NORDICOM-INFORMATION 37 (2015) 3-4: 29-37

James Hawdon, Atte Oksanen & Pekka Räsänen Online Extremism and Online Hate Exposure among Adolescents and Young Adults in Four Nations

Many studies in the social sciences acknowledge that there is an overlap between real and virtual world experiences. While the Internet has opened many new opportu- nities to expand our minds, knowledge and friendship networks, it has also created new types of risks and threats. This notion is especially noteworthy when considering children and young adults. Probably the most distinct negative online behavior that has recently received scholarly is online extremism and hate. This article combines earlier research findings with unique comparative data to add new per- spectives to the understanding of how extremist and hate materials are seen online among young people aged 15 to 30 years old. We examined the rates and the forms of exposure in four countries: Finland, the of America, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Our findings show that exposure to hate material is common in all four nations. Our findings should raise a red flag in the sense that hate appears to be a part of the online experience.

The Internet is used for business, politics, recently garnered scholarly attention is online recreation, education, and scores of other extremism and hate. Numerous researchers pro-social activities; it is also used for document the content, goals, targets, and con- ranging from identity and cyberfraud to sequences of these messages; however, few and terrorism. A growing body studies analyse the extent to which people are of research investigates a variety of criminal exposed to these messages. Even fewer studies behaviours and types of cyber-victimisations, investigate if exposure to online hate and ex- and many scholars note that there is conside- tremism varies by country; in this research we rable overlap between the crimes of the “real attempt to address this gap in the literature. world” and those of the “virtual world”. One We begin with a brief discussion of what form of malevolent online behaviour that has online extremist and hate materials are. We then review recent efforts to account for va- riation in exposure to these materials. Next, James Hawdon, Ph.D., is Professor of so- we report results from surveys of adolescents ciology of Virginia Tech and Director at the and young adults in four nations: Finland, Center for Peace Studies and Violence Pre- the United States, Germany, and the United vention, Blacksburg, VA. Kingdom. We then report statistics on expo- Atte Oksanen, D.Soc Sc., is Professor of so- cial psychology, School of Social Sciences sure rates among young people and the social and Humanities, University of Tampere. media sites where hate materials were seen Pekka Räsänen, D.Soc.Sc.is Professor of and the groups materials were targeted by. We economic sociology at the Department of conclude the article with a discussion of theo- Social Research, University of Turku. retical and practical implications.

29 NORDICOM-INFORMATION 37 (2015) 3-4

Online extremist and ideology and hate materials has been linked hate materials to terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda Online extremist and hate materials are a form and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant of cyberviolence.1 At its core, cyberviolence (ISIL) as they attempt to recruit youth to their includes online materials that express extreme violent causes. views of hatred toward some group. More spe- cifically, it is the use of information commu- Correlates of exposure nication technology (ICT) to “advocate vio- lence against, separation from, of, The limited number of studies analysing expo- 13 about or hostility towards others”.2 sure to online extremists and hate materials Thus, anyone using ICT to devalue others be- have found that exposure typically increases cause of their religion, race, ethnicity, gender, as users enter dangerous places on the Internet sexual orientation, national origin, or some or virtually interact with dangerous people. It other group-defining characteristic is disse- should be noted that this contact with dange- minating online hate or extremist ideas.3 It is rous people does not need to be direct. Unlike similar to cyberbullying, but online extremist offline predatory crimes, which require direct 14 and hate material aim the at a collective interaction between the victim and offender, 15 identity rather than a specific individual. cybercrimes do not require direct contact. Online extremist and hate materials are Rather, the asynchronous nature of the In- disseminated by individuals and organised ternet allows those posting these materials to groups through all of the mechanisms used offend people without direct contact; all that on the Internet: websites, blogs, chat rooms, is needed is to go into the virtual space where file archives, listservers, news groups, internet an offender once posted. communities, online video games, and web Visiting sites that advocate dangerous be- rings.4 Although organised hate groups have haviours increases the likelihood of being ex- used the web since its inception,5 their online posed to these materials. In a study of Finnish presence decreased after 2011.6 Individuals are Facebook users, those who visited websites now the primary sources of these materials, promoting suicide or self-mutilation were largely because groups are more easily detec- more likely to be exposed to online hate mate- 16 ted than are individuals who can easily hide rials than those who did not visit such sites. behind the anonymous nature of the Internet.7 In addition, just as leaving one’s home brings Most online extremist and hate materials individuals into contact with dangerous pe- 17 do not directly advocate violence,8 and ex- ople, using certain websites and services can posure does not necessarily cause trauma or increase exposure. For example, in a study of other ill effects. It is important to note that American youth and young adults, those using many people who post extremist and hate ma- six or more Internet services were nearly twice terials do not consider the material offensive. as likely to view online hate material as were 18 The individuals who post such materials often those who used fewer services. view these materials as “educational” rather Visiting certain sites likely leads to expo- than “criminal.” Indeed, the main reason they sure to extremist and hate materials indirectly post materials is to educate others about their simply because the more websites one visits, group or ideology, recruit like-minded people the greater the likelihood that one of these to their cause, and criticise others for defa- sites will include offensive materials. In cont- ming their group.9 Nevertheless, researchers rast, some behaviours likely bring one into find that exposure to these materials correlates contact with offensive materials more directly. with several negative outcomes. These nega- One’s online associates, for example, would tive effects include diminished levels of trust,10 influence the likelihood of coming into virtual mood swings and ,11 and, on occasion, proximity with potential offenders since offen- violence.12 Recently, exposure to extremist ding and being a victim are highly correlated

30 James Hawdon, Atte Oksanen & Pekka Räsänen for both offline and online victimisation.19 In laws, language barriers, or other a study of young Facebook users, those who cultural factors. It is therefore necessary to produced hate materials were over four times consider if the exposure varies cross-natio- as likely to be exposed to hate materials as nally and, if it does, how. compared to those who did not produce hate To address this gap in the literature, we materials.20 consider exposure in four nations: Finland, In addition, it is well documented that the United States of America (US), Germany, those who are victimised once are more li- and the United Kingdom (UK). These na- kely to be victimised again.21 Moreover, those tions were selected because they are similar victimised offline are at a heightened risk for in a number of respects, but also differ in experiencing online victimisation.22 These important ways. First, they are all relatively correlations are in part because victims parti- wealthy liberal democracies with per capita cipate in activities that occur in the company gross domestic products ranging between of offenders.23 These correlations could also be the 10th highest (US.) and 27th highest (UK)30 a result of target gratifiability.24 That is, some Next, they all rank among the world’s leading victims have characteristics that increase risk nations in ICT use, with the Internet user pe- because they appeal to the wants or desires of netration rates ranging between 84.0 per cent an offender, either tangibly or symbolically.25 in Germany to 91.5 per cent in Finland.31 Interestingly, previous studies of exposure Yet, these nations, while similar in some did not find consistent demographic charac- critical respects, are different in many aspects. teristics related to exposure. For example, For example, they have three distinct types of gender was unrelated to exposure in both a welfare regimes.32 The United Kingdom and study of Finnish Facebook users26 and a study United States are Liberal welfare states; Ger- of young American Internet users.27 Age, ho- many is a Corporatist welfare state; Finland wever, was inversely related to exposure in the is a Social-Democratic welfare state. These American study, but unrelated to exposure in nations also vary in the extent to which they the Finnish study.28 legally protect hate speech. While all of these nations constitutionally guarantee free speech, Germany restricts speech more than the other Exposure in a nations, and the US. restricts it the least.33 cross-national context Finally, these nations have varying levels Although a few studies investigating exposure of tolerance toward , at least as mea- exist, none of these compare exposure rates sured by the Inglehart-Welzel self-expression across nations. It is true that the Internet is scale.34 The UK reports the highest levels of global, and people can access websites and tolerance and Germany has the lowest level services that are hosted in a country different among these four nations. Finland and the US. than the one in which they live; however, have nearly identical levels that are roughly there does seem to be variation in exposure midway between Germany’s and the UK’s. to various online risks across nations. One Therefore, despite these nations’ similarities, of the only studies that deals with the issue important cultural differences exist among of varying rates of cross-national risk is the them that could lead to variation in exposure Cross-national comparison of risks and safety to extremist and hate materials. on the internet.29 At least in Europe, children in countries with more press freedom are more likely to encounter online risk than are Methods and measures those from countries with less press freedom. We collected the data for Finland (n=555) In addition, even among nations that pride and the US. (n=1,033) in the spring of 2013. themselves on press freedoms, there may be The data for Germany (n=978) and the UK varying levels of exposure due to differences in (n=999) were collected approximately one

31 Nordicom-Information 37 (2015) 3-4 year later. The research team originally desig- Results ned the surveys in English, and native Finnish Figure 1 shows the proportions of respondents and German speakers translated the survey who were exposed to online hate material and into Finnish and German, respectively. The who were personally victimised by being tar- surveys were then back-translated into Eng- gets of hate materials. Of the over 3,500 sur- lish and compared with the original surveys. veyed adolescents and young adults, a notable The research team and translators resolved any share witnessed hateful or degrading material. identified discrepancies between the versions. Approximately 53 per cent of Americans, 48 Respondents in each sample were recruited per cent of Finnish and 39 per cent of British from demographically balanced panels of re- respondents said they were exposed to online spondents in each nation. The panels, which hate material. The proportion is somewhat were administered by Survey Sample Interna- lower in Germany with 31 per cent exposed. tional (SSI), consist of potential respondents However, among all survey respondents, far who have previously volunteered to participa- fewer said they had personally been targets of te in research surveys. Panel members were re- hate. Again, the share was highest in the US. cruited through random digit dialling, banner (with 16%), and lowest in Germany (with only 35 ads, and other permission-based techniques. 4%). The proportions of victimised respon- Email invitations were sent to a randomly se- dents are 12 per cent for the UK and 10 per lected sample of panel members stratified to cent for Finland. These findings indicate that mirror each nation’s population between the although exposure to hate material is relatively ages of 15 to 30 on gender and geographic re- common among young people, not many of gion. Only those between the ages of 15 and them have been targets of such material. 30 were selected for the study. This age group Additionally, our focus was to determine was selected because they have the highest where, exactly, the adolescents and young rates of Internet use. adults were exposed to online hate material. It Our primary variable of interest was the is well-known that young people are active extent to which respondents were exposed to online using various social media platforms,36 hate material while online (Hate exposure). we do not necessarily know which one of the- To measure exposure, respondents were as- se can be regarded as potentially dangerous ked, “In the past three months, have you seen across the four countries, but Table 1 provides hateful or degrading writings or speech on- some perspective to this issue. Please note that line, which inappropriately attacked certain the percentages reported in the table are for groups of people or individuals”? The variable those who were exposed to online hate mate- had two response options (yes/no). We are rial (e.g., approximately 53% of the US. sample also interested in personal victimisation ex- and 48% of Finnish respondents). periences (Hate victimisation). This variable The most popular online services were was measured by the following statement, “I also the most common sources of hate ma- have personally been the target of hateful or terial. Facebook was clearly the most com- degrading material online” with response op- mon source for witnessing hate material in all tions (yes/no). countries. Similarly, YouTube was consistently In addition to exposure to online hate the second most common source of exposure, among adolescents and young adults in the although it was a distant second in all four four countries, we examined the online ser- nations. Otherwise, the prevalence of hate vices on which the respondents saw hate material in different online sites tends to vary material and the specific groups these hate from country to country. For example, inte- materials targeted. For the sake of simplicity, resting differences by country were observed we will present all of our findings below using when comparing Twitter and general message descriptive statistics. boards. Over 20 per cent of those exposed to

32 James Hawdon, Atte Oksanen & Pekka Räsänen

Figure 1. Exposure and personal victimisation to online hate by country (per cent)

100

80

60

40

20

0 Finland US. Germany UK

Hate victimization Hate exposure Note: The numbers of observations are Finland=555, US.=1,033, Germany=987, UK=999. online hate in the UK and the US. witnessed sites are probably used for diverse purposes in such material on Twitter. The comparable fi- different countries. gure in Germany was only 8 per cent, and it We also examined who, or what characte- was only 4 per cent in Finland. At the same ristic, was targeted in the online hate mate- time, more than 41 per cent of Finnish re- rials. Again, these questions were examined spondents who were exposed to hate content only for those who reported that they had wit- witnessed such material on general discussion nessed hateful or degrading material. Table 2 boards. The proportions were less than 20 per shows the proportions of respondents who cent in all other countries. In our opinion, saw hate material about each targeted groups. these findings reflect, in part, the fact that As the table shows, in all four countries, most young consumers in different nations tend to hate materials focused on sexual orientation be active in different media. Moreover, various and ethnicity. Political views were also com-

Table 1. Hate exposure in SNS sites and online environments by those exposed to hate material (per cent)

Finland US. Germany UK Facebook 48 63 77 64 YouTube 37 48 44 37 Twitter 4 21 9 26 Tumblr 3 14 4 13 Wikipedia 2 5 4 5 General message board 41 19 15 15 Newspaper message boards 22 6 14 7 Blogs 16 13 8 8 Home pages 5 5 6 2 Photosharing sites (e.g., Instagram) 4 7 3 4 Online games 5 6 5 4 Instant messengers 2 4 4 4 Pop-up sites 2 6 2 5

Note: The numbers of observations are Finland=266, US.=551, Germany=299; UK=387.

33 Nordicom-Information 37 (2015) 3-4

Table 2. Target of hate as witnessed by those exposed to hate material (per cent)

Finland US. Germany UK Sexual Orientation 63 61 50 55 Ethnicity 67 60 48 57 Political Views 29 48 36 31 Religious Conviction/Belief 40 45 44 43 Gender 25 44 20 44 Physical Appearance 44 41 31 39 Physical 17 13 17 18 Terrorism 18 22 15 19 School Shootings 9 21 6 10 Misanthropy or General Hatred of People 23 18 28 16

Note: The numbers of observations are Finland=266, US.=551, Germany=299, UK=387. mon targets of hate, although there were con- have documented the growth of hate groups siderable differences by country. In the US., and hate material online, few have tracked 48 per cent of respondents noted that they if these groups and this material are actually had seen hate targeting political views, while seen, read, or heard. Using a unique sample of in Germany the proportion was 36 per cent; it young Finns, Americans, Germans and Brits was approximately 30 per cent in both Finland ages fifteen to thirty, we attempted to answer and the UK. Another difference can be noted that question. Our results show that exposure regarding hate material targeting school shoo- to hate material is common in all four nations. tings. In the US., hateful material targeting This finding should raise a red flag in the sense school shootings was witnessed by over 20 per that hate appears to be a part of the online cent of respondents, while fewer than ten per experience. cent saw this type of hate material in all other The United States is famous for legally pri- countries. This finding is likely due to the fact vileging the freedom of speech, even if this that the US. has witnessed more school shoo- leads to greater protection for hate speech.38 In tings than any other nation in the world.37 part because of the relative lenient approach to hate speech in the United States, nume- rous prominent and organised hate groups Discussion operate there, and many of these groups are The Internet revolutionised social interaction, active online.39 Our findings are also notewor- and increasing numbers of youth now spend a thy in the European context. Finnish young considerable amount of time online. While the people report seeing hate material more than Internet has opened countless opportunities to German and British young people. Although expand our minds, experiences, and friend- exact comparisons do not exist, Finland has ship networks, it has also created new risks been reported as being a leading country in and threats. Online extremism and online hate terms of both user activity and exposure to material are one such threat. In this article, we online risks.40 investigated exposure to online hate material Most of the hate material was seen in the among adolescents and young adults, as well most popular social media sites such as Fa- as the online services on which they saw such cebook and YouTube, but our results show material. Additionally, we examined the spe- that this kind of material was also relatively cific groups these materials targeted. common in different discussion boards. In ad- Our research contributes to a growing dition, in the UK and US., Twitter users report literature about online, or viral, hate and seeing this kind of material frequently. This extremism. While a number of researchers might be due to the fact that there is currently

34 James Hawdon, Atte Oksanen & Pekka Räsänen an increase in both overall Twitter usage and As others have noted,41 online hate is dif- the amount of hate related extremist material ficult to control and laws are likely to be inef- uploaded and shared on Twitter. Our results fective. Not only do producers of online hate also show that the hate material encountered material invoke their right to free speech, laws by our respondents most commonly targeted banning viral hate are extremely difficult to sexual orientation, ethnicity or nationality, enforce. We believe our findings regarding physical appearance, gender, religious beliefs, the extent to which youth are exposed to this and disability. While there were some simila- material should serve as a warning for all aut- rities across nations regarding what was tar- horities concerned about the potential threat geted for hateful expressions, notable country posed by online hate and extremism. differences existed.

Notes 36. e.g., Lehdonvirta & Räsänen, 2011. 1. e.g., Wall, 2001; Hawdon et al., 2014. 37. e.g., Hawdon et al., 2012; Sandberg et al., 2014. 2. Franklin, 2010, p. 2. 38. See Allen and Norris, 2011; Bleich, 2011. 3. See Hawdon et al., 2014; Oksanen et al., 2014. 39. See Walker, 1994; Hawdon et al., 2014. 4. Amster, 2009; Douglas, 2007; Franklin, 2010. 40. Lobe et al., 2011. 5. See Amster, 2009; Douglas, 2007; McNamee et al., 41. e.g., Foxman and Wolf, 2013. 2010. 6. Potok, 2015. 7. Potok, 2015. References 8. Douglas et al., 2005; Gerstenfeld et al., 2003; McNa- Allen, Jennifer, & Norris, George (2011). Is mee et al., 2010. different? Dealing with hate speech in a post-ge- 9. See Douglas, 2007; Gerstenfeld et al., 2003; McNa- nocide society. Journal of international law and mee et al., 2010. international relations, 7, 146-174. 10. Näsi et al., 2015. Amster, Sara-Ellen (2009). From birth of a nation to 11. Tynes et al., 2004; Tynes, 2006. stormfront: A century of communicating hate. In 12. Daniels, 2008; Foxman & Wolf, 2013; Freilich el al., Barbara Perry, Brian Levin, Paul Iganski, Randy 2011. Blazak, & Frederick Lawrence (Eds.), Hate Crimes 13. E.g., Hawdon et al., 2014; Räsänen et al., 2015. (pp. 221-247). Westport, CT.: Greenwood Publis- 14. Cohen & Felson, 1979. hing Group. 15. See Reyns et al., 2011. Augustine, Michelle Campbell; Wilcox, Pamela; Ousey, 16. Räsänen et al., 2015. Graham C., & Clayton Richard R. (2002). Opportu- 17. Cohen & Felson, 1979. nity theory and adolescent school-based victimiza- 18. Hawdon et al., 2014. tion. Violence and victims, 17(2), 233-253. 19. e.g., Jennings et al., 2012; Bossler & Holt, 2009; Bleich, Erik (2011). The rise of hate speech and hate Holt & Bossler, 2008; Holtfreter et al., 2008. laws in liberal democracies. Journal of Ethnic 20. Räsänen et al., 2015. and Migration Studies, 37(6), 917-934. 21. See Fagan & Mazerolle, 2011; Reyns et al., 2013. Bossler, Adam M. & Holt, Thomas J. (2009). On-line 22. Helweg-Larsen et al., 2012; Hinduja & Patchin, activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An 2010; Oksanen & Keipi, 2013; Räsänen et al., 2015. examination of routine activities theory. Internatio- 23. Cohen & Felson, 1979. nal Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), 400–420. 24. For a discussion see Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996. Cohen, Lawrence E., & Felson, Marcus (1979). Social 25. Augustine et al., 2002; Hawdon, 2014. change and crime rate trends: A routine activity 26. Oksanen et al., 2014. approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 27. Hawdon et al., 2014. 588-608 28. Hawdon et al., 2014; Oksanen et al., 2014. Daniels, Jessie (2008). Civil rights, and hate speech 29. Lobe et al., 2011. in the digital era. In Anna Everett (Ed.), Learning 30. International Monetary Fund 2015. race and ethnicity: Youth and digital media (pp. 31. International Telecommunication Union, 2014. 129-154). Boston: The MIT Press. 32. See Esping-Andersen, 1990. Douglas, Karen M. (2007). Psychology, discrimina- 33. See Allen & Norris, 2011; Bleich, 2011. tion and hate groups online. In Adam N. Joinson, 34. See Inglehart, 2006; World Value Survey, 2014. Katelyn Y.A. McKenna, Tom Postmes, & Ulf Die- 35. Lorch, 2012; see also Näsi et al., 2014. trich Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of inter-

35 Nordicom-Information 37 (2015) 3-4

net psychology (pp. 155-164). New York: Oxford theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Be- University Press. havior, 30(1), 1-25. Douglas, Karen M.; McGarty, Craig; Bliuc, Ana-Maria, Holtfreter, Kristy; Reisig, Michael D., & Pratt, Travis & Girish Lala (2005). Understanding cyberhate: C. (2008). Low self‐control, routine activities, and Social competition and social creativity in online fraud victimization. Criminology, 46(1), 189-220. white supremacist groups. Social Science Computer Inglehart, Ronald (2006). Inglehart-Welzel cultural Review. 23(1), 68-76. map of the world. (World Values Survey). Retrieved Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1990). The three worlds of from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton Univer- International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2014). sity Press. Percent of individuals using the Internet. Retrieved Fagan, Abigail A., & Mazerolle, Paul (2011). Repeat from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pag- offending and repeat victimization: Assessing simi- es/stat/default.aspx. larities and differences in psychosocial risk factors. Jennings, Wesley G.; Piquero, Alex R., & Reingle, Jen- Crime & Delinquency, 57(5), 732-755. nifer M. (2012). On the overlap between victim- Finkelhor, David, & Asdigian, Nancy L. (1996). Risk ization and offending: A review of the literature. factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyle/ and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 16-26. routine activities theory approach. Violence and Lehdonvirta, Vili, & Räsänen, Pekka (2011). How do Victims, 11(1) 3-19. young people identify with online and offline peer Foxman, Abraham H., & Wolf, Christopher (2013). groups? A comparison between UK, Spain and Ja- Viral hate: Containing its spread on the Internet. pan. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(1), 91-108. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Lobe, Bojana; Livingstone, Sonia; Ólafsson, Kjartan, & Franklin, Raymond A. (2010). The hate directory. Re- Vodeb, Hana (2011). Cross-national comparison of trieved from http://www.hatedirectory.com/ha- risks and safety on the Internet: Initial analysis from tedir.pdf the EU Kids Online Survey of European Children. Freilich, Joshua D.; Belli, Roberta, & Chermak, Steven Deliverable D6. EU Kids Online, London: UK. M. (2011). United States extremist crime database Lorch, Jackie (2012). Sample blending: 1 + 1 > 2. Re- (ECDB) 1990-2010. Retrieved from http://www. trieved from https://www.surveysampling.com/ start.umd.edu/research-projects/united-states-ex- ssi-media/Corporate/White%20Paper%202012/ tremist-crime-database-ecdb-1990-2010 SSI-Sample-Blending Gerstenfeld, Phyllis B.; Grant, Diana R., & Chiang, McNamee, Lacy G., Peterson, Brittany L., & Peña, Chau-Pu (2003). Hate online: A content analysis Jorge (2010). A call to educate, participate, invoke of extremist Internet sites. Analysis of Social Issues and indict: Understanding the communication of and Public Policy, 3(1), 29-44. online hate groups. Communication Monographs, Hawdon, James; Oksanen, Atte, & Räsänen, Pekka 77(2), 257-280. (2012). Media coverage and solidarity after trag- Näsi, Matti; Räsänen, Pekka; Oksanen, Atte; Hawdon, edies: The reporting of school shootings in two James; Keipi, Teo, & Holkeri, Emma (2014). Asso- nations. Comparative Sociology, 11(6), 845-874. ciation between online and exposure Hawdon, James (2014). Group violence revisited: to harmful online content: A cross-national com- Common themes across types of group violence. parison between the United States and Finland. In James Hawdon, John Ryan, & Marc Luch (Eds.), Computers in Human Behavior, 41(2), 137-145. The causes and consequences of group violence: From Näsi, Matti; Räsänen, Pekka; Hawdon, James; Holkeri, bullies to terrorists (pp. 241-254), Lanham, MD.: Emma, & Oksanen, Atte (2015). Exposure to online Lexington Books. hate material and social trust among Finnish youth. Hawdon, James; Oksanen, Atte & Räsänen, Pekka Information, Technology and People, 28(3), 607-622. (2014). Victims of online hate groups: American Oksanen, Atte, & Keipi, Teo (2013). Young people youth’s exposure to . In James as victims of crime on the Internet: A popula- Hawdon, John Ryan, & Marc Lucht (Eds.), The tion-based study in Finland. Vulnerable Children causes and consequences of group violence: From & Youth Studies. 8(4), 298-309. bullies to terrorists (pp. 165-182). Lanham, MD.: Oksanen, Atte; Hawdon, James; Holkeri, Emma; Näsi, Lexington Books. Matti, & Räsänen, Pekka (2014). Exposure to on- Helweg-Larsen Karin; Schütt, Nina, & Larsen, Helmer line hate among young social media users. Socio- Bøving (2012). Predictors and protective factors for logical Studies of Children & Youth, 18, 253-273. adolescent Internet victimization: Results from a Potok, Mark (2015). The year in hate and extremism. 2008 nationwide Danish youth survey. Acta Pae- (Intelligence Report 151). Retrieved from https:// diatrica, 101(5), 533-539. www.splcenter.org/intelligence-report. Hinduja, Sameer, & Patchin, Justin W. (2010). Bully- Reyns, Brad.; Henson, Billy. & Fisher, Bonnie (2011). ing, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Being pursued online applying cyberlifestyle– Research, 14(3), 206-221. Routine activities theory to cyberstalking victi- Holt, Thomas J., & Bossler, Adam M. (2008). Exami- mization. Criminal justice and behavior, 38(11), ning the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities 1149-1169.

36 James Hawdon, Atte Oksanen & Pekka Räsänen

Reyns, Brad; Burek, Melissa; Henson, Billy, & Fisher, Selected international publications Bonnie (2013). The unintended consequences of Keipi, Teo; Oksanen, Atte, & Räsänen, Pekka (2015). digital technology: Exploring the relationship bet- Who prefers anonymous self-expression online? A ween sexting and cybervictimization. Journal of survey-based study of Finns aged 15 to 30. Infor- Crime and Justice, 36(1), 1-17. mation, Communication & Society, 18(6), 717-732. Räsänen, Pekka; Hawdon, James; Holkeri, Emma; Näsi, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.991342. Matti; Keipi, Teo, & Oksanen, Atte (Forthcoming). Keipi, Teo; Oksanen, Atte; Hawdon, James; Näsi, Targets of online hate: Examining determinants Matti, & Räsänen, Pekka (2015). Harm-advoca- of victimization among young Finnish Facebook ting online content and subjective well-being: users. Violence and Victims. A cross-national study of new risks faced by Sandberg, Sveinung, Oksanen, Atte, Berntzen, Lars youth. Journal of Risk Research, online first, DOI: Erik & Kiilakoski, Tomi (2014). Stories in action: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1100660. The cultural influences of school shootings on the Minkkinen, Jaana; Oksanen, Atte; Kaakinen, Markus; terrorist attacks in Norway. Critical Studies on Ter- Keipi, Teo; Näsi, Matti & Räsänen, Pekka (2015). rorism, 7(2), 277-296. Does social belonging to primary groups protect Tynes, Brendesha (2006). Children, adolescents, and young people from the effects of pro-suicide sites? the culture of online hate. In, Nancy E. Dowd, Do- A comparative study of four countries. Crisis: The rothy G. Singer, & Robin Fretwell Wilson (Eds.), Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention Handbook of children, culture, and violence (pp. (accepted for publication in July 2015). 267-289). New York: Sage. Näsi, Matti; Oksanen, Atte; Keipi, Teo, & Räsänen, Pek- Tynes, Brendesha, Reynolds, Lindsay, & Greenfield, ka (2015.) Cybercrime victimization among young Patricia M. (2004). Adolescence, race and ethni- people: A multi-national study. Journal of Scandina- city on the Internet: A comparison of discourse in vian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, monitored and unmonitored chat rooms. Journal of early online, DOI: 10.1080/14043858.2015.1046640 Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 667-684. Näsi, Matti, Räsänen, Pekka; Hawdon, James; Holkeri, Wall, Davis S. (2001). Crime and the Internet. New Emma, & Oksanen, Atte (2015). Exposure to online York: Routledge. hate material and social trust among Finnish youth. World Value Survey. (2014). Retrieved from http:// Information Technology & People, 28(3), 607-628. www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp DOI: 10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0198. Näsi, Matti; Räsänen, Pekka; Oksanen, Atte; Hawdon, James; Keipi, Teo, & Holkeri, Emma (2014). As- Related Project sociation between online harassment and exposure Hate Communities: A Cross-National Comparison to harmful online content: A cross-national com- Principal investigators: Professors Atte Oksanen, Uni- parison between the United States and Finland. versity of Tampere, Finland and Pekka Räsänen Computers in Human Behavior, 41(December), University of Turku, Finland. 137-145. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.019. Researchers: Dr. Matti Näsi, Dr. Teo Keipi, M.Soc. Oksanen, Atte; Hawdon, James; Holkeri, Emma; Näsi, Sc. Markus Kaakinen, Dr. Vili Lehdonvirta (Febru- Matti, & Räsänen, Pekka (2014). Exposure to on- ary-May 2013), L.L.M. Emma Holkeri (February line hate among yong social media users. Sociologi- 2013-January 2014). cal Studies of Children & Youth, 18, 253-273. DOI: Collaborators: James Hawdon, Virginia Tech, the US.; 10.1108/S1537-466120140000018021 Vili Lehdonvirta, Oxford Internet Institute, Uni- Oksanen, Atte, Hawdon, J., & Räsänen, Pekka (2014). versity of Oxford, UK, and Frank Robertz, Bran- Glamorizing rampage Online: school shooting fan denburg Applied University for Police, Germany. communities on YouTube. Technology in Society, Funding: Kone Foundation, February 2013-July 2016 39, 55-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.08.001 (€231,550). The project is a seminal study of hatred Oksanen, Atte; Räsänen, Pekka; & Hawdon, James and violence on the Internet and the role online (2014). Hate groups: From offline to online social hate plays in the lives of youth in a broad sense. The identifications. In James Hawdon, John Ryan & project surveys online activities of 15 to 30-year- Marc Lucht (Eds.), The causes and consequences of old Finns, Americans, Germans and Britons, their group violence: From bullies to terrorists (pp. 21.47). familiarity with and participation in online hate Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books – Rowman groups, their vulnerability to the groups’ rheto- & Littlefield. rical techniques, and their attitudes and beliefs Räsänen, Pekka; Hawdon, James; Holkeri, Emma; Näsi, about them. Matti; Keipi, Teo, & Oksanen, Atte (2015). Targets of online hate: Examining determinants of victi- mization among Young Finnish Facebook Users. Violence & Victims (accepted for publication in May 2015).

37