Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 1379–1391 | Cite as

Parents’ Degree and Style of Restrictive Mediation of Young Children’s Digital Gaming: Associations with Parental Attitudes and Perceived Child Adjustment

  • Stijn Van PetegemEmail author
  • Evelien de Ferrerre
  • Bart Soenens
  • Antonius J. van Rooij
  • Jan Van Looy
Original Paper



As young children increasingly grow up in a digital environment, parents are confronted with the question whether and how to regulate young children’s digital gaming effectively. The goal of this study was to examine correlates of parents’ degree of restrictive mediation and their (autonomy-supportive or controlling) style of doing so. Specifically, we tested associations of parents’ degree and style of restrictive mediation with parents’ attitudes about digital gaming, parental perceptions of children’s defiance and problematic gaming, and their interest in social play.


A sample of 762 parents of children between 3 and 9 years filled out questionnaires on their degree and style of restrictive mediation, their attitudes about gaming, and their perceptions of children’s oppositional defiance, problematic gaming, and interest in social play.


We found that parents who hold more negative attitudes about digital gaming were more likely to use a controlling style when mediating their child’s gaming. Further, a higher degree of restrictive mediation generally related to more adaptive child outcomes (i.e., lower levels of perceived defiance and problematic gaming, higher levels of perceived interest in social play), whereas the opposite pattern was found for parents’ controlling style of mediation. Finally, these associations were not moderated by children’s age or gender, nor by parents’ gender or educational level.


Also in the context of children’s digital gaming, it seems important for parents to set clear rules. Yet, when doing so, it is equally important to refrain from using controlling strategies, as they seem to be counterproductive.


Parental mediation Digital gaming Autonomy support Control 


Author Contributions

S.V.P. conceived of the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. E.D.F. coordinated the project and helped in analyzing the data and writing the manuscript. B.S. and A.V.R. helped with the interpretation of the data, and the writing of the manuscript. J.V.L. helped with the coordination and conception of the study, and with the writing of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

All procedures performed involving human participants in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ghent University Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

All participants were informed and consented their participation in the study.


  1. 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, 1042–1052. Scholar
  2. Austin, E. W., Bolls, P., Fujioka, Y., & Engelbertson, J. (1999). How and why do parents take on the tube. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43, 175–192. Scholar
  3. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319. Scholar
  4. Barber, B. K., Maughan, S. L., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Patterns of parenting across adolescence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 5–16. Scholar
  5. Baudat, S., Zimmermann, G., Antonietti, J.-P., & Van Petegem, S. (2016). The role of maternal communication style in adolescents’ motivation to change alcohol use: a vignette-based study. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 24, 152–162. Scholar
  6. Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81–95. Scholar
  7. Böcking, S., & Böcking, T. (2009). Parental mediation of television: test of a German-speaking scale and findings on the impact of parental attitudes, sociodemographic and family factors in German-speaking Switzerland. Journal of Children and Media, 3, 286–302. Scholar
  8. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399. Scholar
  9. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: a theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, B., Van Assche, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2015a). Does psychological need satisfaction matter when environmental or financial safety are at risk? Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 745–766. Scholar
  12. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Verstuyf, J. (2015b). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation & Emotion, 39, 216–236. Scholar
  13. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. Scholar
  14. Chirkov, V. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy-support in Russian and US adolescents: Common effects on well-being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 618–635. Scholar
  15. Clark, L. S. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication Theory, 21, 323–343. Scholar
  16. 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, 798–812. Scholar
  17. 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, 160–165. Scholar
  18. Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., & Queenan, P. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: pathway to social competence? Child Development, 74, 238–256. Scholar
  19. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: the impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101. Scholar
  20. Farkas, M. S., & Grolnick, W. S. (2010). Examining the components and concomitants of parental structure in the academic domain. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 266–279. Scholar
  21. Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. American Psychologist, 68, 57–74. Scholar
  22. Ferguson, C. J. (2015a). Does media violence predict societal violence? It depends on what you look at and when. Journal of Communication, 65, 1–22. Scholar
  23. Ferguson, C. J. (2015b). Clinicians’ attitudes toward video games vary as a function of age, gender and negative beliefs about youth: A sociology of media research approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 379–386. Scholar
  24. Ferguson, C. J., Coulson, M., & Barnett, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of pathological gaming prevalence and comorbidity with mental health, academic and social problems. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45, 1573–1578. Scholar
  25. Ferguson, C. J., & Konijn, E. A. (2015). She said/he said: a peaceful debate on video game violence. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4, 397–411. Scholar
  26. Ferguson, C. J., & Olson, C. K. (2013). Friends, fun, frustration and fantasy: child motivations for video game play. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 154–164. Scholar
  27. 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, 470–487. Scholar
  28. Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69, 66–78. Scholar
  29. Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J., Lopez-Fernandez, O., & Pontes, H. M. (2017). Problematic gaming exists and is an example of disordered gaming: Commentary on: scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal (Aarseth et al.). Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6, 296–301. Scholar
  30. Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: how well-meant parenting backfires. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Grolnick, W. S., Frodi, A., & Bridges, L. (1984). Maternal control style and the mastery of motivation of one-year-olds. Infant Mental Health, 5, 72–82. 10.1002/1097-0355(198422)5:2<72::AID-IMHJ2280050203>3.0.CO;2-O.Google Scholar
  32. Grolnick, W. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2009). Issues and challenges in studying parental control: toward a new conceptualization. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 165–170. Scholar
  33. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parental styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154. Scholar
  34. Grolnick, W.S., & Seal, K. (2008). Pressured parents, stressed-out kids: dealing with competition while raising a successful child. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  35. Gurland, S. T., & Grolnick, W. S. (2005). Perceived threat, controlling parenting, and children’s achievement orientations. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 103–121. Scholar
  36. Gutnick, A. L., Robb, M., Takeuchi, L., & Kotler, J. (2010). Always connected: the new digital media habits of young children. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
  37. Harvey, B., Matte-Gagné, C., Stack, D. M., Serbin, L. A., Ledingham, J. E., & Schwartzman, A. E. (2016). Risk and protective factors for autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting in high-risk families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 43, 18–28. Scholar
  38. Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Zero to eight. Young children and their internet use.
  39. Holtz, P., & Appel, M. (2011). Internet use and video gaming predict problem behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 49–58. Scholar
  40. Jansen, E., Mulkens, S., & Jansen, A. (2007). Do not eat the red food! Prohibition of snacks leads to their relatively higher consumption in children. Appetite, 49, 572–577. Scholar
  41. Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Landry, R. (2005). A longitudinal study of the relationship of maternal autonomy support to children’s adjustment and achievement in school. adjustment and achievement in school. Journal of Personality, 73, 1215–1236. Scholar
  42. Joussemet, M., Landry, R., & Koestner, R. (2008). A self-determination theory perspective on parenting. Canadian Psychology, 49, 194–200. Scholar
