Online aggression and current youth Dr. Hana Macháčková 1 Aggression online •Seemingly ubiquitous • •Everyday experience? •Discussions: increased hostility, prejudices, • intolerance, aggressivity… • •Without boundaries? • 2 Aggression online •In the form of direct interpersonal attacks •E.g. discussions on SNS • •In the form of shared information and materials •On a specific websites • •Often both •E.g., comments below the articles • 3 Aggression •Broad and complex term • •Aggression is….“any form of behavior directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment“ (Baron & Richardson, 2004, p.7) • •It can take many forms: •Direct/nondirect •Verbal/physical/sexual…. •Other-oriented/self-oriented •Interpersonal/intergoup •Etc. • •Online/offline 4 Aggression •Broad and complex term • •Aggression is….“any form of behavior directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment“ (Baron & Richardson, 2004, p.7) • •It can take many forms: •Direct/nondirect •Verbal/physical/sexual…. •Other-oriented/self-oriented •Interpersonal/intergoup •Etc. • •Online / offline Need to specify type of aggression we are talking about 5 Aggression online •Various types •Mirroring offline ones •Cyberbullying, online harassment, cyberhate, cybercrime, cyberterrorism… • • • 6 Aggression online •Various types •Mirroring offline ones •Cyberbullying, online harassment, cyberhate, cybercrime, cyberterrorism… • We will focus on cyberbullying and cybehate 7 Aggression online •Various types •Mirroring offline ones? •Cyberbullying, online harassment, cyberhate, cybercrime, cyberterrorism… • •Interconnection with offline life •Extension, augmentation, blending… • •Cyberspace: Important aspect of everyday life •„virtual“ but „real“ • •Cyberspace: specific social environment • 8 Differences from offline environment(s) • •Computer-mediated communication (CMC) •Text, visuality, hypertexts •A/synchronic communication •Absence of many cues •Currently, more rich (emoticons, audio-visual cues etc.) •„say it with gif“, memes • • • LOL 9 Differences from offline environment(s) •Control of self-expressions •Asynchronous communication •Visuals (graphs), hyperlinks •No others clues (gestures, posture, voice, speach) •The lack of cues as a source of misunderstandings •BUT, they may pose a barrier in communication offline • •Distance, anonymity, invisibility…. • •Storing, sharing, spreading •Materials and information • •24/7 accessibility •countries with high internet penetration •Digital divide • 10 Online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004) •Anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipstic introjection, dissociative imagination, minimization of status and authority • •Toxic and benign •hostillity x self-disclosure and support • •Developed before web2.0 • •Anonymity??? 11 Online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004) •Anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipstic introjection, dissociative imagination, minimization of status and authority • •Toxic and benign •hostillity x self-disclosure and support • •Developed before web2.0 • •Anonymity??? •Still applicable Psychological vs. informatial 12 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •Cyberbullying: do you know the term? • •Highly medialized •Contrast with empirical evidence 13 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •Cyberbullying: do you know the term? • •Highly medialized •Contrast with empirical evidence • • Kowalski et al. (2014): 10% - 40% Also 3% - 70% 14 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •Definition of school bullying (Olweus, 1991) – criteria of •1) Intentional, causing harm •2) Repetitive •3) Power imbalance • •Also many forms: •Overt/covert •Relational/Physical/Social •Physical/verbal attacks, degradation/humiliation, blackmailing, destroying things, social exclusion, ignoring… • • • • • • • • 15 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •Cyberbullying: intentional and aggressive act carried out through electronic media, which may be repetitive in nature (Nocentini et al., 2010; Tokunaga, 2010) • •What are the forms here? •Verbal attacks, insults, threats, gossips… •Spreading of personal and sensitive information •Without consent •Identity theft, mascarade •Social exclusion, ostracism •Publishing of harmful audiovisual material (changed) •Happy slapping •... • • • • • • 16 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •We are talking about cyberbullying if the aggressive attacks : •are conducted via internet or mobile phones •are intentionally harmful (conducted by individual or group) •and are harmful for victim •are repeated (however….) •there is power imbalance – the victims can‘t easily defend themselves • • • • • • • • 17 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •We are talking about cyberbullying if the aggressive attacks : •are conducted via internet or mobile phones •are intentionally harmful (conducted by individual or group) •and are harmful for victim •are repeated (however….) •there is power imbalance – the victims can‘t easily defend themselves • • • • • • • • Harm is not always present! Difficulties of harm assessment 18 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •We are talking about cyberbullying if the aggressive attacks : •are conducted via internet or mobile phones •are intentionally harmful (conducted by individual or group) •and are harmful for victim •are repeated (however….) •there is power imbalance – the victims can‘t easily defend themselves • • • • • • • • Repetition: problematic online „once published, always online“ Important in messaging (email, phones…) 19 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •We are talking about cyberbullying if the aggressive attacks : •are conducted via internet or mobile phones •are intentionally harmful (conducted by individual or group) •and are harmful for victim •are repeated (however….) •there is power imbalance – the victims can‘t easily defend themselves • • • • • • • • Digital skills? Always online Aggressors‘ anonymity (not so common) 20 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •We are talking about cyberbullying if the aggressive attacks : •are conducted via internet or mobile phones •are intentionally harmful (conducted by individual or group) •and are harmful for victim •are repeated (however….) •there is power imbalance – the victims can‘t easily defend themselves • • • • • • • • If these criteria are not fullfilled: online aggression/harassment 21 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •„New bottle, old wine“? • •What is „new“? • •No time/space limits – no escape •Distance – the victim does not have to be present (adding comments, likes, spreading of information….) •Wide audience - potential •Spreading and sharing – easy and fast, unlimited • No control over the content •Can be „hidden“ – out of control of adults • • • • • • • • 22 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •„New bottle, old wine“? • •What is „new“? • •Victims – offline often vulnerable •In cyberbullying: potential for new vulnerability • Remember „diminishing of authority“, anonymity? • •More often: frequent internet users, users of webcams and IM • • • • • • • • 23 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •Cyberbullying: detrimental effect on victims •Similar to offline bullying •Including: •Internalization and externalizing behaviors •Emotional problems (depression, anxiety, suicidal thougths) •Social problems •Lower self-esteem •Helplessness •Academic problems •Etc. • 24 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •The impact depends on the severity of the attacks • - importance to distinguish cyberbullying and harassment! • •CB could be more harmful then offline •Especially cases of public forms, and especially including audiovisual materials (Sticca & Perren, 2013) • •Depends on the interconnection with offline bullying • - usually connected („double whammies“) • •Also depends on coping with cyberbullying 25 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •The impact depends on the severity of the attacks • - importance to distinguish cyberbullying and harassment! • •Could be more harmful then offline •Especially cases of public forms, and especially including audiovisual materials (Sticca & Perren, 2013) • Differences in prevalences and impact Cyberbullying: less common, but more severe Czech project: 79% no victimization 21% harassment 6% CB victims http://irtis.fss.muni.cz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/COST_CZ_report_II_CJ.pdf 26 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •The impact depends on the severity of the attacks • - importance to distinguish cyberbullying and harassment! • •Could be more harmful then offline •Especially cases of public forms, and especially including audiovisual materials (Sticca & Perren, 2013) • •Depends on the interconnection with offline bullying • - usually connected („double whammies“) • •Also depends on coping with cyberbullying 27 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •Coping with cyberbullying •Many different strategies • Emotion/problem focused • Mal/adaptive? • •Similar to offline responses • new – „technological coping“ • •Question of effectiveneess in coping with online attacks 28 Machackova, H., Cerna, A., Sevcikova, A., Dedkova, L., & Daneback, K. (2013). Effectiveness of coping strategies for victims of cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7(3), article 5. doi: 10.5817/CP2013-3-5 Strategies applied CB victims more active Cognitive strategies: - reframing to depreciate the bully and avoided or purposefully ignored them -cognitive distancing -not much disociation - Tech. Coping – not so often 29 Strategies helping emotionally - generally, less often effective among CB victims - effective cognitive strategies -not all, exceptions: „taking it lightly“ it „happens online“ 30 Strategies helping stop the attacks: - technological coping - but not all (and often not applied) Ignoring Confrontation or retaliation not very effective 31 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •Outcome also depends on the context • •Including responses of others – the audience • •Bystanders in cyberbullying • much more common than victimization • Czech project: 53% • 32 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •What can they do? (online and offline) •Support the victim: emotionaly, advice provision, confrontation of aggressor… •Reinforce the bully: joining in, reposts, sharing, likes, comments… •Passivity: most common • • • Helpful: decreases impact, can stop the attacks, help to cope 33 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •What can they do? (online and offline) •Support the victim: emotionaly, advice provision, confrontation of aggressor… •Reinforce the bully: joining in, reposts, sharing, likes, comments… •Passivity: most common • • • Increases the impact, especially when wide audience, causes of repetiveness… 34 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •What can they do? (online and offline) •Support the victim: emotionaly, advice provision, confrontation of aggressor… •Reinforce the bully: joining in, reposts, sharing, likes, comments… •Passivity: most common • • • Harmless? No Increases impact, may be interpreted as silent approval by both victim and aggressor Metadata: visits, views… 35 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •Who helps victim? • Empathy, prosocial behavior, norms, relationship with the victim… •Who reinforces bully? • Low empathy, aggressive beliefs, relationship with aggressor… •Who stays passive??? • Despite common antibullying norms • • • • • 36 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •What is „new“? – Context • •Specific communication and environment • •Distance •Lack of cues •Wide audience • • • • • 37 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Latané & Darley (1970) 38 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Attention and distractions 39 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Complicated assessment, „just a joke“, not serious 40 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Wide audience, who (where) is victim, ongoing event? 41 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Assessment, self-efficacy, own victimization, aggravation of problem? 42 Audience in aggressive events •These aspects concern also responses to other aggressive events • •What is your experience with online aggression? 43 Cyberhate •Another type of aggression encountered on the internet • •Intergroup aggression • •The potential for reaching very wide audience •Detrimental effect for individuals and society • •Today one of major topic on international level • • • • • 44 Hate speech, cyberhate •Greenawalt (1989): hate speech causes offence, may deeply wound those targeted, might provoke a response of violence, have a degrading effect on social relationships within any one community • •Council of Europe, 2013: •Hate speech has no particular definition in international human rights; it is a term used to describe broad discourse that is extremely negative and constitutes a threat to social peace. •It covers all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance. •(http://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/hate-speech) • •Cyberhate: "similar to cyberbullying, but online extremist and hate material aim the abuse at a collective identity rather than a specific individual" (Hawdon et al.,2015) • 45 Cyberhate •Roots in offline world •Attitides, opinions •Social norms •Group identity •In-groups and out-groups •Prejudices • 46 Cyberhate •Online •Increasing? (increasing internet use) •Dispersing? • • many new platforms •prominently SNS • • 47 Cyberhate •Online disinhibition •Hostility •Anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipstic introjection, dissociative imagination, minimization of status and authority • •SIDE model •Strengthening of social identity (Tajfel, Turner) •Potential for expression of normatively negative attitudes, behavior • •Anonymity vs. identifiability •still no such constrains to join such group/express an attitude • • 48 Cyberhate •Anonymity •Lower anonymity connected to decrease of aggressive comments in online discussion (Cho & Kwon, 2015) •Czech study: Constent analysis of 1,080 comments under 54 posts on 9 FB pages arguing against specific social group (1.1. - 12.4.2016) •The more anonymous autor is, the more vulgar comment and the more negative „atmosphere“ of the statements •Group processess •The more negative attitudes towards out-group by administrators, the more negative emotions in following comments. •(Jitka Čurdová (2016). Vliv anonymity, deindividuace a skupinové normy na míru vyjadřované agrese v komentářích na sociální síti Facebook. Diplomová práce, Masarykova Univerzita.) 49 In the past 12 months, have you seen websites where people discuss hate messages that attack certain groups or individuals ? (EUKO, 2010; NCGM, 2013) 50 Výřez obrazovky Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2015) Online Extremism and Online Hate. „In the past three months, have you seen hateful or degrading writings or speech online, which inappropriately attacked certain groups of people or individuals”? “I have personally been the target of hateful or degrading material online“. AGE 15-30 51 Výřez obrazovky Hawdon, J., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2015) Online Extremism and Online Hate. 52 French study on cyberhate Online questionnaire survey with students aged 11-20. Exposure to cyberhate: 35,2% Blaya, C. et al. (2016). The involvement of the young people in cyberhate. Presented at the ECREA conference, Prague. 53 Hateful information online •Internet as a source of information •Huge diversity •Sources, mediums, channels • •The information and messages are shaped by social environment they are coming from and embedded into •„Facts“, „information“ – socialy constructed •„Depending on“ the character of the source •Creating, spreading, sharing… •Selecting specific type of information to present (and to conceal) • •We often pre-select the sources which we use •Similarity to our opinions •Confirmation bias • •Echo chambers – which information is faciliated, repeated? Which is absent? •specific social spaces in which is/are certain information/attitudes/views predominant •Based also on diverse algorithms (Google, Facebook…) • 54 Hate communities online/Hate sites •ONLINE COMMUNITIES •Specific online places in which and through which people interact •Shared interests, goals, identity (sense of belonging) • •Opportunity for self-expression •Individual and group level •Opportunity for sense of belonging •And in-group behavior •Discourse, materials • •Source of biased information •Reinforced by the members • 55 Hate communities online/Hate sites •Positive and negative outcomes •Sometimes very hard to untangle •For whom? • •Clash of different (offline) communities online • •Attacks on and from specific (online) communities/groups • •Example: extreme right communities • • 56 Hate communities online/Hate sites •„Link, educate, recruit“ (Douglas, 2007) • •Persuasion: •Not often advocating violence as such •„Objectivity“ •Establishing specific discourse and norms •In-group • • 57 „Socialy creative“ Moral disengagement •Bandura: Morality – norms, social and internalised sanctions •Self-monitoring, evaluation, regulation (affective) •Moral disengagement: cognitive restructuring of inhumane conduct into a benign or worthy one 1.moral justification, sanitizing language, and advantageous comparison; 2.disavowal of a sense of personal agency by diffusion or displacement of responsibility; 3.disregarding or minimizing the injurious effects of one 's actions 4.attribution of blame to, and dehumanization of those who are victimized. • •Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and social psychology review, 3(3), 193-209. • 58 59 „We are saving humanity“ „Its better then what they did!“ „War vs. Fight for freedom“ 60 „Nobody did nothing“ „It was an order“ „I was just a messanger“ 61 „It was not that bad“ „Its not like we killed them“ „We just teached them a lesson“ 62 „They are like rats“ „They just got what they deserved“ 63 Hate communities online/Hate sites •Concentrated materials, information – selected discourse, concealment and repression of opposite views • •support in the community •approving comments •reinforcement of attitudes •shared identity, belonging •providing space for self-expression •delineating out-group („media“, „liberals“,…) •framing aggression as a mean to – seemingly justified - end • • • • • • • • • • 64 Hate communities online/Hate sites •Concentrated materials, information – selected discourse, concealment and repression of opposite views • •support in the community •approving comments •reinforcement of attitudes •shared identity, belonging •providing space for self-expression •delineating out-group („media“, „liberals“,…) •framing aggression as a mean to – seemingly justified - end • • Specific discoursive space • Supporting one ideology •Strengthening social identity • • • 65 Example: https://www.stormfront.org/ • Výřez obrazovky 66 Combating hate online? •Problem with evaluation • •What is normal? What is moral? Legitimate? Legal? Normative? • Across cultures? • •Back to conceptualization aggression – different types •Different purposes • •Treshold? • • • • • 67 Combating hate online? •Problem with evaluation • …and freedom of speech • •Ban •Resistance, strengthening of identity? •Free speech? •Law •no united international law • •General protest •Humor, sarcasm •Trolling • •http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/ •http://www.hatefree.cz/ •https://cs-cz.facebook.com/CeskeObludarium • • 68 • Výřez obrazovky Výřez obrazovky „We just want to say that our site does not have anything against normal Icelandic people, because those are just victims of the criminal ideology and perverted lifestyle called ICELAND! Help us to stop this filth which wants (similarly to volcano ash) to cover our beautiful country! 69 We do not want islam in the Czech Republic We do not want Iceland in the Czech Republic