Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Guardians Against Cyber Abuse: Who are They and Why do They Intervene?

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ever-increasing use of telecommunication technologies and the Internet have led to an increase in new technology-facilitated types of crime and deviance. Due to the challenges posed by the unique environment of cyberspace on the formal crime control agents (e.g., the police), the role of informal guardians becomes particularly salient. The recent research suggests that informal guardianship against conventional crimes is common and that victims who are more socially active are more likely to receive help. However, it is not clear whether the same patterns of guardianship can be observed in cyberspace. To improve our understanding of how guardianship operates in cyberspace, the current study analyses the data from a sample of U.S. adults who were surveyed about their experiences with cyber abuse. The data was analyzed using mixed methods: a thematic analysis of open-ended responses, followed up by the logistic regression using Bayesian variable selection with the stochastic search algorithm. Our findings suggest that family, friends, intimate partners, authorities, work contacts, online friends, and netizens are most likely to provide guardianship. We also found that similar to conventional crimes like robbery or assault, the levels of guardianship responsibility are predictive of intervention against cyber abuse. Finally, we have established a link between the levels of regular interactions with various social groups and guardians’ availability and willingness to intervene. Implications for theory and practice, as well as future directions for research, are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Please note, estimates of prevalence of cyber abuse victimization vary from study to study ranging from as low as 6.5% of the sample in Dreßing et al. (2014) to 46% in Maran and Begotti (2019). The variation in prevalence is likely explained by the difference in how these studies defined, operationalized and measured the phenomenon under study (Kaur et al., 2021; Reyns, Henson, and Fisher, 2011a). Notably, most estimates of prevalence of cyber abuse are based on non-probability samples of college and university students; Pew Research Center study, which employed a large nationally-representative sample excluded (Vogels, 2021).

  2. For example, in Vogels (2021), online harassment was measured using six distinct behaviours, including stalking: offensive name-calling; purposeful embarrassment; stalking; physical threats; harassment over a sustained period of time and sexual harassment. Reyns et al. (2011a, p. 101) cited the following examples of cyberstalking behaviours: “(1) continue to contact the victim after being asked to stop; (2) make unwanted sexual advances toward the victim; (3) impersonate or assume the victim’s identity with the intention of endangering the victim; and (4) persistently harass, annoy or threaten the victim to the point where the victim feels afraid for their safety”.

  3. The survey was conducted in accordance with the ethical requirements of the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of the host university and complied with ethics guidelines set forth by the HREC recommendations. Participants were informed that their data would be treated anonymously, no identifying information would be collected and they could withdraw from the survey at any time without providing a reason.

  4. According to a longitudinal study by Difallah et al. (2018), MTurk has over 100,000 workers and around 2,000 active workers at any given time.

References

  • Abowitz, D., & Toole, T. (2010). Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), 108–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alston-Knox, C. L. (2019). An intuitive guide to linear regression. Frequentist, Lasso and Bayesian Variable selection using AutoStat. Retrieved from https://autostat.com.au/resources.

  • Ando, T. (2010). Bayesian Model Selection and Statistical Modeling. Chapman and Hall, CRC, New-York. https://doi.org/10.1201/EBK1439836149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7466396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 800–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocij, P. (2006). Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet age and how to protect your family. Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, O. J., Revilla, M., DeCastellarnau, A., & Weber, W. (2019). Measurement reliability, validity, and quality of slider versus radio button scales in an online probability-based panel in Norway. Social Science Computer Review, 37(1), 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossler, A. M., Holt, T. J., & May, D. C. (2012). Predicting online harassment victimization among juvenile population. Youth Society, 44, 500–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broidy, L. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39, 9–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2003). Become a problem-solving crime analyst: In 55 small steps. Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, UCL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, M., Hawdon, J., & Ratliff, T. N. (2017). Confronting online extremism: The effect of self-help, collective efficacy, and guardianship on being a target for hate speech. Social Science Computer Review, 35(5), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316666272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Difallah, D., Filatova, E., & Ipeirotis, P. (2018). Demographics and Dynamics of Mechanical Turk Workers. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining (p. 135–143). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159652.3159661

  • Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, 4(1).

  • Dreßing, H., Bailer, J., Anders, A., Wagner, H., & Gallas, C. (2014). Cyberstalking in a large sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enns, P. K., & Ramirez, M. (2018). Privatizing punishment: Testing theories of public support for private prison and immigration detention facilities. Criminology, 56, 546–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felson, M., & Boba, R. (2010). Crime and everyday life: Insight and implications for society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

  • Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. Crime and Place. Ed. by J. E. Eck and D. Weisburd. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 53–66.

  • Fissel, E. R. (2018). The reporting and help-seeking behaviours of cyberstalking victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518801942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, A. (2017). The effect of message frames on public attitudes toward criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenses. Crime and Delinquency, 63, 636–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabosky, P., & Smith, R. (2001). Telecommunications fraud in the digital age: The convergence of technologies. Ed. by D. S. Wall, 10. London: Routledge, 243–249.

  • Hawdon, J., Costello, M., Ratliff, T., Hall, L., & Middleton, J. (2018). Conflict management styles and cybervictimization: Extending Routine Activity Theory. Sociological Spectrum, 37(4), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2017.1334608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinskou, M. B., & Liebst, L. S. (2017). Gadevold: En sociologisk kortlægning af vold i byen. Djøf Forlag.

  • Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., & Volinsky, C. (1999). Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial. Statistical Science, 14(4), 382–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, M. E., Felson, M., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 15(1), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, M. E., & Welsh, B. C. (2014). What makes a guardian capable? A test of guardianship in action.Security Journal, 27.https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.32

  • Hollis-Peel, M. E., Reynald, D. M., van Bavel, M., Elffers, H., & Welsh, B. C. (2011). Guardianship for crime prevention: A critical review of the literature. Crime, Law and Social Change, 56, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, T. J. (2010). Exploring strategies for qualitative criminological and criminal justice inquiry using online data. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21, 300–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2008). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behaviour, 30, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, L., et al. (2020). Preconditions for guardianship interventions in cyberbullying: Incident interpretation, collective and automated efficacy, and relative popularity of bullies. Computers in Human Behavior, 113, 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenaro, C., Flores, N., & Frias, C. P. (2018). Systematic review of empirical studies on cyberbullying in adults: What we know and what we should investigate. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewkes, Y., & Yar, M. (2008). Policing Cybercrime: Emerging Trends and Future Challenges. Handbook of Policing. Ed. by T. Newburn. 2nd ed. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 580– 606.

  • Jewkes, Y. (2010). Public policing and Internet crime. Handbook of Internet Crime. Ed. By Y. Jewkes and M. Yar. London: Willan, 525–545. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843929338.

  • Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Tandon, A., Alzeiby, E. A., & Abohassan, A. A. (2021). A systematic literature review on cyberstalking. An analysis of past achievements and future promises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120426.

  • Kemp, S. (2019). Digital trends 2019: Every single stat you need to know about the internet. Retrieved from https://thenextweb.com/contributors/2019/01/30/digital-trends-2019-every-single-stat-you-need-to-know-about-the-internet/.

  • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help. New York: NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

  • Latane, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leukfeldt, E. (2014). Phishing for suitable targets in The Netherlands: Routine activity theory and phishing victimization. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 17, 551–555. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leukfeldt, E., & Yar, M. (2016). Applying Routine Activity Theory to Cybercrime: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1012409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 1, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, M., & Manning, R. (2013). Social identity, group processes, and helping in emergencies. European Review of Social Psychology, 24(1), 225–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.892318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, M., Cassidy, C., & Brazier, G. (2006). Self-categorization and bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1452–1463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01446.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebst, L. S., et al. (2019). Social relations and presence of others predict bystander intervention: Evidence from violent incidents captured on CCTV. Aggressive Behavior, 45(6), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madigan, D., & Raftery, A. E. (1994). Model selection and accounting for model uncertainty in graphical models using Occam’s window. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 1535–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maran, D. A., & Begotti, T. (2019). Prevalence of cyberstalking and previous offline victimization in a sample of Italian university students. Social Sciences, 8(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8010030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcum, C. D., Rickets, M. L., & Higgins, G. E. (2010). Assessing sex differences of online victimization: An examination of adolescent online behaviors using routine activity theory. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 412–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawby, R. I. (1980). Witnessing Crime: Toward a Model of Public Intervention. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 7, 437–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. (1989). Generalized Linear Models (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1994). Crime and its social context: Toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations. State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngo, F. T., & Paternoster, R. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3, 773–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons-Pollard, N., & Moriarty, L. J. (2009). Cyberstalking: Utilizing What We Do Know. Victims & Offenders, 4(4), 435–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, F., & Morrisey, G. (2004). Cyberstalking and cyberpredators: A threat to safe sexuality on the Internet. Convergence, 10, 66–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philpot, R., Liebst, L. S., Levine, M., Bernasco, W., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2019). Would I be helped? Cross-national CCTV footage shows that intervention is the norm in public conflicts. The American psychologist, 75.https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000469

  • Raftery, A. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynald, D. M. (2009). Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynald, D. M. (2010). Guardians on guardianship: Factors affecting the willingness to monitor, the ability to detect potential offenders and the willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 358–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynald, D. M. (2011). Factors associated with the guardianship of places: Assessing the relative importance of the spatio-physical and sociodemographic contexts in generating opportunities for capable guardianship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(1), 110–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427810384138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynald, D. M. (2014). Informal guardianship. Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Ed. By G. Bruinsma and D. Weisburd. Springer, New York, NY, 2480–2489.

  • Reynald, D. M. (2018). Guardianship and informal social control. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology. Retrieved from . https://www.oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-315

  • Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2011a). A situational crime prevention approach to cyberstalking victimization: Preventive tactics for Internet users and online place managers. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 12(2), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2011b). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 38, 1149–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyns, B. W., Fisher, B. S., & Randa, R. (2018). Explaining Cyberstalking Victimization Against College Women Using a Multitheoretical Approach: Self-Control, Opportunity, and Control Balance. Crime & Delinquency, 64(13), 1742–1764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717753116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (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, 1–21.

  • Roberts, P., Priest, H., & Traynor, M. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20, 41–45. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.20.44.41.s56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, M., et al. (2013). Bystander Responses to a Violent Incident in an Immersive Virtual Environment. PLoS ONE, 8(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann, W. B., & Jetten, J. (2017). Restoring Agency to the Human Actor. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 382–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616679464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2003). College students’ lifestyles and self-protective behaviours: Further considerations of the guardianship concept in routine activity theory. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 30, 302–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau Quick facts. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/ PST045217.

  • V´azquez, A., Gómez, Á., Ordoñana, J. R., Swann, W. B., & Whitehouse, H. (2017). Sharing genes fosters identity fusion and altruism. Self and Identity, 16, 684–702.https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1296887

  • Vakhitova, Z. I., & Reynald, D. M. (2014). Australian Internet users and guardianship against cyber abuse: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 8(2), 156–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vakhitova, Z. I., Reynald, D. M., & Townsley, M. K. (2016). Toward adapting routine activity and lifestyle exposure theories to account for cyber abuse victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(2), 169–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakhitova, Z. I., Alston-Knox, C. L., Reynald, D. M., Townsley, M. K., & Webster, J. L. (2019). Lifestyles and routine activities: Do they enable different types of cyber abuse? Computers in Human Behaviour, 101, 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakhitova, Z. I., & Alston-Knox, C. L. (2018). Non-significant p-values? Strategies to understand and better determine the importance of effects and interactions in logistic regression. PLoS ONE,13(11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-010-9106-6 .

  • Vakhitova, Z. I., Mawby, R. I., Alston-Knox, C. L., & Stephens, C. A. (2020). To SPB or not to SPB? A mixed methods analysis of self-protective behaviours to prevent repeat victimisation from cyber abuse. Crime Science, 19(24).

  • Vaughan, T. J., Holleran, L. B., & Silver, J. (2019). Applying moral foundations theory to the explanation of capital jurors’ sentencing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1176–1205. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1537400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogels, E. (2021). Online harassment. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/

  • Weinberg, J. D., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickes, R., Hipp, J., Sargeant, E., & Mazerolle, L. (2017). Neighborhood social ties and shared expectations for informal social control: Do they influence informal social control actions? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33, 101–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9285-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, P., Jordan, C. E., & Pritchard, A. J. (2007). A multidimensional examination of campus safety: Victimization, perceptions of danger, worry about crime, and precautionary behavior among college women in the post-Clery era. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 219–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. L. (2015). Guardians upon high: An application of routine activities theory to online identity theft in Europe at the country and individual level. The British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yar, M. (2005). The novelty of cybercrime. European Journal of Criminology, 2, 407–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Clayton Campus, Menzies Building 20 Chancellors Walk, Victoria, 3800, Australia

    Zarina I. Vakhitova & Alisa Go

  2. Predictive Analytics Group, Griffith University, Level 7 South 175 Collins Street, VIC, 3000, Melbourne, Australia

    Clair L. Alston-Knox

Authors
  1. Zarina I. Vakhitova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alisa Go
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clair L. Alston-Knox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zarina I. Vakhitova.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vakhitova, Z.I., Go, A. & Alston-Knox, C.L. Guardians Against Cyber Abuse: Who are They and Why do They Intervene?. Am J Crim Just 48, 96–122 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09641-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09641-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation