digital identity phd

We have 183 identity PhD Projects, Programmes & Scholarships

All disciplines

All locations

Institution

All Institutions

All PhD Types

All Funding

identity PhD Projects, Programmes & Scholarships

Trust, risk and digital identity for digitally-unsure citizens, phd research project.

PhD Research Projects are advertised opportunities to examine a pre-defined topic or answer a stated research question. Some projects may also provide scope for you to propose your own ideas and approaches.

Self-Funded PhD Students Only

This project does not have funding attached. You will need to have your own means of paying fees and living costs and / or seek separate funding from student finance, charities or trusts.

Ethnicity, Class and Consumption - Continuity and change in ethnic minority cultural practice in the UK

Phd studentship (3 years): muslim women politicians: identity, religion and elections in the uk, funded phd project (students worldwide).

This project has funding attached, subject to eligibility criteria. Applications for the project are welcome from all suitably qualified candidates, but its funding may be restricted to a limited set of nationalities. You should check the project and department details for more information.

Popular music, identity and community

Pre-registration health care students’ experiences of the safe learning environment charter (slec), nationalism, populist politics and sport migrations: heroes or villains, phd opportunities in communication, media, and film studies, funded phd programme (uk students only).

Some or all of the PhD opportunities in this programme have funding attached. It is only available to UK citizens or those who have been resident in the UK for a period of 3 years or more. Some projects, which are funded by charities or by the universities themselves may have more stringent restrictions.

Social Sciences Research Programme

Social Sciences Research Programmes present a range of research opportunities, shaped by a university’s particular expertise, facilities and resources. You will usually identify a suitable topic for your PhD and propose your own project. Additional training and development opportunities may also be offered as part of your programme.

Contemporary issues in sport integrity and anti-doping

Identification of fruit fly biomarkers using mass spectrometry, understanding transitions and impacts on wellbeing within the uk fire and rescue service, exploring and understanding inclusivity of lgbtqia+ recreational athletes in the uk, women in sports: the experience of working and living in precarity, liminality and exploitation in the gig economy, elucidating the fate of iron and copper based nanofertilizer in soil-plant system using isotope labelling and synchrotron techniques, funded phd project (uk students only).

This research project has funding attached. It is only available to UK citizens or those who have been resident in the UK for a period of 3 years or more. Some projects, which are funded by charities or by the universities themselves may have more stringent restrictions.

‘Puppets and Clowns’? Celebrity and Political Activism in Historical Perspective

Zk-cloud forensics: privacy-aware and tamper-proof cloud forensics using a public key trust infrastructure.

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

Have you got time to answer some quick questions about PhD study?

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

• Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
• The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
• Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
• Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
• Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Do you want hassle-free information and advice?

Create your FindAPhD account and sign up to our newsletter:

• Find out about funding opportunities and application tips
• Receive weekly advice, student stories and the latest PhD news
• Hear about our upcoming study fairs
• Save your favourite projects, track enquiries and get personalised subject updates

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

Filtering Results

A Group Blog on Early American History

Digital identity in graduate school.

Last week, the Arts & Sciences Graduate Center at William and Mary hosted a Digital Identity Roundtable to discuss the benefits, pitfalls, and protocols for graduate students who currently use social media for networking and scholarship, and for those who would like to start. As a contributing editor for The Junto, I was invited to participate in that discussion. Only after agreeing did I realize that mine would be the only graduate student voice among a group of highly accomplished professors from across the college. Being a typical graduate student, the thought of speaking with any “expertise” caused a brief panic and I turned to my fellow Junto editors for their tips and suggestions for graduate students and early career scholars about managing a digital identity. My query (really a plea for help), elicited such a big and generous response from my fellow editors that we decided to share that advice here. Hopefully, this can start a wider conversation about how graduate students should confront an increasingly vital part of our professional development.

First, and perhaps not surprisingly, Junto editors and the panel of scholars at William and Mary strongly recommend that graduate students take the time to develop an online presence. Sara Georgini recommends that graduate students “blog, tweet, and establish a clear digital home base stating your academic bio and research interests.” In doing so, Rachel Hermann explains that graduate students should also focus on developing a public voice, which is likely different from their personal interactions. The key is to remember that, according to Sara, the majority of digital platforms are visible. As such, graduate students need to “think critically about the political and intellectual views they put forward.” Sometimes this means thinking before tweeting, people.

Michael D. Hattem explains that his own approach to his digital identity shifted the closer he got to the job market. First, he suggests that graduate students on the market check to see what happens when they Google their names – making sure that personal websites are up and running and that search results on Google line up with how a candidate would like to present themselves to search committees. Kenneth Owen agrees, arguing for the importance of a “coordinated website presence.” In other words, graduate students should also make sure that, as Kenneth explains, “any website/blog presence you have – be it personal website, department page, collaborative outside project – conveys the same message as your job materials do.” This means working to keep things up-to-date, and likely for months (or years) before job market time.

Rachel also describes a difference between how graduate students and early career scholars should/do approach social media. First, it is important to remember that search committees are likely to be on social media. That means, according to Rachel, don’t tweet your hangovers or “fall into the trap of looking like a graduate student who critiques books because s/he hasn’t written any.” For early career scholars, however, Rachel recommends communicating honestly through social media about how often one works, the struggles of imposter syndrome, and to be honest about finances.

Perhaps most importantly, and advice that most Junto editors echoed, was to be collegial, professional, thoughtful, and strategic when using social media. Engage in blogging, ask questions/solicit advice from the #twitterstorians , and be prepared to discuss your digital presence in professional settings. As Michael sums up nicely, social media “is only going to become increasingly imperative in the coming years.” This means that developing a strategy for engaging in the online world of professional historians might be a worthwhile endeavor for graduate students at any stage.

What have we missed? Advisors of graduate student, what do you recommend for your students in terms of their digital identity? Early career scholars, what worked (or didn’t) for you on the job market in terms of social media? And graduate students, what lingering concerns do you have about tweeting or blogging?

Spread the word:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

6 responses

Pingback: Os dilemas da vida digital dos cientistas sociais | A Vida Pública da Sociologia

Rachel, I was intrigued by your comment about “fall[ing] into the trap of looking like a graduate student who critiques books because s/he hasn’t written any.” Can you elaborate and/or provide a link to the full version of your comments? I agree with Casey that the word “expertise” or “expert” always gives me pause. While I feel like I have a general knowledge of quite a few topics, I always hesitate to call myself an “expert”; and if I could be considered an “expert” on anything, it would probably be so limited as to apply to only about ten people in the country and cease to be meaningful. Others can comment on the job market–I have little but contempt and derision for the types of faddish job ads I see. On social media…ughh…I guess I’m officially ambivalent but definitely leaning toward a more critical stance. I keep a personal website and use it for all sorts of things that are helpful for teaching and scholarship, but I also get the impression that it is almost required nowadays, and I’m not sure that’s such a good thing. It does create extra work. Yes, there are connections I’ve made on Facebook and Twitter that I otherwise would not have made and yes, historians have been incorporating social media into their scholarship in interesting ways for a few years, but it’s also prone to distraction, short attention spans, and loss of those precious few hours we need to dedicate toward teaching and scholarship (and for most of us, save for a few lucky ones, teaching almost exclusively pays the bills). And what about the effect of social media on our self-esteem? I can’t be the only one out there feeling self-conscious and thinking that Facebook and Twitter corner us into tough choices regarding our identities as well as the natural tendency to compare oneself to others, which doesn’t often result in positive thinking. For me personally, I have to set strict boundaries. I haven’t been on Twitter since President* Trump was elected* and as I’m in the midst of grading about 200 essays, I also left Facebook. I’ll come back around soon enough. Does anyone else have that nagging feeling that social media erodes productivity?

I was remembering the person I was in graduate school, and that I was often too critical of books. It’s easy to bash an author, especially when you’re early on in your PhD and don’t have a good sense of just how much work goes into writing and editing a book.

And while I agree with your point about some job ads, I’ll say that job ads in England are either posted because someone’s gotten a fellowship and needs a replacement lecturer (who is often paid a decent VAP salary, unlike in the US), or because a department is responding to student demands in certain subject areas.

Indeed, I feel similarly about book reviews. Looking back at a couple of reviews I have written in the past, they are probably a bit more critical compared to how I would write them today. On the job market, there’s not much I can add that’s not already been said in the long literature on CHE and other venues. It makes sense that job ads would be responding to student demands, but there’s also the uncomfortable truth that hiring committees fluff up their job ads to please deans that are reluctant to open up new lines unless they are “useful.”

Pingback: How to manage your student digital identity? – OGR LAB _\[||]//_

Pingback: Five on a Friday: Helpful links for graduate students at all stages – Kimberly B. Sherman

Engage Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Digital Identity and the Problem of Digital Inheritance

Limits of the Posthumous Protection of Personality on the Internet in Brazil

• First Online: 13 March 2022

Cite this chapter

• Gabrielle Bezerra Sales Sarlet 27  

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 96))

1125 Accesses

1 Citations

Computers and information, data coding and handling systems are understood as an extension of the human person, forging a web of unusual relations that require a protection according to the model of the possibilities of appeals, i. e. a protection that is multidimensional and compatible with less control and greater scope in the regulation of risks. It is important to ensure the protection against risks of material and immaterial damages, e.g. in cases of the creation of fake profiles, violation of privacy, data retention and manipulation, stigmatization, discrimination through registers etc. Personal data refers to all information of a personal character that are characterized by the possibility of identifying and determining the data subject, whereas sensitive data are those that have to do with racial and ethnic background, political, ideological and religious convictions, sexual preferences, data about health, genetic and biometric data. The ensemble of these pieces of information makes up the digital profiles or identities and has a political and, above all, economic value, since they can become the raw material for the use of software that is directly connected to the new forms of social control. Thus, data protection is, in sum, the protection of the human person, mainly the protection of the free development of his or her personality by guaranteeing informational self-determination, including protection after their death. Digital inheritance is the set of data, digital assets which, in sum, are digitized assets stored in the cloud. Considering that heritage involves material and immaterial goods, the destination of the digital heritage of individuals after their death becomes an urgent issue. This is, in principle, a conflict between the enforcement of the fundamental right to inheritance and the guarantee of the right to intimacy and privacy, which are essential to the exercise of personality rights. And there is a demand for new forms of personality rights and inheritance rights that encompass the notion of virtual personality and digital inheritance. Digital legacy, i.e., the sum of rights, assets and obligations in the digital sphere that must be passed to the heirs, is framed in a classification of goods that cannot by economically valued and of goods that can be economically valued. The former would have a predominantly affective value and the rest an undeniable economic value due to the direct possibility of their monetization. The concept of digital inheritance means that multinational companies will have to take steps to protect the personal data of their users. Despite the civil framework for the Internet in Brazil, there are still some legislative gaps involving both personality and virtual inheritance. The approach to digital inheritance issues must go through the data protection issue. As long as the virtual personality persists, essential data will be protected using passwords, encryption, etc. However, since there is no specific regulation in Brazil, the pure and simple application of inheritance rights to the digital universe affects both the personality rights sphere and some of the most valuable rights and principles guaranteed by the Constitution.

This is the result of research developed in post-doctoral studies at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) and at the University of Hamburg, under the supervision of Professors Carlos Alberto Molinaro and Marion Albers, and owes its realization particularly to the support and granting of a scholarship by the Max Planck Institute of Hamburg.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Inheritance Law in the Twenty-First Century: New Circumstances and Challenges

Introduction to Security and Privacy

The Right to Privacy in the Age of Digital Technology

Jayme ( 1995 ), p. 9.

About all this, see Castells ( 2016 ), pp. 57–103.

Castells ( 2003 ), p. 43.

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, the number of people connected to the internet went from 350 million to 2 billion. Moreover, in the same period, the number of people with mobile phones went from 750 million to 5 billion. For 2025 it is expected that most of the world population will have access to instantaneous information, and if the rate of growth of people connected to the internet is maintained, on that date there will be 8 billion people online. Cf. Cohen, Schmidt (2014), p. 15.

In 2011, the USA internet consumed an average of 2% of all the electricity produced worldwide. The heat generated by the servers, active or not, requires compatible cooling, and, thus, it is estimated that in 2020 in the USA consumption will rise to 140 billion kWH, 54% more. See Farinaccio ( 2016 ).

Agamben ( 2006 ), p. 35.

Neutrality refers to the principle that ensures that all the content transmitted by the computer web should be treated in the same way, that is, should not suffer any kind of discrimination, be it for its content, for its origin or for its destination. See, pars pro toto , Marsden ( 2010 ), p. 36.

Ramsay ( 2001 ), p. 45.

For a perception of the monetarization of the internet use, suffice it to recall that Microsoft in 2016 acquired LinkedIn, paying 26 million dollars for the company and especially for its professional cadaster of 430 million users and 100 million visitors a month. The value represents 60 dollars per user or 260 dollars per visitor a month, see The Economist (2016) LinkedUp. http://www.economist.com/business/2016/06/18/linkedup . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022.

“Information Society—which is nothing more than a specific form of social organization, in which the management, processing and transmission of information become the fundamental sources of production and power, due to the new technological conditions that arose in this historical period. The rise of this new society, therefore, brought about the need to rethink the role of the State in this new context”, Leite (2016), p. 150.

Main characteristics of contemporaneity—a society structured in the form of a web, generating infinite opportunities for control and surveillance depending radically on the information webs; excessive volumes of information in comparison with the decrease of the production of knowledge; hyperacceleration and hyperexposure—society of confession and intimacy, in which power was replaced by attention and wealth can be translated by a person’s access to the sources of raw material, namely, to information itself. The introduction of this information model altered the cultural grammar of society radically, insofar as its structures were transformed and new behaviors were generated, making those that were previously known more complex and, simultaneously, initiating new conflicts that are not yet legally regulated because of their novelty. An immediate consequence was the illusion that it was a completely neutral and, consequently, safe environment. This situation caused a kind of displacement of a considerable group of people situated at the margins of formal knowledge who, fascinated, give over their personal data, without much care, including sensitive data, to reach the possibility of access to a simulacrum of digital citizenship and, in this way, to feel included.

The virtual political sphere only reflects traditional politics and, in these terms, not all information produces democracy, especially due to the volume, since access to the internet cannot ensure political access and activity. Strictly speaking, digital democracy consists of an experience of the internet and of its devices turned towards the potentiation of civil, active and responsible civil participation in conducting public business.

Braaten ( 1991 ), p. 44; Habermas ( 2001 ), p. 10.

Property is made up not only of economically measurable legal relations, but equally by extraproperty relations, which, when violated, affect the person’s property. Therefore, personality rights are part of the concept of property insofar as they are taken as immaterial elements that are inalienable and due to the possibility that, once they are violated, they will generate economic elements such as the effect of the right to indemnification and/or reparation. About the broader configuration of the concept of property, see Branco and Mendes ( 2015 ), p. 323.

Sarlet ( 2013 ), p. 5.

Meyer ( 2011 ), pp. 23–25.

Cupis (1959), p. 45; Schreiber (2014), p. 6.

Cicco ( 2017 ); Moraes ( 2003 ), p. 27.

About the fundamentality of the right to identity in the FC/88, see: Sarlet ( 2018 ).

To understand the distinction between virtual and digital identity, see Meyer ( 2011 ), p. 52.

Negroponte ( 2009 ), p. 195.

Fena, Jennings (2000), p. 15.

Balkin ( 2009 ), p. 428; Dwings ( 2015 ), p. 67.

Lévy ( 2002 ), p. 47.

Biometry is the anthropometric act of marking, according to the criteria of Alphonse Bertillon. It is a general and subtle form of control by the State that allows prosecution.

Cha ( 2005 ). In this sense the view of Statement 531 of the VI Jornada de Direito Civil (6th Meeting on Civil Law) promoted by the Council of the Federal Justice in March 2014 is relevant. It says: “The protection of the human person dignity in information society includes the right to be forgotten”.

Júlio ( 2005 ).

Bock ( 2017 ), pp. 370–417.

Molinaro and Sarlet ( 2013 ), p. 69.

Lima (2010), p. 95; Reis ( 2010 ), p. 95.

Oliveira ( 2002 ), pp. 121–143.

The so-called Streisand effect must be included in the analysis of the guarantee of the right to data protection, since publicity about the damage may trigger many people’s curiosity, as occurred in the case involving the actress Barbara Streisand.

Globo ( 2017 ).

Abreu ( 2003 ), pp. 30–45.

Bock ( 2017 ), p. 372.

About digital assets and the rise of regulation in Brazil, see Castro J, Hirata L (2017).

Although apparently naïve and rather disconnected from reality, about the problem of regulation and some control, it is interesting to see the shape of the manifesto of cyberspace independence. Barlow ( 1996 ).

Sarmento ( 2006 ), p. 34.

Article 307 of the Brazilian Criminal Code: “To attribute to oneself or to a third party a false identity to obtain advantage for oneself or another, or to cause damage to somebody else”.

See Alexander ( 2016 ), pp. 301–308, and more closely with a detailed analysis of the courtsʼ decisions and the German legal situation Heidrich ( 2022 ), in this volume.

The requests for information regarding the account of a deceased person should be sent to the following e-mail address: [email protected] or to the physical address: Next ofkin, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98,052.

Apple (2018).

Instagram ( 2017 ).

UN Resolution 39/248, April 9, 1985, establishes the guarantee of consumer protection as a duty of all member States.

Dropbox ( 2017 ).

As an example, see Perpetual Websites. Available via internet. http://web.archive.org/web/20180811110313/http://www.perpetualwebsites.net/ . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022.

Beyer and Cahn ( 2012 ), pp. 40–41.

Bevilaqua ( 1978 ), p. 2.

Morato ( 2012 ), p. 153.

Dias ( 2008 ), p. 24.

Bevilaqua (1956), p. 43; Miranda ( 1966 ), p. 22.

Hironaka ( 2011 ), p. 34.

Hironaka and Pereira ( 2004 ), p. 7.

Here there are similarities between the institutes of the living will and the digital will, since it is an act with the last disposition of will which, if the person becomes incapacitated, becomes effective even during the testator’s lifetime. Rizardo ( 2011 ), p. 219; Lippmann ( 2013 ), p. 17.

Pereira ( 2012 ), p. 184.

Rodotà ( 2006 ).

Chehab ( 2015 ), p. 56.

Rohrmann ( 2005 ), p. 195.

Barros ( 2006 ).

Brasil, PL 4847/2012, Available via internet. http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/fichadetramitacao?idProposicao=563396 . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022.

Tepedino ( 2004 ), pp. 23–58.

Schreiber ( 2018 ).

Brasil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (2003), Recurso Especial 521,697/RJ. Min. Rel. César Asfor Rocha. Available via internet. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?num_registro=200300533543&dt_publicacao=20/03/2006 . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022.

Doneda ( 2006 ), p. 2.

Schreiber (2014), pp. 154–158.

Hoffmann et al. ( 2015 ), p. 217.

Abreu R (2003) A emergência do patrimônio genético e a nova configuração do campo do patrimônio. In: Abreu R, Chagas M (eds) Memória e patrimônio: ensaios contemporâneos. DP&A, Rio de Janeiro, pp 30–45

Google Scholar  

Agamben G (2006) Lo abierto: el hombre y el animal. Adriana Hidalgo, Buenos Aires

Alexander C (2016) Digitaler Nachlass als Rechtsproblem? Überlegungen aus persönlichkeitsrechtlicher, datenschutzrechtlicher und vertragsrechtlicher Sicht. Kommunikation and Recht, pp 301–308

Balkin JM (2009) The future of free expression in a digital age. Pepperdine Law Rev 36:427–444

Barlow J (1996) A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Available via internet. https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Barros M (2006) Sistema permite identificar mercadorias, animais e até pessoas usando sinais de radiofrequência. Available via internet. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/informat/fr0103200601.htm . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Bevilaqua C (1978) Direito das Sucessões. Editora Rio, Rio de Janeiro

Bock M (2017) Juristische Implikationen des digitalen Nachlasses. In: Archiv für die civilistische Praxis, (AcP), pp 370–417

Braaten J (1991) Habermas’s critical theory of society. State University of New York Press, New York

Branco PG, Mendes GF (2015) Curso de direito constitucional, 10th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo

Brasil, PL 4847/2012. Available via internet. http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesWeb/fichadetramitacao?idProposicao=563396 . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Brasil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (2003), Recurso Especial 521697/RJ. Min. Rel. César Asfor Rocha. Available via internet. https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?num_registro=200300533543&dt_publicacao=20/03/2006 . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Beyer GW, Cahn N (2012) When you pass on, Don’t leave the passwords behind: planning for digital assets. Probate and Property 26:40–41

Castells M (2003) A galáxia da internet: reflexões sobre a Internet, os negócios e a sociedade. Jorge Zahar, Rio de Janeiro

Castells M (2016) A sociedade em rede. A era da informação: economia, sociedade e cultura, vol 1, 10th edn. Paz e Terra, São Paulo, pp 57–103

Castro J, Hirata L (2017) Ativos do Brasil se destacam e são opção entre emergentes. Available via internet. http://www.valor.com.br/financas/5152374/ativos-do-brasil-se-destacam-e-sao-opcao-entre-emergentes . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Cha A (2005) After death, a struggle for their digital memories. Available via internet. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/02/03/after-death-a-struggle-for-their-digital-memories/074e8451-e756-4f6f-8c47-01b86f3e465b/ . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Chehab G (2015) A privacidade ameaçada de morte. LTr, São Paulo

Cicco MC (2017) O ‘novo’ perfil do direito à identidade pessoal: o direito à diversidade. Annali della Facoltà Giuridica dell’Università di Camerino, 6, 2017. Available at internet. http://d7.unicam.it/afg/sites/d7.unicam.it.afg/files/DeCicco_O%20novo%20perfil%20do%20direito%20à%20identidade%20pessoal_0.pdf . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Cohen J, Schmidt E (2014) The new digital age: reshaping the future of people, nations and business. John Murray, London

Cupis AD (2014) I diritti della personalità. Guiffrè, Milano

Dias MB (2008) Manual das Sucessões, 5th edn. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo

Doneda D (2006) Da privacidade à proteção de dados pessoais. Renovar, Rio de Janeiro

Dropbox (2017) Política de privacidade do Dropbox. Available via internet. https://www.dropbox.com/pt_BR/privacy . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

254813. Accessed 5 Dec. 2017

Dwings L (2015) The right to be forgotten. Action Intell Prop 9(J45):67:45–80

Farinaccio R (2016) Afinal, quanta energia elétrica a internet utiliza para funcionar? In: Tecmundo. Available via internet. https://www.tecmundo.com.br/internet/104589-quanta-energia-eletrica-internet-utiliza-funcionar.htm . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Fena L, Jennings C (2000) [email protected]: como preservar sua intimidade na era da internet. Futura, São Paulo

Globo O (2017) Perfil falso usou fotos de brasileiro para influenciar eleição dos EUA. Available via internet. https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/perfil-falso-usou-fotos-de-brasileiro-para-influenciar-eleicao-dos-eua-21821791 . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Habermas J (2001) Moral consequences and communicative action. MIT, Cambridge, MA

Heidrich F (2022) The digital estate in the conflict between the right of inheritance and the protection of personality rights. In: Albers M, Sarlet IW (eds) Personality and data protection rights on the internet. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London (in this volume)

Hironaka G, Pereira R (2004) Direito das Sucessões e o novo Código Civil. Del Rey, Belo Horizonte

Hironaka G (2011) Morrer e suceder: passado e presente da transmissão sucessória concorrencial. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo

Hoffmann C, Luch AD, Schulz SE, Borchers KC (2015) Die digitale Dimension der Grundrechte: Das Grundgesetz im digitalen Zeitalter. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Instagram (2017) Relatar a conta de uma pessoa falecida para transformar em memorial no Instagram.

Jayme E (1995) Identité culturelle et integration: le droit international privé postmoderne. Recueil des Cours, vol 251. Nihoff: Brill, Boston, MA

Júlio B (2005) Identidade e interação social em comunicação mediada por computador. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Available via internet. http://www.bocc.ubi.pt/pag/julio-bruno-identidade-interaccao-social.pdf . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Lévy P (2002) Ciberdemocracia. Instituto Piaget, Lisboa

Lima I (2018) Herança digital: direitos sucessórios de bens armazenados virtualmente. Available via internet. http://bdm.unb.br/handle/10483/6799 . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Lippmann E (2013) Testamento vital: o direito à dignidade. Matrix, São Paulo

Marsden CT (2010) Net neutrality: towards a co-regulatory solution. Bloomsbury Academic, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Meyer J (2011) Identität und virtuelle Identität natürlicher Personen im Internet. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Miranda P (1966) Tratado de direito privado: parte especial, 2nd edn. Borsoi, Rio de Janeiro

Molinaro CA, Sarlet IW (2013) A sociedade em rede, internet e Estado de vigilância: algumas aproximações. Revista Da AJURIS, Porto Alegre 40:132

Moraes MC (2003) Danos à pessoa humana—uma leitura civil-constitucional dos danos morais. Renovar, Rio de Janeiro

Morato AC (2012) Quadro geral dos direitos de personalidade. Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 106/107

Negroponte N (2009) Vida digital. Companhia das Letras, São Paulo

Norris P (2001) Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Oliveira VC (2002) Comunicação, identidade e mobilização social na era da informação. Revista Fronteiras—Estudos Midiáticos, São Leopoldo, 4, 2

Pereira CM (2012) Instituições de direito civil: direito das sucessões, 19th edn, vol 6. Forense, Rio de Janeiro

Ramsay I (2001) Consumer protection in the era of informational capitalism. In: Wilhelmsson T, Tuominem S, Tuomoca H (eds) Consumer Law in the Information Society. Kluwer, Boston

Rizardo A (2011) Direito das sucessões, 6th edn. Forense, Rio de Janeiro

Reis C (2010) Dano moral, 5th edn. Forense, Rio de Janeiro

Rodotà S (2006) La conservación de los datos de tráfico en las comunicaciones electrónicas. In: Segundo Congreso sobre Internet, derecho y política: análisis y prospectiva [monográfico en línea], IDP, Derecho y Política, 3 UOC. Available via internet. https://www.raco.cat/index.php/IDP/article/download/49964/50870/ . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Rohrmann CA (2005) Curso de Direito Virtual. Del Rey, Belo Horizonte

Santos B (2016) Apesar de expansão, acesso à internet no Brasil ainda é baixo. Available via internet. https://exame.abril.com.br/brasil/apesar-de-expansao-acesso-a-internet-no-brasil-ainda-e-baixo/ . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Sarlet IW (2018) Direitos Fundamentais em espécie. In: Sarlet IW, Marinoni LG and Mitidiero D (2018) Curso de Direito Constitucional, 7th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo

Sarlet IW (2013) Do caso Lebach ao caso Google versus Agência espanhola de proteção de dados. Available via internet. https://www.conjur.com.br/2015-jun-05/direitos-fundamentais-lebach-google-vs-agencia-espanhola-protecao-dados-mario-gonzalez . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Sarmento D (2006) Direitos fundamentais e relações privadas, 2nd edn. Lumen Juris, Rio de Janeiro

Schreiber A (2018) Os Direitos da Personalidade e o Código Civil de 2002. Available via internet. http://www.andersonschreiber.com.br/downloads/os_direitos_da_personalidade_e_o_codigo_civil_de_2002.pdf . Accessed 11 Jan. 2022

Tepedino G (2004) A tutela da personalidade no ordenamento civil-constitucional brasileiro. Temas de Direito Civil, 3rd edn. Renovar, Rio de Janeiro, pp 23–58

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul—Law School (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil

Gabrielle Bezerra Sales Sarlet

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Marion Albers

Law School, Pontifical Catholic University from Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Ingo Wolfgang Sarlet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Sarlet, G.B.S. (2022). Digital Identity and the Problem of Digital Inheritance. In: Albers, M., Sarlet, I.W. (eds) Personality and Data Protection Rights on the Internet. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 96. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90331-2_15

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90331-2_15

Published : 13 March 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-90330-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-90331-2

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Exhibitions
• Visit and Contact
• UCD Library
• Current Students
• News & Opinion
• Staff Directory
• UCD Connect
• Topic Guides
• UCD Library Research Toolkit for Graduate & PhD Students
• Academic Digital Identity & Social Media

UCD Library Research Toolkit for Graduate & PhD Students: Academic Digital Identity & Social Media

Presentation: Academic Identity & Social Media

Digital Learning Librarian, Marta Bustillo and Scholarly Communications Librarian, Aoife Quinn Hegarty, introduce participants to multiple social media platforms and how social media can be used  as a tool to promote research and track impact.

• Academic Digital Identitiy and Social Media for Library Research Toolkit

Video: Academic Identity & Social Media

Further resources: Academic Identity & Social Media

• BMJ Author hub – Tips for Video Abstracts
• UCD Promote Your Research

Useful Guides

• Social Media to Promote Research by Jenny Collery Last Updated Aug 7, 2024 513 views this year
• Social Media to Promote Research: Twitter
• Social Media to Promote Research: Blogs
• Social Media to Promote Research: Audio-Visual Tools
• Creating a Podcast by Jane Nolan Last Updated May 17, 2024 452 views this year
• Social Media to Promote Research: Tips & Advice
• Social Media to Promote Research: Tracking Social Media Impact
• << Previous: Finding and using Information
• Next: Open Scholarship >>
• UCD Library Research Toolkit
• Finding and using Information
• Open Scholarship
• Data Management Planning
• Searching for systematic reviews

Digital Learning Librarian

Scholarly Communications Librarian

• Last Updated: Jan 23, 2024 11:56 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ucd.ie/toolkit

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• JMIR Pediatr Parent
• PMC10918551

Young Children and the Creation of a Digital Identity on Social Networking Sites: Scoping Review

Valeska berg.

1 School of Nursing & Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia

2 Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Brisbane, Australia

Diana Arabiat

3 Faculty of Nursing, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

Evalotte Morelius

4 Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Lisa Kervin

5 School of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

Maggie Zgambo

Suzanne robinson, mark jenkins, lisa whitehead.

6 The Centre for Evidence Informed Nursing, Midwifery and Healthcare Practice: A JBI Affiliated Group, Joondalup, Australia

Associated Data

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist and flowchart of the study selection and inclusion process.

Search strategy.

The data sets generated during and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

There is limited understanding of the concept of the digital identity of young children created through engagement on social networking sites.

The objective of this scoping review was to identify key characteristics of the concept of digital identity for children from conception to the age of 8 years on social networking sites.

This scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The key databases searched were EBSCO, Web of Science, ProQuest ERIC, and Scopus. Gray literature sources (National Grey Literature Collection, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google Scholar) were also searched to identify unpublished studies. Articles were selected if they were published in English and reported data on the digital identity of children in relation to social networking sites.

The key terms used in the literature were sharenting , followed by digital footprints and children’s identities . Our study revealed 2 approaches to the creation of digital identity: social digital identity and performative digital identity . The articles in this review most commonly used the term sharenting to describe the behavior parents engage in to create digital identities for children on social networking sites. Motivations to post information about children differed among parents; however, the most common reasons were to share with friends and family and create digital archives of childhood photos, termed social digital identity . The second motivation was categorized as performative digital identity. The risk of digital kidnapping and identity theft associated with the creation of digital identities also influenced parents’ behaviors.

Conclusions

The creation of a digital identity for children is an emerging concept. Our review develops a deeper understanding of sharenting behaviors that can be used to better support parents and their children in creating a digital identity with children and awareness of the potential future impact. We recommend that future studies explore the perspectives of children as key stakeholders in the creation of their digital identity.

Introduction

Every post made on social networking sites contributes to the development of a digital identity. For some, this occurs naturally through their engagement with social networking sites, and for others, the process is planned or curated. Children and vulnerable populations can be represented on social networking sites without control over the creation of the digital identity developed on their behalf [ 1 - 7 ]. Children’s digital identities are often created before the child is born [ 8 , 9 ]. The creation of a child’s digital identity can start with parents sharing information about their soon-to-be-born or newly born child on social networking sites [ 3 , 10 - 12 ]. Digital identity development continues beyond the initial post as images, events, and milestones are shared with or without the permission of the child.

One of the major limitations of the literature on children and social networking sites is the underrepresentation of the voice of the younger child. There is little information available on social networking sites and their use and impact on children and even less from the perspective of children [ 13 - 16 ]. The lack of research with children is mainly attributed to the minimum age requirement for a child to register an account. Each social media site and app has its own criteria for minimum age requirements, which range from 13 to 16 years (13 with parental consent). It is common for parents to either post on behalf of their children or post (knowingly or unknowingly to the child) about their children between conception and the age of 8 years [ 17 ].

Although literature on the digital identity of children is emerging [ 8 , 12 , 18 , 19 ], evidence on the digital identities of adults has grown rapidly over the past 2 decades [ 20 - 25 ]. Despite the increase in the literature that explores adults’ digital identity, the key concepts related to processes and outcomes have not been established [ 1 , 20 ]. Approaches to define digital identity often draw on existing theories, such as the theory of self-presentation by Goffman [ 26 , 27 ]. Goffman [ 26 ] describes identity as performative and the world as a stage on which the act is taking place. The performance cannot take place without an audience who is there to validate the social performance [ 26 ]. Social networking sites are often seen as a stage in which one is actively trying to manage their impression or performance to be liked by others [ 28 ].

Research on adolescents’ digital identity (development) also draws on the theory by Goffman [ 26 ] and identity development theories such as the stages of psychosocial development were developed by Erikson [ 29 ], the identity status theory by Marcia [ 30 ], and the concept of networked publics by Boyd [ 31 ]. Identity development theories describe the adolescent years as the most important phase of identity development, and little is theorized about young children’s identity development [ 20 , 29 , 32 ]. However, Schachter and Ventura [ 33 ] argue that identity formation starts before adolescence and that parents play an active role in their children’s identity formation and later identity development. This aligns with the early formation of “digital” identities, which often starts with parents posting about their children on social networking sites.

There is limited understanding of the concept of digital identity for young children [ 21 , 34 ]. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore key characteristics in the literature on the concept of digital identity for children from conception to the age of 8 years on social networking sites. The review question was as follows: “What are the key concepts, definitions, and characteristics related to the concept of digital identity as generated through engagement with social networking sites for children from conception to the age of 8 years?”

A preliminary search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI Evidence Synthesis was conducted, and no current systematic or scoping reviews on the topic were identified. The updated methodological guidance for conducting a Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review was used in tandem with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) to guide this review [ 35 ]. The completed PRISMA-ScR checklist can be found in Multimedia Appendix 1 . A scoping review was assessed as the most appropriate method, where the purpose of this review was to identify and clarify concepts [ 36 ] regarding the digital identity of children. The scoping review protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework and can be retrieved via the web (see the reference for a link to the protocol) [ 37 ].

Search Strategy

Relevant databases were searched using a constructed Boolean strategy with subject headings and keywords to reflect the inclusion criteria (the search strategy can be found in Multimedia Appendix 2 ). The first search was conducted between July 2022 and September 2022, and the second search was conducted between February 2023 and April 2023. The strategy was developed in conjunction with a specialist librarian. The search strategy, including all identified keywords and index terms, was adapted for each included database or information source. The databases EBSCO, Web of Science, ProQuest ERIC, and Scopus were searched. The reference lists of the included studies were cross-checked with search outcomes to identify studies not previously identified. Gray literature sources such as the National Grey Literature Collection, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google Scholar (the first 200 results) were also searched to identify unpublished studies.

The search terms were as follows: child OR children OR infant OR toddler OR preschooler (population) AND ( digital AND identity ) OR “digital identity” OR ( online AND profile ) OR “online profile” OR ( social AND presence ) OR “social presence” OR sharenting (concept) AND social media OR Facebook OR Instagram OR Twitter OR Snapchat OR Tumblr OR “social networking” (context).

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies of any research design that included the presentation of findings on digital identity in relation to children from conception to the age of 8 years on social networking sites were included if a full text could be retrieved. The viewpoint within the studies could be of the young person, family, health professionals, peers, and others. Further inclusion criteria were articles that were peer reviewed, written in English, and published between January 2000 and April 2023 inclusive. Gray literature was included if research findings were reported. No restrictions on the inclusion of studies were applied in relation to the geographic location or setting of the studies except for the generation of the data on social networking sites.

Participants

Social media related to children from conception to the age of 8 years was included. Data related to family members who posted about their children were also included.

The concept explored was digital identity on social networking sites in relation to children from conception to the age of 8 years. This review focused on web presence on social networking sites, and therefore, literature on digital identity that was purely data generated was excluded. Data-generated identities include, for example, log-ins, personal information saved on websites for identification purposes, and data saved while using apps and playing games. This type of digital identity is discussed elsewhere [ 38 ].

Types of Sources

This scoping review included both qualitative and quantitative studies. Quantitative study designs including experimental and quasi-experimental study designs, randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, before-and-after studies, interrupted time-series studies, analytical observational studies (prospective and retrospective cohort studies), case-control studies, and analytical cross-sectional studies were considered for inclusion. This review also considered descriptive observational study designs including case series, individual case reports, netnography, and descriptive cross-sectional studies for inclusion.

Following the search, all identified references were imported into EndNote (version 20.1; Clarivate Analytics) for the identification and removal of duplicates and then exported to the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment, and Review of Information (Ovid) for a second identification of duplicates and the independent screening of titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria by 2 reviewers [ 39 ]. Any differences between the reviewers regarding the inclusion or exclusion of articles for full-text review were discussed, and if not resolved, they were referred to a third reviewer. The full texts of the retained articles were independently assessed by 2 reviewers. Any differences between the reviewers were discussed and, if not resolved, they were referred to a third reviewer. The reasons for excluding studies at the full-text review stage were recorded. The study selection, screening, and reasons for exclusion at the full-text review stage are reported in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram [ 35 ] in Multimedia Appendix 1 .

Charting the Data

Data extraction tables were developed with the team and used to ensure a uniform data extraction process. Data extraction was undertaken by a minimum of 2 reviewers. The selected studies were analyzed to identify the key characteristics, such as study design, aim, country of study, setting and context, participant characteristics (the age and gender of the children and their families), and sample size. Key terms and concepts related to children’s digital identity were identified, and themes and trends were charted. Where required and possible, the authors of the papers were contacted to request missing or additional data for clarification.

Analysis and Presentation of Results

All articles in this scoping review were searched for key terms used in relation to the concept of digital identity. If the term was mentioned ≥2 times, it was included in the count. Key terms were included if they appeared in the main text, titles, abstracts, or keywords but not in references, footnotes, or headers.

Where variations of the term existed, all variations were analyzed as related to the core term. For example, for the core term children’s identities , variations such as children’s identity , child’s identity , the identity of the child , or their (children’s) identity were included. Similarly, variations of sharenting such as oversharing , anti-sharenting , and grand-sharenting [ 40 ] were analyzed as related to the core term sharenting .

The search was carried out using the PDF reader Nitro (Nitro Software, Inc), and words were copied and pasted into the search bar to avoid spelling mistakes. The search strategy included terms such as identit to quickly identify all terms related to identity, such as online identity , digital identity , and social identity ( identity on its own was not counted).

Data were presented in tabular form, which allows for easy comparison between articles. A graphic was chosen as a way to demonstrate the relationships between key terms. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted into tables to compare the studies, and qualitative data were sorted into key themes. Key trends are discussed in the Results and Discussion sections.

Overview of Results

The search produced a total of 2573 abstracts, 1764 references from database and register searches, and 809 references from searches using other methods (refer to Multimedia Appendix 1 for the PRISMA flowchart [ 40 ]). Of the 1764 references, 652 (36.96%) were identified as duplicates, leaving 1112 (63.04%) references. There were no duplicates in the 809 references from other search methods. After title and abstract reviews were completed on all remaining references, 93.53% (1040/1112) of the articles were excluded from the database references and 99% (801/809) were excluded from the references from other search methods. This left 72 articles, of which 1 (1%) was excluded as there was no way to retrieve the full text and there were no contact details for the corresponding author [ 41 ]. Of the remaining 71 articles, after the full-text review, 50 (70%) were excluded, with the most common reasons being ineligible phenomena of interest (n=20, 40%), age (n=14, 28%), and the article not being about the child or children (n=8, 16%). This resulted in 21 articles. An additional hand search in March 2023 and April 2023 identified 7 articles for full-text review, of which 6 (86%) were included and 1 (14%) was excluded as it was not about the child or children. This resulted in a total of 27 articles included in this scoping review [ 7 , 9 , 10 , 17 - 19 , 40 , 42 - 61 ].

Characteristics of the Studies

The total reported number of participants in this scoping review was 8643, comprising mothers (n=1768), fathers (n=585), grandparents (n=1), and participants reported collectively as parents (n=1841). In total, 4% (1/27) of the articles reported data from child participants (n=68) [ 59 ]. The remaining 4263 participants were not identified further. Overall, more female participants (n=4158) than male participants (n=1753) were reported in the articles.

The sample size of the included studies ranged from 1 [ 18 ] to 3472 [ 57 ] participants. Notably, 30% (8/27) of the articles did not provide sample characteristics [ 7 , 43 - 45 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 54 ]. This was due to the study context (eg, content analyses of social networking site posts and photos) [ 7 , 43 - 45 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 54 ] and the nature of the articles, such as books or reviews [ 54 ] ( Table 1 ).

Characteristics of the included studies.

a SNS: social networking site.

b SDI: social digital identity.

c PDI: performative digital identity.

d MIL: mother-in-law.

e DIL: daughter-in-law.

f PII: personally identifiable information.

Study Origin

Of the 27 studies, 11 (41%) were conducted in the United States [ 9 , 19 , 40 , 43 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 57 , 58 ], 3 (11%) were conducted in Turkey [ 48 , 56 , 60 ], and 2 (7%) were conducted in Australia [ 2 , 18 ], followed by 1 (4%) study conducted in both the Czech Republic and Spain [ 52 ], 1 (4%) conducted in Germany and Austria [ 61 ], and 1 (4%) from each of the following countries: the United Kingdom [ 46 ], Malaysia [ 51 ], Poland [ 10 ], Sweden [ 59 ], Italy [ 62 ], Indonesia [ 55 ], and Portugal [ 17 ]. The remaining 7% (2/27) of the studies did not name the country of data origin [ 44 , 45 ].

The main social networking sites used were Instagram and Facebook. A total of 26% (7/27) of the studies focused on Instagram [ 17 , 18 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 52 ], and 15% (4/27) of the studies focused on Facebook [ 9 , 10 , 46 , 56 ]. The remaining studies focused on social media more broadly.

Study Design

In total, 48% (13/27) of the studies used a qualitative approach [ 9 , 10 , 17 - 19 , 43 , 44 , 48 , 51 , 52 , 55 , 60 , 61 ]. A total of 26% (7/27) of the studies used a mixed methods approach [ 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 56 - 58 ]. In total, 11% (3/27) of the studies used a quantitative design [ 30 , 53 , 59 ]. A total of 7% (2/27) of the studies used both qualitative and literature review methodologies [ 40 , 54 ], and 4% (1/27) of the articles were book chapters [ 7 ].

Key Terms and Concepts Used to Describe Digital Identity

In this first part of the Results section, we explore key terms and concepts used in relation to the concept of the digital identity of children on social networking sites. We then explore the concept of digital identity in relation to 2 types of behaviors that underpin the development of young children’s digital identity.

The Key Term Sharenting

The term sharenting was the most commonly used term in the literature (21/27, 78% of the articles) on the development of children’s digital identities [ 7 , 10 , 17 , 40 , 44 - 54 , 56 , 59 , 60 ]. Of the 27 studies, 5 (19%) studies discussed the term in more detail and provided a definition of sharenting [ 40 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 50 ]. Bezakova et al [ 45 ] explained the term sharenting as “the overuse of social media by parents or legal guardians who share photos or various home videos of minors with the virtual community,” whereas Brosch [ 10 ] defined sharenting as “the practice of a parent to regularly use the social media to communicate a lot of detailed information about their child” and drew on the Collins dictionary definition. All authors appeared to share a similar understanding of the term sharenting . Thus, the definition of sharenting is widely accepted and used frequently in the context of the digital identities of children on social networking sites.

Digital Footprint

A total of 48% (13/27) of the articles referred to the concept of digital footprint(s) [ 7 , 9 , 10 , 19 , 40 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 53 , 54 , 60 , 62 ]. The term digital footprints was sometimes used interchangeably with the term digital identity . It often came down to the authors’ preference for wording to describe the creation of digital identities for children. For example, Brosch [ 10 ] and Bezakova et al [ 45 ] explained that children’s digital footprints are mostly created by parents early in their child’s life, sometimes before or just after the birth of the child or during infancy [ 10 , 45 ]. Brosch [ 10 ] further explained that 10.7% of Polish parents in their sample created digital footprints for their unborn children by posting sonogram images, and 8.3% shared photos of the expectant mother on Facebook. As illustrated by this example, the term digital footprints was used synonymously with the term digital identity .

When the risks of sharing children’s content on the web were discussed, the term digital footprints was often chosen. Kumar and Schoenebeck [ 9 ] discussed the risk of mothers creating digital footprints for their children in relation to the benefits of receiving validation. Mothers in their study were hesitant and uncertain about how their photo-sharing behavior might affect their children’s online identity later and restricted their sharing to pictures that were cute and funny and showed milestones. Nevertheless, they found that the benefits of receiving validation via shared content outweighed the mothers’ concerns about digital footprints and oversharing. The authors introduced a new term, privacy stewardship , to describe “the responsibility mothers take on as they consider what kinds of baby photos are appropriate to share and the implications for their children’s digital footprint.” In line with this, Cino and Dalledonne Vandini [ 40 ] described the pressure and responsibilities of motherhood as mothers are eager to and expected to actively manage their children’s digital footprints. The literature suggests that the management of children’s digital footprints and identities is mostly considered to be the responsibility of parents, especially mothers [ 7 , 9 , 40 , 62 ].

The Use of the Term or Concept of Identity

The different types of identities that were mentioned in relation to children’s digital identities on social networking sites are discussed in the following sections.

Children’s Identities

The term children’s identities or variations of this term (eg, child’s identity ) was used in 44% (12/27) of the articles [ 7 , 9 , 17 , 19 , 43 , 44 , 48 , 52 - 54 , 56 ]. The term children’s identities was used to represent a broad concept that often encompassed other subterms or concepts related to identity. A total of 26% (7/27) of the articles that included the term children’s identities further discussed the concept of online identity [ 9 , 17 , 19 , 43 , 45 , 53 , 60 ], and 15% (4/27) of the articles discussed the term digital identity [ 17 , 54 , 60 , 62 ].

Online Identity

All articles that used the term online identities discussed how parents were the creators of their children’s identities on the web [ 9 , 17 , 19 , 43 , 45 , 53 , 60 ]. Similar to the other concepts related to the digital identity of children, online identity could often be used interchangeably with the term digital identity . However, the context in which online identity was used differed from that in which the other terms were used. Of the 27 studies, 5 (19%) studies discussed children’s online identities in the context of children’s rights and agency over their online identity and the missing consent from children to allow their parents to post about them on the web [ 17 , 19 , 43 , 45 , 53 ].

Digital Identity

The literature did not generate an accepted definition of digital identity; however, some authors briefly discussed the concept and its relationship with sharenting . Kumar [ 54 ] linked the concepts of digital identity and sharenting: “sharenting is potent thanks to the concept of a ‘digital identity,’ also called a digital persona, profile, legacy, trail, footprint, or presence” and “Sharenting discourse portrays the creation of a digital identity as a choice, one best left to the child.”

Mascheroni et al [ 62 ] also linked the 2 terms by discussing the consequences of sharenting on children’s digital identity: “Generally speaking, almost half of the parents are reportedly aware of the consequences of sharenting for children’s digital identity, but regular sharers show a lower average value, suggesting a lower degree of awareness.”

Jorge et al [ 17 ] discussed the term digital identity in more detail by exploring how celebrity sharenting contributes to the construction of children’s digital identities. They found that the parents shared information and photos that aligned with the theme of happy and grateful parenthood and that the family posts represented the children as the extended selves of the father, stepmother, and grandmother.

Thus, there is an understanding that the digital identities are created by parents through sharenting. Here, sharenting is seen as the action (sharing information about the child), and the digital identity is described as the consequence or outcome of the sharenting behavior. Although sharenting was well defined, definitions for children’s digital identity were not provided in the articles.

Other terms or concepts that included the word identity were used less frequently; for example, relational identity was mentioned in 7% (2/27) of the articles, whereas the terms identity performance , mediated identity , private identity , social identity , social media identity , and moral identities only appeared each in 4% (1/27) of the articles. Overall, most articles (19/27, 70%) in this review discussed some form of identity in relation to children’s presence on social networking sites.

Sharenting is the behavior that parents engage in when sharing information about their children on social networking sites. This creates long-lasting digital footprints on the web that form children’s digital identities . The literature has identified a number of risks related to the creation of children’s digital identities on social networking sites, such as digital kidnapping and identity theft , especially if the information that was shared contained personally identifiable information . These areas will be explored in relation to the concept of the digital identity of young children.

Safety: Digital Kidnapping

A total of 11% (3/27) of the articles in this review discussed the concept of digital kidnapping [ 43 , 48 , 51 ]. The terms identity theft , personally identifiable information , and privacy stewardship were used in 7% (2/27) of the articles in this review [ 9 , 46 , 49 - 51 , 54 ]. The term digital kidnapping is defined as “people who steal a child’s identity and photo on social media and pass the child off as their own” [ 48 ]. Digital kidnapping is described as one of the risks of creating digital identities for children by sharing images, especially those that include personal information about the child and reveal the child’s face [ 43 , 48 ]. Hashim et al [ 51 ] found that Malaysian mothers were concerned about digital kidnapping and identity theft and, therefore, were conscious of not sharing locations in their posts and actively hid information regarding places and their children’s names and dates of birth.

Children’s Digital Identity as an Extension of Parents’ Digital Identities

A total of 7% (2/27) of the articles discussed the concept of extended self [ 17 , 52 ]. These 2 articles also discussed the term relational identity . In the article by Holiday et al [ 52 ], the authors discussed the theory of the “extended self” and applied it to the concept of sharenting. The authors described parents’ engagement in sharenting as fundamental to their identity as parents, which the authors argued says more about the parent as an individual than about the depicted child. Following this thought, sharenting is seen as a form of parents’ self-presentation that includes children as a component in the definition of the self.

Jorge et al [ 17 ] also described parents’ representation of children on social networking sites as the extended selves of family members. When children’s digital identities on social networking sites are interpreted as extensions of their parents’ or family members’ identities, parents’ and family members’ identities form part of the child’s digital identity. Accordingly, some articles in this review (4/27, 15%) discussed the digital identity of parents, mothers, and families in relation to the child’s digital identity [ 9 , 49 , 54 , 62 ].

Overall, the review of the key term and concepts related to digital identity shows that there is limited research defining key terms such as children’s digital identity and digital footprints , whereas sharenting is a commonly used and widely accepted term that is clearly defined.

Content and Image Analyses

The development of social and performative digital identities.

The synthesis of the data generated through content and image analyses generated 2 types of digital identity: “social digital identity” and “performative digital identity.” Children’s social digital identity creation involves parents who create their children’s digital identity by sharing information such as everyday activities and milestones without links to commercial products or promotion of their children. Parents’ motivation to create social digital identities for their children is most often to share with family and friends and keep a digital diary [ 9 , 10 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 61 ], whereas children’s performative digital identity is created when parents promote or market their children, often for their own benefit, for example, to promote their clothes and brands [ 18 , 44 , 52 ]. This means that parents post information and photos of their children to convey a picture of the child that can deviate from the actual identity of the child. These posts often present the child in a neat and fashionable way and can include links to products that parents obtain a financial share of. For example, “mummy” or fashion bloggers (eg, #fashionkids) create performative digital identities for their children that mostly benefit them and often disregard the needs of the child [ 18 , 63 ].

The Use of Social and Performative Digital Identities in the Literature

Most articles (18/27, 67%) discussed social digital identities exclusively [ 9 , 10 , 19 , 40 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 48 - 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 - 58 , 60 , 61 ], whereas 30% (8/27) discussed performative digital identities [ 7 , 17 , 18 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 52 , 55 ]. Social digital identities were mostly created on Facebook or discussed in a social media context in general, whereas performative digital identities were mostly created on Instagram. A summary of the types of posted content is presented in Table 2 . The percentages indicate the proportion of articles that discussed the different topics.

Analysis of posted content related to children on social networking sites (N=27).

a DOB: date of birth.

b DI: digital identity.

Social digital identities were often created through images of events such as birthdays and family gatherings, whereas most of the studies that demonstrated a performative digital identity (8/27, 30%) included images and descriptions of children posing for photos, and in some cases, the family made an income from these posts [ 7 , 17 , 18 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 52 , 55 ].

In the following sections, we explain what information (including text and photos) parents typically share when creating social and performative digital identities for children and what motivates them to share this information.

Social Digital Identities

What parents share when creating social digital identities for their children.

Most studies (10/27, 37%) reported that parents created social digital identities for their children by sharing their happy moments. Brosch [ 10 ] found that these happy moments were often recorded during daily life activities, outings, and special events (95.6%). Similarly, most of the mothers in the study by Briazu et al [ 46 ] shared information about special days (72.7%) or social activities (52.6%), and some shared information about health (6.7%) or educational issues (5.2%). Brosch [ 10 ] found that many parents revealed private information about their children by sharing posts containing images of their children’s birthday parties (23.2%), baby videos, birth certificates, kindergarten diplomas, or art (32.7%), as well as sonogram images (10.7%). Information about the child was also shared via posts containing information such as the child’s name and date of birth (48.2%). Brosch [ 10 ] also found that some of the posts contained embarrassing photos (eg, nude or seminude pictures of the child during bathing or at the beach), photos in which children were in distress (eg, crying or angry), or photos in which children were covered in food after dinner (eg, chocolate on their faces).

Kopecky et al [ 53 ] surveyed parents from the Czech Republic and Spain and found that these parents shared photos of celebrations, family moments, holidays, important milestones, and photos that parents considered to be cute or funny. Most parents reported sharing content in which the child could be identified (by face) but did not include sexual content (81.7%). One-fifth of parents shared photos in which the child was partially exposed to the extent that the identity of the child could be determined. A small proportion (3.5%) of parents from the Czech Republic reported sharing nude photos of their young children.

Er et al [ 48 ] investigated sharenting behaviors at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. They found that mothers posted more often than fathers and that most posts contained photos and some contained videos of the children. Of the 226 posts they analyzed, 207 included the children’s faces, with a limited number of parents blurring their children’s faces (n=17). In line with the other studies, the posts were generally happy, for example, expressing the joy of spending time with children and love toward children and showing how children and the family happily played games, cooked, or learned together. The daily lives of the children were also posted, including birthdays, vacations, and anniversaries. A smaller proportion of posts expressed unpleasant situations during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as boredom, complaints, and unhappiness with quarantine.

Cino and Dalledonne Vandini [ 40 ] explored the digital identities that are created for children by the mothers’ mothers-in-law and the conflict that this raises with the mothers. The content is either shared before the birth of the child (eg, pregnancy status of the mother, gender reveal, or labor) or afterward (eg, daily life activities) and usually against the will or knowledge of the mother.

Fox et al [ 50 ] investigated first-time fathers’ sharenting behavior and found that fathers tried to avoid posting sensitive information (eg, their naked child). However, they did post about everyday activities such as going to the park, playing, birthdays, and firsts (eg, first tooth). Fathers were aware of security risks and, therefore, hid their children’s faces and names.

Hashim et al [ 51 ] found that parents mostly shared social events (eg, vacations, events, family activities, and outings; 29.3%), moments (eg, good, funny, happy, important, or special moments; 25.3%), day-to-day activities (13.3%), memories of their children (12%), school activities (10.6%), food (4%), antics (2.6%), and milestones (2.6%) about their children.

Kumar and Schoenebeck [ 9 ] interviewed mothers about their sharenting experiences. Mothers described the photos that they shared about their children as cute and funny and explained that the photos often contained family or friends and developmental milestones of the children.

Marasli et al [ 56 ] found that the most common theme parents shared about on Facebook was special days (81.4%), such as birthdays, graduations, and year-end shows, followed by social activities (54.98%) and educational issues (30%). Less commonly shared themes included sports and arts activities (18.96%), play activities (17.54%), health issues (12.8%), and recommendations about products for children and informatics (12.32%). Most parents in this study (63.77%) also reported that they liked sharing pleasant things about their children.

Minkus et al [ 57 ] used a web-based application programming interface called Face++ to analyze Facebook and Instagram photos. The software identified children via age estimates based on the faces in the photos. Over 25% of the photos on Facebook and 16% of the photos on Instagram with children aged 0 to 7 years had comments that revealed the children’s names, and 2.7% (Facebook) and 5% (Instagram) included the word birthday . The authors were also able to infer the children’s last names from the parents’ last names. Overall, 5.6% of Facebook accounts and 19% of Instagram accounts with child photos revealed the name and date of birth of the children, which is enough information to identify them. By further linking the parents’ Facebook accounts with public records (eg, voter registration records), the authors were also able to identify the address of the parents and children.

Parents’ Motivation to Create Social Digital Identities for Their Children

In this section, we explore mothers’, fathers’, and mothers-in-law’s motivations for creating social digital identities for their children on social networking sites. Briazu et al [ 46 ] found that mothers’ motivations or perceived benefits of posting about their children were to build connections, gain practical benefits such as asking for parenting advice, gain emotional benefits (eg, pride and joy from their children), and help others, and some mothers did not identify any benefits.

Fox and Hoy [ 49 ] found that the desire to be a “good” mother motivated mothers’ sharenting behavior. Mothers used sharenting as a coping strategy. They shared their experiences as mothers and information about their children to seek affirmation and social support from others. The authors also explored mothers’ motivations not to post about their children. Mothers focused on portraying the “right” image of the child and avoided posts that potentially could have made them look like a “bad” parent. It was also important to mothers in this study that their children would not be upset or embarrassed by their posts later in life.

Kumar and Schoenebeck [ 9 ] found that most mothers in their study used Facebook as an archive for their children’s photos. It was important to these mothers to portray their children and themselves in a favorable light and to receive validation and support as mothers.

Wagner and Gasche [ 61 ] investigated German and Austrian mothers’ decision-making processes and strategies when sharing about their children. Most mothers indicated that the costs of sharing photos of their children on the web outweighed the benefits, and therefore, more than half of the mothers (60%) never shared photos of their children on social networking sites. The mothers’ main motivation to share was social participation (to inform others, to keep others up to date, and to document the children’s development), followed by showing how proud they are of their children and the need to be liked, approved of, and accepted by others.

Fox et al [ 50 ] found that fathers’ motivation to share was not to gain support from others but rather to express humor or spotlight themselves as fathers. Overall, fathers made fewer sharenting decisions, and the main responsibility of sharenting most often lay with the mothers [ 50 ].

Hashim et al [ 51 ] found that the most common motivation (42.8%) for Malaysian parents to share about their children was to save memories of them. Social networking sites served as an archive or journal for them to refer to at a later stage. The second most common motivator (31.6%) was the desire to share their experiences, information, activities, and feelings about raising children. Other motivations included being influenced by other social media users; staying connected and engaged with others; and motivating, encouraging, and inspiring other parents. In line with this, Turgut et al [ 60 ] described parents’ motivation to post about their children as related to keeping in touch with others (eg, relatives and friends) and recording and memorizing their children’s development. Brosch [ 10 ] found that the number of Facebook friends was a significant predictor of sharenting.

Cino and Dalledonne Vandini [ 40 ] investigated the motivation of mothers-in-law to post about their grandchildren. They reported that grandmothers’ motivation stemmed from a desire to show excitement for the grandchild, which was often at the cost of the parent’s desire for agency over their children’s digital identities. However, it was noted that grandparents might be less knowledgeable about the internet and web safety and are potentially naiver about sharing information about their grandchildren on the web.

Performative Digital Identities

What parents share when creating performative digital identities for their children.

Posts that contribute to a child’s performative digital identity creation are usually well planned out to present the child in a fashionable or favorable way. Benevento [ 44 ] investigated posts with the #letthekids and #fashionkids hashtags. These are often used by parents who create performative digital identities for their children by sharing well-prepared posts that have been planned out. The hashtag #letthekids emerged as a counter to the more established hashtag #fashionkids ; it stands for “let the kids dress themselves.” The author found that #fashionkids photos often show the child alone during structured activities outdoors. Children are often displayed smiling or with still expressions posing with their possessions (eg, clothing and accessories). The attention is drawn to the child and their outfit rather than the location or activity. The background locations include well-maintained spaces such as parks, backyards, and playgrounds as well as home settings (eg, bedrooms and kitchens). Although children are often presented as posing with a focus on their clothes, these are most often casual.

In contrast, #letthekids photos often show the child during unstructured activities, such as during play, eating in their home environment, or in nature (eg, forest). This hashtag often displays children acting on their own, for example, while playing with their toys in their room, but also sometimes includes family members. The children in the #letthekids hashtag often look away or are shown from behind, as if they are not aware of the photo being taken. Interestingly, #letthekids posters upload more professional photographs than #fashionkids posters and more naked or seminaked pictures of their children than #fashionkids posters [ 44 ].

Choi and Lewallen [ 47 ] investigated children’s gender representations on Instagram and found that parents posted more about their female children than about their male children and generally presented both their female and male children with positive emotions in white or gender-typical (ie, pink and blue) clothes. Children on Instagram were often displayed as playing or having fun in indoor settings by themselves. Girls were found to be frequently displayed as engaging in fashion.

Holiday et al [ 52 ] explored how parents self-presented in their children’s presentation on Instagram. The authors identified 3 presentational categories: polished , promotional , and intimate . Photos in the polished category displayed children as visually appealing and suggested that parents invested time and effort in the post to portray an idealized image of the child. The parents were presented as favorably themselves, with possessions including the child. The attention was often directed toward the parents, not the children (via the text or image). Children in this category served as accessories (eg, in the parents’ arms or on the side of the photo). Parents typically presented themselves as their “ideal self” in this category. The promotion category included posts in which parents used their children to promote their own skills, competencies, services, or products. Finally, the intimate category portrayed children more realistically without perfectioning of the image. With a strong focus on the child in the intimate category, more information is revealed about the child, which adds to the child’s digital identity [ 52 ].

Jorge et al [ 17 ] explored celebrities’ creation of their children’s digital identities through sharenting. The authors analyzed Cristiano Ronaldo’s family’s sharenting practices and the portrayal of the children as the parents’ extended selves. The results showed that celebrity sharenting contributes to digital identities through the themes of happy and grateful parenthood and the representation of children as the extended selves of the father, stepmother, and grandmother. Finally, Latipah et al [ 55 ] found that millennial parents shared content about their children related to everyday activities that are perceived as fun and that are often displayed as esthetically pleasing, with some posts including the promotion of products.

Parents’ Motivation and Motives for Creating Performative Digital Identities for Their Children

Parents who engage in performative digital identity creation for their children have several motives for sharenting. Some parents want to pass on knowledge and educate other parents by providing advice, products, and insights into their daily life activities [ 18 , 55 ], whereas others’ motive is to primarily promote their products or clothes [ 44 , 52 ]. In the promotion category in the study by Holiday et al [ 52 ], the motivation behind posting was often to promote products or services to other parents, whereas parents’ motivation in the intimate category was often to preserve memories, which is in line with our findings on the motivation to create social digital identities.

Dobson and Jay [ 18 ] found that the motive of their case study was to connect with others as the family lived in a rural area. The mother reported that she had made friendships on the web and that followers empathized with her posts and offered support and a sense of community.

In the study by Latipah et al [ 54 ], parents’ motivation to share about their children was to receive affirmation and social support and to demonstrate the ability to care for their children, social participation, and documentation.

The only study that included children as participants could not be classified as either “performative” or “social” digital identity. In this study, children were asked for their opinion on sharenting [ 58 ]. Children aged 4 to 15 years indicated that it is not OK for parents to post photos of their children (them) on social networking sites, whereas sending the photos to relatives was more accepted by the children in the study. The lowest (least acceptable) scores were found among the youngest children (aged 4-6 y) in the study. Irrespective of the participants’ age, children wanted to be asked before their parents took or shared photos of them, and they wanted their answers to be listened to.

Summary of Principal Findings

This scoping review identified 27 studies. Participants included mothers and fathers (collectively reported as parents) and grandparents. On the basis of the analysis of the key terms and concepts used in the literature, the following description of how these relate to one another was developed. The creation of a child’s digital identity is developed through the behaviors of parents, most referred to as sharenting . The behavior of parents through the decisions on the web they make creates a digital identity that can be described as social digital identity or performative digital identity. We found that much of the literature on the concept of the digital identity of children reports on parents, especially mothers, and their sharenting behavior on social networking sites. The most used terms related to digital identity in the literature are sharenting , followed by digital footprint and children’s identity . The term sharenting is well defined and popular among researchers and the media, whereas the term digital identity was less commonly used. We found that the term digital footprint was more commonly used than digital identity ; however, clear definitions were also lacking in the articles in this review. Common across all terms was parents making decisions about what to share about their children, mostly without the children’s consent.

The term digital identity is more commonly used in the literature on adults [ 20 - 25 , 64 , 65 ]. However, we expect a rise in the term digital identity in relation to children in the coming years as there has been a steep increase in research that focuses on the consequences and risks of sharenting [ 50 , 66 , 67 ] . The use of digital identity terms often depends on authors’ preference for words. We found that digital footprints , children’s identity , online identity , and digital identity were used interchangeably by authors. Together with sharenting , these 4 constructs were the most used terms across the articles, suggesting that they are closely related.

Digital Identity Creation: What and Why

We found that most of the content shared by parents was related to social digital identity and included sharing special events such as birthdays and family gatherings, as well as everyday activities and leisure time. In the performative digital identity category, posts also included content about everyday activities and leisure time but with a focus on children who were posing for a photo, with some posts contributing to the posters’ income (eg, influencers). In the performative digital identity category, the motives of some parents were to sell products or promote themselves and their children. The content posted appeared carefully prepared and polished. The literature on the digital identity of children frequently made reference to the concepts of safety on the internet and the rights of the child, and these 2 areas will be explored further with reference to the findings of this review.

Safety Risks: Digital Footprints

Although some awareness among parents of the potential risks of creating digital footprints via sharenting and the creation of their children’s digital identities was noted, there is still uncertainty about the exact impact and consequences of parental sharing behavior. One of the potential risks, digital kidnapping, was considered by some parents; however, the benefits of sharing were described as outweighing the risks of creating digital footprints and identities [ 9 ]. The perceived risks of sharenting may differ depending on the parents’ cultural background. For instance, in the study by Wagner and Gasche [ 61 ], 60% of German and Austrian mothers reported never having shared a photo of their children on the web. In an Australian study, participants refrained from posting about their children on social media as a strategy for privacy [ 68 ]. Other researchers suggest that parents who perceive web-based social networks as a source of support are highly likely to sharent [ 69 , 70 ].

To make an informed decision about whether to share children’s content on the web, parents need to receive information and guidance. Researchers and policy makers have started to develop new policies and guidelines for parents. Although there is a need to update existing policies to reflect the addition of online identities [ 71 - 73 ], the focus of many of these guidelines and policies is on children’s screen time exposure and not on children’s digital identity development or children’s right to their digital identity and footprints [ 71 , 74 , 75 ]. Therefore, we recommend more rigorous research on parents’ attitudes toward privacy and the factors influencing their sharing of children’s photos and information on the web. Findings from such studies could inform efforts and emerging policies directed at mitigating sharenting behaviors that are associated with web-related risks.

Children’s Rights and Privacy

The process of children’s digital identity creation most often takes place without the child’s permission or input [ 10 , 17 - 19 , 43 , 45 , 52 - 54 , 62 ]. No studies in this review investigated young children’s creation of their own digital identities on social networking sites. A study in this review asked children for their opinion on their parents’ sharenting behavior [ 59 ], and very few of the studies in this review (4/27, 15%) addressed the agency of the child [ 18 , 19 , 54 , 59 ]. When digital identities are created early for the child without the input of the child, their right to create their own digital footprint or identity is taken away, leaving them without a voice and choice [ 45 , 54 , 60 ]. Where possible, children should be involved in the development of their digital identity. Research to identify how this can be achieved and to give voice to the experiences of young children is needed to better understand this important and fast-moving area [ 19 ]. Future studies should explore the perspectives of children as key stakeholders in the creation of their digital identity [ 19 , 76 ].

Strengths and Limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to map out the literature published on the creation of digital identities among young children through social networking sites. We strove to apply rigorous methods to search and select articles and chart the data. Owing to our strict age range exclusion criteria, we did not review articles that discussed the digital identity of children aged ≥9 years on social networking sites. The use of search terms and the selected databases may not have been exhaustive, and the omission of social networking sites such as YouTube is a limitation. The search was only valid up to April 2023. In the same vein, most of the included studies were conducted in the Western world, with only 7% (2/27) of the studies conducted in Asia and none conducted in Africa or South America. The interpretation of the findings should consider this geographical bias.

Digital identities on social networking sites are created when photos and information about a person are shared. The digital identities of children on social networking sites from conception to the age of 8 years are most often created by their parents (without the children’s permission). Children’s digital identities can be grouped into 2 categories: social and performative. Parents use the web environment to capture moments that matter to them while also creating positive narratives around the child’s life. The content that is shared for each type of identity and the motivation behind the creation of such identities differ. Research into young children and the digital world has focused on areas such as the effects of screen time and child development and digital safety [ 77 - 81 ]. We urge greater attention to the important area of how the digital identity is created, the impact of this, and how young children can be involved in important decisions that affect their lives.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child through project CE200100022.

Abbreviations

Multimedia Appendix 1

Multimedia appendix 2, data availability.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Developmental Psychology

• Early Publication
• Review in Advance

Review Article

Reframing adolescent identity: a global perspective for the digital age.

• Selcuk R. Sirin 1 , Scott Z. Brauer 1 , and R. Canan Tugberk 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA; email: [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected]
• Vol. 6 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-101059
• © Copyright © 2024 by the author(s). All rights reserved

This review provides a comprehensive evaluation of adolescent identity development research, critically examining the significant gap between the global distribution of adolescents and the focus of scholarly work. While over 85% of the world's youth live in the majority world—Africa, Asia, and Latin America—only 15% of developmental psychology studies explore these populations, revealing a critical gap in global perspectives on adolescent identity development. This review also emphasizes the lack of theoretical and empirical focus on the transformative role of digital technology in shaping identities. Through a systematic review of research, we provide both an empirical base and a conceptual framework to understand adolescent identity in an increasingly connected world. We also suggest several concrete steps for incorporating global perspectives and digital realities into developmental psychology research in general and identity development research in particular.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, childhood adversity and neural development: a systematic review, adolescent–parent relationships: progress, processes, and prospects, the life course consequences of very preterm birth, cognitive aging and dementia: a life-span perspective, media and the development of gender role stereotypes, development of adhd: etiology, heterogeneity, and early life course, language development in context, the development of social categorization, screen time, social media use, and adolescent development, neighborhood effects on children's development in experimental and nonexperimental research.

Publication Date: 04 Sep 2024

Online Option

Sign in to access your institutional or personal subscription or get immediate access to your online copy - available in PDF and ePub formats

More From Forbes

20 tech experts share how to protect your identity online.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

As consumers, we’ve likely run across cautionary tales and product ads focused on identity theft in a variety of media, from television commercials to podcasts and online news sources to local radio. It’s not surprising it’s a hot topic: The Federal Trade Commission received more than 1 million reports of identity theft through its dedicated website in 2023, and that level of impact is likely to increase year over year as bad actors gain access to increasingly sophisticated tools.

Becoming a victim of digital identity theft can entail lost time and money, damage to your credit, stress and anxiety, and, sometimes, even legal liability. As consumers, we’re our own first line of defense—taking simple, practical and accessible steps to protect our identities online is not just smart, but essential. Here, 20 tech experts from Forbes Technology Council share the advice they urge every individual to follow to protect themselves online.

1. Minimize Your Digital Footprint

Audit and minimize your digital footprint by deleting old accounts, disabling unnecessary permissions and using aliases. Avoid reusing passwords, especially for email or financial services accounts, and always enable two-factor authentication. This helps protect your personal data, makes it harder for bad actors to piece together your identity, and adds an extra layer of security. - Reed McGinley-Stempel , Stytch

2. Enable MFA When It’s Available

To protect your online identity, use unique, strong passwords for each account and enable multifactor authentication when it’s available. A password manager can help you create and store these securely. MFA adds security by requiring a second verification, such as a phone code or biometric factor. Regularly update your passwords, especially for critical accounts, and be cautious about sharing personal information online. - Rush Shahani , Persana AI

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?

Google Is Deleting Gmail Accounts—3 Steps Needed To Keep Yours

Used tesla cybertruck price continues to crash, northern lights forecast: here’s where aurora borealis may be visible tonight, 3. follow the nist password guidelines.

Sometimes the simplest answer is also the best answer. Make the most of your login credentials and available login processes. The NIST Password Guidelines , which are based on the quality of passwords and the behavior of users, recommend length over complexity, using a password manager to ensure a variety of passwords are used for different logins, and making use of multifactor authentication. - Piyush Pandey , Pathlock

4. Limit The Personal Information You Share

Always operate under the assumption that no technology, regardless of its advanced privacy or security protocols, is infallible. Therefore, the most effective strategy for safeguarding your identity is to limit the personal information you share on any platform. By minimizing the amount of data you provide, you reduce the risk of exposure in the event of a breach—which is ultimately inevitable. - Sean Merat , owl.co

5. Always Read Website TACs

To protect your identity online, always read websites’ terms and conditions and cookie policies. Use a separate email for e-commerce to safeguard your personal address. Avoid using your banking PIN on other devices, and enable multifactor authentication on all accounts for added security. - Uzair Ahmed , Right-Hand Cybersecurity

6. Leverage A Password Manager

My advice would be to use a password manager and enable two-factor authentication. Password managers generate and store unique, complex passwords for each account, making it difficult for hackers to gain access. Two-factor authentication adds an extra layer of security by requiring a second form of verification, such as a code sent to your phone, in addition to your password. - Ardhendu Sekhar Nanda , First Citizens Bank

7. Be Careful When Posting On Social Media

Use discretion when posting content on social networks. Do not put your home address, phone number, birthdate or when you are going on a vacation in your social media accounts. Cyber criminals can use this data to impersonate you for malicious purposes, including identity theft, social engineering or even phishing attacks. - Dr. Reji Thomas , TOL Biotech

8. Use An Authenticator App

Everyone should be using a password manager and enabling multifactor authentication whenever possible. As an extra step, you should use an authenticator app whenever possible to reduce your risk of SIM-swapping (someone stealing your phone number). - Jonathan Gillham , Originality.ai

9. Regularly Review Privacy Settings On Platforms

Use strong, unique passwords for each account and enable multifactor authentication wherever possible. Avoid reusing passwords, and consider using a password manager to keep track of your passwords. Also, be cautious about sharing personal information online, and regularly review privacy settings on social media and other platforms. This reduces the risk of identity theft and unauthorized access. - Prashanthi Reddy

10. Be Vigilant About Data Storage And Processing

Be vigilant about data storage and processing locations, prioritizing local computation or trusted remote environments whenever possible. For off-device storage, avoid keeping sensitive information in plaintext. Always consider where your data resides and how it’s processed to maintain better control over your digital identity. - Echul Shin , Eternis

11. Remove Personal Photos Posted Online

Remove any sensitive pictures of yourself that are posted on the internet. Media produced by generative AI is becoming increasingly convincing, and these images could be used to create deepfakes or manipulated content that appears to be you in false situations. - James Shi , Datacurve

12. Pay Close Attention To Permissions

Pay close attention to the permissions you’re giving to the apps and services that you’re using. Probe the services and technologies that these apps are leveraging. Understand where your data is stored—in what country, and whether it’s on the company’s premises or in the cloud. Choosing apps and services that use trusted, industry-leading security solutions and cloud providers is key to protecting your identity. - Atit Shah , Microsoft

13. Choose Service Providers With Strong Defenses

With millions of identities being stolen, trusting individuals to safeguard their identity on their own is impractical. Many rely on ISPs, banks and other service providers for cyber defense. For example, my bank verified my ID and selfie, providing comprehensive protection. In the age of AI, identity verification is an experts’ game. Choose providers with the strongest defenses against misuse of personal data. - Dan Yerushalmi , AU10TIX

14. Secure Personal Devices

Secure your personal devices, as they are often the weakest link. Ensure they are protected with multifactor authentication, up-to-date antivirus software and encryption. Additionally, use unique email aliases for different accounts. This way, if one alias is compromised, you can quickly identify which app or service was breached and limit the potential damage, reducing the overall blast radius of the breach. - Suman Sharma , Procyon Inc.

15. Consistently Clear Cookies

Good cookie management can help individuals protect their identities online. Clearing cookies consistently is vital so that your activity is not being tracked across multiple websites. Many tools can automate this process, making it easier to maintain privacy. Taking these steps reduces the risk of being tracked and ensures your online activities remain private. - Justin Rende , Rhymetec

16. Always Ask Yourself If Requested Data Is Really Needed

The first thing to do is minimize the amount of personal data that we share online. Whenever we are prompted to provide this information, we should ask ourselves if it is truly necessary: “Does this social media platform really need my mailing address?” - David Stapleton , ProcessUnity, Inc.

17. Reject Cookies Whenever Possible

Cookies are one of the threats to data privacy. My advice is to not ignore cookie notices and to reject as many as you can. Cookies have the potential to collect your personal information and behavior data, which can then be obtained by data brokers and utilized to influence consumer behavior in marketing. - Siddharth Gawshinde , Cloudtech

18. Monitor Your Credit Reports And Online Accounts

Use unique, complex passwords for every account, and enable multifactor authentication wherever possible. Regularly monitor your credit reports and online accounts for suspicious activity. Be cautious about sharing personal information online and on social media. Consider using a password manager and an identity monitoring service for added protection. - Patrick Harr , SlashNext

19. Prioritize Tech That Emphasizes Transparency And Privacy

To maintain control over your identity and personal data, prioritize using technologies that emphasize transparency and privacy. Ensure they support anonymous browsing and encrypted communications. When used effectively, VPNs, Web3 applications and good judgment can be your best allies in staying safe and anonymous on the Web. - Anton Umnov , Helika

20. Be Cautious About Downloading And Using Third-Party Software

Be cautious with any third-party software, apps, browser extensions and so on. Double-check which permissions you are giving to each, as they often ask for way more access and data than they actually need. Data selling and viruses are more common in “regular” digital products than we think. A simple text highlighter browser extension can access your Web history. - Yuriy Berdnikov , Perpetio

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• ABOUT ANSYS
• JOB SEARCH BY LOCATION
• Administrative Support
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Research and Development
• Software Development
• Technical Support and Consulting
• JOIN TALENT COMMUNITY
• English (United States)

Summer 2025 Intern - Software Development - Digital Twin (Masters/PhD)

Date: Aug 29, 2024

Location: Canonsburg, PA, US, 15317

Company: Ansys

 Requisition #:  15042 

Our Mission: Powering Innovation That Drives Human Advancement   

When visionary companies need to know how their world-changing ideas will perform, they close the gap between design and reality with Ansys simulation. For more than 50 years, Ansys software has enabled innovators across industries to push boundaries by using the predictive power of simulation. From sustainable transportation to advanced semiconductors, from satellite systems to life-saving medical devices, the next great leaps in human advancement will be powered by Ansys. 

Innovate With Ansys, Power Your Career.  

SUMMARY Ansys empowers the world's most innovative companies to design and deliver transformational products by offering the best and broadest engineering simulation software to solve the most complex design challenges and engineer products limited only by imagination. Thus, through our enriching internship program, we help develop the next generation of engineers and technologists.   As a Software Development Intern, you will work on impactful projects supporting our Digital Twin Team, with a special focus on the investigation and development of novel functionalities applied to our Digital Twin solutions. The projects involve the extension of existing simulation capabilities and supporting work for DevOps infrastructure of our products.    This internship is a 40-hour per week paid position starting May 2025 and concludes August 2025. This position is based on the Ansys HQ in Canonsburg and will require the Intern to be in office a few days a week.   RESPONSIBILITIES •    Investigation and development of new features

•    Improving and extending existing DevOps infrastructure

•    Software development across multiple languages, stacks, and operating systems •    Testing and documentation 

   MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS  •    Pursuing a MS or PhD in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Information Science, or related technical field with a GPA of 3.0 or higher •    Must be currently enrolled in a full-time degree program and returning to the program after the completion of the internship •    Experience in software development with Python •    Experience with GIT •    Excellent software development skills •    Sharp and tenacious problem-solving skills •    Team player, responsible, and motivated   PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS •    Experience with cloud-based technologies, such as REST, Docker, Kubernetes •    Software testing basics (unittests, smoke tests, black-box testing, etc…) •    Development experience with Windows and Linux

CULTURE AND VALUES Culture and values are incredibly important to ANSYS. They inform us of who we are, of how we act. Values aren't posters hanging on a wall or about trite or glib slogans. They aren't about rules and regulations. They can't just be handed down the organization. They are shared beliefs – guideposts that we all follow when we're facing a challenge or a decision. Our values tell us how we live our lives; how we approach our jobs. Our values are crucial for fostering a culture of winning for our company: • Customer focus • Results and Accountability • Innovation • Transparency and Integrity • Mastery • Inclusiveness • Sense of urgency • Collaboration and Teamwork Did you know? You can download our software for free by visiting: http://www.ansys.com/products/academic/ansys-student

ANSYS is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, veteran status, and other protected characteristics. ANSYS does not accept unsolicited referrals for vacancies, and any unsolicited referral will become the property of ANSYS. Upon hire, no fee will be owed to the agency, person, or entity.

At Ansys, we know that changing the world takes vision, skill, and each other. We fuel new ideas, build relationships, and help each other realize our greatest potential. We are ONE Ansys. We operate on three key components: the commitments to our stakeholders, the behaviors of how we work together, and the actions of how we deliver results. Together as ONE Ansys, we are powering innovation that drives human advancement. 

Our Commitments: 

• Amaze with innovative products and solutions
• Make our customers incredibly successful
• Act with integrity
• Ensure employees thrive and shareholders prosper

Our Values: 

• Adaptability: Be open, welcome what's next
• Courage: Be courageous, move forward passionately
• Generosity: Be generous, share, listen, serve
• Authenticity: Be you, make us stronger

Our Actions: 

• We commit to audacious goals
• We work seamlessly as a team
• We demonstrate mastery
• We deliver outstanding results

INCLUSION IS AT OUR CORE  We believe diverse thinking leads to better outcomes. We are committed to creating and nurturing a workplace that fuels this by welcoming people, no matter their background, identity, or experience, to a workplace where they are valued and where diversity, inclusion, equity, and belonging thrive. 

  WELCOME WHAT’S NEXT IN YOUR CAREER AT ANSYS 

At Ansys, you will find yourself among the sharpest minds and most visionary leaders across the globe. Collectively we strive to change the world with innovative technology and transformational solutions. With a prestigious reputation in working with well-known, world-class companies, standards at Ansys are high — met by those willing to rise to the occasion and meet those challenges head on. Our team is passionate about pushing the limits of world-class simulation technology, empowering our customers to turn their design concepts into successful, innovative products faster and at a lower cost. 

At Ansys, it’s about the learning, the discovery, and the collaboration. It’s about the “what’s next” as much as the “mission accomplished.” And it’s about the melding of disciplined intellect with strategic direction and results that have, can, and do impact real people in real ways. All this is forged within a working environment built on respect, autonomy, and ethics.    

CREATING A PLACE WE’RE PROUD TO BE    Ansys is an S&P 500 company and a member of the NASDAQ-100. We are proud to have been recognized for the following more recent awards, although our list goes on: Newsweek’s Most Loved Workplace globally and in the U.S., Gold Stevie Award Winner, America’s Most Responsible Companies, Fast Company World Changing Ideas, Great Place to Work Certified (Belgium, China, Greece, France, India, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and U.K.). 

   For more information, please visit us at www.ansys.com    

Ansys is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, veteran status, and other protected characteristics.     Ansys does not accept unsolicited referrals for vacancies, and any unsolicited referral will become the property of Ansys. Upon hire, no fee will be owed to the agency, person, or entity. 

Nearest Major Market: Pittsburgh

• View All Jobs
• EEO Rights as an Applicant
• EEO Policy Statement
• Federal Trade Commission: Fraud
• Ansys Privacy Notice

Stay safe from recruitment fraud! We are aware of scams targeting Ansys and other companies that involve individuals posing as employees to illegitimately conduct interviews and extend false employment offers and payments to gain access to candidates’ sensitive personal and financial information. All Ansys job applicants are required to apply for open roles on careers.ansys.com. While virtual interviews may be conducted as a part of our interview process, Ansys does not make job offers without a thorough interview process. Ansys also will never ask for an applicant’s social security number before they have accepted an offer or ask for payment from an applicant. Ansys assumes no liability for recruitment fraud. We advise that all job seekers take steps to educate themselves on fraudulent practices, so they do not become victims of scams. Learn more via the Federal Trade Commission. Ansys is proud to be an equal opportunity workplace and is an affirmative action employer. At Ansys, we are committed to making our careers website accessible and usable for individuals with disabilities. If you need a reasonable accommodation to apply for or interview for Ansys jobs, please email [email protected]. When contacting us, please provide your contact information and state the nature of your accessibility issue. We will only respond to inquiries concerning requests for reasonable accommodations.

2 white supremacists tried to spark race war by soliciting murder and hate crimes on Telegram, feds say

Two white supremacists hoping to start a race war were charged with leading a digital terror group on Telegram and directing followers to commit hate crimes, including killing federal officials, prosecutors said.

Dallas Humber, 34, of Elk Grove, California, and Matthew Allison, 37, of Boise, Idaho, are charged in the 15-count indictment with soliciting hate crimes, soliciting the murder of federal officials and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, according to a Monday statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California .

Federal prosecutors allege Humber and Allison are leaders of the "Terrorgram Collective," described by authorities as a "transnational terrorist group."

Humber and Allison were arrested on Friday, prosecutors said.

According to the indictment, unsealed on Monday, the defendants' terror group operated on the digital messaging platform Telegram. The group promoted white supremacist "accelerationism": "an ideology centered on the belief that the white race is superior; that society is irreparably corrupt and cannot be saved by political action; and that violence and terrorism are necessary to ignite a race war and accelerate the collapse of the government and the rise of a white ethnostate," prosecutors said.

No one with Telegram was immediately reached Monday afternoon for comment. It was not immediately clear on Monday afternoon if Humber and Allison have retained attorneys.

While on the platform, Humber and Allison are accused of spreading videos and publications that provided specific advice for carrying out crimes, celebrating white terrorism attacks and providing a list of "high-value targets" for assassination. The list included names of federal, state and local officials, and leaders of private companies, many whom were targeted because of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity, prosecutors said.

The defendants operated channels and group chats where they solicited group members to commit attacks.

The planned attacks were motivated by enemies of the white race, and described hitting government buildings, including energy facilities, prosecutors said.

The planned attacks also included “high-value targets" like politicians and government officials whose murders would "sow chaos and further accelerate the government’s downfall," prosecutors said.

Some of those planned attacks inspired by the defendants were actually carried out, or were foiled, prosecutors said. They include a person who shot three people, killing two, outside an LGBTQ bar in Slovakia, an individual who planned an attack on an energy facility in New Jersey and a person who stabbed five people near a mosque in Turkey, prosecutors said.

They were charged with one count of conspiracy, four counts of soliciting hate crimes, three counts of soliciting the murder of federal officials, three counts of doxing federal officials, one count of threatening communications, two counts of distributing bombmaking instructions, and one count of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, prosecutors said.

If convicted on all charges, they face a maximum penalty of 220 years in prison, prosecutors said. Allison is expected to make his first court appearance on Tuesday, according to prosecutors.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in the statement the arrest and indictment of the suspects "are a warning that committing hate-fueled crimes in the darkest corners of the internet will not hide you, and soliciting terrorist attacks from behind a screen will not protect you."

The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California Phillip A. Talbert said in the statement: "The defendants solicited murders and hate crimes based on the race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity of others."

He continued, “They also doxed and solicited the murder of federal officials, conspired to provide material support to terrorists, and distributed information about explosives that they intended to be used in committing crimes of violence."

Andrew Blankstein is an investigative reporter for NBC News. He covers the Western U.S., specializing in crime, courts and homeland security. 

Michael Kosnar is a Justice Department producer for the NBC News Washington Bureau.

Antonio Planas is a breaking news reporter for NBC News Digital.