Understanding online risk for adults with intellectual disabilities is important to improve digital inclusion in society. Perceptions of online risk can determine behaviours that obstruct or facilitate Internet access and use. This current study aimed to qualitatively investigate the psychological implications of online victimisation risks, including online negative comments and/or messages for adults with intellectual disabilities, as a novel area yet explored in-depth. Semi-structured interview data was collected remotely. Template analysis found there to be both negative and positive psychological implications experienced in response to online risks. Specifically, participants reported a wide range of negative emotions but also positive growth in the form of learning from the experience and increased confidence. The attribution of blame process in cybervictimisation can involve both blaming the perpetrator but also internalised victim-blaming which may be a consequence of the type of online risk (i.e. sexual risks). Implications for both practice and research are suggested.
ÅgrenKAKjellbergAHemmingssonH (2020) Digital participation? Internet use among adolescents with and without intellectual disabilities: a comparative study. New Media & Society22: 2128–2145.
2.
BaumanS (2014) Cyberbullying: What Counselors Need to Know. Kindle ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
3.
BeranTLiQ (2005) Cyber-harassment: a study of a new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research32(3): 265–277.
BrooksJMcCluskeySTurleyE, et al. (2015) The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qualitative Research in Psychology12(2): 202–222.
6.
CatonSChapmanM (2016) The use of social media and people with intellectual disability: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability41(2): 125–139.
7.
CatonSHattonCGilloolyA, et al. (2022) Online social connections and Internet use among people with intellectual disabilities in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 6 May. DOI: 10.1177/14614448221093762.
8.
ChadwickDD (2019) Online risk for people with intellectual disabilities. Tizard Learning Disability Review24(4): 180–187.
9.
ChadwickDD (2022) ‘You want to know that you’re safe’: experiences of risk, restriction and resilience online among people with an intellectual disability. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace16(3): 8.
10.
ChadwickDDÅgrenKACatonS, et al. (2022) Digital inclusion and participation of people with intellectual disabilities during COVID-19: a rapid review and international bricolage. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities19: 242–256.
11.
ChadwickDDFullwoodC (2018) An online life like any other: identity, self-determination, and social networking among adults with intellectual disabilities. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking21(1): 56–64.
12.
ChadwickDDQuinnSFullwoodC (2017) Perceptions of the risks and benefits of Internet access and use by people with intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities45(1): 21–31.
13.
ChadwickDDWessonCFullwoodC (2013) Internet access by people with intellectual disabilities: inequalities and opportunities. Future Internet5(3): 376–397.
14.
ChadwickDFullwoodCWessonC (2019) Carer communication and support for digital inclusion of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In Journal of Intellectual Disability Research63(7): 746–746.
15.
ChinerEGómez-PuertaMCardona-MoltóMC (2017) Internet use, risks and online behaviour: the view of internet users with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers. British Journal of Learning Disabilities45(3): 190–197.
16.
ChinerEGómez-PuertaMMengual-AndrésS (2021) Opportunities and hazards of the Internet for students with intellectual disabilities: the views of pre-service and in-service teachers. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education68(4): 538–553.
17.
ClarkeRCamilleriKGodingL (2015) What’s in it for me? The meaning of involvement in a self-advocacy group for six people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities19(3): 230–250.
18.
ClementsFAChadwickDDOrchardLJ (2020) Lockdown can be especially difficult for those with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Care Improvement3(2): 21–24.
19.
CohenLEFelsonM (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review44(4): 588–608.
20.
CooperM (2009) Welcoming the other: actualising the humanistic ethic at the core of counselling psychology practice. Counselling Psychology Review24(3): 119–129.
21.
CooperMMcLeodJ (2012) From either/or to both/and: developing a pluralistic approach to counselling and psychotherapy. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling14(1): 5–17.
22.
DiddenRScholteRHJKorziliusH, et al. (2009) Cyberbullying among students with intellectual and developmental disability in special education settings. Developmental Neurorehabilitation12(3): 146–151.
23.
DiMaggioPGaripF (2012) Network effects and social inequality. Annual Review of Sociology38: 93–118.
24.
DobranskyKHargittaiE (2006) The disability divide in internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society9(3): 313–334.
25.
EmersonEGoneR (2012) Social context. In: EmersonEHattonCDicksonK, et al. (eds) Clinical Psychology and People with Intellectual Disabilities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 51–61.
26.
EmersonEHattonC (2014) Health Inequalities and People with Intellectual Disabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
EricksonF (2018) A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 5th ed.Los Angeles, CA; London; New Delhi, India; Singapore; Washington, DC; Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Sage, pp. 87–141.
28.
FelsonRBMessnerSFHoskinAW, et al. (2002) Reasons for reporting and not reporting domestic violence to the police. Criminology40(3): 617–648.
29.
FinlayWMLLyonsE (2002) Acquiescence in interviews with people who have mental retardation. Mental Retardation40(1): 14–29.
30.
Gómez-PuertaMChinerE (2022) Internet use and online behaviour of adults with intellectual disability: support workers’ perceptions, training and online risk mediation. Disability & Society37: 1107–1128.
31.
GubaEGLincolnYS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, vol. 2. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 163–194.
32.
HindelangMJGottfredsonMRGarofaloJ (1978) Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.
33.
HolmesKMO’LoughlinN (2014) The experiences of people with learning disabilities on social networking sites. British Journal of Learning Disabilities42(1): 1–5.
JohnsonKWalmsleyJWolfeM (2010) People with Intellectual Disabilities: Towards a Good Life?1st ed. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
36.
KingNBrooksJ (2017) Template Analysis for Business and Management Students (Mastering Business Research Methods). Los Angeles, CA; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
LivingstoneSHaddonL (eds) (2009) Kids Online: Opportunities and Risks for Children. Bristol; Portland, OR: Policy Press.
Lussier-DesrochersDNormandCLRomero-TorresA, et al. (2017) Bridging the digital divide for people with intellectual disability. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace11(1): 1.
40.
McDonaldKEKidneyCAPatkaM (2013) ‘You need to let your voice be heard’: research participants’ views on research. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research57(3): 216–225.
41.
MacmillanKBergTJustM, et al. (2022) Online safety experiences of autistic young people: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders96: 101995.
42.
MannCStewartF (2001) Internet interviewing. In: GubriumJFHolsteinJA (eds) Handbook of Interview Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 602–627.
43.
MarttilaEKoivulaARäsänenP (2021) Cybercrime victimization and problematic social media use: findings from a nationally representative panel study. American Journal of Criminal Justice46(6): 862–881.
44.
NormandCLSallafranque St-LouisF (2016) Cybervictimization of young people with an intellectual or developmental disability: risks specific to sexual solicitation. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities29(2): 99–110.
45.
OrtegaRElipePMora-MerchanJA, et al. (2009) The emotional impact on victims of traditional bullying and cyberbullying: a study of Spanish adolescents. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology217(4): 197–204.
46.
PerryJ (2004) Interviewing people with intellectual disabilities. In: EmersonEHattonCThompsonT, et al. (eds) The International Handbook of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 115–131.
47.
PerskeR (1974) The Dignity of Risk and the Mentally Retarded. Arlington, VA: National Association for Retarded Citizens.
48.
PriceMDalgleishJ (2010) Cyberbullying: experiences, impacts and coping strategies as described by Australian young people. Youth Studies Australia29(2): 51–59.
49.
ProsserHBromleyJ (2012) Interviewing people with intellectual disabilities. In: EmersonEHattonCDicksonK, et al. (eds) Clinical Psychology and People with Intellectual Disabilities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 105–120.
50.
RobinsonLCottenSROnoH, et al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 569–582.
51.
ScheffersFVugtEMoonenX (2020) Resilience in the face of adversity in adults with an intellectual disability: a literature review. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities33(5): 828–838.
52.
SealeJK (2014) The role of supporters in facilitating the use of technologies by adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: a place for positive risk-taking?European Journal of Special Needs Education29(2): 220–236.
53.
SealeJKChadwickDD (2017) How does risk mediate the ability of adolescents and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities live a normal life by using the Internet?Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace11(1): 2.
54.
SealeJKNindMSimmonsB (2013) Transforming positive risk-taking practices: the possibilities of creativity and resilience in learning disability contexts. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research15(3): 233–248.
55.
ShentonAK (2004) Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information22(2): 63–75.
56.
TedeschiRGShakespeare-FinchJTakuK, et al. (2018) Posttraumatic Growth: Theory, Research, and Applications. New York: Routledge.
57.
TsatsouP (2021) Is digital inclusion fighting disability stigma? Opportunities, barriers, and recommendations. Disability & Society36(5): 702–729.
58.
TsatsouP (ed.) (2022a) Editor’s introduction: digital inclusion, vulnerability and associated complexities. In: TsatsouP (ed.) Vulnerable People and Digital Inclusion: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–23.
59.
TsatsouP (2022b) Vulnerable people’s digital inclusion: intersectionality patterns and associated lessons. Information, Communication & Society25(10): 1475–1494.
60.
UllmanSE (1996) Social reactions, coping strategies, and self-blame attributions in adjustment to sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly20(4): 505–526.
61.
WrightMF (2016) Cybervictims’ emotional responses, attributions, and coping strategies for cyber victimization: a qualitative approach. Safer Communities15(3): 160–169.
62.
WrightMF (2017) Cyber victimization and depression among adolescents with intellectual disabilities and developmental disorders: the moderation of perceived social support. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities10(2): 126–143.
63.
WrightMFWachsS (2020) Parental support, health, and cyberbullying among adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies29(9): 2390–2401.
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.
