Introduction
Research on parental mediation—the parenting strategies used to regulate children's media use—is historically focused on television viewing among children (e.g., ). In recent years, the concept has expanded to encompass a wide range of digital media platforms, including internet use (Livingstone and Helsper, 2008; Stoilova et al., 2023), video game playing (Nikken and Jansz, 2006; ), social media use (Fardouly et al., 2018), and smartphone use (Lee and Kim, 2018; Mannell et al., 2024). These newer platforms present both new opportunities and intricate risks, highlighting the need for a thorough re-evaluation of how parental mediation is conceptualized and operationalized (Mannell et al., 2024; Rodríguez-de-Dios et al., 2018; Zosh et al., 2023).
Nonetheless, the interactive and immersive nature of digital media challenges the applicability of traditional mediation models. Inconsistencies in terminology, overlapping concepts, and outdated measurement tools obstruct theoretical clarity and empirical advancement (). Recent research highlights the significance of contextual and cultural factors in shaping mediation strategies. For example, Purboningsih et al. (2024) revealed that Indonesian parents and adolescents have differing perceptions of mediation, reflecting broader socio-cultural dynamics. Similarly, Rodríguez-de-Dios et al. (2018) demonstrated that effective parental mediation is associated with improved digital skills and a reduction in online risks among adolescents.
In this opinion, we (1) propose a revised Parental Mediation Model to guide future research directions and (2) address the need to update and validate measures of parental mediation in the age of interactive digital media.
Traditional parental mediation model
The traditional Parental Mediation Model (PMM) distinguishes three types of parental mediation: restrictive mediation, active mediation, and co-using (Nikken and Jansz, 2006, 2014). By definition, restrictive mediation refers to parental limits on the amount of media and/or media content that children can access; active mediation relates to parents' comments and instructions on children's media use; co-use mediation refers to parents' engagement in media use alongside their children.
Two primary concerns signal the need to restructure the PMM. First, the inconsistent and interchangeable use of these terms across studies creates significant conceptual ambiguity, complicating the interpretation of findings and the development of targeted interventions. This lack of standardization can lead to divergent conclusions regarding the effectiveness of these strategies (). For example, Len-Ríos et al. (2016) conceptualized media-related family rules—typically associated with restrictive mediation—as indicators of parental monitoring, often categorized as active mediation. Shin and Kang (2016) interpreted parental behaviors, such as monitoring children's email or social media accounts, which is usually viewed as active mediation, as indicative of restrictive mediation. These varying interpretations highlight the persistent ambiguities in the terminology and conceptual boundaries surrounding parental mediation, underscoring the need for greater clarity in defining parental roles within the realm of children's media use.
Second, while attempts have been made to expand the PMM, they often lack conceptual coherence. For example, researchers have used “technical mediation” as an add-on to PMM to account for the incorporation of technology into parental regulation of children's media use (; Lee and Kim, 2018). Technical mediation involves the use of monitoring applications to regulate children's media use, such as filtering software that limits children's web access (), as well as other methods to restrict children's media use through technology applications. Although technical mediation has been suggested as a separate category, it might be better viewed as a contemporary extension of restrictive mediation. Nonetheless, its growing presence in the context of digital parenting merits a more thorough examination (Rodríguez-de-Dios et al., 2018; Theopilus et al., 2024).
Another line of research proposes the functional role of media as a disciplinary tool, whereby parents permit children's access to media as a reward for good behavior; while barring children from media as a punishment (Lloyd et al., 2014; Pearson et al., 2011). It is plausible that disciplinary acts can be a dimension of active mediation, whereby parents will actively evaluate and provide feedback on children's media behaviors. Therefore, discipline could be a sub-category of active mediation.
In addition to conceptual ambiguities, it is essential to recognize that both contextual and developmental factors impact parental mediation practices. As a result, mediation strategies are not universally applicable; they can vary significantly across different developmental stages and cultural contexts. For example, Purboningsih et al. (2024) found that Indonesian parents tend to rely more on relational and moral reasoning than on technical controls, demonstrating the influence of culturally ingrained parenting norms.
Discussion on proposed revised parental mediation model
To address conceptual ambiguities and adapt to the evolving media landscape, the revised Parental Mediation Model (PMM) illustrates the intricate dynamics between parent-child interactions and the intentionality behind different mediation strategies (see Figure 1). This model classifies four types of mediation based on the degree of intentionality in parental influence: restrictive mediation and active mediation both represent high intentionality, while modeling mediation and co-using mediation represent low intentionality. By encompassing both deliberate and incidental (or unintentional) forms of influence, the model offers a more nuanced understanding of the diverse practices of parental mediation.
Figure 1
Restrictive mediation refers to the rules and limitations that parents enforce on their children's media use. Traditionally, this has involved setting boundaries around both screen time and content (Huang et al., 2011). However, contemporary applications of restrictive mediation also include contextual restrictions, such as banning media use during meals or until after homework is completed, as well as safety-oriented rules that limit the sharing of personal information online (Shin and Kang, 2016). Additionally, how these rules are established, particularly the extent of child involvement, has become an important aspect to consider (De Lepeleere et al., 2018; Verloigne et al., 2015). Recent research indicates that when restrictive mediation is applied collaboratively, it can enhance children's digital resilience and awareness (Rodríguez-de-Dios et al., 2018).
Active mediation involves the communication between parents and children regarding media content and its usage. This encompasses discussions about online risks, ethical behavior, and the critical evaluation of media messages (Padilla-Walker et al., 2018). It also includes parental monitoring practices, such as reviewing children's online profiles or messaging activity (). Importantly, active mediation may also consist of negative mediation strategies, which include expressing disapproval of certain media behaviors (Martins et al., 2017). As digital platforms become increasingly integrated into everyday life, active mediation not only serves as a protective measure but also plays a crucial role in promoting digital literacy (Rodríguez-de-Dios et al., 2018; ).
Modeling mediation refers to how parents' media behaviors influence their children. This encompasses both intentional actions, like avoiding screen use in front of children, and unintentional behaviors, such as engaging in excessive screen time during family interactions (Pearson et al., 2011; Verloigne et al., 2015). , which suggests that children learn by observing and imitating role models, the concept of modeling emphasizes how parental media habits influence children's digital behaviors. Recent studies indicate that parental modeling in digital environments often occurs passively through everyday device usage, significantly affecting children's media habits and attitudes (Mannell et al., 2024; Schneider et al., 2017; Zosh et al., 2023). These findings underscore the idea that modeling serves as a subtle yet pervasive form of mediation, reinforcing its classification as indirect and low interaction.
Co-using mediation refers to shared media experiences between parents and children, such as co-viewing television, co-playing video games, or engaging with digital platforms together. Although often viewed as a passive activity, co-using presents a valuable opportunity for active engagement, including discussions about content and guidance on online behavior (Schaan and Melzer, 2015; Padilla-Walker et al., 2018). However, the intensity of interaction can vary across different types of mediation. Co-using often intertwines with broader family dynamics and may incorporate active elements, which can blur the lines between it and active mediation. Consequently, this mediation style encompasses both intentional and unintentional aspects of mediation. Addressing these overlaps remains a challenge for future operationalization. Nevertheless, most studies have focused primarily on the frequency of co-use rather than its quality or the depth of communication—an area that future research should further explore (Purboningsih et al., 2024).
The essence of distinguishing the four types of parental mediation lies in the role that parents assume. Restrictive mediation involves parents making efforts to limit their children's media usage. In contrast, active mediation is more proactive, encompassing discussions and the practical application of family rules regarding media consumption. Modeling mediation refers to both the intentional and unintentional demonstration of media behaviors by parents to their children. Unlike active mediation or co-use, modeling functions through indirect behavioral cues rather than explicit instruction or shared activities. This distinction is essential for comprehending how children internalize media norms in the absence of direct parental involvement. Co-using mediation highlights the importance of parental involvement in the media experiences shared with their children. Delineating these four types of mediation will facilitate more focused and meaningful discussions in the field.
The updated PMM highlights the unique roles that parents fulfill in different mediation approaches: setting boundaries (restrictive), facilitating discussions (active), demonstrating behaviors (modeling), and engaging in joint activities (co-using). The revised PMM emphasizes the intentionality of parent-child mediation while also implicitly recognizing the importance of contextual adaptation, which involves tailoring mediation strategies to fit various situational, developmental, and cultural contexts. As noted by Mannell et al. (2024), digital parenting practices are intricately woven into family routines, values, and socio-cultural environments. Likewise, Zosh et al. (2023) advocate for a more nuanced understanding of media use that delves into the “how” and “why” of engagement. By acknowledging that each type of mediation may present itself differently based on context, the revised PMM provides a flexible framework that can be customized to accommodate diverse family dynamics and the evolving digital landscape.
To strengthen the theoretical foundation of the revised (PMM), we draw on two complementary perspectives. According to Wu et al. (2024), early digital experiences have a profound influence on neurodevelopment, thereby supporting the model's emphasis on interaction intensity, particularly the importance of high-interaction strategies, such as active and co-use mediation, during critical developmental phases. Additionally, Choy et al. (2024) and Guarderas et al. (2025) provide a framework for parenting styles that aligns with the model's dimensions: restrictive mediation corresponds to authoritarian parenting (characterized by high control and low warmth), while active and co-using mediation aligns with authoritative parenting (high control and high warmth). In contrast, modeling mediation may reflect permissive parenting (low control and high warmth). These theoretical connections enhance the model's conceptual clarity and contextual relevance.
Choy et al. (2024) offer empirical support for the revised PMM's structure by distinguishing parental mediation and modeling as separate strategies, each carrying unique developmental impacts. Their focus on developmental sensitivity—tailoring mediation strategies to align with children's cognitive, emotional, and social maturity—and contextual adaptability—modifying parenting approaches according to cultural norms, family dynamics, and digital environments—strengthens the model's theoretical underpinnings and practical significance.
The need for updated measurement tools
Despite the growing complexity of parental mediation (Zosh et al., 2023), measurement tools remain outdated. The widely used Parental Mediation Scale (Nikken and Jansz, 2014) primarily reflects a traditional model and may not capture the full range of contemporary practices. Many studies adopt a fragmented approach, either combining items from different sources (e.g., Vaala and Bleakley, 2015) or utilizing single-item measures that risk oversimplifying nuanced behaviors (Cui et al., 2011; Gingold et al., 2014).
A recent review by Stoilova et al. (2023) highlighted that parental control tools often do not meet family expectations, partly due to a lack of alignment between available tools and the diverse mediation practices that families employ. There is a pressing need for updated, psychometrically robust instruments that align with a revised conceptual framework and take into account cultural and developmental variability (Rodríguez-de-Dios et al., 2018; Theopilus et al., 2024).
Conclusion and future directions
As digital media technologies continue to advance, our understanding of how parents mediate their children's media usage must also evolve. This opinion paper presents a refined (PMM) that builds upon the traditional framework by introducing four distinct types of mediation—restrictive, active, modeling, and co-using—each characterized by their intentionality. This reconceptualization offers greater theoretical clarity and reflects the complexity of today's digital media environments.
Despite advancements in theoretical frameworks surrounding parental mediation, empirical research remains hindered by outdated and fragmented measurement tools. The ongoing reliance on traditional scales and single-item measures restricts the field's capacity to capture the nuanced, context-dependent, and culturally embedded nature of contemporary mediation practices. Recent studies (e.g., Stoilova et al., 2023; Mannell et al., 2024; Rodríguez-de-Dios et al., 2018; Purboningsih et al., 2024) underscore the pressing need for the development of psychometrically robust, multidimensional instruments that accurately capture the diversity of parental strategies across various media platforms, age groups, and cultural contexts.
By enhancing both theoretical and methodological frameworks, future research can better assist families in cultivating safe, enriching, and developmentally appropriate digital environments for children.
Statements
Author contributions
JY: Writing – original draft. RJ: Writing – review & editing. MK: Writing – review & editing. NM: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4) was used to assist in the structural review of the manuscript and to refine the visual concept of the age-phase icons (Microsoft, 2025). All AI-generated suggestions were critically evaluated and manually revised by the authors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
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.
References
1
AustinE. W. (1993). Exploring the effects of active parental mediation of television content. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media37, 147–158. 10.1080/08838159309364212
2
BanduraA. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3
BenrazaviR.TeimouriM.GriffithsM. D. (2015). Utility of parental mediation model on youth's problematic online gaming. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict.13, 712–727. 10.1007/s11469-015-9561-2
4
ÇalhanC.GöksuI. (2024). An effort to understand parents' media mediation roles and early childhood children's digital game addiction tendency: a descriptive correlational survey study. Educ. Inf. Technol.29, 17825–17865. 10.1007/s10639-024-12544-y
5
ChangF. C.ChiuC. H.ChenP. H.ChiangJ. T.MiaoN. F.ChuangH. Y.et al. (2019). Children's use of mobile devices, smartphone addiction and parental mediation in Taiwan. Comput. Hum. Behav.93, 25–32. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.048
6
ChenL.ShiJ. (2018). Reducing harm from media: a meta-analysis of parental mediation. J. Mass Commun. Q.96, 173–193. 10.1177/1077699018754908
7
ChoyY. N.LauE. Y. H.WuD. (2024). Digital parenting and its impact on early childhood development: a scoping review. Educ. Inf. Technol.29, 22147–22187. 10.1007/s10639-024-12643-w
8
CuiZ.HardyL. L.DibleyM. J.BaumanA. (2011). Temporal trends and recent correlates in sedentary behaviours in Chinese children. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.8:9310.1186/1479-5868-8-93
9
De LepeleereS.De BourdeaudhuijI.Van StappenV.HuysN.LatommeJ.AndroutsosO.et al. (2018). Parenting practices as a mediator in the association between family socio-economic status and screen-time in primary schoolchildren: a Feel4Diabetes Study. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health15:2553. 10.3390/ijerph15112553
10
FardoulyJ.MagsonN. R.JohncoC. J.OarE. L.RapeeR. M. (2018). Parental control of the time preadolescents spend on social media: links with preadolescents' social media appearance comparisons and mental health. J Youth Adolesc.47, 1456–1468. 10.1007/s10964-018-0870-1
11
GingoldJ. A.SimonA. E.SchoendorfK. C. (2014). Excess screen time in US children: association with family rules and alternative activities. Clin. Pediatr.53, 41–50. 10.1177/0009922813498152
12
GuarderasG.LunaA.GuallichicoG. (2025). “Parenting styles: authoritarian vs. authoritative - A systematic review,” in Emerging Research in Intelligent Systems. CIT 2024. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 1348, eds. G. F. Olmedo Cifuentes, D. G. Arcos Avilés, and H. V. Lara Padilla (Cham: Springer). 10.1007/978-3-031-87701-8_37
13
HuangY. J.WongS. H.SalmonJ.HuiS. S. (2011). Reliability and validity of psychosocial and environmental correlates measures of physical activity and screen-based behaviors among Chinese children in Hong Kong. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.8:16. 10.1186/1479-5868-8-16
14
LeeE. J.KimH. S. (2018). Gender differences in smartphone addiction behaviors associated with parent–child bonding, parent–child communication, and parental mediation among Korean elementary school students. J. Addict. Nurs.29, 244–254. 10.1097/JAN.0000000000000254
15
Len-RíosM. E.HughesH. E.McKeeL. G.YoungH. N. (2016). Early adolescents as publics: a national survey of teens with social media accounts, their media use preferences, parental mediation, and perceived Internet literacy. Public Relat. Rev.42, 101–108. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.10.003
16
LivingstoneS.HelsperE. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children's internet use. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media52, 581–599. 10.1080/08838150802437396
17
LloydA. B.LubansD. R.PlotnikoffR. C.CollinsC. E.MorganP. J. (2014). Maternal and paternal parenting practices and their influence on children's adiposity, screen-time, diet and physical activity. Appetite79, 149–157. 10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.010
18
MannellK.BloulS.Sefton-GreenJ.WillcoxM. (2024). Digital media and technology use by families with infants, toddlers, and young children: a scoping review and call for forward momentum. J. Child. Media18, 605–628. 10.1080/17482798.2024.2394939
19
MartinsN.MatthewsN. L.RatanR. A. (2017). Playing by the rules: parental mediation of video game play. J. Fam. Issues38, 1215–1238. 10.1177/0192513X15613822
20
Microsoft (2025). Copilot (GPT-4) [Large language model]. Available online at: https://copilot.microsoft.com/
21
NikkenP.JanszJ. (2006). Parental mediation of children's videogame playing: a comparison of the reports by parents and children. Learn. Media Technol.31, 181–202. 10.1080/17439880600756803
22
NikkenP.JanszJ. (2014). Developing scales to measure parental mediation of young children's internet use. Learn. Media Technol.39, 250–266. 10.1080/17439884.2013.782038
23
Padilla-WalkerL. M.CoyneS. M.KroffS. L.Memmott-ElisonM. K. (2018). The protective role of parental media monitoring style from early to late adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc.47, 445–459. 10.1007/s10964-017-0722-4
24
PearsonN.SalmonJ.CrawfordD.CampbellK.TimperioA. (2011). Are parental concerns for child TV viewing associated with child TV viewing and the home sedentary environment?Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.8:102. 10.1186/1479-5868-8-102
25
PurboningsihE. R.MassarK.HinduanZ. R.AgustianiH.RuiterR. A. C.VerduynP. (2024). Parental mediation strategies for social media use: a thematic analysis of perspectives among Indonesian parents and adolescents. Behav. Inform. Technol. 44, 1–22. 10.1080/0144929X.2024.2413454
26
Rodríguez-de-DiosI.van OostenJ. M. F.IgartuaJ.-J. (2018). A study of the relationship between parental mediation and adolescents' digital skills, online risks and online opportunities. Comput. Hum. Behav.82, 186–198. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.012
27
SchaanV. K.MelzerA. (2015). Parental mediation of children's television and video game use in Germany: Active and embedded in family processes. J. Child. Media9, 58–76. 10.1080/17482798.2015.997108
28
SchneiderL. A.KingD. L.DelfabbroP. H. (2017). Family factors in adolescent problematic Internet gaming: a systematic review. J. Behav. Addict.6, 321–333. 10.1556/2006.6.2017.035
29
ShinW.KangH. (2016). Adolescents' privacy concerns and information disclosure online: the role of parents and the internet. Comput. Hum. Behav.54, 114–123. 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.062
30
StoilovaM.BulgerM.LivingstoneS. (2023). Do parental control tools fulfil family expectations for child protection? A rapid evidence review of the contexts and outcomes of use. J. Child. Media18, 29–49. 10.1080/17482798.2023.2265512
31
TheopilusY.MahmudA. A.DavisH.OctaviaJ. R. (2024). Preventive interventions for internet addiction in young children: Systematic Review. JMIR Ment. Health11:e56896. 10.2196/56896
32
VaalaS. E.BleakleyA. (2015). Monitoring, mediating, and modeling: parental influence on adolescent computer and Internet use in the United States. J. Child. Media9, 40–57. 10.1080/17482798.2015.997103
33
VerloigneM.Van LippeveldeW.BereE.ManiosY.KovácsÉ.GrillenbergerM.et al. (2015). Individual and family environmental correlates of television and computer time in 10-to 12-year-old European children: The ENERGY-project. BMC Public Health15:912. 10.1186/s12889-015-2276-2
34
WuD.DongX.LiuD.LiH. (2024). How early digital experience shapes young brains during 0–12 years: a scoping review. Early Educ. Dev.35, 1395–1431. 10.1080/10409289.2023.2278117
35
ZoshJ. M.JingM.ShawcroftJ.StarksA. (2023). Moving beyond quality and quantity: approaching children's digital media use with more nuance. Transl. Issues Psychol. Sci.9, 181–185. 10.1037/tps0000378
Summary
Keywords
parental mediation, digital media use, parent-child interaction, media literacy, parenting
Citation
Fam JY, Juhari R, Kääriäinen M and Männikkö N (2025) Reconsidering parental mediation with new media technology. Front. Hum. Dyn. 7:1495954. doi: 10.3389/fhumd.2025.1495954
Received
13 September 2024
Accepted
06 August 2025
Published
22 August 2025
Volume
7 - 2025
Edited by
Peter David Tolmie, University of Siegen, Germany
Reviewed by
Mariángeles Castro-Sánchez, Universidad Austral, Argentina
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Fam, Juhari, Kääriäinen and Männikkö.
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: Jia Yuin Fam jiayuinf@sunway.edu.my
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.