Bidirectional relationships of parenting stress, media use for behavior management, and children's behavior problems from 9 to 30 months.

Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Dev Psychol . Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Apr 15. Published in final edited form as: Dev Psychol. 2026 Mar 9;62(8):1620–1631. doi: 10.1037/dev0002164 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Bidirectional Relationships of Parenting Stress, Media Use for Behavior Management, and Children’s Behavior Problems from 9 to 30 Months Stephanie M Reich Stephanie M Reich 1 University of California, Irvine Find articles by Stephanie M Reich 1 , Rebecca Dore Rebecca Dore 2 Ohio State University Find articles by Rebecca Dore 2 , Aubree Krager Aubree Krager 3 University of California, Santa Cruz Find articles by Aubree Krager 3 , Y Anthony Chen Y Anthony Chen 1 University of California, Irvine 4 Stanford University Find articles by Y Anthony Chen 1, 4 , Keiana Mayfield Keiana Mayfield 5 George Mason University Find articles by Keiana Mayfield 5 , Deborah Franza Deborah Franza 1 University of California, Irvine Find articles by Deborah Franza 1 , Natasha Cabrera Natasha Cabrera 6 University of Maryland Find articles by Natasha Cabrera 6 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 University of California, Irvine 2 Ohio State University 3 University of California, Santa Cruz 4 Stanford University 5 George Mason University 6 University of Maryland ✉ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stephanie Reich, PhD University of California, Irvine 3454 Education Irvine, CA 92697-5500 [email protected] Author Contributions: All authors contributed to this paper. Reich, Dore, and Mayfield conceptualized the paper. Reich and Cabrera collected the data. Krager, Chen, Mayfield, and Franza analyzed the data. Reich and Dore initiated the drafting of the paper, with Krager and Chen writing the first draft of the results. All authors edited and approved the final version for submission. Issue date 2026 Aug. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13078718  NIHMSID: NIHMS2141077  PMID: 41801732 The publisher's version of this article is available at Dev Psychol Abstract As digital devices permeate the environments of young children, there is growing concern that media use might be displacing very young children’s opportunities to cultivate important developmental skills such as controlling their emotions and behaviors. Further, given the power of devices to capture children’s attention, even when emotionally upset, parents might utilize media to both calm and distract their children, even when such use is counter to professional recommendations for very young children’s media use. This study uses data from a longitudinal bilingual (English/Spanish) parenting intervention to assess how mothers’ and fathers’ parenting stress might be reciprocally related to their use of media to calm or distract their child from infancy to toddlerhood and how such use might be linked to young children’s behavior problems from 9 to 30 months. Importantly, bidirectional relationships between device use for behavior management and children’s behavior problems are also considered. With a sample of 419 low-to-moderate income, ethnically diverse parents (210 families), we find that for mothers, parenting stress, device use to calm and distract, and children’s behavior problems are reciprocally related over time. These within-subjects effects indicate that the relationship between these constructs varies within mother-child dyads. For fathers, only between-subject effects were found for device use to calm and distract and children’s behavior problems, indicating differences between fathers in their use of media. Such findings underscore the need to include both mothers and fathers in media research and to consider both parent and child contributions to media use and developmental processes. Public Significance Statement: Digital devices are a ubiquitous part of children’s lives and use at very young ages, especially for calming and distracting, might displace children’s opportunities to learn to calm themselves. Assessing mothers’ and fathers’ parenting stress, use of devices to calm and distract their young child, and children’s behavior problems from 9 to 30 months of age, we find that device use for this purpose is related to toddler behavior problems, and for mothers, their parenting stress and use of devices for behavior management are reciprocally related over time. Such findings move research beyond simple “screen time” metrics and help to illuminate children’s and caregivers’ bidirectional contributions to the family media ecology. Keywords: Media and Technology, Displacement, Parenting Stress, Family Media Ecology, Early Childhood, Behavior Problems Children are born into environments filled with screen media (e.g., TV, smartphones, tablets) and studies consistently find that very young children are engaging with media regularly, from TV watching to using touchscreen devices daily ( Cheung & Vota, 2016 ; Hish et al., 2021 ; Radesky et al., 2020 ; Reich et al., 2024 ), even when contrary to professional recommendations ( AAP, 2016 ; World Health Organization, 2019 ). One possible contributor to young children’s screen use is the ways in which these devices can entertain, calm, and distract ( Elias & Sulkin, 2019 ), which might be especially valuable when caregivers are experiencing stress around parenting. However, such uses in early childhood might displace young children’s opportunities to cultivate self-regulation skills. This study, working with an economically, racially, and ethnically diverse sample, explores how parenting stress connects to the use of devices to calm and distract and how such use relates to children’s behavior problems over time. Family Media Ecology Families are systemic units of interconnected relationships where all individuals (e.g., mothers, fathers, children) interact with one another as individuals, partners (i.e., couple subsystem), and children (i.e., parent-child subsystem) ( Cox & Paley, 2003 ). When applying a family systems framework to the study of media in young children’s lives, it is important to consider the family media ecology ( Barr & Linebarger, 2017 ) which can include all family members’ uses of devices as well as parental decisions about their children’s access to and use of media ( Barr, 2019 ). Research finds a variety of reasons why parents provide media for their young children ( Coyne et al., 2017 ; Reich et al., 2024 ). Though some report beliefs in the benefits for learning and some simply see it as a source of fun and family time, others note the utility of media in distracting and calming children ( Brito et al., 2017 ; Elias & Sulkin, 2019 ; Ochoa & Reich, 2020 ; Tang et al., 2021 ; Thompson et al., 2023 ). This latter choice might be especially common for parents that have mental health challenges, including feelings of stress in their role as a parent. Stress and Media-related Parenting Practices Research consistently finds that parents’ stress is linked to their parenting practices and such practices influence child outcomes. The Family Stress Model ( Conger & Conger, 2002 ) posits that both parents’ and children’s psychological risks and wellbeing are affected by acute and chronic stressors. The model predicts that parental mental health challenges influence parenting behaviors by reducing the time and effort parents are able to invest in sensitive, consistent, and/or responsive parenting practices, which then influence child adjustment ( Conger & Conger, 2002 ; Masarik & Conger, 2017 ). Stressors on parents can have meaningful impacts on parenting practices, ranging from harsh discipline to less responsiveness or increased use of screens ( Masarik & Conger, 2017 ; Reich et al., 2023a ; Tissot et al., 2017 ). When parents are experiencing high levels of stress, they may have less mental and emotional capacity to use positive parenting approaches to help manage children’s behavior and regulate children’s emotional responses ( Nievar et al., 2014 ; Simons et al., 2016 ). These altered parenting practices can subsequently influence children’s developmental outcomes ( Masarik & Conger, 2017 ; Zhang et al., 2020 ). In considering the application of the Family Stress Model to media, it is expected that higher levels of parenting stress would result in increased screen time, less co-use of media with children, less limit-setting, and higher reliance on devices to distract or calm children. Extant research supports this pattern. In a sample of mothers of 4-8-year-olds, parenting stress was associated with more total screen time, fewer screen media limits, and greater use of media to regulate behavior ( Griffith, 2023 ). Such patterns have also been found between mothers’ stress and toddlers’ total screen use ( Shin et al., 2021 ). Similarly, in a cross-sectional study of 39 Canadian families, researchers found parental stress to be associated with parents’ use of media, modeling of media, and limit-setting ( Tang et al., 2021 ). Interestingly, some patterns differed among mothers and fathers with maternal parenting distress linked to modeling media use and fathers’ distress associated with increased screen use during mealtimes and less setting of media limits. Relatedly, broader measures of maternal mental health have been associated with young children’s TV use ( Bank et al., 2012 ; Cillero & Jago, 2010 ), tablet use ( Pempek & McDaniel, 2016 ), and the development of problematic media use over time ( Holmgren et al., 2022 ; Oh et al., 2021 ). However, these studies were cross-sectional and involved only mothers, leaving questions as to how maternal and paternal parenting stress relate to very young children’s media use. Extant longitudinal research with mothers finds links between maternal mental health and children's problematic media use ( Holmgren et al., 2022 ). In considering maternal parenting stress, in particular, higher levels are associated with greater screen use for infants ( Wiltshire et al., 2021 ) and toddlers ( Shin et al., 2021 ). One type of media practice that might be especially linked to parenting stress is the use of devices to calm and distract children ( Brito et al., 2017 ; Elias & Sulkin, 2019 ). Handing a child a phone or tablet to stop crying or occupy a child in order to get something done might be especially attractive to parents experiencing stress related to their parenting role. Mothers frequently describe the ways in which devices can help with distracting children, calming their negative emotions, and providing a sort of digital babysitter ( Beyens & Eggermont, 2014 ; Elias & Sulkin, 2017 ; Sergi et al., 2017 ; Vittrup et al., 2016 ). However, longitudinal associations between maternal and paternal stress and device use for calming and distracting are lacking. Devices as Displacement in Development One of the concerns with young children’s media use is the potential displacement of opportunities for development in physical, linguistic, cognitive, and social-emotional domains. Research has robustly found decreases in language in general, directed to children by adults, and produced by children when screens are on ( Ochoa et al., 2021 ; Pempek & Kirkorian, 2020 ; Pempek et al., 2014 ). A meta-analysis of screen media use in early childhood found that hours of use and presence of background television were linked to children’s lower receptive and expressive language ( Madigan et al., 2020 ). Others have continued to find risks of screen use on language development as well as less play and exploration of the physical environment, reduced sleep and increased obesity ( Guzmán et al., 2022 ; Kirkorian et al., 2009 ; Takahashi et al., 2023 ). Another area of development that might be affected by screen use and the displacement of opportunities to cultivate skills is social emotional development, particularly contextually appropriate behavior. Socio-emotional Development in Early Childhood Early childhood is an important period when children learn to recognize emotions, develop skills for how to control the intensity of their emotions, begin to consider other people’s mental states (theory of mind), and alter their behaviors in more socially appropriate ways ( Raver & Zigler, 1997 ). Such skills are key to later social competence, behavioral adjustments and early school success. Children with challenges in social relationships and emotion management tend to perform poorly in academic achievement relative to peers with more advanced skills in these domains ( Ursache et al., 2012 ). Socio-emotional Development and Screens/Displacement One of the ways young children learn is through socially contingent interactions with important people in their lives, such as parents ( Cole et al., 2010 ; Moerk, 1983 ; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2006 ). When young children are upset or fussy and a caregiver hands them a device, rather than help them to calm themselves, this might limit infants’ and toddlers’ opportunities to cultivate self-regulation skills. For example, when a baby is crying or fussy, a parent often picks them up, holds the child close, often talking to the child saying such things “There, there. What's the matter? Why are you so upset?” or “Shhh. Calm down and breathe”, while rocking the child or helping them to focus attention on something else (e.g., “Look here. I see your favorite toy”). All of these types of interactions, from physical touch to language use to breathing tips for calming, offer the developing child opportunities to cultivate their self-regulatory skills. If a device is handed to a young child instead, this might displace such opportunities. Further, this pattern might persist over time, with less well-regulated children having increased probability of being given devices by their parents. Cross-sectional studies have found evidence that toddlers with lower social-emotional skills are more likely to be given mobile devices by parents to calm them than those with better social-emotional skills ( Radesky et al., 2016 ) and one recent study found links between children’s tablet use at 3.5 years and expressions of anger and frustration at 4.5 years and between anger and frustration at 4.5 years with tablet use at 5.5 years ( Fitzpatrick et al., 2024 ). Another longitudinal study found bidirectional links between the use of devices for calming children and increased emotional reactivity across the preschool period ( Radesky et al., 2023 ). However, longitudinal research is needed to better understand how the use of devices to calm might be related to social-emotional development over time among infants and toddlers. Parenting is a reciprocal process by which caregivers and children elicit behaviors and responses from one another ( Bell, 1979 ). Children’s behavior problems, ranging from emotional reactivity to aggression are linked to increased parenting stress and less consistent and high-quality parenting (e.g., Chiang & Bai, 2024 ; Fang et al., 2024 ). This could also potentially lead to more reliance on digital devices to manage children’s behavior (e.g., Nikken & Schols, 2015 ; Radesky et al., 2023 ). Such processes could be reciprocal, with devices displacing opportunities for cultivating developmental skills related to emotional and behavior management, and more behavior problems leading to more parenting stress and use of devices to calm and distract. One recent study of Irish children’s screen time from 3 to 7 years of age suggests such reciprocal influences ( Neville et al., 2021 ), but more work, especially with younger children, is needed. Study Aims Given that parental stress is associated with the provision of more media to young children and that the use of media to calm or distract might displace opportunities for social emotional development, we explore how mothers’ and fathers’ parenting stress is related to the use of devices to distract and calm their child from 9 to 30 months of age and how uses of devices in such ways are related to mothers’ and fathers’ parenting stress over time (reciprocal relationship). We then assess how such use of devices relates to children’s behavior problems from 12 to 30 months and whether behavior problems has reciprocal relationships with the use of devices for behavior management. Specifically, we test the following hypotheses: H1: Parenting stress and the use of devices to calm and distract will have a reciprocal and positive relationship over time. H1a: Mothers’ and fathers’ higher parenting stress will be predictive of giving their child a device to calm or distract more often over time. H1b: The greater use of devices to calm and distract will be predictive of more parenting stress over time. H2: Children who are given devices to calm or distract will have more behavior problems over time. H2a: Mothers’ and fathers’ use of devices to calm and distract will be positively predictive of children’s behavior problems. H2b: Children’s behavior problems will be positively predictive of parents’ giving their child devices to calm and distract. Given the low prevalence of research that includes fathers, we have no hypotheses regarding differences in these patterns among mothers and fathers. Extending investigation of these research questions to fathers’ stress and children’s media use is an important contribution of the current study. Methods Data are drawn from a bilingual parenting intervention called the Baby Books 2 Study ( Reich & Diaz, 2020 ; Cabrera & Reich, 2017 ). BB2 was a random control trial in which