Online Behaviour Report 170X240mm Ver 3.Indd
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Co-Financed by the Olga Kolpakova European Commission (Ed) Online behaviour related to child sexual abuse Focus groups’ findings Online behaviour related to child sexual abuse Focus groups’ findings 2012 Other publications from the ROBERT project include: Content Ainsaar, M. & Lööf, L. (Eds) (2011). Online behaviour related to child sexual abuse: Literature report. Council of the Baltic Sea States, Stockholm: ROBERT project. Quayle, E., Jonsson, L. & Lööf, L. (2012). Online behaviour related to child sexu- al abuse: Interviews with affected young people. Council of the Baltic Sea States, Introduction 7 Stockholm: ROBERT project. Olga Kolpakova Please cite this report as: Kolpakova, O. (Ed) (2012). Online behaviour related to child sexual abuse: Focus 1. Methodological issues 14 groups’ findings.Council of the Baltic Sea States, Stockholm: ROBERT project. 1.1. Glossary 14 Ethel Quayle, Lars Lööf, Kadri Soo, Mare Ainsaar ISBN: 978-91-980572-1-8 1.2. Focus groups 29 Council of the Baltic Sea States, Stockholm 2012 Ethel Quayle Acknowledgements 1.3. Framework analysis 32 This report and ROBERT project are made possible through funding by the EC Ethel Quayle Safer Internet Programme. Our special gratitude goes to all the experts from ROBERT team and outside the project core team who made significant con- 1.4. Sample 35 tributions to the research and without whom this report would not be possi- Ethel Quayle ble: Elisa Vellani (Italy) who developed participant information sheets, consent forms and focus groups guidelines for facilitators, Silvia Allegro who developed 1.5. Procedure 36 participant information sheets, consent forms and focus groups guidelines for Ethel Quayle associations and organizations. Thank you to “Il fiore del deserto”, “Casetta Rossa”, “Casa Felix”, “Istituto Tata Giovanni”, “Polisportiva Oratorio San Paolo”, 1.6. Data analysis 37 “Santa LuciaSport”, “Polisportiva Tor di Quinto”, “Arcigay Orlando – Brescia” Ethel Quayle and “Rete Giovani Arcigay” (Italy), St. Petersburg State Institution Social Or- phanage for Children “Transit”, St. Petersburg, State Institution Shelter for Children “Vospitatelniy Dom” (Upbringing House), governmental school for 2. Research results across different groups of young people 40 disabled children “Dynamics”, NGO “Vyhod” (Russia) which assisted us in or- Ethel Quayle, Linda Hutton, Karen McKenzie ganization of focus groups. Thank you to Kadri Soo, Judit Strömpl (Estonia), Tale Meyer, Marie-Catherine Heereman (Germany), Larisa Korneva, Elena Za- 2.1. Establishing agency in the virtual world 40 badykina (Russia), Camille Leicht, Kuno Sørensen (Denmark), Silvia Allegro 2.2. Negotiating online relationships 53 and Elisa Vellani (Italy), Stephanie Bannon (Scotland), Lars Lööf, Jenny Söder- 2.3. Distinguishing between in-group and out-group 67 strand (Sweden) who conducted focus groups in ROBERT countries and to Ksenia Eritsyan (Russia) who checked the focus groups coding. 2.4. Staying safe online 82 Our special thank you however is reserved for all the children and young peo- 2.5. Delineating between merged realities 91 ple who took part in the focus groups. 5 3. Analysis of different groups of young people 102 Introduction 3.1. Young people who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, 102 Olga Kolpakova bisexual or transgender Lars Lööf 3.2. Young people with a learning disability and/or with 110 additional support needs Stephanie Bannon Over the last two decades more than 200 studies have been made that 3.3. Young people in residential care 112 focus on various aspects of child online sexual violence. The majority of Olga Kolpakova the surveys highlighted the way children use Internet. According to one 3.4. Analysis based on gender 118 of the largest surveys – EU Kids Online survey – produced in 2010, 60% Kadri Soo of European children aged 9 to 16 years use the Internet on a daily basis, spending on average 88 minutes online. They do their homework, play Conclusion 122 games alone or against the computer, watch video clips online, use In- Ethel Quayle, Linda Hutton, Karen McKenzie, Lars Lööf, ternet interactively for communication (social networking, instant mes- Mare Ainsaar, Kadri Soo, Stephanie Bannon, Silvia Allegro, saging etc.) and read/watch the news, play with others online, download Olga Kolpakova films and music, share content peer-to-peer (eg, via webcam or message boards), visit chat rooms, share files, blog and spend time in a virtual References 132 world (Livingstone et al 2011). Internet accessibility, frequency and du- ration of use, and types of children’s online activities have been the focus of studies in a number of other national surveys (Leicht & Sorensen 2011, Children… 2006, Medienpädagogischer… 2010a,b, Mainardi and Zgraggen 2010, Soldatova et al 2010, Levina et al 2011, Medierådet 2005, 2008, 2010). The more active our children are online, the greater the risks associ- ated with Internet use. According to a number of studies, a significant number of children and young people practice behaviour which could potentially lead to negative repercussions, such as seeking new friends online (Levina et al 2011), having contact online with someone they have never met face to face (Livingstone et al 2011), having people on 6 7 “buddy lists” known only online (Ybarra et al 2007, Levina et al 2011), adolescents could be pressured or threatened into having sex during of- sending personal information to people they have never met face to face fline meetings with their online acquaintances (Suseg et al 2008, Hel- (Livingstone et al 2011, Levina et al 2011), posting personal information weg-Larsen et al 2009, Levina et al 2011). Studies have shown that the (Ybarra et al 2007) and sexualized images (Svedin & Priebe 2009, Dane- Internet (Levina et al 2010), and in particular chat rooms (Briggs et al back & Månsson 2009), posing nude (De Graaf & Vanweseenbeeck 2006) 2010, Wagner 2008) and social networking sites (Wise et al 2010), could or masturbating in front of a web cam (Svedin & Priebe 2009), sending be used by offenders who are interested either in engaging in cybersex personal information (Ybarra et al 2007, Levina et al 2011), sending or without any direct wish to meet in real life or in meeting offline for sex. receiving sexual images (Lenhart 2009), accessing pornography (Svedin et al 2011, Wolak et al 2007, Sørensen & Kjørholt 2007, Sabina et al In a number of studies individual risk factors that led to sexual abuse, 2008), talking about sex online (Medieradet… 2010, Livingstone et al were identified. Studies show that girls (Baumgartner et al 2010a, El- 2011, Ybarra et al 2007) and meeting people face to face offline who they lonen et al 2008, Mainardi and Zgraggen 2010, Mitchell et al 2007a, initially made contact with on the Internet (ACPI/PROTEGELES 2002, Wolak et al 2008), adolescents (Baumgartner et al 2010a, Ellonen et al Helweg-Larsen et al 2009, Livingstone et al 2011, Mainardi & Zgraggen 2008, Livingstone et al 2011, Wolak et al 2004), youngsters with lower 2010, Monteiro & Gomes 2009, Wojtasik 2004). education (De Graaf and Vanwesenbeeck 2006), teenagers who iden- tify themselves as homosexual or those with unclear sexual orientation In some cases such behaviour could be regarded as a form of adolescent (Wolak et al 2004) are at a higher risk of experiencing Internet-related age-appropriate social and sexual expression and curiosity, and may not sexual abuse. Personal behavioural factors such as frequent Internet use always lead to negative consequences. In other cases, however, children (De Graaf & Vanwesenbeeck 2006, Mitchell et al 2001, Stahl and Fritz and adolescents have narrowly avoided danger in potentially threaten- 2002, Wolak et al 2008, Ybarra et al 2004), online risk-taking behav- ing situations. Therefore, not all those interacting online with unknown iour (ACPI/PROTEGELES 2002, Mitchell et al 2001, Mitchell et al 2008, people, sometimes discussing sex, have been exposed to unwanted Stahl and Fritz 2002), and substance use (Ybarra et al 2004) may also sexual solicitations or other negative repercussions (Wolak et al 2008). increase the chance of a young person becoming a victim of Internet- Of those who reported having seen pornography online accidentally or related sexual abuse. Another group of individual risk factors is related purposefully, two out of three were unaffected by the experience (Liv- to personal traumatic experiences and emotional situations. According ingstone et al 2011). to the research data, youth (especially girls) with a history of offline sex- ual or physical abuse (De Graaf & Vanwesenbeeck 2006, Mitchell et al However, some children and young people do experience negative con- 2007b, Wolak et al 2008) and youth suffering from depression (such as sequences from such behaviour. Children may feel cheated, disgusted sadness, emptiness or concentration problems) (Ybarra et al 2004) are or uncomfortable by what they have seen on pornographic websites at greater risk of online sexual solicitation. Even though a number of re- (Livingstone et al 2011), young people may be highly distressed after searches (Kvam 2001, Sullivan & Knutson 2000, SISO & SUS 2007) have incidents of solicitation (Mitchell et al 2001), in some cases children and shown that children with disabilities are more often exposed to sexual 8 9 abuse, it is still not clear if these children are at greater risk of online iour patterns are not always applicable to the online environment, and sexual violence. A group of environmental risk factors includes: single- children’s online activities are to a lesser extent controlled by parents. It parents or reconstituted families (e.g. Gallagher 2007), homelessness or may seem obvious that there is a need for online behaviour education; runaways (e.g. Regional… 2008), higher household socio-economic sta- we have to teach our children safe and correct use of information and tus (Livingstone et al 2011, Mitchell et al 2003), the lack of close parental communication technologies and improve parents’ ability to effectively relationships (ICAA 2004, Sørensen 2007), as well as lower levels of pa- control the online activities of their children1.