skip to main content
10.1145/2851581.2892481acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Parenting Digital Youth: How Now?

Published:07 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper gives initial results from a project on family dynamics around digital media use. From a large survey and (ongoing) interviews, we provide a wealth of data on parental concerns and mediation practices with "digital youth" of all ages. "Addiction" is a primary concern. Results underscore the contribution of parenting and family factors in moderating use. The need for better "parental controls" is palpable; we suggest reimagining them as collaborative tools to help train self-regulation.

References

  1. Hilda K. Kabali, et al. 2015. Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children, Pediatrics,136(6), 1044--1050.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. 2013. Policy statement: Children, adolescents and the media. Pediatrics, 132(5), 958--961.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Donald Shifrin, et al. 2015. Growing up digital: Media research symposium. American Academy of Pediatrics, 1(2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Haiyan Jia, Pamela Wisniewski, Heng Xu, Mary Beth Rosson and John M. Carroll. 2015. Risk-taking as a learning process for shaping teen's online information privacy behaviors. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 583--599. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Pamela Wisniewski, Haiyan Jia, Heng Xu, Mary Beth Rosson and John M. Carroll. 201 "Preventative" vs. "reactive:" How parental mediation influences teens' social media privacy behaviors. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 302--316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Norma O. Pecora and John P. Murray. 2006 Children and Television: 50 Years of Research. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Michael Brody. 2012. Seductive Screens: Children's Media - Past, Present, and Future. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mizuko Ito, et al. 200 Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning, 11(3), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Common Sense Media. 2013. Zero to Eight: Children's Media Use in America in 2013. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/zero-to-eight-2013.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mary Madden, Amanda Lenhart, Maeve Duggan, S. Cortesi, S. & U. Gasser. 2013. Teens and Technology 2013. Pew Research Center Internet Report. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/03/13/teens-and-technology-2013/).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Pagani, L., Fitzpatrick, C., Barnett, T. A., & Dubow, E. 2010. Prospective associations between early childhood television exposure and academic, psychosocial, and physical well-being by middle childhood. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 164(5), 425--431.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. American Psychological Association. 2015. Children and electronic media: How much is too much? In the Public Interest Newsletter(6). Retrieved June 29, 2015 from http://www.apa.org/pi/about/newsletter/2015/06/electronic-media.aspxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kimberly S. Young. 1998. Caught in the Net. New York: John Wiley & SonsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Daria J. Kuss, Antonius J. van Rooij, Gillian W. Shorter, Mark D. Griffiths, D. van de Mheen. 2013. Internet addiction in adolescents: Prevalence and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5),1987--1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. K.W. Beard, E.M. Wolf. 2001. Modification in the proposed diagnostic criteria for internet addiction. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 4(9),377-383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Marc N. Potenza. 2006. Should addictive disorders include no-substance related conditions? Addiction,101(1), 142-151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Tony Durkee, Michael Kaess, Vladimir Carli, Peter Parzer, et al. (2012). Prevalence of pathological internet use among adolescents in Europe: Demographic and social factors. Addiction,107(12--5), 2210--2222.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Chia-Yi Liu and Feng-Yang Kuo. 2007. A Study of Internet Addiction through the Lens of the Interpersonal Theory. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(6), 799--804.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Konstantinos Siomos, Georgios Floros, Virginia Fisoun, Dafouli Evaggelia, Nikiforos Farkonas, et.al. 2012. Evolution of Internet addiction in Greek adolescent students over a two-year period: The impact of parental bonding. European Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 21:211-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Carolyn Webster-Stratton and Mary Hammond. 1999. Marital Conflict Management Skills, Parenting Style, and Early-onset Conduct Problems: Processes and Pathways. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(6), 917--927.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Sook Park, Jaeyop. Kim, Cbum Cho. 2008. Internet addiction and correlations with family factors among South Korean adolescents. Adolescence, 43:895-909.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Amy M. Lampard, Janine M. Jurkowski, and Kirsten K. Davison. 2013. The Family Context of Low-Income Families Who Restrict Child Screen Time. Childhood Obesity, 9(5).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Chloe Madanes. 1981. Strategic Family Therapy. San Francicso: Jossey-BassGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Dorothy Stroh Becvar, Raphael J. Becvar. Systems Theory and Family Therapy: A Primer. University Press of America, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Peter Stratton. 2010. The evidence base of systemic family and couples therapy. London: Association for Family Therapy, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Alan Carr. 2009. The effectiveness of family therapy and systemic intervenions for child-focused problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 31(1),3--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Patti M. Valkenburg, Marina Krcmar, Allerd L. Peeters, and Nies M. Marseille. 1999. Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: "instructive mediation," "restrictive mediation," and "social coviewing". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(1), 52--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Amy I. Nathanson, William P. Eveland, Hee-Sun Park, and Bryant Paul. 2002. Perceived media influence and efficacy as predictors of caregivers' protective behaviors. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(3), 385--410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Sonia Livingstone and Ellen J. Helsper. 2008. Parental mediation of children's internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581--599.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Sarita Yardi and Amy Bruckman. 2011. Social and technical challenges in parenting teens' social media use. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,3237--3246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. danah boyd. 2013. It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Sahara Byrne and Theodore Lee. 2011. Toward predicting youth resistance to internet risk prevention strategies. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 55(1), 90--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Bill Johnston. 2015. Survey Question Writing Guide: Question Scale Length. Retrieved: December 11,2015 from https://www.surveygizmo.com/survey-blog/question-scale-length/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Bronson, M.B. 2000. Self-Regulation in Early Childhood: Nature and Nurture. New York: Guilford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. John Rosemond. 2000. Teenproofing: Fostering Responsible Decision-Making in your Teenager. Kansas City, MO: Andrew McMeel Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Anthony M. Graziano and David M. Diament. 1992. Parent Behavioral Training: An Examination of the Paradigm. Behavior Modification 16(1),3--Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Margaret Kerr, & Hakan Stattin. 2000. What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366--380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. ConnectSafely. 2014. Less parental control, more support of kids' self-regulation: Study. Retrieved January 3, 2016 from http://www.connectsafely.org/less-parental-control-more-support-of-kids-self-regulation-study/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Pamela Wisniewski, H. Jia, N. Wang, H. Xu, M. B. Rosson and J.M.Carroll 2015. Resilience mitigates the negative effects of adolescent internet addiction and online risk exposure. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4029--4038. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Parenting Digital Youth: How Now?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2016
      3954 pages
      ISBN:9781450340823
      DOI:10.1145/2851581

      Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2016

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI EA '16 Paper Acceptance Rate1,000of5,000submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader