The Relationship of Digital Communication Methods and Parent Satisfaction with

Parent-Child Relationship

by

Neli Morris, B. S.

A Thesis

In

Marriage and Family Therapy

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCES

Douglas B. Smith, Ph.D.—Chair

Kristy Soloski, Ph.D.

Jaclyn D. Cravens, Ph.D.

Carol Bruess, Ph.D., University of St. Thomas

Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School

December, 2015

Copyright 2015, Neli Morris

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... v

I. Introduction ...... 1

Technology in Communication ...... 1

Parent-child relationships...... 2

Purpose Statement ...... 4

Justification ...... 4

II. Literature Review ...... 6

Technology and Communication ...... 6

Technology use among children and teens ...... 6

Technology use among young adults and adults ...... 8

Technology and Parent-Child Communication ...... 10

Communication Technology in Romantic Relationships ...... 12

Parent-Child Communication ...... 15

Parenting styles ...... 17

Parent-Child Relationship Quality ...... 18

Gender differences ...... 19

Parent Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship ...... 21

Parent attachment ...... 21

Theoretical Perspective ...... 22

Conclusion ...... 23

Research Questions and Hypotheses ...... 24

III. Methods ...... 26

ii Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Overview and Design ...... 26

Participants ...... 26

Procedure ...... 27

Measures ...... 27

Demographic questions ...... 27

Technology questions ...... 28

Communication questions ...... 28

Revised Inventory of Parent Attachment (I-RPA) ...... 29

Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale (KPSS) ...... 29

Analyses ...... 30

Preliminary analyses ...... 30

Analyses of variance and correlations ...... 30

Linear regression modeling...... 30

IV. Article ...... 31

Abstract ...... 31

Introduction ...... 32

Aim of the Study ...... 33

Theoretical Perspective ...... 33

Research Questions and Hypotheses ...... 34

Methods...... 35

Procedures ...... 35

Participants ...... 35

Measures ...... 36

iii Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Demographics ...... 36

Technology questions ...... 36

Communication questions ...... 37

Revised Inventory of Parent Attachment (R-IPA) ...... 37

Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale (KPSS) ...... 38

Results ...... 38

Demographics ...... 38

Preliminary Results and Checks for Normalcy ...... 39

Analyses for Hypotheses...... 40

Linear Regression Modeling ...... 41

Discussion ...... 42

Findings Overview ...... 42

Limitations ...... 45

Future Directions ...... 46

References ...... 52

Appendix A: Tech Announce - General ...... 61

Appendix B: Facebook Script ...... 62

Appendix C: Tech Announce - Fathers ...... 63

Appendix D: Consent Page ...... 64

Appendix E: Survey ...... 66

Appendix F: Drawing Entry...... 76

Appendix G: IRB Approval Letter ...... 77

iv Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

List of Tables

1 Independent group t-test between missing data set and complete data set ...... 47 2 Chi-square comparisons between missing data set and complete data set ...... 48 3 Summary statistics of daily communication by hour(s) ...... 49 4 Analyses of variance on digital closeness with satisfaction and attachment ...... 50 5 Coefficients for linear regression model on digital communication...... 51

v Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

I. Introduction

Technology in Communication

The accessibility of cell phones and Internet-capable devices has increased dramatically over the past few years. As a result, 90% of adults live in a household with mobile phone access (Forgays, Hyman, & Schreiber, 2014), while 78% of teens have their own cell phones (Madden, Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013) and 72% of children age eight and under have access to a smartphone or a tablet (Rideout, Sapihr,

Rudd, & Pritchett, 2013). Teens’ use of technology has had a tremendous impact on the way they communicate with their friends, the frequency of such communication, and even the reported satisfaction in those interactions. Nearly 90% of teens report use of some form of social media, 87% of teens text, 63% have used instant messanging (IM), and 59% have used a video chat (Rideout, Sapiht, Rudd, Pai, & Bozdech, 2012). Given the widespread availability of Internet-enabled mobile devices, teens’ communication can take place virtually anywhere. While most teens still prefer face-to-face (FtF) communication, many of them report texting as their favorite method despite agreeing it can take time away from FtF contact (Rideout et al., 2012). Teens also report that the use of social media and social network sites (SNS) not only enhances their friendships, but also has positive contributions for their family relationships (Rideout et al., 2012).

Despite the general perception that adolescents and young adults might view their parents’ presence on SNS as intrusive, a study with young adults found that the use of

SNS in parent-child dyads may actually enhance the relationship (Kanter, Afifi, &

Robbins, 2012). In terms of the use of these methods of communication between parents and children under eighteen, little research has examined such dynamics. One study

1

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 found that both parents and children felt cell phones allowed them to negotiate changes in curfew and plans as well as made it easier to bring up difficult issues that would later be discussed in person (Devitt & Roker, 2009).

Research looking at the effects of technology in communication on couple relationships may provide additional insight to understand how it may impact parent- child interactions. Researchers exploring the impact of communication technology on couple relationships have found that, in general, technology has a more positive than negative effect on couple relationship, although such effects frequently depend on individual charactersistics, including attachment styles (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014;

Holtgraves & Paul, 2013; Lenhart & Duggan, 2014; Luo, 2014; Morey, Gentzler, Creasy,

Oberhauser, & Westerman, 2013). Findings indicate personal characteristics, such as attachment styles, could impact not only the way that communication technology is used by parents and children, but also the impact that it has on their relationship.

Parent-child relationships. There is a large body of research exploring various aspects of parent-child relationships and interactions. For the most part, the research looks at child outcomes rather than parent outcomes. One such common area of research is parent-child communication. Researchers have been able to link effective communication with a number of positive outcomes in the development of a child.

Typically, good communication leads to better academic performance (Chi, 2013; Fan &

Chen, 2001; Lam & Ducreux, 2013), less anti-social, aggressive, and externalizing behaviors (Criss, Shaw, & Ingoldsby, 2003; Olson, Bates, Sandy, & Lanthier, 2000;

Renken, Egeland, Marvinney, Mangelsdorf, & Sroufe, 1989; Shaw, Keenan, & Vondra,

2

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

1994), less engagement in high risk sexual behaviors (Huebner & Howell, 2003), and a reduction in risk of contracting STIs (Sutton, Lasswell, Lanier, & Miller, 2014).

On the other hand, little to no research has examined how parent-child communication affects the parents’ perceptions of their relationship with their child.

Since the way that parents communicate with their children is heavily affected by their parenting style, some research provides insight into how different parenting styles impact the parents. A study by Coplan, Hastings, Lagace-Seguin, and Moulton (2002) found that authoritative mothers differ from authoritarian mothers in their affective responses to various vignettes. Specifically, they found that authoritarian mothers reacted with less anger and embarrassment and were also less likely to place the blame on the child. This could potentially indicate that more open communication has less negative emotions and experiences for the parents, which could have more positive outcomes for parent-child relationship satisfaction as well as the emotional well-being of the parent.

Other areas of the parent-child relationship explored by researchers include relationship quality, satisfaction, and attachment. Again, the vast majority of studies look at those variables from the perspective of the child or the effects that they have on child development and well-being. A search through databases on parent satisfaction with parent-child relationship typically reveals studies about the children’s perspective or includes the measures of satisfaction as supplemental and report little to nothing in the results. Better parent-child relationship quality is associated with more positive outcomes for children. Finally, attachment is seen as an important topic when examining parent- child relationships. More researchers have also branched out from looking strictly at child attachment and begun exploring adult attachment. One particular study found that

3

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 mothers who had a more negative view of their parental abilities and their parent-child relationship had children who exhibited less secure attachment and were labeled by their mothers in more negative terms (George & Solomon, 1996). The findings suggest the way that parents view their children and their relationship could have an impact on how the relationship is developed and maintained. In turn, this would have a strong impact on how the children perceive family communication and relationships, which may have a significant impact on future outcomes.

Purpose Statement

Given the lack of research on the intersection of technology and interpersonal relationships, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the use of different digital and FtF communication and parental satisfaction with the parent-child relationship. Specifically, this study explored the different methods of communication employed by parents in their interactions with their children, their frequency, and the proportion that each method comprises in the overall parent-child communication. Then, parental satisfaction with the parent-child relationship and parental attachment were explored as measures of relationship quality in connection to communication methods.

This study was created to shed light on the possible effects of technological changes in communication mechanisms on parent-child communication and relationship.

Justification

Research has examined the effects that parent-child communication in general has on the well-being of children and parents, as well as on various areas of development and outcomes for children. To date, no study has examined how different methods of communication may affect parent-child relationship satisfaction. Mediated

4

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 communication can have an effect on the type of relationship and interaction between parents and children. For example, some adolescents find it easier to open a discussion with their parent on a difficult topic, such as teen pregnancy, via text messaging (Devitt &

Roker, 2009). Exploring how these new communication methods are integrated into the parent-child relationship could shine some light onto possible changes in communication that have been taking place within families.

In addition, understanding the influence that communication methods have on parental satisfaction could open up future avenues for research. Currently, a lot of the research on digital communication focuses on peer-to-peer communication among different groups. Very little research looks at electronic communication within a family context. Following this study, researchers could revisit some of the established ideas about parent-child communication and how those areas are impacted by digital methods of communication.

Finally, this study could provide important information for those working in clinical settings. It has become more commonplace to hear couples who come in for therapy discuss their use of text messaging and social media and the positive and negative impacts that those have on their communication and relationship. It is not yet clear how often clients and therapists discuss family members’ communication outside of face-to- face interactions. This study could provide insights into how frequently family members communicate via digital means, the kind of information they share, and the possible effects these methods, or lack thereof, could have on parental satisfaction and family relationships in general.

5

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

II. Literature Review

Technology and Communication

Technology use among children and teens. Over the last few decades, technology has become an integral part of people’s lives. From cell phones to tablets to kitchen appliances with access to social media apps, people can be just a click away from connecting to their friends and family. Children and teens are also becoming more frequently exposed to various technologies with most schools providing not only computers to aid in student learning but also distributing digital tablets. Some have voiced concern that increases in technology ownership results in less face-to-face time between family members, although some say technology may be a way of bringing a family together in their activities. A recent study of parents with kids eight years old and younger found that most parents say media does not have either a negative or positive effect on their time spent together, but a quarter say that they spent less time together due to media use while 12% report spending more time together (Rideout et al., 2013).

Recently, research reveals significant shifts occurring in the ownership of and access to mobile devices among kids and teens compared to only a couple years prior.

