Impacts of Parental Technoference on Parent–Child Relationships and Child Health and Developmental Outcomes: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Parental technological immersion during parenting activities has been shown to alter parent–child interactions. This concept, referred to as parental technoference, has the potential to affect parent–child relationships and children's health and development. This scoping review utilized the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology to identify, describe, and summarize: (a) evidence of parental technoference on parent–child relationships, and children's health and development; (b) definitions and measurements of parental technoference; (c) research designs and methodologies used to investigate parental technoference; and (d) literature gaps. We searched MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, JBI EBP Database, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus, as well as the reference lists of included studies for literature on parental technology use during parenting and parent–child interactions and its effects on parent–child relationships, and children's health and development. Sixty-four studies, found in 61 publications, met the review criteria. The effect of parental technoference on parent–child relationships was most studied, and findings demonstrated that parents recognized, and researchers observed, changes in parents' and children's behaviors. Adolescent self-reported mental health concerns and maladaptive technological behaviors (e.g., cyberbullying) were associated with more parental technoference, and findings highlighted safety concerns for children. Other aspects of children's development, although less studied, were also negatively impacted by parental technoference. No significant associations were found between parental technoference and children's medical and physiological health, yet these associations were the least studied. Additional research is needed to understand these associations and evaluate interventions designed to mitigate technoference harms.

With the ubiquity of mobile phones, it is difficult to escape technology in everyday activities. Mobile phones are prevalent, and an estimated 70 percent of the global population will subscribe to them by 2025.¹ Fifty-six percent of Canadians say their smartphone is the last thing they check before sleeping² and 31 percent of United States (US) adults never turn off their cell phones.³ This can lead to an “absent presence,” where one is so technologically absorbed that they appear absent,⁴ which may threaten communication and relationship formation.⁵ Conversely, technology offers parents benefits, such as relieving boredom, connecting with others, coping with stress, and receiving knowledge.^6–9 However, in a sample of 3,640 US adults, 68 percent felt distracted by their smartphone while interacting with their children.¹⁰ Although technology offers benefits, there is potential for negative parent–child relationship repercussions.

Technoference

Technoference refers to interruptions in communication, interactions, or time together due to technology.¹¹ Technoference can create feelings of intrusion and can cause individuals to feel less important than the digital “other.”^12,13 Technoference was first described in reference to romantic relationships, where greater technoference predicted more conflict about technology use, and technology use conflict predicted lower relationship satisfaction.¹¹ This concept has also been described as phubbing, referring to “phone snubbing.”¹⁴ Parental technoference refers to interruptions in interactions between parents and children due to parental technology use¹⁵ during face-to-face interactions, such as mealtime and playtime.¹² Parental technoference can negatively affect caregivers' attention, sensitivity, and responsivity to children,^16,17 and has been associated with low parent–child communication and children's behavioral (e.g., acting out) problems.¹⁸

We searched eight databases and reference mined relevant articles for other reviews on parental technoference and technology usage. Previous literature reviews exploring parental mobile device use and parent–child interactions,¹⁹ parental technoference and parent (e.g., parenting) and child (e.g., behavior) outcomes,¹⁸ and parental technoference and children's health (e.g., accidental injuries), development, and behavioral outcomes²⁰ have lacked a systematic process. Researchers have also conducted a systematic²¹ and scoping review¹⁷ on parental phone use and parent–child interactions and relationship quality, as well as a systematic review on parental device use and caregiving along with children's behavioral outcomes.¹⁶ The systematically conducted reviews, however, offered little investigation of parental technoference on children's health and development, with only one evaluating the effect on children's behavior.¹⁶

Furthermore, parental device use and technoference are not synonymous as parents can utilize devices when their children are not around (e.g., child is sleeping) or not interacting with the parent (e.g., engaged with another adult). Therefore, a comprehensive rigorous review is needed to understand definitions of (and tools utilized to measure) parental technoference, and its effects on parent–child relationships and child health and development.

Scoping reviews are used to clarify concepts, determine how research is conducted, discover evidence, and analyze knowledge gaps.²² In contrast, systematic reviews frequently address precise questions to inform the feasibility or effectiveness of a treatment.²² As the construct of parental technoference is nascent, we conducted a scoping review using a rigorous systematic process to broadly identify and map existing research on parental technoference and parent–child relationships and/or children's health and development for children younger than 18 years.

Review Questions

Our primary research question is as follows: What are the impacts of parental technoference on parent–child relationships and children's health and development? Secondary research questions include the following: How is parental technoference: (a) defined and (b) measured? (c) What designs and methodologies are used to research parental technoference? (d) What are the research gaps?

Inclusion Criteria

Participants

We planned to include articles on parents (e.g., unmarried, divorced, biological, adoptive) with children <18 years of age. However, we also included studies with older adolescents when children's mean ages were <18 years.

Concept

Studies on parental technoference and parent–child relationships (e.g., behaviors, attachment), child health (e.g., mental, physical), and/or developmental (e.g., motor, cognitive) outcomes were considered. During the title and abstract review, we discovered literature on parental technoference and children's technology use (e.g., cyberbullying), and included these studies as a health-related outcome. Parental technoference was identified as parental technological device (e.g., tablet, smartphone) utilization, excluding television, during parent–child interactions.

Context

Articles on parental technology use in the context of when parent–child interactions are expected (e.g., during mealtime) and its impacts on the outcome measures listed above were included around the world, with no setting limitations.

Types of studies

Primary quantitative and qualitative studies, reviews (i.e., systematic, scoping), conference abstracts, and dissertations written in English were included with no publication date limitations. Gray literature, popular literature, letters, editorials, and opinions were excluded.

Methods

We utilized the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology to guide our review,²³ registered the review (https://osf.io/5a4t6/), published a protocol,²⁴ and recorded minor deviations from the protocol. While critical appraisals are not mandatory, we conducted appraisals as the purpose of our review was to determine what research gaps exist. To promote consistency, we used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), which was developed for mixed (e.g., qualitative, mixed-methods) studies,²⁵ instead of utilizing multiple tools as outlined in our protocol.²⁴ This review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines (Supplementary File S1).

Search strategy

From December 2020 to January 2021, we completed a comprehensive search with an academic health sciences librarian (K.A.H.) in eight databases (i.e., MEDLINE (R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, JBI EBP Database, and Embase [OVID], CINAHL Plus with Full Text [Ebsco], Scopus). We identified relevant articles through a discovery search; key text words from titles, abstracts, and index terms informed the final search, which focused on three main concepts: parents, children, and technoference (Supplementary File S2). The search was finalized in APA PsycINFO and translated for other databases.

Study selection, data extraction, and analysis

The resulting articles were uploaded to Covidence (www.covidence.org) and 7,675 remained after duplicates were automatically removed. A pilot test of 50 random titles and abstracts were conducted to ensure selection criteria clarity and reviewer consistency (97 percent interrater reliability was achieved). L.J.M. and J.K. independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts; disagreements were discussed with N.L. A.J.T. and J.K. reference mined included reports and included 8 other sources. A.J.T. and S.M. independently extracted data.²⁴ J.K. confirmed each extraction, and authors were contacted for clarifications, if required. During data extraction, a systematic review was excluded¹⁶ as all relevant articles were included in our results.

Overall, 61 reports (4 articles included more than 1 study) were included; the inclusion criteria were met for study 1 and 2 in 3 reports^26–28 and study 1 in the fourth report.²⁹ See Figure 1 for the study selection process. Frequency counts on study characteristics and methods are presented in Tables 1 and 2, and definitions and outcome measures are presented in Table 3.

FIG. 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) diagram.

Table 1.

Study Characteristics

Key figures	No. of studies	Studies
Continent	64
North America	36	United States (k = 32): 6, 12, 27 Study 1 and 2, 28 Study 2, 29 Study 1, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37 (also in Israel), 38, 43–46, 48, 49, 51–55, 71, 73, 75, 80–82, 84, 87, 88Canada (k = 3): 28 Study 1, 41, 79Country unspecified in North America (k = 1): 85
Asia	20	China (k = 17): 26 Study 1 and 2, 57, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 14, 15, 33, 58, 61, 64, 72Israel (k = 2): 37^a also in United States, 42Japan (k = 1): 32
Australia	4	36, 39, 76, 83
Europe	4	Germany (k = 1): 50Italy (k = 1): 59Sweden (k = 1): 77Netherlands (k = 1): 40
Digital sampling	1	47
Publication type	64
Peer-reviewed journal	49	6, 12, 14, 15, 26 Study 1 and 2, 28 Study 1 and 2, 29 Study 1, 30, 31, 33, 36–46, 50–53, 55, 57–65, 67, 68, 70–72, 76, 77, 80, 81, 84, 87, 88
Doctoral dissertations	7	27 Study 1 and 2, 48, 49, 73, 75, 82
Master's theses	3	34, 47, 79
Conferences	5	32, 35, 54, 83, 85
Research method
(1) Quantitative	48
(a) Correlational	37	12, 14, 15, 26 Study 1 and 2, 27 Study 1, 28 Study 2, 29 Study 1, 33, 40, 42–48, 51–53, 57–65, 67, 68, 70–72, 76, 77, 81
(b) Experimental	3	28 Study 1, 30, 50
(c) Quasiexperimental	8	32, 34, 55, 73, 79, 80, 87, 88
(I) Longitudinal (excluding those with analyses of one time point)	5	26 Study 2, 46, 51, 63, 71
(II) Cross-sectional (including qualitative observational studies)	49	12, 14, 15, 26 Study 1, 27 Study 1, 28 Study 1 and 2, 29 Study 1, 30–45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 57–62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 73, 75–77, 79–81, 87, 88
(2) Qualitative	11	6, 27 Study 2, 31, 37, 38, 41, 49, 82–85
(3) Mixed-methods	5	35, 36, 39, 54, 75
Sample size (parents and children counted separately in studies with dyadic data)
1–100	20	6, 27 Study 2, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 48, 49, 55, 73, 79, 81–85, 87, 88
101–1,000	28	12, 26 Study 1 and 2, 27 Study 1, 28 Study 1 and 2, 29 Study 1, 31, 35, 37, 38, 40–42, 44–47, 50–52, 57, 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 77, 80
>1,000	15	14, 15, 33, 53, 54, 58–60, 62, 63, 67, 68, 70, 72, 76
Studies using the same/overlapping sample		(a) 67, 68(b) 12, 51(c) 44, 45(d) 14, 58
Parent and/or child ethnicity (greatest proportion in sample)	Reported in 40 studies
White/European descent	26	6, 12, 29 Study 1, 30, 34, 35, 44–48, 50–55, 59, 71, 73, 79–82, 87, 88
Asian	11	14, 15, 26 Study 1 and 2, 33, 57, 64, 65, 70, 72, 75
Hispanic/Latino	2	27 Study 2, 49
Black	1	43
Highest parental education (greatest proportion in sample)	Reported in 32 studies
≤High school diploma	7	6, 14, 33, 43, 59, 61, 68, 72
Some college to a bachelor degree	24	12, 27 Study 2, 29 Study 1, 30, 34, 36, 39, 44–52, 65, 71, 73, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84
Postgraduate degree	1	76
Caregiver role	Specified role/gender in 43 studies
Only mothers/female caregivers	14	29 Study 1, 32, 33, 43–45, 52, 55, 67, 71, 73, 79, 81, 88
More (>55 percent) mothers/female caregivers	22	6, 27 Study 1, 28 Study 1 and 2, 30, 35, 36, 38–40, 46, 48–50, 54, 72, 75, 77, 80, 82–84
Approximately equivalent mothers and fathers	6	12, 27 Study 2, 51, 59, 76, 87
More fathers than mothers	1	34
Referenced other caregivers	5	6, 27 Study 1, 35, 39, 48
Children's ages
0–5 Years	38	6,^b 12, 27 Study 1 and 2, 28 Study 1,^b 29 Study 1,^c 30, 31,^b 32,^c 34, 35,^b 36, 37,^b 38,^b 39, 40, 42, 43,^c 44,^b 45,^b 46, 47, 49,^c 50–52, 55, 71–73, 77, 79,^c 80, 81, 82,^c 83,^b 88
6–10 Years	14	6,^b 26 Study 1 and 2,^b 28 Study 1,^b 31,^b 33,^b 35,^b 37,^b 38,^b 44,^b 45,^b 53,^b 54,^b 83^b
11–18 Years	20	14, 15, 26 Study 1 and 2,^b 33,^b 53,^b 54,^b 57–65, 67, 68, 70, 75
All age groups	7	28 Study 2, 41, 48, 76, 84, 85, 87

Included in two categories.

Infants <12 months only.

Table 2.

Technoference Measures

Technoference measurement strategies
Naturalistic, covert observations (e.g., restaurant)	9	27 Study 1, 31, 35–39, 40 (compared a priori and post hoc consent), 41
Consented observations	5	42–46
Observations with simulated technoference (e.g., modified still-face)	12	28 Study 1, 30, 32, 34, 50, 55, 73, 79–81, 87, 88
Interview	12	6, 27 Study 2, 35, 36, 39, 49, 54, 75, 82–85
Self-report (e.g., diary entry)	3	28 Study 2, 81, 85
Who reported parental technoference with survey	Technoference measured with surveys in 34 studies
Child/adolescent	19	14, 15, 26 Study 1 and 2, 33, 53, 57–65, 67, 68, 70, 75
Parent/caregiver	15	12, 29 Study 1, 32, 35, 47, 48, 50–52, 71–73, 76, 77, 80

Table 3.

Technoference Definitions and Outcomes

Author (year)	Parental technoference definition	Parental technoference frequency	Parent–child relationship	Child health	Child development	Child technology use
Ante-Contreras (2016)	Hours on social media while caring for child	Seventy-five percent of parents use social media ≥three times daily while supervising child		Ten percent of parents perceived safety/supervision risk to child from personal social media use
Bai et al. (2020a)	Phubbing	Mother Phubbing Scale (modified from Generic Scale of being Phubbed) mean = 2.28		Mother phubbing negatively associated with adolescent mental health (β = −0.22, p < 0.001), which was moderated by adolescent agreeableness, and positively associated with academic burnout (β = 0.19, p < 0.001), which was mediated by adolescent mental health
Bai et al. (2020b)	Phubbing	Parent Phubbing Scale (modified from Generic Scale of being Phubbed) mean = 2.35	Attachment avoidance moderated effects of phubbing on depressive symptoms	Parental phubbing positively related to adolescent depressive symptoms (b = 0.18, p < 0.001)		Parental phubbing positively associated with adolescent phubbing (r = 0.31, p < 0.001)
Blackman (2015)	PSD while parenting	Self-report: 0–5 hours of daily PSD; 43 percent reported ≤0.5 hours	PSD negatively correlated with parent-reported importance of responsivity (r = −0.21, p = 0.043), but not bonding, discipline, sensitivity, or negativity	PSD not significantly related to parent perceived importance of child's general welfare and protection
Boles and Roberts (2008)	Not defined		Significant decrease in visual attention for computer-distracted parents compared with other distractions. Phone- distracted parents decreased proximity to child	Child risk taking behaviors during parental distractions increased, but not statistically significant
Bury et al. (2020)	Not defined. Observed parent MDU	Seventy percent of caregivers used mobile device at playground	Lower caregiver–child play, but not verbal interactions, with MDU	Twenty-nine percent MDU (and 5 percent none-MDU) did not supervise child. 46 percent MDU and 44 percent none-MDU constantly supervised; greater injury potential with MDU (22 percent) vs. none MDU (6 percent)
Chatton (2017)	Not defined		Positive: Cell phone provide parenting breaks, which benefit parent-child relationshipNegative: Cell phone distracts during parent-child interactions, is confusing to child and child “shuts down”, reduces parental empathy and parent-child interactions
Coyne et al. (2020)	Technoference					Parent technoference not significantly related to infant media use or video chat, but significantly related to media coping (use of media to occupy child while upset or parent busy), p < 0.001
Davidovitch et al. (2018)	Not defined	In waiting room, 84 percent used phones; 31 percent used phone for >50 percent of time; during developmental assessment, 66 percent used phones		No significant difference in parental cell phone use between children with autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder	Significantly higher cell use for parents of children with developmental/language delays than cognitive disorders
Davis et al. (2019)	Not defined	Thirty-five percent of parents strongly or somewhat agreed they felt guilty about using their phone too often around their child	Parents and teens feel parents use their phones too often. Parents feel guilt that their phone distracts them from child; younger (but not older) teens felt unloved/unappreciated by parental phone use
Derix and Leong (2018)	Technoference		Parents feel internal conflict about technology use, others try to restrict use to prioritize child's needs
Elias et al. (2020)	Technoference	Seventy-four percent in the United States and 79 percent in Israel used phones in playgrounds and 70 percent in the United States and 65 percent in Israel used phones in eateries. ∼1/3 used phones in playground/eatery for 40–100 percent of time	Observed parental harshness toward child, child withdrawing, occupying self, or acting out; more parents were inattentive to child's emotional needs while on phone than when not on phone	Twenty-six to thirty percent of parents failed to observe safety risks at playgrounds while on their phones; fewer parents (0–7 percent) failed to observe safety risks while not on their phones
Fu et al. (2020)	Phubbing	Mean parental phubbing score on Parental Phubbing Scale = 2.8				Parental technoference positively predicted adolescent mobile phone dependency (β = 0.17, p < 0.001)
Golen and Ventura (2015)	Not defined	Twenty-nine percent of mothers distracted (e.g., smartphone, sleeping) for >75 percent of bottle feed	Distracted mothers demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity to cues than nondistracted mothers	Feeding volume between distracted and nondistracted mothers nonsignificant; infants with low orientation/regulation and low surgency/extraversion consumed significantly more formula when mothers were distracted compared with no distractions
Gomez (2020)	Technoference	First time parents reported 1–5 hours of daily smartphone use while parenting	Parents report observing changes to baby with smartphone use during feeds (e.g., pinching, grabbing phone), and emotional (e.g., attention seeking) and verbal (e.g., yelling) reactions
Hiniker et al. (2015)	Not defined	Nearly 2/3 of parents spent <5 percent of time on phone at park; nearly 30 percent used phone for <10 seconds	Phone-distracted parents did not respond to children's bids (56 percent of observations) more than nondistracted parents (11 percent of observations); parents believed that children's bids reorient parent to child, but not observed by authors	Parents utilized five practices to mitigate safety concerns at park: short phone use, glance between phone and child, wait until child is safe, avoid use, engage with child immediately after phone use
Hong et al. (2019)	Phubbing	Mean parental phubbing score = 2.84	Parental phubbing negatively correlated with the parent-child relationship (r = −0.25, p < 0.001); parent–child relationship mediated association between parental phubbing and adolescent PMPU	Parental phubbing negatively correlated with child's self-esteem (r = −0.14, p < 0.001)		When controlling for adolescent age and gender, parental phubbing positively predicted adolescent PMPU (β = 0.24, p < 0.001)
Johnson and Hertlein (2019)	Not defined		Parents report disengagement behaviors with smartphone use
Kellershohn et al. (2018)	Technoference	Seventy percent of adults used technology while child played in indoor play space	Decreased parental responsiveness to child during parental technoference
Khourochvili (2017)	Not defined: created technoference		Modified still-face: parents and children showed high disengagement during parental texting. Infants had highest distress behaviors during technoference
Kildare (2017)	Mother phone use while child is present		Modified still-face: during technoference, infants had lower positive affect and higher negative affect, self comforting and escape behaviors, and object orientation	Infants did not demonstrate a significant increase in cortisol during technoference
Konrad et al. (2021)	Technoference	One percent very likely, 14 percent likely, and 31 percent neutral regarding phone use during parent–child play	Modified still-face: Parents demonstrated still-face for 77 percent of texting phase; children's negative affect significantly increased during technoference		No significant difference between infants in the no-interruption condition and interruption conditions in learning a new task
Kushlev and Dunn (2019) Study 1	Not defined: created technoference		Parents in high use phone condition reported lower attention quality and social connection than low use (p < 0.001)
Kushlev and Dunn (2019) Study 2	Not defined	Parents reported activities for 1 week; 2/3 reported activities with a child included parental phone use	Parent phone use associated with lower attention quality (p = 0.005) and indirectly related to social connectedness with children through attention (p = 0.017)
Lanette (2018)	Phubbing		Presence of cell phones did not affect parents' and teens' reports of conversation quality or partner listening (ps > 0.53)
Lemish et al. (2020)	PSD and technoference	Seventy-nine percent of parents utilized mobile devices at playground; on average, parents used phones for 31 percent of time	During technoference, parents ignored children's bids, did not notice emotional distress or share positive feelings of accomplishment, or made harsh or impatient comments	More child safety concerns were observed when parents used mobile devices (25 percent) than without devices (18 percent)
Liu et al. (2021)	Phubbing	Mean parental phubbing score = 2.87 on Parental Phubbing Scale	Parental phubbing negatively predicted adolescent satisfaction with parent–child relationship (b = −0.32, p < 0.001) for preoccupied and fearful, but not secure and dismissing, teens	Parental phubbing negatively predicted adolescent life satisfaction for preoccupied and fearful, but not secure and dismissing, teens
Liu et al. (2020)	Technoference and phubbing	Mean parental technoference score = 2.68 adapted from Technology in Life Examples Scale		Parental technoference positively predicted social sensitivity (β = 0.19, p < 0.001) and loneliness (β = 0.28, p < 0.001)		Parental technoference positively predicted teen smartphone addiction tendency (β = 0.16, p < 0.001)
Liu et al. (2019)	Phubbing	Mean parental phubbing score = 2.54				Parental phubbing linked to teen mobile phone dependency (β = 0.171, p < 0.002; accounted for 55.3 percent of variance)
Mangan et al. (2018)	Not defined	Seventy-six percent of caregivers used phone in playground; range = 0–17.5/20 minutes observation	Very few observations (4 percent) where parents ignored child's bids for attention; all interviewed parents (n = 25) believed parent–child interactions were a playground priority	Nineteen of twenty-five parents believed children could be supervised while using a device
McDaniel and Radesky (2018b)	Technoference	Ninety-five percent of mothers and 90 percent of fathers reported daily technoference; younger maternal age associated with greater technoference (p < 0.05); parent ethnicity, education, income, and child's age not associated with technoference		Parental technoference positively predicted children's externalizing behaviors 1–6 months later (βs ≥ 0.11, ps < 0.01); parental technoference at month 3 positively predicted internalizing behaviors at month 6 (β = 0.21, p < 0.001)		Father technoference positively correlated with child media use (p < 0.05)
McDaniel and Radesky (2018a)	Technoference	Eighty-nine percent of mothers and fathers reported daily technoference. 48 percent reported ≥3 occurrences		Maternal (but not paternal) technoference positively predicted children's externalizing (β = 0.20, p < 0.001) and internalizing (β = 0.16, p < 0.05) behaviors
Modecki et al. (2020)	Technoference		Family displacement by technology positively related to warmth (pp. 860–861); when family displacement by technology was used as a moderator between phone use and attachment, medium displacement levels with high phone use were more likely to negatively affect attachment than low levels of displacement
Myruski et al. (2018)	Not defined	Average device use in front of babies: 2.54 (2 = <30 minutes, 3 = 1 hour)	Modified still-face: Greater negative affect, social bids, and room exploration, and lower positive affect and engagement with mother during technoference phase compared with other phases (ps < 0.005)
Nakagawa et al. (2019)	Not defined	All mothers (N = 7) reported sometimes using a phone while breastfeeding	Four of seven mothers believed that changes occur in their baby from smartphone use while breastfeeding	Five of seven mothers changed position when not on smartphone (e.g., visualize baby's face). Mothers took longer to recognize baby finish breastfeeding when on phone (0.79–5.96 seconds) vs. not (0 seconds), but not statistically evaluated
Newsham et al. (2020)	Technoference	Highest self-reports of technoference occurred during mealtime (72 percent) and playtime (71 percent)	Forty-two of seventy-two percent of mothers reported that technology interfered with parenting activities (e.g., playtime, mealtime); maternal depression positively associated with technoference (chores with child and playtime with no technology, ps < 0.05); maternal problematic phone positively associated with technoference (e.g., meals, playtime, bedtime) (ps < 0.01)
Niu et al. (2020)	Phubbing	Mean parental phubbing score = 2.97 on 5-point Likert scale	Parental phubbing negatively predicted parent–child relationship (e.g., affection, intimacy, satisfaction)			Parental phubbing positively predicted adolescent's PMPU, alone and while controlling for parent–child relationship (β = 0.26, p < 0.001), especially adolescents with low self-control (i.e., self-control moderated relationship)
Ochoa (2019) Study 1	Not defined	Sixty-eight of ninety-eight (69 percent) of caregivers used phones (playgrounds, food courts); 18/98 used phone for entire observation; higher phone use with male child (vs. female) and in low-middle (vs. high)-income neighborhoods (ps = 0.001)	Lower caregiver initiation, responsiveness, joint attention, and talk when on phone compared with not (ps ≤ 0.001); fewer parent- and child-positive emotions with parental phone use (ps ≤ 0.04); type of use affects interactions (e.g., more positive interactions with taking a picture and looking at screen vs. texting and swiping)
Ochoa (2019) Study 2	Not defined	Forty-seven percent of parents felt mobile devices interrupted time with child	Parents reported feeling like mobile phones interrupt parent–child interactions
Oduor et al. (2016)	Not defined		Parents believed that MDU affects parenting and delay reactions to child, and children notice when parent is attentive to phone and not child; some use phone to delay parenting tasks
Pancani et al. (2021)	Phubbing		Parental phubbing positively related to adolescent social disconnection with mothers and fathers (ps < 0.001).
Qiao and Liu (2020)	Technoference	Mean parental technoference = 2.44 on scale ranging from 0 to 8			Parental technoference negatively predicted adolescent attentional control (β = −0.198, p < 0.001)	Parental technoference positively predicted adolescent smartphone addiction (β = 0.14, p < 0.001); attention control partially mediated this relationship
Qu et al. (2022)	Phubbing	Mean = 2.27 on Mother Phubbing Scale, range 1–7	Maternal phubbing negatively related to adolescent feeling of maternal acceptance (r = −0.29, p < 0.001); adolescent emotional stability moderated this association (p < 0.001)			Maternal phubbing positively associated with adolescent cyberbullying (r = 0.24, p < 0.001); mother acceptance mediated (35 percent of total effect) and adolescent emotional stability moderated the association (p < 0.001)
Radesky et al. (2018)	Not defined	Twenty-four percent of mothers used mobile device during home meal, 23 percent in laboratory eating task, and 9 percent with both	Maternal sensitivity, parenting reflectivity, and richness of perceptions negatively associated with parental device use during structured eating protocol
Radesky et al. (2015)	Not defined	During structured eating protocol, 23 percent of mothers used mobile device	Mothers using mobile devices had 20 and 29 percent fewer verbal and nonverbal interactions with their child, respectively, and 28 percent fewer encouragements than others; lowest interactions/encouragements occurred with unfamiliar foods (e.g., halva)
Radesky et al. (2016)	Not defined		Parents feel more present when not using phone; parents observe more attention seeking behaviors from child and some react more strongly to child during parental phone use
Radesky et al. (2014)	Not defined	Seventy-three percent of parents used device at fast food restaurant; 29 percent used device almost continuously; caregivers most absorbed when typing or swiping instead of phone calls; low absorption observed when parents checked device briefly and no absorption when device on table	With brief use, some children did not change behavior; children showed limited testing or did not make bids for parental attention; absorbed parents often ignored child's behavior and then reacted harshly or gave robotic instructions, did not respond sensitively, or used physical (e.g., kicked child's foot) responses
Reed et al. (2017)	Not defined		Children whose mothers acknowledged (e.g., vocalized to the child) that a call was incoming from children whose mothers did not acknowledge the interruption		Children less likely to learn word when teaching was interrupted vs. not (p < 0.02)
Rothstein (2018)	Not defined		Parental affection, responsiveness, and encouragement toward child significantly lower during “phone on” phase vs. “phone off,” ps < 0.05; no significant difference in teaching scores between phone on and off
Saltzman et al. (2019)	Not defined	Maternal (M = 0.10 minutes) and father (M = 0.27 minutes) technology distractions during meal	Maternal technological distractions (e.g., computer, smartphone) during mealtime not significantly associated with maternal feeding responsiveness
Stockdale et al. (2018)	Technoference	Seventy-eight percent of adolescents reported parents engage in technoference	Parental technoference negatively related to parental warmth (β = −0.35, p < 0.001)	Parental technoference positively related to adolescent anxiety (β = 0.28) and depression (β = 0.24), civic engagement (β = 0.19), and prosocial behavior toward strangers and family (βs = 0.20–0.22), ps < 0.001		Parental technoference positively associated with cyberbullying (β = 0.20) and adolescent technoference (β = 0.37), ps < 0.01
Stockdale et al. (2020)	Technoference	Mean technoference = 10.23 on scale with possible range of 1–25	Modified still-face: During parental technoference, infant positive affect and parent orientation lowest, while negative affect, objective orientation, self-comforting, and escape behaviors highest; ps < 0.001
Stupica (2016)	Not defined		Children were seven times more likely to bid for parents' attention in parental technology use group compared with parent available and responsive group (p < 0.05)	Higher chance of child tripping, falling, stumbling, or false starting during parental technoference (27 percent) compared with attentive and responsive parent condition (10 percent), p = 0.017	Children ran 3.66 seconds faster when parents were available and responsive compared with parental technoference (p < 0.001)
Sundqvist et al. (2020)	Technoference	Mean number of parental daily technoference instances = 2.1		Parental technoference positively correlated with internalizing subscale (rs = 0.18) and total Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (rs = 0.19), ps < 0.05, and negatively related to child prosocial behaviors (rs = −0.18, p < 0.05)
Vanden Abeele et al. (2020)	Not defined	Forty-two percent used their phones in playgrounds and a waiting room; parents consenting a priori used phones less (6 percent) than post hoc consent (22 percent)	During parental active phone use vs. no use, parents were 16 × less likely to respond to child's bids, 27 × less timely with responses, and 4 × less positive with responses; children did not use significant more bids during parental phone use vs. not, ps ≤ 0.001
Ventura et al. (2020) Study 1	Technoference	Thirty-seven percent of mothers reported using mobile device or tablet often or always while feeding infant and 22 percent during infant care	Maternal technology engagement positively associated with using food to soothe (r = 0.19), laissez faire (r = 0.43), and pressuring (r = 0.21) feeding styles (ps < 0.001), negatively associated with infant food enjoyment (r = −0.11, p = 0.038)
Ventura et al. (2019)	Not defined		Significantly lower cognitive growth fostering (p = 0.018), trending toward lower sensitivity to cues (p = 0.098), but no statistically significant differences in maternal responsiveness to distress and social emotional growth fostering during maternal technoference vs. control condition
Wang et al. (2020a)	Phubbing	Mean parental phubbing scale = 2.72, possible range = 1–5		Parental phubbing positively correlated (correlation = 0.20, p < 0.001) adolescent depressive symptoms; adolescent self-esteem and perceived social support moderated this relationship
Wang et al. (2020b)	Phubbing	Mean parental phubbing = 2.72, possible range = 1–5		Parental phubbing positively linked to adolescent moral disengagement (β = 0.25, p < 0.01)		Moral disengagement mediated and online disinhibition moderated the link between parental phubbing and adolescent cyberbullying (ps < 0.01)
Wong et al. (2020)	Technoference	Mean distracted parenting score = 0.64, possible range = 0–5		Distracted parenting score directly linked to total strengths and difficulties (β = 0.07, p < 0.05), and indirectly to externalizing through children's screen time		Distracted parenting positively predicted children's screen time (β = 0.25, p < 0.001)
Xie et al. (2019)	Phubbing	Parental phubbing mean = 2.42, possible range 1–5	Parental phubbing negatively associated with parent–adolescent attachment (β = −0.34, p < 0.001)			Parental phubbing directly (β = 0.30, p < 0.001) and indirectly (through deviant peers and parent–child attachment) linked to adolescent mobile phone addiction; gender moderated the link, with greater risk for boys than girls
Xie et al. (2021)	Phubbing	Mean parental phubbing = 2.84, possible range = 1–5	Parental phubbing positively related to neglect (β = 0.50, p < 0.001)	Parental phubbing positively correlated with depression (β = 0.31, p < 0.001)		Parental phubbing positively correlated with Internet gaming disorder (β = 0.13, p = 0.008)
Xie and Xie (2020) Study 1	Phubbing and technoference	Mean parental phubbing = 2.90, possible range = 1–5		Parental phubbing predicted adolescent depression after controlling for gender (β = 0.46, p < 0.001)
Xie and Xie (2020) Study 2	Phubbing and technoference	Mean parental phubbing = 2.94, possible range = 1–5	Parental phubbing negatively predicted parental warmth (β = −0.14, p < 0.05) and positively predicted parental rejection (β = 0.23, p < 0.01)	Parental phubbing directly (β = 0.14, p < 0.05) and indirectly predicted adolescent depression via (a) parental warmth and relatedness needs satisfaction and (b) parental rejection and relatedness needs satisfaction

MDU, mobile device use; PMPU, problematic mobile phone use; PSD, parental screen distraction.

Results

Study characteristics

This review includes 61 reports, comprising 64 studies. Articles were published between 2008 and 2021, with only two^30,31 published before 2015. Most studies were conducted in the United States (k = 32) and China (k = 17), and sample sizes ranged from seven mother–infant dyads³² to 4,213 high-school students.³³ Quantitative studies (k = 49) were most commonly conducted. Out of 43 studies that specified parental role/gender, only 1 included slightly more fathers (56 percent) than mothers.³⁴ Five studies included parents and nonparental caregivers, such as grandparents⁶ and nannies.³⁵ Parental technology use while caring for or interacting with children was most frequently defined as technoference (k = 19), followed by phubbing, a portmanteau of “phone” and “snubbing” (k = 17). For consistency, we utilize parental technoference throughout this review. Parent–child relationships comprised the most studied outcome, followed by child health, technology use, and development (Fig. 2).

FIG. 2.

Outcomes measured by age.

Most studies evaluated parental technoference with smartphones, cell phones, or mobile phones; 19 studies evaluated more than 1 device, yet the devices (e.g., smartphone vs. tablet) were not differentiated in analyses. See Figure 3 for technological devices in these articles.

FIG. 3.

Technological devices reported in articles.

Methodological quality

Quality appraisals are presented in Table 4. Of 11 qualitative studies and 5 qualitative components in mixed-methods studies, 6 fulfilled all MMAT criteria; 6 studies did not indicate the methodology used and 3 utilized a methodology (i.e., Grounded Theory) that did not align with its aims (e.g., theory not established). No randomized controlled trials met 100 percent of the criteria. Seven of 45 nonrandomized studies met all the criteria; 33 of these studies accounted for confounders (e.g., mediation). One-fifth of the mixed-methods studies met all the criteria. A.J.T. and S.M. appraised half and J.K. independently assessed each study. J.K. attained 95 percent inter-rater reliability with A.J.T. and 89 percent with S.M. Disagreements were discussed between J.K., A.J.T. and S.M. to reach a consensus.

Table 4.

Critical Appraisal with Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool

Parental technoference measurements

Researchers observed parental technoference in playgrounds^27Study1^,35–40 and restaurants,^27Study1^,31,37,41 during medical^40,42 and laboratory visits,^43–45 and at home.^44,46 In public settings (e.g., playground, waiting room), 42 percent⁴⁰ to 84 percent⁴² of parents used their phones with their child present. Two studies reported low phone use duration at playgrounds, with almost 30 percent of parents using their phone for <10 seconds³⁵ and 58 percent for <5 minutes.³⁹ In contrast, 31 percent utilized their phone for ≥50 percent of the time in a waiting room⁴² and for 40–100 percent of the time in restaurants and playgrounds.³⁷ Parental technology use occurred less frequently (23–34 percent)^44,45 and for minimal duration⁴⁶ during recorded home and laboratory meals.

Twelve studies quantified parental technoference (e.g., hours)^{12,28Study2,29,32,47–53} and guilt regarding technoference.⁵⁴ Parental daily technoference ranged from 0–1 to 5 hours,^48,49,55 and ≥75 percent of parents utilized devices during parent–child interactions, according to parents^12,32,47,51 and adolescents.⁵³ In contrast, only 15 percent of parents reported being likely/very likely to use their phone while playing with their child in one study,⁵⁰ yet another found that parental device use occurred often during playtime and mealtimes.⁵²

Parental technoference was assessed with surveys. Adaptations to the Partner Phubbing Scale,⁵⁶ often named the Parental Phubbing Scale,^14,57–61 were utilized in 11 articles; mean scores ranged from 2.42 to 2.97 on a 5-point Likert scale (higher scores = higher technoference).^{14,26Studies1 and 2,57,58,60–65} Of note, Pancani et al.'s⁵⁹ Parental Phubbing Scale appears slightly different than the other Parental Phubbing Scales. A modified Generic Scale of Being Phubbed⁶⁶ was utilized in three studies; mean scores ranged from 2.27 to 2.35 on a 7-point Likert scale (higher scores = higher technoference).^33,67,68 Four tools by McDaniel and Coyne^11,69 were integrated to measure parental technoference,^{12,15,51–53,70,71} McDaniel and Radesky's tools¹² were revised to create the Distracted Parenting Scale,⁷² and Kildare⁷³ modified the Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale.⁷⁴ Others developed the Maternal Distraction Questionnaire²⁹ and questions to assess parental phubbing.⁷⁵

In five studies, minimal questions assessed parental technoference.^{32,47,48,76,77} Although Cronbach's alphas were frequently provided, other reliability measures (e.g., test–retest) were lacking. Two reports focused on the development and validation of parental technoference tools,^29,59 and validity (primarily confirmatory factor analysis) was assessed in seven other reports.^{15,26,58,61,63–65}

Parent–child relationship

Still-face findings

Parent–child interactions were evaluated through modified still-face exercises,⁷⁸ with mobile devices used to create parental technoference.^{50,55,73,79,80} Parents demonstrated high disengagement cues.⁷⁹ Infants demonstrated high disengagement, distress,⁷⁹ self-comforting, object orientation, and escape behaviors,^73,80 and a low-positive^55,73,80 and high-negative affect during parental technoference.^50,55,73,80

Parent–child interactions

Parent–child interactions were observed covertly in naturalistic settings (e.g., playgrounds, restaurants); themes were derived from observations^{31,35,37,38,41} and parent–child interaction coding schemes were created^27Study1,40 or adapted.^36,39 Only three studies included children older than 6 years,^31,35 with children up to 12 years included in one study.⁴¹ During parental technoference, parents demonstrated low parent–child play³⁶ and engagement,³⁰ minimal attentiveness and responsivity to their children's bids for attention and emotional needs, little eye contact with their child, and some ignored^{27Study1,31,35,37,38,40,41} or responded harshly to their child.^31,37,38 In contrast, one study observed infrequent occurrences (4 percent) where parents ignored their child's bids for attention.³⁹

Children's responses to parental technoference were also observed in covert studies^{27Study1,31,36,37,40}; children exhibited limit-testing behaviors (e.g., hitting),^31,37 withdrew/occupied themselves,³⁷ did not make³¹ or increase bids for attention,⁴⁰ and showed limited positive emotions.^27Study1 In one study, similar parent–child verbal interactions occurred during parental technoference compared with no device use,³⁶ and another reported more frequent parent–child communication when parents were not distracted with technology.^27Study1

Feeding interactions

Feeding interactions were evaluated in consented mealtime observations in laboratory or community settings,^{32,43–45,81} at home,^44,46 and with parental interviews⁴⁹ and a survey.^29Study1 Most studies focused on infants and toddlers,⁴⁶ with two assessing children at ∼6 years of age.^44,45 In studies with infants, lower maternal sensitivity⁴³ and lower cognitive growth fostering⁸¹ were observed during maternal technoference. Maternal technoference was associated with certain parenting feeding styles (e.g., pressuring) and lower infant food enjoyment.^29Study1 In contrast, no significant relationship was found between parental technoference and maternal feeding responsiveness in 18- to 24-month-old children.⁴⁶ Parents also reported infant responses (e.g., pinching breast, stopping feed) to technoference⁴⁹ and believed changes occurred in their baby from smartphone use while breastfeeding.³²

At ∼6 years of age, fewer child-directed encouragements and verbal interactions were observed during parental technoference versus no device use,⁴⁵ and lower sensitivity, richness of perceptions, and parenting reflectivity were observed in mothers who engaged in technoference (vs. those who did not actively use their phones) in a laboratory observation.⁴⁴

Caregiver and child perceptions of parental technoference

Parent–child relationship qualities^{33,57,63,64,75} and social connection were evaluated^{28Study1,54,59} with surveys. These studies primarily focused on children ≥10 years of age; however, one study included children with a median age of 5 years.^28Study1 In the younger sample, parents reported significantly lower social connection during parental technoference compared with no technological distractions.^28Study1 Parental technoference was associated with poorer reported parent–child relationship quality by adolescents,^57,63,64 lower feelings of maternal acceptance,³³ and increased feelings of social disconnection among adolescents.⁵⁹ Adolescents reported feeling in competition with their parent's phone⁵⁴; however, parent–adolescent conversation quality was not affected when cell phones were present, but unused.⁷⁵

Parents reported technoference experiences in seven studies with diverse age groups. Parents perceived benefits to using technology (e.g., breaks), but they also identified risks, such as feeling low empathy for their child during technoference.⁸² Parents felt like their phone interrupted parent–child interactions,^27Study2 encouraged strong reactions to their child,⁶ and reported internal conflict regarding phone use.⁸³ Parents also reported disengagement behaviors in themselves during phone use⁸⁴ and felt like their phone distracted and delayed their responses to their children.^54,85

Attachment and bonding

Parental technoference and parent–child attachment^57,60,68,76 and bonding⁴⁸ were measured with surveys. Two studies included children with varied ages (preschool, school-age, adolescence),^48,76 while the others focused on adolescents. A significant association was not found between parental technoference and parent-reported value in “bonding” activities (e.g., playing with child).⁴⁸ While controlling for adolescent age, parental technoference was associated with less optimal parent–adolescent attachment.⁶⁰ Adolescents with low attachment avoidance were most likely to experience depressive symptoms with high parental technoference.⁶⁸ Higher parental technoference predicted lower parent–child relationship satisfaction by adolescents with preoccupied and fearful attachment styles.⁵⁷

Child health

Mental, emotional, and behavioral health

Parental technoference and preschool children's externalizing (e.g., temper tantrums, hyperactivity) and internalizing (e.g., sulking, peer problems) behaviors were reported with surveys.^12,51,72,77 Parental technoference predicted greater externalizing and internalizing behaviors in two studies with the same sample.^12,51 Parental technoference was also correlated with higher total difficulty scores on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, which measures children's externalizing and internalizing scores,⁸⁶ in two studies.^72,77 In addition, parental technoference was associated with lower prosocial behaviors in preschool children.⁷⁷

