Dealing with online risks: how to develop adequate coping strategies and preventive measures with a focus on vulnerable children.

Dealing with online risks: How to develop adequate coping strategies and preventive measures with a focus on vulnerable children. The aim of this study is to understand how children deal with online risks and to identify which children are more vulnerable (or less resilient) online. Children who are more vulnerable experience more and stronger negative impacts of online risks, and have more difficulties in adopting adequate coping strategies and preventive measures. We want to find out how children’s individual and contextual factors have an impact on how they deal with online risks, and what the indicators and mediators for vulnerability are. This way, we can learn how we can support these vulnerable children and increase their emotional wellbeing and coping capacities. In this study, we first focus on issues related to ‘awareness & impact’ and then focusing on ‘preventive measures & coping’. Throughout this dissertation, we adopt a child-centered approach, because we recognize that adults and children may have different perspectives and ideas about online risks. Therefore, we start from children’s own experiences and take into account their personal perspectives and arguments. The conceptual framework of this study reflects an ecological approach (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), as it integrates all relevant factors of the child’s individual resources (i.e. sociodemographics and personality) and social environment (i.e. parents, peers, teachers, relatives) that may hinder or promote children’s development of resilience to online risks. This allows us to get a holistic picture of issues related to dealing with online risks. This multi-method study draws on five data sets. We have three quantitative data sets: (1) the 2010 EU Kids Online survey, (2) the 2014 Net Children go Mobile survey, and (3) our Flemish school survey, and two qualitative data sets: (4) the 2013 EU Kids Online qualitative study and (5) our Flemish fieldwork study. The cross-national studies are collected under the umbrella of the EU Kids Online (www.eukidsonline.net) and Net Children go Mobile (www.netchildrengomobile.eu). The Flemish data were set up specifically for this doctoral dissertation. The data are cross-sectional, so we have to be cautious about comparisons in time or between data sets. When talking about ‘children’ in this dissertation, we refer to the whole group of 9 to 16 year-olds. When talking about pre-adolescents or pre-teens, we point to the children in primary school (9 to 11 year-olds). The term ‘adolescents’ refers to the older age group (12 to 16 year-olds). Results show there is a small group of vulnerable children who struggle more in building resilience to online risks through exposure. We have identified a set of indicators on the individual and contextual level that help us to understand who these vulnerable children are. We conclude that age is not a straightforward indicator for vulnerability. As children grow older, they gradually feel less bothered about content risks and build resilience through experience, possibly because they get a higher sense of control. For contact/conduct risks the situation is more complex, with adolescents being more sensitive about online bullying and profile hacking. Across online risks, girls report higher levels of harm, particularly towards sexual risks online. Yet not all girls are therefore classified as vulnerable. Children who combine several indicators of vulnerability are more ‘at risk’. Moreover, we can see a link between ‘offline’ and ‘online’ vulnerabilities. For example, a pre-adolescent girl with low self-confidence, no close friends and a compliant personality is most likely to feel very upset about an unpleasant experience online. How can we now support these vulnerable children in building resilience to online risks? Digital literacy courses are definitely not the magic solution, as children with a high level of (operational) digital skills does not automatically feel less upset about problematic situations online. Efforts should however go beyond teaching operational (technical) digital skills and focus more on developing the critical and strategic aspects of media literacy. Possibly, digital skills were not a predictive factor in our models because this measure was derived from survey questions for operational (technical) skills. A different way of measuring digital literacy, with less focus on the operational aspect, could yield different outcomes. Children who have a better relationship with their parents feel more upset, which challenges us to reflect about the role of parent-child relationships in fostering online resilience. A mixed mediation approach in an open-communication environment seems most fruitful; depending on the particular situation (i.e. type of risk exposure) and the child’s individual characteristics (e.g. more or less self-confidence), parents ideally change mediation practices and temporarily adopt more a protective mediation style until the situation is neutralized, negative emotions have faded away and the child has (re)gained sufficient confidence. For introvert and shy children with low self-confidence, this may take more time. In this process, parents (and teachers) should take the child serious and not overreact. Although it may require extra patience and effort, it is particularly important for these vulnerable children to show interest in their online activities and encourage them to talk about what bothers them online, likewise being transparent about mediation practices. The impact of peer relationships on children’s development of resilience to online risks remains ambivalent. Children who feel lonely and alienated from their peers are more vulnerable, but emotional support from peers is not automatically a protective factor. Possibly because the line between peer support and peer pressure can be very thin, especially for early/middle-adolescents and for children who are more naïve and less self-confident. In order to support more vulnerable children, having a good insight in peer group dynamics important. Concerning coping with online risks, we conclude that mere indifference or disengagement is conceptually different from behavioral avoidance, and that (temporary) avoiding the stressor is often combined with communicative coping. Although we realize that there is no ‘perfect’ coping typology that encompasses all types of coping in clear-cut categories, we have made a valuable contribution in the field of coping, and our outcomes can be used for further development and validation of instruments to measure children’s coping with online risks. Coping is a stepwise and iterative process, which often starts with simple strategies to deal with minor disturbances like pop-ups or other unwelcome content. If situations turn out to be more complex, more ‘engaged’ coping strategies come into play. This explains why ignoring the situation is not necessarily a sign of vulnerability but very often just a first step in the coping process. Children also learn from their experiences and gradually improve the efficiency and effectivity of their coping. In short, children who feel upset are more motivated to take up any type of ‘engaged’ coping in order to reduce harm. Depending on the circumstances, individual and contextual characteristics, children have a stronger preference for a certain coping approach, and strategies turn out to be more (or less) effective. Vulnerable children are the ones who feel upset, but do not have the required resources to adopt such an ‘active’ or ‘engaged’ coping approach that should help them in dealing with these negative emotions. Because of limited resources, vulnerable children see less possibilities to deal with a problematic situation online, whereas more resilient children have a wider array of coping strategies at their disposal. Pre-teens and girls feel more upset about online risks, but seem to find a way to deal with these negative emotions as they are more likely to adopt engaged coping approaches. Girls are more talkative, and as children grow older they develop the necessary capacities and skills that allow them to adopt a wider range of (proactive) coping strategies. Insecurity, low self-confidence and alienation from peers are associated with a higher intensity of harm, so we conclude these children would benefit from an ‘engaged’ coping approach to reduce harm. Nevertheless, they show no consistent engagement in proactive, communicative or avoidant strategies, and in some situations these children are even more likely to remain indifferent. Children’s social context is important as it provides social capital or resources for practical and emotional support, and can prevent children from disengagement or aggressive confrontations despite feeling very upset. How can we now support these more vulnerable children in adopting an ‘engaged’ coping approach that helps to reduce harm? We should encourage open communication and facilitate circumstances for support seeking. In such an open communication climate, children should feel comfortable to talk about sensitive issues (also about sexuality), without fear of severe punishments or extreme repercussions. Transparency and showing a genuine interest in children’s online activities are important aspects in this matter. Parents and teachers remain the key resources for most children, although we have seen several examples of siblings and other relatives being children’s first contact person. This way, the ‘offline’ social network can provide a gateway to practical and emotional support, thus widening the child’s options for engaged coping. For example, asking assistance to change privacy settings can be the first step in improving digital skills and including technical measures in a child’s coping repertoire.nrpages: 283status: publishe