856644

research-article2019
JFIXXX10.1177/0192513X19856644Journal of Family IssuesVaterlaus et al.

Article
Journal of Family Issues
2019, Vol. 40(15) 2179­–2202
Parent–Child Time © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Together: The Role of sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X19856644
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19856644
Interactive Technology journals.sagepub.com/home/jfi

With Adolescent and

Young Adult Children

J. Mitchell Vaterlaus1 , Troy E. Beckert2,

and Sarah Schmitt-Wilson1

Abstract
Presently, there is a lack of consensus about whether interactive
technology enhances or restricts the quality and quantity of shared time
between parents and their children. The purposes of this exploratory
study were to identify parent and adolescent/young adult perceptions of
time spent together and to investigate ways in which the use of technology
is related to that time. Using a purposive sample, 766 youth (high school
and early college) and their parents (n = 735) responded to questions
about their interactive time spent together. Results indicated that parents
and their adolescent/young adult children distinguished between parent–
child quality and parent–child quantity time. Participant perceptions of
both quality and quantity parent–child time were explored in relation
to parent–child computer-mediated communication via text messaging,
telephone calls, social networking, video chat, and e-mail. The type of
interactive technology was related to participant perceptions of parent–
child quality time more than the quantity of time.

1Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA

2Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

Corresponding Author:
J. Mitchell Vaterlaus, Department of Health and Human Development, Montana State
University, P.O. Box 173540 Bozeman, MT 59717-3540, USA.
Email: j.vaterlaus@montana.edu
2180 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

Keywords
adolescence, parent–child time, technology, interactive technology, computer-
mediated communication, cell phones, social media

With the rapid evolution and adoption of interactive technology (e.g., cell
phones, social networking, e-mail, video chat), scholars have sought to
understand the degree to which technology affects family relationships
(Blackwell, Gardiner, & Schoenebeck, 2016; Kildare & Middlemiss, 2017;
Vogl-Bauer, 2003). Interactive technologies allow users to be content cre-
ators and they also facilitate computer-mediated communication (CMC;
Vaterlaus, 2019). In the developed world, the vast majority of people, from
childhood through adulthood, are proficient at accessing and using interac-
tive technologies (Lauricella et al., 2016; Lenhart, 2015; Perrin & Duggan,
2015; Pew Research Center, 2014), but young people in their second and
third decades of life are the most voracious consumers of technology and
they tend to use more of the functions afforded by these technologies when
compared with younger children and older adults (Duggan & Rainie, 2012;
Lenhart, 2015).
The role of technology in family dynamics and generational interactions is
harder to understand. Paradoxically, technology use in families has been
associated both with more frequent distractions in parent–child interactions
(Kildare & Middlemiss, 2017; Kushlev & Dunn, 2017; Ochs, Graesch,
Mittman, Bradbury, & Repetti, 2006), and with stronger connections in the
parent–child relationship (Padilla-Walker, Coyne, & Fraser, 2012). Vogl-
Bauer (2003) stated, “The challenge for families and researchers alike is to
identify when technological tools are accessible and supportive of family
maintenance and when technological tools become a detriment to effective
family functioning” (pp. 45-46). Similarly, Subrahmanyam and Greenfield
(2008) advocated, “As electronic media technologies have become important
means of communicating with others, it is important to consider them in the
context of the interpersonal relationships in adolescents’ lives” (p. 125).
It is clear that technology is only one of many variables with the poten-
tial to influence the complex nature of parent–child relationships, espe-
cially when the child matures to adolescence and young adulthood. The
transition to adolescence is marked by decreased time spent with families
(Larson & Richards, 1991), and more frequent negotiations with parents
about the parent–child relationship (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986). With
many social connections and commitments outside the home, it is essential
to begin to understand how parents and their older children spend time
together and stay connected. Open parent–child communication is an
Vaterlaus et al. 2181

important component of quality parent–child time (Fallon & Bowles, 1997).

Because interactive technology facilitates CMC without geographic and
time restrictions, it may enhance opportunities for open communication as
children get older (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004). Just as likely however,
these same communication technologies may be detrimental to parent–
child relations because of the increased autonomy and freedom that they
facilitate (e.g., selecting CMC with peers over family time or screening
parent calls; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008). The current exploratory
study was designed to investigate both the quantity and the quality of time
spent between parents and their older children (16-25 years), and the role of
various interactive technologies in facilitating perceived quantity and qual-
ity of time within the parent–child relationship.

Ecological Systems Framework

Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1994) proposed an ecological systems theory of
human development that provides a contextual view of development requir-
ing mutual accommodation. The accommodative process that occurs in the
immediate environment (microsystem) is further influenced by the context of
the larger concentric environments that constitute an ecological system
(namely, meso-, exo-, macro-, chrono-, and microsystems). The most proxi-
mal environment (microsystem) includes the day-to-day activities and most
enduring relationships (e.g., parents, siblings, peers, school). Bronfenbrenner
(1979) pointed out that a majority of developmental research has focused on
linear responses from the parent or the child, but he argued that development
would be understood best through inclusion of both children and their parents
in investigations. The focus of this study was on parent–child time in later
adolescence and young adulthood, and, following Bronfenbrenner’s proposi-
tion, we collected data from both the generations where possible.
During the developmental transitions from childhood to adolescence and
from adolescence to young adulthood, parents and their offspring actively
negotiate and renegotiate the level of autonomy and closeness that will
define the parent–child relationship (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986). Consistent
with Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994) perspective, the larger systems (i.e.,
exo, meso, macro, and chrono) are also influential in this process. For exam-
ple, contemporary adolescents are more likely to be raised in homes with
single- or dual-career parents, to spend more time outside of the home, and
to rely on their friends, more so than previous generations (Jones, Vaterlaus,
Jackson, & Morrill, 2014). Values within the macrosystem have also
shifted—young adults delay traditional adult commitments like marriage
and child rearing (Arnett, 2000), enroll in and remain in universities (U.S.
2182 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

Department of Education, 2011), and prolong their dependence on their par-

ents for financial and emotional support (Aquilino, 2006). These larger sys-
tem changes have also shifted the role of parenting during this developmental
period as college students and parents often do not view young adults as
being adults (Arnett, 2000; Nelson et al., 2007; Padilla-Walker, Nelson, &
Knapp, 2014). Contemporary parents now must attempt to balance granting
autonomy and using parental control within their relationships with young
adult children (Padilla-Walker et al., 2014). As parents and their older chil-
dren navigate these ecological transitions (e.g., more time with peers, gradu-
ating from high school, moving out to work or to attend college), it is unclear
how parents and their adolescent children accommodate or maintain quality
time or closeness in the parent–child relationship.
Technology is now considered an integral part of the microsystem
(McHale, Dotterer, & Kim, 2009). While we acknowledge that technology
and the user could conceivably form their own microsystem (e.g., adoles-
cents playing games on their cell phones, surfing the Internet), our emphasis
in this study is on the CMC capabilities of these technologies (e.g., voice
calls, text messages). Thus, in this study we focus on technology as a poten-
tial accommodative tool within the parent–child microsystem and its associa-
tive role with the quality and quantity of parent–child time.

Parent–Child Time: Quantity Versus Quality

Parent–Child Quantity Time
The parent–child microsystem includes the time parents and children spend
together (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Parent–child quantity time is crudely
measured as the total time that parents and their children spend with one
another during waking hours. However, “time together” may not provide a
clear picture of how it affects the relationship and how it meets the adoles-
cent’s developmental needs (Fallon & Bowles, 1997). For example, Larson
and Richards (1991) investigated the quantity of time that 9- to 15-year-
olds spend with their families (N = 483). Results indicated that children
spent less time with their families as they aged. This finding was confirmed
in a subsequent study that investigated quantity time differences among 10-
to 18-year-olds (Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996).
Ten-year-olds spent 35% and 17- to 18-year-olds spent 14% of their waking
hours with their families. Nevertheless and importantly, in both of these
studies, the amount of time children spent talking to their parents, and
engaging in the parent–child relationship, did not decrease (Larson et al.,
1996; Larson & Richards, 1991). Also, there may be gender differences in
Vaterlaus et al. 2183

terms of quantity time in the parent–child relationship during adolescence

and young adulthood. Dubas and Gerris (2002) investigated parent–adoles-
cent quantity time over a 5-year period with Dutch parents (mothers, n =
305, fathers, n = 255). Again, findings indicated that parents spent less
time with their children as they aged into later adolescence and young
adulthood, but also indicated fathers spent more time with sons when com-
pared with time spent with daughters and mothers spent more time with
their daughters than they did with their sons.

Parent–Child Quality Time

Unfortunately, the majority of studies that have investigated parent–adoles-
cent time have focused solely on the quantity of time spent together, ignoring
the perceived quality of the time spent together. In concept, quality time
encompasses more than just parents and their children spending time together,
it includes the affective component of time spent, where the adolescent and
parent feel like they are together (Fallon & Bowles, 1997). Within the limited
literature on the topic, quality time is most often conceptualized as time
where children have the opportunity to interact with someone with whom
they have an intimate and trusting relationship. Furthermore, quality time
focuses on positive communication—where the child can feel safe to ask
questions, discuss vulnerable topics, and emotionally disclose (Fallon &
Bowles, 1997). Fallon and Bowles conducted a study with Australian adoles-
cents (N = 299) to, in part, investigate total time and intimate time spent with
family. They concluded that quality time was a distinct subset of the total
time adolescents spent with their families. Fallon and Bowles’s (1997) sam-
ple included adolescents, but not parents or young adults. To further evaluate
the potential distinction between quality and quantity parent–child time the
current study includes both quality and quantity time with adolescents, young
adults, and parents in the United States.

Interactive Technology and Time in Parent–Child

Relationships
Interactive technologies are a pervasive part of life across the life span
(Lenhart, 2015; Perrin & Duggan, 2015; Pew Research Center, 2014) and
these technologies have become integrated within the microsystem (McHale
et al., 2009). Presently, there are mixed opinions about how technology may
influence family time (Vogl-Bauer, 2003). Some researchers insist that tech-
nology detracts from parent–child time (Kildare & Middlemiss, 2017; Ochs
et al., 2006; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008); and others conclude that
2184 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

families may actually spend more time together because technology reduces
the time it takes to accomplish tasks (Vogl-Bauer, 2003). Mesch (2009) deter-
mined from his research with adolescent peer relationships that preferred
communication mediums were related to how the relationship was formed—
face-to-face communication is preferred when ties were developed face-to-
face and online communication is preferred when relationships were formed
online. Based on these discrepancies, it seems logical to examine which
forms of interactive technology might increase quantity and quality parent–
child time, and which forms may actually be detrimental to the quantity and
quality of time that parents and their children spend together.
There is much to be learned about parent–adolescent and parent–young
adult CMC. It appears that there are some consistencies in the existing litera-
ture on technology and family connection in terms of phone communication
(see Christensen, 2009; Coyne, Padilla-Walker, Day, Harper, & Stockdale,
2013; Gentzler, Oberhauser, Westerman, & Nadorff, 2011; Padilla-Walker
et al., 2012; Ramsey, Gentzler, Morey, Oberhauser, & Westerman 2013) and
some inconsistencies in terms of connection over social networking (see
Coyne et al., 2013; Gentzler et al., 2011; Padilla-Walker et al., 2012; Ramsey
et al., 2013). For example, Sarigiani, Trumbell, and Camarena (2013) reported
that college students (N = 280) who used technology to stay in frequent con-
tact with their mothers also received higher scores on a measure of maternal
attachment. Likewise, young adults reported close relationships when talking
with their parents on the phone, but negative relational outcomes (i.e., more
conflict, anxious attachments, higher levels of loneliness) when they com-
municated with their parents through social networking (Gentzler et al.,
2011). Conversely, others reported that social networking was not related to
negative relational outcomes in parent–young adult relationships (Ramsey
et al., 2013). Sharaievska and Stodolska’s (2017) qualitative study on social
networking and family satisfaction reported that families perceived that
social networking could promote connection with family members, but also
decrease the amount of time spent with family. These mixed results suggest
that at least some of the interactive technologies available could potentially
facilitate parent–child quality time in the microsystem. As technology has
become an integral tool within the microsystem, it is important to investigate
the relationship of various interactive technologies in association with the
quantity and the quality of time spent in parent–child relationships.

Purpose of the Current Study

Interactive technologies have permeated the microsystem and may serve as an
adaptive communication tool to maintain parent–child time through ecological
Vaterlaus et al. 2185

transitions. The purposes of this exploratory study were twofold: (1) identify
parent and adolescent perceptions of time spent together and (2) explore the
relationship between parent–child perceptions of closeness in CMC and par-
ent–child time. The following research questions guided this investigation:

Research Question 1: Do parents and adolescents/young adult children

distinguish between perceived parent–child quantity time and parent–
child quality time?
Research Question 2: Are there differences in perceived parent–child
quantity time and parent–child quality time based on gender and age?
Research Question 3: Does perceived closeness in parent–child CMC
predict parent–child quality and quantity time for children, mothers, and
fathers?

Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 766 adolescents and young adults who were primar-
ily Caucasian (93.9%), female (83.6%), and who were reared in households
that included both biological parents (82.3%). Eighty of the students (M =
17.19 years, SD = 0.68) in the sample were high school students enrolled in
a concurrent enrollment course. The college portion of this sample (exclud-
ing participating high school students; M = 19.8 years, SD = 1.62) lived an
average of 248.32 (SD = 553.42) miles away from the high school from
which they graduated.
The parents of these students were also invited to participate. Participating
parents (N = 735) included 457 mothers and 278 fathers with average ages of
47.57 (SD = 5.56) and 49.56 (SD = 6.26) years, respectively. Nearly all of
these parents were married (mothers = 88.4%, fathers = 92.4%) and
Caucasian (mothers = 94.7%, fathers = 95.3%). Approximately, 39% of
mothers and 62% of fathers reported having earned a college degree or post-
graduate degree.

Procedures
Students (N = 1,538) enrolled in 13 university courses (including one con-
current enrollment high school course) at one university in an urban com-
munity in the Western United States were invited to participate in the
institutional review board approved study. Surveys were administered
online. One researcher visited each class, introduced the study to the
2186 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

students, and provided the password to access the survey that was hosted on
a secure website. Students were offered extra credit for completing the sur-
vey themselves and additional credit for each of their parents who com-
pleted the parent survey online. Students invited their parents to participate
by sharing a link to the parent survey. Student identification numbers were
collected to reward student and parent participation and then removed from
the database to protect participant confidentiality. The student and parent
surveys took approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Because there
were minors in the sample, parental consent was also obtained. A researcher
visited the concurrent enrollment class and explained the parental consent
process. A website with a parental consent form was given to students to
share with their parents. Parents granted consent by checking a signature
box and recording their child’s student identification number. There was a
66.4% response rate. To be included in the study, students needed to be
between the ages of 16 and 25 years (113 participants were excluded for
being outside of age range; M = 32.4 years), report being single (140 par-
ticipants who were married and/or in committed cohabiting relationships
were excluded from the analysis), and complete the majority of the online
survey (16 did not provide enough information to be included).

Measures
Parent–Adolescent Time. Fallon and Bowles (1997) operationalized parent–
child quality time as the amount of parent–child time spent within the past
week when the child felt like they were together. Being “together” was
described as feeling free to talk about things that are important to the child,
feeling safe to ask questions, and feeling comfortable when discussing things
that the child would not want any other person to know (Fallon & Bowles,
1997). Based on Fallon and Bowles’s work, two items were developed to
assess quantity time and quality time. The first item asked student participants
and their parents to reflect on the past week and to indicate the total time in
hours (0 = 0 hours, 1 = 1-2 hours, 2 = 3-4 hours, 3 = 5-6 hours, 4 = 7-8
hours, 5 = 9-10 hours, 6 = 11-12 hours, 7 = 13-19, and 8 = 20 or more
hours) they had spent interacting with each other (e.g., online, over the phone,
face-to-face). A second item was used to assess perceptions of parent–child
quality time. Parents and students were asked to report the amount of quality
time (using the same response options provided for quantity time) spent inter-
acting with each other where they felt close, connected, and together.

Quality of Interactions Via Different Communication Modalities. Twenty-four

items were used to measure the quality of parent–child CMC via multiple
Vaterlaus et al. 2187

technologies. Quality was assessed separately for face-to-face, text messag-

ing, talking on the phone, e-mail, social networking (e.g., Facebook, Insta-
gram, Twitter), and video chat (e.g., Skype, Facetime) interactions.
Participants were asked to rate the quality of parent–child interaction experi-
enced through each of these modalities on a Likert-type scale, 1 (not together,
close or connected) to 5 (very together, close, or connected). Participants
were instructed to select a “not applicable” response item for each modality
that was not used within the parent–child relationship, allowing for assess-
ment of which modalities were used or not used in the parent–child relation-
ships. Students responded to each of these six items twice, once for
interactions with their mothers and once for interactions with their fathers.
Mothers and fathers were asked to consider interactions with their child when
responding to the six questions.

Data Analysis
In answering Research Question 1, mother, father, and child (adolescents/
young adults) respondents rated the total amount of parent–child time spent
together (quantity time) within the past week, and the quality of their interac-
tions when they did spend time together (quality time). To determine poten-
tial differences in perceptions of quantity and quality parent–child time four
paired t tests were employed.
Research Question 2 explored possible age and gender differences in par-
ent–child quantity and quality time. Four separate multivariate analysis of
variances were conducted to identify gender and age group differences in
perceptions of parent–child quality and quantity time. The adolescent age
group included 16- to 18-year-olds who were enrolled in high school and the
young adult group included 18- to 25-year-olds who were enrolled in college.
The first analysis included child perceptions of quantity and quality time with
their mothers as dependent variables to be compared across gender and age
group (adolescent vs. young adult). The remaining three analyses were simi-
lar to the first, the only difference being the dependent variables in the analy-
ses which included adolescent and young adult participants’ (quantity/
quality) ratings of their fathers, mother ratings of time with their children,
and father ratings of time with their children. Homogeneity of variance/cova-
riance is an assumption of multivariate analysis of variance (Leech, Barrett,
& Morgan, 2014), which was violated in two of the tests (Tests 1 and 3).
Based on Leech et al.’s (2014) recommendation, we reported the Pillai’s trace
statistic for these tests and Wilks’s Λ for the other two.
To answer the third research question, we started with an exploratory
correlation analysis to identify the direction between perceived closeness in
2188 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

parent–child CMC and perceived parent–child quality time and quantity

time. Next, eight linear regression analyses were performed to explore
whether perceived quality of interactions via interactive technologies pre-
dicted perceived quantity and quality parent–child time (considering ado-
lescent/young adult, mother, and father perceptions). Adjusted R2s and
standardized betas were reported.

Results
Research Question 1
The first research question sought to understand whether parents and adoles-
cent/young adult children distinguished between parent–child quantity and
quality time. Consistent across groups (children, mothers, and fathers), all
reported higher levels of quantity time compared with quality time (see Table 1).

