1. Introduction
The main force advancing modern society is technology, which is advancing at a rapid rate. Given the social isolation brought about by the COVID-19 epidemic, technological information, communication, and knowledge have emerged as the major drivers of contemporary community development [1,2]. The pandemic has significantly impacted every element of society over the past two years, including medical, cultural, and interpersonal relationships at all levels. Recent years have seen a rise in mental health issues and significant impacts on family relationships due to the pandemic [3,4]. Governmental restrictions, such as social distancing and lockdown, exacerbated social isolation, which had negative impacts on finances, stress levels, sense of alienation, and physical and mental health [5,6]. As a result of disrupted routines, a lack of social outlets, and separation due to the greater fear of contracting the disease, both children and parents now experience isolation, which can lead to feelings of anxiety, loneliness, and melancholy [7,8]. According to certain studies, family cohesion strengthens amid a natural calamity like a tsunami [9]. On the other hand, the benefit might be reversed given the detrimental effects the epidemic had on mental health. Recent research revealed that parents who were subject to the COVID-19 restrictions tended to have more arguments with their children [10]. It is commonly known that parents’ mental health deteriorated as a result of an increase in psychological stress and exhaustion [11,12], even though it is impossible to precisely assess the effects of restriction and lockdown on parents.
Parents had to juggle telecommuting with parental duties because schools and companies were closed. It is assumed that these factors, along with the high level of economic instability and diminished social support, will raise parental stress. The connection between the perceived impact of COVID-19 and parent–child intimacy and strict parenting was significantly mediated by parental stress. COVID-19′s effects and stay-at-home instructions may make parenting more stressful. This, in turn, has a detrimental effect on parenting by deteriorating the bond between parents and their kids and increasing the use of severe discipline [13,14].
Additionally, the epidemic tested people’s parenting abilities as they took on new roles as teachers, babysitters, and playdate hosts while attempting to maintain a work-life balance [15,16]. In some instances, this might have reconnected children and parents, but in others, the outcome was stress and mental health issues [17,18].
With the aid of digital gadgets like smartphones, tablets, and laptops, social connection has shifted from face-to-face interaction to virtual interaction during the lockdown limitation [19]. Children are forced to spend a lot of time in front of screens because schools shifted online [20].
As a result, children who use technology constantly run the risk of developing addictive behaviors toward it, especially given that social isolation is a significant risk factor for Internet addiction [21,22]. The boundary between responsible and careless technology use in parent–child relationships has gotten quite blurry. This is crucial if we believe that children’s mental health may worsen as a result of the overuse of digital technology [23]. Parental technoference has been identified as a source of feelings of intrusion and can have a detrimental effect on parent–child relationships [24]. Parental technoference is the repeated interruptions parents make during family time to check their digital gadgets. Despite good intentions, most of the time bad things come out of it because the parents tend to minimize their role as educators [25].
The parenting style also affects how well parents and children get along. Three parenting philosophies, according to Baumrind [26], can be distinguished: the authoritarian style is characterized by strict behavior, inflexibility, and compliance from the child, with the parent making decisions, enforcing regulations, and establishing family goals. On the other side, the permissive parenting style is characterized by the freedom granted to the child and the parent’s assertive demeanor towards him or her. The democratic approach, which is also referred to as authoritative, sits between the other two and is characterized by adaptability and effective communication, with the kid participating in decision-making [24].
In particular, the current study seeks to determine whether there is a relationship between parenting style and media consumption, both individually and within the family frame, between the parenting style and the parent’s relationship with the child, and between parenting style and the child’s relationship with the school. We proposed a structural equation modeling (SEM) hypothesis to investigate the association between parenting style, parent–child interaction, usage of technology, and children’s relationship with the school. We have to emphasize from the very beginning that this is an exploratory study.
2. Literature Review
Parenting style, along with parent Internet behavior and parent educational background, strongly influenced children’s use of the internet, according to a prior study by Valcke et al. [27]. One study specifically identified a link between higher child Internet usage at home and lax and laissez-faire parenting. Additionally, it appears that parental practices influence how exposed children are to Internet hazards. A tighter and more involved parenting style predicts a lower likelihood of experiencing internet hazards, as demonstrated by Leung and Lee [28].
The predictive value of parenting style and children’s technology use was stressed in a prior study [29,30,31]. Permissive parenting has been associated with both adolescent smartphone addiction and the use of smartphones by children [32,33,34]. Similar findings have been made by Drouin and McDaniel, Pater, and Toscos [25], who discovered a connection between parental technology use and children’s technology use. All of these data point to the fact that how parents interact with technology has a significant impact on how frequently and for how long their children use smartphones. They also demonstrate how a permissive parenting style may raise children’s chances of developing an addiction to the Internet.
Additionally, parents’ relationships with their children can dictate how much technology use they will engage in. Oliveira argues that open communication with children can lead to positive behaviors, meaning that the democratic approach has a higher positive impact on children’s behavior, even concerning technology [35]. The study compared democratic parenting to other parenting styles and found that democratic parenting is linked to lower rates of Internet addiction, depressive illnesses, and aggressive conduct. Children can constructively use technology when parents employ a democratic parenting style that emphasizes open discussion about how children should use the Internet, paying attention to children’s needs, and negotiating the amount of time spent online [36].