  43. Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self‐regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72, 1091–1111. Scholar
  44. Kousari, M., & Mehrabi, M. (2017). Children’s video game experiences: Iranian parents’ strategies of mediation. International Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 1–14.
  45. Kowert, R., Domahidi, E., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). Social gaming, lonely life? The impact of digital game play on adolescents’ social circles. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 385–390. Scholar
  46. Laurin, J. C., & Joussemet, M. (2017). Parental autonomy-supportive practices and toddlers’ rule internalization: a prospective observational study. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 562–575. Scholar
  47. Leinonen, J. A., Solantaus, T. S., & Punamäki, R.-L. (2002). The specific mediating paths between economic hardship and the quality of parenting. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 26, 423–435. Scholar
  48. Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A.R., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games, and civics: Teens’ gaming experiences are diverse and include significant social interaction and civic engagement. Pew Internet and American life Project.
  49. Li, A.Y.L., Lo, B.C.Y., & Cheng, C. (2018). It is the family context that matters: Concurrent and predictive effects of aspects of parent-child interaction on video gaming-related problems. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21, 374–380.
  50. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. Scholar
  51. Livingstone, S. (2007). Strategies of parental regulation in the media-rich home. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 920–941. Scholar
  52. Livingstone, S., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011) Disadvantaged children and online risk. EU Kids Online network, London, UK. Report, EU Kids Online network, London, UK.
  53. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 52, 581–599. Scholar
  54. Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., & Lagae, K. (2015). How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: the role of income, education and parental style. London: EU Kids Online, LSE.Google Scholar
  55. Loukas, A., Paulos, S. K., & Robinson, S. (2005). Early adolescent social and overt aggression: examining the roles of social anxiety and maternal psychological control. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 335–345. Scholar
  56. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis- testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341. Scholar
  57. McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311–346. Scholar
  58. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455. Scholar
  59. Mills, R. S., & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Are behavioural and psychological control both differentially associated with childhood aggression and social withdrawal? Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences Délután Comportement, 30, 132–136. Scholar
  60. Muthén, L.K. & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus User’s Guide (7th Edn). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  61. Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Parent and child perspectives on the presence and meaning of parental television mediation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 45, 201–220. Scholar
  62. Nathanson, A. I. (2015). Media and the family: reflections and future directions. Journal of Children and Media, 9, 133–139. Scholar
  63. Nikken, P. & Jansz, J. (2003). Parental mediation of children’s video game playing: a similar construct as television mediation. Paper presented at the Digital Games Research Association Conference, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  64. Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2006). Parental mediation of children’s videogame playing: a comparison of the reports by parents and children. Learning, Media and Technology, 31, 181–202. Scholar
  65. Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2007). Playing restricted videogames. Journal of Children and Media, 1, 227–243. Scholar
  66. Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2014). Developing scales to measure parental mediation of young children’s internet use. Learning, Media and Technology, 39, 250–266. Scholar
  67. Nikken, P., Jansz, J., & Schouwstra, S. (2007). Parents’ interest in videogame ratings and content descriptors in relation to game mediation. European Journal of Communication, 22, 315–336. Scholar
  68. Nikken, P., & Schols, M. (2015). How and why parents guide media use of young children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 3423–3435. Scholar
  69. Oosting, W., de Kort, Y.A., & Ijsselsteijn, W. (2012). Positive parents taking action: Parental mediation of children’s digital game-play. Paper presented at the e-Youth Conference, Antwerpen, Belgium.Google Scholar
  70. Przybylski, A. K. (2014). Who believes electronic games cause real world aggression? Cyberpsychology. Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 228–234. Scholar
  71. Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14, 154–166. Scholar
  72. Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2019). Digital screen time limits and young children’s psychological well-being: Evidence from a population-based study. Child Development, 90, 56–65. Scholar
  73. Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis: quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychological Science, 28, 204–215. Scholar
  74. Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., Murayama, K., Lynch, M. F., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). The ideal self at play: the appeal of video games that let you be all you can be. Psychological Science, 23, 69–76. Scholar
  75. Radesky, J. S., Schumacher, J., & Zuckerman, B. (2015). Mobile and interactive media use by young children: the good, the bad, and the unknown. Pediatrics, 135, 1–3. Scholar
  76. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. 10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68.Google Scholar
  77. Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2016). Autonomy and autonomy disturbances in self-development and psychopathology: Research on motivation, attachment, and clinical process. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental Psychopathology: Volume 1. Theory and Metod. 3rd Edn. (pp. 385–438). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  78. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2009). The motivational pull of video games: a self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 344–360. Scholar
