Influence Analysis in Social Networks: Examining Safety and Privacy Risk Levels of the High School Students to Personality Measures

Year 2018, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 74 - 95, 11.07.2018

Uğur Bakan

https://doi.org/10.18094/josc.411347

Abstract

The sexual abuse
of children or any sexual contact with them by an adult or older adolescent is
not a new phenomenon. Sexual assault does not always involve physical contact –
acts such as voyeurism and exhibitionism yet it can be regarded as unwanted
sexual attention. Sexual assault is arguably one of the few crimes for which
high school students are at greater risk than the general population. With the
widespread use of the Internet forming a global network, a heterogeneous social
network that allows interaction between individuals and communities residing in
different regions has been created. Social media provides many possibilities
for researchers as an area in which information, views, and interests representing people's identities are shared through
virtual communication. The purpose of this study was to determine specifically
how to protect high school students from sexual assaults and awareness of
privacy. This paper is expected to shed light on a relatively similar subject,
however, in a whole new environment that emerged along with the digital era. This
study is a descriptive one and it was figured with survey method. The test is
to be taken within a 45-minute period. This scale is used in the virtual
environment to determine the attitudes of the individuals and the cognitive
factors affecting the media choice of the individual. Total 600 students
(Male=293, Female=307) answered an online questionnaire during the May 2016. Our
findings point to the complex ways in which young people use social media,
identity and the sexual assault risk on SNSs.

Keywords

Privacy, risky behaviors, social media, personality, Individual differences

SOSYAL AĞLARDA ETKİ ANALİZİ: TÜRKİYE’DEKİ LİSESİÖĞRENCİLERİNİN KİŞİLİK ÖZELLİKLERİNE GÖRE GÜVENLİK VE MAHREMİYET RİSK SEVİYELERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Abstract

Yetişkin ya da bir ergen tarafından çocuklara cinsel taciz veya cinsel temas yeni bir olgu değildir. Cinsel saldırı her zaman röntgencilik ve teşhircilik gibi fiziksel temas eylemlerini içermez,istenmeyen cinsel bir ilgi de olarak saldırı olarak kabul edilebilir. Cinsel saldırı, lise öğrencilerinin büyük risk altında olduğu birkaç suçtan biridir. İnternetin yaygınlaşıp küresel bir ağ oluşturmasıyla birlikte, farklı bölgelerde yaşayan bireyler ve topluluklar arasında etkileşimi sağlayan heterojen bir sosyal ağ oluşturulmaktadır. Sosyal medya, insanların kimliklerini temsil eden bilgi, görüş ve ilgi alanlarının sanal iletişim yoluyla paylaşıldığı bir alan olarak araştırmacılar için birçok olanaklar sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı lise öğrencilerinin cinsel saldırı ve mahremiyet alanlarını nasıl koruyacaklarını belirlemektir. Bu makale dijital çağla birlikte ortaya çıkan yepyeni bir ortamda benzer konulardaki çalışmalara ışık tutması beklenmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Good Secrets, Bad Secret ölçeği ile kişilik özelliklerinin alt ölçek puanlarının (dışadönüklük ve gelişime açıklık) yaş, cinsiyet, sınıf ve eğitim ile sosyal medya kullanım değişkenlerine göre anlamlı bir ilişki olup olmadığı incelenmiştir. Bu ölçek sanal ortamda bireylerin tutumlarını ve medya tercihlerini etkileyen bilişsel faktörleri belirlemek için uygulanmıştır. Toplam 600 öğrenci (Erkek=293, Kadın=307) Mayıs 2016'da internet ortamında anketi yanıtlamıştır. Bulgular, gençlerin sosyal ağ sitelerinde cinsel saldırı riski taşıdığı karmaşık sonuçlara işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

