How Does the Use of Social Networking Affect Family Communication of Teenagers?

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec; xvi(24): 5006.

Families and Social Media Use: The Office of Parents' Perceptions most Social Media Impact on Family Systems in the Relationship betwixt Family Commonage Efficacy and Open up Communication

Received 2019 Nov 5; Accepted 2019 December 7.

Abstruse

Communication through social media characterizes modern lifestyles and relationships, including family interactions. The present study aims at deepening the role that parents' perceptions about social media effects on family systems can exert inside their family functioning, specifically referring to the relationship between commonage family efficacy and open communications inside family systems with adolescents. A questionnaire to detect the openness of family communications, the collective family efficacy and the perceptions almost the impacts of social media on family systems was administered to 227 Italian parents who had one or more teenage children, and who apply Facebook and WhatsApp to communicate with them. From the results, these perceptions emerge equally a mediator in the relationship betwixt the collective family efficacy and the openness of communications, suggesting that it is non only the bodily impact of social media on family unit systems that matters but likewise parents' perceptions about it and how much they feel able to manage their and their children'southward social media utilise without damaging their family unit relationships. Thus, the need to foster parents' positive perceptions well-nigh social media's potential impact on their family relationships emerges. A strategy could exist the promotion of noesis on how to functionally employ social media.

Keywords: social media, family unit communication, collective family unit efficacy

1. Introduction

Families correspond not only environments wherein their members live but as well whole complex social systems [i,ii]. Thus, according to the family unit systems theory perspective, family unit functioning refers to processes and interactions in which the members of the system are involved to meet their needs, make decisions, ascertain goals, and establish rules for themselves and for the organization every bit a whole. Levels of openness of communications and healthiness of interactions represent characterizing elements of family'south ability to role fairly, associated with positive outcomes at both private and family levels [3]. With specific reference to systems including adolescents, mutual acceptance and open communications among family members can help them in managing stressors and negotiating adolescents' individuation [four], every bit they let children to talk with their parents about daily concerns, activities, bug, and in plow, parents being adequately supportive of them [5,6].

Moreover, social cognitive theory assigns a central role to perceived efficacy in managing different aspects of daily relationships, interactions, and tasks within the organization [vii,eight]. Specifically, family commonage efficacy is "members' behavior in the capabilities of their family to work together to promote each other'southward development and well-beingness, maintain benign ties to extrafamilial systems, and to exhibit resilience to adversity" ([5], p. 424). Studies [5,9] showed that college collective family efficacy associates with higher family satisfaction, open advice, effective parental monitoring, and lower aggressive management of conflicts and advice problems. Such an efficacy plays a key part in managing demands and issues related to parenthood [vii], representing a protective factor helping parents to get positive outcomes for their family unit system as a whole.

With reference to family relationships, the most contempo literature has deepened the understanding of the impact that social media can accept on them with specific attending to particular family unit tasks, challenges and phases of family unit life. Social media use can specifically be a central issue for families facing boyhood evolutionary tasks [10,xi,12], which also refer to adolescents' negotiation of autonomy and independence within the family unit system and to the significance of peer relationships [13]. Indeed, given that nowadays, adolescents spend significant amounts of time using social media with a variety of goals, scholars frequently talk well-nigh Generation M[edia] when referring to modern adolescents [14,xv]. This seems to exist an increasing trend according to the latest data from the Nosotros Are Social report [sixteen], which states that in Italy at that place are 43.31 1000000 Internet users (10% more than than in 2017); 34 million (57%) are active social media users (10% more in 2017), 30 million (51%) do this through their mobile devices (seven% more than in 2017); moreover, 53% of Italian new technology users believe that they offer more risks than opportunities, while 54% land they prefer to use them if it is possible [16].

Thus, it is evident that the data and communication technologies (ICTs) are profoundly changing the ways in which people comport and relate to each other [17,18] and creating conflicting perceptions about their bear upon. Every bit they accept become cultural practices embedded in everyday life relationships [3,x,nineteen,xx,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], their contribution to creating richer and more complex patterns of interactions [28], including to family unit life, cannot be ignored [29]; however, whether the effects of these new forms of interactions on the performance of family systems are positive or negative is yet unclear, fifty-fifty more than when because families with adolescents [30]. Thus, with Facebook and WhatsApp being the most used social media in Italian republic [16], also among relatives, the present report aims at deepening the role that parents' perceptions nigh the effects of social media on their family organisation can exert inside the functionality of their family, specifically referring to the relationship between collective family unit efficacy and open communications within family unit systems with adolescents.

2. Perceptions about Social Media Use within Families with Adolescents

According to Hertlein's multitheoretical model [31], the ecological influences related to social media features (e.g., accessibility, acceptability, accommodation), the changes social media use brings with reference to family structure (due east.g., redefinition of rules, roles, and boundaries), and the ones related to family processes (e.g., redefinition of intimacy, new ways of communicating, new rituals) are interconnected and interdependent. Thus, due to the spread of new ways of communicating and to the consequences they can bring with reference to the functionality and habits of the family (eastward.g., redefinition of roles and boundaries, new kinds of intimacy, communications, rituals, [29,31]), parents tin can have clashing perceptions near their bear upon on relationships and communications with their boyish children. Consistently, studies well-nigh families, which include adolescents, brought ambivalent results besides, ranging from higher social back up [30] to lower family cohesion [31] and progressive isolation of family members inside the aforementioned house [32,33].

Indeed, on the one paw, ICTs use tin provide positive results in terms of family unit cohesion, adaptability, and open communications [3] and can have a positive impact on family relationships besides [34], by allowing family members to keep in bear upon, make plans in real-time, ensure children's condom as they allow communications in emergency situations [35], strengthen family ties, encourage parent–child interactions, and promote and facilitate discussions [36]. Moreover, ICTs and social media use could increasingly ensure what Castells [37] divers as autonomy in security conditions, as they help parents in communicating with their children at any time, checking their movements in physical and online spaces [35,38,39,twoscore].

On the other hand, the connection allowed by mobile devices and social media needs to be negotiated in times, spaces, and occasions where information technology is allowed, and the chances to perpetually communicate demand to be modulated [41]. A take a chance arising from the lack of modulation and negotiation about social media and mobile devices use, which could touch on family relationships and dynamics, seems related to the phubbing miracle, i.e., ignoring someone in a social environment past paying attention to mobile devices instead (e.g., interrupting a meal while eating together to cheque the phone for messages or missed calls) [42,43]. Altogether, the arrangements needed to avoid these kinds of risks and modulating mobile devices use in times, spaces, and occasions could cause conflicts within families [35,39,41,44,45,46], as parents who are more worried about social media impacts can exert a greater control over their children'due south utilise [47,48,49], making adolescents get the perception of being hyper-controlled by their parents, that in turn can increase the level of conflict and ambitious communications. Moreover, equally social media represents environments wherein different social norms and rules tin can be established and followed by adolescents out of their parents' control, this can make further risks ascend if their use and its consequences is not adequately discussed among family unit members, as, therefore, adolescents' controlling processes tin can be affected by those norms (e.g., [l]).

three. Aim of the Study

Information technology has been best-selling that the perceived collective family efficacy refers to the perception about family members being able to handle daily social interactions, challenges, and communications within the system and helps in achieving positive family outcomes such every bit open communications [five]. Thus, equally the widespread ITCs utilise within families represents a new claiming to be managed by parents through an agile adaptation, which can bring changes in family communications [thirty,31] and habits, beliefs and norms [29], the following hypothesis is suggested:

H: Parents' perception of the impact of social media apply on their family unit system mediates the relationship between their perceived collective family efficacy and the perceived openness of communications inside the family unit system.

Open up communication has been chosen as a key outcome because it can be a particularly relevant result in family systems which include adolescents [51,52].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Participants and Procedures

Snowball sampling was used to recruit 227 Italian parents with one or more than teenage child (aged betwixt 13 and xix), who utilize Facebook and WhatsApp to communicate with them; having at least 1 teenage kid and communicating with s/he through smartphones and ICT was the benchmark to be a participant in the study. The researchers paid attention to privacy and ideals, and introduced the questionnaire with an explanation nigh confidentiality and anonymity bug, conforming with the International applicative police force (EU Reg. 2016/679). At the end of this caption, every participant had to limited his/her informed consent; in case of a negative answer, they could not accept office in the report. They received no compensation for participating in the study.

70 percent were female, xxx% male; 25.1% were born betwixt 1943 and 1960 (the so-called "Baby Boomers", [53]), 68.three% betwixt 1961 and 1981 (the then-called "Gen Xers", [53]), 6.6% between 1982 and 1997 (the so-called "Millennials", [53]); 11.5% were from Northern Italy, 8.4% from Central Italian republic and 77.five% from Southern Italy; only 2.6% were from Italian islands. Most of the participants (72.2%) were married or cohabiting, while 15.9% were separated or divorced, 8.8% unmarried, and iii.1% widower. Well-nigh one-half the participants (48.9%) had a loftier schoolhouse diploma, while 26% a Available'southward or Master's degree and seven.9% a college degree; 14.ane% had a secondary school diploma.

four.2. Measures

The questionnaire included a department about socio-demographic data and the following measures.

4.2.1. Collective Family Efficacy

The collective family efficacy scale (α = 0.96, [8]) was used. It is compounded past 20 items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not well at all; vii = Very well), aimed at measuring the perceived operative capabilities of the family as a whole system, such as managing daily routines, achieving consensus in decision making and planning, coping together with adversities, promoting reciprocal delivery, providing emotional support when needed, enjoying the time together. Being interested in the holistic efficacy appraisal [54,55], the total score was used.

four.2.2. Family unit Open Communication

A pool of 8 items (α = 0.90, see Tabular array i for the items) was used to notice participants' perceptions about the openness of their family unit communications. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with each item on a v-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly concord).

Tabular array 1

Cistron loadings for exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with primary centrality factoring for the family open advice scale.

Detail	Factor Loading
Every member of my family unit is satisfied nigh how we communicate.	0.696
Each one among the states listens to the other members of the family.	0.813
Each 1 amid usa knows how to express love to the other members of the family unit.	0.767
Each i among us tin ask whatsoever s/he wants to the other members of the family.	0.698
Each one amid united states can talk about his/her bug with the other members of the family.	0.722
Each one among us can talk about his/her ideas and behavior with the other members of the family unit.	0.796
Each one amid us tries to understand other members' feelings.	0.722
Each ane among us expresses whatever due south/he feels to the other members of the family unit.	0.640
Explained variance (%)	53.846
Cronbach's α	0.xc

iv.2.3. Social Media Impact on Family Systems.

A pool of ix items (α = 0.73, see Tabular array ii for the items), referring to both positive and negative impacts of social media on family systems, was used to appraise participants' perceptions about it. Respondents were asked to charge per unit their agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert calibration (ane = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree). As positive and negative impacts of social media use on family systems can be meant as two sides of the same coin, the total score was used.

Table ii

Gene loadings for EFA with main axis factoring and promax rotation for the social media bear on on the family system scale.

Item	Positive Impact	Negative Touch
They improve a good for you communication.	0.715
They interfere with family rules. *		0.554
They amend family cohesion.	0.789
They expose family privacy to risks. *		0.712
They aid in bounding generations.	0.723
They expose family intimacy to risks. *		0.785
They help in facing upwards to life cycle transitions.	0.678
They make the relationships among family members more vulnerable. *		0.699
They strengthen family resilience (that is the ability to face up positively to traumatic events, to reorganize functionally later some difficulties).	0.715
Explained variance (%)	29.306	21.527
Cronbach'southward α	0.73

4.3. Data Analysis

four.iii.1. Preliminary Analyses

As they had non been validated nevertheless, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with main axis factoring and promax rotation were led to excerpt the factors of the family open communication and of the social media impact on family system scales. For both scales, sphericity was checked using Bartlett's test and adequacy of sampling using the Keiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) measure. The emerged gene structures were further tested through confirmatory gene analyses (CFA) run with structural equation modeling (SEM). Specifically, for the social media impact on family system scale a two-factor structure, as suggested by the EFA, and a hierarchical structure with the ii factors loading on a college-guild latent dimension were tested to decide which one ameliorate fitted the data, consistently with the theoretical model about positive and negative impacts of social media utilize on family system as ii sides of the same coin.

For the family commonage efficacy, the factor structure that emerged from a previous written report [8] was tested through CFA run with SEM.

To evaluate the model fit for all the CFA, dissimilar indices were observed [56]: The Chi-square test of model fit, the comparative fit index (CFI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). For the CFI, values equal to or greater than 0.90 e 0.95 reverberate good or fantabulous fit indices, respectively; for the SRMR, values equal to or smaller than 0.06 e 0.08 reflect good or reasonable fit indices, respectively [57]. Moreover, when it came to testing which model ameliorate fitted the information for the social media impact on the family system scale, the Akaike data criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian data criterion (BIC) were also used; for both indices, the lower the value, the ameliorate the fit.

4.three.two. Hypothesis Testing

The arbitration hypothesis was tested through SEM. Commonage family efficacy was the independent variable, openness of family unit communications was the dependent one; the perception almost social media touch on on family systems was the mediator; participants' age and sexual activity were modeled as covariates on all the variables in the model. A dummy variable was created for participants' sex before inbound it in the model (0 = male person / 1 = female).

Before testing the hypothesis, the presence of outliers and/or influential cases was checked using the leverage value and Cook's D to test the absence of significant values in the information affecting the analyses [58]. Multicollinearity was tested through condition and tolerance indexes [59]. Common variance was controlled through Harman'south single-factor examination [lx].

Given the interest in higher-order constructs, a heterogeneous parceling was adopted [61], equally it reproduces smaller but more reliable coefficients than the homogeneous i [62] and allows for creating parcels without generating a flawed measurement model because theoretically meaningful categories were included in the SEM.

To evaluate the model fit, the following indices of fit were observed [56]: The Chi-square test of model fit, the CFI, the SRMR.

Bootstrap estimation was used to test the significance of the results [63,64] with 10,000 samples, and the bias-corrected 95% CI was computed past determining the effects at the 2.fifth and 97.5th percentiles; the indirect furnishings are significant when in that location is no 0 in the CI.

5. Results

For the family open up communication scale and for the social media impact on family organisation scale, sphericity (family open communication calibration: Chi-square (28) = 974.765, p < 0.001; social media impact on family system scale: Chi-foursquare (36) = 756.527, p < 0.001) and adequacy of sampling (0.893 for the family open communication scale, 0.747 for the perceptions about social media impact on family system scale) reported adept values. No item was deleted from the original pools due to too low loadings nor too high loadings on more than than one cistron; all the items in the terminal versions of the scales had loadings above 0.3 in simply 1 factor (run across Table 1 and Table 2).

The CFA confirmed an adequate model fit for the family open up communication scale, Chi-square (19) = 105.100, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.05, and for the family commonage efficacy scale, Chi-square (169) = 789.980, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.02. For the social media impact on family system scale, the hierarchical model, Chi-foursquare (22) = 98.878, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.06, AIC = 5714.096, BIC = 5816.844, better fitted the data than the two-factor model, Chi-square (24) = 98.878, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.07, AIC = 5718.096, BIC = 5827.694, confirming positive and negative impacts of social media apply equally two sides of the same coin.

The descriptive statistics and the correlations for all the measures are in Table 3.

Tabular array 3

Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variables	Range	M	SD	1	2
i. Collective family efficacy	1–vii	four.98	1.04	-
2. Family open communication	1–5	3.72	0.79	0.509 ***	-
3. Social media bear on on family system	ane–5	two.87	0.64	0.140 *	0.122

Hypotheses Testing

Since the leverage value was always lower than 0.09 and Cook'south D lowest and highest values were 0 and 0.36, there were no significant values in the data affecting the analyses; every bit the variables in the model had Tolerance indexes betwixt 0.88 and 0.98, multicollinearity among them was non a problem [59].

The hypothesized mediation model (see Effigy 1) showed good fit indices, Chi-foursquare (33) = 50.280, p < 0.027, CFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.02.

Mediation model. Note. northward = 227. *** p < 0.001. Unstandardized coefficients (B) are shown.

Commonage family efficacy emerged equally a significant predictor of the openness of family communications, B = 0.585, S.East. = 0.07, p < 0.001, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.410, 0.709], and of the perceptions nigh social media impact on family systems, B = 0.204, S.E. = 0.064, p = 0.001, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.067, 0.321]; the latter was a significant predictor of the openness of family unit communications too, B = 0.242, Due south.East. = 0.056, p < 0.001, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.126, 0.342]. The indirect effect of commonage family efficacy on openness of family communications via the perceptions near social media impact on family unit systems was small yet significant, B = 0.049, Southward.Eastward. = 0.019, p = 0.01, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.02, 0.098], supporting the hypothesis of partial mediation. The unstandardized total effect was 0.634, South.E. = 0.066, p < 0.001, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.459, 0.747].

Participants' sex emerged every bit a meaning predictor only for the perceptions about social media impact on family unit systems, B = -0.132, S.East. = 0.105, p = 0.008, bias-corrected 95% CI [−0.433, −0.022]; participants' historic period was significant only for the commonage family efficacy, B = 0.081, Due south.E. = 0.072, p = 0.05, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.004, 0.279].

6. Discussion

The present study deepens the understanding of how social media tin produce changes inside family systems, taking into consideration the role that parents' perceptions about the touch on of social media on family systems, whether positive or negative, tin can exert in the relationship betwixt their perceived commonage family unit efficacy and an open communication among family members; specifically, the leading hypothesis referred to the mediator office of these perceptions, whether positive or negative, in the to a higher place-mentioned relationship. The results confirm the hypothesis, showing that parents' perceptions stand for a partial mediator of the relationship between their perceptions well-nigh commonage family efficacy and openness of communications; even so, the indirect effect of collective family unit efficacy on openness of family communications via parents' perceptions well-nigh the impact of social media on family systems was small, showing that all the direct furnishings in the model were still bigger.

It has already been widely best-selling that social media and ICTs make man social interactions and relationships more complex; however, scientific results still showed conflicting results about whether such complexity can have a positive, enriching, part or rather than a negative, detrimental, ane with reference to family interactions, even more when the family unit arrangement includes adolescent children [36]—due to the evolutionary tasks they accept to face upwards to, which can impact on family relationships and interactions temporarily or permanently [10,eleven,12,13]. These results provide farther hints well-nigh social media role within family relationships and functioning.

Indeed, while information technology is well established that family collective efficacy can take a boosting role with reference to healthy interactions and open communications within the family organization [five,10], what emerged here suggests that it is not only the existent impact of social media on family unit systems [36] that matters merely also how family unit members perceive information technology and how much they experience confident near their family managing daily challenges to achieve positive relationships, healthy interactions, and open communications. Indeed, the results show that that existence confident in one's family capabilities to handle daily tasks, stress, and challenges associates with a more positive perception near the impact social media tin accept on family system and the relationships within it, as feeling able to manage family daily tasks and challenges could foster the feeling near being able to manage the accommodation to the increasing social media use among family unit members too. This could make family members perceive, at last, these new technologies equally opportunities for increased family unit cohesion, adaptability, interactions, planning, and open communications [iii,34,36], rather than equally threats to positive family functioning and relationships. In addition to family collective efficacy, also such positive perception tin further promote open communications among family members, perchance because if social media are perceived as opportunities and useful tools they can offer farther ways to maintain and improve relationships amidst family members (e.chiliad., to keep in affect, make plans in real-fourth dimension, promote and facilitate discussions, and encourage parent–child interactions, [35,36]). When parents are aware of their family unit's ability to manage social media-related changes in family functioning and habits (e.g., redefinition of roles and boundaries, new kinds of intimacy, communications, rituals, [29,31]), this can foster their perception about potentialities and new opportunities coming from social media use to keep in touch with their children, most of all when they are adolescents and are facing up their individualization process: if parents are able not to make their children feel they are invading their privacy or being oppressive and hyper-controlling, and to discuss with them how social media should be used to reduce the risks, social media can at last strengthen family ties, promote and facilitate discussions, and foster more secure weather condition for adolescents to obtain greater autonomy from their parents and for parents to allow them face up upward to these situations [35,36,38,39]. Indeed, when used in a responsible and aware way, social media can represent a resources and an educational added value inside family unit relationships, helping parents to exploit a new educational and participative space that could strengthen the relationships with their children. This seems also consistent with previous results about how social media use tin enhance the opportunities for a more open dialogue betwixt parents and children, allowing the latter to get closer to the linguistic communication and lifestyles of the first ones and to share with them important, sensitive and/or educational discussion topics functional to their growth [36]. Thus, social media may foster open communications among family members and a supportive family surround wherein adolescents can grow upward and confront up to their evolutionary tasks and subsequent stressful events, getting positive outcomes [36].

7. Conclusions

The study shows the relevance that parents' positive perceptions almost the impact of social media on social interactions and relationships inside their family organization can have in fostering a good family functioning and open communications amongst family members. Moreover, with reference to the role that collective family efficacy exerts, it also suggests that relying on family abilities to manage daily life tasks and face daily challenges could stand for a strategy to promote the acknowledgment that challenges related to social media uses, their consequences, and the potential subsequent risks could be managed with acceptable data and negotiation of the changes they bring in terms of family unit communications, habits, interactions, and rituals amid parents. Taking into consideration the results from this report, an emergent upshot seems related to the need to promote a wider acknowledgment that social media tin can be positively and functionally used amongst modern parents [36], showing them different ways in which social media can stand for educational and participative spaces aimed at promoting a wider and more open advice between them and their children and a critical and responsible awareness for their children at the same time, fostering, at last, their positive perceptions about social media impact on family unit systems. Indeed, social media accessibility, acceptability, and accommodation require the redefinition of rules and roles, producing new processes and dynamics within family unit systems [31] parents accept to deal with if they want to get a positive perception nigh their employ: if adequately managed, these processes can allow the creation of further spaces wherein the relational dynamics between parents and adolescent children can happen and be successfully managed. Consistently, the aspects that emerged from this written report invite to set upward further studies aimed at deepening the significant that social media tools can assume in the construction of transition spaces, allowing the expression and mediation of the divergences and conflicts that tin can show up in families with adolescent children.

Information technology is important to also acknowledge some limitations of this report.

First, it takes into consideration merely the parents' perspective, only a major comprehension of family unit relationships should accept into consideration the children'due south perspective also, or fifty-fifty a dyadic one. Moreover, the findings are based on self-reported data, which tin can become distorted due to problems related to memory bias and response fatigue.

Lastly, some other issue refers to the cross-exclusive design of the study; thus, the relationships described should be considered carefully, and no causal inference is possible.

It would as well be useful to extend the analyses to samples from other countries, to verify whether and how the cultural and community [65,66,67,68] dimensions modify the perceptions well-nigh social media impact within family systems and their effect on family communications.

Author Contributions

F.P. conceptualization, methodology, writing, review and editing; F.G. methodology and writing, I.D.N. writing and review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Involvement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

ane. Broderick C.B. Understanding Family Process: Nuts of Family Systems Theory. SAGE; Newbury Park, CA, USA: 1993. [Google Scholar]

ii. Galvin K.M., Dickson F.C., Marrow S.R. Systems theory: Patterns and (west)holes in family communication. In: Braithwaite D.O., Baxter L.A., editors. Engaging theories in family connectedness: Multiple perspectives. SAGE; Thousand Oaks, CA, Us: 2006. pp. 309–324. [Google Scholar]

three. Lanigan J.D. A sociotechnological model for family research and intervention: How information and communication technologies bear on family life. Marriage Fam. Rev. 2009;45:587–609. doi: 10.1080/01494920903224194. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

four. Scabini E., Marta E., Lanz Chiliad., editors. Transition to Adulthood and Family Relations: An Intergenerational Perspective. Routledge; London, UK: 2006. [Google Scholar]

5. Bandura A., Caprara G.5., Barbaranelli C., Regalia C., Scabini E. Impact of family efficacy beliefs on quality of family performance and satisfaction with family unit life. Appl. Psychol. 2011;60:421–448. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00442.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

vi. Alfieri S., Marta E., Lanz M., Pozzi One thousand., Tagliabue S. Famiglia delle regole e famiglia degli affetti: quali conseguenze su benessere e disagio nei figli adolescenti? Psicol. Della Salut. 2014;2:61–78. doi: 10.3280/PDS2014-002005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman; New York, NY, United states: 1997. [Google Scholar]

eight. Bandura A. Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In: Pajares F., Urdan T., editors. Self-Efficacy Behavior of Adolescents. Book 5. IAP; Greenwich, CT, United states: 2006. pp. ane–43. [Google Scholar]

9. Caprara Yard.5., Regalia C., Scabini East., Barbaranelli C., Bandura A. Assessment of filial, parental, marital, and collective family efficacy beliefs. Eur. J. Psychol. Appraise. 2004;20:247–261. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.20.4.247. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Bacigalupe G., Lambe Due south. Virtualizing intimacy: Information communication technologies and transnational families in therapy. Fam. Process. 2011;50:12–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01343.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

xi. Caplan S.E. Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being. Commun. Res. 2003;thirty:625–648. doi: x.1177/0093650203257842. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Kim J.H., Lau C.H., Cheuk K.K., Kan P., Hui H.50., Griffiths S.M. Predictors of heavy Internet apply and associations with health-promoting and health take chances behaviors amid Hong Kong university students. J. Adolesc. 2010;33:215–220. doi: ten.1016/j.adolescence.2009.03.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

xiii. Scotto di Luzio Southward., Procentese F., Guillet-Descas E. La relazione allenatore-atleta in adolescenza: implicazioni per il benessere percepito: uno studio qualitativo. Psicol. Della Salut. 2014;1:50–72. doi: 10.3280/PDS2014-001003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Kaiser Family Foundation . Generation M2: Media in the Lives of viii- to18-Year Olds. Kaiser Family Foundation; Menlo Park, CA, USA: 2010. [Google Scholar]

15. Roberts D., Foeher U., Rideout V. Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18 Twelvemonth Olds. Kaiser Family Foundation; Menlo Park, CA, United states of america: 2005. [Google Scholar]

17. Baym N.1000., Zhang Y.B., Kunkel A., Ledbetter A., Lin M.C. Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships. New Media Soc. 2007;9:735–752. doi: 10.1177/1461444807080339. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Haddon 50. Domestication assay, objects of report, and the centrality of technologies in everyday life. Tin. J. Commun. 2011;36:311. doi: x.22230/cjc.2011v36n2a2322. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Aponte R. The communications revolution and its bear on on the family: Significant, growing, merely skewed and express in scope. Marriage Fam. Rev. 2009;45:576–586. doi: ten.1080/01494920903396778. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Caso D. Fifty'uso di Internet due east il benessere psicosociale in adolescenza: uno studio correlazionale. Psicol. Della Salut. 2015;2:141–155. doi: 10.3280/PDS2015-002008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Haddon L. Roger Silverstone'due south Legacies: Domestication. New Media Soc. 2007;nine:16–24. doi: 10.1177/1461444807075201. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Igartua J.J., Moral F. Psicología de los medios: panorama y perspectivas. Escritos de Psicología (Internet) 2012;5:1–3. doi: 10.5231/psy.writ.2012.3011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Procentese F., Gatti F. People-Nearby Applications and local communities: questioning about individuals' loneliness and social motivations towards People-Nearby Applications. J. Community Psychol. 2019;47:1282–1294. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22175. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Stern M.J., Messer C. How family members stay in touch on: A quantitative investigation of core family networks. Marriage Fam. Rev. 2009;45:654–676. doi: 10.1080/01494920903224236. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Stafford L., Hillyer J.D. Data and communication technologies in personal relationships. Rev. Commun. 2012;12:290–312. doi: x.1080/15358593.2012.685951. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Zhong B. From smartphones to iPad: Power users' disposition toward mobile media devices. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013;29:1742–1748. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Boursier V., Manna V., Gioia F., Coppola F., Venosa North. Cyber-moms facing motherhood: Holding functions and regressive movements in parenting websites. In: Sekalala S., Niezgoda B.C., editors. Global Perspectives on Health Communication in the Age of Social Media. IGI Global; Pennsylvania, PA, USA: 2018. pp. 29–58. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Arcidiacono C., Grimaldi D., Di Martino S., Procentese F. Participatory visual methods in the 'Psychology loves Porta Capuana' projection. Action Res. 2016;14:376–392. doi: 10.1177/1476750315626502. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Hashemite kingdom of jordan A.B., Hershey J., McDivitt J., Heitzler C. Reducing children's tv-viewing time: A qualitative study of parents and their children. Pediatrics. 2006;18:1301–1310. doi: ten.1542/peds.2006-0732. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

thirty. Carvalho J., Francisco R., Relvas A.P. Family functioning and information and communication technologies: How exercise they relate? A literature review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015;45:99–108. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.xi.037. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Hertlein K.1000. Digital dwelling house: Technology in couple and family relationships. Fam. Relat. 2012;61:374–387. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00702.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Cardoso G., Espanha R., Lapa T. Dinâmica familiar e interacção em torno dos media: autonomia dos jovens, autoridade e controlo parental sobre os media em Portugal. Comunicação east Sociedade. 2008;13:31–53. doi: 10.17231/comsoc.13(2008).1143. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Williams A.L., Merten M.J. Family: Internet and social media engineering science in the family context. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 2011;forty:150–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02101.10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Chesley Northward., Fox B. Electronic mail's use and perceived effect on family relationship quality: Variations by gender and race/ethnicity. Sociol. Focus. 2012;45:63–84. doi: 10.1080/00380237.2012.630906. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Devitt K., Roker D. The role of mobile phones in family unit communication. Child. Soc. 2009;23:189–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00166.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Coyne Southward.Yard., Padilla-Walker L.M., Fraser A.M., Fellows K., 24-hour interval R.D. "Media Fourth dimension= Family Time" Positive Media Apply in Families with Adolescents. J. Adolesc. Res. 2014;29:663–688. doi: 10.1177/0743558414538316. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Castells M. The Rise of the Network Gild: The Information Age: Economy, Social club, and Culture. Volume 1 Oxford; Blackwell Publishers; Hoboken, NJ, Usa: 1996. [Google Scholar]

39. Hiniker A., Schoenebeck Due south.Y., Kientz J.A. Non at the dinner table: Parents' and children's perspectives on family technology rules; Proceedings of the19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing; San Francisco, CA, United states. 27 Feb–ii March 2016; [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Palen 50., Hughes A. When dwelling house base is not a place: Parents utilise of mobile telephones. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2007;11:339–348. doi: 10.1007/s00779-006-0078-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. Huisman Southward., Edwards A., Catapano S. The impact of technology on families. Int. J. Educ. Psychol. Community. 2012;2:44–62. [Google Scholar]

42. Bai Q., Bai S., Dan Q., Lei 50., Wang P. Mother phubbing and adolescent bookish burnout: The mediating role of mental health and the moderating function of agreeableness and neuroticism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019;109622 doi: x.1016/j.paid.2019.109622. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Guazzini A., Duradoni G., Capelli A., Meringolo P. An Explorative Model to Assess Individuals' Phubbing Risk. Future Internet. 2019;11:21. doi: 10.3390/fi11010021. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Oduor E., Neustaedter C., Odom W., Tang A., Moallem Northward., Tory M., Irani P. The frustrations and benefits of mobile device usage in the home when copresent with family members; Proceedings of the Almanac Designing Interactive Systems Conference; Brisbane, Australia. two–8 July 2016; [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Radesky J., Miller A.L., Rosenblum G.L., Appugliese D., Kaciroti N., Lumeng J.C. Maternal mobile device uses during a structured parent-child interaction task. Acad. Pediatrics. 2014;xv:238–244. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2014.x.001. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

46. Radesky J.S., Peacock-Chambers E., Zuckerman B., Silverstein Grand. Utilise of mobile applied science to calm upset children: Associations with social-emotional development. JAMA Pediatrics. 2016;170:397–399. doi: ten.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4260. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Nathanson A.I., Eveland W.P., Jr., Park H.-S., Paul B. Perceived media influence and efficacy as predictors of caregivers' protective behaviors. J. Dissemination Electron. Media. 2002;46:385–410. doi: 10.1207/s15506878jobem4603_5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Padilla-Walker L.Chiliad., Coyne Due south.M. "Turn that thing off!" Parent and adolescent predictors of proactive media monitoring. J. Adolesc. 2011;34:705–715. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.09.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Padilla-Walker 50.M., Coyne S.M., Fraser A.Thousand., Dyer Due west.J., Yorgason J.B. Parents and adolescents growing up in the digital age: Latent growth curve assay of proactive media monitoring. J. Adolesc. 2012;35:1153–1165. doi: ten.1016/j.boyhood.2012.03.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. Collodi Southward., Panerati South., Imbimbo E., Stefanelli F., Duradoni M., Guazzini A. Personality and Reputation: A Circuitous Relationship in Virtual Environments. Future Internet. 2018;10:120. doi: 10.3390/fi10120120. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Dishion T.J., McMahon R.J. Parental monitoring and the prevention of kid and adolescent trouble beliefs: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 1998;one:61–75. doi: 10.1023/A:1021800432380. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

52. Robins L., Rutter Yard., editors. Straight and Devious Pathways from Childhood to Machismo. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 1990. [Google Scholar]

53. Karl Thousand.A., Allen R.S., White C.Southward., Peluchette J.V.E., Allen D.E. Would You Accept a Facebook Friend Asking from Your Dominate? Examining Generational Differences. Int. J. Virtual Communities Soc. Netw. 2017;nine:17–33. doi: 10.4018/IJVCSN.2017010102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

54. Mesch 1000.S. Family unit relations and the Internet: Exploring a family boundaries approach. J. Fam. Commun. 2006;6:119–138. doi: 10.1207/s15327698jfc0602_2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

55. Walsh F., editor. Normal Family unit Processes. Guilford Printing; New York, NY, United states of america: 1982. [Google Scholar]

56. MacCallum R.C., Austin J.T. Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological inquiry. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2000;51:201–226. doi: ten.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

57. Hu 50.T., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling Multidiscip. J. 1999;6:ane–55. doi: ten.1080/10705519909540118. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Cousineau D., Chartier S. Outliers detection and treatment: a review. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 2010;3:58–67. doi: 10.21500/20112084.844. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

59. Craney T.A., Surles J.M. Model-dependent variance inflation factor cutoff values. Qual. Eng. 2002;fourteen:391–403. doi: 10.1081/QEN-120001878. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

60. Tehseen Due south., Ramayah T., Sajilan S. Testing and controlling for common method variance: A review of bachelor methods. J. Manag. Sci. 2017;4:142–168. doi: ten.20547/jms.2014.1704202. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Coffman D.L., MacCallum R.C. Using parcels to convert path assay models into latent variable models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2005;40:235–259. doi: x.1207/s15327906mbr4002_4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. Little T.D., Rhemtulla M., Gibson Chiliad., Schoemann A.M. Why the items versus parcels controversy needn't be one. Psychol. Methods. 2013;xviii:285–300. doi: ten.1037/a0033266. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. MacKinnon D.P., Lockwood C.1000., Williams J. Conviction limits for the indirect effect distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2004;39:99–128. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

64. Preacher Chiliad.J., Hayes A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparison indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods. 2008;40:879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

65. Procentese F., Gatti F., Falanga A. Sense of responsible togetherness, sense of community and participation: Looking at the relationships in a university campus. Hum. Aff. 2019;29:247–263. doi: 10.1515/humaff-2019-0020. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

66. Procentese F., Gatti F. Senso di Convivenza Responsabile: Quale Ruolo nella Relazione tra Partecipazione e Benessere Sociale? Psicol. Soc. 2019;14:405–426. doi: ten.1482/94942. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

67. Di Napoli I., Dolce P., Arcidiacono C. Customs trust: A social indicator related to community Engagement. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019;145:551–579. doi: ten.1007/s11205-019-02114-y. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

68. Galli I., Fasanelli R., Schember E. The construction of icons equally a means of access to the social representation of civilisation. Cult. Psychol. 2018;24:212–232. doi: 10.1177/1354067X17721860. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

greenalacertut1954.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6950110/

Share this post