Understanding parents' motivations for giving their children smartphones: A qualitative study

Full Research Report Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2025, Vol. 42(10) 2929–2952 © The Author(s) 2025 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/02654075251352599 journals.sagepub.com/home/spr Understanding parents’ motivations for giving their children smartphones: A qualitative study Idoia Legorburu Fernandez Nahia Idoiaga-Mondragon Mirari Gaztañaga Maria Dosil-Santamaria University of the Basque Country EHU, Spain Abstract In response to growing concerns about the early age at which children receive smartphones, this study examines the factors influencing parents’decisions on when and why to allow their children access to these devices. A total of 642 parents from a region in the Basque Country (northern Spain) participated in an open-ended survey. The sample was diverse in terms of gender, child age (2–16 years, M = 9.26), and place of residence. While 26.9% had purchased a smartphone for their child, most either allowed shared use (65.3%) or restricted access entirely (7.7%). The data were analyzed using the Reinert method via Iramuteq software. Five key thematic categories emerged: the desire for children to be part of peer groups, social pressure perceived by parents, enabling children’s autonomy in public spaces, facilitating local communication practices, and exercising parental control. These findings reveal how smartphone-related decisions are shaped by community norms, safety concerns, and evolving definitions of childhood independence. The study highlights the importance of culturally responsive resources that support diverse parenting approaches without prescribing universal rules about the “right”age for smartphone ownership. Keywords Smartphones, children, mobile phones Corresponding author: Nahia Idoiaga Mondragon, Department of Evolutionary and Educational Psychology, The University of the Basque Country EHU, Sarriena auzoa z/g, Leioa 48940, Spain. Email: [email protected] Introduction The increasing prevalence of smartphones in children’s lives has sparked ongoing debates regarding the appropriate age for their first ownership (Haidt, 2025). While some parents view mobile phones as essential tools for safety, communication, and digital literacy, others express concerns about their potential impact on children’s well-being, social development, and academic performance (Bergert & Lange, 2021). Despite these discussions, there is a lack of recent, context-specific research examining the motivations behind parents’decisions to provide their children with smartphones, particularly in nonAnglo-Saxon contexts. This study addresses this gap by exploring how sociocultural and contextual factors influence parents’decisions regarding smartphone ownership among children in the Basque Country, Spain. To frame this analysis, the following literature review examines the current trends in mobile phone ownership among children, the impact of smartphone use on their well-being and development, and the role of social, economic, and geographical factors in shaping parental decisions. This review provides the necessary context to understand the motivations that guide parents when purchasing smartphones for their children The use of mobile phones by children The rapid advancement of technology has made mobile phones essential tools for communication, learning, and entertainment. As a result, children are increasingly becoming mobile phone users at younger ages (Modrego et al., 2021). Duek et al. (2012) highlight how mobile phones have become indispensable in modern society, reinforcing their role in maintaining connectivity for both children and adults. Trends in mobile phone ownership among children show a steady decline in the age of first acquisition. In 2004, 35% of children aged 8 to 10 in Germany already owned a mobile phone (B¨ ohler & Schüz, 2004), and by 2005, 76% of children aged 9 to 12 in Hungary had their own devices (Mezei et al., 2007). More recently, in Spain, 69.5% of children aged 10 to 15 owned a mobile phone in 2020 (INE, 2020). This widespread ownership is further regulated by national policies on digital access, such as Spain’s current legislation, which sets the minimum age for opening a social media account at 14 years. In June 2024, the Spanish government approved a draft law to raise this minimum to 16 years (Torres & Vald´ es, 2024). This pattern extends beyond Europe. In the United States, 35% of children aged 3 to 5 own their own mobile devices, using them for an average of 115.3 minutes daily, primarily on applications like YouTube (Radesky et al., 2020). Similarly, in Turkey, Kucuk et al. (2020) found that while the average age of first mobile phone ownership is 12.1 years (±2.5), some children receive their first phone as early as age 3. These findings indicate a global trend toward younger smartphone ownership, driven by increased accessibility, changing parental attitudes, and evolving digital environments. However, access to mobile technology is not uniform across all children, as socioeconomic factors play a crucial role. Research suggests that higher-income families are more likely to provide their children with smartphones at an earlier age and to use digital monitoring 2930 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 42(10) tools, whereas lower-income families may struggle with access and oversight, leading to different usage patterns (Reddick et al., 2020). Urban families, with easier access to technology and the Internet, are more likely to integrate digital tools into daily routines, emphasizing digital literacy and academic enrichment. In rural areas, limited access to reliable digital infrastructure may result in a more selective or utilitarian approach to mobile phone use, often focusing on practical benefits like schoolwork or family communication (Yan & Schroeder, 2020). Moreover, smartphone use among young people has risen sharply over the past decade. In Europe, only 5% of children aged 9 to 16 accessed the Internet daily via a smartphone in 2010, whereas by 2020, this figure had risen to over 80% (Coureux et al., 2023). Beyond their role in entertainment and communication, mobile phones have also become integral to family organization, helping parents coordinate schedules, school activities, and household tasks more efficiently (Wilska, 2003). While many parents provide mobile phones to their children for safety and communication purposes (Kucuk et al., 2020), this trend also raises concerns regarding exposure to inappropriate content, problematic smartphone use, and digital dependence. Matthes et al. (2021) suggest that parents’own excessive smartphone use can undermine their ability to regulate their children’s digital habits. The effects of early mobile phone ownership on children’s social development and well-being have been widely studied. Problematic mobile phone use is particularly prevalent among secondary school students, with 15% of adolescents at risk (Besol´ ıet al., 