Challenging Online Behaviors of Youth
Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2005).
I found this article very interesting as it really tried to look into what I was looking into. It tried to provide a reason for the risk behavior, saying that children and teens have not fully developed this skill. It emphasized that trying to navigate the cyberworld hinders this process even more as there is too many cues to keep up with. This study focused on adolescent girls in both the United States and New Zealand. Published in 2005, this article was written 12 years ago, so what has changed? Would these results be different now? As always, here are the most interesting facts and questions that came up:
“... youth must struggle to assume a proactive role in exerting their voice and influence as they connect with others.” What exactly does this mean for us?
“... who must not only master the tasks required by the tools but must also simultaneously function as part of a networked group as it shapes the social space in which it resides.” So not only learn and use SNSs, but be social in them too.
“Individual characteristics of young people can affect their readiness to participate in these social interactive experiences online.” What are these characteristics?
DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK:
“... children typically do not begin to attenuating to risk until middle childhood...” So they do not understand risk until a certain age.
“Even in the teen years, the ability to make informed life choices is still in a state of flux.” So even as teens, risk management and decision making is not fully developed.
Risk taking is:
Associated with personality traits. Which traits? Why does it make an impact?
“Learned behavior resulting from poor interaction in the family system.”
“... a developmental phenomenon in which a lack of experience leads to an error of judgement regarding level of risk (...) or in which a youth’s sense of invulnerability results in a failure to consider risk or the need to act in a deliberate way.”
“a failure to categorize actions as falling within the moral domain of behavior so that personal gain is emphasized over safety for self and others.”
“... multiplicity sensory inputs are demanding on cognitive resources and can overwhelm children’s capacity to engage in thoughtful decision making.” Can we rid rid of the multiplicity?
“... can interfere with reasoned choice, placing young people in a state of imbalance for recognizing risk or responding to threats. The resulting overload can reduce the ability of youth to make sense of what is presented or to respond in a judicious manner.” So children can’t see risk online.
“... young people may act or react without reflection on the implication for self and others.” So young people act without thinking about any consequences. “As a result, adolescents typically underestimate the influence of digital technologies on their behavior and potential for risk.”
“Influences are especially powerful when youth cannot readily perceive potential threats nor access skills to create a barrier from harm.”
“... virtual interaction provide limited access to the critical signals needed to differentiate safety from harm.”
“... young people may impulsively act and react in cyberspace without forethought to the influence of powerful sensations and may be easily lured by the artificial distinctions between virtual encounters and real-life activity.”
“Electronic communication had been used to bully, harass, threaten, and exploit victims.” Why is it being used for this? How can we stop it?
“... models to predict the likelihood to engage in at-risk activities online that may be associated with subsequent violence and/or exploitation.” What are these models? What do they tell us?
Risks identified include: “online stalking, obscene interactions including unsolicited exposure to pornographic material, spamming, flaming, hate speech, threats of violence, unwanted advances, consumer exploitation and sexual predation.”
“Exposure to internet violence may also transcend into real-life abuse...” Why does it link up?
METHOD:
- Procedure:
“Comparative analyses were conducted with data gathered from online surveys that were completed by adolescent girls in the United States (...) and New Zealand.”
“Participants completed a 19-item questionnaire that included multiple-choice and open-ended questions.”
- Participants:
“... adolescent girls were a particularly high-risk group for exploitation and victimization...” They may be at risk, but what about boys?
“... 10,800 females for the U.S. sample and 347 females for the New Zealand sample.”
- Data Analysis:
Predictors for harm: “Sharing personal information, engaging in threatening or sexually suggestive communication, meeting in the real world with online acquaintances.”
Predictors for risk mediators: “... preventative activities (supervision, education, discussion) by significant adults (parents and teachers)...”
RESULTS:
- Online Habits:
“... 50% spent less than 6 hours online weekly compared to 44% of the New Zealand respondents.” So this group of NZers spent more time online than the USers. Would this still be the same now?
“New Zealand girls exceeded their U.S. counterparts in the percent online for over 10 hours per week (33% vs 27%).”
- Patterns of interaction online:
“The at-risk activity of disclosing personal information was more prevalent among the U.S. respondents (59% vs 34%), but actually meeting or agreeing to meet someone as a result of an online interaction was nearly twice as common among New Zealand girls compared to U.S. participants (24% vs 12%).” So U.S. at more risk online, but NZ more risk offline.
