“It's like educating us older people...”: Unveiling Needs and Expectations Regarding Educational Features within Parental Control Tools
Article No.: 387, Pages 1 - 8
Abstract
As children are getting access to devices at an increasingly younger age, parents need to grapple with new ways to protect them from online risks. This indicates the need for support from parental control tools to enhance their self-efficacy, which we refer to as educational features. This is little addressed in the existing literature on parental mediation. As we begin to address this gap, we created a low-fidelity prototype with designs of Google’s existing parental control as our baseline design. We used the baseline design in semi-structured interviews with 12 parents whose children (aged below 14) are active Internet users, to understand design changes, aligning with their expectations. Our study presents the prototype updated based on the needs and expectations of parents regarding educational features in different contexts and offers guidelines for future research in these directions.
Supplemental Material
MP4 File
Talk Video
- Download
- 4.85 MB
- Transcript
References
[1]
Mamtaj Akter, Leena Alghamdi, Jess Kropczynski, Heather Richter Lipford, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2023. It Takes a Village: A Case for Including Extended Family Members in the Joint Oversight of Family-based Privacy and Security for Mobile Smartphones. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7.
[2]
Mamtaj Akter, Madiha Tabassum, Nazmus Sakib Miazi, Leena Alghamdi, Jess Kropczynski, Pamela J Wisniewski, and Heather Lipford. 2023. Evaluating the impact of community oversight for managing mobile privacy and security. In Nineteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2023). 437–456.
[3]
Monica Anderson. 2016. Parents, Teens and Digital Monitoring. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/01/07/parents-teens-and-digital-monitoring/
[4]
Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Chhaya Chouhan, Stevie Chancellor, Munmun De Choudhary, and Pamela Wisniewski. 2020. Beyond parental control: designing adolescent online safety apps using value sensitive design. Journal of adolescent research 35, 1 (2020), 147–175.
[5]
Lindsay Blackwell, Emma Gardiner, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2016. Managing expectations: Technology tensions among parents and teens. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 1390–1401.
[6]
Richard E Boyatzis. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. sage.
[7]
Antoine C Braet. 1992. Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A re-examination. Argumentation 6 (1992), 307–320.
[8]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?Qualitative research in psychology 18, 3 (2021), 328–352.
[9]
Ali Cheshmehzangi, Tong Zou, Zhaohui Su, and Tian Tang. 2023. The growing digital divide in education among primary and secondary children during the COVID-19 pandemic: An overview of social exclusion and education equality issues. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 33, 3 (2023), 434–449.
[10]
Chhaya Chouhan, Christy M LaPerriere, Zaina Aljallad, Jess Kropczynski, Heather Lipford, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2019. Co-designing for community oversight: Helping people make privacy and security decisions together. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–31.
[11]
Kevin M Collier, Sarah M Coyne, Eric E Rasmussen, Alan J Hawkins, Laura M Padilla-Walker, Sage E Erickson, and Madison K Memmott-Elison. 2016. Does parental mediation of media influence child outcomes? A meta-analysis on media time, aggression, substance use, and sexual behavior.Developmental psychology 52, 5 (2016), 798.
[12]
Lorrie Faith Cranor, Adam L Durity, Abigail Marsh, and Blase Ur. 2014. { Parents’} and { Teens’} Perspectives on Privacy In a { Technology-Filled} World. In 10th Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2014). 19–35.
[13]
Morné de Bruyn and Tendani Thabela-Chimboza. 2023. Factors Influencing the Use of Parental Control Software (PCS) Used by Parents in South Africa. In Annual Conference of South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists. Springer, 117–135.
[14]
Prakriti Dumaru and Mahdi Nasrullah Al-Ameen. 2023. “After she fell asleep, it went to my next podcast, which was about a serial killer”: Unveiling Needs and Expectations Regarding Parental Control within Digital Assistant. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 17–21.
[15]
Prakriti Dumaru, Ankit Shrestha, Rizu Paudel, Arezou Behfar, Hanieh Atashpanjeh, and Mahdi Nasrullah Al-Ameen. 2023. “I Have Learned that Things are Different here”: Understanding the Transitional Challenges with Technology Use After Relocating to the USA. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 201–220.
[16]
Prakriti Dumaru, Ankit Shrestha, Rizu Paudel, Cassity Haverkamp, Maryellen Brunson McClain, and Mahdi Nasrullah Al-Ameen. 2023. “… I have my dad, sister, brother, and mom’s password”: unveiling users’ mental models of security and privacy-preserving tools. Information & Computer Security (2023).
[17]
Anirudh Ekambaranathan, Jun Zhao, and Max Van Kleek. 2021. “Money makes the world go around”: Identifying Barriers to Better Privacy in Children’s Apps From Developers’ Perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15.
[18]
Arup Kumar Ghosh, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Shion Guha, Joseph J LaViola Jr, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2018. Safety vs. surveillance: what children have to say about mobile apps for parental control. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
[19]
Arup Kumar Ghosh, Charles E Hughes, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2020. Circle of Trust: A New Approach to Mobile Online Safety for Families. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
[20]
Alexis Hiniker, Sarita Y Schoenebeck, and Julie A Kientz. 2016. Not at the dinner table: Parents’ and children’s perspectives on family technology rules. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing. 1376–1389.
[21]
Saba Kawas, Nicole S Kuhn, Kyle Sorstokke, Emily Bascom, Alexis Hiniker, and Katie Davis. 2021. When Screen Time Isn’t Screen Time: Tensions and Needs Between Tweens and Their Parents During Nature-Based Exploration. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
[22]
Minsam Ko, Seungwoo Choi, Subin Yang, Joonwon Lee, and Uichin Lee. 2015. FamiLync: facilitating participatory parental mediation of adolescents’ smartphone use. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 867–878.
[23]
Priya Kumar, Shalmali Milind Naik, Utkarsha Ramesh Devkar, Marshini Chetty, Tamara L Clegg, and Jessica Vitak. 2017. ’No Telling Passcodes Out Because They’re Private’ Understanding Children’s Mental Models of Privacy and Security Online. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1–21.
[24]
Lingokids. 2022. Growing Up With Technology: Parenting Generation Alpha. https://lingokids.com/blog/posts/what-is-generation-alpha/
[25]
Sonia Livingstone, Giovanna Mascheroni, and Elisabeth Staksrud. 2015. Developing a framework for researching children’s online risks and opportunities in Europe. (2015).
[26]
Deborah Lupton and Ben Williamson. 2017. The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New media & society 19, 5 (2017), 780–794.
[27]
Célia Matte-Gagné, Brenda Harvey, Dale M Stack, and Lisa A Serbin. 2015. Contextual specificity in the relationship between maternal autonomy support and children’s socio-emotional development: A longitudinal study from preschool to preadolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 44, 8 (2015), 1528–1541.
[28]
Brenna McNally, Priya Kumar, Chelsea Hordatt, Matthew Louis Mauriello, Shalmali Naik, Leyla Norooz, Alazandra Shorter, Evan Golub, and Allison Druin. 2018. Co-designing mobile online safety applications with children. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9.
[29]
Miriam Metzger, Andrew Flanagin, and Elmie Nekmat. 2015. Comparative optimism in online credibility evaluation among parents and children. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 59, 3 (2015), 509–529.
[30]
Rizu Paudel, Prakriti Dumaru, Ankit Shrestha, Huzeyfe Kocabas, and Mahdi Nasrullah Al-Ameen. 2023. A Deep Dive into User’s Preferences and Behavior around Mobile Phone Sharing. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–22.
[31]
Rizu Paudel, Ankit Shrestha, Prakriti Dumaru, and Mahdi Nasrullah Al-Ameen. 2023. " It doesn’t just feel like something a lawyer slapped together." Mental-Model-Based Privacy Policy for Third-Party Applications on Facebook. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 298–306.
[32]
Victoria Rideout and Michael Robb. 2020. The Common Sense Census: Media Use By Kids Age Zero to Eight. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/
[33]
Ankit Shrestha, Rizu Paudel, Prakriti Dumaru, and Mahdi Nasrullah Al-Ameen. 2023. Towards Improving the Efficacy of Windows Security Notifier for Apps from Unknown Publishers: The Role of Rhetoric. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 101–121.
[34]
Ankit Shrestha, Tanusree Sharma, Pratyasha Saha, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, and Mahdi Nasrullah Al-Ameen. 2023. A first look into software security practices in bangladesh. ACM Journal on Computing and Sustainable Societies 1, 1 (2023), 1–24.
[35]
Kristin Stewart, Glen Brodowsky, and Donald Sciglimpaglia. 2022. Parental supervision and control of adolescents’ problematic internet use: understanding and predicting adoption of parental control software. Young Consumers 23, 2 (2022), 213–232.
[36]
Ge Wang, Jun Zhao, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2021. Protection or punishment? relating the design space of parental control apps and perceptions about them to support parenting for online safety. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–26.
[37]
Pamela Wisniewski, Arup Kumar Ghosh, Heng Xu, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M Carroll. 2017. Parental control vs. teen self-regulation: Is there a middle ground for mobile online safety?. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 51–69.
[38]
Jun Zhao, Ge Wang, Carys Dally, Petr Slovak, Julian Edbrooke-Childs, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2019. I make up a silly name’ Understanding Children’s Perception of Privacy Risks Online. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
Index Terms
- “It's like educating us older people...”: Unveiling Needs and Expectations Regarding Educational Features within Parental Control Tools
Recommendations
“I feel like he’s looking in the computer world to be social, but I can’t trust his judgement”: Reimagining Parental Control for Children with ASD
CHI '24: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsChildren with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) often seek comfort from devices (e.g., smartphones) to deal with social overstimulation. However, such reliance exposes them to inappropriate digital content and increases susceptibility to mimicry and social ...
"It's hard for him to make choices sometimes and he needs guidance": Re-orienting Parental Control for Children
CSCWWith access to devices and online platforms at an increasingly younger age, it is essential to protect children from potential online risks. In our studies, we particularly focused the parents who have a child under 13 years of age. To this end, deriving ...
Parental Control vs. Teen Self-Regulation: Is there a middle ground for mobile online safety?
CSCW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social ComputingWe 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 ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2024
4761 pages
ISBN:9798400703317
DOI:10.1145/3613905
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Work in progress
- Research
- Refereed limited
Data Availability
Conference
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 137Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)137
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)28
Reflects downloads up to 23 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderFull Text
View this article in Full Text.
Full TextHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format