ISSN -045-256X

Parental controls: advice for parents, researchers

and industry
Bieke Zaman and Marije Nouwen

Introduction
Summary
Caring about children’s safety is at the cornerstone of
This research report provides:
parenting. Children’s lives are increasingly interwoven
 A thoughtful understanding of the with digital friends, settings and phenomena. New
functionalities of parental controls to guide online and digital scenarios unfold with the ever-
families with children and adolescents to use accelerating progress of technological evolutions.
them wisely; Parents, guardians and others responsible for
supervising children play an important role in shaping
 A fine-grained analysis of the characteristics children’s media use, keeping certain possibilities open
of technical mediation, to support parental for children to play, learn and socialise, while limiting
mediation researchers in the development of others.
up-to-date scales and analysis schemes;
Parents are confronted with new challenges to
 A substantiated analysis of the potential for
safeguard the security of their offspring in online and
the design of the next generation of parental
digital scenarios, as, in particular, mobile media and
controls that may inspire industry.
the ‘Internet of Things’ introducing opportunities and
The results highlight three important avenues for threats never seen before. Recent technologies have
families, researchers and industry with respect to been launched in an attempt to address these
the use, investigation and design of parental challenges, arming caregivers with digital tools to
controls: monitor or track children’s digital media use, i.e.,
1
so-called ‘parental controls’.
 First, this report argues for a more nuanced
approach towards parental controls that lies In this report, we argue that a critical stance towards
beyond a one-sided focus on child protection parental controls is paramount as their functionalities
to avoid over-controlling and over-protective cut both ways. Notwithstanding all good intentions,
parenting, which is found negatively to affect the use of parental controls has repercussions that not
the development of the child. only involve opportunities with respect to children’s
safety, but also threats that affect the trust relationship
 Second, it outlines future avenues for
between the parent and child. Zooming in on what
parental mediation research, by pointing out
these parental controls offer for both the parent and
the need to refine existing measurement
child, this report provides:
instruments of technical mediation, to focus
more on how and when parents employ
 a thoughtful understanding of the functionalities
parental controls, and how these tools may
of parental controls to guide families with
work (instead of only questioning whether
children and adolescents to use them wisely;
parents use them, and whether they are
effective), and to move beyond the
 a fine-grained analysis of the characteristics of
generalised notion of the parent as protector
technical mediation, to support parental
and (all knowing) teacher.
mediation researchers in the development of
 Finally, this report addresses industry’s up-to-date scales and analysis schemes;
accountability in shaping future affordances of
parental controls, and making the internet a 1
We use the term ‘parents’, to refer to the adults who act as the
better place for children. primary socialisation agents, including (step)mother, (step)father,
guardian and caregiver. Thus, we rely on a broad notion of ‘parents’,
‘parental mediation’ and ‘parental controls’.

www.eukidsonline.net February 2016 1

  a substantiated analysis of the potential for the from de-activated to a middle and maximum level of
design of the next generation of parental controls protection. For instance, when there is no adult
that may inspire industry. registered for the parental control system, the system
is automatically set at the highest protection level.
Parental controls: an overview
Second, content restrictions can also take the form of
An increasing number of parental controls and outgoing content interventions, typically dealing with
technology tracking and monitoring technologies are on functionalities for blocking the type of information that
the market. They are primarily launched as tools, apps can be uploaded or emailed, e.g., preventing the child
or services that parents can rely on in an attempt to from sharing personal data.
keep their children safe. Such controls enable parents,
for instance, to prevent children from seeing Activity restrictions
inappropriate online content, to detect cyberbullying at The first type of activity restrictions deals with
an early stage, and to limit chatting or in-app functionalities for restricting economic activities, such
purchases. Although parental controls are often as online purchases (e.g., blocking in-game
equated with filter programs, the state-of-the art in purchases).
commercialised parental controls is more diverse.
In what follows, we propose a categorisation of The second type comprises of restrictions of social
parental controls along three axes: function, activities, and there are countless examples. Tools can
implementation, and design initiator. limit the people with whom the child can interact (e.g.,
only chatting with a limited list of friends, no interaction
Function with strangers), and disable features to share content,
The functionalities of available parental controls afford add friends or interact with others via gaming
restrictive actions, monitoring and safety measures. platforms.

Time restrictions The third type concerns restrictions of entertainment

Along the function axis, we discern many parental activities, e.g., tools for blocking multiplayer games.
controls that can limit the time children can spend Often the underlying rationale involves a restriction of
online. Some software applications also allow parents social activities, too, because allowing children to play
to define in advance the specific time slots during multiplayer games would bring them in to contact with
which the child can go online on weekdays and/or strangers, for instance.
weekends.
Monitoring and tracking
Content restrictions This last category refers to tools that allow parents to
First, content restrictions concern incoming content monitor children’s online activities, and enable several
interventions such as white lists (filtering content, follow-up actions. These provide parents with an
allowing pre-approved content only) versus black lists overview (via email or in a report) of their child’s
(blocking pre-defined inappropriate content). browsing history, or send a warning to children if they
Implementations are based on URLs, for instance, on a visit inappropriate websites.
list of (un)problematic, (in)admissible websites for
children, key words (e.g., white list search engines), Tools often combine different features listed above. For
age differentiation by detection of technical age labels example, some monitoring and tracking tools allow
or according to the age level defined in the software parents to set content restrictions by blocking specific
(e.g., adjusted advertising settings, age-restricted sites and/or approving in advance which sites the child
content for pay TV services by means of a PIN code), can see. Other examples are child-friendly browsers,
and automated picture analysis (e.g., detecting nudity child-oriented, ‘safe’ searches, and child-friendly online
in pictures). media consumption zones.

The level of control parents can exert in setting Implementation

incoming content restrictions may range from default to The second axis of categorisation considers the
advanced user settings that parents can modify platform, device or system on which the restrictions
according to their (child’s) needs and the child’s and features are implemented. Parental control
development. The levels of restrictions may also range

www.eukidsonline.net 2
implementations frequently come with security How effective are parental controls?
measures against malware and viruses.
Previous research on the use of parental controls has
Overall, we discern six different implementation not yet reached a conclusive answer on the
approaches, on the level of: effectiveness of the tools in reducing children’s online
risks. Some research supports the effectiveness of
 operating systems, such as Windows, iOS; preventive software, and in particular filtering, blocking
and monitoring software, in reducing unwanted
 web browsers, e.g., a children’s browser that exposure to online sexual material for 10- to 15-year-
functions as a ‘walled garden’; olds. However, the evidence could not be generalised
across all ages, as there was no significant reduction in
 computer control software, i.e., a separate unwanted exposure to sexual content for 16- to 17-
program designed with the primary goal of year-olds (Ybarra et al., 2009). Other studies have
protecting the child online, typically using a reported on the failure of parental controls to reduce
combination of restrictive functionalities; online risks. For instance, Dürager and Livingstone
(2012) could not find evidence that parental technical
 mobile devices, allowing users to create mediation, such as using a filter, could significantly
restricted user profiles to limit access to reduce online risks.
features and content on tablets or phones. As
such, children can only access a limited set of Furthermore, little is known about the parents who
applications; make use of parental controls. Parents of children aged
10 to 15 are said to be more likely to adopt filtering
 home network, i.e., router-based solutions that software than parents of children aged 16 to 17
filter internet content before it enters the (Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2005). Also, concerned
house; parents who do not trust their child when it comes to
online sexual content are more likely to use filtering
 game consoles. and blocking software (Mitchell et al., 2005). When it
comes to the parents’ computer skills, Nikken and
Design initiator Jansz (2014) found that computer-literate parents were
A third and final axis relates to the initiator who especially likely to use technical measures. In contrast,
technically implements parental mediation affordances Mitchell and colleagues (2005) did not find any
by design. We distinguish six types of design initiators: significant relation between parental internet
telecoms operators, software providers, social experience and filter use.
networking site owners, hardware manufacturers,
game platform owners and content providers. The contradictory research findings on the
effectiveness of parental controls, we argue, are partly
In order to comply with national regulations, design due to the fact that we miss:
initiators such as telecoms operators are often obliged
to implement a system of parental controls to prevent  a clear operationalisation of notions of
particular content being seen by minors. Likewise, technically mediated parental mediation;
more and more hardware manufacturers provide
parents with administrator controls to set up a  an up-to-date categorisation of the wide
restricted profile for their children (making use of diversity of existing tools;
password protection, content and activity restrictions).
Other examples are privacy by design initiatives to  an in-depth understanding of how parents use
protect children’s privacy online. Social networking these tools (rather than whether parents use
sites, for instance, include by default strict privacy them).
settings for children (e.g., restricting their ability to
share their personal information, show accounts in The gaps in literature mentioned above may explain
search engines, share posts and comments to ‘friends why today’s survey items in parental mediation studies
of friends’). treat software intended to improve a child’s online
safety and generic anti-virus programs together, as if it
concerns one coherent technology-mediated practice

www.eukidsonline.net 3
with a homogeneous set of characteristics (cf. Sonck, A critical understanding of the affordances of
Nikken, & de Haan, 2013; Dürager & Sonck, 2014; parental controls
Nikken & Jansz, 2014). For instance, in Nikken and
Jansz’ (2014) research on parental mediation of young Drawbacks of a one-sided focus on protection
children’s digital media use, the category of technical The current review of state-of-the-art parental controls
safety guidance included technology-supported safety clearly shows their affordances focus on the
measures such as anti-virus programs and spam protection of children. Similarly, the tools have been
filters, as well as applications that are purposefully primarily studied to evaluate their effectiveness as a
designed to protect children’s safety, such as response to parental concerns and efforts to decrease
black/white list filters. A reorientation to examine the children’s exposure to online risks (Livingstone &
ways in which parents use these controls, and a Helsper, 2010; Lee & Chae, 2012). Currently, the
broader recognition of the variety of their functionalities of parental controls align well with
functionalities, would not only aid researchers in parents’ strategies to restrict and supervise their
defining more appropriate scales to investigate the use child’s online activities. The effectiveness of these
of parental controls; it would also allow us to move strategies is supported by the parenting literature.
beyond the simple question of whether parents use Proactive behaviour control, like rule setting and
these tools and whether these are effective. Parents do supervision, lets children know what is expected from
not all use these controls in a similar way; neither do them (Janssens et al., 2015). However, restrictive
these controls present a homogeneous group of measures come with certain drawbacks:
functionalities:
 In parent–child relationships, protection
 Parental controls are integrated in everyday measures in support of children’s safety only
family dynamics and hence their use may make sense in times of stress. Even punishing
unfold in different, often challenging, ways. To children by prohibiting them from using Facebook
illustrate this, the advent of restrictive filtering or playing a particular game (i.e., a parental,
software has provoked conflict with teenagers reactive behavioural control strategy) may result
(Mitchell et al., 2005). Children have even in opposite effects in the long run (Janssens et
circumvented or uninstalled parental controls, for al., 2015). Punishments do not teach children
instance, by lying about their age (Richardson et values or norms, and increase the likelihood of
al., 2002). Furthermore, parenting interventions secret misbehaviour.
and children’s needs and motivational state
should be aligned. ‘For example, if children are  Parents do not always understand the
… guided when they are not motivated to learn potential risks their children may encounter.
or already possess the knowledge …, then these They may, for instance, either underestimate
parental actions are likely to be teenagers’ exposure to sexual content (Mitchell
counterproductive’ (Grusec & Davidov, 2010, p. et al., 2005), or overestimate it due to mass
692). media messages. Or there can be a mismatch
between what parents and children perceive as
 Understanding parental controls as consisting harmful (Livingstone et al., 2013).
of more than just an isolated piece of
technology opens up the perspective of locating The current one-sided focus on protection may even be
them within the ecosystem of media devices detrimental to children’s rights and wellbeing.
and content. Take an online video channel’s
auto play option, for example. Parents might trust  When parents want to prevent external online
their young child to watch a particular online risks (such as harm caused by strangers or
video on their own. However, when parents find cyberbullying) from happening by enforcing top-
out that one video is automatically followed by down restrictions, they are likely to impede
the activation of another, they lose control. adolescents’ right to interact with peers and
Consequently, parents may eventually opt for autonomously engage in the online world.
restrictions to regain control over the time spent Moreover, such actions may worsen internal
watching videos and the media content. family dynamics, e.g., children losing trust, lying
about their use of media or refraining from

www.eukidsonline.net 4
 discussions with their parents about unpleasant Controlling and restrictive measures cannot
experiences. achieve this goal. While in this respect parental
controls are lagging behind, it does open up a
 Teenagers or adolescents’ online experiences window of major opportunities.
are likely to be social in nature. This implies that
when parents (unwittingly) monitor their Revisiting parental controls and balancing risks
children’s online behaviour, they may also and opportunities
stumble on information about their children’s When framing the discourse surrounding parental
peers and friends. This behaviour also presents controls around parents’ protection responsibilities,
ethical challenges beyond the family unit children’s rights to provide for their needs or
(Czeskis et al., 2010). participate in the (digital) world are not addressed.
Each restrictive measure to decrease the likelihood of
Opportunities related to parental support for online encountering risks is also likely to decrease potential
self-regulation online benefits. For instance, Mitchell et al. (2005)
Considering the disadvantages of restrictive behaviour, found that parents discontinued the use of filtering and
it is opportune to point out other effective protection blocking software because it negatively affected young
measures. Children’s internet skills are an people’s educational activities online.
important factor in decreasing exposure to online
risks. This finding has three important implications Therefore, when talking about the affordances of
concerning the extension ‘from restrictions as an parental controls, they should be placed in relation to
external control to a parent-child interaction that children’s online activities. Interactions with digital
supports self-regulation and discernible participation’ media objects and content define children’s media
(Lee & Chae, 2012, p. 260): consumption, and provide for children’s education and
entertainment needs in different ways. To illustrate this,
 When parents and children communicate well when parents take children to the zoo, the encounter
with each other, they can come to a better with animals meets the children’s entertainment needs.
understanding of online risky behaviour. In The fences in the zoo provide a sense of safety to the
the parental mediation literature, this is called guiding parent. As such, interacting with (wild) animals
active mediation, and refers to conversations becomes a child-friendly activity. The fences are put in
parents initiate to explain, discuss and/or share place because of the zoo’s ‘content’ – i.e., the animals.
critical comments with regard to (digital) media Whereas protection against some animals, such as
content or experiences (see, e.g., Gentile et al., lions, is a valid argument, the zoo’s infrastructure
2012). affords more for children and parents. Apart from
(interactive) panels with information about the animals,
 Similarly, when parents consider the use of the zoo can also provide its visitors with challenges
parental controls – e.g., to monitor adolescents’ and quests that both parent and child can solve, or
digital media use – they should engage in allow visitors to feed or pet certain animals.
discussions about their motives and intentions
with their offspring. In addition, parents should Just like the zoo’s infrastructure, parental controls are
discuss the parental control settings that will to be understood in relation to the World Wide
eventually affect children’s (online) activities and Web’s contents; some are harmful, others not at all.
privacy. In effect, when parents deploy parental To date, (design initiators of) parental controls solely
controls to support distant mediation strategies focus on reducing the likelihood of undesirable side
(Zaman et al., 2016), communication supports effects. Since these tools are not making use of the
the development of a mutual understanding of whole online ‘infrastructure’, they are ignoring the
the degree of self-regulation and autonomy that ways in which parental controls can afford positive
is still granted to the child. outcomes for children and for parents. The
technological opportunities to support these have not
 Since we can never fully protect children online, yet been explored.
protective measures also entail solutions that
help children build more resilience to cope
with the harm and risks they may encounter
(d’Haenens, Vandoninck, & Donoso, 2013).

www.eukidsonline.net 5
The future: towards enabling parental tools In addition, there is potential to integrate parental
It is only very recently that the American Academy of controls with the existing, but fragmented,
Pediatrics has revised its recommendations about educational initiatives that are spread over various
children’s digital media use. They acknowledge that websites, brochures and workshops. On the one hand,
‘media is just another environment’, where this would aid parents and children to make informed
‘children do the same things they have always decisions about which content to allow (e.g., which
done, only virtually’ (Brown, Shifrin, & Hill, 2015, p. apps to install) or what to expect from (in-app)
54). Their advice for parents and educators is no purchases (Marsh et al., 2015). On the other hand, it
longer restricted to setting limits. Instead, they are can help parents to figure out the various settings and
currently also advocating joint engagement and opportunities that parental controls afford. In this
involvement. context, a benchmark study, like the one performed by
SIP Bench (http://sipbench.eu/index.cfm), can serve as
Accordingly, parental controls can support parents in a basis for guiding parents, helping them to assess
this process, in addition to offline rule setting and critically the available tools.
interactions between the parent and child. Parenting
issues will not be solved because ‘there is an app Indeed, parents’ critical digital literacy is paramount
for that’. Parental controls are like the timer we use for the selection of parental controls and coping
when baking a cake. It will not replace our actions as with the variety of default settings. The discussions
amateur chefs, but merely help us to prevent the cake and negotiations surrounding the level of blocking and
from burning (and we can still ignore it, or not hear it!). choice of settings are, in fact, often more important
Other things can teach us to bake a better cake, like a than the choice of the software or hardware itself
more experienced chef giving us tips on how much (Richardson et al., 2002). Similarly, mediating the
sugar to add. In the same vein, parental controls quality of the content matters more than simply
should provide guidance to both parent and child who restricting a platform or the time spent with digital
can appropriate the tools in such a way that they media (Brown et al., 2015).
provide meaning in the context of their everyday
Clearly, the opportunities for parental controls will
practices, child–parent relationship and family values.
unfold differently for various age groups and in various
Parental perspective: no more helicopter apps contexts. Parental controls can provide instructional
In this report, we have argued that the potential of scenarios to the parents of the youngest media users
parental controls lies beyond preventive and protective to facilitate their taking up a role as capable ‘teacher’.
affordances. The tools should not just be conceived of Children will then gain relevant knowledge and skills
as helicopter apps that serve the needs of parents who (e.g., critical media literacy). For teenagers, parental
would like to ‘hover’ over their child wittingly or controls can support a relationship of reciprocity
unwittingly at all costs (Clark, 2013; Haddon & between the parent and child. In this way, these
Livingstone, 2014). In the end, a more nuanced controls can invite parents to find ways to comply with
approach helps to avoid over-controlling or or show an interest in the activities adolescents (want
overprotective parenting, which is found to negatively to) engage in online.
affect the development of the child (Janssens et al.,
Future avenues for parental mediation research
2015).
With this report, we underline the need for refining the
Instead of (c)overt control, there is evidence that existing measurement instruments used in parental
parental support and the creation of clear expectations mediation research to investigate the use of parental
is more likely to result in less problematic behaviour in controls as an emerging parental mediation practice in
adolescents (Janssens et al., 2015). Considering the a valid and reliable way. We argue that more specific
implications that parental actions have for children’s and in-depth studies are needed, if we want to
digital media use, novel support-based parental understand the particularities of technical mediation
controls should be understood as facilitators for and to account for the challenges and constraints that
parent–child discussions of what appropriate and prevented previous parental mediation researchers
inappropriate content entails (Hashish, Bunt, & Young, from using a nuanced approach. More particularly, we
2014). call on future parental mediation researchers to
address the question of how parents employ parental
controls, in and for which circumstances, and

www.eukidsonline.net 6
critically assess the extent to which this differs from the References
more ‘traditional’ parental mediation strategies (see Bleumers, L., Mouws, K., Huyghe, J., van Mechelen,
Zaman et al., 2016). By more explicitly focusing on the M., Mariën, I., & Zaman, B. (2015). Sensitivity
processes and relational dynamics that play a role in to parental play beliefs and mediation in young
parental mediation practices, we underline how this children’s hybrid play activities. Proceedings of
phenomenon is embedded in technological, social and IDC. Boston, MA: ACM Press, pp. 170–177.
cultural dimensions. Brown, A., Shifrin, D. L., & Hill, D. L. (2015). Beyond
“turn it off”: How to advise families on media
use. AAP News, 36 (10), 54, 1 October.
Reflecting further on the next decade of parental Clark, L. S. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the
mediation research, we argue that it is important to digital age. Communication Theory, 21 (4),
move beyond the presupposition of the parent as 323–343. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
protector and the (all-knowing) teacher. In this way, 2885.2011.01391.x
researchers can be more sensitive to and gain a Clark, L. S. (2013). The parent app: Understanding
deeper understanding of how some parents deal with families in the digital age. New York: Oxford
University Press.
their (perceived) sense of losing control, or their
Correa, T. (2014). Bottom-up technology transmission
(perceived) sense of missing the required media within families: Exploring how youths influence
literacy skills to appropriately deal with their their parents’ digital media use with dyadic
child’s/adolescent’s media usage. It also opens up the data. Journal of Communication, 64 (1), 103–
perspective that parents are often learners 124. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12067
themselves – see, for instance, Clark's (2011) notion Czeskis, A., Dermendjieva, I., Yapit, H., Borning, A.,
of participatory learning between parent and child. It Friedman, B., Gill, B., & Kohno, T. (2010).
Parenting from the pocket: value tensions and
allows for the fact that the parents’ own socialisation
technical directions for secure and private
practices and media use are influenced by their parent-teen mobile safety. Symposium on
children – in this context, see, for instance, van den Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), 14–16
Bulck and van den Bergh’s (2005) notion of ‘reversed July, pp. 1–15. ACM Press.
socialisation’, or Correa’s (2014) ‘bottom-up transitions’ http://doi.org/10.1145/1837110.1837130
processes. d’Haenens, L., Vandoninck, S., & Donoso, V. (2013).
How to cope and build online resilience?
London: EU Kids Online, LSE.
Industry’s accountability
Donoso, V., Verdoodt, V., van Mechelen, M., &
Finally, we would like to point out that industry plays a Jasmontaite, L. (2016). Faraway, so close:
key role in designing the next generation of parental Why the digital industry needs scholars and
controls (Bleumers et al., 2015; Nouwen, van the other way around. Journal of Children and
Mechelen, & Zaman, 2015), as they significantly shape Media (in press).
children’s future media experiences (Donoso et al., Dürager, A., & Livingstone, S. (2012). How can parents
2016). In recent years, several legal obligations and support children’s internet safety? London: EU
Kids Online, LSE.
policy initiatives have been defined to foster industry’s
Dürager, A., & Sonck, N. (2014). Testing the reliability
accountability (see, for instance, the EU of scales on parental internet mediation.
Commission’s initiative, Making the internet a better London: EU Kids Online, LSE.
place for children). Acknowledging the influence of Gentile, D. A., Nathanson, A. I., Rasmussen, E. E.,
commercial agendas, we see that industry has started Reimer, R. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2012). Do you
to respond to children’s online safety matters by see what I see? Parent and child reports of
adjusting their technical solutions to comply with legal parental monitoring of media. Family Relations,
61 (3), 470–487. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
obligations (e.g., regarding content that can or cannot
3729.2012.00709.x
be seen by children), defining design heuristics (e.g., Grusec, J. E., & Davidov, M. (2010). Integrating
guidelines for privacy by design for mobile different perspectives on socialization theory
applications), launching parental control features, and research: a domain-specific approach.
and/or awareness-raising initiatives (e.g., online Child Development, 81 (3), 687–709.
documentation on a separate security or privacy web http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2010.01426.x
page, distributing printed magazines and organising
Haddon, L., & Livingstone, S. (2014). The meaning of
workshops for parents, professionals and educators). online problematic situations for children: The
UK report. London: EU Kids Online, LSE.
Hashish, Y., Bunt, A., & Young, J. E. (2014). Involving
children in content control: A collaborative and

