Abstract
In the context of the digital era, screen media has become deeply embedded in family life, reshaping traditional parent-child interactions and altering the developmental ecology of early childhood. To examine how these dynamics unfold over time, we conducted a longitudinal study involving 532 Chinese children aged 3 to 6 years, assessed across three waves spaced 4 months apart. Analyses revealed that conflictual parent-child relationships at Time 1 significantly predicted both externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems at Time 3, with screen time at Time 2 serving as a partial mediator. In contrast, close parent-child relationships at Time 1 did not significantly predict later screen time but were directly associated with lower levels of externalizing behavioral problems at Time 3.
1 Introduction
In many countries, screen media has become deeply embedded in children's daily lives and learning experiences (). While screen media provides children with diverse opportunities for learning and entertainment, excessive exposure has increasingly attracted scholarly and public concern due to its potentially detrimental impact on child development (; ). Screen media exposure among young children has shown both earlier onset and excessive duration. A substantial proportion of children aged 3 to 6 worldwide exceed the World Health Organization's recommendation of limiting daily screen exposure to 1 h (; ; ; ; ; ; ). In particular, a study conducted in China revealed that excessive screen use is prevalent among children aged 4–6 years (). Extensive empirical research has identified prolonged screen time as a significant risk factor for the emergence of behavioral problems in children (; ). Additionally, a substantial body of research has established the parent-child relationship as a robust predictor of children's behavioral problems ().
In the context of the new era of digital parenting, the parent-child relationship not only directly shapes children's behavioral development but may also exert an indirect influence by affecting the duration, content, and patterns of their screen media use (; ). Although prior research has primarily examined the dyadic relationships between parent-child dynamics and behavioral problems or between screen media exposure and behavioral problems, systematic investigations that integrate the three constructs into a unified explanatory framework remain notably scarce. Focusing on preschool children aged 3 to 6, this study adopts a longitudinal design to explore the distinct mediating pathways through which close vs. conflictual parent-child relationships influence children's behavioral problems, specifically through patterns of screen media use. The findings are expected to offer robust empirical support for guiding the development of early family-based screen media intervention strategies.
2 Literature review
2.1 The association between the parent-child relationship and children's behavioral problems
The parent-child relationship is a relatively stable relational dynamic shaped through sustained emotional, physical, and behavioral interactions. A high-quality parent-child relationship provides essential support for children's developmental well being and plays a foundational role in shaping early socialization and adaptive functioning (). The parent-child relationship is commonly conceptualized along the dimensions of relational closeness and conflict. Closeness reflects warmth, acceptance, and mutually responsive interactions, whereas conflict is marked by frequent criticism, disagreement, rejection, neglect, and, in some cases, physical confrontation ().
The quality of the parent–child relationship is widely regarded as a key predictor of children's behavioral problems (). A close and supportive parent–child relationship is associated with more adaptive behavioral and emotional functioning in children, whereas parent–child conflict is consistently linked to elevated levels of both externalizing problems (e.g., aggression, inattention) and internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety, depression) (; ). Frequent conflict and emotional invalidation are more saliently predictive of externalizing behavioral problems, whereas diminished emotional closeness is more consistently associated with internalizing difficulties, including anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal (; ).
Cross-cultural research has provided additional evidence for this pattern. In Western contexts, early behavioral problems in children are strongly predicted by harsh parental criticism and elevated parent–child conflict, while emotional detachment and high parental control are consistently associated with both social withdrawal and aggressive tendencies (). In Chinese family contexts, both parental detachment and reduced relational closeness have been shown to significantly predict children's behavioral problems (; ). Collectively, these findings underscore the critical role of parent–child relational dynamics in the emergence of children's behavioral problems across diverse cultural contexts.
Although a substantial body of empirical research has explored the association between the parent–child relationship and children's behavioral problems, notable limitations persist—most notably, the predominant use of cross-sectional designs, which constrain the ability to examine dynamic relationships and temporal associations that may underlie observed patterns. In response to these limitations, the present study employs a longitudinal design to investigate their temporal interplay.
2.2 The mediating role of screen time between parent-child relationship and problem behaviors
Children's screen exposure is shaped by multiple ecological factors, with the home environment—particularly the quality of the parent-child relationship—emerging as a primary determinant of screen time, media content, and usage context among children aged 3 to 6 (). Empirical evidence indicates that a high-quality parent–child relationship effectively reduces the risk of excessive screen exposure (; ). Positive emotional support and frequent parent–child communication during media use foster children's media literacy, strengthen cognitive control, and enhance emotional regulation, thereby decreasing their susceptibility to screen dependence (; ). Conversely, negative parent–child relationships increase the likelihood of excessive screen exposure. Maternal rejection and neglect, for instance, are closely linked to prolonged screen time in children (; ). It is worth noting that most studies examining the parent-child relationship and children's screen time have been conducted in Western contexts, where consultative parent-child interactions and parental mediation strategies are emphasized (). By contrast, Eastern cultural contexts often highlight attachment, obedience, and parental authority. Within this framework, parents frequently act as media gatekeepers, relying more heavily on restrictive mediation strategies (). These cultural distinctions underscore the need for further investigation into how parent–child dynamics shape screen time in non-Western contexts, particularly within Chinese families.
Excessive screen time has been associated with a range of physical health risks, such as visual impairment, reduced sleep quality, and increased obesity rates, as well as with heightened risks of both externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems (; ). Behavioral problems are defined as maladaptive patterns of behavior that deviate from developmental norms and impair social functioning, typically categorized into externalizing (e.g., aggression, impulsivity) and internalizing (e.g., anxiety, withdrawal) domains (). Evidence suggests that excessive screen time is associated with higher levels of aggression, oppositional conduct, hyperactivity (; ), as well as symptoms of anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal (; ). The influence of screen time on behavioral problems is characterized by three features. First, a dose-response effect has been observed: longer screen time predicts greater risk (; ). Second, the effect is broad-based, influencing both externalizing and internalizing behaviors (; ). Third, early and prolonged screen exposure appears particularly detrimental, showing stronger predictive effects on later behavioral problems (). Nevertheless, some studies caution that the temporal ordering of this association remains unclear, as screen time may also reflect underlying family or individual vulnerabilities (; ). While substantial research has explored screen time and behavioral outcomes in adolescents, evidence concerning younger children remains limited. Early childhood (ages 3–6) is a critical developmental window for shaping emotional regulation and behavioral patterns. At this stage, children typically lack sufficient self-regulation and discernment for healthy media use (). Given the potential mediating role of screen time between parent–child relationship and problem behaviors, further investigation is urgently needed to clarify these pathways, particularly in cultural contexts such as China.
2.3 Research questions
In summary, while extensive research has examined the interrelations among the parent–child relationship, screen time, and children's behavioral problems, few empirical studies have incorporated screen time into integrative models that link parent–child dynamics to behavioral outcomes, particularly in early childhood and within longitudinal frameworks (). The rapid advancement of the digital era has led to the deep integration of smart screen media into family life, transforming the structure and dynamics of parent–child interactions and reshaping the proximal developmental context for children's physical and psychological growth. In this shifting landscape, children's screen time may serve as a key contextual factor that alters the pathways linking parent-child relationship quality to behavioral outcomes. Building on this framework, the present study proposes the following hypotheses:
Variations in parent–child relationship types significantly predict behavioral problems among children aged 3 to 6.
Different types of parent–child relationships are closely associated with children's screen time.
Children's screen time is positively associated with behavioral problems.
Screen time mediates the associations between parent–child relationship types and children's behavioral problems.
3 Materials and methods
3.1 Participant and procedures
This study employed a longitudinal design involving parents of children aged 3 to 6 years in Fuyang City, Anhui Province, China. A simple random sampling procedure was used to recruit 619 children and their mothers at Time 1 (T1), who completed the baseline assessment. Data were collected at three time points: T1 (n = 619), T2 (n = 588), and T3 (n = 532). Attrition occurred across waves, with 31 participants lost between T1 and T2 and 56 participants lost between T2 and T3, resulting in a total attrition of 87 participants (14.1%) across the study period. Attrition analyses comparing participants who remained in the study and those who dropped out on key baseline variables revealed no significant differences. Missing data due to attrition were handled using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption within structural equation modeling. To ensure data quality, responses with completion times below 2 min (based on pilot testing and observed response distributions) were excluded (n = 11). The final analytic sample consisted of 532 valid cases. All questionnaires were completed by mothers, who served as the primary caregivers.
The final sample comprised 289 boys (54.3%) and 243 girls (45.7%). The mean age of the children was 3.99 years (SD = 0.85). Specifically, 198 children were 3 years old (37.2%), 150 were 4 years old (28.2%), and 184 were 5 years old (34.6%). Table 1 provides a detailed overview of the participants' demographic information. All participants provided written informed consent prior to completing the questionnaire. The study was reviewed and approved by the Academic Ethics Committee of the School of Educational Science at Nantong University (Approval No. NT20231109).
Table 1
| Characteristics | n (%)/M (SD) |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Boys | 289 (54.3%) |
| Girls | 243 (45.7%) |
| Age (years) | 3.99 (0.85) |
| Age 3 | 198 (37.2%) |
| Age 4 | 150 (28.2%) |
| Age 5 | 184 (34.6%) |
| Father's educational attainment | |
| High school or below | 107 (20.1%) |
| Associate degree | 202 (38.0%) |
| Bachelor's degree | 200 (37.6%) |
| Master's degree | 21 (3.9%) |
| Doctoral degree | 2 (0.4%) |
| Mother's educational attainment | |
| High school or below | 87 (16.4%) |
| Associate degree | 164 (30.8%) |
| Bachelor's degree | 256 (48.1%) |
| Master's degree | 24 (4.5%) |
| Doctoral degree | 1 (0.2%) |
| Father's occupation | |
| Unskilled/semi-skilled workers | 104 (19.5%) |
| Skilled workers | 149 (28.0%) |
| General civil servants | 168 (31.6%) |
| Professional or mid-level administrators | 107 (20.1%) |
| Senior professionals or administrators | 4 (0.8%) |
| Mother's occupation | |
| Unskilled/semi-skilled workers | 167 (31.4%) |
| Skilled workers | 91 (17.1%) |
| General civil servants | 172 (32.3%) |
| Professional or mid-level administrators | 99 (18.6%) |
| Senior professionals or administrators | 3 (0.6%) |
Descriptive characteristics of the sample.
3.2 Materials
3.2.1 Assessment of parent–child relationship
The quality of the parent–child relationship was assessed using the Child-Parent Relationship Scale (CPRS; ), a widely validated instrument grounded in attachment theory and relational models of early childhood development. The Chinese revised version of the CPRS, translated and adapted by , was employed in the present study. This version demonstrated satisfactory construct validity, as evidenced by confirmatory factor analysis (RMSEA = 0.058, CFI = 0.932, GFI = 0.907). The CPRS comprises two subscales: Closeness (7 items; e.g., “There is a warm, affectionate relationship between my child and me.”) and Conflict (8 items; e.g., “My child and I always seem to be struggling with each other.”). All items were rated by mothers using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (completely true), with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived emotional closeness or relational conflict. Subscale scores were treated as continuous variables in the analyses. In the present sample, the scale demonstrated acceptable to good internal consistency, with Cronbach's α = 0.882 for the Closeness and Cronbach's α = 0.895 for the Conflict.
3.2.2 Assessment of screen time
Children's screen time was measured through caregiver reports based on two items: (1) “On average, how much time per day does your child spend using electronic devices on weekdays (Monday to Friday)?” and (2) “On average, how much time per day does your child spend using electronic devices on weekends (Saturday and Sunday)?” The use of parent-reported screen time is a widely accepted approach in the existing literature for assessing children's exposure to electronic media (; ; ). To calculate overall daily screen time, a weighted average was computed using the following formula: Average screen time = (weekday average × 5 + weekend average × 2)/7 (). This method accounts for differences in daily routines between weekdays and weekends.
3.2.3 Assessment of behavioral problems
Externalizing behavioral problems (EBP) and internalizing behavioral problems (IBP) were measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; ). The SDQ is a widely used, brief behavioral screening tool that has demonstrated good construct validity for identifying behavioral problems in preschool-aged children (RMSEA = 0.078, CFI = 0.912, TLI = 0.931). The SDQ uses a 3-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (not true) to 3 (certainly true). Externalizing behaviors problems were assessed using two subscales: Hyperactivity/Inattention (e.g., “The child is restless, overactive, and cannot stay still for long”) and Conduct Problems (e.g., “The child often fights with other children or bullies them”). Internalizing behaviors problems were assessed using the Emotional Symptoms subscale (e.g., “The child has many worries and often seems worried”) and the Peer Problems subscale (e.g., “The child has at least one good friend”). Each subscale consists of 5 items. The SDQ demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in the present study, with Cronbach's α = 0.891 for externalizing behaviors problems and Cronbach's α = 0.853 for internalizing behaviors problems.
3.2.4 Covariates
Several covariates were controlled for in the study, including the child's gender and family socioeconomic status (SES). SES was operationalized by combining parental education and occupation levels. Specifically, parental education was categorized into six levels: (1) primary school or below, (2) junior high school, (3) senior high school, vocational school, or technical school, (4) junior college, (5) bachelor's degree, and (6) postgraduate degree or above. Parental occupation was classified into five levels according to the Hopkins Occupational Classification: (1) non-technical and semi-skilled workers, (2) skilled workers, (3) general administrative personnel, (4) professionals and mid-level administrative personnel, and (5) senior professionals and senior administrators. Following the SES synthesis approach proposed by , principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted using four standardized indicators, including father's education, mother's education, father's occupation, and mother's occupation. The first principal component was retained to construct the SES index, accounting for 61.09% of the total variance.
Family SES was computed as a weighted composite score based on the factor loadings of the first principal component: Family SES = (0.792 × father's education + 0.836 × mother's education + 0.728 × father's occupation + 0.767 × mother's occupation)/0.6109. Higher scores indicate higher levels of family socioeconomic status.
3.3 Data analysis
Data were collected online via the Wenjuanxing platform, with all questionnaire items set as mandatory to ensure data completeness and the absence of missing values. Preliminary analyses, including descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), were conducted using SPSS 26.0 to examine basic patterns among variables. To test the hypothesized mediation model, longitudinal structural equation modeling was performed in Mplus 8.0 using maximum likelihood estimation combined with the bootstrap method, which was employed to derive bias-corrected confidence intervals. While this approach does not strongly rely on the assumption of multivariate normality, normality tests were nonetheless conducted for key variables as part of a broader data quality assurance procedure (). Skewness and kurtosis statistics for all study variables indicated acceptable normality. Specifically, Closeness (−1.12, 1.19), Conflict (0.82, 0.43), Screen Time (1.84, 2.17), Peer Problems (0.50, −0.12), Emotional Symptoms (1.85, 3.16), Conduct Problems (0.30, −0.19), and Hyperactivity/Inattention (0.22, −0.23) fell within a range suggesting approximate normal distribution.
4 Results
4.1 Common method bias control
Given the exclusive use of maternal self-report data, the potential for common method bias (CMB) was addressed through multiple strategies. First, a three-wave longitudinal design with 4-month intervals between assessments was employed to reduce source and timing-related biases (). Second, structural equation modeling explicitly accounted for the relationships between latent constructs and measurement error, minimizing bias at the model level (). Finally, Harman's single-factor test, conducted at Time 1, revealed that the first unrotated factor explained 27.95% of the variance—well below the conventional 40% threshold indicative of problematic CMB.
4.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Descriptive statistics indicated that scores for screen time, conflictual parent–child relationship, and internalizing behavioral problems were slightly below the scale midpoint, whereas close parent-child relationship and externalizing behavioral problems were above the midpoint (see Table 2).
Table 2
| Vairables | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPCR | 4.553 | 0.446 | – | ||||||
| ConPCR | 1.93 | 0.694 | −0.399*** | – | |||||
| ST | 1.17 | 1.039 | −0.077*** | 0.206*** | – | ||||
| PP | 2.143 | 0.357 | −0.041*** | 0.245*** | 0.077* | – | |||
| ES | 1.243 | 0.419 | −0.015*** | 0.260*** | 0.161*** | 0.262*** | – | ||
| CP | 2.624 | 0.333 | −0.048*** | 0.195*** | 0.106** | 0.086** | 0.205*** | – | |
| HI | 1.799 | 0.269 | −0.255*** | 0.245*** | 0.143*** | 0.091** | 0.237*** | 0.252*** | – |
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between the key variables.
CPCR, close parent-child relationship; ConPCR, conflictual parent-child relationship; ST, screen time; PP, peer problems; ES, emotional symptoms; CP, conduct problems; HI, hyperactivity/inattention.
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
Pearson correlation analyses revealed several significant associations. Screen time was negatively associated with close parent-child relationship (r = −0.077, p < 0.001), and positively associated with conflictual parent–child relationship (r = 0.206, p < 0.001), peer problems (r = 0.077, p < 0.05), emotional symptoms (r = 0.161, p < 0.001), conduct problems (r = 0.106, p < 0.01), and hyperactivity/inattention (r = 0.143, p < 0.001).
Moreover, close parent–child relationship was negatively correlated with conflictual parent-child relationship (r = −0.399, p < 0.001), peer problems (r = −0.041, p < 0.05), emotional symptoms (r = −0.015, p < 0.001), conduct problems (r = −0.048, p < 0.01), and hyperactivity/inattention (r = −0.255, p < 0.001). Conflictual parent–child relationship was positively associated with peer problems (r = 0.245, p < 0.001), emotional symptoms (r = 0.260, p < 0.001), conduct problems (r = 0.195, p < 0.001), and hyperactivity/inattention (r = 0.245, p < 0.001). Lastly, peer problems were significantly correlated with emotional symptoms (r = 0.262, p < 0.001), conduct problems (r = 0.086, p < 0.01), and hyperactivity/inattention (r = 0.091, p < 0.01). Emotional symptoms were also significantly correlated with conduct problems (r = 0.205, p < 0.001) and hyperactivity/inattention (r = 0.237, p < 0.001). Conduct problems were also significantly correlated with hyperactivity/inattention (r = 0.252, p < 0.001).
4.3 Group differences in behavioral problems
Group differences in behavioral problems among children aged 3 to 6 were examined using independent t-tests and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to assess the effects of gender, age, and family socioeconomic status (SES). No significant differences were found based on gender or age. However, a one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of family SES on both internalizing behavioral problems (F = 3.741, p < 0.05) and externalizing behavioral problems (F = 3.198, p < 0.05). Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that children from low-SES families exhibited significantly more internalizing behavioral problems than those from high-SES families (p < 0.05). Similarly, children from low-SES families showed significantly more externalizing behavioral problems than their high-SES counterparts (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between children from middle-SES and high-SES families (p > 0.05), or between those from middle-SES and low-SES families (p > 0.05).
4.4 Associations between parent–child relationship and behavioral problems
Structural equation modeling was conducted to examine the associations between parent-child relationship quality and preschool children's behavioral problems. Specifically, close and conflictual parent-child relationships were included as predictors, screen time was specified as a mediator, and internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems were modeled as outcome variables. The results of model comparison indicated that the partial mediation model provided a significantly better fit to the data than the full mediation model (Δχ2(2) = 15.30, p < 0.001). In addition, modification indices were inspected; however, no additional paths that lacked theoretical justification were added, in order to avoid overfitting and to preserve model parsimony. The final model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data: χ2(7) = 19.27, p < 0.05; RMSEA = 0.057, 90% CI [0.028, 0.089]; CFI = 0.950; TLI = 0.917; and SRMR = 0.028. Standardized path coefficients are presented in Figure 1, and detailed direct effects are reported in Table 3.
Figure 1
Table 3
| Model paths | β (SE) | p | 95% CI lower | 95% CI upper |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct effects | ||||
| ConPCR → ST | 0.208(0.058) | <0.001 | 0.094 | 0.322 |
| CPCR → ST | 0.006 (0.048) | > 0.05 | −0.088 | 0.100 |
| ST → IBP | 0.148(0.070) | <0.05 | 0.011 | 0.285 |
| ST → EBP | 0.149(0.068) | <0.05 | 0.016 | 0.282 |
| ConPCR → IBP | 0.476 (0.089) | <0.001 | 0.302 | 0.650 |
| ConPCR → EBP | 0.273 (0.079) | <0.05 | 0.118 | 0.428 |
| CPCR → IBP | −0.157(0.070) | <0.001 | −0.294 | −0.020 |
| CPCR → EBP | −0.213 (0.068) | <0.001 | −0.346 | −0.080 |
| Gender → IBP | 0.043(0.039) | > 0.05 | −0.033 | 0.119 |
| Gender → EBP | 0.004(0.031) | > 0.05 | −0.057 | 0.065 |
| SES → IBP | −0.076(0.039) | > 0.05 | −0.152 | 0.002 |
| SES → EBP | −0.038(0.031) | > 0.05 | −0.099 | 0.023 |
| Indirect effects (via ST) | ||||
| CPCR → ST → IBP | −0.001 (0.008) | > 0.05 | −0.017 | 0.015 |
| CPCR → ST → EBP | −0.001 (0.008) | > 0.05 | −0.015 | 0.018 |
| ConPCR → ST → IBP | 0.031 (0.029) | <0.05 | −0.026 | 0.088 |
| ConPCR → ST → EBP | 0.031 (0.027) | <0.05 | −0.022 | 0.084 |
Standardized direct and indirect effects in the structural equation model.
Conflictual parent–child relationship was significantly and positively associated with both internalizing (β = 0.476, p < 0.001) and externalizing behavioral problems (β = 0.273, p < 0.001), with each standard deviation increase in conflict predicting notable increases in behavioral difficulties. In contrast, close parent-child relationship was negatively associated with internalizing (β= −0.157, p < 0.001) and externalizing behavioral problems (β = −0.213, p < 0.001). These results underscore the protective role of close parent–child relationships and the risk posed by conflictual interactions in the early development of behavioral problems.
4.5 Mediated effect test
Mediation analysis revealed that screen time partially mediated the association between conflictual parent-child relationships and both internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems. Specifically, conflict parent-child relationships predicted higher screen time (β = 0.208, p < 0.001), which in turn was associated with increased internalizing (β = 0.148, p < 0.001) and externalizing behavioral problems (β = 0.149, p <0.001). Conflict parent–child relationships also had direct effects on internalizing (β = 0.476, p < 0.001) and externalizing behavioral problems (β = 0.273, p < 0.001). Bootstrapped indirect effects further supported this mediation model: screen time significantly transmitted the effects of conflict on both internalizing (β = 0.031, p < 0.05) and externalizing behavioral problems (β = 0.031, p < 0.05), confirming a partial mediation pathway. However, no mediation effect was found for the closeness dimension, as its link with screen time was not significant (β = 0.001, p > 0.05). This suggests that while parent–child conflict contributes to behavioral difficulties in part through increased screen exposure, the protective effects of relational closeness may operate via alternative mechanisms beyond media use (see Figure 1 and Table 3).
5 Discussion
Based on a three-wave longitudinal design, the present study systematically examined the longitudinal associations among parent-child relationships, children's screen time, and behavioral problems in children aged 3 to 6. The findings indicated a temporally ordered pattern of associations: conflictual parent-child relationships at Time 1 were significantly associated with externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems at Time 3, with screen time at Time 2 serving as a partial mediator. In contrast, close parent-child relationships at Time 1 did not significantly predict screen time at Time 2, but were directly and negatively associated with externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems at Time 3. By modeling the distinct pathways of close and conflictual parent-child relationships, the study identified two differentiated patterns of mediation.
5.1 Screen time as a partial mediator between conflictual parent–child relationships and behavioral problems
Conflictual parent–child relationships were significantly associated with increased screen time, and screen time partially mediated their association with children's behavioral problems. This pattern is consistent with prior evidence suggesting that high-conflict family environments, particularly those involving criticism, negative affectivity, and communication deficits, may lead children to adopt screen media use as an avoidant coping strategy. In such contexts, screen use may function as an emotion regulation strategy, helping children distance themselves from interpersonal stress and compensate for relational detachment (; ). From a family interaction perspective, conflictual parent–child relationships are associated with fewer positive shared activities, including reading, play, and outdoor engagement. Consequently, children may be more likely to engage in screen media for solitary entertainment or time-filling purposes (; ). Moreover, parent-child conflict may undermine parental regulatory authority over children's media use, potentially increasing screen exposure ().
5.2 Close parent-child relationships show no significant effect on children's screen time
The present study found no significant association between close parent–child relationships and children's screen time, which contrasts with prior research suggesting a protective role of relational closeness. One possible explanation is that close relationships are characterized by emotional warmth and acceptance, which may lead parents to adopt more autonomy-supportive practices and fewer restrictive rules regarding media use (). Given the inherently engaging nature of screen media and the limited self-regulatory capacity of preschool children (), children may naturally gravitate toward screen-based activities. Therefore, in the absence of explicit media regulation strategies, relational closeness alone may not be sufficient to reduce screen exposure, nor is it necessarily associated with behavioral adjustment outcomes (; ). In some cases, close parent-child relationships embedded in permissive home environments may even coincide with higher screen exposure (). This suggests that children's screen time may be more strongly shaped by parental mediation practices than by relational quality alone (). Even in close relationships, parents may permit limited screen use for educational or recreational purposes due to time constraints, a pattern often described as the “electronic babysitter” phenomenon in Chinese families (). Such practices may weaken the association between relational closeness and screen exposure.
5.3 Close parent–child relationship negatively predicts children's behavioral problems
Although close parent–child relationship was not indirectly associated with children's behavioral problems via screen time, it demonstrated a significant direct negative association with both internalizing and externalizing behaviors. This finding aligns with prior research suggesting that close, warm, and supportive relationships enhance children's emotional self-regulation, foster psychological security, and thereby promote the development of prosocial behavior (). Although close parent-child relationships may not directly influence children's screen time, they may support healthier patterns of media use through constructive parental mediation strategies, such as co-viewing and guided interaction (). This may help account for the absence of a significant mediating role of screen time in this pathway.
6 Implications and limitations
Amid accelerating digitalization, family caregiving environments and parent–child interaction patterns are undergoing significant transformations. To counteract the developmental risks posed by the increasing reliance on screen media as an “electronic babysitter”, parents are advised to actively engage with their children through meaningful interaction. Such engagement may take the form of shared reading, interactive play, or outdoor physical activities, all of which enrich children's everyday experiences and reduce screen use driven by boredom or inactivity. Moreover, fostering democratic and respectful communication styles helps cultivate emotional closeness and psychological security while minimizing factors like harsh discipline, neglect, emotional distance, and parent-child conflict, which may otherwise strengthen children's emotional reliance on screen media (). Furthermore, families are encouraged to implement developmentally informed and proactive media intervention strategies, rather than resorting to overly restrictive or permissive approaches. Such strategies should emphasize the prioritization of educational content, the regulation of screen time, and the promotion of active and positive parent-child interactions during media use (). At the same time, parents should also reduce their own screen-focused behaviors and serve as positive role models for media use.
It should be noted that the association between parent–child relationships and children's behavioral outcomes does not necessarily operate directly through screen time. Instead, its underlying mechanisms are likely to be more complex, potentially involving indirect pathways through other mediating or moderating processes (). Prior research has suggested that, compared with total screen time, parent–child relationships may exert a stronger influence on the nature and context of children's media use, such as co-viewing vs. solitary use (). Consistent with this perspective, the present findings indicate that although screen time significantly predicts children's behavioral problems, its effect size is relatively modest. Therefore, future research should move beyond a sole focus on screen time duration and further incorporate the content and contextual characteristics of media use. For example, exposure to aggressive or violent content has been associated with an increased risk of externalizing behaviors and socio-emotional difficulties, whereas educational content tends to be associated with comparatively lower developmental risks (; ). Accordingly, the heterogeneity of media content should be fully considered when interpreting the relationship between screen time and children's behavioral outcomes.
In addition, the present study did not include baseline levels of key variables, which may have resulted in insufficient control for stable between-person differences at initial assessment. As a consequence, some of the observed indirect effects may partially reflect pre-existing levels of the constructs rather than purely developmental processes. If data permit, future research should incorporate baseline measures of both the outcome and mediator variables as autoregressive controls in order to conduct robustness checks. This would allow for a more rigorous identification of dynamic relationships among variables and strengthen the validity of causal inferences. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the causal implications of the observed mediating effects.
Regarding measurement, screen time was assessed using the average duration on weekdays and weekends. Although this approach provides a basic estimate of exposure, it does not capture important contextual information that may be critical for understanding its role in child development. This limitation may have attenuated or obscured the true association between close parent–child interactions and children's behavioral problems (; ). Accordingly, future studies should adopt more comprehensive measurement approaches that include not only duration but also content type and usage context.
Regarding the sampling procedure, although participants were recruited through kindergartens and classes, the present study did not explicitly model the nested data structure (e.g., children within classes or schools). Thus, potential clustering effects cannot be entirely ruled out. However, as the analyses focused on individual-level associations, the impact is likely to be limited. Future research may consider accounting for clustering using multilevel approaches or cluster-robust standard errors.
Furthermore, all core variables in the present study were reported by a single informant. Although tests of common method bias indicated that method variance was unlikely to pose a serious threat to the findings, reliance on a single source of information remains a methodological limitation. Incorporating multiple informants would provide a more robust, multi-perspective assessment and further enhance the reliability and validity of the findings. Future research is therefore encouraged to integrate multi-informant data to address this limitation.
Finally, this study employed a short-term longitudinal design. Although this design allows for the examination of temporal ordering among variables, it captures only a limited developmental time window. The relatively short measurement interval may not adequately reflect the dynamic interplay among screen time, parent-child relationships, and behavioral problems over time. Accordingly, the generalizability of the findings across longer developmental periods should be interpreted with caution. Future research should adopt longer-term longitudinal designs with multiple waves of data collection to better capture stability and change in these constructs and to more rigorously test the proposed mediational mechanisms.
7 Conclusions
This study sheds light on the dynamic interplay among parent-child relationships, children's screen time, and behavioral problems. The effects of close and conflictual parent-child relationships on screen time diverged, revealing two distinct mediational mechanisms. Conflictual parent-child relationships were a significant predictor of subsequent internalizing and externalizing problems, partially mediated by children's screen time. In contrast, relational closeness was not associated with screen time but exhibited a direct negative predictive effect on externalizing behaviors.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Academic Ethics Committee of the School of Educational Science at Nantong University (Approval No. NT20231109). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
XL: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Resources, Validation, Writing—original draft, Supervision. ML: Investigation, Validation, Writing—original draft, Methodology, Software. JS: Validation, Project administration, Writing—review and editing, Writing—original draft, Formal analysis.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was funded by the General Project of Humanities and Social Sciences Research of the Ministry of Education: Risk Identification and Prevention Mechanisms for Screen Exposure in Infants and Toddlers (23YJC880066).
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.
References
1
AcarI. H.UçuşS.YildizS. (2019). Parenting and Turkish children's behaviour problems: the moderating role of qualities of parent–child relationship. Early Child Develop. Care189, 1072–1085. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2017.1365362
2
AlSamhoriJ. F.ToubasiA. A.JaberD. Z.GhanemH. H.ThainatB. I.AlSamhoriA. F.et al. (2025). Jordanian parental perception of screen time and its association with psychological distress: a cross-sectional design. Pediatr. Neonatol.66, 12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2023.11.010
3
Al-ShoaibiA. A. A.ZamoraG.ChuJ.PatelK. P.GansonK. T.TestaA.et al. (2024). Family conflict and less parental monitoring were associated with greater screen time in early adolescence. Acta Paediatrica113, 2452–2458. doi: 10.1111/apa.17349
4
BalM.Kara AydemirA. G.Tepetaş CengizG. S.AltindagA. (2024). Examining the relationship between language development, executive function, and screen time: a systematic review. PLoS ONE19:e0314540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314540
5
BriegelW.GreuelJ.StrothS.HeinrichsN. (2019). Parents' perception of their 2-10-year-old children's contribution to the dyadic parent-child relationship in terms of positive and negative behaviors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health16:1123. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071123
6
ÇaylanN.YalçinS. S.Erat NergizM.YildizD.OfluA.TezolÖ.et al. (2021). Associations between parenting styles and excessive screen usage in preschool children. Turk. Arch. Pediatr.56, 261–266. doi: 10.14744/TurkPediatriArs.2020.43765
7
ChaputJ.ColleyR. C.AubertS.CarsonV.JanssenI.RobertsK. C.et al. (2017). Proportion of preschool-aged children meeting the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines and associations with adiposity: results from the Canadian health measures survey. BMC Public Health17, 829–829. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4854-y
8
ChenB.BernardJ.PadmapriyaN.NingY.CaiS.LançaC.et al. (2020). Associations between early-life screen viewing and 24 hour movement behaviours: findings from a longitudinal birth cohort study. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health4, 201–209. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30424-9
9
ChenM.LanT.JiangY. (2024). Effects of family functioning on problem behaviour among Chinese preschool children: the mediation effect of mother–child relationships. Early Child Develop. Care194, 633–644. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2023.2236321
10
ChiaM. Y. H.KomarJ.ChuaT. B. K.TayL. Y. (2022). Associations between parent attitudes and on- and off-screen behaviours of preschool children in Singapore. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health19:11508. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811508
11
CliffD. P.HowardS. J.RadeskyJ. S.McNeillJ.VellaS. A. (2018). Early childhood media exposure and self-regulation: bidirectional longitudinal associations. Acad. Pediatr.18, 813–819. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2018.04.012
12
CliffD. P.McNeillJ.VellaS. A.HowardS. J.SantosR.BatterhamM.et al. (2017). Adherence to 24-hour movement guidelines for the early years and associations with social-cognitive development among australian preschool children. BMC Public Health17, 857–857. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4858-7
13
CoeJ. L.MicalizziL.HuffhinesL.SeiferR.TyrkaA. R.ParadeS. H. (2024). Effortful control, parent–child relationships, and behavior problems among preschool-aged children experiencing adversity. J. Child Family Stud.33, 663–672. doi: 10.1007/s10826-023-02741-7
14
ConwayJ. M.LanceC. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. J. Bus. Psychol.25, 325–334. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
15
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq.11, 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
16
DengX. P. (2013). Relationship between teachers' behavior, parent-child interaction and children's creativity in preschool. (Doctoral dissertation). Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China. Available online at: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=lj-1FT9NYjCMaPa43H_mzMfAz4m8Th-m6e0F2l5uh8T6BPcHhG9WqdqkQ0YEN-P6GQRkyVQkeHKULQCBs3WKR3p4u4oSidsxBh2NVZbX1qJJ5iQjGQphvq0dAkh8_GQcsTUEoL7O9jv5GrjNwRpZQKtA7XKa_9kKXA1kDEpJtLvMqLWCdjKveg==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS18
17
DenisenkovaN. S.TaruntaevP. I. (2023). The relationship between parent–child relationships and the use of digital devices by older preschoolers. Social′naâ Psihologiâ i Obsestvo14, 31–45. doi: 10.17759/sps.2023140303
18
DomoffS. E.RadeskyJ. S.HarrisonK.RileyH.LumengJ. C.MillerA. L. (2019). A naturalistic study of child and family screen media and mobile device use. J. Child Family Stud.28, 401–410. doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1275-1
19
DurhamK.WethmarD.BrandstetterS.Seelbach-GöbelB.ApfelbacherC.MelterM. (2021). Digital media exposure and predictors for screen time in 12-month-old children: a cross-sectional analysis of data from a german birth cohort. Front. Psych.12:737178. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.737178
20
EirichR.McArthurB. A.AnhornC.McGuinnessC.ChristakisD. A.MadiganS. (2022). Association of screen time with internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in children 12 years or younger: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psych.79:393. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0155
21
Erat NergizM.ÇaylanN.YalçinS. S.OfluA.TezolÖ.Foto ÖzdemirD.et al. (2020). Excessive screen time is associated with maternal rejection behaviours in pre-school children. J. Paediatr. Child Health56, 1077–1082. doi: 10.1111/jpc.14821
22
FrataB.SouzaJ. M.MontemezzoD.HenningE.MenegolN. A.OkuboR.et al. (2021). Predictors for screen time exposure among children between 3 and 5 years old in Southern Brazil. J. Trop. Pediatr.67:fmab092. doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmab092
23
GaoH.CuiY.FangY. (2022). A study on the relationship between parental media intervention and early childhood developmental outcomes. J. Educ. Res.18, 113–125. doi: 10.14082/j.cnki.1673-1298.2022.01.012
24
GaoW.ZhangY.WuD.DongY.LiuN.WangH. (2022). Compliance with health-related behaviors guidelines and its relationship with multiple factors in preschool children aged 3–6 years: a national cross-sectional survey in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health19:1262. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031262
25
GengS.XuK.LiuX. (2023). Association between electronic media use and internalizing problems: the mediating effect of parent-child conflict and moderating effect of children's age. Behav. Sci.13:694. doi: 10.3390/bs13080694
26
GhasemiA.ZahediaslS. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int. J. Endocrinol. Metabol.10, 486–489. doi: 10.5812/ijem.3505
27
GialamasA.HaagD. G.MittintyM. N.LynchJ. (2020). Which time investments in the first 5 years of life matter most for children's language and behavioural outcomes at school entry?Int. J. Epidemiol.49, 548–558. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz192
28
GoodmanR. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. J. Amer. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psych.40, 1337–1345. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015
29
GülbetekinE.YildirimZ. (2023). Investigation of the relationship between screen usage habits, behavioral problems and self-regulation skills of children aged 4–6. J. Pediatr. Nurs.73, e525–e533. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.10.025
30
HawiN. S.SamahaM.GriffithsM. D. (2019). The digital addiction scale for children: development and validation. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw.22, 771–778. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2019.0132
31
HillekensJ.BuistK. L.HorváthL. O.KoperN.ÓlafsdóttirJ.KarkdijkE.et al. (2020). Parent-early adolescent relationship quality and problem behavior in Hungary, the Netherlands, India, and Iceland. Scand. J. Psychol.61, 763–774. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12667
32
HinikerA.SchoenebeckS. Y.KientzJ. A. (2016). “Not at the dinner table: parents' and children's perspectives on family technology rules,” in Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing; San Francisco, CA, USA: ACM press. p. 1376–1389. doi: 10.1145/2818048.2819940
33
HolmgrenH. G.StockdaleL.ShawcroftJ.CoyneS. M.FraserA. M. (2023). Toddlers and the telly: a latent profile analysis of children's television time and content and behavioral outcomes one year later in the U.S. J. Child. Media17, 298–317. doi: 10.1080/17482798.2023.2195194
34
HuB. Y.JohnsonG. K.WuH. (2018). Screen time relationship of Chinese parents and their children. Child. Youth Serv. Rev.94, 659–669. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.09.008
35
JörrenH. L.SchmidtH.KamanA.Ravens-SiebererU.RumpfH.PawilsS. (2023). Children's mental health: the role of screen time, parenting behavior, and parenting stress—a secondary data analysis of KiGGS and BELLA data. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz66, 784–793. doi: 10.1007/s00103-023-03727-y
36
JusieneR.BreidokieneR.BaukieneE.RakickieneL. (2025). Emotional reactivity and behavioral problems in preschoolers: the interplay of parental stress, media-related coping, and child screen time. Children12:188. doi: 10.3390/children12020188
37
KaurN.GuptaM.MalhiP.GroverS. (2019). Screen time in under-five children. Ind. Pediatr.56, 773–788. doi: 10.1007/s13312-019-1638-8
38
KimT. V.PhamT. N. D.NguyenC. L. D.NguyenT. T. D.OkelyA. D.TangH. K. (2022). Prevalence of physical activity, screen time, and sleep, and associations with adiposity and motor development among preschool-age children in vietnam: the SUNRISE Vietnam pilot study. Ind. J. Pediatr.89, 148–153. doi: 10.1007/s12098-021-03895-2
39
KonokV.SzokeR. (2022). Longitudinal associations of children's hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems and mobile device use. Sustainability14:8845. doi: 10.3390/su14148845
40
KretschmerT.SentseM.MeeusW.VerhulstF. C.VeenstraR.OldehinkelA. J. (2016). Configurations of adolescents' peer experiences: associations with parent–child relationship quality and parental problem behavior. J. Res. Adolesc.26, 474–491. doi: 10.1111/jora.12206
41
LauA. S.ValeriS. M.McCartyC. A.WeiszJ. R. (2006). Abusive parents' reports of child behavior problems: relationship to observed parent–child interactions. Child Abuse Neglect30, 639–655. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.11.009
42
LikhitweerawongN.BoonchooduangN.KhoranaJ.PhinyoP.PatumanondJ.LouthrenooO. (2024). Executive dysfunction as a possible mediator for the association between excessive screen time and problematic behaviors in preschoolers. PLoS ONE19:e0298189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298189
43
LindsayA. C.Moura ArrudaC. A.MachadoM. M.GreaneyM. L. (2019). “if you let them, they will be on it 24 hours a day”: qualitative study conducted in the United States exploring Brazilian immigrant mothers' beliefs, attitudes, and practices related to screen time behaviors of their preschool-age children. JMIR Pediatr. Parent.2:e11791. doi: 10.2196/11791
44
LiuW.WuX.HuangK.YanS.MaL.CaoH.et al. (2021). Early childhood screen time as a predictor of emotional and behavioral problems in children at 4 years: a birth cohort study in China. Environ. Health Prevent. Med.26, 3–3. doi: 10.1186/s12199-020-00926-w
45
LuW.LiX. (2022). Are screens raising “problem children”? A meta-analysis of the relationship between screen exposure and preschool children's problem behaviors. Stud. Early Childhood Educ.2022, 49–61. doi: 10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2022.06.009
46
LuoS.GuoW.ChenH.ZhuY.ZhuG.JiaY. (2024). Multidimensional screen exposure and its impact on psychological well-being in toddlers. Front. Public Health12:1466541. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1466541
47
MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffP. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. J. Retail.88, 542–555. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001
48
McArthurB. A.BrowneD.ToughS.MadiganS. (2020). Trajectories of screen use during early childhood: predictors and associated behavior and learning outcomes. Comput. Hum. Behav.113:106501. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106501
49
MeriR.HuttonJ.FarahR.DiFrancescoM.GozmanL.Horowitz-KrausT. (2023). Higher access to screens is related to decreased functional connectivity between neural networks associated with basic attention skills and cognitive control in children. Child Neuropsychol.29, 666–685. doi: 10.1080/09297049.2022.2110577
50
NeshterukC. D.TripicchioG. L.LobaughS.VaughnA. E.LueckingC. T.MazzuccaS.et al. (2021). Screen time parenting practices and associations with preschool children's TV viewing and weight-related outcomes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health18:7359. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147359
51
NevilleR. D.McArthurB. A.EirichR.LakesK. D.MadiganS. (2021). Bidirectional associations between screen time and children's externalizing and internalizing behaviors. J. Child Psychol. Psych.62, 1475–1484. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13425
52
NiuG.YaoL.WuL.TianY.XuL.SunX. (2020). Parental phubbing and adolescent problematic mobile phone use: the role of parent–child relationship and self-control. Child. Youth Serv. Rev.116:105247. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105247
53
OphirY.RosenbergH.TikochinskiR. (2021). What are the psychological impacts of children's screen use? a critical review and meta-analysis of the literature underlying the world health organization guidelines. Comput. Hum. Behav.124:106925. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106925
54
PiantaR. C. (1992). Child-parent relationship scale. Unpublished measure, University of Virginia, 427.
55
PoulainT.LudwigJ.HiemischA.HilbertA.KiessW. (2019). Media use of mothers, media use of children, and parent-child interaction are related to behavioral difficulties and strengths of children. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health16:4651. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16234651
56
RaiJ.PredyM.WiebeS. A.RinaldiC.ZhengY.CarsonV. (2023). Patterns of preschool children's screen time, parent–child interactions, and cognitive development in early childhood: a pilot study. Pilot Feas. Stud.9, 39–39. doi: 10.1186/s40814-023-01266-6
57
RenC. (2010). Measurement methodology on social economic status index of students. J. Educ. Stud.6, 77–82. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-1298.2010.05.012
58
SaleemN.YoungP.YousufS. (2024). Exploring the relationship between social media use and symptoms of depression and anxiety among children and adolescents: a systematic narrative review. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw.27:771. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2023.0456
59
Sampasa-KanyingaH.GoldfieldG. S.KingsburyM.ClayborneZ.ColmanI. (2020). Social media use and parent–child relationship: a cross-sectional study of adolescents. J. Commun. Psychol.48:793803. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22293
60
SandersW.ParentJ.ForehandR. (2018). Parenting to reduce child screen time: a feasibility pilot study. J. Develop. Behav. Pediatr.39, 46–54. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000501
61
SavellS. M.SainiR.RamosM.WilsonM. N.Lemery-ChalfantK.ShawD. S. (2023). Family processes and structure: longitudinal influences on adolescent disruptive and internalizing behaviors. Fam. Relat.72, 361-382. doi: 10.1111/fare.12728
62
Schmidt-PerssonJ.RasmussenM. G. B.SørensenS. O.MortensenS. R.OlesenL. G.BrageS.et al. (2024). Screen media use and mental health of children and adolescents: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw. Open7:e2419881. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.19881
63
SchuiringaH.van NieuwenhuijzenM.Orobio de CastroB.MatthysW. (2015). Parenting and the parent–child relationship in families of children with mild to borderline intellectual disabilities and externalizing behavior. Res. Develop. Disabil.36, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.08.018
64
SchwarzerC.GrafeN.HiemischA.KiessW.PoulainT. (2022). Associations of media use and early childhood development: cross-sectional findings from the LIFE child study. Pediatr. Res.91:247. doi: 10.1038/s41390-021-01433-6
65
SunL.LiA.ChenM.LiL.ZhaoY.ZhuA.et al. (2024). Mediating and moderating effects of authoritative parenting styles on adolescent behavioral problems. Front. Psychol.15:1336354. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1336354
66
TakahashiI.ObaraT.IshikuroM.OruiM.NodaA.ShinodaG.et al. (2024). Prospective associations of screen time at age 2 with specific behavioral subscales at age 3: a cohort study. J. Public Health46, 477–486. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdae240
67
TamanaS. K.EzeugwuV.ChikumaJ.LefebvreD. L.AzadM. B.MoraesT. J.et al. (2019). Screen-time is associated with inattention problems in preschoolers: results from the CHILD birth cohort study. PLoS ONE14:e0213995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213995
68
TengX.-Y.DingL.ShaoJ.YuanA.-X.SongJ.ZhangC.-G.et al. (2019). Research on the current status and influencing factors of electronic screen exposure in children aged 4 to 6 years in Shandong. Chin. J. Child Health Care27, 1300–1303. doi: 10.11852/zgetbjzz2019-0026
69
TorjinskiM.HorwoodS. (2023). Associations between nature exposure, screen use, and parent-child relations: a scoping review protocol. Syst. Rev.12:217. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02367-2
70
TuK.ShenC.LuoY.MoY.JianL.MeiX.et al. (2024). The relationships between screen exposure, parent–child interactions and comprehension in 8-month-old infants: the mediating role of shared viewing and parent–child conversation. PLoS ONE19:e0296356. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296356
71
ValeS.MotaJ. (2020). Adherence to 24-hour movement guidelines among portuguese preschool children: the prestyle study. J. Sports Sci.38, 2149–2154. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1775385
72
WangH.ZhaoJ.YuZ.PanH.WuS.ZhuQ.et al. (2024). Types of on-screen content and mental health in kindergarten children. JAMA Pediatr.178:125. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.5220
73
WangK.LinB.HuangY.ZhangX. (2025). Pathways from parental alienation to adolescent problem behaviors: a longitudinal study of parent–child attachment and emotion regulation. Child. Youth Serv. Rev.172:108209. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108209
74
WongR. S.TungK. T. S.RaoN.HoF. K. W.ChanK. L.FuK.et al. (2021). A longitudinal study of the relation between childhood activities and psychosocial adjustment in early adolescence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health18:5299. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18105299
75
WuZ.YuJ.XuC. (2023). Does screen exposure necessarily relate to behavior problems? the buffering roles of emotion regulation and caregiver companionship. Early Childh. Res. Quart.63, 424–433. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.01.008
76
XuM.LiuS.XuJ.ZhouY.XuL. (2025). The relationship between screen use and preschoolers' social-emotional problems among highly educated migrant families: a one-year follow-up study. J. Pediatr. Health Care39, 217–224. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2024.11.009
77
YalçinS. S.TezolÖÇaylanN.NergizM. EYildizD.ÇiçekS. (2021) Evaluation of problematic screen exposure in pre-schoolers using a unique tool called “seven-in-seven screen exposure questionnaire”: cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatr. 21:472. doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-02939-y
78
YangY. T.ChenL. X.YaoM.YangY. W.LinT. (2025). Excessive screen time and problem behaviours among school-age children in Fujian, China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health25, 666–615. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-21795-4
79
YuJ.XuC.WuZ. (2025). The emerging techno-microsystem and its longitudinal influences on Chinese young children's behavior problems. Appl. Develop. Sci.29, 80–92. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2023.2281326
80
ZhangC.XiaL.WuA. (2024). The relationship between preschool children's electronic product use and problem behaviours: a moderated mediation model. Early Child Develop. Care194, 1109–1122. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2024.2390494
81
ZhaoJ.ZhangY.JiangF.IpP.HoF. K. W.ZhangY.et al. (2018). Excessive screen time and psychosocial well-being: the mediating role of body mass index, sleep duration, and parent–child interaction. J. Pediatr.202, 157–162. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.06.029
82
ZhuJ.McVarnockA.PolakovaL.XiangS.LiY.CoplanR. J. (2023). Shyness and socio-emotional adjustment among young Chinese children: the moderating role of screen time. Behav. Sci.13:763. doi: 10.3390/bs13090763
83
ZhuY.ChengY.SunT.WangY.ZhaoG.WangX.et al. (2024). The impact of parental migration on screen exposure among children aged 1–66 months in rural China. BMC Public Health24:2899. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-20368-1
84
ZimmermanF. J.ChristakisD. A.MeltzoffA. N. (2007). Television and DVD/video viewing in children younger than 2 years. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med.161, 473–479. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.161.5.473
Summary
Keywords
behavioral problems, children, longitudinal study, parent–child relationship, screen time
Citation
Ling X, Li M and Sun J (2026) A longitudinal study of parent–child relationship and behavioral problems in children aged 3 to 6: the mediating role of screen time. Front. Psychol. 17:1794353. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1794353
Received
23 January 2026
Revised
18 April 2026
Accepted
29 April 2026
Published
25 May 2026
Volume
17 - 2026
Edited by
Gengfeng Niu, Central China Normal University, China
Reviewed by
Bharathi Zvara, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States
Dongqing Yu, Faculty of Education, Northeast Normal University, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Ling, Li and Sun.
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: Jiahui Sun, sjhxuyx@163.com
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.