$

£ ¥€
social sciences
Article
The Relationship between Parental Control and
High-Risk Internet Behaviours in Adolescence
David Álvarez-García * ID
, Trinidad García and Zara Suárez-García
Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Plaza Feijóo, s/n, 33003 Oviedo, Spain;
[email protected] (T.G.); [email protected] (Z.S.-G.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-985-103-278

Received: 29 April 2018; Accepted: 30 May 2018; Published: 1 June 2018

Abstract: One of the main predictors of being a victim of cyber-aggression is engaging in high-risk
behaviours on the internet. The main objective of this research is to analyse the relationship between
two types of parental control (restriction and supervision) and engagement in high-risk internet
behaviours during adolescence. To that end, and as a secondary objective, we designed and validated
the High-risk Internet Behaviours Questionnaire for adolescents, used in this study. We analysed the
responses of 946 adolescents aged between 12 and 18 to the High-risk Internet Behaviours Questionnaire
and the Questionnaire on Parental Control of Internet Use in Adolescence. The results show that
the questionnaire has appropriate metrics of reliability and validity, and show the existence of
a statistically significant negative relationship, albeit small, between supervision and engaging in
high-risk internet behaviours. We discuss the practical implications of these results.

Keywords: parental control; restriction; supervision; high-risk behaviours; internet; adolescence

1. Introduction
The internet can be a very positive tool for an adolescent. It may be of great use for learning
and sharing knowledge, taking part in social initiatives, and keeping in touch with family and friends.
However, careless internet use can produce certain risks, such as excessive internet use, exposure to
potentially harmful content, orbeing the victim of cyber-aggression. Cyber-aggression refers to those
behaviours or omissions through information and communication technologies that is intended to harm
or offend (Corcoran et al. 2015). These aggressions can take various forms, such as written or verbal
cyber-aggression, visual cyber-aggression, online exclusion, and impersonation (Nocentini et al. 2010).
Certain adolescent behaviours related to mobile phone or internet use can make it easier for
people to fall victim to cyber-aggression. Previous research has shown that these high-risk behaviours
include allowing others to upload one’s videos or images to the internet, adding people to social
networks who are not known personally, communicating online with strangers, publishing personal
information on social networks, meeting up with someone face-to-face who has only previously
been known online, giving out one’s telephone number to people that have just been met or are not
known well, sending compromising photos of oneself or others via mobile phones or the internet, and
exchanging personal information with people only known online (Gómez et al. 2017; Liau et al. 2005;
Mesch 2009; Sasson and Mesch 2017).
The family has an important role to play in preventing these high-risk behaviours. Parents are often
advised to exercise some control over their children’s internet use. Occasionally, families set limits or
restrictions on internet use (time, content, activities, etc.), either establishing rules or using specific software.
Or they may supervise the adolescents’ activity, covertly or overtly, either during or following the activity.
Some studies maintain that parental control over internet use is a protective factor, albeit limited, for
these high-risk behaviours (Lee 2013; Lee and Chae 2012; Liau et al. 2005) as well as for being a victim of

Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 87; doi:10.3390/socsci7060087 www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci

Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 87 2 of 7

cyberbullying (Elsaesser et al. 2017; Giménez et al. 2017; Navarro et al. 2013). Some studies have been
more specific, finding a significantly larger effect for supervision than for restriction (Khurana et al. 2015).
However, there is research which suggests the existence of a positive relationship between parental
internet control and engaging in high-risk internet behaviours (Duerager and Livingstone 2012) or being
the victim of cyberbullying (Sasson and Mesch 2017). This result was interpreted as indicating that
parental control was more likely when the parents knew or suspected that their child was engaging in
high-risk behaviours or being on the receiving end of cyberbullying.
Faced with these inconsistent results from previous research, the main objective of this study is to
analyse the relationship between parental control of internet use and high-risk internet behaviours in a
sample of Spanish adolescents. In order to achieve that, and as a secondary objective, we undertook
the design and validation of the High-Risk Internet Behaviours Questionnaire for adolescents, which was
used in this study.

2. Method

2.1. Participants
The participants in this study were students in compulsory secondary education in six schools
in Asturias (Spain). Before performing a statistical analysis, we selected the students who reported
that they owned their own mobile phone, used instant messaging (e.g., WhatsApp), participated in
social networks, and surfed the internet for non-homework purposes. The final sample was made
up of 946 adolescents aged between 12 and 18 (M = 14.29; SD = 1.37), 50.7% girls. The distribution of
students over the four years of compulsory secondary education (ESO) was: 20.5% in first year, 25.3%
in second year, 26.6% in third year, and 27.6% in fourth year.

2.2. Measuring Instruments

2.2.1. High-Risk Internet Behaviours Questionnaire

This is a self-report designed and tested for this study (Appendix A). It is made up of 8 items,
each of which describes a high-risk behaviour on the internet. The respondent indicates the extent to
which they think it is true that they engage in each of the behaviours through a Likert-type scale with
four alternatives (1 = completely false, 2 = somewhat false, 3 = somewhat true, 4 = completely true).
In the Results section, we give the psychometric properties of the questionnaire.

2.2.2. Questionnaire on Parental Control of Internet Use during Adolescence

This questionnaire (Álvarez-García et al. 2018) is made up of 7 items. For each item, the respondent
indicates the extent to which they think the corresponding statement about possible control of their
internet use by their parents is true. The questionnaire measures two types of control: restriction
(e.g., “My parents limit when I can use the internet (either by telling me or by configuring the
computer)”) and supervision (e.g., “My parents know who is in my list of contacts”). The responses are
in a Likert-type format with four alternatives (1 = completely false, 2 = somewhat false, 3 = somewhat
true, 4 = completely true). High scores indicate high levels of either restriction or supervision.
The internal consistency of each factor in the sample in this study is adequate (α = 0.71 for the
restriction factor and α = 0.79 for the supervision factor).

2.3. Procedure
Once the participating schools and the questionnaires had been decided on, we sought permission
from each school’s management to carry out the study. We informed them of the research objectives
and the process, and the fact that it was voluntary and anonymous, and that the results would be
treated confidentially. Before completing the questionnaire, the students were also informed of the
Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 87 3 of 7

same information. The instrument was applied by the research team to all of the groups in each of the
schools during school hours.

2.4. Data Analysis

Firstly, we analysed the statistical guarantees from the High-Risk Internet Behaviours Questionnaire,
then we analysed the relationship between parental control and high-risk internet behaviours in
adolescence. For the former, we analysed the psychometric properties of the items using SPSS 24.0
software. Following that, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis using EQS 6.2 software, starting
from the polychoric correlation matrix, using the robust maximum likelihood method of estimation
given the non-normally distributed scores. Finally, we calculated the reliability for the questionnaire
in terms of internal consistency via Cronbach’s alpha. For the analysis of the relationship between
parental control and high-risk internet behaviours we calculated Spearman correlation coefficients,
partial correlation coefficients, and multiple linear regression, using SPSS 24.0 software.

3. Results

3.1. Validation of the High-Risk Internet Behaviours Questionnaire

3.1.1. Item Analysis

The proportion of participants who failed to answer each item, or gave invalid responses is
relatively insignificant (between 0.2% and 0.7%) as Table 1 shows. All of the alternatives were chosen
by some participants for each item. The standard deviations show that there was variability between
participants’ scores. According to the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Table 1), the scores
for each item were not normally distributed. All of the items, except item 1, demonstrated positive
asymmetry, which means that the students tended to score the lower values in the scale (few high-risk
internet behaviours).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the application of the High-Risk Internet Behaviours Questionnaire to the
sample (N = 946).

Scale Scores (%) Asym. Kurt.

Item M SD Z ri-t
1 2 3 4 NA (SE = 0.08) (SE = 0.16)

1 23.3 21.5 35.5 19.5 0.3 2.51 1.05 −0.13 −1.19 7.02 * 0.32
2 31.0 30.4 25.6 12.6 0.4 2.20 1.02 0.32 −1.05 5.90 * 0.55
3 46.6 20.7 20.3 11.6 0.7 1.97 1.07 0.64 −0.96 8.76 * 0.50
4 32.9 29.8 23.8 13.2 0.3 2.17 1.03 0.37 −1.06 6.18 * 0.41
5 76.1 8.7 9.5 5.5 0.2 1.44 0.88 1.83 2.04 13.98 * 0.52
6 47.4 25.5 18.3 8.7 0.2 1.88 1.00 0.77 −0.63 8.80 * 0.55
7 85.9 8.9 3.6 1.3 0.3 1.20 0.55 3.10 9.74 15.37 * 0.34
8 77.1 13.3 6.2 3.0 0.4 1.35 0.73 2.18 4.06 13.98 * 0.52
Scale scores: 1= completely false; 2= somewhat false; 3= aomewhattrue; 4= completely true; NA= no answer or
null answer; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Asym. = asymmetry; Kurt. = kurtosis; SE = standard error;
Z = Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z; ri-t = corrected item–total correlation. * p < 0.001.

The corrected item–total correlation (ri-t ) was positive in all items, with values between 0.32 and
0.55, which indicates that they all contributed to measuring what the test measured, in the same
direction. The correlations between each of the questionnaire items were positive and statistically
significant in all cases, with values ranging between 0.11 and 0.46. Therefore, all of the items were
related, but not redundant.

3.1.2. FactorAnalysis
In order to examine the theoretical model fit to the empirical data, we performed a confirmatory
factor analysis. The model being tested is made up of a single factor (high-risk internet behaviours).
Each item in the questionnaire would be explained by this factor. The results indicate that this
= standard error; Z = Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z; ri-t= corrected item–total correlation.* p< 0.001.

3.1.2. FactorAnalysis
In order to examine the theoretical model fit to the empirical data, we performed a
Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 87 4 of 7
confirmatory factor analysis. The model being tested is made up of a single factor (high-risk
internet behaviours). Each item in the questionnaire would be explained by this factor. The results
indicate that model
single-factor this single-factor
adequatelymodel adequately
represents represents
the data we obtained χSB 2 we
the data obtained
= 111.96; df =χSB χ2 /df = 5.60;
2 = 111.96;
20; df =
20; χ
NFI = /df=
2
0.960;5.60;
CFI =NFI = 0.960;
0.967; RMSEA CFI = 0.967;
= 0.070 (90%RMSEA = 0.070 The
CI: 0.057–0.082). (90%factorial
CI: 0.057–0.082).
weightings The factorial
for each item
weightings
in the factorforareeach item in
moderate orthe factor
high are 1).
(Figure moderate or high (Figure 1).

FigureFigure 1. Factorial
1. Factorial structure
structure of the High-Risk
of the High-Risk InternetInternet Behaviours
Behaviours Questionnaire
Questionnaire (R = high-risk
(R = high-risk internetinternet
behaviours).
behaviours).
3.1.3. Reliability
3.1.3. Reliability
Test reliability, as measured by internal consistency, was adequate. Cronbach’s alpha for the
Test
overall reliability,
scale was 0.84.as measured by internal consistency, was adequate. Cronbach’s alpha for the
overall scale was 0.84.
3.2. Relationship between Parental Control and High-Risk Internet Behaviours
3.2. Relationship between Parental Control and High-Risk Internet Behaviours
The obtained Spearman correlation coefficients (Table 2) seem to show that the extent to which
The obtained
adolescents Spearman
report that correlation
their parents coefficients
or guardians (Table
restrict 2) seem totheir
or supervise show that the
internet extent
use to which
is statistically
adolescents negatively
significantly report that their parents
correlated with theor guardians
extent to whichrestrict or supervise their
the adolescentsrecognise theirinternet use is
own high-risk
statistically significantly negatively correlated with the
internet behaviours. This association, however, is relatively weak. extent to which the adolescentsrecognise
their own high-risk internet behaviours. This association, however, is relatively weak.
Table Correlation
In the2.sample beingbetween scores
analysed, ageforcorrelated
parental internet restriction
negatively and supervision
with parental rules (rand adolescent
S= −0.29; p < 0.001)
high-risk Internet behaviours (N = 946).
and supervision (rS = −0.28; p < 0.001) of internet use, and correlated positively with adolescents’
high-risk internet behaviours (rS = 0.19; p < 0.001). In order to show that the relationship between
parental control and high-risk behavioursHigh-Risk was notInternet
spurious,Behaviours
and explained by the relationship
between the two variables and age, we analysed r S r
the partial
ab.c correlation
β between high-risk internet
Restriction −0.12 *** −0.08 * 0.003
Supervision −0.16 *** −0.14 *** −0.141 ***
rs = Spearman correlation; rab.c = partial correlation, controlling for the effect of age; β = standardized regression
coefficients, including age, restriction, and supervision in the model. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

In the sample being analysed, age correlated negatively with parental rules (rS = −0.29; p < 0.001)
and supervision (rS = −0.28; p < 0.001) of internet use, and correlated positively with adolescents’
high-risk internet behaviours (rS = 0.19; p < 0.001). In order to show that the relationship between
Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 87 5 of 7

parental control and high-risk behaviours was not spurious, and explained by the relationship between
the two variables and age, we analysed the partial correlation between high-risk internet behaviours
and the two types of parental control, statistically controlling for the effect of age. As Table 2 shows,
the results are very similar to the zero order correlations.
However, multiple linear regression including age, restriction, and supervision in the model
shows that supervision, but not restriction, is significantly associated withadolescent high-risk internet
behaviours (Table 2). Restriction isstatistically significantly positively correlated with supervision
(rS = 0.60; p < 0.001).

4. Discussion
The main objective of this study was to analyse the relationship between parental control over
internet use (restriction or supervision) and high-risk internet behaviours in a sample of Spanish
adolescents. The results support the hypothesised negative relationship, but only for supervision.
This result fits with the idea that the family has a significant, although limited, influence over the
prevention of adolescent high-risk behaviours. Various possible reasons have been identified for this
limited influence (Navarro et al. 2013). One is that adults often do not understand the content of the
apps their children use, or how they work. The adolescents may have strategies to get around the
rules without leaving traces of their activities on their devices, which makes it more difficult to control.
As the children get older, they may also spend more time with their friends rather than family, and if
their friends encourage these behaviours, there is a higher risk that the adolescent will engage in them
(Sasson and Mesch 2014).
In this study, engaging in high-risk internet behaviours demonstrated a stronger (negative)
relationship with supervision than with restriction, as in previous research (Khurana et al. 2015).
It may suggest that control is more effective if the adolescents’ behaviour is monitored, rather than just
announcing a restriction or using a specific piece of software. Nonetheless, it is important to remember
that parental control over internet use tends to have positive effects, especially in open, affective
contexts which support adolescent autonomy, and negative effects in inconsistent and controlling
contexts (Gómez-Ortiz et al. 2015; Valkenburg et al. 2013).
A secondary objective in this study, essential to fulfil the main objective, was to design and
validate the High-Risk Internet Behaviours Questionnaire for adolescents. The results demonstrate
that the indicators chosen to measure the construct are appropriate, and that the test has adequate
psychometric properties of reliability and validity for the use it was designed for.
This study, therefore, represents a contribution to the field of research, in so far as it provides a new
tool for measuring high-risk internet behaviours in adolescence, and contributes to the clarification of
the relationship between parental control of internet use and engaging in high-risk internet behaviours
in adolescence. In order to prevent high-risk behaviours and, in turn, prevent their children from
becoming victims of cyber-aggression in adolescence, it is important for families to have some control
over their children’s internet activity. To be effective and not counterproductive, that control must
adapt to the adolescent’s maturity and need for autonomy (Ang 2015). The objective should be
to encourage a responsible autonomy, and not to impose restrictions on it. The control should be
exercised in an affective context, in which adolescents are encouraged to think critically about positive,
responsible Internet use.
While this research is a contribution to the field, it is not without limitations. In the first place,
this research was carried out with an incidental sample, extracted from a specific population limited
to certain ages and geographical areas. Therefore, any generalisation of the conclusions to other
ages or regions should be made with caution. In the second place, the research used adolescents’
self-reports. It would be useful in future to gather information from the families as well. Finally,
we used a correlational methodology, which means that the direction of the relationship cannot be
determined. The conclusions are made as a hypothesis for confirmation in the future using other
methodologies (such as longitudinal studies).
Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 87 6 of 7

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.A.; Investigation, D.A., T.G., and Z.S.-G.; Data Curation, T.G., and
Z.S.-G.; Methodology, D.A.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, D.A., T.G., and Z.S.-G.; Writing-Review & Editing,
D.A., T.G., and Z.S.-G.; Supervision, D.A.
Funding: This research was funded by the Consejería de Economía y Empleo del Principado de Asturias [Council
of Economy and Employment of the Princedom of Asturias] (Spain). Grant number: FC-15-GRUPIN14-053.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank all pupils, teachers, and principals of the respective schools for their
participation in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: None of the authors of this paper has a financial or personal relationship with other people
or organizations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper.

Appendix A. High-Risk Internet Behaviours Questionnaire

Mark a cross (X) to indicate the extent to which you think each of the following statements are true.
Please only choose one answer from the four options available. Try to respond to all of the statements.

1 2 3 4
1. Permito que otras personas suban fotos o videos míos a Internet [I let
other people upload my photos or videos to the internet].
2. Agrego a mis redes sociales a gente que no conozco personalmente [I
add people to my social networks who I don’t know personally].
3. Me he comunicado alguna vez on-line con extraños (por ejemplo,
chateando) [I have communicated online with strangers (e.g., in chats)].
4. Suelo publicar información personal en mis redes sociales: qué voy a
hacer, dónde y con quién; fotos o vídeos personales o familiares;.. [I usually
publish personal information on my social networks: what I am going to
do, where, and who with; personal or family photos or videos . . . ].
5. He quedado alguna vez con alguien en persona que conocía sólo de
Internet [I have met up with someone in person who I had only previously
known online].
6. Doy mi número de teléfono a chicos o chicas a los que acabo de conocer
o conozco poco [I give my telephone number to boys or girls who I have
just met or who I don’t know very well].
7. He enviado alguna foto comprometida mía a otras personas a través del
teléfono móvil o Internet [I have sent compromising photos (mine or
belonging to someone else) by mobile phone or internet].
8. He intercambiado información personal mía con personas a las que solo
conozco de Internet [I have exchanged my personal information with
people who I have only known online].
1 = completely false; 2 = somewhat false; 3 = somewhat true; 4 = completely true.

References
Álvarez-García, David, Trinidad García, Marisol Cueli, and José Carlos Núñez. 2018. Control parental del uso de
Internet durante la adolescencia: Evolución y diferencias de género. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Ang, Rebecca P. 2015. Adolescent cyberbullying: A review of characteristics, prevention and intervention strategies.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 25: 35–42. [CrossRef]
Corcoran, Lucie, Conor Mc Guckin, and Garry Prentice. 2015. Cyberbullying or Cyber Aggression? A Review of
Existing Definitions of Cyber-Based Peer-to-Peer Aggression. Societies 5: 245–55. [CrossRef]
Duerager, Andrea, and Sonia Livingstone. 2012. How Can Parents Support Children’s Internet Safety? London:
EU Kids Online.
Elsaesser, Caitlin, Beth Russell, Christine McCauley Ohannessian, and Desmond Patton. 2017. Parenting in a
digital age: A review of parents’ role in preventing adolescent cyberbullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior
35: 62–72. [CrossRef]
Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 87 7 of 7

Giménez, Ana M., José A. Luengo, and M. José Bartrina. 2017. What are young people doing on Internet? Use
of ICT, parental supervision strategies and exposure to risks. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology 15: 533–52. [CrossRef]
Gómez, Patricia, Sion Kim Harris, Carmen Barreiro, Manuel Isorna, and Antonio Rial. 2017. Profiles of Internet use
and parental involvement, and rates of online risks and problematic Internet use among Spanish adolescents.
Computers in Human Behavior 75: 826–33. [CrossRef]
Gómez-Ortiz, Olga, Rosario Del Rey, Eva María Romera, and Rosario Ortega-Ruiz. 2015. Los estiloseducativospaternos
y maternos en la adolescencia y surelación con la resiliencia, el apego y la implicación en acoso escolar. Anales de
Psicología 31: 979–89. [CrossRef]
Khurana, Atika, Amy Bleakley, Amy B. Jordan, and Daniel Romer. 2015. The Protective Effects of Parental
Monitoring and Internet Restriction on Adolescents’ Risk of Online Harassment. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 44: 1039–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lee, Sook-Jung. 2013. Parental restrictive mediation of children’s internet use: Effective for what and for whom?
New Media & Society 15: 466–81. [CrossRef]
Lee, Sook-Jung, and Young-Gil Chae. 2012. Balancing Participation and Risks in Children’s Internet Use: The Role
of Internet Literacy and Parental Mediation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15: 257–62.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Liau, Albert Kienfie, Angeline Khoo, and Peng Hwaang. 2005. Factors Influencing Adolescents Engagement in
Risky Internet Behavior. CyberPsychology&Behavior 8: 513–20. [CrossRef]
Mesch, Gustavo S. 2009. Parental Mediation, Online Activities, and Cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology&Behavior 12:
387–93. [CrossRef]
Navarro, Raúl, Cristina Serna, Verónica Martínez, and Roberto Ruiz-Oliva. 2013. The role of Internet use
and parental mediation on cyberbullying victimization among Spanish children from rural public schools.
European Journal of Psychology of Education 28: 725–45. [CrossRef]
Nocentini, Annalaura, Juan Calmaestra, Anja Schultze-Krumbholz, Herbert Scheithauer, Rosario Ortega, and
Ersilia Menesini. 2010. Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European countries.
Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling 20: 129–42.
Sasson, Hagit, and Gustavo Mesch. 2014. Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online behavior among
adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior 33: 32–38. [CrossRef]
Sasson, Hagit, and Gustavo Mesch. 2017. The Role of Parental Mediation and Peer Norms on the Likelihood of
Cyberbullying. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 178: 15–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Valkenburg, Patti M., Jessica Taylor Piotrowski, Jo Hermanns, and Rebecca De Leeuw. 2013. Developing
and Validating the Perceived Parental Media Mediation Scale: A Self-Determination Perspective. Human
Communication Research 39: 445–69. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).