Sources of support and mediation online for 9

Abstract

The emerging adolescents of today are required to navigate challenges and risks quite different from those faced by their parents and teachers. The usual trials of adolescence have been magnified and transformed, in large part due to the development of information and communication technology, and the rapid rise of online social networking. The rate of change can leave its most ardent followers struggling to keep up, and this can be even harder for those not immersed in its effects. This calls into question how effective parents and teachers can be in taking a supportive role in developing self-efficacy among their children and students when it comes to online challenges. Adult/parent mediation is an important factor in mitigating the level of risk and harm a child experience online. This research gives voice to 9–12-year-old children’s experience of being online, and the role important adults in their lives play in this experience.

Keywords

Adolescents children parental mediation online risk socioeconomic status

Aim of research

The purpose of this study was to research the online practices of 9–12-year-old children in New Zealand. Key questions driving this research are ‘what are the main sources of mediation and support for dealing with online challenges’ and ‘what kind of help do children find most useful’?

Parental involvement in their children’s online life is a key factor in the extent to which children experience risk and harm, and also how they manage the challenges they encounter online. The literature around parental mediation is explored, looking in particular at the interplay of parental mediation with age and gender, the effectiveness of various styles of parental mediation, and how children respond to parental mediation.

As so much free-time internet use occurs at home, the children were asked about rules and guidelines given by their parents, and the level at which they are supervised and monitored.

Of particular interest was also their skills and experiences regarding the content, contact and conduct risks they encounter online (Livingstone, 2009), the various ways they respond to these, and the personal support and learning they receive at school. The findings were analysed using a qualitative methodology based on a critical realist epistemology that included elements of grounded theory. This research sought to discover how pre-teenage children are using the internet in New Zealand, and the implications this has for New Zealand schools.

Cyberbullying, the disclosure of personal information online, potential interactions with predators and targeting of children by commercial entities are all issues of high public interest, as revealed by the current media attention given to it. The Privacy Commissioner’s 2010 report ‘Individual Privacy and Personal Information’ shows how much concern there is in the community about this issue, finding that the information children put on the internet about themselves as the issue that caused most concern among respondents, as it also did in 2008 (McDonald-Brown, 2011). A recent Australian study revealed that nearly a third of children are ‘bothered’¹ by experiences online, usually relating to content and cyberbullying (Green et al., 2011).

The need for research

The pre-teenage years are a period when the amount of time spent online begins to increase sharply. Rideout et al. (2010), in their survey of 2002 children aged 8–18, noted that preteens and early adolescents had notably high levels of media consumption compared with other ages, with a big jump from the age of 11 (this includes television viewing). Green et al.’s (2011) Australian study found that while only 29% of 9–10 year olds have a social networking site profile, this jumps up to 59% for 11–12 year olds. They conclude that this shows that it is the transition to high school, which is the trigger for this increase in use of social networking sites. In a New Zealand context, the 11–12 age group would represent entry into intermediate school. It is important to establish whether the transition to intermediate school from primary school also triggers such an increase here in New Zealand.

Pre-teenage children face different challenges online and differ from their teenage counterparts in how they respond to online risks. Livingstone et al. (2011a) found that although younger children (in their study aged 9+) were less likely to encounter some of the risks more common to teens, such as sexual images online, bullying and meetings with strangers, they were more disturbed and upset by the experience. Furthermore, because online skills increase with age, younger children had fewer skills at their disposal with which to manage risk successfully than older children.

This increase in usage in the pre-teen years is suggestive of Prensky’s (2001) notion of ‘digital natives’. The concept has come in for considerable criticism by those who have examined this issue in research (Bennett and Maton, 2010; Bennett et al., 2008; Hargittai, 2010; Helsper and Eynon, 2010; Livingstone, 2009; Nansen et al., 2012; Zimic, 2009) in order to determine whether indeed young people ‘are all “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games and the internet’ (Prensky, 2001: 1). Critics claim that the ‘digital native’ discourse over-estimates the online capabilities of children and young people and places too much emphasis on generational differences, to the neglect of other key variables, such as socioeconomic status, race and gender.

Bennett et al. (2008) warn that generalising about a particular demographic in this way may result in the neglect of those whose skills don’t match the stereotype, and may cause other factors (such as socioeconomic status) to be overlooked. More recently Bennett and Maton (2010) have added that the differences in online competence found among young people also derive in part from differing levels of access and opportunity. For this reason, research cannot be based on unsupported assumptions about this demographic, but rather it should be grounded in the variety of experiences of children. Livingstone et al. (2011a) also claim that thinking of children as digital natives can stop us from seeing the ways in which they need support online. Nansen et al. (2012) agree, stating that ‘mistaking children’s enthusiastic or visible skills using digital technologies for a more comprehensive literacy can lead to a certain complacency that neglects differing online experiences, knowledge and competencies.’ (p. 12)

Hargittai’s (2010) paper on young adults’ internet skills also criticises the ‘digital native’ concept, and claims that it can prevent us from seeing genuine inequalities of access and use within the demographic. Young people are not universally tech-savvy, and even those who are ‘highly wired’ (p. 109) exhibit differences influenced by other factors, such as socioeconomic status, gender and race.

Helsper and Eynon (2010), in a face-to-face interview based study of 2350 young people aged 14 and above found that generation is but one of many contributing to factors to online competence, alongside breadth of use, experience, gender and education. Finding no established definition of a ‘digital native’, Helsper and Eynon defined it thus,

…someone who multi-tasks, has access to a range of new technologies, is confident in their use of technologies, uses the Internet as a first port of call for information and… uses the Internet for learning as well as other activities. (p. 506)

They also make the distinction between Prensky’s first generation of ‘digital natives’ (those born after 1980) and a new second generation born after 1990, and growing up in a more user focused online world. They conclude that breadth of experience, rather than just generation, was the most important factor in deciding digital native-ness, and point to the importance of education and gender as well. While the current research concerns what may in the future be called the third generation of digital natives, born after 2000, the themes emerging from Helsper and Eynon’s (2010) research are relevant nevertheless, and add demand for fresh research into the next generation growing up with technology.

Risk and harm

With so much research and media talk of risk, it is also important to recognise the distinction between risk and harm, as one does not necessarily follow the other (Livingstone, 2010). Indeed, harm is rather rare and far from inevitable (Livingstone et al., 2011a). The elimination of risk itself is not a desirable outcome (Madge and Barker, 2007), as risk-management is an essential developmental skill. What is important is to recognise where harm results from risk, and to identify whether there are any particular characteristics of those most likely to come to harm. This is not always easy to do.

Livingstone et al. (2011b) and Livingstone (2010) provide a useful analogy in comparing online risk with road safety risk. A child riding a bicycle has the potential to be among the small percentage who come to harm (of varying degrees), with protective factors (such as environmental factors and degree of road safety training) and risk factors (for example, careless drivers, lack of supervision) affecting the likelihood of harm. Livingstone et al. stress the importance of taking a balanced response, as banning cycling outright would have a significant impact on the opportunities of children to become adept at road safety and develop resilience. In the same way, in considering online activities, a range of protective and risk factors will come into play, and a certain percentage of children will inevitably come to harm. Yet rather than taking a blanket approach (severely limiting online opportunities to protect children), research must closely examine how different children are engaging with the online context and then targeting those most at risk.

Another key difference between the road safety analogy and the experience of online risk, is that whereas harm on the road can be measured in terms of, at worst, deaths or hospitalisations, the measurement of harm online is often less tangible and affects different people in different ways. As Livingstone (2010) says,

… on the internet, we do not know how many children come to harm. There are no accident figures. What we can measure, more or less, is how many children report crossing a road with cars on it. We don’t know how many cars or how fast they are driving, and even more important, we don’t know if an accident resulted. In the case of online pornography, for example, we have over a decade of surveys asking children if they have seen it but not, generally, exactly what they saw - and nor whether it harmed them. (p. 4)

Most studies, including Livingstone et al. (2011b) and Green et al. (2011), rely on self-reported measures of harm, whether the child was upset or bothered by an online experience. EU Kids Online (Livingstone et al. 2011b) found that those who were high online users and had higher self-efficacy also experienced the most risk. Those who used the internet less (and younger children are included in this group) tended to have lower self-efficacy, and although experiencing less risk (by virtue of reduced experience online), these children were more likely to report being upset by the online risks they encountered.

It is also important to recognise that many children and young people see risk as being potentially rewarding (Livingstone and Helsper, 2009). Indeed, the word ‘risk’ implies that an activity could result in harm, but may well produce a desirable benefit.

Parental mediation

If there is one consistent theme in the literature, it is the importance of parental involvement in their children’s use of the internet (Clarke, 2009; Garmendia et al., 2012; Green et al., 2011; Livingstone et al., 2011a; McQuade and Sampat, 2008; Nansen et al., 2012). Although children are spending increasing amounts of time at school using the internet, children still spend large amounts of their free-choice time on the internet at home (Mascheroni et al., 2012). Therefore, parents play an integral role in the development of children’s digital citizenship skills, and schools must work in partnership with parents in an effort to increase children’s self-efficacy (McDonald-Brown, 2011).

Some studies have shown the positive effect of parental supervision in reducing risk-taking behaviour (Berson et al., 2008; Steeves and Webster, 2008; Wirth et al., 2009). At the same time, the literature reports that an important barrier to more effective supervision and mediation is the lack of awareness and skills of the parents and caregivers themselves (Berson and Berson, 2006; De Souza and Dick, 2008; Hinduja and Patchin, 2008; Ofcom, 2008; Sharples et al., 2009; Wirth et al., 2009; Youn, 2005). This underscores the importance of schools working with not only children but their parents as well. This lack of parental awareness may also lead to an over-estimation of the risks and an under-appreciation of the benefits of internet use. Clarke (2009) agrees,

Parents may be trying to protect their children with good intentions by not allowing early adolescents to access SNS, but their inability to understand not only the technology but also what children might gain from using digital social networking is as unfortunate and potentially harmful as not understanding what digital technology is now able to offer. (p. 82)

Livingstone et al. (2011a) found a relationship between high parental use of the internet and high child use of the internet, and that parents who used the internet a lot were also more involved in their children’s internet use, and in more ways. Green et al. (2011) found that parental high use correlated with socio-economic status, with parental internet use dropping off as socio-economic status declined. This highlights the important role of the school for those children whose parents are not high users (for socioeconomic or other reasons), and are therefore not able to offer their children the same level of involvement.

Age, gender and mediation

There are also some differences for children’s age and gender, in the way that parents mediate their children’s internet use. Green et al. (2011) report that teenage boys are more likely to have rules relating to information disclosure, but younger girls experience more rules than younger boys. In general, they report that the younger the user, the more parental mediation was provided. Dowell et al. (2009), in their study of middle school students, noted that parental disciplinary responses were more often for pornography in the case of boys, and for being online too much in the case of girls. Garmendia et al. (2012) found that boys were monitored more than girls, and that older children were monitored less than younger children. They also found a gender difference in who was doing the monitoring. Reporting on the EU Kids Online project in Europe, they found that mothers are more likely to engage in mediation than fathers.

The literature also refers to different styles of parental mediation, including active mediation (parent present and involved), restrictive mediation (using rules to restrict usage), monitoring (for example, checking internet history) and technical mediation (using software to filter or monitor) (Green et al., 2011). Nansen et al. (2012) found restrictive mediation to be more common amongst the parents of primary school aged children than active mediation. This kind of mediation was perceived by these parents as being more effective in protecting their children from the kind of risks popularised in the media, such as ‘unwanted contact, explicit content, and certain forms of child conduct (overuse)’ (p. 6). Garmendia et al. (2012) comment that analysing which mediation type is most effective is difficult due to the number of variables involved. However, they conclude that children who report at least one type of parental mediation are less likely to experience risk. Restrictive mediation was found to be the most inhibiting of online opportunities, and Garmendia et al. recommend that this style only be used in exceptional circumstances.

Livingstone et al. (2011a) note that changes in the way children use the internet have resulted in changes in mediation. For example, because internet use has become more privatised and mobile, there is now less emphasis on supervision (which is difficult if users are spread throughout the house), and the received wisdom of placing the family computer in a public space such as the living room is now out of date for the same reasons. Instead, there is a recommendation for better communication with children about their online activities. Green et al. (2011) show that in Australia, communication is the most common form of mediation, used by 67% of parents. Monitoring proved to be least popular form of mediation, as it was in the EU Kids Online study as well (Livingstone et al., 2011a).

This is complicated further by the developmental stages that pre-teenage children are experiencing, including the desire to have increasing privacy from their parents. Clarke (2009) notes that this natural separation process begins to take place around early adolescence. Advice that parents merely check their children’s internet usage may not be overly helpful in view of these developmental changes, as they are tightly bound to issues such perceived levels of trust.

Since children are concerned to maintain privacy from their parents, this challenges simplistic advice that parents should ‘check up’ on their children’s social networking activities, with or without their permission. (Livingstone and Brake, 2010: 80)

Nevertheless, the EU Kids Online project (Livingstone et al., 2011a) found that children were generally positive about parental involvement in their internet use, although about a third still ignored their parents’ advice. Children in Australia also appear to be generally positive about parental mediation, with nearly three quarters of parents and children finding it helpful to some extent (Green et al., 2011). Green et al. also showed that 75% of children pay attention to parental mediation, with the remainder ignoring their parents a little, and 5% ignoring them a lot. Nearly a third of 9–10 year olds wanted their parents to take more of an interest in their online activities.

Cynicism that what parents do is not valued, or that children will evade parental guidance, is ungrounded: the evidence reveals a more positive picture in which children welcome parental interest and mediating activities while parents express confidence in their children’s abilities. (Livingstone et al., 2011b: 35)

The current research sought to find out whether or not this openness to parental involvement is also found among New Zealand children.

Perhaps one of the most significant findings in the literature (reported also in McDonald-Brown, 2011) was that online social networking uses are generally being conducted responsibly by young people, and consistently with how they conduct their offline behaviour. Yet the small percentage of those who do take privacy risks are of sufficient numerical size (in proportion to the millions of social network users) to justify considerable concern from researchers, educators and parents (De Souza and Dick, 2008; Hinduja and Patchin, 2008; Williams and Merten, 2008).

It should also be noted that social factors were also evident regarding the level of privacy concern. For some young people the benefits of sacrificing some privacy exceeded the risks (Boyd, 2008; de Souza and Dick, 2008; Ofcom, 2008; Steeves and Webster, 2008). The entire purpose of social networking, for some young people, was self-promotion, and so notions of limiting this were counterintuitive (Ofcom, 2008). De Souza and Dick (2008) found that young people who were more concerned about their privacy in their offline lives also brought this to their internet experience, and Youn (2005) found that the most important factor in privacy concern was perceived vulnerability to risk.

However, there appear to be particular risk-taking behaviours that do increase the vulnerability of children and increase their likelihood of inclusion in the small percentage of ‘at-risk’ children that do experience victimisation. The best use of resources would see these children targeted by educators in an effort to both increase awareness of the issues and impart practical skills and strategies so children can protect themselves. This requires further research to more accurately define the characteristics and behaviours of this group (Livingstone and Brake, 2010; Ofcom, 2008), and the degree to which existing overseas research is relevant to the New Zealand. The current study suggests characteristics of an ‘at-risk demographic’ in a New Zealand context.

Methodology

Bennet and Maton (2010) state the importance of qualitative methods in investigating the demographic differences in internet practices and access, and in particular what these mean for the children concerned. Qualitative research helps to examine the perceptions and beliefs that children themselves hold regarding online risk (De Souza and Dick, 2008; Hinduja and Patchin, 2008; Steeves and Webster, 2008; Youn, 2009), and focus groups provide a practical context in which these perceptions and beliefs can be explored.

Ethical approval

Owing to the age of the participants in this study (ages 9–12), it was important that the ethical dimension of the research was fully explored, and that the research design fell within the parameters set by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (UAHPEC). This research was approved by the UAHPEC. The issues covered were outlined in the Participant Information Sheets for principals, parents and the children themselves. Consent Forms were also given to all participating schools, parents and children, highlighting ethical issues and giving an assurance that these had been fully considered. These forms were given to both those involved in the pilot study and the main study and interviews were not conducted until these had been signed and returned to the researcher.

Interview questions

The questions used in the focus group interviews were adapted from a number of sources (Duddy et al., 2002; European Commission, 2007; Fenaughty, 2010; Livingstone et al., 2011a). The European Commission’s qualitative survey of 9–14 year olds in 29 European countries (‘Safer Internet for Children’) used a discussion guide for focus groups, and the current study used this guide as its primary organising structure. The schedule was structured into the following themes:

internet uses;

problems and risks online;

responses to specific challenges online;

responses/precautions/learning.

The data collected during the focus groups were analysed using elements of grounded theory (e.g. codes, conceptual categories, memos). Once the interviews were transcribed they were imported into qualitative research software Dedoose (2012) so that they could be coded. The first step was to enter the demographic information of each focus group as a Descriptor field within Dedoose. This enabled the coded excerpts from the imported transcripts to be linked to the demographic characteristics of the participants, which is an important step in being able to analyse the data and identify emerging themes as they relate to particular age groups, gender and socioeconomic status (as indicated by the schools’ decile ranking).

Pilot study

The purpose of the pilot study was to test the suitability and comprehensibility of the focus group questions for this age group (Wiersma, 1995), to test whether certain questions were redundant (covering information already discussed in another section), and to test whether the questions asked elicited the information sought.

Having gained ethical approval from the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee, the researcher approached the principals of two schools, inviting their participation in a pilot study and explaining the purpose and importance of the research, the relevance to their own internet safety strategy, and how the research would benefit the wider educational, research and policy communities. The first focus group included Year 5–6 girls, and the second Year 7–8 boys. This enabled the interview questions to be trialled with a demographic range. Participants in the pilot study needed to provide their own, and their parents’ consent.

The pilot focus groups raised a number of issues relevant to the current paper.

The prevailing use of mobile devices in multiple locations to access the internet.

Almost all free time online appeared to be used on gaming sites.

Cyberbullying was not considered a major concern for their age group, but anticipated encountering this in future.

Parents were the most important support people, alongside siblings. Many Year 7–8 s claimed to know more about the internet than their parents.

All participants desired more privacy from their parents.

Parental trust was highly valued.

Participants displayed an awareness of what personal information should not be shared online.

Mobile phone usage was very low.

Sample

The schools used in this study (including the pilot study) were all drawn from the wider Bay of Plenty area in the North Island of New Zealand. The minimum age for participation was 9 years old, the maximum 12 years old. Altogether, 39 children were interviewed, between June and August, 2012. Although this is a qualitative study with a relatively small sample size (N = 39), a degree of demographic variety was sought. For the purposes of considering socio-economic status as a factor influencing the research results, the schools were drawn from different decile ratings (i.e. 1–3, 4–6, 7–0), although it must be recognised that this is a rather blunt and limited measure. (The New Zealand Government allocates funding to schools based on their socioeconomic decile rating, Decile 1 being the lowest, Decile 10 the highest.) There were also a mix of urban, suburban and rural schools, and a variety of school types (contributing, full-primary and intermediate). All of the participating schools were co-educational.

Results and discussion

Sources of support

Student participants mentioned that adult support was also sometimes drawn upon to check out websites before signing up to make sure they were suitable. No participant claimed to read the lengthy ‘Terms of Use’ agreements that most websites require users to accept before use, although some asked their parents to read them.

Parents

Being children, the impact of the participants’ parents on their practice cannot be understated. Aside from opportunities for internet use at school, their parents provide the hardware, the connection and the parameters within which children use the internet out of school. The focus group interviewees indicated a range of parental approaches, from highly involved (including supervision, monitoring, setting of rules and participating in online activities with their child) to barely involved – sometimes on account of the parent’s own lack of confidence and skill online. The parents themselves would need to be interviewed in order to determine the level of congruence with their children’s comments, and also to gain a more accurate understanding of the motives behind their mediation decisions. However, the undertaking and analysis of interviews with a representative sample of parents was beyond the scope of this study, and an area for possible future research. Nevertheless, the participants’ comments about their parents’ involvement can indicate predominant themes and provide a basis for further investigation in the future.

The participants were asked if their parents had set any rules for their internet use. Most reported the existence of rules, although some claimed not to have any. When pressed, these participants usually acknowledged that there were implicit rules guiding their use, and this was often accompanied by a perceived level of trust placed in the child by the parent, a trust that the child valued and was reluctant to lose. Brad (10), when asked if he was banned from using particular websites claimed to have no such rules, saying ‘I guess they just trust me enough to know that I won’t go on them.’ Likewise, Martin (10) could not specify particular rules, but had a sense of what he could and could not do, ‘I don’t really know the rules, but I know them when I’m not allowed to do it.’

When coding the interview transcripts, the rules that participants said their parents had set could be categorised according to the purpose of the rule and what had motivated it. Some rules were set for practical reasons (such as limiting the bandwidth used by their child and the associated financial costs – particularly commented on by rural participants). Other rules were motivated by keeping their child’s online life in balance with their other responsibilities. These rules included limiting the time spent online and requiring homework to be completed before using the internet for leisure.

Participants also reported rules to protect the security of the device(s) from threats such as viruses and hackers, as well as rules to minimise their child’s exposure to various kinds of risk. Such rules included banning particular websites or kinds of websites, specifying where the child could use the internet (to facilitate easier supervision), preventing their child’s personal information falling into the wrong hands, and limiting who they were allowed to have contact with online.

Analysis showed that the most common type of rule (based on the number of comments coded as such) concerned the prohibition of content and/or websites. Websites such as Facebook (which requires users to be 13 or older) and Twitter were mentioned a lot, as was the video sharing website YouTube, for fear that their child would encounter objectionable content. Also reported as prohibited by many parents were websites containing content that participants described as ‘inappropriate’ (sexual/violent content).

The second most common rule type aimed at limiting the risk of downloading a virus, particularly if the child was using a shared family computer or a parent’s work computer. Camille’s (11) response was typical of many comments:

Well my mum and dad have this thing where if anything pops up, like saying ‘You’re the 100th winner, click here to win a free iPad’ we’re not allowed to click on that.

Sometimes this kind of rule was associated with the banning of particular websites which the parents judged to be of high risk.

The third most commented on rule was time limitations imposed by parents. This included the need to complete homework and other responsibilities before having free time online. In a few cases these rules were brought about by overuse by the child, and parental fear that their child might become addicted or lose too much sleep because of overuse. Rachel (12) talked about her change in internet habits due to a period of overuse,

I used to go on it heaps, but I had to have a break because I went on it, like, too much, and I stayed up late as playing games! ‘Til like, one o’clock in the morning.

Sleep deprivation due to internet use is an issue in research literature (Garmy et al., 2012) that can have serious consequences for a child’s health, as well as their ability to concentrate and participate at school.

Although many participants talked about their rules at home, very few reported the existence of consequences in place if they broke their parents’ rules. This may be because they were not specifically asked about consequences. Nevertheless, consequences do not seem very high in the participants’ consciousness. Most participants, when asked if they were happy with the rules their parents set agreed that they were and that they believed their parents’ rules were entirely reasonable. Paula (10) spoke of peers who had no rules, and this made her appreciate the boundaries her own parents had put in place:

I’ve seen some other people that don’t have rules and it just kind of gets crazy, like every week they’ll run out of bandwidth just because they’ve been going on YouTube and watch like, 20 videos and play weird games.

Only one participant (10-year-old male) reported deliberately ignoring his parents’ rules (regarding YouTube usage). This being the case, incidents of breaking rules could be relatively rare. When consequences were mentioned by a participant, the consequence always involved taking away the child’s computer or banning their use of it for a certain time, as the following extract exemplifies:

Tim: Like, my mum knows my password for my Facebook and so does my dad so if I do anything wrong they take my account off me for a couple of weeks.

Hugh: Can they shut it down or something?

Tim: No, they just don’t let me go on my computers or my iPod.

(Focus Group 7, Year 7/8 male: Jake, 11; Phillip, 12; Hunter, 12; Tim, 12; Hugh, 12)

Safety-focused rules were also talked about by participants. These largely involved rules about what personal information they could share and who they could contact. When asked what they believed the reasons for these rules were, some participants suggested parental fear as a motivation. In Bronwyn’s case, it appeared that her own fear was closely related to her parents’ fear:

We’re not really allowed to go on Facebook because my mum and dad don’t want strangers looking at me and I have a fear of strangers, I don’t like strangers. I’m scared of strangers, freaky guys who look at you…

Other parental fears (as related by participants) were based on the risk of being cyberbullied (and not talking about it) and the risk of damaging the computer, as the girls in Focus Group 1 discussed:

CM: So what do you think their biggest fear is, like, why do they think they need to supervise? What’s their worst-case scenario?

Tracey: Risk of us being bullied and then us not really being comfortable and wanting to tell them. And sort of being scared of telling them and that.

Nina: It depends, if it’s their computer that you’re actually on, so they’re going to be actually worried if you actually do anything, I mean, it’s going to go onto their computer.

CM: Like put a virus on their computer?

Tracey: Yeah if you put a virus on the computer everyone is going to say, ‘Oh well you were the last on it, you must have done it’, sort of thing, but I guess they wouldn’t you know ban us from the computer if we accidentally done it.

(Focus Group 1, Year 7/8 female: Shania, 12; Nina, 11; Emma, 11; Jennifer, 11; Tracey, 11)

A number of demographic distinctions arose regarding the kinds of rules experienced by participants. Boys were responsible for most of the comments concerning rules about website age limits, banned content and time spent online, confirming Garmendia et al.’s (2012) finding that boys were more actively monitored than girls. Year 5–6 participants accounted for 80% of comments about contact risk rules and 75% of comments coded ‘Parental virus protection rules’. No comments were coded ‘Parental age restriction rules’ for the focus groups from the lowest decile school.

Parental mediation involved more than just the setting of rules. Participants also talked about how they are supervised and monitored, how they balance their increasing desire for privacy from their parents with their continued need for support, and how openly they communicate with their parents about their online experiences.

Parental supervision took a number of forms, according to the comments made in focus groups. Many participants claimed to use the internet at home in an open area (such as the living room) and some were required to do so. Internet use in a shared living area helps facilitate supervision, and also provides support by proximity if the child needs it. Steven (11), rather than resenting supervision, was reassured by the support his parents could provide, ‘Yeah, cos she knows what she’s doing, she’s just trying to keep me safe.’

For some participants, the supervision was more intensive, involving the checking of internet histories and the setting up of parental restrictions on their child’s devices. Girls in particular reported that their parents regularly checked their internet history, but none indicated that they were bothered by this. Phillip (12) did not talk about his internet history being checked, but did report a high level of restrictive settings being put on his device:

Yeah I think it’s half my dad’s fault as well because he’s this big computer geek, so he’s put these restrictions on me and my brother’s iPods that we can only access the internet between 4 and 7 at night,… which is quite handy, otherwise we’d spend most of our day on it.

As the above comment shows, Phillip was able to appreciate the reasons behind his parents’ decisions. However, Duerager and Livingstone (2012) note that this kind of technical restrictive mediation was not shown to reduce children’s experience of online risk.

Privacy from parents

Shania (12), when asked if she wanted to be supervised, said she thought it should be minimal if her mum trusted her, and that she needed her privacy. As might be expected from the literature (Clarke, 2009; Livingstone and Brake, 2010), many participants did express the desire for greater privacy from their parents, especially as they got older, and none said they would prefer even greater levels of supervision. Most comments expressed a desire for supervision at arm’s length – help available when needed, but no-one looking over their shoulder. Tracey (11) showed a growing wish for privacy while still appreciating the motives behind her parents’ supervision:

I don’t really mind it sort of thing because they’re keeping me safe. But you know when I’m just emailing my friends it’s kind of annoying because they know that you’re not going to do anything, but they’re still like ‘What are you doing?’, it’s just like ‘Why do you want to know?’

As a response to both parental supervision and the increasing desire for privacy, some participants spoke of concealing their internet activity from their parents. Although a majority claimed their parents knew most of what they did online, some did claim to have internet uses that their parents were unaware of. For Martin (10) this was motivated by a fear of his parents discovering that he had inadvertently viewed inappropriate content,

… if you watch something bad on YouTube by accident, and then you keep watching it and the bad thing happens at the end, and then you don’t want them to figure out that you’ve watched this naughty video. Just like on iPods that have ‘History’, that’s why I always clean my history.

Brad (10) strongly objected to the prospect of parental history checks, fearing that his current activities would be curtailed if his mother found out about them, ‘If mum knew what I was playing, I’m playing shoot ‘em up games and stuff, so um, yeah, she probably wouldn’t like that.’ Two thirds of those who expressed more desire for privacy from parents were Year 7–8, as well as 80% of comments coded ‘Concealing activity from parents’, perhaps reflecting a natural stage of adolescent development.

Communication is key

Communication between parents and their children is essential if parents are to participate in their children’s internet experience positively. The responses from participants indicate that children generally feel positive about communicating with their parents, and feel happy to talk to them about any difficulties they are having online. This suggests a comparable situation in New Zealand as Green et al. (2011) found in Australia, where three quarters of children found their parents’ involvement helpful. Paula (10) expressed confidence in seeking her parents’ help in dealing with an issue,

‘I reckon I would go up to my mum and dad and say, like, this has happened, and I’d tell them what exactly has happened so they can sort it out so it doesn’t get any further.’

This confidence was shared by other participants too. Several participants reported little communication with their parents about their internet activities. All comments coded this way, except one, came from male focus groups. In these cases, communication seemed to be limited to sharing information about success with a game or alerting their parents about a problem. The following two extracts, from both Year 5–6 and Year 7–8 focus groups were typical responses:

CM: Do you guys talk to your parents much about what you do on the internet?

Many: No, nah.

CM: No? Why’s that?

Tim: We just like to keep our privacy with what we’re doing.

Phillip: Yeah, they don’t need to know anything, except if there’s a

virus and if this has happened or if that happened.

Jake: But all they’d say would like, let’s say we went on the internet

and our parents said ‘what are you doing?’ and we would just say ‘Playing games’.

Tim: Yeah, they say ‘What are you doing?’, ‘Playing games.’, ‘What are you doing?’, ‘Playing games.’

(Focus Group 7, Year 7/8 male: Jake, 11; Phillip, 12; Hunter, 12; Tim, 12; Hugh, 12)

CM: Do you talk with your parents much about what you do on the internet?

Chris: Nah… I don’t say anything. (…)

CM: Damon?

Damon: Nah, not really.

CM: Nah, ok. How about you guys?

Brenton: Nah we don’t really talk about it much.

Steven: No, not really. The only thing I would tell them is if I got a

good high score on a game.

(Focus Group 2, Year 5/6 male: Steven, 11; Brenton, 11; Damon, 10; Chris, 10)

Adolescent boys are not generally known for their outstanding communication skills. Nevertheless, Active parental mediation, including communication about experiences online, not only reduces the level of risk the child might encounter, but does so without limiting opportunities, and can result in even higher levels of skill (Duerager and Livingstone, 2012).

The participants could also very quickly identify which parent they should turn to for support online, it being usually the one with the best computer skills. On a number of occasions one parent was cited as not knowing anything about computers, while the other worked with them every day. In some cases, the approachability of one parent made them the most likely choice for support. If a child thought they were likely to get into trouble from one parent about something, they would seek out the other parent instead. This highlights once more the importance of parents immersing themselves in the digital environment if they are to have a positive impact on their children’s attitudes and skills. The girls in the following extract shared similar experiences in choosing which parent to approach:

Camille: I think it’s my mum because when it’s to my dad he can get really serious he can get, like, mad at that person… but when it’s my mum she goes ‘Ok, this is what we’re going to do, we’re going to say sorry but I’m going to delete you’….

Paula: I reckon my dad if it was big. If it was just something little my mum can because they’re both good with computers but my dad would be the first option I think.

Bronwyn: I’d probably do my mum because my dad gets frustrated a lot. He’s not kind of a party person and he gets really angry…

CM: So if you’ve got an internet problem you’ll probably talk to your mum about it?

Bronwyn: Yeah because he would get, he’d probably tell me off for even going on it, so I probably wouldn’t go on it anyway. Savannah: I’m scared of my dad when he gets angry.

Many: Same!

(Focus Group 6, Year 5/6 female: Camille, 11; Paula, 10; Leah, 9; Savannah, 10; Bronwyn, 10)

Nansen et al. (2011) found that restrictive approaches to internet use (such as limiting location of use, time of use and websites visited) were more common among parents of primary school age children, and suggest that this may be reflective of the risks that parents perceive their children most likely to encounter – possibly due to a media bias towards the sensational. This approach was more commonly reported than active involvement, such as playing with their child on the internet. This may be a consequence of busy lives and the extra time needed for a more active mediation style.

Do children know more than their parents?

Many participants claimed to have a higher level of knowledge about the internet than their parents. When probed about this, it was usually technical knowledge they were referring to. In Alyssa’s (11) case, she found herself supporting her mother and bringing the internet safety message home from school,

My mum, that came up on her computer and she’s like ‘Alyssa look! I’ve won an iPad!’ and I’m like ‘Mum, don’t click on that!’ and she’s like ‘How do you know I haven’t won?!’, so I said ‘It’s a virus, don’t click on it!’

This example also serves to highlight the important roles school have in educating not just the child but the wider community. Digital skills and knowledge learnt at school can be taken home and shared with other family members. Year 7–8 participants were slightly more likely to claim a higher internet skill level than their parents, with nearly two thirds of Year 5–6 participants conceding that their parents still knew more than them. The EU Kids Online project (Livingstone et al., 2011a) found that only 36% of 9–16 year olds in Europe claim it is ‘very true’ that they know more about the internet than their parents. Two thirds of 9–10 year olds said they did not know more about the internet than their parents, a comparable result to the current study.

As mentioned above, there is a lot of support in the literature for the claim that parental lack of skill and awareness is a significant barrier to effective mediation (Berson and Berson, 2006; De Souza and Dick, 2008; Hinduja and Patchin, 2008; Ofcom, 2008; Sharples et al., 2009; Wirth et al., 2009; Youn 2005). If at least one parent has the knowledge and skills to support their child, this can help remove this barrier. However, if the parent with the most knowledge and skill is also the least available to support (owing to their skill coming in part from their employment) then this can leave the child without a source of support for much of the time.

Those children who indicated that their parents knew more than them often cited a parent’s computer-related occupation as one of the main reasons.

This brings in the issue of ‘cultural capital’ (Livingstone et al., 2011a) that different children have access to. Some children have parents with high levels of internet skill and are therefore able to draw on those skills in navigating the internet themselves. Parents who do not have high levels of skill on the internet may be unable to provide technical assistance, and may be unaware of the kinds of issues faced online by young people.

It should be noted that generally, when answering this question, the children seemed to interpret ‘knowing more’” to mean technical skills (such as how to upload photos to a website, or how to change a screensaver). Tim (12), when asked how he knew that he knew more than his mother, revealed such an interpretation, ‘Oh, she’s always asking me, “How do put photos on Facebook? How do you do this? How do you do that?”‘ Yet high technical knowledge does not necessarily mean the child has a good understanding of the kind of content or the risks associated with the online context that their parents might have. Children may in fact underestimate their parents’ ability to help based on their assessment of their parents’ technical skills alone.

Parents and teachers were not the only form of support mentioned by participants, and one conversation during the interview showed how peers share information with one another, correct misconceptions (or potentially spread them) and provide advice. Shysana (9) was expressing her concern about posting personal information online, because it might lead to being ‘bashed’, as (she claimed) Facebook states one’s address. Sheryl (9) was quick to correct her and point out that she needed to change her security setting to ‘private’.

Calling on the support of friends and other peers was the least common source of support, and usually referred to technical support rather than emotional support. This could come from a class member (not necessarily a close friend), and sometimes from class ‘techies’, or experts. A certain wariness was expressed by some in using these ‘techies’, as they were perceived as likely to take over.

The people who help, they usually end up taking over. They try and do everything and they force you into changing stuff, so if you want to go on the game, they’ll be like, ‘No’ and then they’d start clicking on different stuff, and then just take over on your computer and that. (Tracey, 11)

Tracey’s comments show frustration at seeking quick technical assistance but then losing control as the peer expert takes over. Such experiences could make a child reluctant to ask for assistance on future occasions. Most comments referring to peer assistance related to technical assistance, such as adjusting settings and sharing ‘hacks’ for online games. It may be that as children move further into adolescence and transition into high school that peer support of an emotional kind becomes more common. Fenaughty (2010) found peer support to be very common among high school aged young people, although the quality of this peer support was most important in terms of resolving an online challenge successfully.

A new digital divide

Within the target age range of the current research, it is also important to ask whether socioeconomic factors play a role in online practices, levels of mediation and susceptibility to harm. The notion of a ‘digital divide’ between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ has been the topic of much research and discussion among academics, policymakers, professionals and other stakeholders in education (Eastin and LaRose, 2000; Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Livingstone and Helsper, 2010; North et al., 2008). Those whose socioeconomic circumstances limited their access to information and communication technology were considered to be at a disadvantage compared with those whose access was not limited in the same way. The limited access experienced by people of lower socioeconomic status had the potential to further disadvantage them. Although access to hardware is an important factor when considering the possible existence of a digital divide, researchers have more recently focused attention on social factors that can exacerbate existing disadvantage, such as inequality of skills, parental involvement and education and the cultural capital of family background (Bennett and Maton, 2010; Livingstone et al., 2011a; North et al., 2008).

In regards to social media use, the current study suggests the existence of this new kind of digital divide. The participants’ socioeconomic status was indicated (imprecisely) by school decile ranking. It appears that social networking websites like Facebook appeal to this demographic at a younger age, and the associated risks are experienced sooner than is the case with those who wait until they are older before using such sites.

The participants from the lowest decile school, all aged 9–11, stood out from the other participants in the number of comments they made that were coded to indicate experience of contact risk. These children also generated the most comments coded ‘Facebook popularity’ (accounting for two thirds of comments) and over 40% of comments coded ‘Social-networking use’. This is despite these participants being only aged 9–11. Related to this is the fact that this group also accounted for 83% of the comments coded ‘Contact risk on Facebook’, 70% of comments coded ‘Friend requests from unknown people’ and two thirds of comments coded ‘Cyberbullying on Facebook’. It certainly suggests a relationship between high Facebook use and exposure to contact risk, but it does not explain the high level of Facebook use amongst this group of children from a lower decile school, or whether socioeconomic status is a factor at all. It does show that it is an issue of concern for these children, as it may well be for other children of similar demographic characteristics.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, the focus groups from lower decile schools gave no indication that ‘parental age restriction rules’ were in place for these children, whereas rules of this kind had been mentioned by children from higher decile (and therefore higher socioeconomic status) schools, potentially confirming what the above literature suggests.

This appears to contrast with Livingstone and Helsper’s (2007) finding that socioeconomic status only affects the level of risk a child encounters as it relates to access, as the children in this study from the lowest decile school all had high levels of access, and seemed to encounter high levels of risk also.

It is possible that part of the answer lies in the level of parental supervision. Seventy percent of comments coded ‘Parents check internet history’ were from the school with the highest decile rating, suggesting more active internet monitoring amongst higher socioeconomic families. This contrasts with Livingstone and Duerager’s (2012) finding that restrictive mediation styles were more common among parents with lower socioeconomic status.

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated that times have changed and that the job description of ‘parent/caregiver’ has expanded significantly to include the wide range of issues that the digital frontier brings with it. With the changing context of parenting, the responses to these changes must also continue to evolve to accommodate these. This is particularly important during the transitionary time of early adolescence. This study has shown a range of parental approaches to raising children online, some more restrictive than others. Yet the strongest conclusion to be made is that communication is central to all of these. Children need adult support, and the adults in their lives need to be active, available and competent, as the lack of knowledge and competency online is a significant barrier to effective parental mediation. Children will seek adult support in many instances, and will almost always seek out the adult they consider to be the most skilled and supportive, and the least punitive. Parental mediation is more than rules – it includes supervision, monitoring, support and, most importantly, communication.

The research also raises important questions about the effect of socioeconomic status on children’s online experience. Although the results presented here are only indicative, being based on the participants’ school decile rating, they do warrant serious consideration. This is needed in order to establish whether or not a new digital divide is emerging, based not on access to hardware, but on levels of mediation and risk. Are these results particular to the participants in this study, or do they suggest wider issues of use that need to be addressed?

It was acknowledged that families have different levels of cultural capital to draw upon, and therefore it is vital that schools work closely with not just the students in their classes, but with the whole family - especially those with lower levels of mediation. This home–school partnership is essential if children are to effectively learn how to manage (rather than avoid) their experience of risk and minimise the possibility of harm.

Schools need to help to ensure that children can take advantage of the many opportunities available online, minimise their chances of encountering harm, confident in their ability to face a variety of challenges as they arise, and aware of their sources of support. Children need not fear risk, but can see it as a necessary, even desirable aspect of growing up online. Risk, confronted with confidence, competence and support, will serve to strengthen their ability to face the online challenges of the future.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

1

This was defined by Green et al. (2011) as something that ‘made you feel uncomfortable, upset, or feel that you shouldn’t have seen it.’ p.8

Author biographies

Craig McDonald-Brown is currently a Senior Teacher and Head of E-Learning at Tahatai Coast School in Papamoa, New Zealand. In 2012 he completed his MEd (Hons) with at the University of Auckland. His areas of interest include developing digital citizenship skills in young adolescents, and effective pedagogy in modern learning environments.

Kumar Laxman is an associate professor of education with the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland. He graduated with a PhD in instructional design and technology from Macquarie University, Australia. He has been actively promoting the use of technology to advance innovation in teaching and learning and he has participated in numerous e-learning and educational initiatives. His areas of research interest include mobile learning, collaborative online learning and e-learning instructional design.

John Hope is Associate Dean International at the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland. His background in e-learning began as a school principal who wrote the first New Zealand thesis about e-learning in the 1970s and then led the first New Zealand state school to provide all teachers in the school with a personal laptop. His current research interests are e-learning in educational leadership and internationalisation.

References

Bennett

Maton

(2010) Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5): 321–331.

Bennett

Maton

Kervin

(2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Education Technology 39(5): 775–786.

Berson

(2006) Children and their digital dossiers: Lessons in privacy rights in the digital age. Enhancing Democracy with Technology in the Social Studies [Special Issue]. International Journal of Social Education 21(1): 135–147.

Berson

Desai

(2008) An analysis of electronic media to prepare children for safe and ethical practices in digital environments. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 8(3): 222–243.

Boyd

(2008) Why youth ♥ social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In: Buckingham

(ed.) Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 119–142.

Clarke

(2009) Early adolescents’ use of social networking sites to maintain friendship and explore identity: Implications for policy. Policy and Internet 1(1): 55–89.

De Souza

Dick

(2008) Information disclosure on MySpace – the what, the why and the implications. Pastoral Care in Education 26(3): 143–157.

Dedoose, Version 4.3.89 (2012) Web Application for Managing, Analyzing, and Presenting Qualitative and Mixed Method Data, Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC.

Dowell

Burgess

Cavanaugh

(2009) Clustering of Internet risk behaviors in a middle school student population. Journal of School Health 79(11): 547–553.

10.

Duddy M, Harré N and Internet Safety Group (2002) The Net Generation: Internet safety issues for young New Zealanders. Available at: http://hectorsworld.netsafe.org.nz/teachers/research/ (accessed 18 May 2010).

11.

Duerager A and Livingstone S (2012) How Can Parents Support Children’s Internet Safety? London: LSE, EU Kids Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/42872/ (accessed 8 June 2012).

12.

Eastin

La Rose

(2000) Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications 6(1).

13.

European Commission (2007) Safer Internet for children: Qualitative study in 29 European Countries – Summary Report, Versailles, France: Optem.

14.

Fenaughty J (2010) Challenging risk – NZ high-school students’ activity, challenge, distress and resiliency, within cyberspace. PhD Thesis, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Available at: https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/2292/6775/01front.pdf?sequence=2.

15.

Garmendia

Garitaonandia

Martinez

(2012) The effectiveness of parental mediation. In: Livingstone

Haddon

Gorzig

(eds) Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research and Policy Challenges in Comparative Perspective, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 231–244.

16.

Garmy P, Nyberg P and Jakobsson U (2012) Sleep and television and computer habits of Swedish school-age children. Journal of School Nursing 28: 469–476.

17.

Green L, Brady D, Olafsson K, et al. (2011) Risks and safety for Australian children on the internet: Full Findings from the AU kids online survey of 9–16 year olds and their parents. ARC Center of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation. Available at: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20Online%20reports.aspx.

18.

Hargittai

(2010) Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the ‘‘Net Generation’’. Sociological Inquiry 80(1): 92–113.

19.

Helsper

Eynon

(2010) Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal 36(3): 502–520.

20.

Hinduja

Patchin

(2008) Personal information of adolescents on the internet: A quantitative content analysis of MySpace. Journal of Adolescence 31(1): 125–146.

21.

Livingstone

(2009) Children and the Internet, Cambridge: Polity Press.

22.

Livingstone

Brake

(2010) On the rapid rise of social networking sites: New findings and policy implications. Children and Society 24(1): 75–83.

23.

Livingstone

Helsper

(2007) Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people, and the digital divide. New Media and Society 9: 671–696.

24.

Livingstone

Helsper

(2010) Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self‐efficacy. New Media and Society 12(2): 309–329.

25.

Livingstone S, Görzig A and Ólafsson K (2011a) Disadvantaged children and online risk. EU Kids Online network, London, UK. Report, EU Kids Online network, London, UK. This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39385/.

26.

Livingstone S, Haddon L, Görzig A, et al. (2011b) EU kids online II final report. Available at: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20Online%20reports.aspx, http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU Kids Online reports.aspx (accessed 16 February 2012).

27.

McDonald-Brown

(2011) TMI? The need for research exploring young New Zealand adolescents’ information privacy practices. In: Mackey

Dabner

Davis

(eds) Proceedings of ULearn 2011 Research Stream, Rotorua Christchurch: University of Canterbury School of Literacies and Arts in Education, pp. 48–54.

28.

McQuade SC and Sampat N (2008) Survey of internet and at-risk behaviors. Available at: http://www.rit.edu/cast/cms/rrcsei/RIT%20Cyber%20Survey%20Final%20Report.pdf.

29.

Madge

Barker

(2007) Risk and Childhood, London: The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce.

30.

Mascheroni

Murru

Gorzig

(2012) Varieties of access and use. In: Livingstone

Haddon

Gorzig

(eds) Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research and Policy Challenges in Comparative Perspective, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 59–71.

31.

Nansen

Chakraborty

Gibbs

(2012) Children and digital wellbeing in Australia: Online regulation, conduct and competence. Journal of Children and Media 6(2): 237–254.

32.

North

Snyder

Bulfin

(2008) Digital tastes: social class and young people’s technology use. Information, Communication and Society 11(7): 895–911.

33.

Ofcom. (2008) Social Networking: A Quantitative and Qualitative Research Report into Attitudes, Behaviours and Use. London: Office of Communications. Available at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/.

34.

Privacy Commissioner (2010) Individual Privacy and Personal Information: UMR Omnibus Results, Wellington: UMR Research.

35.

Rideout

Foehr

Roberts

(2010) Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-year-olds, Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

36.

Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5). Available at: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf.

37.

Sharples

Grabner

Harrison

(2009) E-safety and web 2.0 for children aged 11–16. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 25: 70–84.

38.

Steeves

Webster

(2008) Closing the barn door: The effect of parental supervision on Canadian children’s online privacy. Technology and Society 28(1): 4–19.

39.

Wiersma

(1995) Research Methods in Education, 6th ed. Sydney: Allyn and Bacon.

40.

Williams

Merten

(2008) A review of online social networking profiles by adolescents: Implications for future research and intervention. Adolescence 43(170): 253–275.

41.

Wirth CB, Rifon NJ, LaRose R, et al. (2009) Promoting Teenage Online Safety with an i-Safety Intervention: Enhancing Self-efficacy and Protective Behaviors. Available at: http://www.msu.edu/∼wirthch1/childsafety07.pdf.

42.

Youn

(2005) Teenagers’ perceptions of online privacy and coping behaviors: A risk-benefit appraisal approach. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 49(1): 86–110.

43.

Zimic

(2009) Not so ‘techno-savvy’: Challenging the stereotypical image of the ‘Net generation’. Digital Culture and Education 1(2): 129–144.

Sources of support and mediation online for 9–12-year-old children

Abstract

Keywords

Aim of research

The need for research

Risk and harm

Parental mediation

Age, gender and mediation

Methodology

Ethical approval

Interview questions

Pilot study

Sample

Results and discussion

Sources of support

Parents

Privacy from parents

Communication is key

Do children know more than their parents?

A new digital divide

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

1

Author biographies

References