“... respondents described their online immersion into a culture of deception where activities involved the exchange of verbally harassing or sexually suggestive chat. In contrast, other young women used online dialogue as a way to empower themselves and to find a voice.” So people see he cyberworld differently.
“in cyberspace, the pressures to fit in and to act a certain way were moderated by the pseudoanonymity and perceived security of being protected behind the computer screen, often in the comfort and safety of one’s home.”
“... shed their traditional expectations and explore alternate aspects of themselves.” A reason why the web is good.
- Supervision of online activities:
“In both countries, the percentage of adults monitoring the use of the internet was quite small...” Perceived monitoring maybe? Why is this so low?
“... discussing or reading about internet safety, almost 16% more U.S. girls discussed these issues with a parent, guardian, or caregiver than did respondents from New Zealand.” Why the big difference?
“Comparable number of girls from each study engaged in discussions with teachers regarding appropriate use of digital technologies and resources in cyberspace.” as well as friends.
“... significant difference between the samples with regard to who discussed their online activities with their siblings...” Did they take into consideration if they had no siblings?
“... who reported that they had never received any instruction or information about internet safety...” Higher in the U.S.
- Development of a profile of challenging behaviors in cyberspace:
“... as adolescent girls get older, the odds of agreeing to risky behavior increases, as 17- to 18-year-olds are almost four times more likely to meet a stranger than are 12- to 13-year-olds.” Why? Do they feel safer? Less parental restrictions?
“... 15- and 16-year-olds were found to be the most vulnerable.”
“The 14- to 16-year-old age groups (...) accounted for 68% of the risks.” So maybe they should be targeted?
“... time spent online and the probability of engaging in risky activities.” Exponential again?
“Internet misconduct may become increasingly prevalent as youth expand their use of the internet.”
Advice and counselling influences the likelihood of agreeing to meet a stranger. From whom was this advice and counselling received from? “... of the girls who agreed to a face-to-face meeting with strangers, none had discussed Internet safety with parents or caregivers.” Likewise, those who had discussed had reduced odds of engaging in risky behavior. So discussions are important!
“... direct supervision, periodic monitoring, and ongoing discussions with adults...” leads to less risky online activity.
DISCUSSION:
- Limitations:
It is a secondary analysis.
“A measure of the severity of risk also would be valuable in further developing he model of challenging behavior.”
- Preventative interventions for responsible choice and prosocial skills in a digital world:
“... people often make online choices that are contrary to their real world behaviors.” So we may act differently online to how we act in the real world. Why?
“As young people spend increased amounts of time online, there is increased risk for exposure to violence and/or exploitation.” But also positive aspects, right?
“Identity deception is an inherent part of online communication and transformations can have positive and negative repercussions for youth who also experiment with self-constructed and fluid identity online.”
“The deindividuation that occurs online is associated with a tendency to diminish self-regulation and to engage in disinhibited behavior.” What is disinhibited behavior?
“... a tendency to share more intimate disclosure.” So people can more easily have intimate relationships online.
Reasons for poor decision making online: “The lack of effective feedback and remoteness from the impact of harm, the reduced fear of punishment, the disregard of existing rules in the new context of cyberspace, and the perception of pervasive corruption online.”
“... provide growing temptations for misuse...”
How to prepare children: “... early preparatory experience that engage a child in assessing risky situations, developing appropriate coping techniques, and practicing responses to problematic situations...”
“... youth are unlikely to heed simplistic cautions and authoritative rules.”
“Instead, comprehensive education for safety awareness needs to be introduced as part of a broader internet safety program.” Do we have this now in New Zealand?
“... they need instruction in interpreting behavioral cues and improving their conflict resolution skills.”
“... harm avoidance can be best achieved when sensation-seeking behaviors are minimized.” What are sensation-seeking behaviors?
“... because fear of repercussions is diminished, it is necessary to enhance the effectiveness of the cognitive components of empathy through prevention programs designed to safeguard youth online.”
“Raising the sensitivity of young people to how their online communications may impact other appears to be an essential component of educational programs to prevent harmful online communication.”
“We cannot help our own youth to achieve competency with digital technology trough rote learning of basic rules or amid filtered environments that set up conditions that fail to optimize use of their intellectual capital.” So rule making and straight up protection from the environment does not work.
“Young people need opportunities to create, test, and revise their constructs about online environments.”
“... build their skills through a carefully crafted learning environment that supports them in this endeavor.”
- Concluding thoughts:
“... it is essential to build on the existing skills of youth so that they can acquire the capacity to decipher complex messages in an informed and knowledgeable way...”