Parental technoference and adolescent mental and emotional health was evaluated in 11 studies with surveys. Parental technoference was correlated with increased depressive symptoms,^{14,26Studies1 and 2,53,61,68} anxiety,⁵³ poorer general mental health,⁶⁷ and lower self-esteem⁶³ and life satisfaction⁵⁷ in adolescents. Parental technoference predicted greater adolescent loneliness, social sensitivity,⁷⁰ academic burnout,⁶⁷ moral disengagement,⁵⁸ civic engagement, and prosocial behaviors.⁵³

Physical/physiological health and safety

Parental technoference and supervision/child safety was reported in eight studies with themes derived from observational data,^35,37,38 a developed coding scheme,^30,87 observational checklist,³⁶ and surveys.^47,48 All studies included preschool-aged children, and three also included school-aged children^35,48,87 and adolescents.⁴⁸ At playgrounds³⁸ and during a baseball game, children experienced more safety risks⁸⁷ and parents did not observe safety risks³⁷ or supervise their child as frequently during technoference compared with not using their device.³⁶ In a laboratory, children's risk-taking behaviors increased when parents were distracted (i.e., computer) compared with no distractions, yet this did not reach statistical significance.³⁰ Parental technoference was not significantly related to parental-reported importance of child protection and general welfare,⁴⁸ yet 10 percent of parents believed their social media usage presented a safety/supervision risk for their child.⁴⁷ Parents believed brief (vs. long) device use would be less likely to affect child supervision quality³⁶ and that parenting practices (e.g., quick use or avoids use, waits until child is preoccupied/safe) mitigated phone use concerns at the park.³⁵

The impact of technoference on medical diagnoses and physiological health was evaluated in two studies with nonsignificant findings. During a technoference “still-face” procedure, no significant changes in cortisol occurred in infants.⁷³ No significant differences were observed in parental phone use during medical assessments for parents of preschool-aged children with autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder compared with parents of children with congenital disorders.⁴²

Infant nutrition was evaluated in two studies. In one small study (N = 7), mothers required less time to recognize breastfeeding satiety while not using their phone compared with when phones were used³²; however, the study findings were not evaluated for statistical significance. In another study, infants with low orienting/regulation capacity and low surgency/extraversion consumed significantly more formula with distracted mothers (e.g., those utilizing technology or sleeping) than infants without distracted mothers.⁴³

Child development

Parental technoference and child development was evaluated in five studies. During a teaching episode, toddlers were less likely to learn a word if the parent was interrupted with a phone call,⁸⁸ but learning was not affected by parental texting.⁵⁰ Parents of preschool-aged children with language and motor delays engaged with their phones significantly more during medical assessments than parents with children born prematurely or with congenital abnormalities.⁴² Children ran 3.66 seconds faster while playing baseball when their parents were attentive and responsive, compared with when parents were instructed to immerse themselves in their mobile device.⁸⁷ Parental technoference predicted decreases in adolescent attention control.¹⁵

Children's technology use

Fifteen studies assessed parental technoference and children's technology use with surveys. These studies primarily focused on adolescents, with only two reporting preschool children's outcomes.^51,72 In three^51,53,72 out of four studies,⁷¹ parental technoference was associated with higher media use/screen time for children and adolescents. Statistically significant positive associations were reported between parental technoference and adolescents' technoference,^53,68 cyberbullying,^33,53,58 and Internet gaming disorder.⁶¹ Parental technoference also predicted increases in adolescent's mobile phone dependency,^62,65 smartphone addiction,^15,60,70 and problematic mobile phone use while controlling for age and gender.^63,64

Discussion

The primary aim of this scoping review was to determine the effects of parental technoference on parent–child relationships and children's health and development. Of 64 included studies, 49 evaluated parent–child relationships. Findings demonstrated that parental technoference can negatively affect parent's and children's behaviors, such as infants demonstrating a negative affect during technoference still-face episodes^50,55,73,80 and parents responding harshly to children during covert observations.^31,37,38 Adolescent surveys highlighted negative parental technoference implications on parent–child relationships^57,63,64 and attachment.^60,68

Twenty-eight studies evaluated parental technoference and children's health, with adolescent mental and emotional health (k = 11) and child supervision/safety (k = 9) most studied. Parental technoference was associated with negative mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes, such as depression in adolescence and externalizing behaviors in preschool children. However, parental technoference was associated with greater social sensitivity,⁷⁰ civic engagement, and prosocial behaviors in adolescence.⁵³ As theorized by Stockdale et al.,⁵³ it is possible that adolescents who experience high parental technoference attempt to gain their parents attention with positive (e.g., prosocial) behaviors. While supervision/safety risks were observed during parental technoference,^36–38,87 Hiniker et al.³⁵ reported parenting practices that minimized technoference concerns. Limited research on physiological⁷³ and medical outcomes⁴² did not reveal significant associations with technoference, possibly due to small sample sizes (N = 34 and 111, respectively).

Parental technoference affected children's technology use and development. Overall, 14/15 of the included studies found links between parental technoference and children's problematic technological behaviors. The impact of parental technoference on children's development was less clear, given the limited studies (k = 5), diverse outcomes (e.g., learning, running speed), and conflicting (e.g., toddler learning affected by calls but not texting) results.

We sought to determine how technoference was studied, defined, and measured. Authors commonly defined parental technology use during parent–child interactions as parental technoference or phubbing. Diverse measurement methods (e.g., covert and consented observations, surveys) provided knowledge breadth. However, various surveys were utilized, which limits comparisons between studies. Given that the concept of technoference is nascent, it is not surprising that questions were developed to measure technoference in some studies. However, some measures were developed without assessing their reliability or validity.

Technoference assessments may have also influenced the results. For example, lower phone use was observed in parents who provided a priori compared with post hoc observational consent⁴⁰; the Hawthorne effect (i.e., behaviors change with knowledge of being studied⁸⁹) could explain disparities between higher technoference observed in covert versus consented observations. Parental technoference was primarily attained with surveys in samples of adolescents, while observations were utilized more often with infants and young children. Although surveys offer numerous benefits (e.g., cost effective, convenient), they have drawbacks, such as the potential for recall or social desirability bias.^89,90

Research has shown discrepancies between parent-reported smartphone usage and usage recorded with a smartphone application, with many parents underreporting (but some overreporting) their usage.⁹¹ Therefore, this body of literature would be strengthened by future research comparing technoference measures (e.g., surveys to surveys, surveys to observations) to determine their convergent validity, highlight tool differences, and potentially determine gold standard measures.

We also identified knowledge gaps. Despite several observations of young children, none evaluated parent–child attachment as an outcome. We found minimal research on children's nutritional, physiological, and medical health, or development. Consistent with other literature,^92,93 fathers were less represented than mothers. A consistently used, standardized observational tool to assess parental technoference and its effects on parent–child interactions was lacking, and we did not find evaluations of interventions to decrease parental technoference. In one study, parental texting and swiping were associated with lower quality parent–child interactions than simply looking at a phone screen or taking a photograph.^27Study1

Future analyses could explore whether device type (e.g., smartphone, tablet) affects parental technoference behaviors or associations between parental technoference and parent–child relationships and children's health and development. Furthermore, many studies focused on white samples with highly educated (e.g., postsecondary) parents; it is important that future evaluations include diverse (e.g., income, education) demographics to aid in the generalizability of these findings.

Another noteworthy knowledge gap is related to a lack of temporality (i.e., technoference preceded outcomes) within this body of literature; of five longitudinal evaluations, only three conducted analyses with parental technoference measured before the outcome (e.g., child health).^{26Study2,51,63} In the other two longitudinal evaluations, parental technoference was measured at the same time as parent–child relationship or child outcomes (e.g., technology use), and other variables (e.g., demographics) were collected at another time.^46,71 Additional research with evidence of temporality would assist with demonstrating causality⁸⁹ and with illuminating long-term implications of parental technoference.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of our study is that we used rigorous methods to systematically conduct this scoping review. Furthermore, we only included literature on parental technoference, as parental technology use measures do not indicate if the child is present. Although our review is broad, given the high number of studies and heterogeneity of outcomes and technoference assessments, our review is limited in depth. Future reviews could synthesize evidence of factors predictive of high parental technoference and mediating/moderating variables (e.g., child age) on parents and children's outcomes. For example, in a longitudinal study of infants, increases in maternal technoference were observed as infants grew older.⁹⁴ Furthermore, articles published after completing our search, in languages other than English, and gray literature could contribute to our findings.

