Cited by 72Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionChild Development and Digital TechnologyImpact of Technology on Adolescents

From Parental Control to Joint Family Oversight: Can Parents and Teens Manage Mobile Online Safety and Privacy as Equals?

Open access
Akter, Mamtaj, Godfrey, Amy J., Kropczynski, Jess, Lipford, Heather R., Wisniewski, Pamela J.·2022·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract

Our research aims to highlight and alleviate the complex tensions around online safety, privacy, and smartphone usage in families so that parents and teens can work together to better manage mobile privacy and security-related risks. We developed a mobile application ("app") for Community Oversight of Privacy and Security ("CO-oPS") and had parents and teens assess whether it would be applicable for use with their families. CO-oPS is an Android app that allows a group of users to co-monitor the apps installed on one another's devices and the privacy permissions granted to those apps. We conducted a study with 19 parent-teen (ages 13-17) pairs to understand how they currently managed mobile safety and app privacy within their family and then had them install, use, and evaluate the CO-oPS app. We found that both parents and teens gave little consideration to online safety and privacy before installing new apps or granting privacy permissions. When using CO-oPS, participants liked how the app increased transparency into one another's devices in a way that facilitated communication, but were less inclined to use features for in-app messaging or to hide apps from one another. Key themes related to power imbalances between parents and teens surfaced that made co-management challenging. Parents were more open to collaborative oversight than teens, who felt that it was not their place to monitor their parents, even though both often believed parents lacked the technological expertise to monitor themselves. Our study sheds light on why collaborative practices for managing online safety and privacy within families may be beneficial but also quite difficult to implement in practice. We provide recommendations for overcoming these challenges based on the insights gained from our study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3512904

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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].”

    From From Vulnerable to Resilient: Examining Parent and Teen Perceptions on How to Respond to Unwanted Cybergrooming Advances (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 2.2 (p. 4) says adolescent online-safety approaches rely heavily on parents to protect teens. The study also reports parents checking teens’ phones as a parental responsibility (section 5.1, p. 9), supporting their role in monitoring and protection. The copy does not establish the comparative claim that parents care *the most* about teens’ safety. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Monitoring-based systems can raise significant privacy concerns, as they grant parents extensive access to teens' online activities.

    “However, such monitoring-based systems can raise significant privacy concerns, as they grant parents extensive access to teens' online activities [8, 20].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akter, M., Godfrey, A. J., Kropczynski, J., Lipford, H. R., & Wisniewski, P. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
  • University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2022-03-30
Volume
6
Issue
CSCW1
Pages
1-28
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4224246387
Cited by
71
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6
FWCI
17.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (CNS-1844881 CNS-1814068 CNS-1814110 and CNS-1814439)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
parental control, parent-adolescent relationships, smartphone privacy, co-monitoring, mobile security, power imbalance, co-ops

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