Received: 24 April 2020

| Accepted: 2 March 2021

DOI: 10.1111/infa.12400

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The impact of parent and child media use on early

parent–­infant attachment

Lisa K. Linder1 | Brandon T. McDaniel2 | Laura Stockdale3 |

Sarah M. Coyne3

1
San Diego State University, San Diego,
CA, USA Abstract
2
Parkview Mirro Center for Research and With the rise in affordability of digital media and mobile
Innovation, Fort Wayne, IN, USA devices, children under age 2 on average spend signifi-
3
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, cantly more time with digital media than is recommended.
USA
Although concerns have been expressed about how parent
Correspondence and child media use might negatively impact parent–­child
Lisa Linder, San Diego State University,
attachment, there continues to be a scarcity of research on
5500 Campanile Road, San Diego, CA
92182, USA. the topic. The current study assessed both the amount and
Email: llinder@sdsu.edu the way in which children (11–­26 months) and their par-
ents engage with digital media and the impact on early at-
Funding information
Brigham Young University School of tachment after controlling for temperament, parent income,
Family Life parent age, marital status, and access to support. The study
utilizes data from a diverse sample: 248 parents of infants
completed an attachment q-­sort and surveys assessing the
amount of media use, parental absorption in media, types
of parental mediation, temperament, and demographics.
Results showed that for both parent and child, time using
digital media and co-­viewing was not predictive of attach-
ment insecurity. Parental absorption in media was found
to significantly predict attachment insecurity. Greater child
TV media use was associated with poorer attachment secu-
rity when there was limited to no parental active mediation.
Active mediation served as a protective factor for attach-
ment while parental absorption in media serves as a risk
factor for attachment.

© 2021 International Congress of Infant Studies (ICIS)

Infancy. 2021;00:1–19.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/infa | 1

2
|    LINDER et al.

1 | IN T RO D U C T ION

Due to the accessibility and affordability of digital media devices, media use and device ownership
have increased dramatically in the last ten years. Depending on the study, children under age 2 spend
between 40 min and 3 hours a day engaged with screens (Mendelsohn et al., 2008; Rideout & Robb,
2017; Thompson et al., 2013; Zimmerman & Christakis, 2005). Put together, these studies point
to a significantly higher rate of media consumption in young children than is recommended by the
American Academy of Pediatrics (2016). A body of research is accumulating on the effects of media
use on early developmental domains such as cognitive, attention, motor, and social-­emotional de-
velopment (Allen & Vella, 2015; Christakis et al., 2004; Hinkley et al., 2014; Kirkorian et al., 2009;
Schmidt et al., 2008; Setliff & Courage, 2011; Tomopoulos et al., 2010; Zimmerman & Christakis,
2005). However, to date, there is a scarcity of research that examines how a child's early media en-
vironment (e.g., parent and child media use) may impact the formation of attachment, although re-
searchers have expressed concerns about whether parent and child media use might negatively impact
attachment (McDaniel, 2019; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016b; Radesky & Christakis, 2016; Stupica,
2016). The purpose of the current study was to assess the role of parent and child media use on the
development of attachment in infancy. Additionally, this study evaluates whether the context of child
media use (e.g., whether parents are actively mediating use or co-­viewing with children) differentially
impacts parent–­child attachment in infancy (11–­28 months).
Attachment is defined as the emotional bond between a caregiver and an infant that emerges during
the first year of life and that provides the infant with a secure base from which to explore, learn, and
develop (Ainsworth et al., 1973, 1978; Bowlby, 1969). The development of attachment is largely
dependent on the caregiver's response to the infant when the infant demonstrates dysregulation or
distress (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Van Ijzendoorn et al., 1999). However, many other parent–­child inter-
actions can shape attachment. Infants are intrinsically driven to share attention and interest with others
through eye contact, smiling, gestures, and vocalizations in response to others (Tronick et al., 1978).
These parent–­infant interactions form the basis of an early cognitive model of whether the caregiver
is available and reliable in meeting the child's needs (Bretherton et al., 2008; Cassidy et al., 2013).
Additionally, time spent in parent–­child joint attention increases parental sensitivity to the child's cues
and greater synchrony in responding (Raver & Leadbeater, 1995; Schechter et al., 2010; Yoon et al.,
2014). Put together, a parent's engagement, reading of the infant's cues, and pattern of sensitive re-
sponding to those cues are crucial to the development of a secure attachment (Bretherton et al., 2008),
and this secure attachment can serve to insulate the child from stress and trauma (Okello et al., 2014)
while also facilitating early development and learning (Meltzoff et al., 1999).
On the other side of the spectrum, attachment insecurity, disorganized attachment, and loss of
attachment relationships in early childhood have been shown to increase the risk for maladjustment
socially, emotionally, and developmentally across the lifespan (Benoit, 2004). Research has shown
that infants whose mothers respond in a passive, unsmiling, or abrupt manner are more likely to have
anxious attachment relationships when the infant is 1 year old (Blehar et al., 1977). If caregivers pres-
ent an inconsistent, withdrawn, or unreliable response pattern to the infant's cues, the infant begins to
develop an internal working model that the caregiver is not a dependable source of comfort or safety
(Braungart-­Rieker et al., 2014; Lucassen et al., 2011; Wolff & Ijzendoorn, 1997).
As the use of media both inside and outside the home has increased with the proliferation of
mobile devices, daily activities that were formerly interaction rich between parents and children
are now sometimes infiltrated by media (e.g., eating, shopping, play time, bedtime; McDaniel &
Coyne, 2016b). However, as Daugherty et al. (2014) suggest, the way in which media integrates into
these daily rituals and routines (e.g., how media is used within the parent–­child dyad and the parent's
LINDER et al.   
| 3

absorption in their media devices) may provide a richer understanding of the impact the media use has
had on the attachment between parent and child.
The ultimate effect of parental media on attachment in young children is still unclear, though there
have been several studies that assessed the correlates and/or mediators of attachment in the context
of media use. Radesky et al. (2015) noted that during observations of parent–­child dyads, a parent's
absorption in their device resulted in fewer social exchanges (i.e., joint attention) with their children.
Likewise, several studies have noted that caregivers multi-­tasking with media and/or absorbed in their
devices respond more abruptly, harshly, and less warm to their children's bids for attention (Radesky,
Kistin, et al., 2014; Radesky et al., 2015; Vanden Abeele et al., 2020; Vandewater et al., 2006). The
above studies point to a possible impairment in a parent's ability to read a child's cues and respond sen-
sitively to those cues when absorbed in media. As both reading of cues and sensitive responding to a
child are fundamental to the development of attachment, this type of use can be viewed as problematic
for both attachment and early developmental learning. For a review, see McDaniel (2019).
The current study will assess both the general amount of parent media use as well as the way in
which parents use their own media when their infants are present (e.g., media absorption and media
multi-­tasking) to assess the impact each type of use has on attachment. For instance, parents often feel
pressure to stay connected to work or social media, feel a pull to check their device, and attempt to
multi-­task simultaneously with family and their device (Radesky, Kistin, et al., 2016). These types of
uses are proxies for patterns of use that may be problematic for parent–­child attachment, as the parent
may be too absorbed in their media to recognize their infant's bids for attention, respond sensitively,
and/or to initiate and engage in joint attention.

