Theorizing Criminality and Policing in the Digital Media Age

Julie B. Wiest

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781839091131
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Sponsored by the Communication, Information Technologies, and Media Sociology section of the American Sociological Association (CITAMS), this volume in Emerald Studies in Media and Communications features social science research on criminality, policing, and mass media in the digital age. Chapters offer empirically supported studies that expand on knowledge about new possibilities for crime and policing, representations of criminality via digital media, and methodological considerations for contemporary studies of crime and media.
Criminality, policing, and mass media are enduring topics in studies of the social world, and scholarly advances in these areas are particularly pertinent in times of social and cultural change. The digital revolution that began in post-industrial societies has affected, to varying extents, most nations in the world, introducing new opportunities for crime commission and law enforcement, transforming social structures and organization, and altering norms and practices of social interaction. Each chapter offers empirically supported insights into the new and evolving landscape of criminality and policing. Scholars address emerging patterns and practices such as technologically mediated intimate partner violence, digitally altered pornography and its consequences, and algorithm-supported methods of policing; representations of criminals and law enforcement in international news and entertainment media; and research methods for studying crime and media in a changing world.

SECTION I

NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR CRIMINALS AND POLICE

CHAPTER 1

DOES EXPOSURE MATTER? MEDIA, EDUCATION, AND EXPERIENCE AFFECTING TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED ABUSE KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING, AND SEVERITY-PERCEPTIONS

Jessica J. Eckstein and Ruth Quattro

ABSTRACT

Purpose: This study explored technology-mediated abuse (TMA) by looking at the influence of topic exposure via education (in/formal), media (non/fictional), and personal experiences (self/close others) in shaping public knowledge, understandings, and perceptions of TMA.

Methodology: Community-sampled respondents (N = 551; n = 235 men, 263 women; aged 18–81 years, M = 27.42, SD = 12.31) reported their TMA awareness and topic exposure (n = 110; 20% of the total sample indicated prior exposure).

Findings: Results indicated TMA knowledge, understanding, and perceptions varied by prior sources of topic exposure. This suggests that TMA is a crime varying in public awareness and perceived repercussions.

Research limitations: Open-ended responses, although ideal for exploratory studies such as this one, limit the scope and power of quantitative analyses. Future work should test the current study’s conclusions in a generalizable, random sample via closed-item surveys.

Originality/value: Present findings elucidate which societal forces and education types are best suited for helping people understand TMA in all its complexity. Such understanding allows for practical considerations of the comparative in/effectiveness of formal curriculum and media in shaping cognitions regarding TMA victimization.

Keywords: Computer-mediated communication; entertainment education; intimate partner violence; partner violence; primary prevention curriculum; public awareness

More than 112 million people will experience severe psychological aggression from a romantic partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011), with partner-perpetrated physical assault, rape, and/or stalking experienced at least once in the lifetimes of over 42.4 million women (35.6% of females) and 32.2 million men (28.5% of males) in the United States (US). Increasingly, technology is harnessed (both legally and illegally) by perpetrators to control, harass, stalk, and violate romantic partners – a phenomenon known as technology-mediated abuse (TMA). Because societal treatment of this crime exacerbates victims’ stigma, reducing their support and/or coping resources, it is imperative to study public perceptions and/or knowledge regarding the topic. Doing so can increase the efficacy/availability of victim resources and hone the legal status of TMA. Many domestic violence behaviors are criminal, but many others (particularly those that are digitally perpetrated) remain lawful (Commander, 2018). Thus, policy adaptations to evolving technologies depend on public understandings (Palazzolo & Roberto, 2011). Research shows popular TMA-perceptions are influenced by media coverage, education, and/or personal experiences (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2014), making these three potential information sources essential for study.

Considering this social change potential (i.e., to affect criminal policies regarding TMA victims), we examined which/how exposure sources influence public TMA-comprehension in terms of participants’ TMA knowledge, understanding, and perceptions of severity. To frame this study, we first consider what is known regarding TMA and how people’s impressions of it may be affected by their exposures to media (fictional and nonfiction), education (formal and informal), and personal experiences (self and close-others). We conclude by discussing results of a self-report study of these factors.

TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED ABUSE (TMA)

The technological boom has been a boon for victims’ help-seeking (Finn & Banach, 2000), but its criminal, relational uses remain victims’ bane. Given the extent, forms, and nature of digitally perpetrated abuse, TMA is more than just a tool or mediator of abuse/rs (see Eckstein, 2020). It is both uniquely complex and distinctively shaped by societal norms.

TMA’s Complexity

Intimate partner violence describes relationships in which verbal, psychological, or physical abuse; coercive control; and/or intrusive tactics are used to dominate, scare, and/or harm romantic partners. Technologies have long been used to perpetrate stalking or invasion (e.g., calling incessantly or audio/video bugging) and perpetuate fear and control. However, in the last few decades, exponentially increasing usability/access and decreasing costs have allowed its use in ways not previously imagined (e.g., location services, geotagging, and remote home management).

Abuse occurs in varied forms via many technologies. One commonly studied violation is cyberstalking, generally known as technology-facilitated, unwelcome, persistent, psychologically abusive behaviors of which victims are aware. Outside digital arenas, “stalking” implies being somewhat removed from the surveilled party; when facilitated online, it achieves goals previously necessitating perpetrators’ presence. Because “cyberstalking” references both relational partners and strangers (groups with differing dynamics) and does not account for technology used to abuse in other ways (i.e., beyond stalking tactics), we focus on the broader TMA concept, which includes surveillance, emotional attack, and/or intrusion and more/less invasive/direct abuse methods typical in intimate relationships (see Eckstein, 2020).

TMA tactics are certainly used against strangers or acquaintances, but we focus on romantic contexts as unique, with dynamic, historically shared experiences involving commitments and distinct patterns/norms/rules guiding them (Stafford & Canary, 2006). As such, TMA used in abusive romantic relationships may extend in-person abuse methods and/or injure or control partners in ways not possible with technology used to harm strangers/acquaintances. With TMA, one tool serves multiple purposes (e.g., attack, control, monitor) with overlapping victim outcomes (e.g., fear, coercion, anxiety), all dependent on the unique relational history of that dyad (Eckstein, 2020). However, not everyone understands TMA similarly (Davies, 2019).

People perceive digital behaviors differently depending on the relationship’s type, status, and members. Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, and Knox (2011) found that, regardless of their texting views while in a “healthy” relationship, young adults’ perceptions of texting (at the same frequency as before) changed when they broke up; the same repetitive messaging once considered acceptable was viewed as “cyberstalking” when relationships ended. The line between what is acceptable or intrusive is often unclear, but such sender/target “confusion” is particularly problematic when used to abuse (or even perceived that way). An identically worded “romantic” message can become “scary” the next day, for example, depending on what transpires.

Adding to victimization’s complexity is the stigma toward those who experience it. Stigma is constructed societally and alters people’s views of and reaction toward others (Goffman, 1963) by producing in/out groups, the latter risking social repercussions like ostracization, shame, and resource exclusion (Phelan, Link, & Dovidio, 2008). How people think about a topic – particularly one as fraught as criminal intimate behavior – in/directly shapes those stigmatized. Education is believed to reduce stigma, but that only works if prejudicial beliefs/practices are not further perpetuated (Kang & Inzlicht, 2012). This means that to address a problem – whether through heightened awareness, legal repercussions, or social support – public awareness of the issue first must be understood.

Public Cognitions on Complex Topics

Beyond its potential to facilitate harm, technology itself also reflexively shapes society’s view of it. Media used in formal, education settings and informal, entertainment contexts influence people’s impressions of romantic relationships (Kretz, 2019), sex and gender norms (Hust et al., 2017), and norms for healthy interpersonal behaviors (Galloway, Engstrom, & Emmers-Sommer, 2015; Lippman, 2015). What is unknown are the comparative influences of different exposure sources on topic understanding. Knowing how people perceive TMA is a crucial step toward addressing the problem.

There are many ways to conceptualize comprehension. To capture nuance in people’s familiarity with a topic, we differentiate knowledge from understanding. Knowledge is concept awareness; people’s ability to label an occurrence is indicative of one knowledge type (Rosch, 1978), and knowledge is illustrated by amount, specificity, and variety (breadth) of communication. Understanding refers to connections among underlying concepts that make up a construct (Assilamehou & Teste, 2012). When knowledge categorization interacts with personal perceptions (i.e., connotative meanings), it leads to nuanced cognitions producing understanding (Kelly, 1955). Whereas knowledge is largely knowing something exists and being able to identify cases of it, understanding goes critically deeper to forge associations, contexts, and potential outcomes or applications of a concept (Bannister & Mair, 1968).

Both knowledge and understanding are affected by prior exposures. For example, Oliver, Sargent, and Weaver (1998) showed that those exposed to gender-specific environments early on who then viewed TV violence were desensitized, with lowered ability to identify partner violence. Someone may identify (i.e., have knowledge of) TMA as a crime, but where TMA is culturally normalized, public understandings and perceptions of its deviance may be affected. In other words, we must ascertain not just if people know about something, but also what they know about it.

Noted previously, TMA is still not fully explored – let alone understood – by professional practitioners and researchers, so laic understandings vary. It seems unrealistic to expect the public to properly deal with an issue in the face of nonexistent, inaccessible, contradicting, and/or blatantly wrong information. Nor would it be appropriate to assign causality of perceptions to the public if/when they receive their information from particular sources. Because the extent of TMA topic exposure is unknown, we first asked:

RQ1: What is the extent (and nature) of a US sample’s TMA topic exposure?

Exposure Variety

Three main exposure sources influence people in modern society: (a) education, including formal schooling and informal community programs; (b) media, including fictional and nonfiction fo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• List of Contributors
• About the Authors
• Acknowledgments
• Editor’s Introduction
• Section I. New Opportunities for Criminals and Police
• Section II. Digital Media Representations of Criminality and Policing
• Section III. Studying Criminality and Policing in the Digital Media Age
• Index