Parental technoference and adult–child interaction in early childhood

1. Introduction: a phenomenon with too many names

The field accumulated names before it agreed on the phenomenon. Technoference, parental phubbing, screen distraction, and absorption circulate as synonyms and, at the same time, as if each label marked a distinct mechanism. Frackowiak et al. (2024), in a commentary that is treated here as a conceptual framework and not as a datum, argue that this dispersion makes it impossible to know what is being studied: with inconsistent conceptualization and weak operationalization, results do not add up. Averaging them manufactures a precision the literature does not have. The starting point is not to crown a term, but to ask which design supports which sentence.

The question matters between birth and 6 years because, for attachment and self-regulation, the child depends on the caregiver’s sensitivity and responsiveness. Braune‐Krickau et al. (2021) formulate it at the opening of their scoping review: infants and young children depend on sensitive and responsive behavior in attachment patterns, and perturbations of sensitivity can affect attachment-related interaction and the capacity for self-regulation. In that frame, the co-present phone is not a side habit. It is a way for the response to arrive late, or not to arrive.

The three planes are not mixed again. The empirical finding is what a study, with its actual design, observed or asked. The conceptual framework covers definitions and mechanisms, including the reading of Braune‐Krickau et al. (2021): across twelve studies, absorption is associated with sensitivity and responsiveness more than brief interruptions are. The design inference is what a center could change without presenting that change as a norm already evaluated.

The question separates population, concept, and context. The population is adult–child dyads from 0 to 6 years. The concept is device use by the co-present adult. The context includes home, feeding, meals, play, the laboratory, and early childhood education centers. Given the design of what has been published since 2021, what can be asserted about responsiveness, sensitivity, co-regulation, joint attention, and language, and what falls outside each design? The thesis anticipated here is that the relevant phenomenon is the rupture of contingency, and the repair that sometimes follows it, not the amount of the adult’s screen time.

2. Background: from screen minutes to interrupted contingency

For years the public question was put with the child’s clock: minutes, age of onset, content. That accounting is not the object of this article. The shift is from the screen as child exposure to the screen as use by the adult who shares a meal, a lap, or play. The device becomes a third party capable of capturing the person who was supposed to respond. Braune‐Krickau et al. (2021) place the problem at ages 0 to 5 and in sensitivity within the interaction, not in the child’s screen time.

The model of synchrony rupture, as Tidemann and Melinder (2022) describe it, is the still-face paradigm: the infant is vulnerable to dyadic breakdown, the loss of attunement provokes stress, and that literature has suggested later costs. That long cost is not their result. In their manipulation the adult does not freeze the face: the adult interrupts by simulating a phone. The analogy is taken up, not a curve already measured.

Three reviews do not form a single block. Braune‐Krickau et al. (2021) integrated 12 studies searched in PsycInfo and PubMed, and also in Google Scholar and Google: parental use may be associated with changes in sensitivity and responsiveness, and absorption seems to weigh more than the brief interruption. They call for longitudinal work. It is not a meta-analysis. Komanchuk et al. (2023), using the Joanna Briggs Institute method, bring together 64 studies in 61 publications. What is most studied is the parent–child relationship; there are also safety risks and, in adolescents, self-reported distress and behaviors such as cyberbullying. It is not a review of early childhood.

Vélez et al. (2026) bring together 16 studies from 0 to 24 months and call the indications preliminary: the phone operates as an interactive stressor, with protest, gaze avoidance, lower parasympathetic activity, and lower interbrain synchrony, and habitual exposure correlates with worse recovery after the interruption. They call for prospective replication.

Definition and operationalization do not coincide: that is the core of Frackowiak et al. (2024). Li et al. (2024) set a parental phubbing scale with 701 Chinese children aged 3 to 6 years and their parents. The best fit was a one-factor model; it was positively related to phone addiction and to authoritarian style —a validity they call predictive, without a follow-up described— with satisfactory reliability and without a repeatable coefficient. The level was intermediate and higher between the ages of 31 and 40. The finding is psychometric, not a developmental effect, and it is not equivalent to the count in Mason et al. (2024) or to the diversion in Linder et al. (2022).

3. Method: critical PRISMA-lite review graded by design

This review does not seek a mean effect. It orders 24 articles according to what each design authorizes one to say. The flow is PRISMA-lite, with the numbers from the record of 7 October 2026, and it does not claim to be a complete systematic review. The synthesis is narrative. There is no meta-analysis, there was no independent double screening, no formal risk-of-bias tool was used, and the database is Crossref alone. Those four renunciations condition the rest.

The Crossref REST API received 16 queries of 60 rows, journal articles only, from 2021: 960 records, and 830 after deduplication. Authors were required, a year no earlier than 2021, and a title with a term for device, screen, technoference, or phubbing, plus a term for childhood, child-rearing, or caregiver in the title or the journal. There were 52 without authors, 419 without a device term, 90 without a childhood or child-rearing term, and 54 outside the age range; the year filter removed no further record. Those losses sum to 615 and, subtracted from 830, leave 215, but the screening seed had 214. A recount on the same day gave 215 because of index drift. The figure retained is 214.

Manual screening used the title and, where one existed, the abstract from Crossref, OpenAlex, or Semantic Scholar. It excluded corrections, protocols, conference abstracts, journals without verifiable peer review, school-age or adolescent samples, non-relational health —sleep, stature, injuries— and language explained only by the child’s screen time. From 214, 190 were removed. Twenty-four remained: 19 with an abstract and five with a title only, Coyne et al. (2022), Ewin et al. (2021), Janssens and Beullens (2026), Yang et al. (2023), and Yun and Cho (2022). Meeus et al. (2021), ages 9 to 13, and Komanchuk et al. (2023), with adolescents, do not count as evidence for ages 0 to 6: they mark the edge of the population.

Table 2 classifies each source by the design that the abstract or the title makes recognizable. It is not a risk-of-bias assessment. Ewin et al. (2021) are entered as naturalistic observation; Keskin et al. (2026), as a cross-sectional study. Twelve studies gathered in a review are not equivalent to an experiment with 25 dyads.

4. Experimental evidence: the digital still-face and infant feeding

Tidemann and Melinder (2022) observed, in a cross-sectional design, infants of 6, 9, and 12 months faced with an interruption that simulates the phone and does not freeze the face. The empirical finding is immediate: more protest, less positive engagement, and less social monitoring, similar to the still-face effect. The abstract gives neither n nor a separation by age. The long costs that the authors mention as a suggestion of the classic literature cannot be attributed to this experiment. What is firm is the brief rupture, not an intervention.

Shin et al. (2026) use a modified still-face to reflect technoference. At 18 months they measured temperament, self-regulation, and maternal internalizing symptoms; at 24 months, internalizing and externalizing problems. The follow-up comprised 52 children (55.8% girls and 44.2% boys), and the complete cases, 44. Temperament differentially predicted each type of problem; maternal symptoms and child regulation were associated with both. Self-soothing in the task remained a negative predictor of problems at 24 months after maternal symptoms were discounted. It is the child’s regulation in a simulation, not a dose of everyday use and not a repair program.

Mason et al. (2024) compared, in 25 dyads and counterbalanced visits, breastfeeding while watching a program on a tablet or hearing ambient classical music. Interruptions of attention to the infant were 3.7 per minute (standard error of 0.2) versus 1.7 (standard error of 0.2). Time focused on the infant was 52.5% (standard error of 3.9) versus 83.9% (standard error of 4.0). Lower attention was associated with lower sensitivity to cues, less cognitive and socioemotional fostering, and lower clarity of the infant’s cues (probabilities of 0.03, of 0.002, less than 0.001, and equal to 0.001). These are associations with attention, not condition contrasts on each scale. The tablet sustains an image; the music is not silence. Age in months is not stated.

Vélez et al. (2026) add, as a preliminary synthesis, less eye contact during feeding and worse emotional recovery when exposure is habitual. It is not known how many primary studies they share with Braune‐Krickau et al. (2021) and Komanchuk et al. (2023); adding the three reviews as independent votes would inflate the corpus.

Coyne et al. (2022) have no recovered result. They have an object that the title does not close: during feeding, the parental medium may be digital distraction or an accessible aid, in relation to attachment, dysfunction, and relationship quality. Ambivalence is the object, not an effect. It prevents one from reading the tablet in Mason et al. (2024) as if the whole literature had settled that any screen during a feed is only harm.

5. Observational evidence: meals, laboratory, and everyday settings

Linder et al. (2022) observed 93 dyads at meals of 30 to 140 minutes, in intervals of five minutes. Between persons, when low and high use were compared, only positivity seemed to drop. Within the person, using the medium above what was usual reduced engagement and positivity, with no change in negativity. The empirical finding does not describe a more hostile adult, but an adult less engaged and less positive relative to himself or herself.

After those intervals, engagement increased. Linder et al. (2022) call this media multitasking. Repair is not their term: it is the reading, here, of an observable return. It does not prove that quality is restored, nor that the return is intentional. It does prevent one from treating the rupture as a final state. Vélez et al. (2026) correlate habitual exposure with worse emotional recovery: one does return, and frequent exposure may make the return less effective, without both sentences coming from the same sample.

Liszkai-Peres et al. (2024) join questionnaire and laboratory observation, in free and structured play. Regular users —47 children aged 4 to 7 years, at least two hours a week— spent less time with their parents and showed lower interaction quality than 25 non-users. Shared leisure without a screen was protective among the users, and parent and child media use were positively associated. The authors leave the reverse path written down: less interaction may lead to more use by the child. Age reaches 7 years, at the edge of this population. It is not proof of the first 24 months.

Carr and Dempster (2021) show that co-use is not, by default, high quality. Fifty-six children (mean of 32.5 months; 53% girls) and one adult —52 mothers and 4 fathers— drew for three minutes on a tablet and on an Etch-A-Sketch. Controlling for daily use, there was less cooperation and less warmth in the digital condition, above all in the younger dyads. Table 2 classifies them as a within-subject experiment; they are discussed here for the quality of engagement. Three minutes and four fathers do not condemn all co-use. They do withdraw the idea that watching together neutralizes the device.

Ewin et al. (2021) contribute no figures. The title announces naturalistic observations of mobile use in caregiver–child dyads: the design is on record and the result is not. Citing them as proof of real life would turn an object into a finding.

6. Surveys and cohorts: stress, use profiles, and directionality

This stratum does not sustain the claim that the adult’s phone produces, in the medium term, the child’s outcome. Yıldız et al. (2025) fit the reverse path with 199 mothers in Türkiye and children aged 3 to 7 years. The mediation model was significant: lower effortful control, more stress, more problematic use, and more technoference, read as relief-seeking. Coefficients are not cited: the deposited indirect effect does not align the estimate and the interval. The finding is cross-sectional, the sequence is supplied by the model, and the age exceeds 6 years. It prevents one from closing a single direction.

McDaniel et al. (2025) separate activity and parent in 183 families, with a child of mean age 2.89 years. Mothers used social media more and played games less. Social media of 31 minutes or more a day: 61% of mothers and 38% of fathers. Gaming of 31 minutes or more: 23% of fathers and 16% of mothers. Mothers felt more strongly that social media, not gaming, cut family time. More stress was associated with more gaming and with perceiving interference. It is a survey, not filmed interaction.

Golds et al. (2024) surveyed 450 people in the United Kingdom (95.3% White, 95.2% partnered, term infants in 88.9%). “Infant at risk”: concern about development, high use, low responsiveness. “Mother at risk”: depressive, anxious, and stress symptoms, low support, the same high use and the same low responsiveness. “Low risk”: low use and high responsiveness. The first two did not differ in use or in responsiveness. The empirical finding leaves two distinct risks under the same phone pattern.

Holmgren et al. (2024) find four profiles in 268 mothers from a large city in the Mountain West region, with an eye on outcomes at two years. The low-use profile sets limits and reports little technoference and little problematic parental use. The higher social-use profile concentrates problematic parental and child use. The other profiles, the age, and the ethnicity are not stated.

Ashby et al. (2026) follow, for seven years (2017–2024), 500 mothers in the United States —mean age 30.34 years; 75.7% White— and their children from 6 months to 6.5 years (47% girls), by maternal questionnaire. Technoference rose slightly (S = 0.02). The initial level was associated with more problematic media use by the child at 6.5 years (β = 0.48). The mean change is small; what is predicted is a media outcome, not observed sensitivity.

Yang et al. (2023) take as their title parental problematic use, executive function, technoference as a mediator, and age as a moderator: without an abstract, there is no coefficient. Meeus et al. (2021) measure outside the range, with 742 preadolescents aged 9 to 13 years (50.9% girls; mean of 10.85, deviation of 0.73). More perceived technoference, more conflict and less companionship; maternal distraction, less emotional support. A single indirect path failed. It is a narratable experience, not an early-childhood datum. Janssens and Beullens (2026) ask “am I not interesting enough?” and announce the experience of, and communication about, technoference in Belgium: an object, not a result.

7. Language: missed communicative cues and joint attention

If contingency breaks, language is a candidate, because it is learned in episodes of shared gaze and adjusted response. Morris et al. (2022) propose, from birth to 5 years, that the findings point to negative linguistic outcomes, although the processes are unclear. Gaze following, responsiveness, and joint attention —critical for language— would also fall when the adult uses the phone, and could mediate technoference. The same authors warn that the literature is limited and methodologically heterogeneous, and that firm conclusions are not warranted. It is a conceptual framework: a plausible mechanism, an effect not demonstrated.

Keskin et al. (2026) place the question between 13 and 18 months. They declare a cross-sectional study of parental technology use, missed communicative cues, and language production and comprehension. There is no sample, no direction, and no magnitude. Until the abstract brings estimates, they serve neither to assert that the phone reduces the lexicon nor to assert the contrary. The citable datum is the question, not an effect.

Vélez et al. (2026) document, from 0 to 24 months, gaze avoidance, less eye contact during feeding, and lower interbrain synchrony. They sit in the conceptual neighborhood of the joint attention in Morris et al. (2022), but they measure socioemotional co-regulation, not production or comprehension. Inferring a lexical delay is a mechanism inference. The mechanism is proposed; the linguistic effect, in these metadata, is not.

8. From home to classroom: the teacher with a phone in hand

Yun and Cho (2022) are the only declared object concerning the teacher: the relation between smartphone overdependence in early childhood teachers and teacher–child interaction. They publish in Early Childhood Education Research & Review, an outlet for Korean research in the field. Korea marks editorial provenance, not a classroom finding. Without an abstract there is no direction, no magnitude, and no sample. To say that overdependence worsens interaction would attribute to them a result that is absent. Their function is to show that the teacher question has already been formulated and that, here, it remains without a verifiable answer.

The rest is design inference. Receiving, comforting, feeding, playing, and being in the yard are routines in which contingency is the work, and the phone enters as an application for families, a photograph kept as evidence, or a message at the meal or in the yard. The corpus does not measure those scenes. They resemble, in structure only, the feed in Mason et al. (2024), the meal in Linder et al. (2022), and the play in Carr and Dempster (2021): the person who is supposed to respond can be in the room and attend to something else.

What follows is not a prohibition, but a training hypothesis. Linder et al. (2022) saw more engagement after use. In the center, that would translate into naming the repair: noticing the capture, returning the gaze, and taking up the signal again, without confusing the record of the day with the interaction. Vélez et al. (2026) prevent one from idealizing the return when exposure is habitual. Neither preached abstinence nor the celebrated photograph is proven as classroom practice in this corpus.

Mexico fits in one paragraph, and only as inference, without a datum. No included study reports a Mexican center, a prevalence, or an evaluation of training. To suppose that the cycle of stress, absorption, rupture, and repair matters in the country’s early childhood education is a hypothesis about routines —welcome, meal, changing, yard, play— in which an adult may be claimed by a work screen. It does not diagnose the country, and it does not authorize a figure.

9. Discussion: from exposure to the repair of interaction

The three strata are not averaged. The experimental stratum sustains the short term: protest and less monitoring (Tidemann and Melinder, 2022), less attention to the infant with a program than with music (Mason et al., 2024; 25 dyads), and a child’s self-soothing that predicts fewer problems at 24 months (Shin et al., 2026; 44 complete cases), a finding about child regulation and not about parental dose. Vélez et al. (2026) add lower parasympathetic activity and lower synchrony, and they call the set preliminary. What is firm is the immediate rupture and capture by an image sustained during the feed.

That ground does not cross absorption and brief interruption within a single design. Braune‐Krickau et al. (2021) say it as a synthesis of 12 studies. Tidemann and Melinder (2022) manipulate an interruption; Mason et al. (2024), a program. To adopt the claim that “absorption weighs more” is the conceptual framework of a scoping review, not a contrast in this article.

Observation and surveys block the single arrow. Linder et al. (2022) see less engagement and positivity, not more negativity, when use exceeds what is usual, and more engagement afterward. Liszkai-Peres et al. (2024) leave the reverse direction; Carr and Dempster (2021), a less warm co-use. Yıldız et al. (2025), Golds et al. (2024), McDaniel et al. (2025), and Holmgren et al. (2024) move the cause toward stress, effortful control, and the person who sets limits. Ashby et al. (2026) separate a slight rise (S = 0.02) from the initial association with problematic use at 6.5 years (β = 0.48). None of this films contingency.

Figure 1 orders the cycle so that it is not lost in the passage to practice. It is not an estimated model.

As a design hypothesis, not as a standard, the episode is protected and not the daily sum; capture is prioritized over the minimal cut (Braune‐Krickau et al., 2021), without a factorial; the return observed by Linder et al. (2022) is tried, with the reservation of Vélez et al. (2026); and stress, the child’s self-regulation, and the difference between parents and activities are included (Yıldız et al., 2025; Golds et al., 2024; McDaniel et al., 2025; Carr and Dempster, 2021). No criterion was tested in a center in this corpus.

10. Limitations

The database is Crossref alone: it does not replace PsycInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, or ERIC. Of 960 records, 830 remained, and the drift from 214 to 215, on the same day, shows that the index moves. There was no double screening and no formal risk-of-bias tool. Composition, when it is stated, is narrow: 95.3% White in Golds et al. (2024) and 75.7% White mothers in Ashby et al. (2026). Holmgren et al. (2024) do not report ethnicity. There is also China (Li et al., 2024), Türkiye (Yıldız et al., 2025), a Belgian object (Janssens and Beullens, 2026), and a teacher question in a Korean outlet (Yun and Cho, 2022). The cohort and the clusters, even so, rest on predominantly White self-reports.

The mother predominates —500, 268, and 199 in Ashby et al. (2026), Holmgren et al. (2024), and Yıldız et al. (2025)— against 4 fathers out of 56 adults in Carr and Dempster (2021). McDaniel et al. (2025) do compare them. The experiments are small: 25 dyads (Mason et al., 2024), 52 in follow-up and 44 complete cases (Shin et al., 2026), with no n in Tidemann and Melinder (2022). Five sources are title only, and Keskin et al. (2026) bring no estimates. Meeus et al. (2021) and Komanchuk et al. (2023) fall outside ages 0 to 6; Liszkai-Peres et al. (2024) and Yıldız et al. (2025) reach age 7. There is no common effect. Mexico is inference only.

11. Conclusions

Ordering by design changes the sentence that can be sustained. The experimental evidence shows a brief rupture: the infant protests and engages less if the phone is simulated, and maternal attention during the feed falls in the face of a program. That firmness ends in the laboratory. It does not fix minutes, and it does not turn the child’s self-soothing into a parental cause.

The medium term lives in surveys, profiles, and a seven-year cohort. There is stress, there are clusters, a slight rise in maternal technoference, and a link between the initial level and the child’s problematic media use, almost always by maternal questionnaire and, when composition is declared, in predominantly White samples. The single direction does not hold: the child’s effortful control may precede the phone, and preschool observation leaves the reverse path open.

The unit of the thesis is contingency, not exposure. That absorption weighs more than the brief cut is the distinction of twelve studies in a scoping review, not a factorial in this corpus. That engagement may rise after use makes repair thinkable, although that study speaks of multitasking and another synthesis links habitual exposure to worse recovery. Language remains proposed and not quantified: gaze, responsiveness, and joint attention are plausible mediators up to 5 years, and the cues between 13 and 18 months do not, here, have an estimate.

The classroom is reached by design inference. Smartphone overdependence in early childhood teachers has been asked about, and it has no result in this record. What can be carried across is the cycle —stressor, capture, rupture, return— not a ban on the room. In Mexico there is no datum of its own. There is a consequence for whoever trains teachers: deciding which episodes are not interrupted, and how one returns when the interruption has already occurred.

NEXTECH.IA Editorial Lab / Ingeniero Mitre

References

1. Ashby, S., Coyne, S. M., Shawcroft, J., Van Alfen, M., James, P., Holmgren, H. G., Almeida, L., & Austin, T. (2026). The growth of maternal technoference across early childhood and associations with child problematic media use. Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1093/chidev/aacag101
2. Braune‐Krickau, K., Schneebeli, L., Pehlke‐Milde, J., Gemperle, M., Koch, R., & von Wyl, A. (2021). Smartphones in the nursery: Parental smartphone use and parental sensitivity and responsiveness within parent–child interaction in early childhood (0–5 years): A scoping review. Infant Mental Health Journal, 42(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21908
3. Carr, A., & Dempster, T. (2021). Parent-child interactions during joint engagement with touchscreen technology: A comparison of younger versus older toddlers. Infant Behavior and Development, 64, 101587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2021.101587
4. Coyne, S. M., Shawcroft, J., Gale, M., Reich, S. M., Linder, L., McDaniel, B., Stockdale, L., & Booth, M. (2022). Digital distraction or accessible aid? Parental media use during feedings and parent-infant attachment, dysfunction, and relationship quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 127, 107051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107051
5. Ewin, C. A., Reupert, A., & McLean, L. A. (2021). Naturalistic Observations of Caregiver – Child Dyad Mobile Device Use. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(8), 2042–2054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-01993-5
6. Frackowiak, M., Ochs, C., Wolfers, L., & Vanden Abeele, M. (2024). Commentary: Technoference or parental phubbing? A call for greater conceptual and operational clarity of parental smartphone use around children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 65(8), 1108–1114. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13917
7. Golds, L., Gillespie‐Smith, K., & MacBeth, A. (2024). Associations between maternal smartphone use and mother‐infant responsiveness: A cluster analysis of potential risk and protective factors. Infant Mental Health Journal, 45(3), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.22112
8. Holmgren, H. G., Booth, M. A., Ashby, S., Coyne, S. M., Clifford, B. N., & Davis, E. (2024). Patterns of parent media use: The influence of parent media use profiles on parental mediation, technoference, and problematic media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 161, 108410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108410
9. Janssens, N., & Beullens, K. (2026). “Am I not interesting enough?”: Exploring the experience of and communication about technoference within the parent–child relationship in Belgium. Journal of Children and Media. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2026.2725934
10. Keskin, G., McArthur, B. A., Marsh, A., Plamondon, A., Salama, H., Kahlert, S., Curtin, S., Pexman, P., & Madigan, S. (2026). Missed Child Communication Cues During Parent Technology Use and Child Language Development. JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.4728
11. Komanchuk, J., Toews, A. J., Marshall, S., Mackay, L. J., Hayden, K. A., Cameron, J. L., Duffett-Leger, L., & Letourneau, N. (2023). Impacts of Parental Technoference on Parent–Child Relationships and Child Health and Developmental Outcomes: A Scoping Review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(8), 579–603. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0278
12. Li, J., Jiang, Y., Xiao, B., Wang, J., Zhang, Q., Zhang, W., & Li, Y. (2024). Validation of a revised parental phubbing scale for parents of young children in China. Early Child Development and Care, 194(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2023.2283693
13. Linder, L., McDaniel, B. T., & Jaffe, H. (2022). Moment-to-Moment Observation of Parental Media Use and Parent-Child Interaction: Quality and Media Multitasking. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4896637
14. Liszkai-Peres, K., Budai, Z., Kocsis, A., Jurányi, Z., Pogány, Á., Kampis, G., Miklósi, Á., & Konok, V. (2024). Association between the use of mobile touchscreen devices and the quality of parent-child interaction in preschoolers. Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 3, Article 1330243. https://doi.org/10.3389/frcha.2024.1330243
15. Mason, E. M., Riccabona, T. M., & Ventura, A. K. (2024). Technoference in infant feeding: the impact of maternal digital media use during breastfeeding on maternal attention and mother-infant interactions. Frontiers in Developmental Psychology, 2, Article 1441486. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdpys.2024.1441486
16. McDaniel, B. T., Ventura, A. K., & Drouin, M. (2025). Parent social media use and gaming on mobile phones, technoference in family time, and parenting stress. Psychology of Popular Media, 14(2), 322–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000539
17. Meeus, A., Coenen, L., Eggermont, S., & Beullens, K. (2021). Family technoference: Exploring parent mobile device distraction from children’s perspectives. Mobile Media & Communication, 9(3), 584–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157921991602
18. Morris, A. J., Filippetti, M. L., & Rigato, S. (2022). The impact of parents’ smartphone use on language development in young children. Child Development Perspectives, 16(2), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12449
19. Shin, E., Myruski, S., Dennis-Tiwary, T. A., LoBue, V., Buss, K. A., & Pérez-Edgar, K. (2026). Self-regulation during a modified still-face paradigm with a mobile device as a predictor of early internalizing and externalizing problems. Infant Behavior and Development, 84, 102230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2026.102230
20. Tidemann, I. T., & Melinder, A. M. D. (2022). Infant behavioural effects of smartphone interrupted parent‐infant interaction. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 40(3), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12416
21. Vélez, W. A. Z., Quinde, G. A. L., Santacruz, M. F. R., & Bailón, W. G. B. (2026). The impact of technoference and the digital still-face on socioemotional development in infants (0–24 months): A systematic review. Infant Behavior and Development, 84, 102234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2026.102234
22. Yang, X., Jiang, P., & Zhu, L. (2023). Parental Problematic Smartphone Use and Children's Executive Function: The Mediating Role of Technoference and the Moderating Role of Children's Age. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 63, 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.12.017
23. Yıldız, E., Keşşafoğlu, D., Altundal, M. N., Akel, G., & Uzundağ, B. A. (2025). Navigating the digital age: Children's self‐regulatory skills and technoference in parent–child interactions. Family Relations, 74(4), 1493–1507. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.13179
24. Yun, Y., & Cho, K. (2022). A Study of the Relationship Between Smartphone Overdependence and Teacher-Child Interaction in Early Childhood Teachers. Early Childhood Education Research & Review, 26(4), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.32349/ecerr.2022.8.26.4.87