Computers in Human Behavior 132 (2022) 107254

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Screen-play: An observational study of the effect of screen media on

Children’s play in a museum setting
Jane E. Shawcroft *, Megan Gale, Katey Workman, Virginia Leiter, McKell Jorgensen-Wells,
Alexander C. Jensen
Brigham Young University, School of Family Life, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Research suggests that young children develop and learn primarily through play. Children play in a large number
Social development of settings, one of particular interest are interactive children’s museums. These museums provide optimal places
Emotion development to observe social play processes for young children. Another context to children’s play is media use, which has
Children’s museum
been linked to a wide variety of outcomes depending on the context of the media use. This paper utilizes
Technoference
Media emotion regulation
observational micro-longitudinal methods to examine the effect of media on the play processes in a children’s
Co-viewing museum in a sample of 150 children (a total of 1500 min of observation). Overall, we found that first, children
did not use personal screens (tablets, smartphones, etc.) while in the museum setting. Second, we found that
screens built into the exhibits played little role in children’s social and emotional expression while playing at
children’s museums, with one exception. Children struggled to transition out of media use well, and thus had a
decrease in positive social interactions after playing at an exhibit with some form of media or screen. These
findings and implications for children’s social and emotional development are discussed.

Today, children are born and raised with screens at their fingertips,
unlimited types of media to watch and play, and a variety of technology
devices on which to consume content (Kabali et al., 2015; Rideout,
2017). Because of this media saturated environment, children today are
sometimes referred to as digital natives (Kincl & Štrach, 2021; Paulus
et al., 2021; Prensky, 2001). These digital natives have been studied in a
wide variety of contexts which examine the impact of a media-rich
environment on various aspects of development (e.g., Coyne et al.,
2021; Pempek & Kirkorian, 2020), and a growing body of research has
found that screen media use may impact young children’s development
in a number of areas (e.g., Allen & Vella, 2015; Coyne et al., 2021; Setliff
& Courage, 2011). One important developmental context for children is
play (Ginsburg, 2007), which can be effectively observed in children’s
museums (Braswell, 2012; Callanan, 2012). Thus, to better understand
the important developmental implications of screen media for children’s
play, this paper will examine the effect of screen media on the social and
emotional play behavior of children (2–9 years old) in a children’s
museum.
1. Social play and Children’s museums
Research suggests that young children develop and learn primarily
through social play (Ginsburg, 2007). Social play provides opportunities
for fostering multiple aspects of children’s social and emotional devel­
opment – a developmental domain key for familial relationships (Yog­
man et al., 2018), academic achievement (Wallace & Russ, 2015), peer
relationship, and occupational success. For example, during social play,
children learn how to make decisions, solve problems, and follow rules
(Gray, 2011); exert self-control and learn both to express and regulate
emotions (Haight et al., 2006; Gray, 2011; Berk et al., 2006); make
friends and get along with others (Gray, 2011; Golinkoff, 2006); and
practice crucial social skills such as turn-taking, effective communica­
tion, interacting with peers appropriately, monitoring, and reciprocity
(Preissler, 2006). It is through these outcomes that social play drives
social and emotional development in children.
Children play in a large number of settings. One setting of particular
interest are interactive children’s museums. These museums provide
optimal places to observe social play and the effect of media on chil­
dren’s social play processes, as children’s museums are dedicated spaces
set aside to promoting play, exploration, and interpersonal interaction

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jane.stephens@byu.edu (J.E. Shawcroft).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107254
Received 14 September 2021; Received in revised form 18 February 2022; Accepted 25 February 2022
Available online 26 February 2022
0747-5632/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.E. Shawcroft et al.
(Luke et al., 2021). Many parents, as well as schools and other groups,
take their children to museums to give children a space to engage in
social play, explore, and interact with other children. Within these en­
vironments, children are able to interact with other children, adults, and
a variety of cultural and educational exhibits, creating environments
rich in opportunities to learn (Braswell, 2012). Visiting children have
ready access to a variety of stimuli in an environment that is less
structured and more naturalistic than conventional laboratories or
classrooms (Callanan, 2012). While limitations, such as self-selection
bias (Callanan, 2012) and dissimilarities with other common contexts
(Braswell, 2012) should be thoughtfully considered, the characteristics
of children’s museums make a unique and valuable contribution to
research on child social play and learning (Callanan, 2012), especially as
children’s museums are purposeful spaces dedicated to fostering chil­
dren’s development through social play.
From a theoretical standpoint, screen media may impact social play
by changing the context of the processes which take place during social
play. As such, we use the Bioecological theory to frame this study. Ac­
cording to Bioecological theory, proximal processes (enduring patterns
of interaction) are influenced by both environmental factors which can
either positively or negatively affect the child’s long-term development
(Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Krebs & Davies, 2009; Merçon-Vargas
et al., 2020). For the purposes of this study, we view the presence of
either personal screen media or exhibit screen media as the environ­
mental context that social play (the proximal process) takes place
within.
