Parental Influence and Teens’ Attitude toward Online Privacy Protection

SEOUNMI YOUN

Parental Influence and Teens’ Attitude toward OnlinePrivacy Protection

This study examines the impact of parental influence on teens’ attitudetoward privacy protection. Survey data show that teens high in concept-oriented family communication tend to engage in discussion mediation,which, in turn, affects their level of privacy concern. In contrast, teenshigh in socio-oriented communication tend to have more family rulesand surf the Internet with parents. Rulemaking mediation is notdirectly related to teens’ level of privacy concern, while cosurfing medi-ation is related to their level of concern. This study also finds that paren-tal mediation and teens’ concern level explain their attitude towardprivacy protection measures. Implications for policymakers and educa-tors are discussed.

With teens increasingly becoming an influential online retail demo-

graphic (Business Wire 2006; Greenspan 2004), e-marketers are targeting

them through new interactive marketing platforms such as gamevertising,

viral video, and social networking site (Chester and Montgomery 2007;

Howard 2006). These marketing practices may open opportunities for com-

munication, product learning, and e-commerce to teens; however, they also

raise public concerns about online risks resulting from teen privacy loss

(Donnerstein 2002; Lenhart 2005; Willard 2006).

Among potential online risks, privacy advocates have addressed finan-

cial risks stemming from e-marketers’ attempts to collect personal informa-

tion from teens (Schonberger 2005). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

received 10,835 identity theft complaints in 2006 from teens aged eighteen

and younger. This is an approximate 13 percent increase over the 9,595

complaints in 2004 (FTC 2007a) and accounts for about 5 percent of the

225,532 identity theft complaints in 2006. That same year, 1,498 Internet-

related fraud complaints from teens aged nineteen and younger were filed

with FTC, accounting for 2 percent of the 61,168 complaints in 2006

(FTC 2007b). Another online risk is the constant barrage of unwanted com-

mercial e-mails caused by teens giving their private information to

e-marketers (Grant 2006; Liau, Khoo, and Ang 2005).

Seounmi Youn is an assistant professor in the Department of Marketing Communication, School of

Communication, Emerson College, Boston, MA ([email protected]).

The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008

ISSN 0022-0078

Copyright 2008 by The American Council on Consumer Interests

362 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

In response to these online risks teens face, parents and privacy advo-

cates have voiced concerns about teen privacy loss. The Pew Internet &

American Life Project study discovered that 81 percent of parents believe

that teens are not as careful as they should be with disclosing personal infor-

mation online (Lenhart 2005). The Annenberg Public Policy Center study

reported that 74 percent of parents worry that their child gives out personal

information through Web sites or chat rooms (Turow and Nir 2000). In the

same study, 96 percent of parents agreed that teens older than thirteen years

should be required to obtain parental consent before disclosing their infor-

mation online.

However, the current FTC rule under the Children’s Online Privacy Pro-

tection Act (COPPA) does not protect privacy rights of teens aged thirteen

to seventeen years, although it regulates e-marketers’ data collection on

sites that target children younger than thirteen years. Consequently, privacy

advocates have contended that the COPPA should be extended to include

teens older than thirteen years (Aidman 2000). Given such growing

concerns among parents and privacy advocates over teens’ privacy, it is

important to examine how teens aged thirteen years and older perceive

e-marketers’ information practices.

To date, few academic studies have addressed teens and online privacy-

related issues. Studies have examined what factors explain teens’ level of

privacy concern and how their level of privacy concern has an impact on

privacy coping behaviors (Grant 2006; Moscardelli and Divine 2007; Youn

2005). These studies do not, however, explore parental involvement in teen

privacy issues and the influences on teens’ motivation to safeguard privacy

rights. Thus, this study investigates the process by which parental influence

shapes teens’ attitude toward the protection of privacy online. This study

specifically attempts to answer the following questions: (1) What type of

family communication patterns (FCPs) is related to parental mediation of

privacy? (2) What type of parental mediation has a stronger association

with teens’ level of privacy concern and their attitude toward privacy pro-

tection? and (3) How is teens’ privacy concern level associated with their

attitude toward privacy protection?

To examine these questions, this study utilized the consumer socializa-

tion perspective as a conceptual framework. Research on consumer social-

ization has demonstrated that teens’ understanding of consumption

activities and persuasion is influenced by a variety of socialization agents

such as parents, peers, schools, and the mass media (Carlson et al. 1994;

Mangleburg and Bristol 1998; Mangleburg, Grewal, and Bristol 1997).

Among these agents, this study focuses on the role of parental influence.

Indeed, there is much anecdotal evidence showing that parental interaction

FALL 2008 VOLUME 42, NUMBER 3 363

is the most important tool for protecting teens’ online safety (e.g., Privacy

Rights Clearinghouse 2007), but few studies empirically examine the rela-

tionship among parental influence, teens’ level of privacy concern, and

their attitude toward privacy protection.

The findings of this study are of value for several reasons. They will

provide deeper insight into the importance of parental influence on increas-

ing teens’ level of privacy concern and advance our knowledge in identi-

fying teens’ attitude toward privacy protection as a function of parental

influence. More importantly, a detailed understanding of teens’ attitude

toward privacy protection will assist educators and policymakers in devel-

oping policies to help teens protect themselves from e-marketers’ informa-

tion practices and engage in safe online activities.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Consumer Privacy and Teens’ Vulnerability

Consumer privacy has various meanings for scholars; it is a context-

specific and an ever-evolving concept. Yet, the literature illustrates the

convergent view toward consumer privacy, which recognizes the impor-

tance of individuals’ ability to control their personal information within

the context of a marketing transaction (Goodwin 1991; Lee 2002; Milne

and Rohm 2000; Nowak and Phelps 1995; Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell

2000). Information control assumes that consumers are able to restrict

the terms under which their personal information is collected, disseminated,

accessed, and used by marketers (Culnan 1995, 2000; Goodwin 1991).

Information control is desirable for multiple reasons, one of which is to

reduce the number of intrusive marketing messages received. This relates

to consumers’ wishes to be left alone (Milne and Rohm 2000; Nowak and

Phelps 1995). The view of consumer privacy as a control of personal infor-

mation stems from the premise that personal information belongs to the

consumer, namely, it is one’s private property (Milne and Rohm 2000;

Nowak and Phelps 1992, 1995).

As the growth of the Internet facilitates e-marketers in gathering a sub-

stantial amount of personal information, consumers have little control over

what e-marketers know about them and how e-marketers collect and use

their personal information. Scholars have identified the conditions under

which consumers lose control of their personal information and, thus, have

high levels of privacy concern. Nowak and Phelps (1992, 1995) argue that

consumers’ privacy concerns heighten when they are unaware that their

personal information is collected and used by marketers and/or when their


information is compromised beyond the original purpose without their

awareness or permission. In addition, Sheehan and Hoy (2000) elaborate

three more dimensions that underlie the degree of online privacy concern.

The level of concern increases when consumers are asked to provide mar-

keters with sensitive information (Phelps, D’Souza, and Nowak 2001),

when consumers are contacted by unfamiliar companies that they do

not trust (Milne and Rohm 2000), and when consumers perceive that

the risks of information disclosure exceed the benefits (Milne and Gordon

1993; Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell 2000).

Several studies show that teens are often exposed to potential privacy

risks online. The Teen Internet Safety Study by Cox Communication in

partnership with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

(NCMEC) revealed that 71 percent of teens aged thirteen to seventeen years

received messages from someone they do not know, and among them, 40

percent usually replied to and chatted with that person (Teenage Research

Unlimited 2006). Forty-five percent of teens were asked to provide per-

sonal information to someone they do not know, 37 percent were not wor-

ried about someone using their personal information in ways they have not

authorized, and 20 percent perceived it safe to disclose personal informa-

tion on a public blog or networking site (Teenage Research Unlimited

2006). The Pew Internet Study showed that only 21 percent of teens online

were concerned about mishaps involving privacy breaches in which their e-

mail, instant message, or text message would be shared with entities other

than the recipient (Lenhart, Madden, and Hitlin 2005). These risks have

given rise to much debate on measures to protect teens’ online privacy

by policymakers, consumer advocates, and parents. Such measures include

government regulation, school-based education, and industry self-regulation,

which will be discussed in turn.

