Parent–Adolescent Communication Via Mobile Devices: Influences on Relational Closeness

Abstract

Previous studies have shown mixed results regarding families’ cell phone use and family outcomes. Some research has shown that mobile devices might isolate family members, but families in other studies report higher levels of closeness because they can reach one another more often. This study looks at parents’ and adolescents’ motivations for mobile communication as mediators of the link between cell phone use and relational closeness. We analyzed data from 504 parent–child dyads regarding the frequency of and reasons for their mobile communication, as well as their perceptions of closeness to one another. Our results indicate that relation-centric uses of mobile devices (e.g., expressing support, handling conflict) are predictive of feelings of closeness. On the other hand, more functional uses (e.g., coordinating schedules, sharing content) do not predict closeness. These findings are discussed within the context of family life cycle positions and adolescent development.

Keywords

parent/child relations adolescents communication dyadic relationship/quality/satisfaction family processes

Mobile communication devices have spread into American homes at a high pace. At the end of 2015, 92% of U.S. adults owned a cell phone (68% of those cell phones were Internet-enabled smartphones) and nearly half of U.S. adults owned tablet computers (Anderson, 2015). Likewise, the majority of U.S. children aged 8 to 18 years own a cell phone and 37% have or can access a smartphone. In fact, 60% of families with young teens reported that their children first received a cell phone as early as 10 years of age (National Consumers League, 2012). Consequently, children rely on the mobile communication devices for many routine tasks, including Internet access and communication with family and friends (Madden, Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013).

Given the prevalence of mobile devices in U.S. families, researchers were prompted to understand technology’s impact on relationship quality (Radesky et al., 2014). More specifically, scholars questioned if technology inhibits or fosters relational well-being. Early theory and research suggested that the use of communication technologies caused declines in social participation and threatened the quality of family relationships (Kraut et al., 1998); however, the same technology can facilitate family connectedness (Kennedy, Smith, Wells, & Wellman, 2008). While mobile devices can detract from valuable time spent in face-to-face family interactions (Mesch, 2006), mobile devices put family members in a state of constant availability (Williams & Merten, 2011). Taken together, the available evidence suggests that families react to the integration of technology in variable ways. Because technology has the potential to strengthen family well-being, this study seeks to clarify what discourages relational distancing and encourages family connectedness between family members.

Using family systems theory (Broderick, 1993) as a foundation, this study examines how families integrate mobile technologies into their ongoing communication patterns. This perspective directs attention to family members’ reasons for mobile communication to explain the devices’ role in parent–child relationships. Accordingly, this study examines the relationship between frequency and reasons for mobile communication and family members’ perceptions of relational closeness in a sample of parents and their adolescent children.

Literature Review

A systems approach defines families as bonded, collective units achieving daily goals with an established set of member roles, relationships, routines, and interaction patterns. Goal achievement results from the family’s interdependent elements and subsystems interacting within an established, often implicit, set of norms and rules. Thus, parents and children develop communication patterns closely related to levels of cohesion and closeness. Part of this process entails managing suprasystem elements, such as mobile devices, that detract from or contribute to the family system. Variation in the roles and functions of mobile devices is expected as families integrate technology into their needs and routines. Hence, mobile devices may be used to manage household and relational tasks. To the extent that mobile devices influence family dynamics, their connection to relational closeness is important.

Closeness in Parent–Adolescent Relationships

Given that most children acquire cell phones in early adolescence, families with adolescents are a compelling population to study the association between mobile devices and the quality of family relationships. This stage of the family life cycle is characterized by the renegotiation of parent–child relational roles and expectations. Children begin to establish independence from the family during adolescence. Concurrently, their middle-aged parents confront the desire to maintain connection and increase time spent as a family (Hock, Eberly, Bartle-Haring, Ellwanger, & Widaman, 2001; Vandeleur, Jeanpretre, Perrez, & Schoebi, 2009). This disconnect between adolescents’ efforts at autonomy and parents’ yearning for contact can lead to conflict within the family (Guerrero & Afifi, 1995). Mobile devices represent one potential solution to alleviate this tension, as mobile and digital devices permit adolescents to participate in activities away from home (Devitt & Roker, 2009), while maintaining contact with parental resources.

The trajectory of adolescent social–emotional development also has implications for relational closeness, or “the degree to which individuals affect and are affected by each other” (Laursen & Collins, 2004, p. 337). Families with adolescents typically experience relational closeness differently than other families. Children become capable of assessing psychological motivations for behavior (Flavell, Miller, & Miller, 2002). Accordingly, their assessments of parental warmth become more complex. Branje, Laursen, and Collins (2012) concluded that most parents and children report positive relationships overall with one another. Children’s perceptions of warmth and interdependence decline in early adolescence, but rebound at least slightly by late adolescence (Laursen & Collins, 2004). Furthermore, mothers are most often children’s primary attachment figures (Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997) and remain important throughout adolescence and into adulthood (Markiewicz, Lawford, Doyle, & Haggart, 2006). As such, adolescents evaluate their relationships with their mothers as generally closer than their relationships with their fathers (Laursen, Noack, Wilder, & Williams, 2000). When considering both the sex of the parent and the child, female adolescents report closer relationships with mothers compared with fathers, while male adolescents report closer relationships with fathers compared with mothers (Clark-Lempers, Lempers, & Ho, 1991; Hunter & Youniss, 1982).

Researchers have devoted substantial attention to understanding the variable influence of mobile devices on family closeness. Early findings demonstrated a negative relationship between the use of mobile devices and relational quality for parents and children (Mesch, 2003). Some research suggested that this is because mobile devices displace family time with individual media use, isolate family members, reduce family interaction, and lessen intimacy (Huisman, Catapano, & Edwards, 2012; Mesch, 2006). Conversely, other tests found that the use of mobile devices improves family relationships because family members perceive an increase in time spent together (e.g., Devitt & Roker, 2009; Lanigan, 2009). For example, Williams and Merten (2011) concluded that mobile devices provided greater contact between family members and positively contributed to closeness. In addition, Padilla-Walker, Coyne, and Fraser (2012) found a positive relationship between the use of mobile devices, warmth, and support among family members. The use of mobile devices is also positively associated with perceived cohesion (Kanter, Afifi, & Robbins, 2012; Lanigan, 2009), quality of communication (Carvalho, Francisco, & Relvas, 2015), and affection expression (Wei & Lo, 2006). Hence, those who communicate frequently via mobile technologies might interpret messages as indicators of relational investment and commitment, even when they are separated by distance. Accordingly, we expect the frequency of communication to positively predict perceived relational closeness.

