Advertisement

Changing Unsafe Behaviour on Social Network Sites. Collaborative Learning vs. Individual Reflection

Chapter

Abstract

Recently, a lot of safety interventions have been developed about teenagers’ privacy and security on social network sites (SNSs). However, these interventions often do not have an impact on attitudes and behaviour. Possibly, the instructional principles that guided their development only lead to better knowledge-construction and are not adequate in changing reputation-related behaviour. Following the theory of planned behaviour and theories about peer pressure during adolescence, it was hypothesised that interventions emphasising collaborative learning are less effective in changing attitudes and behaviour than interventions emphasising individual reflection. A quasi-experimental intervention study using a pre-test post-test design was set up in 115 classes. It was found that both a course with collaborative learning and a course with individual reflection raised awareness about contact risks on SNSs. However, only a course with an emphasis on individual reflection had a consistent impact on attitudes and behaviour. Implications of these results are discussed.

Keywords

Online risk Social network sites Secondary education Intervention study Collaborative learning Teenagers Prevention Safety Individual reflection 

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. doi: 10.1348/014466601164939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, E. W., Pinkleton, B. E., Hust, S. J. T., & Cohen, M. (2005). Evaluation of an American legacy foundation/Washington State Department of Health media literacy pilot study. Health Communication, 18(1), 75–95. doi: 10.1207/s15327027hc1801_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, J. (1998). Media literacy perspectives. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 44–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02736.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cantor, J., & Wilson, B. J. (2003). Media and violence: Intervention strategies for reducing aggression. Media Psychology, 5(4), 363–403. doi: 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0504_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults*. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18(6), 741–760. doi: 10.1002/bsl.416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choo, K.-K. R. (2009). Online child grooming: A literature review on the misuse of social networking sites for grooming children for sexual offences. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
  8. De Moor, S., Dock, M., Gallez, S., Lenaerts, S., Scholler, C., & Vleugels, C. (2008). Teens and ICT: Risks and opportunities. Belgium: TIRO. http://www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/TA/synTA08_en.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2010.
  9. De Souza, Z., & Dick, G. N. (2009). Disclosure of information by children in social networking—Not just a case of “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine”. International Journal of Information Management, 29(4), 255–261. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A.-K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 83–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Duran, R. L., Yousman, B., Walsh, K. M., & Longshore, M. A. (2008). Holistic media education: An assessment of the effectiveness of a college course in media literacy. Communication Quarterly, 56(1), 49–68. doi: 10.1080/01463370701839198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 466–474. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gruber, J. (2001). Risky behavior among youths: An economic analysis. NBER. http://www.nber.org/books/grub01-1. Accessed 24 Sept 2012.
  15. Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2012). Predicting adolescent perpetration in cyberbullying: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Psicothema, 24(4), 614–620.Google Scholar
  16. Hum, N. J., Chamberlin, P. E., Hambright, B. L., Portwood, A. C., Schat, A. C., & Bevan, J. L. (2011). A picture is worth a thousand words: A content analysis of Facebook profile photographs. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1828–1833. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Insafe. (2014). Educational resources for teachers. http://lreforschools.eun.org/web/guest/insafe. Accessed 28 Jan 2014.
  18. Lewis, C. C. (1981). How adolescents approach decisions: Changes over grades seven to twelve and policy implications. Child Development, 52(2), 538. doi: 10.2307/1129172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Livingstone, S. (2004a). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. The Communication Review, 7(1), 3–14. doi: 10.1080/10714420490280152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Livingstone, S. (2004b). What is media literacy? Intermedia, 32(3), 18–20.Google Scholar
  21. Livingstone, S., & Brake, D. R. (2010). On the rapid rise of social networking sites: New findings and policy implications. Children & Society, 24(1), 75–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2009.00243.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). EU kids online: Final report (EC Safer Internet Plus Programme Deliverable D6.5). London: EU Kids Online: LSE.Google Scholar
  23. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Olafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full findings. London: LSE: EU Kids Online.Google Scholar
  24. Madden, M., & Smith, A. (2010). A reputation management and social media. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
  25. Martens, H. (2010). Evaluating media literacy education: Concepts, theories and future directions. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  26. Marwick, A. E., Murgia-Diaz, D., & Palfrey, J. G. (2010). Youth, privacy and reputation (Literature review). Berkman Center Research Publication, 5, 10–29.Google Scholar
  27. Mcgivern, P., & Noret, N. (2011). Online social networking and E-safety: Analysis of risk-taking behaviors and negative online experiences among adolescents. British Conference of Undergraduate Research 2011 special issue. www.warwick.ac.uk/go/reinventionjournal/issues/BCUR2011specialissue/mcgivernnoret. Accessed 24 Sept 2012.
  28. Mishna, F., Cook, C., Saini, M., Wu, M.-J., & MacFadden, R. (2010). Interventions to prevent and reduce cyber abuse of youth: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(1), 5–14. doi: 10.1177/1049731509351988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention. Principles of effective prevention programs. The American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 449–456. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Changes in adolescent online social networking behaviors from 2006 to 2009. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1818–1821. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips, R., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Evaluating e-learning: Guiding research and practice (Connecting with e-learning). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  32. Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. The American Psychologist, 47(9), 1102–1114. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P., & Runnel, P. (2012). Online opportunities. In S. Livingstone, L. Haddon, & A. Görzig (Eds.), Children, risk and safety on the internet: Research and policy challenges in comparative perspective. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  34. Safer Internet Programme. (2009). Assessment report on the status of online safety education in schools across Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/forum_oct_2009/assessment_report.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2012.
  35. Sharples, M., Graber, R., Harrison, C., & Logan, K. (2009). E-safety and web 2.0 for children aged 11–16. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 70–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steinke, J., Lapinski, M. K., Crocker, N., Zietsman-Thomas, A., Williams, Y., Evergreen, S. H., & Kuchibhotla, S. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school–aged children’s perceptions of women in science using the draw-a-scientist test (DAST). Science Communication, 29(1), 35–64. doi: 10.1177/1075547007306508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sumter, S. R., Bokhorst, C. L., Steinberg, L., & Westenberg, P. M. (2009). The developmental pattern of resistance to peer influence in adolescence: Will the teenager ever be able to resist? Journal of Adolescence, 32(4), 1009–1021. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Valcke, M., Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Gerarts, M. (2007). Primary school children’s safe and unsafe use of the Internet at home and at school: An exploratory study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2838–2850. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vanderhoven, E., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2013). Exploring the usefulness of school education about risks on social network sites: A survey study. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 5(1), 285–294.Google Scholar
  41. Vanderhoven, E., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2014a). Educating teens about the risks on social network sites: Useful or pointless? An intervention study in secondary E-education. Comunicar, 43, 123–132. doi: 10.3916/C43-2014-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vanderhoven, E., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2014b). Educational packages about the risks on social network sites: State of the art. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 603–612. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vandoninck, S., d’ Haenens, L., & Segers, K. (2012). Coping and resilience: Children’s responses to online risks. In S. Livingstone, L. Haddon, & A. Görzig (Eds.), Children, risk and safety on the internet research and policy challenges in comparative perspective (pp. 205–218). Bristol/Chicago: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816–1836. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Studies & iMinds-MICTGhent UniversityGentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Educational StudiesGhent UniversityGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations