Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39813213›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Sharing images of children on social media: British motherhood influencers and the privacy paradox.

Katherine Baxter, Barbara Czarnecka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Katherine BaxterLiverpool Hope Business School, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8507-234X
Barbara CzarneckaLondon South Bank University Business School, London South Bank University, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examines the extent to which popular British motherhood influencers infringe on their children's privacy by posting images of them online. We conducted a content analysis of 5,253 Instagram posts from ten UK-based influencers, supplemented by self-reported data from these influencers. This represents the first comprehensive analysis of actual sharing practices in the British motherhood influencer industry, linking observed behavior with self-reported perceptions. Children appeared in over 75% of the posts (3,917), though the proportion of posts containing embarrassing, intimate, or revealing content was relatively low (11.5%). Notably, sponsorships and product advertisements were present in 46.4% of posts featuring children, indicating that children's images are frequently used for financial gain. Despite this, post popularity did not vary based on the inclusion of children, as posts featuring children did not receive more likes than those without. Influencers reported strong trust in online safety on Instagram, and reported indifference or willingness to sharenting suggesting that sharing images of their children may be a deliberate strategy rather than an accidental act. Half of the influencers did not accurately estimate their past sharenting behavior. This study extends the existing body of knowledge on sharenting behaviour and the privacy paradox by establishing a foundation of parents' real-world posting habits and connecting them to their beliefs about publicly sharing their children's images in the UK context. The findings do not strongly support the privacy paradox in this sample.

Indexed as

MothersPrivacySocial MediaAdultChildFemaleHumansMaleUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID39813213
PMCPMC11734948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.