DEVELOPING AN ONLINE TROLLING BEHAVIOR SCALE

Year 2023, Issue: 66, 658 - 682, 29.04.2023

Frat Kızıltepe , Süleyman Sadi Seferoğlu

https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1162631

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a scale for measuring Internet users' online trolling behavior and to reveal the psychometric findings obtained from the scale. The data were collected online using the measurement tool developed by the researchers. 1524 people between the ages of 12-62 participated in the study. 58.8% of the participants are women (n = 896) and 41.2% are men (n = 628). The participants were distributed according to their education level as follows: 1,8% secondary school (n=27), %18,3 high school (n=279), %7,9 undergraduate degree (n=121), %51,2 bachelor degree (n=780), %12,3 master's degree (n=187) and %8,5 doctorate level (n=130). The validity and reliability analysis of the scale were performed and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient of the online trolling behavior scale consisting of 22 items and a single factor was found to be .973. On the other hand, item-total correlations for all items in the scale ranged from 0.596 to 0.902 and t-values were significant (p<.001). According to the data obtained in the study, the scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Keywords

troll, trolling, cyberbullying, online trolling

ÇEVRİMİÇİ TROL DAVRANIŞ ÖLÇEĞİNİN GELİŞTİRİLMESİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı İnternet kullanıcılarının çevrimiçi trol davranışlarını ölçmeye yönelik bir ölçek geliştirmek ve ölçekten elde edilen psikometrik bulguları ortaya koymaktır. Veriler, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen ölçme aracı kullanılarak çevrimiçi ortamda toplanmıştır. Çalışmaya 12-62 yaş aralığında 1524 kişi katılmıştır. Katılımcıların %58,8’i kadın (n=896) ve %41,2’si erkektir (n=628). Katılımcıların eğitim düzeyine göre dağılımı ortaokul %1,8 (n=27), lise %18,3 (n=279), ön lisans %7,9 (n=121), lisans %51,2 (n=780), yüksek lisans %12,3 (n=187), doktora %8,5 (n=130) şeklindedir. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri yapılmış olup toplam 22 maddenin yer aldığı tek faktörden oluşan çevrimiçi trol davranış ölçeğinin Cronbach Alpha katsayısı 0,973 çıkmıştır. Öte yandan ölçekte yer alan tüm maddeler için madde-toplam korelasyonları 0,596 ile 0,902 arasında değişmekte ve t-değerleri (p<.001) düzeyinde anlamlıdır. Çalışma kapsamında elde edilen verilere göre, geliştirilen ölçek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracıdır.

