Mallawaarachchi et al.

BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011

[Link]

RESEARCH Open Access

“You’re damned if you do, you’re damned

if you don’t”: a qualitative exploration of parent
motives for provision of mobile screen devices
in early childhood
Sumudu R. Mallawaarachchi1* , Merrilyn Hooley1 , Wendy Sutherland‑Smith2   and Sharon Horwood1   

Abstract
Background: Exploring parental motives for providing smartphones and tablets to young children is important to
better understand ways to optimise healthy use of mobile screens in early childhood. To date, no study has qualita‑
tively examined the factors underpinning parental motives of providing mobile screens to young children, using a
theoretically driven approach.
Methods: We conducted 45 in-depth, semi structured online interviews with primary caregivers of toddlers and
pre-schoolers from diverse family backgrounds who participated in a large online survey in Australia. Themes were
generated from the transcribed interviews using template thematic analysis. The coding was completed deductively
using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and data-driven induction.
Results: Participants consistently reported a spectrum of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural
control aspects which drove their decision to provide or not provide a mobile screen device to their child. Five main
descriptive themes were generated, guided by the TPB: (1) Convenience, connection, and non-traditional learning
experience; (2) Negative behavioural consequences and potential activity displacement through mobile screens; (3)
Influences of society and resources; (4) Managing and achieving a balance; (5) External challenges.
Conclusions: Overall, the findings demonstrated that parents experienced cognitive dissonance between their
attitudes and behaviour, primarily from perceived behavioural control and subjective norms negating the influence
of attitudes on their motives to provide a device. These insights offer important avenues for public health messaging
and resources to better involve and support parents in decision-making relating to mobile screens in everyday lives of
young children.
Keywords: Mobile device use, Mobile screen media, Early childhood, Parenting, Screen time

Background nature of technology use in early childhood. The poten-

The increasing usage rates of mobile screen devices tial for prolonged screen time by young children has been
(i.e., smartphones and tablets) among toddlers and pre- exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic [4–6]
schoolers [1–3] evidences the increasingly pervasive and pandemic-related changes such as online learn-
ing, working from home, and limited in-person social
interaction opportunities. Nevertheless, there is limited
*Correspondence: smallawaarachch@[Link]
qualitative research investigating early childhood mobile
1
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia screen use and the implications for effective device
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit [Link] The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ([Link]
mmons.​org/​publi​cdoma​in/​zero/1.​0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 2 of 13

management in the home. The portability, internet con- also complement quantitative findings and inform new
nectivity, unlimited curated content and multi-function- directions in the area [32]. To date, qualitative stud-
ality of mobile devices are appealing features for young ies have employed either ‘small Q’ or ‘thin’ data through
users, and tend to promote more solitary than shared qualitative surveys [29] or have been data-driven to
use [7]. Given that parents or caregivers are typically the generate themes [28, 30]. To our knowledge, no study
gatekeepers of technology access for toddlers and pre- has used a structured hybrid (deductive and inductive)
schoolers, a major step towards better understanding the descriptive approach to gain an in-depth understand-
potential risks and benefits of smartphones and tablets in ing of factors that underpin parent decision-making and
early childhood is to empirically study the beliefs, reasons practices around early childhood use of mobile screens.
and motivations for parents’ provision of mobile screen
devices to their children [8]. Theory of planned behaviour
The present study employed a structured theoretical
The role of parents in smartphone and tablet use in early approach to understanding parent decision-making and
childhood practices as they pertain to the study aims. The Theory
The Interactional Theory of Child Problematic Media of Planned Behaviour (TPB; [33]) is a well-established
Use [9] is a theoretical representation of the ways in model in health research that describes the attitudes,
which excessive or prolonged screen media use in early normative beliefs and perceived behavioural control that
childhood may interfere with typical early childhood drive intentions and behaviour (see Hamilton et al. 2020
functioning. Of the myriad factors (for example, child [34] for a review). The three main components of the
behaviour, household dynamics, parent–child relation- TPB are; (1) Attitudes: the appraisal or evaluation of the
ship) associated with early childhood screen use, parents possible outcomes of a particular behaviour; (2) Subjec-
are thought to exert several salient proximal influences. tive norms: the perceived social pressure (i.e., expecta-
First, parents are the main providers of smartphones and tions from other people) to engage or not engage in the
tablets to young children in household settings [10]. Sec- behaviour; (3) Perceived behavioural control: the level of
ond, parents’ own use can serve as a calibration point confidence in one’s capacity to engage or not engage in
for what they may perceive as ‘normal’ use within soci- the behaviour [33]. Previously, the TPB has been a use-
ety and for their children [9]. Third, parents’ own device ful quantitative framework for understanding parents’
usage habits and patterns will be modelled by their chil- beliefs and decisions, and successfully predicted follow-
dren through observational learning, normalizing their up screen-related behaviours in early childhood [35, 36].
use for recreation and other purposes [11]. Fourth, when However, to date, no study has used the TPB to qualita-
parental device engagement is high, it may reduce sen- tively assess parent decision-making and motives with
sitivity to, or awareness of, their child’s needs. This is respect to use of mobile screens in early childhood.
thought to be because parental screen absorption can
potentially limit the effective interpretation of, and con- The current study
tingent responding to, their child’s cues for attention [12]. Early childhood is an optimal period for implementing
Finally, broader parenting attitudes about family sociali- early interventions to manage the potential formation
zation and boundary-setting may influence parents’ deci- of problematic screen-use habits [37]. Habits formed in
sions about whether or not to provide mobile screens and early childhood lay a foundation for later development
how to regulate their use within the household [13]. of lifestyle patterns including diet, physical activity, and
Previous research has explored the relationship screen use [38]. Before recommending appropriate and
between parenting factors and traditional screen time nuanced actionable targets for early awareness and inter-
(e.g., television and gaming consoles) in early childhood ventions, it is necessary to first understand parents’ atti-
(see Xu et al., 2015 [14] for a review) and more recently tudes towards, and motives for, providing mobile screen
contemporary screen media such as smartphones and devices in early childhood. Accordingly, the current study
tablets (e.g., [15, 16]). Factors tested include parenting aimed to explore the factors underpinning parents’ atti-
practices [17, 18], parental perceptions of screen media tudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural con-
use [19–21], parenting styles [22, 23] and parental self- trol with respect to toddler and pre-schooler smartphone
efficacy in managing screen time [24, 25]. This research or tablet use through the lens of the TPB.
has largely undertaken a quantitative approach [15, 16,
26, 27], while qualitative studies have been relatively Methods
scarce [28–30]. Qualitative methodologies offer depth Study design
and richness in understanding diverse parent experi- The present qualitative study was part of an online longi-
ences, beliefs and behaviours [31]. Qualitative studies tudinal survey of young children’s smartphone and tablet
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 3 of 13

