National Summit on Interpersonal Violence and AbuseAcross the Lifespan: Forging A Shared AgendaThursday, February 25, 2010...
AcknowledgementsThis survey was supported by Cooperative Agreement numberU49/CE000206 from the Centers for Disease Control...
Technology use in the US:Prevalence rates More than 9 in 10 youth 12-17 use theInternet (Lenhart, Arafeh, Smith, Rankin M...
Technology use in the US:Benefits of technology Access to health information: About one in four adolescents have used th...
Technology use in the US:Benefits of technology Teaching healthy behaviors (as described by MyThai, Lownestein, Ching, Re...
Technology use in the US: risksBehavior and psychosocial problems have been notedconcurrently for youth involved in Intern...
Technology use in the US: risks Perpetrators of Internet victimization: Interpersonal victimization and perpetration (bu...
Technology use in the US: risksStrong overlap between harassment and unwanted sexualsolicitation (Ybarra, Mitchell, Espela...
Objectives Quantify the number of technology-basedaggressions reported by young people between2006-2008 Describe how tec...
Growing up with Media survey Longitudinal design; Fielded 2006, 2007, 2008 Data collected online National sample (Unite...
Eligibility criteria Youth: Between the ages of 10-15 years Use the Internet at least once in the last 6 months Live i...
Youth Demographic Characteristics2006 (n=1,576) 2007 (n=1189) 2008 (n=1149)Female 51% 50% 51%Age (SE) 12.6 (0.05) 13.7 (0....
Objective 1Quantify the number of technology-basedaggressions reported by young peoplebetween 2006-2008
Internet harassment
Working Definition ofInternet harassmentIn general, “Internet harassment” is obnoxiousbehavior directed at someone with th...
Annual prevalence rates of youth victimsof Internet harassmentType (Monthly or more often) 2006 2007 2008ANY 33% 8% 34% 9%...
Internet harassment victimization by ageacross time11%18%26%39%50% 49%22%26% 26%37%48%44%24%34%43% 43%46% 45%0%5%10%15%20%...
Very / extremely upset by theharassment0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%Rude / mean comments Rumors Threatening /aggressive ...
Annual prevalence rates of youthperpetrators Internet harassmentType (Monthly or more often) 2006 2007 2008ANY 21% 4% 19% ...
Internet harassment perpetration by ageacross time6%11%16%21%31%36%6%12%19%22%29%22%9%18%30%25%27%29%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35...
“Cyberbullying”
Working definition ofcyberbullyingAs of yet, there is no generally agreed upondefinition for cyberbullyingSome use Olweus‟...
Annual prevalence rates of youth victimsof cyberbullyingType (Monthly or more often) 2007 2008Cyberbullying 13% 3% 15% 2%
Cyberbully victimization by age acrosstime7%8%12% 12%14%18%8%10%18%14%18% 17%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%11 12 13 14 15...
Very / extremely upset by thecyberbullying0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%Cyberbullied20082008
Cyberbullying perpetrationNon-perpetrator94%Perpetrator6%Data from 2008 only
Cyberbully perpetration by age acrosstime4% 4%8%6% 4%12%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%12 13 14 15 16 17GuwM W3 (2008): 6%
Unwanted sexual solicitation(unwanted sexual encounters)
Working Definition ofUnwanted Sexual SolicitationThe definition of unwanted sexual solicitation wascreated by Dr. David Fi...
Working Definition ofUnwanted Sexual SolicitationIt usually refers to the following: Being asked to do something sexual w...
Annual prevalence rates of youth victimsof unwanted sexual encountersType 2006 2007 2008ANY 15% 3% 15% 3% 18% 5%Someone as...
Unwanted sexual encountersvictimization by age across time6% 6%11%17%22%24%5%10%13%15%20%25%5%14%18% 18%28%22%0%5%10%15%20...
Very / extremely upset by theunwanted sexual encounter0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%Talk about sex Sexual information Do ...
Annual prevalence rates of youth perpetratorsof unwanted sexual encountersType 2006 2007 2008ANY 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 0.4%Someon...
Unwanted sexual encounterperpetration by age across time1% 3%0%2% 5%5%1% 1%4%4% 4% 3%1% 2%6%3% 3% 4%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%...
Online harassment – offline violenceperpetrationNone56%Offline-only24%Online-only7%Online+Offline13%
Objective 2Describe how technology-based aggression isrelated to non-technology-based aggressionfor young people
Internet harassment
Victim of Non-technology-basedaggressionPeer aggression Someone my age did not let me in their group anymorebecause they ...
Online harassment – offline peervictimizationNone32%Offline-only33%Online-only6%Online+Offline29%
Online harassment – offline violencevictimizationNone45%Offline-only20%Online-only14%Online+Offline21%
Online harassment – offline peeraggression perpetrationNone58%Offline-only21%Online-only6%Online+Offline15%
Involvement in unwanted sexualencountersNot involved84%Victim-only13%Perpetrator-only1%Perpetrator-victim2%Unwanted sexual...
“Cyberbullying”
Victim of Non-technology-basedbullying At school On the way to and from school
Online bullying – offline bullyingvictimizationNone66%Offline-only23%Online-only3%Online + Offline8%
Online bullying – offline bullyingperpetrationNone84%Offline-only9%Online-only2%Online + Offline5%
Unwanted sexual solicitation(unwanted sexual encounters)
Online sexual encounter – offline sexualencounter victimization76%7%7%9%NoneOffline-onlyOnline-onlyOnline+Offline
Age and sexType of peer aggression Age FemaleOR P-value OR P-valueVictimizationOnline harassment - offline peerharassment ...
Age and sexType of peer aggression Age FemaleOR ORVictimizationOnline harassment - offline peer harassment ↑ nsOnline hara...
Recap: Objective 1Quantify the number of technology-basedaggressions reported by young peoplebetween 2006-2008
Recap: Prevalence rates (average across 2006-2008) Internet harassment (ever in the past year 06-08): Uninvolved: 62% V...
Recap: Prevalence rates (average across 2006-2008) Unwanted sexual encounter (ever in the pastyear 06-08): Uninvolved: 8...
Recap: Objective 2Describe how technology-based aggression isrelated to non-technology-based aggressionfor young people
Online – offline aggression overlapType of peer aggression None Offline Online O+OVictimizationOnline harassment - offline...
Overlap of cyberbullying-harassmentvictimizationNot involved62%Cyberbully-onlyvictim1%Harassment-onlyvictim24%Cyberbully +...
Limitations Findings need to be replicated – preferably inother national data sets Data are based upon the US. It‟s poss...
Takeaways Overlap in online and offline aggressioninvolvement varies between 5%-29%,depending on the type The majority o...
Takeaways In general, harassment, bullying, and unwantedsexual encounters increase with age There is some indication tha...
TakeawaysThe Internet is an important and influential world in whichyoung people learn and engage with othersIf we are to ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Trends in technology-based sexual and non-sexual aggression over time and linkages to non-technology aggression

231 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
231
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
26
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Trends in technology-based sexual and non-sexual aggression over time and linkages to non-technology aggression

  1. 1. National Summit on Interpersonal Violence and AbuseAcross the Lifespan: Forging A Shared AgendaThursday, February 25, 2010, Houston, TXTrends in technology-based sexual and non-sexual aggression over time and linkages tonon-technology aggressionMichele Ybarra MPH PhDCenter for Innovative Public Health Research* Thank you for your interest in this presentation. Please notethat analyses included herein are preliminary. More recent,finalized analyses may be available by contacting CiPHR forfurther information.
  2. 2. AcknowledgementsThis survey was supported by Cooperative Agreement numberU49/CE000206 from the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC). The contents of this presentation aresolely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarilyrepresent the official views of the CDC.I would like to thank the entire Growing up with Media Studyteam from Internet Solutions for Kids, Harris Interactive,Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and theCDC, who contributed to the planning and implementation ofthe study. Finally, we thank the families for their time andwillingness to participate in this study.
  3. 3. Technology use in the US:Prevalence rates More than 9 in 10 youth 12-17 use theInternet (Lenhart, Arafeh, Smith, Rankin Macgill, 2008; USC Annenberg SchoolCenter for the Digital Future, 2005). 71% of 12-17 year olds have a cell phone(Lenhart, 4/10/2009) and 46% of 8-12 year olds havea cell phone (Nielson, 9/10/2008)
  4. 4. Technology use in the US:Benefits of technology Access to health information: About one in four adolescents have used theInternet to look for health information in thelast year (Lenhart et al., 2001; Rideout et al., 2001; Ybarra & Suman, 2006). 41% of adolescents indicate having changedtheir behavior because of information theyfound online (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002), and 14% havesought healthcare services as a result (Rideout,2001).
  5. 5. Technology use in the US:Benefits of technology Teaching healthy behaviors (as described by MyThai, Lownestein, Ching, Rejeski, 2009) Physical health: Dance Dance Revolution Healthy behaviors: Sesame Street‟s Colorme Hungry (encourages eating vegetables) Disease Management: Re-Mission (teacheschildren with cancer about the disease)
  6. 6. Technology use in the US: risksBehavior and psychosocial problems have been notedconcurrently for youth involved in Internet harassmentand unwanted sexual solicitation Victims: Interpersonal victimization / bullying offline (Ybarra, Mitchell, Espelage,2007; Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, Finkelhor, 2006; Ybarra, 2004) Alcohol use (Ybarra, Mitchell, Espelage, 2007) Social problems (Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, Finkelhor, 2006) Depressive symptomatology (Ybarra, 2004; Mitchell, Finkelhor, Wolak, 2000) School behavior problems (Ybarra, Diener-West, Leaf, 2007) Poor caregiver-child relationships (Ybarra, Diener-West, Leaf, 2007)
  7. 7. Technology use in the US: risks Perpetrators of Internet victimization: Interpersonal victimization and perpetration (bullying) offline(Ybarra, Mitchell, Espelage, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) Aggression / rule breaking (Ybarra, Mitchell, Espelage, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell,2007) Binge drinking (Ybarra, Mitchell, Espelage, 2007) Substance use (Ybarra, Mitchell, Espelage, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2007) Poor caregiver child relationship (Ybarra, Mitchell, Espelage, 2007; Ybarra &Mitchell, 2004; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2007) Low school commitment (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004)
  8. 8. Technology use in the US: risksStrong overlap between harassment and unwanted sexualsolicitation (Ybarra, Mitchell, Espelage, 2007)63%21%2%14% No involvementHarassment onlyUnwanted sexualsolicitation onlyHarassment + unwantedsexual solicitationData not published; average across 2006-2008
  9. 9. Objectives Quantify the number of technology-basedaggressions reported by young people between2006-2008 Describe how technology-based aggression is relatedto non-technology-based aggression for youngpeople
  10. 10. Growing up with Media survey Longitudinal design; Fielded 2006, 2007, 2008 Data collected online National sample (United States) Households randomly identified from the 4 million-member Harris Poll OnLine (HPOL) Sample selection was stratified based on youth age andsex. Data were weighted to match the US population ofadults with children between the ages of 10 and 15 yearsand adjust for the propensity of adult to be online and inthe HPOL.
  11. 11. Eligibility criteria Youth: Between the ages of 10-15 years Use the Internet at least once in the last 6 months Live in the household at least 50% of the time English speaking Adult: Be a member of the Harris Poll Online (HPOL) opt-in panel Be a resident in the USA (HPOL has members internationally) Be the most (or equally) knowledgeable of the youth‟s media usein the home English speaking
  12. 12. Youth Demographic Characteristics2006 (n=1,576) 2007 (n=1189) 2008 (n=1149)Female 51% 50% 51%Age (SE) 12.6 (0.05) 13.7 (0.05) 14.5 (0.05)Hispanic ethnicity 18% 16% 16%Race: White 71% 72% 72%Race: Black / African American 14% 13% 14%Race: Mixed race 9% 9% 9%Race: Other 6% 6% 6%Household less than $35,000 26% 24% 25%Internet use 1 hour+ per day 43% 49% 52%
  13. 13. Objective 1Quantify the number of technology-basedaggressions reported by young peoplebetween 2006-2008
  14. 14. Internet harassment
  15. 15. Working Definition ofInternet harassmentIn general, “Internet harassment” is obnoxiousbehavior directed at someone with the intent toharass or bother them. It: Occurs online. It can, but does not necessarily include textmessaging. Can occur once or more often. Can occur between people of equal power.
  16. 16. Annual prevalence rates of youth victimsof Internet harassmentType (Monthly or more often) 2006 2007 2008ANY 33% 8% 34% 9% 39% 9%Someone made a rude or meancomment to me online.29% 7% 31% 8% 35% 8%Someone spread rumors about meonline, whether they were true or not.12% 2% 17% 3% 19% 3%Someone made a threatening oraggressive comment to me online.14% 3% 14% 3% 15% 3%Someone my age took me off their buddy listbecause they were mad at me26% 4% 30% 4%Someone posted a picture or video of me inan embarrassing situation1.5% 0.7% 3% 0.6%“Revised” total 41% 10% 45% 10%
  17. 17. Internet harassment victimization by ageacross time11%18%26%39%50% 49%22%26% 26%37%48%44%24%34%43% 43%46% 45%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17GuwM W1 (2006): 33%GuwM W2 (2007): 34%GuwM W3 (2008): 39%
  18. 18. Very / extremely upset by theharassment0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%Rude / mean comments Rumors Threatening /aggressive comments200620072008
  19. 19. Annual prevalence rates of youthperpetrators Internet harassmentType (Monthly or more often) 2006 2007 2008ANY 21% 4% 19% 3% 23% 4%Someone made a rude or meancomment to me online.18% 3% 17% 3% 21% 4%Someone spread rumors about meonline, whether they were true or not.11% 2% 10% 0.7% 11% 0.7Someone made a threatening oraggressive comment to me online.5% 1.5% 5% 0.5% 8% 0.9%Someone my age took me off their buddy listbecause they were made at me25% 3% 26% 2.3%Someone posted a picture or video of me inan embarrassing situation1.2% 0.6% 2% 0.3%“Revised” total 31% 4% 35% 5%
  20. 20. Internet harassment perpetration by ageacross time6%11%16%21%31%36%6%12%19%22%29%22%9%18%30%25%27%29%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17GuwM W1 (2006): 21%GuwM W2 (2007): 19%GuwM W3 (2008): 23%
  21. 21. “Cyberbullying”
  22. 22. Working definition ofcyberbullyingAs of yet, there is no generally agreed upondefinition for cyberbullyingSome use Olweus‟ definition; other use a list ofdefinitionsWe define it as: Being online Differential power Repetitive Over time
  23. 23. Annual prevalence rates of youth victimsof cyberbullyingType (Monthly or more often) 2007 2008Cyberbullying 13% 3% 15% 2%
  24. 24. Cyberbully victimization by age acrosstime7%8%12% 12%14%18%8%10%18%14%18% 17%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%11 12 13 14 15 16 17GuwM W2 (2007): 34%GuwM W3 (2008): 39%
  25. 25. Very / extremely upset by thecyberbullying0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%Cyberbullied20082008
  26. 26. Cyberbullying perpetrationNon-perpetrator94%Perpetrator6%Data from 2008 only
  27. 27. Cyberbully perpetration by age acrosstime4% 4%8%6% 4%12%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%12 13 14 15 16 17GuwM W3 (2008): 6%
  28. 28. Unwanted sexual solicitation(unwanted sexual encounters)
  29. 29. Working Definition ofUnwanted Sexual SolicitationThe definition of unwanted sexual solicitation wascreated by Dr. David Finkelhor and colleagues inresponse to concerns from government and non-profit agencies that youth were being “solicited”onlineLike harassment, it: Occurs online. It can, but does not necessarily include textmessaging. Can occur once or more often.