Teens’ Privacy Protection Measures

Regarding government regulation, Congress introduced the Children’s

Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act in 1999. This act

requires information brokers to prohibit the sale or purchase of personal

information on children below the age of sixteen without parental consent

(Tech Law Journal 1999). Congress also passed the Student Privacy

Protection Act to safeguard the privacy of kindergarten to grade 12 stu-

dents from companies that conduct market research in schools. This Act

requires companies to seek parent’s written permission before collecting

personal information for marketing purposes from any student below the

age of eighteen (Ruskin 2001).


In 2001, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented

the Children’s Internet Protection Act to deal with minors’ access to inap-

propriate content on school and library computers. To receive federal fund-

ing on technology, schools and libraries must install filtering or blocking

technologies to shield minors from harmful materials and prevent the

‘‘unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information

regardingminors’’ (FCC 2006). The FTC also enacted the CAN-SPAMAct

in 2004 in an effort to eradicate deceptive unsolicited commercial e-mail

and provide consumers with the right to ask spammers not to send future

commercial e-mails (FTC 2004). To reduce unwanted contacts by strangers

on the Internet, the U.S. House recently passed the legislation to restrict

teens’ access to social networking sites in schools and libraries (Romer

2006).

In concert with growing governmental regulations, consumer advocates

and educators have called for implementing school-based education for

privacy protection as part of media literacy programs (Brookshire and

Maulhardt 2005; McCannon 2002). Media literacy refers to ‘‘the ability

to critically consume and create media’’ (Strasburger and Wilson 2002,

422). Media-literate consumers can understand the meanings underlying

commercial media messages. The NetSmartz program, sponsored by the

NCMEC, has been a successful media literacy program. Students who par-

ticipated in NetSmartz increased their awareness and knowledge of online

risks and expressed they would be more cautious when using the Internet

and sharing information (Brookshire and Maulhardt 2005).

Federal agency rulemaking and public concerns over teens’ privacy

invasions have driven the industry’s efforts to self-regulate e-marketers’

information practices. Web sites targeting teens older than thirteen years

do not fall under the force of COPPA, so trade associations such as the

Better Business Bureaus and the Direct Marketing Association encourage

companies to comply with industry standards regarding the types of per-

sonal information that can be collected from teens, who has access to it, and

how it is used (Safe & Smart). Some companies offer consumers an oppor-

tunity to remove their names from marketing lists by opting out (Milne and

Boza 1999; Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell 2000). An opt-out procedure is

a mechanism that enables consumers to perceive control over their infor-

mation, thereby allaying the level of concern for privacy (Milne and Rohm

2000; Nowak and Phelps 1995).

The privacy-protective measures discussed above would be more effec-

tive when teens are motivated to support them. It would then be critical to

identify factors that motivate teen support for these measures because such

factors can help minimize privacy risks. ‘‘Adult’’ privacy literature has


examined factors related to the level of privacy concern, which drives moti-

vations for privacy protection. These factors include control over informa-

tion (Milne and Boza 1999; Phelps, D’Souza, and Nowak 2001; Phelps,

Nowak, and Ferrell 2000), knowledge about information practices (Milne

and Boza 1999), attitude toward direct marketing (Milne and Boza 1999;

Phelps, D’Souza, and Nowak 2001; Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell 2000),

information sensitivity (Cranor, Reagle, and Ackerman 1999; Phelps,

D’Souza, and Nowak 2001), past purchase behaviors (Graeff and Harmon

2002; Milne and Rohm 2000), and demographics (Graeff and Harmon

2002; Milne and Boza 1999). Although these studies help explain adults’

motivation to protect their privacy, little has been known about factors that

motivate teens to safeguard their privacy. Thus, this study, using the con-

sumer socialization perspective, identifies factors that explain teens’ atti-

tude toward online privacy protection.

Consumer Socialization and FCP

Consumer socialization is the process by which young people learn

skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to their role as consumers in

the marketplace (Ward 1974). Researchers have emphasized the impor-

tance of parental socialization in shaping and developing consumer norms,

values, and motivation among young people (Moore and Moschis 1981;

Moschis 1985). This is especially true when consumption behavior

involves risks. Teens learn how to cope with potential perceived risks from

both direct and indirect interaction with parents through discussions, rule-

making, reinforcement, and modeling (Koesten and Anderson 2004; Koes-

ten, Miller, and Hummert 2001; Mangleburg, Grewal, and Bristol 1997;

Moore et al. 2002; Moschis 1985; Moschis andMoore 1979). For example,

Moore et al. (2002) found that teens engaged in parental interaction and

more communication with parents are less likely to develop problematic

sexual behaviors. Given that providing personal information to e-marketers

involves a variety of risks such as identity theft, fraud, spam, or conflicts

with parents (Grant 2005; Lenhart 2005; Youn 2005), parental influence is

expected to be one of the most important socialization agents in increasing

teens’ level of privacy concern and motivation to protect their privacy

online.

In this study, parental influence is examined through FCP on consump-

tion issues. FCPs have been conceptualized as the quality and type of com-

munication that takes place among family members (Carlson et al. 1994;

Moore and Moschis 1981). Previous FCP studies have identified two dis-

tinct patterns: socio- and concept-oriented communications (Moore and


Moschis 1981; Moschis 1985; Moschis, Moore, and Smith 1984). Socio-

oriented communication attaches importance to harmonious relationships

between parents and children, emphasizing deference and obedience to

parental authority. Parents in this communication orientation advise their

children to steer clear of arguments with family members and signify con-

formity to family values at the expense of individual expression. This pat-

tern leads parents to monitor and control their children’s consumption

activities in the marketplace while encouraging their children to utilize con-

sumption values that are congruent with parental ones (Carlson, Grossbart,

and Stuenkel 1992; Carlson et al. 1994; Moore andMoschis 1981; Moschis

1985).

In contrast, concept-oriented communication encourages children to

develop and express their own views of the world through give-and-take

discussions with parents. Disagreement or debate through open discussion

is welcome for furthering children’s critical thinking about an issue. This

communication style allows children to consider several alternatives prior

to decision making, evaluate different sides of an argument, and promote

independence with consumption (Carlson, Grossbart, and Stuenkel 1992;

Moore and Moschis 1981; Moschis 1985; Ritchie 1991). The development

of consumer skills and competence is greatly valued in this style.

Different FCPs have been found to lead to different socialization out-

comes in a variety of research areas, including attitude toward advertising

(Mangleburg and Bristol 1998; Rose, Bush, and Kahle 1998), ability to

filter puffery in advertising (Moschis and Moore 1979), social and eco-

nomic motivations for consumption (Carlson et al. 1994), children’s pur-

chasing influence and shopping independence (Moschis, Prahasto,

Mitchell 1986; Rose, Boush, and Shoham 2002), parental response to pur-

chase requests (Carlson, Grossbart, and Walsh 1990), and media use

(Carlson, Grossbart, and Tripp 1990). Yet little research has related

FCP to privacy issues in the online marketplace except the Moscardelli

and Divine’s (2007) study. They found that teens’ privacy concerns were

influenced by concept-oriented FCP but not by socio-oriented FCP. By

extending FCP to the context of online privacy, this study examines how

FCPs relate to parental mediation of privacy, which, in turn, influences

teens’ level of privacy concern and their resultant attitude toward privacy

protection.

Relating FCP to Parental Mediation of Privacy

Parental mediation refers to any strategies parents use to supervise child-

ren’s media use or help children interpret media content (Warren 2001).


Prior studies have identified three types of mediation: rulemaking, coview-

ing, and discussion (Fujioka and Austin 2002; Warren 2001). Rulemaking

is defined as restrictions that control children’s media use in terms of quan-

tity, time, or content. Coviewing is defined as the shared experience, in

which parents and children use media together but do not necessarily

engage in critical discussions about media use. Discussion refers to active

discourse about media content to help children understand the underlying

meanings of content (Fujioka and Austin 2002; Warren 2001, 2002). This

study applies these mediations to the online privacy context, which can be

captured as parental mediation of privacy (e.g., rulemaking, cosurfing, and

discussion), and links FCP to these mediations. The differences between

socio- and concept-oriented FCP would predict different practices of pri-

vacy parental mediation.

