Abstract
Background:
Adolescents are often the focus when it comes to discussions about social media (SM) and mental health. However, parents' behaviors around SM [i.e., parents using SM and ignoring their teen (phubbing) and communication about SM with their teen] may be integral to understanding how adolescents respond to SM and depressive symptoms.
Method:
The current study included 410 adolescents (14–17; Mage = 15.99; 56% White; 44% girls) who completed a cross-sectional online survey of positive and negative emotional responses to SM, depressive symptoms, and perceptions of their parents' SM behaviors (phubbing and parent–teen SM communication). Path analyses examined whether parents' SM behaviors (phubbing and parent–teen SM communication) were associated with teens' social media responses. Statistical indirect path analyses further examined whether parental SM phubbing and communication were associated with adolescents' depression through adolescents' emotional responses to SM.
Results:
Adolescents' perception of parent SM phubbing was associated with higher levels of adolescents' negative emotional responses to SM (B = 0.18, p = 0.003), which indirectly was associated with adolescents' depression symptoms (B = 0.06, p = 0.005). At the same time, more parent–teen SM communication was associated with more frequent positive emotional responses to SM (B = 0.21, p < 0.001), which was associated with fewer depression symptoms (B = −0.05, p = 0.002).
Conclusions:
Findings indicate that parents are an important factor in how their adolescents' emotionally respond to SM experiences, in both negative and positive ways. Parents limiting SM use while engaging with their teens (i.e., phubbing) and engaging in more frequent open, non-judgmental communication about teens' SM experiences may be protective against depressive symptoms. Guidelines targeting adolescents' healthy SM use should consider these actionable behaviors to better equip parents and adolescents to thrive in a digital world.
Introduction
Social media (SM) use among young people is a public health concern, particularly as it relates to increasing rates of depression (). Mounting research indicates that young people's experiences with SM and how they respond to it may be more important in depression risk than screentime alone (; ; ; ). It remains unclear what factors affect how adolescents experience or respond to SM. While much research examines adolescent-specific factors or behaviors around SM, parents also can shape their teens' SM use and experiences (). Investigating parents' SM behaviors, such as their use of SM in front of their teens or how much they communicate about SM with their teens, can provide a broader context for understanding adolescents' responses to SM and risk for depression. Identifying actionable targets for parents' own behaviors to promote healthy SM use among teens and reduce their negative emotional responses to SM is critical to adolescent mental health (; ; ).
While SM use is a relatively newer force in families' lives, it has quickly become ubiquitous and important to consider within the family context. Parents are actively seeking guidance and evidence-based recommendations on how to navigate adolescents' SM use to reduce its potential harmful effects on youth. Research supports the use of parental SM mediation (i.e., restriction or regulation of the way their teens use SM) and monitoring (i.e., proactively assessing teens' SM screentime and engagement) in an autonomy-supportive manner (). These practices are associated with less SM screentime and reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety (). In particular, parental communication around SM (e.g., asking questions about what teens do on SM, who they're talking to, how much time they're spending online), a component of SM monitoring, can help prevent SM-related ill-being (i.e., depressive and anxiety symptoms) (). However, not all forms of parental mediation can be helpful; parental co-use of SM (i.e., using and engaging with SM content together, at the same time) without discussing the content viewed or consumed has been associated with higher problematic internet use in youth (). No known study to date has examined how parental mediation, involving frequency of direct conversations about SM with teens, relates to adolescents' overall negative and positive emotional responses to SM, which have been linked to depression (). For instance, dialogue about SM with parents may protect adolescents from having more negative emotional responses to SM experiences online or help them engage with SM in a way that enhances positive emotional responses, which may relate to less depression. Better understanding whether teens' perceptions around parental communication relate to emotional responses to SM may inform concrete and actionable guidelines for parents.
Although SM use is typically considered an adolescent-specific issue, adults also use SM in their day-to-day lives. Indeed, many parents of adolescents today were themselves teens or young adults during the advent of SM, thereby creating a distinct environment in which parents are themselves active SM users. Despite the prevalence of SM use among adults (who are also teens' parents) (), only a handful of studies have examined how parents' SM use behaviors impact their teens' SM use (). One specific aspect of parents' SM use that may affect youth is phubbing (i.e., “phone snubbing”), which describes the relatively new phenomenon of using one's phone while spending time with people (; ). Research originated on this topic in the context of romantic partnerships (), but has since been examined under the broader umbrella of “technoference” (i.e., interruptions to everyday life, conversations, activities, etc. due to devices) (). Indeed, a systematic review indicates that more parental technoference was associated with adolescent self-reported mental health concerns and maladaptive behaviors around technology, such as more screen time, problematic media use, and cyberbullying (). Studies specific to “parental phubbing” of adolescents (i.e., parents using and being distracted by their phones while spending time with their teens) have been primarily conducted in China, finding support for direct relationships between parental phubbing and adolescents' problematic SM use (i.e., addictive-like behaviors around SM) (; ), adolescent phubbing (), and adolescent depressive symptoms (). Yet it is unknown whether phubbing is directly associated with how teens experience and emotionally respond to SM, which are linked with depression symptoms (; ). Further, whether teens perceive their parents to be engaging in SM phubbing (i.e., specifically checking or engaging with SM in front of their teens or during a conversation) remains relatively unexplored, which may be distinct from general phubbing since it involves parents engaging with other people on SM rather than the teen. Thus, investigating parental SM phubbing as a potential factor related to how adolescents respond to SM (in negative and positive ways) may provide additional, tangible behavioral targets for parents to shape healthy SM use among teens.
Study aims
The current study aims to better characterize the relationship between parental SM behaviors, adolescents' emotional responses to SM, and adolescents' depressive symptoms. Specifically, this study examines: (1) whether there are direct associations between parent SM behaviors (perceived parental SM phubbing and parent–teen SM communication) and teens' negative and positive emotional responses to SM and (2) whether there are statistical indirect effects between parent SM behaviors (perceived parental SM phubbing and parent–teen SM communication) and teens' depressive symptoms through emotional responses to SM.
It is hypothesized that there will be an association between parent SM behaviors and teens' emotional responses to SM, such that teens' perceptions of more parent–teen SM communication will be associated with fewer negative and more positive emotional responses to SM, whereas perceived parental SM phubbing will be associated with more negative emotional responses to SM and fewer positive emotional responses to SM. Additionally, we hypothesize that there will be statistical indirect effects linking parent SM behaviors (perceived parental phubbing and parent–teen SM communication) and teen depressive symptoms through teens' emotional responses to SM, such that more negative emotional responses to SM will be associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms and more positive emotional responses will be associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms. Because the current study examines cross-sectional data, no casual or mediational pathways can be deduced.
Materials and methods
Participants, recruitment, and procedures
The current study analyzed a sample of participants from a larger study evaluating relationships between adolescents' SM use and experiences and mental health. Participants were recruited via SM (e.g., Instagram) and completed a secure online screener to determine eligibility. To be eligible to participate in the study, participants had to be between the ages of 14–17 years, speak English fluently, and use SM regularly (at least three times per week), which is typical among youth across sociodemographic backgrounds (). Once eligible participants completed informed assent, they were automatically invited to complete an online survey of self-reported measures on Qualtrics. See Table 1 for a complete demographic breakdown. Procedures to ensure participant eligibility and high-quality responses (i.e., bot detection) were conducted (see Supplementary Section S1 for details). All study procedures were approved by the University Institutional Review Board.
Table 1
| Demographic characteristics | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 15.99 (M) | 0.87 (SD) |
| Gender | ||
| Girl/woman | 182 | 44.39% |
| Boy/man | 177 | 43.17% |
| Another gender (nonbinary, genderqueer, agender, etc.) | 51 | 12.44% |
| Race | ||
| White | 228 | 55.61% |
| Black | 67 | 16.34% |
| American Indian or Alaska native and native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander | 17 | 3.90% |
| Asian | 40 | 9.76% |
| Biracial/multiracial | 34 | 8.29% |
| Hispanic/Latine | 23 | 5.61% |
| Middle Eastern | 1 | 0.24% |
| Parent substance use (Yes) | 110 | 26.83% |
| Parent mental illness (Yes) | 123 | 30% |
| Perceived socioeconomic status (1–10) | 6.05 (M) | 1.54 (SD) |
| Primary study variables | M | SD |
| Perceived parental SM phubbing | 3.23 | 2.54 |
| Parent–teen SM communication | 4.40 | 2.98 |
| Positive ERSM | 26.09 | 5.91 |
| Negative ERSM | 28.98 | 10.39 |
| Teen SM checking | 4.95 | 1.52 |
| Perceived parent SM checking | 4.29 | 2.29 |
| Household SM rules | 0.89 | 1.13 |
| Depressive symptoms | 9.11 | 7.48 |
Participant characteristics.
M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. The Socioeconomic Status scale () measures adolescents' perceived SES relative to society, with response options ranging from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest). Perceived parental SM phubbing is scored out of 8, with higher scores indicating more phubbing. Parent–child SM communication is scored out of 9, with higher scores indicating more frequent communication.
Study measures
Parent–teen SM communication
Participants responded to three statements about parent–teen SM communication, which were adapted from parental communication items in prior research (; ). Items included: (1) “My parents talk to me about what I do on social media;” (2) “My parents talk to me about what to do if something bad happens on social media;” and (3) “I talk to my parents about situations on social media that make me uncomfortable.” Response options ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (a great deal). A total score (ranging from 0 to 9) was created by summing together these three items, with higher scores indicating more frequent parent–teen SM communication. Reliability was good in the current study (α = 0.87).
Parent SM phubbing
Participants answered a single item about perceived parental SM phubbing (“How often do your parents check social media when talking to you?”), which was created based on a Parental Phubbing Scale () [adapted from the Partner Phubbing Scale ()] that had adequate estimated construct reliability. Response options ranged from 0 (never) to 8 (almost constantly). Of note, to the authors' knowledge, no standardized, consistently used scale of perceived parent SM phubbing with demonstrated validity and reliability exists.
Emotional responses to social media (ERSM)
Participants completed a 24-item scale assessing for the presence of both positive and negative emotional responses to experiences during SM use among adolescents (), which was expanded from the shorter 10-item version based on input from our youth advisory board (N = 15) and adolescent focus groups (N = 36; ages 14–17 years). The final scale included 14 negative items and 10 positive items. Examples of positive items include “Feel supported and encouraged by friends or people you know” and “Feel proud of yourself because of something you expressed, posted, or shared.” Examples of negative items include “Feel hurt by a negative interaction (e.g., comment, post, and DM) with someone” and “Feel stressed or anxious about something you see online.” Response options included 0 (never), 1 (hardly ever), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (always), with higher scores reflecting more positive and negative emotional responses to SM. Reliability for both subscales was adequate in prior research () and in the current study (positive subscale: α = 0.83; negative subscale: α = 0.90). See Supplementary Section S2 for the full scale.
Depressive symptoms
Participants completed the mood and feelings questionnaire-short (MFQ-S) (), a 13-item questionnaire about their depressive symptoms over the past 2 weeks. Items included “I felt I was no good anymore” and “I cried a lot.” Response options were 0 (not true), 1 (sometimes true) and 2 (true), with higher total scores indicating more depressive symptoms (ranging from 0 to 26). The MFQ-S has both adequate reliability and validity (; ), and in our study, reliability was excellent (α = 0.94).
Covariates
A number of covariates were included to better capture other SM use and participant characteristics that may affect adolescent responses to SM and depressive symptoms.
Teen and parent social media (SM) use checking
Participants were asked how often they checked SM and how much their parents check SM (“How often do your parents check social media?”), responding on a scale of 0 (“never”) to 7 (“almost constantly”) for each item.
Household SM rules
Participants also reported SM-related rules in their household, including rules about SM frequency, location, timing, etc. Rule statements were created by referencing the AAP Family Media Use Plan's suggested parent rules (). The total number of rules endorsed were summed to create a total score of the number of media rules in the household ranging from 0 to 4. These SM items were included in analyses as covariates to examine unique associations with parent–teen SM communication and SM phubbing, beyond the effects of related SM frequency and household rules.
Socioeconomic status (SES)
Participants were asked where they perceived their family to be on a ladder relative to American society, and response options ranged from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest), with higher scores indicating higher perceived SES ().
Parent mental health
Participants were asked if they have ever lived with a parent or guardian who was having a problem with alcohol or drug use, or who had severe depression, anxiety, another mental illness, or suicidality. Response options included 1 (“yes”) and 0 (“no”), and questions were derived from the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (). These items were included given potential effects on adolescents' depression symptoms (; ).
Analytic plan
Descriptive statistics were conducted to characterize the primary study variables by participants' sociodemographic characteristics. Direct path analyses assessed associations between perceived parent SM phubbing and parent–teen SM communication and teens' negative and positive emotional responses to SM. Additionally, indirect paths were tested between parent SM behaviors (perceived parental SM phubbing and parent–teen SM communication) and teen depression through their effects on both positive and negative emotional responses to SM. Direct and indirect path analyses were conducted within the same models. Age, gender, household technology rules, teen and parent SM checking frequency, perceived SES relative to society, and presence of parent mental health problems were included as covariates in all models to account for potential confounding effects, and associations between covariates and depression are reported in Supplementary Section S3. Path analyses were conducted in R studio using Lavaan. All indirect paths were run using bootstrapping with 5,000 samples to examine indirect effects via confidence intervals. All reported coefficients are standardized.
Results
Descriptive results
Overall, more than 1 in 2 adolescents reported that their parents talk to them “very little” or “not at all” about what they do on SM (56%) or about situations on SM that make them uncomfortable (53%). However, 30% indicated that their parents talk to them “a fair bit” about what to do if something bad happens on SM. In terms of perceived SM phubbing, most adolescents (58.78%) perceived their parents to be phubbing a “few times a week” (3) or more (M = 3.23, SD = 2.54). At the extremes, 23% of participants reported that their parents never check SM when talking to them (0) and 14% perceived SM phubbing “a few times an hour” to “almost constantly” (7–8). Most participants were in the middle range, with 30% perceiving phubbing more weekly (“less than once a week” to “a few times a week”) and 30% reporting phubbing daily or more (“once a day” to “a few times a day”). Perceived parental SM phubbing and parent–teen SM communication were significantly correlated, as were negative and positive SM emotional experiences (see Supplementary Section S4 for bivariate study correlations).
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the demographics and means of primary study variables. T-tests were conducted to assess differences among primary study dichotomous variables (i.e., gender, race, and parent mental health status) and correlations were used to examine variables by age and SES. In terms of gender, there were no significant differences in perceived parental SM phubbing, positive or negative emotional responses to SM experiences, or depressive symptoms between girls and boys. However, there was a significant difference in perceived parent–teen SM communication between girls and boys (t(357) = −3.28, p = 0.001), with boys perceiving more frequent communication. There were no significant differences in positive or negative emotional responses to SM by race, but there were significant differences in perceived parental SM phubbing (t(408) = −2.52, p = 0.01), perceived parent–teen SM communication (t(408) = −5.11, p < 0.001), and depressive symptoms (t(408) = 2.04, p = 0.04), with White participants perceiving both more SM phubbing and more communication, and youth of color experiencing more depressive symptoms.
Teens who lived with a parent or guardian who experienced mental illness (i.e., severe depression, anxiety, suicidality, or another mental illness) reported more SM phubbing (t(408) = −2.15, p = 0.03), less frequent communication t(408) = 2.22, p = 0.03), more frequent negative emotional responses to SM (t(408) = −4.99, p < 0.001), and higher levels of depressive symptoms (t(408) = −8.95, p < 0.001). Teens who lived with a caregiver who had a problem with alcohol or drugs experienced more frequent negative emotional responses to SM (t(408) = −4.56, p < 0.001) and higher levels of depressive symptoms (t(408) = −7.97, p < 0.001). Perceived SES relative to society was significantly correlated with parent–teen SM communication and positive emotional responses to SM, such that higher SES was associated with more frequent communication and more positive SM responses. In contrast, SES was negatively correlated with teen SM checking and depressive symptoms, such that higher SES was associated with less frequent teen checking and fewer depressive symptoms (see Supplementary Section S4 for bivariate study correlations). Age was not significantly correlated with any primary study variable.
Direct path analyses
There was a significant direct association between perceived parent SM phubbing and adolescents' negative emotional responses to SM (B = 0.18, p = 0.004), but not with positive emotional responses to SM (B = −0.03, p = 0.694). In addition, there was a significant association between perceived parent–teen SM communication and positive emotional responses to SM (B = 0.21, p < 0.001). There were also significant associations between teens' positive (B = −0.23, p < 0.001) and negative (B = 0.38, p < 0.001) emotional responses to SM and depressive symptoms. In short, adolescents who had more negative emotional responses on SM also perceived more parental SM phubbing, and adolescents who perceived having more frequent communication with their parents about SM also reported more positive emotional responses to SM.
Indirect path analyses
There was no significant indirect effect between perceived parent–teen SM communication and teens' depressive symptoms via negative emotional responses to SM (B = 0.03, p = 0.255, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.2]), but there was a significant indirect effect through positive emotional responses to SM (B = −0.05, p = 0.002, 95% CI [−0.2, −0.05]). In contrast, there was no significant indirect effect between perceived parental SM phubbing and teens' depressive symptoms through positive emotional responses to SM (B = 0.01, p = 0.697, 95% CI [−0.08, 0.11]), but there was between perceived parental SM phubbing and depressive symptoms through negative emotional responses to SM (B = 0.06, p = 0.006, 95% CI [0.06, 0.33]). All reported coefficients are standardized. In other words, more perceived parental SM phubbing was associated with more frequent negative emotional responses to SM experiences, which was then associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms. On the other hand, perceptions of more frequent SM communication was associated with more positive emotional responses to SM experiences, which was then associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms. See Figures 1A, B for visual representations of statistical path analyses. Tables of results are presented in Supplementary Tables S1–S4 of Supplementary Section S3.
Figure 1
Discussion
Parents' SM use and behaviors (phubbing and communication) are associated with adolescents' SM emotional responses and depressive symptoms. Findings indicate statistical indirect effects of parents' SM behaviors and adolescents' depressive symptoms through teens' emotional responses to SM. Specifically, teens who perceived their parents to be more engaged in SM phubbing also had more frequent negative emotional responses to SM, which also was associated with higher levels of depression symptoms. In contrast, perceptions of more frequent parent–teen SM communication (e.g., what they are doing, what to do if something bad happens or they feel uncomfortable) was associated with adolescents having more positive emotional responses to SM, which also was associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms. In short, parents' SM use and behaviors may be important to consider in understanding adolescents' SM experiences, which are related to depression symptoms across multiple studies (; ). Importantly, study findings should be interpreted with caution, as causal or mediational pathways are not deducible from cross-sectional data. Interpretations of findings are considered from a theoretical lens, and unmeasured study variables (e.g., general familial dysfunction) may have influenced study relationships.
Parent–teen SM communication, SM emotional responses, and depression
Adolescents who reported more frequent SM communication with their parents had more positive emotional responses to SM, which was then associated with lower levels of teens' depression symptoms. This supports prior research demonstrating that parent–child communication promotes healthy behaviors and protects against a range of negative mental health outcomes (e.g., depression and suicidal ideation) (; ). Several speculative interpretations emerge. It is possible that having more frequent parental conversations about SM helps teens engage with SM in more adaptive ways (e.g., creative expression, connecting with others, engaging with inspiring content) that enhances these positive emotional responses. While more frequent SM conversations may not reduce the negative SM emotional responses, it may still support teens' SM engagement and emotional responses (i.e., feeling proud, supported, connected, and inspired) to reduce depression risk. However, longitudinal research across developmental stages, particularly during teens' initial SM use, would better shed light on the potential protective role of parent–teen SM communication.
Conversely, as there is no way to determine causality or temporality with cross-sectional data, it is possible that teens who already have more positive emotional responses to SM are more likely to share them with their parents, thereby creating the opportunity to have more SM-based discussions. Similarly, teens with fewer depressive symptoms may engage with SM in ways that foster more positive emotional responses (or recall more positive than negative emotional responses), which then relates to how much they communicated with their parents about SM (; ). More research is needed to uncover the directionality and nuances in these relationships, particularly around which kinds of SM-related conversations and what level of parental involvement teens find helpful.
Perceived SM phubbing, SM emotional responses, and depression
Perceived parental SM phubbing was associated with more negative emotional responses to SM, which was associated with higher levels of adolescents' depression symptoms. This finding bolsters previous research finding that parental phubbing is linked to teens' SM behaviors and experiences () and depression (), and that negative SM emotional responses are associated with both depression and suicide risk (; , ). There are several possible interpretations for why perceived parental SM phubbing may relate to teens' negative emotional responses to SM and depression. Adolescents who endorsed a higher frequency of perceived SM phubbing may feel a sense of disconnection or rejection from their parents () or engage in less helpful SM behaviors (e.g., seeking attention online, more passive vs. active use, doom scrolling to distract, or self-regulate) that relate to negative SM emotional responses. It is also possible that teens with higher depressive symptoms also have cognitive biases () that filter their SM experiences and subsequent interactions with parents through a depressive lens, potentially making them more likely to recall both more negative emotional responses to SM and more parental SM phubbing. It also could be that perceived SM phubbing reflects more general negative parent–child dynamics or interactions, or reflect an ongoing pattern of phubbing or technoference throughout development.
Group differences in perceived parent SM communication and phubbing
There were notable differences between youth based on sociodemographic characteristics and perceived parental SM communication and phubbing that warrant discussion. First, descriptive results indicate that self-identified boys in the study perceived more frequent parent–teen SM communication than self-identified girls. This finding is surprising, as some previous research has indicated that girls may communicate more with their parents (; ). It is possible that study items do not reflect the nuanced experiences of SM communication, limiting participants' recollection of specific conversations. It is also possible that parents of girls view their SM use as more inherently risky and, ironically, feel less comfortable engaging them in conversation about their SM use patterns and experiences they encounter. Indeed, one study indicated that discussions around sex-positive topics occurred least between fathers and their daughters (), though this has not been explored related to SM. However, it is also possible that girls perceive less frequent communication than they want or need from parents given gender-based differences in SM use and experiences that have been noted in other studies (; ). These possibilities are important to explore in future research on these topics, along with the quality and nature of SM conversations with parents.
Second, in terms of racial/ethnic identity, White participants perceived both more parental SM phubbing and more SM communication with their parents. It is possible that these findings relate to cultural differences in norms around SM use between White families and families of color. Indeed, recent Pew Research Center data indicate that 72% of White parents endorse spending “too much time on their smartphones,” compared to smaller proportions of Asian (61%), Black (59%), and Hispanic (54%) parents who say the same (). Thus, it is possible that White parents who spend more time on SM themselves feel more comfortable having conversations about it with their children. At the same time, youth of color tend to have higher rates of SM use (), which makes it important for all parents to engage in discussions about SM with their teens. Youth of color in the current study also reported more depressive symptoms than White participants, which is consistent with previous research demonstrating that adolescents belonging to a minoritized identity are more at risk for experiences of depression due to structural inequities and racial discrimination (; ; ).
The current study also found that adolescents who endorsed having lived with a parent or guardian who had a significant mental health problem (i.e., mental illness or substance use-related problem) perceived more SM phubbing and less SM communication. It is possible that these teens experienced more strained parent–child relationships, relating to more negative perceptions of their parents' behaviors around them and lower frequency of communication (). Additionally, parents who are struggling themselves may be less inclined to engage their teens in conversations. Higher perceived SES relative to society also was associated with more frequent parent–teen SM communication and positive emotional responses to SM, less teen SM checking, lower likelihood of presence of parent mental health problems, and lower levels of depressive symptoms. These associations may reflect facets of adolescent wellbeing, such as lower parental stress (; ) and better mental health (), which have been previously shown to be associated with higher SES. Of note, the current study did not examine whether the proposed relationships differed by group identity (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, parent mental health, and SES), which remains important for future investigation using longitudinal designs to identify meaningful points of intervention for youth.
Limitations and future directions
The current study has several notable limitations and considerations for future directions. First, findings come from cross-sectional data, and directionality of study findings cannot be concluded. While use of indirect paths was a theoretically-driven choice, there was no way to assess whether parent SM behaviors preceded emotional responses to SM or whether emotional responses to SM preceded depression. Thus, all study findings reflect statistical direct and indirect effects rather than potential pathways, which should be investigated in future research. Participants in the current study also were recruited via SM, which may have biased our sample toward adolescents who were already more likely to engage in more SM use or whose algorithms were geared toward mental health or research-related content. It is possible that those adolescents were more likely to endorse more emotional experiences than the average teen, potentially limiting our sample representativeness. Further, this sample was comprised of community adolescents, and information about depression came from self-report questionnaires. Therefore, it may be worth replicating this study using a multi-method approach among a clinical sample so that findings can be used to inform potential clinical interventions.
The current study also was limited by only having teens' reports of their parents' SM behaviors. Teens may have wrongly estimated how often their parents were using SM and phubbing. There is also no way of knowing if what teens perceived as SM phubbing was actually SM phubbing (i.e., parents may have been texting or looking up information on their phones), which limits interpretability of study findings. Thus, future research should include both parents' own reports of phubbing (in general and specific to SM), which could isolate potential effects of SM phubbing and be compared with teen reports of perceived SM phubbing. Further, the current study included limited items about perceived SM phubbing and communication about SM (e.g., only one item assessed phubbing and three about SM communication), thereby limiting our ability to capture construct reliability or ensure construct validity. While the single phubbing item was adapted to pinpoint SM-specific phubbing, with other items from the adapted scale deemed less applicable, future research should include more specific, robust measures of both perceived parent SM phubbing and SM communication. Specifically, assessing broader dimensions of SM communication [e.g., communication around more precise SM experiences versus only “something bad” and assessment of settings in which SM-related communication occurs (e.g., alone, around friends, inside/outside of the home, etc.)] and the quality/preferred tone of SM-related communication with parents are important to consider. Better characterizing these facets of parent–teen SM communication may finetune guidelines and prepare parents to engage in SM-related conversations their teens actually find helpful. Including both teens' and parents' perceptions of these constructs may provide a triangulated estimate of these behaviors and illuminate specific dimensions of parent behaviors that can be parsed apart and compared to teens' perceptions.
Additionally, though variables were covaried that may affect the proposed relationships (e.g., teen and parent SM use frequency, household SM rules, parent mental health history), it is possible that unmeasured variables are driving the associations and indirect effects (e.g., general family wellbeing or quality of communication). Still, this research highlights relationships between parent SM behaviors, teens' emotional responses to SM, and teens' depressive symptoms that warrant further probing. To that end, future research should consider studying these constructs using an intensive, longitudinal design that spans adolescent development to deduce both directionality and temporality of study constructs. This type of design could help pinpoint how and when perceived parental SM phubbing and perceived parent–teen SM communication relate to emotional responses to SM experiences and depression, which is especially important to understand in the context of potential changes to familial relationships during adolescent development.
Conclusion
The current study extends prior work around adolescent SM use by specifically addressing how teens' perceptions of their parents' SM use and SM-related discussions with their parents relate to their emotional responses to SM and risk for depression. Considerable research has focused on adolescents' SM use as if it exists in a vacuum without considering the broader context of parents and other systems within which adolescents live. The current study lends support to the potential role of parents' SM behaviors (e.g., SM phubbing and parent–teen SM communication) related to both adolescents' negative and positive emotional responses to SM and depression symptoms. It provides potential targets for parents to consider, such as altering their own SM use behaviors and engaging in more frequent SM-related discussions, to support their teens. Specifically, parents should consider limiting their use of SM, or phones, in front of their children (e.g., while engaged in conversation, during meals, etc.) and they should strive to engage in dialogue with their teens to discuss how SM experiences make them feel to bolster positive mental health outcomes. Study findings may help inform empirical guidelines for parents and teens to follow regarding healthy SM use, as well as for educators and clinicians (e.g., pediatricians and therapists) who work with young people to incorporate conversations around parent SM use behaviors and communication in their practice with adolescents, parents, and families to support adolescents' healthy SM use and mental health.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Rutgers University Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants' legal guardians/next of kin.
Author contributions
MD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Formal analysis. JH: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant awarded to Jessica L. Hamilton (K01MH121584).
Acknowledgments
MD, who conceptualized the current study, conducted data analysis, and wrote the current manuscript. Dr. Jessica Hamilton is included as the senior author on this manuscript, who was responsible for the larger study design and data collection, as well as reviewing and editing the current manuscript. Both authors had full access to all data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data in the study and accuracy of data analysis. We are grateful to the adolescents who provided their time and information. We would also like to extend thanks to the RISE Team, our youth advisory board, for their collaboration and input in our research design and implementation (i.e., idea generation, reviewing study items, piloting study procedures) and our member, Noor Fatima, for reviewing the current manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fdpys.2026.1831952/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AssariS.Moazen-ZadehE.CaldwellC. H.ZimmermanM. A. (2017). Racial discrimination during adolescence predicts mental health deterioration in adulthood: gender differences among blacks. Front. Public. Health. 5:104. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00104
2
BaiQ.LeiL.HsuehF. H.YuX.HuH.WangX.et al. (2020). Parent-adolescent congruence in phubbing and adolescents' depressive symptoms: a moderated polynomial regression with response surface analyses. J. Affect. Disord. 275, 127–135. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.156
3
BeyensI.KeijsersL.CoyneS. M. (2022). Social media, parenting, and well-being. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 47:101350. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101350
4
BiernesserC.MontanoG.MillerE.RadovicA. (2020). Social media use and monitoring for adolescents with depression and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative study of parent and child perspectives. JMIR Pediat.r Parent. 3:e21644. doi: 10.2196/21644
5
BoydS. I.DreierM. J.JorgensenS. L.MoghaddasS. L.KleimanE.HamiltonJ. L. (2024). Momentary associations between emotional responses to social media and affect: consistency across global affect and specific emotional states. Affect. Sci. 5, 417–426. doi: 10.1007/s42761-024-00257-x
6
CDC. YRBS explorer help. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). (2024). Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs/results/yrbs-explorer-help.html. (Cited April 22, 2026).
7
ChenS.QiuD.LiX.ZhaoQ. (2023). Discrepancies in adolescent–parent perceptions of parental phubbing and their relevance to adolescent smartphone dependence: the mediating role of parent–child relationship. Behav. Sci. 13:888. doi: 10.3390/bs13110888
8
Choukas-BradleyS.RobertsS. R.MaheuxA. J.NesiJ. (2022). The perfect storm: a developmental–sociocultural framework for the role of social media in adolescent girls' body image concerns and mental health. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev.25, 681–701. doi: 10.1007/s10567-022-00404-5
9
Council on Communications MediaHill, D.AmeenuddinN.ChassiakosY. L. R.CrossC.RadeskyJ.et al. (2016). Media use in school-aged children and adolescents. Pediatrics138:e20162592. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-2592
10
EnglishD.LambertS. F.TynesB. M.BowlegL.ZeaM. C.HowardL. C. (2020). Daily multidimensional racial discrimination among Black U. S. American adolescents. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 66:101068. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101068
11
EvansR.WidmanL.KamkeK.StewartJ. L. (2020). Gender differences in parents' communication with their adolescent children about sexual risk and sex-positive topics. J. Sex Res.57, 177–188. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2019.1661345
12
FamJ. Y.MännikköN.JuhariR.KääriäinenM. (2023). Is parental mediation negatively associated with problematic media use among children and adolescents? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can. J. Behav. Sci. Rev. Can. Sci. Comport. 55, 89–99. doi: 10.1037/cbs0000320
13
FangY.LuoJ.BoeleM.WindhorstD.van GriekenA.RaatH. (2024). Parent, child, and situational factors associated with parenting stress: a systematic review. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 33, 1687–1705. doi: 10.1007/s00787-022-02027-1
14
FardoulyJ.MagsonN. R.RapeeR. M.OarE. L.JohncoC. J.RichardsonC.et al. (2024). Investigating longitudinal and bidirectional relationships between parental factors and time spent on social media during early adolescence. New Media Soc. 26, 1610–1626. doi: 10.1177/14614448221076155
15
FaverioM.SidotiO. (2024). Teens, Social, Media, and Technology. Pew Research Center. Available online at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/12/12/teens-social-media-and-technology-2024/ (Cited March 13, 2026).
16
FaverioM.SidotiO. (2025). Teens, Social Media, and, AI Chatbots. Pew Research Center Available online at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/12/09/teens-social-media-and-ai-chatbots-2025/. (Cited April 28, 2026).
17
GoodmanE.AdlerN. E.KawachiI.FrazierA. L.HuangB.ColditzG. A. (2001). Adolescents' perceptions of social status: development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics. 108, E31. doi: 10.1542/peds.108.2.e31
18
GriffithsM. D.KussD. J. Demetrovics, Z. (2014). “Social networking addiction: an overview of preliminary findings,” in Behavioral Addictions, eds K. Rosenberg and L. Feder (Amsterdam: Academic Press), 119–141. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407724-9.00006-9
19
HamiltonJ. L.BiernesserC.MorenoM. A.PortaG.HamiltonE.JohnsonK.et al. (2021). Social media use and prospective suicidal thoughts and behaviors among adolescents at high risk for suicide. Suicide Life Threat. Behav.51, 1203–1212. doi: 10.1111/sltb.12801
20
HamiltonJ. L.DalackM.BoydS. I.JorgensenS.DreierM. J.SarnaJ.et al. (2024). Positive and negative social media experiences and proximal risk for suicidal ideation in adolescents. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry. 65, 1580–1589. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13996
21
JohnA.GlendenningA. C.MarchantA.MontgomeryP.StewartA.WoodS.et al. (2018). Self-harm, suicidal behaviours, and cyberbullying in children and young people: systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res.20:e9044. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9044
22
KaradagE.TosuntaşS. B.ErzenE.DuruP.BostanN.SahinB. M.et al. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: a structural equation model. doi: 10.1037/t44781-000
23
Lai KwokS. Y. C.ShekD. T. L. (2010). Hopelessness, parent-adolescent communication, and suicidal ideation among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Suicide Life Threat. Behav.40, 224–233. doi: 10.1521/suli.2010.40.3.224
24
LetourneauN. L.Duffett-LegerL.LevacL.WatsonB.Young-MorrisC. (2013). Socioeconomic status and child development: a meta-analysis. J. Emot. Behav. Disord.21, 211–224. doi: 10.1177/1063426611421007
25
LiauA. K.KhooA.AngP. H. (2008). Parental awareness and monitoring of adolescent internet use. Curr. Psychol.27, 217–233. doi: 10.1007/s12144-008-9038-6
26
McClainC.SidotiO.FaverioM.LamaS. (2025). How parents approach their kids' screen time. Pew Research Center. Available online at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/10/08/how-parents-approach-their-kids-screen-time/. (Cited April 20, 2026).
27
McDanielB. T.CoyneS. M. (2016). “Technoference”: the interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women's personal and relational well-being. Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 5, 85–98. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000065
28
McGovernR.BogowiczP.MeaderN.KanerE.AldersonH.CraigD.et al. (2023). The association between maternal and paternal substance use and child substance use, internalizing and externalizing problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction118, 804–818. doi: 10.1111/add.16127
29
MesserS.AngoldA.CostelloE.LoeberR. (1995). Development of a short questionnaire for use in epidemiological studies of depression in children and adolescents: factor composition and structure across development. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res.5, 251–262.
30
NagyE.MooreS.SilveiraP. P.MeaneyM. J.LevitanR. D.DubéL. (2022). Low socioeconomic status, parental stress, depression, and the buffering role of network social capital in mothers. J. Ment. Health. 31, 340–347. doi: 10.1080/09638237.2020.1793118
31
NesiJ.RothenbergW. A.BettisA. H.Massing-SchafferM.FoxK. A.TelzerE. H.et al. (2022). Emotional responses to social media experiences among adolescents: longitudinal associations with depressive symptoms. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol.51, 907–922. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2021.1955370
32
NesiJ.WolffJ. C.HuntJ. (2019). Patterns of social media use among adolescents who are psychiatrically hospitalized. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 58, 635–639.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2019.03.009
33
NiN.AhrariS.ZaremohzzabiehZ.ZareanM.RoslanS. (2025). A meta-analytic study of partner phubbing and its antecedents and consequences. Front. Psychol. 16:1561159. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1561159
34
PancaniL.GerosaT.GuiM.RivaP. (2021). “Mom, dad, look at me”: the development of the parental phubbing scale. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 38, 435–458. doi: 10.1177/0265407520964866
35
Pew Research Center (2022). Social media fact sheet. Available online at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/ (Cited December 16, 2022).
36
PlattB.WatersA. M.Schulte-KoerneG.EngelmannL.SaleminkE. (2017). A review of cognitive biases in youth depression: attention, interpretation and memory. Cogn. Emot. 31, 462–483. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2015.1127215
37
RadovicA.GmelinT.SteinB. D.MillerE. (2017). Depressed adolescents' positive and negative use of social media. J Adolesc. 55, 5–15. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.002
38
RobertsJ. A.DavidM. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 134–141. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058
39
SundA. M.LarssonB.WichstromL. (2001). Depressive symptoms among young Norwegian adolescents as measured by the mood and feelings questionnaire (MFQ). Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 10, 222–229. doi: 10.1007/s007870170011
40
ThabrewH.StasiakK.BavinL.FramptonC.MerryS. (2018). Validation of the mood and feelings questionnaire (MFQ) and short mood and feelings questionnaire (SMFQ) in New Zealand help-seeking adolescents. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res.27:e1610. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1610
41
TwengeJ. M.HaidtJ.LozanoJ.CumminsK. M. (2022). Specification curve analysis shows that social media use is linked to poor mental health, especially among girls. Acta. Psychol. (Amst). 224:103512. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103512
42
TynesB. M.EnglishD.Del ToroJ.SmithN. A.LozadaF. T.WilliamsD. R. (2020). Trajectories of online racial discrimination and psychological functioning among African American and Latino adolescents. Child Dev. 91, 1577–1593. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13350
43
ValkenburgP. M.MeierA.BeyensI. (2022). Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: an umbrella review of the evidence. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 44, 58–68. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.017
44
Vanden AbeeleM. M. P.HendricksonA. T.PollmannM. M. H.LingR. (2019). Phubbing behavior in conversations and its relation to perceived conversation intimacy and distraction: an exploratory observation study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 100, 35–47. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.004
45
VossenH. G. M.van den EijndenR. J. J. M.VisserI.KoningI. M. (2024). Parenting and problematic social media use: a systematic review. Curr. Addict. Rep. 11, 511–527. doi: 10.1007/s40429-024-00559-x
46
WallaceL. N. (2022). Associations between parental monitoring and parents' social media use and social media perceptions. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open6:100294. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100294
47
WangX.GaoL.YangJ.ZhaoF.WangP. (2020). Parental phubbing and adolescents' depressive symptoms: self-esteem and perceived social support as moderators. J. Youth Adolesc. 49, 427–437. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01185-x
48
WeinsteinE. (2018). The social media see-saw: positive and negative influences on adolescents' affective well-being. New Media Soc. 20, 3597–3623. doi: 10.1177/1461444818755634
49
WickershamA.LeightleyD.ArcherM.FearN. T. (2020). The association between paternal psychopathology and adolescent depression and anxiety: a systematic review. J. Adolesc.79, 232–246. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.007
50
WilsonE. K.KooH. P. (2010). Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters: gender differences in factors associated with parent-child communication about sexual topics. Reprod. Health. 7:31. doi: 10.1186/1742-4755-7-31
51
XiaoZ.LiX.StantonB. (2011). Perceptions of parent–adolescent communication within families: it is a matter of perspective. Psychol. Health Med.16, 53–65. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2010.521563
52
ZiskA.AbbottC. H.BounouaN.DiamondG. S.KobakR. (2019). Parent–teen communication predicts treatment benefit for depressed and suicidal adolescents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 87, 1137–1148. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000457
Summary
Keywords
adolescents, communication, depression, parents, protective factors, social media
Citation
Dalack MN and Hamilton JL (2026) Parents still matter: parents' communication and behaviors around social media are associated with adolescents' emotional responses to social media and depressive symptoms. Front. Dev. Psychol. 4:1831952. doi: 10.3389/fdpys.2026.1831952
Received
16 March 2026
Revised
29 April 2026
Accepted
02 June 2026
Published
03 August 2026
Volume
4 - 2026
Edited by
Robert Hepach, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Susan Margaret Sawyer, University of Melbourne, Australia
Giorgia Di Iorio, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Dalack and Hamilton.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jessica L. Hamilton, Jessica.hamilton@rutgers.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.