Cyberbullying Research Center https://cyberbullying.org Resources and strategies to help combat bullying and cyberbullying. Wed, 19 Feb 2020 21:38:07 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2.3 Digital Dating Abuse Among Teens: Our Research, and What We Must Do https://cyberbullying.org/digital-dating-abuse-research-findings https://cyberbullying.org/digital-dating-abuse-research-findings#respond Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:18:38 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=27421 February is Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month, and we’re doing our part to help equip and empower young people to make wise decisions in their romantic relationships. Most recently, we published a new research paper entitled “Digital Dating Abuse Among a National Sample of U.S. Youth” in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence to illuminate how…

The post Digital Dating Abuse Among Teens: Our Research, and What We Must Do appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
February is Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month, and we’re doing our part to help equip and empower young people to make wise decisions in their romantic relationships. Most recently, we published a new research paper entitled “Digital Dating Abuse Among a National Sample of U.S. Youth” in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence to illuminate how dating violence is manifesting online.  “Digital dating abuse” involves using technology to repetitively harass a romantic partner with the intent to control, coerce, intimidate, annoy or threaten them. Given that youth in relationships today are constantly in touch with each other via texting, social media, and video chat, more opportunities for digital dating abuse can arise. Our study is the first to examine these behaviors with a large, nationally representative sample of 2,218 US middle and high school students (12 to 17 years old) who have been in a romantic relationship. Before delving into our study’s results, let’s first clarify what we mean in practice.

What Does Digital Dating Abuse Look Like?

There are multiple ways in which teens can exploit online communications devices to cause harm to a current or former romantic partner. Teens may be excessively mean-spirited and hurtful to their significant other when interacting with them online for the same reasons that those who cyberbully or troll others do (such as anger or a felt need to exert power).1,2 In addition, privacy violations can occur as youth incessantly check up on, keep track of, and even stalk their partners via their device(s) and certain apps like Life360 or Hoverwatch. Teens can also hack into or otherwise obtain unauthorized access into their partner’s personal social media or email accounts. In addition, some aggressors have improperly obtained and used private pictures or videos to blackmail, extort, or otherwise manipulate their romantic partner into saying or doing something against their will. We’ve even heard of situations where one person pays for the other’s cell phone (and/or monthly bill), and then feels entitled to constantly check and monitor who their partner is communicating with (calls or messages). It can look like other forms of harm and victimization online, but it occurs within a context that involved flirting or romance and thereby reflects a unique violation of trust and care towards another.

Results from Our Digital Dating Abuse Research

You can download the full PDF of our new academic paper here (if you don’t have access, just message us!) which shares that over one quarter (28.1%) of teens who had been in a romantic relationship at some point in the previous year said they had been the victim of at least one form of digital dating abuse. These included whether their significant other:
looked through the contents of your device without permission
kept you from using their device; threatened you via text
posted something publicly online to make fun of, threaten, or embarrass you; or,
posted or shared a private picture of you without permission

Over one quarter (28.1%) of teens who had been in a romantic relationship at some point in the previous year said they had been the victim of at least one form of digital dating abuse.

Digital Dating Abuse by Gender

It has been argued that youth of a certain sex may use behaviors more typical of the opposite sex when dealing with conflict in relationships. For instance, girls may use more violence on their boyfriends to try to solve their relational problems, while boys may try to keep in control of their aggressive impulses when trying to negotiate conflict with their girlfriends.3 That is exactly what we found. Males were significantly more likely to have experienced digital dating abuse compared to females (32.3% vs. 23.6% when it comes to victimization, and 21.6% vs. 14.2% when it comes to offending), and more likely to experience all types of online and offline dating abuse, including physical aggression.

Males were significantly more likely to have experienced digital dating abuse (32.3%) compared to females (23.6%), and more likely to experience all types of digital dating abuse, and were even more likely to experience physical aggression

The Link Between Offline and Online Dating Abuse

We also found a significant connection between digital and traditional forms of dating abuse: the vast majority of students who had been abused online had also been abused offline. Specifically, 81% of the students who had been the target of digital dating abuse had also been the target of traditional dating abuse (i.e., they were: pushed, grabbed or shoved; hit or threatened to be hit; called names or criticized, or prevented from doing something they wanted to do). Students victimized offline were approximately 18 times more likely to have also experienced online abuse compared to those who were not victimized offline. Similarly, most of the students who had been the victim of offline dating violence also had been the victim of online dating violence, though the proportion (63%) was lower.

Four out of five (81%) middle and high school students who had been the target of digital dating abuse had also been the target of traditional (offline) dating abuse.

Risk Factors Associated with Digital Dating Abuse

I also want to bring your attention to other risk factors associated with digital dating abuse. Students who reported depressive symptoms were about four times as likely to have experienced digital dating abuse. Those who reported that they had sexual intercourse were 2.5 times as likely to have experienced digital dating abuse. Most notably, those students who had sent a “sext” to another person were nearly five times as likely to be the target of digital dating abuse as compared to those who had not sent a sext. Finally, those who had been the target of cyberbullying also were likely to have been the target of digital dating abuse.

Students who reported depressive symptoms were about four times as likely to have experienced digital dating abuse, while those who had sexual intercourse were 2.5 times as likely and those who had sent a “sext” to another person were about five times as likely.

digital-dating-abuse-boy

What Must Be Done to Combat Digital Dating Abuse?

As we observe Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month, there appears to be a general lack of knowledge associated with what exactly can be done about digital dating abuse apart from more conversations with youth about healthy romantic relationships and the positive use of social media, and general Internet safety practices.4-7 We applaud youth-serving adults who are bringing up cyberbullying and sexting when discussing inappropriate online choices, but we remind them to also discuss how power, control, passive-aggressiveness, and abuse can occur via devices between romantic partners. Our youth often want to be in dating relationships and need to be aware of how things can go sideways – and what to do when that happens.

Educational programs can help change belief systems around dating violence by reducing rape myth and gender violence acceptance, emboldening bystanders to provide support to friends, and teaching youth how to stay safe in romantic relationships.

Additionally, research has found that certain educational programs can help change belief systems around dating violence by reducing rape myth and gender violence acceptance,8 emboldening bystanders to provide support to friends,9 and teaching youth how to stay safe in romantic relationships.10 However, we still are not sure what programming can be implemented across large swaths of schools to meaningfully reduce offending or victimization.11 It is one thing to affect attitudes and beliefs, but if those attitudes and beliefs do not translate to changes in behavior among youth, we must work harder to resolve the disconnect. Finally, more of us need to model and educate youth on what constitutes a healthy, stable relationship – and what betrays a dysfunctional, problematic one. Justin and I hope that our efforts here will provide more information on the context, contributing factors, and consequences of these behaviors, and can help develop the policies and programs we need to develop to address all forms of dating abuse.

(Outside of the academic article referenced above, we also have created a new PDF resource for you to download entitled “Digital Dating Abuse: A Brief Guide for Educators and Parents” – check it out and feel free to circulate it!)

Image sources:
https://bit.ly/2uqUIqJ
https://bit.ly/2vkYaDo

References

1.         Leisring PA, Giumetti GW. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but abusive text messages also hurt: Development and validation of the Cyber Psychological Abuse scale. Partner Abuse. 2014;5(3):323-341.

2.         Rosenbaum A, Leisring PA. Beyond power and control: Towards an understanding of partner abusive men. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 2003;34:7-22.

3.         Wincentak K, Connolly J, Card N. Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence. 2017;7(2):224.

4.         Van Ouytsel J, Walrave M, Ponnet K, Temple JR. Digital forms of dating violence: what school nurses need to know. NASN school nurse. 2016;31(6):348-353.

5.         Miller E, Jones KA, McCauley HL. Updates on adolescent dating and sexual violence prevention and intervention. Current opinion in pediatrics. 2018;30(4):466-471.

6.         Stonard KE, Bowen E, Walker K, Price SA. “They’ll always find a way to get to you”: Technology use in adolescent romantic relationships and its role in dating violence and abuse. Journal of interpersonal violence. 2017;32(14):2083-2117.

7.         Peskin MF, Markham CM, Shegog R, et al. Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyber dating abuse among early adolescents. Journal of youth and adolescence. 2017;46(2):358-375.

8.         Peterson K, Sharps P, Banyard V, et al. An evaluation of two dating violence prevention programs on a college campus. Journal of interpersonal violence. 2018;33(23):3630-3655.

9.         Wong JY-H, Tang NR, Yau JH-Y, Choi AW-M, Fong DY-T. Dating CAFE Ambassador Programme: Chinese college students to help peers in dating violence. Health Education & Behavior. 2019;46(6):981-990.

10.       Levesque DA, Johnson JL, Welch CA, Prochaska JM, Paiva AL. Teen dating violence prevention: Cluster-randomized trial of Teen Choices, an online, stage-based program for healthy, nonviolent relationships. Psychology of violence. 2016;6(3):421.

11.       De La Rue L, Polanin JR, Espelage DL, Pigott TD. A meta-analysis of school-based interventions aimed to prevent or reduce violence in teen dating relationships. Review of Educational Research. 2017;87(1):7-34.

The post Digital Dating Abuse Among Teens: Our Research, and What We Must Do appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/digital-dating-abuse-research-findings/feed 0
What Should Your School’s Bullying Policy Look Like? https://cyberbullying.org/school-bullying-policy https://cyberbullying.org/school-bullying-policy#respond Fri, 31 Jan 2020 19:21:16 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=27276 We are regularly contacted by school administrators, board members, parents and others with questions about school bullying policies. In fact, a few months ago the principal at my son’s elementary school asked me to review their bullying policy. I am always happy to help, with the preemptive caveat that I am not a lawyer and…

The post What Should Your School’s Bullying Policy Look Like? appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
We are regularly contacted by school administrators, board members, parents and others with questions about school bullying policies. In fact, a few months ago the principal at my son’s elementary school asked me to review their bullying policy. I am always happy to help, with the preemptive caveat that I am not a lawyer and therefore my feedback should be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive. But I have seen lots of bullying policies over the last 15 years. And some are plainly better than others.

In an effort to better understand the landscape of bullying policies across the United States, Sameer and I (along with one of my students) recently reviewed all of the state model bullying policies that we could find (they are usually put out by a state’s Department of Education). We were able to locate model policies for thirty-nine states. When we couldn’t find a model policy for a state, we reviewed their state law to see if certain provisions were required in school bullying policies. Schools aren’t generally required to adopt the specific language offered in a model policy, but no doubt these policies serve as a template for schools in the state and deviating from them in substantial ways could open a school up to criticism.

In my home state of Wisconsin, every public school is required to have a bullying policy. There are no stipulations, however, regarding what must be included in that policy. I often point out (with much consternation) that Wisconsin is one of only two states in the US that does not mention cyberbullying or electronic forms of harassment in its bullying law (Want to know the other state? See our table here.). As much as Wisconsin state law is substandard when it comes to bullying, the model bullying policy put out by our Department of Public Instruction is pretty decent. At least it specifically references “cyberbullying.” But again, schools aren’t required to adopt that policy, or any of its particular protocols. And while most schools that I have worked with in Wisconsin (and elsewhere in the US) have acceptable bullying policies, some fall short.

So what does a good bullying policy look like? Below are some elements that should be considered in any comprehensive school bullying policy.

Clear Definition of Bullying

First and foremost, bullying policies must clearly define what bullying is. And it needs to be defined in a way that everyone involved can understand. You’d think this would be a no-brainer, or that “everyone knows what bullying is.” But that is not the case. Ask three different people to define bullying and you will likely get three different answers. It is important to remember that not all hurtful behavior between students is bullying (sometimes it is better characterized as conflict, drama, a disagreement, or even something more serious like assault). And while there is a debate among scholars about how best to define bullying, most agree that it is intentional, repeated, hurtful behavior where the target lacks the power to defend him or herself. To be sure, any hurtful action directed toward someone is something that needs to be addressed (whether intentional or not), but that doesn’t mean it is accurate to refer to them all as “bullying.” Admittedly, there is a lack of consensus about whether a single, isolated incident could be characterized as bullying. Even some state laws and policies define bullying in a way that can include a single incident. I disagree with this for reasons too detailed to get into now, but suffice it to say your policy should clearly articulate what is meant by “bullying.”

BULLYING means the use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression or a physical act or gesture or any combination thereof directed at a student that:

a. Causes physical or emotional harm to the student or damage to the student’s property;
b. Places the student in reasonable fear of harm to himself/herself or of damage to his/her property;
c. Creates an intimidating, threatening, hostile, or abusive educational environment for the student;
d. Infringes on the rights of the student to participate in school activities; or
e. Materially and substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a school.

Bullying most often occurs as repeated behavior and often is not a single incident between the bullying/cyber‐bullying offender(s) and the bullying victim(s).

Rhode Island Model Bullying Policy

All of the 39 state model policies we found included a formal definition of bullying. There is one state (Arizona), which does not offer a model policy or appear to offer a definition of bullying anywhere in state law. I guess they assume that millions of people in Arizona all know exactly what they mean by bullying. Most—but not all!—of the model bullying policies mentioned cyberbullying (34 out of 39). It is important to define bullying in a way that includes all the types of behaviors you intend to address under the policy. If the policy doesn’t mention cyberbullying, then it will be more difficult to deal with when it happens.

Investigation and Reporting Procedures

Bullying policies should outline reporting mechanisms (if I am being bullied, how–and to whom–do I report it?) and investigation protocols (whose responsibility is it to investigate the allegations?). All interested parties (students, educators, parents) need to know the process that will be followed when there is a bullying incident. And this process needs to be followed closely to avoid perceptions of favoritism, ambivalence, or inconsistency. Who specifically will be responsible for conducting the preliminary investigation? Under what circumstances will law enforcement officers be brought in?

Some states require schools to report all incidents of bullying to their state Department of Education. If this is the case in your state, whose job is it to collect and submit this information? I’ve always wondered how valid reports like this are. In New Jersey, for example, 23% of school districts reported zero incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying in the 2015-16 school year. I find it very difficult to believe that nearly one-quarter of schools in the state had no bullying all year.

It is also important for schools to give students easy avenues to report bullying or other problems that impact their ability to learn and feel safe at school. We know from our research that students are generally reluctant to come forward with their experiences, and so educators need to make it simple and painless. We’ve written about setting up anonymous reporting systems (and even wrote a guide on how to use Google Voice at no cost to allow students to anonymously tell you about their safety concerns). Of course this is just the first step. Schools need to follow through on all reports and make sure that the bullying stops and the targeted student is supported.

[School administrator] will conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation of all reports of bullying and harassment using the bullying and harassment incident investigation form within three days after the report to ensure the safety of all students involved. Any individuals who were bullied, individuals who bullied and bystanders will be separated and asked to provide information about the incident. The investigation will also include a review of any previous complaints involving either the individual(s) who was (were) bullied or the individual(s) who bullied. The investigation procedure will vary depending on the nature of the reported incidence. All information gathered during the investigation will be submitted to [compliance officer] and will remain confidential. The findings from the investigation will be used by school administrators to determine the appropriate response procedure.

Kansas Model Bullying Policy

Range of Response Options

Schools need to make sure that their bullying policy includes language that all instances of bullying will be subject to appropriate and relevant discipline, even those that occur away from school or at a school-sponsored event, if such behaviors substantially and materially disrupt the learning environment at school or interfere with the ability of other students to learn or feel safe at school (more on this next). Schools should list examples of graduated consequences and remedial actions for rule violations. The policy should include a range of disciplinary responses (from a meeting with the principal, to detention or suspension), and point out that the response will be commensurate with the potential or actual harm or disruption caused. Having a number of specific examples in the policy will serve to make students and parents aware of possible penalties. There should be no surprises about what could happen if you participate in bullying.

Consequences and appropriate remedial actions for anyone who commits one or more acts of harassment, bullying, or other acts of violent behavior may range from positive behavioral interventions up to and including suspension or expulsion, as set forth in the Board of Education’s approved code of conduct. Remedial measures shall be designed to:

• Correct the problem behavior;
• Prevent other occurrences of the behavior; and
• Protect the complainant of the act.

Tennessee Model Bullying Policy

See more tips directed at responding to cyberbullying here.

Off-Campus Behaviors

School officials are often uncertain about whether they can intervene in bullying behaviors that occur away from school. This is generally the case when it comes to cyberbullying (which typically occurs when school is not in session), but could also include any problem between students that creates issues at school. I’ve written a lot about this issue over the years and while I feel like progress has been made when it comes to a better understanding of the factors to consider when determining if a school response is appropriate, many still do not recognize the circumstances where schools can or should take action. Case law is fairly clear that schools can discipline students for off-campus behaviors when those behaviors are having an impact at school. Despite this, only 28 of the 39 model bullying policies put forth by states across our country included specific reference to off-campus behaviors. This is better than state law, as only 17 state bullying laws mention off-campus incidents. It is critical for schools to detail the rules against–and consequences for–off-campus behaviors in their policies. In chapter 5 of our book Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard we offer the following recommended policy language:

“Schools have the authority and responsibility to apply reasonable and educationally-based discipline, consistent with a pupil’s constitutionally granted privileges, to bullying that: (a) Occurs on, or is delivered to, school property or a school-sponsored activity or event on or off school property; or (b) Occurs off of school property or outside of a school-sponsored activity or event, if the conduct interferes with a pupil’s educational opportunities, creates a hostile environment for that pupil or others, or substantially disrupts the orderly operations of the school or school-sponsored activity or event.”

Prevention Strategies

What are you doing as a school to prevent bullying from happening in the first place? There are a number of evidence-based prevention activities that have shown promise to reduce the incidence of bullying at school, including those that utilize social and emotional learning principles and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Moreover, many of the most effective programs involve empowering bystanders to take action. Overall, a positive school climate where students and staff work collaboratively to solve problems has been shown to alleviate bullying issues both at school and online. The truth is, you don’t need a pre-packaged formal anti-bullying curriculum, but you do need to specify what steps you will take to improve peer relationships and student well-being, and to create an overall sense of connectedness and belongingness at school.

“Positive Sustained School Climate” is the foundation for learning and positive youth development and includes:

-Norms, values and expectations that support people feeling socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically safe;
-People who treat one another with dignity, and are engaged and respected;
-A school community that works collaboratively together to develop, live and contribute to a shared school vision;
-Adults who model and nurture attitudes that emphasize the benefits and satisfaction gained from learning; and
-A school community that contributes to the operations of the school and the care of the physical environment.

Connecticut Model Bullying Policy

In addition to engaging in prevention programming, it is key to let everyone know what you are doing so that they can be supported. How will members of the school community learn about your stance on bullying (or even about the content of the bullying policy)? If students don’t know what bullying is, or what consequences could follow, how can we expect to deter the behavior? Similarly, if school staff aren’t aware of the details of the bullying policy, how can we expect them to respond when they see or are made aware of bullying? Formal educational efforts about this can take place within the classroom or in larger all-grade or all-school assemblies, and informal conversations can be had about behavioral standards and expectations whenever the opportunity presents itself. The key to preventing bullying, though, is to bring it up regularly and consistently over the course of the whole school year. A single lesson or presentation at the beginning of the year will not be enough. Your policy should discuss the myriad ways the school will work to prevent bullying throughout the year.

See more tips directed at preventing cyberbullying here.

Final Thoughts

When is the last time you looked over your school’s bullying policy? Do you really know what is included? Is it easily accessible to students, parents, and staff members (such as posted on the school’s website)? My challenge to you is to take a moment to find and read the policy. You might think you know what is in it, but you also might be surprised at what isn’t. If you have questions about the policy, connect with the appropriate decision-makers (school administrators and board members) to discuss any concerns. A formal committee at your school should undertake a regular review of your policy to make sure it is keeping up with developments in student behaviors. Moreover, policies should not be created or modified in a vacuum. Educators should include parents and students in the development and review of the bullying policy. That way everyone is on the same page regarding how bullying will be handled across your community. Preventing bullying requires a coordinated community effort in which everyone has a role.

As far as we can tell, 39 states have prepared model bullying policies. You can see all of them here. If you are in one of the states not listed here but are aware of a model policy that we missed, please let us know.

Image from Ryan Jacobson (@rcjphoto) on Unsplash

The post What Should Your School’s Bullying Policy Look Like? appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/school-bullying-policy/feed 0
Digital Dating Abuse: A Brief Guide for Educators and Parents https://cyberbullying.org/digital-dating-abuse-2 https://cyberbullying.org/digital-dating-abuse-2#respond Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:40:09 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=27155 This 8-page research brief provides educators, parents, and other youth serving adults information about the nature and extent of digital dating abuse among adolescents and how to best address it.

The post Digital Dating Abuse: A Brief Guide for Educators and Parents appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines dating abuse as physical, sexual, or psychological/emotional violence that occurs within a dating relationship. In the 21st Century, a new manifestation of dating abuse has emerged, one that exploits digital communications technologies that are omnipresent. “Digital dating abuse” (also known as “electronic dating violence”) can be defined as “a pattern of behaviors that control, pressure, or threaten a dating partner using a cell phone or the Internet.” This 8-page research brief provides educators, parents, and other youth serving adults information about the nature and extent of digital dating abuse among adolescents and how to best address it. The Guide includes results from a national survey of U.S. of middle and high school students about their experiences with digital dating abuse. This research brief is a summary of a longer, more detailed academic paper entitled “Digital Dating Abuse Among a National Sample of U.S. Youth” which appears in the Journal of Interpersonal violence.

Download the Guide

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2020). Digital Dating Abuse: A Brief Guide for Educators and Parents. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved [insert date], from https://cyberbullying.org/digital-dating-abuse.pdf

The post Digital Dating Abuse: A Brief Guide for Educators and Parents appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/digital-dating-abuse-2/feed 0
It is Time to Teach Safe Sexting https://cyberbullying.org/safe-sexting https://cyberbullying.org/safe-sexting#respond Tue, 21 Jan 2020 19:16:41 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=27106 By Justin W. Patchin and Sameer Hinduja Research shows that roughly 10-25% of American teens have participated in “sexting,” the sharing of sexually-explicit or sexually-suggestive images. When minors share nude images of themselves with others in the United States, they are distributing child pornography. If these images are received from others and stored on personal…

The post It is Time to Teach Safe Sexting appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
By Justin W. Patchin and Sameer Hinduja

Research shows that roughly 10-25% of American teens have participated in “sexting,” the sharing of sexually-explicit or sexually-suggestive images. When minors share nude images of themselves with others in the United States, they are distributing child pornography. If these images are received from others and stored on personal devices, individuals are in possession of child pornography. Despite threats of prosecution, formal punishment, and fear-based messages from the media and many youth-serving adults, rates of sexting among children have remained relatively constant. Adolescents have always experimented with their sexuality, and will continue to do so via sexting and similar intimate behaviors. As such, in this commentary we argue for a new paradigm: one in which youth are empowered with information, strategies, and tools to reduce risk and minimize harm when engaging in sexting. Mirroring the evolution of sex education from abstinence-only to a comprehensive curriculum emphasizing all aspects of sexual health and safety, we should understand and work with current realities at the intersection of technology and youth development. It is time to proactively teach safe sexting to teens so the most significant of consequences of participation may be minimized.

Patchin, J. W. & Hinduja, S. (2020). It is Time to Teach Safe Sexting. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(2), 140-143.

Download PDF

The post It is Time to Teach Safe Sexting appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/safe-sexting/feed 0
It is Time to Teach Safe Sexting https://cyberbullying.org/it-is-time-to-teach-safe-sexting https://cyberbullying.org/it-is-time-to-teach-safe-sexting#respond Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:38:37 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=26990 It’s 2020. And it’s about time we rethink our approach to teen sexting. Justin and I wrote an piece that was just published in the Journal of Adolescent Health (currently free to download!) arguing that it is time to take a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach to sexting, by supplementing abstinence messages with information to…

The post It is Time to Teach Safe Sexting appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>

It’s 2020. And it’s about time we rethink our approach to teen sexting. Justin and I wrote an piece that was just published in the Journal of Adolescent Health (currently free to download!) arguing that it is time to take a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach to sexting, by supplementing abstinence messages with information to reduce harm should youth people choose to participate. This isn’t about encouraging kids to sext, but about minimizing the worst of the potential problems that could result. Deterrence-based messaging has failed to curtail the sexting problem and, frankly, something more needs to be done. While I encourage everyone to read and discuss the paper – which includes specific strategies for minimizing harm associated with sexting – below I discuss some of the issues that prompted its writing. 

teach-safer-sexting-fau-hinduja

Teen Sexting is a Problem

Sexting continues to be a topic of major concern among parents, educators, and youth professionals responsible for teaching the current generation of adolescents to use technology with wisdom and discretion. We define sexting as “the sending or receiving of sexually explicit or sexually suggestive images” (photos or video) usually via mobile devices.” Understandably, most adults don’t want kids to be taking sexy topless shots or “dick pics” and sending them around to each other. There are many good reasons for this.

First, according to the formal letter of the law, nudes could be classified as child pornography if the depicted individual is under the age of 18. The sender and recipient can be charged criminally if caught under those laws which were meant to apply to adults who exploited children.

Second, sharing explicit images counters historically ensconced thinking about how children should behave, and what behaviors they should abstain from until they gain more emotional maturity and perspective (Boyer & Byrnes, 2009).

Third, sexting can contribute to the objectification and sexualization of the youth involved, and can result in further exploitation via sextortion, revenge porn, predators, cyberbullying, blackmail, threats, humiliation, and a destroyed reputation. And according to the research, these outcomes can also contribute to numerous negative emotional, psychological, behavioral, and physiological consequences (Gámez-Guadix & De Santisteban, 2018; Grabe & Hyde, 2009; Tiggemann & Slater, 2015; Vasquez, Osinnowo, Pina, Ball, & Bell, 2017).

“In contrast to previous generations, where the flashing of a classmate might have had only momentary consequence, new technology greatly enhances the likelihood that such indiscretions will be permanently recorded and disseminated to large audiences.” (Eraker, 2010:563; Gold, 2017)   

When we think about it, the risks are very evident. Personally, I don’t want kids sending nudes to each other – even if they are in a committed relationship – because relationships in middle and high school rarely last. And based on my observations and conversations with youth, when breakups happen, they are typically not amicable. Rather, they often end with a lot of drama and pain. As a result of the anger and disappointment, private pictures and videos are more vulnerable to sharing outside of their intended audience.

From what I can tell, kids who sext just don’t feel the weight of the possible negative outcomes. They hear us preaching to them, and they’ve also seen some of the tragic headlines. But some seem to have an invincibility complex and don’t think that anything bad is going to happen to “them” (Dunkels, Frånberg, & Hällgren, 2011; Livingstone, 2008). Maybe to others, but not them.

Anecdotally, many teens who sext tell me that sexting is a harmless, normative behavior that is done for various reasons: foreplay, experimentation, a prelude to hooking up, to increase intimacy, as a form of sexual expression, because that’s what you do when you love someone else, because they’re proud of their body and it’s their right to show it off, because it’s exciting and enjoyable.

“This is awesome, risky, sexy, fun, flirty, intimate, and the chances are that nothing bad will happen.”

“This is my body, I should be able to do whatever with it.”

“I work hard on having a nice body and I should be able to show it off if I feel like it.”

Given the desire in many teens to be intimate with their partners and the potential consequences of doing so using technology, along with the so far ineffective efforts to stem participation in these behaviors, it is time to reconsider our approach to teen sexting.

A New Paradigmatic Approach – Harm Reduction Instead of Risk Reduction

Justin and I have been discussing the best ways to address sexting behaviors among youth for many years, including whether there should be some form of safe sexting curriculum, to teach youth about the consequences of participation, and how to mitigate those. In general, we believe that just like with the evolution of sex education in the United States, we need to move from the exclusive goal of risk reduction (Markham et al., 2012) to the inclusive approach of harm reduction (Leslie, Society, & Committee, 2008). In case these terms are unfamiliar, allow me to briefly summarize what I mean.

Risk reduction focuses on the possible vulnerabilities and dangers that youth might face, and attempts to eliminate them if at all possible. It’s not just an approach, but also a worldview that reflects the notion that we need to save kids from themselves and from a host of potential evils that surround them. The problem with this mentality, though, is that it promotes moral panic and fear mongering, as well as rule-based restrictive and punitive controls on their life. From a risk reduction perspective, some experts have preferred that kids rarely play away from vigilant supervision for fear of being kidnapped and sexually assaulted by pedophiles (Kalish, Banco, Burke, & Lapidus, 2010). Others have railed against social media apps, gaming platforms, and online connectivity in general for the same reasons (Sher, 2010)– overemphasizing the possibility of stranger danger and undervaluing the inherent knowledge and savvy of youth to implement some measure of safety precautions themselves (Nolan, Raynes-Goldie, & McBride, 2011; Sullivan, 2008; Todd, 2015). These perspectives seem counterproductive at best and serves as an axe to the base of candid dialogue between adults and youth. Bringing the conversation back to sexting, a risk reduction approach means that we spend all of our time and energy demanding that youth never send intimate pictures to anyone while creating a police state of sorts to try to ensure it doesn’t happen (e.g., monitoring, spyware, etc.)

Harm reduction, conversely, begins with the assumption that some youth are going to engage in certain risky behaviors, and with that in mind informs policies and practices designed to reduce the negatives that may occur. Allow me to provide you with a real-world example to make this clearer before circling back to sexting. We know that some teens drink and get drunk sometimes, and some use recreational or illicit drugs (YRBS, 2017a, 2017b) – to have a good time, to medicate or numb themselves, or for other reasons. Risk reduction generally involves demonizing alcohol and drugs, focusing on criminal penalties, and employing scare tactics to get kids to stay far, far away from those substances. Harm reduction conveys the reality of consequences but also provides counseling and guidance about preventing major fallout during and after drinking or using drugs. For example, a recommendation might be to give someone your car keys before you start drinking and have a designated driver, or to sleep it off where you are. Or reminders to keep eating and stay hydrated while drinking. Or providing knowledge related to what leads to overdosing and the bad mixing of chemicals.

To be sure, some kids are not going to heed the advice and do some experimenting on their own. If that is going to happen, it seems critically essential to share advice that can preempt the most serious harms from occurring (e.g. overdosing, drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, etc.). Education not only involves describing dangers and attempting to deter immature and unwise choices, but also how to make sure the backlash from those choices is not fatal.

Safe Sex and Safe Sexting

I understand that the thought of educating kids about safe sexting may make you cringe. But the same emotional reaction happened back when safe sex education was first introduced. Two generations ago in conservative America, many adults and legislators promoted abstinence-only policies and programming when it came to sex education in primary and secondary schools (Santelli et al., 2017). They believed that teaching about condoms and safer sex practices would tacitly encourage the onset of participation from those not normally so inclined. Public opinion consistently suggested strong support for abstinence as a “behavioral goal for adolescents” (Santelli et al., 2006). In fact, more than two billion tax dollars were spent on abstinence-only, wait-until-marriage education in the US over the last 25 years (Boyer, 2018). It took the HIV epidemic in the mid-1980s (Williams, 2011) to bring more people into the camp of safe-sex education – and now it is commonly acknowledged that this approach – though very progressive at the time – has done a world of good in preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies (Fonner, Armstrong, Kennedy, O’Reilly, & Sweat, 2014; Stanger-Hall & Hall, 2011).