2018). A 2018 Pew Research study in the United States revealed that 95% of teenagers have access to a smartphone, and 45% report being online “almost constantly”(Jenco, 2018;Madigan et al., 2018). Parents often struggle to regulate their children’s smartphone habits effectively, particularly as digital environments evolve rapidly and present new challenges (B¨ ackstr¨ om et al., 2022). Many parents feel unprepared to set clear boundaries, which can contribute to difficulties in limiting screen time or ensuring balanced technology use. While extensive research has explored the implications of children’s smartphone use, less is known about the motivations behind parents’decisions—not just to allow smartphone use, but to actively purchase these devices for their children. Understanding these motivations is key to assessing whether early smartphone ownership aligns with children’s developmental needs or is primarily driven by social and contextual factors. The developmental and social implications of smartphone use in childhood The widespread presence of smartphones in children’s lives has raised significant concerns among health professionals, educators, and families. Numerous studies suggest that early and intensive exposure to smartphones may negatively affect children’s academic performance, motivation, and attention. Dempsey et al. (2019) and Hartati et al. (2023) found that the use of digital devices in learning contexts, when not properly regulated, may reduce attention span and motivation, potentially leading to poorer academic achievement. Sigman (2017) highlights how multitasking and continuous screen switching can disrupt concentration and undermine cognitive performance. Legorburu Fernandez et al. 2931 Beyond academic aspects, excessive or unregulated smartphone use has been linked to psychosocial and emotional difficulties. Sahu et al. (2019) associate problematic use with anxiety and depressive symptoms, while Wacks and Weinstein (2021) note links with stress, social withdrawal, and self-esteem issues. Twenge and Campbell (2018) also emphasize increased vulnerability to sleep problems and emotional dysregulation, particularly in preadolescents and adolescents. From a physical health perspective, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (2018) warns about risks such as eye strain, fatigue, and myopia due to prolonged screen exposure. These issues, while not universally experienced, contribute to a sense of parental caution regarding early smartphone ownership. Finally, Crescenzi-Lanna (2022), in a longitudinal study in Ireland, show how early patterns of digital engagement can shape later academic and personal trajectories. Taken together, these studies provide context for understanding parents’hesitations and decisions. Although our study does not directly assess these consequences, the concerns reflected in the literature help explain why many parents consider age, readiness, and context before granting smartphone access. Smartphones also play a crucial role in shaping the processes of socialization and identity formation in children and adolescents. While they offer opportunities for communication and connectedness, their excessive or unstructured use has been associated with social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties (Lee et al., 2023). The transition from face-to-face to digital interaction is increasingly evident, with over 80% of adolescents reporting that they feel deeply connected to friends through social media (Anderson & Jiang, 2018). This shift reflects the broader transformation of social dynamics in digital environments (Kopomaa, 2002), where peer interaction is mediated by screens rather than physical presence. For many adolescents, the smartphone becomes a space for identity exploration and self-validation. Digital belonging is often mediated through social networks, where selfimage is constructed in relation to online feedback and visibility (Zizek, 2017). However, early and excessive screen time during critical developmental stages can hinder socioemotional growth (Nayeem, 2024), displacing opportunities for physical and social engagement (Alotaibi et al., 2022). Patterns of smartphone use vary by age: younger children often use devices passively or for communication with family, whereas adolescents rely on them for more complex social interaction, peer bonding, and selfexpression (Tang, 2015). Gender differences also emerge in how technology is introduced and used. Parents may steer boys toward gaming or problem-solving apps, while girls are often encouraged to use creative or educational tools, reflecting traditional gender roles (Cooper & Heaverlo, 2013). As dependency increases, children tend to prefer solitary digital play over collective social activities, which may contribute to withdrawn behaviors and hinder self-confidence (Hye Park, 2020; Zheng, 2022). These shifts in socialization are further associated with sedentary habits, a factor linked to the rising prevalence of childhood obesity (Figueroa-Duarte & Campbell-Araujo, 2022). Finally, navigating digital environments also requires different interpersonal skills from those developed in face-to-face interaction. Many children struggle with these new 2932 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 42(10) social demands, which can lead to miscommunication, frustration, or exclusion (Zizek, 2017). These developmental and social dynamics help explain why many parents express concern over the appropriate timing and conditions under which smartphones should be introduced to children. While our study does not directly assess these consequences, this body of research offers important context for understanding the motivations behind parental decision-making. Parents’perceptions of smartphone use among children and families’reasons for buying mobile phones Parents’perceptions of smartphone use among children reflect a balance between concern over potential risks and recognition of tangible benefits (B¨ ackstr¨ om et al., 2022). Many express anxiety about excessive screen time, which has been linked to sleep disruption, attention deficits, and behavioral issues (Eirich et al., 2022;Lissak, 2018;Sadri, 2018). They also cite worries about exposure to inappropriate content, online risks, and smartphone addiction (Danet, 2020;Marsh et al., 2024), often feeling unprepared to guide their children’s digital habits (B¨ ackstr¨ om et al., 2022). Nonetheless, safety and constant communication are leading motivations for allowing smartphone use. Parents want to stay connected, monitor whereabouts, and ensure children’s security. In the U.S., children receive their first smartphone at an average age of 12.2 years, mostly for functional reasons (Richter et al., 2022). In Spain, while current regulations set 14 as the legal age for social media access, a 2024 draft law proposes raising it to 16 (Torres & Vald´ es, 2024). Mobile phones also help parents manage family logistics and maintain emotional closeness in contexts such as divorce, single-parent households, or reconstituted families (Oksman & Rautiainen, 2002;Wilska, 2003). Some parents view smartphones as educational tools that support digital literacy and access to information (Soyoof et al., 2024). However, many are mindful of setting boundaries, implementing screen time rules, modeling responsible use, and maintaining open communication (Sandua, 2023). Socioeconomic status and geographic location significantly shape how families approach smartphone use (Konca, 2022;Tang, 2015). Urban families often prioritize digital literacy and enrichment (Yan & Schroeder, 2020), while rural families—facing limited infrastructure—may take a more utilitarian view, using smartphones primarily for academic or practical purposes. Financial capacity also affects monitoring: higher-income households can afford supervision tools and educational programs, while lower-income families may face barriers to access or digital oversight (Reddick et al., 2020). While existing studies outline broad patterns in smartphone adoption, there is a need for updated research into parents’current motivations and the implications of early smartphone ownership in rapidly evolving social contexts. Factors such as age, gender, SES, and geographic setting are known to influence smartphone adoption, but their interaction in specific cultural environments remains underexplored. This study addresses that gap by analyzing parental motivations in a region of the Basque Country, Spain, focusing on the interplay between sociocultural factors and family dynamics. It aims to Legorburu Fernandez et al. 2933 understand how decisions around smartphone ownership reflect parents’desire to foster trust, communication, and autonomy as part of contemporary caregiving. In light of the concerns and contextual factors reviewed, this study explores the primary motivations guiding parents in a region of the Basque Country, Spain, when deciding whether to provide their children with smartphones. It also examines how these decisions vary according to key factors such as parents’and children’s gender, school year, town of residence, and type of smartphone use (ownership, shared use, or non-use). The literature presented offers a foundation for this inquiry, which is guided by the following questions: (1) What are the primary motivations of parents when deciding to provide their children with a smartphone? (2) How do contextual and demographic variables influence these motivations? (3) What are the perceived implications of children owning smartphones, as expressed by parents? Methodology To achieve the objectives set for this project, both qualitative and quantitative data were systematically collected through meticulously designed online questionnaires tailored for this purpose. These surveys incorporated a blend of open-ended and closed-ended questions to ensure comprehensive and detailed responses from parents. Sample The sample comprised 642 parents from a region within the autonomous community of the Basque Country in northern Spain. The average age of the parents was 43.85 years (sd = 5.13). Regarding gender, 53.11% (n= 341) of parents identified as female/mothers, 46.57% (n= 299) as male/fathers, and 0.003 (n= 2) as non-binary. The average age of their children was 9.26 years (sd = 2.06), with an age range of 2–16 years. In terms of gender distribution, 53.1% identified as girls, 46.6% as boys, and 0.3% as non-binary. Most participants, 62.6% (n= 402), resided in a town of around 16,000 inhabitants. Another 14.5% (n= 93) lived in villages with between 1,000 and 2,000 inhabitants, and the remaining 22.9% (n= 147) lived in villages with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. Of the 642 parents who participated in the study, 26.9% (n= 173) had already purchased a smartphone for their children, while 65.3% (n= 419) had not bought a smartphone but allowed their children to use theirs. The remaining 7.7% (n= 50) had neither bought a smartphone for their children nor allowed them to use theirs. Including parents who have not yet purchased a smartphone for their children is particularly relevant, as it allows us to explore the factors that influence their decision-making process, their concerns, and the conditions under which they might consider allowing smartphone ownership. This group represents a key target for prevention strategies aimed at delaying smartphone acquisition or guiding parents toward responsible technology use. Understanding their hesitations provides valuable insights into potential intervention points that could influence parental decision-making. 2934 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 42(10) Procedure Before data collection, approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the University of the Basque Country [M10_2024_073]. All participants voluntarily agreed to participate in the study after receiving detailed information about the research procedures. Recruitment was conducted using a non-probabilistic snowball sampling method in the 9 existing schools in the area. An online questionnaire was created by the researchers and disseminated through schools to all the parents. No incentive was offered for completing the questionnaire. Instrument The questionnaires were organized into two distinct sections. The first section asked participants to provide specific socio-demographic information relevant to the study, including their own and their children’s age, gender (with options for Women, Men, or Non-binary), age, school year of the children, town of residence, and the type of smartphone use by the children (own smartphone, use an adult’s smartphone, do not use a smartphone). They were also asked at what age they thought a smartphone should be purchased or given to their children and were instructed to ask their children the same question. In the second section, parents were asked to write down or state four reasons they would buy their children a smartphone. These responses formed the basis for subsequent analysis. Data collection and analysis were conducted in Spanish. Once all the analyses had been carried out, the results were translated into English. This translation was carried out by a professional translator so that there was as little bias as possible as explained in the text. Analysis To analyze the open-ended responses, we employed the Reinert method (Reinert, 1983) using the Iramuteq software. This method is widely regarded as a robust tool for analyzing open-ended textual data and has been extensively applied in research involving children across various disciplines (Idoiaga Mondragon et al., 2021;Legorburu et al., 2022). Its proven ability to address issues of reliability and validity in text analysis has been highlighted in prior studies (Klein & Licata, 2003), making it particularly suitable for this study. Unlike conventional qualitative methods that rely heavily on manual coding, the Reinert method provides a computationally driven, statistically validated classification of textual content, offering an objective lens through which themes and structures can be identified with high reproducibility (Reinert, 1990). The Reinert method is based on a top-down hierarchical clustering approach, which segments text into lexical classes characterized by co-occurring words and text fragments. It uses statistical indicators, such as chi-square values (χ 2 ), to determine the most representative words and text segments for each class (Idoiaga, N., & Belasko, 2019). These values highlight the words that are statistically overrepresented in a given class, indicating Legorburu Fernandez et al. 2935 their relevance and association with the class themes. For instance, words with high chisquare values are those that appear more frequently within a specific class than would be expected by chance. This approach produces what are referred to as “lexical worlds,”which consist of clusters of semantically related words and text segments that collectively represent distinct patterns in the data. In line with previous applications of this method (Camargo & Bousfield, 2009), the raw textual data were processed in Iramuteq, which systematically assigned words and segments to classes based on their statistical associations. The classification process follows a rigorous sequence: first, the text corpus is segmented into units, ensuring that each segment contains a meaningful portion of discourse. These units are then analyzed using a descending hierarchical classification algorithm, which recursively partitions the text into clusters based on word co-occurrence patterns. The method identifies key lexical items that serve as thematic markers, allowing for an inductive classification of the dataset (Mennani & Attak, 2024). Following previous applications of the Reinert method (Camargo & Bousfield, 2009), the raw data were entered into Iramuteq. Significant vocabulary items in each class were selected based on three criteria: (1) an expected word value exceeding 3; (2) chi-square statistical evidence of association with the class (χ 2 ≥3.89, p= .05, df = 1); and (3) the word predominantly appearing in that class with a frequency of 50% or more. Iramuteq also identified representative text segments for each class, ranking them by their chisquare values. These segments provided qualitative context to the lexical worlds, further enriching the interpretative process. This hybrid approach strengthens the analytical process, ensuring that lexical patterns are not only statistically derived but also contextualized through participants’discourse. The identified classes were then linked to passive or independent variables to explore relationships within the data. The passive variables in this study included: gender (parents and children), school year, town of residence (16.000 inhabitants, between 1.000– 2000 inhabitants, and fewer than 1.000 inhabitants) and type of smartphone use (own smartphone, use parents smartphone or do not use a smartphone). The analyst then derived a series of classes comprising typical words and text segments (quotes) with the highest chi-square values, forming the basis for interpreting the classes as lexical worlds. By systematically connecting lexical worlds with these variables, the method facilitated a nuanced exploration of the relationships between textual themes and demographic or contextual factors, offering a more in-depth understanding of the underlying patterns in parental decision-making regarding smartphone use. The classification process in Iramuteq, based on the Reinert method, is fully automated and guided by hierarchical descending clustering algorithms, which segment the text into lexical classes according to word co-occurrence patterns. The emergence of sub-factors within certain primary factors is a direct result of this statistical analysis, where the software identifies sub-classes only when it detects statistically significant internal differentiation, determined through chi-square tests. Therefore, the resulting structure of factors and sub-factors reflects the lexical and statistical properties inherent in the dataset, eliminating researcher subjectivity in categorization (Reinert, 1990). 2936 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 42(10) The Reinert method stands out in comparison to traditional qualitative methodologies. Unlike thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which relies on manual coding and researcher interpretation, the Reinert method applies a computationally driven, data-based approach that significantly reduces subjectivity and enhances replicability. By employing statistical tests to validate lexical clusters, it offers a degree of objectivity that manual coding approaches cannot easily achieve. Additionally, the method’s ability to systematically detect recurring themes across a large corpus makes it particularly effective for analyzing extensive qualitative datasets. However, one limitation of the Reinert method is that it focuses on word co-occurrences and statistical relationships rather than semantic nuances. The final phase of the analysis involved the interpretation and labeling of the lexical classes, which was conducted through a rigorous validation process. Two researchers independently assigned preliminary labels to each class based on the most statistically significant words and representative quotes. A third researcher reviewed and finalized the class labels, ensuring consensus and consistency across classifications. This collaborative approach reduced individual bias and ensured a more reliable interpretation of the lexical worlds, further enhancing the methodological rigor of the study. The Reinert method produces statistical, transparent, and reproducible data up to the point of interpretation, where the analyst assigns labels (Schonhardt-Bailey et al., 2012). The integration of both quantitative classification and qualitative interpretation provided a more comprehensive analysis of parents’motivations for smartphone use in children. This methodological approach enabled us to balance computational precision with the richness of participant narratives, allowing for a more nuanced and contextually relevant understanding of the data (Montalescot et al., 2024). In order to analyse the quantitative data, the variables under study were initially recoded, subsequently grouping them into new variables (age ranges and town ranges according to their number of inhabitants). Thereafter, the relevant descriptive and frequency analyses were conducted, in addition to the chi-square statistical test. This was performed using IBM SPSS statistical software version 28 (Armonk, NY, USA). Results Primary reasons why parents would give their children a smartphone of their own Using a descending hierarchical analysis, the Reinert method was employed to identify the top reason why parents would give their children a smartphone. Each reason or concept is represented by a collection of characteristic words and text segments, referred to as a “class.”The analysis segmented the corpus into area 590 sections, yielding five distinct classes, as illustrated in Figure 1. These classes will be examined individually in the subsequent sections of this article. As shown in Figure 1, the analysis generated five distinct classes. Two classes were related to peer groups and socialization: “To be part of a group of friends”and “Social pressure.”Another two classes were connected to the specific context or town where the Legorburu Fernandez et al. 2937 future research should explore whether this social pressure is more pronounced for girls and, if so, develop specific tools and training to address their needs. The second main reason parents cited for giving their children a smartphone was the village or context in which they live. Parents believe a smartphone becomes necessary when children, especially girls, start going out alone. They expressed particular concern about certain situations, such as being at the beach or out at night, and emphasized the need to maintain contact with their children at all times. Parents in smaller towns also highlighted the need to monitor their children when socializing outside their immediate area. The context of smaller villages or remote neighborhoods warrants further analysis. Previous research has shown that although street violence rates have decreased in recent years, parents’perceptions of risk when their children are alone have increased significantly (Legorburu et al., 2022), influencing the decision to purchase a mobile device (Oksman & Rautiainen, 2002). Additionally, it is common for parents to perceive their daughters as being at greater risk than their sons, leading to more restrictive measures for girls (Morawska, 2020). In the villages studied, children typically start walking alone around the age of 9– 10 years, making it understandable that parents of children this age are particularly concerned. Towns and cities must create safe spaces where children can socialize under community protection, as has been accomplished in other contexts, such as autonomous commuting to school (Idoiaga et al., 2024). Communities can support parents by sharing knowledge about the different types of digital devices and their potential uses depending on children’s needs and developmental stages. The third main reason for giving children a smartphone was parental control, particularly the ability to track their children’s exact location via GPS. The need for parental control has increased in recent years, and various applications have been developed to meet this demand (Stewart et al., 2022). From the perspective of educational psychology, which emphasizes concepts such as scaffolding, it is important for parents to gradually grant their children more autonomy (McCurdy et al., 2020). However, beyond being a tool for supervision, smartphones also play a fundamental role in shaping parent-child relationships. For some parents, providing a smartphone signifies an effort to balance granting autonomy with ensuring security, reinforcing trust between them and their children (Akter et al., 2022). In this sense, digital devices are not merely tools for control but also mediums that facilitate open communication, allowing children to feel supported while progressively gaining independence and parental control tools can support this process when combined with proper training on smartphone use (Stewart et al., 2022). Therefore, it is essential to equip parents with the knowledge and tools to guide their children toward digital autonomy (Badillo-Urquiola et al., 2020). Beyond these reasons, this study also examined the age at which parents and children believe it would be appropriate to give a child a smartphone. The findings revealed a nearly two-year gap between the average age proposed by children (M = 12.73) and that proposed by parents (M = 14.42). While these ages are relatively close, they are crucial in a child’s development, particularly during early adolescence when personal identity and socialization are key (Van Dijk et al., 2020). The scientific community should focus on 2944 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 42(10) developing guidance and educational resources rather than prescribing a single recommended age for smartphone ownership. Given the significant variability in influencing factors—including urban versus rural environments, gender norms, peer group dynamics, and broader sociocultural contexts—a rigid, universal recommendation may not be feasible or appropriate. Instead, context-sensitive guidelines could help parents and educators make more informed decisions based on their specific circumstances. These guidelines could be complemented by training programs for educators and parents, equipping them with the necessary knowledge to assess the readiness of children for smartphone use and to implement strategies that balance opportunities and risks. Notably, no significant differences were found in the dependent variables, except for school year in the case of children, where older children tended to believe that smartphones should be given at a younger age. The findings of this study highlight the profound impact of familial relationships on parental decisions to provide smartphones to their children, emphasizing that these choices are inherently relational rather than purely functional. By framing motivations such as ensuring safety, maintaining communication, and fostering inclusion within peer groups as expressions of care and connection, the study demonstrates that technology acts as a medium to reinforce parent-child bonds. For instance, providing a smartphone often signifies a parent’s effort to balance granting autonomy with ensuring security, fostering trust, and enabling open communication (Akter et al., 2022). These decisions reflect not only parents’practical concerns but also their relational priorities, underscoring the role of digital tools in navigating modern familial dynamics. By incorporating this relational perspective, the study contributes to understanding how technology use reshapes traditional parenting roles and strengthens the relational fabric of families in an increasingly connected world. In conclusion, this research offers valuable insights into the ongoing debate about when children should be given a smartphone of their own (Ritcher et al., 2022). These findings highlight the relational nature of parents’decisions around smartphone ownership, influenced by safety concerns, peer dynamics, and local contexts. Rather than promoting rigid age-based guidelines, it is essential to support families with culturally responsive resources and open dialogues that help them reflect on their children’s needs, family values, and local realities. Initiatives that facilitate collaborative discussions among parents, educators, and communities can empower families to make informed decisions while respecting diverse parenting approaches. Children’s access to smartphones has significant implications for their well-being (Dyrek et al., 2024;Sun et al., 2023;Vaterlaus et al., 2021), and this decision must be seen not just as an individual one but as a collective responsibility, with communities playing a key role in safeguarding children’s wellbeing. Limitations This study was conducted in a specific geographic area, providing a localized snapshot of the phenomenon under investigation. As a qualitative study, the findings are not intended to be generalized but rather to provide deep insights into parenting experiences within a Legorburu Fernandez et al. 2945 defined cultural and social context. Consequently, the findings are influenced by the particular characteristics of this cultural and social context. To enhance the generalizability of the results, it would be necessary to replicate the study in other regions. For instance, it would be valuable to examine whether similar outcomes are observed in larger urban settings. Furthermore, while this research gathered data from multiple perspectives, future studies could benefit from expanding the range of viewpoints included. For example, incorporating input from teachers could provide additional valuable insights and further enrich the analysis. Lastly, employing alternative methodological approaches in future investigations could enhance the depth and breadth of the findings. Techniques that yield either more detailed data or different types of information would contribute to the overall quality and robustness of subsequent research efforts. Declaration of conflicting interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This was supported by KideOn research group. Open science statement As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing: [email protected]. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: [email protected]. ORCID iD Nahia Idoiaga-Mondragon https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0345-8570 References Akter, M., Godfrey, A. J., Kropczynski, J., Lipford, H. R., & Wisniewski, P. J. (2022). From parental control to joint family oversight: Can parents and teens manage mobile online safety and privacy as equals? Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction,6(CSCW1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512904 Alotaibi, M. S., Fox, M., Coman, R., Ratan, Z. A., & Hosseinzadeh, H. (2022). Smartphone addiction prevalence and its association on academic performance, physical health, and mental well-being among university students in Umm Al-Qura University (UQU). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,19(6), 3710. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph19063710 2946 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 42(10) Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens’social media habits and experiences. Pew Research Centre. https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/11/28/teens-social-media-habits-and-experiences/ Arnon, S., Shamai, S., & Ilatov, Z. (2008). Socialization agents and activities of young adolescents. Adolescence,43(170), 373–397. B¨ ackstr¨ om, C., Carl´ en, K., Larsson, V., M˚ artensson, L. B., Thorstensson, S., Berglund, M., Larsson, T, Bouwmeester, B, Wilhsson, M, & Larsson, M. (2022). Expecting parents’use of digital sources in preparation for parenthood in a digitalised society–a systematic review. Digital Health,8, 20552076221090335. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207622109033 Badillo-Urquiola, K., Chouhan, C., Chancellor, S., De Choudhary, M., & Wisniewski, P. (2020). Beyond parental control: Designing adolescent online safety apps using value sensitive design. Journal of Adolescent Research,35(1), 147–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558419884692 Balas, R. B., Meliț, L. E., Sarkozi, D., Ghiga, D. V., & M˘ arginean, C. O. (2023). Cyberbullying in teenagers–a true burden in the era of online socialization. Medicine,102(25), Article e34051. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000034051 Banfield-Nwachi, M. (2024). ‘It went nuts’: Thousands join UK parents calling for smartphone-free childhood. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/17/thousandsjoin-uk-parents-calling-for-smartphone-free-childhood Bergert, S., & Lange, R. (2021). Missing out on life: Parental perceptions of children’s mobile device usage. GITO Verlag. Besol´ ı, G., Palomas, N., & Chamarro, A. (2018). Uso del móvil en padres, niños y adolescentes: Creencias acerca de sus riesgos y beneficios. Aloma: Revista de Psicologia, Ciències de l’Educació i de l’Esport,36(1), 29–39. B¨ ohler, E., & Schüz, J. (2004). Cellular telephone use among primary school children in Germany. European Journal of Epidemiology,19(11), 1043–1050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-0042174-x Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Camargo, B. V., & Bousfield, A. B. S. (2009). Social representations, risk behaviors, and AIDS. Spanish Journal of Psychology,12(2), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1138741600001931 Collie, R. J. (2020). The development of social and emotional competence at school: An integrated model. International Journal of Behavioral Development,44(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0165025419851864 Cooper, R., & Heaverlo, C. (2013). Problem solving and creativity and design: What influence do they have on girls’interest in STEM subject areas? American Journal of Engineering Education,4(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajee.v4i1.7856 Coureux, G., Bouvier, G., Lebailly, P., Fabbro-Peray, P., Gruber, A., Leffondre, K., Guillamo, J.-G., Loiseau, H., Mathoulin-P´ elissier, S., Salamon, R., & Baldi, I. (2023). Mobile phone use and brain tumors in the CERENATcase-control study. Youth & Society,55(4), 723–740. https://doi. org/10.1177/0044118X231223218 Crescenzi-Lanna, L. (2022). The developmental appropriateness of digital games and its impact on young children’s enjoyment and playtime. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction,33, 100480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100480 Legorburu Fernandez et al. 2947 Danet, M. (2020). Parental concerns about their school-aged children’s use of digital devices. Journal of Child and Family Studies,29(10), 2890–2904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-02001760-y Dempsey, S., Lyons, S., & McCoy, S. (2019). Later is better: Mobile phone ownership and child academic development, evidence from a longitudinal study. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,28(8), 798–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2018.1559786 Duek, C., Enriz, N., Tourn, G., & Larreta, F. M. (2012). Niños, tel´ efonos móviles y consumo: nuevas pr´ acticas con nuevas tecnolog´ ıas. Infancias im´ agenes,11(1), 9–17. Dyrek, M., Sikorska, E., Partyka, A., Sikorski, P., Dusza, E., & Kopacz, D. (2024). Prolonged screen-time as the cause of ocular disorders: What can we do with the problem? A review. Publishing Office of the University of Rzeszow. https://repozytorium.ur.edu.pl/handle/item/ 10378 Eirich, R., McArthur, B. A., Anhorn, C., McGuinness, C., Christakis, D. A., & Madigan, S. (2022). Association of screen time with internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in children 12 years or younger: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry,79(5), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0155 Figueroa-Duarte, A. S., & Campbell-Araujo, ´ O. A. (2022). El efecto de la exposición a los dispositivos móviles en el desarrollo infantil. Experiencia y propuesta de trabajo. Bolet´ ınCl ´ ınico Hospital Infantil del Estado de Sonora,37(1), 3–14. Haidt, J. (2025). The anxious generation: How smartphones are causing a mental health crisis and what we can do about it. Random House. Hartati, R., Muthoifin, M., & Jinan, M. (2023). Smartphones and the effect of its use in early children on students’learning interest. Profetika: Jurnal Studi Islam,24(01), 149–158. https:// doi.org/10.23917/profetika.v24i01.1741 Hye Park, J., & Park, M. (2021). Smartphone use patterns and problematic smartphone use among preschool children. PLoS One,16(3), Article e0244276. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0244276 Idoiaga, N., Fern´ andez, I. L., S´ aez, I. A., & Sancho, N. B. (2024). La movilidad independiente infantil en los caminos escolares: la percepción de los niños y niñas sobre las dificultades en su entorno. Revista sobre la infancia y la adolescencia, (26), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4995/ reinad.2024.16650 Idoiaga Mondragon, N., Berasategi Sancho, N., Eiguren Munitis, A., & Dosil Santamaria, M. (2021). Exploring the social and emotional representations used by students from the University of the Basque Country to face the first outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. Health Education Research,36(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyab006 Idoiaga, N., & Belasko, M. (2019). Understanding menstruation: influence of gender and ideological factors. A study of young people´s social representations. Feminism & Psychology, 29(3), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353519836445 INE. (2020). Encuesta sobre Equipamiento y Uso de Tecnolog´ ıas de Información y Comunicación en los Hogares. Instituto Nacional de Estad´ ıstica. https://www.ine.es/prensa/tich_2020.pdf Jenco, M. (2018). 1 in 5 youths exposed to unwanted sexually explicit material online. AAP News. https://www.aappublications.org/news/2018/09/12/online091218 2948 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 42(10) Karabatak, S., Ay, S., & Karabatak, M. (2022). The relationship between nomophobia and perceived socialization in the online learning environment. (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ISDFS55398.2022.9800824 Klein, O., & Licata, L. (2003). When group representations serve social change: The speeches of patrice Lumumba during the Congolese decolonization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(Pt 4), 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322595284 Konca, A. S. (2022). Digital technology usage of young children: Screen time and families. Early Childhood Education Journal,50(7), 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643021-01245-7 Kopomaa, T. (2002). Mobile phones, place-centred communication and neo-community. Planning Theory & Practice,3(2), 241–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350220150125 Kucuk, I. G., Eser, U., Cevik, M., & Ongel, K. (2020). Mobile phone usage characteristics of children at school and parents’approach. Medicine Science | International Medical Journal, 9(2), 503–508. https://doi.org/10.5455/medscience.2019.08.9218 Lee, A. R., Park, Y. W., & Oh, J. (2023). Investigating the cause and effect factors of young children’s smartphone overuse: Focusing on the influence of parenting factors. Information, Communication & Society,26(9), 1756–1772. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022. 2027499 Legorburu, I., Idoiaga Mondragon, N., Alonso, I., & Berasategi, N. (2022). Why are you allowed to go to school on your own? Exploring children’s voices on independent mobility. Children & Society,36(6), 1111–1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12559 Lissak, G. (2018). Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children and adolescents: Literature review and case study. Environmental Research,164, 149–157. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.015 Livingstone, S., & Blum-Ross, A. (2020). Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives. Oxford University Press. Lorenzov´ a, J., & Svoboda, P. (2018). Advantages and risks of socializing young people on the internet. In EDULEARN18 Proceedings (pp. 6625–6629). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/ edulearn.2018.1576 Madigan, S., Ly, A., Rash, C., VanOuystel, J., & Temple, R. (2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior among youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5314 Marengo, D., Settanni, M., Fabris, M. A., & Longobardi, C. (2021). Alone, together: Fear of missing out mediates the link between peer exclusion in WhatsApp classmate groups and psychological adjustment in early-adolescent teens. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,38(4), 1371–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521991917 Marsh, S., Chu, J. T. W., & Calder, A. J. (2024). ‘I tried to take my phone off my daughter, and i got hit in the face’: A qualitative study of parents’challenges with adolescents’screen use and a toolbox of their tips. BMC Public Health,24(1), 217. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-02417690-z Matthes, J., Thomas, M. F., Stevic, A., & Schmuck, D. (2021). Fighting over smartphones? Parents’ excessive smartphone use, lack of control over children’s use, and conflict. Computers in Human Behavior,116, 106618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106618 Legorburu Fernandez et al. 2949 McCurdy, A. L., Williams, K. N., Lee, G. Y., Benito-Gomez, M., & Fletcher, A. C. (2020). Measurement of parental autonomy support: A review of theoretical concerns and developmental considerations. Journal of Family Theory & Review,12(3), 382–397. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jftr.12389 McMahon, G., Creaven, A. M., & Gallagher, S. (2020). Stressful life events and adolescent wellbeing: The role of parent and peer relationships. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress,36(3), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2923 Mennani, M., & Attak, E. (2024). An overview of using IRAMUTEQ software in qualitaitve analysis designs. In Principles of conducting qualitative research in multicultural settings (pp. 149–170). IGI Global. Mezei, G., Benyi, M., & Muller, A. (2007). Mobile phone ownership and use among school children in three Hungarian cities. Bioelectromagnetics,28(4), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem. 20270 Modrego, L. P., Garc´ ıa, M. G., S´ anchez, B. L., D´ ıaz, R. G., & Arenas, A. G. (2021). Uso del tel´ efono móvil temprano y desarrollo de habilidades psicosociales en niños y niñas de 5 y 6 años. Revista de fundamentos de psicolog´ ıa,12, 69. https://revistafundamentospsicologia.umh.es/ files/2023/10/revista_fp_2023.pdf#page=69 Montalescot, L., Lamore, K., Flahault, C., & Untas, A. (2024). What is the place of interpretation in text analysis? An example using ALCESTE® software. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 21(2), 200–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2316624 Morawska, A. (2020). The effects of gendered parenting on child development outcomes: A systematic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,23(4), 553–576. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10567-020-00321-5 Nayeem, F. (2024). Parent’s perception of children’s socialisation during middle childhood: The effects of smartphone usage on urban children. (Doctoral dissertation). Brac University. Oksman, V., & Rautiainen, P. (2002). Toda mi vida en la palma de mi mano: la comunicación móvil en la vida diaria de niños y adolescentes de Finlandia. Estudios de Juventud,57(2), 25–32. P´ erez, J. (2023). ‘A 12-year-old is not ready’: Why thousands of parents are teaming up to delay their children’sfirst cell phone use. El Pa´ ıs.https://english.elpais.com/society/2023-11-03/a12-year-old-is-not-ready-why-thousands-of-parents-are-teaming-up-to-delay-their-childrensfirst-cell-phone-use.html# Radesky, J. S., Weeks, H. M., Ball, R., Schaller, A., Yeo, S., Durnez, J., Tamayo-Rios, M., Epstein, M., Kirkorian, H., Coyne, S., & Barr, R. (2020). Young children’s use of smartphones and tablets. Pediatrics,146(1), e20193518. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-3518 Reddick, C. G., Enriquez, R., Harris, R. J., & Sharma, B. (2020). Determinants of broadband access and affordability: An analysis of a community survey on the digital divide. Cities,106, 102904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102904 Reinert, A. (1983). Une m´ ethode de classification descendante hi´ erarchique: application ` al’analyse lexicale par contexte. Cahiers de l’Analyse des Donn´ ees,8(2), 187–198. Reinert, M. (1990). Alceste: une m´ ethodologie d’analyse des donn´ ees textuelles et une application: Aurelia de G´ erard de Nerval. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de M´ ethodologie Sociologique,26(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/075910639002600103 2950 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 42(10) Richter, A., Adkins, V., & Selkie, E. (2022). Youth perspectives on the recommended age of mobile phone adoption: Survey study. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting,5(4), Article e40704. https:// doi.org/10.2196/40704 Sadri, A. M. (2018). Prolonged digital screen effect on preschool children: An analysis from the perception of parents of Dhaka. (Doctoral dissertation). Brac University. Sahu, M., Gandhi, S., & Sharma, M. K. (2019). Mobile phone addiction among children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Addictions Nursing,30(4), 261–268. https://doi. org/10.1097/JAN.0000000000000309 Sandua, D. (2023). Parenting in the digital age. Independently Published. Schnauber-Stockmann, A., Weber, M., Reinecke, L., Schemer, C., Müller, K., Beutel, M., & Stark, B. (2021). Mobile (self-) socialization: The role of mobile media and communication in autonomy and relationship development in adolescence. Mass Communication & Society, 24(6), 867–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1964538 Schonhardt-Bailey, C., Yager, E., & Lahlou, S. (2012). Yes, Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric was unique— but statistically, how unique? Presidential Studies Quarterly,42(3), 482–513. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2012.03990.x Sigman, A. (2017). Screen dependency disorders: A new challenge for child neurology. Journal of the International Child Neurology Association.https://doi.org/10.17724/jicna.2017.119. https://jicna.org/index.php/journal/article/view/67 Soyoof, A., Reynolds, B. L., Neumann, M., Scull, J., Tour, E., & McLay, K. (2024). The impact of parent mediation on young children’s home digital literacy practices and learning: A narrative review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,40(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal. 12866 Stewart, K., Brodowsky, G., & Sciglimpaglia, D. (2022). Parental supervision and control of adolescents’problematic internet use: Understanding and predicting adoption of parental control software. Young Consumers,23(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-04-20211307 Sun, X., Haydel, K. F., Matheson, D., Desai, M., & Robinson, T. N. (2023). Are mobile phone ownership and age of acquisition associated with child adjustment? A 5-year prospective study among low-income Latinx children. Child Development,94(1), 303–314. https://doi.org/10. 1111/cdev.13851 Tang, J. (2015). Family socioeconomic status and personal media technology use (Master’s thesis). Middle Tennessee State University. Torres, A., & Vald´ es, I. (2024, junio 4). Claves de la nueva ley de protección de menores: se eleva de 14 a 16 años la edad m´ ınima para abrirse una cuenta en redes sociales. El Pa´ ıs.https://elpais. com/sociedad/2024-06-04/claves-de-la-nueva-ley-deproteccion-de-menores-se-eleva-de-14a-16-anos-la-edad-minima-para-abrirse-una-cuenta-en-redes-sociales.html Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Preventive Medicine Reports,12, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10. 003 Van Dijk, M. P., Hale III, W. W., Hawk, S. T., Meeus, W., & Branje, S. (2020). Personality development from age 12 to 25 and its links with life transitions. European Journal of Personality,34(3), 322–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2251 Legorburu Fernandez et al. 2951 Vaterlaus, J. M., Aylward, A., Tarabochia, D., & Martin, J. D. (2021). “A smartphone made my life easier”: An exploratory study on age of adolescent smartphone acquisition and well-being. Computers in Human Behavior,114, 106563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106563 Wacks, Y., & Weinstein, A. M. (2021). Excessive smartphone use is associated with health problems in adolescents and young adults. Frontiers in Psychiatry,12, 669042. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyt.2021.669042 Wilska, T. A. (2003). Mobile phone use as part of young people’s consumption styles. Journal of Consumer Policy,26(4), 441–463. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026331016172 Yan, P., & Schroeder, R. (2020). Variations in the adoption and use of mobile social apps in everyday lives in urban and rural China. Mobile Media & Communication,8(3), 318–341. https://doi. org/10.1177/2050157919884718 Zheng, X. (2022). Research on the impact of smart phone use on children’s socialization. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology,4(6). https://doi.org/10.25236/FSST.2022. 040610 Zizek, B. (2017). Digital socialization? An exploratory sequential analysis of anonymous adolescent internet-social interaction. Human Development,60(5), 203–232. https://doi.org/10. 1159/000479082 2952 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 42(10)