Why Do People Stalk Their Partners Online?

When does checking out your partner’s online activity become cyberstalking? According to some definitions, repeatedly monitoring a person’s online activity could be classified as cyberstalking, but cyberstalking is perhaps best defined as repetitive online monitoring that could be considered harassing or threatening. Typically, we might think that cyberstalking behaviors are directed mostly toward online strangers such as celebrities and other public figures, but studies show that most cyberstalking is directed toward current or previous romantic partners.   

Cyberstalking intimate partners is a bit of a grey area. In most cases, casually monitoring a partner online—such as, wondering “who is my partner’s new contact, Steven? I think I’ll check out Steven’s profile”—could be considered a relatively harmless behavior, just natural curiosity. However, more maladaptive behaviors, such as repeatedly checking your partner’s and Steven’s profile to be sure that their connection is innocent, approaches problematic cyberstalking.

Such problematic cyberstalking often occurs without the victim having any idea that their partner is monitoring their online activity. But, if the victim becomes aware that their partner is stalking them online, they may experience negative psychological, social, and physical effects. In some cases, the control and harassment associated with problematic cyberstalking an intimate partner can even approximate Intimate Partner Violence.

Curiously, cyberstalking has received much less attention from researchers than stalking that occurs offline. Furthermore, when exploring cyberstalking, researchers tend to focus on the person who experiences the stalking—the victim.  As a result, much more is known about the effects of cyberstalking on the victim than about why people cyberstalk in the first place. In our study, we explored the kinds of people who are most likely to cyberstalk their current or former partners.

To explore why people perpetrate intimate partner cyberstalking, we focused on the “Dark Tetrad” personality traits, which include the traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism.

Briefly, trait narcissism can take one of two forms—grandiose narcissism (which involves  self-importance, entitlement, and superiority) and vulnerable narcissism (which involves  insecurity, inadequately, and negative emotionality). Machiavellianism involves manipulating and exploiting other people to get what one wants.  Psychopathy can take two forms—primary psychopathy (which involves callousness and shallow emotions) and secondary psychopathy (impulsivity and antisocial behaviour). Finally, people who are high in trait sadism enjoy harming other people (direct sadism) and enjoying watching others being hurt (vicarious sadism).

In our online study, more than 400 participants (76% of them women) completed measures of these personality traits and a measure that assessed how frequently they engaged in cyberstalking. For example, they rated how often they monitored their partner’s behaviors through social media, checked their partner’s messages (on e-mail, Facebook, or phone, for example) without them knowing, and used the location settings on their partner’s phone or computer to see where they’ve been.  

Overall, people who scored higher in vulnerable narcissism, impulsive and antisocial forms of psychopathy, and sadism engaged in intimate partner cyberstalking more frequently.  In addition, women were more likely to engage in these covert forms of stalking than men were. However, when we looked at these personality traits for men and women separately, things got really interesting.

For men, only secondary psychopathy was significantly associated with cyberstalking intimate partners.  This finding suggests that, for men, cyberstalking intimate partners may be best explained as an impulsive, sensation-seeking behaviour.  Men may be drawn to the thrilling, taboo nature of secretly checking up on their current or former partners.

For women, though, only vulnerable narcissism and direct sadism were significantly associated with how often they cyberstalked their partners. For women, cyberstalking intimate partners may be explained by feelings of inadequacy and inferiority (vulnerable narcissism). Women who are highly sensitive to rejection may cyberstalk their partners in an effort to avoid rejection (“If I find out they are doing something wrong, I can dump them before they dump me”). The link between sadism and cyberstalking is also interesting. Although speculative, it is possible that rejection-sensitivity is paired with the desire to hurt their partner for the perceived rejection (“I’ll hurt them before they hurt me”).

These results signal the need to move away from the assumption that most stalking involves male perpetrators and female victims.  When it comes to covert stalking behaviours, such as online cyberstalking, women appear to be equally, if not more, likely to perpetrate such behaviors. Acknowledging that women also cyberstalk may help to reduce the stigma associated with men reporting and seeking support for being the victim of these behaviours.

Furthermore, these results have implications for managing problematic cyberstalking in close relationships. If we understand that men and women perpetrate these behaviours for different reasons, then we can apply this understanding to clinical settings such as relationship counseling and offender rehabilitation.


For Further Reading

March, E., Litten, V., Sullivan, D. H., & Ward, L. (2020). Somebody that I (used to) know: Gender and dimensions of dark personality traits as predictors of intimate partner cyberstalking. Personality and Individual Differences, 163, 110084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110084

Duerksen, K. N., & Woodin, E. M. (2019). Technological intimate partner violence: Exploring technology-related perpetration factors and overlap with in-person intimate partner violence. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.001

Short, E., Guppy, A., Hart, J. A., & Barnes, J. (2015). The impact of cyberstalking. Studies in Media and Communication, 3, 23-37. https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v3i2.970

 

Evita March is a senior lecturer and researcher of psychology at Federation University Australia. Her research interests include interpersonal relationships, cyberpsychology, and personality, specifically, personality traits that predict perpetration of online antisocial behaviours. She is a member of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences and is the founder of the Australasian Cyberpsychology Online Research Network (ACORN).

 

Probing the Sadistic Minds of Internet Trolls

Imagine that a stranger yelled a cruel insult at you in a crowded shopping mall. Your first thoughts might be, “What kind of person does that? What is their problem?” Victims of online trolling experience the same bewilderment, as do the rest of us when we witness someone being viciously attacked online. In response to the trolling epidemic on social media and elsewhere on the Internet, psychologists are seeking answers to the questions of “who trolls?” and “why?” New research suggests that online trolls have a distinct personality type, along with some psychological quirks, that may help explain their behavior.

Trolling can be described as a pattern of repetitive behavior in which a person purposefully provokes or upsets people online. It shares some similarities with other forms of online abuse, such as cyberbullying and cyberstalking, but is often more playful. Unlike cyberbullying, which usually occurs between people who know each other, trolls seem drawn toward distant targets like celebrities, corporations, or random Internet users they do not know personally.

The absence of real-life connections or external rewards makes trolling behavior particularly perplexing. Some coordinated trolling campaigns have a clear agenda, but the motivation of the everyday troll has been a puzzle. 

As personality psychologists, this puzzle intrigued my colleagues and I enough that we decided to tackle it in a series of research studies. Having previously studied the so-called Dark Tetrad of personality characteristics – which consists of narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism – we suspected that trolls might possess some or all of these malevolent traits.

In our initial effort, Delroy Paulhus, Paul Trapnell, and I published the first article on the personality profiles of online trolls. Entitled “Trolls Just Want to Have Fun,” this article showed that trolls openly admit to receiving pleasure from trolling.  Moreover, of all the personality variables, it was everyday sadism – the tendency to enjoy hurting other people – that was the best predictor of trolling. In other words, people who enjoy trolling online tend to also enjoy hurting others in everyday life.

Our follow-up research, published recently in the Journal of Personality, delved deeper into the mind of the troll. In one study, we examined people’s reactions to images of physical and emotional suffering. Most of our research participants found these photos to be mildly disturbing or distasteful, but trolls rated them as relatively pleasing. Trolls also minimized suffering by rating the victims’ pain as less severe. Importantly, participants who scored high on measures of sadism showed the same positive response to the disturbing photos as trolls did.

In a second study, participants read descriptions of harmful acts and judged the perpetrator’s culpability in each scenario. When asked about the emotions that guided their judgments, most participants indicated that they used negative emotions like anger or disgust to decide whether someone was to blame for hurting another person.

But trolls responded differently: They used positive emotions. If the description of the harmful act was amusing to them, trolls felt that the perpetrator shouldn’t be held accountable for his or her actions. If the description was not amusing, trolls judged the perpetrator more harshly. In other words, trolls were more accepting of actions that hurt other people if they found them amusing. Trolls also showed an overall tendency to minimize culpability for harm. Again, the same pattern emerged for everyday sadists.

These studies confirm that online trolling is often motivated by sadistic enjoyment. The results also hint at the rationalization process – sometimes labeled moral disengagement – that allows people to hurt others without guilt. By downplaying the consequences of their actions, trolling becomes a fun game that is perceived as not really hurting anyone. Even if someone does get hurt, trolls can minimize their blame.

Of course, the relative anonymity of the Internet also contributes to trolling. But our research identified two personal factors – sadistic pleasure and harm rationalization – that explain why some people find trolling appealing. As with other antisocial behaviors, this combination of context and character can produce a perfect storm of hurtful behavior. 


For Further Reading:

Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., Andjelovic, T., & Paulhus, D. L. (2019). Internet trolling and everyday sadism: Parallel effects on pain perception and moral judgment. Journal of Personality, 87, 328-340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12393

Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.01
 

About the Author

Erin Buckels is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the St. Boniface Hospital Research Centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

 

Does Anyone Even Like Getting Unsolicited Nudes?

One of the common questions people who have received an unsolicited nude, like a "dick pic," ask themselves is why, dear God why? Our research at Carleton University shows that the motivations behind cyberflashing may vary. We found that two of the most common reasons why people choose to send unsolicited nudes of themselves is partner hunting. In other words, cyberflashing is simply a form of flirting in the 21st century and if Mr. Darcy had access to a phone, he'd do the same thing. The second is transactional mindset, where the sender hopes for a tit-for-tat situation and to get a nude in return.

However, if these two motivations behind cyberflashing are truly accurate, then the sender is assuming that the receiver will be happy about the unsolicited nude they got. But what happens in situations where there is a misalignment between the expectations of the sender and the response of the receiver?

This is the question we set out to explore in this study! To do so we recruited a sample of more than 800 undergraduate students. These were mostly female, heterosexual, and White. The students were asked about their cyberflashing history as well as how they usually feel when they receive an unsolicited nude photo and how they expect others do. In this study, we did not specify the relationship between cyberflasher and the person they cyberflash and future studies should address this.

A full 42% of students had cyberflashed someone, and 68% had been cyberflashed. Importantly, in our work we did not use the limiting term "dick pic" like previous research. By using more gender-inclusive language we do not limit our work on the experiences of cis-gender men who send pictures of their genitals and we are able to better understand cyberflashing as a phenomenon. 

Not surprisingly, more than 3 out 4 cyberflashers in our sample expected a flirty reaction to their unsolicited nude and for the receiver to feel "turned on" or "flattered." However, these expectations were a far cry from reality. In fact, over 80% of those who had received an unsolicited nude did not endorse having a single positive reaction, while almost half said they felt "disgusted." Generally, we found women have more negative reactions to being cyberflashed, while men were more likely to recognize that their nudes may not be received well, yet sent them anyway.

At the same time, we found a link between expected and typical responses across the board. Meaning, that a person who usually has positive reactions to an unsolicited nude also expects the person receiving their nudes to be equally appreciative to get one. On the other hand, someone who has a negative reaction when receiving an unsolicited nude, like disgust or anger, is also more likely to expect that the receiver of their nudes would feel the same way. This could be a manifestation of a "false consensus" that leads people to think that others would agree with them. In cyberflashing, it is possible that people who are not opposed to receiving unsolicited nudes may fail to see the situation from someone else's point of view and not understand that others do not necessarily agree with them.

Our advice? Check in with the receiver before you send a sext. No matter how sure you think you are about how they would feel getting a nude from you, consent is crucial! Sexting can be a fun experience, but only if everyone involved is on board. Otherwise, unsolicited nude photos can make people feel unsafe and uncomfortable.

Sexting without asking is akin to showing up naked at someone's house or flashing someone on the street. The format is changed because of technology, but at heart the issue is the same. And perhaps now there is scientific evidence to show that people who receive unsolicited nudes are not thrilled about it, that should be enough to make anyone pause and ask before hitting send!


For Further Reading

Karasavva, V., Swanek, J., Smodis, A., & Forth, A. (2022). Expectations VS reality: Expected and actual affective reactions to unsolicited sexual images. Computers in Human Behavior130, 1 – 9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107181.

Karasavva, V., Brunet, L., Smodis, A., Swanek, J., & Forth, A. (2023). Putting the Y in cyberflashing: Exploring the prevalence and predictors of the reasons for sending unsolicited nude or sexual images. Computers in Human Behavior140: 1 – 9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107181.

Waling, A., Kerr, L., Bourne, A., Power, J., & Kehler, M. (2022). 'It's nice to be appreciated': Understanding heterosexual men's engagements with sexting and sharing Dick Pics. Sexualities25(3), 198-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1394821


Vasileia Karasavva is a graduate student at the University of British Columbia and is interested in digital social interactions, especially online sexually aggressive behaviors. 

Online Mirrors: Video Bloggers and Viewers Share Emotions

An amusing commercial shows someone having a bad day, and how that person’s mood affects each person down the line, with more bad moods. This emotional “contagion” may be a real-world phenomenon, and it appears that what we experience online can have a similar effect. Examining over 2000 video blogs, or vlogs on YouTube, researchers from Tilburg University, Netherlands, found we mirror the emotions of those we see online and we seek out people who share our emotions.

The research appears in Social Psychological and Personality Science.

“Our research is a reminder that the people we encounter online influence our everyday emotions – being exposed to happy (or angry) people can make us more happy (or angry) ourselves.” says Hannes Rosenbusch (Tilburg University). Rosenbusch is the lead author of the study.

Being affected by others’ emotions is known as “contagion.” People also seek out others like themselves, or in this case, people with similar outlooks and moods. In psychology, this is known as “homophily.”

With almost 5 billion videos watched on YouTube daily, the researchers focused on vlogs and vloggers. Vloggers share emotions and experiences in their videos, providing a reliable source of data.

The researchers focused on studying more popular vlogs, with a minimum of 10,000 subscribers. Some of their sample vlogs had millions of subscribers.

To measure if people watching vlogs experienced emotional contagion or homophily, the team studied words and emotions expressed by the vloggers and analyzed the emotional language of online comments. They modeled the effect of both immediate (contagion) and sustained (homophily) emotional reactions (See Figure 1).

The team found evidence that there is both a sustained and an immediate effect that leads to YouTuber emotion correlating with audience emotion. When a YouTuber posts a video with a generally positive tone, the audience reacts with heightened positive emotions. The same is true for other emotional states.

They also note that this research looks at a complicated system: humans. The effects of video emotions on audience emotions probably comprises of a collection of mechanisms like contagion, empathy, and sympathy.

This study is the first to use a video-focused social media source like YouTube to explore contagion and homophily.  Other researchers have found similar results looking at text-based social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

“Our social life might move more and more to the online sphere, but our emotions and the way we behave towards one another will always be steered by basic psychological processes,” summarizes Rosenbusch.


Anthony Evans and Marcel Zeelenberg are co-authors of this study.

 

Study: Rosenbusch, Hannes, Evans, Anthony, & Zeelenberg, Marcel. Multilevel emotion transfer on YouTube: Disentangling the effects of emotional contagion and homophily on video audiences. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Online before print December 27, 2018.

 

Digital offense: Anonymity dulls our moral outrage

From online forums to community groups, research and experience shows people are more willing to insult and use menacing language online than in person, especially when there’s the protection of anonymity behind a computer. New research appearing in Social Psychological and Personality Science indicates that people react less strongly to malicious speech on digital platforms and see the victims as less “harmed” than if the words were said directly to a person.

“Many of us are taken aback when people like Milo Yiannopoulos target and harass people on Twitter, then go on TV and say that digital words don’t hurt anyone,” says Curtis Puryear (University of South Florida), lead author of the study.

“Yet our data finds that Yiannopoulos’s perspective resonates with many of us to some degree,” says Puryear. “We expect people to be less hurt by malicious words in certain digital contexts, and we respond with less outrage. This may make it easy to discount the experiences of victims of online harassment.”

Puryear and Joseph Vandello tested people’s reactions to negative comments and situations through four studies, examining reactions to malicious comments made in face-to-face and various online environments.

In one study of 270 students, people saw an image of someone participating in “nerd culture,” with a comment of “go back to your mommy’s basement nerd,” in one of three environments: face-to-face; online with social information, such as names and photos, or online with little social information.

In another study, of 283 people, participants read a remark insulting a woman for making a comment about infrastructure, and were presented with the negative comment being made on an online forum with little social information or as taking place at a public event.

Through each study, people expressed more concern and reaction to negative comments stated in person than to those stated in a digital environment. 

Comparing the digital environments, they found mixed results. The presence of more social information, from names to photos, brought about more reactions to inflammatory comments. But even when people are identifiable, they found initial evidence that inflammatory speech is less shocking in digital contexts.

The cues that help to identify people as individuals, can be dulled in the online environment, suggests Puryear.  This lack of “personalization” can dampen the social cues that tell people someone is a victim, making observers less likely to experience anger or act on behalf of the victim.

Another part of the dulled reactions to comments comes from what one could describe as “numbing,” either through the sheer volume of reports of harassment online, or from over-exposure of online harassment.

As more moral and social cues are communicated online, could people’s attitudes change and start to reflect standards similar to in-person situations? The results depend on how we shape our online communities, say Puryear and Vandello.  

Building digital platforms that depersonalize users and foster norms accepting of malicious speech may increasingly dull our responses to victimization.

“But if our norms and expectations begin to reflect that digital words really do matter then the disparity between how we react to victimization in digital and physical space may fade,” says Puryear.


Study: Curtis Puryear and Joseph A. Vandello Inflammatory Comments Elicit Less Outrage When Made in Anonymous Online Contexts Social Psychological and Personality Science. Online before print: October 16, 2018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618806350

Social Psychological and Personality Science (SPPS) is an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), the Association for Research in Personality (ARP), the European Association of Social Psychology (EASP), and the Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP). Social Psychological and Personality Science publishes innovative and rigorous short reports of empirical research on the latest advances in personality and social psychology.