探討家長網路自我效能、風險意識與媒體使用對於監督孩童網路行為的影響 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學國際傳播英語碩士學位程 International Master’s Program in International Communication Studies College of Communication National Chengchi University. 碩士論文 Master’s Thesis. Examining the Effects of Parents’ Internet Self Efficacy, Risk Perception, and Media Usage on Parental Mediation of Children’s Internet. 探討家長網路自我效能、風險意識與媒體使用對於監督孩童網路行為的影響. Student: Vittorio Adrianus Advisor: I- huei Cheng. 中華民國 103 年 1 月 January 2015. 1.

(2) Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………....…….....4 Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………….….………...5 1.1. Background of study…………………………………………………….……..…..5 1.2. Significance of study…………………………………….………….….....……….6 1.3. Purpose of study…………………………………………….…………….………..7 Chapter 2: Literature review……………………………………………………...….…….8 2.1. Parental mediation on children’s Internet…………………………………..……..9 2.2. How media shape parents’ perceptions……………………………;…….……….12 Hypothesis 1, research question 1 ………………………………………;…….……...14 2.3. Parents’ risk perception……………………………………………;……….…….14 Hypothesis 2, research question 2……………………………………;………….…....18 2.4. Internet literacy, network competence, and Internet self efficacy…………….….19 Hypothesis 3, research question 3…...………………………………………….……..21 Concept map of research questions, hypotheses………………………………….…...22 Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………….......23 3.1. Survey samples……………………………………………………………….…...23 3.2. Measurements…………………………………………………………………......24 Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………….……………….......27 4.1. Demographics of sample……………………………………,……………………27 4.2. General findings…………………………………………….………………….….28 4.3. Tests of hypothesis………………………………………….………………....….30 Chapter 5: Discussion…………………………………………………………………......34 5.1. Major findings and implicatons……………………………………………………34 2.

(3) 5.2. Limitations and future research……………………………….…………………36 References…………………………………………………………………………….…38 Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………...43 Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………...45 Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………...48. 3.

(4) Abstract. While previous studies on media effects had studied extensively into how parents mediate children’s use of television, the present paper will delve into parent’s mediation of children’s Internet use. Unlike traditional media, parental mediation of children’s Internet use requires Internet – related skills such as blocking websites, or using filters that parents with only basic computer and web skills may not feel comfortable of using them (Turow & Kavanaugh, 2003; Lee, 2013). Therefore, present study derived from Bandura (1977)’s self efficacy theory, to examine Internet self efficacy variable and its effects on parental mediation. It was predicted that parents’ Internet self efficacy would affect how they mediate children’s Internet use. Furthermore, parents’ risk perception and parents’ media usage variables will also be investigated in relation to parental mediation. It was thought increasing media reports on cyber related crime, and parent’s attitudes towards Internet safety were crucial in determining their parental mediation strategies. The present study utilized a survey methodology, which used a sample of parents in Taipei who currently have an elementary school child or children. The results showed that parents’ risk perception towards Internet has a moderate to strong positive correlation with Parental Mediation. Parents’ Internet self efficacy also correlated positively with four different types of parental mediation, albeit with varying degree. The results suggested that what Internet self efficacy might have brought to the parents were not a mere certain technical advantages in parenting, but instead, an overall willingness and motivation to take an active role in mediating children’s Internet.. Keywords: parental mediation, risk perception, self efficacy, media usage. 4.

(5) Chapter 1 Introduction. 1.1. Background of study. Nowadays, parents face a challenge of having to assume the position of authority and control over the young people, who are more technologically adept than themselves (Zinga, 2010). As estimated by Nielsen ratings, the world’s Internet population had reached 580 million users by year 2002, and Internet access has shown a 342.2% of increase since 2000 (Lin, 2007; Valcke, De Wever, Van Keer, & Schellens, 2011). At global scale, such accelerated pace often makes it difficult for lawmakers and the communities to regulate Internet satisfactorily (Zinga, 2010). At household level, new technologies have also brought new dimensions on domestic regulation and parenting. The modern day children, often referred to as generation Z children, are born in the digital world and bring with them new sets of cognitive thinking and lifestyles (Prensky, 2001). Failure to adapt to this “new” environment will indeed put parents at a serious disadvantage and eventually prevent them educating their children (Lin, 2007; Prensky, 2001). Nonetheless, educating the children may not be on the top of parents’ mind when trying to regulate children’s behavior. Elena, Laouris, and Taraszow (2010) in their study managed to identify 58 possible Internet risk or dangers that children could be susceptible to. These risks may be related to the free dissemination nature of Internet content, that may not be appropriate for children’s view, or related to online or offline interaction that put. 5.

(6) children into physical and psychological risk (Elena et al., 2010; Valcke et al., 2011). Parents had identified Internet as the media they are most conflicted for their children’s use, due to the wide variety services and supports facilitated by Internet. Furthermore, 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 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 (Clark, 2009). For those area where digital divide is less present, like the sample population of the present study (northern Taiwan), the question of whether or not parents acquire network competence to monitor and regulate children’s online activities is more difficult to answer at this point, as most modern day parents might have mastered the Internet before they even become parents. However the present study hopes to explain whether parent’s confidence in their own ability to use Internet affect how they mediate children’s online activities. This “confidence” will draw largely from Albert Bandura’s (1977) self efficacy theory, which refers to one’s judgment about their own capabilities to successfully performing certain tasks, which would then be expanded and applied to how modern day’s parents go about restricting Internet risk for their children.. 1.2. Significance of study. The present study hopes to explore further the dynamic of communications at home in the wake of the emergence of new technology. At the time where information contents 6.

(7) are distributed sporadically in terms of quantity and different channels they are distributed through, parents’ role as gatekeeper in the house place more important role than ever. Similar to television, children could easily be exposed to contents yet to be appropriate for their levels of cognitive developments, such as adult contents and violent contents. However there are two significant differences (to television) when we are talking about Internet as medium: First, the risks are greater on the Internet, with all kinds of information in the web go through minimum censoring, while there’s also a physical danger involved when / if children are to follow up online chat into an offline meeting. Second, children’s media usages on the Internet are far more difficult to track down and supervise, at least without potentially interfering with their personal life and their education. There are more ways children can access Internet than accessing television, or more places, for that matter. There is also a general consensus in today’s communities that Internet’s benefits to someone’s life outweigh the risk, and that it is likened to things like telephone as one of human’s necessities. As a result, the parental mediation of children’s Internet is something that is both inevitable and relevant to be studied; and is something that is to be taken with a great caution, as it could lead to communication breakdown in families if not approached carefully.. 1.3. 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 7.

(8) 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.. 8.

(9) 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). 9.

(10) 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:. 10.

(11) (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 11.

(12) 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 12.

(13) 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 13.

(14) 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. 14.

(15) 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).. 15.

(16) Table 1 Different claims made on anti –social and pro-social use of technology. Issue of Internet /. Anti-social, related to bullying. Pro-social, related to. technology Online anonymity. Bullies can hide, be undetected. learning Comfortable learning. 24/7 attainability. Extend bullying after school. atmosphere for introverts Maintain friendships, knowledge gaining after. Can do crime without repercussions. school Protect privacy for social. Infinite audience. Provide bystander / audience to. interactions / learning Provide audience for. Lack of non-verbal. support bullying Bullies underestimate the emotional. creative works Honest talk and self. cues. damage they cause to the victims. disclosure made more. Escape detections. 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 16.

(17) 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.. 17.

(18) 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. 18.

(19) 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 19.

(20) 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 efficacy is described as one’s judgment about their own capabilities to succeed or perform certain tasks. One’s self efficacy gives him or her ideas on what he or she can accomplish in certain situations. The higher one self efficacy is to certain task, the more efforts and persistence will be put in by individuals, and therefore, the more likely it is for individuals to succeed in that task (1977). Savolainen (2002) speaks of Internet self efficacy as a form of self evaluation of his or her own network competence that affects confidence in manipulating Internet technology, influence one’s decision making , as well as ensuring persistence in the interest 20.

(21) of online activities. Eastin and Larose (2000) specify that Internet self – efficacy does not directly correlated with the actual skills in performing Internet – related task, but instead, has more to do with judgment of ability or beliefs of what he or she can accomplish online now or in the future. Lee (2013) explained that unlike traditional media, parental mediation of children’s Internet use requires Internet – related skills. Turow and Kavanaugh (2003) supports this notion when mentioning of parents’ restrictive strategies: “the biggest drawback of monitors and safe haven sites – and a big drawbacks of filters as well – is that parents with only basic computer and web skills may not feel comfortable of using them. Revisiting the above mentioned parental mediation strategies by Livingstone and Helsper, while active & co-use and interaction restrictions are not associated with the need to master computer / Internet use, utilizing technical restrictions and monitoring on the other hand, are very much depending on parents’ Internet – related skills. And as it is believed that one’s self – efficacy could substitute or a strong predictor of one’s actual ability (Munro et al., 1997; Ajzen, 1991), it is predicted:. H3: Parents’ Internet self efficacy is positively correlated with use of technical restrictions and monitoring strategies. RQ3: How do parents’ Internet self efficacy correlate two other mediation strategies, namely interaction restrictions and active / co-use?. 21.

(22) H3, RQ3. Internet self efficacy. Parental mediation H1, RQ1. Parent’s news exposure. Risk perception H2, RQ2. Figure 1. Concept map of current study’s variables and hypotheses.. 22.

(23) Chapter 3 Methodology. The present study will propose a quantitative study using a survey methodology, which will allow the analysis of the interaction of multiple variables present in this study.. 3.1. Survey samples. The participants of the study were parents who currently have children studying in elementary schools in Taipei (grade 1 to grade 6). As Taipei is listed as the city with highest broadband Internet penetration rate in Taiwan (73.68%), it provides appropriate opportunity to investigate the issue of Internet parenting from the East Asian context in a high tech environment (CNA, 2006). The study recruited a total of 207 participants. One or two schools were selected from each administrative district in Taipei, resulting in a total number of 18 schools from 12 administrative districts. From each school, ten to fifteen parents from that school were recruited to participate in the survey. The 12 administrative districts in Taipei City, included Songshan, Xinyi, Daan, Zhongshan, Zhongzheng, Datong, Wanhua,Wenshan, Nangang, Neihu, Shilin, and Beitou. The list of elementary schools was acquired from website www.tp.edu.tw. Schools in each district were assigned a number and be then selected randomly using a random number program www.randomizer.org to make sure each school in each district has an equal chance to be selected. Once the school was selected, participants were recruited using a convenient sampling during the time when they pick up their children from school. They were asked to spare their time to fill out the 23.

(24) survey, which was said to take around five minutes. While the gender and the age of the parents will be taken into consideration in the analysis, they were not the basis for sampling. During the research, due to some problems acquiring data from some schools, a few number of schools were displaced from the sample, and replacement schools were chosen randomly. The final list of schools visited is attached in the Appendix C.. 3.2. Measurements. The major variables in the current study included Internet self efficacy, parental Internet mediation, risk perception, and media usage. Factor analysis was first conducted for each scale of the aforementioned variables. It was confirmed that all the items generated only one dimension prior to reliability tests. Internet self efficacy The measurement for Internet self efficacy is adapted and carefully chosen from the study by Eastin & Larose (2000) and Hsu & Chiu (2003). The measurement uses a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. It generally contains statements regarding their confidence on completing Internet related tasks as well as their familiarity with the Internet (e.g., I feel confident installing an application or software, I feel confident understanding terms or words related to Internet). The reliability test indicates Cronbach’s α = .880 (N=8) Parental Internet mediation The measurement for Internet mediation is adapted from the measurement utilized by Livingstone and Helsper (2008; 2010). The measurement uses a 5-point likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The statements generally contains efforts 24.

(25) of the parents to mediate children’s Internet activities, that include statements indicating restrictive mediation (e.g., I set up filters / monitoring software on websites), statements indicating active mediation (e.g., I talk to child about Internet use), and statements indicating co – viewing (I stay nearby when child is online). For items indicating active/co use and interaction restrictions, Cronbach’s α = .749 (N =9). For items indicating monitoring and technical restrictions, Cronbach’s α =.868 (N=5) Factor analysis was conducted on all thirteen items of parental mediation, and it can be concluded that it yields four components, though for the purposes of this paper, interaction and active – co use strategies will be studied together, and Monitoring and technical restrictions will be studied together.. Table 2 Factor loadings for the parental mediation items Item. Interaction Active/ co-use Monitoring Technical. 1. I stay nearby when children is online.. .582. 2. I set rules for my child about time. .542. spent online. 3. I put computer separate to my child’s bedroom 4. I talk to child about Internet use.. .515 .495. 5. I set up filters/ monitoring software on websites.. .537. 6. I check websites that child visited.. .755. 7. I check child’s SNS.. .774 25.

(26) 8. I check child’s email messages.. .778. 9. I check who my child has been. .741. chatting with online. 10. I forbid child to use SNS.. .427. 11. I forbid child to download things on the Internet.. .565. 12. I forbid child to give out personal info online.. .577. 13. I forbid child to buy things online.. .698. Risk perception The measurement for risk perception is a self – designed measurement that refers to the classifications of Internet risk by Staksrud and Livingstone (2009). Specifically, it asks parents to assess the likelihood and severity of each type of Internet risk (contact, content, conduct) in relation to their children. The measurement uses 5-point likert scales, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Cronbach’s α = .925 (N=6). Media usage The measurement for media usage is a self – designed measurement that intends to investigate their acquisition of knowledge regarding Internet risk. As such, the measurement asks participants how many days do they watch / see the news from each of the commonly used media (television, newspaper, Internet).. 26.

(27) Media exposure to Internet issue The measurement then asks how often do they see the news regarding Internet risk on the medias mentioned above using a 5-point likert scale, ranging from common to never). In the last part, the measurement asks the approximate age of the participants, the age of the children who are in the elementary schools, and the household monthly income for reference. The initially English - written questionnaire had been translated into Chinese language by Chinese instructor in National Chengchi University. Both of the questionnaires are attached in this proposal for reference. A pre – test on the measurement was conducted before the execution of the study with a total of ten parents, which brought to light some formatting error on the questionnaire.. Chapter 4 Results. 4.1. Demographics of sample. Out of the total 207 participants, females made up for the majority with 146 respondents (70.5%), while 59 respondents (28.5%) were males. In terms of the parents’ age group, the age between 41 – 45 years old made up the highest percentage with 41.7% (N= 85), followed by 36-40 years old age group with 23.5% (N= 48), and Over 45 years old with 17.6% (N= 36). As for the children’s average age, the peak can be found in 8 years. 27.

(28) old with 22.4% (N= 46), followed closely by 10 years old with 2.0 % (N= 41). The median of Children’s age was 9. The data on average household income indicated there are no significant differences between top three variables: NTD 60,001 – 80,000 with 23% (N= 47), NTD 80,001 – 110,000 with 20.6% (n=42), and NTD 110,001 – 140,000 with 19.6% (N=40). Median score fell under NTD 80,001 – 110,000.. Table 3 Gender and age of the respondents Item. Variable. N. %. Gender. Male. 59. 28.8%. Female. 146. 71.2%. Under 25 years old. 1. 0.5%. 25-30 years old. 8. 3.9%. 31-35 years old. 26. 12.7%. 36-40 years old. 48. 23.5%. 41-45 years old. 85. 41.7%. Over 45 years old. 36. 17.6%. Age Group. 4.2 General findings. The following is a report of descriptive results of the major variables in the current study. Internet self efficacy 28.

(29) The survey on Internet self efficacy items indicated that the large majority of participants were able to find information online with 87.5 % answered or agree or strongly agree. When it comes to understanding terms related to Internet and explaining why a task will not run on the Internet, participants were less confident with 54.6 % and 50.7% responded agree or strongly agree respectively. The highest self efficacy was found on “I feel confident using an e-mail” item, with 96.6% answered agree or strongly agree. The results also showed that the majority of participants are able to navigate social media (82.1% answered agree or strongly agree). Other items being asked included “I feel confident chatting with other people online“ (82.1% agree or strongly agree), “I feel confident installing an application or software” (74.4% agree or strongly agree), and “I feel confident filtering or blocking websites with inappropriate contents (59.4%).” Parental mediation In regards to interaction restrictions, 59.4% of parents would stay nearby when the child is online, with 25% were neutral, and 15.5% disagreed. 84.5% of parents would not put computer in child’s bedroom, while 87.4% would set rules about time child spent online. 76.2% of parents also found it helpful to talk to their child about Internet use. When it comes to technical restrictions and monitoring strategies, 58 % of parents would set up filters on the website, while more than half the parents would monitor child’s visited websites (58.3%), check child’s SNS (52.2%), and check child’s online chat partners (55.1%), however only 43% agree to check child’s email messages. Another thing worth of note is that about 44% of parents disagree on forbidding child to use SNS, with 37.2% were neutral about it and only 18.3% agreed to do so. Other results include most parents agreeing to forbid child’s online shopping (70%), and agreeing to forbid child to give out personal info online (67.2%). 29.

(30) Risk perception The majority of the parents agreed or strongly agreed that their child may be exposed to inappropriate contents (61.9%), while 60.1% of parents agree that these contents are likely to severely affect their child. Slightly less parents agreed that their child is likely to experience risky online interaction (54.6%), but slightly more parents agreed that their child would be severely affected by risky online interaction (61.9%). Last but not least, when asked whether their child is likely to initiate or produce risky contents or interactions online, more parents disagreeing (40.1%) than agreeing (33.3%) with 26.6% were neutral. In regards to the severity of the conduct risk, about 40.1% agree that it will severely affect their child. Media usage In terms of which media outlet do parents hear more about Internet risk news, television (54.2% answered often or common) and Internet (56.3%) are the two major sources. Newspapers were rated lower as the source of Internet risk news, with only 26.1% of parents answered common or often. In terms of the media that parents normally use to read or watch news, Internet had a slight edge with 74% of parents answered 5 to 7 days, followed by television (66.8% answered 5 to 7 days), and newspapers (55.4% answered 5 to 7 days).. 4.3. Tests of hypotheses In this section, the previously stated hypothesis will be tested in relation with the data acquired. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program was utilized to validate, compute, and describe the relations between variables that shape the hypothesis. 30.

(31) H1: Parents’ exposure to Internet risk news would increase their risk perception of Internet use for their children. In order to test the first hypothesis, Pearson’s correlation was used to test the relationship between Parents’ exposure to Internet risk news and parents’ risk perception towards Internet. Partial correlation was used for the analysis, taking into account the participants’ age and gender. The result showed a positive correlation (r = .20) with a significance of p<.01 level therefore supporting the hypothesis one. RQ1: How do different media (i.e. television, newspapers, and Internet) influence parents’ perceptions and attitude towards Internet risk? A more comprehensive look on Pearson’s correlations among parents’ exposure to risk news and parents’ risk perception showed there was a moderate positive correlation between exposure to Internet risk news via Internet and parents’ risk perceptions towards Internet (r = .303) with a significance of p<.001 level. No significant results were found between exposure to Internet risk news via television, via newspapers, and parents’ risk perception. The number of days parents see news online also correlated (r=.320, p<.001) with how often they see the Internet risk news online. No such results were found with television and with newspapers. H2: Parents who perceive Internet as a high risk to their children’s safety would be more likely to mediate children’s Internet use. For testing the second hypothesis (and third), regression analysis was used to examine different variables that might explain or predict parental mediation behavior. As shown in Table 3, the hierarchical regression model that included self efficacy, risk perception, media usage and exposure overall explained for about 43% of variance in predicting parental mediation behavior (R square=.427). In particular, when risk perception was entered at the 31.

(32) second level after demographic variables were controlled, the variance explained increased drastically (β= .429, p< .001, R square change = .236). Such finding indicated risk perception as an important positive predictor for parental mediation behavior. The variable resulted in it can be concluded that parents’ risk perception towards Internet has a moderate to strong positive correlation with Parental Mediation, therefore supporting H2. Table 4 Hierarchical multiple regression analysis of parental mediation Level. Variables. β. t. p-value. 1. Sex. .068. .945. .346. Parent’s age. -.140. .-1.637. .103. .003. .038. .970. .192. 2.549. .012*. .498. 7.788. .000***. .322. 4.227. .000***. Days Watching TV News. -.098. -1.570. .118. Days Reading Newspapers. -.001. -.019. .985. Days Seeing Internet News. -.007. -.096. .924. Children’s age. Household Income R square =.043 2. Risk Perception R square change =.235. 3. Self Efficacy R square change = .095. 4. R square change = .009. 32.

(33) 5. Issue Exposure on TV. 227. 2.997. .003**. Issue Exposure on Newspapers 060. .872. .385. Issue Exposure on Internet. -.960. .338. -.080. R square change = .045 R square total = .427 Note: ***=p <.001, **=p<.01, *=p<.05. RQ2: How do different types of risk perceptions (i.e. content, contact, or conduct) correlated with different use of parental mediation strategies? To answer RQ2, Pearson correlations were conducted between different types of risk perception (Content, Contact, Conduct) and parental mediation. Partial correlation method was used to control participants’ sex and age variables. Results showed that all three types of risk perception have a moderate to strong positive correlations with parental mediation, with Content reported as the highest (r = .478), followed by Contact (r=.410) and Conduct (r =.393). The results were all significant at p <.001. H3: Parents’ Internet self efficacy is positively correlated with use of technical restrictions and monitoring strategies. As the regression table suggested, self efficacy had some effect on parental mediation (R square change =.094), ( R square =.115) and further regression analysis was conducted on interaction restrictions, active co-use strategies of parental mediation and the one with technical restrictions, monitoring strategies of parental mediation. The results indicated that internet self efficacy had a slightly bigger impact on technical restrictions and monitoring strategies (R square =.115) than on interaction restrictions and active co-use strategies (R square =.053). Partial Pearson’s correlations were also conducted to test the H3 while 33.

(34) controlling the participants’ sex and age variables. The results showed that parents’ Internet self efficacy correlated positively with technical restrictions and monitoring strategies of parental mediation (r = .348, p<.001), therefore both the correlations and the regression analysis supported H3. In regards to two other types of parental mediation strategies, results also showed a positive correlation between interaction restrictions, active & co-use strategies and parental mediation (r=.248, p<.001) albeit slightly weaker than the other two strategies.. Chapter 5 Discussion. 5.1. Major findings and implications. As expected, the participants from Taipei sample showed less proof of digital divide when it comes to household income and Internet access, based on their general competence in operating Internet technology. A large majority of sample knew how to find information online, chat with others online, and navigate social media. Results from the media usage section also revealed that people read more Internet news and read fewer newspapers, with television news ranked in between. According to the survey, participants read news related to Internet risk the least amount in the newspapers. While television and Internet fare pretty similar with each other in this regards, television was found to be one medium that significantly affects parental mediation, while Internet was found to significantly affect parents’ risk perception. This confirmed that parents’ fear and behavior on Internet mediation had been influenced or aggravated by media portrayals of Internet risk. Clark’s (2009) 34.

(35) argument that such apprehension is to be documented more so among parents from lower income families was also not found in this study, as there was no negative correlation between parents’ household income and either parents’ risk perception or their mediation behavior. While Clark (2009) previously stated that parents who have less experience with communication technology may express more concerns on the matter, the current study revealed that parents’ risk perception actually escalated among parents who are high on Internet self efficacy. Savolainen (2002) also suggested that parents’ Internet literacy would make parents supervise less, which was also not supported by the current study. The possible explanations to all these is that the familiarity to communications technology may make parents become more aware of the issues related to the Internet and therefore encouraging parents to take a more active role in managing it. Such awareness might also explain parents’ relative unwillingness to forbid children to use social media, as they might have perceived it as a beneficial tool for children’s development and social interaction. Despite the fact that most literature on parental mediation focused on television as medium, the risks are greater on the Internet, and the parents are well aware of it. This is evinced by parents’ relatively equal apprehension between content risk and contact risk, which is a variable that did not previously exist in media studies with television. Parents’ anxiety in (especially) content risk and contact risk would then translate to how parents mediate children’s Internet, as risk perception was indeed found to be the biggest predictor of parental mediation. The study showed parents employed different kind of strategies to get a control of the situation. While the majority of parents felt communication was key and decided to talk about Internet usage to their children, some found it helpful to monitor some. 35.

(36) of the child’s activities on the Internet. The results from this section were for the most part comparable to those of the study conducted by Livingston and Helsper in 2008. With parent’s Internet self efficacy was found to affect parental mediation, how and to what extent does the process work? Using Livingston and Helsper (2008)‘s categorization of four different strategies of parental mediation, it was originally hypothesized that parents with high Internet self efficacy would be more likely to use mediation strategies that indeed required more Internet skills, namely technical restrictions and monitoring strategies. While the positive correlation was found between them, the positive correlation was also found between parent’s Internet self efficacy and two other strategies that did not require high Internet skills, namely active and co-use and interaction restrictions. The results suggested that what Internet self efficacy might have brought to the parents were not a mere certain technical advantages in parenting, but instead, an overall willingness and motivation to take an active role in mediating children’s Internet.. 5.2. Limitations and future research. One major limitation to the study would be the use of convenient sampling, as parents who were available in the afternoon to pick up their child may have shared certain traits or profiles. The question of whether the parent who picked up the child at school would be the same one who set up the rules at home also could only be answered with a mere guess at the moment. That is, the survey was done by one half of the parents and therefore may not have told the whole story. It would also be insightful to do an in depth interview with some of the parents to find the motivational factor behind their behavior, as it would explain why certain parents choose to adopt certain methods and to find out 36.

(37) whether some parents actually learn the Internet skills to better for a purpose of mediating children’s Internet behavior better. In regards to questionnaire items, certain questions in this study were more difficult to answer among parents who had younger child as some of the situations may not have applied to the child as yet and therefore could only be answered hypothetically, including questions such as banning the use of e-mail, social media, and online shopping. With this in mind, future research may benefit from narrowing and focusing on particular age group (e.g. 6-9 years old or 10-12 years old) to prevent such inconsistencies. Some questions also did not take into account Internet access through mobile phone / Smartphone. Survey item such as “I would not put computer in my children’s bedroom” may not be sufficient to explain parents’ mediation behavior and children’s Internet usage in current situation. While Smartphone may not be owned by all of the children, especially considering some of their ages, its inclusion into the variables will still be helpful in explaining the whole picture. As Smartphone starts booming in a highly digital city nowadays such as that of Taipei, children’s uses of Internet are consequently more sporadic and even more difficult to track down. As such, Internet’s risks for children are more likely to increase, and the dynamics of parents’ Internet mediation may have been slightly altered, which in turn, demand future research in this area.. 37.

(38) References. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191. Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices, 17-32. Byron, T. (2008). Safer children in a digital world: the report of the Byron Review: be safe, be aware, have fun. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Cassell, J., & Cramer, M. (2007). High tech or high risk: Moral panics about girls online. Digital Youth, Innovation, and the Unexpected, 53-75. Cassidy, W., Brown, K., & Jackson, M. (2012). " Making Kind Cool": Parents' Suggestions for Preventing Cyber Bullying and Fostering Cyber Kindness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 415-436. Clark, L. S. (2009). Digital media and the generation gap: Qualitative research on US teens and their parents. Information, Communication & Society, 12(3), 388-407. Clark, L. S. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication Theory, 1(4), 323-343. DeHue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters' experiences and parental perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 217-223. Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self‐efficacy and the psychology of the 38.

(39) digital divide. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 6(1). Elena, A., Laouris, Y., & Taraszow, T. (2010). Identifying and Ranking Internet Dangers. 2010 Social Applications for Life Long Learning, 68. Henke, L. L. (1999). Children, advertising, and the Internet: An exploratory study. Advertising and the World Wide Web, 73-80. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366. Lee, S. J. (2013). Parental restrictive mediation of children’s Internet use: Effective for what and for whom?. New Media & Society, 15(4), 466-481. Liau, A. K., Khoo, A., & Ang, P. H. (2008). Parental awareness and monitoring of adolescent Internet use. Current Psychology, 27(4), 217-233. Lin, C. W. (2007). E-Learning Strategies for Aboriginal Children in Taiwan. International Journal of Learning, 14(6). Livingstone, S., Bober, M., & Helsper, E. (2005). Internet literacy among children and young people: Findings from the UK Children Go Online Project. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children's Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581-599. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the Internet: The role of online skills and Internet self efficacy. New Media & Society, 12(2), 309-329. Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Liu, H. T., Guo, Y. C., & Tseng, K. H. (2010). The influences of. 39.

(40) the sixth graders’ parents’ Internet literacy and parenting style. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4). Lwin, M. O., Stanaland, A. J., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2008). Protecting children's privacy online: How parental mediation strategies affect website safeguard effectiveness. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 205-217. Masters. J., & Yelland. N .(2010). Changing learning ecologies: Social media for cybercitizens. In S. Shariff., & A. Churchill. (Eds.), Truths and Myths of Cyber-Bullying: International Perspectives on Stakeholder Responsibility and Children's Safety (pp.229-248) . New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Munro, M. C., Huff, S. L., Marcolin, B. L., & Compeau, D. R. (1997). Understanding and measuring user competence. Information & Management, 33(1), 45-57. Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental mediation and children's aggression. Communication Research, 26(2), 124-143. Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Parent and child perspectives on the presence and meaning of parental television mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(2), 201-220. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Rideout, V. (2007). Parents, Children & Media: A Kaiser Family Foundation Survey. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Savolainen, R. (2002). Network competence and information seeking on the Internet: From definitions towards a social cognitive model. Journal of documentation, 58(2), 211-226. Shariff, S., & Churchill, A. (2010). Appreciating complexity: detangling the web of. 40.

(41) stakeholder influence and responsibility. In S. Shariff., & A. Churchill. (Eds.), Truths and Myths of Cyber-Bullying: International Perspectives on Stakeholder Responsibility and Children's Safety (pp.1 – 23) . New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Shariff, S., & Churchill, A. (Eds.). (2010). Truths and Myths of Cyber-Bullying: International Perspectives on Stakeholder Responsibility and Children's Safety. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Stald, G. (2003). Outlook and insight: Young Danes' uses of the Internet, navigating global seas and local waters. The Wired Homestead, 227-260. Staksrud, E., & Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and online risk: Powerless victims or resourceful participants?. Information, Communication & Society, 12(3), 364-387. Turow, J., & Kavanaugh, A. L. (Eds.). (2003). The Wired Homestead: An MIT Press Sourcebook on the Internet and the Family. MIT Press. Valcke, M., Bonte, S., De Wever, B., & Rots, I. (2010). Internet parenting styles and the impact on Internet use of primary school children. Computers & Education, 55(2), 454-464. Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., & Schellens, T. (2011). Long-term study of safe Internet use of young children. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1292-1305. Walrave. M., & Heirman. W. (2010). Appreciating Complexity: Detangling the Web of Stakeholder Influence and Responsibility. In S. Shariff., & A. Churchill. (Eds.), Truths and Myths of Cyber-Bullying: International Perspectives on Stakeholder Responsibility and Children's Safety (pp.27-47) . New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Warren, R., & Bluma, A. (2002). Parental mediation of children's Internet use: The 41.

(42) influence of established media. Communication Research Reports, 19(1), 8-17. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Ybarra, M. L. (2010). Online “predators” and their victims. Psychology of Violence, 1, 13-35. Zinga, D. (2010). Boundaries in Cyber-space. In S.Shariff., & A. Churchill (Ed.), Truths and Myths of Cyber-Bullying: International Perspectives on Stakeholder Responsibility and Children's Safety (pp.105-127) . New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.. 42.

(43) Appendix A – Questionnaire (Chinese version) 您好，我是國立政治大學國播研究所二年級的學生，我叫 Vittorio Adrianus （曾良基）, 來自印尼。我目前正在進行「臺灣父母對孩子網路使用情形」的研究，需要您寶貴的意見。完成此份問卷約需十分鐘，問卷中所有資料僅供研究參考，不作他用。再次感謝您的協助及合作，謝謝。第一部份一、下面這部分主要在於了解您「使用網路」的情況。請根據您的情況圈選數字（1 代表非常不同意，5 代表非常同意）：非常不同意不同意普通同意非常同意我有把握: - 利用網路（搜索引擎）找到需要 1 2 3 4 5 的資訊 - 了解與網路相關的術語或詞彙 1 2 3 4 5 - 說明網路為何不能成功運作 1 2 3 4 5 - 收發電子郵件 1 2 3 4 5 - 線上與其他人聊天 1 2 3 4 5 - 安裝應用程式或軟體 1 2 3 4 5 - 使用社交網站（例如：臉書） 1 2 3 4 5 - 過濾或封鎖內容不適當之網站。 1 2 3 4 5 二、這部分主要在於了解您如何監督家中孩子網路使用之情形。請根據您的情況圈選數字（1 代表非常不同意，5 代表非常同意）：非常不同意不同意普通同意非常同意 1 2 3 4 5 我會在小孩上網時待在旁邊。我會規定小孩上網的時間。 1 2 3 4 5 我不會將電腦放在小孩的房間。 1 2 3 4 5 我會跟小孩聊關於使用網路的事情。 1 2 3 4 5 我會設置網路監管軟體。 1 2 3 4 5 我會確認孩子瀏覽過的網站。 1 2 3 4 5 我會瀏覽孩子的社交網站。 1 2 3 4 5 我會確認孩子的孩子郵件訊息。 1 2 3 4 5 我會確認與孩子在網路上交談過的對 1 2 3 4 5 象。我會禁止小孩使用社交網站。 1 2 3 4 5 我會禁止小孩下載網路上的東西。 1 2 3 4 5 我會禁止小孩自網路上公開個人資料 1 2 3 4 5 我會禁止小孩網路購物。 1 2 3 4 5 三、這部分會問他們使用網路有哪些可能的情況。請根據您的想法圈選數字（1 代表非常不同意，5 代表非常同意）：非常不同意不同意普通同意非常同意我的孩子可能會瀏覽或體驗不恰當的 1 2 3 4 5. 43.

(44) 網路內容。我的孩子可能會嚴重地被不適當的網路內容而影響。我的孩子可能會因線上與他人互動或交談後，身心出現嚴重問題。我的孩子可能會因與他人在線上有危險的互動後，而嚴重地受到影響。我的孩子可能會建立了內容不適當的網站，或是開始在線上與他人有危險的互動。我的孩子可能會因與不適當之網站的管理者有所互動後，嚴重被影響了。. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 以下將針對您的媒體習慣進行了解，包括了：您如何收集新聞資訊，以及您之前是否聽過關於孩童使用危險網路之資訊。四. 您多常由下述傳播媒體中聽到關於前一部份所提到的情況及問題？請您圈選從以下各傳播媒體看到的情況 (1 代表從來沒有，5 代表相當平凡)：從來沒有很少有時候經常相當頻繁電視 1 2 3 4 5 報紙 1 2 3 4 5 網路 1 2 3 4 5 五. 您一個星期中，分別利用下列傳播媒體瀏覽過幾次新聞.請於下方合適答案處打勾 1 天 2天 3天 4天 5天 6天 7天電視 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 報紙 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 網路 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 第二部分這部分將針對研究所需，詢問您部分個人資料。所有資料僅作為研究分析用，絕不外洩，亦不會對外散播。一. 性別： _____男 _____女二. 家中國小孩童平均的年齡: _______ 三. 請勾選您的年齡範圍：____25 歲以下 ____25 歲–30 歲 ____30 歲–35 歲 ____36 歲-40 歲 ____41 歲–45 歲 ____46 歲以上. 四. 請問您家庭每個月總收入大約是多少？請勾選適當範圍： _____ 36000 元以下 _____ 80001 元–110000 元 160001 元以上. _____36000 元–60000 元 _____110001 元 - 140000 元. _____60001 元–80000 元 _____140001 元–160000 元 _____. 如果您對本研究有任何相關問題，或是您希望得到關於本研究之後續發展、結果，歡迎與我聯繫：Vittorio Adrianus (vawritten@yahoo.com).您亦可與本研究之指導教授聯絡：:鄭怡卉(icheng@nccu.edu.tw) , 副教授, 傳播學院廣告學系, 國立政治大學,. 台北市文山區指南路二段 64 號 44.

(45) Appendix B – Questionnaire (English version) Hello, my name is Vittorio Adrianus . I came from Indonesia. I am currently a second year Master degree student in National Chengchi University, majoring in International communication. I am currently doing a research on how parents in Taiwan handle elementary school students’ Internet use. The survey will take around 10 minutes to complete. I really appreciate your help and cooperation to make this happen. PART 1 The first section will ask you about how familiar you are in using Internet technology. Please circle the number that represents your answer (1 represent “strongly disagree”, 5 represent “strongly agree”): I feel confident . . . finding information I need using a search engine understanding terms or words related to Internet explaining why a task will not run on the Internet. using an e-mail chatting with other people online Installing an application or software navigating social networking sites (e.g. Facebook). filtering or blocking websites with inappropriate contents.. Strongly disagree 1. Disagree Neutral Agree 2. 3. 4. Strongly agree 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1 1 1. 2 2 2. 3 3 3. 4 4 4. 5 5 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. II. The next section will ask you about how you supervise your child / children’s Internet activities. Please circle the number that represents your answer (1 represent “strongly disagree”, 5 represent “strongly agree”):. I stay nearby when child is online I set rules about time spent online I put computer in separate to child’s bedroom I talk to child about Internet use I forbid child to use social networking sites (Facebook , etc) I forbid child to download things. Strongly disagree 1 1 1. Disagree Neutral Agree 2 2 2. 3 3 3. 4 4 4. Strongly agree 5 5 5. 1 1. 2 2. 3 3. 4 4. 5 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 45.

(46) I forbid child to give out personal info I forbid child to buy anything online I set up filters / monitoring software on websites I check websites that child has visited I check child’s social networking sites (Facebook, etc) I check child’s e-mail messages I check who my child has been chatting with online.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1 1. 2 2. 3 3. 4 4. 5 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1 1. 2 2. 3 3. 4 4. 5 5. III. The next section will ask you questions on how you perceive the risk of your children’s Internet use. Please circle the number that represents your answer (1 represent “strongly disagree”, 5 represent “strongly agree”):. My child is likely to see or experience inappropriate Internet contents in the past 12 months. My child is likely to be severely affected by inappropriate Internet contents. My child is likely to experience online interaction/ communication with other that is risky to their physical and psychological being. My child is likely to be severely affected by risky interaction with other people online. My child is likely to produce inappropriate Internet contents, or initiated risky online interaction with other people. My child is likely to be severely affected by risks associated with being the conductor of Internet risks.. Strongly disagree 1. Disagree Neutral Agree 2. 3. 4. Strongly agree 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The next section will ask you questions on your media usage, how you gather news information, and how have you previously heard about children’s Internet risk. IV. How often do you see the news about Internet risk from the news following media (1 represent “ never”, 5 represent “common”): Never. rarely 46. sometimes often. common.