IDENTIFYING PREDICTORS TO PARENTAL MEDIATION OF MOBILE DEVICES

DURING THE TEEN YEARS

USING THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR

Mona Malacane Clay

Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

in the Media School

Indiana University

August 2019




ProQuest Number: 22618195




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 22618195

Published by ProQuest LLC (2019 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Doctoral Committee

_________________________________________________
Nicole Martins, Ph.D., Chair

_________________________________________________
Jonathon Beckmeyer, Ph.D.

_________________________________________________
Bryant Paul, Ph.D.

_________________________________________________
Paul Wright, Ph.D.

August 6, 2019

ii
Copyright © 2019

Mona Malacane Clay

iii
 Acknowledgements

This dissertation is the culmination of a long journey that I completed with the help

of many people. Graduate school is not something one goes through alone and I am so

blessed to have had a stable support system through these years. To begin, I would first

like to thank with the deepest and most sincere gratitude my committee chair, Dr. Nicole

Martins. Since I walked into your office on my visit to Indiana University in 2012, you have

been my advisor and guided me along a trajectory of success. Over the years, you have been

a model of integrity, a mentor, a cheerleader, and a friend. Thank you for your endless

encouragement and advice, and for teaching me how to do good science. I am truly grateful

for all of the time, opportunities, and energy you have invested into my education and

growth.

With equal appreciation and gratefulness, I thank my other Media School committee

members who have been integral to my graduate career and dissertation. Dr. Bryant Paul, I

sincerely appreciate all of the advice and valuable life lessons you have shared with me in

the years that I have known you. I am so very grateful for the opportunities you brought

into my life and all of the time and energy you invested into my education. From The

Summit to helping me through phone interviews, you have included me in every occasion

that offered me employment, growth, and experience. You were not only my mentor and

professor, but you also welcomed me (and Matt) into your home and beautiful family. I will

always cherish the memories we made all together.

Dr. Paul Wright, I am so thankful for the email I sent to your advisor years ago when

I was deciding on graduate schools and he pointed me in your direction. In that email, he

expressed his confidence that you would be an “outstanding advisor”’ and, of course, you

iv
were. No matter how busy you were, you always provided thorough, detailed, and

constructive feedback in meetings and on paper. I will never forget the time that you

unfortunately lost all of the edits you made on a manuscript of mine in a Microsoft Word

glitch and, instead of saving yourself time and work by just summarizing your thoughts in

an email, you called me and discussed your feedback over the phone, page by page. Your

level of detail and shrewd advice has, without a doubt, made me a better writer. Thank you

so very much for the time and effort you devoted to my education and for pushing me to be

the best scholar I can be.

Dr. Jonathon Beckmeyer, though you were my “minor” advisor, you have played a

major role in my PhD career. The classes that I have taken with you have been instrumental

in expanding my knowledge of family systems and their influence on adolescent

development. I also owe a substantial amount of my knowledge of statistics to you and the

time and energy you have spent teaching me. Over countless hours and with an abundance

of patience, you have trained me to listen to data and interpret with unbiased eyes and

mind. I have learned so much from you outside of the classroom as well, through the

projects and publications we have co-authored. You are an excellent scientist and

thoughtful, dedicated mentor. You have truly shaped me into a well-rounded and open-

minded scholar and for that I am forever grateful.

I thank all of the anonymous parents on Mechanical Turk who participated in this

study, and the parents who voluntarily filled out my pilot survey. I also extend my thanks to

Dr. JD Seo at the Indiana Statistical Consulting Center and his class of future statistical

consultants for their feedback on my analysis plan, as well as Hugo Hu at the ISCC for his

valuable input on structural equation modeling.

v
 To the brilliant friends I have made along this academic journey – Glenna, Ashley,

Teresa, Nic, Rachelle, Irene, Cole, Yanyan, Jingjing, Niki, Lucia, and Laura. Adversity has a

way of bringing people together in a special and unique way and I feel so lucky that the

trials of grad school brought us closer. Thank you for being a community of love,

encouragement, advice, and celebration throughout the highs and lows of life.

To my friends in the “real world” – Kristie, Katie E., Morgan, Kaley, Joanna, Rebecca,

Katie C., Tori, India, Caroline, Marina, Anna, and Cheyenne. You all helped maintain my

sanity and supplied never-ending encouragement. Thank you for keeping my spirits up and

reminding me of the value of the work I have done.

I would be lost without the support and love of my mother, father, and sister. You

have always encouraged me, supported me, and believed in me, especially when I didn’t

believe in myself. Mom, you are my role model of strength, dedication, and passion for life;

Dad, you are a fountain of optimism, advice, and knowledge; Aleya, you are my biggest

cheerleader, not only during graduate school but throughout our lives. Your support is

worth more than I can put on paper and I will always look up to you. Special thanks to my

parents and siblings-in-law—Sheryl, David, Ryan, Katie, Joshua, and Viviane—who are the

most wonderful and caring extended family I could wish for. Y’all will probably never read

this in its entirety but you all helped me write it.

And finally, to my amazing husband, Matthew. Words cannot fully express how

much you mean to me. Without question or second thought, you have always supported my

goals, empowered me to be my best, and sacrificed so much so that I could succeed. This

achievement would not have been possible without your love and encouragement. You are

my rock, my partner, and my best friend. I dedicate this dissertation to you.

vi
 Mona Malacane Clay

IDENTIFYING PREDICTORS TO PARENTAL MEDIATION OF MOBILE DEVICES

DURING THE TEEN YEARS USING THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR

Parental mediation refers to behaviors that parents employ to communicate about,

monitor, and restrict their children’s media activities. A great deal of research has been

conducted on parental mediation of television, movies, and video games; however, few

studies have investigated how parents mediate Internet-enabled mobile devices. In

addition, little research has examined predictors to parental mediation during the teenage

years, which tends to decline as children get older. To address these gaps in the literature,

this study employed the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a framework for identifying

predictors to parental mediation of mobile devices during the teenage years.

Parents with a child between the ages of 13 and 18 who own a personal mobile

device were recruited through Amazon’s online labor workforce, Mechanical Turk (N =

592), and responded to a cross-sectional survey assessing their attitudes, subjective norms,

perceived behavioral control, and parental mediation behaviors, specifically active

mediation, restrictive mediation, and monitoring of mobile devices. Aspects of the family

system were also evaluated as moderators between the TPB variables and parental

mediation. The results showed that certain attitudinal and control beliefs were associated

with parental mediation behaviors, whereas subjective norms did not impact mediation. No

moderating relationships were found for the family system variables but barriers to

communication did interact with some TPB constructs and active mediation. The findings

are discussed with a focus on practical implications and recommendations for parents.

vii
 _________________________________________________
Nicole Martins, Ph.D., Chair

_________________________________________________
Jonathon Beckmeyer, Ph.D.

_________________________________________________
Bryant Paul, Ph.D.

_________________________________________________
Paul Wright, Ph.D.

viii
 Table of Contents

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………………………….... xii

List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………………………......……… xiii
List of Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………………..….. xiv
List of Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………………..………………… xv
CHAPTER 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Background of this Study …………………………………………………………………………. 3
Outline of this Dissertation ………………………………………………………………………. 6
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………… 7
Teen Mobile Device Use and Ownership ……………………………………………………. 7
Parental Mediation …………………………………………………………………………..……… 8
Active Mediation …………………………………………………………………………… 9
Restrictive Mediation ……………………………………………………………………. 10
Monitoring .…………………………………………………………………………………… 11
Co-viewing/Co-using …………………………………………..………………………… 12
Effects of Parental Mediation ……………………………………………………………………. 13
Purpose and Contribution of This Study ……………………………………………………. 16
The Theory of Planned Behavior ………………………………………………………………. 18
Attitudes Toward Behaviors …………………………………………………………. 21
Subjective Norms ………………………………………………………….……………… 30
Perceived Behavioral Control ………………………………………………………… 34
Family System Theory ………………………………………………….………………………….. 41
Family System Theory Moderating Variables ……………….………………… 43
Parenting Behaviors……………………………………………………………. 44
Family Communication Quality …………………………………………… 48
Perceived Parent Barriers …………………………………………………… 49
Control Variables …………………………………………………………………………………….. 51
CHAPTER 3: Method …………………………………………………………………………………………. 55
Study Design ………………………………………………………………………………….……..… 55

ix
 Data Collection …………………………………………………………………………..……………. 57
Participants and Sampling ……………………………………………………..………………… 57
Data Screening …………………………………………………………………………...…………… 58
Measures ……………………………………………………………………………………………….… 61
Parental Mediation (DVs) ……………………………………………………………… 61
Theory of Planned Behavior Constructs (IVs) …………………………………. 67
Family System Theory Moderating Variables …………………….…….……… 72
Control Variables …………………………………………………..……………………… 75
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………………..…..……………… 78
Missing Values …………………………………………………………….………………… 78
Analysis Plan ……………………………………………………………..………….……… 80
CHAPTER 4: Results ……………………………………………………………………..…………………... 86
Descriptive Statistics of the Sample …………………………………..……………………… 86
Model Assessment …………………………………………………………………………………… 98
Measurement Model ……………………………………………………………………… 98
Structural Models …………………………………………………………………………. 106
Hypothesis Testing ………………………………………………………………………………… 112
Active Mediation ……………………………………………………………………………………… 114
Active Mediation Moderation Analyses ………………………………...………… 116
Summed Restrictive Mediation ………………………………………………………………… 120
Summed Restrictive Mediation Moderation Analyses ……………………… 121
Average Restrictive Mediation ……………………………………………………..…………... 123
Average Restrictive Mediation Moderation Analyses ……………………..... 124
Summed Monitoring ………………………………………………………………………………… 127
Summed Monitoring Moderation Analyses ………………………..…………… 128
Average Monitoring …………………………………………………………………………………. 130
Average Monitoring Moderation Analyses ……………………………………… 131
CHAPTER 5: Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………………. 133
Theory of Planned Behavior …………………………………………………..………………… 133

x
 Attitudes (H1, H2, and RQ1) …………………………………………..……………… 135
Subjective Norms (H3, H4) ………………………………………………..………...… 140
Perceived Behavioral Control/Self-Efficacy (H5, H6, H7) ………………… 143
Moderation Analyses (RQ2, RQ3, RQ4) ……………………………………………………… 147
Demographic Control Variables ……………………………………………………..………… 150
Limitations ………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 152
Conclusions and Recommendations ………………………………………………………….. 154
Directions for Future Research …………………………………………………………………. 156
References ……………………………………………………………………………...………………………….. 161
Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Appendix A: List of Hypotheses, Research Questions, and Summarized
Findings ………………………………………………………………………………………..………… 190
Appendix B: Questionnaire ………………………………………….…………………………… 193
Appendix C: Questionnaire Pre-test Results ……………………………………………… 205
Appendix D: Correlation Results ……………………………………………………………….. 212
Curriculum Vitae ………………………………………………………………………………………..…….…

xi
 List of Tables

Table Page
1 Reliability Coefficients and Descriptive Statistics for DVs
and IVs for Sub-samples of Responses that Took
>10, >8, & >5 Minutes to Complete Survey…………………………………….……… 60
2 Reliability Coefficients and Descriptive Statistics
for IVs, DVs and Moderators………………………………………………………………… 63
3 Principal Component Analysis of
Summed Monitoring Questions……………………………………………………….…… 67
4 Means and Standard Deviations for
Barriers to Parent Mediation Items…………………………………….………………… 75
5 Descriptive Statistics for Demographic
and Control Variables ……………………………..…………………………..………………. 90
6 Pearson, Point Biserial and Spearman
Correlations Among All Variables…………………………………………..…….……… 95
7 Pearson Correlations for IVs and DVs…………………………………………………… 97
8 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting
Active Mediation ………………………………………………………………………………… 119
9 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting
Summed Restrictive Mediation …………………………………………………………… 122
10 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting
Average Restrictive Mediation …………………………………………………………… 126
11 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting
Summed Monitoring …...……………………………………………………………………… 129
12 Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting
Average Monitoring …………………………………………………………………………… 132

xii
 List of Figures

Figure Page

1 The Theory of Planned Behavior ……………………………………………………...… 20

Theoretical Framework Using the Theory of
2 Planned Behavior To Predict Parent Mediation ………………………….……….. 56
3 Hypothesized Measurement Model …………………………………………….…….… 99
4 Re-specified Measurement Model ………………………………………….…………… 102
5 Retained Measurement Model ……………………………………………….…………… 105
6 Structural Model Predicting Active Mediation ………………………….….……… 109
7 Structural Model Predicting Restrictive Mediation ……………………………… 110
8 Structural Model Predicting Monitoring ……………………………………………... 111

xiii
 List of Appendices

Appendix Page
A List of Hypotheses, Research Questions,
and Summarized Findings ………………………………………….………………………… 190
B Questionnaire …………………………………………………………………………………...… 193
C Questionnaire Pre-test Results ……………………………………………………………… 205
D Correlation Results ………………………………………………………………………………. 212

xiv
 List of Abbreviations

AM Active Mediation
ATT_AMO Attitudes About Mediation Outcomes
ATT_NA Negative Attitudes about Media Effects and Use
ATT_PA Positive Attitudes about Media Effects and Use
BAR Barriers to Parent Mediation
CFI Comparative Fit Index
CI Confidence Interval
FCQ Family Communication Quality
FST Family System Theory
GFI Goodness of Fit Index
KMA Knowledge of Teen Media Activities
MAR Missing at Random
MCAR Missing Completely at Random
ML Maximum Likelihood
MON_AVG Average Monitoring
MON_SUM Summed Monitoring
NMAR Not Missing at Random
PBC Perceived Behavioral Control
PMU Parent Mobile Device Use
PS_A Autonomy Granting (Parenting Behavior)
PB_C Connection (Parenting Behavior)
PB_R Regulation (Parenting Behavior)
RM_AVG Average Restrictive Mediation
RM_SUM Summed Restrictive Mediation
RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
SE Self-Efficacy
SEM Structural Equation Modeling
SN_DN Descriptive Norms
SN_IN Injunctive Norms
SRMR Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
TLI Tucker-Lewis Index
TPB Theory of Planned Behavior

xv
 CHAPTER 1: Introduction

A consistent finding in parental mediation research is that media-related parenting

behaviors are more prevalent for younger children and steadily decline during the teenage

years. Between the ages of 6 and 12, both parents and children report having rules about

television viewing, video game playing, access to devices, and online activities (Chen &

Chng, 2016; Jordan, Hersey, McDivitt, & Heitzler, 2006; Nikken & Jansz, 2013). These

actions include content restrictions, supervised use, and active discussions about media

content.

However, as children progress into their teen years (age 13+), rules and restrictions

for television, video games, and the Internet decrease (Khurana, Bleakley, Jordan & Romer,

2015; Livingstone & Helsper, 2008; Martins, Matthews, & Ratan, 2017). For instance, a

recent nationally representative survey found that parents of children ages 8-to-12

reported significantly more content-based rules across different technologies than parents

of children ages 13-to-18 (Lauricella et al., 2016). Parents of younger adolescents were

more likely to impose and enforce rules about time spent with media, and these parents

also had more frequent active discussions with their children about TV content, different

apps on mobile devices, and social media compared to parents of teenagers.

There are several reasons for this decline. During the transition to adolescence,

young people are developing into more autonomous, independent, and self-governing

individuals (Spear & Kulbok, 2004). Concurrently, adolescents begin to spend more time

with their peers and construct an individual identity outside of their parental umbrella

(Buhrmester, 1992). As a consequence, their activities become less and less supervised

(Steinberg, 1999) and monitoring simply becomes more challenging for parents as their

1
children spend more time away from them. Teens also have more experience with media,

increasingly own personal mobile devices (Rideout, 2015), and may therefore require less

instructive supervision or directions compared to younger children. These are all

developmentally normative and understandable reasons for a decrease in parent

monitoring in general, as well as in media monitoring.

Another consistent finding in parental mediation research is that parental concern

about media use and potential media effects remain high despite this reduction in media

monitoring (Lauricella et al., 2016). Parents report worrying about Internet-related risks

like exposure to online bullying, pornography, and inappropriate self-presentation on

social media, as well as off-line activities like exposure to mature content in TV and movies

(boyd & Hargiatti, 2013; Madden, Cortesi, Gasser, Lenhart, & Duggan, 2012). Potential

negative effects as a result of teen media consumption are also a concern among parents

(Sandstig, Johansson, & Ringsberg, 2013; for a review of effects, see Wright, Malamuth, &

Donnerstein, 2012).

Put simply, there is a disconnect between parental concerns about teen media use

and their reported behaviors that could address these concerns. The purpose of this

dissertation is to investigate this topic using the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991)

as a framework for identifying parent factors that predict mediation during the teen years.

To be clear, it is not the purpose of this paper to imply that decreasing mediation is

neglectful, or to condemn parents for not monitoring teen media use to the extent that they

did when they were younger. Rather, this study seeks to understand if and how attitudes,

norms, and perceived behavioral control beliefs relate to media monitoring during teen

years, and integrate these into a theoretical model along with family system factors.

2
Background of this Study

Research on parental mediation centers on three methods or behaviors: active,

restrictive, and co-viewing (Nathanson, 2001a). Active mediation refers to discussing

media content with children and can occur before, during, or after media use. Restrictive

mediation includes placing limits on access, time, and/or content. Finally, co-viewing (or

co-using) refers to a parental presence during media use without any discussion (as this

would be considered active mediation).

Previous research on parental mediation of media has primarily focused on

television, movies, and video games and is beginning to encompass the Internet, social

media, and mobile platforms (Collier et al., 2016). These mediation behaviors have been

associated with both positive and negative outcomes in children. Active mediation is

typically associated with better well-being for adolescents. When parents engage their

teens in discussions about media content, they have lower intentions to engage in sexual

activity, exhibit lower levels of aggression and externalizing behavior, and engage in less

risky online behavior (Fisher et al., 2009; Lwin, Stanaland, & Miyazaki, 2008; Padilla-

Walker, Coyne, & Collier, 2016). Restrictive mediation has been shown to be successful at

preventing or limiting exposure to undesired content and is predictive of delayed sexual

activity among teens, decreased risk of sharing private information online, and lower

exposure to pornography (Fisher et al., 2009; Lee, 2013). However, restrictive mediation

has also been associated with reactance, or boomerang effects, among teens leading to

increased exposure to restricted content and increased intentions to engage in sexual

behavior (Nikken & de Graaf, 2013). The effects of co-viewing are mixed. Some studies have

found that it is related to increased aggressive tendencies after viewing violent TV shows,

3
indicating that parental co-viewing without discussion can signal tacit approval of such

messages (Nathanson, 1999; Rasmussen, Coyne, Martins, & Densley, 2018). However, other

studies have shown that co-viewing is negatively associated with aggression, positively

associated with prosocial behavior, has no effect on sexual activity, and is related to greater

family connectedness, (Coyne, Padilla-Walker, Stockdale, & Day, 2011; Fisher et al., 2009;

Padilla-Walker, Coyne, & Fraser, 2012a).

This dissertation focuses on parental mediation of Internet-enabled mobile digital

technologies, specifically smartphones, laptops, tablets, and Internet-enabled MP3

players/iPod touches, hereafter called mobile devices. In this context, I refer to parental

mediation as encompassing overall use of mobile devices, including what, when, and where

adolescents can access. Mobile devices were chosen because recent reports of U.S. teen’s

daily media consumption demonstrate that by the time kids reach the teen years, many

have their own personal smartphone or other portable device (or have access to one) and

these devices occupy a large amount of their daily screen time (Lauricella, Cingel,

Blackwell, Wartella, & Conway, 2014; Rideout, 2015). In addition, teens report that a

plurality of their Internet use is on a smartphone or other mobile device (Lenhart, 2015).

A small but growing body of literature has investigated parental mediation of

mobile devices and adolescent Internet use in general, finding that parents engage in

similar active, restrictive, and co-using mediation behaviors (e.g. Livingstone & Helsper,

2008); however, this dissertation will focus on active and restrictive mediation. Co-

using/co-viewing will not be assessed because it is less commonly reported among parents

of teens compared to younger children (Opgenhaffen, Vandenbosch, Eggermont, & Frison,

2012), and the nature of mobile devices (i.e. size, portability) make them challenging for

4
parents and teens to use together on a consistent basis. Moreover, studies that have

included co-use/co-viewing in parental mediation measures of the Internet and cellphones

find that it is less frequent than active and restrictive mediation (e.g. Warren, 2017).

Instead this study will consider parent monitoring 1 of mobile devices − defined as

covert or overt supervisory behaviors of children’s mobile devices − as a third parental

mediation behavior that has emerged specifically within the context of Internet and mobile

device mediation (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008; Vaterlaus, Beckert, Tulane, & Bird, 2014).

Like co-viewing, monitoring can be unobtrusive (e.g. checking their device later on to

determine previous activities) and also autonomy-supportive, by asking what the child is

doing on their device in real-time and providing guidance (if needed) or freedom (if not)

(Shin & Li, 2017). Given the nascence of this body of research, studies that have focused on

historically older forms of mass media (i.e. television, movies, and video games) along with

studies of newer digital technologies will be discussed throughout this paper.

Beyond the distinctions above—active, restrictive, and co-viewing/using—parental

mediation literature has been largely atheoretical (Chakroff & Nathanson, 2008). That is,

the conceptualization of parental mediation as a three-dimensional construct can be

considered more of a descriptive approach rather than a parsimonious theory from which

we can derive predictions and test hypotheses. Given the ubiquity of media in the lives of

teens and parents today, a theoretical approach to understanding parent motivations

associated with mediation would be quite useful to future researchers as well as advocacy

organizations dedicated to media education and literacy for parents and teens. To address

this gap in the literature, I employed the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) as a

1Throughout this paper, the term “parental mediation” is used to refer collectively to active
mediation, restrictive mediation, and monitoring.
5
framework to investigate if and how social and psychological factors predict parental

mediation during the teen years. Additionally, I considered how aspects of the family

system can interact with these social-psychological factors to impact parental mediation.

Outline of this Dissertation

This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The first chapter consisted of the

introduction and provided background on the purpose of this study and the gap it aims to

fill. The next and second chapter is the literature review. This section discusses teen mobile

device use, reviews research on effects and outcomes of parental mediation, and

summarizes the purpose of this study. The theory of planned behavior and its core

constructs are defined next, along with the independent variables that are the main focus of

this study. I also discuss family system theory and the potential moderating role of the

family environment on parental mediation. The third chapter is the Method section, where

I explain the study design, the survey instrument and measures, and detail my analysis

plan. The fourth chapter is the Results section, which begins with descriptive information,

then explains the evaluation of the measurement and structural models, and findings of the

statistical analyses. Chapter five is the Discussion section and reviews the main findings of

the hypotheses and research questions with a focus on practical implications for parents.

Limitations, conclusions, and directions for future research are also discussed.

6
 CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

This chapter has three main sections. First, I begin with a discussion of teen mobile

device ownership and general use. I provide conceptual definitions for the three parental

mediation styles that are investigated in this study, briefly review research on the effects of

parental mediation of mobile devices, and explain the purpose and contribution of this

study. The second section focuses on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and its core

constructs. This section reviews literature on this study’s independent variables, which are

the hypothesized predictors of parental mediation. The third section reviews family system

theory (FST) and the impact of the family environment on parental mediation behaviors.

The last section details the control variables I employed. My hypotheses and research

questions are embedded throughout the literature review and also listed in Appendix A.

Teen Mobile Device Use and Ownership

Teens in the United States engage in a variety of media activities, including watching

television (TV) content and movies, playing games, surfing social media, creating their own

content, communicating with others, reading and writing, and listening to music, to name a

few. On an average day, teens spend almost seven hours (6 hours and 40 minutes) 2 using

screen media, namely tablets, smartphones, iPods/MP3 players, TV, computers, and video

games (Rideout, 2015). Listening to music and watching entertainment TV content are the

most common daily activities among teens, followed by using social media and watching

videos (Rideout, 2015). A plurality of this use is done on mobile devices, mainly

smartphones, computers, tablets, and iPod/iPod touches (Rideout, 2015).

2 This does not include screen time in school or for homework. Non-screen media activities include
listening to music and reading print material (Rideout, 2015).
7
 Teens also own personal mobile devices or have relatively easy access them.

Common Sense Media − a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to digital media

literacy education and research for parents, teachers, and policy makers (Common Sense

Media, n.d.) − commissioned two recent nationally representative “censuses” of media use

among 2,658 adolescents ages 8 to 18 and 1,786 parents of adolescents ages 8 to 18

(Census reports were authored by Lauricella et al., 2016 & Rideout, 2015). Approximately

67% of teens in the adolescent study self-reported owning a smartphone, 37% had a tablet,

45% had a laptop, and 20% had an iPod Touch (Rideout, 2015). Parent’s reports of teen

media ownership in the parent study were higher, such that 79% of teens had a

smartphone, 45% had a tablet, 43% had a laptop, and 28% had a portable game player

(Lauricella et al., 2016). Another nationally representative study of 1,637 teens (ages 13-

to- 17) conducted by the PEW Internet and American Life Project reported 73% have or

have access to a smartphone, 58% have a tablet, and 87% have a laptop (Lenhart, 2015).

Put simply, teens are frequent users and many are owners of mobile devices.

Parental Mediation

Scholars from different fields have studied parental mediation, including psychology

(Vaterlaus et al., 2014), communication (Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters, & Marseille, 1999),

family science (Padilla-Walker et al., 2016), public health and pediatrics (Radesky et al.,

2016), and education (Valke, Bonte, Wever, & Rots, 2010). This research has accumulated

over several decades and variations in conceptual definitions of what parental mediation is

and how parents enact it have evolved over this time (for a thorough review, see

Nathanson, 2001a). In the most general sense, parental mediation refers to interactions

between parents and children that attempt to supervise, restrict, intervene, or

8
communicate about media (Nathanson, 2001a). The three primary methods of parental

mediation are active, restrictive, and co-using/co-viewing, which have been conceptualized

from research focused on traditional forms of media (e.g. TV and movies viewed on TV sets,

video game consoles; Valkenburg, Piotrowski, Hermanns, & de Leeuw, 2013). This study

focuses on active mediation, restrictive mediation, and monitoring of mobile devices and

will not investigate parent co-using/co-viewing. Conceptual definitions for active

mediation, restrictive mediation, and monitoring are discussed next, followed by an

explanation for why co-viewing was not assessed.

Active mediation. Active mediation refers to conversations or discussions of media

content between parents and children that take place before, during, or after viewing/use

(Nathanson, 2001a). Although these conversations can occur between a non-parent and

child (e.g. a sibling; Domoff et al., 2019), the majority of research has focused on parents

and primary caregivers (Nathanson, 2001a). More specifically, active conversations

encompass topics such as critical evaluation of media and interpretation of content (Nikken

& Jansz, 2013). Researchers have also distinguished different types of active mediation.

Negative active mediation refers to evaluative discussions that would deter imitation and

vicarious learning of undesirable behaviors; positive active mediation refers to evaluative

discussions that would encourage imitation and vicarious learning of desirable behaviors;

and neutral active mediation refers to providing supplemental information to a message or

asking the child for their knowledge or thoughts (Austin, Bolls, Fujioka, & Engelbertson,

1999; Nathanson, 2001a).

While the bulk of parental mediation research has focused on active mediation of

television content, its definition and application extends to mobile devices and the Internet

9
as well. For example, Shin and Li (2017) assessed active mediation of digital technologies

(computers, tablets and smartphones) as conversations about online safety, explaining

positive and negative consequences of using mobile devices, providing assistance when

using mobile devices and recommending content. Active mediation has also been measured

as conversations surrounding the importance of rules for mobile device use and why too

much time spent using devices can be detrimental (Hwang et al., 2017). In this study, I

conceptually and operationally measured active mediation as conversations about the

content teen’s access, behaviors they engage in, and applications they use on mobile

devices.

Restrictive mediation. Restrictive mediation refers to rules and limitations

surrounding media content and use (Nathanson, 2001a). It includes restrictions on the

amount of time children can spend using media, the time frames during which children can

or cannot use media, access to devices, and the types of content children can or cannot view

(Nathanson, 2001b; Valkenburg et al., 1999). The consistency with which parents enforce

their rules and limitations is another aspect of restrictive mediation. That is, a parent may

report having specific rules for media use but not strictly enforce them (Valkenburg et al.,

2013). Inter-parental disagreement over certain rules can also impede consistent

enforcement of restrictive mediation (Mares, Stephenson, Martins, & Nathanson, 2018).

For mobile devices and the Internet, restrictive mediation behaviors can include

limitations to access and time. For example, Hwang and colleagues (2017) asked parents if

they have restrictions for smartphone use and prohibit their children “from using

smartphones longer than a certain amount of time” (p. 364). It also includes limitations on

activities that kids can engage in, like not being allowed to use apps that connect a child to

10
strangers or share personal information online (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008). These

restrictions can be enforced by using software that blocks or limits access to certain

content or alert parents when content is downloaded or viewed (Livingstone et al., 2017).

In this study, I conceptually and operationally measured restrictive mediation as rules for

the amount of time and when teens can use media, applications that can/cannot be used,

and the use of parent controls or third-party apps that serve to block or limit access to

specified content. I also asked about the consistency and strictness with which parents

enforced these rules.

Monitoring. In a non-media and verb-specific context, parent monitoring refers to

actions that increase knowledge of a child’s “whereabouts, activities, and associations”

(Dishion & McMahon, 1998). It encompasses attention paid to learning and gaining

knowledge about behavior and includes supervisory actions that are enacted to gain this

information (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Applied to media use, monitoring includes covert and

overt actions that serve to oversee one’s media use and activities. Monitoring has an

element of co-use, in that a parent can engage in the same activity as their child with the

goal of gaining knowledge of their activities (e.g. playing the same online game,

friending/following a child on their social media page); however, it does not require

parents and children to be in the same shared space while co-use is occurring.

Examples of monitoring techniques include using software with the intention of

seeing a child’s activities (but not necessarily blocking them; Livingstone & Hesper, 2008;

Livingstone et al, 2017), asking what the child is doing on a device, watching the screen of

the device (Shin & Li, 2017), asking for a child’s password to their device or online

accounts, and following a child’s online accounts to (in)conspicuously check their posts

11
(PEW, 2016). These behaviors can be done openly and overtly so that the child knows they

are being supervised, covertly without the child’s knowledge, or a combination of both. For

instance, a parent can publicly “friend” (or follow) their child’s social media accounts but

randomly look at their account to view their posts, with or without their child’s knowledge.

In this study, I conceptually and operationally measured monitoring as covert and overt

behaviors that serve to oversee a child’s activities on their mobile device.

Co-viewing/co-using. Co-use/co-viewing was not assessed for several reasons.

First, co-using is less commonly reported for mobile devices compared to traditional media

(Connell, Lauricella, & Wartella, 2015; Warren, 2017). In a recent study, Warren (2017)

surveyed 531 parents with a child between the ages of 10 and 17 about their parental

mediation practices for four media: television, video games, the Internet, and cellphones.

Parental mediation was reported on a four-point Likert scale and responses were summed

to create total score. Mothers and fathers respectively reported shared TV use of 16.83 and

16.51, compared to shared cellphone use of 2.85 and 2.43.

Second, the nature of mobile devices—namely screen size and portability—can

make them more cumbersome for parents to co-use or co-view with their child (Hwang et

al., 2017). Mobile devices that are owned by the child may be more likely to be considered

personal devices compared to media that are in shared places like TVs in a living room

(Vaterlaus, Beckert, & Bird, 2015). Due to this personal nature, it is unlikely that co-viewing

and co-using is a consistently occurring parent behavior for teens (or children in general

for that matter). Indeed, co-viewing is less commonly reported among teens compared to

younger adolescents (Nielsen, 2015). This is not to imply that parents do not ever co-

use/view mobile devices with their teens; rather, these reasons explain why co-use is less

12
common among teens and parents and therefore less relevant to this study of parental

mediation of mobile devices.

Effects of Parental Mediation

How does parental mediation impact teen media use and the effects of use? The

growing body of literature concerning parental mediation of mobile devices and the

Internet suggests that different mediation behaviors produce different outcomes (Chen &

Shi, 2019). The mechanisms through which these behaviors impact teens are also varied

and can differ based on parenting behavior (Valkenburg et al., 2013). The next section

details the different ways active, restrictive and monitoring mediation impact teen media

use, activities, and effects.

Active mediation. Active mediation has historically been associated with more

positive outcomes than restrictive mediation and co-viewing and co-use (Collier et al.,

2016). When parents engage in logic-based processing of media, or communicate their

disapproval with content or media use, they are encouraging and teaching critical thinking

and evaluation, which can mitigate negative effects of exposure and use in adolescents

(Nathanson, 1999). For teens, active mediation that is communicated in an autonomy-

supportive way is particularly beneficial because it provides guidance while also

accommodating the growing need for independent thought-processes and decision making.

Autonomy-supportive active mediation refers to discussions that include the child’s

thoughts on media content and seeks to elicit their opinions and input on different topics

(Valkenburg et al., 2013). This is in contrast to a controlling style of active mediation,

which is more focused on parent opinions and ideas, and less likely to consider a child’s

thoughts on matters. Not surprisingly, controlling active mediation has been negatively

13
associated with prosocial behavior and positively related to antisocial behaviors, while

autonomy-supportive active mediation is positively associated with prosocial behavior and

negatively related to antisocial behaviors (Valkenburg et al., 2013).

Research that has not differentiated between autonomy-supportive and controlling

styles of active communication still reports beneficial effects of this parental mediation

behavior. For example, active mediation is associated with the development of self-

regulation and self-regulation is positively associated with prosocial behavior and less

externalizing behaviors over time (Padilla-Walker et al., 2016). Children of parents who

practice active mediation are less likely to share sensitive private information online (Lwin

et al., 2008); less likely to use to the Internet and mobile devices compulsively or

excessively (Hefner, Knop, Schmitt, & Vorderer, 2019; Kalmus, Blinka, & Ólafsson, 2015);

and less likely to engage with strangers online (Shin & Ismail, 2014). Other research has

shown that active mediation of smartphones does not directly protect against the

development of “smartphone addiction” (Chang et al., 2019); however, it does promote

self-regulation of Internet use in teens and self-regulation is negatively associated with

excessive use of the Internet (van Deursen, Bolle, Hegner, & Kommers, 2015).

Restrictive mediation. Having rules and restrictions for time, content, and access

of media is an effective strategy for promoting healthy media habits among adolescents.

Research has shown that restrictive mediation is associated with lower general media use

and time online (Lee, 2013; Padilla-Walker, Coyne, Kroff, & Memmott-Elison, 2018), as well

as lower odds of developing “smartphone addiction” (Chang et al., 2019). It also negatively

predicts problematic Internet use among tweens and teens (Kalmus et al., 2015), disclosure

of private information online (Lwin et al., 2008), and lower contact with online risks, like

14
accidental exposure to violent and pornographic content, online communication with

strangers, and disclosing private information about one’s parents online (Lee, 2013).

Previous research has also demonstrated the ways in which restrictive mediation is

less effective at preventing undesired behaviors and can actually produce unintended

effects, particularly among teens (e.g. Byrne & Lee, 2011). Reactance—also referred to as

the forbidden fruit effect, or boomerang effect—is the increased motivation to engage in a

behavior (or an increased interest in the behavior) in response to regulations or rules that

threaten freedom or autonomy (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). When parents impose strict rules

on behavior and activities, in some cases, it causes an increase in the undesired behavior.

For example, some research has shown that restrictive mediation increases (Sasson &

Mesch, 2014) or has no effect on risky Internet behaviors (Vaala & Bleakley, 2015).

Restrictive mediation that incorporates technical software to track behavior and block

content can increase risky behaviors like sharing private and personally identifying

information (Lwin et al., 2008; Shin & Ismail, 2014) and is also negatively related to the

development of self-regulation and digital literacy (Padilla-Walker et al., 2016; Rodríguez-

de-Dios, van Oosten, & Igartua, 2018).

It is important to note, however, that reactance as a result of restrictive mediation is

more likely to occur in the absence of open conversations between parents and children.

When rules are developed with input from the child and communicated in an autonomy-

supportive manner, rules and restrictions do not appear to instigate reactance and

unintended effects (Byrne & Lee, 2011; Fikkers, Piotrowski, & Valkenburg, 2017;

Valkenburg et al., 2013).

15
 Monitoring. Similar to restrictive mediation, monitoring can produce mixed effects.

For example, some studies have found that monitoring is negatively related to adolescent

social media use (Khurana et al., 2014; Vaala & Bleakley, 2015), experiencing online

harassment (Khurana et al., 2014), and problematic or excessive mobile device use

(Bleakley, Ellithorpe, & Romer, 2016). In other cases, monitoring has been positively

associated with risky online behaviors (Ghosh et al., 2018; Sasson & Mesch, 2014) and

problematic or excessive Internet use (Kalmus et al., 2015).

There are a few reasons that can explain why these mixed findings occur. First, it is

possible that, like restrictive mediation, monitoring can be inconsistently practiced and is

therefore unlikely to produce a positive impact on a child’s behavior (Valkenburg et al.,

2013). Indeed, inconsistent parenting in general is related to non-adaptive child outcomes

like depression, delinquency, and lower academic achievement (Simons & Conger, 2007).

Second, similar to co-viewing, monitoring typically takes place without conversation

between parents and children (e.g. checking activities after use) and this can signal tacit

agreement or approval of media content, behaviors, and use (Nathanson, 1999;

Wisniewski, Jia, Xu, Rosson, & Carroll, 2015). Nevertheless, because monitoring practices

are less intrusive than active conversations and rules, it may be a preferable strategy for

parents of teens to avoid reactance while also keeping an eye on their activities.

Purpose and Contribution of This Study

Looking at the body of parental mediation literature in total, there are areas that

have accumulated quite a bit of research and others that are still nascent. The purpose of

this study is to contribute to several areas of growing research. First, it investigates

parental mediation of mobile devices, which have proliferated in ownership among teens

16
rather quickly over the past decade and have clearly and unequivocally become a large part

of daily life (Lenhart, 2015; Reid Chassiakos, Radesky, Christakis, Moreno, & Cross, 2016).

In comparison to historically older forms of media like TV and video games, mobile device

technology and penetration has advanced rather exponentially (Twenge, Martin, &

Spitzberg, 2018) yet published research on these devices has understandably not increased

at the same rate.

Second, I focus on parental mediation of teenagers. Previous research has examined

parental mediation of young children (Beyens & Eggermont, 2014), tweens (Shin, Huh, &

Faber, 2012), early to middle adolescents (Beyens, Valkenburg, & Piotrowski, 2019), and

across tween to teens (Rasmussen et al., 2018), but fewer have focused on just the teen

years (e.g. Wisniewski et al., 2015). This is also a dearth of research that has focused on

antecedents of parental mediation (Hwang & Jeong, 2015). So, while studies consistently

find that parental mediation decreases as children get older (Chen & Chng, 2016; Padilla-

Walker, Coyne, Fraser, Dyer, & Yorgason, 2012b), we know less about factors that predict

parental mediation during the teen years, which are also a period of increased media use

(PEW, 2016). Thus, this study seeks to contribute to this area and extend this line of

inquiry.

A third, and related, gap in parental mediation literature is the lack of theoretical

perspective guiding the investigation of predictors to parental mediation. While

communication scholars have incorporated parenting styles (Katz, Lee & Byrne, 2015), self-

determination theory (Valkenburg et al., 2013), and protection motivation theory (Hwang

et al., 2017) to understand to how specific parent cognitions like perceived risks and

autonomy development motivate parental mediation, fewer efforts have been made to

17
incorporate a single parsimonious theory (e.g. Shin & Kim, 2019; Tsai, Wei, & Tsai, 2014).

As a step in this direction, I employed the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) as

a framework to see if and how media related social and psychological factors predict

parental mediation. The broad question I sought to answer is: Do the constructs of the

theory of planned behavior—attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control—predict

if parents will engage in mediation and if so, which behaviors they are likely to enact? A

particular benefit to the TPB is the incorporation of antecedent beliefs that compose the

primary constructs. Identifying and investigating these underlying beliefs and their role as

predictors to parental mediation of teenagers is a central objective of this study.

Lastly, this study responds to calls for more research that incorporates family

variables into our understanding of parental mediation (Collier et al, 2016; Nathanson,

2015). Parental mediation of media does not occur in isolation; rather it is one aspect of

many that are comorbid to parenting and family life as a whole. Toward this end, I assessed

how family communication, parenting behaviors, and other demographic aspects of the

family influence parental mediation.

The Theory of Planned Behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is a social-psychological theory which

explains that human behavior is a function of their intentions—if someone plans to enact a

particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991). An individual with a strong intention to perform a

behavior is more likely to follow through than someone with a weaker intention. Intentions

are determined by one’s attitudes toward behaviors, subjective norms, and perceived

behavioral control. Attitudes toward behaviors are the positive and negative ideas one holds

about the outcome of a behavior. Subjective norms are the social expectations surrounding

18
a behavior. Lastly, perceived behavioral control encompasses one’s perception that they can

effectively control and/or carry out a behavior. These three constructs collectively

influence one’s intentions to engage in a behavior, which indicate how hard a person is

willing to try, and how much effort they will exert, to perform a behavior. A model of the

theory of planned behavior is in Figure 1 (Ajzen, 2005).

A central objective of this dissertation is to understand the underlying cognitions, or

predictors, that influence parental mediation behaviors. The TPB provides such an

explanatory function as it also includes the beliefs that inform one’s attitude toward a

behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. That is, it takes into account

the salient antecedent beliefs that underlie each of these constructs. Behavioral beliefs

influence one’s attitudes toward a behavior, normative beliefs influence subjective norms,

and control beliefs influence perceived behavioral control (see Figure 1).

This theory and its constructs can be applied to parental mediation research (e.g.

Krcmar & Cingel, 2016). Specifically, attitudes toward behaviors refer to positive and

negative ideas about mediation its resulting outcomes; subjective norms encompass

perceptions of others’ mediation behaviors and expectations surrounding mediation of

mobile devices (e.g. parents should/should not be mediating); and perceived behavioral

control refers to one’s capacity to successfully enact mediation behaviors. These constructs

can be used to test predictions regarding when and why parental mediation would occur

and which mediation behaviors would be expected.

19
20
 Given the potential utility of the TPB in understanding predictors of behavior, this

study utilized it as a framework to identify and synthesize variables that have been

identified in previous studies to impact parental mediation. It is employed as a

“framework” rather than a formal test of the theory because this is one of the few studies

that have used the TPB in parental mediation research (Krcmar & Cingel, 2016; Shin & Kim,

2019; Tsai et al., 2014) and, as such, our understanding of if and how it applies is still

developing. I also did not assess intentions—the precursor to behavior—to mediate; rather

I focused directly on self-reported engagement in parental mediation behaviors.

To summarize, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are

expected to predict monitoring, active mediation, and restrictive mediation. These

constructs are determined by their antecedent behavioral, normative, and control beliefs.

The following sections review research concerning variables that comprise the antecedent

beliefs.

Attitudes Toward Behaviors

Azjen (1991) explains that attitudes toward behaviors are the positive and negative

ideas associated with a behavior and its outcomes. One’s attitude toward a behavior is

determined by their behavioral beliefs, which are shaped by past experiences and the

expected consequences associated with a given behavior. Applied to this study, the

behavioral beliefs hypothesized to influence attitudes toward parental mediation are (a)

negative ideas parents have about media effects and use of media, (b) positive ideas

parents have about media effects and use of media, and (c) parents attitudes toward the

expected outcome of mediation behaviors.

21
 Previous research has found that parent attitudes and beliefs about media effects

are related to their mediation behaviors. That is, when parents have a general positive or

negative attitude about specific media activities that their teen engages in, and the

potential effects of these activities, they are more likely to enact parental mediation

behaviors that reflect these attitudes. An early study by Nathanson (2001b) demonstrated

this effect with parents of younger children and attitudes toward violent entertainment

television content. Individuals were asked about the perceived utility and the perceived

harm of their child watching aggressive programming for children and their self-reported

restrictive and active mediation behaviors. Parents who perceived violent content as

potentially harmful and of low social utility were more likely to use restrictive mediation

and negative active mediation.

Similar findings have been replicated in a more recent study with parents of

adolescents ages 8-to-18 and their negative attitudes toward media portrayals of relational

aggression (Rasmussen et al., 2018). The results showed that attitudes impact mediation in

different ways but tended to positively predict them. Specifically, parents who had negative

attitudes about relational aggression in the media in general used more restrictive

mediation, while parents who perceived that the media their child consumed had relational

aggression used more active mediation.

Negative attitudes also predict parental mediation of video games. Shin and Huh

(2011) found that parents of teens who believed that video games in general would have a

negative influence on their teen were more likely to practice restrictive mediation (i.e. did

not allow game play). Similarly, Nikken and Jansz (2006) surveyed dyads of children and

22
parents and found that parents who believed that playing video games would negatively

impact their child’s behaviors and attitude practiced more restrictive and active mediation.

Parents also report negative concerns about their teen’s use of the Internet and

mobile devices. Worries and concerns include detrimental impacts on their sleep and

interpersonal communication; exposure to sexual, violent, and drug/alcohol content; and

the possibility of over-sharing personal information online (Lauricella et al., 2016). These

concerns have been shown to impact parental mediation behaviors.

For example, Warren (2017) found that negative attitudes predict parental

mediation of cell phones and the Internet in a sample of American parents with a child

between the ages of 10 and 17. In this study, parents were asked about their beliefs that

children can experience potential negative “physical, psychological, or behavioral” effects

from media use (p. 491) and reported their mediation practices for the Internet and cell

phones. Negative attitudes positively predicted restrictive mediation of the Internet, and

positively predicted active and restrictive mediation of cell phones.

In a study of South Korean parents with a younger adolescent in the 4th, 5th, or 6th

grade, Hwang and colleagues (2017) investigated the role of perceived threat of

smartphone addiction as a predictor of active and restrictive mediation. Perceived threat

was conceptualized in terms of severity (the potential for acute consequences of

smartphone addiction) and susceptibility (how likely one’s child is to experience

smartphone addiction). Their hypothesis that perceived severity and susceptibility would

be positively related to restrictive and active mediation was partially supported, such that

severity positively predicted both styles mediation of smartphones but susceptibility did

23
not. Thus, the potential consequences of addiction motivated parents to actively and

restrictively mediate their child’s use of smartphones.

There is also evidence that parent concerns predict monitoring. Researchers in the

Netherlands surveyed parents of children between 9 and 16 years old about their

mediation practices for the Internet and their views of the Internet (Sonck, Nikken, & de

Haan, 2013). Parents who were concerned about their child interacting with strangers and

seeing inappropriate content online used more monitoring strategies than parents who did

not have these concerns. Based on these findings collectively, the following hypothesis is

predicted:

H1: Negative attitudes about media effects and use will be positively associated
with active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

The focus of the previous studies was on potential negative effects of teen media use

and activities; however, there are benefits to media use as well. For example, some

research has found that teens who play strategic video games report higher problem

solving skills, which indirectly improves academic grades (Adachi & Willoughby, 2013).

Social media use can increase teens’ cognitive and affective empathy over time (Vossen &

Valkenburg, 2016) and online communication is associated with closer friendships

(Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Parents also perceive and report that media use can have

benefits for their teen-aged children. For instance, parents believe that social media can

help maintain relationships with peers and help with academics and school work

(Lauricella et al., 2016). Parents who text and call their children, watch TV and movies

together, and play video games with their children also report higher family connection

(Padilla-Walker et al., 2012a).

24
 The ways in which these positive attitudes about media use and activities impact

parental mediation vary by media platform and sometimes do not impact them at all. For

example, Nikken & Jansz (2006) surveyed 536 parents and children (between 8 and 18

years old) about parental mediation of video games (active, restrictive, and co-playing) and

different positive and negative perceptions of the effects of playing video games. Positive

effects of game playing included cognitive benefits (e.g. improved concentration), learning

benefits (e.g. “practicing hand-eye coordination, enhanced vocabulary, satisfying

curiosity”), and social-emotional benefits (e.g. relaxation, “improving social skills, learning

to control emotions”) (p.190). Negative effects included physical impacts (e.g. joint pain,

dizziness, and nausea) and behavioral and attitudinal impacts (e.g. “becoming violent,

imitating rude language, considering violence as a normal way of solving problems”) (p.

190). The results did not show significant predictive relationships between perceptions of

cognitive benefits of video game playing and active or restrictive mediation; however,

positive social-emotional effects did positively predict co-playing.

In a more recent study, Schaan and Melzer (2015) assessed parents’ attitudes

concerning media effects as predictors of parental mediation for television and video

games, using items from Nikken and Jansz’s (2006) measure of positive and negative media

effects on children. The target children in this study were between 9 and 12 years old.

Their findings showed associations between perceived positive effects and some parental

mediation behaviors. Specifically, positive effects of video game playing predicted active

co-using and “patronizing mediation” (a combination of active mediation and monitoring)

of video games. Perceptions of positive effects did not impact parental mediation of

television.

25
 There are mixed findings regarding whether or not positive attitudes impact

parental mediation of mobile devices and the Internet. For example, Shin and Li (2017)

asked parents of adolescent-aged children to rate their attitudes toward digital technology

using semantic differential scales. Examples of attitudes toward using digital technology

were that it is “bad/good, harmful/beneficial, and uninformative/informative” (p. 10).

Their results did not find evidence that positive attitudes significantly impact active

mediation, restrictive mediation, or monitoring of digital technologies (i.e. computers,

tablets and smartphones).

Warren (2017) adapted Nikken and Jansz’s (2006) measure and assessed the

impact of positive attitudes on parental mediation of cellphones and the Internet. Positive

effects of media use were unrelated to mediation of cell phones; however, they did

positively predict active mediation of the Internet. That is, parents who thought that using

the Internet would benefit their child were more likely to talk to their children about things

like appropriate online behaviors, safe and unsafe online behaviors, and why certain

content is good or bad.

A recent study surveying Dutch and American parents also found mixed results

regarding parental mediation of social media use and attitudes. Krcmar and Cingel (2016)

surveyed parents with a child between 10 and 18 years old about their attitudes toward

their child’s use of social media, specifically asking if they “approved of social media” for

their child and if they thought social media were “good” for their child (p. 253). For Dutch

parents, these attitudes negatively predicted restrictive mediation of social media and

positively predicted co-use; whereas for American parents, attitudes positively predicted

26
both restrictive mediation and co-use. Positive attitudes were unrelated to active

mediation for both Dutch and American parents.

Based on this limited research and mixed findings, the impact of positive attitudes

about media effects and use on parental mediation of mobile devices is inconclusive. It

could be the case that positive attitudes about mobile devices instigate active mediation of

some activities, as Warren (2017) found, or not impact it at all, per Shin and Li (2017).

Conversely, positive attitudes could negatively predict restrictive mediation, as Krcmar and

Cingel (2016) found among Dutch parents. This relationship does have face validity such

that, in theory, parents who approve of a behavior would be less inclined to restrict it;

however, the opposite was found among American parents and positive attitudes predicted

more restrictive mediation. Given these mixed findings, I posed a research question in lieu

of a hypothesis regarding the impact of positive attitudes of media effects and use on

parental mediation:

RQ1: Are parents’ positive attitudes about media effects and use associated with
active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors?

Lastly, the beliefs parents hold concerning the outcomes of their mediation can also

influence their behaviors. That is, if parents believe their mediation actions could prevent

undesired effects or behaviors, or reduce the potential for their child to experience these

outcomes, parents could be more likely to continue mediation during the teenage years.

Alternatively, believing that mediation would have no impact on preventing undesired

effects or behaviors, or would possibly instigate negative behaviors in their child, could

prevent parents from engaging in these actions. To be clear, the focus of this attitude is the

on the perceived outcome of parental mediation; whereas, the focus of positive or negative

attitudes of media effects and use is on the perceived impact of mobile device use on teens
27
themselves. Put differently, attitudes about outcomes refers to parent perceptions about

the resulting effect of their mediation behaviors, and positive (and negative) attitudes of

media effects and use refers to the perceived effects on teens as a result of their personal

mobile device use.

Studies on the extent to which parent expectations about the outcomes of mediation

influence mediation behaviors are limited but qualitative research indicates that children’s

responses to mediation may play a role. Evans and colleagues (2011) conducted qualitative

interviews with 180 adolescents and their parents asking about obstacles they experience

when trying to restrict their child’s TV time and reasons they choose not to restrict. In this

study, several parents of teens commented that their children would likely try to evade any

rules/restrictions if they were imposed and instead parents thought they would have to

personally oversee their child’s media use to enforce such rules. The children in this study

responded similarly, indicating that they would seek to change their parents mind through

any means possible (e.g. begging, getting upset, “[beating] my head against the wall”; p.

1231). Parents also reported benefits to their child’s TV viewing as a reason for not

wanting to restrict or limit too much. Specifically, co-viewing increased feelings of family

closeness and also helped facilitate conversations about sensitive topics with children.

In a quantitative study, Bleakley and colleagues (2013) surveyed parents with a

child between the ages of 3 and 16 to investigate how attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy

predict parent’s intentions to restrict their child’s TV viewing. Of particular interest to this

section are the results for attitudes, which were assessed by asking parents to rate the

likelihood of several outcomes if they were to limit TV viewing. Attitudes were the

“strongest significant predictor” of parent’s intentions to restrict TV viewing and the

28
researchers noted four specific attitudes that differentiated parents who intended to limit

TV from those who did not: believing that restrictions would “help [their child] get more

exercise, do better in school, [make them] more likely to talk to the family, and decrease

[their] exposure to inappropriate content” (Bleakley, Piotrowski, Hennessey, & Jordan,

2013, p. 528). Thus, parents who felt their actions could help their child, and decrease the

likelihood they would encounter undesired content, had higher intentions of engaging in

restrictive behaviors versus those who did not believe these actions would make a

difference.

Similar findings have been observed for active and restrictive mediation of digital

technologies, social media and the Internet. Parents who think they can influence their

child’s use of digital technologies are more likely to use active and restrictive mediation

(Shin & Li, 2017), and those who believe that having some level of control over their child’s

social media would be good for them are more likely to engage in active mediation (Krcmar

& Cingel, 2016). There is also evidence that indicates these beliefs impact monitoring, such

that parents who think involvement in their child’s use of the Internet positively affects

their experiences practice more monitoring (Sonck et al, 2013).

To date, there are few studies that have investigated parental mediation of mobile

devices and fewer have assessed the specific role of parent attitudes toward mediation

outcomes. There is, however, evidence that positive attitudes about the outcomes of

mediation can positively predict active and restrictive mediation of television, the Internet,

and social media (Bleakley et al., 2013; Krcmar & Cingel, 2016; Sonck et al., 2013). Based on

this research, I expect similar findings for parental mediation of mobile devices and predict

the following hypothesis:

29
 H2: Parents with positive attitudes toward mediation outcomes will be more
likely to engage in active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

Subjective Norms

Subjective norms are individuals’ perceptions concerning the pressure to perform

(or not perform) a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991). These are influenced by one’s

normative beliefs, the perception that other important people (e.g. friends, family members)

support or disapprove of a behavior. An important distinction should be made here. The

above definition for subjective norms is, more specifically, an injunctive norm—a

perception that important others approve of a behavior and support it or vice versa

(Sheeran & Orbell, 1999). Another type is descriptive norms—the perceived or actual

behaviors of others. According to the TPB, both norms influence behavior; however, the

former refers to perceptions of others’ social approval for a behavior (i.e. what people think

you should or should not do) and the latter refers to one’s perceptions of how others

behave (i.e. what is the “normal” thing to do; Sheeran & Orbell, 1999). Injunctive norms

were part of the original conception of subjective norms in the TPB and more recently, the

author has recommended that the distinction be made between the two norms and

measured accordingly (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005).

Applied to this study, injunctive norms concern the perceived social pressure and

approval to monitor teen media, namely what parents should be doing. That is, other

people believe that parents should be actively or restrictively mediating and monitoring

their teen’s mobile devices, or that they should not be doing so. This perceived social

expectation can come from a variety of sources, one of which may be the media that

parents consume. For instance, popular press reports of teens and social media often focus

on risks, danger, and negative consequences (Draper, 2012; Stern & Odland, 2017). The
30
tone of these stories imply that most teens are, or will, engage in risky behaviors and that

online dangers are common and/or increasing in frequency. Reports typically end with the

advice that parents should vigilantly “keep tabs” on their children’s online behaviors (Stern

& Odland, 2017). Frequent exposure to these types of news stories could cultivate the

injunctive norm that parents should be monitoring teen media use.

A more balanced view is offered by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which

recently released an updated policy statement reviewing both risks and benefits to

adolescent media use (American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Council on Communications

and Media, 2016). Included in this statement are general media monitoring suggestions for

parents of adolescents, again implying that parents should be taking these actions. These

recommendations might be echoed more locally by school administrators or doctors as

well (AAP, 2016).

Few studies have investigated the extent to which injunctive norms specifically

impact parental mediation behaviors, but those that have do find relationships between

norms and parent behaviors. For example, Krcmar and Cingel (2016) asked parents with a

child between the ages of 10 and 18 about their normative perceptions towards allowing

their child to use social media. Specifically, parents were asked to rate their agreement

with statements like, “Most of my friends and family with kids the age of mine approve of

social media use for their children” and “Most of my friends and family with kids the age of

mine think social media is just fun for their children” (p. 254). These ideas represent

injunctive norms because they refer to a general perception of others approval for a certain

behavior. Parents who endorsed these norms towards allowing their child to use social

media practiced more active and restrictive mediation of social media.

31
 Bleakley and colleagues (2013) found similar results. In this study, parents were

asked about subjective norms in a few ways. There were direct self-report statements for

injunctive norms (i.e. “[Do] most people who are important to you think you should not or

you should limit [your] child’s television viewing; p. 527), as well as questions asking about

the underlying beliefs that inform injunctive norms. Specifically, parents rated their

perceptions that other people thought they should or should not limit TV, including

“teachers, other parents you know, your [spouse/partner], and your child’s/children’s

doctor” (p. 527). The findings were the same for both types of questions: parents who

reported stronger normative pressure were significantly more likely to report higher

intentions to limit their child’s TV time.

Although there is limited published research on the predictive relationship between

injunctive norms and parental mediation, there are studies outside of this field that

demonstrate associations between injunctive norms and other parent behaviors. For

example, injunctive norms have been found to positively predict parent-initiated sexual

communication (Guilamo-Ramos, Jaccard, Dittus, & Collins, 2008; Villarruel, Cherry,

Cabriales, Ronis, & Zhou, 2008) and parent communication about alcohol (Napper,

Hummer, Lac, & LaBrie, 2015). Although sexual activities and alcohol use are, of course,

quite different from mobile device use and activities, parents do report concerns that their

children are engaging in risky behaviors on them (Lauricella et al., 2016). Based on this

research collectively and the theoretical predictions of the TPB, I expect that injunctive

norms will positively impact parental mediation in this study with the following

hypothesis:

H3: Injunctive norms will be positively associated with active, restrictive, and
monitoring behaviors.
32
 Descriptive norms of parental mediation are the perceived mediation behaviors

performed by others. That is, whether or not other people (e.g. friends, family members)

engage in active, restrictive or monitoring behaviors themselves. These norms could be

inferred through media reports as well, especially if the reports include parent interviews

or actual media monitoring data (e.g. PEW, 2016). Additionally, parents may participate in

first-hand conversations about media monitoring customs with other parents, which could

inform these norms. Information could also come second-hand from one’s own children,

who might relay the practices of their friends’ parents (e.g. “Mona’s parents do/do not

monitor the apps she uses on her smartphone”) 3.

Here again, there is limited research investigating the relationship between

descriptive norms and parental mediation but the evidence that does exist suggests a

connection. In the Krcmar and Cingel (2016) study reviewed above, parents were also

asked about their perceived norms to control their child’s social media, rating statements

such as “Most of my friends and family with kids the age of mine control their children’s use

of social media” and “My friends and family with kids the age of mine think it’s smart to

keep track of what kids are doing on social media” (p. 254). The first statement is

considered a descriptive norm, as it references thoughts of the perceived behavior of

others; however, the second statement might be considered more of an injunctive norm, as

it focuses on the perceived expectation or approval of others. Nevertheless, the results

showed that parents who endorsed these norms towards controlling social media engaged

in more restrictive mediation.

3It should be noted that while there is a distinction between the normative beliefs themselves, the
source of information (e.g. media, friends, family) may overlap for injunctive and descriptive norms.

33
 Likewise, in the Bleakley et al (2013) study, parents were asked about their

descriptive normative beliefs for limiting TV (i.e. “Most people like you have not or have

limited their child’s television viewing”) and rated their ideas that other people—“close

friends, other parents you know, and your family members”—have limited their child’s TV

viewing (p. 527). Once again, the findings showed that stronger descriptive normative

perceptions across different social referents positively predicted intentions to limit their

child’s television.

Research outside the field of parental mediation has also found significant

relationships between descriptive norms and other parenting behaviors such as the use of

car safety seats (Jeffrey, Whelan, Pirouz, & Snowdon, 2016), intentions to vaccinate (Wang,

Lam, Wu, & Fielding, 2015), and allowing adolescent drinking (Gilligan, Thompson, Bourke,

Kypri, & Stockwell, 2014). Taking the research within and outside of the parental

mediation studies into consideration, I expect that descriptive norms will positively impact

parental mediation with the following hypothesis:

H4: Descriptive norms will be positively associated with active, restrictive, and
monitoring behaviors.

Perceived Behavioral Control

Perceived behavioral control (PBC) is defined as the “extent to which people believe

that they are capable of performing a given behavior, that they have control over its

performance” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010, p. 154). The focus of this construct is perceived

control over one’s behavior and actions, not their control over the outcome, which is a

common misinterpretation (and not to be confused with “attitudes toward mediation

outcomes”; Ajzen, 2002a). Applied to this study, PBC is conceptualized as the belief that

engaging in mediation behaviors is within a parent’s control to perform.

34
 The antecedent beliefs that influence one’s PBC are control beliefs. Control beliefs

refer to the thoughts an individual holds about factors that facilitate or hinder their control

over a behavior. Control beliefs are influenced by previous experience, relevant

information from others and the environment, and external factors that can help or impede

performance of the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). These control beliefs then inform one’s

perception that they have the control or capability to perform a behavior.

It is important to note that PBC is conceptually similar to self-efficacy (Ajzen, 2002a).

In fact, PBC was derived from Albert Bandura’s conceptualization of self-efficacy (SE),

which he defined as “beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of

action required to produce given levels of attainments” (Ajzen, 1991; Bandura, 1998, p.

625). Ajzen (2002a) acknowledges that they reflect a similar underlying concept—which is

one’s perceived confidence that a behavior is within their control and capacity to

perform—but are operationally measured in different ways. The term self-efficacy is far

more common in parental mediation research than perceived behavioral control (e.g.

Nathanson, Eveland, Park, & Paul, 2002; Shin, 2018); however, since SE and, in a few cases,

PBC have been shown in previous research to impact parental mediation behaviors (e.g.

Krcmar & Cingel, 2016), they will be discussed together but measured separately in this

study.

A number of studies have investigated the impact of SE on parental mediation and

several have looked specifically at mobile devices. One recent study of parents examined

the impact of self-efficacy on parental active and restrictive mediation of smartphones

(Hwang et al, 2017). The researchers defined self-efficacy as one’s perceived capability to

engage in parental mediation and measured it by asking parents to rate their endorsement

35
of statements such as, “I am confident that I can engage in mediation” and “I am capable of

engaging in mediation if I wanted to” (p. 364). The results showed that self-efficacy

positively predicted active and restrictive mediation of children’s smartphones. That is,

parents who felt confident in their ability to engage in parental mediation were more likely

to actively and restrictively mediate their children’s smartphones.

Another recent study conducted by researchers in Taiwan assessed the impact of

parent self-efficacy on active, restrictive, and monitoring of mobile devices (Chang et al.,

2019). To measure self-efficacy, Chang and colleagues (2019) asked parents to rate their

confidence to implement active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors for their child, like

limiting the time they can use the Internet and teaching them how to use devices safely.

Parent self-efficacy positively predicted engaging in all three parental mediation behaviors.

In a study with parents in the U.S., Shin (2018) assessed active and restrictive

mediation of smartphones and three types of parental self-efficacy: smartphone self-

efficacy, parenting self-efficacy, and parental mediation self-efficacy. Parental mediation

self-efficacy is of particular relevance here because it focused on parent’s self-reported

control to engage in conversations about safety and privacy on smartphones and their

frequency of limiting the sharing of private information and talking to strangers on

smartphones. This type of self-efficacy positively predicted both active and restrictive

mediation.

According to the TPB, perceived behavioral control can directly impact one’s

behaviors, whereas attitudes and subjective norms indirectly influence behavior through

intentions (see Figure 1; Ajzen, 1991). PBC can, of course, also indirectly influence

behaviors through intentions; however, Ajzen (1991) explains that control directly predicts

36
behavior when a “person can decide at will to perform or not perform the behavior” (p.

182). If there are no substantial impediments, parental mediation can be such a behavior

because parental mediation is inherently a parent-enacted activity and has been shown in

previous research to positively predict parental mediation (e.g. Chang et al., 2019). Thus,

consistent with the theoretical predictions of the TPB and previous research, I predict there

will be a positive and direct relationship between PBC/SE and parental mediation

behaviors:

H5: Perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy will be positively associated

with active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

What are the control beliefs underlying one’s PBC and SE that can influence parental

mediation? The TPB explains that control beliefs are shaped by one’s previous experiences

and information from others and one’s environment (Ajzen, 1991). Parent media use,

especially with mobile devices, could be a factor impacting their confidence and perceived

control to mediate. Parents who feel comfortable using mobile devices themselves could be

more likely to media their children’s mobile devices. There is some support for this idea

from a handful of studies that have assessed parental mediation of mobile devices and the

Internet.

Shin and Li (2017) asked parents about two aspects of their digital technology use—

which referred to smartphones, tablets, and computers—and their active, restrictive, and

monitoring behaviors. The first focused on the amount of time parents spent using digital

technologies per day and was measured with hour-based ordinal categories (e.g. 1 hour per

day, 2-3 hours per day). The second asked if parents use digital technology for specific

activities, such as “household tasks, social media, and personal communication” (p. 10). The

researchers found that digital technology activities significantly and positively predicted all

37
three parental mediation behaviors but did not observe significant relationships for

amount of time spent using digital technologies.

Another study focused on mothers and restrictive mediation of the Internet. In a

cross-sectional survey, Lee (2013) asked mothers of adolescents about their self-reported

Internet skills and practices for restrictive mediation. Specifically, mothers were asked

whether they had rules about sharing private information online, online gaming,

chatting/instant messaging, online shopping, and restrictions on time. Parent Internet

skills were measured by rating one’s ability to do several activities such as uploading

content, using a blog, searching for specific information, and paying online games. The

findings showed that mothers who reported greater Internet skills were more likely to

restrictively mediate their child’s Internet use. Though the study did not measure parent

Internet use, it was argued that skills are likely acquired through frequent use (Lee, 2013).

In their investigation on the role of self-efficacy predicting active, restrictive, and

monitoring mediation of mobile devices, Chang and colleagues (2019) asked parents about

their mobile device skills. These skills were measured by asking parents about their ability

to engage in several activities including downloading apps, connecting to a wireless

network, take pictures and/or video and upload them to social media, and blocking app

notifications (items were adapted from a measure in Livingstone, Haddon, Vincent,

Mascheroni, and Ólafsson, 2014). Parent weekly use of TV, smartphones, tablets, and

computers was measured but not analyzed as predictors of mediation. Nevertheless, the

researchers found that parent mobile device skills positively predicted active mediation

and monitoring.

38
 Although there are few studies to date that have investigated the impact of parent

mobile device use on their mobile device mediation practices, research on other media

platforms can provide context. For instance, parents who play video games often are more

likely to co-play and discuss video games with their children (Martins et al., 2017; Nikken &

Jansz, 2006), but those who play less are more likely to restrictively mediate (Martins et al.,

2017). Some research has also shown that parents who use the Internet daily are more

likely to restrictively mediate and monitor (Ghosh et al., 2018; Livingstone & Helsper,

2008; Sonck et al., 2013). These findings collectively suggest that parents use of the

platforms they intend to mediate does influence their mediation behaviors. Accordingly, I

hypothesize that parent mobile device use will have a positive relationship on their

mediation practices:

H6: Parent mobile device use will be positively associated with active,
restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

Control beliefs could also be influenced by parent awareness of their child’s media

activities. That is, the extent to which parents know what media their child uses frequently

can impact their ability to communicate, monitor, or restrict their activities. If one does not

know what their child watches on their mobile devices, what social media profiles they

maintain, and/or how much time they spend on their devices then they may feel less

confident in their ability to discuss these activities or concerns with their child.

Findings from qualitative research suggest that the inverse of this idea occurs, such

that lower parental knowledge of what teens do while using and interacting on mobile

devices hinders their ability to mediate (Clark, 2009; Vaterlaus et al., 2014). If parents

cannot see what their child is doing they may, as a result, feel at a loss to talk to their child

about media (Clark, 2009). Another barrier is that parents feel less knowledgeable and
39
skilled than their children about technology and therefore less able to gain knowledge

about their media activities, which can obstruct engagement in mediation (Vaterlaus et al,

2014; Yardi & Bruckman, 2011). It is also the case that parents who report lower

awareness of their child’s social media and Internet activities have more concerns about

negative media effects (Rosen, Cheever, and Carrier, 2008). And, as discussed in a previous

section of this literature review, concerns about negative media effects and use are

positively associated with parental mediation (Hwang et al, 2017; Sonck et al, 2013).

Few quantitative studies have investigated the role of parent knowledge on mobile

device mediation behaviors but there is evidence to suggest a relationship. Using the theory

of planned behavior, Krcmar and Cingel (2016) asked parents about their perceived

behavioral control to allow their child to use social media and to control or mediate it.

Though the researchers did not explicitly assess parent’s knowledge of their child’s social

media use, some of their item-level measures asked about parent familiarity with what

their child does on social media and their ability to find out. Example statements they asked

included, “I can easily find out what my child is doing on social media” and “It’s hard to

know how much time my child is spending on social media (reverse coded)” (p. 254). The

results showed that greater endorsement of these statements positively predicted active

mediation and co-use of social media. Thus, the more parents felt they could familiarize

themselves with their child’s social media activities, the more likely they were to have

active conversations.

General parent involvement—i.e. being familiar with and involved in your child’s

life and activities—has been shown to positively predict active and restrictive mediation of

digital technology (Shin & Li, 2017). The same has been found for parent involvement and

40
greater co-playing, restrictive, and active mediation of video games (Martins et al., 2017).

Also, parental engagement with children in their general leisure activities has been shown

to positively predict active and restrictive mediation of television among younger children,

and engaging with children during their chores and duties is positively related to active,

restrictive and co-use mediation (Warren, Gerke, & Kelly, 2002).

From these findings overall, the literature suggests that the more parents interact

with their children, the greater their likelihood of engaging parental mediation. I believe

the mechanism that encourages this behavior is parent knowledge of teen media use and

activities. That is, parental knowledge of teen media activities can open pathways of

communication between parent and child (active communication) and/or familiarity with

the activities that could then be monitored or limited (restrictive and monitoring). Based

on this reasoning, I propose the following hypothesis:

H7: Parental knowledge of teen media activities will be positively associated

with active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

Family System Theory

The significance of parent-centered attitudes, norms, and control beliefs as they

relate to motivations for mediation is a central focus of this study; however, it is also

important to recognize that parental mediation does not happen in a vacuum and it is likely

that factors other than parental attitudes, norms, and control beliefs influence their

mediation behaviors. A family system approach is a useful perspective for understanding

these factors because it positions media use as occurring within the broader environment

of family processes.

Family system theory (FST; Cox & Paley, 1997) explains that a family is a dynamic

unit of interlinking parts that play an essential role in shaping each member’s behavior.
41
There are three properties of systems that inform the family system perspective. First, the

family unit is considered a “complex, integrated whole” in which individual members are

interdependently organized and reciprocally influential to the whole system (Cox & Paley,

1997). A common quote to describe this property is, “the whole is greater than the sum of

its parts.” Each family member has important and unique characteristics which have the

potential to impact the whole family system. To fully understand human behavior, FST

contends that one must examine the ways in which these individual characteristics interact

together. Families are not simply the combined characteristics of the individuals within it;

rather it is these characteristics and their interaction together that are key to

understanding behavior. For example, media behaviors in families of children with large

age gaps (e.g. a 16 year old and a 6 year old) are different than those with narrower age

gaps or single children, as these families adjust their activities to balance the

developmental needs of the different children and the family as a whole (Davies & Gentile,

2012).

Second, families are hierarchically organized systems made up of subsystems (e.g.

parental, marital, sibling) which are considered systems in themselves, delineated by

intangible boundaries that symbolically guide family interactions. Parents are typically at

the top of the family, establishing family rules, routines, and expectations for children’s

behaviors (Steinberg, 1999). For example, family media rules and expectations could be no

phones at the dinner table and no television until homework has been completed (Hiniker,

Schoenebeck, Kientz, 2016). Despite a hierarchical nature, individuals at any level have

bidirectional influence on others. For instance, conflict within a sibling subsystem can

create discord within the parent dyad over how best to negotiate an issue (or conflict

42
within the marital dyad if there is disagreement over conflict resolution) (Cox & Paley,

2003).

Lastly, families have an adaptive self-stabilization and organization function in

response to changes and challenges within their environment. Families can experience

normative transitions (e.g. new school, new job) or unexpected events (e.g. trauma, death),

and during these transitions and/or events, families may unconsciously or purposefully

renegotiate family rules, patterns of behavior, and boundaries to adapt to these new

changes and to re-establish equilibrium within the family. Take the example of a child

moving from middle school to high school. This graduation is a significant social transition

for an adolescent and is accompanied by less parent and teacher oversight, more

adolescent autonomy, and adolescent responsibility (Steinberg, 1999). These are

adjustments that the adolescent him-or- herself must grow into, but parents must also

modify their behaviors to allow their child more freedom and independence.

Applied to the family media environment, FST recognizes that family relationships,

communication, and interactions can shape parent behaviors. This is in contrast to a more

technologically-deterministic view that media is solely responsible for driving behavior

(Jordan, 2002). By looking beyond the media platform, this perspective expands the

possible field of predictors that explain why or why not parents choose to engage in

mediation.

Family system theory moderating variables. The TPB predicts that parents with

positive attitudes toward mediation behaviors and their outcomes (attitudes), believe that

others endorse and perform these behaviors themselves (subjective norms), and believe

mediation is confidently within their abilities (PBC/SE), form intentions to engage in

43
mediation. When the opportunity arises, these parents are likely to engage in parental

mediation (Ajzen, 1991). FST, however, contends that elements other than attitudes,

norms, and self-efficacy influence parent behaviors. In order to fully understand a parent’s

behavior, FST emphasizes taking into account broader aspects of the family system and

parenting because these provide an important context for parent behaviors (Jordan, 2002).

Thus, in addition to investigating direct relationships proposed in the previous

sections, this study also assessed how aspects of the family system interacted with the TPB

constructs to affect parental mediation behaviors. Two aspects of the family system were

selected based on previous research evidence demonstrating their influence on parental

mediation: parenting behaviors and family communication (Nathanson, 2015). The next

sections describe these concepts and their potential moderating roles between the TPB

variables and parental mediation.

Parenting behaviors. Parenting behaviors comprise the ways in which parents

respond to and socialize their child and are characterized along two dimensions of

behavior: responsiveness and demandingness (Baumrind, 1991). Responsiveness is “the

extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion

by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs and demands”;

Demandingness refers to “the claims parents make on children to become integrated into

the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts, and

willingness to confront the child who disobeys” (Baumrind, 1991, pp. 61-62). Over the

years, others have used different terms to refer to these constructs such as warmth,

support, firmness, and control (Baumrind, 2005; Coyne et al., 2011; Wisenblit, Priluck, &

Pirog, 2013). For consistency between this literature review discussion of the concepts and

44
the measures I used to asses them, I will use the terms connection and regulation to refer to

responsiveness and demandingness from this point forward (Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, &

Hart, 2001).

Parent ratings for connection and regulation determine their placement into one of

four parenting style typologies: neglecting parents are low on both dimensions; permissive

parents are characterized by high connection but low regulation; authoritarian parents are

low on connection and high on regulation; lastly, authoritative parents are high on both

connection and regulation (Baumrind, 1991). Authoritative parenting combines firm

boundaries and expectations with a nurturing orientation and is typically regarded as the

“best” parenting style, associated with several positive youth outcomes (Baumrind, 1991;

for review see Spera, 2005). This study focuses on the core parenting behavior constructs

of connection and regulation typified by authoritative parenting, as previous research

indicates that parents who exhibit these characteristics are typically proactive media

monitors (Ghosh et al., 2017; Shin & Li, 2017).

Padilla-Walker and Coyne (2011) examined the longitudinal impact of parenting

behaviors on parental mediation among parents of 11-to-15 year olds. In a two year study,

they asked parents to respond to measures that assessed parenting connection and

regulation as well as their general (i.e. non-platform specific) active, restrictive, and co-

viewing mediation behaviors. For both mothers and fathers, connection and regulation

positively predicted active mediation one year later, while regulation positively predicted

restrictive mediation. In another study which included an additional year of data,

connection and regulation again predicted active and restrictive mediation, while

45
connection predicted restrictive mediation (Padilla-Walker, Coyne, Fraser, Dyer, &

Yorgason, 2012b).

Warren and Aloia (2019) assessed parenting styles and mediation of cell phones

among parents with a child between 12 and 17 years old. Their study did not measure the

constructs of connection and regulation; instead, the researchers employed direct

measures of authoritative and authoritarian parenting. Findings showed that authoritarian

parenting predicted restrictive mediation and authoritative parenting predicted active

mediation of cellphones.

Among parents with older adolescents (ages 13-to-17), Sanders et al (2016) asked

about parenting connection and regulation as well as “technology related parenting

strategies,” which were focused on restrictive mediation practices of different media

platforms (TV, video games, tablets, and computers). Their results showed that connection

and regulation both positively predicted technology related parenting strategies. Eastin

and colleagues (2006) also found that authoritative parenting among parents with a child

between 13 and 18 was associated with active (called “evaluative” in their study) and

restrictive mediation of the Internet.

Psychological control, defined as “control attempts that intrude the psychological

and emotional development of the child,” is a parenting behavior construct that has

developed over time to account for psychological discipline that parents use to impart

“nonrestrictive monitoring,” as well as rational explanations that encourage individuation

within the child (Barber, 1996, p. 3296; Baumrind, 1991). Prior research demonstrates that

the antithesis of psychological control, autonomy granting, is associated with authoritative

parenting. Autonomy granting is especially pertinent to this study because adolescence is

46
considered a time in which young people develop and seek out autonomy (Spear & Kulbok,

2004). Consequently, parents are likely to adapt their mediation practices to accommodate

the development of autonomy in their child while also continuing to monitor as they see fit

(Yardi & Bruckman, 2011).

Several studies have looked at the role of autonomy granting in parental mediation.

A recent investigation assessed parenting behaviors and parent use of technical monitoring

of mobile devices for their child between the age of 13 and 17 (Ghosh, et al., 2018).

Technical monitoring was loosely defined as the use of parent control applications that

allowed parents visibility into their child’s text messages and what apps their child

downloaded and used on their smartphone. These researchers did not observe significant

relationships between connection and regulation; however, they did find that autonomy

granting negatively predicted the use of technical monitoring. Similarly, the longitudinal

studies conducted by Padilla-Walker and colleagues (2011, 2012b) found that mothers

who practice autonomy granting demonstrate more co-viewing and less restrictive

mediation over time. Research has also shown that adolescent-reported autonomous

parenting is positively associated with autonomy-supportive mediation practices

(Valkenburg et al., 2013).

Taken together, this research demonstrates that parenting behaviors are an

important component of the family system that directly impact parental mediation. It also

provides evidence for the idea that parenting behaviors may play a moderating role

between the TPB constructs and parental mediation. That is, it could be the case that

parents have attitudes, social norms, and PCB that predict mediation, but their connection,

regulation, and autonomy granting practices interact with these concepts to influence their

47
actual behavior. For example, as I discussed previously, parents who have negative

attitudes toward media effects and use are more likely to practice active and restrictive

mediation (Warren, 2017); however, if they also value autonomy granting, parents could

practice less active and restrictive mediation. Or, parents who report strong injunctive

norms (i.e. the belief that others think parents should mediate) towards mediation but

exhibit low connection and regulation may engage in less mediation. Additionally, parents

with low smartphone self-efficacy are less likely to engage in parental mediation, but low

smartphone self-efficacy combined with high parenting efficacy predicts active mediation

of smartphones (Shin, 2018). Given that little research has been conducted on the

moderating role of parenting behaviors and parental mediation, I posed a research

question to investigate these possible relationships:

RQ2: Do parenting behaviors (connection, regulation, autonomy granting)

moderate the relationship between the TPB constructs and active, restrictive,
and monitoring behaviors?

Family communication quality. A second potential moderator is family

communication quality. Communication is an inherent aspect of parental mediation. That

is, parents must communicate with their children to convey rules, discuss content, and

know what media their child is using. Open and comfortable general family communication

is correlated with active, restrictive, and co-viewing mediation of television and Internet

use (An & Lee, 2010; Chng, Li, Liau, & Khoo, 2015). Frequent parent-child communication is

positively associated with parent active and restrictive mediation of the Internet, and

active, restrictive, and co-use of cellphones (Warren, 2017). Conversely, when adolescents

report that it is difficult to talk to their parents about risky online experiences, their

parents are more likely to underestimate the occurrence of risks and disagree with their

48
children over risk-prevention practices (Byrne, Katz, Lee, Linz, & McIlrath, 2014; Byrne &

Lee, 2011). Put simply, a comfortable communication environment is fertile ground for

mediation strategies and when communication is perceived as difficult or uncomfortable,

mediation is hindered.

Given the direct relationship between family communication and parental

mediation, it stands to reason that it may play a moderating role in the TPB–parental

mediation behavior relationship. It could be that parents have attitudes, norms, and PCB

that predict mediation, but family communication quality interacts with these concepts to

influence their actual behavior. For instance, parent negative attitudes toward media use

and effects is predictive of active parental mediation, but low communication quality

between parents and children can act as a barrier to negatively predict active mediation.

Alternatively, low SE combined with open family communication could positively predict

active mediation and monitoring. The potential moderating relationships between family

communication and the TPB constructs will be examined with the following research

question:

RQ3: Does family communication quality moderate the relationship between the
TPB constructs and active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors?

Perceived parent barriers. Other aspects of the parent-child relationship could also

explain why parents choose not to engage in mediation during the teen years. Child age is a

consistent negative predictor of parental mediation. Both younger adolescents and their

parents report that communication about media occurs more frequently before the teen

years, rather than during them (Rideout, 2015; Shin & Kim, 2019). Parents provide more

active and restrictive mediation during early adolescent years and then taper these

discussions as children get older (Padilla Walker et al., 2012b).

49
 Less is known about why this relationship occurs. The simplest and most self-

evident explanation is that children become “too old” for such monitoring. Research to

support this idea is sparse, but a recent qualitative study with parents of emerging adults

(average age of target child was 19.9 years) hints that child maturity plays a role (Vaterlaus

et al., 2015). Parents and their teen-aged children were asked to report their mediation

habits for cellphones and the Internet, how they mediated these technologies, and, if they

reported no monitoring, why they choose not to. The authors stated, “Common among all

participants, an emerging adult’s age was presented as justification for not mediating

interactive technology use” (Vaterlaus et al., 2015, p. 355).

Two additional reasons were mentioned as reasons for not mediating. The first was

child trust. For teens, this meant parent’s felt they had demonstrated appropriate behavior

on these technologies when they were younger which gained their parent’s trust. Among

parents, they reasoned that their actions during the tween years laid the foundation for

trust. A quote from one mother in the study said, “Matter of trust at this point. If we have

not set principles for him by this point, then we have already gone wrong” (p. 355). The

second reason was respect for child privacy. As children develop into young adults, it is a

natural and common transition to distance themselves from their parents as they develop

their own identity. Parents who perceived their children to be more adult-like, or growing

into adults, were less likely to monitor as this felt like an invasion of privacy. Child trust

and parent respect for teen privacy have also been reported in other qualitative and

quantitative studies of parental mediation of mobile devices (Erikson et al., 2016;

Lauricella et al., 2016).

50
 To summarize these points so far, (1) parental mediation prior to the teen years, (2)

perceptions of child maturity, (3) child trust, and (4) respect for child’s privacy are all

potential reasons for why parents decrease mediation during the teen years. Collectively

these reasons reflect a parent’s growing recognition of child autonomy during the teen

years and, like the other family system variables, have the potential to interact with the

TPB constructs to impact parental mediation. For example, parents with positive attitudes,

social norms, and PCB to mediate may choose not to because they feel they have already

sufficiently engaged in these behaviors, or want to respect their child’s privacy.

In addition to these developmentally normative explanations for a decline in

parental mediation, parents also report functional barriers to mediation. For example, the

amount of time conversations can take and the energy it takes to enforce rules and

restrictions (Beyens, Eggermont, & Nathanson, 2016). At times, parents report a lack of

knowledge of how these conversations should go or tools they can use to help them

monitor their child’s activities on mobile devices (Vaterlaus et al., 2015). Their child may be

resistant to rules and conversations (Jordan et al., 2006) or simply not interested in using

mobile devices or are light users. These reasons also have the potential to interact with the

TPB variables to affect parental mediation. Given the nascence of this research, the

moderating role of these collective barriers will be explored with the following research

question:

RQ4: Do perceived parent barriers to mediation moderate the relationship

between the TPB constructs and active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors?

Control Variables

It is important control for variables in statistical analyses that are known to co-vary

or impact the relationships of interest in this study (Field, 2013). The inclusion of control
51
variables enables a researcher the ability to parse out the bias they exert on the

independent and dependent variables in a model. As a result, the relationships between the

independent and moderating variables of interest on the dependent variable can be more

accurately assessed. Two family system-related variables will be controlled for in this

study.

The first control variable is parent accessibility, which is the amount of time that

parents are available to spend time with their children. In other words, it is the total

waking hours that parents are available to their children. Though parents do not

necessarily need to be physically present to have rules about media or covertly monitor,

active mediation and the enforcement of rules are inherently shared activities between a

child and parent and previous research suggests that accessibility impacts parent behavior.

In two studies, Warren (2001, 2002) found that parent accessibility significantly influenced

parental mediation, such that high-access parents reported more co-viewing (2001) and

active and restrictive mediation of television viewing (2002) than low-access parents.

Applied to this study, it could be that parents who are not as accessible to their children

have less knowledge of their media habits, lower efficacy to engage in conversations about

media, have less time to conduct these conversations and so on; thus, parent accessibility

could potentially impact the independent and dependent variables, therefore, it will be

controlled for to avoid a potential confound within the models.

Family structure is another variable to control for. Family structure refers to the

relationship between parents and children (e.g. biological, step) and their marital

status/history (e.g. (re)married, separated, divorced; Cox & Paley, 1997). Regarding marital

status, some research has shown that single parents use less restrictive mediation (Gentile,

52
Nathanson, Rasmussen, Reimer, & Walsh, 2012) but more positive active mediation

compared to married parents (Austin, Knaus, & Meneguelli, 1997). Less empirical research

has examined the impact of parent-child relationship on parental mediation (e.g. biological,

step); however, according to FST, a non-biological relationship between parent and child

may impact family interactions such that a non-biological parent would feel less confident

enforcing rules or having active conversations about media compared to a biological

parent. These aspects of family structure will be examined and controlled for if they

significantly impact the primary relationships of interest.

Several demographic variables were also used as controls, including parent and

child age, gender, ethnicity, parent education, household income, and parent employment.

These variables have been shown in previous research to impact the dependent and

independent variables of interest in this study. For instance, some studies have found that

younger parents use less restrictive and active mediation (Krcmar, & Cingel, 2016; Shin &

Kim, 2019; Lauricella et al., 2016); mothers tend to practice more parental mediation than

fathers (Chang et al., 2019; Lauricella et al., 2016; Nikken & Opree, 2018); and non-White

parents practice more active and restrictive mediation (Lauricella et al., 2016; Top, 2016).

Previous research has consistently demonstrated that child age and parental mediation

have a negative relationship (Chen & Chng, 2016; Rideout, 2015; Khurana et al., 2015). The

effect of parent education, income, and employment is inconsistent. Some research has

found that parents who reach higher levels of education practice more active and

restrictive mediation (Warren & Aloia, 2019), while others have found that parents who

complete fewer years of education use more monitoring and active mediation (Beyens et

al., 2019; Chang et al., 2019). Some studies find that lower to mid-level household income is

53
associated with more active mediation (Lauricella et al., 2016) and higher income is

associated with less active and restrictive mediation (Top, 2016), while others have found

that higher income is positively associated with restrictive mediation and using technical

monitoring (Nikken & Opree, 2018). Parent employment can impact restrictive mediation

but have no effect on other methods (Warren, 2017). In some cases, parent education,

employment and household income have no impact on parental mediation (Bleakley et al.,

2013; Shin & Kim, 2019). Given the mixed findings for these demographic characteristics,

their effect on the primary independent and dependent variables were examined and

controlled for when significant associations impacted the main relationships of the study.

54
 CHAPTER 3: Method

Study Design

To address my hypotheses and research questions, I conducted a cross-sectional

survey of parents with a child between the age of 13 and 18 who owns a personal mobile

device. Data was collected through a self-administered online survey hosted on Qualtrics.

The survey instrument included measures for the TPB constructs, FST variables, parental

mediation and monitoring behaviors, and demographic variables. To review, the dependent

variables in this study were active, restrictive and monitoring parental mediation of

Internet-enabled mobile devices. The independent variables were the TPB constructs—

attitudes toward behaviors, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control/self-

efficacy. The moderators in this study included parenting behaviors, family communication

quality, and parent barriers to mediation. Control variables included parent accessibility,

family structure, and parent and child demographics (age, gender, household income,

parent education, ethnicity, and employment status). Figure 2 illustrates these variables

and their hypothesized relationships.

55
56
Data Collection

Participants were recruited through Mechanical Turk between March and April of

2018. There were two orderings of the survey such that half of the sample viewed the

parental mediation questions first and half viewed the TPB questions first. No effects of

order were observed. Participants received $1.00 for completing the survey. The full

survey (including screening and attention check questions) is in Appendix B. The survey

was pilot-tested with a convenience sample of 61 parents before collecting the final sample.

This was done to test the survey flow, assess the clarity of questions, and solicit feedback

regarding parenting and mobile devices. No major issues were reported or detected but

small changes to the survey were made to improve question clarity. The results of the pilot-

test are included in Appendix C.

Participants and Sampling

Parents were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk is an

online workforce/labor market that has become popular in social scientific research as a

source of diverse and easily accessible population samples (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling,

2011), including several parental mediation studies (e.g. Martins et al., 2017; Rasmussen,

White, King, Holiday, & Densley, 2016). Some critical evaluations of data gathered from

individuals on MTurk have noted that the reliability of measures on MTurk can be lower

than those from community samples (Rouse, 2015). Attentiveness during data collection is

a commonly mentioned concern, and the threat of artificial intelligence systems (i.e. “bots”)

has also been an issue noted in the literature (Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2014; Goodman,

Cryder, & Cheema, 2013; Litman, 2018). Several steps were taken to heed these cautions

and decrease the possibility of low quality data in this study.

57
 First, participants completed six pre-survey screening questions to determine their

eligibility to participate in this study (Rouse, 2015). These questions asked the parents

gender, if they had a child within the target age range, if this child owned a personal mobile

device, if the parent spoke to the child regularly (at least four times per week), and if the

parent owned a personal device. Second, this study used three attention/accuracy check

questions spaced throughout the survey to subvert artificial intelligence systems and

inattentive participants (Casler et al., 2014). Third, participation was restricted to

individuals who had more than 50 approved HITs and were located in the United States.

Data Screening

Six hundred and thirty five responses were downloaded from Qualtrics. As noted

above, there were several attention check questions evenly spaced throughout the survey.

Six individuals incorrectly answered all 3 of these attention questions and were not

included in the sample. Fifteen responses were missing 17% or more data for the TPB

behavior measures, parental mediation measures, or FST questions and were excluded

from the sample. Six responses were removed for completing the survey twice (as this

violates the assumption that the data are independent). Seven responses reported within

the survey that their child did not own a mobile device and were not retained for the final

sample. In all, a total of 34 responses were excluded from the final sample during this first

step of data screening.

The average time to complete the survey was 21.47 minutes (SD = 40.43). The

skewness (11.63) and kurtosis (157.61) of this distribution indicated that the data were

positively skewed and leptokurtic (highly peaked; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The time it

took to complete the survey ranged from 3.37 minutes to 651.25 minutes with a median of

58
15.10 minutes. The upper end of this range can be explained by Mechanical Turk’s

assignment acceptance system. MTurk workers can add an assignment to their “assignment

queue” to work on until the assignment expires (Amazon Developer Guide, 2017; Amazon

Mechanical Turk, 2018). I set the assignment to expire after 4 days, so in theory, Mturk

workers had 96 hours to complete this survey after adding it to their queue before it would

close automatically.

To investigate the lower end of the range, I analyzed the means, standard deviations,

and internal reliability coefficients for all variables while excluding individuals who took

less than 10 minutes to complete the survey (n=490); less than 8 minutes to complete the

survey (n = 536); and less than 5 minutes to complete the survey (n=592). Table 1

compares the full sample (n = 601) to each of these sub-samples. There are slight

differences among the reliability coefficients but none exceed 0.02. The survey was

approximately 127 questions 4 and while the data do not substantially differ in Table 1, it is

unlikely that individuals who took less than 5 minutes to complete the survey filled it out to

fidelity and with care; therefore, the 9 responses that took less than 5 minutes to finish the

survey were excluded as well. After removing all of these responses, the final sample size

retained was 592 (N). The average time to complete the survey was 22.03 minutes (SD =

40.58).

4Including the filter questions at the beginning of the survey, all of the potential follow up
questions, and open-ended responses, the survey was a total of 136 questions.
59
Table 1. Reliability Coefficients and Descriptive Statistics for DVs and IVs for Sub-samples of
Responses that Took >10, >8, & >5 Minutes to Complete Survey
All >10 Minutes >8 Minutes >5 Minutes
n = 601 n = 490 n = 536 n = 592

Mean (SD) 21.47 (40.43) 25.01 (44.28) 23.38 (42.45) 22.03 (40.58)
Median 15.10 17.02 16.09 15.14
Range 3.37 – 651.25 10.00 – 651.25 8.01 – 651.25 5.08 – 651.25
M SD α M SD α M SD α M SD α
Parental
Mediation
AM 3.00 0.74 .89 2.98 0.75 .90 3.00 0.75 .90 3.00 0.75 .90

RM_SUM 3.16 1.55 .72 a 3.16 1.51 .70 a 3.19 1.52 .70 a 3.19 1.53 .71 a

RM_AVG 2.84 0.72 .82 2.86 0.72 .82 2.86 0.73 .82 2.84 0.72 .82

MON_SUM 2.30 1.38 .66 a 2.38 1.36 .64 a 2.35 1.37 .65 a 2.33 1.37 .65 a

MON_AVG 3.07 1.00 .81 3.06 1.01 .81 3.09 1.02 .82 3.08 1.01 .82
Attitudes
Toward
Behaviors
ATT_NA 3.13 0.99 .90 3.16 0.99 .90 3.16 1.00 .90 3.14 1.00 .90

ATT_PA 3.59 0.76 .89 3.62 0.75 .89 3.62 0.75 .89 3.59 0.76 .89

ATT_AMO 3.33 0.81 .74 3.54 0.82 .75 3.35 0.82 .75 3.33 0.81 .75
Subjective
Norms
SN_IN 4.37 1.34 .87 4.45 1.36 .88 4.44 1.35 .87 4.38 1.34 .87

SN_DN 4.08 1.43 .89 4.10 1.46 .90 4.10 1.46 .90 4.08 1.44 .90

Perceived Behavioral
Control/Self-Efficacy
PBC 3.75 0.93 .86 3.81 0.92 .86 3.80 0.93 .87 3.76 0.93 .86

SE 3.83 0.95 .87 3.88 0.94 .87 3.87 0.94 .87 3.84 0.95 .87

PBC & SE 3.79 0.90 .92 3.84 0.88 .92 3.83 0.89 .92 3.80 0.90 .92

PMU 3.89 0.70 .69 3.93 0.69 .67 3.93 0.69 .68 3.90 0.69 .68

KMA 3.69 0.82 .88 3.72 0.81 .87 3.72 0.81 .88 3.70 0.82 .88

60
 Family System
Theory
PB_C 4.31 0.77 .91 4.41 0.70 .91 4.40 0.70 .91 4.33 0.75 .92

PB_R 4.15 0.78 .91 4.23 0.75 .91 4.22 0.75 .91 4.17 0.77 .91

PB_AG 3.95 0.74 .86 4.00 0.72 .86 4.00 0.73 .87 3.97 0.73 .86

FCQ 3.81 0.73 .82 3.87 0.70 .82 3.87 0.70 .82 3.83 0.72 .82

BAR 2.27 0.81 .84 2.20 0.79 .83 2.23 0.81 .84 2.27 0.81 .84
Note. Actual minutes, not decimal minutes, are reported in this table; a Kuder-Richardson
20 coefficient for binary variables.

Measures

The survey was comprised of the measures described in the next sections. The

dependent variables are discussed first followed by the independent, moderating, and

control variables. Cronbach’s alpha (α) is reported for scaled (Likert) measures and Kuder-

Richardson 20 is reported for binary response measures (Cortina, 1993). Kuder-

Richardson 20 (KR20) is mathematically similar to Cronbach’s alpha and interpreted in the

same manner but used specifically to refer to reliability for binary items (Cortina, 1993;

Cronbach, 1951). The commonly used cutoff of α > .70 was employed in this study (Field,

2013). Note that some of the measures described next were created or adapted for this

study; however, when possible, comparable alphas from previous studies are noted. The

reliability coefficients and descriptive statistics for IVs, DVs, and moderators are in Table 2,

and descriptive statistics for demographic and control variables are in Table 5.

Parental Mediation (DVs)

Parents were asked about their active and restrictive mediation and monitoring

behaviors. These questions were modeled after traditional parental mediation measures

(Gentile et al., 2012; Nathanson, 1999, Nathanson & Botta, 2003; Valkenburg et al., 1999)

61
and measures adapted for parental mediation of mobile devices and the Internet (Hiniker

et al., 2016; PEW, 2016; Rideout, 2015; Shin & Li, 2017). Collectively these questions

concerned parental mediation of what, when, and where adolescents can access on their

mobile devices. Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations for these measures

and the full survey is in Appendix B.

62
Table 2. Reliability Coefficients and Descriptive Statistics for IVs, DVs and Moderators
Variable M (SD) α
Parental Mediation
Active mediation 3.00 (0.75) .90
Summed restrictive mediation 3.19 (1.53) .71 a
Average restrictive mediation 2.84 (0.72) .82
Summed monitoring 2.33 (1.37) .65 a
Average monitoring 3.08 (1.01) .82
Attitudes Toward Behaviors
Negative attitudes about media use and effects 3.14 (1.00) .90
Positive attitudes about media use and effects 3.59 (0.76) .89
Attitudes about mediation outcomes 3.33 (0.81) .82
Subjective Norms
Injunctive 4.38 (1.34) .87
Descriptive 4.08 (1.44) .90
Perceived Behavioral Control/Self-Efficacy
Perceived behavioral control 3.76 (0.93) .86
Self-efficacy 3.84 (0.95) .87
Parent mobile device use 3.90 (0.69) .68
Parent knowledge of teen media activities 3.70 (0.82) .88
Family System Theory
Parenting behavior: Connection 4.33 (0.75) .92
Parenting behavior: Regulation 4.17 (0.77) .91
Parenting behavior: Autonomy granting 3.97 (0.73) .86
Family communication quality 3.83 (0.72) .82
Barriers to parent mediation 2.27 (0.81) .84
Note. N=592. a Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient for binary variables.

63
 Active mediation. Seven questions for active mediation asked about parent

guidance and conversations relating to the use and content of mobile devices. Examples

include “How often do you discuss what content is appropriate or inappropriate to view on

mobile devices? How often do you discuss what personal information should or should not

be shared online or on a mobile device?” Responses were reported on a 5-point scale (1 =

Never, 2 = Sometimes but not often, 3 = Several times a month, 4 = Several times a week, 5 =

Everyday). The alpha for these questions was α= .90, which is comparable to previous

research (Nathanson, 1999, α= .94).

Restrictive mediation. Five questions for restrictive mediation asked about time

and content rules. Examples include “Do you have rules about when your child can use

their mobile device? Do you have rules about what apps your child can or cannot use on

their mobile device?” These questions had binary response options (yes/no) and the

internal consistency for them was acceptable (KR20 = .71).

If parents responded affirmatively to one of the five binary response restrictive

mediation questions, they were asked a follow-up question about how strict or consistent

they are with enforcing rules on a 4-point scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Moderately, 4

= Very). For example, if a parent responded “yes” to the question, “Do you have rules about

when your child can use their mobile device?” they were asked, “How would you describe

how strict or consistent you are with enforcing rules about when your child can be on their

mobile device?” If parents responded affirmatively to all five binary response questions,

they answered a total of 10 questions for restrictive mediation; if they responded

affirmatively to four out of five binary response questions, then they answered a total of

eight questions for restrictive mediation (and so on). Cronbach’s alpha for the strictness

64
questions was high (α= .82) and comparable to previous research (Warren, 2017, α = .84).

From this point forward, the binary response questions will be referred to as “summed

restrictive mediation” and the Likert response questions asking about

strictness/consistency will be referred to as “average restrictive mediation.”

Monitoring. Seven questions for monitoring asked about overt and covert means of

supervising mobile devices. Four of these questions had binary response options (yes/no)

and, for some questions, if parents responded affirmatively they were asked a follow-up

question for more information. For example, if a parent responded “yes” to the question,

“Are you friends with your child on their social media profiles (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) for

the purpose of monitoring their posts or activity?” they were also asked, “On which social

media sites are you friends with your child?” (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat,

Pinterest, YouTube, Tumblr, Email, and Other) and “How often do you check your child’s

mobile device after they have used it to monitor what they are doing (both immediately

after or some time later)?” The remaining three questions asked about the frequency of

monitoring and were reported on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes but not

often, 3 = Several times a month, 4 = Several times a week, 5 = Everyday).

Cronbach’s alpha for the Likert response questions was high (α = .81) and

comparable to similar questions in a previous study (Sonck et al., 2013, α = .79) but KR20

for the four binary response questions was low (KR20= .65). The low KR20 for this

measure may be due to the low number of items (Cortina, 1993; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

Relatedly, it could also be due to the different types of tasks that were assessed in these

questions. Measures of internal consistency assess the degree to which “all items in a test

measure the same concept or construct and hence it is connected to the inter-relatedness

65
of the items within the test” (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011, p. 52). To investigate this issue, I

conducted a principal component analysis with varimax (orthogonal) rotation on the four

items. The analysis yielded two factors with two questions loading onto each factor

explaining a total of 77.68% of the variance (Table 3). Factor 1 explained 49.09% of the

variance and comprised two questions relating to passwords: “Do you know your child’s

passwords for any of his/her social media and/or online accounts? Do you know your

child’s passwords for any of his/her mobile devices?” Factor 2 explained 28.60% of the

variance and comprised two questions relating to friending on social media: “Are you

friends with your child on their social media profiles (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) for

fun/entertainment? Are you friends with your child on their social media profiles (e.g.

Facebook, Twitter) for the purpose of monitoring their posts or activity?” Given that these

items loaded onto factors in an expected manner, they were retained for further analyses.

From this point forward, the four binary response questions will be referred to as “summed

monitoring” and the three Likert response questions asking about frequency will be

referred to as “average monitoring.”

66
Table 3. Principal Component Analysis of Summed Monitoring Questions
Loadings
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Communalities
Do you know your child’s passwords for any of
.852 .768
his/her social media and/or online accounts?
Do you know your child’s passwords for any of
.891 .794
his/her mobile devices?
Are you friends with your child on their social
media profiles e.g. Facebook, Twitter for .891 .794
fun/entertainment?
Are you friends with your child on their social
media profiles e.g. Facebook, Twitter for the .834 .751
purpose of monitoring their posts or activity?
Eigenvalue 1.963 1.144
% of Variance 49.086 28.598
Total Variance 77.684

Theory of Planned Behavior Constructs (IVs)

Ajzen’s guidelines on how to construct a formal TPB questionnaire include the use

of elicitation research methods, self-report and direct observation of the target population,

latent and manifest measures, and 7-point semantic differential response options (Ajzen,

2002b; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Given that this dissertation is employing the TPB as a

guiding theoretical framework rather than formally testing its application, exact TPB

measures were not utilized. The goal here instead was to investigate the extent to which

the hypothesized antecedent beliefs outlined in the literature review underlie each of the

TPB constructs and ultimately discern if these beliefs predict parental mediation. To this

end, existing measures from previous studies were employed, adapted, or created for this

study.

67
TPB: Attitudes

To review, attitudes toward behaviors are the positive and negative ideas a parent

holds about active, restrictive, and monitoring mediation and teen mobile device usage.

The underlying, or antecedent, behavioral beliefs that were hypothesized to determine

one’s attitudes included (a) the negative and positive beliefs parents have about media

effects and use of media and (b) the attitudes parents have about the expected outcome of

mediation behaviors.

Negative attitudes about media effects and use. Negative attitudes about media

effects and use were assessed with nine items from the most recent Common Sense census

of parents with teens and tweens (Lauricella et al., 2016). These questions comprised

concerns about content (e.g. “How worried are you about your child being exposed to

images of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco use?”), emotional well-being (e.g. “How worried are

you that your child’s ability to communicate well with other people will decrease because

of the amount of time they spend online or mobile devices?”), and behaviors (e.g. “How

worried are you about your child receiving or sending sexual images or videos?”).

Responses were reported on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at all worried, 2 = Slightly worried, 3 =

Somewhat worried, 4 = Moderately worried, 5 = Extremely worried). Cronbach’s alpha for

these questions was high (α = .90) but lower than similar questions from a previous study

(Warren, 2017, α = .96).

Positive attitudes about media effects and use. Positive attitudes about media

effects and use were assessed with eight items from the Common Sense census (Lauricella

et al., 2016). These questions comprised benefits such as creative expression (e.g. “How

much do you agree or disagree that using the Internet and mobile devices supports my

68
child’s creativity?”), supporting education (e.g. “How much do you agree or disagree that

using the Internet and mobile devices helps with schoolwork or education?”), and personal

development (e.g. “How much do you agree or disagree that using the Internet and mobile

devices supports my child’s social skills?”). Responses were reported on a 5-point scale (1 =

Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree; 3 = Somewhat agree, 4 = Moderately agree, 5 = Strongly

agree). (α = .89). Cronbach’s alpha for these items was high (α = .89) and comparable to

similar questions from a previous study (Warren, 2017, α = .87). Parents were also given

space to report any other concerns, benefits, and potential effects of media use in open-

ended responses.

Positive attitudes about mediation outcomes. Parents were asked five questions

regarding their attitudes about the outcomes of active, restrictive, and monitoring

behaviors (also adapted from the Common Sense census; Lauricella et al., 2016). Example

questions include, “How effective do you think rules about mobile devices and the Internet

would be at preventing your child from engaging in behaviors you do not want them to?”;

“How effective do you think conversations about content and apps would be at preventing

undesired effects or behaviors in your child?”; and “How likely do you think rules about

mobile devices and the Internet would cause conflict or disagreements with your child?

(reverse coded).” Responses were reported on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at all effective, 2 =

Slightly effective, 3 = Moderately effective, 4 = Very effective, 5 = Extremely effective) and

higher values indicated more positive beliefs that mediation outcomes would be effective

(α = .75).

69
TPB: Subjective Norms

Injunctive norms. Five items asked about injunctive norms of parental mediation

behaviors. These questions were created for this dissertation. To review, injunctive norms

refer to one’s perception of what is expected, acceptable, or unacceptable behavior

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). This set of questions was introduced with the statement, “In

general, people think that parents of teenagers should…” followed by referent mediation

behaviors (e.g. “Have rules about when their child can use their mobile device… Have

conversations with their children about media content and apps they view on their mobile

devices”). Responses were reported on an 8-point scale (0 = The majority of people DO NOT

think this way – 7 = The majority of people DO think this way) (α= .87).

Descriptive norms. Five items asked about descriptive norms of parental

mediation behaviors. These questions were also created for this dissertation. To review,

descriptive norms are the perceived or actual behaviors of others (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).

This set of questions was introduced with the statement, “The next questions ask you to

think about how many parents with a kid your child’s age do the following behaviors,”

followed by the same referent mediation behaviors asked for injunctive norms (e.g. “Have

rules about when their child can use their mobile device… Have conversations with their

children about media content and apps they view on their mobile devices”). Responses

were reported on an 8-point scale (0 = None – 7 = Almost all) (α= .90).

TPB: Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)/Self-efficacy (SE)

To review, PBC and SE are conceptually similar constructs in that both refer to one’s

perceived confidence that they can perform a behavior; however, they differ slightly in

their operational measurement. Measures of SE ask individuals to think about their

70
behavior in terms of what they can/cannot do (i.e. capability) under varying degrees of

obstacles (Bandura, 2006), while measures of PBC ask individuals to think about behaviors

in terms of perceived controllability (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Ajzen (2002a) has

acknowledged the overlap between the two concepts and even stated that measures of PBC

“should contain self-efficacy as well as controllability items” (Ajzen, 2002b, p. 7). To heed

this recommendation while also maintaining the distinction between PBC and SE, a two-

part question was designed as a direct measure of PBC and SE for this dissertation.

The PBC set of questions was introduced with the following instructions: “Please

rate how much you believe each statement is something that you feel you are capable of, or

is a behavior within your control to perform.” The statements referred to each mediation

behavior (e.g. “Limit when my child can use their mobile device… Discuss media content

and apps my child views on their mobile device(s)) and responses were reported on a 5-

point scale (1 = Not at all capable – 5 = Very capable). Cronbach’s alpha for these items was

good (α = .86) and comparable to similar questions in a previous study (Krcmar & Cingel,

2016, α = .81).

The SE set of questions was introduced with the following instructions: “Now

please rate your confidence that you could do these behaviors even if they are difficult.” The

statements referred to each mediation behavior (e.g. “Limit when my child can use their

mobile device… Discuss media content and apps my child views on their mobile device(s))

and responses were reported on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at all confident – 5 = Very

confident). Cronbach’s alpha was high for this measure (α = .87).

Parent mobile device use. Parent mobile device use was measured with a mobile

technology activities roster developed by Shin and Li (2017). Parents were asked to rate

71
how frequently they use a mobile device for six different tasks including, “job-related tasks,

household tasks, social media, educational purposes, leisure, and personal communication”

(Shin & Li, 2017, p. 10). Responses were reported on a 5-point scale (1 = Never, 2 =

Sometimes but not often, 3 = Several times per month, 4 = Several times per week, 5 = Every

day). Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was low (α= .68) and examined further with a

principle components analysis with varimax (orthogonal) rotation.

The analysis yielded two factors. Factor 1 explained 39.72% of the variance and

comprised three items relating to personal use (personal communication, leisure, and

social media), with factor loadings from .706 to .819. Factor 2 explained 18.30% of the

variance and comprised three items relating to work tasks (job-related tasks, household

tasks, and educational purposes), with factor loadings from .694 to .749. Given these

findings, the three items relating to personal use and three items relating to work use were

entered separately into the statistical analyses.

Knowledge of teen media activities. Knowledge of teen media activities was

measured using eight items from the Common Sense census (Lauricella et al., 2016). These

questions asked parents to report how often they are aware of their child’s media activities

such as what they watch on TV, which online videos they view, and what they post about

themselves online. Responses were reported on a 5-point scale (0=My child doesn’t do this

activity, 1 = Never, 2 = Once in a while, 3 = Some of the time, 4 = Most of the time, 5 = All of the

time) and Cronbach’s alpha was high (α= .88).

Moderators: Family System Variables

Parenting behaviors. The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire-Short

Version (PSDQ-S; Robinson et al., 2001) was used to measure connection (5 items),

72
regulation (5 items), and autonomy granting (5 items). Example statements included “I

have warm and intimate moments with my child” (connection), “I emphasize the reasons

for rules” (regulation), and “I allow my child to give input into family rules” (psychological

control/autonomy granting). Responses were reported on a 5-point scale (1 = Never, 2 =

Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Always). Cronbach’s alphas for these items were:

connection (α= .92), regulation (α= .91) and autonomy granting (α= .86), which are higher

than previous studies (Padilla-Walker et al., 2012b, connection (α= .78), regulation (α= .82)

and autonomy granting (α= .75).

Family communication quality. Six items from the Child-Parent Communication

Apprehension Scale (C-PCAS; Lucchetti, Powers, & Love, 2002) were adapted and used to

measure quality of family communication. The C-PCAS was originally developed for use

with young adults and measures the degree of anxiety and openness toward dyadic

communication. Example items include “I feel relaxed when talking to my mother/father

about things that happened during the day” (adapted to, “My child appears relaxed when

we are talking about things that happened during the day”) and “When in casual

conversations with my father/mother I don’t feel I have to guard what I say” (adapted to,

“When in casual conversations with my child, they do not appear guarded”). Responses

were reported on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat agree, 4

= Agree, 5 = Strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for these items was good (α= .82) but lower

than the full 25-item scale (Lucchetti et al., 2002, α = .92 for mothers, α = .92 for fathers).

Parent barriers to mediation. Parents were asked nine questions about potential

barriers to media conversations developed from several sources (Rideout, 2007; Vaterlaus

et al., 2015), including the impact of previous conversations/rules (“I had these

73
conversations when my child was younger”), their child’s maturity (“My child being mature

enough that I don’t think these conversations are necessary”), lack of knowledge (“Not

knowing what to say to my child”), time constraints (“How long the conversations would

take”), trust (“Trusting my child to act and behave responsibly while using their mobile

device”), and privacy (“Respect for my child’s privacy”). This set of questions was

introduced with the following instructions:

There are many reasons why parents may not have conversations about the
Internet or mobile devices with their teenager. “Conversations” can include
discussions about online behavior or activities and when, how long, and for what
purposes teens can use their mobile device. Listed below are some common reasons
that other parents of teenagers have said they don’t discuss the Internet or mobile
devices with their children. To what extent do each of the following statements
affect having rules or conversations with your child about using mobile devices and
the Internet? If you don’t feel any barriers to talking with your child about mobile
devices, please select “not at all”. (Appendix B)

Responses were reported on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at all, 2 = Slightly, 3 = Somewhat, 4 =

Moderately, 5 = A great deal) (α= .84). Descriptive statistics for these items are in Table 4.

Parents were also given space to report any other barriers they perceived to mediation in

an open-ended response.

74
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Barriers to Parent Mediation Items
Items M SD
How long the conversations would take 1.96 (1.17)
My child being mature enough that I don’t think
2.61 (1.32)
these conversations are necessary
Respect for my child’s privacy 2.70 (1.29)
Trusting my child to act and behave responsibly
3.04 (1.26)
while using their mobile device
I don’t think these conversations will make any
1.93 (1.17)
difference
My child being unreceptive to these conversations 2.02 (1.19)
My child not being interested in mobile devices 1.67 (1.05)
Not knowing what to say to my child 1.82 (1.14)
I had these conversations when my child was
2.68 (1.34)
younger
M (SD) of all items 2.27 (0.81)

Control Variables

Parent accessibility. Parental accessibility refers to the waking hours a parent is

available to spend with their child each week (Warren, 2001, 2017). Accessibility was

measured by asking parents to report about how many waking hours they are home or

other places with their family during a typical week day (Monday – Friday) and on a typical

weekend day (Saturday and Sunday). Responses were reported on a 6-point scale (1 = One

hour, 2 = Two hours, 3 = Three hours, 4 = Four hours, 5 = Five hours, 6 = Six hours, 7 = If more

than 6 hours, please specify). Parents were given the option to report more than 6 hours in

an open-ended response.

75
 Ninety-four parents wrote in responses higher than 6 hours for weekday hours they

are home with their family 5. These responses ranged from “7” hours – “40+” hours, and 9

individuals wrote in responses that reflected being home “all day.” To account for this

range of answers, I kept responses that wrote in an estimate of 14 hours and under because

these responses can reflect parents who wake up with their children, home school, and

then remain available to their children throughout the day. For example, a household that

wakes up at 7am and goes to bed at 9pm reflects a 14 hour potential for parent

accessibility. Responses 14 hours and under were multiplied by 5 to create a weekday

parent accessibility score (M = 26.45, SD = 10.76).

Two hundred and eighty eight parents wrote in responses higher than 6 hours for

weekend hours. Here again, I kept responses that wrote in an estimate of up to 14 hours

and under and multiplied this value by 2 (M = 13.75, SD = 7.17). The weekday and weekend

hours were then summed to create an overall score of parent accessibility (M = 39.16, SD =

14.53).

Family structure. Two questions asked about the parent composition within the

household as a measure of family structure (Austin et al., 1997; Cox & Paley, 1997). The

first question asked parents to report their relationship to the child of interest. The options

were (1) Birth/biological parent, (2) Step-parent, (3) Adoptive parent, (4) Grandparent, (5)

Foster parent, and (6) Other [open –ended response]. The second question asked, “If there

are other adults in your household, what is their relationship to your child? [Select all

options that apply]”. Response options were (1) Birth/biological parent, (2) Step-parent, (3)

Adoptive parent, (4) Grandparent, (5) Foster parent, and (6) There are no other adults living

5Ninety six parents selected “More than 6 hours” but 2 did not write in an estimate of their waking
hours, therefore 94 responses are discussed.
76
in my house. For statistical analyses, this variable was dichotomized as both biological-

parent family (=1) and non-biological family (=0).

Marital status. Parents were asked to report their current marital status. Response

options were (1) Single, (2) In a relationship, (3) Married, (4) Divorced, and (5) Prefer not to

answer. For statistical analyses, this variable was dichotomized as married (=1) and non-

married (=0).

Child demographics. Parents were asked to report their child’s age, grade, gender,

ethnicity, and the number and type of child-owned media devices that are in the home. For

statistical analyses, gender was dichotomized as female (=1) and male (=0), and ethnicity

was dichotomized as White/Non-Hispanic (=1) and Non-White (=0).

Adult demographics. Parents were asked to report their age, gender, household

income, education, ethnicity, employment status, and the number and types of devices in

the home. Options for household income were (1) under $30,000, (2) $30,000-$49,999, (3)

$50,000-$69,999, (4) $70,000-99,999, and (5) $100,000 or more. Options for education were

(1) Less than 8th grade, (2) Some high school, (3) High school degree or GED, (4) Some college

(2 or 4 year), (5) College graduate (e.g. B.A., B.S.), (6) Master’s degree (e.g. M.A., M.S., M.B.A.),

(7) Professional degree (e.g. J.D., M.D.), and (8) Doctorate degree (e.g. PhD, EdD). Options for

ethnicity were (1) American Indian/Alaskan Native, (2) Asian or Pacific Islander, (3)

Black/African American/Non-Hispanic, (4) Mexican American, (5) Latino/Latina, (6)

White/Non-Hispanic, (7) Other (open-ended response), and (8) Prefer not to answer.

Options for employment status included (1) Employed full-time, (2) Employed part-time, (3)

Self-employed, (4) Student, (5) Retired, and (6) Unemployed, (7) Disabled, (8)

Homemaker/family manager, (9) Other, and (10) Prefer not to answer. For statistical

77
analyses, gender was dichotomized as female (=1) and male (=0), and ethnicity was

dichotomized as White/Non-Hispanic (=1) and Non-White (=0).

Data Analysis

Descriptive analyses and data preparation for interferential statistics were

conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics 25. Prior to any inferential analyses, several steps were

taken to prepare the data. First, the data were checked for inconsistent responses (e.g.

discrepant answers from the pre-screening questions that were repeated within the

survey) and missing data. Second, internal reliability was checked for measures used in the

survey. Structural equational modeling was performed in SPSS AMOS 25 Graphics.

Missing Values

The Missing Value Analysis function in SPSS was used to investigate any patterns to

missing data. Little’s MCAR test is a chi-square statistic used to indicate whether data

values are in a missing completely at random (MCAR) pattern. A significant p value for

Little’s test indicates that the data are not MCAR. The other possible patterns of missing

data are missing at random (MAR) or not missing at random (NMAR) (Byrne, 2010). Values

that are MAR can be “linked to the observed values of other variables in the data,” while

NMAR values vary systematically and may be related to the dependent variable (Byrne,

2010, p. 354; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The results of Little’s MCAR test were statistically

significant indicating that the data were not missing completely at random (MCAR), χ2

(N=592, df= 23) = 231.50, p < 0.01.

The greatest amount of missing data (15%; 89 missing values) was observed in the

Total Parent Accessibility variable. This is understandable given the amount of open-ended

responses that were recorded for this variable and how the Total Accessibility variable was

78
calculated (only values of 14 hours and under were retained for calculation; see Parent

Accessibility in Control Variables section for more information). I considered this pattern of

missing data to be MAR because the pattern can be predicted or determined by another

variable in the data (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). There are several options for missing data

techniques. Listwise deletion removes the entire case that contains any missing values and

can substantially reduce the sample size. Pairwise deletion excludes cases relating to a pair

of variables with missing data but this can cause the sample size to vary across variables.

Mean substitution replaces missing values with the variable’s mean and can reduce

variance and skew the frequency distribution of a variable. Lastly, expectation

maximization (EM) calculates predicted scores using a series of regressions and then

imputes the entire data set with maximum likelihood (ML) estimations, which assumes the

variable is normally distributed (Byrne, 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). I used mean

substitution to impute missing values because this variable was not normally distributed

(skewness = 0.47, kurtosis = 2.25) (Byrne, 2010).

The second greatest amount of missing data (7.8%) was within the average

restrictive mediation questions. To review, if parents responded affirmatively to one of the

five binary response restrictive mediation questions (summed restrictive mediation), they

were asked a follow up question about how strict or consistent they are with enforcing

rules on a 4-point scale (average restrictive mediation). Thus, if parents responded “no” to

a binary response question, they were not presented with a follow up

strictness/consistency question. I considered these missing data to be MAR because the

pattern can be predicted or determined by another variable in the data (Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2007). The skewness (-0.35) and kurtosis (-0.12) of this variable indicated a slight

79
negative skew and a slightly platykurtic (flat) distribution; however, neither value

suggested the data were particularly non-normal (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Because

these data were approximately normally distributed and percentage of missing data was

low, I used the ML method within AMOS to estimate missing data for average restrictive

mediation.

Analysis Plan

Hypotheses 1-7 and research question 1 predicted or inquired about relationships

between the TPB constructs and active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors. Structural

equation modeling (SEM) was used to investigate these predictions. SEM offers some

advantages over other statistical methods such as hierarchical regressions or path analysis

(Kline, 2011). First, unlike path analysis, SEM distinguishes between latent and observed

variables. Observed variables are directly collected from the data (e.g. self-reported

measure of communication quality) and latent variables are composed of one or more

directly measured variables, called indicators. The proposed TPB constructs in this study

were all latent variables. For example, subjective norms were a latent variable composed

the of descriptive and injunctive norm subscales. SEM also factor analyzes the indicators of

latent variables to assess their construct validity and reliability.

Second, SEM calculates and accounts for measurement error for each observed

variable in a model. This is a special advantage to using SEM over multiple regression,

which assumes that IVs are measured without error (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Though

care was taken to avoid issues that contribute to non-random measurement errors (e.g.

counter balancing the survey, attention check questions), it is unrealistic to eliminate all

80
error associated with self-report data. Indicators with large error terms were identified

and interpreted accordingly.

Third, SEM analyzes multiple complex relationships across latent and observed

variables simultaneously in one model. While multiple and hierarchical regressions and

path analyses can ultimately provide these same mathematical results, SEM is a more

parsimonious and powerful multivariate method to test the relationships proposed in this

study. A separate SEM was specified for each outcome variable.

The remaining research questions (2, 3, and 4) asked if family system variables and

barriers to parental mediation moderated the relationships between the TPB constructs

and parental mediation behaviors. To test moderation, interaction terms must be

calculated for each respective moderator and independent variable, and then tested as a

predictor for the dependent variable.

There are several steps involved in conducting structural equation modeling

analyses (Kline, 2011). The first step is specification, which involves drawing the

hypothesized model using SEM graphical symbols. Latent variables are denoted with

circles or ellipses and observed variables are denoted with squares or rectangles.

Directional relationships are drawn with straight arrows and correlations or covariances

are denoted with a curved, double-headed arrow line. Two important terms to also be

aware of are exogenous and endogenous variables. These refer to independent and

dependent variables, respectively.

The second step is to identify the model (Kline, 2011). Model identification is

achieved if “a unique solution for the values of the structural parameters can be found”

(Byrne, 2010, p. 33). The model must have at least 0 degrees of freedom (i.e. the number of

81
free parameters subtracted from the number of known parameters), latent variables must

be scaled, and a unique value must be estimable for each parameter. An under-identified

(or unidentified) model occurs when the number of parameters is greater than the data

variances and covariances. It is impossible to estimate a unique value for each parameter

with an under-identified model because there are an infinite number of solutions (Byrne,

2010). A just-identified model occurs when the number of parameters is equal to the

number of data variances and covariances. It is possible to estimate a unique value for each

parameter with a just-identified model but it has 0 degrees of freedom and cannot be

rejected. An over-identified model occurs when there are more observations (i.e. data

variances and covariances) than free parameters, resulting in positive degrees of freedom.

The goal is to meet the requirements for an over-identified model.

The third step is to select measures that assess the constructs of interest, followed by

data collection and data preparation for analysis (i.e. data screening and cleaning) (Kline,

2011).

The fourth step is model estimation (Kline, 2011). This step, model estimation, is the

substantive aspect of SEM. It involves evaluating the model fit and the parameter estimates.

A measurement model must be assessed first. The measurement model represents the

relationship between the observed variables that compose the latent constructs (Byrne,

2010). The measurement model is essentially a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model

that specifies how well the observed indicator variables load onto the unobserved latent

constructs. The structural models can be assessed after a satisfactory measurement model

is fit to the data. The structural model specifies the direct or indirect relationships between

82
latent or manifest variables (i.e. tests the hypotheses and answers proposed research

questions) 6.

Model fit is evaluated by different fit indices. Fit indices refer to how well the sample

data approximate a specified model and there are several that should be consulted for SEM,

as no single indicator can suggest a good model fit (Kline, 2011). The most basic of fit

indices is the model chi-square (χ2) and it signifies the discrepancy between the sample

and the variance/covariance matrices predicted by the model. A non-significant χ2 (p >

0.05) is desirable and indicates a good fit of the model to the data. Specifically, “the higher

the probability associated with χ2, the closer the fit between the hypothesized model and

the perfect fit” (Byrne, 2010, p. 76). However, scholars caution that large sample sizes will

likely result in a significant χ2 and it is unrealistic to assume that hypothesized models will

perfectly fit the population (only approximate it) (Byrne, 2010; Kline 2010); therefore one

cannot evaluate model fit on the χ2 statistic alone.

Five other indices were consulted to evaluate model fit (Byrne, 2010). The Goodness

of Fit Index (GFI) indicates, in lay terms, how well the model fits the data compared to no

model at all (Kline, 2010). This index ranges from 0 to 1.00 and values close to 1.00 indicate

a better fit. The general rule of thumb is that values greater than or equal to .90 are

acceptable and values greater than or equal to .95 are excellent. The Comparative Fit Index

(CFI) is an incremental fit index. It compares the fit of the hypothesized model to the

independence model, which would hypothetically be a poor fit to the data (Brosseau-Laird

& Savalei, 2014). The CFI measures the improvement in fit of the hypothesized model to the

independence model. It ranges from 0 to 1.00 and values greater than 0.95 indicate a good

6 Kline (2011) describes two more steps to SEM. The fifth step is re-specification and is necessary if
initial model fit is poor. The sixth step is to report results.
83
fit (Brosseau-Laird & Savalei, 2014; Byrne, 2010). The Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) is another

incremental fit index that measures fit and parsimony, such that “it rewards hypothesized

models that result in greater improvement in fit relative to the baseline model and have

few model parameters” (Brosseau-Laird & Savalei, 2014, p. 461). It also ranges from 0 to

1.00 and values greater than 0.95 indicate a good fit (Byrne, 2010).

The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is a widely reported

measure of model fit (Byrne, 2010). A small RMSEA value indicates a better model fit, such

that values of 0.05 indicate “good” model fit and those between 0.05 and 0.08 are

considered reasonable (Byrne, 2010; Kline, 2011). AMOS also reports a 90% confidence

interval for RMSEA, with a narrow interval that includes .05 reflecting a more suitable

model fit.

The Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) “represents the average residual value

derived from the fitting of the variance-covariance matrix of the hypothesized model to the

variance-covariance matrix of the sample data” (Byrne, 2010, p. 77). These residuals are

unstandardized and depend on the scale of the reported variable; so, if scales between

variables are different, it is recommended that the standardized RMR (SRMR) is reported.

The SRMR is the average of these residuals and is based on the variance-covariance

matrices of the sample and predicted model transformed into correlation matrices. The

SRMR, then, is the overall average difference between the predicted and observed

correlations. Like RMSEA, smaller values are desirable and values of 0.05 indicate good

model fit and those between 0.05 and 0.08 are acceptable (Byrne, 2010).

In addition to these fit indices, the magnitude and statistical significance of

standardized parameter estimates were also evaluated. The standard errors of parameter

84
estimates should not be too large or too small, though there is no designated cut-off

criterion for what constitutes small or large (Byrne, 2010).

85
 CHAPTER 4: Results

The first section of results details the descriptive characteristics of the sample.

Results for correlation analyses between the demographic variables and independent and

dependent variables are discussed in Appendix D and also viewable in Tables 6 and 7. The

measurement model evaluation process is described next, followed by the structural model

evaluation. The last section presents findings for my hypotheses and research questions.

Descriptive Statistics of the Sample

Descriptive statistics for all demographic variables are in Table 5. The majority of

parents in the sample were female (74.2%) and the average age was 38.3 years old (SD =

7.87). Approximately three-quarters of the sample was White/Non-Hispanic (74%),

followed by Black/African-American/Non-Hispanic (9.8%), Asian or Pacific Islander

(6.4%), Latino/Latina (3.4%), Mexican American (1.9%), American Indian/Alaskan Native

(1.7%), Other (0.7%), and 1.4% preferred not to answer. This distribution is similar to

recent national population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau (76.6% White, 13.4%

Black/African-American, 5.8% Asian, 0.2% Pacific Islander, 18.1% Hispanic or Latino, 1.3%

American Indian/Alaskan Native; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018). The majority of parents

were married (72.8%), followed by in a relationship (12.7%), single (9.6%), divorced

(3.7%), and 1.2% preferred not to answer.

Most parents reported being employed full-time (67.2%), employed part-time

(12.3%), self-employed (9.5%), homemaker/family manager (6.6%), student (1.7%),

unemployed (0.8%), disabled (0.8%), retired (0.3%), other type of employment (0.2%),

and a small percentage preferred not to answer this question (0.3%). A plurality of the

sample had a college degree (41.7%), completed some college education (2 or 4 year;

86
31.4%), had a Master’s degree (12.3%), a high school degree or GED (9.5%), a professional

degree (2.9%), doctorate degree (1.2%), and 0.3% reported completing some of their high

school education. The educational background of this sample is higher than recent national

population estimates (30.9% of people aged 25+ holding a bachelor’s degree or higher; U.S.

Census Bureau, 2010-2018).

Eleven percent of the sample reported a household income of less than $30,000;

25% reported income between $30,000 and $49,999; 20.8% reported income between

$50,000 and $69,999; 25.3% reported income between $70,000 and $99,999; and 17.6%

reported income of $100,000 or more. The mode income distributions from this sample are

comparable to recent national population estimates (median household income (in 2017

dollars) = $57,652; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018).

The majority of parents were the birth/biological parent of the child they were

reporting about (89.5%) followed by step-parent (5.7%), adoptive parent (2.5%),

grandparent (1.3%), foster parent (0.5%), and other/open-ended (0.5%). The majority of

people reported one other adult in their household (84.3%), followed by no other adults

(11.9%), and two adults (3.5%) 7 (M number of other adults in home = 0.91, SD = 0.39).

Other adults in the household were mainly birth/biological parents (71.1%), followed by

step-parents (12.1%), grandparents (6.3%), adoptive parents (1.7%), foster parents (0.2%)

and 11.5% reported there were no other adults in their home. The average weekday and

weekend parent accessibility was 26.45 hours (SD = 10.76) and 13.75 hours (SD = 7.17)

and total average weekly parent accessibility was 39.16 hours (SD = 14.53).

7Three individuals selected each “Other adult” option (e.g. birth, step, biological, foster etc.) and
were excluded from the descriptive analyses for this variable.
87
 The majority of children reported by parents were male (55.4%) and the average

child age was 14.5 years old (SD = 1.46). Approximately 29.7% were 13 years old; 28%

were 14 years old; 17.9% were 15 years old; 10.5%% were 16 years old; 9.1% were 17

years old; and 4.2% were 18. About 71.8% of children were White/Non-Hispanic, followed

by Black/African-American/Non-Hispanic (10.6%), Asian or Pacific Islander (6.1%),

Latino/Latina (4.2%), Other (2.2%), American Indiana/Alaskan Native (1.9%), Mexican

American (1.7%), and 1.4% preferred not to answer this question. Approximately 21.5% of

children were in 7th grade, 23.5% were in 8th grade, 22% were in 9th grade, 15.4% were in

10th grade, 7.9% were in 11th grade, 8.3% were in 12th grade, and 1.4% reported “Other”

and wrote in an open-ended response 8.

Parents reported an average of 6 devices in their home (SD = 1.94). The most

commonly reported device was a smartphone (95.4%), followed by TV (93.8%), laptop

computer (86.5%), tablet (84.1%), video game console (77.5%), desktop computer

(58.1%), streaming device (56.4%), portable game player (38.5%), MP3 player (32.9%),

and other devices (0.8%). Parents reported an average of 4.13 (SD = 1.89) child-owned

devices—devices that were not shared or temporarily owned with limited functionality.

The most commonly reported child-owned device was a smartphone (88%), followed by

tablets (66.4%), video game console (58.6%), laptop computer (57.3%), TV (55.2%),

portable game player (24.7%), MP3 player (22%), desktop computer (20.8%), and

streaming device (20.3%).

8There were seven OPEN-ENDED responses to this question. Two parents wrote that their child
had graduated, four parents reported their child was a college freshman, and one parent said their
child was in 6th grade.
88
 Sixty one percent of parents reported knowing the passcode to their child’s mobile

device(s) and 12.8% said there was no lock on their child’s device(s). Approximately 60%

of parents knew a password(s) to their child’s social media or online accounts, reporting an

average of 3.01 known passwords (SD = 1.60). The most commonly reported known

passwords were for Facebook (41.6%), Email (34.3%), Instagram (30.7%), YouTube

(28.5%), Snapchat (21.6%), Twitter (12%), Pinterest (6.6%), other sites (2.7%), and

Tumblr (1%). Sixty percent of parents reported being friends with their child on social

media for fun/entertainment and 52.4% reported being friends with their child on social

media for the purpose of monitoring their posts or activity. Parents were friends with their

child on an average of 2.36 social media sites (SD = 1.33), the most common being

Facebook (56.4%), followed by Instagram (34.6%), Snapchat (22.8%), YouTube (14%),

Twitter (13.7%), Email (13%), Pinterest (5.1%), Tumblr (1%), and other sites (0.3%).

Pearson correlations for all variables are reported in Table 6. For visual clarity,

Table 7 contains correlations for the independent and dependent variables only.

Spearman’s rho (rs) correlations were calculated for ranked variables, including child

grade, household income, parent education, and employment (Field, 2013). Point biserial

correlations (rpb) were calculated for dichotomous variables, including child and parent

gender, child and parent ethnicity, marital status, and family structure (Field, 2013). The

results of significant relationships are detailed in Appendix D.

89
 Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Demographic and Control Variables
Variable n % M (SD)
Parent Characteristics
Age 38.34 (7.87)
Gender
Female 437 74.2
Male 150 25.3
Prefer not to answer 2 0.3
Missing values 3 0.5
Race/Ethnicity
White/Non-Hispanic 438 74.0
Black/African American/Non- 58 9.8
Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander 38 6.4
Latino/Latina 20 3.4
Mexican American 11 1.9
American Indian/Alaskan Native 10 1.7
Prefer not to answer 8 1.4
Other 4 0.7
Missing values 5 0.8
Marital Status
Married 431 72.8
In a relationship 75 12.7
Single 57 9.6
Divorced 22 3.7
Prefer not to answer 7 1.2
Employment Status
Employed full-time 398 67.2
Employed part-time 73 12.3
Self-employed 56 9.5
Homemaker/family manager 39 6.6
Student 10 1.7
Unemployed 5 0.8
Disabled 5 0.8
Retired 2 0.3
Prefer not to answer 2 0.3
Other 1 0.2
Missing values 1 0.2

90
Education
College graduate (e.g. B.A., B.S.) 247 41.7
Some college (2 or 4 year) 186 31.4
Master’s degree (e.g. M.A., M.S., 73 12.3
M.B.A.)
High school degree or GED 56 9.5
Professional degree (e.g. J.D., 17 2.9
M.D.)
Doctorate degree (e.g. PhD, EdD) 7 1.2
Some high school 2 0.3
Less than 8th grade 0 0
Missing values 4 0.7
Income
Under $30,000 66 11.1
$30,000-$49,999 148 25.0
$50,000-$69,999 123 20.8
$70,000-$99,999 150 25.3
$100,000 or more 104 17.6
Missing values 1 0.2
Parent relationship to child
Birth/biological parent 530 89.5
Step-parent 34 5.7
Adoptive Parent 15 2.5
Grandparent 8 1.3
Foster Parent 3 0.5
Other 2 0.3
Average number of other adults in
0.91 (0.39)
home a
Other adults’ relation to child
Birth/biological parent 419 71.1
Step-parent 71 12.1
No other adults in home 68 11.5
Grandparent 37 6.3
Adoptive Parent 10 1.7
Foster Parent 1 0.2
Parent accessibility
26.45 (10.76)
Weekday
13.75 (7.17)
Weekend
39.16 (14.53)
Total
Child Characteristics n % M (SD)
Gender
Male 328 55.4
Female 263 44.4
Prefer to self-describe 0 0

91
 Missing values 1 0.2
Age
13 176 29.7
14 166 28.0
15 106 17.9
14.54 (1.46)
16 62 10.5
17 54 9.1
18 25 4.2
Missing values 3 0.5
Race/Ethnicity
White/Non-Hispanic 425 71.8
Black/African American/Non- 63 10.6
Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander 36 6.1
Latino/Latina 25 4.2
Other 13 2.2
American Indian/Alaskan Native 11 1.9
Mexican American 10 1.7
Prefer not to answer 8 1.4
Missing values 1 0.2
Grade
7th grade 127 21.5
8th grade 139 23.5
9th grade 130 22.0
10th grade 91 15.4
11th grade 47 7.9
12th grade 49 8.3
Other 8 1.4
Missing values 1 0.2
Media Devices in Home n % M (SD)

Average number of devices in home 6.24 (1.94)

Smartphone 565 95.4
TV 555 93.8
Laptop computer 512 86.5
Tablet 498 84.1
Video game console 459 77.5
Desktop computer 344 58.1
Streaming device 334 56.4
Portable game player 228 38.5
MP3 player 195 32.9
Other 5 0.8
Average number of child-owned devices 4.13 (1.89)

92
 Smartphone 521 88.0
Tablet 393 66.4
Video game console 347 58.6
Laptop computer 339 57.3
TV 327 55.2
Portable game player 146 24.7
MP3 player 130 22.0
Desktop computer 123 20.8
Streaming device 120 20.3
Does parent know the passcode for
child’s mobile devices?
Yes 361 61.0
No 155 26.2
There is no lock on devices 76 12.8
Does parent know any passwords for
child’s social media (SM) or online
accounts?
Yes 352 59.5
No 193 32.6
Child doesn’t use SM or online 43 7.3
accounts
Missing values 4 0.7
Parent-known passwords 3.01 (1.60)
Facebook 246 41.6
Email 203 34.3
Instagram 182 30.7
YouTube 169 28.5
Snapchat 128 21.6
Twitter 71 12.0
Pinterest 39 6.6
Other 16 2.7
Tumblr 6 1.0
Is parent friends with child on social
media SM for fun/entertainment?
Yes 355 60.0
No 146 24.7
Child doesn’t use SM 88 14.9
Missing values 3 0.5
Is parent friends with child on social
media SM to monitor activity/posts?

93
 Yes 310 52.4
No 185 31.3
Child doesn’t use SM 94 15.9
Missing values 3 0.5
Social media sites that parents are
2.36 (1.33)
friends with their child on
Facebook 334 56.4
Instagram 205 34.6
Snapchat 135 22.8
YouTube 83 14.0
Twitter 81 13.7
Email 77 13.0
Pinterest 30 5.1
Tumblr 6 1.0
Other 2 0.3
a There were 2 missing values for this variable and 3 responses were excluded for selecting

each adult option (e.g. birth, step, and adoptive parent); therefore the n = 487.

94
95
96
97
Model Assessment

Measurement model. The measurement model was specified to examine if the

proposed indicators reliably reflected underlying latent constructs in this dataset. The

measurement model estimates factor loadings of the observed measures onto the

unobserved latent variables using confirmatory factor analysis (Byrne, 2010). Three

subscales were used as indicators for attitudes (positive attitudes about media effects and

use = 8 items; negative attitudes about media effects and use = 9 items; attitudes about

mediation outcomes = 5 items); two subscales were used as indicators for subjective norms

(injunctive norms = 5 items; descriptive norms = 5 items); and five subscales were used as

indicators for PBC/SE (personal–parent mobile device use = 3 items; work–parent mobile

device use = 3 items; knowledge of teen media activities = 8 items; direct measure of PBC =

5 items; direct measure of SE = 5 items). One observed indicator of each latent variable had

a fixed loading of 1 and the latent constructs were free to correlate with one another

(Byrne, 2010). The error terms for indicators were uncorrelated. This measurement model

consisted of 65 distinct sample moments (i.e. variances and covariances of observed

variables) and 33 distinct parameters to be estimated, resulting in an over-identified model

with 32 degrees of freedom. The measurement model is presented in Figure 3.

98
Figure 3. Hypothesized Measurement Model

Note. ATT_NA = Negative attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_PA = Positive
attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_AMO = Attitudes about mediation outcomes; IN
= Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; PMU Personal= Parent mobile device use for
personal tasks; PMU Work= Parent mobile device use for work related tasks; KMA =
Knowledge of teen media activities; PBC = Direct measure of perceived behavioral control
to mediate; SE = Direct measure of self-efficacy to mediate. χ2(32) = 250.66, p < .001, GFI =
.922, CFI = .868, RMSEA = .108 (90% CI = .095, .120), SRMR = .083, TLI = .814.

99
 In Figure 3, latent constructs are represented in ellipses and observed variables are

represented in rectangles. Fit indices for this model were poor, χ2(32) = 250.66, p < .001,

GFI = .922, CFI = .868, RMSEA = .108 (90% CI = .095, .120), SRMR = .083, TLI = .814.

Specifically, the CFI and TLI were lower than desirable and the RMSEA and SRMR were

higher than desirable. The RMSEA is a parsimony-adjusted index with lower values

between .05 and .08 considered ideal (Kline, 2011). In general, RMSEA will decrease with

more degrees of freedom; however, Kline (2011) explains, “RMSEA does not necessarily

favor models with more degrees of freedom. This is because the effect of correction for

parsimony diminishes as the sample size becomes increasingly large” (p. 206). The null

hypothesis for the chi-square is that attitudes is a latent construct with a three factor

structure; subjective norms is a latent construct with a two factor structure; and perceived

behavioral control is a latent construct with a five factor structure (Byrne, 2010). This

hypothesis was rejected with a significant p-value, which was expected given the large

sample size; however, taken together with low CFI and TLI values, these indices could

indicate an issue of parsimony such that there are more than necessary parameters in the

model (Byrne, 2010).

To address this issue, I focused on the PBC/SE latent construct because it had the

most observed indicators (five) and therefore was the most ostensible culprit affecting

model parsimony. To simplify this construct I combined the separated indicators for

parent mobile device use, and perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy. Parent mobile

device use was initially conceptualized as a single measure but entered as two indicators

based on a principal component analysis which revealed two factors (personal tasks and

work tasks); thus, combining them is essentially reverting to my a priori analysis plan.

100
Combining the measures of PBC and SE has theoretical support. Ajzen (2002a)

acknowledges the similarity between perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy, noting

that these concepts are not always independent of each other and measures of PBC “should

contain items that assess self-efficacy as well as controllability” (p. 680) 9. I also conducted a

principle component analysis on the 10 items to determine if there was statistical support

for combining these measures. They did indeed load onto one factor which explained

59.57% of the variance and also demonstrated high internal consistency as a single

measure (α = .92).

After these steps were taken, the model was re-ran and the fit of this measurement

model was an improvement over the previous but still a poor fit to the data, χ2(17)= 74.97,

p < .001, GFI = .970, CFI = .934, RMSEA = .076 (90% CI = .059, .094), SRMR = .057, TLI =

.891. The RMSEA decreased but still indicated unacceptable fit, and the CFI and TLI were

below the desired cut off of .95. This model is displayed in Figure 4.

9 Ajzen (2002a) also states that, “Depending on the purpose of the investigation, a decision can be

made to aggregate over all items, treating perceived behavioral control as a unitary factor, or to
distinguish between self-efficacy and controllability by entering separate indices into the prediction
equation” (p. 680).
101
Figure 4. Re-specified Measurement Model

.11*

.17*

.88*

.27**

.80**

.88**
.86**

.42**

.20**

.57**

.66**

Note. Standardized estimates are within straight arrows, correlations are within curved
arrows; ATT_NA = Negative attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_PA = Positive
attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_AMO = Positive and negative attitudes about
mediation outcomes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; PMU = Parent mobile
device use; KMA = Knowledge of teen media activities; PBC&SE = Combined direct
measures of perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy to mediate; χ2(17)= 74.97, p <
.001, GFI = .970, CFI = .934, RMSEA = .076 (90% CI = .059, .094), SRMR = .057, TLI = .891.
* p < .05 ** p < .001

102
 The standardized parameter estimates (β) are shown in the arrows between the

latent constructs and their indicators. These values represent the amount of change in the

latent construct that is attributed to a standard deviation change of the indicator. All of the

βs were significant; however, the betas for negative attitudes about media use and effects

(β = .11, p = .05) and positive attitudes about media use and effects (β = .17, p = .003) were

quite low, suggesting that they did not indicate, or load onto, the Attitudes latent construct.

Consequently, the model was re-specified with the three attitudes measures entered as

manifest variables rather than indicators of the Attitudes latent construct.

This revised measurement model is displayed in Figure 5 and was an improvement

over the previous; however, some fit indices were still not within the recommended range,

χ2(13)= 56.03, p < .001, GFI = .978, CFI = .951, RMSEA = .075 (90% CI = .055, .095), SRMR =

.045, TLI = .894. The RMSEA was still undesirably high and the TLI was below the

recommended cut off of .95. There were no other theoretical, data-driven, or a priori

modifications to impose on this model; therefore it was retained as the final, albeit

untenable, measurement model. This model was over-identified with 36 distinct sample

moments, 23 distinct parameters to be estimated, and 13 degrees of freedom. The

standardized parameter estimates (β) are shown in the arrows between the latent

constructs and their indicators and correlations are shown within the curved arrows

(Figure 5). All of the βs were significant (and their standard errors were all below .09) and

7 of the 10 correlations between manifest and latent constructs were significant. The non-

significant correlations were between negative attitudes about media effects and use and

attitudes toward mediation outcomes (r = .08, p = .06); negative attitudes about media

103
effects and use and positive attitudes about media effects and use (r = -.05, p = .24); and

positive attitudes about media effects and use and subjective norms (r = .07, p = .11).

104
Figure 5. Retained Measurement Model

-.05

.08
.18**
.16**

.07

.23**
.80** .16*
.10
.89**

.76**

.43**

.19**

.58**

.66**

Note. Standardized estimates are within straight arrows, correlations are within curved
arrows; ATT_NA = Negative attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_PA = Positive
attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_AMO = Positive and negative attitudes about
mediation outcomes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; PMU = Parent mobile
device use; KMA = Knowledge of teen media activities; PBC&SE = Combined direct
measures of perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy to mediate; χ2(13)= 56.03, p <
.001, GFI = .978, CFI = .951, RMSEA = .075 (90% CI = .055, .095), SRMR = .045, TLI = .894.
* p < .05 ** p < .001

105
 Summary. The initial hypothesized model consisted of 10 indicators for 3 latent

constructs (see Figure 3). This measurement model failed to reach an acceptable level of fit

and was re-specified with a priori and data-driven reasoning to improve the parsimony of

the model by combining two couples of indicators (Figure 4). The re-specified model was

an improvement over the first but still exhibited low factor loadings within the attitudes

latent construct. The three indicators for this construct were then re-specified as manifest

variables and this measurement model was improved over the previous two (Figure 5).

Nevertheless, some fit indices were still above or below recommended cutoff values and

indicated that the hypothesized model had mis-fit with the sample data. With no other

theoretical, data-driven or a priori modifications to impose on the model it was retained

and I proceeded to test the structural models.

Structural models. Structural models were specified to investigate the

hypothesized relationships (i.e. paths) among the exogenous and endogenous variables.

Three structural models were fit for the three endogenous variables of interest in this

study (active mediation, restrictive mediation, and monitoring). As with the measurement

model, the structural models were evaluated by their fit indices, the magnitude and

statistical significance of the standardized parameter estimates, and their standard errors.

Rather than rely on the correlational results alone, all demographic variables were

included as covariates in the first specified model for each endogenous variable and non-

significant demographic variables were trimmed as-needed.

Missing data was handled using the Maximum Likelihood method in AMOS

(Arbuckle, 2017). When data are incomplete, some fit measures cannot be computed.

Specifically GFI and SRMR cannot be computed because these indices compare the fit of the

106
hypothesized model to the independence model (i.e. a poor fitting model to the data) or the

saturated model (i.e. a perfectly fitting model to the data) (Arbuckle, 2017). Computing

these models with incomplete data is problematic given the number of parameters AMOS

would need to estimate without sufficient data to use (Arbuckle, 2017); therefore, these fit

indices are not reported below.

The structural model for active mediation with all control variables exhibited poor

model fit, χ2(178)= 1698.71, p < .001, CFI = .409, RMSEA = .120 (90% CI = .115, .125), TLI =

.233. The non-significant demographic variables trimmed from this model were income (β

= -.037, p = .26), child gender (β = -.022, p = .51), family structure (β = -.002, p = .53), parent

employment (β = -.001, p = .98), marital status (β = .003, p = .92), and parent education (β =

-.028, p = .39). Removing these variables and re-specifying the model decreased the model

chi-square but did not improve the fit, χ2(79)= 1320.61, p < .001, CFI = .461, RMSEA = .163

(90% CI = .155, .171), TLI = .181 (Figure 6). A model containing no control variables had a

better but still poor fit to the data, χ2(16)= 127.88, p < .001, CFI = .902, RMSEA = .109 (90%

CI = .092, .127), TLI = .779. Given this poor model fit, the calculated path estimates should

not be interpreted for hypothesis testing (Hayduk, Cummings, Boadu, Pazderka-Robinson,

& Boullianne, 2007).

The structural model for restrictive mediation was specified with restrictive

mediation as a latent endogenous variable and the summed and frequency measures as

indicators. The restrictive mediation structural model with all control variables could not

converge within 500 iterations, nor could a model with no control variables (Figure 7).

