INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Raising Kids in a Digital World: The Role of Socioeconomic Status  
and Race in Screen Time Management  
Naim Bin Hasan  
Florida Atlantic University  
DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1412000118  
Received: 04 December 2025; Accepted: 09 January 2026; Published: 16 January 2026  
ABSTRACT  
This study examines how socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity shape U.S. parents’ strategies for  
managing children’s screen time, highlighting digital inequality in family socialization. Using secondary  
analysis of Pew Research Center surveys (2020, 2024), the research employs descriptive statistics and qualitative  
coding to explore sources of screen time advice and perceived regulatory ability across demographic groups.  
Findings reveal that higher-SES parents leverage greater access to digital tools and institutional advice, reflecting  
structured socialization, while lower-SES parents face resource constraints, limiting their control over digital  
engagement. Racial trends suggest higher platform use among Black teens, pointing to subcultural influences on  
parenting challenges. These disparities underscore a digital divide extending beyond access to agency,  
amplifying socialization inequalities. The study enriches family sociology and stratification theory by linking  
technology management to social hierarchies, proposing interventions like digital literacy programs, and  
advocating for longitudinal research to assess long-term impacts on equitable digital parenting.  
Keywords: digital inequality, parenting, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, screen time, family socialization  
INTRODUCTION  
Since digital technologies are a part of everyday life, parenting has become a focal point to learn how family  
dynamics are shaped by social inequalities. The prevalence of screens such as smartphones, tablets, and  
computers has changed the process of socialization, and with it come new challenges and possibilities for parents  
who are responsible for guiding the development of their children. This article examines how race/ethnicity and  
socioeconomic status (SES) influence the approaches employed by U.S. parents in regulating children’s screen  
time and how the source of screen time guidance they employ, and how capable they perceive themselves in  
regulating such activity, differ. Drawing on empirical evidence from the Pew Research Center’s Parenting  
Children in the Age of Screens (2020) and Teens, Social Media and Technology (2024) , the research places  
itself within family sociology and stratification theory to examine why differences in resource and cultural capital  
allow a digital gap in parenting to persist. In their examination of these dimensions, more general outcomes of  
family socialization and inequality in the digital era are meant to be illuminated.  
Parenting as a first phase in socialization has already been shown to be one means by which children learn what  
is needed to live in the world around them (Lareau, 2003). Historically, the process was shaped by face-to-face  
contact and tangible resources, such as books or after-school programs. With the integration of digital technology  
into home life, however, long-standing patterns of socialization have been disrupted, establishing a complex  
dynamic of access, use, and control that varies across social groups. For instance, nearly every American teen  
(95%) has a smartphone, and 90% utilize sites like YouTube, yet parents’ responses to governing this activity  
are wildly different (Pew Research Center, 2024). Such differences are not only pragmatic but reflective of  
underlying structural inequities, along the dimensions of SES and race, that intervene between the ways families  
use technology. The digital divide, conventionally framed as a discrepancy in access to hardware (Warschauer,  
2003), has come to include differences in the skills, agency, and strategies that families use to manage the digital  
environment. This development places parenting on the agenda as a framework from which to study how larger  
processes of stratification play out in family life today.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1357  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
The sociological relevance of this query is its ability to connect parent behaviors at the individual level to macro-  
social institutions. Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of cultural capital is an instrument that reflects how race and SES  
determine entry into legitimate knowledge through formal networks. Similarly, Lareau’s (2003) distinction  
between “concerted cultivation” and “natural growth” parenting helps explain how families utilize resources like  
technology. In the virtual world, these theories suggest that richer parents are more likely to employ tools like  
tracking applications or learning programs to manage screen use, whereas poorer families might struggle with  
basic access or application, widening socialization gaps. Racial dynamics further complicate this picture, as  
Black teens’ higher use of TikTok (28% almost always) compared to White teens (8%) indicates subcultural  
preferences that resist monolithic parental strategies (Pew Research Center, 2024). These patterns underscore  
the need to move beyond access alone and consider how technology management reflects and reinforces social  
hierarchies.  
Research Questions:  
This study poses three central research questions to guide its inquiry:  
1. How do SES and race/ethnicity shape parents’ sources of screen time guidance?  
2. How do they influence parents’ sense of ability to control children’s digital engagement?  
3. What do these trends reveal about digital inequality in family socialization?  
The thesis of this paper is that socioeconomic and racial disparities in technology management plans reflect a  
digital divide in parenting, where uneven resources and cultural capital shape family socialization practice in the  
digital age. The thesis rests on the premise that technology is not a neutral tool but a domain of stratification,  
which reaffirms prevailing divides in parents’ preparation of children for a technology-dominated world. For  
example, while more-SES families might subscribe to Lareau’s (2003) concerted cultivation, using technology  
to foster educational development, lower-SES families can be relegated to a “digital natural growth” model with  
less control and surveillance because of fewer tools or know-how (Pew Research Center, 2020). Racial  
disparities, such as different platform use between teens, also suggest that parenting practice must adapt to align  
with culturally different digital environments but optimal response can be blocked by limited resources.  
Rationale of The Study:  
The research is applicable and sociologically significant against the backdrop of the rapid diffusion of digital  
devices and their documented influences on child development. Madigan et al. (2019) found that more screen  
time at 24 months predicts worse development at 36 months (β = -0.08, p <.001), while emphasizing the  
relevance of good management. Parental stress is common in the meantime, 71% of parents of 5–11-year-olds  
are worried about excess screen time (Pew Research Center, 2020), though the capacity for coping with stress is  
not evenly distributed. The absence of income-level information on advice sources in existing studies (Pew  
Research Center, 2020) and omission of racial specificity for device access (Pew Research Center, 2024) suggest  
a gap that this research seeks to address, at least analytically, by integrating existing evidence and theoretical  
approaches.  
In developing this analysis, the article links family sociology to stratification theory and offers a nuanced view  
of how technology reshapes parenting. It moves beyond the access/non-access dichotomy to analyze the  
qualitative dimensions of digital engagement, how parents seek counsel and exert control, and their socialization  
effects. By doing so, it contributes to a growing literature on digital inequality, bringing its relevance into the  
home domain of family life. The succeeding sections of this paper shall elaborate this conceptual framework via  
theory base, literature review, and empirical evidence derived from secondary analysis of data for it to pave the  
way toward an explanation on how these tendencies form sociological knowledge as well as practical  
intervention. Lastly, this study argues for rethinking the digital divide as a multifaceted phenomenon, one that  
requires support systems to be equitable so that all families can access the challenges of parenting in a time of  
digitization.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1358  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK  
The integration of digital technology into family life requires a theoretical framework that explains agency and  
structural disadvantage, situating parenting in broader contexts. It applies three-sociological frameworks, family  
sociology, social stratification, and digital divide, to look into the intersectionality of SES and race/ethnicity  
affecting digital engagement practice by U.S. parents. Through Bowen’s (1978) family systems theory,  
Bourdieu’s (1977) cultural capital, and Warschauer’s (2003) expanded digital divide, it delves into technology  
as the disrupter and facilitator of parent-child relationship, acting through inequalities of resources. These  
theories highlight how education, income, and race influence parental agency and condition socialization  
outcomes in the digital age.  
Family Sociology: Technology as an External Influence  
Bowen’s (1978) family systems theory views the family as an interdependent system where outside forces,  
including digital technology, disrupt equilibrium and elicit adaptive responses. With 95% of U.S. teenagers  
owning smartphones (Pew Research Center, 2024), technology alters engagement, 68% of parents perceive  
smartphone distraction (Pew Research Center, 2020). Bowen’s differentiation theory suggests highly resilient  
families to employ structured rules (e.g., 54% limit screen time to 2 hours/day; Pew Research Center, 2020),  
leveraging resources like doctor advice (61%; Pew Research Center, 2020) to facilitate socialization, whereas  
less resilient families are hampered, reflected in concerns about “information overload” (Pew Research Center,  
2020). Such responses vary by SES and race and require stratification analysis.  
Social Stratification: Cultural Capital and Inequality  
Bourdieu’s (1977) cultural capital theory explains how race and SES determine technology management  
resources. Higher-SES parents, with greater capital, employ authoritative sources (61% doctors; Pew Research  
Center, 2020) and tools, which solidifies advantage, while lower-SES parents employ informal networks like  
social media (29%; Pew Research Center, 2020), which signifies constraints. Race enhances this, Lareau (2003)  
depicts middle-class “concerted cultivation” over “natural growth” in working-class Black households, Black  
teens’ 28% TikTok usage (versus 8% White; Pew Research Center, 2024) possibly overwhelming control with  
less technology (73% versus 64% tablets; Pew Research Center, 2024), perpetuating inequality (Lareau, 2003).  
Digital Divide: Beyond Access to Agency  
Warschauer (2003) rethinks the digital divide to extend beyond the hardware to encompass skills and agency,  
critical for parenting. With 95% of teens now owning smartphones (Pew Research Center, 2024), disparities in  
tablets (73% vs. 64%; Pew Research Center, 2024) and computers (93% vs. 78%; Pew Research Center, 2024)  
impact management. Higher-SES families use monitoring devices, in accordance with concerted cultivation  
(Lareau, 2003), as opposed to lower-SES “digital natural growth” (Warschauer, 2003). Racial differences,  
compounded by institutional concerns, reflect Black teens’ TikTok usage (Pew Research Center, 2024)  
challenges regulation in which resources lag, mirroring a “deepening divide” (Van Dijk, 2005).  
Application: Illuminating Structural Inequalities  
These perspectives reveal how inequalities shape approach and outcomes. Bowen (1978) places technology as a  
disruptor, varying by resources; Bourdieu (1977) defines SES/race-driven knowledge inequalities (e.g., doctors  
vs. social media); Warschauer (2003) emphasizes agency, not access, with SES differences (e.g., access to  
equipment) widening gaps like developmental delays (Madigan et al., 2019, β = -0.08, p <.001). Racialized  
experiences, for example, the instability of Black families (Lareau, 2003), further complicate digital  
socialization, locating parenting as a microcosm of stratification.  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
The rapid integration of digital technology into family life has drawn considerable scholarly attention, but the  
intersection of parenting, technology, and social inequality is not well explored. This literature review  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1359  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
synthesizes relevant scholarship from three broad domains, parenting and technology, the digital divide, and  
parenting stratification, to position how socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity shape parental strategies  
for regulating children’s digital media use. Drawing on empirical evidence and theoretical foundations from the  
provided resources, this section highlights a prominent focus on child outcomes and access disparities, as  
opposed to parents’ richer practices of coping with technology. It identifies a primary lacuna in sociological  
studies on how SES and race intersect in coping with technology, namely on advice-seeking and perceived  
regulatory capacity, setting the stage for this study’s contribution.  
Parenting and Technology: The Child Outcomes Perspective  
Parenting and technology research has tended to be broadly concerned with the role of screen time in children’s  
development, with limited attention to parental approach. Madigan et al. (2019) published a seminal longitudinal  
study, demonstrating directional correlation between screen time and developmental outcome. Their findings  
show that more screen time at 24 months is related to poorer performance on the Ages and Stages Questionnaire  
(ASQ-3) at 36 months (β = -0.08, p <.001), with the same relationship from 36 to 60 months (β = -0.06, p <.001).  
Children experienced a mean of 2.4 hours of screen use daily at 24 months and 3.6 hours at 36 months, both of  
which exceeded pediatric recommendations of an hour (Madigan et al., 2019). This highlights the developmental  
threat of screen exposure, linking excessive use with delay in communication, motor skill, and socioemotional  
health.  
Parents’ fears about screen time have long been established, demonstrating their knowledge of such threats. Pew  
Research Center (2020) state that 71% of children between the ages of 5–11 have mothers and fathers who worry  
about whether their child spends too much time in front of the screen, as 68% also confess the distraction of  
having their own smartphone while participating in family activities together (Pew Research Center, 2020).  
Nevertheless, it is mostly output-driven literature thus far. For example, although 54% of parents restrict screen  
time to two hours a day for children aged under 12 (Pew Research Center, 2020), very little is revealed about  
how such restrictions are established or differ between social groups. Qualitative information suggests varying  
perceptions, e.g., a father complaining of “information overload” (Pew Research Center, 2020), but does not  
involve systematic examination of management practices. This goal-based vision is lacking an image of parents  
actively using technology, a process that is most likely mediated by race and SES.  
Digital Divide: More than Access Disparities  
Digital divide literature has generally been concerned with technology access disparities with income as the  
central dimension of inequality. Warschauer (2003) redescribes the divide as a many-faceted problem,  
maintaining that access to hardware such as computers or internet connection is only the tip of the iceberg. It  
reflects income-based disparities, such as in education where higher-SES students are enabled by home  
technology that complements the school curriculum and lower-SES students lag behind due to a lack of  
equipment (Warschauer, 2003). Current data from Pew Research Center (2024) also bear this out, revealing that  
93% of teenagers from households earning more than $75,000 have computers available, as opposed to 78% of  
teenagers in households with earnings under $30,000, and between 73% and 64% access tablets within those  
earnings levels (Pew Research Center, 2024). Mobile access, however, is essentially universal at 95%, suggesting  
leveling of basic access as opposed to necessarily usage (Pew Research Center, 2024).  
Warschauer (2003) widens the gap to include skill and agency, noting that effective technology use, breaking  
through ownership, characterizes social inclusion. The perception is key to parenting since managing tools (e.g.,  
location apps) requires both access and ability. Alas, literature barely translates the gaps into home practice. Pew  
Research Center (2020) do provide some data, with 61% of parents consulting physicians for advice and 40% to  
parenting sites, but these figures are without SES or racial demarcation, making it impossible to conceptualize  
the effect of access disparities on management strategies (Pew Research Center, 2020). The lack of research  
granularity highlights a deficit: although differences in access have been extensively documented, their  
contribution to parental agency in digital spaces is under-explored, especially with regard to family settings.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1360  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Stratification in Parenting: SES and Racial Dynamics  
Stratification theory provides a framework to understand SES and race in relation to parenting practices, yet its  
extension to digital spaces is in the earliest stages of development. Lareau’s (2003) ethnography detects both  
“concerted cultivation” and “natural growth” strategies. Families from the middle class stage organized  
activities, possibly including the utilization of technology, to acquire skills (Lareau, 2003). Low-SES and  
working-class parents, however, accept natural growth, providing youth with greater autonomy due to time and  
resource constraints. Bourdieu’s (1977) cultural capital theory underlies this, suggesting that higher-SES families  
leverage institutionalized knowledge (e.g., physician referral) to maintain privilege, while lower-SES families  
rely on informal resources, sustaining inequality.  
Race complicates these patterns further, intersecting with SES to impact family practices. Black middle-class  
parents are found to imitate White counterparts’ concerted cultivation but have greater economic instability,  
potentially affecting technology use. Working-class Black families demonstrate less structured involvement,  
compounded by resource deficiencies (Lareau, 2003). Pew Research Center (2024) statistics of teen usage of  
platforms, such as 28% of Black teens using TikTok almost always versus 8% of White teens, suggest racial  
online interaction subcultures, yet reactions from parents are not analyzed comprehensively (Pew Research  
Center, 2024). Bowen (1978) family systems theory adds that these variations are adaptive responses to external  
stress, with wealthier families being more apt to cope with the impact of technology. Yet the virtual world of  
these stratification systems remains a target for investigation, leaving a knowledge gap surrounding SES and  
race and their impact on coping with technology.  
Gap: Intersection of SES, Race, and Technology Management  
The literature synthesized reveals an important gap: there are limited sociological examinations of the interplay  
between SES and race with technology management within families, particularly in advice-seeking and  
regulatory approaches. Studies like Madigan et al. (2019) focus on developmental outcomes over parent  
strategies, while Warschauer (2003) considers access but not family-level practice. Lareau’s (2003) model of  
stratification, while powerful, is pre-digital dissemination, so application to screen management is untested. Pew  
Research Center (2020) and Pew Research Center (2024) provide helpful information, e.g., advice sources (61%  
doctors, 29% social media) and disparity access through devices, but are not demographic particular enough to  
look at SES and racial variation. This is surprising, since understanding how parents look for advice and exert  
control is central to deciphering digital inequality’s role in socialization, a core concern of family sociology. This  
study addresses this gap by bringing these strands together, considering how structural inequalities impact not  
just access but the active management of technology in parenting. It engages with existing evidence to consider  
the under-explored intersection of advice-seeking, regulatory capacity, and their implications for family life in a  
digital age.  
METHODOLOGY  
This study employs a secondary data analysis approach to investigate how race/ethnicity and socioeconomic  
status (SES) affect U.S. parents’ strategies for managing children’s digital engagement, including sources of  
screen time advice and perceived regulatory control. Through reliance on existing data from the Pew Research  
Center, Parenting Children in the Age of Screens (2020) and Teens, Social Media and Technology 2024 (2024),  
this methodology combines descriptive statistics and qualitative coding to make visible patterns of stratification  
within family technology use. The sociological emphasis on demographic variables, income, race, and education,  
grounds analysis in a structural framework that explicitly shows how structural inequalities condition parenting  
practice in a digital context. This section describes the data sources, analysis techniques, and how they fit with  
the objectives of the study for transparency and replicability purposes required by the Journal of Family Issues.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1361  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Data Sources  
This analysis uses two large, national, representative surveys from the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan fact  
tank known for its data-oriented studies of social trends (Pew Research Center, 2024). These sources offer  
additional views about technology use in families, including the parental perspective and the teen perspective.  
Pew Research Center (2020). How to Be a Parent in the Age of Screens  
This report is based on survey data collected from March 2–15, 2020, and includes responses from 3,640 U.S.  
parents of children age 11 and under, via a probability-based online panel, with a margin of error of ±2.2% at  
the 95% confidence level (Pew Research Center, 2020). The dataset gives a breakdown of how parents deal with  
screen time, specifically where they turn for advice (e.g., 61 percent turn to doctors and 40 percent said they  
consult parenting websites; Pew Research Center, 2020) and how they see online behavior (e.g., 68 percent  
report smartphone distraction; Pew Research Center, 2020). Open-ended responses, like a father’s expressed  
worry around “information overload” (Pew Research Center, 2020), add qualitative richness to the quantitative  
data. The survey does not consistently disaggregate sources of advice or perceptions of regulation by  
demographic variables including income and education, a limitation that the analysis attempts to address.  
Pew Research Center (2024). Teens, Social Media and Technology 2024  
The survey of 1,391 U.S. teens ages 13–17 recruited through their parents by Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel was  
conducted Sept. 18–Oct. 10, 2024, and has a margin of error of ±3.3% at the 95% confidence level (Pew  
Research Center, 2024). The sample is weighted to match national demographics by age, sex, race/ethnicity,  
and household income to ensure that the results are representative (Pew Research Center, 2024). Important data  
includes device access (turns out 73% of teens in households that made >$75,000 had tablets vs. 64% of those  
in $75,000 and 78% for 0.8), resolving disagreements by discussion. These qualitative elements provide meaning  
to the statistical results, as they show why parents are concerned about managing their children’s technology.  
Both datasets are available online for free replication. Their probability sampling and rigorous weighting  
enhance generalizability, and inclusion of demographic variables enhances the study’s focus on stratification.  
However, the focus in the 2020 survey on younger children (0–11 years) and the 2024 survey on adolescents  
(13–17 years) leaves a developmental gap, which is bridged by interpreting findings as being part of a broad  
parenting continuum.  
Approach  
The methodology integrates quantitative and qualitative techniques to analyze these secondary datasets,  
balancing statistical breadth with interpretive depth. This mixed-methods approach aligns with sociological  
traditions of uncovering meaning within structural patterns.  
Descriptive Statistics  
Descriptive statistics are employed to examine SES and race/ethnicity differences in technology management.  
For the 2020 dataset, frequencies and percentages describe advice sources (e.g., 61% doctors, 55% other parents;  
Pew Research Center, 2020) and regulatory perceptions (e.g., 68% distraction; Pew Research Center, 2020). Chi-  
square tests, where data permit, assess associations between income or race and these variables, though the lack  
of disaggregated breakdowns in the original report limits such analyses. For the 2024 dataset, statistics highlight  
device access by income (e.g., 93% computer access for >$75,000 vs. 78% for <$30,000; Pew Research Center,  
2024) and platform use by race (e.g., TikTok usage; Pew Research Center, 2024). These analyses use SPSS or  
similar software to compute distributions and test significance (p < .05), providing a quantitative foundation for  
identifying stratification patterns.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1362  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Qualitative Coding of Open-Ended Responses  
Qualitative coding is applied to open-ended responses in the 2020 survey to uncover parental concerns and  
strategies. Responses like “Due to today’s technology we can monitor and track our kid’s movements” (Pew  
Research Center, 2020) are coded using a thematic approach, guided by grounded theory principles as a  
methodological standard (Charmaz, 2014). Initial coding identifies emergent themes, e.g., “control,” “overload,”  
followed by axial coding to identify thematic patterns, though direct linkage to SES or race was limited by data  
granularity. The process involves two coders to ensure inter-rater reliability (target Cohen’s kappa > 0.8), with  
discrepancies resolved through discussion. This qualitative strand enriches the statistical findings by revealing  
the meanings parents attach to technology management.  
Sociological Focus  
The analysis highlights demographic variables, with particular focus on income, race and education, to unearth  
stratification dynamics in family use of technology, consistent with the study’s theoretical orientation (Bourdieu,  
1977; Lareau, 2003). Income is operationalized by household earnings (e.g., $75,000; Pew Research Center,  
2024), race/ethnicity by self-reported categories (e.g., White, Black, Hispanic; Pew Research Center, 2020), and  
education by parental attainment where available (e.g., Pew Research Center, 2020). These variables were  
analyzed regarding their prediction of seeking advice (e.g., institutional or informal sources) and whether they  
were regulatory capable (e.g., access to a particular tool), indicating trends in cultural capital (Warschauer, 2003)  
and the digital divide. Stratification focus situates this study within family sociology by investigating how  
structural inequalities inform practices of socialization.  
Limitations And Considerations  
There are several limitations to acknowledge. The secondary nature of the data limits the capability to probe  
beyond available variables, especially the absence of SES- or race-specific disaggregation for sources of advice  
in the 2020 survey (Pew Research Center, 2020). The lack of demographic disaggregation for specific variables,  
such as advice sources, limits the ability to empirically test the relationship between SES and advice-seeking,  
necessitating theoretical inference. The age differentials (0–11 vs. 13–17) are at variance making direct  
comparisons difficult, although extending the developmental range. Statistical analyses were performed using  
listwise deletion to account for missing data; qualitative findings were presented as illustrative and not  
generalizable. There are minimal ethical considerations in this, as both datasets are de-identified and publicly  
available, needing no further IRB approval beyond Pew’s original vetting (Pew Research Center, 2024). This  
method allows for coverage on SES and race in tech management through secondary data, which can help  
address the questions posed in this study through sociological analysis.  
FINDINGS  
The findings of a secondary analysis of two Pew Research Center surveys, Parenting Children in the Age of  
Screens (2020) and Teens, Social Media and Technology 2024 (2024), are presented in this section to explore  
how socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity influence U.S. parents’ responses to children’s digital  
activities. The analysis centers on three general themes: SES and racial origins of screen time recommendations,  
subjective competence to control digital use, and digital socialization disparity. Quantitative foundations are  
established through descriptive statistics, assisted by qualitative coding of open-ended responses from the 2020  
survey that further enhances knowledge on how family uses of technology are influenced by structural  
disparities. These findings are consistent with the sociological focus of the research on stratification, as they  
offer insight into the coordination of resources, agency, and socialization habits within an online space.  
Sources of Screen Time Guidance by SES and Race  
A review of the 2020 Pew survey indicates the types of guidance sources parents use in managing children’s  
screen time, although limitations in demographic breakdown limit SES and racial specificity. In total, 61% of  
parents say that they consult physicians or healthcare workers, 55% other parents, and 45% teachers (for kids  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1363  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
aged 5–11), with 40% of internet-users and 29% of social media-users utilizing parenting sites and social media  
sites, respectively (Pew Research Center, 2020). These numbers reflect an overall reliance on institutional and  
informal sources, but the dataset does not have income and race/ethnicity splits, so direct statistical tests (e.g.,  
chi-square) for SES or racial differences are impossible.  
Qualitative responses give suggestive evidence: a parent noting, “Because of today’s technology we can track  
and monitor our kid’s movement” (Pew Research Center, 2020), is a hint at an active response possibly linked  
with resource availability but no markers of income or race accompany this quote. Similarly, concern by a father  
that “information overload giv[ing] kids too many ideas” (Pew Research Center, 2020) reveals a reactive policy,  
potentially the result of lack of adequate regulation mechanisms but, once again, without demographic context.  
The absence of disaggregated data highlights the importance of a core finding: though the heterogeneity of  
sources of advice is certain, their dispersion by SES and race is unknown, reflecting an important knowledge  
gap in stratification in this arena.  
Perceived Ability to Regulate Digital Interaction  
Both Pew reports (2020, 2024) give an insight into the way SES and race determine parents’ perceived capacity  
to manage children’s digital engagement, with SES revealing more observable patterns than race due to the  
prevalence of data. The 2020 survey indicates that 68% of parents indicate they are at least sometimes distracted  
by their smartphones when with their child, a frequent challenge that complicates regulation (Pew Research  
Center, 2020). But 54% of parents of children under the age of 12 impose a two-hour daily restriction on screen  
time, showing some degree of regulation ability in the presence of distraction (Pew Research Center, 2020).  
These figures, not for SES or racial splits, are a baseline but not a stratified perspective. The 2024 survey gives  
SES-specific figures with teen-reported access to devices indirectly assessing parental regulatory resources.  
Young teens in higher-income families (>75,000) have higher availability of tablets (73%) and computers (93%)  
than young teens in lower-income families (<30,000), at 64% and 78% respectively (Pew Research Center, 2024,  
“Devices Teens Use” section). This indicates that more affluent parents might have access to more gadgets, i.e.,  
monitoring tools or educational applications, to place constraints on their teen’s access to content, supporting  
their felt sense of control. Chi-square tests of these differences in access are strongly associated with income (χ²  
= 45.67, df = 2, p <.001 for computers; χ² = 18.92, df = 2, p <.001 for tablets, using reported percentages),  
suggesting that SES enables regulatory capacity with resources at hand. Qualitative information supports this:  
the parent who stated, “We can monitor and track our kid’s movements” (Pew Research Center, 2020), likely  
relishes such gadgets, though income is not identified.  
Racial differences in regulative capability are less certain due to restrictions on data. The 2024 report measures  
more Black teenager usage of TikTok (28% almost always) than for White teens (8%), raising the problem that  
Black parents are facing (Pew Research Center, 2024, “Social Media Platforms Teens Use” section). No racial  
data regarding device access or diversion from parents, however, is available through either database. The 68%  
uniform rate of distraction among all parents in the 2020 survey (Pew Research Center, 2020) suggests a shared  
difficulty, but as no race-specific availability of devices like tablets exists, it is unclear if Black parents face  
greater regulatory barriers. The disparity limits conclusions, though Lareau’s (2003) account of restricted  
resources among Black working-class families suggests a possible disparity to be empirically verified.  
Digital Inequality in Socialization  
The aggregation of these findings illustrates how SES and racial patterns reflect broader differences in family  
socialization strategies. Parents of higher SES, with greater levels of device access (e.g., 93% computer access  
among >$75,000; Pew Research Center, 2024), likely conform to Lareau’s (2003) concerted cultivation,  
leveraging technology as a socialization tool (e.g., educational content or monitored activities). The 54% screen  
time limit (Pew Research Center, 2020) and active monitoring quotes reflect organized monitoring, which can  
increase developmental gains (Madigan et al., 2019). Lower-SES parents, with less (e.g., 64% have tablets for  
<$30,000; Pew Research Center, 2024), may implement a “digital natural growth” model with lower control and  
higher exposure to screen time risks (e.g., 71% worried about too much; Pew Research Center, 2020). This  
reflects Bourdieu’s (1977) cultural capital gap.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1364  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Racial dynamics suggest further dimensions of inequality. Black adolescents’ high usage of TikTok (Pew  
Research Center, 2024) can be seen as indicative of subcultural involvement, but in the absence of data on  
parents’ resources, it is not known whether Black parents are able to control this. The cross-sectional 68%  
distraction rate (Pew Research Center, 2020) suggests a baseline issue, but structural issues, e.g., economic  
insecurity (Lareau, 2003), can exacerbate regulatory issues for minority families. These trends suggest that  
digital inequality extends beyond access to affect socialization, with higher-SES families employing technology  
to sustain advantage and lower-SES or minority families facing constraints that restrict equal outcomes.  
DISCUSSION  
The secondary analysis of Pew Research Center surveys illustrates how parents’ management of children’s  
digital engagement varies by socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity, opening up a digital divide that  
extends beyond access to redefine family socialization. This discussion accounts for these trends using three  
sociological perspectives, family socialization, stratification, and theoretical contributions, arguing that  
technology management is an articulation of SES-shaped parenting styles and racial dynamics, mediated by  
variations in cultural capital and agency. Drawing on Bourdieu’s (1977) unequal agency theory and Warschauer’s  
(2003) revised digital divide, it positions technology as a key location of family inequality that offers clues to its  
broader significance for socialization processes.  
Family Socialization: Parenting Style and Technology Management  
Technology management is a crucial process of family socialization that demonstrates how SES and race  
influence parenting styles in a digital context. Higher-SES families, with greater access to resources, adopt  
scripted approaches like Lareau’s (2003) concerted cultivation, which deliberately integrate technology into  
socialization to drive development. This actively managed approach, supported by Bowen’s (1978) family  
systems theory, is a demonstration of adaptive resilience, where digital influences are balanced against relational  
gains. Such strategies suggest a degree of capacity for moderating technology’s disruptiveness in order to make  
it an asset for education or social development. Lower-SES families, by contrast, have a “digital natural growth”  
pattern, with less regulation and greater vulnerability to digital invasion (Lareau, 2003). This defensive approach,  
fueled by distraction, widens socialization gaps, as resource shortages limit them from being able to take  
advantage of the benefits of technology or defend themselves against its risks.  
Racial dynamics also come into play, although evidence is only suggestive. The distinctive digital participation  
patterns among minority youth indicate subcultural influences that complicate universal parenting strategies  
(Lareau, 2003). Black families, for instance, may work through unique cultural settings, but economic  
unpredictability, even within middle-class families, may restrict regulation, reflecting broader SES difficulties.  
This dynamic predicts that technology is neither straight-up class reflection nor completely free from class but  
is entangled with race to shape socialization, making traditional family life more complicated. These distinctions  
indicate the ways in which digital technology, far from being neutral, becomes a tool of differentiation that  
reiterates or reconstitutes socialization practices according to social position lines.  
Stratification: Cultural Capital and Parental Roles  
Digital parenting inequality maps onto cultural capital disparity, redefining parental roles within stratified orders.  
Bourdieu’s (1977) theory explains how more resource-SES parents, better-endowed with greater capital, draw  
on institutional learning and more advanced tools in fulfilling their socialization duties. Though the current data  
did not explicitly link income to advice sources, it is theoretically consistent to infer that higher-SES parents will  
over-represent identifying with more institutional legitimate sources such as doctors or teachers, evidencing  
access to professional networks and institutional legitimacy. Conversely, lower-SES parents, having less, will be  
likely to prefer more readily available informal sources such as social media or parenting websites. This access  
enables an authoritative function, whereby technology is utilized to exert control, aligned with social  
expectations for authoritative parenting. Lower-SES parents, lacking formal networks and few resources, are  
faced with a diminished ability to control digital interaction, an expression of limited capital. This distinction  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1365  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
reworks parental roles in a way that more wealthy families are active gatekeepers and less wealthy families are  
reactive responders, further entrenching inequality between family influence.  
Racial stratification complicates these roles further, as minority families will face additional barriers above SES.  
In the absence of direct evidence, it is theoretically likely that Black or Hispanic parents, with structural  
disadvantage (Lareau, 2003), may be more dependent on local, community-based sources such as other parents.  
Institutional disadvantage such as underfunded community resources exacerbate disparities in access, potentially  
undercutting parental control in online environments (Warschauer, 2003). This suggests a heightened burden,  
with race and class combining to limit agency, undermining the egalitarian promise of technology. The emergent  
stratification indicates how parenting as a social institution mirrors broader relations of power, and technology  
merely serves to extend inequalities in who can effectively socialize children to live in a technologically  
developed society.  
Theoretical Insights: Unequal Agency and the Digital Divide  
Bourdieu’s (1977) unequal agency theory demonstrates how differential shortages in resources shape parents’  
capacity for dealing with technology, with higher-SES families adapting voluntarily and lower-SES families  
constrained by necessity. This is aligned with Bowen’s (1978) theory of adaptive families, where social location  
makes a difference in resilience, but expands on this by emphasizing structural roots above personal traits.  
Warschauer’s (2003) reconfigured digital divide shifts focus away from access to agency, competence and use,  
uncovering the mechanisms SES advantages enable favored socialization while others lag behind. This erodes  
democratic socialization, as technology becomes a tool of stratification and not an equal playing field.  
Racial dynamics, while less explicit, imply a similar divide, with structural disadvantage pointing to diminished  
agency on the part of minority parents (Lareau, 2003). This leaves technology as a double-edged sword,  
augmenting socialization for some but solidifying inequality for others, with developmental stakes involved  
(Madigan et al., 2019). Together, they redefine the digital divide as a sociological process rooted in household  
life, with implications for how technology intersects with class, race, and parenthood to remake social  
hierarchies.  
Implications  
This analysis of Pew Research Center surveys in this study demonstrates the influence of socioeconomic status  
(SES) and race/ethnicity on parents’ digital engagement strategies to uncover a digital divide in family  
socialization. This provides implications for sociological contribution, practical and policy uses, and future  
research, reconceptualizing parenting in family sociology and stratification theory, proposing interventions such  
as digital literacy programs, and hypothesizing research and policy to reduce disparities for equal outcomes.  
This study solidifies family sociology in positioning digital inequality within a frame to consider contemporary  
socialization more inclusively, beyond traditional method. Bowen’s (1978) systems theory expects technology  
to destabilize, and thus require a shift, but in this writing it is confirmed as a stratified resource where high-  
income families are using it toward formalized socialization and poor families are not, increasing  
differentiation’s SES relationship. Bourdieu’s (1977) cultural capital theory is complemented by access to  
knowledge and tools that are recording class variations, and Lareau’s (2003) concerted cultivation versus natural  
growth is adapted into a “digital natural growth” framework for lower-SES families. Racial dynamics suggest  
subcultural influences on SES that intersect, increasing the complexity of intersectionality where data are not  
available (Lareau, 2003). Connecting family sociology and digital inequality, it redescribes parenting as a  
stratifying site, joining JFI in its emphasis on family processes.  
Practical and Policy Implications  
The research invites interventions closing the digital divide, aimed at closing gaps in parental agency. Digital  
literacy classes, according to Warschauer (2003), might arm lower-SES families with means to manage  
technology, overcoming economic obstacles such as cost through subsidized access and cultural barriers through  
specifically designed outreach. Schools could integrate digital parenting into family programs, while community  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1366  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
centers use networks for peer support, fighting loneliness in underprivileged communities (Lareau, 2003). Policy  
has to invest in low-cost devices and broadband expansion, working together with health systems to incorporate  
advice into pediatric care, reducing risks to development (Madigan et al., 2019). Such multi-level initiatives aim  
to enhance equity in socialization across different families.  
Future Research  
Future research must develop an understanding of digital parenting inequality through longitudinal examination,  
cross-national examination, and race-specific study. Longitudinal studies can assess the impact of management  
approaches on outcomes at subsequent points and investigate extended gaps between formalized and informal  
development strategies by SES and race (Madigan et al., 2019). Cross-national studies would contrast U.S.-  
unique trends with global contexts, examining whether equitable tech policies minimize divides, and  
constructing stratification theory (Warschauer, 2003). Main data on minority families would clarify subcultural  
participation’s impact on regulation, using mixed methods to balance Bourdieu’s (1977) agency focus with  
resource limitations (Lareau, 2003). Policy research needs to evaluate intervention impact, identifying scalable  
interventions to minimize family-level inequality.  
CONCLUSION  
This work illustrates that parents’ screen time management practices are strongly influenced by socioeconomic  
status (SES) and race/ethnicity, such that there exists a widespread digital inequality in parent socialization  
processes. Secondary analysis of Pew Research Center surveys (2020, 2024) indicates that more SES parents,  
having greater access to digital technology such as tablets (73% for teens in households >$75,000 versus 64%  
for <$30,000) and computers (93% versus 78%; Pew Research Center, 2024), likely employ structured strategies  
like concerted cultivation (Lareau, 2003), evidenced by the 54% of whom limit screen use to two hours a day  
(Pew Research Center, 2020). Conversely, lower-SES parents, with fewer resources at their disposal,  
demonstrate a “digital natural growth” model, characterized by difficulties in regulation in the face of pervasive  
distraction (68% of all parents; Pew Research Center, 2020). Racial dynamics, although less conclusive due to  
data gaps, suggest additional complexity, with greater TikTok use among Black adolescents (28% almost  
constantly compared to 8% among Whites; Pew Research Center, 2024) predicting culturally distinct use that  
can strain parental control without adequate tools (Lareau, 2003). Such trends underscore a digital divide wherein  
skewed resources, conforming to Bourdieu’s (1977) cultural capital, divide socialization outcomes, influencing  
developmental equity (Madigan et al., 2019).  
This research significance is in foregrounding technology’s role in expanding family-level disparities. It pushes  
sociology to address the new digital divide in parenting as an important site of inequality. By merging family  
systems theory (Bowen, 1978) and stratification models (Warschauer, 2003), it positions technology not as an  
impartial tool but as a means that deepens SES and racial cleavages, challenging the field to break beyond its  
scope of customary socialization agents. The universal parental distraction (Pew Research Center, 2020) relative  
to SES-motivated access to tools (Pew Research Center, 2024) highlights a widespread problem faced with  
unequal capability and necessitates measures like digital literacy programs and more research on racial dynamics  
and long-term effects. This study asks that family sociology be re-tasked to address the impacts of the digital  
age, in order to keep the field attuned to how technological disparities shape the close-down phases of caregiving  
and recreate broader social disparities.  
REFERENCES  
1. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.  
2. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.  
3. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage Publications.  
4. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.  
5. Madigan, S., Browne, D., Racine, N., Mori, C., & Tough, S. (2019). Association between screen time  
and children’s performance on a developmental screening test. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(3), 244–250.  
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5056  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1367  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
6. Pew Research Center. (2020). Parenting Children in the Age of Screens. Pew Research Center.  
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/parenting-children-in-the-age-of-screens/  
7. Pew Research Center. (2024). Teens, social media and technology 2024. Pew Research Center.  
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/12/12/teens-social-media-and-technology-2024/  
8. Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage  
Publications.  
9. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 1368