‘Trust us! we know what we are doing!’ Parent-adolescent digital conflict in Australian families

ABSTRACT

Networked technologies and device use have become a significant source of conflict between parents and their children, negatively affecting family cohesion and wellbeing. Drawing on the findings of a participatory action research project which consisted of family workshops designed to discuss, and ultimately reduce, family digital conflict, this article explores the main sources of digital conflict amongst Australian families. Four main causes of digital conflict were reported by parents and their children: the amount of time that young people spend online and the subsequent displacement of other tasks considered by parents as more worthwhile; “inappropriate” content; the perceived effects of digital media use on children’s behaviour, and sibling conflict. Findings also revealed differing perspectives and knowledges about the value of digital technologies between parents and children which contributed to family conflict. The findings point towards a greater need for interventions which facilitate a more democratic approach to digital parenting, premised upon parental listening, negotiation, and mutual understanding.

Impact Summary

Prior state of knowledge: A number of international studies show that networked technologies are a significant source of family conflict and affect family relationships and dynamics in various ways.

Novel contribution: This study explores this topic from the Australian perspective. It also contributes to prior research by exploring parent and child knowledges and perspectives and how the divergence in these knowledges and perspectives contribute to family conflict.

Practical implications: This study has implications for online safety providers and policymakers. It points to a greater need for online safety interventions, policies and resource that facilitate family discussion, parental listening and mutual understanding about media use to reduce family conflict.

KEYWORDS:

• Family conflict
• parenting
• adolescents
• digital media
• parental mediation

Networked technologies have become an essential feature of contemporary family life and are relied upon for parent-child communication, social connection, entertainment, work, and schooling, as well as to help co-ordinate an array of extra-curricular activities. These technologies, however, have affected family dynamics in complex ways. Anxieties about young people’s media use are also intensified within an Australian context characterised by a focus on risk and harm. While parent-adolescent conflict is hardly new, networked technologies further complicate the already fraught parent-child relationship (Kim & Davis, 2017). Conflicting digital expectations on the part of parents and children; sibling conflict over shared devices; the reconfiguration of traditional power relations; the tension between authority and autonomy, and restrictive parental mediation, all have the potential to create family digital conflict and influence family dynamics in negative ways.

This article explores digital family conflict through qualitative research with Australian parents and their adolescent children. Drawing on findings from a series of workshops which were specifically aimed at facilitating intergenerational discussion and understanding about digital media to reduce family conflict, it builds on prior research to identify several overlapping causes of digital conflict and proposes some directions forward to better assist families grappling with media use in the home.

The Australian context

Australia has a relatively long history of collective concerns about young people’s use of digital media. These concerns have manifested in a number of ways. Media panics (Drotner, 1992) have spanned a range of issues from pornography “inappropriate” online content, cyberbullying, grooming, “sexting” and excessive use (Lumby, 1997; Page Jeffery, 2017; Potter & Potter, 2001). Online safety programs, run through schools, commercial providers, and the Australian Federal Police (through their nationwide risk focused “think U know” program) have reached “saturation point” (Third et al., 2019). Further, Australia has one of the most robust online regulatory schemes in the world, with the Office of the eSafety Commissioner exercising a wide range of powers in relation to online regulation and safety. While concerns about young people’s use of digital media are hardly unique to Australia, Australian scholars have noted a tradition of adopting a child protection and harm reduction perspective in media discourse, education and policies related to children and young people (Albury & Crawford, 2012; Mavoa et al., 2017; Page Jeffery, 2021a; Third et al., 2019; Zaman et al., 2020). Within this broader regulatory and discursive context, Third et al. (2019) argues that young people have become “sites of cultural anxiety requiring containment and control” (Third et al., 2019, p. 2). Such an approach may curtail young people’s participation rights and undermine their agency (Livingstone & Third, 2017), potentially contributing to child reactance and parent/child conflict.

Literature review

A number of studies indicate that parent-adolescent digital conflict is common (Beyens et al., 2016; Blackwell et al., 2016; Hadlington et al., 2019; Kim & Davis, 2017; Lauricella et al., 2016; Mesch, 2006; Tammisalo & Rotkirch, 2022; Yang & Zhang, 2021). It is generally accepted that parent-adolescent conflict is a normative feature of adolescence (Beyens & Beullens, 2017; Steinberg, 2001), and the period of adolescence has long been considered a difficult time for families as children increasingly seek privacy, autonomy and independence. However digital media technologies have been found to present additional challenges and complexities for families. The publicised nature of online risk in Australia creates anxiety for many parents who, understandably, want to secure their children’s wellbeing and thus attempt to monitor, regulate or restrict their children’s media use (Page Jeffery, 2021b).

Scholars have found that one primary source of conflict between parents and their teenagers stems from the tension between parental desire for authority and children’s desire for autonomy and to maintain jurisdiction over their own lives (Smetana, 1988). While younger children are more accepting of parental interventions, older children have been found to increasingly question the legitimacy of parental authority (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). As I have argued elsewhere (Page Jeffery et al., 2022), digital media have become an important means through which adolescents develop independence and test boundaries. Their behaviours, peer relationships, and practices of self-representation – all elements which would be considered within the personal domain of parental authority and potential sources of family conflict in their own right – are also enacted in online spaces in ways which can amplify or create additional conflict. Parental attempts to monitor or regulate their children’s media use are often interpreted by adolescents as threatening their autonomy, and commonly result in child psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966), whereby young people respond by doing the opposite of what they are expected (Symons et al., 2020; Yardi & Bruckman, 2011).

Digital media technologies have also been found to reconfigure traditional parent-child power relations, which may also lead to conflict. Many adolescents are considered to be more knowledgeable about digital technologies than their parents, thus leading to what has been termed “child effects” (Bell, 1979) and what Correa (2014) terms “bottom-up technology transmission” whereby children are socialising their parents. This may present a challenge to parental authority (Ribak, 2001), a disruption to the established “hierarchy of expertise,” and thus a subversion of traditional family power relations (Mesch, 2006; Savic et al., 2016). Research has found that families where the child was viewed as the computer expert, and where children are more likely to guide their parents how to use digital media, report more intergenerational conflict about media (Mesch, 2006; Nelissen & Van den Bulck, 2018).

Parent-adolescent digital conflict can also arise in relation to a plethora of other issues. Conflict often emerges around disagreements about the “appropriate” age to get a smart phone or social media accounts (Ammari, Kumar, Lampe and Schoenebeck, 2015; Rideout, 2015; Rudi, Dworkin, Walker and Doty, 2015, cited in Kim & Davis, 2017). More frequent device use amongst adolescents has also been found to negatively impact family relationships, often leading to parent-child conflict (Beyens & Beullens, 2017; Mesch, 2006; Tammisalo & Rotkirch, 2022; Yang & Zhang, 2021). Consistent with psychological reactance theory, more restrictive forms of mediation also led to more conflict (Beyens & Beullens, 2017; Nathanson, 2002). Time displacement also affects family cohesion, as time spent using digital devices not only displaces family time, but also affects the quality of that family time (Mesch, 2006).

Underpinning much of this tension and conflict are different perspectives between parents and their children about the purpose and value of digital media technologies, what constitutes legitimate use, and differing skills, knowledge and expectations between parents and their children (Blackwell et al., 2016; Kim & Davis, 2017; Mesch, 2006; Ouvrein & Verswijvel, 2021). For example, parents often expect digital media technologies to be used for educational purposes, whereas adolescents use it for social and entertainment purposes (Mesch, 2006). Further, for many parents, providing their children with a mobile device helps them to monitor their children and ensure their safety (Devitt & Roker, 2009; Wei & Lo, 2006, cited in Kim & Davis, 2017), although many adolescents may not appreciate this kind of surveillance. Adolescents, in contrast, are more likely to see their mobile phone as an opportunity to connect with their peers and assert their personal autonomy (Weinstein & Davis, 2015 cited in Kim & Davis, 2017). A real or perceived lack of parental knowledge about what their children are doing online contributes to these often conflicting views and perspectives (Page Jeffery, 2022).

Studies show that a lack of parental knowledge and understanding makes it difficult for parents to set boundaries for effective parenting (Yardi & Bruckman, 2011). Kim and Davis (2017) and Blackwell et al. (2016) found that parents were often unaware of what their children were doing on their devices, and that parents and children placed different values on online activities such as gaming. Children have also expressed frustration with limits related to screentime, particularly when they believed their parents were not aware of their actual online activities, did not understand the value of those activities, or underestimated their school and work responsibilities (Blackwell et al., 2016). Conflict often reduced as parenting knowledge increased, especially when parents had direct experience with their child’s digital media activities (Kim & Davis, 2017).

Much of the prior literature examines not only the relation between parental mediation style and parent-adolescent conflict, but also the relation between parenting style more generally and conflict. Parental mediation of children’s media use is a parental practice as it is specific to a particular context or domain (media use). Parenting style is a broader concept encompassing the emotional nature of parenting, and represents the “constellation of attitudes towards the child that are communicated to the child and create an emotional climate in which the parents behaviours are expressed” (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, p. 488). Studies show that an open, authoritative and communicative parenting style, which often lends itself to more enabling mediation practices and greater parental understanding of their children’s online activities, is more likely to lead to acceptance of parental authority, mutual respect, and thus less parent-child conflict (Byrne & Lee, 2011; Kim & Davis, 2017; Lau et al., 1990; Symons et al., 2020).

This study adds to the existing literature about digital family conflict. It does this through an exploration of parental and adolescent perspectives about digital media to identify differing knowledges, perspectives and hierarchies of value between parents and their children that may lead to family conflict, as well as identifying specific causes of digital family conflict.

Research approach and methods

This study utilised a participatory action research approach (Hearn et al., 2009), consisting of a series of family workshops aimed at facilitating mutual understanding between parents and their children about media use to reduce family digital conflict. The workshops were part of a larger project entitled Safe Online Together, funded by the Australian Government under the Online Safety Grants Program.

Family workshops

Thirteen workshops were held from June – December 2021 in the Australian Capital Territory region. In total there were 225 participants (115 parents and 110 children) with workshops ranging in size from five to 40 participants, with an average of between 15–20. Workshops were held at schools and community centres across the region, including at both private (fee paying) schools and public (Government, non-fee) schools. Workshops were offered in different geographical areas of the region, including affluent areas and less advantaged communities. Workshops brought together parents and their children, most of whom were aged between 10 and 16. The composition of families varied. In some instances, whole families – two parents and one or more children – attended. In other instances, one parent attended with one adolescent child, and some single parents attended with multiple children of varying ages – with some as young as seven. While basic demographic data was collected from participants, including their family composition, these data were used to evaluate the workshops more generally, and were not matched to the data collected from the workshops.¹ As such, we cannot draw any conclusions about the socio-economic or cultural backgrounds of families, and how these factors may shape digital conflict in families.

Workshops were promoted through local schools (school newsletters; letters to parents), community services partners, as well as through social media and local media. More detailed information about the goals and aims of the project, as well as the research methods utilised, can be found at (Page Jeffery et al., 2022). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the project was approved by the University’s human research ethics committee.

The workshops comprised three main activities aimed at facilitating intergenerational understanding and addressing digital conflict. The first activity involved parents and children breaking into two separate groups to discuss with workshop facilitators their perspectives about digital media. Young people were asked to share in their group and with the facilitator the different ways they use their devices and why technology is important to them, as well as what they believed to be their parents’ concerns about their media use. Young people were also asked to respond to the question, “if there was one thing you want your parents to know about your media use, what would it be?” An experienced facilitator conducted the discussion and with help from a research assistant wrote down the children’s responses on a white board in front of the group. In a separate group facilitated by the author, parents were asked about their main concerns in relation to their children’s media use and how they addressed those concerns. They were also asked to respond to the question “If there is one thing you want your children to know about technology, what would it be?” Parents wrote down their responses on post-it notes which were then collected. A consolidated list of responses was then generated for both groups. The groups then came back together and the facilitators shared the findings to the entire group of participants. This method of group presentation de-personalised individual responses thus minimising the risk of defensive feelings that might exacerbate intra-family conflict.

The second workshop activity presented a range of different online risk scenarios in the form of story stems to both parents and their children. Participants were asked to complete the stories individually, detailing what the protagonist does next. The purpose of this activity was to gauge participants’ - in particular children’s – ability to recognise and respond to online risk. Importantly, it provided young people the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and judgement to their parents. The findings from this particular activity are detailed at Page Jeffery et al. (2023).

The final workshop activity – which is the most relevant to this article – explicitly addressed family digital conflict. Children and their parents again broke into separate groups with the same individual facilitators, and were asked to identify and discuss the main sources of digital family conflict. Responses from the parents were recorded on individual post-it notes which were collated onto a whiteboard. Young people articulated their responses through discussion with their facilitator, which were then recorded on a white board. Consolidated lists of responses for both parent and child groups then formed the basis for a whole-of-group sharing and discussion.

Data analysis

The workshops generated a large amount of data in the form of participants’ recorded responses to the questions (see details above), observational field notes that were recorded by research assistants, and participant evaluations of the workshop. This article draws primarily on the participant responses generated from the first and final activities described above.

Data from these activities were transcribed, collated and coded according to an inductive coding process. Data coding was a relatively straightforward process as participants had responded to the research questions with clear answers that enabled coding at the semantic level. Still, where necessary, data was also analysed at a latent, interpretative level, looking beyond what participants explicitly said to glean insight into their underlying ideas, assumptions and conceptualizations (Braun & Clarke 2006). Clusters of categories that were similar and overlapping were grouped together and described according to broader overarching categories. The coded data was then arranged into broader themes. Expectedly, some themes were common across both parent and child groups (for example, both parents and children identified the same sources of digital conflict). Other themes were specific to children or parents (see, for example, the themes emerging in response to the question “if I could tell my parents/children just one thing”). The main codes and themes are set out below.

Findings and discussion

Major sources of conflict identified by both parents and children

Four major causes of family digital conflict were identified by the majority of parents and children: screentime/time displacement/balance; inappropriate content; children’s behaviour; and sibling conflict and influences related to device use, however this fourth issue was not as prevalent amongst the child participants. The issues of screen time/time displacement unequivocally emerged as the major cause of parent/child digital conflict and appeared to be a significant recurring source of family tension. Before discussing these themes further, it should be noted that while parents and children identified their concerns in ways which facilitated this fairly straightforward coding and categorisation, the issues are in reality overlapping, intertwined, and manifest in more complex ways which relate to overarching issues of autonomy and resistance to parental authority, and differences in values, knowledge and practices.

Screentime and time displacement/balance

It is perhaps little surprise that the perennial issue of screentime was identified by parents as a key cause of family conflict. Studies examining parental concerns about their children’s media use and general wellbeing frequently reveal screentime to be parents’ main concern (The Royal Children’s Hospital National Child Health Poll, 2021). This concern was expressed by parents in various, but unequivocal, ways:

“Time spent online,” “Time,” “Time on devices,” “loss of time,” “time to get off – just five more minutes!” “overuse,” “time limits: Do countdowns – realise I hate being told to stop too,” “just one more minute!” “Always on a device,” “inability to walk away from device;” “time to turn off at bedtime;” “one more one more one more,” and so on.

Parents’ widespread concern about their children’s screentime emerged as a key overarching issue which led to other related concerns and conflicts – namely that time spent online means less time engaging in other tasks which parents deem to be necessary, more worthwhile or legitimate. The displaced activities identified by parents varied, but the most common activities deemed more important included schoolwork, spending time with family, undertaking household chores, reading, physical play, and basic daily tasks such as eating, brushing teeth, and sleeping. Parents often talked about this in terms of “balance” in their children’s lives. Some of the main responses were as follows:

“Not doing homework,” “not stopping to do other important tasks;” “not helping with housework,” “decreased family time,” “not doing other valuable things/activities,” “less time on study/other work,” “balance,” “on iPad without having done homework and chores,” “lack of balance with other things, reading, music practice, physical play,” “kids stuck to devices and not helping out and meeting responsibilities,” “watching TV instead of reading,” “not showing interest in other activities,” “not attending to basic needs (toileting, eating, getting ready,” “don’t do anything else – cycle of eat sleep and conflict.”

Child participants similarly identified time spent on devices as by far the most common cause of parent/child digital conflict. Adolescents were acutely aware that their screen time was an issue for their parents, and that their parents were concerned that screen time was displacing other “more important” activities. Adolescents framed the issue of digital conflict related to screentime in the following ways:

“Time limits,” “spending too much time,” “me saying ‘just 5 more minutes’,” “I argue about asking for more screen time,” “time management,” “when I ask for four more minutes my device gets taken away,” “calling me down when I want to finish something,” “how much time I have,” “how much time I’ve had previously,” “nagging about games and nagging about having devices on weekdays,” “annoying. They make me get off and I lose my level in the game,” “pausing when you can’t pause – online game.”

Relatedly, adolescents also demonstrated that they were aware of their other responsibilities which were often displaced by screentime, such as homework, chores, sleep, exercise and family time. Some examples include:

“Not doing chores,” “not able to sleep at night,” “not feeding pets,” “family movie night,” “when I don’t get ready for school in time,” “whether I’ve done my chores,” “family time,” “don’t do enough exercise.”

Parental concern about their children’s failure to complete chores, homework and basic self-care activities are, I would suggest, a legitimate concern. Yet it was also clear that many parents did not appreciate the value their children derived from devices, or how important media was to them. Indeed, some parents implied that many of their children’s online activities were a waste. This particular concern typically emanates from middle and upper class families whose educational aspirations for their children do not accord with “excessive” device use (Clark, 2013). By suggesting that much of the time spent on screens is wasteful, parents did, either implicitly or explicitly, designate time spent engaged in other tasks as more worthwhile or valuable, suggesting the existence of a “hierarchy of value” which applies to both activities undertaken online or on devices and more broadly in relation to how teenagers choose to spend their time. Generally, parents ascribe more value to tasks that are deemed educational, creative, interactive, and social, although there were of course variations across families regarding which activities were deemed to be of greater value than others, reflecting each family’s own priorities, and their particular attitudes to work, study, and play (Green et al., 2004) see also (Mesch, 2006).

Inappropriate/’rubbish’ content

The second area which parents and children identified as a source of conflict related to the content their children were engaging with online, as well as online purchases that they were making. Concerns about media content have a long history, particularly in relation to violence, sex and other content deemed inappropriate for children, and these concerns were regularly cited by participants. Additionally, parents indicated concern about “dumbing down” as a result of the online content that their children consumed. Such concerns once again reflect an implicit hierarchy of value not just in relation to activities, but also content. Parents framed these concerns in the following ways:

“Content quality/credibility,” “content – bad language, mind numbing activities,” “what they watch,” “what content is appropriate (disagreement),” “inappropriate messages and content,” “types of games,” “choice of videos on YouTube,” “wanting apps that friends have but mum doesn’t allow,” “paying for certain apps or microtransactions,” “buying Minecraft add-ons!,” “kids watching content that isn’t ‘inappropriate’ but is just annoying to the adults,” “snapchat, Instagram because their friends have,” “money saved is spent on Roblox bux,” “listening to content with bad language.”

Like their parents – but to a lesser extent – adolescents also identified the content that the engaged with, as well as the content and platforms that they were and were not allowed, as sources of family conflict. Children framed their responses in the following ways:

“What I watch online – absolute rubbish,” “the games we are allowed to play,” “they don’t let me have social media and other apps,” “not having apps other people have,” “looking at inappropriate content,” “getting in trouble asking for a game or cryptocurrency,” “content on YouTube,” “age appropriate content,” “spending money – in app purchases,” “buying things online.”

The effects of digital media use on children’s behaviour

Another major source of conflict according to parents, and to a slightly lesser extent their children, was the effects of digital media use on children’s behaviour. Parents suggested that when their children were on devices they were distracted, “zoned out” and paid little attention to their parents. Many parents suggested that their children’s moods were affected by device use, that their children were often rude or disagreeable when their devices were taken away, and that their children often broke the rules or engaged in deceitful or sneaky behaviour. Parents framed these issues as follows:

“Zoned out and not listening,” “attitude/tantrum,” “mood/attitude,” “breaking of rules,” “lack of co-operation,” “attention span and focus,” “not listening or responding,” “rude when device taken away,” behaviour – lack of response,’ “kids flouting rules,” “trust (sneaking devices),” “kids hiding what’s on screens,” “ignoring friends/family in favour of screens,” “attitude after long usage,” “late nights – ignoring instructions,” “switching off totally when watching devices,” “meltdowns,” “lack of patience,” “always thinking and talking about games,” “reducing communication,” “aggression,” “lack of respect,” “bad attitude.”

Children demonstrated a degree of self-awareness in identifying their own, at times, problematic behaviour as a source of family conflict about device use. Many young people acknowledged their own tendencies to break the rules, argue and get angry when their device use was curtailed by their parents. They said:

“They get cranky when I get angry at a game,” “yelling!,” “angry,” “probably when I call friends and don’t tell them and they walk in,” “not accepting when they tell me to get off,” “smart responses,” “nagging.”

Sibling conflict and influence

One cause of conflict that parents identified, but to a lesser extent than other issues, was conflict amongst their children in relation to access to devices. This issue, however, was not identified by many of the child participants. Sibling conflict over shared devices is well documented (Lally, 2002; Mesch, 2006), but appears to have been much more common when networked devices such as home computers were shared, rather than individually owned. Still, the issue was identified by some families in the study. In addition to conflict related to accessing shared devices, parents were also concerned about their younger children’s exposure to their older children’s digital content or practices. Parents framed this issue as follows:

“Competition for devices,” “younger siblings growing up too fast – exposure to older siblings” content,’ “kids fighting between themselves who gets to use the favourite device/computer,” “sibling fights over preferred devices,” “sharing devices − 1 iPad, 3 kids,” “older child has a device, younger child wants one,” “he had more than me,” “arguing between siblings over games.”

What do parents and their children want each other to know?

The main sources of parent/child conflict identified above suggest a lack of shared understanding between parents and their children about each other’s perspectives. Parents’ responses indicate a different set of perceptions regarding the value of technology and the role that it should play in children’s lives. What is also clear from these findings is that, for the most part, it is parental attempts at mediation, particularly restrictive practices and rule enforcement that leads to the conflict, as parents seek to guide behaviours which they consider to be “balanced,” “appropriate,” and in the best interests of their child. It should be noted that conflicts related to mood, tantrums, not listening, “getting pushback,” and sibling conflict, while notionally about digital media use, could in fact occur in relation to any domain in which adolescents seek to maintain jurisdiction over their own lives and activities. The underlying tension and conflict arise as a result of the push/pull of adolescent autonomy with parental authority – adolescent resistance to parental control, and parental exasperation as a result of their failure to control their children’s behaviours and activities. Through these exchanges, parents attempt to impose their own values and perspectives about what are valuable and legitimate digital practices. In many cases, parents do this without seeking to understand what their children are doing or what they gain from their online activities. Through our workshops, we provided both children and parents the opportunity to share their perspectives, as well as to share one piece of information that they wished the other knew. These responses are set out below.

‘Technology is a tool, not a religion!’ parental advice

While digital media was clearly central to the lives of the adolescent participants, parents’ responses indicated that while technology had an important role to play, it must be used in a particular way to be beneficial, it was not the “be all and end all,” and was no replacement for the “real world.” In response to the prompt to share one piece of advice that they wanted their children to know, parents’ responses aligned with five dominant but overlapping messages.

Technology is good, but only if we use it in a balanced way. The “tech is good, but only if we use it in a balanced/careful/appropriate way” was a recurrent theme across all workshops, confirming parents’ main concern about what they perceived to be their children’s excessive device use. This advice was imparted in a range of ways which implied that their children’s use was not balanced, that children lacked agency and control over their technology use (many parents drew on a “master/slave” analogy to denote this), and that this diminished the benefits flowing from media use. For example:

“It’s great to have but we need to use it in a balanced way;” “it can be fantastic but don’t become a slave to it;” “blessing if we use it in a good way,” “used the right way technology has great benefits, but it has to be used correctly or it can be an unsafe place;” “tech is necessary and great when used well + with awareness;” “use it to facilitate your life, not rule it;” “learn how to use it, not let it use you;” “enrich, not take over;” “make sure you choose how to use your time, not the technology;” “master it but don’t let it master you!;” don’t be a slave to it;’ and various variations on the theme “technology is a good servant but a terrible master.”

It’s just a tool

Relatedly, the declaration that technology was “just” a tool was a recurrent one amongst parents. This advice similarly emphasized that technology had to be used “wisely” or “appropriately” (whatever that might entail) to be beneficial:

“Tech is a tool – use it wisely;” “it’s only one tool to use;” “technology is an enabler – it’s just at tool, use it wisely;” “technology is a tool – use it correctly to produce effective results;” “be careful! Be aware tech is a tool – can be – or +;” “technology is just an enabler, it does not control you;” and “technology is a tool, not a religion!”

There’s more to life than technology

Parents’ repeated pleas that “there was more to life than technology” again revealed their concerns about the extent of their children’s media use, and the perceived importance that their children placed on technology and their digital practices. This particular concern also ties in with the final theme in which parents implicitly make a distinction between the online world and the offline “real” world, which indicates that parents do not acknowledge that increasingly their children live parts of their “real” lives online. Once again, this advice recurred time and again across all workshops, with little variation:

“More to life than tech;” there is so much more to life!;’ “there’s a big wide world to live in so don’t just live in front of your screen;” “there is more to life than looking at a screen,” “you can live life without it,” don’t forget about life outside of technology;’ “there’s more to life than sticking your head in a device;” “it’s not entirely necessary. You can live without it!;” “don’t let technology take over your life;” “don’t look for personal satisfaction in technology.”

Be critical/be safe online

Many parents took the opportunity to provide general advice to their children about being safe online. For example: “use safely and wisely,” “be careful,” “moderation.” Others provided more specific advice: For example:

“Don’t believe everything you see or hear; people online are not always who they say they are;” “everything you do is recorded;” “your digital footprint lasts forever;” “don’t share personal information;” “don’t believe everything you see on a screen;” “not all apps or websites are created just to help or entertain you (e.g their aim might be to make money”); “don’t” trust Google, Wikipedia, YouTube etc.’

Technology as distinct from the ‘real’ world

Parents frequently invoked a distinction between the online world and the “real” world when discussing their concerns and sharing their key message. When invoking this distinction, parents implied that the “real” world was more authentic and more meaningful than the online world. Common responses from parents included:

“The digital world is not the real world;” “technology is so useful but not a replacement for the real world;” “there is a world outside of devices and gaming;” “it will never replace a human touch!;” “it’s not really human!” “you won’t remember your device time but you will remember experiences.”

These five parental messages emerged repeatedly across all workshops and parents often employed the same terminology and rhetoric to impart what presumably most believed to be excellent advice that would serve their children well. Parental responses clearly indicate that they see value in technology. Of course, digital technologies and social media are not the domain solely of adolescents and are widely used and relied upon by people across all generations. However parental framing of digital technologies as separate from and secondary to our lived, “offline” experiences, point towards a lack of understanding about children’s digital lives; the ways in which their online and offline lives converge, and how online spaces provide a separate (and powerful) space of autonomy away from the parental gaze.

‘Trust us – we know what we are doing! Adolescent perspectives

Adolescents were separately given the opportunity to share the various ways that they used digital technologies and the value that they derive from their online activities. They shared and discussed a range of popular activities and practices including gaming, messaging, “facetiming” or texting friends; watching content (Netflix, YouTube); using social media (e.g YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat); communicating with others (including family); playing music; doing research and completing homework. When asked about why they enjoyed these activities, several recurring major themes emerged. Most commonly, adolescents said that their digital practices were fun and entertaining and a way to stave off boredom. They also said that it provided a form of escape, or a welcome distraction, to experience different things and do “cool” things that you couldn’t do in “real” life (e.g fantasy games). Relatedly, many said that it took their mind off things, and helped keep them calm and relaxed. The social connection afforded by digital technologies also made adolescents feel happy and connected with people they cared about. Adolescents also talked about playing “cool” games, creating or build “cool” things and learning new things.

Adolescent participants were also asked to share one thing that they wanted their parents to know, which was then fed back to parents collectively. The responses indicated that adolescents clearly want their parents to understand the important role that media plays in their lives, and that they deserve more trust. Adolescent responses were categorised according to three main interrelated themes, set out below.

We value digital technologies

Adolescents took the opportunity to convey the ways in which technology enhances their lives. Such assertions might be interpreted as a direct response to risk-focused parent narratives and advice, as well as parents’ well-documented concern that media use is a waste of time. Responses included:

“There are so many good things you can use technology for – it’s not all a waste of time;” “we can learn so much using technology – using technology in the classroom, teaching materials,” “the internet is very useful,” “it calms me down,” “it’s educational,” “I am learning new and creative skills,” “I’m communicating with friends;” “when I am unwell, it helps me,” “it’s good for winding down.”

Don’t worry, it’s not all bad

Adolescents also pointed out to their parents that they shouldn’t worry so much, because not everything online is bad. Responses included: “Don’t worry so much,” “I’m only playing with my friends, not strangers;” “it’s not all bad,” “the internet is a lot more than you think,” “the internet can be a good thing,” “the internet is not all p*rn hub,” “not all the games I download are bad.”

We have more knowledge/self control/competence than you think

Adolescents wanted their parents to know that they had more skills, knowledge and self-control than they were given credit for. Responses included:

“We are not helpless,” “we know what we are doing,” “I’m not actually as addicted to social media as you think. Generalizing all teens as social-media addicts doesn’t actually fit;” “that we don’t do anything wrong,” “we don’t do anything bad on our devices;” “we do everything right and safe,” we are “old enough to look after ourselves,” and “we know stuff about technology.”

Adolescents demonstrated an impressive self-awareness about their own practices and behaviours, and also the effect that it had on their parents. But adolescents also had a keen sense of the injustice of some of the digital rules at home, using the workshops to convey these concerns and to express their media-related needs. They expressed frustration that their parents “blame the phone for everything,” and that there were often different rules for parents. Adolescents also said that their parents sometimes took their devices away “for no reason” and that digital devices had come to be used by parents as leverage or punishment in relation to other non-media related issues and transgressions, which adolescents perceived to be deeply unfair. Several adolescents pleaded for more time “to socialise and call people after school and other important things,” and for “more flexibility.” Others indicated that they “would like to have a say,” and that “it would be great to negotiate rules.”

Conclusions and practical implications

In assessing the different parent and child responses, it would be easy to side with the parents’ perspective, based on widely held assumptions that adolescents do not yet possess the cognitive capacities to regulate their behaviours, consider the consequences of their actions, or identify online risk. However, many of the adolescent responses indicate that these assumptions are unjustified. Adolescents demonstrated a self-awareness of their own media practices, their parents’ concerns, as well as online risks for a separate account of adolescent responses to risk see Page Jeffery et al., 2023. Further, such an approach does nothing to address family digital conflict.

The findings documented in this article support much of the existing literature about digital family conflict but provide some novel insights, particularly in relation to the Australian context. Consistent with earlier studies, digital conflict between parents and their children appears to arise due to differing expectations on the part of parents and children about the value of digital media and the role it plays in adolescent lives; parental anxiety about online risks which leads to parental restriction and child reactance, and lack of parental knowledge and understanding about their children’s online activities.

What is clear is that parents and children have diverging values and perspectives when it comes to different digital practices. What parents consider to be legitimate or beneficial use does not accord with their children’s digital practices, something that adolescents were evidently aware of. Adolescents were frustrated that their parents failed to understand exactly what they were doing online and the value they derive from their online activities, the implicit assumption that they lacked knowledge and agency, and their lack of input into rules and decisions that affected them.

Online safety discourse constructs the “good” parent as one that monitors and mediates their children’s media use to keep them safe. As the findings documented in this article demonstrate, however, these attempts at mediation are a significant cause of family conflict. It is true that many cybersafety and parenting resources emphasise the importance of parent/child dialogue (see, for example, Walsh, 2018 for an excellent example) however this study shows that parents are not engaging in this dialogue. Critically, parents do not appear to be asking their children about their online activities (what their favourite activities are, who they are talking to, the apps they use and the games they play), nor actively “listening” to their children to understand their practices and perspectives. This was evidenced by parents’ surprise at their children’s responses and demonstrated knowledge about online risks during the workshops. These conversations are an important first step towards more democratic negotiation of digital media that actively involves young people and listens to their perspectives (Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020). Such democratic approaches help parents work with their children to help keep them safe online while recognising their child’s right to online participation, while minimising family conflict.

It is also useful for parents to remember that adolescent-parent conflict is not new. The ubiquity of the portable digital device in contemporary family life has provided a convenient locus, even scape-goat, for parent-child conflict. That so many issues which have historically caused conflict in their own right (e.g adolescent self-expression, expressions of independence and autonomy) now play out in online spaces further exacerbates this tension and attributes a disproportionate amount of responsibility for resulting conflict on the device itself. As one adolescent participant pleaded: “Don’t blame the phone for everything!”

It is clear that in many cases, especially where older children are concerned, restrictive mediation may lead to child reactance and conflict and does little to foster understanding between parents and their children. Promoting intergenerational understanding between parents and their children through family workshops like the ones documented in this study, or through resources such as “conversation starters” which encourage parent/child conversations about digital media will help parents to listen and understand their children’s media practices and values. Critically, to minimise conflict and help their children safely navigate online spaces, parents need to listen without judgement, appreciate their children’s perspectives and practices, let their children have a say in decisions which affect them, and resist imposing their own hierarchies of value onto their children’s practices. Previous studies also show that an open, authoritative and communicative approach such as this will increase parental knowledge of their children’s online activities, which in turn has been found to reduce conflict (Kim & Davis, 2017) and is more likely to lead to acceptance of parental authority, mutual respect and greater family harmony (Byrne & Lee, 2011; Kim & Davis, 2017; Lau et al., 1990; Symons et al., 2020). In short, we need to stop forcing adolescents into adult ways of being and knowing about the world, but instead try to insert ourselves into their worlds. Equipped with a greater understanding and appreciation of their children’s digital practices, parents can work with their children to help foster their child’s growing autonomy and right to self-expression, exploration, and pursuit of their own interests, while helping them to navigate the online world and identify and effectively mitigate online risks.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Government through the Online Safety Grants Program administered by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner.

Notes on contributors

Catherine Page Jeffery

Catherine Page Jeffery is Lecturer in Media and Communications at the University of Sydney. Her research focuses on families and digital media, with a particular focus on parenting in the digital age. She used to work in media regulation and cyber safety education.

Notes

1. We did not film or audio record the workshops, nor did we make attempts to match participant responses to demographic data as we felt that this may have interfered with the primary purpose of the workshop which was to work with families to address digital conflict.