Abstract
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
301
PARENTAL MONITORING, MEDIA LITERACY, AND MEDIA VIOLENCE: A
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE FOURTH R PARENT MEDIA VIOLENCE
WORKSHOP
Ryan Broll, Claire V. Crooks, Shanna Burns, Ray Hughes, and Peter G. Jaffe
Abstract: As youth’s lives have become increasingly infused with all types of media,
debates regarding the effect of violent media on youth have emerged. Within this debate,
parental monitoring has been identified as an important protective factor against some
negative outcomes. Accordingly, the Fourth R Parent Media Violence Workshop was
developed to educate parents about the importance of setting rules around media use and
to encourage parents to monitor their children’s media consumption. Two waves of data
were collected six months apart (nTime 1 = 226, nTime 2 = 52) with parents who attended the
workshop, and results indicate that parents engaged in enhanced, appropriately restrictive
and active monitoring practices following the workshop. A significant decrease in
children’s media consumption was also reported between Time 1 and Time 2. The results
provide preliminary evidence to suggest that even short, one-time intensive workshops
for parents can move parents’ behaviours in the intended direction and positively impact
their monitoring strategies.
Keywords: parental monitoring, media violence, media consumption, parent education
Acknowledgement: This study was partly supported by a grant from the Public Health
Agency of Canada (6785-15-2010-3381071).
Corresponding author: Ryan Broll, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Centre for
Prevention Science, 100 Collip Circle, Suite 100, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 4X8.
Telephone: (519) 858-5411 ext. 22155. Fax: 519-858-5149. E-mail: rbroll@uwo.ca
Ryan Broll, M.A. is a Ph.D. Candidate in Department of Sociology at University of Western Ontario,
Room 5320 Social Science Centre, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2. E-mail: rbroll@uwo.ca
Claire V. Crooks, Ph.D., C.Psych. is Associate Director of CAMH Centre for Prevention Science, 100
Collip Circle, Suite 100, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 4X8. E-mail: ccrooks@uwo.ca
Shanna Burns, M.Ed. is Manager at CAMH Centre for Prevention Science, 100 Collip Circle, Suite 100,
London, Ontario, Canada N6G 4X8. E-mail: sburns@uwo.ca
Ray Hughes, M.Ed. is Senior Program Advisor and National Education Coordinator at CAMH Centre
for Prevention Science, 100 Collip Circle, Suite 100, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 4X8.
E-mail: rayhughes@rogers.com
Peter G. Jaffe, Ph.D., C.Psych. is Professor of Education, University of Western Ontario, 1137 Western
Road, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 1G7. E-mail: pjaffe@uwo.ca
mailto:rbroll@uwo.ca
mailto:rbroll@uwo.ca
mailto:ccrooks@uwo.ca
mailto:sburns@uwo.ca
mailto:rayhughes@rogers.com
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
302
Young people’s lives are becoming increasingly infused with all types of media content
and the majority of North American children are growing up in media-saturated environments.
The average child now consumes 7.5 hours of media per day, not including media accessed at
school or time spent using cell phones (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010). Amongst
preschoolers, the average child spends about two hours every day exposed to media (Rideout &
Hamel, 2006). The normative expectations of parents of preschoolers are that most media
consumption will be educational and that parents will closely monitor their children’s media use
(Davies & Gentile, 2012). However, research finds that this is often not the case. For example,
researchers have found that one-third of preschool-aged children in the United States have a
television in their bedroom (Rideout & Hamel, 2006) and that up to half of the time preschoolers
spend viewing television is unsupervised (Roberts, Foehr, Rideout, & Brodie, 1999).
Parents of elementary school-aged children face different normative pressures and
parenting challenges. Specifically, parents of children in elementary school are expected to foster
self-management and a sense of responsibility in their offspring (Collins, Madsen, & Susman-
Stillman, 2002). According to Davies and Gentile (2012), these norms suggest that parents of
elementary-school-aged children (i.e., children aged approximately 5 to 13) should gradually
relax their monitoring of their children’s media consumption and family rules around media use.
Likewise, as children begin to interact more with others outside of the family, it can be expected
that media consumption will increasingly shift in purpose from being education-oriented to being
more entertainment-oriented (Davies & Gentile, 2012). These expectations are reflected in the
media consumption of elementary-school-aged children: 6- to 8-year-olds view about two hours
less educational content per week compared to preschoolers, and 9- to 12-year-olds view about
half an hour less educational content per week than 6- to 8-year-olds (Wright et al., 2001).
During adolescence, youth’s autonomy tends to increase. This shift includes having the
autonomy to choose one’s own entertainment and leisure activities (Davies & Gentile, 2012). As
may be expected, adolescents’ increased autonomy is reflected in their media consumption.
Specifically, the number of hours spent viewing television – which may have previously been a
family and educational activity – decrease markedly, whereas time spent listening to music –
independently and with one’s peers – increases (Rideout et al., 2010). Alongside adolescents’
increased autonomy come parenting norms that encourage decreased monitoring of media
consumption, fewer rules governing media use, and less consistency in the ways in which rules
are applied (Davies & Gentile, 2012). Indeed, teenagers are much less likely than younger
children to report having rules around media consumption. Adolescents are also more likely than
younger children to have a television, video game console, or music player in their bedroom and
they are more likely than elementary-school-aged children to have access to the Internet (Rideout
et al., 2010).
Parental Monitoring
Parents who are aware of their children’s activities and peer group, and who
communicate to their children that they are concerned about their activities, are engaged in
parental monitoring (Dishion & McMahon, 1998). A great deal of research in several fields
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
303
indicates that parental monitoring can have a positive impact on the social and health outcomes
of children and youth. For example, high levels of parental monitoring are inversely related to
children’s substance use and abuse (Clark, Shamblen, Ringwalt, & Hanley, 2012; Griffin,
Samuolis, & Williams, 2011; Huang, Murphy, & Hser, 2011; Martins, Storr, Alexandre, &
Chilcoat, 2008), susceptibility to depressive symptoms (Hamza & Willoughby, 2011),
engagement in delinquent and anti-social behaviours (Huang et al., 2011; Laird, Marrero, &
Sentse, 2010; Willoughby & Hamza, 2011), gang affiliation (McDaniel, 2012), and dating
victimization and relational aggression (Leadbeater, Banister, Ellis, & Yeung, 2008). Similarly,
using discrete-time survival analysis to analyze data from a national sample of more than 5,000
youth, Huang and colleagues (2011) found that compared to youth reporting low parental
monitoring, those who reported high parental monitoring delayed sexual initiation by 1.5 years.
Likewise, Parkes, Henderson, Wight, and Nixon (2011) found that parental monitoring was
associated with delayed sexual intercourse, lowered expectations of sex in a relationship, and
increased condom use.
With respect to media, research has consistently shown that parents often do little to
monitor their children’s media use (Dorr & Rabin, 1995; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999) and
that most families have few rules restricting the amount or types of media that can be consumed
(Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004; Roberts et al., 1999). However, it does seem as though
most parents set rules about newer forms of media, such as the Internet. For example, Lenhart
and Madden (2007) found that most parents set rules about their children’s Internet use and
retrospectively monitor their children’s online behaviour by reviewing their Internet browser’s
history. Even still, it seems as though parents’ monitoring of their children’s Internet use is
initially high, such as when children first begin using the Internet or when the family first obtains
Internet access, but that this vigilance decreases steadily over time (Bjornstad & Ellingsen, 2004;
Wang, Bianchi, & Raley, 2005). Interestingly, and perhaps because it is a newer technology,
about 50% of parents limit when their children can use a cell phone and almost two-thirds of
parents monitor text messages and other content on their children’s cell phone (Lenhart, Ling,
Campbell, & Purcell, 2010). Researchers have yet to examine whether monitoring of cell phones
wanes over time, as is the case with the monitoring of Internet usage.
The overall lack of parental monitoring of children’s media use and consumption – and
parenting norms that suggest decreased monitoring as children mature – is troublesome because
research has also shown that parental monitoring of children’s media use can also have positive
effects on youth. To date, most such research has focussed on television. Parents who view
television with their children are able to effectively minimize many of the harmful effects of
television viewing by reinforcing positive messages, rejecting negative messages, and teaching
children media literacy skills (Huston et al., 1992; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999).
Conversely, if parents simply co-view with their children and do not discuss problematic content,
children may assume that their parents endorse the negative content (Nathanson, 2001).
Nevertheless, the children of parents who restrict access to television by developing family rules
around the amount or type of television viewed watch less television (Atkin, Greenberg, &
Baldwin, 1991) and are less aggressive than other children (Nathanson, 1999).
When it comes to the Internet, several studies have suggested that passive monitoring
techniques such as glancing at computer screens and reviewing browser histories are not
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
304
effective methods of minimizing risks associated with Internet use and the consumption of
various types of online content (e.g., Kerr & Statin, 2000; Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2001).
Instead, experts tend to recommend that parents openly communicate with their children about
Internet use and actively participate in their children’s decision-making online (Liau, Khoo, &
Ang, 2008).
Media Violence and Youth
Of the many types and forms of media consumed by youth, perhaps none have been as
hotly contested as the impact of consuming violent media. Debates around the impact of media
violence on youth tend to become especially heated in the aftermath of extremely violent
incidents committed by young people. Two such incidents occurred in the United States in 2012
further fuelling these debates. First, in July, a 24-year-old man opened fire in a crowded Aurora,
Colorado movie theatre at the opening of a new Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises, killing 12
people and injuring 58 others. Six months later, in December, a 20-year-old man walked into
Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and began shooting. He ultimately
killed 20 young children and six adults. The popular media linked both incidents, at least in part,
to the shooters’ consumption of violent media, including violent video games and movies
(Common Sense Media, 2013).
Correlational studies have linked the consumption of violent media content to moderate
aggression and serious violent behaviour into adulthood (Anderson et al., 2003; Funk, Bechtoldt
Baldacci, Pasold, & Baumgardner, 2004). Exposure to violent video games is also correlated
with desensitization to real-life violence (Bartholow, Bushman, & Sestir, 2006; Carnagey,
Anderson, & Bushman, 2007; Engelhardt, Bartholow, Kerr, & Bushman, 2011; Funk et al.,
2004). Further, Ybarra et al. (2008) found that youth exposure to violence in the media, both
online and offline, is associated with an increased likelihood of perpetrating serious violence,
including shooting or stabbing someone, aggravated assault, robbery, and sexual assault.
Although these findings are alarming, correlational studies can provide an oversimplified
view of the debate. For example, Ferguson, San Miguel, Garza, and Jerabeck (2012) found that
although video game violence was associated with dating violence in bivariate analyses, this
relationship disappeared when other variables were controlled for. These authors suggest that
“these results confirm expectations by other scholars that any links between video games and
aggression are merely the by-product of other processes occurring in the life of the child”
(Ferguson, San Miguel, Garza, & Jerabeck, 2012, p. 144). Others have similarly suggested that
there is almost no relationship between media violence and criminal behaviours (Ferguson, 2007;
Ferguson, San Miguel, & Hartley, 2009), and that effect sizes become smaller as the degree of
seriousness of the offence increases (Anderson et al., 2003; Bavelier et al., 2011).
