EXPLAINING ONLINE VICTIMIZATION FOR THE CASES OF ..., Slides of Criminology

Download EXPLAINING ONLINE VICTIMIZATION FOR THE CASES OF ... and more Slides Criminology in PDF only on Docsity! 0 E-VICTIMS: EXPLAINING ONLINE VICTIMIZATION FOR THE CASES OF CYBERBULLYING AND CYBERSTALKING ZOI MALAKI Degree Project in Criminology Malmö University 30 Credits, Two-year Master Faculty of Health and Society Criminology: Degree Project June 2020 1 e-Victims: Explaining online victimization for the cases of cyberbullying and cyberstalking Zoi Malaki Abstract Internet has become a great part of our daily routines giving us the ability to perform various actions in many aspects of our personal and social life. The new available opportunities provided with the internet enhancement have opened a great space for improvement in our lives but they have also provided space for new types of criminal behavior to occur. Cyberbullying and cyberstalking are part of the wide range of criminal behaviors performed through an online device. The presence of online criminal behaviour is accompanied by the increase on the online victimization rates. The aim of this paper is to explain online victimization performed through cyberbullying and cyberstalking based on the theories of routine activity, social learning and victim precipitation. The results show that online victimization is closely connected with the daily routines that individuals have accompanied by the interactions and associations that are performed during our social life who also influence the practice of online victimization. Anonymity is a commonly found factors almost always present and play an important role on explaining the behavior itself for both the offender and the victim’s side. Overall the findings show that both online offenders and online victims of cyberbullying and cyberstalking are given more engagement opportunities in the criminal act due to the constant usage and the inclusion of online devices in their daily routines. The above accompanied with the anonymity and opportunity provided by cyberspace ease the “performance” of cyber victimization. Keywords: online victimization; cyberbullying; cyberstalking; routine activity; social learning; victim precipitation; anonymity; 4 mentioned by the European Council Convention on Cybercrime which highlights the violation of network integrity and availability as main elements describing a cybercrime activity (E.C.C.C, 2018). The violation performed in cyberspace has as main characteristic the anonymity and behind that word lay many of the consequences that cybercrime has. Cyberspace offers the ability to access any information and any profiling no matter the place or the device the person-perpetrator is using. There is no need for providing official information documents as description of the person behind a profile. This can automatically give a great space for illegal activity through fake profiles. But comparing to the traditional types of crime it is also common to find criminal activity performed in an unknown environment by unknown individuals. So what is actually differentiating online victimization from the traditional one? Defining online victimization Online victimization comes as a consequence of cybercrime activity. There is no clear definition specialized for online victimization but we will use the definition adapted from Hinduja and Patchin who explained online victimization based on cyberbullying and cyberstalking incidents. The definition refers to the act of victimizing individuals or constitutions by using information and computer technologies (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Especially for cyberbullying and cyberstalking cases online victimization includes “defaming behaviors that inflict harm through the use of computers, cell phones and other electronic devices” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009, p.88). Harm may be experienced in one incident or repeatedly over time related to information concerning physical appearance, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, personal beliefs and many more. As mentioned before cybercrime consists of a great variety of criminal activities. In this paper we will be researching online victimization performed through cyber-harassment in two criminal activities connected with the usage of social media and/or chat room platforms: Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking. We will discuss about the characteristics of online victimization from both the aspect of the offender and the victim. As we will research on cyberbullying and cyberstalking we have to give an explanation of what they refer to and how they are performed. 5 Defining Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking Cyber-bullying is defined as a deviant act which is conducted through an electronic device (computer –smartphone-tablet etc.) when the offender according to the FBI’s definition is harassing, threatening or intimidating an individual or a group of individuals through these devices (FBI, Cyberbullying Report, 2019). Cyberbullying’s definition isn’t far away from the corresponding definition of traditional bullying. D. Olweus who conducted many studies on “traditional bullying” has given a definition about it where he points out three basic elements which describe the act: “(1) the bullying has to be intended to hurt another person; (2) it has to occur repeatedly over time and (3) there has to be a power imbalance between the bully and the victim” (D. Olweus, 1993, p 65). According to his description of bullying the only addition made for cyber-bullying was the online environment in which the action takes place. Based on his sayings we identify that the extent of the activities cyberbullying can have vary from spreading false rumours to the extreme cases of humiliation and alienation. The USA National Crime Prevention Council specified that “Cyber-bullying could be limited to posting rumours or gossips about a person in the internet bringing about hatred in other's minds, or it may go to the extent of personally identifying victims and publishing materials severely defaming and humiliating them” (US National Crime Prevention Council, 2017). We have examples of cyber-bullying acts in individuals or in social groups mostly between teenagers and young adults in the roles of either the offender or the victim. But there are considered to be also other social groups that are taking part in this crime from any position. Cyberstalking is not far away from cyberbullying’s definition as they both refer to cyber- harassment. Specifically Frommholz et al in their paper about “Textual analysis on Cyberstalking” refer to it as “the usage of online platform for harassing and threatening individuals” (Frommholz et al, 2016, p128) As with cyberbullying, cyberstalking can also be misinterpreted sometimes based on what every “victim” thinks for the commenting-messaging that happened. Frommholz et al mentioned four specific elements that should be present in order to define the activity as cyberstalking. It should be: 1) unwanted or unwelcome 2) sent from a known or unknown but determined/motivated party (perpetrator) 3) intentionally communicated to target a specific individual (the victim), and 4) persistent” (Frommholz, 2016,p. 127-128). 6 About the paper As mentioned before this paper will focus on online victimization for cyberbullying and cyberstalking cases which tend to be among the most common online criminal activities. If we take a look on cybercrime activities of every aspect (personal violations, economic crime etc.) they tend to be applicable to almost any age group with only requirement an electronic device, a tool that nowadays can be frequently found in almost every house (National Crime Prevention) and knowledge on how to use it. With the use of technological devices and especially devices that use Internet we reach the point where we share our lives equally in both interpersonal and online contacts. Online victimization which comes as the consequence of the cybercrime act can be as severe and difficult to manage as the offline victimization and according to Navarro (2013) in many cases online victimization can be even worse than the offline one since escaping from the perpetrator can become a very tricky and in many cases unsuccessful process. So the need to study online victimization is very crucial as it can give us an understanding of how the victimization process is performed which can help find ways to stop the criminal act itself. Our lives are equally shared between the physical world and the online one, so we have to understand the importance of cybercrime activities and the online victimization in order to be able to provide crime prevention methods. Aim and Research Questions The aim of the paper is to explain how online victimization is performed concentrated on two particular cybercrimes, cyberbullying and cyberstalking. More specific, the Systematic Literature Review that was performed was based on 3 theories (the selection of which will be developed further below): Routine Activity Theory, Social Learning Theory by Akers and Victim Precipitation Theory and it was depended on the following questions:  How people who deal with online platforms decide their engagement in criminal activities and how they choose their online victims? 9 The theories were chosen in an attempt to cover different perspectives of an individual’s life in order to be able to have a more spherical understanding of online victimization cases. All of the theories were able to explain the behavior of both the offender and the victim in an attempt to understand how online victimization is conducted. Selection of the Theories There is a variety of theories that have been tested throughout the years on cybercrime activities and especially on cyber abuse cases. Routine Activity Theory from Felson & Cohen shows an extensive preference from researchers when they want to describe the cybercrime itself. But although it has been tested previously on their ability to explain online victimization there were many restrictions especially on the age group and the gender of potential victims or offenders that the theory was applied to. Therefore in this paper we want to apply Routine Activity Theory in practice without placing any boundaries on the age neither the gender of the offender or the victim. The second theory chosen was Social Learning Theory from Akers in order to explicate online victimization from the social aspect. All the elements of the theory have been previously used to explain criminal behaviors so their application on cyber abuse cases was interesting and able to supplement Routine Activity Theory’s findings. Lastly Victim Precipitation Theory was chosen as it consists of a controversial theory which has been hardly criticized for the way it refers to the victim’s participation. Although the theory is well known to be used for cases of rape or homicide while pinpointing the victim blaming approach, there has been further research performed in the theory which managed to use Victim Precipitation Theory as a way of understanding how the victims’ acts lead to his/her victimization. This perspectives will be applied in the cyber abuse cases for research on online victimization. Followed Process The chosen methodology for answering the aim question was literature review. Specifically a systematic literature review was conducted as according to Sampaio & Mancini (2007), systematic literature review gives us the ability to “examine conflicting and/or coincident findings” and by evaluating the consistency and generalization of the evidence it helps to integrate the information from a group of studies, a practice that has great practical value for the 10 research. The basic purpose of the study is to use already existing data on online victimization from various periods concentrated on the cases of cyberbullying and cyberstalking. The main search source was MAULibsearch. There were basic search terms used to identify existing research and then for every theory a different variety of search terms was used. More specific the basic search terms used for all of the studies were: online victimization, cybercrime, cyberbullying, cyberstalking For the Routine Activity Theory (RAT) the search terms except from the basic terms were: routine activity, Felson & Cohen RAT, daily life influence, routine lifestyle and victimization, anonymity {84 studies found} For the Social Learning Theory (SLT) the search terms except from the basic terms were: social learning and criminality, Akers SLT, social factor on criminality, social factor on victimization, anonymity {81 studies found} For the Victim Precipitation Theory (VPT) the search terms except from the basic terms were: victim involvement in victimization, victim blaming, victim precipitation theory, {21 studies found} In total 186 studies were found concerning the different theories that were chosen. From them 25 studies were chosen for the final analysis. In the Appendix 1 (p.27) the selected studies are presented based on the theory they were selected for. The exclusion criteria for the studies relied on repetition of the studies in different searches. In that case the study was placed on the most relevant topic according to the final outcome of the study. As cybercrime consists of a new era of criminal behavior with continuous evolution another exclusion of studies was connected with the time the study was made. The majority of the final chosen research was situated from early 2000 until recent 2020 with an exception on the explanation of the theories themselves, the articles of which were published before the above timeline. And the last exclusion criteria concerned the subject of cybercrime and online victimization with studies that didn’t include any reference on that to be excluded. In the next chapter the finding of the systematic literature review are going to be presented based on each theory that was selected. 11 Findings Routine Activity Theory Aspect Our daily engagement with electronic devices has in many cases overwhelmingly covered aspects of our daily routines. We wouldn’t exaggerate saying that we have reached a point where electronic devices consume most of our time by either helping us with daily routine activities or by entertaining us. This has opened a great space for new criminal activities to occur in an environment that no obvious traces can be found but both the offender and the victim can be interacting daily (Anderson, 2018). A theory that was frequently used in order to explain the criminal opportunities offered by our routines is M. Felson and L. Cohen’s Routine Activity Theory (RAT). Routine Activity Theory was introduced in 1979 and it was widely used on explaining criminal activities that follow systematic patterns in time and space, and are not randomly distributed. There are three basic components of Felson & Cohen’s RAT: 1. Motivated offender 2. Suitable target 3. Capable guardianship (Felson & Cohen, 1979). Routine Activity Theory was used to explain various criminal behaviors based on how routines were able to affect decision making processes for engagement in criminal acts. It was also used in various researches studying cybercrime activities performed by adolescents. In all of them RAT was able to explain that the more usage of electronic devices and especially smart phones, tablets and laptops was able to increase the levels of becoming a probable victim of an online criminal act (Kalia, 2017). More specific concerning cyberbullying and cyberstalking cases researchers mention that the regime of social network usage launches the percentages of possible victimization of the users almost in double compared to nondaily users (Holt et al, 2018). And there is no surprise on that. Exposing yourself by sharing information and pictures in cyberspace, an environment where boundaries are not so clear and violations can easily happen is like leaving in a house made out of transparent glass. Anyone is able to look at it and you are unable to act unless they intervene in your space. So are actually all internet users exposed and in high risk of becoming online victims? The answer is “no” and we will explain that further. According to a recent study performed in 2019 researchers Vachitova et al studied the Routine Activity Theories for the cases of cyber abuse and they pinpointed that it is not only how much 14 group discussions” that can trigger more these types of criminal activity (Reyns et al, 2017). For instance groups concerning politics or LGBTQ discussions are in the top rates on lists of cyberbullying attacks followed by audiovisual material uploaded in profile walls. As mentioned previously Internet and social network platforms are nowadays part of our daily routines with statistics showing that more that 65% of the population is logged in a social network platform that they use at least once a day (Holt t al, 2018). Looking at some years back these numbers wouldn’t be applicable and this can show the dramatic increase in the usage of social network platforms. For older generations Internet in general and social networking platforms in specific are a new reality that they had to get adapted to but younger generations have been raised during this evolution and we could say that they are more close to that (Henson et al, 2016). So could there be a learning process of engaging in cyberbullying or cyberstalking behaviors? In order to answer that we have to look at the social aspect of online victimization. Social Learning Theory Aspect As daily routines are part of a more general social construction we have to look also on the social factor that can trigger the performance of online victimization. Akers in 2009 talked about Social Learning Theory (SLT), an extension of Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory which states that criminal behavior is a process learned through specific mechanisms and processes (Akers, 1998). Akers theory is applicable in various crime types and cybercrime isn’t excluded. There are four specific concepts of SLT which explain how a criminal behavior can happen. These are: 1. Differential Association, 2. Definitions, 3. Imitations, and 4. Differential Reinforcement (Akers, 2009). According to social learning theory, “an individual is more likely to engage in criminal behavior over conforming behavior when an individual differentially associates with those who expose them to deviant patterns, when the deviant behavior is differentially reinforced over conforming behavior, when individuals are more exposed to deviant compared to conforming models, and when their own definitions favorably dispose them to commit deviant acts” (Akers and Sellers 2013, p. 110). So let’s search every core element of the theory to better understand its connection with online victimization. 15 The first element of Social Learning Theory is differential association which refers to behavioral and normative associations that an individual is exposed to and formulate his/her ways of behavior (Akers, 2011). More specific the behavioral associations refer to direct connections with individuals who perform similar acts whereas normative associations are connected with norms and values to which the individual is exposed (Akers and Sellers 2013). Both of these can vary on frequency, duration, intensity and priority which have a great impact on how strongly criminal patterns will be composed. The second element is definitions referring to positive, negative or neutralizing dimensions general or specific which create levels of motivation for engagement in a criminal act (Akers, 2011). The third element is imitation referring to the individual engaging in behaviors after observing others doing the same. And the last element is differential reinforcement which refers to the strengthening of repeating a behavior by reinforcing with a reward or by implying a punishment for the act (Akers, 2011). One of the most important parts of Social Learning Theory is the influence that is applied to people’s lives which leads individuals into following specific ways of behavior. The differential association suggests that engaging with people performing criminal activities can lead into imitating ways of behavior from the person himself, meaning that they lead into performing the same activities too (Brandy, 2017). This engagement can happen with people from the closer familiar group, from peer groups and it can also be a further social group like a political party group or a common religion group (Akers, 2011). This behavioral dimension of differential association is also connected with norms and values that the individual carries and works with. It isn’t only imitating an already existing way of behavior but it is what triggers them to replicate a similar behavior. The way Akers explains it is that an individual becomes a criminal when the ratio of definitions that favor crime outweigh definitions that favor non-criminal behavior combined with a situational state favoring the criminal behavior (Akers & Sellers 2013). These “definitions” are based on our moral beliefs and norms which are cultivated throughout our lives but mostly during our younger years and they can vary on how they can be applied (Brandy, 2017). For example someone considers murdering as a wrong act that he/she should stay away from whereas there is no similar belief for cyberbullying or cyberstalking although we are still talking about a criminal act. So here lays the subjectivity factor depending on how each individual 16 decides to interpret these definitions. There can be positive definitions which favor criminal act, negative definitions unfavorable to criminal acts and the neutralizing definitions which are mostly used to justify the behavior itself (Marengo D et al, 2019). Some of them are clearly expressing the positive or negative aspect but there are cases where the lines are quiet blur. Concerning cyberbullying and cyberstalking most researches refer to young people engaging in it either as offenders or as victims and according to Social Learning Theory the peer influence plays an important role on explaining the high levels of engagement in younger ages (Lapierre,2019). The influence together with the time and the content that individuals spare their time while being in an electronic device is what leads to the criminal act (Svensson, 2010). For the cases of young adolescents and young adults the imitation processes start to decline when negative reinforcement with the way of punishment is performed (Virtanen, 2017). Although it may be harder to discover and understand the engagement in cyberbullying or cyberstalking as there is anonymity that hides behind the screen, the negative reinforcement performed either straightly to the offender or in more indirect ways shows its ability to minimize the engagement (Wigderson, 2013). For cases where we find adults behind the perpetrator’s mask the application of the theory is still similar. It is understandable that adults also pass through this learning process of a behavior but specifically in the cases of cyberbullying and cyberstalking the amount of time spend in cyberspace helps them establish new bonds with individuals (peers) with similar interests of entertainment or similar beliefs (Lowry, 2016). This is creating new opportunities for criminal acts to happen not in physical space but in a cyber environment (Dodel, 2016). The most interesting and differentiating part concerning adult perpetrators is based on the definitions that are used in order to explain this online behavior in the cases where reinforcement was used. Lowry et al studied in 2016 the adult cases in cyberbullying and one of the most interesting facts that they highlighted was that adults who perpetrated cyberbullying or cyberstalking used neutralizing definitions in order to justify or explain their behavior. By that they were able to decrease the cost of their act and increase the benefit especially while hiding behind anonymity offered from cyberspace (Lowry, 2016). The reinforcement part for the case of adult offenders isn’t as effective 19 course there is no right to bully someone for what they are and what they present but on the other hand cyberspace as social environment is a free speech territory that anyone is able to express their behavior whether it is liked-preferred or not unless they move to life-threatening actions (Reyns et al, 2016). When users give the opportunity for actions like that to happen then the motivated offender isn’t going to miss his/her chance (Petherick, 2017). So here the theory helps us understand that “it takes two to tango” (Jensen & Raver, 2018 p. 4), meaning that there can be traits and behaviors from both the side of the offender and the victim which can trigger the behavior to happen. But according to Jensen and Raver who studied victim precipitation theory they highlight that “we must emphasize that it was the instigator (perpetrator) not the victim who did the choosing and abusing” (Jensen & Raver, 2018, p.93) Victim Precipitation Theory can also help understand in depth the reasons behind the choice of the victim. By understanding the patterns that the victim uses we have a broader way of understanding the triggering points that lead to the criminal act itself or to the continuation of the act (Jensen, 2018). For example in the case of cyberstalking victims, try many times to end the whole situation on their own by trying to contact with the “stalker”. Although this may look as the victim will be able to give an end on that the cyber stalker is triggered from their connection as this is what he/she tries to achieve (Goucher, 2012). Cyber stalkers are very persistent on what they want to achieve and giving them part of what they want leads into the continuation of their practices either in the same victim or in others (Petherick, 2017). And here again the precipitation theory is not blaming the victim for wanting to make contact instead is able to partially explain why this offender continued practicing the same. In addition to that Victim Precipitation Theory helps also understand the risk factors behind recidivism and revictimization by studying risk factors that lead the individual into becoming a victim (Petherick, 2015). Many actions that online users do in social networking platforms may not seem provocative or triggering for the users themselves but outside of their immediate control they lead into cyberbullying or cyberstalking cases (Virtanen, 2017). For example writing about a political party statement may not seem provocative to the writer as free space is offered in these platforms for discussion and commenting but for a person who is motivated to start constantly commenting and criticizing it is the best possible offered opportunity. 20 Summing up victim precipitation theory here isn’t used in order to blame the victim for getting involved into the criminal act but works more as a way of understanding the factors that lead to the act happening from the perspective of the victim (Petherick, 2017). As criminal activity is referring to both sides of the offender and the victim we have to investigate also both sides (Jensen, 2018). Victim precipitation gives us the ability to see from the other side and understand factors that lead into this behavior and eventually form ways of prevention models in order to avoid future recidivism and revictimization (Jensen & Raver, 2018). Discussion The main goal of the study was to understand online victimization performed for the cases of cyberbullying and cyberstalking. Both of this cybercrime activities aren’t far away from one another and in many studies they were considered as one. We investigated how online victimization can be explained based on personal routine activities and social interactions in an attempt to cover the aspect on various sides. We also studied victim precipitation, a controversial theory’s application on online victimization which gave very interesting results. Beginning with our routines, they play an important role on the formation of actions and activities that we decide to engage in. The time spend in companion with the content that we decide to engage can release the “digital demons” of criminal behavior (M.Näsi, 2015). The target attractiveness offered from networking platforms is huge with various types to choose from, an element that eases the motivated offender into committing the act. Especially in the cases of cyberbullying and cyberstalking the perpetrator is able to choose among various victims and the cyberspace offers him/her the ability to hide behind anonymity and perform his/her acts with more than one profiles (Delia, 2018). This is a facilitation offered from cyberspace that doesn’t apply in the cases of tradition victimization. Anonymity was mentioned in both Routine Activity and Social Learning Theories as it is crucial when referring to online victimization. It is a characteristic that helps perform the deviant act without revealing your true identity something that wouldn’t happen if the contact was made in the physical world (Bayana, 2015). 21 One characteristic of Cohen & Felson Routine Activity Theory is the motivated offender and Akers Social Learning Theory is able to explain how we can have a motivated offender for the act to happen. It is definitely a whole learning procedure that is needed in order to form deviant behavior which consists of moral beliefs and norms and of associations-interactions between different individuals. Akers mentions that the associations that we form are one of the most important part of the learning process as our engagement with delinquent surroundings can lead in imitation process of similar acts (Akers, 2011). The reinforcement performed is important especially in the younger aged offenders as it appears to eliminate the engagement in deviant activities. When referring to adult offenders reinforcement isn’t so immediately effective but the elimination rates show that there is still an effect (Lowry, 2016). An important aspect in Social Learning Theory is also the subjectivity that lays in the moral beliefs and values that each individual carries. Although some values have a similar meaning each individual can give his/her own interpretation based on other interactions and influences that they may have (Sellers, 2013). The subjectivity factor can be a point that differentiates offenders from non-offenders and it can also show how the perpetrator decides to target his victims based on things that he/she may considers non-appropriate. The last theory used to explain online victimization was looking more from the victim’s aspect trying to understand how the interaction between offender and victim lead to the deviant act. Victim Precipitation Theory was hardly criticized back in the days as it was blaming the victim for the actions of the offender (Eigenberg, 2008) but recently there have been new applications of the theory which are able to cover the aspect of the victim’s action in order to understand the impact of the victims patterns leading him/her to be the target for the offender (Jensen, 2018). Based on that victim precipitation can give us an explanation on repeated cyberbullying cases or on cases where the cyber stalker continues his/her actions even if he has been warned from his/her victim. We can understand that taking the attention away from the perpetrator can be very triggering but victim precipitation theory can give the ability to look at victimization from a different aspect by unraveling the impact of the victim’s behavior in forming the perpetrator’s choice (Jensen & Raver, 2018). 24 Dodel M. Mesch G. (2017): “Cyber-victimization preventive behavior: A health belief model Approach” Computers in Human Behavior Chap: 68 Eigenberg H, Garland T (2008): “Victim blaming” Moriarty LJ (Eds), Controversies in Victimology, Anderson Publishing, USA, p. 21-36 FBI, Cybercrime Department: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber Ferdon D., C., and Feldman Hertz, M. (2007): “Electronic Media, Violence and Adolescents: An Emerging Public Health Problem” Journal of Adolescent Health 41 (6) s1-s5 Frommholz, al-Khateeb, Potthast, Ghasem, Shukla, Short (2016): “Textual Analysis and Machin Learning for Cyberstalking Detection”, Datenbank-Spectrum, 16: p. 127-135 Goucher W. (2012): “Being a cybercrime victim”, Computer Fraud &Security, Vol2010, Issue 10 Henson, B., & Reyns, B. W. (2017): “Taking stock: The current status of cyberstalking research” T. J. Holt (Ed.), Crime on-line (pp. 199-224). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press Hinduja S. & Patchin J.W.(2009): “Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to Cyberbullying”, Corwin Press Holt, T.J.; Leukfeldt, R.; van de Weijer, S (2018): “An Examination of Motivation and Routine Activity Theory to Account for Cyberattacks Against Dutch Web Sites”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(4), p.487-505, SAGE Publications Inc. Jensen J., Raver J. (2018): “It takes two to tango: Victims, Perpetrators and the Dynamics of Victimization”, Industrial &Organizational Psychology, 11 (01) Kalia, Divya; Aleem, Sheema (2017): “Role of Routine Activity Theory in Cyber Victimization among Adolescents: A Gendered Perspective” Journal of Psychosocial Research, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p223-232. Lapierre KR; Dane AV (2019): “Cyberbullying, cyber aggression, and cyber victimization in relation to adolescents' dating and sexual behavior: An evolutionary perspective”, Aggressive behavior, Vol. 46 (1) Lowry P., Zhang J, Wang C, Siponen M (2016): “Why Do Adults Engage in Cyberbullying on Social Media? An Integration of Online Disinhibition and Deindividuation Effects with the Social Structure and Social Learning Model”, Information System Research, Vol27 Issue4 Marcuum C., Higgins G., Ricketts M. (2010): “Potential Factors of Online Victimization of Youth: An examination of Adolescent online behaviors utilizing Routine Activity Theory”, Deviant Behavior Journal, 31(5), p.381-410 25 Marengo, D.; Settanni, M.; Longobardi, C (2019): “The associations between sex drive, sexual self-concept, sexual orientation, and exposure to online victimization in Italian adolescents: Investigating the mediating role of verbal and visual sexting behaviors”. Children and Youth Services Review, 102:18-26 Matti Näsi, Pekka Räsänen, Markus Kaakinen, Teo Keipi, Atte Oksanen (2015): “Do routine activities help predict young adults’ online harassment: A multi-nation study”, Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy, University of Helsinki, Vol 17, Issue 4 National Crime Prevention Council: https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/cyber-bullying National Center Against Bullying: https://www.ncab.org.au/bullying-advice/bullying-for- parents/definition-of-bullying Navarro, J. N., & Jasinski, J. L. (2013): Why Girls? Using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying experiences between girls and boys. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(4), 286-303. Olweus, D. (1993): ‘Sweden’ in Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D. Catala, R., & Slee, P. (eds) The nature of school bullying” London: Routledge Olweus D., Limber S (2010): “The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Implementation and evaluation over two decades”, The Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective, Chapter 27, p.377-401 Petherick W., Ferguson CE (2015): “Forensic victimology”. Elsevier Publishing Petherick W. (2015): “Applied Crime Analysis: A Social Science Approach to Understanding Crime, Criminals, and Victims” Elsevier, p. 148-171 Petherick W. (2017): “Victim Precipitation: Why we need to Expand Upon the Theory”, Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal, Vol 5, Issue 2 Reyns, B.W.; Henson, B.; Fisher (2016): “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, 32(2), p.148-168 Reyns, B. W.; Fisher, B. S.; Bossler, A. M.; Holt, T. (2017): “Opportunity and Self-Control: Do they Predict Multiple Forms of Online Victimization?” American Journal of Criminal Justice; 44; 1 Sampaio, R. F., & Mancini, M. C. (2007): Systematic review studies: A guide for a careful synthesis of scientific evidence. Brasilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 11(1), 77-82 26 Siegel L (2010): Criminology “Theories, Patterns, and Typologies” (10th edition) Wadsworth Publishing Company, USA Svensson, R. & Oberwittler, D. (2010): “It's not the time they spend, it's what they do: The interaction between delinquent friends and unstructured routine activity on delinquency: Findings from two countries.” Journal of criminal justice 38: 1006-1014 Tynes B, Rose C, Williams D (2010): “The development and Validation of Online Victimization Scale”, Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace – Cyber-psychology, Vol 4, No2 Vakhitova Z. I. Alston, Reynald C.L., Townsley D.M., Webster M.K., Julianne L (2019): “Lifestyles and routine activities: Do they enable different types of cyber abuse?” Computers in human behavior, 101, p225-p237 Virtanen, Suvi M (2017): “Fear of Cybercrime in Europe: Examining the Effects of Victimization and Vulnerabilities”. Psychiatry Psychology and Law; 24; 3 Wigderson S. Lynch M. (2013): “Cyber- and Traditional Peer Victimization: Unique Relationships With Adolescent Well-Being” Psychology of Violence; Chap: 3; 4 Wolfgang, M. F. (1957): “Victim precipitated criminal homicide.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48, 1-11 Wright, M. F.; Li, Yan (2013): “The Association Between Cyber Victimization and Subsequent Cyber Aggression: The Moderating Effect of Peer Rejection” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol: 42 No:5. Wright, Michelle F (2015): “Cyber Victimization and Perceived Stress: Linkages to Late Adolescents’ Cyber Aggression and Psychological Functioning”, Youth & Society, Vol 47 No:6