Parental Phubbing: How Phone Distraction Affects Parent-Child Interaction
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Parental phubbing is a pattern in which a parent’s attention shifts to a smartphone during moments when a child is seeking, expecting, or receiving interaction. The term combines “phone” and “snubbing,” but the research question is broader than manners. What matters psychologically is whether phone use interrupts responsiveness, shared attention, conversation, play, caregiving, or the child’s sense that the parent is available.
That definition also sets an important boundary. A parent holding or checking a phone in a child’s presence is not automatically phubbing. Phones are used for work, navigation, health information, family coordination, accessibility, photos, school communication, and social support. The relevant exposure is not raw screen time alone. Researchers study frequency, context, purpose, interruption, perceived rejection, responsiveness, and the degree to which device use displaces an ongoing parent-child interaction.
The strongest recent synthesis is a 2025 JAMA Pediatrics systematic review and meta-analysis of parental technology use in the presence of children younger than five. Across the pooled evidence, more parental technology use was associated with small differences in cognition, internalizing and externalizing behavior, prosocial behavior, attachment, and children’s own screen time. The authors also emphasized that the evidence was predominantly observational and correlational, which limits causal interpretation.
So the practical conclusion is precise: frequent or poorly timed phone distraction can interfere with parent-child interaction, and repeated technoference is associated with several child and family outcomes. The evidence does not show that every phone check harms a child, that a specific number of minutes is dangerous, or that parental smartphone use by itself causes a psychiatric disorder.
What Is Parental Phubbing?
Parental phubbing usually refers to smartphone use that competes with a child for a parent’s attention. A child may be talking, showing something, asking for help, playing, eating with the family, or simply expecting social availability while the parent is reading, scrolling, messaging, watching, or checking the phone. In research, the construct is measured in several ways: parent self-report, child or adolescent report, observation of parent-child interaction, experimental interruption tasks, and questionnaires adapted from broader phubbing measures.
A related term is parental technoference. A 2023 scoping review of 64 studies described parental technoference as technology-related interruption of parenting and parent-child relationships. Technoference can include smartphones, tablets, computers, television, or other devices, whereas phubbing usually refers specifically to phones. In practice the literatures overlap, and studies do not always use the terms consistently.
This inconsistency matters because different studies may be measuring different things. One scale may ask how often a parent looks at a phone during conversation. Another may ask a child how ignored they feel. An observational study may count interruptions. A laboratory experiment may deliberately interrupt play with a screen task. These exposures share a family resemblance, but they are not interchangeable measurements of a single dose.
Parental phubbing is not a diagnosis
Parental phubbing is a behavioral and relational research construct. It is not a psychiatric diagnosis, and there is no clinical test that turns ordinary parental phone use into a disorder. A parent can also experience problematic smartphone use, but that is a different construct concerned with dysregulated use, impaired control, distress, or functional consequences. For the evidence and diagnostic status of that broader construct, see our article on Problematic Smartphone Use.
What Happens to Parent-Child Interaction When a Phone Interrupts?
Parent-child interaction is built from many small exchanges. A child looks, vocalizes, points, asks, jokes, protests, or reaches; the parent notices and responds; the child adjusts to that response. Developmental researchers often describe this as contingent or responsive interaction. The psychological importance of phubbing is therefore less about the object in the parent’s hand than about what happens to the timing and quality of this exchange.
Experimental and observational evidence supports this interaction-level mechanism. In the 2025 JAMA Pediatrics review, several experimental studies using handheld-device interruptions found that children made more bids for attention during interruption periods, and several reported more negative affect or less positive affect. One experimental teaching study found better toddler comprehension when teaching was uninterrupted. Other studies reported null findings, which is one reason the literature should be described as mixed at the level of individual outcomes rather than as a universal effect.
A phone can create several kinds of interruption at once. The parent’s eyes shift away, verbal responses may become shorter or delayed, turn-taking can become less fluid, and a child may need to repeat a bid for attention. In an older child, the same event may be interpreted socially: “You are listening to the phone instead of me.” In a toddler, the process may be less interpretive and more immediate: the expected pattern of attention and response changes.
The phone is not always uniquely disruptive
A useful 2024 experiment compared a digital distraction with a closely matched non-digital distraction. In 52 parent-toddler dyads, parents either completed a questionnaire on a tablet, completed it on paper, or remained undistracted. Interaction quality and parental communication declined when parents were distracted, but the tablet condition was not significantly worse than the paper condition. That result points to a broader mechanism: divided parental attention itself can matter, even when the distracting activity is not digital.
This is an important corrective to simplistic claims that a smartphone has a special power to damage relationships merely by being present. Smartphones are distinctive because they are portable, personalized, socially demanding, and frequently interruptive, but some observed effects may reflect distraction, task competition, or reduced responsiveness rather than a phone-specific mechanism.
What Does the Best Evidence Show in Early Childhood?
The most comprehensive quantitative synthesis for children younger than five is the 2025 JAMA Pediatrics review by Toledo-Vargas and colleagues. Thirty studies met the systematic-review criteria, and 21 studies involving 14,900 participants from 10 countries contributed to meta-analyses. The literature was published between 2017 and 2024 and was predominantly cross-sectional.
Higher parental technology use in the child’s presence was associated with lower cognitive performance at r = −0.14, more internalizing problems or negative emotionality at r = 0.13, more externalizing behavior at r = 0.15, less prosocial behavior at r = −0.08, less secure attachment at r = −0.10, and more child screen time at r = 0.23. These are small or very small correlations. They describe average associations across samples, not outcomes that occur to every child.
The same review found a nonsignificant pooled association with language development, r = −0.09, with substantial uncertainty around the estimate. It also found that the included studies had not directly examined motor development or physical activity, and the review did not establish broad claims about every aspect of child development. This matters because the evidence is often summarized online much more broadly than the studies permit.
The authors also identified methodological limits. Many observational studies relied on imperfect exposure measures, most analyses were correlational, and samples were concentrated in high-income countries. Their conclusion was therefore about association and a plausible modifiable family factor, not deterministic developmental damage.
What the attachment finding does and does not mean
Attachment is especially vulnerable to overstatement in public discussion. In the 2025 meta-analysis, the pooled association between parental technology use and attachment was small. That finding is compatible with the idea that repeated interruptions may be one influence among many on relational availability. It does not mean that an isolated phone check disrupts attachment, that attachment can be inferred from a parent’s screen-time report, or that a child’s attachment pattern has a single digital cause.
Attachment develops across repeated interactions and broader caregiving conditions. Responsiveness, safety, temperament, stress, family context, and the history of the relationship all matter. A small population-level correlation should not be translated into a prediction about one family.
Parental Phubbing and Children’s Social-Emotional Adjustment
A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 studies and 56,275 children examined parental phubbing and social-emotional adjustment. Higher parental phubbing was associated with more internalizing problems, more externalizing problems, lower self-concept, and lower social-emotional competence.
The context of that meta-analysis is crucial: the included studies were conducted in China, 38 of the 42 studies were cross-sectional, and much of the literature relied on questionnaire measures. The pooled correlations therefore show a consistent association within that evidence base, but they should not be treated as culture-free causal effects that can be transferred unchanged to every population.
The same caution applies to terms such as internalizing and externalizing problems. These are broad research dimensions. Internalizing measures can include anxiety-like, withdrawn, or depressive symptoms; externalizing measures can include oppositional or aggressive behaviors. A higher score in a study is not itself a clinical diagnosis.
Does parental phubbing cause anxiety or depression?
Current evidence does not justify that causal statement. Many studies find that children or adolescents who report more parental phubbing also report more emotional symptoms, but correlation does not establish which process came first or which third variables contribute. Family stress, parent mental health, child behavior, conflict, economic demands, work connectivity, and problematic device use can influence both phone behavior and family well-being.
Longitudinal studies improve the temporal evidence, but even they cannot automatically eliminate all confounding. The strongest wording is that parental phubbing is associated with emotional and behavioral outcomes and may participate in reciprocal family processes. It should not be described as a proven single cause of depression or anxiety.
Parenting Stress and Bidirectional Family Loops
One of the most informative longitudinal studies followed 183 couples with a child aged 0 to 5 years across baseline, one month, three months, and six months. McDaniel and Radesky found evidence of bidirectional dynamics: more child externalizing behavior predicted later technology interference through greater parenting stress, while technology interference often predicted later externalizing behavior.
This finding changes how parental phubbing should be understood. A simple one-way story says: parent looks at phone, therefore child behaves badly. A reciprocal model is more realistic. A stressed parent may turn to a phone for relief, work, information, social contact, or escape. A child who is already dysregulated may increase parenting stress. Interruptions may then make interaction harder, which can feed back into behavior. The phone can become part of a loop rather than an isolated cause.
Earlier work with 170 U.S. families also linked problematic parental technology use, technoference, and child behavior in a cross-sectional model. Because that design measured variables at one point in time, it was valuable for identifying a relational pattern but not for establishing direction. The Child Development study is best read alongside later longitudinal work rather than as causal proof on its own.
What Newer Daily-Life Research Adds
Laboratory studies isolate short interruptions, while daily-life research asks whether fluctuations within the same family track day-to-day changes. A 2026 five-day daily diary study followed 78 mothers of fourth graders in Hong Kong. On days when mothers reported more phubbing than their own usual level, they also reported more inattentive and oppositional behaviors in their children than usual, even after accounting for the prior day in the statistical model.
That result is interesting because it examines within-family variation rather than only comparing families. It is still not an ADHD study. The outcome was day-to-day inattentive behavior, not an ADHD diagnosis, and the design cannot show that smartphone interruption creates a neurodevelopmental disorder. Using the word “inattentive” in a behavioral scale does not turn parental phubbing into a cause of ADHD.
The study was also small, brief, and conducted in one cultural and educational setting. It strengthens the case that momentary family dynamics deserve study, while leaving major questions about longer-term development and causal mechanisms open.
Parental Phubbing and a Child’s Own Digital Behavior
Another robust association concerns children’s own problematic media use. A 2025 meta-analysis in the Journal of Medical Internet Research synthesized 53 studies with 60,555 participants and found a positive association between parental technoference and child problematic media use, r = 0.296. The association was stronger in cross-sectional than longitudinal studies.
That difference by study design is important. It suggests that some of the large associations seen in one-time surveys may reflect shared method, reciprocal influence, or other family characteristics. The meta-analysis also included different outcomes under the umbrella of problematic media use, including problematic smartphone, internet, social media, gaming, and short-form-video measures. These are not all the same construct, and research-scale labels should not be treated as equivalent clinical diagnoses.
Several mechanisms are plausible. Children may model how adults use devices. Phone conflict may shape family rules and negotiation. A child who experiences less available interaction may turn more often to digital activities. Parents and children may also share environmental pressures and habits. The meta-analysis demonstrates association; it does not identify one mechanism as the proven causal route.
For the distinction between frequent use, habit, dysregulated use, impairment, and the popular term “phone addiction,” see Problematic Smartphone Use: Signs, Risk Factors, and What Research Shows.
Why Notifications Matter
Some parental phone interruptions are intentional: a parent decides to open an app. Others are externally cued by a vibration, sound, banner, or lock-screen preview. Notifications can therefore enter a family interaction as competing attentional events. The psychological question is not whether a notification is inherently harmful, but whether repeated alerts create avoidable switching during moments that depend on sustained social attention.
Research on digital interruption more broadly shows that alerts can capture attention and impose switching costs even when a person is trying to focus. For the attention mechanisms and evidence, see Notifications and Attention: How Alerts Interrupt Focus and Task Performance.
For families, this suggests a practical distinction between communication that is genuinely time-sensitive and ambient notifications that simply announce availability. Reducing nonessential alerts during meals, play, homework support, bedtime routines, or emotionally important conversations changes the interruption environment without requiring a parent to abandon the phone.
Not Every Phone Check Is Relational Rejection
A parent may check a glucose monitor, answer a work message, coordinate transportation, text another caregiver, translate a word, take a photo, look up a medication instruction, or respond to an emergency. A child may also be involved in the phone activity: video calling a grandparent, choosing music, checking a map together, or looking at a photo. These situations differ psychologically from silently disengaging from a child’s bid for attention.
Research findings are not uniformly negative either. In a small 2025 study of 64 predominantly White parents of 20-month-olds, more audible notifications and more phone checking were unexpectedly associated with higher self-rated parental warmth. The study does not overturn the broader literature, but it is a useful reminder that different forms of phone use can have different meanings and that social connection through a device may sometimes support a parent rather than simply compete with the child.
The better unit of analysis is therefore the interaction. Did the phone use interrupt a meaningful exchange? Was the child repeatedly unable to regain the parent’s attention? Was the use necessary and explained? Did the parent return and repair the interaction? Was the phone being used together with the child? These questions usually tell us more than a raw minute count.
Parental Phubbing Versus Partner Phubbing
Phubbing can occur across many relationships, but the search intent and evidence base change with context. Parental phubbing concerns the parent-child relationship, developmental stage, caregiving, responsiveness, and family media norms. Partner phubbing concerns romantic relationships, couple satisfaction, intimacy, conflict, and the meaning of phone interference between adults.
For romantic relationships, see the separate canonical article Phubbing and Technoference in Relationships: How Phones Interrupt Couple Connection. Keeping these contexts separate prevents evidence from one relationship domain from being transferred mechanically into another.
How Age and Context Change the Meaning of Phone Distraction
Infants and toddlers
Very young children depend heavily on face-to-face contingency, gesture, vocal exchange, joint attention, and rapid caregiver response. A brief interruption may therefore be visible immediately in the interaction: the child increases bids, waits, protests, or changes affect. The early-childhood evidence is strongest for interaction quality and small associations with broader developmental outcomes, while causal evidence remains limited.
Preschool and school-age children
As children become more verbal and independent, phone interruption occurs in a wider range of situations: play, schoolwork, meals, transitions, transportation, discipline, and conversation. Children can also begin to infer why a parent is unavailable. A parent who says, “I need two minutes to answer the doctor, then I’m back,” creates a different social experience from repeatedly disappearing into a feed without explanation.
Adolescents
For adolescents, parental phubbing often enters questions of respect, mutual availability, household rules, and perceived hypocrisy. A parent who demands device-free conversation while repeatedly checking their own phone may weaken the legitimacy of the rule. Studies in adolescents consistently report associations between perceived parental phubbing and emotional or relational outcomes, but much of this literature is self-report and concentrated in specific countries. Adolescent perceptions are psychologically meaningful, yet they do not by themselves establish a one-way causal effect.
Does Parental Phubbing Cause ADHD, Anxiety, Depression, or Other Disorders?
No clinical disorder should be inferred from parental phubbing alone. The literature includes measures of inattentive behavior, internalizing symptoms, externalizing behavior, depressive symptoms, anxiety-related symptoms, and social-emotional adjustment. These are outcomes or dimensions used in research. They are not interchangeable with formal diagnoses.
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental diagnosis with criteria involving persistent patterns across contexts and developmental history. A study showing that children behave more inattentively on days with more maternal phubbing does not show that phone distraction causes ADHD. Likewise, a correlation between parental phubbing and depressive symptoms does not establish that phubbing causes major depressive disorder.
The clinically relevant question is functional impact and the whole context. If a child has persistent mood, anxiety, behavior, attention, sleep, or developmental concerns across situations, those concerns deserve assessment on their own terms. Parental phone habits can be discussed as part of the family environment without turning them into a diagnosis or a universal explanation.
How Much Parental Phone Use Is Too Much?
Research does not provide a universal medical cutoff for parental phone time around children. There is no evidence-based rule saying that a particular number of minutes or checks automatically becomes harmful. The main reason is that time is only one exposure variable. Ten minutes of urgent work during independent play can have a different effect from ten minutes of fragmented checking during a conversation in which the child repeatedly seeks a response.
A more useful assessment asks about timing, controllability, displacement, and consequences. Does the parent routinely miss bids for attention? Do meals or bedtime become conflictual because of checking? Does the child repeatedly complain that the parent is unavailable? Does the parent intend to stay present but find it difficult to resist checking? Are alerts driving the behavior? Is phone use reducing safety during supervision? These questions map more closely onto the mechanisms studied in parental technoference research.
How to Reduce Parental Phubbing Without Treating the Phone as the Enemy
Current American Academy of Pediatrics guidance emphasizes family routines and a broader digital ecosystem rather than a single universal screen-time number. Its 2026 Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents policy statement recommends screen-free family time and phone-free zones during mealtimes, in bedrooms, before bed, and during homework, while recognizing that family needs differ.
Protect a few high-value interaction windows
Trying to be continuously phone-free is unrealistic for many families. A more sustainable strategy is to protect moments where responsiveness carries high value: reunions after school, shared meals, play with young children, bedtime routines, homework support, discipline conversations, and moments when a child is distressed. The aim is not maximal abstinence. It is reliable availability when the interaction needs it.
Make necessary phone use legible
When a phone check is necessary, narrating it can reduce ambiguity: “I’m answering the school,” “I’m checking the map,” or “I need three minutes for work and then I’m putting it away.” The child can understand that the interruption has a reason and an endpoint. This matters especially for older children, who can otherwise interpret repeated silent checking as social rejection.
Reduce unnecessary interruption cues
Silence nonessential alerts, remove redundant lock-screen previews, use do-not-disturb modes, or allow only selected contacts during protected family time. This changes the cue environment. It also makes intentional use easier because the parent chooses when to check rather than responding to every incoming signal.
Use physical distance when the situation allows
A phone that is visible and within reach is easy to check automatically. During a meal, play session, or serious conversation, putting it in a bag, drawer, charging location, or another room can reduce habitual checking. The goal is to make the desired behavior easier, not to prove moral virtue through abstinence.
Return and repair after an interruption
Interruptions happen in every relationship. What matters is also what follows. A parent can reorient, acknowledge the interruption, and return to the child: “Sorry, I got pulled away. Show me again.” Repair restores the interaction rather than pretending perfect attention is possible.
Use the phone together when it serves the interaction
Some phone use can be relational: looking up a question together, calling family, choosing music, taking photos, or planning an activity. Shared use changes the attentional structure because the device becomes part of the joint activity instead of a competing private channel.
Address the need behind the checking
If a parent is using the phone to manage stress, loneliness, boredom, work pressure, caregiving demands, or social support, simply removing the device may leave the underlying need untouched. The longitudinal literature on parenting stress suggests that technology interference can be embedded in reciprocal stress cycles. Better solutions can include work boundaries, support from another caregiver, planned recovery time, notification triage, or help for persistent stress.
When Is Parental Phone Use Worth Taking More Seriously?
The pattern deserves closer attention when it is persistent, difficult to regulate, and linked to meaningful consequences. Examples include repeated conflict with a child about phone availability, frequent missed caregiving cues, unsafe supervision, chronic displacement of family routines, or a parent’s repeated unsuccessful attempts to cut down despite wanting to be more present.
Even then, the most useful response is functional rather than diagnostic. Identify which applications, situations, alerts, emotional states, or work demands are driving the pattern. Decide which interactions need protection. Change the environment where possible. If the broader problem involves persistent parenting stress, depression, anxiety, family conflict, or severe dysregulated technology use, professional support can address those issues directly.
What the Evidence Still Cannot Tell Us
The field has grown quickly, but several limitations remain. Many studies rely on self-report, which can mix actual device behavior with a parent’s or child’s interpretation of that behavior. Families who are already stressed may report both more technoference and more child difficulties. Cultural expectations about availability, obedience, privacy, and family communication can change how phubbing is experienced.
There is also no single standardized exposure. Studies measure parental phone time, interruptions, perceived phubbing, device-check frequency, problematic parent use, or technology interference. Outcome measures vary just as widely. That heterogeneity limits the precision of pooled estimates.
Most importantly, causal evidence remains much thinner than correlational evidence. Experiments can show short-term changes in interaction under controlled interruptions. Longitudinal and diary designs can strengthen temporal inference. Neither automatically proves that a repeated phone behavior causes a long-term developmental outcome. Future research needs more objective device measures, ecologically valid observation, diverse populations, preregistered longitudinal designs, and intervention studies that test whether reducing technoference changes child or family outcomes.
Parental Phubbing: The Bottom Line
Parental phubbing is best understood as phone-related interruption of parent-child interaction, not as a synonym for parental screen time. The research literature consistently suggests that repeated technoference is associated with changes in responsiveness, child bids for attention, emotional and behavioral adjustment, attachment-related measures, and children’s own media behavior. In early childhood, the pooled effects reported to date are generally small. Across the wider literature, much of the evidence remains observational.
The strongest practical target is therefore not perfection. It is interaction quality. Protect the moments that depend on responsiveness, reduce unnecessary alerts, explain necessary phone use, return after interruptions, and pay attention to family stress that may be driving the pattern. A phone can interrupt connection, support connection, or simply perform a task. Context determines which one is happening.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is parental phubbing harmful to children?
Repeated parental phubbing is associated with less optimal parent-child interaction and with several emotional, behavioral, relational, and media-use outcomes. In the strongest early-childhood meta-analysis, pooled associations were small. The evidence supports concern about frequent or poorly timed interruption, while it does not support the claim that every phone check causes harm.
Can parental phubbing cause ADHD?
Current evidence does not show that parental phubbing causes ADHD. Some studies measure inattentive behavior, including a 2026 daily diary study in which more maternal phubbing on a given day was associated with more inattentive behavior that day. Inattentive behavior is not the same as an ADHD diagnosis, and the study did not test the origin of ADHD.
Can parental phubbing cause anxiety or depression?
Studies frequently report associations between parental phubbing and internalizing or depressive symptoms, especially in adolescent samples. Much of this evidence is correlational and cannot establish a single causal pathway. Family stress and reciprocal influences are important alternative or additional explanations.
Is checking a phone around a baby always bad?
No. The evidence concerns patterns of interruption and parental technology use in context, not the mere presence of a phone. Necessary, brief, shared, or well-timed use differs from repeated distraction during responsive interaction. Early childhood is a period when contingent social exchange is important, so protecting some uninterrupted interaction is a reasonable evidence-informed goal.
Does parental phubbing damage attachment?
A 2025 meta-analysis found a small association between more parental technology use and lower attachment security in children younger than five. That pooled association does not mean a single interruption damages attachment. Attachment develops across repeated patterns of caregiving and many interacting influences.
How much phone use around children is too much?
There is no universal evidence-based cutoff. Look instead at whether phone use repeatedly interrupts interaction, displaces caregiving or family routines, creates conflict, undermines safety, or feels difficult for the parent to control.
What is the difference between parental phubbing and parental technoference?
Parental phubbing usually refers specifically to smartphone use that snubs or interrupts a child. Parental technoference is broader and can include interruptions from phones, tablets, computers, television, or other technologies. Research papers sometimes use the terms interchangeably, so definitions should be checked study by study.
What is the simplest way to reduce parental phubbing?
Choose a few protected interaction windows and remove unnecessary notification cues during them. Meals, bedtime routines, play with young children, homework support, and emotionally important conversations are common high-value moments. Explain necessary phone use and return to the interaction when the task is finished.
Related Articles
References
Chamam, S., Forcella, A., Musio, N., Quinodoz, F., & Dimitrova, N. (2024). Effects of digital and non-digital parental distraction on parent-child interaction and communication. Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 3, 1330331.
Fusha, D., Corkin, M. T., Peterson, E. R., & Henderson, A. M. E. (2025). Calls over cuddles: Is technoference associated with lower parental warmth? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 97, 101740.
Komanchuk, J., Toews, A. J., Marshall, S., Mackay, L. J., Hayden, K. A., Cameron, J. L., Duffett-Leger, L., & Letourneau, N. (2023). Impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes: A scoping review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(8), 579–603.
Lam, C. B., Li, X., Lam, C. S., & Chung, K. K. H. (2026). Linking maternal phubbing (smartphone distractions in the presence of children) to child behavioral adjustment: A daily diary study. International Journal of Behavioral Development. Advance online publication.
McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2018). Technoference: Parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Development, 89(1), 100–109.
McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2018). Technoference: Longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatric Research, 84, 210–218.
Munzer, T., Parga-Belinkie, J., Milkovich, L. M., Tomopoulos, S., Ajumobi, T., Cross, C., Gerwin, R., Madigan, S., Radesky, J., Evans, Y., Cahan, E., Milkovich, E., Bracho-Sanchez, E., Espinoza, J., Husain, A., Patel, A., Shapiro, I., & Council on Communications and Media. (2026). Digital ecosystems, children, and adolescents: Policy statement. Pediatrics, 157(2), e2025075320.
Toledo-Vargas, M., Chong, K. H., Maddren, C. I., Howard, S. J., Wakefield, B., & Okely, A. D. (2025). Parental technology use in a child’s presence and health and development in the early years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 179(7), 730–737.
Zhang, J., Dong, C., Jiang, Y., Zhang, Q., Li, H., & Li, Y. (2023). Parental phubbing and child social-emotional adjustment: A meta-analysis of studies conducted in China. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 4267–4285.
Zhang, J., Zhang, Q., Xiao, B., Cao, Y., Chen, Y., & Li, Y. (2025). Parental technoference and child problematic media use: Meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e57636.