Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Online 2020
Survey results from 19 countries
ISSN 2045-256X
Please cite this report as:
Smahel, D., Machackova, H., Mascheroni, G., Dedkova, L., Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S.,
and Hasebrink, U. (2020). EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids Online. Doi:
10.21953/lse.47fdeqj01ofo
EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. This report maps the internet access, online
practices, skills, online risks and opportunities for children aged 9–16 in Europe. Teams of the EU Kids
Online network collaborated between autumn 2017 and summer 2019 to conduct a major survey of
25,101 children in 19 European countries.
Authors:
David Smahel, Interdisciplinary Research Team on Internet and Society, Masaryk University
Hana Machackova, Interdisciplinary Research Team on Internet and Society, Masaryk University
Lenka Dedkova, Interdisciplinary Research Team on Internet and Society, Masaryk University
Authors’ acknowledgements:
This report and the development of a joint comparative dataset was partially supported by the project
FUTURE (GX19-27828X) which is financed by the Czech Science Foundation, and a grant from the
Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security’s Proposition 12 S (2016–2017) Escalation Plan against
Violence and Abuse (2017–2021). The authors acknowledge the support of all members of the EU Kids
Online network. Full acknowledgements for the survey are described in a separate chapter. Thanks also
to members of the Interdisciplinary Research Team on Internet and Society (IRTIS, Masaryk University)
for help with this report.
The EU Kids Online network is a multinational research network. It seeks to enhance knowledge of
European children’s online opportunities, risks and safety. It uses multiple methods to map children’s
and parents’ experiences of the internet, in dialogue with national and European policy stakeholders.
Now working in more than 30 countries, the network integrates research expertise across multiple
disciplines and methods.
For all reports, findings and the technical report of this survey, as well as full details of national partners,
please visit www.eukidsonline.net
|2|
Contents
Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 5
Key findings ................................................................................................................................ 6
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 9
Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 13
How to read the findings ...................................................................................................... 16
Access ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Devices ................................................................................................................................. 18
Time spent online ................................................................................................................. 22
Practices and skills .................................................................................................................... 25
Online activities .................................................................................................................... 25
Digital skills ........................................................................................................................... 35
Risks and opportunities ............................................................................................................ 43
Overall negative online experiences .................................................................................... 45
Online aggression and cyberbullying ................................................................................... 52
Harmful content ................................................................................................................... 61
Data misuse .......................................................................................................................... 69
Excessive internet use .......................................................................................................... 77
Sexting .................................................................................................................................. 82
Seeing sexual images ............................................................................................................ 89
Meeting new people ............................................................................................................ 94
Preference of online communication ................................................................................ 100
Social context ......................................................................................................................... 106
Mediation ........................................................................................................................... 106
Sharenting .......................................................................................................................... 121
Digital ecology .................................................................................................................... 126
Conclusions and policy implications....................................................................................... 131
Interpreting the evidence .................................................................................................. 131
Differences and inequalities within countries ................................................................... 132
Comparisons across countries ........................................................................................... 133
A holistic approach to children’s well-being in a digital world .......................................... 135
|3|
Country profiles ...................................................................................................................... 137
Croatia (HR) ........................................................................................................................ 138
Czech Republic (CZ) ............................................................................................................ 139
Estonia (EE) ......................................................................................................................... 140
Finland (FI) .......................................................................................................................... 141
Flanders – Belgium (VL) ...................................................................................................... 142
France (FR).......................................................................................................................... 143
Germany (DE) ..................................................................................................................... 144
Italy (IT)............................................................................................................................... 145
Lithuania (LT) ...................................................................................................................... 146
Malta (MT) .......................................................................................................................... 147
Norway (NO)....................................................................................................................... 148
Poland (PL).......................................................................................................................... 149
Portugal (PT) ....................................................................................................................... 150
Romania (RO) ..................................................................................................................... 151
Russian Federation (RU) ..................................................................................................... 152
The Republic of Serbia (RS) ................................................................................................ 153
The Slovak Republic (SK) .................................................................................................... 154
Spain (ES) ............................................................................................................................ 155
Switzerland (CH) ................................................................................................................. 156
|4|
Acknowledgements
EU Kids Online members acknowledge the support of the following institutions which enabled the survey to be
carried out in 19 countries. We also thank all the research agencies, teachers and school staff who helped to
administer the survey and helped in the research process, as well as all the children and young people who
participated.
Croatia: Association for Communication and Media Culture, Agency for Electronic Media of the Republic of Croatia,
Croatian Telecom Inc., City of Zagreb, Croatian Regulatory Authority for Network Industries, Center for Missing and
Exploited Children and Ipsos Puls.
Estonia: For generous financial support: Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Education and Research (from the
European Social Fund), Ministry of Justice, Estonian Internet Foundation, and Institute of Social Studies, University
of Tartu (research projects PUT 44, financed by the Estonian Research Council, and IUT 20-38, financed by the
Ministry of Education and Research); for data collection: Turu-uuringute AS.
France: OpinionWay with funding from Facebook and support from the International Observatory of Violence in
Schools and the Université Nice Sophia Antipolis.
Italy: DG for the Student, Participation and Integration of the Ministry of Education, University and Research
(MIUR) and realised by OssCom- Research Centre on Media and Communication.
Lithuania: Children’s and adolescents’ Internet use in Lithuania: possibilities and risks tendencies in EU context
(No. S-MIP-17-1/LSS-250000-1087, Research Council of Lithuania), Institute of Psychology at Vilnius University.
Malta: Malta Communications Authority, Directorate for Learning and Assessment Programmes, Besmartonline!,
Tech.mt, Commissioner for Children, Foundation for Social Welfare Services, Cybercrime Unit.
Norway: National State Budget 2017-18 under the Ministry of Justice and Public Security’s Proposition 1S (2016-
17) and Proposition 12 S (2016-17) Escalation Plan against Violence and Abuse (2017-21).
Portugal: DNS.PT Association, for funding the field work, and DGE - Directorate-General for Education, for support
and communication with schools.
Romania: IRES (Institutul Român pentru Evaluare şi Strategie), Institute of Sociology and the Digital Lives.
Research, Education and Intervention platform.
Serbia: Institute of Psychology, University of Belgrade, Department of Media and Communication, University of
Oslo, Norway, Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development in Serbia, Ministry of Trade, Tourism
and Telecommunications in Serbia, OSCE Serbia, UNICEF Serbia, and USAID Serbia.
Slovakia: The Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic within Operational Programme
Human Resources Development 2014-20 ‘Národný projekt Podpora ochrany detí pred násilím’ (ITMS 2014+:
312041M679).
Spain: Spanish Ministry of Economy and Innovation (MINECO) through the project CSO2017- 88431-R. The editing
of the Spanish report was cofunded by the Spanish Cibersecurity Institute (INCIBE) and SIC-SPAIN ‘Safer Internet
Centre Spain’ funded by the EC (CEF-TC-2018-1).
Switzerland: Bundesamt für Sozialversicherungen - Nationale Plattform Jugend und Medien and Pädagogische
Hochschule Schwyz - Institut für Medien und Schule.
|5|
Key findings
This report presents the findings from a survey of In some countries, girls are slightly more likely
children aged 9–16 from 19 European countries. The than boys to access the internet from their
data were collected between autumn 2017 and smartphones daily. On most measures of access,
summer 2019 from 25,101 children by national teams there are few gender differences, except that
from the EU Kids Online network. overall, boys spend a little longer online than
girls.
A theoretical model and a common methodology to
guide this work was developed during four phases of As the devices for internet access continue to
the network’s work, and is discussed at the outset of change, in most countries less than half of the
this report. The main findings from the key topic children aged 9–16 access the internet through a
areas are summarised, which correspond to the desktop computer or notebook. On the other
factors identified in the theoretical model: Access, hand, between 3% and 15% of the children
Practices and skills, Risks and opportunities, and connect though wearable device and 1% to 18%
Social context. via a connected toy.
|6|
Older children were asked to report on their The survey asked the children about several kinds of
competences regarding several types of digital online activities and experiences that can result in
skill in the survey. Across the countries, most harm for some children. Some of these activities or
children aged 12–16 scored highly on operational experiences have a greater potential for harm,
and social skills. Information navigation skills whereas some have greater potential for benefit.
were found to be uneven across countries, and
particularly low in Switzerland, Germany, Spain, In most of the countries, less than 10% of the
France and Italy. Countries were also uneven for children reported being a victim of online bullying
creative skills, though in most of them, fewer which happened on a monthly basis, while less
than half of the children said they could edit or than 5% reported bullying others monthly online.
make basic changes to online content, for There were no substantial gender differences. Of
instance. those who had been the victim of such behaviour
online, a fifth reported no harm and another fifth
Risks and opportunities reported intense harm.
The EU Kids Online survey asks children about harm The survey asked only older children (12- to 16-
in general, as they see it, before specific questions year-olds) about exposure to a range of
about risky activities are presented to them. potentially harmful content. The majority of
children aged 12–16 in most of the countries have
The question asked of 9- to 16-year-olds was: In not seen ways of physically harming or hurting
the PAST YEAR, has anything EVER happened themselves in the past year online on a monthly
online that bothered or upset you in some way basis. Most, too, have not seen ways to be very
(e.g., made you feel upset, uncomfortable, thin on the internet in the past year, although in
scared or that you shouldn’t have seen it)? The some countries, slightly more girls than boys
proportion of children who said ‘yes’ varied report seeing such content. However, in the
among countries, ranging from 7% (Slovakia) to majority of the countries, the most common of
45% (Malta). the potentially harmful content we asked about
was exposure to hate messages – from 4%
In most of the countries, the proportion of (Germany) to 48% (Poland) – with no gender
children who said ‘yes’, something online had differences.
bothered or upset them, is smaller than the
proportion in each country who reported the The most common experience related to data
more common risks, such as sexting or meeting misuse is getting a virus or spyware. Also, more
new people on the internet. This suggests that boys than girls reported that they spend too much
not all risk results in self-reported harm to a child. money on apps or games; overall, personal data
misuse increases with age.
The proportion of children reporting such a
negative online experience rises with age, The survey also asked about excessive internet
although there are few or no gender differences use and measured five criteria or this problem.
in most countries. Few children reported that they have gone
without eating and sleeping because of the
Among those children who said they had had a internet daily or weekly, and more children – from
negative experience online, most said it had 4% (Slovakia) to 21% (Flanders) – have daily or
happened a few times, but not frequently. weekly spent less time with family, friends or
doing schoolwork because of time spent online.
Number of children who reported that they told However, the majority of the children in all of the
no one about their negative experiences ranges countries do not experience any of the criteria of
between 4% (France) and 30% (Estonia). Most excessive internet use. All five of the criteria of
often, children told about the negative experience excessive internet use are experienced by 0% to
a parent or friend or both (rarely did they tell a 2.1% of children.
teacher or professional whose job it is to help
children). Exchanging sexual messages (‘sexting’) may be
an opportunity or a risk. Among 12- to 16-year-
In addition to telling someone, the children tried olds, the percentage who received a sexual
a range of strategies – closing the window or app, message in the past year ranged between 8%
blocking a troublesome person and, for some, (Italy) and 39% (Flanders) – more were older
ignoring the problem or even feeling guilty about than younger, but gender differences were minor.
what had happened. Between 3% (Italy) and Sending sexual messages is less prevalent than
35% (Poland) of children reported the problem receiving such messages, ranging between 1%
online. (France) and 18% (Germany). Such messages
may be wanted or unwanted: when asked about
However, most children said that they usually
receiving unwanted sexual requests online, the
knew how to react to the online behaviours of
findings showed that more girls and older children
others they did not like.
experienced such unwanted requests.
|7|
The percentage of 9- to 16-year-olds who in ten and one in four young internet users say
reported seeing some kind of sexual image in the that they have never or hardly ever received any
past year ranged from 21% (France) to 50% safety advice from parents, teachers or friends.
(Serbia). Again, more boys and older children saw
these images. The internet was a more common In most of the countries girls and younger
means of such exposure than traditional media children more than boys and older children talk to
(television, films, magazines). The largest their parents about their online activities.
proportion of children said seeing such images did
Parents are generally preferred as a source of
not affect them negatively or positively. In most
support, although the children consider that
countries, the proportion of children who were
teachers encourage them to explore and learn
happy or fairly or very upset is similar, stressing
new things online as well as ways to use the
the notion that seeing sexual images could be
internet safety.
both a risk and an opportunity. However, more
girls felt upset after this experience. The survey asked about three technological
options parents can use: whether parents use
Between one in four and one in two children have
parental control software that would block or
communicated online with someone they not met
filter the content on the internet, whether parents
face-to-face before, but fewer – generally around
keep track of applications or online activities the
one in six – have met such a person offline. More
child engages in, and whether parents use any
older children and boys interact with unknown
technology to track the location of the child such
people than younger children or girls, although
as GPS. In most countries, a minority of children
few gender differences were found for face-to-
reported that their parents use any of these
face meetings. Most children reported being
technological controls.
happy after a face-to-face meeting with their
online contacts, again suggesting that this activity The results show that parents don’t often use
can be an opportunity rather than just a risk. restrictive mediation – only a few children are not
allowed to use webcams, download content or go
The majority of the children say they find it easier
on social networking sites. In most of the
to be themselves online at least sometimes. In
countries there are no gender differences in
some of the countries, boys more often than girls
restrictions on use of social networking sites.
say this. In about half of the countries, a majority
However, younger children more often than older
of children also said they talk about different
children are not allowed to use social networking
things online than offline at least sometimes.
sites.
However, the majority of the children in all of the
countries said they never talk about personal Parents are not always a source of support. In
things online that they do not talk about face-to- most of the countries, up to a third of the children
face. said their parents had published something online
about them without asking them. Between 3%
Social context (Lithuania) and 29% (Romania) have asked their
parents to remove things they have published
Who supports children as they go online? In most
from the internet.
of the countries, most of the children say that
their parents engage in active mediation at least In all countries, about one in ten children never
sometimes (talk to them, encourage them, help feel safe online. More negatively, between 3%
them and suggest ways to use internet safely). In (Norway) and 44% (Spain) of the children never
previous research such actions have been find other people are kind and helpful on the
associated with higher levels of digital skills and internet.
more online opportunities. However, parents
focus more on encouraging safe use of the Regarding ‘reverse mediation’, the survey found
internet than on encouraging children to explore that a sizeable minority of children, and in some
the opportunities that the internet offers. countries a majority of children, help often or very
often their parent(s) when they find something
Parents are the main source of help when difficult on the internet (ranging between 12% in
something bothering or upsetting happens online Germany and 69% in Serbia). This may indicate
to the children. In all of the countries, more than a continuing generation gap, where parents lag
half of the children say their parents help them at behind their children in digital skills. More
least sometimes. Friends are reported as sources positively, it may suggest that parents are not
of help by a lower number of children. In most of afraid to let their children help them, and that
the countries, teachers are the least commonly families are sharing the challenge of learning to
used source of help. manage the digital environment together.
The findings show that in most of the countries,
over four in five children receive advice on safe
internet use from parents, friends or teachers. On
the other hand, in most countries, between one
|8|
Introduction
About this report touch-screen devices, children are also using the
internet at earlier ages3. On the other hand, policy
During the past three decades, use of the internet and legal actions such as the GDPR (General Data
and digital technologies has become an inextricable Protection Regulation) have also responded to these
part of the daily lives of European citizens. changes, resulting in the restriction of certain
Responding to the needs for mapping and services. In response to all these changes, this report
understanding the risks and benefits experienced by provides findings based on wide and robust cross-
children, the EU Kids Online project conducts robust culture research. The main goal of this report is to
international research on children’s use of the map the online access, practices, skills and
internet and digital technologies (see ‘EU Kids Online current risks and opportunities of internet use
project’). among European children.
In this report, we follow up work from the EU Kids This report is centred on several areas of interest that
Online 2010, in which the network published an correspond to the theoretical model presented next
international report based on a survey taken among in the section Theoretical background of the project.
children and parents in 25 European countries1. Multiple chapters with findings cover the topics also
Following its huge impact on policy and prevention presented in EU Kids Online 20104. In this report, we
and intervention efforts at both national and specifically describe four main areas: (1) access
international levels, our aim is to again provide (how children access the internet and how much time
crucial information highlighting the patterns of they spend there); (2) practices and skills (what
current technology use and the related positive and children do online and how skilled they are when
negative experiences of children aged 9–16. To fill using the internet); (3) risks and opportunities
this goal, between autumn 2017 and summer 2019, (the specific activities or experiences that can lead to
with the joint cooperation of teams from the EU Kids harm or to a positive outcome, including overall
Online network, a survey was carried out among negative experiences, online aggression and
children in 19 European countries (see Figure 1). It cyberbullying, encountering potentially harmful
should be noted that this initiative was solely based content, experiencing data misuse, excessive
on funding sourced or ensured by each national internet use, sexting, seeing sexual images, meeting
team, and we thank all involved members and new people online and preference for online
contributing parties for their contributions (see communication); and (4) social context (other
section ‘Acknowledgements’). actors who affect children’s engagement with the
internet with specific focus on mediation, sharenting
The new survey partially followed earlier research and children’s perceptions of the online
from EU Kids Online 2010. However, in the current environment). The last part of the report comprises
survey and also in this report, we recognised country profiles of the 19 countries that
significant changes that have happened in the past participated in the survey. These highlight the most
decade with regard to the digital environment. These interesting findings from the national surveys,
include the rapid proliferation of smartphones and including questions that are not addressed in this
fast mobile internet resulting in increased access to report and more profound analyses of data. The
internet by mobile phones or tablets2. New services results in the country profiles may differ slightly from
and digital worlds for children have also been results in other sections, due to different age groups,
developed, such as Instagram and TikTok. variations in analytic approach, etc.
Consequently, and in line with the development of
1 Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. 4 Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K.
(2011). Risk and safety on the internet: The perspective (2011). Risk and safety on the internet: The perspective
of European children. Full findings from the EU Kids of European children. Full findings from the EU Kids
Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents. EU Kids Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents. EU Kids
Online, LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/ Online, LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/
2 Mascheroni, G., & Ólafsson, K. (2014). Net Children Go
| 10 |
team. The whole network is coordinated by a about what the risk and opportunities of children’s
Management Group, with Uwe Hasebrink and Claudia online engagements, and how this influences their
Lampert (Germany), Leen d’Haenens (Belgium), rights and well-being.
Sonia Livingstone (UK), Giovanna Mascheroni (Italy),
Kjartan Ólafsson (Iceland), Brian O’Neill (Ireland), In this report we work with a theoretical-analytical
Cristina Ponte (Portugal), David Smahel (Czech model that considers individual, social level and
Republic) and Elisabeth Staksrud (Norway). national factors6. The model serves as a basic
roadmap showing the various factors influencing
From 2006 until 2014, the network was funded by children’s online experiences, and the impact of these
the European Commission’s Better Internet for Kids experiences on children’s well-being.
programme. After that, given the accumulated
expertise of the network and its eminent role as an The model (see
actor providing solid empirical evidence for
Figure 2), inspired by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological
multistakeholder processes on the European as well
Systems Theory7, builds on the existing evidence
as on the national level, the network members
about children and online media. When designing our
decided to continue their collaboration and to
questionnaire for the this survey, our aim was to
develop new cooperative projects. Among others, the
include questions that would enable us to seek a
network members were involved in the establishment
deeper understanding of how children’s engagement
of Global Kids Online (see globalkidsonline.net), in an
with the internet is dependent on individual factors,
effort to map the implementation of Better Internet
including age and gender, their socioeconomic and
for Kids policies in Europe. In 2019 the network
cultural background, personality traits, disabilities,
successfully proposed a project ‘Children Online:
opportunities to access the internet, level of different
Research and Evidence’ (CORE) within the HORIZON
types of skills and how they use the internet. This
2020 framework. In the years 2020–22 this project
includes how general psychological well-being, such
will conceptualise, implement and disseminate a
as feelings of safety and belonging, is linked to
comprehensive knowledge base on the impact of
(digital) well-being. On a social level we see that not
technological transformations on children and young
only parents but also extended family with siblings
people.
and grandparents can play a role in the likelihood of
From 2017 to 2019, the network designed a second an online experience being something leading to
representative survey of children and online risks and harm or something that the child has the skills to
opportunities. Based on the enthusiasm and cope with and move on from. We also seek to
engagement of the national teams and the generous understand the role and influence of peers, educators
support of different sources of national funding (see (such as, but not limited to teachers), and the larger
‘Acknowledgements’), the network succeeded in community to which children belong. And
conducting surveys in 19 European countries. This importantly, we include the concept of ‘digital
report presents the findings of this new survey (see ecology’, the influence that may come for the
‘About this report’). technologically mediated communication children
experience online, such as visiting online
Theoretical background of the communities, multiplayer online games or other
virtual environments. The perception of these online
project environments is crucial because it shapes children’s
online behaviours.
The approach of the EU Kids Online network to the
research field is holistic, and we draw from the It should be noted that because of the complexity of
competences and expertise of researchers from the model, it is not possible to encompass findings
many academic disciplines, including, but not limited related to all the mentioned areas in one report.
to, media and communication, psychology, sociology, Therefore, in this report, we present only selected
education, history and political science. While we findings related to access, practices and skills,
differ in and employ a wide range of theoretical opportunities and risks and social context, and
concepts and research methods, we are united in our consider the effects of gender and age (see ‘About
focus on conceptual clarification, mapping and this report’). Further topics will be pursued in the
collecting new evidence and debunking myths. In this upcoming short reports.
we emphasise the value of systematic research-
based documentation and mapping the role the Finally, we include what we call ‘country-level
internet, mobile phones and computer games play in mediators/moderators’, recognising how societal
children’s lives. This is to inform not only the wider stratification, regulation, infrastructure, education
research community, but also the public and policy- and values in a country can play a role in mediating
makers, enabling informed debates and decisions the outcomes of well-being. Recognising how the
6 7
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Staksrud, E. (2018). Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human
European research on children’s internet use: Assessing development: Experiments by design and nature.
the past and anticipating the future. New Media & Harvard University Press.
Society, 20(3), 1103–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816685930
| 11 |
internet is now something that is integrated into most designing research and policy that respects children’s
children’s lives, used for information-seeking, lives holistically and at eschewing moral panics in
communication, learning and socialising, our model favour of the contribution of rigorous theory and
seeks to shift the agenda from how children engage evidence.
with the internet as a medium to how they engage
with the world mediated by the internet. This shift is For a more detailed explanation of our analytical
what enables us to foreground children’s agency, and framework and how European research in the area
to adopt a child-centred approach that of children and the internet has developed over the
simultaneously contextualises children’s internet use past two decades, please read the relevant article by
in particular countries or contexts of childhood, Livingstone et al8.
assumes the interconnections between risks and
opportunities as a starting point, and is aimed at
8
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Staksrud, E. (2018).
European research on children’s internet use: Assessing
the past and anticipating the future. New Media &
Society, 20(3), 1103–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816685930
| 12 |
The translation of the questionnaire was coordinated
Methodology and supervised by expert members of the EU Kids
Online within each country. In several countries
(Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania and
This report is based on findings from surveys Switzerland), cognitive testing was conducted to
conducted in 19 European countries focused on assure the comprehensibility of the questionnaire
internet users aged 9-17 (see and its national translation.
Table 1), with a total of 25,101 participants. The data Sampling and population
were collected between autumn 2017 and summer
2019. In this report, we present findings from a The target survey population were children aged 9–
subsample of 21,964 children aged 9-16. 17 who use the internet. However, several countries
did not collect data from 17-year-olds. To maximise
In this section, we summarise the most important
the number of countries and the comparability of the
aspects of the methods used in the survey
overall findings, we thus only analyse data from
preparation and data collection. Full details of the
children aged 9–16 in this report.
project methodology, materials, fieldwork, data
management and research ethics are available in the Two sampling methods were recommended:
Technical report of the EU Kids Online IV project at sampling via households and via schools. Each
www.eukidsonline.net. participating country selected the method depending
on available resources and country and cultural
The questionnaire context. The following criteria were proposed to
provide the best combination of representativeness
The full master questionnaire in English and also its and viability: the age of the child, the gender of the
national translations are available at child, region (usually NUTS2) and urban/rural areas.
www.eukidsonline.net. The questionnaire is based on The application of these criteria was tailored to the
the tool used in the EU Kids Online survey in 2010 9 national context to provide data that would be
and the Global Kids Online survey10 that were representative of the targeted population.
thoroughly adjusted to correspond to the current
state of technology and patterns of internet use. The Variants of household sampling include random walk,
development of the new questionnaire was based on quota sampling and random recruitment/selection of
the co-operation and expertise of members of the EU households from a specific register. Countries that
Kids Online network, led by Professor Elisabeth used household sampling were Croatia, Estonia,
Staksrud (University of Oslo, Norway) and researcher France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Russia
Kjartan Ólafsson (University of Akureyri, Iceland). and Slovakia (9 countries). The sampling and data
Researchers as well as stakeholders were invited to collection in France was carried by using the online
participate in the process. panel of the agency OpinionWay.
The questionnaire includes two types of questions – For sampling via schools, the guidelines defined for
core questions, which represent the main focus of ESPAD 2015 (i.e., the European School Survey
this survey, and optional questions that inquired into Project on Alcohol and other Drugs) were
selected topics in more depth or asked about recommended. The general target population was
additional issues. The countries were instructed to defined as students aged 9 to 17 who were present
use all the core questions and to choose from the in the classroom on the day of the survey. Students
optional questions in line with their preferences. The enrolled in regular, vocational, general and academic
findings presented in this report are from the core studies were included. Those who were enrolled in
questions only. either special schools or special classes for students
with learning disorders or severe physical disabilities
Considering the length of the questionnaire, and the were not included. Countries that used school
complex and sensitive nature of some items, in most sampling were the Czech Republic, Finland, Flanders,
countries (except Spain, Finland, Croatia, France, and Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain and
Flanders) the questionnaire was distributed in two Switzerland (10 countries).
forms: a full version for older children and a shorter
version for younger children (9–10). In the master Three countries, Belgium, Finland and Russia, used
questionnaire, it was proposed that a block of specific sampling that also precluded the weighting
questions be excluded from the version for younger options. Data from Belgium were designed to reflect
children; however, each country had the option to only pupils from the Flanders region (thus the Belgian
decide itself which questions should not be asked of contribution for this survey is referred to as Flanders)
younger children. while also excluding Brussels. Moreover, urban and
regional profiles of surveyed schools differ from the
9 see www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-
communications/research/research-projects/eu-kids-
online/toolkit/survey-questionnaires
10 see www.globalkidsonline.net/tools/survey/
| 13 |
distributions in population. In Finland, the final Table 1). In all countries, the administration of the
sample deviates from population distributions of both questionnaire strived to minimise bias due to
the age and region. In Russia, the survey only took interview conditions. This included consideration of
place in larger cities, unrepresentative of the regional bias caused by the feeling of non-anonymity of the
distributions of the population. These countries also participant, which should be diminished by obligation
excluded younger children from the survey (age 9– to ensure the participant’s anonymity as much as
11). Consequently, the data from these countries are possible and protection from the influence of outside
not weighted and the comparability of the findings sources (in households these could generally mean
must be interpreted with regard to this limitation. the presence and influence of parents/family, in
schools, of teachers or other students).
Fieldwork
Most countries using the household sampling method
The data collection by trained administrators was also used some form of incentives (except for
conducted by professional agencies, affiliated Germany, Lithuania and Russia). The individual
institute, or by national teams ( nature of the incentive ranged from a symbolic gift
serving as a thank you to monetary compensation for
time provided.
* In the EU Kids Online 2010 survey all regions in Belgium were included.
The data were collected via three base methods: France, where the children filled in their
responses alone on their household computers.
CASI/CAWI (computer-assisted self-
interviewing/computer-assisted web CAPI (computer-assisted personal interviewing),
interviewing), in which interviewed children filled in which interviewers asked the children each
in the questionnaire on their own in the question and marked the answer using an
tablets/notebooks/computers while instructed by electronic tool. The children were handed the
trained interviewers. The exception for this was data-collecting tool in cases where the national
| 14 |
research team deemed some questions to be too
sensitive.
Data Analysis
PAPI (paper-assisted personal interviewing), in
which the children were handed paper versions of The data used for analyses were weighted, with
the questionnaire to fill in during interviews, in the exception of data from Flanders, Finland and
the presence of trained administrators. This Russia (see the description of sampling above).
method was used mostly in countries that used The weights for each country were prepared
school sampling for their survey. individually. They were created using the criteria
of gender, age and region (or other additional
See criteria, such as schools type, if applicable).
Weighting is a statistician correction technique
Table 1 for the overview of used methods.
that we used to improve the accuracy of the
survey estimates according to a representative
Ethical aspects population of the relevant country.
In all countries, the administration of the
The results in this report were computed from
questionnaire followed base ethical guidelines,
valid data only. However, the data also included
adhering to the national rules and conditions. Before
several types of missing data (including the
the questionnaire was introduced, informed consent
options Don’t know and Prefer not to say), shares
of the legal representatives and written or oral
of which differed across countries and also across
consent from the child was obtained. Children were
different questions. All types of the missing data
guaranteed anonymity and were given the
were excluded from the analyses.
opportunity to choose the option I don’t know or
Prefer not to say for each of the questions, or they In some countries, the definition of younger
were allowed to skip any of the questions. For this children differed from the recommended one
reason, the number of participants providing answers (i.e., 9–10). To account for country differences in
to individual questions varies. During the data this regard, we define the youngest category as
collection, special effort was made to provide consisting of children aged 9–11, followed by
comfortable conditions for the participants. This children aged 12–14, and the oldest age category
included maximising the anonymity of the comprising children aged 15–16.
participants and limiting interference from other
parties.
Limitations
The findings presented in this report should be
interpreted with regard to several limitations that
relate to the nature of the data as well as their
depiction in the text, figures and tables.
| 15 |
How to read the
All of the data are weighted. The exceptions are
data from Flanders, Finland and Russia, which
were not weighted because of the specific
findings sampling (see ‘Methodology’). We recommend
great caution in comparing these countries to
other countries.
This section helps readers to understand the findings,
their presentation, and their interpretation. Note that due to rounding the sum of numbers in
certain graphs might add up to between 99% and
How to approach comparisons 101%.
In this report, the main focus is on the findings of Which data are presented
each individual country and less on comparison
between the countries. In some figures and tables, data from certain
countries are omitted (such countries are denoted
As described in the ‘Methodology’, this varied by an asterisk). This was done if the country did
across countries, which contributes to variations not ask any respective questions or the question
in the children’s answers across the countries. was asked only of a subset of children that was
Therefore, the differences between countries different than in the other countries.
must be interpreted with caution.
If a sufficient amount of data was not available
If readers want to directly compare two or more for younger children, the countries were not
different countries, we recommend looking at the included in the presentation of overall findings
methods and sampling used in the respective across the countries and in the gender
countries (see comparison. The available data is, however,
presented in findings depicting age differences.
Table 1).
Across the whole report, due to absent data
In line with Cohen’s recommendation for from younger children, Flanders, Finland
interpretation of effect sizes11, in this report we and Russia are omitted from overall
considered the differences equal or below 5 findings across countries and the gender
percentage points as negligible, the differences comparison. Other countries are omitted
between 6–15 percentage points as small, 16–25 depending on their choice of specific design of
as medium, and higher as large. shorter versions of the questionnaire for younger
children.
While the prevalences are described by
percentages (%), the differences between two Comparison with EU Kids Online
percentages are described by percentage points
(i.e., arithmetical difference between two 2010
percentages).
Possibilities for direct comparison with EU Kids
The smaller the prevalence of a phenomenon, the Online 2010, both the data and most reports
more caution we advise when evaluating the published from these data (including the key
country, gender and age differences. This applies report from 201112 are limited for several reasons:
especially for phenomena with prevalences under
Sampling and data collection: the sampling
10% (such as online risks).
and data collection method in all countries was
In the figures and tables in the report, we provide not the same in the EU Kids Online 2010 survey.
an average that is computed from the displayed
Questionnaire: the questionnaire was
percentages (Ave). This can be used to compare
thoroughly updated and the wording of many
results across gender and age, or to compare the
questions and answers changed to better fit the
prevalence of different items. However, this
current situation and trends in technology
average is ‘the mean of means’ and not the data
development.
average or the European average. We
recommend not comparing country results Participating countries: from 19 countries in
against the average. this report, only 12 comparable countries
11
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
12
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K.
(2011). Risk and safety on the internet: The perspective
of European children. Full findings from the EU Kids
Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents. EU Kids
Online, LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/
| 16 |
participated in both the EU Kids Online 2010 and
in this survey (Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain). Belgium
also participated in 2010, but in the current
survey, only the data was only collected in
Flanders, thus the comparison is not possible.
| 17 |
Access
As described in ‘Theoretical background of the more and more ubiquitously embedded in children’s
project’, EU Kids Online work is based on the model everyday lives. For this reason, EU Kids Online
that helps to identify the outcomes of technology use recommends that we do not focus on a separation
on children’s lives, and which factors influence these between an online world and ‘the real world’, but
outcomes. The description of the main findings from instead look at how our world and our relationships
this EU Kids Online survey thus starts with the basic to other people are mediated through the internet15.
precondition of this overreaching aim: in essence, in
order to examine the effect of internet use, children To investigate children’s access to the internet, we
first have to use it. Hence, we first focus on the asked the children the following question:
children’s access to technology, specifically on how
How often do you go online or use the internet using
they go online (which devices they use) and how
the following devices?
much time they spend online. These two basic
technology usage factors frame children’s online Children in all of the countries answered this question
practices and inevitably shape their online about use of: a smartphone or mobile phone; a
experiences (see Figure 3). desktop computer, laptop or notebook; a tablet;
other. Some countries also included optional
Figure 3: Theoretical model - this section
questions about new technologies – a games
focuses on Access (in red).
console; TV; a toy connected to the internet;
a wearable device – which we also decided to include
in this report. The results about daily use of all said
technologies are summarised in Table 2.
Children
A
c
O
N
Smartphones are always at hand, providing an
‘anywhere, anytime’ connectivity, at least in
Child
Child identity c L
well-being
and resources e I
s N
and rights
principle. It comes as no surprise, then, that the
s E
phone is the most frequently used device to go
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL online. Indeed, if we look at the frequencies
Family Educators Peers Community Digital ecology
through which children access the internet from
SOCIAL LEVEL their phones, the majority report using their
smartphones almost all the time, several times
Societal inclusion Technology provision Education and Culture, media each day or at least daily, although this ranges
between 65% (France) and 89% (Lithuania)
(inequality, welfare) and regulation knowledge and values
Devices
Poland, Portugal, Romania and Serbia), over 80%
of children aged 9–16 use a smartphone to access
the internet at least once a day.
Internet access shapes the conditions under which In 2010, the number of children going online from
children are taking advantage of online opportunities their mobile phones ranged from 31% (Norway)
or are exposed to online risks. A major shift in the to only 2% (Romania). From the EU Kids Online
way children access the internet was represented by survey 2010, the percentage of children using a
smartphones, with their use already widespread phone or smartphone to access the internet in all
among 9- to 16-year-olds in 2013–1413. Being comparable countries has increased substantially,
personal and portable, smartphones are now rising from 31% to 86% in Norway and from 2%
integrated into different social contexts and activities. to 86% in Romania.
With the more recent rise of the Internet of Things
and the Internet of Toys14, the internet has become
A A desktop
smartphone computer, A toy
or mobile laptop or A games connected to A wearable
phone notebook A tablet console TV the internet device Other
CH 70 26 20 21 n.a. n.a. n.a. 17
CZ 82 43 18 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 20
DE 85 46 16 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8
EE 87 41 16 13 50 9 8 9
ES 76 29 28 30 75 6 15 15
*FI - - - - - - - -
FR 65 41 31 26 47 18 13 6
HR 82 52 17 10 20 4 3 4
IT 80 39 20 14 17 3 2
LT 89 66 20 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 26
MT 77 58 43 34 48 11 14 15
NO 86 44 33 26 46 2 10 9
PL 83 40 14 14 59 2 8 8
PT 84 37 27 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 28
RO 86 41 19 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
RS 86 40 15 11 61 0 8 13
*RU - - - - - - - -
SK 70 43 24 5 21 1 6 n.a.
*VL - - - - - - - -
Ave 80 43 22 19 44 6 9 13
* FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. n.a.: Optional questions, not included in the questionnaire.
QB5 How often do you go online or use the internet using the following devices? Percentage of children who answered almost all
the time, several times each day, or daily or almost daily.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
| 19 |
Online on the mobile Figure 5: Using a smartphone several times
each day or all the time to access the internet,
Across the countries more than half of the by gender.
children report using their smartphones or mobile
phones daily or almost daily, several times a day
% Boys % Girls
or all the time (Ave = 57%), although this ranges
between 39% in Slovakia and 71% in Norway
CH 52
(Figure 4). 56
CZ 57
Only a minority of children reportedly access the 60
internet from their smartphones or mobile phones DE 62
less often than daily or almost daily, ranging 64
between 11% of Lithuanian children and 35% in EE 54
60
France (Ave = 20%).
ES 56
55
Figure 4: Frequency of using a smartphone to
access the internet, by country. *FI
FR 40
% Several times each day or all the time 46
HR 45
% Daily or almost daily 47
% Less often IT 55
58
CH 54 16 30
LT 68
CZ 59 23 18 69
MT 54
DE 63 22 15 65
EE 57 29 14 NO 67
75
ES 55 20 25 52
PL 59
*FI
PT 53
FR 43 22 35 63
HR 46 36 18 RO 63
61
IT 56 23 20 RS 63
72
LT 68 21 11
*RU
MT 59 18 23
SK 35
NO 71 15 15 42
PL 55 28 17 *VL
PT 58 26 17 Ave 55
59
RO 63 24 14
RS 67 18 14
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 20 |
Nevertheless, these differences are rather small Figure 6: Using a smartphone several times
and suggest that in most countries, boys and girls each day or all the time to access the internet,
use smartphones to a similar extent. by age
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 21 |
Figure 7: Estimated average time online (in
Time spent online minutes) each day, by country
| 22 |
Figure 8: Estimated average time online (in Children in the oldest category tend to spend
minutes) each day, by gender more time on the internet daily, between 3.0
hours (Slovakia) up to four and half hours (Russia
and Serbia).
Boys Girls
Figure 9: Estimated average time online (in
CH 136 minutes) each day, by age
132
CZ 161
182
DE 137
136 9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs
EE 164
180
170 74
ES 188 CH 170
207
*FI 114
CZ 184
140 252
FR 152 88
DE 146
HR 151 196
162 125
IT 143 EE 206
144 212
173 131
LT 170 ES 202
253
MT 187
202 *FI 230
211 262
NO 227 91
FR 159
PL 166 200
162 119
PT 173 HR 162
182 205
169 93
RO 184 IT 156
184
RS 186 122
190 LT 190
221
*RU 139
MT 224
SK 144 236
146 165
*VL NO 237
267
163 110
Ave 171 PL 188
231
0 60 120 180 240 119
PT 193
230
* FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. 132
RO 185
239
Derived from QB7 and QB8: About how long do you spend
106
on the internet during a regular weekday (school-day) and RS 211
a regular weekend-day. 275
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. *RU 208
273
102
SK 157
As shown in Figure 9, age differences are more stark, 181
with 15 to 16-years-olds spending almost twice as *VL 232
much time online than children in the youngest 231
category. 114
Ave 192
229
The average time spent online by children in the
youngest category ranges between 74 minutes 0 60 120 180 240
(Switzerland) to almost three hours (Norway).
* FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. Data not weighted.
The time that 12- to 14-year-olds estimate to
spend on the internet ranges between two and Derived from QB7 and QB8: About how long do you spend
on the internet during a regular weekday (school-day) and
half hours (Germany) to around four hours
a regular weekend-day.
(Norway and Flanders).
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
| 23 |
Points to consider In line with this, we must also acknowledge that
with the rise of smartphones, the average time
While the data presented in this section suggest spent online is even more complicated to
a deep integration of the internet in children’s measure. Therefore, the provided estimate needs
daily lives, inequalities in access and use persist to be taken as a rough approximation that has
and may have consequences in terms of certain limitations. Future research could focus on
children’s digital inclusion. For example, while the development of tools, such as software for
most of the children access the internet from their mobile phones, which could give the exact
smartphones, differences may exist between measure of ‘time online’. This would also be
those who can rely both on mobile web plans and beneficial for users, so that they can keep better
Wi-Fi networks and those who, by contrast, can track of time they spend on the internet.
go online only through mobile data plans, who
may experience more constraints in the time We could also ask whether listening to music
spent online (even on a daily basis) and the range online or watching movies via the internet is ‘time
of activities taken up. online’ or not. Perspectives on this among policy-
makers, researchers, the public and, of course,
Furthermore, we cannot conclude that having the children themselves vary. Thus, even though we
internet ‘always at hand’ translates into more may precisely measure ‘time online’, with the
online opportunities: smartphones are associated augmentation of diverse services in the media
with an increase in communication and and on the internet, the question ‘How much time
entertainment activities, but not with more use of do you spend on the internet?’ has become
the internet for schoolwork16. inevitably complex.
16
see, for example, Mascheroni, G., & Ólafsson, K.
(2015). The mobile internet: Access, use,
opportunities and divides among European
children. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1657–79.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814567986
| 24 |
Practices and skills
With the focus on practices and skills, our description As the internet has become more and more
moves deeper into what children do online. This embedded in children’s lives, they have moved more
particular part of the model considers specific of their everyday practices online. However, the
activities children can engage in on the internet and range of online activities they take up seems stable
children’s digital skills, i.e., the skills to understand across time: the same pattern can be observed as in
and effectively use the internet for their benefit. 2010, whereby the majority of children engage in
communication and entertainment activities, along
Knowing that the possibilities of what children can do with schoolwork, whereas content creation or
online are almost endless and that no research can seeking news is taken up by only a minority of the
capture everything, the EU Kids Online survey children.
comprises a carefully selected a set of activities
identified in prior literature as the most salient. At the Watching videos, listening to music, communicating
same time, we strived to capture activities that with friends and family, visiting a social networking
represent three large motives for going online for a site and playing online games top the list of activities
school-aged child: entertainment, socialising and done on a daily basis. More specifically, as shown in
education (see Figure 10). Table 3:
Figure 10: Theoretical model - this section Watching videos ranges between 43% (Slovakia)
focuses on Practices and Skills (in red) and 82% (Lithuania).
| 25 |
Table 3: Daily online activities, by country
I I browsed
I used the
communi- I visited a for things
I watched I listened I played internet I looked
cated social to buy or
video to music online for for news
with network see what
clips online games school- online
family or site things
work
friends cost
CH 58 63 47 54 36 21 17 20
CZ 73 68 70 66 44 20 27 19
DE 49 45 14 42 34 20 8 9
EE 79 66 71 56 43 28 13 22
ES 58 64 70 38 48 44 23 19
*FI - - - - - - - -
FR 46 57 48 41 42 29 13 18
HR 52 64 60 58 40 34 20 18
IT 55 47 74 54 28 35 16 14
LT 82 72 63 61 71 46 16 39
MT 79 72 68 46 54 35 31 17
NO 71 68 65 56 43 41 15 19
PL 70 65 63 48 36 16 24 15
PT 75 76 72 67 47 25 18 25
RO 77 76 77 49 60 37 41 21
RS 80 81 68 73 55 18 23 12
*RU - - - - - - - -
SK 43 55 46 62 27 42 17 19
*VL - - - - - - - -
Ave 65 65 61 54 44 31 20 19
| 26 |
Figure 11: Frequency of watching video clips, Figure 12: Watching video clips daily, by
by country gender
As shown in Figure 13, age differences are more * FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available.
pronounced, especially in comparison between the QC3k How often have you done these things ONLINE in the
youngest (9–11) and oldest (15–16) age categories past month? I watched video clips. Percentage of children
(Ave = 22 percentage points of difference). who answered daily or almost daily, several times a day or
all the time.
The number of 9- to 11-year-olds who watch
videos on the internet everyday ranges from Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
between 30% (France and Germany) and 73%
(Estonia). In half of the countries, however, more
than half of the youngest children watch videos
online.
| 27 |
Figure 13: Watching video clips daily, by age Visiting social networking sites
The use of social networking sites has changed
9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs consistently across time, with children migrating from
Facebook to other social media platforms such as
36 Instagram or to instant messaging services like
CH 74
80 WhatsApp. This could account for the low response
65 rates in the number of children who visit a social
CZ 79 networking site in certain countries, since children
81
30 might use social media platforms that they do not
DE 57 identify as social network sites. In some countries,
66
however, the questionnaire included a reference to
73
EE 83 the most popular social media platforms for children.
86
46 The number of children aged 9–16 who report
ES 63
72 visiting social networking sites daily or more often
ranges from between 38% (Spain) and 73%
*FI 78 (Serbia) (see Figure 14). Additionally, 7% to 17%
81
30 of children use social networking sites at least
FR 51 every week. Altogether, in every country besides
62
Spain, more than half the children use social
44
HR 55 network sites at least every week (Ave = 66%).
62
43 On the other hand, half of the Spanish children
IT 59
63 and over 40% of children in France, Germany and
72 Malta never or hardly ever visited a social
LT 86 networking site.
91
68
MT 85
86
PL
60
76 – from 10 % in Germany to
78
PT
64
83
45% in Serbia, report visiting
66
78
a social networking site every
RO 82
86 day
69
RS 84
88
* FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. Data not weighted. The use of social networking sites is strongly
structured by age (see Figure 16), with the majority
QC3k How often have you done these things ONLINE in the of 15- to 16-year-olds reporting doing so every day,
past month? I watched video clips. Percentage of children
against only a minority of children aged 9–11 (Ave =
who answered daily or almost daily, several times a day or
all the time.
53 percentage points of difference).
| 28 |
Despite the age limits for online platforms and the Figure 15: Visiting social network sites daily,
implementation of GDPR’s article 8 in EU by gender
countries17 – which requires parental consent for
the processing of personal data of children under
the ages of 13, 14 or 16 (depending on the % Boys % Girls
country) – a number of 9- to 11-year-olds,
ranging between 11% in Germany and 45% in CH 49
58
Serbia, report visiting a social networking site 62
every day. CZ 69
DE 38
Figure 14: Frequency of visiting social 46
networking sites, by country EE 51
60
ES 37
% Daily or more often 38
% At least every week
*FI
% Never or hardly ever
FR 36
CH 54 8 39 46
CZ 66 12 22 HR 57
59
DE 42 15 43 52
IT 57
EE 55 12 33
LT 60
ES 38 12 50 63
MT 43
*FI 48
FR 41 15 44 NO 54
58
HR 58 17 26 42
PL 55
IT 54 13 33
PT 62
LT 61 13 26 72
MT 46 12 42 RO 49
48
NO 56 7 37 RS 72
73
PL 48 14 38
*RU
PT 67 9 24
SK 59
RO 49 15 36 66
RS 73 12 15 *VL
*RU Ave 51
57
SK 62 13 25
*VL 0 20 40 60 80 100
17
Milkaite, I., & Lievens, E. (2019, December 20). Status
quo regarding the child's article 8 GDPR age of consent
for data processing across the EU. Better Internet for
Kids.
https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/web/portal/practi
ce/awareness/detail?articleId=3017751
| 29 |
Figure 16: Visiting social network sites daily, However, since the survey data were collected
by age before (e.g., Slovakia and the Czech Republic) or
soon after the implementation of the GDPR in
May 2018, it will be interesting to monitor over
9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs time the influence of different age limits on
under-age social networking.
22
CH 75 Similarly, the daily use of social networking sites
85
40 among 12- to 14-year-olds varies between 10%
CZ 77 (Finland) and 86% (Serbia and Russia).
93
DE
11
50
Finally, the number of 15- to 16-year-olds who
75 use social networking sites daily varies between
29 21% (Finland) and 93% (Czech Republic and
EE 69
Serbia).
84
20
ES 48
58
0 20 40 60 80 100
QC3h How often have you done these things ONLINE in the
past month? I visited a social networking site. Percentage
of children who answered daily or almost daily, several
times a day or all the time.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
| 30 |
Figure 17: Frequency of playing online games, Figure 18: Playing online games daily, by
by country gender
In Germany and Italy online gaming increases Playing games online is the
with age, although the difference between
younger and older users is 14 and 9 percentage
most gendered activity, with
points, respectively, which is a relatively small
difference compared to age differences found in
boys in most countries
other online activities. playing twice as much as
In Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Serbia girls.
and Flanders, playing online games every day
decreases by age.
| 31 |
Figure 19: Playing online games daily, by age Using the internet for schoolwork
Using the internet for schoolwork (Figure 20) is a
9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs further indicator of how embedded the internet is in
children’s everyday lives.
30
CH 43 Using the internet for schoolwork on a daily basis
35
45 ranges between 16% in Poland and 46% of
CZ 45 children in Lithuania.
39
28 In most countries, less than one in three children
DE 35
42 say they never or hardly ever use the internet for
44 schoolwork.
EE 44
38
48 Figure 20: Using the internet for schoolwork,
ES 49 by country
44
| 32 |
In several countries, boys and girls report using Figure 22: Using the internet for schoolwork,
the internet for schoolwork to a very similar by age
extent: Germany, Estonia, France, Serbia, Italy
Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Portugal
(differences equal to or below 5 percentage 9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs
points).
9
In six countries, the difference between girls and CH 29
31
boys is around 5–9 percentage points. 10
CZ 21
In Malta the difference between girls and boys is 37
14 percentage points. DE
12
20
31
Figure 21: Using the internet for schoolwork, 19
by gender EE 30
41
30
ES 53
% Boys % Girls 59
*FI 15
CH 17 23
26
14
CZ 17 FR 36
23 41
DE 20 23
19 HR 37
47
EE 27
29 22
IT 40
ES 40 43
47 32
LT 55
*FI 54
29 19
FR 30 MT 41
52
HR 31 28
38 NO 41
37 60
IT 34 11
43 PL 12
LT 48 34
21
MT 28 PT 26
42 29
NO 39 22
42 RO 38
57
PL 16
16 16
RS 17
PT 26 23
25
RO 33 *RU 51
41 64
16 26
RS 20 SK 46
55
*RU
*VL 60
36 60
SK 47 20
Ave 35
*VL 44
Ave 28 0 20 40 60 80 100
33
0 20 40 60 80 100 * FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. Data not weighted.
QC3b How often have you done these things ONLINE in the
* FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available.
past month? I used the internet for schoolwork. Percentage
QC3b How often have you done these things ONLINE in the of children who answered daily or almost daily, several
past month? I used the internet for schoolwork. Percentage times a day or all the time.
of children who answered daily or almost daily, several
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
times a day or all the time.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
| 33 |
Using the internet for schoolwork everyday is also it could be the path to the development of
clearly structured by age (Figure 22), with 15- to 16- important digital skills. Therefore, whether
year-olds more likely to do so on a daily basis than gender variations translate into more or less
9- to 11-year-olds (Ave = 24 percentage points of digital skills, and what kind of skills are associated
difference). with gaming, should be explored further.
The number of 9- to 11-year-olds who report In some countries, the use of the internet for
using the internet for schoolwork every day schoolwork is also partially differentiated by
ranges between 9% (Switzerland) and 32% gender. Understanding why boys engage less in
(Lithuania). school-related activities on the internet in such
countries is crucial if we want to address
Among 12- to 14-year-olds, the number of disparities in the tangible outcomes of internet
children using the internet for schoolwork use that already exist from childhood.
everyday ranges between 12% (Poland) and 60%
(Flanders).
Points to consider
Online activities are closely related to digital skills
– and thus to children’s digital inclusion – as well
as to online opportunities and risks. Prior research
has shown that children who take up a wider
range of online activities are usually exposed to
more risks, but are also better equipped to cope
with such risky situations, thus experiencing less
harm18.
18 20ibid
Livingstone, S., Hasebrink, U., & Görzig, A. (2012).
21Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K.
Towards a general model of determinants of risk and
safety. In S. Livingstone, L. Haddon & A. Görzig (Eds.), (2011). Risk and safety on the internet: The perspective
Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research and of European children. Full findings from the EU Kids
Policy Challenges in Comparative Perspective (pp. 323- Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents. EU Kids
327). Policy Press. Online, LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/
19 Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in
| 34 |
This question was only asked of older children in the
Digital skills majority of the countries, so we present only the
findings from children aged 12–16.
| 35 |
Table 4: Measurements of digital skills (% who say very true or somewhat true), by country
Information /
Operational navigation Social Creative Mobile
an in-app purchase
tttoootothers have
apps on a mobile
people from my
online searches
contact lists
or music
created
device
online
CH 77 81 46 71 89 92 55 38 96 62 71
CZ 89 83 58 69 91 94 65 27 96 49 69
DE 85 73 41 86 80 85 65 43 86 62 69
EE 91 84 66 77 91 94 58 39 90 68 66
ES 71 77 36 52 85 88 66 28 94 48 60
*FI 84 81 71 71 90 90 69 49 88 56 74
FR 77 61 47 68 74 71 64 36 83 51 62
*HR 84 81 65 80 86 83 63 n.a. 83 70 67
IT 87 75 49 73 86 88 72 53 90 67 65
LT 91 83 73 89 86 89 86 59 84 72 63
MT 76 82 61 72 87 87 61 44 89 57 61
NO 83 78 61 68 95 92 61 34 98 84 77
PL 83 80 67 73 86 87 62 43 87 70 71
PT 83 87 56 68 88 91 64 39 93 67 67
RO 84 70 69 66 78 88 76 55 88 74 74
RS 92 90 75 78 93 96 75 44 98 62 74
*RU 88 78 55 62 82 91 65 38 91 67 75
SK 86 80 67 82 79 86 71 57 82 64 70
*VL 88 85 56 60 88 92 65 45 93 67 71
Ave 84 79 59 72 86 89 66 43 90 64 69
* FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted. HR: QE1h not asked (I know how to edit or make basic changes to online content).
QE1 On a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is ‘Not at all true of me’ and 5 is ‘Very true of me’, how true are these of you? Percentage of
children who answered very true or somewhat true.
Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet.
Overall skills skills across countries ranges from 7.1 (France) to 8.3
(Lithuania and Serbia) (see Figure 23).
Overall digital skills measurement is derived from the
11 statements all of which were presented under the For gender and age comparison, we look to Cohen’s
heading: On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘Not at suggestion28 for interpretation of effect sizes which
all true of me’ and 5 is ‘Very true of me’, how true are based on mean differences as measured in
are these of you? Answers to all 11 questions were standard deviation. In this context, observed
combined and then adjusted to form a measurement differences up to 0.46 can be said to imply negligible
scale running from 0 (minimum level of skills) to 10 effect, differences between 0.46 and 1.15 small
(maximum level of skills). The overall level of digital effect, and bigger differences as medium or even
28
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for
the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
| 36 |
large effects. Figure 24 shows the gender differences Figure 24: Overall digital skills, by gender
in the overall level of digital skills.
| 37 |
Figure 25: Overall digital skills, by age In Switzerland, Germany, Spain, France and Italy,
only one in five children or fewer are very
confident in their information navigation skills.
12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs
On the other hand, the high level of information
7.4
CH 8.1 navigation skills is above or equal 35% in
7.5 Lithuania, Romania, Serbia, Poland, Croatia and
CZ 8.3 Slovakia.
DE 7.5
8.5 Figure 26: Information-navigation skills, by
EE 7.7 country
8.2
ES 7.3 % Very true of me
7.9
7.3 % Somewhat true of me
*FI 7.9
% Not true or dont know
FR 6.7
7.6 CH 16 30 54
HR 7.7 CZ 26 33 42
8.6
7.3 DE 18 23 59
IT 8.2
EE 27 39 34
LT 8.0
8.9 ES 18 18 64
MT 7.4
7.8 *FI 31 39 30
NO 7.6 FR 17 30 53
8.5
7.8 HR 38 27 36
PL 8.2 IT 20 28 51
PT 7.8
8.3 LT 43 29 28
RO 7.7 MT 29 32 39
8.4
8.1 NO 23 39 39
RS 8.7
PL 37 30 33
*RU 7.4
8.1 PT 24 32 44
SK 7.8
8.5 RO 35 34 31
*VL 7.7 RS 37 38 25
8.0
7.6 *RU 26 29 45
Ave 8.2
SK 42 25 33
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 *VL 26 30 44
The number of children who report being very The number of girls who report that it is very true
confident (i.e., said very true of me) and find it of them to be able to assess whether online
very easy to check whether the information they information is true ranges from 13% of girls in
find online ranges between 16% (Switzerland) Spain and Switzerland to 44% in Lithuania.
and 43% (Lithuania).
The proportion of boys who report the same
| 38 |
Figure 27: Information-navigation skills, by Figure 28: Information navigation skills, by
gender age
CH 20
13 17
CH
13
CZ 34
17 23
21 CZ
DE 31
15
28 11
EE DE
26 27
ES 23 26
13 EE
28
*FI 40
23 19
ES
18 17
FR 16
29
HR 43 *FI
32 33
IT 24 15
17 FR
21
LT 42
44 31
HR
31 48
MT 27 16
26 IT
NO 26
20
45 34
PL LT
29 53
PT 35 25
13 MT
38
RO 39
30 19
NO
RS 45 28
29
33
*RU 29 PL
24 44
SK 44 23
41 PT
26
*VL 31
22 35
RO
32 35
Ave 24 37
RS
0 20 40 60 80 100 36
21
*RU
* FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted. 32
QE1c I find it easy to check if the information I find online SK
37
is true. Percentage of children who answered very true or 49
somewhat true. 31
*VL
Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet. 22
25
Ave
32
information navigation skills ranges between
18% in France and 45% in Poland and Serbia. 0 20 40 60 80 100
| 39 |
In about half of the countries more older than Figure 29: Social skills, by country
younger children report confidence in their ability
to check the validity of online information, with % Very true of me
the differences between 6 percentage points % Somewhat true of me
(France) and 19 (Lithuania).
% Not true or dont know
In Switzerland, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Portugal, CH 72 17 11
Romania, and Serbia, the age differences were CZ 70 22 9
only small or negligible (equal to or below 5
percentage points). DE 48 31 20
EE 67 24 9
The information navigation skills of 12- to 14-
ES 68 17 15
year-olds range between 11% (Germany) and
37% (Serbia). *FI 68 22 10
FR 39 35 27
Among 15- to 16-year-olds, the number of
children who reportedly possess this skill ranges HR 62 24 14
between 13% (Switzerland) and 53% (Lithuania). IT 54 32 14
| 40 |
Figure 30: Social skills, by gender Figure 31: Social skills, by age
CH 69
75 70
CH
77
CZ 70
70 68
49 CZ
DE 72
48
63 41
EE DE
70 59
ES 68 66
67 EE
67
*FI 61
73 69
ES
37 65
FR 41
64
HR 61 *FI
63 70
IT 58 36
49 FR
42
LT 59
63 60
HR
66 65
MT 77 50
73 IT
NO 59
76
71 55
PL LT
73 71
PT 73 73
83 MT
68
RO 58
70 74
NO
RS 79 76
83
71
*RU 45 PL
44 74
SK 58 78
63 PT
78
*VL 66
74 58
RO
62 71
Ave 66 78
RS
0 20 40 60 80 100 86
41
*RU
* FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted. 49
QE1e I know which information I should and shouldn’t share SK
55
online. Percentage of children who answered very true or 68
somewhat true. 72
*VL
Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet. 68
62
Ave
68
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 41 |
Points to consider
While most children score high on the operational
and social skills scales, a significant proportion
Information and navigation
lacks information navigation and content creation skills are low, especially in
skills. Future research could investigate how and
why children report these differences – France, Germany, Italy, Spain
specifically, which factors contribute to the
development of information navigation and and Switzerland.
content creation skills, and how we can support
their development.
| 42 |
Risks and opportunities
This section goes a step further, and looks specifically has also opened up more private communication for
into the online activities and experiences that can children and young people, enabling them to access
have negative or positive impacts on children (see content and to communicate with others online when
Figure 32). This section deliberately combines risks out and about, sharing diverse information and
and opportunities – in most cases, online activities material while removed from the parental gaze.
cannot be conclusively defined as generally positive There has also been a change in online praxes, in
or generally negative. Rather, the same activity can particular the widespread use of social networking
have positive consequences for one child and sites in which visual content dominates, which can be
negative consequences for another. One such easily captured and uploaded through mobile
example is experiences with sexual messages, where devices. For research this means that some of the
for some young people, under some circumstances, risks have also changed (or at least have become
receiving a sexual message from a peer, a girlfriend much more salient) and the research must react to
or a boyfriend can be seen as positive and exciting, such changes. Thus, when creating this survey, in
while for others, such messages can be the cause of addition to the measures of risks used in the EU Kids
distress and potential harm. Disentangling the factors Online survey in 2010, we included some new
that lead to one outcome rather than the other is the questions. For instance, we asked about experiences
significant task of researchers. with unwanted requests for sexual information or
sharenting – experiences with parents having shared
In the findings presented here, we aimed to show the personal information about the child.
variability of children’s engagement in selected
activities, and both the negative and positive Figure 32: Theoretical model - this section
experiences reflected in their emotional responses. focuses on Risks and Opportunities (in red)
We ordered the topics in this section based on
approximate level of experienced harm – from those
experiences that in their very definition include some
level of harm (such as online aggression) to those
that are more neutral in essence (such as meeting
new people) and that often lead to positive
outcomes. The specific order should, nevertheless,
not be taken as a strict rank of risks and
opportunities, but only as an effort to give some
(albeit imperfect) order to the sections that follow.
| 43 |
and perceived as harmful by all. We also ask if it
resulted in positive feelings and experiences, rather
than just levels of distress (with obvious exceptions,
notably cyberbullying). Thus, to provide a better
insight, some risk sections also included follow-up
questions about positive reactions and feelings to
what most people might perceive as risk-related
and/or abusive behaviour.
29Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. 30Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K.
(2011a). Risk and safety on the internet: The perspective (2011). Technical report and user guide: The 2010 EU
of European children. Full findings from the EU Kids Kids Online Survey. A report on the design and
Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents. EU Kids implementation of the EU Kids Online survey of 9-16 year
Online, LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/ olds and their parents in 25 countries. EU Kids Online,
LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45270/
| 44 |
almost the same only in Germany, Estonia and
Overall negative Norway.
In the EU Kids Online survey 2010, the The number of boys reporting being upset by
percentage of children who reported that they something online ranges between 6% (Slovakia)
had been bothered on the internet varied and 39% (Malta) (Figure 34). The percentage of
between 6% and 25% across comparable girls reporting the same problem ranges between
countries. In this EU Kids Online 2020 report, the 8% (Slovakia) and 52% (Malta).
number of children who reported such
experiences was higher (between 7% and 45%; In Malta and Switzerland, more than 40% of girls
Ave = 25%). Thus, the number of children who report that they are bothered online.
reported that they had been bothered online
substantially increased in most comparable
countries (Czech Republic, Spain, France, Italy,
Lithuania, Poland and Romania) while it remained
31Livingstone, S., Kirwil, L., Ponte, C., & Staksrud, E. 32Smahel, D., & Wright, M.F. (Eds.). (2014). Meaning of
(2013). In their own words: What bothers children online problematic situations for children: Results of
online? With the EU Kids Online Network. EU Kids Online, qualitative cross-cultural investigation in nine European
LSE. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48357/ countries. EU Kids Online, LSE.
| 45 |
Figure 34: Negative online experiences in the Figure 35: Negative online experiences in the
past year, by gender past year, by age
CH 36 33
41 CH 39
30 52
CZ 38 25
7 CZ 35
DE 11 50
3
EE 23 DE 13
27 11
ES 34 22
34 EE 22
35
*FI 34
ES 30
FR 15 41
19
HR 15 *FI 18
13 29
10 10
IT 11 FR 23
17
LT 21 10
25 HR 13
39 23
MT 52 8
22 IT 8
NO 21 19
15
PL 26 LT 26
24 32
PT 18 40
26 MT 49
32 49
RO 33 13
NO 25
RS 33 29
38
18
*RU PL 25
36
6 21
SK 8 PT 21
25
*VL 27
RO 36
Ave 23 37
26 31
RS 36
0 20 40 60 80 100 41
*RU 47
*FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. 52
4
QF01 In the PAST YEAR, has anything EVER happened SK 9
online that bothered or upset you in some way (e.g., made 10
you feel upset, uncomfortable, scared or that you shouldn’t
have seen it)? Percentage of children who answered yes. *VL 43
54
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 20
Ave 27
34
| 46 |
How frequent are negative online Knowing what to do if someone
experiences? acts online in a way children don’t
To better understand children’s negative online
like
experiences, we asked those children who reported Encountering other people whose behaviour children
such an experience how often it happened within the may find wrong, inappropriate or even aggressive is
past year. among the online experiences that may upset
children. It is important to know whether children
Most children report being bothered online only
know how to handle such situations. Without such
sporadically (a few times), ranging between 4%
perceived self-efficacy, children may avoid being
(Slovakia) and 30% (Malta).
included in many communicative activities online. On
A lower number of children are bothered online the other hand, if they feel that they do have such
at least every month or more often: between 2% skills, they may be more prone to engage in online
(Germany) and 15% (Malta). interactions, believing they can handle any bothering
situation. Therefore, we asked the children how often
More than a tenth of children are bothered online the following applied to them:
at least every month or more often in
Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Malta and I know what to do if someone acts online in a way I
Serbia. don’t like.
Figure 36: Frequency of negative online In all of the countries, most of the children often
experiences in the past year, by country or always believe they know how to react to the
online behaviours of others they don’t like.
Between 26% (Lithuania) and 49% (Norway) say
% At least every month
they always know how to do this (Ave = 39%).
% A few times
% Not experienced this However, between 6% (Lithuania) and 29%
CH 11 27 62 (Spain) never know how to react in these
situations (Ave = 13%).
CZ 12 23 66
DE 2 7 91 There are no substantial gender differences (all
EE 7 17 76
below 4 percentage points) comparing children
who never feel self-efficient in handling such
ES 9 24 66 situations and those who do at least sometimes
*FI (Figure 37). Except for Switzerland where the
difference is 6 percentage points. Considering
FR 5 12 83
that there are almost no differences, we don’t
HR 3 11 86 include the figure here.
IT 4 6 90
LT 7 16 77
MT 15 30 55
NO 4 17 79
PL 8 17 75
In most of the countries there
PT 5 17 78 are no gender differences in
RO 8 25 67
overall negative online
RS
experiences.
13 23 65
*RU
SK 3 4 93
*VL
Ave 7 17 75
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 47 |
Figure 37: Knowing how to react to online Figure 38: Knowing how to react to online
behaviours of others which children do not like behaviours of others which children do not
like, by age
*CH *CH 70
77
CZ 34 26 25 16 42
CZ 66
DE 32 36 24 8 77
55
EE 42 30 19 9 DE 67
87
ES 41 15 16 29 58
EE 75
*FI 88
FR 37 29 21 13 32
ES 71
77
HR 46 32 15 8
IT *FI 84
39 27 20 14 86
LT 26 40 29 6 55
FR 65
80
MT 44 28 16 12
66
NO 49 30 13 8 HR 82
86
PL 39 26 20 15 53
IT 70
PT 46 23 20 12 72
60
RO 41 25 21 13 LT 68
71
RS 46 17 17 20 65
MT 77
*RU 74
67
SK 31 32 27 11 NO 85
86
*VL 53
PL 70
Ave 39 28 20 13 78
51
0 50 100 PT 77
77
54
*FI/RU/VL/CH: Full age range not available. RO 76
70
QD2c How often does the following apply to you? I know 46
what to do if someone acts online in a way I don’t like. RS 72
75
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
*RU 54
62
47
In most of the countries more of the older SK 70
children know how to react to the online 68
behaviours of others that they do not like (Figure *VL 74
38). In the youngest age category, this applies 74
for between 32% (Spain) and 67% (Norway) 54
(Ave = 54%). In the oldest age category, it is Ave 72
77
between 62% (Russia) and 88% (Estonia) (Ave =
77%). 0 20 40 60 80 100
| 48 |
Coping with a negative experience technical problems to possible serious harm.
Therefore, the reactions of the children may vary in
- who children talk to relation to the nature of the problem.
Negative experiences online can cause different
reactions. Children may cope with the situation
themselves, such as by blocking the person, they Table 5 shows who children talk to about a negative
may talk to other people, use technical measures, online experience. This was only reported by children
confront the stressor or aggressor, or may just ignore who had been bothered online. We asked these
the problem33. children the following question:
In this EU Kids Online survey, we asked children (a) The last time something happened online that
who they talked to about the problem and (b) how bothered or upset you, did you talk to any of these
they reacted after experiencing the problem. people about it?
As noted above, children experience a broad range
of problematic situations online, from simple
Table 5: Who children talked to after having negative online experiences, by country
%
Someone
% whose job % %
% % A friend it is to Another I didn’t
Mother or Brother or around my % help adult I talk to
father sister age A teacher children trust anyone
*CH - - - - - - -
CZ 31 15 56 3 1 5 24
DE 44 11 51 3 1 3 16
EE 46 10 38 6 1 5 30
ES 47 31 69 12 8 32 21
*FI - - - - - - -
FR 59 23 39 4 6 6 4
HR 52 13 39 3 0 3 14
IT 45 11 44 4 0 1 22
LT 40 11 57 3 2 7 15
MT 42 14 39 8 2 9 21
NO 34 8 50 6 5 5 25
PL 34 23 71 13 9 25 9
PT 37 13 44 7 1 10 26
RO 39 13 43 5 3 10 17
RS 31 16 43 3 2 6 26
*RU - - - - - - -
SK 31 9 54 2 0 2 22
*VL - - - - - - -
Ave 40 14 50 5 3 9 19
*FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. CH: Question not asked.
QF04: The last time something happened online that bothered or upset you, did you talk to anyone of these people about it?
Percentage of children who answered yes.
Base: Children aged 9-16 who have had negative online experiences.
33Parris, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Cutts, H. (2012). High
school students’ perceptions of coping with
cyberbullying. Youth & Society, 44(2), 284–306.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X11398881
| 49 |
In the majority of the countries, the most After such a negative experience, some children
frequent people children talk to are parents also stopped using the internet for a while. This
(between 31% in the Czech Republic and Serbia reaction was reported by 9% (Italy) to 26%
to 59% in France; Ave = 41%) or friends (Switzerland) children.
(between 38% in Estonia and 71% in Poland, Ave
= 49%). Between 3% (Italy) and 35% (Poland) of children
reported the problem online.
Most children prefer to talk to a parent in Estonia,
France, and Croatia; on the other hand, in the Points to consider
Czech Republic, Germany, Lithuania, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Romania and Quite a high percentage of children report that
Spain, they mostly talk to a friend. they had been bothered or upset by something
online (7% to 45% overall). In most of the
In all of the countries only a minority of the countries this percentage increased from the EU
children talk to teachers (between 2% and 13%; Kids Online survey in 2010. However, the
Ave = 5%) or to a professional whose job it is to interpretation of these high percentages and the
help children (0% to 9%; Ave = 3%). substantial increase from 2010 is quite complex.
As noted in the beginning of this section, reported
Some children also report talking to another adult experiences comprise serious ones (e.g., bullying
they trust, although in most countries only 10% and harmful content) as well as those without a
or fewer children report this (between 1% and larger negative impact (e.g., technical problems).
32%; Ave = 9%). However, in Spain and Poland,
more than 25% children talk about their The online environment has dramatically changed
experience with a trusted adult. in recent years, with children more often using
mobile phones to access the internet (see
Finally, in almost all of the countries there are ‘Access’). This might also cause a change in the
children who do not talk to anyone, their number structure of the problems that upset children. For
ranging between 4% (France) and 30% (Estonia) example, children may experience more adverts
(Ave = 19%). on their mobile phones or more technical
problems with a missing or slow internet
Coping with negative experiences: connection.
how children react
Thus, in this section we show that children in
Besides talking about negative online experiences most of the countries experience more problems
with someone, children may also react in other ways. online currently than in 2010, but we do not know
We asked children who report they had been what kind of problems they are experiencing
bothered or upset by something online the following more of. The following sections of this report will
question: help us to better understand which problems
children experience these days, and what might
The last time you had problems with something or have made them upset online.
someone online that bothered or upset you in some
way, did you do any of these things afterwards? Future research should also investigate in more
depth what kind of problems make children upset
As Table 6 shows, children were asked about online when they use different devices to access
different kinds of reactions, from active behaviour the internet. Did the new problems arise with the
(e.g., reporting the problem) to passive behaviour use of mobile phones to access the internet or
(e.g., ignoring the problem). with smart toys? Further qualitative investigation
could answer such questions.
Between 4% (France) and 56% (Poland) of
children report that they ignored the problem The various online experiences might have a
when it occurred. In all of the countries (except different impact on the children, not only in terms
for France), more than a fifth of the children said of the amount of impact (how much the children
they ignore the problem. In Poland and Spain, are upset), but also in terms of time (how long
more than half of the children reacted in this way. children are upset). Future research could reveal
the short- and long-term impacts of different
Often-used strategies were closing the window or online experiences on children’s well-being.
app (between 20% in France and 60% in Poland)
and blocking the person (between 18% in Italy
and Romania and 58% in Poland).
| 50 |
Table 6: How children react after having negative online experiences, by country
I changed my privacy
or contact settings
I tried to get back
what went wrong
problem online
window or app
I reported the
I closed the
alone
CH 46 36 22 28 16 26 24 19 44 25
CZ 44 36 17 18 7 11 21 13 35 12
DE 25 30 16 25 5 4 28 13 30 7
EE 36 41 6 12 4 9 12 5 19 6
ES 54 52 28 56 19 22 35 26 54 16
FI* - - - - - - - - - -
FR 4 20 11 22 7 8 18 12 33 21
HR 24 56 8 14 12 5 14 19 34 10
IT 28 37 4 14 6 9 15 9 18 3
LT 24 42 10 13 4 21 22 9 35 4
MT 33 30 16 11 8 7 17 14 30 11
NO 28 25 10 16 5 6 10 4 20 16
PL 56 60 33 55 23 20 28 31 58 35
PT 43 29 13 20 10 10 14 11 35 9
RO 45 29 13 16 6 6 13 8 18 7
RS 24 23 7 11 6 7 15 7 31 10
RU* - - - - - - - - - -
SK 23 30 13 11 5 12 25 20 46 7
VL* - - - - - - - - - -
Ave 34 36 14 21 9 11 19 14 34 12
| 51 |
behaviour. These are: the victimisation is repeated
Online aggression and happens over time; the harm is conducted
intentionally; and there is an asymmetric power
and cyberbullying relationship between the aggressor(s) and victim(s) 40
41.
Cyberbullying, as well as bullying experienced offline, Acknowledging this, the following definition of
is one of the often discussed topics related to bullying was offered to the children who were asked
children’s development. Considering that bullying, if they had had experience with similar behaviour.
i.e., aggressive acts aimed at an individual or group,
Sometimes children or teenagers say or do hurtful or
has negative physical, psychological and academic
nasty things to someone and this can often be quite
effects34, it is important to know how many children
a few times on different days over a period of time,
experience victimisation and how many have been
for example. This can include:
involved as aggressors themselves.
teasing someone in a way this person does not
Prior evidence has shown that online and offline
like
bullying among young people is often interconnected
– those who are involved in online forms of bullying hitting, kicking or pushing someone around
are often involved in offline forms of bullying as
well35. Thus, to contextualise the findings, we will leaving someone out of things.
present the results relating to both online and offline
aggression and bullying. Nevertheless, it should be When people are hurtful or nasty to someone in this
noted that cyberbullying has several specific features way, it can happen:
that differentiate it from offline aggression. The
attacks can come from any place at any time and the face-to-face (in person)
victim can be reached even in the relative safety of by mobile phone (texts, calls, video clips)
their own homes36. Public attacks can have a
substantially wider audience than offline ones37. All on the internet (email, instant messaging, social
actors, including perpetrator(s), the victim(s) and networking, chatrooms).
other witnesses, can be mutually distant and
invisible, even anonymous. As a result, they lack Note that this definition does not differentiate
immediate and direct feedback about the impact on between occasional acts of aggression and more
the victim, and may feel more disinhibited in their permanent and harmful cyberbullying. Thus, when
responses38. And the hurtful and harmful material we present the answers to this question, we label it
published online can be easily copied, stored and ‘online aggression’. To present the findings of
shared through many channels (such as a social cyberbullying and offline bullying, we further focus
networking site), opening up the possibility for on the reported frequency of the aggression and the
further harm due to repeated exposure of the resulting harm.
material39.
34 Kowalski, R.M., & Limber, S.P. (2013). Psychological, 38 Kowalski, R.M., Giumetti, G.W., Schroeder, A.N., &
physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and Lattanner, M.R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A
traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying
S13–S20. research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018 1073–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
35 Waasdorp, T.E., & Bradshaw, C.P. (2015). The overlap 39 Kowalski, R.M., Giumetti, G.W., Schroeder, A.N., &
between cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal Lattanner, M.R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A
of Adolescent Health, 56(5), 483–8. critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.12.002 research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4),
36 Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from 1073–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
school: A critical review and synthesis of research on 40 Ibid
cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human 41 Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and
| 52 |
Overall victimisation and Figure 39: Aggression and victimization in the
past year (on- or offline), by country
aggression
In the initial questions, the children were asked
whether they had been involved in any aggressive % Aggressors % Victims
behaviour in the past year – as a victim and as an
aggressor. This may have happened both offline and CH 18
24
online.
CZ 12
25
Specifically, following the definition above, we asked:
DE 12
25
In the PAST YEAR, has anyone EVER treated you in
EE 15
such a hurtful or nasty way? In the PAST YEAR, have 25
you EVER TREATED someone else in a hurtful or ES 20
nasty way? 34
*FI
In all the countries, more children report being a
victim than being an aggressor (see Figure 39). FR 10
24
However, there is substantial variation across the 4
HR
countries concerning these experiences. 8
IT 7
The prevalence of victimisation ranges between 10
7% (Slovakia) and 40% (Poland). In most LT 7
17
countries, more than 20% children experienced
MT 20
victimisation. 34
NO 11
The number of children reporting aggression 22
ranges between 3% (Slovakia) and 38% PL 38
40
(Poland). The number of perpetrators ranges
between 10% and 20% in most countries. PT 16
24
In only three countries, the victimisation RO 19
32
prevalence is 10% or less – Slovakia, Croatia and 17
RS 26
Italy. In these countries, and in Lithuania and
France, the same applies for aggression. *RU
In the majority of the countries there is no SK 3
7
substantial gender difference in victimisation or
aggression (i.e., only 5 percentage points or less) *VL
(Figure 40). Nevertheless, in Switzerland France Ave 14
and Malta, slightly more girls are victimised than 23
boys (differences between 7 and 8 percentage 0 20 40 60 80 100
points). There is no country where boys would be
victimised more. *FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available.
The opposite trend applied for aggression, where QF20 In the PAST YEAR, has anyone EVER treated you in
in the Czech Republic, Spain, Poland and Romania such a hurtful or nasty way? And QF28 In the PAST YEAR,
more boys are aggressors (differences of have you EVER TREATED someone else in a hurtful or nasty
between 6 and 9 percentage points), while in no way? Percentage of children who answered yes.
country do girls report such an experience more Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
than boys (Figure 42).
| 53 |
Figure 40: Victimization in the past year (on- Figure 41: Victimization in the past year (on-
or offline), by gender or offline), by age
CH 20 16
28 CH 29
24 28
CZ 26 22
24 CZ 26
DE 26
28
22
EE 26 DE 28
24 25
ES 31 23
36 EE 29
22
*FI 34
ES 32
FR 21 36
28
HR 8 *FI 26
7 36
10 28
IT 11 FR 28
16
LT 17 5
17 HR 7
30 14
MT 38 12
20 IT 8
NO 24 13
15
PL 38 LT 19
43 16
PT 21 27
26 MT 37
41
RO 35
31 20
NO 25
RS 24 22
29 33
*RU PL 44
49
6 21
SK 7 PT 23
28
*VL 29
RO 37
22 30
Ave 25 13
RS 31
0 20 40 60 80 100 38
*RU 41
*FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. 43
QF20 In the PAST YEAR, has anyone EVER treated you in 2
SK 10
such a hurtful or nasty way? Percentage of children who 7
answered yes.
*VL 35
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 28
20
Ave 27
27
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 54 |
Figure 42: Aggression in the past year (on- or Figure 43: Aggression in the past year (on- or
offline), by gender offline), by age
CH 19 11
17 CH 21
15 30
CZ 9 6
CZ 14
DE 12 20
12 9
EE 17 DE 15
12 11
23 9
ES 17 EE 19
18
*FI 17
ES 19
12 30
FR 9
*FI
HR 7
2
10
IT 6 FR 7
6 15
9 2
LT 5 HR 4
8
MT 19 5
21 IT 15
14 5
NO 9 4
41 LT 7
PL 33 9
16
PT 18 MT 22
15 26
RO 24 10
15 NO 11
19
RS 19 27
15 PL 41
*RU 53
14
3 PT 16
SK 3 21
13
*VL RO 26
23
Ave 16 6
12 RS 21
29
0 20 40 60 80 100
*RU
*FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. 2
SK 4
QF28 In the PAST YEAR, have you EVER TREATED someone 4
else in a hurtful or nasty way? Percentage of children who
answered yes. *VL
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 10
Ave 16
20
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 55 |
Frequency of bullying Among the children, the rates of children bullied
offline (monthly) ranges between 2% (Slovakia)
victimisation online and offline and 13% (Malta) (Ave = 7%). Online bullying
victimisation ranges between 1% (Slovakia) and
After the question on general experiences with
13% (Poland) (Ave = 5%). Overall, in almost all
aggression, those children who said that they had
the countries, less than 10% of the children are
been victimised were further asked about the
bullied online.
frequency of this experience, both online and offline.
The following findings thus apply only to the children Considering that experience of bullying
who were victimised and not to the whole sample. In victimisation is not very common, age and gender
both an online and offline context, the most common differences are only very small (below or equal to
is sporadic victimisation, which happens only a few 5 percentage points). The figures with age and
times (see Figure 44 and Figure 45). gender differences are not included here.
Figure 44: Frequency of offline victimization,
by country
Figure 45: Frequency of online victimization,
% At least every month by country.
% A few times
% At least every month
% Never
% A few times
CH 6 10 84
% Never
CZ 10 10 80
CH 5 11 84
DE 6 18 77
CZ 7 8 86
EE 7 13 81
DE 3 12 84
ES 10 15 76
EE 6 11 83
*FI
ES 7 9 83
FR 7 14 79
*FI
HR 33 95 FR 2 8 90
IT 3 7 90 HR 2 4 95
LT 5 9 86 IT 23 95
MT 13 11 76 LT 4 7 90
NO 5 13 83 MT 11 10 79
PL 11 14 76 NO 3 11 86
PT 8 11 81 PL 13 13 74
RO 7 15 78 PT 6 8 85
RS 4 13 83 RO 7 15 78
*RU RS 6 13 81
SK 23 96 *RU
*VL SK 14 95
Ave 7 11 82 *VL
Ave 5 9 86
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
*FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available.
QF21a In the PAST YEAR, how often did this happen in any *FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available.
of the following ways? In person face-to-face (a person who
QF21 In the PAST YEAR, how often did this happen in any
is together with you in the same place at the same time).
of the following ways? Via a mobile phone or internet,
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. computer, tablet, etc.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
If we want to focus on bullying, which is defined
by repeated and longer experiences of
victimisation, we should consider the group of
children who experience victimisation at least
every month.
| 56 |
Harm from online victimisation Between 4% (Germany) and 33% (Serbia) of the
children say they were not upset after online
Length and repetition of victimisation are not the only victimisation (Ave = 20%). Therefore, we can
criteria that should be considered in interpreting the presume that these children may have
nature of victimisation experiences; resulting harm is encountered something aggressive that was not
also important. Therefore, we asked children who bullying.
reported online victimisation about the perceived
impact of such an experience, specifically: On the other hand, between 9% (Lithuania) and
29% (Switzerland) of the children say they were
Thinking of the LAST TIME someone treated you in a very upset after the incident (Ave = 19%). In
hurtful or nasty way ONLINE, how did you feel? these cases, we may presume that the attacks
were more severe and could leave more intense
Children could answer I was not upset, I was a little harm.
upset, I was fairly upset and I was very upset. The
percentages are again presented only with regard to In general, while about a fifth of the children
the subsample consisting of children victimised online victimised online report no harm, a fifth report
(at least a few times). quite intense harm.
Figure 46: Harm from online victimisation, by If we focus on the comparison between those
country reporting no harm and those who report at least
some level of harm (at least a bit upset), in all
countries except Lithuania, more girls report
% I was very upset % I was fairly upset harm than boys (Ave = 19 percentage points of
% I was a little upset % I was not upset gender difference).
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 57 |
Figure 47: Harm from online victimisation (at Figure 48: Harm from online victimisation (at
least a bit upset), by gender. least a bit upset), by age.
CH 76 60
88 CH 81
68 100
CZ 90 85
94 CZ 79
DE 97 75
97
EE 49 DE 98
90 91
ES 68 77
86 EE 67
61
*FI 76
ES 79
FR 73 78
80
*HR *FI 50
69
74
*IT FR 80
74
LT 84
78 *HR
MT 79
88
80 *IT
NO 100
81
PL 64 LT 78
91 86
PT 55 85
89 MT 81
73 93
RO 90 100
NO 89
RS 56 80
77
74
*RU PL 71
84
67 76
SK 100 PT 73
67
*VL 86
RO 81
Ave 70 74
89 77
RS 68
0 20 40 60 80 100 62
*RU 76
*FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. HR/IT: Question 68
not asked. 100
SK 91
QF24 Thinking of the LAST TIME someone treated you in a 83
hurtful or nasty way ONLINE, how did you feel? Percentage
of children who answered I was a little upset, I was fairly *VL 84
77
upset, or I was very upset.
82
Base: All children 9-16 who answered a few times, at least Ave 78
78
every month, at least every week, or daily or almost daily
to question on online victimisation. 0 20 40 60 80 100
| 58 |
Frequency of bullying online and The number of offline bullies ranges between 0%
(Italy) and 9% (Poland). The number of online
offline bullies ranges between 0 (Italy and Slovakia) and
11% (Poland).
Analogous to victimisation, we also asked children
who reported involvement as aggressors about the Considering that experience of bullying
frequency of such behaviour, both offline and online perpetration is not very common, age and gender
(see Figure 49 and Figure 50). differences are only very small (below or equal to
5 percentage points). These figures are not
included here.
Figure 49: Frequency of offline aggression, by
country.
Figure 50: Frequency of online aggression, by
% At least every month country.
% A few times
% At least every month
% Never
*CH % A few times
CZ 4 6 90 % Never
*CH
DE 1 10 89
CZ 3 4 93
EE 4 8 88
DE 1 5 94
ES 3 12 85
EE 3 6 91
*FI
ES 3 7 91
FR 2 7 92
*FI
HR 12 97
FR 14 95
IT 0 100
HR 12 97
LT 14 95
IT 01 99
MT 5 8 87
LT 13 97
NO 1 6 93
MT 5 7 88
PL 9 16 75
NO 1 5 94
PT 3 9 88
PL 11 13 76
RO 5 11 84
PT 3 6 91
RS 4 9 87
RO 5 9 86
*RU
RS 4 8 89
SK 12 98
*RU
*VL
SK 02 98
Ave 3 7 90
*VL
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ave 3 5 92
*FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. CH: Question not
0 20 40 60 80 100
asked.
QF29a In the PAST YEAR, how often have you TREATED *FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. CH: Question not
someone else in any of the following ways? In person face- asked.
to-face (a person who is together with you in the same place
at the same time). QF29b In the PAST YEAR, how often have you TREATED
someone else in any of the following ways? Via a mobile
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. phone or internet, computer, tablet, etc.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
A similar pattern as in victimisation is related to
bullying perpetration, in which monthly
experience (Ave = 3% for both offline and online
bullying) is less common than sporadic
aggression (Ave = 7% offline bullying, Ave = 5%
online bullying).
| 59 |
Points to consider
The findings show that the countries vary in the
number of victimised children and children who
were involved in aggression. In general, there are
no substantial gender differences in either
behaviour, although there were inconsistent
differences related to age.
| 60 |
e.g., hate messages could be also be part of specific
Harmful content political campaigns. In this research, we asked the
children the following:
In this section, we present six different types of On the internet, people discuss things that may not
harmful content (see Table 7 for an overview). Each be good for you. Here are some questions about
of these is distinctive and might be site-specific, these kinds of things. In the PAST YEAR, have you
although some websites may contain more types of seen online content or online discussions where
harmful content, such as violent images, ways of people talk about or show any of these things?
physically harming and hate messages. Some of this
content might be user-generated, i.e., posted by This question was asked only of the older children,
internet users themselves, while some may also be so we present only findings from children aged
professional and even presented on various media – 12–16.
Table 7: Harmful content: children (aged 12-16) who answered at least monthly, by country
Ways of
Hate messages
physically Ways of Their
Ways to be very that attack Gory or violent
harming or committing experiences of
thin certain groups images
hurting suicide taking drugs
or individuals
themselves
CH 9 5 8 13 14 10
CZ 18 10 17 25 15 17
DE 2 2 3 4 3 6
EE 7 5 10 14 7 5
ES 8 7 6 17 13 14
*FI 18 8 10 17 10 11
FR 7 4 9 8 6 7
HR 9 6 9 11 7 11
IT 4 4 6 10 7 12
*LT - - - - - -
MT 10 12 12 18 12 15
NO 8 5 12 16 8 9
PL 19 19 32 48 21 28
PT 10 9 12 17 13 15
RO 8 12 12 18 13 18
RS 18 11 17 24 16 23
*RU 16 8 25 24 11 17
SK 2 2 5 8 4 6
*VL 11 8 9 20 16 16
Ave 10 8 12 17 11 13
*FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted. LT: Full age range not available.
QF50 In the PAST YEAR, have you seen online content or online discussions where people talk about or show any of these things?
Percentage of children who answered at least every month, at least every week, or daily or almost daily.
Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet.
| 61 |
harmful content and the internet user’s engagement the past year (between 46% and 88%). Only in
in offline risky behaviour42. four countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Serbia,
Finland and Russia) is such content seen at least
In the survey, we asked about overall exposure to six a few times by over half of the children.
types of harmful content in the past year. In Table 7
the percentages of children who see respective
content at least monthly or more often are
presented. Figure 51: Harmful content: Ways of
physically harming themselves, by country
Overall, the most often reported harmful content
children were exposed to at least monthly were % At least every month or more often
hate messages (Ave = 17%), followed by gory or % A few times
violent images (Ave = 13%), content suggesting % Never
ways to be very thin (Ave = 12%), content
describing experiences with taking drugs (Ave = CH 9 21 71
11%), ways of physically harming themselves CZ 18 36 46
(Ave = 10%) and ways of committing suicide DE 2 11 88
(Ave = 8%).
EE 7 22 71
However, differences between exposure to ES 8 21 71
diverse harmful content is quite low in many
countries – in Germany, any kind of content seen *FI 18 35 47
at least monthly was between 2% and 6% of the FR 7 13 81
children, or in Slovakia, between 2% and 8%. HR 9 21 71
In some countries, the number of children IT 4 18 77
exposed to harmful content at least monthly is *LT
quite varied, depending on the type of content.
In Poland, 48% of the children see hate MT 10 25 65
messages at least monthly or more, but ways of NO 8 25 67
physically harming or committing suicide are seen PL 19 31 50
by 19% of the children.
PT 10 34 56
In general, it seems that exposure to different RO 8 27 64
types of harmful content is interrelated – if
RS 18 34 47
children report they see some content, it is more
likely that they also see other types of harmful *RU 16 37 47
content. SK 2 18 80
0 20 40 60 80 100
To better understand children’s experiences with
exposure to harmful content, we will present three *FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted. LT: Full age range not
types of harmful content in more detail. The first type available.
comprises materials or discussions concerning Ways
of physically harming or hurting themselves. Figure QF50a In the PAST YEAR, have you seen online content or
online discussions where people talk about or show any of
51 presents how often children have seen such
these things? Ways of physically harming or hurting
content in the past year. themselves.
The number of children who report seeing such Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet.
content at least every month or more often
ranges between 2% (Germany and Slovakia) and
19% (Poland). Sporadic exposure, i.e., a few Figure 52 shows the differences between boys and
times a year, is more common, experienced by girls who reported that they have seen a discussion
11% (Germany) to 37% (Russia) of children. from people of ways of physically harming or hurting
themselves on the internet in the past year at least
The majority of children in most countries say monthly or more often.
that they have not seen ways of physically
harming or hurting themselves on the internet in
| 62 |
Figure 52: Harmful content: Ways of Figure 53: Harmful content: Ways of
physically harming themselves, by gender physically harming themselves, by age
CH 8
10 7
CH
16 14
CZ 20 14
1 CZ
DE 24
2
4 1
EE DE
10 2
ES 7 5
10 EE
11
*FI 12
23 7
ES
9 13
FR 4
11
HR 10 *FI
7 24
IT 5 6
4 FR
8
*LT 6
HR
11 12
MT 9 4
6 IT
NO 11 5
PL 15 *LT
24 6
PT 11 7
10 MT
15
RO 8
9 4
NO
RS 21 15
16
15
*RU 17 PL
15 28
SK 1 7
2 PT
15
*VL 11
10 RO
5
10 14
Ave 11
14
RS
0 20 40 60 80 100 25
11
*RU
*FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted. LT: Full age range not 22
available.
3
SK
QF50a In the PAST YEAR, have you seen online content or 0
online discussions where people talk about or show any of 10
these things? Ways of physically harming or hurting *VL
13
themselves. Percentage of children who answered at least
every month, at least every week, or daily or almost daily. Ave
8
14
Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet.
0 20 40 60 80 100
The gender differences range between 1 *FI/RU/VL/LT: Full age range not available. FI/RU/VL: Data
percentage point (Slovakia, Italy, Portugal and not weighted.
Flanders) and 11 percentage points (Finland). In
most countries there are almost none or very low QF50a In the PAST YEAR, have you seen online content or
online discussions where people talk about or show any of
gender differences in exposure to this type of
these things? Ways of physically harming or hurting
content (equal or below 5 percentage points). themselves. Percentage of children who answered at least
every month, at least every week, or daily or almost daily.
In three countries, slightly more boys report that
they see this type of harmful content than girls: Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet.
Estonia (6 percentage points difference), Finland
(11 percentage points difference) and Poland (9
percentage points difference).
| 63 |
Figure 53 presents the differences between children Figure 54: Harmful content: Ways to be very
aged 12–14 and 15–16 who have been exposed to thin, by country
harmful content.
% At least every month or more often
In most of the countries more older than younger
% A few times
children report seeing ways of physically harming % Never
or hurting themselves on the internet at least
monthly. CH 8 18 74
CZ 17 27 56
The difference between age groups varies
between 6 percentage points (Estonia, Spain) and DE 3 17 80
13 percentage points (Finland and Poland). EE 10 18 73
43Smahel, D., Machackova, H., Smahelova, M., Cevelicek, 44Almenara, C.A., Machackova, H., & Smahel, D. (2016).
M., Almenara, C.A., & Holubciková, J. (2018). Digital Individual differences associated with exposure to ‘‘ana-
technology, eating behaviors, and eating disorders. mia’’ websites: An examination of adolescents from 25
Springer. European countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 19(8), 475–80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0098
| 64 |
content at least every month is ranging between Figure 56: Harmful content: Ways to be very
9 (Switzerland, Finland) to 15 (Czech Republic). thin in the past year, by age
PL 27 7
37 RO
20
PT 10
13 12
RS
12 24
RO 13
19
RS 11 *RU
22 30
*RU 19 5
30 SK
6
4
SK 7 8
*VL
7 10
*VL 12
9
9 Ave
Ave 15 15
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
*FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted. LT: Full age range not *FI/RU/VL/LT: Full age range not available. FI/RU/VL: Data
available. not weighted.
QF50c In the PAST YEAR, have you seen online content or QF50c In the PAST YEAR, have you seen online content or
online discussions where people talk about or show any of online discussions where people talk about or show any of
these things? Ways to be very thin (such as being anorexic these things? Ways to be very thin (such as being anorexic
or bulimic, or “thinspiration”). Percentage of children who or bulimic, or “thinspiration”). Percentage of children who
answered at least every month, at least every week, or daily answered at least every month, at least every week, or daily
or almost daily. or almost daily.
Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet. Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet.
| 65 |
With regard to age differences (see Figure 56), in Figure 57: Harmful content: Hate messages,
most countries, older children report that they by country
have seen ways to be very thin on the internet at
least monthly in the past year more often than % At least every month or more often
younger children. % A few times
% Never
The differences between younger and older
children vary between 1 percentage point CH 13 21 66
(Slovakia) and 13 percentage points (Poland). CZ 25 29 46
Hate messages that attack certain groups or *FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted. LT: Full age range not
individuals (e.g., people of different colour, religion, available.
nationality or sexuality) QF50d In the PAST YEAR, have you seen online content or
online discussions where people talk about or show any of
The results are summarised in Figure 57. these things? Hate messages that attack certain groups or
individuals (e.g., people of different religion, nationality, or
The countries vary in the number of children sexuality).
seeing hate messages at least every month or
more often. The percentage ranges between 4% Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet.
(Germany) and 48% (Poland). Moreover,
between 11% and 31% of children see this Figure 58 displays the differences between boys and
content a few times a year.
girls who reported having seen hate messages at
More than half of the children see hate content at least every month or more often.
least a few times in the Czech Republic (54%), In most of the countries, there are almost no
Poland (59%) Russia (52%) and Flanders (51%). gender differences in exposure to this type of
On the other hand, in most of the countries, the harmful content.
majority of the children say that they have not In Poland, more girls than boys report seeing hate
seen hate messages in the last year (between 41 messages at least every month or more often
and 75%). In Germany and Slovakia, 74% and (difference of 10 percentage points).
75% of children have not seen such messages.
45
Council of Europe (2018). Hate speech. COE.
www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/hate-speech
| 66 |
Figure 58: Harmful content: Hate messages, Figure 59: Harmful content: Hate messages,
by gender by age
CH 14
13 11
CH
23 21
CZ 26 18
4 CZ
DE 36
4
16 3
EE DE
13 6
ES 15 12
19 EE
18
*FI 16
17 13
ES
10 27
FR 5
14
HR 10 *FI
11 19
IT 11 6
10 FR
9
*LT 8
HR
19 16
MT 18 8
14 IT
NO 14
19
PL 43 *LT
53 10
PT 17 13
17 MT
30
RO 16
19 11
NO
RS 25 23
23
42
*RU 24 PL
24 58
SK 7 10
8 PT
25
*VL 20
20 RO
13
17 25
Ave 18
20
RS
0 20 40 60 80 100 30
19
*RU
*FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted. LT: Full age range not 30
available.
8
SK
QF50d In the PAST YEAR, have you seen online content or 8
online discussions where people talk about or show any of 15
these things? Hate messages that attack certain groups or *VL
25
individuals (e.g., people of different religion, nationality, or
sexuality). Percentage of children who answered at least Ave
13
every month, at least every week, or daily or almost daily. 22
Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet. 0 20 40 60 80 100
| 67 |
In almost all of the countries, older children content is so interrelated. Do children see the
report seeing hate messages more often than content on the same websites or platforms? Or
younger children. Difference between these two do similar types of children look for different
age categories ranges between 6 (Italy, Estonia) types of harmful content?
and 18 (Czech Republic) percentage points. The
only exception is Slovakia, where exposure to Future research could also investigate how much
hate messages is the same for younger and older of the exposure to harmful content is intentional
age groups. or unintentional. Researchers and policy-makers
should focus on how we can limit unintentional
In Poland and in Malta, more older children than access to harmful content.
younger children report seeing hate messages
online (differences 16 and 17 percentage points, Future research should also uncover other types
respectively). of harmful content that have not yet been
investigated but which may be already present
online. The online environment is quickly
transforming, and a qualitative investigation
Points to consider could identify and understand the substance of
the harmful content that current children may be
In this section, we investigated six types of exposed to.
harmful content that children may be exposed to.
As the findings show, the children are most often
exposed to hate messages in most of the
countries. In some countries, however, similar
percentages of children are exposed to hate
messages as to other harmful content. This
particularly concerns countries with overall low
prevalence of exposure to harmful content, such
as Germany, where any kind of harmful content
is seen at least every month or more often by 2%
to 6% of the children.
| 68 |
didn’t like, Somebody used my password to access
Data misuse my information or to pretend to be me, Somebody
created a page or image about me that was hostile
or hurtful), getting a virus or spyware on a used
Navigating the contemporary online and device, problems regarding losing or spending money
offline world involves disseminating a variety online (I spend too much money on in-app purchases
of data traces, and children are no exception. or online games, I lost money by being cheated on
As a consequence, children are likely to the internet), and being tracked through the device
experience forms of personal data misuse and (Someone found out where I was because they
privacy-related risks in the context of tracked my phone or device).
interpersonal, institutional and commercial
relations47. In the survey, we asked children The occurrence of data misuse differs with
about seven types of data misuse (see regard to the type of negative experiences.
Table 8) and if they had experienced these in the past Table 8 shows how many children experience each
year. type of data misuse across all of the countries.
47Stoilova, M., Nadagiri, R., & Livingstone, S. (2019). Communication & Society.
Children’s understanding of personal data and privacy https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1657164
online – a systematic evidence mapping. Information,
| 69 |
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
Experiences with data misuse, apart from getting to 33% of 15- to 16-year-olds. In the Czech
a virus or spyware, were reported by fewer than Republic, Spain, Malta, Poland, Romania, Serbia
15% of the children in most of the countries. In and Russia, 20% and more children aged 15–16
most cases, these types of data misuse were report some type of personal data misuse.
reported by less than a tenth of the children However, in Estonia, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania,
(ranging between 3% and 7%). Norway and Portugal, the differences between
children in the youngest and oldest age
The most common type of personal data misuse categories are 5 percentage points or less.
is getting a virus or spyware, reported by 7%
(Germany, France and Norway) to 23% (Malta)
of the children (Ave = 14%).
Figure 60: Personal data misuse, by country
Being located by tracking a phone or device,
losing money by being cheated online and having
created a hurtful page or image is reported by
less than a tenth of the children in all of the *CH
countries (Ave = between 4% and 5%). CZ 14
DE 7
EE 9
Experiences with some types of
ES 14
personal data misuse
*FI
In the survey, overall experiences with the misuse of FR 7
personal data were captured by three items:
Somebody used personal information in a way I HR 4
didn’t like, Somebody used my password to access IT 5
my information or to pretend to be me and
Somebody created a page or image about me that LT 7
was hostile or hurtful. In this section, we focus on MT 19
children who experienced at least one or more of
these types of personal data misuse. NO 7
PL 19
Overall, in all of the countries, less than a fifth of
the children experience at least one of these three PT 12
misuses of personal data (Figure 60). RO 23
| 70 |
points. However, in other countries, the
differences are not substantial, being 5
percentage points or less. Figure 62: Personal data misuse, by age
*FI 9
% Boys % Girls 12
3
FR 9
*CH 10
2
CZ 15 HR 3
14 7
6 3
DE 9 IT 5
6
EE 9 4
9 LT 10
ES 14 7
15 14
MT 20
*FI 26
8 5
FR 6 NO 7
10
HR 4 14
4 PL 18
6 29
IT 4 10
8 PT 14
LT 6 14
13
MT 22 RO 26
15 33
NO 7 10
7 RS 16
20 21
PL 17
*RU 25
PT 14 30
11
5
RO 24 SK 10
21 13
RS 17
13 *VL 21
19
*RU 8
Ave 13
SK 7 17
11
*VL 0 20 40 60 80 100
12
Ave 11 *FI/RU/VL/CH: Full age range not available. FI/RU/VL: Data
not weighted.
0 20 40 60 80 100
QF60 Percentage of children who answered yes to QF60 a,
d, or e.
*FI/RU/VL/CH: Full age range not available.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
QF60 Percentage of children who answered yes to QF60 a,
d, or e.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
| 71 |
Figure 63: The device (e.g., phone, tablet,
computer) got a virus or spyware, by gender
Getting a virus or spyware
Experience with the most common type of % Boys % Girls
data misuse, i.e., getting a virus or spyware,
ranges between 7% (Germany, France and *CH
Norway) and 23% (Malta) (see
CZ 25
16
Table 8). In the Czech Republic, Malta, Poland and 6
DE
Romania, more than a fifth of the children report 7
getting a virus or spyware. EE 18
13
In most of the countries, the gender differences ES 17
are not substantial, equal to or less than 5 14
percentage points (Figure 63). However, in the *FI
Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal and Serbia, the 8
differences range between 9 and 11 percentage FR 7
points, with more boys than girls reporting HR 11
getting a virus or spyware. 9
IT 9
In the youngest age group, the range of those 11
experiencing getting spyware is between 3% LT 9
13
(France and Germany) and 19% (Czech 24
Republic). Among 12- to 14-year-olds, the same MT 22
applies for 8% (Norway, Croatia, Germany, and NO 8
Finland) to 28% (Romania) of the children. 7
Among the oldest children, the range of these PL 27
16
experiences is between 8% (France) and 31%
22
(Poland) (Figure 64). PT 13
RO 24
In Germany, Croatia, Malta, Norway, Poland, 20
Serbia and Slovakia, more children in the oldest 21
RS
age category report having such an experience as 12
compared to the youngest age category *RU
(difference between 6 and 14 percentage points).
9
In other countries, there was no substantial SK 8
relation to age.
*VL
Ave 16
12
0 20 40 60 80 100
experience related to data QF60b In the PAST YEAR, has any of the following
happened to you on the internet? The device (e.g., phone,
misuse is getting a virus or tablet, computer) I use got a virus or spyware. Percentage
of children who answered yes.
spyware. Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
| 72 |
Figure 64: The device (e.g., phone, tablet, Problematic situations related to
computer) got a virus or spyware, by age
money
Many online spaces and platforms provide their
9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs
services for free, although many also require or
encourage payment. This may be problematic if
*CH 9
children feel that they do not have full control over
13
19 their spending. Another problematic situation may be
CZ 22 connected to the fact that the internet may be
22
misused to illegally get or steel money from the
3
DE 8 users. In the survey we differentiate between these
10 types of risks, one connected with problematic
14 control, the other with experiences with wrongful or
EE 17
15 even illegal situations, which results in money lost.
16
ES 14 Only a small number of children experience losing
18
money by being cheated on the internet (Ave =
*FI 8 3%). Across the countries, such an experience
12 ranges between 1% (France, Germany and
3
FR 11 Croatia) and 8% (Romania). In Malta, Poland and
8 Romania, the range is between 6% and 8% (see
7 Table).
HR 8
16
7 Spending too much money on in-app purchases
IT 11 or online games is only slightly more common
12
(Ave = 7%), varying between 4% (Lithuania) and
9
LT 13 14% (Malta). In the Czech Republic, Germany,
11 Spain, Malta, Norway, Poland, Portugal and
MT
19
25
Romania, between 6% and 14% children feel that
27 they spend too much money online.
5
NO 8 There are no gender differences regarding losing
11
money by being cheated online, with the
17
PL 22 exception of Romania, where 11% of boys and
31 5% of girls report this. Similarly, this experience
19 is no different for age, again with the exception
PT 15
18 of Romania, where the difference between the
17 youngest and oldest age categories is 12
RO 28
22 percentage points. Because there are almost no
13 differences, we don’t include the figures here.
RS 17
22 In contrast, there are some gender differences
*RU 15 with regard to the experience of spending too
16 much money on in-app purchases or online
4 games (Figure 65). In the Czech Republic,
SK 9
14 Estonia, Spain, Malta, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania and Serbia, more boys spend too much
*VL 20 money on in-app purchases or online games than
25
11 girls (differences between 6 and 15 percentage
Ave 15 points). It can be presumed that this is related to
17
higher engagement in gaming among boys (see
0 20 40 60 80 100 ‘Online activities’).
| 73 |
Figure 65: Spending too much money on in- Figure 66: Spending too much money on in-
app purchases or in online games, by gender app purchases or in online games, by age
*CH *CH 11
10
CZ 14 6
4 CZ 8
7 14
DE 5 3
8 DE 5
EE 2 11
5
ES 13 EE 6
3 4
*FI 6
ES 9
4 9
FR 2
*FI 9
HR 6 4
1
3
IT 6 FR 4
3 3
LT 3 3
2 HR 2
8
MT 19
9 2
IT 6
NO 17 4
2 2
PL 9 LT 4
3 1
12 12
PT 2 MT 15
17
RO 20 7
5 NO 10
RS 8 10
2 5
PL 6
*RU 8
5 5
SK 3 PT 7
10
*VL 8
RO 18
10 14
Ave 3 4
RS 5
0 20 40 60 80 100 6
*RU 8
*FI/RU/VL/CH: Full age range not available. 15
2
QF60f In the PAST YEAR, has any of the following happened SK 4
to you on the internet? I spent too much money on in-app 6
purchases or in online games. Percentage of children who
answered yes. *VL 12
10
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 5
Ave 8
9
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 74 |
Tracking location Figure 67: Tracking location, by gender
Ave 4
4
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 75 |
Figure 68: Tracking location, by age Points to consider
Among the data misuse risks, most common is
9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs getting a virus or spyware. For most of these
risks, we can see the increasing trend with age.
*CH 5 With regard to gender differences, there is a clear
7
trend that in many of the countries, more boys
3
CZ 3 than girls report spending too much money on in-
8 app purchases or online games as well as getting
DE
4
4
a virus or spyware. The gender difference is
3 probably being caused by gendered patterns in
2 online activities, especially gaming.
EE 2
8
Although we have information about the
3
ES 3 prevalence of encountering these risks, we should
5 consider that their nature as well as potential
*FI 5 resulting harm can vary among children. For
9 example, getting a virus or spyware might, for
1 one child, mean that an antivirus dealt with this
FR 2
4 problem immediately, while for another it might
1 mean long-term misuse of personal information
HR 1 by spyware.
2
1
IT 1 Spending ‘too much money’ may also vary among
3 children. It would be interesting to know if this is
1 an estimate related to a sum that is allowed or at
LT 3
2 least unproblematic within the family (although
7 still seen as high) or uncontrolled overspending
MT 10 above the children’s limit.
15
3
NO 7 There seem to be a slightly increasing trend of
17 getting tracked via a device with increasing age.
PL
4
4
Tracking a location is usually discussed with
9 regard to parents controlling their smaller
3 children. For older children in particular, we
PT 4
should therefore also think about who is using the
4
3 device for such tracking, for instance, if it is the
RO 9 child’s family, friends or peers, or someone else.
16
2
RS 2
3
*RU 3
7
1
SK 2
3
*VL 10
18
3
Ave 4
8
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 76 |
Excessive internet
Tolerance: the need to increase the amounts of
the online activity to achieve the former effects;
48 Vondrackova, P., & Smahel, D. (2019). Internet 51Griffiths, M. (2000). Does internet and computer
addiction in context. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), “addiction” exist? Some case study evidence.
Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Artificial CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(2), 211–18.
Intelligence, Computer Simulation, and Human- https://doi.org/10.1089/109493100316067
Computer Interaction (pp. 551–62). IGI Global. 52
Ibid
49 Helsper, E.J., & Smahel, D. (2019). Excessive internet
| 77 |
Table 9: Excessive internet use: Children (12-16) who answered at least weekly or daily
In all of the countries, the children least often Between 4% (Lithuania) and 20% (Malta) of
report going at least weekly without eating and children acknowledge they try unsuccessfully to
sleeping because of the internet (Ave = 4%). In spend less time on the internet daily or weekly.
contrast, more children reported four other
criteria (Ave between 10 and 13%). How much children experience
The percentage of children who report going the criteria of excessive internet
without eating and sleeping because of the use
internet at least weekly ranges between 0%
(Italy) and 11% (Romania). As already noted, children experience excessive
internet use only if all five criteria are present. It is
Between 3% (Lithuania and Slovakia) and 19% therefore meaningful to look at how many criteria
(Croatia) of children report that they feel children experienced and how many children have
bothered at least weekly when they cannot be on not experienced any of the excessive internet use
the internet. criteria. Experiencing a criterion is defined here as
reporting it as present at least weekly or daily.
Between 4% (Slovakia) and 21% (Flanders) of
the children report they spend less time with The results are presented in Figure 69, which shows
family, friends or doing schoolwork daily or how many of the criteria were experienced by
weekly because of time spent online. children in the relevant countries. Children in the
‘None of the criteria’ category did not experience any
| 78 |
of the criteria while children in the ‘5 criteria’ category Figure 69: Number of experienced criteria of
experienced all the criteria. The number of children the excessive internet use, by country
who met all five criteria is important, since we can
presume that those children are excessive users.
% None % 1-2 types
Considering that the number is quite low, we report
their prevalence with the use of one decimal place. % 3-4 types % all 5 types
EE 74 20 6 0.6
Between 2% (Italy, Lithuania and Slovakia) and
8% (Switzerland, Croatia and Romania) of the ES 73 21 5 0.4
children experience three or four excessive
*FI 75 21 4 0.6
internet use criteria.
FR 70 23 6 1.1
The majority of the children in all of the countries
do not experience any of the criteria of excessive HR 69 21 8 2.1
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 79 |
Figure 70: Experienced at least one criterion of excessive internet use (a difference of 7
the excessive internet use, by gender percentage points).
IT 19 EE
30
24 24
LT 11
14 24
ES
32 36
MT 40 21
24 *FI
NO 29
31
27 29
PL FR
32 37
PT 28 26
26 HR
42
RO 30
40 20
IT
29 25
RS 33
10
*RU 19 LT
26 15
SK 8 32
11 MT
46
*VL 33
35 23
NO
26 34
Ave 29 27
PL
0 20 40 60 80 100 34
24
PT
*FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted. 31
QF70 Derived from QF70 In the PAST YEAR, how often have 31
RO
these things happened to you? Percentage of children who 40
answered at least every week or daily or almost daily to at 26
least one criterion. RS
37
Base: All children aged 12-16 who use the internet. 20
*RU
25
12
The gender differences range between % (France SK
7
and Norway) and 10% (Romania). In most of the
countries, there are almost no gender differences 31
*VL
37
(i.e., the difference is equal or less than 5
percentage points). Ave
24
32
The gendered pattern is not consistent across the
countries. In some of the countries, more boys 0 20 40 60 80 100
experience some of the criteria than girls. In
Estonia, this difference is 8 percentage points, in *FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted.
Norway 7 percentage points, and in Romania, 10 QF70 Derived from QF70 In the PAST YEAR, how often have
percentage points. On the other hand, in France, these things happened to you? Percentage of children who
more girls experience some of the criteria for
| 80 |
answered at least every week or daily or almost daily to at this report are too low and that many more
least one criterion. children use the internet ‘too much’. However,
Base: All children 12-16 who use the internet. what is ‘too much’ and what is ‘not too much’ is
subjective. Such perceptions may vary in different
families as they are also part of the family
In the majority of the countries, more older environment. There is no clear answer as to how
children than younger children report some much is ‘too much’. We should stress that in this
criterion of internet excessive use, differences report we focus on the impact that internet use
ranging between 6 (Estonia, Flanders) and 21 has on children’s lives. This impact is important
(Switzerland) percentage points. for measuring excessive internet use because it is
what determines the severity of the issue.
This pattern is similar to findings from the survey Whether a parent perceives that a child spends
in 2010, where more older children also ‘too much time on the internet’ and whether this
experience at least one criterion of excessive has a serious impact on their life may be two
internet use54. different things in most families.
In Germany, Italy, Lithuania and Slovakia, there To the best of our knowledge, parents, caregivers
are no substantial age differences. However, and teachers often overestimate the problem of
these minor differences are particularly present in excessive internet use or online addiction. The
countries with a low prevalence of children phrase ‘addicted to the internet’ became a
experiencing some of the criteria of excessive buzzword and the common language use grew far
internet use, so these differences should be apart from its clinical meaning. We recommend
interpreted with caution. educating parents about the clinical meaning of
the word ‘addiction’ and its associated symptoms.
| 81 |
children’s use of it requires better informed and
Sexting holistic approaches to policy and provision 59.
| 82 |
Receiving sexual messages In Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Germany,
Spain, Malta, Norway, Romania, Flanders, Finland
First, we focused on receiving sexual messages, and Serbia, between 25% and 39% of the
measured by the question: children receive such messages.
In the PAST YEAR, have you EVER RECEIVED any On the other hand, in Estonia, Croatia, Italy and
sexual messages? This could be words, pictures or Slovakia, 10% or fewer children receive these
videos. messages.
CH 31
29
Figure 72: Receiving sexual messages, by
CZ 35
country 33
DE 25
35
EE 12
CH 30 8
ES 32
CZ 34 29
DE 30 *FI 20
33
EE 10 FR 14
8
ES 30 11
HR 9
*FI 28
IT 11
FR 11 6
LT 8
HR 10 14
IT 8 MT 29
26
LT 11 NO 27
31
MT 28 17
PL 12
NO 29 29
PT 20
PL 15
RO 28
PT 24 22
RS 39
RO 25 26
RS 32 *RU 0
0
*RU SK 9
10
SK 9 42
*VL 36
*VL 39
Ave 22
Ave 22 20
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
* RU: Question not asked. FI/VL: Data not weighted.
* RU: Question not asked. FI/VL: Data not weighted.
QF40: In the PAST YEAR, have you EVER RECEIVED any
QF40 In the PAST YEAR, have you EVER RECEIVED any
sexual messages? This could be words, pictures or videos?
sexual messages? This could be words, pictures or videos?
Percentage of children who answered yes.
Percentage of children who answered yes.
Base: All children 12-16 who use the internet.
Base: All children 12-16 who use the internet.
| 83 |
More boys than girls receive sexual messages in Figure 74: Receiving sexual messages, by age
France, Portugal, Flanders and Serbia, with the
difference of 13 percentage points (Serbia) and
less. 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs
*RU
6
SK
15
36
*VL
41
16
Ave
32
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 84 |
Sending sexual messages Figure 75: Sending sexual messages, by
country
Next, we asked about sending sexual messages:
*VL 9
Because this experience is rather low in prevalence,
Ave 6
it is not surprising that there are no substantial
gender differences. Only in Malta and Serbia did
0 20 40 60 80 100
slightly more boys than girls send sexual message (a
difference of 7 and 10 percentage points, * RU: Question not asked. FI/VL: Data not weighted.
respectively).
QF45y In the PAST YEAR, have you EVER SENT or POSTED
As for age (see Figure 76), the differences are slightly any sexual messages? This could be words, pictures or
more pronounced, although not in all of the videos about you or someone else. Percentage of children
countries. Generally, we see that older children more who answered yes.
often state having sent sexual messages (sexting) Base: All children 12-16 who use the internet.
than younger children.
| 85 |
Figure 76: Sending sexual messages, by age Unwanted requests for sexual
information
12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs
As noted above, sexting experiences can be a wanted
or unwanted activity. We know from previous
5 research how intentionality and expectance is a
CH
5
factor when assessing whether a risk experienced
CZ
5 online is coped with or not seen as a problem, or if it
17 leads to distress and the potential for harm. We
13 therefore wanted to separate out those experiences
DE
27 of unwanted requests for sexual information, and if
0 yes, of how often they had experienced this.
EE Consequently, we asked the children participating in
4
the survey:
6
ES
17
In the PAST YEAR, have you EVER been asked by
*FI
2 someone on the internet for sexual information
11 (words, pictures or videos) about yourself (like what
1 your body looks like without clothes on or sexual
FR
2 things you have done) when you did not want to
0 answer such questions?
HR 4
When looking at children’s experience, we focused on
IT
1 the differences in experience of prevalence between
3
them, comparing those who had never experienced
LT
3 something like this and those who had received such
3 a request in the past year at least a few times and
8 more often (at least monthly).
MT
22
The findings show (see Figure 77) that most of
4
NO the children had never experienced this (between
13
73% in Finland and 94% in Croatia and
PL
3 Lithuania). For most of those children who had
7 experienced unsolicited sexual messages and
3 requests, this had not happened often.
PT
9
In all of the countries, 7% (Finland and the Czech
6
RO
7 Republic) or fewer children experienced
something like this at least monthly or more
4
RS often.
18
0
*RU
0
1
SK
5
5
*VL
12
4
Ave
10
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 86 |
Figure 77: Unwanted sexual requests, by Figure 78: Unwanted sexual requests, by
country gender
| 87 |
Figure 79: Unwanted sexual requests, by age Points to consider
We must acknowledge that when the internet and
12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs mobile phones play such a substantial part in
children’s – and perhaps especially young
21 people’s – general day-to-day lives, then also
CH
44 flirting, exploration of sexuality and the
14 establishment and maintenance of intimate
CZ relationships can be mediated via technology. It
39
should also be noted that some of the participants
15
DE
39 are above the sexual consent age while others are
below. It is therefore important, when
6
EE considering preventive efforts and creating good
11
policy and legislative practice, that we seek to
ES
16 understand the different types of sexting that
34 occur, and to what degree this constitutes a risk
13 of serious harm. A nuanced approach will enable
*FI
38 us to identify the right measures to intervene and
7 aid, enabling us to separate between
FR transgressive behaviour between young people,
13
and the potential consequences of this, and
3
HR
10 sexual abuse and solicitation towards children by
adults.
6
IT
12 The risk of conceptualising sexting only as a
5 negative experience is that this may result in
LT
6 providing advice that will be dismissed as it
16 doesn’t correspond with the common experiences
MT of young people. The challenge is to develop
34
effective preventive strategies to protect children
13
NO
38
from the negative consequences of sexting, while
ensuring that such strategies stay situated within
PL
4 young people’s common experiences.
11
9 Future research should investigate possible harm
PT
20 caused by receiving sexual messages or
11 unwanted requests for sexual information and its
RO impact on children’s well-being. We need to
23
understand in more depth the substance of
12
RS children’s experiences. This includes, for
30
instance, examining which platforms are used for
*RU sexting, who sends the message(s) and how
children cope with such an experience.
8
SK
15
20
*VL
28
11
Ave
25
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 88 |
Figure 80: Seeing sexual images (on- or
Seeing sexual offline), by country
images
CH 41
One of the concerns related to children and the CZ 43
media is that of exposure to sexual images. The
*DE
worry that children may be exposed to sexual images
online, such as pornographic content, has been the EE 22
topic of many policy debates and interventions in the ES 41
field of internet safety. However, what constitutes
pornography and sexual images is partly culturally *FI
dependent. FR 21
Moreover, the responses to exposure to sexual HR 28
images can also be very diverse. As with other risks, IT 27
seeing sexual images can, for some children and
young people, be considered a positive experience, LT 24
some don’t think much about it, and for some it can MT 40
cause distress.
NO 39
In order to give good advice on which children and
PL 29
when are at risk of harm in relation to sexual images,
it is important to know more about their experiences. PT 32
Therefore, we asked if the children had seen RO 36
something sexual both online and offline, and how
they reacted to this experience. To present this topic RS 50
to the children, we gave the following introduction: *RU
In the PAST YEAR, you have seen lots of different SK 27
images – pictures, photos, videos. Sometimes, these *VL
images might be obviously sexual, e.g., they may
show people naked or people having sex. You might Ave 33
never have seen anything like this, or you may have
seen something like this on a mobile phone, in a 0 20 40 60 80 100
magazine, on the TV, on a DVD or on the internet.
* DE/FI/VL: Full age range not available. RU: Question not
The next few questions ask you about things like this. asked.
This definition encompassed all kinds of media- QF30: In the PAST YEAR, have you EVER SEEN any sexual
related exposure to sexual images, not only that images? Percentage of children who answered yes.
which happens online. In the questions that followed, Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
we focused on different platforms, both online and
offline, in which exposure may have happened, and
which will be introduced in the results. Moreover, we Exposure to sexual images varies by age and
should note that we intentionally avoided using the gender. In all of the countries, more boys than
term ‘pornography’, which can give special girls reported having seen sexual images (see
connotations, but rather asked the children more Figure 81). The gender difference ranged
broadly to think of images that were obviously between 2% (Malta and Lithuania) and 14%
sexual. (Portugal).
Our first question in this section related to the In seven countries (Spain, France, Italy, Poland,
frequency of exposure. Figure 80 shows the number Portugal, Romania and Serbia), the gender
of children who reported seeing some kind of sexual difference is between 10 and 13 percentage
image in the past year. Across the countries, between points.
21% (France) and 50% (Serbia) of the children say
they had had such an experience.
| 89 |
Figure 81: Seeing sexual images (on- or On the other hand, the difference in Lithuania and
offline), by gender France is substantially lower, ranging between 25
and 21 percentage points.
% Boys % Girls
In some countries (Poland, Croatia, Estonia, * DE/FI/VL: Full age range not available. RU: Question not
Portugal, Norway, and Serbia) more than five asked. FI/VL: Data not weighted.
times as many experience sexual images among QF30: In the PAST YEAR, have you EVER SEEN any sexual
15- to 16-year-olds than 9- to 11-year-olds. images? Percentage of children who answered yes.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
| 90 |
Seeing sexual images on different There is considerable variability between
countries in the number of children who say that
platforms they have seen sexual images on the internet,
ranging between 4% in France and 28% in
Most children see sexual images on devices
Serbia.
connected to the internet, such as on a mobile
phone, computer, tablet or any other online In most countries, boys are more likely than girls
device (Ave = 14%). Slightly fewer say they have to say that they have seen sexual images across
seen sexual images on television or in films (Ave platforms.
= 11%) and only small number say that they
have seen sexual images in a magazine or a book There is also a consistent age pattern across all
(Ave = 3%). of the countries, with more children in the oldest
age category seeing sexual images online than in
the youngest age category.
Table 10: Seeing sexual images at least
monthly on different platforms, by country.
How children felt after seeing
Via a
mobile sexual images
phone,
In a On
computer, As noted in the introduction for this section, being
magazine television,
or book film
tablet or exposed to sexual images can be perceived both as
any other a positive and a negative experience, depending on
online the context and the individual child. How sexual
device
images are perceived can also be influenced by
CH 2 10 17 intentionality – the response to exposure due to
CZ 5 17 26 seeking out sexual images could differ from
unexpected exposure. The emotional response is also
*DE - - - connected to the developmental stage and needs of
EE 1 7 9 the children, reflected by age. In line with our intent
to research children’s own experiences from a non-
ES 3 10 16
normative starting point, we also asked children the
*FI - - - following question:
FR 2 3 4
Thinking of the LAST TIME you have seen images of
HR 6 12 12 this kind, how did you feel about it?
IT 3 9 8
The children could report one of these options: I was
LT 2 7 7 happy, I was not happy or upset, I was a little upset,
MT 4 11 16 I was fairly upset and I was very upset (see Figure
83). Please note that these images could be both
NO 1 12 17
online and offline.
PL 3 7 10
Figure 83 shows that in most of the countries,
PT 4 12 16
most of the children who saw some sexual image
RO 4 11 13 were neither upset nor happy (Ave = 44%),
RS 7 26 28 ranging between 27% (Switzerland) and 72%
(Lithuania).
*RU - - -
SK 3 7 7 In contrast, between 10% (Lithuania) and 40%
(Switzerland) of the children were fairly or very
*VL - - - upset (Ave = 22%), while feeling happy after
Ave 3 11 14 seeing sexual images was reported by a similar
number of children across the countries, ranging
* DE/FI/VL: Full age range not available. RU: Question not between 3% in Estonia and 39% in Spain.
asked.
QF31 In the PAST YEAR, how often have you seen images In Romania, France and Switzerland, being fairly
of this kind in any of the following ways? Percentage of or very upset after seeing sexual images was
children who answered at least every month, at least every reported by more than fourth of the children who
week, or daily or almost daily. saw them. On the other hand, in Finland, Italy,
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
Lithuania, and Portugal, being fairly or very upset
was reported by less than 15% of the children.
| 91 |
Figure 83: How children reacted to seeing Figure 84: Children who are a little, fairly or
sexual images, by country. very upset by sexual images, by gender.
| 92 |
Figure 85: Children who are a little, fairly or Points to consider
very upset by sexual images, by age.
Some children and young people intentionally
seek out sexual content. Some may seek them
9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs due to curiosity, others may try to find answers
for questions they have about puberty, their own
86 body and sexual identity. Thus, as with other
CH 56
48 perceived risks, seeing sexual images might also
68 represent an opportunity and help for some. How
CZ 37 do we ensure a balanced approach to sexual
22
0 images online – and in other media – that steers
*DE 32 away from media panic, seeing the nuances in the
18
rationales behind the various intentional
59
EE 39 experiences with sexual content online?
39
44 On the other hand, some sexual content, which
ES 28
14 children are exposed to, may also have an
educational purpose. It could be relevant
*FI 17 information about sexuality or about having a
20
69 safe sexual experience. How can we ensure that
FR 55 sexual educational content is age-appropriate
52
and relevant, and who should take responsibility
*HR 0 for this?
0
30 Despite the need to consider the differences
IT 27
30 related to intent, we also need to focus on the
27 consequences of exposure to sexual materials. As
LT 16 the results showed, a substantial number of
19
65 children were positive about their experience.
MT 42 This is also in line with the presumption that
18
children use the internet to fill their
44
NO 41 developmental needs. Nevertheless, we need to
27 acknowledge that both wanted and unwanted
46 exposure can lead to both positive and negative
PL 36
30 feelings – and sometimes also to an impact that
35 is much more differentiated and nuanced, and
PT 23
13 that our survey could not sufficiently capture.
68
RO 48 However, prior research has also shown that
41
some children, especially younger children and
48
RS 32 girls more often than boys, do not seek out sexual
17 images but are unwillingly exposed to them, and
*RU 0
some find this to be problematic. It is important
0 to ensure that children who have accidentally
48 accessed or been sent sexual content by others
SK 44
46 have a way of coping with this, so that it does not
lead to any form of harm.
*VL 34
24
49
Ave 32
25
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 93 |
someone new from the internet face-to-face in
Meeting new people France to 25% in Serbia.
representations and children’s discourses on online risks: myth and reality of meetings with online strangers. In P.
Findings from qualitative research in nine European Lorentz, D. Smahel, M. Metykova & M.F. Wright (Eds.),
countries. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Living in the digital age: Self-presentation, networking,
Research on Cyberspace, 8(2), Article 2. playing, and participating in politics (pp. 78–94). Muni
http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-2-2 Press.
62 Marwick, A.E. (2008). To catch a predator? The 65 Holmes, J. (2009). Myths and missed opportunities:
MySpace moral panic. First Monday, 13(6), 1174–96. Young people’s not so risky use of online
63 Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K. (2004). Internet- communication. Information, Communication & Society,
initiated sex crimes against minors: Implications for 12(8), 1174–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180902769873
| 94 |
chose to meet their online contacts face-to-face between 6 (Czech Republic) and 10 percentage
(the differences were 15, 17 and 7 percentage points (Romania). In all these countries, more
points, respectively). boys than girls report having online contact with
unknown people online. In the other countries,
Figure 86: Child has communicated online there are no substantial gender differences.
with, or gone to an offline meeting with,
someone not met face-to-face before Figure 87: Having a contact with previously
unknown person on the internet, by gender.
% Met face-to-face
% Been in contact % Boys % Girls
CH 14 35
33 CH 32
CZ 20 47
44 CZ 41
*DE 9
*DE
EE 13 46
42 EE 38
ES 22 42
39 ES 35
*FI
*FI
FR 5
25 FR 29
21
HR 10
28 HR 31
25
IT 10
23 IT 23
12 24
LT 32
LT 34
16 30
MT 34
MT 35
21 33
NO 57
NO 61
19 52
PL 40
PL 42
PT 20 38
46 50
PT 42
RO 23
38 43
RO 33
RS 25
41
RS 43
*RU 39
17 *RU
SK 34
SK 35
*VL 33
16 *VL
Ave 37
Ave 40
0 20 40 60 80 100 34
0 20 40 60 80 100
* FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. DE: Question not
asked. * FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. DE: Question not
QF11: Have you EVER had contact on the internet with asked.
someone you have not met face-to-face before? (in QF11: Have you EVER had contact on the internet with
Germany, this question was not asked). And QF12: In the someone you have not met face-to-face before? Percentage
PAST YEAR, have you EVER met anyone face-to-face that of children who answered yes.
you first got to know on the internet? Percentage of children
who answered yes. Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
| 95 |
Figure 88: Having a contact with previously 48 percentage points (Serbia). In most countries,
unknown person on the internet, by age. this difference is over 20 percentage points.
*FI 69
87
15
FR 27
11
35 In all countries older children
HR 30
53 interact with unknown people
IT
5
27
40
more than younger children.
13
LT 35
58
14
MT 42
59
30
NO 68
80
18
PL 50
66
20
PT 54
68
15
RO 45
63
12
RS 46
73
*RU 56
73
18
SK 40
47
*VL 54
63
16
Ave 47
63
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 96 |
Figure 89: Meeting previously unknown How children felt after a face-to-
person from the internet face to face, by age
face meeting
As noted, meeting face-to-face with a previously
9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs
unknown person from the internet raises many
concerns. We therefore asked the children how they
5
CH 18 felt after the last time they met someone from the
30 internet face-to-face. They could choose from these
7 options: I was happy, I was not happy or upset, I
CZ 21
42 was a little upset, I was fairly upset and I was very
2 upset (see Figure 90).
*DE 6
23
3 More than half of the children who met someone
EE 17 face-to-face report that they were happy after the
26
meeting (Ave = 70%). In Malta, Norway,
8
ES 27 Portugal, Romania and Spain, more than 80% of
44 the children who went to such a meeting reported
*FI 25 feeling happy after the meeting.
43
3 In all of the countries except Poland, the second
FR 5 largest group of children consists of those
8
2 reporting feeling neither happy nor upset. The
HR 8 percentages range between 12% in the Czech
24 Republic and 36% in Lithuania (Ave = 22%).
1
IT 10
21 Being at least a little upset was least common
2 (Ave = 9%). In seven countries (Spain, Estonia,
LT 15 Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Romania),
26
5 5% or fewer children report any feelings of upset,
MT 20 and between 6% and 10% in another four
31
7
(Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Serbia). However,
NO 23 Poland, 23% of the children were upset after a
39 face-to-face meeting.
7
PL 24
34 Nevertheless, when the children were upset, they
5 mostly rated the negative feeling as being a little
PT 23 upset. Being fairly or very upset was reported by
34
8 5% or fewer children who met their online
RO 28 contact face-to-face in all of the countries except
42
France (11%). Moreover, the most severe
6
RS 25 feelings – being very upset – were reported by
54 only a handful of the children. In about half of the
*RU 23 countries there was no such child; in the other
40 countries this applies to less than 1.5% of the
6 children who went to a face-to face meeting with
SK 19
27 an unknown person from the internet.
*VL 29
34
5
Ave 19
33
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 97 |
Figure 90: How children felt after meeting countries, 1% or fewer children experienced any
offline contacts in person (only those who had upsetting feelings after such a meeting. In the
done so) Czech Republic, Serbia and Slovakia, 2% of the
children report feeling upset, and in Poland, it is
5% of children (however, it should be repeated
% Fairly or very upset % A little upset
that most of these children were only a little
% A Neither nor % Happy upset).
| 98 |
Table 11: Children who are upset after face to There are apparent gender differences in most of
face meetings with online contacts, by the countries for having an online contact with
country unknown people (more boys than girls reporting
online contacts), but almost no gender
differences in face-to-face meetings. This may
% At least a bit upset
suggest either that boys are more ‘picky’ in
% Have Those who choosing with whom they want to meet face-to-
had a F2F had F2F Whole face, or that their online activities provide more
meeting meetings sample opportunities to have online contacts with
CH 14 7 0.9 unknown people than girls’ activities. Given the
large difference between boys and girls in playing
CZ 20 11 2.2
online games (see ‘Online activities’), we believe
*DE 9 12 1.0 the second explanation is more plausible. Online
EE 13 3 0.4 games, which are more popular among boys,
provide many means to connect with unknown
ES 22 2 0.4 people, which is sometimes even a necessity for
*FI - - - playing.
FR 5 21 1.0 On the other hand, there is very clear age trend
HR 10 - - across all of the countries in both activities.
10 10 1.0 Similar to almost every other online activity, more
IT
older children than younger ones have online
LT 12 2 0.3 contacts and meet unknown people from the
MT 16 5 0.8 internet. This points to overall increases in using
the internet for many day-to-day activities with
NO 21 1 0.1
maturation, and also stresses the developmental
PL 19 28 5.3 conditionality of interactions with new people: as
20 3 0.5 children enter adolescence, the need to
PT
communicate with new people increases.
RO 23 1 0.3
RS 25 9 2.2
*RU - - -
SK 17 14 2.3
*VL - - -
Ave 16 8 1.3
Points to consider
Meeting with unknown people online is usually
perceived as a risk, but it may also bring benefits,
and we should not forget that.
| 99 |
Table 12 shows how many children say this applies
Preference of online to them often or always in relation to these items.
In this section, we examine children’s preferences of I find it I talk about I talk about
easier to be different personal
online communication – specifically, whether children
myself things things
find online communication easier and tend to self- online online than online
disclose more online than offline. The preference of f2f which I do
online communication can have both positive and not talk
negative aspects. It might be positive if children about f2f
prefer the internet in certain situations for identity *CH - - -
exploration or as the onset for communication about
sensitive topics, such as sexuality66. In such cases, CZ 27 19 5
the online environment can serve as a safe *DE 24 18 11
environment for the exploration that is a natural part EE 30 23 8
of the child’s development. On the other hand,
especially those with higher emotional problems, ES 24 18 6
such as loneliness, social anxiety or low self-esteem, *FI - - -
prefer online communication because the online
FR 37 21 17
environment gives them an opportunity for better
self-control of the self-presentation67. Although such HR 33 24 16
preference can be beneficial since it enriches social IT 24 17 9
life, it may be problematic if it becomes central for
communication while offline communication and LT 38 27 19
offline relationships deteriorate, or if it leads to MT 30 29 10
excessive internet use. Therefore, the preference of
NO 25 22 8
online communication might be both positive
(‘healthy’) and negative (‘unhealthy’) and may PL 19 19 9
become an opportunity or a risk. In the positive form, PT 28 15 9
the online environment provides the means to enrich
and supplement offline communication. In the *RO 38 16 n.a.
negative form, the online environment substitutes for RS 27 18 6
offline communication. *RU - - -
In the survey, we provided the following three SK 27 18 12
statements related to the preference of online *VL - - -
communication:
Ave 29 21 11
I find it easier to be myself online than when I am
with people face-to-face. * CH/FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. RO: question
on talking about personal things not asked.
I talk about different things online than I do when QD2d,e,f: How often does the following apply to you? I find
speaking to people face-to-face. it easier to be myself online than when I am with people
face-to-face. I talk about different things online than I do
I talk about personal things online which I do not talk when speaking to people face-to-face. I talk about personal
about with people face-to-face. things online which I do not talk about with people face-to-
face. have met online contacts face-to-face. Percentage of
Children replied if this applied to them never, children who answered often or always.
sometimes, often or always.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
It should be noted that these questions do not assess
if the preference of online communication is positive
Between 19% (Poland) and 38% (Romania) of
or negative. However, they provide an insight into
the children often or always find it easier to be
the children’s overall preferences related to online
themselves online than offline (Ave = 29%).
communication.
Between 16% (Romania) and 29% (Malta) of the
children report that they often or always talk
66Subrahmanyam, K., & Smahel, D. (2011). Digital youth: 67Caplan, S.E. (2010). Theory and measurement of
The role of media in development. Springer Science & generalized problematic internet use: A two-step
Business Media. approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1089–
97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.012
| 100 |
about different things online than they do when Figure 91: I find it easier to be myself online
speaking to people face-to-face. than when I am with people face-to-face, by
country
The least number of children (Ave = 11%) often
or always talk about personal things online that
they do not talk about with people face-to-face.
% Always % Often % Sometimes % Never
In the following sections we provide the results of the
two first mentioned items in more depth, focusing on *CH
the frequency of the experience and gender and age
differences. We selected these two because a higher CZ 12 15 36 37
number of children agreed with them. DE 9 15 35 42
EE 13 17 37 33
ES 13 12 24 52
I find it easier to be myself online
*FI
Between 49% (Spain) and 75% (Lithuania) of the
FR 11 26 34 29
children report that they at least sometimes or
more often find it easier to be themselves online HR 13 20 26 41
than when they are with people face-to-face (Ave IT 7 15 28 50
= 61%).
LT 13 24 38 24
Between 7% (Italy and Norway) and 19%
MT 12 18 33 37
(Romania) of children report that it happens to
them always. NO 7 19 38 35
| 101 |
Figure 92: I find it easier to be myself online Figure 93: I find it easier to be myself online
than when I am with people face-to-face, by than when I am with people face-to-face, by
gender (at least sometimes or more often) age (at least sometimes or more often)
*CH *CH 58
50
CZ 65 58
60 CZ 65
60 66
DE 57 43
73 DE 62
EE 61 73
55
ES 52 EE 75
45 74
*FI 39
ES 53
61
FR 72
69
*FI 73
HR 65 79
53 54
IT 55 FR 74
45 85
77 48
LT 75 HR 61
72
MT 63
63 40
IT 54
NO 67 55
62 69
55 LT 80
PL 46 81
69 46
PT 56 MT 71
76
RO 70 55
61 NO 70
61 69
RS 50 40
PL 57
*RU 60
56
SK 60 PT 65
63 66
*VL 57
RO 67
64 74
Ave 58 60
RS 60
0 20 40 60 80 100 43
*RU 63
* CH/FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. 60
50
QD2d: How often does the following apply to you? I find it SK 63
easier to be myself online than when I am with people face- 71
to-face. Percentage of children who answered sometimes,
often or always. *VL 72
68
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 51
Ave 66
68
| 102 |
I talk about different things online It seems that this experience is happening to
children most often sometimes. Between 21%
than I do when speaking to (Spain) and 40% (Norway) of the children report
people face-to-face that they talk about different things online than
offline sometimes.
CZ 56
56
% Always % Often % Sometimes % Never DE 52
53
EE 61
*CH 49
ES 43
CZ 5 14 37 44 34
DE 5 12 36 47 *FI
EE 7 16 33 45 FR 51
51
ES 7 10 21 62 HR 50
46
*FI 50
IT 40
FR 5 16 30 49
LT 64
HR 9 14 25 52 65
MT 60
IT 3 13 28 56 60
LT 7 18 39 36 NO 63
60
MT 11 18 31 40 PL 53
50
NO 5 17 40 38 53
PT 48
PL 7 12 33 48
RO 42
PT 6 10 35 50 40
RS 52
RO 5 11 25 59 41
RS 6 13 28 53 *RU
*RU SK 49
51
SK 4 13 33 50 *VL
*VL 53
Ave 50
Ave 6 14 32 49
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
* CH/FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available.
* CH/FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available.
QD2e: How often does the following apply to you? I talk
QD2e: How often does the following apply to you? I talk about different things online than I do when speaking to
about different things online than I do when speaking to people face-to-face. Percentage of children who answered
people face-to-face. Percentage of children who answered sometimes, often or always.
sometimes, often or always.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
| 103 |
In some of the countries (Serbia, Italy, Spain, Figure 96: I talk about different things online
Estonia), boys more often than girls acknowledge than I do when speaking to people face-to-
that they often or always talk about different face, by age
things online than when speaking to people face-
to-face. The differences are between 9 (Spain)
and 12 (Estonia) percentage points. Only in 9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs
Switzerland girls reported doing this more often,
with 6 percentile points of difference. *CH 51
47
47
CZ 61
62
In the majority all of the of the countries, more older 33
than younger children report that they talk about DE 58
73
different things online than offline at least often or
42
always. The differences between the youngest and EE 64
oldest age categories range between 9 (Serbia) to 39 64
(France) percentage points. ES
24
47
54
*FI 66
77
31
FR 55
In eight of the countries, the 32
70
HR
majority of the children report
51
67
33
talking about different things IT 48
52
*RU 61
61
33
SK 54
62
*VL 75
67
38
Ave 58
63
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 104 |
Points to consider
The majority of the children in most of the
countries agreed that they at least sometimes or
more often find it easier to be themselves online
than when they are with people face-to-face.
However, as stated at the beginning of this
section, this can have both positive and negative
consequences for children’s well-being. Thus, we
should better understand why children prefer
online communication and for which children this
might have negative outcomes. Qualitative
research in particular could provide more insight
into the situations and context in which children
feel easier being themselves online.
68
Smahel, D., Brown, B.B., & Blinka, L. (2012).
Associations between online friendship and
internet addiction among adolescents and
emerging adults. Developmental Psychology, 48(2),
381–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027025
| 105 |
Social context
The previous sections (‘Access’, ‘Practices and skills’, influence children’s internet use, aiming at
‘Opportunities and risks’) focused on individual-level maximising opportunities and minimising risks and
factors influencing children’s online presence. In this harm), on sharenting (i.e., parental practices to share
section, we consider another level of factors – that of personal information about their child online) and
children’s social environment or context. This children’s perceptions of people on the internet and
acknowledges that children are embedded within the online environment as a safe space (see Figure
various social contexts, and that these contexts and 97).
other people in these contexts largely influence
children too.
Mediation
Growing up, the most influential people in children’s
lives are their nuclear family, their parents. Children’s
friends play a significant role too, more so after Children's internet use is codetermined by how other
children enter school and even more so when actors in their lives approach the technology, what
entering adolescence. During school, teachers also rules regarding use they are expected to follow, and
become influential actors. Considering that with the what advice or dis/encouragement they receive from
spread of the internet we no longer meet others just the people around them. The most notable actors
in a ‘physical world’ but we also meet them online, who strive to influence children’s internet use in order
we acknowledge the role of digital ecologies, i.e., to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks and
online social contexts. These may be represented by harm are parents. Their efforts to affect children’s
an online community regularly visiting a dedicated internet use are labelled ‘parental mediation’, and
online platform, players in a multiplayer online game, two broad types of parental mediation can be
or more generally, by people anywhere on the distinguished69. Enabling mediation encompasses
internet who children can encounter. parental practices that aim at enabling children’s
positive use of the internet. Restrictive mediation
Figure 97: Theoretical model - this section then aims to limit children’s use of the internet. This
focuses on Social level (in red). EU Kids Online 2020 report focuses on three subtypes
of parental mediation, with the first two (active
mediation and technical monitoring) both falling
under enabling mediation, while selected restrictive
strategies fall under restrictive mediation.
| 106 |
Suggests ways to use the internet safely. children’s lives and who may be particularly engaged
in active mediation: peers and teachers. This EU Kids
Talks to me about what I do on the internet. Online survey also focused on how peers and
teachers encourage safe internet use or help children
Helps me when something bothers me on the with bothering experiences. We asked the children
internet. these questions about teachers’ active mediation:
Technical monitoring: using technological means
Have any teachers at your school done these things?
to monitor children’s online use (e.g., parental
control software). Monitoring is a strategy that Suggested ways to use the internet safely.
provides parents with knowledge of their children’s
whereabouts – what they do on the internet or with Encouraged me to explore and learn things on the
technologies. It can be done in many ways – parents internet.
can simply ask, or they can see what their children
do online by checking their screen etc. This survey Helped me in the past when something has bothered
focused on the possibilities of technical monitoring, me on the internet.
i.e., on using technological advances such as
The following questions were asked about friends’
specialised software or services to gain information
active mediation:
on what their children do online. The children
answered these questions related to technical Have any of your friends done these things?
monitoring:
Suggested ways to use the internet safely.
Does your parent/carer make use of any of the
following…? Encouraged me to explore and learn things on the
internet.
Parental controls or other means of blocking or
filtering some types of content. Helped me in the past when something has bothered
me on the internet.
Parental controls or other means of keeping track of
the internet content I look at or apps I use.
| 107 |
Figure 98: How often parents talk to their exception is Switzerland, where more 15- to 16-
children about their internet use, by country year-olds children talk to their parents than the
youngest, with difference of 6 percentage points.
% Often or very often
As the child grow older, it may be harder for the
% Sometimes
% Never or hardly ever parent to discuss their online activities. In
Portugal and Norway, however, 12- to 14-year-
CH 23 22 55 olds talk to their parents more than children in
CZ 16 28 56 the other two age categories (the difference
between 6 and 12 percentage points.
DE 38 43 19
EE 24 35 41
ES 27 21 52 Figure 99: Children whose parents talk to them
*FI about what they do online at least sometimes,
FR by gender
50 33 17
HR 51 32 17
% Boys % Girls
IT 46 27 26
LT 33 40 27 37
CH 53
MT 37 22 42
CZ 40
NO 24 35 42 50
DE 79
PL 22 24 54 83
PT 32 28 40 EE 55
64
RO 33 21 46 43
ES 53
RS 40 26 33
*RU *FI
SK 33 37 31 FR 84
82
*VL HR 80
87
Ave 33 30 37 73
IT 75
0 20 40 60 80 100 71
LT 75
* FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. 54
MT 63
QI4 When you use the internet, how often does your parent 52
or carer do any of these things? Talks to me about what I NO 64
do on the internet. 41
PL 51
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 57
PT 63
Figure 99 shows gender differences among those 49
RO
children who report they talk with their parents at 59
least sometimes. RS 61
73
In five countries (Germany, France, Italy, *RU
Lithuania and Slovakia), boys and girls do not
SK 67
differ substantially in this regard (a difference 71
equal to or below 5 percentage points). In all the
*VL
other countries, however, more girls than boys
report talking with their parents about their online Ave 59
activities at least sometimes. Generally, these 67
gender differences were small – between 6 0 20 40 60 80 100
percentage points in Portugal and 16 percentage
points in Switzerland. * FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available.
Age patterns are less consistent. In about half of QI4 When you use the internet, how often does your parent
the countries there is an understandable decrease or carer do any of these things? Talks to me about what I
in the number of children who talk with their do on the internet. Percentage of children who answered
parents about their online activities at least sometimes, often or very often.
sometimes, with difference between oldest and Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
youngest age category ranging between 9 (Malta)
and 25 (Estonia) percentage points.. The only
| 108 |
Figure 100: Children whose parents talk to Parents, peers and teachers
them about what they do online at least
sometimes, by age This survey asked children how often parents, peers
(friends) and teachers do the following:
9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs Suggest ways to use the internet safely.
| 109 |
them on the internet ranges between 19% in something on the internet in the countries (see
Spain and 57% in Croatia and Slovakia, but in ‘Overall negative online experiences’ and the
most of the countries, this percentage is below sections about online risks and opportunities),
40%. It should be noted, however, that answers thus the figures should be interpreted with this in
to this particular question are most likely affected mind.
by how many children were bothered by
Table 13: Active mediation by parents, peers, and teachers. Children who reported that parents,
friends, and teachers at least sometimes …
Suggest ways to use the internet Encourage me to explore and Help me when something bothers
safely learn things on the internet me on the internet
Parents Friends Teachers Parents Friends Teachers Parents Friends Teachers
CH 52 32 58 28 37 44 57 40 20
CZ 56 34 58 46 31 43 52 41 25
DE 75 54 60 62 63 50 67 39 31
EE 65 35 67 61 32 58 63 43 36
ES 65 38 51 47 45 57 55 39 19
*FI - - - - - - - - -
FR 79 40 58 75 53 61 82 41 34
HR 86 51 78 72 54 74 73 58 57
IT 82 47 62 54 51 53 67 33 27
LT 76 51 76 67 51 74 65 49 50
MT 70 47 74 63 55 72 70 54 47
*NO 64 - 60 60 - 64 70 - 25
PL 57 32 68 43 38 53 52 35 39
PT 71 48 64 51 49 61 63 50 31
RO 67 49 55 57 52 56 62 47 37
RS 73 41 58 67 48 66 70 44 29
*RU - - - - - - - - -
SK 68 65 74 70 70 76 63 64 57
*VL - - - - - - - - -
AVE 69 44 64 58 49 60 64 45 35
* FI/RU/VL: Full age-range not available NO: Full age-range not available for questions about friends
QI4 When you use the internet, how often does your parent/carer do any of these things? QJ2 Have any teachers at your school
done these things? QK2 Have any of your friends done these things? Percentage of children who answered sometimes, often or
very often.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
Ways to use the internet safely is, we distinguished between children who receive
such advice at least sometimes from any of the three
Teaching children how to use the internet safely is an actors (parents, friends or teachers) from those who
important part of digital education that children never or hardly ever receive such advice (see Figure
should receive. Table 13 shows that quite a lot of 101).
children are at least sometimes reminded of safe
internet use by parents, teachers and/or their The proportion of children who receive safety
friends. Considering that when parents do not advice at least sometimes varies from 72% in
provide such advice it may still be perfectly sufficient Switzerland to 95% in Croatia, with over three in
to receive it from a teacher (or vice versa), we also four children in most of the countries reporting
examined how many children in general reported this to be the case.
being given advice as to how to use the internet
safely irrespective of the source of the advice. That
| 110 |
Looking at the issue from the other perspective, Figure 102: Parents, friends or teachers
in most of the countries, the proportion of suggested ways of using the internet safely at
children not receiving safety advice from parents, least sometimes, by gender
teachers or friends is between 11% (Germany)
and 28% (Switzerland) of the children.
% Boys % Girls
Figure 101: Parents, friends or teachers
suggested ways of using the internet safely, by CH 68
76
country
CZ 75
82
DE 89
90
CH 72 82
EE 88
CZ 78
ES 76
DE 89 82
EE 85 *FI
ES 79 FR 88
89
*FI HR 95
95
FR 88 89
IT 94
HR 95
LT 90
IT 92 92
MT 82
LT 91 91
*NO 78
MT 87 81
*NO PL 72
85
PL 79 PT 84
88
PT 86 81
RO 87
RO 84
RS 80
RS 84 87
*RU *RU
SK 87 SK 87
87
*VL *VL
Ave 85
Ave 82
87
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
* FI/RU/VL: Full age-range not available NO: Full age-range
not available for questions about friends * FI/RU/VL: Full age-range not available NO: Full age-range
not available for questions about friends
Derived from QI4 When you use the internet, how often
does your parent/carer do any of these things? QJ2 Have Derived from: QI4 When you use the internet, how often
any teachers at your school done these things? QK2 Have does your parent/carer do any of these things? QJ2 Have
any of your friends done these things? Suggests ways to any teachers at your school done these things? QK2 Have
use the internet safely. Percentage of children who any of your friends done these things?: Suggests ways to
answered sometimes, often or very often to at least one of use the internet safely. Percentage of children who
the three questions. answered sometimes, often or very often to at least one of
the three questions.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
| 111 |
Figure 103: Parents, friends or teachers Generally, age differences are rather small
suggested ways of using the internet safely at (Figure 103). In Poland there is a clear age
least sometimes, by age pattern, with the youngest age category (9–11)
reporting being advised about online safety more
(85%) than 12- to 14-year-olds (78%) and 15- to
9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs 16-year-olds (68%). In Spain and Portugal, the
12- to 14-year-olds report being advised more
64 than both other age categories. There are a few
CH 76
80 other small differences in the other countries
82 (particularly in Switzerland, Romania or Serbia),
CZ 77 but generally age makes no substantial difference
74
90 with regard to this issue.
DE 90
86
87
EE 85
81 Technical means to restrict or
ES
74
83 monitor children’s internet use
77
Given the spread of software that is now available to
*FI 75
67 monitor or filter children’s online activities, the survey
89 focused on three technological options parents can
FR 88 use: whether (to a child’s knowledge) parents use
88
92 parental control software that would block or filter
HR 97 the content on the internet; whether parents keep
95 track of applications or online activities children
93
IT 93 engage in; and whether they use any technology to
89 track the location of the child, such as GPS (see Table
LT
94 14).
92
86
88 In most of the countries, a minority of children
MT 85 report parental use of any of these technological
86
controls (Ave = 22% and less). In only two of the
*NO 86 countries, the proportion of children who report
75 their parents use any technological control
85 exceeds a third. In France, 39% of children say
PL 78
68 their parents use software to block or filter some
84 type of content, and 37% say parents keep track
PT 91
80 of their applications or activities. In Malta, both
88 types of parental controls are applied to 33% of
RO 80 the children. Combined with 26% of children
81
85 reporting their parents track their locations,
RS 87 Maltese parents seem to be those most using
77
technological options to monitor their children’s
*RU 66 online presence.
64
88 On the other hand, in Lithuania, the proportion of
SK 89
82 children reporting their parents use the three
technological means is rather low.
*VL 66
70
There are no clear patterns in children’s
86
Ave 83 knowledge of different technological means. In
79 France, Croatia and Italy, tracking children’s
0 20 40 60 80 100 locations is substantially lower compared to using
the other two parental controls, whereas in many
of the other countries, the three options asked
* FI/RU/VL: Full age-range not available NO: Full age-range
about are used similarly.
not available for questions about friends.
Derived from: QI4 When you use the internet, how often In most of the countries, there are no substantial
does your parent/carer do any of these things? QJ2 Have differences related to gender. In Croatia, girls
any teachers at your school done these things? QK2 Have report blocking or filtering software slightly more
any of your friends done these things?: Suggests ways to often than boys, and the opposite applies for
use the internet safely. Percentage of children who
Polish and Slovakian children, where both these
answered sometimes, often or very often to at least one of
the three questions.
technological means are reported more by boys
than girls. In Malta, Poland, Portugal and
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. Romania, boys report having their location
| 112 |
tracked more often than girls. All these some of these technical advances without their
differences are, however, only small (between 6 children’s knowledge.
and 10 percentage points). Considering that there
are almost no differences, for parsimony, we Figure 104: Children who say their parents
don’t display the figure. use technology to track where they are (such
as GPS), by age.
Table 14: Usage of technical means to
monitor or restrict children’s internet usage
9-11 yrs 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs
Parental Parental
controls or controls or 13
means of means of Technology CH 12
13
blocking or keeping to track
filtering track of where I am 15
CZ 6
some types content or (such as 4
of content apps GPS) 18
DE 10
CH 30 20 12 7
24
CZ 14 17 9 EE 11
11
DE 20 12 12
16
EE 12 13 16 ES 16
10
ES 16 13 15
*FI 19
*FI - - - 12
19
FR 39 37 17 FR 18
15
HR 22 24 5 5
HR 6
IT 26 22 9 5
6
LT 12 11 8 IT 11
8
MT 33 33 26
10
NO 19 20 19 LT 9
4
PL 19 14 19 37
MT 23
PT 24 23 16 16
24
RO 20 24 21 NO 20
12
RS 23 26 24 26
PL 15
*RU - - - 13
25
SK 20 21 10 PT 13
10
*VL - - -
21
Ave 22 21 15 RO 19
23
33
* FI/RU/VL: Full age-range not available. RS 22
16
QI7 Does your parent/carer make use of any of the
following…? Percentage of children who answered *RU 16
sometimes, often or very often. 15
15
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. SK 8
7
*VL 18
Age patterns are clearer – in the majority of the 13
countries, older children report fewer parental 19
Ave 14
controls than younger children. Only in Romania 11
are there no substantial age differences. Because
the age patterns are similar for all three options, 0 20 40 60 80 100
we only present Figure 104 as an example –
children reporting on whether their parents use * FI/RU/VL: Full age-range not available. Data not
parental controls or other means of keeping track weighted.
of what they do online. QI7 Does your parent or carer make use of any of the
following…? Technology to track where I am (such as GPS)
However, it is important to keep in mind that
these answers reflect what children know. There Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
may be a number of children whose parents use
| 113 |
Content-specific restrictive Table 15: Content-specific restrictive
mediation: Is a child allowed to….
mediation
In the survey, we asked the children whether their Use a web Download Use a social
parents allow them to use a web or phone camera or phone music or networking
camera films site
(e.g., for Skype or video chat), download music or
films, and use a social networking site (e.g., CH 13 11 17
Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter).
CZ 10 4 10
Overall, only a small proportion of children are not DE 25 24 31
allowed to use web or phone cameras, download
content or use a social networking sites (Table EE 12 10 13
15). ES 15 7 17
*FI - - -
In 10 of the countries, 15% or fewer children said
they are not allowed to use a web or phone FR 45 37 34
camera (ranging between 6% and 45%). Quite HR 22 19 21
similarly, in 9 of the countries, 15% or fewer are
not allowed to use social networking sites IT 24 15 21
(ranging between 9% and 34%). Downloading LT 8 9 11
music or films is restricted to a lesser extent – in
MT 10 9 17
half of the countries fewer than 10% of the
children are not allowed this (ranging between NO 6 5 12
4% and 37%). PL 13 9 10
In France and Germany we can find the highest PT 11 6 9
proportion of children who are not allowed to do RO 20 11 15
any of the activities: 45% of French children are
RS 10 6 10
not allowed to use a web or phone camera, 37%
are not allowed to download music or films, and *RU - - -
34% are not allowed to use social networking SK 18 14 14
sites. In Germany, the respective percentages are
25%, 24% and 31%. *VL - - -
Ave 16 12 16
Because social networking sites are a particularly
interesting activity, which is much discussed, we also * FI/RU/VL: Full age-range not available.
examined the restrictions of social networking sites
QI6 Does your parent/carer allow you to do the following
with regard to gender (Figure 105) and age things on the internet and if so, do you need their
differences (Figure 106). permission to do them? Percentage of children who
answered sometimes, often or very often.
Being a boy or girl does not seem to motivate
restrictions on social networking sites to any Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
great extent. There are no substantial differences
in 14 of the countries. The only two exceptions
are Norway and Slovakia, where slightly more
boys report not being allowed to use social
networking sites than girls (the differences are 8
and 7 percentage points, respectively).
| 114 |
Figure 105: Social networking sites not Figure 106: Social networking sites not
allowed, by gender allowed, by age
CH 17 38
17 CH 7
10 4
CZ 10 23
31 CZ 5
DE 32 1
62
EE 15 DE 21
11 3
ES 18 27
17 EE 4
2
*FI 33
ES 10
FR 36 3
32
HR 19 *FI 6
24 1
21 63
IT 21 FR 26
7
LT 10 41
12 HR 13
20 3
MT 15 46
16 IT 13
NO 8 4
12 23
PL LT 5
9 1
PT 11 35
7 MT 6
14 6
RO 16 34
NO 2
RS 12 1
8
21
*RU PL 5
1
SK 17 21
10 PT 4
2
*VL 26
RO 9
Ave 17 6
15 25
RS 3
0 20 40 60 80 100 2
*RU 5
* FI/RU/VL: Full age-range not available. 3
QI6 Does your parent/carer allow you to do the following 33
SK 6
things on the internet and if so, do you need their 3
permission to do them? Percentage of children who
answered sometimes, often or very often. *VL 11
3
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 34
Ave 8
3
| 115 |
Reverse mediation Figure 107: Helping parents when they found
something difficult online, by country
Children nowadays are growing up with information
and communication technologies present from a very % Often or very often
early age. They quickly learn to use them and spend % Sometimes
a lot of time online. Their parents, on the other hand, % Never or hardly ever
grew up in a different media landscape, and often
CH 38 22 40
feel less skilled in their internet use than their
children. Consequently, it may not always be just a CZ 47 32 21
parent who teaches a child about internet use, but DE 12 26 62
also the other way around – a child can teach the
parent, and explain and show them how digital EE 35 36 29
technologies work. This can be labelled ‘reverse ES 52 25 23
mediation’. To examine this, the survey asked the *FI
children the following question:
FR 27 33 39
Have you EVER done any of these things? HR 30 35 35
| 116 |
Figure 108: Helping parents when they found Figure 109: Helping parents when they found
something difficult online often or very often, something difficult online often or very often,
by gender by age
CH 32 20
44 CH 46
45 54
CZ 50 37
12 CZ 52
DE 13 57
5
EE 34 DE 13
37 22
ES 50 26
55 EE 39
46
*FI 36
ES 61
FR 26 67
28
HR 29 *FI 46
32 44
32 26
IT 38 FR 27
29
LT 33 16
35 HR 36
52 45
MT 56 26
31 IT 36
NO 39 44
27
PL 38 LT 34
39 45
PT 49 54
63 MT 55
44 52
RO 53 21
NO 40
RS 67 47
70
35
*RU PL 37
48
23 44
SK 28 PT 62
62
*VL 44
RO 49
Ave 37 55
42 59
RS 72
0 20 40 60 80 100 76
*RU 48
* FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. 55
c_QI5 Have you EVER done any of these things? Helped my 20
SK 27
parent/carer to do something they found difficult on the 29
internet. Percentage of children who answered often or very
often. *VL 38
49
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 31
Ave 43
49
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 117 |
Ignoring parental advice about respectively), in France, the increase is 11
percentage points, and in Norway, Lithuania and
internet use Germany, the increase is more than 20
percentage points (Norway: 23 percentage
Parental mediation, especially active mediation, is an
points, Lithuania: percentage points, and
important tool to guide children’s internet use.
Germany: 33 percentage points).
Despite the fact that the mediation is usually
motivated by an effort to help children gain the most Figure 110: Whether child ignores what
benefits from the internet while avoiding problems, parents say about when on how to use the
children themselves may sometimes evaluate internet, by country
parental advice as poor, useless or even senseless.
The survey thus asked the children the following
question:
% Yes, often % Sometimes % No
Do you ever ignore what your parent/carer tells you
about how and when you can use the internet? CH 7 37 56
| 118 |
Figure 111: Whether child ignores what Figure 112: Whether child ignores what
parents say about when on how to use the parents say about when on how to use the
internet at least sometimes, by gender internet at least sometimes, by age
CH 45 35
43 CH 48
48 52
CZ 48 37
64 CZ 53
DE 55 59
48
EE 47 DE 63
39 71
ES 35 44
30 EE 44
39
*FI 23
ES 34
FR 63 50
54
HR 34 *FI 41
30 51
56 50
IT 46 FR 61
66
LT 72 26
63 HR 33
36 40
MT 24 39
47 IT 52
NO 50 64
58
PL 37 LT 70
29 78
PT 37 23
33 MT 36
51 28
RO 48 43
NO 53
RS 50 52
46
27
*RU PL 38
38
55 22
SK 51 PT 40
45
*VL 47
RO 53
Ave 49 48
43 32
RS 52
0 20 40 60 80 100 64
*RU 48
* FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. 57
QI13 Do you ever ignore what your parent/carer tells you 47
SK 51
about how and when you can use the internet? Percentage 63
of children who answered yes, sometimes or yes, often.
*VL 51
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 55
38
Ave 49
54
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 119 |
Points to consider A considerable number of children quite
frequently (i.e., often or very often) help their
In most of the countries, the majority of the parents when parents find something difficult
children acknowledge that their parents engage online. This reverse mediation points to the
in active mediation (talk to them, encourage continuing generation gap, where parents may
them, help them and suggest ways to use the lag behind their children in digital skills. This can
internet safely). When compared to friends and also be seen positively as it points to the fact that
teachers who may also serve as a source of parents are not afraid to let their children help
mediation of internet use, parents are generally them.
more active. Active mediation is a strategy that is
associated with higher digital skills and higher
opportunities. It also supports children’s own
decision-making and evaluation of what is good
and what is bad on the internet72. Thus, we
strongly support parental efforts in this way.
72Shin, W., & Lwin, M. O. (2017). How does “talking 73Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E.J., Lupiáñez-
about the internet with others” affect teenagers’ Villanueva, F., Veltri, G.A., & Folkvord, F. (2017).
experience of online risks? The role of active mediation Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for
by parents, peers, and school teachers. New Media & children online: The role of digital skills in emerging
Society, 19(7), 1109–1126. strategies of parental mediation. Journal of
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815626612 Communication, 67(1), 82–105.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12277
| 120 |
In this EU Kids Online 2020 report we aim to grasp
Sharenting the prevalence of this phenomenon, and importantly,
how children perceive sharenting by their parents. Is
it a problem? Although we asked about the past year,
Sharenting – a combination of the words sharing and we also need to consider that sharenting is
parenting – is used to describe parents sharing something that could have happened when the
personal information about their child online. This children were younger (such as when they were
could be words, pictures and/or videos, and the toddlers). This could also be captured by some items,
sharing can be consensual and informed (parents specifically about removing things online and
asking their children if it is okay to post something or receiving hurtful comments due to something
informing them about the posting) or it can be published online by a parent.
without the child knowing what has been shared. For
babies and toddlers, the latter will always be the First, we tried to map out the nature of the potential
case, but older children have the capacity to experience of the child, asking if they had ever
understand and make their own judgement. experienced any of the following situations in the
past year. The children were asked in the following
Sharing content related to children may be seen as a way:
‘natural’ part of parental behaviour, especially if
parents are proud of their children and their My parent/carer published information (such as text,
accomplishments, or more generally in their family pictures or movies) about me on the internet without
life and common experiences (such as holidays), and asking first if I was okay with it.
it is understandable that they want to share this with
other people. Considering the proliferation of the use I asked my parent/carer to remove things they had
of social networking sites for publishing content published on the internet.
which is important and which we want to share with
I was upset because of information my parents
others, it is not surprising that many parents use
published online.
them for sharenting purposes.
I received negative or hurtful comments from
However, there can be a tension between the
someone because of something my parent/carer
behaviour of parents and the children’s perspective.
published online.
On the one hand, parents and carers are considered
the legal guardians of children, and are also generally These questions were asked only of older children,
the ones making decisions on their personal so we present only findings from children aged
information and its distribution. However, sharing 12–16.
personal information about children is not
unproblematic. Several concerns have been raised, In Table 14, we present the overall experiences with
including concerns over children’s right to privacy, sharenting and its impact. The percentages
which can be breached when information once correspond to the number of children who say that
shared online remains in the public domain ‘forever’, they experienced this at least a few times or more
becoming a form of ‘digital tattoos’. Thus, on the often during the past year.
other hand, we need to remember that children have,
as do all others, the right to their own personal Between 8% (Lithuania and Slovakia) and 36%
information and stories. For the past few years we (Norway) of the children report that their parents
have seen how there can be a strong conflict or carers published information online without
between the best interests of the child and the asking them first if it was okay for them to do so
protection of their privacy and the wishes and actions (Ave = 20%).
of their parents or legal guardians. In some more
extreme cases, courts have had to intervene. The number of children who say that they ask
parents or carers to remove things they have
Sharenting is also problematic because of other published online varies between 3% (Lithuania)
issues besides children’s rights. There is a concern and 29% (Romania) (Ave = 14%).
that seemingly innocent images in one context (such
as a child playing on a beach) may be used and Some children also report being upset because of
abused in other contexts. Moreover, some online information their parents publish online, ranging
services might acquire copyright over the posted from between 3% (Lithuania and Slovakia) and
images as part of their terms of service. This means 21% (Romania) of the children (Ave = 9%).
that the information can be used for other purposes, When it comes to children reporting receiving
such as commercial ones. negative and/or hurtful comments because of
Thus, as with most of the online services and something their parents published online, this
activities research by the EU Kids Online network, was the least common experience (Ave = 7%),
sharenting also includes both potential positive and ranging between 1% (Lithuania) and 22%
negative dimensions. (Romania).
| 121 |
Table 16: Sharenting, by country.
I received negative or
My parent published I asked my parent or I was upset because of
hurtful comments
information online carer to remove things information my
because of something
without asking first if I they had published on parents published
my parent published
was OK with it My the internet online
online
CH 15 10 5 3
CZ 24 12 7 6
DE 9 6 7 4
EE 17 8 4 2
ES 24 16 11 4
*FI - - - -
FR 13 9 9 7
HR 11 10 9 7
IT 16 12 6 5
LT 8 3 3 1
MT 28 24 15 13
NO 36 19 9 6
PL 11 10 13 9
PT 29 14 13 6
RO 28 29 21 22
RS 21 21 6 6
*RU - - - -
SK 8 4 3 3
*VL - - - -
Ave 13 13 9 6
Parents published information Figure 113), we merged all the children who
answered at least every month or more often into
without asking one group.
In order to better understand sharenting as a In general, only a minority of the children
phenomenon and practice, we also looked into some experienced this form of sharenting. In the
of the background data. In particular, we were majority of the countries, less than a third of the
interested not only if sharenting had happened, but children experienced having their parents publish
also how often. We might hypothesise that there is a something online about them without asking
difference between having something personal about them first.
you published once, and having this experienced as
more of a regular practice. For most of these children, this happened only a
few times a year. This was reported by between
We therefore also asked the children how often they 6% (Croatia) and 32% (Norway) of the children.
had experienced their parent/carer publishing
information (such as text, pictures or movies) about Between 1% (Germany, Lithuania and Slovakia)
them on the internet without asking first if they were and 11% (Romania) of the children reported that
okay with it. they experienced this problem at least every
month or more often per year.
Here, children could answer on a scale from never to
daily or almost daily. In presenting the findings (see
| 122 |
Figure 113: Parents published information Figure 114: Parents published information
without asking in the past year, by country without asking in the past year, by age
EE 3 14 84 8
DE
10
ES 7 17 76
16
*FI EE
18
FR 5 8 87 21
ES
HR 6 6 89 34
IT 3 13 84 15
*FI
22
LT 1 7 92
11
MT 8 20 72
FR
14
NO 4 32 64 11
HR
12
PL 3 7 89
16
PT 7 22 71 IT
16
RO 11 17 72
7
LT
RS 4 17 79 9
*RU MT
25
34
SK 1 7 92
35
*VL NO
38
Ave 5 14 81 11
PL
11
0 20 40 60 80 100
26
PT
* FI/RU/VL: Data not weighted 33
| 123 |
Children requesting parents Fewer children report experiencing this problem
at least every month or more often during the
remove things they had published past year. As Figure 115 shows, this is reported
on the internet by between 1% (Germany, Estonia, Lithuania and
Slovakia) to 11% (Romania) of the children.
The second type of the sharenting we present in
more detail is when children request parents/carers In most of the countries, the gender differences
remove content they published on the internet are negligible (Figure 116). In the Czech Republic
without their child’s consent. In Figure 115, we have and Spain, slightly more boys experience this at
again merged all the children who answered at least least a few times or more often (a difference of 7
every month or more often into one group. percentage points).
Figure 115: Children have asked parents to Figure 116: Children have asked parents to
remove things they had published on the remove things they had published on the
internet, by country. internet, by gender.
| 124 |
Figure 117: Children have asked parents to
In most of the countries, there are none or only remove things they had published on the
minor differences between both age groups internet, by age
(Figure 117).
In Spain, Finland, Serbia and Malta, slightly more 12-14 yrs 15-16 yrs
children in the oldest age category reported such
an experience (a difference of between 7 and 10
9
percentage points). CH
12
11
CZ
13
Points to consider DE
5
8
As explained at the beginning of this section, 7
sharenting can be consensual and informed or it EE
10
can be without a child’s agreement. In this
13
survey, we asked only about ‘problematic ES
23
sharenting’, i.e., when parents do not ask children
if it is okay. Future research should also look more *FI
9
closely at consensual sharenting, i.e., when 16
children agree that parents can share the content 7
FR
or even when they share the content together. 12
11
However, if younger children agreed with sharing HR
10
content between themselves, this does not mean
they will agree in the future about the content 12
IT
12
that was shared. Older children might be more
aware of their privacy and may change their LT
2
opinion about what is okay and what is not okay 4
to share. It is always the parent’s responsibility to 21
MT
carefully consider which content is potentially 30
hurtful or which may be seen by a child as 19
unwanted or inappropriate at a later age. NO
21
| 125 |
Digital ecology
Figure 118: Feeling safe online, by country.
| 126 |
Figure 119: Feeling safe online, by gender. Figure 120: Feeling safe online, by age.
*CH *CH 58
71
CZ 61 42
43 CZ 58
89 63
DE 85 88
84 DE 85
EE 79 90
76
ES 61 EE 86
47 84
*FI 44
ES 61
58 65
FR 55
*FI 90
HR 81 92
74
51
IT 64 FR 59
53 60
LT 79 75
73 HR 79
82
MT 60
49 61
IT 57
NO 95 59
91 74
PL 69 LT 76
56 79
61 47
PT 42 MT 58
63
RO 50 88
44 NO 95
RS 71 95
54 51
PL 72
*RU 71
65 39
SK 67 PT 57
61
*VL 41
RO 44
70 63
Ave 61 49
RS 71
0 20 40 60 80 100 69
*RU 56
* CH/FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. FI/RU/VL: 53
Data not weighted. 73
SK 65
QD2a How often does the following apply to you? I feel safe 60
on the internet Percentage of children who answered
always or often. *VL 66
68
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 60
Ave 68
71
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 127 |
Perceptions of people online Figure 121: Other people are kind and helpful
on the internet, by country.
Another crucial aspect related to pattern of internet
use is how children see other people on the internet.
This is especially important in relation to % Always % Often % Sometimes % Never
communication with people online or seeking support
or information on the internet. Therefore, the survey
asked the children how often they find other people *CH
are kind and helpful on the internet. CZ 2 16 60 22
If we compare numbers of children who see DE 21 51 23 5
people as kind never and always, in most
EE 16 45 32 8
countries, more children never see people online
as kind and helpful (Figure 121). The opposite ES 10 20 27 44
applies for Germany, Estonia, Croatia and Norway *FI
(differences of between 7 and 16 percentage
points). FR 6 33 43 18
HR 19 33 35 12
Countries are quite varied in this regard: between
3% (Norway) and 44% (Spain) of children never IT 13 33 39 15
see people as kind and helpful online, while LT 9 37 45 9
between 2% (the Czech Republic) and 21%
(Germany) said they find this to be always true. MT 8 37 40 15
NO 18 55 24 3
In Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and
Serbia, more boys than girls often or always find PL 7 21 44 27
people as kind and helpful online (differences PT 7 22 59 13
ranging between 6 and 11 percentage points)
Figure 122). The opposite applies for Estonia and RO 7 26 49 19
Slovakia, with more girls saying the find people RS 3 18 53 26
kind and helpful online (difference of 8 and 15
percentage points, respectively). In Switzerland, *RU
Czech Republic, Germany, France, Croatia, SK 8 34 50 9
Lithuania, Malta, and Norway, there are no
substantial gender differences (all below 5 *VL
percentage points). Ave 10 32 41 16
Countries are varied with regard to age 0 50 100
differences, related to overall prevalence of this
experience Figure 123). In about half of the * FI/RU/VL/CH: Full age range not available.
countries, there are no substantial age
QD2b How often does the following apply to you? I find
differences (equal to or below 5 percentage other people are kind and helpful on the internet.
points). However, in Estonia, Spain, France,
Malta, Norway, Poland, and Portugal, more Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet.
children in the oldest age category often or
always find people kind and helpful online than
children in the youngest age category. The
difference ranges between 7 (Portugal) and 29
(Poland) percentage points. Exception is Slovakia,
where the trend is reverse (difference of 20
percentage points between youngest and oldest
age category).
| 128 |
Figure 122: Other people are kind and helpful Figure 123: Other people are kind and helpful
on the internet, by gender. on the internet, by age.
*CH *CH 36
48
CZ 20 16
16 CZ 19
74 21
DE 70 73
57 DE 70
EE 65 74
56
ES 32 EE 61
27 68
*FI 22
ES 34
40 39
FR 39
*FI 63
HR 55 60
50
30
IT 50 FR 40
43 48
LT 48 54
44 HR 50
55
MT 44
47 46
IT 49
NO 73 44
74 43
PL 33 LT 46
23 50
33 38
PT 23 MT 47
58
RO 38 63
27 NO 79
RS 25 79
18 16
PL 34
*RU 45
34 23
SK 49 PT 31
30
*VL 31
RO 34
44 34
Ave 41 21
RS 21
0 20 40 60 80 100 23
*RU 48
* CH/FI/RU/VL: Full age range not available. FI/RU/VL: 42
Data not weighted. 49
SK 46
QD2b How often does the following apply to you? I find 29
other people are kind and helpful on the internet.
Percentage of children who answered always or often. *VL 40
37
Base: All children 9-16 who use the internet. 39
Ave 44
46
0 20 40 60 80 100
| 129 |
Points to consider
The findings show that while children feel safe
online, fewer of them find people online as kind
and helpful. There are almost no differences
between boys and girls in these regards.
However, in many of the countries, older children
feel more often safe.
| 130 |
Conclusions and policy
implications
Here we highlight new findings from this survey, arrows). Of most interest is whether and how
drawing out the main research and policy children’s online experiences shape their well-being
implications. The differences within and across the and their enjoyment of their rights, whether
countries are summarised and discussed in turn, positively or negatively. The next steps for the
before noting the next steps for research into network will be to conduct statistical analyses to test
children’s online opportunities and risks in Europe. the relationships in the model indicated by these
arrows. Most of these, we hypothesise, operate bi-
evidence
multiply determined75. From July 2021, the database
will be publicly available for all interested parties to
analyse.
This EU Kids Online 2020 report has presented a Usefully, even basic descriptive statistics can serve to
wealth of findings from 19 countries from children counter myths, challenge media panics and, more
aged 9–16. The data were collected between autumn positively, ground interventions in policy and practice
2017 and summer 2019 from 25,101 children by by providing estimates of prevalence. For example,
national teams from the network. In relation to the according to the evidence, the degree to which
theoretical-analytical model presented at the children are exposed to risk online is shown to be less
beginning of the report, the findings concern many than sometimes feared by parents or claimed by
elements of the model74. These encompass children’s mass media. This doesn’t warrant the claim that
online access and use, their digital activities and nothing should be done, but it does invite a careful
skills, a range of activities posing risks of harm or assessment of priorities, and a weighing of the
opportunity encountered by children, and consequences of different kinds of interventions.
information about social contexts, including the Relatedly, knowing which age groups, or genders,
parental mediation that children receive. This is how are particularly missing out on online opportunities,
the main elements (white shapes in the model – or are particularly affected by online risks of harm, is
Figure 2 of this report) have been examined. The of value to policy-makers in designing interventions
survey asked more than we were able to include in to improve children’s well-being in a digital world.
this report. For example, regarding children’s identity
and resources, we prioritised only age and gender Some tasks for policy-makers, however, remain
among the many possible factors that allow us to seemingly simple but still only partially achieved. For
differentiate among children’s experiences in relation instance, although most children have received
to the online environment. Most of the findings internet safety advice, there remains a minority who
presented here, we also note, concern the individual have not – these may be the so-called ‘hard to reach’
level of the model. In relation to the social level, we or disadvantaged children, but nonetheless, no child
mostly focused on parents and to a lesser extent on should be left behind in the digital age, especially not
friends and teachers. Other elements in the model those already disadvantaged in other ways.
remain for future investigation.
74Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Staksrud, E. (2018). available on the website at www.eukidsonline.net
European research on children’s internet use: Assessing (under ‘Reports and findings’). Some hypotheses, too,
the past and anticipating the future. New Media & have been tested on Global Kids Online data, which has
Society, 20(3), 1103–22. fielded a similar survey questionnaire in a wide selection
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816685930 of countries (Livingstone, S., Kardefelt Winther, D., &
75 Researchers will appreciate that underpinning the Hussein, M., & UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti.
present report is a substantial and rich dataset with (2019a). Global Kids Online: Comparative Report. UNICEF
which many significant, complex and interesting Office of Research – Innocenti. https://www.unicef-
hypotheses can be tested. Some of these have already irc.org/publications/1059-global-kids-online-
been explored in the many reports and publications comparative-report.html).
| 131 |
children being held back from enjoying many online
Differences and activities because of parental anxieties and
restrictions, or perhaps because of their lower levels
inequalities within of digital skills due to receiving less digital education
at school (as also discussed by Global Kids Online
countries research; see Livingstone et al, 2019a). For example,
among the least common activities was ‘looking for
news online’, especially among younger children.
A host of individual factors shape children’s digital This raises policy questions about whether more
experiences and may introduce inequalities that children – especially younger ones – should be more
differentiate their access and use, opportunities and proactively supported to engage more widely with
risks, and forms of safety mediation, as explained at online opportunities, to encourage more civic,
the outset of this report. We also explained that the participatory and creative benefits of internet access.
findings presented in this report would be analysed Similarly, does society consider that the internet is
in terms of age and gender. This is because other more useful for the schoolwork of older than younger
forms of difference and inequality that make a children, or should changes be made so that younger
difference to outcomes for children tend to vary by children also gain more educational benefits from
country and culture. Even socioeconomic status is today’s digital world? Further research might address
difficult to measure in a way that is consistent across the benefits (or harms) of online access, to help
European countries, and other factors (region, address such questions. It might also usefully explore
religion, ethnicity, disability or other kinds of minority whether certain activities (such as gaming – common
status, and so forth) are even more variable. The fact among younger children, or chatting – favoured by
that we do not report or comment on such older children) could even help to build the digital
differences in this report, especially regarding skills needed for more ‘advanced’ or less common
socioeconomic status, does not mean we consider activities77.
them unimportant; rather, these await further
The European debate over setting lower age limits
research.
for children to use digital platforms has been lively in
recent years. According to the evidence, any limits
Age set by platforms are only partially effective. Although
our age intervals do not permit us to report exactly
Differences are not necessarily inequalities but
how many children under 13 use platforms whose
observed differences in the survey findings may point
lower age limit is 13, this will be explored in further
to inequalities of either opportunity or outcome that
research. Notably, we could discern no relation
do merit concern and, possibly, policy intervention.
between the so-called ‘digital age of consent’,
For instance, for most online activities, the findings
defined differently in different European countries
show a strong age progression, with teenagers doing
following adoption of the General Data Protection
a wider range of activities, and spending more time
Regulation (GDPR)78, and the substantial proportion
on them, compared with younger children. This
of ‘under-age’ social media users or indeed, the levels
means that teenagers enjoy a more diverse range of
of children’s digital skills, amount of online risk
activities, including some that can be considered
encountered or frequency of parental mediation in
‘higher’ on the ‘ladder of opportunities’76. For
different countries. This raises questions for policy-
example, across Europe, the number of children who
makers as to the evidence base for national decisions
use the internet for schoolwork every day ranges
regarding the internet access of younger children
from one in five to one in three, with only minor
with or without parental permission.
gender differences. However, the proportion of older
teenagers who do this is around twice that of
younger children. Gender
This could be considered part and parcel of growing It would seem odd not to report findings for boys and
older and acting more independently in the world. Or girls, not least because of the long-standing evidence
it could be considered problematic, with younger that girls are relatively disadvantaged in a digital
world79. However, it is noteworthy that for the most
from three Global Kids Online countries. UNICEF Office quo regarding the child's article 8 GDPR age of consent
of Research – Innocenti. www.unicef- for data processing across the EU. Better Internet for
irc.org/publications/1019-ladder-of-childrens-online- Kids.
participation-findings-from-three-gko-countries.html https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/web/portal/practi
77 Livingstone, S., Kardefelt Winther, D., & Hussein, M., & ce/awareness/detail?articleId=3017751
UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti. (2019a). Global 79 Sey, A., & Hafkin, N. (Eds.) (2019). Taking stock: Data
Kids Online: Comparative Report. UNICEF Office of and evidence on gender equality in digital access, skills
Research – Innocenti. https://www.unicef- and leadership. United Nations University Institute on
| 132 |
part, gender differences are few and far between. few countries, girls more than boys are more
Where they do exist, they are often inconsistent in exposed to pro-anorexia content.
ways that are difficult to explain, with girls having
slightly more of some kinds of online experiences Across Europe, more boys than girls reported
than boys in one country, but with the reverse finding spending too much money on in-app purchases
in another country. One possible conclusion is that, or online games, as well as getting a virus or
as gender inequalities in basic access to the internet spyware. This is probably related to their general
are gradually overcome, especially in the relatively higher usage of online games.
wealthy countries of Europe, and as use of the
internet becomes taken for granted in everyday life,
gender inequalities gradually disappear. Some
Comparisons across
persistent differences – for instance, that boys do
more online gaming than girls – might be better countries
labelled ‘gender preferences’ rather than inequalities.
Yet it may be that gaming builds digital skills in ways
that benefit boys more than girls, in which case The EU Kids Online model includes a range of
intervention of some kind may be needed. country-level mediators such as broadband
infrastructure or education systems that could
The general lack of gender differences applies not explain observed differences in children’s online
only to opportunities but also to the risk of harm: experiences by country. These country-level factors
asked whether, in the past year, they had have not been measured in the present study, and it
experienced something that bothered or upset them, remains for future research to map these onto the
around one in four 9- to 16-year-olds said ‘yes’, but findings, as was previously done for the 2010 EU Kids
gender differences were minimal in most of the Online survey80. In that earlier report, we grouped
countries. This reflected, in turn, the finding that few countries according to the survey findings, revealing
of the risks (for example, meeting new online four country clusters: those ‘protected by restrictions’
contacts face-to-face or sending/receiving sexual (especially Western European countries), ‘supported
messages or exposure to self-harm) asked about risky explorers’ (Nordic and Northern European
were experienced very differently by boys or girls. countries), ‘semi-supported risky gamers’ (mainly in
Eastern Europe) and ‘unprotected networkers’
On the other hand, some gender differences persist (middle European countries). What seemed to make
and do, we suggest, merit research explanation and the difference between the first two clusters was the
policy intervention. These include: cultural balance struck differently in different parts of
Europe between favouring children’s civil rights and
In some countries (for example, Switzerland, freedoms online (to explore, express themselves,
Malta, and Slovakia), girls use the internet etc), even if this may put children at risk, or favouring
somewhat more for schoolwork than boys. a more protective approach given a context of online
risk and associated parental anxiety, even if this was
Boys report better skills in some countries, and
at the cost of children’s online opportunities. Children
for some skills, for instance, the ability to navigate
in the other two country clusters tended to
information online and determine its quality,
experience both online opportunities and risks,
although girls report better social skills online in
because parental mediation was less, especially in
some countries.
the case of the ‘unprotected networkers’81.
As for the risk of harm, harm from online bullying
Much has changed since the EU Kids Online survey in
was more often reported by girls in almost all
2010, but variation in national approach is still
countries. Gender differences in exposure to
considerable. This is evident from the considerable
sexual images online are greater, with more boys
cross-national differences shown in many of the
reporting this in almost half of the countries
figures included in this report. In this regard, we
surveyed, but girls reporting more negative
stress here (and through the whole report) that
emotions concerning sexual images. Further, in a
caution is needed in making any simple comparisons
Computing and Society/International and implementation. Specifically, the first two clusters of
Telecommunications Union. countries had invested in a greater breadth and depth of
www.itu.int/en/action/gender- safer internet practices at a national level. Furthermore,
equality/Documents/EQUALS%20Research%20Report%2 ‘protected by restrictions’ countries relied more on legal
02019.pdf and regulatory frameworks that prioritised safety, while
80 Helsper, E.J., Kalmus, V., Hasebrink, U., Sagvari, B., & ‘supported risky explorers’ countries prioritised public
de Haan, J. (2013). Country classification: Opportunities, sector funding and involvement in enabling children’s
risks, harm and parental mediation. EU Kids Online, LSE. internet use, often centred on educational initiatives.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52023/ The other two country clusters revealed fewer initiatives
81 O’Neill (2014) further showed that these cross- and less coordination, relying more on the actions of the
national differences are not just a matter of children’s European Commission-funded Safer Internet Centres.
and parents’ activities or values but also, national policy
| 133 |
of percentages across countries given the variation in had been bothered or upset on the internet in 2010
methodology. varied from 6% to 25% across countries – a
considerably lower proportion overall than observed
In this final section, we focus more on the links in this survey when it was from 7% to 45%.
between selected factors, to capture key patterns
across the countries. While in-depth analysis must Figure 124: The proportion of 9- to 16-year-
wait for future research, we present here three final olds who access the internet, and their
figures, exploring the relations among key variables frequency of online activities, by country.
to reveal country groupings and to raise questions
about whether these groupings merit distinct types 10
of policy action. These figures present simple PT
82These seven risks were, percentage of children: experienced one or more type of negative user-
treated in a hurtful or nasty way on a mobile phone or generated content; who agreed to one or more of the
on the internet; who had seen sexual images; who had items related to excessive use. For the exact measures
received sexual messages; who had met online contacts used, see the relevant section in the report.
offline; who experienced misuse of personal data; who
| 134 |
Germany, Norway and Portugal. Then there are on the relation between risk and harm in different
countries where even just a few risks are linked to countries and cultures.
more harm – Estonia and Spain in particular.
While certainly the countries where both risk and A holistic approach
harm are highest (top-right quadrant) merit
investigation and possible intervention, our point
here is that policy interventions should focus more on
to children’s well-
reducing harm than risk. This is because, as EU Kids
Online83 has shown, children cannot develop
being in a digital
resilience if they are protected from all forms of risk,
and further, such protections are often achieved by world
also limiting children’s online opportunities. In other
words, there may be much to be learned from
A holistic approach to children’s well-being is often
countries in which children encounter as much risk,
called for but less easy to deliver. It is still the case
but less harm, than in other countries. Do those
that most researchers and policy-makers concentrate
countries practise more parental mediation? Or do
either on the opportunities of a digital world –
they have better regulation of platforms? Or a culture
concerned with education or civic participation or
of respecting children’s expression of concern and of
creative expression, for example – or on the risks of
providing help services? Such questions remain for
harm to children – concerned with e-safety, parental
further research.
mediation or internet regulation. Achieving a holistic
Figure 125: The number of online risks approach – whether at the level of a country or
encountered by 12- to 16-year-olds, and the culture, or for an individual child – remains difficult.
proportion who report being upset or bothered Those excited by digital opportunities still tend to
online in the past year, by country. neglect or postpone thinking about the ways in which
increasing opportunities tend to go hand in hand with
50
increasing the risks of the digital world for children.
Those who prioritise child protection and safety may
45 MT struggle to realise that their interventions could also
40 CH
serve to limit children’s civil rights and freedoms.
RS
35 RO We conclude this report with a final figure that makes
% Experience harm
83
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., & Görzig, A. (Eds.).
(2012). Children, risk and safety online: Research
and policy challenges in comparative perspective.
Policy Press.
| 135 |
What this suggests to us is that if, on the one hand, activities) is also concerning. For this reason, as in all
a country takes steps to increase the opportunities our work, we urge that attention to the risks of harm
available to children, this may bring more risks. And does not obscure the imperative to ensure that
on the other hand, if they take steps to reduce the children benefit fully and fairly from society’s
risks, this may also reduce children’s opportunities. widespread adoption of all things digital.
However, the association shown is fairly weak. This Figure 126: The number of online activities
suggests that there may be ways of increasing undertaken by 12- to 16-year-olds, and the
opportunities without increasing risks too much. For number of risks that they encountered, by
example, in Lithuania and Estonia, it seems that country.
children undertake many more online activities than
children in Italy, but without an increase in their 3
online risk. Looked at another way, children in
| 136 |
Country profiles
This section contains country profiles of the 19
countries that participated in this survey. They were
authored by researchers from national teams, listed
in each profile. Most profiles also contain links to
national reports, which provide more information
concerning findings at a national level. It should be
noted that the country profiles do not summarise the
results for each country, and are not based on a
comparison of international data.
Full reference:
| 137 |
Highlights
Croatia (HR)
Almost every third child between the ages of 9 and
17 communicated online with someone they did not
Croatian EU Kids Online team go on to meet in person. There are more boys (34%)
than girls (27%) among this group, with 50% in the
Lana Ciboci, Ivana Ćosić Pregrad, Igor Kanižaj, Dunja 15–17 age group. Only 13% of the parents knew that
Potočnik and Dejan Vinković their child had had contact with a person on the
internet they had not had face-to-face contact with
Contact: Association for Communication and Media before; 14% met offline with a person they had met
Culture, Zagreb, Croatia online. This increases with age, so in this group the
majority are children aged 15 to 17 (27%), then
Email: info@hrkids.online; lciboci@gmail.com
children aged from 12 to 14 (12%), and finally, 3%
of the youngest children (aged 9 to 11).
Croatian national report
Thirty per cent of children aged 9 to 17 have seen
Ciboci, L., Ćosić Pregrad, I., Kanižaj, I., Potočnik, D.
sexual content online. Among them, over two-thirds
& Vinković, D. (2020). Nacionalno istraživanje
have seen sexual photos or films with nudity on the
sigurnosti djece i mladih na internetu – HR Kids
internet in the past year, despite having no intention
Online. Zagreb: Društvo za komunikacijsku i
of seeing such content, while almost a fifth have seen
medijsku kulturu.
such content intentionally.
Key findings
The survey included 1,017 children aged 9 to 17 and
their parents, with the participation of a parent who
was more familiar with the digital habits of their
children; 78.4% of the parent participants were
mothers. More than three-quarters of children use
the internet every weekday. Children, as well as their
parents, mostly access the internet via a mobile
phone or smartphone. Children spend more time
‘hanging out’ and having fun with their friends face-
to-face rather than via online activities. The results
show that most of the children aged 9 to 17 use the
internet at least once a week for educational
purposes both at school and at home.
| 138 |
Highlights
Czech Republic (CZ)
Some Czech children are exposed to harmful content
– 27% saw hate messages, 19% saw gory or violent
Czech EU Kids Online team images and 17% saw eating disorder-related
websites at least once a month. In the Czech
David Smahel, Hana Machackova, Lenka Dedkova, Republic, exposure to harmful content is associated
Marie Bedrosova, Rostislav Zlamal, Vojtech Mylek, with children’s emotional problems and sensation-
Jakub Mikuska, Nikol Kvardova, Jakub Brojac, seeking. Parental mediation strategies – enabling,
Martina Smahelova restrictive and technical mediation – were not
associated with exposure to harmful content.
Contact: Masaryk University, Brno, Jostova 10, However, a positive family environment was a
60200, Czech Republic protective factor.
Email: smahel@fss.muni.cz Therefore, it seems that while restricting access to
the internet doesn’t work, it might help if parents
Czech national report could focus on building good relationships with their
children.
Bedrošová, M., Hlavová, R., Macháčková, H.,
Dědková, L. & Šmahel, D. (2018). Czech children and
adolescents on the internet: Report from a survey at
primary and secondary schools. EU Kids Online IV in
the Czech Republic 2017–2018. Brno: Masaryk
University,
https://irtis.muni.cz/media/3137007/eu_kids_online
_report_2018_en_main.pdf
Key findings
Czech children aged 9 to 17 most frequently use
smartphones to access the internet – 84% do so
daily. Older children generally use the internet more
often and participate in more online activities;
consequently, they also encounter more online risks.
Interestingly, some commonly feared online risks do
not seem to upset Czech young people very often.
After encountering sexually explicit content, 41%
reported feeling happy and 39% were not upset.
Similarly, 78% were happy and 10% were not upset
after a face-to-face meeting with a person they only
knew from the internet. It is worth noting that a
majority of such meetings (67%) was with someone
their age, and only 7% were with adults.
| 139 |
59% had given advice about using the internet
Estonia (EE) safely. Children, however, considered their parents’
role in the social mediation of their internet use much
smaller.
Estonian EU Kids Online team
Highlights
Veronika Kalmus, Andra Siibak, Maria Murumaa-
Mengel, Kadri Soo and Marit Sukk Estonian children and their parents are active and
confident internet users, with less than half of the
Contact: Institute of Social Studies, University of children claiming they needed some guidance when
Tartu, Lossi 36, 51003 Tartu, Estonia using the internet; 79% of the parents said that they
knew a lot about using the internet. The myth about
Email: veronika.kalmus@ut.ee ‘digital natives’ still prevails among Estonian parents.
Only half of them believed that they knew more
Estonian national report about the internet compared to their children, even
though the data about skills did not confirm this.
Sukk, M. & Soo, K. (2018). EU Kids Online’i Eesti
2018. Aasta uuringu esialgsed tulemused. Kalmus,
V., Kurvits, R., Siibak, A. (Eds). Tartu: University of
Tartu, Institute of Social Studies,
https://sisu.ut.ee/sites/default/files/euko/files/eu_ki
ds_online_eesti_2018_raport.pdf
https://sisu.ut.ee/sites/default/files/euko/files/eu_ki
ds_online_2018_estonia_summary.pdf
Key findings
The use of the internet is thoroughly embedded in
Estonian children’s daily lives: 97% of children aged
9 to 17 access the internet every day, using at least
one device. Children from Russian-speaking families
spend more time online than children from Estonian-
speaking families (both on schooldays and at
weekends). For example, only 6% of Estonian-
speaking children spent more than 6 hours online
during the week, while the proportion of heavy users
among Russian-speaking children was 14%.
| 140 |
Highlights
Finland (FI)
The participants are tolerant and see no justification
for violence or bullying. About 40% have recently
Finnish EU Kids Online team seen bullying or hate speech online. A little over 10%
have been bullied in some way online. This was the
Sirkku Kotilainen, Jussi Okkonen, Juho Hella and same between boys and girls, although girls reported
Vilppu Taskinen being bullied because of their appearance or
background. About 10% of participants had sent
Contact: Tampere University, FIN-33014 Tampere negative comments, messages or content online.
University, Finland
Participants saw non-wanted content, such as
Email: jussi.okkonen@tuni.fi negative comments, bullying or explicit content, on
the platforms they use or on communication apps.
Key findings Ninety per cent of the children feel safe most of the
time when online. Seventy-five per cent considered
In Finland 97% of the children have access to a
themselves competent online, that is, they could use
smartphone and most have their own phone. Eighty-
a device, change settings and understood security
five per cent of all participants are online daily, and
and privacy issues – yet only 50% thought they could
80% of pupils at upper comprehensive schools are
make a distinction between incorrect or false content.
online several times a day or almost all the time.
Over 80% knew what content could be shared online.
Girls, especially those aged 12 and older, are active
users of smartphones. Boys go online via a computer
or gaming device. Age is a significant factor, as those
at upper comprehensive schools are almost always
online, if possible.
| 141 |
Highlights
Flanders – Belgium
Flemish young people were asked to evaluate their
(VL) digital skills: basic skills (e.g. changing privacy
settings), advanced skills (e.g. using keyboard
shortcuts), expert skills (e.g. programming
Belgian EU Kids Online team languages) and reflective skills (e.g. deciding
whether online information is true). Strikingly, digital
Leen d’Haenens, Joyce Vissenberg, Marlies Debrael, skills do not protect them from online risks (while
Bieke Zaman and Joke Bauwens controlling for age, gender and time spent online).
On the contrary, 9% with above-average expert skill
Contact: Institute for Media Studies, KU Leuven, levels were exposed to risky online content once a
Parkstraat 45, PO box 3603, B-3000 Leuven month, while this was only true for 2% of those with
below-average expert skills.
Email: leen.dhaenens@kuleuven.be
Digital skills do not seem to guard young people from
Key findings feelings of harm after an online risk experience: there
are no significant differences in harm experienced
Eighty-three per cent of the Flemish 13- to 17-year- after online risk exposure based on a young person’s
old participants (N = 1,180) predominantly use their basic, advanced, expert or reflective skill levels.
smartphone to go online, where they mainly
communicate with friends and family (79%).
However, the outcomes of internet use are not
always beneficial, as Flemish young people are also
exposed to risky content online. For example, up to
34% have seen hate speech online against certain
groups of people (such as Muslim or Jewish people
and migrants), 26% of whom saw it at least once a
week; 11% of those who had been exposed to hate
speech had searched for it themselves. Only a
minority of Flemish young people (7%) had sent or
posted hate speech messages online.
| 142 |
Highlights
France (FR)
Exposure and involvement in cyberhate, that is, hate
based on ethnic or religious criteria, is a preoccupying
French EU Kids Online team societal issue as it impacts not only individuals but
also their communities and social cohesion. The
Catherine Blaya, Omara Sansegundo Moreno, majority of young people understand that cyberhate
Catherine Audrin and Sylvia Trieu is a form of aggression and that it has negative
consequences on people’s lives. Participants were
Contact: Bureau 317 – URMIS – MSHS Sud Est, Pôle involved as exposed, victims or perpetrators.
universitaire, St Jean d’Angély – 24 avenue des However, 15% stated that they had been exposed to
Diables Bleus, 06357, Nice, Cedex 4 cyberhate (racism, xenophobia or religious-based
content), 3% had been victims of cyberhate and 2%
Email: Catherine.blaya@univ-cotedazur.fr
self-reported being authors of cyberhate.
Key findings Although these percentages are small, being a victim
is associated with negative outcomes and should be
Sixty-two per cent of young people access the
taken seriously. Structural equation models highlight
internet daily using their mobile phone and 39% use
that offline victimisation and cyberhate are correlated
a computer. A third of the participants use tablets.
with both cyberhate perpetration and victimisation.
The average time spent online daily is 2 hours and 6 Moreover, victimisation is related to negative and
minutes during the week and 3 hours and 16 minutes deviant behaviours (lying, stealing, fighting, etc.) and
during weekends. Eight per cent of the participants it affects wellbeing as victims score higher levels of
spend over 6 hours a day online during the week and anxiety and impulsivity and have lower self-esteem.
18% at weekends. Those who spend more time
online are young people aged 14 to 15 during the
week and those aged 16 to 17 during weekends. Fifty
per cent of the children have a profile on a social
network. The most used application is Snapchat
(25%), with a significant difference between girls and
boys (31.6% vs 17.7%). Facebook comes second,
with 23%. The majority of children in France use the
internet for entertainment (videos and music) and
communication.
| 143 |
Highlights
Germany (DE)
Sometimes it is not the children but their parents
whose thoughtless online behaviour puts them at risk
German EU Kids Online team online: 9% of German children and adolescents say
that their parent or carer published a picture of them
Uwe Hasebrink, Claudia Lampert and Kira Thiel without their permission, which, in some cases (4%),
led to mean or hurtful comments. Thus, it is crucial
Contact: Leibniz Institute for Media Research |Hans- to raise parents’ awareness of possible negative
Bredow-Institut (HBI), Rothenbaumchaussee 36, consequences, and to point out their children’s right
20148 Hamburg, Germany to privacy.
Email: c.lampert@leibniz-hbi.de
Key findings
Despite the many opportunities of being online,
digitally engaged children are exposed to various
cyber risks. Exposure to sexual, violent or hateful
content and risks associated with personal disclosure
(e.g. giving out personal information) appear quite
frequently. Contact as well as conduct risks vary in
incidence. While bullying (online or offline) and
receiving or sending sexual messages seem quite
normal, meeting online contacts offline is less
common. However, only 9% of children and
adolescents (aged 9 to 17) state that, in the past
year, they have been bothered or upset by something
they experienced online. On the contrary, meeting an
online contact in real life was a pleasant experience
for the majority of the children (63%). The same
applies to sexual images and messages, which some
participants – especially teenage boys – enjoy and
even turn to actively. These findings indicate that
adolescents have a different perception of online
risks than adults.
| 144 |
Highlights
Italy (IT)
One in three children adopt passive responses to
online risks that bother them, and one in four do not
Italian EU Kids Online team talk to anyone about what happened. This is
surprising, since children report living in supportive
Giovanna Mascheroni and Piermarco Aroldi and safe environments at home, school and among
peers. Italian parents adopt especially enabling
Contact: OssCom, Università Cattolica del Sacro mediation practices, thus favouring dialogue over
Cuore, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123 Milano restrictions. However, findings suggest that the
internet is perceived as more of a risky place than an
Email: giovanna.mascheroni@unicatt.it
opportunity: 52% of parents suggest ways to use the
internet safely and 38% help children when
Italian national report something bothers them on the internet, but only
Mascheroni, G. & Ólafsson, K. (2018). Accesso, usi, 21% encourage children to explore and learn things
rischi e opportunità di internet per i ragazzi italiani. I on the internet. Teachers make rules and friends
risultati di EU Kids Online 2017. EU Kids Online, suggest things to do.
OssCom, www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-
communications/assets/documents/research/eu-
kids-online/reports/EU-Kids-Online-Italy-report-06-
2018.pdf
Key findings
Italian children aged 9 to 17 go online primarily from
their smartphones – 84% do so daily. While the
internet is an integral part of children’s daily lives,
differences persist in online activities and, more
significantly, in online skills. With misinformation
being one of the highest concerns on the public
agenda, it is striking that only 42% of Italian children
reportedly find it easy to check if the information they
find online is true.
| 145 |
Highlights
Lithuania (LT)
Lithuanian children and their parents are active
internet users. Eighty per cent of parents are
Lithuanian EU Kids Online team interested in what their children are doing online, so
it seems that Lithuanian children are not left alone
Vilmante Pakalniskiene, Neringa Grigutyte and Saule and have parents who could help them. However,
Raizienė only half of the parents help their children if the child
is facing something online that is causing them
Contact: Vilnius University, Institute of Psychology, anxiety. It might be that the parents don’t really
Universiteto 9, Vilnius 01513, Lithuania know what their children are actually facing online.
Email: vilmante.pakalniskiene@fsf.vu.lt
Key findings
The findings show that 92% of children aged 9 to 17
access the internet daily, using at least one device.
The most common way to access the internet is via
a mobile phone or smartphone, and in 2018 89%
went online daily while using their phones; 37% of
all the children say that they are online on their
mobile ‘almost all the time’. The majority of
Lithuanian children use the internet for
entertainment and communication purposes. The
most common daily activities are watching videos
(72%), listening to music (71%), gaming online
(69%), visiting social networking sites (52%) or
communicating with friends and family (52%).
| 146 |
Highlights
Malta (MT)
Eighty-nine per cent said that they use the internet
every day at home. Far fewer (5%) of 15- to 16-year-
Malta EU Kids Online team olds use the internet at school. This may reflect less
openness to technology in the classroom. Internet
Mary Anne Lauri, Lorleen Farrugia, Mark Spiteri, use at school is higher among students between the
Stephen Camilleri, Dunstan Hamilton and Isaac ages of 9 and 10 (13%). Thirty-five per cent of
Sammut children aged 9 to 16 made contact with people
online they had never met offline. Around half of
Contact: University of Malta, Msida, Malta, MSD these children met in real life the people they had
2080, Malta, Email: mary-anne.lauri@um.edu.mt come to know online.
Maltese national report: The small size of the country is possibly one reason
why so many children could meet up with somebody
Lauri, M.A. & Farrugia, L. (2019). Access, use, risks
they met online. The majority of those who decided
and opportunities for Maltese children on the
to meet these online acquaintances in real life were
internet. Msida: University of Malta.
happy to have done so; however, 6% were
uncomfortable with this.
Key findings
Among risks related to privacy, 11% experience
Smartphone use increases with age, with about half
people pretending to be them and 7% say that
of the younger children aged between 9 and 10
somebody had created fake pages or images and
accessing the internet through a mobile phone. This
circulated them to damage their reputation. These
number increases to 9 out of every 10 children
privacy risks are more common among adolescents
between the ages of 15 and 16. For all participants,
and may lead to widespread damage because of the
the two most common online activities are watching
familiarity that characterises the local context.
video clips (79%) and listening to music (72%).
| 147 |
Highlights
Norway (NO)
The use of mobile phones in schools is a controversial
topic in Norwegian public discourse. Our data shows
Norwegian EU Kids Online team that where teachers are either positive towards or
allow mobile phone use at school, children
Elisabeth Staksrud, Kjartan Ólafsson, Monica experience a higher degree of self-reported
Barbovschi, Niamh Ní Bhroin, Tijana Milosevic, wellbeing.
Ekaterina Pashevich, Khalid Ezat Azam and Jørgen
Kirksæther Too much focus on risk among researchers,
government authorities, politicians, parents and
Contact: Department of Media and Communication, teachers can have an alienating effect for children
University of Oslo, PO Boks 1093, Blindern, 0317 Oslo who experience the internet as a positive social
arena. We need to think about how we can ensure
Email: elisabeth.staksrud@media.uio.no that those who experience risk get the help and
support they need, without detracting from the
Norwegian national report positive experiences of internet use.
Staksrud, E. & Ólafsson, K. (2019). Tilgang, bruk,
risiko og muligheter: Norske barn på Internett.
Resultater fra EU Kids Online Undersøkelsen i Norge
2018. EU Kids Online and the Department of Media
and Communication, Olso: University of Oslo,
bit.ly/2XuKcbV
Key findings
Most Norwegian children experience the internet as
a positive social environment and feel safe online.
Ninety-six per cent own their own mobile phone with
internet access. On average they use the internet for
a little less than 4 hours a day; 40% of 9- to 17-year-
olds say they have rules about how long or when they
are allowed to be online. This is interesting since we
know that over half of the Norwegian parents
generally express significant concern or worry about
the amount of time their children spend online – 54%
(70% of parents under the age of 40) say they worry
‘a lot’ that their child spends too much time on their
phone, and 49% say they worry ‘a lot’ that their child
is spending too much time playing video games.
| 148 |
Highlights
Poland (PL)
Cyberbullying in Polish children overlaps with
traditional bullying where technologies are not used
Polish EU Kids Online team (physical violence, verbal violence and exclusion). It
rarely happens that someone is a victim or a
Jacek Pyżalski, Aldona Zdrodowska, Łukasz Tomczyk perpetrator online without being involved in
and Katarzyna Abramczuk traditional peer violence.
Key findings
Polish children aged 9 to 17 are mostly mobile
internet users. They usually connect to the internet
via a mobile phone or smartphone – about eight in
ten (84%) do this daily or more often. Interestingly,
girls turned out to use mobile internet more often
than boys. The internet is mostly used for
entertainment and peer communication.
| 149 |
Highlights
Portugal (PT)
Portuguese children report difficulties on choosing
the best keywords for online searches (67%), or to
Portuguese EU Kids Online team verify whether online information is true (53%).
These lower rates may also reflect critical awareness
Cristina Ponte, José Alberto Simões, Daniel Cardoso, of the complexity of such competencies.
Eduarda Ferreira, Patrícia Dias, Rita Brito, Susana Informational skills are part of the national ICT
Batista and Teresa Sofia Castro curriculum taught at schools, whose most reported
topics are related to online safety, e-etiquette and
Contact: FCSH, Universidade NOVA - Av. de Berna, copyright duties.
26-C, 1069-061 Lisboa, Portugal
Taking advantage of opportunities for civic
Email: cristina.ponte@fcsh.unl.pt engagement and for participation in public debates
are reported by only 15%. The ICT curriculum in
Portuguese national report schools should take more account of the challenges
of the online and offline experiences of young people
Ponte, C. & Batista, S. (2019). EU Kids Online
regarding critical information search and evaluation
Portugal. Usos, competências, riscos e mediações da
as well as civic engagement and participation.
internet reportados por crianças e jovens (9-17
anos). EU Kids Online and NOVA FCSH,
www.fcsh.unl.pt/eukidsonline/documentos/
Key findings
Gender differences matter in the way Portuguese
children deal with online risky situations, parental
mediation and incorporate new generations of smart
technology (IoT) in daily life. Engaging in online
activities, girls (27%) report more bothering online
experiences than boys (18%). Facing these
situations, girls request more support from peers and
adults they trust (parents, teachers) than boys, who
use more proactive and isolated answers. From the
33% of children that reported having seen sexual
content, almost half of the boys felt happy about it,
compared to 7% of the girls. Gender differences are
also visible in the way children report family practices
and supervision around online experiences.
| 150 |
Highlights
Romania (RO)
A third of Romanian children have been exposed to
some form of cyberhate speech in the past year
Romanian EU Kids Online team (from a quarter for the 9- to 10-year-old group to half
for the 15- to 17-year-olds). Twelve per cent of all
Anca Velicu, Monica Barbovschi, Bianca Balea and children have themselves received hate messages
Gyöngyvér Tőkés online, targeting them or their group (of these, half
received these messages monthly).
Contact: Institute of Sociology, Romanian Academy,
Calea 13 Septembrie 13, Bucharest In a rather permissive attitude, almost half of the
children condone the use of violence against
Email: anca.velicu@gmail.com someone who insults family or friends, reflected in
the data about cyberhate: of those exposed to
Romanian national report cyberhate, almost a quarter have intentionally
searched for this type of content (a worrisome 30%
Velicu, A., Balea, B. & Barbovschi, M. (2019). Acces,
in the 9- to 10-year-old group), while 8% of all
utilizări, riscuri și oportunități ale internetului pentru
children reported they have sent these kinds of
copiii din România. Rezultatele EU Kids Online 2018.
messages themselves.
EU Kids Online și DigiLiv-REI,
http://rokidsonline.net/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/EU-Kids-Online-RO-report-
15012019_DL.pdf
Key findings
Although internet access for Romanian children from
mobile devices has increased more than four times
since 2010 (reaching 84% in 2018), access
limitations remain due to economic factors such as
cost or poor infrastructure. Therefore, 65% of
children perceive the devices as too expensive, 37%
perceive the costs of connecting to the internet as
too high, while 25% report the internet signal as
being too weak or non-existent in the area in which
they live.
| 151 |
Russian Federation
Highlights
(RU) Approximately 90% of adolescents use social
networks every day. Nasty or hurtful messages were
sent to 69% of those aged 14 to 17 and 58% of those
Russian EU Kids Online team aged 12 to 13. Older adolescents admit that they
Galina Soldatova, Svetlana Chigarkova and Elena were the initiators of cyberaggression much more
Rasskazova often compared to younger children: 70% vs 37%.
Contact: Lomonosov Moscow State University, Parents feel more competent in helping their
Moscow, 11/9 Mokhovaya, 125009, Russia children: 83% feel that they can help their children
to cope with things online that bother or upset them,
Email: soldatova.galina@gmail.com, and 67% monitor their children’s social media
profiles. Every second adolescent often helps their
chigars@gmail.com parents when they have difficulties using the
internet.
Key findings
The average time using the internet by adolescents
aged 12 to 13 is 3.5 hours a day and by older
adolescents aged 14 to 17 it is 5 hours – 17% of
these older adolescents spend more than 8 hours
online every day, more than a third of their lives.
Parents’ user activity is lower: a third (35%) use the
internet for less than an hour a day, and the other
third (34%) use the internet for 2 to 3 hours a day.
| 152 |
The Republic of
Highlights
Serbia (RS) Additional analyses about excessive internet use
reveals that, when a range of children’s socio-
demographic characteristics are controlled for,
Serbian EU Kids Online team restrictive mediation is a significant predictor of time
Tijana Milošević, Dobrinka Kuzmanović, Zoran spent online (parental restrictions reduce the time
Pavlović and Dragan Popadić spent online), but not of excessive internet use. The
main predictor of excessive internet use is the child’s
Contact: Institute of Psychology, Faculty of anxiety (emotional problems). Active mediation,
Philosophy, University of Belgrade,: Čika Ljubina 18- however, does reduce excessive internet use, but it
20. Belgrade, Serbia doesn’t affect time spent online. While there is a
significant correlation between the amount of time
Email: tijana.milosevic@dcu.ie; spent online and excessive internet use, time spent
online should not be considered as a necessary or
tijana.milosevic@gmail.com sufficient condition for excessive internet use. We
therefore warn against pathologising screen time,
Serbian national report and emphasise the need to look into the broader
context of children’s internet use. The use of active
Kuzmanović, D., Pavlović, Z., Popadić, D. & Milosevic,
mediation among parents in Serbia is rather limited,
T. (2019). Internet and digital technology use among
however. Only 40% of participants say their parents
children and youth in Serbia. EU Kids Online Survey
or caregivers often suggest ways of how to use the
Results, 2018, www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-
internet safely, and 39% say their parents often help
communications/assets/documents/research/eu-
them when something bothers them online.
kids-online/participant-countries/serbia/EU-Kids-
Online-ENG-2019.pdf
Key findings
Children in Serbia aged 9 to 17 most frequently use
smartphones to access the internet – 86% do so
daily, from 65% in the youngest group of 9- to 10-
year-olds. Underage use of social media and gaming
platforms is conspicuous: 41% of 9- to 10-year-olds
and 72% of 11- to 12-year-olds have a profile on
such platforms. Sixty per cent of children and young
people never use the internet for creative purposes,
such as to share content (videos or music) they
created on their own.
| 153 |
Highlights
The Slovak Republic
Altogether, 21% of children aged 11 to 17 saw
(SK) physical self-harm content, 10% saw suicide-related
content and 26% encountered content promoting
anorexia and bulimia. Exposure to harmful content is
Slovak EU Kids Online team associated with children’s emotional problems,
sensation-seeking, hyperactivity and conduct
Pavel Izrael, Juraj Holdos, David Smahel, Hana problems. Exposure to one type of harmful content
Machackova, Lenka Dedkova & Robert Durka also means exposure to other types. A little worrying
is the finding that when children are bothered or
Contact: Catholic Univesity, Hrabovska cesta 1a, 034 upset by something online, 26% do not talk to
01, Ruzomberok, Slovak Republic anyone, and this percentage increases with age.
Almost a fifth of parents think their child hasn’t had
Email: pavel.izrael@ku.sk contact on the internet with someone the child has
not met face-to-face before, although the child has
Slovak national report had such an experience. A significant number of
parents (40%) rarely or never apply active
Izrael, P., Holdoš, J., Ďurka, R., Hasák, M. (2020).
mediation. On the other hand, the use of active
EU Kids Online IV v Slovenskej republike. Slovenské
mediation is more frequent in families with a higher
deti a dospievajúci na internete: Správa z výskumu.
income and parents with a higher education.
Ružomberok: Katolícka univerzita v Ružomberku.
http://rodinaamedia.ku.sk/publikacie/
Key findings
Slovak children aged 9 to 17 access the internet
mostly via smartphones – 72% do so daily. The main
motive for using the internet is entertainment and
social interaction, and internet use increases during
the weekend. Fifty-six per cent of children aged 9 to
12 visit a social networking site at least once a week
despite the general age limit for such use at 13 years,
and only 20% of parents do not allow them to use a
social networking site.
| 154 |
Highlights
Spain (ES)
The number of teen girls who access content related
to ways of physically hurting themselves (6% vs 2%),
Spanish EU Kids Online team committing suicide (5% vs 1%), ways of being very
thin (4% vs 1%) and hate messages (12% vs 4%) is
Maialen Garmendia, Carmelo Garitaonandia, significantly higher than among boys. Consequently,
Estefania Jiménez, Iñaki Karrera, Nekane Larrañaga teen girls have found themselves in situations on the
and Gemma Martinez internet that have bothered them (40%) significantly
more often than boys (29%). Parents tend to
Contact: HEFA II, Plaza de Oñati 3, 20018, San encourage boys more than girls to explore online,
Sebastián, Spain while more often restricting activities for girls. These
findings, consistent with previous results, show their
Email: maialen.garmendia@ehu.eus
worry especially for girls’ online safety.
Spanish national report
Garmendia, M., Jimenez, E., Karrera, I., Larrañaga,
N., Casado, M. A., Martinez, G. & Garitaonandia, C.
(2019). Actividades, mediación, oportunidades y
riesgos online de los menores en la era de la
convergencia mediática. 2019. Editado por el
Instituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad (INCIBE). León
(España). Project EU Kids Online IV – University of
the Basque Country (UPV/EHU),
www.is4k.es/sites/default/files/contenidos/informe-
eukidsonline-2018.pdf
Key findings
Spanish children’s engagement online with
communication and entertainment activities has
increased since 2015. Their preference for
communicating with family and friends (70%), and
leisure activities – such as listening to music (63%),
watching video clips (55%) and playing online (46%)
– on a daily basis stands out, whereas the evidence
shows lower interest in participatory and civic
activities.
| 155 |
Highlights
Switzerland (CH)
Contact with online risks is less an exception and
much more the rule. Older age, more skills and
Swiss EU Kids Online team owning a smartphone lead to more risky experiences.
Therefore, increasing exposure to risks turns out to
Martin Hermida be a general side effect of growing up in a digital
world. This calls for a good balance between the
Contact: The Schwyz University of Teacher desire to avoid risks and the necessity to manage
Education, Zaystrasse 42, CH-6410 Goldau risks.
Email: martin.hermida@phsz.ch
Key findings
Almost a third (30%) of Swiss 9- to 10-year-olds use
a mobile phone to go online at least several times a
week. From 13 years on most children (86%) report
being online via a mobile phone several times a day.
Risky online experiences are quite common. More
than half (64%) experienced at least one of the risks
inquired about, and among the oldest children (15 to
16 years), almost all (94%) have experienced one or
more risks. The most common is seeing problematic
user-generated content, reported by 26% of 11- to
12-year-olds and 64% of 15- to 16-year-olds. Still,
many children (29%) who had negative experiences
didn’t tell anyone.
| 156 |