Advertisement

Examining Parent Versus Child Reviews of Parental Control Apps on Google Play

  • Turki AlelyaniEmail author
  • Arup Kumar Ghosh
  • Larry Moralez
  • Shion Guha
  • Pamela Wisniewski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11579)

Abstract

Mobile devices have become a ubiquitous means for teens and younger children to access the internet and social media. Such pervasive access affords many benefits but also exposes children to potential online risks, including cyberbullying, exposure to explicit content, and sexual solicitations. Parents who are concerned about their children’s online safety may use parental control apps to monitor, manage, and curate their children’s online access and mobile activities. This creates tension between the privacy rights and interests of children versus the legal, emotional, and moral imperatives of parents seeking to protect their children from online risks. To better understand the unique perspectives of parents and children, we conducted an analysis of 29,272 reviews of 52 different parental control apps from the Google Play store. We found that reviews written by parents differed statistically from those written by children such that it is possible to computationally automate the process of differentiating between them. Furthermore, latent themes emerged from the reviews that revealed the complexities and tensions in parent-child relationships as mediated by parental control app use. Natural Language Processing (NLP) revealed that the underlying themes within the reviews went beyond a description of the app, its features or performance and more towards an expression of the relationship between parents and teens as mediated through parental control apps. These insights can be used to improve parental control app design, and therefore the user experience of both parents and children.

Keywords

Privacy Parental control apps User reviews Computational analysis Classification Parent-child relationships Google Play 

References

  1. 1.
    Blackwell, L., Gardiner, E., Schoenebeck, S.: Managing expectations: technology tensions among parents and teens. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 1390–1401. ACM, New York (2016a)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd, D.: It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press, New Haven (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, M.: Parents, Teens and Digital Monitoring (2016). http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/01/07/parents-teens-and-digital-monitoring/
  4. 4.
    Baumrind, D.: A developmental perspective on adolescent risk taking in contemporary America. In: New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, pp. 93–125 (1987).  https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219873706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wisniewski, P., Ghosh, A.K., Rosson, M.B., Xu, H., Carroll, J.M.: Parental control vs. teen self-regulation: is there a middle ground for mobile online safety? In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, Portland (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghosh, A.K., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Guha, S., LaViola Jr., J., Wisniewski, P.: 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. ACM, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ashktorab, Z., Vitak, J.: Designing cyberbullying mitigation and prevention solutions through participatory design with teenagers. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3895–3905. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashish, Y., Bunt, A., Young, J.E.: Involving children in content control: a collaborative and education-oriented content filtering approach. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1797–1806. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wisniewski, P., et al.: Resilience mitigates the negative effects of adolescent internet addiction and online risk exposure. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 4029–4038. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Rosson, M.B., Perkins, D.F., Carroll, J.M.: Dear diary: teens reflect on their weekly online risk experiences. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3919–3930. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yardi, S., Bruckman, A.: Social and technical challenges in parenting teens’ social media use. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3237–3246. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yardi, S., Bruckman, A.: Income, race, and class: exploring socioeconomic differences in family technology use. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3041–3050. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hiniker, A., Schoenebeck, S.Y., Kientz, J.A.: 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, pp. 1376–1389. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cranor, L.F., Durity, A.L., Marsh, A., Ur, B.: Parents’ and teens’ perspectives on privacy in a technology-filled world. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. USENIX, Menlo Park (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Livingstone, S.: Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy, and self-expression. New Media Soc. 10, 393–411 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nissenbaum, H.: Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Washington Law Rev. 79 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petronio, S.S.: Boundaries of Privacy: Dialects of Disclosure. SUNY Press (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zaman, B., Nouwen, M.: Parental controls: advice for parents, researchers and industry. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx
  19. 19.
    Czeskis, A., et al.: Parenting from the pocket: value tensions and technical directions for secure and private parent-teen mobile safety. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 15:1–15:15. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghosh, A.K., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Rosson, M.B., Xu, H., Carroll, J., Wisniewski, P.: A matter of control or safety? Examining parental use of technical monitoring apps on teens’ mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Amato, G., Bolettieri, P., Costa, G., Torre, F., Martinelli, F.: Detection of images with adult content for parental control on mobile devices? In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mobile Technology, Application & Systems, pp. 35:1–35:5. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ko, M., Choi, S., Yang, S., Lee, J., Lee, U.: FamiLync: facilitating participatory parental mediation of adolescents’ smartphone use. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 867–878. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim, S., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Oh, A., Liu, S.: A hierarchical aspect-sentiment model for online reviews. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 526–533. AAAI Press, Bellevue (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mason, R., et al.: Microsummarization of online reviews: an experimental study. In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 3015–3021. AAAI Press, Phoenix (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Michael, L., Otterbacher, J.: Write like I write: herding in the language of online reviews. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 2014, pp. 356–365 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, J., Zhao, W.X., He, Y., Li, X.: Leveraging product adopter information from online reviews for product recommendation. In: Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. AAAI Publications (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ida, Y., Nakamura, T., Matsumoto, T.: Domain-dependent/independent topic switching model for online reviews with numerical ratings. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pp. 229–238. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhao, W.X., Wang, J., He, Y., Wen, J.-R., Chang, E.Y., Li, X.: Mining product adopter information from online reviews for improving product recommendation. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data. 10, 29:1–29:23 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2842629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moghaddam, S., Jamali, M., Ester, M.: Review recommendation: personalized prediction of the quality of online reviews. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 2249–2252. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jawecki, G., Fuller, J.: How to use the innovative potential of online communities? Netnography – an unobtrusive research method to absorb the knowledge and creativity of online communities. Int. J. Bus. Process Integr. Manage. 3, 248–255 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPIM.2008.024982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Korfiatis, N., García-Bariocanal, E., Sánchez-Alonso, S.: Evaluating content quality and helpfulness of online product reviews: the interplay of review helpfulness vs review content. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 11, 205–217 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2011.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vasa, R., Hoon, L., Mouzakis, K., Noguchi, A.: A preliminary analysis of mobile app user reviews. In: Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, pp. 241–244. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Duan, W., Gu, B., Whinston, A.B.: Do online reviews matter?—an empirical investigation of panel data. Decis. Support Syst. 45, 1007–1016 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Epstein, D.A., et al.: Examining menstrual tracking to inform the design of personal informatics tools. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 6876–6888. ACM, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fu, B., Lin, J., Li, L., Faloutsos, C., Hong, J., Sadeh, N.: Why people hate your app: making sense of user feedback in a mobile app store. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1276–1284. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    McCallum, A.K.: MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guyon, I., Elisseeff, A.: An introduction to feature extraction. In: Guyon, I., Nikravesh, M., Gunn, S., Zadeh, L.A. (eds.) Feature Extraction, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-35488-8_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brown, P.F., deSouza, P.V., Mercer, R.L., Pietra, V.J.D., Lai, J.C.: Class-Based n-gram Models of Natural Language. Comput. Linguist. (1992)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Blei, D.M.: Latent Dirichlet Allocation 30Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guha, S., Baumer, E.P.S., Gay, G.K.: Regrets, I’ve had a few: when regretful experiences do (and don’t) compel users to leave Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork, pp. 166–177. ACM, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Muller, M., Guha, S., Baumer, E.P.S., Mimno, D., Shami, N.S.: Machine learning and grounded theory method: convergence, divergence, and combination. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 3–8. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Baumer, E.P.S., Mimno, D., Guha, S., Quan, E., Gay, G.K.: Comparing grounded theory and topic modeling: extreme divergence or unlikely convergence? J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68, 1397–1410 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Alelyani, T., Mao, K., Yang, Y.: Context-centric pricing: early pricing models for software crowdsourcing tasks. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering, pp. 63–72. ACM, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Friedman, J.H.: On bias, variance, 0/1—loss, and the curse-of-dimensionality. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 1, 55–77 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009778005914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Friedman, N., Geiger, D., Goldszmidt, M.: Bayesian network classifiers. Mach. Learn. 29, 131–163 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007465528199CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ciurumelea, A., Schaufelbühl, A., Panichella, S., Gall, H.C.: Analyzing reviews and code of mobile apps for better release planning. In: 2017 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), pp. 91–102 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Turki Alelyani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arup Kumar Ghosh
    • 2
  • Larry Moralez
    • 2
  • Shion Guha
    • 3
  • Pamela Wisniewski
    • 2
  1. 1.Stevens Institute of TechnologyHobokenUSA
  2. 2.University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.Marquette University MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations