Figure 1: Relating online use, activities and risk factors to harm to children
Figure 2: Children’s use of internet at home
Figure 3: Child accesses the internet using a mobile phone or a handheld device
Figure 4: How often children use the internet
Figure 5: How long children use the internet for on an average day (in minutes)
Figure 6: "I know more about the internet than my parents"
Figure 7: Excessive use of the internet among children (age 11+)
Figure 8: “There are lots of things on the internet that are good for children of my age”
Figure 9: Children who have a profile on a social networking site
Figure 10: Children’s use of privacy settings on their social networking profile
Figure 11: Online and offline communication compared (% 11+ who say a bit true or very true)
Figure 12: Nature of children’s online contacts (11+)
Figure 13: Online experiences that have bothered children, according to child and parent
Figure 14: Child has seen sexual images online or offline in past 12 months
Figure 15: Child has seen sexual images online and was bothered by this
Figure 16: Child has been bullied online or offline in past 12 months
Figure 17: Child has bullied others online or offline in past 12 months
Figure 18: Child has seen or received sexual messages online in past 12 months (age 11+)
Figure 19: Child has seen or received sexual messages in past 12 months and was bothered (age 11+)
Figure 20: Child has communicated online or gone to an offline meeting with someone not met face to face
Figure 21: Parent’s active mediation of the child’s
Figure 22: Parent’s active mediation of the child’s
Figure 23: Parents’ restrictive mediation of the child’s internet use, according to child and parent
Figure 24: Parent’s monitoring of the child’s internet use, according to child and parent
Figure 25: Parents’ use of parental controls or other means of blocking or filtering some types of websites
Figure 26: Whether parental mediation limits the child’s activities on the internet, according to child
Figure 27: Whether child ignores what parents say when they use the internet, according to child
Figure 28: Whether parents do anything differently because the child has been bothered by something on the internet, according to child and parent
Figure 29: Children who would like their parent(s) to take more interest in what they do online, and parents who think they should do more
Figure 30: Teachers’ mediation of child’s internet use, according to child
Figure 31: Peer mediation of child’s internet use, according to child
Figure 32: Peer mediation of child’s safe internet use, according to child
Figure 33: Whether parents, peers or teachers have ever suggested ways to use the internet safely, according to child
Figure 34: Children who have encountered one or more online risk factors by average number of online activities, by country
Figure 35: Ladder of opportunities, by country
Figure 36: Online experiences that have bothered children, according to child and parent, by country
Figure 37: Child has seen sexual images online or offline in past 12 months, by country
Figure 38: Child has been bullied online or offline in past 12 months, by country
Figure 39: Having seen or received or sent sexual messages in past 12 months (children aged 11-16), by country
Figure 40: Child has communicated online with, or gone to an offline meeting with, someone not met face to face before, by country
Figure 41: Child has seen potentially harmful user-generated content on websites in past 12 months (age 11+), by country
Figure 42: Child accesses the internet using a mobile phone or handheld device, by country
Table 1: Where AU children use the internet
Table 2: Devices by which children go online
Table 3: Children’s digital literacy and safety skills (age 11+)
Table 4: Children’s activities online in the past month Table 5: Children’s actions in relation to online contacts
Table 6: Child has seen sexual images online or offline in past 12 months, by age and gender
Table 7: What kind of sexual images the child has seen online in past 12 months, by age (age 11+)
Table 8: Children’s and parents’ accounts of whether child has seen sexual images online
Table 9: Ways in which children have been bullied in past 12 months
Table 10: What happened when child was bullied online in past 12 months (age 11+)
Table 11: Parents' accounts of whether child has been bullied online
Table 12: Kinds of sexual messaging child has encountered online in past 12 months (age 11+)
Table 13: Parents’ accounts of whether child has seen or received sexual messages online (age 11+)
Table 14: Parents’ accounts of whether child has met online contacts offline
Table 15: Child has seen potentially harmful user-generated content in past 12 months (age 11+)
Table 16: Child has experienced misuse of personal data in past 12 months (age 11+)
Table 17: Parent’s active mediation of the child’s
Table 18: Parent’s active mediation of the child’s
Table 19: Parent’s active mediation of the child’s
Table 20: Parent’s active mediation of the child’s
Table 21: Parents’ restrictive mediation of the child’s internet use, according to child
Table 22: Parents’ restrictive mediation of the child’s internet use, according to child and parent
Table 23: Parent’s monitoring of the child’s internet use, according to child
Table 24: Parent’s monitoring of the child’s internet use, according to child and parent
Table 25: Parents’ technical mediation of the child’s internet use, according to child
Table 26: Parents’ technical mediation of the child’s internet use, according to child and parent
Table 27: Whether parental mediation is helpful, according to child and parent
Table 28: How much parents know about their child’s internet use, according to child
Table 29: Parents’ ability to help their child and child’s ability to cope, according to parent
Table 30: Whether parent thinks child will experience problems on the internet in the next six months
Table 31: Whether the child would like their parent(s) to take more interest in what they do online
Table 32: Teachers’ mediation of child’s internet use, according to child
Table 33: Peer mediation of child’s internet use, according to child
Table 34: Children’s sources of advice on internet safety (other than parents, teachers or friends)
Table 35: Parents’ actual sources of information on internet safety, by age of child
Table 36: Parents’ desired sources of information on internet safety, by age of child
Table 37: Summary of online risk factors shaping children’s probability of experiencing harm
Table 38: Child has seen sexual images online and was bothered by this, by country
The ‘AU’ survey was conducted in parallel with a 25 nation survey carried out by
In what follows, AU findings are compared with those from 25 other countries, all of which are European nations, although not all of which are members of the European Union. The results of this overarching European-level research in 25 nations, with 25,142 families each represented by a child aged 9-16, and the parent who knows most about the child’s internet use, are reported in Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K. (2011).
Where reference is made in this report to
It should be noted that this report adopts a template used by the two other English language country-level reports, the United Kingdom and Ireland. It uses the same structure, graph placement and introductory statements to set the scene of the research and to allow easy navigability of the report for people familiar with other outputs of the
Compared to the 25 country average, more AU children go online at school (96% vs. 63%), at home (96% vs. 87%) and when ‘out and about’ (31% vs. 9%).
46% of AU kids go online in their bedroom or other private room and over two thirds (70%) at a friend’s house. More girls (56%) than boys (38%) can access the internet from their bedroom, while in Europe these numbers are equivalent.
Three in five AU children go online via a mobile device - 46% report handheld access to the internet (e.g. iPod Touch, iPhone or Blackberry) and an additional 14% access the internet via their mobile phone. The 25 country data is lower for handheld devices, 12%, and consequently a little higher for mobiles, 22%.
AU children (9-16) were, on average, a little under eight years old when they first used the internet, putting them amongst the youngest first-time-users in the 26 nation study.
76% of AU kids go online daily or almost daily, 22% use the internet once or twice a week, leaving just 2% who go online less often. In terms of frequency of use, higher figures are seen in Sweden, Bulgaria, Estonia, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Finland. Australia is eighth.
The average time spent online by AU 9-16 year olds is just over an hour and a half per day (99 minutes), higher than the 25 nation average (88 minutes).
Most Australian children report being able to bookmark websites, find information on how to use the internet safely and block messages, but only just over a third (37%) say they can change filter preferences.
Among younger Australian children there are some significant gaps in their safety skills which policy initiatives should address. Around one third of 11-12 year olds cannot block messages from people they don’t wish to hear from.
One in four (26%) of Australian 9-16 year olds say the statement “I know more about the internet than my parents” is ‘very true’ of them, four in ten (40%) say it is ‘a bit true’ and one third (34%, though 62% of 9-10 year olds) say it is ‘not true’ of them.
Australian children’s experience of spending ‘too much time’ on the internet is more common than the 25 country average. 55% say they have spent less time with family and friends than they should have because of time they spent on the internet, and almost half (49%) have tried unsuccessfully to spend less time on the internet.
Top activities are using the internet for schoolwork (86%), watching video clips (85%) playing games (78%), emailing (67%) and social networking (63%).
Creating content is less common than receiving it. Even so, while 85% have watched video clips online, almost half the cohort (45%) actively contribute their own media and distribute it to friends and family. Fewer AU children have spent time in a virtual world (16%), or blogged (9%), but their participation is a little higher than in most countries involved in the research.
Two thirds (65%) of Australian children who use the internet have their own SNS profile, a little more than the 25 nation average of 59%.
Only 29% of AU 9-10 year olds, but 59% of 11-12 year olds, have a SNS profile, suggesting that it is the start of secondary school, rather than the minimum age set by popular SNS providers, that triggers social networking activity.
AU children report substantially more SNS contacts than most EU kids, with 16% saying they have over 300, equal second with the UK to Greek children’s 20%. 63% of AU children have over 50 contacts, the highest percentage in all 26 nations studied.
Most AU SNS users have their profile set to private or partially private. Only 9% of Australian children make it public, much lower than the 26% across Europe.
29% of Australian 11-16 year olds (more boys than girls, more teens than younger children) say they are in communication with people they first met online, unconnected with their offline social networks.
In the past year fewer than one in four (24%) AU 9-16 year old internet users have looked for new friends on the internet, 21% have added contacts they don’t know face to face, and 10% have sent an image of themselves to someone not met face to face. Such figures are less than the 25 country average.
One reason for using the internet to look for new friends might be that just under half (46%) of AU 1116 year old internet users say they find it easier to be themselves online. Also, 47% talk about different things online than offline, and more than one in five (22%) talk about more private things online than when present with other people face to face.
Before asking children about specific online risk experiences, we asked them about experiences online that had bothered them in some way, explaining that
30% of Australian children say they have been bothered or upset by something online in the past year: two and a half times the European average (12%) and more than any other of the 25 countries. The next four countries were Denmark (28%), Estonia (25%), Norway and Sweden (both 23%). 79% of AU children say that there are things on the internet could bother other children. The European average for this is 55%, but Denmark (94%), Spain (92%), Norway (89%) and Sweden (88%) all rate more on this scale than Australia.
By implication, one in five 9-16 year olds (21%) do not see the internet as problematic for children of their age. Younger AU children are least likely to be concerned that what’s on the internet might bother other children, but equally likely to have felt bothered themselves.
Parents seem a little less likely to see the internet as problematic for boys than for girls.
While 30% of AU 9-10 year olds say they’ve been bothered by something online, their parents are less likely to recognise this. 16% of these children’s parents say ‘something has bothered my child online’.
Among the next age group, 11-12 year olds, 30% also report that they have encountered something that bothered or upset them. 23% of their parents recognise this. The fact that the problematic exposure is established among 9-10 year olds indicates that the factors concerned pre-date the challenges of moving to high school.
The
More than two in five (44%) Australian 9-16 year olds say they have encountered sexual images in the past 12 months, whether online or offline. This is close to double the average of the other 25 countries, 23%. It is important to note that a wide range of images is included as ‘sexual’, reflecting the 9-16 year old interviewees. This finding does suggest that parents and teachers need to continue working to ensure children are not troubled by viewing unwanted or age inappropriate material.
28% of AU 11-16 year olds have seen sexual images online. 24% say they have seen online sexual images including nudity, 17% have seen someone’s genitals online, 16% (more teenagers than young children) have seen images of someone having sex, and 6% say they have seen violent sexual images. Once more, it is important to bear in mind the large age range of the children in interpreting this finding.
Regarding Australian children who have seen online sexual images, 49% of parents say their child has not seen this, while 38% recognise that they have and 14% say they don’t know.
As in other countries, 9-10 year olds are less likely to see sexual images online but are more likely to be bothered or upset by the experience if they do.
Overall, most children have not experienced sexual images online and, of those who have, most say they were not bothered or upset by the experience.
In relation to online bullying, 29% of AU children (19% across Europe) say they have been bullied, and 13% say this occurred on the internet. This is more than double the average for the 25 European nations (6%).
The most common form of bullying is nasty or hurtful messages sent to the child (7%), followed by messages being posted or passed on (4%) and other nasty things online (3%). 3% say they have been threatened online.
17% of Australian children say they have bullied others, though only 5% say they have bullied others online in the past 12 months.
15% of AU 11-16 year old internet users have received sexual messages (‘sexts’). This is an average result across the study, and most recipients are 15-16 years old. 4% of Australian children have sent sexts online, and the average EU figure is 3%. Sexts are more commonly associated with mobile phones than with internet use and are currently the subject of intensive research. For example, Albury, K. and Crawford, K. (forthcoming, 2012). Sexting, consent and young people’s ethics: Beyond Megan’s story,
9% of AU 11-16 year olds have been sent a sexual message, 6% have been asked to talk about sexual acts with someone online, and 5% have seen others perform sexual acts in a message. 3% have been asked for a photo or video of their ‘private parts’.
34% of Australian children have had contact online with someone they have not met face to face (the 25 nation average is 30%).
5% of AU kids have gone to an offline meeting with someone they first met online. This is about half the European average, which is 9% across all countries.
Older teenagers (13-16 year olds) are much more likely than younger children to have online contact with someone they have not met face to face. They are also more likely to have gone on to meet them in person – though such instances are rare.
34% of AU 11-16 year olds have seen one or more type of potentially harmful user-generated content, ranking at 6 of 26 countries for this risk. 52% of 15-16 year old Australian girls report seeing such content. ‘Harmful content’ in this study takes into account the broad age range of the children and a diverse range of reasons for accessing material. For example, some older teenagers in the sample might have accessed drug-use sites to gain information about harm minimisation or to understand drug taking from a public health perspective. Others may access sexually explicit material to guide them in sexual ethics, identity, relationships and health.
Most common are hate messages (26%), followed by ways of hurting yourself (14%) and sites talking about drug experiences (12%). ‘Ways to be very thin’ are reported by 9%, while 4% have visited a suicide site.
17% of Australian children aged 11-16 report misuse of personal data, the second highest in 26 countries (after Estonia, 18%). The main reported misuse was when someone else used a child’s password or pretended to be them (13%). Some had had personal information used in a way they did not like (9%).
While 76% of AU 9-16 year olds go online daily or almost daily, the same is true for 79% of their parents. Younger parents are more likely to go online often: 82% of parents of 9-12 year olds, and 75% of parents of 13-16 year olds, go onto the internet almost daily, or every day.
Most notably, the survey shows that parents and children in three in five AU families agree about parental mediation practices, although this is slightly lower than the EU average (about 70% agreement).
Two thirds of AU parents talk to their children about what they do on the internet (67%), making this, as in the other 25 countries generally, the most popular way to actively mediate children’s internet use.
AU parents report considerably more active mediation of younger girls’ use of the internet, and older boys’, including talking to them, staying nearby, encouraging them or sharing internet use. But about one in ten parents (9%) never do any of these things.
Helping when something is difficult to do or find (79%), suggesting how to use the internet safely (75%), and explaining why websites are good or bad (74%), are common strategies of AU parental safety mediation. Australia is ranked second (95%) of the 26 countries (after the Netherlands, 98%), in terms of children’s accounts of their parents’ active mediation.
91% of AU children say either that they are not allowed to do some of a list of online activities (disclose personal information, upload, download, etc.) or that restrictions apply. 99% of younger Australian children (9-12) report restrictive mediation.
Monitoring strategies are adopted by almost three in five (59%) AU parents, yet this is the least favoured mediation approach compared with safety guidance (94%), positive support (91%) and making rules about internet use (91%). Monitoring is least popular throughout the 26 nations.
35% of AU parents block or filter websites, and 36% track the websites their children visit, according to their children. Australia ranks at 6 out of 26 countries in this respect, higher than most European nations.
Both children and parents consider parental mediation helpful to some degree. Over two thirds of children (74%) say it helps a lot or a little.
86% of Australian parents are confident they can help their child a fair amount, or a lot, if something bothers their child online.
However, 47% of AU children think that parental mediation limits what they do online, with 14% saying that their activities are limited a lot.
Three quarters of AU children (75%) pay attention to parental mediation, this being above the 25 nation average (64%). However, 20% say they ignore their parents’ mediation ‘a little’ and 5% say ‘a lot’.
33% AU parents think it fairly or very likely that their child will experience something that bothers them online in the next six months.
18% of AU children (and 30% of 9-10 year olds) would like their parents to take more of an interest in their internet use, while 55% of parents think they should do more in relation to their child’s internet use.
97% of AU children say their teachers have been involved in at least one of the forms of active mediation asked about. This is substantially higher than the 25 nation average of 73%, and means that Australia leads a ranking of all 26 countries.
Friends are likely to mediate in a practical way, helping each other to do or find something when there is a difficulty (75%). When Australian children are bothered by something online, 37% say they have turned to a friend for help, but they are more likely to turn to a teacher (70%) or a parent (67%).
While 32% of AU children say they have received some guidance on safe internet use from their friends, 52% say they have also provided such advice. This is a high percentage, ranking Australia second out of 26 nations. However, most internet safety advice is received from teachers (83%), then parents (75%), then peers (32%): even though children in most European countries choose their parents as the first people to turn to for safety advice.
Other relatives (57%) are also important in providing advice to AU children on how to use the internet safely.
Australian parents receive internet safety advice first and foremost from family and friends, and their child’s school (both 58%), then the traditional media (42%) government (34%), internet service providers (32%), and websites (30%). In Australia, a higher percentage of parents is willing to acknowledge the sources of their information about internet safety (96%) than is the case in Europe (87%).
Almost all Australian parents say they want further information on internet safety. Only 1% (2% of parents of children aged 15-16) say they don’t want any more safety information.
When looking to policy recommendations arising from these findings, it is important to acknowledge that high internet skills, and high internet use, are associated with increased risk Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K., (2011). Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A. and Ólafsson, K. (2011).
Given that online risk and opportunity go hand-in-hand, and building the future digital workforce is a national priority, policies to reduce harm should not unduly prevent children from developing confidence and competence in their use of the internet. Nearly half of Australian children (47%) say their parents’ efforts at mediation have the effect of restricting their online activities. The trade-off is clear, if difficult for parents and policymakers to manage.
Where the Australian findings are compared with those from other countries, the international findings are taken from the pan-European report: Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K. (2011). R
The research and policy agenda regarding online opportunities remains contested, focused on access to education, communication, information and participation, alongside risks of harm posed to children by internet use. The pan-European report clarifies the approach taken by the
The EU Kids Online research suggests that a range of factors relating to internet use may contribute to the possibility of children experiencing harm. The first prerequisite is access to the internet: the amount of time spent online, the technology used and the location. Use leads to opportunities around skills development and to the experience of risks. Experience of risk can lead to the development of coping strategies and resilience, but it can also lead to harm. Online risks are sometimes directly related to offline risks.
Six sets of risks were investigated. These are: seeing sexual images/ encountering pornography; being bullied and engaging in bullying; ‘sexting’ (which is constructed as sending and receiving sexual messages); meeting strangers offline where first contact was via the internet; engaging with negative user-generated content; and the misuse of personal data.
The research did not assume that exposure to risk means exposure to harm. Children and young people respond to risk and cope with challenging experiences in different ways. The study investigated whether children were upset by their online activities, how upset they were, and how long they were upset for. For most children, there is a low probability that a risky online activity will lead to harm.
As shown in Figure 1, many external factors may influence children’s experiences. In this report, we examine the role of demographic factors such as the child’s age, gender, and socio-economic status (SES). Socio-economic status was assessed by combining two measures – the level of education and the type of occupation of the main wage earner in the household. Educational systems vary across countries, so national measures were standardised using the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED).
In subsequent reports 2012-14, analysis will encompass the role of (1) psychological factors such as emotional problems, self-efficacy, risk-taking, (2) the social factors that mediate children’s online and offline experiences, especially the activities of parents, teachers and friends, and (3) the economic, social and cultural factors that may shape the online experience at the national level.
It is particularly difficult to measure private or upsetting aspects of a child’s experience. The EU Kids Online network’s approach to mapping risky experiences of children centred on several key responses to the methodological challenges faced.
The methodology was approved by the
Cognitive testing and pilot testing, to check thoroughly the children’s understandings of and reactions to the questions.
A detailed survey that questions children themselves, to gain a direct account of their online experiences.
Equivalent questions asked of each type of risk to compare risks, and online and offline dimensions.
Matched comparison questions to the parent who knows most about the child’s internet use.
Measures of mediating factors – psychological vulnerability, social support and safety practices.
Follow up questions to pursue how children respond to or cope with online risk.
The inclusion of the experiences of young children, aged 9-10 years (are often excluded from surveys).
Full details of the project methodology, materials, technical fieldwork report and research ethics are available at
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011).
Where Australian children use the internet
% children who say they use the internet at the following locations | |
---|---|
At school or college | 96 |
Living room (or other public room) at home | 87 |
At a friend's home | 70 |
At a relative's home | 62 |
Own bedroom (or other private room) at home | 45 |
When 'out and about' | 31 |
In a public library or other public place | 26 |
In an internet café | 6 |
Average number of locations | 4.2 |
QC301a-h: Looking at this card, please tell me where you use the internet these days. For all tables and figures, the exact question number on the questionnaire is reported. Where younger and older children’s questionnaires use different numbers, the one for the older children is reported. Full questionnaires may be found at
Base: All children who use the internet.
Since Australian children on average can access the internet in about four different places, they clearly enjoy considerable flexibility as regards when and how they go online.
Australian children have about the same amount of access from the privacy of a bedroom (45% vs. 49%) as in Europe generally. Fewer Australian children use internet cafés (6% in the Australian vs.12% in Europe).
Figure 2 shows that, as in Europe, private use in the child’s bedroom is strongly differentiated by age. For younger children use is generally in a public room, while teenagers often have private access.
Unlike Europe, there are clear differences by gender with girls more likely to have bedroom access. Further, in Europe as a whole, the tendency is for children of higher SES to have more private access but this is not the case in Australia.
As shown in Table 2, Australian children’s use of the internet via private platforms (own laptop, mobile phone) is substantial. Private use is, it may be suggested, catching up with use via shared platforms (shared computer or laptop, television set).
The average number of devices used is slightly higher in Australia than Europe (3.5 vs. 2.5).
Devices by which children go online
% children who use the internet | |
---|---|
Shared PC | 76 |
Games console | 51 |
Other handheld portable device/smartphone | 45 |
Television set | 43 |
Mobile phone | 40 |
Shared laptop | 38 |
Own laptop | 31 |
Own PC | 26 |
Average number of devices of use | 3.5 |
QC300a-h: Which of these devices do you use for the internet these days?
Base: All children who use the internet.
It seems that Australian children use the internet from a wider range of devices than is the average for Europe. These devices are distinctive also in offering private, personalised internet access.
Figure 3 shows gender difference in handheld access unusually favouring girls. There is significantly greater use in Australia than in Europe (64% girls and 55% boys in Australia, compared with 11% and 13% respectively across European countries).
The pattern of age differences is the same as in Europe generally, with greater use by older children.
The SES differences in going online via a handheld device are similar in Australia to those across Europe, but access is far more pervasive in Australia, with 60% of Australian children using a mobile/handheld device compared with 34% of European children.
Beyond matters of access, there are several dimensions of internet usage that are explored below: age of first internet use, frequency of internet use, and time spent online.
Children across Europe are going online ever younger, with the average age of first use among 9-16 years old being nine years old. This varies by age group, with the youngest group saying they were seven, on average, when they first went online while 15-16 year olds say they were eleven on first use.
As Livingstone et al found for Europe Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K., (2011).
By contrast, in Australia, children who use the internet go online more often than in Europe (Figure 4):
Daily use is far more common among teenagers than younger children, with 99% of Australian 15-16 year olds saying they use the internet every day. There are no gender differences, but some small SES difference.
How long do Australian children spend online each day (Figure 5)? Time spent online was calculated using a method widely used to measure television viewing. It asks children for separate estimates for an average school day and an average non-school day. These are combined to estimate average internet use each day, noting that
Gender differences in time spent online are negligible, although there are SES differences.
The largest difference in time spent online is by age. The 15-16 year olds spend over two and a half hours per day online on average (151 minutes): this is over 2.5 times that of the youngest group. Australia 9-10 year olds spend 56 minutes per day online, on average.
Hasebrink, U., Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., and Ólafsson, K. (2009). Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E.J. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy.
Table 3 shows the skills which children were asked about in the survey.
Children’s digital literacy and safety skills (age 11+)
11-12 year old | 13-16 year old | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% who say they can… | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
Bookmark a website | 84 | 80 | 90 | 92 | 88 |
Block messages from someone you don’t want to hear from | 63 | 72 | 92 | 81 | 80 |
Change privacy settings on a social networking profile | 58 | 62 | 82 | 87 | 76 |
Find information on how to use the internet safely | 67 | 62 | 79 | 83 | 76 |
Compare different websites to decide if information is true | 67 | 56 | 71 | 77 | 70 |
Block unwanted adverts or junk mail/spam | 65 | 47 | 79 | 72 | 69 |
Delete the record of which sites you have visited | 57 | 39 | 78 | 70 | 65 |
Change filter preferences | 26 | 13 | 54 | 37 | 37 |
Average number of skills | 4.6 | 4.2 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 5.4 |
QC320a-d and QC321a-d: Which of these things do you know how to do on the internet? Please say yes or no to each of the following... If you don’t know what something is or what it means, don’t worry, just say you don’t know.
Base: All children aged 11-16 who use the internet.
Even so, among younger children there are some gaps in safety skills which could be addressed by policy initiatives. Around one third of 11-12 year olds cannot block messages from people they don’t wish to hear from.
Additionally, as a simple, global measure of online self-confidence among young people, the
There is a smaller gender difference in Australia than in Europe, with about as many boys as girls claiming this is ‘very true’: 33% AU girls and 34% AU boys, compared with 34% girls and 38% boys in the European research.
Unsurprisingly, the older the children the more confident they are that they know more than their parents – among 15-16 year olds, 95% say it’s ‘a bit’ or ‘very’ true that they know more than their parents. (This figure is 87% in Europe.) However,
Children from lower SES homes are more confident that they know more about the internet than their parents, reflecting the same pattern found for European children.
There has been considerable discussion over the past decade as to whether the internet is addictive Widyanto, L. and Griffiths, M. (2007). Internet addiction: Does it really exist? (revisited), Nordicom (2004). Smahel, D. and Blinka, L. (forthcoming, 2012). Excessive internet use among European children,
Three in five (59%) say they have caught themselves surfing when they were not really interested, with over half (51%) feeling bothered when they could not go online: higher than the European average (42% and 33%, respectively).
Almost a half (49%) of AU kids say they have tried unsuccessfully to spend less time on the internet.
As in Europe, it is much less common to go without sleeping or eating because of internet use (21%).
We then calculated the percentage of children who answer ‘fairly’ or ‘very often’ to one or more of these five experiences. This revealed that Australia’s profile is joint first with Estonia, leading the 26 country comparison in terms of excessive internet use. 50% of Australian children answer ‘fairly’ or ‘very often’ to one or more of these five experiences, compared with a European average of 23%.
Table 4 shows what Australian children do online.
Children’s activities online in the past month
9-12 year old | 13-16 year old | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% who have… | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
Used the internet for school work | 84 | 84 | 88 | 88 | 86 |
Watched video clips Played internet games | 80 | 77 | 89 | 92 | 85 |
on your own or against the computer | 94 | 78 | 75 | 61 | 78 |
Sent/received email | 48 | 55 | 74 | 91 | 67 |
Visited a social networking profile | 35 | 50 | 85 | 84 | 63 |
Used messaging instant | 29 | 36 | 63 | 74 | 51 |
Put (or posted) photos, videos or music to share with others | 18 | 35 | 57 | 72 | 45 |
Played games with other people on the internet | 60 | 39 | 54 | 20 | 44 |
Downloaded films music or | 25 | 23 | 57 | 66 | 43 |
Put message (or posted) on a website a | 23 | 28 | 49 | 64 | 41 |
Read/news watched on the internet the | 26 | 19 | 52 | 38 | 34 |
Used a webcam | 22 | 29 | 32 | 37 | 30 |
Created pet or avatar a character, | 42 | 34 | 15 | 13 | 26 |
Used file sharing sites | 8 | 8 | 30 | 26 | 19 |
Visited a chatroom | 19 | 19 | 17 | 15 | 18 |
Spent time in a virtual world | 20 | 17 | 14 | 13 | 16 |
Written diary a blog or online | 7 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 9 |
Average activities number of | 6.2 | 6.2 | 8.5 | 8.7 | 7.3 |
QC102: How often have you played internet games in the past 12 months? QC306a-d, QC308a-f and QC311a-f: Which of the following things have you done in the past month on the internet? To be sure children understood these questions, most options included national examples. For instance, in the Australian questionnaire, option 15 was phrased: “Used file sharing sites (peer-to-peer) (e.g. Limewire, Kazaa, torrents).”
Base: All children who use the internet.
Watching video clips (85%) is the next most popular activity, followed by playing internet games (78%). In contrast, European kids rank playing games more highly (83%) followed by watching video clips (76%).
Other forms of engaging with user-generated content, such as visiting a social networking site profile are similar in Australia (63%) and in Europe (62%).
Table 4 also reveals some noteworthy age and gender differences.
Some participatory activities (e.g. writing a blog) and some that may be considered risky (e.g. using file sharing sites) attract few younger children.
However, it is the case that, among younger children (9-12 years), girls use email, instant messaging and social network sites more, and are more likely to post photos and videos and use a webcam than boys. On the other hand, boys are more likely to watch the news online, create an avatar and play computer games alone or with others than are girls.
Among teenagers (13-16 years), gender differences are still marked in relation to games, with boys playing more against the computer, and with others online, and using online news services. Girls are still more likely to email, to use instant messaging, to post photos, videos or music to share with others, and are almost three times more likely to say they blog.
Children do not enjoy equivalent opportunities to access ‘good’ material produced by their own cultural or language group, or reflecting their social and community values.
It is perhaps surprising, since Australia is a comparatively wealthy country, and since its national language dominates the internet worldwide, that Australian children are not more satisfied with online provision. Given the huge array of content online in the English language, one might conclude that what is offered online should be very satisfactory for Australian kids. This is not the case in Australia, Ireland or the UK. In contrast, the children in Lithuania, Greece and Belgium are the most satisfied in the European study.
Nonetheless, 41% of AU children say it is ‘very true’ and 51% say it is ‘a bit true’ that there are lots of good things for them to do online; while 7% say the statement is ‘not true’.
Turning to the socio-demographic variables, Australian girls are less enthusiastic about online content (34% AU girls vs. 42% European girls answering ‘very true’), whereas Australian boys (48%) are slightly more positive than their counterparts in the 25 nation study (46%).
As in
Many children in Australia have a social networking site (SNS) profile, and this is also true for children in Europe. Even though the rules of sites such as Facebook say that children must be 13 or over to have an SNS profile, more than half of 11-12 year olds in the AU study say they have an SNS profile, underlining worries around companies’ age checks and restrictions. Most SNSs offer exceptional opportunities for interactivity and online participation and, as the Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K., (2011).
SNSs are one aspect of the growth of Web 2.0, which focuses on user-generated content, interactivity and participation. Other Web 2.0 applications include Wikis and blogs. Policy-makers, educators and parents can see the benefits of encouraging young people to use these opportunities to express themselves and collaborate with others, but SNS use raises issues about changing definitions of ‘friendship’, as well as concerns around privacy and the lasting nature of children’s digital footprints. Further, integrating a range of social media applications within the SNS itself adds extra possibilities for perpetrating or experiencing anti-social online behaviour such as stalking, harassment and ‘flaming’.
As shown in Figure 9:
The rise in SNS profiles for 11-12 year olds also suggests, in an Australian context, that the peer expectation of social networking starts before secondary school.
More Australian girls than boys have profiles (68% vs. 63%): a bigger gap than in Europe (60% vs. 58%, respectively).
It is perhaps puzzling that children from the highest SES homes are less likely to have a profile, even if almost two in three have one (63%). In contrast, in the European sample as a whole, 4% points differentiate all three SES groups (57-61%). Closer examination suggests that for Australian children from high SES homes, there are significantly fewer ‘under-age’ users (9-12 years).
What do we know about how children use social networking, once they have a profile? The survey asked several questions of children with profiles.
Despite popular media stories of children with hundreds of contacts, few European children report having more than 300 contacts on their social networking profile (9%), though one in five (20%) has between 100 and 300; and half have up to 50 contacts, 19% have fewer than 10.
Do such wide circles of contacts imply that Australian kids have no sense of privacy, including anyone as a ‘friend’?
AU children are less likely to post their address or phone number (6%, compared with 14% in Europe).
AU children are much more likely to say they show an incorrect age (34% compared with the Europe average of 16%).
A breakdown of the use of privacy settings by socio-demographic factors is shown in Figure 10:
Young teenagers (13-14) in Australia are least likely to have public settings (3%, compared to 25% in Europe). This rises to 12% for older children (15-16); while 12% (Australia) vs. 27% (Europe) have public profiles.
Australian children from low SES homes are the most likely to choose private settings; in Europe it is high SES kids that are private.
One reason why children may use SNS communication is that it is easier for them to feel more confident online than in person.
Roughly half (46%) 11-16 year old Australian internet users say they find it ‘easier to be myself’ on the internet, while 47% say they talk about different things. Slightly more than one in five children (22%) talk more about private things when online than is the case with face to face.
This is especially the case for 15-16 year olds, who appear to find the internet a particularly good place to talk about private matters.
Boys (51%) appear a little more likely than girls (42%) to find the internet a good place to be themselves.
Insofar as the internet offers some children an opportunity for more personal or intimate communication, this raises the crucial question, with whom are they communicating? For each platform (email, SNS, chatrooms, IM, games, virtual worlds) that the child had used in the past month, he or she was asked about “the types of people you have had contact with” (Figure 12).
This question pursued the common assumption that it is ‘strangers’ who threaten children’s safety through online contact even though, as previous research suggests, people from within a child’s social circle pose the greatest threat Finkelhor, D. (1980). Risk factors in the sexual victimization of children,
Almost half Australian kids, 48% (whereas in Europe it is 39%), are in touch with people that they first met on the internet but with whom they have a connection through friends or family offline. These people form part of the child’s wider circle offline although the child may not have met them face to face.
Over nine in ten respondents in each age group communicate online with their existing offline social circle. But, like their European counterparts, as Australian children grow older they widen their social circle by also communicating with people online who are connected to their offline circle but whom, nonetheless, they first met on the internet: 40% of 1112 year olds, 45% of 13-14 year olds and 62% of 1516 year olds. These figures are higher than European averages, which are: 31% (11-12), 38% (13-14) and 47% (15-16) respectively.
Drawing the line between activities which facilitate beneficial outcomes and those which increase risk of harm is not straightforward. A particular challenge for policy makers is that children’s agency, although generally to be celebrated, may lead kids to adopt risky or even deliberately risk-taking behaviours See: Livingstone, S., and Helsper, E. J. (2007). Taking risks when communicating on the internet: The role of offline social-psychological factors in young people’s vulnerability to online risks.
Children’s actions in relation to online contacts
% who have, in the past 12 months . . . | Never/ not in past year | Less than monthly | More often |
---|---|---|---|
Looked for new friends on the internet | 76 | 9 | 15 |
Added people to my friends list or address book that I have never met face to face | 80 | 10 | 11 |
Sent a photo or video of myself to someone that I have never met face to face | 89 | 6 | 4 |
Sent personal information to someone that I have never met face to face | 94 | 2 | 4 |
Pretended to be a different kind of person on the internet from what I really am | 94 | 4 | 3 |
QC145a-c and QC146a-b: Have you done any of the following things in the PST 12 MONTHS; if yes, how often have you done each of these things?
Base: All children who use the internet.
Whereas children from medium SES households in Australia are more likely to have an SNS profile, they are also more likely than other SES groupings to have diverse circles of online contacts, communicating with more people they meet on the internet who are unconnected with existing family and friends. In Europe, the higher the SES ranking, the more diverse the child’s online contacts.
As Drawing the line between activities which facilitate beneficial outcomes and those which increase risk of harm is not straightforward. A particular challenge for policy makers is that children’s agency, although generally to be celebrated, may lead kids to adopt risky or even deliberately risk-taking behaviours. This is explored in Table 5, recording children’s answers when they were asked about their behaviour online.
Table 5 indicates, children were asked about possibly risky practices relating to online contacts:
These findings indicate that Australian children may be less risk-taking than the European average, where such activities are more common.
Four in five Australian kids (80%) say they have not added people to their friends’ list or address book that they have never met face to face, nor have three-quarters (76%) looked for new friends on the internet.
Very few have sent images of themselves (10%), or personal information (6%), to people they haven’t met in person.
Some of these approaches to communication might be judged to involve children in risky practices but, as the
Following the approach of
Also, parents were asked:
Clearly, many children don’t see the internet as a completely safe environment. In Figure 13, more than three-quarters of Australian 9-16 year olds think that the internet bothers people their own age, the 79% figure is a much higher percentage than the 55% of children from the 25 nation study who say the same.
Questions about pornography were introduced thus:
To contextualise online pornography in relation to exposure to pornography across any media, children were first asked, “
Figure 14 shows that:
As in Europe, age matters. More older children have seen sexual images. In Australia the biggest jumps in exposure are between 9-10 and 11-12 (17% more report seeing sexual images in the older cohort) and between 13-14 and 15-16 (30%).
Gender differences are small, with Australian girls more likely than boys to have seen sexual images somewhere (45% vs. 42%); for Europe as a whole the likelihood is smaller, and 21% of girls say they have seen sexual images online or offline compared with 25% of boys.
Like the European average, Australian children from higher SES homes say they see sexual images more frequently, though unlike their European counterparts, children from medium SES households in Australia are least likely to see sexual images. (In Europe, likelihood rises with SES ranking.)
Table 6 examines where children have seen sexual images, to put online sources into context.
Child has seen sexual images online or offline in past 12 months, by age and gender
9-12 years | 13-16 years | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
On any websites | 16 | 13 | 45 | 39 | 28 |
On or video/television, DVD film | 11 | 15 | 34 | 29 | 22 |
In book a magazine or | 7 | 9 | 18 | 14 | 12 |
By text (SMS), | |||||
images (MMS), or otherwise on my | 2 | 3 | 14 | 5 | 6 |
mobile phone | |||||
By Bluetooth | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
Has seen at all, online or offline | 27 | 27 | 58 | 61 | 44 |
QC128: Have you seen anything of this kind [obviously sexual] in the past 12 month? QC130a-f: In which, if any, of these places have you seen [images, photos, videos that are obviously sexual] in the past 12 months? QC131: Have you seen [images, photos, videos that are obviously sexual] on any websites in the past 12
This data is divided into two age groups, 9-12 and 13-16, differentiating around teen years.
With 28% of Australian children reporting that they have seen sexual images online, Australia would rank equal fourth in European terms, with Denmark and the Czech Republic (both 28%), while children in Norway are most likely to report this (34%), followed equally by Estonia (29%) and Finland (29%), just above Australia (28%).
Australian kids see more sexual images in magazines than their counterparts in Europe (12% vs. 7%).
Gender differences are striking and increase with age. Younger boys (9-12 years) have seen sexual images on websites, although girls are more likely to have seen them on television. By 13-16, Australian boys are more likely than girls to say they have seen sexual images across the board, on websites, on television, film and video/DVD, in magazines or books, by text/image etc on a mobile This gender difference is partly explained by boys more often choosing the option ‘don’t know’ or ‘prefer not to say’.
Table 7 shows the type of sexual images children have seen.
Age | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | 9-10 | 11-12 | 13-14 | 15-16 | All |
Images or video of someone naked | n.a. | 11 | 14 | 45 | 24 |
Images or video of someone's 'private parts | n.a. | 8 | 14 | 29 | 17 |
Images or video of someone having sex | n.a. | 6 | 11 | 29 | 16 |
Images or video or movies that show sex in a violent way | n.a. | 4 | 8 | 7 | 6 |
Something else | n.a. | 2 | 3 | 6 | 4 |
Information on whether child has seen sexual images online at all are available for all age groups, but the 9-10 year olds were not asked about the types of sexual images seen online. The total figures here are included for comparative purposes |
11 | 17 | 25 | 56 | 28 |
QC131: Have you seen these kinds of things on any websites in the past 12 months? QC133: Which, if any, of these things have you seen on a website in the last 12 months?
Base: All children 11-16 who use the internet.
In all categories of Table 7, the Australian findings are higher than the European findings, although broadly in line with other countries where children go online at a young average age, especially Scandinavian and Baltic countries.
Previous research raised questions about what parents really know about their children’s experiences online, such knowledge being an important prerequisite for supporting or guiding their children. Exploiting the unique features of the
Across Europe, among just those children who have seen sexual images online, one in three (35%) of their parents agree this has occurred, and this is broadly similar in Australia (38%). Just over one in eight (14%) of Australian parents say they don’t know whether their child has seen sexual images online and this contrasts with one in four (26%) of their European counterparts. Significantly, half (49%) the parents of Australian children who say they have seen sexual images on the internet say their child has not seen such images.
Children’s and parents’ accounts of whether child has seen sexual images online
Child has seen sexual images on | Child’s answer | |
---|---|---|
the internet? | Yes | No |
% Parent answer: | ||
Yes | 38 | 17 |
No | 49 | 47 |
Don't know | 14 | 36 |
100 | 100 |
QP235: [Has your child] seen images on the internet that are obviously sexual - for example, showing people naked or people having sex. QC131: Have you seen these kinds of things on any websites in the past 12 months?
Base: All children who use the internet and one of their parents.
When does risk translate into harm? As argued by Livingstone and Haddon Livingstone, S. and Haddon, L. (forthcoming, 2012). Theoretical framework for children’s internet use, Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K., (2011). See Livingstone, S. (2010). ‘e-Youth: (future) policy implications: risk, harm and vulnerability online.’ Keynote at
Although Australian children are more likely to encounter sexual images they are not much more likely to be bothered by what they see than children in the other survey nations. Across Europe, 32% of those who have seen sexual images online were bothered by what they saw, compared with 36% in Australia.
Figure 15 shows which groups of children have seen sexual images on the internet and been bothered by this.
Australian boys are slightly more likely to have seen sexual images online (30% vs. 26%, girls), the same pattern as in Europe generally (where the percentages are 16% vs. 12%). Across all European countries, boys had seen more sexual images online but girls were generally more likely to be bothered by such experiences.
Seeing sexual images online is more common among teenagers than younger children. There are also more teenagers, especially those aged 13-14 years old, who report being bothered by this.
While there are some SES differences in seeing these images, a higher proportion of children from lower SES homes are likely to be bothered by seeing sexual images online (as in Europe generally).
In the full European report, further questions explore how upset children felt, for how long they were upset, who they told and what they did in response to such an experience. However, the
Görzig, A. (2011).
Children were then asked whether
Overall, bullying in Australia is fifty percent higher than across Europe (29% vs. 19%), though the European range is from 43% in Estonia, for having been bullied online or offline, to just 9% in Portugal.
More Australian girls than boys claim to have been bullied (34% vs. 24%).
More 9-10 year olds say they have been bullied (35%), the least bullied being 13-14 year olds (21%). This differs from the European pattern, where older children are most likely to be bullied.
Children from lower SES homes in Australia claim to have been bullied most (44%), with those from medium SES homes the least (25%).
European comparisons suggest that, broadly, bullying online is more common in countries where bullying in general is more common, rather than, for instance, in countries where the internet is more established. This suggests online bullying to be a new form of a long-established problem in childhood rather than, simply, the consequence of a new technology.
Table 9 indicates the ways in which children are bullied.
Ways in which children have been bullied in past 12 months
9-12 years | 13-16 years | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
In person face to face | 16 | 26 | 17 | 20 | 20 |
On the internet | 4 | 19 | 11 | 19 | 13 |
By mobile phone calls, texts or image/video texts | 0 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 3 |
Has been bullied at all, online or offline | 26 | 39 | 22 | 29 | 29 |
QC114: At any time during the last 12 months, has this happened [that you have been treated in a hurtful or nasty way]? QC115: At any time during the last 12 months has this happened on the internet.
Base: All children who use the internet.
In Australia, face to face bullying is more common than online bullying (20% vs. 13%), while 3% have also been bullied by mobile phone.
Gender differences are much larger in the younger age group than the older one, with 9-12 year old girls more likely to be bullied than the boys.
Table 10 examines what children say about how they have been bullied online in the past 12 months.
Age | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | 9-10 | 11-12 | 13-14 | 15-16 | All |
Nasty or hurtful messages were sent to me | n.a. | 5 | 6 | 10 | 7 |
Nasty or hurtful messages about me around were or passed posted where others could see | n.a. | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 |
Other nasty or hurtful things on the internet | n.a. | 3 | 6 | 1 | 3 |
I was threatened on the internet | n.a. | 3 | 6 | 1 | 3 |
I was left out or excluded from a group or activity on the internet | n.a. | 2 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
Something else | n.a. | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
At all on the internet | 6 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 13 |
QC115: At any time during the last 12 months has this happened on the internet? QC117: Can I just check, which of these things have happened in the last 12 months?
Base: All children 11-16 years old who use the internet.
Unlike the European findings, where15-16 year olds are most likely to encounter the various forms of online bullying, there is little difference in the Australian findings relating to the variety of online bullying behaviours affecting 11-12, 13-14 and 15-16 year olds.
As with exposure to sexual images, the survey findings reveal the degree to which parents are aware of children’s online experience of being bullied (Table 11).
Parents' accounts of whether child has been bullied online
Child has been sent nasty or | Child’s answer: | |
---|---|---|
hurtful messages on the internet? | Yes | No |
% Parent answer: | ||
Yes | 58 | 4 |
No | 33 | 91 |
Don't know | 9 | 6 |
100 | 100 |
QP235: [Has your child] been treated in a hurtful or nasty way on the internet by another child or teenager? QC115: At any time during the last 12 months [have you been treated in a hurtful or nasty way] on the internet?
Note: sample sizes in this table are small (and confidence intervals high) so these findings to be treated as indicative only.
Base: All children who use the internet and one of their parents.
Among the 13% of children who say they have been bullied online, most of their parents (58%) are aware of this, though one in three (33%) says this has not happened and 9% do not know.
By comparison with parental awareness of children’s exposure to online pornography, Australian parents seem more aware of when their child has been bullied online, in those cases where it has happened.
Since bullying is an activity that occurs largely among peers, children may not only be bullied but they may also bully others, either on the internet or in other ways. After asking children about their experiences of being bullied, children were asked if they themselves had acted in a hurtful or nasty way to others in the past year.
Figure 17 shows that,
Children from lower SES homes are most likely to say they bully others, and are also most likely to say they have been bullied.
A central question in the
In the full European report, children’s experiences of online bullying are followed up to explore how upset children felt, for how long they were upset, who they told and what they did in response to such an experience. However, for a single country report the sample sizes are too small to report in detail how children coped, or not, with upsetting online experiences.
The key point, therefore, is that
There are some reasons to believe that the internet, along with smart (camera)phones, may make it easier for peers to exchange sexual messages Livingstone, S. and Görzig, A. (forthcoming, 2012). ‘Sexting’ – the exchange of sexual messages online among European youth,
The term ‘sexting’ was not used in the questionnaire. Children (and parents) were introduced to the questions on sending and receiving sexual messages as follows:
In Australia, as in the European findings, there is no significant gender difference in receiving sexual messages.
15-16 year olds are more likely to receive sexual messages online than the younger age groups.
Seeing/receiving sexual messages online is more common (though still a minority practice) than is posting/sending such messages. Only a very small proportion of children – 4% of 11-16 year olds – say they have posted or sent a sexual message online in the past 12 months.
Table 12 shows the type of sexual messages received by Australia children on the internet.
Age | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | 9-10 | 11-12 | 13-14 | 15-16 | All |
I have been sent a sexual message on the internet | n.a. | 3 | 5 | 18 | 9 |
I have seen a sexual message posted other people where could see it on the internet | n.a. | 1 | 2 | 9 | 4 |
I have seen other people perform sexual acts | n.a. | 0 | 0 | 14 | 5 |
I have been asked on the internet for a photo or video showing my private parts | n.a. | 0 | 2 | 7 | 3 |
I have been asked to talk about sexual acts with someone on the internet | n.a. | 1 | 1 | 15 | 6 |
Has seen or received at all | n.a. | 9 | 9 | 27 | 15 |
QC169: In the past 12 months, have any of these happened to you on the internet?
Base: All children aged 11-16 who use the internet.
The older the child, the more likely they are to have experienced sexting. The same patterns apply to the European data generally, although the figures are higher in Australia. For example, for 15-16 year old Australians, 18% have been sent a sexual message (Europe 11%); 15% of Australians have been asked to talk about sexual acts with someone online (Europe 3%); and 14% of Australians have seen images of other people performing sexual acts (Europe 8%).
Parents were asked about their child’s experiences regarding online sexual messages (Table 13).
Seen or been sent sexual images | Child’s answer | |
---|---|---|
on the internet? | Yes | No |
% Parent answer: | ||
Yes | 27 | 5 |
No | 51 | 83 |
Don't know | 22 | 12 |
100 | 100 |
QP235: [Has your child] seen or been sent sexual messages on the internet? QC167: In the past 12 months have you seen or received sexual messages of any kind on the internet? This could be words, pictures or videos?
Note: sample sizes in this table are small (and confidence intervals high) so these findings to be treated as indicative only.
Base: All children aged 11-16 who use the internet and one of their parents.
In Table 13, among the 15% of Australian children who say they have seen or been sent sexual messages online, a minority of their parents (27%) are aware of this, while half (51%) say this has not happened. One in five (22%) does not know.
This level of parental awareness is a little higher than the European average, though findings are based on a subset of a smaller respondent population.
As noted in the discussion around seeing pornography, unless one makes the strong case that any exposure to sexual messages is inevitably harmful in some degree, it must be recognised that some children may receive sexual messages with no negative effects. Others, however, may be upset.
Across the European study, although 15% of children have seen or received a sexual message online, only 4% of children aged 11-16 both received sexts and were bothered by the experience. However, looked at differently, one quarter (25%) of the 15% who have received sexual messages were bothered by them.
In Australia, while 15% have seen or received such messages, a slightly lower percentage - 3% - have been bothered by them. To put it another way, 20% or one in five Australian children who receive sexual messages online are bothered or upset by the experience.
Figure 19 shows that Australian girls are more likely than boys to have been bothered by receiving sexual messages (4% vs. 2%), in line with the 25 nation findings.
The younger children, 11-12 year olds, are more likely to be bothered by these messages (as also indicated by the data from the larger study).
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. and Ybarra, M. (2008). Online ‘predators’ and their victims, Barbovschi, M., Marinescu, V., Velicu, A. and Laszlo, E. (forthcoming, 2012). Meeting new contacts online, Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K., (2011).
Gender differences are minor, although girls (one in six, 5/28) are a little more likely to have gone on to meet someone than boys (one in eight, 5/39). This is contrary to the wider European pattern, although the age difference dimension is consistent with findings from the European study.
Children from lower SES homes in Australia are less likely to have made contact, but more likely to have gone on to meet face to face, a person they first met online.
Are parents aware of such offline meetings? (Table 14)
Parents’ accounts of whether child has met online contacts offline
Met someone face to face that | Child’s answer | |
---|---|---|
first met on the internet? | Yes | No |
% Parent answer: | ||
Yes | 11 | 0 |
No | 78 | 98 |
Don't know | 11 | 2 |
100 | 100 |
QP235: [Has your child] gone to a meeting with someone face to face that he/she first met on the internet? QC148: Have you ever gone on to meet anyone face to face that you first met on the internet in this way?
Note: sample sizes in this table are small (and confidence intervals high) so these findings to be treated as indicative only.
Base: All children who use the internet, and one of their parents.
The small sample size for meeting contacts offline means it is particularly difficult to extrapolate further valid information. Thus we note, as indicative only, that in most of the cases where a child has gone to such a meeting, parents seem unaware of this.
Making new contacts online and then arranging to meet these people offline is, perhaps, one of the most contested activities children may engage in. It may be a harmless means of widening a social circle, or it may be a risky or even dangerous means of contacting an abusive stranger. As before, questions about subjective harm were prefaced with the following explanation:
For the overall research in the 25 country study, some follow up questions on children’s responses to such meetings can be reported (pp. 92-95). But for a single country sample, the number of children involved is too small to report reliable findings.
Given the sensitive nature of the potentially harmful user-generated content shown in Table 15, only 11-16 year olds were asked if they had seen this. The question introduction clarified the potentially harmful nature of the content:
Age | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | 11-13 years | 14-16 years | |||
Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All | |
Hate messages that attack certain groups or individuals | 18 | 17 | 21 | 47 | 26 |
Ways to be very thin (such as being anorexic or bulimic) | 6 | 9 | 4 | 18 | 9 |
Talk about or share their experiences of taking drugs | 9 | 4 | 11 | 26 | 12 |
Ways of physically harming or hurting themselves | 16 | 8 | 11 | 20 | 14 |
Ways of committing suicide | 1 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 4 |
Has seen such material at all on any websites | 31 | 22 | 34 | 52 | 34 |
QC142: In the past 12 months, have you seen websites where people discuss...?
Base: All children aged 11-16 who use the internet.
Older Australian girls are generally twice as likely as Australian boys to have visited troubling user-generated content sites, except that older boys are more likely to have visited sites that discuss ways of committing suicide (7% of Australian boys 14-16 vs. 4% Australian girls). The figures for younger children also show some gender differences, although young children are generally less likely to visit such sites than older children.
Age | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | 11-13 years | 14-16 years | |||
Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All | |
Somebody used my password to access my information or to pretend to be me | 15 | 15 | 9 | 12 | 13 |
Somebody used my personal information in a way I didn't like | 11 | 15 | 3 | 8 | 9 |
I lost money by being cheated on the internet | 6 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
Has experienced personal data misuse of any kind | 21 | 22 | 9 | 17 | 17 |
QC143: In the past 12 months, has any of the following happened to you on the internet?
Base: All children aged 11-16 who use the internet.
Younger children have had these problems more than older children.
A distinctive feature of the Livingstone, S., and Helsper, E. J. (2008) Parental mediation of children’s internet use.
Both forms of active mediation may also be practised by teachers in school and, further, children may support each other through discussing and sharing details of their internet use. Although informal, this support of children by children constitutes a potentially valuable form of peer mediation Kalmus, V., von Feilitzen, C. and Siibak, A. (forthcoming, 2012). Effectiveness of children’s and peers’ mediation in supporting opportunities and reducing risks online, In practical terms, it was not possible also to ask teachers or friends matched questions; nor was it appropriate to ask children about restrictive, monitoring or technical forms of mediation for teachers or friends.
Active mediation of the child’s internet use - the parent is present, staying nearby, encouraging or sharing or discussing the child’s online activities.
Active mediation of the child’s internet safety – the parent guides the child in using the internet safely, before, during or after the child’s online activities, maybe helping or discussing what to do in case of difficulty.
Restrictive mediation – the parent sets rules that restrict the child’s use (of particular applications, activities, or of giving out personal information).
Monitoring – the parent checks available records of the child’s internet use afterwards.
Technical mediation of the child’s internet use – the parent uses software or parental controls to filter, restrict or monitor the child’s use.
Teachers’ mediation – these questions included a mix of active mediation of the child’s internet use and internet safety, plus a question on restrictive mediation.
Peer mediation of the child’s internet safety – it was assumed that children talk about their online activities in general, so here the focus was on peer mediation of safety practices in particular. These questions were asked bi-directionally – do the child’s friends help them, and also do they help their friends.
Other sources – There are other sources of safety information apart from those mentioned above and both parents and children may benefit from accessing a range of sources of guidance, from the media, or from experts in their community. We also asked about the use of such sources.
The
Although SES differences in whether children use the internet daily are small, they are substantially larger for their parents: 86% of high SES parents, but just 74% of medium and 49% of low SES parents use the internet every, or nearly every, day.
The fact that older Australian children use the internet more frequently than their parents, as do children from lower SES homes, should be borne in mind when asking how parents mediate their children’s internet use.
However,
Previous research has revealed a considerable generation gap, with parents reporting more mediating activities than are recognised by their children Livingstone, S., and Bober, M. (2006). Regulating the internet at home: Contrasting the perspectives of children and parents,
In what follows,
Table 17 examines supportive forms of active mediation and co-use by parents, as reported by the child.
Parent’s active mediation of the child’s
% who say that their parent does… | 9-12 years | 13-16 years | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All | |
Talk to you about what you do on the internet | |||||
Stay nearby when you use the internet | |||||
Encourage you to explore and learn things on the internet on your own | |||||
Sit with you while you use the internet | |||||
Do shared activities together with you on the internet | |||||
One or more of these |
QC327: Does your parent / do either of you parents sometimes…
Base: All children who use the internet.
Second most popular mediation is staying nearby (63%), and third is encouraging the child to explore and learn things on the internet (44%). This and the other strategies are adopted by around two parents in five.
Gender differences are often small in the European sample, and this is also the case with Australian kids, aged 9-12, although parents seems slightly more likely to say they sit with their son while he uses the internet. Apart from doing more shared activities online with both older boys and girls, Australian parents are more likely to mediate their teenage sons’ internet use.
Table 18 compares the accounts of parents and children, examining the relation between the child’s answers (yes, their parent does mediate or no, they don’t) and those of their parent.
Parent’s active mediation of the child’s
% who say that their parents sometimes… | Child no parent no | Child yes parent no | Child no parent yes | Child yes parent yes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Talk to you about what you do on the internet | 4 | 5 | 29 | 62 |
Stay nearby when you use the internet | 17 | 12 | 20 | 51 |
Encourage you to explore and learn things on the internet on your own | 25 | 9 | 31 | 35 |
Sit with you while you use the internet | 37 | 11 | 23 | 29 |
Do shared activities together with you on the internet | 40 | 8 | 22 | 30 |
QC327 and QP220: Does your parents/do either of your parents sometimes [which of the following things, if any do you (or your partner/other carer) sometimes do with your child]…
Base: All children who use the internet and one of their parents.
In 20-31% of cases, parents claim a mediating practice that their child does not acknowledge (see third column). There could be a social desirability effect on the part of parents who wish to appear ‘good’. Or, parents may be more aware of practices that their children might not notice or might forget.
Interestingly, in 5-12% of cases, the child perceives parental mediation that the parent themselves does not report (second column). This may arise because children may wish to represent their parents as doing more than they do; or they may notice a practice that is so routine for the parent that it goes unnoticed.
Adding the percentages in the second and third column suggests that
To show demographic differences, Figure 21 is based on the row, ‘One of more of these’ responses in Table 17 – i.e. it combines the various forms of active mediation.
Active mediation by parents is highest for young children and reduces as children grow older: 93% of parents do one of more of the activities shown in Table 17 in relation to their 9-10 year olds, according to the child, dropping to 89% for 15-16 year olds.
Perhaps most notable is that even for the oldest group, almost 9 in 10 parents pursue some forms of active mediation with their teenagers.
How does Australia compare to other countries?
The pan-European report found that, overall, levels of active mediation range from 98% of parents in the Netherlands who engage in one or more forms of active mediation, down to 73% in Turkey, according to children. At 91%, active mediation of internet use in Australia is similar to the level for many other countries.
Table 21 examines the child’s perception of the role their parents play in helping keep them safe online.
Parent’s active mediation of the child’s
% who say that | 9-12 years | 13-16 years | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
their parent does… | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
Helped you when something is difficult to do or find on the internet | 83 | 88 | 75 | 71 | 79 |
Explained why some websites are good or bad | 72 | 78 | 80 | 67 | 74 |
Suggested ways to use the internet safely | 76 | 78 | 72 | 76 | 75 |
Suggested ways to behave towards other people online | 60 | 75 | 69 | 64 | 44 |
Helped you in the past when something has bothered you on the internet | 41 | 51 | 35 | 48 | 67 |
Talked to you about what to do if something on the internet bothered you | 57 | 72 | 61 | 67 | 64 |
One or more of these | 94 | 99 | 95 | 90 | 94 |
QC329 Does your parent / do either of your parents sometimes…
Base: All children who use the internet.
Parent’s active mediation of the child’s
% who say that their parents sometimes… | Child no parent no | Child yes parent no | Child no parent yes | Child yes parent yes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Helped you when something is difficult to do or find on the internet | 9 | 12 | 11 | 67 |
Explained why some websites are good or bad | 7 | 7 | 19 | 67 |
Suggested ways to use the internet safely | 8 | 14 | 16 | 61 |
Suggested ways to behave towards other people online | 15 | 13 | 18 | 54 |
Helped you in the past when something has bothered you on the internet | 39 | 16 | 16 | 29 |
Talked to you about what to do if something on the internet bothered you | 16 | 13 | 19 | 52 |
QC329 and QP222: Has your parent/either of your parents [have you] ever done any of these things with you [your child]?
Base: All children who use the internet and one of their parents.
Parents’ restrictive mediation of the child’s internet use, according to child
% who say that | 9-12 years | 13-16 years | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
rules apply about… | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
Give out personal information others on the to internet | |||||
Download music or films on the internet | |||||
Upload photos, videos or music to share with others | |||||
Have your own social networking profile | |||||
Use messaging instant | |||||
Watch on the video internet clips | |||||
One or more of these | 99 | 99 | 83 | 83 | 91 |
QC328: For each of these things, please tell me if your parents CURRENTLY let you do them whenever you want, or let you do them but only with your parent’s permission or supervision, or NEVER let you do them.
Base: All children who use the internet.
These children recognise their parents as involved in keeping them safe online.
Children’s and parents’ answers are compared in Table 20.
Parents and children disagree between about a quarter and a third of the time, depending on the strategy, with parents a little more likely to over-claim compared with their children.
Figure 22 shows the demographic differences in parental mediation of the child’s internet safety.
There are few gender differences in parental safety mediation.
Parents mediate a little more for younger children and a bit less for older children.
Differences are small, but higher SES parents are more likely to say they engage in safety mediation.
In addition to active mediation, which both enables opportunities and enhances safety, parents have long been advised to set rules or restrictions in order to manage their child’s internet use. These may be simple bans such telling the child they are not permitted to undertake a particular online activity, or they may be partial restrictions such as permitting the child to do that activity only under supervision. Both these were treated as measures of restrictive mediation, compared with children for whom no restrictions apply (Table 21).
Table 21 shows that
Next most regulated activity is downloading material (63%) and uploading material (59%), though possibly this reflects rules in cases where photos or videos are of the children themselves. In the European study generally, 57% of children are restricting in their downloading activities.
Roughly one in two Australian children (49%) are restricted in their use of social networking sites, 47% are restricted in their use of instant messaging, and 39% experience rules around watching video clips.
Gender differences vary by type of mediation. They are relatively small for disclosing personal information but younger girls generally experience more rules than do younger boys, while teenage boys face more rules than teenage girls.
Compared with the two types of active mediation discussed early, Table 22 shows that there is more agreement between parents and children about whether rules exist – 91% (i.e. 3% + 88%) – regarding rules related to giving out personal information, dropping to 75% in the case of watching video clips.
Parents’ restrictive mediation of the child’s internet use, according to child and parent
% who say that rules apply about … | Child no parent no | Child yes parent no | Child no parent yes | Child yes parent yes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Give out personal information to others on the internet | ||||
Download on the internet music or films | ||||
Upload music to photos, share videos with others or | ||||
Have networking your own profile social | ||||
Use instant messaging | ||||
Watch video clips on the internet |
QC328 and QP221: For each of these things, please tell me if your parents CURRENTLY let you [your child is allowed to] do them whenever you want, or let you do them but only with your parent’s permission or supervision, or NEVER let you do them.
Base: All children who use the internet and one of their parents.
Compared with the various forms of active mediation (see Figure 21),
The majority of Australian teenagers are expected to follow rules when using the internet. According to parents, girls are slightly more restricted than boys, but the difference is only 4%. There is very little difference by SES.
Looking across the 25 European countries the range of restrictions, according to the child, varies from 93% in Portugal and Ireland down to 54% in Lithuania – indicating that country differences in restrictive mediation are substantial.
At 91% Australia would be relatively high up this list, joint fourth with France and Cyprus, behind Germany (92%, third) and Ireland and Portugal (93%, first).
Given that a computer keeps a digital record of the sites it has accessed, it is comparatively easy for parents to check their children’s internet activities during (or after) their time online. Monitoring as a means of overseeing children’s online activities can raise issues of trust between parents and children. Consequently, monitoring is generally less favoured as a mediation strategy than restrictive mediation, even though restrictions can lead to arguments between parents and their children Livingstone, S., and Bober, M. (2006). Regulating the internet at home: Contrasting the perspectives of children and parents,
Parent’s monitoring of the child’s internet use, according to child
% who say | 9-12 years | 13-16 years | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
parents check… | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
Which you visited websites | |||||
Your profile on a social network or online community | |||||
Which friends or contacts you add to social networking profile | |||||
The messages in your instant email messaging or account | |||||
One or more of these | 54 | 64 | 60 | 60 | 59 |
QC330: Does your parent/either of your parents sometimes check any of the following things?
Base: All children who use the internet at home.
Checking which websites children visit is the most common form of monitoring (53%) in Australia, perhaps reflecting the relative ease of doing this.
Checking social networking profiles (49%) or the friends who are added to those profiles (38%) is a little less common, though still more practised than actually checking the content of children’s messages.
Some gender and age differences are striking.
From Table 24, it can be seen that
For the 21% of Australian parents who say they monitor their child’s SNS contacts when their child says they do not, it may be that children simply do not know what monitoring their parents undertake.
As with other mediation activities, parents are more likely than their children to claim that they do certain things, rather than their children saying that their parents do something that the parents themselves claim that they do not do.
Parent’s monitoring of the child’s internet use, according to child and parent
% who say parents check… | Child no parent no | Child yes parent no | Child no parent yes | Child yes parent yes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Which visited websites you | ||||
Your profile on a social network or online community | ||||
Which friends or contacts you add to social networking profile | ||||
The messages in your email or instant messaging account |
QC330 and QP223: Does your parent/either of your parents sometimes check any of the following things?
Base: All children who use the internet at home and one of their parents.
Figure 24 reveals less monitoring of 9-10 year old Australians, a peak at 11-12 years, then a decline in monitoring as children grow older: 82% of the parents of 11-12 year olds say they use one or more forms of monitoring, but only 69% do so for 15-16 year olds.
Parents from lower SES homes are less likely to say they monitor their children.
For the internet in particular, ‘parental tools’ have been developed as technical solutions to the challenge of parental mediation. Thus, finally, parents and children were asked if the parents use any technical means to monitor what the child does online (Table 25).
Parents’ technical mediation of the child’s internet use, according to child
% who say | 9-12 years | 13-16 years | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
parents check… | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
Software to prevent spam/junk mail or viruses | 74 | 73 | 80 | 80 | 78 |
Parental controls or other means of keeping track of the websites you visit | 57 | 54 | 31 | 27 | 36 |
Parental controls or other means of blocking or filtering some types of website | 50 | 34 | 29 | 34 | 35 |
A service or contract that limits the time you spend on the internet | 28 | 21 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
One or more of these | 83 | 68 | 85 | 84 | 81 |
QC331: Does your parent/either of your parents make use of the following?
Base: All children who use the internet at home.
Beyond this, use of technical tools is lower, especially by comparison with other parental mediation strategies. Still,
Younger children face more technical restrictions, apart from the use of software to prevent spam, junk mail and viruses.
Parents’ technical mediation of the child’s internet use, according to child and parent
% who say parents check… | Child no parent no | Child yes parent no | Child no parent yes | Child yes parent yes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Software spam/junk to mail prevent or viruses | 5 | 5 | 16 | 74 |
Parental controls or other means of keeping track of the websites you visit | 49 | 8 | 15 | 28 |
Parental controls or other means filtering of some blocking types or of website | 51 | 7 | 15 | 28 |
A service or contract that limits the time you spend on the internet | 69 | 8 | 10 | 13 |
QC330 and QP223: Does your parent/either of your parents sometimes check any of the following things?
Base: All children who use the internet at home and one of their parents.
Figure 25 presents the demographic findings solely relating to parental use of filtering technology (the third row from Table 26).
Boys claim to have their internet use blocked or filtered slightly more than girls claim this (36% vs. 35%).
Apart from 9-10 year olds, filtering tools are used less for older children – and they are used by just under a quarter (23%) of parents of 15-16 year olds, according to their children (Figure 25).
The survey asked children and parents whether parental mediation activities are generally helpful or not (Table 27).
Whether parental mediation is helpful, according to child and parent
% who say that do helps to make | what parents the child’s | Yes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
internet experience | better | A lot | A little | No |
Child says |
||||
Child says |
||||
Child says |
QC332: Do the things that your parent does/parents do relating to how you use the internet help to make your internet experience better, or not really? QP225: Do the things that you (and your partner/other carer) do relating to how your child uses the internet help to make his/her internet experience better, or not really?
Base: All children who use the internet and one of their parents.
9-12 year olds are more positive about what their parents do, perhaps reflecting their relative lack of skills. For them, parental mediation may indeed be more helpful.
Parents in general are inclined to think their mediation is more helpful than their children think.
Why, overall, might a quarter of Australian children find parental mediation very helpful (25%), almost a half find it a little helpful (49%), and just over a quarter consider it not helpful (26%)? The
Table 28 shows that
Younger children are more likely to think their parents know more, in line with the finding that parents of 1112 year olds mediate their experiences more than they do older children.
Girls are more inclined than boys to think that their parents know a lot.
How much parents know about their child’s internet use, according to child
% who say that | 9-12 years | 13-16 years | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
their parent(s) know(s)… | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
A lot | 48 | 59 | 24 | 33 | 41 |
Quite a bit | 33 | 27 | 52 | 30 | 36 |
Just a little | 18 | 12 | 23 | 34 | 22 |
Nothing | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
QC325: How much do you think your parent(s) knows about what you do on the internet?
Base: All children who use the internet.
The balance between well-judged parental intervention in the child’s internet use, and trusting the child to deal with online experiences by themselves, is difficult for any parent. Not all parents feel confident that they can help their child deal with anything on the internet that bothers them, and they may also feel that their child is themselves better able to cope with their online experiences than is the case.
Table 29 shows that
Regardless of the child’s age, almost half of Australian parents (48%) are inclined to say they can help a lot.
Parents are also confident in their child’s ability to cope with things online that may bother them, with four fifths (80%) indicating that they have a lot or a fair amount of confidence in their child – this is more the case for parents of older children.
Parents’ ability to help their child and child’s ability to cope, according to parent
Extent | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
% of parents… | Not at all | Not very much | A fair amount | A lot |
Parents aged 9 to of 12 children years | 1 | 10 | 41 | 48 |
Parents aged 13 of to children 16 years | 3 | 14 | 35 | 49 |
Parents of all children | 2 | 12 | 38 | 48 |
Parents 9 to 12 years of children aged | 12 | 16 | 57 | 16 |
Parents 13 to 16 of years children aged | 1 | 12 | 51 | 36 |
Parents of all children | 6 | 14 | 54 | 26 |
QP233: To what extent, if at all, do you feel you are able to help your child to deal with anything on the internet that bothers them? QP234: To what extent, if at all, do you think your child is able to deal with things on the internet that bothers them?
Base: Parents whose child uses the internet.
Another source of doubt regarding the value of parental mediation is the possibility that parental mediation may limit opportunities as well as support online safety. Thus, children and parents were asked whether the parent’s activities limit what the child can do online (Figure 26).
Figure 26 shows that
As might be expected, given greater parental mediation, 11-12 year old children are more likely to say it limits them, while more 9-10 year olds believe that it limits them a lot. It is worth noting, however, that the opposite result might have been predicted, namely that teenagers would feel more restricted by parental activities than would younger children.
Boys are more inclined to think that mediation limits them a lot or a little compared to girls (52% vs. 40%).
Children in some countries feel rather more restricted by parental mediation (e.g. in Turkey [61%], Ireland [51%] and Bulgaria [51%]) than in others (e.g. Hungary [16%], and the Netherlands [24%]). At 47%, Australian children would rank at joint sixth (with Italy and Spain) in feeling limited by parental mediation.
Examining any association between the reported amount of parental mediation and children’s sense of being restricted is a task for a future
So, do children say that they simply ignore parental efforts to mediate their internet use, as is popularly supposed?
Figure 27 shows that
15-16 year olds are most likely to say they ignore what their parents do or say about their internet use, 34% saying they ignore it a little.
Girls are less likely to claim they ignore their parents’ mediation, which is similar to the European pattern.
Whether effective or not, there is clearly a considerable amount of parental mediation of different kinds being practised in Australian families. In a cross-sectional survey, it is not possible to determine whether this mediation reduces the risk of harm to children online. Indeed, it is possible that parents’ mediating activities are a response to problematic experiences in the past. Or it may be that parents do what they do because they anticipate future problems, and seek to prevent them. The
Figure 28 shows that
19% of Australian 11-12 year olds claimed that parents mediate differently because of a past event, and this may explain the increased rates of mediation evident in Figures 24 and 25.
High SES children are half as likely as other children to say their parent is doing something differently.
Looking at variation across the European study, 18% of children claim their parents mediate differently because of something that upset them in Estonia, compared with 3% in Hungary. Claims by parents reveal even greater national variation, from 29% in Turkey to 5% in Greece. Australia lies in the middle of the range, close to the 25 nation average of 6% (Australia is 8%) claimed by children; 15% by parents (Australia is 14%).
It may not be past problems, but rather the anticipation of future problems, that stimulates parents to mediate their children’s internet use. Table 30 shows parental anticipation of future problems around internet use that lie ahead for their children.
Whether parent thinks child will experience problems on the internet in the next six months
% of parents who | 9-12 years | 13-16 years | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
say… | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
Not at all likely | |||||
Not very likely | |||||
Fairly likely | |||||
Very likely |
QP232: In the next six months, how likely, if at all, do you think it is that your child will experience something on the internet that will bother them?
Base: Parents of children who use the internet.
Table 30 suggests
There is a gender and age effect - the proportion of parents who think it is fairly or very likely that girls aged 9-12 may experience something that will bother them (41%) is higher than same-aged boys (31%), whereas their concern for older girls decreases in the ‘fairly likely’ category (31% declining to 21%), while other cohorts remain broadly equivalent.
The 25 nation findings indicate few age or gender differences.
Last, we explored whether children and parents think the level of parental mediation they receive is about right. We asked children if they would like their parents to take more or less interest in what they do online. And we asked parents if they think they should do more or not.
Table 31 shows that
These findings are broadly in line with the European study average.
Whether the child would like their parent(s) to take more interest in what they do online
9-12 years | 13-16 years | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% who say … | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
A lot more | |||||
A little more | |||||
Stay the same | |||||
A little less | |||||
A lot less |
QC326: Overall, would you like your parent(s) to take more or less interest in what you do on the internet, or stay the same?
Base: All children who use the internet.
Figure 29 examines more closely those children who would like their parents to take a bit or a lot more interest in their internet use. We also compare these with the proportions of parents who say that they should do a bit or a lot more.
Gender differences are small. The lower the SES level, the more the children would like their parents to take more interest. This is in line with the European study pattern, where children from lower SES homes wish for more interest, and where there seems little difference between parents according to SES levels.
Country differences in children’s desire for more parental input are noteworthy, with children in Eastern and Southern Europe greatly wishing that their parents would show more interest in what they do online – especially Romania, Portugal, Turkey, Cyprus, Spain and Bulgaria. By contrast, children in France, Denmark, and the Netherlands wish for little or no further input from their parents. Australian children are towards the top third of this ranking (joint seventh) in desiring more input from parents.
Parents take a different view, and their views show little relation to their children’s wishes. Thus parents in Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria, Norway, Greece and Turkey, think they should do more; while parents in Austria, the Netherlands and Germany are least likely to think this. At 55%, Australian parental desire to do more is a little higher than the European study average (53%).
One question was asked about active mediation in general (‘have your teachers ever talked to you about what you do on the internet?’). Another asked about restrictive mediation (‘have your teachers ever made rules about what you can do on the internet at school?’). Note that, to be consistent with the following items on active mediation of internet safety, these two summary questions were asked in the form,
Over four in five AU children think their teachers have engaged with their internet use in terms of suggesting ways to use the internet safely (74%), helping them when something was difficult to find or do (79%) and explaining why some websites are good or bad (30%).
Over four fifths (83%) had talked to children about what to do if something bothered them, and over two thirds (70%) say their teachers have helped when something bothered them on the internet. As with other findings, this is substantially higher than the 24% reported by European study children overall.
There are some gender differences, but this depends on age and the particular form of mediation. Older girls are more likely than older boys to say that teachers have helped them in the past when something has bothered them (79% vs. 66%), talked about what to do if something on the internet bothered them (90% vs. 80%) and how to behave towards others online (84% vs. 75%). Turning to the bottom section of Table 32, above, which focuses on active mediation, nearly all children (98%) say that teachers have made rules about what they can do on the internet at school. By comparison, only 62% of children across the 25 nation study say teachers make such rules.
Teachers’ mediation of child’s internet use, according to child
% who say | 9-12 years | 13-16 years | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
teachers at their school have ever… | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
Suggested ways to use the internet safely | |||||
Explained why some websites are good or bad | |||||
Helped you when something difficult to do is or find on the internet | |||||
Suggested ways to other behave people towards online | |||||
Talked to you about what to do if something on the internet bothered you | |||||
Helped you in the past when something has bothered you on the internet | |||||
One or more forms of active mediation | |||||
Made rules about what you can do on the internet at school | |||||
Talked to you about what you do on the internet | |||||
One or more of all of the above |
QC338: Have any teachers at your school ever done any of these things?
Base: All children who use the internet.
Figure 30 reveals few differences by gender, age or SES in children’s experience of mediation of the internet by teachers.
Five of the questions on active mediation of internet safety were also asked regarding children’s friends (see Table 33).
Peer mediation of child’s internet use, according to child
% who say friends | 9-12 years | 13-16 years | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
at their school have ever… | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
Helped you when something to do or find is on difficult the | |||||
internet | |||||
Explained why some websites are good or bad | |||||
Helped you in the past when something has bothered you on the internet | |||||
Suggested ways to behave towards other people online | |||||
Suggested ways to use the internet safely | |||||
One or more of all of the above |
QC336: Have your friends ever done any of these things?
Base: All children who use the internet.
As was found for teachers, this suggests that children do consider other children supportive in general, more so in the case of older children.
Compared with help from teachers, it seems that friends of Australian kids are much less likely to give safety (32% vs. 74%), or ethical, advice (33% vs. 75%).
Specifically, older Australian girls claim more than older boys that friends help when something on the internet has bothered them (56% vs. 29%); and explain why some websites are good or bad (47% girls vs. 40% boys); and suggest ways to behave towards other people online (43% girls vs. 38% boys). Older boys and girls are more or less equivalent in asking friends for help when something is difficult to do or find on the internet (boys 80% vs. girls 79%) and in asking friends to suggest ways to use the internet safely (boys 34% vs. girls 36%).
Figure 31 indicates that looking across age groups, and types of mediation, peer support is equivalent for boys and girls.
It reaffirms the finding that older children think their friends mediate more, the exception being the drop in mediation for 13-14 year olds.
The overall European study average is 73% of children say their friends help in term of one or more of the types of mediation asked about. The Australian finding is higher, at 82%, placing it in the company of many Scandinavian and Baltic countries: Finland and Estonia (tie first, 86%), Czech Republic (85%), Germany, Sweden and Norway (tie fourth, 83%), Australia and Belgium (tie seventh, 82%). France is at the bottom of the ranking (63%).
Australian girls report that they are more likely to help friends in this particular respect (55% vs. boys 48%).
Older children both help and are helped by friends in terms of suggesting how to be safe online, with a drop for 15-16 year olds. 13-14 year olds children say they support others more than they themselves benefit from such help.
Considerable national differences are evident in the degree of peer support reported. In a combined list of the 26 countries ordered in terms of children suggesting to their friends how to use the internet safely, Australia would come second (after Cyprus, 54%), with 52% saying they have provided help to friends. In the Netherlands (32%), Slovenia (31%), Belgium (29%), and France (28%), fewer than one in three children report helping friends. The differences are greater for children who say they receive advice from their friends on using the internet safely – 32% in Australia compared with 44% (average) across the 25 countries. Germany is highest at 73% vs. Netherlands lowest at 17%, and Australia is in bottom third at 32%.
In designing the questionnaire, for reasons of both interview length and question repetition (which is useful for making comparisons but boring for the child respondent), not all questions were asked of all forms of mediation.
Figure 33 compares children’s receipt of internet safety advice from parents, teachers and peers.
While the order is the same for boys and girls, boys are less likely to say that other people have suggested ways to use the internet safely.
There is little difference between teachers and parents for the 9-10 year olds. Differences are more noticeable from ages 11-12 onwards, with parental influence waning for the 15-16 year olds.
There is little difference in relative support from teachers or parents according to SES ranking, although Australian peers from lower SES homes are more likely to support their friends (48% [low] vs. 33% [medium] vs. 29% [high]).
While in most of the 26 countries involved in this research parents give more advice, in the UK and Portugal, as in Australia, teachers give more safety advice; in Italy and Romania peers (after parents) give more advice than teachers; and in Germany it is peers who give the most advice.
Children’s sources of advice on internet safety (other than parents, teachers or friends)
9-12 years | 13-16 years | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | All |
Other relative | |||||
Television, radio, newspapers or magazines | |||||
Librarian | |||||
Someone whose job is to give advice over the internet | |||||
Websites | |||||
Internet service provider | |||||
Youth social or worker church or | |||||
I haven't received advice from any of these |
QC339: Have you EVER received advice about how to use the internet safely from any of these people or places?
Base: All children who use the internet.
One in three Australian kids gets safety advice from traditional media (34%), more than from websites (19%).
22% of Australian children receive advice from online advisors, more than twice as many as in Europe (9%).
22% of Australian kids also get help from librarians. Rather fewer get advice from websites (19%), youth workers (or similar) or internet service providers (both 11%).
Older children get more advice from traditional media, youth/church/social workers, websites and internet service providers; younger ones use relatives and librarians.
Australian girls are more likely than boys to say they receive advice from other relatives and from traditional media, librarians and youth/church/social workers. Older girls receive more than older boys from librarians and from people whose job it is to give help over the internet, while older boys are more likely to turn to an internet service provider.
Interestingly, in Table 34,
These percentages are better than in the 25 European countries, where 34% of children report receiving no safety guidance from these sources.
Similar questions were asked of parents, although a somewhat different list of advice sources was provided. Additionally, the
Parents’ actual sources of information on internet safety, by age of child
Age of child | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | 9-10 | 11-12 | 13-14 | 15-16 | All |
Family and friends | |||||
Your child's school | |||||
Television, radio, newspapers or magazines | |||||
Government, authorities local | |||||
Internet providers service | |||||
Websites with safety information | |||||
From my child | |||||
Other sources | |||||
Manufacturers and selling retailers the products | |||||
Children's welfare organisations/char ities | |||||
None, I don't get any information about this |
QP238: In general where do you get information and advice on safety tools and safe use of the internet from?
Base: Parents whose child uses the internet.
Parents’ desired sources of information on internet safety, by age of child
Age of child | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | 9-10 | 11-12 | 13-14 | 15-16 | All |
Your child's school | |||||
Government, authorities local | |||||
Websites with safety information | |||||
Television, radio, newspapers or magazines | |||||
Internet providers service | |||||
Family and friends | |||||
Manufacturers and selling retailers the products | |||||
From my child | |||||
Children's welfare organisations/char ities | |||||
Other sources | |||||
None, I don’t want more information about this |
QP239: In general where would you like to get information and advice on safety tools and safe use of the internet from in the future?
Base: Parents whose child uses the internet.
Table 35 indicates that A
Those with the youngest children (9-10 years) seem not to have a preferred source of safety advice. This is the age group where least mediation is practiced in Australia, with a jump in mediation in the 11-12 year olds, indicating a possible benefit for bolstering services targeting advice for parents of younger children.
About one in twenty parents (4%) reports getting no advice from any of these sources.
When asked where they would like to get advice from in the future (Table 36), the child’s school is the most popular choice for parents at 65%, with government and local authorities (55%), safety websites (47%), traditional media (44%) and internet service providers (43%) all coming before family and friends (37%).
Summary of online risk factors shaping children’s probability of experiencing harm
Age | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | 9-10 | 11-12 | 13-14 | 15-16 | All |
Seen sexual images on websites in past 12 months | 11 | 17 | 25 | 56 | 28 |
Have been sent nasty or hurtful internet messages in past 12 on the months | 6 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 13 |
Seen or received sexual messages internet in on past the 12 months | n.a. | 9 | 9 | 27 | 15 |
Ever had contact on the internet not met with face someone to face before | 18 | 23 | 35 | 53 | 34 |
Ever gone on to meet anyone face to face that first met on the internet | 2 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 5 |
Have come across one or more types of potentially harmful user- generated content in past 12 months | n.a. | 27 | 33 | 43 | 34 |
Have experienced one or of more personal types data of misuse in past 12 months | n.a. | 20 | 17 | 14 | 17 |
Encountered more of the above one or | 24 | 57 | 63 | 84 | 58 |
Acted in a nasty or hurtful others way on the towards internet in the past 12 months | 0 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 5 |
Sent or posted a sexual message the internet of in any the kind past on 12 months | n.a. | 5 | 0 | 5 | 4 |
Done either of these | 0 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
Note: for the exact questions asked of children, see earlier sections of this report (indicated in the text next to this table).
Base: All children who use the internet.
Australian findings around risk are generally higher than across the 25 European countries, although the 400 case sample size (compared with 1000), and the six months later data collection, are reasons for caution. Examining the proportions of children who have experienced at least one of the types of risk asked about, there is a steady increase from a minority, but still one in four (24%), of 910 year olds who use the internet; to over half of 11-12 year olds (57%); rising to more than four in five of 15-16 year olds (84%). We urgently require more information about the intensity and duration of Australian children’s reactions to risky online experiences that bother them.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A. and Ólafsson, K. (2011).
Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E.J. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson, K., (2011).
The Australian position on this graph is particularly interesting, since it aligns Australia more closely with “high use, high risk” countries Hasebrink, U., Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., and Ólafsson, K (2009). Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A. and Ólafsson, K. (2011).
Pruulmann-Vengerfeld, P. and Runnel, P. (forthcoming, 2012). Online opportunities, Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide.
Increased internet use broadly correlates with advanced skills, as well as increased exposure to online risks. When children’s likelihood of experiencing one or more risk factors is plotted against the average number of online activities, this positions Australia alongside Estonia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Finland (Figure 34). Figure 35 indicates those countries where children are most likely to have creative and productive internet skills, including the capacity for advanced and creative work, and playing, downloading and sharing files. While the opportunities are chiefly in evidence among the high use, high risk countries, including Australia, it is interesting to note that Cyprus (third) and Belgium (fourth), are ranked highly on the Ladder of opportunities (Figure 35), even though Belgium is comparatively lower in risk exposure than most other high-opportunity countries (Figure 34), and Cyprus is significantly lower than average (also Figure 34). While exposure to risk does not necessarily entail experience of harm, future research will explore the dynamics of how to promote high online opportunities for children while minimising the experience of harm. The policy environment of Cyprus and Belgium may be interesting in this respect.
Although exposure to risk does not necessarily involve experience of harm, Australian children are particularly likely to have been ‘bothered’ by something they experienced on the internet. As illustrated in Figure 36, Australian children are more likely than children in any of the 25 European countries to say that ‘I have been bothered by something online’. This is true of 30% of Australian children, compared with 28% in Denmark, 25% in Estonia and 23% in each of Norway and Sweden, across a 25 nation average of 12%.
Parents in Norway (23%), Sweden (20%) and Finland (19%, the same as Australia) are equally or more likely to identify that their child has been bothered by an online experience, but awareness in Australia lags behind that in Norway and Sweden, as a proportion of children bothered, while Finish parents are more likely to say that their child has been bothered than the child is. Analysis reported earlier, in Section 5, Risk and Harm, indicates that where parents’ and children’s perceptions are analysed together there are a number of false negatives (where parents say their child has not been bothered when the child has been bothered), and fewer false positives (where the parent thinks the child has been bothered and the child disagrees).
Six key risk areas were explored in depth in the
Analysing the relative positioning of Australia in country-level comparative tables addressing these risk factors indicates the specific risks to which Australian children are most likely to be exposed, and which are most likely to account for their relative degree of feeling bothered. As indicated by Figure 37, Australian children, more than is generally the case for children in the 25 nation comparison, have been exposed to sexual images online and offline.
While some risk-taking older children may choose to seek out sexual images, this is less the case with younger children, and younger children are more likely to be bothered when they encounter sexual images online (Figure 15). More than one in four Australian children (28%) have seen sexual images online whereas more than two in five Australian children (44%) say they have seen sexual images in any location, both online and offline. In these respective cases, Australia is equal fourth (with Denmark) in terms of exposure to online images, and third (after Norway and the Czech Republic) in terms of all exposure to sexual images across the combined 26 countries. These figures also indicate that seven in ten 916 year old Australians have not seen sexual images online.
When exposure to sexual images is compared with the rates of children being bothered by such exposure, Table 38, Australia moves from fourth to fifth place, with 38% of those exposed to sexual images saying they were bothered by this. It should be noted, however, that numbers involved are small.
Child has seen sexual images online and was bothered by this, by country
All children who use the internet | Child | ||
---|---|---|---|
% | Child has seen sexual images online | Child bothered by seeing sexual images online | bothered, of those who have seen sexual images online |
EE | 29 | 14 | 49 |
TR | 13 | 6 | 49 |
RO | 19 | 8 | 44 |
IE | 11 | 4 | 38 |
*AU | 28 | 10 | 36 |
DE | 4 | 2 | 35 |
PL | 15 | 5 | 33 |
ES | 11 | 3 | 32 |
FR | 20 | 6 | 32 |
AT | 17 | 5 | 30 |
BE | 17 | 5 | 30 |
HU | 11 | 3 | 30 |
DK | 28 | 8 | 28 |
CY | 12 | 3 | 26 |
IT | 7 | 2 | 26 |
SE | 26 | 7 | 26 |
UK | 11 | 3 | 24 |
CZ | 28 | 6 | 23 |
LT | 25 | 6 | 23 |
NL | 22 | 5 | 23 |
NO | 34 | 9 | 23 |
PT | 13 | 3 | 23 |
FI | 29 | 6 | 20 |
BG | 20 | 4 | 17 |
EL | 14 | 2 | 15 |
SI | 25 | 4 | 15 |
ALL | 14 | 4 | 32 |
Sexual images are not the only online risk experienced by a significant proportion of Australian children. As indicated in Figure 38, Australian children are third out of the 26 countries combined in being likely to say they have been bullied online. This might indicate that where an Australian child feels bothered by online experiences, this could reflect exposure to bullying, instead of, or as well as, exposure to sexual images. In the risk behaviour associated with ‘sexting’ however, AU children would rank 16 out of the total 26 countries, indicating that this risk behaviour is likely to be comparatively less important in explaining Australian children’s feelings of being bothered (Figure 39).
Similarly, Australian children are less likely than most European children to have communicated online with someone they had not met previously in a face to face context, and also comparatively unlikely to go on to meet a stranger offline that they first met online (Figure 40).
The small numbers of Australian children who go on to meet face to face strangers who have previously only been met online means that this is unlikely to explain any significant part of the comparative rates of Australian children feeling bothered by their internet experiences.
On the other hand, the data around the new and emerging risk factors related to potentially harmful user-generated content again places Australian children towards the top of a cross-national comparison of risk-exposure (Figure 41).
The figures for potentially harmful user-generated material include hate sites, anorexia, bulimia, self-harm and suicide promotion. The sixth place ranking of Australian children’s exposure to these risks indicate that potentially harmful user-generated content may line up alongside exposure to bullying and seeing sexual images as a probable contributing factor to Australian children’s overall levels of risk. One or more of these three risk behaviours is likely to underpin the finding that Australian children are more likely to say that they are bothered than is the case with children in the 25 country European study. There is a further factor, however, which relates to where children go online and the possible role of peers in influencing what they choose to access.
In attempting to context the risks that may have contributed to Australian children reporting higher degrees of feeling bothered by experiences online, it is relevant to consider a particularly Australian aspect of the experience of going online which both highlights the challenge for policy makers and indicates possible future directions for a strong research focus in Australia, Europe and elsewhere. Australian children are disproportionately likely to go online using a smart handheld device and it may be that access using such devices is less likely to be effectively mediated by parents and others (Figure 42). Children might also be more experimental with new technology, and might be more likely to take risks as part of shared peer group experience.
Australian researchers from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, together with colleagues from Edith Cowan University, Queensland University of Technology and the University of New South Wales, will be working with the