first-time parents were provided educational information about typical child development and effective parenting practices. Racially, ethnically, and economically diverse families were recruited when their infant was 9 months and followed until their child was 30 months. Data were collected, from 2016-2022, through a combination of home visits when children were 9, 18, 24, and 30 months, and phone calls and online surveys when children were 12, 15, and 21 months. Since data collection was disrupted during the social distancing policies of the COVID-19 pandemic, some home visits were replaced with phone calls and video chatting (half of the 24-month visits and ¾ of the 30-month visits). All procedures and materials were approved by two university Institutional Review Boards. Participants Two hundred and ten families (420 parents) participated in [Study Name] and 419 parents had sufficient data to address these study aims. Families were recruited from the Washington DC area and Orange County, CA and were eligible for participation if they were a heterosexual cohabiting couple, had only 1 child under the age of 9 months, were able to read English or Spanish at a first grade level, and had a combined income of $70,000 or less at the time of recruitment (which is a challenging amount given cost of living for these two geographic regions). Parents were predominantly Latine (71.6%), followed by Black (12.6%), and White (7.5%). About half of parents were immigrants to the US and about 44% had educational attainment of high school or less. See Table 1 for details. Table 1. Demographic Characteristics and Descriptive Statistics Mother Father Full Sample ( N = 209) (N = 210) (N = 419) Parent Education High School or Less 65 (31.1%) 104 (49.5%) 169 (40.3%) Some College or More 144 (68.9%) 106 (50.5%) 250 (59.7%) Race/Ethnicity White 14 (6.7%) 17 (8.1%) 31 (7.4%) Black 27 (12.9%) 26 (12.4%) 53 (12.7%) Asian 8 (3.8%) 13 (6.2%) 21 (5.0%) Other 3 (1.4%) 3 (1.5%) 6 (1.4%) Multiracial 4 (1.9%) 4 (1.9%) 8 (1.9%) Latine 153 (73.2%) 147 (70.0%) 300 (71.6%) Survey Language English 148 (70.8%) 138 (65.7%) 286 (68.3%) Spanish 61 (29.2%) 72 (34.3%) 133 (31.7%) Parent Language English 25 (12.0%) 37 (17.6%) 62 (14.8%) Spanish 30 (14.4%) 23 (10.9%) 53 (12.7%) Bilingual: English/Spanish 116 (55.5%) 117 (55.7%) 233 (55.6%) Bilingual: English/Other 26 (12.4%) 18 (8.6%) 44 (10.5%) Multilingual 12 (5.7%) 15 (7.2%) 27 (6.4%) Nativity Immigrant 107 (51.2%) 118 (56.2%) 225 (53.7%) US-born 102 (48.8%) 92 (43.8%) 194 (46.3%) Mean (SD) [Min, Max] Mean (SD) [Min, Max] Mean (SD) [Min, Max] Parental Age 27.2 (5.7) [18,43] 29.5 (6.8) [18,53] 28.3 (6.4) [18,53] Parental Stress (possible range 18-90) 9 Months 32.07 (7.66) [18,57] 31.21 (7.17) [18,53] 31.64 (7.42) [18,57] 18 Months 33.62 (7.34) [18,56] 31.89 (7.38) [18, 69] 32.79 (7.56) [18,69] 24 Months 32.97 (7.84) [17,53] 30.65 (7.17) [18,53] 31.9 (7.61) [17,53 30 Months 33.61 (8.24) [18, 56] 31.78 (7.69) [18,52] 32.76 (8.03) [18,56] Device use to Calm/Distract (possible range 1-5) 9 Months 1.16 (1.1) [1, 5] 1.14 (1.15) [1, 5] 1.15 (1.12) [1, 5] 18 Months 1.96 (1.17) [1,5] 1.86 (0.98) [1,5] 1.91 (1.09) [1,5] 24 Months 1.85 (1.05) [1,5] 1.82 (0.97) [1,5] 1.84 (1.01) [1,5] 30 Months 1.79 (1.02) [1, 5] 1.74 (.97) [1, 5] 1.77 (.99) [1, 5] Behavior Problems (possible range 0-62) 12 Months 10.67 (5.94) [0, 29] 12.48 (6.45) [1, 41] 11.55 (6.25) [0, 41] 21 Months 11.54 (6.71) [0, 36] 11.98 (6.62) [2, 36] 11.73 (6.66) [0, 36] 24 Months 11.26 (7.48) [0, 38] 12.86 (6.90) [1, 37] 12.00 (7.25) [0, 38] 30 Months 10.35 (6.49) [0, 39] 10.89 (6.42) [2, 35] 10.60 (6.45) [0, 39] Open in a new tab Note: significant differences in t-test comparisons between mothers and fathers were found for parenting stress at 18 and 24 months and child behavior problems at 9 months. Measures The data used to address our study aims were collected through parental report, either in person or over the phone. Bilingual and bicultural researchers interviewed parents, both fathers and mothers, individually in either English or Spanish, asking about their background, feelings of stress related to parenting, their provision of media to their child, and children’s behavior problems. Parenting Stress Mothers’ and fathers’ feelings of stress related to parenting were measured with the Parenting Stress Scale ( Berry & Jones, 1995 ), an 18-item measure that has been used extensively to assess this construct in several countries and has been translated into four languages ( Louie et al., 2017 ). Parents are asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 how much they disagree or agree with statements related to the positive (e.g., I enjoy spending time with my child) and the challenging (e.g., I feel overwhelmed by the responsibility of being a parent) aspects of parenting. Positive items are reverse scored and ratings are summed such that high sum scores indicate higher feelings of stress. Parenting stress was measured when children were 9, 18, 24, and 30 months. Device Use to Calm/Distract Mothers and fathers were each asked about their use of devices to calm or distract their child with a single question created for this project, which was based on how prior research has operationalized this construct ( Elias & Sulkin, 2019 ; Griffith, 2023 ; Radesky et al., 2016 ): “How often do you give your child a tablet, iPad, and/or smartphone to distract him/her or stop their crying?” Response options included never or rarely, some days each week, most days each week, once a day, or several times each day. Higher scores indicate more frequent use of devices to distract and/or calm. Responses were used as a continuous variable in analyses, although in considering frequency of use, we also share the percentage of parents reporting use at least some days each week (versus never or rarely) to demonstrate the pervasiveness of the practice in this sample. Parents were asked this when children were 9, 18, 24, and 30 months. Infant and Toddler Behavior Problems Young children’s behavior problems were reported by both mothers and fathers using the behavior problems subscale of the Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (BITSEA) ( Kruizinga et al., 2013 ). This parent-report screener was derived from the longer Infant-Toddler Social Emotional Assessment and asks parents to rate how true 29 items indicated behavior problems (e.g., hits, bites, or kicks) are of their child (1 = Not true/Rarely, 2 = Somewhat true/Sometimes, 3 = Very true/Often) and how worried there are about two additional items (1= not worried at all, 2= a little worried, 3= worries, 4 = very worried). Higher scores indicate more behavior problems. Mothers and fathers completed the BITSEA when children were 12, 21, 24, and 30 months. Background and Covariates All participants were asked at baseline about their backgrounds, including age, country of origin, highest level of education completed, gender, race/ethnicity, employment, and household income and their child’s date of birth and gender. Since data come from an intervention and two geographical regions, study condition and site were also included as covariates, as well as in which language (English or Spanish) the data were collected. Analytic Plan Data were analyzed using multilevel modeling, assessing the relationships of variables within and between parents’ reporting of their stress levels, use of media to calm or distract their child, and children’s behavior problems. That is, we tested whether these relationships differed between parent-child dyads and whether they varied within the same dyad when experiencing higher or lower stress levels. To examine reciprocal associations between these constructs, we employed random intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPM) in RStudio using the lavaan package ( Rosseel, 2012 ). The analysis was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and Full Information Maximum Likelihood to handle missing data. Consistent with recommended guidelines ( Mulder & Hamaker, 2021 ) and given varying levels of stress at baseline, between-person level associations were modeled as random intercepts, while within-person level associations were estimated through cross-lagged and autoregressive pathways for all repeated measured variables. For the construction of the RI-CLPM, measures taken at 9 and 12 months were combined and treated as wave 1, those at 18 and 21 months as wave 2, 24 months as wave 3, and 30 months as wave 4, based on their temporal proximity. Between-person level variables were included as covariates, specifically language used for data collection (English or Spanish), study condition (treatment vs. control), geographic site (Washington, DC area or Southern California), and child gender. To explore potential differences based on parent gender, we implemented a multi-group Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model (RI-CLPM). In this approach, mothers and fathers were modeled as separate groups, with parameters estimated independently for each group and then compared across groups. This decision was guided by our primary research question (i.e., comparing between-person effects for mothers and fathers) and by the need to maintain statistical power and model stability given the available sample size. We began with an unconstrained multi-group model in which all parameters were freely estimated separately for mothers and fathers, which served as a baseline model. Next, we tested two constrained models: The first constrained model held the covariances between variables constant across groups, while the second constrained model imposed equality constraints on the cross-lagged paths. To determine which model fit the data better, we used chi-square difference tests to compare the constrained models with the baseline (unconstrained) model. Overall model fit was evaluated using robust fit indices recommended for structural equation models ( Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Kline, 2016 ). Specifically, we examined the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Adequate model fit was determined based on established cutoffs (e.g., CFI and TLI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08, and SRMR < 0.08). Results On average new parents reported parenting stress levels around the midpoint of the scale at baseline (child was 9 months) and over the subsequent 21 months ( M 9mo =31.64, SD =7.42; M 30mo =32.76, SD =8.03; out of possible 18-90 range). However, parents ranged greatly in their feelings of stress. In particular, at 18 months, mother reported higher stress than father, t (311.4) =2.00, p =.046, and a similar pattern emerged at 24 months, t (279.4) =2.58, p =.010. The use of devices to calm and/or distract was less common in infancy with 30% of parents reporting use of devices at least some days of the week at 9 months and increasing to all parents reporting use at least some days of the week (100%) by 30 months. Though behavior problems were not highly prevalent, parents reported significantly more behavior problems at 21 months and at 24 months than 30 months (for difference between 21 months and 30 months, t (237) =2.74, p =.007; for difference between 24 months and 30 months, t (251) =4.26, p <.001). Moreover, fathers reported more behavioral problems when child was 9 months than mother, t (359.9) =2.80, p =.005, however, no significant difference was found between parents at other waves. See Table 1 for all detailed descriptive statistics. Parenting Stress and Use of a Device to Calm or Distract We used a multi-group RI-CLPM to examine reciprocal associations over time and explore potential differences between mothers and fathers. Model comparisons indicated that the unconstrained baseline model provided a better fit to the data compared to the constrained models. Specifically, the baseline model demonstrated superior fit relative to the model with constrained covariances, Δχ 2 (50) = 72.48, p = .021. Similarly, the baseline model showed significantly better fit than the model with constrained cross-lagged paths, Δχ 2 (45) = 100.30, p < .001. The baseline model exhibited acceptable overall fit: χ 2 (126) = 180.72, p = .001, CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .05. Based on these results, the findings reported below are derived from the baseline model, with parameters presented separately for mothers and fathers. As shown in Figure 1 , mothers’ ratings of parenting stress were consistently correlated across all waves. That is, previous ratings of stress were significant predictors of later ratings of stress. Similarly, use of devices to calm and distract was also consistently correlated starting at wave 2. Interestingly, most parents (70%) reported “never to rarely” using devices to calm or distract their infant in infancy (9 months), however all parents reported using devices this way at least “some days each week” by the time of their child’s second birthday. Figure 1. Open in a new tab Within-Group Associations for Mothers in the RI-CLPM Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. For clarity and parsimony, only the within-parent associations for mothers are displayed in the figure. Only significant cross-lagged paths are presented for easier visual interpretation. Full results of the multi-group RI-CLPM for mothers and fathers are available in the Supplemental Information . For mothers, parenting stress at wave 1 predicted increased use of devices for distraction and calming at wave 2. Increased use of devices in this way was also related to increased parenting stress. This association was present from wave 1 to wave 2 and also from wave 2 to wave 3 for mothers. However, for fathers’ parenting stress was not significantly related to their use of devices to calm or distract their child at subsequent time points. Parents’ Use of Devices to Calm or Distract and Children’s Behavior Problems Over Time When examining the relationship between device use and children’s behavior problems over time, reciprocal within-person associations emerged for mothers only. When mothers reported using devices to distract their child more often than their own average at wave 2, they were more likely to report more behavior problems in their own child at wave 3. Furthermore, when mothers reported more child behavior problems than their own average at wave 2, they were more likely to report increased device use for distraction and calming at wave 3. However, there were no significant between-person associations for mothers. Instead, the findings highlight within-person processes through which variations in mothers’ own parenting stress, device use, and children’s behavior problems are related to one another over time. In contrast to the findings for mothers, the model did not identify any significant within-person associations for fathers. However, a significant between-person association emerged. Fathers who reported more frequent use of devices for distraction and calming with their child were also more likely to report more behavior problems in their child, β = .28, p = .024. Notable associations with covariates were also observed: families who spoke Spanish and families who lived in the Washington, DC area reported more behavior problems in their child over time compared to families who spoke English and families who lived in Southern California. However, the child's gender was not associated with parenting stress, use of devices, or behavior problems (for full results, see Supplemental Information ). Discussion New mothers and new fathers report moderate levels of stress related to parenting in the early years and for mothers, that stress is related to a greater likelihood of using devices to calm and distract their young children (H1 supported). Children whose mothers and fathers more frequently gave them devices for these reasons were more likely to demonstrate behavior problems over time (H2 supported). However, these patterns differed by parent gender. For mothers, these patterns were observed within the same dyad, experiencing changes over time (within-person differences) (H1a&b and H2a&b supported). For fathers, those who used devices to calm and distract more were more likely to report that their young child demonstrated behavior problems (between-person differences) (H2b only). The findings underscore the importance of considering the family ecology when examining the relationship between media use in early childhood and developmental outcomes. Child Behaviors and Device Use for Calming and Distracting Both mothers and fathers reported more frequent use of devices for calming/distracting as their child aged from 9 to 30 months. This could be related to changes in parents’ views of media use in infancy and more challenging behaviors as children mature. Surveys have found that some parents have negative attitudes about media use in infancy and report lower levels of use during the first year ( Rideout & Robb, 2020 ). The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen use for children under 18 months, with the exception of videochat (AAP, 2016), and our parents might have tried to adhere to these professional recommendations. As children enter toddlerhood, the frequency of tantrums and related challenging behaviors tends to increase ( Mo et al., 2023 ) and it is possible that children may become more difficult to calm via other methods (pacifiers, nursing, physical touch). Additionally, older children also become more vocal and mobile and likely more able to request devices when they are upset or bored, which could lead to parents using devices more for this purpose. For mothers, such possible patterns might interact with feelings of stress, leading to more device use. Given that mothers in our sample reported more parenting stress than fathers, this might have contributed to differing patterns. Stress and Parenting Research, including studies utilizing the Family Stress Model, finds that high levels of stress can reduce parents’ mental and emotional capacity to use positive parenting approaches to manage child behavior, leading to strategies like more harsh discipline and less responsiveness ( Masarik & Conger, 2017 ; Nievar et al., 2014 ; Reich et al., 2023b ; Simons et al., 2016 ; Tissot et al., 2017 ). Recent research also finds that such parenting strain extends to children’s media use, such that higher parent stress is associated with more screen use, fewer screen media limits, and greater use of media to regulate child behavior ( Griffith, 2023 ; Reich et al., 2023a ; Shin et al., 2021 ; Tang et al., 2021 ). Our findings similarly find that parenting stress was related to the use of devices for behavior management, specifically calming and distracting young children (H1a). However, this pattern was only observed among new mothers, not fathers, which we discuss in more detail below. Media Use, Displacement, and Behavior Problems In line with the displacement hypothesis, previous research has shown that children who are more often given mobile devices to help them calm down have lower social-emotional skills ( Radesky et al., 2016 ) and higher emotional reactivity ( Radesky et al., 2023 ), perhaps because device use displaces opportunities for children to learn other methods for emotion regulation. Devices are attention grabbing, especially for young children, and thus, the use of devices is often effective in calming upset children or keeping them distracted ( Arundell et al., 2022 ; Hiniker et al., 2016 ). However, such uses likely limit children’s opportunities to learn to self-regulate and may, subsequently, lead to more behavior problems, such as hitting or kicking when angry or trouble adjusting to unwanted changes, like bedtime or end of playtime. Our findings support the notion that device use to calm and distract is limiting young children’s opportunities to cultivate such skills, as more device use in this way is significantly related to more behavior problems over time, though these were naturally occurring and not experimentally-induced conditions. Such associations existed for behavior reported by both mothers and fathers. However, the pattern was observed as a between-person effect for fathers - that is fathers who used devices to calm and distract their children were more likely to report behavior problems in their children than fathers who did not use devices in this way. Mothers, on the other hand, showed this pattern individually over time. Meaning that for the same mother-child dyad, when mothers gave devices more often to calm and distract their child, they were more likely to report subsequent toddler behavior problems than when they used media this way less frequently. This suggests similar patterns of device use and behavior for mothers and their children, but differences in how some fathers and their children connect media and behavior. These findings illuminate the importance of considering the ways in which media for behavior management might displace self-regulatory processes and the need for research that considers mothers’ and fathers’ media choices for their young children. Reciprocal Patterns Studies find that children who are viewed as more reactive, having difficult temperaments, or display disruptive behavior are more likely to be given devices and engage in problematic media use ( Coyne et al., 2021 ; McArthur et al., 2022 ; Shin et al., 2021 ). We similarly found that for mothers, reporting more toddler behavior problems was significantly related to more use of devices to calm and distract. However, unlike previous work, we consider the reciprocal relationship between behavior problems and media use for behavior management, finding that mothers’ reports of these two constructs are bidirectionally related over time. Further, mounting evidence indicates that children are more likely to engage with media when their parents are stressed (e.g., Reich et al., 2023a ; Tang et al., 2021 ) and that children that are perceived to be more challenging are more likely to use media (e.g., Radesky et al., 2023 ). However, limited research has looked at the potential reciprocal nature of parenting stress and media use over time. It makes sense that when parents are stressed in their role as parent they rely on devices for assistance. Similarly, when parents use devices to calm or distract their children, they may feel less efficacious in their ability to calm or perhaps less satisfaction with the parent-child relationship, which could lead to increased feelings of parenting stress. Our findings demonstrate parts of this pattern over time, with parenting stress and device use to calm and distract significantly related as children age from infancy through toddlerhood. Again, this finding was only observed for mothers. Not only were mothers’ parenting stress and the use of devices to calm and distract children reciprocally related over time, but so were children’s behavior problems, providing a more nuanced idea of these dyadic, mother-child, relationships over time. To our knowledge, no studies have examined the longitudinal relationships between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting stress, device use for behavior management, and social-emotional skills in one sample, or examined how these links may play out longitudinally over the transition from infancy to toddlerhood. It is important to note that these reciprocal relationships were observed until children were 24 months old. From 24 to 30 months of age, the only significant predictor of each construct at 30 months was the previous ratings of that construct at 24 months, with parenting stress and behavior problems being significantly correlated at both 24 and 30 months. Such patterns indicate high stability of these constructs over time. Further, all parents reported using devices to calm and distract at least sometimes by the time children were 24 months old, with no significant change in frequency from 24 to 30 months, indicating possible windows of time for interventions aimed at changing media use in toddlers. The truncated variance in our measurement of device use to calm and/or distract limited our ability to assess covariation with other constructs, especially given our sample size. It is also possible that these patterns are set by age 2 years, with little change 6 months later. Future work should consider more in-depth measurement of device use for calming and distracting and children’s behavior. Parent Gender Differences In our sample, patterns between parenting stress, children’s media use, and behavior problems differed for mothers and fathers. Although mothers’ reports indicated a dynamic process occurring within mother-child dyads over time, for fathers, only between-person associations emerged, such that fathers who reported overall higher use of devices for distraction and calming with their child were also more likely to report higher levels of behavior problems, regardless of how these variables changed for an individual father over time. Studies often find that mothers and fathers report similar levels of parenting stress, but mothers’ stress is more often linked to child outcomes and mothers are more at risk of experiencing burnout in their role as parent ( Deater-Deckard & Scarr, 1996 ; McBride et al., 2002 ; Roskam & Mikolajczak, 2020 ; Scher & Sharabany, 2005 ). Mothers in our study reported significantly higher levels of stress than fathers and their relationship between their stress and use of media with their child was significantly different than fathers. Clearly more research is needed to better understand how mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of stress in their role as parents relate to their parenting behaviors, especially the use of media by their children. To date, the vast majority of research on young children’s media use relies on maternal reports and does not consider that children's media diets may differ with each parent. Previous work with our sample found that though couples’ reports of their child’s media use were significantly correlated, mothers and fathers often reported very different limits around use, especially time limits ( Reich et al., 2024 ) which in some cases differed by more than 4 hours a day. Such differing practices might contribute to our observed patterns. Additionally, research consistently finds that even though fathers in the U.S. are more involved in parenting than ever before, mothers still spend more hours per day caring for their child, especially in infancy and toddlerhood ( Martin et al., 2023 ; Negraia et al., 2018 ) and during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Dunatchik et al., 2021 ). As such, mothers are more likely to spend substantial amounts of time alone with their child, during which they may look to devices for help with calming or distracting, in order to have a break or get things done around the home. Fathers, on the other hand, likely have fewer hours of caregiving and greater likelihood of having their partner in the home when they are with their child. Although they also report using devices to calm and distract, this practice may be linked to parenting stress for mothers, but be more of a routine practice during father-led caregiving rather than as a response to parenting stress or need to attend to other responsibilities. However, this is only one speculative explanation of the patterns observed. Though 23% of parents reported their employment as “stay at home parent” at 9 months, this number dropped to 1.5% by 18 months, we do not know if parental employment was outside the home or during regular business hours. As such, we cannot determine if caregiving hours differed between parents in our sample. More research that includes mothers and fathers of the same children and their caregiving responsibilities is needed. Limitations Despite its strengths, this study has several limitations that point to important directions for future research. First, this dataset had some missing data and attrition, primarily related to data collection being disrupted by COVID-19 and related challenges for families ( He et al., 2021 ). Thus, we may not have captured families who were struggling the most during that difficult period. Our sample also consisted of only first-time parents with low-to-moderate income and was predominantly Latine. Although there is critical value in examining media effects in this understudied population, this limits the generalizability of our results to higher-income and larger families and other races and ethnicities. Though the sample was recruited from two geographical areas on opposite sides of the United States, our findings may not generalize to other geographic regions or less urban areas. Another limitation of the current study is our use of a single item to measure device use to calm or distract. This item was part of a larger battery measuring media behaviors, which were included as part of a larger randomized control trial focused on promoting positive parenting practices ( Reich et al., 2023a ; Reich et al., 2024 ). However, future research should consider other ways to capture this type of media use, such as observations, diaries, or more expansive behavior management measures. Similarly, child behavior was assessed through parent-report and not observation. Additionally, although we propose, based on the Family Stress Model and the displacement hypothesis, that there are theoretical reasons to believe that stress influences device use which influences children’s social emotional outcomes and vice versa, the current results cannot indicate a causal direction for these effects. These are not experimentally manipulated levels of any of these constructs and thus, could be a product of unmeasured third variables. Future research could intervene to reduce parents’ use of media to calm or distract to better tease apart how these effects interact across development. Further, our families live in expensive urban areas with very low to moderate incomes and are predominately from marginalized groups (e.g., immigrant, Spanish-speaking), as such other sources of unmeasured stress (e.g., financial strain, discrimination, social distancing policies) may have also contributed to media practices and children’s socioemotional development. Future research should consider more diverse sources of stress for families. Finally, a strength of these data is that they included both mothers and fathers, allowing us to model mothers and fathers as separate groups and compare patterns between fathers and mothers. However, this approach did not directly account for within-family dependence. Incorporating a family-level clustering parameter into this type of longitudinal, multi-level model, particularly in samples that include more diverse family structures such as same-gender parents, single parents, and other caregivers, represents an important direction for future research with larger and more heterogeneous samples. Conclusion Given how pervasive screen media is in children’s everyday lives from a very young age, it is critical to understand the interplay between parents’ mental health, how devices are used in the family system, and children’s behavior over time. We investigated these questions longitudinally with an economically, racially, and ethnically diverse sample. We were able to capture data from both mothers and fathers to explore how these dynamics may play out in distinct ways in parents of different genders. Our results showed that for mothers, parenting stress was related to use of devices for distraction and calming, which was in turn related to both subsequent parenting stress (bidirectional link) and subsequent behavior problems. These findings are in line with the Family Stress Model and the displacement hypothesis, suggesting that mothers may respond to parenting stress by using devices to calm and distract children and that providing children with devices in these key moments may displace opportunities for them to learn other methods for emotion regulation, leading to behavior problems over time and the increased use of devices to distract/calm when children have more behavior problems. The distinctive between-person pattern for fathers points to the critical need for future research to explore how the parent-child relationship and family dynamics may differ by parent gender. To better understand how media relates to young children’s development, we must go beyond devices and activities to consider children’s and caregivers’ bidirectional contributions to the family media ecology. Supplementary Material Supplemental NIHMS2141077-supplement-Supplemental.docx (30.2KB, docx) Funding: The research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers R01HD047749 and R03HD102448 and the Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or Children and Screens. Footnotes Materials, Data and Syntax: All study materials, including measures, and analytic syntax are available by request. Supplemental tables are available on the online supplement . This study was not pre-registered. As participants did not consent to the sharing of their data beyond the two university research teams, data are not publicly available. We have no conflict of interest to disclose. References AAP Council on Communications and Media. (2016). Media and Young Minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162591. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Arundell L, Gould L, Ridgers ND, Ayala AMC, Downing KL, Salmon J, Timperio A, & Veitch J (2022). “Everything kind of revolves around technology”: a qualitative exploration of families’ screen use experiences, and intervention suggestions. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1606. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Bank AM, Barr R, Calvert SL, Parrott W, & McDonough SC (2012). Maternal depression and family media use: A questionnaire and diary analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(2), 208–216. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Barr R. (2019). Growing up in the digital age: Early learning and family media ecology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 341–346. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Barr RF, & Linebarger D (2017). Media exposure during infany and early childhood. Springer. [ Google Scholar ] Bell RQ (1979). Parent, child, and reciprocal influences. American Psychologist, 34(10), 821–826. [ Google Scholar ] Berry JO, & Jones WH (1995). The parental stress scale: Initial psychometric evidence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(3), 463–472. [ Google Scholar ] Beyens I, & Eggermont S (2014). Putting young children in front of the television: Antecedents and outcomes of parents’ use of television as a babysitter. Communication Quarterly, 62(1), 57–77. 10.1080/01463373.2013.860904 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Brito R, Francisco R, Dias P, & Chaudron S (2017). Family dynamics in digital homes: The role played by parental mediation in young children’s digital practices around 14 european countries. Contemporary Family Therapy, 39, 271–280. 10.1007/s10591-017-9431-0 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Cabrera N & Reich SM (2017). BabyBooks2: A randomized control trial (RCT) to test the effects of a book intervention for low-income mothers and fathers. In N. J. Cabrera (Chair), International perspectives on parenting interventions for at-risk families [Symposium presentation] Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Conference, Austin, TX, United States. [ Google Scholar ] Cheung C, & Vota W (2016). What are the effects of touchscreens on toddler development? http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2016/12/28/what-are-the-effects-of-touchscreens-on-toddler-development/ [ Google Scholar ] Chiang S-C, & Bai S (2024). Bidirectional associations between parenting stress and child psychopathology: the moderating role of maternal affection. Development and Psychopathology, 36(4), 1810–1820. [ Google Scholar ] Cillero I, & Jago R (2010). Systematic review of correlates of screen-viewing among young children. Preventive Medicine, 51(1), 3–10. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.04.012 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Cole P, Armstrong L, & Pemberton C (2010). The role of language in the development of emotion regulation. In Calkins SD & Bell MA (Eds.), Human brain development. Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 59–77). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/12059-004 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Conger R, & Conger K (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361–373. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Cox M, & Paley B (2003). Understanding Families as Systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 193–196. 10.1111/1467-8721.01259 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Coyne S, Radesky J, Collier KM, Gentile D, Nathanson A, Rasmussen E, Reich S, & Rogers J (2017). Parenting and Digital Media. Pediatrics, 140, S112–S116. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Coyne S, Shawcroft J, Gale M, Gentile D, Etherington J, Holmgren H, & Stockdale L (2021). Tantrums, toddlers and technology: Temperament, media emotion regulation, and problematic media use in early childhood. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106762. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106762 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Deater-Deckard K, & Scarr S (1996). Parenting stress among dual-earner mothers and fathers: Are there gender differences? Journal of Family Psychology, 10(1), 45. [ Google Scholar ] Dunatchik A, Gerson K, Glass J, Jacobs JA, & Stritzel H (2021). Gender, parenting, and the rise of remote work during the pandemic: Implications for domestic inequality in the United States. Gender & Society, 35(2), 194–205. [ Google Scholar ] Elias N, & Sulkin I (2017). YouTube viewers in diapers: An exploration of factors associated with amount of toddlers’ online viewing. CyberPsychology, 11(13), article 2. 10.5817/CP2017-3-2 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Elias N, & Sulkin I (2019). Screen-assisted parenting: The relationship between toddlers’ screen time and parents’ use of media as a parenting tool. Journal of Family Issues, 40(18), 2801–2822. 10.1177/0192513X19864983 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Fang Y, Luo J, Boele M, Windhorst D, van Grieken A, & Raat H (2024). Parent, child, and situational factors associated with parenting stress: a systematic review. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(6), 1687–1705. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Fitzpatrick C, Pan PM, Lemieux A, Harvey E, de Andrade Rocha F, & Garon-Carrier G (2024). Early-childhood tablet use and outbursts of anger. JAMA Pediatrics, 178(10), 1035–1040. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Griffith SF (2023). Parent beliefs and child media use: Stress and digital skills as moderators. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 86, 101535. 10.1016/j.appdev.2023.101535 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Guzmán V, Lissner L, Arvidsson L, Hebestreit A, Solea A, Lauria F, Kaprio J, Reisch LA, Moreno L, & Felső R (2022). Associations of sleep duration and screen time with incidence of overweight in European children: the IDEFICS/i. family cohort. Obesity facts, 15(1), 55–61. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] He M, Cabrera N, Renteria J, Chen Y, Alonso A, McDorman SA, Kerlow MA, & Reich SM (2021). Family functioning in the time of COVID-19 among economically vulnerable families: Risks and protective factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 730447. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hu L, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Hiniker A, Suh H, Cao S, & Kientz JA (2016). Screen time tantrums: How families manage screen media experiences for toddlers and preschoolers. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, [ Google Scholar ] Hish AJ, Wood CT, Howard JB, Flower KB, Yin HS, Rothman RL, Delamater AM, Sanders LM, Bian A, Schildcrout JS, & Perrin EM (2021). Infant television watching predicts toddler Television watching in a low-income population. Academic Pediatrics, 21(6), 988–995. 10.1016/j.acap.2020.11.002 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Holmgren HG, Stockdale L, Gale M, & Coyne SM (2022). Parent and child problematic media use: The role of maternal postpartum depression and dysfunctional parent-child interactions in young children. Computers in Human Behavior, 133, 107293. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107293 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kirkorian H, Pempek T, Murphy L, Schmidt M, & Anderson D (2009). The impact of background television on parent-child interaction. Child Development, 80(5), 1350–1359. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kline RB (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ] Kruizinga I, Jansen W, Mieloo C, Carter A, & Raat H (2013). Screening Accuracy and Clinical Application of the Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA). PLoS One, 8(8), e72602. 10.1371/journal.pone.0072602 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Louie AD, Cromer LD, & Berry JO (2017). Assessing parenting stress: Review of the use and interpretation of the Parental Stress Scale. The Family Journal, 25(4), 359–367. 10.1177/1066480717731347 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Madigan S, McArthur B, Anhorn C, Eirich R, & Christakis D (2020). Associations between screen use and child language skills: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0327, online first, E1–E11. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Martin E, Dahlin M, Ocampo C, Reich SM, & Cabrera N (2023). How New Mothers’ and Fathers’ Allocation of Tasks Relate to Their Coparenting Relationship. Journal of Family Issues, 0192513X231211460. [ Google Scholar ] Masarik A, & Conger R (2017). Stress and child development: a review of the Family Stress Model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 85–90. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] McArthur BA, Volkova V, Tomopoulos S, & Madigan S (2022). Global prevalence of meeting screen time guidelines among children 5 years and younger: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(4), 373–383. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.6386 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] McBride BA, Schoppe SJ, & Rane TR (2002). Child characteristics, parenting stress, and parental involvement: Fathers versus mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 998–1011. [ Google Scholar ] Mo J, van den Akker AL, Leijten P, & Asscher JJ (2023). Parental Discipline Techniques and Changes in Observed Temper Tantrum Severity in Toddlers. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 51(4), 571–582. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Moerk E (1983). A behavioral analysis of controversial topics in first lanuage acquisition: reinforcements, corrections, modeling, input frequencies and the three-term contingency pattern. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12(2), 129–155. [ Google Scholar ] Mulder JD, & Hamaker EL (2021). Three extensions of the random intercept cross-lagged panel model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(4), 638–648. [ Google Scholar ] Negraia DV, Augustine JM, & Prickett KC (2018). Gender disparities in parenting time across activities, child ages, and educational groups. Journal of Family Issues, 39(11), 3006–3028. [ Google Scholar ] Neville RD, McArthur BA, Eirich R, Lakes KD, & Madigan S (2021). Bidirectional associations between screen time and children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(12), 1475–1484. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Nievar M, Moske A, Johnson D, & Chen Q (2014). Parenting practices in preschool leading to later cognitive competence: a family stress model. Early Education & Development, 25, 318–337. 10.1080/10409289.2013.788426 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Nikken P, & Schols M (2015). How and why parents guide the media use of young children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 3423–3435. 10.1007/s10826-015-0144-4 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ochoa W, & Reich SM (2020). Parents’ beliefs about the benefits and detriments of mobile screen technologies for their young children’s learning: A focus on diverse Latine mothers and fathers. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. [ Google Scholar ] Ochoa W, Reich SM, & Farkas G (2021). The observed quality of caregiver-child interactions with and without a mobile screen device. Academic Pediatrics, 21(4), 620–628. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Oh Y, Kim H, & Joung Y-S (2021). Problematic internet use in children according to maternal depression trajectories: A population-based cohort study with 9-year follow-up. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 141, 364–369. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.07.025 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Pempek T, & Kirkorian H (2020). Effects of background TV on early development. In Exolsen D, Mares M-L, & Scharrer E (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology (pp. 1–9). Wiley. 10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0222 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Pempek T, Kirkorian H, & Anderson D (2014). The effects of background television on the quantity and quality of child-directed speech by parents. Journal of Children and Media, 8(3), 211–222. [ Google Scholar ] Pempek TA, & McDaniel BT (2016). Young children’s tablet use and associations with maternal well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(8), 2636–2647. 10.1007/s10826-016-0413-x [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Radesky J, Peacock-Chambers E, Zuckerman B, & Silverstein M (2016). Use of mobile technology to calm upset children: Associations with socialemotional development. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(4), 397–399. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Radesky J, Weeks H, Ball R, Schaller A, Yeo S, Durnez J, Tamayo-Rios M, Epstein M, Kirkorian H, Coyne SM, & Barr R (2020). Young children’s use of smartphones and tablets. Pedaitrics, 146(1), e20193518. [ Google Scholar ] Radesky JS, Kaciroti N, Weeks HM, Schaller A, & Miller AL (2023). Longitudinal Associations Between Use of Mobile Devices for Calming and Emotional Reactivity and Executive Functioning in Children Aged 3 to 5 Years. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(1), 62–70. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4793 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Raver CC, & Zigler E (1997). Social competence: An untapped dimension in evaluating Head Start’s success. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 363–385. [ Google Scholar ] Reich SM & Diaz G (2020). Baby Books. (pp.29–40). In Gershoff E & Lee S (Eds.) Effective approaches to reducing physical punishment and teaching disciplinary alternatives. Washington DC: APA Press. [ Google Scholar ] Reich SM, Liu Y, Tulagan N, Martin E, Dahlin M, & Cabrera N (2023a). Applying a family stress model to understand U.S. families’ patterns of stress, media use, and child behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Children and Media, 1–20. 10.1080/17482798.2023.2187853 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Reich SM, Dahlin M, Tulagan N, Kerlow M, Cabrera N, Piroutek M, & Heyming T (2023b). Caregivers’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and their children’s behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 44(4), 1093–1112. 10.1177/0192513X211055511 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Reich SM, Mayfield KT, Krager A, Franza D, Martin E, & Cabrera N (2024). Four hours with dad, but 10 minutes with mom: variations in young children's media use and limits based on parent gender and child temperament. Frontiers in Developmental Psychology, 2, 1420406. [ Google Scholar ] Rideout V, & Robb M (2020). The Common Sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. [ Google Scholar ] Roskam I, & Mikolajczak M (2020). Gender differences in the nature, antecedents and consequences of parental burnout. Sex Roles, 83(7), 485–498. [ Google Scholar ] Rosseel Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of statistical software, 48, 1–36. [ Google Scholar ] Scher A, & Sharabany R (2005). Parenting anxiety and stress: Does gender play a part at 3 months of age? The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(2), 203–214. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Sergi K, Gatewood R Jr, Elder A, & Xu J (2017). Parental perspectives on children’s use of portable digital devices. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(11), 1148–1161. [ Google Scholar ] Shin E, Choi K, Resor J, & Smith C (2021). Why do parents use screen media with toddlers? The role of child temperament and parenting stress in early screen use. Infant Behavior and Child Development, 64, preprint. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101595 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Simons LG, Wickrama K, Lee T, Landers-Potts M, Cutrona C, & Conger RD (2016). Testing family stress and family investment explanations for conduct problems among African American adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(2), 498–515. [ Google Scholar ] Takahashi I, Obara T, Ishikuro M, Murakami K, Ueno F, Noda A, Onuma T, Shinoda G, Nishimura T, & Tsuchiya KJ (2023). Screen time at age 1 year and communication and problem-solving developmental delay at 2 and 4 years. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(10), 1039–1046. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Tamis-LeMonda C, Cristofaro T, Rodriguez E, & Bornstein M (2006). Early language development: Social influences in the first years of life. In Balter L & Tamis-LeMonda CS (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 79–108). Psychology Press. [ Google Scholar ] Tang L, Hruska V, Ma D, Haines J, & Guelph Family Health Study. (2021). Parenting under pressure: Stress is associated with mothers’ and fathers’ media parenting practices in Canada. Journal of Children and Media, 15(2), 233–248. 10.1080/17482798.2020.1765821 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Thompson DA, Jimenez-Zambrano AM, Ringwood H, Tschann JM, & Clark L (2023). Parenting a toddler in the era of pervasive screens: Interviews with low-income mexican american parents. INternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(8), 5461. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/8/5461 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Tissot H, Favez N, Ghisletta P, Frascarolo F, & Despland J-N (2017). A longitudinal study of parental depressive symptoms and coparenting in the first 18 months. Family Process, 56(2), 445–458. https://doi.org/0.1111/famp.12213 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ursache A, Blair C, & Raver CC (2012). The promotion of self-regulation as a means of enhancing school readiness and early achievement in children at risk for school failure. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 122–128. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00209.x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Vittrup B, Snider S, Rose KK, & Rippy J (2016). Parental perceptions of the role of media and technology in their young children’s lives. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 14(1), 43–54. [ Google Scholar ] Wiltshire CA, Troller-Renfree SV, Giebler MA, & Noble KG (2021). Associations among average parental educational attainment, maternal stress, and infant screen exposure at 6 months of age. Infant Behavior and Development, 65, 101644. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101644 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] World Health Organization. (2019). Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under 5 years of age. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/311664 Zhang X, Krishnakumar A, & Narine L (2020). Family economic hardship and child outcomes: Test of family stress model in the Chinese context. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(8), 960–968. 10.1037/fam0000670 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Supplemental NIHMS2141077-supplement-Supplemental.docx (30.2KB, docx) ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (489.7 KB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top