Parents are purchasing cell phones and smartphones for children at younger ages. In

2012, 78% of teens ages 12-17 had a cell phone and almost half of those were smartphones; about 23% had a tablet; and a vast majority (93%) had access to a computer (Madden et al., 2013). According to Rideout et al., cell phone ownership increases with income: 74% of youth from lower-income have cell phones compared to

84% and 86% of middle-income and upper-income youth (2012). They found no differences by race or parent education level (Rideout et al., 2012). Although for kids

6

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 eight years of age and under who come from low-income families, there has been a substantial increase in access to mobile devices and apps, there still exists a large gap between lower-income and higher-income families (Rideout et al., 2013). It is also important to note that although teens from lower-income families are less likely to have

Internet access at home, they are more likely to use cell phones as their primary points of access to the Internet (Madden et al., 2013). The percent of children ages 0 to 8 who have access to a smartphone, video iPod, or a digital tablet has jumped from 52% in 2011 to 75% in 2013; further, 72% of these kids have used one of these devices, up from 38% in 2011 (Rideout et al., 2013). Although over half of kids’ use is with non-communication activities (playing games, using educational applications, etc), the rest of the time may be devoted for communication purposes.

Access to digital devices undeniably affects the ways kids communicate not only with peers but also with their family members. A large scale study about social media use among teens revealed that while approximately 50% of the teens’ favorite method of communication remains face-to-face (FtF) contact, approximately 30% list texting as their favorite method (Rideout et al., 2012). These teens believe that the use of social media and social network sites (SNS) enhances their friendships and their relationships with family members. On the downside, they agree that SNS and texting take time away from FtF contact and can be distracting during FtF contact. Parents in another study report similar issues when interacting with their children (Devitt & Roker, 2009). An experiment by Przybylski and Weinstein (2013) manipulated the mere presence of a mobile phone in a room where two strangers were engaging in a relationship formation task. They found partners who were in the presence of a phone reported feeling less close

7

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 to one another and reported a lower relationship quality, specifically when conversation was moderately meaningful; the same was not found when the conversation was casual.

The interference caused by the mere presence of a phone during a conversation between strangers raises concerns about the effects of mobile phones in other relationships, especially when so many people use phones in the presence of others, even while having

FtF conversations with them. These patterns create more questions about the interactions of social media, cell phones, and FtF contact with friends and family members.

Technology use among young adults and adults. The ownership of cell phones has grown not only among teenagers, but also among adults. Approximately 85% of adults have a cell phone and 90% live in a household with mobile phone access (Forgays et al., 2014). In addition, the way that cell phones are used varies across age and sometimes even gender. Texting has an inverse relationship with age, where the older the person is, the less likely he/she is to text and the number of text messages they send decreases (Forgays et al., 2014). As such, older parents of children may use texting less frequently than younger parents when communicating with them. Also, regardless of age or gender, most adults agree that texting is also more acceptable across a greater range of situations than talking on a cell phone, which could partially explain why overall, the frequency of phone calls through the day is rather low compared to texts (Forgays et al.,

2014). This suggests that texting may increase depending on the circumstances or activities that either the parent or the child is in.

Texting and phone calls are not the only ways people can use cell phones for communication. Smartphones, which have Internet capabilities, allow users to engage in social networking sites, use video chat, send and receive emails, and even access various

8

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 instant messaging (IM) platforms. The number of adults who own smartphones has been increasing from only 35% in 2011 to 58% in 2014 (Center, 2014a; Smith, 2013). There has also been greater ownership of tablets, which frequently provide many of the same communication tools as do smartphones. From 2010 to 2014, the number of adults who own a digital tablet went from 3% to 42% (Center, 2014b). In addition, the use of social networking sites (SNS) has increased greatly among all Internet-using adults in the US since 2005. In 2014, 74% of all adults used SNS, compared to only 60% in 2010. And while adults ages 18-29 have the highest percent of use across time, approximately 49% of Internet-using adults ages 65+ also used SNS in 2014, compared to only 28% in 2010

(Duggan, Ellison, Lampe, Lenhart, & Madden, 2015).

Given these trends, researchers have been examining how use of digital devices affects people. One study examined whether smart devices, which primarily include smartphones and tablets, have an effect on the psychological well-being of the users

(Harwood, Dooley, Scott, & Joiner, 2014). They found that smart device use was not predictive of higher depression, anxiety, or stress. However, they did find that how users related to their devices, specifically the cognitive aspects surrounding that relationship, predicted levels of depression and stress (Harwood et al., 2014). The impact that mobile devices can have on psychological well-being of the individuals could have an effect on the quality of the relationship between parents and their children. These findings also suggest that it is not so much about the ownership and use of the devices, as it is about how the device is used and how the individuals relate to their devices. Children or parents who are more invested and reliant on mobile devices to communicate could experience more negative outcomes, especially given that adolescents frequently call themselves cell

9

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 phone addicts and may hold beliefs about their devices that could have negative impacts on their well-being (Madden et al., 2013). In addition, a simple search on the Internet looking at Internet addiction, cell phone addiction, video game addiction, and the likes returns countless results and these terms are mentioned in many studies that explore the relationships people have with their devices and how those devices affect them.

Researchers have begun looking at how young adults use technology in their communication with one another, their partners, their families, and others. Much of the research in this area includes college-age participants, many of whom may rely on these technologies to keep in touch with their families or to maintain their long-distance relationships if they have moved away to go to college. Witherspoon (2014) found that while participants who were more socially connected in general had higher satisfaction with their family and friends relationships, their frequency of FtF and SNS contact was not associated with relationship satisfaction nor with social connectedness.

Technology and parent-child communication. Although researchers have given significant attention to communication between parents and children, few studies have looked specifically at the different mediums for communication and their possible effects on the satisfaction with or quality of the communication. Some teens do report that they wish their parents spent less time on their mobile devices while interacting with them

(Rideout et al., 2012). Interactions via various forms of communication provide the user with various pros and cons and different experiences. FtF communication tends to be more interactive and allows the participants to read each other’s facial cues and body language. Phone communication has some of the benefits of FtF, providing vocal cues but not facial cues. There can be some room for miscommunication if the service is of poor

10

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 quality. Texting, on the other hand, can be a quick way of communicating, but it can also give the user time to think about a response. It does leave room for misunderstanding when the recipient does not read the message the way that the sender intended since there is a lack of facial and vocal cues. In fact, it is not uncommon for couples in therapy to discuss their fights over texts and that there was, at some point, misinterpretation. Skype,

IM, SNS chatting, and other mediums are comprised of a combination of the above and come with similar positives and negatives to their use.

There is also a general perception among adolescents and young adults that the presence of their parents on SNS can be intrusive, but few studies have examined whether this claim is true. An experiment by Kanter, Afifi, and Robbins (2012) attempted to shed some light onto this question. They recruited parent-young adult child dyads where parents did not have an existing Facebook account, and then assigned half of the dyads to an experimental group. Parents in the experimental group were asked to create a

Facebook account, “friend” their child, and use the account for a period of two months.

At the two month follow up, researchers examined the impact of Facebook use by the parent on the parent-child relationship. Children did not feel that the presence of their parents on SNS was intrusive of their privacy. In addition, young adults who reported higher levels of conflict with their parent prior to Facebook friendship reported feeling closer to their parent at the two months follow-up, although this finding did not extend to the lower conflict group. Their work provides some preliminary support for SNS use in parent-child dyads enhancing the relationship, not necessarily having a negative impact.

It is important to note that the participants in the Kanter et al. (2012) study were

11

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 separated by distance due to college, and different findings may emerge for dyads who still live in the same home and especially for parent-adolescent dyads.

Communication technology and romantic relationships. Technology has made it easier for those in relationships to maintain contact even while apart. Members of long- distance relationships can rely not only on letters, phone calls, and occasional visits, but also on texting, SNS, instant messaging, and video calling.

There is a general perception that texting is less complex or involved than phone calls or FtF interactions. Whereas it may be true in regards to FtF given the lack of social cues in texting, some interesting findings emerge when researchers compare the words and content in text messages to phone conversations. Holtgraves and Paul (2013) found that while text messages were indeed simpler, they were also more personal and affective than phone calls. In addition, text messages were more relational rather than informational in their content. This shows that adults are likely to use texting in order to maintain their relationships. Another possibility is that texting provides additional privacy since phone conversations have the potential of being overheard, so users are more likely to express personal or intimate things to their contact even while at work or someplace else that is public.

Despite the findings that texting tends to be more personal and affective, it can have negative impacts on relationships. Luo (2014) examined the “share” proportion of texting to other forms of communication and how it affects relationship satisfaction.

“Share” was measured as the approximate percentage of conversations that take place via a specified medium out of total time spent conversing. Luo (2014) found that higher share of texting was a predictor of lower satisfaction in romantic relationships. Although

12

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 texting could be beneficial in relationships, too much reliance on texting versus other methods of communication could be problematic for the quality of the relationship and the partners’ satisfaction. Luo (2014) also points out that individuals who score higher on avoidant and anxious scales are more likely to rely on texting when communicating with their partner.

It is difficult to determine whether higher share of texting relates directly to lower relationship satisfaction or whether the personal characteristics of those who rely more heavily on texting have the greater impact on the relationship. Morey, Gentzler, Creasy,

Oberhauser and Westerman (2013) found that there was no direct relationship between types of communication and relationship quality of romantic pairs, but they found some differences in attachment styles and preferred methods of communication. Avoidant and anxious attachments were negatively correlated with phone use and texting, both of which had a positive correlation with relationship satisfaction and intimacy and support.

The same styles were also positively correlated with email communication, which was considered more mediated given their lack of social cues and impersonal. Individuals who are more secure in their attachment styles not only have more frequent communication with their partners but also greater relationship quality as they use communication methods that are more immediate and offer more social cues.

Another study found that partner attachment was highly associated with relationship satisfaction and relationship stability among those who use digital communication (Schade, Sandberg, Bean, Busby, & Coyne, 2013). When exploring how texting, Facebook, and other communication mediums affect relationships, the researchers found some significant differences between men and women. For example,

13

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 women who frequently use texting in a relationship report higher relationship stability, while men who text more than women report lower relationship satisfaction. Also, when women used technology to discuss serious topics in the relationship, they reported lower levels of relationship satisfaction. These findings support previously mentioned research which suggests a relationship between attachment, technology use, and relationship satisfaction and stability.

Hertlein and Ancheta (2014) conducted a qualitative study exploring positive and negative ways that technology affects romantic relationships. Their participants reported technology made it easier to meet people and begin developing relationships and emotional support; some participants also reported technology made it easier to exchange apologies and kept things from getting too escalated during difficult conversations.

Finally, technology, sexting specifically, was used as a way to enhance couples’ sex life and to further promote intimacy in long-distance relationships. Three main themes emerged in the way that technology can be damaging to relationships: distancing, impaired trust, and lack of clarity. Some of the reported issues within these themes included impersonal communication, lack of focus while communicating, using technology to avoid confrontation about difficult issues, increased risks of infidelity, ambiguity and misinterpretation of messages. It is possible that some of these issues could also appear in parent-child communication when texting is used. It seems that technology can play an important role both in new and well-established relationships, although whether the impact is positive or negative depends on the characteristics of the couple and how they choose to manage technology in their relationship.

14

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Regardless of the possible negative consequences that technology can have on relationships, couples will continue to use various devices and methods of communication in their relationships. When examining the impact of technology on relationships, the majority of couples report that there is no impact at all, although there are differences when it comes to the type of technology: 68% of smartphone users, 86% of regular cell phone users, 89% of no cell phone users, 68% of social media users, and

72% state that the Internet in general has no impact on their relationship (Lenhart &

Duggan, 2014). That does mean that for some couples technology has either a minor or major impact on their relationship. According to their report, most view the impact as positive, whereas only 20% state that the impact was negative (Lenhart & Duggan, 2014).

Almost a third of divorce cases cite Facebook as a contributing factor to the relationship demise (Lumpkin, 2012, as cited in Cravens, Leckie, & Whiting, 2013).

Parent-Child Communication

Most researchers and clinicians, as well as parents and educators, would agree that good parent-child communication is important in familial relationships. When communication is one of the main variables, research typically explores either the content or qualities of the communication, or general satisfaction with communication from the child’s and/or parent’s perspective. Positive communication as measured in many of the studies is comprised of warmth or openness, and frequency of communication (Criss et al., 2003; Fan & Chen, 2001; Olson et al., 2000; Schrodt, Ledbetter, & Ohrt, 2007).

From middle childhood to adolescence, researchers have found multiple outcomes related to parent-child communication. Communication is an important factor in predicting a child’s academic achievement, where positive or good communication was

15

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 associated with positive outcomes (Chi, 2013; Fan & Chen, 2001; Lam & Ducreux,

2013). Others have shown that positive communication and openness were associated with less anti-social behavior, less aggressive behavior, and less externalizing behavior

(Criss et al., 2003; Olson et al., 2000; Renken et al., 1989; Shaw et al., 1994). When targeting populations and youth at high risk of HIV/STI, parent-child communication interventions were also effective in reducing the adolescents’ risks for contracting the diseases (Sutton et al., 2014). In addition, parental monitoring and parent-adolescent communication about sex was predictive of less engagement in high risk sexual behaviors

(Huebner & Howell, 2003). Technology allows for more frequent communication, and as such it could increase the likelihood that children and adolescents would be less likely to engage in high-risk behaviors and they could experience more positive outcomes. This could tie in directly to the satisfaction level of parent-child relationships.

In adolescence, communication and relationships between parents and children typically change as adolescents begin exploring their own identities and focusing more on peer relationships. Some researchers have found an increase in parent-child conflicts and a decrease in warm interactions during adolescence (Paikoff & Brooks-Gunn, 1991).

Despite these changes, communication remains an important factor in predicting various outcomes for the adolescents and regardless of time period explored, the effects of parent-child communication show a consistent pattern. A longitudinal study by Olson et al. (2000) revealed parent-child relationships low in warmth during toddlerhood generally maintained a negative quality over time, and were predictive of externalizing behaviors at

17 years old. The use of technology in communication could have an impact on how

16

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 communication changes through the years, whether it is able to maintain or develop more positive qualities, and how that in turn could impact the child’s development.

Finally, some researchers examine communication styles and their impact on parent-child relationships. Exploring conversation, which encourages child expression and equal participation in discussion, versus conformity, which requires obedience without discussion or questioning of the parent, in communication, Schrodt, Ledbetter, and Ohrt (2007) found that communication styles encouraging conversation were positively associated with greater self-esteem, and less stress and anxiety among the young adult children. Quality of conversations is important to the future outcomes for children and adults and the quality of parent-child communication also differs based on parenting styles.

Parenting styles. One of the areas impacted by communication in parent-child relationships is parenting style. Researchers have been exploring how parenting styles are related to positive and negative outcomes for children. Communication is a key variable for differentiating parenting styles. An authoritative parenting style, which has been found in most literature as the best indicator of positive outcomes, is typically characterized by high levels of support and demand. This can be achieved through high levels of bidirectional communication, reciprocity, and responsiveness. In authoritative parent-child relationships, children have the ability to negotiate with their parents.

Researchers find that authoritative parenting can serve as a buffer for children against heavy drinking (Hoffmann & Bahr, 2014), lower tobacco use (Stanton, Highland,

Tercyak, Luta, & Niaura, 2014), against mood problems (Piko & Balázs, 2012), and has the best outcomes in terms of reducing adolescent depression and increasing academic

17

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 performance across socioeconomic groups, races, and ethnicities (Radziszewska,

Richardson, Dent, & Flay, 1996). Mothers who employ authoritative parenting were also more likely to talk to their daughters earlier and about a broader range of sex-related topics (Askelson, Campo, & Smith, 2012), and they differ in their affective responses from authoritarian mothers (Coplan et al., 2002). Specifically, authoritative mothers reacted with less anger and embarrassment across various vignettes and they were also less likely to place the blame on the child (Coplan et al., 2002).

Given the importance of bidirectional communication, technology may serve as an additional avenue for openness and negotiation, especially for authoritative parents and their children. In the Devitt and Roker (2009) study, both parents and children commented that having cell phones allowed them to discuss curfew and changes in plans while the child was out with friends. Some of the participants also discussed that it was easier to bring up difficult issues, such as teen pregnancy, even when both the parent and the child where in the same location. To date there has been no research specifically examining the relationship between technology use, communication, and parenting styles.

Parent-Child Relationship Quality

The relationship quality of a parent and a child has multiple outcomes for both the children and the parents. Multiple researchers have looked at the parent-child relationships in various contexts and have consistently found that a good parent-child relationship predicts more positive child outcomes. In his review of several studies,

Emery (1982) found that a good relationship with at least one parent in the face of divorce or marital conflict buffered children against stress and provided more positive adjustment. A more recent study by Lucas-Thompson and Granger (2014) found that in

18

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 the face of marital conflict, parent-child relationships high in warmth and support created a protective buffer against negative consequences for children’s stress reactivity.

When looking at a wide variety of families and parent-child relationships, additional outcomes emerge as a result of the relationship quality. Children entering adolescence and experiencing turmoil with peer relationships are more likely to have fewer depressive symptoms if they experience positive relationship quality with their parents (Hazel, Oppenheimer, Technow, Young, & Hankin, 2014). Studies have also linked strong, positive parent-child relationships with decreased use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco by teens (B. Johnson, McBride, Hopkins, & Pepper, 2014). Higher levels of parent-child relationship quality also serve as a protective factor for engaging in sexual intercourse at a younger age for girls, especially if there is also open communication about sexual topics (Rose et al., 2005).

Gender differences. In studies on parent-child outcomes, gender is a variable researchers often examine. Although sometimes no gender differences emerge, many studies report differences among children, parents, and gender interactions. One study used a focus group to examine what a good relationship with parents looks like for adolescents. The researchers found that relationships with mothers were more open, closer, and provided emotional support, while fathers expressed caring through more indirect means, such as financial support and being present (Crockett, Brown, Russell, &

Shen, 2007). Girls emphasized the need for an open relationship with their mother, while boys stated that they did not feel a need to communicate with their father because knowing he cares was enough.

19

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Other studies have also revealed that quality of same-gender parent-child relationships have important implications. Negative maternal messages about children, their world, and their future were associated with more depressive symptoms for girls, and negative paternal messages were associated with those risks for boys (Liu, Fang,

Deng, & Zhang, 2012). Mothers’ greater opposite gender mistrust and lower parent-child relationship quality was related to higher levels of female adolescents’ gender mistrust, and fathers’ mistrust and low relationship quality were related to male adolescents’ gender mistrust (Nomaguchi, Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2011).

Some researchers also found that interactions or relaitonship experiences with mothers were more salient for child outcomes than were relaitonships with fathers.

Maternal attachment has a significant effect on negative body image for both genders

(Carter, Smith, Bostick, & Grant, 2014). Insecure attachment toward mother also has direct longitudinal associations with disordered eating attitudes (Goossens, Braet, Van

Durme, Decaluwé, & Bosmans, 2012). The mother-child relationship was also more important for children’s coping skills (Kliewer, Fearnow, & Miller, 1996), and maternal sensitivity was associated with children’s prosocial behaviors (Newton, Laible, Carlo,

Steele, & McGinley, 2014). Finally, in a longitudinal study, Lindelöw (1999) found that a lack of positive parent-child interactions at 10 years old was significantly associated with depression in those children twenty years later. An outcome especially significant if there was a lack of positive interactions with the mother, lack of communication with her, and lack of positive remarks made by her.

20

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Parent Satisfaction with Parent-Child Relationship

Few studies look at the parent-child relationship satisfaction specifically from the parents’ perspective. Most literature examines parents’ satisfaction in their parent role, or parent-child relationship satisfaction from the child’s view. The few studies that look at relationship satisfaction typically use it as a supplemental measure and report very little if anything about the results.

Parent attachment. Attachment theory is often viewed as useful for understanding family functioning (Johnson, Ketring, & Abshire, 2003). A lot of research has been done on parent-child attachment and the various outcomes that different attachment styles have on child development. Typically, these studies look at the child’s attachment to their parent. One longitudinal study found that in insecure or unresponsive relationships, children exhibited more antisocial outcomes later in life (Kim, Kochanska,

Boldt, Nordling, & O'Bleness, 2014). Insecure attachment among teens also predicts decreased social skills and increased delinquency, and these results were more pronounced when mothers scored high in autonomous behaviors (Allen et al., 2002).

Other studies have also been able to connect difficulties in psychosocial development with poor parent-child attachments (Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998).

Much less research has examined parental attachment and how it affects the parent-child dyad. George and Solomon (1996) found that mothers who had a more negative view of their parental abilities and their relationship with the child had children who exhibited less secure attachment behaviors and were labeled by their mothers in more negative terms. This suggests the importance of examining the parental influence on

21

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 child attachment and, consequently, on the psychosocial development of the child in the future.

Theoretical Perspective

A recent multitheoretical model has been developed by Hertlein (2012) that may provide additional insight into how technology use, communication, and relationship satisfaction may relate to one another. Three theories have been integrated into this model: the family ecology perspective, the structural-functional perspective, and the interaction-constructionist perspective. Ecological influences are connected to two types of changes in relationships: changes to structure and changes to processes. The ecological influences include: anonymity, accessibility, affordability, approximation, acceptability, accommodation, and ambiguity (Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010, in Hertlein, 2014). Changes to structure include redefinition of rules, boundaries, and roles, while changes to processes include redefinition of intimacy, relationship initiation and formation processes, and relationship maintenance.

Under this model, families would be expected to experience different changes within their relationships based on the types and frequency of technology use in their communication. In addition, Hertlein (2012; 2014) suggests that communication technologies that use different degrees of approximation would have different experiences in their levels of intimacy, relations, and satisfaction. For example, those who use Skype or Facetime as a form of communication may experience more positive effects in the relationships versus those who use more mediated forms of communication, such as email. The proposed study addresses all three parts of this model, although not all of

22

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 the subsections are directly assessed or have importance for the type of relationship that is examined.

This study examined several of the ecological influences. First, accessibility was assessed through device ownership and Internet access for parents and children. Second, levels of FtF approximation, which refers to how closely a form of communication resembled FtF communication, in digital communication was examined though the different types of digital communication methods used by parents, such as video chatting.

Third, acceptability was examined through the types of devices that children owned or had access to, and also the age at which they received or will receive their first mobile phone. In addition, several questions were designed to address changes to structure.

Specifically, questions asked parents about any rules that they have established for their child’s use of technology and how they enforced those rules or monitored their child’s use. Also, several questions examining changes to process had been included in the study.

Finally, questions examining parents’ perceptions on whether technology has brought them closer to their child were created for this study.

Conclusion

Literature emerged in the past few years on the increase in technology use, especially technology that provides different methods of communication between people.

Researchers have looked at how people currently communicate has primarily looked at peer-to-peer and intimate partner communication, and much less has been done to explore familial communication patterns. There have been some findings to suggest that these changes in communication have made an impact on the relationship quality of those involved.

23

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

In addition, research that examined parent-child relationships frequently focused on the perspective of children and their outcomes. Little to no research had looked at parent satisfaction and parent experiences with their parent-child relationships. The current study attempted to bridge these two topic areas together and shed some light on how current methods of communication may impact parents’ parent-child relationship satisfaction.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Although some research has been conducted in exploring technology use by children and adolescents, most of the research focused on peer-to-peer relationships and individual outcomes. The primary aim of this study was to explore the relationship between digital communication and parent-child relationships. Two research questions and five hypotheses were examined based on existing literature and the gaps in it.

R1: What is the relationship between different types of digital communication and parents’ parent-child relationship satisfaction and parental attachment?

R2: What are some variables that impact parent’s likelihood of using digital communication methods with their children?

In addition to these research questions, the following hypotheses were created guided by prior research and the multitheoretical model:

H1: Parents who use more digital communication methods that have higher degrees of approximation (video chatting methods such as Skype and Facetime) will report higher degrees of parent-child relationship satisfaction and parental attachment.

H2: Parents who report that technology has brought them closer to their child will report higher levels of satisfaction and attachment.

24

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

H3: Higher levels of accessibility, as measured through parental and child device ownership, will be correlated with higher levels of satisfaction and attachment.

H4: Increase in overall communication will positively correlate with satisfaction and attachment.

H5: Parents of male children will report less use of digital communication than parents of female children.

25

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

III. Methods

Overview and Design

The goal of the present study was to investigate the effects of electronic and FtF methods of communication on parent satisfaction with their parent-child relationship. The participants were asked general questions about themselves, information about their children, and specific questions about methods of communication and filled out two parenting scales in relationship to the child identified in the demographics section. The study was a cross-sectional design using a convenience sample and the snowball sampling technique. Some of the benefits of this design included greater geographical reach, ease of collecting a larger sample size, and a reduced amount of time for implementation and data collection. The limitations of this design included self-selection and exclusion of participants who did not have Internet access.

Participants

Participants included parents who had children ages 8 through 17, who lived in the household for at least 4 days out of the week. The age range for the children was chosen because trend data show that approximately 56% of kids ages 8-12 have their own cell phones (Communications, 2012) and 78% of teens ages 12-17 have cell phones

(Madden et al., 2013). Only parents whose children lived with them the majority of the time, as defined by at least 4 days out of the week every week, were asked to participate since other living arrangements may have an impact on how they communicated and how much opportunity for FtF interaction there was.

26

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Procedure

Participants were recruited through advertisements on a university email bulletin board and Facebook; the latter allowed for snowball recruitment. Specific recruitment materials targeting fathers was also used to attain a more even sample of both fathers and mothers. After clicking on the link either through the bulletin board or Facebook, participants were taken to the first page of the survey which included the information sheet. Confidentiality was preserved through the use of the “Anonymize” function in

Qualtrics, which removed identifying information such as the IP address from the responses.

Participants completed the demographic questions about themselves and their children who resided in the household. Participants with children ages 8 through 17 were eligible to participate in the rest of the study. They were asked a series of questions about each child in the age category and then they were asked to choose one child to reference for their answers to the rest of the measures. The measures assessed communication methods and frequency. Participants who completed the study were prompted to choose whether they wished to enter their email address into a drawing for one of four $25 gift cards. If they chose to enter the drawing, their responses were submitted and they were taken to a separate page to enter in their contact information. The drawing responses were not tied to their survey responses.

Measures

Demographic questions. The participants were asked to provide demographic information about themselves and their child(ren). The participants were asked to provide the following information: age, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, religious

27

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 affiliation, their level of religiosity, education level, employment status, income level, ethnicity, number of children and adults in the household, and geographic area (rural, urban, suburban).The participants were also asked to provide the age and gender of each child.

Technology questions. The participants were asked several questions about their and their child(ren)’s access to and use of technology. The following questions were asked of the parents: cell phone ownership, type of phone, Internet use/access on the phone, landline at home, social networking accounts, familiarity/use of programs and apps for communication (Skype, Google Hangouts, Facetime, etc.), computer and

Internet access at home or elsewhere, tablet ownership/access.

The participants were asked the following in regards to their children: whether the child has a cell phone, at what age has the child first received the cell phone, ways the child may access the Internet (phone, tablet, computer, etc.), access or ownership of a tablet and/or a personal computer, any restrictions/rules the child has to follow in regards to the use.

Communication questions. The participants were asked questions created specifically for this study to measure communication types. Parents were asked to select all of the applicable methods of communication that they used to communicate with their children (FtF, phone calls, texting, video chatting, SNS, IM). The parents were asked to approximate how much time they spent communicating with their child on an average day. Then, using the methods of communication they selected earlier and the time they indicated, participants used a slider to approximate how much of that time they use each method. Using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Much Less Than” to “Much More

28

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Than,” parents were asked whether they feel that the amount of time they spent with each communication method was “much less than” they would want or “much more than” they want. The parents were asked an open-ended question to provide any relevant information in terms of what may impact their communication times and preferences (for example, atypical work schedule, child’s afterschool activities, etc).

Revised Inventory of Parent Attachment (R-IPA). The R-IPA (Johnson,

Ketring, and Abshire, 2003) was created by revising the Inventory of Parent and Peer

Attachment, an established and commonly used measure with children and adolescents, in order to understand the parental perspective of attachment towards their child. Two main factors are present in the scale: trust/avoidance and communication. The reliability for the trust/avoidance subscale is α = .91 and for the communication subscale is α = .72

(Johnson et al., 2003). Answers to items on the measure are provided using a 5-point

Likert scale ranging from almost always or always true to almost never or never true

(Johnson et al., 2003). In the proposed study, the total score on the R-IPA was used as an independent variable measuring parent attachment. In addition, the subscore corresponding to the communication factor was also used following preliminary analyses.

Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale (KPSS). The KPSS (Schumm, Jurich, and

Bollman, 1986) is 3-item scale created to assess satisfaction with parenting. The scale measures satisfaction with oneself as a parent, one’s relationship with one’s child, and the child’s behavior. The KPSS has good internal consistency with alpha range from .78 to

.85, and it also has good concurrent validity (Fischer & Corcoran, 2007). Other studies have provided additional support for the validity and internal consistency of the scale

(Chang, Schumm, Coulson, Bollman, & Jurich, 1994; James, 1985; Rho & Schumm,

29

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

1989). For the proposed study, the total score on the KPSS was used as an outcome variable measuring parental relationship satisfaction.

Analyses

Preliminary analyses. Preliminary analyses following data collection were run to explore which demographic characteristics were appropriate for the regression model and additional analyses. Specifically, the analyses looked at parent characteristics (age, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, educational level, employment status, income level, ethnicity, and geographic area) and child characteristics

(age and gender). These characteristics were explored due to some difference in technology access and use that have been found in past studies. T-tests and chi-square group comparisons were used for this purpose. Significant variables were used in the main analysis. Bivariate correlations were used with all study variables.

Analyses of variance and correlations. Several analyses of variances were conducted in order to answer the research hypotheses. In addition, specific 1-tailed correlations to examine the hypotheses were also conducted.

Linear regression modeling. Using variables identified as significant at the 0.05 significance level in correlation analyses as well as communication methods and I-RPA scores, several backward stepwise removal regressions were run to find the model with best fit with KPSS total score, attachment, and communication subscale as output dependent variables.

30

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

IV. Article

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between the use of different digital and face-to-face communication methods and parental satisfaction with the parent- child relationship and attachment. Survey data were collected in a cross-sectional design with a total of 164 participants in the final sample. A total of two research questions and five hypotheses were explored. Most of the hypotheses were not supported, but some significant results emerged. The findings suggested that greater communication led to more positive relationship and attachment outcomes, but as the digital communication ratio increased, it had a more negative impact on attachment. Several significant variables which were related to changes in digital communication ratio were also identified. Future studies exploring the impacts of digital communication on parent-child relationships, including child’s perspectives, could provide additional information to help explain the impacts of digital communication on families.

31

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Introduction

The accessibility of cell phones and Internet-capable devices has increased dramatically over the past few years. As a result, 90% of adults live in a household with mobile phone access (Forgays et al., 2014), while 78% of teens have their own cell phones (Madden et al., 2013) and 72% of children age eight and under have access to a smartphone or a tablet (Rideout et al., 2013). Researchers have been exploring the impacts of technology and digital communication on individuals, especially children, adolescents, and young adults, as well as couples and adolescent peer-to-peer relationships (Rideout, Sapiht, Rudd, Pai, & Bozdech, 2012). When it comes to couples, some research suggests that digital communication has more positive than negative effects on relationships, although such effects frequently depend on individual charactersitics, including attachment styles (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014; Holtgraves &

Paul, 2013; Lenhart & Duggan, 2014; Luo, 2014; Morey et al., 2013). However, little to no attention had been given to the impacts of technology on parent-child relationship and interactions.

Researchers have been exploring various aspects of parent-child relationships and interactions for many decades. Many of the findings focused on child outcomes, for example linking effective parent-child communication with a number of positive outcomes in children’s development (see Chi, 2013; Fan & Chen, 2001; Lam & Ducreux,

2013). However, parental outcomes were often neglected or mentioned only briefly. One study explored how mothers with different parenting styles expressed negative emotions, openness to communication, and child blame based on their responses to different vignettes (Coplan, Hastings, Lagace-Seguin, and Moulton, 2002). A possible

32

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 extrapolation of their findings could suggest that more open communication has less negative emotions and experiences for the parents, which could have more positive outcomes for parent-child relationship satisfaction as well as the emotional well-being of the parent.

Aim of the Study

Given the lack of research on the intersection of technology and parent-child relationships, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the use of different digital and face-to-face (FtF) communication methods and parental satisfaction with the parent-child relationship and attachment. Specifically, this study explored the different methods of communication employed by parents in their interactions with their children, their frequency, and the proportion that each method comprised in the overall parent-child communication. Then, parental satisfaction with the parent-child relationship and parental attachment were explored as measures of relationship quality in connection to communication methods. This study hoped to shed light on the possible effects of technological changes in communication mechanisms on parent-child communication and relationship.

Theoretical Perspective

This study was guided by a multitheoretical model developed by Hertlein (2012).

The model integrated three theories: the family ecology perspective, the structural- functional perspective, and the interaction-constructionist perspective, in order to explain how ecological influences were connected to changes in structure and changes to processes within relationships. Under this model, families would be expected to experience different changes within their relationships based on the types and frequency

33

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 of technology use in their communication. For example, those who use Skype or

Facetime as a form of communication may experience more positive effects in the relationships versus those who use more mediated forms of communication, such as email. The proposed study addressed all three parts of this model, although not all of the subsections were directly assessed or have importance for the type of relationship that was examined.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Although some research has been conducted to explore technology use by children and adolescents, most of the research focused on peer-to-peer relationships and individual outcomes. Given the primary aims of this study, existing literature, and the theoretical model, the following research questions and hypotheses were developed.

R1: What is the relationship between different types of digital communication and parents’ parent-child relationship satisfaction and parental attachment?

R2: What are some variables that impact parent’s likelihood of using digital communication methods with their children?

H1: Parents who use more digital communication methods that have higher degrees of approximation (ie, video chatting methods such as Skype and Facetime) will report higher degrees of parent-child relationship satisfaction and parental attachment.

H2: Parents who report that technology has brought them closer to their child will report higher levels of satisfaction and attachment.

H3: Higher levels of accessibility, as measured through parental and child device ownership, will be correlated with higher levels of satisfaction and attachment.

34

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

H4: Increase in overall communication will positively correlate with satisfaction and attachment.

H5: Parents of male children will report less use of digital communication than parents of female children.

Methods

Procedures

Survey data were collected using Qualtrics software, which preserved participant confidentiality through the use of the “Anonymize” function. Following IRB approval, participants were recruited through a link on an announcement email list for a large southwestern University as well as through social media, the latter allowing for snowball recruitment. Participants had to agree to the information on the consent page, but they could choose to skip any other questions. At the end of the survey, participants were offered to enter into a drawing to win one of four 25$ Amazon gift cards.

Participants

Inclusion criteria for the survey required that participants had to have at least one child aged 8 through 17 who lived in their household for at least 4 days out of the week and participants had to be at least 18 years old. A total of 209 individuals completed at least some of the survey. After checking for missing data, the final sample was comprised of 164 participants. Five participants dropped out either right after the consent page or after answering only a few of the demographic questions, eight participants indicated that they had no children under the age of 18 living in their household, six participants did not have children over 8 years of age, ten participants did not provide complete information about their child’s age and gender, and the other sixteen participants either did not

35

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 complete questions about their communication with their child or they did not answer enough questions on the I-RPA or the KPSS. Independent samples t-tests and chi-square analyses were run on demographic variables and other variables of interest to this study to compare the final sample and the participants who dropped out of the study for any systematic differences. These analyses did not include participants who were ineligible for the study, but still answered questions. Table 1 and Table 2 provide a summary of the analyses. Overall, no systematic differences were found except for geographic area,

χ2(2, N = 189) = 8.29, p = .016.

Measures

Demographics. The participants were asked to provide demographic information about themselves and their child(ren). The participants were asked to provide the following information about themselves: age, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, their level of religiosity, education level, employment status, income level, ethnicity, number of children and adults in the household, and geographic area

(rural, urban, suburban).The participants were also asked to provide the age and gender of each child in the household.

Data from 164 participants were used in this study. The majority of the sample was female (n = 140) ages 25 through 62 (M = 38.26, SD = 8.61). Most of the participants identified as heterosexual (n = 152), Caucasian (n = 126), identifying with a

Christian denomination (n = 126), and married (n = 118). This sample was also highly educated, with 84 participants having a Bachelor’s degree or higher and 56 participants having at least some college education. In terms of employment, 97 participants worked full-time, 16 worked part-time, 36 identified as homemakers, and the rest identified as

36

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 students, military, or other. Finally, most participants lived in a suburban area (n = 78), a third lived in an urban setting (n = 49), and a little under a quarter lived in a rural area (n

= 36).

The number of children in the household under 18 years old ranged from 1 to 7

(M = 2.24, SD = 1.23). Although participants provided the age and gender of each child in the household, only information on the child identified for survey purposes was used.

There was an even gender split with 84 male and 84 female children. The child ages ranged from 8 to 17 years old with a mean age of 11.9 years (SD = 2.97). On average, parents reported spending 5.28 hours communicating with their child on a daily basis (SD

= 3.56). Of that communication, approximately 1.15 hours was spent communicating through digital means (SD = 1.85). Table 3 demonstrates more detailed statistics on communication.

Technology questions. The participants were asked several questions about their and their child(ren)’s access to and use of technology. Examples of parent questions included: cell phone ownership, Internet use/access on the phone, social networking accounts, familiarity/use of programs and apps for communication (Skype, Google

Hangouts, Facetime, etc.), computer and Internet access at home or elsewhere, and tablet ownership/access.

The participants were asked the following in regards to their children: whether the child had a cell phone, at what age the child first received the cell phone, ways the child may access the Internet (phone, tablet, computer, etc.), access or ownership of a tablet and/or a personal computer, any restrictions/rules the child had to follow in regards to the use.

37

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Communication questions. The participants were asked questions created specifically for this study to measure communication types. Parents were asked to select all of the applicable methods of communication that they use to communicate with their children (FtF, phone calls, texting, video chatting, SNS, IM). The parents were asked to approximate how much time they spent communicating with their child on an average day. Then, using the methods of communication they selected earlier and the time they indicated, participants used a slider to approximate how much of that time they use each method. Using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Much Less Than” to “Much More

Than,” parents were asked whether they feel that the amount of time they spent with each communication method is “much less than” they would want or “much more than” they want. Parents were also asked whether they felt that digital communication has increased the closeness of their relationship with their child. This dichotomous question created the variable digital closeness.

Revised Inventory of Parent Attachment (R-IPA). The R-IPA (Johnson,

Ketring, & Abshire, 2003) was created by revising the Inventory of Parent and Peer

Attachment, an established and commonly used measure with children and adolescents, in order to understand the parental perspective of attachment towards their child. Two main factors are present in the scale: trust/avoidance and communication. The questions related to the communication subscale primarily focused on whether parents felt comfortable to talk to their children about any concerns or difficulties. The reliability for the trust/avoidance subscale was α = .91 and for the communication subscale was α = .72

(Johnson, Ketring, & Abshire, 2003). For this sample, the reliability for the trust/avoidance subscale was α = .90 and for communication subscale it was α = .84.

38

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Answers to items on the measure were provided using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from almost always or always true to almost never or never true ( Johnson et al., 2003). Both the total score on the R-IPA, labeled attachment, and the communication subscore were used as outcome variables.

Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale (KPSS). The KPSS is a 3-item scale created to assess satisfaction with parenting. The scale measures satisfaction with oneself as a parent, one’s relationship with one’s child, and the child’s behavior. The KPSS has good internal consistency with alphas range from .78 to .85, and it also has good concurrent validity (Fischer & Corcoran, 2007). Other studies have provided additional support for the validity and internal consistency of the scale (Chang et al., 1994; James, 1985; Rho &

Schumm, 1989). In this sample, the reliability for the scale was α = .84. The total score on the KPSS was used as an outcome variable to measure parent relationship satisfaction.

Results

Preliminary Results and Checks for Normalcy

In order to identify relevant variables to explore the research questions, a correlation matrix was created using all of the previously identified variables as well as some specific questions relating to parent and child technology use, ownership, and access as well as questions regarding parent views on digital communication.

In addition, skewness and kurtosis analyses were run to ensure that the data were normally distributed. The parent and child ages, KPSS, I-RPA (attachment) total, I-RPA subscales (communication and trust), digital communication ratio, and text ratio all fell within acceptable ranges as identified by Kline (2005). However, other digital

39

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 communication ratios were positively skewed, and so analyses using those variables used categorical dichotomous variables instead (Kline, 2005).

Analyses for Hypotheses

To explore the proposed hypotheses, several analyses of variance statistics were computed.

H1 proposed that parents who use digital communication methods with higher degrees of approximation would report higher levels of parent-child relationship satisfaction and parental attachment. This hypothesis was not supported. Only one effect was significant: video chatting as it relates to the communication subscale of the I-RPA,

F(1, 157) = 5.57 p = .019. However, this finding indicated that parents who do not use video communication methods had higher scores on the communication subscale, indicating stronger positive communication. Thus, the findings indicated a negative relationship between approximation and communication subscale.

H2 proposed that parents who report that technology brought them closer to their child would have higher scores on the satisfaction and attachment scales. This hypothesis was not supported. The detailed results are provided in Table 4.

H3 proposed that higher levels of accessibility would be correlated with higher levels of satisfaction and attachment. This hypothesis was not supported. Parental and child device ownership were measured by summing up the number of devices that parents owned and the number of devices that children owned. Given that the number of devices a child may own could increase with child’s age, child age was controlled for in the partial correlation analysis. There was a strong negative correlation between

40

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 attachment and child device ownership, r(161) = -.182, p = .02. As the number of devices owned by children increased, parental attachment scores decreased.

H4 proposed that increases in overall communication would positively correlate with satisfaction and attachment, and it was supported. Given a 1-tailed significance test, there was a positive relationship between satisfaction and amount of communication time, r(162) = .153, p = .025. And there was a positive relationship between attachment and communication time, r(162) = .128, p = .05.

H5 proposed that parents of male children would report less use of digital communication than parents of female children, but it was not supported. There was no difference in the use of digital communication based on child’s gender, F(1, 162) = 2.025, p = .157.

Linear Regression Modeling

To answer the research questions, several linear regression models were created.

R1 explored relationship between different types of digital communication and parents’ satisfaction and attachment. Four stepwise backwards linear regression models were created using identical independent categorical variables (phone, text, video, SNS, IM, and other digital communication types) with the following as dependent variables: satisfaction, attachment, communication subscore, and trust/avoidance subscore. Only the model using communication subscale as the outcome variable was significant and the final model included only video chat method as a predictor. A significant regression equation was found F(1, 162) = 4.68, p = .032, with an R2 = .028. Participant communication score decreased by 4.12 when they endorsed using video chat methods for communication with their child.

41

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

To continue exploring R1, four more linear regression models using the same output variables, but with digital communication ratio as a predictor were computed.

There was a significant regression model with attachment, F(1, 162) = 11.79, p = .001, with an R2 = .068. Attachment scores decreased by 9.62 as the digital communication ratio increased. There was also a significant regression model with communication subscale, F(1, 162) = 16.89, p<.000, with an R2 = .094. Communication scores decreased by 8.72 with increased digital communication ratio. The model with relationship satisfaction was also significant, F(1, 162) = 3.86, p = .05, with an R2 = .023. The model with trust/avoidance subscale as an outcome was not significant.

R2 explored different variables that may impact parent’s likelihood of using digital communication methods with their children. To answer R2, the predictor variables were selected for analyses were based on their significance in the correlation matrix and they included: geographic region, attachment, digital closeness, child age. Digital communication ratio, computed as the sum of all digital method ratios, was used as the outcome variable. Using the backward stepwise removal method, the final significant model included attachment, digital closeness, and child age as the predictor variables,

F(3, 160) = 13.34, p < .000, with an R2 = .20. The coefficients for the model are listed in

Table 5.

Discussion

Findings Overview

The goal of this study was to explore the role that digital communication played in parent-child relationships, how it affected satisfaction and attachment, and what were some predictors of increased use of digital communication. Although most of the

42

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 analyses did not yield significant findings, there were several significant results that merit additional exploration in future studies.

When exploring the role played by approximation in communication, the only significant finding indicated the opposite of the expected results. Video chat methods, which would have the highest degree of approximation, had a negative association with communication subscore on the I-RPA. This finding could be due to the fact that video chatting overall was not a method that was used with as high of frequency as some of the other methods. Another possible explanation was that parents who used video chat methods with their children did not wish to discuss any concerns or difficulties with their children over video and opted to avoid those discussions in general. In addition, the linear regression model using communication as outcome and video chat as predictor, while significant, had a small R2, which indicated that video chat method accounted for only a small portion of variability in the communication score.

Accessibility, another one of the key ecological influences of the theoretical model used for this study, did not have the expected relationship with satisfaction or attachment. In fact, parents of children who owned more digital devices reported lower levels of attachment. As such, it is possible that children may spend more time with their digital devices, whether communicating, surfing the web, playing games, or engaging in other activities, and spending less time engaging with their parents, which could reflect lower levels of attachment. This corresponded to a previous finding by Rideout et al.

(2013) in that approximately a quarter of parents in their study reported spending less time with their child due to media use. However, it may also be that parents who initially have lower levels of attachment with their children provided their children with more

43

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 digital devices to occupy their time or as a way of expressing their care for the child through gifts.

In terms of closeness, two different findings emerged when exploring satisfaction and attachment and digital communication ratios. Parents who felt closer to their child as a result of digital communication tended to use more of those methods of communication, but it did not reflect in higher levels of attachment or satisfaction. It may be possible that use of digital communication, which creates additional opportunities for parent-child interaction, increase parent’s subjective feelings of closeness due to those methods, but they do not impact the overall parent-child relationship.

Overall communication did play a role in parental attachment and relationship satisfaction. As expected, there was a positive correlation between satisfaction and communication and between communication and attachment. As parents spent more time communicating with their children on a daily basis, the levels of satisfaction and attachment increased. Previous studies have also found that positive communication was related to the level of warmth or openness as well as frequency of communication (Criss et al., 2003; Fan & Chen, 2001; Olson et al., 2000; Schrodt et al., 2007). In addition, digital communication ratio also had an impact on attachment in that increases in digital communication corresponded with decreased attachment. As such, it appeared that greater communication led to more positive relationship and attachment outcomes, but as the digital communication ratio increased, it had a more negative impact on attachment.

Perhaps the primary reason why attachment, rather than relationship satisfaction, was impacted by digital communication ratio was due to the fact that it was related to less FtF interactions that are needed to maintain healthier parent-child attachment. Different types

44

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015 of digital communication did not have a direct effect on parent-child relationships but it was rather the combination of all methods that had this impact.

Finally, the researchers explored which variables could increase the likelihood of greater digital communication ratio. While attachment had a negative coefficient, suggesting that greater attachment predicted lower ratio, child age and especially digital closeness were strong predictors of increased digital ratio. Given that children generally increase their use of digital media as they grow older, the relationship between child age and digital communication ratio was not unexpected (Madden et al., 2013; Rideout et al.,

2012). In addition, it seemed that when parents experienced digital closeness, they were more likely to use digital means of communication which possibly reinforced their positive experiences of digital communication in their parent-child relationship.

Limitations

One of the primary limitations of this study was the lack of diversity in the participant sample. Despite researchers’ attempts to target fathers, the majority of the sample was comprised of mothers. There was also little variability in religious background, sexual orientation, and marital status. Most of the sample was more educated with at least some college background, which impacts general accessibility to digital devices. Also, confounding factors not addressed by this study may have caused difficulty seeing some of the hypothesized relationships.

In addition, participants were asked to estimate both their total daily communication as well as communication using each digital method and FtF. This method may not have been an accurate representation of their communication, which could have impacted some of the results.

45

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Finally, given the limited availability of validated measures that explore parents’ experiences with their parent-child relationship, the measures used in this study may not have been an accurate representation of relationship satisfaction and attachment in this study’s context.

Future Directions

The findings of this study suggest that digital communication in parent-child interactions was influenced by several variables. The primary purpose was to explore the relationship between parent-child relationship satisfaction, attachment, and digital communication. While the link between satisfaction and digital communication was not supported, attachment seemed to have a strong relationship with digital communication.

In fact, greater digital communication corresponded to lower scores on attachment, which should merit further exploration, perhaps using better measures of attachment. It would be important to explore how digital communication impacts children’s attachment to their parents as well as their relationship satisfaction. In addition, relationship satisfaction did approach significance in several analyses and future research should explore this relationship further.

Finally, it may be helpful to future researchers to create and establish new measures for parents’ parent-child relationship satisfaction and attachment. Both of the measures used in this study were adapted from measures for marital relationship satisfaction and adolescent attachment, respectively, and showed a gap in measures created specifically to assess these constructs for parents.

46

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Table 1.

Independent Group T-Test between Missing Data Set and Complete Data Set Missing Data Complete Data Variable M SD M SD t Age 36.81 7.46 38.26 8.61 -.81 Child Age 13.06 3.36 11.90 2.97 1.51 KPSS 15.83 2.32 17.03 2.95 -.98 Attachment 81.96 10.33 83.40 10.72 -.35 Communication 64.10 8.89 66.24 8.24 -.67 Subscale Trust Subscale 17.86 4.14 17.15 4.80 .38 Digital_Ratio .30 .30 .25 .29 .53

47

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Table 2.

Chi-square Comparisons Between Missing Data Set and Complete Data Set Variable χ2 Df p Gender .92 1 .34 Education 3.86 6 .70 Race 3.47 6 .75 Geographic area 8.23 2 .02* Religion 9.53 11 .57 Employment 3.57 6 .74 Income 14.21 15 .51 Relationship status 5.61 8 .69 Child gender .48 1 .49 *p<.01

48

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Table 3.

Summary statistics of daily communication by hour(s).

Range Variablea Min Max M SD FtF .00 16.00 4.13 3.46 Phone call .00 13.70 .51 1.34 Text messaging .00 5.40 .49 .89 Video chat .00 2.20 .05 .22 Social networking .00 1.50 .07 .22 site(s) Instant messaging .00 1.50 .03 .14 programs or apps Other (digital) .00 1.10 .01 .09 Total digital .00 16.00 1.15 1.85 communication Overall communication 1.00 16.00 5.28 3.56 an = 164

49

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Table 4.

Analyses of variance on digital closeness with satisfaction and attachment.

Digital closeness Dependent Sum of Squares df F Sig. Variable Between Satisfaction .78 1 .09 .77 Groups Within 1422.07 162 Groups Between Attachment 86.48 1 .75 .39 Groups Within 18640.61 162 Groups Communication Between 47.18 1 .69 .41 Subscale Groups Within 11013.79 162 Groups Between Trust Subscale 5.90 1 .25 .62 Groups Within 3756.99 162 Groups

50

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Table 5.

Coefficients for linear regression model on digital communication.

Model B SE B β

Constant .61 .19

Attachment -.01 .002 -.26**

Digital .19 .04 .31** closeness Child Age .01 .01 .15*

Notes. R2= .20. *p < .05. **p < .01.

51

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

References

Allen, J. P., Marsh, P., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. B., Land, D. J., Jodl, K. M., &

Peck, S. (2002). Attachment and autonomy as predictors of the development of

social skills and delinquency during midadolescence. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 70(1), 56-66.

Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent

psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69(5), 1406-1419.

Askelson, N. M., Campo, S., & Smith, S. (2012). Mother–Daughter Communication

About Sex: The Influence of Authoritative Parenting Style. Health

Communication, 27(5), 439-448. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2011.606526

Carter, J. S., Smith, S., Bostick, S., & Grant, K. E. (2014). Mediating effects of parent–

child relationships and body image in the prediction of internalizing symptoms in

urban youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(4), 554-567.

Center, P. R. (2014a). Cell Phone and Smartphone Ownership Demographics. Retrieved

November 9, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/mobile/cell-

phone-and-smartphone-ownership-demographics/

Center, P. R. (2014b). Device Ownership Over Time. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from

http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/mobile/device-ownership/

Chang, L.-W., Schumm, W. R., Coulson, L. A., Bollman, S. R., & Jurich, A. P. (1994).

Dimensionality of Brief Family Interaction and Satisfaction scales among couples

from eight western and Midwestern States. Psychological Reports, 74(1), 131-

144.

52

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Chi, L. (2013). Intergenerational transmission of educational attainment: Three levels of

parent–child communication as mediators. PsyCh Journal, 2(1), 26-38.

Communications, N. (2012). Survey: Majority of 'tweeners' now have cell phones, with

many parents concerned about cost - National Consumers League. 2015, from

http://www.nclnet.org/survey_majority_of_tweeners_now_have_cell_phones_wit

h_many_parents_concerned_about_cost

Coplan, R. J., Hastings, P. D., Lagacé-Séguin, D. G., & Moulton, C. E. (2002).

Authoritative and authoritarian mothers' parenting goals, attributions, and

emotions across different childrearing contexts. Parenting: Science and Practice,

2(1), 1-26.

Criss, M. M., Shaw, D. S., & Ingoldsby, E. M. (2003). Mother-son positive synchrony in

middle childhood: Relation to antisocial behavior. Social Development, 12(3),

379-400.

Crockett, L. J., Brown, J., Russell, S. T., & Shen, Y. -L. (2007). The meaning of good

parent-child relationships for Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research

on Adolescence, 17(4), 639-668.

Devitt, K., & Roker, D. (2009). The Role of Mobile Phones in Family Communication.

Children & Society, 23(3), 189-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00166.x

Duggan, M., Ellison, N., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2015). Social

Networking Fact Sheet. Retrieved January 31, 2015, from

http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/

Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce.

Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 310-330.

53

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental Involvement and Students' Academic Achievement:

A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22. doi:

10.1023/A:1009048817385

Forgays, D. K., Hyman, I., & Schreiber, J. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything:

Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human

Behavior, 31, 314-321.

George, C., & Solomon, J. (1996). Representational Models of Relationships: Links

Between Caregiving and Attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17(3), 18-36.

Goossens, L., Braet, C., Van Durme, K., Decaluwé, V., & Bosmans, G. (2012). The

parent–child relationship as predictor of eating pathology and weight gain in

preadolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41(4), 445-

457.

Harwood, J., Dooley, J. J., Scott, A. J., & Joiner, R. (2014). Constantly connected – The

effects of smart-devices on mental health. Computers in Human Behavior, 34(0),

267-272. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.006

Hazel, N. A., Oppenheimer, C. W., Technow, J. R., Young, J. F., & Hankin, B. L. (2014).

Parent relationship quality buffers against the effect of peer stressors on

depressive symptoms from middle childhood to adolescence. Developmental

Psychology, 50(8), 2115-2123.

Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital Dwelling: Technology in Couple and Family

Relationships. Family Relations, 61(3), 374-387. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-

3729.2012.00702.x

54

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Hertlein, K. M., & Ancheta, K. (2014). Advantages and Disadvantages of Technology in

Relationships: Findings from an Open-Ended Survey. Qualitative Report, 19(11),

1-11.

Hoffmann, J. P., & Bahr, S. J. (2014). Parenting style, religiosity, peer alcohol use, and

adolescent heavy drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 75(2), 222-

227.

Holtgraves, T., & Paul, K. (2013). Texting versus talking: An exploration in

telecommunication language. Telematics and Informatics, 30(4), 289-295. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.01.002

Huebner, A. J., & Howell, L. W. (2003). Examining the relationship between adolescent

sexual risk-taking and perceptions of monitoring, communication, and parenting

styles. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(2), 71-78.

James, D. E. (1985). Characteristics of the Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale among two

samples of married parents. Psychological Reports, 57(1), 163-169.

Johnson, B., McBride, D., Hopkins, G., & Pepper, S. (2014). An examination of parent–

child relationships and teen substance use: A brief report. Journal of Child &

Adolescent Substance Abuse, 23(4), 210-216.

Johnson, L. N., Ketring, S. A., & Abshire, C. (2003). The Revised Inventory of Parent

Attachment: Measuring Attachment in Families. Contemporary Family Therapy:

An International Journal, 25(3), 333-349.

Kanter, M., Afifi, T., & Robbins, S. (2012). The impact of parents 'friending' their young

adult child on Facebook on perceptions of parental privacy invasions and parent–

child relationship quality. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 900-917.

55

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Kim, S., Kochanska, G., Boldt, L. J., Nordling, J. K., & O'Bleness, J. J. (2014).

Developmental trajectory from early responses to transgressions to future

antisocial behavior: Evidence for the role of the parent–child relationship from

two longitudinal studies. Development and Psychopathology, 26(1), 93-109.

Kliewer, W., Fearnow, M. D., & Miller, P. A. (1996). Coping socialization in middle

childhood: Tests of maternal and paternal influences. Child Development, 67(5),

2339-2357.

Lam, B. T., & Ducreux, E. (2013). Parental influence and academic achievement among

middle school students: Parent perspective. Journal of Human Behavior in the

Social Environment, 23(5), 579-590.

Lenhart, A., & Duggan, M. (2014). Couples, the Internet, and Social Media: How

American couples use digital technology to manage life, logistics, and emotional

intimacy within their relationships. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.

Lindelöw, M. (1999). Parent–child interaction and adult depression: A prospective study.

Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 100(4), 270-278.

Liu, Q.-X., Fang, X.-Y., Deng, L.-Y., & Zhang, J.-T. (2012). Parent–adolescent

communication, parental Internet use and Internet-specific norms and

pathological Internet use among Chinese adolescents. Computers in Human

Behavior, 28(4), 1269-1275. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.010

Lucas-Thompson, R. G., & Granger, D. A. (2014). Parent–child relationship quality

moderates the link between marital conflict and adolescents’ physiological

responses to social evaluative threat. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 538-

548.

56

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Luo, S. (2014). Effects of texting on satisfaction in romantic relationships: The role of

attachment. Computers in Human Behavior, 33(0), 145-152. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.014

Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and

Technology 2013. Retrieved from PewResearchCenter website:

http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/03/13/teens-and-technology-2013/

Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013).

Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic

relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers in Human

Behavior, 29(4), 1771-1778. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019

Newton, E. K., Laible, D., Carlo, G., Steele, J. S., & McGinley, M. (2014). Do sensitive

parents foster kind children, or vice versa? Bidirectional influences between

children’s prosocial behavior and parental sensitivity. Developmental Psychology,

50(6), 1808-1816.

Nomaguchi, K. M., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2011).

Adolescents' gender mistrust: Variations and implications for the quality of

romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 1032-1047.

Olson, S. L., Bates, J. E., Sandy, J. M., & Lanthier, R. (2000). Early developmental

precursors of externalizing behavior in middle childhood and adolescence.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28(2), 119-133.

Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991). Do parent-child relationships change during

puberty? Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 47-66.

57

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Piko, B. F., & Balázs, M. Á. (2012). Control or involvement? Relationship between

authoritative parenting style and adolescent depressive symptomatology.

European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 21(3), 149-155.

Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2013). Can you connect with me now? How the

presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face

conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 237-

246.

Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J. L., Dent, C. W., & Flay, B. R. (1996). Parenting style

and adolescent depressive symptoms, smoking, and academic achievement:

Ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 289-

305.

Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Early

childhood antecedents of aggression and passive-withdrawal in early elementary

school. Journal of Personality, 57(2), 257-281.

Rho, J. J., & Schumm, W. R. (1989). The factorial validity of brief satisfaction scales in a

survey of 58 Korean-American interracial couples. Psychological Reports, 65(3,

Pt 2), 1347-1350.

Rideout, V., Sapihr, M., S, P., Rudd, A., & Pritchett, J. (2013). Zero to Eight: Children's

Media Use in America 2013. Retrieved from Common Sense Media website:

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/zero-to-eight-childrens-media-use-

in-america-2013

Rideout, V., Sapiht, M., Rudd, A., Pai, S., & Bozdech, B. (2012). Social Media, Social

Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives. Retrieved from Common Sense Media

58

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

website: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/social-media-social-life-

how-teens-view-their-digital-lives

Rose, A., Koo, H. P., Bhaskar, B., Anderson, K., White, G., & Jenkins, R. R. (2005). The

influence of primary caregivers on the sexual behavior of early adolescents.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 37(2), 135-144.

Schade, L. C., Sandberg, J., Bean, R., Busby, D., & Coyne, S. (2013). Using Technology

to Connect in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Attachment, Relationship

Satisfaction, and Stability in Emerging Adults. Journal of Couple & Relationship

Therapy, 12(4), 314-338. doi: 10.1080/15332691.2013.836051

Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., & Ohrt, J. K. (2007). Parental Confirmation and Affection

as Mediators of Family Communication Patterns and Children's Mental Well-

Being. Journal of Family Communication, 7(1), 23-46. doi:

10.1207/s15327698jfc0701_3

Shaw, D. S., Keenan, K., & Vondra, J. I. (1994). Developmental precursors of

externalizing behavior: Ages 1 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 355-364.

Smith, A. (2013). Smartphone Ownership - 2013 Update. Washington, D.C.

Stanton, C. A., Highland, K. B., Tercyak, K. P., Luta, G., & Niaura, R. S. (2014).

Authoritative parenting and cigarette smoking among multiethnic preadolescents:

The mediating role of anti-tobacco parenting strategies. Journal of Pediatric

Psychology, 39(1), 109-119.

Sutton, M. Y., Lasswell, S. M., Lanier, Y., & Miller, K. S. (2014). Impact of parent-child

communication interventions on sex behaviors and cognitive outcomes for

59

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino Youth: A systematic review, 1988–

2012. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(4), 369-384.

Witherspoon, D. N. (2014). Face-to-face and online social networking as predictors of

social connectedness and interpersonal relationship satisfaction. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 75(2-B(E)).

60

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Appendix A: Tech Announce - General

Subject: Parents of children ages 8 through 17 are needed for a study on face-to- face and digital communication. Chance to win a 25$ Amazon e-gift card (1/75 odds or better)!

Synopsis: Help researchers understand the role that digital communication plays in family interactions and family relationships. After you finish the survey, you can enter into a drawing for one of four 25$ Amazon e-gift cards (1/75 odds or better).

Detailed Description:

Help researchers understand the role that digital communication plays in family interactions and how it impacts family relationships. After you finish the survey, you will be given an opportunity to enter into a drawing for one of four 25$ Amazon e-gift cards

(1/75 odds or better). Please follow the link below to see if you qualify and to participate in the study. The full survey will take approximately 15-30 minutes to complete.

https://ttuhumansciences.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cNry1sscdCIJcON

Please contact Neli Morris at [email protected] if you have any additional questions.

This study has been approved by the Human Research Protection Program at

Texas Tech University.

61

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Appendix B: Facebook Script

If you are a parent of a child ages 8 through 17, please participate in this research study to help explore the role that digital communication plays in family interactions and how it impacts family relationships. Upon completion, you can enter into a drawing to win one of four 25$ Amazon e-gift cards (1/75 odds or better)! The study will take about

15-30 minutes of your time: https://ttuhumansciences.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cNry1sscdCIJcON

62

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Appendix C: Tech Announce – Fathers

Subject: Fathers of children ages 8 through 17 are needed for a study on face-to- face and digital communication. Chance to win a 25$ Amazon e-gift card (1/75 odds or better)!

Synopsis: Help researchers understand the role that digital communication plays in father-child interactions and how it impacts father-child relationships. After you finish the survey, you will be given an opportunity to enter into a drawing for one of four 25$

Amazon e-gift cards (1/75 odds or better).

Detailed Description:

Help researchers understand the role that digital communication plays in father- child interactions and how it impacts father-child relationships. After you finish the survey, you will be given an opportunity to enter into a drawing for one of four 25$

Amazon e-gift cards (1/75 odds or better). Please follow the link below to see if you qualify and to participate in the study. The full survey will take approximately 15-30 minutes to complete.

https://ttuhumansciences.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cNry1sscdCIJcON

Please contact Neli Morris at [email protected] if you have any additional questions.

This study has been approved by the Human Research Protection Program at

Texas Tech University.

63

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Appendix D: Consent Page

What is this project studying?

This project is studying parents’ use of technology in communication with their children. The purpose of this study is to explore how digital communication impacts parent-child relationships and to provide additional information on the uses of digital media to other researchers and clinicians.

What would I do if I participate?

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey relating to your use of digital media with one of your children and report on your relationship with that child.

Are there any risks involved in participating?

The questions in this survey would not present any risks outside of what may be experienced in everyday life.

How will I benefit from participating?

You will be providing invaluable data on parent-child communication and relationship to other researchers and clinicians who work with families. In addition, upon finishing this survey, you will have an opportunity to enter into a drawing for one of four

25$ Amazon e-gift cards.

Can I quit if I become uncomfortable?

Yes, absolutely. You may stop at any point during the survey. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. In addition, you can skip any questions that you do not want to answer.

64

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

How long will participation take?

This study will take approximately 15 to 30 minutes of your time.

How is your privacy maintained?

None of the data obtained from this survey will be linked to your name or any other identifying information. In order to maintain confidentiality, the data will be collected via Qualtrics, which will remove any participant identifying information from the survey answers. Only de-identified data will be downloaded and used for analyses.

If you choose to enter into the gift card drawing, you will be taken to a separate page where only your e-mail address will be requested. Your e-mail address will be in no way connected to your survey responses.

I have some questions about this study. Who can I ask?

If you have any questions regarding this study, you may contact Dr. Douglas

Smith at [email protected] or Neli Morris at [email protected].

Also, TTU also has a Board that protects the rights of people who participate in research. You can ask them questions at 806-742-2064. You can also mail your questions to the Human Research Protection Program, Office of the Vice President for Research,

Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, Texas 79409 or email them to [email protected].

Select the option below if you agree and wish to continue with the study and click

“Next” to be taken to the survey.

[Agree, and proceed] [Disagree, end study]

65

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Appendix E: Survey

What is your gender? • Male • Female • Transgender male to female • Transgender female to male • Gender fluid • Other: ______

What is your age? ______

What is your sexual orientation? • Heterosexual • Gay • Lesbian • Bisexual • Other: ______

What is the highest level of education you have completed? • Grade school • High school (or GED) • Some college • Bachelor’s degree • Graduate student • Master’s degree • Doctorate degree

What is your racial or ethnic origin? • American Indian or Alaska Native • Asian or Pacific Islander • African-American / Black • Caucasian / White • Mexican-American / Hispanic • Other: ______

What is geographic area that most closely represents where you live? • Urban • Suburban • Rural

What is your religious preference? • Catholic • Protestant (ex., Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and other) • LDS

66

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

• Christian, Other • Spiritual, Non-Religious • Jewish • Muslim • Buddhist • Hindu • Agnostic • Atheist • Other: ______• None How strongly do you consider yourself to be religious?

Mostly Not at all religious Somewhat Very strongly religious

What is your employment status? • Employed full-time • Employed part-time • Unemployed • Homemaker • Retired • Student • Military, active duty • Other: ______

What is your current annual income? • Less than $10,000 • 10,000 -- 19,999 • 20,000 -- 29,999 • 30,000 -- 39,999 • 40,000 -- 49,999 • 50,000 -- 59, 999 • 60,000 -- 69, 999 • 70,000 -- 79, 999 • 80,000 -- 89, 999 • 90,000 -- 99, 999 • 100,000 -- 109, 999 • 110,000 -- 119, 999 • 120,000 -- 129, 999 • 130,000 -- 139, 999 • 140,000 -- 149, 999 • 150,000+

67

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

What is your current relationship status? • Single, never married, not dating • Single, divorced or separated • Single, widowed • Dating • Living together • Living as married • Engaged to be married • Married, first marriage • Married, second or third marriage • Other: ______

Including yourself, how many people live in your household most of the time (for children, most of the time is at least 4 days out of the week)? ______

Of those in your household, how many are children under the age of 18? ______

Please list their age(s) and gender(s) below: Child 1: Age:_____ Gender: • Male • Female • Other: ______

[Add Child] [No more children to add] {note: participants will have the “add child” button available after every additional child they enter, until they click on the “no more children to add button”}

Do you have other children, 18 or over, or those who do not live with you most of the time? • Yes • No

If yes, please enter their age(s) and gender(s) below: Child 1: Age:_____ Gender: • Male • Female • Other: ______

68

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

[Add Child] [No more children to add]

[If participant only entered one child between the ages of 8 and 17, the following question will be skipped]

Of the children ages 8 through 17, please identify one child who is most representative of your communication patterns with your children. • Child 1 [Gender, age] • Child 2 [Gender, age] • Child 3 [Gender, age]

Now we would like to ask you a few questions about your and your child’s technology access and use.

Which of the following devices do you own or have access to? • Cell phone (a basic phone with either limited or no internet capabilities) • Smartphone (a phone with an advanced operating system that has internet capabilities, can download and run apps, access email, and so on) • Desktop and/or Laptop computer (Windows, Mac, Linux, etc) • eBook reader • Tablet • MP3 player with internet capabilities (such as iPhone Touch) • Game Console with internet capabilities (for example, Xbox 360 or newer, PlayStation 3 or newer, Wii, and other)

Do you have a landline in your home? • Yes • No

Which of the devices that you own have you ever used to access the internet? • [List prepopulated based on responses to device ownership question]

In which of the following settings have you ever used a computer to access the internet? • At home • At the library • At work • At school • At a coffee shop or another location that provides Wi-Fi • At a friend’s or a family member’s home • Other: ______

In which of the following settings do you most frequently use a computer to access the internet?

69

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

• At home • At the library • At work • At school • At a coffee shop or another location that provides Wi-Fi • At a friend’s or a family member’s home • Other: ______

Do you own or have access to a mobile phone of any type? • Yes, own • Yes, have access • No

[If yes] Is the phone you use most often a smartphone, such as a Blackberry, iPhone, Android or Windows phone? • Yes • No

Do you use your phone to access the internet? • Yes • No

Do you use your phone to access or download any apps? • Yes • No

Do you use any of the following communication apps, either on your phone or tablet (do not include the standard text messaging app that came with your phone)? • Skype • Google Hangouts • Facetime • Messenger for Facebook • Other app(s) with video chat capabilities: ______• Other app(s) with no video chat capabilities______• None

Do you use any of the following communication programs on your personal computer? • Skype • Facebook Messenger • Email • Instant messaging programs (AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, ICQ, etc) • Online chat • Other program with video chat capabilities: ______• Other program with no video chat capabilities: ______

70

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

• None

Do you have any of the following social networking accounts? • Facebook • LinkedIn • Myspace • Twitter • Tumblr • Google+ • Instagram • Pinterest • Other: ______• None

Which of the previously indicated social networking accounts do you access using your phone and/or tablet? • [List prepopulated with previously indicated accounts]

The following questions will ask you about your child’s technology use and access.

Does your child have his/her own device or has access to any of the following devices? Cell phone (a basic phone with Yes, own Yes, access No either limited or no internet capabilities) Smartphone (a phone with an Yes, own Yes, access No advanced operating system that has internet capabilities, can download and run apps, access email, and so on)

Desktop and/or Laptop computer Yes, own Yes, access No (Windows, Mac, Linux, etc) eBook reader Yes, own Yes, access No

Tablet Yes, own Yes, access No

MP3 player with internet capabilities Yes, own Yes, access No (such as iPhone Touch)

71

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Game Console with internet Yes, own Yes, access No capabilities (for example, Xbox 360 or newer, PlayStation 3 or newer, Wii, and other)

[If yes, own cell phone or smartphone] At what age did your child receive his/her first mobile phone? _____

[If yes, own smartphone] Was his/her first mobile phone a smartphone? • Yes • No

[If yes, access or no for cell phone or smartphone] At what age do you plan on giving your child his/her own cell phone or smartphone? Do you think that the increased use of technology by your child has forced you to redefine or create new rules for your child? • Yes • No

Please read the following list of restrictions or rules for your child’s technology use and check whether or not these are restrictions you have in place for your child.

• No Internet or cell phone use after a certain time. • No access to “adult” websites. • Requirements for use of social media (what can be posted, who they can friend). • Parent must have access to social networking accounts used by the child (e.g., Parent must be “friends” with child on Facebook, Follow the child’s account on Instagram)

[Open-ended] Are there any other rules or restrictions that you have in place which were not included above? If so, please share those below.

[If yes, restriction or rules, Open-ended] Please tell us how the restrictions or rules for your child’s technology use are monitored or reinforced (for example, how do you know they are not going on banned websites or friending people on Facebook they are not allowed to friend).

The following questions will ask you about your communication with your child [Gender, Age]. Please indicate all of the ways that you communicate with your child: • Face-to-Face 72

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

• Phone call • Text messaging • Video chat • Social networking site(s) (either publicly or in private messages) • Instant messaging programs or apps • Other: ______

On an average day, how much time would you estimate that you spend communicating with your child [Gender, Age]: ______

Below is a series of sliders based on your previous answer. You must adjust the sliders until the total sum below equals to your communication time estimate. You must adjust every slider to continue, no slider can have 0 as a value. Your best guess is fine. [Communication method 1slider] 0______[...] [Communication method 2 slider] 0______[...] [Communication method 3 slider] 0______[...] ... Total [=previous question value]: [...] {note: each slider will represent the method of communication identified by the participant in the previous question}

In the question below, please select the option on the scale that best applies to you. [Number of questions based on previous response, below is one sample question] The amount of time I use [Communication Method 1] communication with my child is....

Much less than I would Less than I would like About as much as Much more than I would More than I would like like I would like like

Do you feel that digital communication has brought you and your child’s relationship closer? • Yes • No

73

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

[open-ended, if yes] Please provide a few examples of how digital technology has brought you and your child closer or improved your relationship.

[Open-ended question] We understand that other factors may impact how and/or how often you communicate with your child. Please provide any information that you think may be relevant in terms of your communication times and preferences (for example, having an atypical work schedule, such as working night shifts, child’s afterschool activity participation, and so on).

(R-IPA) The final set of questions asks about your relationship with your child [Gender, age]. Almost Never Not Very Sometimes Often Almost Always Or Often True True True or Never True Always True

1 2 3 4 5

1. I get frustrated with my child 2. I am constantly yelling and fighting with my child1 3. My child trusts my judgment 4. I trust my child 5. My child respects my feelings 6. I feel angry with my child 7. I get upset easily around my child 8. My child understands me 9. My child cares about my point of view 10. I don’t like being around my child 11. When I am angry my child often understands 12. I don’t get much attention or credit from my child 13. I feel my child is good 14. My child accepts me as I am 15. My child expects too much of me 16. I wish I had a different child 17. I talk to my child about my difficulties 18. If my child knows something is bothering me they ask me about it 19. I tell my child about my problems 20. I can count on my child when I need to get something off my chest 21. My child can tell when I’m upset about something 22. I like to get my child’s point of view on things I am concerned about

(KPSS) 1 = Extremely dissatisfied 2 = Very dissatisfied 3 = Somewhat dissatisfied

74

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

4 = Mixed 5 = Somewhat satisfied 6 = Very satisfied 7 = Extremely satisfied • How satisfied are you with the behavior of your child? • How satisfied are you with yourself as a parent? • How satisfied are you with your relationship with your child?

75

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Appendix F: Drawing Entry

These are all of the questions that we have for you today. As a thank you for your time, you may choose to enter into a drawing to win one of the four 25$ Amazon e-gift cards. If you would like to enter into the drawing, please select the “Enter to win” option below and you will be taken to a separate page. Otherwise, just select “I do not wish to enter the drawing” and click “NEXT” to record your response.

[Enter to win] [I do not wish to enter the drawing]

[If ‘Enter to win’] To enter into the drawing for one of four 25$ Amazon e-gift cards, please enter an email below that you will be able to access for the next four months. Your email information will be in no way connected to your survey responses earlier.

76

Texas Tech University, Neli Morris, December 2015

Appendix G: IRB Approval Letter

77