Youth and online risks Dr. Hana Macháčková 1 Risks online •The question of online risks salient from many perspectives: •Research, policy, prevention and intervention efforts • •What types of risks you know? 2 Online risks •Important – differentiation of risk and harm • •Risk – probability to encounter something negative • •Harm – actual (long- and short- term) harm from the experience • •What does it say about the nature of the incident? •Important – taking into account individual and social factors •And other factors (EST) 3 Online risks – individual factors •Risk – who is prone to encounter more risks? •Inevitably connected with higher internet use •Personal traits – e.g., sensation seeking • • •Who is capable to efficiently deal with the risk - on the level of the prevention and coping? •vulnerability, resilience and coping styles •„new factor“ - digital skills • • • • • 4 Online risks – social factors •Social environment affects the individual factors + the predictors of risks + the outcomes of the incident (harm) • •Example – quality of family relationships • • 5 Online risks – other factors •School/community •Social environment and its affordances • •Cultural/country level •Policies + legal system •Intervention programs + education • • • • 6 Selected risk: Aggression online •Seemingly ubiquitous • •Everyday experience? •Discussions: increased hostility, prejudices, • intolerance, aggressivity… • • 7 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 • 8 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…. •Interpersonal/intergoup •Etc. • •Online/offline 9 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…. •Interpersonal/intergoup •Etc. • •Online / offline Need to specify type of aggression we are talking about 10 Aggression online •Various types •Mirroring offline ones •Cyberbullying, online harassment, cyberhate, cybercrime, cyberterrorism… • • • 11 Aggression online •Various types •Mirroring offline ones •Cyberbullying, online harassment, cyberhate, cybercrime, cyberterrorism… • We will focus on cyberbullying among youth 12 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 • 13 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 14 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 • 15 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??? 16 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 Social vs. technical 17 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •Cyberbullying: do you know the term? • •Highly medialized •Contrast with empirical evidence 18 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% 19 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/Social/Physical •Physical/verbal attacks, degradation/humiliation, blackmailing, destroying things, social exclusion, ignoring… • • • • • • • • 20 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 •... • • • • • • 21 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 • • • • • • • • 22 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 23 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…) 24 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) 25 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 26 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 • • • • • • • • 27 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 • • • • • • • • 28 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. • 29 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •The impact depends on the severity of the attacks • - important 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 30 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •The impact depends on the severity of the attacks • - important 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 31 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •The impact depends on the severity of the attacks • - important 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 32 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 33 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 - Technological coping – not so frequent 34 Strategies helping emotionally - generally, less often effective among CB victims - effective cognitive strategies -not all, exceptions: „taking it lightly“ it „happens online“ 35 Strategies helping stop the attacks: - technological coping - but not all (and often not applied) Ignoring Confrontation or retaliation not very effective 36 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% • 37 Audience in aggressive events •What is your experience with online aggression? •How did/would you react? 38 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 39 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… 40 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… 41 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 • • • • • 42 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •What is „new“? – Context • •Specific communication and environment • •Distance •Lack of cues •Wide audience • • • • • 43 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Latané & Darley (1970) 44 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Attention and distractions 45 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Complicated assessment, „just a joke“, not serious 46 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Wide audience, who (where) is victim, ongoing event? 47 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Assessment, self-efficacy, own victimization, aggravation of problem? 48