Cited by 210Child Development and Digital TechnologyImpact of Technology on AdolescentsPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

Parental Control vs. Teen Self-Regulation: Is there a middle ground for mobile online safety?

Open access
Wisniewski, Pamela, Ghosh, Arup Kumar, Xu, Heng, Rosson, Mary Beth, Carroll, John M.·2017·Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

Abstract

We conducted a structured, qualitative feature analysis of 75 Android mobile apps designed for the purpose of promoting adolescent online safety. Through this analysis we identified 42 unique features that mapped to a theoretically derived conceptual framework of teen online safety strategies balanced between parental control strategies (through monitoring, restriction, and active mediation) and teen self-regulation strategies (through self-monitoring, impulse control, and risk-coping). We found that the apps strongly favored features that promote parental control through monitoring and restricting teens' online behaviors over teen self-regulation or more communicative and collaborative practices between parents and teens. We use the lens of value sensitive design to discuss the implications of our results and identify opportunities for designing mobile apps for online safety that embed more positive family values.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2998181.2998352

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Parents are often the primary stakeholders who care the most about their teens' safety and are frequently responsible for making decisions about online risk management, monitoring, and protection.

    “Parents are often the primary stakeholders who care the most about their teens' safety and are frequently responsible for making decisions about online risk management, monitoring, and protection [7, 8, 40, 46, 90].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wisniewski, P., Ghosh, A. K., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-02-25
Pages
51-69
OpenAlex
W2588759517
Cited by
206
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
95.13
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (CNS-1018302)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
parental control, mobile application, Android application, parental supervision, parental mediation, self-monitoring, impulse control, risk coping, parent-adolescent communication, value-sensitive design, family values

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review