IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v78y2024ics0160791x24001714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adolescents and negligent social media use

Author

Listed:
  • Lareki, Arkaitz
  • Fraga-Varela, Fernando
  • Martínez-de-Morentin, Juan-Ignacio

Abstract

Digital technology has evolved very quickly in a very short space of time, to the point at which it is now a personal technology that manages the information and communications of users who access the different services offered over the Internet - users who are increasingly younger and at greater risk. Negligent technology use is understood as use linked to the management of social media accounts and mobile apps that, while not intentionally harmful, may nevertheless place the user and/or others at risk. The study of negligent digital technology use during adolescence is vital to preventing risk behaviours through education. These types of behaviours range from anxiety to cyberbullying, device addiction, problems with self-perceptions of one's own body and depression, among others. In this context, the aim of the present study is to analyse negligent digital technology use among adolescents on social media, and to explore the perceptions of this population group regarding the seriousness of these actions and the possible relationship between the two variables. Participants were 2529 students aged between 10 and 17 years from seven regions in southern Europe spread across three countries (Spain, Italy and Greece). The instrument used to collect the data was an ad hoc questionnaire designed to measure, among other things, actions indicating negligent use, excessive use of social medial and perceptions of the seriousness of such social media behaviour. The results reveal that the most negligent actions carried out by minors are: arranging to meet people they met on a social media site; displaying personal information in their account; and giving their passwords to people other than their parents and/or teachers. The results also indicate that adolescents engage in those negligent actions that they perceive to be less serious more assiduously, and carry out those they perceive to be more serious more sporadically. One of the principal findings was the increase in negligent use among older adolescents, which suggests that education in this field needs to begin much earlier, ideally before the age of 12 years.

Suggested Citation

  • Lareki, Arkaitz & Fraga-Varela, Fernando & Martínez-de-Morentin, Juan-Ignacio, 2024. "Adolescents and negligent social media use," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:78:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24001714
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X24001714
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102623?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Altuna, Jon & Martínez-de-Morentin, Juan-Ignacio & Lareki, Arkaitz, 2020. "The impact of becoming a parent about the perception of Internet risk behaviors," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Lareki, Arkaitz & Altuna, Jon & Martínez de Morentin, Juan Ignacio & Amenabar, Nere, 2017. "Young people and digital services: Analysis of the use, rules, and age requirement," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 126-131.
    3. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    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. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    2. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    3. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    4. Aubel Martin & Pikturniene Indre & Joye Yannick, 2022. "Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Response to Service Robot Anthropomorphism in Banking," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 30(2), pages 26-42, June.
    5. Henry H. Willis & H. Keith Florig, 2002. "Potential Exposures and Risks from Beryllium‐Containing Products," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 1019-1033, October.
    6. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Yubin Ding & Junling Xu & Sisi Huang & Peipei Li & Cuizhen Lu & Shenghua Xie, 2020. "Risk Perception and Depression in Public Health Crises: Evidence from the COVID-19 Crisis in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-17, August.
    8. Peter M. Wiedemann & Holger Schuetz & Franziska Boerner & Martin Clauberg & Rodney Croft & Rajesh Shukla & Toshiko Kikkawa & Ray Kemp & Jan M. Gutteling & Barney de Villiers & Flavia N. da Silva Medei, 2013. "When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1788-1801, October.
    9. Ganesh Prasad Neupane, 2017. "Heuristics as an Aid to Inter-organizational Value Creation," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 7(1), pages 238-244.
    10. Connor, Melanie & de Guia, Annalyn H. & Quilloy, Reianne & Van Nguyen, Hung & Gummert, Martin & Sander, Bjoern Ole, 2020. "When climate change is not psychologically distant – Factors influencing the acceptance of sustainable farming practices in the Mekong river Delta of Vietnam," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    11. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    13. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    14. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    15. Katalin Parti, 2022. "Illiberal and Populist Political Narratives on Gender and Underreporting of Sexual Violence: A Case Study of Hungary," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 26-37.
    16. Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.
    17. Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele, 2015. "The roles of human values and generalized trust on stated preferences when food is labeled with environmental footprints: Insights from Germany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 84-91.
    18. Kenneth Lachlan & Patric R. Spence, 2010. "Communicating Risks: Examining Hazard and Outrage in Multiple Contexts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(12), pages 1872-1886, December.
    19. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," 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. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    20. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.

    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:eee:teinso:v:78:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24001714. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.