Findings • methods • recommendations
EU Kids Online
EU Kids Online coordinates and stimulates
investigation into the way children use new
media, with a particular focus on evidence about
the conditions that shape online risk and safety.
Welcome and overview from the project director,
Professor Sonia Livingstone.
Click on the above image for our YouTube playlist of 75+ videos in
multiple languages.
Executive summary
Some videos I see on the internet make me
scared. Filthy images don’t frighten me! But
they make me feel bad. Because I don’t like
them. And frightening things stay in my mind.
(boy, 10, Spain)
She wrote to me that I am a bitch and so on
… then she came to me with an older friend,
I think she was seventeen or so, they shouted
at me and just kept writing ugly things.
(girl, 12, Czech Republic)
A stranger said that he liked me and that
I was pretty. This was creepy, and I felt
uncomfortable and weird about this.
(girl, 11, Belgium)
My dad knows my Messenger and Facebook passwords.
He sometimes checks to see if I’ve spoken with
strangers after the cases they’ve heard of …
(girl, 12, Romania)
“EU Kids Online has been hugely important
for European stakeholders as the key
provider of trusted evidence to help us
make the internet a better place for kids.”
European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes, Commissioner for the Digital Agenda
2
EU Kids Online recent research findings,
methods and recommendations
•	Updating and analysis of our 25-country, pan-European survey.
•	In-depth interviews with 9- to 16-year-olds in nine countries.
•	Expansion of the open access, searchable European
	 evidence database.
European 9- to 16-yearolds
say they are now:
more likely to say they
were upset
by something seen
online in 2014
Compared with 2010, European
11- to 16-year-olds are now:
more likely to
be exposed to hate
messages
more likely to
be exposed to
pro-anorexia sites
20%
13%
11%
12%
13%
9%
7%
7%
to
to
to
to
more likely to be
exposed to self-harm
sites
more likely
to be exposed
to cyberbullying
On Facebook you are giving yourself away completely.
(boy, 13, Malta)
eukidsonline.net
eukidsonline@lse.ac.uk 
#EUKIDSONLINE
•	Research toolkit of our methods to guide 				
	 researchers and research users.
•	Active dialogue with stakeholders to ensure policy 	
	 has a robust evidence base.
17%
13% to
ES
FI
FR
CH
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LV
N L
NO
IS
PL
PT
RO
RU
SE
S I
TR
UK
Country classification based on children’s online use and risk (from EU Kids Online survey)
AT
BE
LU
BG
CY
CZ
SK
DE
DK
EE
EL
MT
RESEARCH
TOOLKIT
3
eukidsonline.net eukidsonline@lse.ac.uk 
#EUKIDSONLINE
Contents
4
Executive summary 	 2-3
The EU Kids Online network has been funded
by the EC Better Internet for Kids programme	 5
Children are going online more, younger,
and in more diverse ways 	 6
The digital age raises some key questions 	 7
Explaining risks and opportunities:
The EU Kids Online model 	 8
Using the model to explain online risks
and opportunities 	 9
What do children do online? 	 10-11
What bothers children online? 	 12-14
How many children encounter online risks? 	 15-17
Is children’s exposure to online risk changing? 	 18
But not all risk results in self-reported harm 	 19
How do children cope with online risks? 	 20
Hear from the researchers 	 21-23
Explaining change 	 24-25
How parents support their children’s
internet use 	 26-27
Social networking sites bring particular
opportunities and risks 	 28-29
25 countries compared for online
opportunities and risks 	 30
Towards evidence-based policy 	 31-34
EU Kids Online has worked in 33 countries 	 35-37
The European Evidence Base 	 38-39
Our research toolkit 	 40
The EU Kids Online network at work 	 41
EU Kids Online policy impacts 	 42
What’s next? 	 43-44
Contact us 	 45
ES
FI
FR
CH
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LV
N L
NO
IS
PL
PT
RO
RU
SE
S I
TR
UK
AT
BE
LU
BG
CY
CZ
SK
DE
DK
EE
EL
MT
The EU Kids Online network has been funded by the
EC Better Internet for Kids programme*
From 2006-09, as a thematic network of 21 countries,
EU Kids Online identified and evaluated the findings of
nearly 400 research studies to draw out substantive,
methodological and policy implications.
From 2009-11, as a knowledge enhancement project
across 25 countries, the network surveyed 25,000 children
and parents to produce original, rigorous data on online
opportunities and risk of harm.
From 2011-14, the network expanded to 33 countries to
conduct targeted analyses of the quantitative survey and
new qualitative interviews with children.
It happened in our school. Someone took a picture of
someone in a pose and then they edited the picture
making a small comment and then…my schoolmate
was pretty sad about it, then I told everyone to delete
the photo because I just asked them, if that was you,
how would you feel, so they deleted the photo and
everything’s fine now.
(boy, 11, UK)
*Originally, Safer Internet Programme 5
Children are going online more, at younger
ages, and in more diverse ways
Children are using the internet in more places in their daily lives.
They go online on more personal and mobile devices, making it hard for their
parents to guide their online activities – See our report and video.
Ever younger children are gaining access to
internet-enabled devices, with largely unknown
consequences – See our report and video.
The ‘ladder of opportunities’ is still too steep:
most children do not reach the level of creative,
collaborative or civic activities online.
Once you read it, it
can be deleted from
the computer but not
from your head
(girl, 15, Portugal)
6
How can children’s online opportunities and digital skills be
further developed and more strongly supported?
See our report and video.
What are the implications of these changes for the risk of
harm facing children online and offline?
Are some children using the internet to excess?
See our report and video.
What actions are needed from parents, schools, industry,
children’s organisations and governments to maximise
online benefits and to minimise harm?
Are all countries facing similar challenges? If not, which
differences really matter?
Are all families facing similar challenges?
See our report on disadvantaged children and
on vulnerable children.
How can research and policy anticipate the further changes
that lie ahead?
The digital age raises some key questions
7
Demographic
Psychological
INDIVIDUAL USER
SOCIAL MEDIATION
Parents
Child as unit of analysis
Country as unit of analysis
Socio-economic
stratification
Regulatory
framework
Technological
infrastructure
Education
system
Cultural
values
School Peers
Usage Activities Risk factors
Harm or
coping
Explaining risks and opportunities: The EU Kids Online model
8
Many factors account for children’s
online experiences, which is why
there are no ‘one size fits all’ policy
solutions. Our model shows the
factors we have investigated and
how they intersect with each other.
The relations among these variables are
examined in our recent book. The chapter
summaries show how the model predicts
positive and negative outcomes.
Using the model to explain online risks and opportunities
5 key findings
1.	The more children use the internet, the more digital skills they gain, and the 		
higher they climb the ‘ladder of online opportunities’ to gain the benefits.
2.	Not all internet use results in benefits: the chance of a child gaining the
benefits depends on their age, gender and socio-economic status, on how
their parents support them, and on the positive content available to them.
3.	Children’s use, skills and opportunities are also linked to online risks; the more
of these, the more risk of harm; thus as internet use increases, ever greater
efforts are needed to prevent risk also increasing.
4.	Not all risk results in harm: the chance of a child being upset or harmed by
online experiences depends partly on their age, gender and socio-economic
status, and also on their resilience and resources to cope with what happens
on the internet.
5.	Also important is the role played by parents, school and peers, and by
national provision for regulation, content provision, cultural values and the
education system.
9
What do children do online?
10
Since the EU Kids Online 2010
survey of 25 countries, our
sister project Net Children
Go Mobile updated the survey
in seven countries in 2014.*
Data from 11- to 16-year olds in 2010 and 2014
(for Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Ireland, Portugal,
Romania and the UK) show what they do online on a
daily basis.
While they are indeed doing more than before, the
ladder of opportunities is as steep as ever.
Children are most likely to engage with social network
sites, instant messaging, YouTube and gaming.
They are much less likely to create or upload content,
read the news online or participate in virtual worlds.
*Net Children Go Mobile surveyed 9- to 16-year olds in Belgium,
Denmark, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, UK.
63
49
59
33
28
24
15
19
18
9
20
8
10
3
44
40
32
18
16
10
9
9
7
6
6
5
4
2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Visited a social
networking profile
Used instant messaging
Watched video
clips (e.g. on YouTube)
Used the internet for
school work
Played games with other
people on the internet
Downloaded
music or films
Posted a message
on a website
Visited a chatroom
Read/watched the
news on the internet
Used a webcam
Posted photos, videos
or music to share
with others
Spent time in a
virtual world
Used file sharing sites
Created a character,
pet or avatar
2010
2014
11
What bothers children online?
12
5 key findings
1.	Pornography tops children’s online concerns.
2.	Violent, aggressive, cruel or gory content came a close
second – although violence receives less public attention
than sexual material. What particularly upsets them is real (or
realistic) rather than fictional violence, and violence against
the vulnerable such as children or animals.
3.	Children see video-sharing websites as most linked with
violent, pornographic and other content risks.
4.	Boys express more concern about violence than girls, while
girls are more concerned about contact risks.
5.	Children’s concern about online risks rises markedly from 9
to 12 years old. Younger children are more concerned about
content risks, and as they get older they become more
concerned about conduct and contact risks.
What bothers children online?
We asked the children to tell us
in their own words what bothers or upsets
people their age on the internet, if anything.
Nearly 10,000 children told us of their concerns
and their responses were very diverse.
Click on the image to play the video
13
Violence against women
and children and perverted
humiliations and cruelty.
(girl, 14, Germany)
When strangers message me on
the internet, sex sites that open
without me clicking on them.
(boy, 10, Austria)
Showing images of physical
violence, torture and suicide
images. (girl, 12, Slovenia)
To take a photo of me without
my knowledge and upload it
to an inappropriate website.
(girl, 10, Bulgaria)
Those things that show other
people’s suffering or torment as a
funny thing. (boy, 14, Hungary)
See people having sex or
naked people.
(boy, 10, Portugal)
I was shocked seeing a
starving African child who
was going to die and a
condor waiting to eat him.
(girl, 13, Turkey)
Propositions to meet from
people whom I do not know.
(boy, 12, Poland)Animal cruelty, adults hitting
kids. (girl, 9, Denmark)
A mate showed me once a
video about an execution. It
was not fun, but insane. I get
scared. (boy, 15, Sweden)
Scary things - I saw something at
my friend’s house and I can’t get it
out of my head. (boy, 11, Ireland)
Here’s what the children told us bothers them online
Facebook shows scary
things even if you click on
something that does not look
or sound scary. (girl, 9, UK)
14
In 2010, we
surveyed 25,142
internet users
aged 9-16 and
their parents in
25 countries*.
How many children
encounter online risks?
*For exact phrasing for risk measures and all findings click here.
15
How many children encounter online risks?
We only asked the 9- to 10-year-olds about a few of the
possible risks, for ethical reasons. In the previous year,
5% of internet users in this age group said they had seen
sexual images online, 3% had been sent bullying (nasty or
hurtful) messages, 13% had met a new contact online and
2% had met an online contact offline.
We asked more questions of children aged 11-13 and 14-16.
Key findings
1.	The most common risk is making contact online with
someone that the child does not know face to face. This
finding – while meriting the efforts of awareness-raisers in
relation to safety – illustrates the gap between risk and harm,
for while many children make such contacts, only a subset
go on to meet such a person online and nearly all of them
report that the meeting turned out well
(see our full findings).
2.	Next most common is seeing sexual images and receiving
sexual messages. Exposure to pornography was reported
more by boys and older children, and some (though not
all) found this upsetting or intrusive or inappropriate. In
comparing across countries, exposure to sexual risks
was more typical of countries that we labelled
‘supported risky explorers’ (Nordic countries and the
16
2
1
Netherlands) where parents are more laissez-faire and
children more free to explore the opportunities and
risks online.
3.	Third come a set of risks related to user-generated content
(UGC). These are likely to become more common as children
increasingly engage with UGC, and yet these risks receive
little attention from policy makers. This is partly because,
other than blocking YouTube, Facebook and other UGC
sites entirely, it is difficult to produce tools that filter such
content. It is also because parents
and educators seem reluctant to
talk to children about such content.
Thus it is important to note that a fair
number have seen hate content, proanorexia
content (especially teenage
girls) and sites that discuss drug use,
self-harm and suicide.
4.	Finally, being cyberbullied is reported
by a small minority of 11- to16-yearolds.
However, this risk is the most
likely to result in harm – half of these
youngsters report being fairly or very
upset by receiving nasty or hurtful
messages online.
3
4
Older and younger children’s
risk encounters compared
17
Had contact with someone
not met face to face before
Seen sexual images online
Received sexual images online
Met online contact offline
Been cyberbullied
Seen websites where
people publish hate messages
that attack certain groups or...
Seen websites where
people promote eating
disorders (such as being
very skinny, anorexic or...
Seen websites where
people talk about or share
their experiences of taking drugs
Seen websites where
people discuss ways
of physically harming
or hurting themselves
Seen websites where
people discuss ways
of committing suicide 3
5
5
4
5
7
7
9
10
23
6
8
10
10
14
13
17
20
23
43
0 50 100
14-16 yrs 11-13 yrs
Is children’s exposure to online risk changing?
We again compared our
findings from the 2010
survey with Net Children
Go Mobile 2014 survey
findings*. The graph
shows data only for seven
countries, for 11- to
16-year-old internet users.*
Children’s exposure to online risk is changing in key ways
Children are now more likely to be exposed to hate messages (from 13% to
20%), pro-anorexia sites (from 9% to 13%), self-harm sites (from 7% to 11%)
and cyberbullying (from 7% to 12%).
Children are now less likely to make contact online with someone they don’t
know face to face (from 32% to 29%): possibly awareness-raising efforts about
‘stranger danger’ are proving effective. However, they are slightly more likely to
meet an online contact offline.
Overall, online risk affects a significant minority, but by no means a majority of
young internet users. The challenge of addressing negative UGC is, however, of
increasing importance.
*Net Children Go Mobile surveyed 9- to 16-year-olds in Belgium,
Denmark, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Romania and the UK in 2013-14
2010
2014
6
12
11
10
12
13
20
12
17
29
4
7
7
7
8
9
13
14
15
32
0 50 100
Seen websites where people
discuss ways of committing suicide
Been cyberbullied
Seen websites where people
discuss ways of physically
harming or hurting themselves
Seen websites where people
talk about or share their
experiences of taking drugs
Met online contact offline
Seen websites where people promote
eating disorders (such as being
very skinny, anorexic or bulimic)
Seen websites where people
publish hate messages that
attack certain groups or individuals
Received sexual messages
Seen sexual images online
Had contact with someone not
met face to face before
18
Key findings
1. Fewer than one in five 9- to 16-year-olds say they were bothered or upset
by something online in the past year. This figure has risen slightly since 2010
(from 13% to 17%).
2. The increase is striking among girls and among teenagers – this matters,
since much public anxiety centres on boys (or excessive or violent use) and
young children (for being vulnerable).
3. There is a real need to target safety resources on girls and teenagers. It is also
vital to understand why these girls and teenagers are increasingly likely to
experience harm linked to internet use.
4. Overall, the incidence of harm online is less than many panicky media reports
would suggest.
5. Nor is the increase as great as one might expect given the rise of frequent,
personalised internet use. Possibly the many safety and awareness-raising
initiatives are proving effective.
But not all risk results in self-reported harm
In our 2010 survey of 25 countries, 12% of 9- to 16-year-olds said that,
in the past year, something had bothered or upset them on the internet.
This question was asked again by the Net Children Go Mobile survey
in 2014, in seven countries.
% bothered 2010
% bothered 2014
17
23
20
14
11
21
14
13
16
13
12
11
12
15
0 20 40 60 80 100
All
15-16 yrs
13-14 yrs
11-12 yrs
9-10 yrs
Girls
Boys
19
How do children cope with online risks?
In 2010, using qualitative methods, we interviewed nearly
400 children aged 9- to 16-years-old, individually and in
groups, in nine countries*.
Again we heard a lot about children’s experiences of risk
of harm online.
While adults distinguish between contact (adult strangers) and
conduct (peer-to-peer) risks, children didn’t find this so easy:
people communicating with them, whether more or less known
to them, of varying (and often unknown) ages, presented both
an opportunity and a risk to them.
This led to lots of discussion among the children about what
was or wasn’t safe in different situations.
One important theme was about the difficulty of responding to
inappropriate material that has been produced by their friends
or peers – adults often talk about ‘risks’ as if they come from
far away, but for children they can arise in their everyday chat
with people from school, and because this is so close to home
it can be much harder to deal with.
Encouragingly, they had lots of ideas and strategies for
how to respond to online risk.
Children were keen to discuss how they try to avoid risky
online problems and how they reflect on situations when they
go wrong so as to be better prepared another time. They prefer
to discuss these situations with peers because parents tend to
criticise children for getting into the situation in the first place.
They fear parents will invade their privacy or limit their online
freedoms.
See our full report and video
*Belgium, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and the UK.
See our related reports on children’s approaches to preventive measures
and coping strategies
20
Types of online problematic situations that
children told us about
The most common online problematic situation includes the sending
of content that is violent, vulgar, or sexual. Other problematic
situations include perpetrating, experiencing, and/or witnessing
hateful, vulgar, or nasty messages. Although less covered in the risk
literature, some involve being killed, cursed, excluded, and/or verbally
assaulted in online games. Lastly, some include meeting online peers
offline, sending “friend” requests or communicating with strangers not
their own age.
Turning first to sexual issues, although many children are bothered
by vulgar content displayed in dating site advertisements, some post
attractive or sexual content, usually through pictures, to attract peers.
Occurring less frequently, some children engage in the sharing of
private, naked pictures of someone without the owner’s permission.
This activity is mostly perpetrated by boys.
Online problematic situations related to school involve children using
incorrect information for school assignments, and perpetrating or
knowing about the cyberbullying of teachers.
Sexual content is often perceived as bothersome by children and often
found by mistake, but sometimes children, particularly older children,
intentionally search for this content. Older children sometimes report
positive feelings about this content as well. Girls experience more
sexual communication and post “sexy” or provocative pictures to
receive “likes”.
Sharing personal information and passwords for Facebook or game
accounts with family members and friends is common across all
groups of children. This particular activity isn’t perceived as risky,
despite some children indicating that someone had misused their
personal information.
Many children recognize the symptoms of internet addiction, including
losing contact with reality, losing interest in activities, headaches, eye
problems, sleep problems, and losing friends.
Children download illegal games, software, videos, and music. They
do not perceive such behaviour as particularly harmful.
Children sometimes encounter fake information and racist or hateful
content on the internet, which they perceive as bothersome.
Pop up text 1 relates to page 20
Again we heard a lot about children’s
experiences of risk of harm online.
Awareness of online problematic situations
Children’s framing of online problematic situations differs from adults’
perspectives especially in the case of online bullying, where children
distinguish bullying from other forms of online conflict (i.e., “drama”).
Awareness of rare risks such as “stranger danger,” is influenced by the
sensationalist tone that figures heavily in the media.
Younger children’s awareness of risk reflects the perceptions of the
media and parents, whereas older children draw more on personal
experiences or those of their peers.
Dealing with problematic situations online
Many children manage their online experiences by planning,
strategizing, and reflecting on ways to avoid risky online problematic
situations.
Proactive strategies are used more frequently than seeking-support
strategies when dealing with online bullying.
Girls are more likely to seek social support when faced with online
problematic situations compared to boys.
14–16 year olds use more preventive behaviour than younger children,
and this intensifies as their social networking site (SNS) usage
increases.
Avoidance tactics, that is, avoiding or clicking away from certain online
platforms, applications or websites, is a popular strategy among the
youngest age group (9–11).
Family, peer and school support
There is a range of parental mediation interventions, from parents
who explicitly express and explain their concerns to their children to
parents who may have concerns but articulate them less, failing to
fully explain the nature of the risk as they see it.
Younger children often view parental intervention as positive, or at
least do not mind it, whereas older children are more ambivalent,
inclined to regard parents as invading their privacy; hence they often
prefer to talk with peers.
Siblings and cousins provide support and advice to children and serve
a protective role, particularly for younger children, although they may
also introduce children to online risks.
Aunts, uncles, and grandparents also provide advice for children, and
sometimes children find it easier to talk to them than their parents;
however, children don’t like it when relatives are asked by parents to
monitor what children do online.
Peers also support each other, including through sharing negative
experiences; this allows children to learn from their peers’ mistakes
and to discuss these risks – again, peers also introduce children to
risks.
The involvement of schools varies considerably: some schools provide
children with strategies for dealing with online risks; others do not do
very much, or scare children about the dangers of online activities.
Pop up text 2 relates to page 20
Encouragingly, they had lots of ideas and strategies for
how to respond to online risk.
Hear from the researchers
Children’s online opportunities and risks are different in each country.
Watch how we explain our findings in 32 different countries and languages.
Click on the image
to play the video
in English, or the
button below
for the native
language version.
Austria	 Austrian
Austria	 English
Belgium	 Flemish
Belgium	 English
Bulgaria	 Bulgarian
Bulgaria	 English
Croatia	 Croatian
Croatia	 English
Cyprus	 English
Czech Republic	 Czech
Czech Republic	 English
Denmark	 Danish
Denmark	 English
Estonia	 Estonian
Estonia	 English
21
Finland	 Finnish
Finland	 English
France	 French
France	 English
Germany	 German
Germany	 English
Greece	 Greek
Greece	 English
Hungary	 Hungarian
Hungary	 English
Iceland	 Icelandic
Iceland	 English
	
Ireland	 English
Italy	 Italian
Italy	 English
Latvia	 Latvian
Latvia	 English
Lithuania	 Lithuanian
Lithuania	 English Luxembourg	 English
Malta	 Maltese
Malta	 English
22
Netherlands	 Dutch
Netherlands	 English
Norway	 Norwegian
Norway	 English
Poland	 Polish
	
Portugal	 Portuguese
Portugal	 English
Romania	 Romanian
Romania	 English
Russia	 Russian
Russia	 English
Slovenia	Slovene
Slovenia	 English
Spain	 Spanish
Spain	 English
	
Sweden	 English
Switzerland	 German
Switzerland	 English
Turkey	 Turkish 	
Turkey	 English UK	 English
23
Explaining change
Is online risk increasing? Isn’t everything changing
fast as the internet changes? How can families,
communities and policy makers keep up?
We have already seen that children’s online activities are increasing
year on year. Yet those same findings showed that the patterns
don’t change so much. Age differences persist. Socio-economic
inequalities still matter. Most children still don’t reach very high up
the ladder of opportunities.
The same may be said for the risks of harm. Research suggests
that the more online activities, the more risks as well as more
opportunities. Yet those same findings show that the patterns aren’t
changing much. It seems that the effort on the part of policy makers
matters: policy initiatives can slow or halt increases in more familiar
risks, yet new risks continue to emerge.
Our report on explaining change – which analyses available
longitudinal results over time – goes a step further. It shows how
change in children’s lives depends on more than technological or
policy change.
Click on the image to play the video.
How children engage with the internet:
Sonia Livingstone at TEDxExeter
24
Also important are:
1. Increasing access to ever more online services, resulting in
structural change in the online population.
2. Ongoing societal practices of incorporating and adjusting to
new technologies within everyday contexts.
3.	New cohorts (or ‘digital generations’) of parents and
children, with changing knowledge and expectations.
Some of these changes occur rather slowly and gradually
(e.g. the gain in parental experience and expertise regarding
the internet, or changes in the school curriculum to teach
digital skills). Some may be rather sudden (e.g. the take off
of a new social networking service or a fashionable practice
among youth).
The mass media’s barrage of headlines claiming that
everything is new may usefully call attention to the need for
public awareness and resources, but it is misleading in terms
of more fundamental processes of change.
While up-to-date research is extremely valuable, we must also
consider the many factors that shape long-term trends over
time. Recalling the EU Kids Online model (see page 8), the
outcomes for children depend on a host of individual, social
and cultural factors, all influencing each other, and all changing
according to different time scales.
Explaining change continued
25
How parents support their children’s internet use
Our report comparing these approaches found that:
•	 ‘Active mediation’ (#1) is associated with lower online risk of
harm, as well as children enjoying more online opportunities
and gaining more digital skills.
•	 ‘Active safety mediation’ (#2) is more often used after a child
has experienced something upsetting online, to prevent
further problems.
•	 ‘Restrictive mediation’ (#3) is also associated with lower
online risk of harm, but also lower online opportunities and
digital skills, because children are less free to explore, learn
and become resilient.
•	 Use of ‘parental filters’ (#4) was not found to reduce
online risk.
We found that:
Parents are more likely to use filtering if they are confident
users of the internet themselves, or if they are worried about
their child online, or if their child is young and inexperienced in
using the internet.
There is a correlation such that more parental filtering is linked
with less online risk. But when we control statistically for the
child’s age, this correlation disappears. It seems that parents
more often apply filters for younger children and, separately,
younger children encounter less risk since they use the internet
less. There is no statistical link between parental filtering and
level of risk after controlling for age.
The main ways that parents support their
children’s internet use are:
1.	Actively talking to or sitting with children or sharing
online activities
2.	Actively talking to children or advising them on
safety strategies
3.	Setting rules and restrictions on how children can
use the internet
4.	Using technical filtering or parental control tools or
interpersonal monitoring strategies
26
2010
2014
65
41
16
53
64
65
25
25
70
46
18
65
64
64
24
22
0 20 40 60 80 100
Talk to you about what
you do on the internet
Encourage you to explore
and learn things on the
internet on your own
Not allowed to have your
own social networking profile
Not allowed to give out
personal information to
others on the internet
Helped you when
something is difficult to
do or find on the internet
Suggested ways to use
the internet safely
Blocking or filtering some
types of websites
Parental controls or other
means of keeping track of
the websites you visit
How parents support their children’s internet use continued
Are parents changing their approach? As the graph comparing these findings
with Net Children Go Mobile findings shows, according to children the answer
is – not very much.
But parental mediation varies across Europe (see on page 19).
27
Social networking
sites bring particular
opportunities and risks
28
Our report on social networking sites (SNSs), age and
privacy revealed that age restrictions applied by social
networking sites are ineffective, and that children often do not
understand the privacy and safety features provided by
these sites. But when parents ban their children from using
SNSs, this is often effective among 9- to 12-year-olds though
less so for teenagers.
Our report on risky communication online revealed that
nearly 50% of 11- to 16-year-olds say it is easier to be
themselves on the internet than with people face to face. This is
more common among teenagers who have problems with their
peers.
Comparing EU Kids Online 2010 findings with
Net Children Go Mobile 2014 findings in seven countries
reveals, as shown in the graph opposite that:
•	 SNS use has increased a little (from 61% to 68%) but the
proportion of that use which is on Facebook has increased
substantially (from 7 in 10 to 9 in 10).
•	 The number of ‘under-age’ children on SNSs has not
changed much but it remains substantial – with 22% of
9- to 10-year-olds and 53% of 11- to 12-year-olds
on Facebook.
Our report to the European Commission’s
CEO Coalition for a better internet for children showed
further that:
Only one in seven of those upset by an online risk used the
reporting tools provided.
Children are more likely to have a public profile if they cannot
understand or manage SNS privacy settings or if they have
psychological difficulties.
More efforts are needed to make privacy settings and reporting
tools user-friendly for children.
68
61
93
83
84
77
60
54
27
25
67
64
69
58
61
42
85
62
77
54
53
33
22
15
60
44
62
41
0 50 100
2014
2010
2014
2010
2014
2010
2014
2010
2014
2010
2014
2010
2014
2010
All15-16yrs13-14yrs11-12yrs9-10yrsGirlsBoys
% with a profile on Facebook
% with a profile on any SNS
% 2010
% 2014
29
Using measures of online activities, risk of
harm and parental mediation, we identified four
country clusters (see the map).
Unprotected networkers
Protected by restrictions
Semi-supported risky gamers
Supported risky explorers
There are more differences within countries than between
countries. Thus, online opportunities, risk and parenting vary
more within a country than across countries.
What’s useful about pan-European similarities is that it makes
sense for policy makers in one country to learn from the best
practice in another.
But since there are big differences within each country, many
factors must be taken into account in developing policy and
practice initiatives.
The incidence of sexual content risk varies cosiderably across
countries. Children who are bullied or who give
away personal data are evenly distributed across Europe.
There are grounds for concern in the protected by restrictions
countries where parents are so cautious about safety that their
children may lack online opportunities.
There are also grounds for concern in the unsupported
networkers country where children may receive little parental
mediation and so are unprepared for online risks.
Report
Video
Information on each country
25 countries compared for online opportunities and risks
ES
FI
FR
HU
EI
IT
LT
NL
NO
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
TR
UK
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
Unprotected
networkers
Protected by
restrictions
Semi supported
risky gamers
Supported
risky explorers
30
Supported risky explorers
Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden
This cluster has more children who are experienced social networkers.
They encounter more sexual risks online and their more parents are
actively involved in guiding their children’s internet use.
Parental mediation might co-evolve with risk and opportunity taking by
children: as children gain more experience and encounter more risks,
parents engage more actively in safeguarding their internet use. There
is, however, a relatively small group of vulnerable children in these
countries that experience similar levels of risk to their peers but lack
the parental mediation and opportunities also enjoyed by their peers.
Policy makers should therefore support parents and schools, and
stimulate industry players to enhance responsible practices in relation
to internet safety, including seeking to reach and support those few
vulnerable children may ‘get lost’ in an environment full of experts.
Semi-supported risky gamers
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland and Romania
In these countries, children encounter only moderate online
opportunities, mainly focused on entertainment, and games in
particular. Yet they still experience relatively high levels of risk and
harm: some encounter a specific risk, others a range of risks.
Parents undertake rather diverse types of mediation in these countries,
including active and restrictive forms of mediation, although it seems
these are relatively ineffective. This may be because the online
opportunities and associated digital skills have only emerged relatively
recently in these countries, so supportive structures and good practice
are not yet established.
Although parents seem to be trying strategies across the board,
further investigation is needed to understand why levels of risk are
relatively high and what further interventions would be beneficial to
encourage opportunities and reduce harm.
Pop up text relates to page 30
Protected by restrictions
Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal,
Spain, Turkey and the UK
Children’s online experiences in this cluster of countries is
characterised by relatively low levels of risk probably because internet
use is also more limited and largely restricted to practical activities.
While parents might be glad that their restrictive mediation practices
prevent risk, it does seem that they may miss out on many of the
online opportunities.
The question for policy makers, parents and educators in these
countries is whether opportunity uptake can be increased while
simultaneously limiting more extensive risk of harm. It is possible that
this could be achieved by a move away from more restrictive forms of
mediation towards more active mediation patterns.
Such an approach would have to acknowledge that risk will thereby
result, and further investigation is needed to see whether children can
become sufficiently resilient to cope with risk when they encounter it.
Unprotected networkers
Austria, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovenia
There is a cluster of countries where children’s experiences are fairly
narrow but potentially problematic: the social aspects of Web 2.0
seem to have been taken up with gusto and the children subsequently
encounter risks but not as much harm, from being in contact with
these opportunities.
Here the challenge is that parents are not as involved in their children’s
internet use as in the supported risky explorers cluster that they
otherwise resemble, probably because, as with the semi-supported
risky gamers, the internet is a relatively recent addition in many
families, especially for the parents.
Towards evidence-based policy
It’s important that policy developments are firmly grounded in evidence.
It’s also important that policy makers and practitioners should seek to
maximise children’s opportunities to benefit from the internet as well as
trying to minimise harm.
Based on our research findings, we offer evidence-based recommendations
for each of the following groups:
Families – for children and
for parents
Educators, awareness
raisers and media
Government and industry
See our full policy report for
how these recommendations
are evidence-based.
See the video.
See also our report on
policy influences and
country clusters for the
different policy contexts
across Europe.
All the chapters are
summarised here
The book can be
obtained here
31
CONTENTS
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE are encouraged to:
Maximise the benefits that the internet affords through
diverse activities that expand their digital skills to more
participative and creative uses.
Share responsibility for the online safety and welfare
of others, particularly in contexts of online bullying and
harassment where as bystanders or participants they can have
decisive impact.
Respect age limits for online services and seek advice from
parents and teachers about the suitability of services and
content they would like to access.
Develop proactive coping strategies such as deleting
messages, blocking unwanted contacts and using
reporting tools.
Seek help from a parent, trusted adult or friend if they have
been bullied or encounter something problematic online.
Review online privacy settings on a regular basis; share
personal information only with friends; and never post another’s
personal information, including pictures, without consent.
PARENTS should:
Support children’s exploration of the internet from an early
age and inform themselves about the benefits and the risks
that the internet offers.
Focus on enhancing children’s opportunities, coping skills
and resilience to potential harm.
Think less about risk and focus instead on engaging, fun
activities and positive content.
Communicate regularly with children about what they may
find problematic online.
Be clear about expectations and rules relating to
online behaviour.
Treat media coverage concerning online
risks critically.
Families – for children and for parents
32
Educators, awareness raisers and media
EDUCATORS should:
Promote positive, safe, and effective use of technology
by children in all educational contexts including homework,
using public libraries, computer clubhouses, ICT
workshops, etc.
Integrate online safety awareness and digital skills
across the curriculum.
Ensure the benefits of digital technologies reach
all children.
Ensure provision of ICT and digital skills development for
teachers, supported by awareness raising about risks and
safety for young people online.
Develop whole-school policies regarding positive uses of
technology as well as protocols to deal with instances of
online bullying and harassment.
Form partnerships with trusted providers and sources of
expertise in the delivery of internet safety education.
AWARENESS RAISERS AND MEDIA should:
Increase parental understanding about the risks young
people face online without being alarmist or sensationalist.
Focus first on the many opportunities and benefits that the
internet affords and only second on the risks to be managed
and harm to be avoided.
Represent and present young people’s perspectives about
online experiences in ways that respect their rights and their
privacy. Ensure reporting and awareness raising is based on
reliable evidence and robust research.
33
Government and industry
GOVERNMENT should:
Coordinate multi-stakeholder efforts to bring about greater
levels of internet safety and ensure there is meaningful youth
participation in all relevant multi-stakeholder groupings.
Review adequate legislative provision for dealing with online
harassment and abuse.
Ensure provision for youth protection in traditional media can
also support online safety provision.
Continue efforts to support digital inclusion of all citizens
while providing support for socially disadvantaged parents and
households.
Promote positive online content, encouraging broadcasters,
content developers and entrepreneurs to develop content
tailored to the needs of different age groups.
INDUSTRY should:
Ensure ‘safety by default’ and enable customisable,
easy-to-use safety features, accessible to those with only
basic digital literacy.
Promote greater standardisation in classification and
advisory labels to guide parents.
Ensure age limits are real and effective using appropriate
methods of age verification where possible and accompanied
by sufficient safety information.
Implement tools so that under-18s can remove content that
may be damaging to their reputation and/or personal integrity.
Ensure commercial content is clearly distinguishable, is
age-appropriate, ethical and sensitive to local cultural values,
gender and race.
Support independent evaluation and testing of all specified
safety tools and features.
Develop a shared resource of standardised industry data
regarding the reporting of risks.
34
On the following two pages are 33 country buttons that link to key information,
usually in English and in the national language.
Highlights Factsheet Video from the
researcher
Summary of
findings
Full report and
publications
Policy
recommendations
DB
A-Z
Available studies in
the database
Safety guide
for families
Survey questionnaires Team members
and contacts
EU Kids Online has worked in 33 countries
35
EU Kids Online has worked in 33 countries
Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic
Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece
Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
Find out more:
36
EU Kids Online has worked in 33 countries
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal
Romania Russia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden
Switzerland Turkey AustraliaUK
Affiliated Countries
Find out more:
Brazil
37
The European evidence base
20 20 26
56
44
56
86
108 109
121
177
196
184
125
86
18
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Before
2000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
?Number of studies in Europe on children and
online/mobile technologies, by year*
* There may be more studies to be found for recent years and these will be added to the database in due course.
This database contains the available research
on children and the internet and mobile
technologies in Europe. It was created for
researchers, research users, students, and
anyone who wants to know the findings on
children’s internet use.
EU Kids Online has reviewed 1500 recent studies –
in many languages.
Relevant details are entered in this online, open access,
fully searchable database.
We created short summaries of the main findings for
many of these studies.
We hope you will search for studies that interest you - by
country, topic, keyword, etc.
If you know of other studies in
this area, do please tell us so we
can update the database.
CLICK HERE
EU
EVIDENCE BASE 38
The database reveals key gaps to be addressed by the
future research agenda:
Uneven coverage by age, especially young children, despite the
rapid rise in their access to online devices.
A focus on the fixed internet, to the neglect of mobile,
convergent and emerging technologies.
More on risk than on opportunities, with too little known about
which children are developing skills or how they are gaining real
benefit from the internet.
Gaps regarding exposure to the full range of online risks,
with too little known of which children are particularly
vulnerable to harm.
Not enough on the role of parents and teachers and other
mediators: which of their strategies really work to empower
children online?
Gaps in certain countries – while we can sometimes generalise
across countries, for many purposes, national and contextspecific
research is needed.
1500 STUDIES
IN THE DATABASE
IN THE DATABASE
IN THE DATABASE1500 STUDIES
VISIT USCLICK HERE
1500
STUDIES
Full report
The European evidence base continued
39
INNOVATIVE
METHODS
VIDEO
FAQs
TECHNICAL SURVEY
REPORT
ORIGINAL
QUESTIONNAIRES
IN 25
LANGUAGES
RAW
DATASET
QUALITATIVE
INTERVIEW
MATERIALS
CROSS-NATIONAL
DESIGN
METHODOLOGY
REVIEW
TECHNICAL
INTERVIEW
REPORT
INNOVATIVE
METHODS
UPDATED SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
Our research toolkit
Rigorous quantitative and qualitative methods
are vital to sustain evidence-based policy. This
raises crucial questions of reliability, validity,
comparability and research ethics.
The EU Kids Online network has worked hard on
developing its research toolkit. We are keen that our
insights and our methods are useful for researchers
and research users internationally.
Anyone may use these
resources: we just ask
you to credit EU Kids
Online as the source,
and keep us in touch
with your results.
40
The EU Kids Online network at work
Over the years we have worked with many stakeholders, and we
have presented our research findings and recommendations at a
host of international and national meetings.
Highlights include regular presentation of findings at:
•	 European Commission’s annual Safer Internet Forum in Brussels.
•	 European Commission’s CEO Coalition meetings.
•	 Insafe – European network of internet safety awareness raisers.
•	 Family Online Safety Institute’s conferences in Washington DC.
•	 International Governance Forum.
•	 Diverse meetings of governments, industry stakeholders, educators,
researchers, parenting groups and the public.
Selected roles:
•	 Sonia Livingstone chaired the European Commission’s Positive Content Competition.
•	 Brian O’Neil conducted the independent review of Europe’s ICT Coalition.
•	 Elisabeth Staksrud and Bojana Lobe evaluated the
European Safer Social Networking Principles.
41
Policy impacts – our work is widely read, sought after, cited and used.
•	 UN (2014) Releasing Children’s Potential and Minimizing Risks: ICTs, the
internet and violence against children.
•	 EC (2012) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the
Committee of the Regions: European Strategy for a Better Internet for
Children, COM (2012) 196 final.
•	 UNICEF (2012) Child Safety Online: Global challenges and strategies.
Florence.
•	 OECD (2011) The Protection of Children Online: Risks faced by children
online and policies to protect them, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No 179.
•	 EC (2011) Protecting Children in the Digital World COM, 556 final.
•	 EC (2011) Digital Agenda: Commission to step up efforts to safeguard
children online.
•	 ITU (2010) Child Online Protection. International Telecommunications
Union (2010) Child Online Protection. Geneva.
We thank everyone who has worked with us, advised us and listened to us –
especially the thousands of children who took part in our research!
Thanks also to our international advisory panel. All the network members
who contributed to this effort are listed here.
EU Kids Online policy impacts
42
What’s next?
Both children and the internet continue to change, posing
new challenges all the time. Thus – now more than ever –
more research is needed!
Here’s our upcoming research agenda for the coming years. We regard digital
skills, literacies and coping strategies as crucial in whether activities turn out to
be beneficial or harmful. It’s now important to understand how these operate
in relation to socio-technological changes in online and offline environments.
These environments can be conceived in terms of specific domains of children’s
lives and relevant contexts of internet use, as below:
Key domains of children’s lives:
•	 Children’s rights to provision, protection and participation
•	 Information, education and informal learning
•	 Health, advice and well-being, with a focus on children with special
needs or vulnerabilities
•	 Identity and relationships
•	 Creative, collaborative and civic engagement
43
Relevant contexts of internet use:
•	 Parenting and communicative dynamics within families
•	 Social networks, peer support and digital citizenship
•	 Schools, teachers, and places of informal learning
•	 Industry’s strategies and offer, including positive content, 	
	 classification, tools and safety by design
•	 Technological developments, including ‘the internet of 		
	 things’, smart homes, wearable sensors, and more
•	 Societal norms and values, communication cultures and 	
	 regulatory frameworks
We will pursue projects on these topics using qualitative and
quantitative methods. We also have hopes of an updated panEuropean
survey in 2016 or 2017. We hope you’ll stay in touch
with us as we work to meet these challenges.
What’s next? continued
visit: eukidsonline.net
44
The EU Kids Online network has received funding from the European Commission
Safer Internet Programme. The authors are solely responsible for the contents of
this report. It does not represent the opinion of the Commission and nor is the
Commission responsible for any use that might be made of information contained in it.
Final report (deliverable D1.6) to the EC Safer Internet Programme from the EU Kids
Online network 2011-2014 (contract number: SIP-2010-TN-4201001) ISSN 2045-256X
Project director: Sonia Livingstone, LSE
Management group:
Leslie Haddon, LSE
Uwe Hasebrink, University of Hamburg
Kjartan Ólafsson, University of Akureyri
Brian O’Neill, Dublin Institute of Technology
David Šmahel, Masaryk University
Elisabeth Staksrud, University of Oslo
Contact information
 
Co-funded by the
European Union
Co-funded by the European Union
eukidsonline.net
eukidsonline@lse.ac.uk 
#EUKIDSONLINE
45