Hypothesis 1: The frequency of mobile communication is positively related to relational closeness.

Family Mobile Communication

The literature on family media use and its impact on family relationships is a small, but growing body of work. Carvalho et al.’s (2015) review of that literature shows that this research has provided a valuable description of families’ use of mobile devices. The most frequently cited purpose of family communication on mobile devices is to coordinate daily schedules and tasks (Devitt & Roker, 2009), but other studies (e.g., Kennedy et al., 2008; Stafford & Hillyer, 2012) found that family members reported a variety of message strategies that contributed to relationship maintenance, family functioning, and cohesion.

Drawing from the literature in family communication, the uses of mobile devices differed between mothers and fathers. Wajcman, Bittman, and Brown (2008) found that employed females were more likely to contact family members during school or work for any reason. Indeed, they concluded from their data that relational maintenance via mobile devices (especially with distant relatives) was gendered work, tasked predominately to mothers. Devitt and Roker’s (2009) findings echoed this conclusion, noting that mothers were more likely to communicate daily with children via mobile devices. Furthermore, fathers’ use of the devices were more likely to be instrumental (e.g., schedule coordination), rather than relational (e.g., providing emotional support). Similar gender patterns were noted for mothers’ versus fathers’ use of e-mail (Chesley & Fox, 2012) and social media (e.g., Facebook; Bartholomew, Schoppe-Sullivan, Glassman, Kamp Dush, & Sullivan, 2012).

Though this research indicates that frequency of family use of mobile devices contributes to perceptions of closeness, we suggest that this link is more complex. There is a threshold of technology ownership such that too few devices cannot afford connection, but too many devices isolate family members from each other (Williams & Merten, 2011). Furthermore, previous research has not thoroughly analyzed the nature of family use of mobile devices. It is unclear why parents and children use mobile communication to interact with each other. The extent to which mobile devices contribute to closeness may be influenced by the reasons for mobile communication, including to express support, coordinate schedules, handle conflict, and share content.

Expressions of Support

Supportive communication is “produced with the intention of providing assistance to others perceived as needing that aid” (Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002, p. 374). Emotional support occupies a central position in most contemporary theories of parent–child relationships (e.g., Cunningham & Barbee, 2000) and has been linked to a host of positive mental, physical, and relational outcomes (Lippold, Davis, Lawson, & McHale, 2016). The psychological effects include diminished depressive symptomology (Segrin, 2003), heightened self-esteem (Friedlander, Reid, Shupak, & Cribbie, 2007), and decreased stress (Miczo, Miczo, & Johnson, 2006). There is also evidence that it bolsters healthy physiological responses, such as affective regulation and emotional arousal mechanisms (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Finally, among siblings, support is positively related to relational quality (Voorpostel & Van Der Lippe, 2007) and commitment (Rittenour, Myers, & Brann, 2007).

The use of mobile devices to communicate support may be especially relevant to closeness in parent–child relationships. In a qualitative study of relational partners, Pettigrew (2009) found that individuals separated by distance used mobile devices to communicate supportive intimacy. More specifically, individuals stated that texts exchanged during the workday that communicated social support encouraged emotional connection between partners and demonstrated care. Building from this research, we predict that the use of mobile devices to provide support elicits stronger perceptions of closeness within the parent–child relationship.

Hypothesis 2: The use of mobile communication to provide support is positively related to relational closeness.

Handling Conflict

Conflict communication describes the verbal expression of incompatible goals between two or more interdependent parties. Recognizing conflict is imperative to understanding close relationships, including parent–child relationships, and the negative individual and relational outcomes associated with the experience of conflict. There is a robust association between parent–child conflict and psychological issues such as anxiety disorders (Riggio, 2004), borderline personality traits (Adrian, Zeman, Erdley, Lisa, & Sim, 2011), and depression (Samek, Wilson, McGue, & Iacono, 2016). In addition, adolescents are more likely to develop maladaptive physiological responses with affective regulation (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007) and stress response systems (Aloia & Solomon, 2015). Finally, conflict can have relational consequences, such as decreased relational quality (Toussaint & Jorgensen, 2008) and lowered relationship satisfaction (La Valley & Guerrero, 2012). Branje et al. (2012) concluded that the decline of perceived warmth and interdependence during early adolescence coincides with increases in parent–child conflict.

Although we are unaware of research investigating the use of mobile devices to manage parent–child conflict, some evidence exists in other types of relationships, such as those between romantic partners. Pettigrew (2009) found that some individuals used mobile devices to mask their feelings from partners. More specifically, communication via the telephone allowed relational partners to avoid confrontation, conflict, and argument. Other participants, however, stated that they were frustrated about the lack of emotional expressivity afforded by mobile devices, specifically through text messaging. While some participants appreciated the opportunity to evade confrontation through mobile devices, others felt restricted. Devitt and Roker (2009) presented limited evidence of this behavior in parent–child relationships, though only through qualitative interviews that are difficult to generalize to larger populations. Drawing from these results, it is unclear how parents and adolescents may deal with conflict via mobile devices. Accordingly, we pose the following research question:

Research Question 1: How is the use of mobile communication to handle conflict be related to relational closeness?

Schedule Coordination

An early identified benefit of mobile devices was their ability to help manage daily family activities (Carvalho et al., 2015), including managing finances, appointments, and errands. The architecture of a family calendar is an interweaving of all members’ agendas. Schedule coordination among families is a complex consideration of individuals’ routines, competing desires and expectations for mutual daily activities, and social conventions like work/school hours (Larson & Zemke, 2003). Finding sufficient time for individual and family activities is associated with positive individual and relational effects. Effective schedule coordination in parent–child relationships is related to diminished anxiety (Barrett, Dadds, & Rapee, 1996) and decreased stress (Fenwick & Tausig, 2001). It also can have advantageous relational consequences, such as enhanced perceptions of relational quality (Barnett, Gareis, & Brennan, 2010). Conversely, inadequate coordination encourages adverse emotional, behavioral, and relational consequences (e.g., Nomaguchi, Milkie, & Bianchi, 2005; Strazdins, Korda, Lim, Broom, & D’Souza, 2004). The use of mobile devices to plan family activities is positively related to family function (Devitt & Roker, 2009; Hertlein, 2012), particularly parents’ perceptions of providing sufficient care for children, and greater feelings of safety (Devitt & Roker, 2009) because parents can monitor children when they cannot be with them. Furthermore, schedule coordination induces feelings of emotional bonding (Chesley & Fox, 2012). Hence, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3: The use of mobile communication to coordinate schedules is positively related to relational closeness.

Content Sharing

Another important affordance of mobile devices is that they permit family members to engage in online activities and share media content with one another (e.g., photos, videos; Stevenson, 2011). This mutual involvement is linked to the reinforcement of family identity as members use mobile devices to create shared memories and a sense of relational continuity (Bacigalupe & Lambe, 2011). Coyne, Padilla-Walker, Fraser, Fellows, and Day (2014) and Padilla-Walker et al. (2012) emphasized media use as a source of shared meaning and family identity. Their work showed that families’ positive media experiences correlate with positive family outcomes. Padilla-Walker et al. (2012) found positive relationships between warmth/support and shared use of TV, movies, and video games. Coyne et al. (2014) added a motivational element, reporting that parents’ use of media for family traditions (such as family movie nights) and parent–child discussions are positively linked to parental involvement and family functioning.

Improved family outcomes might be a matter of interaction during family media use. Researchers argued that shared media use facilitates the construction of a shared reality among family members. Interaction during and via media use represents an opportunity for parents and children to bond. Given that their measures assess frequency of media use, Padilla-Walker et al. (2012) pointed out that this work is not able to determine precisely how family media use influences family connection. Coyne et al. (2014), however, presented some initial evidence that shared media use might contribute to feelings of family identity and closeness. Perhaps, the closest analog is sharing content via mobile devices (e.g., social media posts, pictures, etc.; Kennedy et al., 2008). If this also constructs a shared family reality, we expect to see a positive relationship between shared material and perceptions of relational closeness.

Hypothesis 4: The use of mobile communication to share material is positively related to relational closeness.

Collectively, the aforementioned research supports the importance of assessing both the frequency and purpose of family communication via mobile technologies (Carvalho et al., 2015; Lanigan, 2009). In support of this argument, Mesch (2003) concluded that the impact of mobile devices on family outcomes is dependent on the type of activity performed via the technology. More specifically, educational uses of mobile devices encouraged positive family outcomes, whereas consuming entertainment content via technologies discouraged family interaction, time together, and closeness. Beyond considering the educational or entertainment function of the mobile devices, there is limited exploration into the specific reasons for communicating with family members via technologies. Kennedy et al. (2008) found that relational partners used mobile devices to chat, provide support, and handle conflict. In addition, partners reported that the use of mobile devices for these reasons positively influenced the quality of their communication. Parallel questions were not posed regarding parent–child communication. Thus, we advance the following research question to investigate the mediating effect of reasons for the use of mobile communication on the relationship between the frequency of mobile communication and relational closeness in the parent–child relationship.

Research Question 2: Do the reasons for mobile communication mediate the association between the frequency of mobile communication and relational closeness?

Method

To test these hypotheses and answer the research questions, we recruited U.S. parents and their adolescent children (aged 12-17 years). In cases where a parent had more than one child in the age group, the adolescent who most recently celebrated a birthday completed the questionnaire. We provided the survey instrument to the market research firm Qualtrics, which collected the data online from its existing participant panels. The sampling strategies were weighted to ensure demographic representativeness, specifically by sex and race/ethnicity. Participation incentives were based on a points system that, over time, provided respondents with cash, airline miles, or similar rewards. Participants were only awarded points when a matched parent and child completed the survey. Safeguards were used to prevent duplicate responses and exclusions were used based on participation frequency in other surveys. To avoid self-selection bias, the survey invitation did not include specific details about the survey’s contents. Those details were revealed in an informed consent document that preceded the survey.

Participants

The sampling strategies yielded completed surveys from 504 parent–child dyads (1,008 surveys total). Of those parents/guardians, 253 (50.2%) were male and their average age was 43.73 years old (range = 25-74 years, SD = 9.20). Most of the parent sample identified as White (72.82%), but also included individuals who identified as Latino (15.28%) and African American (11.90%). Only 17% had a high school education or less, and 31.9% had at least some college or a 2-year degree. One third (33%) had earned a 4-year degree, and the remaining 18.1% had earned a graduate or professional degree. Most parents reported being married or partnered (78.57%); others stated being single (9.13%) or divorced/separated/widowed (12.30%). One quarter of parents (25.19%) reported an annual income of $100,000 or more, 15.48% reported earning between $80,000 and $99,999, 19.84% reported earning between $60,000 and $79,999, 19.25% reported earning between $40,000 and $59,999, and 20.24% reported earning an annual household income of less than $40,000.

Of the 504 adolescent respondents, 272 (54%) were males and 232 (46%) were females. Their median age was 14.54 years (SD = 1.62). Indeed, 349 (69.2%) adolescent respondents were Caucasian, 73 (14.5%) were Latino, 58 (11.5%) were African American, and 24 (4.8%) were of other ethnicities or multiracial. All adolescents were full-time students.

Measures

Relational Closeness

Respondents’ perceptions of closeness to their parent/child were measured using the Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (Dibble, Levine, & Park, 2012). Respondents indicated their level of agreement with 12 statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale (e.g., “My parent/child and I want to spend time together,” “I consider my parent/child when making important decisions”). Item scores were summed to calculate scale scores (range = 12-60; parents: M = 50.55, SD = 7.58, α = .94; adolescents: M = 48.74, SD = 7.94, α = .94).

Frequency of Mobile Communication

Participants reported how often they used multiple digital communication platforms (cell phone, e-mail, text, instant messaging, and social media) to communicate with their parent/child on a 7-point scale ranging from never to several times a day. Items were adopted from Kennedy et al. (2008) to obtain a global score of frequency of mobile communication based on the summed item scores (range = 5-35; parents: M = 21.31, SD = 8.88, α = .88; adolescents: M = 22.26, SD = 8.88, α = .88).

Reasons for Mobile Communication

Respondents reported the reasons they communicated with their parent/child when they were not with each other using a 7-point scale ranging from never to several times a day. The items formed the four reasons for mobile communication subscales: (a) Coordination, two items measured coordination of schedules and event planning (parents: M = 7.66, SD = 3.47, α = .89; adolescents: M = 7.92, SD = 3.53, α = .89); (b) Support, three items assessed communicating to chat, to express affection, or to provide emotional support (parents: M = 10.16, SD = 5.30, α = .89; adolescents: M = 11.35, SD = 5.56, α = .91); (c) Conflict, two items measured resolving or avoiding conflict with each other (parents: M = 9.33, SD = 3.82, α = .90; adolescents: M = 9.62, SD = 3.82, α = .93); and (d) Sharing, three items measured the exchanging online material (photos, videos, or other online material) and tagging each other on social media posts (parents: M = 13.66, SD = 6.00, α = .94; adolescents: M = 14.06, SD = 5.86, α = .94).

Results

We first report preliminary analyses, then we describe our analytical strategy and report tests of our hypotheses and research questions. Table 1 reports the correlations among our variables of interest. All of our variables of interest were significantly and positively correlated, except for parents’ use of mobile communication to handle conflict and parents’ perceptions of relational closeness. To test the posited hypotheses and answer the research question, we conducted a multiple mediation analysis using ordinary least squares path analysis via Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro for SPSS. Analyses were run to test the influence of parent and child reports of frequency of and reasons for mobile communication on parent and child perceptions of relational closeness. In addition, we controlled for parent’s and child’s sex, and child’s age.

Table 1.

Correlations Among Variables of Interest.

Measure	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Frequency of mobile communication	.83***	.20***	.68***	.67***	.68***	.73***
2. Relational closeness	.13**	.65***	.21***	.35***	.14**	.23***
3. Coordination	.70***	.11*	.79***	.77***	.73***	.66***
4. Support	.66***	.25***	.80***	.78***	.69***	.69***
5. Conflict	.67***	−.02	.72***	.64***	.73***	.75***
6. Sharing	.76***	.12**	.63***	.62***	.70***	.76***

Note. Correlations for parents are below the diagonal. Correlations for adolescents are above the diagonal. Correlations between parents and adolescents are on the diagonal (in bold).

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The first hypothesis predicted that the frequency of mobile communication is positively related to relational closeness. In the total effect model and in support of Hypothesis 1, frequency of mobile communication was significantly and positively related to perceptions of relational closeness for both parents (β = .13, SE = .04, p < .001) and adolescents (β = .19, SE = .04, p < .001). Two covariates factored into this relationship. Parent’s sex positively predicted parents’ perceptions of relational closeness (β = 2.80, SE = .69, p < .001), such that female parents perceived higher levels of relational closeness with their adolescents compared with male parents. Child’s age negatively predicted adolescents’ perceptions of closeness (β = −.65, SE = .21, p < .01), such that older children perceived lower levels of relational closeness with their parents compared with younger children. Overall, Hypothesis 1 was supported by these results.

Table 2 reports the tests of the indirect effect of parents’ frequency of mobile communication on parents’ perceptions of relational closeness through parent and adolescent reasons for mobile communication. The test revealed four significant indirect effects. Parents’ frequency of mobile communication is positively related to parents’ perceptions of relational closeness through both parents’ use of mobile communication to provide support (β = .43, p < .001) and adolescents’ use of mobile communication to provide support (β = .33, p < .01). A bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for both indirect effects (ab = .18) based on 5,000 bootstrapped samples was entirely above zero (.0904 to .2741). In addition, parents’ frequency of mobile communication is negatively related to parents’ perceptions of relational closeness through both parents’ use of mobile communication to handle conflict (β = −.48, p < .001) and adolescents’ use of mobile communication to handle conflict (β = −.41, p < .05). A bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for both indirect effects (ab = −.08) based on 5,000 bootstrapped samples was entirely below zero (−.2336 to −.0439). Parents’ frequency of mobile communication was not significantly related to parents’ perceptions of relational closeness when reasons for mobile communication were included in the model (β = −.03, SE = .07, p = .62).

Table 2.

Predictors of Parent’s Perceptions of Relational Closeness.

	Support (parent)		Support (adolescent)			Relational closeness (parent)
	β	SE	β	SE		β	SE
Constant	7.56	1.71	9.55	1.77	Constant	55.96***	3.55
Frequency	.41***	.02	.42***	.02	Frequency	−.03	.07
Adolescent’s age	−.12	.11	−.33**	.12	Adolescent’s age	−.15	.20
Adolescent’s sex	.10	.37	.19	.38	Adolescent’s sex	−.52	.66
Parent’s sex	.55	.37	−.00	.39	Parent’s sex	1.89**	.67
	R² = .44***, F(4, 499) = 96.30		R² = .44***, F(4, 499) = 97.85		Support (parent)	.43***	.12
	Coordination (parent)		Coordination (adolescent)		Coordination (parent)	−.19	.20
Constant	11.38	1.06	11.66	1.13	Conflict (parent)	−.48***	.16
Frequency	.28***	.01	.27***	.01	Sharing (parent)	.14	.11
Adolescent’s age	−.03	.07	−.03	.07	Support (adolescent)	.33**	.12
Adolescent’s sex	.15	.23	.13	.25	Coordination (adolescent)	−.04	.19
Parent’s sex	−.01	.23	−.14	.25	Conflict (adolescent)	−.41*	.16
	R² = .49***, F(4, 499) = 117.98		R² = .43***, F(4, 499) = 93.11		Sharing (adolescent)	.04	.11
	R² = .49***, F(4, 499) = 117.98		R² = .43***, F(4, 499) = 93.11		R² = .17***, F(12, 491) = 8.19
	Conflict (parent)		Conflict (adolescent)
Constant	11.18	1.18	13.19	1.25
Frequency	.29***	.01	.27***	.02
Adolescent’s age	−.11	.08	−.24**	.08
Adolescent’s sex	.16	.26	−.18	.27
Parent’s sex	−.87***	.26	−.48	.27
	R² = .46***, F(4, 499) = 107.39		R² = .41***, F(4, 499) = 85.49
	Sharing (parent)		Sharing (adolescent)
Constant	−1.25	1.62	4.75	1.76
Frequency	.53***	.02	.48***	.02
Child’s age	.28**	.11	−.27*	.12
Child’s sex	−.30	.35	.12	.38
Parent’s sex	−.29	.35	.42	.38
	R² = .59***, F(4, 499) = 177.95		R² = .50***, F(4, 499) = 125.75

Note. SE = standard error.

Table 3 shows the tests of the indirect effect of adolescents’ frequency of mobile communication on adolescents’ perceptions of relational closeness through parent and adolescent reasons for mobile communication. The test revealed two significant indirect effects. Adolescents’ frequency of mobile communication is positively related to adolescents’ perceptions of relational closeness through parents’ use of mobile communication to provide support (β = .60, p < .001). A bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect (ab = −.21) based on 5,000 bootstrapped samples was entirely above zero (.1462 to .3605). In addition, adolescents’ frequency of mobile communication is negatively related to adolescents’ perceptions of relational closeness through adolescents’ use of mobile communication to handle conflict (β = −.39, p < .05). A bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect (ab = .11) based on 5,000 bootstrapped samples was entirely below zero (−.7182 to −.0531). Adolescents’ frequency of mobile communication was not significantly related to adolescents’ perception of relational closeness when reasons for mobile communication were included in the model (β = .03, SE = .06, p = .62).

Table 3.

Predictors of Adolescent’s Perceptions of Relational Closeness.

	Support (parent)		Support (adolescent)			Relational closeness (adolescent)
	β	SE	β	SE		β	SE
Constant	9.34	1.87	10.10	1.73	Constant	55.83***	3.70
Frequency	.35***	.03	.43***	.02	Frequency	.03	.06
Adolescent’s age	−.15	.12	−.36**	.11	Adolescent’s age	−.51*	.21
Adolescent’s sex	.22	.41	.35	.38	Adolescent’s sex	−.03	.68
Parent’s sex	.57	.42	.20	.38	Parent’s sex	−.02	.70
	R² = .32***, F(4, 499) = 59.24		R² = .47***, F(4, 499) = 108.39		Support (parent)	.14	.13
	Coordination (parent)		Coordination (adolescent)		Coordination (parent)	−.01	.21
Constant	12.47	1.16	11.93	1.10	Conflict (parent)	−.25	.16
Frequency	.24***	.01	.27***	.01	Sharing (parent)	−.03	.10
Adolescent’s age	−.05	.08	−.05	.07	Support (adolescent)	.60***	.13
Adolescent’s sex	.24	.25	.23	.23	Coordination (adolescent)	−.10	.20
Parent’s sex	.02	.25	−.00	.24	Conflict (adolescent)	−.39*	.17
	R² = .38***, F(4, 499) = 77.10		R² = .47***, F(4, 499) = 108.98		Sharing (adolescent)	.15	.11
	R² = .38***, F(4, 499) = 77.10		R² = .47***, F(4, 499) = 108.98		R² = .17***, F(12, 491) = 8.25
	ICT conflict (parent)		ICT conflict (adolescent)
Constant	12.39	1.28	13.24	1.16
Frequency	.24***	.02	.29***	.01
Adolescent’s age	−.13	.08	−.27***	.08
Adolescent’s sex	.25	.28	−.07	.25
Parent’s sex	−.85**	.28	−.30	.26
	R² = .46***, F(4, 499) = 107.39		R² = .48***, F(4, 499) = 114.80
	ICT sharing (parent)		ICT sharing (adolescent)
Constant	6.57	1.92	5.31	1.67
Frequency	.44***	.02	.49***	.02
Adolescent’s age	−.32**	.13	−.31**	.11
Adolescent’s sex	.45	.42	.31	.37
Parent’s sex	.30	.42	.67	.37
	R² = .59***, F(4, 499) = 177.95		R² = .54***, F(4, 499) = 146.60

Note. SE = standard error; ICT = information and communication technology.

Discussion

This study examined the effect of parent–adolescent communication via mobile devices on relational closeness. Beyond the influence of frequency of mobile communication, this study considered the specific ways that parents and adolescents integrate mobile devices into day-to-day communication. The findings suggested that parent–adolescent communication through mobile technologies reflects developmental changes in parent–child relationships. More specifically, the data demonstrated that mobile technologies serve as relational buffers while adolescents develop, establish, and maintain social distance and independence from their parents.

As a foundation, Hypothesis 1 tested an availability effect by positing that the frequency of mobile communication is positively related to relational closeness (Carvalho et al., 2015; Lanigan, 2009). While the zero-order correlation supported this hypothesis, additional analyses showed that the positive relationship between frequency of mobile communication and relational closeness was mediated by the reasons for mobile communication. Importantly, this finding does not discount the availability effect, which suggests that the digital presence of family members provides comfort. Taken in tandem with our results regarding mediation, we suggest that parents and adolescents feel comforted by the availability of the other individual because of the opportunity to receive support and navigate conflict. Moreover, it is not simply the frequency of communication, regardless of motive or content, which results in increased relational closeness. Attributing mobile devices’ impacts on family relationships to the devices themselves implies a deterministic view of family relationships. The PROCESS analyses offer some consistencies in the links between frequency of mobile communication, parents’ and teens’ motives for communication via mobile technologies, and relational closeness. Thus, this study offers insight into the ways that mobile devices enable family subsystems to adapt to changes within the family life cycle.

Support and Conflict

Our results indicated that frequency of mobile communication was positively associated with all four reasons for mobile communication. However, only support and conflict mediated the relationship between frequency of mobile communication and relational closeness for both parents and adolescents. Adolescents’ perceptions of closeness were predicted by greater use of cell phones to express support and lesser use of phones to handle conflict. Parents’ use of cell phones, for any purpose, did not figure into this mix; only adolescents’ own behaviors predicted their perceptions of closeness. For their parents, however, cell phone use by both themselves and their children predicted closeness. Parents perceived more closeness when both they and their child frequently used cell phones to express support, as well as when both parties used phones less often to handle conflict. While children only considered their own behaviors, parents considered both parties’ relational use of cell phones in their estimation of parent–child closeness.

Furthermore, adolescence is marked by the development and establishment of independence for the children. Our data showed that adolescents’ ages negatively predicted the frequency with which children used cell phones to express support and handle conflict with their parents. Indeed, the covariate of adolescents’ age directly and negatively predicted adolescents’ relational closeness. This seemingly runs counter to the expectation that parent–child warmth declines in early adolescence, but rebounds during late adolescence (Branje et al., 2012). This can be reconciled, however, if we consider the symbolic importance of mobile devices to adolescents as a sign of their growing independence (Livingstone, 2007). Therefore, it might be the case that teens use their mobile devices to create a relational buffer that permits some freedom from parents, while maintaining parental ties when necessary.

Mobile devices may also enable parents and adolescents to renegotiate their relational expectations and roles, while adolescents move beyond family boundaries. Consistent with this reasoning, Ling and Yttri (2006) noted that Norwegian adolescents described using their cell phones to establish generational boundaries by, for example, screening parents’ phone calls. Mobile devices might also provide the distance teens desire when broaching conflict with parents. There is some evidence (Auter, 2007; Devitt & Roker, 2009; Pettigrew, 2009) that young adults use cell phones to avoid unpleasant communication and that teens more often withdraw from conflicts with their parents from early to middle adolescence (van Doorn, Branje, & Meeus, 2011). Taken together, this affordance might carry over into other close relationships and into late adolescence. Mobile devices offer greater control over message construction and presentation (Stafford & Hillyer, 2012), an advantage when dealing with sensitive matters. In these cases, mobile technologies might buffer unpleasant dimensions of family life and, therefore, establish a sense of independence from their families.

Content Sharing

Coyne et al. (2014) argued that family members’ shared use of television and movies contributed positively to parent–child relationships. More specifically, the use of media to open lines of communication, reward good behavior, or establish and maintain family traditions affords high levels of emotional bonding. Kennedy et al. (2008) extended this reasoning to digital devices and suggested that shared digital content can create potential bonding experiences. This study offered little support for such an extension. While our data indicated a positive relationship between frequency of mobile communication and sharing content, they did not influence perceptions of closeness. On its face, the theoretical argument has intuitive appeal; shared media use and exchanged content (such as pictures or videos) brings members together to coconstruct a shared reality and build memories that establish a family identity. Coyne et al. (2014) argued convincingly that this was the case for the use of legacy media like television, but our data indicate that this relationship does not extend to mobile media use.

This begs the question, then, of whether the benefits of content sharing are perhaps a more intimate act that exceeds the affordances of mobile devices. Parents and adolescents might value sharing content in a more information rich, face-to-face environment (Lanigan, 2009), and shared TV viewing is more immediate and information rich then mediated conversations via cell phones. Trees (2000) and Dailey (2008), for example, both underscored the importance of parents’ nonverbal behavior in conjunction with verbal expressions of warmth when viewing content together. This is not to argue any sort of displacement hypothesis, which would predict that time spent with mobile devices is time that would have otherwise been spent with family members. This has been reported for only the heaviest of Internet users and has not been demonstrated for most other users (Lanigan, Bold, & Chenoweth, 2009; Mesch, 2003). Instead, our argument is that future research should investigate the channels through which family members see themselves enjoying the benefits of content sharing. Though they post family pictures online, it might be that family members prefer to share these memories and reenact their emotional bonds in face-to-face environments.

Our data, again, demonstrated the importance of adolescents’ ages. From early to late adolescence, parents reported higher levels of sharing content, however, adolescents reported lower levels compared with other stages of development. This finding suggests that adolescents might use their cell phones to negotiate their independence from their parents. Beyond that, however, the frequency of sharing content via cell phones had no relationship with perceived relational closeness for either party. It is possible, then, that our measures might have captured more mundane, routine behaviors that lack salience or importance to parents and adolescents.

Coordination

Previous research (Carvalho et al., 2015; Kennedy et al., 2008) demonstrated the positive relationship between the coordination of family schedules and family function. This implies that when families can regularly coordinate their independent activities, they feel more satisfied about their relationships. Our results showed that frequency of mobile communication was positively associated with schedule and activity coordination. Coordination, however, did not predict perceived relational closeness for parents or adolescents. Furthermore, parents’ sexes and children’s ages did not predict levels of coordination via mobile devices. While our data cannot address the impact of mobile coordination on perceptions of family function, results do not support the posited influence on perceived relational closeness in parent–adolescent relationships.

Given these findings, it seems that mobile communication has its greatest effect on perceived closeness when the motive for communication is relational, rather than instrumental. Perhaps, this provides a context in which to interpret the influence of parents’ sexes as a covariate in the model predicting parents’ perceptions of closeness. Our results indicated that female parents report higher levels of relational closeness than male parents. Furthermore, male parents used cell phones to navigate conflict interactions more often than female parents.

Conclusion

Our findings must be qualified by several limitations. First, the self-report measures temper our understanding of both the frequency of and reasons for mobile family communication. Future research should consider combining survey methodology with direct data measuring device use (e.g., call and text logs, browser histories). A second limitation of our data is that we were not able to distinguish data from biological versus stepparents of the teen respondents. It is possible that levels of perceived closeness to children differs depending on the precise nature of the adults’ relationships with them. Hence, future research should consider controlling for this variable. It is also likely that a better view of the daily flow of communication among family members could be gathered via experiential sampling methods to pinpoint the content and impact of mobile communication as it happens.

