Does Sharenting-Related Content on TikTok Reflect the Full Scope of Documented Risks to Children: A Content Audit

Abstract

Parenting is a complex, emotionally fraught life task shaped by many influences, including social norms. Historically, parenting norms were transmitted through family, religion, and parenting experts, notably pediatricians. But now, social norms are also being transmitted online. Mom influencers and parenting experts on social media dispense highly curated advice and tips designed to shape the beliefs and behaviors of parents. Many include sharented content (images and information about their own children), which increases their relatability and authenticity. Sharenting is a widespread phenomenon, despite serious concerns about this practice. The current exploratory study was designed to determine whether sharenting-related content on TikTok from high-reach influencers and creators specifically addressing the topic reflects the full scope of documented risks to children. The study examined three samples of TikTok videos either by sharenters or about sharenting to determine which—if any—of 10 identified risks of sharenting were discussed. Results revealed that top influencers tend not to address this topic in their most liked videos and are still sharenting themselves. Videos specifically about sharenting mention only a few of the many reasons why sharenting can be risky and those that are in support of sharenting appear to minimize the risks and/or misunderstand child development. Findings have implications for changing social norms via parent education, content moderation, and clinical practice.

1. Does Sharenting-Related Content on TikTok Reflect the Full Scope of Documented Risks to Children: A Content Audit

Parenting is a complex, emotionally fraught life task (Minkin & Horowitz, 2023) that is shaped by many influences, including social norms (E.-M. Schmidt et al., 2022; Taylor et al., 2011). These are the informal, unwritten rules shared by members of the same group or larger culture that shape and control behavior, including parenting (Ajzen, 1988). Historically, norms around parenting have been transmitted through trusted sources including family, religious leaders, and pediatricians (Strehlke et al., 2025). More recently, norms and expectations for parents are being transmitted online.

Obtaining child-rearing advice, support, and guidance online has many real and perceived advantages for parents who want to access information on a wide range of topics, on an as-needed basis, anonymously, and privately (Madge & O’Connor, 2006; Moon et al., 2019; Myers-Walls & Dworkin, 2016). Parents perceive the internet to be a convenient and comfortable way to obtain child-rearing information. For the most part, they are satisfied with the information they receive there (Dworkin et al., 2013). In fact, the internet has become a significant source of child-rearing information (Allen & Rainie, 2002; Dworkin et al., 2013; Lupton et al., 2016; Nieuwboer et al., 2013; Radey & Randolph, 2009). A majority of mothers use the internet for guidance and support (S. Baker et al., 2016; Duggan et al., 2015). Parenting norms are also being transmitted by social media influencers on platforms such as TikTok. These influencers dispense curated advice and tips designed to shape the beliefs and behaviors of parents in a highly relatable and deeply personal manner. Consequently, they are potentially uniquely positioned to affect the emotions, thoughts, and behaviors of their followers (Chee et al., 2023).

There are several reasons why the social networking site TikTok is an especially powerful mechanism for the creation and dissemination of social norms regarding parenting practices (Stormer et al., 2024). To begin with, the app is extremely popular with two key demographics: future parents and current parents of young children (Auxier & Anderson, 2021). Second, the short-form videos on TikTok show parenting in action, which is more conducive to learning and replication than a still image. Rather than selling products, influencers primarily promote an aspirational lifestyle (i.e., a set of norms and values) to be emulated by parents seeking knowledge, support and a shared experience (Beuckels & De Wolf, 2025). Third, the app’s “For You Page” (FYP) has been implicated in promoting social norms through its recommendation algorithm. When watching recommended videos, parents are likely to view content that they did not explicitly seek, exposing them to novel trends and behaviors. The fourth way in which TikTok may be implicated in creating and reinforcing parenting social norms is through its financial incentives for videos with high engagement metrics. Creators who successfully attract high user engagement with their videos stand to earn significant money. Because videos with children are generally popular, influencers as well as everyday parents often include their children in their posts. This practice contributes to the social ecology of parenting on social media.

Including images and information about their children in posts enhances the parent’s relatability and authenticity, key factors in garnering viewer loyalty and engagement (Abidin, 2017). Given their role-model status in the social media ecology, parenting influencers are contributing to a new norm in which sharenting is perceived as not only acceptable, but also a marker of good parenting (Bartels, 2015). This may explain the appeal of sharenting content. According to a technology journalist, 90% of U.S. toddlers have a digital footprint based on images and information their parents uploaded about them (Magid, 2010). An online survey of 2000 parents revealed that they shared on average almost 1000 pictures of their children on social media before their fifth birthday (Nominet, 2015).

The study of sharenting motivations has been a fruitful area of exploration (Cino & Ruiz-Gomez, 2026; Motevalli et al., 2025). Many reasons have been offered, including creating a living archive of the child’s development (Jorge et al., 2026; Ouvrein & Verswijvel, 2019), maintaining family connections (Bartholomew et al., 2012; Sagvari, 2026), and connecting with a community of parents (Amon et al., 2022). Posting images of one’s children on TikTok may also lead to higher user engagement (Stormer et al., 2024, although see Baxter & Czarnecka, 2025 for a different finding) and possible financial reward (Abrams, 2023). Sharenting has also been viewed as a way for parents to experience efficacy and competence in their parenting role (Sagvari, 2026).

Within the last decade, serious concerns about sharenting have come to light (Siibak & Traks, 2019), bringing it to the attention of many in the child’s rights and protection community (Abrams, 2023; Hamilton, 2023; UNICEF, n.d.). Discourse surrounding the dilemmas posed by sharenting has entered the mainstream family sciences conversation (e.g., Amon et al., 2022; Baxter & Czarnecka, 2025; Lendvai et al., 2026; Tosuntas & Griffiths, 2024; Walrave et al., 2024). Based on an examination of theoretical and empirical studies, 10 concerns about sharenting have been identified, organized into three overarching categories. Each of these ten concerns is supported by the scientific literature.

1.1. Concern 1: Misuse of Images and Information

1.1.1. Misuse of Personally Identifiable Information

Once images and information are uploaded, they can be used for a variety of criminal or dangerous purposes (Lendvai, 2024), due in part to the fact that 80% of parents allow strangers to follow them on social media (Frew & Petrino, 2021). Access can be mitigated somewhat through “mindful” sharenting (Hudders et al., 2025), but these practices can often be worked around (Mickelwait, 2024; WeProtect Global Alliance, 2025). Personally identifiable information can be used to locate, stalk, harass, and potentially kidnap children (Kloess et al., 2014). Many parents inadvertently include personally identifiable information in their posts, crafting a digital footprint that can be exploited to create false identities and perpetrate identity theft (Irshad & Soomro, 2018; Keskin et al., 2023). According to Ferrara et al. (2023), identity theft is one of the most significant dangers associated with sharenting.

1.1.2. Misuse of Images for Sexual Purposes

Images of children—even those considered innocent by parents—are in demand by pedophiles. Along with the ability to take screenshots of photos of children, users on platforms including TikTok are now able to download and save videos for personal use. Tens of millions of child sexual abuse images are online (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2023), some of which come directly from social media while others are manipulated into deepfake pornography (Pascale, 2023). When children learn that their images have been converted into pornography via artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes and morphing technology, they may experience reputational damage and emotional harm (Al-Khazraji et al., 2023; Jurecic, 2016; F. Schmidt et al., 2023). Surveys of child sexual abuse survivors have revealed that knowing that their abuse had been converted into lasting images negatively impacted their well-being, relationships, and career success (Canadian Centre for Child Protection, 2017).

1.2. Concern 2: Creation of Public Identity

1.2.1. Privacy Violations

One of the better-known concerns about sharenting is the potential for sharented content to violate the child’s right to privacy (Hamilton, 2023; Keskin, 2026). Once information about a child is shared on social media, it no longer belongs exclusively to the child. This might involve information or images the child finds embarrassing and/or painful or simply meant to be kept within the family. For the child, having information about them shared with a public audience of strangers is not a choice, but a reality imposed on them by their parents. Adolescents are particularly concerned about potential privacy violations through sharenting (Walrave et al., 2022). Prior to social media, children generally grew up in a private sphere, with the opportunity to manage the presentation of their self-image (Goffman, 1959) and forge their emerging identity (Erikson, 1980) out of the view of the public. The internet has exacerbated family tensions around who controls information, because parents can now readily share co-owned information that the child deems private. This can be understood through the lens of Communication Management Theory (Petronio, 2010), in that the internet has weakened the boundary between the public and the private, exacerbating the tensions around management of private information.

1.2.2. Digital Footprint Is Being Created

Uploaded images and information are part of an individual’s permanent internet archive (Keskin, 2026). A young child may not know or mind being posted about at the time, but as they mature, they may become more conscious of how their digital footprint could negatively impact their social life as well as college applications and employment. The use of cybervetting to evaluate job applicants has been underway for a while in human relations (Berkelaar, 2017). A recent experimental study by Türker and Üngüren (2025) demonstrated how powerfully social media content impacts hiring decisions, even for highly qualified applicants. It also might be distressing for a sharented child to know that people have permanent access to images and information about them that they find painful or embarrassing. In one study of the comments posted in response to videos in which children were being frightened and/or rejected by their parents, most comments expressed enjoyment (A. J. L. Baker et al., 2025a). When the children read these comments, they will likely feel ashamed, hurt, and resentful that their suffering is the object of others’ entertainment.

1.2.3. May Rob Children of Authenticity

Sharenting can also negatively impact a child’s sense of autonomy and authentic self (Pangrazio & Selwyn, 2021). Sharented children may feel that they must look a certain way, act a certain way or express a certain reaction rather than simply be themselves (Franke, 2026). When parents choose what to post about their children, they are potentially interfering in their child’s identity development and management of their online presence (Peleg et al., 2025). Research on youth and young adults who have been sharented is sparse but illustrates that while many have a positive experience, a significant minority reported feeling pressured to perform for the camera. These findings suggest that the process interfered with authenticity in their daily life (A. J. L. Baker et al., 2025c). Some youth feel that their parents portrayed a false image of them as ideal children (Peleg et al., 2025). Being expected to look happy and attractive all the time, perform for the camera, or express the “right” response to a vacation reveal, for example, may feel disingenuous and contrived, as if the image is more important than the real person. In an extreme example, Croft and Watts (2019) described children in a YouTube channel who were beaten and pepper-sprayed by their mother for not performing as she desired.