In addition to parental media use, a child’s media use may also pose problems for parent–­
child attachment. Kraut and colleagues (Kraut et al., 1998) proposed that screen-­based
media use might lead to increased social isolation and withdrawal. This poses a particular
problem for early childhood, as much of social, emotional, and cognitive learning occurs
within the context of interactions as children observe and imitate the behavior of their
attachment figures (Meltzoff et al., 1999). The use of a media device by young children
may be displacing time spent in enriching and stimulating interactions with others
(Valkenburg & Peter, 2007; Vandewater et al., 2006).

To date, there is an absence of literature assessing the impact that child media use might have on early
attachment. Research does indicate that children are less likely to respond to bids for attention (Hiniker
et al., 2018), initiate interactions (Kirkorian et al., 2009), and vocalize less (Sosa, 2016) in the presence
of media as compared with analog toys/activities. Therefore, media use in young children might replace
or impede the necessary social exchanges and clear signaling between a child and their caregiver that
leads to a secure attachment. Many parents turn to media devices to calm their children, particularly in
low-­income populations (Radesky, Peacock-­Chambers, et al., 2016). However, if parental interaction and
comforting of the infant during distress is a primary contributor to attachment development (Bretherton
et al., 2008), the use of media during child distress further reduces the opportunities for the child to de-
velop an internal working model of the parent as a source of safety and security. Some initial longitudinal
evidence suggests that frequent/consistent use of media to calm a child may result in increases in negative
emotionality (Gordon-­Hacker & Gueron-­Sela, 2020), pointing to the likelihood that media does not serve
as an effective proxy for a caregiver in assisting a child with emotion regulation over time. Therefore,
the long-­term impact of a child's media use on the development of attachment, while understudied, is
important to understand in order to provide appropriate recommendations/guidelines for its use in early
childhood.
4
|    LINDER et al.

Current literature demonstrates that infants who are more “difficult” in their behavior and temper-
ament (e.g., more volatile, harder to soothe, and exhibit greater difficulty with regulation) have higher
levels of media use (Linder et al., 2020; McDaniel & Radesky, 2020; Radesky, Silverstein, et al., 2014;
Radesky, Peacock-­Chambers, et al., 2016) and that temperament is also linked to parents’ perceptions
of attachment. To ensure that the unique effects of media on parent–­child attachment are assessed,
the current study will control for parental perception of difficult temperament (e.g., infant negative
affectivity).
On the other side of the media debate, a growing body of literature surrounding active mediation of
child media use has demonstrated that benefits can be obtained when parents engage in the media with
their child, make meaning, and facilitate learning through media (Collier et al., 2016; Coyne et al.,
2014; Gentile et al., 2014; Livingstone & Helsper, 2008; Nathanson, 2002; Nathanson & Botta, 2003;
Takeuchi & Stevens, 2011). Indeed, studies have shown that active mediation serves as a protection
against violent, scary, or negative content in media (Nathanson, 2004; Nathanson & Botta, 2003;
Nathanson & Cantor, 2010). From this perspective, it is possible that media, actively mediated by the
parent, could serve to strengthen attachment (Cole & Griffiths, 2007; Ko & Kuo, 2009; Nathanson,
2002; Valkenburg et al., 2006). More specifically, the media device or content, if used effectively,
could be the focus of joint attention and the impetus for a parent's sensitive responses to a child's con-
fusion, distress, and struggles with the device/content. From this perspective, the historic approach
of only measuring time spent with screens may not be the most effective way to look at the impact of
media and technology use in infancy. What seems to be of greater value is looking at the context of the
use, the way in which media is used, and whether that screen time is solitary, co-­viewed, or actively
mediated use (Daugherty et al., 2014). However, the effect of these contexts, in relation to attachment,
has yet to be studied in young children.
The current study sought to evaluate both the impact of time spent with media (parent and child),
the way in which the media is used by the parent–­infant dyad (i.e., co-­viewing vs. active mediation),
and the parent's patterns of use (e.g., media absorption). In media co-­viewing, an adult and child watch
together, but their use of the media is not cooperative or collaborative (Nathanson, 2002; Valkenburg
et al., 1999). During co-­viewing, a caregiver may miss the opportunity to notice and respond to a
child's distress related to the media content, thereby negatively impacting attachment. Active media-
tion, on the other hand, is a more interactive process in which the adult helps the child make meaning or
interpret content, contradicts or confirms the content, and helps the child navigate emotional responses
to the content (Gentile et al., 2014; Stevens & Penuel, 2010). This form of media engagement is likely
to place the parent at a greater advantage in terms of attunement and sensitive responding the child's
distress or confusion around the content, create more opportunities for joint attention, while also limit-
ing exposure to inappropriate content. However, little is known about whether active mediation is com-
mensurate with interactions surrounding analog toys in terms of facilitating attachment through joint
attention. This type of parent–­child media use has also been referred to as joint media engagement, in-
structive mediation, and collaborative use (Barr et al., 2008; Valkenburg et al., 1999). For consistency
throughout the current manuscript, the term active mediation will be used to represent this construct.
Previous research has suggested that there are some key parent characteristics that have signifi-
cant impacts on attachment and/or media use. Socioeconomic status (SES) has been shown to have
a significant impact on the effects of media use on development with lower SES families engaging
in significantly more media use than middle to upper SES families (Allen & Vella, 2015; Radesky,
Silverstein, et al., 2014; Radesky, Peacock-­Chambers, et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2013) as well as
reduced parental sensitivity and attachment (Wolff & Ijzendoorn, 1997). Parent age is another parental
characteristic that has been linked to less effective parenting behaviors and therefore has an important
role to play in attachment (Bornstein & Putnick, 2007; McCullough et al., 2017; Ragozin et al., 1982).
LINDER et al.   
| 5

To assess the unique contribution that media has on attachment in infancy, parent age, income, and
child temperament will serve as controls for this study.
The following hypotheses guide the current study:

1. Higher parental media use will be uniquely associated with lower attachment security.
2. Greater parental media absorption will be uniquely associated with lower attachment security.
3. Higher child media use will be uniquely associated with lower attachment security.
4. In the context of child media use, greater parent active mediation of child media use will have a
positive effect on attachment security (due to the active interaction between parents and children),
while co-­viewing will not change the effect of child media use on attachment (due to the lack of
active involvement of the parent with the child during the media use).

2 | M ET H OD

2.1 | Participants

In spring/summer 2017, 250 primary caregiver–­infant (under 1 year old) dyads completed in-­home
assessments and surveys in the Denver metro area for Project M.E.D.I.A. Of that number, 34.4%
of participants were recruited through mailers sent to each participant's home through the Colorado
Office of Health and Vital Records, which identified anyone in the local area who had a child born
within the past year. Research assistants were sent to potential participant homes to invite them to
participate. Of the mailer participants who met inclusion criteria, 66% participated in Wave 1 of
Project M.E.D.I.A. Additional participants were recruited using multiple methods including flyers
in child serving locations (e.g., pediatrician offices, public parks, etc.) and referral by a friend who
participated (17.8%). An external data collection company recruited 47.8% of the sample. Participants
were contacted again in 2018, with a 98.9% retention rate over the two years. Families were compen-
sated $150 per caregiver, in either Visa or Amazon gift cards for participating in both the online and
in-­home portions of the study. Researchers made frequent contact with families throughout the year
to maintain interest and participation in the project (e.g., birthday and holiday cards, home visits, and
phone calls). In 2018, 19 additional lower income families (10 with household income below $30,000,
8 with household income below $50,000, 1 below $60,000) were recruited through a Colorado Office
of Health and Vital Records mailer in order to increase the diversity of our sample in terms of house-
hold income. Of participants whom research assistants were able to reach at home, 68% qualified to
participate in Wave 2 of Project M.E.D.I.A. All data for the current study was from the 2018 wave of
data collection of Project M.E.D.I.A, except for that pertaining to household income and parent media
absorption, which were collected at Wave 1 (2017).
The sample used in the current study consisted of 269 primary caregiver–­infant dyads (130 fe-
male infants, 132 male infants, 7 missing; Age M = 17.13 months, SD = 3.79 months. Range = 11–­
26 months) recruited from the Denver metro area who had participated in the attachment q-­sort
procedure described in the next section. Of these 269, 21 did not follow instructions or had other errors
that invalidated the q-­sort procedure, leaving a sample of 248 with attachment data. This subsample
was ethnically and socioeconomically diverse. The ethnic composition for primary caregivers con-
sisted of 3% Asian, 9% Black, 21% Hispanic, 59% White, 1% Mixed Race, and 6% Other. Household
income was as follows: 30.5% below $30,000, 25.8% from $30,000 to below $50,000, 26.7% from
$50,000 to below $80,000, 12.2% $80,000 to below $100,000, and 4.7% more than $100,000. Of
the participants, 36.4% were currently receiving public assistance and 45.6% had received public
6
|    LINDER et al.

assistance in the last year. In terms of education, 3.2% of primary caregivers had not completed high
school, 17.2% had a high school degree or equivalent, 36.4% had completed some college, 26.8%
had a bachelor's degree, 12.4% had a master's degree, and 4% had doctoral or professional degrees.
The primary caregiver who participated in the study was primarily the mother and female (97.2%).
Additionally, 66.5% were married, 16.1% not married but living with a partner, 14.5% single and
never married, and 2.8% divorced, widowed, or separated. In terms of access to support, 97.2% felt
they had someone in their life who could help or care for their child if the parent were sick.
Compared to those with attachment data, those eliminated from the analysis due to invalid attach-
ment data were not statistically different on any demographic variables.

2.2 | Procedure

All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of [Brigham Young University, IRB
number F16089 Project M.E.D.I.A.]. The present study was conducted according to guidelines laid
down in the Declaration of Helsinki, with written informed consent obtained from a parent or guard-
ian for each child before any assessment or data collection. Primary caregivers completed online
surveys and two in-­home assessments (1.5 h and 45 min, three days apart). The primary caregiver-­
directed q-­sort (Attachment Q-­Sort) was completed during the second in-­home visit while the target
child was asleep or not present. Primary caregivers provided informed consent and completed several
play-­based assessments with their infants. All other items were assessed via survey measures. The
survey items included extensive measures regarding parental and infant media use and media-­related
behaviors from the CAFE (Comprehensive Assessment of Family Media Exposure) Consortium, a
multi-­investigator, international collaboration to create a standardized measure of family and young
children's media use (Barr et al., 2018). Primary caregivers were sent a unique online survey link by
research assistants and given two weeks to complete the survey, which was hosted on a secure web-­
based survey-­hosting platform. Each measure is described in detail below. For households without a
computer or internet access, research assistants dropped off iPads and WiFi hotspots to the home so
participants could complete the online surveys.

2.3 | Measures

2.3.1 | Attachment Q-­Sort

After completing the first in-­home assessment, primary caregivers were left with the 90-­item Waters
and Deane (1985) Attachment Q-­Sort (AQS). Each item was printed on laminated cardstock. Primary
caregivers were instructed to sort, in three steps, each of the 90 items into nine distinct piles ranging
from very much unlike my child (pile 1) to very much like my child (pile 9). Cards were placed in
small cloth bags that were labeled accordingly and picked up by the research assistant at the second
appointment. Each item was then given a score of 1 to 9 corresponding to the pile in which they were
sorted. Example items include “My child signals to me (or gives the impression) that he/she wants
to be put down, and then fusses or wants to be picked right back up” and “My child enjoys dancing
or singing along with music.” Attachment security scores were assessed following the procedures
outlined by Waters and Deane (1985), where primary caregivers Q-­sort scores were correlated with a
criterion sort by attachment experts representing the hypothetical most securely attached child during
LINDER et al.   
| 7

infancy. These correlation coefficients were used as the children's Q-­sort scores, with higher scores
representing more security of attachment to caregiver (M = 0.34, SD = 0.18).

2.3.2 | Child television use

Child television use was assessed by having parents complete one item asking, “On a typical weekday
(Monday–­Friday), how much time does your child spend watching TV or DVDs at home?” and then
a second item which asked “On a typical weekend day (Saturday–­Sunday)...” Parents reported from
1 (Never) to 8 (More than 5 h). Child TV use at home was created by multiplying weekday use by
5, weekend use by 2, and then summing these together to represent overall weekly TV use at home
(M = 21.45, SD = 11.93).

