Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Digital parenting is increasingly shaped by emotional labour, perceived social scrutiny, and uncertainty. This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study examined how parental uncertainty, self-efficacy, and perceived judgement related to digital mediation among parents of 4–6-year-olds attending a university-based digital play programme in Australia. Drawing on Bandura's self-efficacy theory and Festinger's social comparison theory, 25 parents completed surveys (19 were retained after data cleaning), and four participated in follow-up interviews. Higher uncertainty was associated with perceived judgement and lower negotiation of digital rules. Risk anxiety aligned with restrictive mediation, while greater confidence supported co-use and positive engagement. Interview data highlighted emotional strain linked to feeling monitored, while confident parents re-framed technology use as learning opportunities. The study positions digital parenting as an emotionally and socially embedded practice and extends mediation models by foregrounding psychosocial dynamics. Implications include the value of non-judgemental support and confidence-building resources to promote balanced digital engagement in early childhood.

Keywords

digital parenting parental self-efficacy emotional labour mediation strategies early childhood technology use

Digital technologies are increasingly embedded in the daily routines of young children, prompting parents to assume the role of digital gatekeepers. Whether deciding which apps to download, negotiating screen-time limits, or responding to online content, parents are required to make choices that are not only practical but emotionally and socially charged. In this environment, digital parenting extends beyond device management to include the emotional labour of navigating societal expectations, expert advice, and personal values (Blum-Ross and Livingstone, 2016; Tan et al., 2024). The rise of digital childhoods has therefore re-framed parenting as a form of ongoing negotiation between autonomy and supervision.

The early childhood years present particularly complex demands for parents. For many families, screen-mediated communication and online learning were already embedded in everyday routines prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (Végh et al., 2025). In recent years, however, patterns of digital engagement have shifted markedly, with the pandemic further intensifying families’ reliance on screens for education, entertainment, and social connection (Atiles et al., 2021; Burke et al., 2023; Lewis et al., 2023). In response to these shifts, international bodies, including the United Nations, have called for updated approaches to children's rights in digital environments, advocating for both connectivity and offline interaction (UNCRC, 2021). Australian data indicates that children from birth to 8 years typically have access to multiple internet-connected devices, with many engaging in screen use that exceeds the minimum daily thresholds outlined in official guidelines (ABS, 2023; Pangrazio and Mavoa, 2025). These patterns highlight the ubiquity of digital devices in everyday family life, and the expanding scope of parent responsibility in shaping children's digital experiences.

Parental mediation theory offers a useful starting point for understanding how parents manage these responsibilities. The framework categorises parental involvement into four strategies: active mediation (discussion), restrictive mediation (rules), co-use (shared engagement), and technical mediation (use of controls or filters) (Livingstone and Helsper, 2008), yet these categories often overlap. Parents’ choices are not dictated solely by intention or knowledge but are shaped by a dynamic combination of confidence, context, and social expectations (Banić and Orehovački, 2024; Venard et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2023), making digital parenting highly situational and often emotionally charged.

This uncertainty is heightened by the increasingly public nature of parenting. Parents report feeling judged by others for both liberal and restrictive approaches to digital use. Milford et al. (2025) describe this dynamic as ‘judgement-based’ parenting, in which digital parenting becomes performative and driven by a desire to appear competent and in control. Social expectations, often unspoken, shape how parenting is performed in public and online settings. Many parents internalise these expectations, experiencing guilt or shame when their practices diverge from perceived norms. Exposure to idealised portrayals of parenting online can diminish confidence, increase role strain, and heighten psychological distress (Coyne et al., 2017). Such emotional responses are not incidental, they influence how parents approach mediation and assess their own competence (Blum-Ross and Livingstone, 2018), demonstrating how parenting is socially evaluated as much as personally enacted.

The dynamics of judgement are particularly visible in online spaces. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) explains how people evaluate their behaviour against others, a process that is amplified by the curated portrayals of parenting on social media. Mothers frequently report experiencing affective tension, simultaneous pride, anxiety, and self-doubt, when engaging with these idealised depictions (Lehto and Paasonen, 2021). This can lead to anticipatory self-correction, as parents change behaviour not out of conviction but to avoid appearing incompetent or neglectful. These emotional tensions are compounded by broader cultural narratives that prescribe normative ideals of parenting. Mannell et al. (2025) argue that such norms, though often unexamined, significantly shape how parents interpret their digital responsibilities and success.

Parental responses to this complex environment vary widely. Some adopt restrictive mediation practices to manage uncertainty and reduce the risk of criticism. Others engage with their children more collaboratively, influenced by a strong sense of digital parenting self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Milford et al., 2024). These differences matter, self-efficacy influences not only what parents do, but how they feel about doing it. Higher confidence tends to support more flexible, developmentally aligned practices, while lower confidence is often associated with risk aversion and avoidance (Dong et al., 2020; Shin, 2018; Shin and Lwin, 2022).

Despite increasing research into parental mediation, the psychosocial dimensions of digital parenting, particularly the emotional and relational factors that shape parental decision-making remain under-explored. Studies have typically focused on content or duration, overlooking the emotional and social dimensions that drive decision-making. In the context of evolving guidelines, visible parenting norms, and digital saturation, understanding how parents navigate these tensions is vital. This study addresses this gap by drawing on Bandura's (1977, 1997) self-efficacy theory and Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory to examine how uncertainty, perceived judgement, and confidence interact to influence digital mediation strategies. To operationalise these constructs, we formulated the following hypotheses:
H1:
Higher parental uncertainty about children's digital technology use is associated with greater perceived social judgement.
H2:
Lower digital parenting self-efficacy is associated with greater uncertainty and higher feelings of being judged.
H3:
Parents who perceive digital technology as beneficial are more likely to report greater confidence and lower perceived judgement.

While existing research has delineated key parental mediation strategies (Livingstone and Helsper, 2008), these frameworks often overlook the emotional and relational forces that influence how mediation is enacted in everyday life. This study advances the field by shifting attention from typological categorisation towards the affective and social dynamics that shape digital parenting decisions. By foregrounding the affective and relational dynamics of parenting, this study provides a more holistic understanding of how families navigate digital childhoods. In doing so, it extends current models of mediation by highlighting how psychosocial factors constrain or enable responsive, developmentally supportive digital engagement.

Conceptual framework

This study conceptualises digital parenting not simply as a set of behaviour strategies but as a socially and affectively mediated practice. Parents’ decisions around children's technology are shaped not only by guidelines or knowledge, but by emotional labour, perceived social judgement, and internalised expectations of ‘good parenting’. These factors influence how mediation strategies are interpreted, implemented, and experienced in everyday family life.

Parental mediation theory

Parental mediation theory is foundational in media and childhood research. It describes the strategies parents use to guide and monitor children's digital engagement, ranging from rule-setting and discussion to co-use and technical controls (Livingstone and Helsper, 2008). While useful analytically, these categories are rarely discrete in practice. Instead, they are enacted fluidly, shaped by everyday routines, socio-cultural expectations, and each parent's sense of agency (Blum-Ross and Livingstone, 2016), highlighting the need to understand mediation as contextually responsive rather than prescriptive.

Parent confidence

Parents are required to translate contradictory messages from health and education sectors into coherent household practices. While schools often encourage digital literacy, public health guidelines recommend minimising screen exposure in the early years (Straker et al., 2018). These competing discourses rarely account for the emotional demands they impose on families. Langton et al. (2025) found that first-time Australian parents often internalised harm-based messaging and rigid screen-time limits, struggling to reconcile guidelines with the practicalities of everyday parenting. Many reported a tension between wanting to support children's autonomy and feeling pressure to limit exposure, particularly considering risk-laden narratives that emphasise digital dangers over developmental opportunities.

In the absence of clear alignment, parents are left to resolve these tensions through improvisation and emotional effort. Consistent with earlier work, lower digital parenting self-efficacy does not indicate an inability to make decisions, but rather reflects reduced confidence when navigating ambiguous, and often contradictory, expectations about children's digital use (Milford et al., 2024). Lower parental confidence may constrain parents’ capacity to navigate uncertainty and reconcile competing expectations about what constitutes ‘appropriate’ digital use across contexts.

Public discourse and digital quality

Cultural narratives surrounding digital risk further complicate this task. Public discourse frequently positions screens as threats to development, attention, and emotional well-being, despite a consensus in empirical research emphasising the importance of context, content, and interaction over screen time alone (Dias et al., 2016; Willett, 2023). Within early childhood research, quality digital interactions are commonly associated with children's active agency, creative meaning-making, and opportunities for exploration and co-engagement, rather than passive consumption (Chu et al., 2024; Fleer, 2016, 2019). However, despite the prevalence of digital technologies in children's lives, these indicators of quality are not always foregrounded or translated into everyday family digital practices (Wilson et al., 2024).

Parents must sift through a saturated digital marketplace where content quality is difficult to assess, particularly in apps marketed as educational (Montazami et al., 2022). While some evidence of quality digital play exists, these indicators are not always accessible, consistent, or readily operationalised by parents making day-to-day decisions. In this context, parents often draw on peer recommendations, heuristics, or instinct to inform their practices (Papadakis and Kalogiannakis, 2017).

In the absence of clear, context-sensitive guidance, many parents adopt precautionary or avoidance-based strategies (Banić and Orehovački, 2024; Willett, 2023). While these approaches are typically motivated by care and concern for children's well-being, they may inadvertently limit opportunities for exploration, co-engagement, and creative digital play. As highlighted by Early Childhood Australia (2018) and Livingstone and Bulger (2014), the ways in which parents’ structure digital environments play a pivotal role in either enabling or supressing children's meaningful participation. These decisions ultimately shape whether digital experiences are framed as opportunities for learning and creative growth or as activities requiring control and limitation.

Parental self-efficacy

In such conditions, parental self-efficacy becomes a critical variable. Bandura's (1977, 1997) concept of self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their capacity to complete specific tasks. In digital parenting, this belief affects how parents approach uncertainty, make decisions, and persist with mediation efforts. Studies show that higher self-efficacy is associated with confidence and flexibility, while low self-efficacy often predicts restrictive or reactive practices (Fidan and Olur, 2023; Milford et al., 2024). These patterns support that parental behaviours are not only shaped by external advice, but also by internal perceptions of confidence.

When parents are presented with contradictory advice, their belief in their own competence becomes a crucial filter through which decisions are made and evaluated. Building on Bandura's (1977, 1997) conceptualisation, this study treats self-efficacy not merely as an internal trait but as a dynamic, socially situated belief that is sensitive to both structural pressures and interpersonal scrutiny. Parental self-efficacy is not only about skill but also managing the affective burden of appearing competent. In public and digital spaces, mothers frequently report being watched and evaluated, particularly when their decisions deviate from idealised parenting (Lehto and Paasonen, 2021). These evaluations contribute to anticipatory self-monitoring, as described in Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory. Parents may adapt their behaviour not out of personal conviction, but to maintain social credibility. This highlights how digital parenting is often a performance shaped by perceived judgement rather than autonomous decision-making.

Re-framing and screen quality

Recent international guidelines reflect a shift in expert thinking. Organisations and scholars now discourage strict time-based rules in favour of context-sensitive engagement (CPSDHTF, 2017; Kaye et al., 2020). These include recommendations for co-use, content quality, digital literacy, and age-appropriate autonomy. These approaches align more closely with how families use technology in everyday life. This shift acknowledges that not all screen time is equal, and that meaningful engagement depends on how, why, and with whom digital media are used.

Empirical studies support this re-framing. Research shows that adult-supported digital play can promote imagination, collaboration, and problem-solving, capacities typically associated with traditional forms of learning and play (Bird and Edwards, 2015; Marsh et al., 2016; Murcia et al., 2020). It is not merely screen-time duration, but the integration of digital practices into family routines that shapes developmental outcomes (Chaudron et al., 2018; Mallawaarachchi et al., 2024). These findings suggest that technology need not be seen as a developmental threat, provided it is situated within supportive relationships and developmentally appropriate contexts.

These insights highlight the need to understand digital parenting as a dynamic, relational practice. Rather than focusing solely on screen time or safety, this study examines how emotional and social variables influence how families negotiate children's engagement with digital technology in early childhood. These findings support the importance of re-framing digital engagement as a relational and developmental process, rather than a risk to be strictly managed.

Methods

Study design and procedure

The study employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, focused on parents of children aged 4–6 years attending a Stay and Play programme at an Australian University's Children's Technology centre. The 6-week programme engaged families in progressive digital play experiences that supported children's creativity and computational thinking. Sessions were led by an early childhood education practitioner researcher who facilitated guided co-play and scaffolded parent–child exploration with digital technologies. Participation in the study was independent of programme involvement and had no bearing on a family's ability to access sessions.

Data was first collected through an online survey titled Parental Attitudes and Negotiation of Children's Digital Engagement, which included closed-ended questions. Given the small quantitative sample, the survey phase was treated as exploratory and hypothesis-generating, intending to identify promising patterns for further testing. At the end of the survey, participants were invited to express interest in a follow-up interview. Informed consent was obtained separately for both the questionnaire and interview. Participants received a Participation Information Statement and Consent Form on the day of data collection, with assurances of anonymity and confidentiality. No data was collected without written signed consent. Ethical approval was granted by the University's Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2024-0134).

Participants

A total of 25 parents from the Stay and Play programme completed the online questionnaire. Recruitment for Stay and Play and the associated research was multi-pronged: invitations were embedded in programme registration materials, shared via the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child website, the University's School of Education Professional Learning Hub database, the University's Early Childhood Centre parent network, and through word of mouth. Flyer's advertising both the programme and research were also circulated.

Within the survey design, a question asked parents whether they would be willing to participate in follow-up interviews. Of those who expressed interest, four parents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews.

Quantitative methods

Survey measures

The questionnaire was designed for this study, informed by prior validated measures, to reflect the complexities of digital parenting. Item design drew from existing literature on screen-time regulation, digital creativity, well-being, privacy, and parental control (Blum-Ross and Livingstone, 2016; Kaye et al., 2020; Murcia et al., 2020). The questionnaire included background demographic questions, five-point Likert scale items, and a confidence rating scale. Demographic items captured parent age, highest level of qualification, occupation, child's age, number of children, and residential post-code.

Thirty-four Likert-scale items (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) assessed parent beliefs and practices, grouped into three thematic domains:
Attitude to children's use of technology (e.g. ‘I’m happy for my child to play digital games on and offline’),

How is technology being used for and by my child (e.g. ‘Digital technologies are integrated into my child's daily life at home (e.g. timing, online shopping, maps and navigation)’),

How do parent's negotiate children's use of technology (e.g. ‘As the adult, I decide how my child uses and accesses digital devices’).

Parental confidence was assessed via a sliding scale from 0 (least confident) to 10 (most confident). Parents were also asked whether participation in the Stay and Play programme had influenced their confidence in fostering their child's digital play and learning.

Data cleaning and preparation

Data was first exported to Microsoft Excel for cleaning. Cases with substantial missing data (n = 6) were removed, resulting in a final sample of 19 participants. The dataset was then screened for inconsistencies and missing values before analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 30.0).

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were calculated to summarise participant responses. Given the ordinal nature of the Likert-scale data and the sample size (N = 19), Spearman's rank-order correlation was used to assess associations (Bishara and Hittner, 2012).

To strengthen statistical inference, bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrapping with 1000 re-samples was applied (Efron, 1987; Efron and Tibshirani, 1993). BCa intervals adjust for both bias and skewness in the sampling distribution and are recommended in behavioural research with small sample sizes (Mooney and Duval, 1993). Spearman's rho, P-values, and 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05; BCa intervals are reported for inference.

Qualitative methods

Interview protocol

Semi-structured interviews were conducted over a 2-month period post-completion of survey, either face to face or via Microsoft Teams. Interviews averaged 48 min and explored parents’ experiences with young children's digital engagement. Example questions included:
‘How important are digital technologies for you, and for your children?’

‘What digital technologies does your child have access to at home?’

‘Do you have any worries or concerns about your child using these technologies?’

‘Do you have family rules around digital technology use?’

This format enabled participants to elaborate on their practices and beliefs while ensuring coverage of core topics identified in the survey.

Data analysis

A deductive thematic analysis was applied to the interview transcripts, guided by the literature and statistically significant correlations identified in the quantitative phase (P < 0.05). Constructs such as parental uncertainty, social judgement, and confidence informed the coding frame. The analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (2020) approach. Twenty-three initial categories were identified, informed by both questionnaire items (e.g. I’m unsure what is right and best for my child's digital technology use; I feel judged when I let my child use a digital device in public) and recurring patterns in the qualitative data. Codes were clearly defined and applied systematically, and relevant excerpts were extracted. Frequencies of recurring codes were noted to support interpretation, and outliers were examined for emergent sub-themes.

Results

Consistent with the explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, the qualitative and quantitative findings are presented in an integrated manner. Interview data are foregrounded to illustrate parents lived experiences of digital mediation, while exploratory quantitative associations are used to identify and contextualise patterns observed across the sample. Rather than treating the two phases as independent, the analyses are triangulated to examine where findings converge and how qualitative accounts help explain the meaning and conditions under which quantitative associations emerge. Table 1 summarises key correlations and themes.

Table 1.
Summary of key correlations, associated themes, and supporting qualitative insights.

Quantitative finding Thematic interpretation Qualitative quote

Uncertainty r_s = 0.65, P = 0.004 Perceived judgement Uncertainty amplifies social self-consciousness ‘…but a lot of our friends were getting, “oh, you letting him to [sic] watch the iPad”’ (Parent A).

r_s = −0.55, P = 0.018 Negotiating rules Uncertainty weakens collaborative boundary setting ‘We are still working on that… we are trying’ (Parent C).

Risk anxiety r_s = −0.58, P = 0.009 Digital play Risk concern limits shared digital engagement ‘We can’t see if they’re getting hurt… I’d be more nervous’ (Parent D).

r_s = 0.48, P = 0.038 Limited content access Caution narrows digital options ‘… you can’t just [leave] your kids with the iPad’ (Parent A).

Internet restriction r_s = 0.55, P = 0.015 Educational framing Restriction framed as pedagogically necessary ‘I just don’t like that mind-numbing TV stuff… (Parent D).

Self-efficacy r_s = 0.65, P = 0.003 Positive digital attitudes Self-efficacy promotes constructive engagement ‘I feel… it's a really great technology’ (Parent A).

Uncertainty and the social pressures of visible parenting

Parents’ accounts highlighted uncertainty as an emotionally and socially situated experience, shaped by visibility and perceived judgement in everyday interactions. Parents described feeling self-conscious when allowing their child to use a digital device in public or social settings, particularly when others were present. One parent reflected:
The adults were sitting there and talking about our own stuff, so I bring the iPad and give it to [Name]…as we're talking about stuff, you can take a look, but a lot of our friends were getting, ‘oh, you letting him to [sic] watch the iPad' (Parent A).
This sense of being watched and evaluated was closely tied to uncertainty about what constituted the ‘right’ digital choices. Another parent expressed discomfort about navigating digital content and responsibility:
So I'm worried about the bad effect about the information, exploring information online. What is right, what is wrong? (Parent C).
Uncertainty also appeared to shape how parents approached rule-setting and negotiation around digital use. Parents described ongoing efforts to find balance, often accompanied by self-doubt and a sense that their practices were provisional or unfinished:
We still want to find the balance, but we are still working on that, because we, I don't think we do it really properly for now, um, but we are trying (Parent C).
Others noted that family rules varied widely across social networks, reinforcing comparison and uncertainty:
I feel like with every family, the family rules is different. I know my friends, some of the family, they're not allowed to the kids to watching a phone, to watching the iPad at all (Parent A).
These qualitative accounts are consistent with exploratory quantitative patterns observed in the survey data. Higher parental uncertainty was associated with greater perceived judgement (r_s = 0.65, P = 0.004, 95% BCa CI [0.27, 0.91]), suggesting heightened sensitivity to social evaluation. Uncertainty was also associated with a lower likelihood of negotiating digital rules with children (r_s = −0.55, P = 0.018, 95% BCa CI [−0.85, −0.21]), indicating that uncertainty may coincide with less collaborative boundary-setting.

Together, the quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that uncertainty functions as a relational and affective condition rather than simply a lack of information. Perceived judgement and social comparison appear to intensify parental doubt, reducing emotional bandwidth for negotiation and contribute to the emotional complexity of visible parenting.

Risk anxiety and the narrowing of digital engagement

Parents’ accounts frequently framed digital engagement through the lens of risk and uncertainty, with anxiety centred on what children might encounter online and the limits of adult oversight. Several parents described feeling less comfortable granting autonomy in digital contexts compared to other areas of their child's life, emphasising the perceived invisibility of online risk:
We do give them quite a lot of freedom. But on the digital side, obviously, we can't see what's happening. We can't see if they're getting hurt or whatever else is happening. So there I wouldn't be as we give them as much freedom, I'd be a bit more nervous about it (Parent D).
In response to these concerns, many parents emphasised the importance of monitoring and rule-setting. Supervision was often described as a necessary condition of digital use, rather than a negotiable practice:
We wouldn't let them use the internet by themselves, but they can't anyway…because they're still semi supervised…with us in the room (Parent D).

Being a parent, you have to monitor your kids. So, you can't just [leave] your kids with the iPad (Parent A).

We have to get him control [sic], because we have to set him the rules and boundaries for my son… he can’t be controlled himself, so the parents need to get involved (Parent C).
Anxiety also shaped how parents evaluated the acceptability of digital content. Digital engagement was frequently legitimised through an educational framing, with learning-oriented activities viewed as more acceptable than passive or entertainment-based use:
If they're spending the time learning, then whether they're learning writing on a bit of paper or writing on a tablet or whatever, that's fine. Yeah, I just don't like that mind-numbing TV stuff that they do, I don't want them doing too much of that (Parent D).
These qualitative patterns align with exploratory quantitative associations observed in the survey data. Higher parental anxiety about children's online activities was associated with lower reported engagement in shared digital play as a family (r_s = −0.58, P = 0.009, 95% BCa CI [−0.80, −0.26]) and with greater restriction of the variety of digital content children accessed (r_s = 0.48, P = 0.038, 95% BCa CI [0.14, 0.73]). Restrictive approaches were also associated with stronger beliefs about educational value (r_s = 0.55, P = 0.015, 95% BCa CI [0.14, 0.83]).

Taken together, the findings suggest that a fear of harm often co-occurs with tightly regulated digital routines. While these practices may provide reassurance, they may also narrow opportunities for creative exploration and reinforce risk-averse approaches to children's digital engagement.

Self-efficacy as a foundation for constructive digital engagement

Parents who expressed higher confidence in their digital parenting described technology use as purposeful, collaborative, and embedded within everyday learning interactions. Rather than positioning devices as distractions to be managed, these parents framed digital technologies as tools for exploration, problem-solving, and shared engagement. One parent reflected on observing children's active involvement during digital play:
It's really interesting…all the kids were really interested, they're sitting there to understand what's going on, what's happened, what are we gonna do. And I love the way they [are exposed]…let them to have their own opportunities (Parent A).
Confident parents also described using digital tools to scaffold independent thinking while maintaining relational support. Digital engagement was portrayed as dialogic, with parents encouraging children to think first and use technology as a resource rather than a shortcut:
[Name] has asked me, ‘can we use the iPad to translate’…and I will say ‘oh this is a good idea’. And sometimes [Name] was like, ‘mum, lets guess first and then we use the iPad to translate. I would say this is a really good point. You don't ask me straight away to get an answer. You think for yourself and then we try to find the iPad…to get the right answer' (Parent A).
These accounts reflect a constructive orientation towards digital parenting, in which technology is integrated into learning routines and family interactions. The parent summarised this stance succinctly:
And I feel like, for me, for our home, it's good. It's a really great technology (Parent A).
Rather than avoiding screens, confident parents emphasised the importance of preparing children for a digital future, with a focus on moderation, attitudes, and guided use:
I think it is very important for him to learn, to expose, to see the screen (Parent A).

I think they're very important for in the future, because they're going to grow up with all this stuff, so we make sure they have the right attitudes towards it and everything, and they moderate their use and stuff like that (Parent D).
These qualitative patterns align with exploratory quantitative associations observed in the survey data. Higher parental confidence in guiding children's safe digital skill use was associated with greater parental satisfaction with their child's digital skills (r_s = 0.65, P = 0.003, 95% BCa CI [0.38, 1.00]). Together these findings suggest that digital parenting self-efficacy supports more intentional, child-centred approaches to mediation, characterised by trust, co-use, and positive digital literacy rather than control or avoidance.

Discussion

The study provides new insights into how emotional and relational factors shape digital parenting practices in early childhood. Quantitative and qualitative findings revealed that uncertainty was strongly associated with perceived judgement and reduced capacity to collaboratively negotiate digital rules, suggesting that visible parenting pressures intensify emotional strain. Risk-related anxiety was linked to restrictive practices, including limited content access and heightened supervision, often framed as necessary for safety or educational benefit. In contrast, higher parental self-efficacy predicted more positive attitudes and constructive engagement with digital technologies, characterised by co-use, trust, and a future-oriented mindset. These findings collectively emphasise the need for supports that address not only parents’ knowledge gap but also their emotional experiences and social contexts. Notably, these dynamics emerged among parents who had actively opted into a digital play programme, suggesting that emotional labour and perceived judgement are not limited to digitally hesitant families but extend into contexts of intentional and supported digital engagement.

By applying Bandura's (1977, 1997) self-efficacy theory and Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory, the findings move beyond content or duration-based approaches and highlight digital parenting as an affective, socially situated practice. The results aligned with previous research showing that self-efficacy is a key determinant of how parents navigate the competing demands of risk management, developmental opportunity, and public accountability (Fidan and Olur, 2023; Milford et al., 2024). These dynamics become especially relevant in the context of visible parenting, where parental competence is both self-assessed and externally evaluated.

