Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1902.02635

Are Children Fully Aware of Online Privacy Risks and How Can We Improve Their Coping Ability?

Ge Wang·Jun Zhao·Nigel Shadbolt
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The age of children adopting digital technologies, such as tablets or smartphones, is increasingly young. However, children under 11 are often regarded as too young to comprehend the concept of online privacy. Limited research studies have focused on children of this age group. In the summer of 2018, we conducted 12 focus group studies with 29 children aged 6-10 from Oxfordshire primary schools. Our research has shown that children have a good understanding of certain privacy risks, such as information oversharing or avoiding revealing real identities online. They could use a range of descriptions to articulate the risks and describe their risk coping strategies. However, at the same time, we identified that children had less awareness concerning other risks, such as online tracking or game promotions. Inspired by Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), this study has identified critical knowledge gaps in children's understanding of online privacy, and several directions for future education and technology development. We call for attention to the needs of raising children's awareness and understanding of risks related to online recommendations and data tracking, which are becoming ever more prevalent in the games and content children encounter. We also call for attention to children's use of language to describe risks, which may be appropriate but not necessarily indicate a full understanding of the threats.

Explore related subjects

cs.HCcs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ge Wang, Jun Zhao, Nigel Shadbolt. 2019-02-06. Are Children Fully Aware of Online Privacy Risks and How Can We Improve Their Coping Ability?. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.02635

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Optimized but Unowned: How AI-Authored Goals Undermine the Motivation They Are Meant to Drive

As AI tools become embedded in productivity and self-improvement contexts, a pressing question emerges: what happens when AI does the goal-setting for us? In a preregistered experiment (N = 470), we compared self-authored goals against LLM-authored goals derived from a personal reflection. LLM-generated goals scored higher on SMART criteria (|d| = 2.26), yet participants in the LLM condition reported lower psychological ownership (|d| = 1.38), commitment (|d| = 1.19), and perceived importance (|d| = 1.13). At two-week follow-up, 72.8% of self-authored participants had acted on two or more of their goals, compared to 46.6% in the LLM condition. Psychological ownership, not goal quality, mediated every downstream motivational outcome. Individuals low in trait self-efficacy, those most likely to seek AI assistance, experienced the steepest ownership erosion. These findings reveal a quality-motivation dissociation in AI-assisted goal-setting and identify authorship preservation as a design priority for AI tools deployed in identity-relevant, behavior-dependent tasks.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Creating an Atomic User Model for Personality-Aware Large Language Model Interaction

Assistants built on large language models are expected to write in their users' own voice. Most systems summarise the user's preferences and include the summary in the prompt. This is the wrong way round. Preferences are only the surface of a person and change with the task, while the underlying personality stays the same, so storing preferences alone means relearning the user afresh whenever the task changes. This paper makes four contributions. First, we describe an effect we call personality seepage: the wording of a prompt carries traces of the writer's personality, which the assistant copies without knowing the writer. Second, we propose the Atomic User Model (AUM), a readable profile with a stable identity core surrounded by four layers covering psychological, cognitive, experiential, behavioral, and social details, plus notes on inner conflict and authenticity. Third, instead of inserting the entire profile, we use AUM as a searchable index, in which a task classifier, a selection step, and a budgeted retriever pass along only a few relevant fields. Fourth, we test the pipeline with 16 simulated users, 6 style-sensitive tasks, and 3 seeds. Eight retrieved fields matched the writing quality of the whole profile, while using only 23 percent of the context (211 tokens instead of 915). They scored 0.24 points higher than a plain preference note on a five-point scale. Accuracy in picking a user's own writing from four samples rose from 14.9 to 42.7 percent, where guessing gives 25 percent. Four pre-registered controls showed no effect, so the gain comes from the profile's structure rather than the search method. Personalization helps most for the users for whom a generic assistant imitates them the worst.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

When AI Becomes Hard to Understand: Cognitive Demands in Real-World Human-AI Conversations

Generative AI increasingly supports complex financial and health decisions, yet we know little about when its responses become difficult to process in real-world dialogue. We analyse more than 84,000 ChatGPT and Gemini conversations, using repeated prompting and clarification following misunderstanding as behavioural indicators of cognitive difficulty. We find that response characteristics such as length, readability and lexical diversity do not have fixed relationships with conversational difficulty; instead, their relationships depend on how they combine. Most notably, greater lexical diversity was associated with less repeated prompting in shorter responses, but this association weakened as response length increased, a pattern that replicated across financial and health conversations. We propose a conversational complexity budget to conceptualise these interdependencies: the demands associated with one response characteristic may depend on those accompanying it. The resulting design challenge is how to configure response complexity for the particular user, task and interaction.

cs.HC↗