Parenting the Internet - Wiley Online Library

5 downloads 426 Views 119KB Size Report
1 School of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1339 ... ing mediation of online content and time spent on the Internet (N = 520).
Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Parenting the Internet Matthew S. Eastin1, Bradley S. Greenberg2 & Linda Hofschire3 1 School of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1339 2 Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 3 Highlands Ranch, CO 80125

Telephone surveys of single and married mothers of teenagers in public schools, mothers of teenagers in religious schools, and mothers of homeschooled teenagers examined the influence that parenting styles and level of Internet access in the home have on parenting mediation of online content and time spent on the Internet (N = 520). Specifically, how authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful parenting styles as well as home and bedroom Internet access influence the evaluative and restrictive mediation techniques used by parents was investigated. Results indicate that parenting style has a significant effect on almost all mediation techniques studied, whereas increased access only influences time online. Additionally, technological blocking as a restrictive mediation technique was found to be highest among authoritative parents, followed by authoritarian and neglectful. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00297.x

In the past 10 years, parents have been forced to deal with an excess of new media such as the Internet. Accustomed to media like TV and radio where content access can reasonably be controlled or at least understood, research on parenting has recognized mediation techniques to help deal with unwanted content. From this research, three overarching parental mediation styles have been identified—factual, evaluative, and restrictive. However, given the expanding media environment afforded by the Internet and the lack of expertise being reported by parents, these mediation styles need to be examined in the context of online use. Furthermore, with computer and Internet use becoming bedroom accessible to youth (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003) and now competing with such traditional activities as playing outside (Rideout, Vanderwater, & Wartella, 2003), the scope of mediation research must now extend to an investigation of general parenting styles and access location so that researchers can begin to understand how media are being integrated into everyday parenting situations. Using mothers of teenagers, the current study examines how parenting styles and access to the Internet influence evaluative and restrictive mediation techniques. Corresponding author: Matthew S. Eastin; e-mail: [email protected]. 486

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

M. S. Eastin et al.

Internet Mediation

Parenting styles Developmental psychology research on parental authority has been dominated by Baumrind’s (1971, 1978, 1991) classification of parenting styles. Baumrind originally identified three styles—authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. Later, a fourth parenting style, defined as uninvolved or neglectful, was developed out of the permissive parenting group. The two primary components to parenting style are parental responsiveness and demandingness (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Parental responsiveness, defined as parental warmth or supportiveness refers to ‘‘the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality, self-regulation, and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs and demands’’ (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). Parental demandingness, defined as behavioral control refers to the extent to which parents desire ‘‘children to become integrated into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys’’ (Baumrind, 1991, pp. 61–62). Parenting style types are created by assessing parents as high or low on both parental demandingness and responsiveness dimensions. Parenting style then is a typology of different styles and not a linear representation (Baumrind, 1991), making the typology more representative than the continuous nature of the demandingness and responsiveness scales from which they are developed. Beyond levels of responsiveness and demandingness, parenting styles also relate to psychological control. Psychological control represents the extent to which parents try to influence the psychological and emotional development of the child through parenting practices (Barber, 1996). To this end, each of these parenting styles reflects different patterns of parental values, practices, and behaviors (Baumrind, 1991). How these values, practices, and behaviors are emphasized determine the primary parenting style. Authoritative parenting has high levels of demand, warmth, and psychological autonomy. Baumrind (1991) states that authoritative parents ‘‘monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. These parents are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative’’(p. 62). Authoritarian parenting, however, is characterized by high levels of demand but low levels of warmth and psychological autonomy. Baumrind (1991) suggests that authoritarian parents ‘‘are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation’’ (p. 62). Here, parenting is considered structured with clearly defined rules. Authoritative and authoritarian parents are considered equally high in behavioral control; however, authoritative parents tend to be low in psychological control, whereas authoritarian parents tend to be high. Simply stated, authoritative and authoritarian parents expect their children to behave appropriately and obey rules. Authoritarian parents, however, also expect their children to accept their judgments, values, and goals, while authoritative parents are more flexible, making greater use of discussion so that explanations can be offered.

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

487

Internet Mediation

M. S. Eastin et al.

Permissive or indulgent parenting is characterized by low levels of demand and relatively high levels of responsiveness. Indulgent parents are ‘‘nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation’’ (Baumrind, 1991, p. 62). Finally, parents found to be low in both responsiveness and demandingness are classified as uninvolved or neglectful (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Examining parenting style and family structure, research demonstrates that mothers (Henricson & Roker, 2000), single-parent homes (Nielsen, 1999), and families with strong religious conviction (Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999) differ in their parenting styles. For example, although mothers are generally more communicative on a broader range of issues (Henricson & Roker, 2000) and play a more supportive parenting role (Collins & Russell, 1991) than fathers, single mothers focus more on greater autonomy than their married counterparts (Nielsen, 1999). Greater religious conviction is positively related to authoritative parenting and negatively with authoritarian techniques (Gunnoe et al., 1999). So, although research tells us that family structure is important to teens, parenting style influences, albeit the benefits of authoritative, authoritarian, or permissive techniques, continue to be a main determinant of successful family functioning and teenager well-being (McFarlane, Bellissmo, & Norman, 1995). Authoritative parenting, as contrasted with authoritarian, indulgent, and uninvolved styles, has been associated with positive outcomes among adolescents, including higher levels of psychological and cognitive development, mental health, self-esteem (Steinberg, 1990), stronger academic performance (Chapell & Overton, 1998; Weiss & Schwarz, 1996), greater self-reliance (McClun & Merrell, 1998), and greater socialization (Baumrind, 1991). Furthermore, children with uninvolved parents consistently rate lower than all other parenting styles across social, psychological, and behavioral outcomes. Demandingness is less critical to girls’ than to boys’ well-being (Weiss & Schwarz, 1996), and according to Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown (1992) and Steinberg, Darling, and Fletcher (1995), authoritative parenting predicts psychosocial outcomes as well as problem behaviors for adolescents1 and better academic performance. Although parenting style has been linked to many developmental and social outcomes within the psychology literature, how they connect with parental mediation of media is unknown. Over the past 50 years, the parental mediation of traditional media such as TV has received much attention, and recently, a positive connection between mediation and behavioral outcomes such as aggression has emerged (Nathanson, 2001a). The current study will connect parenting style to mediation techniques within the context of online use. Although concern over children and their access to online content continues to grow, and research well supports the influence of parenting style and mediation techniques on behavior, empirical work examining the relationship between parenting style and mediation is lacking.