The structural model for monitoring was specified with monitoring as a latent

endogenous variable and the summed and frequency measures as indicators. The

107
monitoring structural model with all control variables could not converge within 500

iterations, nor could a model with no control variables (Figure 8).

Summary. The active mediation structural model fit was poor and the restrictive

mediation and monitoring structural models would not converge to a solution and could

not be evaluated. These results were not entirely unexpected given that some fit indices for

the measurement model were not within the recommended ranges. Ultimately the results

implied that the model was mispecified and the hypothesized variance/covariance matrix

did not reach an acceptable indication of fit to the data variance/covariance matrix. Put

another way, the series of equations arranged in paths predicted by the theory of planned

behavior did not estimate or approximate the data. This did not mean that the constructs

and measures themselves were nonsignificant. On the contrary, the significant paths noted

in Figure 4 between indicators and their latent constructs indicated that there were

meaningful relationships between variables that could be further examined.

108
Figure 6. Structural Model Predicting Active Mediation with Control Variables

Note. ATT_NA = Negative attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_PA = Positive
attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_AMO = Positive and negative attitudes about
mediation outcomes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; PMU = Parent mobile
device use; KMA = Knowledge of teen media activities; PBC&SE = Combined direct
measures of perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy to mediate; CAge = Child age;
CEth = Child ethnicity (White/Non-Hispanic = 1, Non-white = 0); TAccess = Total parent
accessibility; PAge = Parent age; PGen = Parent gender (Male = 0, Female = 1); PEth =
Parent ethnicity (White/Non-Hispanic = 1, Non-white = 0).

109
Figure 7. Structural Model Predicting Restrictive Mediation

Note. ATT_NA = Negative attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_PA = Positive
attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_AMO = Positive and negative attitudes about
mediation outcomes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; PMU = Parent mobile
device use; KMA = Knowledge of teen media activities; PBC&SE = Combined direct
measures of perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy to mediate; ResMedAvg =
Averaged restrictive mediation (frequency); and ResMedSum = Summed restrictive
mediation (yes/no).

110
Figure 8. Structural Model Predicting Monitoring

Note. ATT_NA = Negative attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_PA = Positive
attitudes about media effects and use; ATT_AMO = Positive and negative attitudes about
mediation outcomes; IN = Injunctive norms; DN = Descriptive norms; PMU = Parent mobile
device use; KMA = Knowledge of teen media activities; PBC&SE = Combined direct
measures of perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy to mediate; MonitorSum =
Summed monitoring measure (yes/no); and MonitorAvg = Averaged monitoring measure
(frequency).

111
Hypothesis Testing

Hierarchical regressions were used to test the hypotheses and research questions in

lieu of poor fitting structural equation models. Demographic variables that were

significantly correlated with dependent variables were entered into the first block (see

Table 6 for all correlations). Specifically, child age, child grade, child ethnicity, parent age,

parent gender, parent ethnicity, and income were entered in the first block of the

regression predicting active mediation; child age, child grade, and parent age were entered

in the first block of the regression predicting summed restrictive mediation; child age, child

grade, parent age, parent gender, parent accessibility, and parent employment were

entered in the first block of the regression predicting average restrictive mediation; child

gender and parent gender were entered in the first block of the regression predicting

summed monitoring; and child age, child grade, parent age, and parent gender were

entered in the first block of the regression predicting average monitoring. The TPB

variables were entered into the second block. Parenting behaviors (connection, regulation,

autonomy granting), barriers to parental mediation, and family communication quality

were entered into the third block. The last block consisted of interactions for the proposed

moderating variables: parenting behaviors, family communication quality, and barriers to

parental mediation. Moderation was analyzed using model 1 of Hayes PROCESS macro for

SPSS (version 3.2; Hayes, 2013).

Scatterplots of the residuals for the outcome and predictor variables were evaluated

to ensure the assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity were met.

Multicollinearity was checked by reviewing the correlation matrix for values > .70, as well

as the tolerance and variance inflation factors (VIF). Tolerance below 0.2, VIF values above

112
10, and an average VIF of “substantially greater than 1” would indicate issues of

multicollinearity (Field, 2013). There were several instances of high correlations that were

examined further. First, child age and grade were strongly correlated (rs = .87, p < .001), as

were parent and child ethnicity (rpb = .88, p < .001) (Table 6). Therefore, child grade and

child ethnicity were excluded from the first block of demographic predictors and child age

and parent ethnicity were retained.

Second, the correlation between injunctive norms and descriptive norms was high

(r = .71) (Table 7). To control for this collinear effect, I ran separate regressions alternating

entering injunctive norms in one block and entering descriptive norms in the subsequent

block thereby controlling the effect of one norm to examine the individual effect of the

other. I ran these analyses for all of the outcome variables and injunctive and descriptive

norms were never significant; therefore, they were entered together into the same block

with the other TPB variables.

The last correlation of note was between connection and regulation (r = .73, p <

.001) (Table 7). To control for this collinearity, I entered autonomy granting and regulation

into one block and connection into the subsequent block. In summary, there were 5 blocks

for each regression: block one contained demographic variables, block two contained the

theory of planned behavior variables, block three contained the family system variables,

block four contained parenting connection, and block five contained the interactions.

Cooks distance and Mahalanobis distance were evaluated to check for outliers.

Cook’s distances greater than 1 indicate cases that have a significant impact on the model

as whole (Field, 2013). Mahalanobis distances measure the distance between a case and

the multivariate mean(s) of the predictor variables (Field, 2013). Outlier cases were

113
determined using the critical value of chi-square for p = .05 and degrees of freedom

equaling the number of predictors for each regression. The Durbin-Watson statistic is

reported to test the assumption that errors are independent, with values around 2 being

desirable and indicating that residual errors are uncorrelated (Field, 2013).

The hypotheses and research questions predicted relationships by each

independent variable; however, the results below are reported by dependent variable so

that similar analyses are grouped together and straightforward to follow. Appendix A is a

summarized list of the hypotheses, research questions and their findings. Note that the

coefficients and p-values reported below are at each block they were entered and the

coefficients and p-values in Tables 8 through 12 are from the fourth block of the regression

model.

Active mediation. Results of the regression analysis for active mediation are

displayed in Table 8. Missing value cases were excluded listwise and cases with a

Mahalanobis distance of 28.87 or greater (df = 18) were excluded from the analysis. There

were no Cook’s distances greater than 1.

The first block of demographic variables was significant and explained 10% of the

variance, F(5, 509) = 11.21, p < .001, Durbin-Watson = 1.95. In this block, child age (β = -

.20, p < .001), parent gender (coded as female =1, male = 0; β = .15, p < .001), and parent

ethnicity (coded as White/Non-Hispanic = 1, Non-White = 0; β = -.09, p = .04) were

significant. The second block of TPB variables was significant and explained an additional

24% of variance, F(13, 501) = 19.94, p < .001. In this block, negative attitudes about media

effects and use (β = .15, p = .001) (H1), positive attitudes about media effects and use (β =

.09, p = .02) (RQ1), parent mobile device use (β = .08, p = .05) (H6), and knowledge of teen

114
media activities (β = .43, p < .001) (H7) all positively predicted active mediation. The third

block with family communication quality, parenting regulation, autonomy granting, and

barriers to parental mediation was significant and explained an additional 4% of variance,

F(17, 497) = 18.14, p < .001. In this block, autonomy granting (β = .16, p = .001) and

barriers to parental mediation (β = .14, p = .002) positively predicted active mediation.

With the addition of this third block of variables, attitudes about mediation outcomes

became significant in this block (β = .11, p = .02) (H2), and positive attitudes about media

effects and use (β = .05, p = .19) (RQ1) and parent mobile device use (β = .05, p = .27) (H6)

were no longer significant. The last block with parenting connection was significant, F(18,

496) = 17.16, p < .001, but the change in R2 was not significant (∆R2 = .001, p = .42) 10.

To summarize, hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported and 6 and 7 were partially

supported. Specifically, negative attitudes about media effects and use (H1) and attitudes

toward mediation outcomes (H2) positively predicted active mediation. Parent mobile

device use (H6) and knowledge of teen media activities (H7) did predict active mediation at

their block of entry; however, when all variables were entered into the model, these

variables were no longer significant. Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 were not supported.

Specifically, injunctive norms (H3), descriptive norms (H4), and PBC/SE (H5) did not

significantly impact active mediation. Research question 1 asked if parent’s positive

attitudes about media effects and use would be related to active mediation and the results

showed that they positively predict this behavior; however, with the addition of the FST

variables, this relationship was no longer significant.

10The significant F-ratio for this step indicates that the overall model significantly predicted the
outcome variable; however, parenting connection did not explain any additional variance nor did it
significantly improve the model’s ability to predict the outcome (Field, 2013).
115
 Active mediation moderation analyses. The remaining research questions (2, 3,

and 4) asked whether parenting behaviors, family communication quality, and barriers to

parental mediation moderate relationships between the TPB constructs and active

mediation. Family communication quality (RQ3) was not a significant predictor of active

mediation; therefore, there was no evidence that it would moderate relations between the

TPB variables and active mediation. The parenting behavior of autonomy granting (RQ2)

and barriers to parental mediation (RQ4) were significant and subsequently tested as

moderators with the significant TPB variables: negative attitudes about media effects and

use, positive attitudes about media effects and use, attitudes about mediation outcomes,

parent mobile device use, and knowledge of teen media activities. Interaction terms were

created for these variables and the significant moderators: barriers to parental mediation

and autonomy granting. Predictor variables were mean centered prior to moderation

analyses. To reduce the potential for multicollinearity, each interaction was estimated in a

separate regression model. Model 1 of Hayes PROCESS macro for SPSS was used to test the

moderating variables.

The interaction between negative attitudes about media effects and use and

autonomy granting was not significant (b = -.07, p = .08), F(1, 497) = 3.12, p = .08, R2 = .38.

The interaction between positive attitudes about media effects and use and

autonomy granting was not significant (b = .07, p = .17), F(1, 497) = 1.91, p = .17, R2 = .38.

The interaction between attitudes about mediation outcomes and autonomy

granting was not significant (b = .04, p = .36), F(1, 497) = 0.83, p = .36, R2 = .38.

The interaction between parent mobile device use and autonomy granting was not

significant (b = .03, p = .64), F(1, 497) = 0.22, p = .64, R2 = .38.

116
 The interaction between knowledge of teen media use and autonomy granting was

not significant (b = -.06, p = .19), F(1, 497) = 1.69, p = .19, R2 = .38.

The interaction between negative attitudes about media effects and use and barriers

to parental mediation was significant (b = .07, p = .03) and explained an additional 1% of

variance in the model, F(1, 497) = 4.80, p = .03, R2 = .39. To examine this interaction effect,

simple slopes were estimated at three levels of perceived barriers: 1 SD below the mean, at

the mean, and 1 SD above the mean. When perceived barriers were low there was a non-

significant positive relationship between negative attitudes and active mediation (b = .04, p

= .37); at the mean of perceived barriers there was a positive relationship between

negative attitudes and active mediation (b = .09, p = .002); and when perceived barriers

were high there was a stronger positive relationship between negative attitudes and

parental mediation (b = .15, p < .001).

The interaction between positive attitudes about media effects and use and barriers

to parental mediation was significant (b = -.10, p = .02) and explained an additional 1% of

variance in the model, F(1, 497) = 5.45, p = .02, R2 = .39. To examine this interaction effect,

simple slopes were estimated at three levels of perceived barriers: 1 SD below the mean, at

the mean, and 1 SD above the mean. When perceived barriers were low there was a

significant positive relationship between positive attitudes and active mediation (b = .13, p

= .01); at the mean of perceived barriers there was a non-significant positive relationship

between positive attitudes and active mediation (b = .05, p = .20); and when perceived

barriers were high there was a non-significant negative relationship between positive

attitudes and parental mediation (b = -.03, p = .57).

117
 The interaction between attitudes about mediation outcomes and barriers to

parental mediation was not significant (b = .01, p = .87), F(1, 497) = 0.03, p = .87, R2 = .38.

The interaction between parent mobile device use and barriers to parental

mediation was significant (b = -.11, p = .03) and explained an additional 1% of variance in

the model, F(1, 497) = 5.04, p = .03, total R2 = .39. To examine this interaction effect, simple

slopes were estimated at three levels of perceived barriers: 1 SD below the mean, at the

mean, and 1 SD above the mean. When perceived barriers were low there was a significant

positive relationship between parent mobile device use and active mediation (b = .15, p =

.01); at the mean of perceived barriers there was a non-significant positive relationship

between parent mobile device use and active mediation (b = .06, p = .16); and when

perceived barriers were high there was a non-significant negative relationship between

parent mobile device use and active mediation (b = -.03, p = .62).

The interaction between knowledge of teen media use and barriers to parental

mediation was not significant (b = .08, p = .06), F(1, 497) = 3.64, p = .06, R2 = .38.

Per these results, to answer research question 2, autonomy granting did not

moderate any relationships between the TPB variables and active mediation. To answer

research question 4, barriers to parental mediation did moderate relationships between

active mediation and negative attitudes about media effects, positive attitudes about media

effects, and parent mobile device use. When parents reported average or above average

barriers to parental mediation, negative attitudes about media effects and use positively

predicted active mediation; and when parents reported low perceived barriers to parental

mediation, positive attitudes about media effects and use and parent mobile device use

both positively predicted active mediation.

118
Table 8. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Active Mediation (N = 515)
M (SD) B SE β p R2 ∆ R2 Tol. VIF
AM
3.01 (0.68)
(Range 1-5)
Block 1 .10**
Child age 14.45 (1.39) -.05 .02 -.09 .03 .709 1.410
Parent age 37.94 (7.39) -.01 .00 -.08 .07 .730 1.369
Parent gender
0.75 (0.43) .16 .06 .10 .01 .921 1.086
(female =1)
Parent ethnicity
(White/Non- 0.78 (0.41) -.09 .06 -.05 .16 .902 1.108
Hispanic =1)
Incomea 3.18 (1.26) -.01 .02 -.02 .61 .867 1.153
Block 2 .34** .24**
ATT_NA 3.14 (0.94) .08 .03 .11 .00 .798 1.253
ATT_PA 3.61 (0.69) .05 .04 .05 .18 .790 1.266
ATT_AMO 3.33 (0.76) .09 .04 .10 .02 .640 1.563
SN_IN 4.40 (1.28) -.05 .03 -.09 .11 .408 2.449
SN_DN 4.11 (1.36) .03 .03 .06 .32 .394 2.539
PMU 3.93 (0.65) .05 .04 .05 .23 .725 1.380
KMA 3.73 (0.76) .34 .04 .38 .00 .685 1.459
PBC & SE 3.84 (0.84) -.02 .04 -.03 .58 .496 2.017
Block 3 .38** .04**
FCQ 3.83 (0.68) -.06 .05 -.06 .21 .484 2.065
PB_R 4.17 (0.73) .09 .06 .10 .11 .343 2.918
PB_AG 3.96 (0.70) .17 .05 .17 .00 .497 2.011
BAR 2.24 (0.80) .11 .04 .13 .00 .614 1.628
Block 4 .38** .00
PB_C 4.34 (0.72) -.05 .06 -.05 .42 .302 3.308
Note. Coefficients are reported from the fourth block of the model; Tol. = Tolerance;
Average VIF = 1.57.
a Under $30k = 1; $30-$49,9k = 2; $50-$69,9k = 3; $70-$99,9k = 4; $100k or more = 5.

* p < .05 **p < .001

119
 Summed restrictive mediation. Results of the regression analysis for summed

restrictive mediation are in Table 9. Summed restrictive mediation refers to the binary

response questions regarding time and content rules (e.g. “Do you have rules about when

your child can use their mobile device?”). Missing value cases were excluded listwise and

cases with a Mahalanobis distance of 25 or greater (df = 15) were excluded from the

analysis. There were no Cook’s distances greater than 1.

The first block of demographic variables was significant and explained 11% of the

variance, F(2, 522) = 31.21, p < .001, Durbin-Watson = 1.93. Specifically, child age (β = -.27,

p < .001) and parent age (β = -.10, p = .03) were significant. The second block of TPB

variables was significant and explained an additional 20% of variance, F(10, 514) = 22.73, p

< .001. Negative attitudes about media effects and use (β = .21, p < .001) (H1), attitudes

about mediation outcomes (β = .25, p < .001) (H2), and knowledge of teen media activities

(β = .20, p < .001) (H7) all positively predicted summed restrictive mediation. The third

block with family communication quality, parenting regulation, autonomy granting, and

barriers to parental mediation was significant, F(14, 510) =16.45, p < .001; however, none

of the coefficients in this block were significant and the change in R2 was not significant

(∆R2 = .001, p = .51). The last block with parenting connection was significant, F(15, 509)

=15.44, p < .001, but the change in R2 was not significant (∆R2 = .002, p = .28).

To summarize, hypotheses 1, 2, and 7 were supported. Specifically, negative

attitudes about media effects and use (H1), attitudes about mediation outcomes (H2), and

parent knowledge of teen media activities (H7) all positively predicted summed restrictive

mediation. Hypotheses 3, 4, 5, and 6 were not supported. Specifically, injunctive norms

(H3), descriptive norms (H4), PBC/SE (H5), and parent mobile device use (H6) did not

120
significantly impact summed restrictive mediation. Research question 1 asked if parent’s

positive attitudes about media effects and use would be related to summed restrictive

mediation and the results showed that they did not impact this behavior.

Summed restrictive mediation moderation analyses. The remaining research

questions (2, 3, and 4) asked whether parenting behaviors, family communication quality,

and barriers to parental mediation moderate the relationship between the TPB constructs

and summed restrictive mediation. None of these variables were significant predictors of

summed restrictive mediation; therefore, there was no evidence that they moderated

relations between the TPB variables and summed restrictive mediation.

121
Table 9. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Summed Restrictive Mediation (N = 525)
M (SD) B SE β p R2 ∆ R2 Tol. VIF
RM_SUM
3.25 (1.47)
(Range 1-5)
Block 1 .11**
Child age 14.46 (1.39) -.15 .05 -.14 .00 .741 1.349
Parent age 37.91 (7.30) -.02 .01 -.08 .05 .760 1.316
Block 2 .31** 20**
ATT_NA 3.16 (0.95) .31 .06 .20 .00 .834 1.200
ATT_PA 3.61 (0.69) .00 .09 .00 .98 .839 1.192
ATT_AMO 3.31 (0.75) .51 .09 .26 .00 .644 1.553
SN_IN 4.39 (1.26) -.10 .07 -.09 .14 .391 2.560
SN_DN 4.13 (1.35) .07 .07 .06 .29 .374 2.674
PMU 3.93 (0.66) -.06 .09 -.03 .54 .769 1.301
KMA 3.73 (0.76) .37 .09 .19 .00 .700 1.428
PBC & SE 3.82 (0.84) .12 .09 .07 .18 .501 1.995
Block 3 .31** .01
FCQ 3.81 (0.68) -.09 .11 -.04 .43 .508 1.970
PB_R 4.15 (0.75) .10 .13 .05 .43 .332 3.010
PB_AG 3.94 (0.70) -.06 .11 -.03 .60 .492 2.032
BAR 2.25 (0.79) .01 .09 .00 .95 .612 1.633
Block 4 .31** .00
PB_C 4.31 (0.74) -.15 .14 -.07 .28 .289 3.460
Note. Coefficients are reported from the fourth block of the model; Tol. = Tolerance;
Average VIF = 1.72.
*p < .05 **p < .001

122
 Average restrictive mediation. Results of the regression analysis for average

restrictive mediation are in Table 10. Average restrictive mediation refers to the strictness

and consistency that parents reported in enforcing their time and content restrictions (e.g.

“How would you describe how strict or consistent you are with enforcing rules about when

your child can be on their mobile device?”). Missing value cases were excluded listwise and

cases with a Mahalanobis distance of 28.87 or greater (df = 18) were excluded from the

analysis. There were no Cook’s distances greater than 1.

The first block of demographic variables was significant and explained 9% of the

variance, F(5, 476) = 9.59, p < .001, Durbin-Watson = 2.12. In this block, child age (β = -.11,

p = .02), parent gender (β = .11, p = .01), parent accessibility (β = .19, p < .001) and parent

employment (β = -.14, p = .002) were significant. The second block of TPB variables was

significant and explained an additional 15% of variance, F(13, 468) = 11.51, p < .001. In this

block, negative attitudes about media effects and use (β = .13, p = .002) (H1), attitudes

about mediation outcomes (β = .21, p < .001) (H2), and PBC/SE (β = .19, p < .001) (H5)

positively predicted average restrictive mediation. The third block with family

communication quality, parenting regulation, autonomy granting, and barriers to parental

mediation was significant and explained an additional 2% of variance, F(17, 464) = 9.60, p

< .001. In this block, regulation positively predicted average restrictive mediation (β = .15,

p = .02). The last block with parenting connection (β = .16, p = .04) was significant and

explained an additional 1% of variance, F(18, 463) = 9.37, p < .001. With the addition of

connection to the regression model, regulation was no longer significant (β = .08, p = .22).

To summarize, hypotheses 1, 2, and 5 were supported. Specifically, negative

attitudes about media effects and use (H1), attitudes toward mediation outcomes (H2), and

123
PBC/SE (H5) positively predicted average restrictive mediation. Hypotheses 3, 4, 6, and 7

were not supported. Specifically, injunctive norms (H3), descriptive norms (H4), parent

mobile device use (H6), and knowledge of teen media activities (H7) did not significantly

impact average restrictive mediation. Research question 1 asked if parent’s positive

attitudes about media effects and use would be related to average restrictive mediation and

the results showed that they did not impact this behavior.

Average restrictive moderation analyses. The remaining research questions (2, 3,

and 4) asked whether parenting behaviors, family communication quality, and barriers to

parental mediation moderate the relationship between the TPB constructs and average

restrictive mediation. Family communication quality (RQ3) and barriers to parental

mediation (RQ4) were not significant predictors of average restrictive mediation, therefore,

there was no evidence that they moderated relations between the TPB variables and

average restrictive mediation. The connection and regulation parenting behaviors (RQ2)

were significant and subsequently tested as moderators with the significant TPB variables:

negative attitudes about media effects and use, attitudes about mediation outcomes, and

PBC/SE. Interaction terms were created for these variables and connection and regulation.

Predictor variables were mean centered prior to moderation analyses. Model 1 of Hayes

PROCESS macro for SPSS was used to test the moderating variables.

The interaction between negative attitudes about media effects and use and

connection was not significant (b = -.03, p = .47), F(1, 462) = 0.52, p = .47, R2 = .27.

The interaction between attitudes about mediation outcomes and connection was

not significant (b = .00, p = .95), F(1, 462) = 0.00, p = .95, R2 = .27.

124
 The interaction between PBC/SE and connection was not significant (b = -.04, p =

.48), F(1, 462) = 0.49, p = .48, R2 = .27.

The interaction between negative attitudes about media effects and use and

regulation was not significant (b = -.03, p = .41), F(1, 462) = 0.68, p = .41 R2 = .27.

The interaction between attitudes about mediation outcomes and regulation was

not significant (b = .01, p = .89), F(1, 462) = 0.02, p = .88, R2 = .27.

The interaction between PBC/SE and regulation was not significant (b = -.06, p =

.28), F(1, 462) = 1.15, p = .28, R2 = .27.

Per these results, to answer research question 2, connection and regulation did not

moderate any relationships between the TPB variables and average restrictive mediation.

125
Table 10. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Average Restrictive Mediation (N =
482)
M (SD) B SE β p R2 ∆ R2 Tol. VIF
RM_AVG
2.85 (0.69)
(Range 1-4)
Block 1 .09**
Child age 14.40 (1.38) -.01 .02 -.02 .69 .746 1.340
Parent age 37.93 (7.23) .00 .00 -.05 .26 .762 1.313
Parent gender 0.74 (0.44) .17 .07 .11 .01 .889 1.125
Parent
39.29 (11.50) .00 .00 .05 .22 .819 1.221
accessibility
Parent
7.43 (1.01) -.06 .03 -.08 .05 .943 1.060
employmenta
Block 2 .24** .15**
ATT_NA 3.19 (0.96) .09 .03 .12 .01 .817 1.224
ATT_PA 3.61 (0.70) .00 .04 .00 .98 .795 1.258
ATT_AMO 3.36 (0.76) .20 .05 .22 .00 .633 1.579
SN_IN 4.41 (1.28) .00 .03 -.01 .93 .396 2.526
SN_DN 4.16 (1.37) -.02 .03 -.05 .47 .389 2.569
PMU 3.93 (0.65) -.05 .05 -.05 .29 .757 1.321
KMA 3.78 (0.75) .07 .04 .08 .10 .716 1.397
PBC & SE 3.87 (0.82) .10 .05 .11 .04 .513 1.949
Block 3 .26* .02*
FCQ 3.85 (0.68) -.05 .06 -.05 .36 .496 2.018
PB_R 4.19 (0.72) .08 .07 .08 .22 .335 2.981
PB_AG 3.98 (0.70) -.02 .06 -.02 .72 .496 2.016
BAR 2.22 (0.81) -.02 .04 -.03 .58 .592 1.690
Block 4 .27* .01*
PB_C 4.36 (0.72) .15 .07 .16 .04 .275 3.636
Note. Coefficients are reported from the fourth block of the model; Tol. = Tolerance;
Average VIF = 1.58.
a Prefer not to answer = 1; Retired or unemployed = 2; Disabled or Other = 3; Student = 4;

Homemaker/family manager = 5; Self-employed = 6; Employed part-time = 7; Employed

full-time = 8.

126
* p < .05 **p < .001
Summed monitoring. Results of the regression analysis for summed monitoring

are in Table 11. Summed monitoring refers to overt and covert means of viewing

adolescent behaviors on mobile devices (e.g. “Are you friends with your child on their

social media profiles (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) for the purpose of monitoring their posts or

activity?”). Missing value cases were excluded listwise and cases with a Mahalanobis

distance of 25 or greater (df = 15) were excluded from the analysis. There were no Cook’s

distances greater than 1.

The first block of demographic variables was significant and explained 2% of the

variance, F(2, 534) = 4.13, p = .02, Durbin-Watson = 2.00. Only parent gender was

significant in this block (β = .10, p = .03). The second block of TPB variables was significant

and explained an additional 11% of the variance F(10, 526) = 8.02, p < .001. In this block,

attitudes about mediation outcomes (β = .14, p = .007) (H2), PBC/SE (β = .13, p = .01) (H5),

parent mobile device use (β = .09, p = .04) (H6), and knowledge of teen media activities (β =

.09, p = .04) (H7) positively predicted summed monitoring. The third block with family

communication quality, parenting regulation, autonomy granting, and barriers to parental

mediation was significant, F(14, 522) =6.36, p < .001; however, none of the coefficients in

this block were significant and the change in R2 was not significant (∆R2 = .02, p = .09). With

the addition of this third block of variables, knowledge of teen media activities (H7) was no

longer significant (β = .09, p = .09). The last block with parenting connection was

significant, F(15, 521) =5.94, p < .001, but the change in R2 was not significant (∆R2 = .00, p =

.70).

To summarize, hypotheses 2, 5, and 6 were supported and 7 was partially

supported. Specifically, attitudes about mediation outcomes (H2), PBC/SE (H5), and parent
127
mobile device use (H6) all positively predicted summed monitoring. Knowledge of teen

media activities (H7) did significantly predict summed monitoring at its block of entry;

however, when all variables were entered into the model, knowledge of teen media

activities was no longer significant. Hypotheses 1, 3, and 4 were not supported. Specifically,

negative attitudes about media effects and use (H1), injunctive norms (H3), and descriptive

norms (H4) did not significantly impact summed monitoring. Research question 1 asked if

parent’s positive attitudes about media effects and use would be related to summed

monitoring and the results showed that they did not affect this behavior.

Summed monitoring moderation analyses. The remaining research questions (2,

3, and 4) asked whether parenting behaviors, family communication quality, and barriers

to parental mediation moderate the relationship between the TPB constructs and summed

monitoring. None of these variables were significant predictors of summed monitoring,

therefore, there was no evidence that they moderated relations between the TPB variables

and summed monitoring.

128
Table 11. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Summed Monitoring (N = 537)
M (SD) B SE β p R2 ∆ R2 Tol. VIF
MON_SUM
2.37 (1.36)
(Range 1-4)
Block 1 .02*
Child gender
0.45 (0.50) .14 .12 .05 .21 .929 1.077
(female =1)
Parent gender 0.74 (0.44) .20 .13 .07 .12 .912 1.097
Block 2 .13** .11**
ATT_NA 3.13 (0.97) .03 .06 .02 .64 .827 1.210
ATT_PA 3.62 (0.69) -.02 .09 -.01 .81 .828 1.208
ATT_AMO 3.33 (0.76) .27 .09 .15 .00 .639 1.565
SN_IN 4.42 (1.27) .05 .07 .05 .46 .431 2.320
SN_DN 4.15 (1.37) .02 .06 .02 .71 .421 2.374
PMU 3.92 (0.67) .22 .10 .11 .02 .757 1.321
KMA 3.74 (0.76) .15 .09 .08 .08 .735 1.360
PBC & SE 3.82 (0.84) .30 .09 .19 .00 .511 1.959
Block 3 .15** .02
FCQ 3.82 (0.68) -.02 .12 -.01 .87 .495 2.019
PB_R 4.17 (0.75) -.13 .13 -.07 .31 .335 2.984
PB_AG 3.96 (0.71) .18 .11 .09 .11 .480 2.083
BAR 2.26 (0.80) .16 .09 .09 .08 .629 1.591
Block 4 .15** .00
PB_C 4.33 (0.74) -.05 .14 -.03 .70 .290 3.444
Note. Coefficients are reported from the fourth block of the model; Tol. = Tolerance;
Average VIF = 1.64.
*p < .05 **p < .001

129
 Average monitoring. Results of the regression analysis for average monitoring are

in Table 12. Average monitoring refers to the frequency with which parents would engage

in monitoring behaviors (e.g. “How often do you ask your child what they are doing on their

mobile device when they are using it?”). Missing value cases were excluded listwise and

cases with a Mahalanobis distance of 26.30 or greater (df = 16) were excluded from the

analysis. There were no Cook’s distances greater than 1.

The first block of demographic variables was significant and explained 10% of the

variance, F(3, 538) = 20.33, p < .001, Durbin-Watson = 1.99. Specifically, child age (β = -.26,

p < .001) and parent gender (β = .14, p < .001) were significant. The second block of TPB

variables was significant and explained an additional 23% of the variance, F(11, 530) =

23.61, p < .001. In this block, negative attitudes about media effects and use (β = .21, p <

.001) (H1), attitudes about mediation outcomes (β = .14, p = .001) (H2), PBC/SE (β = .09, p

= .04) (H5), and parent knowledge of teen media activities (β = .27, p < .001) (H7) were

significant. The third block with family communication quality, parenting regulation,

autonomy granting, and barriers to parental mediation was significant, F(15, 526) = 17.53,

p < .001; however, none of the coefficients in this block were significant and the change in

R2 was not significant (∆R2 = .00, p = .48). With the addition of this third block of variables,

PBC/SE (H5) was no longer significant (β = .09, p = .06). The last block with parenting

connection was significant, F(16, 525) = 16.45, p < .001, but the change in R2 was not

significant (∆R2 = .00, p = .46).

To summarize, hypotheses 1, 2, and 7 were supported and 5 was partially

supported. Specifically, negative attitudes about media effects and use (H1), attitudes

toward mediation outcomes (H2), and knowledge of teen media activities (H7) positively

130
predicted average monitoring. PBC/SE (H5) did significantly predict average monitoring at

its block of entry; however, when all variables were entered into the model, PBC/SE was no

longer significant. Hypotheses 3, 4, and 6 were not supported. Specifically, injunctive norms

(H3), descriptive norms (H4), and parent mobile device use (H6) did not significantly

impact average monitoring. Research question 1 asked if parent’s positive attitudes about

media effects and use would be related to average monitoring and the results showed that

they did not predict this behavior.

Average monitoring moderation analyses. The remaining research questions (2, 3,

and 4) asked whether parenting behaviors, family communication quality, and barriers to

parental mediation moderate the relationships between the TPB constructs and average

monitoring. None of these variables were significant predictors of average monitoring,

therefore, there was no evidence that they moderated relations between the TPB variables

and average monitoring.

131
Table 12. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Average Monitoring (N = 542)
M (SD) B SE β p R2 ∆ R2 Tol. VIF
MON_AVG
3.08 (0.98)
(Range 1-5)
Block 1 .10**
Child age 14.50 (1.44) -.07 .03 -.11 .01 .746 1.341
Parent age 38.26 (7.72) -.01 .01 -.07 .07 .786 1.273
Parent gender 0.74 (0.44) .23 .08 .10 .01 .929 1.076
Block 2 .33** .23**
ATT_NA 3.14 (0.97) .20 .04 .19 .00 .830 1.205
ATT_PA 3.61 (0.70) -.06 .05 -.05 .25 .822 1.216
ATT_AMO 3.32 (0.77) .18 .06 .14 .00 .640 1.563
SN_IN 4.39 (1.29) -.06 .04 -.08 .14 .416 2.402
SN_DN 4.13 (1.39) .08 .04 .11 .06 .400 2.503
PMU 3.92 (0.67) .05 .06 .03 .40 .767 1.304
KMA 3.73 (0.77) .32 .06 .25 .00 .690 1.450
PBC & SE 3.81 (0.85) .11 .06 .09 .06 .517 1.936
Block 3 .33** .00
FCQ 3.83 (0.68) -.09 .07 -.07 .20 .503 1.988
PB_R 4.16 (0.75) .05 .08 .04 .50 .339 2.950
PB_AG 3.96 (0.71) .09 .07 .07 .19 .494 2.023
BAR 2.25 (0.80) -.03 .06 -.02 .60 .633 1.580
Block 4 .33** .00
PB_C 4.33 (0.74) -.06 .09 -.05 .46 .297 3.372
Note. Coefficients are reported from the fourth block of the model; Tol. = Tolerance;
Average VIF = 1.63.
*p < .05 **p < .001

132
 CHAPTER 5: Discussion

The overarching goal of the present study was to identify factors associated with

parents’ motives to engage in active, restrictive, and monitoring mediation of adolescents’

mobile devices. Toward this end, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) was employed as a

framework to investigate if and how attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control

beliefs relate to parental mediation of mobile devices during teen years, and integrate these

into a theoretical model along with family system factors. The results showed that

behavioral and control beliefs are stronger predictors than norms of parental mediation.

Family system variables did not influence or moderate relationships between the TPB

variables and parental mediation, but parent barriers did interact with some of the TPB

constructs and active mediation.

This chapter first discusses the application of the TPB to parental mediation and the

limitations that were uncovered during the statistical analyses. The findings and

implications for each TPB construct are summarized next, followed by the family system

moderators and demographic variables that were examined. The last section addresses the

limitations of this study, practical recommendations for parents, and future directions for

research.

Theory of Planned Behavior

To briefly review, the TPB models individual behavior as a function of attitudes

toward a behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The underlying

beliefs that inform these constructs are behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control

beliefs, respectively. Identifying and testing these underlying beliefs as predictors of

parental mediation was the crux of this study. The initial data analysis plan attempted to

133
analyze them using structural equation modeling. Although there were significant paths in

the measurement model, neither the measurement nor the structural models exhibited

reliable fit indices and ultimately could not be tested.

From a statistical perspective, these findings demonstrated that the paths arranged

and specified to model the TPB did not approximate the data. The measurement model fit

statistics 11 indicated that although the hypothesized model as a whole was better than no

model at all (i.e. Goodness of Fit Index, GFI), it was a passable improvement to the poor-

fitting null model (i.e. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)).

Essentially, the constructs, and measures I chose to assess them, did not work together in a

structural model in the way the TPB predicts.

I believe the model fit issues occurred because I strictly adhered to the structure of

the TPB. While I was primarily using the TPB as a framework to identify constructs that

predict parental mediation, I was also interested in testing the predictive validity of the

model as a whole. During the model specification stage, I did inspect the modification

indices and observed that allowing covariance between some of the error terms would

have improved the model fit; however, there was no theoretical basis for allowing this

modification (and not allowing others) per the TPB, and it would have deviated the

structure of the model from the TPB. Eliminating some constructs all together would also

have improved the model but, again, this would have strayed from the structure of the TPB.

Kline (2011) summarizes the value of this knowledge,

The real goal is to test a theory by specifying a model that represents predictions of
that theory among plausible constructs measured with the appropriate indicators. If
such a model does not ultimately fit the data, then this outcome is interesting

11The retained measurement model fit statistics were, χ2(13)= 56.03, p < .001, GFI = .978, CFI =
.951, RMSEA = .075 (90% CI = .055, .095), SRMR = .045, TLI = .894.
134
 because there is value in reporting models that challenge or debunk theories. (p.
189)

The goal of all empirical research is to uncover answers to questions. Ultimately, the

answer to the question asked in this study of whether or not the TPB performs well as a

structural model predicting parental mediation is that it did not. While the statistical model

was not useful, there were significant relationships between the constructs of TPB and

parental mediation. Indeed, the SRMR—standardized root mean square residual, a fit

index that indicates the overall average difference between predicted and observed

values—was good, which suggested that there were noteworthy paths to be explored

despite the model as a whole not approximating the sample data. The next sections discuss

findings for each construct and implications for these results.

Attitudes Toward Behavior (H1, H2, and RQ1)

For the majority of parental mediation behaviors, negative attitudes about media

effects and use (H1) was positively associated with, and the second strongest TPB

coefficient for, active mediation, summed restrictive mediation, and average monitoring.

That is, parents who were concerned about their teen being exposed to undesirable

content, or worried that their child may be engaging in or experiencing damaging

behaviors (e.g. cyberbullying or sexting), were more likely to have discussions about

mobile devices (active mediation); set and frequently apply restrictions for mobile devices

(summed and average restrictive mediation); and practice frequent overt monitoring

(average monitoring). These findings are consistent with parental mediation on other

platforms, like video games (Shin & Huh, 2011) and television (Rasmussen et al., 2018),

and also mirror findings from research on active and restrictive mediation of cell phones

(Warren, 2017), restrictive mediation of the internet (Warren, 2017), and monitoring of

135
the Internet (Sonck et al., 2013). Thus, concern about potential harm is a rather consistent

motivator for parents to be involved with their child’s media activities and this finding

extends to mobile devices as well.