As a means of discipline, parents frequently create mobile phone contracts, place time restrictions on on-screen use, set timers, and take away technology. However, the problem with technology, social media, and the Internet in our children’s lives has more to do with how much the parents allow their technology use to obstruct their ability to be good parents. Sometimes, checking social media and email prevents children from having important connections with their parents. The children want to talk to their parents or ask them challenging questions, but the parents are preoccupied with checking their phones, responding to work emails, or browsing through social media. So, when the children see the gadget in their parents’ hands, they either give up or turn to the Internet to look up the solution. The children’s emotional reactions to what they read on their mobile devices also caused them to respond negatively to their family members more frequently, particularly when the email or message they were reading contained unfavorable information or was stressful [37]. In this study, parents reported that their children tended to act more attention-seeking while they were immersed in technology, which led to their losing their cool with them. The researchers also found that while using mobile devices around youngsters, there are fewer verbal and nonverbal reactions.
Not all technological applications should be viewed unfavorably, as was already said. During the COVID-19 pandemic, children mostly exploited technology and the Internet to attend virtual classes without compromising their academic progress. The interaction between children and their parents as well as their interactions with their schools were found to be predictive of the technology used by our model. This result contrasts with that of Schmidt et al. [38], who found that parents who participated in distance learning reported more unfavorable interactions with their children, less positive parent–child effect, and more unfavorable parent–child effect. Other research [39,40] shows that stress among parents has increased.
Lockdowns and other governmental restrictions led to several issues for families, including increased levels of stress and anxiety in the children [41]. When children are exposed to stressful conditions during their socioemotional development, supportive parenting is crucial to preventing mental health issues [42]. The most recent study examines how the epidemic affected family interactions, technological development, and educational experiences. The last two years have been spent by all of the children growing up alone, away from their friends, and in constant fear of getting the illness [43]. Therefore, under these situations, an autocratic parenting style may choose to foster positive relationships among its members as well as the use of technology and education.
The synergic idea is necessary for our understanding since the human person is a whole and the human body is an organism, not a mechanism [44].
Given that technology and the Internet were the primary means of contact for social relationships, academic learning, and employment throughout the COVID-19 pandemic quarantine and lockdown periods, the family environment and parenting approaches to Internet usage may have changed. The current study intends to fill this vacuum since no studies regarding the relationship between parental practices, technology, and media intake during pandemic times have been discovered.
3. Materials and Methods
The statistic population for our research is a well-known school from a secondary school in Halchiu Brasov, Romania. The sample is formed of 137 parents. The families were asked at the beginning of the study how the main responsibility of educating children behavior on daily activities and school-related behavior changed. Women’s opinions were more valued because they typically took care of the kids in everyday activities in most homes. Given that males are not often involved in decisions affecting children’s education, the survey’s findings would likely be different if they were completed by men. In 131 families there were females, thus in our survey, we collected 131 answers from women.
The survey was based on the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ) [45] and Parental Authority Questionnaire [46] but also took into account some studies on technology such as [37] and [47] and was tested with 10 teachers, pedagogues, and psychologists within the school. To ensure a correct research process, the school psychologist administered the survey to parents in casual environments like parks or places they chose. The psychologist had the opportunity to see the parents’ non-verbal and para-verbal behavior and objectively conduct the research. From time to time, he/she offered supplementary explanations and encouraged the parent to maintain focus when answering the questions.
Participants were chosen if their children were between the ages of 6 and 18 after being contacted via email and social media. As a result, the sample consisted of 137 participants who answered the questionnaire, 131 of whom were women (95.62%). They were primarily highly educated (76.5%). Their children’s ages ranged from 6 to 12 years old (76.4%), while their age range was between 22 and 50 years.
The experimenters came up with the Family relationship with education and technology questionnaire on the fly. Definitions for the research’s goals, motivations, and person who launched the study were included in the introductive section, along with other details needed to do the work, including how to fill out the questionnaire.
The goal of this action was explained to the participants both before and during the questionnaire. For about 15 to 20 minutes, this assignment was completed in a digital (online) environment.
The survey has 5 components with a range of 3 to 5 multiple-choice answers:
-. Determine the respondent’s parenting philosophy (9 questions);
-. their relationship with technology (8 questions);
-. their relationship with their child (8 questions);
-. their child’s relationship with school (8 questions);
-. and their family’s relationship with technology (10 questions).
The first four questions focused on sociodemographic data like age, gender, and academic level. Additionally, we included the query, “How old is your child?” to allow parents of children between the ages of 6 and 18 to participate. Nine questions make up the questionnaire’s first section, which asked about parenting preferences (noted in the questionnaire from 5 to 13). The answers to these questions are “Yes,” “I think so,” “I do not think so,” and “No” [29]. The Baumrind model [26] was used to evaluate three parenting philosophies. The child exhibits rigid conduct, inflexibility, and compliance under an authoritarian parenting style in which the parent makes decisions imposes rules, and establishes family goals. On the other side, the permissive parenting style is characterized by the freedom granted to the child and the parent’s assertive demeanor towards him or her. The democratic approach (also known as authoritative) sits on the cusp of the other two and is characterized by adaptability and effective communication, with the child participating in the decision-making process.
The relationship with technology section of the questionnaire asked for 8 items (listed on the questionnaire from 14 to 21 total), eliciting responses regarding respondents’ thoughts and beliefs about modern technology and its effects on both the individual and family levels.
To assess the parent–child relationship and the degree to which parents influence their children, particularly through digital devices, the third section of the questionnaire, titled “Parent–Child Relationship,” included 8 questions (listed in the questionnaire from questions 22 to 29).
The fourth section of the survey, “Child interaction with school,” has 8 items (listed in the questionnaire from 30 to 37) that were specifically focused on the connection between children’s use of technology and their relationships with their schools. This factor focuses on the child’s attitude and behavior inside the educational setting and the type of interaction they have with the institution. For instance, some children are optimistic about education and recognize how important it is to their lives. However, some children do not share this sentiment; they view school as their enemy and see it as a place where they must complete their assignments without regard for their classmates’ feelings [30].
The final section of the questionnaire, Family relationship with technology, included 10 items (listed in the questionnaire from 38 to 47), which were used to determine how the family viewed and used technology.
As a quick summary, the following is how the survey items were divided into the four aforementioned variables: Parenting Style, which describes the respondent’s parenting style (questions 5–13), Tech, which depicts how the family uses technology (questions 14–21 and 38–47), Parent–Child Relationship, which depicts how the parent interacts with the child (questions 22–29), and School, which depicts how the respondent’s child interacts with the school, are the other four categories (questions 30–37).
The data were analyzed in two steps. In stage I, Pearson’s correlation index was used to evaluate the relationship between parenting style, parents’ relationship with technology, families’ relationship with technology, parents’ relationship with their children, and children’s relationship with the school. In stage II, a structural equation model using SmartPLs3.0 was carried out. We developed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) method to examine the effects of parenting style and parent–child relationships on children’s use of technology and school attitudes. By categorizing survey items into five variables (Table 1) and specifying the direction of their relationships, CFA enabled us to impose constraints on the model.
The primary drawback of CFA is that it obscures the influence’s direction. Even so, it can quantify the effects of each element and subfactor, as well as demonstrate whether the model provides a good fit for the data and is consistent. Each variable’s loading factors are determined by the model. This was the primary justification behind choosing the CFA over a predictive analysis like a regression model [48,49].
Following the questionnaire’s sections, five latent variables were created: ParentUseTech (with seven subitems), Parenting Style (also with seven), Parent Child Relationship (with six), ChildrenAttitudeSchool (with six), and ChildrenUseTech (with 7 subitems). Table 1 contains three columns. The column Descriptions contains the question from the survey that were selected for the analysis. The column Item contains a label for each question in the survey. The column Variable contains a compound variable made of many items (the results in the survey question) referred to different subjects, such as “parenting style”, “Parent Use technology”, “Parent child-relationship”, “Children Attitude to school”, “Children use technology”.
The hypotheses of the research are:
H1: Parent–child relationships were favorably influenced by parenting practices and the use of technology by parents.
H2: Parent–child relationships have an impact on how children use technology and how they view education.
4. Results
We start by looking at the correlations between the different variables (Table 2), and we can see that parent use of technology and parenting approach have a moderately favorable correlation (0.593).
Table 2 also shows the following small positive correlation: Children’s Use of Technology and Parent–Child Relationship (0.420). A good relationship with the children will have a good impact on how children feel about technology (Table 2) Parent Use of Technology and Children’s Use of Technology (0.251)—Children will imitate their parents’ technology use. Children’s Technology Use and Parenting Style (0.347)—A democratic parenting approach will have a positive and beneficial impact on children’s technology usage. A permissive one will have a detrimental impact.
Children’s use of technology and their attitude toward school may be moderately negatively correlated (−0.539), indicating that using technology excessively will make children less inclined to value education. Children’s attitudes toward school and parent–child relationships also have a little negative association (−0.421) Children’s attitudes toward school will be negatively impacted by a lack of strong relationships with them.
Parent Use of Technology (−0.295): If a parent is overly reliant on technology or is ill-equipped to use it (is a technique), it will harm their children’s attitudes toward school (the children don’t have their parents’ support or cannot control how they use technology; they use it only for playing, not for learning).
Parental Approach (−0.326): A democratic approach will positively and effectively affect children’s attitudes toward learning, whereas a permissive one will have the opposite effect. We created a structural equation modeling using SmartPls 3.0 based on the aforementioned correlations. Since PLS-SEM is a non-parametric technique, the data do not need to adhere to specific distributional presumptions. However, the significance of factors like outer weights, outer loadings, and path coefficients cannot be determined using parametric significance tests (such as those employed in regression analysis). To examine the significance of various outcomes, such as path coefficients, Cronbach’s alpha, HTMT, and R2 values, PLS-SEM instead uses a bootstrap approach [48,49].
Figure 1 displays the path coefficients and the relative loading factors, while Table 3 lists the model’s indirect effects.
The path analysis demonstrates that the parent–child relationship and the children’s attitudes toward school are both impacted (0.219) if the parent is controlled by technology (cannot control the technology, the amount of time spent on devices) (−0.092 as an indirect effect).
The relationship between parents and children is influenced by parenting style (β = 0.521), and the attitude of the children toward school is also impacted (β = −0.220 as an indirect effect). Relationships between parents and children are positively impacted by parenting style (β = 0.521), although it relies on how each style is used. Children’s attitudes about school are impacted by a poor parent–child relationship (β = −0.421), while the indirect influence of children using technology (β = 0.219) is unaffected. In turn, children’s attitudes about technology have a favorable impact on their relationships with schools (β = 0.219), i.e., the child uses technology to his or her benefit when completing schoolwork. Children are more likely to utilize technology if their parents do it frequently (β = 0.420).
The calculated F square values are higher than the cutoff. Despite being very modest (0.07), the F square for ParentChildRelation and ParentUseTech demonstrates a representative model.
4.1. Discriminant Validity
The latent variable correlation has the same values as the Fornell-Larcker Criterion (Table 2). The model’s statistical strength is demonstrated by the fact that all of the derived coefficients are smaller than 0.70. As seen in Table 2, the measures in this instance have strong discriminant validity when taken two by two.
Since the estimated SRMR, D ULS, D G, and chi-square values exceed those for saturated models, we may state that our model is consistent (Table 4). A value of less than 0.1 on the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) scale denotes a strong fit [49]. When computing discrepancy based on an eigenvalue value, D ULS stands for the squared Euclidean distance and D G for the geodesic distance. Known as the Bentler and Bonett Index or NFI. The NFI is then calculated as 1 minus Chi2. The NFI result is greater (i.e., better) with more model parameters [49].
4.2. Collinearity Statistics VIF
Each construct’s variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to evaluate the relevance of the variables. An overview of the findings is presented in Table 5 [49]. There is no evidence of variable collinearity because the VIF is lower than the acknowledged maxima (Table 5).
5. Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to investigate how family relationships were set up during the COVID-19 epidemic. A favorable correlation between parenting practices and technology was found in the findings. Our results specifically show a favorable correlation between a permissive parenting style and parents’ use of technology.
Previous research [29,30,31] emphasized the predictive value of parenting style and children’s technology use. The use of smartphones by children and the development of smartphone addiction in youngsters have both been linked to permissive parenting [32,33,34]. According to the results of the current study, parents’ attitudes toward technology and permissive parenting styles were correlated. This discovery is comparable with that of Drouin and McDaniel, Pater, and Toscos [25], who found a link between parental technology use and children’s technology use. Together, these findings show that parents’ relationships with technology play a critical role in determining how much time and how often children use smartphones. They also show that a permissive parenting approach may increase the risk of Internet addiction in children.
Additionally, in our model, a parent’s bond with their children indirectly predicts how much technology they will use. According to Oliveira et al. [34], open communication with children can result in favorable behaviors, and our findings show a slight positive link between the democratic approach and parent–child relationships. Comparing democratic parenting to various parenting approaches, one has shown that democratic parenting is associated with less Internet addiction, fewer negative mood disorders, and less conflict behavior. Therefore, using a democratic parenting approach that emphasizes open communication about how children should use the Internet, paying attention to children’s needs, and negotiating the amount of time spent online can result in children positively using technology.
As was already mentioned, not all uses of technology should be viewed negatively. Technology and the Internet were primarily used by children to attend virtual classrooms during the COVID-19 pandemic without losing their academic progress. Our model verified that the relationship between parents and children and the interaction between children and schools were predictors of technology use. This finding contrasts with that of Schmidt, et al. [38], who discovered that parents who participated in distance learning expressed more negative parent–child interactions, less positive parent–child affect, and more negative parent–child affect. Parents are experiencing more stress, according to other studies [39,40].
Government limitations like lockdowns and quarantines caused a variety of difficulties for families, including elevated levels of stress and anxiety in their children [41]. Supportive parenting is essential to preventing mental health problems in children during their socioemotional development when they are exposed to negative situations [42]. The latest study provides details about how family interactions, technological advancements, and educational experiences changed during the pandemic. All of the youngsters have spent the last two years growing up isolated from their friends and living in constant terror of contracting the disease [43]. As a result, in such circumstances, an autocratic parenting style may decide on a positive familiar relationship among its members, as well as with technology and education. Additionally, there is a need for certain practical activities that the schools’ conduct (such as conferences for parents about strategies they might employ in the educational process).
6. Recommendations
The goal of school psychologists was to improve the quality of life for children while also assisting the parents in altering or strengthening their relationship with technology and their children. As a result, they examined the errors made by parents and gave guidance and helpful suggestions. The investigation will be reopened the following year to see whether these suggestions affected parents’ attitudes about technology and their relationships with their children, which are mirrored in the attitudes of the children toward school and technology.
This study has an applicative scope, and in the end, the school psychologist recommended the parents to:
Ask the Right Questions—The parent needs to be honest with him/herself if he/she decides that he/she wants to control how you use technology, analyzing him/herself on how frequently he/she takes out the phone during dinner to check emails or reply to a text or how much time he/she wastes uploading pictures and selfies to social media instead of being present in the moment in comparison with how much time he/she spends documenting the children’s lives on social media rather than genuinely spending time with them. Thus, the parent will know where to make improvements once he/she has critically examined his/her conduct.
Establish Limits—Make a plan for how to employ technology. The parent may set up specific areas of his home or times of day when can unplug entirely, by not using a device at the breakfast or dinner table, or when the children are in their rooms at night. They may designate particular areas of the home, like the family room or the reading room, as technology-free zones.
Monitor Your Mobile Activity—Consider tracking cellphone usage with an app like “Moment” or “Quality Time.” Finding out where and when you are spending too much time can be done with the use of this information. As a result, the parent can seek ways to cut back on his/her technology use if he/she finds that 90 percent of the time is spent on social media or reading work emails [50].
Determine Stressors—Consider a period in life when the parent has been short with the children or snapped at them because of using mobile devices. He/she might plan times to do these things when he/she knows that the children are involved with sports or another activity.
Set an example for others—It’s crucial to keep in mind that the children are watching their parents while they use technology. Children would prefer if their parents turned off their gadgets. The results of “detrimental effects of parents’ problematic mobile phone involvement (PMPI) on children’s PMPI” may also be considered [50].
Help Children Understand the Advantages of Quiet—Too often, technology is constantly in use. Videos are playing on the iPad or a YouTube video is playing on the computer. However, studies have shown that quiet time without technological intrusion is essential for brain growth. Brilliant idea for a project at work comes while folding clothes or taking a shower or doing other relaxing activities. Our brains are given the most creative freedom during these peaceful times. Model silence for the children by speaking quietly. The children are more likely to imitate parent conduct if they observe them doing relaxing things.
Turn Off the Technology—The children will probably imitate similar behaviors in their own lives if they witness the parents setting limits on technology use or turning away from the screen to do something else. More than anything else, children learn via observation. They will probably follow suit if the parents actively put boundaries on their technology use.
7. Conclusions
Technology and the Internet first made it simpler for both adults and children to communicate when social distance was required. However, it is widely acknowledged that social isolation can lead to addiction to the Internet and social networks. As a result of parents attempting to balance work and home life while also taking on additional responsibilities such as teaching, babysitting, and hosting playdates, family relationships, including those between parents and children, changed. The study found strong correlations between democratic parenting and parents’ interactions with their children as well as permissive parenting and parents’ usage of technology. The research emphasizes the contact between parents and children, which in turn predicted the relationship between children and schools, and anticipated the usage of technology. This led to the discovery of a beneficial link between permissive parenting practices and family interactions with technology. The new research aids in our understanding of how views toward education and technology, as well as family connections, have evolved through time. Based on these findings, some practical recommendations were provided to parents.
The current study has some drawbacks, such as preliminary research that might be improved and applied to the country’s population and official programs and dissemination of information should be attended.
Conceptualization, V.M. and R.-S.E.; methodology, V.M.; software, V.M.; validation, V.M. and R.-S.E.; formal analysis, R.-S.E.; investigation, V.M.; resources, R.-S.E.; data curation, V.M.; writing—original draft preparation, V.M.; writing—review and editing, V.M. and R.-S.E.; visualization, R.-S.E.; supervision, R.-S.E.; project administration, V.M.; funding acquisition, V.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the fact that the respondents gave their consent to using the research results.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Variable analyzed.
| Variable | Items | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Parenting style | Rules | As long as my children live under the same roof as me or are under my guardianship, they will follow my rules. |
| Team | I prefer a team attitude in my family, especially when we have a problem. | |
| Flex | I have adopted a too permissive attitude in my relationship with my son/daughter and I let him/her escape very easily when in fact I should take action. | |
| Require | I try not to ask too much of my child because it would not be fair to him. | |
| Control | I think I have to exercise control until my children can decide for themselves. | |
| Wish | The parent needs to listen to and respect the wishes and needs of their child. | |
| Fault | My child blames me for his problems and some of me tend to be right because I feel guilty. | |
| Parenting Use Technology | Tech | Do you think that using technology is useful in everyday life? |
| Msg | If you receive a notification, a message, or a call on your mobile phone during dinner, you will answer: | |
| TechImpact | Regarding the impact of technology on the individual, consider that: | |
| TehScope | Do you think that using technology is: a way to relax, a way to receive new information, or an addiction? | |
| Digital | Do you think that information in the digital environment is more current and valuable than that in books? | |
| Devices | Do you think that the use of digital devices has negative effects on the health of the individual? | |
| TechUse | How do you handle digital devices (laptops, mobile phones, tablets, etc.)? | |
| Parent–child relation | Perception | How do you think your child sees you: his best friend, his equal, his superior? |
| ParentWish | How would you like your child to see you: his best friend, his peer, his superior? | |
| Relation | Your relationship with your child is based on: friendship, mutual respect, following clear rules | |
| Intim | About the privacy of your child, consider that: it is not necessary at all—you must know everything about your child, you respect it, it is necessary | |
| Communication | Your relationship with the child is: unsatisfactory, neutral, satisfactory | |
| ChildTrust | Trust your child: yes, so and so, no | |
| Children Attitude school | InflDevice | How do you think your child’s use of digital devices can affect his or her performance in school? |
| Hdigital | How much time do you think your child spends in the digital environment per day, not including study time? | |
| Hschool | Is your child accompanied by a digital device during school hours? | |
| Reclam | Have you received complaints from your child’s teachers about their use of a digital device during school hours? | |
| Randament | Ever since your child came into possession of a digital device, how do you think his or her school performance has been affected? | |
| LernEnv | What means does your child prefer to learn? | |
| Children Use Tech | TechImpact | Regarding the impact of technology on the individual, consider that: it is very useful and brings only benefits, it has both positive and negative effects, it has several positive and negative effects, respectively |
| ChildTime | What does your child prefer to do in their free time? | |
| HoldDevice | In today’s context, do you consider it necessary for your child to own a digital device? | |
| RespDevice | Owning a digital device by a child can make it: | |
| Behavior | How do you think the use of digital devices influences your child’s behavior? | |
| Dependence | Do you think your child is addicted to a digital device? | |
| Aware | Do you think it’s important to talk to your child about potential dangers in the virtual environment? |
Latent Variable correlations.
| Latent Construct | Children Attitude School | Children Use Tech | Parent Child Relation | Parent Use Tech | Parenting Style |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children Attitude School | 1 | - | - | - | - |
| Children Use Tech | −0.539 | 1 | - | - | - |
| Parent Child relation | −0.421 | 0.420 | 1 | - | - |
| Parent Use Tech | −0.295 | 0.251 | 0.391 | 1 | - |
| Parenting style | −0.326 | 0.347 | 0.593 | 0.330 | 1 |
Indirect effects and F Square.
| Latent Construct | Indirect Effect | F Square | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children Attitude School | Children Use Tech | Children Attitude School | Children Use Tech | Parent–Child Relation | |
| Children Attitude School | - | - | - | - | - |
| Children Use Tech | - | - | - | - | - |
| Parent–Child relation | - | - | 0.216 | 0.214 | - |
| Parent Use Tech | −0.092 | 0.092 | 0.070 | ||
| Parenting style | −0.220 | 0.219 | - | - | 0.400 |
Model fit.
| Latent Construct | Saturated Model | Estimated Model |
|---|---|---|
| SRMR | 0.095 | 0.096 |
| D_ULS | 6.101 | 6.473 |
| D_G | 1.391 | 1.459 |
| Chi-Square | 602.748 | 628.330 |
| NFI | 0.432 | 0.408 |
The Variance Inflation Factor VIF for the 5 proposed variables.
| Parenting Style | VIF | Parenting Use Technology | VIF | Parent–Child Relation | VIF | Children Attitude School | VIF | Children Use Tech |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rules | 1.071 | Tech | 1.168 | Perception | 1.548 | InflDevice | 1.085 | TechImpact |
| Team | 1.107 | Msg | 1.016 | ParentWish | 1.3 | Hdigital | 1,357 | ChildTime |
| Flex | 1.518 | TechImpact | 1.084 | Relation | 1.412 | Hschool | 1.353 | HoldDevice |
| Require | 1.294 | TehScope | 1.025 | Intim | 1.116 | Reclam | 1.21 | RespDevice |
| Control | 1.026 | Digital | 1,121 | Communication | 1.348 | Randament | 1.135 | Behavior |
| Wish | 1.196 | Devices | 1,212 | ChildTrust | 1.273 | LernEnv | 1.126 | Dependence |
| Fault | 1.499 | TechUse | 1.236 | Aware |
References
1. Bhavya, R.; Sambhav, S. Role of mobile communication with emerging technology in COVID-19. Int. J. Adv. Trends Comput. Sci. Eng.; 2020; 9, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/131932020]
2. Vargo, D.; Zhu, L.; Benwell, B.; Yan, Z. Digital technology use during COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid review. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol.; 2021; 3, pp. 13-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.242]
3. Masten, A.S.; Motti-Stefanidi, F. Multisystem resilience for children and youth in disaster: Reflections in the context of COVID-19. Advers. Resil. Sci.; 2020; 1, pp. 95-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42844-020-00010-w] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32838305]
4. Donker, M.H.; Mastrotheodoros, S.; Branje, S. Development of parent-adolescent relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of stress and coping. Dev. Psychol.; 2021; 57, 1611. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0001212]
5. Brown, S.M.; Doom, J.R.; Lechuga-Peña, S.; Watamura, S.E.; Koppels, T. Stress and parenting during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Child Abus. Negl.; 2020; 110, 104699. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104699]
6. Russell, B.S.; Tomkunas, A.J.; Hutchison, M.; Tambling, R.R.; Horton, A.L. The Protective Role of Parent Resilience on Mental Health and the Parent–Child Relationship During COVID-19. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev.; 2022; 53, pp. 183-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01243-1]
7. Prime, H.; Wade, M.; Browne, D.T. Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am. Psychol.; 2020; 75, pp. 631-643. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000660]
8. Bate, J.; Pham, P.T.; Borelli, J.L. Be My Safe Haven: Parent–Child Relationships and Emotional Health During COVID-19. J. Pediatr. Psychol.; 2021; 46, pp. 624-634. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsab046]
9. Lindgaard, C.V.; Iglebaek, T.; Jensen, T.K. Changes in Family Functioning in the Aftermath of a Natural Disaster: The 2004 Tsunami in Southeast Asia. J. Loss Trauma; 2009; 14, pp. 101-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15325020802537138]
10. Cuartas, J. Heightened risk of child maltreatment amid the COVID-19 pandemic can exacerbate mental health problems for the next generation. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy; 2020; 12, pp. S195-S196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000597]
11. Uzun, H.; Karaca, N.H.; Metin, Ş. Assessment of parent-child relationship in Covid-19 pandemic. Child Youth Serv. Rev.; 2021; 120, 105748. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105748]
12. Herbert, J.S.; Mitchell, A.; Brentnall, S.J.; Bird, A.L. Identifying rewards over difficulties buffers the impact of time in COVID-19 lockdown for parents in Australia. Front. Psychol.; 2020; 11, 606507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.606507] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33391126]
13. Chung, G.; Paul, L.; Peace, Y.J.W. Mediating effects of parental stress on harsh parenting and parent-child relationship during Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic in Singapore. J. Fam. Violence; 2022; 37, pp. 801-812. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00200-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32895601]
14. Vaterlaus, J.M.; Shaffer, T.; Patten, E.V.; Spruance, L.A. Parent–child relationships and the COVID-19 pandemic: An exploratory qualitative study with parents in early, middle, and late adulthood. J. Adult Dev.; 2021; 28, pp. 251-263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-021-09381-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34035642]
15. Kucirkova, N.; Evertsen-Stanghelle, C.; Studsrød, I.; Jensen, I.B.; Størksen, I. Lessons for child–computer interaction studies following the research challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact.; 2020; 26, 100203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100203] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33052303]
16. Russell, B.S.; Hutchison, M.; Tambling, R.; Tomkunas, A.J.; Horton, A.L. Initial challenges of caregiving during COVID-19: Caregiver burden, mental health, and the parent–child relationship. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev.; 2020; 51, pp. 671-682. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-01037-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32749568]
17. Liu, J.; Zhou, T.; Yuan, M.; Ren, H.; Bian, X.; Coplan, R.J. Daily routines, parent–child conflict, and psychological maladjustment among Chinese children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Fam. Psychol.; 2021; 35, pp. 1077-1085. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000914]
18. Cassinat, J.R.; Whiteman, S.D.; Serang, S.; Dotterer, A.M.; Mustillo, S.A.; Maggs, J.L.; Kelly, B.C. Changes in family chaos and family relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Dev. Psychol.; 2021; 57, pp. 1597-1610. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0001217]
19. Wong, A.; Ho, S.; Olusanya, O.; Antonini, M.V.; Lyness, D. The use of social media and online communications in times of pandemic COVID-19. J. Intensive Care Soc.; 2021; 22, pp. 255-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1751143720966280]
20. Scarpellini, F.; Segre, G.; Cartabia, M.; Zanetti, M.; Campi, R.; Clavenna, A.; Bonati, M. Distance learning in Italian primary and middle school children during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey. BMC Public Health; 2021; 21, 1035. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11026-x]
21. Tateno, M.; Teo, A.R.; Ukai, W.; Kanazawa, J.; Katsuki, R.; Kubo, H.; Kato, T.A. Internet addiction, smartphone addiction, and Hikikomori trait in Japanese young adult: Social isolation and social network. Front. Psychiatry; 2019; 10, 455. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00455] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31354537]
22. Servidio, R.; Bartolo, M.G.; Palermiti, A.L.; Costabile, A. Fear of COVID-19, depression, anxiety, and their association with Internet addiction disorder in a sample of Italian students. J. Affect. Disord. Rep.; 2021; 4, 100097. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2021.100097]
23. Biernesser, C.; Montano, G.; Miller, E.; Radovic, A. Social Media Use and Monitoring for Adolescents With Depression and Implications for the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study of Parent and Child Perspectives. JMIR Pediatr. Parent.; 2020; 3, e21644. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2196/21644] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33289678]
24. Mackay, L.J.; Komanchuk, J.; Hayden, K.A.; Letourneau, N. Impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes: A scoping review protocol. Syst. Rev.; 2022; 11, 45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01918-3]
25. Drouin, M.; McDaniel, B.T.; Pater, J.; Toscos, T. How parents and their children used social media and technology at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and associations with anxiety. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw.; 2020; 23, pp. 727-736. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0284] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32726144]
26. Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority. Dev. Psychol.; 1971; 4, pp. 1-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0030372]
27. Valcke, M.; Bonte, S.; De Wever, B.; Rots, I. Internet parenting styles and the impact on Internet use of primary school children. Comput. Educ.; 2010; 55, pp. 454-464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.009]
28. Leung, L.; Lee, P.S. The influences of information literacy, internet addiction and parenting styles on internet risks. New Media Soc.; 2012; 14, pp. 117-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444811410406]
29. Ihmeideh, F.M.; Shawareb, A.A. The association between Internet parenting styles and children’s use of the Internet at home. J. Res. Child. Educ.; 2014; 28, pp. 411-425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2014.944723]
30. Hwang, Y.; Choi, I.; Yum, J.-Y.; Jeong, S.-H. Parental mediation regarding children’s smartphone use: Role of protection motivation and parenting style. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw.; 2017; 20, pp. 362-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0555]
31. Napitupulu, N.F.; Barlianto, W.; Rachmawati, S.D. Parenting Style on School Age Children that Addicted to Mobile Phone (A Phenomenology Study). Indian J. Public Health Res. Dev.; 2020; 11, pp. 1556-1560. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37506/v11/i2/2020/ijphrd/195046]
32. Davison, A.C.; Hinkley, D.V. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997.
33. Lo, B.C.Y.; Lai, R.N.M.; Ng, T.K.; Wang, H. Worry and permissive parenting in association with the development of internet addiction in children. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pubic Heath; 2020; 17, 7722. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217722] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33105760]
34. Oliveira, T.; Costa, D.; Alvim-Soares, A.; de Paula, J.; Kestelman, I.; Silva, A.; Malloy-Diniz, L.; Miranda, D. Children’s behavioral problems, screen time, and sleep problems’ association with negative and positive parenting strategies during the COVID-19 outbreak in Brazil. Child Abus. Negl.; 2021; 130, 105345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105345] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34625278]
35. Konok, V.; Bunford, N.; Miklósi, Á. Associations between child mobile use and digital parenting style in Hungarian families. J. Child. Media; 2020; 14, pp. 91-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2019.1684332]
36. Barnett, W.S.; Grafwallner, R.; Weisenfeld, G.G. Corona pandemic in the United States shapes new normal for young children and their families. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J.; 2021; 29, pp. 109-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1872670]
37. Radesky, J.S.; Kistin, C.; Eisenberg, S.; Gross, J.; Block, G.; Zuckerman, B.; Silverstein, M. Parent Perspectives on Their Mobile Technology Use: The Excitement and Exhaustion of Parenting While Connected. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr.; 2016; 37, pp. 694-701. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000357]
38. Schmidt, A.; Kramer, A.C.; Brose, A.; Schmiedek, F.; Neubauer, A.B. Distance learning, parent-child interactions, and affective well-being of parents and children during the COVID-19 pandemic: A daily diary study. Dev. Psychol.; 2021; 57, pp. 1719-1734. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0001232]
39. Sonnenschein, S.; Grossman, E.R.; Grossman, J.A. US parents’ reports of assisting their children with distance learning during COVID-19. Educ. Sci.; 2021; 11, 501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090501]
40. Imran, N.; Zeshan, M.; Pervaiz, Z. Mental health considerations for children & adolescents in COVID-19 Pandemic. Pak. J. Med. Sci.; 2020; 36, S67.
41. Fisher, P.A.; Beauchamp, K.G.; Roos, L.E.; Noll, L.K.; Flannery, J.; Delker, B.C. The Neurobiology of Intervention and Prevention in Early Adversity. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.; 2016; 12, pp. 331-357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112855]
42. Araújo, L.A.d.; Veloso, C.F.; Souza, M.d.C.; Azevedo, J.M.C.d.; Tarro, G. The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child growth and development: A systematic review. J. Pediatr.; 2021; 97, pp. 369-377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2020.08.008] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32980318]
43. Liu, C.; Rahman, M.N.A. Relationships between parenting style and sibling conflicts: A meta-analysis. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 936253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.936253] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36081719]
44. Geambașu, A. Study on the human body’s central axis. Day-to-day life verticality. Discobolul Phys. Educ. Sport Kinetotherapy J.; 2018; XIV, pp. 43-47.
45. Robinson, C.C.; Mandleco, B.; Olsen, S.F.; Hart, C.H. The Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques: Volume 3. Instruments & Index; Perlmutter, B.F.; Touliatos, J.; Holden, G.W. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 319-321.
46. Buri, J.R. Parental Authority Questionnaire. J. Personal. Assess.; 1991; 57, pp. 110-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_13] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16370893]
47. Hutton, J.S.; Dudley, J.; Horowitz-Kraus, T.; DeWitt, T.; Holland, S.K. Associations Between Screen-Based Media Use and Brain White Matter Integrity in Preschool-Aged Children. JAMA Pediatr.; 2020; 174, e193869. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3869] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31682712]
48. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); 3rd ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022.
49. Vinzi, V.E.; Chin, W.W.; Henseler, J.; Wang, H. Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010.
50. Hefner, D.; Knop, K.; Schmitt, S.; Vorderer, P. Rules? Role model? Relationship? The impact of parents on their children’s problematic mobile phone involvement. Media Psychol.; 2019; 22, pp. 82-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1433544]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Razvan-Sandu Enoiu