poster

Public Access

Characteristics of People Who Engage in Online Harassing Behavior

Authors:

Sarita SchoenebeckAuthors Info & Claims

CHI EA '22: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts

Article No.: 248, Pages 1 - 7

https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519812

Published: 28 April 2022 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Conflict in online spaces can often lead to behaviors that may be categorized as “harassment.” We asked 307 U.S. adults to self-report if they have ever engaged in aggressive online conflict. Using logistic regressions, we examine what psychosocial characteristics predict which users would report engaging in behaviors that are commonly labeled as “harassment.” We find that psychological factors such as impulsivity, reactive aggression, and premeditated aggression distinguish those who never thought of, those who only imagined, and those who carried out harassing behavior. Demographic factors other than age do not have significance, contrary to the results of prior studies. Design interventions that address propensities to perpetrate harassment might reduce harm but also raise ethical and moral concerns about the nature of harassment and the disposition toward it.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (3491101.3519812-talk-video.mp4)

Talk Video

Download
3.78 MB

References

[1]

Kathleen P. Allen. 2015. “We don’t have bullying, but we have drama”: Understandings of bullying and related constructs within the social milieu of a U.S. high school. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 25, 3 (April 2015), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2014.893857

[2]

Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman. 2002. Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology 53, 1 (2002), 27–51. Publisher: Annual Reviews 4139 El Camino Way, PO Box 10139, Palo Alto, CA 94303-0139, USA.

[3]

Donald A. Andrews, James Bonta, and J. Stephen Wormith. 2011. The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention?Criminal Justice and Behavior 38, 7 (2011), 735–755. Publisher: Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.

[4]

Julia C. Babcock, Andra L. T. Tharp, Carla Sharp, Whitney Heppner, and Matthew S. Stanford. 2014. Similarities and differences in impulsive/premeditated and reactive/proactive bimodal classifications of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior 19, 3 (May 2014), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.002

[5]

Ernest S. Barratt, Matthew S. Stanford, Lynn Dowdy, Michele J. Liebman, and Thomas A. Kent. 1999. Impulsive and premeditated aggression: A factor analysis of self-reported acts. Psychiatry Research 86, 2 (May 1999), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1781(99)00024-4

[6]

Lindsay Blackwell, Mark Handel, Sarah T. Roberts, Amy Bruckman, and Kimberly Voll. 2018. Understanding ”bad actors” online. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3170610

Digital Library

[7]

Justin Cheng, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Anyone can become a troll: Causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, Portland Oregon USA, 1217–1230. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998213

Digital Library

[8]

Naomi Craker and Evita March. 2016. The dark side of Facebook®: The Dark Tetrad, negative social potency, and trolling behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016), 79–84. Publisher: Elsevier.

[9]

Samantha Day and Lambros Lazuras. 2016. The Cyberbullying-Specific Moral Disengagement Questionnaire (CBMDQ-15). (2016). http://shura.shu.ac.uk/12890/

[10]

Dominick DeMarsico, Nadia Bounoua, Rickie Miglin, and Naomi Sadeh. 2021. Aggression in the digital era: Assessing the validity of the cyber motivations for aggression and deviance scale. Assessment (Feb. 2021), 107319112199008. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191121990088

[11]

Stelios N. Georgiou, Kyriakos Charalambous, and Panayotis Stavrinides. 2020. Mindfulness, impulsivity, and moral disengagement as parameters of bullying and victimization at school. Aggressive behavior 46, 1 (2020), 107–115. Publisher: Wiley Online Library.

[12]

Eveline Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger. 2015. Moral disengagement and aggression: Comments on the special issue. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 61, 1 (2015), 192–211. Publisher: JSTOR.

[13]

Oliver L. Haimson, Daniel Delmonaco, Peipei Nie, and Andrea Wegner. 2021. Disproportionate removals and differing content moderation experiences for conservative, transgender, and black social media users: Marginalization and moderation gray areas. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479610

Digital Library

[14]

Yiqing Hua, Mor Naaman, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2020. Characterizing Twitter users who engage in adversarial interactions against political candidates. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376548

Digital Library

[15]

Shagun Jhaver, Sucheta Ghoshal, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2018. Online harassment and content moderation: The case of blocklists. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 25, 2(2018), 1–33.

Digital Library

[16]

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

[17]

Anna Kurek, Paul E. Jose, and Jaimee Stuart. 2019. ‘I did it for the LULZ’: How the dark personality predicts online disinhibition and aggressive online behavior in adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior 98 (Sept. 2019), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.027

[18]

Amanda Lenhart, Michele Ybarra, Kathryn Zickuhr, and Myeshia Price-Feeney. 2016. Online harassment, digital abuse, and cyberstalking in America. Data and Society Research Institute.

[19]

Alice Marwick and danah boyd. 2014. ‘It’s just drama’: Teen perspectives on conflict and aggression in a networked era. Journal of Youth Studies 17, 9 (Oct. 2014), 1187–1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.901493

[20]

Alice E. Marwick. 2021. Morally motivated networked harassment as normative reinforcement. Social Media+ Society 7, 2 (2021), 20563051211021378.

[21]

Sahar Massachi. 2021. How to save our social media by treating it like a city. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/20/1042709/how-to-save-social-media-treat-it-like-a-city/

[22]

Joshua D. Miller, Amos Zeichner, and Lauren F. Wilson. 2012. Personality correlates of aggression: Evidence from measures of the five-factor model, UPPS model of impulsivity, and BIS/BAS. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27, 14 (2012), 2903–2919.

[23]

Catherine Page Jeffery. 2021. ‘[Cyber]bullying is too strong a word…’: Parental accounts of their children’s experiences of online conflict and relational aggression. Media International Australia (Oct. 2021), 1329878X2110485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X211048512

[24]

Adrian Raine, Kenneth Dodge, Rolf Loeber, Lisa Gatzke-Kopp, Don Lynam, Chandra Reynolds, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, and Jianghong Liu. 2006. The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior 32, 2 (April 2006), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20115

[25]

Jennifer D. Rubin, Lindsay Blackwell, and Terri D. Conley. 2020. Fragile masculinity: Men, gender, and online harassment. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.

Digital Library

[26]

Yunya Song, Qinyun Lin, K. Hazel Kwon, Christine H. Y. Choy, and Ran Xu. 2022. Contagion of offensive speech online: An interactional analysis of political swearing. Computers in Human Behavior 127 (Feb. 2022), 107046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107046

[27]

Lynne Steinberg, Carla Sharp, Matthew S. Stanford, and Andra Teten Tharp. 2013. New tricks for an old measure: The development of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale–Brief (BIS-Brief).Psychological Assessment 25, 1 (March 2013), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030550

[28]

Joachim Stöber. 2001. The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age.European Journal of Psychological Assessment 17, 3(2001), 222. Publisher: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

[29]

Randal W. Summers. 2016. Social psychology: How other people influence our thoughts and actions. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO.

[30]

Andra L. Teten Tharp, Carla Sharp, Matthew S. Stanford, Sarah L. Lake, Adrian Raine, and Thomas A. Kent. 2011. Correspondence of aggressive behavior classifications among young adults using the Impulsive Premeditated Aggression Scale and the Reactive Proactive Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences 50, 2 (Jan. 2011), 279–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.003

[31]

Kurt Thomas, Devdatta Akhawe, Michael Bailey, Dan Boneh, Elie Bursztein, Sunny Consolvo, Nicola Dell, Zakir Durumeric, Patrick Gage Kelley, Deepak Kumar, 2021. Sok: Hate, harassment, and the changing landscape of online abuse. (2021).

[32]

Reinis Udris. 2014. Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: Development and validation of the Online Disinhibition Scale. Computers in Human Behavior 41 (Dec. 2014), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.036

[33]

Emily A. Vogels. 2021. The state of online harassment. Pew Research Center 13(2021).

Cited By

Bellini R(2024)Abusive Partner Perspectives on Technology Abuse: Implications for Community-based Violence PreventionProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36372928:CSCW1(1-25)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637292
Redmiles E(2024)Friction Matters: Balancing the Pursuit of Perfect Protection With Target HardeningIEEE Security and Privacy10.1109/MSEC.2023.333397222:1(76-75)Online publication date: 22-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/MSEC.2023.3333972

Recommendations

‘Just-in-Time’ Parenting: A Two-Month Examination of the Bi-directional Influences Between Parental Mediation and Adolescent Online Risk Exposure
HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust
Abstract
Parental mediation is a key factor that influences adolescents’ exposure to online risk. Yet, research on this topic has mostly been cross-sectional and correlative, not exploring whether the relationship between parental mediation and adolescent ...
A matter of style? Exploring the effects of parental mediation styles on early adolescents media violence exposure and aggression

This two-wave survey study investigated the concurrent and longitudinal relationships between different styles of restrictive and active parental mediation (autonomy-supportive, controlling, or inconsistent), adolescents media violence exposure, and ...
Why did you do that? Differential types of aggression in offline and in cyberbullying
Abstract
Traditional conceptualizations of aggression distinguish between reactive (e.g., rage) and proactive (e.g., reward) functions of aggression. However, critiques of this dichotomy have pointed out these models conflate motivational ...
Highlights
- A fine-grained typology of aggression was used to compare the underlying motives in offline and cyberbullying.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI EA '22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2022

3066 pages

ISBN:9781450391566

DOI:10.1145/3491101

Editors:
Simone Barbosa
PUC-Rio, Brazil
,
Cliff Lampe
University of Michigan, USA
,
Caroline Appert
Université Paris-Saclay, France
,
David A. Shamma
Toyota Research Institute, USA

Copyright © 2022 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 April 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Poster
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

NSF (National Science Foundation)

Conference

CHI '22

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '22: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 29 - May 5, 2022

LA, New Orleans, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,164 of 23,696 submissions, 26%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
457
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)239
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)27

Reflects downloads up to 15 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Bellini R(2024)Abusive Partner Perspectives on Technology Abuse: Implications for Community-based Violence PreventionProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36372928:CSCW1(1-25)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637292
Redmiles E(2024)Friction Matters: Balancing the Pursuit of Perfect Protection With Target HardeningIEEE Security and Privacy10.1109/MSEC.2023.333397222:1(76-75)Online publication date: 22-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/MSEC.2023.3333972

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents