Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“I know you are, but what am I?” Profiling cyberbullying based on charged language

  • S.I.: Social Cybersecurity in Times of Crisis
  • Published:
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cyberbullying has become a global problem that victimizes social media users and threatens freedom of speech. Charged language against victims undermines the sharing of opinion in the absence of online oversight. Aggressive cyberbullies routinely patrol social media to identify victims, post abusive comments, and curtail public discourse. The victims typically suffer depression and may even attempt suicide. However, simply banning abusive words used by cyberbullies is not an effective response. This study examines the efficacy of using charged language-action cues as predictor variables to profile cyberbullying on Twitter. The study contributes to a proactive confirmation for computationally profiling cyberbullying based on charged language. Charged language-action cues can strongly profile cyberbullying activity with statistical significance and consistency. Big data profiling analytics based on charged language can prevent cyberbullies from possible criminal activity, protect potential victims, and provide a proactive measure to profile cyberbullying for mediation entities such as social media platforms, youth counselors and law enforcement agencies.

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. LSTM stands for long short-term memory.

  2. Cyberbullying “typically denotes repeated and hostile behavior performed by a group or an individual. Cyberaggression refers to “intentional harm delivered via electronic means to a person or a group of people who perceive such acts as offensive, derogatory, harmful, or unwanted” (Chatzakou et al. 2017).

  3. Keywords include nerd, gay, loser, freak, emo, whale, pig, fat, wannabe, poser, whore, should, die, slept, caught, suck, slut, live, afraid, fight, pussy, cunt, kill, dick, bitch (Cheng et al. 2019b; Nand et al. 2016).

  4. Using LIWC2015.

  5. LIWC2007.

  6. LIWC2015.

References

  • @TwitterR (2021) Q4 and fiscal year 2020 letter to shareholders. Published by Twitter. Report pp. Retrieved from https://s22.q4cdn.com/826641620/files/doc_financials/2020/q4/FINAL-Q4'20-TWTR-Shareholder-Letter.pdf

  • Al-garadi MA, Varathan KD, Ravana SD (2016) Cybercrime detection in online communications: the experimental case of cyberbullying detection in the Twitter network. Comput Hum Behav 63:433–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang RP (2015) Adolescent cyberbullying: a review of characteristics, prevention and intervention strategies. Aggress Violent Beh 25:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arntfield M (2015) Toward a cybervictimology: cyberbullying, routine activities theory, and the anti-sociality of social media. Can J Commun 40(3):371–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlińska J, Szuster A, Winiewski M (2013) Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: role of the communication medium, form of violence, and empathy. J Commun Appl Soc Psychol 23(1):37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne MW (2000) Psychometrics. J Am Stat Assoc 95(450):661–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatzakou D, Kourtellis N, Blackburn J, De Cristofaro E, Stringhini G, Vakali A (2017) Mean birds: detecting aggression and bullying on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Web Science Conference (WebSci’17). Troy, ACM. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.06877

  • Chelmis C, Zois D-S, Yao M (2017). Mining patterns of cyberbullying on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW’17). New Orleans, IEEE

  • Cheng L, Guo R, Silva Y, Hall D, Liu H (2019a) Hierarchical attention networks for cyberbullying detection on the Instagram social network. In Proceedings of the 2019 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM’19). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Retrieved from https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1.9781611975673.27

  • Cheng L, Guo R, Liu H (2019b) Robust cyberbullying detection with causal interpretation. In Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference (WWW’19). 2019. San Francisco, ACM. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3308560.3316503

  • Choi K-S, Lee JR (2017) Theoretical analysis of cyber-interpersonal violence victimization and offending using cyber-routine activities theory. Comput Hum Behav 73:394–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho Y-K, Yoo J-W (2017) Cyberbullying, internet and SNS usage types, and perceived social support: a comparison of different age groups. J Inform Commun Soc 20(10):1464–1481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi K-S, Cho S, Lee JR (2019a) Impacts of online risky behaviors and cybersecurity management on cyberbullying and traditional bullying victimization among Korean youth: application of cyber-routine activities theory with latent class analysis. Comput Hum Behav 100:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi K-S, Earl K, Lee JR, Cho S (2019b) Diagnosis of cyber and non-physical bullying victimization: a lifestyles and routine activities theory approach to constructing effective preventative measures. Comput Hum Behav 92:11–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciucci E, Baroncelli A, Nowicki S (2014) Emotion perception accuracy and bias in face-to-face versus cyberbullying. J Genet Psychol 175(5–6):382–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44(4):588–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortis K, Handschuh S (2015) Analysis of cyberbullying tweets in trending world events. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Knowledge Technologies and Data-driven Business (i-KNOW’15). Messe Congress, ACM

  • Curto JD, Pinto JC (2011) The corrected VIF (CVIF). J Appl Stat 38(7):1499–1507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehue F, Bolman C, Völlink T (2008) Cyberbullying: youngsters’ experiences and parental perception. Cyberpsychol Behav 11(2):217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon KP, Bushman BJ (2015) Unresponsive or un-noticed? Cyberbystander intervention in an experimental cyberbullying context. Comput Hum Behav 45:144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinakar K, Jones B, Havasi C, Lieberman H, Ricard R (2012) Common sense reasoning for detection, prevention and mitigation of cyberbullying. In Proceedings of the ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) Special Issue on Common Sense for Interactive Systems. ACM

  • Erdur-Baker ÖE (2009) Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media Soc 12(1):109–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington DP, Ttofi MM (2009) School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Report pp. 1–148. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229377.pdf

  • Gaffney H, Farrington DP, Espelage DL, Ttofi MM (2019) Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggress Violent Beh 45:134–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gámez-Guadix M, Orue I, Smith PK, Calvete E (2013) Longitudinal and reciprocal relations of cyberbullying with depression, substance use and problematic internet use among adolescents. J Adolesc Health 53(4):446–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao L, Huang R (2017) Detecting online hate speech using context aware models. In Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP’17). Varna, INCOMA Ltd

  • Hawdon J, Costello M, Ratliff T, Hall L, Middleton J (2017) Conflict management styles and cybervictimization: extending routine activity theory. Sociol Spectr 37(4):250–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinduja S, Patchin JW (2010) Bullying, cyberbullying and suicide. Arch Suicide Res 14(3):206–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho SM, Hancock JT (2019) Context in a bottle: language-action cues in spontaneous computer-mediated decepion. Comput Hum Behav 91:33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho SM, Hancock JT, Booth C, Liu X (2016) Computer-mediated deception: strategies revealed by language-action cues in spontaneous communication. J Manag Inf Syst 33(2):393–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho SM, Kao D, Chiu-Huang M-J, Li W, Lai C-J (2020) Detecting cyberbullying “hotspots” on Twitter: a predictive analytics approach. Forensic Sci Int 32:S1–S3

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho SM, Kao D, Chiu-Huang M-J, Li W, Lai C-J, Ankamah B (2019) Charged language on Twitter: a predictive model of cyberbullying to prevent victimization. In Proceedings of the 2019 AIS SIGSEC Special Interest Group 10th Annual Workshop on Information Security and Privacy (WISP), in conjunction with International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Munich, Germany: AIS eLibrary. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/wisp2019/21/

  • Hon LC, Varathan KD (2015) Cyberbullying detection system on Twitter. Int J Inform Syst Eng 1(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinmardi H, Mattson SA, Rafiq RI, Han R, Lv Q, Mishra S (2015a) Detection of cyberbullying incidents on the Instagram social media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Accessible from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.03909.pdf

  • Hosseinmardi H, Mattson SA, Rafiq RI, Han R, Lv Q, Mishra S (2015b) Analyzing labeled cyberbullying incidents on the instagram social network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Informatics (SocInfo’13), LNCS 9471. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Retrieved from https://home.cs.colorado.edu/~rhan/Papers/socinfo2015_labeled.pdf.

  • Huang Q, Singh VK, Atrey PK (2014) Cyber bullying detection using social and textual analysis. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Socially-Aware Multimedia. Orlando, ACM

  • Kalia D, Aleem S (2017) Cyber victimization among adolescents: examining the role of routine activity theory. J Psychosoc Res 12(1):223–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasture A (2015) A predictive model to detect online cyberbullying, in school of computer and mathematical sciences. Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, p 94

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokkinos CM, Antoniadou N (2019) Cyber-bullying and cyber-victimization among undergraduate student teachers through the lens of the general aggression model. Comput Hum Behav 98:59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Sachdeva N (2019) Cyberbullying detection on social multimedia using soft computing techniques: a meta-analysis. Multimedia Tools Appl 78:23973–24010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langos C (2012) Cyberbullying: the challenge to define. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 15(6):285–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané B, Darley JM (1970) The unresponsive bystander: why doesn’t he help? Prentice Hall, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Leukfeldt ER, Yar M (2016) Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behav 37(3):263–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Q (2006) Cyberbullying in schools: a research of gender differences. Sch Psychol Int 27(2):157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Q (2007) New bottle but old wine: a research of cyberbullying in schools. Comput Hum Behav 23(4):1777–1791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Q, Luo Y, Hao Z, Smith B, Guo Y, Tyrone C (2021) Risk factors of cyberbullying perpetration among school-aged children across 41 countries: a perspective of routine activity theory. Int J Bullying Prev 3:168–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-020-00071-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHugh MC, Saperstein SL, Gold RS (2019) OMG U #Cyberbully! An exploration of public discourse about cyberbullying on Twitter. Health Educ Behav 46(1):97–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesch G (2009) Parental mediation, online activities and cyberbullying. Cyberpsychol Behav 12(4):387–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nand P, Perera R, Kasture A (2016) “How bullying is this message?” A psychometric thermometer for bullying. In Proceedings of the 2016 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’16). Osaka, Japan

  • Navarro JN, Jasinski JL (2012) Going cyber: using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying experiences. Sociol Spectr 32(1):81–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro JN, Jasinski JL (2013) Why girls? Using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying experiences between girls and boys. Women Crim Just 23(4):286–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olweus D (1993) Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do, 1st edn. Wiley-Blackwell Publisher, Malden, p 152

    Google Scholar 

  • Olweus D (2012) Cyberbullying: an overrated phenomenon? Eur J Dev Psychol 9(5):520–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong R (2015) Cyber-bullying and young people: how Hong Kong keeps the new playground safe. Comput Law Secur Rev 31:668–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortony A, Clore GL, Foss MA (1987) The referential structure of the affective lexicon. Cogn Sci 11(3):341–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patchin JW, Hinduja S (2010) Cyberbullying and self-esteem. J Sch Health 80(12):614–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patchin JW, Hinduja S (2019) Lifetime cyberbullying victimization rates: eleven different studies 2007–2019. 2019 July 10, 2019. https://cyberbullying.org/summary-of-our-cyberbullying-research. Accessed 28 Oct 2020

  • Peluchette JV, Karl K, Wood C, Williams J (2015) Cyberbullying victimization: do victims’ personality and risky social network behaviors contribute to the problem? Comput Hum Behav 52:424–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ptaszynski M, Masui F, Kimura Y, Rzepka R, Araki K (2015) Extracting patterns of harmful expressions for cyberbullyig detection. In: 7th Language & Technology Conference: Human Language Technologies as a Challenge for Computer Science and Linguistics (LTC’15), First Workshop on Processing Emotions, Decisions and Opinions (EDO’15). Poznań, Poland. pp 370–375

  • Ptaszynski M, Masui F, Nitta T, Hatakeyama S, Kimura Y, Rzepka R, Araki K (2016) Sustainable cyberbullying detection with category-maximized relevance of harmful phrases and double-filtered automatic optimization. Int J Child Comput Interact 8:15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafiq RI, Mattson SA (2015) Careful what you share in six seconds: detecting cyberbullying instances in Vine. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM’15). 2015. Paris, ACM

  • Rafiq RI, Hosseinmardi H, Han R, Lv Q, Mishra S (2016) Investigating factors in fluencing the latency of cyberbullying detection. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium of Applied Computing. ACM. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.05419.

  • Rosa H, Pereira N, Ribeiro R, Ferreira PC, Carvalho JP, Oliveira S, Coheur L, Paulino P, VeigaSimão AM, Trancoso I (2019) Automatic cyberbullying detection: a systematic review. Comput Human Behav 93:333–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salawu S, He Y, Lumsden J (2017) Approaches to automated detection of cyberbullying: a survey. In Proceedings of the IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. IEEE

  • Sarmiento A, Herrera-Lopez M, Zych I (2019) Is cyberbullying a group process? Online and offline bystanders of cyberbullying act as defenders, reinforcers and outsiders. Comput Hum Behav 99:328–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder MA, Lander J, Levine-Silverman S (1990) Diagnosing and dealing with multicollinearity. Western Journal of Nusing Research 12(2):175–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh VK, Ghosh S, Jose C (2017) Toward multimodal cyberbullying detection. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’17). Denver, ACM. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3027063.3053169

  • Slonje R, Smith PK, Frisén A (2013) The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Comput Hum Behav 29(1):26–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Trippett N (2008) Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 49(4):376–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soni D, Singh V (2018) See no evil, hear no evil: audio-visual-textual cyberbullying detection. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM

  • Squicciarini A, Rajtmajer S, Liu Y, Griffin C (2015) Identification and characterization of cyberbullying dynamics in an online social network. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM'15). Paris, ACM

  • Vandebosch H, van Cleemput K (2009) Cyberbullying among youngsters: profiles of bullies and victims. New Media Soc 11(8):1349–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Marées N, Petermann F (2012) Cyberbullying: an increasing challenge for schools. Sch Psychol Int 33(5):467–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachs S, Costello M, Wright MF, Flora K, Daskalou V, Maziridou E, Kwon Y, Na E-Y, Sittichai R, Biswal R, Singh R, Almendros C, Gámez-Guadix M, Gӧrzig A, Hong JS (2021) “DNT LET ’EM H8 U!”: applying the routine activity framework to understand cyberhate victimization among adolescents across eight countries. Comput Educ 160:104026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walrave M, Heirman W (2011) Cyberbullying: predicting victimisation and prepetration. Child Soc 25:59–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu J-M, Kwang-Sung, Zhu X, Bellmore A (2012) Learning from bullying traces in social media. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL HLT'12). Montreal, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics

  • Zych I, Baldry AC, Farrington DP, Llorent VJ (2019a) Are children involved in cyberbullying low on empathy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of research on empathy versus different cyberbullying roles. Aggress Violent Beh 45:83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zych I, Farrington DP, Ttofi MM (2019b) Bullying and cyberbullying: protective factors and effective interventions. Aggress Violent Beh 45:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zych I, Farrington DP, Ttofi MM (2019c) Protective factors against bullying and cyberbullying: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Aggress Violent Beh 45:4–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Florida Center for Cybersecurity (FC2), also known as Cyber Florida, for the grant 3910-1007-00-B $50,000 07/01/18—06/30/20. The authors acknowledge the data collection and analysis efforts of Ming-Jung Chiu-Huang, Bismark Awuah Frimpong Ankamah, and Chung-Jui Lai. The first author wishes to thank Jeffrey M. Stanton for editorial comments and Conrad Metcalfe for assistance in editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Communication and Information, Florida State University, 250 Shores Building, 142 Collegiate Loop, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-2100, USA

    Shuyuan Mary Ho

  2. College of Education, Florida State University, Stone Building, 1114 W. Call Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4450, USA

    Wenyi Li

Authors
  1. Shuyuan Mary Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenyi Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuyuan Mary Ho.

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

Ho, S.M., Li, W. “I know you are, but what am I?” Profiling cyberbullying based on charged language. Comput Math Organ Theory 28, 293–320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-022-09360-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-022-09360-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation