Young People’s Perception of the Danger of Risky Online Activities: Behaviours, Emotions and Attitudes Associated with Their Digital Vulnerability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors,

First of all, I want to congratulate you on your research efforts. The paper is well-written and touches the essential parts for a paper to be considered for publication in this journal. 

I want to point out several aspects, which are not critical, but I suggest to be taken into considerations by the authors. They are mentioned below.

1.      Please take under your consideration to incorporate some references of Spanish researchers that are linked with your contribution:

Gonzálvez-Vallés, J. E., Barquero-Cabrero, J. D., Caldevilla-Domínguez, D., & Barrientos-Báez, A. (2021). Tipsters and addiction in Spain. Young people’s perception of influencers on online sports gambling. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 6152.

Barrientos-Báez, A., Gonzálvez-Vallés, J. E., Barquero-Cabrero, J. D., & Caldevilla-Domínguez, D. (2022). Spanish Tipsters and the Millennial and Centennial Generations in the Scenario of a Pandemic. Media and Communication, 10(1), 286-296.

2.      There is no source in your figures and tables. Even if it is own elaboration, it should be in the text.

3.      Authors should identify theoretical and practical implication of the research.

 

Author Response

We appreciate your reviews and recommendations which will help to improve the manuscript and the clarity of the research.

Point 1: Please take under your consideration to incorporate some references of Spanish researchers that are linked with your contribution:

Gonzálvez-Vallés, J. E., Barquero-Cabrero, J. D., Caldevilla-Domínguez, D., & Barrientos-Báez, A. (2021). Tipsters and addiction in Spain. Young people’s perception of influencers on online sports gambling. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 6152.

Barrientos-Báez, A., Gonzálvez-Vallés, J. E., Barquero-Cabrero, J. D., & Caldevilla-Domínguez, D. (2022). Spanish Tipsters and the Millennial and Centennial Generations in the Scenario of a Pandemic. Media and Communication, 10(1), 286-296.

Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1. (in red)

One of the references indicated by the reviewer has been included in the article (the first one).

 

Point 2: There is no source in your figures and tables. Even if it is own elaboration, it should be in the text.

Response 2: Please provide your response for Point 2. (in red)

We are include “Source: own work” in all figures and tables.

 

Point 3: Authors should identify theoretical and practical implication of the research.

Response 3: Please provide your response for Point 3. (in red)

We are introduced one new paragraph with theoretical and practical implication of the research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to revise this paper. I recognise many aspects of originality. I would suggest some revisions:

- intro: it is too long and unclear, it should follow a more comprehensible logical thread.

- methods: the "measurements paragraph" is a list; it might be better to group the variables by semantic areas or something similar. The survey should be better detailed (no. of items, etc)

- results: analysis should be shifted to the methods para. All the comments about results should be shifted to the discussion para.

English revision could improve readability further.

 

Author Response

We appreciate your reviews and recommendations which will help to improve the manuscript and the clarity of the research.

 

Point 1: - intro: it is too long and unclear, it should follow a more comprehensible logical thread.

Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1. (in red)

The introduction has been revised and written in a clearer and more understandable way.

 

Point 2: - methods: the "measurements paragraph" is a list; it might be better to group the variables by semantic areas or something similar. The survey should be better detailed (no. of items, etc)

Response 2: Please provide your response for Point 2. (in red)

In the measures paragraph, a sentence has been added to clarify that variables are classified and grouped according to the nature of the magnitude or characteristic being measured and according to the objectives of the study. Therefore, each group of variables refers to the different behaviors, perceptions, emotions, and attitudes under investigation: 1. Social media and Internet use behaviors; 2.       Perception of the risk or danger in different online activities; 3. Emotions and/or feelings when subjects interact online and on social media; 4. Attitudes towards social media.

Regarding the survey, a fact sheet table on the quantitative research conducted has been included which summarizes all the methodological aspects and characteristics of the survey conducted. The inclusion of this table has changed the numbering of the subsequent tables.

 

Point 3: - results: analysis should be shifted to the methods para. All the comments about results should be shifted to the discussion para.

Response 3: Please provide your response for Point 3. (in red)

The analyses have been shifted in the fact sheet table included in the methods section. Appreciations and comments on the results obtained have been shifted to the discussion.

Some ideas presented in “results” have moved to “discussion”.

 

Point 4: English revision could improve readability further.

Response 4: Please provide your response for Point 4. (in red)

The article has been translated and reviewed by a native English speaker. Please find enclosed proof of the company that has translated the article. We have re-read and revised the article to correct stylistic errors and conceptual translation mistakes (like betting, gambling and egames).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for submitting this interresting study. Overall it appears to me as an example of very thoroughly conducted quantiative research. The argument is mostly clear and the data supports the conclusions most of the time. In general, the study is well presented.

Having said this, I have some recommendations which I would like you to consider:

 

Ad INTRODUCTION

In the second sentence you state that you provide a definition of "risk perception". However, the definition is very broad and does not mention harm or loss, which I consider central to a definition of risk perception (cf. Darker, C. (2013). Risk Perception. In: Gellman, M.D., Turner, J.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_866)

You should clarify the difference between games of chance (casino-style games, as you say) and gambling (which, I assume, is betting on sports or any other events for money).

In line 98ff you state "[...] compulsive gambling through online games of chance and gambling (Gambling Disorder) [...] are identified as [...]". This sentence should be clarified.

Typo in line 106 "in" instead of "is"

The last paragraph in 1.1 "Given this situation, it is..." needs to be revised as it consists of one long sentence only. Also you ask if young people peceive the risks of those recreational activities "as they do the activities clearly classified as dangerous [...]" yet you do not make this comparison later in the text. In general, it is unclear what you want to say with this comparison, since it is clearly not part of your study.

 

Ad RESULTS

Figure 1 - I would prefer to have an extra bars for "No risk" and "Don't know/Did not answer" instead of treating them as if they were the same. It would be interresting to see how confident your respondents felt in making a clear judgment on those specific issues.

Revise the sentence in 295 "They also say that...". Who are "they"?

Table 6 - It is quite surprising that neither high frequency in participating in videogames nor high frequency of participation in gambling increases the perception of risk in either of the respected areas. This is slightly at odds with your general findings, but I think you do not discuss this further. You might add a sentence adressing this surprising result.

To me the statement at the end of part 3 that "6. The lack of the feeling of social pressure on social media" is among the variables "with the greatest capacity to explain and predict risk perception in online activities" is at odds with your previous findings and with the statement that "while the lack of [...] negative emotions and feelings weakens [the] perception of risk or danger." Please revise and clarify this section.

 

Ad DISCUSSION

Line 438ff. Please revise this sentence, I assume you wanted to say "[...] is associated with HAVING no negative emotions related to this practice" but I am not sure.

 

Ad REFERENCES

Reference 37 needs revision as information is missing.

Author Response

We appreciate your reviews and recommendations which will help to improve the manuscript and the clarity of the research.

Point 1: Ad INTRODUCTION

In the second sentence you state that you provide a definition of "risk perception". However, the definition is very broad and does not mention harm or loss, which I consider central to a definition of risk perception (cf. Darker, C. (2013). Risk Perception. In: Gellman, M.D., Turner, J.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_866)

Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1. (in red)

We have removed the definition of risk perception from García del Castillo (2012) and have included a new, more current definition of online risk that is more in line with the reviewer's suggestion: Torres-Hernández, N., García-Martínez, I., & Gallego-Arrufat, M. J. (2022). Internet risk perception: development and validation of a scale for adults. European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education, 12(11), 1581-1593

 

Point 2: You should clarify the difference between games of chance (casino-style games, as you say) and gambling (which, I assume, is betting on sports or any other events for money).

Response 2: Please provide your response for Point 2. (in red)

We have included a footnote explaining the difference between online gambling and online betting. And also we included an another footnote explaining what are loot boxes, that we consider that provides clarity.

 

Point 3: In line 98ff you state "[...] compulsive gambling through online games of chance and gambling (Gambling Disorder) [...] are identified as [...]". This sentence should be clarified.

Response 3: Please provide your response for Point 3. (in red)

We have eliminated the sentence because it was confusing and did not provide relevant information.

 

Point 4: Typo in line 106 "in" instead of "is"

Response 4: Please provide your response for Point 4. (in red)

Corrected.

 

Point 5: Ad RESULTS

Figure 1 - I would prefer to have an extra bars for "No risk" and "Don't know/Did not answer" instead of treating them as if they were the same. It would be interresting to see how confident your respondents felt in making a clear judgment on those specific issues.

Response 5: Please provide your response for Point 5. (in red)

We are eliminated Figure 1 and it has been replaced by a new Figure 1 as the reviewer has suggested.

Point 6: Revise the sentence in 295 "They also say that...". Who are "they"?

Response 6: Please provide your response for Point 6. (in red)

The writing of this sentence has been modified to show that it is part of the previous text block.

 

Point 7: Table 6 - It is quite surprising that neither high frequency in participating in videogames nor high frequency of participation in gambling increases the perception of risk in either of the respected areas. This is slightly at odds with your general findings, but I think you do not discuss this further. You might add a sentence adressing this surprising result.

Response 7: Please provide your response for Point 7. (in red)

We have reworded this paragraph to highlight those variables that increase the perception of risk for at least three of the five activities analyzed. Thus, it is now clear that both the high frequency of participation in video games and gambling increases the perception of risk in the respective areas.

 

Point 8: To me the statement at the end of part 3 that "6. The lack of the feeling of social pressure on social media" is among the variables "with the greatest capacity to explain and predict risk perception in online activities" is at odds with your previous findings and with the statement that "while the lack of [...] negative emotions and feelings weakens [the] perception of risk or danger." Please revise and clarify this section.

Response 8: Please provide your response for Point 8. (in red)

As we have already pointed out in the previous point, the wording of this paragraph has been changed to highlight only those variables that increase the perception of risk in at least three of the five activities analyzed. Thus, the sentence "the lack of social pressure weakens the perception of risk or danger" has now been deleted. In fact, this statement is only found for the perception of risk in the activity of "online betting", while just the opposite, the existence of the feeling of social pressure increases the perception of risk in the activities of compulsive shopping and online gambling.

 

Point 9: Ad DISCUSSION

Line 438ff. Please revise this sentence, I assume you wanted to say "[...] is associated with HAVING no negative emotions related to this practice" but I am not sure.

Response 9: Please provide your response for Point 9. (in red)

We have re-rewritten the paragraph to make it easier to understand.

 

Point 10: Ad REFERENCES

Reference 37 needs revision as information is missing.

Response 10: Please provide your response for Point 10. (in red)

Corrected (This reference is an INE online report)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the many improvements to the manuscript, which is now clearer and more coherent.