1.2.4. Bullying and Teasing

The public sharing of personal information and images of children increases the likelihood of unauthorized access and cyberbullying (Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017). When parents post personal information about a child, such as pictures of them having a tantrum, being naked, or discussing puberty and first crushes, that information can be used to humiliate the child by their peers. Most children can access images and information about each other online, often unmonitored by their parents (Martin et al., 2018). Some parents are unaware of how cruel children can be towards each other and post images and information that they perceive as cute but can become the basis of bullying (Alaimo, 2024). Velicu and Tokes (2025) found that sharenting significantly predicted cybervictimization in a large sample of youth from 10 European countries.

1.3. Concern 3: Harmful Process

1.3.1. Could Involve Psychological Maltreatment

Some parents post content of themselves engaging in harmful parenting to garner social media attention and user engagement. In one study (A. J. L. Baker et al., 2025b), researchers identified TikTok posts in which parents engaged in psychological maltreatment of their children. These parents screamed at, mocked, terrorized, exploited, and failed to comfort their children. Some were participating in TikTok trends and pranks that could cause damage to the child’s well-being, sense of safety, and belonging. In some videos, parents filmed their child crying rather than comforting them, as if holding the camera created an emotional barrier that prevented them from empathically responding. While the extent of this aspect of sharenting is unknown, it is clearly possible to find videos of children being psychologically maltreated, and all the videos in one such study received user comments indicating enjoyment of the child’s pain (A. J. L. Baker et al., 2025a).

1.3.2. The Process Could Make the Child Feel Uncomfortable or Distressed

The process of the images being taken and uploaded can be uncomfortable and/or embarrassing for the child, thereby harming them and disrupting the parent–child relationship. Young adults who were posted about when they were children are beginning to discuss how exploited and uncomfortable they felt (A. J. L. Baker et al., 2025c; Ouvrein & Verswijvel, 2019), especially because they were generally not asked for permission. In one study, most parents reported that they do not, nor should they have to, ask their child’s permission prior to posting images of them (Amon et al., 2022). While on camera, children may appear happy and delightful, behind the scenes could reveal a different story. This is certainly the case with some children of influencers who become “micro-celebrities” themselves (Abidin, 2015), experiencing intense pressure to produce content that is brand-worthy and appealing to potential viewers.

1.3.3. Sharenting Can Be Exploitative

Parents who post images and information about their children to build a brand and/or promote other commercial brands may be exploiting their children (Abrams, 2023). They are using their children to create wealth. In this sense, they are monetizing their children, commodifying their images and information (Cino & Ruiz-Gomez, 2026). By some accounts, videos with children garner three times as many views as those without them (Van Kessel et al., 2019). When parents include content related to their children in their social media feed, they are profiting from their children’s labor (in the form of social approval, attention, or money). To date, most U.S. states do not include legal protection for children featured in their parents’ social media. There are no protections regarding hours worked, breaks needed, payment, or the necessity for educational support. Introducing an expectation and desire that the child’s likeness and behavior will enhance the family’s revenue streams can shape parenting decisions in ways that are not optimal for the child’s development and well-being. The parent is both the guardian of the child’s best interest and beneficiary of sharented content, creating an inherent ethical conflict (Cino & Ruiz-Gomez, 2026). The experience of lacking control and autonomy over one’s image and information is a recurring topic in research on parental social media use (Damkjaer & Soerensen, 2026; De Wolf, 2020).

1.3.4. Child Consent Is Problematic

Child consent for sharenting is difficult because privacy decisions occur within an unequal parent–child relationship. Parents hold legal, emotional, and practical authority, while children depend on them and often lack equivalent agency (Katz, 2022; Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015; Stark, 2007). Some family climates may further limit a child’s ability to express assent by creating fear of retaliation, disapproval, or withdrawal of affection when a child resists a parent’s wishes to participate in creating content for sharenting (Lievens et al., 2018; Sorbring & Kuczynski, 2018; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). If parents do ask their children for assent to post, they would need to be aware of the many potential downstream risks of online sharing, which many are not (Amon et al., 2022; Autenrieth, 2018; Beuckels et al., 2025).

Taken together, there are numerous potential harms associated with the practice of sharenting, affecting a vast audience of current and future parents. For the most part, parents who post want to sharent safely and are receptive to emerging tools and strategies for doing so. Considering parents’ desire for competency in their caregiver role, parents need accurate and up-to-date information about emerging risks and threats to their children.

