Background Parental perfectionism, characterized by rigid standards and heightened evaluative concerns, can foster stress and behavioral friction in young children, increasing their vulnerability to problematic technology use (PTU). In turn, persistent child-level digital struggles can directly challenge and erode parents’ perceived digital parenting self-efficacy. Therefore, this study examined the structural associations among parental perfectionism, children’s PTU, and digital parenting self-efficacy in early childhood, testing the indirect role of PTU. Methods The sample comprised 478 parents of preschool-aged children (48–72 months) in Türkiye. Participants completed self-administered parent-report instruments assessing parental perfectionism, children’s PTU, and digital parenting self-efficacy. Preliminary diagnostics evaluated normality, collinearity, and common method bias. Path-analytic mediation modeling based on ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was conducted using Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Model 4) with 10,000 bias-corrected bootstrap resamples. Results Parental perfectionism was positively associated with children’s PTU ( B = 0.22, p = .001), while PTU was negatively associated with digital parenting self-efficacy ( B = -0.19, p = .001). The bivariate association between parental perfectionism and digital parenting self-efficacy was statistically non-significant ( r = .09, p = .060). However, the path model revealed a suppression effect: controlling for children’s PTU yielded a significant negative direct association ( c’ = -0.15, p = .005). The indirect association operating through children’s PTU was also statistically significant ( B = -0.04, 95% BCa CI [-0.07, -0.02]). Conclusions The findings confirm an inconsistent mediation (suppression) model wherein children’s PTU links parental perfectionism to diminished digital parenting self-efficacy. Interventions should address parental cognitive standards alongside relational co-regulation strategies to alleviate technology-related household friction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Terzi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: