Why do Parents Expose their Young Children to Durations of Screen Time in Excess of International Recommendations? A Qualitative Exploration of Factors Influencing Parental Decisions

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8534966/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Why do Parents Expose their Young Children to Durations of Screen Time in Excess of International Recommendations? A Qualitative Exploration of Factors Influencing Parental Decisions

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8534966/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Screen media have become pervasive in early childhood environments, despite international recommendations discouraging exposure before age three. This qualitative study explored why parents of young children allow screen exposure that exceeds these guidelines. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 parents (90% women) of children under age three from low-income families in urban France, whose practices of exposing their child to screens exceeded recommendations. Thematic analysis guided by the theory of planned behavior, combining deductive and inductive approaches, examined parental attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intentions related to children’s screen use. Findings indicated that awareness of the potential harms of screen exposure, or of recommendations to avoid screens entirely in early childhood, was insufficient to prevent excessive use. For most parents, overexposure resulted from a complex interplay of structural constraints, social norms, emotional needs, and pragmatic coping strategies. Although many intended to regulate their child’s screen time and recognized potential risks, their practices were shaped by daily realities—fatigue, stress, limited social support, and restricted living spaces. Screens were viewed as indispensable for maintaining calm, managing routines, and coping with exhaustion. Parents described screen use as normalized and widespread, despite public health messages, and felt constrained by contextual barriers such as limited access to outdoor spaces or childcare. Most were unaware of the importance of shared viewing and mediation. Beyond prohibitive messages, our results suggest that prevention strategies should equip parents with practical tools to manage daily life, address structural constraints, and promote meaningful, developmentally supportive uses of screens.

Psychology

Educational Psychology

screen time

early childhood

parenting

qualitative research

theory of planned behavior

Although international guidelines discourage screen exposure before age three, many parents allow their young children to spend long periods in front of screens. This study shows that parents facing social and economic hardship use screens as practical tools to manage household demands, fatigue, and children’s emotions. Understanding these emotional and contextual realities can help professionals move beyond moralizing messages and provide supportive, realistic guidance that fits families’ everyday lives.

During the last three decades, screen media have progressively become an integral part of infants and toddlers' environment. Between 1997 and 2014, screen media use in 0-to-2-years-old American children has more than doubled, rising from 1,3 hours to 3 hours per day (Chen & Adler, 2019). Toddlerhood is a particularly sensitive period for brain development, characterized by strong plasticity and refinement in cortical structures that support cognitive abilities (Girault et al., 2020). Among other environmental factors that shape children’s brain development (Girault et al., 2020), screen exposure in early childhood may potentially lead to negative outcomes. Watching television before the age of 3 has been associated with poorer language development (Guellai et al., 2022), and before the age of five, unfavorable associations have been established between screen time and self-regulation (Oswald et al., 2020). A longitudinal study in Québec showed that each 1-hour increase of television viewing per week in 29-month-old children was associated with a 7% decrease in classroom engagement, 6% decrease in math achievement, and 10% increase in victimization by classmates at the age of 10 (Pagani et al., 2010). The displacement hypothesis explains these negative effects by stating that screen viewing is taking off time for other activities that could be more beneficial for children’s social and cognitive development, such as social interactions with parents or peers (Putnick et al., 2023).

Guidelines and Recommendations

These documented negative effects have led governmental and research organizations to issue recommendations and guidelines concerning children’s screen exposure (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2025). In France, avoiding all screen exposure (particularly television) is recommended before the age of 3 (Mission interministérielle de lutte contre les drogues et les conduites addictives (MILDECA, 2021)). Then, screen time should be limited to 30 min per day in 3-years-old children. This is globally in line with other countries’ guidelines, such as the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines (Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP), 2016).

In practice, a survey conducted in France among 486 parents found that children’s average screen time exceeded recommendations: 26 min per day for children under the age of 2 years of age (30 min on week-ends), and 66 min (103 min on week-ends) for children aged 2-to-6 years (Akbayin et al., 2023). Parents play a key role as gatekeepers of both the amount of screen time and the types of devices accessible to children (Knowles et al., 2015). Therefore, understanding the factors that shape parents’ decisions regarding their children’s screen time behaviors is essential for developing effective programs aimed at reducing young children’s screen exposure (Knowles et al., 2015).

The Theory of Planned Behaviors

The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) posits that intentions to perform a behavior are shaped by three factors: (1) attitudes, that is, the evaluation of potential positive and negative outcomes of the behavior; (2) normative beliefs, or the perceived social pressure to engage or not engage in the behavior; and (3) perceived behavioral control, referring to the confidence in one’s ability to perform or refrain from the behavior, often described as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1999). Applied to the domain of screen use, this framework suggests that (1) parental attitudes toward early childhood screen use, (2) subjective norms surrounding screen use in early childhood, and (3) parents’ perceived behavioral control over their child’s screen use directly shape their intention to provide or restrict access to screen devices, which in turn influences actual behavior (Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022). Consistent with this model, a Spanish study found that parental subjective norms have an impact on children’s screen time (San-Martín-Roldán et al., 2024). Furthermore, an Australian study found that parental attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, together with past behaviors and the degree to which parents internalize role-related expectations and responsibilities, explained 77% of the variance in intention and 50% of the variance in parents’ decisions to limit young children’s screen time (Hamilton et al., 2016).

Parental Attitudes, Subjective Norms and Behavioral Control

Qualitative studies using thematic analyses have recently explored the factors underlying parental motivations for providing screen devices to young children, employing both inductive (data-driven) approaches and deductive approaches grounded in the theory of planned behavior (Hamilton et al., 2015; Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022). Regarding parental attitudes, caregivers emphasized the perceived educational value of screen devices (Hamilton et al., 2015; Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022), a theme consistently reported in qualitative studies with parents of preschool-aged children (Bentley et al., 2016; Lindsay et al., 2019; Radesky et al., 2016). Parents also highlighted the practical role of screens in keeping children occupied while they completed household tasks or took time to rest (Bentley et al., 2016; Hamilton et al., 2015; Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022). These positive attitudes were counterbalanced by concerns, including the fear that screen devices might replace opportunities for family and social interactions (Hamilton et al., 2015; Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022), the observation of negative behavioral consequences following prolonged screen use (e.g., irritability, tantrums, reduced energy), and frequent confrontations with children when screens were turned off (Hamilton et al., 2015; Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022). Similar ambivalent attitudes have been documented in other qualitative studies (Bentley et al., 2016; Lindsay et al., 2019). In terms of subjective norms, many parents reported experiencing contradictory social pressures: on the one hand, feeling compelled to offer a device to calm their child in public settings, while on the other hand, facing negative judgment from others when their child used a screen (Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022). With respect to perceived behavioral control, parents described exerting regulation both directly (e.g., enforcing strict boundaries and routines) and indirectly (e.g., hiding devices) (Hamilton et al., 2015; Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022). Facilitators of screen-use control included favorable weather, which enabled outdoor activities, and children’s lack of interest in screen content (Hamilton et al., 2015). Conversely, parents also identified several barriers: the challenges of daily life leading to resignation and reliance on screens, the ubiquity of devices in everyday environments (also noted by Bentley et al., 2016), and conflicting views on screen use among family members (Hamilton et al., 2015).

The Current Study

While the study by Mallawaarachchi et al. (2022) provided an extensive analysis of the influence of attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control on parental decision-making about children’s screen use, it was conducted in a relatively heterogeneous sample. In their study, only 42% of children were regular screen users, no information was provided regarding whether their usage levels were deemed excessive, and 38% did not use mobile screen devices at all. Additionally, the sample included parents of both toddlers and preschool-aged children. Parental attitudes and perceived control may differ substantially in families where children’s screen time exceeds international recommendations. Therefore, the present study aimed to explore the factors underlying parental attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control regarding children’s screen use, through the lens of the theory of planned behavior, specifically in the context of reported screen exposures exceeding international recommendations in children under the age of three.

Overview

This study adopted a qualitative, descriptive, and interpretive design. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore how parents of young children understand and regulate screen use in daily life. Following previous qualitative research in this field (e.g., Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022), data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive–deductive thematic approach. This method combined predefined categories derived from the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) with data-driven coding to capture emergent themes. A constructivist and interpretive approach was chosen to capture the complexity of parental experiences and the meanings they attribute to screen use practices. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Université Paris Nanterre (reference number: 2023-12-07), and was conducted and reported in accordance with the American Psychological Association (APA) qualitative research reporting standards (American Psychological Association, 2024). All participants provided informed consent to participate.

Participants and Recruitment

Participants were recruited through a non-profit organization that provides parental support to families experiencing socio-economic vulnerabilities in France. There was no pre-existing relationship between the researchers and the participating families prior to recruitment. Parents of children under the age of three were invited by email to participate in a parenting program offering guidance and materials to support early language development. Eligible parents were identified by the French welfare office (Caisse d’Allocations Familiales) based on their family quotient, an indicator of household income adjusted for family size. All families included in the study had a household income per tax unit at or below the national poverty threshold (approximately €1,150 per month per consumption unit). Before the program began, parents received a text message inviting them to take part in the study. Those who volunteered completed an online questionnaire assessing their child’s use of screens (smartphone, computer, tablet, and television), the amount of time spent on each device on weekdays and weekends, and socio-demographic information (Supplemental Material S1). Based on their responses, parents were subsequently contacted by phone if their child’s screen exposure substantially exceeded the French national recommendations for children under three years old (i.e., more than two hours per week). During the call, parents were asked whether they had sufficient comprehension and expression skills in French to discuss the topic of children’s screen use during an interview. If they agreed and met this criterion, an interview was scheduled. Parents who completed the interview received a €20 gift voucher as compensation.

Procedure

A purposive sampling strategy was used to recruit parents whose young children exceeded national recommendations for screen exposure. The sample size was determined based on methodological guidance for qualitative thematic analysis, which emphasizes depth and richness of data rather than statistical representativeness. Data collection continued until analytic saturation was reached, meaning that no new themes, or important conceptual variations emerged during the final interviews. Of the 25 parents who expressed interest in participating, 23 were successfully contacted and interviewed. Interviews were conducted either face-to-face in participants’ homes (n = 5, 22%) or online via Zoom (n = 18, 78%), depending on parents’ preferences and/or geographical constraints, and were audio-recorded for transcription. Each interview was conducted by one of three trained interviewers: a principal investigator [OC] and two research assistants. A semi-structured format was employed, comprising open-ended questions supplemented with follow-up prompts for clarification when necessary (Supplemental Material S2). Among the 23 participants, one parent had completed the initial questionnaire for a child older than three years, and two parents showed limited comprehension or oral proficiency in French. These three cases were therefore excluded. The final sample consisted of 20 interviews which lasted between 23 and 52 minutes, with a mean duration of 34 minutes. Given the relative homogeneity of the population—parents of children under three living in urban low-income contexts—this number of interviews was sufficient to capture both common patterns and meaningful divergences in experiences and perspectives.

Sample

Most parents were aged between 36–41 (43,75%). Notably, participants were mostly female (90%), married/defacto (70%), undergraduate or dropped out of secondary school (95%). All parents were living in urban areas. Other characteristics (i.e. employment status, number of children, age and gender of the target child) were relatively evenly distributed (Supplemental Table S3).

Analysis

The qualitative interviews were transcribed and imported into QDA Miner Lite (v. 2.0.9) for coding. Following the procedure used by Mallawaarachchi et al. (2022), a hybrid inductive–deductive approach was adopted. Overarching themes were predefined a priori based on the theory of planned behavior (Supplemental Material S4), while inductive, data-driven coding was used to refine this framework and identify subthemes within each overarching category. Subthemes were generated through a progressive comparative process: codes emerging within each main theme were compared across interviews to identify recurrent meanings and variations. These preliminary clusters were then discussed in small groups and iteratively refined until they captured both the commonalities and nuances in participants’ accounts. The analysis was conducted by five researchers and one research assistant and followed a collaborative, iterative process. During the initial phase, all coders independently analyzed a shared subset of interviews, which were then discussed in small groups (two to three members) to reach consensus and refine code definitions. Discrepancies or ambiguities were resolved collectively during team discussions. Subsequent coding was carried out in parallel by pairs of coders, who met regularly to discuss emerging themes and ensure the coherence of coding decisions. A principal investigator [TV] supervised the analytic process and conducted final reviews of the coded material to ensure internal consistency across interviews. In sum, the initial analytical steps were as follows: (1) familiarization with the data; (2) independent preliminary coding of the same three interviews by all team members, categorizing segments into the five a priori themes when applicable; (3) small-group consultation (two to three members) to discuss and align coding decisions; (4) coding of three additional interviews using the a priori themes followed by further group consultation; and (5) identification and refinement of subthemes in small groups. Subsequent stages involved the systematic coding of the remaining interviews by pairs of coders, consolidation and refinement of the codebook, and the exploration of relationships between themes and subthemes. Finally, the research team engaged in iterative discussions to ensure consistency of interpretation and organized the findings into a coherent analytic narrative supported by illustrative quotations. Researchers’ description is reported in the Supplemental Material S5.

Screen Media Use

Total screen exposure duration was characterized by high variability between participants (Supplemental Figure S6). Weekly screen time for 0-2-years-old children averaged 17.5 hours, ranging from 3.7 to 44.0 hours (Supplemental Table S7). For 2-3-years-old children, weekly screen exposure duration averaged 12.4 hours, ranging from 2.2 to 42.0 hours.

Television exposure duration was characterized by high variability between participants (from 0 to more than 16 hours a week), while smartphones and tablets tended to be used for shorter durations (less than 8 hours a week) (Supplemental Figure S8).

For 0-2-years-old children, television exposure duration was the highest in comparison with other devices, with an average weekly exposure of 14.3 hours (SD = 17.0), followed by smartphone (M = 1.7, SD = 3.1) and tablet (M = 1.5, SD = 1.8) (Supplemental Table S9). Two-to-three-years-old children spent on average 5.8 hours on smartphones (SD = 12.2), 5.6 hours (SD = 4.0) watching television, and 1.1 hours on tablets (SD = 2.4). The types of content watched and their frequency are described in Supplemental Material S10.

Qualitative Analysis

An extended version with representative verbatims of each theme and subtheme is available in Supplemental Table S11.

Subjective Norms

Themes and subthemes are described in Table 1.

Table 1

*Subjective norms*
Basic themes	Subthemes & Quotes
Expressed opinion on young children’s screen exposure in general, or regarding their child specifically (16/20)	Negative norm (9/16) "I know it's not good, but that's what I do" [nervous laugh] (P2) Satisfied with family use (4/16) "I know it's not great, but honestly, I think we're managing pretty well, [...] in small doses, it's okay" (P1) Ambivalent (3/16) "I'm a bit mixed about it, it's not great, but I don't feel like they're on it that often [hesitation]... well, let's say, not enough for it to have an impact." (P18)
Expressed a quantitative norm regarding the optimal duration/frequency of screen use for a child of the same age as theirs (13/20)	No screen use (7/13) "No screen time before three years old." (P11) Less than 30 minutes per day (3/13) "Thirty minutes max per day, and it's already harmful" (P12) Less than an hour per day (7/13) "It's a maximum of one hour per day" (P20)
Reported screen use and discourses in the social environment (11/20)	High screen use observed in the close circle (9/11) "I take the example of my close circle; I know that their children watch screens because when I go to their place, the children watch, they watch, and they keep watching..." (P10) Observed uses in public spaces (2/11) "When he was very little at the hospital, since he wouldn’t cooperate, the emergency doctor told me to give him the phone, even though I didn’t give him the phone at that age. And later, in the waiting room, I realized there were maybe 7 or 8 parents, and all the children had a phone in front of their eyes. There were babies like mine, as well as one- and two-year-olds… It’s completely normalized, actually. [...] (P13) Hypocrisy/contradictions (5/11) "My parents are against it, but when I leave my son with them for a few hours during a tantrum, I know he’s going to end up watching screens too." (P7) “Everyone says it’s not good, but at the same time, I see everyone everywhere using screens with their children." (P13)

Among the 16 parents who expressed an opinion on young children’s screen exposure, nine reported being opposed to it or acknowledged its potentially harmful effects. In contrast, four parents expressed supportive views, considering screen use acceptable under certain conditions (two parents), identifying with their own use of screens (one parent), perceiving no negative impact on their child’s development (one parent), or drawing on their own childhood experience with screens without recalling adverse consequences (one parent). Two parents conveyed ambivalence, simultaneously expressing concern about their child’s exposure while downplaying its potential impact. One mother, initially opposed to screen use, later revised her stance after recognizing the practical benefits of screens in keeping children occupied in daily life.

Among the 20 parents interviewed, seven believed that their child should ideally not watch screens at all, although one expressed this view with an embarrassed laugh. Three parents considered less than 30 minutes per day acceptable, while seven set a limit of under one hour. Five parents did not specify a precise limit. Six parents reported having received professional advice to completely avoid screens before the age of three; however, only one family adhered to this recommendation. One mother explicitly rejected it, citing a lack of sufficient information. Overall, the majority of parents (13 out of 20) expressed views on acceptable screen time durations that differed from official guidelines.

Among the 11 parents who commented on screen use within their social environment, nine reported observing widespread and excessive exposure among young children in their extended families, which they associated with lax or permissive parenting. Some noted that their own child was overexposed to screens when cared for by relatives, such as a separated father or a grandmother. Only two families described controlled screen use within their social circle. Two parents also mentioned frequently witnessing young children being given smartphones in public spaces to keep them calm. One mother recounted an anecdote in which an emergency room doctor advised parents to give their babies a phone to calm them during a hospital visit. Most parents who discussed the topic perceived generally permissive attitudes toward screen use. Five parents highlighted a discrepancy between what people claimed and what they actually practiced, describing this inconsistency as hypocrisy or contradiction.

Perceived Behavioral Control

Themes and subthemes are described in Table 2.

Table 2

*Perceived Behavioral Control*
Basic themes	Subthemes and quotes
Environmental and situational factors impacting screen use (18/20)	Need to keep the child occupied during daily tasks (10/18) “I'm not gonna lie, it allows me to do other things, take care of the house, because otherwise, he runs around everywhere and it stresses me out. I put on a cartoon for him so I can cook. I can take care of the rest while waiting for his dad to come home.” (P18) Availability of adults (10/18) “[…] When we're both home on the weekend, he doesn't watch TV because either he's playing with dad while mom chills on the couch, or he's with mom while dad is on the computer, so he doesn't even pay attention to it. So really, it's only when one of us is alone with him that we allow screens." (P19) Ubiquity of screens (10/18) "[...] If the phone lights up and we didn’t put it away properly, he’ll grab it." (P01) The influence of the living environment (9/18) "So maybe if we had a garden or if we lived in a more rural area, it would be easier to keep him busy with something else. And he’d probably spend more time outside too." (P01) A wildcard for exceptional situations (8/18) "If he's too tired or, uh, if he's sick" (P19) "During that time [the COVID-19 lockdown], I just gave up. The TV was on all day, I was on my computer, and the kids were watching TV. Because honestly, I had no other option." (P20)
Internal factors impacting screen use (15/20)	Parents’ needs (7/15) "Sometimes I just want to sit down and relax because I’m tired, so to keep her calm, I give her the remote." (P12) Child’s characteristics (14/15) "[...] She cries, she screams, she does all sorts of things... I don’t know, but... I know it’s really hard for her to let go of screens." (P17)
Influence of the family and screen use rules within the household (15/20)	Divergences on usage rules or the need to control screen use (8/15) "The grandma, she immediately puts on the TV and lets them watch whatever they want." (P11) The child follows the screen practices of parents and older siblings (8/15) "It's pretty rare for one to be playing while the other is on a screen. When one is on a screen, the other is too." (P18)
Strategies to limit screen use (16/20)	Feeling of lack of control or parental helplessness (3/16) “[…] He goes straight for the screen, and I let him have access pretty easily. I think I’m overwhelmed by the situation, that’s why." (P18) Situational avoidance behaviors (13/16) "Sometimes, I just pretend the TV isn’t working. It’s easy, you just unplug the cable—it’s genius! [laughs]" (P15) Control of screen exposure (11/16) “[…] I watch and say, 'There are 7 minutes left on the cartoon. I tell them, 'Listen, it ends in 7 minutes, so in 7 minutes you’ll turn off the TV.' And sure enough, 7 minutes later, they say, 'Okay, we turned off the TV.'" (P14)

The first factors influencing the parents’ perceived control over screen device use by their child were external factors, mentioned by a large majority of parents (18 parents). Among these external factors, ten parents explained that screen device use stemmed from the need to keep their child busy while they did daily chores such as cooking, cleaning or sometimes bringing other children to school. Letting the child use a screen device was seen by these parents as a guarantee that the child would not disturb the task or “mess around”. Conversely, 10 parents explained that adults’ availability to take care of the child, being the other parent or other family members, was an external factor facilitating screen use control. Being two parents, having the help of other family members or having free time (e.g. week-ends, days off) allowed interviewed parents to avoid the need for a screen device to “supervise” the child. Another external factor mentioned by 10 parents was the ubiquity of screens. They stated that cues related to screens were ubiquitous (e.g. seeing the screen in the room, hearing a cartoon song). Some parents also stated that screens are an integral part of everyone’s lives and thus cannot be avoided. The living environment was mentioned by 9 parents. Five of them explained that living in town and/or in apartments made it more difficult to access outdoor activities for children, thus enhancing screen use. Bad weather was also mentioned as a possible obstacle to screen use limitation by four parents. Finally, eight parents mentioned that screens were used as a wildcard in some exceptional situations, such as waiting for a medical appointment, in public transports, or when the parent is sick. The COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 was also invoked by three parents as a situation in which screen use increased.

A set of internal factors influencing perceived behavioral control was also identified by 15 parents. These internal factors were related to parents or children’s characteristics and needs. Seven parents expressed that allowing their child access to screens gave them a chance to rest and “be left alone” when they were tired. Additionally, four parents mentioned that they personally relied on screens as background entertainment while doing chores or as a comforting presence. Thirteen parents stated that control over screen use depended on various child-related characteristics. For example, having a restless and demanding child who throws tantrums, struggles with frustration, has difficulty stopping screen use when asked, and frequently requests more screen time was perceived as a barrier to limiting screen exposure. In this context, ten parents used addiction-related language (“hooked on” and “drug”) to describe their child’s attachment to screens and their difficulty disengaging when required. Conversely, a lack of interest in screens and a preference for other toys or activities made it easier for parents to regulate screen use.

Inconsistencies in screen use rules among family members affected parents' perceived behavioral control over screen exposure. Eight parents mentioned that while they aimed to limit their child’s screen time, they had no control over the practices of other family members, such as the other parent or grandparents, who did not enforce the same rules and allowed the child to watch screens in what the participants perceived as an excessive manner. Additionally, eight parents stated that their child tended to adopt the screen use habits of family members, such as watching TV with parents or older siblings whenever they did, making it more difficult to limit screen time for the younger child.

Perceived behavioral control was also related to the parents’ ability to apply strategies to limit screen use. This factor was mentioned by 18 parents in our sample. Three parents felt overwhelmed and lacked effective strategies to limit their child's screen use. For the other parents, two types of strategies to regulate screen use were identified, sometimes both used by the same parent: situational avoidance behaviors and direct control behaviors. Situational avoidance behaviors were mentioned by 15 parents. These involved modifying the child's environment so that screens were not directly visible, removing screens from the home, reducing their own screen use, hiding the remote, pretending that the screen was not working, and diverting the child's attention to alternative activities. Conversely, 11 parents used direct control behaviors. This form of control involved establishing habits and routines to limit screen time during specific times of the day, warning and preparing the child before turning the screen off, explicitly forbidding the child's access to the remote or phone, and using parental controls to regulate the type and quality of content (e.g., using YouTube Kids settings).

Positive Attitudes Toward Screen Use

Themes and subthemes are described in Table 3.

Table 3

*Positive Attitudes*
Basic themes	Subthemes and quotes
Screens as an emotionally beneficial activity (14/20)	Source of soothing (11/14) "I see that he is calm, captivated by the television or his tablet (...) I feel that in some cases, it has its benefits because when he is in front of the TV, it soothes him, it calms him down, he watches his cartoon." (P18) Source of enjoyment (10/14) "And well, he actually enjoys it. I hear him laughing, and I feel happy. " (P9)
Screens as a valuable relay for parents (12/20)	Effective and easy to optimize time (12/12) "I was initially against it, but I must admit it helps a lot. It helps me a lot because sometimes I just want to take a peaceful shower or cook without being disturbed [...] Screens are like a virtual comfort object." (P8) Allows for free time and rest (7/12) "It’s just so I can have some peace; otherwise, I can’t even read my newspaper quietly in the living room." (P6)
Screens as a stimulating educational tool (12/20)	The screen as a source of diverse learning experiences (12/12) "Thanks to the screen she watches, when we go out, she recognizes all the animals. She also knows her colors." (P6) The screen awakens and stimulates (3/12) "It stimulates him; he is engaged when watching the screen." (P15)
A format with adapted content tailored for children : (6/20)	Childlike universe (6/6) "I think it’s actually quite positive. It’s a moment where children are together, in their own little world, with their cartoons, you know? They’re in their own world. And when they go to school, they talk about these things." (P9) Dynamic animations and audiovisual stimulation (3/6) "Well, it's often still very, very colorful, you see [...]—yeah, it really catches the eye." (P1)

Positive attitudes toward screen use were observed in 19 out of the 20 parents participating in the study. Among the reasons mentioned, the perception of screens as a support for emotionally beneficial activities was cited by 14 parents. Eleven parents described screens as a means to soothe children and regulate their energy levels. Some parents used them as a tool to calm crying episodes or to help manage intense emotions. Screens were also associated with moments of enjoyment and family bonding, where watching a cartoon or a movie became a social activity that strengthened family ties, often accompanied by rituals (e.g., eating popcorn or singing nursery rhymes).

Twelve parents described screens as a practical and time-efficient support for their everyday life, allowing them to manage daily tasks (e.g., cooking, cleaning, making phone calls, or taking a shower without interruptions) and to have moments of calm (e.g., resting, reading, or engaging in personal activities without interruptions). Seven parents also viewed screen use as a solution for restoring tranquility within the household.

Screens were perceived by 12 parents as an educational tool enabling children to acquire knowledge on various topics such as colors, animals, and foreign languages. According to eight parents, exposure to nursery rhymes and interactive programs promoted language development. Contrary to the notion of passivity in screen use, three parents observed that their children actively engaged with the content they watched.

Finally, six parents pointed out that children’ screen programs have child-friendly formats and content, featuring both a childlike universe and digital content perceived as visually appealing, incorporating bright colors, dynamic animations, and audiovisual stimulation that captured children’s attention. For two parents, screens represented an interesting alternative to traditional learning and entertainment materials.

Negative Attitudes Toward Screen Use

Themes and subthemes are described in Table 4.

Table 4

*Negative Attitudes*
Basic themes	Subthemes and quotes
A perceived negative impact on development (10/20)	Health (6/10) "We noticed that she looked at screens a lot on the day [and] she started having vision problems " (P6) Cognition and brain (6/10) "So, she’s 3 years old now, and I see that she is behind in language development because of the TV, as she can’t make sentences. Sometimes, when she wants something, she cries. She wants to talk, but... she can’t". (P12) Global development (4/10) "I know it's not good for... for their development and all that.” (P19)
Screen use generates dysregulated behaviors (16/20)	Opposition (4/16) "There’s a big impact because, well, now she knows how to turn on the TV and she asks for it a lot. And if we don’t give it to her, it’s tantrums." (P4) Emotional dysregulation (11/16) “So, well, then she was really hyper, and when we don't realize that they've watched too much, I know they're not feeling well, actually, they're...... they still want to watch, they scream, they're even more excited, and in the end, I have to scold them, so no, it doesn't go well." (P13) Violent behaviors (11/16) "When it stops, I see that she jumps, runs, does all sorts of... nonsense, so... she's addicted to the TV, yeah." (P12)
An addictive activity (16/20)	Lack of interest in oneself and others (7/16) "I feel like it cuts us off from the world a bit, we’re here but not really here, we’re together but I feel like we’re not sharing the present moment, even though we’re all watching TV, we’re all watching the same thing, but we’re here without being here." (P11) Addicted to it like a drug (9/14) "My husband tells me that they’re addicted, it’s like a drug" (P14) Hypnotized/obsessed (14/16) "I’m not really sure, because I feel like they’re completely lifeless in front of the TV and they’re completely... how can I put it? In the TV, nothing else exists around. I can talk to them, but they won’t listen. It’s just the TV." (P11)

Negative consequences of screen use were reported by 18 out of 20 parents participating in the study. Among the effects mentioned, 10 parents considered that screen use negatively impacts child development. Six parents reported that screen use has negative effects on children's health, potentially affecting vision and sleep, and creating states of excitement before bedtime. Six parents also considered that screen use affects cognitive abilities and development, as they observed delays in language development, and concentration difficulties in their children. Additionally, four parents considered that at an early age, screen use may impair brain development.

Sixteen parents perceived screen use as an activity that affects their children’s regulation. Four parents reported that their children show oppositional behavior and refuse to comply with requests when overwhelmed or overstimulated by screens. Eleven parents identified emotional dysregulation as a common issue associated with excessive screen time. In addition, 11 parents described displays of violent behavior—such as tantrums and outbursts of anger—when screens were turned off.

Finally, 16 parents viewed screens as a tool that fosters addictive behaviors in children. Among these, four parents believe that screen use causes children to lose interest in themselves and others during the activity. Of the 16 parents, 11 compared their children's relationship to screens to a drug addiction. Additionally, 14 parents described behaviors of obsession and hypnosis around screen use in their children.

Intention to Provide or not Provide Children with Screen Devices

Themes and subthemes are described in Table 5.

Table 5

*Intentions*
Basic themes	Subthemes and quotes
Overall parental intentions to limit their child’s screen exposure (13/20)	Intention to limit use to avoid overuse (7/13) "But I try to make sure it’s not all the time, because I had that experience with my oldest: she had a tablet—well, it was my tablet—and she ended up using it a lot, and I realized after a while she was really starting to get addicted, I don’t know if that’s the word, but like really wanting to watch it all the time." (P10) Targeting a precise screen time duration (6/13) "For my daughter, I try to keep it to a maximum — really a maximum — of two hours a day. If I can do less, I do." (P4) Evolving intention over time (5/13) “When I was pregnant, I used to judge moms who let their kids watch screens. But I realize now we don’t really have much of a choice, it’s easier to judge when you don’t have kids." (P7) Limiting exposure as much as possible (3/13) "I don’t totally ban TV either, I just try to cut it down as much as I can." (P10)
Intent to limit or control specific aspects of screen exposure (13/20)	Related to content (9/17) "We make sure it’s videos, cartoons, not websites. We’re careful, even if we didn’t set up parental controls. We try to be vigilant about it." (P18) Related to time of day and school schedule (8/17) "When there's no daycare, they’re allowed to watch TV, and they know it." (P14) Strict prohibition of exposure to certain types of screens (3/18) "He already tried things like, ‘oh, you’ve got your phone open, I’ll take it,’ but I’ve never actually given him the phone…" (P16)
Intent to control the conditions of screen exposure (5/20)	Child is not left alone in front of certain screens (2/5) "It’s mostly that when he watches, I try not to leave him alone in front of the TV." (P7) Child does not have autonomous access to the screen (2/5) "I never let him have the phone in his hands." (P15) Tries to interact during viewing (2/5) “I think it’s a bit smarter to comment on what she’s watching, but I don’t do it all the time. I try to.” (P14)

Thirteen out of 20 parents expressed a general intention to limit their child’s screen exposure. Parents’ positions varied: three aimed to restrict screen use as much as possible; six intended to implement specific time limits; and seven expressed a more general intention to limit use—often because they believed excessive screen time could have negative consequences—without necessarily establishing explicit rules. Five parents reported that their intentions had evolved over time, either after raising an older child or upon experiencing the realities of everyday parenting. Thirteen parents also described intentions to regulate more specific aspects of screen exposure. Nine parents reported monitoring content to prevent inappropriate or age-inappropriate viewing; eight mentioned restricting or allowing screen use at particular times of the day or week; and three forbid specifically the use of certain types of screens. Finally, five parents discussed intentions to manage the conditions of screen use: two did not allow their child to watch screens alone, two prohibited autonomous access to devices, and two sought to interact with their child as much as possible during viewing.

This study explored how parents of young children whose screen exposure exceeds international recommendations understand, justify, and manage screen use in their daily lives. Guided by the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), the analysis thematically explored parents’ subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, intentions, and both positive and negative attitudes toward their child’s screen use.

The analysis of discourse related to subjective norms showed that, in line with international recommendations, about one third of parents believed their child should ideally not be exposed to screens at all; yet this belief alone did not prevent excessive use. Most of the remaining parents (13 out of 20) described norms for young children’s screen exposure that exceeded public health guidelines, reflecting incomplete information or competing normative references that produced personalized notions of “reasonable” use. Parents’ discourse also highlighted a strong sense of social permissiveness: many observed widespread and often excessive exposure in their social circles or in public settings, even among individuals advocating strict limits or working in healthcare. These perceived inconsistencies—sometimes framed as hypocrisy—may foster discouragement and moral dissonance, weakening parents’ motivation or perceived ability to regulate their own practices. In such cases, descriptive norms (beliefs about what others do) may outweigh injunctive norms (beliefs about what one ought to do; Cialdini et al., 1991), especially when reinforced by everyday observations.

Parents’ perceived behavioral control over children’s screen use stemmed from structural, familial, and individual factors, consistent with the multidimensional regulation described in the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). As shown in previous studies (Hamilton et al., 2015; Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022), contextual constraints—urban settings, small living spaces, bad weather—limited alternatives to screen use and increased reliance on devices. The need to keep children occupied while managing daily chores emerged as a key determinant, with screens described as a practical “assistant” when external support or alternative options were lacking. Parents with social or family help, such as a co-parent or grandparent, found it easier to set limits, highlighting the role of support and available time. The ubiquity of screens further complicated regulation, as constant device presence was seen as eroding consistent boundaries. Internal factors also shaped perceived control: parents often resorted to screens to manage their own fatigue, stress, or need for calm, and children’s temperamental traits—restlessness, low frustration tolerance, emotional reactivity—were viewed as additional barriers, especially when combined with strong attachment to devices. Some parents described their child’s behavior with addiction-like language (“hooked on,” “like a drug”), reflecting a subjective loss of control. In families with siblings, age-related differences in screen access made rule enforcement difficult. Despite these challenges, most parents reported active regulatory strategies (time limits, parental controls, routines, removing devices, redirecting attention). The presence of these strategies suggests that difficulties in regulation may arise less from parental inadequacy than from environmental and emotional constraints that limit the application of these strategies.

The analysis of discourse related to positive attitudes toward children’s screen use showed that screens are viewed as both practical and emotionally supportive in daily family life. About two thirds of parents described screens as emotionally beneficial—enjoyable for the child and helpful for soothing agitation or managing emotional outbursts. For some, shared screen time also served as a bonding moment reinforced by routines. Screens were seen as convenient and time-saving, enabling parents to accomplish tasks or take short breaks, illustrating how positive attitudes are rooted in the practical demands of family management. This instrumental use of screens as a “regulatory device” aligns with studies showing parents’ reliance on digital media to reduce stress and maintain household stability (Radesky et al., 2016). Beyond emotional and practical benefits, 12 parents emphasized educational advantages, viewing digital media as tools for learning vocabulary, colors, or songs, supported by appealing visual and auditory features.