1.4. Study Objectives

The purpose of the current study was to determine whether sharenting-related content on TikTok reflects the full scope of documented risks to children. The study was designed as an exploratory study with no a priori hypotheses tested. In this study, we examined content from high-reach influencers and creators specifically addressing the topic. The present study examined three TikTok samples as they represent the three most likely sources of opinion on the topic of sharenting: (1) the most liked videos from the most popular mom influencers, (2) the most liked videos from the most popular parenting expert influencers, and (3) the most promoted videos on the topic of sharenting.

The research questions addressed for Samples 1 and 2 are as follows: (1) Are prominent parenting influencers discussing the topic of sharenting? (2) Are prominent parenting influencers engaging in sharenting? For Sample 3, the research questions were: (1) What proportion of videos specifically on the topic of sharenting are opposed to sharenting? (2) What proportion of videos opposed to sharenting address each of the 10 identified potential harms to children? (3) What reasons are provided in the videos in favor of sharenting?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selection of TikTok Videos

All selected videos featured an English-speaking adult. The specific country of origin was unknown but appeared to be predominantly English-speaking countries such as the United States, England, and Canada.

Sample 1 (300 videos): Two researchers used the de-identified internet search engine DuckDuckGo in December, 2025 to search for “Top mom influencers on TikTok.” The first two search engine results were BuzzVoice and FeedSpot, each of which provides curated lists of popular TikTok creators. Each researcher then went to these sites and compiled a list of the first 15 names and the number of their followers. The two researchers compared their lists and selected the 15 across both lists who were English speakers with the greatest number of followers.

The TikTok accounts for these 15 creators were visited. The “popular” option was selected for viewing videos. This allowed for the identification of the 20 most liked videos from each creator. This strategy is similar to that used by Zou et al. (2020) to examine the social media content with the greatest reach. However, we obtained a larger sample than prior studies in this emerging field (i.e., Alruwaily et al., 2020). In total, these 300 videos received over eight billion views (mean views were 27 million) and had a sum of one billion likes (mean likes were over three million). Supplemental Table S1 presents the creators (by ID), which list they were on, and the number of their followers.

Sample 2 (300 videos): The same method as above was used to identify the 20 most liked videos of each of the top 15 parenting expert influencers from the first two search results (MoDash and FeedSpot). These videos received over 970 million views (mean views were over three million) and 127 million likes (mean likes were 426 thousand). Their level of professional expertise varied from licensed mental health professionals and certified parenting coaches to self-proclaimed parenting experts with lived experience. Supplemental Table S1 presents the creators (by ID), which list they were on, and the number of their followers.

Sample 3 (112 videos): Two researchers each created a TikTok account on a computer owned by individuals who did not have TikTok accounts and were unrelated to the study. Both searches were conducted on computers located in New York City. They each searched on these newly created TikTok accounts using the following 10 hashtags: #sharenting, #postyourchildren, #stopsharentingyourkids, #whyIpostmychildren, #dangersofsharenting, #responsiblekidsonline, #sharentingdebate, #sharentingisok, #stoppostingyourkids, and #itsoktoputyourkidsonTikTok. The order was balanced between positive and negative perspectives. For each of the searches, the first six videos that appeared on the TikTok page were selected. The resulting 120 videos were screened for duplicates and replaced using the same search terms on the same TikTok accounts on the same computers to seek non-duplicate videos. Eight videos were removed to ensure that each creator only had one video in the sample, resulting in 112 videos. The sampling strategy was designed to situate the study within the norms in the field. The Teachers College, Columbia University IRB determined that this research was approved as exempt from review (TC IRB # 27-025). Data collection occurred online through public TikTok pages and public account-ranking/search sources. A team member identified eligible videos, recorded publicly displayed engagement metrics, and uploaded selected public videos to an access-restricted Teachers College Google Drive folder. A de-identified coding file was created that had the URL and handles removed, and a 5-digit code was used for identification of each video.

2.2. Coding Sample 1 and Sample 2 Videos

The combined 600 videos in Samples 1 and 2 were coded for (1) whether the issue of sharenting was discussed (No = 0, Yes = 1) and (2) whether the video itself contained sharented content based on at least a partial visual image of the child’s face being in the video (No = 0, Yes = 1). Twelve videos were double coded (Krippendorff’s alpha 0.89 across both variables, 0.84 for sharenting and 1.00 for mention of sharenting).

2.3. Coding Sample 3

The identification of variables to code regarding reasons not to sharent was based on a deductive approach drawn directly from and informed by the research literature (Fife & Gossner, 2024). Our intention was to determine whether the risks identified in the research literature were being discussed in the online social ecology. Reasons to sharent were coded according to variables identified inductively from viewing related videos. The team met on a weekly basis over several months. A codebook was created that explained the criteria and decision-making for coding each of the variables. Test videos were identified and reviewed to help identify areas where further clarification was needed.

2.4. Background Information (4 Variables)

(1) Whether the creator was an adult was coded based on verbal and visual cues such as referencing being married, having a career, being out of school, having a home and/or based an internet search (No = 0, Yes = 1); (2) perceived gender of creator (male, female, do not know) inferred from visual and verbal cues; (3) whether the creator was a parent based on referencing a child, discussing being a parent, and/or having the word “mom” or “dad” in their handle or creator profile (No = 0, Yes = 1); and (4) does the creator sharent, based on at least a partial image of the child in any of their thumbnails or profile picture (No = 0, Yes = 1). Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated for 10 test cases with each variable coded on a binary 0/1 scale and was found to be 0.95 (range = 0.76 to 1.0). Supplemental Table S2 presents reliability data for each variable.

2.5. Engagement Information (2 Variables)

(1) Number of views, and (2) number of likes.

2.6. Reasons Not to Sharent (11 Variables), Each Coded (No = 0, Yes = 1)

If arguments against sharenting were made, they were coded in the following categories based on the topics identified in the literature review: (1) personally identifiable information can be misused; (2) images can be misused; (3) a negative digital footprint could cause problems for job and college applications; (4) could lead to bullying/teasing; (5) the child might want information kept private; (6) it could involve psychological maltreatment; (7) the process of the images taken and posted could feel uncomfortable or painful for the child; (8) it is wrong to exploit children for money or attention; (9) children cannot consent; (10) it can rob children of authenticity; and (11) other. Prior to coding, inter-rater reliability was established. Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated for seven test cases with variables coded on a binary 0/1 scale and was found to be 0.75 (range = 0.65 to 1.0). Supplemental Table S2 presents reliability data for each variable.

2.7. Reasons to Sharent (10 Variables) Each Coded (No = 0, Yes = 1)

If arguments were made for sharenting, they were coded based on the categories identified in the literature review and inductively from preliminary viewing of comparable videos: (1) it is fun for the parent; (2) it keeps friends and family involved; (3) children enjoy having photos taken and posted; (4) it is harmless; (5) it might be harmful, but parent knows how it can be done safely; (6) parent has the right to do it; (7) it helps others dealing with particular parenting issue; (8) to create community; (9) to show child that parents loves them, and (10) other.

Prior to coding, inter-rater reliability was established. Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated for seven test cases with variables coded on a binary 0/1 scale and was found to be 0.79 (range = 0.71 to 1.0). All coding discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus after calculation of agreement. Supplemental Table S2 presents reliability data for each variable. Figure 1 presents a summary chart of video retrieval and coding.

Figure 1. Sampling strategy.

3. Results

3.1. Sample 1 and Sample 2: Are Parent Influencers and Parenting Experts Influencers Discussing Sharenting and Engaging in Sharenting?

Of the 300 videos from Sample 1, four (1.3%) mentioned the issue of sharenting and 158 (52.7%) sharented in the video. Of the 300 videos from Sample 2, two (0.7%) mentioned sharenting while 109 (36.3%) sharented themselves. Looking at the data by creator (see Supplemental Table S3), all but one Sample 1 creator (n = 14, 93.3%) sharented, while only 3 (20%) discussed the topic. Of the 15 parenting expert influencers, 13 (86.7%) engaged in sharenting while only 1 (6.7%) discussed it.

3.2. Sample 3: Background Information on Creators

All creators were adults. Of the 112 creators, 101 (90.2%) were perceived to be female, 9 (8.0%) were perceived to be male and 2 (1.8%) could not be confidently coded for gender. With respect to whether the creator was a parent, 104 (92.9%) were parents and 8 (7.1%) were not identified as such. Most of the creators, 79 (70.5%), engaged in sharenting in the selected video and/or in the thumbnails across their profile, while 33 (29.5%) did not.

3.3. Sample 3: Attitude Towards Sharenting

With respect to their attitudes towards sharenting, almost half (n = 53, 47.3%) were completely against sharenting. This was exemplified by one person’s statement that there is no good reason to do that to a child and 42.0% (n = 47) held mixed views. They were often very clear about why they did not want to sharent but also made strong statements about not wanting to be judgmental or “mom shame” those who did. Only 10.7% (n = 12) were completely in favor of sharenting, making statements that parents do all sorts of fun things with their child and sharenting should be seen in that light. Some affirmed their right to make that choice as the parent. Twenty creators (17.9%) mentioned ways to reduce risk, which primarily involved blurring or blocking the children’s face and/or having strict privacy settings.

3.4. Sample 3: Reasons Not to Sharent

For those who were against or mixed towards sharenting (n = 100), the number and proportion mentioning each of the 11 reasons not to sharent is presented in Table 1. The most commonly mentioned reason (n = 39, 39.0%) was that the child’s image could be used for pornography. Many parents made passionate statements imploring other parents not to risk their child’s images being obtained by “evil” pedophiles. The second most commonly mentioned reason not to sharent (n = 24, 24.0%) was that it is wrong to exploit children for money and attention, with some comparing it to pimping children. The third most common reason offered to not sharent (n = 22, 22.0%) was that it created a negative digital footprint. One parent noted that she did not want her child to feel embarrassed later because of something she posted when he was a child. Next was the fact that children cannot consent (n = 19, 19%), followed by misuse of personally identifiable information (n = 16, 16.0%), and children might want information or images to be private (n = 16, 16.0%).

Table 1. Frequency and percentage of videos endorsing each reason not to sharent for those against or mixed about sharenting (n = 100).

	N	%
Images can be misused	39	39.0
It is wrong to exploit child for money or attention	24	24.0
Negative digital footprint causes problems later	22	22.0
Children cannot consent	19	19.0
PII can be misused	16	16.0
Child might want information private	16	16.0
Could lead to bullying/teasing	6	6.0
It can rob children of authenticity	4	4.0
The process could feel badly for child	2	2.0
It could involve psychological maltreatment	1	1.0
Other	39	39.0

The remaining four reasons were each mentioned by fewer than 10% of the sample of mixed/against parents (n = 100), including that it could lead to bullying/teasing (n = 6, 6.0%), it can rob children of authenticity (n = 4, 4.0%), the process could feel bad for the child (n = 2, 2.0%), and it could involve psychological maltreatment (n = 1, 1.0%). With respect to the 39 “other/unspecified” category, 16 made vague comments about the internet being “weird” or “creepy.” Six creators did not explicitly state why they were opposed to sharenting. A few (n = 4) mentioned “parasocial relationships” in which followers became too attached or invested in their child. Three mentioned that they did not want people criticizing their child’s appearance or their parenting, and two mentioned that other people owned the data. The remaining eight people made miscellaneous comments such as saying that their child does not like being sharented or that sharenting makes life difficult without elaborating.

A summary score was created of the number of reasons offered by each creator, with a mean of 1.3 (SD = 1.4).

3.5. Reasons to Sharent

The proportion of the sample that endorsed each of the 10 reasons to sharent is presented in Table 2, including views of both the pro-sharenting creators and those mixed about sharenting (N = 59 in total). As can be seen, very few of these pro/mixed creators endorsed any of the possible reasons to sharent. Ten percent (n = 6) said that their child enjoyed being in TikTok videos. The remainder of the reasons were mentioned by fewer than that, including parents know how to do it safely, the parent has the right to sharent, it keeps friends and family involved, to create community, it is fun, it helps others dealing with specific issues, and to show the child they are loved. Of the “other” reasons provided, creators mentioned liking to be able to brag about their child’s accomplishments, wanting to make money, and believing that the child is learning new skills.

Table 2. Frequency and percentage of videos endorsing each reason to sharent for those in favor of sharenting and those who are mixed (n = 59).

	N	%
Kids enjoy having photos taken and posted	6	10.2
Parent knows how it can be done safely	5	8.5
Parent has the right to do it	5	8.5
It keeps friends and family involved	4	6.8
To create community	3	5.1
It is fun for the parent	2	3.4
It helps others dealing with particular issues	2	3.4
To show child that parent loves them	2	3.4
It is harmless	2	3.4
Other	12	20.3

4. Discussion

This study used TikTok to conduct a descriptive and comparative content audit of sharenting practices and views among two groups of influencers in the Anglophone parenting space, along with a sample of popular English-language videos on sharenting. This study was designed to audit the information presented to current and future parents on TikTok about the practice of sharenting. Our goal was to better understand the social ecology of the online conversation shaping parents’ behaviors and the degree to which that conversation informs them about the potential harms. The videos were collected at a particular point in time, so the findings represent a snapshot of posts circulating on TikTok during that period.

5. Limitations

To interpret our findings, it is important to understand the limitations of the design and the digital environment in which data were collected. First, there is no fixed universe of videos on TikTok. This limits the claims that can be made about the findings. The algorithm is highly personalized, and results of TikTok searches change over time. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the representativeness of the sample. Nonetheless, we believe the sample has face validity because we limited the algorithmic influence by using a de-identified search engine to identify the top influencers for Samples 1 and 2 and set up new accounts to identify videos for Sample 3. Second, we audited videos from top influencers with high levels of user endorsement in the form of likes. While “liking” a video is not the same as endorsing every aspect of the video, the videos with the most likes may be the videos seen first and/or the ones taken most seriously by viewers. Therefore, they have the potential to be the most impactful. It is possible that there are other videos in their account that address sharenting and other top influencers with other highly liked and viewed videos. Likewise, we chose to focus on “mom influencers” as they have such high engagement numbers on TikTok, but it would certainly be of interest to replicate the study with “dad influencers.” In addition, there are other platforms for parents and parenting influencers, such as Instagram, where other perspectives might be expressed. Second, our sample was limited to TikTok and Anglophone influencers. We cannot generalize our findings to other platforms or influencers using languages other than English on TikTok. Third, a larger sample might have allowed for differentiation of Sample 3 into three distinct groups: in favor, mixed, and against. This would have provided more insight into ways in which those with mixed views differ from those with more definitive views. Finally, our findings help identify current social norms around sharenting and show the extent to which Anglophone influencers articulate potential risks. Although it is theoretically plausible—and likely—that mom and parenting influencers shape social norms and parental decision-making about sharenting, these data capture only the current moment and cannot determine longer-term influence or causal effects. With these caveats in mind, several notable findings emerge from our data.