Privacy, risky behaviors, social media, personality, Individual differences

References

• Anderson L A & Whiston S C (2005) Sexual Assault Education Programs: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Their Effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 374–388.
• Anderson, C A, Carnagey N L, Flanagan M, Benjamin A J, Eubanks J & Valentine J C (2004) Violent Video Games: Specific Effects of Violent Content on Aggressive Thoughts and Behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 199–249.
• Anderson C A & Bushman B J (2001) Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353–359.
• Antonioni D (1998) Relationship between the Big Five Personality Factors and Conflict Management Styles, International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 4, 336-355.
• Banczyk B, Kramer N, Senokozlieva M (2008) “The Wurst” Meets “Fatless” in MySpace: The Relationship between Self-Esteem, Personality, and Self-Presentation in an Online Community, International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
• Barrick M R and Mount M K (1991) The Big Five Personality Dimentions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis, Personnel Psychology, 44, 1, 1-26.
• Bloom B S (1971) Mastery Learning. In Mastery Learning. Ed. James H. Block. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
• Block J H (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. In Mastery Learning. James H. Block. (Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehat and Winston.
• Bowen N K & Bowen G L (1999) Effects of Crime and Violence in Neighborhoods and Schools on the School Behavior and Performance of Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(3), 319–342.
• Brownmiller S (1975) Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Cattell R B (1945) The Description of Personality: Principles and Findings in a Factor Analysis, The American Journal of Psychology, 58, 1, 69.
• Cloninger C R, Svrakic M D and Przybeck T R (1993) A psychobiological model of temperament and character, Archives of general psychiatry, 50, 975-990.
• Costa R S & Han, T (2017) The effect of using a mobile application on EFL learners’ beliefs about language learning (BALL), International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 2(1), 229-238
• Costa P T, McCrae R R and Dye D A (1991) Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory, Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898.
• Datu N D, Datu J A D and Rungduin D (2013) Personality differences of college students with public and private Facebook profile: A big five model viewpoint, International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 2, 3.
• Dennis-Small L & Cohen M (1985). Multidisciplinary Institute for child sexual abuse intervention and treatment project. Final report: Innovations in protective services. Texas State Department of Human Resources, Austin.
• Eşkisu M, Hoşoğlu R & Rasmussen K (2017) An investigation of the relationship between Facebook usage, Big Five, self-esteem and narcissism, Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 294–301.
• Eysenck H J and Eysenck S B G (1968) Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego.
• Eysenck H and Wilson G (1975) Know Your Own Personality, Temple Smith, London.
• Fischer G J (1992). Gender Differences in College Student Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 5(4), 215–226.
• Greenfield L A (1997) Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
• Gonzales V (2010) Top Ten Internet Resources for Educators, Leadership, 32-37.
• Han T & Keskin F (2016) Using a mobile application (Whatsapp) to reduce EFL speaking anxiety. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 12, 29-50
• Howell D (1987) Statistical Methods for Psychology. Boston MA: PWS-Kent.
• Kaufman J & Zigler E (1987) Do abused children become abusive parents? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(2), 186–192.
• Krebs C P, Lindquist C H, Warner T D, Fisher B S & Martin S L (2009) College Women’s Experiences with Physically Forced, Alcohol- or Other Drug-Enabled, and Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault Before and Since Entering College. Journal of American College Health, 57(6), 639-647.
• Krishnan A (2011) Individual Differences in Users of Online Networking Sites: The Interplay between Personality Traits, Communication and Social Motives, Attitudes and Level of Activity.
• Krug E, Dahlberg L, Mercy J, Zwi A, Lozano R (2002) World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
• Liu D & Campbell W K (2017) The Big Five personality traits, Big Two metatraits and social media: A meta-analysis, Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 229–240.
• Marshall T C, Lefringhausen K and Ferenczi N (2015) The Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates, Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 35–40.
• Mahajan A (2009) Use of social networking in a linguistically and culturally rich India, The International Information & Library Review, 41, 129-136.
• McCraeve R R and Costa P T (1991) Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The Full Five-Factor Model and Well-Being, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227-232.
• Merritt A, LaQuea R, Cromwell R & Ferguson C J (2015) Media Managing Mood: A Look at the Possible Effects of Violent Media on Affect. Child & Youth Care Forum, 45(2), 241–258.
• Morgan S R (1994) At-risk youth in crises: A team approach in the schools (Second Edition). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
• Murray C (2008) Schools and Social Networking: Fear or Education?, Synergy Perspectives: Local, 6, 1, 2008, 8-12.
• O’Brien T B and DeLongis A (1996) The Interactional Context of Problem-, Emotion-, and Relationship-Focused Coping: The Role of the Big Five Personality Factors, Journal of Personality, 64, 4, 775–813.
• O’Keeffe G S & Clarke-Pearson K (2011) The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families. PEDIATRICS, 127(4), 800–804.
• O’Leary P J & Barber J (2008) Gender Differences in Silencing Following Childhood Sexual Abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 17(2), 133–143.
• Oliver P J, Richard W R, Lawrence A P (2010) Handbook of personality: Theory and research, Guilford Press, New York, 102-138.
• Patton D U, Eschmann R D & Butler D A (2013) Internet banging: New trends in social media, gang violence, masculinity and hip-hop. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A54–A59.
• Peters B (2012) Analysis of college campus rape and sexual assault reports, 2000-2011. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security.
• Prensky M (2006) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. New York: New York University Press.
• Recuero R (2015) Social Media and Symbolic Violence. Social Media + Society, 1(1), 205630511558033.
• Rich C L, Combs-Lane A M, Resnick H S & Kilpatrick D G (2004) Child sexual abuse and adult sexual revictimization. From Child Sexual Abuse to Adult Sexual Risk: Trauma, Revictimization, and Intervention, 49–68.
• Runyan D, Wattam C, Ikeda R, Hassan R, Ramiro L (2002) Child abuse and neglect by parents and other caregivers. In: Krug E, Dahlberg L, Mercy J, Zwi A, Lozano editors. World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization. pp. 57–86.
• Ryan T and Xenos S (2011) Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage, Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 5, 1658–1664.
• Ross C, Orr E S, Sisic M, Arseneault J A, Simmering M G, Orr R R (2009) Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use, Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 578-586.
• Schmit M J Kihm J A and Robie C (2000) Development of a Global Measure of Personality, Personnel Psychology, 53, 1, 153–193.
• Seng M J & Koehler N S (1993) The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16(1), 97–110.
• Shepherd J P, Sutherland I & Newcombe R G (2006) Relations between alcohol, violence, and victimization in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 539–553.
• Shiota M N, Keltner D, John O P (2006) Positive emotion dispositions differentially associated with Big Five personality and attachment style, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 61-71.
• Smith S G & Cook S L (2008) Disclosing Sexual Assault to Parents The Influence of Parental Messages About Sex, Violence Against Women, 14(11), 1326–1348.
• Thomas J B and McGue M (2003) Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences, Journal of Neurobiology, 54, 4-45.
• Tajima E A (2000) The relative importance of wife abuse as a risk factor for violence against children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(11), 1383–1398.
• The National Center for Victims of Crime (2004) Sexual assault. Retrieved February 24, 2016, from https://victimsofcrime.org/library/crime-information-and-statistics
• The United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3.
• Thomson R (1969) The Psychology of Thinking, Penguin, Maryland.
• Tjaden P & Thoennes N (2000) Prevalence and Consequences of Male-to-female and Female-to-male Intimate Partner Violence as Measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 6(2), 142–161.
• Tsai T T, Chang H T, Chang Y C and Chang Y S (2017) Personality disclosure on social network sites: An empirical examination of differences in Facebook usage behavior, profile contents and privacy settings, Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 469–482.
• Webber R & Moors R (2012) Engaging in cyberspace: seeking help for sexual assault. Child & Family Social Work, 20(1), 40–49.
• Wood W, Wong F Y & Chachere J G (1991) Effects of media violence on viewers' aggression in unconstrained social interaction. Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 371-383.