The exception to this finding was for summed monitoring, where negative attitudes

did not significantly impact parent behavior. This result could be due to the items that

measured summed monitoring centering on parent knowledge of passcodes and friend-ing

on social media. The act of knowing passwords and passcodes can be a rather intrusive

behavior, especially for parents of teens who are trying to build trust and respect privacy

boundaries as children get older (Blackwell, Gardiner, & Schoenebeck, 2016; Vaterlaus et

al., 2015). Respect for privacy could be a stronger motive than negative attitudes about

mobile media use and activities when it comes to these types of monitoring behaviors.

About 60% of parents reported being friends with their child on social media for fun

and entertainment and about half (52%) reported being friends with their child on social

media for the purpose of monitoring their posts or activity. Being friends with one’s child

for fun and entertainment is a positively valenced activity and less likely to be motivated by

negative attitudes. By this logic though, negative attitudes should theoretically motivate

parents to friend their child on social media for the purpose of monitoring activity, perhaps

out of concern for the content their child is posting or who they are talking to (Vaterlaus et

al., 2014). It could be that there is a variable not measured in this study that acts as a

barrier to this behavior. For example, some research has reported that children create

multiple accounts or have different, more restrictive privacy settings for their parents than

other followers (Redden & Way, 2017). If this is the case, then regardless of their attitude

136
(positive or negative) parents may be less aware of their child’s authentic online activities

or posts and therefore less likely to check their profiles.

Positive attitudes about media effects and use (RQ1) positively predicted active

mediation, however, the coefficient was small (β = .08, p = .04) and no longer significant

when all variables were added to this model. Positive attitudes did not predict any other

mediation behaviors. For active mediation, it makes sense that when parents have a

positive attitude toward mobile devices and what kids can do with/on them, they could

have more topics to talk about with their child, hence more active mediation. It would also

follow that for restrictive mediation, having a positive outlook on the uses, activities, and

effects of mobile devices could lead to fewer restrictions, which has indeed been observed

among Dutch parents and restrictive mediation of social media use (Krcmar & Cingel,

2016). There is also some evidence for this explanation from research on television. Beyens

and Eggermont (2014) found that stronger positive parental attitudes toward TV predicted

using TV as a babysitter, which then predicted higher TV viewing among young children. I

did not measure teen mobile device use in this study, but it stands to reason that positive

attitudes toward mobile devices is associated with a more laid-back approach from parents

and, hence, null relationships with parental mediation. The same argument can be said for

monitoring behaviors: although the coefficients for this variable were not significant in this

study, they did trend negative for both summed and average monitoring, indicating that

positive attitudes leads to less monitoring.

It should also be noted that parents did not report strong positive attitudes toward

the use of mobile devices, which is another possible explanation for my null findings. The

overall average of positive attitudes was 3.59 (SD = 0.76; Table 2), which corresponds to a

137
tepid score with respect to the Likert response scale used for this measure 12. This relatively

weak attitude could have lowered the chances of observing a significant relationship

between this variable and parental mediation behaviors.

An alternative but parallel explanation is that positive attitudes are more important

for predicting mediation of specific activities rather than the platform of mobile devices. Put

another way, positive attitudes motivate activity-specific mediation but this relationship

does not hold when these activities are conducted on a mobile device. To this point, the

study conducted by Krcmar and Cingel (2016) found that positive attitudes toward

children’s use of social media positively predicted restrictive mediation and co-using;

however, Shin and Li (2017) did not find a relationship between positive attitudes and

active, restrictive, or monitoring mediation of digital technologies (i.e. mobile devices).

Likewise, Warren (2017) found that positive attitudes had no impact on active mediation of

cell phones but they did significantly predict active mediation of the Internet. So, while

there is some evidence that shows positive attitudes influence mediation of specific

activities, I did not find that they were as influential or motivating for mediation of mobile

devices in general. In fact, the instructions throughout my questionnaire (Appendix B)

often included the “use of the Internet” but this was in reference to use on a mobile device.

The most obvious explanation for this difference is that mobile devices are simply

more difficult for parents to mediate than other platforms due to the mobility, privacy, and

freedom they afford users. Difficulty combined with a positive (albeit lukewarm) attitude

on their use and effects could explain a hands-off approach by parents. Future research

12Appendix B contains the items for this measure. The Likert response scale used was 1 = Strongly
disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat agree, 4 = Moderately agree, 5 = Strongly agree.
138
should continue investigating differences in device-specific mediation for the same activity

to understand specific difficulties parents experience mediating various platforms.

Lastly, positive attitudes about mediation outcomes (H2) positively predicted all

mediation behaviors. In fact, this was the only antecedent belief that was significant for

every parental mediation dependent variable. Believing that one’s efforts to intervene in

teen’s mobile device use would be effective at preventing negative effects or behaviors is

clearly an important motivating factor for parents. This is an aspect of parental mediation

research which has been observed in previous parental research. Bleakley et al (2013)

found that expecting positive outcomes—such as improvement in school performance and

lower likelihood of exposure to inappropriate content—of restricting TV time was the

strongest predictor for engaging in this behavior. Shin and Li (2017) also found that the

more parents believed they can influence their child’s use of mobile devices the more likely

they were to practice active and restrictive mediation. Moreover, this finding is consistent

with other TPB studies that have examined the attitude–behavior relationship for different

aspects of parenting behaviors like spanking (Taylor, Hamvas, Rice, Newman, & Dejong,

2011) and intentions to vaccinate (Wang et al., 2015).

It is encouraging to find that this construct was a rather strong predictor and that it

was associated with all of the parental mediation behaviors. Reinforcing positive outcomes

of mediation should be echoed by other researchers and the relationship between these

attitudes and child outcomes ought to be further explored. Increasing positive attitudes

toward the outcome of mediation can also be incorporated into messages that directly

target parents, or non-academic publications regarding parental mediation in general.

139
Subjective Norms (H3, H4)

Neither injunctive norms (H3) nor descriptive norms (H4) were significantly related

to any parental mediation behaviors. This finding is somewhat unexpected given that past

research has found associations between these norms and parental mediation. For

example, Bleakley et al (2013) observed a significant association between injunctive and

descriptive norms and intention to limit TV viewing (i.e. restrictive mediation); though, it

was weaker than the relationship between attitudes and intention to limit TV viewing.

Krcmar and Cingel (2016) found that parents who endorsed norms related to controlling

social media were more likely to use restrictive mediation with their children. There is also

evidence demonstrating a relationship between norms and parental approval of using

digital games in the classroom, such that parents who believe teachers and experts endorse

the use of games in the classroom are more likely to support these ideas themselves and

believe they provide learning opportunities (Bourgonjon, Valcke, Soetaert, de Wever, &

Schellens, 2011).

A difference between these studies and the current one is the platform of interest,

which could be impacting perceived norms and thus the relationship between norms and

parental mediation. The average of injunctive norms (i.e. the extent to which parents

thought that other people believe they should be mediating) in my study was 4.39 (SD =

1.34, range = 1-7). This value is lower but comparable to the Bleakley et al (2013) study

which reported 4.91, 5.54, and 4.47 for spouse, teacher, and “other parents you know”

injunctive norms to limit TV viewing. Bleakley et al (2013) reported average values of 2.37,

2.38, and 2.25 for other parents, close friends, and family member’s descriptive norms (i.e.

the perceived behaviors of others) for limiting TV viewing. These values are considerably

140
lower than what I observed in this study, which was 4.07 (SD = 1.44). My results compare

more closely to a recently published investigation conducted by Shin and Kim (2019),

which looked at predictive relationships between TPB constructs and intentions to engage

in active and restrictive mediation of smartphones. These researchers reported average

values of 4.48 (SD = 0.72) and 3.59 (SD = 1.12) for injunctive norms from one’s spouse and

friends and descriptive norms of other parents. In their study, Shin and Kim (2019) found

that injunctive norms were significantly associated with active mediation and descriptive

norms weakly but significantly predicted both active and restrictive mediation of

smartphones.

One key difference between my study and the studies conducted by Shin and Kim

(2019) and Bleakley et al (2013) is that they measured intentions to mediate, whereas I

asked for parents to self-report their mediation behaviors. The TPB positions intentions as

the precursor to behavior; however, intentions do not always lead to behavioral action

(Ajzen, Brown, & Carvajal, 2004). In simple terms, people do not always end up doing

things that they intend to do, which would explain why Shin and Kim (2019) and Bleakley

et al (2013) found significant associations between norms and intentions, yet I did not find

significance between norms and behaviors. It could also be the case that an intervening

variable that was not measured in this study mediates the relationship between norms and

behavior, namely social pressure to conform (or motivation to comply) to norms (Ajzen,

1991). That is, parents in my study reported that others believe they should mediate

(injunctive norms) and that other parents with kids their child’s age mediate as well

(descriptive norms) but they may not have felt the need or motivation to conform to these

or other norms (Manning, 2009).

141
 Another alternative explanation and difference between my study and others is the

proximity and specificity of groups that were asked for parents to keep in mind while

answering these items. My questions asked parents to think about (a) people in the U.S. in

general for injunctive norms and (b) parents with a kid your child’s age for descriptive

norms. Shin and Kim (2019) asked about parent’s “child, spouse/partner, and close

friends” for injunctive norms, and “typical parent[s] of an individual your child’s age” (p.

150). Bleakley et al (2013) asked about the parent’s spouse, their child’s teacher, and

“other parents you know” for injunctive norms and other parents, close friends, and family

member’s for descriptive norms. Perhaps if I specified a more distinctive (and potentially

more important) group to parents in this study, their motivation to comply with this group

could have been higher and consequently could have led to significant relations between

norms and parental mediation behaviors.

Ultimately, within the context of the TPB variables that I measured and analyzed, my

results demonstrated that other behavioral and control beliefs mattered more to parents

than perceptions of what others do and think. As Ajzen (1991) explains, the predictive

power of different aspects of the TPB will vary depending on the behavior, the sample of

study, and other contextual factors. In this study, it appeared that norms did not impact

parent’s decision to mediate their teen’s mobile devices. Regardless, this is an

understudied parental mediation research and should be explored further.

142
Perceived Behavioral Control/Self-Efficacy (H5, H6, H7)

Perceived behavioral control/self-efficacy (H5) significantly predicted average

restrictive mediation, summed monitoring, and average monitoring 13. Thus, parents who

felt confident/in control of parental mediation strategies were more likely to consistently

enforce rules and restrictions for mobile device use (average restrictive mediation), kept

track of passwords and activities on their devices (summed monitoring), and consistently

monitored their activities on mobile devices (average monitoring). These findings are

consistent with those from previous research regarding restrictive mediation of

smartphones (Hwang et al, 2017) and parent monitoring of mobile devices and the Internet

(Chang et al., 2019). PBC/SE was not associated with active mediation or summed

restrictive mediation (i.e. the number of rules/restrictions parents place on mobile

devices), which is in contrast to findings from previous research (Krcmar & Cingel, 2016;

Shin & Kim, 2019).

Why did PBC/SE not predict active and summed restrictive mediation in this study?

First, it is important to note that PBC/SE did impact one aspect of restrictive mediation: for

parents who had rules and restrictions for mobile devices, PBC/SE to mediate positively

predicted how consistently parents reported enforcing their rules (i.e. average restrictive

mediation); however, PBC/SE was not an important factor for determining whether or not

parent had rules in the first place (summed restrictive mediation).

A possible explanation for these null relationships is that keeping the two measures

of PBC and SE combined confounded their separate effect on the dependent variables. To

13PBC/SE was significant when entered into step two of the average monitoring regression (β = .09,
p = .04) but became marginally significant in the final step of this model after all other independent
variables were entered (β = .09, p = .06; Table 12).
143
test this explanation, I re-ran the regression predicting active mediation and entered the

individual PBC and SE variables (rather than the combined measure, which was merged to

improve measurement model parsimony). Neither PBC (β = .02, p = .76) nor SE (β = -.09, p

= .20) were significant predictors of active mediation. I also re-ran the regression

predicting summed restrictive mediation, entering the individual PBC and SE variables

rather than the combined measure, and again PBC (β = .09, p = .19) and SE (β = -.05, p = .43)

were not significant predictors of summed restrictive mediation. Separating the PBC and SE

variables did however reveal a ceiling effect for these measures, which is also a likely

contributing cause for my null findings. Although they were both reported on 5-point

Likert scales, the mean of the overall sample for PBC was 3.76 (SD = 0.93) and the mean for

SE was 3.84 (SD = 0.95). These values are already quite high and after missing data were

excluded listwise and cases with Mahalanobis distances were omitted, the means for these

variables were higher and their standard deviations were lower, further narrowing their

variance: for active mediation, the mean of PBC was 3.80 (SD = 0.87) and the mean of SE

was 3.89 (SD = 0.88); for summed restrictive mediation, the mean of PBC was 3.79 (SD =

0.87) and the mean of SE was 3.85 (SD = 0.89). Thus, because parents in this sample

reported rather high perceived control and high self-efficacy, the impact of these variables

on active and summed restrictive mediation could not be discerned.

Parent mobile device use (H6) significantly predicted active mediation 14 and

summed monitoring, indicating that the more parents use mobile devices themselves, the

more likely they were to have conversations with their teens and monitor aspects of their

14 Parent mobile device use was significant when entered in step two of the active mediation

regression (β = .08, p = .05) but was no longer significant in the final step of this model after all
other independent variables were entered (β = .05, p = .23; Table 8).

144
mobile devices. The null relationships between parent mobile device use and restrictive

mediation are interestingly in contrast to previous research which has demonstrated a

relationship between these two constructs. The lack of significant findings for this variable

could be related to the behavior I assessed. In my study, parents were asked on a 5-point

Likert scale (1 = Never to 5 = Every day) about how often they used their mobile device for

six activities: job-related tasks, household tasks, social media, educational purposes,

leisure, and personal communication. I adapted this measure from Shin and Li (2017), who

asked parents to specify if they used devices for seven different tasks on a binary response

(yes/no) scale. In a separate set of questions, these researchers asked parents to estimate

the amount of time they spend on devices using a Likert scale from “no usage” to “4 hours

and above” (p. 10). They found that the amount of time spent using devices did not impact

parental mediation, but the more skills parents reported, the more likely they were to use

active, restrictive and monitoring mediation.

In a similar vein, Chang and colleagues (2019) asked parents to indicate if they were

able to do 11 tasks related to the Internet and mobile devices using a binary response

(yes/no) (e.g. “Do you know how to download apps? Do you know how to connect to a Wi-

Fi network from a smartphone?”; p. 27). Their findings also demonstrated that the more

mobile device skills that parents reported, the more likely they were to actively mediate

and monitor mobile devices and the Internet. The ages of children in Shin and Li (2017;

grades 1-6) and Chang et al (2019; 5th grade) studies were lower than in this study, which

is important to consider when comparing these findings; however, the broader takeaway

from these studies and mine could be that frequency of mobile device use (as I measured it)

145
matters less for parental mediation than simply being able to use mobile devices

competently in the first place.

Knowledge of teen media activities (H7) positively predicted active mediation,

summed restrictive mediation, summed monitoring 15, and average monitoring. In fact, this

variable was the strongest TPB predictor for active mediation and average monitoring and

a moderately strong predictor of summed restrictive mediation. This variable bordered

significance when predicting average restrictive mediation in the step that it was added (β

= .09, p = .07) and in the final step of the regression model (β = .08, p = .10) but did not

reach p < .05. Thus, knowledge of teen media activities appears to impact the presence of

rules and restrictions parents have for mobile devices but does not influence the extent to

which parents strictly or consistently enforce these rules.

It is encouraging to find that knowledge of media activities is a rather important

motivating factor for the majority of parental mediation behaviors. This variable is similar

to general parental involvement —knowing and doing activities with one’s child—which

has been demonstrated in previous research to be a consistent predictor of parental

mediation of video games (Martins et al., 2017), television (Warren, 2001; Warren et al.,

2002), and digital technologies (Shin & Li, 2017). However, to my knowledge, knowledge of

media activities itself has not been assessed as an antecedent to parental mediation of

mobile devices for teens. Efforts to increase parental mediation during the teen years

should incorporate messages that encourage parents to be (or become) aware of their

children’s frequent and favorite media activities.

15Knowledge of teen media activities was significant when entered in step two of the summed
monitoring regression (β = .09, p = .04) but was no longer significant in the final step of this model
after all other independent variables were entered (β = .08, p = .08; Table 11).
146
Moderation Analyses (RQ2, RQ3, RQ4)

Research question 2 asked if parenting behaviors —connection, regulation, and

autonomy granting—moderated relationships between the TPB constructs and active,

restrictive, and monitoring behaviors. Some direct associations were observed, such that

autonomy granting positively predicted active mediation, while regulation and connection

positively predicted average restrictive mediation. These findings are consistent with

previous research which has also shown direct relationships between these different

parenting behaviors and parental mediation (Padilla-Walker et al., 2012b); however, it is

somewhat unexpected that parenting behaviors were not significantly associated with

more dependent variables because previous research has found that connection predicts

active and restrictive mediation of digital technologies (Shin & Li, 2017), regulation is

positively associated with active and restrictive mediation of media generally (Padilla-

Walker & Coyne, 2011; Padilla-Walker et al., 2012b), and autonomy granting has been

shown to negatively predict monitoring (Ghosh et al., 2018). On the other hand, several

studies have also observed null findings between parenting behaviors and active,

restrictive, and monitoring parental mediation of cellphones and digital technologies

(Hwang et al., 2017; Shin & Li, 2017; Warren & Aloia, 2019).

Given that this is one of the first research endeavors to test the predictive nature of

the TPB and parenting behaviors for parental mediation of mobile devices, it is

understandable that there will be differences in research findings across studies. In fact,

these null findings are a novel contribution to this body of literature, as my results suggest

that the TPB constructs are more important in explaining parental mediation of mobile

devices than parenting behaviors. For all dependent variables, the block containing the TPB

147
constructs explained more variance than the block(s) containing parenting behaviors,

indicating that parenting behaviors did not account for additional variance in the

dependent variables above and beyond the TPB constructs and control variables. Put

another way, parenting behaviors did not enhance or diminish parent’s likelihood of

engaging in mediation behaviors. This finding is rather encouraging if increasing parental

mediation is a goal for parent interventions, as parenting behaviors can be relatively stable

across the parenting years (Carrasco, Rodriguez, del Barrio, & Holgado, 2011; Loeber et al.,

2000), whereas attitudes, perceived norms, or self-efficacy can be altered through

interventions, education, and practice (Vahedi, Sibalis, & Sutherland, 2018).

The third research question asked if family communication quality moderated

relationships between the TPB constructs and active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

Family communication quality did not significantly predict any of the parental mediation

behaviors and therefore did not demonstrate evidence of moderation. Similar to parenting

behaviors, it is likely the case that the different TPB constructs were more instrumental

than family communication quality for explaining parental engagement in active,

restrictive, and monitoring behaviors of mobile devices. For explaining child-related

outcomes, however, communication quality has been shown to be an influential factor. For

example, frequent and comfortable communication as reported by children is associated

with greater disclosure of negative or risky online experiences (Wisniewski, Xu, Rosson, &

Carroll, 2017), while strained communication is associated with parental underestimation

of children’s risky online experiences (Byrne et al., 2014). It has also been found that

restrictive mediation combined with good family communication as reported by children is

associated with lower likelihood of problematic Internet use (Chng et al., 2015). Thus,

148
research indicates that communication quality appears to be a greater factor for children to

open up to parents than vice versa.

The last research question asked if barriers to parental mediation (RQ4) moderated

relationships between the TPB constructs and active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

Three significant interactions were observed with barriers to parental mediation

moderating relationships between negative attitudes about media effects and use, positive

attitudes about media effects and use, and parent mobile device use and active mediation.

When barriers were average or above average, negative attitudes were more strongly

related to active mediation. These results replicate findings from video game and television

research which have also demonstrated that negative attitudes galvanize parents to

mediate (Nikken & Jansz, 2006; Rasmussen et al., 2018).

When barriers were low, the association between positive attitudes about media

effects and use and active mediation was higher; and when barriers were low, the

relationship between parent mobile device use and active mediation was also higher. Put

simply, when parents do not feel hindered by certain functional (e.g. not knowing what to

say) and practical barriers (e.g. how long the conversations would take) they actively

mediate more.

Barriers were not significant in the models predicting restrictive mediation and

monitoring and thus did not moderate relationships between the TPB variables and these

mediation strategies. Though this variable significantly moderated some relationships for

active mediation, it is important to note that its mean was quite low (M = 2.27, SD = 0.81),

which corresponded to the barriers collectively having a “slight” impact on their ability to

enforce rules or have conversations with their children about mobile devices and the

149
Internet, per the Likert scale I used. The significant negative correlations between barriers

and summed restrictive mediation (r = -.12, p = .002), average restrictive mediation (r = -

.20, p < .001), and average monitoring (r = -.11, p = .01) suggest that there is a relationship

occurring; however, the TPB variables were ultimately more influential and accounted for

more variance than these barriers. Future research should continue to investigate how

these factors can affect parental mediation.

Demographic Control Variables

Beyond the TPB and family system variables, certain parent and child

characteristics were associated with parental mediation. Control variables that were

measured in this study included parent accessibility, family structure, parent and child age,

parent and child gender, parent and child ethnicity, parent education, household income,

and parent employment. Child age and parent age were significantly and negatively

associated with all dependent variables except for summed monitoring, which is consistent

with previous research (Shin, 2018; Shin & Kim, 2019). Parent gender significantly

predicted all dependent variables except for summed restrictive mediation, indicating that

mothers practiced more parental mediation than fathers. It is important to note that this

sample predominantly consisted of women (N women = 437, 74%; N men = 150, 26%) 16,

which surely impacted these findings; however, previous studies have shown that mothers

mediate more than fathers so this finding is not completely spurious (Chang et al., 2019;

Lauricella et al., 2016; Padilla-Walker & Coyne, 2011; Warren, 2017). Child gender did not

significantly predict any dependent variables, as other studies on parental mediation of TV,

digital technologies, and the Internet have also found (Shin, 2018; Shin & Li, 2017; Warren,

16 There were five missing values for this variable, therefore the total N adds to 587.
150
2017). Parent ethnicity was associated with active mediation, such that Non-White parents

practiced more active mediation than White/Non-Hispanic parents. A recent survey of

parents, teens, and digital devices also observed this specific relationship; however, the

greater majority of research has not found associations between parent ethnicity and

mediation (Bleakley et al., 2013; Shin & Kim, 2019; Warren & Aloia, 2019). Parent

accessibility significantly predicted average restrictive mediation, indicating that parents

who were spent more waking hours around their children also reinforced their rules and

restrictions more frequently for mobile devices. While previous research has demonstrated

relationships between parent accessibility and active and restrictive mediation of

television (Warren, 2001, 2002), this is likely the first study which has found such

relationships for parental mediation of mobile devices. Relatedly, parent employment was

negatively associated with average restrictive mediation, demonstrating that higher levels

of employment (and potentially lower accessibility) were associated with less frequent

enforcement of rules and restrictions for mobile devices.

The remaining control variables—family structure, marital status, parent education,

and income—did not influence any of the dependent variables. The nonsignificance

observed for these variables is likely due to the homogeneity of this sample. Specifically,

89.4% were the biological parents of the target child, 65% of households consisted of two

biological parents and 72.8% of individuals reported being married. A sample with more

diversity, or which specifically targets non-biological and/or divorced parents, could shed

more light on the impact of different family structures on parental mediation.

There are mixed findings regarding the impact of parent education on parental

mediation of cell phones and smartphones. Some studies have found no relationship

151
between parent education and any form of mediation (Shin & Kim, 2019; Warren, 2017),

while others have shown that parents who have completed more education practice more

active and restrictive mediation of cell phones (Warren & Aloia, 2019) and less educated

parents practice more monitoring (Chang et al., 2019). Similarly, some research has

observed a significant effect of household income on parental monitoring of smartphones,

with lower income households practicing more monitoring of mobile devices (Lauricella et

al., 2016), while others have not observed this relationship (Shin, 2018; Warren, 2017). It

should be noted that the educational background of parents in this sample was higher than

recent national estimates. Specifically, 30.9% of individuals in the U.S. over the age of 25

have a bachelor’s degree or higher, while 58.4% of people in the same age bracket in this

study reported holding bachelor’s degree or higher (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2018). My

results add to the mixed findings for these demographic characteristics and more research

is necessary to understand if and how parent income and education impact their mediation

behaviors for mobile devices.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study that should be acknowledged. The first

limitation concerns the sample of parents who responded to this survey on Mechanical

Turk. Although previous research has praised Mechanical Turk for its diversity and

generalizability (Buhrmester et al., 2011), parents who responded to this study were

mostly women and fit some aspects of a WEIRD population (White, Educated,

Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) (Henrich, Heine, Norenzayan, 2010; Jordan &

Prendella, 2019). By nature of completing online-based work, individuals on MTurk may

also have higher digital literacy and skills than parents who do not work on MTurk or use

152
mobile devices less frequently (Stewart, Chandler, & Paolacci, 2017; Huang, Li, Chen, &

Straubhaar, 2018). These characteristics limit the representativeness of mobile device

parenting practices and efficacy results that were found.

The use of a single reporter (i.e. one parent) is a second limitation in this study. That

is, parents in the same household may not engage in the same mediation behaviors or

agree on media rules for their children (e.g. Mares et al., 2018). Disagreements could

impact the consistency with which parental mediation is practiced in the home and how it

was self-reported in the survey. The target child’s perspective was also not taken into

account. Prior work has shown that parents and children differ in their reporting of

parental mediation, with parents reporting more frequent mediation than their children

(e.g. Nikken & Jansz, 2006; Sonck et al., 2013) and children reporting communication is

more difficult than parents (Byrne et al., 2014). Communication is inherently bi-directional

and the quality of it is a subjective judgement. The personal nature of some questions

relating to parenting, communication, and involvement in one’s child media use could have

garnered more socially desirable responses from parents. Additionally, family system

theory explains that parents and children have a bi-directional influence on each other and,

as such, child behaviors and characteristics that were not measured in this study have the

ability to impact parenting practices (Cox & Paley, 1997). For instance, adolescent self-

regulation—the ability to inhibit and monitor one’s behavior—is negatively associated

with parental mediation over time, such that higher adolescent self-regulation is associated

with sharper declines in restrictive mediation into the teen years (Padilla-Walker et al.,

2012b).

153
 Third, the cross-sectional nature of this survey limits the discussion of causal and

directional inferences drawn from the results. For instance, my findings show that there is

a significant and strong relationship between knowledge of teen media activities and active

mediation but I cannot conclusively say that this knowledge causes or precedes active

mediation. It could very well be that conversations about media lead to more knowledge.

A final limitation to this study was the length of the survey, which was

approximately 127 questions, or 136 questions including the filter questions at the

beginning of the survey and all of the follow-up questions. Steps were taken to decrease the

likelihood of low quality data, such as pre-testing the survey, interspersing attention and

accuracy check questions, using pre-screening questions to filter out ineligible

respondents, and counter-balancing the survey; however, these steps are not guaranteed to

produce perfect data. Realistically, it is likely that fatigue and repetition had some effect on

participant attentiveness.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Despite these limitations, several novel and valuable contributions can be gained

from this study. As the focus of this research investigation was on social and psychological

predictors of parental mediation, multiple practical recommendations can be drawn from

these findings. For interventions or media literacy campaigns aimed at increasing parental

mediation during the teen years, educating parents about positive outcomes of mediation

would be an excellent starting point. The findings from this study suggest that reinforcing

the idea that parent’s efforts are worthwhile and effective at preventing undesired effects

or behaviors in their teens would empower them to engage in these behaviors.

154
 Encouraging knowledge of teen media activities is another behavior to target. This

type of knowledge was a significant and strong predictor of all parental mediation

behaviors except for average restrictive mediation. For parents of teens, increasing

knowledge of media activities may be challenging as kids at this age could reject questions

and parent actions (Livingstone, 2008; Madden et al., 2012). Indeed, high involvement in

teen media use is incongruous with autonomy seeking (Vaterlaus et al., 2015) and can

result in the opposite outcome of what was intended, namely further distance from parents

and increased engagement in the unwanted behavior (e.g. Nikken & de Graaf, 2013). An

agreement developed by parents and children is a possible compromise. The Family Media

Plan developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics is a detailed, customizable, and

easy to use website to do just this (HealthyChildren.org, n.d.; Reid Chassiakos et al., 2016).

The tool was designed to create an individualized plan for household media use and reflect

goals, values, and boundaries parents and children agree upon (Korioth, 2016). Wise words

to keep in mind for parents of teens while creating this agreement or any media rules are,

“the goal is collaboration, not dictatorship” (Gold, 2015, p. 200),

A third consistent and strong predictor to most parental mediation behaviors was

negative attitudes about media effects and use. This finding indicates that parents are

conscious of the potential negative consequences of mobile device use, worry about the

impact of media use on their own children (e.g. Robb, 2019), and these worries play an

important motivating role for parental mediation. Of the nine topics assessed in this

measure, the most concerning for parents in this study were teens spending too much time

online or on their mobile device (M = 3.61, SD = 1.17), over-sharing personal details of their

life (M = 3.44, SD = 1.25), and cyber-bullying (M = 3.35, SD = 1.31). Fortunately, there is a

155
plethora of research-based and openly-accessible information directed at parents

regarding these topics and these publications offer simple recommendations to address

these concerns. For instance, Gabrielli and colleagues (2018) developed the acronym TECH

parenting—Talk, Educate, Co-view, and House Rules—to offer behavioral strategies and

conversation starters for managing media (Crist, 2018; Gabrielli, Marsch, & Tanski, 2018).

The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends that parents converse, engage in

shared activities with their kids, and moreover recognize and accept that the occasionally

risky activities teens engage in are, simply put, “part of adolescent development” (American

Academy of Pediatrics, 2015). Recent research from Common Sense Media also highlights

that teens share these concerns, not only for their use but also for their parents’ (Robb,

2019; Timberg, 2019). To this point, parents should be encouraged to reflect on their own

device use and consider whether they are modeling behaviors they would want their

children to do.

While positive attitudes about media effects, norms and, to some extent, perceived

behavioral control were less vital in determining parental mediation in this study, future

research should continue to investigate their potential roles with different and more

diverse samples of parents. This limitation aside, the findings from this study show that

some of the TPB constructs are important factors in understanding predictors to parental

mediation of mobile devices during the teenage years.

Directions for Future Research

The findings from this study present several avenues for future research. First and

foremost, more research is needed on mobile devices and parental mediation given their

widespread, almost omnipresent, role in the daily life of adults and teenagers (Rideout,

156
2015; Rideout & Robb, 2018). Compared to the bodies of literature investigating parental

mediation of TV, video games, and movies (Nathanson, 2001a), research on mobile devices

is in its infancy. Indeed, some results in this study did not replicate findings from previous

research on other platforms (i.e. TV and video games) suggesting that mediation of mobile

devices is motivated by different factors and present different challenges (and

opportunities) for parents. For example, previous research has demonstrated that

injunctive and descriptive norms predict parental meditation of restricting TV (Bleakley et

al., 2013) and positive attitudes toward video game playing predict active mediation

(Schaan & Melzer, 2015); however, I did not observe these same effects in this study. The

interactive, portable, private and personal nature of mobile devices present a new media

environment that has surely caused parents to adjust their mediation strategies. More

work is needed to understand these changes and future researchers should continue to

explore parental mediation of mobile devices using TPB constructs.

A promising direction for future research is to further investigate attitudes toward

mediation outcomes and knowledge of teen media activities. These variables emerged as

strong positive predictors for almost all of the parental mediation outcomes and were

clearly important factors that impact parents. Replicating these results in different and

more diverse samples will increase the generalizability of the findings. Future research

should also look at the determinants of these variables, such as parent media literacy, past

behavior, and/or demographic characteristics. In turn, these could become target variables

in future parent interventions or educational campaigns.

Future research should also examine different areas of PBC/SE and how they impact

parental mediation of mobile devices. For example, Shin (2018) assessed different domains

157
of self-efficacy, including smartphone self-efficacy, parenting self-efficacy, and parental

mediation self-efficacy. The results showed that all three types of self-efficacy predicted

active mediation of smartphones but only parental mediation self-efficacy predicted

restrictive mediation of smartphones, demonstrating how active and restrictive mediation

are functions of parent’s confidence to perform different behaviors. Moreover, an

interaction was observed such that parents who were high in parenting self-efficacy

engaged in active mediation even when they reported low smartphone self-efficacy. This

finding parallels my second research question; however, I observed null relationships

between parenting behaviors, the TPB constructs and parental mediation. More research is

needed to clarify the relationships between PBC/SE, parenting, the TPB constructs, and

parental mediation of mobile devices.

Different types of self-efficacy could also be explored in future studies. For example,

response efficacy has been demonstrated in previous research to predict active mediation

(e.g. Nathanson et al., 2002). Response efficacy refers to the perceived impact or

effectiveness of one’s behaviors (Hwang et al, 2017) and is similar to the measure of

attitudes about mediation outcomes used in this study, which significantly predicted active

mediation and summed restrictive mediation. The more parents perceived that their

mediation efforts would be effective at preventing unwanted effects or behaviors in their

child (i.e. positive attitudes about mediation outcomes) the more likely they were to engage

in active and restrictive mediation. Thus, it appears that active mediation of mobile devices

is more a function of parent’s attitudes that their efforts will make an impact on their child,

than of their confidence/control to engage in this behavior.

158
 It was surprising to find so few direct relationships between parenting behaviors

and parental mediation, given that several other investigations have demonstrated that

these styles do impact parent behavior (Ghosh et al., 2018; Shin & Li, 2017). More research

is needed to replicate or contradict these findings to understand the role of parenting

behaviors in parental mediation of mobile devices. Future work could continue looking at

parenting behaviors as predictors or moderators to see what motivates parents to engage

in mediation of mobile devices. Another route can look at how parenting behaviors are

combined with mediation and the impact these different styles have on adolescent

outcomes. For example, some research has differentiated between autonomy-supportive,

controlling, or inconsistent active and restrictive mediation and how these behaviors

impact problematic mobile device use and aggressive behaviors (Fikkers et al., 2017;

Meeus, Eggermont, & Beullens, 2018; Valkenburg et al., 2013).

Over the course of writing this dissertation, I have had several informal, anecdotal

conversations with parents of teenagers to discuss their attitudes about mobile devices and

mediation. Child trust, respect for privacy, the amount of time kids use their mobile device,

and past mediation behaviors were consistent themes that emerged during these

discussions—sometimes as barriers to mediation and sometimes as reasons for why they

reduced mediation over time. I did include these topics in my omnibus measure of parent

barriers to mediation; however, close examination of the effect they impose on parental

mediation was beyond the scope, time, and resources of this study but is an area ripe for

future investigations.

Though mobile device use and ownership among teens has grown substantially and

precipitously over the past 5 years (Twenge et al., 2018), research on parental mediation of

159
these technologies is still developing. This study was a step towards filling in this gap and

furthering our understanding of the social and psychological predictors that influence

parental mediation during the teen years. My hope is that these results inform prospective

research directions and media literacy campaigns that educate and empower parents to

achieve balance with their teens and mobile devices.

160
 References

Adachi, P. J. C., & Willoughby, T. (2013). More than just fun and games: The longitudinal

relationships between strategic video games, self-reported problem solving skills,

and academic grades. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1041–1052.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9913-9

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. http://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Open

University Press/McGraw-Hill Education. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/iub-ebooks/detail.action?docID=287791

Ajzen, I. (2002a). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory

of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

http://doi.org/10.1111/J.1559-1816.2002.Tb00236.X

Ajzen, I. (2002b). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological

considerations. Working Paper. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Retrieved

from http://www.unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf

Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carvajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between intentions

and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1108–1121.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264079

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behaviour. In D. Albarracın, B.

T.Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

161
Amazon Developer Guide. (2017). Working with HITs: Deadlines and expirations [Amazon

Developer Guide]. Retrieved from

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSMechTurk/latest/AWSMechanicalTurkRequest

er/Concepts_HITsArticle.html

Amazon Mechanical Turk. (2018, January 26). Improvements to the MTurk worker site

[Blog post]. Retrieved from https://blog.mturk.com/improvements-to-the-mturk-

worker-site-a27d72ffc7c4

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2015). Children and media: Tips for parents. AAP News.

Retrieved from https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-

room/Pages/Children-And-Media-Tips-For-Parents.aspx

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Council on Communications and Media. (2016).

Media use in school-aged children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162592.

http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2592

An, S.K., & Lee, D. (2010). An integrated model of parental mediation: The effect of family

communication on children’s perception of television reality and negative viewing

effects. Asian Journal of Communication, 20(4), 389–403.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2010.496864

Arbuckle, J. L. (2017). IBM ® SPSS ® Amos™ 25 user’s guide. Retrieved from

ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/documentation/statistics/25.0

en/amos/Manuals/IBM_SPSS_Amos_User_Guide.pdf

Austin, E. W., Bolls, P., Fujioka, Y., & Engelbertson, J. (1999). How and why parents take on

the tube. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(2), 175–192.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08838159909364483

162
Austin, E. W., Knaus, C., & Meneguelli, A. (1997). Who talks how to their kids about TV: A

clarification of demographic correlates of parental mediation patterns.

Communication Research Reports, 14(4), 418–430.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08824099709388685

Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory.

Psychology and Health, 13(4), 623–649.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08870449808407422

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan

(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT:

Information Age Publishing.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child

Development, 67(6), 3296–3319. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

8624.1996.tb01915.x

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and

substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004

Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New

Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 61–69.

Beyens, I., & Eggermont, S. (2014). Putting young children in front of the television:

Antecedents and outcomes of parents’ use of television as a babysitter.

Communication Quarterly, 62(1), 57–74.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2013.860904

163
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. http://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1142383

Beyens, I., Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2019). Developmental trajectories of

parental mediation across early and middle childhood. Human Communication

Research, 45(2), 226–250. http://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy016

Blackwell, L., Gardiner, E., & Schoenebeck, S. (2016). Managing expectations: Technology

tensions among parents and teens. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1390–1401). San

Francisco, CA. http://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819928

Bleakley, A., Ellithorpe, M., & Romer, D. (2016). The role of parents in problematic Internet

use among US adolescents. Media and Communication, 4(3), 24–34.

http://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i3.523

Bleakley, A., Piotrowski, J. T., Hennessy, M., & Jordan, A. (2013). Predictors of parents’

intention to limit children’s television viewing. Journal of Public Health, 35(4), 525-

532. http://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fds104

Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., de Wever, B., & Schellens, T. (2011). Parental

acceptance of digital game-based learning. Computers and Education, 57(1), 1434

1444. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.012

boyd, D., & Hargittai, E. (2013). Connected and concerned: Variation in parents’ online

safety concerns. Policy and Internet, 5(3), 245–269. http://doi.org/10.1002/1944-

2866.POI332

164
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and

control. London, UK: Academic Press.

Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. (2014). Adjusting incremental fit indices for

nonnormality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(5), 460-470.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.933697

Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer relationships. In F.

Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical

issues (pp. 19–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new

source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,

6(1), 3–5. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,

and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Byrne, S., Katz, S. J., Lee, T., Linz, D., & McIlrath, M. (2014). Peers, predators, and porn:

Predicting parental underestimation of children’s risky online experiences. Journal

of Computer Mediated Communication, 19(2), 215–231.

http://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12040

Byrne, S., & Lee, T. (2011). Toward predicting youth resistance to Internet risk prevention

strategies. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(1), 90–113.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2011.546255

Carrasco, M. A., Rodríguez, M. A., del Barrio, M. V., & Holgado, F. P. (2011). Relative and

absolute stability in perceived parenting behaviour: A longitudinal study with

165
 children and adolescents. Psychological Reports, 108(1), 149–166.

https://doi.org/10.2466/02.09.10.21.pr0.108.1.149-166

Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2014). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants

and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral

testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009

Chakroff, J. L., & Nathanson, A. I. (2008). Parent and school interventions: Mediation and

media literacy. In S. L. Calvert & J. Wilson, Barbara (Eds.), Handbook of children,

media, and development (pp. 552–576). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing

Ltd. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781444302752.ch24

Chang, F., Chiu, C., Chen, P., Chiang, J., Miao, N., Chuang, H., & Liu, S. (2019). Children’s use of

mobile devices, smartphone addiction and parental mediation in Taiwan. Computers

in Human Behavior, 93, 25–32. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.048

Chen, V. H. H., & Chng, G. S. (2016). Active and restrictive parental mediation over time:

Effects on youths’ self-regulatory competencies and impulsivity. Computers and

Education, 98, 206-212. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.012

Chen, L., & Shi, J. (2019). Reducing harm from media: A meta-analysis of parental

mediation. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 96(1), 173–193.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018754908

Chng, G. S., Li, D., Liau, A. K., & Khoo, A. (2015). Moderating effects of the family

environment for parental mediation and pathological Internet use in youths.

166
 Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(1), 30–36.

http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0368

Clark, L. S. (2009). Digital media and the generation gap. Information, Communication &

Society, 12(3), 388–407. http://doi.org/10.1080/13691180902823845

Collier, K. M., Coyne, S. M., Rasmussen, E. E., Hawkins, A. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Erickson, S.

E., & Memmott-Elison, M. K. (2016). Does parental mediation of media influence

child outcomes? A meta-analysis on media time, aggression, substance use, and

sexual behavior. Developmental Psychology, 52(5), 798–812.

http://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000108

Common Sense Media. (n.d.). Common Sense Media: Our mission. Retrieved March 6, 2019

from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/about-us/our-mission

Connell, S. L., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2015). Parental co-use of media technology

with their young children in the USA. Journal of Children and Media, 9(1), 5–21.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.997440

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.78.1.98

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–67.

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 12(5), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01259

Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Stockdale, L., & Day, R. D. (2011). Game on... girls:

Associations between co-playing video games and adolescent behavioral and family

167
 outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49(2), 160–165.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.11.249

Crist, C. (2018, June 28). TECH parenting style could help kids manage their media use.

Reuters Health News. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-

kids-technology/tech-parenting-style-could-help-kids-manage-their-media-use-

idUSKBN1JO2RZ

Cronbach L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,

16(3), 297–334. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

Davies, J. J., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Responses to children’s media use in families with and

without siblings: A family development perspective. Family Relations, 61(3), 410-

425. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00703.x

Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and

adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child

and Family Psychology Review, 1(1), 61–75.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021800432380

Domoff, S. E., Radesky, J. S., Harrison, K., Riley, H., Lumeng, J. C., & Miller, A. L. (2019). A

naturalistic study of child and family screen media and mobile device use. Journal of

Child and Family Studies, 28(2), 401–410. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-

1275-1

Draper, N. R. A. (2012). Is your teen at risk? Discourses of adolescent sexting in United

States television news. Journal of Children and Media, 6(2), 221–236.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2011.587147

168
Eastin, M. S., Greenberg, B. S., & Hosfchire, L. (2006). Parenting the Internet. Journal of

Communication, 56(3), 486–504. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00297.x

Erickson, L. B., Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., & Perkins, D. F. (2016).

The boundaries between: Parental involvement in a teen’s online world. Journal of

the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(6), 1384–1403.

http://doi.org/10.1002/asi

Evans, C. A., Jordan, A. B., & Horner, J. (2011). Only two hours?: A qualitative study of the

challenges parents perceive in restricting child television time. Journal of Family

Issues, 32(9), 1223-1244. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X11400558

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IMB SPSS Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications.

Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2017). A matter of style? The

differential effects of parental mediation on early adolescents’ media violence

exposure and aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 407–415.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.029

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action

approach. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Fisher, D., Hill, D. L., Grube, J. W., Bersamin, M. M., Walker, S., & Gruber, E. L. (2009).

Televised sexual content and parental mediation: Influences on adolescent sexuality.

Media Psychology, 12(2), 121–147. http://doi.org/10.1080/15213260902849901

Gabrielli, J., Marsch, L., & Tanski, S. (2018). TECH parenting to promote effective media

management. Pediatrics, 142(1), e20173718. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-

3718

169
Gentile, D. A., Nathanson, A. I., Rasmussen, E. E., Reimer, R. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2012). Do you

see what I see? Parent and child reports of parental monitoring of media. Family

Relations, 61(3), 470–487. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00709.x

Ghosh, A. K., Badillo-Urquiola, K. A., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B., Carroll, J. M., & Wisniewski, P.

(2017, February). Examining parents’ technical mediation of teens’ mobile devices.

Presented at the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

and Social Computing. Portland, OR. http://doi.org/10.1145/3022198.3026306

Ghosh, A. K., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Rosson, M. B., Xu, H., Carroll, J., & Wisniewski, P. J. (2018,

April). A matter of control or safety? Examining parental use of technical monitoring

apps on teens' mobile devices. Presented at ACM Conference on Human Factors (CHI)

in Computing Systems, Montreal, CA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173768

Gilligan, C., Thompson, K., Bourke, J., Kypri, K., & Stockwell, T. I. M. (2014). “Everybody else

is doing it”— Norm perceptions among parents of adolescents. Journal of Studies on

Alcohol and Drugs, 75(6), 908–918. Retrieved from https://doi-

org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.15288/jsad.2014.75.908

Gold, J. (2015). Screen-smart parenting: How to find balance and benefit in your child’s use of

social media, apps, and digital devices. The Guilford Press: New York, NY.

Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The

strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral

Decision Making, 26(3), 213-224. http://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753

Guilamo-Ramos, V., Jaccard, J., Dittus, P., & Collins, S. (2008). Parent-adolescent

communication about sexual intercourse: An analysis of maternal reluctance to

170
 communicate. Health Psychology, 27(6), 760–769.

http://doi.org/10.1037/a0013833

Hayduk, L., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., & Boulianna, S. (2007).

Testing! testing! One, two, three – Testing the theory in structural equation models!

Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 841–850.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.001

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:

A regression based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/iub-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1186800

HealthyChildren.org. (n.d.). Family Media Plan. Available at

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/media/Pages/default.aspx

Hefner, D., Knop, K., Schmitt, S., & Vorderer, P. (2019). Rules? Role model? Relationship?

The impact of parents on their children’s problematic mobile phone involvement.

Media Psychology, 22(1), 82–108. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1080/152132692018.1433544%0ARules?

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1601785

Hiniker, A., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Kientz, J. A. (2016, February). Not at the dinner table:

Parents’ and children’s perspectives on family technology rules. Presented at the

ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) and Social

Computing, San Francisco, CA. http://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819940

Huang, G., Li, X., Chen, W., & Straubhaar, J. D. (2018). Fall-behind parents? The influential

factors on digital parenting self-efficacy in disadvantaged communities. American

171
 Behavioral Scientist, 62(9), 1186–1206.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218773820

Hwang, Y., Choi, I., Yum, J.-Y., & Jeong, S.-H. (2017). Parental mediation regarding children’s

smartphone use: Role of protection motivation and parenting style. Cyberpsychology,

Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(6), 362–368.

http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0555

Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S.-H. (2015). Predictors of parental mediation regarding children’s

smartphone use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(12), 737

743. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0286

IBM Knowledge Center. (n.d.). IBM Missing subcommand (reliability command).

Retrieved from

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLVMB_23.0.0/spss/base/s

yn_reliability_missing.html

Jeffrey, J., Whelan, J., Pirouz, D. M., & Snowdon, A. W. (2016). Boosting safety behaviour:

Descriptive norms encourage child booster seat usage amongst low involvement

parents. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 92, 184–188.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.03.006

Jordan, A. B. (2002). A family systems approach to examining the role of Internet in the

home. In J.Turow & A. L. Kavanaugh (Eds.), The wired homestead: An MIT press

sourcebook on the Internet and the family (pp. 141–160). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jordan, A. B., Hersey, J. C., McDivitt, J. A., & Heitzler, C. D. (2006). Reducing children’s

television viewing time: A qualitative study of parents and their children. Pediatrics,

118(5), e1303-10. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0732

172
Jordan, A., & Prendella, K. (2019). The invisible children of media research. Journal of

Children and Media, 13(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2019.1591662

Kalmus, V., Blinka, L., & Ólafsson, K. (2015). Does it matter what mama says: Evaluating the

role of parental mediation in European adolescents’ excessive internet use. Children

and Society, 29(2), 122–133. http://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12020

Katz, S. J., Lee, T., & Byrne, S. (2015). Predicting parent-child differences in perceptions of

how children use the internet for help with homework, identity development, and

health information. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 574–602.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093479

Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of

adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring.

Developmental Psychology, 36, 366-380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-

1649.36.3.366

Khurana, A., Bleakley, A., Jordan, A. B., & Romer, D. (2015). The protective effects of

parental monitoring and Internet restriction on adolescents’ risk of online

harassment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(5), 1039–1047.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0242-4

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed). New

York, NY: The Guilford Press. Retrieved from

http://proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-

com.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=332476&site=ehos

t-live&scope=site

173
Korioth, T. (2016, October 21). Family Media Plan helps parents set boundaries for kids.

AAP News. Retrieved from

https://www.aappublications.org/news/2016/10/21/MediaParents102116

Krcmar, M., & Cingel, D. P. (2016). Examining two theoretical models predicting American

and Dutch parents’ mediation of adolescent social media use. Journal of Family

Communication, 16(3), 247–262. http://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2016.1181632

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 teens and tweens. San

Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media. Retrieved from

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common- sense-census-

plugged-in-parents-of-tweens-and-teens-2016

Lauricella, A., Cingel, D., Blackwell, C., Wartella, E., & Conway, A. (2014). The mobile

generation: Youth and adolescent ownership and use of new media. Communication

Research Reports, 31(4), 357–364. http://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2014.963221

Lee, S. J. (2013). Parental restrictive mediation of children’s Internet use: Effective for what

and for whom? New Media & Society, 15(4), 466–481.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812452412

Lenhart, A. (2015, April). Teens, social media, and technology overview. Washington, DC:

Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from

http://www.pewInternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/

Litman, L. (2018, August 10). Concerns about bots on Mechanical Turk: Problems and

solutions. Retrieved from https://blog.turkprime.com/concerns-about-bots-on-

mechanical-turk-problems-and-solutions

174
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’

use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media

& Society, 10(3), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808089415

Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Vincent, J., Mascheroni, G., & Ólafsson, K. (2014). Net children go

mobile: The UK report. London, UK: London School of Economics and Political

Science. Retrieved from http://netchildrengomobile.eu/reports/

Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children’s Internet use. Journal

of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581–599.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08838150802437396

Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E. J., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G. A., & Folkvord, F.

(2017). Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: The role

of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of

Communication, 67(1), 82–105. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12277

Loeber, R., Drinkwater, M., Yin, Y., Anderson, S. J., Schmidt, L. C., & Crawford, A. (2000).

Stability of family interaction from ages 6 to 18. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 28(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005169026208

Lucchetti, A. E., Powers, W. G., & Love, D. E. (2002). The empirical development of the Child

Parent Communication Apprehension Scale for use with young adults. Journal of

Family Communication, 2(3), 109–131.

http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327698JFC0203_1

Lwin, M. O., Stanaland, A. J. S., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2008). Protecting children’s privacy online:

How parental mediation strategies affect website safeguard effectiveness. Journal of

Retailing, 84(2), 205–217. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.04.004

175
Madden, M., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Lenhart, A., & Duggan, M. (2012). Parents, teens, and

online privacy. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved

from: http://pewInternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-Privacy.aspx.

Manning, M. (2009). The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned

behaviour: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 649–705.

http://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X393136

Mares, M. L., Stephenson, L., Martins, N., & Nathanson, A. I. (2018). A house divided:

Parental disparity and conflict over media rules predict children’s outcomes.

Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 177–188.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.009

Martins, N., Matthews, N. L., & Ratan, R. A. (2017). Playing by the rules: Parental mediation

of video game play. Journal of Family Issues, 38(9), 1215–1238.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X15613822

Meeus, A., Eggermont, S., & Beullens, K. (2018). Constantly connected: The role of parental

mediation styles and self-regulation in pre- and early adolescents’ problematic

mobile device use. Human Communication Research, 45(2), 119–147.

https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy015

Napper, L. E., Hummer, J. F., Lac, A., & LaBrie, J. W. (2015). What are other parents saying?

Perceived parental communication norms and the relationship between alcohol

specific parental communication and college student drinking. Psychology of

Addictive Behaviors, 28(1), 31–41. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0034496

176
Nathanson, A. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental

mediation and children’s aggression. Communication Research, 26(2), 124–143.

http://doi.org/0803973233

Nathanson, A. I. (2001a). Mediation of children’s television viewing: Working toward

conceptual clarity and common understanding. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),

Communication Yearbook, 25 (pp. 115-151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Nathanson, A. I. (2001b). Parent and child perspectives on the presence and meaning of

parental television mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(2),

201–220. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4502

Nathanson, A. I. (2015). Media and the family: Reflections and future directions. Journal of

Children and Media, 9(1), 133–139. http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.997145

Nathanson, A. I., & Botta, R. A. (2003). Shaping the effects of television on adolescents’ body

image disturbance: The role of parental mediation. Communication Research, 30(3),

304–331. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203252409

Nathanson, A. I., Eveland Jr., W. P., Park, H.-S., & Paul, B. (2002). Perceived media influence

and efficacy as predictors of caregivers’ protective behaviors. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(3), 385.

http://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4603

Nielsen (2015). Grow and tell: As children age from toddlers to teens, their media palate

changes. Retrieved from

https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/grow-and-tell-as-

children-age-from-toddlers-to-teens-their-media-palate-changes.html

177
Nikken, P., & de Graaf, H. (2013). Reciprocal relationships between friends’ and parental

mediation of adolescents’ media use and their sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal

of Youth and Adolescence, 42(11), 1696–1707. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012

-9873-5

Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2006). Parental mediation of children’s video game playing: A

comparison of the reports by parents and children. Learning, Media and Technology,

31(2), 181–202. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439880600756803

Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2013). Developing scales to measure parental mediation of young

children’s Internet use. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(2), 250–266.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.782038

Nikken, P., & Opree, S. J. (2018). Guiding young children’s digital media use: SES-differences

in mediation concerns and competence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(6),

1844–1857. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1018-3

Opgenhaffen, M., Vandenbosch, L., Eggermont, S., & Frison, E. (2012). Parental mediation of

television viewing in the context of changing parent-child relationships in Belgium:

A latent growth curve analysis in early and middle adolescence. Journal of Children

and Media, 6(4), 2–16. http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2012.693051

Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Coyne, S. M. (2011). “Turn that thing off!” Parent and adolescent

predictors of proactive media monitoring. Journal of Adolescence, 34(4), 705–15.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.09.002

Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Collier, K. M. (2016). Longitudinal relations between

parental media monitoring and adolescent aggression, prosocial behavior, and

178
 externalizing problems. Journal of Adolescence, 46, 86–97.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.11.002

Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2012a). Getting a high-speed family

connection: Associations between family media use and family connection. Family

Relations, 61(3), 426-440. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00710.x

Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., Fraser, A. M., Dyer, W. J., & Yorgason, J. B. (2012b).

Parents and adolescents growing up in the digital age: Latent growth curve analysis

of proactive media monitoring. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1153–1165.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.03.005

Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., Kroff, S. L., & Memmott-Elison, M. K. (2018). The

protective role of parental media monitoring style from early to late adolescence.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(2), 445–459. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-

017-0722-4

PEW. (2016). Parents, teens and digital monitoring. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and

American Life Project. Retrieved from

http://www.pewInternet.org/2016/01/07/how-parents-monitor-their-teens-

digital-behavior/

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.

http://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1976

179
Rasmussen, E. E., Coyne, S. M., Martins, N., & Densley, R. L. (2018). Parental mediation of US

youths’ exposure to televised relational aggression. Journal of Children and Media,

12(2), 192–210. http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2017.1405829

Rasmussen, E. C., White, S. R., King, A. J., Holiday, S., & Densley, R. L. (2016). Predicting

parental mediation behaviors: The direct and indirect influence of parents’ critical

thinking about media and attitudes about parent-child interactions. Journal of Media

Literacy Education, 8(2), 1–21.

Redden, M. S., & Way, A. K. (2017). ‘Adults don’t understand’: Exploring how teens use

dialectical frameworks to navigate webs of tensions in online life. Journal of Applied

Communication Research, 45(1), 21–41.

http://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2016.1248465

Reid Chassiakos, Y., Radesky, J., Christakis, D., Moreno, M. A., & Cross, C. (2016). Children

and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162593.

http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2593

Rideout, V. (2007). Parents, children, & media. A Kaiser Family Foundation Survey. Menlo

Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from

https://www.kff.org/other/poll-finding/parents-children-media-a-kaiser-family-

foundation/

Rideout, V. (2015). The Common Sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. San Francisco,

CA: Common Sense Media. Retrieved from

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census- media-

use-by-tweens-and-teens

180
Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2018). Social media, social life: Teens reveal their experiences. San

Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media. Retrieved from

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/social-media-social-life-2018

Robb, M. B. (2019). The new normal: Parents, teens, screens, and sleep in the United States.

San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media. Retrieved from

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/The-New-Normal-Parents-Teens-

and-Devices-Around-the-World

Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, S. F., & Hart, C. H. (2001). The parenting styles and

dimensions questionnaire—short version (PSDQ). In B. F. Perlmutter, J. Touliatos, &

G. W. Holden (Eds.), Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques: Vol. 3.

Instruments & Index (pp. 319 - 321). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Rodríguez-de-Dios, I., van Oosten, J. M. F., & Igartua, J. J. (2018). A study of the relationship

between parental mediation and adolescents’ digital skills, online risks and online

opportunities. Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 186–198.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.012

Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., & Carrier, L. M. (2008). The association of parenting style and

child age with parental limit setting and adolescent MySpace behavior. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 459–471.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.005

Rouse, S. V. (2015). A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data. Computers in Human

Behavior, 43, 304–307. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.004

181
Sanders, W., Parent, J., Forehand, R., & Breslend, N. L. (2016). The roles of general and

technology related parenting in managing youth screen time. Journal of Family

Psychology, 30(5), 641-646. http://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000175

Sandstig, G., Johansson, B., & Ringsberg, K. (2013). The behavioral consequences of parents

presumed media influence on restrictive mediation and co-viewing/using media.

Journalism & Mass Communication, 3(7), 452–463. http://doi.org/10.17265/2160-

6579/2013.07.007

Sasson, H., & Mesch, G. (2014). Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online behavior

among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 32–38.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.025

Schaan, V. K., & Melzer, A. (2015). Parental mediation of children’s television and video

game use in Germany: Active and embedded in family processes. Journal of Children

and Media, 9(1), 58–76. http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.997108

Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Augmenting the theory of planned behavior: Roles for

anticipated regret and descriptive norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

29(10), 2107–2142. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02298.x

Shin, W. (2018). Empowered parents: The role of self-efficacy in parental mediation of

children’s smartphone use in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 12(4),

465–477. http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2018.1486331

Shin, W., & Huh, J. (2011). Parental mediation of teenagers’ video game playing:

Antecedents and consequences. New Media & Society, 13(6), 945–962.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810388025

182
Shin, W., Huh, J., & Faber, R. J. (2012). Tweens’ online privacy risks and the role of parental

mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 632–649.

http://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.732135

Shin, W., & Ismail, N. (2014). Exploring the role of parents and peers in young adolescents’

risk taking on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

Networking, 17(9), 578–583. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0095

Shin, W., & Kim, H. K. (2019). What motivates parents to mediate children’s use of

smartphones? An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of

Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 63(1), 144–159. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1576263

Shin, W., & Li, B. (2017). Parental mediation of children’s digital technology use in

Singapore. Journal of Children and Media, 11(1), 1–19.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1203807

Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother – father differences in parenting to a

typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family

Issues, 28(2), 212–241. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06294593

Sonck, N., Nikken, P., & de Haan, J. (2013). Determinants of Internet mediation: A

comparison of the reports by Dutch parents and children. Journal of Children and

Media, 7(1), 96–113. http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2012.739806

Spear, H. J., & Kulbok, P. (2004). Autonomy and adolescence: A concept analysis. Public

Health Nursing, 21(2), 144–152. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-

1209.2004.021208.x

183
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles,

and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 125–147.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3950-1

Steinberg, L. (1999). Adolescence (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Stern, S. R., & Odland, S. B. (2017). Constructing dysfunction: News coverage of teenagers

and social media. Mass Communication and Society, 20(4), 505–525.

http://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1274765

Stewart, N., Chandler, J., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Crowdsourcing samples in cognitive science.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(10), 736–748.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.007

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson Education.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal

of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. http://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Taylor, C. A., Hamvas, L., Rice, J., Newman, D. L., & Dejong, W. (2011). Perceived social

norms, expectations, and attitudes toward corporal punishment among an urban

community sample of parents. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the NeW York

Academy of Medicine, 88(2), 254–269. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9548-7

Timberg, C. (2019, May 29). Many teens sleep with their phones, survey finds – just like

their parents. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/mimicking-their-parents-

many-teens-sleep-with-their-phones-survey-finds/2019/05/28/1bf2ee68-8188-

11e9-9a67-a687ca99fb3d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2515165dae5c

184
Top, N. (2016). Socio-demographic differences in parental monitoring of children in late

childhood and adolescents’ screen-based media use. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 60(2), 195–212. http://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1164168

Tsai, T. H., Wei, C. H., & Tsai, C. Y. (2014). Investigating parental intention of using internet

filter software. Quality and Quantity, 48(1), 75–89. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-

012-9750-z

Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2018). Trends in U.S. adolescents’ media use,

1976-2016: The rise of digital media, the decline of TV, and the (near) demise of

print. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. http://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000203

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010-2018). Quick Facts: National population estimates, July 1, 2018

(Vintage year 2018). Retrieved on February 19, 2019 from

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US#

Vaala, S. E., & Bleakley, A. (2015). Monitoring, mediating, and modeling: Parental influence

on adolescent computer and Internet use in the United States. Journal of Children

and Media, 9(1), 40–57. http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.997103

Vahedi, Z., Sibalis, A., & Sutherland, J. E. (2018). Are media literacy interventions effective at

changing attitudes and intentions towards risky health behaviors in adolescents? A

meta-analytic review. Journal of Adolescence, 67(February), 140–152.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.06.007

Valcke, M., Bonte, S., De Wever, B., & Rots, I. (2010). Internet parenting styles and the

impact on Internet use of primary school children. Computers & Education, 55(2),

454–464. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.009

185
Valkenburg, P., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. (1999). Developing a scale to

assess three styles of television mediation: “Instructive mediation,” “restrictive

mediation,” and “social coviewing.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,

43(1), 52–66.http://doi.org/10.1080/08838159909364474

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Internet communication and its relation to well-being:

Identifying some underlying mechanisms. Media Psychology, 9(1), 43–58.

http://doi.org/10.1080/15213260709336802

Valkenburg, P. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Hermanns, J., & de Leeuw, R. (2013). Developing and

validating the perceived parental media mediation scale: A self-determination

perspective. Human Communication Research, 39(4), 445–469.

http://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12010

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Bolle, C. L., Hegner, S. M., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2015). Modeling

habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types,

emotional intelligence, social stress, self-reguation, age, and gender. Computers in

Human Behavior, 45, 411–420. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039

Vaterlaus, J. M., Beckert, T. E., & Bird, C. V. (2015). “‘At a certain age it’s not appropriate to

monitor one’s child’’: Perceptions of parental mediation of emerging adult

interactive technology use. Emerging Adulthood, 3(5), 353–358.

http://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815581277

Vaterlaus, J. M., Beckert, T. E., Tulane, S., & Bird, C. V. (2014). “They always ask what I’m

doing and who I’m talking to”: Parental mediation of adolescent interactive

technology use. Marriage & Family Review, 50(8), 691–713.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2014.938795

186
Villarruel, A. M., Cherry, C. L., Cabriales, E. G., Ronis, D. L., & Zhou, Y. (2008). A parent

adolescent intervention to increase sexual risk communication: Results of a

randomized controlled trial. AIDS Education and Prevention, 20(5), 371–383.

http://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2008.20.5.371.A

Vossen, H. G. M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). Do social media foster or curtail adolescents’

empathy? A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 118–124.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.040

Wang, L. D-L., Lam, W. W. T., Wu, J., & Fielding, R. (2015). Psychosocial determinants of

Chinese parental HPV vaccination intention for adolescent girls: Preventing cervical

cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 24, 1233–1240. http://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3859

Warren, R. (2001). In words and deeds: Parental involvement and mediation of children’s

television viewing. Journal of Family Communication, 1(4), 211–231.

http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327698JFC0104_01

Warren, R. (2003). Parental mediation of preschool children’s television viewing. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(3), 394–417.

http://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4703

Warren, R. (2017). Multi-platform mediation: U.S. mothers’ and fathers’ mediation of teens’

media use. Journal of Children and Media, 11(4), 485–500.

http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2017.1349685

Warren, R., & Aloia, L. (2019). Parenting style, parental stress, and mediation of children’s

media use. Western Journal of Communication, 1–18.

http://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2019.1582087

187
Warren, R., Gerke, P., & Kelly, M. A. (2002). Is there enough time on the clock ? Parental

involvement and mediation of children’s television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting

& Electronic Media, 46(1), 87–111.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_6

Wisenblit, J. Z., Priluck, R., & Pirog, S. F. (2013). The influence of parental styles on

children’s consumption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(4), 320–327.

http://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2013-0465

Wisniewski, P., Jia, H., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2015, March). “Preventative” vs.

“reactive”: How parental mediation influences teens’ social media privacy behaviors.

Presented at the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

and Social Computing, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

http://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675293

Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2017). Parents just don’t understand:

Why teens don’t talk to parents about their online risk experiences. In Proceedings

of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social

Computing (pp. 523–540). Portland, Oregon.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998236

Wright, P. J., Malamuth, N. M., & Donnerstein, E. (2012). Research on sex in the media and

children: What do we know about effects on children and adolescents? In D. G.

Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (2nd ed., pp. 273-

302). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

188
Yardi, S., & Bruckman, A. (2011). Social and technical challenges in parenting teens’ social

media use. Presented at the ACM Conference on Human Factors (CHI) in Computing

Systems. Vancouver, BC, Canada. http://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979422

189
 APPENDIX A

List of Hypotheses, Research Questions, and Summarized Findings

H1: Negative attitudes about media effects and use will be positively associated with active,

restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

Active mediation: Supported.

Summed restrictive mediation: Supported.
Average restrictive mediation: Supported.
Summed monitoring: Not supported.
Average monitoring: Supported.

H2: Parents with positive attitudes toward mediation outcomes will be more likely to

engage in active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

Active mediation: Supported.

Summed restrictive mediation: Supported.
Average restrictive mediation: Supported.
Summed monitoring: Supported.
Average monitoring: Supported.

H3: Injunctive norms will be positively associated with active, restrictive, and monitoring

behaviors.

Active mediation: Not supported.

Summed restrictive mediation: Not supported.
Average restrictive mediation: Not supported.
Summed monitoring: Not supported.
Average monitoring: Not supported.

H4: Descriptive norms will be positively associated with active, restrictive, and monitoring

behaviors.

Active mediation: Not supported

Summed restrictive mediation: Not supported.
Average restrictive mediation: Not supported.
Summed monitoring: Not supported.
Average monitoring: Not supported.

190
H5: Perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy will be positively associated with active,

restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

Active mediation: Not supported

Summed restrictive mediation: Not supported.
Average restrictive mediation: Supported.
Summed monitoring: Supported.
Average monitoring: Partially supported.

H6: Parent mobile device use will be positively associated with active, restrictive, and

monitoring behaviors.

Active mediation: Partially supported.

Summed restrictive mediation: Not supported.
Average restrictive mediation: Not supported.
Summed monitoring: Supported.
Average monitoring: Not supported.

H7: Parental knowledge of teen media activities will be positively associated with active,

restrictive, and monitoring behaviors.

Active mediation: Supported.

Summed restrictive mediation: Supported.
Average restrictive mediation: Not supported.
Summed monitoring: Partially supported.
Average monitoring: Supported.

RQ1: Are parents’ positive attitudes about media effects and use associated with active,

restrictive, and monitoring behaviors?

Active mediation: Positive attitudes positively predicted active mediation but was
no longer significant after all variables were entered into the model.
Summed restrictive mediation: Positive attitudes did not predict summed
restrictive mediation.
Average restrictive mediation: Positive attitudes did not predict average
restrictive mediation.
Summed monitoring: Positive attitudes did not predict summed monitoring.
Average monitoring: Positive attitudes did not predict average monitoring.

191
RQ2: Do parenting behaviors (connection, regulation, autonomy granting) moderate the

relationship between the TPB constructs and active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors?

Active mediation: No.

Summed restrictive mediation: No.
Average restrictive mediation: No.
Summed monitoring: No.
Average monitoring: No.

RQ3: Does family communication quality moderate the relationship between the TPB

constructs and active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors?

Active mediation: No.

Summed restrictive mediation: No.
Average restrictive mediation: No.
Summed monitoring: No.
Average monitoring: No.

RQ4: Do perceived barriers to parent mediation moderate the relationship between the

TPB constructs and active, restrictive, and monitoring behaviors?

Active mediation: Yes. Average and high perceived barriers combined with
negative attitudes about media effects and use is associated with higher active
mediation; low perceived barriers combined with positive attitudes about media
effects and use is associated with higher active mediation; and low perceived
barriers combined with parent mobile device use is associated with higher active
mediation.
Summed restrictive mediation: No.
Average restrictive mediation: No.
Summed monitoring: No.
Average monitoring: No.

192
 APPENDIX B

Parental Mediation Questionnaire

Filter questions
The following questions will help determine if you are eligible to participate in this study.
Please note that answering NO to some of these questions does not necessarily disqualify
you from participating in the survey.

1. Are you female? YES/NO

2. Do you own a personal mobile device (smartphone, tablet, laptop, Internet enabled MP3
player/iPod Touch)? YES/NO

3. Do you have a child between the ages of 13 and 18? YES/NO

(3a) IF YES, does your child have their own personal mobile device (smartphone,
tablet, laptop, Internet enabled MP3 player/iPod Touch)? YES/NO

(3b) Do you speak to your child between the ages of 13-18 at least four times per
week? YES/NO

4. Does your home have wifi Internet access? YES/NO

Consent Message

You are eligible to participate in this survey.

We are interested in learning more about the role that parents play in their child’s use of
media. You will be asked to complete a questionnaire about your child’s access to and use
of media and your behaviors related to your child’s media use. You will also be asked a few
questions about your background, including education, income, and ethnicity. This
information is collected to determine the diversity of the sample and will be kept
completely confidential.

This survey will take about 20 minutes to complete. Would you like to participate in this
survey? YES/NO

193
Child Demographics
For the remainder of this survey, please think about the child in your family
between the ages 13 and 18 who has had the most recent birthday. Even if you have
multiple children between these ages, please think about this particular child when
answering these questions.

5. How old is your child? 13, 14 ,15, 16, 17, 18

6. What is your child’s gender? BOY/GIRL/PREFER TO SELF-DESCRIBE

7. Which of the following best describes your child’s race or ethnicity?

American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black/African American/Non-Hispanic
Mexican American
Latino/Latina
White/Non-Hispanic
Other
Prefer not to answer

8. What grade is your child in school?

7th grade
8th grade
9th grade
10th grade
11th grade
12th grade
Other (OPEN-ENDED)

9. Which of the following devices does your child personally have - i.e. devices that are
not shared, belong to the family, or temporarily owned with limited functionality
(e.g. a tablet provided by child’s school)? …CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
Television set
Smartphone
Tablet (such as iPad, Galaxy Tab, Nexus, Kindle or similar product)
Video game console with TV-connectivity (such as X-Box, Wii, Playstation)
Streaming device (such as Google Chromecast, Roku, Amazon Fire Stick)
Desktop computer
Laptop computer
Internet enabled iPod Touch or MP3 player (besides a phone or tablet)
Portable game player (e.g. Nintendo DS)

194
Parental Mediation
The following questions ask about ways parents may act regarding their child’s use of
mobile devices. Mobile devices include smartphones, tablets, laptops, and Internet-enabled
MP3 players (e.g. iPod Touch, Zune). These questions represent a wide range of behaviors that
some parents do, and some do not do. For each question, please rate the extent to which you
do these things during a typical week with your child.

Active mediation
How often do you… NEVER, SOMETIMES BUT NOT OFTEN, SEVERAL TIMES A MONTH,
SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK, EVERY DAY
10. Talk to your child about the content (e.g. videos, apps, games) that he/she watches,
hears, or plays while using their mobile device?
11. Discuss what content is appropriate and inappropriate to view on mobile devices?
(e.g. violent or sexually explicit content)
12. Discuss what behaviors are appropriate and inappropriate while using their mobile
device? (e.g. talking to strangers, cyberbullying…)
13. Talk about the apps that your child uses on their mobile device?
14. Recommend apps or content to your child that you like or use?
15. Talk about the apps or content that your child likes and/or uses?
16. What personal information should or should not be shared online or on a mobile
device?

Restrictive mediation
17. Do you have rules about how much time your child can spend on their mobile
device? YES/NO
18. IF YES, How would you describe how strict or consistent you are with
enforcing rules about how much time your child can spend on their mobile
device? NOT AT ALL, A LITTLE, MODERATELY, VERY

19. Do you have rules about when your child can use their mobile device? (e.g. no
devices during dinner time, after they are done with homework) YES/NO
20. IF YES, How would you describe how strict or consistent you are with
enforcing rules about when your child can spend on their mobile device? NOT
AT ALL, A LITTLE, MODERATELY, VERY

21. Do you have rules about what apps your child can or cannot use on their mobile device?
YES/NO
22. IF YES, How would you describe how strict or consistent you are with
enforcing rules about what apps your child can or cannot use on their mobile
device? NOT AT ALL, A LITTLE, MODERATELY, VERY

195
23. Do you approve your child’s app purchases or downloads on their mobile devices?
YES/NO
24. IF YES, How would you describe how strict or consistent are you are with
enforcing approval of app purchases and downloads on your child’s mobile device?
NOT AT ALL, A LITTLE, MODERATELY, VERY

25. Do you use any parental controls or third-party apps (e.g. Net Nanny) on your child’s
mobile device that allow you to block them from using certain sites or apps? YES/NO
If YES, How often do you use these parental controls or third party apps? NEVER,
RARELY, SOMETIMES, OFTEN, ALWAYS

[AC1: Many people have unique hobbies. For example, crocheting, urban bike riding,
gardening, collecting antique coins, and building miniature ships. Please select exercising.
Are any of the options below a hobby that you do?]

Monitoring
Do you know your child’s passwords for…
26. Any of his/her social media and/or online accounts? YES, NO, MY CHILD DOESN’T HAVE
SOCIAL MEDIA
27. IF YES, which media accounts do you have their password for? FB, TWITTER,
INSTAGRAM, SNAPCHAT, PINTEREST, YOUTUBE, TUMBLR, EMAIL ACCOUNT,
OTHER
28. His/her mobile devices? YES, NO, THERE IS NO LOCK ON ANY OF THEIR DEVICES

29. Are you friends with your child on their social media profiles (e.g. Facebook, Twitter)
for fun/entertainment? YES, NO, MY CHILD DOESN’T HAVE SOCIAL MEDIA

(30) IF YES, on which social media sites are you friends with your child? FB,
TWITTER, INSTAGRAM, SNAPCHAT, PINTEREST, YOUTUBE, TUMBLR, EMAIL
ACCOUNT, OTHER

(31) IF YES, How often do you look at their social media profiles for
fun/entertainment? NEVER, SOMETIMES BUT NOT OFTEN, SEVERAL TIMES A
MONTH, SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK, EVERY DAY

32. Are you friends with your child on their social media profiles (e.g. Facebook, Twitter)
for the purpose of monitoring their posts or activity? YES, NO, MY CHILD DOESN’T HAVE
SOCIAL MEDIA
(33) IF YES, How often do you look at their social media profiles for the purpose of
monitoring their activity? NEVER, SOMETIMES BUT NOT OFTEN, SEVERAL TIMES A
MONTH, SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK, EVERY DAY

196
How often do you… NEVER, SOMETIMES BUT NOT OFTEN, SEVERAL TIMES A MONTH,
SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK, EVERY DAY
34. Ask your child what they are doing on their mobile device when they are with
you?

35. Keep an eye on the screen of your child’s mobile device when they are using it?

36. Check your child’s mobile device after they have used it to monitor what they are
doing (both immediately after or sometime later)?

Barriers to Parental Mediation

There are many reasons why parents may not have conversations about the Internet or
mobile devices with their teenager. “Conversations” can include discussions about online
behavior or activities and when, how long, and for what purposes teens can use their mobile
device.

Listed below are some common reasons that other parents of teenagers have said they don’t
discuss the Internet or mobile devices with their children.

To what extent do each of the following statements affect having rules or conversations with
your child about using mobile devices and the Internet? If you don’t feel any barriers to
talking with your child about mobile devices, please select “not at all”.
NOT AT ALL, SLIGHTLY, SOMEWHAT, MODERATELY, A GREAT DEAL

37. How long the conversations would take

38. My child being mature enough that I don’t think these conversations are necessary
39. Respect for my child’s privacy
40. Trusting my child to act and behave responsibly while using their mobile device
41. I don’t think these conversations will make any difference
42. My child being unreceptive to these conversations
43. My child not being interested in mobile devices
44. Not knowing what to say to my child
45. I had these conversations when my child was younger
45a. Please describe any other barriers that may keep you from talking with your child
about using mobile devices. (OPEN-ENDED)

Theory of Planned Behavior

Negative attitudes about media use and effects

Below is a list of common worries and concerns that parents report in regards to their
children’s use of the Internet and mobile devices. In terms of Internet and mobile device use,
please rate the extent to which you are worried about these things for your child.
NOT AT ALL WORRIED, SLIGHTLY WORRIED, SOMEWHAT WORRIED,
MODERATELY WORRIED, EXTREMELY WORRIED
46. Receiving/sending sexual images or videos (“sexting”)
47. Receiving nasty or hurtful comments from others online (“cyber-bullying”)
197
 48. Viewing online pornography
49. Over-sharing personal details of their life
50. Spending too much time online or on their mobile device
51. Decreased ability to communicate well with other people
52. Being exposed to images or videos of violence
53. Being exposed to images of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco use
54. Being exposed to consumerism (e.g. advertising, content that emphasizes
importance of material things)
55. Do you have any other concerns about your child’s use of the Internet or mobile
devices not listed here? (OPEN-ENDED)

Positive attitudes about media use and effects

Below is a list of common benefits that parents report in regards to their children’s use
of the Internet and mobile devices. Please rate the extent to which agree or disagree that
using the Internet and mobile devices… STRONGLY DISAGREE, DISAGREE, SOMEWHAT
AGREE, MODERATELY AGREE, STRONGLY AGREE
56. Supports my child’s social skills
57. Helps with schoolwork or education
58. Increases my child’s exposure to other cultures
59. Allows for expression of personal opinions or beliefs
60. Supports the learning of new skills
61. Supports my child’s creativity
62. Allows my child to find and interact with others with similar interests
63. Will help prepare my child for 21st century jobs
64. Do you see any other benefits to your child’s use of the Internet and mobile
devices that are not listed here? (OPEN-ENDED)

Attitudes about mediation outcomes

How effective do you think the following would be at preventing undesired effects or
behaviors in your child? EXTREMELY, VERY, MODERATELY, SLIGHTLY, NOT AT ALL
65. Having rules about mobile devices and the Internet

66. Having conversations about content and apps

67. Covert monitoring of your child’s mobile devices (e.g. checking their web/app
history)

68. Overt monitoring of your child’s mobile devices (e.g. asking your child to show
you what they are doing on their device)

69. How likely do you think rules about mobile devices and the Internet would cause
conflict or disagreements with your child? (REVERSE)

[AC2: How are you feeling right now? Although we would like to know how you are
feeling, please select slightly pleased below so we know you are paying attention.]

198
Injunctive normative beliefs:
The next questions ask you to keep in mind people in United States in general.
Please move the slider to the point on the scale that corresponds closest to the way you feel
about the statement.
In general, people think that parents of teenagers should…

Yes, the No, the

majority majority
of people of people
think this DO NOT
way think this
way
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

70. Have rules about when their child can use their mobile device
71. Have rules about what their child can/cannot do on their mobile device
72. Have conversations with their children about media content and apps they view
on their mobile devices
73. Monitor their child’s mobile device and Internet use in a covert manner (e.g.
checking their web/app history)
74. Monitor their child’s mobile device and Internet use in an overt manner (e.g. ask
child to show parent what they are doing on their device)

Descriptive normative beliefs

The next questions ask you to think about how many parents with a kid your child’s
age do the following behaviors…
75. Have rules about when their child can use their mobile device
76. Have rules about what their child can/cannot do on their mobile device
77. Have conversations with their children about media content and apps they view
on their mobile devices
78. Monitor their child’s mobile device and Internet use in a covert manner (e.g.
checking their web/app history)
79. Monitor their child’s mobile device and Internet use in an overt manner (e.g. ask
child to show parent what they are doing on their device)

Perceived behavioral control/self-efficacy

The next statements describe ways that some parents act regarding their child’s use of
mobile devices. Please rate how much you believe each statement is something that you (a)
feel you are capable of, or is a behavior within your control to perform and (b) your
confidence that you could do these behaviors even if they are difficult.

80. Limit when my child can use their mobile device

81. Limit what my child can do on their mobile device
82. Discuss media content and apps my child views on their mobile devices

199
 83. Monitor what my child does on the Internet and their mobile device in a covert
manner (e.g. checking their web/app history)
84. Monitor what my child does on the Internet and their mobile device in an overt
manner (e.g. ask child to show parent what they are doing on their device)

85. Limit when my child can use their mobile device

86. Limit what my child can do on their mobile device
87. Discuss media content and apps my child views on their mobile devices
88. Monitor what my child does on the Internet and their mobile device in a covert
manner (e.g. checking their web/app history)
89. Monitor what my child does on the Internet and their mobile device in an overt
manner (e.g. ask child to show parent what they are doing on their device)

Very much Not at all

5 4 3 2 1
Very Not at all
confident confident
5 4 3 2 1

Parent mobile device use

How often do you use your mobile device for the following tasks? NEVER, SOMETIMES
BUT NOT OFTEN, SEVERAL TIMES A MONTH, SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK, EVERY DAY
90. Job-related tasks
91. Household tasks
92. Social media
93. Educational purposes
94. Leisure
95. Personal communication

Knowledge of teen media activities

How often are you aware of the following… NEVER, ONCE IN A WHILE, SOME OF THE
TIME, MOST OF THE TIME, ALL OF THE TIME, MY CHILD DOESN’T DO THIS ACTIVITY/USE
THIS TECHNOLOGY
96. What your child watches on television
97. Which movies your child watches
98. Which online videos your child watches (e.g. YouTube)
99. Which websites your child uses
100. What your child sees on social media (e.g. Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram,
Twitter)
101. What your child posts about himself/ herself online
102. Which apps your child is using
103. Which video games your child is playing (computer, mobile, or console)

200
Family System Theory

Parenting Behaviors
Please answer the following questions by selecting the response that best describes
how you are with your child. NEVER, RARELY, SOMETIMES, OFTEN, ALWAYS
Connection (Responsiveness)
104. I encourage my child to talk about their troubles.
105. I am responsive to my child’s feelings and needs.
106. I give my child comfort and understanding when he or she is upset.
107. I praise my child when he or she is good.
108. I have warm and emotionally connected moments with my child.

Regulation (Demandingness)
109. I give my child reasons why rules should be obeyed.
110. I help my child to understand the impact of their behavior by encouraging them
to talk about the consequences of his/her own actions.
111. I explain the consequences of my child’s behavior.
112. I emphasize the reasons for rules.
113. I explain to my child how I feel about their good and bad behavior.

Autonomy granting
114. I show respect for my child’s opinions by encouraging them to express
themselves.
115. I encourage my child to freely express him/herself even if they are disagreeing
with me.
116. I allow my child to give input into our family rules.
117. I take my child’s desires into account before asking him/her to do something.
118. I take into account my child’s preferences when making plans for the family.

[AC3: Please select the option below that is not an animal. Thank you for doing this task.]

Family communication quality

Please answer the following questions by selecting the response that best describes
how your child is with you. STRONGLY DISAGREE, DISAGREE, SOMEWHAT AGREE,
MODERATELY AGREE, STRONGLY AGREE
119. My child is relaxed when talking with me about things that happened during
the day.
120. My child is scared to come talk to me about their problems. [Reverse]
121. My child is comfortable during intimate conversations with me.
122. During casual conversations, my child seems guarded about what they are
saying. [Reverse]
123. My child is tense when during in-depth conversations with me.[ Reverse]
124. My child looks forward to talking with me.

201
Parent accessibility
125. During a typical weekday, about how many waking hours per day are you at home or
other places with your family?
Less than an hour
1 hour
2 hours
3
4… (continued) More than 6

126. During a typical weekend day, about how many waking hours per day are you at home
or other places with your family?
Less than an hour
1 hour
2 hours
3
4… (continued) More than 6

Family structure
127. Which option below best describes your relationship with your child?
Birth/biological Parent
Step-parent
Adoptive Parent
Grandparent
Foster Parent
Other

128. If there are other adults in your household, what is their relationship to your child?
[select all options that apply]
Birth/biological Parent
Step-parent
Adoptive Parent
Grandparent
Foster Parent
There are no other adults living in my household

129. What is your current marital status?

Single
In a relationship
Married
Divorced
Prefer not to answer

Parent Demographics
This information is being asked just to make sure we are talking to a representative group of
people.

202
130. What is your age?_________

131. What is your gender? MALE/FEMALE/PREFER NOT TO ANSWER

132. What is your household income?

Under $30,000
$30,000-$49,999
$50,000-$69,999
$70,000-99,999
$100,000 or more

133. What is the last grade or level of education that you have completed?
Less than 8th grade
Some high school
High school degree or GED
Some college (2 or 4 year)
College graduate (e.g. B.A., B.S.)
Master’s degree (e.g. M.A., M.S., M.B.A.)
Professional degree (e.g. J.D., M.D.)
Doctorate degree (e.g. PhD, EdD)

134. Which of the following best describes your race or ethnicity?

American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black/African American/Non-Hispanic
Mexican American
Latino/Latina
White/Non-Hispanic
Other
Prefer not to answer

135. What is your current employment status?

Employed full-time
Employed part-time
Self-employed
Student
Retired
Unemployed
Disabled
Homemaker/family manager
Other
Prefer not to answer

203
136. Which of the following devices do you have in your home? (select all that apply)
Television
Smartphone
Tablet
Video game console with TV-connectivity (e.g. Xbox, Wii, Playstation)
Streaming device (e.g. Google Chromecast, Roku, Amazon Fire Stick)
Desktop computer
Laptop computer
MP3 player
Portable game player (e.g. Nintendo DS)
Other (OPEN-ENDED)

204
 APPENDIX C

Questionnaire Pre-Test Results

Prior to data collection, the research instrument was pre-tested with a convenience

sample of parents. Demographic information was not collected for this convenience

sample. Pre-test data was collected from January 4, 2018 to February 13, 2018.

A total of 67 responses were collected; 61 of these were complete responses.

Excluding outliers 17 and incomplete responses, the average time to complete the pre-test

survey was 19.49 minutes (SD = 8.53). Cronbach’s alpha was computed for continuous

responses and Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR20) was computed for binary responses. With two

exceptions, Cronbach’s alphas for all measures ranged from .76 - .92 (Table A). Two

variables—parent mobile device use and average restrictive mediation—had alphas of .50

and 0.58, respectively. The parent mobile device use measure (6 items) asked how

frequently parents use their own personal mobile device for the following six activities:

job-related tasks, household tasks, social media, educational purposes, leisure, and

personal communication. The low alpha for this measure may be due to the low number of

items in this measure (Cortina, 1993; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). It could also be due to the

different types of tasks that were assessed in these questions (e.g. job-related versus

house-related tasks). Cronbach’s alpha measures the internal consistency of items in a

scale, which is the degree to which “all items in a test measure the same concept or

construct and hence it is connected to the inter-relatedness of the items within the test”

(Tavakol & Dennick, 2011, p. 52). The items were moderately correlated in the expected

17To identify outliers, the duration to complete the survey (in minutes) was converted to z-scores.
Scores of 2 or more were considered outliers, resulting in the exclusion of four responses for the
calculation of this variable.
205
directions (e.g. job-related tasks and social media were negatively correlated); therefore,

no changes were made to this measure.

The average restrictive mediation measure (5 items) was comprised of follow-up

questions to the initial questions about parent’s time and content restrictions. For example,

parents were asked if they “had rules about when your child can use their mobile device”

and responded in a yes/no format (summed restrictive mediation). If a parent responded

affirmatively, they were asked a follow-up question about how strict or consistent they are

with enforcing their rules or restrictions (average restrictive mediation). Given the nature

of this question, there were a number of missing values (i.e. parents answering “no” to the

first question did not answer the follow-up strictness question). The reliability analysis

command in SPSS uses listwise deletion for cases that have missing data and there is no

option to change this feature (IBM, n.d.). Consequently, SPSS omitted 59 cases with partial

data and analyzed reliability for the remaining 8 cases (parents who answered each follow-

up question). It is unlikely that this issue will be present with a larger data sample,

therefore no changes were made to this measure.

The questionnaire was counter-balanced such that parents either saw the parental

mediation (PM) questions first or the theory of planned behavior (TPB) questions first.

Thirty seven parents saw the PM questions first and 30 parents saw the TPB first. An order

effect for one variable was observed: Parents who saw the PM questions first (M = 4.70, SD

= .43) reported significantly higher regulation scores (parenting behavior) than parents

who saw the TPB questions first (M = 4.33, SD = .72), t(41) = 2.33, p = .03. Levene’s test

indicated unequal variance (F = 9.00, p= .02) so degrees of freedom were adjusted from 56

to 41.

206
 Lastly, open-ended feedback was solicited on the last page of the pre-test survey

with the following message: “Thank you for completing this survey. If you have any

feedback about the survey flow, question wording, or anything else you noted, please

describe it below.” Responses to this question were used to adjust the research instrument

as needed (Table B).

Table A. Reliability Statistics from Pre-test Sample

Response Method of # of α/KR
Variable M (SD)
Type Calculation Items 20
Parental Mediation
Active Likert Averaged 7 2.79 (0.68) 0.85
RM_SUM Yes/No Summed 5 3.24 (1.68) 0.76 a
RM_AVG Likert Averaged 5 3.02 (0.83) 0.58
MON_SUM Yes/No Summed 4 2.73 (1.20) 0.78 a
MON_AVG Likert Averaged 3 3.25 (1.03) 0.84
Barriers To Parental
Mediation
How long the
Likert 1.23 (0.53)
conversations would take
My child being mature
enough that I don’t think
Likert 2.10 (1.16)
these conversations are
necessary
Respect for my child’s
Likert 1.84 (1.00)
privacy
Trusting my child to act
and behave responsibly
Likert 2.63 (1.01)
while using their mobile
device
I don’t think these
conversations will make Likert 1.56 (0.95)
any difference
My child being
unreceptive to these Likert 1.59 (0.90)
conversations

207
My child not being
interested in mobile Likert 1.21 (0.55)
devices
Not knowing what to say
Likert 1.28 (0.64)
to my child

Attitudes Toward
Behaviors
ATT_NA Likert Averaged 9 2.68 (0.96) 0.89
ATT_PA Likert Averaged 9 2.57 (0.64) 0.81
ATT_AMO Likert Averaged 5 2.68 (0.91) 0.80
Subjective Norms
SN_IN Likert Averaged 5 6.00 (2.30) 0.90
SN_DN Likert Averaged 5 4.91 (2.08) 0.92

PBC/SE

PBC Likert Averaged 5 2.14 (0.89) 0.80

SE Likert Averaged 5 1.92 (0.89) 0.85
PBC & SE Likert Averaged 10 2.03 (0.82) 0.90
PMU Likert Averaged 6 4.48 (0.59) 0.50
KMA Likert Averaged 8 3.55 (0.76) 0.88
Family System Theory
PB_C Likert Averaged 5 4.60 (0.50) 0.89
PB_R Likert Averaged 5 4.53 (0.61) 0.88
PB_AG Likert Averaged 5 4.12 (0.60) 0.83
FCQ Likert Averaged 6 4.09 (0.69) 0.80
44.62
Total parent accessibility 2
(18.57)
14.69
Child age
(1.67)
Average number of child-
% 1-9 3.09 (1.74)
owned devices
TV 36
SmartphoneC 88
Tablet 45

208
 Video game 36
console 10
Streaming device 9
Desktop computer 58
Laptop computer 15
MP3 player 21
Portable game
player
Does parent know any
passwords for child’s
%
social media or online
accounts?
Yes
No 73
Child doesn’t use 22
SM or online 5
accounts
Average number of
known passwords for
1-7 1.82 (1.64)
child’s social media or
online accounts
Known account password %
Facebook 28
Twitter 8
Instagram 34
Snapchat 24
Pinterest 3
YouTube 15
Tumblr 0
Email 58
Other 9
Demographics n
Child gender b
Male 29
Female 37
Child grade
7th grade 12
8th 13
9th 12
10th 14
11th 6
12th 8
Other 2

209
Note. TPB = Theory of Planned Behavior; PM = Parental Mediation; a Kuder-Richardson 20
coefficient for binary variables; b One parent did not report their child’s gender; C Eight
parents who took the pre-test reported that their child did not have a personal mobile
device; however, this was a requirement for parents to participate in the full sample.

Table B. Free Response Feedback from Pre-test Sample

Problematic
Measure or
Free-Response Comment Adjustment to Survey
Survey
Function
“Survey was appropriate. Would help to
Survey
know how many questions are left as I No adjustment.
function
am answering.”
“’Warm and intimate moments with your Parenting Changed to: “I have warm
child’ seemed like a ‘creepyish’ behaviors: and emotionally connected
statement.” Connection moments with my child.”

Attention items are

necessary for MTurk data
“Way too long and repetitive. A number collection, therefore they
of items were missing needed responses. Survey length, were not removed. Survey
Too many checking to see if I was paying attention was reviewed for areas
attention items. Should be no more than check items where other response
a half or even a quarter as long.” options could be useful, and
open-ended responses were
added to several questions.
“I noticed that I felt the need to explain
history, but the questions revolved
around current snapshot. I think I would
have felt more comfortable answering
Repeated instructions
the questions if it had been super clear
throughout the survey that
whether you were looking for a snapshot Survey
parents should “think about
in time or an overall picture. My instructions
a typical week” while
daughter is 15 and we have been
answering questions.
thoughtfully planning for the freedom we
offer her since she was in kindergarten.
So I found myself feeling a tiny bit
defensive.”

210
“The question about control was a bit
confusing. The spectrum includes "I have
control" and "I do not control." These
These instructions were
seem like different things to me. I feel like Self-efficacy
edited for clarity.
I have control, but I don't actively control.
I'm just not a very controlling parent (at
least in my mind, lol).”

Child age will be controlled

“Generally speaking, a 13 year old and a for during analyses. Other
17 or 18 year old will have different rules statements (e.g. “hopefully
in place. Hopefully the older teens will the older teens will have a
have had a foundation for good internet good foundation…”) are
Parental
use in place before heading off to college addressed in Parent barriers
mediation
or out of the home. But most older teens to mediation (e.g. “My child
need to be given some trust. Also, most is mature enough that I
teens have ‘fake accounts’ that parents don’t think these
are not aware of.” conversations are
necessary”).

Edited instructions to:

“During a typical weekday,
“Those time questions, I didn't Parent about how many waking
understand if you meant awake or not.” accessibility hours per day are you at
home or other places with
your family?”

“The first question to see if proper

attention was given I hastily selected the Attention items are
wrong answer as it was a form of the Attention necessary for MTurk data
word you wanted selected. It had the checks collection, therefore they
prefix of dis and I clicked too quickly and were not removed.
couldn't go back.”
Attention items are
“Not sure why there were random odd Attention necessary for MTurk data
questions throughout the survey?” checks collection, therefore they
were not removed.

211
 APPENDIX D

Correlation Results

Pearson correlations for all variables are reported in Table 6. For visual clarity,

Table 7 contains correlations for the independent and dependent variables only.

Spearman’s rho (rs) correlations were calculated for ranked variables, including child

grade, household income, parent education, and employment (Field, 2013). Point biserial

correlations (rpb) were calculated for dichotomous variables, including child and parent

gender, child and parent ethnicity, marital status, and family structure (Field, 2013).

Parent accessibility was significantly associated with summed restrictive mediation

(yes/no questions), r(461) = .19, p < .001, positive attitudes about media effects and use,

r(501) = .13, p = .004, attitudes about mediation outcomes, r(501) = .21, p < .001, perceived

behavioral control, r(501) = .26, p < .001, self-efficacy, r(501) = .27, p < .001, parent mobile

device use, r(501) = .18, p < .001, connection, r(500) = .26, p < .001, regulation, r(501) =

.26, p < .001, autonomy granting, r(501) = .14, p < .001, family communication, r(501) =

.23, p < .001, and parent barriers to mediation, r(501) = -.27, p < .001.

Marital status (coded as married = 1, non-married/other = 0) was significantly

associated with family communication quality, rpb(590) = -.10, p = .01. Household income

was significantly correlated with active mediation, rs(589) = -.09, p = .03, parent mobile

device use, rs(589) = .17, p < .001, and parent knowledge of teen media activities, rs(589) = -

.12, p = .003. Parent education was significantly associated with positive attitudes about

media effects and use, rs(586) = -.10, p = .02, attitudes about mediation outcomes, rs(586) =

-.08, p = .04, self-efficacy, rs(586) = -.12, p = .003, connection, rs(585) = -.17, p < .001,

regulation, rs(586) = -.14, p = .001, autonomy granting, rs(586) = -.09, p = .04, family

212
communication quality, rs(586) = -.13, p = .002, and barriers to parental mediation, rs (586)

= .13, p = .002.

Parent age was significantly correlated with active mediation, r(589) = -.21, p < .001,

summed restrictive mediation (yes/no questions), r(589) = -.22, p < .001, averaged

restrictive mediation (Likert response questions), r(53) = -.10, p = .02, averaged monitoring

scale (Likert response questions), r(589) = -.19, p < .001, descriptive normative beliefs,

r(587) = -.13, p = .002, parent mobile device use, r(589) = .10, p = .01, knowledge of teen

media activities, r(589) = -.20, p < .001, connection, r(588) = .20, p < .001, regulation,

r(589) = .19, p < .001, autonomy granting, r(589) = .10, p = .01, and family communication

quality, r(589) = .11, p = .01. Parent gender (coded as female = 1, male = 0) was

significantly associated with active mediation, rpb (585) = .10, p = .01, averaged restrictive

mediation, rpb (539) = .13, p = .003, summed monitoring scale, rpb (585) = .11, p = .01,

averaged monitoring scale, rpb (585) = .11, p = .01, injunctive normative beliefs, rpb (583) =

.11, p = .01, parent mobile device use, rpb (585) = .09, p = .03, parent knowledge of teen

media activities, rpb (585) = .09, p = .03, connection, rpb (584) = .10, p = .01, autonomy

granting, rpb (585) = .08, p = .05, family communication quality, rpb (585) = .11, p = .01.

Parent ethnicity (coded as White/Non-Hispanic = 1, Non-White/other ethnicity = 0) was

significantly correlated with active mediation, rpb (585) = -.12, p = .004, negative attitudes

about media effects and use, rpb (585) = -.16, p < .001, positive attitudes about media effects

and use, rpb (585) = -.10, p = .02, and barriers to parental mediation, rpb (585) = -.13, p <

.001.

Child age was significantly associated with active mediation, r (587) = -.26, p < .001,

summed restrictive mediation, r (587) = -.35, p < .001, averaged restrictive mediation,

213
r(541) = -.13, p = .002, averaged monitoring scale, r(587) = -.29, p < .001, negative attitudes

about media effects and use, r(587) = -.09, p = .03, attitudes about mediation outcomes, r

(587) = -.21, p < .001, injunctive normative beliefs, r (585) = -.10, p =.02, descriptive

normative beliefs, r (585) = -.21, p < .001, perceived behavior control, r (587) = -.15, p <

.001, self-efficacy, r (587) = -.18, p < .001, parent knowledge of teen media activities, r (587)

= -.30, p < .001, and barriers to parental mediation, r (587) = .15, p < .001. Child gender

(coded as female = 1, male = 0) was significantly correlated with summed monitoring scale,

rpb (589) = .08, p = .05, perceived behavioral control, rpb (589) = .09, p = .03, self-efficacy, rpb

(589) = .12, p < .01, connection, rpb (588) = .15, p < .001, and family communication quality,

rpb (589) = .12, p = .003. Child grade was significantly correlated with active mediation,

rs(589) = -.24, p < .001, summed restrictive mediation, rs(589) = -.28, p < .001, averaged

restrictive mediation, rs(543) = -.12, p = .004, averaged monitoring, rs(589) = -.27, p < .001,

negative attitudes about media effects and use, rs(589) = -.09, p = .03, attitudes about

mediation outcomes, rs(589) = -.24, p < .001, descriptive normative beliefs, rs(587) = -.17, p

< .001, perceived behavioral control, rs(589) = -.19, p < .001, self-efficacy, rs(589) = -.20, p <

.001, knowledge of teen media activities, rs(589) = -.29, p < .001, and barriers to parental

mediation, rs(589) = .19, p < .001.

Child ethnicity (coded as White/Non-Hispanic = 1, Non-White/other ethnicity = 0)

significantly associated with active mediation, rpb (589) = -.09, p = .03, negative attitudes

about media effects and use, rpb (589) = -.11, p = .01, positive attitudes about media effects

and use, rpb (589) = -.09, p = .03, and barriers to parental mediation, rpb (589) = -.10, p = .02.

Parent employment was negatively correlated with averaged restrictive mediation, rs(543)

214
= -.14, p = .001. And lastly, family structure (coded as biological family = 1, non-biological

family/other = 0) was not significantly correlated with any key variables.

215
 Mona Malacane Clay
EDUCATION

Ph.D. Mass Indiana University

Communications • Minor: Human Development & Family Studies (Public
(Telecommunications) Health)
August 2019 • Committee chair: Dr. Nicole Martins
• Dissertation: Identifying Predictors to Parental Mediation
of Mobile Devices During The Teen Years Using The Theory
Of Planned Behavior
M.A. Indiana University
Telecommunications • Committee chair: Dr. Nicole Martins
February 2015 • Thesis: A Content Analysis of Sexual Socialization Messages
in Popular Programs Produced For Adolescents
B.S. Psychology University of Georgia
May 2011 • Magna Cum Laude
PUBLICATIONS

Beckmeyer, J., & Malacane, M. (2018). Patterns of adolescent romantic involvement:

Associations with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
27(8), 2394-2403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1108-2

Malacane, M., & Martins, N. (2017). Sexual socialization messages in television

programming produced for adolescents. Mass Communication and Society, 20(1), 23-
46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1203436

Malacane, M., & Beckmeyer, J. (2016). A review of parent-based barriers to parent

adolescent communication about sex and sexuality: Implications for sex and family
educators. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 11(1), 27-40
https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2016.1146187

Martins, N., Mares, M.L., Malacane, M., & Peebles, A. (2016). Liked characters get a moral
pass: Young viewers’ evaluations of social and physical aggression in tween
sitcoms. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644016

Martins, N., Malacane, M., Kraus, A., & Lewis, N. (2016). A content analysis of teen
parenthood in “Teen Mom” reality programming. Health Communication, 31(12),
1548-1556. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1089465

RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIPS

Dr. Amy Gonzales • Assisted with survey materials and distribution.

Indiana University • Managed data collection and entry.
Summer 2016
Dr. Jonathon • Assisted with data cleaning and analysis from 300+ survey
Beckmeyer responses.
Indiana University • Co-wrote manuscript.
Summer 2015
Dr. Robert Potter • Organized database of articles using a citation software
Indiana University program.
Spring 2015 • Assisted with content analysis reliability coding and
analysis.
Dr. Amy Gonzales • Organized and developed logistical strategy for
Indiana University experiment schedule.
Fall 2014 • Trained and supervised three undergraduate research
assistants.
• Recruited participants for experimental research.
• Oversaw data collection.
Dr. Nicole Martins • Researched video stimuli for experiment.
Indiana University • Responsible for editing and converting video material.
Spring 2014 • Oversaw data collection and organization.
• Assisted with literature research and writing literature
review.
Ardoin Lab • Responsible for administering computer reading probes
University of Georgia to elementary school students, performing reviews on
2011 other RAs’ interviews with students, and organizing and
entering data.
Culture, Diversity, and • Conducted individual research project and assisted other
Intergroup Relations undergraduate researchers.
Lab • Responsibilities included researching literature, coding
University of Georgia and entering data, conducting analyses in SPSS, and
2011 collaborating on projects for conference presentations.
Human Cognitive • Responsible for administering computer source memory
Processing Lab tasks to participants, organizing and entering data, and
University of Georgia training other undergraduate research assistants.
2010

WORK EXPERIENCE

Graduate Work-Study • Created the Media School research participant pool and
Indiana University facilitated recruitment for research studies.
August – January 2019 • Controlled the online sign-up system for research studies
~20 hours/week (Acuity Scheduling) and handled logistics for participants
and researchers.
• Managed SnapStream (TV monitoring and recording
software) requests for all IU Media School faculty.
 • Attended weekly research meetings, recorded meeting
minutes, and distributed to listserv.
• Created informational digital “posters” for research being
conducted in the IU Media School.
• Inventoried and ordered supplies for psychophysiological
equipment.
Research Associate • Organized and oversaw recruitment of four focus groups
Dr. Robert Potter & (between 4 and 14 people/group) as commissioned by
WTIU Public Television WTIU Public Television and Broadcasting.
May – September 2017 • Assisted Principal Investigator (Robert Potter) in
~15 hours/week moderating focus group interviews.
• Managed data collection, entry, and analysis.
• Helped create and present final deliverables to WTIU.
Interim Program • Oversaw and facilitated 8-week summer camp for girls
Director ages 5-13.
Girls Incorporated of • Responsible for 60 girls and 10 staff members.
Monroe County • Implemented gender specific programming reflecting the
May – August 2018 Girls Inc. mission to inspire girls to be strong, smart, and
~55 hours/week bold.
• Coordinated developmentally appropriate programming
for the 2018 Fall semester.
Independent • Researched and developed pre- and post- evaluation
Consulting materials for an intervention program aimed at
The Harnisch strengthening young girls’ leadership skills.
Foundation • Target outcomes that were assessed in the evaluation
August – November included learning agility, empathy, collaboration, and self-
2016 awareness.
~15 hours/week • Advised on best practices for data collection and
evaluation.

CONFERENCE PAPERS & PRESENTATIONS

REFEREED
Beckmeyer, J., & Malacane, M. (2018, April). Patterns of adolescent romantic involvement:
Associations with psychosocial adjustment. Poster presented at the Society for
Research on Adolescence (SRA) Biennial Meeting. Minneapolis, MN.

Malacane, M. (2016, November). Sexy and they know it: Messages about physical
appearance and reinforcement in adolescent TV programs. Paper presented at the
102nd Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association (NCA).
Philadelphia, PA.
Malacane, M., & Martins, N. (2015, November). A content analysis of sexual socialization
messages in popular programs produced for adolescents. Paper presented at the
101st Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association (NCA). Las Vegas,
NV.

Martins, N., Malacane, M., Kraus, A., & Lewis, N. (2015, May). Gritty or glamorous?: A
content analysis of teen parenthood in teen mom reality programming. Paper
presented at the 65th Annual International Communication Association (ICA)
Conference: San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Martins, N., Mares, M.L., Malacane, M., & Peebles, A. (2014, May). Liked characters get a
moral pass: Young viewers’ evaluations of social and physical aggression in tween
sitcoms. Paper presented at the 64th Annual International Communication
Association (ICA) Conference: Seattle, WA.

Funk, M., Malacane, M., Connolley, S., & Sherman, R. (2013, November). Does ‘woman’ mean
‘sex’ in the language of action movie theatrical trailers? Paper presented at the 99th
Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association (NCA): Washington, DC.

NON-REFEREED
Malacane, M. (2016, April). Cognitive barriers and parent mediation. Panel presentation
(Topic: Sex in the Media) at the 1st annual Media School Graduate Association
(MSGA) Conference: Bloomington, IN.

Martins, N., Lynch, T.M, Read, G., Kraus, A., Malacane, M., & Tompkins, J. (2015, April).
Social media, body image, and identity. Panel presentation on the Representation of
Girls in the Media and Toys sponsored by The White House Council on Women and
Girls and the U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC.

Malacane, M., Goren, M. J., & Treadway, J.R. (2011, November). The influence of popular
adolescent television programs. Poster presented at the 32nd annual conference for
the Society of Southeastern Social Psychologists (SSSP): Johnson City, TN.
Ratti, H., Malacane, M., Treadway, J.R., & Goren, M. J. (2011, March). The increase in
sexualized messages in adolescent programs. Poster presented at the 34th annual
University of Georgia Convention of the Behavioral Sciences: Athens, GA.

Malacane, Mona. (2010, March) The increase in sexualized messages in adolescent

programs between now and ten years ago. Poster presented at the 33rd annual
University of Georgia Convention of the Behavioral Sciences: Athens, GA.

TEACHING (Indiana University)

Instructor of Record • Prepared lectures and class activities focusing on media

Media & Society literacy and current events for 90 undergraduate students.
Spring 2016 • Held office hours, developed all exam materials, and
 proctored exams.
• Responsible for grading of 90 students.
Associate Instructor • Attended weekly lectures, held office hours, wrote exam
Introduction to Media questions and proctored exams.
Spring 2018 • Taught three, 50 minute weekly discussion sections for 60
students.
• Responsible for grading and developing supplementary
teaching materials for discussion sections.
Associate Instructor • Attended weekly lectures and held office hours.
Media & Violence • Responsible for tracking attendance of 24 students.
Fall 2017 • Assisted with data collection and reliability analysis for the
class study.
Associate Instructor • Attended weekly lectures, held office hours, wrote exam
Media Processes & questions and proctored exams.
Effects • Guest lectured on Sex in the Media, and Youth Media Effects.
Spring 2017 • Responsible for grading of 72 students.
Associate Instructor • Attended weekly lectures, held office hours, wrote exam
Children & Media questions and proctored exams.
Fall 2016 • Guest lectured on Sex in the Media.
• Responsible for grading of 73 students.
Associate Instructor • Attended weekly lectures and held office hours.
Introduction to • Co-responsible for grading and tracking attendance of 123
Industry and students.
Management
Fall 2015
Associate Instructor • Attended weekly lectures, held office hours, wrote exam
Introduction to Media questions and proctored exams.
and Society • Co-responsible for grading and tracking attendance of 123
Spring 2013 students.
Associate Instructor • Attended weekly lectures, held office hours, wrote exam
Introduction to Media questions and proctored exams.
and Society • Co-responsible for grading and tracking attendance of 123
Fall 2012 students

INVITED PRESENTATIONS (Indiana University)

• Fall 2015, invited guest lecture discussing Media and the Sexual Double Standard
(Course: Social Scientific Perspectives of Gender)
• Spring 2015, Media Arts and Sciences Speakers Series, The Media School, Women’s
role in action movie trailers: A content analysis examining sexual and agentic
portrayals, 1982-2013.
• Spring 2014, invited guest lecture discussing Sex in the Media (Course: Children and
Media)
• Spring 2013, invited guest lecture discussing Children as a Special Audience (Course:
Children and Media)
• Fall 2012, invited guest lecture discussing Sex and the Media (Course: Media &
Society)
• Fall 2012, invited guest lecture discussing Children and Media (Course: Media &
Society)

AWARDS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

• Be More Awards, Nominee (March 2018)

o The Be More Awards are hosted annually by the City of Bloomington
Volunteer Network. Individuals are nominated for this award in recognition
for their service and commitment to the nominating organization. I was
nominated by Girls Incorporated of Monroe County.
o My nominee profile and radio interview are available at this website:
http://wfhb.org/news/activate-girls-inc-mona-clay/
• Girls Incorporated of Monroe County, Volunteer of the Month (November 2016,
2017)
o These awards have a personal significance to my CV. Although they are
symbolic accolades, they represent my passion and dedication to making a
positive and direct impact in the lives of young people in my community.

Indiana University
• $500, College of Arts and Sciences, Travel Award Grant (2016)
• $250, Top Student Paper Award (first author), National Communication Association
- Mass Communication Division (2016)
• $275, Student Travel Grant Recipient, National Communication Association -
Women’s Caucus (2015)
• Top Paper Award (co-author), International Communication Association (ICA),
Children, Adolescents, and Media Division (2014)
• $250, Student Travel Grant Recipient, National Communication Association -
Women’s Caucus (2013)

University of Georgia
• Best Symposium Presentation, 2011
• UGA Presidential Scholar, 2010-2011
• Dean’s List, 2007-2011
• HOPE Scholar, 2007-2011
• Multicultural Achievement Program Award Recipient, 2007-2009
 SERVICE

• Volunteer at Girls Incorporated of Monroe County (February 2015 – January 2019)

• Board member, Girls Incorporated Board of Trustees (April – August 2018)
• Reviewer, Communication Research Reports
• Reviewer, National Communication Association (Mass Communication Division)
• Reviewer, Journal of Family Issues
• Reviewer, American Journal of Sexuality Education

Indiana University
• M.A. representative for the Media School Graduate Student Advisory Committee,
Spring 2014
• Writer for Telecommunications GradBlog, iutelecomgrad.wordpress.com, Fall
2013-Spring 2015

University of Georgia
• Active Minds, Research Liaison
• Psi Chi Honor Society for Psychology, Secretary
• Center for Undergraduate Research (CURO), Honors Researcher
• Forgotten Friends, Volunteer

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

• National Communication Association (NCA)

o Member of the Women’s Caucus and Mass Communication Divisions
• Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP)
• Psi Chi International Honor Society in Psychology

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.