Risks of interactive communication in adolescents. Digital literacy diagnosis and intervention

Author: Isabel Rodríguez de Dios
Supervisor: Juan José Igartua
DOCTORAL THESIS

INDEX
• Introduction
• Overall and specific goals of the thesis
• Theoretical Framework
• Online Risks and Online Opportunities
• Digital Literacy and Digital Skills
• Promoting Digital Safety
• Mobile learning and Narrative Persuasion
• Empirical Research
• Study 1: Development and Validation of the Digital Literacy Scale
• Study 2: Relationship between parental mediation and
adolescents’ digital skills, online risks and online opportunities
• Study 3: Digital Literacy Intervention and Coping Strategies
Development
• Discussion and General Conclusions

Technology has become accessible for
most of the population
Introduction

Introduction
Interactive communication

Introduction
ADOLESCENTS
Internet
Computers
Smartphone
s
Instant
messaging
Social media

Introduction
OPPORTUNITIES
RISKS

Introduction
RESEARCH
Minors and
Technology

Introduction
RESEARCH
Parental mediation
Educational
interventions
Digital literacy

Goal of the Thesis
Improve digital skills in adolescents with
the aim that they can afford, without
danger, the risks of interactive
communication and can maximise the
opportunities that this communication
gives to them.

Goal of the Thesis: Specific Objectives
Methodological tool:
assess digital literacy
Parental influence on
digital skills
Relationship: digital
skills and online risks
Develop a mobile
application: digital
literacy
1 2
43

Theoretical Framework
• Contact with strangers
• Engagement in sexting
• Exposure to online
pornography
• Exposure to online
violence
• Cyberbullying
(Agatston et al., 2007; Catalina García et al.,
2014; Dowdell et al., 2009; Livingstone &
Helsper, 2010; Livingstone & Smith, 2014;
Online risks
• Entertainment
• Communication
• Multimedia
(Chisholm, 2006; Ktoridou et al., 2012;
Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Vandoninck et
al., 2010)
Online
opportunities
• Avoid risks?
(Cernikova et al., 2018; Rodríguez-de-Dios &
Igartua, 2016; Sonck & de Haan, 2014;
Sonck et al., 2011)
• More online
opportunities, but
also more online risks
(S.-J. Lee & Chae, 2012; Leung & Lee, 2012b;
Livingstone, Ólafsson, et al., 2017;
Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Sonck & de
Haan, 2013; Staksrud et al., 2013)
Digital skills
ONLINE RISKS AND ONLINE OPPORTUNITIES

Digital Literacy
Technological
skill
Communication
skill
Information
skill
Critical
skill
Security
skill
Digital skills
(Bawden, 2001; Claro et al., 2012; Eshet-
Alkalai & Chajut, 2009; Hargittai, 2008;
Helsper & Eynon, 2013; Lee & Chae, 2012;
Livingstone, 2004; Sonck & de Haan, 2014)
DIGITAL LITERACY AND DIGITAL SKILLS

Coping strategies. Mitigate negative effects à cyberbullying (Raskauskas & Huynh, 2015)
PROMOTING DIGITAL SAFETY
Technologic
al
mediation
Parental
mediation
Active
parental
mediation
Restrictive
parental
mediation
Educational
intervention
s
Use of
technology
(Fleming et al., 2006; Przybylski &
Nash, 2017; Ybarra, Finkelhor,
Mitchell, & Wolak, 2009).
(Cabello-Hutt et al., 2017; Daud et al 2014; Duerager & Livingstone, 2012;
Ihmeideh & Shawareb, 2014; Khurana et al., 2015; Lau & Yuen, 2013; Lee, 2012;
Lee & Chae, 2012; Liau et al., 2005; Lwin et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 2003;
Sasson & Mesch, 2014; Shin & Ismail, 2014; Shin & Kang, 2016)
(Chaux et al., 2016; Chibnall et al.,
2006; Cross et al., 2016;
Fernández-Montalvo et al., 2017;
Gradinger et al., 2016; Ortega-
Ruiz et al., 2012; Palladino et al.,
2016; Vanderhoven et al., 2014;
Williford et al., 2013; Zhang-
Kennedy et al., 2017)
(Nocentini, Zambuto & Menesini,
2015)

MOBILE LEARNING
Mobile learning
Learning benefits
(Chee et al., 2017; Cheung & Slavin,
2013; Stevenson & Hedberg, 2017;
Tingir, Cavlazoglu, Caliskan, Koklu, &
Intepe-Tingir, 2017; W.-H. Wu et al.,
2012)
Mobile
acceptance
Effectiveness of the
educational
content
(Al-hawari & Mouakket, 2010)
Knowledge
achievement and
motivation
(Alsawaier, 2018; Hamari et al., 2014;
Marzouki, Idrissi, & Bennani, 2017)
Constructivism
Gamification

ENTERTAINMENT-EDUCATION AND NARRATIVE PERSUASION
Entertainment-
education strategy:
educational content
within entertaining
formats
(Ayala et al., 2015; W. J. Brown &
Singhal, 1999; Rogers et al., 1999).

Narratives: more effective in changing attitudes, beliefs and behaviours (Murphy et al., 2013)
ENTERTAINMENT-EDUCATION AND NARRATIVE PERSUASION
Entertainment-
education strategy:
educational content
within entertaining
formats
Narrative format
Transportation
Identification with
the characters
Impact of the
narrative
(Ayala et al., 2015; W. J. Brown &
Singhal, 1999; Rogers et al., 1999).
(Asbeek Brusse et al., 2015; Moyer-
Gusé, 2008).
(de Graaf & van Leeuwen, 2017; Igartua
& Vega Casanova, 2016; Moyer-Gusé,
2008; L. Shen et al., 2017; Slater &
Rouner, 2002)
(de Graaf et al., 2012; Green & Brock,
2000; Igartua & Barrios, 2012; Igartua &
Frutos, 2017; Igartua & Vega Casanova,
2016; Moyer-Gusé et al., 2011; Moyer-
Gusé & Nabi, 2010; Murphy et al., 2013,
2011)

More research is
needed
COMBINATION OF MOBILE LEARNING AND NARRATIVE PERSUASION?
Mobile
learning
Narratives
Successful
knowledge
dissemination
?

Study 1
Development and Validation
of the Digital Literacy Scale

Study 1
•Not up to date
(Wilson et al., 2015)
•Narrow focus on the Internet
(Hargittai & Hsieh, 2012; S.-J. Lee & Chae, 2012; Len-Ríos et al., 2016;
M.-J. Tsai & Tsai, 2010)
•Not validated
(Gastelú et al., 2015; Li & Ranieri, 2010; S. Park & Burford, 2013; Pino
Juste & Soto Carballo, 2010)
•Only children or adults
(Boyaci & Atalay, 2016; Bunz et al., 2007; Helsper & Eynon, 2013; Koc
& Barut, 2016; S. Park & Burford, 2013; Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2016)
Digital
Literacy
Measures

Study 1
Develop and validate a
Digital Literacy Scale to
assess adolescents’ digital
literacy and its different
digital skills.
GOAL

Study 1
METHOD
Development of the Scale
• Five digital skills
• 47 items: 5-point Likert agreement
Pilot Study
• 208 students of secondary
education
• Psychometric analysis: 11 items
• Difficult words

Study 1
METHOD
1,446 adolescents
Sample
Digital literacy scale
Convergent validity:
• Positive ICT attitude (α=.84)
(Ainley, Fraillon, Gebhardt, & Schulz, 2012; Zylka,
Christoph, Kroehne, Hartig, & Goldhammer,
2015).
• Technology anxiety (α=.83) (De
Wit, Heerwegh, & Verhoeven, 2014; Durndell &
Haag, 2002; Zylka et al., 2015).
Questionnaire
Two groups
EFA and CFA
Cross-
population
validity

Study 1
Factors (items of the scale: know how to…)
Factor
loadings
Explained
variance
α
TECHNOLOGICAL SKILL 21.16 .73
Bookmark a website I like so I can view it later .731
Download/save a photo I found online .684
Download information I found online .498
Connect always to aWi-Fi network from smartphone, no matter the device or where I am .498
Use shortcut keys (e.g. CTRL+C o cmd+C for copy) .454
I don’t like downloading apps for smartphones as I find difficult to learn how to use
them (recoded)
.445
If I want to install new programs on my computer, I will ask someone to do it for me
because I don’t know (recoded)
.440
PERSONAL SECURITY SKILL 6.60 .73
Deactivate the function showing my geographical position (e.g. Facebook, apps) .671
I know when I can post pictures and videos of other people online .646
Use ‘report abuse’ buttons on social media sites (e.g. Someone uses my photo
without my permission)
.637
Change the sharing settings of social media to choose what others can see about me
(friends of friends, friends only, only me)
.585
I know the consequences of illegal downloading of music and movies .425
CRITICAL SKILL 5,42 .75
Compare different sources to decide if information is true .707
Determine if the information I find online is reliable .675
Identify the author of the information and evaluate their reliability .646
Compare different apps in order to choose which one is most reliable and secure .589
If I meet someone online, I know how to check if their profile is real .381
Factors (items of the scale: know how to…)
Factor
loadings
Explained
variance
α
DEVICES SECURITY SKILL 4.15 .72
Use software to detect and remove viruses .751
Detect a virus in my digital device .746
Block unwanted or junk mail/spam .574
If something doesn’t work occurs while I am using a device (computer, smartphone,
etc.), I usually know what it is and how to fix the problem
.500
INFORMATIONAL SKILL 3.96 .63
I find hard to decide what the best keywords are for online searching (recoded) .697
I find confusing the way in which many websites are designed (recoded) .641
Sometimes I find difficult to determine how useful the information is for my
purpose (recoded)
.596
I get tired when looking for information online .570
Sometimes I end up on websites without knowing how I got there .500
COMMUNICATION SKILL 3.02 .46
Depending on who I want to communicate with, it is better to use one method over
the other (make a call, send a WhatsApp message, send an email, etc.)
.723
Send any file to a contact using a smartphone ,463
No matter with who I communicate: emojis are always useful .308
RESULTS: Exploratory Factor Analysis
KMO = .90. Bartlett’s test for sphericity: χ2 (595) = 5,862.715, p <
.001.

Study 1
RESULTS
TECHNOLOGICAL SKILL
COMMUNICATION SKILL
INFORMATIONAL SKILL
DEVICE SECURITY SKILL
CRITICAL SKILL
PERSONAL SECURITY
SKILL
.77
.79
.38
.44
.13
.39
.25
.37
.40
.62
.50
.63
.58
.71
.51
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Second-order CFA
TECHNOLOGICAL
SKILL
COMMUNICATIO
N SKILL
INFORMATIONAL
SKILL
DEVICE SECURITY
SKILL
CRITICAL SKILL
PERSONAL
SECURITY SKILL
DIGITALLITERACY
.88
.83
.66
.69
.40
.78
X2 (335) = 848.73, p < .001, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .046 (90% [CI] = [.04,
.05])
X2 (344) = 969.085, p < .001, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .05 (90% [CI] = [.04,
.05])

Study 1
RESULTS: Convergent Validity
DIGITAL SKILLS
Digital
LiteracyTechnological
skill
Critical skill
Personal
security skill
Device security
skill
Informational
skill
Communicatio
n skill
Positive ICT
attitude
.50*** .26*** .38*** .45*** .18*** .08* .47***
Technology
anxiety
-.55*** -.26*** -.39*** -.32*** -.41*** -.20*** -49***
+ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < 0.1, *** p < .001

Study 1
Conclusions
PURPOSE
• Create a methodological tool
• Digital literacy
RESULT
• Valid and reliable instrument
• Fills a gap in the field

Study 2
Relationship between
Parental Mediation and
Adolescents’ Digital Skills,
Online Risks and Online
Opportunities

Study 2
Online risks
Online
opportunities
Digital skills Parental
mediation?

Study 2
1. Adolescents' digital skills are
related to more online
opportunities and less online
risks?
2. Adolescents' digital skills mediate
the relationship between parental
mediation and adolescents’ online
risks and opportunities?
GOALS

Study 2
H1: Digital literacy will predict online risk behaviours (H1a) and online opportunities (H1b).
HYPOTHESES
DIGITAL
SKILLS
ONLINE
RISKS
ONLINE
OPPORTUNITIES
(S.-J. Lee & Chae, 2012; Leung & Lee, 2012b; Livingstone, Ólafsson, et al., 2017;
Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Nikken & Schols, 2015; Sonck & de Haan, 2013; Staksrud
et al., 2013)

Study 2
H2: Parental mediation will predict adolescents’ digital literacy
H2a Active parental mediation will be a positive predictor
H2b Restrictive parental mediation will be a negative predictor
HYPOTHESES
DIGITAL
SKILLS
(Cabello-Hutt et al., 2017; Duerager & Livingstone, 2012)
PARENTAL
MEDIATION

Study 2
H2: Parental mediation will predict adolescents’ digital literacy
H2a Active parental mediation will be a positive predictor
H2b Restrictive parental mediation will be a negative predictor
H3: Digital literacy will mediate the relation between parental mediation and online risks and online
opportunities
H3a Active parental mediation will increase both online risks and online opportunities by increasing digital skills
H3b Restrictive mediation will decrease online risks and online opportunities by decreasing digital skills.
HYPOTHESES
Active Parental Mediation
Restrictive Parental
Mediation
Digital Literacy
Online Risks
Online Opportunities
Digital Literacy
Online Risks
Online OpportunitiesActive Parental Mediation
Mediation
Digital Literacy

Study2
METHOD
Sample
1,446 adolescents
13 schools
Urban and rural areas of Spain
Questionnaire
• Digital literacy scale
• Parental mediation: restrictive parental mediation (α = .76), active
parental mediation (α = .89)
• Online risk behaviours: contact with strangers (α=.76), exposure
to pornography (α=.80), exposure to violence (α=.67), cyberbullying victim
(α=.66) and cyberbullying perpetrator (α=.69).
• Online opportunities: communication (α = .53); entertainment (α =
.74); multimedia (α = .58).

Study 2
Active Parental
Mediation
Mediation
Digital Literacy
Online Risks
.36**
*
-.23***
.06
.15**
.74**
*
R2=.05
R2=.03
Online Opportunities
R2=.55
X2 (290) = 1251,782, p < .001, CFI = .84, RMSEA = .07 (95% [CI] = [.06, .07])
H1. Digital literacy as a predictor of online risks (H1a) and opportunities (H1b)
H2 Parental mediation (active (H2a) and restrictive (H2b)) as a predictor of adolescents’ digital
literacy
H3 Digital literacy as a mediating variableActive mediation does not indirectly predict online risks, β = .01, b = .00, SE = .00, p = .167 (95% BCI = [-.005, .036]) or online opportunities, β = .04, b
= .02, SE = .02, p = .298 (95% BCI = [-.041, .120]) through digital literacy.
Restrictive mediation is negatively related to online risks, β = -.03, b = -.02, SE = .01, p = .025 (95% BCI = [-.075, -.005]) and online opportunities, β = -
.17, b = -.11, SE = .05, p = .001 (95% BCI = [-.270, -.093]) through digital literacy.

Study 2
Conclusions
Digital skills
• More online opportunities
• More online risks
Restrictive parental
mediation
• Less digital skills
• Less online risks, less online
opportunities.

Study 3
Digital Literacy Intervention
and Coping Strategies
Development

Study 3
DIGITAL
SKILLS
ONLINE
RISKS
ONLINE
OPPORTUNITIES
PARENTAL
MEDIATION
CONTACT WITH
STRANGERS
EDUCATIONAL
INTERVENTIONS
MOBILE
LEARNING
NARRATIVE
PERSUASION
COPING
STRATEGIES

Study 3
Develop a mobile application
for teaching digital skills and
coping strategies for facing
contact online risks, and to
evaluate the impact of its use
on adolescents.
GOAL

Study 3
HYPOTHESES
H1: The mobile application will have an impact on the development of the personal security digital skill
and the intention to use active coping strategies for facing online contact risks .
H2: Mobile application acceptance, narrative transportation and identification with the main character
will predict the impact of the exposure to the app on the level of the personal security skill (H2a) and the
intention to use active coping strategies (H2b) for facing online contact risks.

Study 3
HYPOTHESES
H3: Age will negatively moderate the impact of the app on the level of the personal security skill (H3a)
and intention to use active coping strategies (H3b) when facing contact online risks.
Interventions have larger effects for younger students than for older students
(Chibnall et al., 2006; Williford et al., 2013).
Little previous research: sample of students at the same grade
(Ahmed & Parsons, 2013; Burgess & Murray, 2014; Cross et al., 2016; Desmet et al., 2017; Kiger et al., 2012; Meilan et al., 2015; Palladino et al., 2016; Sandberg et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2013)

Study 3
HYPOTHESES
H4: Frequency of contact with online risks will positively moderate the impact of the app on the level of
the personal security skill (H4a) and intention to use active coping strategies (H4b) when facing contact
online risks.
Higher levels of online risks were related to a stronger effect of the intervention
(Gradinger et al., 2016)

Study 3
METHOD: Development of the mobile application
Digital Skills
Active Coping Strategies

Study 3
METHOD: Development of the mobile application

Study 3
METHOD
245 students of
secondary education
3 schools
Sample
Quasi-experiment
Experimental group and
control group
Design and
Procedure

Study 3
METHOD: Questionnaire
• Pre-test
•Personal security skill (α = .66)
•Online contact risk (α = .66)
•Coping strategies: proactive (α = .50), communicative (α = .30),
passive (r = .23), avoidance (α = .72).
• Post-test
•Personal security skill (α = .73)
•Coping strategies: proactive (α = .56), communicative (α = .43),
passive (r = .34), avoidance (α = .82).
• Post-test experimental:
Mobile application acceptance (α = .78)
Identification with the protagonist (α = .81)
Narrative transportation (α = .74)

Study 3
RESULTS: Preliminary equivalence
Variable Group M SD t P
Personal Security Skill
Experimental group (N =126) 4.11 .84
3.30 .001
Control group (N = 118) 4.44 .66
Online Contact Risks
Experimental group 1.26 .37
2.56 .011
Control group 1.40 .51
Proactive Coping
.35 .723
Communicative Coping
-.90 .366
Passive Coping
.44 .658
Avoidance Coping
-2.72 .007

Study 3
RESULTS: Hypotheses
0
1
2
3
4
5
Proactive Pre Proactive Post
Experimental Control
0
1
2
3
4
5
Commun. Pre Commun. Post
and the intention to use active coping strategies for facing online contact risks.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Skill Pre Skill Post
Personal Security Skill Active Coping Strategies
H1

Study 3
RESULTS: Hypotheses
Personal Security Skill Proactive Coping Communicative Coping
β β β
Mobile app acceptance .314** -.015 -.106
Identification with
characters
.011 .390** .411***
Narrative transportation -.178 -.136 .048
F (gl) 2.94 (4, 113) 3.84 (4, 113) 5.09 (4, 113)
p .023 .006 .001
R (Adjusted R2) .307 (.062) .346 (.088) .391 (.123)
H1

Study 3
RESULTS: Hypotheses
H1
Personal security skill (B = -.01, SE = .08, p = .892).
Proactive coping strategies (B = -.03, SE = .06, p = .618)
Communicative coping strategies (B = -.16, SE = .08, p <
.05)

Study 3
RESULTS: Hypotheses
H4: Frequency of contact with online risks will positively moderate the impact of the app on the level of
the personal security skill (H4a) and intention to use active coping strategies (H4b) when facing contact
online risks.
H1
Personal security skill (B = .10, SE = .20, p = .613).
Proactive coping strategies (B = .23, SE = .15, p = .144)
Communicative coping strategies (B = .19, SE = .20, p =
.322)

Study 3
Conclusions
Mobile application
• Effective
• Predictors: identification with characters and
mobile acceptance. NO: narrative
transportation
Mobile learning
• Effective regardless of individual
characteristics
Narratives
• Promote online safety
• Mobile learning

DISCUSSION AND
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Discussion and General Conclusions
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Study 1
Study 2
Study 3
Digital Literacy Scale
Future studies:
Digital literacy and adolescents
Mediating role of
digital skills
Digital skills à online
risks and online
opportunities
Other stronger predictors of online risks?
Restrictive mediation reduces online risks mostly
at the expense of online opportunities
Age did not moderate
Effective application
Identification and mobile acceptance as
predictors
Communicative coping strategies: parents
Effective regardless of individual characteristics
Narratives and mobile
learning
Line of research that deserves further attention

LIMITATIONS
Study 1
Model fits of the CFA. Low
reliability of two digital
skills.
Improve the scale.
Study 2
Model fit
Only Spanish sample:
generalisability?
Test the model in other
countries
Cross-sectional character:
causal relationships?
Longitudinal study
Study 3
Not randomization:
internal validity?
Lack of long term follow-up Longer-term effects.
FURTHER RESEARCH

CONCLUSIONES GENERALES
Contribuciones
originales
Escala de
Alfabetización Digital
Vacío en la
investigación en
alfabetización digital
Modelo teórico
original
Rol mediador de las
competencias
digitales
Persuasión narrativa y
aprendizaje móvil
• Seguridad online
• Alfabetización digital
• Efectivo
independientemente
de las características
individuales
Investigación
• Alfabetización digital
• Aprendizaje móvil
• Persuasión narrativa

DOCTORAL THESIS
Isabel Rodríguez de Dios

Risks of interactive communication in adolescents. Digital literacy diagnosis and intervention

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Risks of interactive communication in adolescents. Digital literacy diagnosis and intervention

Similaire à Risks of interactive communication in adolescents. Digital literacy diagnosis and intervention (20)

Plus de Education in the Knowledge Society PhD

Plus de Education in the Knowledge Society PhD (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Risks of interactive communication in adolescents. Digital literacy diagnosis and intervention