As the years have gone on, research has examined the effect of sex education on teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections and concluded that “there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners” (Kirby, 2007:15; see also Hauser, 2004; Landry, Kaeser, & Richards, 1999; Trenholm et al., 2007). This research has finally begun to affect public policy, as former President Barack Obama eliminated a $10 million per year grant in 2016 from the Department of Health and Human Services that supported abstinence-only programs.

Some type of education, though, does work (Clemmitt, 2010; Kirby, 2001). Studies have consistently shown that comprehensive sex education (which includes information about safe sex, not just abstinence) results in fewer teens having sex and getting pregnant, and a delay in the initiation of sexual activity (Kirby, 2008; Kirby, Laris, & Rolleri, 2007; Kohler, Manhart, & Lafferty, 2008; Mueller, Gavin, & Kulkarni, 2008). Overall, the number of teens having sex has decreased significantly over the last generation. According to the CDC’s 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, 39.5% of high school students report having had sex. In 1991, that number was 54%. Moreover, the teen pregnancy rate is at a record low (20.3 births per 1,000 females aged 15-19 in 2016, compared to 62.1 per 1,000 in 1991). These are all positive trends, occurring at a time when more comprehensive sex education has become more common in schools.

That said, sexting behaviors do not seem to be slowing. Our 2016 research found that 12% of middle and high school students across the U.S. had sent a nude photo or video of themselves to someone at some point in their lifetime (Patchin & Hinduja, 2019). About 19% said they had received a nude photo from someone else.  Our newly collected (unpublished) data from a national sample of nearly 5,000 youth aged 12–17 years in April 2019 found that 14% had sent and 23% had received sexually explicit images. These figures represent an increase of 13% for sending and 22% for receiving from what was found in 2016. So while some indicators of teen sexual behavior are trending in the right direction, sexting is not. As such, something new needs to be done.

teach-safe-sexting-fau-hinduja-emoji

Strategies for Safe Sexting

In our piece that appears in this month’s issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, we articulate 10 strategies to reduce harm in sexting situations. Here are some examples that can be shared with adolescents in certain formal (educational, therapeutic) or informal (familial) contexts after weighing their developmental and sexual maturity.

1. If someone sends you a sext, do not send it to—or show—anyone else. This could be considered non-consensual sharing of pornography, and there are laws prohibiting it and which outline serious penalties (especially if the image portrays a minor) (Burris, 2014; Krieger, 2017; Waldman, 2016).

2. If you send someone a sext, make sure you know and fully trust them. “Catfishing” – where someone sets up a fictitious profile or pretends to be someone else to lure you into a fraudulent romantic relationship (and, often, to send sexts) – happens more often than you think (Hartney, 2018; Smith, Smith, & Blazka, 2017). You can, of course, never really know if they will share it with others or post it online, but do not send photos or video to people you do not know well.

3. Do not send images to someone who you are not certain would like to see it (make sure you receive textual consent that they are interested). Sending unsolicited explicit images to others could also lead to criminal charges.

4. Consider boudoir pictures. Boudoir is a genre of photography that involves suggestion rather than explicitness. Instead of nudes, send photos that strategically cover the most private of private parts. They can still be intimate and flirty, but lack the obvious nudity that could get you in trouble.

5. Never include your face. Of course, this is so that images are not immediately identifiable as yours, but also because certain social media sites have sophisticated facial recognition algorithms that automatically tag you in any pictures you would want to stay private.

Check out the full list in our paper.

Final Thoughts On The Safe Sexting Approach

Despite efforts to dissuade youth from sharing intimate images, some teens continue to participate in sexting. Adopting a harm reduction framework to educate those inclined to sext will help minimize the worst of the possible outcomes that could occur. Such a philosophy should include strategies for youth to utilize to reduce the likelihood that their images can be directly linked to them or that the images will be shared beyond their original target. We are not the only one pondering this approach. Darren Laur, a leading social media safety and digital literacy presenter from British Columbia, has been presenting similar ideas to students in school for years. He told me that he always makes sure he runs this game plan by an administrator beforehand and explains his rationale. Only once has he received pushback; hundreds of other times the school leaders have recognized the reality of sexting across their student population, and enthusiastically wanted to reduce any resultant harm. Basically, if this message can help, they are enthusiastically on board.

Darren also wrote a blog post recently articulating his thoughts about safe sexting, which are in line with what we believe to be the most reasonable approach. And Nicola Döring (2012), a scholar from the Ilmenau University of Technology in Germany, explored the concept of “safer sexting” almost ten years ago. Suffice it to say, these might be provocative ideas here in the U.S., but they are not new when looking elsewhere in the world.

The primary reason that Justin and I wrote this piece and sought to publish it in a premier adolescent journal is because we firmly believe it is time to think anew about how best to handle teen sexting. What we are currently doing is not working. If you disagree with our approach outlined in the paper, please feel free to reach out with your concrete suggestions for reducing these behaviors and their consequences. We’d love to work through some solutions with you.

Image source: https://bit.ly/2RjfTST (by Andrew Neel from Pexels)

References

Boyer, J. (2018). New name, same harm: rebranding of federal abstinence-only programs. Guttmacher Policy Review, 21, 11-16.

Boyer, T. W., & Byrnes, J. P. (2009). Adolescent risk-taking: Integrating personal, cognitive, and social aspects of judgment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 23-33.

Burris, A. (2014). Hell hath no fury like a woman porned: Revenge porn and the need for a federal nonconsensual pornography statute. Fla. L. Rev., 66, 2325.

Clemmitt, M. (2010). Teen Pregnancy: Does Comprehensive Sex-education Reduce Pregnancies? : Congressional Quarterly.

Döring, N. (2012). Erotischer Fotoaustausch unter Jugendlichen: Verbreitung, Funktionen und Folgen des Sexting. Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung, 25(01), 4-25.

Dunkels, E., Frånberg, G.-M., & Hällgren, C. (2011). Young people and online risk Youth culture and net culture: Online social practices (pp. 1-16): IGI Global.

Eraker, E. C. (2010). Stemming sexting: Sensible legal approaches to teenagers’ exchange of self-produced pornography. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 25, 555.

Fonner, V. A., Armstrong, K. S., Kennedy, C. E., O’Reilly, K. R., & Sweat, M. D. (2014). School based sex education and HIV prevention in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 9(3), e89692.

Gámez-Guadix, M., & De Santisteban, P. (2018). “Sex Pics?”: Longitudinal Predictors of Sexting Among Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health.

Gold, J. (2017). 54.4 Managing Teen Technology Use: Tech-Savvy Tips for Parents and Providers. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(10), S80-S81.

Grabe, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2009). Body Objectification, MTV, and Psychological Outcomes Among Female Adolescents 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2840-2858.

Hartney, T. (2018). Likeness Used as Bait in Catfishing: How Can Hidden Victims of Catfishing Reel in Relief. Minn. JL Sci. & Tech., 19, 277.

Hauser, D. (2004). Five years of abstinence-only-until-marriage education: Assessing the impact: Advocates for Youth Washington, DC.

Irvine, J. M. (2004). Talk about sex: The battles over sex education in the United States: Univ of California Press.

Kalish, M., Banco, L., Burke, G., & Lapidus, G. (2010). Outdoor play: A survey of parent’s perceptions of their child’s safety. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 69(4), S218-S222.

Kirby, D. B. (2001). Emerging answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy (summary). American journal of health education, 32(6), 348-355.

Kirby, D. B. (2007). Emerging answers 2007: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.   Retrieved from http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/EA2007_full.pdf

Kirby, D. B. (2008). The impact of abstinence and comprehensive sex and STD/HIV education programs on adolescent sexual behavior. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 5(3), 18.

Kirby, D. B., Laris, B. A., & Rolleri, L. A. (2007). Sex and HIV education programs: their impact on sexual behaviors of young people throughout the world. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(3), 206-217.

Kohler, P. K., Manhart, L. E., & Lafferty, W. E. (2008). Abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education and the initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(4), 344-351.

Krieger, M. A. (2017). Unpacking “sexting”: A systematic review of nonconsensual sexting in legal, educational, and psychological literatures. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(5), 593-601.

Landry, D. J., Kaeser, L., & Richards, C. L. (1999). Abstinence promotion and the provision of information about contraception in public school district sexuality education policies. Family Planning Perspectives, 280-286.

Leslie, K. M., Society, C. P., & Committee, A. H. (2008). Harm reduction: An approach to reducing risky health behaviours in adolescents. Paediatrics & child health, 13(1), 53-56.

Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10(3), 393-411.

Markham, C. M., Tortolero, S. R., Peskin, M. F., Shegog, R., Thiel, M., Baumler, E. R., . . . Robin, L. (2012). Sexual risk avoidance and sexual risk reduction interventions for middle school youth: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(3), 279-288.

Mellanby, A. R., Newcombe, R. G., Rees, J., & Tripp, J. H. (2001). A comparative study of peer-led and adult-led school sex education. Health Education Research, 16(4), 481-492.

Mueller, T. E., Gavin, L. E., & Kulkarni, A. (2008). The association between sex education and youth’s engagement in sexual intercourse, age at first intercourse, and birth control use at first sex. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(1), 89-96.

Nolan, J., Raynes-Goldie, K., & McBride, M. (2011). The Stranger Danger: Exploring Surveillance, Autonomy, and Privacy in Children’s Use of Social Media. Canadian Children, 36(2).

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2019). The Nature and Extent of Sexting Among a National Sample of Middle and High School Students in the U.S. Archives of Sexual behavior, 48(8), 2333–2343. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1449-y

Santelli, J. S., Kantor, L. M., Grilo, S. A., Speizer, I. S., Lindberg, L. D., Heitel, J., . . . McGovern, T. (2017). Abstinence-only-until-marriage: An updated review of US policies and programs and their impact. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(3), 273-280.

Sher, J. (2010). One Child at a Time: Inside the Police Hunt to Rescue Children from Online Predators: Vintage Canada.

Smith, L. R., Smith, K. D., & Blazka, M. (2017). Follow Me, What’s the Harm? Considerations of Catfishing and Utilizing Fake Online Personas on Social Media. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 27(1), 32-45.

Stanger-Hall, K. F., & Hall, D. W. (2011). Abstinence-only education and teen pregnancy rates: why we need comprehensive sex education in the US. PloS one, 6(10), e24658.

Sullivan, M. (2008). Online Predators: A Parent’s Guide for the Virtual Playground: Xulon Press.

Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2015). The role of self-objectification in the mental health of early adolescent girls: Predictors and consequences. Journal of pediatric psychology, 40(7), 704-711.

Todd, P. (2015). Extreme mean: Trolls, bullies and predators online: Signal.

Trenholm, C., Devaney, B., Fortson, K., Quay, K., Wheeler, J., & Clark, M. (2007). Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs. Final Report. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Vasquez, E. A., Osinnowo, K., Pina, A., Ball, L., & Bell, C. (2017). The sexual objectification of girls and aggression towards them in gang and non-gang affiliated youth. Psychology, crime & law, 23(5), 459-471.

Waldman, A. E. (2016). A breach of trust: Fighting nonconsensual pornography. Iowa L. Rev., 102, 709.

Williams, J. C. (2011). Battling a ‘sex-saturated society’: The abstinence movement and the politics of sex education. Sexualities, 14(4), 416-443.

YRBS. (2017a). Trends in the Prevalence of Alcohol Use. National YRBS: 1991—2017. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/trends/2017_alcohol_trend_yrbs.pdf

YRBS. (2017b). Trends in the Prevalence of Marijuana, Cocaine, and Other Illegal Drug Use. National YRBS: 1991—2017. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/trends/2017_us_drug_trend_yrbs.pdf

The post It is Time to Teach Safe Sexting appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/it-is-time-to-teach-safe-sexting/feed 0
Digital Dating Abuse Among a National Sample of U.S. Youth https://cyberbullying.org/digital-dating-abuse https://cyberbullying.org/digital-dating-abuse#respond Wed, 08 Jan 2020 19:44:21 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=27109 By Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin Digital dating abuse is a term used to describe physical, sexual, or psychological/emotional violence that occurs between romantic partners through the use of texting, social media, and related online mediums. Survey data were obtained from a nationally representative sample of 2,218 American middle and high school students (12–17…

The post Digital Dating Abuse Among a National Sample of U.S. Youth appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
By Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin

Digital dating abuse is a term used to describe physical, sexual, or psychological/emotional violence that occurs between romantic partners through the use of texting, social media, and related online mediums. Survey data were obtained from a nationally representative sample of 2,218 American middle and high school students (12–17 years old) who have been in a romantic relationship. About 28% of students in a relationship in the previous year had been the victim of digital dating abuse. Males were more likely to report having experienced it (32% compared to 24%), though no other demographic differences emerged. Several covariates did emerge as significantly related to experience with digital dating abuse, including depressive symptoms, sexual intercourse, sexting, and being the victim of cyberbullying. Experiencing offline dating abuse was by far the strongest correlate. Implications for prevention and policy within schools and the community are discussed, along with considerations for future research in this important area.

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (In Press). Digital Dating Abuse Among a National Sample of U.S. Youth. OnlineFirst in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Download PDF

The post Digital Dating Abuse Among a National Sample of U.S. Youth appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/digital-dating-abuse/feed 0
How Social Media Companies Should Combat Online Abuse https://cyberbullying.org/how-social-media-companies-should-combat-online-abuse https://cyberbullying.org/how-social-media-companies-should-combat-online-abuse#respond Wed, 08 Jan 2020 15:01:13 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=26848 A new year is upon us. While we’ve made some progress in reducing cyberbullying, online hate, and other forms of abuse and toxicity, I think we can do better. Social media companies are often seen (and vilified) as accomplices to the harassment and victimization that happens on their platforms, and – admittedly – are an…

The post How Social Media Companies Should Combat Online Abuse appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
A new year is upon us. While we’ve made some progress in reducing cyberbullying, online hate, and other forms of abuse and toxicity, I think we can do better. Social media companies are often seen (and vilified) as accomplices to the harassment and victimization that happens on their platforms, and – admittedly – are an easy target for us to scapegoat. To be sure, they do share some of the blame and are learning as they (and we) go when it comes to what online safety policies and practices work the best.

However, I am convinced more progress must happen ASAP across the social media landscape.

Here are my specific Calls to Action for social media companies in 2020.

Perfect the feedback loop.

social-media-report-abuse-feedback-loop

Those who make reports of abuse or harm need to hear back from the app within 24 hours. I don’t think this is asking too much. I’ve already blogged about the reality of secondary victimization. This is a criminal justice concept describing how victims are re-victimized (emotionally and psychologically) when law enforcement officials respond callously (or in an incomplete or untimely manner) to those who took a chance in reporting their experience – and believed that an authority figure would actually help them. Social media companies have to – at all costs – keep their users from being victimized a second time because they failed to respond to a report of abuse or harm. Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter are doing a good job here, but should close the feedback loop more quickly. Other companies are not doing a good job. Everyone who files a report needs to at least be able to say, “Hey, the company did get back to me in a meaningful way” – even if they wish the outcome had gone a different way. Responsiveness matters.

Be transparent and fair about takedown decisions.

social-media-companies-transparency

Brand new research from the Journal of Experimental Criminology points out that users who have had their content taken down for a rule violation are less likely to violate the platform’s rules IF THEY BELIEVE THE PROCEDURES INVOLVED ARE FAIR. This is so key. We need to understand (and build an evolving body of knowledge) on what types of posts and user-generated content violate the rules, and what do not. Otherwise, the decision-making seems arbitrary and capricious – which is not a good look for social media companies who already have a reputation for prioritizing profit-making over user safety. Possible good news from one company: Facebook is creating an independent oversight board to evaluate appeals made by users who believe their content was unfairly taken down. We’ll have to see how this goes. I still think it would be best for this board (or social media companies in general) to create an online repository of categorized examples of problematic content (anonymized) with brief but clear explanations of WHY it was taken down. Then, everyone – potential and actual users of the app, members of vulnerable groups, champions of free speech, media pundits – knows and understands the decision-making process. Then, all of this is much more transparent and fair. Otherwise, people might wonder about the objectivity of the decision-makers who make up the oversight board. But it’s a start.

Devote more resources to social science solutions instead of computer science solutions.

social-science-research-social-media-abuse

Social media platforms are increasingly outsourcing content moderation to third-party companies like Two Hat, Spectrum Labs, and similar others. I’ve written extensively on how AI and machine learning can help us combat online abuse – and so I obviously see much value here. While we are nowhere close to accurately evaluating context (and will probably never be able to accurately evaluate intent), the technology is improving all of the time. Great. Hooray. These are computer science solutions, and they are important. However, we need a lot more focus on identifying and understanding what factors escalate (and de-escalate) abuse and toxicity online.

Some incipient work has been done in this area but so much more is required. For instance the popular multi-player game League of Legends experimented with The Tribunal (a jury of peers) until 2014 and now has a “Honor” System where you can give props to another player for great teamwork, friendliness, leadership, or being a principled opponent. These ideas are not perfect (the Tribunal could only punish players instead of also rewarding them, punishments occurred way too long after the infringing behavior, and receiving “honor” doesn’t really add substantive value to one’s gaming experience), but at least they are innovative. At least Riot Games (makers of League of Legends) is TRYING (and publicizing their attempts even if they fail). I love that, and it goes a very long way to creating good will towards that company.

Another popular game – Blizzard Entertainment’s Overwatch – did something similar (and were perhaps inspired by Riot Games) by creating a system where users could reward and celebrate others in three categories (sportsmanship, good teammate, and shot caller (leadership)). They incentivized it by giving 50 XP for every endorsement, and it has apparently led to a meaningful decrease in toxic behavior. Good job, Blizzard.

With regard to social media platforms, in late 2019 Instagram started using AI specifically to get users to pause, reflect, and edit their words when they are about to post something potentially offensive or hurtful via their new Comment Warning and Feed Post Warning systems. I approve! It’s progress. It’s something different. It’s a new effort designed to promote civility. Way to go, Instagram.

But….I need to see way more experimentation and innovation with cognitive restructuring and behavior modification approaches on all social media and gaming platforms. I believe this can help determine how to induce positive conduct and deter negative conduct online. And figuring that out, in my opinion, holds the solution to all of this. Experimentation is great, and it shows the world that your company is actually TRYING unique strategies (and spending money to do so) instead of just being reactive and only putting out fires when they are sparked. I advise strongly that platforms make public their attempts and ideas in this realm! Companies, please let us all know what you’re trying to do. Let us know what is working and what is not working. And we will start to give you more of the benefit of the doubt.

To do the above, social media companies must allocate more resources (and personnel, internal and external) towards social science solutions. This is how we will get a better handle on human behavior. Even though it’s not perfectly predictable, it still operates in patterns and regularities. And we need to use that to our advantage to create healthier, safer, and more constructive online communities.

Focusing on safety in these ways may feel like an opportunity cost, but the reputational and financial benefits that can result down the road are well worth their attention and implementation. My Calls to Action can also fit within a Safety by Design framework that your social media or gaming company may be adopting or retrofitting (shout out to the Australian eSafety Commission for their leadership – we’re huge fans of this approach!).

Let me know your thoughts and if I’m missing any other Calls to Action you think are important. I look forward to continuing the conversation and our work in this area.

Image sources:

https://bit.ly/39CpVHe

https://bit.ly/39CW4hF

https://bit.ly/2u9Sawq

https://bit.ly/2ST1v63

The post How Social Media Companies Should Combat Online Abuse appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/how-social-media-companies-should-combat-online-abuse/feed 0
Sextortion: More Insight Into the Experiences of Youth https://cyberbullying.org/sextortion-more-insight-into-the-experiences-of-youth https://cyberbullying.org/sextortion-more-insight-into-the-experiences-of-youth#respond Tue, 19 Nov 2019 21:08:43 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=26176 Earlier this year, thirty-six-year old Barton Scott hacked into dozens of Snapchat accounts to access explicit images of 14 to 16 year-old girls. According to court records, he manipulated and subsequently coerced victims into turning over their passwords, giving him access to images not intended for public dissemination. He then used those private images as…

The post Sextortion: More Insight Into the Experiences of Youth appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
Earlier this year, thirty-six-year old Barton Scott hacked into dozens of Snapchat accounts to access explicit images of 14 to 16 year-old girls. According to court records, he manipulated and subsequently coerced victims into turning over their passwords, giving him access to images not intended for public dissemination. He then used those private images as leverage to pressure teens into sending more nude photos and videos.

This is just one recent example of sextortion, which we have formally defined as “the threatened dissemination of explicit, intimate, or embarrassing images of a sexual nature without consent, usually for the purpose of procuring additional images, sexual acts, money, or something else.” Sextortion can occur when explicit images are voluntarily provided to others (e.g., beginning as consensual sexting), or when they are accessed without permission (e.g., hacking a device or account). Once in possession of these sensitive images, offenders demand more. They threaten to disclose the images to others–usually family or friends–unless more images, videos, money, or something else is given.

Sextortion Research

Despite widespread public concern about sextortion over the last several years, there has been very little research systematically examining it. Last year we published the first academic article that explored sextortion among middle and high school students. Other scholars have previously reviewed court records of sextortion cases or surveyed adults about their experience with these behaviors, but ours was the first study to survey adolescents about their personal experiences. We wanted to know more about the nature of sextortion incidents, who was experiencing it, and how big of a problem it was.

We collected some important baseline data in that study, which was based on a national U.S. sample of about 5,500 students collected in 2016. Results showed that about 5% of students had been the target of sextortion and that about 3% had done it to others. We also learned that most youth who are targeted do not tell adults about what happened (only about 40% reported the incident to an adult, with girls significantly more like to do so than boys). You can read more about that study here.

As important as that first study was, many additional questions remained. So, we set out to answer a few of them in our most recent survey, with data collected in April of this year from about 5,000 middle and high school students. About the same number of youth were the target of sextortion in 2019 (5.3%) as 2016. We also found a similar prevalence rate for those who admitted to us that they had threatened others with sextortion (3.4%). In both surveys, males were more likely to be involved in sextortion both as a target and as an aggressor. This is noteworthy because most of the public discussion of sextortion involves female victims (an incident earlier this year involving Jeff Bezos–Founder and CEO of Amazon–being a high profile exception).

About the same number of youth were the target of sextortion in 2019 (5.3%) as 2016 (5.0%).

To learn more details about the nature of sextortion incidents, we asked those who had been targeted to tell us what the person threatened to do to them, and ultimately what they actually did. Forty-three percent of those who experienced sextortion said the aggressor threatened to send the explicit image to the victim’s friends, while 35% said they would post the photo online and 29% said they would tell the target’s parents. When it came to what the aggressor actually did, about one in five said their photo was sent to their friends, and about the same number said their photo was posted online. Thirty-eight percent of the time, the aggressor ended up doing nothing (as far as they knew).

Most of the time the aggressor wanted more photos (38%), sex or a sexual act (29%), or money (29%). About half the time the target did not comply with the requests, but 23% sent more photos; 19% sent money; and 18% provided sex or a sex act.

Sextortion among youth

The proportion of youth who experienced sextortion who told an adult (parent, educator, police officer) increased only slightly from 2016 to 2019 (from 39.9% to 41.1%). Most often, victims tell friends, but about 17% did not tell anyone. Clearly more needs to be done to encourage victims to come forward about their experience.

Sextortion among youth 2019

Additional Research Questions

One question we did not ask is how the perpetrator came to acquire the explicit images in the first place. Barton Scott apparently befriended, groomed, and ultimately manipulated victims into sharing their Snapchat passwords. I’m not entirely clear how he used access to the accounts to access the images (maybe the Snapchat access created access to the user’s camera roll, where images were stored), but it appears that the targets did not initially send explicit images to him freely.

Presumably a large portion of most victims of sextortion do provide their images to others voluntarily. That is, consensual sexting turns into exploitative sextortion. In our data, 75% of the victims of sextortion admitted to sending a sexually-explicit image of themselves to someone else. That means that at least 25% of the victims did not, and their images were somehow procured illicitly (perhaps through hacking their phone, or the Cloud where their images were backed up). Future research should better understand how offenders come to possess the images in the first place, as this might help inform prevention efforts. Certainly refraining from taking explicit photos of one’s self would help (though not completely prevent it from happening as someone could still covertly take a photo of another).

Boys are more likely to be the target of sextortion, but less likely to report it to an adult.

Moreover, research should seek to better understand how the sextortion experiences of boys and girls differ. Our data suggest that boys are more likely to be the target of sextortion, but are less likely to report it to an adult. Why are boys less likely to come forward? We know that middle and high school boys are significantly more likely to have sent a sext to someone else (16.4% compared to 12.2%), possibly opening themselves up to vulnerability for sextortion. Maybe they are reluctant to report because they initially shared the images voluntarily and don’t want to risk being labeled a distributor of child pornography. We also know that boys are more likely to have been threatened by a boyfriend/girlfriend (48% compared to 41%) while girls are more likely to have been threatened by a stranger (6% compared to 3%). It might be easier to seek help when the aggressor is a stranger than when it is someone known to the target (especially a current or former romantic partner).

Finally, even though we have now surveyed over 10,000 middle and high school students in the last three years, we only have data from about 500 in that sample who have experienced sextortion. It is difficult to understand the unique characteristics of these behaviors with such a small sub-sample. More data, from more who have been involved in sextortion incidents, would enable researchers to learn even more about these behaviors, particularly among unique populations of youth (LGBTQ, racial minorities, etc.).

Responding to Sextortion

Barton Scott is a predator. He was sentenced in September to 25 years in prison. If the results of our 2019 research are accurate, he is an anomaly to the extent that it was an adult targeting unknown minors. In our study, nearly half of those who were targeted (44.9%) said the person threatening them was a boyfriend or girlfriend. About two-thirds of the time, the person was approximately the same age as the target. It is actually quite rare for the aggressor to be over the age of 18 (less than 5% of the time in our data). That said, anytime anyone–of any age–is threatening another person, using sensitive images as a weapon to force compliance to demands, it should be investigated as criminal behavior. These incidents do require thoughtful consideration of all of the elements involved (relationship between individuals, nature of threats made, how widespread the images have been circulated, harm to target, etc.) to determine the most appropriate response.

We must create safe opportunities for those who are being exploited to report by ensuring a rational response that takes their developmental maturity into consideration.

Finally, the FBI believes that there are more victims who have yet to come forward in Barton Scott’s case. The pressure to conceal these behaviors is high given the potentially significant consequences for youth who share explicit images. This is unfortunate, because if youth hesitate to let someone know that they are being sextorted because they don’t want to be blamed or punished for taking and sending a nude in the first place, it gives aggressors the upper-hand for further control and manipulation. We must create safe opportunities for those who are being exploited to report by ensuring a rational response that takes their developmental maturity into consideration. Adolescents, by there nature, are prone to experimenting with their sexuality (and in their relationships) in ways that could result in them being taken advantage of. In short, youth who voluntarily share images with others, and then who are subsequently targeted for sextortion, should be treated and supported as victims, rather than labeled and prosecuted as distributors of child pornography. Legislators might even consider passing immunity laws, protecting youth who sext from prosecution when they are being extorted.

In conclusion, we’ve made some good progress on better understanding the nature and extent of sextortion among adolescents. But there is still a lot of work left to do. We’ll continue to study these behaviors and encourage you to do whatever you can to contribute to a society where victims are supported and predators are held accountable.

Image: Boudewijn Huysmans (unsplash)

Support for this study was provided by a grant from Facebook Research

The post Sextortion: More Insight Into the Experiences of Youth appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/sextortion-more-insight-into-the-experiences-of-youth/feed 0
Sticks and Stones Sixty Years Later: A Disabled Woman’s Advice for Adults and Teens on Dealing with Bullying and Cyberbullying https://cyberbullying.org/sticks-and-stones-sixty-years-later https://cyberbullying.org/sticks-and-stones-sixty-years-later#respond Wed, 09 Oct 2019 13:44:59 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=25595 Note: October is National Bullying Prevention Month. All this month we are highlighting resources to help youth—and those who care for them—deal with bullying (online and off). One particularly vulnerable population is youth with disabilities. Those who bully often target those who are perceived to be different than them, and living with a disability is…

The post Sticks and Stones Sixty Years Later: A Disabled Woman’s Advice for Adults and Teens on Dealing with Bullying and Cyberbullying appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
Note: October is National Bullying Prevention Month. All this month we are highlighting resources to help youth—and those who care for them—deal with bullying (online and off). One particularly vulnerable population is youth with disabilities. Those who bully often target those who are perceived to be different than them, and living with a disability is often a very visible marker of difference. What follows is an invited guest post from Dr. Katherine Schneider. I have known Kathie for many years. She retired from my university but is still very active in the Eau Claire (Wisconsin) community. She is a champion for the rights of the disabled, and works tirelessly to make their lives easier. We got to talking one day about my work, and agreed that more could be done to address bullying among those who live with disabilities.
–Justin Patchin

By Katherine Schneider, Ph.D.

I was born blind and grew up in public schools. Hurtful teasing, bullying, and shunning were regular parts of my growing up, and as a result, so was a very low self-concept. I hated being blind. All I knew to do when confronted by bullying was to respond with the old saw about “sticks and stones will break my bones” and tell the bully to “shut up.” Sometimes this worked, but usually not.

Thankfully some things have changed since my adolescence. There are laws like Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Both serve to prohibit discrimination at schools (or other public entities) based on disability. There are online resources for parents, professionals, and teens like the Pacer Center’s National Bullying Prevention Center. Parent support groups for parents of children with disabilities and social support/skill building groups for teens with disabilities exist.

Another change is the playground got larger! The online world adds wonderful access to resources and communities, but also new places to be bullied. No longer is the home a respite from bullying.

Some things have not changed. A disability does make its owner more vulnerable because whether it’s physical, cognitive, or emotional, the person has some limitations that a nondisabled person does not have. Those who bully look for differences and weaknesses when choosing a target. Parents, teachers, paraprofessional aides, and therapists need to talk honestly with children who have disabilities about acknowledging limitations, learning social skills, and accentuating the child’s strengths. If the child can’t outrun the bully, for example, perhaps they can use their verbal powers to diffuse the situation (such as with humor), say a loud and clear “stop,” or surround themselves with friends who can deflect the bully’s attention.

Denial at some level still exists about acknowledging what a problem bullying is for people with disabilities. When I was working on my children’s book Your Treasure Hunt: Disabilities and Finding Your Gold, several editors suggested I remove the page about what to do when bullied, because “that doesn’t happen anymore.” Parents fear to ask their child if they’re bullied partly because they know they will be furious if the answer is yes. All that good advice about staying calm and not swooping right in to solve the problem goes right out the window when it’s your child, especially your child who has a disability. The instinct to protect is always there and we want to make their unpleasant experiences go away.

Denial at some level still exists about acknowledging what a problem bullying is for people with disabilities.

We want to solve their problems. But in some cases that isn’t the best response. Listening and giving verbal first aid “That is wrong,” “I’m sorry that happened,” or “I’ll help if you’d like” is the way to go. Help the child brainstorm about what needs to be different next time and role-play techniques to use. Modeling compassionate but firm problem-solving teaches more than lecturing, ranting, or stomping off to confront the parent of the mean kid. Coach the child to ask for the assistance they want. You are teaching skills that will last a lifetime.

We also need to remember that bullying of the disabled (and bullying in general) does not end on graduation day. I recently had two encounters with an adult female bully who I needed to work with on a project. Bystanders were as shocked at her behavior–as I was–and did nothing. The first time I froze, but by the second time I had a caustic verbal retort ready. The bullying has not recurred since then.

Listening and giving verbal first aid “That is wrong,” “I’m sorry that happened,” or “I’ll help if you’d like” is the way to go.

As I was preparing this post, I came upon a book by Melody Beattie, Playing It by Heart, about how to not fall back into being a victim that I plan to read. Memoirs like Temple Grandin’s Thinking in Pictures, and Mark Zupan’s Gimp help teens know it will get better. Books for children and teens are available in alternate formats from www.bookshare.org so that those who don’t read regular print can know they’re not alone and learn ways to deal with the bullying. For me, reading and writing is therapeutic in that I can be in—and help create—a world where there is less bullying and more kindness and empathy. Together we can make a better world, within the pages and beyond.

Dr. Katherine Schneider is a retired clinical psychologist living in Wisconsin with her ninth Seeing Eye dog, Luna. Dr. Schneider has published a memoir To the Left of Inspiration: Adventures in Living with Disabilities and a children’s book Your Treasure Hunt: Disabilities and Finding Your Gold.You can learn more about her work at http://kathiecomments.wordpress.com.

The post Sticks and Stones Sixty Years Later: A Disabled Woman’s Advice for Adults and Teens on Dealing with Bullying and Cyberbullying appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/sticks-and-stones-sixty-years-later/feed 0
RESTRICTing Bullying on Instagram https://cyberbullying.org/restricting-bullying-on-instagram https://cyberbullying.org/restricting-bullying-on-instagram#respond Wed, 02 Oct 2019 20:59:34 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=25499 Last summer the head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, announced that the platform would be taking more of a leadership role when it comes to tackling online bullying. With over a billion active users, they are well positioned to make an impact. In a message to users, he discussed some ways Instagram has been using technology…

The post RESTRICTing Bullying on Instagram appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
Last summer the head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, announced that the platform would be taking more of a leadership role when it comes to tackling online bullying. With over a billion active users, they are well positioned to make an impact.

In a message to users, he discussed some ways Instagram has been using technology to minimize hurtful behavior. Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms can identify potentially problematic comments, for instance, and cue the poster to possibly reconsider before clicking “post.” It is hard to know how effective this prodding is, and whether users actually refrained from posting once they were cautioned about the questionable nature of their post, but the idea is nice (first introduced by Trisha Prabhu five years ago). Instagram is continuing to refine its AI capabilities to detect problematic and harassing content in real time, but it isn’t easy to work through all of the issues related to the context of communications and the nuances of human expression. As I’ve written about previously on this blog, it is often difficult to distinguish between hurtful bullying and friendly banter when it comes to third-parties observing online (or offline) behavior.

Mosseri also announced a new feature that officially launched this week, called Restrict, that gives users an additional tool to deal with those who might want to be mean. Restrict allows users to, well, restrict who can see comments posted to images. Just swipe left on a specific comment and you will be given options to report the comment or restrict the user. If, for example, Sameer posts a mean comment to my most recent photograph, I can Restrict him, which would make the comment visible to just him and I. None of his or my friends will see that he commented. Even he doesn’t know that he has been “restricted” (in terms of his visibility to others). From his vantage point, nothing has changed in our online relationship. I can elect to approve his comment, in which case others will be able to see it. But I don’t have to. Also, if I restrict Sameer, his direct messages to me will be automatically sent to a spam folder (the “Message Request Inbox”). I can read them, but don’t have to. Here again, he would have no idea if they are read or not. He also wouldn’t be able to see when I am active on Instagram.

Most online platforms already allow users to block others. I find this feature quite useful on Twitter when individuals tweet or reply to me in a way that is unproductive or even hurtful. Going back to my example with Sameer, if I were to block him, he wouldn’t be able to access my profile (let alone comment on it). At least not from the account that was blocked. He would know I blocked him because he wouldn’t see my profile. Moreover, I would not be able to see what he posted on his own profile or on other friend’s profiles (which could be about me). “Blocking” completely separates us online, whereas “restricting” allows the online relationship to persist, with some controls on what is seen, and by whom.

Another reason those who are being targeted don’t like to block those who bully them is because they don’t want to deal with any drama or fallout that might come when they encounter that person at school. With Restrict, the aggressor doesn’t know they have been restricted, though the lack of response to comments or messages might aggravate or annoy the aggressor, perhaps leading to some backlash in some other way (e.g., at school).

Finally, relationship situations often change over time (particularly in adolescence). Sometimes we just need a break from someone. Given that reality, Instagram allows users to easily unrestrict others very easily. It isn’t as blunt a tool as blocking or reporting can be. I might still like Sameer but just don’t appreciate how he is treating me in this moment. Restricting him temporarily can help me through this difficult phase in our relationship, without further aggravating it.

Of course as a researcher, I would LOVE to study this new feature. As it becomes more well known, we will certainly ask youth if they have heard of this and if they have used it. But ultimately the question is: does it work? Is bullying really thwarted with such a simple tool? I am in favor of anything that puts more control in the hands of the user, but I still wonder if something as complicated as bullying can be so easily stopped. And since we know that most online bullying is related to offline relationships, I worry that something like this might lead to offline problems, at least in the short term.

Have you used the Restrict feature? Has it worked for you? Did you encounter any unintended consequences?

The post RESTRICTing Bullying on Instagram appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/restricting-bullying-on-instagram/feed 0
The Nature and Extent of Sexting Among Middle and High School Students https://cyberbullying.org/sexting-research-2016 https://cyberbullying.org/sexting-research-2016#respond Mon, 30 Sep 2019 18:57:31 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=25440 By Justin W. Patchin and Sameer Hinduja Sexting is the sending or receiving of sexually explicit or sexually suggestive images or video, usually via mobile devices. Despite widespread public concern about these behaviors as they occur among adolescents, including potentially serious legal consequences, relatively little research has been done to estimate the frequency of sexting…

The post The Nature and Extent of Sexting Among Middle and High School Students appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
By Justin W. Patchin and Sameer Hinduja

Sexting is the sending or receiving of sexually explicit or sexually suggestive images or video, usually via mobile devices. Despite widespread public concern about these behaviors as they occur among adolescents, including potentially serious legal consequences, relatively little research has been done to estimate the frequency of sexting among middle and high school students. The current study contributes to this scant body of knowledge by reporting prevalence rates for sending and receiving sexually explicit images or video among a nationally representative sample of 5593 American middle and high school students. Overall, approximately 13% of students reported that they had sent a sext, while 18.5% had received a sext. About one-third of those who sext had done it just one time. Rates of asking for, being asked for, and sharing of sexts are also presented, and are broken down further by gender, sexual orientation, race, and age. Implications for preventing sexting behaviors with these results in mind are also discussed.

Patchin, J. W. & Hinduja, S. (2019). The Nature and Extent of Sexting Among Middle and High School Students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(8), 2333-2343.

Download PDF

The post The Nature and Extent of Sexting Among Middle and High School Students appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/sexting-research-2016/feed 0
2019 eSafety Conference in Sydney https://cyberbullying.org/2019-esafety-conference-in-sydney https://cyberbullying.org/2019-esafety-conference-in-sydney#respond Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:19:38 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=25235 I just got back from my first-ever visit to Australia, and had an incredible time at the 2019 eSafety conference hosted by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. The theme was “The Online World We Want,” and I was invited to discuss our 2019 research findings on bullying, cyberbullying, sexting, sextortion, and digital self-harm among…

The post 2019 eSafety Conference in Sydney appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
I just got back from my first-ever visit to Australia, and had an incredible time at the 2019 eSafety conference hosted by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. The theme was “The Online World We Want,” and I was invited to discuss our 2019 research findings on bullying, cyberbullying, sexting, sextortion, and digital self-harm among US youth. After doing so, I spent the vast majority of my talk sharing a large number of actionable prevention and response strategies tied to building positive school climates, resilience, empathy and kindness, peer-driven initiatives, and more. It was quite an honor to be included among some international rock stars in our field, and I felt my presentation went really well.

Let me fill you in on some of the background, some of the highlights, and some of my takeaways. The event was hosted by Julie Inman Grant (Australia’s eSafety Commissioner) and Martin Cocker (CEO of NetSafe NZ – which is New Zealand’s online safety authority, supported by the Ministry of Education there), and is actually part of a series of annual gatherings of researchers and practitioners who work in online safety and risk prevention (Justin has spoken at previous conferences). Overarching ideas collectively discussed and championed included the following:

  • the need to stop using fear tactics to “scare” youth into good behaviors (because they don’t work, and they just get everyone freaked out and irrational about the problems at hand)
  • the need to incorporate Safety by Design when building social media platforms from the ground up so that the user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) is conducive to constructive and helpful (and not destructive and harmful) behaviors
  • the need to thoughtfully consider how AI (artificial intelligence) and machine learning can help with content moderation to reduce online toxicity and promote positivity (one of my favorite topics!)
  • the need to consider what new features in online games can lead to an unbalance, and how that can be prevented to ensure parity and sportsmanship across all game play
eSafety19-conference-sydney

While I enjoyed all of the presenters and panelists, I want to give a special shout-out to a few people whose work directly intersected with my own and deeply resonated with me.

Stephen Balkam, CEO of the Family Online Safety Institute, helped us to imagine AI in the future, and reminded us of the need to approach its use with sober wisdom. His remarks are available here, and are worth a  read (also check out my own thoughts specific to AI and cyberbullying).

Amanda Third, who spoke on the Global Kids Online project being led by Dr. Sonia Livingstone, discussed some incredibly interesting findings on the way that youth in the Global South (meaning, not North America or Europe or Asia) are using the Internet to meet their social, educational, and entertainment needs.

Tessy Ojo, CEO of The Diana Award, highlighted some inspiring stories while sharing about the encouraging results they are seeing from their youth-driven Anti-Bullying Ambassador program.

Carlos Figueiredo, Community Director of Trust and Safety at Two Hat Security, discussed the benefits for companies that intentionally and proactively engineer safety into their online products.

David Finkelhor, Sociology Professor at the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center, who reminded us for the need of evaluation research, articulated the importance of integrating online safety education into our standard “offline” safety education related to friendships, relationships, and health/well-being while also challenging us to move away from trite prescriptive statements directed at youth like “pause before you post!” and “don’t be a cyberbully!” and “stop sending nudes!”

Kerryann Walsh, Education Professor at the Queensland University of Technology, shared a comprehensive framework she created to help online safety education providers do a great job when they visit schools and speak to students. This was done after reviewing almost 200 research projects, existing frameworks, and child safety standards from around the world. To summarize it, best practice online safety education covers four themes (digital citizenship, social and emotional learning, content to address specific risks, and specifics for help-seeking). and should be: founded on children’s rights; framed positively (do this!) instead of negatively (don’t do this!); based on evidence (data!); embedded within the landscape of schools; well-designed and well-implemented; underpinned by principles of effective prevention; and aligned with and informing other priorities.

Sameer-Hinduja-sextortion-research-findings

This is so very critical because some speakers utilize fear-mongering or tear-jerking messages that don’t really lead to long-lasting behavioral change, or cover the material in incomplete, unhelpful, or unrelatable ways. We simply want their programming to include certain research-based components (these are fleshed out in a currently embargoed document; reach out to Kerryann for more information) designed to increase the skills that students have to navigate all of these challenges, instead of being a quick hop-in and hop-out assembly with no follow-up or additional services provided.  I was actually able to address these Australian eSafety education consultants at a separate Community of Practice seminar after the conference, and shared my best practices based on what I’ve learned from speaking at so many schools over the years (for a brief overview, see my blog on what the best cyberbullying speakers do).

As I briefly summarize what was covered in some of the presentations, doesn’t it make your wheels start to turn? Doesn’t it get you excited to think about these issues and the directions in which the field is headed? Here are my main takeaways:

  • We are making progress when it comes to better safeguarding all users of the Internet, and so that should give everyone hope.
  • We are becoming more skilled at integrating computer science (e.g., algorithms) and social science (e.g., studies of peer interactions and human behaviors) to identify, detect, and address online harm.
  • We are identifying which marginalized populations need more support and protection online, and seeking to come through for them and amplify their neglected voices.
  • And we are discovering the areas to which stakeholders across the spectrum – educators, mental health professionals, corporations, law enforcement, nonprofits, and youth themselves – should devote their attention.
sameer-hinduja-australia-sydney-opera-house

It was such a fantastic conference – the people, the insights, and the enthusiasm. I expect a lot of collaborative efforts to arise between those who attended (there was plenty of time to network with others between sessions and over meals!), and I told the attendees that Justin and I are available to help in any way we can. Numerous people have already emailed me for resources, and we are thrilled that our work is assisting the professional efforts of those on the other side of the planet. I very much admire what my colleagues in Australia and New Zealand are doing, and am grateful for the opportunity to co-labor with them to create “the online world we want.”

The post 2019 eSafety Conference in Sydney appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/2019-esafety-conference-in-sydney/feed 0
AI Solutions to Cyberbullying and Social Media Abuse https://cyberbullying.org/ai-machine-learning-cyberbullying-social-media-abuse https://cyberbullying.org/ai-machine-learning-cyberbullying-social-media-abuse#respond Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:36:05 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=24733 Our professional lives focus on promoting civility and preventing toxicity online, especially among youth. By intersecting social science with computer science, we have been able to make strides in this area. With regard to artificial intelligence (AI), the overarching goal is to preempt victimization by: identifying (and blocking, banning, or quarantining) the most problematic users…

The post AI Solutions to Cyberbullying and Social Media Abuse appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
Our professional lives focus on promoting civility and preventing toxicity online, especially among youth. By intersecting social science with computer science, we have been able to make strides in this area. With regard to artificial intelligence (AI), the overarching goal is to preempt victimization by:

  • identifying (and blocking, banning, or quarantining) the most problematic users and accounts
  • immediately collapsing or deleting content that algorithms predictively flag and label as abusive
  • promoting, elevating, or otherwise incentivizing civility and respect
  • otherwise controlling the posting, sharing, or sending or messages that violate appropriate standards of behavior online.

Since most all of us are on social media, we’ve witnessed (and perhaps even experienced) the haters, harassers, and trolls. It’s deeply upsetting, but progress is being made. We will explore the types of behaviors we’re trying to eliminate, and the ways we’re seeking to enhance the mental health and well-being of all users through AI. We’ll also discuss the challenges we face, and why this is an imperfect science. Ultimately, we want everyone to have positive experiences online, rather than being silenced, harassed, or otherwise victimized. AI can help, but it’s going to take some time.

(60 minutes)

Here are numerous testimonials from schools and other organizations with whom we have worked.

Contact us today to schedule our visit, or if you have any questions!

The post AI Solutions to Cyberbullying and Social Media Abuse appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/ai-machine-learning-cyberbullying-social-media-abuse/feed 0
Bullying Prevention Through Empathy Building: Getting Students to Care https://cyberbullying.org/empathy-bullying-prevention-presentation https://cyberbullying.org/empathy-bullying-prevention-presentation#respond Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:36:14 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=24726 The relationship between empathy and healthy peer relationships has been studied at length over the years, and research suggests that building empathy can help reduce bullying and cyberbullying while simultaneously promoting tolerance, kindness, and peer respect in student interactions.  While many teachers and administrators affirm its importance, they often do not have a toolbox of…

The post Bullying Prevention Through Empathy Building: Getting Students to Care appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
The relationship between empathy and healthy peer relationships has been studied at length over the years, and research suggests that building empathy can help reduce bullying and cyberbullying while simultaneously promoting tolerance, kindness, and peer respect in student interactions.  While many teachers and administrators affirm its importance, they often do not have a toolbox of plug-and-play activities they can use in their classrooms and schools.  This session first explains the key research findings in this area before providing concrete ideas for project-based and experiential learning to decrease peer aggression offline and online, and promote intervening behaviors from bystanders.

Objectives:

• Share the specifics of our updated, nationally-representative research at the intersections of empathy, bullying, and cyberbullying among youth
• Discuss how society and culture relate to levels of empathy among youth (both positively and negatively)
• Calm overreactions about how technology and social media affect student empathy
• Consider the challenges that must be overcome when building empathy among teens
• Provide a host of user-friendly, easy-to-implement empathy-building activities and projects for students
• Show how intentionally fostering empathy can reduce the frequency of peer aggression, and increase the likelihood of bystander interventions

(60-75 minutes)

Here are numerous testimonials from schools and other organizations with whom we have worked.

Contact us today to schedule our visit to your school, or if you have any questions!

The post Bullying Prevention Through Empathy Building: Getting Students to Care appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/empathy-bullying-prevention-presentation/feed 0
Winning at Whack-A-Mole: What Old School Games Can Teach Us About New Digital Challenges https://cyberbullying.org/winning-at-whack-a-mole https://cyberbullying.org/winning-at-whack-a-mole#respond Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:17:47 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=24695 Last week I led a full-day workshop for folks affiliated with the Wisconsin Association of Family and Children’s Agencies. I have worked with this organization before and find them to be a caring and curious bunch. It was a good day! The event was held in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin. If you don’t know anything about…

The post Winning at Whack-A-Mole: What Old School Games Can Teach Us About New Digital Challenges appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
Last week I led a full-day workshop for folks affiliated with the Wisconsin Association of Family and Children’s Agencies. I have worked with this organization before and find them to be a caring and curious bunch. It was a good day!

The event was held in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin. If you don’t know anything about “The Dells” (as the region is referred to around here), it is unofficially (or maybe even officially) the “Waterpark Capital of the World.” Given the mid-August heat, I thought this would be a good opportunity to bring the family along for a mini holiday. They could enjoy the waterpark while I worked. And what’s better after a long day cooped up in a hotel ballroom than swimming and splashing in the sunshine!

The particular park where we stayed had an arcade attached, and my son and I spent some time in there. We focused on the skill games in order to accumulate tickets which could be exchanged for prizes. We did pretty well and had a good time. One game caught my attention: it was the classic “Whack-A-Mole.” Some of you might remember this game from your childhood – perhaps from Chuck E. Cheese or a county carnival. The idea is to use a soft-headed mallet to hit creatures that pop up at you though different holes. They pop up randomly and quickly, and just when you think you have one, it disappears and another pops up a few inches away. You find yourself chasing the creatures, usually a half-second behind. It is a frustratingly fun game.

Photo courtesy G. Bellan – YouTube

The Whack-A-Mole game has been used for years as a metaphor to describe the challenges of keeping up with the latest social media apps and games. You focus on one potentially problematic program only to find out that youth are already using something different. One of the most simultaneously attractive and frustrating aspects of our work is the fact that the landscape is constantly changing. There is always something new to learn about.

My sister, brother-in-law, and their two kids joined us at the waterpark. While sitting in the hotel room the night before my event, my sister showed me her Facebook feed from her phone which included a shared post from the Sarasota County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office warning about “Fifteen Apps Parents Should Know About.” I told her this was old news and that I had seen and written about this last summer. Upon closer inspection, however, I noticed that this was a new post – recently updated with some new apps.

I don’t blame the sheriff’s office for working to educate parents about particular applications (in fact, I applaud it). The problem is they are focusing only on certain apps and only on certain aspects that may create problems. And there is no mention at all about the positive uses of these apps and in technology in general. It’s like discussing the high number of car accidents without also acknowledging the positive (and necessary) uses of automobiles. To be fair, law enforcement typically deals with the worst of the worst when it comes to technology, automobiles, and just about everything else, so it is not surprising that they are narrowly focused on just the risks.

And, as is the nature with many infographics shared online, the information is incomplete. Take their description of Snapchat, for example: “The app promises users can take a photo/video and it will disappear…Snapchat allows users to see your location.” I’m not aware of any “promises” that the app makes about photos disappearing. Nowhere in the App store does it even mention the word “disappear.” On the contrary, Snapchat does explicitly state: “Please note: Friends, family, and other Snapchatters can always capture or save your messages by taking a screenshot, using a camera, or otherwise. Be mindful of what you Snap!” Moreover, I can almost guarantee if you ask a teen “do snaps completely disappear?” they will say no (Try it! Ask one!). And while users can enable location sharing, other users cannot see your location unless you have enabled this (and even then, only those with whom you have connected will see your location, not everyone).

Can these apps be used by predators, cyberbullies, or stalkers? Of course. But there is nothing inherently risky among the apps highlighted in this list that warrant their special focus.

A more prudent approach would be to spend less time focusing on particular apps and more time educating about broader safety principles that apply to any online application. Here are a few to keep in mind:

• There are mean people online (including a few predators and lots of trolls); act and share accordingly
• Resist sharing personal or private information
• Don’t retaliate when someone is mistreating you (don’t feed the trolls!)
• Don’t post, send, or share anything you wouldn’t want everyone to see
• Nothing is anonymous
• You leave a digital footprint whenever you use any device and share any content (a text, a picture, a video, a tweet)
• Everything can be copied and saved, and most everything is archived elsewhere on the Web or various computers and devices
• Copy and save evidence of harm
• If you are concerned, confused, or upset, talk to an adult you trust
• Be kind to others

These apply universally across the ever-changing social media and gaming landscape. Sheriff Tom Knight admits to the struggle: “I have no control over social media. They keep adding to it. It makes it harder and harder for us to keep up with it.” By promoting broad safety principles, the sheriff’s office won’t need to put out a new list of apps this time next year.

When it came to the Whack-A-Mole game at the arcade last week, my son and I were pretty successful. We figured out a strategy that worked well for us. He would keep an eye out for the moles, and I would quickly pound them. In other words, we worked together. This strategy just might also prove equally as effective with the virtual moles that will inevitably keep popping up.

The post Winning at Whack-A-Mole: What Old School Games Can Teach Us About New Digital Challenges appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/winning-at-whack-a-mole/feed 0
Youth Sexting in the US: New Paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior https://cyberbullying.org/youth-sexting-archives-sexual-behavior https://cyberbullying.org/youth-sexting-archives-sexual-behavior#respond Wed, 17 Jul 2019 18:57:01 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=24525 We have a new paper that has just been published by the academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. As far as we can tell, it is the first article to report national-level sexting data from middle and high school students in the United States since 2011. It is based on our fall 2016 data. Below…

The post Youth Sexting in the US: New Paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
We have a new paper that has just been published by the academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. As far as we can tell, it is the first article to report national-level sexting data from middle and high school students in the United States since 2011. It is based on our fall 2016 data. Below are some of the highlights.

Prevalence of Sexting among Middle and High School Students

Overall, approximately 13% of students reported that they had sent a sext, while 18.5% had received a sext. More specifically, 14% of the sample reported that they had received a sext from a romantic partner, while slightly fewer (13.6%) said they had received a sext from someone with whom they were not romantically involved. Additionally, 10.6% of students said they had sent a sext to a romantic partner, while 6.7% said they had sent one to someone who was not a current boyfriend or girlfriend. We also looked at the prevalence of sexting behaviors by gender, race, age, and sexual orientation. Please see the paper for particular details, but generally speaking males and non-heterosexual students were significantly more likely to have sent and received sexts, while no differences by race were identified. As expected, older students were more likely than younger ones to participate in sexting.

Most students who engage in sexting said they only did it “a few times.” Fewer than 2% of all students said they had sent sexts “many times.” About one-third of those who had sent a sext (12.8%) said they did it just one time (4.1%). Receiving sexts also happens relatively infrequently with only 2.6% of the sample reporting that they had done so “many times.”

Asking for Sexts

In addition to documenting the extent of sending and receiving sexts, we were also interested in learning how many students had been asked to send a sext or who had asked others for sexts. 17.5% of students said they have been asked to send a sext, while 9.1% said they had asked someone else for a sext. Males and females were equally as likely to have been asked to send a sext, while males were more likely to have asked others for a sext (11.3% compared to 7.1%). Males and females were both more likely to ask a romantic partner for a sext, though females were more likely to report that they had been asked by someone who was not a current boyfriend/girlfriend (14.3%) than someone who was (12.9%). Non-heterosexual students were significantly more likely to have been asked—and to have asked others—for a sext (both from a boyfriend or girlfriend, or from someone else). There were no statistically significant differences by race with respect to asking for (or being asked for) sexually explicit images. (I wrote in more detail about this issue in a blog post last year).

Of note, most of the students who were asked by a current boyfriend or girlfriend to send a sext complied. Specifically, 13.4% of students said they were asked by a boyfriend or girlfriend to send a sext, and 63.9% of those actually did. It is less likely that students will acquiesce to requests when made by someone who was not a current romantic partner. For example, 13.1% of students said they were asked by someone who was not a boyfriend or girlfriend to send a sext but only 43% of those who were asked said they had sent a sext to someone who wasn’t a romantic partner. Female students were more likely to have been asked to send a sext by someone who was not a current romantic partner (14.3%), but were also less likely to comply with those requests (34.1% of females asked by a non-partner acquiesced). More research is necessary to determine factors associated with agreeing to send sexts when asked (both from romantic partners and others).

Sharing Sexts

Finally, we also asked students whether sharing explicit images without permission was occurring frequently. About 4% of students said they shared an image sent to them, and the same number believed an image of them was shared with others. Males were more likely to have shared an image (4.7% compared to 3.6%) and were more likely to believe an image they sent to someone else had been shared with others (4.8% compared to 3.5%). Non-heterosexual students were approximately twice as likely to have shared an image with others (7.4% compared to 3.6%) and to believe their image had been shared with others (8.2% compared to 3.8%). There was no statistically significant difference in sharing sexts by race.

Final Thoughts about Teens and Sexting

Some middle and high school aged students are participating in sexting. But it doesn’t appear to be occurring at levels that the public generally believes. About 13% of students had ever sent a sexually explicit image of themselves to others, and only 8.7% had done it more than once. In addition, 18.5% had received an explicit image from others. These numbers are consistent with a recent synthesis of 39 other studies published last year in JAMA Pediatrics. Youth are significantly more likely to share explicit images with their romantic partners than someone with someone they are not in a current relationship. Students who identified as non-heterosexual were significantly more likely to be involved in a variety of sexting behaviors. Previous research has found that non-heterosexual youth are more likely to participate in risky sexual behaviors (e.g., onset and frequency of sexual activity, number of partners, condom use, experience with pregnancy) and that non-heterosexuals in general prioritize different considerations when deciding whether to engage in sex. We really didn’t see any consistent differences across race.

While we shouldn’t panic about a so-called “sexting epidemic,” we certainly should talk with our children about the potential social and legal consequences of these behaviors. Some teens who share nudes do get into some serious legal trouble, while more commonly there is significant social and emotional fallout associated with sexting. Moreover, as parents we should be concerned about emerging research that has suggested a correlation between sexting and other potentially problematic sexual behaviors, including sexual activity with multiple partners and lack of contraception use.

This paper was a long time coming. We wrote the paper in the summer of 2017, and first submitted it to the journal on July 31, 2017 (nearly 2 years ago!). While this isn’t a typical lag, it isn’t uncommon either. And we were lucky to the extent that the paper was published in the first journal we submitted it to. That often does not happen. As academics who hope to inform understanding of contemporary online behaviors we cringe that it has taken nearly three years to get from data collection to publication. We launched our website and shortly thereafter this blog in an effort to circumvent these delays (and indeed did post preliminary sexting data in February of 2017). And yet we are academics and therefore require the vetting and affirmation that peer-review provides.

The full version of the paper can be found here, but if you cannot access it for any reason, just let us know and we’ll send you a copy.

Image credit: Yura Fresh on Unsplash

The post Youth Sexting in the US: New Paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/youth-sexting-archives-sexual-behavior/feed 0
Summary of Our Cyberbullying Research (2007-2019) https://cyberbullying.org/summary-of-our-cyberbullying-research https://cyberbullying.org/summary-of-our-cyberbullying-research#comments Wed, 10 Jul 2019 08:30:48 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=3228 At the Cyberbullying Research Center we have been collecting data from middle and high school students since 2002. We have surveyed more than 25,000 students from middle and high schools from across the United States in thirteen unique projects. The following two charts show the percent of respondents who have experienced cyberbullying at some point…

The post Summary of Our Cyberbullying Research (2007-2019) appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
At the Cyberbullying Research Center we have been collecting data from middle and high school students since 2002. We have surveyed more than 25,000 students from middle and high schools from across the United States in thirteen unique projects. The following two charts show the percent of respondents who have experienced cyberbullying at some point in their lifetime across our eleven most recent studies. Our two earliest studies (from 2004 and 2005) are excluded from this because they were online convenience samples and therefore cannot be easily compared to the other studies. The eleven most recent studies have all been random samples of known populations which allows for improved reliability, validity, and generalizability. Please see our Research in Review addendum for more details about each of the samples.

As illustrated in the chart above, the rates of cyberbullying victimization have varied over the years we have studied the phenomenon. On average, about 28% of the students who have been a part of our most recent 11 studies have said they have been the victim of cyberbullying at some point in their lifetime. The rates of cyberbullying offending have also varied among the research studies we have conducted. On average, about 16% of the students who have been a part of our last 11 studies have admitted that they have cyberbullied others at some point in their lifetime. (click on the images for a larger versions)

When it comes to more recent experiences, an average of about 11% of students have been cyberbullied across all of our studies within the 30 days prior to the survey. There does appear to be a trend over the last 5 years or so of this rate increasing steadily. For offending, across all of our studies, 6% of students admit to cyberbullying others. This average is nearly identical to what we saw in our most recent study in 2019.

The post Summary of Our Cyberbullying Research (2007-2019) appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/summary-of-our-cyberbullying-research/feed 8
2019 Cyberbullying Data https://cyberbullying.org/2019-cyberbullying-data https://cyberbullying.org/2019-cyberbullying-data#comments Tue, 09 Jul 2019 19:58:06 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=24437 This study surveyed a nationally-representative sample of 4,972 middle and high school students between the ages of 12 and 17 in the United States. Data were collected in April of 2019. Click on the thumbnail images to enlarge. Cyberbullying Victimization. We define cyberbullying as: “Cyberbullying is when someone repeatedly and intentionally harasses, mistreats, or makes…

The post 2019 Cyberbullying Data appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
This study surveyed a nationally-representative sample of 4,972 middle and high school students between the ages of 12 and 17 in the United States. Data were collected in April of 2019. Click on the thumbnail images to enlarge.

Cyberbullying Victimization. We define cyberbullying as: “Cyberbullying is when someone repeatedly and intentionally harasses, mistreats, or makes fun of another person online or while using cell phones or other electronic devices.” Approximately 37% of the students in our sample report experiencing cyberbullying in their lifetimes. When asked about specific types of cyberbullying experienced in the previous 30 days, mean or hurtful comments (24.9%) and rumors spread online (22.2%) continue to be among the most commonly-cited. Thirty percent of the sample reported being cyberbullied in one or more of the twleve specific types reported, two or more times over the course of the previous 30 days.

Cyberbullying Offending.  We define cyberbullying as: “Cyberbullying is when someone repeatedly and intentionally harasses, mistreats, or makes fun of another person online or while using cell phones or other electronic devices.” Approximately 15% of the students in our sample admitted to cyberbullying others at some point in their lifetime. Posting mean comments online was the most commonly reported type of cyberbullying they reported during the previous 30 days (9.3%). About 11% of the sample reported cyberbullying using one or more of the eleven types reported, two or more times over the course of the previous 30 days.

Cyberbullying by Gender. Adolescent girls are more likely to have experienced cyberbullying in their lifetimes (38.7% vs. 34.5%). This chahnges when reviewing experiences over the previous 30 days, where boys are slightly higher. In this sample, boys were more likely to report cyberbullying others during their lifetime (16.1% vs. 13.4%) and in the most recent 30 days (8.1% vs. 4.6%). The type of cyberbullying tends to differ by gender; girls were more likely to say someone spread rumors about them online while boys were more likely to say that someone threatened to hurt them online. As with 2016, boys reported significantly more involvement in every type of cyberbullying offending behavior we asked about. In the past, this has varied by type of behavior.

Methodology

For this study, we contracted with two different online survey research firms to distribute our questionnaire to a nationally-representative sample of middle and high school students. We had two different versions of our survey instrument which allowed us to ask a variety of questions to subsamples of each group. All students were asked questions about experiences with bullying and cyberbullying, digital self-harm, sexting, and sextortion. Overall we obtained a 15% response rate, which isn’t amazing, but is higher than most generic Internet surveys.

With any imperfect social science study, caution should be used when interpreting the results. We can be reassured somewhat in the validity in the data, however, because the prevalence rates are in line with results from our previous school-based surveys. Moreover, the large sample size helps to diminish the potential negative effects of outliers. Finally, steps were taken to ensure valid responses within the survey instrument. For example, we asked the respondents to select a specific color among a list of choices and required them to report their age at two different points in the survey, in an effort to guard against computerized responses and thoughtless clicking through the survey.

Study made possible through the support of Facebook Research.

Select publications from this data set:

Coming soon!

Blog posts based on this data set:

November 19, 2019 – Sextortion: More Insight Into the Experiences of Youth

July 9, 2019 – Bullying Because of Religion: Our Latest Findings and Best Practices

May 29, 2019 – School Bullying Rates Increase by 35% from 2016 to 2019

The post 2019 Cyberbullying Data appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/2019-cyberbullying-data/feed 2
Bullying Because of Religion: Our Latest Findings and Best Practices https://cyberbullying.org/bullying-and-religion https://cyberbullying.org/bullying-and-religion#respond Tue, 09 Jul 2019 16:07:58 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=24408 We share our brand new findings on religious-based bullying and cyberbullying among US youth. We also share current best practices in prevention for schools and communities.

The post Bullying Because of Religion: Our Latest Findings and Best Practices appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
When youth are bullied because of something specific to their identity – like their religion, sexual orientation, or race, , it very well may take a deeper emotional and psychological toll than bullying based on non-identity-related factors (Almeida, Johnson, Corliss, Molnar, & Azrael, 2009; Every & Perry, 2014; Garnett et al., 2014; Rippy & Newman, 2006). If you know me personally, you know that I think (and blog) a lot about identity, and that my faith in particular is central to my life. Having been bullied and cyberbullied for it as an adult, I greatly sympathize with youth who have faced it, and thinking about their experiences redoubles my desire to prevent this type of cruelty.

Hopefully you agree that schools, communities, and society need to do more to make sure that everyone feels safe and supported to practice beliefs that are sacred to them (as long as they do not harm others). Earlier this year in Washington, DC, I spoke at an interfaith religious summit organized by Facebook and Instagram where we talked a lot about solutions (read my summary here, which has plenty of practical ideas to implement). Now I want to explore this issue in greater detail so that we can better protect the freedoms our country was built upon and prevent hate and bigotry with more success.

Findings from Youth Across America in 2019

Very recently, we finished collecting a new round of data from a nationally representative sample of 5,000 middle and high schoolers across America. As you can see from the chart below, students of various faiths seem to be bullied at school relatively equally.

school-bullying-by-religion-2019

However, when you consider cyberbullying, more Muslim youth said they were targeted than those of other faiths.

cyberbullying-by-religion-2019

In case you are wondering why the charts do not reflect those of the Sikh faith (a religious group historically targeted with bullying (Ahluwalia, Nadrich, & Ahluwalia, 2019)), it is because the number of Sikh students in our sample was so small that we had to include it  in the “Other” category. Future research should intentionally oversample Sikh students (and other religious minorities) across the nation to better understand their specific experiences.

Now, let’s turn our attention to bullying based on religion. As you can see below, 34.3% of Muslim youth, 25% of Jewish youth, and 23.1% of Hindu youth say they have been targeted at school over the last 30 days because of their faith.

school-bullying-based-on-religion-2019

When it comes to cyberbullying, 26.3%of Muslim students reported that they were targeted in the last 30 days, as did 15.4% of Hindu students.

cyberbullying-based-on-religion-2019

What Can We Do to Prevent Religious-Based Bullying?

When you ask youth professionals what should be done to prevent faith-based bullying, they always mention increased education and awareness. Okay. Great. I am on board with that. I think everyone is. But shouldn’t we be more specific? What does this look like in practice?

Curriculum Solutions

To begin, formal curricula is extremely important (check out Teaching Tolerance’s learning plans to help students understand and support diversity, ADL’s “No Place for Hate” Resource Guide for discussion prompts and tons of sample activities, the outstanding talking points and full presentations for students and adults that you can download from The Sikh Coalition, and the comprehensive Teaching Holocaust and Human Behavior lessons related to anti-Semitism from Facing History and Ourselves). I also very much recommend the “One Survivor Remembers” Oscar-winning documentary (and lesson plan) made available by Teaching Tolerance to use with students to foster empathy for those of the Jewish faith.

Online Campaigns

Second, faith-based nonprofits should organize digital campaigns which, if done well, can go viral and greatly raise awareness about oft-misunderstood religions and customs, while also highlighting the amazing people and beliefs behind the faith tradition. This year, the Hindu American Foundation launched their “I am Hindu American” campaign, which I thought did a wonderful job of honoring the contributions of Hindus to American society. Online campaigns are the best way to reach masses of people through bite-sized, compelling storytelling that dispels myths, promotes compassion, celebrates diversity, and educates the uninformed.

Empower Students to Lead the Way

We also want to encourage students themselves to feel empowered to be the catalysts for change on their campuses. By way of example, a couple of Islamic students who came from thousands of miles away to attend a private school in New Jersey (which represented 22 faith traditions!) felt alone and unsupported in meeting their own religious obligations. As such, they worked with the school to transform part of a building on campus into a Muslim prayer space and organized a club and various events to build community and foster fellowship among other Muslim students.  

Celebrate Different Faiths!

In addition, a variety of holidays that have religious significance can and should be celebrated by the entire school. Celebration doesn’t just mean a day off from classes. It means facilitating a deeper understanding of the history and importance of that special day to those of a certain faith. Rather than devoting an hour or a day to the cause, it appears valuable to dedicate an entire month (e.g., California has declared November as Sikh Awareness Appreciation Month, as have other states). Hindu Student Associations (HSAs) at schools organize celebrations of Diwali and Indian Cultural Night to spread awareness about Hinduism and to foster cross-cultural interaction and engagement on issues that matter. To be sure, efforts to promote tolerance and diversity do not need to be compartmentalized and siloed; many schools have Interfaith clubs where students of varying religious backgrounds endeavor together to create inclusive spaces for all.

Muslim Student Association (MSA) groups are doing the same thing (here is one in my neck of the woods). Typically, they arrange Friday prayer groups/times, special dinners, and other Islamic events throughout the year at school. Here’s some background from the High School Muslim Student Associations Facebook group, which supports these associations across America:

Through your actions and implementation of the Islamic morals and characteristics, we will display the beauty of our religion to the people of our communities. We together as a group can fight radical, extremist illogical ideologies that might spark within the youth, to together better our communities and make them a safe place for all people. Religion has become a taboo to many people and through the various activities of the MSA both in school and within the community we need to make people more comfortable with our peaceful way of life. Using the MSA as a platform we can fight faithism and make our schools and our communities more tolerant towards peoples of all faiths and backgrounds.

Consider Creative Strategies to Promote Engagement

These groups often come up with some amazing ideas to denounce stereotypes. Many MSAs around the nation have organized “Walk a Mile in Her Hijab” events to honor Islam appreciation, where women on campus pledge to wear a hijab for the entire day so they can know what it feels like to be stared at or otherwise mistreated, and to grow in their understanding about the richness of the faith and its requirements. Interestingly, at our International Bullying Prevention Association Conferences, the Sikh Coalition helps us do something similar by giving attendees the opportunity to tie on a dastaar (turban) and learn more about Sikh values, beliefs, identity, and the articles of faith. This has been done in Times Square on the Sikh holiday of Vaisakhi, and at high schools and universities across the United States through Sikh Student Associations (SSA).

Make Sure Solutions Involve BOTH the School and the Community

Finally, we know that any anti-bullying efforts should target the entire community (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Ttofi & Farrington, 2008)) and to get families involved by intentionally connecting schools to communities (Oliver, de Botton, Soler, & Merrill, 2011; Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007). This is particularly important because some of the events mentioned earlier may affect the mass of students differently. Some will grow in empathy and appreciation for different religions by putting on a dastaar or hijab (and taking the time to grow in cultural proficiency). Others may have their parochial, prejudiced views reinforced as the differentness of other religious groups is spotlighted as unique or exotic (I thank Dr. Nadia Ansary of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding for this insight).

Here’s one example of a great school-community solution that can bear long-lasting change. When one town sought to help oft-bullied Muslim students, parent events were scheduled and held to discuss certain cultural stereotypes that were prevalent in the community (Gómez, Munte, & Sorde, 2014). These events gave members of the Muslim community the chance to share about their lives and experiences, which paved the way for empathy and specific decisions to better support them. Also powerful was when Muslim fathers engaged with the school in more direct ways, which allowed for them to be seen and known – which consequently decreased the tolerance and frequency of discriminatory comments.

Coexistence Committees

Also, I’m a big fan of what can be termed a Coexistence Committee, where parents of school kids of all races and religions come together and have a voice in the rules, policies, and culture-building on campus. This often leads to more volunteers at school of varying racial and religious backgrounds, which built relationships and connection while also helping to tear down misperceptions and prejudices based on ignorance (Gómez et al., 2014). Ultimately, those on the fringes or margins of the school became central to the transformation possible within it.

Leverage the Support and Resources of Faith-Based Nonprofits

As a final example of school-community partnerships, we encourage districts to work hand-in-hand with the numerous faith-based non-profits in their area to foster appreciation and empathy for different religions and cultures. Near Washington DC, teachers from Montgomery County Public Schools participated in a three-part training organized by the Hindu American Foundation, Kaur Foundation, and Sikh Kid To Kid – which included cultural immersion trips to Hindu and Sikh houses of worship, diversity workshops, and reflection sessions. The express goal was to combat religious bullying and clear up misunderstood conceptions about the respective faith traditions.

For Even More Strategies…

I shared other concrete suggestions and strategies in my blog on Addressing Religious-based Bullying. We will continue to explore this problem and work with relevant stakeholders across America and beyond to make a measurable difference in combating bias and hate based on one’s faith. We’d love to know what you’re doing in your community, and if you’ve identified any best practices that we can share far and wide, and so please reach out to chat!

Image source:
https://bit.ly/2L9wzLX

Acknowledgements:
Study made possible through the support of Facebook Research.

References

Ahluwalia, M. K., Nadrich, T., & Ahluwalia, I. S. (2019). Sikh Youth Coming of Age: Reflections on the Decision to Tie a Turban. Counseling and Values, 64(1), 20-34.

Almeida, J., Johnson, R. M., Corliss, H. L., Molnar, B. E., & Azrael, D. (2009). Emotional distress among LGBT youth: The influence of perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 1001-1014.

Every, D., & Perry, R. (2014). The relationship between perceived religious discrimination and self‐esteem for Muslim Australians. Australian Journal of Psychology, 66(4), 241-248.

Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. The Campbell Collaboration, 6, 1-149.

Garnett, B. R., Masyn, K. E., Austin, S. B., Miller, M., Williams, D. R., & Viswanath, K. (2014). The intersectionality of discrimination attributes and bullying among youth: An applied latent class analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(8), 1225-1239.

Gómez, A., Munte, A., & Sorde, T. (2014). Transforming schools through minority males’ participation: Overcoming cultural stereotypes and preventing violence. Journal of Interpersonal violence, 29(11), 2002-2020.

Oliver, E., de Botton, L., Soler, M., & Merrill, B. (2011). Cultural intelligence to overcome educational exclusion. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 267-276.

Rippy, A. E., & Newman, E. (2006). Perceived religious discrimination and its relationship to anxiety and paranoia among Muslim Americans. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 1(1), 5-20.

Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 283-293.

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Bullying: Short-term and long-term effects, and the importance of defiance theory in explanation and prevention. Victims and Offenders, 3(2-3), 289-312.

The post Bullying Because of Religion: Our Latest Findings and Best Practices appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/bullying-and-religion/feed 0
Social Media, Cyberbullying, and Online Safety Glossary https://cyberbullying.org/social-media-cyberbullying-and-online-safety-glossary https://cyberbullying.org/social-media-cyberbullying-and-online-safety-glossary#respond Thu, 04 Jul 2019 18:45:07 +0000 http://cyberbullying.org/?p=24370 In our Glossary below, we define the terms you need to know in the realm of social media, cyberbullying, and online safety, so that you are increasingly informed about technological jargon as you work with the youth under your care. (Apart from the list below, you can also download a distributable PDF of our Social…

The post Social Media, Cyberbullying, and Online Safety Glossary appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
In our Glossary below, we define the terms you need to know in the realm of social media, cyberbullying, and online safety, so that you are increasingly informed about technological jargon as you work with the youth under your care.

(Apart from the list below, you can also download a distributable PDF of our Social Media, Cyberbullying, and Technology Terms Glossary).

Acceptable Use Policy (AUP): A policy that schools and other organizations create to define the responsibilities and appropriate behaviors of computer and network users.

Android: Operating system created by Google. Android powers smartphones and tablets.

Anonymizer: An intermediary website that hides or disguises the IP address associated with the Internet user. Generally, these sites allow a person to engage in various Internet activities without leaving an easily traceable digital footprint.

App: Abbreviation for “application,” it is a piece of software, primarily referring to those used on smartphones, tablets, and other touch-based devices.

Ask.fm (app): An app (and web site) where users can ask and answer others’ questions with the option of doing so anonymously.

Bash Board: An online bulletin board on which individuals can post anything they want. Often, posts are malicious and hateful statements directed against another person.

Blocking: The denial of access to particular parts of the Internet. Usually a message will be shown on screen to say that access has been denied. For example, Facebook users can block other users from sending them messages or seeing their posts.

Blog: Interactive Web journal or diary, the contents of which are posted online where they are viewable by some or all individuals. The act of updating a blog is called “blogging.” A person who keeps a blog is referred to as a “blogger.” The term was created by combining “web” and “log.”

Buddy List: A collection of names or handles (also known as screen names) that represent friends or “buddies” within an instant messaging or chat program. They are useful in informing a user when that person’s friends are online and available to chat.

Bullicide: Suicide that results directly or indirectly from bullying victimization. The relationship between bullying and suicide is complex and for that and other reasons, many researchers have concerns with the utilization of this term.

Bullying: Repeated and deliberate harassment directed by one in a position of power toward one or more. Can involve physical threats or behaviors, including assault, or indirect and subtle forms of aggression, including gossip and rumor spreading. The term bullying is usually reserved for young people and most often refers to these behaviors as they occur at or near school.

Catfishing: In the online world, catfishing refers to the practice of setting up a fictitious online profile, most often for the purpose of luring another into a fraudulent romantic relationship.

Chat: An online real-time conversation, typically carried out by people who use nicknames instead of their real names. A person can continually read messages from others in the “chat room” and then type and send a message reply.

Chat Room: A virtual online room where groups of people send and receive messages on one screen. Popular chat rooms can have hundreds of people all communicating at the same time. Typed messages appears instantly as real-time conversation. All of the people in the room are listed on the side of the screen with their screen names.

Cookie: A file on a computer or other electronic device that records user information when visiting a website. Cookies are often used to identify the websites that the device has visited, save login information and customization preferences, and enable the presentation of more personalized information or content.

Cyberbullicide: Suicide resulting directly or indirectly from cyberbullying victimization. The relationship between cyberbullying and suicide is complex and for that and other reasons, many researchers have concerns with the utilization of this term.

Cyberbullying: Intentional and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.

Cyberspace: The electronic “universe” created by computer networks in which individuals interact.

Cyberstalking: Repeated harassment using electronic devices and networked technology that includes threats of harm, or that is highly intimidating and intrusive upon one’s personal privacy.

Cyberthreats: Electronic material that either generally or specifically raises concerns that the creator may intend to inflict harm or violence to others, or to himself or herself.

Dashboarding: When online users (usually on gaming consoles) rapidly switch from online in-game play to the home screen for their console or other devices. Gamers do this when they are losing badly, and don’t want the game to register their demise, or lack of kills, or another metric that demonstrates poor performance.

Decoy Apps: Apps used to store private information, such as photos, videos, voice recordings, or texts. They look like everyday apps such as a calculator so offer a secure way to hide certain information. They also are called vault, secret, or ghost apps. A teen may use this on their phone to secretly store sexual pictures and videos that they don’t want their parents seeing.

Digital evidence: Tangible signs, proof, information, or data that demonstrate some behavior. This could be a screenshot, a record of Internet activity, a saved piece of content, etc.

Digital Footprint: Evidence of a person’s use of the Internet, typically focusing on dates and times of specific websites visited. This includes anything that can be linked to a user’s existence, presence, or identity. See also, “cookie.”

Digital Immigrant: A person who has not grown up with digital technology, such as smartphones, social media, and the Internet, but has adopted it later. Many adults are referred to as digital immigrants, because they have known a time when these technologies didn’t exist.

Digital Native: A person who has grown up with digital technology, such as smart phones, social media, and the Internet. Many adolescents or young adults would be classified as digital natives, because they have not known a time without these technologies.

E-mail: Electronic mail. Allows Internet users to send and receive electronic messages to and from other Internet users.

Fabotage: slang for ‘Facebook Sabotage’ and used to describe hijacking, and meddling with, someone’s Facebook account while it is unattended.

Facebook (app): The most popular social media site with over 2.4 billion active monthly users (as of June 2019). Users create personal “profiles” to represent themselves, listing interests and posting photos and communicating with others through private or public posts and messages.

Filtering: The act of restricting access to certain websites or social media platforms. For example, a filter might compare the text on a web page against a list of forbidden words. If a match is found, that web page may be blocked or reported through a monitoring process. Generally speaking, a filter allows or denies access based on previously specified rules.

Finsta: combining the words Fake and Instagram, a finsta is a secondary Instagram account which is usually meant for a smaller, private audience, and allows the user to share pictures and videos in an unfiltered and more natural way without having to make each shot perfect or socially acceptable.

Firewall: Hardware or software that restricts and regulates incoming and outgoing data to or from computer systems. Firewalls allow or disallow accessing certain websites or social media platforms.

Flaming: Sending angry, rude, or obscene messages directed at a person or persons privately or an online group. A “flamewar” erupts when “flames” are sent back and forth between individuals repeatedly.

Following: The act of requesting another person to connect with your online social network (on Twitter, Instagram and similar sites).

Friending: The act of requesting another person to connect with your online social network (on Facebook).

Gamergate: Controversy involving issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of Twitter (and other platforms).

Gaming: Participation in video (often online) games, which involve individuals adopting roles of fictional characters, thereby directing the outcome.

Gaming Console: A device designed for users to run video games on a television. Popular consoles include the Sony Playstation, Microsoft xBox, and Nintendo Wii.

Geolocation: The process or technique of identifying the geographical location of a person or device by means of digital information processed via the Internet.

Geotagging: the process of adding geographical information to various pieces of digital content in the form of metadata. The data usually consists of coordinates like latitude and longitude, but may even include bearing, altitude, distance and place names. Geotagging is most commonly used for photos and videos and can help people get a lot of specific information about where the shot was taken, or the exact location of a friend who logged on to make a post.

Griefing: when a player in an online game deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game.

Grooming: Some people use online mediums across the Internet to connect with children so that they can exploit them or even blackmail them for sexual purposes. Befriending a child in this way is called grooming.

Hacking: The act of circumventing security and breaking into an authorized location (a network, computer, file, etc.), usually with malicious intent.

Happy Slapping: An extreme form of bullying where physical assaults are recorded on electronic devices like phones, and then sent to others or posted online. This term is more commonly used in the United Kingdom.

Harassment: Unsolicited words or actions intended to annoy, alarm, or abuse another individual. Often based on a protected status (e.g., sex, race, disability, or sexual orientation).

Harm: Physical, psychological, or emotional injury to someone.

Hashtag: A descriptor or label preceded by the pound (#) sign that helps others easily find content related to that word or phrase. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, for example, allow users to look up and click through hashtags to find other users’ content that are also listed (tagged) with that hashtag.

Houseparty (app): A video chat app quite popular among teens. You can add friends based on the phone numbers you have stored in your contacts list, or search for their usernames. Once you open the app, you can join “rooms” (chats) with other friends who are currently using the app.

Influencer: an individual who can sway an audience through a digital platform. This term is often used in relation to social media marketing, promotion, and other related efforts.

Instagram (app): An app where users can apply filters to photos and videos before posting them for others to like and comment on. User can also share their content on other social networks like Facebook and Twitter.

Instant Messaging: The act of real-time messages sent and received between two or more people over a network such as the Internet. This can occur through software such as WeChat, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Viber, and Facebook Messenger.

Internet: A worldwide network of computers communicating with each other via phone lines, satellite links, wireless networks, and cable systems.

iOS: Operating system created by Apple Inc. iOS powers iPods, iPhones, iPads, and Apple TVs.

IP Address: “Internet Protocol” address. A unique address assigned to a computing device that allows it to send and receive data with other computing devices that have their own unique addresses.

IRC: “Internet Relay Chat.” A network over which real-time conversations take place among two or more people in a “channel” devoted to a specific area of interest. See also “chat” or “chat room.”

ISP: “Internet Service Provider.” The company that provides an Internet connection to individuals or companies. ISPs can help with identifying an individual who posts or sends harassing or threatening words.

Kik (app): A service which facilitates cross platform (iOS and Android) instant messaging across phones or tablets in an attractive interface. Users can send links, pictures, videos, group messages, etc.

Meme: a virally-transmitted cultural symbol or social idea. Most modern memes are captioned photos or videos that are intended to be funny, often to publicly ridicule human behavior. Others are popular for depicting traits or experiences that many others can totally relate to.

MMORPG: Acronym that stands for: “Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.” A game in which large numbers of individuals from various locations connect and interact with each other in a virtual world over the Internet.

Monitoring: The recording and reporting of online activity, usually through software, which may log a history of all Internet use, or just of inappropriate use.

Mydol: a chatbot app that is gaining in popularity. It simulates chatting with your favorite k-pop (Korean pop star musician) star. A chatbot is a computer program designed to mimic a conversation with human users. They can sometimes be very natural in their responses, fooling people into believing they are talking to a real person. Some users have mentioned that the conversations can quickly turn to sexual in nature.

Netiquette: “Network etiquette.” The unofficial rules of accepted, proper online social conduct.

Network: Two or more computers connected so that they can communicate with each other.

Newbie: Someone who is new to, and inexperienced with, an Internet activity or technology. Also referred to as a newb, n00b, nob, noob, or nub.

Offender: The one who instigates online social cruelty. Also known as the “aggressor.”

Periscope: An application (owned by Twitter) that allows user to broadcast live streaming video, and thereby lets other people see what the broadcaster is doing or seeing in real time.

Pharming: pronounced ‘farming’, this is a method by which scammers try to get personal/private information from users by directing them to false, bogus, – or ‘spoof’ – websites which look legitimate in their web browser.

Phishing: a technique used to gain personal information, usually by means of fraudulent e-mails.

Photoshopping: the process of altering digital images so that the main subject is placed in compromising or embarrassing situation. For example, a person might photoshop a picture to append an animal’s face to a human’s body (or vice versa), or something much worse.

Pinterest (app): is an online pinboard and visual discovery engine for finding ideas like recipes, home and style inspiration, and more. Users create, share, and link to boards and “pins” of visual content (largely pictures, memes, and related creations) from across the Web.

Profile: When considered in the context of online social networking, this is a user-customized page that represents that person. Here, a person’s background, interests, and friends are listed to reflect who that person is or how that person would like to be seen. Pictures, biographical and contact information, and other interesting facts about the user are often included as well.

Proxy: Software or a website that allows one’s Internet connection to be routed or tunneled through a different connection or site. If a user’s computer is blocked from accessing certain websites or programs, the user could employ a proxy to redirect the connection to that site or program. For example, if a software filter prohibits a user from directly visiting Facbook, a proxy website could be used to circumvent the filter and provide access.

Rage quitting: A condition in which gamers, through steady provoking, simply cannot take being killed (cheaply or otherwise) anymore and leave a online game game mid-match.

Revenge Porn: Sometimes known as nonconsensual porn – defined as the act of distributing intimate photography through different means without the individual’s consent

School Climate: The quality, character, social atmosphere, and ‘feel’ of the school, mostly exhibited by patterns of behavior and interactions among and between students and school personnel.

Screenshot: An image that is captured of what is shown on a phone, tablet, or computer screen.

Secret: An app that gives users the ability to share what they are thinking and feeling with friends from their phone’s contact list, while remaining anonymous.

Sexting: The sending or receiving of sexually-explicit or sexually-suggestive images or video via phone or the Internet.

Sextortion: Threats to expose a sexual image in order to make a person do something or for other reasons, such as revenge or humiliation.

Shoulder Surfing: Peering over the shoulder of someone to see the contents on that person’s computer, tablet, or phone screen.

Skype (app): a popular application that enables users to set up profiles, make free phone calls, text chat, and video chat through their computer or mobile device from any point around the world.

SMS: Acronym that stands for: “Short Message Service.” A communications protocol that allows short (160 characters or less) text messages over cell phone.

Snapchat (app): Very popular with youth and young adults, users of this app share text messages, pictures, and videos with friends from their contact list, which generally can be viewed for a period of between 1 to 10 seconds (unless set to “infinity”) before disappearing. See also, “snaps.”

Snapchat Filters: When users of Snapchat are in particular places, specialized “filters” are available to superimpose onto their “Snap,” providing fun, artsy backgrounds, pictures, and word art highlighting that location.

Snaps: Pictures or videos sent between users on Snapchat.

Social Networking Sites: Online services that bring together people by organizing them around a common interest and providing an interactive environment of photos, blogs, user profiles, and messaging systems. Examples include Facebook and Instagram.

Spam: Unsolicited electronic mail—usually commercial in nature—sent from someone unknown to the recipient.

Tablet: A mobile computing device growing in adoption and popularity. They are smaller than a laptop and bigger than a smartphone, and provide much of the same functionality as both.

Texting: Sending short messages via phone.

Text Bombing: When someone sends large numbers of texts to another, not allowing that person to use their phones because of the annoyance, or because the phone gets overloaded with constant incoming messages.

TikTok (app): Previously known as Musical.ly, this app allows users to create and share their own engaging and creative video clips up to 15 seconds long (e.g., lip-syncing to a popular song and dancing around, restating comedic lines from a favorite movie).

Threat: Making a statement of taking an action that implies or suggests harm to someone else.

Tinder (app): An online dating app that allows people to be matched based on physical attraction. It initially finds potential matches based on filters like gender and location. If two users like each other’s pictures, they are able to chat.

Trolling: Deliberately and disingenuously posting information to entice genuinely helpful people to respond (often emotionally). Often done to inflame or provoke others.

Tumblr (app): a social networking site where users can post blogs and follow other people’s blogs. The blogs are largely filled with artistic media, content, poetry, creative writing, and multimedia based on user interests (as well as the latest in memes and pop culture). Tumblr makes it easy to share images, GIFs, videos, music, text, links, and more in a very aesthetically-pleasing and customizable way.

Tweet: A short (280 character [or less]) message posted on Twitter.

Twitter (app): Social networking and “microblogging” service that allows users to post what they are doing using up to 280 characters per tweet. It is often used to share images, videos, memes, and links; tweet images can be “tagged” with up to 10 other Twitter users so they can be alerted that they are mentioned or referenced in the post. The service had 321 million monthly active users as of February 2019. See also, “tweet.”

Twitterstorm: a sudden spike in activity surrounding a certain topic on the Twitter social media site. A Twitterstorm is often started by a single person who sends his or her followers a message often related to breaking news. Using a certain and often original hashtags, the tweet quickly spreads as people are notified of the message and then reuse the hashtag with subsequent retweets and tweets.

Unfriend (or unfollow): the act of removing a friend from a social circle found on your social media site so they can’t see and don’t have access to your posts, captions, comments or anything else you’d like to restrict to a certain audience. Although unfriending has similarities with blocking a friend, it is different in the context of social media. Blocking a person prevents that person’s name from appearing in search results as well as prevents that person from contacting the person who has blocked him/her, whereas unfriending would not result in any of these and would just show that the person is no longer in the other person’s social circle.

Viber (app): An instant messaging and VoIP app (similar to Skype). Users can also exchange images, video and audio media messages. As of January 2019, it had 260 million monthly active users.

Victim: The person who is on the receiving end of online social cruelty. Also known as the “target.”

Vimeo (app): a video-based social network very much like YouTube, but with a different range of features and functions, and geared towards creatives rather than general users making random videos. For example, paid users can share their videos without ads.

Vine (app): A video app owned by Twitter (and that is now defunct) which allowed users to capture moments in six seconds and share them with others.

VoIP: Acronym that stands for: “Voice over Internet Protocol.” The transmission of voice over an Internet connection. Allows users to make phone calls using the Internet instead of a phone line.

Web: Short for “World Wide Web” and representing the sites and pages linked together via the Internet.

Webcast: A live or pre-recorded audio and/or video session that uses the Internet to broadcast.

Webcrastinate: To waste time by browsing around the world wide web instead of getting on with the things one should be doing.

Webdrawls: The act or process of going without the use of the internet which one has become addicted.

WhatsApp (app): A cross platform messaging application that allows users to send texts, pictures, videos, links, user locations, documents, and more. It allows for connections based on one’s phone number. It has at least 1.6 billion monthly active users as of Spring 2019.

Whisper (app): An app that allows users to share their secrets anonymously with other users using text and images. Individuals input their secret (or another self-disclosing message) into the app, select a relevant picture as a background, and then post it for others to like, comment on, and share with others.

Wireless: Communications in which electromagnetic waves carry a signal through space rather than along a wire. Refers primarily to wireless Internet access (Wi-Fi) available in an increasing number of places.

Wireless Device: Electronic devices that can access the Internet without being physically attached by a cable or data line.

YouTube (app): is a wildly popular video sharing app and site owned by Google where registered users can upload and share videos with anyone able to access the site. It has over 2 billion average monthly users and over 30 billion average daily users, with 300 hours of video uploaded every minute.

The post Social Media, Cyberbullying, and Online Safety Glossary appeared first on Cyberbullying Research Center.

]]>
https://cyberbullying.org/social-media-cyberbullying-and-online-safety-glossary/feed 0