Research Essay

1. Does Social Media Create a Schism between Parents and their Adolescent Children.
Cormac O’ Connor
114398156
Sociology
SC3018 Research Essay
Lecterer Patricia Callanan
25th
of April 2017

2. Does Social Media Create a Schism between parents and their adolescents children?

3. The objective of this research essay is to investigate if social media creates a schism
between parents and their adolescent children. New media technologies are having a
major impact on society as a whole. ‘The rapid expansion of computer use and
Internet connection has the potential to change patterns of family interaction, with
conflicts arising over adolescents’ autonomy, parental authority and control of the
computer’ (Mesch, 2006). The creation of the Internet has changed the way people
receive information. The integration of such technologies into social settings within
society, such as the household, is having a major influence on social interaction
between individuals. I will be drawing on insights from sociology of the media with
touches on sociology of the family. From conducting my literature review it is evident
from existing literature that new media technologies impact on the social interaction
within households in many different ways. New media technologies can assist in
increasing interaction amongst families by bringing generations and family members
together. As a result, it can help bridge generational and digital divides. On the other
hand however, new media technologies within a household can lead to a growing
privatisation within family life, with individuals increasingly using technology
independently rather than collectively. In many ways, digital devices have made
family life more complicated and subject to distraction. But they’re also led to some
interesting changes in how the generations communicate. Excessive use of social
media has become a problem in recent years, based on its ability to take away typical
human interactions and replace them with conversations through the use of
technology. In a study shown from 2012 it stated that ‘94 percent of adolescents who
use social networks have a Facebook profile and their average number of Facebook
friends is around 425’ (Kaiser,2013).The usage of online forms of media has many
benefits for socialization and support.
Social media usage for parents has become ever-present, as either a form of
entertainment or communication with other individuals. However, excessive use of
social media has also shown to have effects on parenting; causing ‘parental
distraction, decreasing the level of everyday parental engagement, and making a child
more likely to be at risk for injury’ (Ante-Contreras, 2016). This is a statistically
significant difference when compared with non-parents, of whom 67 per cent log on

4. to Facebook daily, including 42 per cent who do so several times a day’(Duggan et al,
2015).
Studies have shown that frequent eye contact, one on one time, and undivided
attention are necessary in building a secure attachment between a parent and child.
Social media usage has increased exponentially in the last twelve years.
Communication which once was in person or by telephone now can be done online
without physical contact or connection. Individuals spend countless hours of their
lives attached to devices with the intent of communicating with others, sharing their
daily lives, and acquiring new information. Many of these individuals therefore can
neglect other aspects of their lives by spending more time on social media and social
networking sites then they do with family members or their peers. Parents and their
children instead of having conversations face to face they will text one another instead
sometimes, when they are in the same house. Individuals are now using social media
as channel to vent out their frustrations and to connect with others in similar situations
throughout the world. For these reasons, mobile devices such as cell phones and
tablets have become ubiquitous and are an ever-expanding aspect of socialization for
children (Blake and Wrothen, 2012). This ties in with the mediated interaction theory
by sociologist John Thompson. The theory explains that ‘the use of media
technology- paper, electrical connections, electronic impulses so on. That it is
stretched out in time and space and goes beyond the context of face to face
interaction. Mediated interaction takes place between individuals in a direct way – say
two people on the phone but there is no opportunity for the same variety of non-verbal
clues.” (Thompson, 1995).
Excessive use of social media may lead to a decrease in the many communication
processes necessary to create strong bonds between a parent and a child (Ante-
Contreras, 2016). The amount of time spent on the smartphones and tablets, the
parents may be there physically but may emotionally distant, “ignoring all but the
more important needs of their children (Ante-Contreras, 2016). Timothy Golden
states that “while parents generally report that they are only on their mobile devices
for a few seconds at a time, video evidence shows that they can be absorbed for
upwards of three minutes at a stretch” (Golden, 2015:102). This is not to say that
parents are neglectful for using social media necessarily, but specifically parents are
more distracted and less in tune to what is happening with their children if they are

5. constantly focusing attention on their devices. When parents begin to spend more
hours on social media during the time they are caring for their child, they may start to
lose some of the important interactions necessary for a healthy attachment. At the
same time, an increased use of social media can lead a parent to have a different
parenting style, one that may be permissive or authoritarian versus a responsive and
respectful parenting style more in tune with an authoritative/balanced style. A report
from Common Sense Media states that parents of ‘tweens” (children 8-12 years) and
teenagers are spending approximately nine hours per day using technology. These
parents express concerns about the amount of screen time their children log each day,
and believe they’re modelling healthy tech habits for their kids.
We can see young children interacting with technology everywhere. Go to a
restaurant and you can see young children playing on their tablets. On the road, you
can see young children watching television in the car, either on hand-held devices or a
built-in system that came with the car. Several organizations have expressed concern
that young children are having too much exposure to screen time and recommend
guidelines for limiting screen time. The American Association of Paediatrics
recommends no screen time for children under 2 years of age. In 2013, Common
Sense Media conducted a research study to explore the changes in media use by
children ages 0-8 since 2011. In the 2013 body of research, they surveyed 1,463
parents and found that the usage of mobile devices with children under the age of 8
has almost doubled since 2011, to 72 per cent in 2013 as compared to 38 per cent in
2011 (Common Sense Media, 2013). Accessibility is making mobile devices more
popular with young children and families. Despite the recommendations that children
younger than 2 have no screen time, we have seen an increase from 10 per cent (2011
study) to 38 per cent (2013 study) with this group (Common Sense Media, 2013).
Not all technology and screen media is created equally and many forms and uses of
technology can be positive. Through various forms of video conferencing (Skype,
Face time, Whatsapp and Viber for example, we can now connect with people who
live far away. As a result, children can stay in contact with family and friends. Also,
the Internet can take us places we cannot visit in person. Young children are learning
about other cultures through various screen media technologies. You can take a
virtual trip to China, for example, from the comfort of your own home, or learn about

6. pandas by watching a live feed of a panda in a zoo. The opportunities are endless.
Digital photography also can be an empowering tool for young children, allowing
them to capture special moments to remember and share with others.
Developing healthy attachments with their families is critical for young children.
“Attachment is easily formed through eye contact, talking to each other, and skin-to-
skin contact. Children with healthy attachments are more likely to build healthy
relationships with others” (Huisman, 2014:160). One of the concerns about young
children spending extreme amounts of time in front of a screen is the impact on
interactions with family members and others necessary for building healthy and
lasting attachments. The family is a social system that has “a collective identity”,
which is the “result of shared recollections of togetherness that are created as family
members spend time together in shared meals, games, and chatting” (Mesch
2006:123). Communication is “a symbolic, transactional process or the process of
creating and sharing meanings” (Smith et al. 2009:79) and it plays a significant role in
the relationship between individuals for the functioning of a family or a household.
Families that spend time together “in common activities enjoy a higher quality of
communication” (Mesch 2006:124). A lack of communication within a household can
have a detrimental impact on family interaction, family cohesion and thus on the
relationships between individuals within a household. The change of new media
technologies has impacted on contemporary society in various ways. One of the main
adjustments is the impact it has had on personal relationships between parents and
their children. Technology has affected the life of a household in a number of
different ways and has become “a basis for future social behaviour” for example
research carried out by Boundless shows a third of families spend less time together
than they did five years ago despite many having more free time. One in six families
never go to the park, one in ten never elk together and just nine per cent get round a
table once a year. Digital devices and Television are the main reasons for the lack of
quality time.
A digital divide has arguably grown up around parents and their adolescent children.
A digital divide is “a generation gap between those who master and do not master
digital technology” (Aarsand 2007:235). Essentially, a digital divide is “the difference
between those who know and those who do not know how to act in a digital

7. environment” (Aarsand, 2007:236). It is the assumption that children as regular users
of new media technologies develop a wider and more substantial knowledge base in
how to use them from their parents and grandparents (Aarsand 2007). Children may
use this digital and generational divide as a way to separate activities as “non-adult
spaces” where adults don’t have access (Aasand, 2007). On the other hand however,
adults may use this divide to their advantage as a way to interact with their children
and in order “to enter into social intercourse with children” (Aarsand, 2007:252).
Thus, a divide of this nature is created and sustained through social interaction and
can help communication social relations within a household, or it can interfere in
communication and lead to individualisation further. The digital divide has become a
place “where generations meet and do something together” (Aaarsand 2007:251). It is
a space where parents can display a lack of knowledge surrounding new media
technologies in order to enter into social interaction with children. Children are
positioned ‘as someone in the know while the adult is placed and ratifies as the less
knowledgeable” individual (Aarsand 2007:251). Social media has become a place that
allows adolescents to “spend sizeable proportions of leisure time at home in their
room” (Bovill and Livingstone 2001:4)
For instance, Fromme (2003) argues that “electronic gaming” does not lead to social
isolation; instead it enhances and is “fully integrated into existing peer relationships”
One way that new media technologies positively influences social interaction is due to
the fact that they reduce “the effort required to perform task- and work-related
activities and thus allows households to engage in many non-task activities”
(Venkatesh and Vitalari 1985:9). In doing so, leisure time is increased which allows
individuals more flexibility on how their free time is spent. In turn this permits
“additional control over one’s life” and thus can increase social interaction
(Venkatesh and Vitalari 1985:9).
Bovill and Livingstone (2001) develop this argument further and argue that in the
second half of the twentieth century children are spending more and more time in
their bedrooms. In recent years a “bedroom culture” has emerged which implies that
children and young people are spending “significant proportions of their leisure time
at home with the mess media” (Bovill and Livingstone, 2001:3), rather than spending
their time in “communal or family space” (Bovill and Livingstone, 2001:3).
Bedrooms are now media rich and young people are spending more and more time in

8. their bedrooms for “consumerism and individualisation” (Bovill and Livingstone
2001:12) which is resulting in the “privatisation of children’s lives” (Bovill and
Livingstone 2001:3). Children and young people are becoming more individualised
and socially excluded and as a result, they are spending less time with their family
members. This is having a major impact on family communication and social
interaction. There is a negative association “between spending time in the bedroom
and spending free time with the family” (Bovill and Livingstone 2001:9). On the
other hand however, it can also be argued that this bedroom culture is in fact
encouraging social interaction with friends as oppose to family members. Bovill and
Livingstone summarize that having a “media rich bedroom opens up a new space in
which to share media not with family but with friends” (Bovill and Livingstone,
2001:10). It emerged that having media in the bedroom encourages “social contacts
outside the family circle, rather than encouraging them to spend time alone” (Bovill
and Livingstone 2001:11). The media-rich bedroom has become a focus of “peer
activity” by bringing “the outside world indoors” (Bovill and Livingstone 2001:17). A
recent survey by Onside Youth Zones showed that two thirds of teenagers spend most
of their free time in their bedrooms glued to their screens. Boys are most likely to be
gaming online whereas girls will be posting to pals on Messenger, Snapchat and
Instagram. Online socialising and gaming were most popular receiving (44 per cent),
followed by socialising with friends (33 per cent) As Mesch argues the internet is “an
activity that reduces the time parents and children spend together in common
activities” (Mesch 2006:120). Thus, it can be argued that internet use is impeding
social isolation by means of eroding social capital which enables “users to retreat into
an artificial world” (DiMaggio et al. 2001:315). Individuals are also substituting
“interactions with weak ties on the internet for time spent with close friends and
relatives” (DiMaggio et al. 2001:316). The internet within the home is therefore
“negatively related to time spent with family” and it is thought to have a “negative
effect on family communication and closeness” (Mesch 2006:122). The internet is
perceived as an activity that consumes time that adolescences could be spending with
their families and “alienates people from interaction” (Wellman et al. 2001:439). In
addition, Mesch (2003) argued that internet use at home is “positively associated with
family conflicts” (p. 122) thus affecting communication and social interaction
between family members. As Wellman et al. argues, when “internet use increases,
social contact offline decreases and depression and loneliness increase”

9. There has been a virtual explosion of the use of technology in making interpersonal
connections. This is particularly the case for young people. As early as primary
school, many students are carrying smart phones. With access to the internet and
mobile phone technology, social networking has become a phenomenon of
unprecedented proportions and is expanding the concept of a social network. As
Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, and Smallwood (2006) stress: Socially interactive
technologies (SITs), such as instant messaging and text messaging, are beginning to
redefine the social networks of today‘s youth. By offering fast-paced, inexpensive,
online communication, SITs allow for new online youth social networks to form and
evolve. New text-based technologies are picking up where phones left off. Email and
text messaging allow for rapid, asynchronous communication within one‘s peer
network.
One of the many reasons why there is a divide between parents and their teens is
because most adolescents have grown up using technology and are accustomed to the
place it holds in almost every aspect of their daily lives, while many adults are
not. Parents have been on the Internet much longer then their children. They were the
ones who taught them what an email is and how to use a mouse. But now the tables
have turned. Adolescents are now the ones who teach their parents about a great deal
of things regarding the Internet and social media. Adolescents are so accustomed to
using the Internet that it seems likes its second nature to them. A lot of the websites
and apps that adolescents use are geared towards them as they are marketed towards
them. Simply, because some parents simply don’t have the time or the desire to learn
about these things. Technology, today, has had an adverse effect on people. We have
become so dependent on technology that it is becomes a phenomenal task to function
without it. Children and often adults are glued to their smart phones. The family does
not talk to each other, but to other people not present there. Communication between
family members forms the base of a healthy family. When this base is not strong, the
relationship built on it is very unstable.
Children, adolescents and even adults have become addicted to social networking
sites. Adolescents would often complain that their parents don’t give them their

10. ‘space’. Yet they will update his Facebook status where they are going, what they are
doing and who he is with even though a few minutes ago they needed their space.
Generation of young people are now ‘growing up unable to communicate with their
parents, while inhabiting a materialistic online world full of half-truths and body
image paranoia’ (Frost, 2014). Deloitte released their latest Mobile Consumer Survey
in 2016 which analyses the mobile usage habits of Irish consumers aged 18-75. The
research reveals that the smartphone is the primary device for Irish consumers – 86
per cent own or have access to a smartphone, compared with laptops (80 per cent) and
tablets (60 per cent). The top three nocturnal smartphone activities include checking
the time (34 per cent), text messages (19 per cent) and social networks (6 per cent). In
addition to their nocturnal habits, 13 per cent of smartphone owners instinctively
reach for their phone as soon as they wake up – and not just to turn off their alarm.
Just over a third (35 per cent) reach for their phones within five minutes of waking
and a half within a quarter of an hour. Messages (28 per cent) are the first thing
respondents’ check on their smartphones in the morning, followed by social networks
(18 per cent) and personal emails (16 per cent). Almost 9 in 10 (8 per cent 7) of 18-
24 year-olds use their devices ‘always’ or ‘very often’ when using public transport,
meeting friends, shopping or watching television. A quarter use their phones when
eating at home or out at a restaurant.
McAfee, the world’s largest dedicated security technology company released findings
from the company’s 2012 Teen Internet Behaviour study. The study shows how teens
are not only engaging in risky behaviours, but they are hiding it from their parents,
many of whom don’t realize that they are being fooled. Nearly half of parents believe
their teens tell them everything they do online and insist they are in control when it
comes to monitoring their teen’s online behaviours. However, the study reveals that
teens deceiving their parents are on the rise, as over 70 per cent of teens have found
ways to avoid parental monitoring, compared to 2010, where 45 per cent of teens
have hidden their online behaviour from a parent. One in three parents believes their
teen to be much more tech-savvy then they are, leaving them feeling helpless to keep
up with their teen’s online behaviours. 23 per cent admitting that they were
overwhelmed by modern technologies and just hope for the best. With just as many

11. claiming they don’t have the time or energy to keep up with everything these teens do
online.
Eight to eighteen year-olds spend an average of seven and a half hours a day, seven
days a week with media (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010, p. 1). This is not
surprising since almost all of our day-to-day activities involve using some form of
media. Whether we are texting on our cell phones, chatting over Facebook, or
watching our favourite TV shows, we are continuously interacting with media. This
goes for children as well, if not more so. As the authors of the Generation M² study
point out, “a key reason young people spend more time consuming media these days
is that there are ever expanding opportunities for them to do so – more TVs and
computers in their homes, bedrooms and cars, and more media-ready cell phones and
iPods in their pockets” (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010, p. 9). Media plays an
integral role in the lives of children and, consequently, in family life; one might even
say that media is a necessity in the culture we live in. The amount of time that both
children and adults spend using media devices is an indicator of the role that media
plays in family life. Parents make numerous decisions about their children’s media
environment: how many TVs, computers and video games they buy for the home;
whether their kids have cell phones and iPods; whether there are TVs and video game
players in their children’s bedrooms; whether the TV is usually on during meals or as
daily background; and whether they establish any rules about their children’s media
use. All of these decisions, put together, create a media environment for young
people. (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010, p. 35)
Some parents view media as a babysitter as it helps to aid them when they are out in
public with friends having drinks or just out for the meal instead of their young
children asking when they are going home they are occupied by the smartphones.
Thus which is provided a divide between them and their children. ‘If you have gone
out to eat at a restaurant in the past couple of years, the chances are pretty high that
you have witnessed a parent handing over an iPhone to the toddler having a tantrum
in the middle of dinner. As the example above demonstrates, it is becoming an
increasingly common practice for parents to use media to babysit their children’
(Villegas, 2013:7). There have been countless reports and articles in the mainstream

12. media disputing the belief of parents using media devices such as, televisions,
iPhones and iPads, as their babysitters.
New technology offers children independence from their parents’ involvement in their
social lives, with the use of mobile phones, instant messaging, and social networking
sites. Many children see this technological divide between themselves and their
parents as freedom from over-involvement and interference on the part of their
parents in their lives. Parents, in turn, ‘see it as a loss of connection to their children
and an inability to maintain reasonable oversight, for the sake of safety and over-all
health, of their children’s lives’ (Taylor, 2013). At the same time, perhaps a bit
cynically, children’s time-consuming immersion in technology may also mean that
some parents don’t have to bother with entertaining their children, leaving them more
time to themselves. There is little doubt that technology is affecting family
relationships on a day-to-day level. Children are instant messaging constantly,
checking their social media, listening to music, surfing their favourite web sites, and
watching television or movies. Because of the emergence of mobile technology, these
practices are no longer limited to the home, but rather can occur in cars, at restaurants,
in fact, anywhere there’s a mobile phone signal.
Less and less families are eating meals together, if they do eat together in many cases
they are watching television which should be discouraged because it may lead to less
meaningful communication and arguably, poorer eating habits. Dinner in many family
homes represents the only time where the whole family are together (Paediatrics &
Child, 2003). Rideout, Foehr and Roberts found that many young people, 64% of all 8
to 18 year-olds, live in homes where the TV is usually on during meals (Rideout et al
2010:17). In Britain more than 20 per cent of British families sits down for a family
meal only once or twice a week and one in five families takes ‘family meals’ in front
of the television according to a survey conducted by Organix. Revealed that 10 per
cent of families never have a family meal together in the week. There is no doubt that
family dinners is essential for forming strong family connections, bonds and
relationships, crucially creating a healthy family unit. It is a time for both parents and
children to share with one another and impacts important aspects of child
development. Having the TV on during the meal or the presence of any other media
devices at the table is a distraction for everyone and hinders effective communication

13. between family members. With all of the vital benefits that result from families
sharing a meal together, having media present during this ritual could be a detrimental
effect on the development of a family system.
Adolescence is a period in which families need to adjust and adapt their relationships
to accommodate the increasingly maturing adolescent (Mesch, 2006). Many of their
exchanges concern parents’ regulation of adolescents’ everyday lives, such as how
late they can stay out, friendship relations, and personal activities such as phone and
TV use (Collins & Russel 1991). Studies on adolescents show that as they become
older they tolerate parental authority increasingly less over aspects of their personal
lives. They demand more and more autonomy and show greater readiness to disagree
openly with their parents (Fuligni 1998). Adolescents and parents agreed that parents
had legitimate authority over moral issues (behaviour that could be harmful to others
or violate mutual trust), prudential issues (smoking and drinking behaviour), and
friendship issues (seeing friends that parents did not like). As for personal issues such
as regulation of TV time and phone calls, and choosing clothes, adolescents regarded
them as less legitimately subject to parental jurisdiction, and obedience less
obligatory, than other issues (Smetana Asquith 1994). Furthermore, the frequency and
intensity of parents’ and adolescents’ conflicts over personal issues proved relatively
high (Smetana & Asquith 1994).
I set out my research essay to see has social media created a schism between parents
and their adolescent children. I wanted to examine was new technologies and social
media sites leading factors and it is in fact. I have established that with the increase
use of social media amongst parents and their children they do spend less time
together and interacting with one another. Even though in certain circumstances it
also brings them together. The technological revolution that has occurred in recent
years has impacted on daily life within a household in a variety of different ways.
New media technologies have become rooted in today’s society and have resulted in
major societal changes. One of the main social settings that have been affected is that
of the household. If parents are going to use media devices to “babysit” or distract
their children, it is important for them to follow up this media interaction by engaging
in conversation with their kids. The unintended effects could be damaging to the
manner in which they communicate with their children and hinder the development of

14. their family relationships. With the development of new technologies things will
always be lost while simultaneously new things are gained. “Our media-saturated
social worlds influence family relationships and dynamics. Traditional evenings spent
together eating around the family table and telling stories are now long gone,”
(Pigeron, 2009:56). It was apparent that media does affect the way a family unit
socializes and, as a result, their relationships. Without boundaries of time and place,
features of technological devices allow individuals to foster family bonds and
relationships by creating the continuous ability to connect with others. Even though
this is one of the best aspects of media, it also has potential for negatively impacting
in person family contact, hindering face-to-face interactions and social involvement.
Overall, the results demonstrated that media, without a doubt, cannot be tucked into a
precise group of positive or negative since different media devices serve diverse
purposes within family life as well as within individual families. Social media does
not replace face to face interaction. The fact is that family life has changed in the last
generation quite apart from the rise of technology. The size of homes has grown by 50
percent, meaning family members can retreat to their own corners of the house, so
there’s less chance that parents and children will see each other. Because everyone is
so busy with work, school, and extracurricular activities, there’s less time for families
to spend together.

15. References:
1) Ante- Contreras, D (2016) Distracted Parenting: How Social Media Affects
Parent- Child Attachment.
http://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=e
td
2) Aarsand, Pål André. 2007. “Computer and Video games in Family Life: The
Digital Divide as a Resource in Intergenerational interactions.” Childhood.
14(2):235-256.
http://chd.sagepub.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/content/14/2/235.full.pdf+html
3) American Association of Pediatrics (2013). Media and children. Retrieved
from www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-
initiatives/Pages/Media-and-Children.aspx
4) Blake, L., & Worthen, B. (2012). Distracted: Texting while parenting. Wall
Street Journal. Available at http://on.wsj.com/Sguxbz
5) Bovill, Moria and Sonia M. Livingstone. 2001. “Bedroom Culture and the
Privatisation of Media Use” [online]. London: LSE Research Online.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/672/1/Chapter8_Children26ChangingMediaEnvironme
nt.pdf
6) Common Sense Media (2013). Zero to eight. Children's media use in
American 2013. Retrieved
from www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/zero-to-eight-
2013.pdf
7) Cheal, David J. 2002. Sociology of Family Life. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
8) Duggan,M., Lenhart, A et al (2015) ‘Parents and Social Media’
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/16/parents-and-social-media/
9) Flynn,C. (2017) ‘Parents spend just as much time with technology as their
teen kids, so lets stop shaming teenagers’ http://hellogiggles.com/parents-
spend-as-much-time-with-technology-as-teen-kids/
10) DiMaggio, Paul., Eszter Hargittai, W. Russell Neuman and John P. Robinson.
2001. “Social Implications of the Internet.” Annual Review of Sociology.
27:307-336.
http://www.jstor.org.jproxy.nuim.ie/stable/pdfplus/2678624.pdf?acceptTC=tre
11) Express (2017) “Two thirds of teenagers prefer to spend time in their
bedrooms glued to their screens”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/758758/Survey-shows-teenagers-prefer-
socialising-online-and-in-their-bedrooms
12) Lalor, Kevin, Áine de Róiste and Maurice Devlin. 2009. Young People in
Contemporary Ireland. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan
13) Golden, T. D. (2015). The crisis of presenteeism: Maintaining our focus while
harnessing technology’s benefits. Organization Management Journal, 12(2):
102-105.
14) Huisman, S. (2014). Parent connection: Media in the home with young
children. Childhood Education, 90(2), 159-160.
15) McHugh, R. (2016) 86% of Irish Consumers own or have access to a
smartphone’ https://www.businessworld.ie/news/86-of-Irish-consumers-own-
or-have-access-to-a-smartphone-566759.html
16) Mesch, Gustavo S. 2006. “Family Relations and the Internet: Exploring a
Family Boundaries Approach.” The Journal of Family Location. 6(2):119-138.

16. Retrieved February 22, 2012
http://web.ebscohost.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b66
230f0-ad5d-4aed-ad99-f81f0129aa0c%40sessionmgr104&vid=4&hid=110
17) Morrison, Margaret and Dean M. Krugman. 2001. “A Look At Mass and
Computer Mediated Technologies: Understanding the Roles of Television and
Computers in the Home.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media.
45(1):135-161.
http://web.ebscohost.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&h
id=10 8&sid=bb63e4e7-afa1-4601-8af9-56b82e37f64b%40sessionmgr113
18) Pahl, Ray and Liz Spencer 2004. “Personal Communities: Not Simply
Families of ‘Fate’ or ‘Choice’.” Current Sociology. 52(2):199-221.
http://csi.sagepub.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/content/52/2/199.full.pdf+html
19) Taylor, T. 2013 Is Technology Creating a Family Divide
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201303/is-
technology-creating-family-divide 2/6/17
20) Scott, Jacqueline. 1997. “Changing Households in Britain: Do Families Still
Matter?” The Sociological Review. 45(4):591-620.
http://www.swetswise.com.jproxy.nuim.ie/FullTextProxy/swproxy?url=http%
3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fresolve%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%3FDOI%3D
10.1111%2F1467954X.00079&ts=1332327445557&cs=1969023740&userNa
me=8240013.ipdirect&emCondId=47368&articleID=42491203&yevoID=258
6329&titleID=188304&referer=2&remoteAddr=149.157.1.168&hostType=P
RO&swsSessionId=Rta45tBUWIWZqxS tL1lxSg__.pasc1
21) Smith, Kevin M., Pattia A. Freeman and Ramon B. Zabriskie. 2009. “An
Examination ofFamily Communication within the Core and Balance Model of
Family Leisure Functioning.” Family Relations. 58:79-90.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00536.x/pdf
22) Sheldrick G., (2013) ‘Third of families spend less time together despite many
having More free time. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/688373/Family-
parenting-free-time-together-children-TV-technology-obsession-Julia-
Bradbury
23) Smetana, J., & Gaines, C. (1999). Adolescent-parent conflict in middle-class
African American families. Child Development, 70, 1447-1463.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00105
24) Rideout, V., Foehr, U., & Roberts, D. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the
lives of 8- to 18-year-olds: A Kaiser Family Foundation study. Menlo Park,
CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.kff.org/
entmedia/upload/8010.pdf