skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702240acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Resilience Mitigates the Negative Effects of Adolescent Internet Addiction and Online Risk Exposure

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

We cannot fully protect adolescents from experiencing online risks; however, we can aim to better understand how online risk experiences impact teens, factors that contribute to or prevent teens from exposure to risk, as well as factors that can protect teens from psychological harm in spite of online risk exposure. Through a web-based survey study of 75 adolescents in the US, we develop and empirically validate a theoretical model of adolescent resilience in the presence of online risks. We show evidence that resilience is a key factor in protecting teens from experiencing online risks, even when teens exhibit high levels of Internet addiction. Resilience also neutralizes the negative psychological effects associated with Internet addiction and online risk exposure. Therefore, we emphasize the importance of design solutions that foster teen resilience and strength building, as opposed to solutions targeted toward parents that often focus on restriction and risk prevention.

References

  1. Alvord, M. K. and Grados, J. J. Enhancing Resilience in Children: A Proactive Approach. Professional Psychology : Research and Practice, 36, 3 (Jun 2005 2005), 238--245.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Burns, R. A. and Anstey, K. J. The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Testing the invariance of a uni-dimensional resilience measure that is independent of positive and negative affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 5 (2010), 527--531.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Campbell-Sills L, S. M. B. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. J Traumatic Stress, 2007, 20 (2007), 10191028.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Chai, S., Bagchi-Sen, S., Morrell, C., Rao, H. R., & Upadhyaya, S. J. Internet and online information privacy: An exploratory study of preteens and early teens. IEEE Transactions, 52, 2 (2009), pp. 167--182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Chou, C., Condron, L. and Belland, J. C. A Review of the Research on Internet Addiction. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 4 (Dec 2005 2005), 363--388.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Coleman, J. and Hagell, A. Adolescence, Risk and Resilience: Against the Odds. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Compas, B. E. and Reeslund, K. L. Processes of Risk and Resilience During Adolescence. In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, (2009).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Connor, K. M. and Davidson, J. R. T. Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18 (2003), 71--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. D'Haenens, L., Vandonink, S. and Donoso, V. How to cope and build resilience. EU Kids Online, 2013, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48115/1/How%20to%20cope%2 0and%20build%20online%20resilience%20%28lsero% 29.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. David-Ferdon, C. and Hertz, M. F. Electronic Media, Violence, and Adolescents: An Emerging Public Health Problem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 6, Supplement (2007), S1-S5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Dawson, J. Moderation in Management Research: What, Why, When, and How. J Bus Psychol, 29, 1 (2014/03/01 2014), 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Duerager, A. and Livingstone, S. How can parents support children's internet safety?, 2012, http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnlin e/EU%20Kids%20III/Reports/ParentalMediation.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebesutani, C., Regan, J., Smith, A., Reise, S., HigaMcMillan, C. and Chorpita, B. The 10-Item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children, Child and Parent Shortened Versions: Application of Item Response Theory for More Efficient Assessment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34, 2 (2012/06/01 2012), 191--203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Facebook. Family Safety Center. 2014, https://www.facebook.com/safety.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. and Buchner, A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 2 (2007), 175--191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Fincham, D. S., Altes, L. K., Stein, D. J. and Seedat, S. Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in adolescents: risk factors versus resilience moderation. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 50, 3 (May 2009 2009), 193--199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Higgitt, A. and Target, M. The Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 1992 The Theory and Practice of Resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 2 (1994), 231--257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Gabriel, I. J. and Nyshadham, E. A Cognitive Map of People's Online Risk Perceptions and Attitudes: An Empirical Study. In Proc. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Proceedings of the 41st Annual (2008), 274--274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hayes, A. F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hébert, M., Lavoie, F. and Blais, M. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/PTSD in adolescent victims of sexual abuse: resilience and social support as protection factors. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 19 (2014), 685--694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Hippe, J. Self-Awareness: A Precursor to Resiliency. Reclaiming Children and Youth 12, 4 (2004), 240--242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 1 (2008), 53--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. IBM. Structural Equation Modeling with IBM SPSS Amos. 2014, https://www.hearne.com.au/getattachment/f36d45376943--4ac2--9ed2--645a329c39fb/White%20Paper%20%20Structural%20Equation%20Modeling%20with%20I BM%20SPSS%20Amos.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jia, H., Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B. and Carroll, J. M. Risk-taking as a Learning Process for Shaping Teen's Online Information Privacy Behaviors. In Proc. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J. and Finkelhor, D. Trends in Youth Internet Victimization: Findings From Three Youth Internet Safety Surveys 2000-2010. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 2 (2012), 179--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Leung, L. and Lee, P. S. N. The influences of information literacy, internet addiction and parenting styles on internet risks. New Media & Society, 14, 1 (2012), 117--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A. and Ólafsson, K. Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. EU Kids Online, 2011, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. J. Parental Mediation of Children's Internet Use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 4 (2008), 581--599.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., O'Neill, B. and Donoso, V. Towards a better internet for children: findings and recommendations from EU Kids Online to inform the CEO coalition., The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK., 2012,Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mesch, G. S. Parental Mediation, Online Activities, and Cyberbullying CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 4 (2009), 387--393.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D. and Wolak, J. The Exposure Of Youth To Unwanted Sexual Material On The Internet: A National Survey of Risk, Impact, and Prevention. Youth & Society, 34, 3 (March 1, 2003 2003), 330--358.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A. and Carrier, L. M. The association of parenting style and child age with parental limit setting and adolescent MySpace behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 6 (2008), 459--471.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Staksrud, E. and Livingstone, S. Children and online risk: powerless victims or resourceful participants? Information, communication and society, 12, 3 (2009), 364--387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Stevenson, F. and Zimmerman, M. A. Adolescent Resilience: A Framework for Understanding Healthy Development in the Face of Risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26 (2005), 399--419.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. van den Eijnden, R. J., Meerkerk, G. J., Vermulst, A. A., Spijkerman, R. and Engels, R. C. Online communication, compulsive Internet use, and psychosocial well-being among adolescents: a longitudinal study. Dev Psychol, 44, 3 (May 2008), 655--665.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Watson, D., Clark, L. A. and Tellegan, A. Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 6 (Jun 1988-1988), 1063.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Wisniewski, P., Jia, H., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B. and Carroll, J. M. "Preventative" vs. "Reactive:" How Parental Mediation Influences Teens' Social Media Privacy Behaviors. In Proc. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Carroll, J. M. and Rosson, M. B. Grand Challenges of Researching Adolescent Online Safety: A Family Systems Approach. In Proc. the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B. and Carroll, J. M. Adolescent Online Safety: The "Moral" of the Story. In Proc. CSCW 2014 (2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Yardi, S. and Bruckman, A. Social and technical challenges in parenting teens' social media use. In Proc. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM (2011), 32373246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Yen, J.-Y., Ko, C.-H., Yen, C.-F., Wu, H.-Y. and Yang, M.-J. The Comorbid Psychiatric Symptoms of Internet Addiction: Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Depression, Social Phobia, and Hostility. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 1 (2007), 93--98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Resilience Mitigates the Negative Effects of Adolescent Internet Addiction and Online Risk Exposure