www.eukidsonline.net 7
 education-oriented content filtering approach. research. Communication Yearbook, vol. 29,
Proceedings of CHI 2014. New York: ACM, pp. pp. 35–47. Leuven, Belgium.
1797–1806. Ybarra, M. L., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J.
Janssens, A., Goossens, L., van den Noortgate, W., (2009). Associations between blocking,
Colpin, H., Verschueren, K., & van Leeuwen, monitoring, and filtering software on the home
K. (2015). Parents’ and adolescents’ computer and youth-reported unwanted
perspectives on parenting: Evaluating exposure to sexual material online. Child
conceptual structure, measurement invariance, Abuse & Neglect, 33 (12), 857–869.
and criterion validity. Assessment, 22 (4), 473– http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.09.015
489. http://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114550477 Zaman, B., Nouwen, M., Vanattenhoven, J., Deferrerre,
Lee, S.-J., & Chae, Y.-G. (2012). Balancing E., & van Looy, J. (2016). A qualitative inquiry
participation and risks in children’s internet into the contextualized parental mediation
use: the role of internet literacy and parental practices of young children’s digital media use
mediation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and at home. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Social Networking, 15 (5), 257–262. Media (in press, DOI:
http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0552 10.1080/08838151.2015.1127240). Available
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing at
opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the www.researchgate.net/publication/280098255_
internet: the role of online skills and internet A_Qualitative_Inquiry_into_the_Contextualized
self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12 (2), _Parental_Mediation_Practices_of_Young_Chi
309–329. ldrens_Digital_Media_Use_at_Home.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342697
Livingstone, S., Kirwil, L., Ponte, C., & Staksrud, E.
(2013). In their own words: What bothers Recent reports (for more, see
children online? London: EU Kids Online, LSE.
Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J.,
www.eukidsonline.net):
Lahmar, J., Scott, F., & Winter, P. (2015).
Exploring play and creativity in pre-schoolers’ Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Staksrud, E. (2015).
use of apps: Final project report. Available at Developing a framework for researching children’s
www.techandplay.org/reports/TAP_Final_Repo online risks and opportunities in Europe.
rt.pdf http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64470/
Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2005).
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron,
Protecting youth online: Family use of filtering
and blocking software. Child Abuse & Neglect, S., & Lagae, K. (2015). How parents of young
29 (7), 753–765. children manage digital devices at home: the role
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.05.008 of income, education and parental style.
Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2014). Developing scales to http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/63378/
measure parental mediation of young O’Neill, B., Staksrud, E. with members of the EU Kids
children’s internet use. Learning, Media and
Online Network (2014). Final recommendations for
Technology, 39 (2), 250–266.
http://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.782038 policy. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/59518/
Nouwen, M., van Mechelen, M., & Zaman, B. (2015). A Paus-Hasebrink, I., Sinner, P., & Prochazka, F. (2014).
value sensitive design approach to parental Children’s online experiences in socially
software for young children. Proceedings of disadvantaged families: European evidence and
IDC 2015. Boston, MA: ACM Press, pp. 363– policy recommendations.
366. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/57878/
Richardson, C. R., Resnick, P. J., Hansen, D. L., Derry, Vandoninck, S., d’Haenens, L., & Smahel, D (2014).
H. A., & Rideout, V. J. (2002). Does Preventive measures: How youngsters avoid
pornography-blocking software block access to online risks. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/55797/
health information on the internet? JAMA, 288 Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Zero
(22), 2887–2894. to eight. Young children and their internet use.
http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.22.2887
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52630/
Sonck, N., Nikken, P., & de Haan, J. (2013).
Determinants of internet mediation: A Helsper, E. J., Kalmus, V., Hasebrink, U., Sagvari, B.,
comparison of the reports by Dutch parents & de Haan, J. (2013). Country classification:
and children. Journal of Children and Media, 7 Opportunities, risks, harm and parental mediation.
(1), 96–113. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52023/
http://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2012.739806 Livingstone, S., Kirwil, L., Ponte, C., & Staksrud, E.
van den Bulck, J., & van den Bergh, B. (2005). The with the EU Kids Online Network (2013). In their
child effect in media and communication own words: What bothers children online?
research : a call to arms and an agenda for

www.eukidsonline.net 8
 London: EU Kids Online, LSE.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48357/
d’Haenens, L., Vandonink, S., & Donoso, V. (2013).
How to cope and build resilience. London: EU
Kids Online, LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48115/
Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., O’Neill, B., & Donoso, V.
(2012). Towards a better internet for children:
Findings and recommendations from EU Kids
Online to inform the CEO coalition. London: EU
Kids Online, LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/44213/
Haddon, L., Livingstone, S., & the EU Kids Online
Network (2012). EU Kids Online: National
perspectives. London: EU Kids Online, LSE.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/46878/
Smahel, D., Helsper, E., Green, L., Kalmus, V., Blinka,
L., & Ólafsson, K. (2012). Excessive internet use
among European children. London, LSE: EU Kids
Online, LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/47344/
Dürager, A., & Livingstone, S. (2012). How can parents
support children’s internet safety?
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/42872/
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K.
(2011). EU Kids Online final report.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39351/
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K.
(2011). Disadvantaged children and online risk.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39385/
Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., & Staksrud, E. (2011).
Social networking, age and privacy.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35849/
Sonck, N., Livingstone, S., Kuiper, E., & de Haan, J.
(2011). Digital literacy and safety skills.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33733/
Hasebrink, U., Görzig, A., Haddon, L., Kalmus, V., &
Livingstone, S. (2011). Patterns of risk and safety
The EU Kids Online network has been funded by the EC
online. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39356/
Safer Internet Programme in three successive phases of
Görzig, A. (2011). Who bullies and who is bullied work from 2006–14 to enhance knowledge of children’s
online? A study of 9-16 year old internet users in and parents’ experiences and practices regarding risky
25 European countries. and safer use of the internet and new online technologies.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39601/ As a major part of its activities, EU Kids Online conducted
Livingstone, S., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risky a face-to-face, in-home survey during 2010 of 25,000 9- to
communication online. 16-year-old internet users and their parents in 25
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33732/ countries, using a stratified random sample and self-
completion methods for sensitive questions.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K.
(2011) Risks and safety on the internet: The Now including researchers and stakeholders from 33
perspective of European children: Full findings. countries in Europe and beyond, the network continues to
analyse and update the evidence base to inform policy.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/
Sonck, N., Livingstone, S., Kuiper, E., & de Haan, J. For all reports, findings and technical survey information,
(2011). Digital literacy and safety skills. as well as full details of national partners, please visit
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33733/ www.eukidsonline.net

www.eukidsonline.net 9