Online aggression and current youth Dr. Hana Macháčková Aggression online •Seemingly ubiquitous • •Everyday experience? •Discussions: increased hostility, prejudices, • intolerance, aggressivity… • •Without boundaries? • 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 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 Aggression online •Various types •Mirroring offline ones •Cyberbullying, online harassment, trolling, cyberhate, cybercrime, cyberterrorism… • • • Aggression online •Various types •Mirroring offline ones •Cyberbullying, online harassment, trolling, cyberhate, cybercrime, cyberterrorism… • We will focus on cyberbullying/aggression and hate communities Aggression online •Various types •Mirroring offline ones? •Cyberbullying, online harassment, trolling, cyberhate, cybercrime, cyberterrorism… • •Interconnection with offline life •Extension, augmentation, blending… • •Cyberspace: Important aspect of everyday life •„virtual“ but „real“ • •Cyberspace: specific social environment • 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 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 • 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??? 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 Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •Cyberbullying: do you know the term? • •Highly medialized •Contrast with empirical evidence 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% 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… • • • • • • • • 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 •... • • • • • • 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 • • • • • • • • 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 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…) 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 (rare) 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 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 • • • • • • • • 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 • • • • • • • • 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. • 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 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 See: http://irtis.fss.muni.cz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/COST_CZ_report_II_CJ.pdf 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 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 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 Strategies helping emotionally - generally, less often effective among CB victims - effective cognitive strategies -not all – „taking it lightly“ it „happens online“ Strategies helping stop the attacks: - technological coping - but not all (and often not applied) Ignoring Confrontation or retaliation not much effective 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% • 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 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… 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… 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 stay passive??? • Usually – antibullying norms • • • • • Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) •What is „new“? – Context • •Specific communication and environment • •Distance •Lack of cues •Wide audience • • • • • Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Latané & Darley (1970) Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Attention and distractions Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Complicated assessment, „just a joke“, not serious Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Wide audience, who (where) is victim, ongoing event? Cyberbullying and online aggression (harassment) Výřez obrazovky Assessment, self-efficacy, own victimization, aggravation of problem? Audience in aggressive events •These aspects concern also responses to other aggressive events • •What is your experience with such online aggression? Hate communities online •Another type of aggression encountered on the internet • •Intergroup aggression • •Intolerant online communities •Attacks on and from specific (online) communities/groups • • • Hate communities online •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 • Hate communities online • •Positive and negative outcomes •Sometimes very hard to untangle •For whom? • •Clash of different (offline) communities online • •Example: extreme right communities, extremist communities… • • • Online hate & intolerance •Roots in offline world •Attitides, opinions •Social norms •Group identity •In-groups and out-groups •Prejudices • Online hate & intolerance •Online •Increasing? (increasing internet use) •Dispersing? • • many new platforms •prominently SNS • • In the past 12 months, have you seen websites where people discuss hate messages that attack certain groups or individuals ? (EUKO, 2010; NCGM, 2013) 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 • • Combating hate online? •Problem with evaluation • •What is normal? What is moral? Legitimate? Legal? Normative? • •Back to conceptualization aggression – different types •Different purposes • •Hate communities •Framing: aggression as a mean to – seemingly justified - end • • • • Online hate & intolerance •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 • • Online hate & intolerance •In concentrated form (online communities) • •„Link, educate, recruit“ (Douglas, 2007) • •Persuasion: •Not often advocating violence as such •„Objectivity“ •Establishing specific discourse and norms •In-group • • „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. • „We are saving humanity“ „Its better then what they did!“ „War vs. Fight for freedom“ „Nobody did nothing“ „It was an order“ „I was just a messanger“ „It was not that bad“ „Its not like we killed them“ „We just teached them a lesson“ „They are like rats“ „They just got what they deserved“ Hate communities online • •Concentrated materials, information – selected discourse, no opposite views • •Mutual support, reinforcement of attitudes • •In-group: shared identity, belonging • •Access • •May be invisible to offline environment •Chance for discussions with family, friends? • • •