Family conflict and less parental monitoring were associated with greater screen time in early adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The current study investigated the prospective relationships between parental monitoring, family conflict, and screen time across six screen time modalities in early adolescents in the USA. METHODS: We utilised prospective cohort data of children (ages 10-14 years) from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (years baseline to Year 2 of follow-up; 2016-2020; N = 10 757). Adjusted coefficients (B) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using mixed-effect models with robust standard errors. RESULTS: A higher parental monitoring score was associated with less total screen time (B = -0.37, 95% CI -0.58, -0.16), with the strongest associations being with video games and YouTube videos. Conversely, a higher family conflict score was associated with more total screen time (B = 0.08, 95% CI 0.03, 0.12), with the strongest associations being with YouTube videos, video games, and watching television shows/movies in Years 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: The current study found that greater parental monitoring was associated with less screen time, while greater family conflict was linked to more screen time. These results may inform strategies to reduce screen time in adolescence, such as improving communication between parents and their children to strengthen family relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".