Disadvantaged children and online risk
Publication details
Issued: | 2011 |
Language: | English |
Editors: | |
Authors: | Livingstone S.; Görzig A.; Ólafsson K. |
Type: | Short report |
Topics: | Internet usage, practices and engagement; Risks and harms; Access, inequalities and vulnerabilities |
Sample: | EU Kids Online conducted a face-to-face, in home survey of 25,142 9-16 year old internet users and their parents in 25 countries, using a stratified random sample and self-completion methods for sensitive questions. |
Implications For Parents About: | Parenting guidance / support ; Parental digital literacy |
Abstract
Educational/economic disadvantage
27% of children have parents with lower secondary education or less. These children report fewer online risks than average, but are more upset by risk, less skilled and less helped by parents to cope with risk.
25% of children have parents who do not use the internet. They report fewer online risks but more upset and have few skills to cope. Their parents lack confidence, lack support from friends and family, and wish the school would guide them.
7% of children use the internet less than once per week. Again reporting fewer risks but more harm than the average, these children’s digital skills are lowest of all, and though their parents do not think their children well prepared to cope with the internet, they do not plan to do more than others.
Psychological disadvantage
41% of children have parents who say they are very worried about their safety online. These children have not encountered or been upset by more risks than average.
Their parents lack confidence, think they should do more, and they both have and want more safety information.
34% of children reported more psychological difficulties than most. These children report more online risks and more harm. Their parents lack confidence but are likely to have adjusted their approach after something upset their child online.
12% of children have experienced something upsetting on the internet. These children report many more risk and harm experiences. Their skills are above average, suggesting a readiness to learn. Their parents too have changed their approach after an upsetting experience, and wish for more safety information from all sources.
Social disadvantage
6% of children have a mental, physical or other disability. These children report raised risk levels, and find meeting new online contacts offline more upsetting than average. Their parents are less confident that their child can cope, and they wish to receive more from ISPs and websites.
4% of children belong to a discriminated-against group. These children report more online risk. Their parents lack confidence in themselves and their children in terms of coping, receive less support from friends and family, and wish for safety information from the government.
4% of children speak a minority language at home. These children are more upset by bullying and ‘sexting’. Their parents lack confidence in their and their child’s ability to cope, they think they should do more to support their child online, and they receive less safety information from all sources than average – they prefer to get this from the
child’s school, from TV or friends and family.
Outcome
-"The incidence of risk is raised by some 15% among children who belong to a discriminatedagainst group (47%), are in some way disabled (48%) or have more psychological difficulties (46%)" (Livingstone, Görzig & Ólafsson, 2011, p. 3)
-Children with psychological difficulties are more likely to be upset by each risk
-"Interestingly, discriminated-against children report more skills, suggesting that they have had cause to develop their skills through their increased exposure to risk" (Livingstone, Görzig & Ólafsson, 2011, p. 5)
-Children who come from a discriminated-against group get less guidance from parents
-Disabled children are less likely to have a friend to turn to
-Parents of children with psychological difficulties feel less able to help
-"Children from minority/discriminated groups have parents who are more likely to doubt their ability to support their child and who think they should do more to help them" (Livingstone, Görzig & Ólafsson, 2011, p. 9)