Journal of Children and Media

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rchm20

Do parental control tools fulfil family expectations

for child protection? A rapid evidence review of the
contexts and outcomes of use

Mariya Stoilova, Monica Bulger & Sonia Livingstone

To cite this article: Mariya Stoilova, Monica Bulger & Sonia Livingstone (29 Oct 2023):
Do parental control tools fulfil family expectations for child protection? A rapid evidence
review of the contexts and outcomes of use, Journal of Children and Media, DOI:
10.1080/17482798.2023.2265512

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2023.2265512

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 29 Oct 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rchm20
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2023.2265512

Do parental control tools fulfil family expectations for child

protection? A rapid evidence review of the contexts and
outcomes of use
a
Mariya Stoilova , Monica Bulgerb and Sonia Livingstone a

a
Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE),
London, UK; bCreative Communities Research Group, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Among the parental mediation strategies promoted by policymakers Received 18 April 2023
to ensure children’s safety in a digital age is the use of parental control Revised 1 September 2023
tools. A rapid evidence review was conducted to identify which families Accepted 13 September 2023
use parental controls and why, and the outcomes of such use, bene­ KEYWORDS
ficial or otherwise. Of 1,656 articles returned by a keyword search of five Parental controls; children
research databases, the full text of 40 studies was coded to answer the online; parental mediation;
research questions. The available research revealed that the use of online safety; digital
parental controls depends on the age of the parents and children, technologies; outcomes
their digital skills, parental involvement, and the motivation to reduce
exposure to online risk. However, the consequences of use were mixed,
with evidence of parental controls having both beneficial and adverse
outcomes, limiting other outcomes or simply having no outcomes.
While the review found little support for advocating parental controls
as a stand-alone strategy, parents valued them when embedded in
a broader approach to parental mediation and parent – child relations.
The conclusions highlight the importance of a child-centred approach
that holistically evaluates the potential of parental controls.

IMPACT SUMMARY
Prior State of Knowledge: Parental controls are widely recom­
mended by policymakers and technology industry as a way for
parents to keep their children safe online, but research usually
examines parental mediation in general, rarely focusing on the
use or effectiveness of parental controls in particular.
Novel Contributions: A review of the effectiveness of parental
controls reveals mixed results: some uses of parental controls
bring benefits, for example to children’s safety, but others have
no effect or limit children’s opportunities, and some have adverse
results, for example to family communication.
Practical Implications: Policymakers and technology developers
should not rely on the use of parental controls to ensure children’s
safety in a digital world, because the evidence does not support the
efficacy of parental controls and, if poorly designed, they may
introduce problems for families.

CONTACT Mariya Stoilova [email protected] Department of Media and Communications, London School of
Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, UK
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article
has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 M. STOILOVA ET AL.

How can society ensure that children’s experiences in a digital world enable their
opportunities to benefit while minimising the risk of harm? Now that internet access is
widespread in many countries, and with governments, educators, health services and
businesses all keen to promote children’s and families’ digital engagement, the impor­
tance of empowering and protecting children is rising up on the agenda of policymakers
and the public (O’Neill et al., 2020; Staksrud, 2016; UNICEF, 2021). Policymakers apportion
responsibility partly to the regulators of digital providers of content and services and
partly to end-users, including parents and caregivers (hereafter, “parents”) and children
themselves. However, the legitimacy, implementation and effectiveness of current stra­
tegies are much debated, not least regarding the optimal balance between the respon­
sibilities of government, businesses and families (Bulger et al., 2017; Lievens et al., 2018;
Milosevic & Livingstone, 2018).
Recent years have seen considerable industry investment in a new generation of
technical child protection measures, commonly called parental control tools or, more
simply, parental controls. These comprise software that enables a responsible adult to
control some or all the functions of a digital device or service used by a child to filter or
limit or otherwise determine their access and use in ways intended to protect their safety
(UNICEF and ITU International Telecommunication Union, 2020). Some operate at the
level of the device – for example, they can limit the time spent on the device or on
particular apps. Others manage the content children access online by filtering out
pornography, hate and other potentially harmful content. Newer parental controls for
social media may also mediate risky contacts by facilitating parents’ oversight of their
child’s online interactions, for example through linked accounts or purchase approval
tools. While many parental control tools focus on tracking usage and setting restrictions,
some have nudging functionalities (e.g., sending educational messages) that aim to
encourage children to develop digital habits (Bertrandias et al., 2023).
Such tools are often sold as the solution to the increasing pressure for responsible and
competent parenting in a digital world and, possibly, the changing concerns of today’s
parents in an increasingly opaque internet ecology (Bertrandias et al., 2023; Mauk, 2021,
2022). At the same time, parents are provided with more tools to monitor multiple aspects
of their child’s digital engagement closely. With each app, device or service developing its
brand-specific approach, the complexity of parents’ tasks grows commensurately.
Governments favour parental controls, possibly because their use can be tailored to
different family contexts, but also because such use alleviates public pressure to protect
children through regulation (ITU (International Telecommunication Union), 2020, 2020b).
Parental controls are also increasingly provided by the market, possibly to fend off
government regulation of their products and services and because “family-friendly” and
“safety tech” services can be profitable in their own right (Billinge et al., 2021; Perspective
Economics and DCMS Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, 2021). But do
parental controls work? And do they meet families’ needs and expectations? It is impor­
tant that the public receives impartial advice, and that policy is grounded in evidence,
especially where it recommends parental controls (International, 2020, b). In support of
this, we review the available research on which families use parental controls, why, and
with what outcomes.
A considerable body of research shows that parents generally wish to play their part in
mediating their children’s digital engagement, and that although at times their efforts are
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA 3

driven by anxieties fuelled by panicky media headlines and a culture of parent-blaming

and shaming, they benefit from awareness-raising and digital literacy initiatives (Clark,
2013; Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020; Vickery, 2017). Yet parental controls are not widely
used by parents. The international survey Global Kids Online (2019) found that parents of
9- to 17-year-olds prefer enabling mediation (e.g., encouraging their child, suggesting
safety strategies) and restrictive mediation (rule-based restrictions on apps or screen time)
instead of over the use of technical tools. There is some cultural variation: in Europe and
South America’s wealthier countries, with a longer history of internet use and, doubtless,
access to more advanced technology, parents preferred enabling mediation; by contrast,
in Ghana, the Philippines and South Africa, parents favoured restrictive mediation.
However, parental controls were used by less than 3% of parents in all countries that
included this question in the survey (Philippines, South Africa, Albania, Montenegro and
Italy). Similarly, findings from EU Kids Online show that while well over half of European
parents talk to their children about their internet use, far fewer said they use parental
controls − 11% of parents of 9- to 16-year-olds use parental controls in Lithuania, rising to
24% in Germany and around one-third in Norway, Poland and Spain (Šmahel et al., 2020).
The legacy of first-generation parental controls may cast a long shadow. With names
like CyberSnoop, tools that “spy” on everything the child does online, and clumsy filters
that prevented access to content from Essex or sex education materials, the ethics and
effectiveness of such tools have been widely questioned. Indeed, Third et al. (2019) regard
parental controls as emblematic of a wider “control paradigm” which, like other techno­
logically determinist mindsets, conjures an image of children at risk, with risk itself
perceived “in terms of slippery slopes [and] worst-case scenarios” (p. 44). Meanwhile,
concerns are often expressed, with empirical grounds, that even if parental controls are
used, children will find technical workarounds to access “forbidden fruit” while parents
may be lulled into a false sense of security (Geržičáková et al., 2023), beguiled by
businesses’ persuasive marketing claims (Lupton et al., 2021).
Notwithstanding considerable fear-mongering and parental anxieties about tech­
nology (Modecki et al., 2022), parents seem sceptical about embracing the control
paradigm. Analysis of the EU Kids Online survey in Norway, Germany, Poland, Spain
and Russia found that, on the one hand, between half and three-quarters of parents,
depending on the country, thought parental controls would help them feel more in
control and that their child would be safer online. On the other hand, between
a third and two-thirds did not know how or, more importantly, whether, the tools
would work. Such parental scepticism may be well-founded: between 2013 and
2016, the European Commission Directorate-General for Communications Networks,
Content and Technology supported regular independent evaluations of end-user
filtering systems, finding them better at preventing access to pornography than
other contents, poor in languages other than English, and with a worrying rate of
over-blocking “innocent” content (SIP-Bench, 2018). Most do not address the full
range of online risk (encompassing content, contact, conduct and contract risks of
harm to users; see Livingstone & Stoilova, 2021). Moreover, the language remains
predominantly that of control (McGinn, 2022), notwithstanding the importance of
parent – child conversations, ensuring children are aware of how parents use the
controls and supporting children to learn to make their own decisions. Research also
supports parents’ prioritisation of interpersonal relations: a review of parental
4 M. STOILOVA ET AL.

mediation research found that what matters to children’s experience of online risk is
the warmth of the child – parent relationship and the collaborative and commu­
nicative actions this enables more than any use of technical tools, surveillance or
restrictions (Elsaesser et al., 2017).
Nonetheless, from the perspective of policymakers, parents can seem hard to reach and
unreliable in meeting their responsibilities, jeopardising the broader ecosystem of laws,
regulations, business innovation and educational initiatives that, taken together, are
designed to ensure children’s wellbeing in relation to digital technologies. However, from
the families’ perspective, many other factors come into play. Notably, the appropriation of
technologies in everyday life involves an active process of meaning-making heavily shaped
by interpersonal relationships, cultural values and imaginaries, and material circumstances
(Chambers, 2016; Hartmann, 2005; Silverstone & Hirsch, 1992). This results not only in
a diversity of approaches, but also inequalities in parental competence and resources.
Consequently, governments and businesses should not anticipate a straightforward or
uniform adoption of either digital technologies or the practices recommended to manage
them. So what can we learn from the evidence on the use and outcomes of parental control
tools that can help fulfil societal expectations for child online protection?

Methods
We conducted a systematic evidence review and assessment following the Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines
(Moher et al., 2015) to answer two research questions:
RQ1: Which families use parental controls and why?

RQ2: What are the outcomes, beneficial or otherwise, of using parental controls?

Search strategy
We searched five multidisciplinary and subject-specific databases on 29 March 2021
for empirical research studies, secondary analysis and evidence reviews concerned
with children’s and/or parents’/caregivers’ experiences of parental controls pub­
lished in English from 2010 to 2021 (the decade prior to the search) (see Figure 1)
as part of a European Commission-funded project (euCONSENT) on technical
measures for ensuring age verification and parental consent. Preliminary experi­
mentation with search terms found few studies on parental consent (concerning
children’s digital activities) but many on parental controls. It was therefore decided
to broaden the search to include parental controls.
The final search combined four groups of terms – relating to age (e.g., age
verification, age check, age-based), children (e.g., child, school student, kid), par­
ental controls and consent (e.g., content monitoring, parental lock, Net Nanny),
and the digital environment (e.g., internet, online, digital, apps, social media,
Minecraft). To supplement the systematic review, we asked more than 80 subject
experts across Europe and North America for their recommended sources, and
conducted supplementary searches to identify relevant research reports (for details,
see Smirnova et al., 2021).
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA 5

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for selecting studies to be reviewed.

Selection process
Of the 1,656 results identified through the database searches, 1,160 remained after de-
duplication. These were screened first based on the abstract and then on reading the full
text by applying five eligibility criteria concerned with the relevance and quality of the
study (see Figure 1 and Smirnova et al., 2021). For example, with regards to relevance we
excluded studies that did not include children or parents in their samples or that did not
study the experiences of families with parental controls (e.g., empirical technical work on
the development and testing of tools was excluded). In relation to study quality, we
applied a criterion of methodological rigour, removing studies that, for example, lacked
sufficient details for evaluation or replication. For instance, studies were excluded if the
research design was unclear, the quality of research was difficult to evaluate, or the links
6 M. STOILOVA ET AL.

Table 1. Factors related to the use of parental controls.

Factor Studies Description
Child development and 4, 11, 24, 33, 35, Parental controls are used more by parents in larger families and to
family needs (6 studies) 36 supervise younger children.
Digital skills 4, 5, 29, 36 Younger, more digitally skilled parents are more likely to use
(4 studies) parental controls, although in some cases lower education is also
associated with use.
Risk aversion and safety 1, 6, 9, 27, 28, Parental controls used to avoid or reduce children’s exposure to
(7 studies) 31, 36 online risks. Parental perceptions of a child’s vulnerability to or
severity of risk increases parental intention to use the tools.
Parenting values and parental 11, 15, 23, 27, Authoritative parenting and worries about children’s privacy and
mediation 28, 33, 36 autonomy related to avoiding parental controls. Preference for
(7 studies) rules and active involvement in children’s digital lives linked to
using parental controls.

between conceptual and methodological designs and conclusions were hard to under­
stand. For this article, we also excluded the studies that did not discuss parental control
tools (i.e., focused on age-verification methods) and those lacking direct evidence on the
use or outcomes of parental controls.
This left 40 studies included in the analysis. Most of these studies were conducted in
North America (n = 20) and Europe (n = 14), a few in Asia (n = 5) and fewer (n = 4) in other
continents.1 They were coded according to findings relating to (1) the context of the use
of parental controls (see Table 1) and (2) the reported outcomes of using parental controls
(see Table 2). These codes were developed bottom-up based on identification of key
themes in the study findings and grouping them in meaningful clusters. Qualitative and
quantitative studies were coded similarly and given equal importance in the analysis and
discussion. In all, 14 studies addressed the context of use, 30 the outcomes of use, and 4
both (see the Appendix).

Results
Which families use parental controls and why?
Of the 40 studies in the review, 14 addressed different factors related to the context of the
use of parental controls. We divided these into four themes: six studies discussed motiva­
tions for use grounded in beliefs about child development and family needs, four linked

Table 2. Types of outcomes from the use of parental controls.

Type Studies Description
Beneficial 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, Use of parental controls linked to a reduction in online risks (of
outcomes 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39 several kinds) and/or more positive practices (e.g., improved time
(17 studies) management, communication, identification of when children
need help).
No change in 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 32, 35, Parental controls appeared ineffective, easy to bypass and unable to
outcomes 38, 39, 40 provide expected protection.
(12 studies)
Limiting 8, 13, 14, 30, 35, 39 Parental controls reduced beneficial opportunities, such as
outcomes restriction of educational content, lowering digital skills or
(6 studies) limiting social interaction.
Adverse 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 25, 40 Use of parental controls linked to family conflict or distrust, or the
outcomes child’s lower feelings of privacy and autonomy.
(8 studies)
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA 7

the use of parental controls with parental digital skills, seven with risk aversion and safety,
and seven with parenting values and parental mediation. Multiple factors were coded for
the same study where relevant (see Table 1).
The first group of studies showed that the use of parental controls reflects the needs of
the child or the family. For example, surveys conducted in diverse countries found that
parents of younger children are more likely to use parental control software and settings
(4, 24, 33, 35, 36), as are parents with more children, possibly to limit children’s access to
age-inappropriate content (11).
Parents with greater digital skills are also more likely to use parental controls. Skills
may, in turn, be linked to parental age: a 2016 Pew survey of parents in the U.S.A. found
that younger parents, who tend to be more technology-savvy, were more likely to use
technical measures to control internet use (4). A US-based qualitative study showed that
parents with more technical expertise used parental controls as a monitoring tool. At the
same time, those with lower digital skills lacked knowledge of automated tools and
engaged more in personal monitoring (5). Relatedly, a survey of Dutch parents of children
aged 6–9 found that parental controls are used more by parents who are more confident
internet users, although also by those with lower education (36). Use also depends on
awareness: a UK survey on adults’ awareness of the safety measures provided by video-
sharing platforms found that only 4 in 10 adult users were aware of these unprompted,
and nearly as many were confused, claiming knowledge of a “dummy” measure (29).
Children with lower digital skills were also less aware of filtering and monitoring tools (11).
Seven studies linked the use of parental controls to parenting values and parental
mediation practices. Instead of a simple “plug-and-play” scenario, parental controls are
integrated into how families negotiate technology use. Notably, parents who want to be
more involved in their children’s online activities and those who think they can benefit the
quality of their digital engagement used control tools more (27, 28, 36). Parental controls
play a role in family negotiations of screen time: a qualitative study of 10 children aged 2–
6 and their parents from South Korea and the U.S.A. found the use of technical settings to
be more successful when the family jointly sets them, as this helped children to follow the
rules (33). A Spanish and a US survey found that parents with a more authoritarian
parenting style (more rules, granting less autonomy to their children) use parental
controls more often (15, 23). By contrast, a qualitative US-based study showed that
parental worries about privacy and autonomy were related to more “hands-off” parental
mediation and avoidance of parental controls (11).
Finally, parental motivations for using parental controls are often centred on risk
avoidance, as demonstrated by methodologically diverse studies (1, 6, 9, 27, 28, 31, 36).
For example, nearly half of the Spanish parents of children aged 6–9 surveyed in one
study said they would start using filters if their child was cyberbullied (31). This finding is
echoed by parental surveys in the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia, showing that parental
perceptions of risk severity and children’s vulnerability increase the intention to use
parental controls (1, 36). A qualitative study (27), a Belgian experimental co-design
study (28), a content analysis of app reviews online (9) and a multimethod in-school
study in Australia (6) all linked safety concerns to the desire to use parental controls to
protect their child.
8 M. STOILOVA ET AL.

Outcomes of using parental controls

Since both parents and the wider society – governments, regulators and industry – place
considerable hopes in the benefits that parental controls could bring to families, espe­
cially in preventing digitally facilitated harms, we examine the research on outcomes next.
Do parental controls meet such safeguarding expectations? Of the 40 studies in the
review, 30 report any kind of outcomes of parent controls use. These outcomes can be
classified thus:

● Beneficial outcomes: studies claim a protective effect of parental controls (e.g.,

reduced risks such as cyberbullying) or enabling outcomes (children better control­
ling their digital use).
● No change in outcomes: studies show no effect or overall inefficiency (e.g., tolls are
easy to bypass).
● Limiting outcomes: studies find that parental controls reduce beneficial opportu­
nities (e.g., less information-seeking or lower digital skills among children).
● Adverse outcomes: studies show that outcomes can be counter-productive or
harmful (e.g., increased family conflict).

These thematic groups were again identified inductively from the study findings. The
results were somewhat mixed and contradictory. Seventeen studies reported beneficial
outcomes, and 12 showed no change in outcomes; limiting outcomes were reported by 6
studies and adverse outcomes by 8; multiple outcomes were coded for the same study
where relevant (see Table 2).
Before reviewing these findings, we caution that 20 of the 30 studies conducted
surveys, thus supporting correlational but not causal analysis. While we follow the
claims of study authors in labelling outcomes of the use of parental controls, it
should be kept in mind that the data underpinning these claims are cross-
sectional. The corpus includes one experimental study (13) and three longitudinal
studies (6, 13, 25), and these offer stronger support that the use of parental
controls has the consequences claimed. However, the remaining studies use qua­
litative (interview-based) research methods, with some content analysis (of app
reviews or online comments). While these add depth to our understanding,
claimed outcomes are inevitably shaped by self-reported parental or child
perceptions.
Of the 17 studies that reported beneficial outcomes, most concerned the reduction in
exposure to various types of online risks (n = 12): four studies showed that the use of
parental controls was associated with lower access to pornographic or sexual content (6,
8, 17, 322); and further studies showed a lower likelihood of cyberbullying victimisation
(3), cyber-aggression (34), problematic online gaming (7), illegal downloading (37), screen
time (33), privacy risks (39), exposure to unhealthy weight loss material, physical harm,
violent images and hate messages (35), and exposure to age-inappropriate gaming
content and misleading videos or advertising (30). Some also linked the use of parental
controls to positive practices such as improved time management, parent – child com­
munication, or identification of when children need help.
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA 9

Not only are the effect sizes reported by these studies generally small, but the
operation of multiple other factors also qualifies any simple conclusion that parental
controls bring benefits. For example, while a multimethod Australian study found that
the children saw much less pornographic content after the parental control app was
used, it also included in-school media literacy training and increased disciplinary
consequences for viewing pornography on the school network (6). Similarly,
a European survey found that the use of filtering tools, while associated with lower
exposure to sexual content online, varied by country and showed very small effect
sizes (32). Third, a Spanish survey showed not only a very small effect of parental
controls on cyberbullying victimisation, but also that this was mediated by impulsivity
and high-risk internet behaviours; moreover, by comparison with parental supervision,
the use of parental controls was less effective (3).
The second group of studies reported no change in outcomes, including null effects
on risk reduction (12, 22, 26, 32, 35, 39). For example, a US study of adolescent girls
who had been maltreated online found that safety-focused parental mediation
reduced unintentional and intentional exposure to sexual content, offline meetings
and sexual solicitations, yet the use of parental control software alone had no such
effect (13). Some of the “null effect” studies documented how easily children can
bypass parental controls. More positively, this group of studies includes those that
found no negative impact on children’s online opportunities using parental controls.
For example, a US survey found no evidence that the use of parental controls limited
children’s engagement in online activities (38). In addition, a Spanish survey found that
using parental controls had no adverse effect on children’s perception of family
support (23).
However, six studies did suggest that the use of parental controls limits children’s
online opportunities – being linked to lower overall internet use (13), reduced privacy and
autonomy for children online (14), and restricted access to beneficial online activities (8,
14), especially children’s freedom to socialise online (8, 14, 30, 39). Also noteworthy,
a Russian survey found that the use of parental controls was linked to children’s lower
digital competence – including less knowledge about the internet and internet safety and
lower digital skills (35).
Finally, based on a mix of content analysis and qualitative methods, eight studies point
to adverse outcomes. Both children and parents express concerns that using parental
controls can increase family conflict, erode trust, reduce child autonomy and invade their
privacy (2, 9, 11, 14, 17). In addition, interviews with 14- to 18-year-olds and their parents
revealed experiences of false identification and over-blocking of “innocent” content (10).
Finally, a Latvian longitudinal study found that parental controls were a risk factor for
developing “compulsive internet use” one year later, which the authors interpreted as
a consequence of overly strict parenting (25). The same study found that establishing
rules for internet use and maintaining a positive parent – child relationship was associated
with reduced risk of “compulsive internet use.”

Discussion and conclusions

Many stand-alone and device-, network- or app-based systems of parental controls exist.
They serve multiple purposes and are provided as part of a broader service or on
10 M. STOILOVA ET AL.

subscription. Nevertheless, government promotion of parental controls and industry

marketing is only partly supported by the independent research evidence reviewed
here. We find that the minority of parents who do use parental controls do so for various
reasons. However, since we found no studies that matched the reasons for use with the
outcome measures, nor any that compared measures of children’s online experiences
before and after using parental controls, with one exception that reported a null effect
(13), it cannot be concluded that the evidence supports the claims of tool efficacy. Instead,
most research relies on parental perception or satisfaction with improvements following
the use of parental controls, and even that shows a mixed pattern of beneficial, null and
even adverse results.
Although research does not support the use of parental controls as a stand-alone or
“silver bullet” solution, it does suggest that parental controls can be helpful when
embedded in the everyday mix of parental mediation practices characteristic of everyday
family life (Livingstone et al., 2017; Nichols & Selim, 2022). The findings regarding the
contexts of use are illuminating, revealing parents’ efforts to think about the role of
parental controls in their family life in accordance with children’s needs, their interest in
and competence to engage with their children’s digital engagement, and their own need
for support in navigating risk, screen time and other perceived ills. Indeed, most studies
reviewed here examined the context and outcomes of using parental controls as part of
a wider investigation of parental mediation. In this regard, our review mirrors the limita­
tions of the field: we found a range of terminology in use (parental controls, parental tools,
filters, blocking tools, safety measures, and so forth) but little specificity regarding
different kinds of technical features. Altarturi et al. (2020) propose a taxonomy that
could be useful for a future examination of the merits or otherwise of different types of
parental controls. They distinguish different parental control techniques (browser-based,
search engines, monitoring and tracking, screen/app time controls and filtering frame­
work), as well as different types of filtering approach (IP packet-based, URL/DNS-based,
keywords-based and content-based). However, since parents themselves may be unaware
of the nature of the parental controls they use, it may be difficult in future to examine
which kinds of controls are more effective or more appropriate for particular problems or
families, and why.
Given that the review found effect sizes for the use of parental controls to be generally
small, it would be hard to place much weight on the use of parental controls even as part
of a mixed approach, especially since the outcomes include limiting children’s online
opportunities and other more negative costs, such as undermining children’s digital skills,
agency or privacy. If policymakers are to rely on the widespread and efficacious use of
parental controls as part of the broader ecosystem of norms, regulations and laws
governing children’s digital lives, a more robust evidence base is needed. This should
include experimental testing to allow for causal claims such as using before-and-after
designs or control groups. Other evaluation methods should include matching parental
expectations of parental controls with their perceived outcomes, checking not only for
risk reduction but also unintended limitations on opportunities (such as limiting access to
important health and sexuality content; see Wareham, 2022), and controlling for parental
age and digital skills.
More positively, the reviewed research points to the importance of considering the
needs of both children and parents in the design, marketing and use of parental controls.
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA 11

While the studies that included children’s and parents’ perspectives revealed conflicting
accounts of parental controls and evidence of conflicts resulting from parental control
use, the few co-design studies conducted with parents and children resulted in the
production of better tools (21, 27, 28). By contrast, parental controls that rely on privacy-
invasive techniques, authoritarian rule setting or strict measures tend to be ineffective
and are not viewed positively by parents or children. Granting almost exclusive power to
parents and prioritising restriction over communication can result in missed opportunities
for children to learn about online risks, develop coping skills and negotiate their specific
needs with parents. Since not all online risks result in harm, such opportunities are
essential for child development (FOSI Family Online Safety Institute, 2021; Livingstone,
2013). In addition, measures that children see as too restrictive or invasive can lead to the
erosion of trust within the family.
Hence, including children’s views in developing and applying parental controls is an
excellent way to ensure the measures are as effective as possible. This crucial point is not
always reflected in regulatory or business circles, but it is gaining recognition among
researchers, as well as parents and children themselves. While parental controls tend to
be advertised for their restrictive and controlling properties, many studies emphasise the
positive role of open communication, joint rule setting, negotiation and child involvement
in decision-making. For example, parental mediation may be viewed as an opportunity to
co-learn (Ko et al., 2015) and to recognise children’s agency (Martínez et al., 2020). As Ghosh
et al. (2018, p. 8) concluded, regarding their study of app reviews, “we found that child
reviews were more positive when they felt that the apps afforded them more agency (i.e.,
self-regulation) or improved their relationship with their parents (i.e., active mediation).”
In short, the best outcomes for children occur when parents integrate parental controls
as part of positive parenting centred on open communication and respectful negotiation
within the family. While further research is required to be confident of this conclusion, it
accords with the child rights framework that is also gaining attention among policymakers
worldwide (Hartung, 2020; Lievens et al., 2018; UN United Nations, 2021). In advocating
a holistic approach to children’s rights concerning the digital environment, this framework
prioritises children’s voices and best interests, recognising parental responsibilities without
overburdening them with problems better addressed by businesses or the government.
Research also points to positive implications for the future design and promotion of
parental controls: children should be consulted during tool development and regarding
their use. Tool functionality should take account of both online risks and the opportu­
nities, and evaluation of their use should be holistic. Specifically, parental controls should
promote children’s agency and development, safety and privacy, and online opportu­
nities. The marketing of such tools should not trade on parental anxieties but instead,
parental desires to integrate digital technologies within family life fairly and inclusively.
Finally, policymakers should not rely on using parental controls unduly to relieve the
responsibilities of businesses or the state to ensure children’s safety in the digital world.

Notes
1. Some studies included more than one country and were counted each relevant area.
2. In study 32 the beneficial effect was modest, accounting for less than 0.5% of the variability
observed in the EU data. No effect was found in the UK.
12 M. STOILOVA ET AL.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our colleagues from the euCONSENT project, the British Library of Political
and Economic Science and all the experts who advised us on the evidence review, as well as the
anonymous reviewers of an earlier version of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research was funded by a grant from the European Commission: PPPA-AGEVER-01-2020
(project number LC-01622116/101018061).

Notes on contributors
Mariya Stoilova is a Postdoctoral Research Officer in the Department of Media and
Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Her work lies at the
intersection of child rights and digital technology, focusing in particular on online opportunities and
risks, datafication and privacy, digital skills, mental health, and pathways to harm and wellbeing.
Mariya’s work incorporates multimethod evidence generation and cross-national comparative
analyses.
Monica Bulger is a Research Affiliate in the Creative Communities Research Group, at the University
of Colorado Boulder. She studies youth and family technology use and advises policy globally. She
has consulted on child online protection for UNICEF and Global Kids Online since 2012. Her research
encompasses 16 countries in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, South America, North America and
Europe.
Sonia Livingstone, DPhil (Oxon), OBE, FBA, FBPS, FAcSS, FRSA, is a Professor of Social Psychology in
the Department of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics and Political
Science (LSE). She has published 20 books, including Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and
fears about technology shape children’s lives. She is working on a series of European Commission
and UK Research and Innovation -funded projects concerned with children’s opportunities, risks and
rights in a digital world.

ORCID
Mariya Stoilova http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9601-7146
Sonia Livingstone http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3248-9862

References
*Alelyani, T., Ghosh, A. K., Moralez, L., Guha, S., Wisniewski, P., & Meiselwitz, G. (2019). Examining
parent versus child reviews of parental control apps on google play. 11th International
Conference on Social Computing and Social Media, SCSM 2019, London, 11579, 3–21
*Al-Naim, A. B., & Hasan, M. M. (2018). Investigating Saudi parents’ intention to adopt technical
mediation tools to regulate children’s internet usage. International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science & Applications, 9(5), 456–464.
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA 13

Altarturi, H. H. M., Saadoon, M., & Anuar, N. B. (2020). Cyber parental control: A bibliometric study.
Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.
105134
*Álvarez-García, D., Nunez, J. C., Gonzalez-Castro, P., Rodriguez, C., & Cerezo, R. (2019). The effect of
parental control on cyber-victimization in adolescence: The mediating role of impulsivity and
high-risk behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(7), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01159
*Anderson, M. (2016). Parents, teens and digital monitoring. Pew Research Center. http://www.
pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/01/PI_2016-01-07_Parents-Teens-Digital-
Monitoring_FINAL.pdf
*Badillo-Urquiola, K., Page, X., & Wisniewski, P. (2019). Risk vs. restriction: The tension between
providing a sense of normalcy and keeping foster teens safe online. CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings (CHI 2019). Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
*Bate, F., MacNish, J., Males, S., Chova, L. G., Torres, I. C., & Martinez, A. L. (2012). Managing student
distraction: Responding to problems of gaming and pornography in a Western Australian school
for boys. The University of Notre Dame Australia School of Education. https://researchonline.nd.
edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=edu_conference
*Benrazavi, R., Teimouri, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Utility of parental mediation model on youth’s
problematic online gaming. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 13(6), 712–727.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-015-9561-2
Bertrandias, L., Bernard, Y., & Elgaaied-Gambier, L. (2023). How using parental control software can
enhance parents’ well-being: The role of product features on parental efficacy and stress. Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 58(2–3), 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968221144270
Billinge, G., Burgess, R., & Corby, I. (2021). EU methods for Audiovisual media services Directive
(AVMSD) and General data protection regulation (GDPR) compliance. Age Verification Providers
Association.
Bulger, M., Burton, P., O’Neill, B., & Staksrud, E. (2017). Where policy and practice collide: Comparing
United States, South African and European Union approaches to protecting children online. New
Media & Society, 19(5), 750–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686325
Chambers, D. (2016). Changing media, homes and households: Cultures, technologies and meanings.
Routledge.
*Chandrima, R. M., Kircaburun, K., Kabir, H., Riaz, B. K., Kuss, D. J., Griffiths, M. D., & Mamun, M. A.
(2020). Adolescent problematic internet use and parental mediation: A Bangladeshi structured
interview study. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 12, 100288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2020.
100288
*Cino, D., Mascheroni, G., & Wartella, E. (2020). “The kids hate it, but we love it!”: Parents’ reviews of
circle. Media and Communication, 8(4), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i4.3247
Clark, L. S. (2013). The parent app: Understanding families in the digital age. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899616.001.0001
*Cranor, L. F., Durity, A., Marsh, A., & Ur, B. (2014). Parents’ and teens’ perspectives on privacy in
a technology-filled world. Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), July 9–11. Menlo
Park, CA.
Elsaesser, C., Russell, B., McCauley Ohannessian, C., & Patton, D. (2017). Parenting in a digital age:
A review of parents’ role in preventing adolescent cyberbullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
35, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.06.004
*Erickson, L. B., Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., & Perkins, D. F. (2016). The
boundaries between: Parental involvement in a teen’s online world. Journal of the Association
for Information Science and Technology 67, 1384–1403. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23450
FOSI (Family Online Safety Institute). (2021). Managing the narrative: Young people’s use of online
safety tools. 2021 research report. FOSI. https://global-uploads.webflow.com/5f47b99bcd1b0e76
b7a78b88/618d32fb1c370900fcd08ab0_FOSI%20Research%20Report%202021.pdf
*Fuertes, W., Quimbiulco, K., Galárraga, F., García-Dorado, J. L. (2015a). On the development of
advanced parental control tools. 1st International Conference on Software Security and Assurance
(ICSSA), 1–6. Suwon, Korea (South). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSA.2015.011
14 M. STOILOVA ET AL.

*Gallego, F., Malamud, O., & Pop-Eleches, C. (2020). Parental monitoring and children’s internet use:
The role of information, control, and cues. Journal of Public Economics, 188, 1–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104208
Geržičáková, M., Dedkova, L., & Mýlek, V. (2023). What do parents know about children’s risky online
experiences? The role of parental mediation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 141, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107626
*Ghosh, A. K., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Guha, S., LaViola, J. J., & Wisniewski, P. J. (2018). Safety vs.
surveillance: What children have to say about mobile apps for parental control. Proceedings of
the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18), Paper 124, 1–14.
New York, USA. http://www.eecs.ucf.edu/~jjl/pubs/pn1838-ghoshA.pdf
*Ghosh, A. K., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Rosson, M. B., Xu, H., Carroll, J. M., & Wisniewski, P. J. (2018).
A matter of control or safety? Examining parental use of technical monitoring apps on teens’
mobile devices. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI ’18), Paper 194, 1–14. New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173768
*Ghosh, A. K., Hughes, C. E., & Wisniewski, P. J. (2020). Circle of trust: A new approach to mobile
online safety for gamilies. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI 20), 1–14. New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376747
*Ghosh, A. K., & Wisniewski, P. (2016). Understanding user reviews of adolescent mobile safety apps:
A thematic analysis. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM (Association for Computing Machinery)
International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP 16), 417–420. New York, USA.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2957276.2996283
*Hartikainen, H., Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2016). Should we design for control, trust or involvement?
A discourses survey about children’s online safety. Proceedings of the 15th International
Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC 16), 367–378. New York, USA. https://doi.
org/10.1145/2930674.2930680
Hartmann, M. (2005). The discourse of the perfect future: Young people and new technologies. In
R. Silverstone (Ed.), Media, technology and everyday life in Europe (pp. 141–158). Ashgate.
Hartung, P. (2020). Children’s rights-by-design: A new standard for data use by tech companies.
UNICEF. http://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/reports/childrens-rights-design-new-standard-
data-use-tech-companies
*Hashish, Y., Bunt, A., & Young, J. E. (2014). Involving children in content control: A collaborative and
education-oriented content filtering approach. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 14), 1797–1806. Toronto, ON. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.
2557128
*Hundlani, K., Chiasson, S., & Hamind, L. (2017). No passwords needed: The iterative design of
a parent–child authentication mechanism. Mobile HCI 2017, 4–7 September. https://chorus.scs.
carleton.ca/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/hundlani2017kindersurf-mobilehci.pdf
ITU (International Telecommunication Union). (2020). Guidelines for parents and educators on child
online protection 2020. International Telecommunication Union Development Sector. http://www.
itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/gen/S-GEN-COP.EDUC-2020-PDF-E.pdf
*Ko, M., Choi, S., Yang, S., Lee, J., & Lee, U. (2015). FamiLync: Facilitating participatory parental
mediation of adolescents’ smartphone use. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint
Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp 15), 867–878. New York, USA.
*Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., & Olson, B. F. (2010). To control or not to control? Parenting behaviours
and adolescent online aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1651–1656. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.013
Lievens, E., Livingstone, S., McLaughlin, S., O’Neill, B., & Verdoodt, V. (2018). Children’s rights and
digital technologies. In T. Liefaard & U. Kilkelly (Eds.), International children’s rights law (pp. 487–
513). Springer. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/84871
Livingstone, S. (2013). Online risk, harm and vulnerability: Reflections on the evidence base for child
internet safety policy. ZER: Journal of Communication Studies, 18(35), 13–28. http://eprints.lse.ac.
uk/62278
Livingstone, S., & Blum-Ross, A. (2020). Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about
technology shape children’s lives. Oxford University Press.
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA 15

Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E. J., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G. A., & Folkvord, F. (2017).
Maximising opportunities and minimising risks for children online: The role of digital skills in
emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 82–105. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jcom.12277
Livingstone, S., & Stoilova, M. (2021). The 4Cs: Classifying online risk to children. Leibniz-Institut für
Medienforschung. https://doi.org/10.21241/ssoar.71817
Lupton, D., Pink, S., & Horst, H. (2021). Living in, with and beyond the ‘smart home’. Convergence, 27
(5), 1147–1154. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211052736
*Martínez, G., Casado, M. Á., & Garitaonandia, C. (2020). Online parental mediation strategies in
family contexts of Spain. Comunicar, 28(65), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.3916/C65-2020-06
Mauk, M. (2021). Think of the parents: Parental controls in digital TV and family implications. In
D. Holloway, M. Willson, K. Murcia, C. Archer, & F. Stocco (Eds.), Young children’s rights in a digital
world: Play, design and practice (pp. 81–92). Springer International Publishing.
Mauk, M. (2022). Parenting and the algorithm: A perspective on parental controls and guilt amid
digital media. In M. Ito, R. Cross, K. Dinakar, & C. Odgers (Eds.), Algorithmic rights and protections
for children (pp. 35–42). MIT Publishing.
McGinn, M. (2022, January 26). An age-based guide to parental controls and internet safety for kids.
Verizon News Center. http://www.verizon.com/about/parenting/age-based-guide-parental-con
trols-and-internet-safety-kids
*McNally, B., Kumar, P., Hordatt, C., Mauriello, M. L., Naik, S., Norooz, L., Shorter, A., Golub, E., &
Druin, A. (2018). Co-designing mobile online safety applications with children. Proceedings of the
2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 18), 1–9. Montréal, QC, Canada.
Milosevic, T., Livingstone, S. (2018). Protecting children online? Cyberbullying policies of social media
companies. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262037099.001.0001
*Miltuze, A., Sebre, S. B., & Martinsone, B. (2020). Consistent and appropriate parental restrictions
mitigating against children’s compulsive internet use: A one-year longitudinal study. Technology,
Knowledge & Learning, 26(4), 883–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09472-4
Modecki, K. L., Goldberg, R. E., Wisniewski, P., & Orben, A. (2022). What is digital parenting?
A systematic review of past measurement and blueprint for the future. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 17(6), 1673–1691. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211072458
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., &
Group, P.-P. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Nichols, S., & Selim, N. (2022). Digitally mediated parenting: A review of the literature. Societies, 12(2),
60. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12020060
*Noll, J. G., Shenk, C. E., Barnes, J. E., & Haralson, K. J. (2013). Association of maltreatment with
high-risk internet behaviors and offline encounters. Pediatrics, 131(2), E510–E517. https://doi.org/
10.1542/peds.2012-1281
*Nouwen, M., JafariNaimi, N., & Zaman, B. (2017). Parental controls: Reimagining technologies for
parent–child interaction. Proceedings of 15th European Conference on Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work – Exploratory Papers, 2017, 18–34. European Society for Socially Embedded
Technologies (EUSSET). https://dl.eusset.eu/server/api/core/bitstreams/87965281-4650-463f-
bf51-de31eb7ea6fd/content
*Nouwen, M., Van Mechelen, M., & Zaman, B. (2015b). A value sensitive design approach to parental
software for young children. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design
and Children (IDC 15), 363–366. New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771917
*Ofcom, & Yonder. (2021). User experience of potential online harms within video sharing platforms.
Ofcom. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/216492/yonder-report-experi
ence-of-potential-harms-vsps.pdf
O’Neill, B., Dreyer, S., & Dinh, T. (2020). The Third Better Internet for Kids Policy Map: Implementing the
European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children in European Member States. https://www.
betterinternetforkids.eu/bikmap
16 M. STOILOVA ET AL.

*Pavan Kumar Attavar, S., & Rani, P. (2018). How children under 10 years access and use digital
devices at home and what parents feel about it: Insights from India. Global Media Journal: Indian
Edition, 10(1), 1–25. .
Perspective Economics and DCMS (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport). (2021). The UK
Safety Tech Sector: 2021 Analysis. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/989753/UK_Safety_Tech_Analysis_2021_-_Final_-_
190521.pdf
*Pons-Salvador, G., Zubieta-Mendez, X., & Frias-Navarro, D. (2018). Internet use by children aged six
to nine: Parents’ beliefs and knowledge about risk prevention. Child Indicators Research, 11(6),
1983–2000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-018-9529-4
*Przybylski, A., & Nash, V. (2018). Internet filtering and adolescent exposure to online sexual material.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(7), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2017.0466
*Seo, H., & Lee, C. S. (2017). Emotion matters: What happens between young children and parents in
a touchscreen world. International Journal of Communication, 11, 561–580. https://ijoc.org/index.
php/ijoc/article/viewFile/4233/1919
*Shapka, J. D., & Law, D. M. (2013). Does one size fit all? Ethnic differences in parenting behaviors and
motivations for adolescent engagement in cyberbullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5),
723–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9928-2
Silverstone, R., & Hirsch, E. (1992). Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces.
Routledge.
SIP-Bench,III. (2018). Benchmarking of parental control tools for the online protection of children – final
report. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2759/80227
Šmahel, D., Machackova, H., Mascheroni, G., Dedkova, L., Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., &
Hasebrink, U. (2020). EU Kids online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids Online.
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103294
Smirnova, S., Livingstone, S., & Stoilova, M. (2021). Understanding of user needs and problems: A rapid
evidence review of age assurance and parental controls. euConsent. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/112559
Smirnova, S., Stoilova, M., & Livingstone, S. (2021). Age assurance and parental control tools in
everyday life: A rapid evidence review methodology. London School of Economics and Political
Science. https://osf.io/mdgk8
*Soldatova, G. U., Rasskazova, E. I., & Chigarkova, S. V. (2020). Digital socialization of adolescents in
the Russian Federation: Parental mediation, online risks, and digital competence. Psychology in
Russia: State of the Art, 13(4), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2020.0413
*Sonck, N., Nikken, P., & de Haan, J. (2013). Determinants of internet mediation: A comparison of the
reports by Dutch parents and children. Journal of Children and Media, 7(1), 96–113. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17482798.2012.739806
Staksrud, E. (2016). Children in the online world: Risk, regulation, rights. Routledge.
Third, A., Collin, P., Walsh, L., & Black, R. (2019). Control shift: Young people in digital society. Palgrave
Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57369-8
*Tomczyk, L., Ryk, A., & Prokop, J. (2018). Digital piracy among adolescents – scale and conditions. In
New trends and research challenges in pedagogy and andragogy (NTRCPA18). Charles University in
Prague.
*The 40 studies included in the evidence review.
UNICEF. (2021). Child protection: Digital opportunities, challenges and innovations across the region.
UNICEF Europe and Central Asia Regional Office. www.unicef.org/eca/media/14386/file
UNICEF and ITU (International Telecommunication Union). (2020). Guidelines for Industry on Child
Online Protection 2020. http://www.unicef.org/media/90796/file/ITU-COP-guidelines%20for%
20industry-2020.pdf
UN (United Nations) Committee on the rights of the child (2021). General Comment 25 on Children’s
Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment (CRC/C/GC/25). www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/
Pages/GCChildrensRightsRelationDigitalEnvironment.aspx
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA 17

*Vaala, S. E., & Bleakley, A. (2015). Monitoring, mediating, and modeling: Parental influence on
adolescent computer and internet use in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 9(1),
40–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.997103
Vickery, J. R. (2017). Worried about the wrong things: Youth, risk, and opportunity in the digital world.
The MIT Press.
Wareham, J. (2022, January 19). 92% of top parental control apps wrongly block LGBTQ and sex-ed
sites. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2022/01/19/92-of-top-parental-con
trol-apps-wrongly-block-lgbtq-and-sex-ed-sites/?sh=67e8f1307844
*Wisniewski, P., Jia, H., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. (2015). ‘Preventative’ vs. ‘reactive’: How
parental mediation influences teens’ social media privacy behaviors. Proceedings of the 18th ACM
(Association for Computing Machinery) Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work &
Social Computing (CSCW 15), 302–316. New York, USA.
*Wisniewski, P. J., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2014). Adolescent online safety: The ‘moral’ of
the story. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work &
Social Computing (CSCW 14), 1258–1271. Baltimore, MD, USA.
18 M. STOILOVA ET AL.

Appendix: The reviewed studies

Reference Research methods Country Findings on context and outcomes

1 Al-Naim and Survey of 251 parents Saudi Arabia Context: child’s perceived vulnerability to
Hasan (2018) and severity of risk are positively
associated with parental intention to
use parental controls.
2 Alelyani et al. Content analysis of 29,272 Google USA, EU Adverse outcomes: use of parental controls
(2019) Play reviews (of 52 apps) linked to parent – child tensions.
3 Álvarez-García Survey of 3,360 11- to 18-year- Spain Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
et al. (2019) olds controls linked to reduced
cyberbullying victimisation.
4 Anderson Survey of 1,060 13- to 17-year- USA Context: parental controls are used more
(2016) olds and their parents by younger parents and for younger
teens.
5 Badillo-Urquiola Interviews with 29 parents of 3- to USA Context: parental controls used more by
et al. (2019) 17-year-olds “high-tech parents.”
6 Bate et al. Survey, interviews and log Australia Context: parental controls used at school
(2012) monitoring of 192 10- to 12- to improve safety and distraction.
year-olds and their parents Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
controls linked to reduced pornography
use.
7 Benrazavi et al. Survey of 296 16- to 22-year-olds Malaysia Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
(2015) and their parents controls linked to reduced problematic
online gaming.
8 Chandrima et al. Survey of 350 13- to 17-year-olds Bangladesh Limiting outcomes: use of parental controls
(2020) linked to reduced social media use,
gaming, shopping or watching videos.
Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
controls linked to reduced viewing of
sexual content.
9 Cino et al. Content analysis of 154 Amazon USA Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
(2020) and SearchMan reviews (1 app) controls linked to reduced conflict over
screen time or better communication
around e-safety (according to parents).
Adverse outcomes: use of parental controls
linked to reduced trust (according to
children).
Context: safety worries associated with the
use of parental controls.
10 Cranor et al. Interviews of 10 14- to 18-year- USA Adverse outcomes: use of parental controls
(2014) olds and 10 parents linked to false identification of risk.
11 Erickson et al. Interviews with 12 parents and USA Context: worries about privacy and
(2016) their 13- to 17-year-old children autonomy related to “hands-off”
parental mediation and avoidance of
parental controls.
Adverse outcomes: parental controls used
as part of intense parental monitoring
leading to low child autonomy.
12 Fuertes et al Surveys of parents, school Ecuador No change in outcomes: evaluated four
(2015a) technicians and 11- to 17-year- parental control apps and found one
olds hard to install, three hard to configure,
and three inefficient in blocking search
engines and two in blocking http
pages.
(Continued)
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA 19

(Continued).
Reference Research methods Country Findings on context and outcomes
13 Gallego et al. Randomised text intervention Chile Limiting outcomes: reduced/limited
(2020) study of 7,700 parents children’s internet use after sending
messages about parental controls to
parents.
No change in outcomes: No significant
impacts from downloading parental
control software.
14 Ghosh et al. Content analysis of 736 Google USA and EU Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
(2018) Play reviews (37 apps) controls linked to improved time
management, being present in the
moment and improved safety of
younger siblings.
Limiting outcomes: use of parental controls
linked to reduced access to school
websites, limiting social interaction and
reduced privacy and autonomy.
Adverse outcomes: use of parental controls
linked to relationship conflicts with
parents.
15 Ghosh et al. Survey of 215 13- to 17-year-olds USA Context: parental controls are used less by
(2018) and their parents authoritative parents and more by
authoritarian parents.
16 Ghosh et al. Interviews of 17 9- to 17-year-olds USA Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
(2020) and their parents controls linked to better identification
of when children need help, better trust
and communication and negotiation.
17 Ghosh and Content analysis of 29,272 Google USA Adverse outcomes: complaints about
Wisniewski Play reviews (71 apps) privacy invasiveness and not having
(2016) control (children), ineffectiveness
(parents) and difficult navigation.
Beneficial outcome: positive comments
(less complaints) about filtering
pornography and protecting the family.
18 Hartikainen Discourse analysis of 338 online Finland No change in outcomes: parental controls
et al. (2016) sources are easily bypassed by children; it is
difficult for parents to find good apps
and use them.
19 Hashish et al. Interviews of 13 6- to 8-year-olds Canada Beneficial outcomes: better parent – child
(2014) and their parents communication fostered by parental
controls designed with children’s input.
20 Hundlani et al. Prototype testing with 25 7- to 11- Canada No change in outcomes: parental controls
(2017) year-olds and their parents are easy for children to bypass.
21 Ko et al. (2015) Survey of 100 parents and a three- South Korea Beneficial outcomes: better parent – child
week user study of 18 communication fostered by parental
“teenagers” and their parents controls designed with parents’ input.
22 Law et al. (2010) Survey of 733 10- to 18-year-olds Canada No change in outcomes: no effect of using
parental controls on children engaging
in cyber aggression.
23 Martínez et al. Survey of 2,900 9- to 17-year-olds Spain No change in outcomes: no significant
(2020) effect of using parental controls on
children’s perception of family support.
Context: parental controls are used more
by parents who create more rules in
general.
24 McNally et al. Two co-design workshops with 12 USA Context: children preferred parental
(2018) 7- to 12-year-olds controls that promote parent – child
communication, teach risk-coping and
automate interactions.
(Continued)
20 M. STOILOVA ET AL.

(Continued).
Reference Research methods Country Findings on context and outcomes
25 Miltuze et al. Two-wave survey of 261 8- to 11- Latvia Adverse outcomes: use of parental controls
(2020) year-olds and their parents was a risk factor for developing
compulsive internet use one year later.
26 Noll et al. (2013) Survey, interview and observation USA No change in outcomes: no effect of using
of online profiles of 251 14- to parental controls on reduction of risk.
17-year-old girls
27 Nouwen, Van Workshops and interviews with 14 Belgium Context: parents associate using parental
Mechelen parents of children aged 4–10 controls with safety and active
and Zaman involvement in children’s online
(2015b) activities.
28 Nouwen et al Two workshops with 7 9- to 15- Belgium Context: participatory co-design with
(2017) year-olds and their parents (Northern parents and children, hoping to
Dutch- improve safety and reduce conflict.
speaking)
29 Ofcom and Survey of 1,958 internet users UK Context: 4 in 10 users recall that video-
Yonder aged 13–55+ sharing platforms have “safety
(2021) measures” (including parental controls),
although prompted recall is 54% but
with confusion (36% claim to know the
“dummy measure”).
30 Pavan Kumar Interviews with 14 parents of India Limiting outcomes: use of parental controls
Attavar and children aged under 10 restricts access to social media.
Rani (2018) Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
controls linked to reduced exposure to
age-inappropriate content (gaming,
“misleading videos or advertising”).
31 Pons-Salvador Survey of 1,827 parents of Spain Context: 48% of parents say they will start
et al. (2018) children aged 6–9 using filters if their child is cyberbullied.
32 Przybylski and Secondary analysis of a survey of EU and UK Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
Nash (2018) 13,176 11- to 16-year-olds + controls linked to reduced exposure to
survey of 1,004 11- to 16-year- sexual material in EU.
olds No change in outcomes: no relation
between using parental controls and
exposure to sexual materials in the UK.
33 Seo and Lee Interviews and observation of 10 South Korea Beneficial outcomes: using an “alarm” for
(2017) 2- to 6-year-olds and their and the time online made it easier for parents of
parents USA small children to limit their screen time
(they resisted more when only verbal
instructions were given).
34 Shapka and Law Survey of 518 12- to 18-year-olds Canada Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
(2013) controls linked to less cyber-aggression.
35 Soldatova et al. Survey of 1,533 12- to 17-year- Russia Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
(2020) olds and their parents controls linked to reduced exposure to
content about unhealthy weight loss,
physical harm, violence, hate messages
and talking to strangers, as reported by
parents; children reported fewer effects.
No change in outcomes: use of parental
controls unrelated to cyber-aggression
victimisation or perpetration.
Limiting outcomes: using parental controls
linked to lower digital skills and
internet/safety knowledge.
Context: parental controls are used more
with younger than older teenagers.
(Continued)
 JOURNAL OF CHILDREN AND MEDIA 21

(Continued).
Reference Research methods Country Findings on context and outcomes
36 Sonck et al. Survey of 1,004 9- to 16-year-olds Netherlands Context: parental controls are used in
(2013) and their parents larger families, by less educated, less
tech-savvy parents, and those worried
about risk or who think they can affect
their child’s internet use.
37 Tomczyk et al. Survey of 1,137 13- to 17-year- Poland Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
(2018) olds controls linked to less downloading of
illegal/piracy material.
38 Vaala and Survey of 629 12- to 17-year-olds USA No change in outcomes: use of parental
Bleakley and their parents controls unrelated to opportunities
(2015) (social media, video streaming,
multiplayer online games, time online,
blogging, internet use for schoolwork
or news).
39 Wisniewski et al. Survey of 558 12- to 17-year-olds USA Beneficial outcomes: use of parental
(2015) and their parents controls linked to fewer privacy risks
(e.g., personal disclosures).
No change in outcomes: use of parental
controls unrelated to the disclosure of
sensitive information, risky interactions
or privacy concerns.
Limiting outcomes: use of parental controls
linked to less social media use and
simpler online networks.
40 Wisniewski et al. Interviews of 12 13- to 17-year- USA Adverse outcomes: use of parental controls
(2014) olds and their parents linked to reduced privacy and trust.
No change in outcomes: use of parental
controls easily bypassed.