The role of family on internet addiction: A model analysis of co-parenting effect

Abstract

This study focuses on how co-parenting patterns may influence young people’s Internet addiction in the Chinese social context. The present study uses the Family Systems Theory to conceptualize the theoretical model and examines the intertwined effect of gender on the relationship between co-parenting and Internet addiction.A total of 695 self-report questionnaires from middle and high school students were analyzed. This study generalized two co-parenting factors based on original parenting styles’ measurement. Co-parenting patterns combined with strict and refuse parenting styles were significantly related to Internet addiction. The competing co-parenting pattern mixed with stricture and over-protection parenting styles strongly predicted children’s Internet disorder. Gender moderated the impact of co-parenting on Internet addiction.This study fills the research gap and explores the association between co-parenting and Internet addiction in Confucian cultural backgrounds. The findings yield a better understanding of the co-parenting effect and provide instruction for defending against Internet addiction among the youth. The developed measurements of the co-parenting and theoretical model will contribute to the knowledge pool of Internet use, parent-child communication, family relationship, and youth study.

Keywords:

• co-parenting pattern
• internet addiction
• moderation effect
• gender
• parenting styles

1. Introduction

Since its inception in the 1990s, the Internet has grown apace and strongly changed people’s daily lives, such as business conducting, information gaining, social interaction, and entertainment experiencing (Yuan et al., 2011). Despite the well-known benefits of the Internet, we cannot ignore the growing negative impact caused by the heavy reliance on the Internet, that is, Internet addiction. Internet addiction refers to Internet addiction disorder, Internet overuse, problematic Internet use, and pathologic Internet use (Carli et al., 2013; Sun & Wilkinson, 2020; Tang et al., 2014). Internet addiction brings undesirable harm to health, the economy, and the whole society (Young, 2004). Internet addicts suffer various problems, such as psychological health problems, dangerous emotional behavior, and social phobia (Kuss et al., 2013; Yung et al., 2015). Notably, Internet addiction is widespread among students in middle school, high school, college, and university (Wallace, 2014). Around 70.6% of Internet users worldwide are adolescents (International Telecommunication Union, 2017). With the popularity of social media, young people spend excessive time on different social media platforms and experience emotional and physical imbalance with dull or irritable behaviors (Abbas, Aman, Nurunnabi, & Bano, 2019). Given the increased number of young people showing dysfunction in their daily activities, there is a general agreement that Internet addiction threats and damages each social unit—family in contemporary society.

Parent-child interaction and cultural context may impact family functions (Bornstein, 2012). The poor family functions relate to different psychopathological problems (Jozefiak et al., 2019). Familial incompatibility, such as poor relations with parents and lack of parental emotional connectedness, is reported as a risky predictor of young people’s Internet addiction (Kalaitzaki & Birtchnell, 2014). Parenting styles are diversified due to cultural, racial, and economic differences. Parental patterns of raising a child play an important role in a child’s socialization, mental health, and behaviors (Shahsavari, 2012; Sun & Wilkinson, 2020). Problematic parenting styles associate with the onset of pathological Internet use (Niaz et al., 2005; Sun & Wilkinson, 2020). After having a baby, the mother and father start to take on the joint role in raising the child. Parents are supposed to respect and support each other and interact with spouses and kids as mutual caretakers (Feinberg, 2003). Previous studies show that harmonious co-parenting links with positive parenting behaviors, good relations between a couple, and children’s mental and physical well-being (Feinberg et al., 2007; Palkovitz et al., 2013; Schoppe-Sullivan & Mangelsdorf, 2013). Positive co-parenting patterns reduce the likelihood of Internet addiction (Y. L. Chen et al., 2015). On the other hand, inconsistent parenting style relates to young’s problematic Internet use (S. B. Sebre et al., 2020). Interparental conflict significantly damages the family function and predicts Internet addiction (Ko et al., 2015).

However, few existing studies examine the factors contributing to co-parenting dynamics and their effects. Prior studies seldom focus on interdependence and mutual interaction within parental dynamics (Cheung et al., 2015; Young et al., 2017). Moreover, previous studies rarely explore the effectiveness of co-parenting patterns in the Chinese social context (Cheung et al., 2015; Lekes et al., 2010; Liu & Guo, 2010). It is necessary to fill the research gap in the Chinese context for the following reasons. First, Chinese youth has become one of the largest and fastest expanding groups over the past decades (Zwart, 2012), and scholars cannot ignore the number of young Internet addicts in China. Second, the Chinese one-child policy executed in the past 30 years. It looks smooth for Chinese parents to have more energy to take care of their children. The growth of children highlights the role of parenting and co-parenting styles. Next, in traditional Chinese culture, filial piety (Xiao) is the most prominent virtue guiding the relationship between parents and their children and how children interact with their parents (Sung, 2007). Filial piety underpins the principles of how children should treat, respect, care for their parents, and protect their family reputation (Whyte, 2004). A recent study points out that young individuals in China still have strong beliefs in the updated concept of reciprocal filial piety in the twenty-first century (Sun, 2021). That is, the parent-child interactions in Confucian culture are different from the Western. Given the theoretical deficiency, this study aims to supply the research gap and focuses on the following questions: What possible co-parenting patterns influence Internet addiction? What is the relationship between parenting, co-parenting, and Internet addiction? By studying two broad segments of middle and high school students, this study looks for a better understanding of familial factors and excessive Internet use.

2. Conceptualization

2.1. Internet addiction (IA)

Internet addiction (IA) refers to excessive and uncontrollable online behavior with prolonged Internet use (Müller et al., 2016). Prior studies define Internet addiction in various terms, such as Internet addiction disorder, Internet overuse, maladaptive Internet use, pathological Internet use, compulsive Internet use, and problematic Internet use (Carli et al., 2013; Demetrovics et al., 2008; Kormas et al., 2011; Sinkkonen et al., 2014; Tang et al., 2014; Widyanto & Griffiths, 2006). Internet addiction denotes one person’s inability to control self from using the Internet and failure to fulfilling personal work, social activity, and commitments (K Chen et al., 2004). The American Centre for Online Addiction categorized the specific Internet addiction types, such as net gaming addiction, information overload, computer addiction, cyber sexual addiction, cyber relationship addiction, and social network addiction (Salicetia, 2015).

Internet addiction is related to social and emotional dysfunction in daily life (Yung et al., 2015). It is a health risk connected with behavioral control problems, mental health issues, and Internet-related compulsions (Jiang & Leung, 2012; Suler, 2004; Yao & Zhong, 2014). Furthermore, Internet addiction may stimulate other behavioral addictions or psychiatric illnesses (Adiele & Olatokun, 2014; Widyanto & Griffiths, 2006). The typical symptoms of Internet addicts appear differently, like losing control over individual behavior, conflicting between internal and interpersonal communication, staying preoccupied with the Internet, and changing moods through Internet use, taking self-harming behaviors, even having suicidal attempts (Kuss et al., 2013; Park et al., 2013). Since 2019, the appearance of the viral disease COVID‑19 threatened human beings not only with the educational operation, financial situation, healthcare system, and environmental protection but also led to new lifestyles. Due to the easily contagious characteristics of this disease, people rely more on the Internet in their daily life and therefore more individuals show the characteristics as cyber addicts (Geng et al., 2022; Lebni et al., 2020; Rahmat et al., 2022).

Internet addiction is widespread among the young generation (Wallace, 2014). Individuals who addict to the Internet especially social media suffer from depression, low self-esteem, irrational cognitive assumptions, unpleasant emotions, and social isolation (Fennell, 1997; Lebni et al., 2020; Tsai & Lin, 2003; Yen et al., 2007). Excessive social media use reduces young people’s face-to-face communication skills and cause a lot of adverse effects, and Internet addicts are moodier and inclined to get back cyberworld to release their negative feelings and boredom, especially during daily work (Hollander & Stein, 2006; Wang et al., 2021). Internet addiction shows a negative impact on young people’s social performance, such as having low-grade points, keeping poor interpersonal relationships, and using an avoidant or self-blaming coping style (Caplan, 2007; Derbyshire et al., 2013; Kerkhof et al., 2011; Milani et al., 2009).

2.2. Family systems theory, parenting, and co-parenting

Family systems theory describes the family as an “organization and structure screen and qualifies family members’ experiences” (S. Minuchin, 1974, p. 7). A family runs as a microsystem, with each family member’s actions and experiences depending on the whole family context. That is, an individual’s particular problem is formed by and shapes relations with other family members and reflects the parents’ ability to perform their parenting roles (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; S. Minuchin, 1974). Family cohesion indicates the affection, warmth, interaction, and involvement of each family member (Spinelli et al., 2020).

Prior studies propose that parenting and co-parenting are varied interrelated subsystems in the family (Cox & Paley, 2003). Co-parenting patterns are associated with parenting types (Feinberg, 2003). Moreover, the existing studies denote that co-parenting influences parenting styles (Bonds & Gondoli, 2007; Feinberg et al., 2007; Karreman et al., 2008). Family dynamics highlight the interactions and influences among family members, especially affecting the well-being and adjustment of children (Lamela et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2017). Parents use positive or negative parenting behaviors depending on their perceptions of social support (Xu et al., 2005). One way of family functioning is performed by co-parental cooperation which refers to the capacity of parents who work together for childrearing and is distinct from parenting and relation quality (Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004). Being essential to familial functions, successful co-parenting relates to good outcomes such as children’s few behavior problems and parents’ less negativity (Feinberg et al., 2007; Schoppe et al., 2001).

2.3. Parenting styles

How parenting styles affect family members is an umbrella research topic (Rhee et al., 2006). Parents set family rules and enforce their children to maintain household routines and order. Parenting style is the most significant family factor affecting teenagers’ Internet addiction (Siomos et al., 2012). According to prior studies (Chan & Koo, 2011; Ihmeideh & Shawareb, 2014), parenting styles include a few dimensions, such as authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and negligent. Specifically, the authoritative-type parents offer their offspring a warm and structured domestic situation with a high level of responsiveness, control, communication, and maturity demanding. Under authoritative parenting, children tend to feel safe and independent without having serious psychological and behavioral problems (Huang et al., 2010; Rhee et al., 2006; Valcke et al., 2010). In contrast, an authoritarian parent requires obedience and conformity, has a low level of responsiveness and communication, and emphasizes restriction and severe punishment. Individuals with authoritarian parents tend to form poor self-concept, take delinquent behaviors, seek alternatively social interactions via the Internet, and prolong their use time (Sharabany et al., 2008; Valcke et al., 2010). Permissive or indulgent parenting style shows low control, seldom regulating children’s incorrect behaviors, but more efforts to satisfy child’s needs or wishes (Sharabany et al., 2008). Children under unbinding parents are more inclined to have deviant behaviors, substance abuse, as well as Internet addiction (Valcke et al., 2010). Neglectful or rejecting parents often ignore their children’s emotional changes, daily needs, and personal thoughts (Sharabany et al., 2008). They seldom respond and fail to meet their children’s physical, psychological and social demands (Khaleque, 2015). Neglectful or rejecting parental style is highly correlated to Internet disorder use (Huang et al., 2010).

It cannot ignore the contributions of the family function in maintaining Internet addiction among young people (Kalaitzaki & Birtchnell, 2014). Weak family functioning may cause various psychopathological problems and predict a higher risk for Internet addiction (Jozefiak et al., 2019; Moreau et al., 2015). The existing studies denote that family factors, including broken family, intra-family conflicts, family dysfunctions, negative parenting styles, and inadequate parental behaviors, influence their children’s addictive Internet use (Amato & Fowler, 2002; Beal et al., 2001; Huang et al., 2010). Individuals with poor relationships with parents or lacking parental emotional support are inclined to have Internet use disorders (Li et al., 2018; Sun & Wilkinson, 2020). Prior study associates callous parenting with Internet addiction (Schimmenti et al., 2014). Low-quality of parenting may activate individuals’ vulnerability and make them form negative perceptions of self and the world, spend more time getting relief from anxiety, and fulfill online social activities (Davis, 2001; Zhang et al., 2015). In comparison to the cold parenting styles (e.g., authoritarian), warm and supportive parenting types (e.g., authoritative) may benefit children’s mental health and optimal character development (Y. L. Chen et al., 2015; Landry et al., 2001). For example, authoritative parenting takes care of children and helps them to relieve emotional stress (Silva et al., 2007). More importantly, authoritative parenting style is likely to not only lower the likelihood of Internet addiction but also effectively prevent addicting to the Internet (Chan & Koo, 2011; Leung & Lee, 2011; S. Sebre et al., 2015).

2.4. Co-parenting patterns

Co-parenting refers to the patterns in which a couple cooperates and works together in separate roles as parents (Feinberg, 2003). In terms of co-parenting, parents share the responsibility to raise and support their children. They execute parenting behaviors, such as responsiveness, control, and sensitivity, and coordinate parental tasks with their spouse, for example, sustaining co-parents’ decisions and facilitating positive interactions between parents and child (Caldera & Lindsey, 2006). In a family, members influence one another, and cooperation and support between couples are very important because the co-parenting patterns affect family relations (McHale et al., 1996; P. Minuchin, 1985). The co-parenting pattern indicates the different configurations formed by the combinations of parenting styles. The distinguishable patterns may have various associations. For instance, a high level of authoritarian style may combine with a low level of permissive parenting style to integrate a new parenting pattern (Padilla-Walker et al., 2011). That is, the existing parenting types can be combined into a variety of modes and show more complicated relationships. The idealized typology includes at least eight co-parenting patterns formed by the three basic parenting styles. However, the identified co-parenting patterns reflect reality and may not represent the idealized typology because a few idealized combinations of parenting styles cannot be found in real lives (McNamara et al., 2010). Given the identified co-parenting patterns, the parenting styles coexist in the family, and the basic parenting styles such as authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, or flexible styles do not identify their unique characters exclusively (Cheung et al., 2015; Pereira et al., 2009).

Co-parenting has a positive or negative effect on adolescent development and outcomes, such as mental health, focus, adjustment, deviant behavior, and dependence (Caldera & Lindsey, 2006; Frosch et al., 2000; Riina & McHale, 2014; Teubert & Pinquart, 2010). Prior studies link children’s addictive Internet use with complementary, synergized, or converse effects of co-parenting modes (Barnet-Verzat & Wolff, 2002; Parker & Benson, 2004). Specifically, warm parental consistency helps develop a child’s optimal character, while inconsistency may cause a high risk for cognitive and emotional problems (Landry et al., 2001). The combination of permissive, authoritarian, and flexible parenting patterns has significant effects on the Internet addiction of the young (Cheung et al., 2015). Neglecting parenting style associated with preoccupation type is correlated with Internet use disorders (Schimmenti et al., 2014). The combination of a high level of flexible parenting style and a low level of authoritarian or permissive style is associated with less addictive Internet use (Chan & Koo, 2011; Cheung et al., 2015).

Given these findings from prior studies, this study elaborates on the conceptual model and puts forth the following hypotheses:

H1: Strict co-parenting style will have high positive correlation with Internet addiction.

H2: Competing co-parenting style will have high positive correlation with Internet addiction.

2.5. The role of gender

Based on former studies, gender is another important predictor for Internet addiction (e.g., Sun & Wilkinson, 2020). The gender gap impacts Internet use patterns and applications. Males use the Internet for entertainment and leisure, while females mainly have interpersonal communication and educational support through the Internet (Masaeli & Farhadi, 2021; Weiser, 2000). Previous studies also show the gender differences in social media use, such as males prefer to date and learn new things, and females are more likely to display their photos and maintain friendships (Gackenbach et al., 2016; Liu, 2017; Shepherd, 2016; Thelwall, 2014). Males liken to have more compulsive Internet usage and show a higher level of Internet addiction. Among the heavy users, the percentage of males is much more than females, and they scored higher than females on the Internet addiction test (Koçak et al., 2021; Orth et al., 2018).

Gender affects the relationship between parenting style and Internet addiction (Ni et al., 2017). Prior studies suggest that parents take different attitudes toward their son’s or daughter’s Internet usage. For instance, parents provide less control and warning of dangers related to online activities to sons than daughters (Baldry et al., 2019). Because of the different gender roles’ expectations, the parenting and co-parenting between males and females are distinct. Therefore, the following hypothesis is addressed:

H3: The relationship between co-parenting and Internet addiction will be moderated by gender.

Based on the above previous findings, this study develops the following theoretical model (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and sampling procedure

Data for this study were collected in 2018. A total of 700 middle and high school students were recruited in Zhuhai, a large southern metropolis. All students were asked to fill in one self-report questionnaire in class. A Ph.D. holder designed the questionnaire and translated the English version into a Chinese one. The response rate is more than 99%, and 695 valid questionnaires were used in the statistical analysis. Gender in the sample is roughly evenly distributed (51.5 percent female vs. 48.5 percent male). Respondents aged between 16 and 18 embraced 72.7% of all samples, and the rest were between the 12 and 15 age bracket (27.3%). Please check the details in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample statistics of demographics

Demographics	%
Gender
Male	48.5
Female	51.5
Age
12–15	27.3
16–18	72.7
Education
Senior school	97
Middle school	3
Family Annual Income (CNY)
Below 40,000 (include 40,000)	25
40,001–80,000 (include 80,000)	25.8
80,001–120,000 (include 120,000)	19.9
120,001–160,000 (include 160,000)	13.7
160,001–200,000 (include 200,000)	5
Above 200,000	10.6

Note. N = 695.

3.2. Measurements

For Internet addiction, this study adopted seventeen items developed by Kimberly (2009) and Young (1998a) using 4-point Likert-scale items (1 = never and 4 = always). For example, (1) “I often find myself staying longer on the Internet than I planned to”; (2) “I often neglect my work and spend more time on the Internet”; (3) “I would like to stay online rather than spend time with friends”; and (4) “My life will be boring without (website).” According to Kimberly (2009), a low score (below 40) denoted no Internet addiction, a moderate score (between 40 and 70) represented a mild addiction, and a score above 70 implied a heavy addiction. A principal component factor analysis with oblimin rotation on the 17 items yielded a single factor (eigenvalue > 1) and labeled Internet Addiction for subsequent analyses (see Table A1). A reliability analysis verified the single factor (Cronbach’s α = .89).

The study used two steps to measure co-parenting. Firstly, 18 items were developed by Perris et al. (1980) using a 4-point Likert-scale (1 = never and 4 = always) to generate parenting styles in Chinese family. The sample questions were: (1) “My parents will punish me even though there is a small mistake”; (2) “I will get support from parents when I meet difficulties”; (3) “My parents always care about what I usually do at night”; and (4) “I will feel guilty if I don’t listen to my parents”. A principal component factor analysis using oblimin rotation resulted in six clean factors (eigenvalue > 1). The six factors were labeled as Strictness, Understand, Overprotection, Favor, Refuse, and Interfere in accordance with the conceptualized distinctions. Together, the six factors accounted for 66.7% of the total variance (see Table A2).

