Purpose of study

As a whole, the present study seek to understand the relationship between parents’

Internet self efficacy, parents’ media usage, perceived Internet risk (for their children), and parents’ Internet mediation. The present time context of having a generation Y parents and their generation Z children would hope to give insights on how parents get on parenting

when they are closing in in the digital gap with their children. The present study will be studied in the East Asian context, specifically Taiwan, that was cited to have one of the highest Internet usage level in Asia, along with leading the World’s ranking board in terms of e-government and Networked Readiness Index (Lin, 2007).

Chapter 2

Literature Review

As the present study involves a number of different factors that are affecting parental mediation, literatures on each of these factors, namely media usage, risk perception, and Internet self efficacy, will all be discussed extensively throughout this chapter. As all of these factors eventually lead up to parental mediation, it is best that the parental mediation be discussed first in the literature review, to allow for an easier comprehension in the later sections. Hence, the first part of the literature review will present the definition, the categorization, and the previous studies on parental mediation will be discussed in the first section. The second section will then touch on the role of media in shaping parents’ attitude and perceptions towards Internet, which is heavily related to the third section: parents’ risk perception, which is emphasizing on their children’s safety. Last but not least, parents’ Internet literacy and self efficacy are also analyzed along their roles in shaping the parental mediation strategies.

2.1. Parental mediation on children’s Internet

Rooted from media effects studies, the term parental mediation refers to parents’

active role in managing and regulating children’s experiences with media, primarily television (Nathanson, 1999; Clarke 2011). Specifically, parental mediation theory states that parents use different interpersonal communication strategies in their attempts to mediate and mitigate the negative effects of the media in children’s lives (Clarke, 2011).

As early literatures on parental mediation focused heavily on television as medium, the mediation mainly dealt with the risk such as sexual, violent contents and television advertisement. Literature on parents’ mediation of children’s Internet had largely adapted and derived from those studying parents’ mediation of children’s television use (Clarke, 2011; Warren & Bluma, 2002). Warren and Bluma (2002) found striking similarities between the parents’ mediation strategies used to regulate both television and Internet – that is, parents might be looking to their practices with established media (television) to figure out their mediation of new media (Internet).

As “home” had been found as the most common place for Internet use, past studies had focused on parents’ Internet mediation at home and ways in which they try to minimize the Internet risk for their children. Cassidy, Brown, and Jackson (2012) found that

parenting styles and parenting decisions indeed have an impact on young people’s online behaviors, while Mccarty, Prawitz, Derscheid, and Montgomery (2011) found a

relationship between the amounts of time spent interacting online and the likelihood of risky Internet behaviors, such as face-to-face meetings with someone met online. The result shows the more time youth spend in the interactive chat websites, albeit anonymous, is likely to lead to them sharing their phone numbers to strangers (2011).

Some research on the Internet mediation further indicate that merely setting up Internet rules at home would have put parents’ mind to ease and make them comfortable to trust their children with Internet activities. According to Kaiser Family Foundation’s nationwide telephone poll of 1008 parents of children aged 2-17, these relaxed attitudes were associated with the fact that parents know what the children are doing online, who they make friends with online, what sites they visit, and what contents do they post (Rideout, 2007). These behaviors can be explained in regards to Internet literacy or network competence, cited in the works of Savolainen (2002), Bawden (2008). Internet literacy has been found to increase students’ academic achievements, but for parents, there is a negative correlation between parents’ Internet literacy and the supervising of their children’s online activities, meaning they would supervise less when they are network competent.

Nathanson (1999; 2001) derived the Internet mediation strategies from studies investigating mediation on children’s television usages: (1) Active mediation refers to parents’ efforts to communicate with the children about the media, media content, and its safe usage (2) Restrictive mediation involves restricting children’s use of the media in the context of location, time, and content. Little discussion or negotiations on such restrictions would occur. (3) Co- using or co-viewing indicates the children’s use of the medium will be of the accompaniment of the parents to minimize the risk. In other words, the viewing experience is shared.

Livingstone and Helsper (2008) adapted the above mentioned mediation strategies by tailoring it to the Internet use and came up with four parental mediation strategies:

(1) Active & co-use: Unlike television, where children and parents watch together without much talking, when parents co-use the Internet with children, they would also communicate at the same time, prompting these two approaches to be integrated.

(2) Interaction restrictions: In here, parents would ban children from doing any social activities through Internet, which would include prohibiting children from the use of e-mail, playing games, social networking sites, etc.

(3) Technical restrictions: Using an Internet related techniques to restrict children’s Internet use (e.g.,, filtering or blocking sites).

(4) Monitoring: Checking up on the child’s activity, covertly or overtly after use (e.g., checks web just visited by child).

DeHue, Bolman, and Vollink (2008) found that 60% of parents would set rules on the frequency of children’s Internet use, while 80% of parents are found to put restrictions on how children use Internet. Another expansive study by Livingstone and Helsper (2008) revealed that 53% of the parents claimed to have set up rules about the timing of Internet use, 67% forbid children to pass on personal details; 59% forbid children to buy things online, 43% blocked email usage, 13% ruled out access to chat rooms, 7% bared instant messaging

In comparison to other medium, parents had identified Internet as the media they would be most conflicted for their children’s use. The apprehension has been documented to be more so among parents from lower income families (Clark, 2009). This latest point may be explained in terms of the generation gap and digital divide: that parents who have less experience with communication technologies and therefore lack of Internet skills and literacy, will express more concerns with maintaining authority about an area (digital media) in which their teens knew more than they did (2009). Lee (2013) found that parental

Internet skills are significantly correlated with them adopting more restrictive approach of mediation. Parents also had found it useful to ask guidance from their siblings (Clark, 2009).

Regarding the effectiveness of Internet mediation, studies had yielded mixed results. While the findings of Lwin, Stanaland, and Minazaki (2008) and Valcke et al.

(2011) found that both restrictive and active mediation predict lower children’s unsafe Internet behavior, Livingstone & Helsper (2008) and Kerr & Stattin (2000) failed to find similar results. For example, Cassidy et al. (2012) found that parents’ reports of their children being cyber- bullied (11.8%) are significantly lower than the children’s’ reports of being bullied (22.9%). Parents had also been found to miscalculate the amount of time their children spend on the Internet (Liau, Khoo, & Ang, 2008). The reason behind such

inconsistent results may be attributed to differences between how children and parents perceive both the Internet risk and the mediation (Cassidy et al., 2012; Valcke et al., 2011;

Liau, Khoo, & Ang, 2008). Cassidy et al. (2012) argued that such misunderstanding can be attributed to parent’s lack of familiarity with technology (2012). Valcke, Bonte, De Wever, and Rots (2010) added that parents who have grown up around technology will be more likely to take advantage their knowledge to exert more control on children’s Internet use, and are those more likely to be successful in Internet mediation.

2.2. How media shape parents’ perceptions

Despite the air of inevitability that Internet technology will stick around today’s children’ lives for a long time to come, Internet is not without it fair share of potential hazards, which are recognized by educators and parents alike. According to 2008 survey in

PC magazine, 85% of U.S. parents identified Internet as a medium that pose most risk for teenagers. The fear is aggravated by media portrayals, often highlighting its dangers and its unpredictability, which in turn creates widespread fear among parents over their children’s safety (Shariff & Churchill, 2010). Wolak, Finkelhor, Mitchell, and Ybarra (2008) noticed increase coverage on ‘sex predators’ stories that are often stereotypical and inaccurate but powerful enough to raise public’s fears on this new medium (Internet). Turow and

Kavanaugh (2003) found that when newspaper articles mentioned of the word “Internet”

and “family”, about two thirds of the articles mentioned the problem of the Internet.

How would parents’ such fear then translate into action of intervention? On macro level, U.S. parents successfully pushed the government to sign the Sex Offender Bill in 2006 (Cassell & Cramer, 2007). In the case of cyber-bullying, It is not rare that technology has been made to be the culprit, especially in the case of cyber - bullying with many parents believing Internet is the root of the problem, and that by cutting the root, they will be able to cut the problem. Therefore, it is also not rare that such demands got brought up to the school administrators to restrict children’s Internet use in school (Shariff &

Churchill, 2010). However, this notion fatally ignores a tremendous amount of educational potentials that Internet and technology could bring to the students, as evinced with a usage of Internet software SuperclubsPLUS to maximize students learning in Australia (Masters

& Yelland, 2010).

On household level, authorities through media had constantly given warning to parents that if children’s Internet behavior remains uncontrolled, it would negatively impact children’s social relationships (Warren & Bluma, 2002). For example, health experts often reminded parents that children will become socially isolated if they spend a long time in front of computer, other authorities constantly went on about sexual predators

in the chat rooms, while Henke (1999) warns the risks of Internet advertising to children (Warren & Bluma 2002; Henke, 1999). The American Academy of Pediatrics advised parents to model and to teach selectivity in media usage, co – view and actively discuss content with children and teach critical viewing skills. There are also debates over Internet content that called for parents to put the computer away from the child’s bedroom (Warren

& Bluma, 2002). These statements and advices regarding managing children’s Internet risk are thought to influence parents to be more likely to mediate children’s Internet use, and as the concerns of the negative effects of the media is found to be a motivational factor behind parents’ mediation, it is predicted:

H1: Parents’ exposure to Internet risk news would increase their risk perception of Internet use for their children.

It is yet unclear which type of media will have more influence than others to convince parents to mediate is also worth another look:

RQ1: How do different media (i.e. television, newspapers, and Internet) influence parents’ risk perceptions?

2.3. Parents’ risk perception

Risk when put in the context of the new media is defined as “the sense of

uncertainty caused by complex technological progresses that is related to possible negative personal experiences in a day to day media uses” (Turow & Kavanaugh, 2003, p. 235-236).

Amid such uncertainty, Walrave and Heirman (2010), note that Internet and technology can be used in both pro-social and anti-social manner. They identify five issues, and often times

parents’ complaints on how Internet impacts bullying, which were summarized in Table 1 below.

As communication technology consists of both benefits and drawbacks, cutting students access to the technology due to its negative impact, will also deprive them of the positive impact that technology could have both on students’ educational and social experience, not to mention brings the negative impacts of extreme mediations on students’

self worth, privacy and freedom (Shariff & Churchill, 2010).

Table 1

Different claims made on anti –social and pro-social use of technology.

Issue of Internet / technology

Anti-social, related to bullying Pro-social, related to learning

Online anonymity Bullies can hide, be undetected Comfortable learning atmosphere for introverts 24/7 attainability Extend bullying after school Maintain friendships,

knowledge gaining after school

Escape detections Can do crime without repercussions Protect privacy for social interactions / learning Infinite audience Provide bystander / audience to

support bullying damage they cause to the victims

Honest talk and self disclosure made more possible

As communication technology consists of both benefits and drawbacks, cutting students access to the technology due to its negative impact, will also deprive them of the positive impact that technology could have both on students’ educational and social experience, not to mention brings the negative impacts of extreme mediations on students’ self worth, privacy and freedom (Shariff & Churchill, 2010).

Going beyond cyber-bullying, several studies had been inquiring into the children’s online activities and investigating other possible Internet risks. Risk can be analyzed in terms of the risk assessment (calculating risk probability and magnitude), risk evaluation (determining the acceptability of a given risk) and risk management (the process of

reducing risks to a level deemed tolerable by society) (Staksrud & Livingstone, 2009). It is

also said that tolerance is at the minimum when it comes to risk involving children, with public more likely to push for a more strict risk management.

Staksrud and Livingstone (2009) argued that Internet risk can be put into three categories, which are content risks, contact risk, and conduct risk. Content risk can be associated with children being the recipient of mass communication content that is not appropriate for their viewing and development, such as Internet pornography, and violent contents. Contact risk refers to children’s participant in an online interaction or

communication that is deemed risky to their psychological and physical being. This

includes online contact risk (e.g., cyber-bullying, threats to privacy) and offline contact risk (e.g., a face to face meeting with someone one meets online). Conduct risk is characterized by the children being the active participant of risky contents or risky contacts (Staksrud &

Livingstone, 2009; Valcke et al., 2011). Elena et al. (2010) further add another category:

Internet addition risk, which refers to the excessive use of the Internet that is affects the user’s daily life. Valcke et al. (2011) also adds another component in the form of

commercial risk, which refers to the children being the active consumers of some products (e.g., putting an order on products without consent, etc).

A study involving child Internet users in UK, Ireland, and Norway revealed that the content risk of pornography led the list as the most common among children aged 9 to 16 years old (Staksrud & Livingstone, 2009), which would then be followed by violent content, cyber-bullying and then offline meetings. Elena et al.‘s study in 2010 involving educators, manages to identify and rank other possible Internet dangers. Using a structured dialogic design methodology, they identify a total of 58 Internet risk, divided further into 14 clusters.

While media coverage spent considerable time on the story of pedophiles in the net world, parents see children’s access to certain types of texts of information to be just as threatening (Stald, 2003). In order to prevent children from the likelihood of accessing contents such as porn sites, violent contents, sites of satanic cults, or Nazis, parents turn to more restrictive and technical mediation strategies, such as filtering and blocking sites (2003). According to Stald (2003), parents feared to have lost control and influence on the children’s media uses. This fear is aggravated by the fact that children would always seek to detach themselves from parents and create their own “virtual private rooms” by deciding where, what, and with whom they wish to spend time with, and one that cannot be

transcended by parents’ curiosity.

H2: Parents who perceive Internet as a high risk to their children’s safety would be more likely to mediate children’s Internet use.

RQ2: How do different types of risk perceptions (i.e. content, contact, or conduct) correlated with different use of parental mediation strategies?

According to Valcke et al. (2011), safe Internet use has been widely promoted in a number of countries nowadays, and they notice four different trends or approaches to develop awareness, knowledge, and skills: awareness campaign, the use of Internet filters, parental mediation strategies, and activities set up via schools. Awareness campaign and school activities can sometimes overlap as evinced Taiwan’s TAIS campaign in their effort to educate educators of Internet safety. Filter software can also be useful in filtering out

contents that are inappropriate for children’s viewing, but Byron (2008) claims that that is still no substitute for teaching children to use the Internet safely and responsibly at home.

2.4. Internet literacy , network competence, and Internet self – efficacy.

As mentioned previously, the dynamics of Internet parenting may be affected by parents’ relative familiarity in using the Internet or the technology. This knowledge is widely known under the term “Internet literacy”, defined by Livingstone, Bober, and Helsper (2005) in relations to the three following functions:

1. Access – Internet literacy is required to access online contents and to regulate the conditions of access.

2. Understanding – Internet literacy is required to effectively and critically evaluate online information and opportunities.

3. Create – Internet literacy allow users to produce as well as receive online contents, interacting as well as participating online. Internet literacy is part of larger concept of information literacy that is often understood in terms of effective use of information (Bawden, 2001)

In 2010, Lou et al. examined further the relationship between Parents’ Internet literacy, that is, a general understanding and tendencies to use Internet and their parenting styles at home, and their attitudes towards Child’s Internet risk and Internet mediation.

Survey was conducted among 822 parents of sixth grade students in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Their relatively high Internet literacy means they are nowadays more likely to trust their children with Internet usage and adopt a laisser – faire parenting style (2010). Familiarity with technology will also mean they are far more aware on the benefits technology bring to

their children’s learning and information gaining, although they would raise concerns for setting up rules and concerns with regards to children’s Internet addiction (2010).

Savolainen (2002) explores the concept of Internet literacy further under the term network competence. In general sense, competence deals with an individual’s ability to adapt effectively to the surrounding environment over time to achieve goals. He argued that the use of the term “competence” means that there are adaptation period to this new

technology and there are functional elements into this and that mastering the technology could help users achieving some goals (e.g., online shopping, tele-voting, searching for health related information) (2002).

The question of whether or not parents utilize network competence to monitor and regulate children’s online activities is more difficult to answer at this point, as most generation y parents have mastered the Internet before they even become parents.

However, this definition can explain whether parent’s confidence in their own network competence affect how they supervise children’s online activities. One important

determinant of network competence is one’s self efficacy. Self efficacy theory was coined and mentioned by Bandura (1977) as one of the constructs in Social cognitive theory. Self

determinant of network competence is one’s self efficacy. Self efficacy theory was coined and mentioned by Bandura (1977) as one of the constructs in Social cognitive theory. Self