Nonetheless, this study contributes to our understanding of mobile communication’s role in parent–adolescent relationships. Previous studies argued that communication technologies provide constant connection between family members (Williams & Merten, 2011). This study found that parents and adolescents fold their mobile communication into the developmental trajectory of their relationship. While mobile devices provide access to one another, they also allow for social–emotional distance between parents and adolescents. Perhaps, one of the best affordances of mobile technologies, then, is that they can be flexibly woven into the ongoing changes of parent–teen interaction.

Our findings also have practical import for parents and children. For family members, it is important to consider mobile devices as a tool that can help the families adapt to changing member roles throughout the life course (Rudi, Dworkin, Walker, & Doty, 2015). Christensen (2009) and Wajcman et al. (2008) both argue that for families with adolescent children, particularly those with two working parents, mobile communication devices create presence at a distance. Furthermore, this presence can serve to reactivate and reaffirm relational bonds. Digital communication will not supplant face-to-face communication, though it can supplement face-to-face communication in ways that enhance offline family interaction.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adrian

Zeman

Erdley

Lisa

Sim

(2011). Emotional dysregulation and interpersonal difficulties as risk factors for nonsuicidal self-injury in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 389-400. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9465-3

Aloia

L. S.

Solomon

D. H.

(2015). Conflict intensity, family history, and physiological stress reactions to conflict within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 41, 367-389. doi:10.1111/hcre.12049

Anderson

(2015). Technology device ownership: 2015. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/

Auter

P. J.

(2007). Portable social groups: Willingness to communicate, interpersonal communication gratifications, and cell phone use among young adults. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 5, 139-156. doi:10.1504/IJMC.2007.011813

Bacigalupe

Lambe

(2011). Virtualizing intimacy: Information communication technologies and transnational families in therapy. Family Process, 50, 120-126. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01343.x

Barnett

R. C.

Gareis

K. C.

Brennan

R. T.

(2010). School and school activity schedules affect the quality of family relations: A within-couple analysis. Community, Work & Family, 13, 35-41. doi:10.1080/13668800902753853

Barrett

P. M.

Dadds

M. R.

Rapee

R. M.

(1996). Family treatment of childhood anxiety: A controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 333-342. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.64.2.333

Bartholomew

M. K.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Glassman

Kamp Dush

C. M.

Sullivan

J. M.

(2012). New parents’ Facebook use at the transition to parenthood. Family Relations, 61, 455-469. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00708.x

Branje

Laursen

Collins

W. A.

(2012). Parent-child communication during adolescence. In Vangelisti

A. L.

(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (pp. 271-289). New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Broderick

C. B.

(1993). Understanding family processes: Basics of family systems theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

11.

Burleson

B. R.

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2002). Supportive communication. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 374-424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Carvalho

Francisco

Relvas

A. P.

(2015). Family functioning and information and communication technologies: How do they relate? A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 99-108. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.037

13.

Chesley

Fox

(2012). E-mail’s use and perceived effect on family relationship quality: Variations by gender and race/ethnicity. Sociological Focus, 45, 63-84. doi:10.1080/00380237.2012.630906

14.

Christensen

T. H.

(2009). “Connected presence” in distributed family life. New Media & Society, 11, 433-451. doi:10.1177/1461444808101620

15.

Clark-Lempers

D. S.

Lempers

(1991). Early, middle, and late adolescents’ perceptions of their relationships with significant others. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 296-315. doi:10.1177/074355489163003

16.

Coyne

L. M.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Fraser

A. M.

Fellows

Day

R. D.

(2014). “Media time = family time”: Positive media use in families with adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29, 663-688. doi:10.1177/0743558414538316

17.

Cunningham

M. R.

Barbee

A. P.

(2000). Social support. In Hendrick

Hendrick

S. S.

(Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Dailey

R. M.

(2008). Assessing the contribution of nonverbal behaviors in displays of confirmation during parent-adolescent interactions: An actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 62-91. doi:10.1080/15267430701573599

19.

Devitt

Roker

(2009). The role of mobile phones in family communication. Children & Society, 23, 189-202. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00166.x

20.

Dibble

Levine

Park

(2012). The Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24, 565-572. doi:10.1037/a0026265

21.

Fenwick

Tausig

(2001). Scheduling stress: Family and health outcomes of shift work and schedule control. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1179-1198. doi:10.1177/00027640121956719

22.

Flavell

J. H.

Miller

P. H.

Miller

S. A.

(2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

23.

Friedlander

L. J.

Reid

G. J.

Shupak

Cribbie

(2007). Social support, self-esteem, and stress as predictors of adjustment to university among first-year undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 259-274. doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0024

24.

Guerrero

L. K.

Afifi

(1995). What parents don’t know: Topic avoidance in parent-child relationships. In Socha

T. J.

Stamp

G. H.

(Eds.), Parents, children and communication (pp. 219-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

25.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

26.

Hertlein

K. M.

(2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relationships. Family Relations, 61, 374-387. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00702.x

27.

Hock

Eberly

Bartle-Haring

Ellwanger

Widaman

K. F.

(2001). Separation anxiety in parents of adolescents: Theoretical significance and scale development. Child Development, 72, 284-298.

28.

Huisman

Catapano

Edwards

(2012). The impact of technology on families. International Journal of Education and Psychology in the Community, 2, 44-62.

29.

Hunter

F. T.

Youniss

(1982). Changes in functions of three relations during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 18, 806-811. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.18.6.806

30.

Kanter

Afifi

Robbins

(2012). The impact of parents friending their young adult child on Facebook on perceptions of parental privacy invasion and parent–child relationship quality. Journal of Communication, 62, 900-917. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01669.x

31.

Kennedy

T. L. M.

Smith

Wells

A. T.

Wellman

(2008). Networked families. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

32.

Kobak

R. R.

Sceery

(1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulations, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146. doi:10.2307/1130395

33.

Kraut

Patterson

Lundmark

Kiesler

Mukophadhyay

Scherlis

(1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017

34.

La Valley

A. G.

Guerrero

L. K

. (2012). Perceptions of conflict behavior and relational satisfaction in adult parent–child relationships: A dyadic analysis from an attachment perspective. Communication Research, 39, 48-78. doi:10.1177/0093650210391655

35.

Lanigan

J. D.

(2009). A sociotechnological model for family research and intervention: How information and communication technologies affect family life. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 587-609. doi:10.1080/01494920903224194

36.

Lanigan

J. D.

Bold

Chenoweth

(2009). Computers in the family context: Perceived impact on family time and relationships. Family Science Review, 14, 16-32.

37.

Larson

E. A.

Zemke

(2003). Shaping the temporal patterns of our lives: The social coordination of occupation. Journal of Occupational Science, 10, 80-89. doi:10.1080/14427591.2003.9686514

38.

Laursen

Collins

W. A.

(2004). Parent-child communication during adolescence. In Vangelisti

A. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 333-348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

39.

Laursen

Noack

Wilder

Williams

(2000). Adolescent perceptions of reciprocity, authority, and closeness in relationships with mothers, fathers, and friends. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 464-471. doi:10.1080/016502500750038017

40.

Ling

Yttri

(2006). Control, emancipation, and status: The mobile telephone in teens’ parental and peer relationships. In Kraut

Brynin

Kiesler

(Eds.), Computers, phone, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 219-234). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

41.

Lippold

M. A.

Davis

K. D.

Lawson

K. M.

McHale

S. M.

(2016). Day-to-day consistency in positive parent–child interactions and youth well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 3584-3592. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0502-x

42.

Livingstone

(2007). Strategies of parental regulation in the media-rich home. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 920-941. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.002

43.

Madden

Lenhart

Duggan

Cortesi

Gasser

(2013). Teens and technology 2013. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/03/13/teens-and-technology-2013/

44.

Markiewicz

Lawford

Doyle

A. B.

Haggart

(2006). Developmental differences in adolescents’ and young adults’ use of mothers, fathers, best friends, and romantic partners to fulfill attachment needs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 127-140. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-9014-5

45.

Mesch

G. S.

(2003). The family and the Internet: The Israeli case. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 1038-1050. doi:10.1046/j.0038-4941.2003.08404016.x

46.

Mesch

G. S.

(2006). Family relations and the Internet: Exploring a family boundaries approach. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 119-138. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0602_2

47.

Miczo

L. A.

Johnson

(2006). Parental support, perceived stress, and illness-related variables among first year-college student. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 97-117. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0602_1

48.

Morris

A. S.

Silk

J. S.

Steinberg

Myers

S. S.

Robinson

L. R.

(2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16, 361-388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x

49.

National Consumers League (2012). Tween cell phone survey. Washington, DC. Author.

50.

Nomaguchi

K. M.

Milkie

M. A.

Bianchi

S. M.

(2005). Time strains and psychological well-being: Do dual-earner mothers and fathers differ? Journal of Family Issues, 26, 756-792. doi:10.1177/0192513X05277524

51.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Coyne

S. M.

Fraser

A. M.

(2012). Getting a high-speed family connection: Associations between family media use and family connection. Family Relations, 61, 426-440. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00710.x

52.

Pettigrew

(2009). Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 697-716. doi:10.1080/01494920903224269

53.

Radesky

J. S.

Kistin

C. J.

Zuckerman

Nitzberg

Gross

Kaplan-Sanoff

. . . Silverstein

(2014). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast-food restaurants. Pediatrics, 133, 843-849. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-3703

54.

Riggio

H. R.

(2004). Parental marital conflict and divorce, parent-child relationships, social support, and relationship anxiety in young adulthood. Personal Relationships, 11, 99-114. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00073.x

55.

Rittenour

C. E.

Myers

S. A.

Brann

(2007). Commitment and emotional closeness in the sibling relationship. Southern Communication Journal, 72, 169-183. doi:10.1080/10417940701316682

56.

Rudi

Dworkin

Walker

Doty

(2015). Parents’ use of information and communication technologies for family communication: Differences by age of children. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 78-93. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.934390

57.

Samek

D. R.

Wilson

McGue

Iacono

W. G.

(2016). Genetic and environmental influences on parent–child conflict and child depression through late adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1141357

58.

Segrin

(2003). Age moderates the relationship between social support and psychosocial problems. Human Communication Research, 29, 317-342. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00842.x

59.

Stafford

Hillyer

J. D.

(2012). Information and communication technologies in personal relationships. Review of Communication, 12, 290-312. doi:10.1080/15358593.2012.685951

60.

Stevenson

(2011). From public policy to family practices: Researching the everyday realities of families’ technology use at home. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 336-346. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00430.x

61.

Strazdins

Korda

R. J.

Lim

L. L.

Broom

D. H.

D’Souza

R. M.

(2004). Around-the-clock: Parent work schedules and children’s well-being in a 24-h economy. Social Science & Medicine, 59, 1517-1527. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.022

62.

Toussaint

Jorgensen

K. M.

(2008). Inter-parental conflict, parent-child relationship quality, and adjustment in Christian adolescents: Forgiveness as a mediating variable. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 337-346.

63.

Trees

A. R.

(2000). Nonverbal communication and the support process: Interactional sensitivity in interactions between mothers and young adult children. Communication Monographs, 67, 239-261. doi:10.1080/03637750009376509

64.

Trinke

S. J.

Bartholomew

(1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603-625. doi:10.1177/0265407597145002

65.

van Doorn

M. D.

Branje

S. J. T.

Meeus

W. H. J

. (2011). Developmental changes in conflict resolution styles in parent–adolescent relationships: A four-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 97-107. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9516-7

66.

Vandeleur

C. L.

Jeanpretre

Perrez

Schoebi

(2009). Cohesion, satisfaction with family bonds, and emotional well-being in families with adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1205-1219. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00664.x

67.

Voorpostel

Van Der Lippe

(2007). Support between siblings and between friends: Two worlds apart? Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1271-1282. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00446.x

68.

Wajcman

Bittman

Brown

(2008). Families without borders: Mobile phones, connectedness and work-home divisions. Sociology, 42, 635-652. doi:10.1177/0038038508091620

69.

Wei

V.-H.

(2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8, 53-72. doi:10.1177/1461444806059870

70.

Williams

A. L.

Merten

M. J.

(2011). iFamily: Internet and social media technology in the family context. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40, 150-170. doi:10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02101.x