Cyberbullying is defined as inflicting psychological harm on another person using

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying is another form of online harassment, where a person or group bullies a victim using the Internet and/or other methods of electronic communications. If this sounds like cyberstalking, you’re not wrong in making the comparison. Both involve many of the same methods to terrorize a victim. The cyberbully may post abusive comments, send threatening or demeaning messages, make audio or video records of someone without their consent, or disclose personal information with the purpose of humiliating or intimidating them. As with any bully, they like the power that comes through humiliating and demeaning another person.

An extreme example of cyberbullying occurred in 2006, when a 13-year-old girl named Megan Meier started an online friendship through MySpace with a 16-year-old male named “Josh Evans.” Messages to the girl started out complimentary but eventually turned vicious. Emails to her said he didn’t want to be friends as she wasn’t nice to her friends, and messages posted on the page stated “Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat.” Devastated by the betrayal of friendship and public humiliation, the 13-year-old girl hung herself.

What was discovered later was that Josh Evans never existed. The account had been created by an adult named Lori Drew, who was the mother of Sarah, a former friend of Megan. The mother had created and monitored the profile and had been aided by her daughter Sarah and an 18-year-old employee named Ashley Grills. Although they had bullied Megan to the point of committing suicide, Lori Drew was indicted and convicted of a misdemeanor for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for breaching the MySpace Terms of Service. In 2009, the conviction was overturned by Judge Wu of the Central District of California.

Since that time, there have been many laws passed directly dealing with cyberbullying and online harassment. California state legislature passed Assembly Bill 86 2008, which allows schools to suspend or expel students for bullying online or offline. Many school codes have also been amended to include provisions that deal with bullying, and it’s common for schools to implement anti-bullying programs that address this problem.

While cyberbullying often refers to behavior where a child or an adolescent is bullying another minor, adults can also be bullied online. As with children, if an adult is bullied, it’s important to speak up and tell others. For those experiencing workplace bullying, you should explain the issues to management and/or a union representative. Many organizations have policies that address harassment and would (or should) take such complaints seriously for fear of being vulnerable to a potential lawsuit.

For children or teenagers, it’s important to tell an adult. If the adult doesn’t take the problem seriously, then tell another adult who will. According to the 2011 report by Pew Internet and American Life Project, when teens sought advice about a problem like mean behavior on the Internet, 53% turned to friends and 36% confided in their parents. Almost all said the advice they received was helpful.

It’s also important to tell the bully to stop. The person may see the unwanted behavior as a joke or posting what they said as acceptable. In telling them it’s not acceptable, they can’t say they didn’t know and excuse it as a prank. Sending a single message telling them to stop can serve as evidence against the person when you contact police, employers, or school officials.

Sometimes, a cyberbully is a former friend or pretended to be one. As we discussed with cyberstalkers, if the bully had access to your computer, you should change passwords. The same applies if you used their computer. If your password was logged or the site was set to remember you on your next visit, the bully could log on to the site as you. To protect yourself from any monitoring tools or devices, you should check your computer for any USB sticks or devices that may have been plugged in and run a scan for any malicious software that may have been installed. In addition to this, follow the steps we discussed in the previous section to protect yourself.

Online Harassment

Anyone can be the target of unwelcome behavior. Someone may inadvertently insult you, expose a secret you’d rather have kept private, or show unrequited affection. If it’s an accident or wasn’t meant to be malicious, you’ll probably just blow it off. You might confront the problem, by letting them know they hurt your feelings, or that the comments were unwelcome. If someone challenges you, makes a rude observation, or says something you oppose, you might even be a little defiant and contest what they have to say. Where it becomes a serious problem is when the undesirable statements are repetitive, excessive, or extremely offensive.

According to a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center (Duggan, 2014), 22% of those surveyed experienced less severe forms of online harassment, inclusive to name calling and being publicly embarrassed. Of these, men are more likely to be the targets. In addition, 18% experienced more severe forms, inclusive to ongoing harassment over an extended period of time, sexual harassment, physical threats, and stalking. The study found that:

32% of men and 22% of women have been called offensive names

24% of men and 20% of women have been embarrassed online on purpose

10% of men and 6% of women have been physically threatened

8% of men and 7% of women have been harassed for a sustained period of time

About half of the people who were harassed didn’t know who was responsible, because the aggressor was either a stranger or the real identity of the person(s) responsible wasn’t known. This can happen if the person created a fake account, used an alias, or took other steps to hide their identity. Perhaps more frightening is that the other half were known to the victims. This means that the harasser had some kind of relationship with and/or felt so comfortable with bullying the person that they didn’t even try and hide who they were.

Being the target of some kind of abuse can happen anywhere on the Internet, but the most common places may surprise you. Of those targeted by harassment, they reported the most recent incident occurred on the following types of sites:

Social media 66%

Comments section of a website 22%

Online gaming 16%

Personal email 16%

Discussion site (e.g., reddit) 10%

Dating site or app 6%

If you’ve ever been the victim of online abuse, you can see from this that you’re far from alone. The perpetrators and targets of online harassment can involve any age, gender, social, or ethnic background, regardless of where they live or work. While younger Internet users have a greater chance of being targeted, this doesn’t mean that older users should believe they’ll never see or experience this kind of behavior.

Introduction

Cybercrime is a global threat, and the evidence suggests that this threat will continue to rise. Cyber crime is also one of the biggest threats to every company, everywhere in the world. It is also the fastest growing crime in the United States. Cybercrimes involve criminal offenses that are committed through Internet use or supported in some way, by computer technology. Internet use can be through a computer, smart phone, or any technology that connects to the Internet. Crimes using the Internet or computer technology resulting in fraud, identity theft, credit card fraud, stolen merchandize selling, etc. is known as ecommerce crime (ECrime). Other cyberoffenses include bullying, theft, harassment, sending sexually explicit photos, along with many more. With the increase of cybercrime, it is predicted that cybersecurity spending will dramatically rise, both for the demand of those trained in cybersecurity and the demand for products.

This chapter illustrates the challenging landscape of this type of crime, the technical knowledge needed if we are going to defend against cyberattacks and some of the challenges in trying to combat this crime. Another information technology offense is to access the computer itself through unauthorized access to tamper with the systems or programs, allowing entry into an individual’s information and data. Through access, the bad actors commit fraud, theft, and more, along with the ability to gain valuable, private personal information.

The top five most popular cybercrimes are the following1:

phishing scams

identify theft scams

online harassment

cyberstalking

invasion of privacy

On February 11, 2020 the FBI released their Internet Crime Complaint Center 2019 Internet Crime Report. There were 467,361 complaints, with reported losses in excess of 3.5 billion.2 They reported phishing, nonpayment/nondelivery, and extortion as the top three scams.

The cost associated with cybercrime encompasses a wide array of costs such as the cost of lost data, loss of currency, theft of personal information (PI), theft of financial information, cost associated with personal health information (PHI), cost to repair and replace data, fraud, and the loss of reputation. There are other costs, these are just a few. We are witnessing an evolution of cybercrime, in part due to the IoT (Internet of Things) and the increase of smart phones, smart watches, cameras, implantable medical devices (i.e., pacemakers), and Bluetooth devices (i.e., headsets, speakers).

General compliance: human resources

Chapter 4 took an in-depth look at the new work force and the role of human resources when using social media and online platforms throughout the employment cycle. This section will review a few specific compliance and legal concerns expanding on what we have already discussed.

Introduction

The emergence of digital technologies has seen the proliferation of new online communications, providing opportunities for increased social interaction in an accessible manner. This availability to communicate online is an embedded feature of society, particularly predominant amongst young people (Ofcom, 2016). While the Internet affords many social and recreational benefits, it also offers numerous positive implications across a variety of industry sectors (Finkelhor, 2014). Despite this, the increased access to online communication can increase vulnerability to a variety of online risks including harassment, cyberbullying and other cyberthreats on privacy or online data (Livingstone, Haddon, Görzig, & Ólafsson, 2011). Although experiences online including pornography, contact with strangers, sharing personal information, exchanging explicit personal photographs (i.e. sexting) and hacking may not lead to harm, their existence could increase the probability of harm. While experience with these cyberthreats can lead to negative experiences and adverse consequences, not all result in actual harm (Livingstone & Smith, 2014). Livingstone and Smith (2014) outlined different categories of online risks, including content, contact and conduct risks. Content risks involve the user being the recipient of age-inappropriate content, for example, young users accessing pornography. Contact risks are where the user is the recipient of an initiated online communication from another individual, where they intend to bully, groom or manipulate the targeted user. Conduct risks consider the digital footprint and the online behaviour of the user as part of a larger network of interactions (Livingstone & Smith, 2014; Smith & Livingstone, 2017). These risks and threats result in cyber victimization in the virtual community. ‘Cyber victimization’ has been used broadly (Law, Shapka, & Olson, 2010) to define other cyberattacks including cyber aggression, cyber bullying and cyber threats, while others use ‘online harassment’ to define online attacks (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). This chapter will discuss cyber victimization across perspectives of cyber aggression, cyberbullying and cyber threats and crimes.

Aggression is defined as any behaviour that involves intent to cause harm to the targeted individual (Baron & Richardson, 1994). While aggression has predominantly been a concern in the offline environment, the development of digital technologies has seen the rise of aggressive acts in the virtual community. While there are many forms of cyber aggressive acts or threats, cyberbullying is more specifically refined through a set of recognized criteria. Cyberbullying is defined 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). Like bullying in the offline environment, cyberbullying consists of three distinct criteria: intent to cause harm, repetition and an imbalance of power, which makes the victim feel defenceless (Olweus, 1993; Smith et al., 2008; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Despite this, definitional issues arise with applying repetition and power imbalance in the online environment. While bullying in the real world can be identified as an ongoing incident, with the imbalance of power portrayed through physical strength or peer group status, the extent to which this is applicable in the virtual world is more ambiguous. For example, a single incident in the online setting can be repeated through the number of likes and shares on social networks, increasing the audience and consequences for the victim (Slonje, Smith, & FriséN, 2013; Smith et al., 2008). In terms of power imbalance, users with increased digital literacy and knowledge can perpetrate cyberattacks though sophisticated mediums, with the targeted victim unaware of the attack due to the anonymity the online environment offers (Smith et al., 2008). Findings from a recent review across 159 studies found the prevalence of cyberbullying ranged from 1.6% to 56.9%, with perpetration reports between 1.9% and 79.3% (Brochado, Soares, & Fraga, 2017). While some argue cyberbullying should be addressed as a standalone issue (Grigg, 2012), others propose the broader term of cyber aggression should be used due to difficulty identifying criteria in the online environment (Corcoran, Mc Guckin, & Prentice, 2015).

While cyberbullying is defined under set criteria, other acts of online abuse and cyberthreats can occur, defined under cyber aggression. Cyber aggression is the ‘intentional harm delivered by the use of electronic means to a person or a group of people irrespective of their age, who perceive(s) such acts as offensive, derogatory, harmful or unwanted’ (Grigg, 2010, p. 152). Cyber aggression involves a variety of aggressive acts in the online environment that do not constitute cyberbullying. Therefore, these cyberattacks can be one-off or repeated instances, with the intent to cause harm to the targeted recipient. Cyber aggressive acts are those that do not necessarily focus on power imbalance or repetition, rather the violent behaviour itself such as harassment, stalking or abuse (Smith, 2012).

Other forms of cyber victimization arise from more sophisticated attacks through cyberthreats and crimes. Cybercrime is an act of intentional violation using digital technologies and online communications to trespass, manipulate or sabotage stored information and knowledge on social networks and systems (Saini, Rao, & Panda, 2012). While the availability of online communications provides connectivity on a larger scale, an established feature in society (Hassan, 2008), it is this connectivity to online communications which has also seen the emergence of cybercrimes and threats. For example, some cybercrimes are centred in the financial or business sector with users seeking financial profit (Leukfeldt, Lavorgna, & Kleemans, 2017). Social Network Sites (SNS) store a large amount of personal information and data, and therefore users expect appropriate security safeguards to store and keep these data safe. However, the large amount of data stored in these sites are also vulnerable to cyberattacks through users with malicious intentions, and therefore it is important leading industry experts work to ensure this information is kept safe (Balduzzi et al., 2010). For example, social engineering has emerged as an escalating cyberthreat which attacks virtual communities and systems (Krombholz, Hobel, Huber, & Weippl, 2015). This involves a user manipulating a targeted individual, group or company to sharing private information or knowledge. This form of cyberthreat can create large vulnerabilities across a variety of social networks. The fact the attack can be performed with relative ease means these social engineers can attack on a larger scale, creating a larger impact for those involved (Krombholz et al., 2015).

Willard (2007) created a typology of cyber aggressive acts and cyberthreats, distinguishing across seven recognized forms including flaming; harassment; denigration; outing and trickery; impersonation; exclusion and cyberthreats. Other threats include hacking, data privacy and cyberstalking (Hasebrink, Görzig, Haddon, Kalmus, & Livingstone, 2011). These cyberthreats can be perpetrated through emails, mobile phones and the many online communications or networks the Internet offers (Rivers & Noret, 2010), which can lead to detrimental consequences to the target and/or industry. For example, these cyberthreats can lead to depression (Olenik-Shemesh, Heiman, & Eden, 2012), and in worst cases, suicide (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Users who are victimized online are more likely to experience suicidal thoughts compared to users who perpetrate these cyberattacks (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Implications of these research studies suggest online companies should work together to manage the negative repercussions for those who are victimized.

The development and accessibility of the Internet has evolved social communication. The nature of online communication and networks mean users can post private or sensitive information online that can be accessible to a wider audience (Krombholz et al., 2015). However, young people do show a desire to maintain privacy in the online environment, even if there is an expectation to be socially active in the online community (Betts & Spenser, 2017). This suggests social media companies need to implement strategies to make young people feel safer online. Online users who perceive they have a good awareness of controlling their information and privacy on SNS are less likely to be victims of cybercrime than those who do not (Saridakis, Benson, Ezingeard, & Tennakoon, 2016). This illustrates how digital literacy and knowledge of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) can influence vulnerability to some cyberthreats and attacks. While some responsibility is down to each user on the social network, providers can focus to ensure any information published public by the user is only visible to the intended audience through security settings.

The Internet is an evolving space so it is important governing bodies take a greater responsibility to put mechanisms and precautions in place to reduce online risks and cyberthreats for those who use it. For example, the education sector can encourage young people to use strategies to reduce vulnerability to these online risks. This digital awareness and training incorporated into leading industry platforms can help ensure those who use the Internet have the appropriate tools to stay safe online. Research has outlined several risk factors leading to vulnerability for online risks and dangers, for example, individual characteristics, peer relationships, time spent online and wider community factors, which will be discussed later in the chapter. This chapter will now explore the features of cyber victimization and the predictive factors that can lead to vulnerability to cyber aggressive attacks, cyberbullying and/or cyberthreats.

3 Bullying and cyberbullying defined

Olweus (1991) defined bullying as a person or persons repeatedly taking negative actions against another person who cannot defend himself or herself. When someone takes these negative actions against another, the effect is to cause some type of injury, either physical or emotional, to the victim (Olweus, 1991; Roland & Idsøe, 2001). Generally, when the bully and victim are not in the physical presence of each other, the negative actions stop. Because of the digital age, bullying has now transcended physical presence, and bullies have unlimited access to their victims.

Most students today are members of a digital generation; therefore, educators must be aware of the cyberbullying crisis and realize it occurs among adolescents and young adults. Willard (2005) defined cyberbullying as posting comments online intending to defame an individual, to disclose publically another's private facts, and to inflict intentional emotional distress on another person. Cyberbullying has also been defined as repeatedly harassing someone using technology with the intent of harming, embarrassing, or damaging the other individual (Beale & Hall, 2007; Beran, Rinaldi, Bickham, & Rich, 2012; Bhat, 2008; Mason, 2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Cyberbullying can be done via any device used to electronically communicate. Emails, texting, and instant messaging make up the majority of cyberbullying formats (Akbulut & Eristi, 2011; Akbulut, Sahin, & Eristi, 2010; Finn, 2004; MacDonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010); however, cyberbullying via social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube appears to be gaining in popularity because of the ability of the masses to witness and/or participate in the attacks (Brack & Caltabiano, 2014; Festl & Quandt, 2013; Lenhart, Madden, Purcell, Zickuhr, & Rainie, 2011; MacDonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010; Rafferty & Vander Ven, 2014; Whittaker & Kowalski, 2015).

3 The psychological impact

We approached the literature review by searching the terms “cyberbullying, cyber victimisation, cyber harassment, online harassment, online bullying and online victimisation”. Subsequently, we also used these terms with the ‘AND’ search tool with other relevant psychological terms (e.g., depression, anxiety) and behavioural measures (e.g., school achievement and truancy) in the following electronic databases: PsychInfo, ERIC, Web of Science and Medline. In addition, we manually searched the reference sections of relevant papers. The review was conducted in the month of January 2015 and only papers written in English were included. A total of 19 papers were included and no exclusion criteria were followed.

Investigations of the impact of cyberbullying for bullies, victims and bully/victims have emerged over the last decade and there is a clear and comprehensive set of studies outlining the long-term negative effects for children and young people (see Table 1 for an overview). Indeed, the psychological and emotional consequences of cyberbullying represent the largest problem for the victim (Dredge et al., 2014; Jang et al., 2014). Exposure to such incidences has been linked to depressive symptomology, suicidal ideation, low self-esteem, anxiety and loneliness (Bauman et al., 2013; Bonanno and Hymel, 2013; Cénat et al., 2014; Gámez-Guadix et al., 2013; Patchin and Hinduja, 2010; ŞAhİN, 2012; Schneider et al., 2012; Stapinski et al., 2014; Ybarra, 2004). One study of Australian youths aged 10–25 years found that 3% of the sample had suicidal thoughts after a cyberbullying incident and 2% of the same sample engaged in self-harming behaviour (Price and Dalgleish, 2010). Other studies have linked suicide to a direct consequence of cyberbullying incidences (Bauman et al., 2013). However, many researchers have considered the complexity of suicidal behaviour and Kowalski and Limber (2013), noted that involvement in bullying actually contributes to approximately 4–7% of the variance in suicidality.

Table 1. Overview of studies investigating psychological impacts of cyberbullying for victims, bullies and victim/bullies.

Cyberbullying can also have physical effects on victims such as weight loss or gain, substance abuse, headache, abdominal pain and sleeping problems (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2013; Jang et al., 2014). In addition, increased school difficulties have also been reported such as school aggression, truancy, lower academic achievement and not feeling safe in school (Cassidy et al., 2013; Mishna et al., 2012). Some researchers have even reported that youths who were harassed online show more signs of school aggression and were more likely to carry a gun to school (Mishna et al., 2012; Ybarra et al., 2007). The type, nature of materials, and even extent to which the victimisation was planned also influence the psychological impact it has on the victim. Some researchers have found that incidences involving pictures or video clips were considered worse by the victims (Menesini et al., 2011). In particular, Menesini et al. (2011) found that the posting of embarrassing pictures was the worst form of cyberbullying for Italian adolescents.

The experience of being a cyber bully has also been linked to poor psychological functioning and external difficulties (Wong et al., 2014). For example, Fletcher et al. (2014) found that cyber bullies had more psychological difficulties and poorer quality of life despite having none such difficulties with peer or social interactions. Bauman et al. (2013) found that cyberbullying perpetration was directly related to a suicide attempt in males only. This link between being a cyber bully and suicide has been made elsewhere in the literature for both males and females (Hinduja and Patchin, 2010). The researchers suggested that these results demonstrate a lack of understanding for the bullies in their own behaviour such that they possibly engaged in one act of online bullying that quickly escalated and became a bigger problem than they anticipated. In addition, school climate is believed to be an important risk factor where a poor sense of belonging to the school has been linked to cyberbullying (Wong et al., 2014). The worst psychological impact has been related to being a bully/victim. These individuals engage in online bullying and at the same time are cyber victims. Similar to traditional bully/victims, there is a consensus in the literature that the psychological impact is heightened for this subgroup (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2013; Kowalski et al., 2012; Wolke and Samara, 2004).

4.2.2 Online harassment

Harassment-related risks result from different forms of unwanted online contact. Cyberbullying and cyberstalking are the two most common forms of online harassment found in the literature (see Fig. 4).

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying is one of the most frequently cited cybersecurity risks in the literature. Cyberbullying involves bullying through the use of technology such as the internet and cellular phones (Aponte & Richards, 2013). Studies have addressed multiple issues related to cyberbullying, such as determining awareness levels of teachers concerning cyberbullying (Sezer et al., 2015), how cyberbullying may affect teenagers and proposed countermeasures to support them (Hamdan et al., 2013), and so on. Several studies explore the cybersecurity risks to which children and teens can be exposed and identify cyberbullying as one of the main cybersecurity risks (Maoneke et al., 2018; Wisniewski et al., 2017, 2016). Aponte and Richards (2013) categorize different kinds of cyberbullying and explore a variety of behavioral and psychological issues relating to cyberbullying.

Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking refers to harassing someone through unwanted communication using technology including computers, global positioning systems (GPS), cell phones, cameras, and the like (Hamdan et al., 2013). Hamdan et al. (2013) surveyed teenagers to investigate and identify the various cybersecurity threats they experience and identified cyberstalking as one of the most commonly encountered. Aponte and Richards (2013) conducted a literature review to identify cybersecurity risks for children; cyberstalking is one of them.

3.4.1 Cyberbullying and non-consensual image sharing

In Lenhart's (2009) study, one common theme to emerge from focus group discussions was a concern about images being shared with others outside a consensual relationship. Goggin and Crawford (2011) reported several variations as to how material came to be shared. This included personal mobiles being accessed; unsolicited images being forwarded in order to embarrass or harass others; and circulation following the end of a relationship. There is also some evidence to suggest that sexts might be forwarded or displayed in order to gain peer approval, or for fun (Bond, 2011; Lippman & Campbell, 2014).

The psychological harm and stress to arise from the widespread purposeful sharing of private sexual images has been well documented in media commentaries. Sometimes referred to as ‘revenge porn’, the term describes the non-consensual distribution of intimate/sexual images. Whilst the images may have been taken consensually, distribution occurs without the other person's knowledge or consent, usually following a relationship break-up. Explicit images can be distributed via mobiles and social media, leading to concerns that such images may re-emerge in later life, for example during future searches for jobs or potential romantic partners.

The negative social stigma arising from non-consensual image sharing and the degree of ‘malice’ that can be involved in the activity has led many commentators to highlight links to cyberbullying. Cyberbullying refers to the use of media and visual technology to socially exclude, threaten, insult or shame another person and can include, for example, online harassment, cyberstalking, denigration and exclusion (Livingstone & Smith, 2014: 638). Unlike traditional bullying, there is no limit to the time or location of the bullying, information spreads more rapidly and it is easily accessible (Bilic, 2013). Research exploring the links between sexting and cyberbullying has found that being female and a sexter may increase the relative risk of multiple types of cyber victimization (Reyns, Burek, Henson, & Fisher, 2013), whilst Jonsson et al. (2014) suggest that youths who engage in voluntary sexual exposures online may be more likely to both participate in online harassment and to be victims of online harassment themselves; with boys in particular experiencing bullying or having sexual images of themselves spread without their consent (Jonsson et al., 2014).

In their US review of police case files Wolak and Finkelhor (2011) reported that youths could experience threats, blackmail and on and off-line abuse as a result of their sexting behaviours being made public. In a number of tragic, well-documented cases, such victimization and widespread sharing of pictures has corresponded with negative psychological outcomes including feelings of sadness, anger and anxiety disorders (Bilic, 2013; Korenis & Billick, 2014), as well as depression and ultimately, suicide (Siegle, 2010).

There remains a lack of data on the prevalence of non-consensual image sharing, particularly among adolescents. Mitchell et al. (2012) found that photographs were distributed in 10 per cent of incidents when youths appeared in or created images, and in their study of US law enforcement cases Wolak, Finkelhor, and Mitchell (2012) found that in 78 per cent of cases, a cell phone was the most common form of distribution and in 63 per cent of cases the only form of distribution. The authors concluded that no online distribution appeared to have occurred. In another study of college undergraduates, Perkins et al. (2014) reported that 19 per cent (n = 12) of individuals had semi-nude images forwarded and 12 per cent (n = 4) had nude images forwarded. Although the numbers are small, the findings nevertheless highlight a disconnect between some individuals' expectations about the intended recipients of the images and the actual outcome. Moreover, Powell (2010) reports that sexual images of women and girls are disproportionately created, sent and redistributed without consent.

2.1 Cybervictimization in ex-intimate relationships

Even though cyber IPV usually occurs in an ongoing relationship, it can also occur after the relationship has ended. Several studies have shown that the moment when a woman tries to leave a relationship is a critical time where she is most likely to experience traditional violence from her partner (Brownridge, 2006; Dimond, Fiesler, & Bruckman, 2011; Kiesel, 2007). Difficulty to accept the separation, as well as the feeling of loss of control over the ex-partner, could increase the occurrence of traditional harassment or its frequency (Dubé & Drouin, 2014). During the separation process, besides the risk of sustaining traditional IPV, women are particularly at risk to be victims of cyber IPV, including online harassment and other forms of violence (Catalano, 2012; Davies, 2013). In addition, being harassed by an intimate partner (Catalano, 2012), or having sustained or perpetrated traditional IPV during the relationship (Davies, 2013; Dimond et al., 2011; King-Ries, 2011), or in past relationships (Ferreira & Matos, 2013), increases the risk of sustaining cyber IPV by a former partner during the separation process. According to the General Social Survey on Victimization (2014), 41% of Canadian adults who have experienced violence from a former spouse report having been victimized after the end of the relationship, and for 49% of them, the violence increased in severity after the separation (Ibrahim & Burczycka, 2016). Only two studies have examined risk factors for cyber IPV in the context of separation. Their results showed that anxious attachment style, cyber IPV perpetration, anger arousal, psychological and physical traditional IPV perpetration (Strawhun et al., 2013), gender (being a woman), the intensity of the separation, and the relationship length (Lee & O'Sullivan, 2014) increase the risk of being victimized online by a former partner.