The study contributes to the evolving literature on parental mediation by moving beyond typological categorisations, such as active, restrictive, or technical strategies, and instead foregrounding the affective and relational conditions that shape digital parenting. While prior research has catalogued mediation styles (Livingstone and Helsper, 2008), our findings demonstrate that these strategies are enacted within emotionally and socially evaluative contexts. Parental self-efficacy, uncertainty, and perceived judgement are not merely background factors but central determinants of how, and whether, mediation occurs. In this way, the study builds on and extends existing models by offering a psychosocial lens that situates parental mediation within the broader emotional labour of contemporary parenting. By integrating quantitative correlations with qualitative accounts of everyday practice, the research reveals how affective states, such as shame, anxiety, and confidence, interact with public norms to shape decision-making. This re-conceptualisation has implications for both theory and intervention, suggesting that affective scaffolding, not just informational support is key to responsive digital parenting.

Parental uncertainty is closely tied to heightened perceptions of judgement, which patterned with anticipatory self-monitoring. As illustrated in both survey and interview data, many parents described feeling scrutinised in public or by peers when allowing or denying digital access. This extends uncertainty from a cognitive challenge to a relational and emotional one. Rather than a lack of information alone, parents appeared to wrestle with internalised social norms and fear of appearing neglectful or indulgent. Such findings are consistent with prior work highlighting how shame and self-stigma function as barriers to confident digital mediation (Milford et al., 2025). These emotions not only influence parents’ choices but also shape how they interpret their own competence and parenting identity.

Low self-efficacy and heightened risk perception often result in restrictive mediation, which limits opportunities for co-use and exploration. Parents who expressed greater anxiety about digital content or online harms were more likely to limit device access and prioritise educational outcomes. While these strategies offer a sense of control or protection, they can inadvertently reduce children's opportunities for digital play and agency. This tendency aligns with broader critiques of technopanic narratives that overstate developmental risks and promote precautionary behaviours (Burns and Gottschalk, 2019). Other studies have similarly observed that excessive restriction can constrain the development of digital literacy and reinforce binary thinking about ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ screen time (Willett, 2023; Wilson et al., 2024). The current findings build on this by showing how these patterns are often driven not only by beliefs about harm, but by underlying parental anxiety and reduced confidence in navigating ambiguity.

In contrast, higher digital parenting self-efficacy is associated with more constructive and collaborative mediation practices. Parents who felt confident in their ability to guide digital engagement were more likely to report positive views of their child's digital competence and to adopt strategies such as co-use, dialogue, and supported problem-solving. These parents viewed digital technologies as tools for learning, expression, and future readiness rather than as threats to be mitigated. The qualitative data provided concrete examples of parents using devices to scaffold independent thinking and joint exploration, consistent with developmental approaches to digital play (Bird and Edwards, 2015; Marsh et al., 2016; Murcia et al., 2020). These findings confirm those reported in prior work, including a scoping review which identified self-efficacy as a foundational element in enabling responsive, adaptive digital mediation (Milford et al., 2024). This suggests that building parent confidence is not merely beneficial for technology use, it is central to reducing emotional strain and enabling more intentional, child-centred practices.

Implications

These findings have several implications for supporting parents in an increasingly digital child-rearing environment. First, interventions should recognise that uncertainty is not just informational, but emotional. Resources that focus solely on content or screen-time metrics may be insufficient. Instead, policies and programmes should integrate emotional support and opportunities for peer discussion to normalise the challenges of digital parenting.

Second, the results suggest that building digital parenting self-efficacy is a promising lever for improving mediation practices. As demonstrated in this and prior work (Milford et al., 2025), parents who feel confident in their abilities are more likely to adopt enabling, child-led strategies rather than defaulting to control-based approaches. Practitioners and early childhood educators can play a role by modelling co-use, supporting digital literacy, and providing practical guidance in non-judgemental ways.

Third, the study calls for re-framing of policy guidelines that better reflect real-world parenting conditions. Binary distinctions between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ screen time fail to capture the nuance of everyday decision-making. Instead, greater emphasis is needed on the quality of digital content and the context in which it is used. High-quality, age-appropriate, and interactive content, particularly when co-used with a caregiver, can support the learning and relationship-building, whereas passive or isolating use may be less beneficial. Re-framing guidelines in this way acknowledges the diverse realities families face and promotes more practical, supportive strategies to digital engagement.

Limitations and future directions

The quantitative analyses were based on a small sample (N = 19, following data cleaning), which limits the precision and stability of the observed associations. In small samples, CIs are necessarily broad, and correlation estimates can be sensitive to individual response patterns. While bootstrapping was used to make this uncertainty visible, it cannot compensate for limited sample size. The quantitative findings are best interpreted as exploratory and indicative, identifying patterns that align with parents’ reported experiences rather than establishing robust or generalisable relationships. These patterns are most meaningfully understood in conjunction with qualitative findings.

Participants were recruited through a voluntary digital play programme, suggesting a degree of interest or openness towards children's digital technologies. This selection context may limit generalisability to more digitally cautious or disengaged parents and may also have shaped the qualitative data, as participants were likely more reflective and willing to discuss digital practices. It's important to note, the findings suggest that even parents who actively seek out supported digital experiences encounter ambivalence and social scrutiny, highlighting the pervasiveness of these psychosocial dynamics.

Further research should include more diverse parental populations, including those with limited digital access, lower digital literacy, digitally cautious families, or greater ambivalence towards technology, to better understand how these psychosocial dynamics play out across varied social, cultural, and economic contexts. Additional studies could also look to increase a sample size or extend the use of mixed-methods approaches to longitudinal designs; to explore how parental uncertainty and self-efficacy evolve as children age and digital practices shift.

Conclusion

This study contributes to a growing body of research that positions digital parenting as an emotionally complex, socially contingent practice. Rather than being guided solely by information or expert advice, parents make digital decisions through a wider lens shaped by confidence, perceived judgement, and emotional labour. In recognising these dynamics, we move beyond behaviourist models of mediation towards a more holistic understanding of parenting in the digital age. Supporting digital parenting must therefore involve more than awareness campaigns or usage guidelines; it requires empowering parents to feel capable, connected, and confident in their roles.

	Quantitative finding	Thematic interpretation	Qualitative quote
Uncertainty	r_s = 0.65, P = 0.004 Perceived judgement	Uncertainty amplifies social self-consciousness	‘…but a lot of our friends were getting, “oh, you letting him to [sic] watch the iPad”’ (Parent A).
	r_s = −0.55, P = 0.018 Negotiating rules	Uncertainty weakens collaborative boundary setting	‘We are still working on that… we are trying’ (Parent C).
Risk anxiety	r_s = −0.58, P = 0.009 Digital play	Risk concern limits shared digital engagement	‘We can’t see if they’re getting hurt… I’d be more nervous’ (Parent D).
	r_s = 0.48, P = 0.038 Limited content access	Caution narrows digital options	‘… you can’t just [leave] your kids with the iPad’ (Parent A).
Internet restriction	r_s = 0.55, P = 0.015 Educational framing	Restriction framed as pedagogically necessary	‘I just don’t like that mind-numbing TV stuff… (Parent D).
Self-efficacy	r_s = 0.65, P = 0.003 Positive digital attitudes	Self-efficacy promotes constructive engagement	‘I feel… it's a really great technology’ (Parent A).

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Stephanie C Milford

Karen Murcia

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval no. HRE2024-0134).

Consent to participate

All participants provided written informed consent.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child and Curtin University.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The data that supports the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions but may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and subject to approval from the relevant ethics committee.

References

Atiles

Almodóvar

Chavarría Vargas

, et al. (2021) International responses to COVID-19: challenges faced by early childhood professionals. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 29(1): 66–78.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2023) Children spending more hours a week on screen-based activities. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/children-spending-more-hours-week-screen-based-activities.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

Bandura

(1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Banić

Orehovački

(2024) A comparison of parenting strategies in a digital environment: a systematic literature review. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 8(4): 32.

Bird

Edwards

(2015) Children learning to use technologies through play: a digital play framework. British Journal of Educational Technology 46(6): 1149–1160.

Bishara

Hittner

(2012) Testing the significance of a correlation with nonnormal data: comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and resampling approaches. Psychological Methods 17(3): 399–417.

Blum-Ross

Livingstone

(2016) Families and Screen Time: Current Advice and Emerging Research. London: London School of Economics and Political Science: Parenting for a Digital Future Report.

Blum-Ross

Livingstone

(2018) The trouble with ‘screen time’ rules. In: Mascheroni

Ponte

Jorge

(eds) Digital Parenting: The Challenges for Families in the Digital age. Gothenburg: Nordicom, 179–187.

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2020) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology 18(3): 328–352.

11.

Burke

Kumpulainen

Smith

(2023) Children’s digital play as collective family resilience in the face of the pandemic. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 23(1): 8–34.

12.

Burns

Gottschalk

(2019) Educating 21st Century Children: Emotional Well-Being in the Digital Age. Paris: OECD Publishing.

13.

Canadian Paediatric Society Digital Health Task Force (CPSDHTF) (2017) Screen time and young children: promoting health and development in a digital world. Paediatrics & Child Health 22(8): 461–468.

14.

Chaudron

Marsh

Donoso Navarette

, et al. (2018) Rules of engagement: family rules on young children’s access to and use of technologies. In: Danby

Fleer

Davidson

, et al. (eds) Digital Childhoods: Technologies and Children's Everyday Lives. Singapore: Springer, 131–145.

15.

Chu

Paatsch

Kervin

, et al. (2024) Digital play in the early years: a systematic review. International Journal of Child–Computer Interaction 40: 100652.

16.

Coyne

McDaniel

Stockdale

(2017) ‘Do you dare to compare?’ Associations between maternal social comparisons on social networking sites and parenting, mental health, and romantic relationship outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior 70: 335–340.

17.

Dias

Brito

Ribbens

, et al. (2016) The role of parents in the engagement of young children with digital technologies: exploring tensions between rights of access and protection, from ‘gatekeepers’ to ‘scaffolders’. Global Studies of Childhood 6(4): 414–427.

18.

Dong

Cao

(2020) Young children’s online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Chinese parents’ beliefs and attitudes. Children and Youth Services Review 118(June): 105440.

19.

Early Childhood Australia (2018) Statement on young children and digital technologies. Available at: https://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/our-work/submissions-statements/eca-statement-young-children-digital-technologies/ (accessed 1 May 2025).

20.

Efron

(1987) Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of American Statistical Association 82(397): 171–185.

21.

Efron

Tibshirani

(1993) An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

22.

Festinger

(1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7(2): 117–140.

23.

Fidan

Olur

(2023) Examining the relationship between parents’ digital parenting self-efficacy and digital parenting attitudes. Education and Information Technologies 28: 15189–15204.

24.

Fleer

(2016) Theorising digital play: a cultural-historical conceptualisation of children’s engagement in imaginary digital situations. International Research in Early Childhood Education 7(2): 75–90.

25.

Fleer

(2019) Digitally amplified practices: beyond binaries and towards a profile of multiple digital coadjuvants. Mind, Culture, and Activity 26(3): 207–220.

26.

Kaye

Orben

Ellis

, et al. (2020) The conceptual and methodological mayhem of ‘screen time’. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(10): 3661.

27.

Langton

Jayakumar

See

, et al. (2025) Balancing digital presents and futures: understanding first-time parents’ practices, plans and perceptions of ‘quality’ and risk in young children’s digital engagements. Media International Australia. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/1329878X251330298.

28.

Lehto

Paasonen

(2021) ‘I feel the irritation and frustration all over the body’: affective ambiguities in networked parenting culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies 24(5): 811–826.

29.

Lewis

Howard

Verenikina

, et al. (2023) Parent perspectives on young children’s changing digital practices: insights from COVID-19. Journal of Early Childhood Research 21(1): 76–90.

30.

Livingstone

Bulger

(2014) A global research agenda for children’s rights in the digital age. Journal of Children and Media 8(4): 317–335.

31.

Livingstone

Helsper

(2008) Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 52(4): 581–599.

32.

Mallawaarachchi

Burley

Mavilidi

, et al. (2024) Early childhood screen use contexts and cognitive and psychosocial outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics 178(10): 1017–1026.

33.

Mannell

Zhao

Sefton-Green

, et al. (2025) What Australian research offers the study of digital childhoods: a scoping review of digital media use by families with young children. Media International Australia. DOI: 10.1177/1329878X251337831.

34.

Marsh

Plowman

Yamada-Rice

, et al. (2016) Digital play: a new classification. Early Years 36(3): 242–253.

35.

Milford

Vernon

Scott

, et al. (2024) Parent self-efficacy and its relationship with children’s screen viewing: a scoping review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 8885498. DOI: 10.1155/2024/8885498.

36.

Milford

Vernon

Scott

, et al. (2025) Exploring parent self-efficacy in children’s digital device use: understanding shame and self-stigma through a mixed-methods approach. International Journal of Child–Computer Interaction 43. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2024.100718.

37.

Montazami

Pearson

Dubé

, et al. (2022) Why this app? How parents chose good educational apps from app stores. British Journal of Educational Technology 53(6): 1766–1792.

38.

Mooney

Duval

(1993) Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Murcia

Pepper

Joubert

, et al. (2020) A framework for identifying and developing children’s creative thinking while coding with digital technologies. Issues in Educational Research 30(4): 1395–1417.

40.

Pangrazio

Mavoa

(2025) Studying the datafication of Australian childhoods: learning from a survey of digital technologies in homes with young children. Media International Australia 194(1): 53–68.

41.

Papadakis

Kalogiannakis

(2017) Mobile educational applications for children: what educators and parents need to know. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation 11(3): 256–277.

42.

Shin

(2018) Empowered parents: the role of self-efficacy in parental mediation of children’s smartphone use in the United States. Journal of Children and Media 12(4): 465–477.

43.

Shin

Lwin

(2022) Parental mediation of children’s digital media use in high digital penetration countries: perspectives from Singapore and Australia. Asian Journal of Communication 32(4): 309–326.

44.

Straker

Zabatiero

Danby

, et al. (2018) Conflicting guidelines on young children’s screen time and use of digital technology create policy and practice dilemmas. The Journal of Pediatrics 202: 300–303.

45.

Tan

Pan

Tao

, et al. (2024) Conceptualization, measurement, predictors, outcomes, and interventions in digital parenting research: a comprehensive umbrella review. Educational Research Review 45. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100647.

46.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (2021) General comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment (CRC/C/GC/25). Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-25-2021-childrens-rights-relation (accessed 1 May 2025).

47.

Végh

Voicu

Martins Barroso

, et al. (2025) Emerging ideas. Transnational family dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Family Relations 74: 2213–2234.

48.

Venard

Zimmermann

Antonietti

, et al. (2024) Parenting under pressure: associations between perceived social pressure and parental involvement among mothers and fathers. Journal of Child and Family Studies 33: 3813–3825.

49.

Willett

(2023) ‘In our family, we don’t watch those things’: parents’ discursive constructions of decision-making connected with family media practices. Journal of Family Studies 29(1): 327–342.

50.

Wilson

Murcia

Cross

, et al. (2024) Digital technologies and the early childhood sector: are we fostering digital capabilities and agency in young children? The Australian Educational Researcher 51(4): 1425–1443.

51.

Zhao

Bazarova

Valle

(2023) Digital parenting divides: the role of parental capital and digital parenting readiness in parental digital mediation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 28(5). DOI: 10.1093/jcmc/zmad032.

Visible parenting,invisible pressure: Exploring the emotional labour of digital mediation in an early childhood play program

Abstract

Keywords

Conceptual framework

Parental mediation theory

Parent confidence

Public discourse and digital quality

Parental self-efficacy

Re-framing and screen quality

Methods

Study design and procedure

Participants

Quantitative methods

Survey measures

Data cleaning and preparation

Data analysis

Qualitative methods

Interview protocol

Data analysis

Results

Uncertainty and the social pressures of visible parenting

Risk anxiety and the narrowing of digital engagement

Self-efficacy as a foundation for constructive digital engagement

Discussion

Implications

Limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical considerations

Consent to participate

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data availability

References