UK Children Go Online:Balancing opportunities and risks in children

& teenagers’ use of the internet

Sonia Livingstone

Aims and methods

Two areas of opportunity:

• Education, informal learning and literacy

• Communication, identity and participation

Two areas of risk:

• Access, inequalities and the digital divide

• Undesirable forms of content and contact

Phase 1: QualitativeSummer/ Autumn 2003

Children’s focus groups

Family visits/ in-home observation

Children’s online panel

Phase 2: SurveyJan-March 2004

In-home face-to-face survey of 1,511 9-19 year olds

Written survey of 906 parents of 9-17 year olds

Phase 3: QualitativeSummer/ Autumn 2004

Children’s focus groups

Family visits/ in-home observation

Children’s online panel

Internet access growing rapidly

Among 9-19 yr old users (weekly +):

90% schoolwork

94% information

71% email

70% games

55% instant message

46% download music

40% (12+) look for products

34% made a website

26% (12+) read the news

25% (12+) personal advice

21% visit chat rooms

21% (12+) plagiarise

Opportunities to explore, create, network, subvert . . .

I use it for like homework, emailing my cousin in Australia and keeping in touch with my

friend in Cornwall.

(Linda, 13, Derbyshire)

You don’t buy CDs anymore, you just get them off the internet or off

one of your mates who copies CDs.

(Nina, 17, Manchester)

It’s just like life, you can do anything really.

(Lorie, 17, Essex)

“The best thing about the internet is downloading music,

things like that, and MSN.

(Ryan, 14, Essex)

What are they skilled at?

There’s also a downside

Porn? There’s more, much more

on the internet. (Prince, 16, London)

Yeah, these boys just go onto the internet, they download it, they put it on

as screensaver… It’s just disgusting.(Tanya, 15, London)

It’s like you don’t know who’s doing what, who’s website it is, who wants what, who wants you to learn what.(Faruq, 15, from London)

There’s obviously the scare of paedophiles and people like that on chat rooms

(Alan, 13, Essex).

Towards an explanatory model

• jDemographicsDemographics

Internet literacyInternet literacy

Internet accessInternet access

Internet useInternet use

Online Online opportunitiesopportunities

Online risksOnline risks

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Interpreting the model

Age: direct +ve effect on access, use, skills, opportunities (not risks)

… and indirect effect on skills/self-efficacy, mediated by access

… and indirect effect on opportunities, mediated by access, use, skills

Gender: direct effect on online risks (boys – more pornography)

SES: direct effect on # access locations – other effects (on use, literacy,

opportunities) are indirect, mediated by access (so, improve access…)

Access: direct effect on use, literacy, opportunities (indirectly, on risks)

Use: direct effect on opportunities, indirect effect on risk

Literacy does not reduce risks

Skills (but not self-efficacy) opportunities (so, improve literacy…)

Opportunities risks (can’t separate?); but risks discourage opps

Do parents make a difference?

Technical solutions: some confusion

Social solutions: divergent views

Parental mediation is widespread

Parents implement more rules and regulations for younger teens, and more if they are skilled/experienced online; but no gender difference

Especially, restrict interactive uses or engage in active co-use; fewer technical solutions or covert monitoring

Multiple regression showed that characteristics of the child (age, gender, use, skills) explained 28% of the variance on online risk

But parent characteristics and parental mediation did not add significantly to the equation

So, more parental mediation does not reduce child’s online risk

Except, specific parental bans on interactivity (chat, email, IM, games, downloading) did reduce risk (and, for teens, the benefits of internet…)

Child characteristics matter

Frequency of online communication predicted by age (older), gender (girls), freq. of use, skills, sensation-seeking, value anonymity online

Made online friend predicted by freq. of use, skills, life satisfaction (less), confidence in online communication, value anonymity

Met online friend offline predicted by age (older), years of use (fewer), skills, shyness (less), sensation-seeking, life satisfaction (less), confidence in online communication, value anonymity

Sought personal advice online predicted by age, freq. of use (less), skills, life satisfaction (less), value anonymity

Given out personal information online predicted by age, freq. of use, self-efficacy (less), skills, sensation-seeking, life satisfaction (less), value anonymity

Conclusions

Important to balance risks and opportunities

Different picture for different groups of children and parents

Take care in relying on parental regulation, because:

Though parents regulate, it doesn’t seem to reduce risks

Children often more expert than parents online

Parents and teenagers don’t always communicate well

Exact nature of risks (or opportunities) difficult for families to identify/agree

Children relish being playful, experimental, naughty, deceitful online

Children seek to evade parental regulation and protect their privacy online

Parents often confused about online filtering/safety mechanisms

Parents claim more responsible practice than really occurs

Social and parental support are stratified – those with fewest resources may also be most at risk

Need continual research on children and parents, updated for new risks

Thank you

Sonia Livingstone

Department of Media and Communications

London School of Economics and Political Science

s.livingstone@lse.ac.uk

www.children-go-online.net