网络暴力:我们知道什么?我们将何去何从?外文翻译资料

Cyber violence: What do we know and where do we go from here? Jillian Peterson, James Densley

1. What do we know about cyber violence?

One of the most cited typologies of cybercrime, developed by Wall (2001), suggests four forms of offending that exist in virtual environments: deception/theft, pornography, violence, and cyber-trespass. This paper is concerned primarily with violence, or what Holt (2011) describes as “cyber violence”. Further, this review focuses attention on violence via social media and social networking sites, broadly defined as “public mediated spaces” such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram (Boyd, 2014, p. 137). Social media represents a shift toward a more “user-centred” (Van Dijck, 2013) and “user-generated” (Boyd, 2014) Internet, characterized by “spreadable media” (Jenkins, Ford, amp; Green, 2013) and “participatory” youth culture (Burgess amp; Green, 2009). Multi-platform or “polymedia” use is common, whereby individuals use different social media platforms for different forms of communication (Madianou amp; Miller, 2013). Burgess and Green (2009, p. 102) argue that even YouTube has evolved into a social networking site, “one in which videos (rather than friending) are the primary media of social connection between participants”.

1.1 Prevalence of cyber violence

Cyber violence is difficult to define, let alone systematically track. As a result, prevalence rates are largely unknown. There have been a number of large-scale, national surveys of youth that examine cyber bullying and cyber dating violence. For example, one study used a large national telephone survey (N = 4561) of youth ages 10–17 during 2000, 2005, and 2010 (Jones, Mitchell, amp; Finkelhor, 2013). The rate of online harassment nearly doubled in a decade, from 6% in 2000 to 11% in 2010. Girls made up 69% of victims, an increase from 2000, and were more likely to report the incident occurred on a social networking site like Facebook. The reported rates of cyber-bullying in another national survey of 1588 youth ages 10–15 in 2008 were much higher (Ybarra, Mitchell, amp; Korchmaros, 2011). This study used a national, online survey of randomly selected households. In the last wave of this study, nearly 40% of the sample reported being victimized at some point and nearly 25% of the sample reported perpetrating harassment online. Whether or not there is a gender difference in cyber aggression and violence is also unclear. Lowe and Espalogue (2013) posit males typically have higher rates of physical bullying, but females may actually display higher rates of cyber aggression. Ybarra et al. (2011) found no gender difference in rates of cyber-bullying in their national survey. However, a recent cyber-bullying meta-analysis by Barlett and Coyne (2014) examined 122 effect sizes to explore whether or not there is a gender difference in prevalence rates. The results showed that girls were more likely to engage in cyber bullying during younger age (mid-adolescence) and boys were more likely to engage in cyber-bullying during later years (late adolescence). Girls also are more likely to experience cyber-dating violence. In a survey focused on relationship violence among 5647 youth, over 25% of participants who were in a current or recent relationship experienced a form of cyber dating abuse victimization that year, with higher rates among girls (Zweig, Dank, Yahner, amp; Lachman, 2013). One out of 10 participants in this study reported perpetrating cyber-dating abuse. Unfortunately, beyond these studies in adolescence, there are virtually no prevalence studies of experiencing or perpetrating cyber aggression and violence in adulthood. Prevalence rates of traditional criminals using social media to facilitate violence (i.e. gang members, terror group members, sex offenders) are few and far between (e.g., Moule et al., 2013).

2. Group and environmental explanations of cyber violence

In addition to individual-level externalizing and internalizing traits, certain group processes and environmental factors may also facilitate cyber violence. Prior research has generally drawn upon popular criminological theories to account for this, as follows.

2.1 Social control and social learning theories

The role of parents and peers is critical in the development and facilitation of traditional forms of aggression and violence (e.g., Akers, 1998). In a recent review of the literature, Ang (2015) found that poor emotional bonds with parents and a lack of parental monitoring related specifically to cyber aggression as well. Holt etal. (2010) argue social learning theory may apply specifically to cyber aggression through the association with delinquent peers. Exposure to violence in the media is also associated with concurrent reports of serious violent behavior (Ybarra et al., 2008). Hinduja and Patchin (2007) examined 4400 sixth to twelfth grade students, and also found that cyber bullying was related the perceived likelihood of being punished by adults. Additionally, this study found that perceptions of peer behavior (i.e., whether or not ones peers were cyberbullying as well) were related to cyber aggression. This finding is consistent with a recent survey of 850 middle school students, which found that weak attachments to peers was associated with both traditional and cyber bullying (Burton, Florell, amp; Wygant, 2012). Another study of relationship cyber aggression in 600 adolescents found that insecure maternal attachments and insecure partner attachments were related to partner-directed cyber aggression (Wright, 2015), again emphasizing the importance of peer and family relationships as selection criteria.

2.2 Routine activities and “digital drift”

Offending via social networking sites is associated with routine activity or lifestyle theori

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[265847]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word