Research Question 2
This research question explored potential age and gender differences in par-
ent–child quantity and quality time. Results from these analyses are summa-
rized in Tables 2 and 3. When children’s (adolescent/young adults) reports of
quality and quantity time spent with mothers were compared across age
group and gender, the multivariate result was significant for age group,
Pillai’s Trace = .068, F(2, 759) = 27.74, p < .001, η2 = .068, but gender fell
short of statistical significance, F(2, 759) = 2.62, p = .073, η2 = .068. The
age group × gender interaction was not statistically significant. An examina-
tion of univariate results suggest significant differences between adolescents’
and young adults’ perceived quantity time, F(1, 760) = 47.45, p < .001, η2
= .059 (adolescent: M = 7.10, SD = 2.59, young adult: M = 4.73, SD =
2.64), and quality time, F(1, 760) = 15.79, p < .001, η2 = .020 (adolescent:
M = 5.29, SD = 3.03, young adult: M = 3.83, SD = 2.67) with mothers.
When examining children’s perceived quantity and quality time with fathers,
the multivariate result was significant for age group, Wilks’s Λ = .948, F(2,
754) = 20.49, p < .001, η2 = .052, with neither gender nor the age group ×
gender interactions reaching statistical significance. Univariate results indi-
cated significant differences between adolescents and young adults perceived
quantity time, F(1, 759) = 40.94, p < .001, η2 = .051 (adolescent: M = 5.84,
SD = 2.72, young adult: M = 3.49, SD = 2.72), and quality time, F(1, 759)
= 27.05, p < .001, η2 = .035 (adolescent: M = 4.52, SD = 2.88, young
adult: M = 2.63, SD = 2.45) with fathers. Younger adolescents perceived that
they spent more time with their parents, both in terms of quality and quantity
time, when compared with young adults.
Vaterlaus et al. 2189

Table 1.  Mean Comparisons of Quality Versus Quality Parent–Child Time.

Quantity Quality
time time

  n M SD M SD t d
Child reports of time with mothers 764 4.98 2.73 3.98 2.75 16.81* .364
Child reports of time with fathers 759 3.74 2.81 2.82 2.56 16.72* .339
Mother reports of time with child 451 4.44 2.81 3.52 2.64 14.04* .336
Father reports of time with child 275 4.23 2.55 3.08 2.25 10.95* .476

*p < .001.

Table 2.  Means, Standard Deviations, and Results From Multivariate Analysis
of Variances Comparing Child’s Perceptions of Quantity and Quality Time With
Mothers and Fathers Across Gender and Age Group.

Female Male Total

  M SD M SD M SD
Child perceptions of mother–child time (n = 764)a
Child perceptions of quantity time with mother
 Adolescent 7.15 2.62 6.94 2.56 7.10 2.59
  Young adult 4.86 2.69 4.03 2.25 4.73 2.64
 Total 5.09 2.77 4.44 2.51 4.98 2.73
Child perceptions of quality time with mother
 Adolescent 5.47 3.09 6.67 2.81 5.29 3.03
  Young adult 3.97 2.72 3.08 2.26 3.83 2.67
 Total 4.12 2.79 3.31 2.40 3.98 2.75
Child perceptions of father–child time (n = 759)b
Child perceptions of quantity time with father
 Adolescent 5.79 2.69 6.00 2.89 5.84 2.72
  Young adult 3.54 2.75 3.23 2.57 3.49 2.72
 Total 3.76 2.82 3.63 2.78 3.74 2.81
Child perceptions of quality time with father
 Adolescent 4.54 2.90 4.44 2.87 4.52 2.88
  Young adult 2.63 2.47 2.61 2.36 3.63 2.45
 Total 2.82 2.57 3.87 2.51 2.82 2.56
aMain effects: Gender: F(2, 759) = 2.62, p = .073, η2 = .007; Age Group: F(2, 759) = 27.74,
p < .001, η2 = .068; Gender × Age Group: F(2, 759) = 0.85, p = .429, η2 = .002. bMain
effects: Gender: F(2, 754) = 0.02, p = .985, η2 = .00; Age Group: F(2, 754) = 20.49,
p < .001, η2 = .052; Gender × Age Group: F(2, 754) = 0.95, p = .388, η2 = .003.
2190 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

Table 3.  Means, Standard Deviations, and Results From Multivariate Analysis of
Variance Comparing Mother and Father Perceptions of Quantity and Quality Time
With Child Across Gender and Age Group.

Female Male Total

  M SD M SD M SD
Mothers (n = 451)a
Mother perceptions of quantity time with child
 Adolescent 7.50 2.40 7.86 1.61 7.58 2.23
  Young adult 4.02 2.59 3.61 2.51 3.96 2.58
 Total 4.45 2.81 4.37 2.87 4.44 2.82
Mother perceptions of quality time with child
 Adolescent 6.13 2.94 5.07 2.26 5.88 2.81
  Young adult 3.21 2.45 2.89 2.30 3.16 2.42
 Total 3.57 2.69 3.28 2.43 3.52 2.64
Fathers (n = 275)b
Father perceptions of quantity time with child
 Adolescent 5.80 2.62 6.89 2.47 6.00 2.61
  Young adult 3.86 2.38 3.78 2.42 3.85 2.38
 Total 4.20 2.53 4.40 2.71 4.23 2.56
Father perceptions of quality time with child
 Adolescent 4.13 2.47 5.22 2.91 4.33 2.56
  Young adult 2.85 2.10 2.61 1.98 3.81 2.08
 Total 3.07 2.22 3.13 2.40 3.08 2.25
aMain effects: Gender: F(2, 446) = 4.85, p = .008, η2 = .021; Age Group: F(2, 446) = 46.56,
p < .001, η2 = .173; Gender × Age Group: F(2, 446) = 5.67, p = .004, η2 = .025. bMain
effects: Gender: F(2, 270) = 0.56, p = .57, η2 = .004; Age Group: F(2, 270) = 13.28,
p < .001, η2 = .090; Gender × Age Group: F(2, 270) = 1.13, p = .325, η2 = .008.

When exploring mothers’ reports of quality and quantity time with chil-
dren, multivariate analyses indicate significant differences by gender Pillai’s
Trace = .021, F(2, 446) = 4.85, p = .008, η2 = .021, and age Pillai’s Trace
= .173, F(2, 446) = 46.56, p < .001, η2 = .173. An exploration of univariate
results suggests significant differences between mothers’ quantity time, F(1,
447) = 83.05, p < .001, η2 = .157 (adolescent: M = 7.58, SD = 2.23, young
adult: M = 3.96, SD = 2.58) and quality time, F(1, 447) = 37.93, p < .001,
η2 = .078 (adolescent: M = 5.88, SD = 2.81, young adult: M = 3.16, SD =
2.42) by age. When analyzing fathers’ perceptions of quantity and quality
time with their children, there was once again a significant age group differ-
ence, Wilks’s Λ = .910, F(2, 270) = 13.28, p < .001, η2 = .090, with uni-
variate analyses indicating significant differences for quantity time, F(1, 271)
Vaterlaus et al. 2191

Table 4.  Perceived Quality of Parent–Child Computer-Mediated Communication

(CMC).

Child reports Child reports Mother Father reports

for CMC for CMC reports for for CMC with
with mother with father CMC with child
(n = 766) (n = 766) child (n = 458) (n = 278)
Percentage who reported actually using each interactive technology in the parent–child
relationship
Text messaging 91.5 79.5 86.9 78.1
Video chat 41.1 34.7 30.6 38.1
Telephone 98.2 92.2 97.2 93.5
Social networking 61.1 41.1 76.9 66.9
E-mail 70.5 55.6 62.0 60.0
Percentage who used the interactive technology and reported feeling “somewhat” and
“very” close when using each interactive technology in parent–child interactions
Text messaging 41.2 (701) 39.6 (609) 55.3 (398) 48.4 (217)
Video chat 58.1 (315) 51.9 (266) 62.1 (140) 62.3 (106)
Telephone 75.3 (752) 54.8 (706) 80.0 (445) 76.9 (260)
Social networking 29.5 (468) 23.8 (315) 42.3 (352) 21.9 (186)
E-mail 25.7 (540) 23.5 (426) 8.1 (284) 6.1 (164)

Note. Parenthetical numbers in the lower half of the table include the number of participants
who reported using the technology in the parent–child relationship. The parenthetical number
is the denominator used to determine the percentage of participants who reported feeling
“somewhat” or “very” close when using the different interactive technologies.

= 25.69, p < .001, η2 = .087 (adolescent: M = 6.00, SD = 2.61, young

adult: M = 3.85, SD = 2.38) and quality time, F(1, 271) = 18.90, p < .001,
η2 = .065 (adolescent: M = 4.33, SD = 2.56, young adult: M = 2.81, SD =
2.08) between adolescents and young adults. Both mothers and fathers of
adolescents perceived that they spent more quantity and quality parent–child
time when compared with parent–child time spent with young adults.

Research Question 3
The third research question focused on whether perceived closeness in par-
ent–child CMC predicted parent–child quantity and quality time for parents
and adolescent/young adult children. To assess the quality of CMC, partici-
pants responded to questions asking “How together, close, and connected”
they felt when interacting through text messaging, through video chat, talk-
ing on the phone, and through social networking with their parent or child.
Table 4 (top half) provides descriptive information that summarizes (1) the
2192 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

Table 5.  Correlations Between Reports of Closeness in Parent–Child Computer-

Mediated Communication (CMC) and Parent–Child Time (Quality and Quantity).
Child
perceptions Child Mother’s Father’s
of time with perceptions of perceptions of perceptions of
mothers time with fathers time with child time with child

Perceived closeness in Quantity Quality Quantity Quality Quantity Quality Quantity Quality
parent–child CMC time time time time time time time time

Text messaging 0.16** 0.27** 0.21** 0.29** −0.07 0.04 −0.09 0.01
Video chat −0.02 0.07* 0.03 0.10* −0.05 0.01 −0.06 0.04
Telephone 0.18** 0.31** 0.27** 0.37** −0.04 0.01 −0.05 0.06
Social networking sites 0.07* 0.17** 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.00 −0.14* −0.05
E-mail 0.01 0.13* 0.10* 0.17** 0.18** 0.14* 0.07 0.01

Note. *p < .05, **p < .001.

use of the various interactive technologies for each group and (2) summary
statistics (lower half) describing the percentage of respondents who reported
feeling “somewhat” and “very” close when using each of the communication
modalities. As shown in the top half of Table 4, the majority of adolescents/
young adults communicated with their mothers and fathers using a telephone
(98.2% and 92.2%) and through texting (91.5% and 79.5%), which was a
similar pattern for father and mother reports. As shown in the lower half of
Table 4, telephone calls and video chat were reported by the majority of the
participants who used the technologies in the parent–child relationship as
facilitating quality parent–child interactions. In contrast, e-mail, social net-
working, and texting produced perceptions of quality interactions for a
minority of students, their mothers, and their fathers who reported using these
technologies in the parent–child relationship.
Table 5 includes results from an exploratory correlation analysis between
the perceived quality of CMC and perceived quality and quantity time. There
were few positive correlations among parent perceptions of closeness in par-
ent–child CMC and perceptions of parent–child time. However, overall, there
were significant positive correlations among children’s perceived closeness
in parent–child CMC and quality and quantity time (with both mothers and
fathers). Building on these results, eight linear regression analyses were per-
formed to explore whether perceived quality of parent–child CMC predicted
perceived quantity and quality parent–child time (considering adolescent/
young adult, mother, and father perceptions). The models controlled for
whether the child lived at home and the perceived quality of parent–child
interaction face to face. All of the overall models were statistically significant
(see Table 6). Adjusted R2s are reported.
Vaterlaus et al. 2193

Table 6.  Regression Analyses: Parent and Child Perceptions of Quantity and
Quality Time and Reported Closeness in Parent–Child Computer-Mediated
Communication.
Child perceptions
Quantity time Quality time Quantity time Quality time
with mother with mother with father with father
  (n = 671) (n = 671) (n = 643) (n = 645)

  β SE β SE β SE β SE

Control variables
  Live at home 0.22** 0.27 0.13** 0.27 0.21** 0.28 0.16** 0.24
  Face-to-face interaction 0.18** 0.14 0.27** 0.14 0.33** 0.11 0.30** 0.10
Independent variables
  Text messaging 0.10* 0.09 0.11* 0.09 0.12* 0.08 0.14* 0.07
  Video chat −0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 −0.01 0.06 0.03 0.06
 Telephone 0.08 0.14 0.07 0.14 −0.01 0.12 0.08 0.10
  Social networking site 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.07 −0.09* 0.07 −0.10* 0.07
 E-mail −0.02 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.10* 0.06
Adjusted R2 .11** .18** .18** .23**
Parent perceptions

  Mother Father
Quantity time Quality time Quantity time Quality time
with child with child with child with child
  (n = 366) (n = 366) (n = 220) (n = 221)

  β SE β SE β SE β SE
Control variables
  Live at home 0.07 0.36 0.03 0.34 0.14* 0.43 0.02 0.37
  Face-to-face interaction 0.13* 0.16 0.17* 0.15 0.16* 0.20 0.24** 0.16
Independent variables
  Text messaging −0.03 0.10 0.03 0.10 0.17* 0.12 0.15 0.10
  Video chat −0.01 0.07 0.05 0.07 −0.09 0.09 0.01 0.07
 Telephone 0.04 0.16 0.02 0.15 −0.05 0.16 0.03 0.13
  Social networking site 0.03 0.08 −0.02 0.08 −0.07 0.10 −0.05 0.09
 E-mail 0.14* 0.14 0.12* 0.14 0.12 0.18 −0.02 0.16
Adjusted R2 .03* .03* .05* .06*

Note. *p < .05, **p < .001.

When exploring children’s perceptions, texting, β = 0.10, t(663) = 2.15,

p = .032, ηp2 = .01, was a significant predictor of quantity time with moth-
ers, R2 = .11, F(7, 663) = 13.20, p < .001. Similar to perceived quantity
2194 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

time, texting, β = 0.11, t(663) = 2.63, p = .009, ηp2 = .01, was also a signifi-
cant predictor of perceived quality time with mothers, R2 = .18, F(7, 663) =
21.38, p < .001. When examining children’s perceived interactions with
fathers, R2 = .18, F(7, 635) = 21.67, p < .001, texting, β = 0.12, t(635) =
2.60, p = .009, ηp2 = .01, and social networking, β = −0.09, t(635) = −2.01,
p = .045, ηp2 = .01, were each significant predictors of quantity time with
fathers. For perceived quality time with fathers, R2 = .23, F(7, 637) = 28.78,
p < .001, texting, β = 0.14, t(637) = 3.02, p = .003, ηp2 = .01, and social
networking, β = −0.10, t(637) = −2.39, p = .017, ηp2 = .01, were also sig-
nificant predictors.
We also explored whether the quality of CMC predicted quantity and qual-
ity time as indicated by parents. For mothers, e-mail, β = 0.03, t(358) =
2.70, p < .007, ηp2 = .02, was a significant predictor of mother–child quan-
tity time, R2 = .03, F(7, 358) = 2.41, p = .020. Similarly, e-mail, β = 0.12,
t(358) = 2.36, p = .019, ηp2 = .02, was significant predictor of mothers’
quality time with children, R2 = .03, F(7, 358) = 2.89, p = .006. For fathers’
perceptions of parent–child quantity time, R2 = .05, F(7, 212) = 2.53, p =
.016, was predicted by texting, β = 0.17, t(212) = 2.14, p = .034, ηp2 = .02.
In contrast, none of the interactive technologies predicted father–child qual-
ity time according to fathers, R2 = .06, F(7, 213) = 3.11, p = .004.

Discussion
This study was designed to explore knowledge about parent–child time in
adolescence and young adulthood. A second major purpose of this study was
to examine the perceived role that technology played in parent–child time. In
general, there were indications that parents and adolescents differentiate
quality from quantity time, and generational reports of parent–child quantity
and quality time indicate more parent–child time during adolescence than in
young adulthood. Also, participants reported using a variety of mediums for
parent–child CMC.

Parent–Child Time
The findings from this study indicated that adolescents and young adults dis-
tinguished, at varying levels, between parent–child quantity of time and par-
ent–child quality of time. This supports Fallon and Bowles’s (1997)
conclusion that adolescents viewed quality time as a distinct subset of the
total time they spent with their families. Building on Fallon and Bowles
work, these results further indicate that, in addition to child respondents,
Vaterlaus et al. 2195

parents also distinguished differences between parent–child quantity and

parent–child quality time.
To understand quantity and quality interactive time further, we investi-
gated potential differences in time spent together relative to child gender and
age. Dubas and Gerris (2002), in their longitudinal study of parent–adoles-
cent time, found that fathers spent more time with their sons and mothers
spent more time with their daughters. Gender differences in the current study
did not fully support the Dubas and Gerris finding. Only mothers’ perceptions
of parent–child time indicated statistically significant differences, with moth-
ers spending more quantity time with sons in adolescence and more quantity
time with daughters in young adulthood. Furthermore, mothers were more
likely to perceive quality time with their daughters than their sons in both
adolescence and young adulthood. It may be possible that interactive technol-
ogy serves to bridge certain intergenerational gender gaps for those parents–
adolescent relationships that use it most by facilitating both quantity and
quality time with children, for both fathers and mothers.
Our findings did indicate that parents of adolescents spend significantly
more quantity and quality time with their child than did parents with young
adult children. This should not be surprising related to the influence of the
ecological transitions (e.g., going to college, getting a job, moving out;
Bronfenbrenner, 1979) as children transition away from home. However, pre-
vious research with adolescents has indicated that even though total time with
parents decreases as adolescents age, time spent talking with the parent does
not decrease—implying a decrease in quantity time, but possibly mainte-
nance of quality time (Larson et al., 1996; Larson & Richards, 1991). Young
adults and parents reported that they engaged in parent–child quantity and
quality time, but significantly less than adolescents and their parents. Future
research should consider how quality and quantity parent–adolescent time
influence the overall functioning (e.g., relationship quality, attachment)
within the parent–child relationship and individual (e.g., psychosocial devel-
opment, well-being) outcomes during adolescence and young adulthood.

Interactive Technology and Parent–Child Time

In this study, parent–child quality time was conceptualized as time spent
between parents and children when they felt like they were close, connected,
and together (Fallon & Bowles, 1997). Adolescence and young adulthood are
developmental periods involving multiple ecological transitions that require
adaption for both parents and children (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Based on pre-
vious research on technology and closeness (see Coyne et al., 2013; Gentzler
et al., 2011; Padilla-Walker et al., 2012; Ramsey et al., 2013), we proposed
2196 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

that interactive technology could potentially be an adaptive tool within the

parent–child microsystem to facilitate parent–child time. Descriptive results
(see Table 4) indicated that most parents, adolescents, and young adults
engaged in parent–child CMC through phone calls and texting. When partici-
pants (parents and children who actually used the medium in parent–child
communication) were asked about how close they felt to each other when
they had CMC through different interactive technologies, synchronous
modalities (i.e., video chat and phone calls) and text messaging were rated
with higher closeness than other more asynchronous modalities (i.e., social
networking and e-mail). Below, we describe how perceptions of closeness via
different CMC modalities related to both the quantity and quality of parent–
child time.

Parent–Child Quantity Time. Adolescent and young adult reports of interac-

tions via text messaging predicted the quantity of parent–child time for both
mothers and fathers. Adolescents and young adults are the most frequent
users of text messaging and it is their medium of choice because of the asyn-
chronous and private affordances of text messaging (Tulane, Vaterlaus, &
Beckert, 2017). Parents are also supportive of text messaging because it can
facilitate parent–child contact when face-to-face parent–child communica-
tion is more difficult due to geographical restrictions (Lenhart, Ling, Camp-
bell, & Purcell, 2010; Vaterlaus & Tulane, 2015). It may be that its convenience
and the younger generations’ preference for text messaging explains why
parent–child closeness via text messaging was predictive of perceptions of
higher parent–child quantity time. Rudi, Dworkin, Walker, and Doty (2015)
investigated the type of technology parents used to communicate with their
child based on age. Results indicated that as children aged into adolescence
parents used more text messaging and e-mail to communicate with their
child. In the current study, mother’s reports of closeness felt when communi-
cating with their children via e-mail predicted more mother–child quantity
time.
It is important to note that all parties involved in this study reported that
they engaged in parent–child CMC. This provides additional empirical sup-
port for McHale et al.’s (2009) theoretical proposition that interactive tech-
nology has become a part of the parent–adolescent microsystem thus implying
that technology has become a part of the molar activities within the microsys-
tem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). While generational dissimilarities were evident
within the reports of the quality of the parent–child CMC and the quantity of
time spent together, these may be explained by an overarching generational
difference surrounding technology. Parents use technology primarily for
instrumental purposes, while adolescents use technology primarily for social
Vaterlaus et al. 2197

purposes (Vaterlaus & Tulane, 2015). It could be that parents, consistent with
previous reports (Ochs et al., 2006; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008), see
technology as distracting from time spent together and adolescents (at least
more than parents) view technologies as a potential tool for facilitating par-
ent–child time. Future research might consider the advantages to educating
parents on the benefits, value, and process of using technology to facilitate
relationships as children grow older.

Parent–Child Quality Time.  Reports of the quality of interactions, based on type

of communication modalities, was not overtly related to perceptions of qual-
ity parent–child time more than the quantity of time spent between parents
and children. However, adolescent and young adults’ reports of quality par-
ent–child CMC experienced through text messaging (mother and father) and
e-mail (father only) were significantly predictive of adolescent and young
adult feelings of togetherness, closeness, or connection (i.e., quality time) in
their time spent with their mothers and fathers. This was not true for parent
respondents. Mothers’ reports of parent–child CMC through video chat,
social networking sites, and telephone were not associated with parent–child
quality time; fathers’ reports of parent–child CMC via the various communi-
cation modalities included in this study were not associated with parent–child
quality time.
Previous research has identified that social networking is not the most
effective medium for creating and maintaining closeness in parent–child
relationships (Gentzler et al., 2011; Padilla-Walker et al., 2012). Social net-
working sites were designed to promote social interaction, but high social
media use has been associated with lower levels of social support (Shensa,
Sidani, Lin, Bowman, & Primack, 2016). In this study, adolescents/young
adults’ perceptions of closeness when communicating with their father
through social networking sites was predictive of lower levels of quantity
and quality father–child time. It could be that youth or fathers feel “updated”
on each other’s lives through short communications or interactions via
social networking sites, which could lead to less prioritization of father–
child interaction through other mediums. More research is needed to sup-
port this proposition.

Limitations and Conclusions

Although sample homogeneity limits the generalizability of these results, the
methods were appropriate for an exploratory study. The sample was primar-
ily female, youth were largely from two-parent families, high school students
were in a concurrent enrollment course, young adults were enrolled in
2198 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

college, and the majority of college students were living away from home.
Gender, family structure, living arrangement, and educational status (e.g.,
young adults who do not attend college; high school students not enrolled in
college classes) may have an impact of parent–child time. Further research
should include more diverse samples to help support application beyond the
population represented in this sample. Caution should also be used in inter-
preting the results of this study as responses were retrospective accounts
using single response items regarding the amount of parent–child time spent
during the past week and to identify the perceived quality of the interactions
via different communication modalities.
Future research on this topic could consider using a variation of Ram
et al.’s (2014) burst design methodology—to tap into the intraindividual
affect associated with closeness and compare more directly generational sim-
ilarities or discrepancies. Also, the current exploratory study did not account
for participants’ total time spent using each type of technology. In future
research, the burst design methodology could allow for inclusion of both par-
ent and child total time spent with each technology modality to assess the role
time spent with technology potentially has on parent–child time (quantity and
quality). Using a mixed-method design may also allow for deeper under-
standing regarding why some interactions were not deemed quality (e.g.,
both were distracted by technology during the interaction).
Given the exploratory nature of this study, many of the statistically signifi-
cant results are not accompanied by large effect sizes. Caution in overrepre-
senting the findings is in order. Results from previous work with adolescents
(Fallon & Bowles, 1997) and this exploratory study indicate that parents,
adolescents, and young adults distinguished between parent–child quantity
and quality time. Strom and Strom (2005) concluded that successful families,
regardless of family structure exhibit common strengths, and “one of these
strengths is spending sufficient amount of time together” (p. 526). In addition
to advocating for more parent–child time during adolescence and young
adulthood, it may be worth investigating how to promote the quality of par-
ent–child time.
Results from this study support the notion that technology has become a tool
in the microsystem for facilitating interactions between parents and their ado-
lescent and young adult children. Vogl-Bauer (2003) argued that the challenge
for researchers and families was to identify which technological tools facili-
tated healthy family functioning and which led to family dysfunction. In this
study, we identified that the quality of parent–child CMC through certain tech-
nological tools were perceived to be more associated with parent–child quan-
tity and quality time than others, but that each generation perceived different
experiences with technology-mediated communication. Davis (2013) stated,
Vaterlaus et al. 2199

“Digital natives may appear on the surface quite different from their pre-digital
forebears, but they still require supportive, face-to-face relationships in order to
thrive” (p. 2289). In this study, parent, adolescent, and young adult reports
related to quality of interaction through face-to-face communication were
significantly and positively associated with parent–child quality time. Both
generations could benefit from continuing to foster face-to-face communi-
cation as children age. However, when face-to-face interactions become
more difficult, as the child’s microsystem expands with age, families could
consider the benefits of purposefully using a technological tool to facilitate
parent–child closeness.

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 publi-
cation of this article.

ORCID iD
J. Mitchell Vaterlaus https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7139-1457

References
Aquilino, W. S. (2006). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adult-
hood. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America (pp. 193-
218). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.55.5.469
Blackwell, L., Gardiner, E., & Schoenebeck, S. (2016). Managing expectations:
Technology tensions among parents and teens. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM
Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing
(pp. 1390-1401). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2818048.2819928
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen &
T. N. Pstelthwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp.
1643-1647). New York, NY: Elsevier Sciences.
Christensen, T. H. (2009). “Connected presence” in distributed family life. New
Media & Society, 11, 433-451. doi:10.1177/1461444808101620
2200 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Day, R. D., Harper, J., & Stockdale, L. (2013).
A friend request from dear old dad: Associations between parent–child social
networking and adolescent outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 17, 8-13. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0623.
Davis, K. (2013). Young people’s digital lives: The impact of interpersonal rela-
tionships and digital media use on adolescents’ sense of identity. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29, 2281-2293. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.022
Dubas, J. S., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2002). Longitudinal changes in the time parents spend
in activities with their adolescent children as a function of child age, pubertal sta-
tus, and gender. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 415-427. doi:10.1037//0893-
3200.16.4.415
Duggan, M., & Rainie, L. (2012). Cell phone activities 2012 (Pew Internet
and American Life Project). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/
Reports/2012/Cell-Activities/Additional-Demographic-Analysis/Demographics.
aspx
Fallon, B. J., & Bowles, T. V. (1997). The effect of family structure and family func-
tioning on adolescents’ perceptions of intimate time spent with parents, siblings,
and peers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 25-43.
Gentzler, A. L., Oberhauser, A. M., Westerman, D., & Nadorff, D. K. (2011). College
students’ use of electronic communication with parents: Links to loneliness,
attachment, and relationship quality. Cyberpsychology. Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14, 71-74. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0409
Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1986). Individuation in family relationships.
Human Development, 29, 82-100. doi:10.1159/000273025
Jones, R. M., Vaterlaus, J. M., Jackson, M. A., & Morrill, T. B. (2014). Friendship
characteristics, psychosocial development, and adolescent identity formation.
Personal Relationships, 21, 51-67. doi:10.1111/pere.12017
Kildare, C. A., & Middlemiss, W. (2017). Impact of parents mobile device use on
parent-child interaction: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 75,
579-593.
Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2017). Smartphones distract parents from cultivating
feelings of connection when spending time with their children. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 36, 1619-1639.
Larson, R., & Richards, M. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early
adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development, 62, 284-
300. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01531.x
Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Duckett, E. (1996).
Changes in adolescents’ daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18:
Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32, 744-754.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.744
Lauricella, A. R., Cingel, D. P., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., Robb, M. B., Saphir, M., &
Wartella, E. A. (2016). The Common Sense census: Plugged-in parents of tweens
and teens. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.
Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2014). IBM SPSS for intermediate
statistics: Use and interpretation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vaterlaus et al. 2201

Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media, and technology. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones
(Pew Internet and American Life Project). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.
org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP-Teens-and-Mobile-2010- with-topline.pdf
McHale, S. M., Dotterer, A., & Kim, J. (2009). An ecological perspective on the
media and youth development. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1186-1203.
doi:10.1177/0002764209331541
Mesch, G. S. (2009). Social context and communication channels choice among
adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 244-251. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2008.09.007
Nelson, L. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Carroll, J. S., Madsen, S. D., Barry, C. M.,
& Badger, S. (2007). “If you want me to treat you like an adult, start acting
like one!” Comparing the criteria that emerging adults and their parents have
for adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 665-674. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.21.4.665
Ochs, E., Graesch, A. P., Mittman, A., Bradbury, T., & Repetti, R. (2006). Video eth-
nography and ethnoarchaeological tracking. In M. Pitt-Castouphes, E. E. Kossek,
& S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook: Multi-disciplinary perspec-
tives and approaches (pp. 387-409). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Oksman, V., & Turtiainen, J. (2004). Mobile communication as a social stage:
Meanings of mobile communication in everyday life among teenagers in Finland.
New Media & Society, 6, 319-339. doi:10.1177/1461444804042518
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2012). Getting a high-speed
family connection: Associations between family media use and family connec-
tion. Family Relations, 61, 426-440. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00710.x
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nelson, L. J., & Knapp, D. J. (2014). “Because I’m still the parent,
that’s why!” Parental legitimate authority during emerging adulthood. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 293-313. doi:10.1177/0265407513494949
Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2015). American’s Internet access: 2000-2015.
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-
access-2000-2015/
Pew Research Center. (2014). Cell phone and smartphone demographics. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/mobile/cell-phone-and-smartphone-
ownership-demographics/
Ram, N., Conroy, D. E., Pincus, A. L., Lorek, A., Rebar, A., Roche, M. J., . . . Gerstorf,
D. (2014). Examining the interplay of processes across multiple time-scales:
Illustration with the Intraindividual Study of Affect, Health, and Interpersonal
Behavior (iSAHIB). Research in Human Development, 11, 142-160. doi:10.108
0/15427609.2014.906739
Ramsey, M. A., Gentzler, A. L., Morey, J. N., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman,
D. (2013). College students’ use of communication technology with parents:
Comparisons between two cohorts in 2009 and 2011. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 16, 747-752. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0534
2202 Journal of Family Issues 40(15)

Rudi, J., Dworkin, J., Walker, S., & Doty, J. (2015). Parents’ use of information and
communications technologies for family communication: differences by age of
children. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 78-93. doi:10.1080/13691
18X.2014.934390
Sarigiani, P. A., Trumbell, J. M., & Camarena, P. M. (2013). Electronic communica-
tions technologies and the transition to college: Links to parent-child attachment
and adjustment. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition,
25, 35-60.
Sharaievska, I., & Stodolska, M. (2017). Family satisfaction and social networking
leisure. Leisure Studies, 36, 231-243. doi:10.1080/02614367.2016.1141974
Shensa, A., Sidani, J. E., Lin, L. Y., Bowman, N. D., & Primack, B. A. (2016). Social
media use and perceived emotional support among US young adults. Journal of
Community Health, 41, 541-549. doi:10.1007/s10900-015-0128-8
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2005). Parent-child relationships in early adulthood:
College students living at home. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 29, 517-529. doi:10.1080/10668920590953980
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online communication and adolescent
relationships. Future of Children, 18, 119-146.
Tulane, S., Vaterlaus, J. M., & Beckert, T. E. (2017). An A in their social lives, but
an F in school: Adolescent perceptions of texting in school. Youth & Society, 49,
711-732.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). The condition of education 2011 (NCES 2011-
033). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011033.pdf
Vaterlaus, J. M. (2019). Parental mediation of adolescent technology use. In M.
Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Media and
Communications (pp. 488-498). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Vaterlaus, J. M., & Tulane, S. (2015). Digital generation gaps in parent-adolescent
relationships. In C. J. Bruess (Ed.), Family Communication in the Digital Age
(pp. 426-446). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Vogl-Bauer, S. (2003). Maintaining family relationships. In D. J. Canary & M.
Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication (pp. 31-50).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.