Parental mediation in Turkey: The use of mobile devices in early childhood

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the use of mobile devices including smartphones and tablets in terms of mediation types of parents who have young children. In this case study, which is one of the qualitative research methods, criterion sampling was adopted for the selection of the study group. The fact that parents of 4–7-year-old children who use mobile devices is determined as the principal criterion. Twelve children aged 4–7 and their parents participated in the study. Data were collected through child observations and parent interviews. The results indicated that children with the mediation of parental supervision had fewer problematic behaviors in the use of media and faced fewer online risks. Besides, children whose parents have general restrictive mediation were the most likely to exhibit problematic media use behaviors. Children whose parents have active mediation were also the most likely to face Internet risks. It was observed that children frequently played games and watched videos on mobile devices. Most parents considered their children’s use of mobile devices as risky and harmful, while it was considered as useful only by co-using parents. It was found that children’s use of mobile devices causes physical, psychological, communicational, and cognitive issues while improving their academic abilities, interests, and cognitive structures. Nevertheless, it was discovered that parents used mobile devices to convince their children to go through their daily routines such as eating, bathing, and sleeping or calm them down in the workplace or social environments.

Keywords

Early childhood media use parental mediation parenting style smartphone tablet

Introduction

Developments in mobile technology gradually continue to increase. Mobile technologies become a significant component of individuals' as well as children’s all daily activities (Ebbeck et al., 2016; Meziane-Fourati, 2017). The reason is that children are aware of mobile devices and they find them quite remarkable (Brito et al., 2018). As most children now live in societies where mobile technologies are widely used, this is quite natural (McManis and Gunnewig, 2012). Moreover, this situation is supported by the willingness of parents to have mobile technologies that cost less than desktops and laptops (Qunaibi, 2016). Touch screen phones are one of the most common technological tools children use (Rideout, 2013). Besides the easy use of touch screens, their small size and portability also make mobile technologies accessible to children (Tootell et al., 2013). Children at all ages can easily access many contents such as videos, games, and animations due to the user-friendly design and simple use of mobile technologies (Lynch and Redpath, 2014). In this context, it may be assumed that the interaction of children with mobile technologies will continue to increase.

The increase in children’s interaction with mobile technologies imposes new responsibilities and roles on parents (Chen et al., 2019). Parents have the responsibility to guide children’s use of mobile devices like smartphones and tablets with strategies they set. According to the Theory of Parental Mediation, parents use these approaches to control, supervise or interpret the content in media used by their children in order to protect them from potential risks (Clark, 2011; Hwang et al., 2017). Indeed, it is known that parents are more concerned about their children and experience difficulties in choosing the best for them (Troseth et al., 2016). Parent’s concerns are recognized when considering Internet risks and threats such as inappropriate content, social isolation, and distraction (Hu et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019; Radesky et al., 2015). On the other hand, one of two parents states that they leave their children unsupervised while using mobile technologies (Meziane-Fourati, 2017). Pempek and Lauricella (2018) have stated that the long-term use of mobile technology might only harm children’s mental, social, emotional, and language development.

When considering the potential of mobile technologies, it is essential to know how children use those technologies (Çetintaş and Turan, 2018). Indeed, the guidance and influence of the social environment, especially parents, on the children’s habits of using these technologies are inevitable (Vygotsky, 1978; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Accordingly, Altun (2019) has stated that it is crucial to examine children’s and parents' technology use and parents’ role by observing them at home and supporting them with parents' opinions. The number of in-depth studies on the Internet use of children in the 0–8 age group, including children’s own experiences and statements, is inadequate (Holloway et al., 2013). Therefore, a detailed study is required to understand better the influence of mobile technologies in early years (Kaufman, 2019). Indeed, it is seen that only one-fifth of the 1200 research studies examining children’s use of the Internet deal with the 0–8 age-group (Holloway et al., 2013).

In this context, when considering that the mobile internet usage of children in the preschool age group is increasing day by day, it is believed that revealing the mediation strategies that parents follow in children’s mobile internet use will make significant contributions to the literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate 4–7-year-old children’s use of mobile devices according to their parents' type of mediation. Answers to the following research questions were formulated in this regard:

Depending on the types of parental mediation;

RQ1:

What is the problematic use of mobile devices by children and what are the risks they face?

RQ2:

What do children do with mobile devices?

RQ3:

What are the benefits and harms involving children’s use of mobile devices?

The risks and opportunities of smart interactive media use

The risks that children face while using the Internet are classified in different contexts in the literature. Livingstone et al. (2015) have classified Internet risks as aggressive, sexual, value, and commercial, while Walrave et al. (2008) have classified them as content, contact, and commercial-related risks. With the variation and diffusion of digital media in recent years, people use digital media in an excessive and uncontrolled manner out of their goals and needs. This type of risk handled in various media such as the Internet, digital game, smartphone, social media addiction is generally described as problematic media use. Scales for problematic media use of children in the context of different media are accessible in the literature (Yılmaz et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2014). Mobile technologies offer children the opportunity to access the Internet without time and place limitations. Therefore, a highly individualized Internet use has emerged (Warren, 2016). Besides, many users have become content producers with the widespread use of Web 2.0 tools. This causes online risky contents to become widespread on the Internet every day (Livingstone et al., 2014).

In the literature, studies have revealed that mobile technologies support the language, cognitive, and social development of children (Holloway et al., 2013). These technologies also increase children’s motivation for problem solving and ensure its continuity (Clarke and Abbott, 2019), and help them to acquire literacy skills (Crescenz et al., 2014; Neumann, 2014). Another study has shown that these technologies enable them to understand the learning process (Snell and SnellSiddle, 2013). Similarly, there are some other studies emphasizing that mobile technologies have a positive impact on children’s learning and development (Clarke and Abbott, 2019; Kucirkova et al., 2013; Lusted and Joffe, 2018; Meziane-Fourati, 2017; Neumann and Neumann, 2014; Reychav and Wu, 2015; Terras and Ramsay, 2012). Mobile technologies’ touch features, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness become more prevalent learning tools in classrooms compared to other technologies (Reychav and Wu, 2015; Shuler et al., 2013). In this context, it is inevitable that mobile technologies will be preferred more, especially in early childhood education (Neumann, 2018).

When considering existing risks and opportunities, parents play an important role in ensuring that children use mobile technologies consciously and safely (Meziane-Fourati, 2017; Xie et al., 2019). After gaining adequate information about how to use mobile technologies, children become more autonomous and require less assistance and training (Couse and Chen, 2010). The results indicate that parental guidance is more efficient in terms of children’s use of mobile technologies in younger age groups than in older age groups (Lauricella et al., 2015). Thus, it is essential to properly guide the process in which children are introduced and taught to use mobile technologies. It is an unavoidable reality that children need the appropriate training and guidance to develop themselves independently in the forthcoming years and to use mobile technologies deliberately and safely.

Parental mediation

One of the problems that arise with the widespread use of digital media is related to the parental role. Studies on this subject emphasize this role as parental mediation (Appel et al., 2014). According to Livingstone and Helsper (2008), parental mediation refers to the parental management of the relation between children and media. Nikken and Opree (2018) have also defined parental mediation as all activities that shape and regulate children’s use of media by parents. Parents use different strategies in line with their own and their children’s characteristics (i.e., education level, age, gender, and media skills) (Nikken and De Haan, 2015; Notten and Nikken, 2016; Talves and Kalmus, 2015). Besides, Yaffe and Seroussi (2019) have indicated that the parent-child relationship is both directly and indirectly related to children’s use of the Internet. However, some research results claim that parents' characteristics such as media competencies are not related to children’s media use (Nikken and Opree, 2018) and parent-child communication does not affect children’s use of the Internet (Soh et al., 2018). This indicates the need for more studies on parental mediation.

One of the frequently cited sources for parental mediation in the literature is the classification made by Nikken and Jansz (2014). In terms of parental mediation types, Nikken and Jansz (2014) have divided into five types: active mediation, co-use, general restrictive mediation, content-specific restrictive mediation, and supervision. Nikken and Jansz (2014) briefly describe these types of mediation as follows:

• Active mediation involves helping children act safely when meeting strangers online or being harassed or bullied and teaching them the behavior rules on social networking sites (Nikken and Jansz, 2014). Regarding active mediation, the most popular strategies are to talk to children about what should and should not be shared on the Internet and to explain when and why digital technology is good or bad (Shin and Li, 2017).

• Co-use represents that parents do activities online with their children. Parents aim to experience the Internet with their children through shared activities (Nikken and Jansz, 2014). Thus, children are asked to recognize the opportunities offered by the Internet and risks they may face.

• General restrictive mediation is a type of mediation in which general access rules are set by parents. For instance, setting rules about how long and when children can use the Internet. Besides, parents discuss with their children about which online games are appropriate for them and which games they allow (Nikken and Jansz, 2014).

• Content-specific restrictive mediation is a type of mediation where restrictions are on content instead of restricting children’s Internet use for a certain time or period. Parents who adopt this type of mediation set rules about which content their children may interact when online (i.e., listening to the music, watching movies, buying products online, and choosing avatars) (Nikken and Jansz, 2014).

• Parents who adopt the supervision mediation type monitor and control their children’s Internet use and help them in necessary cases. In supervision mediation, children can generally access the Internet in a place where their parents can see and control them (Nikken and Jansz, 2014).

Theoretical framework

The effects of parental mediation types on children’s use of mobile technologies can be addressed through two different theoretical approaches.

According to the Sociocultural Theory of Vygotsky (1978), the first approach, children’s development takes place in historical, social and cultural contexts. Children learn to use psychological and technical means through adults or their more competent peers (Vygotsky, 1978). In this context, parents or social environments can be effective in children’s learning of mobile technologies in early childhood. Children take their first steps in using mobile technology under the supervision of their parents or social community. Thus, the methods used by parents can be efficient in the early experiences of children with mobile technologies.

The second approach is the Theory of Ecological Systems. Bronfenbrenner (1979) has stated that the development of children is influenced by the systems in their environment and the interactions among the systems. Bronfenbrenner evaluates the mutual connection between children and the environment. In fact, children and the environment influence each other. Specifically, parents, caregivers or peers have an important effect on children’s growth. This effect, however, is determined by the children’s own characteristics. For instance, children who have difficulty in expressing themselves are more likely to experience adverse social relationships. Hence, both personal characteristics and parental mediation can be effective in children’s interaction with mobile technologies.

Materials and methods

The case study is a qualitative methodology that provides the opportunity to examine a current phenomenon in real life context deeply (Creswell and Poth, 2016). Considering children’s use of media, parents are a part of this phenomenon due to the fact that they are individuals who affect children to use mobile devices like smartphones and tablets in early years. Based on this context, both parents and children are at the center of this study, which allows an in-depth examination.

Participants

The study was carried out with 12 children between the age of 4–7 residing in a city in Turkey and with their parents. After providing information about the study, necessary permissions were obtained from the parents. Criterion sampling was adopted in the selection of the study group. The principal criterion is the fact that children are in the 4–7 age group and they use mobile devices. Within the scope of the study, home visits were conducted for 4 weeks to collect data from children and their parents. Table 1 presents demographic information about the children and their parents.

Table 1.

Demographic information of the participants.

	Parents' information					Children’s information
PID	Sex	Age	Number of children	Mobile devices	Mobile device usage time (daily)	Sex	Age
1	Male	37	2	Smartphone	1 h	Male	4
2	Male	37	3	Smartphone/Tablet	2 h	Male	6
3	Male	31	1	Smartphone/Tablet	4–5 h	Female	4
4	Female	33	2	Smartphone/Tablet	3–4 h	Female	7
5	Female	37	2	Smartphone	2 h	Female	7
6	Female	36	2	Smartphone	2–3 h	Male	5
7	Female	35	2	Smartphone/Tablet*	1 h	Male	7
8	Female	39	3	Smartphone/Tablet	1 h	Male	4
9	Male	34	1	Smartphone/Tablet*	2 h	Female	4
10	Female	36	3	Smartphone/Tablet	2 h	Male	4
11	Male	38	2	Smartphone	2 h	Male	6
12	Male	38	2	Smartphone/Tablet	3 h	Male	5

PID = Participant ID, * Child owns mobile devices.

As shown in Table 1, the participants were composed of young parents between the ages of 31–39 and they used mobile devices between 1-5 h daily. There were six fathers and six mothers who participated in the study. Only two mothers were housewives. The others work in different professions such as teachers, doctors, engineers, government officials. In the study, the heterogeneity in professions and the homogeneity in gender was ensured to obtain rich data on parental mediation in children’s use of SIM.

Instruments

Different data collection tools were used to obtain in-depth information from children and their parents.

Evaluation of children’s media use

Due to young children’s illiteracy or inability to express themselves well, there are problems in collecting data using a questionnaire, scale, or an interview method (Holloway et al., 2013). Therefore, children were observed at their homes, which are their natural habitats, to collect detailed data on children’s use of media and its effect on their daily life. Patton (2002) has stated that direct participation and observation of the phenomenon is the best way to comprehend complex situations.

The observation process consists of three sections. In three sections, children’s demographic information, problematic media use behaviors, and activities and behaviors that children undertake while using mobile devices in daily life are provided respectively. Firstly, the problematic media use scales in the literature were examined to develop the observation method (Kim et al., 2014; Yılmaz et al., 2017). Based on these scales, there were nine problematic media use behaviors (PMSB) that may be observed in children. Additionally, based upon this list, frequency on problematic media use behaviors of children were evaluated as minimum 0 and maximum 9. Secondly, the activities and behaviors of children using mobile devices were listed by examining the literature. The draft observation form, developed in line with the prepared lists, was reviewed by two experts. The observation form was revised in accordance with the feedback received. Before finalizing the observation form, a pilot study was performed with four children (two male/two female). After the pilot study, the observation form was finalized by making arrangements.

Evaluation of children’s media use from parents' perspective

A parental interview form was developed by the researchers. Firstly, a pool of questions was created by considering children’s habits, risky uses, and benefits and harms due to mobile device usage. Two experts in the field of Internet and media use analyzed the questions. A pilot study was conducted with two parents, one female and one male, using the interview form prepared in accordance with the feedback received from the experts. After the necessary revisions, the interview form was completed.

Determination of parental mediation types

The scale developed by Nikken and Jansz (2014) was used to determine parents’ mediation types towards their children’s media use. The scale has a structure consisting of 20 items about five mediation categories measured on a 5-point Likert type scale (1, never, to 5, very often). These categories are “active mediation”, “co-use”, “general restrictive mediation”, “content-specific restrictive mediation” and “supervision”. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of the variables ranged from 0.75 to 0.94. The scale is divided into five parental mediation categories as listed below:

• Active mediation: talking with children about safe usage of online environments such as social networks, instant messaging sites and about protecting personal information,

• Co-use: doing online activities with children and having conversations about it.

• General restrictive mediation: setting rules for children’s online games, game types, time, and duration of Internet use,

• Content-specific restrictive mediation: setting rules for specific activities such as listening to music, watching movies, buying products online, and selecting avatars,

• Supervision: monitoring, controlling, and assisting children’s online activities while they are surfing the web.

Within the scope of study, the child-data was collected through the observation form. In addition, the data from parents was collected through the interview form and the scale. The research questions were addressed through the data collection tools (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Matching data collection tools with research questions.

	Child observation form	Parental interview form
RQ1	✓	✓
RQ2	✓	✓
RQ3		✓

RQ = Research Question.

Procedure and analysis

During the data collection process, parents who accepted to participate in the study were informed about the content of the study and the data collection tools. Firstly, a scale developed by Nikken and Jansz (2014) was used to determine the mediation type adopted by parents. Secondly, individual interviews with parents were conducted to evaluate children’s use of mobile devices. Finally, children were observed by researchers for 4 weeks. The observation days were planned with parents as they are two times in a week. Each observation lasted 1 hour. During observations, the uses of mobile devices in children’s daily life were written down in the observation forms.

Content analysis data increase the intelligibility of the researched phenomenon by coding and bringing them together under certain themes. The data obtained from the interviews with the parents were analyzed by the content analysis method. In this context, data analysis was carried out by following the steps below:

• Transcription of qualitative data

• Organizing data

• Determining meaningful data units

• Coding data

• Identifying draft themes

• Arranging of codes according to draft themes

• Checking and finalizing draft themes

• Organizing themes under research questions

• Describing the data according to the codes and themes, including the quotations, interpretation, tabulation

• Writing research results

Validity and reliability

This qualitative study included both child observations and parent interviews to reveal children’s use of SIM. There are different strategies to ensure validity and reliability in qualitative research (Creswell and Poth, 2016; Miles and Huberman, 1994). In this study, credibility, transferability, confirmability, and dependability strategies suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985) were adopted to ensure validity and reliability. The procedures during the study in line with these strategies are explained below.

Credibility

Expert reviews, data source triangulation, and in-depth data collection are the strategies to ensure credibility in qualitative research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). While developing the interview and observation forms, the opinions of two experts in the field of communication and media were received. Besides, pilot studies were conducted for each form. The participants of the pilot studies were not included in the actual study. Therefore, it was ensured that detailed and in-depth data about children’s use of SIM and parents’ mediation types.

Transferability

The detailed identification of the study process and the use of purposeful sampling methods are the strategies to ensure transferability in qualitative research (Erlandson et al., 1993). In this context, criterion sampling which is one of the purposeful sampling methods was employed in the participant selection in the study. Besides, the stages of development of data collection tools and the data collection and analysis processes were explained in detail. The collected data were rearranged according to the concepts and themes that emerged as a result of the analysis and were supported with direct quotations.

Confirmability

Investigator triangulation and confirmability audit are the qualitative research strategies used to ensure confirmability (Denzin, 1978; Erlandson et al., 1993). In this context, all processes from the selection of the participants to the data collection and from the analysis of the data to the reporting were carried out by two researchers. Besides, the collected data, coding and themes, the obtained findings and comments were recorded and controlled repeatedly.

Dependability

In order to prevent the study from being affected by subjective evaluations, inquiry audit is a strategy to ensure dependability in qualitative research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004). In this context, the researchers paid attention to asking the questions to the parents in the same order and not to make guiding statements during the data collection process. Similarly, while observing children, they collected data by marking children’s problematic media use behavior in the observation form and keeping observation notes. During the research process, the compatibility of the findings with raw data and the results with research questions and theories were controlled and reported.

In addition to the use of dependability and confirmability strategies to ensure the reliability of the study, the reliability formula of Miles and Huberman (1994) was calculated. In this context, two researchers coded the interview data individually and calculated the reliability score for the consistency between their codes as 96%. A reliability coefficient score of 70% and above indicates that the research findings are reliable (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

Findings

In this section, the findings are presented within the framework of the research questions. Table 3 presents the results of the analysis of the problematic media use of the children and the risks they encountered according to parents’ mediation types.

Table 3.

Children’s problematic media use and risks they encountered.

PID	PMT	PMSB frequency	Inappropriate content	Overuse	Communication with strangers
5	Active mediation	7		✓	✓
6	Active mediation	6	✓	✓	✓
12	Active mediation	4	✓
8	Co-use	3	✓
9	Co-use	4
1	General restrictive mediation	7	✓
2	General restrictive mediation	4	✓		✓
3	General restrictive mediation	6	✓
7	General restrictive mediation	9		✓
10	General restrictive mediation	5	✓	✓
11	General restrictive mediation	4		✓
4	Supervision	2

PID = Participant ID, PMT = Parental Mediation Type, PMSB = Problematic Media Use Behavior (min = 0, max = 9).

When Table 3 is examined, it is seen that one of every two parents used general restrictive mediators while only one parent adapted a supervision mediator. It was found that children with parent supervision mediation exhibited fewer problematic media use behaviors and faced fewer online risks, followed by children with co-use mediation. Children whose parents were in active mediation were exposed to the risks more. However, children who have general restrictive mediation exhibited more problematic media use behaviors when it was compared with the others. Participant 6 expressed the inappropriate content that his child encountered on the internet as: “He was scared because of the horror videos he watched on the internet. He looked at the Pubg game for the last few days. He was ill-tempered and angry because of both violent computer games and videos”. Participant 2 emphasized the problem that his child had due to communication with strangers while playing games as “They asked my son for credit cards from the chat window of a game he played. Fortunately, he came and told me. They could not only ask for credit cards, but also ask for his father’s card and tell them the numbers here”.

Table 4 presents results associated with the analysis of children’s use of mobile devices based on the parents’ mediation types.

Table 4.

Children’s use of mobile devices.

PID	PMT	Children’s use of mobile devices			Allowed usage conditions
PID	PMT	Daily usage time	Activities	Usage conditions	Duration	Activity
5	Active mediation	3–4 h	Game	Risky	1 h
6	Active mediation	1 h	Game-video	Harmful	1 h	Appropriate content
12	Active mediation	3 h	Game-video	Risky
8	Co-use	1 h	Game-video	Useful
9	Co-use	30 min	Video	Useful	30 min	Game
1	General restrictive mediation	1–2 h	Game-video	Risky
2	General restrictive mediation	2 h	Game-video	Risky		Appropriate content
3	General restrictive mediation	1 h	Video	Risky		Appropriate content
7	General restrictive mediation	4 h	Game-video	Harmful	30 min	Appropriate content
10	General restrictive mediation	30 min	Game-video	Risky	15 min	Appropriate content
11	General restrictive mediation	1 h	Game-video	Risky	30 min	Appropriate content
4	Supervision	1–2 h	Game-video	Risky

PID = Participant ID, PMT = Parental Mediation Type.

When Table 4 is examined, it was observed that children frequently played games and watched videos with mobile devices. Most of the parents considered children’s use of mobile devices as risky and harmful. Participant 10 expressed the issue as “The use of smartphones is risky because my child’s desire to play and the possibility of becoming addictive increases as he plays digital games.” Only co-use parents considered their children’s use of mobile devices as useful. The opinion of participant 9 was that “I find it useful because he learned new information while using his tablet”. It was found that children’s daily usage of mobile devices varies from 30 min to 4 h. Additionally, it was seen that most of the children used mobile devices more than the time allowed by their parents. Indeed, parents who set time limits on their children also stated that their children were in excessive use. The opinion of participant 5 is as follows: “Even though we let him use smartphone for 1 hour a day, he continues to play unless we take it away”. The parents reported that their children used mobile devices generally for entertainment and considered such a habit as risky.

Table 5 presents the results associated with analysis of the effects of mobile device use on daily life of children according to the mediation types of parents.

Table 5.

The effects of Children’s use of mobile device on daily life.

PID	PMT	Children’s use of media		Daily events when mobile devices handed to children
PID	PMT	Benefit	Harm	Daily events when mobile devices handed to children
5	Active mediation	Developing interest
6	Active mediation	Developing academic skill	Psychological problems (unable to disconnect from the digital environment), cognitive problems (Distraction), communication problems (isolation, loneliness), physical problems (eye discomfort)	While dining – While having a bath – While busy (housework)
12	Active mediation	Cognitive development, developing academic skill	Cognitive problems (digital hypnosis)	While dining
8	Co-use	Developing academic skill	Psychological problems (tendency to violence)	While busy (housework)
9	Co-use	Developing interest	Physical problems (eye discomfort)	While busy (housework)
1	General restrictive mediation	Cognitive development	Cognitive problems (distraction), communication problems (isolation, loneliness), physical problems (eye discomfort)	While dining - sleep
2	General restrictive mediation	Developing interest	Cognitive problems (digital hypnosis)
3	General restrictive mediation	Developing academic skill	—
7	General restrictive mediation	—	Cognitive problems (distraction, digital hypnosis), communication problems (solitude, inability to express oneself), psychological problems (unable to disconnect from the digital environment)	Difficult situations in the social environment
10	General restrictive mediation	—	Psychological problems (unable to disconnect from the digital environment)	While busy- difficult situations in the social environment
11	General restrictive mediation	Developing interest	—
4	Supervision	Developing academic skill	—	While dining

PID = Participant ID, PMT = Parental Mediation Type.

When examining Table 5, the parents stated that their children’s use of mobile devices improved their educational abilities (5), interests (4), and cognitive characteristics (2). In this respect, participant 8 stated “My child learned numbers and letters by watching music videos on YouTube” and indicated that the academic skills of his child improved. Participant 11 stated “He had learned many things about football by watching videos” and indicated that knowledge on issues of his interest increased. The opinion of participant 12 revealed that the use of SIM improves the cognitive structure of his child: “After my child started playing MentalUP, I noticed an improvement in his visual intelligence. He also started to make addition and subtraction faster”. Parents who embraced different mediation roles regarded the use of mobile devices for their children as harmful. It was noted that these damages were cognitive problems such as diversion and digital hypnosis (5), psychological problems such as being susceptible to violence and being unable to disconnect from the virtual environment (4), physical problems such as eye pain (3), and communication problems such as isolation and inability to express themselves (3). In this respect, participant 7 stated that “My child does not find any activity work in daily life without smartphones and he gets easily bored. Moreover, he is distracted and unable to perceive daily activities”. Similarly, participant 4 stated that “Due to the videos he watches, he confuses the virtual world with the real one. He doesn’t think about what to do or say in the face of daily events because of the games he plays, so his brain is numb”. Participant 1 expressed the eye disorders because of the use of SIM as “While watching cartoons or video games on the Internet, he focuses on them for an hour and loses contact with the outside world. In fact, his eyes turn red and he often says that it results in eye pain”.

Although parents knew that mobile devices have benefits as well as harms to their children, it was observed that they sometimes used these technologies to keep their children busy. It was observed that parents gave their children mobile devices so that they behave well during their daily routines such as eating, bathing, and sleeping. In addition, parents allowed their children to use these technologies in order not to be in a difficult situation when their children were naughty in social environments such as housework, friend visits, and at shopping centers. Even parents who co-use stated that they offered their children these technologies while doing housework. Participant 1 said, “I prefer to use a smartphone as a reward or punishment. Unfortunately, I’m compelled to do that when he doesn’t eat or he is overly mischievous”. Similarly, participant 7 said, “I offer the phone as a remedy when he is naughty in social environments”. In summary, parents indicated that when their children were naughty, they often used these technologies as a tool for sedation and distraction. Additionally, participant 10 said, “I can’t take care of him when I get back from work tired, so I give it” and indicated that he used these technologies to keep his child busy when he was tired. Similarly, using the technologies to keep her child entertained while doing housework, participant 8 stated that “There are moments when I give my child a smartphone to leave me alone when I do housework or when I am busy. I do not see any harm because I make my children watch cartoons or educational games”.

Conclusion and discussion

In this study, 4–7-year-old children’s use of mobile devices was analyzed according to the parents' mediation types. It was concluded that parents mostly take on the role of general restrictive mediation. Although the literature supports this outcome (Nathanson and Eveland, 2019), in reality, restrictive policies are efficient in a brief moment (Lee, 2013) and that it is simple for parents to conduct. Considering the intensive pace of work and duties of parents, this is anticipated. It was discovered that children with parental supervision mediation displayed problematic media use behaviors less often than the others. They also faced fewer Internet risks, followed by children with parents adopting co-use mediation.

It was concluded that parents both observe their children nearby and do activities with them without restricting their use of media devices, which were more effective in assuring children’s use of media safely. This conclusion is supported by similar results in the literature (Connell et al., 2015). In this context, as Vygotsky (1978) stated, it is seen that the guidance of their parents is effective in children’s use of media tools. Also, it was found that telling children what to do about using mobile devices was not efficient. As a matter of fact, it was seen that parents who adopted an active mediation type had children who displayed problematic media use at the highest level and faced Internet risks. It is possible to find similar results that support these findings (Turgut and Aslan, 2016) as well as others that do not support (Livingstone and Helsper, 2008). This difference can be clarified by the Theory of Ecological Systems by Bronfenbrenner (1979). Bronfenbrenner (1979) claims that the social environment is crucial in early childhood, but that it influences the environment as much as it influences children. Thus, the effects of mediation roles of parents on children may differ depending on the characteristics of children and type of activities they perform (Lee and Chae, 2007). In this context, there is a need for studies that examine parents’ media use habits correlatively according to the mediation types and their children’s characteristics.

Research revealed that most parents find their children’s use of mobile devices as risky and harmful. Even so, it is a remarkable fact that although half of parents do not set a time limit for their children’s usage of mobile devices and others set a time limit, all parents indicated that their children are overusing mobile devices. It was reported in the literature that parents could not limit their children’s usage, particularly in digital games (Toran et al., 2016). This is explained by the fact that parents are aware of the benefits of mobile devices, that they frequently use mobile devices, and that they use them in some cases to keep their children busy. Indeed, Vygotsky (1978) and Bronfenbrenner (1979) have emphasized the significance of parents and social environment in early childhood. Besides, studies that adopt Bronfenbrenner (1979) theory revealed that parents’ media use habits might influence children (Bleakley et al., 2013; Haake et al., 2015). It is important to develop policies (i.e., training, seminar, etc.) which will increase the awareness of parents who are role models for children about the conscious use of digital media and evaluate these policies periodically.

In this study, parents stated that mobile devices improve children’s academic skills and interests but also cause some cognitive, psychological, communication and physical problems. These findings show that parents are aware of the opportunities and harms of mobile devices. Saracho (2015) also reported similar findings. It was discovered that parents sometimes used mobile devices to engage their children or keep them calm or entertained, particularly when doing their own work and/or in social environments. In addition, parents were observed to resort to mobile devices to do some daily routines such as eating, bathing, and sleeping in their daily lives without having any problems. Given that parents often regarded the use of mobile devices by their children as harmful and risky, it is notable that parents used mobile devices to keep their children busy in many activities in their daily life. It is possible to find similar results in literature (House, 2012; Miller, 2005). Moreover, some researchers started calling mobile devices as digital pacifiers (Kabali et al., 2015). When considering that children learn how to use technological tools from adults around them, as Vygotsky (1978) stated, it is an expected situation that children make mobile devices as a part of their daily habits. Parents’ choice of offering mobile devices to their children constantly to keep them busy may cause their children to be mobile device addictive. This choice may solve the problem in the short term; however, it may cause long-term physical, psychological, communicative, and cognitive problems. Therefore, they need to find out different alternatives for these situations and use the opportunities offered by mobile devices in order to contribute to their children’s growth.

This study provides the theoretical and practical results in consequence of scientific processes carried out. Theoretically, it contributes to the literature by examining 4–7-year-old children’s mobile devices usage in the context of parents' mediation. Practically, this study shows two critical aspects related to children’s use of mobile devices consciously and safely. The first is to ensure that children use these technologies without any restrictions under parental supervision. The second is to focus on the fact that parents need to be consistent and be a role model while guiding children about the use of mobile devices rather than just making explanations and suggestions about children’s use of mobile devices.

In this context, considering that the restrictive mediation approach can’t generate the desired outcomes, it is feasible to develop methods that children can use mobile devices more effectively under parental supervision and hardware and software solutions that enable parental supervision to avoid hindering the autonomy of children. In this context, parental control applications such as Eset Parental Control, Kids Zone, SecureTeen, Safe Browser, and time control applications such as KidTime, Screen Time can be used to prevent children from excessive use of mobile devices. In addition, by recognizing the risks of children’s use of mobile devices, their behaviors and existing risks, the systems which use artificial intelligence technologies in order to guide children and inform parents simultaneously and also update itself according to each user can be designed.

Limitations and Future research

This study provides important results regarding 4–7-year-old children’s mobile device usage in terms of their parents’ mediation strategies. The sample of this study consisted of only 12 parents and their children, which may be considered as a limitation. Future studies must consider the use of quantitative methods with a larger sample. Also, another limitation of the study is related to the data collection tools. The data were obtained through only parent interviews and child observations. It is suggested to employ different data collection tools to obtain more detailed information about children’s mobile device usage. Considering the variation in mobile devices and the increase in children’s use of them, this study must be replicated repeatedly in short periods. Revealing the changes in children’s mobile device usage habits and parent’s mediation strategies may guide the steps to solve the issues related to children’s problematic mobile device use.

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.

Research Involving Human Participants and/ or Animals

The study was approved by the institutional research ethics committee and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

ORCID iD

Alper Aslan

Author Biographies

Alper Aslan is an associate professor in the Computer Engineering Department, at Munzur University. His research interest is mainly related to instructional design and technology. Specifically his research agenda has composed of internet safety, media literacy, digital game based learning, problem based learning, and ICT integration.

Yiğit Emrah Turgut is an associate professor in the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology at Recep Tayyip Erdogan University. His research focuses on internet safety, open and distance learning, media literacy, and instructional design, and ICT integration.

References

Altun

(2019) An investigation of preschool children’s digital footprints and screen times, and of parents’ sharenting and digital parenting roles. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences 10(35): 76–97.

