There were tight controls in place, certainly in the beginning, when children first started using their devices, as children and their parents discussed. Mother: I
really limit the internet [Int: 5, 10 years]. Children were aware of the rules
associated with internet use and accepted them. Billy: At home we are allowed
to go on some games for about half an hour once a week, which is fun [Int: 5, 10
years]. Children were simply happy to have and be using their new devices. For example, Will talked about his early days with the iPod.
Will: I was really excited. I wanted to get one. I had heard about them and and I had a little go on one, and I liked it so, so I was excited [Int: 3, 11 years].
When children were young or first starting to use a new device, high levels of control were in place. Parents wanted to be sure children were using their devices safely and appropriately. Parents were concerned that there was a potential for things to go wrong. For example, risks of overuse were frequently discussed by parents within their focus groups. Some parents had even seen their children's behaviour change as a result of overusing their devices. One
mother talks about her son's use of the internet when playing a racing car game.
Mother: You see Ed has to be taken off because he gets completely red in the face [Parent fgp 3]. This mother was worried about Ed's behaviour, as he would
become angry if asked to stop playing. He was just 7 years old.
Parents were concerned that children would become so engrossed in their devices that they would not want to do anything else. For example another mother, from the same focus group, felt that her children did not need to socialize beyond the boundaries of their own home.
Mother: They are living a life where they are socialising without going out. They have a social life without stepping out of the door [Parent fgp 3].
Mobile / internet devices were providing her children with friendships, which they absorbed themselves in when at home. She was becoming concerned.
Some parents were aware, from experiences with their children, that overuse could create problems. They were perhaps simply trying to guard against it becoming a serious problem, by putting tight controls in place. It was the younger children who experienced the tightest controls. However, this was not true for all children interviewed. There did seem to be some older children who had extensive knowledge and skills about devices, but who also experienced tight controls. In an interview with Zac, 11 years old, his mother talks about his use of the internet.
Mother: […] Sometimes I will leave him. Sometimes he will ask me if he can go onto a particular … like a play site and I will say yes. But when I come back he is not on that play site but on a different play site. It is much of a muchness, but we have words don’t we; about going from one site to another without checking with me first [Int: 4, 11 years]?
The reason given for such tight controls was associated with younger children in the family.
Mother: I have to remember that we have got a 7 year old in the house. … I don’t want it to be Zac's responsibility that he has to restrict access for a 7 year old. …
I don’t think that he should have to police it [Int: 4, 11 years].
But this reason seemed a little misleading, as other families with younger children did not impose such tight controls. Zac was quite skilled and aware of the
importance of safety. It was perhaps associated with his mother's own fears about using the internet, as the following illustrates.
Mother: Playing catch up all the time. I am not confident that I am … I am going to have to go and find out before he goes and gets a phone, so that I can block everything that I want to block. But for how long is that going to be feasible? I am not that confident at all [Int: 4, 11 years].
She was not confident herself about these devices, which was thus reflected within her parenting. Yet, Zac's skills could have helped her, as well as his siblings. Tripp (2010) found that where parents had a poor understanding of devices, as here, young people experienced restricted use, similar to Zac.
Potentially, children in Zac's position would find some of these controls restrictive. They might feel they are unnecessary or getting in their way creatively. As
demonstrated in chapter 5, being creative was important to children. Existing research supports this view; tight restrictive controls can limit children’s creativity on devices (Valkenburg et al., 1999; Livingstone et al., 2012). Initially on the surface, children like Zac did not report behavioural controls as a problem. But this might not be the full picture, as discussion later reveal.
Tight behavioural controls in place, for whatever reason, meant that parents would mediate their children’s use of devices closely. Clear instructions about what children could and could not do, as highlighted in the previous example, were evident. Also, the amount of time children could spend on their devices –
Mother: … They have a controlled amount of time on the Wii anyway [Int: 4, 11 years]. Another mother suggested that devices could be used as bargaining
Mother: The more you use these tools [devices], the more that parents will use them as bargaining strategies. If you don’t tidy your room I will take it away [Parent fgp 1].
Generally, mediation strategies discussed by parents were similar to those
described in the literature review; similar to Ofcom (2012b), and Livingstone et al. (2012). They also seemed to mirror Valkenburg et al.’s (1999) parent styles of television mediation; restrictive and instructive, but not always socially viewing and working together, which children might find more helpful. Valkenburg et al. (2013) maintain parents and children working together gets more positive results.
There were different reasons why parents imposed tight behavioural controls with their children's use of devices. Most reasons seemed to be appropriate; so that parents could protect their children. However, there were occasions when parents seemed unnecessarily restrictive. This seemed to be more about parents' own concerns about devices, rather than their children's actual use of them. It was understandable that some parents imposed behavioural controls, certainly in the early days of use. But for other children the continuation of behavioural controls did not always seem appropriate. The relationship between these children and their parents seemed quite controlling. Parenting style reflected traces of Baumrind's (1966, 1973) authoritarian style. Parents reacting in a very controlling way to their children's lives; not only in relation to their children's use of devices but other aspects too. In families where this was the situation, children simply worked with it. On reflection however, this might have been because of the interview context. These children were usually interviewed with their parents. If it had been possible to interview these children alone, different views might have been disclosed by children about their situation; expressing frustration perhaps. More recent evidence suggests that restrictive strategies such as these are not always helpful (Haddon, 2013; Mascheroni, 2014).
There seemed to be little mention of more creative ways that parents could help their children. There were different mediation strategies that parents might have used but failed to mention, for example role modelling (Bandura, 1977). Parents
themselves were active users of devices. Observing their parents using mobile / internet devices each day, children would naturally be interested. Bandura (1977) maintains that children like to replicate the behaviours of those around them. For example, parents did not seem to realise how their communication behaviours could influence their children. There seemed to be a disconnection between parents’ own use of these devices and what they expected from their children. Chapter 5 (section 5.2) shows how one child had learnt, by observing a parent perhaps, how not to communicate on devices, which demonstrates this disconnection. Socially viewing and working together (Valkenburg et al., 1999, 2013) did not seem to be a reality for some parents and children.