488

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

M. S. Eastin et al.

Internet Mediation

Mediation techniques Three mediation styles dominate the literature: factual, evaluative, and restrictive (Nathanson, 2001a). Factual mediation is typically defined within the literature of media literacy, whereas evaluative and restrictive styles have been assessed using the Family Communication Pattern scale (Chaffee & Tims, 1976). Factual mediation techniques use a fact-based approach to helping children understand how media content is produced and presented. Evaluative mediation assesses the level of ‘‘discussion between parents and children to interpret mediated content, explain its meaning, evaluate its motivations, make value judgments, and distinguish between fantasy and reality,’’ whereas restrictive mediation is defined as the ‘‘implementation and enforcement of parental rules regarding children’s [media use]’’ (Weaver & Barbour, 1992, p. 236). Thus, although factual mediation allows parents to talk with children about TV facts, such as informing them about the production of violent content, evaluative mediation includes parental comments such as ‘‘I don’t like the sex and/or violence in this show’’ or ‘‘I think these are really nice characters’’ (Nathanson, 2001a). Consequently, both factual and evaluative techniques involve discussion; however, factual statements focus on the production of content and not evaluations of the content itself. It is possible for parents to emphasize one strategy over another, use one of them exclusively, or provide an equal mix of both (Cantor & Wilson, 2003). Factual mediation Factual mediation equips children with the technical knowledge of content production common to many media literacy programs. For example, D. G. Singer and Singer (1998) explain that most media literacy programs are designed to increase children’s understanding of TV‘s technical elements as well as plot and character development. This allows children to focus on content and distinguish between fantasy and reality. As such, many literacy programs also contain lessons that focus on advertising, stereotypes, and violence. Generally speaking, research on a fact-based mediation of TV content has indicated that technical instruction of media production increases a child’s general understanding of content (D. Singer, Zuckerman, & Singer, 1980; J. Singer & Singer, 1983) and their critical viewing skills (Dorr, Graves, & Phelps, 1980). Although factual mediation has a positive influence on children’s understanding of content, it has not been demonstrated as an effective tool in combating stereotypes (Watkins, Sprafkin, Gadow, & Sadetsky, 1988) or aggressive content (Nathanson & Yang, 2003). For example, Doolittle (1980) compared groups of children who did and did not learn about TV techniques and found that youth who learned more about TV techniques were more aggressive after viewing violent content and that boys displayed greater levels of arousal postexposure. One explanation to findings such as these was articulated by Huesmann, Eron, Klein, Brice, and Fischer (1983) in response to media literacy programs. They suggested that by increasing content awareness, the awareness and processing of violent actions increase. Although factual Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

489

Internet Mediation

M. S. Eastin et al.

mediation has received some attention, recent research aimed at understanding parental mediation of new media has focused more on the evaluative and restrictive approaches, as does this study. Evaluative mediation Research on evaluative mediation of TV consists both of the general influence of family coviewing (i.e., parents and children watching TV together) and the impact of parental input on children’s interpretation of media content. Coviewing Mediation It is important to note that although many researchers examine coviewing as a social interaction variable, coviewing does not always imply a conversation or discussion between parent and child while viewing programming. It only indicates that a parent is present while their child is watching TV (Nathanson, 2001a; Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters, & Marseille, 1999). For the current study, coviewing does not assume conversation. Discussion between a parent and child regarding media content will be defined (below) as interpretive mediation. Although coviewing has been associated with positive attitudes toward TV and increased learning, recent research has actually pointed to some negative effects of coviewing. In a study of 2nd, 6th, and 10th graders and their parents, Dorr, Kovaric, and Doubleday (1989) found that coviewing occurred more because children and parents enjoyed the same programs, rather than because parents wished to mediate their children’s viewing experience. Beyond parental coviewing, Haefner and Wartella (1988) examined first and second graders who had coviewing older siblings. They found that coviewing with siblings did not facilitate the younger child’s understanding of TV stories. Moreover, Nathanson (1999) indicated that coviewing as a silent bystander acted as a silent endorsement of the content. Here, by not discussing content while coviewing, parents were viewed as supporting or suggesting that the content should not be taken seriously. Interpretive Mediation How children interpret acts seen or heard through media help form or justify realworld decisions and actions within social standards. As interpretive mediation, research has indicated that parent–child discussions can decrease unwanted TV effects (Nathanson, 2001a). For example, in a study of third-, sixth-, and ninth-grade students, parent–child discussion of the TV content helped children form real-world perceptions (Austin, Roberts, & Nass, 1990). When real-world and TV (fantasy) perceptions were different, children whose parents engaged them in greater discussion were more likely to reject the media interpretation of social reality. In addition, Austin (1993) found that active mediation (e.g., offering an interpretation) positively predicted adolescents’ skepticism about TV content and the amount of their public affairs media use. 490

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

M. S. Eastin et al.

Internet Mediation

A longitudinal study by Desmond, Singer, and Singer (1990) revealed that when families engaged in active discussion about TV as mediation, their children viewed less TV, used less power assertion, learned more general information, and exhibited less aggression. On the other hand, children who were heavy TV viewers and had no TV restrictions were not evaluative viewers of content and had a poorer understanding of plots and commercials. These children also were less able to distinguish fantasy from reality, more aggressive, and learned less general information. Restrictive mediation Broadly stated, restrictive mediation indicates the extent to which rules exist regarding the amount of time and type of program that can be viewed (Nathanson, 2001a). Past research assessing ‘‘old media’’ using restrictive mediation has identified family structure, parenting, and TV access as moderating factors to exposure (Weaver & Barbour, 1992). Assessing family structure, Webster (1983) and Sarlo, Jason, and Lonak (1988) found that the number of children in a family was positively related with the amount of time those children spent watching TV and negatively related with the amount of parental intervention. In studying two-parent families, Lull (1982) found that fathers had more perceived and actual control in the selection of TV programs, whereas mothers were the least influential family member, whereas Brown, Walsh-Childers, Bauman, and Koch (1990) found that when fewer viewing rules were being applied in a household, time spent with media increased. Another form of restrictive mediation is the electronic monitoring or censoring of media content. TV, CDs, and video games are all subjected to formal age and content rating systems (see Greenberg, Rampoldi-Hnilo, & Mastro, 2001, for details on each system). Coexisting with the TV ratings system is the v-chip. V-chip technology was developed to help parents cope with unwanted TV content entering the home. The Internet, on the other hand, has extended the idea of the v-chip to include software that allows parents to block certain types of Web sites and to track what Web sites are visited. Although use of the v-chip was and is sparse (Eastin, 2001), parents are increasingly turning to electronic monitoring software to better understand what their children are doing online (Lenhart, Rainie, & Lewis, 2001). To date, few studies have focused on parental mediation style and the Internet. In a national study of parents of children between the ages of 8 and 17 with Internet access in their home, Turrow and Nir (2000) found that more than 75% were concerned about privacy issues and access to sexually explicit images. Further, more than 65% of parents of teens between the ages of 13 and 17 set rules regarding the sites their children were permitted to visit online as well as the time of day they could visit. More stringently, 30% permitted their teens to go online only with parental supervision, and about one third used protective software that restricted access to specific sites. Access to online content can also vary by family. Seventy-nine percent of children between the ages of 10 and 17 have access to the Internet at home, 39% have access to more than one computer at home, and 24% access online content from their bedroom (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003). Bedroom access appears to be starting Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

491

Internet Mediation

M. S. Eastin et al.

at an early age. Rideout et al. (2003) indicated that 7% of children between the ages of 0 and 6 have a computer in the bedroom, and 3% have Internet access in their bedroom. Beyond increasing time online (Kaiser Family Foundation), there is very little understanding regarding how having bedroom access to the Internet influences use or mediation of use. The literature indicates that most scholarly efforts have focused on examining restrictive (the implementation of rules) and evaluative (discussing and interpreting content) mediation techniques. In addition, research on mediation has focused primarily on TV. The Internet brings new concerns and new technological solutions. Further, although parenting styles have been well documented as influencing general parenting rules and behavior, how they influence a situational variable such as the mediation of Internet use is unknown. Thus, the current research will test the following research questions. How do parenting styles and home Internet access influence: RQ1: Interpretive mediation of online content? RQ2: Coviewing mediation of online content? RQ3: Time restriction mediation of online content? RQ4: Content restriction mediation of online content? RQ5: The amount of technological mediation of online content? RQ6: The amount of time an adolescent spends online daily? And, RQ7: Does parental knowledge of technological mediation solutions increase technological monitoring of Internet use?

Methods Samples In an attempt to reach a diverse group of parenting styles, four samples of mothers were constructed from a large Midwestern U.S. state—single and married mothers of teenagers in public schools, mothers of teenagers in religious schools, and mothers of homeschooled teenagers.2 All interviews were administered by a professional survey company using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system. The survey averaged 25 minutes in length. Using random-digit dialing by a professional research firm, the first two groups consisted of statewide samples of unmarried (N = 310) and married (N = 303) mothers of at least one teenage child between the ages of 13 and 18 who attended public school. Two attempts were made to reach each phone number in the random sample before moving to a substitute number. Interviewing continued until a minimum of 300 interviews were completed both with married and with unmarried mothers of teenagers.3 492

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

M. S. Eastin et al.

Internet Mediation

The third sample included mothers of homeschooled teenagers. The homeschool sample was obtained through a list of state-registered homeschooling families in the researchers’ home state. From this list, 537 families were identified as having at least one child between the ages 13 and 18. These families received an introductory letter containing a description of the study, an agreement to participate, and an offer of $25 to be donated to their homeschooling organization or themselves. A positive response came from 22% or 116 mothers. Of these, 99 mothers or 85% completed the survey. Addressing the fourth sample, eight Christian schools provided access to families from their schools with at least one child between the ages 13 and 18. These families were sent an introductory letter that paralleled the one sent to homeschooling mothers. Of the 215 families contacted, 97 mothers or 45% completed the survey. Four attempts were made to reach each mother who agreed to participate. Of those mothers who completed the survey (i.e., all four samples), 60% were married and 40% were not married at the time of the survey. Four percent did not complete high school, 31% were high school graduates, 25% completed some college, 31% were college graduates, and 9% completed some postgraduate work. Eighty-seven percent were Caucasian, 9% African American, 1% Hispanic, and the remaining 3% indicated Asian, mixed race, or other. Sixty percent of the sample had average household incomes less than $60,000; the remaining 40% had incomes greater than $60,000. Twenty-six percent of the participants were between the ages of 25 and 40, 52% between 41 and 49; 17% older than 50, and, finally, 5% refused to answer. Thirty-nine percent referenced a teenage girl when responding to the question, whereas 61% referenced a teenage boy. The average age of the teenager referenced was 16 years (SD = 1.60). The goal of the current research was to examine how parents monitor Internet use in the home. Only the 64% (N = 520) who indicated home Internet access were included in final analyses. From this group, 71% were married. Three percent did not complete high school, 27% were high school graduates, 24% completed some college, and 47% were college graduates. Ninety-three percent were Caucasian, 6% African American, 1% Hispanic, and the remaining 3% indicated mixed race or other. Fifty-two percent of the sample had average household incomes less than $60,000; the remaining 48% had incomes greater than $60,000. Twenty-six percent of the participants were 25–40 years of age, 52% 41–49, 17% were older than 50, and 5% refused to answer. Thirty-five percent referenced a teenage girl when responding to the question, whereas 65% referenced a teenage boy. The average age of the teenager was 15 years (SD = 1.67). Design From this survey, two independent variables, six dependent variables, and two covariates were examined. As an independent variable, using the concepts of involvement and strictness, parenting style categorized mothers as authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, or neglectful (Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). Each parenting style represents the amount of involvement and strictness Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

493

Internet Mediation

M. S. Eastin et al.

used by a parent to deal with their teen. Also an independent variable, Internet access determined the level of access in the home. Specifically, two levels of access were assessed—home and bedroom. Access in the bedroom was considered increased access to online content for the teenager referenced. Although six dependent measures were examined, they can broadly be grouped into two categories: evaluative and restrictive mediation. Evaluative mediation consisted of both interpretive and coviewing techniques. Interpretive and coviewing both reason that the parent experiences the media with the child; however, only the interpretive technique suggests an evaluative discussion of content. Restrictive mediation consists of time, content, and technological restrictions. These constructs determine the extent to which a parent places set restrictions on when, how long, and what Internet content is experienced by the teen. Time online assessed the general amount of time spent on the Internet. All scale means and standard deviations for the parenting style scales are based on the sum of scale items.

Independent variables Parenting Styles The parenting style index created by Steinberg and colleagues (e.g., Steinberg et al., 1992, 1994) was used for the current research. To categorize parents as authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, or neglectful, the measures of involvement (i.e., responsiveness) and strictness (i.e., demandingness) were assessed (Steinberg et al., 1994). Involvement was measured with 10 items ranging from never (1) to very often (4) (M = 30.78, SD = 4.34, a = .75). Strictness was measured with 10 dichotomous items (M = 18.01, SD = 2.27, a = .82). From these subscales, four typological parenting styles were established (Steinberg et al., 1994).4 Parents scoring above the mean on the strictness and involvement scales were coded as authoritative (n = 185), those above the mean on the strictness scale and below the mean on the involvement scale were coded as authoritarian (n = 187), those below the mean on the strictness scale and above the mean on the involvement scale were coded as permissive (n = 34), and finally, those below the mean on both the strictness and involvement scales were coded as neglectful (n = 114). Because of the small number of mothers identified as permissive, the permissive category was removed from all analyses.

Internet Access Access to the Internet was assessed with two items. Parents were asked to indicate if their child had Internet access in the home (N = 520) and in the bedroom (n = 113). Access in the bedroom was considered increased access to online content for the child. Use of the Internet was assessed with a single item. Ranging from none (0) to five or more hours (5), this item asked parents to estimate how much time their child spent online yesterday (M = 1.34, SD = 1.39). Age and gender will be treated as covariates for each analysis. 494

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

M. S. Eastin et al.

Internet Mediation

Dependent variables All scale means and standard deviations for the mediation-style scales are based on the averaged sum of scale items. Parental mediation style was adapted from Valkenburg et al.’s (1999) parental mediation measures. Specifically, mediation style contained three subscales including interpretive, coviewing, and restrictive mediation. Interpretive Mediation Interpretive mediation measured the extent to which parents discuss/evaluate online content with their child. This measure consisted of five items ranging from never (1) to very often (4) (M = 2.69, SD = .83, a = .89).5 Coviewing Mediation Coviewing determined the extent to which a parent experiences online content with their child. Coviewing was measured with three items ranging from never (1) to very often (4) (M = 2.41, SD = .79, a = .75).6 Restrictive Mediation Restrictive mediation measured the extent to which time and content restrictions were placed on Internet use in the home. Time restrictions were measured with two dichotomous items (M = 1.66, SD = .41, a = .64),7 whereas content restrictions were measured with three dichotomous items (M = 1.87, SD = .29, a = .85).8 Technological Mediation Technological mediation was also assessed. Guided by Greenberg et al.’s (2001) research program regarding the TV ratings, two items asked respondents about their use of electronic tracking software to monitor their child‘s Internet use. Two items ranging from never (1) to very often (4) assessed technological mediation (M = 1.88, SD = 1.03, a = .81). These asked parents if they use software that allows them to view what Web sites their child has visited and if they have used software to decide what Web sites their child cannot visit. Parental knowledge of electronic tracking software was also assessed with three items. These items asked parents if software is available that (a) allows you to block certain Internet sites? (b) allows you to track what Internet sites your teen visits? and (c) allows you to delete a site from the Internet? (M = .73, SD = .65, a = .70). Data Analyses All data were analyzed using SPSS. RQs 1–6 were tested within a univariate general linear model. Within each of these models, age categories and gender were examined as covariates. To test group difference within each independent measure, a Bonferroni pairwise comparison among estimated marginal means was conducted. RQ7 was answered using correlation analysis. Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

495

Internet Mediation

M. S. Eastin et al.

Results

Two covariates (i.e., gender and age) were included in each analysis and the estimated marginal means will be presented in this section. The raw means and standard deviations for each model are given in Table 1. Further, the interaction terms for covariate by independent measures were run for all hypotheses. Only three interactions were significant, and thus, the following results represent full factorial models as specified. For RQ1, a significant effect on interpretive mediation was detected for child’s age,9 F(1, 472) = 4.91, p , .05, h2 = .01, and parenting style F(2, 472) = 35.08, p , .01, h2 = .13. According to pairwise comparisons, interpretive mediation is used most often for younger teens of authoritative parents (M = 3.14), followed by authoritarian (M = 2.51) and neglectful (M = 2.20). Access in the home (M = 2.65) did not differ for interpretive mediation from personal access in the bedroom, M = 2.58, F(1, 472) = .16, p . .05. RQ2 asked if parenting style and home access influenced level of coviewing. Results indicate a significant effect for age, F(1, 476) = 4.10, p , .05, h2 = .01, gender, F(1, 476) = 4.21, p , .05, h2 = .01, and parenting style, F(2, 476) = 19.22, p , .01, h2 = .08, but not for access, F(1, 476) = 1.83, p = .177. Again, younger male teens of authoritative (M = 2.71) parents were significantly more likely to have their parents coview online content than children of authoritarian (M = 2.23) or neglectful parents (M = 2.08). Again, access in the home (M = 2.40) did not differ for coviewing from personal access in the bedroom (M = 2.28). RQs 3 and 4 examined the relationships among parenting style, home access, and restrictive mediation techniques. For time restrictions, data indicate a significant effect for age, F(1, 473) = 13.13, p , .01, h2 = .03, gender, F(1, 473) = 4.94, p , .05, h2 = .01, and parenting style, F(2, 473) = 10.14, p , .01, h2 = .05. Internet access did not demonstrate an overall difference between home (M = 1.65) and personal access in the bedroom (M = 1.58), F(1, 473) = 2.01, p . .05, but mean comparisons demonstrate that authoritative (M = 1.71) and authoritarian (M = 1.68) parents both differed significantly from the neglectful parenting group (M = 1.47). Thus, younger

Table 1 Raw Means and Standard Deviations for Each Model Tested Authoritative Authoritarian Neglectful Home Access Bedroom Access M

SD

M

Instructive mediation Coviewing mediation Time restrictions Content restrictions Technological monitoring Time online

3.11 2.73 1.75 1.96 2.16

.77 .78 .37 .15 1.15

2.53 2.25 1.69 1.88 1.81

.77 .71 .38 .28 .95

1.30

1.43

496

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

1.37

.129

SD

M

M

SD

M

SD

2.71 2.44 1.69 1.89 1.91

.82 .77 .39 .27 1.02

2.58 2.25 1.75 1.80 1.77

.86 .82 .42 .33 1.04

1.44 1.48 1.16

1.30

2.17

1.44

2.25 2.12 1.46 1.71 1.54

SD .68 .72 .42 .39 .79

M. S. Eastin et al.

Internet Mediation

male children whose parents are considered neglectful had fewer time restrictions on Internet use. Content restrictions also demonstrated effects for age, F(1, 469) = 11.55, p , .01, h2 = .02, gender, F(1, 469) = 8.47, p , .01, h2 = .02, and parenting style, F(2, 469) = 20.83, p , .01, h2 = .08. Further, level of Internet access approached significance, F(1, 469) = 2.97, p = .08. Younger male children had greater content restrictions placed on their use. Comparisons indicate that authoritative parents (M = 1.96) reported significantly greater use of content restrictions than both the authoritarian (M = 1.86) and neglectful (M = 1.70) parents. The authoritarian parents also made significantly higher use than the neglectful parents. General home access (M = 1.87) did not differ from personal access in the bedroom (M = 1.81) for content restrictions. RQ5 related to levels of technological monitoring. Results indicate a significant effect for parenting style, F(2, 467) = 11.86, p , .01, h2 = .05. Although technological blocking did not differentiate between the authoritative (M = 2.16) and authoritarian (M = 1.85) parents, both did significantly more blocking than the neglectful (M = 1.44) parents. Further, data indicate that technological blocking did not differ between home (M = 1.87) and personal access in the bedroom (M = 1.77), F(1, 467) = .71, p . .05. Considering RQ6, findings indicate a significant increase in Internet use when access increased from general home access (M = 1.16) to individual bedroom access (M = 2.14), F(1, 468) = 39.40, p , .01, h2 = .08. Authoritative (M = 1.64), authoritarian (M = 1.69), and neglectful (M = 1.63) parenting styles did not impact time online, F(2, 468) = .07, p . .05. Finally, RQ7 examined the relationship between parental knowledge of electronic monitoring and use of electronic monitoring software. Data indicate a nonsignificant positive correlation (r = .08, p . .05). Discussion

According to the current data, parenting style has a significant effect on almost all mediation techniques investigated. Authoritative parents use evaluative and restrictive mediation techniques more than authoritarian and neglectful parents. New to the literature and consistent with the typology, technological blocking as a restrictive mediation technique was also found to be strongest among authoritative parents, followed by authoritarian and neglectful. Internet access has a clear significant influence only for time spent online. Regardless of parenting style, parents whose teenagers have access to the Internet in their bedroom spend more time online. In fact, time online almost doubles with access in the bedroom. Age and gender point to a clear distinction for mediation techniques too. Results suggest that parents place more time and content restrictions on younger male teens, although age and gender have no effects on time online. Interpretive and coviewing techniques also appear to be geared more toward younger teens. Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

497

Internet Mediation

M. S. Eastin et al.

In addition to understanding the influence that general parenting styles and access have on mediation techniques, the current research offers needed insight into what and how much mediation is being directed at the Internet. For example, regardless of parenting style and access, technological means are the least used mediation technique (45% indicated never using), followed by time restrictions (21%), content restrictions (7%), coviewing (5%), and interpretive (2%). How we mediate a teenager’s online experiences may influence how they subsequently react to online messages. The parental mediation dimensions examined in this paper were created originally for TV, and their relevance to the Internet is in part what has been examined. Surely the contexts for use are different between traditional media such as TV and the Internet. For example, although teens increasingly watch TV in their bedroom, TV use has long been considered a social or family-oriented experience. The single terminal, relatively small computer screen, and tailored information generally limit the Internet to a single-user experience (physically speaking). Further, although 30- and 60-minute programs allow parents to experience TV content with their teen, the pace with which information is accessed and changed during a surfing session makes the logistics of evaluative mediation more problematic. As such, how can a parent mediate online content, regardless of access location? Solutions to this problem potentially fall within the scope of restrictive mediation—time and content rules, and electronic tracking. Time and content become difficult to restrict or enforce as most kids are required to use the Internet for school-related activities. Electronic tracking, however, would allow parents to view and discuss online content. Similar to research on TV suggesting parents discuss programming after the fact (Nathanson, 2001a), electronic tracking would allow parents to monitor information accessed online and discuss content subsequently. Still, the details of online navigation will be hard to follow and understand. For example, although electronic tracking allows parents to examine what pages their teen accesses and for how long, pop-up advertising and other unsolicited information make interpreting the overall experience difficult. Moreover, as media convergence continues as an online trend, understanding how and with what effectiveness parents mediate Internet use is paramount. For instance, in many online gaming environments, users are simultaneously speaking privately with others through voice and text, viewing violent and sexual content, and are the target of marketing campaigns. This single example demonstrates the potential need for multiple parental mediation techniques. Evaluative discussion of content and factual discussions related to how information is transmitted online could both be useful. That said, having parents join an online game is not a practical suggestion until the current generation of game players move into parenthood. Here, a longitudinal study of game players, from prepuberty to adulthood, would be informative. Teens typically do not yet have completely private Internet access (except perhaps at school) and must share the family connection at home. What is done at home is more public and likely to be scrutinized, discussed, and/or blocked. How does home mediation compare with school mediation? Traditional media such as TV, 498

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

M. S. Eastin et al.

Internet Mediation

radio, and even early video games provide primarily entertainment functions. Is the Internet perceived or used primarily for information or entertainment? If we did not have these existing TV-based dimensions of parental mediation, how might Internet oversight be any different? Although most of these critical questions are better left for future research, recent studies do provide an opportunity for a more specific discussion. First, the Kaiser Family Foundation (2002) and others (NTIA, 2002; Pew Research Center, 2002) identify information seeking as one of the top online activities for teens. Therefore, a needed mediation goal of online content is to create better viewing skills, and thus, parents may need to develop factual mediation techniques in order to help their teenagers understand the characteristics of online information presentations. To date, the literature on Internet literacy is ill defined. However, learning to question or critically evaluate online content is a necessary skill to becoming Internet or ‘‘new media’’ literate (Eastin, Yang, & Nathanson, in press). Different from TV or traditional media literacy programs, the difficulty with interpreting online content stems from the ease by which it can be created, manipulated, and forced on the user. Without knowing the exact URL of a needed site, the amount of information offered through keyword searches can make finding a Web site difficult and increase the likelihood of encountering false information (Large, Beheshti, & Rahman, 2002). Some argue that the Internet environment is perceptually different and more demanding than traditional media such as TV (Eastin et al., in press; Livingstone, 2003). For instance, users need to understand and remember the relationships among web pages and to continually assess the relevance of information to their initial goals. As a result, individuals who have difficulty storing information in memory and inferring relationships among pieces of information may have difficulty evaluating web pages. Given that web pages can feature both content and advertisements simultaneously (and perceptually salient elements, such as animation and sound, may accompany either one), users may have trouble identifying relevant content and ignoring peripheral content. In this way, the media literacy challenges of TV may be magnified in a new media context. Second, beyond factual-based mediation (or media literacy), application or content driven research needs to be conducted. Young people spend much of their time on and offline with friends. Peer mediation, especially in gaming environments, will provide a rich area for future research. Looking at TV, Nathanson (2001b) found that peer mediation facilitates antisocial exposure and potential negative outcomes from media exposure. Negative outcomes from Internet-based explicit group gaming may follow the same pattern. Technological mediation online could help identify what peers are communicating while gaming and if differing communication patterns influence social outcomes differently. Study limitations The absence of permissive parents is a central concern of the current research. Permissive parents are less demanding or strict with their children. Given the Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

499

Internet Mediation

M. S. Eastin et al.

tendency for current social norms to influence responses, it is possible that permissive parenting is generally less acceptable, and thus, potential social desirability responses could have influenced responses among these mothers. In addition, although the current research used a mean split to create the high and low cut points for the strictness and involvement scales, researchers have argued that arbitrary data splits (e.g., M and Mdn) used to create nominal or dichotomous variables from continuous measures can result in a loss of power (Cohen, 1983) and an increase in Type I error (Maxwell & Delaney, 1993). Readers should interpret the current findings within the scale parameters and cut point used. Further, the current research only surveyed mothers, and perhaps, fathers play the demanding or disciplinary role in households where the mother defines her role as more responsive. The time online variable is also limiting. Here, mothers were asked to estimate how much time their teen spent online yesterday. Gathering weekday as well as weekend data would have been informative. Directly interviewing each teenager would have been desirable. It would have identified application use as well as mediation techniques for comparison purposes. Finally, to better understand the information exchanged, research should examine the dialogue between parent and child regarding online content exposure. This study’s findings are meant for researchers interested in the mediation of online content. Incorporating the parenting style typology and access variables, this study furthers our understanding of actual mediation techniques being used. It also offers new perspectives for studying young people’s use of traditional media and emerging new communication technologies. Acknowledgment

The project investigators are grateful to the Smith-Richardson Foundation for its financial support to this research. Notes 1 2

500

Steinberg et al. (1995) studied African, Asian, European, and Hispanic Americans. The literature suggests that family structure and religious conviction influence parenting style, and thus, four samples were solicited so that greater variance in the four parenting styles could be obtained and examined. Research demonstrates that mothers (Henricson & Roker, 2000), single-parent homes (Nielsen, 1999), and families with stronger religious conviction (Gunnoe et al., 1999) such as families who attend religious schools and homeschooled families (Donahue, 2003) differ in their parenting styles. For instance, single mothers focus on greater autonomy (Nielsen, 1999), whereas greater religious conviction is positively related to authoritative parenting and negatively with authoritarian techniques (Gunnoe et al.).

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

M. S. Eastin et al.

3

4

5

6 7 8

9

Internet Mediation

Although a limitation, in accordance with the professional research company used to collect data and the purposeful nature of the random sample, no records on the total number of contacts needed to reach the stipulated goals were kept. Some research would suggests that creating typologies from continuous variables is not appropriate or necessary (Cohen, 1983; Maxwell & Delaney, 1993), however, given the long history associated with parenting styles and the justification offered by Baumrind (1991), which suggests that the four parenting styles used are a typology and not a linear representation of parenting style and that therefore each category represents more than the sum of its parts. This makes the typology more representative than the continuous nature of the strictness and involvement scales from which they are developed. How often do you (a) discuss with your teen what he/she sees on the Internet, (b) talk with him/her about sexual content on the Internet, (c) talk with him/her about violent content on the Internet, (d) discuss with him/her why some Internet sites are not good and (e) talk to your teen about how not everything on the Internet is true. How often do you (a) choose Internet sites that both you and your teen would like to view? (b) use the Internet with your teen? and (c) watch when he/she is on the Internet? Are there rules about (a) . how long your teenager can be online? and (b) . the time of day your teenager can be online? Are there rules about (a) . what type of sites your teen can visit on the Internet? (b) . looking at Internet sites with sexual content? and (3) . looking at Internet sites with violent content? Only significant covariates will be mentioned in the Results. Details on other covariate findings can be found in the tables.

References Austin, E. W. (1993). Exploring the effects of active parental mediation of television content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 147–158. Austin, E. W., Roberts, D., & Nass, C. (1990). Influences of family communication on children’s television-interpretation process. Communication Research, 17, 545–564. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4(1), 1–103. Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239–276. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95. Brown, J. D., Walsh-Childers, K., Bauman, K. E., & Koch, G. G. (1990). The influence of new media and family structure on young adolescents’ television and radio use. Communication Research, 17, 65–82. Cantor, J., & Wilson, B. J. (2003). Media and violence: Intervention strategies for reducing aggression. Media Psychology, 5, 363–403. Chaffee, S. H., & Tims, A. R. (1976). Interpersonal factors in adolescent television use. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 98–115.