According to Hurley et al. (1997), exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is appropriate for scale development, especially when there are few theoretical basics for specifying the number and patterns of factors. Henson and Roberts (2006) mention that factor analysis can determine what theoretical constructs underlie a stated data set and the extent to which these constructs display the original variables. Therefore, a second round of exploratory factor analysis did test whether there were new combined co-parenting patterns. Based on the 18 items developed by Perris et al. (1980), a principal component factor analysis using oblimin rotation combined each pair of the above factors respectively and resulted in two new factors (eigenvalue > 1). The two new factors were named Co-strict-protection and Co-strict-refuse (see Table A3).

Demographic factors included gender (1 = male; 2 = female), age (measured in two-year increments), education embodied in middle and high school, and annual household income contained total earnings from family members.

4. Results

4.1. Results of H1& H2

According to the results, two clean factors emerged among the multifold combinations of different parenting styles, the hybrid of strictness and over-protection and strictness and refuse patterns. It was obvious to see the interparental conflict between the strict and overprotection mixture. The stricture and refusal group led to the cold treatment of children.

The findings showed that gender significantly related to Internet addiction echoed the previous studies (Chou et al., 2005; Cuhadar, 2012; Ko et al., 2010; Mottram & Fleming, 2009; Tsai et al., 2009; Yen et al., 2009). Males, compared with females, were more likely to addict to the Internet (β = −.18; p < .001). Age was absent of significant prediction attributes because all respondents were young in this study. The rest two demographic variables, education, and household income, were not associated with an Internet addiction disorder.

According to the results, the co-parenting pattern appeared as a strong predictor, accounting for 20% of the variance in Internet addiction after controlling demographics. The co-strict-refuse factor contributed to Internet disorder behavior as the strongest beta indicator (β = .51, p < .001). The co-strict-protection pattern was negatively associated with Internet addiction (β = −.21, p < .001). Under rejecting or rigorous treatments from both parents, individuals were more likely to addict to the Internet. With competing parenting styles, children showed similar addicting intentions. Hypotheses 1 & 2 were fully supported (see Table 2).

Table 2. Co-parenting styles predicting internet addiction

Demographics
Gender	−.354***
Age	.000
Education	.018
Income	−.001
R^2 (%)	3.10***
Co-parenting
Co-strict-refuse pattern	.51***
Co-strict-overprotection pattern	−.21***
Incremental R^2 (%)	20.0***

Notes: Entries are standardized OLS regression beta coefficients (N = 695). All figures controlled for demographics. # p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

4.2. Results of H3

Hypothesis 3 mainly concerned the possibility of a moderation effect with previous studies as the frame of reference. Moderation focuses on the statistical interaction between two independent variables in predicting a dependent variable (Jose, 2013). Figure 2 shows a graphical depiction.

Figure 2. Moderation effect.

A multiple regression model was performed to examine whether the association between co-parenting styles and Internet addiction depends on gender differences. In the process, the two co-parenting factors multiplied by gender respectively and created two interaction terms. Then gender, co-parenting patterns, and interaction terms entered a simultaneous regression model. Controlling for other demographics, regression analysis betas for the two interaction terms were identical (β = .34, p < .001 for co-strict-refuse and gender; β = .30, p < .001 for co-strict-overprotection and gender), suggesting that the effect of parents’ co-parenting on Internet addiction depended on children’s gender (see Table 3). Findings implied at least two plausible explanations: First, males were inclined to look for warmth or release pressure in the online world when they were under much parents’ strictness or non-support. Second, males rather than females suffering intra-parents parenting conflicts showed more tendency to cyber addiction. For example, one of the parents doted on their child, the other one was strict, and the child suffered parenting conflicts between the parents and might get an Internet addiction.

Table 3. OLS regression: joint effect of gender and co-parenting styles on internet addiction

Demographics
R^2 (%)	3.10***
Co-parenting
Co-strict-refuse pattern	.51***
Co-strict-overprotection pattern	−.21***
Incremental R^2 (%)	20.0***
Interaction term
Gender*Co-strict-refuse	.34***
Incremental R^2 (%)	11.6***
Gender*Co-strict-overprotection	.30***
Incremental R^2 (%)	8.8***

Notes: Entries are standardized OLS regression beta coefficients (N = 695). All figures controlled for demographics. # p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

5. Conclusion and discussion

This present study uses the family system theory to conceptualize a theoretical model and explores how co-parenting influences adolescents’ Internet addiction in the Chinese social context. Given that there is more than one parent in most families, this study generates two new co-parenting patterns and develops the measurements of co-parenting, especially in Chinese society. Specifically, the co-strict-refuse pattern reflects the interwoven between two parenting styles with non-support characteristics, while the co-strict-overprotection mode highlights the contradictory mix of severe and companion types. The results of this study demonstrate the strong association between co-parenting and Internet addiction. Addicts are found that they often get limited help but severe treatment from their parents. Being constantly refused or punished by their parents, addicts are more obsessed with the online world to release unhappy emotions. In another circumstance, addicts suffer extreme parental conflicts in parenting styles, namely, one strict parent interacts with one overindulgent parent. Notably, under the above two co-parentings, whether individuals get a cyber addiction also depends on their gender differences. Gender plays an intervening role as a moderator. In sum, Internet addiction intertwines gender and co-parenting patterns in practice. Co-parenting (i.e., strict & refuse/competing) denotes a better prediction of Internet addiction in males than females.

We cannot ignore that the addicts’ group is continually expanding. After COVID-19 burst out, the Internet and social media have emerged as integral tools of human society, and individuals practice technological integration and web technology as common issues in their daily lives (Aqeel et al., 2021; Khazaie et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2022). More young people will possibly addict to the Internet and social media due to lifestyle changes. It looks more meaningful than ever for scholars to study family-related indicators and prevent young people from addicting to the Internet. The findings of this current study will contribute to the following academic issues: first, scholars may better understand the relationship between co-parenting and Internet addiction, particularly in Confucian cultural backgrounds. Second, future studies may open minds based on this study’s measuring approach and further develop more co-parenting measurements. Next, considering gender differences and association with co-parenting and Internet addiction, researchers may explore more parent-child relational solutions in light of the moderation effect.

6. Theoretical implications

6.0.1. Developing theoretical instructed measurement

This study further develops the two dimensions of co-parenting patterns based on previous studies (Perris et al., 1980). The co-strict-refuse focuses on the very cold interaction between parents and children, while the co-strict-overprotection highlights conflicts between distinct parenting styles. Both factors suggest that the co-parenting patterns have more complicated interactive roles beyond the single parenting style.

6.0.2. Developing theoretical effect model

As expected, gender moderates the effect of co-parenting style on Internet disorder behavior. Encountering rejecting, strict, or contradictory parental opinions, individuals are more likely to addict to the virtual world to get a release or psychological support. Young males who lack parental care are much easier to show addictive behavior online than females. The findings suggest that adolescents, especially males, with problematic parent-child relations experience heavier involvement in online activities in Chinese families.

7. Limitations and recommendations

The study is subject to some limitations, which proceed from relatively outdated measures of Internet addiction and parenting styles. The original concept of Internet addiction refers to a stable and internally reliable instrument, like a computer. Nowadays, more young people prefer to use a smartphone instead of a desktop. To further address possible solutions, future studies may consider using updated measurement vehicles for the core constructs in this study and testing the more complicated co-parenting patterns. The developed theoretical model in this study may help to text more possible hybrid effects on adolescent health, parent-child relation, and social media studies.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

YanShu Sun

YanShu Sun is interested in studying new media, media effects, communications, and popular culture among youth. She has published a dozen academic papers in high-level academic journals and quite a number of conference papers, for instance, the International Journal of Communication, China Media Research, and the Association for Intercultural Communication Studies. She has worked as a member of different academic committees and a reviewer for academic journals. In terms of Internet addiction, Dr. Sun explores parenting, co-parenting and Internet addiction among middle and high school and college students. She has finished several academic projects as the principal supervisor, for example, Study on Ethical Issues of Juveniles, funded by the Zhuhai Social and Science Association.

Appendices

TAble A1. Factor analysis (principal component with oblimin rotation) on internet addiction

	Internet Addiction
I often find myself staying longer on the Internet than I planned to.	.601
I often neglect my work and spend more time on the Internet.	.655
I would like to stay online rather than spend time with friends.	.607
Other people always complain that I spend too much time on the Internet.	.668
I spend a lot of time on the Internet, which affects my homework and school record.	.580
I try to find an excuse when someone asks what I am doing on the Internet.	.518
I use the Internet to distract myself from my real-life troubles.	.550
I am always interested in surfing the Internet.	.539
My life will be boring without the Internet.	.564
I will become angry if someone bothers me when I use the Internet.	.590
I don’t get enough sleep because I surf online late.	.619
I am often lost in thought and imagine that I am surfing the Internet.	.660
When I use the Internet, I tell myself that I will just play for a few minutes.	.652
I often try to cut down on the time I spend online, but I fail to do it.	.641
I try to hide how much time I spend on the Internet.	.615
I would like to stay on the Internet rather than go outside with family or friends.	.639
I feel depressed offline and feel good online.	.620
Variance accounted for (%)	37.03

Note. N = 695.

Appendix

Table A2. Factor analysis (principal component with oblimin rotation) on parenting styles

	Strict-ness	Under-stand	Over-Protect	Favor	Refuse	Inter-fere
My parents will punish me even though there is a small mistake.	.81
I think my parents are very strict with me.	.72
If I am disobedient at home, my parents will be very annoyed.	.67
Sometimes my parents would punish me severely for trivial trifles.	.54
I will get support from parents when I meet difficulties.		.80
My parents’ punishment is fair and appropriate.		.78
My parents will be proud of me when I get success.		.77
I think that my parents respect and tolerate my different opinion.		.75
I can feel my parents’ love, and the warm, considerate, and affectionate feeling between us.		.62
My parents always over worried about my health.			−.82	-
I think my parents’ concern about me is exaggerated and excessive.			−.59
In compare to other family members, my parents love me more.				−.88
My parents give me something that others cannot get.				−.71
I will feel guilty if I don’t listen to my parents.					.87
My parents often say that “Is this the reward that we work hard for you?”					.73
I think my parents are very stingy with me.					.64
My parents pay much attention to what friends I make.						−.86
My parents always care about what I usually do at night.						−.82
Variance accounted for (%)	25.7	19.8	5.8	5.6	5.4	4.4

Note: Loadings on the four factors are sufficiently clean that no cross-loaders at or larger than .25 are observed. Actual cross loading figures are therefore omitted for ease of reading (N = 695).

Appendix

Table A3. Factor analysis (principal component with oblimin rotation) on co-parenting pattern 1

	Co-Strict-Overprotect
My parents will punish me even though there is a small mistake.	.77
Sometimes my parents would punish me severely for trivial trifles.	.76
If I am disobedient at home, my parents will be very annoyed.	.74
I think my parents are very strict with me.	.71
I think my parents’ concern about me is exaggerated and excessive.	.58
My parents always over worried about my health.	.42
Variance accounted for (%)	45.7

Note. N = 695

Appendix

Table A4. Factor analysis (principal component with oblimin rotation) on co-parenting pattern 2

	Co-Strict-Refuse
Sometimes my parents would punish me severely for trivial trifles.	.78
My parents often say that “Is this the reward that we work hard for you?”	.77
If I am disobedient at home, my parents will be very annoyed.	.73
My parents will punish me even though there is a small mistake.	.69
I will feel guilty if I don’t listen to my parents.	.66
I think my parents are very stingy with me.	.66
I think my parents are very strict with me.	.64
Variance accounted for (%)	49.8

Note. N = 695