Utility of Parental Mediation Model on Youth’s Problematic Online Gaming

  • Rahim BenrazaviEmail author
  • Misha Teimouri
  • Mark D. Griffiths


The Parental Mediation Model (PMM) was initially designed to regulate children’s attitudes towards the traditional media. In the present era, because of prevalent online media there is a need for similar regulative measures. Spending long hours on social media and playing online games increase the risks of exposure to the negative outcomes of online gaming. This paper initially applied the PMM developed by European Kids Online to (i) test the reliability and validity of this model and (ii) identify the effectiveness of this model in controlling problematic online gaming (POG). The data were collected from 592 participants comprising 296 parents and 296 students of four foreign universities, aged 16 to 22 years in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). The study found that the modified model of the five-factor PMM (Technical mediation, Monitoring mediation, Restrictive mediation, Active Mediation of Internet Safety, and Active mediation of Internet Use) functions as a predictor for mitigating POG. The findings suggest the existence of a positive relation between ‘monitoring’ and ‘restrictive’ mediation strategies and exposure to POG while Active Mediation of Internet Safety and Active mediation of Internet use were insignificant predictors. Results showed a higher utility of ‘technical’ strategies by the parents led to less POG. The findings of this study do not support the literature suggesting active mediation is more effective for reducing youth’s risky behaviour. Instead, parents need to apply more technical mediations with their children and adolescents’ Internet use to minimize the negative effects of online gaming.


Parental mediation model Problematic youth online gaming Technical Monitoring Restrictive Active mediation of internet safety Active mediation of internet use 


  1. Atkin, D. J., Greenberg, B. S., & Baldwin, T. F. (1991). The home ecology of children’s televison viewing: parental mediation and the new video environment. Journal of Communication, 41(3), 40--52.Google Scholar
  2. Azim DHBF, Zam NABM, Rahman WRA. (2011). Internet addiction between malaysian male and female undergraduate human sciences students of the International Islamic University Malaysia. The 6th International Postgraduate Research Colloquium, Malaysia, 58--74. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00424.
  3. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 16(Series B), 296--298.Google Scholar
  4. Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2005). Parental mediation of undesired advertising effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(2), 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buijzen, M., Rozendaal, E., Moorman, M., & Tanis, M. (2008). Parent versus child reports of parental advertising mediation: exploring the meaning of agreement. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bybee, C. R., Robinson, D., & Turow, J. (1982). Determinants of parental guidance of children’s television viewing for a special subgroup: mass media scholars. Journal of Broadcasting, 26(3), 697--710.Google Scholar
  7. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS (Second.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245--276.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, C. (2010). Information visualization. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(4), 387--403.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, L. S. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication Theory, 21(4), 323--343.Google Scholar
  11. Daud, A., Omar, S. Z., Hassan, M. S., Bolong, J., & Teimouri, M. (2014). Parental Mediation of children’s positive use of the Internet Azlina. Life Science Journal, 11(8), 360–369.Google Scholar
  12. Demetrovics, Z., Urbán, R., Nagygyörgy, K., Farkas, J., Griffiths, M. D., Pápay, O., & Oláh, A. (2012). The development of the problematic online gaming questionnaire (POGQ). PloS ONE, 7(5), e36417. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036417.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. Retrieved from
  14. Duerager, A., & Livingstone, S. (2012). How can parents support children’s Internet safety? London: EU Kids Online Network.Google Scholar
  15. Fisher, D. A., 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. doi: 10.1080/15213260902849901.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
  17. Fujioka, Y., & Weintraub, A. E. (2003). The implications of vantage point in parental mediation of television and child’s attitudes toward drinking alcohol. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(3), 418–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaskin, J. (2012), “Name of tab”, Stats Tools Package. Accessed 25 Sept 2014.
  19. Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D.J., & Ortiz de Gortari, A. (2013). Videogames as therapy: a review of the medical and psychological literature. In I. M. Miranda & M. M. Cruz-Cunha (Eds.), Handbook of research on ICTs for healthcare and social services: developments and applications (pp.43--68). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  20. Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J. & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Social networking addiction: an overview of preliminary findings. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral addictions: criteria, evidence and treatment (pp.119--141). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  21. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New Jersy: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Hoffman, M. L. (1970). ‘Moral development’. In: P. H. Mussen (ed.), Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology, Volume 2. New York: Wiley, pp. 261--360.Google Scholar
  23. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.Google Scholar
  24. Ismail, K. (2011, October 11). Cyber-duped parents. Malay Mail. Kuala Lampour. Retrieved from
  25. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kapahi, A., Ling, C. S., Ramadass, S., & Abdullah, N. (2013). Internet addiction in Malaysia causes and effects. iBusiness, 05(02), 72–76. doi: 10.4236/ib.2013.52009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Attachment theory and religion: childhood attachments, religious beliefs, and conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(3), 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Latif, R. A., & Sheard, J. (2009). Social skills among students while playing computer games in class: a case study in Malaysia. Paper presented at the future computer and communication, 2009. ICFCC 2009. International Conference on, 3-5 April 2009.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, S.-J. (2012). Parental restrictive mediation of children’s internet use: effective for what and for whom? New Media & Society, 15(4), 466–481. doi: 10.1177/1461444812452412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, S.-J., & Chae, Y.-G. (2007). Children’s internet use in a family context: influence on family relationships and parental mediation. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10(5), 640–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liau, A. K., Khoo, A., & Ang, P. H. (2008). Parental awareness and monitoring of adolescent Internet use. Current Psychology, 27(4), 217–233. doi: 10.1007/s12144-008-9038-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581--599.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mesch, G. (2009). Social bonds and Internet pornographic exposure among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 32(3), 601–618. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental mediation and children’s aggression. Communication Research, 26(2), 124–143. doi: 10.1177/009365099026002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nathanson, A. I. (2002). The unintended effects of parental mediation of television on adolescents, Media Psychology, 4, 207–230.Google Scholar
  38. Nathanson, A. (2010). Using television mediation to stimulate nontraditional gender roles among Caucasian and African American children in the US. Journal of Children and Media, 4(2), 174–190. doi: 10.1080/17482791003629644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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(2), 181–202. doi: 10.1080/17439880600756803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2011). Parental mediation of young children’ s internet use, 1–26.Google Scholar
  41. Pápay, O., Nagygyörgy, K., Griffiths, M.D. & Demetrovics, Z. (2014). Problematic online gaming. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral addictions: criteria, evidence and treatment (pp.61--95). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  42. Peterson, G. W., & Hann, D. (1999). Socializing parents and children in families. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.). Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 327--370). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  43. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures, 8(2), 23–74.Google Scholar
  44. Shek, D. T. L. (2005). Perceived parental control and parent–child relational qualities in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Sex Roles, 53(9–10), 635–646. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-7730-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shin, W., & Huh, J. (2011). Parental mediation of teenagers’ video game playing: antecedents and consequences. New Media & Society, 13(6), 945--962.Google Scholar
  46. Shin, W., Huh, J., & Faber, R. (2012). Tweens’ Online Privacy Risks and the Role of Parental Mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 37–41. Retrieved from
  47. Smetana, J. G., & Daddis, C. (2002). Domain-specific antecedents of parental psychological control and monitoring: the role of parenting beliefs and practices. Child Development, 73(2), 563--580. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00424.
  48. Soh, P. C.-H., Yan, Y. L., Ong, T. S., & Teh, B. H. (2012). Digital divide amongst urban youths in Malaysia – myth or reality? Asian Social Science, 8(15). doi: 10.5539/ass.v8n15p75.
  49. Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: a reinterpretation. Child Development, 71(4), 1072--1085.Google Scholar
  50. Teimori, M., Hassan, M. S., Bolong, J., Tamam, E., Adzaruddin, N. A., & Daud, A. (2014). Re-examining parental mediation model for children internet safety. Journal of Language and Communication, 1(2), 209–220.Google Scholar
  51. Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. (1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: “instructive mediation”, “restrictive mediation”, and “social coviewing”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(1), 52–66. doi: 10.1080/08838159909364474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2014). Adolescent online safety: the “moral” of the story, (Cmd), 1258–1271.Google Scholar
  53. Zin, N. A. M., Yue, W. S., & Jaafar, A. (2009). Digital game-based learning (DGBL) model and development methodology for teaching history. WSEAS Transactions on Computers, 8(2), 322–333.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rahim Benrazavi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Misha Teimouri
    • 2
  • Mark D. Griffiths
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Educational Studies, Department of Professional Development and Continuing EducationUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Department of CommunicationUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdangMalaysia
  3. 3.International Gaming Research Unit, Psychology DivisionNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations