Children's Internet Use in a Family Context Influence on Family Relationships and Parental Mediation

8/17/2019 Children's Internet Use in a Family Context Influence on Family Relationships and Parental Mediation

1/5

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIORVolume 10, Number 5, 2007© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.9975

Children’s Internet Use in a Family Context: Influence

on Family Relationships and Parental Mediation

SOOK-JUNG LEE, M.A. and YOUNG-GIL CHAE, M.A.

ABSTRACT

We conducted a survey of 222 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade Korean children to examine (a)whether children’s Internet use influences declines in family time and family communica-tion and (b) how parental mediation techniques are related to children’s online activities. Ac-cording to the findings, total time using the Internet was related to perceived declines in fam-ily time but not related to family communication. The influence of the Internet on familytime and family communication differed by the type of children’s online activities. The anal-ysis of the relationship between parental mediation techniques and children’s online activi-ties indicated that parents’ recommendation of useful Web sites and co-using were positivelyrelated to frequency of children’s educational online activities. However, parental restrictionson time and Web sites did not alter children’s actual Internet usage.

640

INTRODUCTION

HOME IS THE PRIMARY PLACE where children use

the Internet. By 2004, 74% of American youngpeople ages 8 to 18 had access to an Internet con-nection at home.1 In Korea, approximately 95% of young people ages 6 to 19 use the Internet, and 92%of them use it at home.2 Korean young people con-sider the Internet more necessary than television.For them, the Internet is a medium with multiplefunctions, such as entertainment, education, andcommunication.3 The universal presence of a com-puter and the Internet in the Korean home envi-ronment raises two important questions: (1) how In-ternet use influences family relationships and (2)how the family context, particularly parental medi-

ation, shapes children’s Internet use.

How does children’s Internet use influence family relationships?

While there is a growing body of literature on theimpact of the Internet on family relationships, only

a small number of studies address children’s Inter-net use and its impact on their family relationships.Moreover, the prior studies present two contradic-tory arguments.4–12 Some studies argue that Inter-net use threatens family relationships because on-line time displaces time with family and onlinerelationships weaken strong ties such as family re-lationship.5,8,9 Others contend that Internet use isnot harmful for family relationships. Online timedoes not displace time with family and time spentin family communication.6,11,12 Rather, it may im-prove family relationships, serving as another mo-dality of interaction among family members.4,10

This study aims to clarify the inconsistenciesfound in previous work. From these studies, we

clarify both the difference between family time andfamily communication and different effects by spe-cific Internet use in developing research questions.First, family communication is one aspect of, notidentical to, family time. While family time includes

both active time and passive time, including timedoing nothing with family, family communication

Department of Radio-Television-Film, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.


2/5

consists of active family time in which family members voluntarily engage each other. Thus, the cur-rent study examines the influences of Internet useon family time and family communication sepa-rately. Second, while most previous studies do notdisaggregate the type of Internet use in examiningits influences, the current study assumes that the in-

fluence of the Internet on family relationships de-pends specifically on what children do online.

How does parental mediation influence children’sInternet use?

Although research on parental mediation of chil-dren’s media use has yielded mixed results, manystudies suggest that parental mediation has the po-tential to be beneficial to young viewers. For in-stance, parental regulation of viewing time reducesthe consumption of media.13,14 While co-viewing in-creases the amount of time children spend viewingtelevision,13 it facilitates children’s understandingand learning from educational programs.15 Parents’active mediation through talking about media mes-sages reduces undesirable effects of media content,such as the formation of gender stereotypes16 andattitudes toward alcohol use.17

However, the research on parental mediation al-most exclusively focuses on television viewing. Lit-tle is known about the effects of parental mediationof computer and Internet use, while a small numberof studies mention how often or whether parents reg-ulate, supervise, or control their children’s computerand Internet use.1,18,19 The effects of parental media-

tion may differ by medium, as seen in Rideout et al.’sfindings.1 They found that family rules restrictingtelevision viewing made a statistically significant dif-ference in children’s exposure to television, but fam-ily rules for computer use did not have a significantrelationship to the amount of time using a computer.In addition, while Rideout et al. found no relation-ship between family rules and time using a com-puter, other mediation techniques such as using theInternet together and recommending Web sites mayinfluence children’s Internet use. Thus, the currentstudy examines how parental mediation is related tochildren’s online activities, with consideration of the

different outcomes that could occur by the type of parental mediation techniques.

METHODS

Participants and procedure

Participants consisted of 222 fourth-, fifth-, andsixth-grade children (ages 10 to 12) enrolled in an

elementary school in an urban area in Korea. An in-class survey was conducted using six classes, twoclasses from each grade. Before conducting the sur-vey, teachers were asked to review the question-naire in order to confirm the children could un-derstand the wording of the questions. Surveyresponses included 68 fourth graders, 81 fifth

graders, and 72 sixth graders; one person did notindicate his or her grade level. Among the 222 par-ticipants (46.4% girls and 53.6% boys), 215 (96.8%)had a computer at home, and 206 (92.8%) had a com-puter with an Internet connection at home.

Questionnaire and measurement scales

Internet use. Respondents were asked to reportthe number of minutes they spent using the Inter-net yesterday. Then, they were asked to report howfrequently they use the Internet for specific onlineactivities, including games, music, entertainment in-formation, café/community, chatting/messaging,e-mail, homework, and educational information(1 never; 4 often).

Family relationships. Participants were asked toreport how much they agree that the amount of timefamily members spend together has been reduced

because of Internet use. They also rated their agree-ment with the statement that the amount of timespent communicating with family members has

been reduced because of Internet use (1 neveragree; 4 strongly agree).

Parental mediation of Internet use. Parental media-tion of Internet use includes time limits, Web siterestriction, Web site recommendation, and co-using.Time limits were measured by asking how often theirfather or mother limits the amount of time they usethe Internet. Web site restriction was measured byasking how often their father or mother restrictsWeb sites they can use. Web site recommendation wasmeasured by asking how often their father ormother recommends good Web sites for them. Co-using was measured by asking how often their fa-ther or mother participates in online activities withthem while they are online (1 never; 4 often).

RESULTS

Children’s online activities

The average time per day children spent onlinewas 84.9 minutes (SD 80.6). Boys spent more timeonline than girls (boys: M 95.1, SD 82.2; girls:

M 74.5, SD 77.6), but the difference was not sta-

CHILDREN’S INTERNET USE IN FAMILY CONTEXT 641


3/5

tistically significant. The most frequent online ac-tivities were games and homework. Gender dif-ferences were found in the choice of online activ-ities. Boys were more likely than girls to playonline games (boys: M 3.48, SD 0.79; girls:

M 2.72, SD 0.74; t[201] 6.45; p 0.01). Girlswere more likely than boys to be involved in an

online café/community (girls: M

3.03, SD

0.95; boys: M 2.47, SD 1.11; t[197] 3.78; p 0.01) and to use e-mail (girls: M 3.08, SD 0.91; boys: M 2.13, SD 1.01; t[197] 6.91;

p 0.01).A principal components factor analysis (with

varimax rotation) identified three factors (Table 1).Online activities including café/community, e-mail, chatting, and music were loaded on the firstfactor, called Communication ( M 2.5, SD 0.73, 0.64). Unexpectedly, music was loadedinto the communication factor, perhaps becauseone of places where children download and listen

to music is on the café/community Web site. In-ternet use for homework and educational infor-mation was related to the second factor, called Ed-ucation ( M 2.7, SD 0.78, 0.63). Games andentertainment information were loaded on thethird factor, called Entertainment ( M 2.7, SD 0.74, 0.29). However, the value of Cronbach’s (0.29) indicates the reliability of the entertain-ment factor was very low, although the value wasstatistically significant. Thus, instead of regardinggames and entertainment information as one fac-tor, Internet use for games was considered onetype of online activity, and Internet use for enter-

tainment information was dropped from theanalyses. The three factors of online activities uti-lized in the current study were communication,education, and games.

Children’s Internet use and family relationships

Multiple regressions were conducted to identifythe relationships between children’s Internet useand their perceived influence on family time andfamily communication separately (Table 2). Theamount of time children used the Internet was pos-itively related to perceived declines in family time.

The frequency of using online games was a moresignificant factor than the total amount of time spentonline in users’ perceived declines in family time.Online activities for education and communicationwere not related to perceived declines in familytime. The amount of time using the Internet was notrelated to a perceived decline in family communi-cation. However, playing online games was mostsignificantly related to users’ perceived decline infamily communication. The relationship betweenInternet use for communication and perceived de-cline in family communication was marginally sig-nificant. Educational online activities were not re-lated to declines in family communication.

Parental mediation and online activities

Multiple regressions were performed to examinehow four types of parental mediation techniques arerelated to each type of children’s Internet use, thatis, online games, educational online activities, andonline communication (Table 3). Web site recom-mendation and co-using were positively related toeducational online activities. That is, the more par-ents recommended Web sites good for their childrenand the more they used the Internet together, the

more frequently the children used the Internet foreducational purposes. Co-using was also related toInternet use for communication. The more parentsused the Internet together, the more frequently the

LEE AND CHAE642

TABLE 1. ROTATED FACTOR SOLUTIONS FOR ONLINE ACTIVITIES

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Café/community 0.73 0.12 0.04E-mail 0.73 0.17 0.13

Chatting 0.70 0.05 0.02Music 0.48 0.29 0.13News 0.38 0.36 0.19Educational information 0.02 0.86 0.07Homework 0.07 0.80 0.05Game 0.23 0.01 0.86Entertainment information 0.50 0.08 0.62

Eigenvalue 2.24 1.64 1.19% of Variance 24.87 18.26 13.22


4/5

children were involved in online communication.However, restrictive mediation, such as time limitsand Web site restriction, was not related to any typeof children’s Internet use.

DISCUSSION

The findings have several implications. First, theinfluence of the Internet on family time should beconsidered separately from its influence on familycommunication. Internet use may reduce total timespent with family by displacing passive time rather

than by displacing active time such as family com-munication. Second, the impact of Internet use de-pends specifically on what children do online. Play-

ing online games decreases both total time withfamily and time communicating with family mem-

bers. However, for children who frequently use theInternet for homework and searching for educa-tional information, the Internet is not a medium thatthreatens family relationships. Online communi-cation–based activities, such as café/community,chatting, and e-mail, were related to declines onlyin family communication, even though it was mar-ginally significant. That is, family communication isdisplaced not by the total time spent on the Inter-net but by functionally equivalent online activities.Children’s online communication may serve as an-

other means for communication with friends ratherthan with family members.3,7,20 Communicationwith friends online may lead to declines in com-

CHILDREN’S INTERNET USE IN FAMILY CONTEXT 643

TABLE 2. STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS PREDICTING THE IMPACT OF INTERNETUSE ON REDUCTION IN FAMILY TIME AND FAMILY COMMUNICATION

Reduction in Reduction in family time family communication

Gender (boys 0, girls 1) 0.02 0.02Grade level 0.00 0.16*Number of family members 0.01 0.03Mother’s work status 0.06 0.11Minutes of Internet use 0.18* 0.10Internet use for communication 0.02 0.14#

Internet use for education 0.09 0.02Internet use for games 0.21* 0.17*

Adjusted R2 0.08** 0.07**

# p 0.10; * p 0.05; ** p 0.01.

TABLE 3. STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS PREDICTING THE INFLUENCEOF PARENTAL MEDIATION OF CHILDREN’S ONLINE ACTIVITIES

Games Education Communication

Gender (boys 0, girls 1) 0.40** 0.08 0.36**

Grade level

0.09

0.12 0.19**Number of family members 0.06 0.07 0.03Mother’s work status 0.05 0.00 0.00Time limits 0.03 0.01 0.01Web site restriction 0.01 0.01 0.04Web site recommendation 0.09 0.22** 0.07Co-using 0.10 0.25** 0.27**

Adjusted R2 0.17** 0.13** 0.17**

* p 0.05; ** p 0.01.


5/5

munication with family. Third, parental mediationof the Internet has positive outcomes when parentsare actively involved in their children’s Internet usethrough processes such as recommending Web sitesand co-using. Simply prohibiting or restrictingseems ineffective for guiding children’s Internetuse.

This study has several limitations to be consid-ered. It is difficult to generalize the findings becausedata were collected from one elementary school inone urban area. In addition, because of the natureof cross-sectional data, the current study cannotidentify a causal relationship between parental me-diation and the type of children’s Internet use. De-spite these limitations, this exploratory study sug-gests that the impact of the Internet on familyrelationships differs by the type of online activities.In addition, parental active involvement could leadtheir children to utilize the Internet in beneficialways.

REFERENCES

1. Rideout V, Roberts D, Foehr U. (2005) Generation M:media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA:Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

2. National Internet Development Agency of Korea.(2004) A survey on the computer and Internet usage.Seoul: NIDA.

3. Park S. (2004) Study on children and the Internet. Pa-per presented at the seminar on children and Inter-net. Seoul.

4. Howard PEN, Rainie L, Jones S. Days and nights onthe Internet. American Behavioral Scientist 2001;45:383–404.

5. Kraut R, Patterson M, Lundmark V, Kiesler S,Mukopadhyay T, Scherlis W. Internet paradox. Amer-ican Psychologist 1998; 53:1017–31.

6. Kraut R, Kiesler S, Boneva B, Cummings J, HelgesonV, Crawford A. Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues 2002; 58:49–74.

7. Lenhart A, Rainie L, Lewis O. (2001) Teenage life on-line: the rise of the instant-message generation and the In-ternet’s impact on friendships and family relationships.Washington D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Proj-ect.

8. Nie NH, Hillygus DJ, Erbring L. (2002) Internet use,interpersonal relations, and sociability: a time diarystudy. In: Wellman B, Haythornthwaite C, eds. TheInternet in everyday life. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, pp.215–43.

9. Mesch GS. The family and the Internet: the Israelicase. Social Science Quarterly 2003; 84:1038–50.

10. Wellman B, Haase AQ, Witte J, Hampton K. Does theInternet increase, decrease, or supplement social cap-ital? American Behavioral Scientist 2001; 45:436–55.

11. Lee W, Kuo ECY. Internet and displacement effect:children’s media use and activities in Singapore. Jour-nal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2002; 7.

12. Shklovski I, Kraut R, Rainie L. The Internet and so-cial relationships: contrasting cross-sectional and lon-gitudinal analyses. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication 2004; 10.

13. Vandewater EA, Park SE, Huang X, Wartella EA. “No,you can’t watch that”: parental rules and young chil-dren’s media use. American Behavioral Scientist 2005;48:608–23.

14. Van den Bulck J, Van den Bergh B. The influence of perceived parental guidance patterns of children’smedia use: gender differences and media displace-ment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media2000; 44:329–48.

15. Huston A, Wright JC. (1994) Educating children with

television: the forms of the medium. In: Zillmann D,Bryant J, Huston AC, eds. Media, children, and the fam-ily: social scientific, psychodynamic, and clinical perspec-tives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 73–84.

16. Nathanson AI, Wilson BJ, McGee J, Sebastina M.Counteracting the effects of female stereotypes ontelevision via active mediation. Journal of Communi-cation 2002; 52:922–37.

17. Fujioka Y, Austin EW. The implications of vantagepoint in parental mediation of television and child’sattitudes toward drinking alcohol. Journal of Broad-casting & Electronic Media 2003; 47:418–34.

18. Rasquier D. (2001) Media at home: domestic interac-tions and regulation. In: Livingstone S, Bovill M. eds.

Children and their changing media environment: a Euro- pean comparative study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum, pp. 161–77.

19. Woodard EH, Gridina N. (2000) Media in the home2000: the fifth annual survey of parents and children. Phil-adelphia: Annenberg Public Policy Center.20. GrossE. Adolescent Internet use: what we expect, whatteens report. Journal of Developmental Psychology2004; 25:633–49.

Address reprint requests to:Sook-Jung Lee

Department of Radio-Television-FilmUniversity of Texas–Austin3377 Lake Austin Blvd. # E

Austin, TX 78703

E-mail: [email protected]

LEE AND CHAE644

Documents

Children's Internet Use in a Family Context Influence on Family Relationships and Parental Mediation