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

501

Internet Mediation

M. S. Eastin et al.

Chapell, M. S., & Overton, W. F. (1998). Development of logical reasoning in the context of parenting styles and test anxiety. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 141–156. Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249–253. Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11, 99–136. Desmond, R. J., Singer, J. L., & Singer, D. G. (1990). Family mediation: Parental communication patterns and the influence if television on children. In J. Bryant (Ed.), Television and the American family (pp. 293–310). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Donahue, T. (2003). Michigan’s role in monitoring home schools. Retrieved April 28, 2004, from Education Policy Center at Michigan State University Web site: http:// www.epc.msu.edu/publications/REPORT/report15.pdf Doolittle, J. C. (1980). Immunizing children against possible antisocial effects of viewing television violence: A curriculum intervention. Perceptions and Motor Skills, 51, 498. Dorr, A., Graves, S. B., & Phelps, E. (1980). Television literacy for young children. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 71–83. Dorr, A., Kovaric, P., & Doubleday, C. (1989). Parent-child coviewing of television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 33, 35–51. Eastin, M. S. (2001). The television ratings: When public and policy collide. In B. S. Greenberg, L. Rampoldi-Hnilo, & D. Mastro (Eds.), The alphabet soup of the television ratings (pp. 1–18). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Eastin, M. S., Yang, M., & Nathanson, A. I. (in press). Children of the net: An empirical exploration into the evaluation of Internet content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Gunnoe, M., Hetherington, E., & Reiss, D. (1999). Parental religiosity, parenting style, and adolescent social responsibility. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 199–225. Greenberg, B. S., Rampoldi-Hnilo, L., & Mastro, D. (Eds.). (2001). The alphabet soup of the television ratings. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Haefner, M. J., & Wartella, E. (1987). Effects of sibling coviewing on children’s interpretations of television programs’. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 31, 153–168. Henricson, C., & Roker, D. (2000). Support for the parents of adolescents: A review. Journal of Adolescents, 23, 763–783. Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Klein, R., Brice, P., & Fischer, P. (1983). Mitigating the imitation of aggressive behaviours by changing children’s attitudes about media violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 899–910. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2002). Key facts: Teens online. Retrieved March 24, 2002, from the Kaiser Family Foundation Web site: http://www.kff.org Kaiser Family Foundation. (2003). Growing up wired: Survey on youth and the Internet in the Silicon Valley. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from the Kaiser Family Foundation Web site: http://www.kff.org Large, A., Beheshti, J., & Rahman, T. (2002). Design criteria for children’s Web portals: The users speak out. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 79–94. Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage life online. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from the Pew Internet & American Life Web site: http://www.pewinternet.org

502

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

M. S. Eastin et al.

Internet Mediation

Livingstone, S. (2003). Children’s use of the Internet: Reflections on the emerging research agenda. New Media & Society, 5, 147–166. Lull, J. (1982). How families select television programs: A mass observational study. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 810–811. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E.M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley. Maxwell, S., & Delaney, D. (1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 181–190. McClun, L., & Merrell, K. (1998). Relationship of perceived parenting styles, locus of control orientation, and self-concept among junior high age students. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 381–390. McFarlane, A. H., Bellissmo, A., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Family structure, family functioning and adolescent well-being: The transcendent influence of parenting style. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 847–865. Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental mediation and children’s aggression. Communication Research, 26, 124–143. Nathanson, A. I. (2001a). Mediation of children’s television viewing: Working toward conceptual clarity and common understanding. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook 25 (pp. 115–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Nathanson, A. I. (2001b). Parents versus peers: Exploring the significance of peer mediation of antisocial television. Communication Research, 28, 251–274. Nathanson, A. I., & Yang, M. (2003). The effect of mediation content and form on children’s responses to violent television. Human Communication Research, 29(1), 111–134. Nielsen, L. (1999). College aged students with divorced parents: Facts and fiction. College Student Journal, 33, 543–573. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). (2002). A Nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Retrieved from the National Telecommunication and Information Administration Web site: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ Pew Research Center. (2002). Getting serious online. Retrieved January 1, 2004, from the Pew Internet & American Life Web site: http://www.pewinternet.org Rideout, V., Vanderwater, E., & Wartella, E. (2003). Zero to six: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers and preschoolers. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from the Kaiser Family Foundation Web site: http://www.kff.org Sarlo, G., Jason, L. A., & Lonak, C. (1988). Parent strategies for limiting children’s television watching. Psychological Reports, 63, 435–438. Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. (1998). Developing critical viewing skills and media literacy in children. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, 164–179. Singer, D. G., Zuckerman, D. M., & Singer, J. L. (1980). Helping elementary school children learn about TV. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 84–93. Singer, J. L., & Singer, D. G. (1983). Implications of childhood television viewing for cognition, imagination and emotion. In J. Bryant & D. R. Anderson (Eds.), Children’s understanding of television (pp. 265–295). New York: Academic Press.

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association

503

Internet Mediation

M. S. Eastin et al.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255–276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Steinberg, L., Darling, N., & Fletcher, A. C. (1995). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment: An ecological journey. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 423–466). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754–770. Turrow, J., & Nir, L. (2000). The Internet and the family 2000. Philadelphia: Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. (1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles if television mediation: ‘‘Instructive mediation,’’ ‘‘restrictive mediation,’’ ‘‘and social coviewing.’’ Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42, 52–66. Watkins, L., Sprafkin, J., Gadow, K., & Sadetsky, I. (1988). Effect of critical viewing skills curriculum on elementary school children’s knowledge and attitudes about television. Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 165–170. Weaver, B., & Barbour, N. (1992). Mediation of children’s televiewing. Families in Society, 73, 246–252. Webster, J. (1983). The impact of cable and pay cable television on local station audiences. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 119–125. Weiss, L. H., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). The relationship between parenting types and older adolescents’ personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. Child Development, 67, 2101–2114.

504

Journal of Communication 56 (2006) 486–504 ª 2006 International Communication Association