Although media is not likely the leading cause of pediatric health problems, it does
contribute to many problems including violence stemming from learned behaviours developed
through the media (Strasburger, 2009). Exposure to media violence is most likely one facet of a
complex set of interacting variables that increase the probability of problem behaviours and
related concerns. Modelling aggression through a risk and resilience framework in a study of
third and fourth grade students, Gentile and Bushman (2012) found that six risk/protective
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
305
factors measured at Time 1 – media violence exposure, physical victimisation, sex, hostile
attribution bias, parental monitoring, and prior aggression – all significantly predicted increased
physical aggression at Time 2 six months later. Moreover, the authors found a cumulative effect
whereby the combination of risk factors was a stronger predictor of aggression than any single
risk factor. Therefore, Gentile and Bushman concluded that, “exposure to violent media is not
the only risk factor for aggression, or even the most important risk factor, but it is one important
risk factor” (p. 149). Gentile and Bushman liken this conclusion to public health debates about
heart disease: Although scientists recognize that a number of risk factors contribute to heart
disease, including smoking, alcohol consumption, characteristics of one’s diet, exercise, and
one’s family history with heart disease, most statistical analyses concentrate on one factor
independently of the others.
Stemming from research on the impacts of media violence on youth, the American
Academy of Pediatrics (2009) issued a policy statement urging safer media consumption
through, amongst other things, increased media literacy and parental regulation of children’s
media use. Clearly, exposure to violent media can be considered one risk factor for aggression
and other negative outcomes and parental monitoring of children’s media use can be considered
a protective factor (Austin, 1993; Nathanson, 2001). Accordingly, a lack of parental monitoring
can be considered an additional risk factor (Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2007) for negative
outcomes – that is, the effects of consuming violent media are greater when parents do not
monitor their children’s media consumption and discuss content with them (Anderson et al.,
2007). Indeed, parental monitoring and media literacy have been found to positively balance the
negative effects of violent media. For example, the effects of exposure to media violence are
minimized when parents guide their children’s exposure and discuss observed violence with their
children (Corder-Bolz, 1982; Hicks, 1968; Nathanson, 1999; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999).
Although most families may have no or few rules governing media use, parental monitoring and
media literacy are variables that may be successfully targeted by intervention (Dishion &
McMahon, 1998).
The Fourth R Parent Media Violence Workshop
The Fourth R consists of a comprehensive range of school-based programs designed to
include and engage students, teachers, parents, and the community in reducing violence and
related risk behaviours (Wolfe, Crooks, Hughes, & Jaffe, 2005; see also Crooks, Wolfe, Hughes,
Jaffe, & Chiodo, 2008; Wolfe, Crooks, Hughes, & Chiodo, 2008; Wolfe, Crooks, Jaffe, Chiodo,
Hughes, Ellis, et al., 2009; Wolfe, Jaffe, & Crooks, 2006). It is especially important for
comprehensive approaches to violence prevention and healthy youth relationships to involve
parents (Crooks et al., 2008). Given the centrality of media in the lives of youth, the many
negative relationship models in media, and research indicating that parents’ knowledge of media,
rating systems, and media effects may have an important impact on how their children consume
media (Gentile & Walsh, 2002), a workshop for parents on issues related to youth media
consumption and media violence was developed to complement school-based lessons.
The Fourth R Parent Media Violence Workshop (hereafter “workshop”) is a 90-minute
intensive workshop that provides information to participants on a number of topics, including
how children and youth use media, how violence is portrayed in the media, the messages
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
306
communicated by violent media, the impacts of media violence on youth, the importance of
monitoring children’s media use, how to set rules around media use, positive forms of media
designed for youth, and the importance of maintaining privacy online. Participants are also
provided with several additional resources, including suggestions for computer monitoring and
parental control programs, a guide on how to appropriately set Facebook privacy and security
settings, and a list of additional resources and websites from which parents may obtain more
information about the topics covered in the workshop. Given widespread confusion over
traditional ratings systems (Gentile & Walsh, 2002), participants are also informed about
Common Sense Media1. Common Sense Media is a non-profit website that provides easy-to-
understand reviews and ratings for movies, video games, television shows, apps, books,
websites, and music. Rather than using traditional ratings systems, Common Sense Media rates
media based on its age appropriateness and educational potential as determined by its team of
experts. A simple, easy-to-understand ratings system (red, yellow, green) is used to indicate
whether a given form of media (e.g., movie, television show, video game) is appropriate for a
specific age. Their reviews also include information about positive messages and role models in
a given movie, for example, as well as the level of violence, sexuality, consumerism, and
offensive language. In particular, the workshop is designed to encourage parents to engage and
monitor their children’s engagement with new media environments, such as the Internet, where
there are many possibilities for encountering violence.
Basic program feedback has been collected from workshop participants for several years.
Parents have consistently rated the workshop favourably, reporting that they intend to make use
of the tools provided to them and monitor their children’s media consumption more closely.
However, whether such behavioural changes occurred and were maintained over time was
unknown. Furthermore, despite evidence suggesting that parental monitoring is inversely related
to negative outcomes associated with consuming violent media, there are few programs aimed at
parents to help them navigate monitoring their children’s media use. Of those programs that do
exist, no evaluations of any kind have been conducted, so it is unknown whether they have any
positive impact on parental monitoring. The purpose of this study is to examine whether parents
implement the strategies they learn during the workshop and, if so, to understand what specific
strategies they use.
Method
Participants
This study used two waves of longitudinal panel data to assess whether an intensive, 90-
minute parental monitoring and media violence workshop for parents can increase parents’
monitoring of their children’s media use, and to examine what strategies parents use when they
do monitor their children’s media use post-workshop. Participants at Time 1 included 337
individuals who attended the workshop as part of a large, professional development conference
on issues related to media violence at the University of Western Ontario in October 2011. Of
those individuals who attended the workshop, 101 participants were dropped from this study
because they were not parents (n = 236). Of the 236 participants included in our final sample at
1 http://www.commonsensemedia.org
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
307
Time 1, 180 (76.3%) were female and 221 (93.6%) reported that their job requires them to work
with youth. A relatively even distribution of children’s ages was reported by the 236 parents in
our final sample. Specifically, 54 (25.4%) had a child in senior kindergarten or younger, 82
(38.5%) had a child in Grades 1 through 5, 61 (28.6%) had a child in Grades 6 through 8, and 89
(41.8%) had a child in Grades 9 to 12.
At Time 1, we sought permission from all participants to contact them again six months
later (in April 2012) to complete a follow-up interview (Time 2). Of the 236 parents who
completed the first survey at Time 1, 98 (41.5%) gave us permission to contact them for the
Time 2 survey. Amongst these 98 participants, 66 completed the follow-up survey at Time 2
(response rate = 67%). Twelve of the 66 participants at Time 2 did not consent to us linking their
responses to their Time 1 survey; as a result, these 12 participants were dropped. Two additional
participants were also dropped because we were unable to link their Time 1 and Time 2 surveys
(n = 52)2. Of the 52 participants included in our final sample at Time 2, 40 (76.9%) were female.
As with the Time 1 sample, a relatively even distribution of children’s ages was reported by the
52 parents in our Time 2 sample: 14 (27.5%) had a child in senior kindergarten or younger, 23
(45.1%) had a child in Grades 1 through 5, 17 (33.3%) had a child in Grades 6 through 8, and 20
(39.2%) had a child in Grades 9 to 12. No significant differences in the sex of the participant or
ages of their children were observed between the initial group who completed the Time 1 survey
and the follow-up group who completed the Time 2 survey.
Measures
Both the Time 1 and Time 2 surveys were developed by the authors for the purposes of
this study. The Time 1 survey was a brief (two pages) paper-and-pencil survey administered
immediately following the workshop. The Time 1 survey comprised three sections. The first
section sought background and basic demographic information from participants. Questions
included the participants’ sex, the gender and age of their children, and their fields of
employment.
The second section measured participants’ perceptions of what they learned in the
workshop. Nine key learning objectives were measured on a four-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample questions included, “I learned more about how
children and youth use media”; “I learned more about the messages being communicated by
media violence”; “I learned more about the impacts of media violence on children and youth”; “I
learned more about the importance of monitoring children’s media use”; and “I learned more
about how to set rules around children’s media use”. Participants’ responses indicated high levels
of perceived learning from the workshop – in excess of 90% of participants agreed or strongly
agreed that they learned more about each of the learning objectives than they knew prior to the
workshop (see Table 1).
2 We used e-mail addresses to link participants’ Time 2 surveys that were completed online to their Time 1 surveys.
These two participants provided a different e-mail address at Time 2 than we had on file.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
308
Table 1. Participants’ Self-reported Learning as a Result of the Workshop
Learning objective
% agree or
strongly
agree Mean
Std.
deviation
I learned more about how children and youth use media 94.8 3.67 0.73
I learned more about violence itself and the different
forms it can take 94.7 3.47 0.74
I learned more about how the media portrays violence 94.7 3.50 1.10
I learned more about the messages being communicated
by media violence 95.2 3.59 0.73
I learned more about the impacts of media violence on
children and youth 94.8 3.53 0.73
I learned more about the importance of monitoring
children’s media use 95.1 3.67 0.71
I learned more about how to set rules around children’s
media use 94.3 3.49 0.74
I learned more about positive forms of media designed
for children and youth 90.4 3.24 1.61
I learned more about video games and their impact on
children and youth 92.5 3.53 0.76
The third section of the survey included a series of questions related to parental
perceptions of media consumption and parental monitoring in the participant’s household. First,
participants were asked about their perceptions of their children’s daily media consumption (e.g.,
“Approximately how many hours of media do your children consume per day?”). Second,
participants were asked to respond to the following statements regarding their monitoring
behaviours: “Before this workshop I had visited Common Sense Media”; “Before this
presentation I monitored my children’s media use”; and “Before this presentation I had family
rules about media use”. Responses to these statements were recorded on a three-point scale (1 =
no, 2 = sometimes, 3 = yes). Scores were summed to obtain a basic composite measure of pre-
workshop parental monitoring where higher scores indicated greater monitoring (minimum = 3,
maximum = 9, X = 6.37, SD = 1.18, α = .452).
The Time 2 survey was administered approximately 6 months after the Time 1 survey
and also comprised three sections. In the first section, participants were again asked to report
their perceptions of their children’s media consumption (e.g., “Approximately how many hours
of media do your children consume per day?”). The second section of the survey measured
restrictive forms of parental monitoring employed by participants in the six months since the
workshop. There is evidence to suggest that restricting access to content is an effective method
of mediating the harmful effects of television and that the children of parents who restrict access
to media view less television (Atkin et al., 1991; Nathanson, 1999). We expected these same
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
309
processes to occur with respect to online media. Questions about restrictive parental monitoring
practices centred around two themes. First, participants were asked about new rules developed
since the workshop (e.g., “After the workshop, did you create new rules about media use?” and if
so, “Have you noticed a change in media use since you implemented the new rules?”). Second,
participants were asked about their use of the ratings and reviews website Common Sense Media
(e.g., “Since the workshop have you visited Common Sense Media?” and if so, “How many times
have you visited Common Sense Media since the workshop?”). Visiting Common Sense Media
can be considered a form of restrictive parental monitoring because by reviewing ratings before
youth engage with media, parents are able to more effectively restrict their children’s access to
harmful content.
The third section of the survey measured active monitoring strategies employed by
parents since the workshop. The literature on parental monitoring of television indicates that
active co-viewing by parents when their children watch television can mediate the harmful
effects of media violence (Huston et al., 1992; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999). With respect to
the Internet, research also suggests that passive monitoring, such as glancing at the computer
screen or checking the Internet browser’s history, are not effective methods of parental
monitoring. Instead, active participation in children’s online activities is recommended (Liau et
al., 2008). First, participants were asked whether they have actively participated in their
children’s online activities since the workshop (e.g., “Did you ask your children to show you
their favourite website?” and if so, “Approximately how many websites have your children
shared with you since the workshop?”). The majority of participants (70.6%) reported that their
children have shared 1 to 5 websites with them, although 26.5% have shared between 6 and 10
websites and 2.9% have shared more than 16 websites (X = 1.35, SD = 0.65). Second, because of
the popularity of Facebook amongst North American youth (Common Sense Media, 2012),
participants were asked specifically about the ways in which they monitor their children’s
Facebook account (e.g., “Do you monitor your children’s Facebook account?” and if so, “How
do you monitor your children’s Facebook account?”). Descriptive statistics for questions related
to active and restrictive monitoring are presented in Table 2 (dichotomous items were measured
on a two-point scale where 1 = yes and 2 = no). Filtering questions were asked where relevant
(e.g., if parents reported that their children do not use Facebook, we did not ask how they
monitor their children’s Facebook account).
Procedure
Time 1 data collection took place immediately following a workshop that took place as
part of a larger professional development conference on media violence at the University of
Western Ontario in October 2011. As noted, some workshop participants were not parents and
these individuals were dropped from all analyses. Surveys were distributed to all those in
attendance and the purpose of the survey was explained. An implied consent procedure was used
and participants were informed that they could take time to relax or review other materials if they
did not wish to complete the survey. Upon completing the survey, participants were asked if they
wished to participate in a follow-up survey approximately six months later (i.e., in April 2012).
Those who were willing to complete the follow-up survey provided their contact information.
Six months later, these persons were contacted via phone or e-mail to remind them of the second
survey and invite them to participate. All those contacted were informed that the second survey
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
310
could be completed by telephone or online (96% of participants completed the survey online).
Again, an implied consent procedure was used. Participants who completed the second survey
received a $10.00 gift certificate to a popular coffee shop as compensation for their time. The
study protocol was approved by Centre for Addiction and Mental Health’s Research Ethics
Board.
Results
Parental Monitoring Before the Workshop
The Time 1 survey measured the parental monitoring habits of participants prior to them
attending the workshop, and the results indicated that 66.0% of participants monitored their
children’s media use most of the time and 33.0% monitored it some of the time. Likewise, 74.0%
of participants always had family rules about media use and 22.0% sometimes had family rules
about media use. In contrast, 85.7% of participants had never visited the ratings and reviews
website Common Sense Media. The results of a one-way ANOVA test on the composite parental
monitoring score by the age of participants’ children produced results that were highly
statistically significant (F(4) = 6.019, p < .001) – that is, consistent with other research findings,
parents of older children were much less likely to monitor their children’s media use than parents
of younger children. ANOVA also revealed that parental monitoring prior to Time 1 was
significantly and inversely related to the number of hours participants’ children used media per
day (F(6) = 6.618, p < .001). Thus, the greater parental monitoring prior to the workshop, the
lower the number of hours per day children spent with media.
Did parents implement the monitoring strategies learned during the workshop?
As Whittaker and Cowley (2012) explain in their comprehensive review of the literature
on parent educational program participation and engagement, “program availability alone does
not guarantee positive outcomes” (p. 138). Therefore, although participants rated the workshop
favourably and reported that they learned more about media violence and strategies to monitor
their children’s media use, it was previously unknown whether participants actually implemented
any of these strategies once they went home and post-workshop excitement and motivation
diminished. Descriptive data indicate that many parents did implement both the restrictive and
active monitoring strategies learned during the workshop. For example, 44.2% of participants
created new rules about media use following the workshop. Interestingly, open-ended responses
to a follow-up question about rule setting suggest that, upon further reflection, many parents
were satisfied with the rules they already had in place. In fact, many participants reported feeling
validated by what they learned in the workshop. For example, one parent of teenage children
stated, “I actually felt validated in what my teens previously considered ‘draconian’ rules. [It]
turns out the rules were bang-on”. Other parents reported that they already had strong rules in
place and felt no need to adjust them or create new rules. As one parent explained, “we only
allow computer/Internet use within our view and only on sites that we have approved. These are
the only rules we feel we need at this time”. It may be that an important role of the training was
to validate parents who had already implemented effective monitoring strategies and to increase
their confidence in maintaining those rules even when their children feel they are unreasonable.
In contrast to the 7.2% of parents who had visited Common Sense Media prior to attending the
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
311
workshop, 71.2% visited the ratings and reviews website following the workshop. Visiting
websites such as Common Sense Media allows parents to be more educated and effective when
engaging in restrictive monitoring practices.
With respect to active forms of monitoring after the workshop, 65.4% of participants
asked their children to show them their favourite website, 60.6% reported their children shared
multiple websites with them, and 71.4% indicated that they monitor their children’s Facebook
account (see Table 2). These monitoring strategies are not dissimilar to co-viewing television
programs with one’s children, which can be an effective method of mitigating the harmful effects
of media violence when problematic content is pointed out and discussed with children and
youth. In contrast to parental monitoring prior to the workshop, ANOVA results indicated no
significant age differences with respect to any of the methods of parental monitoring at Time 2.
However, for all methods of monitoring except having been shown multiple websites,
participants with children in Grades 9 to 12 (i.e., children in the oldest age category) reported the
highest levels of engagement (see Figure 1). This suggests that the workshop led participants to
re-evaluate potentially problematic parenting norms related to monitoring and children’s ages.
Table 2. Active and Restrictive Parental Monitoring at Time 2
% yes Mean
Std.
deviation
Restrictive parental monitoring
After the workshop, did you create new rules about media
use? 44.2 1.56 0.50
Since the workshop, have you visited Common Sense
Media? 71.2 1.29 0.46
Active parental monitoring
After the workshop did you ask your children to show you
their favourite website? 65.4 1.35 0.48
Have your children shared other websites with you? 60.6 1.40 0.50
Do you monitor your children’s Facebook account? 70.0 1.30 0.47
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
312
Figure 1. Parental monitoring strategies post-workshop by grade of children
The enhanced parental monitoring practices that participants engaged in following the
workshop also coincide with a reduction in the perceived amount of media consumed by their
children from Time 1 to Time 2. Specifically, 53.4% of participants reported that their children
consumed 3 or more hours of media prior to the workshop, compared to only 32.7% of
participants who reported the same at Time 2. As shown in Table 3, the results of a paired-
samples t-test revealed that the overall perceived media consumption of participants’ children at
Time 2 was significantly lower than at Time 1 (t(47) = 3.411, p = .001). This finding is consistent
with other research in that parental monitoring tends to reduce the number of hours children
spend with media (Atkin et al., 1991) and, therefore, exposure to violent media.
Table 3. Participants’ Perceptions of their Children’s Media Consumption Pre- and Post-
workshop
Daily media consumption
%
(Time 1)
%
(Time 2) t(df) 95% CI p
Less than 1 hour 12.7 13.5
3.411(47)
[.171,
.662] .001
1-2 hours 33.8 53.8
3-4 hours 28.4 32.7
5-6 hours 16.2 0.0
7+ hours 8.8 0.0
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
313
Discussion
As youth’s lives increasingly revolve around media, debates as to the effect of media on
young people have heightened. One of the more prolific and hotly debated topics has centred on
the impact of media violence on youth, with some research linking the consumption of media
violence to desensitization to real-life violence and increased aggression (Anderson et al., 2003;
Bartholow et al., 2006; Carnagey et al., 2007; Common Sense Media, 2013; Engelhardt et al.,
2011; Funk et al., 2004; Ybarra et al., 2008). Others have more cautiously reported that media
violence is, at minimum, one contributing factor to aggressive and risky behaviour in youth
(Gentile & Bushman, 2012; Strasburger, 2009). Given the potential problems associated with
consuming particularly violent media, appropriately regulating and monitoring youth’s media
consumption is of great importance.
Parental monitoring has long been identified as a protective factor against a number of
negative outcomes, including children’s substance use (Clark et al., 2012; Griffin et al., 2011;
Huang et al., 2011; Martins et al., 2008), poor mental health (Hamza & Willoughby, 2011), gang
involvement (McDaniel, 2012), early engagement in sexual behaviours (Huang et al., 2011;
Parkes et al., 2011), and delinquent and aggressive conduct (Huang et al., 2011; Laird et al.,
2010; Leadbeater et al., 2008; Willoughby & Hamza, 2011). Research has also shown that
parental monitoring can minimize the negative effects of consuming certain types of media, such
as violence (Atkin et al., 1991; Huston et al., 1992; Liau et al., 2008; Nathanson, 1999;
Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999). Unfortunately, few families have rules around media
consumption and most parents do not seem to monitor their children’s media use (Dorr & Rabin,
1995; Gentile et al., 2004; Roberts et al., 1999; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999; Wang et al.,
2005).
Accordingly, [blinded for review] Parent Media Violence Workshop was developed to
teach parents about the impact of media violence on youth and the importance of setting rules
around media use. The workshop also endeavours to encourage parents to become more actively
involved in monitoring and regulating their children’s media consumption. Although program
feedback has consistently indicated that parents are satisfied with the workshop, whether they
feel they learned something from the workshop and whether they implemented the strategies
they learned was previously unknown. The purpose of this study was to examine whether parents
implement the strategies they learn during the workshop and, if so, to understand what parental
monitoring strategies they use.
Participants were surveyed immediately following the workshop to gauge their
monitoring strategies and perceptions of their children’s media consumption prior to the
workshop. These same participants were then surveyed six months later to identify changes in
their monitoring strategies that had occurred following the workshop as well as changes in their
children’s media consumption. The results indicated that, following the workshop, many
participants re-evaluated their monitoring strategies and made some changes to the ways in
which they regulate their children’s media use. For example, almost half of all participants
created new rules about media use and almost three-quarters made use of Common Sense Media
post-workshop. Likewise, many parents engaged in more active forms of monitoring after the
workshop: 65% asked their children to see their favourite website (61% reported that their
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
314
children shared multiple websites) and 71% reported monitoring their children’s Facebook
accounts. As opposed to Time 1, age was not a significant predictor of monitoring behaviours at
Time 2, suggesting that following the workshop parents re-evaluated potentially problematic
parenting norms that encourage decreased monitoring as children mature (Davies & Gentile,
2012). Thus, the workshop may have countered prevailing notions that adolescents are capable
of navigating the media world on their own. Participants also reported a statistically significant
decrease in the amount of media consumed by their children per day from the Time 1 survey to
the Time 2 survey. This finding is consistent with other research in that enhanced parental
monitoring tends to reduce the number of hours children spend with media (Atkin et al., 1991).
