Adolescents commonly make new social connections online that sometimes result in face-to-face meetings. Despite potential benefits, risk-focused discourse dominates public debates and shapes information shared by sources important for adolescents—news media, preventive programs, peers, parents, and teachers. Our study examines how information about face-to-face meetings from these sources relates to adolescents’ risk perception and engagement in such meetings. Using a sample of 707 Czech adolescents (aged 11–16 years, 46% male), we analyzed these effects for male and female adolescents to reflect the gendered nature of the risk-focused discourse. Male adolescents’ risk perception was not affected by information from any source. Female adolescents’ risk perception was negatively affected by information peers with prior experience with face-to-face meetings but not by other information sources. Female adolescents also perceived face-to-face meetings as riskier in general. We discuss gender differences and the limited impact of information sources on risk perception and provide practical recommendations.
BarajasKSmithS (2017) Child abuse and neglect. In: Zeigler-HillVShackelfordT (eds) Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_885-1.
3.
BaumgartnerSEValkenburgPMPeterJ (2010) Assessing causality in the relationship between adolescents’ risky sexual online behavior and their perceptions of this behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence39(10): 1226–1239.
4.
BorcaGBinaMKellerPS, et al. (2015) Internet use and developmental tasks: adolescents’ point of view. Computers in Human Behavior52: 49–58.
5.
boydd (2014) It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. London: Yale University Press.
6.
boyddHargittaiE (2013) Connected and concerned: variation in parents' online safety concerns. Policy & Internet5(3): 245–269.
7.
boyddMarwickAAftabP, et al. (2009) The conundrum of visibility. Journal of Children and Media3(4): 410–419.
8.
BoyerTWByrnesJP (2009) Adolescent risk-taking: integrating personal, cognitive, and social aspects of judgment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology30(1): 23–33.
9.
CernikovaMSmahelDWrightMF (2018) Children’s experiences and awareness about impact of digital media on health. Health Communication33(6): 664–673.
10.
ChmielewskiJFTolmanDLKincaidH (2017) Constructing risk and responsibility: a gender, race, and class analysis of news representations of adolescent sexuality. Feminist Media Studies17(3): 412–425.
11.
ChouCPengH (2007) Net-friends: adolescents’ attitudes and experiences vs. teachers’ concerns. Computers in Human Behavior23(5): 2394–2413.
12.
CohenS (2002) Folk devils and moral panics: the creation of the mods and rockers. New York: Routledge.
13.
DedkovaL (2015) Stranger is not always danger: the myth and reality of meetings with online strangers. In: LorentzPŠmahelDMetykováM, et al (eds) Living in the Digital Age. Brno: Masaryk University, pp. 78–94.
14.
DedkovaLCernaAJanasovaK, et al. (2014) Meeting online strangers offline: the nature of upsetting experiences of adolescent girls. Communications39(3): 327–346.
15.
DraperNRA (2012) Is Your Teen at Risk? Discourses of adolescent sexting in United States television news. Journal of Children and Media6(2): 221–236.
16.
DrotnerK (1999) Dangerous media? Panic discourses and dilemmas of modernity. Paedagogica Historica35(3): 593–619.
17.
EastinMSGreenbergBSHofschireL (2006) Parenting the internet. Journal of Communication56(3): 486–504.
HaddonLStaldG (2009) A comparative analysis of European press coverage of children and the internet. Journal of Children and Media3(4): 379–393.
20.
HarrisMBMillerKC (2000) Gender and perceptions of danger. Sex Roles43(11): 843–863.
21.
HeirmanWWalraveMVermeulenA, et al. (2016) Applying the theory of planned behavior to adolescents’ acceptance of online friendship requests sent by strangers. Telematics and Informatics33(4): 1119–1129.
22.
HolmesJ (2009) Myths and missed opportunities: young people’s not so risky use of online communication. Information, Communication & Society12(8): 1174–1196.
23.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
24.
JewkesYWykesM (2012) Reconstructing the sexual abuse of children: “cyber-paeds,” panic and power. Sexualities15(8): 934–952.
25.
JonesLMMitchellKJWalshWA (2014) A content analysis of youth internet safety programs: are effective prevention strategies being used?Durham, NC: Crimes against Children Research Center.
26.
KaraianL (2014) Policing ‘sexting’: responsibilization, respectability and sexual subjectivity in child protection/crime prevention responses to teenagers’ digital sexual expression. Theoretical Criminology18(3): 282–299.
27.
KlusákVChalupováB (2020) Caught in the Net [Film]. Prague: Czech Television.
28.
KnollLJLeungJTFoulkesL, et al. (2017) Age-related differences in social influence on risk perception depend on the direction of influence. Journal of Adolescence60: 53–63.
29.
KnollLJMagis-WeinbergLSpeekenbrinkM, et al. (2015) Social influence on risk perception during adolescence. Psychological Science26(5): 583–592.
30.
KorkmazerBVan BauwelSDe RidderS (2019) “Who does not dare, is a Pussy.” A textual analysis of media panics, youth, and sexting in print media. Observatorio13(1): 53–69.
31.
LivingstoneSHelsperEJ (2007) Taking risks when communicating on the Internet: the role of offline social-psychological factors in young people’s vulnerability to online risks. Information, Communication & Society10(5): 619–644.
32.
LivingstoneSHelsperEJ (2008) Parental mediation of children's internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media52(4): 581–599.
33.
LivingstoneSSmithPK (2014) Annual research review: harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: the nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry55(6): 635–654.
34.
McKennaKYAGreenASGleasonMEJ (2002) Relationship Formation on the Internet: what’s the Big Attraction?Journal of Social Issues58(1): 9–31.
MarwickAE (2008) To catch a predator? The MySpace moral panic. First Monday13(6): 1–22.
37.
MascheroniGJorgeAFarrugiaL (2014) Media representations and children’s discourses on online risks: findings from qualitative research in nine European countries. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace8(2): 2.
38.
MýlekVDedkovaLMachackovaH (2020) Factors influencing interactions between adolescents and unknown people from the internet: findings from five European countries. Children and Youth Services Review114: 105038.
39.
NesiJChoukas-BradleySPrinsteinMJ (2018) Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 1—a theoretical framework and application to dyadic peer relationships. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review21(3): 267–294.
40.
NottenNNikkenP (2016) Boys and girls taking risks online: a gendered perspective on social context and adolescents’ risky online behavior. new media & society18(6): 966–988.
RingroseJHarveyLGillR, et al. (2013) Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist Theory14(3): 305–323.
SmahelDMachackovaHMascheroniG, et al. (2020) EU Kids Online 2020: Survey Results from 19 Countries. EU Kids Online. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21953/lse.47fdeqj01ofo
SymonsKVanwesenbeeckIWalraveM, et al. (2020) Parents’ concerns over internet use, their engagement in interaction restrictions, and adolescents’ behavior on social networking sites. Youth & Society52(8): 1569–1581.
49.
TeimouriMBenrazaviSRGriffithsMD, et al. (2018) A model of online protection to reduce children’s online risk exposure: empirical evidence from Asia. Sexuality & Culture22(4): 1205–1229.
50.
Van den HeuvelAvan den EijndenRJJMvan RooijAJ, et al. (2012) Meeting online contacts in real life among adolescents: the predictive role of psychosocial wellbeing and internet-specific parenting. Computers in Human Behavior28(2): 465–472.
51.
WangJWangX (2019) Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus. 2nd ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
52.
WhiteCMGummerumMHanochY (2018) Framing of online risk: young adults’ and adolescents’ representations of risky gambles. Decision5(2): 119–128.
53.
WilliamsMLHudsonK (2013) Public perceptions of internet, familial and localised sexual grooming: predicting perceived prevalence and safety. Journal of Sexual Aggression19(2): 218–235.
54.
WolakJFinkelhorD (2013) Are crimes by online predators different from crimes by sex offenders who know youth in-person?Journal of Adolescent Health53(6): 736–741.
55.
WolakJFinkelhorDMitchellK (2004) Internet-initiated sex crimes against minors: implications for prevention based on findings from a national study. Journal of Adolescent Health35(5): 424.e11–424.e20.
56.
WolakJFinkelhorDMitchellK (2009) Trends in Arrests of Online Predators. Durham, NH: Crimes against Children Research Center.
57.
WolfeVV (2007) Child sexual abuse. In: MashEJBarkleyRA (eds.) Assessment of childhood disorders. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 685–748.
58.
WurteleSKKennyMC (2016) Technology-related sexual solicitation of adolescents: a review of prevention efforts. Child Abuse Review25(5): 332–344.
59.
YuCY (2002) Evaluating cut-off criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. PhD Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
