DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Impact of Hyperpersonal Cues in Cyberbystander Intervention in a Cyberbullying Context

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Impact of Hyperpersonal Cues in Cyberbystander Intervention in a Cyberbullying Context Diffusion of responsibility or diffusion of social risk: Social impact of hyperpersonal cues in cyberbystander intervention in a cyberbullying context Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Kelly Patricia Dillon, M.A. Graduate Program in Communication Dissertation Committee: Dr. Brad J Bushman, Advisor Dr. Jesse A. Fox Dr. Dave R. Ewoldsen The Ohio State University 2016 Copyright by Kelly Patricia Dillon 2016 Abstract Increasing reliance on computer-mediated communication to work and socialize has led to a sharp increase in emergencies and negative communication events. The Centers for Disease Control have labeled cyberaggression as an important public health issue, affecting millions of adolescents and adults daily. Previous research has focused mainly on the adverse effects of bullying and possible risk factors for adolescents bullying their peers. The majority of individuals fall into a third group: bystanders. The current study uses social impact theory (Latané, 1981) to test the hyperpersonal cues (Walther, 1996) on cyberbystander intervention. Participants are cyberbystanders to cyberbullying happening in real-time, and have opportunities for direct and indirect intervention. The Bystander Effect is confirmed, where fewer individuals chose to directly intervene in the cyberbullying when more individuals were present. Timing and amount of feedback from other cyberbystanders have mixed results. Non-intervening participants explain their inaction using various Moral Disengagement (Bandura, 1991; 1999) strategies. Results offer unique insights into cyberbystander behavior in a real-life simulation. ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my grandmother, Jean Dillon, who taught me how to breathe. iii Acknowledgements This entire journey was a group effort, and I am significantly (p<.001) blessed to have so many people not just in my life. I started this program with one family, and leave with two. In my academic family, I must acknowledge my advisor, Dr. Brad Bushman, for his never-ending support, in and out of the lab. To my committee members Dr. Jesse Fox and Dr. Dave Ewoldsen. Dr. Fox consistently sets the bar of badass high and Dr. Ewoldsen is a true lighthouse, encouraging from the shore whenever needed. To my village people: the cohorts before me, those I walk with, and those I have had the pleasure to see begin this journey. Of special note are Laura Willis, Bridget Potocki, Phokeng Dailey, Rachel Neo, and the dozens of other rock stars who walk the third floor of Derby Hall in pursuit of communication excellence. I must acknowledge my family who has braved this journey with me. My parents, Bette and Jim, always believed and urged me to shoot for the stars. My brothers, Brandon, Kevin, and Joey keep me grounded and laughing. To my mother-in-law Kathy who cared for my children so I could attend class, conferences, or my work. To my children, Jackson and Benjamin, who have grown as much as I have during these 5yrs; I hope I have inspired. Most of all, to my husband, Eric who worked so hard to make this dream possible. He has a PhD by proxy for his efforts, and I here formally, and every day, acknowledge how lucky I am to have him in my life. iv Vita June 1996 …………………………………………………….North Babylon High School 2000 ………………………………………………….. B.A. Psychology, Kenyon College 2003……….… M.A. Psychology, Vermont College at the Union Institute and University 2014…………………………………... M.A. Communication, The Ohio State University 2014 to present …………………………………………….. Graduate Research Assistant, School of Communication, The Ohio State University Publications Dillon, K. P. & Bushman, B. J. (2015) Unresponsive or un-noticed?: Cyberbystander intervention in an experimental cyberbullying context. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 144-150. Dillon, K. P. (2015). I'll stand by you: Glee characters' multiple identities and bystander intervention in bullying. In B. Johnson & D. Faill (Eds.) Glee & New Directions for Social Change. Sense Publishers, Netherlands. Fields of Study Major Field: Communication v Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...iii Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………..iv Vita……………………………………………………………………………………...…v List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….vii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………...…viii Chapter 1: Literature Review……………………………………………………………...1 Chapter 2: Methods………………………………………………………………………42 Chapter 3: Results………………………………………………………………………..64 Chapter 4: Discussion………………………………………………………………....…77 References………………………………………………………………………………..97 Appendix A: Researcher Script………………………………………………………...110 Appendix B: Personality Questionnaires……………………………………………….115 Appendix C: Post-Experiment Questionnaires…………………………………………123 Appendix D: Post-Test Questionnaires.......................................................................….126 Appendix E: Debriefing Form………………………………………………………….137 vi List of Tables Table 1. Moral disengagement strategy choices, statements, variables, and hypotheses…………………………………………………………………………..........36 Table 2. Counts of participants in each condition for analysis…………………………..42 Table 3. Mean scores on synchronicity items…………………………………………....50 Table 4. Descriptive statistics of personality variables…………………......……………56 Table 5. Rates of direct intervention by number of cyberbystanders present……………59 Table 6. Comparisons of indirect intervention by number of cyberbystanders present…60 Table 7. Rates of direct intervention by timing of feedback by other cyberbystanders…61 Table 8. Comparisons of indirect intervention by timing and amount of feedback……..61 Table 9. Rates of direct intervention in by number of cyberbystanders in feedback-always conditions……………………………………………………………………………...…62 Table 10. Frequency of types of direct intervention comments……………………….…64 Table 11. Frequency of types of direct intervention comments………………………….65 Table 12. Independent groups t-tests of personality variables by direct intervention...…66 Table 13. Correlations of personality variables and indirect intervention……………….67 Table 14. Moral disengagement strategy choices by non-intervening participants……...70 vii List of Figures Figure 1. Bystander Intervention Model (Dillon & Bushman, 2015)…………………....18 Figure 2. Screenshot of participant monitor……………………………………………..53 Figure 3. Image of an infinity mirror…………………………………………………….75 Figure 4. Including moral disengagement strategies in the bystander intervention model……………………………………………………………………………………..84 vii Chapter 1: Literature Review Bullying, Cyberbullying & Bystanders Definitions & Prevalence Aggression is generally defined as any behavior intended to harm another person, either physically or psychologically, who does not want to be harmed (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). When aggression occurs online it is called cyberaggression. Bullying is specifically defined as repetitive, intentionally aggressive behavior that creates or maintains an imbalance of power (Tokunaga, 2010). It includes repeated acts of assault, taunting, teasing, extortion, ostracism, and intimidation (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Myers, McCaw, & Hemphill, 2011). Recent longitudinal studies have revealed victims of bullying are at a greater risk of developing psychiatric disorders such as generalized anxiety and panic disorders, attempting or completing suicide, agoraphobia, and anti- social personality disorders (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013). When bullying occurs online it is called cyberbullying. What is unique about the mediated environment is how a single comment, meme, picture, or post can meet the criteria for cyberbullying given it can be seen repeatedly by different audiences and individuals. Online harassment and hostility that creates or perpetuates some sort of power imbalance is considered cyberbullying. Not all online harassment meets the criteria for cyberbullying, but all types cyberbullying falls under the umbrella of 1 onlrassment. If an individual has any online presence, or uses any 21st century communication technology such as SMS text messaging, electronic mail, or the Internet, they have the opportunity to perpetrate, experience, or witness various versions of cyberbullying. Trolling and flaming have become normative behaviors in online forums and social media sites, particularly if they afford anonymity. Trolling occurs when an individual, or group of individuals, “lure members of the community into fruitless arguments” (Herring, Job-Sluder, Scheckler, & Barab, 2002, p. 372) and can be especially troublesome for online discussions (Buckels, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 2014). Flaming is the “use of hostile expressions towards others” (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2011, p. 434) with the specific aim to be perceived as aggressive (Alonzo & Aiken, 2004; Derks, Fischer, & Bos, 2008; Moor, Heuvelman, & Verleur, 2010). Other behaviors, such as online gossips or rumors (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), teasing (Holfield, 2014; Kowalski, Giumeeti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014), defamation (Bartlett & Gentile, 2012; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009) and cyberostracism (Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000) via computer-mediated communication are considered cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Those who use discussion forums (Moor, Nakano, Enomoto, & Suda, 2012), online games (Lam, Cheng, & Liu, 2013; Yang, 2012), social media (Bastiaensens et al., 2014; Ittel, Azmitia, Pfetsch, & Müller,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Being an Active Bystander
    “…DID THEY REALLY JUST SAY THAT?!” BEING AN ACTIVE BYSTANDER Lena Tenney, MPA, MEd. | Researcher & Facilitation Specialist The Ohio State University | August 29, 2017 YOU ARE NOT ALONE! • In the last 2 months, have you experienced or observed a comment that made you uncomfortable or was inappropriate? – 62% yes – 38% no • Did anyone intervene? – 20% yes – 70% no YOU ARE NOT ALONE! • If you chose not to intervene, please select why: – 11% fear for safety – 6% fear of judgement – 46% did not know what to do or say – 31% did not feel comfortable intervening Outcomes for Student all students engagement NCLUSIVE I NVIRONMENTS OF E Innovation in Cognitive problem complexity in solving in problem team ENEFITS solving environments B EARNING L Milem and Hakuta, 2000; Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado et al., 2003; Milem, 2003; Antonio et al., 2004; Page, 2007; Page, 2010 GOALS FOR THIS SESSION • Gain an understanding of the bystander effect and what it means to be an active bystander • Illustrate the importance and benefits of committing to being an active bystander • Learn how to effectively communicate in challenging situations through strategies that can be tailored to the particular situation • Practice being an active bystander ABOUT THE KIRWAN INSTITUTE Rigorous & Robust Applied Community Research Engagement Image Credit WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AN ACTIVE BYSTANDER? THE BYSTANDER EFFECT • Diffusion of responsibility – The more people who are present, the less likely that someone will take action during a situation • Social influence – Groups monitor behavior, individuals don’t want to violate norms Darley, J.M., Latane, B. (1968).
