Online trolling is a behavior in which individuals deliberately and maliciously post messages to provoke arguments and conflicts. Previous studies have frequently overlooked the heterogeneity in online trolling motivations and gender differences. Moreover, many prior studies included participants who had not engaged in online trolling. This study employed network analysis to investigate the relationships between motivations and forms of online trolling, as well as gender differences, among early adolescents who engaged in online trolling. A total of 1,118 early adolescents (mean age = 12.19 ± 1.51 years) completed a set of validated questionnaires. The results showed that (a) in the full-sample network, revenge and rebutting for disagreement were strongly related to proactive (trolling initiated without any provocation from others) and reactive trolling (retaliatory responses to perceived provocation or external pressures); escaping from real life was strongly related to proactive and bystander trolling (just interested in observing trolling content, such as viewing, liking, or retweeting). Furthermore, we also identified unique predictors for each type of trolling: social manipulation was strongly related to proactive trolling; maintaining social justice was strongly related to reactive trolling; and experiencing thrill and self-entertainment were strongly related to bystander trolling. (b) Gender difference analyses revealed significant variations in the global network strength. Females exhibited significantly higher edge weights for rebutting for disagreement—revenge/reactive trolling/bystander trolling. Males exhibited significantly higher edge weights for rebutting for disagreement—social manipulation and maintaining social justice—bystander trolling. (c) The high bridge expected influence analysis identified gender-specific key nodes—revenge, experiencing thrill, and escaping from real life in the male network, and revenge and experiencing thrill in the female network. Through visualizing network associations and metrics, this study elucidates the relationships between online trolling motivations and their forms. The exploration of gender differences further provides a basis for understanding and mitigating early adolescents’ online trolling.
Berger-CorreaB.RingroseJ.XieX.CambazogluI. (2022). Mapping affective circuits of a Twitter trolling attack against feminist arts-based pedagogy during the COVID-19 global pandemic. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 37, 642–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2022.2098410
2.
BiddleK.EkdaleB.HighA. C.StoldtR.Maragh-LloydR. (2024). Beyond “Lulz” and “Keyboard warriors”: Exploring the relationship between trolling and radicalization. Information, Communication & Society, 27, 2817–2833. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2302988
3.
BjörkqvistK. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30(3–4), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01420988
4.
BorsboomD.DesernoM. K.RhemtullaM.EpskampS.FriedE. I.McNallyR. J.RobinaughD. J.PeruginiM.DalegeJ.CostantiniG.IsvoranuA. M.WysockiA. C.van BorkuloC. D.van BorkR.WaldorpL. J.WaldorpL. J. (2021). Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 1(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-021-00055-w
5.
BuckelsE. E.TrapnellP. D.PaulhusD. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016
6.
CaiH.ZouX.FengY.LiuY.JingY. (2018). Increasing need for uniqueness in contemporary China: Empirical evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 554–560. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00554
ClarkL. A.WatsonD. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626
9.
ColesB. A.WestM. (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
10.
CookC.SchaafsmaJ.AntheunisM. (2018). Under the bridge: An in-depth examination of online trolling in the gaming context. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3323–3340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817748578
11.
CrakerN.MarchE. (2016). The dark side of Facebook®: The dark tetrad, negative social potency, and trolling behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.043
12.
CrossC. P.CoppingL. T.CampbellA. (2011). Sex differences in impulsivity: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 97–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021591
13.
DemsarV.Brace-GovanJ.JackG.SandsS. (2021). The social phenomenon of trolling: Understanding the discourse and social practices of online provocation. Journal of Marketing Management, 37(11–12), 1058–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2021.1900335
14.
DengY.ChangL.YangM.HuoM.ZhouR. (2016). Gender differences in emotional response: Inconsistency between experience and expressivity. PLoS One, 11(6), e0158666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158666
15.
DynelM. (2016). “Trolling is not stupid”: Internet trolling as the art of deception serving entertainment. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(3), 353–381. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0015
16.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
17.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (2012). Social role theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458–476). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n39
18.
EpskampS.FriedE. I. (2018). A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychological Methods, 23(4), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000167
19.
EpskampS.BorsboomD.FriedE. I. (2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1
20.
FichmanP.SanfilippoM. R. (2015). The bad boys and girls of cyberspace: How gender and context impact perception of and reaction to trolling. Social Science Computer Review, 33(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314533169
21.
FinchW. H.MillerJ. E. (2021). A comparison of regularized maximum-likelihood, regularized 2-stage least squares, and maximum-likelihood estimation with misspecified models, small samples, and weak factor structure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56(4), 608–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1753005
22.
FriedE. I.EidhofM. B.PalicS.CostantiniG.Huisman-van DijkH. M.BocktingC. L.EngelhardI.ArmourC.NielsenA. B. S.KarstoftK. I.KarstoftK. I. (2018). Replicability and generalizability of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) networks: A cross-cultural multisite study of PTSD symptoms in four trauma patient samples. Clinical Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 6(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617745092
GefenD.RidingsC. M. (2005). If you spoke as she does, sir, instead of the way you do: A sociolinguistics perspective of gender differences in virtual communities. SIGMIS Database, 36(2), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/1066149.1066156
25.
GlicksohnJ.Naor-ZivR.LeshemR. (2018). Developmental pathways to disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders. In MartelM. (Ed.), Sensation seeking and risk-taking (pp. 183–208). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811323-3.00008-0
26.
Golf-PapezM.VeerE. (2017). Don’t feed the trolling: Rethinking how online trolling is being defined and combated. Journal of Marketing Management, 33, 15–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1383298
27.
GroenR. N.RyanO.WigmanJ. T. W.RieseH.PenninxB. W. J. H.GiltayE. J.WichersM.HartmanC. A. (2020). Comorbidity between depression and anxiety: Assessing the role of bridge mental states in dynamic psychological networks. BMC Medicine, 18(1), 308. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01738-z
28.
HerringS. (2008). Gender and power in on-line communication. In HolmesJ.MeyerhoffM. (Eds.), Handbook of language & gender (p. 202). Wiley-Blackwell.
29.
JoinerR.GavinJ.DuffieldJ. (2005). Gender, internet identification, and internet anxiety: Correlates of internet use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8, 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.371
30.
JonesP. J.MaR.McNallyR. J. (2021). Bridge centrality: A network approach to understanding comorbidity. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56(2), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1614898
KowalskiR. M.GiumettiG. W.SchroederA. N.LattannerM. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
33.
LiF.TangX.GeX.YuM.WangS.WuB. (2024) Is mindfulness associated with lower online trolling among adolescents? Mediating effects of self-esteem and depression and moderating effect of dark personality traits. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 34(3), 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2024.2363698
34.
LiaoJ.SunX.FangX.LiF.LiuG.LeiL. (2024). How is parental phubbing associated with online trolling among early adolescents? The mediating role of alexithymia and the moderating role of online disinhibition. Current Psychology, 43, 28841–28853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06549-6
35.
LumsdenK.MorganH. (2017). Media framing of trolling and online abuse: Silencing strategies, symbolic violence, and victim blaming. Feminist Media Studies, 17(6), 926–940. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2017.1316755
36.
LunanskyG.NabermanJ.van BorkuloC. D.ChenC.WangL.BorsboomD. (2022). Intervening on psychopathology networks: Evaluating intervention targets through simulations. Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 204, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2021.11.006
37.
MaoY.HuB. (2024). From trolling victimization to reactive trolling: Moderated mediation effects of online disinhibition and motivations. Social Science Computer Review, 43(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393241250013
38.
MaoY.XuT.KimK. J. (2023). Motivations for proactive and reactive trolling on social media: Developing and validating a four-factor model. Social Media + Society, 9(4), 20563051231203682. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231203682
39.
MarchE. (2019). Psychopathy, sadism, empathy, and the motivation to cause harm: New evidence confirms malevolent nature of the internet troll. Personality and Individual Differences, 208, 112169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112169
40.
MarchE.MarringtonJ. (2019). A qualitative analysis of internet trolling. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 22(3), 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0210
41.
MarchE.McDonaldL.ForsythL. (2024). Personality and internet trolling: A validation study of a representative sample. Current Psychology, 43, 4815–4818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04586-1
42.
MarringtonJ. Z.MarchE.MurrayS.JeffriesC.MachinT.MarchS. (2023). An exploration of trolling behaviours in Australian adolescents: An online survey. PLoS One, 18(4), e0284378. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284378
43.
Meyers-LevyJ.LokenB. (2015). Revisiting gender differences: What we know and what lies ahead. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003
44.
MontezD.KimD. H. (2025). How do silent trolls become overt trolls? Fear of punishment and online disinhibition moderate the trolling path. Social Media + Society, 11(1), 20563051251320437. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251320437
45.
MulcahyR. F.RiedelA.KeatingB. W.BeatsonA.CampbellM. (2023). I’d better say something! How empathy shapes bystander psychological reactance and intervention to online trolling of service organizations. Journal of Service Management, 34(5), 1064–1087. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-12-2022-0382
46.
Murray-CloseD.OstrovJ. M.CrickN. R. (2007). A short-term longitudinal study of growth in relational aggression during middle childhood: Associations with gender, friendship intimacy, and internalizing problems. Development and Psychopathology, 19(1), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579407070101
47.
Navarro-CarrilloG.Torres-MarínJ.Carretero-DiosH. (2021). Do trolls just want to have fun? Assessing the role of humor-related traits in online trolling behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106551
48.
QiuY.SunQ.WuB.LiF. (2024). Is high exposure to antisocial media content associated with increased participation in malicious online trolling? Exploring the moderated mediation model of hostile attribution bias and empathy. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 401. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01898-0
49.
QiuY.SunQ.ZhouJ.JiangN.ZengW.WuB.LiF. (2024). Is peer victimization associated with higher online trolling among adolescents? The mediation of hostile attribution bias and the moderation of trait mindfulness. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 26(8), 623–632. https://doi.org/10.32604/ijmhp.2024.053926
50.
RabbaniK.MehmoodM. A.AreejA. (2024). Speech act of flaming: A pragmatic analysis of Twitter trolling in Pakistan. Discourse & Society, 35(4), 499–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265231222589
51.
RobinaughD. J.MillnerA. J.McNallyR. J. (2016). Identifying highly influential nodes in the complicated grief network. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(6), 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000181
UbaradkaA.KhanganbaS. P. (2024). The differential effect of psychopathy on active and bystander trolling behaviors: The role of dark tetrad traits and lower agreeableness. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 9905. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60203-6
59.
van BorkuloC. D.van BorkR.BoschlooL.KossakowskiJ. J.TioP.SchoeversR. A.BorsboomD.WaldorpL. J. (2023). Comparing network structures on three aspects: A permutation test. Psychological Methods, 28(6), 1273–1285. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000476
60.
VigilJ. M. (2009). A socio-relational framework of sex differences in the expression of emotion. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 375–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09991075
61.
WeiX. Y.LiangH. Y.GaoT.GaoL. F.ZhangG. H.ChuX. Y.WangH. X.GengJ. Y.LiuK.NieJ.ZengP.RenL.LiuC.JiangH. B.LeiL. (2023). Preference for smartphone-based internet applications and smartphone addiction among young adult addicts: Gender difference in psychological network. Social Science Computer Review, 42(5), 1266–1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231222680
62.
WilsonN. C.Seigfried-SpellarK. C. (2022). Cybervictimization, social, and financial strains influence internet trolling behaviors: A general strain theory perspective. Social Science Computer Review, 41(3), 967–982. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211065868
63.
WoodworthR. S. (1918). Dynamic psychology. Columbia University Press.
64.
WuB.LiF.ZhouL.LiuM.GengF. (2022). Are mindful people less involved in online trolling? A moderated mediation model of perceived social media fatigue and moral disengagement. Aggressive Behavior, 48(3), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22013
65.
WuB.ZhouL.DengY.ZhaoJ.LiuM. (2022). Online disinhibition and online trolling among Chinese college students: The mediation of the dark triad and the moderation of gender. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 25(11), 744–751. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0046
66.
ZweigJ. M.DankM.YahnerJ.LachmanP. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1063–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8
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.