2.3.3 | Child mobile media use

Child mobile media use was assessed by having parents report on two items, “On a typical weekday
(Monday–­Friday), how much time does your child spend using an iPad, tablet, LeapPad, iTouch, or simi-
lar mobile device (not including a smartphone) at home?” and “On a typical weekday (Monday–­Friday),
how much time does your child spend using a smart phone for things like texting, playing games, watch-
ing videos, or surfing the internet (don't count time spent talking on the phone) at home?” Parents also
reported on the same two items referring to “On a typical weekend day (Saturday–­Sunday)...” Parents
reported from 1 (Never) to 8 (More than 5 h). Weekday items were multiplied by 5, weekend items were
multiplied by 2, and then items were summed to produce an overall score (M = 21.12, SD = 11.98).

2.3.4 | Parent media use

Parent media use was assessed by having parents complete four items asking, “On a typical weekday
(Monday–­Friday), how much time do you personally do each of the following activities at home?”
These same four items were also asked concerning “On a typical weekend day (Saturday–­Sunday)...”
Parents reported from 1 (Never) to 8 (More than 5 h). Parents reported on the following items: watch
TV or DVDs, use the computer, use an iPad, iTouch, or similar device (not including your smart-
phone), and use a smartphone for things like texting, playing games, watching videos, checking email,
or surfing the Internet (don't count time spent talking on the phone). Weekday items were multiplied
by 5, weekend items were multiplied by 2, and then all items were summed to reflect time spent using
a variety of media by parents. Because media use varies greatly from device to device and from person
to person (e.g., some people spend a great deal of time using one type of media, but relatively little
time using another type of media; that is, internal consistency in these items was not expected), it is
not appropriate to calculate Cronbach's alpha (M = 95.09, SD = 28.69).

2.3.5 | Parent–­child co-­viewing of media

Parent–­child co-­use of media was assessed using four items from Valkenburg et al. (1999)’s social
co-­viewing scale. Parents answered on a four-­point Likert-­type scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (Often).
Example items include “How often do you and your child watch television together because you both
8
|    LINDER et al.

like the program?” and “How often do you and your child watch television together just for fun?”
Items were averaged to produce an overall score, with higher scores indicating more parent–­child co-­
use (α = .87, M = 2.67, SD = 1.10).

2.3.6 | Parent–­child active mediation of media

Parent–­child active mediation of the media was assessed using five items from Valkenburg et al.
(1999)’s instructive mediation scale. Parents answered on a four-­point Likert-­type scale from 1 (Never)
to 4 (Often). Example items include “How often do you try to help your child understand what s/he
sees on TV?” and “How often do you explain what something on TV really means?” Items were aver-
aged to produce an overall score (α = .82, M = 2.42, SD = 1.04).

2.3.7 | Parent media absorption

Parents reported on their media absorption using a seven-­item scale based on interviews with parents
in Radesky, Kistin, et al. (2016) and Radesky, Peacock-­Chambers, et al. (2016). Participants answered
on a five-­point Likert-­type scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Participants were
asked to respond for themselves outside of work hours. Example items include “I need to stay con-
nected to work almost constantly in order to be successful” and “Using my phone or mobile device
allows me to ‘escape’ a little bit while I’m with my children.” Items were averaged, with higher scores
indicating greater media absorption (α = .66, M = 2.55, SD = .70).

2.3.8 | Controls

Parents reported their age and household income using single items. Parents also reported on their
children's negative affect using the twelve-­item negative affect subscale of the Infant Behavior
Questionnaire Very Short Form IBQ-­R VSF; (Putnam et al., 2014). Parents reported on an eight-­point
Likert-­type scale from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always) and were also given the opportunity to report Does Not
Apply, which was scored with a 0. Example items include “When tired, how often did your baby show
distress?” and “At the end of an exciting day, how often did your baby become tearful?” Items were
averaged (α = .67, M = 4.11, SD = 0.93). Marital status (i.e., cohabiting with partner vs. single) and
access to support were also included as controls. Work status was included but removed as it was ul-
timately not a significant predictor in the model and was highly related to income, which was already
a covariate in the model.

2.4 | Data analysis plan

All analyses were performed in SPSS 26. We first ran descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations
on our main study variables. Then, we ran two regression models to examine our hypotheses that
parent and child media use would predict attachment. We entered child media use (TV and mobile
media use), parent–­child engagement during child media use (active mediation of media use or co-­
viewing of media), and parent media use (general use and absorption), as well as controls (parent age,
income, and child negative affect). We also tested for moderation of child media use effects by active
 Bivariate correlations and descriptives for main study variables
LINDER et al.

TABLE 1

Active Child
Attachment Child Child mobile mediation Co-­viewing Parent Parent media Parent Family negative
(AQS) TV use media use of media of media media use absorption age income affect
Attachment (AQS) 1 −.13* −.06 −.04 −.16* −.09 −.15* .15* .21*** −.25***
Child TV use 1 .40*** .57*** .66*** .45*** .25*** −.13* −.25*** .13*
*** *** *** *** **
Child mobile media 1 .30 .33 .31 .29 −.07 −.20 .06
use
Active mediation of 1 .74*** .18** .21** −.14* −.16* .10
media
Co-­viewing of 1 .29*** .21** −.16* −.24*** .10
media
Parent media use 1 .40*** .02 −.05 .16*
Parent media 1 −.01 −.02 .24***
absorption
Parent age 1 .47*** .03
Family income 1 −.03
Child negative 1
affect
Mean 0.34 21.45 21.12 2.42 2.67 95.09 2.55 30.17 4.15 4.11
Std. Dev. 0.18 11.93 11.98 1.04 1.10 28.69 0.70 5.62 1.99 0.93
N 248 234 233 226 226 233 224 248 248 234
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
  
|
9
 10

TABLE 2 Hierarchical regression model of child attachment security predicted by child and parent media use and active mediation
|
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
  

Significance of Significance of
β β β β β β β R2 F-­value F-­value F-­value change
Control variables
Parent age .06 .06 .06 .05 .05 .06 .07 .12 5.67 .00 .00
** ** ** ** ** ** **
Family income .28 .28 .28 .27 .27 .27 .24
* * * * * *
Marital/partner −.17 −.17 −.17 −.16 −.16 −.16 −.17*
status
Access to support −.001 −.002 −.003 −.004 −.005 .001 −.01
** * * * * *
Child negative −.20 −.17 −.17 −.16 −.16 −.16 −.16*
affect
Parent media use
Parent media −.13* −.14† −.14† −.14† −.15* −.15* .14 5.42 .00 .05
absorption
Parent media use .01 .04 .03 .05 .04 .14 4.63 .00 .87
Child media use
Child TV use −.05 −.06 −.12 −.13 .14 4.08 .00 .54
Child mobile media .03 .02 .05 .15 3.63 .00 .71
use
Parent–­child engagement
Active mediation .11 .15† .15 3.45 .00 .19
Moderation of child media use by parent–­child engagement
Child TV use × .21** .19 3.63 .00 .02
active mediation
Child mobile × −.11
active mediation
*p < .05.
†p < .07. N = 202. Standardized estimates are reported. Marital/partner status was coded as 0.5 = married or living with partner, −0.5 = single, divorced, separated, or widowed. Access to support was
LINDER et al.

coded as 0.5 = has someone in life who could help the parent care for child when the parent is sick, −0.5 = does not have someone who could help. All other variables were mean centered.
TABLE 3 Hierarchical regression model of child attachment security predicted by child and parent media use and co-­viewing of media
LINDER et al.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7

Significance of Significance of
β β β β β β β R2 F-­value F-­value F-­value change
Control variables
Parent age .06 .06 .06 .05 .05 .05 .05 .12 5.67 .00 .00
Family income .28** .28** .28** .27** .27** .27** .27**
Marital/partner status −.17* −.17* −.17* −.16* −.16* −.15* −.15†
Access to support −.001 −.002 −.003 −.004 −.005 −.008 −.006
** * * * * *
Child negative affect −.20 −.17 −.17 −.16 −.16 −.16 −.16*
Parent media use
Parent media absorption −.13* −.14† −.14† −.14† −.14† −.14† .14 5.42 .00 .05
Parent media use .01 .04 .03 .03 .03 .14 4.63 .00 .87
Child media use
Child TV use −.05 −.06 −.003 .004 .14 4.08 .00 .54
Child mobile media use .03 .04 .01 .15 3.63 .00 .71
Parent–­child engagement
Co-­viewing of media −.09 −.09 .15 3.36 .00 .32
Moderation of child media use by parent–­child engagement
Child TV use × −.01 .15 2.78 .00 .95
co-­viewing
Child mobile × .03
co-­viewing
*p < .05.
†p < .08. N = 202. Standardized estimates are reported. Marital/partner status was coded as 0.5 = married or living with partner, −0.5 = single, divorced, separated, or widowed. Access to support was
coded as 0.5 = has someone in life who could help the parent care for child when the parent is sick, −0.5 = does not have someone who could help. All other variables were mean centered.
  
|
11
12
|    LINDER et al.

mediation and co-­use, and non-­significant interaction terms were trimmed from the final models. As
active mediation and co-­use were highly correlated (r = .74, p < .001), analyses were split into two
models (one including active mediation, see Table 2; another including co-­use, see Table 3). Both
models were significant (see Tables 2 and 3). Finally, significant interactions were probed with the
PROCESS macro, and we obtained the Johnson-­Neyman regions of significance (Hayes, 2018).

3 | R E S U LTS

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are presented in Table 1. Attachment was significantly
correlated with parent age (r = .15, p < .05), income (r = .21, p < .001), and child negative affect
(r = −.25, p < .001). In terms of correlations with media use, attachment was significantly correlated
with child TV use (r = −.13, p = .05), co-­viewing of media (r = −.16, p < .05), and parent media
absorption (r = −.15, p < .05), with greater TV use, co-­viewing, and parent media absorption being
related to lower attachment security. At the bivariate level, attachment was not correlated with child
mobile media use, active mediation, and general parent media use.
Child and parent media use were related, with parents who used more media having children who
also often used more media (r = .31 to .45, ps < .001). Children who watched more TV tended to have
younger parents (r = −.13, p < .05), lower family income (r = −.25, p < .001), and greater negative affect
(r = .13, p = .05). Children with more frequent mobile media use had lower family income (r = −.19,
p < .01). In terms of parent–­child engagement surrounding child media use, parents who engaged in
active mediation were also more likely to engage in co-­viewing of media with their child (r = .74,
p < .001). Younger parents and parents with lower incomes also reported engaging more frequently in
active mediation (r = −.14 to −.16, ps < .05) and co-­viewing of media (r = −.16 to −.24, ps < .05).

3.1 | H1: Greater parental media use will be associated with lower
attachment security

Contrary to our hypothesis, greater parent media use did not predict attachment (β = .03–­.04, ps = .61–­
.71; Tables 2 and 3).

3.2 | H2: Greater parental media absorption will be associated with lower
attachment security

In support of our hypothesis, greater parent media absorption predicted lower attachment security in
the active mediation model (β = −.15, p < .05, Table 2, Step 7), while it was at the trend level in the
co-­viewing model (β = −.14, p = .08, Table 3, Step 7).

3.3 | H3: Greater child media use will be associated with lower
attachment security

Contrary to our hypothesis, after controlling for all other variables including the context of use (i.e.,
active mediation, co-­viewing, parent media absorption), child TV use and child mobile use did not
significantly predict attachment (Tables 2 and 3).
LINDER et al.   
| 13

3.4 | H4: In the context of child media use, active mediation will have a
positive effect on attachment security while co-­viewing will have no effect on
attachment security

In support of our hypothesis, the potential effects of child TV use and of child mobile device use on
attachment security were not found to be moderated by parent–­child co-­viewing of media (Table 3).
Additionally, active mediation significantly interacted with child TV use (β = .21, p < .01; Table 2).
The Johnson-­Neyman regions of significance revealed that greater child TV use was significantly re-
lated to lower attachment security when active mediation was below average (specifically at a score of
2.05 or lower, which indicated parents who “Never” or “Rarely” engage in active mediation); 40.39%
of the sample fit into this range. For those with average or more frequent active mediation (scores
higher than 2.05, indicating parents more likely to “Sometimes” or “Often” engage in active media-
tion; 59.61% of sample), active mediation appeared to eliminate the potential negative effects of child
TV use on attachment security.

4 | D IS C U S SION

The purpose of this study was to assess the role that parent and child media use at home has on the
development of early attachment. Further, we sought to assess the way in which parents and infants
engage with media at home (i.e., parental absorption, parent active mediation, and parent–­infant co-­
viewing), to determine whether those patterns and contexts of use impact attachment. To date, there is
a scarcity of research assessing the role of parent and infant media use in the development of attach-
ment in early childhood.
In regard to the first hypothesis, that greater amounts of parental media use would negatively im-
pact parent–­infant attachment, no significant relationship was identified between amount of parent use
and parent–­infant attachment security. However, the second hypothesis addressed the pattern and con-
text of parental use and its role in parent–­infant attachment security. Consistent with our hypothesis,
greater parental media absorption significantly predicted poorer attachment security after controlling
for parent income, parent age, amount of parent media use, child temperament, and child use. Parental
absorption in media, in this context, encompasses the pressure that parents feel to check their emails,
stay connected through social media, and the degree to which they incorporate their personal media
devices into times they are with their children. Parental media use around a child has been shown
previously to be related to fewer parent–­child interactions (Radesky et al., 2015), poor parental re-
sponsivity (Hiniker et al., 2018), and increases in child behavior problems and greater parenting stress
(McDaniel & Radesky, 2018b). As parent–­child interactions form the foundation for the development
of attachment, environmental interference within those interactions, such as that due to absorption in
media, would disrupt attachment formation and/or maintenance. It is interesting then that the current
study did not identify a significant relationship between the amount the parent uses media and parent–­
infant attachment. Rather, it was the way in which the media was used by the parent that uniquely
predicted poorer attachment security. These findings are consistent with a qualitative study of parent–­
child interactions at restaurants when the parent engaged in media use. Radesky, Kistin, et al. (2014)
recognized that the degree to which the parent was absorbed in the media was directly related to the
abruptness and harshness of the parental response to a child's bids for attention. The current study
suggests that the more connected a parent is to their mobile device, the less connected they are likely
to be with their infant. More specifically, as the parent is oriented and attending to their device, their
gaze is averted from the child, they are not facilitating joint attention and are not engaging in physical
14
|    LINDER et al.

exchanges while their hands are occupied. Patterns of averted gaze and attention are of concern as eye
contact, physical contact, and joint attention with the infant are the building blocks of early attachment
(Belsky et al., 1984; Isabella & Belsky, 1991; Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1990).
Parental absorption in a mobile device likely produces more frequent interruptions in parent–­infant
interactions as the parent is pulled away from interactions by their device through notifications for
texts and emails, for example, technoference; (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016b; McDaniel & Radesky,
2018a, 2018b). A pattern of interrupted attention and engagement introduces unpredictability into
parent–­child interactions. If consistent and persistent, the pattern may begin to inform a working
model in the infant of the parent as unreliable and/or unpredictable, thus leading to greater attachment
insecurity (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008).
Previous research has shown that the more parents are absorbed in their devices, the more likely
they are to respond less sensitively (Radesky, Kistin, et al., 2014; Vanden Abeele et al., 2020). The
current research goes one step further and points to the outcome of this pattern of parent–­child inter-
actions in the context of media absorption. Putting past and present together, parental absorbed media
use prevents the caregiver from observing and responding to more subtle cues of their infant's distress
or bids for attention (Radesky, Kistin, et al., 2014; Vanden Abeele et al., 2020). These patterns of
interactions may result in increasingly insistent and negative attempts by the child to regain the par-
ent's attention (McDaniel & Radesky, 2018b; Radesky, Kistin, et al., 2014). This cycle of interactions
becomes more rigid and negative over time (Reid et al., 2002) and, as the results of this study demon-
strate, may lead to less attachment security.
The second aim of this study was to assess whether child media use had a negative effect on
parent–­child attachment and if the way in which a parent–­child dyad engaged in media with each
other had a moderating effect on the relationship between the child use and attachment. Similar to
the parent's amount of use, child use did not uniquely predict greater or poorer attachment security.
Instead, similar to parental use, the context or way in which a caregiver engages in media with their
infant played a role in the effect that media use has on the parent–­infant relationship. A significant
interaction was found between child TV use and parent active mediation of use. Specifically, greater
child TV use was associated with poorer attachment security in parent–­infant dyads where there was
no or limited parental active mediation. When active mediation was present “sometimes” or “often,”
the negative effect of child TV use on attachment security was eliminated. Consistent with the claims
made by Daugherty et al. (2014), the amount of screen time or use was not sufficient to evaluate the
positive or negative effects of media on the children in this sample. In this context, parental active
mediation of TV viewing served as a protective factor in the parent–­child relationship. There are
two possibilities for this finding. Firstly, it may suggest that media, to some degree, could serve as a
medium of joint attention with the parent and the child initiating joint attention and spending time in
connection, rather than disconnection of solitary use. The second possibility is that active mediation
allows the parent additional opportunities to recognize child distress, concerns, or confusion related
to media content and help the child make sense of the stimuli and information presented. This reading
of cues and sensitive responding supports the development of a positive working model of the parent
as a reliable source of safety and information about the world around the child that is the hallmark of
parent–­child attachment (Bretherton et al., 2008). The findings for child television use are particularly
relevant for the age group sampled in this study (11–­26 months) as they utilized television at a rate
double that of mobile media. This pattern of use is consistent with data from a nationally represen-
tative survey that identified television as the primary media outlet for children under two years old
(Rideout & Robb, 2017).
It is important to note that the relationship between child media use, active mediation, and parent–­
child attachment was not seen with child mobile media use. However, the measure that assessed active
LINDER et al.   
| 15

mediation in this study was primarily focused on television viewing and therefore likely did not dis-
criminate well for active mediation of mobile device use. Hiniker et al. (2018) observed that mobile
devices facilitated more isolated body positioning on the part of the child that make it challenging for
a caregiver to engage with the media. Additionally, when parents in their study attempted to engage
in mobile media alongside their child, they struggled to establish a role or purpose in the play as the
apps did not afford opportunity for multiple person play. As active mediation with mobile devices is
inherently different than active mediation for television media, it is likely that the measure used in the
current study did not capture the behaviors that might serve as protective for mobile media as it did
for television. The design of mobile media therefore presents significant challenges in assessing how
parents co-­use and mediate use of mobile devices. This is an important area for future research.
The findings of this study, that behavioral patterns of media use by the parent and infant, rather
than simply the amount of use, are predictive of the parent–­infant relationship and demonstrate that all
media use is not created equal and that all media use is not inherently detrimental. As has been shown
in adolescence (Collier et al., 2016), the way in which media is used makes an important difference
in the outcome. While analog, toy-­based play, has been shown to facilitate parent–­child interactions
easier than media-­based play, it is also possible to actively engage and make meaning through the
use of media devices (Hiniker et al., 2018). Media is ubiquitous in the lives of children and a total
absence of media is, if not impossible, often not feasible or valuable for parents (Hiniker et al., 2016).
Therefore, as researchers, designers, and practitioners, our attention should not only be on identifying
negative effects but also on understanding what patterns of use might facilitate development and how
the design of media might support connection between parent and child rather than disconnection.
It is here that we can reach harried, overworked, and exhausted parents who are unlikely to give up
media entirely and provide them with the knowledge and tools to successfully parent young children
in the digital age.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the School of Family Life, and the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences at BYU
and recognize the generous support of the many private donors who provided assistance for this
project. We also thank those families who were willing to spend valuable hours with our team in
interviews and the many students who assisted in conducting the interviews. The authors declare no
conflict of interest with regard to the funding source for this study.

ORCID
Lisa K. Linder https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8367-2782
Brandon T. McDaniel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0743-0367
Laura Stockdale https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9453-2232
Sarah M. Coyne https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1403-8726

R E F E R E NC E S
Ainsworth, M. D. S., et al. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1973). The development of infant-­mother attachment. In B. Cardwell & H. Ricciuti
(Eds.), Review of child development research (pp. 1–­94). University of Chicago Press.
Allen, M. S., & Vella, S. A. (2015). Screen-­based sedentary behaviour and psychosocial well-­being in childhood: Cross-­
sectional and longitudinal associations. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 9, 41–­47.
American Academy of Pediatrics (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162591.
Barr, R., Zack, E., Garcia, A., & Muentener, P. (2008). Infants’ attention and responsiveness to television increases with
prior exposure and parental interaction. Infancy, 13(1), 30–­56.
16
|    LINDER et al.

Barr, R., Kirkorian, H.L., Radesky, J., Coyne, S., Stockdale, L., Ball, R., Blanchfield, O., Chang, Y., Epstein, M., &
CAFE Consortium Key Investigators (October, 2018). Growing up in the digial age: Developing the CAFE assess-
ment tool, in Digital Media and the Mind Second National Congress. Cold Springs Harbor, NY.
Belsky, J., Rovine, M., & Taylor, D. G. (1984). The Pennsylvania Infant and Family Development Project: III. The ori-
gins of individual differences in infant–­mother attachment: Maternal and infant contributions. Child Development,
55(3), 718–­728.
Benoit, D. (2004). Infant-­parent attachment: Definition, types, antecedents, measurement and outcome. Paediatrics &
Child Health, 9(8), 541–­545.
Blehar, M. C., Lieberman, A. F., & Mary, D. S. A. (1977). Early face-­to-­face interaction and its relation to later infant-­
mother attachment. Child Development, 48(1), 182–­194.
Bornstein, M. H., & Putnick, D. L. (2007). Chronological age, cognitions, and practices in European American mothers:
A multivariate study of parenting. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 850–­864.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Loss. Basic Books.
Braungart-­Rieker, J. M., Zentall, S., Lickenbrock, D. M., Ekas, N. V., Oshio, T., & Planalp, E. (2014). Attachment
in the making: Mother and father sensitivity and infants’ responses during the still-­face paradigm. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 125(1), 63–­84.
Bretherton, I., et al. (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. Guilford Press.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central
construct in attachment theory. In Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.,
pp. 102–­127). The Guilford Press.
Cassidy, J., Jones, J. D., & Shaver, P. R. (2013). Contributions of attachment theory and research: A framework for
future research, translation, and policy. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4 Pt 2), 1415–­1434.
Christakis, D. A., et al. (2004). Early television exposure and subsequent attention problems in children. Pediatrics,
113(4), 708–­713.
Cole, H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-­ playing gamers.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 575–­583.
Collier, K., Coyne, S. M., Rasmussen, E. E., Hawkins, A. J., Padilla-­Walker, L. M., Erickson, S. E., & Memmott-­Elison,
M. K. (2016). Does parental mediation of media influence child outcomes? A meta-­analysis on media time, ag-
gression, substance use, and sexual behavior. Developmental Psychology, 52(5), 798–­812. https://doi.org/10.1037/
dev00​00108
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-­Walker, L. M., Fraser, A. M., Fellows, K., & Day, R. D. (2014). "Media time = family time":
Positive media use in families with adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29(5), 663–­688.
Daugherty, L., et al. (2014). Moving beyond screen time: Redefining developmentally appropriate technology use in
Early Childhood Education. RAND Corporation.
Gentile, D. A., Reimer, R. A., Nathanson, A. I., Walsh, D. A., & Eisenmann, J. C. (2014). Protective effects of parental
monitoring of children’s media use: A prospective study. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(5), 479–­484.
Gordon-­Hacker, A., & Gueron-­Sela, N. (2020). Maternal use of media to regulate child distress: A double-­edge sword?
Longitudinal links to toddler’s’ negative emotionality. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(6),
400–­405.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analsyis: A regression based ap-
proach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Hiniker, A., et al. (2018). Let's Play!: Digital and Analog Play between Preschoolers and Parents in CHI Conference.
Montreal, QC, Canada.
Hiniker, A., et al. (2016). Screen time tantrums: How families manage screen media experiences for toddlers and pre-
schoolers (pp. 648–­660).
Hinkley, T., et al. (2014). Early childhood electronic media use as a predictor of poorer well-­being. JAMA Pediatrics,
168(5), 485. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamap​ediat​rics.2014.94
Isabella, R. A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins of infant-­mother attachment: A replication
study. Child Development, 62(2), 373–­384.
Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A., Murphy, L. A., Schmidt, M. E., & Anderson, D. R. (2009). The impact of background
television on parent-­child interaction. Child Development, 80(5), 1350–­1359.
Ko, H.-­C., & Kuo, F.-­Y. (2009). Can blogging enhance subjective well-­being through self-­disclosure? Cyberpsychology
& Behavior, 12(1), 75–­79.
LINDER et al.   
| 17

Kraut, R., et al. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-­
being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–­1031.
Linder, L., Salcedo Potter, N., & Garrity, S. (2020). The moderating role of parental strain on the relationship between
child media use and regulation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(6), 392–­399.
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2008). Parental mediation of children's internet use. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 52(4), 581–­599.
Lucassen, N., et al. (2011). The association between paternal sensitivity and infant-­father attachment security: A meta-­
analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(6), 986–­992.
McCullough, C., Han, Z. R., Morelen, D., & Shaffer, A. (2017). The moderating effects of maternal age at childbirth
and emotion dysregulation on the intergenerational continuity of emotionally unsupportive parenting behaviors.
Journal of Family Issues, 38(7), 948–­971.
McDaniel, B. (2019). Parent distraction with phones, reasons for use, and impacts on parenting and child outcomes:
A review of the emerging research. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 72–­80. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hbe2.139
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016b). Technology interference in the parenting of young children: Implications for
mothers’ perceptions of coparenting. The Social Science Journal, 53(4), 435–­443.
McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2018a). Technoference: Parent distraction with technology and associations with
child behavior problems. Child Development, 89(1), 100–­109.
McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2018b). Technoference: Longitudinal associations between parent technology use,
parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatric Research, 84(2), 210–­218.
McDaniel, B., & Radesky, J. (2020). Longitudinal associatons between early childhood externalizing behavior, parent-
ing stress, and child media use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23, 384–­391.
Meltzoff, A. (1999). Born to learn: What infants learn from watching us, in The role of ealry experiences in infant
development. N. Fox and J. G. Worhol, Editors, Pediatric Institute Publications.
Mendelsohn, A. L., Berkule, S. B., Tomopoulos, S., Tamis-­LeMonda, C. S., Huberman, H. S., Alvir, J., & Dreyer, B. P.
(2008). Infant television and video exposure associated with limited parent-­child verbal interactions in low socio-
economic status households. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 162(5), 411–­417.
Nathanson, A. I. (2002). The unintended effects of parental mediation of television on adolescents. Media Psychology,
4(3), 207–­230.
Nathanson, A. I. (2004). Factual and evaluative approaches to modifying children's responses to violent television.
Journal of Communication, 54(2), 321–­336.
Nathanson, A. I., & Botta, R. A. (2003). Shaping the effects of television on adolescents’ body image disturbance: The
role of parental mediation. Communication Research, 30(3), 304–­331.
Nathanson, A. I., & Cantor, J. (2010). Reducing the aggression-­promoting effect of violent cartoons by increasing chil-
dren's fictional involvement with the victim: A study of active mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 44(1), 125–­142.
Okello, J., Nakimuli-­Mpungu, E., Musisi, S., Broekaert, E., & Derluyn, I. (2014). The association between attachment
and mental health symptoms among school-­going adolescents in Northern Uganda: The moderating role of war-­
related trauma. PLoS One, 9(3), e88494.
Putnam, S. P., Helbig, A. L., Gartstein, M. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Leerkes, E. (2014). Development and assessment of
short and very short forms of the infant behavior questionnaire-­revised. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(4),
445–­458.
Radesky, J., Kistin, C. J, Zuckerman, B., Nitzberg, K., Gross, J., Kaplan-­Sanoff, M., Augustyn, M., & Silverstein, M.
(2014). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics,
133(4), e843–­e849.
Radesky, J. S., Silverstein, M., Zuckerman, B., & Christakis, D. A. (2014). Infant self-­regulation and early childhood
media exposure. Pediatrics, 133(5), e1172.
Radesky, J., Miller, A. L., Rosenblum, K. L., Appugliese, D., Kaciroti, N., & Lumeng, J. C. (2015). Maternal mobile
device use during a structured parent-­child interaction task. Academic Pediatric, 15(2), 238–­244.
Radesky, J., Peacock-­Chambers, E., Zuckerman, B., & Silverstein, M. (2016). Use of mobile technology to calm upset
children: Associations with social-­emotional development. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(4), 397–­399.
Radesky, J. S., & Christakis, D. A. (2016). Increased screen time: Implications for early childhood development and
behavior. Pediatric Clinics, 63(5), 827–­839.
18
|    LINDER et al.

Radesky, S. J., Kistin, C., Eisenberg, S., Gross, J., Block, G., Zuckerman, B., & Silverstein, M. (2016). Parent perspec-
tives on their mobile technology use: The excitement and exhaustion of parenting while connected. Journal of
Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 37(9), 694–­701.
Ragozin, A. S., et al. (1982). Effects of maternal age on parenting role. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 627–­634.
Raver, C. C., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1995). Factors influencing joint attention between socioeconomically disadvan-
taged adolescent mothers and their infants. In Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 251–­271).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. E. (2002). Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental
analysis and model for intervention. American Psychological Association.
Rideout, V. (2017). The Common Sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight, M. Robb, Editor. Common Sense
Media.
Schechter, D., Willheim, E., Hinojosa, C., Scholfield-­Kleinman, K., Turner, J. B., McCaw, J., Zeanah, C. H., & Myers,
M. M. (2010). Subjective and objective measures of parent-­child relationship dysfunction, child separation dis-
tress, and joint attention. Psychiatry, 73, 130–­144.
Schmidt, M. E., Pempek, T. A., Kirkorian, H. L., Lund, A. F., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). The effects of background
television on the toy play behavior of very young children. Child Development, 79(4), 1137–­1151.
Setliff, A. E., & Courage, M. L. (2011). Background television and infants’ allocation of their attention during toy play.
Infancy, 16(6), 611–­639.
Sosa, A. V. (2016). Association of the type of toy used during play with the quantity and quality of parent-­infant com-
munication. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(2), 132–­137.
Stevens, R., & Penuel, W. R. (2010). Studying and fostering learning through joint media engagement, in National
Science Foundation’s Science of Learning Centers. Arlington, VA.
Stupica, B. (2016). Rounding the bases with a secure base. Attachment & Human Development, 18(4), 373–­390.
Takeuchi, L., & Stevens, R. (2011). The new coviewing: Designing for learning through joint media engagement.
Thompson, A. L., Adair, L. S., & Bentley, M. E. (2013). Maternal characteristics and perception of temperament asso-
ciated with infant TV exposure. Pediatrics, 131(2), e390.
Tomopoulos, S., Dreyer, B. P., Berkule, S., Fierman, A. H., Brockmeyer, C., & Mendelsohn, A. L. (2010). Infant media
exposure and toddler development. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(12), 1105–­1111.
Tronick, E., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, T. B. (1978). The infant's response to entrapment between
contradictory messages in face-­to-­face interaction. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17(1),
1–­13.
Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. (1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles
of television mediation: "Instructive mediation," "restrictive mediation," and "social coviewing". Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(1), 52.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Online communication and adolescent well-­being: Testing the stimulation versus
the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-­Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1169–­1182.
Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’
well-­being and social self-­esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 584–­590.
Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1990). Cross-­cultural consistency of coding the strange situation. Infant
Behavior and Development, 13(4), 469–­485.
Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermanskranenburg, M. J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early
childhood: Meta-­analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11(2),
225–­250.
Vanden Abeele, M., Abels, M., & Hendrickson, A. (2020). Are parents less responsive to young children when they are
on their phones? A systematic naturalistic observation study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
23(6), 363–­370.
Vandewater, E. A., Bickham, D. S., & Lee, J. H. (2006). Time well spent? Relating television use to children's free-­time
activities. Pediatrics, 117(2), e181.
Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-­
methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 50(1/2), 41–­65.
Wolff, M. S., & Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-­analysis on parental antecedents of infant
attachment. Child Development, 68(4), 571–­591.
LINDER et al.   
| 19

Yoon, A. S., et al. (2014). Mother-­infant joint attention and sharing: relations to disorganized attachment and maternal
disrupted communication. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175, 1–­17.
Zimmerman, F. J., & Christakis, D. A. (2005). Children’s television viewing and cognitive outcomes: A longitudinal
analysis of national data. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159(7), 619–­625.

How to cite this article: Linder LK, McDaniel BT, Stockdale L, Coyne SM. The impact of
parent and child media use on early parent–­infant attachment. Infancy. 2021;00:1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12400