Appel

Stiglbauer

Batinic

, et al. (2014) Internet use and verbal aggression: the moderating role of parents and peers. Computers in Human Behavior 33: 235–241. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.007

Bleakley

Jordan

Hennessy

(2013) The relationship between parents’ and children’s television viewing. Pediatrics 132(2): 364–371. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-3415

Brito

Dias

Oliveira

(2018) Young children, digital media and smart toys: how perceptions shape adoption and domestication. British Journal of Educational Technology 49(5): 807–820. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12655

Bronfenbrenner

(1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chen

Teo

Nguyen

(2019) Singapore parents’ use of digital devices with young children: motivations and uses. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 28(3): 239–250. DOI: 10.1007/s40299-019-00432-w

Clark

(2011) Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication Theory 21(4): 323–343. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01391.x

Clarke

Abbott

(2016) Young pupils’, their teachers’ and classroom assistants’ experiences of iPads in a Northern Ireland school: four and five years old, who would have thought they could do that? British Journal of Educational Technology 47(4): 1051–1064. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12266

Connell

Lauricella

Wartella

(2015) Parental co-use of media technology with their young children in the USA. Journal of Children and Media 9: 5–21. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2015.997440

10.

Couse

Chen

(2010) Tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 43(1): 75–96. DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782562

11.

Creswell

Poth

(2016) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

12.

Çetintaş

Turan

(2018) Through the eyes of early childhood students: television, tablet computers, internet and smartphones. Central European Journal of Communication 11(1): 56–70.

13.

Crescenzi

Jewitt

Price

(2014) The role of touch in preschool children’s learning using iPad versus paper interaction. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 37(2): 86–95.

14.

Denzin

(1978) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

15.

Ebbeck

Yim

HYB

Chan

, et al. (2016) Singaporean parents’ views of their young children’s access and use of technological devices. Early Childhood Education Journal 44(2): 127–134. DOI: 10.1007/s10643-015-0695-4

16.

Erlandson

Harris

Skipper

, et al. (1993) Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

17.

Haake

Axelsson

Clausen-Bruun

, et al. (2015) Scaffolding mentalizing via a play-&-learn game for preschoolers. Computers and Education 90: 13–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.003

18.

Holloway

Green

Livingstone

(2013) Zero to Eight. Young Children and Their Internet Use. London: LSE EU Kids Online.

19.

House

(2012) The inappropriateness of ICT in early childhood education: arguments from philosophy, pedagogy and developmental psychology. In: Suggate

Reese

(eds) Contemporary Debates in Childhood Education and Development. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 105–121.

20.

Johnson

Teo

, et al. (2020) Relationship between screen time and Chinese children’s cognitive and social development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 34(2): 183–207. DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2019.1702600

21.

Hwang

Choi

Yum

, et al. (2017) Parental mediation regarding children's smartphone use: role of protection motivation and parenting style. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 20(6): 362–368. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0555

22.

Kabali

Irigoyen

Nunez-Davis

, et al. (2015) Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics 136(6): 1044–1050. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-2151

23.

Kaufman

(2019) Touch-Screen Technology and Children. CHILD Magazines. www.childmags.com.au/touch-screen-technology-and-children/(Accessed 28 June 2019).

24.

Kim

Lee

, et al. (2014) Development of Korean smartphone addiction proneness scale for youth. PLoS ONE 9(5): e97920–e97928. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097920

25.

Kucirkova

Messer

Sheehy

, et al. (2013) Sharing personalised stories on iPads: a close look at one parent-child interaction. Literacy 47(3): 115–122. DOI: 10.1111/lit.12003

26.

Lauricella

Wartella

Rideout

(2015) Young children’s screen time: the complex role of parent and child factors. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 36: 11–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.appdev.2014.12.001

27.

Lee

(2013) Parental restrictive mediation of children’s internet use: effective for what and for whom? New Media and Society 15(4): 466–481. DOI: 10.1177/1461444812452412

28.

Lee

Chae

(2007) Children’s Internet use in a family context: influence on family relationships and parental mediation. Cyberpsychology and Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society 10(5): 640–644.

29.

Sidibe

Shen

, et al. (2019) Incidence, risk factors and psychosomatic symptoms for traditional bullying and cyberbullying in Chinese adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review 107: 104511. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104511

30.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

31.

Livingstone

Helsper

(2008) Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 52(4): 581–599. DOI: 10.1080/08838150802437396

32.

Livingstone

Kirwil

Ponte

, et al. (2014) In their own words: what bothers children online? European Journal of Communication 29(3): 271–288. DOI: 10.1177/0267323114521045

33.

Livingstone

Mascheroni

Staksrud

(2015) Developing a Framework for Researching Children’s Online Risks and Opportunities in Europe. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

34.

Lusted

Joffe

(2018) Parent–child interactions around television and other on-screen content: considering communication and social skills. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 43(2): 43–52. DOI: 10.23965/ajec.43.2.05

35.

Lynch

Redpath

(2014) ‘Smart’ technologies in early years literacy education: a meta-narrative of paradigmatic tensions in iPad use in an Australian preparatory classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 14(2): 147–174. DOI: 10.1177/1468798412453150

36.

McManis

Gunnewig

(2012) Finding the education in educational technology with young learners. Young Children 67: 14–24.

37.

Fourati

(2017) Tunisian mothers’ perception of their young children’s interactive screen time at home. Southeast Asia Early Childhood Journal 6: 1–10. DOI: 10.37134/saecj.vol6.1.2017

38.

Miles

Huberman

(1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

39.

Miller

(2005) Fighting technology for toddlers. Education Digest 71(3): 55–58.

40.

Nathanson

Eveland

(2019) Parental mediation during the US 2016 presidential election campaign: how parents criticized, restricted, and co-viewed news coverage. Communication Monographs 86(2): 184–204. DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2018.1527035

41.

Neumann

(2014) An examination of touch screen tablets and emergent literacy in Australian pre-school children. Australian Journal of Education 58: 109–122. DOI: 10.1177/0004944114523368

42.

Neumann

(2018) Using tablets and apps to enhance emergent literacy skills in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 42: 239–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.006

43.

Neumann

(2014) Touch screen tablets and emergent literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal 42(4): 231–239. DOI: 10.1007/s10643-013-0608-3

44.

Nikken

Jansz

(2014) Developing scales to measure parental mediation of young children’s internet use. Learning, Media and Technology 39(2): 250–266. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2013.782038

45.

Nikken

de Haan

(2015) Guiding young children’s internet use at home: problems that parents experience in their parental mediation and the need for parenting support. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 9(1): 3. DOI: 10.5817/CP2015-1-3

46.

Nikken

Opree

(2018) Guiding young children’s digital media use: SES-differences in mediation concerns and competence. Journal of Child And Family Studies 27(6): 1844–1857. DOI: 10.1007/s10826-018-1018-3

47.

Notten

Nikken

(2016) Boys and girls taking risks online: a gendered perspective on social context and adolescents’ risky online behavior. New Media and Society 18(6): 966–988. DOI: 10.1177/1461444814552379

48.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

49.

Pempek

Lauricella

(2018) The effects of parent-child interaction and media use on cognitive development in infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. In: Blumberg

Brooks

(eds) Cognitive Development in Digital Contexts. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 53–74.

50.

Qunaibi

(2016) The attitudes of teachers and students towards using tablet in learning and teaching in Jordanian school. Arab Journal of Sciences and Research Publishing 2(5): 84–101.

51.

Radesky

Schumacher

Zuckerman

(2015) Mobile and interactive media use by young children: the good, the bad, and the unknown. Pediatrics 135(1): 1–3. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-2251

52.

Reychav

(2015) Mobile collaborative learning: the role of individual learning in groups through text and video content delivery in tablets. Computers in Human Behavior 50: 520–534. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.019

53.

Rideout

(2013) Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.

54.

Saracho

(2015) Developmentally-appropriate technology and interactive media in early childhood education. In: Heider

Jalongo

(eds) Young Children and Families in the Information Age: Applications of Technology in Early Childhood. New York: Springer, pp. 183–205.

55.

Shenton

(2004) Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information 22(2): 63–75. DOI: 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

56.

Shuler

Winters

West

(2013) The Future of Mobile Learning: Implications for Policy Makers and Planners. Paris: UNESCO.

57.

Snell

Snell-Siddle

(2013) Mobile Learning: The Effects of Gender and Age on Perceptions of the Use of Mobile Tools. The Second International Conference on Informatics Engineering and Information Science. Kuala Lumpur: The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications.

58.

Shin

(2017) Parental mediation of children’s digital technology use in Singapore. Journal of Children and Media 11(1): 1–19. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2016.1203807

59.

Soh

PCH

Chew

Koay

, et al. (2018) Parents vs peers’ influence on teenagers’ internet addiction and risky online activities. Telematics and Informatics 35(1): 225–236. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.11.003

60.

Talves

Kalmus

(2015) Gendered mediation of children’s internet use: a keyhole for looking into changing socialization practices. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 9(1): 4. DOI: 10.5817/CP2015-1-4

61.

Terras

Ramsay

(2012) The five central psychological challenges facing effective mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 43(5): 820–832. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01362.x

62.

Tootell

Plumb

Hadfield

, et al. (2013) Gestural interface technology in early childhood education: a framework for fully engaged communication. In: Paper presented at the 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Maui HI, 7–10 January, 2017.

63.

Toran

Ulusoy

Aydın

, et al. (2016) Çocukların dijital oyun kullanımına ilişkin annelerin görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Kastamonu Education Journal 24(5): 2263–2278.

64.

Troseth

Russo

Strouse

(2016) What’s next for research on young children’s interactive media? Journal of Children and Media 10: 54–62. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2015.1123166

65.

Turgut

Aslan

(2016) Çocukların Karşılaştıkları İnternet Riskleri ve Ebeveyn Arabuluculuğu. In: 4th International Instructional Technologies Teacher Education Symposium, Elazığ, Turkey, pp. 337–344.

66.

Vygotsky

(1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

67.

Walrave

Lenaerts

De Moor

(2008) Cyberteens @ Risk: Tieners Verknocht Aan Het Internet, Maar Ook Waakzaam Voor ’risico’s. https://www.veiligonline.be/sites/default/files/samenvatting%20cijfers%20TIRO.pdf (Accessed 15 June 2019).

68.

Warren

(2016) Someday you’ll have children just like you”: what tomorrow’s parents can teach us about parental mediation research. Journal of Children and Media 10(2): 173–180. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2015.1130733

69.

Yaffe

Seroussi

(2019) Problematic internet use in Israeli-Arab adolescent males: do parenting styles matter? Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 13(4): 5. DOI: 10.5817/CP2019-4-5

70.

Yılmaz

Griffiths

Kan

(2017) Development and validation of videogame addiction scale for children (VASC). International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 15(4): 869–882. DOI: 10.1007/s11469-017-9766-7

71.

Xie

Chen

Zhu

, et al. (2019) Parents’ phubbing increases adolescents’ mobile phone addiction: roles of parent-child attachment, deviant peers, and gender. Children and Youth Services Review 105: 104426. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104426