SOCIAL MEDIA: HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, ONLINE RISKS, COPING STRATEGIES

Abstract

The main goal of this study is to examine high school students’ online risky behaviors through social media sites and their coping strategies. To this end, 816 high school students were administered a questionnaire that consists of three sections. The questionnaire included demographic information form, online risks questionnaire, and coping strategies scale. The results showed that Instagram and WhatsApp are the most popular social media sites among high schoolers. Also, male students engage in risky behaviors more than female students. Also, female students employed protective strategies more than male students. Another important finding is the low rate of children asking for help from family and teacher in the face of any threat due to their risky behaviors in social media sites. In addition, it was found that the preventive behaviors requested from secondary people (such as telling the person (s) on the friend list to remove himself/herself from the friend list) are less used by high school students. The findings and suggestions for future research are discussed. 

Keywords

• High school students
• social media
• online risks
• coping strategies

SOSYAL AĞ SİTELERİ: ERGENLER, RİSKLER VE TEHDİTLERDEN KORUNMA STRATEJİLERİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı lise öğrencilerinin sosyal medya kullanımları esnasında aldıkları çevrimiçi riskleri ve bu riskler sonucunda oluşabilecek tehdit ve tehlikelerin sonuçlarını ortadan kaldırmak ya da minimize etmek için kullandıkları stratejileri cinsiyet bağlamında incelemektir. Çalışmaya Elazığ ilinde öğrenim gören 816 lise öğrencisi (429 kız ve 387 erkek öğrenci) dâhil edilmiş ve çevrimiçi riskler ölçeği ve tehditlerden kurtulma stratejileri anketi uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular ışığında, WhatsApp ve Instagram’ın öğrenciler arasında en popüler sosyal medya hesabı olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, öğrencilerin risk alma düzeylerinin düşük olduğunu; erkek öğrencilerin kız öğrencilere nazaran daha fazla risk aldığını; kız öğrencilerin erkek öğrencilere oranla daha fazla tedbir stratejisi kullandığı tespit edilmiştir. Bir başka önemli bulgu ise herhangi bir tehdit karşısında çocukların aile ve öğretmenden yardım istenme oranının düşük olmasıdır. Ayrıca, baş etme stratejilerinden ikincil kişilerden istenen tedbir davranışlarının (Arkadaş listendeki kişi/kişilere beni arkadaş listesinden çıkarmasını söylerim gibi) lise öğrencileri tarafından daha az kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Bulgular ile birlikte gelecek çalışmalara yönelik öneriler tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• lise öğrencileri
• sosyal medya
• çevrimiçi riskler
• tehditlerden korunma stratejileri

References

1. Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006, June). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. Bildiri the 6thWorkshop on privacy enhancing technologies, Cambridge, UK. Şubat 3, 2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir, http://people.cs.pitt.edu/~chang/265/ proj10/zim/imaginedcom.pdf
2. Agosto, D. E., & Abbas, J. (2010, October). High school seniors' social network and other ICT use preferences and concerns. In Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeting on Navigating Streams in an Information Ecosystem-Volume 47 (p. 65). American Society for Information Science.
3. Arnett, J. (1992). Reckless behavior in adolescence: A developmental perspective. Developmental review, 12(4), 339-373.
4. Barlett, C. P., & Coyne, S. M. (2014). Meta-analysis of sex differences in cyber-bullying behavior: The moderating role of age. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 474–488.
5. Beale, A. V., & Hall, K. R. (2007). Cyberbullying: What school administrators (and parents) can do. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(1), 8-12.
6. Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). Emerging risks of violence in the digital age: Lessons for educators from an online study of adolescent girls in the United States. Journal of School Violence, 1(2), 51-71.
7. Bilge, L., Strufe, T., Balzarotti, D., & Kirda, E. (2009, April). All your contacts are belong to us: automated identity theft attacks on social networks. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web (pp. 551-560). ACM.
8. Boies, S. C. (2002). University students’ uses of and reactions to online sexual information and entertainment: links to online and offline sexual behavior. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 11(2).

9. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
10. Boyd, D., & Heer, J. (2006). Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on Friendster. In Proceedings of the 39th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS'06) (Vol. 3, pp. 59c-59c). IEEE.
11. Boyer, T. W. (2006). The development of risk-taking: A multi-perspective review. Developmental Review, 26, 291–345.
12. Brandtzæg, P. B., Lüders, M., & Skjetne, J. H. (2010). Too many Facebook “friends”? Content sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 26(11-12), 1006-1030.
13. Chen, H., Beaudoin, C. E., & Hong, T. (2017). Securing online privacy: An empirical test on Internet scam victimization, online privacy concerns, and privacy protection behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 291-302.
14. De Moor, S., Dock, M., Gallez, S., Lenaerts, S., Scholler, C., & Vleugels, C. (2008). Teens and ICT: Risks and opportunities. Hazira 6 tarihinde erişilmiştir, 2019, http://www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/proj.asp?l=en&COD=TA/00/08
15. Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A., & Huges, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15, 83–108.
16. Donlan, L. (2014). Exploring the views of students on the use of Facebook in university teaching and learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4), 572-588.
17. Dönmez, O. (2015). Investigating pre-service primary school teachers’ perceived online risks for children. Unpublished thesis. Anadolu Univeristy, Eskişehir.
18. European Commission. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 359: Attitudes on data protection and electronic identity in the European Union. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Mart 28 2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion /archives/ebs/ebs_359_ en.pdf
19. Feng, Y., & Xie, W. (2014). Teens’ concern for privacy when using social networking sites: An analysis of socialization agents and relationships with privacy-protecting behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 153-162.
20. Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009). Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 153–160
21. Georgia Institute of Technology. (2002). GVU Survey (10th annual survey). Ocak 3, 2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir ww.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys
22. Gullone, E., & Moore, S. (2000). Adolescent risk-taking and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 393–407.
23. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant behavior, 29(2), 129-156.
24. Huston, A. C., & Ripke, M. N. (Eds.). (2006). Developmental contexts in middle childhood: Bridges to adolescence and adulthood. Cambridge University Press.
25. Jianakoplos, N. A., & Bernasek, A. (1998). Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry, 36(6), 620–630
26. Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 329-347.
27. Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2013). Adolescents’ risky online behavior: The influence on gender, religion, and parenting style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2690–2696.
28. Lauricella, A. R., Cingel, D. P., Blackwell, C., Wartella, E., & Conway, A. (2014). The mobile generation: Youth and adolescent ownership and use of new media. Communication Research Reports, 31(4), 357-364.
29. Lenhart , A. , Purcell , K. , Smith , A. , & Zickuhr , K. ( 2010 ). Social media and mobile Internet use among teens and young adults. Washington , DC : Pew Internet & American Life Project .
30. Liau, A. K., Khoo, A., & Ang, P. H. (2005). Factors influencing adolescents’ engagement in risky internet behavior. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8, 513–520.
31. Liu, C., Ang, R. P., & Lwin, M. O. (2013). Cognitive, personality, and social factors associated with adolescents' online personal information disclosure. Journal of adolescence, 36(4), 629-638.
32. Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2004). UK children go online: Surveying the experiences of young people and their parents [online]. London: LSE Research Online. Haziran 3, 2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000395.
33. Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2008). Risky experiences for children online: Charting European research on children and the internet. Children and Society, 22, 314–323.
34. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Olafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full Findings. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.
35. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith, A., & Beaton, M. (2013). Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center, 21, 2-86.
36. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university:‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, media and technology, 34(2), 141-155.
37. Mehta, M. D., & Plaza, D. E. (1997). Pornography in cyberspace: An exploration of what's in Usenet. Culture of the Internet, 53-67.
38. Milne, G. R., & Culnan, M. J. (2004). Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: Why consumers read (or don’t read) online privacy notices. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 15-29.
39. Milne, G. R., Rohm, A. J., & Bahl, S. (2004). Consumers’ protection of online privacy and identity. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38(2), 217-232.
40. Sullivan, T. N., Farrell, A. D., & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer victimization in early adolescence: Association between physical and relational victimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors among urban middle school students. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 119-137.
41. Moscardelli, D. M., & Divine, R. (2007). Adolescents’ concern for privacy when using the Internet: An empirical analysis predictors and relationships with privacy protecting behaviors. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 35(3), 232–252
42. Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and individual differences, 52(3), 243-249.
43. National Children's Home (2005). Putting U in the picture. Mobile Bullying Survey 2005. Haziran 8, 2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir, https://www.bienestaryproteccioninfantil.es/imagenes/ tablaContenidos03SubSec/mobile_bullying_report.pdf
44. National Center of Technology in Education (NCTE). (2008). Watch your space survey. Dublin: National Center of Technology in Education.
45. Notten, N., & Nikken, P. (2014). Boys and girls taking risks online: A gendered perspective on social context and adolescents’ risky online behavior. New Media and Society.
46. OECD (2012). Connected minds: Technology and today’s learners. 30 Haziran 2019 tarihinde https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/connected-minds_9789264111011-en adresinden edinilmiştir.
47. Ong, E. Y., Ang, R. P., Ho, J. C., Lim, J. C., Goh, D. H., Lee, C. S., et al. (2011). Narcissism, extraversion and adolescents’ self-presentation on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 180–185.
48. Parker, R., & Parrott, R. (1995). Patterns of self-disclosure across social support networks: Elderly, middle-aged, and young adults. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 41, 281–297
49. Sharma, S. K., Joshi, A., & Sharma, H. (2016). A multi-analytical approach to predict the Facebook usage in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 340-353.
50. Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Flaming, complaining, abstaining: How online users respond to privacy concerns. Journal of Advertising, 28, 37–52.
51. Taddei, S., & Contena, B. (2013). Privacy, trust and control: Which relationships with online self-disclosure? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 821–826. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.022
52. Teo, T. (2013). An initial development and validation of a Digital Natives Assessment Scale (DNAS). Computers & Education, 67, 51–57.
53. Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 20–36
54. We are social (2019). Digital 2019: global internet use accelerates. Mart 18, 2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir, https://wearesocial.com/blog/2019/01/digital-2019-global-internet-use-accelerates.
55. Wisniewski, P. J., Xu, H., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2014, February). Adolescent online safety: the moral of the story. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 1258-1271). ACM.
56. Worthington, M. 2005. Network of victim assistance. http://www .novabucks.org/ (accessed September 24, 2005).
57. Yavanoğlu, U., Sağıroğlu, Ş., & Çolak, İ. (2012). Sosyal ağlarda bilgi güvenliği tehditleri ve alınması gereken önlemler. Politeknik Dergisi, 15(1), 15-27.
58. Youn, S., & Hall, K. (2008). Gender and online privacy among teens: Risk perception, privacy concerns, and protection behaviors. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 11(6), 763-765.
59. Youn, S. (2005). Teenagers' perceptions of online privacy and coping behaviors: a risk–benefit appraisal approach. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(1), 86-110.
60. Youn, S. (2009). Determinants of online privacy concern and its influence on privacy protection behaviors among young adolescents. Journal of Consumer affairs, 43(3), 389-418
61. Zhang, Z., & Gupta, B. B. (2018). Social media security and trustworthiness: overview and new direction. Future Generation Computer Systems, 86, 914-925.