Types of cyberaggression: adolescents and youth experience

Galina U. Soldatova Lomonosov Moscow State University

Rasskazova, E.I. Lomonosov Moscow State University

Chigarkova Svetlana V. Lomonosov Moscow State University

Table 1. Gender and age characteristics of respondents in different samples

Groups	Male (%)	Female(%)	No gender listed (%)	Mean age ± Standard deviation
Adolescents aged 14-17 years	484 (47.0%)	535 (52.0%)	10 (1.0%)	15.47±1.09 лет
Adolescents aged 12-13 years	240 (45.7%)	279(53.1%)	6 (1.1%)	12.42±0.58 лет
Youth	300 (40.8%)	436(59.2%)	0 (0%)	23.33±3.90 лет
Parents	214 (19.4%)	877(79.4%)	14 (1.3%)	41.21±5.63 лет

Table 2. Risk level assessment in different places

Subjective risk level assessment (on a scale of 1 to 7)	Adolescents aged 14-17 years		Youth		Parents		F-test	Effect size η2
	Mean	Standard deviation	Mean	Standard deviation	Mean	Standard deviation
In the world	5.09	1.54	4.96	1.33	5.15	1.37	3.92*	0.00
In the country	4.67	1.50	4.59	1.32	4.58	1.39	0.92	0,00
In the city	4.24	1.49	4.15	1.37	4.35	1.30	4.08*	0.00
On the street	4.21	1.52	4.11	1.38	4.42	1.29	12.13**	0.01
On the Internet	3.53	1.72	3.67	1.51	4.56	1.44	24.96**	0.08
At school	3.01	1.51	3.22	1.34	3.17	1.23	7.05**	0.01
At home	1.89	1.30	1.95	1.08	1.92	1.04	0.48	0.00

Significance level * - p<0.05, ** - p<0.01.

Fig. 1. Encounter with unpleasant, painful, hostile situations in different places, %

Fig. 2. Frequency of answers to the question about where unpleasant, painful or hostile situations a person experiences more strongly – online or offline, %

Fig. 3. Amount of types of cyberaggression encountered in different roles by representatives of different age groups, %

Fig. 4. Cyberaggressive types spread among different age groups, %.

Fig. 5. Frequency of encounter with flaming, %

Table 3. Comparison of adolescents, youth, and parents groups in terms of frequency of encounters with different types of cyberaggression and emotional reactions to them.

Frequency of different types of cyberaggression and emotional reactions to them	Flaming		Trolling		Cyberhate		Cyberstalking		Cyberbullying
	Pearson χ2	Cramer's V	Pearson χ2	Cramer's V	Pearson χ2	Cramer's V	Pearson χ2	Cramer's V	Pearson χ2	Cramer's V
How often have you encountered	648.06**	0.23	210.22**	0.13	186.04**	0.12	169.00**	0.12	165.21**	0.12
How strongly upset were you	230.51**	0.14	604.90**	0.22	533.36**	0.21	147.58**	0.12	82.91**	0.09

** - p<0.01

Fig. 6. Emotional reaction to flaming: how badly would you be upset if you got into the situation of flaming in the leading role, %

Fig. 7. Frequency of encounter with trolling, %

Fig. 8. Emotional reaction to trolling: how badly would you be upset if you got into the situation of trolling as a “victim”, %

Fig. 9. Frequency of encounter with cyberhate, %

Fig. 10. Emotional reaction to cyberhate: how badly would you be upset if you got into the situation of cyberhate as a “victim”, %

Fig. 11. Frequency of encounter with cyberstalking, %

Fig. 12. Emotional reaction to cyberstalking: how badly would you be upset if you got into the situation of cyberstalking as a “victim”, %

Fig. 13. Frequency of encounter with cyberbullying, %

Fig. 14. Emotional reaction to cyberstalking: how badly would you be upset if you got into the situation of cyberbullying (hate groups) as a “victim”, %

Table 4. Experience of facing various  types of cyber aggression in males and females

Experience of encountering cyberaggression		Flaming	Trolling	Cyberhate	Cyberstalking	Cyberbullying
Adolescents aged 14-17 years	Male	63.0%	60.3%	58.9%	37.4%	46.5%
	Female	65.1%	68.1%	51.2%	45.3%	43.9%
	Pearson χ2	0.47	6.53*	5.99*	5.70*	0.67
	Cramer's V	0.02	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.03
Adolescents aged 14-17 years	Male	49.8%	56.8%	49.4%	28.3%	32.3%
	Female	51.8%	58.0%	47.3%	30.4%	39.6%
	Pearson χ2	0.21	0.07	0.22	0.26	2.87
	Cramer's V	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.07
Youth	Male	69.6%	49.0%	53.5%	26.7%	30.7%
	Female	69.0%	42.4%	50.3%	35.9%	24.2%
	Pearson χ2	0.03	3.12	0.71	6.89**	3.79
	Cramer's V	0.01	0.07	0.03	0.10	0.07

* - p<0.05, ** - p<0.01.

References

1. Alonzo M., Aiken M. (2004). Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems, 36, 205–213. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00190-2

2. Aricak O.T., Ozbay A. (2016). Investigation of the relationship between cyberbullying, cybervictimization, alexithymia and anger expression styles among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 278–285. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.015

3. Bandura A., Walters R. (2000). Adolescent aggression. Study of the influence of education and family relations. Moscow, April Press, 508 p. (In Russ.)

4. Bauman S., Underwood M. K., Card N. (2013). Definitions: Another perspective and a proposal for beginning with cyberaggression. In: Bauman S., Walker J., Cross D. (eds.). Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology. New York, NY: Routledge, 41–46. doi: 10.4324/9780203084601

5. Blaya C., Audrin C. (2019). Toward an Understanding of the Characteristics of Secondary School Cyberhate Perpetrators. Frontiers in Education, 46(46). doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00046

6. Bochaver A., K. Kholmov K. (2014). Cyberbulling: Traffic in the Space of Modern Technologies. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 11(3), 177–191. (In Russ.)

7. Buckels E.E., Trapnell P.D., Andjelovic T., Paulhu D.L. (2019). Internet trolling and everyday sadism: Parallel effects on pain perception and moral judgment. Journal of Personality, 87, 328–340. doi:10.1111/jopy.12393 

8. Bulatova E.I. (2017). Network communication strategies: trolling. Vestnik SPbGUK,31(2), 75–78.

9. Celik S. (2019). Experiences of internet users regarding cyberhate. Information Technology & People, 6, 1446–1471.doi:10.1108/itp-01-2018-0009

10. Costello M., Rukus J., Hawdon J. (2019). We don’t like your type around here: Regional and residential differences in exposure to online hate material targeting sexuality. Deviant Behavior, 40(3), 385–401. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2018.1426266

11. Craker N., March E. (2016). The dark side of Facebook®: The dark tetrad, negative socialpotency, and trolling behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 79–84. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.043

12. Dynel M. (2016). “Trolling is not stupid”: Internet trolling as the art of deception serving entertainment. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(3), 353–381. doi: 10.1515/ip-2016-0015

13. Grigg D.W. (2010). Cyber-Aggression: Definition and Concept of Cyberbullying. // Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 2010, 20(2), 143–156. doi: 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.143

14. Grigoryan L.K., Gorinova E.V. (2016). Factorial survey: advantages, scope, practical recommendations. Social psychology and society, 7(2), 142–157. (In Russ.) doi:10.17759/sps.2016070210

15. Hawdon J., Oksanen A., Räsänen P. (2017). Exposure to online hate in four nations: A cross-national consideration. Deviant Behavior, 38(3), 254–266. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2016.1196985

16. Heirman W., Walrave M. (2008). Assessing concerns and issues about the mediation of technology in cyberbullying.Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2(2), Article 1. Available at: https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4214/3256(accessed 04.08.2020).

17. Jasso G. (2006). Factorial Survey Methods for Studying Beliefs and Judgments. Sociological Methods & Research, 34(3), 334–423. doi: 10.1177/0049124105283121

18. Johnson N. A., Cooper R. B., Chin W. W. (2009). Anger and flaming in computer-mediated negotiation among strangers. Decision Support Systems, 46, 660–672. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2008.10.008

19. Kowalski R. M., Giumetti G. W., Schroeder A. N., Lattanner M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. doi:10.1037/a0035618

20. March E., Grieve R., Marrington J., Jonason P.K. (2017). Trolling on Tinder® (and other dating apps): Examining the role of the dark tetrad and impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 139–143. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.025

21. March E., Litten V., Sullivan D. H., Ward L. (2020). Somebody that I (used to) know: Gender and dimensions of dark personality traits as predictors of intimate partner cyberstalking. Personality and Individual Differences, 163, 110084.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110084 

22. Marcum C.D. (2017). Crossing boundaries online in romantic relationships: An exploratory study of the perceptions of impact on partners by cyberstalking offenders. Deviant Behavior, 39, 716–731. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2017.1304801

23. Martínez-Monteagudo M. C., Delgado B., García-Fernández J. M., Rubio E. (2019). Cyberbullying, Aggressiveness, and Emotional Intelligence in Adolescence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), 5079. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16245079 

24. McFarlane L., Bocij P. (2003). An exploration of predatory behaviour in cyberspace: Towards a typology of cyberstalkers// First Mondey, 8(9). doi:10.5210/fm.v8i9.1076 

25. Menesini E., Nocentini A., Palladino B.E., Frisén A., Berne S., Ortega-Ruiz R., … Smith P. K. (2012) Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: a comparison across six European countries. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking, 15(9), 455–463. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0040

26. O’Sullivan P.B., Flanagin A.J. (2003). Reconceptualizing ‘flaming’ and other problematic messages. New Media & Society, 5(1), 69–94. doi: 10.1177/1461444803005001908

27. Panumaporn J., Hongsanguansri S., Atsariyasing W., Kiatrungrit K. (2020). Bystanders’ behaviours and associated factors in cyberbullying. General Psychiatry, 33(3), e100187. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2019-100187

28. Patchin J.W., Hinduja S. (2006). Bullies Move Beyond the Schoolyard. A Preliminary Look at Cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169. doi: 10.1177/1541204006286288

29. Rean A.A. (1996). Aggression and aggressiveness of personality. St. Petersburg, 347 p. (In Russ.)

30. Reichelmann A., Hawdon J., Costello M., Ryan J., Blaya C., Llorent V., Oksanen A., Räsänen P., Zych I. (2020). Hate Knows No Boundaries: Online Hate in Six Nations. Deviant Behavior, 1–12. doi:10.1080/01639625.2020.1722337

31. Sest N., March E. (2017). Constructing the cyber-troll: Psychopathy, sadism, and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 69–72. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.038

32. Sheldon P., Rauschnabel P.A., Honeycutt J.M. (2019). Cyberstalking and Bullying. The Dark Side of Social Media, 43–58. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-815917-0.00003-4

33. Smith P.K., Mahdavi J., Carvalho M., Fisher S., Russell S., Tippett N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x 

34. Sobkin V.S., Markina O.S. (2009). Influence of experience of "school bullying" on understanding by teenagers of the film "Scarecrow".Bulletin of practical psychology of education, 6(1), 48–57. Available at: https://psyjournals.ru/vestnik_psyobr/2009/n1/28271.shtml (accessed 09.08.2020). (In Russ.)

35. Soldatova G. U., Chigarkova S. V., Dreneva A., Ilyukhina S. N. We are responsible for the digital world: Preventing destructive behavior of adolescents and youth on the Internet: Training and methodological manual. Moscow, Kogito-Center, 176 p. (In Russ.)

36. Soldatova G. U., Rasskazova E. I., Nestik T. A. (2017). The digital generation of Russia: competence and safety. Moscow, Smysl, 375 p. (In Russ.)

37. Soldatova G.U. (2018). Digital socialization in cultural-historical paradigm: a changing child in a changing world. Social psychology and society, 9(3), 71–80. doi:10.17759/sps.2018090308 (In Russ.)

38. Soldatova G.U., Yarmina A.N. (2019). Cyberbullying: features, role structure, child-paternal relations and strategies of conjoining. National Psychological Journal, 35(3), 17–31. doi: 10.11621/npj.2019.0303 (In Russ.)

39. Spitzberg B.H., Hoobler G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4(1), 71–92. doi:10.1177/14614440222226271

40. Tokunaga R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research of cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014

41. Vnebrachnyh R.A. (2012). Trolling as a form of social aggression in virtual communities. Bulletin of Udmurd University. Philosophy. Sociology. Psychology. Pedagogy, 1, 48–51. (In Russ.)

42. Voggeser B.J., Singh R.K., Göritz A.S. (2018). Self-control in Online Discussions: Disinhibited Online Behavior as a Failure to Recognize Social Cues. Frontiers in Psychology, 8:2372. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02372

43. Vygotsky L.S. (1982). Problems of development of psyche. Moscow, Pedagogy, 368 p. (In Russ.)

44. Wachs S., Gámez-Guadix M., Wright M.F., Görzig A., Schubarth W. (2020). How do adolescents cope with cyberhate? Psychometric properties and socio-demographic differences of a coping with cyberhate scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106167. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106167

45. Wachs S., Wright M.F. (2019). The Moderation of Toxic Online Disinhibition and Sex on the Relationship between Online Hate Victimization and Perpetration. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(5), 300–306. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2018.0551

46. Wachs S., Wright M. (2018). Associations between bystanders and perpetrators of online hate: The moderating role of toxic online disinhibition. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 2030. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15092030

47. Wright M.F., Wachs, S. (2020). Adolescents’ Cyber Victimization: The Influence of Technologies, Gender, and Gender Stereotype Traits. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1293. doi:10.3390/ijerph17041293 

48. Zimmerman A.G., Ybarra G.J. (2016). Online aggression: The influences of anonymity and social modeling. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(2), 181–193. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000038

49. Zych I., Ortega-Ruiz R., Marín-López I. (2016). Cyberbullying: a systematic review of research, its prevalence and assessment issues in Spanish studies. Psicologia Educativa, 22, 5–18. doi: 10.1016/j.pse.2016.03.002