use in Australia and was conducted from June to August Parents were recruited to the longitudinal survey via
2021. Parents who took part in this survey were invited to social media advertisements (e.g., Facebook, Reddit),
participate in an online interview to discuss their views through media exposure (e.g., television, newspaper)
and experiences of smartphone and tablet use in early and snowballing. Of the 52 participants that expressed
childhood. The study received ethics approval from the their interest in participating in the interviews, 45
authors’ Institutional Human Research Ethics Committee were included in the final sample using a purposive
(HEAG_H_234_2020). sampling matrix (see Additional File 1). Seven of the
This study assumed a limited realism philosophical participants who expressed their interest were subse-
position with a critical realist approach in viewing the quently unavailable or not contactable. Participants
research and its data. This position holds that ‘reality is who volunteered were predominantly female, however,
out there’ and that through science, our knowledge will we ensured that all males (N = 2) who expressed inter-
eventually approximate that reality. It also acknowl- est were included in the final sample. The purposive
edges that researchers’ quest for knowledge is limited in sampling matrix helped to ensure diversity in charac-
time and space and bound by current theory, evidence teristics and backgrounds given the important role of
and methods of evaluation, and therefore is character- parent demographic factors, parenting styles, and asso-
ised by a-priori themes [39]. We adopted a constructiv- ciated attitudes in device use by young children [13].
ist epistemological stance, as we understand knowledge Participation in the online interview was voluntary and
is constructed within different settings, times and situa- did not affect participation in the overall study. All 45
tions. We therefore aimed to develop an account of par- participants were offered entry into a prize draw to win
ticipants’ viewpoints and experiences that is trustworthy one of thirty $30 gift vouchers.
and potentially transferable, while acknowledging con-
clusions drawn are tentative [40]. Quality checks through
collaboration to stimulate critical thinking and fresh per- Study procedure
spectives, maintaining audit trails using annotated cod-
hosted and recorded via the Zoom™ online platform.
The online interviews were conducted in English and
ing templates and practicing reflexivity by acknowledging
researcher subjectivity are encouraged in this approach The interview followed a semi-structured format with
[40], and were employed by our team. primary (main) open-ended questions asked in each
In relation to reflexivity, the contribution of each interview. A set of secondary questions (prompts) for
researcher’s position and personal experience to the each primary question served as a guide for clarifica-
interpretation of the data were considered [41]. Our team tion if needed. This format allows the interviewer to
are Australian residents, with two parents (WS-S and be guided by topics while also permitting flexibility
MH) and two non-parents (SM and SH), allowing both in conversation [40]. Each interview lasted between
type of perspectives to be considered during analysis. The 17 to 76 min with an average duration of 37 min. Six
expertise of the team varied across human–computer researchers who were trained on the standardized
interaction (SM and SH), child development (MH) and interview protocol conducted the interviews. After
educational research methodologies (WS-S) to ensure pilot testing, the team members determined that two
the interpretation of data is conducted across multiple interview schedules (see Additional File 2) were neces-
lenses and professional beliefs. sary. This was due to parents’ and caregivers’ eagerness
It is important to also acknowledge that the data col- to discuss their views at length on wide-ranging top-
lection took place during the second year of the COVID- ics of inquiry which often resulted in excessively long
19 pandemic. Our participants were from various states interview durations. Hence, Schedules A and B were
across Australia and exposed to varying lockdown developed to overlap in some key areas of screen use.
restrictions and circumstances. We recognize that the The two schedules branched out on topics that were
stay-at-home directions and limited opportunities for important to parents and the research aims but that
travel and social interactions potentially influenced fam- could not feasibly be included in a single interview. For
ilies in their decisions related to screen time and may example, both schedules comprised core research ques-
have amplified their emotions and concerns related to tions such as parental perceptions of early childhood
parenting [42]. screen use, but also had distinct aspects of interest such
as perceptions on provision of devices (Schedule A) or
Participants and recruitment perceptions on managing young children’s screen use
Eligible participants were English-speaking primary (Schedule B). Prior to the interviews, participants were
caregivers (parent or guardian) of a toddler or a pre- purposefully allocated to schedule A or B, matched on
schooler aged one to six years living in Australia. their demographic characteristics.
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 4 of 13

Fig. 1 A-priori Themes adapted from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)

Analysis producing the initial coding framework through collaps-

The qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed, ing of codes (SM, SH, in consultation with WS-S); (5)
and imported to NVivo V.12 for coding. Template the- coding of the remaining 29 interviews (in three sub-sets
matic analysis [43] was used to examine and identify the of 10, 10 and 9) applying the coding template through an
shared patterns and meanings across the data. This ‘code- iterative process (SM); (6) finalizing of the coding frame-
book’ type of thematic analysis encourages efficiency in work, themes and sub-themes (all authors).
analysis [44, 45] and aims to maintain a balance between As per King’s (2012) recommendations, several quality
structure and flexibility in coding [46]. Hybrid inductive checks were performed throughout the analysis process
and deductive coding were used in the present study. to enhance the quality of the data; (a) critical compari-
A-priori themes (deductive coding) provided structure sons of codes, themes and sub-themes through weekly
and guidance very early in the analysis as a lens through discussions among the team members and (b) the compi-
which to view the data, while also allowing the data to lation of an audit trail to document the iterative changes
guide the identification of shared patterns and mean- to the coding framework over time.
ings within the themes (inductive data-driven coding).
The a-priori themes also helped to focus on the areas of Results
greater relevance to our research question and to avoid Sample characteristics
potentially redundant or repetitious coding [45]. A-priori The final sample consisted of 45 parents aged between
themes were deemed appropriate for this study given 28 to 51 years (M = 35.7; SD = 5.0; see Table 1 for com-
the large number of interviews conducted by multiple plete demographic information of the sample). Notably,
researchers [45]. Themes were developed (illustrated in the sample was predominantly female (96%), married/
Fig. 1) using the components from the well-established defacto (91%), tertiary educated (84%) and employed on
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; [33]). either a full-time, part-time or casual basis (84%). Never-
The following series of steps were undertaken to com- theless, the age, gender and mobile-screen device usage
plete the template analysis of the transcribed interviews: of the target children of participants were relatively uni-
(1) familiarization with the data (SM, SH); (2) prelimi- formly distributed.
nary coding of initial sub-set of 16 interviews (SM); (3)
clustering and organizing of initial themes – this involved Themes
modifying the a-priori themes and generating addi- Five themes were coded using template analysis. The
tional sub-themes that arose within codes (SM, SH); (4) themes provided a concise summary of the attitudes,
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 5 of 13

Table 1 Sample demographic characteristics (N = 45) visual mapping of the themes as they relate to the a-priori
Demographic Characteristic N (%)
TPB model is illustrated in Fig. 2. A tabular summary of
the sub-themes under each theme is further included as
Parent gender Additional File 3.
Female 43 (95.6%)
Parent age (years) Theme 1: Positive attitudes: Convenience, connection
< 30 6 (13.3%) and non‑traditional learning experience
31- 35 16 (35.6%) For many parents, enabling their child to form and main-
36–40 16 (35.6%) tain connections with geographically distributed fam-
  > 40 7 (15.6%) ily and friends was a very common positive perception,
Living arrangement which often influenced the decision to provide a mobile
Married/ defacto 41 (91.1%) screen device (1.1 Keeping families connected). Parents
Highest level of education completed also stated that this positive attitude towards screen use
Secondary school (Year 11 or 12) 3 (6.7%) was intensified amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic,
TAFE/ Trade certificate/ diploma 4 (8.9%) where restrictions limited opportunities for social inter-
Undergraduate degree 17 (37.8%) actions. Mobile screens often ensured the continuation of
Post-graduate degree 21 (46.7%) important family relationships:
Employment
“We’ve always had grandparents that lived a decent
Full-time 11 (24.4%)
distance away, so she wouldn’t have a relationship
Part-time/ Casual 24 (53.3%)
with them if she couldn’t FaceTime” (Mother of a
Maternity leave 3 (6.7%)
2-yo, 42 yo, one child).
Not currently employed 7 (15.6%)
Household income (per annum) Parents also believed in the educational value of using
Up to $75,000 3 (6.7%) a mobile screen device to foster their children’s learning
$75,001 to 115,000 13 (28.9%) and skills (1.2 Screens as the new teachers). Many par-
$115,000 to 220,000 23 (51.1%) ents used the terms “educational”, “interactive” or “learn-
$220,000 or more 6 (13.3%) ing” when describing positive use of mobile screens. They
Residential location viewed screen use as beneficial insofar as it is a non-tra-
Urban ­area# 41 (91.1%) ditional learning experience which has the dual benefit of
Regional ­area# 4 (8.9%) keeping their child engaged:
Number of children
“I think we’re better off for having them…..he isn’t
One child 15 (33.3%)
that interested in writing or drawing. Using an app
Two children 23 (51.1%)
gives him that opportunity to be interactive with his
Three or more children 7 (15.6%)
learning. And that’s… a real positive.” (Mother of a
Target child age
2-yo, 43 yo, 4 children)
1 to < 3 years (toddler) 14 (31.1%)
3 to < 6 years (pre-schooler) 31 (68.9%) Some parents also believed that using these devices
Target child gender early in life equips young children to better face the fore-
Female 18 (40%) seeable tech-focused future, especially in educational and
Target child’s smartphone and tablet use employment settings (1.3 Digital future-proofing).
Regular user 19 (42.2%)
“I see more and more reliance on technology, and I
Non-user 17 (37.8%)
feel it should probably be at a disadvantage more
Note. N = number of participants than an advantage by not having access to it and
#
Of the ≈ 26 million population of Australia, ≈ 7.5 million (29%) live in regional having the ability to use it successfully.” (Mother of a
areas while ≈ 17 million (69%) live in cities/ urban areas, with the rest of the
population (2%) in rural and remote areas [47] 3-yo, 36 yo, one child)
Conversely, several parents believed that using a device at
an early age was not particularly advantageous as undoubt-
subjective norms and perceived behavioural control
edly children would pick up the necessary skills as they
underpinning the motives for giving or not giving a
grow older, given the intuitive nature of digital interfaces.
device to a toddler or pre-schooler. Key themes and sub-
themes are summarised in the following text, together “But …like learning to use iPads in kindy [kinder-
with illustrative quotes describing each sub-theme. The garten] …if a one year old can learn to use it in a
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 6 of 13

Fig. 2 Mapping of the Themes to the A-priori Model of the Theory of Planned Behaviour

couple of days I don’t think a 7, 8, 9, 10 year old is way for their child to unwind and relax following a tiring
going to have any trouble with it, if my nearly 90 or very active day (1.5 Digital downtime), for instance,
year old grandma can figure out how to use an iPad
“if they’re not napping, they still do need a bit of
I don’t know why you need to learn how to do it in
downtime, they’re very busy little people.” (Mother of
kindy” (Mother of a 2-yo, 29 yo, 2 children)
a 2-yo, 43 yo, 4 children).
In addition to the perceived benefits of device use, the
convenience of providing a device to keep children occu-
pied, especially for some “peace and quiet” or to complete
Theme 2: Negative attitudes: Negative behavioural
daily chores during busy days, was a very common posi-
consequences and potential activity displacement
tive outcome evaluation (1.4 “A convenient babysitter”).
Parents were concerned about devices supplanting real
Many parents who regularly used the device for this pur-
social interactions and opportunities for family bonding
pose mentioned that screens were very effective at keep-
(2.1 There is no ‘real connection’):
ing their child distracted or entertained and that without
it parental exhaustion would be overwhelming. "The worst bit is when .. you hand them your
phone and then you’re like well now I’ve got noth-
“… because we’re playing together and interacting all
ing to do either. I’m just going to sit and stare at
the other times of the day, that hour or two for me
you playing on the phone." (Mother of a 4-yo, 37
is the only chance to get other things done or just a
yo, 2 children)
break from “Mum, mum, mum, mum” and all these
endless stories about everything.” (Mother of a 3-yo, Some parents noted that screen experiences were not
36 yo, one child) analogous to real-world experiences and that there was a
risk that screen-version-of-life could dominate children’s
While some parents viewed this option as “lazy”
worlds. This further ties in with the common notion
(Mother of a 1-yo, 34 yo, one child), some justified it as
many parents had around the opportunity costs of pro-
“pretty standard” (Mother of a 3-yo, 36 yo, one child).
viding a device to a young child:
Several parents positively viewed the device as an effective
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 7 of 13

“Look out the window or we’ll have other activities, “overstimulating”, resulting in their children “getting
colouring in or books …and that’s what we use for engrossed” (Mother of a 4-yo, 42 yo, 4 children), “con-
stimulation, and we play games in the car, you know, sumed” (Mother of a 4-yo, 34 yo, 2 children) or “com-
like eye spy .. We overtly avoid screens.” (Father of a pletely absorbed” (Mother of a 1 -yo, 34 yo, one child):
5-yo, 40 yo, 2 children)
“ Lots of colours, flashing lights, … they’re doing
Parents were often regretful about the lost oppor- whatever they can to get an audience from people,
tunities for traditional activities such as creative play, and its immediate reactions, they don’t have to
physical activity and hands-on exploration of natural work hard for …a lot of content that they would be
environments due to the use of mobile screen devices accessing.” (Mother of a 3-yo, 28 yo, one child)
(2.2 Old ways are the best ways). Some parents also
They believed this attachment to the device and its
believed in the value of boredom for their child and
content also stems from a growing sense of autonomy
felt that screen time had become a ‘cure’ for boredom.
and agency by the child:
Parents were concerned that a lack of boredom might
mean that their child might not experience opportuni- “..she’s at that age where she really wants to have
ties that foster their own creativity, innovative think- the screen all the time and to hang onto it and to
ing and self-motivation for learning (2.3 “Boredom is play with it and walk around with it.” (Mother of a
a gift”): 4-yo, 40 yo, 2 children).
“.. it’s just a really easy form of entertainment The commercialisation of screen content including
for them and if they get that too early on, I think advertising and in-app purchases contributed to fur-
then they haven’t developed that way of: (a) being ther worry about the age-appropriateness of content as
bored, which is a talent to be okay with being “there’s so many adverts coming up that I don’t want him
bored; and then (b) to have internal intrinsic to have access to” (Mother of a 1-yo, 44 yo, one child).
motivation to go find something to do or to make In particular, parents of younger children or toddlers
your own activity up or whatever.” (Mother of a were apprehensive about whether screen use at such an
4-yo, 33 yo, one child) early age could be positive and meaningful given that
their child lacked understanding about the nature of
Concerns among parents about significant patterns
the device, as “they’re just clicking away. That freaks me
of unfavourable behavioural consequences they have
out.” (Mother of a 3-yo, 35 yo, one child). Parents felt as
observed, i.e., tantrums, aggressive or hyperactive behav-
though their child was just attracted to the things that
iour, crying, following prolonged use of screens were
are “bright, colourful, cute and moving, the music and
highly prevalent (2.4 Agitated and overstimulated). It was
the cutesy voices” (Mother of a 3-yo, 35 yo, one child).
a recurrent negative attitude towards providing mobile
screen devices:
“.. when they have a lot of tablet time and TV time, Theme 3: Subjective norms: Influences of society
they’re just rat bags (sic). ..They don’t listen, they’re and resources
really cranky, .. we really need to like.. ‘Okay, we’re Many parents reported their experiences of social pres-
going for a walk now.’ It sort of reset their brain a bit.” sures that influenced their decision-making with respect
(Father of a 4-yo, 29 yo, 2 children) to early childhood device use. A salient reflection of
many parents was the judgment and pressure they expe-
Furthermore, some parents described using a device
rienced from others (parents and non-parents) to man-
as a circumstantial distractor, but then that they lost
age their child’s behaviour, which resulted in seeking the
track of time and facilitated more screen time than was
most convenient pacifying option. In most cases, it was
intended. Parents reported that stopping use in these
to give their child a mobile screen device (3.1 Parenting
circumstances often led to tantrums which they found
for other people’s comfort):
difficult to deal with and that they would rather not give
the device at all to avoid dealing with post-device tan- “… I felt really embarrassed, so I sat in the restau-
trums (Mother of a 2-yo, 31 yo, 2 children). rant and apologised the whole way through the
The persuasive nature of the mobile screen con- meal, .. I couldn’t – so I gave him my phone.” (Mother
tent often worried parents as they felt that the more of a 1-yo, 34 yo, one child)
their children used mobile screens, the more reliant on
However, conversely, parents also commented that
them they became (2.5 Hooked on screens). Numer-
they had experienced judgment from others, particularly
ous parents claimed screen content to be “addictive” or
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 8 of 13

extended family members or friends, when their child Theme 4: Perceived behavioural self‑efficacy: Managing
was using a mobile screen in a public space: and achieving a balance
Parents’ perceived self-efficacy or confidence in their own
“I don’t really let him use it in public, more so
decision-making to provide and appropriately manage
because I’m worried about people judging me …
the use of mobile screens further influenced their motives
which sounds really awful. … - say from my parents,
to provide or not provide a device. Most parents detailed
they were .. like, ‘Oh, what are you doing?” (Mother
various ways in which they ensured that they have some
of a 3-yo, 32 yo, 2 children)
level of control over giving a device to their child and the
Parents reported that this was often perceived as a use that followed (4.1 Internal and external locus of con-
“lazy” parenting option by others (Mother of a 1-yo, 34 trol). There were two main ways parents attributed con-
yo, one child), which led them to believe so themselves. trol; (a) internal—actively or directly assuming control
Parents often described this dilemma as “a double-edged themselves (e.g., setting limits or parental controls); or
sword” (Mother of a 2-yo, 28 yo, one child), “you’re (b) external—attributing control to indirect or external
damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t” (Mother factors (e.g., letting the device run out of charge, hiding
of a 4-yo, 33 yo, one child) or “you’re screwed either way” devices). When discussing their perceived self-efficacy,
(Mother of a 2-yo, 32 yo, 2 children). The perception of parents commonly used phrases such as “strict bounda-
social acceptability of the provision of mobile screens to ries” (Mother of a 3-yo, 36 yo, one child), “resisting the
young children was also a normative belief which drove requests” (Mother of a 4-yo, 33 yo, 2 children) or “rules
the decision-making for some parents (3.2 Following the and limits” to discuss an internal locus of control:
herd). While some termed it as “well, everybody else does
“… me and my husband we’ve got pass codes on our
it” or “succumbing to the majority” (Mother of a 4-yo, 40
phone so they can’t access them without that. At the
yo, one child), there were a minority of parents who felt
moment the wi-fi is also disconnected ..” (Mother of a
that “it would be great if every parent was on that same
4-yo, 45 yo, 3 children)
page; then there would be no pressure from other kids
too…, there’d be no peer pressure” (Mother of a 5-yo, 41 Meanwhile phrases including “out of sight, out of
yo, 4 children). mind” (Mother of a 4-yo, 40 yo, 2 children), “oh it’s bro-
In addition to influences from family and community, ken” (Mother of a 4-yo, 37 yo, 2 children) or “the battery
the influence of resources and conflicting information is dead/ flat” described screen time management strate-
was also frequently talked about (3.3 Mixed messages gies which relied on an external locus of control:
and urban myths):
“.. I let it almost run out and I don’t charge it. .. if her
“And on the one hand, everything’s saying screen battery runs out because she’s only had 20 per cent
time’s not great for kids, that it’s dangerous, there’s and that’s all I’ve bothered to charge it, .., “oh, sorry,
all this content. But on the other hand, schools are Darling, there’s no more iPad.” (Mother of a 3-yo, 36
saying, ‘You must do it this way’. It doesn’t seem to fit yo, one child)
together.” (Mother of a 4-yo, 40 yo, 2 children)
Many parents conceded that their own screen use and
Parents reported that the different viewpoints and modelling plays a big role in their child’s usage habits
arguments around benefits and risks of mobile screens, and device-related requests, and that it is important to
the uncertainties, the rigidity around health messaging be mindful of role-modelling. Many parents stated that
on screen time (disregarding certain nuances) seemed their awareness of their own problematic screen time
confusing. It led some parents to take an unbalanced habits sometimes led them to be stricter with their child’s
(i.e., either too strict or too relaxed) outlook on providing device use (4.2 ‘I feel like a hypocrite’):
mobile screens to young children. They mention that this
“I know how addictive screens can be and that’s one
has resulted a wide spectrum of views within the parent
of the reasons I don’t want my kids started.” (Mother
community:
of a 4-yo, 39 yo, 2 children)
“So, I think many parents are looking towards those
They used phrases such as “double-standard” (Mother
guidelines on how much screen time you should be
of a 1-yo, 44 yo, one child) and “do as I say, not as I do”
doing … some other people probably totally ignore
(Mother of a 3-yo, 31 yo, 2 children) to highlight the
that and just do whatever they want to do. .. it’s
hypocrisy of resisting screen time requests from their
quite variable really from what I’ve seen with other
child despite feeling that their own screen use is some-
parents.” (Mother of a 4-yo, 36 yo, 3 children)
what questionable.
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 9 of 13

Theme 5: Perceived barriers: External challenges informed choice…a lot of the choice is taken away
Parents discussed several perceived external barriers to by the fact that it’s so mainstream now.” (Mother of a
appropriately providing a device and effectively managing 4-yo, 33 yo, 2 children)
healthy mobile screen habits. The most noteworthy bar-
Incompatibilities in views within family members and
rier was simply the reality of life (5.1 Ideal meets reality).
varying family circumstances (e.g., multiple children,
For most parents, life was busy and messy, and similar
urban -versus regional living) were also often apparent
to things such as their child’s eating and sleeping rou-
barriers to assertive decision-making and management of
tines, screen time was another part of parenting that did
young children’s mobile screen use (5.4 Family matters):
not go the way they thought it would. Parents reported
that screen time was “getting in the way” of them being “.. if we had another child or something like that, and
they type of parent they had thought that they would be I was trying to look after a baby and feed a baby and
or was making them “fall short of the ideal” (Father of a change nappies …, I suspect I’d probably be using it
4-yo, 29 yo, 2 children). There was often acceptance of a little bit more. And it really annoys me when my
this reality, where what they imagined to be ideal or per- husband is checking his phone, and I feel like saying
fect parenting in relation to their child’s mobile screen to him, "You’re not hearing a word I’m saying", but
use was in fact, quite different in truth. What com- then he would say the same thing about me.”(Mother
prised the ideal varied among parents, however many of a 2-yo, 38 yo, one child)
mentioned that while zero screen time would be ideal,
Nevertheless, some parents also felt very supported
it was also impossible. Some parents disagreed with the
within their families through regular conversations and
notion of ideal and thought it would largely depend on
“being on the same page” (Mother of a 1-yo, 29 yo, one
the family context and circumstances. Interestingly, some
child):
parents noted how their perceptions of ideal drastically
changed following the birth of their child: “I just get that mum rage big time, so it does affect
me. But my husband’s very supportive. We have a
“..before you have children where you go, “Oh no,
plan. We assume it will get better before we do it...
I’m not going to let my children play on screens and
just try and debrief through.” (Mother of a 4-yo, 33
have access to my phone. Then you get there…, “Holy
yo, one child)
crap, giving him my phone for five minutes while I
am at the doctor’s appointment so he’s quiet and
not screaming in my face is actually really handy.”
.. going through it has definitely changed my idea of Discussion
what is okay and what is realistic” (Mother of a 2-yo, Our study aimed to qualitatively explore the factors that
32 yo, 2 children) underpin parents’ motives for provision of smartphones
and tablets to toddlers and pre-schoolers through the
Many parents expressed their unease around the pre-
lens of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. There are sev-
dicament of considering the costs versus benefits to their
eral interesting findings that may help to inform cur-
own wellbeing of providing a device (5.2 A terrible trade-
rent screen time parenting practices and guide future
off ). While the device was a helpful and convenient way
research. First, we found that a spectrum of attitudes,
to alleviate the burden or exhaustion of parenting, the
subjective norms and perceived behavioural control
trade-off was that they felt guilty that their child often
underpin the varied motives of parents for providing
used the device for much longer than they would prefer.
or not providing mobile screen devices to young chil-
However, some claimed that if the perceived behavioural
dren in their everyday lives. The inter-related nature of
and developmental costs of prolonged use meant that
the themes gives a clear picture of the factors that drive
they did not provide their child with a device, it often
parent decision-making and is consistent with the gen-
affected their ability to “just get through the day” (Mother
eral structure and mechanisms described by the TPB
of a 2-yo, 38 yo, one child). Another factor which con-
[33]. Second, in addition to the conventional TPB pro-
tributed to this dilemma was the pervasive nature of
cesses, a bi-directional relationship between attitudes
mobile screens across families, and how wide-spread and
and perceived behavioural control seemed to be instru-
“mainstream” it is (5.3 Holding back the tide). Some par-
mental in determining parents’ motives and behaviour
ents commented on how effortful it is to be the minority
towards mobile screens in early childhood, one which
and to not “succumb to the majority” (Mother of a 4-yo,
appeared to be substantially influenced by subjective
40 yo, one child):
norms. Parents described a sense of incongruence that
“.. it’s really hard for parents to be able to make an they associated with over-bearing subjective norms sup-
pressing their own attitudes and perceived behavioural
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 10 of 13

control with respect to managing screen use. The collec- challenging for parents to do what they believe is ideal
tive effect of these interactions resembled cognitive dis- and to hold back the tide in terms of managing when and
sonance, whereby parents were realigning their attitudes where they would permit access to a device. These deci-
with their actual behaviours rather than aligning their sions elicited tensions and dilemmas for parents as they
behaviours with existing attitudes. Third, the qualitative weighed the costs and benefits to their child and to their
insights suggest that many parents’ views and experi- own wellbeing. The challenges of experiencing such cog-
ences are dependent on household composition variables nitive conflict have been consistently illustrated in previ-
(e.g., multiple children) and their socio-economic cir- ous qualitative research on parental perceptions around
cumstances (e.g., urban or regional location, employ- use in early [30, 51, 52] and middle childhood, as well as
ment, familial support). Finally, the context-dependency adolescence [53]. As a result, differing levels of cogni-
of parental decision-making, along with individual differ- tive dissonance were evident among parents, which sub-
ences in beliefs and attitudes is likely to reduce the effec- sequently led them to realign their attitudes and beliefs
tiveness of universal and rigid health messaging around with their perceived behavioural control and behaviours,
early childhood screen time guidelines. in order to reduce the discomfort and tension they felt.
While there has been relatively limited qualitative work For instance, they would rationalize their behaviour as
in parental decision making relating to screen time, the ‘being pretty standard’ or as ‘what the majority does’.
findings of the present study offer rich and in-depth In addition to the ‘at home’ pressure and dilemmas
insights into the quantitative research that examine fac- parents face in everyday device-related decision-making,
tors underpinning parent decision making in relation perceived subjective norms also seemed to evoke a great
to early childhood screen use. For instance, the present deal of negative emotions and self-evaluations among
findings align well with past studies (e.g., 24, 36) in which parents. For instance, high internalised guilt, fear, worry
a large proportion of variance (38 – 50%) in the screen and regrets stemming from the pressure and judgment
time decision-making of parents of young children was from family and society underpinned screen-related par-
explained by the TPB psychosocial factors. Further, enting practices that were aimed at managing young chil-
the power and heavy influence of parental attitudes in dren to make others feel comfortable. These perceived
child use of mobile screens [48] and total screen time pressures, parental guilt and anxiety are particularly in
[13, 20], have been consistently demonstrated in previ- congruence with qualitative evidence in recent stud-
ous early childhood screen use research. As this field of ies where parents report feeling overwhelmed as they
work is often characterised by polarised debate and nar- navigate the societal, social and individual expectations
rative [49], qualitative research is especially important to around managing screen time [49, 52]. In the present
provide context and a human voice to the factors which study, parents commonly reported the paradoxical nature
underpin parental views and perceptions. of the social expectations that drove their decision-mak-
Parents’ attitudes about mobile screens ranged from ing in public places. On one hand, parents felt pressure
positive views about the convenience, pragmatism and to keep their child relatively quiet and ‘under control’ in
usefulness as a teaching tool, to negative views relating to social settings, but on the other hand felt judged by oth-
potential overstimulation, displacement of developmen- ers for achieving the goal of a quiet child via the use of
tally healthy activities, social interactions and hinderance a screen. The conflicting social expectations and fear of
of creativity among children. These attitudes are consist- negative evaluations by others (known and unknown)
ent with qualitative research on use in early childhood may have a direct impact on perceived behavioural con-
[30], as well as middle-childhood [50], where parents trol for parents. Not knowing which course of action is
reported feeling tension between the benefits and harms the ‘right’ one could significantly reduce parenting self-
of mobile devices to children’s development. In our study, efficacy and sense of control.
parents appeared to experience varying degrees of incon- It is especially important to view the results of the
gruence when their attitudes towards how they planned present study in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
to manage screen time conflicted with their perceived pandemic very likely influenced perspectives on the
self-efficacy to do so. Parents’ subjective norms (com- role of technology in everyday lives of young children.
prising the influence of family, society, and information) For instance, COVID-19 lockdowns and online learn-
appeared to suppress, or possibly negate, the influence of ing from home have warranted being technologically
their own attitudes on their level of device-related per- active to engage and complete any form of learning for
ceived behavioural control (including their self-efficacy). children. Over time, these changes have contributed to
For instance, parental self-efficacy with respect to device the normalizing of use of screen-based devices as educa-
provision was largely affected by the burdens of parenting tional tools for young children, with growing acceptance
and the reality of life. The perceived barriers made it very of their role in learning [54]. This is evident through the
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 11 of 13

increased rates of screen use among families with young for participation in the larger longitudinal study, while
children across the world [6], including Australia, [55] parents who felt their screen time-parenting was, in
since the commencement of the pandemic. their own estimation, poor, may have avoided partici-
Our findings have implications for the development pating for fear of judgment. While the research team
of early childhood screen time guidelines. The themes were extremely careful to avoid any language that could
that reflect parental difficulties and cognitive dilem- potentially be perceived as judgmental, we accept that
mas with respect to managing screen time decision- parenting is a difficult subject and that some parents
making can be used as a starting point for developing may have elected to not participate for this reason. The
more family-friendly and realistic screen time guide- method of data collection (i.e., online via Zoom) may
lines. Parental and social attitudes, social norms and have also resulted in parents who are more confident
parental self-efficacy with respect to behavioural con- with their use of online media to opt in for the inter-
trol are all potential areas for healthy screen time inter- views. This implies a certain closeness of the partici-
vention. Rather than largely unrealistic and dispiriting pants to digital media and devices, which in turn may be
screen time guidelines, parents and caregivers would influencing their attitudes towards their children using
benefit from practical, consistent and positive support mobile-screen devices. Second, parent gender, eth-
mechanisms. We propose several changes that may nicity, residential location and socio-economic status
help to achieve that aim. First, parents require more (SES) were not uniformly distributed across the sample
flexible and feasible solutions to help reduce their per- despite the use of a sampling matrix. The non-uniform-
ceived lack of alternatives to mobile screens in vari- ity may have affected the transferability of the results to
ous stressful or busy scenarios. As a starting point, we diverse families across Australia (e.g., first nation fami-
suggest encouraging more no-tech alternatives (e.g., lies, parents of a child with a disability, remote or rural
arts and crafts; photo albums) or low-tech alternatives families). Given that demographic characteristics such
(e.g., audiobooks or podcasts), along with ways to sup- as the SES have been shown to be associated with young
port parents to know how to promote more intentional children’s screen time (e.g., [56, 57]), demographic fac-
technology use at home (e.g., mindfulness about the tors are likely to also influence parents’ attitudes and
content and duration). Second, it is important to move perceived behavioural control, which warrants further
beyond the dichotomous ‘good or bad’ argument of investigation.
technology use in early childhood when engaging with
parents regarding screen time. Instead, parents need to
be empowered to raise digitally healthy children, and Conclusions
to do so will require effective resources that help them The current study investigated parental decision-mak-
decide what is ‘good use’ and ‘good content’. Platforms ing related to use of mobile screens in early childhood
such as Common Sense Media already offer resources using the Theory of Planned Behaviour framework.
aiding decision-making with age-appropriate content, Attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural
however parents only benefit from these resources if control collectively explained parent motives for pro-
they go looking for, and happen to find, appropriate viding mobile screens to young children. Further, vary-
online resources. A more visible public health pro- ing levels of attitude-behavioural incongruence and
gram for parents may help to increase awareness of cognitive dissonance were experienced by parents
such support platforms. Third, health messaging should when decision-making, possibly due to the dominating
attempt to debunk myths which often result in parent influence of subjective norms. The increased accept-
misperceptions, such as the idea that children would ance of the pervasiveness of mobile technology in the
fall behind in school if technology is not introduced as post-COVID era is a prominent change among fami-
early as possible. Many parent attitudes and behaviours lies. Future research could further explore how family
with respect to mobile screens appear to be driven by practices have changed as a result of increased pan-
emotions, typically fear and guilt. By actively dispelling demic-related screen use and whether or not there has
various kinds of screen time myths, parents may have been any impact on child developmental outcomes over
a better chance of making positive, healthy decisions time. Parents’ experience of cognitive dissonance and
rather than fear-based ones. associated emotions also present avenues for future
While the present study gave voice to parents and research, particularly with respect to targets for inter-
provided detailed parenting-screen time insights, some ventions aimed at supporting and empowering parents
limitations must be acknowledged. First, the nature of to raise their children to be healthy digital citizens.
the topic (parenting and screen time) may have led par- Most importantly, we acknowledge the need for more
ents that were confident in their decisions to volunteer tailored resources offering no- and low-technological
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 12 of 13

alternatives and practical health messaging for parents References

1. Rideout V. The Common Sense census: Media use by kids age zero to
addressing provision of mobile screen devices in early eight. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media; 2017. p. 263–83.
childhood. Finally, we encourage public health policy 2. Rideout V. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Kids Age Zero to
makers to engage in co-design approaches with parents Eight. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media; 2020.
3. Radesky JS, Weeks HM, Ball R, Schaller A, Yeo S, Durnez J, et al. Young chil‑
in order to formulate more realistic and user-friendly dren’s use of smartphones and tablets. Pediatrics. 2020;146(1):e20193518.
parenting resources. 4. Eales L, Gillespie S, Alstat RA, Ferguson GM, Carlson SM. Children’s screen
and problematic media use in the united states before and during the
covid-19 pandemic. Child Dev. 2021;92(5):e866–82.
Abbreviations 5. Olive L, Sciberras E, Berkowitz TS, Hoare E, Telford R, Mikocka-Walus A,
TPB: Theory of Planned Behaviour; SES: Socio-economic status. et al. Child and parent physical activity, sleep and screen time during
COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic nationally representative data and
associations with mental health. 2020.
Supplementary Information 6. Bergmann C, Dimitrova N, Alaslani K, Almohammadi A, Alroqi H, Aussems
The online version contains supplementary material available at [Link] S, et al. Young children’s screen time during the first COVID-19 lockdown
org/​10.​1186/​s12889-​022-​14459-0. in 12 countries. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):1–15.
7. Radesky JS, Schumacher J, Zuckerman B. Mobile and interactive media
use by young children: the good, the bad, and the unknown. Pediatrics.
Additional file 1.
2015;135(1):1–3.
Additional file 2. 8. Mallawaarachchi SR, Anglim J, Hooley M, Horwood S. Associations
Additional file 3. of smartphone and tablet use in early childhood with psychosocial,
cognitive and sleep factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly. 2022;60:13–33.
Acknowledgements 9. Domoff SE, Borgen AL, Radesky JS. Interactional theory of childhood
We thank the participants of the study for their time and insights, without problematic media use. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies.
which this study would not have been possible. 2020.
10. Kabali HK, Irigoyen MM, Nunez-Davis R, Budacki JG, Mohanty SH, Leister
Authors’ contributions KP, et al. Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children.
SM conceptualized the study, methodology, conducted the data collection Pediatrics. 2015;136(6):1044–50.
and analysis, and wrote the initial draft. MH supervised the conceptualization 11. Jago R, Sebire SJ, Lucas PJ, Turner KM, Bentley GF, Goodred JK, et al.
of the study, methodology, contributed to the final draft. WS-S consulted on Parental modelling, media equipment and screen-viewing among young
the methodology of study and contributed to the final draft. SH conceptual‑ children: cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(4):e002593.
ized the study, methodology, conducted data collection, supervised the analy‑ 12. McDaniel BT. Parent distraction with phones, reasons for use, and impacts
sis, and contributed to the final draft as the senior author. All authors read and on parenting and child outcomes: a review of the emerging research.
approved the final manuscript. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. 2019;1(2):72–80.
13. Lauricella AR, Wartella E, Rideout VJ. Young children’s screen time:
Funding the complex role of parent and child factors. J Appl Dev Psychol.
No funding sources to declare. 2015;36:11–7.
14. Xu H, Wen LM, Rissel C. Associations of parental influences with physical
Availability of data and materials activity and screen time among young children: a systematic review. J
Due to the nature of qualitative interviews, the data are not publicly available how‑ Obes. 2015;2015:546925.
ever can be made available upon request from the corresponding author [SM]. 15. McCloskey M, Johnson SL, Benz C, Thompson DA, Chamberlin B, Clark L,
et al. Parent perceptions of mobile device use among preschool-aged
children in rural head start centers. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2018;50(1):83-9 e1.
Declarations 16. Konok V, Bunford N, Miklósi Á. Associations between child mobile
use and digital parenting style in Hungarian families. J Child Media.
Ethics approval and consent to participate 2020;14(1):91–109.
The study was approved by the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory 17. Eyimaya AO, Irmak AY. Relationship between parenting practices and
Group (HEAG-H 234_2020). All methods were carried out in accordance with children’s screen time during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Turkey. J Pediatr
relevant guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all Nurs. 2021;56:24–9.
subjects. 18. Tang L, Darlington G, Ma DW, Haines J. Mothers’ and fathers’ media
parenting practices associated with young children’s screen-time: a cross-
Consent for publication sectional study. BMC obesity. 2018;5(1):1–10.
Not applicable. 19. Hinkley T, McCann JR. Mothers’ and father’s perceptions of the risks and
benefits of screen time and physical activity during early childhood: a
Competing interests qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–8.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 20. Miguel-Berges ML, Santaliestra-Pasias AM, Mouratidou T, Flores-Barrantes
P, Androutsos O, De Craemer M, et al. Parental perceptions, attitudes
Author details and knowledge on European preschool children’s total screen time: the
1
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia. 2 Centre ToyBox-study. Eur J Pub Health. 2020;30(1):105–11.
for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, 21. Vittrup B, Snider S, Rose KK, Rippy J. Parental perceptions of the role of
Burwood, Australia. media and technology in their young children’s lives. Journal of Early
Childhood Research. 2016;14(1):43–54.
Received: 8 June 2022 Accepted: 14 October 2022 22. Veldhuis L, van Grieken A, Renders CM, HiraSing RA, Raat H. Parenting
style, the home environment, and screen time of 5-year-old children; the
‘be active, eat right’study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2): e88486.
23. Detnakarintra K, Trairatvorakul P, Pruksananonda C, Chonchaiya W. Posi‑
tive mother-child interactions and parenting styles were associated with
lower screen time in early childhood. Acta Paediatr. 2020;109(4):817–26.
Mallawaarachchi et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:2011 Page 13 of 13

24. Carson V, Janssen I. Associations between factors within the home setting emerging technology. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies.
and screen time among children aged 0–5 years: a cross-sectional study. 2021;3(4):540–51.
BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):1–8. 49. Livingstone S, Franklin K. Families with young children and ‘screen time.’
25. Jago R, Wood L, Zahra J, Thompson JL, Sebire SJ. Parental control, nurtur‑ Journal of Health Visiting. 2018;6(9):434–9.
ance, self-efficacy, and screen viewing among 5-to 6-year-old children: a 50. Solomon-Moore E, Matthews J, Reid T, Toumpakari Z, Sebire SJ, Thomp‑
cross-sectional mediation analysis to inform potential behavior change son JL, et al. Examining the challenges posed to parents by the contem‑
strategies. Child Obes. 2015;11(2):139–47. porary screen environments of children: a qualitative investigation. BMC
26. Nevski E, Siibak A. The role of parents and parental mediation on 0–3-year Pediatr. 2018;18(1):1–12.
olds’ digital play with smart devices: Estonian parents’ attitudes and 51. Radesky JS, Kistin C, Eisenberg S, Gross J, Block G, Zuckerman B, et al.
practices. Early years. 2016;36(3):227–41. Parent perspectives on their mobile technology use: the excitement
27. Papadakis S, Zaranis N, Kalogiannakis M. Parental involvement and atti‑ and exhaustion of parenting while connected. J Dev Behav Pediatr.
tudes towards young Greek children’s mobile usage. International Journal 2016;37(9):694–701.
of Child-Computer Interaction. 2019;22: 100144. 52. Findley E, LaBrenz CA, Childress S, Vásquez‐Schut G, Bowman K. ‘I’m not
28. McCloskey M, Thompson DA, Chamberlin B, Clark L, Johnson SL, Bellows perfect’: navigating screen time among parents of young children during
LL. Mobile device use among rural, low-income families and the feasibil‑ COVID‐19. Child Care Health Dev. 2022;48(6):1094–102.
ity of an app to encourage preschoolers’ physical activity: qualitative 53. Barroso CS, Springer AE, Ledingham CM, Kelder SH. A qualitative analysis
study. JMIR pediatrics and parenting. 2018;1(2): e10858. of the social and cultural contexts that shape screen time use in Latino
29. O’Connor J, Fotakopoulou O. A threat to childhood innocence or the families living on the US-Mexico border. Int J Qual Stud Health Well Being.
future of learning? Parents’ perspectives on the use of touch-screen 2020;15(1):1735766.
technology by 0–3 year-olds in the UK. Contemp Issues Early Child. 54. Hu X, Chiu MM, Leung WMV, Yelland N. Technology integration for young
2016;17(2):235–47. children during COVID-19: Towards future online teaching. Br J Edu
30. Radesky JS, Eisenberg S, Kistin CJ, Gross J, Block G, Zuckerman B, et al. Technol. 2021;52(4):1513–37.
Overstimulated consumers or next-generation learners? Parent tensions 55. Ribner AD, Coulanges L, Friedman S, Libertus ME, Hughes C, Foley S, et al.
about child mobile technology use. The Annals of Family Medicine. Screen time in the Coronavirus 2019 Era: international trends of increas‑
2016;14(6):503–8. ing use among 3-to 7-year-old children. J Pediatr. 2021;239(59–66): e1.
31. Magilvy JK, Thomas E. A first qualitative project: qualitative descriptive 56. Carson V, Spence JC, Cutumisu N, Cargill L. Association between neigh‑
design for novice researchers. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2009;14(4):298–300. borhood socioeconomic status and screen time among pre-school
32. Co JP, Perrin JM. Qualitative research and ambulatory pediatrics. Ambul children: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):1–8.
Pediatr. 2005;5(3):129–30. 57. Tandon PS, Zhou C, Sallis JF, Cain KL, Frank LD, Saelens BE. Home environ‑
33. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. ment relationships with children’s physical activity, sedentary time,
1991;50(2):179–211. and screen time by socioeconomic status. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act.
34. Hamilton K, van Dongen A, Hagger MS. An extended theory of planned 2012;9(1):1–9.
behavior for parent-for-child health behaviors: a meta-analysis. Health
Psychol. 2020;39(10):863.
35. Hamilton K, Thomson CE, White KM. Promoting active lifestyles in Publisher’s Note
young children: Investigating mothers’ decisions about their child’s Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub‑
physical activity and screen time behaviours. Matern Child Health J. lished maps and institutional affiliations.
2013;17(5):968–76.
36. Hamilton K, Spinks T, White KM, Kavanagh DJ, Walsh AM. A psychosocial
analysis of parents’ decisions for limiting their young child’s screen time:
an examination of attitudes, social norms and roles, and control percep‑
tions. Br J Health Psychol. 2016;21(2):285–301.
37. World Health Organization. Nurturing care for early childhood develop‑
ment: a framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform
health and human potential. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. p.
2018.
38. Radesky JS, Christakis DA. Increased screen time: implications for early
childhood development and behavior. Pediatr Clin. 2016;63(5):827–39.
39. King N, Brooks J. 14 THEMATIC ANALYSIS IN ORGANISATIONAL RESEARCH.
The Sage handbook of qualitative business and management research
methods. 2021:201.
40. King N, Brooks JM. Template analysis for business and management
students: Sage; 2017.
41. Berger R. Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in
qualitative research. Qual Res. 2015;15(2):219–34.
42. Evans S, Mikocka-Walus A, Klas A, Olive L, Sciberras E, Karantzas G, et al.
From “It has stopped our lives” to “Spending more time together has
Ready to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from:
strengthened bonds”: The varied experiences of Australian families dur‑
ing COVID-19. Frontiers in psychology. 2020:2906.
• fast, convenient online submission
43. Brooks J, King N. Qualitative psychology in the real world: the utility of
template analysis. 2012. • thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field
44. Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? • rapid publication on acceptance
Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualita‑
• support for research data, including large and complex data types
tive analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res. 2021;21(1):37–47.
45. Brooks J, McCluskey S, Turley E, King N. The utility of template analysis in • gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations
qualitative psychology research. Qual Res Psychol. 2015;12(2):202–22. • maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year
46. King N. Doing template analysis. Qualitative organizational research: Core
methods and current challenges. 2012;426:77–101. At BMC, research is always in progress.
47. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Population: Census. 2021.
48. Pila S, Lauricella AR, Piper AM, Wartella E. The power of parent atti‑ Learn more [Link]/submissions
tudes: examination of parent attitudes toward traditional and