Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

#FollowMe: An investigation into the relationship between social media behaviors and online harassment among adolescents

Article Sidebar

Interaction Effect of Parental Monitoring on Sex and Online Harassment
Download PDF
Submitted   Jul 2, 2020
Published   Sep 8, 2020
Issue    Vol 1 No 1 (2020)
DOI   10.25082/IJAH.2020.01.005

Views

4116

Downloads

1994

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Tabrina M. Bratton corresponding author
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Arkansas 72204, USA
Robert D. Lytle
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Arkansas 72204, USA
Heather K. Hudson
Department of Health Sciences, University of Central Arkansas, Arkansas 72035, USA

Abstract

Social media is a relatively new global phenomenon. Virtual places provide criminogenic motivators like financial gain, access to suitable targets, and massive amounts of information all under one virtual roof. Additionally, social media sites host large amounts of people in one space, generating significant opportunities for victimization. Despite the Internet’s theoretical relevance to understanding victimization, scholarly research into the effects of social media activity in victimization is scarce. Using data from the Pew Research Center, I investigated the relationship between Facebook use and online harassment among adolescents between 13 and 17 years of age. The results showed that an adolescent’s behavior on Facebook contributed to the likelihood of experiencing online harassment. Additionally, parental monitoring of their adolescent’s Facebook activity did not have a significant moderating effect on adolescents’ risk of online harassment. This research contributed to the literature by identifying specific behaviors in adolescents that increase their risk of online harassment.

Keywords
social media, online harassment, cybervictimization, dyadic data, Facebook

Article Details

How to Cite
Bratton, T., Lytle, R., & Hudson, H. (2020). #FollowMe: An investigation into the relationship between social media behaviors and online harassment among adolescents. International Journal of Arts and Humanities, 1(1), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.25082/IJAH.2020.01.005
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Acock AC, 2018. A gentle introduction to Stata (6th Ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
  2. Anderson Jiang, 2018. Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018 YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat are the most popular online platforms among teens. Fully 95% of teens have access to a smartphone, and 45% say they are online ‘almost constantly’. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
  3. Arntfield M. Toward a cybervictimology: Cyberbullying, routine activities theory, and the anti-sociality of social media. Canadian Journal of Communication, 2015, 40(3): 371-388. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2015v40n3a2863
  4. Bergman SM, Fearrington ME, Davenport SW. et al. Millennials, narcissism, and social networking: What narcissists do on social networking sites and why. Personality and Individual Differences, 2011, 50(5): 706-711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.022
  5. Bossler AM, Holt TJ and May DC. Predicting online harassment victimization among a juvenile population. Youth & Society, 2012, 44(4): 500-523. https://doi.org/10.1177/00448X11407525
  6. Bossler AM and Holt TJ. On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activity theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2009, 3(1): 400-420.
  7. Carpenter CJ. Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional and anti-social behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 2012, 52(4): 482-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.011
  8. Choi K. Computer crime and victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2008, 2(1): 308-322.
  9. Cohen LE and Felson M. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 1979, 44: 588-608.
  10. Danah B. Social network sites as networked publics affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self-identity, community, and culture on social network sites 39-54. New York, NY: Routledge, 2011.
  11. Danah B and Ellison NB. Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 2008, 13(1): 210-230.
  12. Dehue F, Bolman C and Vollink T. Cyberbullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parent perception. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2008, 11(2): 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0008
  13. Desilver D. Overseas users power Facebook’s growth; more going mobile-only. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2014.
  14. Duggan M. Online harassment 2017. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2017.
  15. Dwyer C, Hiltz SR and Passerini K. Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, USA, 2007, 13: 1-12.
  16. Finkelhor D and Asdigian NL. Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyle/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 1996, 11(1): 3-20.
  17. Haythornthwaite C. Social networks and internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication, and Society, 2005, 8(2): 125-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500146185
  18. Hinduja S and Patchin JW. Cyberbullying and sexual orientation. Unknown: Cyberbullying Research Center,2011
  19. Hollis ME, Felson M and Welsh BC. The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 2013, 15: 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2012.14
  20. Holtfreter K, Reisig MD and Pratt TC. Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology, 2008, 46(1): 189-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00101.x
  21. Horstmanshof L and Power MR. Mobile phones, SMS, and relationships. Australian Journal of Communication, 2005, 32: 33-52.
  22. Hudson HK, Fetro JV and Ogletree R. Behavioral indicators and behaviors related to sexting among undergraduate students. American Journal of Health Education, 2014, 44(3): 183-195.
  23. Hutchings A and Hayes H. Routine Activity Theory and phishing victimization: Who gets caught in the ‘Net’?. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 2009, 20(3): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2009.12035821
  24. Jelenchick LA, Eickhoff JC and Moreno MA. “Facebook Depression?” Social networking site use and depression in older adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2013, 52: 128-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.008
  25. Jones LM, Mitchell KJ and Finkelhor D. Online harassment in context: Trends from three Youth Internet Safety Surveys (2000, 2005, 2010). Psychology of Violence, 2013, 3(1): 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030309
  26. Kalia D and Aleem S. Cyber victimization among adolescents: Examining the role of routine activity theory. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 2017, 12(1): 223-232.
  27. Lenhart A. Overview: Teens and sexting: How and why minor teens are sending sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images via text messaging. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2009.
  28. Lenhart A, Madden M, Smith A, et al. Teens, kindness, and cruelty on social network sites how American teens navigate the new world of digital citizenship. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.21149
  29. Lenhart A, Smith A and Anderson M. Teens, technology, and romantic relationships. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2015.
  30. Leukfeldt ER. Phishing for suitable targets in The Netherlands: Routine activity theory and phishing victimization. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2014, 17(8): 551-558. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0008
  31. Livingstone S. Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media and Society, 2008, 3(10): 393-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808089415
  32. Madden M, Lenhart A, Cortesi S, et al. Teens, social media and privacy. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2013 http://apo.org.au/node/34223
  33. Mahatanankoon P and O’Sullivan P. Attitudes towards mobile-text messaging: An expectancybased perspective. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2008, 13: 973-992. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00427.x
  34. Marcum CD, Higgins GE and Ricketts ML. Juveniles and cyber stalking in the United States: An analysis of theoretical predictors of patterns of online perpetration. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2014, 8(1): 47-56. https://doi.org/US3535522A
  35. Martinez-Prather K and Vandiver DM. Sexting among teenagers in the United States: A retrospective analysis of identifying motivating factors, potential targets, and the role of a capable guardian. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2014, 8(1): 21-35.
  36. Massimini M and Peterson M. Information and communication technology: Effects on U.S. college students. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2009, 3(1): 3.
  37. Mesch GS. Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2009, 12(4): 387-396. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0068
  38. Moore R, Guntupalli NT and Lee T. Parental regulation and online activities: Examining factors that influence a youth’s potential to become a victim of online harassment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2010, 4(1 & 2): 685-698.
  39. Navarro JN and Jasinski JL. Going cyber: Using Routine Activities Theory to predict cyberbullying experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 2012, 32: 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2012.628560
  40. Ngo FT and Paternoster R. Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2011, 5(1): 773-793.
  41. O’Keeffe GS and Clarke-Pearson K. The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 2011, 121(4): 120-127. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0054
  42. Oksanen A and Keipi K. Young people as victims of crime on the Internet: A population-based study in Finland. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 2013, 8(4): 298-309.
  43. Reyns BW, Henson B and Fisher BS. Being pursued online applying cyber lifestyle routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2011, 38(11): 1149-1172.
  44. Reyns BW, Henson B and Fisher BS. Guardians of the cyber galaxy: An empirical and theoretical analysis of the guardianship concept from routine activity theory as it applies to online forms of victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 2016, 32(2): 148-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986215621378
  45. Rife SC, Cate KL, Kosinski M, et al. Participant recruitment and data collection through Facebook: The role of personality factors. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2013, 19(1): 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.957069
  46. Runions KC, Bak M and Shaw T. Disentangling functions of online aggression: The Cyber-Aggression Typology Questionnaire (CATQ). Aggressive Behavior, 2017, 43: 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21663
  47. Ryan T and Xenos S. Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011, 27: 1658-1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004
  48. Schreck CJ and Fisher BS. Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2004, 19(9): 1021-1041.
  49. Sengupta A and Chaudhuri A. Are social networking sites a source of online harassment for teens? Evidence from survey data. Children and Youth Services Review, 2010, 33: 284-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.011
  50. Shaw AM, Timpano KR, Tran TB, et al. Correlates of Facebook usage patterns: The relationship between passive Facebook use, social anxiety symptoms, and brooding. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015, 45: 574-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.003
  51. Smith A and Anderson M. Social media use in 2018. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2018.
  52. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, et al. Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2008, 49(4): 376-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
  53. Sullivan EM, Annest JL, Simon TR, et al. Suicide trends among persons aged 10-24 years United States, 1994-2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015, 64(8): 201-205.
  54. Tandoc Jr EC, Ferrucci P and Duffy M. Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: Is Facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior, 2015, 43: 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.053
  55. The National Campaign, 2009. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and CosmoGirl.com reveals results of Sex and Tech Survey: Large percentage of teens posting/sending nude/semi nude images. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
  56. Tokunaga RS. Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010, 26: 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
  57. Valkenburg PM, Peter J and Schouten AP. Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ wellbeing and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2006, 9(5): 583-591. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.584
  58. Ybarra ML and Mitchell KJ. How risky are social networking sites?: A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics, 2008, 121(2): 350-360.