Meghan B.
Owenz Penn State University, Berks
Blaine J. Fowers
A Goal-Theoretic Framework for Parental
Screen-Time Monitoring Behavior
Children’s screen time (i.e., time spent using
computers, televisions, mobile devices) has
rapidly increased with the development of
mobile technology, and this increase has become
a matter of serious concern for teachers, parents,
family life educators, psychologists, and other
health professionals. High usage rates (more
than 2 hours per day) have been associated with
low-quality sleep, language acquisition difficul-
ties, and attentional problems in young children.
Results of experimental trials to limit screen
time have been mixed. Interventions may be
improved with guidance from a systematic theo-
retical framework focused directly on children’s
well-being. This article proposes a multifaceted
goal-theoretic approach to reducing screen time
through involvement in alternative activities.
It is proposed that a focus on approach goals
involving shared activities that are constitutive
of children’s well-being can naturally displace
excessive screen time, enhance child devel-
opment, reduce parental stress, and improve
familial well-being.
Parents, family life educators, psychologists,
pediatricians, teachers, and policy makers are
increasingly concerned about children’s recre-
ational screen time, a term that refers to time
spent with digital devices (e.g., televisions,
Penn State University, Berks (muo70@psu.edu).
Key Words: Children, goals, monitoring, screen time.
Journal of Family Theory & Review 12 (September 2020): 335–349
DOI:10.1111/jftr.12384
University of Miami
computers, tablets, smartphones) for entertain-
ment that is distinct from educational or creative
purposes. For the present article, we focused
on children between the ages of 2 and 12 years,
because although worrisome associations exist
for excessive recreational screen time during
adolescence, the interventions utilized require
different developmental considerations. Exces-
sive recreational screen time (typically defined
as more than 2 hours per day, although spe-
cific tipping points are still being determined;
Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017) has links to
childhood problems such as obesity (Jackson,
Djafarian, Stewart, & Speakman, 2009), insuf-
ficient sleep (Hale & Guan, 2015), inattention
(Lillard & Peterson, 2011; Zimmerman &
Christakis, 2007), delayed language acqui-
sition (van den Heuvel et al., 2019), and
aggression (American Academy of Pedi-
atrics, AAP, 2016c). Therefore, screen time
has become the intervention point not only for
children’s electronic device use but also for its
worrisome associations.
The greater is children’s screen time, the
more the child’s immediate entertainment goal
conflicts with the longer-term developmen-
tal and well-being goals of parents, family
life educators, and policy makers. Therefore,
framing the issue in terms of goal pursuit has
great promise. We offer a goal-theoretic frame-
work for children’s recreational screen time
that replaces disproportionate screen time with
approach goals instead of the more common
focus on restricting screen time. Approach
335
336 Journal of Family Theory & Review

Table 1. Screen-Time Goal Examples

Avoidance Goals Approach Goals

Individual Goals Shared Goals Individual Goals Shared Goals

Instrumental Unilateral caregiver Caregiver and child Unilateral caregiver Caregiver and child
goals goal to reduce reduce screen time goal of replacing reduce screen time
child’s screen time with a reward screen time with with a reward
with a device that system in which alternative activity system in which
automatically turns both participate. (e.g., reading for both participate in
off device. rewards). alternative activity
(e.g., completing
chores).
Constitutive Unilateral caregiver Caregiver and child Unilateral caregiver Caregiver and child
goals goal to reduce both participate in goal of replacing participate together
child’s screen time limiting screen time screen time with in replacing screen
through child’s by playing a game. alternative activity time with free play.
independent (e.g., outside play).
reading.

goals emphasize movement toward a positive
activity (e.g., physical play) rather than limiting
or avoiding a negative activity (e.g., excessive
screen time; Elliot, 2010). We also emphasize
two other goal types: shared and constitutive.
Shared goals are goals require participation
by both children and caretakers, in contrast
to an individual goal that a caretaker holds
unilaterally (Fowers, 2012). Constitutive goals
refers to goals that are constituted by how they
are pursued, in contrast to goals for which the
outcome is separable from the means to achieve
it (Fowers, 2010). These goal distinctions are
further elaborated later in this article and in
Table 1. Such goals can naturally displace
screen time while also enhancing child develop-
ment, reducing parental stress, and improving
familial well-being.
Growing Concern Over Excessive
Recreational Screen Time
Concerns about children’s screen time have been
amplified for two reasons. First, screen time
has had meteoric growth. Second, evidence ties
high use to major public health issues (Bushman
& Huesmann, 2006; Domoff, Borgen, Foley, &
Maffett, 2019).
Increasing Screen Time
Screen-time estimates indicate that, on average
and excluding time spent for schoolwork, chil-
dren aged 0–8 years in the United States spend
2.32 hours per day and children aged 8–12 years
spend 4.44 hours per day engaged with screens
(Rideout, 2017; Rideout & Robb, 2019). Chil-
dren’s mobile screen time has tripled in the
past 4 years, with children in the United States
younger than 8 years old now spending an aver-
age of 48 minutes per day on mobile devices
(Rideout, 2017). Mobile device ownership by
children is also rapidly increasing, with 42% of
children younger than 8 years old having their
own device in 2017 (compared with 7% just
4 years prior), and with 95% of families own-
ing at least one mobile device (Rideout, 2017).
Mobile devices are especially important because
they are more interactive and immersive than
computers or televisions and are designed for
individual use. The challenge of children’s
increasing screen time occurs across income
groups. Indeed, children aged 0–8 years in
low-income families spend on average 1.39
hours more with screen media per day than do
those from higher incomes (Rideout, 2017).
Children’s screen time primarily involves
viewing videos and playing video games,
regardless of device used. For children aged
0–8 years, 72% of daily screen time is spent
viewing videos and 18% is spent playing video
games; the devices used for these activities vary
(e.g., TV, tablet, computer, cell phone; Rideout
& Robb, 2019). There is a similar pattern for
children between the ages of 8 and 12 years:
53% of total screen time is to view videos or
television shows; 31%, to game; 5%, to browse
Goal Framework for Screen-Time Monitoring
the internet; 4%, to use social media; and less
than 2%, to do each of the following: chat, read,
or write (Rideout & Robb, 2019). Although
the number of 8- to 12-year-olds who reported
watching online videos every day jumped from
24% in 2015 to 56% in 2019, a related drop was
seen in time spent watching television on a tele-
vision set (Rideout & Robb, 2019). Therefore,
the activity is largely the same (playing video
games or watching videos), but the device used
is shifting and varied. Researchers generally
do not focus on distinctions among devices,
although some research suggests that the shift to
single-user devices (e.g., tablets, phones) may
make it more difficult for caregivers to monitor,
co-view, and discuss content (Munzer, Miller,
Weeks, Kaciroti, & Radesky, 2019).1
Potential Negative Effects of Screen Time
Excessive recreational screen use (i.e., more
than 2 hours per day) in childhood has been
associated with attentional problems (Zim-
merman & Christakis, 2007), sleep problems
(Domoff et al., 2019; Hale & Guan, 2015),
excess weight (Jackson et al., 2009), difficul-
ties with expressive language (Zimmerman &
Christakis 2007), and aggression when media
content is violent (AAP, 2016c; Bushman &
Huesmann, 2006). A review of studies on
children and adolescents published in 2019
found evidence that screen time is associated
with decreased sleep duration, decreased sleep
quality, and increased sleep disruption, but
found mixed results for the relationship between
screen time and weight (Domoff et al., 2019).
Research indicates that each 30-minute increase
in handheld device use by infants predicted a 2.3
times increased likelihood of a parent-reported
expressive-language delay (van den Heuvel
et al., 2019). Greater screen time usage at 24
and 36 months of age was negatively associated
with development milestones at 36 and 60
months (Madigan, Browne, Racine, Mori, &
Tough, 2019). Poorer developmental milestone
achievement at Time 1 did not predict greater
1 Following a reviewer’s recommendation, the goal
framework we present can be applied by a broad range of
caregivers, including teachers, babysitters, and others. We
have retained some focus on parents because parents are pri-
marily responsible for how children spend their time and
most research and policy recommendations focus primarily
on parents.
337
screen time, which suggests that screen time
predicts milestone achievement, not the other
way around. A study with functional magnetic
resonance imagery (fMRI) indicated that social
media time was negatively related to cerebral
cortex thickness and language and memory task
performance in children (Paulus et al., 2018).
Experimental studies suggest that programs
with rapid screen shifts decrease performance in
executive functioning, compared with nonscreen
activities or slow-paced programming (Lillard
& Peterson, 2011). In a large, prospective study,
electronic gaming and television viewing neg-
atively predicted well-being in children 2 years
later (Hinkley et al., 2014). Another study
found that total media use predicted ill-being
(i.e., physical health, attention, behavior, and
psychological problems) for children, pre-
teens, and teenagers after controlling for eating
habits and physical activity (Rosen et al., 2014).
Although the present article focuses on children
aged 2–12 years, research suggests that the
negative effects of excessive screen time extend
into adolescence, with concerns related to atten-
tion (Ra et al., 2018) and depression (Twenge,
Joiner, Rogers, & Martin, 2018).
Issues with screen time are not only a concern
for children’s well-being but also a source of
significant family conflict and bidirectional
influences on screen use. A recent national sur-
vey found that 66% of parents of children aged
2–10 years) worried that their children spend
too much time on screen-based media; 42%
worried that their children could not entertain
themselves without the devices (Gallup, 2017).
In another survey, 48% of parents reported that
regulating their children’s screen time was a
“constant battle,” 58% felt that their child was
too attached to a digital device, and 45% felt
“disconnected from their families even when
they are together, because of technology” (APA,
2017a). In in-depth interviews, parents reported
stress and uncertainty about the effects of use,
as well as feeling powerless and overwhelmed
by child demands for technology (Radesky
et al., 2016).
Excessive recreational screen time is likely
influenced by reciprocal interactions, and par-
ent and child screen time is correlated (Xu,
Wen, & Rissel, 2014). Several studies suggest
that technology can interfere in parent–child
social interactions, dubbed “technoference”
(McDaniel & Radesky, 2018). Not surpris-
ingly, technoference is associated with poorer
338
parent–child interactions and with child inter-
nalizing and externalizing problems (McDaniel
& Radesky, 2018). Research also suggests that
technoference is bidirectional: When parents
are stressed by child behavior, they with-
draw by using technology, and when parents
use technology during interactions with chil-
dren, children are more likely to externalize
or withdraw (McDaniel & Radesky, 2018).
Widespread parental concerns about tech-
nology and the strong relationship between
parental and child screen time suggest that
screen-time interventions must include all
family members.
Whereas the foregoing studies have docu-
mented negative associations between screen
time and well-being, other studies have found no
effects, mixed effects, or opposite effects (Fer-
guson, 2017; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2018).
Programming that is age and developmentally
appropriate for preschoolers, such as Daniel
Tiger’s Neighborhood or Sesame Street can
have beneficial effects. When Sesame Street is
shown to an audience of 3- to 5-year-olds it
predicts higher math and language performance
(Mares & Pan, 2013). Research on Daniel
Tiger’s Neighborhood indicated that viewing
the program with an adult results in superior
emotional understanding and regulation in
preschoolers (Rasmussen et al., 2016). In addi-
tion to programming, some research suggests
there may be less negative effects of recreational
screen time on the weekend (Przybylski &
Weinstein, 2017), as there is a larger body of
time to draw from and therefore more likely
the child can also engage in other meaningful
activities. The relationship between screen time
and both positive and negative associations is
increasingly complicated by demanding social
needs as children develop, and the “digital
Goldilocks” hypothesis has been proposed
(Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017), with too little
and too much screen time being linked to nega-
tive effects for adolescents. For adults, research
has also pointed to the “paradox” of internet use,
as it can provide opportunities for connection
and also perpetuate feelings of isolation and
loneliness (Coget, Yamauchi, & Suman, 2002;
Kraut et al., 2002). However, this research is
much less relevant for children younger than
age 12, as they are typically not using screen
time to connect with others, but rather are most
likely engaging in passive pursuits like watching
videos (Rideout, 2017; Rideout & Robb, 2019).
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Even for the oldest children—those 8 to 12 years
old—of their total average of 4.44 daily hours
of screen time, only 5% is spent utilizing social
media and less than 2% chatting (Rideout &
Robb, 2019).
Although scholarly conversation about the
benefits and drawbacks of screen time will con-
tinue, some studies indicate that replacing screen
time with time spent in alternative activities may
be a worthwhile goal. In an experimental study
of preteens, those who spent 5 days with no
screen time showed significant improvements in
their recognition of nonverbal emotional cues
(Uhls et al., 2014). In a large U.S. study of 8-
to 11-year-olds, meeting pediatric recommenda-
tions for nine to 11 hours of sleep, less than
2 hours of screen time, and 1 hour of physi-
cal activity were associated with better cognitive
performance (Walsh et al., 2018).
Screen-time effects vary by types of program-
ming, age, and caregiver involvement, so we
(like most scholars) are concerned with exces-
sive recreational use, defined as more than 2
hours of screen time per weekday spent on enter-
tainment rather than educational or creative pur-
poses. Some studies cite 2 hours per weekday
as a tipping point at which total screen time
begins to show a negative association with psy-
chological and social well-being (Przybylski &
Weinstein, 2018; Twenge & Campbell, 2018).
Because some controversy about the effects
of excessive use persists, we present a goal
framework that may reduce children’s screen
time by increasing time spent in healthy alter-
native activities (e.g., time outdoors, in play,
reading).
Recommendations for Children’s Screen
Time
In response to the negative associations with
children’s excessive recreational screen time,
two primary recommendations have emerged:
limiting total screen time and encouraging care-
giver co-viewing. The AAP (2016a) and the
World Health Organization (2019) recommend
less than 1 hour of screen time for children
aged 2–5 years, and a family media plan there-
after. Although both organizations do suggest
alternative activities, it is not the primary focus
of the policy and is often lost in transmis-
sion to caregivers and media. Caregivers are
aware of the need for limits on children’s screen
time, but many experience limit setting as a
Goal Framework for Screen-Time Monitoring
major challenge. Parental stress and guilt about
children’s screen time and their difficulties in
effectively curtailing it suggest that the goal
of directly limiting screen time is insufficient
(Gallup, 2017).
Some professionals suggest that parents
watch with their children and mediate content
(Radesky et al. 2016; Rasmussen et al., 2016).
Parents’ co-viewing is associated with fam-
ily connection (Padilla-Walker, Coyne, &
Fraser 2012). However, the design of mobile
devices promotes single users, and children
tend to hunch over tablets and phones in a way
that physically impedes parental co-viewing.
As Munzer et al. (2019) summarized, “Children
tend to create solitary spaces when engaging
in tablet play … leaving less space for their
parents to coview and ignoring parent bids for
attention” (p. 7). The average number of hours
of screen time also prevents most parents from
so much co-viewing. Parents commonly report
using their children’s screen time as a respite to
complete household tasks rather than to co-view
(Kabali et al., 2015). A naturalistic study found
that parental co-viewing to mediate content
was rare; instead, parents were more likely to
restrict, negotiate, or use media in a parallel
process (Domoff et al., 2019b).
Results of Intervention Studies
to Reduce Use
Intervention studies have attempted to reduce
children’s screen time, and meta-analyses sug-
gest that they are sometimes effective. In one
meta-analysis, 29 of 47 studies had signifi-
cant effects on reducing screen time (Schmidt
et al., 2012). Another meta-analysis found a
small, but statistically significant difference in
intervention groups (Maniccia, Davison, Mar-
shall, Manganello, & Dennison, 2011). Finally,
a third meta-analysis failed to find evidence for
intervention effectiveness, with the exception
of a subgroup of studies with preschool-aged
children (Wahi, Parkin, Beyene, Uleryk, &
Birken, 2011). As interesting as the studies that
show an effect might be, several well-designed
intervention studies show no effect on chil-
dren’s screen time (Babic et al., 2016; Birken
et al., 2012). All meta-analyses identify weak-
nesses in the studies, including lack of long-term
follow-ups and few studies with young children
(Schmidt et al.; Wahi et al. 2011). More work
is needed to identify the critical components of
339
those intervention studies that do show an effect
(Maniccia et al. 2011).
When caregivers successfully limit screen
time (even without interventions), there are
far-reaching positive consequences for chil-
dren. Parental monitoring includes co-viewing
media with children, restricting screen media
time, and restricting and discussing media
content. In a large prospective study including
parents, children, and teachers, researchers
found that parental monitoring predicted
reduced screen time, decreased violent media
exposure, lower body-mass index, lower risk
for obesity, and reduced aggressive behavior, as
well as increased weekly sleep, school perfor-
mance, and prosocial behavior (Gentile, Reimer,
Nathanson, Walsh, & Eisenmann, 2014).
Potential Challenges With Current
Intervention Frameworks
The mixed findings in intervention studies pro-
vide important hints as to how children’s recre-
ational screen time can be reduced in positive
ways. We think the mixed and null findings
may be due to conceptualizing screen time goals
in problematic ways. These problems include
focusing on (a) avoidance rather than approach
goals, (b) unilateral parental goals for regulat-
ing a child’s behavior rather than shared family
goals, and (c) goals pursued through techniques
or rules rather than goals to promote healthy
activities. Our framework is designed to redress
these goal formation issues.
A Focus on Limits and Avoidance Goals
Most intervention studies (and guidance from
pediatricians) focus on limits and avoidance
goals (i.e., things parents should avoid, like
excessive screen time). Avoidance goals are
frequently attended by negative affect and
cognition, are ineffective, and reduce goal pur-
suit persistence and well-being (Elliot, 2010).
Avoidance goals also rely on self-control,
which appears to be a limited resource that
can be depleted by its use, thereby decreasing
self-control, intelligent thought, decision mak-
ing, and initiative (e.g., Oertig et al., 2013).
Predictably, parents struggle to impose
screen-time limits and can find themselves
drawn to another avoidance goal: avoiding
conflict by allowing children to use digital
devices.
340
A Need for Parental Involvement
Some studies have suggested that interventions
are more effective when they have greater
parental involvement (Marsh, Foley, Wilks, &
Maddison, 2014). Although it may be obvious
that parental involvement is necessary when
reducing an activity that occurs primarily in
the home, it may also be that parental involve-
ment results in parents changing their own
screen time, which promotes positive modeling.
For example, researchers found that mothers’
own screen time was the only variable signifi-
cantly associated with toddler screen time (Xu
et al., 2014). Similarly, a systematic review
indicated that maternal distress or depression
and mother’s own viewing time were associated
with child screen time (Duch, Fisher, Ensari, &
Harrington, 2013). Parental involvement may
also foster a greater degree of shared activity
among parents and children. One study of a
24-hour no-screen-time challenge found that
togetherness was a key theme: Parents and
children attempted to make changes together
(Peláez et al., 2016). These studies suggest that
interventions focusing on families, especially
mothers, may be more effective than exclu-
sively focusing on children’s screen time as a
problem independent of other family members’
screen time.
Necessary Focus on Healthy Alternatives
Screen media and devices have become such
an integral part of families’ daily routines that
interventions to reduce their use must have a
focus on what families are to do instead of
excessive recreational screen time. In the qual-
itative analysis of the 24-hour no-screen-time
challenge, three themes emerged post-challenge:
clear rules, togetherness, and busyness (Peláez
et al., 2016). Many parents emphasized the
importance of having a full day planned, as
boredom and downtime are key triggers for
screen time. Additionally, parents reported
struggles during the day when habit pulled
for screen time (e.g., when parents make din-
ner). In an intervention study that emphasized
active outdoor play and building social skills,
researchers found an increase in active out-
door play and social skills and a reduction in
total screen time (Hinkley, Cliff, Lum, & Hes-
keth, 2017). In a pilot study, parents welcomed
the emphasis on alternative activities to screen
time (Downing, Salmon, Hinkley, Hnatiuk,
Journal of Family Theory & Review
& Hesketh, 2018). One parent reported, “You
actually then provided alternatives … which I
think sometimes as a parent, it’s not that you run
out of ideas, but you do get stuck in old ways”
(Downing et al., 2018, p. 6). Other research has
found an inverse relationship between cognitive
stimulation in the home (including measures
of parent–child interaction) and children’s
screen time (Duch et al., 2013). An intervention
study that focused on increasing parent–child
interactions resulted in reduced screen time
(Mendelsohn et al., 2011). These studies sug-
gest the importance of educating families about
healthy activities for children that may provide
an alternative to screen time.
A Proposed Goal Framework
for Screen-Time Monitoring
Taken together, the research in the previous
section suggests the value of a goal frame-
work, which we now discuss. In addition, the
widely accepted displacement hypothesis (Gen-
tile, Berch, Choo, Khoo, & Walsh, 2017) posits
that children’s digital media time interferes with
time spent in more developmentally beneficial
activities, because as screen time increases, time
for other activities is reduced. For parents, the
displacement hypothesis is challenging because
they must orient not only to what the child is
doing but also to what the child is not doing as
a result of screen time usage. However, the dis-
placement hypothesis does offer an entry point
for reducing screen time by emphasizing the
healthy activities displaced by screen time.
Research indicates that screen time displaces
activities such as social time, imaginative play,
homework, chores, reading, and active play
outdoors. Engaging in alternative activities is
often linked to stronger media rules (Davies
& Gentile, 2012). Vandewater, Bickham, and
Lee’s (2006) large, representative daily-diary
study suggested that television-watching time
was negatively associated with family interac-
tion time, play, and homework. For each hour
of television viewed, children 0–12 years spent
16%–22% less time with their parents in other
activities, 29%–41% less time with a sibling
in other activities, 8%–11% less time in play,
and 14%–18% less time doing homework. The
largest decreases were seen for 0- to 5-year-olds
(except homework), ages at which imaginative
play and social interaction are considered
critical to development.
Goal Framework for Screen-Time Monitoring
With these research and conceptual resources
in mind, we developed a goal-theoretic frame-
work focusing on three key distinctions between
goal types that provide important advantages
for sustainably reducing children’s screen time.
First, motivation research (Elliot, 2010) suggests
the fruitfulness to focus on approach goals for
caregivers and children rather than the avoidance
goal of restricting screen time. Eudaimonic the-
ory (Fowers, 2012; Fowers & Owenz, 2010), a
general approach to well-being focused on how
goal pursuit enables living well, emphasizes two
additional goal distinctions that are applicable
to screen-time issues in families. The second
goal contrast is between individual and shared
goals. Focusing only on a child’s screen time
is an individual goal that caregivers typically
impose on children, whereas seeing screen time
as a concern for the whole family is a shared
goal in which multiple family members partici-
pate. The third goal distinction is between instru-
mental and constitutive goal types. Instrumental
goals have a means–end structure in which the
means are valuable only if they lead to the val-
ued end. In constitutive goal pursuit, the means
are as valuable as the ends because the means
constitutes the goal and are therefore insepara-
ble (e.g., being a fair parent is partly constituted
by listening attentively and considering all per-
spectives). Although there has been some scat-
tered attention to these distinctions in the lit-
erature on screen time, this three-dimensional
goal framework is proposed here for the first
time. We explain the three dimensions of the
framework (avoidance–approach, instrumental–
constitutive, and individual–shared goals) in this
section, then elaborate its application in the fol-
lowing section.
Avoidance Versus Approach Goals
Approach and avoidance motivations are impor-
tant in goal pursuit (Elliot, 2010). Goal valence
can be avoiding a negative result or to approach-
ing a positive result. Avoidance goals usually
require refraining from doing something (e.g.,
eat less, limit screen time). As outlined pre-
viously, most screen-time guidance emphasizes
avoidance goals, which are associated with neg-
ative affect, reduced effectiveness, and reduced
goal persistence and well-being (Elliot, 2010).
In contrast, approach goals are positive and
desirable outcomes toward which individuals are
drawn (i.e., rewarding outcomes one intends to
341
achieve or ideals one is attempting to embody).
Approach goals are generally attended by posi-
tive affect and cognition, greater effectiveness,
better goal persistence, and greater well-being
(Elliot, 2010).
Dieting research offers an example of the
contrast between avoidance and approach goals.
Diets typically involve refraining from eat-
ing specified foods to lose weight. However,
Mann et al.’s (2007) meta-analysis indicated
that diets are generally not effective for weight
reduction. In contrast, Matheson, King, and
Everett (2012) reported that when participants
practiced four health habits (approach goals)
of eating fruits and vegetables, not smoking,
drinking in moderation, and regular exercise,
the impact of weight on mortality risk was elim-
inated. In an experimental study with families,
Epstein et al. (2001) reported similar results
when parents were instructed to increase fruit
and vegetable intake (approach goals) versus
to reduce high-fat, high-sugar foods (avoidance
goals).
The distinction between avoidance and
approach goals has received limited attention
related to screen time. However, a few stud-
ies highlighted in the previous section found
evidence for approach goals, including that
emphasizing active outdoor play and build-
ing social skills reduced screen time (Hinkley
et al., 2017), that parents were positive about
replacing sedentary behaviors with alternative
activities (Downing et al., 2018), and that screen
time can be reduced by increasing parent–child
interactions (Mendelsohn et al., 2011). These
studies suggest that emphasizing approach goals
by displacing screen time with other activities
for children may be effective at reducing screen
time and also associated with more positive
affect for families.
Individual Versus Shared Goals
A second important goal distinction is between
goals that can be pursued independently (indi-
vidual goals) and those that can be pursued
only with other people who share the goal.
Individual goals include things like wealth,
achievement, and pleasure that can be pur-
sued relatively independently by individuals.
Shared goals, in contrast, require more than one
person to participate and include goals such
as friendship, intimacy, and justice; no one
can realize friendship or justice, for example,
342
without others’ participation. Both individual
and shared goals have a place in life. Limiting
screen time can be considered an individual
goal for a caregiver to pursue without the child’s
consent and even in contrast to the child’s
desires. This sets up a device conflict between
caregiver and child that may or may not be
resolved well, as evidenced by the 48% of
parents who see regulating children’s screen
time as a “constant battle” (APA, 2017a). Alter-
natively, individual screen-time goals can be
replaced with shared goals that engage families,
such as reading, joint play, outdoor activities,
or worthwhile activities pursued in a parallel
fashion (e.g., chores, crafts, independent play).
Shared goals can include pursuing a more active
family lifestyle or decreasing family screen
time. Importantly, shared activities can directly
enhance the cohesion and teamwork of the
family.
Studies indicate that intervention efficacy
is positively related to degree of parental
involvement (e.g., Marsh et al., 2014). Parental
involvement also likely reduces parents’ screen
time, thereby enabling parents to model better
behavior. Shared parent–child activities can
enhance the parent–child relationship directly
by engaging the child in relational activities. Par-
allel yet independent activities (e.g., household
chores, homework, independent play) can still
contribute to family identity and a shared goal of
replacing screen time. In contrast to rule-based
methods that simply restrict screen time but
offer no alternative to it, the pursuit of shared
goals enables parents to offer engaging shared
activities to replace individual screen time.
Instrumental Versus Constitutive Goals
A third goal distinction involves the manner in
which a goal is pursued. In general, an instru-
mental goal is structured by separable means and
ends. That is, one has a goal or an end and then
selects from a set of available means to achieve
it. In this case, the means are separate from
the end, and means are selected on the basis of
how effective, efficient, or costly they are (Fow-
ers, 2010). The means have no merit in them-
selves. For many caregiving goals, an instrumen-
tal orientation is appropriate (e.g., transporting
a child to school efficiently, purchasing cloth-
ing for a young child). Reducing screen time
is generally construed as an instrumental goal.
The methods for reducing screen time involve
Journal of Family Theory & Review
a kind of menu from which interventionists or
caregivers can choose. Caregivers can use rules,
hide devices, promote alternative activities, or
purchase products to control children’s use. The
value of the means is defined by how well they
achieve the desired outcome.
In contrast, constitutive goals are a general
form of activities wherein the means cannot be
separated from the end because the means con-
stitute the goal (Fowers, 2010). Being a kind par-
ent is a constitutive activity. The actions that
lead to this end (e.g., listening to one’s child,
responding warmly and empathically, treating
the child’s wishes with respect) are activities
that constitute one as a kind parent. A second
defining feature of constitutive goals is the ten-
dency “to identify strongly with the goal because
the constitutive activities shape the individual
as a certain kind of person” (Fowers, Mollica,
& Procacci, 2010, p. 140). Many parents iden-
tify strongly with the parenting role and find it
very meaningful. The importance of the parent-
ing role and the investment most parents have in
it incline many toward a constitutive approach to
child rearing. Yet many interventions to reduce
screen time take a means–end approach by pre-
senting a menu of options to achieve a prede-
termined screen-time objective, including arbi-
trary strategies such as budget setting, behavioral
contracts, and time limits (Babic et al., 2016).
In this instrumental approach, parents choose a
strategy and are free to use or discard strategies
depending on factors external to the goal, such
as efficacy or cost. In contrast, in a constitutive
screen-time goal, the means and ends are insepa-
rable (e.g., in reading together or solitary imagi-
native play, both means and ends are reading and
playing, respectively).
Instrumental goal orientation has been linked
to hedonic well-being (i.e., satisfaction and
positive affect), whereas constitutive goal orien-
tation has been linked to eudaimonic well-being
(i.e., purpose and meaning in life) (Fowers
et al., 2010; Ryan, Curren, & Deci, 2013). The
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being distinction
is important in conceptualizing the goal of
reduced screen time because less screen time
may decrease hedonic well-being (Przybylski
& Weinstein, 2018). However, a constitutive
goal orientation toward the uptake of alternative
activities to replace screen time may increase
eudaimonic well-being.
The instrumental–constitutive goal distinc-
tion emphasizes that sustained parental practices
Goal Framework for Screen-Time Monitoring
help constitute the parenting relationship in a
particular way. Using rule-based strategies to
reduce screen time, for example, helps consti-
tute the relationship with parents as rule givers
and enforcers and children as more or less obe-
dient. If a parent’s goal is to raise children
who are focused on rules and obedience, then
rule imposition is sensible. Indeed, some par-
ents adopt such an authoritarian stance (Baum-
rind, 1971). Parents generally do employ rules,
but a reliance solely on rule imposition will
not sit well with those parents who are not pri-
marily oriented to directives and compliance.
Many parents prefer an authoritative parenting
style (Baumrind, 1971) wherein the parent takes
responsibility for the child’s upbringing but fos-
ters responsible choices rather than rule compli-
ance. Although child outcome evidence seems
to favor authoritative over authoritarian parent-
ing (Amato & Fowler, 2002), we cannot resolve
the debate over parenting styles here. It is suf-
ficient to clarify that an exclusively rule-based
approach to screen time is likely to fit many par-
ents’ goals poorly, rendering it ineffective and
unsustainable. Therefore, it seems important to
develop approaches to limit screen time that do
not assume a means–end approach or an author-
itarian parenting style. A constitutive approach
focuses on active and involved parenting that
constitutes the relationship as one focused on
fostering the child’s capacities.
It is important to note that these three goal
distinctions form relatively independent dimen-
sions. It is possible for caregivers’ screen-time
goals to be characterized by any combination
of the three dimensions. For example, a goal
could be an approach, shared, instrumental
goal. In this case, caregiver and child would
share the goal of doing something in place of
screen time (approach), but the goal would be
a distraction (e.g., going out for an ice-cream
cone) rather than a constitutive activity (e.g.,
imaginative play). We see the combination
of approach, shared, and constitutive goals as
the highest-quality goals, but when the three
dimensions are taken independently, we recom-
mend the second goal type in each distinction:
avoidance–approach, individual–shared, and
instrumental–constitutive.
Application of the Goal Framework
A practical system that organizes the full goal
framework, prioritizing approach, constitutive,
343
and shared goals over avoidance, instrumen-
tal, and individual goals may be useful for
addressing children’s media usage. Although
the media landscape is continuously changing,
and researchers are working hard to keep pace,
the value of many caregiving practices (e.g.,
quality time with children, reading to children,
children playing independently) are already
supported by strong evidence. Research has
clarified that the ways children spend time is
associated differentially with their well-being:
face-to-face social interaction, exercise, and
homework are positively associated with men-
tal health and well-being (Twenge, Joiner,
et al., 2018; Twenge, Martin, et al., 2018).
These activities of childhood can be organized
into the acronym SPOIL (which turns the term
on its head by highlighting inherently positive
activities): social time with caregivers or peers
(Rees, 2007), free and imaginative play (Berk
& Meyers, 2013), outdoor activities (Berman,
Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008), independent work
(e.g., chores, homework; Rende, 2015), and
literacy-based activities (reading or being read
to; Evans, Kelley, Sikora, & Treiman, 2010).
In the following subsections, we highlight the
evidence that encourages caregivers to focus
on these activities as approach-goal alternatives
to the avoidance goal of limiting screen time.
These approach goals can displace screen time
naturally, analogous to how emphasizing the
consumption of fruits and vegetables edges out
high-fat, high-sugar foods (Epstein et al., 2001).
Additionally, the associations of some of the
activities directly counteract the effects of
excessive recreational screen time (e.g., active
outdoor time promotes sleep, whereas exces-
sive recreational screen time is associated with
decreased sleep quality). Some framework
activities encourage caregivers to spend time
with their children (social), but others encourage
screen-free time that does not involve a care-
giver, helping children become able to entertain
themselves and regulate their emotions without
a caregiver (or a screen) present, as pediatri-
cians recommend (AAP, 2016b). We illustrate
the three goal contrasts with examples in
Table 1.
Social Activities
Research consistently indicates that a strong
relationship with an adult leads to positive
behavior, calmer and happier children, and
344
better academic performance (e.g., Rees, 2007).
Peer interactions are also important, and chil-
dren must understand and practice activities
like cooperation, competition, empathy, and
perspective taking with peers (e.g., Endedijk,
Cillessen, Cox, Bekkering, & Hunnius, 2015).
A strong relationship between caregiver (e.g.,
parent, educator, babysitter) and child through
daily interaction is a paradigmatic instance of a
shared, constitutive goal. A relationship requires
the participation of both parties, and there is
no way to achieve a high-quality caregiving
relationship other than engaging in activi-
ties that constitute caregiving, like spending
time together and treating a child kindly and
respectfully. Therefore, social activities repre-
sent all three goals types, as they are shared,
constitutive, and approach activities.
Play
Play without limits or rules (i.e., free play,
including imaginative or socio-dramatic play)
is critically important for children. Pretend
play has been positively linked with executive
functioning in children (e.g., Berk & Mey-
ers, 2013). Piaget (1951), Vygotsky (1967), and
contemporary theorists (e.g., Gray, 2011) have
explained that play is the ideal context for young
children’s learning, and through self-directed
play, they can develop emotion regulation,
perspective taking, sustained attention, and
impulse inhibition. The AAP recently issued a
policy statement extolling the benefits of play
for executive-functioning skills, language, math
achievement, social development, and physical
health (Yogman et al., 2018).
Free play suffers greatly with excessive
screen time. Free play takes time to develop
and may occur when caregivers step back or are
otherwise unavailable. However, screen time has
become a go-to activity for when parents turn
their attention to making dinner, doing chores,
or completing work (Kabali et al., 2015). When
children’s self-directed play is displaced by
screen-based media, the skill development that
occurs through play may be blocked, leading
to a vicious cycle of caregivers relying on
screen-based media even more. Play, by defini-
tion, is a constitutive goal, as there is no outcome
separable from the activity of playing. Addition-
ally, playing is something positive toward which
children naturally move. Play can involve adults
or peers, and when it does, the group must work
Journal of Family Theory & Review
together in harmony toward the goal. There-
fore, play also represents all three of the goal
distinctions.
Outdoor Activities
Substantial research suggests that time in
nature is critical for everyone, not just chil-
dren. Time spent in nature is related to both
mental and physical health benefits, includ-
ing vitamin D production, sleep, serotonin
levels (e.g., Lambert, Reid, Kaye, Jennings,
& Esler, 2002), attention (e.g., Berman
et al., 2008; Kuo & Taylor, 2004), creative
problem solving (e.g., Atchley, Strayer, & Atch-
ley, 2012), and decreased stress (e.g., Razani
et al., 2018).
Time spent outdoors promotes physical
activity in children (and adults) and helps
reduce childhood obesity and sedentary time.
Howe et al. (2017) found that when families
engaged in outdoor activities, children spent 29
minutes less time watching television per day.
The National Survey of Children’s Health also
reported that physical activity and screen time
were inversely correlated (Gingold, Simon, &
Schoendorf, 2014). Therefore, outdoor activity
is an excellent intervention point because it can
be an approach, constitutive, and shared family
activity. As with play, often the joy is in the
journey for an outdoor activity, an inherently
constitutive activity.
Independent Work
Development theory suggests that work is
important to help children experience industry
and accomplishment (Erikson, 1950). This work
may include homework, helping a sibling, main-
taining personal hygiene, and age-appropriate
household chores. Yet children’s participation in
household chores has been steadily decreasing
(Rende, 2015).