All but two parents also expressed negative attitudes toward their child’s screen use, highlighting perceived developmental, emotional, and behavioral risks. Half viewed screens as harmful to development, citing health concerns such as visual strain, disturbed sleep, and increased arousal before bedtime. Vision-related worries were frequent, despite not being among the primary documented risks (Radesky & Christakis, 2016). Six parents associated screen use with cognitive difficulties—reduced attention or delayed language—and four feared impacts on brain maturation. The other half did not mention developmental risks, a contrast with scientific evidence linking early excessive exposure to language delays, poorer sleep, reduced attention, and later emotional dysregulation (Radesky & Christakis, 2016). Parents’ silence on these issues may reflect limited awareness of developmental research or a tendency to downplay risks when screens serve useful daily functions. Sixteen parents described screens as disrupting their child’s emotional and behavioral regulation, with eleven reporting tantrums or anger when screens were turned off. These reactions were often seen as signs of overstimulation or dependency, illustrating a common vicious cycle in which screens help restore calm but also generate irritability that further reinforces reliance on them. Perceptions of addiction were particularly salient. Sixteen parents described their child’s attachment to screens in dependency terms, with 11 explicitly comparing it to drug-like addiction and 14 noting obsessive or hypnotic behaviors during use. These metaphors reflect the intensity of parents’ subjective experience rather than clinical addiction, consistent with research showing that children’s immersion is often interpreted as loss of control (Domoff et al., 2019). Such beliefs may nonetheless heighten parental guilt and reinforce moralized views of screen use.

Regarding parental intentions, 13 out of 20 parents expressed a clear and explicit intention to regulate their child’s screen use, suggesting that most parents in this sample were not devoid of intentions or concerns regarding screen regulation, even though their practices exceeded official recommendations. However, such declarations may also partly reflect social desirability, as parents could feel compelled to align their discourse with prevailing health norms. The intensity and structure of these intentions varied: three parents aimed to restrict screen use as much as possible, six intended to establish specific time limits, while the remaining seven formulated more general goals to “limit” exposure without setting clear rules. As proposed by the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), such variability may result from the interplay between idiosyncratic parental attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Five parents explicitly described how their intentions had evolved over time, often shifting “from ideal to practical” as they faced the realities of parenting, time pressure, and children’s demands. This adaptive trajectory supports prior research showing that parental intentions toward digital media are dynamic and contextually negotiated rather than stable commitments (Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020). Interestingly, while most parents focused on time regulation, fewer emphasized qualitative aspects of media exposure. Only nine parents mentioned controlling content to ensure age-appropriate viewing, and only two explicitly discussed co-viewing or interacting with their child during screen use—despite the fact that these are key protective factors identified in the literature (Fitzpatrick et al., 2023; Harverson et al., 2025; Tu et al., 2024). This suggests that many parents’ regulatory intentions remain quantitative rather than relational, centered on reducing duration rather than guiding meaning or engagement.

In sum, why do parents expose their young children to durations of screen time in excess of international recommendations? Overall, our findings suggest that excessive use of screens with their young children resulted for most parents from a complex interplay of structural constraints, social norms, emotional needs, and pragmatic coping strategies rather than from a lack of awareness or concern. Most parents expressed intentions to regulate their child’s screen use and recognized potential risks, yet their practices were shaped by the realities of everyday family life. Screens were described as indispensable tools for maintaining calm, accomplishing daily tasks, and managing parental fatigue or stress—functions that potentially outweigh abstract health recommendations in the moment. Parents’ positive attitudes toward the emotional, educational, and practical benefits of screens reinforced their reliance on them, even as they simultaneously articulated negative attitudes regarding potential harms. This ambivalence was compounded by social and contextual influences. Parents perceived screen use as normalized and widespread within their environment, including among relatives and professionals, leading to a redefinition of what counts as “reasonable” use. In this permissive social climate, descriptive norms appeared to carry more weight than injunctive norms. Furthermore, parents’ sense of limited behavioral control, linked to small living spaces, lack of childcare support, children’s temperamental difficulties, and the omnipresence of digital devices, constrained their ability to implement restrictions consistently. In sum, excessive screen use in this underprivileged sample emerged for most part not as a sign of parental disengagement but as a situationally adaptive behavior—a way to balance competing demands in environments offering few alternatives.

This study provides an in-depth qualitative understanding of how parents of young children conceptualize, justify, and regulate screen use in everyday life, grounded in the theory of planned behavior. Overall, the theory of planned behavior offered a sufficiently comprehensive framework to capture and organize all the main dimensions of parental discourse. However, our findings also reveal the dynamic and reciprocal interactions among these dimensions: parents’ attitudes, intentions, and sense of control evolved over time and continually influenced one another through everyday experiences. Thus, the model should be understood in a processual rather than static way, reflecting how parental beliefs and practices are mutually shaped and transformed within the ongoing flow of family life. While numerous qualitative studies had explored parental beliefs about screen use (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2015; Mallawaarachchi et al., 2022), only one recent study had to our knowledge investigated this issue specifically within low-income and socially vulnerable populations in Sweden (Mekhail et al. 2024), despite evidence suggesting that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are disproportionately exposed to digital media (Mollborn et al., 2022; Gassama et al., 2018). In line with our findings, first-time parents expressed awareness of risks associated with early screen use and held opinions that screens should start later, yet in practice they described using screens for distraction, calming, and everyday parenting tasks—highlighting the tension between ideals and the realities of family life.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The sample was recruited through a non-profit organization database and included families who were candidates to receive parental support, which may represent a group already more reflective or motivated to regulate screen use than the general population. The sample was also underprivileged, entirely urban, and predominantly composed of mothers, which limits the transferability of findings to more diverse or rural contexts. The overrepresentation of mothers (90%) in particular may have excluded paternal perspectives, which could differ in terms of digital engagement and disciplinary strategies. Regarding screen time measurement, the study relied exclusively on parental self-reports, which may not fully capture actual patterns of screen exposure. Background television—when the TV is on but not directed toward the child—was not precisely assessed, although this phenomenon may significantly contribute to daily exposure and remains difficult to evaluate. Although the study targeted families exceeding screen-time recommendations, social desirability bias may have led some parents to underreport exposure during interviews compared with questionnaire data. Interviews were conducted by researchers trained in child development, which, despite efforts at neutrality, may have subtly reinforced normative expectations about “good parenting”. In addition, the interviews did not systematically distinguish between shared/interactive vs. solitary viewing, although participants’ accounts suggest that most viewing occurred alone, often justified by the parent’s need to perform other tasks. Finally, screen content was only briefly explored, despite its importance for developmental outcomes, and potential exposure to age-inappropriate material was not examined.

The findings of this study have clear implications for prevention policies addressing early screen use. Parental decisions about children’s exposure to screens appear to emerge from a dynamic negotiation between ideals, emotional needs, and structural constraints, rather than from a lack of awareness. Consequently, prevention efforts should go beyond simply disseminating information about recommended screen durations. Policies should aim to enhance parents’ perceived behavioral control by addressing the contextual realities that make regulation difficult—such as limited social support, lack of accessible childcare alternatives, and the pervasive presence of screens in urban family environments (Luijk & Roseboom, 2025). Providing practical and culturally relevant guidance—for instance, concrete examples of alternative activities, strategies for co-viewing, and ways to manage children’s reactions—may make recommendations more attainable in daily life. Public messaging should also clarify the distinction between beneficial and detrimental screen use, emphasizing that interactive or co-viewed educational content can foster learning when appropriately mediated (Strouse et al. 2019), while solitary or prolonged passive viewing may undermine regulation and development. Prevention campaigns will likely be more effective if they adopt a supportive and nonjudgmental tone that acknowledges the emotional and practical functions of screen use within family life, thereby reducing the risk of eliciting defensive rationalizations among parents. Finally, large-scale interventions should seek to shift social norms by promoting consistent, evidence-based messages across medical, educational, and media systems. Creating a shared cultural understanding of healthy media habits—combined with community-level support (accessible childcare, safe play spaces, and parent support networks)—could enable families to align everyday practices with developmental recommendations, reducing both parental ambivalence and children’s excessive exposure.

In conclusion, by situating parental choices within their socio-economic and ecological contexts, our findings highlight that excessive screen exposure in early childhood is not merely a failure of parental control or knowledge, but rather reflects complex negotiations of emotional well-being and moral expectations within constrained environments. Emotional factors, in particular, emerged as central to decision-making and to the meanings parents attribute to screen practices. The findings also reveal the conflicted social norms surrounding early screen exposure: while some parents were aware of public health recommendations, they simultaneously felt pressured to use screens in social situations to manage behavior or avoid judgment—illustrating the intricate dynamics of the contemporary moralization of digital parenting (Radesky & Christakis, 2016). Although this was not directly explored in the present study, the dynamics of the digital attention economy may also shape how screens are used within families by fostering engagement patterns that compete with parental intentions (Sonuga-Barke & Kostyrka-Allchorne, 2023), as do marketing discourses promoting the educational potential of digital media—two interrelated themes that warrant further investigation. Ultimately, this study calls for a compassionate and contextually informed understanding of digital parenting—one that acknowledges how screen-related practices are embedded in the emotional realities of everyday family life. Recognizing these dynamics may help bridge the gap between public health ideals and the lived realities of parents.

Transparency and openness

We reported how we determined our sample size; all participant exclusions and we followed JARS (Journal Article Reporting Standards) guidelines. The interview transcripts and datasets generated for this study contain personal information from parents of young children and cannot be made publicly available as participants did not consent to open public sharing of their data. However, anonymized transcripts, the coding framework, and analysis materials may be shared with qualified researchers upon a data-sharing agreement to ensure participant confidentiality. This study’s design and its analysis were not pre-registered.

Author note

This research was conducted in collaboration with the French non-profit organization 1001Mots. This study received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors thank the participating families and the professionals from the Caisse d’Allocations Familiales who facilitated recruitment. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of Université Paris Nanterre (Ref. 2023-12-07). All participants provided informed consent prior to participation and were informed that their participation was voluntary and confidential. There are no conflicts of interest to disclose. Data, and codebook are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the participating families and the non-profit organization 1001Mots for their valuable collaboration. They also thank Lucas Maymil and Emeline Cadet for their help in the data collection process. Portions of this manuscript were drafted and translated with the assistance of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which was used to (a) translate sections of the original French draft into English, (b) refine the phrasing of qualitative excerpts and theoretical discussions, and (c) ensure consistency with APA 7th edition formatting. All intellectual content, data interpretation, and final wording were reviewed and approved by the authors.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2025). Screen Time Guidelines. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/media-and-children/center-of-excellence-on-social-media-and-youth-mental-health/qa-portal/qa-portal-library/qa-portal-library-questions/screen-time-guidelines/

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179‑211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Akbayin, M., Mulliez, A., Fortin, F., Vicard Olagne, M., Laporte, C., & Vorilhon, P. (2023). Screen exposure time of children under 6 years old: A French cross-sectional survey in general practices in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region. BMC Primary Care, 24(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02009-5

American Psychological Association. (2024). Qualitative research design (JARS–Qual). https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/qualitative

Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 154–196) (2nd ed.) (L. Perin&O. P. John). Guilford Publications.

Bentley, G. F., Turner, K. M., & Jago, R. (2016). Mothers’ views of their preschool child’s screen-viewing behaviour: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 718. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3440-z

Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP). (2016). Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the Early Years (0-4 years): An Integration of Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour, and Sleep. https://csepguidelines.ca/guidelines/early-years/

Chen, W., & Adler, J. L. (2019). Assessment of screen exposure in young children, 1997 to 2014. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(4), 391‑393. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5546

Chong, S. C., Teo, W. Z., & Shorey, S. (2023). Exploring the perception of parents on children’s screentime: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Pediatric Research, 94(3), 915‑925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02555-9

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Mark P. Zanna, p. 201‑234). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5

Cost, K. T., Unternaehrer, E., Tsujimoto, K., Vanderloo, L. L., Birken, C. S., Maguire, J. L., Szatmari, P., & Charach, A. (2023). Patterns of parent screen use, child screen time, and child socio‐emotional problems at 5 years. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 35, e13246. https://doi.org/10.1111/jne.13246

Domoff, S. E., Harrison, K., Gearhardt, A. N., Gentile, D. A., Lumeng, J. C., & Miller, A. L. (2019). Development and validation of the Problematic Media Use Measure: A parent-report measure of screen media “addiction” in children. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/ppm0000163

Fitzpatrick, C., Binet, M.-A., Cristini, E., Almeida, M. L., Bégin, M., & Frizzo, G. B. (2023). Reducing harm and promoting positive media use strategies: New perspectives in understanding the impact of preschooler media use on health and development. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 36(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-023-00262-2

Funk, J. B., Brouwer, J., Curtiss, K., & McBroom, E. (2009). Parents of preschoolers: Expert media recommendations and ratings knowledge, media-effects beliefs, and monitoring Practices. Pediatrics, 123(3), 981‑988. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-1543

Gassama, M., Bernard, J., Dargent-Molina, P., & Charles, M.-A. (2018). Activités physiques et usage des écrans à l’âge de 2 ans chez les enfants de la cohorte Elfe (p. 24). Inserm. https://www.ined.fr/fichier/rte/129/cote-recherche/Publications/Activite%20physique%20et%20ecrans_2%20ans_enfants%20Elfe.pdf

Girault, J. B., Cornea, E., Goldman, B. D., Jha, S. C., Murphy, V. A., Li, G., Wang, L., Shen, D., Knickmeyer, R. C., Styner, M., & Gilmore, J. H. (2020). Cortical structure and cognition in infants and toddlers. Cerebral Cortex, 30(2), 786‑800. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhz126

Goh, S. N., Teh, L. H., Tay, W. R., Anantharaman, S., Dam, R. M. V., Tan, C. S., Chua, H. L., Wong, P. G., & Müller-Riemenschneider, F. (2016). Sociodemographic, home environment and parental influences on total and device-specific screen viewing in children aged 2 years and below: An observational study. BMJ Open, 6(1), e009113. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009113

Guellai, B., Somogyi, E., Esseily, R., & Chopin, A. (2022). Effects of screen exposure on young children’s cognitive development: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 923370. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923370

Hamilton, K., Hatzis, D., Kavanagh, D. J., & White, K. M. (2015). Exploring parents’ beliefs about their young child’s physical activity and screen time behaviours. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(9), 2638‑2652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0066-6

Hamilton, K., Spinks, T., White, K. M., Kavanagh, D. J., & Walsh, A. M. (2016). A psychosocial analysis of parents’ decisions for limiting their young child’s screen time: An examination of attitudes, social norms and roles, and control perceptions. British Journal of Health Psychology, 21(2), 285‑301. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12168

Harverson, J., Anglim, J., Paatsch, L., & Horwood, S. (2025). Ecological momentary assessment study of digital technology use and child well-being. JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.4709

Holmgren, H. G., Stockdale, L., Shawcroft, J., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2023). Toddlers and the Telly: A latent profile analysis of children’s television time and content and behavioral outcomes one year later in the U.S. Journal of Children and Media, 17(3), 298‑317. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2023.2195194

Kerai, S., Almas, A., Guhn, M., Forer, B., & Oberle, E. (2022). Screen time and developmental health: Results from an early childhood study in Canada. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 310. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12701-3

Knowles, A.-M., Kirk, A. F., & Hughes, A. R. (2015). Parents’ perceptions of their children’s sedentary behaviour. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 7(4), 449‑465. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2015.1008026

Lampard, A. M., Jurkowski, J. M., & Davison, K. K. (2013). Social–cognitive predictors of low-income parents’ restriction of screen time among preschool-aged children. Health Education & Behavior, 40(5), 526‑530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198112467800

Lindsay, A. C., Moura Arruda, C. A., Machado, M. M., & Greaney, M. L. (2019). “If you let them, they will be on it 24 hours a day”: Qualitative study conducted in the United States exploring Brazilian immigrant mothers’ beliefs, attitudes, and practices related to screen time behaviors of their preschool-age children. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 2(1), e11791. https://doi.org/10.2196/11791

Livingstone, S., & Blum-Ross, A. (2020). Parenting for a Digital Future: How Hopes and Fears About Technology Shape Children’s Lives. Oxford University Press.

Mallawaarachchi, S. R., Hooley, M., Sutherland-Smith, W., & Horwood, S. (2022). “You’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t”: A qualitative exploration of parent motives for provision of mobile screen devices in early childhood. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 2011. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14459-0

Mekhail, K. T., Blom, L., & Rydström, L.-L. (2024). Young children’s screen habits and first-time parents’ reflections on screen use in socioeconomically disadvantaged Swedish settings: A mixed methods study. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 2027. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19557-9

Mission interministérielle de lutte contre les drogues et les conduites addictives (MILDECA). (2021). Les écrans et les jeux vidéo. https://www.drogues.gouv.fr/les-ecrans-et-les-jeux-video

Mollborn, S., Limburg, A., Pace, J., & Fomby, P. (2022). Family socioeconomic status and children’s screen time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(4), 1129‑1151. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12834

Oswald, T. K., Rumbold, A. R., Kedzior, S. G. E., & Moore, V. M. (2020). Psychological impacts of “screen time” and “green time” for children and adolescents: A systematic scoping review. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0237725. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237725

Pagani, L. S., Fitzpatrick, C., Barnett, T. A., & Dubow, E. (2010). Prospective associations between early childhood television exposure and academic, psychosocial, and physical well-being by middle childhood. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(5), 425‑431. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.50

Putnick, D. L., Trinh, M.-H., Sundaram, R., Bell, E. M., Ghassabian, A., Robinson, S. L., & Yeung, E. (2023). Displacement of peer play by screen time: Associations with toddler development. Pediatric Research, 93(5), 1425‑1431. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-022-02261-y

Radesky, J. S., & Christakis, D. A. (2016). Increased screen time: Implications for early childhood development and behavior. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 63(5), 827‑839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2016.06.006

Radesky, J. S., Eisenberg, S., Kistin, C. J., Gross, J., Block, G., Zuckerman, B., & Silverstein, M. (2016). Overstimulated consumers or next-generation learners? Parent tensions about child mobile technology use. The Annals of Family Medicine, 14(6), 503‑508. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1976

San-Martín-Roldán, D., González-Marrón, A., de-Paz-Cantos, S., Lidón-Moyano, C., Díez-Izquierdo, A., & M Martínez-Sánchez, J. (2024). Parental norms and perceptions regarding use of mobile devices by children under five years. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 32, e4362. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.7137.4362

Schwarzer, C., Grafe, N., Hiemisch, A., Kiess, W., & Poulain, T. (2022). Associations of media use and early childhood development: Cross-sectional findings from the LIFE Child study. Pediatric Research, 91(1), 247‑253. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-021-01433-6

Sonuga-Barke, E., & Kostyrka-Allchorne, K. (2023). Editorial Perspective: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder viewed as neuro-divergence in the digital world. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 64(6), 972‑974. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13710

Stiglic, N., & Viner, R. M. (2019). Effects of screentime on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: A systematic review of reviews. BMJ Open, 9, e023191. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023191

Strouse, G. A., Troseth, G. L., O’Doherty, K. D., & Saylor, M. M. (2018). Co-viewing supports toddlers’ word learning from contingent and non-contingent video. Journal of experimental child psychology, 166, 310‑326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.09.005

Suchert, V., Hanewinkel, R., Neumann, C., & Hansen, J. (2023). Regional socioeconomic deprivation in Germany and adherence to the 24-h movement guidelines among children and adolescents. Children, 10, 1392. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10081392

Tu, K., Shen, C., Luo, Y., Mo, Y., Jian, L., Mei, X., Zhang, Q., Jin, L., & Qin, H. (2024). The relationships between screen exposure, parent-child interactions and comprehension in 8-month-old infants: The mediating role of shared viewing and parent-child conversation. PLOS ONE, 19(1), e0296356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296356

Yang, S., Saïd, M., Peyre, H., Ramus, F., Taine, M., Law, E. C., Dufourg, M., Heude, B., Charles, M., & Bernard, J. Y. (2023). Associations of screen use with cognitive development in early childhood: The ELFE birth cohort. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, jcpp.13887. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13887

The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: None

Supplementarymaterialunmaskedresearchsquare.docx
Supplemental Material: Why do Parents Expose their Young Children to Durations of Screen Time in Excess of International Recommendations? A Qualitative Exploration of Factors Influencing Parental Decisions

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Why do Parents Expose their Young Children to Durations of Screen Time in Excess of International Recommendations? A Qualitative Exploration of Factors Influencing Parental Decisions

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Public significance statement

Impact of Early Childhood Screen Use

Guidelines and Recommendations

The Theory of Planned Behaviors

Parental Attitudes, Subjective Norms and Behavioral Control

The Current Study

Methods

Overview

Participants and Recruitment

Procedure

Sample

Analysis

Results

Screen Media Use

Qualitative Analysis

Subjective Norms

Perceived Behavioral Control

Positive Attitudes Toward Screen Use

Negative Attitudes Toward Screen Use

Intention to Provide or not Provide Children with Screen Devices

Discussion

Transparency and openness

Declarations

Acknowledgments

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1