Limitations
Three limitations to this study should be noted. First, as a group, parents tend to
underreport the amount of time their children spend with media and the amount of violence they
see (Gentile & Walsh, 2002; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999). Thus, reports of media
consumption should be considered conservative estimates. Second, the sample was not randomly
selected and results may not be widely generalizable. For example, 89% of those represented in
the Time 1 sample were educators who may reasonably be expected to be more knowledgeable
on issues affecting youth than the average parent. In contrast to the literature, many of the
participants in our sample already had rules in place and may, therefore, have been more “ready”
for the intervention than others. Furthermore, it is unlikely that those who found the workshop to
be of little use for them or who are relatively uninvolved parents would have agreed to
participate in the follow-up survey. Third, our measurement of children’s ages may mask the
identification of age-variation effects. Many of the parent behaviours measured, including
monitoring, rule setting, and media literacy, are more difficult tasks with teenage children.
Although there has been much research on parental monitoring as a mediating factor in
the relationship between media consumption and undesirable outcomes, there are few programs
aimed at parents that are intended to help them navigate their children’s media use. Of those
programs that do exist, none have been formally evaluated. This study makes an important
contribution to the literature by demonstrating that even short workshops for parents can have a
positive impact on parental monitoring of children’s media use and can encourage parents to
foster their children’s media literacy skills. There is preliminary evidence that the brief
intervention presented in this paper had a positive impact in changing behaviours and enhancing
parental monitoring. Certainly, given the potential negative effects of unsafe media use and
consumption, providing parents with the necessary resources and motivation to effectively
monitor and protect their children is becoming increasingly important.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
315
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2009). Policy statement – media violence. Pediatrics, 124(5),
1495–1503.
Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz, D., et al.
(2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 4(3), 81–110.
Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent video game effects on children
and adolescents: Theory, research, and public policy. New York: Oxford.
Atkin, C., Greenberg, B., & Baldwin, T. (1991). The home ecology of children’s television
viewing: Parental mediation and the new video environment. Journal of Communication,
41(3), 40–52.
Austin, E. W. (1993). Exploring the effects of active parental mediation of television content.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37(2), 147–158.
Bartholow, B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). Chronic violent video game exposure
and desensitization to violence: Behavioural and event-related brain potential data.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 532–539.
Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., Han, D. H., Renshaw, P. F., Merzenich, M. M., & Gentile, D. A.
(2011). Brains on video games. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), 763–768.
Bjornstad, T. L., & Ellingsen, T. (2004). Onliners: A report about youth and the Internet. SAFT.
Retrieved October 19, 2008 from http://www.saftonline.org/On-Liners
Carnagey, N. L., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). The effect of video game violence
on physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, 489–496.
Clark, H. K., Shamblen, S. R., Ringwalt, C. L., & Hanley, S. (2012). Predicting high risk
adolescents’ substance use over time: The role of parental monitoring. Journal of
Primary Prevention, 33(2-3), 67–77.
Collins, W. A., Madsen, S. D., & Susman-Stillman, A. (2002). Parenting during middle
childhood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 73–101).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Common Sense Media. (2012). Social media, social life: How teens view their digital lives.
Retrieved February 21, 2013 from
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/ socialmediasociallife-
final-061812.pdf
Common Sense Media. (2013). Media and violence: An analysis of current research. Common
Sense Media Research Brief. Retrieved February 21, 2013 from
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/ sites/default/files/research/media-and-violence-
research-brief-2013.pdf
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
316
Corder-Bolz, C. R. (1982). Television literacy and critical television viewing skills. In D. Pearl,
L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazer (Eds.), Television and behaviour: Ten years of scientific progress
and implications for the eighties: Vol. 2 (pp. 91–103). Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office.
Crooks, C. V., Wolfe, D. A., Hughes, R., Jaffe, P. G., & Chiodo, D. (2008). Development,
evaluation, and national implementation of a school-based program to reduce violence
and related risk behaviours: Lessons learned from the Fourth R. IPC Review, 2, 109-135.
Davies, J. J., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Responses to children’s media use in families with and
without siblings: A family development perspective. Family Relations, 61(3), 410–425.
Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and
adolescent problem behaviour: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review, 1(1), 61–75.
Dorr, A., & Rabin, B. E. (1995). Parents, children, and television. In M. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting (Vol. 4, pp. 323–351). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Engelhardt, C. R., Bartholow, B. D., Kerr, G. T., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). This is your brain on
violent video games: Neural desensitization to violence predicts increased aggression
following violent video game exposure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47,
1033–1036.
Ferguson, C. J. (2007). The good, the bad, and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and
negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatric Quarterly, 78(4), 309–316.
Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., Garza, A., & Jerabeck, J. M. (2012). A longitudinal test of video
game violence influences on dating and aggression: A 3-year longitudinal study of
adolescents. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 46(2), 141–146.
Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., & Hartley, R. D. (2009). A multivariate analysis of youth
violence and aggression: The influence of family, peers, depression, and media violence.
Journal of Pediatrics, 155(6), 904–908.
Funk, J. B., Bechtoldt Baldacci, H., Pasold, T., & Baumgardner, J. (2004). Violence exposure in
real-life, video games, television, movies, and the Internet: Is there desensitization?
Journal of Adolescence, 27, 23–39.
Gentile, D. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Reassessing media violence effects using a risk and
resilience approach to understanding aggression. Psychology of Popular Media Culture,
1(3), 138–151.
Gentile, D. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2002). A normative study of family media habits. Applied
Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 157–178.
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of video game
habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 5–22.
Griffin, K. W., Samuolis, J., & Williams, C. (2011). Efficacy of a self-administered home-based
parent intervention on parenting behaviours for preventing adolescent substance use.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(3), 319–325.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
317
Hamza, C. A., & Willoughby, T. (2011). Perceived parental monitoring, adolescent disclosure,
and adolescent depressive symptoms: A longitudinal examination. Journal of Youth
&Adolescence, 40(7), 902–915.
Hicks, D. J. (1968). Effects of co-observer’s sanctions and adult presence on imitative
aggression. Child Development, 39, 303–309.
Huang, D. Y. C., Murphy, D. A., & Hser, Y. (2011). Parental monitoring during early
adolescence deters adolescent sexual initiation: Discrete-time survival mixture analysis.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(4), 511–520.
Huston, A. C., Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H., Feshback, N. D., Katz, P. A., Murray, J. P., et al.
(1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Kerr, M., & Statin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of
adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring.
Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366–380.
Laird, R. D., Marrero, M. D., & Sentse, M. (2010). Revisiting parental monitoring: Evidence that
parental solicitation can be effective when needed most. Journal of Youth & Adolescence,
39(12), 1431–1441.
Leadbeater, B. J., Banister, E. M., Ellis, W. E., & Yeung, R. (2008). Victimization and relational
aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: The influence of parental and peer
behaviors, and individual adjustment. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 37(3), 359–372.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Teens, privacy & online social networks: How teens manage
their online identities and personal information in the age of MySpace. Washington, DC:
Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved February 27, 2013 from
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/ media//Files/
Reports/2007/PIP_Teens_Privacy_SNS_Report_Final.pdf.pdf
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones.
Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved March 1, 2013 from
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/ media//Files/ Reports/2010/PIP-Teens-and-Mobile-2010-
with-topline.pdf
Liau, A. K., Khoo, A., & Ang, P. H. (2008). Parental awareness and monitoring of adolescent
Internet use. Current Psychology, 27(4), 217–233.
Martins, S. S., Storr, C. L., Alexandre, P. K., & Chilcoat, H. D. (2008). Adolescent ecstasy and
other drug use in the National Survey of Parents and Youth: The role of sensation-
seeking, parental monitoring and peer’s drug use. Addictive Behaviors, 33(7), 919–933.
McDaniel, D. D. (2012). Risk and protective factors associated with gang affiliation among high-
risk youth: A public health approach. Injury Prevention, 18(4), 253–258.
Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2001). Risk factors for an impact of online sexual
solicitation of youth. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(23), 3011–3014.
Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental mediation
and children’s aggression. Communication Research, 26(2), 124–143.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
318
Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Parent and child perspectives on the presence and meaning of parental
television mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(2), 210–220.
Parkes, A., Henderson, M., Wight, D., & Nixon, C. (2011). Is parenting associated with
teenagers’ early sexual risk-taking, autonomy, and relationship with sexual partners?
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 43(1), 30–40.
Rideout, V. J. & Hamel, E. (2006). The media family: Electronic media in the lives of infants,
toddlers, preschoolers, and their parents. Kaiser Family Foundation (Publication 7500).
Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/7500.cfm
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-18
year olds. Kaiser Family Foundation (Publication 8010). Retrieved June 29, 2012 from
http://www.kff.org/ entmedia/upload/8010.pdf
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U., Rideout, V., & Brodie, M. (1999). Kids, media, and the new
millennium: A comprehensive national analysis of children’s media use. Kaiser Family
Foundation (Publication 1535). Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/1535-
index.cfm
Strasburger, V. C., & Donnerstein, E. (1999). Children, adolescents, and the media: Issues and
solutions. Pediatrics, 103(1), 129–139.
Strasburger, V. C. (2009). Media and children: What needs to happen now. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 301(21), 2265–2266.
Wang, R., Bianchi, S. M., & Raley, S. B. (2005). Teenagers’ Internet use and family rules: A
research note. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1249–1258.
Whittaker, K. A., & Cowley, S. (2012). An effective program is not enough: A review of factors
associated with poor attendance and engagement with parenting support programmes.
Children & Society, 26(2), 138–149.
Willoughby, T., & Hamza, C. A. (2011). A longitudinal examination of the bidirectional
associations among perceived parenting behaviours, adolescent disclosure, and problem
behaviour across the high school years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(4), 463–
478.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Hughes, R., & Chiodo, C. (2008). The Fourth R: A school-based
program to reduce violence and risk behaviours among youth. In D. Pepler & W. Craig
(Eds.), Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective (pp. 184–
197). Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Hughes, R., & Jaffe, P. G. (2005). Building healthy relationships
among children and youth: Comprehensive and integrated violence prevention programs
and strategies for school communities. London, ON: CAMH Centre for Prevention
Science.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Jaffe, P. G., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., et al. (2009). A
school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial.
Archives of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 692–699.
International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (2013) 2: 301–319
319
Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P. G., & Crooks, C. V. (2006). Adolescent risk behaviours: Why teens
experiment and strategies to keep them safe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wright, J. C., Huston, A. C., Vandewater, E., Bickham, D. S., Scantlin, R. M., Kotler, J. A., et al.
(2001). American children’s use of electronic media in 1997: A national survey. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 31–47.
Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., Markow, D., Leaf, P. J., Hamburger, M., & Boxer, P. (2008).
Linkages between Internet and other media violence with seriously violent behavior by
youth. Pediatrics, 122(5), 929–937.