Table_1_Measuring parents' regulatory media use for themselves and their children.docx

IntroductionParents often use media to manage their own or their child's emotions and behaviors, which is called “regulatory media use.” While the use of media to alleviate negative emotions and behaviors may be helpful in the short-term, there may be negative consequences in the long-term (e.g., for children's development of self-regulatory skills). Research remains limited, often relying on a single, binary question asking whether a parent ever uses media to calm their child. To enable future research on the effects of regulatory media use, this paper described initial scale development efforts for measuring parents' regulatory media use for themselves (parent scale) and their children (child scale).MethodsThese scales were tested in an aggregate sample of parents with children 1–10 years old, and with each of three subsamples representing parents of children in infancy (15-25 months old), early childhood (2–5 years old), and middle childhood (5–10 years old).ResultsOverall, the results provide initial support for the scales as a reliable tool for measuring regulatory media use. Both scales for parents and children had a stable three-factor structure that held within each of the three subsamples. Further, both scales had predictive validity, each predicting parenting stress and child screen time.DiscussionBuilding upon earlier studies that often focused on single items to measure regulatory purposes, the initial scales appear to capture a multifaceted range of regulatory uses of media. The comprehensive measurement of regulatory media use enabled by these scales can inform more effective and tailored media guidelines and interventions, and the potential applications and implications for future research are discussed.</p

Image_1_Measuring parents' regulatory media use for themselves and their children.JPEG

IntroductionParents often use media to manage their own or their child's emotions and behaviors, which is called “regulatory media use.” While the use of media to alleviate negative emotions and behaviors may be helpful in the short-term, there may be negative consequences in the long-term (e.g., for children's development of self-regulatory skills). Research remains limited, often relying on a single, binary question asking whether a parent ever uses media to calm their child. To enable future research on the effects of regulatory media use, this paper described initial scale development efforts for measuring parents' regulatory media use for themselves (parent scale) and their children (child scale).MethodsThese scales were tested in an aggregate sample of parents with children 1–10 years old, and with each of three subsamples representing parents of children in infancy (15-25 months old), early childhood (2–5 years old), and middle childhood (5–10 years old).ResultsOverall, the results provide initial support for the scales as a reliable tool for measuring regulatory media use. Both scales for parents and children had a stable three-factor structure that held within each of the three subsamples. Further, both scales had predictive validity, each predicting parenting stress and child screen time.DiscussionBuilding upon earlier studies that often focused on single items to measure regulatory purposes, the initial scales appear to capture a multifaceted range of regulatory uses of media. The comprehensive measurement of regulatory media use enabled by these scales can inform more effective and tailored media guidelines and interventions, and the potential applications and implications for future research are discussed.</p

Image_2_Measuring parents' regulatory media use for themselves and their children.JPEG

IntroductionParents often use media to manage their own or their child's emotions and behaviors, which is called “regulatory media use.” While the use of media to alleviate negative emotions and behaviors may be helpful in the short-term, there may be negative consequences in the long-term (e.g., for children's development of self-regulatory skills). Research remains limited, often relying on a single, binary question asking whether a parent ever uses media to calm their child. To enable future research on the effects of regulatory media use, this paper described initial scale development efforts for measuring parents' regulatory media use for themselves (parent scale) and their children (child scale).MethodsThese scales were tested in an aggregate sample of parents with children 1–10 years old, and with each of three subsamples representing parents of children in infancy (15-25 months old), early childhood (2–5 years old), and middle childhood (5–10 years old).ResultsOverall, the results provide initial support for the scales as a reliable tool for measuring regulatory media use. Both scales for parents and children had a stable three-factor structure that held within each of the three subsamples. Further, both scales had predictive validity, each predicting parenting stress and child screen time.DiscussionBuilding upon earlier studies that often focused on single items to measure regulatory purposes, the initial scales appear to capture a multifaceted range of regulatory uses of media. The comprehensive measurement of regulatory media use enabled by these scales can inform more effective and tailored media guidelines and interventions, and the potential applications and implications for future research are discussed.</p

Criticality of the Geological Copper Family

Because modern technology depends on reliable supplies of a wide variety of materials, and because of increasing concern about those supplies, a comprehensive methodology has been created to quantify the degree of criticality of the metals of the periodic table. In this paper, we apply this methodology to the elements of the geological copper family: Cu, As, Se, Ag, Te, and Au. These elements are technologically important, but show a substantial variation in different factors relating to their supply risk, vulnerability to supply restriction, and environmental implications. Assessments are made on corporate, national, and global levels for year 2008. Evaluations of each of the multiple indicators are presented and the results plotted in “criticality space”, together with Monte Carlo simulation-derived “uncertainty cloud” estimates for each of the aggregated evaluations. For supply risk over both the medium term and long term, As is the highest risk of the six metals, with Se and Ag nearly as high. Gold has the most severe environmental implications ranking. Vulnerability to supply restriction (VSR) at the corporate level for an invented solar cell manufacturing firm shows Se, Te, and Cu as approximately equal, Cu has the highest VSR at the national level, and Cu and Au have the highest VSRs at the global level. Criticality vector magnitudes are greatest at the global level for As (and then Au and Ag) and at the national level for As and Au; at the corporate level, Se is highest with Te and Cu lower. An extension of this work, now in progress, will provide criticality estimates for several different development scenarios for the period 2010–2050

Methodology of Metal Criticality Determination

A comprehensive methodology has been created to quantify the degree of criticality of the metals of the periodic table. In this paper, we present and discuss the methodology, which is comprised of three dimensions: supply risk, environmental implications, and vulnerability to supply restriction. Supply risk differs with the time scale (medium or long), and at its more complex involves several components, themselves composed of a number of distinct indicators drawn from readily available peer-reviewed indexes and public information. Vulnerability to supply restriction differs with the organizational level (i.e., global, national, and corporate). The criticality methodology, an enhancement of a United States National Research Council template, is designed to help corporate, national, and global stakeholders conduct risk evaluation and to inform resource utilization and strategic decision-making. Although we believe our methodological choices lead to the most robust results, the framework has been constructed to permit flexibility by the user. Specific indicators can be deleted or added as desired and weighted as the user deems appropriate. The value of each indicator will evolve over time, and our future research will focus on this evolution. The methodology has proven to be sufficiently robust as to make it applicable across the entire spectrum of metals and organizational levels and provides a structural approach that reflects the multifaceted factors influencing the availability of metals in the 21st century