier et al., 2016;Piotrowski, 2017).
Furthermore, the diverse Latine parents in this study described
being cognizant of the important role they play in mediating
their children’s use of mobile screen devices. This is particularly
meaningful since extensive research in the context of TV has
found that the types of mediation strategies parents engage
in are related to children’s success in learning from screens
(Nathanson, 1999;Livingstone et al., 2015). Specifically, viewing
age-appropriate and educational content has been associated with
children’s letter recognition, numeric skills, vocabulary, behavior,
and cognitive scores (Linebarger and Walker, 2005;Tomopoulos
et al., 2010).
However, despite finding that most mediation strategies were
spread across groups, we did note two differences. First, almost
a quarter of the parents with a high school degree or more
stressed the importance of actively co-using devices with their
children to ensure their child knew how to use the device
and also understood the content. Second, more educationally
diverse, low-income parents than middle-to-high income parents
and more fathers than mothers mentioned the importance of
continuously monitoring their children’s use of devices so that
they did not encounter inappropriate content. Other research
has found that parents with lower incomes have less knowledge
about technology and privacy-protecting features than higher
income parents (Nikken and Opree, 2018), and that lower income
parents utilize more free, commercial-laden apps as part of
the “app economy” (Burroughs, 2017). This could help explain
these patterns, if differences exist in access to information and
high-quality and commercial-free apps between families with
more and fewer financial resources, then children from lower-
income homes might be at a greater risk of encountering third-
party advertisements and having fewer parental control settings,
which would explain why lower-income parents in our sample
stressed the importance of more hands-on monitoring during
use. Finding that more fathers than mothers mentioned the
importance of continuously monitoring their children while
using the mobile screen device is a new finding that has not
been explored in previous research. In our sample, fathers
were slightly older than mothers. Thus, it could be that older
parents considered continuously monitoring their children more
important than younger parents.
Our finding of income differences in mediation is consistent
with the mediation of TV literature, which finds that middle-to-
high income parents are more likely to endorse active co-use of
the TV than low income parents (Warren, 2003), and that low
income parents are more likely to endorse more restrictive forms
of mediation than middle-to-high income parents (Warren,
2003). These differences are meaningful because past research on
TV has shown that viewing appropriate content and active co-
use of devices are two of the most effective mediation strategies
in ensuring that children learn from screens. Specifically, co-
viewing TV and co-using mobile screen devices have been
found to be among the most effective mediation strategies
in promoting child learning, especially among young children
(Zack and Barr, 2016;Herodotou, 2017;Sheehan et al., 2019).
This is because parents can use this time to help their child
better navigate the device and/or understand the concepts they
are viewing or reading about through the use of relevant and
appropriate scaffolds, such as explaining or elaborating in a
way the child can understand (Zack and Barr, 2016). In fact,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 12
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
research among toddlers has shown that children can transfer
learning from screen devices to real life when their parents
engage in high quality interactions while they co-use the device
(Zack and Barr, 2016).
More than income differences, formal education seems to
matter to utilizing the mediation strategy of co-use. We found
that parents with a high school education or higher more often
described engaging in active co-use of devices to ensure their
children learned, compared to parents with less educational
attainment. Thus, efforts might need to be made to reach parents
with lower levels of formal education (i.e., less than high school
diploma) and provide them with information about the benefits
of actively co-using mobile devices with their children along with
specific tips on how to actively co-use devices (Zack and Barr,
2016). In providing this information, researchers should also
stress the importance of actively engaging with the child while
they use the device as opposed to just passively sitting next to the
child, but not engaging in discussions or conversations (i.e., active
versus passive co-use).
In addition to expressing the importance of implementing
mediation strategies, all parents in our study believed that
mobile devices could benefit their children by helping them
learn concepts or develop their language skills. The lack of
differences in this belief between low-income and middle-to-
high income parents is in contrast with most of the existing
literature, which finds that low-income parents are more likely
than middle-to-high income parents to attribute learning benefits
to mobile screen technologies (Rideout, 2014;Radesky et al.,
2016). Furthermore, when asked about the ways mobile screen
technologies negatively affected their children’s learning, a large
portion of parents across income, education levels, gender, and
language groups talked about the risk of being exposed to
inappropriate content. Noticeably, none of the parents in our
sample talked about purchasing apps or subscriptions to reduce
the pop-up ads their children were exposed to while viewing
Youtube videos or using apps. Furthermore, only six parents,
with a high school degree or more, mentioned having content
restrictions on the device to control the content their children
were exposed to (e.g., Youtube for children). This suggests that
more efforts should be made toward making apps and videos
targeted toward young children ad-free and providing guidance
for parents on how to utilize parental controls.
Parents also talked about the negative effect mobile devices
could have on their children’s social interactions and about the
danger of becoming dependent on the device. These concerns
are similar to the views expressed by ethnically diverse parents
in survey studies and the few interview studies on mobile
screen technologies (Wartella et al., 2014;Radesky et al., 2016;
Common Sense Media, 2017;Sergi et al., 2017;McCloskey et al.,
2018). Future efforts should provide parents with information
and tips on how to reduce the risk of device dependence
and ways to recognize signs of device addiction. Importantly,
researchers should be cognizant of parents’ financial situation
when recommending alternative activities to device use. Ideally,
the alternatives should be free and easily accessible to parents
across the income spectrum, and also feasible for parents who are
tired from working long shifts.
Parents, for the most part, viewed mobile devices as
having the potential to be beneficial to their children’s
learning, but their control through the use of mediation
practices, determined the benefit as well as risk. This is
promising for future media interventions that could build on
parents’ existing views about mediation practices and help
bolster optimal practices. In other words, parents are already
aware that they play a vital role in determining whether
mobile screen technologies have a positive or negative effect
on their children’s learning. As such, interventions should
capitalize on this awareness and focus on increasing parents’
knowledge about effective mediation strategies, particularly
active co-use of mobile devices and time limits, especially for
younger children.
Limitation
There are a few limitations worth mentioning. First, although
we obtained an equal number of monolingual Spanish-
speaking mothers (n= 3) and fathers (n= 3), they were all
from lower income families with very low formal educational
attainment. Additionally, the vast majority of the sample
spoke English (n= 34), although 33 were bilingual. Hence, we
were not able to capture how experiences may differ between
monolingual Spanish-speaking and monolingual English-
speaking parents, especially across different economic and
educational backgrounds. Because language and SES were
confounded for the small sample of Spanish-speaking parents,
it was difficult to discern whether some of the findings were
attributable to their language, which is often used as a proxy
for acculturation, or their education level. Moreover, only
one monolingual Spanish-speaking mother had a bachelor’s
degree. Future studies should place more effort toward obtaining
a more socioeconomically diverse sample of Spanish-only
speaking parents.
Secondly, a large portion of the low-income fathers (40%)
and mothers (60%) in our sample were born in Mexico and
Ecuador compared to the majority of middle-to-high income
mothers (90%) and fathers (90%) who were born in the
United States. Given that research in other topics about parenting
beliefs has found that foreign-born Latina mothers sometimes
conceptualize parenting topics differently from US-born Latina
mothers (Zepeda and Espinosa, 1988), it is possible that we did
not fully capture the experiences of low-income, US-born Latina
mothers. Nevertheless, most of our findings appeared to be driven
by education level and gender, rather than country of origin.
Our sample was unexpectedly and primarily composed
of parents who were married or living with their partner.
Hence our findings might not generalize to single parents.
Additionally, the majority of the parents in our sample
happened to be parents to sons. Thus, it is possible that
patterns might be different for parents of daughters. Future
studies should include parents with equitable numbers of
sons and daughters. Finally, it is also important to mention
that we only examined parent beliefs about the role of
mobile devices on their children’s learning and not actual
practices. Therefore, it is possible that beliefs might not always
translate to actual practices for some parents. This underscores
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 13
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
the need for future work to examine whether parent beliefs about
their role as parents in mediating their children’s experiences with
mobile devices are related to their actual mediating practices.
CONCLUSION
This study addressed an important gap in the literature by
investigating how socioeconomically and linguistically diverse
Latine mothers and fathers believed mobile screen technologies
benefit and/or hinder their children’s learning. Our findings
suggest that low and middle-to-high income mothers and fathers
with diverse levels of education and linguistic abilities are well
aware of the important role they play in mediating their children’s
use of mobile devices to benefit their learning and protect against
potential harms. These findings also underscore the importance
of not just including diverse ethnic groups but also considering
the heterogeneity within ethnic groups. Observed differences
based on gender, income, language and education are important
and indicate that guidance around mobile screen device use could
be tailored for different types of parents. These findings can help
inform future work that seeks to promote optimal media habits
among diverse Latine families. Importantly, because there are
more similarities than differences across groups, it enables many
intervention efforts and information resources to look similar,
with other materials being tailored such as targeted materials
for parents with little formal education (e.g., less than high
school diploma).
Regardless of income or ethnicity, mobile devices are part of
almost all young children’s lives (Common Sense Media, 2017).
However, parental beliefs about the way these devices can support
their children’s learning and the ways in which parents can bolster
the benefits and minimize detriments have not been well studied
across different racial and ethnic groups. This study demonstrates
the many similarities and few differences in beliefs and practices
among socioeconomically diverse mothers and fathers within
the same ethnic group. To better understand how these ever-
present devices relate to young children’s learning, research
should include more educationally, economically, racially, and
ethnically diverse families.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and
approved by University of California, Irvine IRB Committee.
The participants provided their written informed consent to
participate in this study.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
WO the first author thought about the research idea, collected
the data, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. SR the
second author supported the first author in conceptualizing
and polishing the research idea along with the methodology,
helped with developing and verifying the codes, wrote
portions of the manuscript, and helped edit the final draft.
Both authors contributed to the article and approved the
submitted version.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The first author wishes to thank her Mexican parents,
family and community whose love, example and support
continue to guide and inspire her. La primera autora desea
agradecer a sus padres, familia, y comunidad Mexicana cuyo
amor, ejemplo y apoyo continúan guiándola e inspirándola.
Special thanks to the participating parents and Esmeralda
Martin, Maritza Morales-Gracia, Juan Gaytan, Dr. Diaz
and the Development in Social Context (DISC) Lab
for help with this project! This study was part of the
first author’s doctoral dissertation. Therefore, substantial
content overlaps with the dissertation available online
(Ochoa, 2019).
REFERENCES
Beyens, I., and Beullens, K. (2017). Parent-child conflict about children’s tablet use:
the role of parental mediation. New Media Soc. 19, 2075–2093. doi: 10.1177/
1461444816655099
Bodnar-Deren, S., Benn, E. K. T., and Howell, E. (2017). Stigma and postpartum
depression treatment acceptability among black and white women in the first
six months postpartum. Matern. Clin. Health J. 21, 1457–1468. doi: 10.1007/
s10995-017- 2263-6
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., and Rebello, P. R. (1999). “Are socioeconomic
gradients for children similar to those for adults: achievement and health of
children in the United States,” in Developmental Health and the Wealth of
Nations: Social, Biological, and Educational Dynamics, eds D. P. Keating, and
C. Hertzman, (New York, NY: The Guilford Press), 94–124.
Burroughs, B. (2017). YouTube kids: the app economy and mobile parenting. Soc.
Media Soc. 3, 1–8. doi: 10.1177/2056305117707189
Cabrera, N., Fitzgerald, H. E., Bradley, R. H., and Roggman, L. (2007).
Modeling the dynamics of paternal influences on children over the
life course. Appl. Dev. Sci. 11, 185–189. doi: 10.1080/10888690701762
027
Cabrera, N. J., and The SRCD Ethnic and Racial Issues Committee, (2013). Social
policy report: positive development of minority children. Shar. Child Youth
Dev. Knowledge 27, 1–30. doi: 10.1002/j.2379-3988.2013.tb00075.x
Certain, L. K., and Kahn, R. S. (2002). Prevalence, correlates, and trajectory of
television viewing among infants and toddlers. Pediatrics 109, 634–642. doi:
10.1542/peds.109.4.634
Collier, K. M., Coyne, S. M., Hawkins, A. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Erickson,
S. E., Memmot-Elison, M. K., et al. (2016). Does parental mediation of media
influence child outcomes? Meta-analysis on media time, aggression, substance
use, and sexual behavior. Dev. Psychol. 52, 798–812. doi: 10.1037/dev0000108
Common Sense Media, (2017). The Common Sense Census: Media use by Kids age
Zero to Eight. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
fpsyg-11-570712 October 8, 2020 Time: 17:25 # 14
Ochoa and Reich Parent Beliefs About Mobile Screens
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income
on child achievement: the indirect role of parental expectations and the
home environment. J. Fam. Psychol. 19, 294–304. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.
2.29
Domoff, S. E., Borgen, A. L., Foley, R. P., and Maffett, A. (2019). Excessive use of
mobile devices and children’s physical health. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 1,
169–175. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.145
Giacomini, M. K., and Cook, D. J. (2000). Users’ guides to the medical literature:
XXIII. Qualitative research in health care. Are the results of the study valid?
JAMA 2000, 357–362. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.4.478
Herodotou, C. (2017). Young children and tablets: a systematic review of effects
learning and development. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 34, 1–9. doi: 10.1111/jcal.
12220
Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H.,
Leister, K. P., et al. (2015). Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young
children. Pediatrics 136, 1044–1050. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-2151
Keels, M. (2009). Ethnic group differences in early head start parents’ parenting
beliefs and practices and links to children’s early cognitive development. Early
Childh. Res. Q. 24, 381–397. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.08.002
Linebarger, D. L., and Walker, D. (2005). Infants and toddlers’ television
viewing and language outcomes. Am. Behav. Sci. 48, 624–645. doi: 10.1177/
0002764204271505
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., and Lagae, K. (2015).
How Parents of Young Children Manage Digital Devices at Home: The
Role of Income, Education and Parental Style. Hamburg: EU Kids Online
LSE.
Madigan, S., Browne, S., Racine, N., Mori, C., and Tough, S. (2019). Association
between screen time and children’s performance on a developmental screening
test. JAMA Pediatr. 173, 244–250. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5056
McCloskey, M., Johnson, S. L., Benz, C., Thompson, D. A., Chamberlin, B., Clark,
L., et al. (2018). Parent perceptions of mobile device use among preschool-
aged children in Rural Head Start centers. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 50, 83–89.
doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.03.006
Mendelsohn, A. L., Brockmeyer, C. A., Dreyer, B. P., Fierman, A. H., Berkule-
Silberman, S., and Tomopoulos, S. (2010). Do verbal interactions with infants
during electronic media exposure mitigate adverse impacts on their language
development as toddlers? Infant Child Dev. 19, 577–593. doi: 10.1002/icd.
711
Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between
parental mediation and children’s aggression. Commun. Res. 26, 124–143. doi:
10.1177/009365099026002002
Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Parents versus peers: exploring the significance of peer
mediation of antisocial television. Commun. Res. 28, 251–274. doi: 10.1177/
009365001028003001
Nikken, P., and Opree, S. J. (2018). Guiding young children’s digital media use:
SES-differences in mediation concerns and competence. J. Child Fam. Stud. 27,
1844–1857. doi: 10.1007/s10826-018- 1018-3
Njoroge, W. F., Elenbaas, L. M., Garrison, M. M., Myaing, M., and Christakis,
D. A. (2013). Parental cultural attitudes and beliefs regarding young children
and television. JAMA Pediatr. 167, 739–745. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.20
13.75
Ochoa, W. (2019). Mobile Screen Technologies and Parents of Young Children:
Investigating Diverse Parents’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and their Interactions with
Children. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine, Irvine.
Available online at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3605m10z#main
Pew Research Center, (2015). The American Family Today. Washington, DC: Pew
Research Center.
Pew Research Center, (2017). Mobile Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center.
Piotrowski, J. (2017). “The parental media mediation context of young children’s
media use,” in Media Exposure During Infancy and Early Childhood: The Effect
of Content and Context on Learning and Development, eds R. Barr, and D.
Linebarger, (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 205–219. doi: 10.1007/
978-3- 319-45102- 2_13
Radesky, J. S., Eisenberg, S., Kistin, C. J., Gross, J., Block, G., Zuckerman, B.,
et al. (2016). Overstimulated consumers or next-generation learners? Parent
tensions about child mobile technology use. Ann. Fam. Med. 14, 503–508.
doi: 10.1370/afm.1976
Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., and Wright, J. C. (1990). Words from
“Sesame Stree”: learning vocabulary while viewing. Dev. Psychol. 26, 421–428.
doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.26.3.421
Rideout, V. J. (2014). Learning at Home: Families’ Educational Media use in
America. A Report of the Families and Media Project. New York, NY: The Joan
Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Roseberry, S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., and Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Skype me! Socially
contingent interactions help toddlers learn language. Child Dev. 85, 956–970.
doi: 10.1111/cdev.12166
Saldaña, J. (2003). Dramatizing data: a primer. Qual. Inq. 9, 218–236. doi: 10.1177/
1077800402250932
Schreier, M. (2014). “Qualitative content analysis,” in The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Data Analysis, ed. E. Flick, (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE), 170–184.
doi: 10.4135/9781446282243.n12
Sergi, K., Gatewood, R. Jr., Elder, A., and Xu, J. (2017). Parental perspectives on
children’s use of portable digital devices. Behav. Inform. Technol. 11, 1–14.
doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2017.1360941
Sheehan, K. J., Pila, S. P., Lauricella, A. R., and Wartella, E. A. (2019). Parent-child
interaction and children’s learning from a coding application. Comput. Educ.
140, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103601
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Tang, L., Darlington, G., Ma, D. W. L., Haines, J., and Guelph Family Health
Study, (2018). Mothers’ and fathers’ media parenting practices associated with
young children’s screen-time: a cross-sectional study. BMC Obsesity 5:37. doi:
10.1186/s40608-018- 0214-4
Tomopoulos, S., Dreyer, B. P., Berkule, S., Fierman, A. H., Brockmeyer, C., and
Mendelsohn, A. L. (2010). Infant media exposure and toddler development.
JAMA Pediatr. 164, 1105–1111. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.235
United States Census Bureau, (2016). Poverty Thresholds: 2016. Suitland, MD:
United States Census Bureau.
Warren, R. (2003). Parental mediation of preschool children’s television viewing.
J. Broadcast. Electron. Med. 47, 394–417. doi: 10.1207/s15506878jobem4703_5
Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Lauricella, A. R., and Connell, S. L. (2014). Parenting in
the Age of Digital Technology: A National Survey. Center on Media and Human
Development, School of Communication, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University.
Zack, E., and Barr, R. (2016). The role of interactional quality in learning from
touch screens during infancy: context matters. Front. Psychol. 7:1264. doi: 10.
3389/fpsyg.2016.01264
Zentella, A. C. (2017). “Limpia, fija y da esplendor”: challenging the symbolic
violence of the royal Spanish academy. Chiricú Journal: Latina/o Literatures,
Arts, and Cultures, 1, 21–42. doi: 10.2979/chiricu.1.2.04
Zepeda, M., and Espinosa, M. (1988). Parental knowledge of children’s behavioral
capabilities: a study of low-income parents. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 10, 149–159.
doi: 10.1177/07399863880102005
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2020 Ochoa and Reich. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication
in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 October 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 570712