1.1. Children’s screen media use
The power of screen media as an environmental factor which may
impact social play is necessary to consider in light of the amount of
media the average child consumes. Some research has examined media
use patterns of children in the United States (Rideout & Robb, 2020).
Very young children (younger than 2 years old) spend on average 49
min, young children (ages 2 to 4) spend on average 2 h 30 min, and older
children (ages 5 to 8) spend just over 3 h on screen media per day
(Rideout & Robb, 2020). Television and video viewing remain the top
type of screen media consumed by children, followed by video chatting,
electronic reading, and gaming (Rideout & Robb, 2020). In addition to
using the family localized television and parents’ mobile devices, a
growing number of children utilize their own devices, with 42% of
toddlers reporting their tablet was their favorite toy in one study (Eisen
et al., 2021). Indeed, although patterns vary by race (Rideout & Robb,
2020), gender (Rideout & Robb, 2020), and socioeconomic status
(Tomopoulos et al., 2010), about half to two thirds of children (ages 2–8
years old) own and use their own tablet or smart phone (Rideout &
Robb, 2020). Parents may let their children use screen media for a va­
riety of reasons: to learn (e.g., how to read, count, treat others, etc.;
Nikken & Schols, 2015), to connect with others (e.g., with grandparents
who may live far away; Myers et al., 2016), to calm strong emotions
(Coyne et al., 2021), or to give parents a break to be able to fulfill
parental responsibilities (Kabali et al., 2015).
1.2. Screen media and social play
While many young children consume a large amount of screen media
on a regular basis, research indicates that not all screen media is
inherently equal in developmental consequence. Indeed, the effect of
screen media on social play (and thereby development) depends largely
on the context and content of the screen media. Some research has
explored the influence that screen media within the museum context can
have on children’s learning and exploration (Roussou, 2010). However,
there remains a significant gap within literature to better understand the
effect of museum screen media on children’s social and emotional ex­
pressions. This is a significant gap, as museum contexts are increasingly
introducing media and technology as a means to engage visitors
2
Computers in Human Behavior 132 (2022) 107254
(Khawan, 2021; Leoni & Cristofaro, 2021). As children’s museums
however, are often aimed to help children’s development by fostering
play (Luke et al., 2021), the presence of screen media in a children’s
museum may alter how children play and interact with others.
To understand how media within the museum setting might impact
children’s social and emotional behaviors, researchers should first un­
derstand the major media-related processes that children can take part.
Three major processes that influence the developmental consequences of
screen media use within social play are co-viewing, technoference, and
emotional regulation (or soothing). Below, we offer explanations for
how each of these three processes may matter with screen media use
during social play in children’s museums.
Screen media use, through processes such as co-viewing, or joint
media engagement, may help strengthen familial and other social re­
lationships (Work, 2017) by creating shared experiences. Co-viewing
can act as an important proximal process, especially for children
raised in a media-rich environment, as co-viewing processes can teach
children to use screen media as a means to connect, rather than to isolate
(Coyne et al., 2014). For example, one study found that while increased
time spent playing videogames was associated with negative outcomes
for adolescents, co-playing videogames with a parent was associated
with positive outcomes for adolescents, especially girls (Coyne et al.,
2011). Within the museum context, some exhibits have built in screens
with media activities that children can interact with and learn from
Roussou (2010). Based on the concepts and literature surrounding
co-viewing, exhibit screen media has the potential to foster healthy so­
cial and emotional behavior if children interact with the exhibit screen
media with other children or parents.
While co-viewing is a media context generally linked to positive
developmental outcomes, other contexts, such as technoference (the
interruption of interpersonal interactions due to screen media use), can
have a less positive effect on the proximal processes guiding children’s
play (McDaniel & Radesky, 2017). Technoference processes can
contribute to greater externalizing and withdrawing behaviors in chil­
dren when parents are isolated from their children via screen media use
(McDaniel & Radesky, 2017). It is possible that technoference processes
may happen without the use of personal screen media. For example,
background media can also distract parents, resulting in less frequent
and lower quality parent-child interactions during social play (Pempek
et al., 2014). Little research, however, has examined the effect of tech­
noference on children’s social play processes. Based on previous findings
surrounding technoference, it may be possible that exhibit screen media
would draw children to more isolated play, rather than engaging in
other social play opportunities.
Screen media may also impact social play if parents are reliant on
screen media to soothe young children’s problematic emotions. As social
play is an important developmental context (especially in public spaces)
where children have to learn to share, wait their turn, and work with
other children they may not know; it is likely that many children express
negative emotions at some point during their social play (Chen & Fleer,
2016). However, the presence of screen media during play may disrupt
these learning processes, as recent research has found that many parents
use screen media to regulate their children’s unpleasant emotions
(Coyne et al., 2021). It is possible that instead of a child learning to
regulate unpleasant emotions during social play, parents may instead
use screen media to calm an upset child, inhibiting the developmental
processes fostered by social play. Because children museums provide
settings for exploring and social play, children may express a variety of
positive and negative emotions. As such, parents may use personal
screen media as a means of emotion regulation for their children’s
negative emotions. Parents may socially desire their children to behave
in public and handing a child personal screen media may be the quickest
and easiest solution to soothe negative emotion.
J.E. Shawcroft et al.
1.3. Current study
This paper explored the role that screen media has in the social and
emotional expression of children’s social play and children’s museums.
Through a Bioecological perspective, we view both personal screen
media and exhibit screen media (as a part of the museum environment)
as an important contextual factor which may change the social play
processes children engage in. As such, we explore the following research
question; how do the presence of screens (both personal and museum
screens) affect children’s social interactions, positive interactions,
expressed emotion, and external regulation in comparison to children
playing without personal or museum screens? Due to the nuanced nature
of research surrounding the effect of media use on children’s develop­
ment and behaviors in many domains (e.g., Allen & Vella, 2015; Coyne
et al., 2021; Setliff & Courage, 2011), we explored this research question
broadly rather than testing explicit hypotheses. This allowed us to better
explore patterns of observed behaviors within our theoretical frame­
work, as screens may guide proximal processes in both negative and
positive ways. Because children’s media use can have both concurrent
and predictive future social interactions, positive interactions, expressed
emotion, and external regulation.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Participants were 150 children who visited the Museum of [name
redacted for blind peer review]. All children were between the ages of 2
and 9 years old (Mage = 4.64, SD = 2.12; 52.67% male). Descriptive
statistics for all variables are displayed in Table 1.
2.2. Procedure
Researchers identified children in the target age range (two to nine
years old) and approached the child’s caregiver. After introducing
themselves, the researchers described the study and asked for verbal
assent to observe the child. If assent was given, the researcher asked the
age of the child. Caregivers were then asked if they would like to be
entered into a drawing for an annual pass to the museum, if so, they
provided an email address.
Each child was observed for a 10-min period by two researchers. The
researchers observed the child from different angles within the museum,
following the child from one exhibit or gallery to another as needed to
continue observation while maintaining enough space to remain
inconspicuous. The researchers used a 10-min timer that went off in 1-
min intervals. At each 1-min interval the researchers coded for each
behavior. At the end of the 10-min observation, the two researchers
immediately met in a private space to reconcile any differences in their
coding. Although some differences arose from coder error, many dis­
crepancies occurred because coders observed each child from different
angles within the museum. In this regard, at times one coder may have
Table 1
Frequencies of main study variables at the level of observations, not in­
dividuals, even for age and gender.
Variable M (SD) or Frequency (%)
Age 4.64 (2.12)
Male 790 (52.67%)
Museum media 235 (27.94%)
Personal media 1 (.00%)
Social play 860 (57.33%)
Positive interaction 394 (26.46%)
External emotion regulation 120 (8.06%)
Expressed emotion 598 (39.87%)
Positive affect 469 (31.50%)
Negative affect 156 (10.48%)
3
Computers in Human Behavior 132 (2022) 107254
had a better view of a behavior over the other coder. Because of the
different viewing angles and because each observation was immediately
reconciled, reliability scores are less applicable. However, we still report
Cohen’s kappa for all relevant codes (see observational codes section). A
total of twelve researchers participated in the coding. After each
observation they rotated coding partners.
All procedures were approved by the institutional review board of
the last author (protocol number: IRB2020-456).
2.3. Observational codes
The observational coding scheme consisted of the broader socio-
demographic characteristics of age and gender; the museum character­
istics of gallery and exhibit; and the social and emotional development
(SED) domains of social partner, type of play, social skills, emotional ex­
pressions, emotional regulation, and outside media use.
Socio-demographic characteristics. Immediately upon receiving
consent, research assistants asked parents for the target child’s age (in
years) and gender (0 = female, 1 = male).
Museum gallery and exhibit. The museum has three primary gal­
leries: Kidopolis (coded as 1), Rain Forest (2), and Water Works (3).
Coders noted the gallery the target child spent the majority of each 1-
min period in. If the child spent the majority of the minute in transit
or between galleries, a 0 was recorded for gallery.
Within each gallery, there were a number of different exhibits. The
exhibit that the target child spent the majority of each 1-min period was
coded. The presence of screens within exhibits were also coded (0 = no
screen in exhibit, 1 = yes screen in exhibit). A screen constituted any
aspect of the exhibit such as touchscreens, or television screens which
were a vehicle for media. Common types of screen media at the museum
included touch-screen games, activity controls, and background or
interactive videos. The children were observed in 45 total unique ex­
hibits (33% contained screens). Across the 1500 observation minutes,
children spent 27% of their time at exhibits with screens. Across all
children 79% changed exhibits at least once during the 10-min obser­
vation. On average children visited 3.26 (SD = 2.82) exhibits during the
observation.
SED. Each domain of the coding scheme’s SED portion consisted of
multiple specified behaviors, appropriate for one or all age group(s). For
example, the social partner domain included codes on whether the child
had interacted with their parent (Cohen’s kappa = .73), another adult
(Cohen’s kappa = .57), or a child (peer) (Cohen’s kappa = .64). This
enabled the use of binary codes (0 = behavior was not present, 1 =
behavior was present) to ensure simplicity while coding. All behaviors
were coded independently from the others, including those in the same
domain, except that the subcategories under some domains were
mutually exclusive while others were not. For example, within the social
partner domain, the subcategories were not mutually exclusive, so
multiple “yes” codes could be recorded at the same time (e.g., a child
was interacting with both their sibling and their parent simultaneously).
Types of play consisted of various types of social play children often
engage in, as outlined in previous research (e.g., Rubin, 2001; Weisberg,
2015). The categories were cooperative (the child plays in a group that is
organized, all working towards one common goal; Cohen’s kappa =
.61), associative (the child plays in a group with a common activity, but
not all working towards on goal; Cohen’s kappa = .39), parallel (the
child plays near another child without influencing or being influenced
by the child near them; Cohen’s kappa = .53), solitary (the child plays by
themselves; Cohen’s kappa = .66), onlooker (the child watches others
play and does not become involved with the activity; Cohen’s kappa =
.56), and unoccupied (the child is not attending to nearby activities;
Cohen’s kappa = .29).Types of play could not occur simultaneously;
however, a child may have engaged in different types of play within the
same 1-min observation. Thus, multiple types of play could have been
coded within the same 1-min unit of observation. In this analysis, cat­
egories were collapsed to create one variable reflecting social play. Play
J.E. Shawcroft et al. Computers in Human Behavior 132 (2022) 107254

that was cooperative or associative was considered social play, while
play that was parallel, solitary, onlooker, or unoccupied was coded as
not social play.
The social skills domain consisted of positive interactions (reflecting
effective interpersonal relations; e.g., prosocial and helping behaviors,
empathy, turn-taking, cooperation; Caldarella & Merrell, 1997; Cohen’s
kappa = .34).
The emotions domain included positive affect (laughter, giggle, smile;
Dollar & Buss, 2014; Cohen’s kappa = .45), negative affect (crying,
yelling, scared, complaining; Laurent et al., 1999; Cohen’s kappa = .47),
shame or embarrassment (hiding their face, withdrawing, describing
themselves negatively; Alessandri & Lewis, 1996; Cohen’s kappa = .99),
and pride (shows parents what they have done, happy or excited after
accomplishing something; Cohen’s kappa = .35). These emotions could
be concurrent, such as a child getting excited (positive emotion) and
feeling pride for accomplishing a difficult task, but they could also all be
coded as absent during a given interval. Because shame, embarrassment,
and pride require a measure of social awareness (Caplovitz Barrett,
2005) and emerge somewhat later than more primary emotions, typi­
cally around the second year of life (Caplovitz Barrett, 2005), their
presence or absence can offer particular insight into young children’s
social development as well as their emotional experiences. In recogni­
tion of these developmental patterns, we coded evidence of primary and
social emotions separately. For the purposes of this analysis, however,
we condensed these codes into one indicator of emotional expression. A
child was coded as expressing emotion if any of these emotions had been
observed. While there are theoretical arguments to be made to keep
negative and positive emotions separate, we felt that combining these
terms into emotional expression was appropriate as a means to gauge
emotional learning. While negative emotions (e.g., anger, sadness,
shame) are unpleasant, they are an integral part of the human experi­
ence. Our hope, by creating one overarching emotional expression
variable is to capture if children’s emotional learning, on both sides of
the positive to negative continuum, is being affected by the presence of
screen media. Learning to experience and appropriately manage both
positive and negative emotions across a wide spectrum is essential to
healthy emotional development (Rowe & Fitness, 2018).
Emotional regulation strategies were comprised of internal (i.e.,
blocking sensory input, reappraising the situation; e.g., talking to one­
self about the situation, covering eyes or ears to avoid undesired sensory
experiences; Cohen’s kappa = .07) and external (i.e., co-regulation,
attention shifting; e.g., walking away from the situation, looking or
moving to another person for help or comfort; Cohen’s kappa = .34).
Both types of emotion regulation strategies were collapsed into one
category of emotion regulation.
Presence of Personal Media. The outside media use domain con­
sisted of only one category, with research assistants coding whether the
child used a personal media device not provided by the museum at any
point during each of the 1-min coding segments. However, as in our total
of 1500 observations only one instance of personal media use was
observed, we did not include personal media in our analyses, and instead
focus on museum media for our analyses, although we will discuss the
potential implications of the lack of personal media use in the
discussion.
within-subjects variables: interaction with a parent (0 = no; 1 = yes),
interaction with a child (0 = no; 1 = yes), if the current exhibit had a
screen (0 = no; 1 = yes), and whether the exhibit they were at the
previous minute had a screen (0 = no; 1 = yes). Interacting with per­
sonal screen media was not included because of the 1500 observations,
there was only one instance of a child using personal screen media.
3.2. Social play
Results for social play are presented in Table 2. Children interacting
with either a parent (b = 1.01, se = 0.27, p < .001, OR = 2.75) or a child
(b = 2.01, se = 0.26, p < .001, OR = 7.46) were more likely to be
engaged in social play. The presence of screens at the exhibits children
were playing at did not have a significant effect on children’s social play.
3.3. Positive interactions
Results for positive interactions are presented in Table 3. Older
children were more likely to engage in positive interactions (b = 0.15, se
= 0.07, p < .05, OR = 1.16). Further, children interacting with either a
parent (b = 1.08, se = 0.25, p < .001, OR = 2.94) or a child (b = 1.10, se
= 0.25, p < .001, OR = 3.00) were more likely to be engaged in positive
interactions. If children had been playing at an exhibit with a screen in
the previous minute (but not concurrently), they were less likely to
engage in a positive interaction (b = − 1.08, se = 0.43, p < .05, OR =
0.34).
3.4. Emotion regulation
Results for emotion regulation are presented in Table 4. Older chil­
dren were less likely to display emotion regulation (b = − 0.34, se = 0.09,
p < .001, OR = 0.71). Children interacting with a parent (b = 1.05, se =
0.36, p < .01, OR = 2.86) were more likely to engage in emotion
regulation. The presence of exhibit screen media did not have a signif­
icant effect on children’s use of emotion regulation strategies.
3.5. Expressed emotion
Results for expressed emotion are presented in Table 5. Children
interacting with either a parent (b = 0.73, se = 0.24, p < .01, OR = 2.07)
or a child (b = 0.71, se = 0.24, p < .01, OR = 2.03) were more likely to
express emotion. The presence of screens at the exhibits children were
playing at did not have a significant effect on children’s expressed
emotions.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this paper was to examine the role of screen media
(both personal and in museum exhibits) in children’s social and
emotional behavior at a children’s museum, specifically by examining
differences in how children’s social interactions, positive interactions,
expressed emotion, and external regulation differed when playing in
exhibits with vs. without screens. Based on previous research, there
were two primary possible patterns. First, museum and personal screens

3. Results Table 2
Multilevel binary logistic regression predicting social play. N = 1500.
3.1. Analytic strategy
Variable b SE OR

Analysis was conducted via a multilevel binary logistic regression. Exhibit screen .32 .42 1.38
Exhibit screen (lagged) .21 .41 1.23
The models tested 1500 observations (10 per child) nested within each Sex -.00 .37 1.00
child. The four outcomes: social play, positive interaction, emotion Age .05 .09 1.05
regulation, and expressed emotion, were all tested in their own models, Parent interaction 1.01*** .27 2.75
but in identical fashion. Each model included the following child-level/ Child interaction 2.01*** .26 7.46
Intercept − 1.01** .37 .36
between-subjects variables: sex (0 = female; 1 = male) and age (grand
mean centered). The models also included the following time-varying/ Note: *p < .05; ** < 0.01; ***p < .001.

4
J.E. Shawcroft et al. Computers in Human Behavior 132 (2022) 107254

Table 3 collection, as data was collected during the Covid-19 pandemic. Recent
Multilevel binary logistic regression predicting positive interaction. N = 1500. research suggests that overall media use increased during the Covid-19
Variable b SE OR pandemic, including increases in problematic media use among older
adolescents (Eales et al., 2021). Thus, the lack of personal media use in
Exhibit screen .27 .42 1.31
Exhibit screen (lagged) − 1.08* .43 .34 the museum context is even more important. Museums may provide
Sex .08 .30 1.08 parents a context where they do not need media to entertain, educate, or
Age .15* .07 1.16 socially engage their children. Although media use is not inherently
Parent interaction 1.08*** .25 2.94 maladaptive for healthy development, negative effects related to pat­
Child interaction 1.10*** .25 3.00
Intercept − 2.31*** .34 .10
terns such as technoference (McDaniel & Radesky, 2017) and media
emotion regulation (Coyne et al., 2021) suggest that media free contexts
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. in which children can practice social and emotional processes are
important. Thus, the lack of personal screen media suggests that the
museum space is an adaptive context for children’s social and emotional
Table 4
learning as a counterpoint for other developmental contexts that rely
Multilevel binary logistic regression predicting emotion regulation. N = 1500.
more heavily on media.
Variable b SE OR

Exhibit screen .31 .64 1.36 4.2. Exhibit screen media

Exhibit screen (lagged) -.38 .65 .68
Sex .19 .35 1.21
Age -.34*** .09 .71
For the most part, the presence of exhibit screens were not linked to
Parent interaction 1.05** .36 2.86 children’s social and emotional behavior at the museum nor were they
Child interaction .16 .34 1.17 used for emotion regulation. As we argued for personal screens, the
Intercept − 3.68*** .47 .03 children’s museum context is a space that is relatively devoid of the
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. negative processes driven by the presence of screen media like we see in
other contexts. Although our coding scheme did not capture if a child
was directly interacting with screen media within the exhibit, it is likely
Table 5 that the presence of exhibit screens in the museum space did not elicit
Multilevel binary logistic regression predicting expressed emotion. N = 1500. negative processes (technoference or media emotion regulation) as they
Variable b SE OR are larger, fixed parts of the museum space. Thus, children were forced
Exhibit Screen .05 .40 1.05
to share the screens with others within the exhibit, and did not have total
Exhibit Screen (lagged) -.22 .39 .80 control over the manipulation of these screens if they desired to engage
Sex -.05 .35 .95 with the screen (unlike a personal tablet or smartphone). It is likely that
Age -.11 .08 .90 these larger more fixed screens are harder to use for media emotion
Parent interaction .73** .24 2.07
regulation processes, as children cannot use the screens to block out, or
Child interaction .71** .24 2.03
Intercept − 1.38*** .36 .25 distract from their current environment, but instead are a part of the
museum environment. Furthermore, the shared nature of the exhibit
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
screens likely discourages technoference patterns, as anyone in the
museum space can engage with the various exhibit screens, thus making
could be linked to poorer social and emotional expression (specifically it difficult to block out other individuals (be it parents or other children).
through technoference or media emotion regulation patterns). Second, However, it is also possible that one some occasions, exhibit screen
museum and personal screens could be linked to better social and media fostered negative patterns (such as technoference), while on other
emotional expression (specifically through co-viewing patterns). Our occasions, exhibit screen media fostered positive patterns (such as co-
results suggest, however, that, screens played little role in children’s viewing).
social and emotional expression while playing at children’s museums, Our findings did indicate that children who engaged with an exhibit
although we did find that children who played in exhibits with screens with screen media were less likely to have positive interactions in the
expressed significantly fewer positive interactions in the following subsequent minute. Young children often struggle to transition out of
minute. media use (Hiniker et al., 2016) which may be what our findings indi­
cate. Although our coding scheme did not specifically capture children’s
4.1. Personal screen media difficulty in transitioning, this may be one possible reason for the
decrease in positive interactions after interacting in an exhibit with
Children, by and large, did not use personal screen media; there was screen media. Even if children enjoy engaging in media with others, they
only one observation where a child used a personal media device. This might have struggled to “tear themselves away” and disengage with the
was surprising because outside of the museum context, children are exhibit with screen media, which may have negative social conse­
frequent users of personal screens (tablets, smartphones, etc.; Rideout & quences (Hiniker et al., 2016). When considering that research per­
Robb, 2020). While it seems that media permeates many children’s lives, taining to parent-child technoference finds that parents struggle to
the children’s museum seems to be a context where media is not heavily disengage from media and still be warm and responsive to their children
utilized for emotion regulation (Coyne et al., 2021), or other purposes (e.g., Pempek et al., 2014; Radesky et al., 2014), it is not surprising that
such as entertainment, education (Nikken & Schols, 2015), connecting children may also struggle to transition out of media use well. Being
with family (Myers et al., 2016), or giving parents a break (Kabali et al., aware that transitioning out of a space with media is difficult for in­
2015). dividuals of all ages (parents and children), parents should find ways to
The near absent use of personal screens may be due in part to the help positively scaffold their children’s transition away from media.
nature of the museum environment. Children’s museums are designed to
engage children with the exhibits in fun and exciting ways, which may 5. Conclusion
decrease the draw toward personal media devices. Perhaps the lack of
personal media use is also due to the availability of other emotion This study is not without limitations. While our micro-longitudinal
regulation, educational, and entertainment strategies in the museum. design does allow us to examine short term change and patterns, we
This is especially pertinent given the overall context of our data are unable to make claims about the long-term effects of screens in

5
J.E. Shawcroft et al.
children’s play spaces. In addition, due to the observational methodol­
ogy employed in this study, our measures were limited to what research
assistants were able to observe. This was particularly challenging for
emotion regulation as it is unknown if observed regulation was a marker
of a child regulating well, or struggling to regulate because their regu­
lation strategies were observed. This issue is further compounded by the
fact that as children age, they increasingly use internal strategies that
are difficult to observe. Future research should examine the effect of
screens on children’s play in a variety of public settings using self and
parent reports, and physiological assessments. In addition, by not coding
the specific manner children interacted with exhibit screen media, we
are only able to propose theoretically-driven explanations for our find­
ings. Additionally, the children at the museum were comprised of pri­
marily white children. Due to the price of entry at the museum, the
sample also likely represents a higher socioeconomic stratum. As prior
research has documented differences in children’s use of media and
screens by SES and race/ethnicity (Tomopoulos et al., 2010), future
research should examine the effect of screens on children’s play in lower
SES groups as well as racial and ethnic minority families. Finally, future
research should explore how parents can best help scaffold their chil­
dren’s transition out of media use.
In sum, we found that children at the museum almost never used
personal screen media, and that screens at the museum exhibits played a
very small role in children’s social and emotional play expression. We
believe that when considering the effect of screens on children’s play,
screens do not have the adverse social and emotional effects in the
museum context that may appear in other spaces. Furthermore, and
perhaps most notably, the children’s museum seems to be a play space
where personal screens are unused, thus developmentally healthy play
practices can occur unencumbered.
Credit statement
Jane Shawcroft: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Writing – original draft, Project administration Megan Gale: Concep­
tualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft Katey
Workman: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing –
original draft Virginia Leiter: Conceptualization, Methodology, Inves­
tigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization McKell Jorgensen-
Wells: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – orig­
inal draft Alexander Jensen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Super­
vision, Formal analysis.
Declarations
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant
to the content of this article. No funds, grants, or other support was
received for this research. Data is available from authors upon request.
References
Alessandri, S. M., & Lewis, M. (1996). Development of the self-conscious emotions in
maltreated children. Emotional Development in Atypical Children, 185–201.
Allen, M. S., & Vella, S. A. (2015). Screen-based sedentary behaviour and psychosocial
well-being in childhood: Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations. Mental Health
and Physical Activity, 9, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2015.10.002
Berk, L. E., Mann, T. D., & Ogan, A. T. (2006). Make-believe play. Wellspring for
Development of Self-Regulation.
Braswell, G. S. (2012). Variations in children’s and adults’ engagement with museum
artifacts. Visitor Studies, 15(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10645578.2012.714997
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century:
Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings.
Social Development, 9(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00114
Caldarella, P., & Merrell, K. W. (1997). Common dimensions of social skills of children
and adolescents: A taxonomy of positive behaviors. School Psychology Review, 26(2),
264–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1997.12085865
Callanan, M. A. (2012). Conducting cognitive developmental research in museums:
Theoretical issues and practical considerations. Journal of Cognition and Development,
13(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.666730
6
Computers in Human Behavior 132 (2022) 107254
Caplovitz Barrett, K. (2005). The origins of social emotions and self-regulation in
toddlerhood: New evidence. Cognition & Emotion, 19(7), 953–979. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02699930500172515
Chen, F., & Fleer, M. (2016). A cultural-historical reading of how play is used in families
as a tool for supporting children’s emotional development in everyday life. European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(2), 305–319. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1350293x.2016.1143268
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Fraser, A. M., Fellows, K., & Day, R. D. (2014). Media
time = family time. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29(5), 663–688. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0743558414538316
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
outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49(2), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2010.11.249
Coyne, S. M., Shawcroft, J., Gale, M., Gentile, D. A., Etherington, J. T., Holmgren, H., &
Stockdale, L. (2021). Tantrums, toddlers and technology: Temperament, media
emotion regulation, and problematic media use in early childhood. Computers in
Human Behavior, 120, 106762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106762
Dollar, J. M., & Buss, K. A. (2014). Approach and positive affect in toddlerhood predict
early childhood behavior problems. Social Development, 23(2), 267–287. https://doi.
org/10.1111/sode.12062
Eales, L., Gillespie, S., Alstat, R. A., Ferguson, G. M., & Carlson, S. M. (2021). Children’s
screen and problematic media use in the United States before and during the COVID-
19 pandemic. Child Development, 92(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13652
Eisen, S., Matthews, S. E., & Jirout, J. (2021). Parents’ and children’s gendered beliefs
about toys and screen media. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 74,
101276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101276
Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development
and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182–191. https://doi.
org/10.1542/peds.2006-2697
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Singer, D. G. (2006). Why play= learning: A challenge
for parents and educators (pp. 3–12).
Gray, Peter. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and
adolescents. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 443–463.
Haight, W., Black, J., Ostler, T., & Sheridan, K. (2006). Pretend play and emotion learning
in traumatized mothers and children. Play= learning: How play motivates and enhances
children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 209–230).
Hiniker, A., Suh, H., Cao, S., & Kientz, J. A. (2016). Screen time tantrums. In Proceedings
of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. https://doi.org/
10.1145/2858036.2858278
Kabali, H. K., Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H.,
Leister, K. P., & Bonner, R. L. (2015). Exposure and use of mobile media devices by
young children. Pediactrics, 136(6), 1044–1050. https://doi.org/10.1542/
peds.2015-2151
Khawan, S. (2021). Using the technology in museums environments. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3782237
Kincl, T., & Štrach, P. (2021). Born digital: Is there going to be a new culture of digital
natives? Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 31(1), 30–48. https://doi.
org/10.1080/21639159.2020.1808811
Krebs, J., & Davies, N. (2009). The evolution of behavioral ecology. In Behavioural
Ecology: An Evolutionary approach (pp. 3–12). John Wiley & Sons.
Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E., Rudolph, K. D., Potter, K. I., Lambert, S., …
Gathright, T. (1999). A measure of positive and negative affect for children: Scale
development and preliminary validation. Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 326–338.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.326
Leoni, L., & Cristofaro, M. (2021). To adopt or not to adopt? A co-evolutionary
framework and paradox of technology adoption by small museums. Current Issues in
Tourism, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1870941
Luke, J. J., Rivera, N. R., Colbert, L. A., & Scharon, C. J. (2021). The problem of play in
children’s museums. International Journal of Play, 10(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21594937.2021.1878773
McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2017). Technoference: Parent distraction with
technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Development, 89(1),
100–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12822
Merçon-Vargas, E. A., Lima, R. F. F., Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2020). Processing proximal
processes: What bronfenbrenner meant, what He didn’t mean, and what He should
have meant. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jftr.12373
Myers, L. J., LeWitt, R. B., Gallo, R. E., & Maselli, N. M. (2016). Baby FaceTime: Can
toddlers learn from online video chat? Developmental Science, 20(4), Article e12430.
https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12430
Nikken, P., & Schols, M. (2015). How and why parents guide the media use of young
children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3423–3435. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10826-015-0144-4
Paulus, F. W., Möhler, E., Recktenwald, F., Albert, A., & Mall, V. (2021). Electronic media
and early childhood: A review. Klinische Pädiatrie. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1335-
4936
Pempek, T. A., & Kirkorian, H. L. (2020). Effects of background TV on early development
(pp. 1–9). The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology. https://doi.org/
10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0222
Pempek, T. A., Kirkorian, H. L., & Anderson, D. R. (2014). The effects of background
television on the quantity and quality of child-directed speech by parents. Journal of
Children and Media, 8(3), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17482798.2014.920715
J.E. Shawcroft et al.
Preissler, M. A. (2006). Play and autism: Facilitating symbolic understanding. Play=
learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and socio-emotional
growth (pp. 231–250).
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 2: Do they really think
differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/
10748120110424843
Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C. J., Zuckerman, B., Nitzberg, K., Gross, J., Kaplan-Sanoff, M.,
Augustyn, M., & Silverstein, M. (2014). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers
and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics, 133(4), e843–e849.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-3703
Rideout, V. (2017). The common sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. San
Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.
Rideout, V., & Robb, M. (2020). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens.
San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.
Roussou, M. (2010). Learning by doing and learning through play: An exploration of
interactivity in virtual environments for children. In Museums in a digital age (pp.
247–265). Routledge.
Rowe, A., & Fitness, J. (2018). Understanding the role of negative emotions in adult
learning and achievement: A social functional perspective. Behavioral Sciences, 8(2),
27. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8020027
Computers in Human Behavior 132 (2022) 107254
Rubin, K. H. (2001). The play observation scale (POS). Unpublished manuscript. University
of Maryland.
Setliff, A. E., & Courage, M. L. (2011). Background television and infants’ allocation of
their attention during toy play. Infancy, 16(6), 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1532-7078.2011.00070.x
Tomopoulos, S., Dreyer, B. P., Berkule, S., Fierman, A. H., Brockmeyer, C., &
Mendelsohn, A. L. (2010). Infant media exposure and toddler development. Archives
of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164(12). https://doi.org/10.1001/
archpediatrics.2010.235
Wallace, C. E., & Russ, S. W. (2015). Pretend play, divergent thinking, and math
achievement in girls: A longitudinal study. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 9(3), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039006
Weisberg, D. S. (2015). Pretend play. WIREs Cognitive Science, 6(3), 249–261. https://doi.
org/10.1002/wcs.1341
Work, A. (2017). The value of parental co-viewing on children and families. Cinesthesia, 6
(1), 3.
Yogman, M., Garner, A., Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2018). The
power of play: A pediatric role in enhancing development in young children.
Pediatrics, 142(3), Article e20182058. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018–2058