    [Show full text]
  • Floor Debate March 17, 2016
    Transcript Prepared By the Clerk of the Legislature Transcriber's Office Floor Debate March 17, 2016 [LB83 LB465 LB516 LB586 LB673 LB707 LB709 LB717 LB722A LB754 LB754A LB794 LB803 LB817 LB835 LB843 LB867A LB867 LB894 LB900 LB906 LB910 LB934 LB934A LB958 LB959 LB975 LB977 LB1009 LB1033 LB1056 LB1081 LB1082A LB1082 LB1093 LB1098A LB1105A LB1109 LR378CA LR492 LR493 LR494] PRESIDENT FOLEY PRESIDING PRESIDENT FOLEY: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE GEORGE W. NORRIS LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER FOR THE FORTY-FOURTH DAY OF THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH LEGISLATURE, SECOND SESSION. OUR CHAPLAIN FOR TODAY IS PASTOR MIKE WING OF THE GRACE COMMUNITY BIBLE CHURCH IN NORTH PLATTE, NEBRASKA, SENATOR GROENE'S DISTRICT. PLEASE RISE. PASTOR WING: (PRAYER OFFERED.) PRESIDENT FOLEY: THANK YOU, PASTOR WING. I CALL TO ORDER THE FORTY- FOURTH DAY OF THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH LEGISLATURE, SECOND SESSION. SENATORS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR PRESENCE. ROLL CALL. MR. CLERK. PLEASE RECORD. CLERK: I HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT, MR. PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT FOLEY: THANK YOU, MR. CLERK. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE JOURNAL? CLERK: I HAVE NO CORRECTIONS. PRESIDENT FOLEY: THANK YOU, MR. CLERK. ARE THERE ANY MESSAGES, REPORTS OR ANNOUNCEMENTS? CLERK: NEW RESOLUTION, SENATOR BURKE HARR OFFERS LR492, MR. PRESIDENT. THAT WILL BE LAID OVER. ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, SENATOR KOLTERMAN, TO BE INSERTED IN THE JOURNAL (RE LB975). THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. (LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL PAGES 1019-1037.) [LR492 LB975] 1 Transcript Prepared By the Clerk of the Legislature Transcriber's Office Floor Debate March 17, 2016 PRESIDENT FOLEY: THANK YOU, MR. CLERK. (VISITORS INTRODUCED.) MR. CLERK, WE'LL NOW PROCEED TO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, LEGISLATIVE CONFIRMATION REPORTS.