  30. 30. Working Definition ofUnwanted Sexual SolicitationIt usually refers to the following: Being asked to do something sexual when you don‟twant to Being asked to share personal sexual information whenyou don‟t want to Being asked to talk about sex when you don‟t want toNOTE: It does not mean that you are being solicitedfor sex. I propose for this discussion, we call it „unwantedsexual encounters‟
  31. 31. Annual prevalence rates of youth victimsof unwanted sexual encountersType 2006 2007 2008ANY 15% 3% 15% 3% 18% 5%Someone asked me to talk about sexwhen I did not want to11% 2% 13% 3% 14% 3%Someone asked me to provide reallypersonal sexual questions about myselfwhen I did not want to tell them11% 2% 12% 3% 13% 3%Someone asked me to do somethingsexual when I did not want to7% 2% 8% 2% 9% 3%
  32. 32. Unwanted sexual encountersvictimization by age across time6% 6%11%17%22%24%5%10%13%15%20%25%5%14%18% 18%28%22%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17GuwM W1 (2006): 33%GuwM W2 (2007): 34%GuwM W3 (2008): 39%
  33. 33. Very / extremely upset by theunwanted sexual encounter0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%Talk about sex Sexual information Do something sexual200620072008
  34. 34. Annual prevalence rates of youth perpetratorsof unwanted sexual encountersType 2006 2007 2008ANY 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 0.4%Someone asked me to talk about sexwhen I did not want to2% 1% 2% 0.6% 2% 0.3%Someone asked me to provide reallypersonal sexual questions about myselfwhen I did not want to tell them3% 1% 2% 0.3% 2% 0.4%Someone asked me to do somethingsexual when I did not want to1% 0.5% 2% 0.4% 2% 0.3%
  35. 35. Unwanted sexual encounterperpetration by age across time1% 3%0%2% 5%5%1% 1%4%4% 4% 3%1% 2%6%3% 3% 4%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17GuwM W1 (2006): 3%GuwM W2 (2007): 3%GuwM W3 (2007): 3%
  36. 36. Online harassment – offline violenceperpetrationNone56%Offline-only24%Online-only7%Online+Offline13%
  37. 37. Objective 2Describe how technology-based aggression isrelated to non-technology-based aggressionfor young people
  38. 38. Internet harassment
  39. 39. Victim of Non-technology-basedaggressionPeer aggression Someone my age did not let me in their group anymorebecause they were mad at me. Someone spread a rumor about me, whether it was true ornot.Violence Someone stole something from me - for example, a backpack,wallet, lunch money, book, clothing, running shoes, bike oranything else. Another person or group attacked me - for example, an attackat home, at someone else‟s home, at school, at a store, in acar, on the street, at the movies, at a park or anywhere else. Someone pulled a knife or gun on me.
  40. 40. Online harassment – offline peervictimizationNone32%Offline-only33%Online-only6%Online+Offline29%
  41. 41. Online harassment – offline violencevictimizationNone45%Offline-only20%Online-only14%Online+Offline21%
  42. 42. Online harassment – offline peeraggression perpetrationNone58%Offline-only21%Online-only6%Online+Offline15%
  43. 43. Involvement in unwanted sexualencountersNot involved84%Victim-only13%Perpetrator-only1%Perpetrator-victim2%Unwanted sexual encounters
  44. 44. “Cyberbullying”
  45. 45. Victim of Non-technology-basedbullying At school On the way to and from school
  46. 46. Online bullying – offline bullyingvictimizationNone66%Offline-only23%Online-only3%Online + Offline8%
  47. 47. Online bullying – offline bullyingperpetrationNone84%Offline-only9%Online-only2%Online + Offline5%
  48. 48. Unwanted sexual solicitation(unwanted sexual encounters)
  49. 49. Online sexual encounter – offline sexualencounter victimization76%7%7%9%NoneOffline-onlyOnline-onlyOnline+Offline
  50. 50. Age and sexType of peer aggression Age FemaleOR P-value OR P-valueVictimizationOnline harassment - offline peerharassment 1.4 p<0.001 1.2 0.17Online harassment - offline violence 1.3 p<0.001 1.7 p<0.001Cyberbully - offline bully* 0.8 p<0.001 0.8 0.1Online unwanted sexual experiences -offline experiences 1.3 p<0.001 1.8 0.003PerpetrationOnline harassment - offline peerharassment 0.9 0.008 1.4 0.002Online harassment - offline violence 1 0.612 0.4 p<0.001Cyberbully - offline bully** 1.2 0.8 1.3 0.46
  51. 51. Age and sexType of peer aggression Age FemaleOR ORVictimizationOnline harassment - offline peer harassment ↑ nsOnline harassment - offline violence ↑ ↑Cyberbully - offline bully* ↓ nsOnline unwanted sexual experiences - offlineexperiences ↑ ↑PerpetrationOnline harassment - offline peer harassment ↓ ↑Online harassment - offline violence ns ↓Cyberbully - offline bully*** 2007-2008 only; ** 2008 only
  52. 52. Recap: Objective 1Quantify the number of technology-basedaggressions reported by young peoplebetween 2006-2008
  53. 53. Recap: Prevalence rates (average across 2006-2008) Internet harassment (ever in the past year 06-08): Uninvolved: 62% Victim-only: 18% Perpetrator-only: 3% Perpetrator-victim: 18% Cyberbullying (ever in the past year 08): Uninvolved: 83% Victim-only: 11% Perpetration-only: 3% Perpetrator-victim: 3%
  54. 54. Recap: Prevalence rates (average across 2006-2008) Unwanted sexual encounter (ever in the pastyear 06-08): Uninvolved: 84% Victim-only: 13% Perpetrator-only: <1% Perpetrator-victim: 2%
  55. 55. Recap: Objective 2Describe how technology-based aggression isrelated to non-technology-based aggressionfor young people
  56. 56. Online – offline aggression overlapType of peer aggression None Offline Online O+OVictimizationOnline harassment - offline peerharassment 32% 33% 6% 29%Online harassment - offline violence 45% 20% 14% 21%Cyberbully - offline bully* 66% 23% 3% 8%Online unwanted sexual experiences -offline experiences 76% 7% 7% 9%PerpetrationOnline harassment - offline peerharassment 58% 21% 6% 15%Online harassment - offline violence 56% 24% 7% 13%Cyberbully - offline bully** 84% 9% 2% 5%* 2007-2008 only; ** 2008 only
  57. 57. Overlap of cyberbullying-harassmentvictimizationNot involved62%Cyberbully-onlyvictim1%Harassment-onlyvictim24%Cyberbully +harassmentvictim13%
  58. 58. Limitations Findings need to be replicated – preferably inother national data sets Data are based upon the US. It‟s possible thatdifferent countries would yield different rates Non-observed data collection Although our response rates are strong (above70% at each wave), this still means that we‟remissing data from 30% of participants…butwe are statistically adjusting for non-response
  59. 59. Takeaways Overlap in online and offline aggressioninvolvement varies between 5%-29%,depending on the type The majority of young people are not involvedin aggression, either online or offline; or as aperpetrator or victim
  60. 60. Takeaways In general, harassment, bullying, and unwantedsexual encounters increase with age There is some indication that females may bemore likely to be co-involved (online andoffline) compared to boys, the magnitude ofassociation is low and findings are inconsistent
  61. 61. TakeawaysThe Internet is an important and influential world in whichyoung people learn and engage with othersIf we are to understand youth behavior, we must includemeasures of technology-based experiencesBut, we also must include measures of non-technology-based experiencesThe Internet is only one of many important andchallenging environments youth must traverse

×