FCP and Rulemaking

The FCP literature has indicated that parents high on socio-oriented

communication are prone to limit their children’s access to outside influ-

ences such as media because they may consider these external influences

as threats to parental authority (Carlson, Grossbart, and Stuenkel 1992;

Carlson, Grossbart, and Walsh 1990; Fujioka and Austin 2002; Moschis,

Prahasto, and Mitchell 1986; Rose, Bush, and Kahle 1998). Those parents

exert parental control through rules meant to protect children from contro-

versial media messages or persuasive attempts by marketers (Moschis

1985). Prior research has shown that socio-oriented parents tend to place

limits on children’s television exposure (Carlson, Grossbart, and Tripp

1990; Carlson, Grossbart, and Walsh 1990). Fujioka and Austin (2002)

found that families with socio-oriented FCP were more likely to use the

television ratings system in selecting programs for children in comparison

to their concept-oriented counterparts.

With regard to e-marketers’ information practices, we expect families

with socio-oriented communication to impose more limits on children’s

Internet use and information disclosure to e-marketers. Hence, teens

growing up in the socio-oriented communication environment are more

likely to have family rules concerning Internet use and information

disclosure. Family rules may allow parents to reduce family disputes

possibly caused by children’s information disclosure. Thus, it is

hypothesized:

H1: Teens with socio-oriented FCP are more likely to have family rules about Internet

use and information disclosure than those with concept-oriented FCP.


FCP and Cosurfing

The literature on FCP and parental mediation implies an inconsistent

relationship between FCP and coviewing. Researchers contended that cov-

iewing television is more appealing to concept-oriented parents because it

facilitates parent–child conversations about the contents seen on television

while watching together. Carlson and his colleagues found that parents high

on a concept-oriented communication were more apt to coview television

with their children (Carlson, Grossbart, and Tripp 1990; Carlson, Grossbart,

and Walsh 1990). An inverse relationship in other studies, however, has

been found. Fujioka and Austin (2002) revealed that socio-oriented parents

were more likely to watch television with their children. It is argued that

coviewing television is not a necessary prerequisite for purposeful parent–

child discussions of content (Austin et al. 1999;Warren 2001). It seems that

socio-oriented parents use coviewing as a tool for monitoring their child-

ren’s media use and exposure. On the other hand, Rose, Bush, and Kahle

(1998) reported that both concept- and socio-oriented parents watched tele-

vision with their children.

In the online media environment, cosurfing can be viewed as the parallel

concept of coviewing, which refers to a parent and child surfing the Internet

together. Despite mixed findings regarding FCP and coviewing, we spec-

ulate that cosurfing may be perceived by children as a means for parental

control over their Internet use and information disclosure (e.g., Lenhart,

Rainie, and Lewis 2001; Liau, Khoo, and Ang 2005). It is likely that parents

browse the Internet with their children to set a model for their children to

follow, instead of exchanging different ideas or opinions. Cosurfing may be

used more frequently by socio-oriented parents because it allows for

parent–child harmony in a controlled circumstance, alleviates conflicts

resulting from children’s misuse of the Internet, and protects children from

outside influences including e-marketers or controversial contents. Thus,

this study develops the following:

H2: Teens with socio-oriented FCP are more likely to surf the Internet with their

parents than those with concept-oriented FCP.

FCP and Parent–Child Discussion

Prior FCP studies found a positive relationship between concept-

oriented communication and parent–child discussion (Carlson, Grossbart,

and Tripp 1990; Carlson, Grossbart, and Walsh 1990). For parents high on


concept-oriented communication, parent–child discussion is considered

a precondition for developing child’s consumer competence. Carlson

and his colleagues observed that concept-oriented parents had more discus-

sions about advertising (Carlson, Grossbart, and Tripp 1990; Carlson,

Grossbart, andWalsh 1990). This finding has been confirmed in the studies

of Mukherji (2005) and Rose, Bush, and Kahle (1998). Mangleburg and

Bristol (1998) reported that teens whose FCPs are concept-oriented showed

the development of advertising skepticism, as discussions with parents are

likely to foster critical attitudes toward advertising. Fujioka and Austin

(2002) found concept orientation to be associated with parental engagement

in critical discussions of content seen on television. Altogether, this study

anticipates the following hypothesis:

H3: Teens with concept-oriented FCP are more likely to discuss e-marketers’ infor-

mation collection and use practices with their parents than those with socio-oriented

FCP.

Parental Mediation and Teens’ Motivation for Privacy Protection

As a socialization process, prior studies have asserted that parental medi-

ation of media content or consumption influences the development of child-

ren’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors on diverse consumer issues

(Austin 1993; Austin and Nach-Ferguson 1995; Austin, Pinkleton, and

Fujioka 2000; Fujioka and Austin 2003; Nathanson 2001). Compared to

FCP in general, it has been argued that topic-related communication tied

to marketplace or consumption activities has more explanatory power in

predicting socialization outcomes (Lee, Salmon, and Paek 2007; Mangle-

burg, Grewal, and Bristol 1997; Moschis, Moore, and Smith 1984). For

example, Mangleburg, Grewal, and Bristol (1997) found that communica-

tion with parents on products, prices, or stores was related to teens’ use of

product label information. Austin and her colleagues discovered that active

discussion of persuasive media messages with parents affects children’s

skepticism toward those messages, counteracting their undesirable effects

(Austin 1993; Austin, Pinkleton, and Fujioka 2000). Other scholars have

speculated that parent–child discussions would provide parents with an

opportunity to talk about misleading ad claims and marketers’ selling in-

tents (Carlson, Grossbart, and Walsh 1990; Carlson et al. 1994; Mangleburg

and Bristol 1998; Rose, Bush, and Kahle 1998).

Similar to this argument, this study proposes that parent–child discus-

sion about e-marketers’ information practices would foster critical views on


privacy issues, resulting in higher levels of privacy concern. An open

mode of discussion would create the atmosphere of broaching the impor-

tance of privacy rights and encourage children to engage in free inquiry on

e-marketers’ information practices. Such discussions would help children

evaluate all sides of possible consequences caused by giving up privacy

online and weigh risks against benefits in exchange for information disclo-

sure. Taken together, it is predicted:

H4: Teens with parental mediation based on discussion are likely to show higher

levels of privacy concern about e-marketers’ information practices.

As discussed previously, parental mediations of rulemaking and cosurf-

ing may be served as tools to maintain control over children’s Internet use

and information disclosure (Liau, Khoo, and Ang 2005). Such mediations

are expected to minimize family privacy risks online and avoid family

disputes resulting from divulging family or personal information to

e-marketers. They are unlikely, however, to facilitate parent–child discus-

sion on privacy issues or develop teens’ critical attitude toward privacy. In

line with this speculation, Mangleburg and Bristol (1998) identified that

socio-oriented FCP had no significant effect on teens’ advertising skepti-

cism. Moscardelli and Divine (2007) discovered that socio-oriented FCP

was not related to teens’ privacy concerns, indicating that privacy concerns

are not necessarily developed through explicit rules. Liau, Khoo, and Ang

(2005) found that parental supervision such as cosurfing or checking in on

teens was not effective in decreasing risky Internet behavior of meeting

with someone encountered on the Internet. These findings imply weak link-

age between rulemaking and cosurfing mediations and the increase of

teens’ privacy concerns. Due to a lack of compelling evidence on the rela-

tionship between these parental mediations and teens’ critical attitude

toward marketers’ information practices, this study examines the following

research questions:

RQ1: What is the relationship between rulemaking mediation and teens’ level of

privacy concern?

RQ2: What is the relationship between cosurfing mediation and teens’ level of

privacy concern?

In a similar vein, this study asserts that parental mediation of privacy

would directly affect teens’ attitude toward the protection of online privacy.

As the outcome of consumer socialization, teens’ attitude toward

privacy protection measures would be important because it may lead to their


engagement in privacy coping behaviors. Still, little is known about the

effect of privacy parental mediation on teens’ attitude toward privacy-

protective measures.

A small number of studies have just begun to examine how different

types of parental mediation have an impact on children’s online activities

(Lee and Chae 2007; Liau, Khoo, and Ang 2005; Rideout, Roberts, and

Foehr 2005). Lee and Chae (2007), for instance, found that parental

mediation of the Internet had a favorable impact on children’s educational

online activities when parents recommended useful Web sites and co-used

the Internet with their children. Restrictive mediation, such as time limits

and Web site prohibition, appeared ineffective for guiding children’s

Internet use. These findings indicate that parental mediation of privacy

may serve as an important contributor in explaining teens’ support for

privacy protection measures, such as government regulation, school

education, and name removal request. Since an influence of parental

mediation on teens’ attitude toward privacy protection has not previ-

ously been examined in the literature, this study offers the following

research question:

RQ3: What is the relationship between privacy parental mediation and teens’ attitude

toward privacy protection measures?

Level of Privacy Concern and Attitude toward

Privacy Protection

Prior studies suggest a positive relationship between the level of con-

cern and privacy protection behaviors. LaRose and Rifon (2007, 133)

regarded privacy involvement as ‘‘a heightened state of attentiveness

to privacy protection’’ and argued that consumers highly involved with

privacy issues are more likely to attend to and read privacy statements

and resist e-marketers’ requests to provide personal information. It is

argued that consumers with high privacy involvement expect negative

consequences from information disclosure. Milne and Culnan (2004) dis-

covered that higher concerns for privacy were positively related to a ten-

dency to read online privacy notices as a strategy to handle privacy risks.

In the studies of an online panel and student sample, Milne, Rohm, and

Bahl (2004) found that the level for privacy concern was a strong predictor

of online privacy protection behaviors. Sheehan and Hoy (1999) found

that as privacy concern increased, consumers tended to adopt privacy-

protective behaviors.


In line with the studies conducted with the adult population, several

studies have examined how the level of privacy concern among teens is

related to their privacy protecting behaviors. Following up on the research

of Sheehan and Hoy (1999), Moscardelli and Divine (2007) found that

teens with higher concern for online privacy were more likely to use behav-

iors that would assist in protecting them from privacy risks. Youn (2005)

uncovered that teens’ unwillingness to disclose information to e-marketers

was positively related to their privacy coping behaviors such as falsifying

personal information, providing incomplete information, or seeking alter-

native Web sites that do not ask for information. Based on these findings,

the study posits that teens desire to support privacy-protective measures

when they are concerned about online privacy. Therefore, the following

hypotheses are developed:

H5a: Teens’ level of privacy concern would be positively related to their attitude

toward governmental limits on marketers’ information gathering and use.

H5b: Teens’ level of privacy concern would be positively related to their attitude

toward school-based education for privacy protection.

H5c: Teens’ level of privacy concern would be positively related to their motivation

to have more information about how to remove their name from lists.

All constructs and relationships discussed in the hypotheses are pre-

sented in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Conceptual Model for Understanding Teens’ Attitude toward Privacy Protection

Socialization Process Socialization Outcome

Socialization Agent: Parental Influence Consumer Learning Properties

Covariates:

Antecedents: Age, Gender Other Socialization Agents: Internet Use, Peer Influence

Perceived FCP: Socio-oriented Concept-oriented

PerceivedParentalMediation of Privacy

Teens’ Privacy Concern Level

Teens’ Attitude toward Privacy Protection

Note: Source: Adapted from Moschis and Churchill (1978).


METHOD

Data Collection and Samples

The survey data were collected from 395 students at one public high

school in a mid-sized Midwestern city, with a 31 percent participation rate.

Respondents’ age ranged from fourteen to eighteen years, with an average

age of fifteen years. Fifty-six percent were female. The sample was rela-

tively homogenous, with 85 percent of the respondents being identified as

Caucasian. After receiving approval from the district superintendent, the

school principal supported the project. The school received a $2.00 con-

tribution for each completed questionnaire. The teachers handed out the

parental consent forms in class and collected the signed forms. Students

also signed the consent form and completed the surveys in class under

the teacher supervision.

Measures

The survey instrument consisted of items to measure the following con-

structs: (1) FCP, (2) privacy parental mediation, (3) level of privacy con-

cern, (4) attitude toward privacy protection, and (5) demographics. All the

items for each construct are listed in Appendix 1, and the correlation matrix,

along with descriptive statistics, is presented in Appendix 2. Two dimen-

sions of FCP, concept- and socio-oriented communication, were respec-

tively measured with six items developed by Moschis, Moore, and

Smith (1984). Responses were estimated on a 4-point scale anchored by

1 ¼ ‘‘never’’ to 4 ¼ ‘‘very often.’’ Concept-oriented FCP had an alpha

of .67 and socio-oriented FCP had an alpha of .77. For further analysis,

raw scores were summed.

Three privacy-related parental mediations were examined: (1) rule-

making, (2) cosurfing, and (3) parent–child discussion. The items to mea-

sure privacy mediations were developed specifically for this study,

reflecting the literature on parental mediation of advertising and the

media (Austin et al. 1999; Carlson, Grossbart, and Tripp 1990; Carlson,

Grossbart, and Walsh 1990; Rose, Bush, and Kahle 1998; Valkenburg

et al. 1999; Warren 2001) as well as that on teens and privacy (e.g.,

Lenhart, Rainie, and Lewis 2001; Turow and Nir 2000). The wording

was modified to consider relevance to Internet use and privacy issues.

It is important to note that these measures examine teens’ perceptions

of parental mediation on Internet privacy, instead of inquiring parents

about the actual mediation.


For rulemaking mediation, teens were asked whether they have family

rules regarding Internet use and information disclosure. Those who

reported having family rules were then asked to indicate what kinds of spe-

cific family rules they have. Eight items were rated using a ‘‘yes’’ and ‘‘no’’

dichotomous format, with a summated index adding the items, and higher

scores indicating more family rules. Cosurfing was measured by asking

teens how often they surf the Internet with their parents. Parent–child dis-

cussion was measured by asking how often teens talk to their parents about

the ways that companies collect and use personal information online. Both

measures were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 ¼ ‘‘never’’ to 4 ¼‘‘very often.’’

The level of concern for online privacy was assessed with four items.

One item measuring the general level of privacy concern was derived from

prior privacy studies (Milne and Boza 1999; Phelps, D’Souza, and Nowak

2001; Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell 2000). Teens were asked how concerned

they were about the ways that companies collect and use their personal

information on the Internet. The responses were assessed using a 4-point

scale anchored by 1 ¼ ‘‘not at all concerned’’ and 4 ¼ ‘‘very concerned.’’

The remaining three items were developed from various industrial surveys

on consumer privacy (e.g., BusinessWeek Online 2000; Cranor, Reagle,

and Ackerman 1999; DDB Needham 2003; EPIC 2007; Harris Interactive

2002; Fox et al. 2000). These surveys examined privacy invasion caused by

Web site tracking of users, insecure transaction on e-commerce sites, and

company request for excessive amounts of personal information from con-

sumers. This study borrowed items from these surveys and modified the

wording for teens. Responses were measured with a 4-point scale ranging

from 1 ¼ ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 4 ¼ ‘‘strongly agree.’’ Four items were

aggregated, with higher scores meaning greater concerns about online pri-

vacy, and had an alpha of .61.

To assess teens’ attitude toward online privacy protection, the survey

contained three items designed to rate their support for governmental reg-

ulation, school education, and industry self-regulation such as an opt-out

option. The three items were generated from prior studies investigating

beliefs regarding privacy protection (Nowak and Phelps 1992) and attitudes

toward information control (Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell 2000). These items

were also selected because they represent important areas of privacy-

protective measures to safeguard teens’ privacy. They were estimated

by a 4-point scale anchored by 1 ¼ ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and 4 ¼ ‘‘strongly

agree.’’ The wording has been tailored for teens where necessary.

To determine other factors that may affect the relationship among the

focal variables under study, this study included the following variables that


have been found to influence the outcome of consumer socialization: gen-

der, age, Internet use, and peer influence (Boush, Friestad, and Rose 1994;

Lenhart and Madden 2007; Mangleburg and Bristol 1998; Mangleburg,

Grewal, and Bristol 1997;Moscardelli and Divine 2007; Youn 2005). Stud-

ies found that female teens were more concerned about online privacy and

were more susceptible to privacy risks (Moscardelli and Divine 2007; Youn

2005), older teens were more apt to disclose their personal information to

a Web site (Lenhart and Madden 2007; Turow and Nir 2000), and heavier

users of the Internet tended to show higher privacy concerns, while there

were no clear peer influences on privacy concerns (Moscardelli and Divine

2007). Thus, this study used these variables as covariates. Age was mea-

sured in years. Internet use was estimated by asking the frequency of Inter-

net use. Peer influence was assessed by three of the items developed by

Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel (1989) (a ¼ .61), which were used by

Boush, Friestad, and Rose (1994).

Data Analysis

To test the hypotheses, this study performed hierarchical multiple regres-

sions. Potential predictor variables such as demographics, Internet use, and

peer influence were entered in the first block as control variables. After this,

the independent variables to be tested for each hypothesis were entered

into the regression equation as a separate block, sequentially. The entry

order of the variables permits examination of whether the variables of

interest account for any additional variance in the criterion variable that

is not explained by previously entered predictors. This analytic approach

provides a stringent test for the impact of privacy parental mediation and

privacy concern level on teens’ attitude toward privacy protection. This

study also tested a multicollinearity problem for the parental socialization

measures to confirm that these measures are distinguishable constructs. The

results indicated little problem with multicollinearity, suggesting that these

measures appeared to be discernible in the minds of teens.

RESULTS

H1–H3 investigated whether different styles of FCP would lead to dif-

ferent parental mediations of Internet use and privacy issues. As illustrated

in Table 1, teens with socio-oriented communication were more likely to

have family rules (b ¼ .191, p ¼ .002) and surf the Internet with parents

(b ¼ .181, p ¼ .003). Teens with concept-oriented communication

appeared to talk more with their parents about companies’ information


practices (b ¼ .200, p ¼ .003). Therefore, the hypotheses regarding FCP

and parental mediation were supported. Notably, this study revealed that

teens with socio-oriented FCP tended to engage in parental mediation of

discussion, although the relationship was not statistically significant

(b ¼ .105, p ¼ .083).

This study developed H4 and two research questions (RQ1 and RQ2)

concerning the relationship between parental mediation and teens’ concern

level (Table 2). As predicted by H4, teens’ discussion with their parents led

to higher levels of privacy concern (b ¼ .233, p ¼ .000). RQ1 and RQ2

were related to the influence of parental mediations of rulemaking and

cosurfing on the level of concern for privacy. Rulemaking mediation

was not a significant predictor in explaining the privacy concern level

(b ¼ .076, p ¼ .142). On the other hand, cosurfing mediation turned

out to be positively related to the level of privacy concern (b ¼ .119,

p ¼ .026).

RQ3 examined the relationship between parental mediation and teens’

attitude toward privacy protection. Rulemaking and cosurfing media-

tions led to support for government regulation (b ¼ .127, p ¼ .016

for rulemaking; b ¼ .112, p ¼ .040 for cosurfing). Rulemaking and dis-

cussion mediations led to support for school education (b ¼ .108,

p ¼ .043 for rulemaking; b ¼ .148, p ¼ .008 for discussion). Desire

for name removal request was not significantly related to any style of

parental mediations. Discussion mediation had a marginal relationship

with the desire for name removal request but did not reach significance

(b ¼ .093, p ¼ .098).

TABLE 1

FCP and Parental Mediation of Privacy (N ¼ 395)

Rulemaking Cosurfing Discussion

b p b p b p

Controls

Gendera 2.092 .088 .002 .973 .023 .660

Age 2.109 .043 .051 .337 .030 .567

Internet use 2.044 .404 .032 .544 .021 .684

Peer influence .016 .810 .101 .124 .049 .452

R2 D .032 .021 .037 .010 .044 .004

Perceived FCP

Socio-oriented .191 .002 .181 .003 .105 .083

Concept-oriented 2.065 .332 .009 .893 .200 .003

R2 D .026 .008 .027 .008 .044 .000

Total R2 .058 .002 .064 .001 .088 .000

aGender: dummy-coded as 0 ¼ female, 1 ¼ male.


As expected inH5a–H5c, the results found a positive relationship between

teens’ privacy concern level and their attitude toward privacy protection,

even after other variables were controlled. Privacy-concerned teens tended

to be in favor of supporting government regulation (b ¼ .231, p ¼ .000)

and school education (b ¼ .247, p ¼ .000), and desired to receive more in-

formation about name removal request (b ¼ .255, p ¼ .000) (Table 3).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

With the consumer socialization perspective as the theoretical frame-

work, this study found the role of parental influence in motivating teens

to protect their privacy online. The findings supported the contention that

general FCPs affect teens’ perceptions of privacy-related parental media-

tion, which, in turn, have an impact on heightening their privacy concerns

and formulating their attitude toward protective measures. The findings also

showed that privacy-concerned teens want to protect their privacy with sup-

port for government regulation, school-based education, and name removal

request. These results provide valuable insight for consumer educators and

media literacy practitioners, who aim to increase parental involvement in

teens’ Internet safety as a socialization agent.

TABLE 2

Parental Mediation of Privacy and Teens’ Motivation for Privacy Protection (N ¼ 395)

Attitude toward Privacy Protection

Privacy Concern

Level

Government

Regulation

School

Education

Name Removal

Request

b p b p b p b p

Controls

Gendera 2.081 .119 2.041 .441 2.022 .682 2.066 .220

Age 2.028 .596 2.102 .055 2.128 .017 2.128 .018

Internet use .000 .996 2.025 .639 2.071 .180 2.080 .134

Peer influence .056 .376 .107 .099 2.029 .652 .124 .061

R2 D .050 .001 .070 .000 .034 .016 .069 .000

Perceived FCP

Socio-oriented .050 .444 2.043 .481 2.043 .485 .030 .628

Concept-oriented .057 .343 .158 .018 .142 .034 .053 .431

R2 D .022 .019 .016 .054 .019 .032 .006 .327

Perceived parental

mediation

Rulemaking .076 .142 .127 .016 .108 .043 2.020 .710

Cosurfing .119 .026 .112 .040 .087 .111 .014 .796

Discussion .233 .000 .005 .923 .148 .008 .093 .098

R2 D .083 .000 .027 .016 .046 .001 .009 .357

Total R2 .155 .000 .112 .000 .099 .000 .084 .000



Results showed that teens perceiving their FCP as concept-oriented

were more likely to engage in family discussions on e-marketers’ infor-

mation practices. This perceived mediation, subsequently, tended to

increase their level of concern for privacy. On the contrary, teens citing

their FCP as socio-oriented reported to have more family rules, and

importantly, such perceived mediation did not contribute to increasing

the level of concern. Teens citing their FCP as socio-oriented also per-

ceived cosurfing as a way of interacting with their parents; however,

unlike rulemaking mediation, cosurfing was related to increasing the level

of privacy concern.

These findings confirm the argument that concept-oriented FCP promote

the open mode of family discussion on privacy issues. Such discussion

mediation appeared to be more effective than rule-driven parental media-

tion in augmenting the strength of privacy concern. A further comparative

analysis revealed that those teens who have talked to their parents showed

a greater level of concern than those who have not (mean¼ 10.23 vs. 8.76,

t ¼ 5.37, p , .001). This analysis implies that privacy school education

program should be offered to parents. It would be beneficial to provide

parent’s night presentations and a workshop on Internet safety, encourage

parent–child homework activities designed to increase communication,

TABLE 3

Level of Privacy Concern and Teens’ Attitude toward Privacy Protection (N ¼ 395)

Government Regulation School Education

Name Removal

Request

b p b p b p

Controls

Gendera 2.024 .648 2.008 .884 2.047 .371

Age 2.094 .073 2.110 .036 2.122 .021

Internet use 2.023 .652 2.053 .306 2.079 .131

Peer influence .094 .140 2.040 .530 .106 .100

R2 D .069 .000 .031 .028 .069 .000

Perceived FCP

Socio-oriented 2.056 .354 2.067 .270 .014 .815

Concept-oriented .145 .027 .132 .044 .042 .524

R2 D .015 .059 .019 .034 .006 .325

Perceived parental mediation

Rulemaking .109 .037 .091 .081 2.038 .465

Cosurfing .082 .128 .063 .245 2.013 .805

Discussion 2.046 .412 .090 .107 .029 .607

R2 D .027 .019 .048 .001 .008 .385

Privacy concern level .231 .000 .247 .000 .255 .000

R2 D .045 .000 .052 .000 .055 .000

Total R2 .157 .000 .149 .000 .139 .000



and/or inform parents of updated Internet safety policy through handouts or

teacher–parent meetings (McCannon 2002).

Socio-oriented FCP have been argued to control and supervise children’s

information disclosure through explicit rule setting. Such rulemaking medi-

ation that does not help teens increase the level of privacy concern neces-

sary to safeguard privacy from e-marketers’ information requests. This

study initially viewed cosurfing as a means of parental control over teens’

Internet use and information disclosure and speculated a weak linkage

between cosurfing and the level of concern. Counter to this expectation,

a positive relationship between cosurfing and the concern level was found.

Several explanations for this finding are possible. Cosurfing may provide

opportunities of having parent–child conversations about privacy issues,

which lead to the high level of concern. Alternatively, cosurfing may func-

tion as a gatekeeper for screening e-marketers’ influences on children.

Parents may cosurf because they wish to impart their negative attitude

toward e-marketers with their child. This would also lead to an increase

in teens’ privacy concerns. Future research should examine this possible

dual nature of cosurfing mediation—a trigger for either a discussion or

a gatekeeper, or both, for filtering e-marketers’ influences.

Parental mediation has been found to influence teens’ attitude toward

privacy-protective measures. Mediations of rulemaking and cosurfing were

related to a more positive attitude toward government regulation, and medi-

ations of rulemaking and discussion were related to support for school edu-

cation. Teens with rulemaking and cosurfing mediations may appreciate

and yield to parental authority because parental guidance, in the form of

explicit directives or modeling, is a way of interacting with their parents

when they are online. For privacy protection, these teens may thus rely on

governmental force as an alternative authority figure to parental control. In

tandem, teens with rulemaking mediation would support a stronger role of

school education with a similar reason. However, teens reporting discus-

sion mediation may see school education as a source of learning privacy

issues and favor school-initiated media literacy programs as a means of

developing consumer skills to deal with e-marketers’ information practices.

This study also found that the different styles of parental mediations did not

relate to teens’ desire to receive more information about how to remove

their name from marketing lists. Regardless of different types of media-

tions, it seems that most teens feel unsolicited marketing messages online

intrusive, leading to interests in the opt-out self-regulatory option. Further

research needs to explore the reasons for this result.

When interpreting the role of parental influence on teens’ motivation for

protection, caution needs to be taken with regard to parental influence


measures. The findings on parental influence are based on the perceivedparental mediation by teens, which is formed through their own perspec-

tive, but not on the actual mediation reported by parents. The objectives of

this study were to identify teens’ privacy concern level and their attitude

toward privacy protection, instead of parental concerns over teens’ privacy

and parental attitude toward privacy protection for teens. Thus, an exam-

ination of how teens’ perception of FCP and parental mediation influences

their level of concern and attitude toward privacy protection is more appro-

priate and has more practical implications for educators or policymakers.

Teens may receive maximum benefits when the policies are developed on

the basis of their own evaluations. Teens’ perceptions of their parents’

views may better explain the development of their beliefs and attitudes

toward privacy issues. Parents’ views on mediations do not always trans-

form into their children’s views, indicating ‘‘a weak correspondence’’

between the two views (Carlson et al., 1994; Fujioka and Austin 2003,

418; Nathanson 2001). Given this information, the perceived parental influ-

ence by teens, compared to the actual mediation by parents, may have its

own unique impact on the socialization outcomes about privacy issues.

Due in part to the nature of parental mediation measures, this study does

not indicate a causal relationship between parental mediation and teens’

motivation for privacy protection. Since parental mediation is measured

from teens’ perspective, discussion, for example, may influence teens’ level

of privacy concern, but teens’ level of concern may also generate discussion

with parents. Even though our conceptual model assumes that parental

influence plays a role in explaining teens’ motivation for privacy protec-

tion, the correlational nature of the relationship should be considered when

interpreting the results.

Conclusions stemming from the findings should be tempered by the lim-

itations of this study. Despite the fit of the regression models, a substantial

amount of variance in teens’ attitude toward privacy protection measures

remains unexplained. Some possible explanations for this include the fol-

lowing. A single-item measure was used to measure parental mediation

(e.g., cosurfing and discussion) and teens’ attitude toward privacy protec-

tion. The skewing of an item is more likely to occur to a single-item mea-

sure, especially in the area of privacy research. This would make it difficult

to detect relations, thereby resulting in a small amount of explained vari-

ance. Multiple items might measure the construct better and explain more

variance. Research on teens and privacy issues is newly emerging, so the

formal scale consisting of multiple items has not yet been developed for

privacy parental mediation. Future research needs to develop the scale

to measure this construct.


Parental mediation measures may be problematic because they did not

offer a comprehensive list of online activities that parents and teens might

discuss. They did not include the domain of social networking sites or chat

rooms, in which most teens are currently engaged. Instead, they focused on

e-commerce-related activities in the commercial Web sites. Online trans-

actions are not as common with teens as social networking activities.

Emphasis on the domain of e-commerce in measuring parental mediation

may offer an explanation for weak effects. This suggests a need to include

social networking activities for future research. This study also asserts that

parental influence plays a pivotal role in explaining teens’ motivation for

privacy protection, but other predictors may contribute to an increase in the

explained variance of the models. For example, personality factors such as

locus of control or self-efficacy in privacy protection would be possible

factors to consider.

As public concerns with privacy invasion among teens grow, there is

a need to develop effective privacy education for this segment. By applying

the consumer socialization perspective to the online privacy context, this

study explored the role of parental influence in increasing teens’ privacy

concerns and their subsequent attitude toward privacy-protective measures.

It is hoped that consumer advocates and educators find these results valu-

able when developing policies for privacy protection of teens.

APPENDIX 1

Measures of Constructs

Socio-oriented FCP

My parents tell me what types of things I can buy.

My parents want to know what I do with my money.

My parents complain when I buy something that they don’t like.

My parents tell me that I can’t buy certain things.

My parents say that I should not ask questions about things that teens do not usually buy.

My parents say that they know what is best for me and I should not question them.

Concept-oriented FCP

My parents ask me to help in buying things for the family.

My parents ask me what I think about things I buy for myself.

My parents say that I should decide about things I should or should not buy.

My parents say that buying things I like is important even if others do not like them.

My parents let me decide how to spend my own money.

My parents ask me for advice about buying things.

Rulemaking parental mediation

When I can be online.

How long I can be online.

What Web sites I can visit.

What kinds of personal information I can give to the Web sites.


APPENDIX 2

Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics (N ¼ 395)

A B C D E F G H I

A. Concept-oriented FCP 1.00

B. Socio-oriented FCP .48*** 1.00

C. Rulemaking .04 .17*** 1.00

D. Cosurfing .15** .21***2.00 1.00

E. Discussion .26*** .21*** .11* .29***1.00

F. Privacy concern level .21*** .21*** .13* .19*** .30***1.00

G. Government regulation .20*** .09 .15** .12* .09 .27*** 1.00

H. School education .17*** .10* .14** .12* .18*** .31*** .34*** 1.00

I. Name removal request .17*** .11* .04 .07 .14** .29*** .33*** .21*** 1.00

Mean 14.01 12.70 1.26 1.55 1.42 9.22 2.88 2.47 2.67

SD 3.46 3.87 2.21 0.73 0.69 2.59 0.92 0.90 1.01

Skewness 20.09 0.12 1.71 0.96 1.59 0.07 20.55 20.17 20.27

*p , .05, **p , .01, ***p , .001

APPENDIX 1

Continued

Whether I can buy products or services on the Internet.

Whether I can use a credit card to buy something on the Internet.

Whether I can send my picture.

Whether I can go out by myself to meet a person I have talked with on the Internet.

Cosurfing parental mediation

I surf the Internet with my parents.

Discussion parental mediation

I talk to my parents about the ways that companies collect and use personal information on the

Internet.

Privacy concern level

How concerned are you about the ways that companies collect and use personal information about

you on the Internet?

While online, I feel I am being asked to provide large amounts of personal information.

I think that making purchases with a credit card over the Internet is too risky.

I am concerned that a company will track me down when I visit its commercial Web site.

Attitude toward online privacy protection

Government should limit amount and type of information that can be collected.

The school should do more to protect the privacy rights of teenagers.

I wish I had more information about how to remove my name from mailing lists.


REFERENCES

Aidman, Amy. 2000. Children’s Online Privacy. http://www.cme.org/publications/articles.html.

(Accessed May 12, 2003)

Austin, Erica Weintraub. 1993. Exploring the Effects of Active Parental Mediation of Television Con-

tent. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37 (2): 147–158.

Austin, Erica Weintraub, Paul Bolls, Yuki Fujioka, and Jason Engelbertson. 1999. How and Why

Parents Take on the Tube. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43 (2): 175–192.

Austin, Erica Weintraub and Bethe Nach-Ferguson. 1995. Sources and Influences of Young School-

Age Children’s General and Brand-Specific Knowledge About Alcohol. Health Communication, 7

(1): 1–20.

Austin, Erica Weintraub, Bruce E. Pinkleton, and Yuki Fujioka. 2000. The Role of Interpretation Pro-

cesses and Parental Discussion in the Media’s Effects on Adolescents’ Use of Alcohol. Pediatrics,105 (2): 343–349.

Bearden, William O., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E. Teel. 1989. Measurement of Consumer Sus-

ceptibility to Interpersonal Influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March): 473–481.

Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M Rose. 1994. Adolescent Skepticism toward TV

Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June): 165–175.

Brookshire, Malena and Christine Maulhardt. 2005. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the NetSmartz

Program: A Study of Maine Public Schools. http://www.netsmartz.org/pdf/gw_evaluation.pdf.

(Accessed June 13, 2007)

BusinessWeek Online. 2000. Business Week/Harris Poll: A Growing Threat. March 20. http://www.

businessweek.com/2000/00_12/b3673010.htm. (Accessed January 25, 2003)

Business Wire. 2006. JupiterResearch Finds that Teenagers Will Spend $3 Billion Online in 2006.

http://www.businesswire.com. (Accessed June 11, 2007)

Carlson, Les, Sanford Grossbart, and J. Kathleen Stuenkel. 1992. The Role of Parental Socialization

Types on Differential Family Communication Patterns Regarding Consumption. Journal of Con-

sumer Psychology, 1 (1): 31–52.

Carlson, Les, Sanford Grossbart, and Carolyn Tripp. 1990. An Investigation of Mothers’ Communi-

cation Orientation and Patterns. Advances in Consumer Research, 17: 804–812.

Carlson, Les, Sanford Grossbart, and AnnWalsh. 1990.Mothers’ CommunicationOrientation and Con-

sumer Socialization Tendencies. Journal of Advertising, 19 (3): 27–38.

Carlson, Les, Ann Walsh, Russell N. Laczniak, and Sanford Grossbart. 1994. Family Communication

Patterns and Marketplace Motivations, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Children and Mothers. Journal

of Consumer Affairs, 28 (1): 25–53.

Chester, Jeff and KathrynMontgomery. 2007. Interactive Food & BeverageMarketing: Targeting Chil-

dren and Youth in the Digital Age. Berkeley Media Studies Group. http://digitalads.org/documents/

digiMarketingBrief.pdf. (Accessed September 1, 2007)

Cranor, Lorrie F., Joseph Reagle, and Mark S. Ackerman. 1999. Beyond Concern: Understanding Net

Users’ Attitudes About Online Privacy. AT&T Labs-Research Technical Report. TR 99.4.3 (April

14). http://arxiv.org/html/cs/9904010/report.htm. (Accessed December 12, 2001)

Culnan, Mary J. 1995. Consumer Awareness of Name Removal Procedures: Implications for Direct

Marketers. Journal of Direct Marketing, 9 (Spring): 10–19.

Culnan,Mary J. 2000. Protecting Privacy Online: Is Self-RegulationWorking? Journal of Public Policy

& Marketing, 19(1): 20–26.

DDB Needham. 2003. The Life Style Survey. Chicago, IL.Donnerstein, Edward. 2002. The Internet. In Children, Adolescents, & the Media, edited by Victor C.

Strasburger and Barbara J. Wilson (301–321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). 2007. Public Opinion on Privacy. http://epic.org/

privacy/survey/. (Accessed January 9, 2008)

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2006. Children’s Internet Protection Act. http://

www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html. (Accessed June 14, 2007)


Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 2004. The CAN-SPAM Act: Requirements for Commercial Emai-

lers. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm. (Accessed June 13, 2007)

———. 2007a. Internet Theft Complaints by Victim Age. http://www.consumer.gov/sentinel/Sentinel_

CY_2006/ir_fraud_byconsumerage.pdf. (Accessed June 7, 2007)

———. 2007b. Internet-Related Fraud Complaints by Consumer Age. http://www.consumer.gov/

sentinel/Sentinel_CY_2006/idt_complaintsby_victimage.pdf. (Accessed June 7, 2007)

Fox, Susannah, Lee Rainie, John Horrigan, Amanda Lenhart, Tom Spooner, and Cornelia Carter. 2000.

Trust and Privacy Online: Why Americans Want to Rewrite the Rules. The Pew Internet & Amer-

ican Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Trust_Privacy_Report.pdf. (Accessed

December 15, 2004)

Fujioka, Yuri and Erica Weintraub Austin. 2002. The Relationship of Family Communication Patterns

to Parental Mediation Styles. Communication Research, 29 (6): 642–665.

———. 2003. The Implications of Vantage Point in Parental Mediation of Television and Child’s Atti-

tudes Toward Drinking Alcohol. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47 (3): 418–434.

Goodwin, Cathy. 1991. Privacy: Recognition of a Consumer Right. Journal of Public Policy & Mar-

keting, 10 (1): 149–166.

Graeff, Timothy R. and Susan Harmon. 2002. Collecting and Using Personal Data: Consumers’ Aware-

ness and Concerns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19 (4): 302–318.

Grant, Ian C. 2005. Young Peoples’ Relationships with Online Marketing Practices: An Intrusion Too

Far? Journal of Marketing Management, 21: 607–623.———. 2006. Online Privacy—An Issue for Adolescents? Proceedings of the Child and Teen Con-

sumption 2006. Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.cbs.dk/content/download/41873/616561/file/

Paper%2046_Ian%20Grant.pdf.

Greenspan, Robyn. 2004. Online Teens Shape Trends. http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/

3350571. (Accessed November 1, 2005)

Harris Interactive. 2002. Privacy on and off the Internet: What Consumers Want. http://www.aicpa.org/

download/webtrust/priv_rpt_21mar02.pdf. (Accessed January 25, 2003)

Howard, Theresa. 2006. Seeking Teens, Marketers Take Risks by Emulating MySpace. USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-05-01-myspace-marketers_x.htm. (Accessed June 7, 2007)

Koesten, Joy and Karen Anderson. 2004. Exploring the Influence of Family Communication Patterns,

Cognitive Complexity, and Interpersonal Competence on Adolescent Risk Behaviors. Journal ofFamily Communication, 4 (2): 99–121.

Koesten, Joy, Katherine I. Miller, and Mary L. Hummert. 2001. Family Communication, Self-Efficacy,

and White Female Adolescents’ Risk Behavior. Journal of Family Communication, 2 (1): 7–27.

LaRose, Robert and Nora J. Rifon. 2007. Promoting i-Safety: Effects of Privacy Warnings and Privacy

Seals onRiskAssessment andOnline PrivacyBehavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41 (1): 127–149.

Lee, Byoungkwan, Charles T. Salmon, and Hye-Jin Paek. 2007. The Effects of Information Sources on

Consumer Reactions to Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Prescription Drug Advertising: A Consumer

Socialization Approach. Journal of Advertising, 36 (1): 107–119.

Lee, Laurie Thomas. 2002. Defining Privacy: Freedom in a Democratic Constitutional State. Journal of

Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46 (4): 646–650.

Lee, Sook-Jung and Young-Gil Chae. 2007. Children’s Internet Use in a Family Context: Influence on

Family Relationships and Parental Mediation. CyperPsychology & Behavior, 10 (5): 640–644.

Lenhart, Amanda. 2005. Protecting Teens Online. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://

www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/152/report_display.asp. (Accessed December 17, 2006)

Lenhart, Amanda and Mary Madden. 2007. Teens, Privacy & Online Social Networks. Pew Internet &

American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/211/report_display.asp. (Accessed June

13, 2007)

Lenhart, Amanda,MaryMadden, and Paul Hitlin. 2005. Teens and Technology: Youth Are Leading the

Transition to a Fully Wired and Mobile Nation.Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://

www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf. (Accessed June 11, 2006)

Lenhart, Amanda, Lee Rainie, and Oliver Lewis. 2001. Teenage Life Online: The Rise of the Instant-

Message Generation and the Internet’s Impact on Friendship and Family Relationships. Pew Inter-


net & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Report.pdf. (Accessed

December 20, 2001)

Liau, Albert Kienfie, Angeline Khoo, and Peng Hwa Ang. 2005. Factors Influencing Adolescents

Engagement in Risky Internet Behavior. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8 (6): 513–520.

Mangleburg, Tamara F. and Terry Bristol. 1998. Socialization and Adolescents’ Skepticism toward

Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 27 (3): 11–21.

Mangleburg, Tamara F., Dhruv Grewal, and Terry Bristol. 1997. Socialization, Gender, and Adoles-

cent’ Self-Reports of Their Generalized Use of Product Labels. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31 (2):255–279.

McCannon, Bob. 2002. Media Literacy: What? Why? How? In Children, Adolescents, & the Media,

edited by Victor C. Strasburger and Barbara J. Wilson (322–367). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Milne, George R. and Maria-Eugenia Boza. 1999. Trust and Concern in Consumers’ Perceptions of

Marketing Information Management Practices. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13 (1): 5–24.

Milne, George R. and Mary J. Culnan. 2004. Strategies for Reducing Online Privacy Risks: Why

Consumers Read (Or Don’t Read) Online Privacy Notices. Journal of Interactive Marketing,

18 (3): 15–29.

Milne, George R. and Mary Ellen Gordon. 1993. Direct Mail Privacy-Efficiency Trade-Offs Within an

Implied Social Contract Framework. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12 (2): 206–215.

Milne, George R. and Andrew J. Rohm. 2000. Consumer Privacy and Name Removal Across Direct

Marketing Channels: Exploring Opt-in and Opt-out Alternatives. Journal of Public Policy & Mar-keting, 19 (Fall): 238–249.

Milne, George R., Andrew J. Rohm, and Shalini Bahl. 2004. Consumers’ Protection of Online Privacy

and Identity. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38 (2): 217–232.

Moore, Jesse N., Mary Anne Raymond, John D. Mittelstaedt, and John F. Tanner, Jr. 2002. Age and

Consumer Socialization Agent Influences on Adolescents’ Sexual Knowledge, Attitudes, and

Behavior: Implications for Social Marketing Initiatives and Public Policy. Journal of Public Policy

& Marketing, 21 (1): 37–52.

Moore, Roy L. and George P. Moschis. 1981. The Role of Family Communication in Consumer Learn-

ing. Journal of Communication, 31 (4): 42–51.

Moscardelli, DeborahM. and Richard Divine. 2007. Adolescents’ Concern for PrivacyWhen Using the

Internet: An Empirical Analysis of Predictors and Relationships with Privacy-Protecting Behaviors.

Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 35 (3): 232–252.

Moschis, George P. 1985. The Role of Family Communication in Consumer Socialization of Children

and Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (March): 898–913.

Moschis, George P. and Gilbert A. Churchill. 1978. Consumer Socialization: A Theoretical and Empir-

ical Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (4): 599–609.

Moschis, George P. and Roy L. Moore. 1979. Decision Making Among the Young: A Socialization

Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (September): 101–112.

Moschis, George P., Roy L. Moore, and Ruth B. Smith. 1984. The Impact of Family Communication on

Adolescent Consumer Socialization. Advances in Consumer Research, 11: 314–319.

Moschis, George P., Andjali E. Prahasto, and Linda G. Mitchell. 1986. Family Communication Influ-

ences on the Development of Consumer Behavior: Some Additional Findings. Advances in Con-sumer Research, 13: 365–369.

Mukherji, Jyotsna. 2005. Maternal Communication Patterns: Advertising Attitudes and Mediation

Behaviors in Urban Media. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11 (4): 247–262.

Nathanson, Amy I. 2001. Parent and Child Perspectives on the Presence and Meaning of Parental Tele-

vision Mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45 (2): 201–220.

Nowak, Glen and Joseph Phelps. 1992. Understanding Privacy Concerns: An Assessment of Consum-

ers’ Information-Related Knowledge and Beliefs. Journal of Direct Marketing, 6 (4): 28–39.

———. 1995. Direct Marketing and the Use of Individual-Level Consumer Information: Determining

How and When ‘‘Privacy’’ Matters. Journal of Direct Marketing, 9 (3): 46–60.

Phelps, Joseph, Giles D’Souza, and Glen Nowak. 2001. Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer

Privacy Concerns: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15 (4): 2–17.


Phelps, Joseph, Glen Nowak, and Elizabeth Ferrell. 2000. Privacy Concerns and ConsumerWillingness

to Provide Personal Information. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19 (1): 27–41.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. 2007. Children’s Privacy and Safety on the Internet: A Resource Guide

for Parents. http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs21-children.htm. (Accessed June 4, 2007)

Rideout, Victoria, Donald F. Roberts, and Ulla G. Foehr. 2005. Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year Olds. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. http://www.kff.org/entme-

dia/upload/Executive-Summary-Generation-M-Media-in-the-%20Lives-of-8-18-Year-olds.pdf.

Ritchie, L. David. 1991. Family Communication Patterns: An Epistemic Analysis and Conceptual Rein-

terpretation. Communication Research, 18 (4): 548–565.

Romer, Dan. 2006. Stranger Contact in Adolescent Online Social Networks Common but Likelihood of

Contact Depends on Types of Web Sites; Open Sites, Such as MySpace, More Prone to Stranger

Contact than Facebook. Philadelphia: The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of

Pennsylvania. http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Releases/Release_HC20060920/

Report_HC20060920.pdf. (Accessed June 7, 2007)

Rose, Gregory M., David Boush, and Aviv Shoham. 2002. Family Communication and Children’s

Purchasing Influence: A Cross-National Examination. Journal of Business Research, 55 (11):

867–873.

Rose, Gregory M., Victoria D. Bush, and Lynn Kahle. 1998. The Influence of Family Communication

Patterns on Parental Reactions Toward Advertising: A Cross-National Examination. Journal of

Advertising, 27 (4): 72–85.

Ruskin, Gary. 2001. Support the Student Privacy Protection Act. http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/

commercial-alert/2001/000089.html. (Accessed February 4, 2004)

Safe & Smart. Children’s Online Safety: Government Regulation and Industry Trends. http://

www.nsbf.org/safe-smart/toc.htm. (Accessed June 13, 2006)

Schonberger, Jennifer. 2005. Emerging Identity Theft Market Targets Teen as Newest Niche. http://

www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec05/idtheft_8-29.pdf. (Accessed June 7, 2007)

Sheehan, Kim B. and Mariea G. Hoy. 1999. Flaming, Complaining, Abstaining: How Online Users

Respond to Privacy Concerns. Journal of Advertising, 28 (3): 37–51.

Sheehan, Kim B. and Mariea G. Hoy. 2000. Dimensions of Privacy Concern Among Online Consum-

ers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19 (1): 62–73.

Strasburger, Victor C. and Barbara J. Wilson. 2002. Media Literacy Skills. InChildren, Adolescents, & theMedia, edited by Victor C. Strasburger and Barbara J. Wilson (422–426). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tech Law Journal. 1999. Children’s Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act of 1999. http://

www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/privacy/hr369ih.htm. (Accessed May 30, 2007)

Teenage Research Unlimited. 2006. Teen Internet Safety Study. National Center for Missing &

Exploited Children and Cox Communications. http://www.netsmartz.org/pdf/cox_teensurvey_

may2006.pdf. (Accessed June 7, 2007)

Turow, Joseph and Lilach Nir. 2000. The Internet and the Family 2000: The View From Parents, theView From Kids. Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg Public Policy Center. http://www.appcpenn.

org/Downloads/Information_And_Society/20000516_Internet_and_family/20000516_Internet_and_

family_report.pdf. (Accessed April 20, 2002)

Valkenburg, Patti M., Marina Krcmar, Allerd L. Peeters, and Nies M. Marseille. 1999. Developing

a Scale to Assess Three Styles of TelevisionMediation: ‘‘InstructiveMediation,’’ ‘‘RestrictiveMedi-

ation,’’ and ‘‘Social Coviewing.’’ Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43 (1): 52–66.

Ward, Scott. 1974. Consumer Socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (2): 1–14.

Warren, Ron. 2001. InWords and Deeds: Parental Involvement and Mediation of Children’s Television

Viewing. Journal of Family Communication, 1 (4): 211–231.

———. 2002. Preaching to the Choir? Parents’ Use of TV Ratings to Mediate Children’s Viewing.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(4): 867–886.Willard, Nancy. 2006. Youth Risk Online: Foundational Concerns. http://www.education-world.com/

a_tech/columnists/willard/willard002.shtml. (Accessed June 7, 2007)

Youn, Seounmi. 2005. Teenagers’ Perceptions of Online Privacy and Coping Behaviors: A Risk-

Benefit Appraisal Approach. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49 (1): 86–110.


Documents

Parental Influence and Teens’ Attitude toward Online Privacy Protection