Making Visible the Myths About Cyber-Sexual Violence Against Women: An Analysis of Social Reactions Toward Victims on Twitter

Abstract

Cyber-sexual violence is a prevalent and harmful form of aggression committed against women, yet little attention has been paid to the attitudes about cyber-sexual violence. This research therefore aimed to explore the negative attitudes or myths that serve to justify, minimize, and deny the experiences of cyber-sexual violence disclosed by women on Twitter. Using a thematic analysis, we analyzed 4,048 replies to 18 experiences reported on Twitter around the time of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. After the data were cleaned and coded, the results revealed 18 myths about cyber-sexual violence, grouped into four main themes: (1) minimization/conceptualization, (2) victim blaming, (3) factors related to the diffusion context, and (4) exonerating the perpetrator’s responsibility. This study constitutes the first attempt to analyze the myths surrounding cyber-sexual violence on Twitter, including content areas not yet addressed in the literature, such as contextual factors. Strikingly, most of the analyzed reactions appeared to deny and downplay the importance of sexually aggressive behaviors perpetrated against women online, suggesting that these beliefs could influence the underreporting of cyber-sexual violence. Based on these data, it was concluded that while Twitter can serve as a useful “loudspeaker” for victims, it is also a mechanism by which myths about cyber-sexual violence can be supported and disseminated. Finally, it highlights the importance to consider the influence of online cultural frame on the social perception of cyber-sexual violence and point out the specific beliefs that educators, researches and psychologist could work though psychoeducational programs.

Keywords

cyber-sexual violence myths social media social reactions thematic analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Are

(2021). The Shadowban Cycle: An autoethnography of pole dancing, nudity and censorship on Instagram. Feminist Media Studies, 22(8), 2002–2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1928259

Aurrekoetxea-Casaus

(2020). San fermines #la manada case: An exploratory analysis of social support for victims of sexual violence on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106299

Bogen

K. W.

Bleiweiss

Orchowski

L. M.

(2019). Sexual violence is #NotOkay: Social reactions to disclosures of sexual victimization on twitter. Psychology of Violence, 9(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000192

Bogen

K. W.

Haikalis

Meza-Lopez

R. J.

López

Orchowski

L. M.

(2022). It happens in #ChurchToo: Twitter discourse regarding sexual victimization within religious communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), 1338–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520922365

Bohner

(1998). Vergewaltigungmythen. Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.

Bohner

Eyssel

Pina

Siebler

Viki

G. T.

(2009). Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective and behavioural effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. In Horvath

Brown

(Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 17–45). Willan Publishing.

Bohner

Weiss

Schirch

Zöllner

Lipińska

Sempere

M. J.

Megías

J. L.

(2022). AMMSA-21: A revised version of the acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression Scale in English, German, Polish and Spanish. International Journal of Social Psychology, 37(3), 460–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2022.2083291

Bosch-Fiol

Ferrer-Pérez

V. A.

(2012). New map of the myths about gender violence in XXI century. Psicothema, 24(4), 548–554.

Bourdieu

(1990). Language and power symbolic. Polity Press.

10.

Boyle

Rathnayake

(2020). #HimToo and the networking of misogyny in the age of #MeToo. Feminist Media Studies, 20(8), 1259–1277. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1661868

11.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

12.

Braun

Clarke

(2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.

13.

Burton

J. W.

Cruz

Hahn

(2021). Reconsidering evidence of moral contagion in online social networks. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(12), 1629–1635. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01133-5

14.

Campbell

Dworkin

Cabral

(2009). An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women’s mental health. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(3), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334456

15.

Clark

(2014). #NotBuyingIt: Hashtag feminists expand the commercial media conversation. Feminist Media Studies, 14(6), 1108–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.975473

16.

Coles

B. A.

West

(2016). Trolling the trolls: Online forum users constructions of the nature and properties of trolling. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.070

17.

Drewett

Oxlad

Augoustinos

(2021). Breaking the silence on sexual harassment and assault: An analysis of# MeToo tweets. Computers in Human Behavior, 123, 106896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106896

18.

Economic Intelligence Unit. (2021). Accelerating efforts to tackle online and technology facilitated violence against women and girls (VAWG). United Nations Women. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/Accelerating-efforts-to-tackle-online-and-technology-facilitated-violence-against-women-and-girls-en_0.pdf

19.

Flynn

Cama

Powell

Scott

A. J.

(2022). Victim-blaming and image-based sexual abuse. Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076221135327

20.

Fox

Cruz

Lee

J. Y.

(2015). Perpetuating online sexism offline: Anonymity, interactivity, and the effects of sexist hashtags on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 436–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.024

21.

Grubb

Turner

(2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002

22.

Harlow

A. F.

Willis

S. K.

Smith

M. L.

Rothman

E. F.

(2021). Bystander prevention for sexual violence: #HowIWillChange and gaps in Twitter discourse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), NP5753–NP5771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518808854

23.

Henry

Flynn

(2019). Image-based sexual abuse: Online distribution channels and illicit communities of support. Violence Against Women, 25(16), 1932–1955. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219863881

24.

Henry

Powell

(2015). Embodied harms: Gender, shame, and technology-facilitated sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 21(6), 758–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215576581

25.

Henry

Powell

(2018). Technology-facilitated sexual violence: A literature review of empirical research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016650189

26.

Henry

Flynn

Powell

(2018). Policing image-based sexual abuse: Stakeholder perspectives. Police Practice and Research, 19(6), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2018.1507892

27.

Henry

Flynn

Powell

(2020). Technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence: A review. Violence Against Women, 26(15–16), 1828–1854. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219875821

28.

Herrera

H. E.

Oswald

D. L.

(2022). Who supports# MeToo and the Kavanaugh confirmation? Exploring tolerance for sexual harassment among young adults. Journal of Social Issues, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12531

29.

Hudson

Fetro

Ogletree

(2014). Behavioral indicators and behaviors related to sexting among undergraduate students. American Journal of Health Education, 45(3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2014.901113

30.

Huiskes

Dinis

M. A. P.

Caridade

(2022). Technology-facilitated sexual violence victimization during the COVID-19 pandemic: Behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31(9), 1148–1167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2022.2089863

31.

Idoiaga

Berasategi

S. N.

Beloki

A. N.

Belasko

T. M.

(2022). # 8M women’s strikes in Spain: Following the unprecedented social mobilization through twitter. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1881461

32.

Jackson

S. J.

Bailey

Foucault-Welles

(2019). Women tweet on violence: From #YesAllWomen to #MeToo. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, 15, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.5399/uo/ada.2019.15.6

33.

Johnson

N. L.

Johnson

D. M.

(2021). An empirical exploration into the measurement of rape culture. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517732347

34.

Kemp

(2023). Digital 2023: Global overview report. DataReportal.

35.

Kennedy

A. C.

Bybee

Moylan

C. A.

McCauley

H. L.

Prock

K. A.

(2021). Predictors of sexual violence across young women’s relationship histories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), NP5944–NP5964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518811439

36.

Kosloski

A. E.

Diamond-Welch

B. K.

Mann

(2018). The presence of rape myths in the virtual world: A qualitative textual analysis of the Steubenville sexual assault case. Violence and Gender, 5(3), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0067

37.

Levine

McCright

Dobkin

Woodruff

A. J.

Klausner

J. D.

(2008). SEXINFO: A sexual health text messaging service for San Francisco youth. American Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 393–395. https://doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2007.110767

38.

Madden

Janoske

Winkler

R. B.

Harpole

(2018). Who loves consent? Social media and the culture jamming of Victoria’s Secret. Public Relations Inquiry, 7(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X18764216

39.

McGlynn

Johnson

Rackley

Henry

Gavey

Flynn

Powell

(2021). “It’s torture for the soul”: The harms of image-based sexual abuse. Social & Legal Studies, 30(4), 541–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663920947791

40.

Mckinlay

Lavis

(2020). Why did she send it in the first place? Victim blame in the context of “revenge porn.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(3), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1734977

41.

Nickerson

Steenkamp

Aerka

I. M.

Salters-Pedneault

Carper

T. L.

Barnes

J. B.

Litz

B. T.

(2013). Prospective investigation of mental health following sexual assault. Depression and Anxiety, 30(5), 444–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22023

42.

Nutbeam

Mereish

E. H.

(2022). Negative attitudes and beliefs toward the #MeToo movement on Twitter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15–16), NP13018–NP13044. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211001470

43.

O’Callaghan

Douglas

H. M.

(2021). #MeToo online disclosures: A survivor-informed approach to open science practices and ethical use of social media data. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211039175

44.

Patel

Roesch

(2022). The prevalence of technology-facilitated sexual violence: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(2), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020958057

45.

PettyJohn

M. E.

Muzzey

F. K.

Maas

M. K.

McCauley

H. L.

(2019). #HowIWillChange: Engaging men and boys in the #MeToo movement. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(4), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000186

46.

Powell

Henry

Flynn

Scott

A. J.

(2019). Image-based sexual abuse: The extent, nature, and predictors of perpetration in a community sample of Australian residents. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.009

47.

Ruths

Pfeffer

(2014). Social media for large studies of behavior. Science, 346(6213), 1063–1064. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.346.6213.1063

48.

Salerno-Ferraro

A. C.

Erentzen

Schuller

R. A.

(2021). Young women’s experiences with technology-facilitated sexual violence from male strangers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(19–20), NP17860–NP17885. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211030018

49.

Shepherd

Sanders

Doyle

Shaw

(2015). Using social media for support and feedback by mental health service users: Thematic analysis of a twitter conversation. BMC Psychiatry, 15, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0408-y

50.

Sloan

Morgan

Housley

Williams

Edwards

Burnap

Rana

(2013). Knowing the tweeters: Deriving sociologically relevant demographics from twitter. Sociological Research Online, 18(3), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3001

51.

Starr

T. S.

Lavis

(2018). Perceptions of revenge pornography and victim blame. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 12(2), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3366179

52.

Stubbs-Richardson

Rader

N. E.

Cosby

A. G.

(2018). Tweeting rape culture: Examining portrayals of victim blaming in discussions of sexual assault cases on Twitter. Feminism & Psychology, 28(1), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517715874

53.

Suler

(2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295

54.

Uhl

C. A.

Rhyner

K. J.

Terrance

C. A.

Lugo

N. R.

(2018). An examination of nonconsensual pornography websites. Feminism & Psychology, 28(1), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517720225

55.

World Health Organization. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates 2018. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240022256

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB