At present, very little is known about what might encourage children and teens to limit access to their private information online and to restrict what they share on social media and video sites. Federal and state agencies face challenges encouraging companies to help children, teens, and parents protect their information online. The authors extend previous cognitive defense research by examining (1) effects beyond advertising as applied to information privacy online; (2) not only children’s/teens’ beliefs and knowledge, but also their online privacy decisions; (3) multiple age categories; (4) multiple cognitive defense strategies (educational video, quiz with feedback, or absence of a strategy); and (5) children’s/teens’ motivation to restrict what they share online. Key results indicate significant effects of the quiz and educational video over the absence of a strategy in enhancing favorable online safety beliefs and in restricting online sharing. Findings also demonstrate the role of perceived parental influence and for agencies to offer privacy education campaigns to help empower children to protect their privacy. Implications for policy and privacy research are discussed.
AndrewsJ. Craig (1987), “Motivation, Ability, and Opportunity to Process Information: Conceptual and Experimental Manipulation Issues,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, HoustonM. J., ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 219–25.
4.
AndrewsJ. CraigNetemeyerRichard G. (2015), “The Role of Social Marketing in Preventing and Reducing Substance Abuse,” in Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing, Vol. 3, Chap. 6, StewartDavid, ed. New York: Praeger, 155–94.
5.
AndrewsJ. CraigShimpTerence A. (1990), “Effects of Involvement, Argument Strength, and Source Characteristics on Central and Peripheral Processing of Advertising,” Psychology & Marketing, 7 (3), 195–214.
6.
AndrewsJ. CraigShimpTerence A. (2018), Advertising, Promotion and Other Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications, 10th ed. Boston: Cengage.
7.
BatraRajeevRayMichael L. (1986), “Situational Effects of Advertising Repetition: The Moderating Influence of Motivation, Ability, and Opportunity to Respond,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (4), 432–45.
8.
BrehmSharon S.BrehmJack Williams (1981), Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. New York: Academic Press.
9.
BrucksMerrieArmstrongGary M.GoldbergMarvin E. (1988), “Children’s Use of Cognitive Defenses Against Television Advertising: A Cognitive Response Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (4), 471–82.
10.
Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) (1997), Self-Regulatory Guides for Children’s Advertising. New York: Council of Better Business Bureaus, 1–11.
FriestadMarianWrightPeter (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1–31.
20.
Gregan-PaxtonJenniferJohnDeborah Roedder (1997), “The Emergence of Adaptive Decision Making in Children,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1), 43–56.
21.
HobbsRenee (2011), Digital and Media Literacy: Connecting Culture and Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
22.
HoyMariea GrubbsCraig AndrewsJ. (2004), “Adherence of Prime-Time Television Advertising Disclosures to the ‘Clear and Conspicuous Standard’: 1990 Versus 2002,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 23 (2), 170–82.
JohnDeborah Roedder (1999), “Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look at Twenty-Five Years of Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 183–213.
26.
KelmanHerbert C. (1961), “Processes of Opinion Change,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (1), 57–78.
27.
MaccobyEleanorHagenJohn W. (1965), “Effects of Distraction upon Central Versus Incidental Recall: Developmental Trends,” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2 (3), 280–89.
28.
MacInnisDeborah J.MoormanChristineJaworskiBernard J. (1991), “Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Ability, and Opportunity to Process Brand Information from Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing55 (4), 32–53.
PaivioAllan (1969), “Mental Imagery in Associative Learning and Memory,” Psychological Review, 76 (3), 241–63.
33.
PechmannCorneliaKnightSusan J. (2002), “An Experimental Investigation of the Joint Effects of Advertising and Peers on Adolescents’ Beliefs and Intentions About Cigarette Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 5–19.
34.
PechmannCorneliaLevineLindaLoughlinSandraLeslieFrances (2005), “Impulsive and Self-Conscious: Adolescents’ Vulnerability to Advertising and Promotion,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24 (2), 202–21.
35.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T. (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
PollayRichard W.SiddarthS.SiegelMichaelHaddixAnneMerrittRobert K.GiovinoGary A., et al. (1996), “The Last Straw? Cigarette Advertising and Realized Market Shares Among Youth and Adults, 1979–1993,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (2), 1–16.
39.
RoedderDeborah L. (1981), “Age Differences in Children’s Responses to Television Advertising: An Information Processing Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (2), 144–53.
40.
RossiterJohn R.RobertsonThomas S. (1974), “Children’s TV Commercials: Testing the Defenses,” Journal of Communication, 24 (4), 137–44.
41.
RozendaalEstherBuijzenMoniekValkenburgPatti (2009), “Do Children’s Cognitive Advertising Defenses Reduce Their Desire for Advertised Products?” Communications, 34 (3), 287–303.
42.
SchwarzNorbert (2004), “Meta-Cognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (4), 332–48.
SteinbergLaurence D. (2020), Adolescence (12th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
46.
SteinbergLaurence D.ScottElizabeth S. (2003), “Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Development Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty,” American Psychologist, 58 (12), 1009–18.
47.
TrepteSabineTeutschDorisMasurPhilipp K.EicherCarolinFischerMonaHennhoferAlisa, et al. (2015), “Do People Know About Privacy and Data Protection Strategies? Towards the ‘Online Privacy Literacy Scale’ (OPLIS),” in Reforming European Data Protection Law, Chap. 14, GutwirthSergeLeenesRonaldHertPau de, eds. Law, Governance, and Technology Series 20, DOI:10.1007/978-94-017-9385-8__14.
48.
U.S. and the Attorney General of the State of New York v. Google LLC and YouTube, LLC (2019), Case No. 1:19-cv-02642, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, September 4, 1–31.
49.
U.S. v. MUSICAL.LY and MUSICAL.LY, INC. (2019), Case No. 2:19-cv-1439, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, February 27, 1–25.
50.
Van der KleijFabienne M.FeskensRemco C. W.EggenTheo J. H. M. (2015), “Effects of Feedback in a Computer-Based Learning Environment on Students’ Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis,” Review of Educational Research, 85 (4), 475–511.
51.
WalkerKristen L. (2016), “Surrendering Information Through the Looking Glass: Transparency, Trust, and Protection,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35 (1), 144–58.
52.
WalkerKristen L.KieslerTinaMaloneSummer (2016), “Youth-Driven Information Privacy Education Campaign 2015–16,” Digital Trust Foundation, Grant Report (accessed October 25, 2019),http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/178689.
WhiteClaire M.GummerumMichaelaHanochYaniv (2015), “Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Online Risk Taking: The Role of Gist and Verbatim Representations,” Risk Analysis35 (8), 1407–22.