Keywords

trol, trolleme, siber zorbalık, çevrimiçi trollük

References

• Akalın, M. (2015). Örnek açıklamalarıyla sosyal bilimlerde araştırma tekniği. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
• Baughman, H. M., Dearing, S., Giammarco, E., & Vernon, P. A. (2012). Relationships between bullying behaviors and the Dark Triad: A study with adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 571-575.
• Binark, M., Karataş, Ş., Çomu, T., & Koca, E. (2015). Türkiye’de Twitter’da trol kültürü. Toplum ve Bilim, 135, 124-158.
• Binns, A. (2012). Don't feed the Trolls! Journalism Practice, 6(4), 547-562.
• Bishop, J. (2013). The art of trolling law enforcement: a review and model for implementing ‘flame trolling' legislation enacted in Great Britain (1981–2012). International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 27(3), 301-318.
• Bishop, J. (2014). Representations of ‘trolls’ in mass media communication: a review of media-texts and moral panics relating to ‘Internet trolling’. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 10(1), 7-24.
• Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97-102.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Craker, N., & March, E. (2016). The dark side of Facebook®: The Dark Tetrad, negative social potency, and trolling behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 79-84.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Araştırma deseni (Çev. Ed: S. B. Demir). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
• De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research. Crows Nest. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin.
• Doğan, D., Çınar, M., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2017). Sosyal medyanın karanlık yüzleri trollerle ilgili bir inceleme. H. F. Odabaşı, B. Akkoyunlu ve A. İşman (Ed). Eğitim teknolojileri okumaları 2017, (45. Bölüm, ss. 887-915). TOJET ve Sakarya Üniversitesi, Adapazarı.
• Escalante, H. J., Villatoro-Tello, E., Garza, S. E., López-Monroy, A. P., Montes-y-Gómez, M., & Villaseñor-Pineda, L. (2017). Early detection of deception and aggressiveness using profile-based representations. Expert Systems with Applications, 89, 99-111.
• Fichman, P., & Sanfilippo, M. 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.
• Güriş, S., & Astar, M. (2014). Bilimsel araştırmalarda SPSS ile istatistik. İstanbul: Ders Yayınları.
• Haque, A. (2014). Twitch plays Pokemon, machine learns twitch: Unsupervised context-aware anomaly detection for identifying trolls in streaming data. UTCS Department of Computer Science.
• Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behavior, Culture, 6(2).
• Hardaker, C. (2013). “Uh. . . . not to be nitpicky,,,,,but…the past tense of drag is dragged, not drug”: An overview of trolling strategies. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 1(1), 58-86.
• İslamoğlu, A. H., & Alnıaçık, Ü. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. İstanbul: Beta Basım.
• Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
• Karataş, Ş., & Binark, M. (2016). Yeni medyada yaratıcı kültür: Troller ve ürünleri ‘caps’ ler. TRT Akademi. Dijital Medya, 1(2), 426-448.
• Kopecký, K. (2016). Misuse of web cameras to manipulate children within the so-called webcam trolling. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 1-7.
• Ladanyi, J., & Doyle-Portillo, S. (2017). The development and validation of the Grief Play Scale (GPS) in MMORPGs. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 125-133.
• Lallas, D. J. (2014). On the condition of anonymity: Disembodied exhibitionism and oblique trolling strategies. In Digital rhetoric and global literacies: Communication modes and digital practices in the networked world (pp. 296-311). IGI Global.
• Li, T. C., Gharibshah, J., Papalexakis, E. E., & Faloutsos, M. (2017). TrollSpot: Detecting misbehavior in commenting platforms. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017 (pp. 171-175). ACM.
• Mercimek, B., Yaman, N. D., Kelek, A., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2016). Dijital dünyanın yeni gerçeği: Troller. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 67-77.
• Muijs, D. (2004) Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Cop.
• Niezen, R. (2013). Internet suicide: Communities of affirmation and the lethality of communication. Transcultural Psychiatry, 50(2), 303-322.
• Özsoy, D. (2015). Tweeting political fear: Trolls in Turkey. Journal of History School (JOHS), 12(22), 535-552.
• Petykó, M. (2017). You’re trolling because… – A corpus-based study of perceived trolling and motive attribution in the comment threads of three British political blogs. 5th Conference on CMC and Social Media Corpora for the Humanities (cmccorpora17). CMC-Corpora Conference Series.
• Rafferty, R., & Vander Ven, T. (2014). I hate everything about you: A qualitative examination of cyberbullying and on-line aggression in a college sample. Deviant Behavior, 35(5), 364-377.
• Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke‐Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., & Liu, J. (2006). The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32(2), 159-171.
• Sanfilippo, M. R., Yang, S., & Fichman, P. (2017). Managing online trolling: from deviant to social and political trolls. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1802-1811.
• Shachaf, P., & Hara, N. (2010). Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science, 36(3): 357-370.
• Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.
• Tsantarliotis, P., Pitoura, E., & Tsaparas, P. (2017). Defining and predicting troll vulnerability in online social media. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 7(1), 26.
• Türk, G. D., & Tugen, B. (2015). Türk toplumunda sosyal medyaya eleştirel bakış eksikliği: Türk troller ve trolleme. 1. Uluslararası Kritik ve Analitik Düşünme Sempozyumu, Sakarya, s. 74-83.
• Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499-503.
• Veszelszki, Á. (2017). Verbal and visual aggression in trolling. In A. Benedek & Á. Veszelszki (Eds.). Virtual reality - Real visuality (141-155). Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang.
• Wardle, C. & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe.
• Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.
• Yıldızgörür, M. R. (2015). Trolling in twitter in Turkey: Who they are? What they want? Paper presented at the International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
• Zezulka, L. A., & Seigfried-Spellar, K. C. (2016). Differentiating cyberbullies and Internet Trolls by personality characteristics and self-esteem. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 11(3), 7-26.