  79. Sameroff, A. J., & Fiese, B. H. (2000). Transactional regulation: the developmental ecology of early intervention. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention. 2nd Ed. (pp. 135–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  80. Sanders, W., Parent, J., Forehand, R., Sullivan, A. D., & Jones, D. J. (2016). Parental perceptions of technology and technology-focused parenting: associations with youth screen time. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 44, 28–38. Scholar
  81. Scharrer, E. (2004). Virtual violence: gender and aggression in video game advertisements. Mass Communication and Society, 7, 393–412. Scholar
  82. Shin, W., & Huh, J. (2011). Parental mediation of teenagers’ video game playing: antecedents and consequences. New Media and Society, 13, 945–962. Scholar
  83. Skinner, E. A., Johnson, S., & Snyder, T. (2005). Six dimensions of parenting: a motivational model. Parenting: Science and Practice, 5, 175–235. Scholar
  84. Smetana, J. G. (1999). The role of parents in moral development: a social domain analysis. Journal of Moral Education, 28, 311–321. Scholar
  85. Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 119–153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erblaum.Google Scholar
  86. Snibbe, A. C., & Markus, H. R. (2005). You can’t always get what you want: educational attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 703–720. Scholar
  87. Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, 30, 74–99. Scholar
  88. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2009). Should parental prohibition of adolescents’ peer relationships be prohibited? Personal Relationships, 16, 507–530. Scholar
  89. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater: applying the principle of universalism without uniformity to autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 44–49. Scholar
  90. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Petegem, S., Beyers, W., & Ryan, R. (2018). How to solve the conundrum of adolescent autonomy? On the importance of distinguishing between independence and volitional functioning. In B. Soenens, M. Vansteenkiste, & S. Van Petegem (Eds.), Autonomy in Adolescent Development: Towards Conceptual Clarity (pp. 1–32). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  91. Valkenburg, P. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Hermanns, J., & Leeuw, R. (2013). Developing and validating the Perceived Parental Media Mediation Scale: a self-determination perspective. Human Communication Research, 39, 445–469. Scholar
  92. Van der Voort, T. H. A., Nikken, P., & van Lil, J. E. (1992). Determinants of parental guidance of children’s television viewing: a Dutch replication study. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 36, 61–74. Scholar
  93. Van Petegem, S., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Beyers, W. (2015a). Rebels with a cause? Adolescent defiance considered from the perspective of reactance theory and self-determination theory. Child Development, 86, 903–918. Scholar
  94. Van Petegem, S., Vansteenkiste, M., & Beyers, W. (2013). The jingle-jangle fallacy in adolescent autonomy in the family: in search of an underlying structure. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 994–1014. Scholar
  95. Van Petegem, S., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Beyers, W., & Aelterman, N. (2015b). Examining the longitudinal association between oppositional defiance and autonomy in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 51, 67–74. Scholar
  96. Van Petegem, S., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Zimmermann, G., Antonietti, J.-P., Baudat, S., & Audenaert, E. (2017a). When do adolescents accept or defy to maternal prohibitions? The role of social domain and communication style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1022–1037. Scholar
  97. Van Petegem, S., Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Brenning, K., Mabbe, E., Vanhalst, J., & Zimmermann, G. (2017b). Does general parenting context modify adolescents’ appraisals and coping with parental regulation? The case of autonomy-supportive parenting. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 2623–2639. Scholar
  98. Van Rooij, A. J., Ferguson, C. J., Colder Carras, M., Kardefelt-Winther, D., Shi, J., Aarseth, E., & Deleuze, J. (2018). A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: let us err on the side of caution. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 1–9. Scholar
  99. Van Rooij, A. J., Schoenmakers, T. M., van den Eijnden, R. J., Vermulst, A. A., & van de Mheen, D. (2012). Video game addiction test: validity and psychometric characteristics. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 507–511. Scholar
  100. Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263–280. Scholar
  101. Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Duriez, B. (2014). Longitudinal associations between adolescent perceived degree and style of parental prohibition and internalization and defiance. Developmental Psychology, 50, 229–236. Scholar
  102. Wartella, E., Rideout, V.J., Lauricella, A., & Connell, S. (2013). Parenting in the Age of Digital Technology: A National Survey. Report of the Center on Media and Human Development, School of Communication, Northwestern University.
  103. Weinstein, N., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The impacts of motivational framing of technology restrictions on adolescent concealment: Evidence from a preregistered experimental study. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 170–180. Scholar
  104. Whipple, N., Bernier, A., & Mageau, G. (2011). Broadening the study of infant security of attachment: Maternal autonomy-support in the context of infant exploration. Social Development, 20, 17–32. Scholar
  105. Yu, S., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Maeda, Y. (2018). General need for autonomy and subjective well-being: a meta-analysis of studies in the US and East Asia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19, 1863–1882.
  106. Zaman, B., & Mifsud, C.L. (2017). Young children’s use of digital media and parental mediation. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11(3).
  107. Zaman, B., Nouwen, M., Vanattenhoven, J., de Ferrerre, E., & Van Looy, J. (2015). A qualitative inquiry into the contextualized mediation practices of young children’s digital media use at home. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 60, 1–22. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Family and Development Research Center (FADO), Institute of PsychologyUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Research group for Media and ICT, Department communication sciencesiMinds-MICT-Ghent UniversityGentBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Developmental, Personality, and Social PsychologyGhent UniversityGentBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Youth and Risky BehaviorTrimbos InstituteUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations