Preschoolers' beliefs about media technologies: The role of family income

Abstract

Although a vast majority of U.S. children have access to mobile media such as smartphones at home, children from lower-income families spend more time using screen media than do their higher-income peers. Differences in early media experiences based on family income may influence how children think about media technologies. This study examined whether preschoolers' thinking about media varies by family income, with a focus on children's beliefs about the functions of media. Preschoolers (N = 55) aged 4-5 years old were presented with six photographs of different media (book, tablet, smartphone, TV, computer, and telephone) and asked to answer questions about identification, exposure, access, attribution of functions, and preferences regarding these media. Parental median income was estimated based on the family's residential zip code, and this was used to categorize children into lowerand higher-income groups. There were no significant differences between the lowerand higher-income groups in their identification of and exposure and access to these media. However, the lower-income group was more likely to say that smartphones could be used for learning than the higher-income group. Compared to the higherincome group, the lower-income group was more likely to attribute impossible functions to physical books such as talking to other people, taking pictures, or watching TV shows and movies. The lower-income group also attributed more functions than the higher-income group to books and tablets. Lastly, there was no income-group difference in children's preferences for media. Together, these findings suggest the importance of considering family contextual influences on children's understanding of media technologies.

Is secondhand information better read or said? Factors influencing children’s endorsements of text-based information

“…U.S. children's use of technology in general is increasing (Goode et al, 2019), giving them access to many types of knowledge artifacts such as audiobooks, videos, and other forms of digital media in addition to traditional artifacts like books. Knowledge artifacts as learning sources may be especially important to low-SES families, who emerging research suggests may place more emphasis on the potential of children learning from digital media (Domoff et al, 2017;Macias & Choi, 2021;. This is likely due to the fact that such media are often highly accessible via the internet or public resources such as libraries.…”

Understanding early learning in an evolving digital media landscape.

“…These findings suggest that toddlers exhibit individual differences in their perception of media, which depends on media interactivity and past experiences. Preschoolers also develop beliefs regarding whether certain types of media, such as books and touchscreen devices, are intended for learning purposes (Eisen & Lillard, 2017), which is found to be associated with social contextual factors, such as family income (Macias & Choi, 2021). Previous research suggests that children’s media beliefs could affect their transfer of learning from noninteractive media such as TV programs (Bonus & Mares, 2019; Field & Anderson, 1985).…”

Strategies, Recommendations, and Validation of Remote Executive Function Tasks for use with Young Children

“…Compared to in-person approaches, there are several potential benefits to remote data collection, including increased rates of participation from families and reductions in costs associated with minimal travel to schools and homes (Kim, 2020). Moreover, recent research suggests that young children are generally familiar with the technology associated with remote data collection (i.e., tablets, computers), and are capable of independently using touchscreen technology with minimal supervision (Kostyrka-Allchorne et al, 2017;Macias, & Choi, 2021;Neumann, 2016;Radesky et al, 2020). A remote approach to assessment may also allow researchers to access populations that are often overlooked in research settings (Hodge et al, 2019a;Luxton et al, 2014;Rios et al, 2018), which could potentially increase the diversity of early childhood samples.…”