Household chores appear to have long-lasting
positive links with self-esteem, responsibility,
ability to delay gratification, academic achieve-
ment, and self-sufficiency (e.g., Rende, 2015).
Research suggests a link between doing home-
work and academic achievement (e.g., Cooper,
Civey Robinson, & Patall, 2006). Both home-
work and chores require a child to put aside
immediate interests and complete another
task first. Longitudinal studies link the abil-
ity to delay gratification to body-mass index,
Goal Framework for Screen-Time Monitoring
academic achievement, and social competence
(Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989; Schlam,
Wilson, Shoda, Mischel, & Ayduk, 2013).
Although household chores can be instrumen-
tal activities that one must simply complete,
another perspective is possible. Children’s par-
ticipation in chores can be an approach goal
and is constitutive in helping to constitute the
child as a member of the family team and
solidify the shared goal of a cohesive family
identity.
Literacy
Literacy activities promote reading and writ-
ing. Three beneficial outcomes of daily reading
(reading to a child or a child reading indepen-
dently) are well documented: vocabulary devel-
opment, academic achievement, and social and
emotional understanding. Reading or being read
to is the best way to expand children’s vocab-
ulary, as they experience novel words in con-
text with other sources of information. Cun-
ningham and Stanovich (2001) found that rare
words are much more frequent in reading mate-
rial than in prime-time adult television or adult
conversation. Evans et al. (2010) reported a link
in 27 countries between number of books in the
home and children’s educational achievement,
even after controlling for parent education, occu-
pation, and social class. In addition, being read
to is tied to theory-of-mind development (Mar,
Tackett, & Moore 2010). Greater exposure to
books is related to greater ability to understand
others. This effect may be due to interactive
reading, wherein children and caregivers discuss
plot lines, characters, and motivations during the
reading process.
Research suggests that children spend very
little time reading or being read to (less than
15 minutes per day; Vandewater et al., 2006).
Reading and screen time are likely inversely
related, and the associations of each are quite
different. Khan, Purtell, Logan, Ansari, and
Justice’s (2017) large, representative study of
4-year-olds indicated that the frequency of
parents reading to their children was inversely
related to children’s television watching. Chil-
dren who were read to daily (39% of the sample)
spent less time viewing television than did chil-
dren who were read to occasionally (46% of
the sample) even when controlling for maternal
education, household size, and time spent in
nonparental care. In a large prospective study
345
of Dutch elementary school students, Koolstra
and vanderVoort (1996) found that reading time
decreased over time and that the reduction was
predicted by television viewing time. Reading
together is an approach, constitutive, and shared
goal. As a shared goal, it is an opportunity for
caregivers and children to relax and enjoy stories
together. It is a constitutive activity, because
reading together is both the goal and the means
to the goal. When caregivers are busy with other
tasks, books on CD or “independent” paging
through a book can contribute to prereading
skills.
Conclusions and Implications
Children’s screen time has become a pub-
lic health concern because of its excessive
recreational use and negative associations
with mental and physical health (AAP, 2016a;
Twenge, Joiner, et al., 2018). Family life edu-
cators, psychologists, educators, psychiatrists,
and pediatricians are concerned about the
child and familial costs of excessive screen
time, including family conflict, compulsive
habit-forming use, depression, anxiety, obesity,
sleep difficulties, and attentional challenges
(AAP, 2016a, 2016b; Hale & Guan, 2015; Jack-
son et al., 2009; Twenge, Joiner, et al., 2018;
Zimmerman & Christakis, 2007).
Therefore, family educators and parents
can benefit from a framework that emphasizes
approach, constitutive, and shared goals over
avoidance, instrumental, and individual goals
to replace excessive screen time with beneficial
activities. Because approach goals do not rely
on humans’ limited self-control, these goals
may be more successful and sustainable than
avoidance goals. Research suggests these goal
types are related to eudaimonic well-being
(e.g., purpose, growth; Fowers et al., 2010) and
therefore may be self-reinforcing. In contrast to
the commonly recommended avoidance goal of
instrumentally cutting screen time, caregivers
who engage in the outlined categories of activ-
ities (e.g., spending time together, encouraging
their child’s physical and mental development)
are likely to experience greater meaning and
purpose in their lives.
Time spent in activities that directly promote
children’s development is likely to naturally dis-
place children’s screen time. Some of the nega-
tive effects of excessive recreational screen time
may be thereby minimized. One of our purposes
346
is to encourage researchers to assess the feasibil-
ity, acceptability, and effectiveness of interven-
tions emphasizing the healthy alternative activi-
ties to replace excessive recreational screen time.
The primary challenge in using such an approach
is time. It will take greater time by profession-
als to review approach goals than to provide
recommended screen time limits. The use of a
simple handout emphasizing the SPOIL activ-
ity categories may help increase transmission
of the approach. Additionally, it may take more
time for caregivers to set up or engage in these
activities and more time for children to become
involved in these activities. Although children
are immediately placated by a screen, nega-
tive emotions (e.g., boredom, frustration) offer
opportunities for growth, and pediatricians warn
parents against using devices to regulate emo-
tions (AAP, 2016a). In an era of rapidly increas-
ing screen time, the stakes are very high for
current and future generations of children, and
a systematic, positive approach is desperately
needed.
References
Amato, P. R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices,
child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 64, 703–716.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Com-
munications and Media. (2016a). Media and young
minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), 1–6.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Com-
munications and Media. (2016b). Media use in
school-aged children and adolescents. Pediatrics,
138(5), 1–6.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Com-
munications and Media. (2016c). Virtual violence.
Pediatrics, 138(2), 1–4.
American Psychological Association. (2017a). Stress
in America: Coping with change. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/
2017/technology-social-media.PDF
Atchley, R. A., Strayer, D. L., & Atchley, P. (2012).
Creativity in the wild: Improving creative reason-
ing through immersion in natural settings. PLOS
One, 7(12), 1–5.
Babic, M., Smith, J., Morgan, P., Lonsdale, C., Plot-
nikoff, R., Eather, N., … Lubans, D. (2016).
Intervention to reduce recreational screen-time in
adolescents: Outcomes and mediators from the
‘switch-off 4 healthy minds’ (S4HM) cluster ran-
domized controlled trial. Preventive Medicine, 91,
50–57.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental
authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph,
4( 1), 1–103.
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Berk, L. E., & Meyers, A. B. (2013). The role of
make-believe play in the development of executive
function: Status of research and future directions.
American Journal of Play, 6(1), 98–110.
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008).
The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature.
Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212.
Birken, C., Maguire, J., Mekky, M., Manlhiot, C.,
Beck, C., DeGroot, J., … Parkin, P. (2012).
Office-based randomized controlled trial to reduce
screen time in preschool children. Pediatrics,
130(6), 1110–1115. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds
.2011-3088
Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2006).
Short-term and long-term effects of violent
media on aggression in children and adults.
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine,
160(4), 348–352.
Coget, J., Yamauchi, Y., & Suman, M. (2002). The
internet, social networks, and loneliness. IT &
Society, 1(1), 180–201.
Cooper, H., Civey Robinson, J., & Patall, E. A. (2006).
Does homework improve academic achievement?
A synthesis of research 1987–2003. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 76(1), 1–62.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2001).
What reading does for the mind. Journal of Direct
Instruction, 1(2), 137–149.
Davies, J. J., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Responses to
children’s media use in families with and without
siblings: A family development perspective. Fam-
ily Relations, 61(3), 410–425.
Domoff, S. E., Borgen, A. L., Foley, R. P., & Maffett,
A. (2019). Excessive use of mobile devices and
children’s physical health. Human Behavior and
Emerging Technologies, 1, 169–175.
Domoff, S. E., Radesky, J. S., Harrison, K., Riley, H.,
Lumeng, J. C., & Miller, A. L. (2019b). A natural-
istic study of child and family screen media and
mobile device use. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 28(2), 401–410.
Downing, K. L., Salmon, J., Hinkley, T., Hnatiuk,
J. A., & Hesketh, K. D. (2018). Feasibility and effi-
cacy of a parent-focused, test message–delivered
intervention to reduce sedentary behavior in 2- to
4-year-old children (Mini Movers): Pilot random-
ized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth and uHealth,
6(2), 1–15.
Duch, H., Fisher, E. M., Ensari, I., & Harrington, A.
(2013). Screen time use in children under 3 years
old: A systematic review of correlates. Interna-
tional Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Phys-
ical Activity, 10(1), art. 102. https://doi.org/10
.1186/1479-5868-10-102
Elliot, A. J. (Ed.) (2010). Handbook of approach and
avoidance motivation. New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Endedijk, H. M., Cillessen, A. H. N., Cox, R. F. A.,
Bekkering, H., & Hunnius, S. (2015). The role of
Goal Framework for Screen-Time Monitoring
child characteristics and peer experiences in the
development of peer cooperation. Social Develop-
ment, 24(3), 521–540.
Epstein, L. H., Gordy, C. C., Raynor, H. A., Bed-
dome, M., Kilanowski, C. K., & Paluch, R. (2001).
Increasing fruit and vegetable intake and decreas-
ing fat and sugar intake in families at risk for child-
hood obesity. Obesity, 9(3), 171–178.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New
York, NY: Norton.
Evans, M. D. R., Kelley, J., Sikora, J. & Treiman, D. J.
(2010). Family scholarly culture and educational
success: Evidence from 27 nations. Research in
Social Stratification and Mobility, 28(2), 171–197.
Ferguson, C. J. (2017). Everything in moderation:
Moderate use of screens unassociated with child
behavior problems. Psychiatry Quarterly, 88,
797–805.
Fowers, B. J. (2010). Instrumentalism and psychol-
ogy: Beyond using and being used. Theory & Psy-
chology, 20(1), 102–124.
Fowers, B. J. (2012). An Aristotelian framework for
the human good. Journal of Theoretical and Philo-
sophical Psychology, 32, 10–23.
Fowers, B. J., Mollica, C. O., & Procacci, E. N.
(2010). Constitutive and instrumental goal orien-
tations and their relations with eudaimonic and
hedonic well-being. Journal of Positive Psychol-
ogy, 5(2), 139–153.
Fowers, B. J., & Owenz, M. B. (2010). A eudaimonic
theory of marital quality. Journal of Family Theory
& Review, 2, 334–352.
Gallup. (2017). Time to play: A study on children’s
free time: How it is spent, prioritized and valued.
Washington, DC: Author.
Gingold, J. A., Simon, A. E., & Schoendorf, K. C.
(2014). Excess screen time in US children: Asso-
ciation with family rules and alternative activities.
Clinical Pediatrics, 53(1), 41–50.
Gentile, D. A., Berch, O. N., Choo, H., Khoo, A., &
Walsh, D. A. (2017). Bedroom media: One risk
factor for development. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 53(12), 2340–2355.
Gentile, D. A., Reimer, R. A., Nathanson, A. I.,
Walsh, D. A., & Eisenmann, J. C. (2014). Pro-
tective effects of parental monitoring of children’s
media use: A prospective study. JAMA Pediatrics,
168(5), 479–484.
Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the
rise of psychopathology in children and ado-
lescents. American Journal of Play, 3(4),
443–463.
Hale, L., & Guan, S. (2015). Screen time and sleep
among school-aged children and adolescents:
A systematic literature review. Sleep Medicine
Reviews, 21, 50–58.
Hinkley, T., Cliff, D., Lum, J., & Hesketh, K. (2017).
Active minds happy kids: A stealth-based pilot
intervention targeting preschoolers’ screen-time,
347
outdoor play and social skills. Journal of Science
and Medicine in Sport, 20, e3–e4.
Hinkley, T., Verbestel, V., Ahrens, W., Lissner,
L., Molnár, D., Moreno, L. A., … Institute
of Medicine, Department of Public Health and
Community Medicine. (2014). Early childhood
electronic media use as a predictor of poorer
well-being: A prospective cohort study. JAMA
Pediatrics, 168(5), 485–492.
Howe, A., Heath, A., Lawrence, J., Galland, B., Gray,
A., Taylor, B., … Taylor, R. (2017). Parenting
style and family type, but not child temperament,
are associated with television viewing time in chil-
dren at two years of age. PLOS One, 12(12),
e0188558.
Jackson, D., Djafarian, K., Stewart, J., & Speakman, J.
(2009). Increased television viewing is associated
with elevated body fatness but not with lower total
energy expenditure in children. American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition, 89(4), 1031–1036.
Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis R.,
Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H., Lesiter, K. P.,
& Bonner, R. L. (2015). Exposure to and use
of mobile devices by young children. Pediatrics,
136(6), 1044–1050.
Khan, K. S., Purtell, K. M., Logan, J., Ansari, A., &
Justice, L. M. (2017). Association between televi-
sion viewing and parent-child reading in the early
home environment. Journal of Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics, 38(7), 521–527.
Koolstra, C., & vanderVoort, T. (1996). Longitudinal
effects of television on children’s leisure-time
reading: A test of three explanatory models.
Human Communication Research, 23(1), 4–35.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J.,
Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet
paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1),
49–74.
Kuo, F. E., & Taylor, A. F. (2004). A potential natu-
ral treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity dis-
order: Evidence from a national study. American
Journal of Public Health, 94(9), 1580–1586.
Lambert, G., Reid, C., Kaye, D., Jennings, G., &
Esler, M. (2002). Effect of sunlight and season on
serotonin turnover in the brain. Lancet, 360(9348),
1840–1842.
Lillard, A., & Peterson, J. (2011). The immediate
impact of different types of television on young
children’s executive function. Pediatrics, 128(4),
644–649.
Madigan, S., Browne, D., Racine, N., Mori, C., &
Tough, S. (2019). Association between screen
time and children’s performance on a develop-
mental screening test. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(3),
244–250.
Maniccia, D., Davison, K., Marshall, S., Manganello,
J., & Dennison, B. (2011). A meta-analysis of
interventions that target children’s screen time for
reduction. Pediatrics, 128(1), E193–E210.
348
Mann, T., Tomiyama, A. J., Westling, E., Lew, A.,
Samuels, B., & Chatman, J. (2007). Medicare’s
search for effective obesity treatments: Diets are
not the answer. American Psychologist, 62(3),
220–233.
Mar, R. A., Tackett, J. L., & Moore, C. (2010). Expo-
sure to media and theory-of-mind development in
preschoolers. Cognitive Development, 25, 69–78.
Mares, M., & Pan, Z. (2013). Effects of Sesame Street:
A meta-analysis of children’s learning in 15 coun-
tries. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 34(3), 140–151.
Marsh, S., Foley, L. S., Wilks, D. C., & Maddison,
R. (2014). Family-based interventions for reduc-
ing sedentary time in youth: A systematic review of
randomized controlled trials: Family-based seden-
tary time interventions. Obesity Reviews, 15(2),
117–133.
Matheson, E. M., King, D. E., & Everett, C. J. (2012).
Healthy lifestyle habits and mortality in over-
weight and obese individuals. Journal of the Amer-
ican Board of Family Medicine, 25(1), 9.
McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2018). Technofer-
ence: Longitudinal associations between parent
technology use, parenting stress, and child behav-
ior problems. Pediatric Research, 84(2), 210–218.
Mendelsohn, A. L., Dreyer, B. P., Brockmeyer, C. A.,
Berkule-Silberman, S. B., Huberman, H. S., &
Tomopoulos, S. (2011). Randomized controlled
trial of primary care pediatric parenting programs:
Effect on reduced media exposure in infants, medi-
ated through enhanced parent–child interaction.
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine,
165(1), 42–48.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989).
Delay of gratification in children. Science,
244(4907), 933–938.
Munzer, T., Miller, A., Weeks, H., Kaciroti, N., &
Radesky, J. (2019). Differences in parent–toddler
interactions with electronic versus print books.
Pediatrics, 143(4), e20182012. https://doi.org/10
.1542/peds.2018-2012
Oertig, D., Schüler, J., Schnelle, J., Brandstätter, V.,
Roskes, M., & Elliot, A. J. (2013). Avoidance goal
pursuit depletes self-regulatory resources. Journal
of Personality, 81(4), 365–375.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M.
(2012). Getting a high-speed family connection:
Associations between family media use and family
connection. Family Relations, 61(3), 426–440.
Paulus, M. P., Squeglia, L. M., Bagot, K., Jacobus,
J., Kuplicki, R., Breslin, F. J., … Tapert, S. F.
(2019). Screen media activity and brain structure in
youth: Evidence for diverse structural correlation
networks form the ABCD study. NeuroImage, 185,
140–153.
Peláez, S., Alexander, S., Roberge, J., Henderson,
M., Bigras, J., & Barnett, T. A. (2016). “Life in
the age of screens”: Parent perspectives on a 24-h
Journal of Family Theory & Review
no screen-time challenge. Clinical Obesity, 6(4),
273–280.
Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in child-
hood. New York, NY: Norton.
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A
large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis:
Quantifying the relations between digital-screen
use and the mental well-being of adolescents.
Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215.
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2018). Digital
screen time limits and young children’s psycholog-
ical well-being: Evidence from a population-based
study. Child Development, 90(1), e56–e65.
Ra, C. K., Cho, J., Stone, M. D., De La Cerda,
J., Goldenson, N. I., Moroney, E., … Lev-
enthal, A. M. (2018). Association of digital
media use with subsequent symptoms of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among
adolescents. JAMA, 320(3), 255–263.
Radesky, J. S., Eisenberg, S., Kistin, C. J., Gross,
J., Block, G., Zuckerman, B., & Silverstein,
M. (2016). Overstimulated consumers or
next-generation learners? Parent tensions about
child mobile technology use. Annals of Family
Medicine, 14(6), 503–508.
Rasmussen, E. E., Shafer, A., Colwell, M. J., White,
S. R., Punyanunt-Carter, N., Densley, R. L., &
Wright, H. (2016). Relation between active medi-
ation, exposure to Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood
and U.S. preschoolers’ social and emotional
development. Journal of Children and Media, 10,
443–461.
Razani, N., Morshed, S., Kohn, M. A., Wells, N. M.,
Thompson, D., Alqassari, M., … Rutherford,
G. W. (2018). Effect of park prescriptions with and
without group visits to parks on stress reduction
in low-income parents: SHINE randomized trial.
PLOS One, 13(2), e0192921.
Rees, C. (2007). Childhood attachment. British Jour-
nal of General Practice, 57(444), 920–922.
Rende, R. (2015). The developmental significance of
chores: Then and now. Brown University Child and
Adolescent Behavior Letter, 31(1), 1–7.
Rideout, V. (2017). The common Sense census: Media
use by kids age zero to eight. San Francisco, CA:
Common Sense Media.
Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2019). The Common
Sense census: Media use by tweens and teens,
2019. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.
Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Felt, J., Carrier, L. M.,
Cheever, N. A., Lara-Ruiz, J. M., … Rokkum,
J. (2014). Media and technology use predicts
ill-being among children, preteens and teenagers
independent of the negative health impacts of
exercise and eating habits. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 364–375.
Ryan, R. M., Curren, R. R., & Deci, E. L. (2013).
What humans need: Flourishing in Aristotelian
philosophy and self-determination theory. In A. S.
Goal Framework for Screen-Time Monitoring
Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive
psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp.
57–75). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Schlam, T. R., Wilson, N. L., Shoda, Y., Mischel, W.,
& Ayduk, O. (2013). Preschoolers’ delay of grat-
ification predicts their body mass 30 years later.
Journal of Pediatrics, 162(1), 90–93.
Schmidt, M. E., Haines, J., O’Brien, A., McDonald,
A., Price, S., Sherry, B., & Taveras, E. M. (2012).
Systematic review of effective strategies for reduc-
ing screen time among young children. Obesity,
20(7), 1338–1354. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby
.2011.348
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Associa-
tions between screen time and lower psychological
well-being among children and adolescents: Evi-
dence from a population-based study. Preventive
Medicine Reports, 12, 271–283.
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin,
G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms,
suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among
U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased
new media screen time. Clinical Psychological
Science, 6(1), 3–17.
Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Campbell, W. K.
(2018). Decreases in psychological well-being
among American adolescents after 2012 and links
to screen time during the rise of smartphone tech-
nology. Emotion, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.1037/
emo0000403
Uhls, Y. T., Michikyan, M., Morris, J., Garcia, D.,
Small, G. W., Zgourou, E., & Greenfield, P. M.
(2014). Five days at outdoor education camp with-
out screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal
emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39,
387–392.
van den Heuvel, M., Ma, J., Borkhoff, C. M., Korosh-
egyi, C., Dai, D. W. H., Parkin, P. C., … TARGet
Kids! Collaboration. (2019). Mobile media device
use is associated with expressive language delay in
349
18-month-old children. Journal of Developmental
and Behavioral Pediatrics, 40(2), 99–104.
Vandewater, E., Bickham, D., & Lee, J. (2006).
Time well spent? Relating television use to chil-
dren’s free-time activities. Pediatrics, 117(2),
E181–E191.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental
development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5,
6–18.
Wahi, G., Parkin, P. C., Beyene, J., Uleryk, E. M., &
Birken, C. S. (2011). Effectiveness of interventions
aimed at reducing screen time in children: A sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. Archives of Pediatrics & Adoles-
cent Medicine, 165(11), 979–986.
Walsh, J. J., Barnes, J. D., Cameron, J. D., Goldfield,
G. S., Chaput, J. P., Gunnel, K. E., … Tremblay,
M. S. (2018). Associations between 24 hour move-
ment behaviours and global cognition in US chil-
dren: A cross-sectional observational study. Lancet
Child & Adolescent Health, 2(11), 783–791.
World Health Organization. (2019). Guidelines on
physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep
for children under 5 years of age. Geneva, Switzer-
land: Author. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/
iris/handle/10665/311664
Xu, H., Wen, L. M., & Rissel, C. (2014). Associ-
ations of maternal influences with outdoor play
and screen time of two-year-olds: Findings from
the healthy beginnings trial. Journal of Paediatrics
and Child Health, 50(9), 680–686.
Yogman, M., Garner, A., Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek,
K., Golinkoff, R. M., Council on Communications
and Media, & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects
of Child and Family Health. (2018). The power of
play: A pediatric role in enhancing development in
young children. Pediatrics, 142(3): e20182058.
Zimmerman, F. J., & Christakis, D. A. (2007). Associ-
ations between content types of early media expo-
sure and subsequent attentional problems. Pedi-
atrics, 120(5), 986–992.