Mitchell, Jones, Turner, Shattuck, and Wolak (2016) conducted a study investigating the aspects and emotional impact of peer harassment experiences based on its degree of technological involvement. In this study, they acknowledge that experts have shown a concern that technology-based harassment and bullying could be more harmful than its non-technological form, citing technology’s anonymity and ability to reach many individuals quickly, anywhere and anytime. In spite of these concerns, Mitchell et al. also presented findings in which respondents report other aspects of harassment, such as content or whether the victim knew the perpetrator personally, were more influential than the use of the media it was conducted through. These contradictions highlight the complexity of technology’s exact effects on harassment and its impact. Mitchell et al.’s survey found that harassment solely involving technology was less likely to involve multiple episodes and power imbalances compared to in-person only, non-technological harassment. Compared to in-person and mixed harassment, victims of technology-only incidents report consistently lower percentages of physical and social power differentials, as well as knowledge of embarrassing things about the victim. The highest percentage of victims who report being able to quickly remove themselves from the situation come from victims of technology-only harassment. This could be due to the Online Disinhibition effect and its contributing factors. There is minimized status and authority online, as people can lie about themselves. Consequently, not all users may believe in the perpetrator’s alleged power currency. Dissociative imagination also lessens the reality of the perpetrator, as users may feel that the perpetrator only exists online Mixed harassment (involving both in-person interaction and technology)
Mitchell, Jones, Turner, Shattuck, and Wolak (2016) conducted a study investigating the aspects and emotional impact of peer harassment experiences based on its degree of technological involvement. In this study, they acknowledge that experts have shown a concern that technology-based harassment and bullying could be more harmful than its non-technological form, citing technology’s anonymity and ability to reach many individuals quickly, anywhere and anytime. In spite of these concerns, Mitchell et al. also presented findings in which respondents report other aspects of harassment, such as content or whether the victim knew the perpetrator personally, were more influential than the use of the media it was conducted through. These contradictions highlight the complexity of technology’s exact effects on harassment and its impact. Mitchell et al.’s survey found that harassment solely involving technology was less likely to involve multiple episodes and power imbalances compared to in-person only, non-technological harassment. Compared to in-person and mixed harassment, victims of technology-only incidents report consistently lower percentages of physical and social power differentials, as well as knowledge of embarrassing things about the victim. The highest percentage of victims who report being able to quickly remove themselves from the situation come from victims of technology-only harassment. This could be due to the Online Disinhibition effect and its contributing factors. There is minimized status and authority online, as people can lie about themselves. Consequently, not all users may believe in the perpetrator’s alleged power currency. Dissociative imagination also lessens the reality of the perpetrator, as users may feel that the perpetrator only exists online Mixed harassment (involving both in-person interaction and technology)