    [Show full text]
  • Dehumanization in the Workplace
    Dehumanization in the workplace by Karen Fiorini M.A. (Leadership and Training), Royal Roads University, 2007 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Curriculum Theory and Implementation Program Faculty of Education © Karen Fiorini 2019 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Spring 2019 Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation. Approval Name: Karen Fiorini Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Title: Dehumanization in the workplace Examining Committee: Chair: Laurie Anderson Executive Director, SFU Vancouver Heesoon Bai Senior Supervisor Professor Allan MacKinnon Supervisor Associate Professor Avraham Cohen Supervisor Sessional Adler University Charles Scott Internal Examiner Adjunct Professor John Portelli External Examiner Professor Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto Date Defended/Approved: March 8, 2019 ii Abstract Workplace stress is often referred to as the epidemic of the century. It is so normalized within our society that it often goes unrecognized and unquestioned. This study describes and explores the phenomenon of workplace stress. This study looks at some of the key factors, such as overwork, being undervalued in the workplace, and emotional labour, that contributes to workplace stress. This study makes a case that workplace stress is a cloaked phenomenon for dehumanization. The research starts with theoretical overview of dehumanization through different theoretical constructs, such as instrumentalism and moral disengagement, and also through Haslam's and Montague's models of dehumanization. The theoretical explorations here consider how we have allowed ourselves to become dehumanized and how we have allowed others to be dehumanized.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Proceedings of the Fifteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2021) Uncovering Coordinated Networks on Social Media: Methods and Case Studies Diogo Pacheco,∗1,2 Pik-Mai Hui,∗1 Christopher Torres-Lugo,∗1 Bao Tran Truong,1 Alessandro Flammini,1 Filippo Menczer1 1Observatory on Social Media, Indiana University Bloomington, USA 2Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, UK [email protected],fhuip,torresch,baotruon,aflammin,fi[email protected] Abstract develop software to impersonate users and hide the iden- tity of those who control these social bots — whether they Coordinated campaigns are used to influence and manipulate are fraudsters pushing spam, political operatives amplifying social media platforms and their users, a critical challenge to misleading narratives, or nation-states waging online war- the free exchange of information online. Here we introduce a general, unsupervised network-based methodology to un- fare (Ferrara et al. 2016). Cognitive and social biases make cover groups of accounts that are likely coordinated. The pro- us even more vulnerable to manipulation by social bots: posed method constructs coordination networks based on ar- limited attention facilitates the spread of unchecked claims, bitrary behavioral traces shared among accounts. We present confirmation bias makes us disregard facts, group-think five case studies of influence campaigns, four of which in the and echo chambers distort perceptions of norms, and the diverse contexts of U.S. elections, Hong Kong protests, the bandwagon effect makes us pay attention to bot-amplified Syrian civil war, and cryptocurrency manipulation. In each memes (Weng et al. 2012; Hills 2019; Ciampaglia et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti Bullying and Harrassment
    Updated May 2021 Due for review before March 2024 ANTI BULLYING AND HARRASSMENT SHORT VERSION POLICY Please see the full policy for further detail on our approach to bullying and harassment. At the Film and TV Charity we do not tolerate any form of bullying, harassment, racism or other discrimination, or victimisation. We uphold the following principles: 1. Everyone at the Film and TV Charity is responsible for creating a positive workplace that is inclusive and supportive of all colleagues. 2. We respect one another’s dignity, regardless of role or seniority within the organisation. 3. Everyone has the right to feel safe, welcome and comfortable in their day-to-day work 4. The Film and TV Charity aims to prevent bullying and harassment and ensure that proper process is in place for the reporting and investigation of bullying and harassment if it occurs. 5. You should feel empowered to raise challenges and make complaints if you experience any behaviour that falls below this standard, and be supported and protected to do so as we understand that this can be a difficult experience. What is bullying, harassment and victimisation? Bullying is unwanted behaviour that makes someone feel uncomfortable. Sometimes bullying is classed as harassment, Bullying and harassment may be which is against the law and has a legal definition physical, verbal or non-verbal. It under the Equality Act (2010). may be conducted in person, remotely (e.g. on a telephone call or Harassment is unwanted behaviour related to video call) or by letter, email, text ‘protected characteristics’ that has either violated messaging or via social media.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supervisor/Hr Newsletter
    THE SUPERVISOR/HR NEWSLETTER HELPFUL RESOURCES FROM YOUR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGraM DEC. 17 Supervisor Excellence Webinar Series December Online Seminar & Leadership Certificate Program Diversity in the Workplace: Below are recordings of the webinars presented so far this year as part Maintaining an Inclusive Environment of this series. Attendance is tracked for both the live and recorded sessions; therefore, viewing the below recordings will count toward the Each member of the workforce brings Leadership Certificate requirement of attending 5 out of the 6 webinars. unique skills, background, and experience vital to the successful organization. A Thinking for Success diverse workforce is a rich source of https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/7693502043189076739 creativity and problem-solving. How to Motivate Your Employees Available on-demand starting https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/1311003071536328962 December 19th at www.deeroakseap.com Five Steps to Building Trust with Your Team https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/3879793188239462914 Advanced Coaching Skills for Leaders https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/741751819608174595 Helpline: (855) 492-3633 Maximizing the Productivity of Your Team Web: www.deeroakseap.com https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/9148304366229275138 Email: [email protected] Cost of Workplace Incivility Can Be a Rude Awakening Bad behavior hurts the bottom line. One manager carries a small, souvenir baseball bat in his back pocket as a symbol of his authority. He never brandishes it, but his boss tolerates it, which sends a message to his employees. Employees call another manager “Black Widow” (behind her back) because she constantly berates her coworkers in front of customers. Employees warned each other that if you did something to upset her, “You’re as good as gone.” And yet there was no consequence for her behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Aversive Racism and the Responsibility of Bystanders Audrey J
    The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm Aversive Why someone did not stop them? racism Aversive racism and the responsibility of bystanders Audrey J. Murrell College of Business Administration, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Received 8 July 2020 Revised 31 July 2020 Accepted 2 August 2020 Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the impact of persistent racial bias, discrimination and racial violence is facilitated by otherwise well-intentioned individuals who fail to act or intercede. Utilizing the aversive racism framework, the need to move beyond awareness raising to facilitate behavioral changes is discussed. Examining the unique lens provided by the aversive racism framework and existing research, the bystander effect provides important insights on recent acts of racial violence such as the murder of Mr. George Floyd. Some promise is shown by the work on effective bystander behavior training and highlights the need for shared responsibility in preventing the outcomes of racial violence and discrimination to create meaningful and long-lasting social change. Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses literature based on the aversive racism framework together with the literature on the bystander effect to understand the factors, conditions and consequences for lack of intervention when the victim is African American. This paper also provides evidence and theory-based recommendations for strategies to change passive bystanders into active allies. Findings – The use of the aversive racism framework provides a powerful lens to help explain the inconsistencies in the bystander effect based on the race of the victim.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Study About the Bystander Effect
    Volume 10 Issue 1 (2021) Why People Stand By: A Comprehensive Study About the Bystander Effect Nitya Ganti1,2 and Sori Baek2 1Basis Independent Silicon Valley, San Jose, CA, USA 2Horizon Academics, Jersey City, NJ, USA ABSTRACT Bystander effect is the phenomenon that describes how, when more people are around, each individual is less likely to intervene. While the bystander effect is an integral part of studying social behaviors and group thinking, the many caveats it presents itself with must be considered. Every situation differs based on location, people, and circumstance, so the idea of the bystander effect is not valid in every scenario, as evidenced by the various counterexamples and contradictory findings researchers have discovered. However, the bystander effect is still very important to study because understanding what encourages/prevents people from helping is critical to decrease the effect of the bystander effect to promote helping behavior. In this paper, we discuss the various factors that affect the prevalence of the bystander effect: perceived physical and social harm to the helper, responsibility diffusion, and perceived helpfulness. Introduction In Queens, New York in 1964, 28-year-old Kitty Genovese was raped and murdered in front of 38 nearby-apartment dwellers (Geyer-Schulz, Ovelgönne, & Sonnenbichler, 2010). Though facts are disputed, it is largely agreed that the first person to call the police as they witnessed this gruesome attack did so over 45 minutes after the incident began. By then, Kitty was already dead. The question of why or how these events could have happened is a timeless one. With so many witnesses, how could such a brutal criminal act go unreported? The answer lies in three words: the bystander effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Rude, Dismissive and Aggressive Communication Between Doctors
    Clinical Medicine 2015 Vol 15, No 6: 541–5 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Sticks and stones: investigating rude, dismissive and aggressive communication between doctors Authors: Victoria Bradley,A Samuel Liddle,B Robert Shaw,C Emily Savage,D Roberta Rabbitts,E Corinne Trim,F Tunji A LasoyeG and Benjamin C WhitelawH Destructive communication is a problem within the NHS; Introduction however previous research has focused on bullying. Rude, Destructive or negative workplace communication is recognised dismissive and aggressive (RDA) communication between 1–4 doctors is a more widespread problem and underinvestigated. to be a problem both in the NHS and other organisations and has attracted concern following recent care scandals such as We conducted a mixed method study combining a survey and 5,6 ABSTRACT focus groups to describe the extent of RDA communication Mid Staffordshire and Morecombe Bay. between doctors, its context and subsequent impact. In total, Negative workplace behaviours encompass a broad spectrum 606 doctors were surveyed across three teaching hospitals in and most of the research on negative communication between doctors has analysed bullying or undermining as a discrete England. Two structured focus groups were held with doctors 7–10 at one teaching hospital. 31% of doctors described being subset. However, relatively little work has been done to subject to RDA communication multiple times per week or describe more widespread rude, dismissive and aggressive (RDA) communication between doctors that can also be more often, with junior and registrar doctors affected twice 11 as often as consultants. Rudeness was more commonly defined as workplace incivility. RDA communication is experienced from specific specialties: radiology, general distinct from bullying which is a more persistent and power- based form of abuse most commonly occurring within a surgery, neurosurgery and cardiology.
    [Show full text]
  • Impoliteness and Rudeness in Sawungkampret Comics by Dwi Koendoro
    Culturalistics: Journal of Cultural, Literary, and Linguistic Studies, [2] (1), [2018], [14-22] Available online at: http://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/culturalistics Article Received: 05/12/2017; Accepted: 05/01/2018; Published: 31/01/2018 Impoliteness and Rudeness in Sawungkampret Comics by Dwi Koendoro Ayu Ida Savitri English Study Program, Faculty of Humanities, Diponegoro University e-mail address: [email protected] Abstract Impoliteness and rudeness are two different terms referring to similar offensive behaviour. The difference of those terms lays on the intention of speaker in doing the offensive behaviour. Culpeper (1996) introduces Impoliteness Theory as something he calls ‘parasite’ of Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory by exposing five super strategies: Bald on Record Impoliteness, Positive Impoliteness, Negative Impoliteness, Sarcasm or Mock Impoliteness, and Withhold Politeness. He also divides impoliteness into three types: Affective, Coercive, and Entertaining. Meanwhile, rudeness is defined as what a speaker said or did –or even not said and done– which offends a hearer and prevents him/her to feel comfortable or convenience with the speaker’s words or acts (Rondina and Workman, 2005:3). It is a kind of negative behaviour which is insensitive or disrespectful reflecting someone’s disregard towards others (Dubrin, 2011:87). In relation with Brown and Levinson (1987) Face Threatening Act (FTA), Beebe (1995) defines rudeness as “an FTA or features of FTA” breaking social interaction norms of the social context of it (in Culpeper, 2011:19). Culpeper (2005) considers impoliteness is done either intentionally or accidentally because impoliteness comes about when: (1) a speaker intentionally hold face-attack communication, or (2) a hearer assumes and/or considers a particular behaviour as “intended face-attacking”, or a combination of (1) and (2)” (in Bousfield and Locher, 2008:131).
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is the Real Bully? Teacher Bullying and Occurrences in Racially-Disparate Classrooms by Patrice W
    PROCTOR RESEARCH BRIEF | MARCH 2021 Who Is the Real Bully? Teacher Bullying and Occurrences in Racially-Disparate Classrooms By Patrice W. Glenn Jones, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Teacher Bullying, which can be defined as any of many malicious abusive behaviors or comments toward a student, has been documented and studied by researchers. These behaviors have profound and long-term negative effects. Many of America’s students can speak to its existence. The research brief highlights teacher bullying and places particular attention on this form of abuse in racially-disparate classrooms. Included within this brief is a review of previous studies on teacher bullying; (b) explanation of associated outcomes of peer bullying; (c) details of connections between student-teacher interaction and the effects of bullying; (d) details related to the relevance of racially-disparate classrooms and racism; and (e) findings from qualitative data of teacher-imposed teasing, bullying, and abuse collected from among randomly selected, Black American college students. Recommendations for action are also provided. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Patrice W. Glenn Jones is the Executive Director of Online Education and Programs at Alabama State University, an assistant professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide, and Visiting Scholar at Rutgers Graduate School of Education. The student-centered virtual learning ecologies specialist is a Jacksonville, Florida native who began her career as a high school teacher and radio air personality. Patrice is also a professional editor and educational program evaluator. With a master’s degree in English from the University of North Florida, an educational specialist degree in information science and learning technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Media and Credibility Indicator: the Effects of Bandwagon and Identity Cues Within Online Health and Risk Contexts
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Communication Communication 2016 Social Media And Credibility Indicator: The Effects Of Bandwagon And Identity Cues Within Online Health And Risk Contexts Xialing Lin University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2016.059 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Lin, Xialing, "Social Media And Credibility Indicator: The Effects Of Bandwagon And Identity Cues Within Online Health And Risk Contexts" (2016). Theses and Dissertations--Communication. 46. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/comm_etds/46 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Communication by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known.
    [Show full text]