Playfully building resilience: Dutch children’s risk-managing tactics in digital risky play

ABSTRACT In this paper, we coin the concept “digital risky play” and conceptualize this type of digital play. By means of a taxonomy of tactics that children develop and employ through digital risky play, we explore how children build resilience. Risky play has been mainly studied in the outdoor context and has been found to have positive outcomes for children’s risk-managing tactics and resilience. Based on longitudinal participant observations in combination with in-depth interviews with children between the ages of eight and twelve, we identify four categories of risk-managing tactics children employed to navigate digital risky play, namely technological, physical, social, and emotional tactics. Building on the conceptualization of Zolkoski and Bullock (2012) of resilience, we argue that engaging in digital risky plays allows for a playful environment in which children actively explore internal boundaries as well as develop tactics that aid their development of resilience. Impact Summary Prior State of Knowledge Research has demonstrated that children develop risk-managing tactics and resilience through risky play. Recent studies show that many characteristics of traditional play translate well into digital contexts and that digitalplay, therefore, fosters children’s development and learning. Novel Contributions While risky play is important for developing resilience, it remains underexplored in digital contexts. Through participant observations and interviews, we explore what tactics children employ before, during, and after digital risky play, and how these tactics could foster the development of resilience. Practical Implications Insight into children’s perceptions of and tactics for digital risky play can guide practices of parents and other social actors. By creating a safe (digital) environment while also granting children agency to playfully explore risks, adults can support the development of children’s resilience.

Play is one of the most vital activities in childhood, allowing experimentation with social norms and situations children encounter in everyday life (Livingstone & Pothong, 2022).While there is much consensus about the importance of play in general, the implications of emerging digital technologies for play have been a topic of discussion (Bird & Edwards, 2015;Marsh et al., 2016).Children are spending an increasing amount of time using digital technologies for a variety of reasons, including play (Smahel et al., 2020).No longer restricted to a specific offline context, they can use digital devices to play videogames, alone or with peers, as well as use these devices in other playful activities, such as making movies or drawings.Such activities are broadly described as "digital play," which is defined as children's use of technology in a playful way (Marsh et al., 2016).
Although the concept of digital play has gained traction in the past decade, its implications for child developmental processes (Lieberman et al., 2009), as well as its conceptualization regarding traditional forms of play, remain relatively understudied (Marsh et al., 2016;Swart et al., Forthcoming).To fill this research gap, this paper coins the concept of "digital risky play."We build upon existing literature on risky play and explore how this traditional type of play translates to digital environments.Risky play is an aspect of free play where children experience intense exhilaration by engaging in activities through which they encounter risks, such as climbing in trees or cycling very fast.By engaging in this type of play, children test the boundaries of safe or unsafe behaviour (Cowan, 2022;Sandseter, 2009;Stephenson, 2003).While risky play mainly applies in physical, offline situations (Cowan, 2022), we argue that it also takes place in digital contexts.Departing from the lived experiences of children between the ages of eight and 12, we develop a taxonomy of risk-managing tactics and show how children build resilience through playful digital risky experiences.Considering what tactics children develop through digital risky play provides insight in children's explorations of the world around them and their efforts to navigate risky situations.
This paper therefore asks: what are the tactics that children develop when engaging in digital risky play, that aid their development of resilience?

The importance of risky play
Risky play is an enjoyable activity, seen as thrilling and exciting, which minimizes unexpected danger while giving children the closest possible access to experiencing actual risk (Hughes, 2001;Sandseter, 2009;Cowan, 2022).In risky play, children willingly and actively engage in activities they perceive as dangerous and are in control of being out of control (Gordon & Esbjörn-Hargens, 2007;Sando et al., 2021).Examples of risky play include play at great heights, play with high speed, and play near dangerous elements.Coster and Gleave (2008) found that children actively explored and enjoyed risks through play.However, play might also become risky, when the activity turns out to be scarier than what children were prepared for.What makes play "risky," is dependent on children's perception of it.Risk perception differs between children from different ages, and from child to child based on earlier experiences.
When applying Apter's (1982) reversal theory to risky play in young children, Sandseter (2010) found that when children engage in risky play, they alternate between two contrasting metamotivational states.In a telic state, children are serious-minded and risk avoiding, while in a paratelic state they are playful and risk seeking (Apter, 1984).
Through quick reversals in these states, children balance on the edge between danger and trauma.When children were confronted with situations they perceived as too risky, for example climbing too high and feeling they might hurt themselves, they went from a paratelic to a telic state and sought to employ arousal-reducing strategies, such as planning how to climb down.An important aspect for children to be able to play risky in a paratelic state was the psychological protective frame, which allowed for a psychological condition in which the child could enjoy risky situations instead of regarding risky play as unpleasant.Apter (1991) defines the protective frame as a bubble, in which children feel confident that no actual harm can come to them.This abstract frame can be positively influenced by children's ability to control risky experiences through the employment of tactics, allowing children to turn feelings of fear into exhilaration and fun.
A large body of literature confirms the importance of risky play for children's development (Cowan, 2022).When children explore risks and risk-assessment through risky play, they can more adequately judge the different risks they encounter (Adams, 2002;Kvalnes, 2017;Lindon, 2011).Furthermore, engaging in risky play allows children to manage risks when in dangerous situations and helps children to avoid more extreme risk-taking behaviours now, and later in life (Hughes, 2001;Kvalnes, 2017;Lindon, 2011).Moreover, it aids children in their development of social skills, promotes important character traits such as self-reliance and resilience, and increases fitness levels, confidence, and selfesteem (Brussoni et al., 2018;Coster & Gleave, 2008;Kvalnes, 2017;Lindon, 2011).To achieve the possible benefits of risky play, it is important that actors find a balance between letting children explore risks and keeping them safe.If children are confronted with risks outside the scope of their capabilities, activities might lead to fear, anxiety, or even injury (Sandseter, 2009).Furthermore, while literature on risky play has mainly outlined positive aspects of desensitization to risk, studies within the field of psychology and psychiatry have shown that desensitization could lead to loss of empathy and behavioural issues (Brockmyer, 2022).

Tactics for digital risky play and building resilience
Recent studies have explored how traditional types of play have translated into the digital environment (Livingstone & Pothong, 2022;Marsh et al., 2016).These studies briefly touch upon risky play in digital settings.Most notably, Livingstone and Pothong (2022) found that children perceive opportunities for risky play online equal to opportunities in offline contexts.They furthermore argue that children intentionally push internal boundaries (e.g., personal capabilities or limits) as well as external boundaries (e.g., rules and restrictions set by others), to develop their identity and explore the world.Drawing on their innate motivation and desire for risk-taking, they use the digital environment to experiment with these boundaries.Marsh et al. (2016) similarly argue that children experience tension and fear in digital risky play the same as they do in risky offline play.They found that digital risky play allows children more control over risky experiences as they could switch off a game when it became too scary.While these studies touch on risky play in digital playful settings, there is still limited scholarly insight into experiences of digital risky play and the tactics children employ to manage these risky experiences.
To fill this research gap, we coin the concept of "digital risky play" and conceptualize this type of digital play by means of a taxonomy of tactics that children develop and employ through digital risky play.To explore how children switch between telic and paratelic states, and how they employ their psychological protective frame in a digital environment, we analyse what tactics children use during their digital risky play.We conceptualize the ways children deal with risk in play as tactics, building on the definition by De Certeau (1984).He conceptualizes tactics as individual actions that reassess and correct one's behaviour based on observations of one's environment, in contrast to strategies that are developed from a structural position of power.When applying this to digital risky play, tactics are the actions children employ when faced with risk during digital play within structured digital environments.
Consequently, we argue that through developing and employing these tactics children build resilience.While research shows that risky play contributes to children's development of resilience by letting children develop tactics to deal with possible consequences of the risks they playfully explore (Kvalnes, 2017), it remains unclear if digital risky play allows children to develop resilience in a similar way.Given the emphasis on children's personal experiences, we utilize Zolkoski and Bullock's (2012) definition, which integrates multiple disciplines and prioritizes the individual's role in resilience development.Zolkoski and Bullock (2012) define resilience as an individual's ability to achieve positive outcomes despite negative or threatening circumstances, coping successfully with traumatic experiences, and avoiding negative pathways linked with risks.By departing from the experiences from children, we explore these three aspects of resilience by using the taxonomy of tactics employed during digital risky play.

Methodology
To explore risk-managing tactics during digital risky play, we focus on children between the ages of eight and 12.This age group is still understudied, while prior research shows that media habits developed between the ages of eight and 12 persist throughout life (Zilka, 2016).Our research design had two phases of data collection that built onto each other.The first stage consisted of longitudinal, weekly participant observations of children (N = 58) at four afterschool care locations, conducted from May 2021 to May 2022.These locations belong to a non-profit childcare organisation in Groningen, The Netherlands.
In response to the need for research methods capturing children's perspectives, our study adopted an open approach, observing their everyday interactions and activities (Mason & Danby, 2011).Research was conducted on set days, to ensure the same children attended afterschool care.Observations were documented by the first author through notes during the observations and extensive fieldnotes that were recorded immediately thereafter (Emerson et al., 2011).The researcher built rapport with the participants by conducting the participant observations structurally over the course of a year and by engaging with the children and participating in activities they initiated, such as drawing and playing games.
Following Spradley (1980), the researcher initially did not focus on specific aspects of media use.Only in a later stage, observations became more specific, focusing on various aspects of digital media use, including digital risky play.The researcher did not initiate conversations surrounding media, but only asked follow-up questions when participants initiated conversations surrounding media and digital (risky) play.By employing participant observations, we were able to unobtrusively observe children within their real-life contexts, observing their engagements with digital play and understanding how these experiences are embedded in their everyday contexts and social interactions.
The second stage consisted of in-depth semi-structured interviews with participants involved in the participant observations (N = 16).These interviews were conducted from May to July 2022.Insights from the participant observations were used to develop the interview guide.Key themes were access to digital risky play, risk perception, riskmanaging tactics and control, and losing control during digital risky play.The interview guide was tested in a pilot interview without necessitating modifications.
Interviews were carried out at participants' preferred locations and lasted around 30 minutes.Commencing with a broad introduction and discussion of enjoyable activities, subsequent exploration of digital risky play occurred if it was mentioned initially; otherwise, our inquiries progressively honed in on this topic.We first asked if, why and how they participated in digital risky play.We then moved to more specific experiences regarding digital risky play, risk-managing tactics, and loss of control during these activities.Closing questions focused on the opportunities for digital risky play in different social contexts.
By conducting in-depth interviews, we could follow up on our observations and ask further questions regarding experiences we noted.It furthermore allowed participants to actively reflect on their (unconscious) practices regarding digital risky play which helped to contextualize our observations.Finally, the one-on-one interview setting allowed children to talk more easily about digital risky play as opposed to talking about their experiences in a group setting.This is especially important as playing digital risky games was often perceived as a "cool" thing to do, making it easy for children to be scrutinized by peers if they disclosed that they were too scared to engage in this type of play.As recording the interview could be intrusive for the children, the researcher made notes during the interviews, and elaborated on these notes directly thereafter.We will therefore not use direct quotes below.

Recruitment of research participants
Afterschool care locations are an interesting context to study, as they are a third space that mediates the context of the school and the home.Children set the agenda, follow their interests at their own pace, and interact with peers, making afterschool care an important site for informal learning (Vered, 2008).The context of afterschool care allowed us to observe more children at the same time, as opposed to participant observations in the home.To include children from differing socioeconomic backgrounds, we selected locations in neighbourhoods with different socioeconomic status.Selection was based on level of education, prosperity (disposable income and capital), and recent employment history (CBS -StatLine, 2022).These demographic statistics can be found in Figure 1.
Of the participants in the participant-observations, 16 children agreed to participate in the in-depth interviews.We tried to approach a balanced set of participants, based on indicators of age and gender.A table including pseudonyms, locations, age and gender can be found in Figure 2. Based on the researcher's earlier interactions with the children, both children who had participated in digital play during observations and participants who had not, were included.

Data analysis
Both the fieldnotes and extensive notes that were made during the in-depth interviews were coded with Atlas.ti.To ensure a coherent coding strategy, the first author coded all material.The researchers had regular meetings about the coding process and coding strategy to ensure analytical and procedural rigor.In the first phase, the analysis of the fieldnotes from participant observations was an iterative process where new insights informed further observations.Using several rounds of inductive and focused coding of the fieldnotes, we distinguished "digital risky play" as an important theme (among other ones).As observations became more focused, new rounds of inductive and focused coding of already coded and new fieldnotes resulted in three categories: being in control in digital risky play, being controlled by others regarding digital risky play, and losing control in digital risky play.The second phase consisted of the analysis of the interviews in two rounds of inductive and focused coding.In the next stage, the fieldnotes and researcher notes were analysed in conjunction with each other.This resulted in five themes: defining digital risky play, access, and exposure, experiencing digital risky play, risk-managing tactics and failing to use risk-managing tactics.

Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was received by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Groningen (nr.61991802).Children were invited to take part via an invitation letter that was sent to their parents by the respective afterschool care locations.Parents could discuss any concerns or questions they might have with the first author, who conducted the research at the locations.For each child, informed consent for children to participate in observations and interviews was obtained from their parent(s) or guardian(s).In addition, at the start of each interview children were informed that they participated voluntarily and could stop the interview at any given time.Considering that talking about not participating in digital risky play could lead to children feeling embarrassed, we interviewed the children individually in a place that they experienced as comfortable.In this way, we prevented possible scrutinization by peers.After the interviews, the researcher followed up with each child and asked to share their experiences of participating in the interview.

Results
Mirroring observations of outdoor physical risky play at two Norwegian preschools (Sandseter, 2010), one of the participants, Hannah, described digital risky play as "scary, but fun" and as "thrilling, but not too scary."Participants expressed that they experienced risks when engaging in digital risky play that made them feel scared.Sara even mentioned digital risky play would leave her feeling "unsafe" at times.This was further contextualized by potential negative consequences that digital risky play had for children.Most participants mentioned that they would experience nightmares after having played a game they found too scary and dealt with longer lasting feelings of fear when a game became "too scary, and not fun."What children found scary differed based on risk perception, which is partly based on individual characteristics and preferences as well as on the characteristics of the game and the context in which children played (Sandseter, 2009).
Children primarily used "Roblox" for risky play, a platform on which children can choose between a myriad of games developed by other users.Games on Roblox often contained "scary" elements from other games including "Slenderman" and "Poppy Playtime."Scott explained that he knows this platform and the games on it through friends, siblings, and popular YouTube vloggers, and that he decided to try it as they made it look like fun.Almost all children who participated in the study were allowed to use this platform.Another platform children used to engage in digital play was YouTube, through which children watched videos of vloggers playing "scary" Roblox games or telling thrilling stories.Finally, children also engaged in digital risky play by playing popular games on game consoles, such as the sandbox game "Minecraft." Generally, children described that they experienced feelings of fear, nervousness, or stress when they encountered scary looking characters (e.g., characters with no face or blood), when ominous music started playing or when the screen turned dark.Renee expressed that she also experienced more risk when she felt that she did not have the appropriate skills to play the game.Finally, contextual aspects greatly impacted how risky children assessed playful content.For example, playing alone or at night made them feel more scared, while playing together with friends or with the lights on made children feel more at ease.If children perceived a game as too risky, they would either not play it or employ tactics to make it, as the children described, "scary, but fun."We discuss these tactics below.
Almost all children described some form of screentime limitations, but this did not affect their desire or opportunities for digital risky play.Most of the children were allowed to play games and watch videos for children aged 13 and under.While Livingstone and Pothong (2022) found that children desired to have more opportunities to engage in (non) digital risky play, our results show that children did not resist content-based rules and were often satisfied with their opportunities for digital risky play.Possible explanations are that within this set of rules, children had enough opportunities for digital risky play or that the rules made them feel safe to engage in it.

Being in control of digital risky play: employing risk-managing tactics
In our results, we identify four overarching categories of risk-managing tactics children employed during digital risky play: technological, physical, social, and emotional tactics.Children employed different tactics before, during, and after play.We refer to these three stages as the "process of digital risky play" (Hughes, 2001) and argue that through this iterative and circular process, children employ and develop tactics that aid them in their resilience.In this section, we discuss the four categories of risk-managing tactics and explore how children employed these tactics during their process of digital risky play.This taxonomy is illustrated in Figure 3.We note that both the categories of tactics and the stages of digital risky play are not rigid and could be best understood as a continuum.

Technological tactics
We conceptualize technological tactics as tactics children employ within the structure and affordances of the game or platform, or on the level of the medium.Examples include changing the settings of the game or using cheats.Technological tactics allow children to shape their digital environment, and to easily switch between telic and paratelic states.Playing in a paratelic state, and thus actively engaging with risk, was supported by a psychological protective frame that gave children the subjective feeling of confidence (Apter, 1991).This frame was positively influenced by the knowledge that they could employ technological tactics to shape the experience to their own liking.This empowered children to control their risky digital endeavours and explore playful thrilling experiences.Moreover, it rendered these experiences enjoyable, increasing the likelihood of engaging in digital risky play again, with heightened confidence in their ability to utilize technological tactics for maintaining control over their playful and daring encounters.
By adapting the technological settings of the game before they started playing, children were able to actively choose how to engage in and prepare for digital risky play.Many of the participants liked to play the game "Minecraft."Some of the participants explained that they played this game at home, while children at location C often played the game with friends in afterschool care.A group of boys, including Mick, Brandon, and Noah, often played in pairs of two.Navigating the risk perceptions of their friends, they negotiated technological settings and decided if they wanted to play in "survival mode" where they must deal with the risk to run into monsters, or whether they wanted to play in the "peaceful mode," without any scary creatures.Often, the boys would decide to start out in the peaceful mode, and switch to survival mode once they felt ready.This took away the component of unexpected risk, which made them feel more in control and at ease to choose the risky variant.Other technological tactics were mostly focused on the medium itself, for example brightening the screen or turning down the volume.These settings allowed the children to shape the broader environment into an environment in which they felt at ease to explore risks.Technological tactics focused on creating a safe space as an arousal decreasing tactic.This safe space allowed children a feeling of control when playing and offered an opportunity to escape if experiences were too scary.Different participants explained that within Minecraft, they used safe spaces to get away from monsters if it would become too scary.This allowed them to switch to a telic state without leaving the game.Clara did this by building a house in "creative mode" where there are no monsters.Once she finished building the house, she changed the settings to survival mode.She explained that she could find refuge in the house if necessary, making her feel safer and the game more enjoyable.Mick, a friend at the same location, employed the same tactic when playing Minecraft together with his friend Brandon.Mick and Brandon often played together and always built a house before they entered survival mode.Once in survival mode, they went their own way, but constantly discussed with each other if there were already monsters in sight.When they spotted monsters, they quickly ran back to the house and watched them from a distance while discussing what the monsters were doing.When asked if they always create a safe space in the game, they explained that they sometimes also use cheats to "make the monsters go away."Creating a safe space to return to, thus, allowed them to enjoy the thrill and risk of the game, while also being able to escape if it became too scary.Although children typically employed arousal reduction tactics during highly frightening game moments, Scott also actively utilized tactics to increase the riskiness of his play, such as switching between various games and modes and actively deciding to play games with characters they perceived as scary.
Children only shut off the game when they felt unprepared, did not know what to do in the game, encountered characters that they found way too scary, and lost control as they were unable to employ tactics.This is especially occurrent on platforms such as TikTok, where children don't know what to expect when scrolling.Emma explained that sometimes she encounters scary videos on TikTok, including videos of Huggy Wuggy (a blue monsterlike character from the game "Poppy Playtime").While she likes some scary videos, she thinks this character is too scary, and quickly scrolls past once she encounters it.Participants furthermore explained that if they had lost control during a game and experienced nightmares because of it, they would never play this game again.Only Clara tried again, using newfound technological tactics that strengthened her psychological frame, such as skipping the parts of the movie she previously found too scary.Clara generally felt in control of risky experiences and did not experience nightmares or longlasting feelings of fear when she encountered boundary-crossing content.
Adapting the settings allowed children to gain more control and act as active agents over their play, making it easier for them to switch between telic and paratelic states.Adapting the volume and brightness furthermore created an atmosphere in which children felt more comfortable to experience these risks and strengthened children's psychological protective frame, which made them feel safer.

Physical tactics
Physical tactics are conceptualized as tactics where children altered their physical environment or physically dealt with the playful digital risks they encountered.Examples include creating a comforting environment by turning on a nightlight, a tactic Hannah employed, which made her feel more comfortable after digital risky play.While Hannah used arousal decreasing tactics, her classmate Marcus employed physical tactics as an arousal increasing tactic by turning the light off during digital risky play.
By using their arms as shields, peaking through their fingers, or looking away until the scary situation had passed, they returned to a telic state of play quickly and successfully when experiences got too frightening.By employing these tactics, children (partly) took away the visually scary aspects of content, while still being able to engage in digital risky play.These types of tactics furthermore aided them in developing an understanding of this type of content.Marcus stated that when he first plays a game, he peaks through his fingers to not get scared too easily.By employing this physical tactic and shielding himself from risky content, he developed an understanding of what to expect next time he plays this game.He explained that the next time he would play the same game, he would not need to peak through his fingers anymore.
When risky content became too scary, children employed a range of physical tactics to deal with longer lasting feelings of fear.These tactics mainly targeted children's broader physical environment and were comparable with tactics employed before digital risky play.For example, when discussing the possible negative consequences of digital risky play, Amy explained that it helps if she turns on her nightlight before going to bed.Sometimes, when games would become too scary, she would experience nightmares.Her nightlight then helps her to feel less afraid.Other participants described checking their closet before going to sleep, to make sure there weren't any monsters hiding.These tactics, resulting in a feeling of safety, strengthened children's psychological protective frame during digital risky play, as they were confident to deal with the potential negative consequences.

Social tactics
Tactics through which children employed differing forms of support by various social actors are considered social tactics.These were aimed at mobilizing social actors for emotional reassurance, to make the game more light-hearted, and to profit from the technological skills and tactics friends had already developed.For example, by playing with friends, children were able to joke about scary content, taking away the serious aspects of risks and making digital risky play a more funny and light-hearted experience.
Social actors played an important role in whether children wanted to engage in digital risky play.Some children, including Marcus, explain that they only felt comfortable playing with friends, as this made them feel less scared.While Marcus did not play any scary games by himself, he occasionally played "Slenderman" with his best friend.Slenderman is a horror video game where players are being pursued by an ominous figure.They joke around and spook each other, which made the game more fun and less scary because you have someone to talk to, as Marcus explained it.He recalled these memories while laughing loudly.Playing together with peers changed children's risk perception, making them feel safer during digital risky play.
Playing with friends furthermore facilitated children's discussion of playful risky experiences.Especially during play children liked talking to friends, as it made the experience "more fun" and at times even "funny."Other tactics included grabbing each other or holding each other's hand.Finally, children played with peers that had more technological skills and knew better what to expect from the game.Renee explained that she is not allowed to play games at home, making her feel less experienced than her friends who are allowed to play games.When playing together, she depends on her friend's knowledge, which makes her feel more capable in dealing with playful risky content.While the participants found support in social actors, some children, including Sara and Hannah, felt pressured by their peers to engage in digital risky play.However, both Sara and Hannah confidently stated that they could not be persuaded to participate if they found it too scary; they would tell their friends that they would "just do something else." Maeve, on the other hand, is curious when her friend wants to play a scary game.When they are playing together and her friend proposes to play a scary game, her friend's mom warns her and says it might be too scary.She explained that her friend's mom wouldn't say this without reason, which is why she took this advice to heart and has not yet played the game.
Our observations show that children discussed scary experiences with their friends after they had played the game.Renee, for example, discussed a recent scary experience with her friends.Other children at her school had been talking about a scary character.This made her curious what they were talking about, and as she Googled an image of the character, she was confronted with a picture she found very scary.At afterschool care, she warned her friends to not look it up.While this conversation provided an opportunity for Renee to share her feelings as well as advice for her peers, these conversations were not generally seen as support by them.This was remarkable, especially since social support played a significant role before and during digital risky play, both for Renee and other participants.When being asked what she would do if a game did become a bit too scary, Renee explained that she would simply decide to not play the game again.She did not feel like it was necessary to talk to others when a game she played was too scary, as she recognized her own boundaries and avoided content that could lead to negative experiences.
The social tactics children employed centre around resilience building through support.Playing with friends who were familiar with the game helped children to construct a knowledge frame of what to expect from risky play and develop tactics their peers already successfully employed.By joking about thrilling experiences with peers, children strengthened their protective psychological frame, making them feel at ease during digital risky play.These differing social tactics not only helped children to constitute a safe space to positively deal with risky situations, but also allowed them to deal with feelings of fear by talking about thrilling situations with peers.

Emotional tactics
Finally, children used emotional tactics to familiarize themselves with risky playful content and to emotionally deal with potential negative outcomes of digital risky play.These tactics helped children to feel safe during and after digital risky play, and to build resilience through desensitization, reducing stress, relativizing, and reflecting on their own experiences.
Children engaged with risky content in a gradual manner.While most of them were intrigued by scary looking characters, such as "Huggy Wuggy," playing games or watching videos with this character was too risky for some.However, they did engage in other activities surrounding this character.At location D, Eric and his sister Charlotte were calmly drawing together.When asked what they were drawing, they explained that it was the character "Huggy Wuggy."He discusses details of the game "Poppy Playtime" with his sister.When asked about the game, he explained that he is not playing the "real" game yet.He likes drawing the character and often watches YouTube videos of others playing the game.At some point he wants to try playing the game himself.At the same location, Rosie explained that playing Roblox games that included the character "Huggy Wuggy," was less scary than the original game "Poppy Playtime" as the games were often more colourful and included less unexpected risky moments.In such games children engaged in different playful activities, such as working with teammates to solve puzzles, running away, and hiding from other characters or chasing other online players themselves.
Through gradual engagement with risky content, children better knew what to expect when engaging with the game themselves and started a process of desensitisation, through which they got used to the content they first perceived as "too scary".By repeatedly dealing with risky content successfully children's risk perception changed.They did not experience the same fearful emotions during playing scary games such as "Poppy Playtime", "Piggy" or "Doors" on Roblox anymore and felt more comfortable to experience with activities they first perceived as "too scary, not fun".Engaging with risky content in a gradual manner furthermore made the children feel more in control during digital risky play.Finally, children were able to manage their own expectations before playing a game.As they continued to build more knowledge on what they found "too scary" or "scary, but fun" based on previous experiences, they were able to link this knowledge to descriptions and videos of the games they were about to play.Aaron and Renee demonstrated this by extensively reading the descriptions and looking at images of games they want to play while browsing on the computer at the afterschool care locations.Once they feel like they have enough information on what the game is like, they decide to either try to play the game or find a different game.This allowed them to make informed decisions about whether to play this game based on how risky they perceived the game.
During digital risky play, children used emotional tactics to relieve stress either by relativizing their own experiences or finding forms of distraction.They reassured themselves that what they were experiencing was "just a game" and that it was not real.Noah recalled a moment when he was playing a game he found too scary, but actively tried to make it less scary by repeatedly reassuring himself that it was not real.This allowed him to enjoy playing the game in the end.Children distracted themselves from scary content when they needed it and made it possible to switch back to a telic state of play.Michelle did this by simultaneously watching light-hearted tv-shows and playing the scary game "Piggy."She explains that if the game got too scary, she would just turn her head and watch the TV-show for a bit, both calming her down and making the overall experience less scary and more enjoyable.Giggling, she furthermore explained that this also means that she and her little brother don't get scared by the sounds of the game, as she only hears the TV-show.
Seeking distraction also formed an often-used emotional tactic after children had engaged in digital risky play.Whether play left them feeling scared, or had been an enjoyable activity leaving them satisfied, many children played a "fun" game or watched a "fun" video to rewind after encountering risky playful content.While Marcus enjoyed playing digital risky games, he always played a "fun" game afterwards.In the interview he, furthermore, explained that this tactic prevents him from getting nightmares.Another tactic he used is to temporarily limit his digital play by playing scary games only once a month.
By employing emotional tactics, children were desensitized to specific risky characters, but also built resilience by learning about what they themselves found scary and how they could recognize this content.This knowledge strengthened their psychological protective frame, by making them feel confident of their decision to play chosen games.By employing emotional tactics, children could emotionally prepare themselves before playing a risky game and avoid content that could lead to negative consequences.

Conclusion
This study analysed what tactics children between the ages of eight and 12 develop through engaging in digital risky play and if and how these tactics aid children in their development of resilience.We found that children develop a range of technological, physical, social, and emotional tactics.Building on the three aspects of resilience posed by Zolkoski and Bullock (2012), we argue that engaging in digital risky play allows for a playful environment in which children actively explore internal boundaries as well as develop tactics that aid them in their development of resilience.
During digital risky play, children encountered situations they themselves perceived as risky.Fuelled by feelings of fear, these experiences posed challenging circumstances.By developing and employing tactics to positively deal with these experiences, children were able to achieve positive outcomes despite these circumstances.The positive outcomes were playful explorations of children's own boundaries, the development of knowledge of the world around them and maybe most important for the children themselves, having fun.Secondly, dealing with the potential negative consequences after children had engaged in play, aided them in their ability to cope successfully with traumatic experiences.For example, children developed the ability to rationalize their experiences and to find comfort in other activities.Finally, the full process of digital risky play aided children into knowing what to expect from risky content, what they perceived as scary and how to deal with these risky experiences.These skills link to the third aspect of resilience, namely being able to avoid negative pathways linked with risks.By knowing what to expect and managing these expectations, children were able to distinguish risky content that they would enjoy, and content that was too risky before engaging in play and therefore avoiding content that would lead to nightmares.
Developing these tactics that aid children in the development of resilience is an iterative process.Each time children engage in digital risky play they explore their boundaries and employ tactics to deal with possible boundary-crossing experiences.This iterative process of play allows children to gain insight into the world around them and their role in it.For this to be successful, it is important that children are in control of their own play and that this play involves repetition, gradual escalation, evaluation, and insight (Hughes, 2001).By being able to employ tactics, children were found to be in control over their digital risky playful experiences.Furthermore, these tactics allowed children to feel at ease to play again (repetition) and to engage in a way that they found comfortable (e.g., by first drawing the characters).
Finally, we found that through these experiences, children were able to evaluate their digital risky play and to gain insight in their own boundaries, making the activity a successful process of play that allowed the development of riskmanaging tactics.While literature on girls' digital play often characterizes their play as essentially "female" as girls tend to choose games that are "non-violent" or "easy" (Jenson & de Castell, 2004), we found that girls participated in digital risky play as often and in the same way as boys.Furthermore, we did not find any differences in engagement in digital risky play based on factors like age or socioeconomic background.
Though children employed the discussed tactics in ways that made the experience enjoyable, it is worth discussing possible negative outcomes of digital risky play and the tactics children develop while engaging in such play.Desensitization as a tactic has been a long remaining topic of discussion in research focussing on children's development.While some studies argue that desensitization is an effective way to combat phobias in children (e.g., Kennair et al., 2018), other research argues that desensitization may lead to loss of empathy and behavioural issues, such as showing more aggression, when repeatedly playing violent video games (e.g., Brockmyer, 2022).If desensitisation as a tactic leads children to gradually engage with increasingly risky content, it could lead to exposure to content that is not appropriate for the developmental stage they are in at that moment, possibly leading to excessive feelings of fear.
This study offers new opportunities for future research focusing on child-led development of digital resilience.In line with Livingstone and Pothong's (2022) research on open-ended digital play, we call for safe spaces through which children can exercise their agency, and safely and playfully explore digital risky play.Furthermore, our results can aid parents, teachers, and other social actors in children's daily lives in their efforts to support children's resilience building processes through digital risky play by employing active parental mediation, parents encourage children to think critically about the media content they engage with (Beyens & Valkenburg, 2019).Furthermore, active parental mediation encourages open disclosure about boundary-crossing or negative experiences using media (Collier et al., 2016).We therefore argue that by being mindful of children's developmental stages and content preferences, and by discussing digital risky play with children, social actors can support children's development of tactics and resilience, as well as timely observe and intervene in case children show excessive risk-taking behaviours.
The scope of this study was limited to playful risky content.If, and how children can apply these tactics when encountering serious digital risks, such as cyberbullying or encountering harmful content, is an important issue for future research.While research on risky play has shown that this type of play leads to less extreme risk-taking behaviours in later life, it remains unclear if tactics developed through digital risky play affect children in a similar way (Lindon, 2011).Furthermore, further research is needed to understand processes of desensitisation in digital play other than violent video games.Finally, it is important to explore how parents and teachers understand digital risky play and how they navigate children's explorations of playful digital risks through varying types of mediation.This type of research can lead to more specific ways through which social actors can support children in their explorations of digital risky play and, consequently, their development of resilience.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Participants mentioned in this paper and the afterschool care location they attend, their age, and gender.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Taxonomy of tactics employed by children before, during, and after digital risky play.