Introduction

Digital technologies have the potential to revolutionize learning in a number of different ways, and as such they can be a vehicle for implementing changes in educational contexts. Even those researchers who have raised serious concerns about the participation of the young in the online world accept that the virtual world offers many opportunities for information gathering, entertainment and social interaction (e.g., Whitaker & Bushman, 2009). However, it is appropriate to at least consider some of the dark matters associated with technology use such as Internet addiction, sexting, cyber bullying, child exploitation and identity formation. We are aware that there are real risks around cyber bullying. These include insults and sexual abuse/harassment towards individuals on social networks. The perpetrators tend to be of a similar age to the victim (Katzer, Fetchenhauer, & Belschak, 2009; Staude-Müller, Hansen, & Voss, 2012). We also know that as adults we may find it inconceivable that our own child is involved in bullying (Dehue, Bolman, & Völlink, 2008). Aside from this, there are growing concerns about child exploitation and addiction to the Internet, especially among those who create avatars or net personas that provide alternative realities to escape the real world (McKenna & Bargh, 2000).

So there are dark sides to technology use and there is a real requirement to balance the need to maintain student safety without inhibiting access to the resources of the digital world, while at the same time protecting the reputation of the institution. Until now we have deliberately avoided extensive discussions regarding risks and harm, as the focus of this book concerns the positive aspects of using technology to support and enhance students’ learning. This largely remains our position but as we write the final chapters of this book we are met with the news that Google and Microsoft are to block access to pornographic images of children and that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) wants to recruit tech-savvy individuals to act in tracking down malbehaviour before children can be damaged (CEOP, 2012). These are positive moves but there are seemingly less urgent and frightening concerns that we should be aware of and which we can do something about as parents and as educators.

So what is the answer? We are all aware of the potential dangers or risks associated with online access (Crook, 2008) and the initial reaction from some parents and many teachers is to restrict children’s access to digital technology thereby removing potential risks completely. While these reactions are perfectly understandable they may not be the most productive in the long run. In the current chapter we examine the need to focus on educating children and adolescents to be more aware of the potential risks rather than simply putting up defensive barriers (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2007; Wolak, et al., 2008). These measures revolve round helping children and adolescents to be more savvy users of the technology and encouraging the development of greater emotional intelligence and risk resilience in the young. Before exploring the concepts of emotional intelligence and risk resilience, however, we present an example of the downside of technology and a more encouraging story of the development of a more streetwise approach to technology, which is reducing risk in the online world. Here we argue that a better option would be to help learners become Internet savvy, where this term covers not only the ‘how to’ do things but ‘why’ and the ‘when to get involved’, and then to trust their maturity and judgment to deal with risks appropriately.

Shades of Light and Dark

In Chapter 7 we questioned whether the time spent engaged with digital technology should be viewed as an issue. Often social media hype focuses on the risks associated with multitasking and becoming immersed with the digital world of technology. But is this really so clear-cut? New research suggests that time per se spent surfing the net or being engaged in similar activities may not be entirely detrimental, although health workers might question that conclusion. A generation swopping physical activity for a more sedentary life in the virtual world has done little to combat the obesity crisis here within the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the developed world. Putting that issue aside we look first at the rising concern about the intensity of technology use and physical health.

Punamäki and colleagues in a survey of 7,292 Finnish students between the ages of 12 and 18 years found that boys played digital games and used the Internet more often than girls, but that the girls’ mobile phone use was more intensive (Punamäki, Wallenius, et al., 2007). These are unsurprising findings but the study also showed that such intensive ICT-use was associated with poor perceived health if it impacted on sleeping habits, which in turn was associated with increased waking-time tiredness. The associations were gender-specific, especially among older adolescents (16 and 18 year olds). Intensive computer usage was a risk factor for boys, while intensive mobile phone use for girls was a perceived health risk. A Japanese study found a more limited effect of technology use in that length of time spent asleep was negatively associated with the mobile phone use only in early adolescents (Oshima, et al., 2012). Nocturnal mobile phone use was particularly damaging. In this study it was linked to poor mental health, suicidal feelings and self-injury among young adolescents in analyses that looked at sleep length and other confounding variables. These subtle differences in results from the Finnish and Japanese studies might be a consequence of the lower personal space available to Japanese adolescents in their homes, which would render covert computer use more difficult and so that boys’ phone use was similar of that of their female peers.