        Recommendations

        Reviews

        Agnieszka Szymanska

        If one had to define the main objective of the research undertaken by the authors, it is the search for protective factors that neutralize "the negative psychological effects associated with Internet addiction and online risk exposure." The aim of the research was to "develop and empirically validate a theoretical model of adolescent resilience in the presence of online risks." The authors conducted a study on a sample of 75 adolescents, who completed a web-based survey. Using path and mediation analyses, the authors confirmed the negative impact of Internet addiction on negative affect. They also proved that "risk exposure ... mediates the relationship between Internet addiction and negative affect." Most importantly, they found that resilience is a protective factor that neutralizes or reduces "the negative effects of Internet addiction and online risk exposure." The research undertaken by the authors is interesting both from theoretical (model construction) and methodological (model validation) points of view. Every year a growing number of studies reveal that young people are addicted to the Internet. As in the case of any addiction, the search for protective factors becomes crucial. Thus, the authors' discovery that resilience-"the ability to overcome negative effects associated with risk exposure, helping an individual cope with traumatic experiences"-is a protective factor that is very important. The research has not only scientific but also practical implications. Online Computing Reviews Service

        Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

        Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2015
          4290 pages
          ISBN:9781450331456
          DOI:10.1145/2702123

          Copyright © 2015 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 18 April 2015

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate486of2,120submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader