PhD Sofie Vandoninck

FACULTEIT SOCIALE WETENSCHAPPEN
Dealing with online risks:
how to develop adequate coping
strategies and preventive measures
with a focus on vulnerable children
Sofie Vandoninck
Proefschrift aangeboden tot het verkrijgen van de
graad van Doctor in de Sociale Wetenschappen
Promotor: Prof. Dr. Leen d’Haenens
Copromotor: Prof. Dr. Keith Roe
Onderzoekseenheid: Instituut voor Mediastudies
2016

FACULTEIT SOCIALE WETENSCHAPPEN
Dealing with online risks:
how to develop adequate coping
strategies and preventive measures
with a focus on vulnerable children
Sofie Vandoninck
Proefschrift aangeboden tot het verkrijgen van de
graad van Doctor in de Sociale Wetenschappen
Nr. 290
2016
Samenstelling van de examencommissie:
Prof. Dr. Rudi Laermans (voorzitter)
Prof. Dr. Leen d’Haenens (promotor)
Prof. Dr. Keith Roe(copromotor)
Prof. Dr. Joke Bauwens [Vrije Universiteit Brussel]
Prof. Dr. Rozane De Cock
Prof. Dr. Jos De Haan [Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, NL]
Prof. Dr. Michel Walrave [Universiteit Antwerpen]

De verantwoordelijkheid voor de ingenomen standpunten berust alleen bij de auteur.
Gepubliceerd door:
Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen - Onderzoekseenheid: Instituut voor Mediastudies [IMS],
KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45 bus 3603- 3000 Leuven, België.
 2016 by the author.
Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming
van de auteur / No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing
from the author.
D/2016/8978/4

1
Contents
List of figures.......................................................................................................................................6
List of tables........................................................................................................................................7
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................9
1 Introduction and theoretical background.....................................................................................11
1.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................11
1.1.1 Relevance and aim of the study....................................................................................11
1.1.2 Conceptual model.........................................................................................................12
1.1.3 Aims and contributions of this study ............................................................................15
1.2 Theoretical background ........................................................................................................17
1.2.1 Developmental theories................................................................................................17
1.2.2 Socialization theories....................................................................................................17
Peers..........................................................................................................................................18
Family........................................................................................................................................19
School........................................................................................................................................20
1.2.3 Social capital and social skills........................................................................................21
1.2.4 Perspectives on coping .................................................................................................21
1.2.5 Protection-motivation theory.......................................................................................22
1.2.6 The social compensation versus social enhancement hypothesis................................24
1.3 Towards investigating how children deal with online risks and who is more vulnerable ....26
1.3.1 Research questions.......................................................................................................26
1.3.2 Data, methods and target group ..................................................................................29
2 Method section.............................................................................................................................32
2.1 Quantitative cross-national data: EU Kids Online (2010) .....................................................33
2.1.1 Data collection and instruments...................................................................................33
2.1.2 Description of the Belgian sample, measures and operationalizations........................33
2.1.3 Methods of analysis ......................................................................................................35
Impact, harm & coping: descriptive statistics...........................................................................35
Categorization of coping strategies: cluster analysis................................................................35
2.1.4 Methodological and ethical challenges ........................................................................35
2.2 Quantitative cross-national data: Net Children go Mobile (2014) .......................................36
2.2.2 Description of the Belgian sample, measures and operationalizations........................37

2
2.2.4 Methodological challenges ...........................................................................................37
2.3 Quantitative sub-national data: Flemish school survey (2012) ............................................38
Recruitment and selection........................................................................................................38
The questionnaire.....................................................................................................................40
2.3.2 Data cleaning, measures and operationalizations........................................................42
Data entry, data cleaning and weights .....................................................................................42
Description of the sample.........................................................................................................42
Measures...................................................................................................................................43
Impact & harm: descriptive analyses........................................................................................47
Impact & harm: crosstabs and compare means .......................................................................47
Individual & contextual factors (impact & harm): hierarchical regression analysis .................48
Categorization of coping strategies: principal component analysis (PCA) and multi-
dimensional scaling analysis (MDS) ..........................................................................................48
Individual & contextual factors (preventive measures & coping): two-way independent
ANOVA and hierarchical regression analysis ............................................................................49
2.4 Qualitative cross-national data: EU Kids Online interviews and focus groups (2013)..........52
2.4.1 Data collection and research activities .........................................................................52
2.4.2 Topic guide and coding protocol...................................................................................53
Risk perception & awareness: secondary thematic analysis ....................................................56
Categorizations of preventive measures: primary template analysis ......................................56
Categorizations of coping strategies: secondary template analysis.........................................59
Motivations for coping and evaluations of coping strategies: secondary thematic analysis ...59
2.5 Qualitative sub-national data: Flemish fieldwork study (2012-2013) ..................................60
2.5.1 Data collection and research activities .........................................................................60
Recruitment and selection........................................................................................................60
Group activities and individual interviews................................................................................63
2.5.2 Topic guides and coding protocol.................................................................................65
Topic guides for interviews and focus groups ..........................................................................65
Coding scheme in NVivo ...........................................................................................................67
Awareness & impact: primary thematic analysis......................................................................69

3
Individual & contextual factors: thematic analysis...................................................................69
3 Raising awareness, reducing negative impact, and preserving emotional wellbeing: results .....72
3.1 Online risk perceptions and awareness building..................................................................73
3.1.1 Children’s online risk perceptions: the role of personal experiences and peer culture
(EU Kids Online qualitative study 2013)........................................................................................73
3.1.2 Children’s risk perceptions: risky opportunities (Flemish fieldwork study)..................75
Online harassment: cyberbullying versus teasing ‘just for fun’................................................75
Privacy risks and personal data misuse: self-protecting versus self-presentation...................76
Meeting new people: dirty old men versus interesting schoolmates ......................................77
Online content: upsetting experiences versus funny risky explorations..................................78
Excessive use: internet addict versus intensive user................................................................79
3.1.3 Summary.......................................................................................................................79
3.2 Negative feelings or harm: Impact on emotional wellbeing.................................................80
3.2.1 Exposure versus harm – what bothers children most? ................................................80
Cross-national findings: EU Kids Online (2010) and NCGM (2014) surveys..............................80
Flemish findings: Flemish school survey (2012)........................................................................81
3.2.2 Building resilience through personal experience?........................................................82
3.2.3 What contributes to more or less harm?......................................................................84
Personal involvement ...............................................................................................................84
Sense of control ........................................................................................................................84
Normalization and desensitization ...........................................................................................85
Perceived reputation damage and loss.....................................................................................86
3.2.4 Summary.......................................................................................................................87
3.3 Role of individual and contextual factors .............................................................................87
3.3.1 Hypotheses....................................................................................................................87
3.3.2 Who experiences more harm?......................................................................................88
3.3.3 Why do these children experience more harm than others?.......................................90
Age & gender ............................................................................................................................90
Digital skills................................................................................................................................90
Personality ................................................................................................................................91
Family and teachers..................................................................................................................92
Peers..........................................................................................................................................94
Personal experiences ................................................................................................................95
3.3.4 Summary.......................................................................................................................95
3.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................96

4
3.5 Tables chapter 3....................................................................................................................98
4 Adopting preventive measures and coping strategies: results...................................................101
4.1 Preventive measures and coping responses.......................................................................102
4.1.1 Categories of preventive measures ............................................................................103
Proactive problem-preventing strategies...............................................................................103
Cognitive strategies: Planning, strategizing & reflecting ........................................................105
Communicative approaches – contacting others ...................................................................106
Disengagement .......................................................................................................................106
4.1.2 Categories of coping strategies...................................................................................106
Passive, communicative and proactive coping: Exploratory analyses with EU Kids Online
survey data (2010) ..................................................................................................................106
High-tech, low-tech and non-technical coping: Insights from EU Kids Online qualitative data
(2013)......................................................................................................................................109
(Dis)engagement and (non)-technical coping: Follow-up analyses with Flemish school survey
data (2012)..............................................................................................................................111
4.1.3 Summary.....................................................................................................................114
4.2 Towards adequate coping: children’s motivations and evaluations of dealing with online
risks ............................................................................................................................................115
4.2.1 Children’s motives for adopting preventive measures and coping strategies ...........115
4.2.2 Children’s evaluation of the effectiveness of preventive measures and coping
strategies.....................................................................................................................................118
4.2.3 Summary.....................................................................................................................119
4.3 Role of individual and contextual factors ...........................................................................120
4.3.1 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................120
4.3.2 The role of gender and age in children’s coping with online risks..............................122
4.3.3 The role of situational elements, personality and social context in children’s coping
with online risks..........................................................................................................................123
4.3.4 Contextualizing children’s coping approaches and explaining coping processes.......126
From simple to complex technical coping ..............................................................................126
From simple technical coping to disengagement ...................................................................127
From behavioral avoidance to personal confrontations ........................................................128
Towards more self-monitoring ...............................................................................................129
From disengaged to engaged coping......................................................................................129
From (simple) technical coping to communicative strategies................................................130
Constructive versus aggressive confrontations ......................................................................131
4.3.5 Summary.....................................................................................................................133
4.4 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................133

5
4.5 Tables chapter 4..................................................................................................................136
5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................144
5.1 Aim and relevance of the study ..........................................................................................144
5.2 Main conclusions – overview..............................................................................................144
5.2.1 When is a child more vulnerable online? Explaining and interconnecting ‘risk
perception & awareness’, ‘impact & emotional wellbeing’, and ‘preventive measures & coping’ .
.....................................................................................................................................145
5.2.2 Which children are more vulnerable online? Explaining and interconnecting individual
and contextual factors ................................................................................................................148
Age ..........................................................................................................................................148
Gender ....................................................................................................................................149
Personality ..............................................................................................................................149
Knowledge and skills...............................................................................................................149
Parents & teachers..................................................................................................................150
Peers........................................................................................................................................151
Reinforcement hypothesis......................................................................................................152
5.3 Critical reflections, limitations and challenges ...................................................................152
5.3.1 Doing research in changing circumstances.................................................................152
5.3.2 Design of the study, measurements and analyses......................................................153
5.4 Suggestions for future research and recommendations for policy and practice ...............156
5.4.1 Suggestions for future research..................................................................................156
5.4.2 Recommendations for policy and practice .................................................................157
References ......................................................................................................................................159
Nederlandse samenvatting.............................................................................................................191
English summary.............................................................................................................................197

6
List of figures
Figure 1.1. Visualization of the study’s central concepts.
Figure 2.1. Overview of data collections.
Figure 2.2. Overview of qualitative analysis methods and corresponding research questions.
Figure 2.3. Final template to analyze the research area of preventive measures.
Figure 2.4. Thematic coding scheme in Nvivo for coding material of the Flemish fieldwork study.
Figure 2.5. Excerpts from the analysis matrix on ‘awareness & risk perception’ (source: Flemish
fieldwork study).
Figure 2.6. Excerpts from the analysis matrix on ‘coping strategies’ (source: Flemish fieldwork study).
Figure 3.1. Sources of online risk awareness according to the level of personal involvement (Source:
2013 EU Kids Online qualitative data).
Figure 4.1. Tree map representing categories of preventive measures (source: 2013 EU Kids Online
qualitative study).
Figure 4.2. Original EU Kids Online categorization of coping strategies (source: 2010 EU Kids Online
survey).
Figure 4.3. New categorization of children’s coping strategies (source: 2013 EU Kids Online
qualitative data).
Figure 4.4. Euclidean Distance model for content risks (sexual images, shocking images), N=1994
(source: 2012 Flemish school survey).
Figure 4.5. Euclidean Distance model for contact/conduct risks (online bullying, meeting strangers,
sexting, profile hacking), N=1050 (source: 2012 Flemish school survey).

7
List of tables
Table 1.1. Overview of research questions, datasets, methods of analysis and related publications.
Table 2.1. Overview of respondents in each grade and education type in the Flemish school
population in our sample (after data cleaning).
Table 2.2. Similarities and differences between questionnaires from EU Kids Online (2010) and our
Flemish school survey (2012).
Table 2.3. Personality characteristics (principal component analysis with varimax rotation).
Table 2.4. Social relationships (principal component analysis with varimax rotation).
Table 2.5. Overview of contact moments with school staff in the Flemish fieldwork study (2012-
2013).
Table 2.6. Overview of mothers participating in the fieldwork study.
Table 2.7. Overview of group sessions, respective research aims and research activities.
Table 3.1. Exposure to online risks, feeling bothered and intensity of harm (sources: EU Kids Online
and NCGM survey data).
Table 3.2. Exposure to online risks, feeling bothered and intensity of harm (source: 2012 Flemish
school survey).
Table 3.3. Exposure to online risks and the intensity of feeling upset (source: 2012 Flemish school
survey).
Table 3.4. Comparing the intensity of harm between children with and children without personal
experiences with online risks (source: 2012 Flemish school survey).
Table 3.5. Hierarchical multiple regression (ENTER method). Elements predicting a higher intensity of
harm for six types of online risks (source: 2012 Flemish school survey).
Table 4.1. Items on coping in EU Kids Online questionnaire and percentage of children having used a
given coping response after feeling bothered (source: 2010 EU Kids Online survey).
Table 4.2. Overview of coping strategies mentioned for each type of online risks and percentage of
children who (would) probably or certainly deploy the given coping strategy (source: 2012 Flemish
school survey).
Table 4.3. PCA structures for each type of online risk, with KMO-measure factor loadings, PVE, and
reliability score (N=2046) (source: 2012 Flemish school survey).
Table 4.4. Percentage of respondents who had deployed the strategy indicating this was helpful
(source: 2010 EU Kids Online survey).
Table 4.5a. Results for two-way independent ANOVA or independent t-test (source: 2012 Flemish
school survey).
Table 4.5b. Results for two-way independent ANOVA or independent t-test (source: 2012 Flemish
school survey).

8
Table 4.6. Hierarchical multiple regression (ENTER method). Elements predicting children’s coping
strategies for six types of online risks (source: 2012 Flemish school survey).

9
Acknowledgements
Dit had ik tien jaar geleden nooit durven denken, dat ik ooit nog een dankwoord zou schrijven voor
een doctoraatsthesis. En toch is het ervan gekomen. Ik voel me blij en opgelucht aan de vooravond
van de verdediging van dit doctoraat en tegelijk ook heel benieuwd naar wat de toekomst gaat
brengen. Het was een boeiend traject, dat alleen maar mogelijk is geweest dankzij de steun van vele
mensen.
In de eerste plaats gaat mijn dank uit naar mijn promotor Leen d’Haenens. Vanaf de eerste dag tot de
allerlaatste moment heb je me altijd met raad en daad bijgestaan. Dankzij jouw ondersteuning en
constructieve feedback ben ik erin geslaagd om dit doctoraatsproject tot een goed einde te brengen.
Toen ik in 2009 bij jou als praktijkassistent aan de slag kon gaan, heb je me geïntroduceerd in het EU
Kids Online team. Vanaf toen is de bal aan het rollen gegaan, en in 2010 heb je me aangemoedigd om
een projectaanvraag bij FWO in te dienen rond het thema ‘jongeren en online risico’s’. De vreugde
was groot toen het project goedgekeurd werd, en eind 2011 ging ik definitief van start als
doctoraatsstudent. Ik kan alleen maar zeggen dat ik het enorm getroffen heb met jou als promotor. Ik
heb altijd het gevoel gehad voldoende vrijheid te krijgen en je gaf me de ruimte om zelfstandig dingen
uit te werken, iets was ik erg waardeer. Maar wanneer ik toch even vast liep, een klankbord nodig had,
of dreigde de focus te verliezen, stond je klaar om me weer inspiratie te geven.
Ik ben heel blij dat ik kennis kon maken met wetenschappelijk onderzoek alvorens ik de uitdaging van
een doctoraatsproject ben aangegaan. Professor Roe, mijn oprechte dank om me destijds in 2005 te
begeleiden met mijn licentiaatsthesis, en om me naderhand de kans te geven om aan de Faculteit
Sociale Wetenschappen aan de slag te gaan als wetenschappelijk medewerker, samen met Veerle Van
Rompaey. Na mijn afstuderen had ik eerlijk gezegd totaal geen idee wat ik wilde ‘worden’, en dankzij
jullie kon ik ontdekken of een job als onderzoeker iets voor mij zou zijn. Een volgende stap in mijn
ontdekkingstraject heb ik kunnen zetten met dank aan Dave Gelders in 2006. Dave, dankjewel om in
me te geloven en me de kans te geven om een heel onderzoeksproject van begin tot eind mee uit te
werken. Via een intermezzo aan de toenmalige KHLimburg in 2009, met dank aan Jeanine Eerdekens
en Kris De Tollenaere, ben ik uiteindelijk weer teruggekeerd naar de gebouwen in de Parkstraat, die
intussen een grondige renovatie hadden ondergaan.
Ik denk met veel plezier terug aan mijn tijd op de Faculteit. Dankjewel Veronica, Mariek, Joyce, en de
andere collega’s van het eerste uur om me als pas afgestudeerde nieuwkomer wegwijs te maken op
de Faculteit. Ik voelde me snel thuis! Een mooie herinnering zijn ook onze lunches, samen met Hasibe.
Nog steeds is het moeilijk te begrijpen waarom ze ervoor gekozen heeft om de wereld te verlaten,
maar ik ben heel bij haar gekend te hebben als collega. Dankjewel ook Nathalie, Astrid en Karolien
voor de gezelligheid in het grote ‘Dave-bureau’ op het derde verdiep. Ook al vraagt het nu wat meer
‘planning’ om met elkaar af te spreken, steeds kijk ik er naar uit om bij te praten, en ik hoop dat we
dat nog vele jaren kunnen blijven doen!
Na de verbouwingen kwam ik terecht in het ‘olifantenlokaal’ op het vierde verdiep, alwaar ik een
prachtige tijd beleefd heb met een hele reeks aan olifantastische bureaugenoten! Dankjewel Maarten,
Willem, Hatim, Elke en Jan voor de vele leuke en grappige momenten, voor de serieuze gesprekken
en de onnozelheden, en om terecht te kunnen bij jullie met (af en toe) wat geklaag en gezaag. Dank
ook aan Tom, Wannes, Karolien, Hanne en de andere ‘vaste klanten’ van het olifantenlokaal voor de
ontspannende babbels en porties gezever.

10
Bijzonder veel dank gaat uit naar Ann Weemaes, Ingrid Put en Kristien Hermans. Bedankt voor jullie
praktische en logistieke ondersteuning. Ontelbare keren ben ik bij jullie gaan aankloppen, met
ongetwijfeld vaak dezelfde vraag. Toch namen jullie steeds te tijd om me te informeren en te helpen.
Altijd hebben jullie me hartelijk ontvangen, zelfs als ik jullie ‘tot last’ was met een vervelende vraag.
Zeker nu in de (aller)laatste fase van dit doctoraatstraject doet het me enorm veel deugd om op jullie
te kunnen rekenen.
Een doctoraat maken gaat verder dan de faculteitsmuren. Samyn, je was een fantastische huisgenote
gedurende de eerste jaren van mijn doctoraat. Met veel plezier denk ik terug aan de momenten van
gezellig theeleuten en ontspannen op het terras in de Willemsstraat. Heerlijk was dat! Stilaan
vorderde het doctoraat, en samen met Jan heb ik in de Eeuwfeeststraat de eindfase beleefd. Een
behoorlijk drukke en intense periode was dat. Jan, ik ben je echt enorm dankbaar voor alles wat je
voor me hebt gedaan de laatste maanden. Niet alles verliep zoals voorzien, heel vaak heb ik mijn
planning herzien en soms moest er veel gebeuren op korte tijd. Dankjewel voor je geduld, om tijd te
maken voor mij, om samen te eten (ook al was ik er met mijn gedachten niet altijd bij), om altijd te
zorgen dat er lekkere geriefjes in huis waren voor gezonde lunches. Zonder jou was het ook niet gelukt
om dit document te ‘assembleren’. Bedankt voor al je morele, praktische en technische assistentie!
En bovenal, dankjewel voor de vele fijne en ontspannende momenten tijdens de afgelopen vier-en-
half jaar. We hebben mooie reizen en uitstappen gemaakt, en het was fijn dat je af en toe mee kon
naar ‘de EU Kids’. Ik was heel blij dat je mee kon naar Brno; het was een ideale uitvalsbasis om samen
Praag, Wenen en Bratislava te ontdekken en te gaan wandelen in de nabijgelegen bossen. Een jaar
laten kon je mee naar IJsland; ook dat was een onvergetelijke trip!
Een ander hoogtepunt tijdens mijn doctoraatstraject was mijn verblijf in Tsjechië, in Brno. Ik werd er
heel goed ontvangen door David Smahel en zijn team. Dankjewel Monica, Katja, Anna, Lukas, Martina,
Vera, Pascaline, Tomo en de andere collega’s voor de mooie tijd in Brno. Dankzij EU Kids Online heb
ik ook de kans gekregen om andere steden en gebieden in Europa te ontdekken. Sinds januari 2012
heb ik elke meeting mogen bijwonen en dat waren telkens heel intense en bijzonder inspirerende
bijeenkomsten. Het was iedere keer mooi om te zien hoe zoveel verschillende nationaliteiten erin
slaagden om samen te werken en iets op te bouwen. Ik hoop van harte dat het EU Kids Online netwerk
middelen kan vinden om te blijven bestaan!
Ik heb ervoor gekozen om mijn receptie ‘zelf’ te organiseren, maar in realiteit betekende dit dat ik
hulp heb moeten vragen aan een hele reeks mensen. Dankjewel mama en papa voor al het gerief!
Dankzij jullie ondernemendheid om zelf talrijke grote feesten te organiseren in het verleden heb ik nu
gebruik kunnen maken van al het materiaal. Ann en Ingrid, bedankt om alles mee klaar te zetten. En
Eva, Goele en Maja, dankjewel om iedereen van drank te voorzien. Zonder jullie was het onmogelijk
om ‘zelf’ voor een receptie te zorgen.
Tot slot gaat mijn dank uit naar alle mensen die rechtstreeks of onrechtstreeks hebben bijgedragen
aan de rekrutering van respondenten voor de surveys en deelnemers voor het kwalitatief onderzoek.
Het was een enorme uitdaging om scholen en mensen te vinden die bereid waren om mee te werken;
ik vond dit één van de moeilijkste en meest frustrerende opdrachten in het hele onderzoekstraject.
Zonder ‘goede connecties’ was het onmogelijk geweest om zoveel kinderen te laten deelnemen aan
dit onderzoek. Dankjewel iedereen die me in contact heeft gebracht met de juiste personen. Veel dank
ook aan de deelnemers zelf, om me te woord te staan en jullie ervaringen en gedachten met mij te
delen. In het bijzonder wil ik de directies bedanken van de twee scholen die hebben deelgenomen aan
de veldwerkstudie. Zij hebben veel tijd voor me vrijgemaakt, en gaven me de ruimte om de
groepssessies met de leerlingen vorm te geven. Ik weet dat het binnen een schoolcontext niet evident
is om deel te nemen aan een onderzoek, dus veel dank voor jullie flexibiliteit.

11
1 Introduction and theoretical
background
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Relevance and aim of the study
Online opportunities and online risks go hand in hand: children who are more active online, also run
into more online risks (Livingstone, Haddon, Görzig & Olafsson, 2011). At some point, most young
people inevitably encounter one or more online risks such as cyberbullying, sexting, sexual content,
negative user generated content, personal data misuse, commercial risks or other online adversities.
The cross-national EU Kids Online and Net Children go Mobile studies have concluded, however, that
exposure to online risks does not necessarily mean harm (Livingstone, Haddon & Görzig, 2012;
Mascheroni & Olafsson, 2014). Not all unpleasant situations can and should be avoided, since such an
experience is not neccesarily problematic, but can be very meaningful inasmuch as children learn from
their mistakes. Previous online experiences can help to identify signs of potential problems and are
important elements in processes of developing risk awareness and buiding resilience. Although
dealing with online risks can be a complex task, most children and adolescents are sufficiently resilient
and display positive adaptation; they are capable of managing negative feelings and finding
appropriate strategies to handle the situation. Nevertheless, a small group of children tend to be more
vulnerable. They suffer more from the negative (emotional) consequences of online risk exposure, and
do not have the required resources at hand to adequately deal with stressful or adverse events
(Masten, 2001; Campbell-Sills, Cohan & Stein, 2006; Bonanno, 2004).
Inequalities in digital environments and online safety have provoked serious concerns among parents,
teachers, policy makers and other stakeholders who care about children’s wellbeing (European
Commission, 2012; Flemish Government, 2012 & 2014). Although knowledge about risk factors is
growing, academics, policy makers and educators continue to express the need for more evidence-
based research on those children who are more ‘at risk’, and on the complex interplay of individual
and contextual factors in the online benefits and harms that affect children’s wellbeing (Livingstone,
Mascheroni & Staksrud, 2015). In contemporary ‘digital societies’, in which information, knowledge
and (online) social networks are paramount (Stehr, 1994; Castells, 1998), it is crucial to identify who is
at risk of exclusion and to understand how vulnerable or marginalized groups can be empowered, and
how they may benefit from online opportunities despite their limited resources.
It would make sense to provide more targeted support tailored at specific groups of interests, since
evidence shows that a ‘one size fits all’ approach does not work. Children’s online activities are
embedded in a social context and family life, and are influenced by personal preferences and
developmental processes (Lemish, 2015; Livingstone, 2014). Various sociodemographic, psychological,
contexutal and socio-cultural variables have an impact on children’s risk exposure and capabilities of
using the advantages and opportunities of the internet (e.g. Peter & Valkenburg, 2006). Children’s
individual characteristics (i.e. age, gender, personality, developmental aspects and cognitive
capacities) and social context (i.e. family, school, peers) also influence processes of resilience building,
and thus have an impact on the (emotional) consequences of negative experiences online and
children’s coping capacities (Von Feilitzen & Stenersen, 2014; Schoon, 2006). Characteristics that are
connected with higher vulnerability are situated both at individual level (e.g. low self-efficacy) and at
contextual/social level (e.g. absence of parental support in online activities) (Staksrud & Livingstone,

12
2009). From the perspective of child care and wellbeing, particularly those children who are more
vulnerable would benefit from initiatives aimed at building online resilience, i.e. strengthening their
abilities to ‘bounce back’ from bothersome experiences, attaining wellbeing and proper functioning
in online environments (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006).
Building on the EU Kids Online framework, in this dissertation we want to get more insight in this
group of vulnerable children. Finding out under which circumstances online risks are perceived as
problematic, and how children deal with unpleasant situations online, our goal is to understand why
some children are more vulnerable online and how their resilience could be fostered. We will do this
by performing analyses on the EU Kids Online quantitative and qualitative data and Net Children go
Mobile survey data, supplementing these with analyses of our Flemish school survey and Flemish
fieldwork study (see figure 2.1).
Since 2006, the multinational research network EU Kids Online1
- funded by the EC Safer/Better
Internet for Kids Programme, investigates children’s online opportunities, risks and safety, with the
aim of creating a safer/better Internet for children. In 2012, the sister project Net Children go Mobile2
was set up, aiming at enhancing knowledge on the impact of mobile devices on children’s online
experiences. These evidence-based cross-national studies have been valuable for academics and
policy makers in many ways. The combination of quantiative and qualitative methods, the high
number of participating countries and the variety of online risks yielded interesting and unique
comparative findings. In setting up the studies, network members had to compromise during the
development of instruments for data collection and analysis, which resulted in a wide range of topics
being covered, but did not allow elaboration on particular aspects or (sub)topics such as certain coping
strategies. Furthermore, this put constraints on revealing detailed insights in particular aspects using
more complex analyses, especially at country level. Another struggle for the network was handling the
massive amount of contextual information. A lot of information was gathered about children’s
personality, their domestic and school context, but integrating and interconnecting the diverse
contextual factors in quantitative and qualitative analyses remained challenging. Also the use of
English as lingua franca inevitably resulted in loss of contextual information, especially in the
qualitative phase. Some data are still underexplored and could be further unravelled. This study tries
to overcome these challenges the EU Kids Online network was facing, aiming towards extending our
knowlegde on how children deal with online risks. Furthermore, the dissertation has provided input
for the revision of the EU Kids Online model (Livingstone et al., 2015).
1.1.2 Conceptual model
In line with EU Kids Online, we adopt a context-sensitive ecological approach that takes into account
influences of multiple contexts in which children grow up, acknowledging that young people are both
consumers and producers of online content (Drotner, 2008; Costa, 2014). An ecological perspective
pays attention to both individual and environmental aspects and analyzes children’s online activities
as an interaction of personal, contextual and social characteristics (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986;
Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Lemish, 2015). It takes into account the reciprocal relationships
between a child’s personal development, emotional and behavioral responses, and the immediate
social context, i.e. relationships with and practices within networks of parents, peers, teachers,
relatives and other mentors (Linebarger & Vaala, 2010; Lee, Bartolic & Vandewater, 2009; Donoso &
Ribbens, 2015). A major issue, however, is the complexity and dynamic nature of all possible sources
and contexts that have an influence on children’s online activities and their outcomes. Taking into
account a myriad of factors while attempting to develop an ecological model, one has to be careful
1 www.eukidsonline.net
2 www.netchildrengomobile.eu

13
not to end up in the so-called ‘kitchen sink’ pitfall: i.e. an overly broad model wherein everything
matters does not make much sense anymore (Vandewater, 2013; Lemish, 2015). Nevertheless, holistic
ecological approaches remain valuable because they do not see (online) media experiences as isolated
from other areas in children’s lives and allow to get more insights in how children’s (online)
experiences shape and are shaped by interactions and relationships with family, peers and the broader
socio-cultural context (Nathanson, 1999; Nathanson & Yang, 2003; Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeters &
Marseille, 1999; Bastiaenssens, Vandebosch, Poels, Van Cleemput, DeSmet & De Bourdeaudhuij,
2014; Festl, Scharkow & Quandt, 2013; Hinduja & Patchin, 2013; Zhou, Tang, Tian, Wei, Zhang &
Marrison, 2013).
Figure 1.1: Visualization of the study’s central concepts
In this model, we can see how (a) individual and (b) social factors have an influence on children’s
online experiences, which then (c) have certain ‘outcomes’ in terms of awareness & risk perceptions,
impact & harm and preventive measures & coping. As the bidirectional arrows indicate, this is not a
linear process. In reality, children have an influence on their social relationships through processes of
mutual learning. The model also accounts for children’s capability of learning from (direct or indirect)
experiences, thus acknowledging the complex transactional relations between the ‘outcomes’ and
children’s individual and/or social context (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013; Livingstone et al., 2015). In this
study, vulnerability is understood as experiencing more ‘negative’ or unfavorable outcomes, i.e. a
higher intensity of harm and/or struggle more when dealing with online risks.
In chapter 3, we discuss children’s risk perceptions and awareness, and the impact (harm) of online
experiences on children’s emotional wellbeing. This should help us investigate under which
circumstances online risks are perceived as problematic and which elements contribute to more/less

14
harm. Risk perception is understood as how children evaluate the expected outcome of a (potentially)
risky situation online, i.e. to what extent they expect the situation will have unpleasant consequences
(Smahel & Wright, 2014). Such meaning-making processes are dynamic; children accumulate online
experiences and continuously develop cognitive, emotional and social skills, which eventually
contribute to children’s online risk awareness and capacities for information processing (Valkenburg,
2004; Van Evra, 2004). Awareness is a crucial precondition in the process of changing people’s
behavior; when convinced one will be safer or happier, one is more likely to take precautions, thus
making oneself less vulnerable for risks (Scheier & Carver, 1987).
A sense of awareness is therefore an essential precondition to motivate young people to take
preventive measures in order to avoid negative problematic situations online or prevent them from
(re-)occurring (Kowalski, Limber & Agatston, 2008; Parris, Varjas, Meyers & Cutts, 2012). Negative
impact is conceptualized as psycho-social or emotional harm, i.e. feeling distressed and displaying
adverse emotional responses. We do not focus on long-term changes in attitudes and behavior. For
example, when considering the impact of sexual media content, we look at the immediate impact on
children’s emotional wellbeing and not at the formation of attitudes about sex or sexual behavior
(Smahel & Wright, 2014). We do, however, take into account emotional experiences that have left a
long-lasting impression, which for example manifest in recurring nightmares. Realistic media content
generally has a stronger impact on young people’s emotional state (Cantor & Omdahl, 1991; Harrison
& Cantor, 1999; Valkenburg, 2004; Cantor, Byrne, Moyer-Guse & Riddle, 2010).
In chapter 4, we look at preventive measures and coping strategies children use to deal with online
risks. This should help us obtain more insight in the measures or strategies children use in certain
situations, and why certain measures or strategies are preferred and evaluated as more helpful.
Preventive measures are understood as a set of strategies a person can adopt to avoid/prevent online
risks. In short, preventive measures are characterized by the intention to reduce the negative impact
of (online) risks. Although generally considered as a beneficial way to deal with online risks, preventive
actions have some pitfalls. In an early stage, stressors are often ambiguous or nebulous, and people
may waste energy and resources on preventive measures that ultimately turn out to be unnecessary
or ineffective (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997). Coping is defined as the “efforts to adapt to stress or other
disturbances by a stressor or adversity in order to protect oneself from the psychological harm of risky
experiences” (Masten & Gewirtz, 2006). Coping strategies are conceptualized as emotional, cognitive
or behavioral responses of people who are confronted with stressful or unpleasant situations (Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). In the traditional coping literature, coping is
mainly viewed as adaptive reactions once stress has been experienced. More recently, however,
coping has been conceptualized as something one can do before or after stress occurs (Greenglass &
Fiksenbaum, 2009).
Vulnerability and resilience can be conceptualized as two extremes on a continuum. Vulnerability is
defined as a person’s susceptibility to disorder and decreased wellbeing (Werner & Smith, 1992).
Resilience is a process of learning to deal with problematic issues in the online and offline world: it is
the capacity to ‘rebound’ from unpleasant experiences and to maintain a good sense of wellbeing
despite adversity (Coleman & Hagell, 2007; Campbell-Sills et al., 2006). Resilience is a dynamic process
and can only be developed through exposure to risk or stress. In learning from their mistakes, most
young people gradually improve in recovering from negative experiences and positively adapt despite
unpleasant or even traumatic experiences (Coleman & Hagell, 2007; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000;
Bonanno, 2004). Resilience is also a multidimensional construct; it includes both psychological or
temperamental variables (i.e. emotional development) and coping skills (i.e. capacities for adequate
coping). It is this combination of elements that explains why some children who have been exposed

15
to (online) adversities are more capable of dealing with stressful or traumatic life events (Masten,
2001; Campbell-Sills, Cohan & Stein, 2006; Schoon, 2006). In order to understand why some children
are more vulnerable online, this dissertation focuses on the model’s ‘outcomes’ as indicators for
vulnerability/resilience.
When talking about adequate coping, we understand this as adaptive or successful coping, i.e. being
able to effectively deal with a (potentially) problematic situation. Adequate coping is defined as a set
of cognitive or behavioral strategies that allow people to successfully manage the demands of stressful
or unpleasant experiences, buffer the negative impact and build resilience (Folkman & Moskowitz,
2004; Perren et al., 2012). Socio-demographics, personality and social context all have an impact on
coping processes (Rueda & Rothbart, 2009; Ybarra, Espelage & Mitchell, 2007; Billings & Moos, 1981).
1.1.3 Aims and contributions of this study
Having its roots in EU Kids Online, this study aims to accomplish a unique contribution to the field of
young people’s online risks. We have elaborated on the EU Kids Online study in several ways:
1) Focus on the Belgian/Flemish context. Parts of the EU Kids Online and Net Children go Mobile
data collections will be used in this dissertation, complementing them with separate and
unique quantitative and qualitative data collected in Flanders.
2) Focus on vulnerable children. EU Kids Online has shown that risky encounters do not
automatically result in actual harm and that in most cases children are not negatively affected.
Drawing on these initial insights about online resilience, we are particularly interested in
learning more about this ‘minority’ or subgroup of vulnerable children.
3) Elaborate on the topic of coping. We will investigate preventive measures and coping more
in-depth, rethinking the existing typologies and measurement instruments. We intend to
deliver a contribution to the conceptualization and categorization of online coping and
preventive measures, i.e. identifying patterns and developing coping typologies.
4) Mixed-methods approach. Following current trends on doing reseach with young people, we
apply a well-considered selection of (innovative) qualitative and quantitative research
techniques. In addition to the EU Kids and NCGM cross-sectional surveys, this dissertation
includes a Flemish school survey and longitudinal qualitative fieldwork study. In this fieldwork
study, we visited the participants multiple times at school throughout the academic year.
5) Interconnection of individual and contextual elements. We look beyond the ‘classic’ socio-
demographics and include a wider range of psychological and social indicators in order to
capture the role of personality characteristics and the quality of children’s relationships with
parents, peers and teachers. This allows us to verify and clarify assumptions about those
elements influencing the relationships between exposure, harm and coping.
6) Focus on a wider range of online risks. We include measures on harm and coping for two
additional types of online risks, i.e. negative user-generated content (shocking images) and
privacy risks (profile hacking). These risks are very relevant in the current context/culture of
convergence, in which boundaries between consumers and producers have blurred and
opportunities for sharing content or information have increased.
In sum, 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 exactly 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

16
children and increase their emotional wellbeing and coping capacities. In order to develop effective
initiatives and actions to support these vulnerable target groups, it is crucial to understand how
different individual and contextual factors interplay in children’s coping behavior and to find out which
elements have an impact on the development of adequate preventive measures and coping strategies.
A recurring debate among scholars and policy makers when it concerns children’s wellbeing, is finding
a balance between autonomy and protection (Livingstone & Bulger, 2014; Livingstone et al., 2015).
Building on principles of cultural studies, an empowerment approach looks at children as an ‘active’
or autonomous audience or public, motivated to engage in online communication, collaboration and
creativity (Anderson & Field, 1986; Anderson & Lorch, 1983; Bickham, Wright & Huston, 2001). It
assumes that children actively select and make meaning out of media messages, use their available
cognitive skills to decode and reflect upon media content, and are capable to refine and develop new
(digital) skills (Livingstone, 2014). From an empowerment perspective, improving children’s digital
literacy is a gateway to more sophisticated internet use, self-protection and online resilience (Van Dijk
& Van Deursen, 2014; Livingstone, 2002). A protective approach focuses more on the (online) risks
than opportunities. It has its roots in media effect studies, and has a more ‘passive’ view on children
as media consumers, assuming that children’s attention for media is mainly an outcome of external
elements (Mander, 1978; Winn, 1977). From a protective point of view, adult mediation and
regulation practices are considered as necessary tools to enable safe and responsible online activities
for children growing up in a complex and media-rich environment (Hobbs, 2011; Hobbs, 2006;
Livingstone, 2014; Cappello, Felini & Hobbs, 2011; Barron, Levinson, Martin, Mertl, Stringer & Rogers,
2010; Hart & Hicks, 2002; Lemke, 2006; Rheingold, 2008; Tyner, 2004).
In order to meet the current challenges related to balancing ‘empowerment versus protection’ and
interconnecting the wide range of vulnerability factors, we argue to embed research within a child-
centered approach. The key aspect of a child-centered approach is giving voice to children and youth,
which means to work ‘with’ and not ‘on’ children, using methods and research techniques that
motivate children to participate actively in research (Monteiro, 2014). In presenting their own
perspectives and ideas in their own voices, children can show researchers what they perceive as
problematic or harmful, which may contradict adults’ ideas about what is risky (Lemish, 2015; Van
Mechelen & Donoso, 2014; Drotner, 2013; Krcmar, 2013; boyd, 2014). This child-centered approach
pays full respect to the experiences and opinions of children and sees them as active social agents,
media consumers and meaning makers (Corsaro, 2005; Gauntlett, 2005). Hence, a child-centered
approach provides us with a suitable framework and good starting point to learn more about young
people’s online activities, risk awareness, perceived harm, preventive measures and coping strategies.
In order to get insight in the emotional impact of online incidents, we should listen unprejudiced to
children’s voices, encourage them to share their thoughts and express their feelings, respect their
fears and concerns and respond children’s questions honestly (Lemish & Götz, 2007). From this
perspective, children are not perceived as ‘less than’ but as ‘different from’ adults, with their own
ways of meaning-making (Livingstone, 2014; Livingstone, 2002). However, we must be wary for an
overestimation of children’s willingness and capacities to express themselves and to participate
actively. Children greatly differ in internal motivations, cognitive capacities and online experiences,
and we must take into account reciprocal relationships and interactive processes between the
individual child, online environment and cultural/contextual elements (Burman, 2008; Saltman, 2005;
Alper, 2013; Mostmans, Bauwens & Pierson, 2014). In this study, we apply this child-centered
approach through a focus on what children perceive or describe themselves as problematic or
unpleasant, taking this level of perceived harm into account in further analyses and interpretations.
Furthermore, in the qualitative fieldwork study we visited participants multiple times, which allowed

17
us to involve them more actively in the study and provide them more opportunities to express their
views and perceptions.
1.2 Theoretical background
In this section we present the overarching theories or perspectives that provide us a framework and
will help us to explain and interpret our findings. We start with discussing theoretical insights on the
level of the individual (developmental theories), moving on the theories and concepts that explain the
role of children’s social environment (socialization theories, social capital, and social skills). Next, we
discuss literature on coping categories/typologies (perspectives on coping) and coping processes
(protection-motivation theory). Finally, we look more closely at theoretical perspectives that could
help us understand and explain why certain groups of children are more vulnerable than others (social
compensation and social enhancement hypothesis). Our aim is not to provide an exhaustive discussion
of every theory, but to select those theories that can be directly applied to the central concepts of our
study: i.e. awareness & risk perceptions, impact & harm, and preventive measures & coping.
1.2.1 Developmental theories
Classic developmental theories mainly focus on cognitive development and discern a number of
developmental phases or ‘stages’ that children pass when growing older (Lemish, 2015). As they grow
older and obtain higher levels of reasoning and reflective thinking, young people become more steady
as their behavior will correspond more with their attitudes (Kohlberg & Candee, 1984; Rholes & Bailey,
1983). Two major transit moments withstand. First, around the age of 6-7, children become less
egocentric and their sense of own ‘self’ emerges, enabling them to explore and make sense of the
world. During the phase of middle childhood, developing self-confidence becomes an important task,
as it is the foundation for building a self-concept and identity. Moreover, a healthy sense of self-
confidence or self-efficacy is helpful in resilience building when confronted with adverse situations
(Fine, 2004; Ito, Horst, Bittani, boyd, Herr-Stephenson, Lange et al., 2008). The second key moment is
around the age of 11-12, when children move to early adolescence. Children’s focus shifts from
parents to peers; they obtain more autonomy or independence from the parents, and relationship
building with peers becomes a central developmental task. As they are given more autonomy, family
relations change because children become more actively involved in decision making on personal and
family level (Amato, 1989; Baumrind, 1991; Eccles, Jacobs, Harold, Yoon, Abreton & Freedman-Doan,
1993). Despite getting more autonomous, young teens are not ready yet to be completely emotionally
self-reliant (Ponnet, Van Leeuwen & Wouters, 2014). It is normal for youth to experiment and
challenge themselves, but they do not always realize what could be the outcomes or consequences of
their behavior (Baym, 2010; Cassell & Cramer, 2009). In this phase, they also start getting interested
in romantic and intimate relationships (Kolucki & Lemish, 2011, pp. 13-23). Friends become more
important and influence young people’s choices in online activities and whom they connect with
online and offline. The process of identity building is also intensified during adolescence (Strasburger,
Wilson & Jordan, 2009). Through self-expression, teenagers experiment with different identities (Fine,
2004; Ito et al., 2008). Cultural practices and preferences in the peer groups contribute to the
construction of these individual and collective identities (Alper, 2013; Pasquier, 2008; Ellison,
Steinfield & Lampe, 2011). Therefore, integration and active participation in peer cultures and
communities are important aspects in teenagers’ lives, especially with same-gendered and congenial
groups (Fine, 2004; Ito et al., 2010; Lenhart, Ling, Campbell & Purcell, 2010).
1.2.2 Socialization theories
Through socialization processes, children learn about cultural practices and internalize values and
perceptions of themselves and others (Lemish, 2015; Rubini & Palmonari, 2006; Scholte & Van Aken,

18
2006). Gradually, children get involved in social and cultural practices, and acquire a variety of
personal attitudes, behaviors and habits, all affected by ‘significant others’ or socialization agents, i.e.
parents, peers, siblings, teachers or other people in educational roles (Costa, 2014; de la Ville & Tartas,
2010; Van den Berg, 2008; McLeod, 2000). Through these socialization processes, these ‘significant
others’ have an impact on youth’s intentions to engage in risky behavior online (Espelage, Bosworth
& Simon, 2000; Idsoe, Solli & Cosmovici, 2008; Brown, Mounts, Lamborn & Steinberg, 1993).
According to the social learning theory, which builds upon the social cognitive theory, both peers,
adults and media figures can be role models for children. Children’s behavior is the result of a dynamic
process of interactions between personal and environmental factors (Bandura, 1977, 2001). Through
observing others or ‘vicarious experience’, inexperienced children can build self-efficacy and
confidence prior to carrying out a task (Bandura, 1997). Perceived social norms then play a crucial role
in individuals’ intentions to engage in certain behaviors. Children tend to behave in accordance with
their role models, especially when their actions are praised or rewarded (Bandura, 2001; Dal,
Stoolmiller & Sargent, 2012; Konijn, Nije Bijvank & Bushman, 2007). For example, if people feel they
are expected take up personal responsibility in adopting online safety practices, and if they have
enough confidence and knowledge to perform the task, they will be more likely to follow the social
norms and engage in protective behavior (Douba, Rütten, Scheidl, Soble & Walsh, 2014; Ybarra,
Mitchell, Finkelhor & Wolak, 2007). Studies indicate that people with very low self-efficacy or prior
knowledge are a vulnerable group, in a sense that taking up personal responsibility in performing
protective behavior can provoke feelings of being overwhelmed, resulting in a fatalistic or maladaptive
response (Shillair, Cotton, Tsai, Alhabash, LaRose & Rifon, 2015).
According to the theory of planned behavior, which elaborates on the theory of reasoned action,
behavior is a rational decision-making process. It is the outcome of a person’s attitude and subjective
norms of relevant others (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991; Rivis, Sheeran & Armitage, 2006). This
reasoned action approach introduces the concept of normative social influence, presuming that
individuals want to belong to social groups and care about their group members’ evaluations (Ajzen
& Fishbein, 2008). Hence, children will adopt the normative standards that are commonly accepted
among the group members and internalize those norms and prescribed behaviors (Schultz, Tabanico
& Rendon, 2008). This process of social influence is driven by children’s perceptions of subjective
norms, i.e. what others would do (descriptive norms) and what others would (dis)approve of
(injunctive norms) in a particular situation (Ajzen, 1991; Reno, Caildini & Kallgren, 1993; Lapinski &
Rimal, 2005; Van Gool, Van Ouytsel, Ponnet & Walrave, 2015). Through ‘significant others’, children
establish a normative framework (Albert & Steinberg, 2011). In the transition from childhood to
adolescence, capacities for reflective thinking and reasoning increase, which reinforces the connection
between attitudes and behavior. In short; adolescents would behave more in accordance to their
attitudes and beliefs compared to pre-teens (Kohlberg & Candee, 1984; Rholes & Bailey, 1983).
Peers
In the transition from childhood to adolescence, youths’ focus shifts from parents to peers, with peer
groups having a critical socializing function in the life of adolescents (Arnett, 2010; Gardner &
Steinberg, 2005; Baumgartner, Valkenburg & Peter, 2011). Through a set of norms, values, shared
interests and behavioral patterns, young people build peer cultures and collective identities (Handel,
Cahill & Elkin, 2007; Brown & Klute, 2003; Green & Haddon, 2009; Albert & Steinberg, 2011). Besides
having an instrumental function, adolescents’ online communication practices also contribute to
sustainable relationship-building amongst peers, fostering a sense of group identity (Taylor & Harper,
2003; Ito et al., 2010; boyd, 2014). If the peer group is more active online, children are more likely to

19
climb higher on the so-called ‘ladder of opportunities’ and become ‘all-round’ users (Eynon &
Malmberg, 2011).
Following Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991, 2001), it turns out that injunctive norms
of peers seem to have a strong influence on youths’ engagement in risky behaviors online (Pabian &
Vandebosch, 2014; Sandstrom, Makover & Bartini, 2012). So-called salient ‘ingroup’ members or close
friends exert an even stronger normative social influence compared to acquaintances or ‘outgroup’
members (Bastiaenssens, Vandebosch, Poels, Van Cleemput, De Bourdeaudhuij & DeSmet, 2015). This
sometimes escalates into peer pressure, when relevant ingroup members strongly encourage others
to act or think in a certain way, even if this behavior does not correspond anymore with the individual’s
personal beliefs (Brown, Lohr & McClenahan, 1986; Clasen & Brown, 1985; Santor, Messervey &
Kusumakar, 2000). This explains why adolescents are sensitive to perceived peer pressure and social
dynamics within a classroom (Festl, Scharkow & Quandt, 2014).
Family
The family environment plays a crucial role in how children deal with online risks. Family caregiving,
parent-child relationships and parenting processes strongly affect children’s emotional development,
which is decisive for youth’s capacities for emotion regulation (Cassidy, 1994; Field, 1994; Bell &
Calkins, 2000; Brown & Bakken, 2011). Even though the normative influence of peers increases during
adolescence, parents remain an important source of support in young people’s lives (Brown & Bakken,
2011).
The literature distinguishes four general parental styles in a two-dimensional quadrant with high
control versus low control and high versus low emotional support. Authoritarian parents exert high
levels of control but low levels of warmth. Contrary, permissive or laissez-faire parents are not
demanding but very supportive. Neglectful or uninvolved parents are both low on control and on
emotional support, while authoritative parents are both demanding and supportive (Baumrind, 1966;
Baumrind, 2005; Pettit, Bates & Dodge, 1997). Online (mobile) devices may increase parent-child
interactions and connectivity within the family, but it can also be a tool for control and supervision,
illustrated with the metaphor of the digital ‘umbilical cord’ (Ponte, Simoes, Azavedo, 2014; Turkle,
2008; Blair & Fletcher, 2011; Campbell, 2006; Ling & Yttri, 2002; Nelson, 2010). For many parents, it is
a delicate balance between ensuring children’s safety and at the same time giving them independence
and autonomy (Monteiro & Osorio, 2014; Green, 2001; Ribak, 2009; Ling, 2004; Ling & Yttri, 2002;
Henderson, Taylor & Thomson, 2002; Livingstone, 2002; Schaan & Melzer, 2015). In some families,
parental involvement turns into over-controlling or helicopter parenting. Such an overprotective
attitude may inhibit children’s development of emotional regulation processes, as children will never
learn to deal with unpleasant issues without parental support (Bell & Calkins, 2000; Fox & Calkins,
2003; Power, 2004).
While some families are more social-oriented, i.e. emphasizing getting along with each other, avoiding
confrontations and preserving peacefulness, others as more concept-oriented, i.e. more open
communication and emphasis on a culture of debate (Chafee, McLeod & Wackman, 1973). Related to
(mobile) internet use, we would expect social-oriented family types to favor an ethic of ‘respectful
connectedness’, where parental authority is not questioned and parents perceive ICTs as a tool to
preserve stability within the family. Concept-oriented families would then rather adhere an ethic of
‘expressive empowerment’, where parents encourage their children to go online, as they presume
that online media promote children’s (digital) skills and competences (Livingstone et al., 2015; Clark,
2012). There is a general tendency towards more democratic and two-way communication between
parents and children, moving away from the parents as unquestionable authority figures. This opens

20
doors for reverse socialization and mutual learning (Mead, 1970; McLeod, 2000; Giddens, 1991),
which may be particularly relevant when it comes to transferring digital skills (Grossbart, Hughes,
Pryor & Yost, 2002; Mostmans, Bauwens & Pierson, 2014).
In order to get a more complete view on the family context, we should take into account physical
conditions (i.e. domestication processes), social conditions (i.e. presence and engagement of family
members) and socio-cultural conditions (i.e. types of families and parenting styles) (Lemish, 2015).
Domestication processes describe how media are incorporated in the home and in families’ daily
routines, and how media fulfill several personal and social functions for all family members
(Silverstone, Hirsch & Morley, 1992; Vandewater, 2013). Children living in media-rich families where
ICTs have become an integral part of family life will have different usage patterns from children in
more traditional or media-poor families (Livingstone, 2007). Generally, parents who are active
internet users themselves tend to encourage their children to explore the internet and acquire online
competences (Plowman, 2015). In their practices of modeling and coaching, parents and other actors
serve as role-models (Eisenberg, Fabes & Murphy, 1996; Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, Guthrie, Murphy
& Reiser, 1999). The way parents respond to stressful situations (modeling) and the suggestions
parents give on how to cope with adversities (coaching) have a strong impact on how children deal
with online risks (Kliewer, 2006). When parents are more likely to engage in conflict, abstain from
sanctioning antisocial behavior or adopt destructive coping-strategies themselves, children will
behave correspondingly (Atik & Güneri, 2013; Idsoe et al., 2008; Marini, Dane, Bosacki & Cura, 2006;
Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij & Van Oost, 2002).
In sum, general parental style, domestication processes, and parents’ internet habits all have an
impact on children’s media use and parental mediation practices (Wartella, Rideout, Lauricella &
Connell, 2014; Clark, 2012; Stephen, Stevenson & Adey, 2013; Gentile & Walsh, 2002).
School
The school is a major socialization agent for young people, with formal education provision as the main
task, meant to, albeit with varying success, prepare children for active citizenship and give them equal
opportunities (Pereira, 2014). Although technology optimists may believe that so-called ‘digital
natives’ would automatically soak up digital skills, many scholars argue that not the medium itself but
formal and informal learning environments determine the acquisition of literacy and skills. Schools
and teachers are therefore indispensable in the process of developing media/digital literacy. Even
more, simply teaching so-called technical or operational skills will not be sufficient to empower and
protect children. Only in taking up an active role as facilitator of critical discussion about media
content, teachers contribute to the development of metacognitive and reflective thinking (Cooks &
Scharrer, 2007). Adopting a child-centered perspective on media literacy education opens doors for
mutual learning. Only through understanding children’s preferences, interpretations and experiences
with online media, teachers gain credibility among pupils when they engage in media literacy
education (Lemish, 2015; Buckingham, 1998; Beach, 2007; Peppler, 2013). Young people are mostly
positive about mutual learning, but many teachers feel incompetent and lack confidence when it
comes to active mediation of online activities and transferring digital skills to their students (Nycyk,
2011; Prendes, Castaneda & Gutierrez, 2010). Because the concept of mutual learning revolves the
nature of the teacher-student relationship, it requires openness to go beyond the mere transmission
of knowledge and adopt new teaching styles in order to encourage critical and creative skills.
Very often, schools are highly-controlled environments and restrictive mediation practices are
common practice. Many school boards adopt a protectionist perspective, wanting to keep control over
the situation and avoiding chaos. Hence, mobile phones are often severely restricted or even banned

21
at school (Nelson, 2010; Horst & Miller, 2006; Green, 2001). Although children accept that some rules
are necessary in a school context, they are more enthusiastic about digital educators taking up a role
as inspirer and co-creator rather than setting rules (Ito et al., 2008).
1.2.3 Social capital and social skills
In their online interactions, young people develop social skills and build social capital. According to
Bourdieu’s theory of social capital, interpersonal relations have a value, in a sense that individuals
with stable and extensive social structures have more resources at hand to achieve their goals and
interests (Bourdieu, 1985; Coleman, 1998; Baron, 2000). Online and mobile communication requires
a specific set of social skills. As in the 'offline’ world, social expectations and social cues are established
gradually among users in online communities. Those individuals with more social capital, i.e. having a
solid basis of social skills and ‘offline’ connections, are advantaged and benefit more from online
communication tools in reinforcing (intimate) relationships with others (Kraut, Kiesler, Boneva,
Cummings, Helgerson & Crawford, 2002). Indeed, children with higher levels of social capital are more
likely to use social network sites for interacting with friends and family. Those who use social media
to connect with people will contribute most to social cohesion, and tend to have more influence within
the peer group (Aubrey & Rill, 2013; Brandtzaeg, 2012; Costa, 2014). Considering the role of social
capital, it is not surprising that children’s online and offline social networks highly overlap (Reich,
Subrahmanyam & Espinoza, 2012; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007a).
Social skills and competences are often put forward as protective factors, also in online environments
(Pabian & Vandebosch, 2015; La Greca & Stone, 1993; La Greca & Lopez, 1998). Youth with more social
skills are more successful in building and maintaining their (online) social network. Social skills are
particularly relevant for social media use and when dealing with contact/conduct risks, as they help
young people benefit from online opportunities and reduce online risks (Livingstone, 2014; Dürager,
Dürager & Paus-Hasebrink, 2013). Furthermore, social skills are associated with good emotional
competences and resilience. Through processes of emotional development, children acquire
emotional competences that allow them to experience, manage and express their own emotions and
to recognize other people’s emotions (Cohen, Onunaku, Clothier & Poppe, 2005). Children with more
emotional problems are less resilient as they report more negative feelings after unpleasant situations
online (Staksrud & Livingstone, 2009). Because social support expands a person’s behavioral and
cognitive coping repertoire, social skills and social capital become important resources for adequate
coping (Greenglass & Fiksenbaum, 2009; Greenglass, 2002; Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002; Greenglass,
1993; Greenglass, Schwarzer & Taubert, 1999). Youngsters with good social skills are advantaged in
the process of resilience building.
1.2.4 Perspectives on coping
Two dichotomous models form the basis for studies on coping: the transactional model of Lazarus and
Folkman (1984) and the approach-avoidance model of Roth & Cohen (1986).
The transactional coping model distinguishes between problem-focused versus emotion-focused
coping strategies. Problem-focused coping aims to tackle the cause and solve the actual problem.
People tend to be problem-solving when the situation is perceived as controllable and when they
believe the necessary resources or skills are available to change the adverse situation. Emotion-
focused coping addresses the negative emotional impact and tries to evoke more positive feelings.
The individual tries to ignore or redefine the situation, or focuses on more positive aspects in order to
buffer negative feelings. This type of coping is employed more often when the negative situation is
perceived as uncontrollable or unavoidable (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In the context of preventive
measures, problem-focused coping is also described as proactive coping, and emotion-focused coping

22
as cognitive coping. Generally, problem-focused or proactive coping is considered as the most
beneficial way to deal with (potentially) unpleasant situations. Proactive coping is associated with
lower levels of stress because addressing a potential stressor at an early stage, when the problem has
not yet completely unfolded, requires fewer efforts or resources. Emotion-focused or cognitive coping
is considered rather ineffective at a preventive stage, unless accompanied by specific behavioral
actions (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004).
The approach-avoidance model looks at coping from an active versus passive perspective. The
approach mode refers to cognitive and behavioral attempts to get insight in the stressful situation and
actively deal with the problem directly. The avoidance mode refers to cognitive or behavioral attempts
to avoid, ignore or minimize the problematic situation, which is often preferred in situations that are
not under control (Roth & Cohen, 1986). Avoidance coping is generally not perceived as favorable
because it is associated with reduced emotional wellbeing, maladjustment, feelings of depression,
loneliness and social anxiety (Seiffge-Krenke & Klessinger, 2000; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002;
Ebata & Moos, 1991). When people feel depressed, lonely or anxious, they feel more powerless to
change an unpleasant situation, which may result in more passive or avoidant coping. This approach
may subsequently reinforce their depressed mental status (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006; Calvete et al.,
2011).
Besides these dichotomous coping models, there is the three-factor conceptualization of coping by
Billings & Moos (1981). Besides active behavioral coping and passive avoidance coping, the category
of active cognitive coping (e.g. considering alternatives, focusing on positive aspects) is put forward,
indicating that cognitive or emotion-focused strategies could also have beneficial outcomes for
people’s wellbeing.
According to these traditional coping models, problem-focused or (pro)active coping would result in
more positive adaptation, which promotes people’s emotional health and wellbeing. This process
ultimately leads to increased resilience (Taylor, Kemeny, Reed, Bower & Gruenewald, 2000; Folkman
& Moskowitz, 2004). Therefore, resilient children would be more likely to use proactive problem-
focused coping strategies and coping approaches that evoke more positive emotions (Billings,
Folkman, Acree & Moskowitz, 2000).
1.2.5 Protection-motivation theory
Roger’s protection motivation theory (1975) has been applied multiple times to health
communication (Wolburg, 2001; Sturges & Rogers, 1996; Pechmann, Zhao, Goldberg & Reibling, 2003;
Mermelstein & Riesenberg, 1992). More recently, the protection motivation theory has proved
valuable in explaining people’s intentions of taking protective measures to online safety (Lee &
LaRose, 2004; Youn, 2005; LaRose & Rifon, 2006; Siponen, Pahnila & Mahmood, 2007; Workman et
al., 2008; Lee, LaRose & Rifon, 2008; Youn, 2009; Anderson & Agarwal, 2010; Johnston & Warkentin,
2010; Siponen, Mahmood & Pahnila, 2014).
According to this theory, motivation to protect oneself from risk or harm arises from cognitive risk-
benefit appraisals. This way, protection motivation mediates the relationship between risk-benefit
appraisals and coping behaviors (Maddux & Rogers, 1983). More specifically, assessments of risks and
benefits associated with a risky situation determine a person’s motivation, which triggers coping
behavior to deal with and/or to avert (online) risks. A high level of concern or risk awareness motivates
young people to undertake action (Sheehan & Hoy, 1999; Milne, Rohm & Bahl, 2004, Moscardelli &
Divine, 2007, Rifon, LaRose & Choi, 2005). For example, youth who feel more worried about online
privacy risks will be less willing to provide personal information online and more likely to seek support
or advice and refrain from certain websites (Youn, 2009).

23
The protection motivation theory explains how (protective) coping behavior is the result of two
appraisal processes: (a) threat appraisal and (b) coping appraisal. Depending on these appraisal
processes, youngsters evaluate whether it is worth the effort to engage in preventive measures or
coping strategies, for example when confronted with risky opportunities online (Van Gool, Van
Ouytsel, Ponnet & Walrave, 2015). Threat appraisal refers to perceived vulnerability (i.e. likelihood
something occurs to oneself) and perceived severity of the risk (i.e. intensity of negative
consequences). Coping appraisal refers to response efficacy (i.e. perceived effectiveness of coping
behavior), self-efficacy (i.e. belief that one is capable to carry out the coping response successfully),
response costs (i.e. effort it takes to engage in a certain coping behavior) and perceived benefits (i.e.
rewards associated with risky opportunities) (Shillair et al., 2015). Empirical studies have indicated
that people are more likely to engage in risk-reducing coping behavior as perceived vulnerability,
perceived severity, response efficacy and self-efficacy increase (Rifon, LaRose & Choi, 2005). Perceived
vulnerability would be the most important determinant in youth’s appraisal process. In line with the
threat appraisal process, situations perceived as more serious or harmful tend to provoke more
emotional responses (Smith & Kirby; 2009; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Concerning the impact of a
higher level of perceived harm on young people’s coping, empirical findings carefully suggest that
more intense negative emotions would function like a trigger and stimulate youngsters to engage in
problem-solving behavior (Youn, 2005; Van Royen, Poels & Vandebosch, 2015; Kochenderfer-Ladd,
2004; Hunter, Boyle & Warden, 2006).
Self-efficacy would be a less important predictor when looking at young people’s motivation to protect
themselves from online privacy risks, possibly because teenagers overestimate their control over
online safety and their perceived self-efficacy is optimistically biased (Yan, 2006; Youn, 2009). A
negative association with protection motivation was found for perceived costs and perceived benefits.
Individuals feel less motivated to engage in protective behavior when it takes too much cognitive or
practical effort, or when they believe that potential benefits outweigh the risks (Phelps, Nowak &
Ferrell, 2000; Sheehan & Hoy, 1999; Metzger, 2004; White, 2004; Ward, Bridges & Chitty, 2005;
Ashworth & Free, 2006; Xie, Teo & Wan, 2006; Hui, Teo & Lee, 2007). Particularly perceived benefits
seem important to predict young adolescents’ willingness to disclose personal information online
(Youn, 2005).
A related phenomenon is the so-called ‘privacy paradox’, which explains why teenagers continue to
disclose very intimate information, despite being aware of the possible drawbacks (Barnes, 2006; Carr,
Schrok & Dauterman, 2012; Taddicken, 2014; Taddicken & Jers, 2011). Even though meta-cognitive
skills and abilities for abstract and reflective thinking expand as children grow older (Holodynski &
Friedlmeier, 2006; Steinberg, 2005; Pavlidis & McCauley, 2001), adolescents do not automatically deal
more adequately with online risks. Especially when it comes to dealing with privacy issues,
adolescents’ increased need for self-presentation, building intimate relationships with peers through
mutual self-disclosure comes at odds with requirements to protect their personal data (Youn, 2005;
Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Peter & Valkenburg, 2011; Albert & Steinberg, 2011; Jordan-Conde,
Mennecke & Townsend, 2014).
When looking more specifically at coping appraisal processes, perceived control would be an
additional key aspect. Situations that are ‘out of control’ lead to more intense feelings of helplessness
and negative emotions. For example, when a nasty message is disseminated to a large audience and
by an anonymous perpetrator, this would provoke more intense negative feelings (Machmutow,
Perren, Sticca & Alsaker, 2012; Kowalski, Limber & Agatston, 2012). Traditional coping models take
the role of perceived control into account, but do not clearly distinguish between perceived situational
and perceived behavioral control. Situational control refers to the degree to which someone beliefs

24
he or she can control or change the outcome of a situation, and depends on affordances such as public
visibility or anonymity (Peacock & Wong, 2006; Lazarus, 2006; Sticca & Perren, 2013). Generally,
situations perceived as more controllable or changeable are prompting more problem-solving tactics
(Völlink, Bolman, Dehue & Jacobs, 2013; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Roecker, Dubow & Donaldson,
1996; Causey & Dubow, 1991; Griffith, Dubow & Ippolito, 2000). Others suggest, however, that young
people may seek instrumental assistance in order to gain more control, thus lower perceived control
being a facilitator to seek practical support (Stacey, 2009). Behavioral control refers to a person’s self-
efficacy or belief in one’s capacity to perform a certain coping behavior. A higher level of behavioral
control is associated with a higher rate of successful accomplishments (Bandura, 1977; Bandura,
1982). This illustrates the importance of investing resources that should enhance young people’s self-
efficacy and perceived ability to report online incidents (Van Royen, Poels & Vandebosch, 2015).
The protection motivation theory acknowledges that personal and environmental elements have an
impact on these cognitive appraisal processes. It seems that girls and pre-teens show more concern
about online privacy (Sheehan & Hoy, 1999; Turow & Nir, 2000; Graeff & Harmon, 2002; Youn, 2005;
Moscardelli & Divine, 2007). Likewise, someone’s level of internet experience and knowledge is
associated with lower perceived vulnerability, probably because of an increased sense of control
(Miyazaki & Fernandez, 2001; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Dommeyer & Gross, 2003). Finally, social norms
and cultural practices would also have an impact on how people assess their vulnerability and deal
with online risks3
(Vance, Siponen & Pahnila, 2012; Cox, 2012).
Learning through experiences would be the key to building resilience. Previous experiences help to
identify cues or signs of discomfort and trigger preventive efforts to avoid re-occurrence and/or
continued harm. The ‘empowerment’ perspective assumes that children have the ability to learn from
mistakes and have a natural tendency for self-protection, suggesting that we should have confidence
in young people’s critical and reflective skills and their capacities to learn from negative experiences
in a constructive way (Lerum & Dworkin, 2009; Attwood & Smith, 2011; Gerbner & Gross, 1976;
Signorelli, 1990; Weimann, 2000; Donnerstein, Slaby & Eron, 1994; Wilson, Kunkel, Klintz, Potter &
Donnerstein, 1996). From a ‘protective’ perspective, however, some argue that repeated exposure to
negative content may result in habituation of emotional responses and desensitization, assuming that
children who are for example frequently exposed to negative user-generated content would
increasingly tolerate the portrayed antisocial behavior and would show less empathy (Molitor &
Hirsch, 1994; Funk et al., 2004). This perspective focuses more on children’s vulnerability and assumes
they miss the experience and emotional maturity to adequately deal with ‘inappropriate’ media
content (Thornburgh & Lin, 2002; Peter, 2013). Building resilience is a learning process in which
children’s social environment plays a critical role. In providing information and emotional support,
relevant others can help children to address fearful content or disturbing instances with adequate
coping strategies, and safeguard their emotional wellbeing (Lemish, 2015; Jacobs, Dehue, Völlink &
Lechner, 2014; Wilson & Cantor, 1987; Wilson, 1989; Weiss, Imrich & Wilson, 1993).
1.2.6 The social compensation versus social enhancement hypothesis
From an empowerment perspective, there is the social compensation hypothesis postulating that
socially disadvantaged or marginalized youth would benefit from online technologies as it allows them
to expand their social network, provides access to new information and diversifies their resources for
support, social participation and/or creative expression (Norris, 2001; Mesch & Talmud, 2007; Mesch
& Talmud, 2010; Baym, 2010; Hargittai & Walejko, 2008). Online applications would particularly help
individuals with a lack of ‘offline’ resources or social skills such as introvert, lonely or isolated youth,
3 See also theory of planned behavior (section 1.2.2).

25
assuming they would feel more comfortable to communicate and share information in online
environments (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Bonetti, Campbell & Gilmore, 2010; Ellison, Steinfield &
Lampe, 2007). The same goes for youth who belong to ethnic or socio-cultural minorities (Rivera &
Valdivia, 2013, Buckingham, 2002). Evidence shows that such a ‘poor-get-richer’-effect can only occur
if the online applications would increase the level of perceived social support. In order to realize this,
receiving positive feedback from co-users on online platforms is an essential precondition (Frison &
Eggermont, 2015).
From a protectionist perspective, there is the social enhancement hypothesis (also known as
reinforcement hypothesis), saying that online media reinforce existing inequalities among youth
(Norris, 2001; Kraut et al., 2002; Lee, Bartolic & Vandewater, 2009). Evidence shows that online and
offline vulnerability are interconnected, leading to unequal online participation among youth,
especially when looking at more ‘advanced’ online activities higher on the so-called ‘ladder of
opportunities’. Not all children have the skills and competences to engage in creative or participatory
online activities (Jenkins 1992; Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel & Robinson, 2006; Reilly et al.,
2012; Castells, Fernandez-Ardevol, Linchuan & Sey, 2007). Moreover, not all online participation and
engagement is constructive and positive. Vulnerable youth may become more easily prey to online
communities fostering hate-speech, racism or violence (Lim, Basnyat, Vadrevu & Chan, 2013; Lemish,
2015). Due to this ‘participation gap’, youngsters with low social capital succeed less in benefiting
from opportunities of social media for relationship building (Kraut et al., 2002; Selfhout, Branje,
Delsing, ter Bogt & Meeus, 2009; Hargittai & Walejko, 2008). It is mainly those young people who
already actively use online media as a source of information and participation who benefit most. Social
media are an additional resource for them to strengthen relationships with peers and participate in
online opportunities (Desjarlais & Willoughby, 2010; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007a; Kraut et al., 2002;
Kahne, Lee & Feezell, 2012).
Empirical studies indicate that socio-cultural inequalities persist, and that some children do not have
the digital skills and competences to fully participate in social, creative or civic online activities (Jenkins
et al., 2006; Reilly et al., 2012; Schols, 2015). In socially disadvantaged families, parents are often less
familiar with online media themselves. This issue is particularly relevant for immigrant children, since
families with a minority ethnic background are overrepresented in lower-SES strata (Madden, 2010;
Rivera & Valdivia, 2013). Parents with limited digital skills feel less capable and motivated to guide
their children in their online explorations and take up an educative role in children’s acquisition of
digital skills (de Haan, 2010; Paus-Hasebrink, Sinner & Prochazka, 2014; Livingstone & Das, 2010;
Tsatsou, Pruulman-Vengerfeldt & Murru, 2009). Contrary, higher-educated parents more often have
the necessary digital skills and experiences with ICTs, and feel more confident in stimulating positive
and instructive online experiences (Notten & Kraaykamp, 2009; Sanders, Markie-Dadds & Turner,
2003). And even though educational media content have an overall positive impact on children’s
learning processes, those living in culturally rich families receiving parental support and reinforcement
will benefit more from such educational opportunities (Singhal, Cody, Roger & Sabido, 2004; Lemish
& Kolucki, 2013). Also parents who strongly believe in the educational potential of online media will
encourage their children taking up more complex or advanced online activities than parents who
believe online media are just a convenient way to occupy or entertain children (Vaala, 2014;
Vandewater, Rideout, Wartella, Huang, Lee & Shim, 2007; Rideout & Hamel, 2006; Zimmerman,
Christakis & Meltzoff, 2007). In short, because of this scaffolding gap, it is not evident for children in
lower SES families to climb on the ladder of opportunities because their parents struggle in giving age-
appropriate mentoring and stimulating children to engage in enhancing activities (Neuman & Celano,
2006). Although inequalities in digital access, known as the ‘first-level digital divide’, have become less
relevant in a highly connected country like Belgium (Adriaens, Van Damme & Courtois, 2011;

26
Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Mertens & d’Haenens, 2010; Moreas, 2007; Tsatsou et al., 2009), socially
disadvantaged children still have a more limited and less emancipatory array of online activities, and
a lower level of digital skills. This issue is also described as the ‘second-level digital divide’ (Hargittai,
2002; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007; Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008; Hsie, Rai & Keil, 2008; Notten &
Kraaijkamp, 2009; Tsatsou, Pruulman-Vengerfeldt & Murru, 2009; Paus-Hasebrink, Ponte, Dürager &
Bauwens, 2012; Clark, Demont-Heinrich & Webber, 2005; Hargittai & Shaw, 2013; Van Deursen & Van
Dijk, 2010; Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2011).
We found more empirical evidence for the social enhancement hypothesis or ‘participation gap’,
saying that online interactions mainly extend and reinforce already existing ‘offline’ social networks,
and that youngsters with low social capital and social skills benefit less from opportunities through
online media and would be more vulnerable online (Valkenburg & Peter, 2009; Mesch & Talmud,
2010).
1.3 Towards investigating how children deal with online risks and who
is more vulnerable
The aim of this dissertation is to understand why some children are more vulnerable online and how
their resilience could be fostered. This goal will be achieved in six steps or research questions (RQs),
first focusing on issues related to ‘awareness & impact’ (chapter 3, RQ1-3) and then focusing on
‘preventive measures & coping’ (chapter 4, RQ4-6). 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.
1.3.1 Research questions
The concept of awareness refers to children’s perceptions and beliefs about what could be risky or
problematic online, and what they should be careful about. Depending on how children perceive the
risk and the extent of harm, they will consider taking preventive measures to avoid re-occurrence
and/or adopt coping strategies to deal with the problem (Smahel & Wright, 2014; Kowalski, Limber &
Agatston, 2008; Parris et al., 2012). The EU Kids Online study illustrated that children are aware that
going online is a complex story of both opportunities and risks; 39% of the 9 to 16-year-olds in Belgium
fully agree that the internet has a lot of good things to offer, while 45% indicate that some things
online are bothersome for children their age (Livingstone et al., 2011). In order to obtain a more
profound understanding of children’s own risk perceptions and sense of awareness, we formulate the
following research questions:
RQ1a: Which factors play a role in how children perceive online risks?
RQ1b: Which online risks are perceived as more problematic, and why?
Previous studies have indicated that online bullying can have devastating consequences (harm) on
young people’s emotional wellbeing, especially when the perpetrator is anonymous and/or when a
large audience can witness the harmful messages (Den Hamer, Konijn & Keijer, 2015; Sticca & Perren,
2013). This probably explains why online bullying is the most investigated online risk in empirical
studies. The negative effects of online bullying are however not so different from traditional bullying,

PhD Sofie Vandoninck

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to PhD Sofie Vandoninck

Similar to PhD Sofie Vandoninck (20)

PhD Sofie Vandoninck