The significance of young peoples’ unmonitored personal space became apparent in a recent Finnish study (Nuutinen, Rayr, & Roos, 2013). This longitudinal study of the sleep patterns of 10 and 11 year olds found that using computers and watching television predicted both shorter sleep duration and later bedtimes. More specifically children who had a media presence in the bedroom tended to have irregular sleep habits. A computer in the bedroom predicted irregular sleep habits among boys but not girls, the latter being adversely affected by a television presence, which was not the case for boys. The researchers reached the conclusion, with some justification, that electronic media devices should not be placed in a child’s bedroom. They argue that children need more not less sleep as they go through puberty and that media viewing habits need reviewing for any child who appears tired and struggling to concentrate, or who is having behavioural problems. The concerns about lack of sleep are confirmed by Vriend and colleagues (2013) who found that even modest differences in sleep duration over just a few nights could have significant negative consequences for children’s daytime functioning including their memory, attention, emotional state and wellbeing.

A related point around this immersion by technology concerns the amount of time spent using the Internet and constructing alternative net personas as a way of escaping the pressures of the real world. Constructing a net persona, possibly by developing an avatar, raises issues concerning identity formation and protection in children and adolescents. Individuals have such a range of alternatives available when designing their avatars that they do not have to reveal the true identity of a person (Lee & Shin, 2004). Bessière, Fleming et al. (2007), investigating game players’ assessment of their real and virtual selves, found that while individuals rated their virtual character as being more conscientious, extroverted and less neurotic than their real selves, for those who self-reported higher levels of wellbeing this discrepancy was not large. These are not unexpected findings. Self-discrepancy theory posits a close link between psychological wellbeing and a person’s actual self as compared to his or her ideal self and consequently those with larger discrepancies between the real- and the ideal-self tend to have higher rates of depression and lower self-esteem (Higgins, 1987). Those uncomfortable with the ‘real me’ engage in virtual self-enhancement through their virtual persona. Some evidence suggests that those with a more marginalized self-identity sought affirmation in their use of the Internet and those scoring higher in depression were more likely to use the Internet for escape (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). There is a positive to this invention of a ‘better’ self as it offers the former group a means to escape poor self-evaluation by deleting negative or unwanted characteristics and enacting a better virtual self. As we can see, although there may be increasing risks or concerns, especially from parents, regarding the time spent using digital technology, there are also positive outcomes that can be found.

Overcoming Risks and Building Resilience

Rather than simply restricting children’s access to technology, another possible solution is to carefully monitor their media use. But monitoring alone may not provide changes in behaviours and can give rise to feelings of resentment on the child’s behalf. Research has shown that parental monitoring of children’s media use can reduce the negative effects of media exposure on children. That monitoring can take the form of:

• active mediation – instructive guidance, discussion and explanation (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008)
• restrictive mediation – setting rules or limits on children’s media exposure (Chakroff & Nathanson, 2008)
• co-viewing – by the child and the parent or guardian.

Working with the young person is surely the way forward here, supporting them to become informed citizens, which brings us back to the need to develop both emotional intelligence and risk resilience. However, before entering that discussion it is cheering to note that there are positive behaviours emerging in our use of the technology, as is shown by the changing behaviours of Facebook users. The relationship between privacy and a person’s social network is complex. Some information about ourselves is to be shared with a small circle of close friends but not with strangers, while in other instances we are willing to reveal information to anonymous strangers, but this is data that we are loath to tell to those close to us. A 2005 survey of over 4,000 US university students showed that that this population of Facebook users appeared quite oblivious, unconcerned or just pragmatic about their personal privacy (Gross & Aquisti, 2005). However, a study 6 years later showed that awareness of privacy issues has grown and that even over a short period of 15 months the individuals in the study sought greater privacy. They do, however, point out the knowledgeable can reconstruct more of the hidden data than we might suspect should they so wish. Bonds-Raacke and Raacke (2010) have also seen this growing awareness of risk prevention. In their 2010 study students were more likely to set their profiles to private and less likely to post their daily schedules compared to a study undertaken 2 years earlier.

The study by Dey, Jelveh, and Ross (2012) captured the activity of more than one and a half million New York Facebook users. Data were collected at two time periods 15 months apart, in March 2010 and June 2011. The team was given permission to trawl through the public and full profile pages of these users in order to establish trends in privacy awareness, as exhibited by changed Facebook settings. The results showed that many of the sample had become more circumspect about the personal data they were willing to reveal to the world, as is clearly shown in Figure 10.1. Material that could identify the user such as year of graduation and their relationship data were less available. Of particular significance is the shift from 17.2 per cent of users hiding their friends list in 2010 to 52.6 per cent of the sample doing so only 15 months later. Of course this still leaves nearly half of the sample operating an open list policy but it is nevertheless an important reduction in risk. As Dey, et al. 2012 point out there are a number of studies that show how the friends list can be exploited to reveal seemingly hidden information about an individual including sexual orientation (see, e.g. Jernigan & Mistree, 2009; Thomas, Grier, & Nicol, 2010). This growing awareness is exemplified by a quote from an 18-year-old student:

So honestly, the only time I've ever deleted for a picture is because I'm applying for colleges. You know what? Colleges might actually see my pictures and I have pictures like with my fingers up, my middle fingers up. Like me and my friends have pictures, innocent fun. We’re not doing anything bad, but innocent fun. But at the same time, maybe I’m applying for college now. Possibly an admission officer’s like, you know, this kid’s accepted. Let’s see what his everyday life is like. They’re like, um–

(Pew Internet, May 2013)

Livingstone and Haddon’s (2009) European EU Kids Online survey of 10,000 children between 9 and 16 years old from 25 European countries reported that over half the children who responded to the question, ‘What things on the Internet would bother people about your age?’ spontaneously included a platform or technology in their answer. Video sharing websites such as YouTube (32%) was the most commonly mentioned in terms of risk followed by websites (29%), social networking sites (13%) and games (10%). YouTube content was potentially upsetting because it showed real or highly realistic moving images that could be readily shared among the peer group. Video-sharing websites in general were associated with violent (30%) and pornographic (27%) content, along with a range of other content-related risks.

Further content-related risks highlighted included viewing unwanted, scary or hateful content and content harmful to self-esteem. Fear was most often expressed in relation to scary content. Of those who mentioned scary content 23 per cent also expressed fear. Only 5 per cent of those who mentioned pornographic content expressed disgust, but a rephrasing of the question showed that, of those who expressed disgust in response to online risks, 28 per cent linked this to pornography. Overall, the EU Kids Online survey mostly described commercial content as ‘annoying’ rather than threatening or invasive.

Self-Disclosure and Social Networking

Can we breathe a collective sigh of relief over the perceptiveness of the young then? Trepte and Reinecke’s (2013) work suggest not. They asked whether Facebook itself stimulated the disclosure of personal information and questioned whether SNS use and the psychological disposition for self-disclosure interact reciprocally and as such feed off each other? If this is the case then individuals who have a strong tendency to self-disclose will also prove to be highly active SNS users, the so-called self-selection effect. At the same time, frequent SNS use should increase the wish to self-disclose online, because self-disclosing behaviours are reinforced through social capital within the SNS environment, that is, there is a socialization effect. Their study of 488 SNS users who were surveyed twice over a six-month period confirmed both the self-selection and socialization effects. The disposition for online self-disclosure increased SNS use, which in turn encouraged further online self-disclosure. Both effects were moderated by the amount of social capital, that is, reinforcement from the group users received as a consequence of their SNS use.

One should not conclude that risk necessarily involves harm. Exposure to online risks does not necessarily result in harm. Another report published by EU Kids Online (Vandoninck, d’Haenens, & Smahel, 2014) has shown the online resilience of kids and how they cope with online risks. Most children do not feel bothered when confronted with online risks. However, children who find it difficult to manage their emotions, conduct and social behaviour in the ‘offline world’ are more likely to feel bothered and upset in the ‘online world’. Individual differences were once again apparent in this study. Children with psychological problems are less resilient online – online risks upset them more often and more intensely. Moreover, they tend to be passive instead of actively trying to solve the problem. Three online risks were investigated: exposure to sexual content, online bullying and sexting.

Research confirms that an approach that focuses on mediation and monitoring tends to be more appropriate to stimulate children’s online resilience, so parents should be encouraged to stay nearby while their child goes online, talk regularly about the child’s online activities, use the Internet together with their child, give advice on safer Internet use, and check what their children do online. Regardless of the type of online risk, emotional stability helps children to be more resilient to online threats. Across all ages, children who are self-confident and free from emotional and social problems are less likely to feel bothered by sexual content, online bullying or sexting. Moreover, among those with psychological problems, the intensity of harm related to online risks is stronger and the negative emotions remain for a longer period of time.

Staksrud and Livingstone (2009) argue that research on the risks associated with children’s use of the Internet is often undertaken with the aim of informing policies of risk prevention. Yet paralleling the effort to map the nature and extent of online risk is a growing unease that the goal of risk prevention tends to support an over-protective, risk-averse culture that restricts the freedom of online exploration that society encourages for children in other spheres. It is central to adolescence that teenagers learn to anticipate and cope with risk – in short, to become resilient. Staksrud and Livingstone’s pan-European study showed that in Northern European countries with high Internet access, parental perception of likelihood of online risk to their child was negatively associated with their perceived ability to cope. Surveys conducted among children in Norway, Ireland and the United Kingdom, areas seen as at relatively ‘high risk’, found that although the frequency of exposure to perceived online risks, especially content risk, is fairly high, most children adopt either positive strategies such as seeking help from a friend or, more commonly, neutral strategies such as ignoring the experience, as a way of coping. Nevertheless, they did find that a minority of young people did take risks by circulating risky content among their friends. Whatever their approach to the risky life experiences, most young people used coping strategies that excluded adult involvement. Significant differences in both risk and coping are found by gender and age across these countries, pointing to different styles of youthful risk management

In the final report form EU Kids Online project (Livingstone & Haddon, 2009) important individual differences were identified in risk exposure and behaviour. Livingstone and Haddon point out that although children in higher status families generally have more ready access to the Internet than those children in families of lower socio-economic status, it is the latter children and adolescents that are more exposed to risk online. This is yet another seemingly counterintuitive finding that makes planning effective remedial action more difficult.

Less puzzling is the emergence once more of gender differences in the type and frequency of a person’s involvement in risky behaviour. Livingstone and Haddon (2009) report that boys were more likely to encounter, or indeed initiate, conduct risks (child as actor) while girls were more affected by content (child as recipient) and contact (child as participant) risks. Boys were more likely to seek out offensive or violent content, to meet somebody offline that they have met online and to give out personal information. Girls had a greater tendency to be upset by offensive, violent and pornographic material, to chat online with strangers, to receive unwanted sexual comments and to be asked for personal information though they are wary of providing it to strangers. Both sexes face the risk of being cyber bullied. While older teenagers encountered more online risks than younger children, the impact of facing such risks by pre-teens and young teens was a concern that as yet has been little researched.

So are Emotional Intelligence and Resilience the Key to Reducing Risk?

Emotional intelligence is a double-edged sword. Emotions play a major role in any individual’s life and people interpret events as positive or negative mainly based on evoked emotional reactions. Essentially emotions are self-regulating processes that permit rapid responses and adaptations to: situations of personal concern (Kappas, 2011. p. 17). Emotions provide us with vital information for making sense of our inner experience and navigating the social environment (Abe, 2011). Typically emotions have properties that lead to self-termination – Kappas quotes the example of the emotion of fear engendered by a spider. If the spider is trodden and killed the specific emotion episode (fear of the spider) is terminated. However, this is not always the case as an individual may seek not to extinguish but to avoid the stimulus generating the emotion, for example, if the fear of flying prevents a business executive working appropriately (negative effect) but it can also be positive if it reduces confrontation, for example, by taking a new route home from school to avoid a waiting bully.

The ability to express and control our own emotions is important, but so is our ability to understand, interpret and respond to the emotions of others. Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to perceive, control and evaluate emotions to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189). Their four-factor model sums up emotional intelligence as:

• Perceiving emotions: to accurately perceive any emotion.
• Reasoning with emotions: to use those perceptions to promote thinking and cognitive activity.
• Understanding emotions: to understand why a specific emotion is being expressed.
• Managing emotions: by responding appropriately to the emotions of others.

Management and regulation of emotion is the highest and most complex level of emotional intelligence, while perception, reasoning and understanding underpin the ability to regulate one’s own and others’ emotions. Emotional clarity (the ability to discriminate clearly between feelings) and emotional repair (the ability to regulate negative moods and prolong positive ones) are related to higher emotional adjustment (Berking, Orth, et al., 2008; Fernández-Berrocal & Extremera, 2008). However, a high level of attention to, and monitoring of, one’s own feelings and emotions has been indicated as a precursor of ruminative thinking (Ramos, Fernández-Berrocal, & Extremera, 2007) and self-focused attention (Shulman & Hemenover, 2006), both variables have consistently been associated with negative affect and emotional distress (Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco & Lyubomisrsky, 2008). Romanelli, Cain, and Sith (2006) describe this succinctly: emotional intelligence might be defined as the set of skills people use to read, understand, and react effectively to emotional signals sent by others and oneself.

So people who are capable of expressing and understanding emotions, assigning meaning to emotional experience and regulating their feelings will be better adjusted, psychologically and socially (Ciarrochi, Chan, et al., 2001). Yet while some researchers suggest that emotional intelligence can be learned and strengthened, others claim it is an inborn characteristic. This is the age-old nature/nurture debate that has consequences. If emotion is perceived as a unique, immutable mental state then emotion regulation is difficult. However, the more emotion is seen as an emergent phenomenon that is constructed from our personal goals then emotion regulation becomes possible. Whichever view you take of emotion there is now a body of evidence that shows that emotion regulation has important consequences for heath and adaptive functioning (Tamir, 2011). For those of us working with the young the latter instrumental view of emotion offers a plausible way to support them.

A further debate around the concept of emotional intelligence highlighted by Côté, DeCelles, et al. (2011, p. 1071) concerns the degree to which such intelligence is a benign characteristic. They ask the question: does emotional intelligence promote behaviour that strictly benefits the greater good, or can it also advance interpersonal deviance? Drawing from research on how the effective regulation of emotion promotes goal achievement, they showed that individuals with higher emotion-regulation knowledge exhibited greater pro-social behaviour in a social dilemma but were more Machiavellian when asked to respond to a workplace scenario. Thus, emotion-regulation knowledge has both a positive side and a negative side:

Increasing emotional competence is not always beneficial for establishing and maintaining harmonious relationships. For example, even though a well-developed empathic sense might keep aggressors from attacking their victims, they might as well use it to enhance the effectiveness of their attacks.

(Denham, 2007, p. 32)

Emotional intelligence is not necessarily a force for good: while it aids much valued empathetic behaviour, it also allows us to manipulate others. Yet engendering emotional intelligence in the young should not be viewed as an educational panacea so where do we go from here? Not having a high enough level of emotional intelligence places a child at risk. An extreme example of this is found in the difficulties children on the autistic spectrum disorder have in making friends and adapting to school (Dillon & Underwood, 2012). As a first step we should be looking out for those children with low emotional intelligence and poor regulation skills. Telltale signs can, but do not always, include:

• exhibiting a limited range of emotions
• coping poorly with stressful experiences
• having outbursts of negative emotions including tantrums
• showing aggressive or ego-centric behaviours beyond that which is normal for the age group
• being generally socially less competent
• being less productive in the classroom.

Children need to develop emotional intelligence but that does not mean they will behave well. Unless they are socially skilled they will certainly have difficulties in school and elsewhere. So if emotional intelligence is not a panacea should we focus on risk resilience? Resilience is an interactive concept that refers to a relative resistance to environmental risk experiences, or the overcoming of stress or adversity. As such, it differs from both social competence and positive mental health. Resilience differs from traditional concepts of risk and protection in its focus on individual variations in response to comparable experiences. The focus here is on individual differences and the causal processes that they reflect, rather than on resilience as a general quality.

Because resilience in relation to childhood adversities may impact adolescence and adulthood, a life-span trajectory approach is needed. Also, because of the crucial importance of gene-environment interactions in relation to resilience, a wide range of research strategies spanning psychosocial and biological methods is needed. Five main implications stem from the research to date:

1. resistance to hazards may derive from controlled exposure to risk (rather than its avoidance)
2. resistance may derive from traits or circumstances that are without major effects in the absence of the relevant environmental hazards
3. resistance may derive from physiological or psychological coping processes rather than external risk or protective factors
4. delayed recovery may derive from ‘turning point’ experiences in adult life
5. resilience may be constrained by biological programming or damaging effects of stress/adversity on neural structures.

How do We Cultivate a State of Emotional Intelligence and Risk Resilience?

There is evidence that parental monitoring of children’s media can reduce the negative effects of media exposure on children. Gentile, Nathanson, et al. (2012) investigated parental monitoring of their children’s media use. Data was gathered from 1,323 elementary/primary school children, their parents and teachers. The self-report data obtained from those children, parents and teachers helped to identify four distinct types of monitoring of TV viewing and video game playing:

• co-use of the technology particular when watching TV
• limit setting on amount of time that the child was allowed to view or play with each technology
• limit setting on type of content that could be watched or game that could be played
• active mediation.

Co-playing video games, however, is done more by parents who themselves play video games and believe that playing can have beneficial effects (Nikken & Jansz, 2006). There were differences in level and type of monitoring, even within the restricted age range; they found that parents are more likely to monitor their younger children’s media use than their older children’s media use.

When we combine our results with those of other studies, we see that parental monitoring decreases in frequency as children approach middle to late childhood (Gentile, et al., 2012). But parental monitoring alone may not be sufficient to tackle the issue of risk. It is likely that a much more structured approach to raising awareness of risk and resilience may be needed to educate our young. For instance, there are now a number of websites offering advice and support to parents and teachers interested in the development of emotional intelligence and risk resilience. For example, the Risk and Resilience Framework¹ originally developed within Wakefield Local Authority to provide a structured, multiagency approach to help reduce risk and improve good quality online communications was developed as a resource to support a range of professionals working with children and young people, including, early years workers, teachers and youth support workers, learning mentors, and social care and health practitioners. Part of this structured framework was to provide:

• a consistent, evidence-based and practical approach to promoting resilience and reducing risk of adverse outcomes;
• good quality interventions that promote resilience and reduce risk to all children and young people;
• a programme that is cohesive and developmental from 0 to 19 years; and
• an approach that puts the child or young person at the centre and focuses on their competences.

However, while this multiagency approach to improving resilience and reducing potential risk for all children and young people is seen as a positive step forward, this may be seen as an extreme form of risk resilience. In fact, there is some suggestion that most parents trust their children to use online resources and Internet sites safely. The report from the Ofcom (2012) survey suggests that the majority of parents with children between the ages of 5 and 15 years showed trust in their child to use the Internet safely (81%) and generally felt that the benefits of using the Internet clearly outweighed the potential risks (65%). It appears that while children may well be at risk from unsolicited communications (email, chat forums, sexual messages); the identification of risky material (pornography); or instances of cyber-bullying from others. The majority of young adults are well-equipped to deal with those situations in a well-informed, mature and efficient manner. Indeed, Bryce and Fraser’s (2013) indepth study shows a general acceptance that there is risk and that it is just an unfortunate feature of online interactions. Their focus groups, consisting of young people aged 9 to 19 in the United Kingdom, showed that many of these youngsters were confident that they could defend themselves effectively against cyber-bullying, that is that they had the necessary awareness and agency to manage online risk responsibly. This is of course true for the majority of young people but as they point out there is a need to identify the characteristics of those young people who may be particularly vulnerable to victimization in order to design strategies that can stimulate coping skills and resilience to cyber-bullying for specific groups of young people. Our focus should, therefore, be to help promote and encourage these skills further and to improve risk resilience and emotional intelligence by working closely with individual learners and relying on multiagency support if and when appropriate.

Risks, Skills and Opportunities

This chapter has alluded to some of the potential risks in allowing children exposure to the Internet, relating to both physical and psychological difficulties with cyber-bullying, sleep deprivation and health risks. Rather than focus on these perceived risks, we have considered how we can instil confidence and resilience in the current generation to overcome the perceived difficulties that arise from their online activities. A number of practical steps can be taken to ensure safer use of digital technologies online, for example, providing easily available detailed guidelines on dealing with key issues with mobile technologies, mobile phones and the Internet and increaseing the awareness of cyber-bullying (Willard, 2006). There are also opportunities to raise a greater awareness among younger children about cyber-bullying, especially with the development of educational programmes with anti-bullying materials and educational workshops within schools (Samara & Smith, 2008). Although cyber-bullying shares many characteristics with traditional forms of bullying there are a number of unique and potentially damaging features, for example, the anonymity and lack of face-to-face social cues that can encourage persistence and escalation of harassment (Dehue, et al., 2008; Dehue, Bolman, et al., 2012). Yet bullying intervention programmes can help. Lereya, Samara, and Wolke’s (2013) critical review of the literature suggests that for a bullying intervention programme to be effective it must look beyond the school gate and draw in the support of the family. Unwanted sexual solicitation needs to be addressed through raising awareness of potential risks among parents and educators. Strengthening home–school initiatives such as through workshops, training sessions as well as increasing the amount of advice offered to parents can all help to ameliorate these risk factors (Hasebrink, Görzig, et al., 2011). More importantly, allowing children to take control and autonomy in their use of the Internet and to take responsibility for their own Internet security seems a positive approach to reducing risk. The message should be one of empowerment rather than restriction (Banyard & Underwood, 2012).

Conclusions

There are some concerns that our adult fears may actually be damaging to the very people we seek to protect. Tynes (2007) sums this concern up in ‘Internet safety gone wild? sacrificing the educational psychosocial benefits of online social environments’. She argues that online communities supported by SNSs are critical to adolescents sharing and receiving information about themselves and topics of interest. Further the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)² maintains that those children with exceptional talents are avid users of the Internet. One reason for this is that it may be their only social outlet. The current dilemma regards how educators and parents allow children the freedom to explore new digital technology yet at the same time protect them from potential harm and unwarranted risks. As Crook (2008, p. 10) advocates: safe internet use involves balancing perceived benefits against acceptable risks. Most young adults, as well as children, appear to be aware of their own safety and clearly understand the associated risks when using online resources (Crook, 2008; Sharples, et al., 2009). This suggests that young adults are perhaps less naive, less susceptible and less vulnerable than the social media would perhaps lead us to believe. There is a growing need not to restrict the use of digital technologies, but to educate adults and young people about the potential risks and to allow them to make informed choices about their use of technology. Our own research has shown that schools that offer open but monitored Internet access tend to produce risk-aware and therefore potentially safer cohorts of young people who are more likely to have the skills to protect themselves beyond the school gate (Underwood, et al., 2008).