Exploring the Impact of Perceived Parental Oversight on Problematic Smartphone Use Among Adolescents in the Digital Age: Database Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The proliferation of smartphones raises worries over their impact on adolescent development, especially problematic smartphone use. This research investigates the intricacies of problematic smartphone usage in adolescents, particularly in light of significant increases in screen time, from a developmental psychology perspective. Objective: This study aimed to examine the association between adolescent-perceived parental monitoring strategies and problematic smartphone use in Taiwan, while also exploring variations across age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Methods: A nationwide dataset from Taiwan's annual survey (n=1673; aged 10-18 y) was analyzed using descriptive analysis and moderated multiple serial mediation regression. In total, 3 parental mediation styles-restrictive monitoring, evaluative mediation, and unfocused monitoring-were examined for their effects on smartphone usage. Results: Rigorous surveillance is more beneficial for younger adolescents (aged 10-12 y), significantly reducing smartphone addiction. Conversely, as teenagers mature, the efficacy of restrictive approaches wanes. Adolescents aged 16-18 years benefit more from parental mediation strategies that foster autonomy and encourage appropriate digital conduct. Restrictive monitoring significantly diminishes addiction by constraining internet access; yet, the diverse outcomes of assessment methods highlight the importance of qualitative engagement. Conversely, unfocused surveillance is ineffective, necessitating the use of targeted parental strategies. Conclusions: This study highlights the significance of developmentally suitable parental strategies to mitigate digital addiction and enhance teenage self-regulation. We urge policymakers to implement age-specific, evidence-based methods to improve digital literacy and overall well-being in youth. Future research should investigate the enduring psychological and behavioral impacts of parental mediation and analyze cross-cultural differences in digital parenting methodologies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".