This article presents a study that applies integrated and multi-factor path analysis to report the direct and indirect effects of young Brazilian individual and home factors on their online opportunities and risks. The results show that engaging in more online opportunities, being older and having a lower level of parental mediation are associated with a higher number of online risks. At the same time, being older, having Internet access at home, having parents with a higher educational level, possessing more digital skills and receiving a higher level of co-use and active parental mediation are positively associated with online opportunities. Although restrictive parental mediation is negatively associated with online risks, it also reduces opportunities. In addition, co-use and active mediation are positively associated with parental educational level. These findings offer a starting point to understand children’s online behaviour and digital inclusion in Latin America and analyse its differences with other regions.
AboujaoudeESavageMWStarcevicVet al. (2015) Cyberbullying: review of an old problem gone viral. Journal of Adolescent Health57: 10–18.
2.
AesaertKVan BraakJ (2015) Gender and socioeconomic related differences in performance based ICT competences. Computers & Education84: 8–25.
3.
BarbosaAO’NeillBPonteCet al. (2013) Risks and Safety on the Internet: Comparing Brazilian and European Children. London: LSE-EU Kids Online.
4.
BollenKA (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
5.
BourdieuP (1986) The forms of capital. In: RichardsonJ (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.
6.
BrofenbrennerU (2005) Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
CabelloPClaroMCabello-HuttT (2016) Parental mediation in the use of ICT as perceived by Brazilian children: reflections on the 2014 TIC Kids Online Brazil survey. In: CETIC.br. Survey on Internet use by children in Brazil – TIC Kids Online Brazil 2015. São Paulo: CGI. br. Available at: http://cetic.br/media/docs/publicacoes/2/TIC_Kids_2015_LIVRO_ELETRONICO.pdf
8.
Cetic.br (2014) ICT Kids Online Brazil 2013: Survey on Internet Use by Children in Brazil. São Paulo: Brazilian Internet Steering Committee.
9.
CGI.br (2014) Survey on the Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Brazil – ICT Households and Enterprises 2013. São Paulo: CGI.br.
10.
ChoJDe ZunigaHGRojasHet al. (2003) Beyond access: the digital divide and Internet uses and gratifications. It & Society1: 46–72.
11.
CorreaT (2015) Digital skills and social media use: how Internet skills are related to different types of Facebook use among ‘digital natives’. Information Communication and Society19: 1095–1107.
12.
De HaanJ (2004) A multifaceted dynamic model of the digital divide. It & Society1: 66–88.
13.
DüragerALivingstoneS (2012) How can parents support children’s Internet safety?London: LSE-EU Kids Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/42872/
EastinMSLaRoseR (2000) Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication6. Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/eastin.html (accessed September 2015).
16.
ErstadO (2012) The learning lives of digital youth–beyond the formal and informal. Oxford Review of Education38: 25–43.
17.
FacerKFurlongJFurlongRet al. (2003) Screenplay: Children and Computing in the Home. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
18.
FlemingMJGreentreeSCocotti-MullerDet al. (2006) Safety in cyberspace: adolescents’ safety and exposure online. Youth & Society38: 135–154.
19.
FrowJEmmisonM (1998) Information technology as cultural capital. Australian Universities’ Review41: 41–45.
20.
FurlongJDaviesC (2012) Young people, new technologies and learning at home: taking context seriously. Oxford Review of Education38: 45–62.
21.
HargittaiE (2010) Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the ‘Net generation’. Sociological Inquiry80: 92–113.
22.
HargittaiEHinnantA (2008) Digital inequality differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research35: 602–621.
23.
HasebrinkULivingstoneSHaddonLet al. (2009) Comparing Children’s Online Opportunities and Risks across Europe: Cross-national Comparisons for EU Kids Online. London: LSE-EU Kids Online.
24.
HelsperEKalmusVHasebrinkUet al. (2013) Country Classification: Opportunities, Risks, Harm and Parental Mediation. London: LSE-EU Kids Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52023/
25.
HinostrozaJEMatamalaCLabbéCet al. (2014) Factors (not) affecting what students do with computers and Internet at home. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1): 43–63. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2014.883407.
26.
HollingworthSMansarayAAllenKet al. (2011) Parents’ perspectives on technology and children’s learning in the home: social class and the role of the habitus. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning27: 347–360.
ItoMHorstHBittantiMet al. (2008) Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project. Cambridge: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
29.
JohnsonGM (2010) Young children’s internet use at home and school: patterns and profiles. Journal of Early Childhood Research8(3): 282–293.
30.
KirwilL (2009) Parental mediation of children’s Internet use in different European countries. Journal of Children and Media3: 394–409.
31.
KowalskiRMGiumettiGWSchroederANet al. (2014) Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin140: 1073–1137.
32.
LeeSJ (2012) Parental restrictive mediation of children’s Internet use: effective for what and for whom?New Media & Society15(4): 466–481.
33.
LeeSJChaeY-G (2007) Children’s Internet use in a family context: influence on family relationships and parental mediation. Cyberpsychology & Behavior10: 640–644.
34.
LivingstoneSBulgerM (2013) A Global Agenda for Children’s Rights in the Digital Age. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.
35.
LivingstoneSHelsperE (2007) Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society9: 671–696.
36.
LivingstoneSHelsperE (2008) Parental mediation of children’s Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media52: 581–599.
37.
LivingstoneSHelsperE (2010) Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: the role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society12: 309–329.
38.
LivingstoneSHaddonLGörzigAet al. (2011) Risks and Safety on the Internet: The Perspective of European Children: Full Findings and Policy Implications from the EU Kids Online Survey of 9–16 Year Olds and Their Parents in 25 Countries. London, UK: LSE-EU Kids Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/
39.
LivingstoneSMascheroniGStaksrudE (2015a) Developing a Framework for Researching Children’s Online Risks and Opportunities in Europe. London: LSE-EU Kids Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64470/
40.
LivingstoneSMascheroniGDreierMet al. (2015b) How Parents of Young Children Manage Digital Devices at Home: The Role of Income, Education and Parental Style. London: LSE-EU Kids Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64470/
41.
MitchellKJFinkelhorDWolakJ (2003) The exposure of youth to unwanted sexual material on the Internet. Youth & Society34: 330–358.
42.
NathansonAI (1999) Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental mediation and children’s aggression. Communication Research26: 124–143.
43.
NikkenPJanszJ (2014) Developing scales to measure parental mediation of young children’s internet use. Learning, Media and Technology39: 250–266.
44.
NunesDeAlmeidaANuno de AlmeidaADelicadoAet al. (2012) Children and digital diversity: from ‘unguided rookies’ to ‘self-reliant cybernauts’. Childhood19: 219–234.
45.
OberskiD (2014) lavaan.survey: an R package for complex survey analysis of structural equation models. Journal of Statistical Software57: 1–27.
46.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011) PISA 2009 results: students on line. Digital Technologies and Performance (Volume VI). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264112995-en
47.
Paus-HasebrinkIPonteCDüragerAet al. (2012) Understanding digital inequality: the interplay between parental socialisation and children’s development. In: LivingstoneSMHaddonLGörzigA (eds) Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research and Policy Challenges in Comparative Perspective. Bristol; Chicago, IL: Policy Press, pp. 257–271.
48.
Paus-HasebrinkISinnerPProchazkaF (2014) Children’s Online Experiences in Socially Disadvantaged Families: European Evidence and Policy Recommendations. London: LSE-EU Kids Online.
49.
R Core Team (2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
50.
RobinsonJPDiMaggioPHargittaiE (2003) New social survey perspectives on the digital divide. It & Society1: 1–22.
51.
RosselY (2012) lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software48: 1–36.
52.
SassonHMeschG (2014) Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online behavior among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior33: 32–38.
53.
SmahelDBlinkaL (2012) Excessive internet use among European children. In: LivingstoneSMHaddonLGorzigA (eds) Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research and Policy Challenges in Comparative Perspective. Bristol; Chicago, IL: Policy Press, pp. 191–201.
54.
SmahelDWrightMF (2014) Meaning of Online Problematic Situations for Children. Results of Qualitative Cross-Cultural Investigation in Nine European Countries. London: LSE-EU Kids Online.
55.
SonckNNikkenPde HaanJ (2013) Determinants of Internet mediation: a comparison of the reports by Dutch parents and children. Journal of Children and Media7: 96–113.
56.
SozioMEPonteCVitorinoIet al. (2015) Children and Internet Use: A Comparative Analysis of Brazil and Seven European Countries. London: LSE-EU Kids Online.
57.
ToyamaK (2011) Technology as an amplifier in international development. In: Proceedings of the 2011 i-conference, Seattle, WA, 8–11 February, pp. 75–82. New York: ACM.
58.
ValckeMBonteSDe WeverBet al. (2010) Internet parenting styles and the impact on Internet use of primary school children. Computers & Education55: 454–464.
59.
ValckeMSchellensTVan KeerHet al. (2007) Primary school children’s safe and unsafe use of the Internet at home and at school: an exploratory study. Computers in Human Behavior23: 2838–2850.
60.
ValkenburgPMKrcmarMPeetersALet al. (1999) Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: ‘instructive mediation’, ‘restrictive mediation’, and ‘social coviewing’. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media43: 52–66.
61.
ValkenburgPMPiotrowskiJHermannsJet al. (2013) Developing and validating the perceived parental media mediation scale: a self-determination perspective. Human Communication Research39: 445–469.
62.
Van DeursenAJAMVan DijkJAGM (2010) Measuring internet skills. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction26: 891–916.
63.
Van DeursenAJAMVan DijkJAGM (2015) Toward a multifaceted model of Internet access for understanding digital divides: an empirical investigation. Information Society31: 379–391.
64.
Van DeursenAJAMHelsperEJEynonR (2015) Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Information, Communication & Society19: 804–823.
65.
Van DijkJVan DeursenA (2014) Digital Skills: Unlocking the Information Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
66.
VandoninckSd Haenens’LRoeK (2013) Online risks. Journal of Children and Media7: 60–78.
67.
VekiriI (2010) Socioeconomic differences in elementary students’ ICT beliefs and out-of-school experiences. Computers & Education54: 941–950.
68.
WhittleHHamilton-GiachritsisCBeechAet al. (2012) A review of online grooming: characteristics and concerns. Aggression and Violent Behavior18: 62–70
