IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v12y2023i3p164-d1092967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Young People’s Perception of the Danger of Risky Online Activities: Behaviours, Emotions and Attitudes Associated with Their Digital Vulnerability

Author

Listed:
  • Sonia Carcelén-García

    (Marketing Department, Communication Faculty, Complutense University, Avda. Complutense s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Mónica Díaz-Bustamante Ventisca

    (Marketing Department, Economics Faculty, Complutense University, Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 Madrid, Spain)

  • María Galmes-Cerezo

    (Marketing Department, Economics Faculty, Complutense University, Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

Digital leisure has become the main reason young people make use of the Internet and social media. Previous research shows the danger of certain activities in the online environment. Of particular concern are those of a recreational nature, which are more socially accepted by young people; among them one can find: online gambling and betting, online shopping and eGames, and the consumption of content on social media. This study aims to identify the behavioural and psychographic variables which impact the probability that young people will perceive the danger of these risky activities. We have carried out a descriptive and causal investigation with non-experimental cross-cutting analysis through a computer-assisted phone survey on a sample of 1500 young people aged between 18 and 35. The results show that all the activities are perceived as dangerous by the majority of those questioned, but a large percentage of young people do not perceive any risk in online gambling, betting and eGames. We have determined several psychographic and behavioural variables to help predict the perception of risk among young people to help define formal and informal policies for reducing their vulnerability in the event of the inappropriate use of the studied activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonia Carcelén-García & Mónica Díaz-Bustamante Ventisca & María Galmes-Cerezo, 2023. "Young People’s Perception of the Danger of Risky Online Activities: Behaviours, Emotions and Attitudes Associated with Their Digital Vulnerability," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:3:p:164-:d:1092967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/3/164/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/3/164/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julie Barnett & Glynis M. Breakwell, 2001. "Risk Perception and Experience: Hazard Personality Profiles and Individual Differences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 171-178, February.
    2. Sharon Lawn & Candice Oster & Ben Riley & David Smith & Michael Baigent & Mubarak Rahamathulla, 2020. "A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Emerging Technologies and New Trends in Gambling," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-20, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    3. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    4. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    5. Angelo Panno & Annalisa Theodorou & Giuseppe Alessio Carbone & Evelina De Longis & Chiara Massullo & Gianluca Cepale & Giuseppe Carrus & Claudio Imperatori & Giovanni Sanesi, 2021. "Go Greener, Less Risk: Access to Nature Is Associated with Lower Risk Taking in Different Domains during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Tijs Neutens & Wouter Vanneuville & Philippe De Maeyer, 2011. "An Analysis of the Public Perception of Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1055-1068, July.
    7. Love Kumar & Farah Nadeem & Maggie Sloan & Jonas Restle-Steinert & Matthew J. Deitch & Sohail Ali Naqvi & Avinash Kumar & Claudio Sassanelli, 2022. "Fostering Green Finance for Sustainable Development: A Focus on Textile and Leather Small Medium Enterprises in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-24, September.
    8. Ling Tian & Peng Yao & Shi-jie Jiang, 2014. "Perception of earthquake risk: a study of the earthquake insurance pilot area in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 74(3), pages 1595-1611, December.
    9. Okumah, Murat & Yeboah, Ata Senior & Bonyah, Sylvester Kwaku, 2020. "What matters most? Stakeholders’ perceptions of river water quality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Phoenix K. H. Mo & Juliet Honglei Chen & Joseph T. F. Lau & Anise M. S. Wu, 2020. "Internet-Related Addictions: From Measurements to Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-4, April.
    11. Peter Kamstra & Brian Cook & David M. Kennedy & Barbara Brighton, 2018. "Treating risk as relational on shore platforms and implications for public safety on microtidal rocky coasts," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 91(3), pages 1299-1316, April.
    12. Ethan T. Knocke & Korine N. Kolivras, 2007. "Flash Flood Awareness in Southwest Virginia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 155-169, February.
    13. Peter Fraser‐Mackenzie & Ming‐Chien Sung & Johnnie E.V. Johnson, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the Influence of Cultural Background and Domain Experience on the Effects of Risk‐Pricing Formats on Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1846-1869, October.
    14. Daniela Knuth & Doris Kehl & Lynn Hulse & Silke Schmidt, 2014. "Risk Perception, Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1286-1298, July.
    15. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez, 2008. "Participant-focused analysis: explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 735-753, September.
    16. Julie L. Demuth, 2018. "Explicating Experience: Development of a Valid Scale of Past Hazard Experience for Tornadoes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1921-1943, September.
    17. Xiaofei Xie & Mei Wang & Liancang Xu, 2003. "What Risks Are Chinese People Concerned About?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 685-695, August.
    18. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Lamonaca, Emilia, 2020. "Objective risk and subjective risk: The role of information in food supply chains," MPRA Paper 104515, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2014. "Growing Pains: How Risk Perception and Risk Communication Research Can Help to Manage the Challenges of Global Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1378-1390, August.
    20. Bruno Chauvin & Danièle Hermand & Etienne Mullet, 2007. "Risk Perception and Personality Facets," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 171-185, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:12:y:2023:i:3:p:164-:d:1092967. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.