Risks of Technology in Relationships
The Internet gets the blame for all sorts of things—somehow it gets blamed for why children do poorly in school, their clandestine arrangements with peers, why partners cheat, the development of various out-of-control technology-related behaviors, including video gaming, shopping, and the use of pornography, and why our world has become more violent. The Internet becomes the scapegoat for all things negative. Earlier in Chapter 1, we presented information on why the Internet and technology could be challenging for individuals and families. For example, there is more eye strain, more signs of depression, bad posture, and sleep problems. We further explored some of these issues in the book to this point, where we described in greater detail the consequences of getting wrapped up in a digital world while living in a physical one. People who get absorbed in the Internet are not connecting or being fully present with the world around them. For example, recently I (KH) was volunteering in my son’s classroom. There were four additional parent volunteers. Two of us did not have our phones with us at all; the other three parents had their phones visibly displayed, with one of them constantly typing on their phone the entire time while there. I began to wonder why this parent had volunteered in the first place. At some point in the 3 hours we were there, his daughter actually approached him while he was on his phone and began tugging his arm as a way to engage him in what was happening in the front of the room. He did not take his eyes (or fingers) off his phone. So at what point is this father’s behavior problematic usage? Or is it an addiction? Where does he fall on the Internet use continuum? Would it be different for us or would we feel differently about it if we saw him reading a newspaper or book the entire time instead? How do we know he wasn’t?
There are some specific major themes on the future of the “Internet of things”1 and connected life. One is that people are highly motivated by being linked to one another, and the Internet is the perfect key to fit into that craving lock, in part because there is very little effort involved in making these connections. In fact, it is almost impossible to not have the Internet at your disposal—it is on our watches, our phones, our cameras, our workstations, our televisions, etc. There is also a subset of people, however, who will not get involved and stay rigidly away from integration if they can. Further, as privacy breaches occur, an increasing number of users will disband their accounts and limit their social media presence, if not disconnecting altogether, as a way to maintain control over their privacy. Another important piece that directly corresponds to risk management is that while most people know the dangers and dark side of the Internet, they do not believe the negatives are going to happen to them. In fact, the advances in technology will be in part an attempt to make using the Internet safer for us, but it will be difficult to have privacy protection strategies catch up to the technologies that are being developed.
While technology like computers can play a positive role in children’s lives there is also concern over the effect that such technologies can have on children and on families. The most abundant concern that parents have with regard to their children and technology is their online experiences (Adams & Stevenson, 2004). These experience may occur while a child is out of the eyes of a watchful parent. Unmonitored online experiences of children raise all kinds of concerns ranging from cyberbullying, to interactions with cyber predators to privacy issues (Adams & Stevenson, 2004), to concern over what kids might see and hear that may not be age appropriate (Mesch, 2006), to fear of identity theft of one’s child (Smardon, 2012), to concern for children not getting enough exercise, leading to a sedentary lifestyle and not getting enough sleep (Van den Bulck, 2004).
Despite the frequency in the use of social networking sites (SNSs), many parents with children worry about the risks associated with online interactions, particularly with regard to potential victimization by online sexual predators and/or cyberbullies (Crooks & Baur, 2011). Cyberbul-lying is attended to more specifically later in the book which focuses on some of the most frequent “e-risks” (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013). Though parents/care providers may express a high degree of worry around e-risks, specifically involving online predators, this is the category about which the family therapy professionals in one of our studies inquired the least of the clinical participants with whom they worked (Hertlein, Blumer, & Smith, 2014). Forty-one percent (n = 93) reported they do not ask about engagement in online predatory behaviors at all, and 28.2% (n = 64) reported not inquiring about safety with regard to online sexual predators (Hertlein et al., 2014).
Online sexual predators visit chat rooms and SNSs seeking out unsuspecting, attention needing children to confuse with notions of sexuality and then lure them into meeting so they can sexually assault them (Crooks & Baur, 2011). Although companies such as CompuServe and America Online (AOL) have created “guards” and monitoring devices to protect youth online (Crooks & Baur, 2011), Mesch (2006) notes that increased surveillance of an adolescent’s online activities can also create arguments over their growing need for autonomy. Additionally, in many instances, parents may not have the time nor ability to monitor their youth’s online activity in this manner. Even if they could successfully exert this much control over the limiting of online exposure that comes with new media, how is this helping to optimize the development of their teen and future young adult (Rushing & Stephens, 2011)?
Many adults are concerned about how to interact and communicate with adolescents in their lives in online environments. Engagement in online family and social networking seems fraught with confusion and uncertainty in terms of practice management. It may also, however, offer some benefit when used in helpful and adjunctive ways. Parental concerns around teen use go beyond those already mentioned, and often include that young people might not be as mindful as they do not primarily focus on risks from those outside of them (e.g., strangers, acquaintances, predators, bullies, etc.), but rather are more concerned with their own techno-involvement. Researchers have found that teenagers also struggle with Internet and online gaming “addiction” (Hur, 2006), which are two more technological areas that family therapy professionals in our study infrequently inquired about in their clinical work (Hertlein et al., 2014). Associations between pathological Internet use and problem drinking (Ko et al., 2008), depression, relationship problems, aggressive behaviors, ill health (Lam & Peng, 2010), and obesity (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013) have also been noted as cyber-related problems in adolescence. Cellphone use has even been correlated, albeit weakly, with increased body mass index (BMI) levels in adolescents aged 11 to 17 (Lajunen et al., 2007).
Despite the potential drawbacks associated with adolescent engagement with technologies and new media there are some positives to use in this stage of family e-development. For adolescents, the Internet serves as a resource for coping, escapism, regulation of emotions (Lam, Peng, Mai, & Jing, 2009), the gaining of a sense of control, an outlet for negative energy, and reducing stress (Grüsser, Thalemann, & Griffiths, 2007). Even after controlling for family income, the accessing of computers has been associated with higher test scores in school, and may play a major part in future success in higher education (Koivusilta, Nupponen, & Rimpela, 2011). Finally, some researchers suggest that technology-based interventions like the accessing of health websites (e.g., WebMD.com), the use of smartphones and applications (apps) aimed at promoting well-being, and the playing of video games that encourage health practices can help inform and change health related behaviors in adolescents (Rushing & Stephens, 2011). In a quantified study involving 405 American Indian/Native American youth aged 13–21, technology-based interventions, particularly those involving the accessing of health websites, demonstrated effectiveness in terms of informing and changing participant health behaviors. A full 75% (n = 303.75) of participants searched online for health information in this study (Rushing & Stephens, 2011).
Anxiety management is a huge piece of what drives online behavior. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, Wehrenberg (2018) discusses the role of social anxiety and how that dominates some of our online interactions. According to Wehrenberg (2018), technology produces a new type of stress response. When we hear technology-related sounds like notifications, it puts our body in a state of stress. And when those dings and notifications go off all the time, and they do, our body is in a state of chronic stress. That state of chronic stress has implications for the way in which we interpret messages and the way in which we respond. Some of the literature actually already talks about this. In terms of our posture, Hansraj (2014) found when we are receiving a text and responding, our shoulders and neck are positioned in such a way that looks like anxiety, and consequently, messages that come in are interpreted with our bodies being in a physical place of holding more stress and more tension than when we are not holding the phone. This damages our health and makes us more tired.
The other piece about social media, stress, and anxiety is that there is tremendous success that is posted for more peer groups on social media. There are many ways in which we can compare ourselves to our peers, as we mentioned with Festinger (1954), and one of the biggest features of social anxiety is that we are constantly scrutinizing how we are appearing to others online, based on what others are presenting.
Control is an important psychological construct. When people have a sense of control, they believe that they have some level of power over their environment, and that what happens to them is a consequence of their choices and actions (Rotter, 1966). The ability to be able to feel that one is in control is a critical developmental task according to many scholars, not the least of which include Erikson (1982), Piaget (1977), and Mirowsky (1997). The Internet gives some illusion of control through giving us search engines through which we can search for exactly what we are looking for and nothing else; we are able to control (or so we think) the information that we receive because we specifically look for that information and only that information. We are able to feel more in control of our intimacy development, and obtain financial rewards and other relational benefits (De Wolf, Williart, & Pierson, 2014).
Sense of agency, a construct closely related to control, can be established in a digital environment by managing three primary elements: sense of self-location, sense of body ownership, and sense of agency (Jeunet, Albert, Argelaguet, & Lecuyer, 2018). Sense of self-location describes one’s orientation in the digital world. For example, when in an environment where one is regarded as a third person, they would rate their sense of location as lower than those who are operating from a first-person perspective. Sense of body refers to the quality where one person is able to note similarities between their offline and online self. When there is more congruence between these two entities, there is a greater sense of feeling agency. Finally, environments are created where one has some degree of control in what happens next (as is very often the case with blogging, social media exhibitions, etc.).
When these three elements come together, the greater one’s sense of digital agency, potentially, the greater their experience of being able to be in control (or at least the importance of establishing that feeling). The development of agency is critical to establishing a sense of privacy. In a virtual world, sense of agency means a great deal, because we believe that it allows us to control our private information and the way in which people access us. Privacy is defined as “the feeling that one has the right to own private information, either personally or collectively” (Petronio, 2002, p. 6). Internet use is associated with privacy in one way or another. The feeling of privacy is augmented by the belief that we are in control. If we believe we are in control, we believe that we can control our level of privacy.
As much control as we may think we have and believe sharing online gives us (Petronio, 2002), privacy is not guaranteed in an online world. Consider the recent example of Facebook, which has gotten into some hot water in its handling of private data. In two breaches that affected 90 million users, Facebook shared personally identifiable information of its users to outside forces, and then these forces used this information in an effort to sway users’ opinions and affect how they vote. While Facebook initially expressed apologies about these breaches and even initiated a public relations campaign to make a commitment to better protect privacy, it quietly moved its headquarters to a new location out of reach of European privacy laws (which happen to be much stricter than in the United States; www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/19/facebook-moving-most-users-from-protection-of-eu-privacy-law/). This event, however, was not the first time. A similar incident occurring in 2008 also led Facebook to widely issue a “mea culpa” to those complaining about breaches in privacy.
In 2008, however, the complaints to Facebook about privacy were not centered on selling of information but rather the way in which people were able to access information on the News Feed. It was not that more information was being shared; it was that this information was now accessible via the development of a “search bar,” thus overstepping current social mores. As Boyd (2008) stated:
Search disrupted the social dynamics. The reason for this is that privacy is not simply about the state of an inanimate object or set of bytes; it is about the sense of vulnerability that an individual experiences when negotiating data. Both Usenet and Facebook users felt exposed and/or invaded by the architectural shifts without having a good way of articulating why the feature made them feel “icky.”
(p. 14)
In cyberspace, both exposure and invasion contribute to our feeling vulnerable and that our privacy is violated (Boyd, 2008). In exposure, we post things, and they become announced to others. At times, we are aware that others are made aware of certain actions, postings, and events; at other times, we are unaware of what is being told to others about us, and how to check the veracity of such statements. For example, LinkedIn may alert you that someone is looking for you… but are they really? Or is it LinkedIn’s attempt to have you log in and use its services? Once exposed, invasion occurs. People can access you and the exposed information about you without you being aware that they are becoming a student of, well, you. One final example of the privacy issue is the development of what are known as “ambient apps” (Tene & Polonetsky, 2014, p. 61). These apps are those that identify and disclose one’s geographic locations to other social media and Internet users. For example, an app called Highlight 6 allows others in the area to know that you are also in the area and displays your profile. You may also interact with those who are nearby through highlighting them via the Highlight 6 app or social media apps such as Facebook, Twitter, and Tinder (Tene & Polonetsky, 2014). Further, we acknowledge there exists the possibility of unintended privacy breaches (Krasnova, Veltri, & Günther, 2012); but this potential consequence may lose out when weighed against the benefits and convenience of access and ability to forge connections.
Demographics of Internet users affect what we need to consider in terms of privacy. Managing privacy may involve directly limiting the audience (Kramer-Duffield, 2010) or adjusting settings built into social media sites to delete posts (Litt, 2013). Teens respond to the concern that there may be privacy violations by leaking specific information where the primary message will be hidden from those not in the know, but apparent to those who do know, a concept known as social steganography (Boyd & Marwick, 2011). They also are more vocal (and scrutinize people) when information is shared about them they do not wish to be shared (Trottier, 2012). Alternatively, those from collectivist backgrounds tend to be less likely to share personal information on social media, whereas those from individualistic cultures are more likely to self-disclose (Krasnova et al., 2012). Finally, the way that teens use technology (and their exposure to risk) also changes across their lives. For young teens, there is more of an emphasis on engaging with others and using what social media has to offer. This increased exposure accentuates their risk.
One of the other issues that confuses the privacy issue is the actual space. As mentioned earlier in this text, social media presents an environment that blurs the boundaries between offline and virtual environments (Gabriel, 2014). As Boyd (2008) described it:
Offline, people are accustomed to having architecturally defined boundaries. Physical features like walls and limited audio range help people have a sense of just how public their actions are. The digital world has different properties and these can be easily altered through the development of new technologies, radically altering the assumptions that people have when they interact online. As a result of new technological developments, social convergence is becoming the norm online, but people are still uncomfortable with the changes.
(Boyd, 2008, p. 14)
In other words, we have to make adjustments in how we interact with others as the boundary between us in our homes and them in their homes is different than walls—it does not exist—but we often do not make those adjustments.
Cyberbullying includes a wide range of bullying behaviors using an equally wide range of electronic communication as the medium of delivery. While there is no commonly agreed upon definition, there are a few definitions that are more commonly cited in the literature (Li, Smith, & Cross, 2012). Belsey (2004) defines cyberbullying as:
the use of information and communication technologies such as email, cellphone and pager text messages, instant messaging, defamatory personal websites, and defama-tory online personal polling websites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group that is intended to harm others.
(n.p.)
Two years later, Willard (2006) provided a more basic definition by framing cyberbullying as “sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images using the Internet or other digital communication devices” (p. 1). Smith, on the other hand, adds intentionality and victim positioning to the definition. Another widely adapted definition is proposed by Smith and colleagues, who define cyberbullying as “an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself” (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376).
Some activities commonly characterizing cyberbullying include sending threatening emails, sending repetitive emails, repeatedly sending upsetting messages, blackballing certain individuals from chat or message groups, and slandering others online (Goebert, Else, Matsu, Chung-Do, & Chang, 2011). Bullying activities can occur across a variety of mediums, including: email, text messages, instant messengers including via SNSs, websites, chat rooms, online games, and digital images (Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). While some studies pin the prevalence at 4.6% (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2015), others report the prevalence has increased from 2006 to 2012 by 6 percentage points among youth (increasing particularly for girls), from 15% to 21% (Schneider, O’Donnell, & Smith, 2015), though some estimate the range to be as high at 72% for school-aged children (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Another estimate of those who cyberbully others may be as high as 29.7% in a sample of school-aged youth (Wade & Beran, 2011). The rates of cyberbullying are even more significant when diverse sexual orientations and genders are factored in, as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning (LGBTQ) youth experience such bullying at higher rates in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts (Kann et al., 2018). Results from the nationwide 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey of US high school students found that 27.1% of those students identifying as LGBTQ experienced cyberbullying in the past year, whereas only 13.3% of their heterosexual peers experienced cyberbullying in the same year (Kann et al., 2018). Part of the prevalence of cyberbullying may be due to the fact that we are living in a world of constant connection and constant risk (Rao, Bansal, & Chandran, 2018).
There are different types of cyberbullying as identified by Willard (2007). Flaming refers to an online fight where at least one individual is bullied. Harassment occurs when repetitive, negative messages are sent to the target. Outing and trickery refer to circumstances where an individual takes another’s personal information and disseminates it without the target’s knowledge or consent. Impersonation (sometimes termed masquerading) refers to pretending to be someone else and using that identity to communicate with others. Cyberstalking, to be discussed in a later section, is using technology to send threatening messages. Exclusion is where it is made clear to an individual that they have been excluded from a group or an event (Kowalski et al., 2014).
While girls may be more likely to be cyberbullied (if we include data on cyberstalking, a form of cyberbullying) (Ortega et al., 2012), they are just as likely as boys to be the bully (Beckman, Hagquist, & Hellström, 2013). Young men are victimized online more often if they have a lower level of education (Festl & Quandt, 2016). Those who cyberbully tend to get less and poorer quality sleep, are of a male gender, score higher on extroversion and neuroticism scales, and are less conscientious (Kırcaburun & Tosuntaş, 2018). What may positively affect or even reduce the presence of cyberbullying is the development of empathy and a positive school climate around the reduction of bullying. What seems to be negatively related is whether the individual has out-of-control technology-related behaviors, uses the Internet more often, engages in more risky online behavior (more common in people who use the Internet more), and lacks control (there is that word again) of the personal information one posts online (Festl & Quandt, 2016).
From a relational perspective, power dynamics in relationships seem to affect engagement in cyberbullying. Specifically it seems to occur more often in relationships where there is a power imbalance like in the forms of heterosexism, cisgenderism, racism, sexism, etc. (Kowalski et al., 2014; Twist, Bergdall, Belous, & Maier, 2017). Bullies themselves do not seem to have a sense of their actions, and the victims experience further marginalization among their peers (Cowie & Myers, 2014). In fact, those who are cyberbullied are more likely to be bullied in their relationship, and more often the person who cyberbullied them was a friend (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2015).
The consequences of cyberbullying seem to be equal opportunity destroyers, though at least one study has young school-aged males as bearing consequences more intensely (Kowalski & Limber, 2013). The effects of being a victim of cyberbullying can lead to depression, paranoia, and anxiety problems. In addition, victims of cyberbullying have more suicidal ideation, as well as more suicide attempts (Kowalski et al., 2014). Experiences related to being cyberbullied like depression, suicidal ideation, misuse of drugs and alcohol, and risky sexual behavior are even greater in LGBTQ youth (Kann et al., 2018). Furthermore, suicidal ideation is associated with both roles—the bully and the target (Kowalski & Limber, 2013). Those who are cyber-bullied also have a lower level of self-esteem (Patchin & Hinduja, 2010b). Depression seems to be a mediating factor for girls between traditional bullying and suicide, but it does not mediate cyberbullying and suicide (Bauman, Toomey, & Walker, 2013), nor does being the offender in cyberbullying predict depression or anxiety (Goebert et al., 2011). In addition, those who have less social support have a higher risk of experiencing cyberbullying (Kwak & Oh, 2017). Finally, compared to the effects of traditional bullying, cyberbullying is associated with stronger indirect effects on well-being (Muhonen, Jönsson, & Bäckström, 2017).
This is not to say there is no risk. Negative consequences of cyberbul-lying do indeed exist. For both victim and offender, engagement or experience with cyberbullying was associated with higher levels of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, with victims experiencing more suicidal thoughts (Patchin & Hinduja, 2010a). Girls, as mentioned earlier, are both more likely to be cyberbullied and also more likely to internalize as a response (Brown, Demaray, Tennant, & Jenkins, 2017). Cyberbullying victims are more likely to use substances, binge drink, or use marijuana (by a rate of 2.5 times), are twice as likely to be depressed, and are over three times more likely to attempt suicide (Goebert et al., 2011). There are also significant academic consequences. For example, children who are cyberbullied are more likely to be absent from school and report school-related illnesses (Kowalski & Limber, 2013). For instance, 10% of LGB students and 6.1% of hetersexual students report not going to school because of safety concerns related to cyberbullying (Kann et al., 2018). Furthermore, among students who identify as “questioning” their sexual orientation, they report being cyberbullied at a rate of 22% a year, and 10.7% reported not going to school because of related safety concerns (Kann et al., 2018).
Partly because of the risks of being bullied and/or cyberbullied, some LGBTQ youth are not “out” offline or online about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity—what is called “visibility management” or “e-visibility management,” respectively (Twist et al., 2017). While this might serve as a mechanism to diminish bullying experiences, there are significant drawbacks to not being out, as well. For instance, research has shown that being out is associated with greater positive social adjustment (Kann et al., 2018), increased opportunities to meet potential dating partners and supportive friends, and access to supportive psychological, relational, and wellness-based resources and communities (Twist et al., 2017).
The Internet and social media also have a role in dating violence. As positive as it can be for relationships, technology also can facilitate coercion, threats, abuse, stalking, harassment, intimidation, and controlling behaviors (Stonard, Bowen, Walker, & Price, 2017). Common experiences for the victim include embarrassing posts about them (photos or otherwise), the Internet being used as a platform to spread rumors, and threats being made. Men tend to be the culprits behind sexual technology-assisted violence, whereas women seem to initiate non-sexual types (Stonard, Bowen, Walker, & Price, 2017). Part of what happens with technology regarding younger people is that there is an ability to ask for a password and check a partner’s phone—an option exercised more frequently by adolescent girls, which is actually controlling behavior. Further, because events are memorialized online or in text, there is a record that one may revisit and can play in one’s mind.
As if cyberbullying was not enough, add sex into the mix and we all get confused. Sexting refers to the exchanging of sexually explicit material via a mobile phone’s text messaging function. Those who sext are more likely to be connected to their peer group and less connected to their parents (Campbell & Park, 2014). The good news is that, as much attention as it gets, sexting is a relatively infrequent activity among youth. Approximately only 7% of youth report receiving such messages and 2% of those aged 10 to 17 (Mitchell, Finkelhor, Jones, & Wolak, 2012), but another study reports that number could be anywhere from 15% to 40% (Ringrose, Gill, Livingstone, & Harvey, 2012, as cited in Stonard et al., 2017). Fifteen percent report sending such messages, and those teens also seem to be more sexually active (Gamez-Guadix, De Santisteban, & Resett, 2017). Sexting can include:
Sending (1) sexually suggestive photos or videos, (2) photos or videos wearing lingerie, (3) nude photos or videos, (4) sexually suggestive text messages, (5) text messages propositioning sex, and (6) forwarding on or showing others sexts which were meant to be kept private.
(Scholes-Balog, Francke, & Hemphill, 2016, p. 2)
There may be many motivations for engaging in sexting. For youth, one motivation may be linked to their stage of development. Experimenting with different behavior is a normative process of youth, and they may perceive sending a text, even if it is sexually explicit, to someone as a relatively benign way of expressing the developmental impulsivity and identity-formation process. A second motivation (for both youth and adults) may be the relationship currency that is established through sexting (Judge, 2012). For example, while in a romantic relationship, adults with anxious types of attachment tend to send sexts to get a response or some level of engagement back, not necessarily expecting a sexual encounter as a result (Weisskirch & Delevi, 2011). Other motivations include thrill-seeking, hopes of beginning a relationship with someone, and/or to keep their partners happy (Scholes-Balog et al., 2016). With regard to sensation-seeking, it may be that the moderator between sensation-seeking and sexting is relationship expectations (Scholes-Balog et al., 2016).
Once sexual material is included in an electronic transmission, the person who included the graphic material no longer has control of where that information and subject matter are distributed. If the information is distributed widely, significant psychological distress may follow (Van Ouytsel, Walrave, Ponnet, & Heirman, 2015). Further, young people often are unaware of the consequences of sexting, which makes them more vulnerable to its effects (Ahern & Mechling, 2013). Consequences of sexting include being seen by unintended individuals and the potential for an encounter to go too far (Renfrow & Rollo, 2014). Examining the behaviors of over 700 youth, Benotsch, Snipes, Martin, and Bull (2013) found significant associations between sexting and higher levels of substance abuse, as well as engaging in sex with multiple partners. Individuals who are more likely to send sexts are in a relationship, and those who do not send them tend to have higher levels of self-esteem (Scholes-Balog et al., 2016). On the other hand, at least one study disputes these findings. Gordon-Messer, Bauermeister, Grodzinski, and Zimmerman (2012) found while sexting is used in place of physical sex when there is not an available partner, there was no increase in the number of sexual partners, and no increase in unprotected sex. Further, they found no association with low self-esteem, depression, or anxiety among those who engaged in sexting.
Sexting within a committed relationship may have different implications for the relationship based on its culture and gender. The truth is women have it rough and are exposed to many risks from sexting (Albury & Byron, 2014). Teen girls who do not participate in sexting or respond to sexts are generally shunned by peers, fueling isolation (Lippman & Campbell, 2014). In heterosexual relationships in particular, if the woman receives a sext and she does not respond, there are negative ramifications. In the case of similar-gender romantic relationships, however, there do not seem to be negative ramifications for not reciprocating a message (Currin, Jayne, Hammer, Brim, & Hubach, 2016). It is essential to note that in general there is very little scholarly information focused on understanding the experiences, benefits, and risks of sexting for people of sexually and gender diverse backgrounds, identities, and relationships (Albury & Byron, 2014). What little scholarly information is available shows that adolescents and young people of sexually and gender diverse backgrounds display a range of creative techniques for navigating digisexual cultures (McArthur & Twist, 2017; Twist, 2018), and need to have strategies for negotiating safety and risk within offline and online sexual cultures (Albury & Byron, 2014; Twist et al., 2017).
In an attempt to understand what is happening to women, one study looked at the stories of over 450 adolescent girls and the dilemma they face when a nude photo appears or the request for such a photo is received (Thomas, 2018). There were three critical questions facing these teens: the decision as to whether to send photographs, the decision as to how to manage the consequences of sending the photos, and self-concept in relation to sending photos. Considerations for sending photos include love, desire for status, expectations of what a girlfriend normally does, fear of anger, complying to requests, experiencing repeated requests, responding to a threat, or other consequences to the relationship (Thomas, 2018). Adolescent girls reported a series of options in how to respond to these requests. Of course, adolescent girls can choose to acquiesce to such requests or decline. Other strategies teen girls reported using include delay tactics (such as sending photos of generic women online), seeking guidance asking others how to respond, and seeking help (but not from adults; Thomas, 2018).
Revenge pornography (porn) is a relatively new risk associated with our digital age. Revenge porn is the sharing of pornographic images of an individual without their knowledge or consent. Most commonly it is executed via online forums. The non-consensual distribution of these images is becoming a common revenge strategy for ex-partners, particularly male partners non-consensually sharing pornographic images of their female ex-partners (Hall & Hearn, 2017). In revenge porn, women are the victims 90% of the time (Hall & Hearn, 2017). Over 35 states in the US have revenge porn laws (www.cybercivilrights.org/revenge-porn-laws/), though at times those laws are challenged with laws around free speech (Larkin, 2014).
At a basic level, cyberstalking is defined as repeated use of the Internet and/or electronic communications to cause distress in another person (Nobles, Reyns, Fox, & Fisher, 2014). There are some definitions that involve the desire to create fear, but the establishment of this as a motivator can be difficult to determine (Nobles et al., 2014). In the US, the prevalence of cyberstalking varies widely, from 1% to 40%, with most estimates hovering near 20% (Nobles et al., 2014). Approximately one-quarter of women using dating sites indicate that they have been victims of cyberstalking through that mechanism (Jerin & Dolinsky, 2001, as cited in Nobles et al., 2014). In the European Union, an estimated nine million women per year are the victim of cyberstalking every 12 months, with most of these women between the ages of 18 and 29 (Horsman & Conniss, 2015). Constructs associated with cyberstalking victimization include the extent to which one exposes themselves to risks online generally, the attractiveness of the target, the extent to which the Internet users were monitored, and how deviant one was (Reyns, Henson, & Fisher, 2011).
There are four different types of cyberstalking. Vindictive cyberstalking is the type that is inspired by ill-wishes, malice, and intent to harm (Jansen van Rensburg, 2017). This type is characterized by extensive spamming via email and/or identity theft (Pittaro, 2007) and may transition into physical offline stalking (McFarlane & Bocij, 2003). Another type, composed cyberstalking, is where the stalker does not have the same intense ill-intention as the vindictive type, but instead is attempting to be a nuisance to the target (Jansen van Rensburg, 2017). Intimate cyberstalking is the type where the one doing the stalking is interested in capturing the attention of the target. Intimate cyberstalking, because it is designed to entice the target, is characterized by gathering specific and personal details about the target and reflecting this information to the target as a way to demonstrate the level of intimate connection through many phone calls, emails, and/or texts (Jansen van Rensburg, 2017). Finally, any of these types can be engaged in by two or more people, which is called collaborative cyberstalking. In this case, one target is identified, and it may include impersonation (Jansen van Rensburg, 2017).
In one study, both those engaging in the stalking and their targets engaged in different strategies to monitor their counterpart. These strategies include five different categories: primary contact attempts, secondary contact attempts (i.e., contacting others connected to the target), monitoring or surveillance, expressions, and invitations. From the offender perspective, this makes sense—they are keeping tabs on their target. From the target’s perspective, however, they can also keeps tabs on who is keeping tabs on them. Bear in mind that these are not just keeping tabs; it means that the person who is keeping tabs is doing so in such a way that it looks like relational intrusion or has an obsessional quality (Chaulk & Jones, 2011). The development of cyberstalking is fueled by the characteristics of the Internet itself, such as anonymity—or at least perceived anonymity (Horsman & Connis, 2015).
As you might expect (and probably based on the different monitoring strategies used), consequences of cyberstalking can be highly damaging. These include psychological distress, a sense that one’s privacy was invaded, and fear. Manifestations of psychological distress include stress, anger, irritation, paranoia, lack of concentration, betrayal, helplessness, annoyance, and depression. Targets of cyberstalking fear their reputation would be harmed, fear for their personal security, and fear that the online harassment and stalking would escalate to offline activities (Jansen van Rensburg, 2017; Marcum, Higgins, & Ricketts, 2014). Finally, the ways in which the target may attempt to protect oneself typically involve more money than those in offline stalking experiences (Nobles et al., 2014).
Families may experience several risks related to technology and their relationships, including the introduction of online sexual predators, cyber-bullying, video and online gaming, privacy considerations, cyberstalking, technology-based dating violence, sexting, and revenge pornography. As these issues continue to emerge, we have to stay one step ahead of these emerging technologies as a way to curb any negative impact and perhaps even reduce the instances of when technology is used inappropriately.
1 The term “Internet of things” was coined by Kevin Ashton in 1999 and is used to refer to the capability of computers/technologies to sense things for themselves rather than only sensing what humans tell them (Ashton, 2009).
Adams, R., & Stevenson, M. (2004). A lifetime of relationships mediated by technology. In F. Lang & K. Fingerman (Eds.), Growing together: Personal relationships across the lifespan (pp. 368–393). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ahern, N. R., & Mechling, B. (2013). Sexting: Serious problems for youth. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 51 (7), 22. doi:10.3928/02793695-20130503-02
Albury, K., & Byron, P. (2014, November). Queering sexting and sexualisation. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy, 153.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Policy statement: Children, adolescents, and the media. Pediatrics, 132, 958–961. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2656
Ashton, K. (2009). That “Internet of things” thing: In the real world, things matter more than ideas. RFID Journal. Retrieved from https://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?4986
Bauman, S., Toomey, R. B., & Walker, J. L. (2013). Associations among bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of Adolescence, 36 (2), 341–350. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.12.001
Beckman, L., Hagquist, C., & Hellström, L. (2013). Discrepant gender patterns for cyberbullying and traditional bullying: An analysis of Swedish adolescent data. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (5), 1896–1903. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2013.03.010
Belsey, B. (2004). Cyberbullying. Retrieved July 15, 2018, from www.cyberbullying.ca
Benotsch, E. G., Snipes, D. J., Martin, A. M., & Bull, S. S. (2013). Sexting, substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 52 (3), 307–313. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.011
Boyd, D. (2008). Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion, and social convergence. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14 (1), 13–20. doi:10.1177/1354856507084416
Boyd, D., & Marwick, A. (2011). Social privacy in networked publics: Teen’s attitudes, practices, and strategies. Microsoft Research, 1–29. Retrieved from www.danah.org/papers/2011/SocialPrivacyPLSC-Draft.pdf
Brown, C. F., Demaray, M. K., Tennant, J. E., & Jenkins, L. N. (2017). Cyber victimization in high school: Measurement, overlap with face-to-face victimization, and associations with social-emotional outcomes. School Psychology Review, 46 (3), 288–303.
Campbell, S. W., & Park, Y. J. (2014). Predictors of mobile sexting among teens: Toward a new explanatory framework. Mobile Media & Communication, 2 (1), 20–39. doi:10.1177/2050157913502645
Chaulk, K., & Jones, T. (2011). Online obsessive relational intrusion: Further concerns about Facebook. Journal of Family Violence, 26 (4), 245–254. doi:10. 1007/s10896-011-9360-x
Cowie, H., & Myers, C. (2014). Bullying amongst university students in the UK. International Journal of Emotional Education, 6 (1), 66–75. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085613.pdf
Crooks, R., & Baur, K. (2011). Our sexuality (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Currin, J. M., Jayne, C. N., Hammer, T. R., Brim, T., & Hubach, R. D. (2016). Explicitly pressing send: Impact of sexting on relationship satisfaction. American Journal of Family Therapy, 44 (3), 143–154. doi:10.1080/01926187.2016. 1145086
De Wolf, R. D., Williart, K., & Pierson, J. (2014). Managing privacy boundaries together: Exploring individual and group privacy management strategies in Face-book . Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 444–454. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014. 03.010
Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York, NY: Norton.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7 (2), 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2016). The role of online communication in long-term cyberbullying involvement among girls and boys. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45 (9), 1931–1945. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0552-9
Gabriel, F. (2014). Sexting, selfies and self-harm: Young people, social media and the performance of self-development. Media International Australia, 151 (1), 104–112.
Gamez-Guadix, M., De Santisteban, P., & Resett, S. (2017). Sexting among Spanish adolescents: Prevalence and personality profiles/Sexting entre adolescentes espanoles: Prevalencia y asociacion con variables de personalidad. Psicothema, 29 (1), 29–34. doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.222
Goebert, D., Else, I., Matsu, C., Chung-Do, J., & Chang, J. (2011). The impact of cyberbullying on substance use and mental health in a multiethnic sample. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15 (8), 1282–1286. doi:10.1007/s10995-010-0672-x
Gordon-Messer, D., Bauermeister, J. A., Grodzinski, A., & Zimmerman, M. (2012). Sexting among young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52 (3), 301–306. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.013
Grüsser, S. M., Thalemann, R., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Excessive computer game playing: Evidence for addiction and aggression? Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 10 (2), 290–292. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9956
Hall, M., & Hearn, J. (2017). Revenge pornography: Gender, sexuality, and motivations. NOTA News, 16–18. doi:10.4324/9781315648187
Hansraj, K. K. (2014). Assesment of stresses in the cervical spine causes by posture and position of the head. Surgical Technology International, 25, 277–279. Retrieved from https://motamem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/spine-study.pdf
Hertlein, K. M., & Blumer, M. L. C. (2013). The couple and family technology framework. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hertlein, K. M., Blumer, M. L. C., & Smith, J. (2014). Marriage and family therapists’ use and comfort with online communication with clients. Contemporary Family Therapy, 36, 58–69. doi:10.1007/s10591-013-9284-0
Horsman, G., & Conniss, L. R. (2015). An investigation of anonymous and spoof SMS resources used for the purposes of cyberstalking. Digital Investigation, 13, 80–93. doi:10.1016/j.diin.2015.04.001
Hur, M. H. (2006). Demographic, habitual, and socioeconomic determinants of Internet addiction disorder: An empirical study of korean teenagers. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 9 (5), 514–525. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.514
Jansen van Rensburg, S. K. (2017). Unwanted attention: The psychological impact of cyberstalking on its survivors. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 27 (3), 273–276. doi:10.1080/14330237.2017.1321858
Jerin, R., & Dolinsky, B. (2001). You’ve got mail! You don’t want it. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 8 (1). Retrieved from https://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol9is1/jerin.pdf
Jeunet, C., Albert, L., Argelaguet, F., & Lecuyer, A. (2018). “Do you feel in control?”: Towards novel approaches to characterise, manipulate and measure the sense of agency in virtual environments. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on, 24 (4), 1486–1495. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2018.2794598
Judge, A. M. (2012). “Sexting” among U.S. adolescents: Psychological and legal perspectives. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 20 (2), 86–96. doi:10.3109/1067 3229.2012.677360
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78 (9), 496–505. doi:10.1 111/j.1746-1561.2008.00335.
Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Queen, B.,… Ethier, K. A. (2018). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2017. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summary, 67 (8), 1–114. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6708a1Kırcaburun, K., & Tosuntaş, S. B. (2018). Cyber-bullying perpetration among undergraduates: Evidence of the roles of chrono-type and sleep quality. Biological Rhythm Research, 49 (2), 247–265. doi:10.10 80/02723646.2017.1352918
Ko, C. H., Yen, J. Y., Yen, C. F., Chen, C. S., Weng, C. C., & Chen, C. C. (2008). The association between Internet addiction and problematic alcohol use in adolescents: The problem behavior model. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11 (5), 571–576. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0199
Koivusilta, L., Nupponen, H., & Rimpela, A. (2011). Adolescent physical activity predicts high education and socioeconomic position in adulthood. The European Journal of Public Health, 22 (2), 203–209. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckr037
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbul-lying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140 (4), 1073–1137. doi:10.1037/a0035618
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53 (1), S13–S20. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018
Kramer-Duffield, J. (2010). Beliefs and uses of tagging among undergraduates. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Krasnova, H., Veltri, N. F., & Günther, O. (2012). Self-disclosure and privacy calculus on social networking sites: The role of culture. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4 (3), 127–135. doi:10.1007/s12599-012-0216-6
Kwak, M., & Oh, I. (2017). Comparison of psychological and social characteristics among traditional, cyber, combined bullies, and non-involved. School Psychology International, 38 (6), 608–627. doi:10.1177/0143034317729424
Lajunen, H., Keski-Rahkonen, A., Pulkkinen, L., Rose, R. J., Rissanen, A., & Kaprio, J. (2007). Are computer and cellphone use associated with body mass index and overweight? A population study among twin adolescents. BMC Public Health, 7 (1), 24–24. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-24
Lam, L. T., & Peng, Z. W. (2010). Effect of pathological use of the Internet on adolescent mental health: A prospective study. Archive of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 164 (10), 901–906. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.159.
Lam, L. T., Peng, Z. W., Mai, J. C., & Jing, J. (2009). Factors associated with Internet addiction among adolescents. Cyberpyschology & Behavior, 12 (5), 551–555. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0036
Larkin, P. (2014). Revenge porn, state law, and free speech. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 48 (1), 57–117. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2385620
Li, Q., Smith, P. K., & Cross, D. (2012). Research into cyberbullying. In Q. Li., D. Cross, & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Cyberbullying in the global playground: Research from international perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lippman, J. R., & Campbell, S. W. (2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t… If you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8 (4), 371–386. doi:1 0.1080/17482798.2014.923009
Litt, E. (2013). Measuring user’s Internet skills: A review of past assessments and a look toward the future. New Media & Society, 15 (4), 612–630. doi:10. 1177/1461444813475424
Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Ricketts, M. L. (2014). Juveniles and cyber stalking in the United States: An analysis of theoretical predictors of patterns of online perpetration. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 8 (1), 47–56. Retrieved from https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Marcum_catherine_2014_Juvenilles_and_Cyber_orig.pdf
McArthur, N., & Twist, M. L. C. (2017). The rise of digisexuality: Therapeutic challenges and possibilities. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32 (3/4), 334–344.
McFarlane, P., & Bocij, L. (2003). Cyberstalking: The technology of hate. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 76 (3), 204–221. doi:10.1350/pojo.76.3.204.19442
Mesch, G. S. (2006). Family relations and the Internet: Exploring a family boundaries approach. The Journal of Family Communication, 6 (2), 119–138. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0602_2
Mirowsky, J. (1997). Age, subjective life expectancy, and the sense of control: The horizon hypothesis. The Journals of Gerontology, 52 (3), S125–134. doi:10. 1093/geronb/52B.3.S125
Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., Jones, L. M., & Wolak, J. (2012). Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics, 129 (1), 13–20. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-1730
Muhonen, T., Jönsson, S., & Bäckström, M. (2017). Consequences of cyberbullying behaviour in working life: The mediating roles of social support and social organisational climate. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 10 (5), 376–390. doi:10.1108/ijwhm-10-2016-0075
Nobles, M., Reyns, B., Fox, K., & Fisher, B. (2014). Protection against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly, 31 (6), 986–1014. doi:10.108 0/07418825.2012.723030
Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Genta, M. L., Brighi, A., Guarini, A.,… Tippett, N. (2012). The emotional impact of bullying and cyberbullying on victims: A European cross-national study. Aggressive Behavior, 38 (5), 342–356. doi:10.1002/ab.21440
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010a). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14 (3), 206–221. doi:10.1080/13811118.2010.494133
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010b). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80 (12), 614–621. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00548.x
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of discolsure 6. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Piaget, J. (1977). The essential Piaget. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Pittaro, M. L. (2007). Cyberstalking: An analysis of online harassment and intimidation. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1, 180–197. doi:10.5281/zenodo.18794
Rao Sathyanarayana, T., Bansal, D., & Chandran, S. (2018). Cyberbullying: A virtual offense with real consequences. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 60 (1), 3–5. doi:10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_147_18
Renfrow, D. G., & Rollo, E. A. (2014). Sexting on campus: Minimizing perceived risks and neutralizing behaviors. Deviant Behavior, 35 (11), 903–920. doi:10.1 080/01639625.2014.897122
Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle—Routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization . Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38 (11), 1149–1169. doi:10.1177/00938548114214484
Ringrose, J., Gill, R., Livingstone, S., & Harvey, L. (2012). A qualitative study of children, young people, and “sexing”: A report prepared for the NSPCC. London, England, UK: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/44216/
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28. doi:10.1037/h0092976
Rushing, S. C., & Stephens, D. (2011). Use of media technologies by Native American Teens and young adults in the Pacific Northwest: Exploring their utility for designing culturally appropriate technology-based health interventions. Journal of Primary Prevention, 32, 135–145. doi:10.1007/s10935-011-0242-z
Schneider, S. K., O’Donnell, L., & Smith, E. (2015). Trends in cyberbullying and school bullying victimization in a regional census of high school students, 2006–2012. The Journal of School Health, 85 (9), 611–620. doi:10.1111/josh.122908
Scholes-Balog, K., Francke, N., & Hemphill, S. (2016). Relationships between sexting, self-esteem, and sensation seeking among Australian young adults. Sexualization, Media, & Society, 2 (2). doi:10.1177/2374623815627790
Smardon, A. (2012). Identity theft: “Kids don’t know they’re victims”. Retrieved December 6, 2018, from http://m.npr.org/story/153030774
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (4), 376–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x.
Stonard, K., Bowen, E., Walker, K., & Price, S. (2017). “They’ll always find a way to get to you”: Technology use in adolescent romantic relationships and its role in dating violence and abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32 (14), 2083–2117.
Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2014). A theory of creepy: Technology, privacy and shifting social norms. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 16 (1), 9–102.
Thomas, S. (2018). “What should I do?”: Young women’s reported dilemmas with nude photographs. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15 (2), 192–207. doi:10.1007/s13178-017-0310-0
Trottier, D. (2012). Interpersonal surveillance on social media. Canadian Journal of Communication, 37 (2), 319–332. doi:10.22230/cjc.2012v37n2a2536
Twist, M. L. C. (2018, June). Digisexuailty: What the tech is it? Invited Lecture, College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists, London, England, United Kingdom.
Twist, M. L. C., Bergdall, M. K., Belous, C. K., & Maier, C. A. (2017). Electronic visibility management of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and relationships. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical Educational Interventions, 16 (4), 271–285.
Van den Bulck, J. (2004). Television viewing, computer game playing, and Internet use and self-reported time to bed and time out of bed in secondary-school children. Sleep, 27 (1), 101–104.
Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Heirman, W. (2015). The association between adolescent sexting, psychosocial difficulties, and risk behavior: Integrative review. The Journal of School Nursing, 31 (1), 54–69. doi:10.1177/10598 40514541964
Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). The overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bullying. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 56 (5), 483–488. doi:10.1016/j. jadohealth.2014.12.002
Wade, A., & Beran, T. (2011). Cyberbullying: The new era of bullying. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26 (1), 44–61. doi:10.1177/08295735103 96318
Wehrenberg, M. (2018, December 13). The new face of anxiety: Treating anxiety disorders in the age of texting, social media and 24/7 internet access. PESI Webinar.
Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi, R. (2011). “Sexting” and adult romantic attachment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (5), 1697–1701. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011. 02.008
Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats. Eugene, OR: Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1396222