Responses to Children's Media Use in Families With and Without Siblings: A Family Development Perspective

• Author: Douglas A. Gentile,John J. Davies
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00703.x
• Published date: 01 July 2012
• Date: 01 July 2012

JOHN J. DAVIES Brigham Young University

DOUGLAS A. GENTILE Iowa State University*

Responses to Children’s Media Use in Families

With and Without Siblings: A Family Development

Perspective

Drawing on family development theory, this

study provides insight into how family stages

with and without siblings are related to

media habits and effects. Two national samples

(N=527 and N=1,257) present a cross-

sectional snapshot of media uses in families

across three stages of family life: families

with preschoolers (2 – 6 years), with elemen-

tary school-age children (7 – 12 years), and with

adolescents (13 – 17 years). We observed differ-

ences between family stages in five domains of

media use: alternative activities to screen media,

media use, parental monitoring, consistency in

applying media rules, and resistance to media

effects. Generally, more positive media habits

were associated with families in earlier stages,

families with siblings, and families with larger

age gaps in sibling spacing. But greater vulnera-

bility to media effects was associated with those

families with multiple children and gaps in sib-

ling spacing that spanned more than one stage.

If and how media affect families are questions

that have a very long history. Given societal and

Department of Communications, Brigham Young Univer-

sity, 360 BRMB, Provo, UT 84602 (john_davies@byu.edu).

*Iowa State University, Department of Psychology, W202

Lagomarcino Hall, Ames, IA 50011.

Key Words: families, family development theory, media

effects, media use, parenting, siblings.

academic concern with this topic, it is surprising

how little scholarship has been directed at

understanding media use within the family

unit. The current state of the literature on this

topic has several limitations that the current

study attempts to address. First, research that

documents changes in media habits from a

developmental perspective tends to focus on

individuals rather than families. Moreover, most

studies in this area focus on changes in the

frequency of media use as children age. Far less

is known about changes in media-related habits

other than frequency of use as children transition

from their younger years to adolescence. This

study provides a cross-sectional snapshot of

children’s media use and patterns of dealing

with media in families with preschoolers, with

elementary school-age children, and with teens.

Second, scholarship on families and media is

often reduced to television exposure. Although

television continues to dominate children’s

media consumption and exposure time is

obviously an important variable, media use is

a complex behavior involving multiple aspects

of a family’s life beyond time spent viewing

television. The current study examines time

spent with TV and other media, but also

examines media effects and parental responses

to children’s media use. Finally, the literature

is inconclusive regarding the effect that siblings

have on media use. By comparing families with

only one child to those with more than one child

across multiple domains of media use behavior,

410 Family Relations 61 (July 2012): 410 – 425

DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00703.x

Family Responses to Children’s Media Use 411

the current study aims to contribute insight into

the effect that siblings have on the media habits

of families.

Theoretical Framework

Family development theory is consistent with

an ecological or systems-based approach to

studying families. As such, it operates at multiple

levels of analysis: individual, dyadic, social

group, and institutional (Rodgers & White,

1993). Family development theory posits that

the goals of family systems vary according to

their position in the developmental career of

families. Early iterations of the theory proposed

an invariant timing and sequence of stages (e.g.,

Duvall, 1957), but current theorizing recognizes

that such rigid formulations fail to capture

the dynamics of many family systems. Rather,

there is a general consensus that each stage

is marked by similar events, norms, roles, and

structures as well as recognition that progression

on the developmental pathway is a stochastic

process, not a deterministic one (Rodgers &

White, 1993).

Rodgers and White (1993) defined a family

stage as a ‘‘qualitative period in the life of a

family with its own unique group structure’’

(p. 244). They further argued that each stage

is marked by transitional events, such as the

birth of the first child, which change the family

structure, normative expectations and behaviors,

and role relationships within the family. Family

development theorists have not agreed on the

number of stages in a family career. Models with

as few as 2 stages and as many as 24 stages have

been proposed. Duvall (1957) proposed 8 family

stages beginning with childless married couples

and ending with the final stage of retirement to

death of both spouses. Aldous (1978) posited

7 stages. Both the 7- and 8-stage models posit

that families with preschool children (ages 2

to 6 years old), school-age children (children

between 6 and 13 years), and adolescent children

(between 13 and 20 years) are in qualitatively

unique stages. Data in the current study cover

families in these three stages.

Mattessich and Hill (1987) pointed out that

although not all families will experience similar

timing in the onset of developmental tasks, most

families will eventually face them. For families

with preschool children, the developmental goal

is reorganization of the family unit around the

needs of the children. In the next stage, the

goal is reorganization of the family to fit into the

expanding world of school-age children. And for

families with adolescents, the goal is loosening

family ties to permit greater freedom and heavier

responsibility to developing family members.

Media Use in Families

Although family development theory has a

long history, understanding is limited regarding

the ways in which family systems are related

to media use, media effects, and parental

supervision of media. Drawing on a nationally

representative sample, Gentile and Walsh (2002)

described the normative media habits of families,

but their analysis did not differentiate between

family stages. Several studies document media

use of American children (e.g., Rideout, Foehr,

& Roberts, 2010; Roberts, 2000; Roberts, Foehr,

& Rideout, 2005), but the unit of analysis in these

studies is the child, not the family. Gentile and

Sesma (2003) described a theoretical model for

understanding how the effects of media may

vary by developmental stage, but, again, the

focus was on the child. Indeed, in the media

uses and effects literature, the individual, not the

family, is the unit of analysis in the vast majority

of studies. Therefore, in an increasingly media-

saturated environment, how the media habits of

families differ according to developmental stage

represents an important gap in the literature.

Media are clearly a prominent feature in

modern family life. Children consume more than

7.5 hours of media each day, not including media

use at school or time spent using cell phones

(Rideout et al., 2010). New technology allows

people to connect with each other via cell phones

and the Internet, and families with the most

technology take opportunities to do so. Families

who own multiple technology devices, however,

report fewer shared meals and slightly lower

levels of satisfaction with family and leisure

time than do families with less technology

(Wellman, Smith, Wells, & Kennedy, 2008).

Among teens, cell phones are an increasingly

important mode of communication. Perhaps,

because of the importance their children place on

cell phone use, about 50% of parents set limits

on when their child can use a cell phone and

64% monitor the content of their child’s phone

(Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010).

Family development theory dictates that

normative demands on individuals must be in

line with their level of maturation (Rodgers &