Digital Location Tracking of Children and Adolescents: A Theoretical Framework and Review

Abstract

Many parents in the U.S. have begun using GPS-based digital location tracking (DLT) technologies (smartphones, tags, wearables) to track the whereabouts of children and adolescents. The paper lays the foundation for an emerging science of DLT by performing the first-ever theoretical analysis and review of empirical literature on DLT. First, we develop a framework to clarify how DLT should be conceptualized and measured, how it compares to historical strategies for monitoring youths’ location, and the mechanisms by which it might affect youth adjustment. Second, we review what is known about DLT today, finding that (1) DLT use is now common from childhood to emerging adulthood, with 33-69% of families using it; (2) there are sociodemographic differences in DLT use; (3) DLT use has significant cross-sectional associations with other parenting behaviors, with family functioning, and with youth adjustment; and (4) there is much speculation, but minimal data, about the new ethical and developmental issues that might arise from DLT use (e.g., privacy invasions). Third, we critique the existing evidence base to outline priorities for future research, emphasizing the need for longitudinal data, better measurement, and moving beyond convenience samples. We conclude that DLT is a new, common, and vastly understudied parenting behavior of clinical and developmental relevance.

Introduction

Parents want to know where their children are. In the past 10 years, many parents have begun using digital location tracking (DLT) - GPS-based geolocation of an electronic device (e.g., smartphone) - to track the whereabouts of children and adolescents. One recent estimate suggests that more than 50% of families in the United States now use DLT (Burnell et al., 2023). Multiple indicators suggest the popularity of DLT is increasing rapidly (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Theory for How Digital Location Tracking (DLT) Affects Youth Behavior or Adjustment.

Note. An arrow emerging from one box and entering the next box indicates a causal effect of the former on the latter. Effects may be nonlinear and interactive. Arrows highlighted in pink indicate effects that are moderated by youth secrecy. The green boxes depict DLT and the yellow box depicts youth behavior and adjustment. The gray boxes depict mediational links by which DLT affects youth behavior and adjustment. The blue boxes depict conceptually related constructs that do not lie along the mediational chain, but contribute to the process.

The advent of DLT could be a major shift. Whereas historical strategies for monitoring youths’ location were asynchronous, imprecise, and often time-consuming, DLT enables parents to obtain real-time, continuous, and accurate information about youths’ location with little planning or effort. Yet DLT also brings new ethical issues around the consent, privacy, and autonomy of youth and may change parents’ expectations of themselves and their youth.

To set the stage for an emerging research topic, this paper makes three contributions. First, we develop a theoretical framework to clarify how DLT connects to prior literatures, how it should be conceptualized and measured, and the mechanisms by which it might affect youth adjustment. Second, we review the published literature to synthesize what is known about DLT today and identify key priorities for future research. Third, we critique the existing evidence base to outline priorities for future research. Thus, this paper comprises the first theoretical analysis and review of research on DLT. We begin with a brief description of the technology.

Digital Location Tracking (DLT)

DLT uses the GPS of an electronic device and a network (cellular, wifi) to transmit location information. DLT can be implemented with three types of devices–tags, wearables, and smartphones–each manufactured by multiple companies. Table 1 compares the use-cases and attributes of the three device types.

Table 1.

Comparison of Device Types for Digital Location Tracking (DLT) as of 2023

Characteristic	Device Type
	Mobile smartphones	Wearables	Tags
Examples	Phone apps: Find My (Apple©), Life360™, Qustodio, mSpy, Google Family Link, Verizon Smart Family	Watches: Garmin Bounce, SyncUp Kids, Verizon Gizmo, and Xplora X5 Play	Apple Airtag, Jiobit Smart Tag, and Invoxia GPS Tracker
How it works	Relies on GPS plus a network (cellular, wifi). Location information is accessed on the parent’s phone via an app.	Relies on GPS plus a network (cellular, wifi). Location information is synced to the parent’s phone via an app.	Relies on GPS plus a network (cellular, wifi). Some tags require a Bluetooth connection to another device (e.g. smartphone) to transmit information. Location information is synced to the parent’s phone via an app.
Battery life	~12-18 hours depending on the smartphone	~ 2-7 days depending on the wearable	~ 1 week to 1 year depending on the tag
Age relevance	Fewer young children have their own smartphone (Rideout et al., 2021; Auxier et al., 2020): • 13% of youth ages 5-8 • 31% of youth age 8 • 42% of youth age 10 • 71% of youth age 12 • 91% of youth age 14	Appropriate for all ages. Youth might dislike the appearance of wearing certain brands.	Appropriate for all ages. Must be embedded in something, such as a backpack, jacket, pocket, or shoe- thus, could be inappropriate for younger children who are less likely to reliably carry possessions.
Convenience and acceptability	If youth already have a smartphone, there is no additional item to carry around or manage	Convenient for youth who are not old enough for a smartphone; it is attachable to their bodies so it is hands free convenience. Youth or parents may value features such as collecting and providing feedback on exercise, sleep, and other health habits.	Smallest tracking devices so convenient in size. Appropriate for youth without a smartphone who do not want to wear a watch.
Ability for youth to circumvent location tracking	Youth have motivation not to leave their smartphone behind due to their attachment to it but for some apps and software youth can disable location tracking. However, apps like mSpy or Find My track without the youth’s knowledge which inhibits them from disabling it.	Youth can leave their watches in a location they are not at to circumvent tracking	Youth can leave their tags in a location they are not at to circumvent tracking
Ability for parents to conceal use of location tracking	Youth may not realize the smartphone is being used for DLT because the phone has other purposes too. Some smartphone apps don’t display an icon, concealing their existence.	Youth may not realize the wearable is being used for DLT because the wearable has other purposes too (e.g., telling time, tracking exercise, or providing entertainment through apps).	The only use of tags is to provide location tracking; unless youth do not know the tag is in their backpack or jacket pocket, parents are unable to conceal its use for DLT
Ability to geofence	Most smartphone apps and software can geofence	A minority of wearables offer geofencing	No tags offer geofencing
Additional features for parental control	There are a variety of apps that offer additional parental control features such as monitoring screen-time, monitoring social media, blocking inappropriate content, restricting apps and websites, etc.	No wearables offer other parental control features	No tags offer other parental control features

Note. DLT = digital location tracking and GPS = global positioning system. This summary was created in mid-2023. Note that devices, apps, and features for DLT change rapidly and this information may no longer be accurate.

The device most commonly used for DLT is likely the smartphone: more than half of U.S. 11-year-olds own a personal smartphone and more than 90% do so by age 14 (Rideout et al., 2021). The parent and youth both install a DLT app on their phone or enable the pre-installed feature. Then, at any given moment, the parent can open the app on their own phone and see the current location of the youth’s phone.

There are many smartphone apps for DLT. Popular apps today include Life360^™, Apple^™ Find My, Qustodio^™, Google^™ Family Link, and Verizon^™ Smart Family. The apps vary in their features. Most have two features intended to make tracking location easier: geofencing and location history. With geofencing, parents can create virtual geographic boundaries that trigger an alert when crossed by the device. For example, parents could geofence the family’s home to receive automatic alerts when the youth comes and goes. With location history, parents can view not only youths’ current location but also their past locations for 2-30 days prior.

Some apps offer extra features such as parental controls over the device (e.g., to block certain websites) or tracking of the youth’s driving. In addition, some apps allow the parent (or other family members) to also share their own location with the youth.

Youth Participation in DLT

DLT use can occur with or without the youth’s knowledge and cooperation. Some DLT smartphone apps can be installed on a youth’s phone without the youth knowing (e.g., mSpy). Likewise, a parent could place a tracking device on the youth’s person without them knowing (e.g., leave a tag in a pocket of the youth’s backpack). However, in most cases the youth must agree to participate in DLT. Youth could refuse to carry the device, install the app, or enable location sharing. Youth could also take steps to temporarily thwart the location tracking. For example, youth can leave the device somewhere they are not, such as at home before leaving for the night, or turn the device off and claim the battery died. If the device is a phone, youth could temporarily disable location sharing on their phone or within the app, delete the app, or log into another decoy device to share the wrong location. To reduce youths’ ability to circumvent DLT, some apps allow parents to prevent the app from being uninstalled or restrict access to location sharing settings.

How Should We Think About DLT?

To support the emerging science of DLT, a structured framework for conceptualizing DLT is essential. There are no prior published theories or models, likely owing to the technology’s recent emergence. How should DLT be conceptualized and measured? How does DLT compare to historical strategies for monitoring location? What are the mechanisms by which DLT might affect youth adjustment? How does DLT connect to prior literatures on seemingly related topics? This section develops a theoretical framework to answer these questions.

The literature on three related topics will prove useful: parental monitoring, parental knowledge, and youth information management. Broadly, the history of that literature is as follows. Early work focused on parental monitoring and studied how parents’ active efforts to track youths’ activities, whereabouts, and companions could reduce risk of problem behavior (Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984). This work emphasized parents’ role in the process and the putative benefits of monitoring youth. Subsequent work focused on parental knowledge and studied how parents acquire knowledge about youths’ activities, suggesting it primarily came not from parents’ active monitoring efforts but from passively receiving information disclosed by youth (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). This work emphasized youths’ role in the process and the potential for monitoring to backfire, by discouraging youth from sharing information. More recent work on youth information management has investigated the role of youth more closely, studying which information teens choose to disclose versus hide, when and why youth tell lies or keep secrets, and how youth conceal information from their parents (Smetana & Rote, 2019). This work has emphasized teens as strategic actors who carefully manage and react to what their parents know.

Building upon this literature, we conceptualize DLT use as embedded within a broader parent-youth monitoring process: the continuous, dyadic interplay between caregivers and youth as they navigate caregivers attempts’ to monitor youth. Our framework asserts five core propositions:

1. Parent DLT use is a parental monitoring behavior

2. There are structural differences between monitoring youths’ location with DLT versus with historical parental monitoring strategies

3. Youth both contribute and react to parent DLT use

4. Parent DLT use affects youth behavior through multiple channels

5. The effects of parent DLT use will be heterogeneous

Each proposition is discussed in turn.

Proposition 1: Parent DLT use is a parental monitoring behavior

We begin by casting parent DLT use as a form of parental monitoring: a behavior the parent performs with the goal of gathering information about the youths’ activities and life (Pelham III, Racz, et al., 2023). Parent DLT use is a monitoring behavior that gathers information on a single dimension: location. Parents can combine information about location with other information they have acquired through other (i.e., non-DLT) monitoring behaviors or via youths’ disclosure of information to make further inferences about the youths’ activities and life.

Parent DLT use consists of three distinct behaviors: (1) activating DLT in the first place, (2) setting and enforcing rules to keep DLT activated, and (3) checking DLT at a given moment. DLT must be activated for the parent to be able to check it. Because youth can temporarily disable or otherwise circumvent DLT (as discussed earlier), the parent may need to set and enforce rules to ensure DLT is active at a given moment. For example, the parent may set a rule that the youth must keep their phone charged at all times when out with friends. Finally, the bulk of DLT use will consist of checking the youth’s location in the app once activated.

Parents’ DLT behaviors can each vary in the frequency, context, and style in which they are performed (Pelham III, Racz, et al., 2023). Frequency refers to how often they are performed–for example, does the parent check the youth’s location 5 times per day or 1 time per week. Context refers to when, where, and why they are performed–for example, does the parent check the youth’s location at random intervals or only when they are unable to reach the youth by phone. Style refers to the manner in which they are performed–for example, when activating DLT, does the parent give the youth a hostile, suspicious justification for using DLT or a caring, autonomy-supportive justification.

It may be important to distinguish more specific aspects of parent DLT use. Examples include (a) which device or app was used, (b) which additional features are used (e.g., whether geofencing is activated), (c) whether the youth is notified each time the parent checks their location, or (d) whether youth can see parents’ location. These distinctions could be linked to different effects of DLT. For example, smartphone-based DLT with geofencing for automatic alerts to parents may have quite a different impact than tag-based DLT that requires manual checking.

Proposition 2: There are structural differences between monitoring youths’ location with DLT versus with historical monitoring strategies

Having defined parent DLT use as a new form of parental monitoring, the next step in our analysis is to compare it to previous forms of monitoring. DLT use and historical monitoring strategies are not exclusive - parents can certainly perform both, rather than view DLT as a replacement. However, it is worth considering the ways in which monitoring with DLT is fundamentally different from the historical monitoring strategies that have been studied in prior work. Our analysis must remain theoretical because data is not yet available to evaluate the comparison empirically. With this caveat, Table 1 gives an overview of several potentially important structural differences between monitoring of youths’ location with and without DLT.

Historically, parents have monitored youths’ location with a set of interconnected strategies - most typically, knowing youths’ schedules and plans, asking youth where they were going or would be, and periodically verifying this information (e.g., phoning the house of a friend where the youth said they would be). These strategies, referred to as historical strategies from hereon, are often performed asynchronously, with the parent receiving location information in advance of when it is true or after it was true. They also require the parent to plan, remember, and integrate information over time, in order to construct and maintain a continuous mental representation of where teens are.

With DLT activated, the monitoring process is far simpler - the parent opens an app, clicks refresh, and views the teens’ current location. Minimal effort and planning is required. Tracking is more synchronous, as parents are typically viewing the youths’ current location.

Another structural difference is that historical strategies yield comparatively imprecise spatial and temporal information. With historical strategies, parents might be able to track youths’ general setting (e.g., at school) but have limited ability to track location within that general setting (e.g., in the cafeteria, on the football field). In contrast, DLT can often pinpoint the youth’s location within 20 meters. With historical strategies, parents might know that youth left school at 3:00pm and got home at 4:00pm but have limited detail about where the teen was in between. In contrast, with DLT parents could scroll through the app’s history and view where the teen was every couple minutes between 3:00pm and 4:00pm.

While both DLT and historical strategies can be circumvented, it is likely more difficult for youth to circumvent DLT. Historical strategies often rely on the youth being honest: youth can prevent parents’ monitoring efforts from yielding accurate information by avoiding conversations, omitting information, or telling lies (Villalobos et al., 2015). In contrast, once activated, DLT requires less cooperation from teens to achieve accurate information. While there are several ways to circumvent DLT (see above), most of those are also ways of circumventing historical strategies. For example, turning one’s phone off temporarily to stop location sharing also stops parents from calling to check-in.

There are also structural differences that might favor historical strategies for tracking location over use of DLT. First, historical strategies can track youth prospectively - parents are often asking the youth where they will be in the future. In contrast, DLT can only track youth concurrently or retrospectively. The parent cannot alone anticipate where a teen will go simply by viewing their current location in an app.

Second, historical strategies can yield additional information beyond just the youth’s location. That additional information is often useful for parents. For example, calling the teen to ask where they are when out with friends might yield not only an answer about location but a conversation about who is there and what they are doing. Had the parent refreshed a DLT app instead, they would have only learned where the teen was.

Third, historical strategies may be received by youth as more respectful of their privacy. Historical monitoring behaviors inherently allow teens some freedom – parents do not always know where teens are – that uninterrupted tracking with DLT might not. From this perspective, the same aspects of DLT use that might be viewed as strengths - the precision and continuity of location information - could also be weaknesses.

Likewise, if the ease of use and precision of DLT induce a false sense of security for parents, DLT use could actually result in poorer monitoring overall. Knowing they could obtain the youth’s current location instantly at any moment, the parent may be less careful in tracking where the teen is going and what they are up to. Incorrectly believing that DLT cannot be tricked or circumvented, the parent may miss signs that the teen is in fact spending more time in risky situations.

Proposition 3: Youth both contribute and react to parent DLT use

While we define parent DLT use as a behavior performed by the parent (Proposition 1), youth are not passive recipients of DLT. The literature on youth information management suggests at least four ways in which youth may contribute or react to their parents’ DLT use (Keijsers & Laird, 2010; Laird et al., 2018; Smetana & Rote, 2019). First, the youth may be a cause of the parents’ DLT use (Kerr et al., 2008). For example, a parent may start checking DLT only after becoming concerned about recent changes in the youth’s mood. Or, a youth concerned for their own safety might request that their parents periodically check their location.

Second, unless the parent is willing to use a hidden app or device, the youth must agree to participate in DLT use. Youth could refuse DLT if they view it as illegitimate, intrusive, or unreasonable (Hawk et al., 2008).

Third, youth might disclose information that parents consider when using DLT and interpreting a youth’s observed location. For example, when the parent sees that the youth is at a neighbor’s house in the DLT app, the parent might know who the neighbor is and be able to evaluate the situation (e.g., safety) based on stories the youth has told them about that neighbor in the past. In this way, information acquired via DLT use and via youth disclosure might often be combined.

Fourth, youth can be secretive, concealing activities, omitting information, or telling lies that circumvent or undermine parents’ use of DLT (Villalobos et al., 2015). The more secretive a youth is, the less accurate the parent’s knowledge resulting from DLT use will be. For example, the youth may turn off their smartphone or leave it somewhere they are not in order to hide their true location. When youth feel their privacy is being intruded (Hawk et al., 2013) or their autonomy is being undermined (Rodríguez-Meirinhos et al., 2020) by DLT, youth might become more secretive, less trusting, and less willing to disclose information over time (Omer et al., 2016). Because youth’s unsolicited disclosure of information is another way that parents acquire knowledge (besides DLT), parents could end up with a net of less knowledge when youth react especially negatively (Laird et al., 2018).

Proposition 4: Parent DLT use affects youth behavior through multiple channels

Thus far we have defined parental DLT use, compared this new form of parental monitoring to historical monitoring strategies, and examined how both the parent and youth contribute to and react to the use of DLT. Therefore the next step is to investigate and question the effects of DLT use: How might parent DLT use affect youth behavior and adjustment? Figure 2 depicts two main channels: parent action and youth perception. The importance of each channel and the mechanisms within each channel is likely to vary depending on the youth behavior or outcome under consideration (e.g., delinquency versus depression).

Parent action.

Once DLT is activated, the parent checks DLT in the moment, receives information about the youth’s location, and decides whether to act upon it. Sometimes, information about location alone may prompt a parent action. For example, the parent may see on their DLT app that the youth is at a friend’s house they are prohibited from visiting and drive there to pick the youth up. Other times, it may not be just the location but the parents’ inferences from that information that prompts a parent action. For example, the parent may see the youth is walking an atypical route home after school and choose to call and check-in. Often, the parent will combine information from location with prior knowledge acquired by other means (e.g., knowing about the family whose house the youth is at via past conversations with the youth).

Next, the parent chooses an action based on the location information and any resulting non-location information. Drawing upon Pelham et al. (2023), there are four ways in which a parent action based on DLT could affect youth adjustment. First, the parent could reinforce the youth for following the rules or punish the youth for breaking the rules. For example, the parent could find out from DLT that the youth skipped school and consequently ground him. Second, the parent could modify the youths’ access to socialization contexts such as with peers, other adults, or siblings. For example, the parent could find out from DLT that the youth is at a party they did not tell the parents they were going to, then drive there to pick the youth up. Third, the parent could provide social support. For example, the parent could find out from DLT that the youth left soccer practice early, learn that they left following a bullying event, then provide emotional support. Fourth, the parent could increase communication with the youth. For example, the parent could find out from DLT that the youth walked home from school on an unusual route, initiate a discussion with the youth about why, and find out information that potentiates further action.

Youth perception.

Besides prompting parent action, DLT could change youth behavior directly: simply knowing that DLT is activated and being checked will change where youth go and what they do (Pelham III, Patel, et al., 2023; Pelham III, Tapert, et al., 2023). For example, if the youth is home alone and offered a ride to go to a party across town, the youth may decline knowing that their parent would see him/her leave home. Likewise, youth might choose not to disclose that a friend has begun using drugs, concerned about what parents might infer from seeing the youth is over at that friend’s house. Of course, this channel will only apply when the youth is aware the parent is using DLT–hidden device or apps would enable parent action but not affect youth perception.

Proposition 5: The effects of parent DLT use will be heterogeneous

Our final proposition is that the effects of parent DLT use will be heterogeneous, with meaningfully large variation across youth, families, contexts, and outcomes. Since parent DLT use is a parental monitoring behavior (Proposition 1), this proposition follows from much prior literature suggesting the effects of parental monitoring are heterogeneous (e.g., Keijsers et al., 2009; Laird & Marrero, 2010; Rekker et al., 2017; Skinner et al., 2014; Racz & McMahon, 2011). There are many plausible moderators of interest, including the context and style in which DLT behaviors are performed, youth and parent characteristics, and sociocultural context(Pelham et al., 2023). Here, we draw attention to just a few moderators we think may be especially important.

A first potentially important moderator is youths’ acceptance of parent DLT use. There are several ways that youth can circumvent DLT, and youth can limit the information they share about places, peers, and activities if they wish to make location-tracking information less informative for parents. Thus, to the extent that youth perceive parent DLT use as illegitimate or unacceptable, it seems likely that youth can substantially limit its utility. This possibility has been explored in-depth in the literature on general parental monitoring (Omer, 2016; Laird et al., 2018), and this work would be a good starting point for identifying the antecedents and likely impacts of youths’ acceptance of DLT.

A second potentially important moderator is the youth’s level of psychopathology or behavior problems. It seems likely that the impact of parent DLT use will be larger when youth are at greater risk of negative behaviors or outcomes. For example, many youth are unlikely to engage in delinquent behavior even without parental supervision, such that their parents tracking them via DLT will have little impact on their behavior. On the other hand, youth who are especially tempted by opportunities to engage in delinquent behavior might especially benefit from knowing that their parents can and are tracking their location.

A third potentially important moderator is parents’ pre-existing monitoring bandwidth and knowledge of their youths’ location. It seems likely that the impact of parent DLT use will be larger when the parent is having a harder time tracking the youths’ location. For example, single parents or parents who are employed outside the home might especially benefit from the ability to check where the teen is on weekdays after school hours. On the other hand, if parents already know where the youth is at all times using historical monitoring strategies, then using DLT may bring little marginal benefit.

What Do We Know About DLT?

To lay the foundation for an emerging science of DLT, it is essential to establish a conceptual framework as outlined in the preceding section. Additionally, advancing this field requires a comprehensive synthesis of existing empirical findings, which are still in their preliminary stages. This section reviews the published literature to determine what is known about DLT today.

Procedure

We sought to review all published literature about parents’ use of DLT with their children ages ≤ 25 years old, including both empirical and non-empirical papers. The first author searched the Google Scholar, PubMed, ProQuest, and University of California library database repeatedly between July 2023 and July 2024 using search terms like “digital location tracking”, “GPS tracking”, “parent location tracking”, “location tracking apps”, “smartphone”, and “GPS tracking apps” (see supplementary material for details). For every article that was relevant, she inspected the reference list for additional articles on DLT. She also emailed the corresponding author of every included article to ask if they were aware of other relevant work beyond what our search had located. Finally, the second, third, and fourth authors each performed an independent search to supplement the first author’s findings.

This search strategy yielded 24 articles about DLT: 7 quantitative studies, 9 qualitative studies, and 8 commentary papers. These articles were published between 2008 and 2024 (Figure 1, Panel C). We begin with an overview of the characteristics of the included studies (e.g., sampling, design) then separate our summary of findings into two sections: first, empirical findings on DLT (e.g., prevalence, correlates) and second, discussion of ethical, developmental, and sociocultural considerations related to DLT.

Figure 1. Digital Location Tracking has Rapidly Increased in Popularity.

Note. Panel A graphs the rate of Google searches over time for five common DLT apps, as retrieved from Google Trends on August 12, 2024. Values were normalized to 0-100 for each series in order to assess overall trends across the sector, rather than compare specific apps. Graphed is the 12-month rolling average. Panel B graphs the estimated prevalence of DLT use in the five quantitative studies with pediatric samples (Table 3), with a line of best fit. Panel C graphs the cumulative number of peer-reviewed scientific papers investigating DLT, based on our literature search.

Characteristics of Included Articles

Quantitative studies.

There were seven quantitative studies of DLT. Table 3 describes the designs and findings of each. All seven quantitative studies were cross-sectional surveys. Participants ranged from 5- to 25-years-old. One sample consisted of children, two of children and adolescents, one of adolescents, and two of emerging adults. All were community-based samples of typically developing youth - none were of clinical or treatment-seeking populations. Four samples were recruited in the U.S. and three were recruited in other countries. The first two studies of DLT were surveys of parents in the UK (Vasalou et al., 2012) and parents and youth in Japan (Nakayama, 2011). However, these studies were published in 2011-2012, when DLT was quite uncommon, so their findings are unlikely to generalize to the present moment.

Table 3.

The Seven Quantitative Studies of Digital Location Tracking (DLT) of Children and Adolescents Reviewed

Citation	Design and Sample	Measurement of DLT	Findings
Langlais & Marich, 2024	Cross-sectional survey Data collected in 2023 N = 285 college students (mean age ~ 20, SD ~ 3) Students were recruited from colleges in the U.S. 84% female, 52% White, 11% Black, 19% Hispanic	Informants: youth Participants answered survey questions on their parents’ use of one particular DLT app - Life360™ - during high school (retrospectively) and college (currently). They were asked how often their parents used Life360 and how often the parent reached out to the teen based on Life360 use.	• Retrospectively, 61% of the participants had at least one parent using Life360™ when they were in high school • Primary parent using Life360™ in high school was positively correlated with parental involvement (r = 0.16, p < 0.01) and connectedness (r = 0.16, p < 0.01) during college • Secondary parent using Life360™ in high school was positively correlated with parental involvement (r = 0.15, p < 0.01) and connectedness (r = 0.16, p < 0.01) during college • Primary parent reaching out due to Life360™ in high school was negatively correlated with self-esteem (r = −0.14, p < 0.05) during college • Secondary parent reaching out due to Life360™ in high school was negatively correlated with self-esteem (r = −0.17, p < 0.01) and hostility (r = −0.13, p < 0.05) during college • Youth agreement with the statement “I’m glad parents could track me on Life360™” was positively correlated with parental involvement (r = 0.15, p<0.05) during college • Youth agreement with the statement “I’m glad Life360™ exists” was negatively correlated with connectedness (r = −0.11, p<0.05) during college • Youth agreement with the statement “I find Life360™ useful” was positively correlated with depressive symptoms (r = 0.13, p<0.05) during college
Chase et al., 2024	Cross-sectional survey Data collected in 2021 N = 829 college students aged 18- to 25-years-old Students recruited from a community college and a 4-year university in the U.S. 71% female, 34% non-Hispanic white , 33% non-Hispanic Black, 15% Hispanic, 9% Asian	Informants: youth Participants answered survey questions on if they are currently or have been tracked previously by their parents, why their parents track them, and if they track their parents as well.	• 36% of college students report that parents currently use DLT, 11% that parents previously used DLT, and 53% that parents never used DLT • Parents were more likely to currently use DLT use for younger students, for caregivers with higher educational attainment, and for caregivers with higher parental involvement (ps < .05) • Parents were more likely to currently use DLT for white students (47%) versus parents of Black students (28%), Hispanic students (34%), or students with other racial/ethnic identities (32%) (p<.001). • 79% of students also had access to their parent’s location Reason for parent/caregiver tracking student;   ○ 83% safety concern   ○ 5% convenience   ○ 7% control • Reason for student tracking their parent/caregiver:   ○ 70% safety concern   ○ 22% convenience   ○ 3% control • Non-significant zero-order correlations between current use of DLT and helicopter parenting (r = 0.07) or autonomy supportive parenting (r = 0.03). However, when adjusting for gender, race/ethnicity, caregiver education, and parental involvement, students whose parents currently use DLT report greater perceptions of helicopter parenting (β = 0.10, p = .02) and lower perceptions of autonomy support (β = −0.07, p = .004)
Mavoa et al., 2023	Cross-sectional survey Data collected in 2021 N = 112 households Children 62% aged 9-14, 18% 5-8, and 20% 15-18 years old Households 81% with two adults, 49% had two children, 33% one child, and 18% three or more children Online convenience sample recruited via social media in Australia Of the children, 51% female, 47% male, 1.5% non-binary.	Informants: parents Participants answered survey questions on type of child activities they track with DLT, if children were aware, and what software they used for DLT Smartphone apps: “Find My iPhone”, “Life360™”, “Google Maps”, “Google Family Link”, “Google Find My Device”, “Glympse”	• 69% of parents used DLT, via one or more of the following apps   ○ Find My iPhone (37%)   ○ Life360™ (16%)   ○ Google Maps (6%)   ○ Google Family Link (5%)   ○ Google Find My Device (4%)   ○ Glympse (2%) • Of parents who used DLT, 95% reported children were aware of being tracked • 2% of parents used tags for DLT
Auxier et al., 2020	Cross-sectional survey Data collected in 2020 N= 1636 parents of a child 5- to 11-years-old Sample recruited in the U.S. via random sampling of residential addresses and sampling from an existing survey panel 59% female, 57% White, 9% Black, 26% Hispanica	Informants: parents Participants answered a survey question about if they used GPS smartphone apps or software for DLT of their child	• 33% of parents reported use of DLT
Burnell et al., 2023	Cross-sectional survey Data collected in 2018 N = 729 families Youth aged 12- to 18-years-old Community sample recruited from public schools in the U.S. 55% female; 57% White, 23% Black, 10% Hispanic, and 10% multiracial/other	Informants: parents and youth Participants answered a survey question on how often the parent uses DLT on their child Smartphone apps: Find My iPhone, Find My Friends, mSpy, Life360™	51% of parents report they use DLT (cf. 50% of youth) Frequency of checking DLT as follows:   ○ 49% never   ○ 15% only once in awhile   ○ 13% some of the time   ○ 10% most of the time   ○ 13% always Agreement between parent and youth report of DLT use   ○ 72% of dyads agree on whether DLT is used (parent and youth equally likely to be the only one endorsing that DLT is used)   ○ r = 0.53 for parent vs. youth report of frequency of parent checking DLT Correlates of DLT use   ○ DLT used more commonly for girls than boys (54% vs. 46%, p=.04)   ○ Frequency of DLT use was positively associated with how much parents “try to know” about youths’ activities, companions, and whereabouts (rs =0.10-0.19, ps<.05)   ○ Frequency of DLT use had small and non-significant correlations with age, SES, neighborhood safety, and positive parenting (rs = −0.05 to +0.07)   ○ Frequency of DLT use had small and non-significant correlations with internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and substance use (rs = −0.01 to +0.07)   ○ Mixed and inconsistent findings when examining how correlations differed based on parent-youth agreement on DLT reports, positive parenting, or age
Vasalou et al., 2012	Cross-sectional survey Data collected in 2011 N = 920 parents with children between ages of 6- to 18-years-old (mean = 11.3 years) Recruited in the UK from existing market research panel 39% male	Informants: parents Participants answered survey questions on if they heard of, considered using, or decided against using DLT devices (ChildLocate, IonKids Child Locator, Trackstick) and why.	• 61% of parents had heard of DLT; only 2% were using DLT • Of those not using DLT, 73% had decided against it and 27% were still considering it • Parents were significantly (p<.05) more likely to have decided against DLT when they valued awareness, boundaries, trust, self-direction, and not needing DLT • Parents were significantly (p<.05) less likely to have decided against DLT when they valued anxiety, uncertainty reduction, and DLT as a means of security • Parental age, area deprivation, and gender did not significantly predict having decided against DLT
Nakayama, 2011	Cross-sectional survey Data collected in 2008 N = 286 parent-youth dyads Youth aged 12- to 15-years-old Community sample recruited from a junior high school in Japan Parents 89% female, youth 55% female	Informants: parents and youth Participants answered survey questions on DLT practices and parenting styles	• 12% of parents used DLT • 52% of parents had intention to use DLT in the future • 17% of youth had intention to use DLT in the future • Most popular reasons for youth intent to use DLT in the future were: (1) it would be good for their safety and (2) for their parent’s sense of security • Most popular reasons for youth not having intent to use DLT in the future was not wanting to be overseen by their parents • Thematic analysis of youth and parent reports suggested two parenting styles: (1) parent responsiveness and (2) parent control • Parent control had largest effect on parent intention to use DLT • Parent intent to use DLT was higher for parents of girls and younger parents Youth reported parent responsiveness style had largest effect on youth intention to use DLT • Youth intention to use DLT was higher for younger youth

Note. The rows are ordered by the design column. Within each category of studies, they are ordered by the date of data collection (found in the sample column) from most recent to oldest. “Informants” in the “Measurement of DLT” column refers to who reported on DLT.

^aTable reports data from a subsample that answered questions about DLT. Demographic characteristics were reported only for full sample.

The third study, Auxier et al. (2020), was a national probability survey conducted by Pew that focused on parenting with technology more broadly. This study had the largest sample size (N= 1636 parents of a child 5- to 11-years-old) but only reported on a single aspect of DLT: the prevalence of use.

Of greatest interest are the three recent studies reporting on data collected from 2018-2023, with in depth consideration of DLT: Mavoa et al. (2023), Burnell et al. (2023), Chase et al. (2024), and Langlais and Marich (2024). Mavoa et al. (2023) was a cross-sectional survey of an online convenience sample in Australia: 112 parents with children ages 5-18 years old. This study reported on DLT use prevalence, the smartphone applications used for DLT, and whether or not the youth were aware of parents’ DLT usage. Burnell et al. (2023) was a cross-sectional survey of a school-based sample in the U.S.: 729 parents of youth aged 12-18 years old. This study reported on DLT usage, DLT use frequency, the agreement between youth and parent reports of DLT usage/youth awareness of DLT, and the correlates of DLT use. Chase et al. (2024) was a cross-sectional survey of 829 college students aged 18-25 years old in the U.S. who reported on their parents’ DLT use. This study reported on parents’ current and past DLT usage, parental motives for DLT use, and if youth were also engaging in DLT of parents. Finally, Langlais and Marich (2024) was a cross-sectional survey of a school-based sample in the U.S.: 285 college students aged ~18-23 years old. This study focused exclusively on use of Life360^™, a particular DLT app, and reported on the correlations between parent Life360^™ use, youth attitudes toward Life360^™, and youth well-being and family functioning.

Qualitative studies.

There were 9 qualitative studies of DLT. Table 4 describes the designs and findings of each. All nine qualitative studies had small sample sizes (median N = 22, max N = 43; 6 out of 9 studies with N < 25), were recruited in countries outside the U.S., and almost all were recruited through online convenience sampling. Two samples focused on childhood, four samples focused on adolescence, and three samples focused on both childhood and adolescence. All samples were of typically developing youth - none were of clinical or treatment-seeking populations. Participants —either parents (k=5), youth (k=1) or both (k=3)— were prompted to talk about DLT practices in either structured or unstructured interviews that were then thematically analyzed.

Table 4.

The Nine Qualitative Studies of Digital Location Tracking (DLT) of Children and Adolescents Reviewed

Citation	Design and Sample	Measurement of DLT	Findings
Marciano, 2022	Qualitative interview Dates of data collection not specified N = 24 mothers of at least one child aged 12- to 15-years-old Online convenience sample recruited via social media in Tel Aviv, Israel	Informants: parents Participants were interviewed on DLT practices including location tracking smartphone apps used, how often, and why	• Mothers using DLT had authoritarian or authoritative parenting styles • Thematic analysis suggested 6 criteria in which authoritarian or authoritative parenting styles differed on relating to DLT: (1) children’s agency and the nature of consent, (2) ownership of the surveillance device, (3) the role of resistance, (4) politics of fear and risk, (5) perceptions of care, safety, and protection, and (6) patterns of familial communication
Maslen, 2021	Qualitative interview Dates of data collection not specified N = 37 parents of at least one child aged 2- to 8-years-old Convenience sample recruited via social media, children learning centers, community services, playgroups, and select workplaces in Australia Parents 67% female	Informants: parents Participants were interviewed on DLT practices including what device they use, why they use it, and how often.	• Thematic analysis suggested most parents viewed parenting as intuitive and did not use DLT as a result. Rural families were interested in DLT as a safety net • Several families reported feeling DLT contributed to their parental anxiety rather than helping it
Mols et al., 2023	Qualitative interview Data collection Spring, 2021 N= 9 families; 11 parents and 11 youth aged 11-15 years old Convenience sampling recruited via author’s personal networks and snowball sampling in the Netherlands Parents 64% female	Informants: parents and youth Participants were interviewed on social media practices, smart technology use, and parental monitoring.	5/9 families actively monitored their youth’s whereabouts and activities Most used monitoring technology was location tracking apps, monitoring Wi-Fi use, and monitoring school progress Thematic analysis revealed two motives for use: safety and guidance, and two motives against use: prioritize freedom and trust Children resist these forms of monitoring through expression of discomfort and through circumvention
Qvarnstrom, 2022	Qualitative interview Data collected 2020-2021 N = 12 parents of at least one child aged 10- to 17-years-old Online convenience sample recruited via social media in Sweden 83% female	Informants: parents Participants were interviewed on DLT practices in regard to trust, control, and worry	• Thematic analysis suggested DLT present for both authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles • Thematic analysis suggested three themes involved in parental decision on DLT usage: (1) control, (2) worry, and (3) trust • Revealed parents of children aged 10- to 13-years-old use technological surveillance (including DLT) more than parents of children aged 15- to 17-years-old • Parents who trust their youth are less likely to use technological control/surveillance (including DLT)
Sukk & Siibak, 2022	Qualitative interview Data collected 2019-2020 N = 20 youth aged 8- to 13-years-old Online convenience sample recruited via social media and email lists in Estonia 50% male	Informants: youth Participants reviewed and sorted 28 statements of uses and values of child DLT smartphone apps	• Thematic analysis suggested three groups of youth: (1) compliant child, (2) autonomous child, and (3) privacy-sensitive child
Sukk & Siibak, 2021	Qualitative interview Data collected in 2019-2020 N = 20 parents and 20 youth aged 8- to 13-years-old Online convenience sample recruited via social media and email lists in Estonia 90% female for parents, 50% female for youth	Informants: parents and youth Participants reviewed and sorted statements of uses and values of child DLT smartphone apps (parents 38 and youth 28 statements)	• Thematic analysis suggested three groups of parents: (1) tech-trusting parent, (2) cautious parent, and (3) careful authoritarian parent • Thematic analysis suggested three groups of youth: (1) compliant child, (2) autonomous child, and (3) privacy-sensitive child
Widmer & Albrechtslund, 2021	Qualitative interview Data collected in 2017 N = 17 families with youth that are preschool-age, school-age, and teenagers Online convenience sample recruited via social media in Denmark	Informants: parents Participants were interviewed on uses and values of DLT Smartphone apps: “Find My iPhone” and “Find My Friends”	• 3 of 17 families used DLT technologies • 4 of 17 families considered using DLT • 10 of 17 families were opposed to DLT • Thematic analysis suggested 3 reasons parents use DLT: (1) DLT as security net, (2) DLT as form of care, and (3) DLT as form of emotional connectedness • Parents who use DLT think it should be decreased as youth get older and need more privacy. • Parents who don’t use DLT found the technologies incompatible with their values of trust
Ervasti et al., 2016	Qualitative interview Data collected in 2014 N = 43 youth aged 7- to 10-years-old N = 32 parents N = 6 teachers Community sample recruited from an elementary school in Finland	Informants: parents and youth Participants were interviewed and completed questionnaires about DLT practices including usage of DLT and perceived usefulness	• Younger youth (7-10 years old) had positive perception of the DLT device and use due to the safety benefits; youth were interested in it for permanent use • 6 of 16 parents used DLT on a weekly basis • 10 of 16 parents used DLT only for emergencies • 7 of 16 parents found the DLT device useful • For the 16 non-participating parents, found DLT to be unnecessary
Boesen et al., 2010	Qualitative interview Data collected in 2009 N = 4 households with youth aged 10- to 14-years-old Online convenience sample recruited from online advertisements, screened via telephone, in the UK Working class households	Informants: parents Participants were interviewed on if they use DLT, on who, how often, and why. Participants were also observed over a two week period while using DLT. Smartphone apps: “Follow-Us” or “Google Latitude”	• 2 of 4 households mother used DLT on their children • Thematic analysis suggested 4 monitoring motivations: (1) interest in new features, (2) ensure family member safety, (3) reassure oneself of their safety, and (4) curiosity of family members activities • One household mother used DLT on her children 7 of 14 days, 11 times • One household, mother used DLT on her children 5 of 14 days, 10 times

Note. The rows are ordered by the design column. Within each category of studies, they are ordered by the date of data collection (found in the sample column) from most recent to oldest. “Informants” in the “Measurement of DLT” column refers to who reported on DLT.

^aTable reports data from a subsample that answered questions about DLT. Demographic characteristics were reported only for full sample.

Empirical Findings on DLT

We organize the summary of empirical findings by topic: prevalence of DLT use, correlates of DLT use, motives for and against DLT use, and youth awareness of DLT use.

Prevalence of DLT use.

Figure 1, Panel B graphs the prevalence of DLT use as estimated in the quantitative studies. DLT use has increased over time and DLT is now a common parenting tool. Data collected in 2008 and 2011 found only 2-12% of parents were using DLT (Nakayama, 2011; Vasalou et al., 2012). Between 2018 and 2020, 33%-69% of parents of children and teens reported using DLT (Auxier et al., 2020; Burnell et al., 2023; Mavoa et al., 2023) and in 2023, 61% of then-college-aged youth reported their parents had used a particular DLT app - Life360^™ - when they were in high school (Langlais & Marich 2024). DLT use is also prevalent among college students: in 2021, 36% of youth aged 18-25 years old and enrolled in college reported that parents currently used DLT (Chase et al., 2024). Only one study reported the frequency with which parents used DLT (i.e. Burnell et al., 2023): 15% used it only once in a while, 13% some of the time, 10% most of the time, and 13% always.

Correlates of DLT use.

Three studies reported on the correlates of DLT use (Burnell et al., 2023; Chase et al., 2024; Langlais & Marich, 2024). Among teens ages 12-18 years old, Burnell et al. (2023) found that parents of girls were more likely to use DLT (p = .04) and that the frequency of parent DLT use was positively associated with how much parents try to know about youths’ activities (ps < .05). Associations between DLT use and age, SES, neighborhood safety, positive parenting, and youth adjustment (externalizing problems, internalizing problems, substance use) were not statistically significant and small in magnitude. Follow-up analyses testing whether associations differed by youth age or positive parenting yielded a series of inconsistent results.

Among college students ages 18-25 years old, Chase et al. (2024) found that current parent DLT use (yes/no) was associated with the student being younger and white and the parent having higher education and involvement (ps < .05). Correlations between current parent DLT use and gender identity, helicopter parenting, and autonomy support were not statistically significant and small in magnitude. However, in regression models adjusting for several covariates, a positive association between DLT and helicopter parenting and negative association between DLT and autonomy support became statistically significant.

Finally, among college students ages 18-23 years old, Langlais and Marich (2024) found that the frequency of both primary and secondary caregivers checking Life360^™ use during high school (retrospectively reported) was significantly correlated with more parental involvement (rs = 0.15-0.16, ps < .01) and parental connectedness (rs = 0.16, ps < .01) during college (ps<.05). The frequency of checking Life360^™ was not significantly correlated with self-esteem, stress, anxiety, depression, or parental hostility during college (all |r|s < 0.06, ns). However, the frequency of reaching out to the teen because of something parents saw on the DLT app (e.g., texting the teen) during high school was correlated with lower self-esteem (r = −0.14, p < .05 for primary caregiver, r = −0.17, p < .01 for secondary) and more parental hostility (r = 0.12, ns for primary caregiver; r = 0.13, p < .05 for secondary caregiver) during college.

Motives for using or not using DLT.

Three quantitative studies and six qualitative studies assessed parental motives for or against DLT use. All nine studies reported parental motives for using DLT whereas only five studies reported reasons for not using DLT. Seven of the nine studies used parent reports of motives and the remaining two (Chase et al.; 2024; Nakayama, 2011) used youth reports of perceived parental motives.

Pooling across the quantitative and qualitative studies, there were 7 total reported motives for parents to use DLT: youth safety (Boesen et al., 2010; Chase et al., 2024; Maslen, 2021; Mols et al., 2023; Nakayama, 2011; Widmer & Albrechtslund, 2021), parental control of youth mobility and behavior (Chase et al., 2024; Qvarnström & Demetriou, 2022), parental worry/sense of security (Boesen et al., 2010; Nakayama, 2011; Qvarnström & Demetriou, 2022; Vasalou et al., 2012), convenience for parents (Chase et al., 2024), as a way to show care (Widmer & Albrechtslund, 2021), as a way to be connected (Widmer & Albrechtslund, 2021), and curiosity (Boesen et al., 2010).

Pooling across the quantitative and qualitative studies, there were also 4 total reported motives for parents to not use DLT: violating trust (Mols et al., 2023; Qvarnström & Demetriou, 2022; Vasalou et al., 2012; Widmer & Albrechtslund, 2021), infringing upon youth self-direction/freedom (Mols et al., 2023; Vasalou et al., 2012), violating youth need for privacy (Widmer & Albrechtslund, 2021), and feeling DLT was simply unnecessary (Ervasti et al., 2016; Vasalou et al., 2012).

Only one study (Chase et al., 2024) reported the percentage of participants that endorsed each motive. Out of 706 college students, when asked to choose one motive, 83% reported that their parents’ motive was concern for their safety, 7% that it was“control”, 5% that it was “convenience”, and 5% provided a write-in option for other reasons (including selecting multiple of the motives).

Youth awareness of DLT use.

Two studies checked whether youth were aware of parent’s DLT use. Mavoa et al. (2023) found that of the parents who used DLT, 95% reported that their youth were aware the parent was using DLT. Similarly, Burnell et al. (2023) compared parent and youth reports and found that 72% of the dyads agreed on whether the parent was or was not using DLT. In addition, there was strong agreement between the youth and parent about the frequency of parents checking DLT: Burnell et al. (2023) checked to see if parents and youth had similar perceptions of parental DLT use frequency and found youth and parent reports were strongly correlated (r = 0.53, p < 0.001). Therefore, the majority of youth whose parents use DLT are aware of their usage.

Ethical, Developmental, and Sociocultural Considerations

Many published articles on DLT did not report empirical data but rather discussed ethical, developmental, or sociocultural considerations arising from DLT use. Table S1 identifies which themes were discussed in which articles. We focus our discussion on recurring themes raised in several of the reviewed articles.

Ethical considerations.

The literature has raised two main ethical considerations regarding DLT: youths’ consent and right to privacy. Parents must decide whether to seek youths’ consent when using DLT. Michael et al. (2006) and Mavoa et al. (2023) ask if youth consent to be tracked should be required for parents to use DLT, suggesting the answer will depend on the youth’s age. Most would agree that consent is not required to track a youth in early childhood and most would agree that consent is required to track a youth who is 18 (i.e, a legal adult) – in between early childhood and legal adult, the line between the youth’s right to consent and the parent’s right to monitor is more blurry.

Another concern is youths’ right to privacy (Gelman et al., 2021). On the one hand, tracking the youth’s every location and storing their location history undermines their right to privacy from parents (Mols et al., 2023). On the other hand, parents have an ethical and legal obligation to keep children safe: DLT could be viewed as necessary if youth are engaging in dangerous behaviors (e.g., heavy drug use). Some authors suggested this tension increases as youth mature into adolescence and have a greater desire for privacy than they do as children (Sukk & Siibak, 2022). In qualitative interviews, even parents who are using DLT agree that use should decrease as youth grow older and need more privacy (Widmer & Albrechtslund, 2021).

Developmental considerations.

The literature has raised two major developmental considerations: autonomy and independence. As youth mature into adolescence, they spend an increasing amount of time away from parents and without adult supervision. Teens must develop autonomy - making their own choices about their activities and life - and independence - shifting dependence from caregivers onto oneself.

For autonomy and independence to increase, parental control must necessarily decrease (Silk et al., 2003). Too much control would thwart the normal developmental processes by which youth make choices and learn from their consequences (Vasquez et al., 2016). Yet too little control could leave youth vulnerable to negative influences and without the resources needed to learn from choices and cope with challenges. Parents and youth must navigate this tension between control and autonomy throughout adolescence (Steinberg & Silk, 2002).

How DLT fits into this picture is unclear. On the one hand, DLT could be a tool for granting and supporting autonomy. DLT could enable independence by providing parents with a sense of security, which might encourage them to allow their youth to explore their world more freely. This security net could help parents remain in touch with their youths’ whereabouts while still granting them the freedom to explore independently. On the other hand, DLT could hinder development of autonomy (Burnell et al., 2023; Qvarnström & Demetriou, 2022) . If the parent knows the youths’ location at all times, the youth may not have the opportunity to develop crucial skills such as learning to plan their day, navigate the environment, or exercise their own judgment to avoid risky situations (Vasalou et al., 2012).

Over time, DLT could either enhance or curb parents’ trust in their youth and willingness to allow independence. As parents grant youth more independence, they must develop trust that the youth will exercise that independence safely. On the one hand, DLT could promote parental trust if, for instance, parents see their youth’s location consistently aligns with what was communicated to them. On the other hand, DLT could reduce trust in multiple ways. If tracking is constant, youth may never have the chance to prove their trustworthiness by exercising some freedom responsibly. And if DLT reveals that the youth has lied about their location or gone to unpermitted locations, trust will be reduced and may be hard to rebuild. Indeed, both survey data and qualitative interviews suggest one reason parents choose not to use DLT is finding it incompatible with the value of trust (Vasalou et al., 2012; Widmer & Albrechtslund, 2021). Additionally, youth may perceive the parent using DLT as indicating a lack of trust, in turn placing strain on the relationship.

What comprises “too much” versus “too little” DLT use? When is DLT use autonomy-supportive versus autonomy-hindering? How often does DLT promote vs. undercut trust? The literature to date has raised these questions but unfortunately not yet answered them.

Sociocultural considerations.

With respect to sociocultural considerations and DLT, the literature has focused primarily on cultural values. Gelman et al. (2021) suggest that collectivist cultures may be more likely to use DLT since it is beneficial for the family to know where everyone is, the right of individual privacy is not a priority, and agreement in knowing family whereabouts can uphold more group loyalty. Individualist cultures might be less likely to use DLT if it conflicts with values of youth’s autonomy, right to privacy, and independence, or more likely if it enables parents to push greater independence and self-reliance onto their youth.

Western societal values may also inhibit or promote DLT use. Indeed, Gabriels (2016) and Marciano (2022) addressed the “culture of fear” within Western societies. The news and other social media outlets saturate the modern world with dramatic stories of kidnappings, predators, child shooters, and youth deaths which magnify normal parent anxiety and fears. Such a society negotiates the world more by fear than otherwise and results in a greater urgency/demand for DLT technologies. Additionally, Gabriels (2016) addresses the shift in Western society of what it means to be a “good” parent: under a culture of fear, better parenting is increasingly seen as engaging in more surveillance of youth.

Next Steps: Toward a Science of DLT

This paper aimed to set the stage for an emerging science of digital location tracking (DLT). First, we developed a theoretical framework for thinking about DLT, clarifying how it should be conceptualized and measured, comparing it to historical strategies for monitoring youths’ location, and identifying the mechanisms by which it might affect youth adjustment. Second, we reviewed what is known about DLT today, synthesizing 24 published articles. In closing, we draw attention to the biggest holes in the literature and priorities for future research.

Need for Empirical Evidence

Most pressing is the scarcity of empirical evidence on DLT. We located only 7 quantitative data-based studies, all of which were cross-sectional, and only 4 of which were performed in the past 5 years, during which DLT has become common. Thus, the field still lacks basic information about the following questions:

1. When, why, and how do parents use DLT?

2. How do youth perceive and react to parent DLT use?

3. What are the effects of parent DLT use on youth adjustment and family functioning in the short-term and long-term?

4. How do the effects of parent DLT use vary by context?

Answering these questions will require much more data. The theoretical framework developed in the first part of this paper should help in the design of the needed studies. Based on our review, we can identify several important considerations for future empirical work.

Representative samples.

Most of the reviewed studies used convenience samples, which tend to overrepresent economically advantaged and higher-functioning participants. Relying on convenience samples could be especially troublesome when studying DLT use because two studies have shown sociodemographic differences in DLT use, some of which are sizable (Chase et al., 2024; Burnell et al., 2023). To improve generalizability, future studies should aim for a diverse and representative sample during recruitment and carefully consider sample composition when interpreting and comparing results across studies.

Clinical samples.

All reviewed studies focused on typically developing youth: DLT use has not been examined in a clinical or treatment-seeking sample. This is an important gap for two reasons. First, DLT use is relevant for many common clinical concerns. For example, parents of youth with developmental disabilities might use DLT to ensure safety when in busy public settings; parents of youth with problematic substance use might use DLT to determine where teens are sourcing drugs; and parents of youth with major depression might use DLT to verify the teens is attending an activating after-school activity. Second, the effects of DLT might differ in clinical vs. typically-developing populations. For example, parent DLT use might reduce delinquent behavior in teens with conduct disorder even while having no impact on typically developing teens, who wouldn’t engage in delinquent behaviors even if their parents were not tracking them. Similarly, youth with anxiety disorders might welcome parent DLT use because it reduces worry even as typically developing peers maintain a largely indifferent attitude toward DLT use. Thus, studying DLT use in a variety of clinical populations is an important next step.

Attention to context.

The reviewed empirical studies paid limited attention to context. The only contextual factor studied as a predictor of DLT use was neighborhood safety (Burnell et al., 2023). No study explored whether contextual factors moderated the associations between DLT and another construct. This omission is notable because the broader parenting literature has identified many ways in which context shapes parenting behavior like DLT use (Lansford, 2022).

For example, parents may be more likely to use DLT when they perceive the youth’s environment as more dangerous, and thus the need for safety as greater (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997). Parents who work outside the home or are sole caregivers may be more likely to use DLT to manage limited monitoring bandwidth (Bumpus & Rodgers, 2009). Conversely, families with high levels of social support may have less need for DLT because they can rely on others to help monitor their youth (Taylor et al., 2015; McConnell, Breitkreuz, & Savage, 2011). Thus, future studies of DLT should explore family, school, peer, and environmental contextual factors that might moderate the acceptability, use, or impacts of DLT.

Longitudinal data.

All reviewed studies were cross-sectional, leaving important questions unanswered. There is no data on at what youth age parents typically begin or stop using DLT, the stability of DLT behaviors across days, months, and years; or how parents change their DLT use over time in response to changes in youth behavior or context. No study has linked parent DLT use to prospective measurements of youth adjustment or family functioning in order to appraise the impacts of DLT. Future studies should consider longitudinal designs that measure DLT over multiple timescales and follow-up periods (Pelham, Leitz, Patel, 2023).

Confounding bias.

All reviewed studies were non-experimental, leaving them vulnerable to confounding bias. Data on parental monitoring suggest confounding will be a major problem when studying DLT. There are many systematic differences between parents who monitor at different levels (Davis et al., 2024), and likewise there may be many systematic differences between parents who use versus do not use DLT, or use DLT at different frequencies. Indeed, the reviewed studies have already shown that DLT users vs. non-users differ in several statistically significant ways (youth sex, age, race, ethnicity; parent education, parent involvement, and other parental monitoring behaviors). If these factors are not accounted for during design and analysis, the resulting evidence on the effects of DLT will have low rigor. Thus, future studies should choose covariates carefully and consider quasi-experimental designs (e.g., twin comparisons, within-subject models) or experimental manipulations of DLT use whenever possible (West et al., 2008).

Ethical issues.

Among the reviewed studies, discussion and exploration of the ethical issues arising from DLT use (e.g., consent, privacy, trust) was located almost entirely in the qualitative and non-empirical articles. Thus, the field currently lacks representative data about what youth actually think about DLT use, how often they refuse it and for what reasons, and how often privacy invasions occur. Helping families balance the potential tradeoffs entailed by DLT use will require such data. Thus, future empirical studies should investigate the ethical issues arising from DLT use rather than relegate these questions to qualitative study.

Moreover, ethical issues should be studied in clinical contexts, not just in typically developing youth. When youth are at risk of harm - e.g., suicidality, heavy substance use, risky sex - ethical tradeoffs may differ, tipping the scales toward safety at the expense of autonomy and independence. At the same time, youth engaging in risky behaviors might also be those most likely to bristle at the infringement on autonomy and react negatively to DLT use. Empirical data would help clinicians and parents manage these thorny tradeoffs.

Devices besides smartphones.

Although there are three device types that can perform DLT (smartphone, wearable, tag), the reviewed empirical studies did not clearly distinguish among these devices on their survey questions (e.g., asked about generic “use of technology or an app” to track children). Thus, the reviewed studies could not explore how parents may use these devices differently, with different effects. There is a risk that the study of DLT becomes the study of smartphone-based location tracking in particular, given that smartphones are the most salient example for many. Neglect of other device types could result in developmental gaps in our knowledge, because wearables and tags are probably far more common among younger children, many of whom do not own a personal smartphone (Rideout et al., 2021). Thus, future work on DLT should distinguish among the devices being used for DLT during both measurement and analysis as well as include studies focused specifically on wearables and tags.

Need for Measurement Tools

Empirical work requires measures, and today the field lacks standardized and validated measures of DLT. Prior studies have measured DLT use with ad hoc survey items that differed among studies (see Table S2 for item wordings and response options). Whether survey responses are accurate is unknown: no study has validated the self-reported frequency of DLT use against objective records in apps or devices (Coyne et al., 2023). Moreover, prior studies’ survey items have captured only a single dimension of DLT: whether it is activated (yes/no) and if so, the frequency of checking the app or device. The context and style of checking might also be important, as well as non-checking behaviors such as activating DLT or enforcing rules surrounding its use (Pelham III et al., 2023). Finally, there are no existing measures of constructs like parents’ motives for DLT use, inferences parents make from location data, or actions parents take after acquiring location information. To understand how DLT works in practice, we will need not just validated measures of DLT use itself but of several related constructs (Figure 2). The theoretical framework developed in the first part of this paper should help when developing such measures.

Need for Clinical Advice

Many if not most parents in the U.S. are already using DLT. Thus, although we lack empirical evidence on DLT use, parents and clinicians could benefit from advice for best practices given what we already know about parenting, monitoring, development, and digital technology more broadly (Modecki et al., 2022; Schwarz-Torres et al., 2023). The development of a psychoeducation module orienting parents to DLT and recommending concrete “do’s” (e.g., do communicate a clear rationale for using DLT) and “don’ts” (e.g., don’t rely exclusively on DLT to monitor) would be a reasonable first step until a stronger empirical literature can accumulate.

Need to Evaluate DLT as an Intervention Tool

Another important question is whether DLT could itself be a clinical tool, either as an augment to existing interventions or a standalone intervention. Coaching parents to improve their monitoring behaviors is already an ingredient of many family-based treatments and prevention programs for externalizing problems (Schwartz-Torres et al., 2024). However, many parents find deploying the coached monitoring skills to be challenging. For example, the parent must remember to ask the youth for information at the right times, determine when the youth is telling the truth, and navigate high-conflict conversations that might arise from efforts to monitor. In contrast, helping a parent install a DLT app and set a phone reminder to check it regularly at key times is relatively straightforward. Thus, if empirical studies show that DLT is beneficial, it may comprise a lower-burden and more accessible strategy for improving monitoring than existing clinical approaches.

Conclusion

DLT is a new, common, and potentially important parenting behavior that has to date received insufficient empirical study or theoretical attention. It is striking that upwards of 50% of parents in the U.S. are today engaging in an activity about which much remains unknown - the science simply has not kept up. Thankfully, insights from existing literatures on parental monitoring, parental knowledge, and youth information management should prove useful, and this review has identified many promising next steps for research on DLT. Filling the evidence gap won’t be simple: the devices, applications and features involved in DLT today are likely to change quickly and frequently going forward. The field will likewise need to be agile in updating measures, evidence, and recommendations to provide much-needed information about DLT to parents, clinicians, and policy makers.

Table 2.

Comparison of Monitoring Youth Location With Versus Without Digital Location Tracking (DLT)

Characteristic	How do parents monitor youth’s location?		Possible implications of difference
	Without DLT	With DLT
How parents do it	• Know youths’ schedule • Ask youth about current, past, or future location • Ask others about youth’s location • Attempt to corroborate location objectively	Refresh DLT app	• DLT use is simpler to conceptualize and operationalize than is general monitoring of location, which encompasses a more diverse set of behaviors.
Temporal precision of location info	Asynchronous. Often asking about future location or past location. May seek information then receive it only later, when no longer relevant.	Real-time, on-demand	• DLT reduces the demand on parents to plan ahead and proactively monitor (e.g., parents can check the location immediately if they forgot to ask the youth where he would be). • With DLT, parents are more likely to be able to intervene immediately when the youth is in a dangerous location.
Temporal continuity of location info	Discontinuous. Know where youth is periodically and assume that location is stable between samplings. Retrospective, concurrent, or prospective. Parents can try to find out where the youth was, is, or will be.	Continuous. Most DLT apps allow users to access location history over time. Usually concurrent, can be retrospective. Parents can try to find out where the youth was or is, but not where they will be (which is not yet recorded).	• DLT reduces the demand on parents to plan ahead and proactively monitor; parents can check location retrospectively if they forget to track in the moment. • Because DLT eliminates gaps in parents’ knowledge of location, they are more likely to discover instances in which youth did not tell the truth about their location. This could reduce trust or affect the parent-child relationship, or provoke the parent to monitor even more.
Spatial precision of location info	Less precise. Parents may know youth is at school but not where on the grounds; may know youth is out in the neighborhood but not exactly where.	More precise. Many DLT apps promise precision of 20 meters to physical location.	• With DLT, because information is more precise, parents will be more likely to discover when the youth is somewhere they are prohibited from going or has not told the truth about their location.
Validity of location information	Easier for youth to circumvent monitoring. Youth may avoid disclosing information or tell a lie to conceal their location.	More difficult for youth to circumvent monitoring. Youth could leave their device in a location they are not. But, DLT offers a way to check information obtained through other monitoring methods not otherwise available.	• With DLT, youth may tell the parent more accurate information about plans, knowing that their location could be checked later. • With DLT, if the youth frequently and effectively circumvents the GPS tracking, parents may obtain a false sense of security.
Youth awareness of monitoring of location	Higher. Need to ask youth directly for information or ask youth friend’s, friend’s parents, or other adults around the youth for information. Higher chance youth is aware	Lower. Parents can check the youth’s location without their awareness. Youth are less likely to know when parents are checking, how often, etc.	• With DLT, because youth have less ability to track how often parents are monitoring location, they may be less likely to take advantage of temporary gaps in monitoring.
Effort required of parents	Higher. May need to follow-up on requests for information that go unanswered.	Lower. Little planning required.	• With DLT, because checking the youth’s location is far easier, parents may check more often. • With DLT, because parents know they can check the youth’s location on-demand, they may reduce the use of other more effortful monitoring strategies.
Expectations for parents	Lower. Parents and society recognize that a parent cannot know where his or her children are at every moment.	Higher. Parents now have the ability to always be aware of their youth’s location, so pressure from peers and society to monitor may be greater.	• With DLT, parents may develop unrealistic expectations of the level of monitoring they can obtain. Parents may become more anxious due to added pressure, or due to learning innocuous but anxiety-provoking information.

Note. DLT = digital location tracking, info = information. Table compares how parents can monitor youth’s location without DLT versus with DLT. Of course, parents may also combine methods that do not rely on DLT with the use of DLT.