How Fb and Other Social Media Are Connecting Families.

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec; 16(24): 5006.

Families and Social Media Apply: The Part of Parents' Perceptions about Social Media Bear on on Family Systems in the Relationship between Family Commonage Efficacy and Open Advice

Received 2019 Nov five; Accepted 2019 Dec 7.

Abstract

Advice through social media characterizes modern lifestyles and relationships, including family interactions. The present study aims at deepening the function that parents' perceptions well-nigh social media furnishings on family unit systems can exert within their family operation, specifically referring to the relationship between collective family unit efficacy and open communications within family systems with adolescents. A questionnaire to notice the openness of family unit communications, the commonage family efficacy and the perceptions near the impacts of social media on family systems was administered to 227 Italian parents who had ane or more than teenage children, and who utilize Facebook and WhatsApp to communicate with them. From the results, these perceptions emerge equally a mediator in the human relationship between the collective family unit efficacy and the openness of communications, suggesting that information technology is not just the actual impact of social media on family unit systems that matters but likewise parents' perceptions about it and how much they experience able to manage their and their children's social media use without dissentious their family relationships. Thus, the demand to foster parents' positive perceptions nigh social media's potential impact on their family unit relationships emerges. A strategy could be the promotion of knowledge on how to functionally utilize social media.

Keywords: social media, family communication, collective family efficacy

1. Introduction

Families represent non only environments wherein their members alive but as well whole circuitous social systems [1,2]. Thus, according to the family systems theory perspective, family functioning refers to processes and interactions in which the members of the organization are involved to meet their needs, make decisions, define goals, and establish rules for themselves and for the arrangement as a whole. Levels of openness of communications and healthiness of interactions stand for characterizing elements of family unit'due south ability to office fairly, associated with positive outcomes at both individual and family levels [iii]. With specific reference to systems including adolescents, mutual acceptance and open communications amid family members can help them in managing stressors and negotiating adolescents' individuation [4], equally they allow children to talk with their parents about daily concerns, activities, issues, and in turn, parents being adequately supportive of them [5,six].

Moreover, social cerebral theory assigns a central part to perceived efficacy in managing different aspects of daily relationships, interactions, and tasks within the system [7,8]. Specifically, family collective efficacy is "members' beliefs in the capabilities of their family to piece of work together to promote each other'due south development and well-beingness, maintain benign ties to extrafamilial systems, and to exhibit resilience to arduousness" ([5], p. 424). Studies [5,9] showed that higher commonage family efficacy associates with higher family satisfaction, open communication, constructive parental monitoring, and lower aggressive management of conflicts and communication bug. Such an efficacy plays a key part in managing demands and problems related to parenthood [7], representing a protective factor helping parents to become positive outcomes for their family arrangement as a whole.

With reference to family relationships, the almost contempo literature has deepened the agreement of the impact that social media can have on them with specific attention to particular family unit tasks, challenges and phases of family life. Social media use can specifically be a central issue for families facing adolescence evolutionary tasks [10,11,12], which also refer to adolescents' negotiation of autonomy and independence inside the family system and to the significance of peer relationships [13]. Indeed, given that nowadays, adolescents spend pregnant amounts of fourth dimension using social media with a variety of goals, scholars oftentimes talk about Generation Chiliad[edia] when referring to modern adolescents [14,15]. This seems to be an increasing trend according to the latest data from the We Are Social report [16], which states that in Italy there are 43.31 1000000 Internet users (ten% more than in 2017); 34 million (57%) are active social media users (10% more than in 2017), 30 one thousand thousand (51%) do this through their mobile devices (seven% more than in 2017); moreover, 53% of Italian new engineering users believe that they offer more than risks than opportunities, while 54% state they adopt to utilise them if information technology is possible [16].

Thus, it is axiomatic that the information and communication technologies (ICTs) are greatly changing the means in which people conduct and chronicle to each other [17,xviii] and creating conflicting perceptions virtually their impact. Every bit they have get cultural practices embedded in everyday life relationships [3,10,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], their contribution to creating richer and more complex patterns of interactions [28], including to family life, cannot be ignored [29]; however, whether the furnishings of these new forms of interactions on the functioning of family systems are positive or negative is even so unclear, fifty-fifty more than when considering families with adolescents [30]. Thus, with Facebook and WhatsApp being the near used social media in Italy [16], also among relatives, the nowadays written report aims at deepening the role that parents' perceptions near the effects of social media on their family organisation can exert inside the functionality of their family unit, specifically referring to the human relationship betwixt collective family efficacy and open communications within family systems with adolescents.

ii. Perceptions almost Social Media Employ 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 construction (e.1000., redefinition of rules, roles, and boundaries), and the ones related to family unit processes (east.thou., redefinition of intimacy, new ways of communicating, new rituals) are interconnected and interdependent. Thus, due to the spread of new means of communicating and to the consequences they can bring with reference to the functionality and habits of the family (e.grand., redefinition of roles and boundaries, new kinds of intimacy, communications, rituals, [29,31]), parents tin can take clashing perceptions nigh their bear on on relationships and communications with their boyish children. Consistently, studies near families, which include adolescents, brought ambivalent results too, ranging from college social support [thirty] to lower family cohesion [31] and progressive isolation of family members within the same house [32,33].

Indeed, on the one mitt, ICTs utilize tin provide positive results in terms of family cohesion, adaptability, and open communications [iii] and can have a positive touch on on family unit relationships too [34], by assuasive family members to keep in touch on, brand plans in real-time, ensure children'south prophylactic equally 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] defined as autonomy in security atmospheric condition, as they assistance parents in communicating with their children at whatsoever time, checking their movements in physical and online spaces [35,38,39,40].

On the other hand, the connectedness allowed by mobile devices and social media needs to exist negotiated in times, spaces, and occasions where it is immune, and the chances to perpetually communicate demand to be modulated [41]. A risk 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 phenomenon, i.e., ignoring someone in a social environment by paying attending to mobile devices instead (due east.yard., interrupting a meal while eating together to bank check 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 inside families [35,39,41,44,45,46], every bit parents who are more worried about social media impacts can exert a greater control over their children's use [47,48,49], making adolescents become the perception of being hyper-controlled by their parents, that in turn can increase the level of disharmonize and aggressive communications. Moreover, every bit 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 farther risks arise if their use and its consequences is not adequately discussed among family members, equally, therefore, adolescents' decision-making processes can be afflicted by those norms (east.g., [fifty]).

iii. Aim of the Study

It has been acknowledged that the perceived collective family efficacy refers to the perception near family members existence able to handle daily social interactions, challenges, and communications within the system and helps in achieving positive family outcomes such as open up communications [5]. Thus, equally the widespread ITCs employ within families represents a new claiming to be managed by parents through an active adaptation, which can bring changes in family communications [xxx,31] and habits, beliefs and norms [29], the following hypothesis is suggested:

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

Open advice has been called every bit a key outcome considering it tin can exist a particularly relevant consequence in family unit systems which include adolescents [51,52].

4. Materials and Methods

four.ane. Participants and Procedures

Snowball sampling was used to recruit 227 Italian parents with 1 or more teenage child (anile between 13 and 19), who use Facebook and WhatsApp to communicate with them; having at to the lowest degree one teenage kid and communicating with s/he through smartphones and ICT was the criterion to be a participant in the written report. The researchers paid attention to privacy and ethics, and introduced the questionnaire with an explanation about confidentiality and anonymity issues, conforming with the International applicable police (European union Reg. 2016/679). At the finish of this caption, every participant had to express his/her informed consent; in case of a negative reply, they could not take part in the study. They received no compensation for participating in the study.

Seventy percent were female, 30% male; 25.one% were born between 1943 and 1960 (the so-called "Baby Boomers", [53]), 68.three% betwixt 1961 and 1981 (the and so-chosen "Gen Xers", [53]), half-dozen.6% between 1982 and 1997 (the and then-called "Millennials", [53]); 11.v% were from Northern Italy, 8.4% from Central Italy and 77.5% from Southern Italy; only 2.vi% were from Italian islands. Almost of the participants (72.2%) were married or cohabiting, while 15.ix% were separated or divorced, 8.8% unmarried, and three.1% widower. About half the participants (48.nine%) had a loftier schoolhouse diploma, while 26% a Bachelor's or Principal's degree and 7.nine% a higher degree; 14.ane% had a secondary schoolhouse diploma.

iv.two. Measures

The questionnaire included a section about socio-demographic information and the following measures.

4.2.ane. Commonage Family Efficacy

The collective family efficacy scale (α = 0.96, [8]) was used. It is compounded past twenty items on a seven-point Likert calibration (1 = Not well at all; 7 = 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 commitment, providing emotional support when needed, enjoying the time together. Being interested in the holistic efficacy appraisement [54,55], the full score was used.

4.ii.2. Family unit Open Advice

A pool of 8 items (α = 0.xc, see Tabular array 1 for the items) was used to detect participants' perceptions about the openness of their family communications. Respondents were asked to rate their level of understanding with each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree).

Table 1

Cistron loadings for exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with master axis factoring for the family open up communication scale.

Item	Factor Loading
Every fellow member of my family is satisfied about how we communicate.	0.696
Each one among united states listens to the other members of the family unit.	0.813
Each ane among us knows how to express love to the other members of the family.	0.767
Each one among us tin can enquire whatever s/he wants to the other members of the family unit.	0.698
Each one amidst us can talk near his/her problems with the other members of the family unit.	0.722
Each i among us can talk almost his/her ideas and beliefs with the other members of the family.	0.796
Each 1 among usa tries to sympathize other members' feelings.	0.722
Each one among united states of america expresses any s/he feels to the other members of the family unit.	0.640
Explained variance (%)	53.846
Cronbach's α	0.xc

4.ii.three. Social Media Impact on Family Systems.

A pool of ix items (α = 0.73, see Table two for the items), referring to both positive and negative impacts of social media on family systems, was used to assess participants' perceptions well-nigh information technology. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with each detail on a v-point Likert scale (one = Strongly disagree; five = Strongly agree). As positive and negative impacts of social media apply on family systems can be meant as two sides of the same money, the full score was used.

Table 2

Factor loadings for EFA with primary centrality factoring and promax rotation for the social media impact on the family system scale.

Detail	Positive Impact	Negative Impact
They amend a salubrious communication.	0.715
They interfere with family rules. *		0.554
They improve family unit cohesion.	0.789
They expose family privacy to risks. *		0.712
They help in bounding generations.	0.723
They betrayal family intimacy to risks. *		0.785
They assistance in facing up to life bicycle transitions.	0.678
They make the relationships amidst family members more than vulnerable. *		0.699
They strengthen family resilience (that is the ability to face up positively to traumatic events, to reorganize functionally afterward some difficulties).	0.715
Explained variance (%)	29.306	21.527
Cronbach's α	0.73

4.3. Data Analysis

iv.three.one. Preliminary Analyses

Every bit they had not been validated nevertheless, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with principal 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 cistron structures were further tested through confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) run with structural equation modeling (SEM). Specifically, for the social media impact on family organization scale a two-factor structure, as suggested past the EFA, and a hierarchical structure with the two factors loading on a higher-order latent dimension were tested to decide which 1 improve fitted the data, consistently with the theoretical model virtually positive and negative impacts of social media utilise on family system as two sides of the same coin.

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

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

4.three.2. Hypothesis Testing

The arbitration hypothesis was tested through SEM. Collective family unit efficacy was the independent variable, openness of family unit communications was the dependent one; the perception about social media bear on on family systems was the mediator; participants' age and sex were modeled every bit covariates on all the variables in the model. A dummy variable was created for participants' sex before entering information technology in the model (0 = male / ane = female).

Before testing the hypothesis, the presence of outliers and/or influential cases was checked using the leverage value and Cook'southward D to exam the absence of significant values in the data affecting the analyses [58]. Multicollinearity was tested through condition and tolerance indexes [59]. Common variance was controlled through Harman'due south unmarried-factor examination [60].

Given the involvement in higher-lodge constructs, a heterogeneous parceling was adopted [61], as it reproduces smaller just more reliable coefficients than the homogeneous one [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 post-obit indices of fit were observed [56]: The Chi-square exam of model fit, the CFI, the SRMR.

Bootstrap estimation was used to examination the significance of the results [63,64] with 10,000 samples, and the bias-corrected 95% CI was computed by determining the effects at the two.5th and 97.5th percentiles; the indirect furnishings are significant when there is no 0 in the CI.

5. Results

For the family unit open up advice scale and for the social media impact on family organization scale, sphericity (family open communication scale: Chi-square (28) = 974.765, p < 0.001; social media impact on family organization 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 unit system scale) reported good values. No item was deleted from the original pools due to too depression loadings nor too high loadings on more than than one factor; all the items in the final versions of the scales had loadings above 0.3 in only one cistron (run across Table i and Tabular array 2).

The CFA confirmed an acceptable model fit for the family open advice scale, Chi-foursquare (19) = 105.100, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.05, and for the family commonage efficacy calibration, Chi-square (169) = 789.980, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.02. For the social media impact on family unit system scale, the hierarchical model, Chi-square (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 use as two sides of the same money.

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

Table 3

Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variables	Range	M	SD	1	two
1. Commonage family unit efficacy	one–7	4.98	1.04	-
2. Family unit open communication	i–v	3.72	0.79	0.509 ***	-
3. Social media impact on family organisation	one–five	two.87	0.64	0.140 *	0.122

Hypotheses Testing

Since the leverage value was ever lower than 0.09 and Melt's D lowest and highest values were 0 and 0.36, there were no significant values in the information affecting the analyses; equally the variables in the model had Tolerance indexes betwixt 0.88 and 0.98, multicollinearity among them was not a problem [59].

The hypothesized mediation model (see Effigy ane) showed skilful fit indices, Chi-square (33) = fifty.280, p < 0.027, CFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.02.

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

Collective family unit efficacy emerged equally a significant predictor of the openness of family communications, B = 0.585, S.Eastward. = 0.07, p < 0.001, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.410, 0.709], and of the perceptions most social media bear on 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 also, B = 0.242, S.E. = 0.056, p < 0.001, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.126, 0.342]. The indirect effect of collective family efficacy on openness of family unit communications via the perceptions almost social media affect on family systems was pocket-sized even so significant, B = 0.049, S.E. = 0.019, p = 0.01, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.02, 0.098], supporting the hypothesis of partial mediation. The unstandardized total upshot was 0.634, Southward.Eastward. = 0.066, p < 0.001, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.459, 0.747].

Participants' sex emerged as a significant predictor simply for the perceptions nigh social media impact on family systems, B = -0.132, South.East. = 0.105, p = 0.008, bias-corrected 95% CI [−0.433, −0.022]; participants' age was pregnant only for the collective family unit efficacy, B = 0.081, South.E. = 0.072, p = 0.05, bias-corrected 95% CI [0.004, 0.279].

6. Discussion

The present written report deepens the understanding of how social media tin produce changes inside family systems, taking into consideration the role that parents' perceptions about the bear on of social media on family systems, whether positive or negative, can exert in the relationship between their perceived collective family efficacy and an open advice amidst family members; specifically, the leading hypothesis referred to the mediator role of these perceptions, whether positive or negative, in the above-mentioned relationship. The results confirm the hypothesis, showing that parents' perceptions represent a partial mediator of the relationship between their perceptions about commonage family efficacy and openness of communications; however, the indirect upshot of collective family efficacy on openness of family communications via parents' perceptions virtually the impact of social media on family unit systems was modest, showing that all the direct effects in the model were still bigger.

It has already been widely acknowledged that social media and ICTs make man social interactions and relationships more circuitous; however, scientific results even so showed alien results about whether such complication can have a positive, enriching, role or rather than a negative, detrimental, one with reference to family interactions, fifty-fifty more when the family organization includes adolescent children [36]—due to the evolutionary tasks they accept to face to, which can impact on family relationships and interactions temporarily or permanently [10,eleven,12,xiii]. These results provide further hints about social media role within family unit relationships and functioning.

Indeed, while it is well established that family unit collective efficacy can have a boosting role with reference to healthy interactions and open up communications within the family organisation [5,10], what emerged here suggests that information technology is not simply the real impact of social media on family systems [36] that matters but likewise how family members perceive information technology and how much they feel confident most their family managing daily challenges to reach positive relationships, healthy interactions, and open up communications. Indeed, the results bear witness that that being confident in i's family unit capabilities to handle daily tasks, stress, and challenges assembly with a more positive perception about the impact social media tin have on family organisation and the relationships inside information technology, as feeling able to manage family daily tasks and challenges could foster the feeling about being able to manage the adaptation to the increasing social media use amid family members too. This could make family members perceive, at terminal, these new technologies as opportunities for increased family cohesion, adjustability, interactions, planning, and open communications [3,34,36], rather than every bit threats to positive family functioning and relationships. In addition to family collective efficacy, also such positive perception tin farther promote open up communications amongst family members, maybe because if social media are perceived every bit opportunities and useful tools they can offering further ways to maintain and ameliorate relationships amongst family members (eastward.g., to go on in touch, make plans in real-fourth dimension, promote and facilitate discussions, and encourage parent–child interactions, [35,36]). When parents are aware of their family's ability to manage social media-related changes in family unit performance 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 apply to continue in touch with their children, most of all when they are adolescents and are facing upward their individualization process: if parents are able non to make their children experience they are invading their privacy or being oppressive and hyper-decision-making, and to talk over with them how social media should exist used to reduce the risks, social media can at last strengthen family unit ties, promote and facilitate discussions, and foster more secure conditions for adolescents to obtain greater autonomy from their parents and for parents to let them face up to these situations [35,36,38,39]. Indeed, when used in a responsible and aware style, social media tin correspond a resource and an educational added value within 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 than open up dialogue between parents and children, allowing the latter to become closer to the language and lifestyles of the starting time 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 environment wherein adolescents can abound upwardly and face up up to their evolutionary tasks and subsequent stressful events, getting positive outcomes [36].

vii. Conclusions

The written report shows the relevance that parents' positive perceptions most the impact of social media on social interactions and relationships within their family unit system tin accept in fostering a good family functioning and open communications among 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 represent a strategy to promote the acquittance that challenges related to social media uses, their consequences, and the potential subsequent risks could be managed with adequate data and negotiation of the changes they bring in terms of family unit communications, habits, interactions, and rituals among parents. Taking into consideration the results from this study, an emergent consequence seems related to the need to promote a wider acknowledgment that social media tin can be positively and functionally used among mod parents [36], showing them unlike ways in which social media can represent educational and participative spaces aimed at promoting a wider and more than open up advice betwixt them and their children and a critical and responsible awareness for their children at the aforementioned time, fostering, at last, their positive perceptions most social media bear upon on family systems. Indeed, social media accessibility, acceptability, and accommodation require the redefinition of rules and roles, producing new processes and dynamics inside family systems [31] parents have to deal with if they want to become a positive perception well-nigh their use: if adequately managed, these processes can allow the cosmos 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 study invite to set upwards further studies aimed at deepening the meaning that social media tools can assume in the structure of transition spaces, allowing the expression and mediation of the divergences and conflicts that can show up in families with adolescent children.

It is important to also acknowledge some limitations of this study.

First, it takes into consideration simply the parents' perspective, just a major comprehension of family relationships should take into consideration the children's perspective also, or even a dyadic one. Moreover, the findings are based on self-reported data, which can become distorted due to problems related to memory bias and response fatigue.

Lastly, another outcome refers to the cross-exclusive design of the report; thus, the relationships described should be considered carefully, and no causal inference is possible.

It would also 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 about social media impact within family systems and their effect on family communications.

Writer 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 Interest

The authors declare no conflict of involvement.

References

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

2. Galvin K.G., Dickson F.C., Marrow S.R. Systems theory: Patterns and (w)holes in family communication. In: Braithwaite D.O., Baxter 50.A., editors. Engaging theories in family connection: Multiple perspectives. SAGE; K Oaks, CA, USA: 2006. pp. 309–324. [Google Scholar]

three. Lanigan J.D. A sociotechnological model for family inquiry and intervention: How information and communication technologies affect family life. Marriage Fam. Rev. 2009;45:587–609. doi: ten.1080/01494920903224194. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Scabini E., Marta E., Lanz 1000., editors. Transition to Machismo and Family Relations: An Intergenerational Perspective. Routledge; London, UK: 2006. [Google Scholar]

5. Bandura A., Caprara 1000.V., Barbaranelli C., Regalia C., Scabini E. Impact of family efficacy beliefs on quality of family operation and satisfaction with family life. Appl. Psychol. 2011;threescore:421–448. doi: ten.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00442.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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

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

viii. Bandura A. Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In: Pajares F., Urdan T., editors. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Volume 5. IAP; Greenwich, CT, United states: 2006. pp. 1–43. [Google Scholar]

9. Caprara Thou.V., Regalia C., Scabini E., Barbaranelli C., Bandura A. Assessment of filial, parental, marital, and collective family efficacy beliefs. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2004;20:247–261. doi: x.1027/1015-5759.20.4.247. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Bacigalupe G., Lambe South. Virtualizing intimacy: Information communication technologies and transnational families in therapy. Fam. Process. 2011;50:12–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01343.10. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Caplan S.East. Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic Internet utilize and psychosocial well-existence. Commun. Res. 2003;30:625–648. doi: 10.1177/0093650203257842. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Kim J.H., Lau C.H., Cheuk K.K., Kan P., Hui H.L., Griffiths South.M. Predictors of heavy Internet use and associations with wellness-promoting and wellness risk behaviors among Hong Kong academy students. J. Adolesc. 2010;33:215–220. doi: 10.1016/j.boyhood.2009.03.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. 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:l–72. doi: 10.3280/PDS2014-001003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Kaiser Family Foundation . Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to18-Year Olds. Kaiser Family Foundation; Menlo Park, CA, USA: 2010. [Google Scholar]

15. Roberts D., Foeher U., Rideout 5. Generation M: Media in the lives of eight-xviii Year Olds. Kaiser Family Foundation; Menlo Park, CA, United states: 2005. [Google Scholar]

17. Baym N.One thousand., Zhang Y.B., Kunkel A., Ledbetter A., Lin M.C. Relational quality and media apply in interpersonal relationships. New Media Soc. 2007;9:735–752. doi: ten.1177/1461444807080339. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Haddon L. Domestication analysis, objects of study, and the centrality of technologies in everyday life. Can. J. Commun. 2011;36:311. doi: 10.22230/cjc.2011v36n2a2322. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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

20. Caso D. 50'uso di Net e 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 Fifty. Roger Silverstone's Legacies: Domestication. New Media Soc. 2007;ix: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 (Cyberspace) 2012;five:i–three. doi: x.5231/psy.writ.2012.3011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Procentese F., Gatti F. People-Nearby Applications and local communities: questioning nearly individuals' loneliness and social motivations towards People-Nearby Applications. J. Community Psychol. 2019;47:1282–1294. doi: ten.1002/jcop.22175. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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

25. Stafford 50., Hillyer J.D. Information and advice technologies in personal relationships. Rev. Commun. 2012;12:290–312. doi: 10.1080/15358593.2012.685951. [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: x.1016/j.chb.2013.02.016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Boursier V., Manna V., Gioia F., Coppola F., Venosa N. Cyber-moms facing maternity: 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' project. Action Res. 2016;xiv:376–392. doi: x.1177/1476750315626502. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Jordan A.B., Hershey J., McDivitt J., Heitzler C. Reducing children'south television-viewing time: A qualitative report of parents and their children. Pediatrics. 2006;18:1301–1310. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-0732. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Carvalho J., Francisco R., Relvas A.P. Family unit operation and information and advice technologies: How do they relate? A literature review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015;45:99–108. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.037. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Hertlein Grand.M. Digital dwelling: 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 Chiliad., Espanha R., Lapa T. Dinâmica familiar eastward interacção em torno dos media: autonomia dos jovens, autoridade e controlo parental sobre os media em Portugal. Comunicação eastward Sociedade. 2008;13:31–53. doi: 10.17231/comsoc.thirteen(2008).1143. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Williams A.50., Merten M.J. Family: Cyberspace and social media applied science in the family context. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 2011;forty:150–170. doi: ten.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02101.10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Chesley N., Play a joke on B. E-mail's use and perceived outcome on family relationship quality: Variations past gender and race/ethnicity. Sociol. Focus. 2012;45:63–84. doi: 10.1080/00380237.2012.630906. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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

36. Coyne S.M., Padilla-Walker L.M., Fraser A.Chiliad., Fellows K., 24-hour interval R.D. "Media Fourth dimension= Family Time" Positive Media Use in Families with Adolescents. J. Adolesc. Res. 2014;29:663–688. doi: ten.1177/0743558414538316. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Castells Thousand. The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Historic period: Economy, Society, and Culture. Book 1 Oxford; Blackwell Publishers; Hoboken, NJ, Usa: 1996. [Google Scholar]

39. Hiniker A., Schoenebeck S.Y., Kientz J.A. Not at the dinner table: Parents' and children's perspectives on family technology rules; Proceedings of the19th ACM Conference on Figurer-Supported Cooperative Piece of work & Social Calculating; San Francisco, CA, Usa. 27 February–two March 2016; [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

twoscore. Palen L., Hughes A. When domicile base is not a place: Parents apply of mobile telephones. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2007;11:339–348. doi: x.1007/s00779-006-0078-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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

42. Bai Q., Bai Due south., Dan Q., Lei 50., Wang P. Female parent phubbing and adolescent academic burnout: The mediating role of mental health and the moderating role of agreeableness and neuroticism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019;109622 doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109622. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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

44. Oduor E., Neustaedter C., Odom W., Tang A., Moallem N., Tory K., Irani P. The frustrations and benefits of mobile device usage in the home when copresent with family members; Proceedings of the Annual Designing Interactive Systems Conference; Brisbane, Australia. 2–eight July 2016; [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Radesky J., Miller A.50., Rosenblum K.L., Appugliese D., Kaciroti N., Lumeng J.C. Maternal mobile device uses during a structured parent-child interaction task. Acad. Pediatrics. 2014;fifteen:238–244. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2014.ten.001. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

46. Radesky J.South., Peacock-Chambers Due east., Zuckerman B., Silverstein G. Use of mobile engineering science to calm upset children: Associations with social-emotional evolution. JAMA Pediatrics. 2016;170:397–399. doi: ten.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4260. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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

48. Padilla-Walker 50.M., Coyne S.M. "Turn that thing off!" Parent and boyish 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 L.M., Coyne South.M., Fraser A.M., Dyer W.J., Yorgason J.B. Parents and adolescents growing upward in the digital historic period: Latent growth curve analysis of proactive media monitoring. J. Adolesc. 2012;35:1153–1165. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.03.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

fifty. Collodi S., Panerati S., Imbimbo Due east., Stefanelli F., Duradoni M., Guazzini A. Personality and Reputation: A Complex Human relationship in Virtual Environments. Time to come Internet. 2018;10:120. doi: 10.3390/fi10120120. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Dishion T.J., McMahon R.J. Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clin. Kid Fam. Psychol. Rev. 1998;1:61–75. doi: 10.1023/A:1021800432380. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

52. Robins L., Rutter One thousand., editors. Straight and Devious Pathways from Babyhood to Adulthood. Cambridge Academy Press; Cambridge, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland: 1990. [Google Scholar]

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

54. Mesch G.S. Family relations and the Net: 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 Press; New York, NY, USA: 1982. [Google Scholar]

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

57. Hu L.T., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure assay: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling Multidiscip. J. 1999;vi:1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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

59. Craney T.A., Surles J.G. Model-dependent variance aggrandizement cistron cutoff values. Qual. Eng. 2002;14:391–403. doi: ten.1081/QEN-120001878. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

60. Tehseen S., Ramayah T., Sajilan Due south. Testing and controlling for common method variance: A review of available methods. J. Manag. Sci. 2017;4:142–168. doi: 10.20547/jms.2014.1704202. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Coffman D.50., MacCallum R.C. Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2005;40:235–259. doi: ten.1207/s15327906mbr4002_4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. Picayune T.D., Rhemtulla M., Gibson Thousand., Schoemann A.M. Why the items versus parcels controversy needn't be one. Psychol. Methods. 2013;18:285–300. doi: 10.1037/a0033266. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. MacKinnon D.P., Lockwood C.One thousand., Williams J. Confidence limits for the indirect effect distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2004;39:99–128. doi: x.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

64. Preacher Chiliad.J., Hayes A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect furnishings in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods. 2008;40:879–891. doi: ten.3758/BRM.twoscore.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: 10.1482/94942. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

67. Di Napoli I., Dolce P., Arcidiacono C. Community trust: A social indicator related to community Engagement. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019;145:551–579. doi: 10.1007/s11205-019-02114-y. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

68. Galli I., Fasanelli R., Schember Eastward. The structure of icons as a means of access to the social representation of culture. Cult. Psychol. 2018;24:212–232. doi: x.1177/1354067X17721860. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

pritchardsysion1963.blogspot.com

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

Share this post