6. Major Findings

First, leading mom influencers and parenting expert influencers are not addressing the issue of sharenting in a way that is breaking through to their audiences, indicated by the fact that only six of their 600 most liked videos mentioned the topic. These 600 videos were watched by billions and liked by millions of viewers. Moreover, almost all engaged in sharenting themselves and over half of the influencers’ videos included sharented content. Research has demonstrated that social media creates and reinforces social norms around the fundamental role of parenting (Chee et al., 2023). These norms can have a profound impact on sharenting behavior, with parents being more likely to engage in sharenting themselves when their social network supports such behavior (Ranzini et al., 2020). This is because people look to social media influencers in part to learn what it means to be a parent in the digital age (Beuckels & De Wolf, 2025; Mertens et al., 2024). To the extent that these highly viewed and liked videos set an example, influencers may be creating and reinforcing a social norm in which sharenting is endorsed. It is also possible that viewers are influencing creators’ behavior by responding so positively to sharented content. In one video, a parent bemoaned that viewership as well as sales were lower when their child was not in the video. More research needs to be done to determine the nature of the mutually reinforcing influence of creators and viewers.

Second, about half of the sample of 112 videos specifically on the topic of sharenting were completely against the practice, while 42% were mixed, and the remaining 10.7% were consistently in favor of it. However, these 112 videos received far fewer views and likes than the videos posted by top influencers, with a median of only 92 likes per video. Thus, the videos specifically on the topic of sharenting generally lack an audience large enough to shape TikTok sharenting norms and attitudes towards the practice. Future research could develop and test viewer response to a range of messages about the risks of sharenting. These messages would need to be nuanced and go beyond a simple “sharenting is bad” perspective to address the many real and perceived benefits to sharenting and parents’ desire to do so safely (Cino & Ruiz-Gomez, 2026).

A third notable finding was that many potential reasons offered against sharenting were rarely mentioned. The creators of the videos discussing their opposition to sharenting presumably intend to influence people’s decisions regarding sharenting. Yet they are missing important opportunities to be effective influencers, as they are consistently focusing only on misuse of images by pedophiles while overlooking other potentially compelling concerns. For example, while many in the digital sphere were outraged by a mom influencer who accidentally filmed herself manipulating her child to cry harder for a video, this incident was not taken up as a more general problem of exploitation and lack of authenticity (Praveen & M, 2025). According to Clark and Jno-Charles (2025), the exploitation of some sharented children is unambiguously harmful and yet uniquely challenging to discuss and regulate given that it occurs at the cross-section of public work and private family life. Parent education efforts may be the most practical avenue for raising awareness about this concern.

The potential for exploitation underscores the importance of considering consent or assent, the technically correct term when referring to minors. This topic was rarely mentioned in the videos. In fact, some of the pro/mixed sharenting creators explicitly promoted the idea that young children have the capacity to consent. For example, one mother explained that her four-year-old is old enough to consent, demonstrating a misunderstanding of child development and the power imbalance in that relationship. While preschoolers are rarely able to provide informed assent, developmental frameworks recognize that children’s agency and capacity for informed decision-making increase over time. Research ethics offers a useful model through the assent process: children are gradually included in decisions that affect them, and their involvement expands as their judgment and sense of autonomy develop. Communication privacy management offers a nicely fitting model for how a developmental approach to assent forefronts the inherent family tensions around privacy and offers guidance on navigating the issue (Petronio, 2010). Parents should treat assent as an ongoing conversation rather than a one-time permission. Good practice requires parents, as developmentally appropriate, to discuss information-sharing rules with children, seek assent when appropriate, and accept refusals as meaningful.

And, finally, many reasons offered as to why sharenting is acceptable do not address concerns raised about the potential harms of the practice. Those in favor of the practice mentioned that it felt good to share their children’s accomplishments, teach their child new skills, and connect to other people dealing with similar parenting issues. Some mentioned that children expressed enthusiasm for being sharented. While all these may be true, these parents may be failing to consider whether sharenting’s potential harms outweigh the benefits. There may be ways for parents to achieve these important and meaningful goals outside of sharenting.

Implications for Family Sciences Practice and Policy

Our descriptive content audit shows what was present in the sampled videos; it does not directly demonstrate that influencers created or reinforced social norms, that low-engagement videos were unable to influence attitudes, or that proposed educational and regulatory interventions would be effective. However, drawing on social norms theory and research, there are a number of potential implications for policy and practice.

Parent education. Given the lack of sufficient information available online about potential risks of sharenting, there appears to be a need for clearer social norms and better guidance in this area. One policy initiative could be the creation of informational material from credible sources, including family science, cybersecurity, mental health, parenting, child development, and child rights. This information could be developed and made available to parents and professionals, consistent with the recommendation of Praveen and M (2025), who call for the “need to educate parents about healthy digital media practices surrounding children to protect their rights, privacy, and security in a digital world” (p. 209). Messages could be developed with input from stakeholders including influencers, sharenting parents, and experts in content moderation, with special attention to people most likely to be resistant to the message (Ghio et al., 2021), such as those who are aware that sharenting poses potential violations of children’s rights to privacy but sharent in risky ways anyway (Beuckels et al., 2025). As sharenting risk exists on a continuum, the PAUSE tool (privacy, audience, unchangeable, safety, emotion) might be used to educate families about the impact of sharenting and to assess and mitigate risks (Mitchell et al., 2026). Hamilton’s (2023) list of sharenting content that should not be posted (e.g., puberty milestones, nudity, discipline interactions) could be included in such material. The voices of youth themselves might be incorporated into these efforts to respect their agency, draw on their unique insights, and lend authenticity to the work.

One possible model for developing evidence-based public health messaging on sharenting is offered by Hudders et al. (2025), in which stakeholders were consulted to launch a social media campaign in Belgium especially focused on sharenting by influencers. A similar model could be developed for English-speaking parents engaged in sharenting. This material could include all the reasons why sharenting can be harmful as well as the limitations of some risk mitigation strategies. Researchers could experimentally evaluate the effectiveness of different messages for changing attitudes and intentions around sharenting.

Ideally, information about the risks of sharenting could be delivered in person by trusted messengers, including family practitioners, pediatricians, early childhood teachers, etc. The clinical assessment model developed by A. J. L. Baker et al. (2025a; see also Mitchell et al., 2026) could be used by clinicians to raise awareness and educate parents. Online, the best messengers may be the top mom and parenting expert influencers who already have a large viewership around issues of parenting, lending them credibility (Merchant et al., 2021). Social media creators, especially those with large viewership, are already functioning as an informal social norm messaging system. Most people who post on TikTok want to reach a large and diverse audience to gain attention (and possibly money) as well as influence other people’s behaviors and choices. As of now, top influencers are either not talking about the issue or are not doing so in a way that appeals to their viewers. Many are sharenting themselves in ways that may be unsafe. In some cases, the pro-sharenting messages were inaccurate. Moreover, the creators of the videos against sharenting were often passionate, but the messages were incomplete in that most only mentioned a few reasons, and some reasons were never or only rarely mentioned. Parents watching these and similar videos would not have access to the full set of risks and concerns.

While formal parent education has the potential to reach a broad swath of families, parenting programs may not focus on this specific issue, given that they were developed decades ago before sharenting was a concern. Updating these programs represents another potential mechanism for educating parents. A first step in the process should involve a systematic audit of the curricula of evidence-based family intervention and parenting programs (both universal and for at-risk parents) to ascertain how—if at all—the topic of sharenting is addressed. If a need is identified, the next step would involve the development of a stand-alone module on the topic of sharenting (including definitions, facts, examples, reasons why people do it, and potential harms) that can be field-tested for appeal and effectiveness. This module could then be made available to existing professionals and their organizations, consistent with a model for promoting a change in social norms (Hornik, 2002).

Platform Governance. There is also a role for family scientists to play at a societal policy level to address this issue. Affiliation groups can bring their clout and credibility to bear in shaping corporate policy. Family science professional organizations could begin by reviewing the state of knowledge about sharenting. If there is a consensus regarding the existence of risk, a coordinated action plan could be developed. That might involve pressuring corporate entities and legislators to mitigate the risks of sharenting by promoting specific safety innovations within the structures of the social media platforms. These platforms have made some efforts to integrate safety features to protect minors (Information Commissioner’s Office, 2022) but may need to be pressured to do more. For example, AI technology could be used to automatically detect and blur the faces of minors (Vincent, 2021) or protect images from public “tagging” of locations, background clues, or reverse image searches (Hays & Efros, 2015). Advocacy efforts could also focus on having platforms implement pop-up warnings about the potential harms of posting images of children online, similar to their “take a break” reminders (Weatherbed, 2025).

Legal Protections. Another avenue for change is at the legal level, with two notable international developments. Some countries are now limiting what parents can post about their children, and some are allowing children to take control of their digital footprint at age 18. For example, France implemented a law that limits sharenting in co-parenting disputes (Niestadt, 2025) and allows children to request the erasure of their online presence (Edney, 2022). Poland and China have both introduced legislation that prevents posts that defame children and sets up guidelines for removal (Shui & Jiang, 2025; Sury et al., 2024). These countries provide models for what can be done to protect all children from some known sharenting harms. There are also calls for modification of child labor laws to protect children whose parents earn money from sharented content (e.g., Abrams, 2023).

7. Conclusions

The phenomenon of sharenting connects with broader social norms regarding family relationships and privacy boundaries, child safety, child development, identity development, child protection, cybersecurity, and potential trauma or psychological harm exposure. Given this, society needs to develop and promulgate a new set of social norms around the practice of sharenting. This should involve development of social media messaging, changes in the policies of social networking sites, and development of protective legislation. In addition, the topic of sharenting could be incorporated into the work of all professionals who work with children and families as part of intake forms, diagnostic assessments, casework services, care plans, psychiatric, psychological, and psychosocial evaluations. Taken as a whole, clinicians, family educators, and anyone interested in protecting children must take advantage of opportunities to offer guidance to parents in a culturally relevant and sensitive, non-judgmental manner on harmful sharenting practices.