Western Journal of Communication

ISSN: 1057-0314 (Print) 1745-1027 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwjc20

Parenting Style, Parental Stress, and Mediation of

Children’s Media Use

Ron Warren & Lindsey Aloia

To cite this article: Ron Warren & Lindsey Aloia (2019): Parenting Style, Parental
Stress, and Mediation of Children’s Media Use, Western Journal of Communication, DOI:
10.1080/10570314.2019.1582087

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2019.1582087

Published online: 01 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwjc20
Western Journal of Communication
Vol. 0, No. 0, 2019, pp. 1–18

Parenting Style, Parental Stress, and

Mediation of Children’s Media Use
Ron Warren & Lindsey Aloia

Parental mediation research is based largely in studies of TV mediation, with recent

work examining mediation of children’s video game and internet use. Few scholars
have explored mediation of cell phone use. Some research has examined mediation in
the context of parenting styles, but research suggests that parental stress can also
influence mediation behaviors. This study extends the findings on TV mediation to
cell phones and explores the role of parental stress in mediation. The findings indicate
that few factors are associated with both TV and cell phone mediation, and that
parental stress plays a significant role in the mediation process.

Keywords: Children; Parental Mediation; Parental Stress; Parental Support; Television;

Cell Phones

Today’s parents face an even greater task when it comes to raising media-literate
children than in previous generations. Researchers have for decades observed that
American children grow up in media-saturated environments (Lauricella et al.,
2016). Over time, and perhaps to the continued disbelief of adults, the number of
devices and amount of content available to children has exponentially increased.
Today’s adolescents, for example, report regular use of not just the televisions and
game consoles of their parents’ youth, but an array of digital, mobile devices that
deliver thousands of hours of media content directly to children. Staying abreast of
new devices, media platforms, and content seems overwhelming; media use is only
one on a list of parents’ concerns about their teen’s education, safety, substance use,

Ron Warren is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Arkansas.
Lindsey Alois is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Arkansas.
Correspondence to: Ron Warren, Department of Communication, 417 Kimpel Hall, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA. E-mail: ronw@uark.edu
A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2017 conference of the National Communication
Association (Dallas, TX).

ISSN 1057-0314 (print)/ISSN 1745-1027 (online) © 2019 Western States Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2019.1582087
2 R. Warren and L. Aloia
and sexual activity. Nevertheless, parents’ efforts to help children navigate the
modern media environment are as important as ever.
Parental mediation theory (Clark, 2011) discusses parents’ efforts to mitigate
media’s potential impact on children. Specifically, this literature examines parent–
child communication about media use and media content. Parental mediation refers
to “any strategy parents use to control, supervise, or interpret content” for their
children (Warren, 2001, p. 212). Most of the research on parental mediation theory
is focused on television viewing (Clark, 2011; Jiow, Lim, & Lin, 2017), but recent
studies extended this work to mediation of video gaming (e.g., Martins, Matthews, &
Ratan, 2017; Shin & Huh, 2011) and Internet browsing (e.g., Eastin, Greenberg, &
Hofschire, 2006). Limited research, however, has examined parental mediation on
children’s cell phone behaviors (Hwang & Jeong, 2015; Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2016). Given
the proliferation of cell phone ownership for children ages 13–18 years old (Laur-
icella et al., 2016) and children’s use of cell phones to access media, surf the Internet,
participate in social networking, and communicate with others (Mobile kids, 2017;
Westcott, Lippstreu, & Cutbill, 2017), exploring how parents mediate children’s cell
phone activity is likely to move this line of inquiry forward.
Some locate the roots of parental mediation in demographics, such as parent’s
sex and education levels or a child’s age (Sonck, Nikken, & de Haan, 2013). Others
have suggested that mediation is linked to parents’ attitudes about media (Living-
stone & Helsper, 2008). Still others maintain that mediation is likely the result of
broader patterns of parental involvement (Martins et al., 2017; Warren, 2001, 2005)
or parenting style (Eastin et al., 2006). Building on that literature, we explore how
parenting style contributes to parents’ cell phone mediation, as current rates of cell
phone penetration make it clear that the devices are nearly ubiquitous. Multiple
devices in the home media mix mean more demands on parents, potentially adding
to parental concerns regarding media use. So long as resources are sufficient to
children’s needs, parent–child relationships are likely to stay in equilibrium. When
needs outweigh available resources, this can result in parental stress (Deater-
Deckard, 2008). In addition to parenting style, then, we posit that parental stress
impacts parents’ cell phone mediation strategies. In the sections that follow, we
first review research highlighting parenting style and derive hypotheses and
research questions linking parenting style to parental mediation. Then, we define
parental stress, consider how parental stress may influence mediation strategies,
and derive additional hypotheses and research questions testing this link.

Parental Mediation Theory

Parental mediation theory examines the strategies that parents employ to control,
supervise, or interpret media content for their children (Warren, 2001). Clark (2011)
noted that most work on parental mediation theory concentrates on negative media
effects. As such, mediation strategies are often preventative. The literature identified
three principal types of parental mediation: (a) restrictive mediation, or formal rules
for children’s media use, (b) active mediation, or discussion about the content of the
 Western Journal of Communication 3

media, and (c) co-use, or joint use of the media (Nathanson, 2001; Valkenburg,
Krcmar, Peeters, & Marseille, 1999). To date, few studies have examined parental
mediation on children’s cell phone activity, principally to prevent addictive phone
use. For example, Hwang and Jeong (2015) found that restrictive and active parental
mediation intended to mitigate addictive cell phone use was predicted by the age of
the child and parental personality characteristics, such as neuroticism, openness, and
agreeableness. Lee et al. (2016) concluded that restrictive and active parental media-
tion strategies were not effective in preventing cell phone addiction, especially
among older teens. As demonstrated by the narrow focus of previous research,
there is a need for empirical analyses that examines previously identified factors
that influence parental mediation of older platforms (e.g., television) in the context
of children’s cell phone behaviors. Toward this end, we examined the role of
mediation in the general context of parenting styles and parental experiences.

Parenting Style
Children’s media use is one worry on a long list of parents’ concerns about their children’s
behaviors. Media usage and content exposure is less concerning than education, safety,
substance use, and sexual activity. Furthermore, Livingstone (2007) found the parents
reported fewer conflicts with their children regarding television use than chores, school-
work, or bedtime. Parental mediation, however, is part of a family dynamic that includes
parental concern and potential conflict. Accordingly, we posit that parental mediation is
influenced by parenting style. More specifically, the concept of parenting style reflects the
larger context of parent–child relations and describes the standard communication stra-
tegies that parents perceive as appropriate during child-rearing.
Baumrind (1991) developed a typology of parenting styles based on parents’
emphases on demandingness, including parental control, discipline, and supervision,
and demands regarding children’s maturity, and responsiveness, including encour-
agement of children’s self-reliance and individuality through awareness and support
of the children’s needs. Three parenting styles emerged from these emphases.
Authoritarian parents are described as highly demanding and limitedly responsive,
using more rigid rule structures that enforce expectations of child obedience without
question. Conversely, permissive parents are characterized as highly responsive and
limitedly demanding, attuning to their children’s needs with low levels of discipline.
Finally, authoritative parents are represented as both demanding and responsive,
encouraging child autonomy within a structured, but flexible set of rules.
Previous studies explored the links between parental mediation, children’s media
use, and parenting styles. More specifically, Eastin et al. (2006) found that author-
itative parents were most likely to use restrictive, active, and co-use Internet media-
tion compared to authoritarian and permissive parents. The authors argued that this
likely reflects parents’ desires for balance between both demandingness and respon-
siveness. Authoritarian parents used restrictive Internet mediation at comparable
levels to authoritative parents, but used active and co-use Internet mediation at
significantly lower levels than authoritative parents. Permissive parents utilized
4 R. Warren and L. Aloia
restrictive, active, and co-use Internet mediation at the lowest levels compared to
authoritative and authoritarian parents.
Although less explicitly linked to parenting styles, Abelman (2001) found that
parents who were likely to demonstrate parental power through their parenting
behaviors were also likely to use television ratings to restrict children’s television
content consumption. Conversely, parents who preferred open communication with
children moderately relied on television ratings to control children’s television usage.
In addition, Bleakley, Ellithorpe, and Romer (2016) found that low levels of mon-
itoring and poor parent–child relationships were related to decreased mediation of
children’s Internet use. Fujioka and Austin (2002) found that parents’ who establish
an open communication style with their children used active mediation more often
compared to restrictive and co-use mediation of television viewing. Conversely,
control-orientated communication was positively correlated with parents’ evaluative
comments about content without discussion. Finally, Mazur et al. (2004) found that
children of parents who restricted access to violent or sexual content were more
likely to avoid those topics in parent–child discussions.
Taken together, the findings suggest that authoritative parenting is positively
correlated with multiple mediation strategies, whereas other parenting styles are
linked to either an emphasis on restrictive mediation (authoritarian parenting) or
avoidance of all mediation (permissive parenting). Unfortunately, the available
empirical results on cell phone mediation (Hwang & Jeong, 2015; Lee et al., 2016)
do not suggest whether parenting styles will similarly influence restrictive, active, or
co-use cell phone mediation. Toward this end, we first seek to replicate previous tests
regarding the relationship between parenting styles and television mediation (Eastin
et al., 2006). We then question if these relationships are replicable for cell phone
mediation. Therefore:
H1: Authoritative parenting is positively related to restrictive, active, and co-use
television mediation.
H2: Permissive parenting is negatively related to restrictive, active, and co-use
television mediation.
H3: Authoritarian parenting is positively related to restrictive television mediation
and negatively related to active and co-use mediation television mediation.
RQ1: Are parenting styles related to restrictive, active, and co-use cell phone
mediation?

Parental Stress
Although parenting style is relatively stable over time, parenting behaviors are
influenced by parental stress. According to the physiological model of stress, stress
is defined as an interactive relationship between the external environmental
demands and the individual’s internal adaptive capacity (Patniak, 2014). When
faced with a potential stressor, the individual evaluates the external threat. The
primary appraisal considers the significance, stability, and controllability of the
 Western Journal of Communication 5

threat (Webster-Stratton, 1990). Following the primary appraisal, the individual

assesses the internal coping resources available to manage the threat. Taken together,
external stressors are weighed in relation to an individual’s internal adaptive capa-
city. If the external demands exceed the individual’s internal capacity to manage the
situation, a stress response is triggered (Cohen, Kessler, & Underwood Gordon,
1995). The greater the disparity between the external demands and the internal
coping ability, the greater the experienced stress.
Within the context of parental stress theory, stress is defined as a role-based
phenomenon that occurs when available parenting resources are incapable of meet-
ing children’s needs (Deater-Deckard, 2008). Webster-Stratton (1990) identified
three categories of stressors that influence parenting resources: (a) extrafamilial,
(b) intrafamilial, and (c) child-specific. Extrafamilial stressors exist outside of the
family unit and include factors, such as socioeconomic status (SES), race, and
unemployment (Parkes, Sweeting, & Wight, 2015). Intrafamilial stressors involve
role or interpersonal issues within the family, such as single parenthood or marital
distress (Kulick & Heine-Cohen, 2011). Finally, child-specific stressors encompass
child behavioral or health problems that heighten parenting demands. Beyond these
three types of stressors, parental stress may also develop from parents’ beliefs and
motivational systems. Specifically, these stressors include parents’ goals and expecta-
tions as dictated by perceived cultural norms, or parents’ role relevance.
A substantial literature documented the negative effects of parental stress on
parenting behaviors. Generally, stressed parents were more likely to display disrupted
parenting practices (Corona, Lefkowitz, Sigman, & Romo, 2005; Deater-Deckard,
2008; Webster-Stratton, 1990). More specifically, higher levels of stress induce more
parental control, discipline, and coercion (Putnick et al., 2008). Heightened parental
stress also leads to disengaged parenting (Vandewater, Park, Lee, & Lee, 2008), with
more parent–child conflict (Gutman, McLoyd, & Tokoyawa, 2005) and less parental
involvement (Camacho-Thompson, Gillen-O’Neel, Gonzales, & Fuligni, 2016). Stress
levels are also negatively related to parents’ responsiveness and affection (McLoyd,
1990), as well as positive parent–child interactions (Gutman et al., 2005).
Two studies directly tested the influence of parental stress on parental television
mediation. First, Beyens and Eggermont (2017, 2016) examined the association
between mothers’ working hours and children’s television time, and the mediating
role of mothers’ parenting time pressure. The authors theorized that work–family
demands create role stress, which increases pressure on parents’ time and results in
increased children’s television time. Second, Abelman (2001) investigated parental
television mediation for children diagnosed with learning disorders, a child-specific
source of parental stress. Abelman reported that direct viewing restrictions were the
most commonly used parental television mediation strategy with only 11% of
parents using active television mediation.
In summary, there is evidence that parental stress disrupts parenting behaviors,
including parental mediation of children’s media use. One potential outcome is more
frequent restrictive mediation, but less frequent active and co-use mediation. This
6 R. Warren and L. Aloia
might be particularly true in family structures previously linked to heightened levels
of stress (e.g., low-income or single-parent families). If this is the case with legacy
television platforms, then we might logically ask if similar relationships apply to
parents’ mediation of cell phone use. Again, the issue is to what extent findings
related to parental mediation theory extend to mobile devices. Hence, we offer the
following hypotheses and research question:
H4: Parental stress is negatively related to active and co-use television mediation.
H5: Parental stress is positively related to restrictive television mediation.
RQ2: Is parental stress related to restrictive, active, and co-use cell phone
mediation?

Methods
To test the hypothesized relationships, we surveyed US parents and children using
the market research firm Qualtrics. Qualtrics collects data online from a randomly
selected panel of survey participants. To participate in this project, one parent and
a matched child, aged 12–17, were required to complete the questionnaire. The
sampling strategies were weighted to ensure demographic representativeness by sex
and race/ethnicity. Participation incentives were based on a points system that, over
time, provided respondents with cash, airline miles, or similar rewards. These
incentives were only awarded when a matched parent and child both completed
the survey. Safeguards were used to prevent duplicate responses and exclusions were
used based on participation frequency in other surveys. To avoid self-selection bias,
the survey invitation did not include specific details about the content of the survey.
Those details were revealed in an informed consent document that preceded the
survey.

Participants
The sample of 504 parents (49.8% females) ranged from 25 to 74 years old
(M = 43.79, SD = 9.20). Most identified as White (72.82%), but some individuals
identified as Latinx (15.3%) and African American (11.9%). Parents most frequently
reported being married or partnered (78.6%); others were single (9.1%) and
divorced/separated/widowed (12.3%). By income, 20.2% of respondents reported
annual household earnings of less than $40,000; 19.3% earned between $40,000
and $59,999; 19.8% earned between $60,000 and $79,999; 15.5% earned between
$80,000 and $99,999; and 25.2% earned more than $100,000. Just over one quarter of
participants (28.4%) reported that they did not work outside the home, 26.4% stated
that they worked less than 40 hours per week, 29.2% reported that they worked
approximately 40 hours per week, and 16.1% said that they worked more than
40 hours per week. Respondents replied to the survey in relation to their residential
children, ages 12–17 years, who had most recently celebrated a birthday. Forty-six
percent of the children were female, and the average age of child respondents was
 Western Journal of Communication 7

14.54 years (SD = 1.62). Most children identified as White (69.3%), but also included
Latinx (14.5%), African American (11.5%), and multiracial children (4.8%).

Measures
Parenting Style
Parents replied to 30 items from Reitman, Rhode, Hupp, and Altobello’s (2002)
Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ-R) to assess the standard communication
strategies that they perceived as appropriate during child-rearing. Parents responded
to statements using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree).
The first 10-item subscale measured authoritarian parenting, or parenting with an
emphasis on control and child obedience, with higher scores indicating more
authoritarian parenting (M = 36.07, SD = 5.71, α = .78). The second 10-item subscale
measured authoritative parenting, or parenting with an emphasis on maturity,
responsiveness, and communication, with higher scores indicating more authorita-
tive parenting (M = 40.73, SD = 4.27, α = .75). The third 10-item subscale measured
permissive parenting, or parenting with an emphasis on child freedom and auton-
omy, with higher scores indicating more permissive parenting (M = 27.53, SD = 7.73,
α = .78).

Parental Stress
Parents responded to 10 items from Barnett and Marshall’s (1991) Parental Role
Quality Scale (PRQS) to assess the positive rewards and negative concerns in specific
domains of child-rearing (e.g., financial strain, overload of responsibilities, sharing
activities, companionship). Parents responded to statements using a 4-point scale
(1 = Not at all, 4 = Extremely). Because the data on the positive rewards subscale
were negatively skewed (M = 3.56, SD = .53, skewness = −1.67), only the negative
concerns subscale was used in the subsequent analyses, with higher scores indicating
more parental stress (M = 2.24, SD = .74, α = .90).

Television Mediation
Parents responded to 15 items from Valkenburg et al.’s (1999) Television Mediation
Scale to assess parents’ strategies to control, supervise, or interpret television content
for their child. Parents responded to statements using a 4-point scale (1 = Never,
4 = Often), with higher scores indicating more parental television mediation. The
first five-item subscale measured restrictive television mediation, or formal rules for
children’s television usage (M = 12.18, SD = 4.51, α = .89). The second five-item
subscale measured active television mediation, or discussion about the content of
television shows. Because this study focused on parents of older children, two
adapted items concerned parents telling children about something they saw on
television and parents encouraging children to learn more about something they
saw on television (Guo & Nathanson, 2011; M = 19.47, SD = 5.71, α = .94). The final
8 R. Warren and L. Aloia
five-item subscale measured co-use television mediation, or joint consumption of
television (M = 16.27, SD = 3.49, α = .91).

Cell Phone Mediation

Parents responded to 10 items adapted from Ofcom’s (2017) measure of parental
Internet mediation to assess parents’ strategies to control, supervise, or interpret cell
phone content for their children (Warren, 2017). Parents responded to statements
using a 4-point scale (1 = Never, 4 = Often), with higher scores indicating more
parental cell phone mediation. The first six-item subscale measured restrictive cell
phone mediation, or formal rules for children’s cell phone usage (M = 13.81,
SD = 5.11, α = .88). The second three-item subscale measured active cell phone
mediation, or discussion about how to properly use a cell phone and appropriately
manage cell phone content (M = 13.20, SD = 4.64, α = .86). The last item measured
co-use cell phone mediation, or joint use of a cell phone (M = 2.41, SD = 1.29).

Data Analysis
To address the hypotheses and research questions, we conducted hierarchical regres-
sion analyses with mediation types as the dependent variables. The first step of the
analyses included the demographic controls identified in previous research as related
to parental mediation (Eastin et al., 2006; Valkenburg et al., 1999; Warren, 2001) or
parental stress (Deater-Deckard, 2008). The demographic controls were parent’s sex
(dummy coded, 0 = male), parent’s race (dummy coded, 0 = White), parent’s work
hours, parent’s education, parent’s marital status, household income, child’s age, and
child’s sex (dummy coded, 0 = male). The second step of the analyses included the
three parenting styles and parental stress. The third step of the analyses included six
product terms that represented two-way interactions between each parenting style
and parental stress. The two-way interactions served as post hoc tests for interaction
effects.

Results
Table 1 presents the zero-order correlations between our variables of interest.
Consistent with H1, authoritative parenting was positively related to all forms of
television mediation. Related to H2, permissive parenting was negatively related to
co-use television mediation. In addition, authoritarian parenting was positively
related to restrictive and active television mediation (H3). Toward answering RQ1,
authoritative parenting was positively related to restrictive and active cell phone
mediation; permissive parenting was positively related to restrictive cell phone
mediation and co-use cell phone mediation; and authoritarian parenting was
positively related to all forms of cell phone mediation. Counter to H4, parental
stress was positively associated with active television mediation. Parental stress was
 Western Journal of Communication 9

Table 1 Zero-Order Correlations among Variables of Interest

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Authoritarian —
parenting style
2. Permissive parenting .03 —
style
3. Authoritative .18*** .12* —
parenting style
4. Parental stress .22*** .30*** −.02 —
5. TV Restrictive .26*** .01 .16*** .24*** —
mediation
6. TV Active mediation .12** .02 .32*** .15** .68*** —
7. TV Co-Use −.06 −.13** .30*** −.04 .32*** .53*** —
8. Cell Phone Restrictive .19*** .16** .12* .31*** .68*** .57*** .26*** —
9. Cell Phone Active .13* .07 .26*** .21*** .58*** .68*** .41*** .73*** —
mediation
10. Cell Phone Co-Use .04 .24*** .12* .22*** .35*** .38*** .17** .41*** .43***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

also positively related to restrictive television mediation (H5). Finally, parental

stress was positively related to all forms of cell phone mediation (RQ2).
Table 2 presents the regression analyses for television mediation. The model
accounted for 19.3% of the total variance in restrictive television mediation, 13.2%
of the total variance in co-use television mediation, and 20.0% of the total variance in
active television mediation. On the first step of the analyses, we observed significant
positive coefficients for parent’s race and parent’s education and a significant negative
coefficient for child’s age when predicting restrictive television mediation. We also
observed a significant positive coefficient for parent’s education and a significant
negative coefficient for child’s age when predicting active television mediation. On
the second step of the analyses, we observed several significant relationships between
parenting styles and parental stress when predicting television mediation (β < .30). We
observed a significant positive coefficient for authoritarian parenting when predicting
restrictive television mediation and a significant negative coefficient for authoritarian
parenting when predicting co-use television mediation (H1). Related to H2, we found
significant negative coefficients for permissive parenting when predicting restrictive,
co-use, and active television mediation. Conversely, we discovered significant positive
coefficients for authoritative parenting when predicting all three forms of television
mediation (H3). We also observed significant positive coefficients for parental stress
when predicting restrictive (H5) and active television mediation (H4). None of the
two-way interactions on the third step of the analyses significantly predicted restrictive
or co-use television mediation. Results revealed a significant interaction between
10 R. Warren and L. Aloia
Table 2 Hierarchical Regression of Factors Predicting Television Mediation
Restrictive Co-Use Active

Step 1
Parent’s sex (0 = Male) −0.07 0.10 −0.02
Parent’s race (0 = White) 0.11* −0.04 0.07
Parent’s work hours 0.06 0.04 0.07
Parent’s education 0.12* −0.01 0.16**
Parent’s marital status 0.04 0.06 −0.07
Household income −0.02 −0.02 −0.03
Child’s age −0.19*** 0.00 −0.19***
Child’s sex (0 = Male) −0.02 0.04 0.00
Δ R2 .067*** .016 .080***
Step 2
Authoritarian style 0.18*** −0.12** 0.02
Permissive style −0.13** −0.16*** −0.12**
Authoritative style 0.11* 0.29*** 0.29***
Parental stress 0.26*** 0.07 0.20***
Δ R2 .130*** .124*** .130***
Step 3
Authoritarian × Stress −0.31 −0.37 −0.85**
Permissive × Stress 0.40 0.52* 0.29
Authoritative × Stress −0.51 0.55 0.31
Δ R2 .005 .018* .014*
Adj. R2 Total .19*** .13*** .20***
F(15 481) = 8.90*** 6.02*** 9.26***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

authoritarian parenting and parental stress when predicting active television media-
tion; however, the third step did not account for a significant amount of variance in
active television mediation.
Table 3 presents the regression analyses for cell phone mediation. The model
accounted for 18.4% of the total variance in restrictive cell phone mediation, 11.2%
of the total variance in co-use cell phone mediation, and 17.3% of the total variance
in active cell phone mediation. On the first step of the analyses, we observed
a significant negative coefficient for child’s age when predicting restrictive cell
phone mediation. We also observed significant positive coefficients for parent’s
education and significant negative coefficients for child’s age when predicting co-
use and active cell phone mediation. On the second step of the analyses, we observed
several significant relationships between parenting styles and parental stress when
predicting cell phone mediation (β < .30). We observed a significant positive
coefficient for authoritarian parenting when predicting restrictive cell phone
 Western Journal of Communication 11

Table 3 Hierarchical Regression of Factors Predicting Cell Phone Mediation

Restrictive Co-Use Active

Step 1
Parent’s sex (0 = Male) −0.04 −0.03 −0.03
Parent’s race (0 = White) 0.03 0.03 0.06
Parent’s work hours 0.02 0.06 0.05
Parent’s education 0.11 0.15* 0.13*
Parent’s marital status 0.04 0.00 0.01
Household income −0.03 −0.12 −0.05
Child’s age −0.22*** −0.16** −0.19***
Child’s sex (0 = Male) −0.01 0.01 0.02
Δ R2 .075*** .055** .067**
Step 2
Authoritarian style 0.10* −0.04 0.03
Permissive style −0.02 0.14* −0.09
Authoritative style 0.09 0.07 0.22***
Parental stress 0.29*** 0.20*** 0.25***
Δ R2 .119*** .075*** .120***
Step 3
Authoritarian × Stress −0.42 0.26 −0.44
Permissive × Stress 1.12*** 0.71* 0.83**
Authoritative × Stress −0.52 −0.05 0.06
Δ R2 .023* .018 .019*
Adj. R2 Total .18*** .11*** .17***
F (15358) = 6.59*** 4.13*** 6.21***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

mediation, a significant positive coefficient for permissive parenting when predicting

co-use cell phone mediation, and a significant positive coefficient for authoritative
parenting when predicting active cell phone mediation (RQ1). Related to RQ2, we
found significant positive coefficients for parental stress when predicting restrictive,
co-use, and active cell phone mediation. On the third step of the analyses, the
interaction between permissive parenting and parental stress significantly predicted
restrictive, co-use, and active cell phone mediation.

Discussion
Parents face an enormous responsibility raising children in a media-saturated envir-
onment that requires guidance for children to effectively and appropriately navigate
the modern media landscape. This study examined parents’ television and cell phone
mediation as a function of both parenting style and parental stress. More specifically,
we posited that parenting style, namely authoritative, permissive, and authoritarian
12 R. Warren and L. Aloia
parenting, was related to restrictive, active, and co-use television mediation. In
addition, we examined the relationships between parenting styles and the same
three parental mediation strategies for children’s cell phone usage. We also consid-
ered the role of parental stress in restrictive, active, and co-use mediation on
children’s television consumption and cell phone behaviors.
The results confirm previous parental mediation theory research that located the
roots of parental television mediation in demographic variables (e.g., Valkenburg
et al., 1999). Specifically, higher educated parents generally reported more television
mediation and cell phone mediation. The findings also confirmed the negative
relationship between child’s age and mediation levels (e.g., Sonck et al., 2013),
a pattern that is consistent with the trajectory of adolescent development. Finally,
our results found that parents of color reported higher levels of restrictive television
mediation compared to White parents (Warren, 2005). This, however, was not true
for parental cell phone mediation. Minority households traditionally report higher
levels of television viewing (U.S. TV Trends, 2011). Accordingly, we deduce that
minority parents have more opportunity to mediate children’s television viewing.
This difference bears continued research as greater numbers of minority families
adopt smart phones (Anderson, 2015) and rely on mobile devices for Internet access
rather than computers (Brown, Lopez, & Lopez, 2016).

Parenting Style
Our results are consistent with previous research that investigated the influence of
parenting style on parental television mediation. Authoritarian parenting was related
to increased active television mediation and decreased co-use television mediation. In
addition, permissive parenting was negatively associated with restrictive, active, and
co-use television mediation. Finally, authoritative parenting was positively correlated
with the three types of television mediation. Taken together, these results support the
results of Eastin et al. (2006) that demonstrated that higher levels of demandingness
are linked to more television mediation, and a balance of demandingness and respon-
siveness yields a similar balance of active and restrictive television mediation. Health
care providers (e.g., Chassiakos, Radesky, Christakis, Moreno, & Cross, 2016) recom-
mend to parents this mixed television mediation approach. Continued development of
parental mediation theory, then, should include further exploration of the relation-
ships between mediation practices as part of parenting behaviors in general. Previous
studies (Martins et al., 2017; Warren, 2001, 2005) argued that mediation was indicative
of larger patterns of parental involvement in children’s lives, day-to-day levels of
parent–child communication, and children’s access to parents. Understanding media-
tion within the context of domestic life might also allow future research aimed at
addressing Clark’s (2011) concern that mediation scales only measure preventative
behavior, rather than co-use that can constructively build children’s media literacy.
Playful parent–child interactions with media are likely part of a larger pattern of
parental involvement and shared activities with children, with or without media.
 Western Journal of Communication 13

Interestingly, the relationships between parenting styles’ and television media-

tion were not duplicated when examining cell phone mediation. Each parenting
style, instead, was linked to one specific type of cell phone mediation. In particular,
authoritarian parenting was positively related to restrictive cell phone mediation;
permissive parenting was positively related to co-use cell phone mediation; and
authoritative parenting was positively related to active cell phone mediation. To
explain similar results, Hwang and Jeong (2015) argued that parents’ personality
traits, specifically agreeableness, openness, and neuroticism, dictate cell phone
mediation. Given the previously documented connections between parenting styles
and personality, this may help to unpack our findings. Huver, Otten, de Vries, and
Engels (2010), for example, documented relationships between agreeableness,
conscientiousness, and extraversion, and parents’ levels of support or control.
Furthermore, Oliver, Guerin, and Coffman (2009) found that parenting behaviors
mediated the relationships between parental personality and adolescent behavior.
Future research on parental mediation theory should examine the links between
personality, parenting style, and mediation. Findings could help health care pro-
viders, teachers, and caregivers identify persuasive strategies that encourage higher
levels of mediation with parents of varying personality types.
The limited number of significant connections between parenting styles and
parental cell phone mediation has two additional plausible explanations. First, the
pattern may reflect families’ recent purchase of their child’s cell phone. One
marketing study (Influence Central, 2016), for example, reported that, on average,
children acquired their first cell phone at about 10 years of age. Hence, our data
might capture one point in the process of viewing new technologies as an essential
element in child development (Livingstone, 2007). Once families fully integrate
new devices into their daily routines, parental mediation is likely to decrease
because children are older and more independent. Second, children’s technological
expertise with smart phones might match or even exceed their parents’ proficien-
cies. Unfamiliarity with the technology or content makes it more difficult to
exercise parental role structures. Katz (2010, 2016) pointed to this issue in families
that experience role ambiguity and reverse socialization (children teaching their
parents to use media devices). Future research should examine these explanations
by accounting for length of device ownership, parents’ self-efficacy with mobile
devices, and occurrences of reverse socialization with longitudinal designs.

Parental Stress
Two studies to date explored the role of parental stress on children’s media use
(Beyens & Eggermont, 2017; Beyens, Eggermont, & Nathanson, 2016). Those studies,
however, did not assess parental mediation despite demonstrating the effect of
parental stress on children’s television viewing. Accordingly, our study contributes
to the literature on the role that stress plays in parental mediation. This is particu-
larly important given that previous research (e.g., Wartella, Rideout, Lauricella, &
14 R. Warren and L. Aloia
Connell, 2014) indicated that stress changes media use patterns in the family and
parent–child relationships (Laursen & Collins, 2004).
Our results indicated that parental stress is related to parental television and cell
phone mediation. More specifically, stress was more strongly and positively related
to nearly all forms of television and cell phone mediation than the three parenting
styles. Building from the literature on parental stress and levels of control or
coercion (Putnick et al., 2008), parents are more likely to exert traditional authority
structures to regain a sense of efficacy when available resources to meet children’s
needs are low. This may explain increased levels of restrictive television and cell
phone mediation when parental stress is high. Contrary to our hypothesis, however,
parental stress was also positively related to active television and cell phone media-
tion. Perhaps stressed parents avoid conversations generally with their children and
specifically about media content. Our measures of active parental mediation, how-
ever, failed to account for the valence of those discussions. As noted by Austin, Bolls,
Fujioka, and Engelbertson (1999), it is important to assess parents’ positive versus
negative comments about media content. Increased levels of stress might affect not
just the frequency of active mediation, but also the tone. Critical comments about
media might be a way for parents to express their expertise about media content and
their authority over children.
Whereas, permissive parenting alone was negatively related to mediation, the four
significant interaction effects demonstrated that permissive parenting and stress were
linked to more television co-use, cell phone restrictive, cell phone active, and cell
phone co-use mediation. This is consistent with previous results that found parental
stress induces more demanding, controlling parenting behaviors (e.g., Putnick et al.,
2008). Furthermore, research on parenting showed a negative relationship between
stress and parental responsiveness and frequency of positive parent–child interac-
tions (Gutman et al., 2005; McLoyd, 1990). Accordingly, it is likely that parental
stress alters parenting style and manifests this change in behaviors like television and
cell phone mediation. Future studies are encouraged to test these relationships,
accounting for both situational and chronic stress to advance parental mediation
theory. While temporary experiences of stress might induce short-term fluctuations
in parental mediation, chronic parental stress may alter both parental personality
and parenting styles resulting in stable differences in parental mediation behaviors.
Two limitations of this study necessitate caution. First, the PRQS offered less
benefit in these data than in earlier studies, despite demonstrating validity and
reliability in previous studies (e.g., Reitman et al., 2002). The PRQS measures role-
related stress, which accounts for a narrow range of potential stressors defined in
theoretical models of parental stress (Deater-Deckard, 2008; Webster-Stratton,
1990). Thus, it is possible that these data fail to capture day-to-day stressors that
might result in temporary fluctuations of parents’ mediation behaviors. Second,
this study does not measure parents’ and children’s use of television or cell phones
to alleviate stress. This might explain the lack of findings regarding parental stress
and co-use television mediation in our sample. Parents may allow children to own
 Western Journal of Communication 15

these devices expressly to alleviate stress, similar to parents’ safety-related reasons

for buying their children cell phones (Rudi, Dworkin, Walker, & Doty, 2015). Our
findings suggest that this is a promising avenue for future research on parental
mediation.
Given the proliferation of media technology, parents are increasingly responsible
for mediating children’s use of digital devices, and parental mediation is influenced
by both parenting style and parental stress. While authoritative and authoritarian
parenting styles were positively related to several types of mediation, parental stress
was a separate and significant factor changing these relationships. In fact, parental
stress was a stronger predictor of parental mediation than parenting style and
encouraged mediation for permissive parents.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research was funded by internal grants from the Department of Communica-
tion at the University of Arkansas.

References
Abelman, R. (2001). Parents’ use of content-based TV advisories. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1,
237–265. doi:10.1207/S15327922PAR0103_04
Anderson, M. (2015). Technology device ownership: 2015. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/10/PI_2015-10-
29_device-ownership_FINAL.pdf
Austin, E., Bolls, P., Fujioka, Y., & Engelbertson, J. (1999). How and why parents take on the tube.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 175–192. doi:10.1080/08838159909364483
Barnett, R. C., & Marshall, N. L. (1991). The relationship between women’s work and family roles
and their subjective well-being and psychological distress. In M. Frankenhaeuser,
U. Lundberg, & M. Chesney (Eds.), Women, work, and health: Stress and opportunities
(pp. 111–136). New York, NY: Plenum.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95. doi:10.1177/0272431691111004
Beyens, I., & Eggermont, S. (2017). Understanding children’s television exposure from a life
logistics perspective: A longitudinal study of the association between mothers’ working
hours and young children’s television time. Communication Research, 44, 691–716.
doi:10.1177/0093650215607600
Beyens, I., Eggermont, S., & Nathanson, A. I. (2016). Understanding the relationship between
mothers’ attitudes toward television and children’s television exposure: A longitudinal study
of reciprocal patterns and the moderating role of maternal stress. Media Psychology, 19,
638–665. doi:10.1080/15213269.2016.1142383
Bleakley, A., Ellithorpe, M., & Romer, D. (2016). The role of parents in problematic internet use
among US adolescents. Media and Communication, 4, 24–34. doi:10.17645/mac.v4i3.523
16 R. Warren and L. Aloia
Brown, A., Lopez, G., & Lopez, M. H. (2016). Digital divide narrows for Latinos as more Spanish
speakers and immigrants go online. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/07/20/digital-divide-narrows-for-latinos-as-more-spanish
-speakers-and-immigrants-go-online/
Camacho-Thompson, D. E., Gillen-O’Neel, C., Gonzales, N. A., & Fuligni, A. J. (2016). Financial
strain, major family life events, and parental academic involvement during adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1065–1074. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0443-0
Chassiakos, Y., Radesky, J., Christakis, D., Moreno, M., & Cross, C. (2016). Children and adoles-
cents and digital media. Pediatrics, 138, e1–e18. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublica-
tions.org/content/pediatrics/early/2016/10/19/peds.2016-2593.full.pdf
Clark, L. S. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication Theory, 21,
323–343. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01391.x
Cohen, S., Kessler, R., & Underwood Gordon, L. (1995). Strategies for measuring stress in studies
of psychiatric and physical disorders. In S. Cohen, R. Kessler, & L. Underwood Gordon
(Eds.), Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 3–26). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Corona, R., Lefkowitz, E. S., Sigman, M., & Romo, L. F. (2005). Latino adolescents’ adjustment,
maternal depressive symptoms, and the mother-adolescent relationship. Family Relations,
54, 386–399. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.00325.x
Deater-Deckard, K. (2008). Parenting stress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Eastin, M. S., Greenberg, B. S., & Hofschire, L. (2006). Parenting the internet. Journal of Commu-
nication, 56, 486–504. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00297.x
Fujioka, Y., & Austin, E. W. (2002). The relationship of family communication patterns to parental
mediation styles. Communication Research, 29, 642–665. doi:10.1177/009365002237830
Guo, W., & Nathanson, A. I. (2011). The effects of parental mediation of sexual content on the
sexual knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of adolescents in the US. Journal of Children and
Media, 5, 358–378. doi:10.1080/17482798.2011.587141
Gutman, L. M., McLoyd, V. C., & Tokoyawa, T. (2005). Financial strain, neighborhood stress,
parenting behaviors, and adolescent adjustment in urban African American families. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 15, 425–449. doi:10.1111/j.15327795.2005.00106.x
Huver, R. M. E., Otten, R., de Vries, H., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Personality and parenting
style in parents of adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 395–402. doi:10.1016/j.
adolescence.2009.07.012
Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S. (2015). Predictors of parental mediation regarding children’s smartphone
use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 737–743. doi:10.1089/
cyber.2015.0286
Influence Central. (2016). Kids & tech: The evolution of today’s digital natives. Retrieved from
http://influence-central.com/kids-tech-the-evolution-of-todays-digital-natives/
Jiow, H. J., Lim, S. S., & Lin, J. (2017). Level up! Refreshing parental mediation theory for our
digital media landscape. Communication Theory, 27, 309–328. doi:10.1111/comt.12109
Katz, V. S. (2010). How children of immigrants use media to connect their families to the
community. Journal of Children and Media, 4, 298–315. doi:10.1080/17482798.2010.486136
Katz, V. S., & Gonzalez, C. (2016). Toward meaningful connectivity: Using multilevel commu-
nication research to reframe digital inequality. Journal of Communication, 66, 236–249.
doi:10.1111/jcom.12214
Kulick, L., & Heine-Cohen, E. (2011). Coping resources, perceived stress and adjustment to divorce
among Israeli women: Assessing effects. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 5–30.
doi:10.1080/00224540903366453
Lauricella, A. R., Cingel, D. P., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., Robb, M. B., Saphir, M., & Wartella, E. A.
(2016). The common sense census: Plugged-in parents of tweens and teens. San Francisco, CA:
Common Sense Media.
 Western Journal of Communication 17

Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (2004). Parent-child communication during adolescence. In

A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of Family Communication (pp. 333–348). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lee, S., Lee, C., & Lee, C. (2016). Smartphone addiction and application usage in Korean
adolescents: Effects of mediation strategies. Social Behavior and Personality, 44,
1525–1534. doi:10.2224/sbp.2016.44.9.1525
Livingstone, S. (2007). Strategies of parental regulation in the media-rich home. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23, 920–941. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.002
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 581–599. doi:10.1080/08838150802437396
Martins, N., Matthews, N. L., & Ratan, R. A. (2017). Playing by the rules: Parental mediation of
video game play. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 1215–1238. doi:10.1177/0192513X15613822
Mazur, M., Jerney-Davis, M., Kim, I., Kim, R., Ko, L., Rogers, J., & Takeuchi, L. (2004). Discussing
taboo topics on television: The relationship between topic avoidance and parental mediation.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association,
New Orleans, LA.
McLoyd, V. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children: Psycholo-
gical distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311–346.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02781.x
Mobile kids. (2017). The parent, the child and the smartphone. New York, NY: A. C. Nielsen, LLC.
Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2017/mobile-kids–the-parent-
the-child-and-the-smartphone.html.
Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Parent and child perspectives on the presence and meaning of parental
television mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 201–220. doi:10.1207/
s15506878jobem4502_1
Ofcom. (2017). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2016. London, UK: Office of
Communications. Retrieved from https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-
literacy-research/childrens/children-parents-nov16.
Oliver, P. H., Guerin, D. W., & Coffman, J. K. (2009). Big five parental personality traits, parenting
behaviors, and adolescent behavior problems: A mediation model. Personality and Indivi-
dual Differences, 47, 631–636. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.026
Parkes, A., Sweeting, H., & Wight, D. (2015). Parenting stress and parent support among mothers
with high and low education. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 907–918. doi:10.1037/
fam0000129
Patniak, G. (2014). Life skill enhancement strategies to minimize stress. Social Science Interna-
tional, 30, 281–289.
Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Hendricks, C., Painter, K. M., Suwalsky, J. T. D., & Collins, W. A.
(2008). Parenting stress, perceived parenting behaviors, and adolescent self-concept in
European American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 752–762. doi:10.1037/
a0013177
Reitman, D., Rhode, P. C., Hupp, S. D. A., & Altobello, C. (2002). Development and validation of
the parental authority questionnaire – revised. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 24, 119–127. doi:10.1023/A:1015344909518
Rudi, J., Dworkin, J., Walker, S., & Doty, J. (2015). Parents’ use of information and communica-
tions technologies for family communication: Differences by age of children. Information
Communication & Society, 18, 78–93. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.934390
Shin, W., & Huh, J. (2011). Parental mediation of teenagers’ video game playing: Antecedents and
consequences. New Media & Society, 13, 945–962. doi:10.1177/1461444810388025
Sonck, N., Nikken, P., & de Haan, J. (2013). Determinants of internet mediation. Journal of
Children and Media, 7, 96–113. doi:10.1080/17482798.2012.739806
18 R. Warren and L. Aloia
U.S. TV trends by race and ethnicity. (2011). A. C. Nielsen, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.
nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/conference/Race%20and%20Ethnic%20TV%
20White%20Paper%20REPORT.pdf.
Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. (1999). Developing a scale to
assess three styles of television mediation: “Instructive mediation,” “restrictive media-
tion,” and “social coviewing”. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43, 52–66.
doi:10.1080/08838159909364474
Vandewater, E., Park, S. E., Lee, S. J., & Lee, H. (2008). Disengaged parenting: A common cause of
the relationships among television viewing, academic performance, and childhood obesity?
Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association,
Montreal, Quebec.
Warren, R. (2001). In words and deeds: Parental involvement and mediation of children’s television
viewing. Journal of Family Communication, 1, 211–231. doi:10.1207/S15327698JFC0104_01
Warren, R. (2005). Parental mediation of children’s television viewing in low-income families.
Journal of Communication, 55, 847–863. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03026.x
Warren, R. (2017). Multi-platform mediation: U.S. mothers’ and fathers’ mediation of teens’ media
use. Journal of Children and Media, 11, 485–500. doi:10.1080/17482798.2017.1349685
Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Lauricella, A. R., & Connell, S. L. (2014). Parenting in the age of digital
technology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Center on Media and Human Develop-
ment. Retrieved from https://cmhd.northwestern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Paren-
tingAgeDigitalTechnology.REVISED.FINAL_.2014.pdf
Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Stress: A potential disrupter of parent perceptions and family interactions.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 302–312. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp1904_2
Westcott, K., Lippstreu, S., & Cutbill, D. (2017). Digital democracy survey: A multi-generational
view of consumer technology, mRSCG_A_1584826edia, and telecom trends. Oakland, CA:
Deloitte Development, LLC. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/
Deloitte/hu/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/us-tmt-deloitte-digital-
democracy-executive-summary.pdf