All
 
|
 
 


Flaming and trolling as a type of cyberaggression: the role structure and features of digital sociality
 
PIIS020595920015229-7-1
DOI10.31857/S020595920015229-7
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
G. Soldatova 
Occupation: professor of personality psychology department
Affiliation: Moscow State University
Address: Moscow, Russian Federation
E. Rasskazova
Occupation: Associate professor of clinical psychology department, leading researcher of the international laboratory of positive personality psychology and motivation
Affiliation:
Moscow State University
National Research University “Higher School of Economics”
Address: Russian Federation
S. Chigarkova
Occupation: Deputy head of the social psychology department
Affiliation: Moscow State University, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”
Address: Russian Federation
Journal namePsikhologicheskii zhurnal
EditionVolume 42 issue 3
Pages87-96
Abstract

The transformation of aggression into its “cyber” form indicated an interest in those socio-psychological and user factors and mechanisms that are behind risky and aggressive online behavior. In addition to the task of identifying the socio-psychological factors of the collision of adolescents and youth with cyberaggression, the paper analyzes through the prism of different roles in flaming as the most common types of cyberaggression, the features of digital sociality, which is formed as a result of the experience of social online interaction. 1,554 adolescents 12−17 years old, 736 young people and 1105 parents of adolescents from 8 federal districts of Russia assessed their experience and possible reaction to the collision with flaming, and also completed methods to measure user activity, compliance with the rules of online and offline communication, Internet addiction, personality traits, tolerance, empathy, aggression. According to the results, the role of the witness of aggression – the leading online role among adolescents and youth, is often underestimated by parents. The risk of encountering flaming is higher with higher user activity, especially in adolescents aged 12−13, and observation of online aggression is associated with less tolerance and awareness, less willingness to follow the rules of polite communication online and offline, more aggression and neuroticism. The selection of active aggressive role is associated with an even higher level of aggressiveness and a lower level of agreeableness and tolerance, while the choice of active pro-social role is associated with higher rates of agreeableness, empathy, tolerance and willingness to follow the rules of polite communication online and offline.

Keywordscyberaggression, adolescents, social roles, flaming, aggression, tolerance, personality
AcknowledgmentResearch was supported by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research, project 20-013-00857 “Socio-cultural and personal predictors of destructive and self-destructive behavior on the Internet in adolescents and youth”
Received04.06.2021
Publication date12.06.2021
Number of characters26248
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 5, views: 2678

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Bandura A., Walters R. Podrostkovaya agressiya. Izuchenie vliyaniya vospitaniya i semejnyh otnoshenij. Moscow: April Press, 2000. (in Russian)
2. Budagovskaya N.A., Dubrovskaya S.V., Karyagina T.D. Adaptaciya mnogofaktornogo oprosnika empatii M. Devisa. Konsul'tacionnaya psihologiya i psihoterapiya. 2013. № 1. P. 223−227. (in Russian)
3. Baron R.A., Richardson D.R. Agressiya. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2009. (in Russian)
4. Grigoryan L.K., Gorinova E.V. Faktornyj opros: preimushchestva, oblast' primeneniya, prakticheskie rekomendacii. Social'naya psihologiya i obshchestvo. 2016. V. 7. № 2. P. 142–157. (in Russian)
5. Egorova M.S., Parshikova O.V. Psihometricheskie harakteristiki Korotkogo portretnogo oprosnika Bol'shoj pyaterki (B5-10). Psihologicheskie issledovaniya. 2016. V. 9. № 45. P. 9. URL: http://psystudy.ru.  (in Russian)
6. Enikolopov S.N., Cibul'skij N.P. Psihometricheskij analiz russkoyazychnoj versii Oprosnika diagnostiki agressii A. Bassa i M. Perri. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2007. V. 28. № 1. P. 115–124. (in Russian)
7. Malygin V.L., Feklisov K.A., Iskandirova A.S., Antonenko A.A., Smirnova E.A., Homeriki N.S. Internet-zavisimoe povedenie. Kriterii i metody diagnostiki. Uchebnoe posobie. Moscow: MGMSU, 2011. (in Russian)
8. Soldatova G. U. Cifrovaya socializaciya v kul'turno-istoricheskoj paradigme: izmenyayushchijsya rebenok v izmenyayushchemsya mire. Social'naya psihologiya i obshchestvo. 2018. V. 9.  № 3. P. 71–80. (in Russian)
9. Soldatova G.U., Kravcova O.A., Huhlaev O.E., Shajgerova L.A. Ekspress oprosnik “Indeks tolerantnosti”. Psihodiagnostika tolerantnosti lichnosti. Ed. G.U. Soldatova, L.A. Shajgerova.  Moscow: Smysl, 2008. P. 46–51.  (in Russian)
10. Soldatova G.U., Rasskazova E.I., Nestik T.A. Cifrovoe pokolenie Rossii: kompetentnost' i bezopasnost'. Moscow: Smysl, 2017. (in Russian)
11. Soldatova G.U., Rasskazova E.I., CHigar'kova S.V. Vidy kiberagressii: opyt podrostkov i molodezhi. Nacional'nyj Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2020. V. 2. № 38. P. 3–20.
12. Soldatova G.U., Yarmina A.N. Kiberbulling: osobennosti, rolevaya struktura, detsko-roditel'skie otnosheniya i strategii sovladaniya. Nacional'nyj Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2019. V. 35. № 3. P. 17–31. (in Russian)
13. Appel M., Stiglbauer B., Batinic B., Holtz P. Internet use and verbal aggression: The moderating role of parents and peers. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014. № 33. P. 235–241.
14. Bauman S., Underwood M.K., Card N. Definitions: Another perspective and a proposal for beginning with cyberaggression. Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology. Ed. by S. Bauman, J. Walker & D. Cross. NY: Routledge, 2013. P. 41–46.
15. Corcoran L., Guckin C., Prentice G. Cyberbullying or Cyber Aggression?: A Review of Existing Definitions of Cyber-Based Peer-to-Peer Aggression. Societies. 2015. V. 5. №. 2. Р. 245–255.
16. Grigg D.W. Cyber-Aggression: Definition and Concept of Cyberbullying. Journ. of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools. 2010. V. 20, № 2. Р. 143–156.
17. Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., Sevcikova, A., Cerna, A. Bystanders’ Supportive and Passive Responses to Cyberaggression. Journ. of School Violence. 2016.  V. 17. № 1. Р. 99–110.
18. Moor P.J., Heuvelman A., Verleur R. Flaming on YouTube. Computers in human behavior. 2010. Vol. 26, № 6. P. 1536–1546.
19. Moreno-Ruiz D., Martínez-Ferrer B., García-Bacete F. Parenting styles, cyberaggression, and cybervictimization among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019. № 93. Р. 252–259.
20. O’Sullivan P.B., Flanagin A.J. Reconceptualizing ‘flaming’ and other problematic messages. New Media & Society. 2003. Vol. 5. № 1. Р. 69–94.
21. Pfetsch J. Who is who in cyberbullying? Conceptual and empirical perspectives on bystanders in cyberbullying. A Social-ecological approach to cyberbullying. Ed. by M. Wright. NY: Nova Publishing, 2016. P. 121–150.
22. Voggeser B.J., Singh R.K., Göritz A.S. Self-control in Online Discussions: Disinhibited Online Behavior as a Failure to Recognize Social Cues. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018. № 8. Article 2372. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02372/full 
23. Wright M.F., Wachs S. Adolescents’ Cyber Victimization: The Influence of Technologies, Gender, and Gender Stereotype Traits. International Journ. of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020. V. 17. № 4. Article 1293.
24. Zimmerman A. G., Ybarra G. J. Online aggression: The influences of anonymity and social modeling. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. 2016.  V. 5 № 2. Р. 181–193.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up