Conclusion

This scoping review summarizes knowledge on the effects of parental technoference on parent–child relationships and children's health and development. Findings underscored negative behavioral changes for parents (e.g., ignored children's bids, harsh responses) and children (e.g., withdrawing, acting out), parental and adolescent perceptions of parental technoference, and children's safety risks. Studies highlighted associations between parental technoference and adolescent mental health concerns and problematic technological behaviors (e.g., cyberbullying), yet additional research is needed to understand the association between parental technoference and other aspects of children's health and development. Furthermore, all quasi/experimental studies focused on simulating technoference. Given the ubiquity of technological devices and technological benefits for families, supportive, nonjudgmental educational programs are needed to minimize the effects of parental technoference on parent–child relationships and children's health and development.

Footnotes

Authors' Contributions

J.K.: methodology, investigation, analysis, visualization, project administration, and writing—original draft. A.J.T.: investigation, visualization, and writing—original draft. S.M.: investigation, visualization, and writing—original draft. L.J.M.: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, and writing—review and editing. K.A.H.: methodology and writing—review and editing. J.L.C.: writing—review and editing and supervision. L.D.-L.: writing—review and editing. N.L.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, writing—review and editing, and supervision.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding Information

The authors acknowledge funding from an anonymous donor.

Supplementary Material

References

Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA). The Mobile Economy 2020. 2020. Available from: https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/GSMA_MobileEconomy2020_Global.pdf [Last accessed: January 10, 2022].

Statistics Canada. Smartphone Use and Smartphone Habits by Gender and Age Group. 2018. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2210011501 [Last accessed: January 10, 2022].

Rainie

, Zickuhr

. Americans' Views on Mobile Etiquette. 2015. Available from: www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/26/americans-views-on-mobile-etiquette [Last accessed: January 10, 2022].

Gergen

. The Challenge of Absent Presence. In: Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance [Internet]. (Katz JE, Aakhus M. eds.) Cambridge University Press: United Kingdom, 2009; pp. 227–241. Available from: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-psychology/569.

Aagaard

. Mobile devices, interaction, and distraction: A qualitative exploration of absent presence. AI Soc, 2016; 31:223–231.

Radesky

, Kistin

, Eisenberg

, et al. Parent perspectives on their mobile technology use: The excitement and exhaustion of parenting while connected. J Dev Behav Pediatr, 2016; 37(9):694–701.

McDaniel

, Coyne

, Holmes

. New mothers and media use: Associations between blogging, social networking, and maternal well-being. Matern Child Health J, 2012; 16(7):1509–1517.

Virani

, Duffett-Leger

, Letourneau

. Parenting apps review: In search of good quality apps. mHealth, 2019; 5:44.

Wolfers

. Parental mobile media use for coping with stress: A focus groups study. Hum Behav Emerg Technol, 2021; 3(2):304–315.

10.

Auxier

BYB

, Anderson

, Perrin

, et al. Parenting Children in the Age of Screens. 2020. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/parenting-children-in-the-age-of-screens [Last accessed: January 10, 2022].

11.

McDaniel

, Coyne

. “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women's personal and relational well-being. Psychol Pop Media Cult, 2016; 5(1):85–98.

12.

McDaniel

, Radesky

. Technoference: Parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Dev, 2018a;89(1):100–109.

13.

Nakamura

. The action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal behavior/communication: A theoretical perspective. Comput Hum Behav, 2015; 43:68–75.

14.

Wang

, Gao

, Yang

, et al. Parental phubbing and adolescents' depressive symptoms: Self-esteem and perceived social support as moderators. J Youth Adolesc, 2020a;49(2):427–437.

15.

Qiao

, Liu

. The effect of technoference in parent-child relationships on adolescent smartphone addiction: The role of cognitive factors. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2020; 118:105340.

16.

Beamish

, Fisher

, Rowe

. Parents' use of mobile computing devices, caregiving and the social and emotional development of children: A systematic review of the evidence. Australas Psychiatry, 2019; 27:132–143.

17.

Braune-Krickau

, Schneebeli

, Pehlke-Milde

, et al. Smartphones in the nursery: Parental smartphone use and parental sensitivity and responsiveness within parent–child interaction in early childhood (0–5years): A scoping review. Infant Mental Health J, 2021; 42:161–175.

18.

McDaniel

. Parent distraction with phones, reasons for use, and impacts on parenting and child outcomes: A review of the emerging research. Hum Behav Emerg Technol, 2019; 1:72–80.

19.

Kildare

, Middlemiss

. Impact of parents mobile device use on parent-child interaction: A literature review. Comput Hum Behav, 2017; 75:579–593.

20.

Zimmerle

. Limiting technoference: Healthy screen time habits for new parents. Int J Childbirth Educ, 2019; 34:54–59.

21.

Knitter

, Zemp

. Digital family life: A systematic review of the impact of parental smartphone use on parent-child interactions. Digit Psychol, 2020; 1(1):29–43.

22.

Munn

, Peters

MDJ

, Stern

, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018; 18(1):143.

23.

Peters

MDJ

, Godfrey

, McInerney

, et al. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 Version). In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [Internet]. (Aromataris E, Munn Z. eds.) The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2020; pp. 406–451. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global

24.

Mackay

, Komanchuk

, Hayden

, et al. Impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes: A scoping review protocol. Sys Rev, 2022; 11(1):45.

25.

Hong

, Fàbregues

, Bartlett

, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inform, 2018; 34(4):285–291.

26.

Xie

, Xie

. Parental phubbing accelerates depression in late childhood and adolescence: A two-path model. J Adolesc, 2020; 78:43–52.

27.

Ochoa

Mobile screen technologies and parents of young children: Investigating diverse parents' attitudes, beliefs, and their interactions with children [Dissertation]. University of California, Irvine: Irvine, CA; 2019.

28.

Kushlev

, Dunn

. Smartphones distract parents from cultivating feelings of connection when spending time with their children. J Soc Pers Relationsh, 2019; 36(6):1619–1639.

29.

Ventura

, Hupp

, Alvarez Gutierrez

, et al. Development and validation of the Maternal Distraction Questionnaire. Heliyon, 2020; 6(2):e03276.

30.

Boles

, Roberts

. Supervising children during parental distractions. J Pediatr Psychol, 2008; 33(8):833–841.

31.

Radesky

, Kistin

, Zuckerman

, et al. Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics, 2014; 133:e843-9.

32.

Nakagawa

, Yoshida

, Ohnishi

, et al. Effect of using smartphone during breast-feeding. Adjunct Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers; Association for Computing Machinery: London, United Kingdom, 2019; pp. 1190–1193.

33.

, Lei

, Wang

, et al. Mother phubbing and adolescent cyberbullying: The mediating role of perceived mother acceptance and the moderating role of emotional stability. J Interpers Violence, 2022; 37(11–12):NP9591–NP9612.

34.

Rothstein

TM.

The presence of smartphones and their impact on the quality of parent-child interactions [Master's thesis]. California State University: Stanislaus, CA; 2018.

35.

Hiniker

, Sobel

, Suh

, et al. Texting While Parenting: How Adults Use Mobile Phones While Caring for Children at the Playground. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI): Seoul, Republic of Korea; 2015.

36.

Bury

, Jancey

, Leavy

. Parent mobile phone use in playgrounds: A paradox of convenience. Children (Basel), 2020; 7(12):284.

37.

Elias

, Lemish

, Dalyot

, et al. “Where are you?” An observational exploration of parental technoference in public places in the US and Israel. J Child Media, 2020; 15(3):376–388.

38.

Lemish

, Elias

, Floegel

. “Look at me!” Parental use of mobile phones at the playground. Mobile Media Commun, 2020; 8(2):170–187.

39.

Mangan

, Leavy

, Jancey

. Mobile device use when caring for children 0–5years: A naturalistic playground study. Health Promot J Australia, 2018; 29(3):337–343.

40.

Vanden Abeele

MMP

, Abels

, Hendrickson

. Are parents less responsive to young children when they are on their phones? A systematic naturalistic observation study. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2020; 23(6):363–370.

41.

Kellershohn

, Walley

, West

, et al. Young consumers in fast food restaurants: Technology, toys and family time. Young Consum, 2018; 19(1):105–118.

42.

Davidovitch

, Shrem

, Golovaty

, et al. The role of cellular phone usage by parents in the increase in ASD occurrence: A hypothetical framework. Med Hypotheses, 2018; 117:33–36.

43.

Golen

, Ventura

. Mindless feeding: Is maternal distraction during bottle-feeding associated with overfeeding?. Appetite, 2015; 91:385–392.

44.

Radesky

, Leung

, Appugliese

, et al. Maternal mental representations of the child and mobile phone use during parent-child mealtimes. J Dev Behav Pediatr, 2018; 39(4):310–317.

45.

Radesky

, Miller

, Rosenblum

, et al. Maternal mobile device use during a structured parent-child interaction task. Acad Pediatr, 2015; 15(2):238–244.

46.

Saltzman

, Musaad

, Bost

, et al. Associations between father availability, mealtime distractions and routines, and maternal feeding responsiveness: An observational study. J Fam Psychol, 2019; 33(4):465–475.

47.

Ante-Contreras

Distracted parenting: How social media affects parent-child attachment [Master's thesis]. California State University, San Bernardino: San Bernardino, CA; 2016.

48.

Blackman

. Screen time for parents and caregivers: Parental screen distraction and parenting perceptions and beliefs [Dissertation]. Pace University: Ann Arbor, MI;. 2015.

49.

Gomez

Interactions on silent mode: The influence of parental smartphone use on infants [Dissertation]. Fielding Graduate University: Ann Arbor, MI; 2020.

50.

Konrad

, Berger-Hanke

, Hassel

, et al. Does texting interrupt imitation learning in 19-month-old infants?. Infant Behav Dev, 2021; 62:101513.

51.

McDaniel

, Radesky

. Technoference: Longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatr Res, 2018b;84(2):210–8.

52.

Newsham

, Drouin

, McDaniel

. Problematic phone use, depression, and technology interference among mothers. Psychol Pop Media, 2020; 9(2):117–124.

53.

Stockdale

, Coyne

, Padilla-Walker

. Parent and child technoference and socioemotional behavioral outcomes: A nationally representative study of 10- to 20-year-old adolescents. Comput Hum Behav, 2018; 88:219–226.

54.

Davis

, Dinhopl

, Hiniker

, editors. “Everything's the Phone”: Understanding the Phone's Supercharged Role in Parent-Teen Relationships. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, Scotland; 2019.

55.

Myruski

, Gulyayeva

, Birk

, et al. Digital disruption? Maternal mobile device use is related to infant social-emotional functioning. Dev Sci, 2018; 21(4):e12610.

56.

Roberts

, David

. My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Comput Hum Behav, 2016; 54:134–141.

57.

Liu

, Chen

, Wang

, et al. Parental phubbing linking to adolescent life satisfaction: The mediating role of relationship satisfaction and the moderating role of attachment styles. Child Care Health Dev, 2021; 47(2):281–289.

58.

Wang

, Wang

, Qiao

, et al. Parental phubbing and adolescents' cyberbullying perpetration: A moderated mediation model of moral disengagement and online disinhibition. J Interpers Violence, 2020b;116:1–23.

59.

Pancani

, Gerosa

, Gui

, et al. “Mom, dad, look at me”: The development of the Parental Phubbing Scale. J Soc Pers Relat, 2021; 38(2):435–458.

60.

Xie

, Chen

, Zhu

, et al. Parents' phubbing increases adolescents' mobile phone addiction: Roles of parent-child attachment, deviant peers, and gender. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2019; 105:1–8.

61.

Xie

, Guo

, Wang

. Childhood parental neglect and adolescent internet gaming disorder: From the perspective of a distal—proximal—process—outcome model. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2021; 120:105564.

62.

, Liu

R-D

, et al. The impact of parental active mediation on adolescent mobile phone dependency: A moderated mediation model. Comput Hum Behav, 2020; 107:106280.

63.

Hong

, Liu

, Ding

, et al. Parents' phubbing and problematic mobile phone use: The roles of the parent-child relationship and children's self-esteem. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2019; 22(12):779–786.

64.

Niu

, Yao

, Wu

, et al. Parental phubbing and adolescent problematic mobile phone use: The role of parent-child relationship and self-control. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2020; 116:105247.

65.

Liu

R-D

, Wang

, Gu

, et al. The effect of parental phubbing on teenager's mobile phone dependency behaviors: The mediation role of subjective norm and dependency intention. Psychol Res Behav Manag, 2019; 12:1059–69.

66.

Chotpitayasunondh

, Douglas

. Measuring phone snubbing behavior: Development and validation of the Generic Scale of Phubbing (GSP) and the Generic Scale of Being Phubbed (GSBP). Comput Hum Behav, 2018; 88:5–17.

67.

Bai

, Bai

, Dan

, et al. Mother phubbing and adolescent academic burnout: The mediating role of mental health and the moderating role of agreeableness and neuroticism. Pers Individ Differ, 2020a;155:109622.

68.

Bai

, Lei

, Hsueh

F-H

, et al. Parent-adolescent congruence in phubbing and adolescents' depressive symptoms: A moderated polynomial regression with response surface analyses. J Affect Disord, 2020b;275:127–135.

69.

McDaniel

, Coyne

. Technology interference in the parenting of young children: Implications for mothers' perceptions of coparenting. Soc Sci J, 2016; 53(4):435–443.

70.

Liu

, Wu

, Zhou

, et al. Parental technoference and smartphone addiction in Chinese adolescents: The mediating role of social sensitivity and loneliness. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2020; 118:105434.

71.

Coyne

, Holmgren

, Keenan-Kroff

, et al. Prenatal predictors of media use during infancy. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2020; 23(6):377–383.

72.

Wong

, Tung

KTS

, Rao

, et al. Parent technology use, parent–child interaction, child screen time, and child psychosocial problems among disadvantaged families. J Pediatr, 2020; 226:258–265.

73.

Kildare

Infants' perceptions of mothers phone use: Is mothers' phone use generating the still face effect? [Dissertation]. University of North Texas: Denton, TX; 2017.

74.

Rosen

, Whaling

, Carrier

, et al. The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Comput Hum Behav, 2013; 29(6):2501–2511.

75.

Lanette

The mere presence of mobile phones during parent-teen interactions [Dissertation]. University of California, Irvine: Ann Arbor, MI; 2018.

76.

Modecki

, Low-Choy

, Uink

, et al. Tuning into the real effect of smartphone use on parenting: A multiverse analysis. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 2020; 61(8):855–865.

77.

Sundqvist

, Heimann

, Koch

. Relationship between family technoference and behavior problems in children aged 4–5years. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2020; 23(6):371–376.

78.

Tronick

, Als

, Adamson

, et al. The infant's response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry, 1978; 17(1):1–13.

79.

Khourochvili

. Technology and caregiver-child interaction: The effects of parental mobile device use on infants [Master's thesis]. York University: Toronto, Ontario;. 2017.

80.

Stockdale

, Porter

, Coyne

, et al. Infants' response to a mobile phone modified still-face paradigm: Links to maternal behaviors and beliefs regarding technoference. Infancy, 2020; 25(5):571–592.

81.

Ventura

, Levy

, Sheeper

. Maternal digital media use during infant feeding and the quality of feeding interactions. Appetite, 2019; 143:Article ID: 104415.

82.

Chatton

MA.

The experience of smartphone use amongst parents of 0–3year olds [Dissertation]. The Wright Institute: Ann Arbor, MI; 2017.

83.

Derix

, Leong

. Days of Our Lives: Family Experiences of Digital Technology Use. In: Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction; Association for Computing Machinery: Melbourne, Australia, 2018; pp. 332–337.

84.

Johnson

, Hertlein

. Parents' perceptions of smartphone use and parenting practices. Qual Rep, 2019; 24:1423–1441.

85.

Oduor

, Neustaedter

, Odom

, et al. The Frustrations and Benefits of Mobile Device Usage in the Home When Co-Present with Family Members. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems; Association for Computing Machinery: Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 2016; pp. 1315–1327.

86.

Goodman

, Goodman

. Strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a dimensional measure of child mental health. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 2009; 48(4):400–403.

87.

Stupica

. Rounding the bases with a secure base. Attach Hum Dev, 2016; 18(4):373–390.

88.

Reed

, Hirsh-Pasek

, Golinkoff

. Learning on hold: Cell phones sidetrack parent-child interactions. Dev Psychol, 2017; 53(8):1428–1436.

89.

Polit

, Beck

. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice, 10th ed. Wolters Kluwer Health: Philadephia, PA; 2017.

90.

Safdar

, Abbo

, Knobloch

, et al. Research methods in healthcare epidemiology: Survey and qualitative research. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2016; 37(11):1272–1277.

91.

Yuan

, Weeks

, Ball

, et al. How much do parents actually use their smartphones? Pilot study comparing self-report to passive sensing. Pediatr Res, 2019; 86(4):416–418.

92.

Davison

, Charles

, Khandpur

, et al. Fathers' perceived reasons for their underrepresentation in child health research and strategies to increase their involvement. Matern Child Health J, 2016; 21(2):267–274.

93.

Cabrera

, Volling

, Barr

. Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children's development. Child Dev Perspect, 2018; 12(3):152–157.

94.

Krogh

, Egmose

, Stuart

, et al. A longitudinal examination of daily amounts of screen time and technoference in infants aged 2–11months and associations with maternal sociodemographic factors. Infant Behav Dev, 2021; 63:101543.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.04 MB