Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jan 30.
Published before final editing as: J Child Media. 2026 Jan 4:10.1080/17482798.2025.2606976. doi: 10.1080/17482798.2025.2606976

Development and Validation of the Parental Media Motivations (MEMO) Scales for Child and Parent Media Use in the United States

Bolim Suh 1, Rachel Barr 2, Margaret L Kerr 1, Jenny Radesky 3, Heather Kirkorian 1
PMCID: PMC12854708  NIHMSID: NIHMS2141034  PMID: 41624492

Abstract

Parental motivations for their own and their child’s media use may shape the quality of media experiences and ultimately child development and family well-being. However, validated scales are lacking. The current paper describes scale development and validation of the Media Motivations for Child (MEMO-C) and Parent (MEMO-P) in 501 parents with young children (2–5 years old). The MEMO-C measures motivations for children’s media use, while the MEMO-P measures motivations for parents’ own use, emphasizing parents’ regulatory and relational goals. Each scale had a three-factor structure (MEMO-C: Regulate, Occupy, Connect; MEMO-P: Regulate, Relax Alone, Connect). These factors demonstrated strong psychometric properties including high reliability, convergent validity, and incremental validity, uniquely predicting child- and parent-related constructs. By measuring parental media motivations through a regulatory and relational lens, these scales enable researchers to more closely examine how family media use is associated with child development and family members’ well-being.

Keywords: parental media motivation, regulatory media use, uses and gratifications, screen time, family media ecology

Prior research on children’s screen time and developmental outcomes has produced mixed results with negative (e.g., McArthur et al., 2022), positive (e.g., Ahearne et al., 2016), and non-significant associations (e.g., Stucke et al., 2022). Such mixed findings suggest that child media effects are complex and likely depend on other factors beyond the amount of time children spend using screens. While screen time estimates provide some insights, they overlook factors known to affect the quality of media experience, such as the type of media used, whether it occurs in a social context, and how children are indirectly affected by others’ media use (Barr & Linebarger, 2017; Komanchuk et al., 2023). Many of these factors are likely driven by parental media motivations, or the reasons parents use media with and around their children, which remain understudied.

The current work is motivated by the Dynamic, Relational, Ecological Approach to Media Effects Research (DREAMER) framework (Barr et al., 2024a), which emphasizes family and relational contexts when examining media use and effects on child development. The DREAMER model builds on the Uses and Gratifications framework (Katz et al., 1973; Rubin, 1983, 1994, 2002) by positing that parental media motivations are likely to shape the amount, content, context, and outcome of media use by parents and children alike. Past research has identified a range of such motivations among parents of young children (Cingel & Krcmar, 2013; Nabi & Krcmar, 2016; Nikken, 2019). However, research examining associations between parental media motivations and child outcomes has been hampered by a lack of validated measures. The current study extends prior research by testing the reliability and validity of scales designed to capture several parental motivations for both child and parent media use. We first discuss parental motivations for their children’s media use, followed by parental motivations for their own media use.

Parental Motivations for Child Media Use

Prior studies have identified several parental motivations for child media use that include educating, occupying, entertaining, and connecting with children, as well as regulating children’s behavior and emotions (e.g., Cingel & Krcmar, 2013; Nabi & Krcmar, 2016; Nikken, 2019; Nikken & Schols, 2015; Suh et al., 2024). These motivations collectively demonstrate that child media use may serve multiple purposes, such as fulfilling children’s developmental needs, meeting parenting-related needs, and supporting family bonding.

Occupying children is a frequently reported parental motivation for child media use, allowing parents to complete other tasks or take a break (e.g., Bentley et al., 2016; Cingel & Krcmar, 2013; Nikken, 2019; Suh et al., 2024). Such media use is especially common when child care resources are limited or when faced with competing responsibilities and demands on parents’ time, such as during the COVID-19 (Hartshorne et al., 2021).

Regulatory media use, or using media to regulate children’s behaviors and emotional responses, has also been studied. While various forms of media use can serve broader regulatory functions, such as promoting laughter or relaxation as forms of mood management, we adopt conventions in the existing literature defining “regulatory media use” more narrowly to refer emotional and behavioral calming (e.g., Coyne et al., 2021; Radesky et al., 2016). Qualitative studies revealed that parents sometimes use media when children are overly excited, distressed, or at risk of disruptive behaviors (Bentley et al., 2016; Radesky et al., 2016; 2023), aligning with broader theories of media use for arousal and mood management (Harrison et al., 2019; Zillmann, 1988; 2000). In children, regulatory media use is associated with worse socioemotional skills (Radesky et al., 2016) and problematic media use, such as a preoccupation or difficulty transitioning away from screens (Coyne et al., 2021).

Finally, parents report using media to enrich and connect. Education is one of parents’ primary motivations for their children’s media use (Nabi & Krcmar, 2016), with parents seeking content that supports literacy, prosocial behavior, and emotion regulation (Linebarger et al., 2017; Mares & Woodard, 2012). Media use also facilitates family discussion about complex topics (Behm-Morawitz et al., 2022) and enhances family relationships through shared media engagement (Elias & Sulkin, 2019; Nabi & Krcmar, 2016).

While qualitative studies have helped identify parental motivations for child media use (e.g., Bentley et al., 2016; Hrabec et al., 2025; Radesky et al., 2014), early quantitative studies often relied on single-item measures, particularly for regulatory use (e.g., Radesky et al., 2016). Such measures limit researchers’ ability to capture sufficient variability and detect associations with other child and parent characteristics. Other work captures a wider range of media motivations (e.g., Cingel & Krcmar, 2013; Coyne et al., 2021; Nabi & Krcmar, 2016; Nikken, 2019). Most recently, Suh and colleagues (2024) developed a 12-item scale capturing multiple ways parents of children 15 months to 10 years old use media to occupy or regulate their children in different contexts (e.g., during meals, in unfamiliar situations, spontaneously versus as scheduled times). Occupying was more common than regulating, which peaked during the preschool years.

Parental Motivations for Their Own Media Use

Less attention has been paid to parental motivations for their own media use, especially in the context of parenting, which requires going beyond a traditional Uses and Gratifications framework (Katz et al., 1973; Rubin, 1983, 1994, 2002) to capture how the unique demands of parenting shape parents’ media use. Like most adults, parents report using media to relax and fill time, but parents’ need for relaxation sometimes emerges from the specific demands of childcare. Limited qualitative studies on parent media use have found that, after demanding days filled with work and child care responsibilities, many parents rely on media as a tool to take a break (e.g., Radesky et al., 2016). Such motivation to relax was frequent among parents who experience high levels of stress (Zhang et al., 2022). Additionally, previous research has demonstrated that many parents develop habitual checking behaviors, engaging with media even without a specific purpose (Schnauber-Stockmann & Naab, 2019). Even these generic habitual behaviors may be shaped by parenting contexts, such as during children’s nap times or while supervising their children at the playground.

Other research has demonstrated that parents report using media as a tool for emotion regulation and stress management, particularly during challenging parenting moments. In one qualitative study where parents were asked about their most recent phone use during parenting-related stress, the most frequently mentioned motivation was to mentally and emotionally escape from their current situation with their child (Torres et al., 2021). Similarly, in a focus group study, parents reported using media to cope with their stress through information seeking, self-distraction, active coping, and social support (Wolfers, 2021). Such self-regulatory media use may explain why other studies find positive associations between parenting stress and frequency of parent media use in general (McDaniel et al., 2024; McDaniel & Radesky, 2018).

Finally, as with their children, they report using media to enrich their own lives by connecting with family and friends and learning new things. Within the parenting context, these connections sometimes focus on obtaining parenting-specific support and information. For example, parents maintain relationships and seek support from both existing social networks and online parenting communities through social media platforms (Hooper et al., 2023). Parents also report using media for learning and self-development, including acquiring parenting-specific knowledge (Baker et al., 2017).

Together, prior research has identified a wide range of parental motivations for both child and parent media use in different contexts. These motivations may be parenting-specific (e.g., bonding or avoiding conflict with children) or more general adult motivations that can be applied to parenting contexts (e.g., relaxing after caring for children, using habitually during parenting routines). Motivations are wide-ranging, including instrumental (e.g., occupying children), regulatory (e.g., calming down), and relational goals (e.g., bonding). Studies have begun to identify correlates, such as parenting stress. Understanding these associations is important for developing more effective guidance and intervention. However, such research is hampered by a dearth of reliable and validated measures designed to capture a broad spectrum of media motivations in the parenting context.

Current Study

This study had three aims: 1) to develop comprehensive parent-report measures of media motivations for their own and their children’s media use, emphasizing regulatory and relational processes; 2) to characterize the factor structure of each scale; and 3) to evaluate their reliability and validity. This work culminated in the Media Motivations for Child (MEMO-C) and Parent (MEMO-P) scales for child and parent media use, respectively.

We revised and expanded Suh et al.’s (2024) measures to capture a wider range of parental motivations and contexts for media use by both children (2–5 years old) and parents. We focused on this age because it is characterized by children’s difficulty with emotional and behavioral regulation (Briggs-Gowan et al., 2006), stronger preferences and demands for specific media (Christakis & Zimmerman, 2006), elevated regulatory media use (Suh et al., 2024), and establishment of long-lasting media use patterns (Canadian Pediatric Society, 2017).

We used factor analysis to establish factor structures for both scales. We expected to observe similar factors that emerged in prior research (e.g., regulate and occupy children, regulate and entertain parents) (Suh et al., 2024). In addition, we anticipated new factors might emerge based on new items designed to capture relational aspects of media use (e.g., bond with child, relax together). Next, we tested convergent and incremental validity against constructs with theoretical or empirical relevance to the regulatory and relational aspects of parent and child media use. In general, we expected more positive outcomes associated with media use to connect than media use to occupy, relax alone, or regulate child and parent emotions.

Methods

Participants and Data Collection

The study received approval from the Institutional Review Board at Georgetown University. Participants were parents of children 2 to 5 years old. Data were collected via an online survey post on Prolific in July and August 2024, with oversampling in some groups to increase sample diversity across parent education, race, and ethnicity.

Among 537 respondents, 36 were excluded because their child was outside the target age range (n = 12), they failed more than one attention check (n = 3), or they had missing data on a key variable (n = 21). The final sample included 501 parents, most of whom identified as women (65.9%) with an average age of 35.1 years (SD = 6.3). Approximately half of parents (51.9%) reported having a 4-year college degree. Parents self-identified as White (42.3%), Black or African American (27.7%), Asian or Pacific Islander (7.2%), or mixed/another race (22.8%), and 22.4% of parents identified as Hispanic/Latino. The target child was an average of 49.4 months old (SD = 11.3), with a near-even split of children with sex assigned as male (50.7%) versus female (49.3%) at birth. See Supplemental Table S1 for more demographic information.

Measures

Participants provided demographic information, followed by questions about child screen time and media motivations (MEMO-C), then parent screen time and media motivations (MEMO-P), and ending with questionnaires used to test convergent and incremental validity.

Media Motivations (MEMO) Scales

The Media Motivations for Child (MEMO-C) and Parent (MEMO-P) scales were developed to measure parental motivations for their own and their children’s media use, with a focus on regulatory and relational goals in the context of parenting. The scales included items adapted from earlier studies (e.g., Cingel & Krcmar, 2013; Coyne et al., 2022; Nikken, 2019; Suh et al., 2024; 20 items for MEMO-C; 12 items for MEMO-P), items emerging from informal focus groups of parents of young children (2–6 years old) who were asked about their children’s typical daily routines and when/why their children used media (5 items for MEMO-C; 4 items for MEMO-P), and additional items generated by a multidisciplinary research team that includes child development experts, media effects scholars, and a practicing clinician, several of whom are themselves parents (3 items for MEMO-C; 3 items for MEMO-P). These scale development efforts yielded more items for child media use than for parent media use, partly because the focus group discussions centered on activities of children, and partly because examples were more varied for child media use, such as reflecting different contexts (e.g., at home versus in public places).

The child media scale (MEMO-C) asked how often the child uses screen media to achieve 28 goals, such as calming the child when they are upset, letting the parent get things done, or making the child laugh. The parent media scale (MEMO-P) similarly asked how often the parent uses media to achieve 19 goals, such as calm down, relax, and connect with family and friends. The order of items within each scale was randomized for each participant to eliminate systematic order effects. Parents rated the frequency of media use for each motivation on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). The complete scales tested in this study can be found in Supplemental Tables S2 and S3.

Parent and Child Screen Time

Overall quantities of parent and child screen time were measured through parent-reported estimates of daily media use, including watching videos, playing digital games, and video chatting. These items were adapted from the Media Assessment Questionnaire v2 (Barr et al., 2024b). Parents used a slider scale to indicate the amount of time they (the parent) and their child spent on typical weekdays and on typical weekend days, ranging from 0 to 8 hours in 15-minute intervals. To calculate average daily screen time, we weighted weekday values by 5 and weekend values by 2, summed these products, and divided by 7 to obtain daily minutes of media use for parents and children.

Parent-Child Joint Media Engagement

The 18-item Joint Media Engagement Scale (JMES; Koch et al., 2024) examines ways in which parents scaffold children’s understanding during joint media engagement, such as explaining what children see on screen or making connections to the child’s prior experience. Parents rated frequency from 0 (never/very rarely) to 4 (often/always). The 18 items were averaged, with higher scores indicating more frequent joint media engagement (α = .95).

Child Problematic Media Use

The 9-item Problematic Media Use Measure-Short Form (PMUM-SF; Domoff et al., 2017) assesses problematic media use in young children, including loss of interest in other activities, difficulty stopping using media, wanting to use more, sneaking media, and exhibiting functional impairment due to media use. Parents rated the frequency of child behaviors from 0 (never) to 4 (always). The items were averaged, with higher scores indicating more frequent child problematic media use (α = .92).

Child Externalizing and Internalizing Behavioral Problems

The 99-item Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1.5–5 (CBCL 1.5–5; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) evaluates behavioral and emotional problems over the past two months. For this study, we used two of the seven subscales: externalizing (24 items) and internalizing (36 items). Parents rated frequency from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true or often true). Items were averaged, with higher scores indicating greater behavioral problems (externalizing: α = .91; internalizing: α = .93).

Parental Distraction with Mobile Devices

The 4-item Distraction in Social Relations and Use of Parent Technology scale (DISRUPT; McDaniel, 2021) measures parents’ tendency toward problematic phone use during time spent with their child, such as finding it difficult to avoid checking their phone. Parents rated agreement from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The four items were averaged, with higher scores indicating greater parental distraction with mobile devices (α = .84).

Parenting Stress

The 18-item Parenting Stress Scale (PSS; Berry & Jones, 1995) captures positive and negative perceptions of parenthood, such as feeling happy about versus burdened by their parenting role. Parents rated agreement from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Eight items representing positive aspects of parenting were reverse-scored before averaging, with higher scores indicating higher parenting stress (α = .90).

Maladaptive Strategies for Emotion Regulation in Parenting

The 18-item Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale (REPS; Rodriguez et al., 2020) measures parents’ emotion regulation in the parenting context, such as recognizing and setting aside their emotions to respond to their child, concealing emotional expression, and feeling guilty about negative interactions with their child. Parents rated frequency from 0 (never) to 4 (always). 10 items representing adaptive strategies were reverse-scored before averaging, with higher scores indicating more frequent use of maladaptive strategies (α = .72).

Analytical Approach

See Supplemental Materials for more details about the analytic approach. Briefly, we established the factor structure for both scales by randomly selecting half of the participants (N = 261) for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), then validated the factor structure with the other half of the sample (N = 260) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency of the entire scale and each factor subscale was computed as Cronbach’s alpha and evaluated based on established guidelines (Nunnally, 1978). Additional analyses included convergent validity, incremental validity, and correlations among factors in each scale. We evaluated convergent validity by examining correlations between the MEMO-C and MEMO-P subscales and theoretically and empirically related child and parent constructs (see Supplemental Table S4 for construct descriptions). Incremental validity was evaluated using hierarchical analyses to test whether each scale explained additional variance in child- and parent-related outcomes above and beyond demographics and screen time. Supplemental sensitivity analyses used robust regression to confirm the stability of results given many variables were skewed (see Supplemental Table S5).

Results

Parental Media Motivations for Child (MEMO-C) Media Use

The mean score for the MEMO-C across all 28 items was 1.79 (SD = 0.72) on a 0–4 scale, roughly equivalent to “Sometimes”. Supplemental Figure S1 shows the average frequency for each item. Supplemental Figure S1 shows the average frequency for each item. The global scale demonstrated satisfactory reliability overall (a = .94) and within most demographic subgroups (see Supplemental Table S6).

Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The EFA with 261 participants explained 47% of variance across all 28 items and revealed that 20 items loaded onto three factors. See Table 1 for the final items and factor loadings, and Supplemental Table S7 for the full EFA results, including additional items that did not load or were cross-loaded. The CFA with the other 260 participants confirmed the three-factor structure with good model fit (CFI = 0.945, TLI = 0.937, RMSEA = 0.060 [0.050, 0.069], SRMR = 0.049). “Regulate” represented using media to regulate their children’s emotions and behaviors (M = 1.51, SD = 0.86). “Occupy” represented using media to occupy children so that parents can take a break or get things done (M = 2.25, SD = 0.90). “Connect” represented using media to promote connection and communication within families (M = 1.80, SD = 0.90). Each factor had acceptable reliability in the full sample (a = .92, .88, and .71 for Regulate, Occupy, and Connect, respectively) and within most demographic subgroups (Supplemental Table S6).

Table 1.

Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis for the Media Motivations for Children (MEMO-C)

Item Factor Loading
Regulate Occupy Connect
Regulate
 to calm your child down when they are upset (crying, yelling, showing big emotions) .96
 to prevent your child from getting overwhelmed or upset in a new or difficult situation .88
  to soothe or comfort your child .87
 to quiet down your child’s demands for their favorite apps, video games, or shows .72
 to stop your child from moving around too much when they are being too active or hyper .68
 to keep your child occupied when in public (e.g., doctor’s office, grocery store, restaurant) .67
 to help your child avoid or reduce conflict .67
 to help your child transition between activities .65
 to help your child sit still or focus .62
 to prevent your child from arguing with siblings or other family members .59
 to entertain your child while they eat snacks or meals .49
 to reward your child for good behavior .43
Occupy
 to keep your child occupied when you need some time to yourself .92
 to let you take a break or relax by yourself .88
 to let you get things done .76
 to keep your child safely occupied when you are busy .72
 to let you mentally “check out” or escape when the day was overwhelming .69
Connect
 to bond with your child or relax together .92
 so your child can share quality time .86
 to help your child connect with family members and friends .58
Open in a new tab

Convergent Validity

See Supplemental Table S8 for correlations between the three MEMO-C factors and the five validity constructs (joint media engagement, problematic media use, internalizing behavior, externalizing behavior, overall screen time). The Regulate and Occupy factors were significantly and positively correlated with all five constructs (rs between .21 and .48, all ps < .001) and were most strongly correlated with problematic media use (Regulate: r = .48; Occupy: r = .39). The Connect factor was only correlated with joint media engagement (r = .39, p < .001) and problematic media use (r = .21, p < .001).

Incremental Validity

For each construct, we entered demographic variables (Step 1), child screen time (Step 2), and the three MEMO-C factors (Step 3). Collectively, the three MEMO-C factors explained additional variance beyond demographics and screen time for all outcomes, but the specific MEMO-C factors that predicted each outcome varied. The Regulate factor uniquely and positively predicted joint media engagement, problematic media use, and child internalizing problems. The Occupy factor uniquely and positively predicted problematic media use and externalizing problems. The Connect factor positively predicted joint media engagement and negatively predicted internalizing problems. See Table 2 for a summary of model results. Supplemental Table S9 and S10 provide the complete regression outputs and factor-specific results, respectively. The robust regression sensitivity analyses confirmed that the overall patterns of incremental validity findings remained consistent across both analytical methods (Supplemental Table S11).

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Incremental Validity of the MEMO-C

Joint Media Engagement Child Problematic Media Use Child Internalizing Behavior Problem Child Externalizing Behavior Problem
Predictors R2/ΔR2 B (SE) R2/ΔR2 B (SE) R2/ΔR2 B (SE) R2/ΔR2 B (SE)
Step 1 (Demographics) R2 = .11*** R2 = .07** R2 = .07** R2 = .06**
Step 2 (Child Screen Time) R2 = .12*
ΔR2 = .01* 		R2 = .16***
ΔR2 = .08*** 		R2 = .10***
ΔR2 = .03*** 		R2 = .07***
ΔR2= .01**
Step 3
(MEMO-C) 		R2 = .26***
ΔR2 = .13*** 		R2 = .32***
ΔR2 = .17*** 		R2 = .15***
ΔR2 = .05*** 		R2 = .14***
ΔR2 = .06***
 Regulate 0.13*(0.06) 0.32***(0.05) 2.06***(0.57) 1.21 (0.58)
 Occupy 0.03 (0.05) 0.12** (0.04) 0.63 (0.49) 1.90***(0.53)
 Connect 0.28***(0.04) -0.01 (0.04) -0.87*(0.42) -0.84 (0.46)
Open in a new tab

Note. Unstandardized betas and p-values in the full model are reported. The reference group of the Parent Race category is White (the largest subgroup) and the reference group of the Parent Education category is a 4-year college degree.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

Parental Media Motivations for Parent (MEMO-P) Media Use

The mean score for the MEMO-P across all 19 items was 1.98 (SD = 0.67). Supplemental Figure S2 shows the average frequency for each item. The global scale demonstrated satisfactory reliability overall (a = .89) and within most demographic subgroups (see Supplemental Table S6).

Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The EFA with 261 participants explained 45% of variance across all 19 items, and revealed that 15 items loaded onto three factors. See Table 3 for the final items and factor loadings, and Supplemental Table S12 for the full EFA results. The CFA with the other 260 participants confirmed the three-factor structure with good model fit (CFI = 0.900, TLI = 0.880, RMSEA = 0.078 [0.066 to 0.091], SRMR = 0.068). “Regulate” represented using media to regulate parents’ own emotions and behaviors (M = 1.11, SD = 0.87). “Relax Alone” represented using media so parents can relax or unwind by themselves (M = 2.63, SD = 0.72). “Connect” represented using media to facilitate connection between parents and other people (M = 2.07, SD = 1.00). Regulate and Relax Alone had acceptable reliability in the full sample (a = .82 and .83, respectively) while Connect had borderline reliability (a = .69). Reliability was similar within most demographic subgroups (Supplemental Table S6).

Table 3.

Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis for the Media Motivations for Parent (MEMO-P)

Item Factor Loading
Regulate Relax Connect
Regulate
 to prevent from arguing with my child or other family members .91
 to avoid or reduce conflict .82
 to calm down in the moment, so that you don’t yell at your kids or overreact to them .78
 to help you talk about complex or difficult topics .55
 to feel less lonely or sad .50
 to help you sleep .40
Relax Alone
 to relax and unwind .85
 to help you unwind after a busy day .78
 to mentally “check out” or escape when the day has been overwhelming .72
 to reduce boredom .66
 to laugh or be entertained .64
 to distract yourself when you don’t feel well .61
 out of habit, without even thinking about it .51
Connect
 to connect with family and friends .69
 so you can share quality time with other family members .65
Open in a new tab

Note. N = 261.

Convergent Validity

See Supplemental Table S13 for correlations between the three MEMO-P factors and the five validity constructs (joint media engagement, distraction with mobile devices, parenting stress, maladaptive strategies for emotion regulation, overall screen time). The Regulate and Relax Alone factors were significantly and positively correlated with all five constructs (rs between .16 and .37, all ps < .001). Regulate was most strongly correlated with maladaptive strategies (r = .36), while Relax Alone was most strongly correlated with distraction with mobile devices (r = .41). The Connect factor was positively correlated with joint media engagement (r = .31, p < .001) and parents’ overall screen time (r = .17, p < .001) and negatively correlated with parenting stress (r = −.14, p = .04).

Incremental Validity

We examined incremental validity for the MEMO-P factors following the same procedure as the MEMO-C. Again, the three MEMO-P factors explained additional variance for all outcomes, but the specific factors predicting each outcome varied. The Regulate factor uniquely and positively predicted joint media engagement, parenting stress, and maladaptive strategies. The Relax Alone factor uniquely and positively predicted parental distraction with mobile devices and parenting stress. The Connect factor positively predicted joint media engagement and negatively predicted parenting stress and maladaptive strategies. See Table 4 for a summary of model results, Supplemental Table S14 and S15 for results of the full model and individual factors, respectively. As before, the overall pattern of results was with robust regression (Supplemental Table S16).

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Incremental Validity of the MEMO-P

Joint Media Engagement Parental Distraction
with Mobile Device		 Parenting Stress Maladaptive Strategies for Emotion Regulation in Parenting
Predictors R2/ΔR2 B (SE) R2/ΔR2 B (SE) R2/ΔR2 B (SE) R2/ΔR2 B (SE)
Step 1 (Demographics) R2 = .11** R2 = .04 R2 = .03 R2 = .03
Step 2
(Parent Screen Time) 		R2 = .12***
ΔR2 = .01* 		R2 = .07***
ΔR2 = .04*** 		R2 = .04
ΔR2 = .00 		R2 = .03
ΔR2 = .00
Step 3
(MEMO-P) 		R2 = .21***
ΔR2 = .08*** 		R2 = .21***
ΔR2 = .13*** 		R2 = .11
ΔR2 = .09*** 		R2 = .17***
ΔR2 = .11***
 Regulate 0.15**(0.05) 0.10 (0.07) 0.13***(0.04) 0.20***(0.03)
 Relax Alone 0.05 (0.05) 0.62***(0.08) 0.12**(0.04) 0.04 (0.03)
 Connect 0.17***(0.04) -0.04 (0.06) -0.13***(0.03) -0.06**(0.02)
Open in a new tab

Note. Unstandardized betas and p values in the final model are reported. The reference group of the Parent Race category is White and the reference group of the Parent Education category is a 4-year college.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001.

Correlations between Factors in the MEMO-C and MEMO-P

Correlations among the factors in the MEMO-C and MEMO-P are presented in Supplemental Table S17. All correlations were significant within the MEMO-C (rs = .32 to .63, all ps < .001), within the MEMO-P (rs = .27 to .47, all ps < .001), and across the two scales (rs = .21 to .65, all ps < .001).

Discussion

This study’s purpose was to develop and validate measures of parental media motivations. Factor analysis revealed three-factor structures for both scales, the MEMO-C (child media use) and MEMO-P (parent media use). This work builds upon and refines earlier efforts at scale development (Cingel & Krcmar, 2013; Coyne et al., 2022; Nikken, 2019; Suh et al., 2024). Specifically, these scales capture regulatory motivations in different parenting-specific contexts as well as the relational aspects of both child and parent media use. As such, the current scales are more comprehensive than prior iterations (i.e., Suh et al., 2024). Additionally, the sample was stratified by several demographic characteristics to increase generalizability.

Psychometric Properties

The factors identified in the study demonstrated strong psychometric properties, with good internal consistency for each overall scale as well as within most factors and within most demographic subgroups. In addition, they showed strong convergent validity with several theoretically and empirically related constructs. Incremental validity was also established for both scales, with each factor independently predicting related constructs. That is, we examined the extent to which each factor predicted outcomes on its own, controlling for demographic variables, screen time estimates, and other factors (i.e., motivations) within the same scale. This approach was important considering the significant correlations observed between factors within each scale. By accounting for shared variance, we isolated each factor’s unique contribution. Together, this study supports the MEMO-C and MEMO-P as multi-dimensional valid measures of parental motivations for media use in families with young children (2–5 years old), emphasizing the regulatory and relational aspects of media use in parenting contexts.

As expected, each scale identified a three-factor structure capturing different parental motivations for child and parent media use, replicating and expanding on prior research (e.g., Coyne et al., 2021; Suh et al., 2024). Also as hypothesized, our findings revealed distinct patterns of association between each factor and child- and parent-related constructs, with the Connect factors associated with more positive constructs in general. Next, we discuss general themes that emerged across the two scales with respect to child- and parent-related constructs.

Media to Connect

A key innovation in this study was the inclusion of items that captured relational aspects of child and parent media use. Such motivations align with extensive research demonstrating how families use media to foster togetherness and maintain relationships within households (Brito et al., 2017) and with physically distant family members and friends (Hooper et al., 2023).

As predicted, both Connect factors were associated with positive child- and parent-related constructs, including more frequent joint media engagement, fewer child internalizing problems, less parenting stress, and less frequent use of maladaptive strategies for emotion regulation in parenting. Associations with child well-being may reflect opportunities for parent scaffolding and emotional support, potentially serving a protective function (Rasmussen et al., 2016; Wood et al., 2016). Similarly, findings suggest that parents’ media use to connect with others may represent an adaptive strategy that buffers against parenting stress consistent with prior research (e.g., Ewin et al., 2021). However, the direction of these associations remains unclear; parents may be more likely to engage in media activities when children exhibit fewer internalizing problems, when parents experience less stress, or when parents have more adaptive emotion regulation strategies.

Notably, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis supported the separation of these Connect factors from other factors in each scale. However, both Connect factors included a relatively small number of items, likely explaining relatively low reliability compared to other factors. As such, future researchers might consider adding more items designed to capture relational aspects of child and parent media use, perhaps considering other ways of connecting through media or using media to connect in more specific contexts (e.g., playing digital games together for enjoyment, watching videos together for relaxation, using videochat to connect with friends or family when physically separated).

Media to Regulate

In both scales, the Regulate factor was associated with some negative child- and parent-related constructs. For children, Regulate positively and independently predicted children’s internalizing behavior problems and problematic media use, consistent with prior research with children 2–3 years old (Coyne et al., 2021). Given the cross-sectional nature of our data set, we do not infer causality. However, prior longitudinal research suggests the association between media use to regulate children and children’s social-emotional skills may reflect bidirectional processes; either regulatory media use displaces development opportunities for self-regulation (Coyne et al., 2021; Radesky et al., 2014), or children with existing challenges lead parents to rely more on media (Gordon-Hacker & Gueron-Sela, 2020).

For parents, the Regulate factor positively predicted parenting stress, consistent with prior research (Suh et al., 2024). Additionally, parents’ own media use to regulate positively predicted their maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in parenting. This may suggest that distressed parents use media when they lack other emotion regulation strategies (Greenwood & Long, 2009; Wolfers & Schneider, 2021), although the cross-sectional nature of our data preclude causal inference. Alternatively, media use may be an ineffective coping tool that results in greater parental stress and emotion dysregulation.

Notably, for both child and parent media use, the Regulate factor positively predicted joint media engagement. This could reflect that parents scaffold emotion regulation even during child media use (Rasmussen et al., 2016; Wood et al., 2016). Alternatively, it is possible that parents who use media to regulate children more frequently are also the ones who engage in their children’s media use more. Future research is needed to identify the specific contexts surrounding media use when used for regulatory versus other purposes, and the degree to which joint media engagement might be a protective factor.

Media to Occupy Children and Relax Alone

Another set of factors represent complementary motivations to meet parents’ own needs for relaxation, entertainment, or productivity. In both scales, these motivations were associated with negative child- and parent-related constructs. For children, Occupy was the most frequent motivation in our study, as in some prior studies (Nikken, 2019; Suh et al., 2024). This motivation was positively associated with children’s problematic media use and externalizing behavior. For parents, Relax Alone positively predicted parenting stress and parental distraction with mobile devices. These findings suggest that parents who more frequently use media for relaxation may be more likely to experience technology-related interruptions in parent-child interactions, which prior research links to increased parenting difficulties (McDaniel, 2019; McDaniel et al., 2024). Together, these findings are consistent with prior research suggesting solitary media use is associated with more negative outcomes (Ewin et al., 2021).

Limitations and Future Directions

The reliance on single-person self-report may introduce common method bias, so future research should incorporate multi-method approaches or direct observation, while maintaining the unique value of self-report to capture parents’ subjective experiences. Additionally, our cross-sectional design calls for future longitudinal and intervention research to support causal inference. Other future research could establish divergent validity and test the scales in other age groups to establish generalizability and identify potential sensitive periods. Finally, future research could examine within-person differences in parental media motivations across varying contexts to illuminate how these motivations function in real-time and fluctuate within individuals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study provides support for using the MEMO-C and MEMO-P scales to measure several distinct parental motivations for child and parent media use. The scales showed generally good reliability overall, within factors, and within subgroups. Parental media motivations proved to be significant predictors of child- and parent-related outcomes above and beyond the amount of screen time. By capturing the regulatory and relational motivations driving media use within families, these scales offer researchers a validated quantitative tool for future research examining associations between media motivations, child development and family wellbeing.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental tables

Impact Summary.

Prior State of Knowledge.

Most research on child media use overlooks parental motivations that may shape families’ media experiences, and measurement tools for such motivations are lacking.

Novel Contributions.

This paper presents two multidimensional scales measuring parental motivations for child media use (MEMO-C) and parents’ own media use (MEMO-P), focusing on regulatory and relational aspects in parenting contexts.

Practical Implications.

The scales will enable researchers to examine parents’ motivations for media use as potential targets for intervention aimed at promoting positive media use.

Funding details

This work was supported in part by NICHD P01HD109907.

Biographies

Biographical Note

Bolim Suh received a Ph.D in Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research focuses on child media use within family contexts, particularly how parental motivations relate to the quality of children’s media experiences.

Rachel Barr is Professor of Psychology at Georgetown University and Director of the Georgetown Early Learning Project. She studies how children bridge the gap between what they learn from media and how they apply that information in the real world and has published research on the effects of content and context of media on early learning.

Margaret L. Kerr is an Associate Professor of Human Development & Family Studies and a State Specialist in Vulnerable and Underserved Children with the Division of Extension at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her work explores factors that influence how adults perceive and experience parenting, such as media, emotions, parental burnout, and gender. She places a particular emphasis on the societal forces that inhibit positive parenting experiences.

Jenny Radesky, M.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, is a practicing developmental-behavioral pediatrician and media researcher. Her research examines design affordances of modern technology in the context of parent–child interaction and child social-emotional development.

Heather Kirkorian is a Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a developmental psychologist who uses behavioral, observational, and psychophysiological methods to study the causes and consequences of media use with and around infants and young children. Her recent studies examine how media use relates to children’s cognitive and social-emotional skills, parents’ mental health and well-being, and parent-child interactions.

Footnotes

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahearne C, Dilworth S, Rollings R, Livingstone V, & Murray D (2016). Touch-screen technology usage in toddlers. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 101(2), 181–183. 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309278 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker S, Sanders MR, & Morawska A (2017). Who uses online parenting support? A cross-sectional survey exploring Australian parents’ Internet use for parenting. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(3), 916–927. 10.1007/s10826-016-0608-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barr R, Kirkorian H, Coyne S, & Radesky J (2024a). Early Childhood and Digital Media. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barr R, Kirkorian H, Radesky J, Coyne S, Sundqvist A, & Koch FS (2024b). CAFE Media Assessment Questionnaire (MAQ) v2. Databrary. Retrieved October 3, 2024 from https://nyu.databrary.org/volume/1785 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barr R, & Linebarger DN (2017). Media Exposure During Infancy and Early Childhood. Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-45102-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Behm-Morawitz E, Luisi T, & Pennell H (2022). Parent–child communication about gender and race through the films Black Panther and Wonder Woman: The roles of parental mediation and media literacy. Psychology of Popular Media, 11(4), 382–394. 10.1037/ppm0000405 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bentley GF, Turner KM, & Jago R (2016). Mothers’ views of their preschool child’s screen-viewing behaviour: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 718. 10.1186/s12889-016-3440-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Berry JO, & Jones WH (1995). The Parental Stress Scale: Initial psychometric evidence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 463–472. 10.1177/0265407595123009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Beyens I, & Eggermont S (2014). Putting young children in front of the television: Antecedents and outcomes of parents’ use of television as a babysitter. Communication Quarterly, 62(1), 57–74. 10.1080/01463373.2013.860904 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Briggs-Gowan MJ, Carter AS, Bosson-Heenan J, Guyer AE, Horwitz SM (2006). Are infant-toddler social-emotional and behavioral problems transient? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(7), 849–858. 10.1097/01.chi.0000220849.48650.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bondad-Brown BA, Rice RE, & Pearce KE (2012). Influences on tv viewing and online user-shared video use: Demographics, generations, contextual age, media use, motivations, and audience activity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 471–493. 10.1080/08838151.2012.732139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brito R, Francisco R, Dias P, & Chaudron S (2017). Family dynamics in digital homes: The role played by parental mediation in young children’s digital practices around 14 European countries. Contemporary Family Therapy, 39(4), 271–280. 10.1007/s10591-017-9431-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Choe DE, Lawrence AC, & Cingel DP (2023). The role of different screen media devices, child dysregulation, and parent screen media use in children’s self-regulation. Psychology of Popular Media, 12(3), 324–334. 10.1037/ppm0000412 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Christakis DA, & Zimmerman FJ (2006). Early television viewing is associated with protesting turning off the television at age 6. Medscape General Medicine, 8(2), 63. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cingel DP, & Krcmar M (2013). Predicting media use in very young children: The role of demographics and parent attitudes. Communication Studies, 64(4), 374–394. 10.1080/10510974.2013.770408 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cliff DP, Howard SJ, Radesky JS, McNeill J, & Vella SA (2018). Early childhood media exposure and self-regulation: Bidirectional longitudinal associations. Academic Pediatrics, 18(7), 813–819. 10.1016/j.acap.2018.04.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Coyne SM, Shawcroft J, Gale M, Gentile DA, Etherington JT, Holmgren H, & Stockdale L (2021). Tantrums, toddlers and technology: Temperament, media emotion regulation, and problematic media use in early childhood. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106762. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. De Oliveira R, Pentoney C, & Pritchard-Berman M (2018). YouTube needs: Understanding user’s motivations to watch videos on mobile devices. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 1–11. 10.1145/3229434.3229448 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Domoff SE, Borgen AL, & Radesky JS (2020). Interactional theory of childhood problematic media use. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 343–353. 10.1002/hbe2.217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Elias N, & Sulkin I (2019). Screen-assisted parenting: The relationship between toddlers’ screen time and parents’ use of media as a parenting tool. Journal of Family Issues, 40(18), 2801–2822. 10.1177/0192513X19864983 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ewin CA, Reupert AE, McLean LA, & Ewin CJ (2021). The impact of joint media engagement on parent–child interactions: A systematic review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(2), 230–254. 10.1002/hbe2.203 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fitzpatrick C, Binet M-A, Harvey E, Barr R, Couture M, & Garon-Carrier G (2023). Preschooler screen time and temperamental anger/frustration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pediatric Research, 94(2), 820–825. 10.1038/s41390-023-02485-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gordon-Hacker A, & Gueron-Sela N (2020). Maternal use of media to regulate child distress: A double-edged sword? longitudinal links to toddlers’ negative emotionality. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(6), 400–405. 10.1089/cyber.2019.0487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Greenwood DN, & Long CR (2009). Mood specific media use and emotion regulation: Patterns and individual differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5–6), 616–621. 10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Habes M (2019). The influence of personal motivation on using social TV: A Uses and Gratifications Approach. International Journal of Information Technology and Language Studies, 3(1), Article 1. https://journals.sfu.ca/ijitls/index.php/ijitls/article/view/69 [Google Scholar]
  26. Harrison K, Vallina L, Couture A, Wenhold H, & Moorman JD (2019). Sensory curation: Theorizing media use for sensory regulation and implications for family media conflict. Media Psychology, 22(4), 653–688. 10.1080/15213269.2018.1496024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hartshorne JK, Huang YT, Lucio Paredes PM, Oppenheimer K, Robbins PT, & Velasco MD (2021). Screen time as an index of family distress. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2, 100023. 10.1016/j.crbeha.2021.100023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hrabec O, Slussareff M, Novotná A, & Lukavská K (2025). Media parenting strategies for Czech children aged 6–9 years. Children’s Health Care, 1–23. 10.1080/02739615.2025.2503169 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hooper A, Schweiker C, & Kerch C (2023). Social support in a parenting Facebook group during the COVID ‐19 pandemic. Family Relations, 72(2), 530–546. 10.1111/fare.12804 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Howard MC (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51–62. 10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Huber PH (1964). Robust estimation of a local parameter. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35, 73–101. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hu L, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Katz E, Blumler JG, & Gurevitch M (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. [Google Scholar]
  34. Koch F, Barr R, & Sundqvist A (2024). The Joint Media Engagement Scale (JMES): An instrument for measuring shared media use with children aged 1 to 5 years old. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, bjdp.12526. 10.1111/bjdp.12526 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Komanchuk J, Toews AJ, Marshall S, Mackay LJ, Hayden KA, Cameron JL, Duffett-Leger L, & Letourneau N (2023). Impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes: A scoping review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(8), 579–603. 10.1089/cyber.2022.0278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Linebarger DN, Brey E, Fenstermacher S, & Barr R (2017). What makes preschool educational television educational? A content analysis of literacy, language-promoting, and prosocial preschool programming. In Barr R & Linebarger DN (Eds.), Media Exposure During Infancy and Early Childhood: The Effects of Content and Context on Learning and Development (pp. 97–133). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-45102-2_7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mares M-L, & Woodard E (2012). Prosocial TV content: Children’s interpretations and responses. In Scharrer E (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media studies: Volume V. Media effects/media psychology (pp. 657–677). Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  38. McArthur BA, Tough S, & Madigan S (2022). Screen time and developmental and behavioral outcomes for preschool children. Pediatric Research, 91(6), 1616–1621. 10.1038/s41390-021-01572-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. McDaniel BT (2019). Parent distraction with phones, reasons for use, and impacts on parenting and child outcomes: A review of the emerging research. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 72–80. 10.1002/hbe2.139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. McDaniel BT (2021). The DISRUPT: A measure of parent distraction with phones and mobile devices and associations with depression, stress, and parenting quality. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(5), 922–932. 10.1002/hbe2.267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. McDaniel B, Linder L, Mariek MP, Vanden Abeele MP Ventura A, Coyne S & Barr R (2024). Technoference in early family life: The impact of technological interference and distraction on parent-child relationships and child development. In Christakis D and Hale L (Eds.) Children and Screens: A Handbook on Digital Media and the Development, Health, and Well-being of Children and Adolescents. Springer, New York, NY. [Google Scholar]
  42. McDaniel BT, & Radesky JS (2018). Technoference: Longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatric Research, 84(2), 210–218. 10.1038/s41390-018-0052-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. McDaniel BT, Ventura AK, & Drouin M (2024). Parent social media use and gaming on mobile phones, technoference in family time, and parenting stress. Psychology of Popular Media. 10.1037/ppm0000539 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Nabi RL, & Krcmar M (2016). It takes two: The effect of child characteristics on U.S. parents’ motivations for allowing electronic media use. Journal of Children and Media, 10(3), 285–303. 10.1080/17482798.2016.1162185 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Nikken P (2019). Parents’ instrumental use of media in childrearing: Relationships with confidence in parenting, and health and conduct problems in children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(2), 531–546. 10.1007/s10826-018-1281-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Nunnally JC (1978). An overview of psychological measurement. In Wolman BB (Ed.), Clinical Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: A Handbook (pp. 97–146). Springer US. 10.1007/978-1-4684-2490-4_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Poulain T, Vogel M, Neef M, Abicht F, Hilbert A, Genuneit J, Körner A, & Kiess W (2018). Reciprocal associations between electronic media use and behavioral difficulties in preschoolers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(4), Article 4. 10.3390/ijerph15040814 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Radesky J, Kaciroti N, Weeks HM, Schaller A, & Miller AL (2023). Longitudinal associations between use of mobile devices for calming and emotional reactivity and executive functioning in children aged 3 to 5 years. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(1), 62. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Radesky J, Kistin C, Eisenberg S, Gross J, Block G, Zuckerman B, & Silverstein M (2016a). Parent perspectives on their mobile technology use: The excitement and exhaustion of parenting while connected. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 37(9), 694–701. 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Radesky JS, Silverstein M, Zuckerman B, & Christakis DA (2014). Infant self-regulation and early childhood media exposure. Pediatrics, 133(5), e1172–e1178. 10.1542/peds.2013-2367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Radesky, Peacock-Chambers E, Zuckerman B, & Silverstein M (2016b). Use of mobile technology to calm upset children: Associations with social-emotional development. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(4), 397. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Rasmussen EE, Strouse GA, Colwell MJ, Russo Johnson C, Holiday S, Brady K, Flores I, Troseth G, Wright HD, Densley RL, & Norman MS (2019). Promoting preschoolers’ emotional competence through prosocial tv and mobile app use. Media Psychology, 22(1), 1–22. 10.1080/15213269.2018.1476890 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Rodriguez VJ, & Shaffer A (2021). Validation of the Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale (REPS): Factor structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(4), 468–477. 10.1037/fam0000808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Rubin AM (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27(1), 37–51. 10.1080/08838158309386471 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rubin AM (1994). Media uses and effects: A uses-and-gratifications perspective. In Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 417–436). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rubin AM (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 2nd ed (pp. 525–548). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  57. Schnauber-Stockmann A, & Naab TK (2019). The process of forming a mobile media habit: Results of a longitudinal study in a real-world setting. Media Psychology, 22(5), 714–742. 10.1080/15213269.2018.1513850 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Shawcroft J, Coyne SM, Linder L, Clifford BN, & McDaniel BT (2024). Attachment security and problematic media use in infancy: A longitudinal study in the United States. [Google Scholar]
  59. Stucke NJ, Stoet G, & Doebel S (2022). What are the kids doing? Exploring young children’s activities at home and relations with externally cued executive function and child temperament. Developmental Science, 25(5), e13226. 10.1111/desc.13226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Suh B, Kirkorian H, Barr R, Kucker SC, Torres C, & Radesky JS (2024). Measuring parents’ regulatory media use for themselves and their children. Frontiers in Developmental Psychology, 2, 1377998. 10.3389/fdpys.2024.1377998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Torres C, Radesky J, Levitt KJ, & McDaniel BT (2021). Is it fair to simply tell parents to use their phones less? A qualitative analysis of parent phone use. Acta Paediatrica, 110(9), 2594–2596. 10.1111/apa.15893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Velicer WF, & Jackson DN (1990). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 1–28. 10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wolfers LN (2021). Parental mobile media use for coping with stress: A focus groups study. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(2), 304–315. 10.1002/hbe2.252 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Wolfers LN, & Schneider FM (2021). Using Media for Coping: A Scoping Review. Communication Research, 48(8), 1210–1234. 10.1177/0093650220939778 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Wood E, Petkovski M, De Pasquale D, Gottardo A, Evans MA, & Savage RS (2016). Parent scaffolding of young children when engaged with mobile technology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00690 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Yu J, Qi X, & Yang S (2024). Parent-child joint media engagement within hci: A scoping analysis of the research landscape. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–21. 10.1145/3613904.3642307 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Zhang J, Madigan S, & Browne D (2022). Caregivers’ psychological distress, technology use, and parenting: The importance of a multidimensional perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 134, 107324. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107324 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Zillmann D (1988). Mood management through communication choices. American Behavioral Scientist, 31(3), 327–340. 10.1177/000276488031003005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Zillmann D (2000). Mood management in the context of selective exposure theory. Annals of the International Communication Association, 23(1), 103–123. 10.1080/23808985.2000.11678971 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Zubair U, Khan MK, & Albashari M (2023). Link between excessive social media use and psychiatric disorders. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 85(4), 875–878. 10.1097/MS9.0000000000000112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental tables
NIHMS2141034-supplement-Supplemental_tables.docx (459.2KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

RESOURCES