Online Misconduct Behaviours

The online misconduct behaviours are represented by a series of 10 vignette scenarios that were created specifically for this study. These involve a third party engaging in a hypothetical scenario which is assessed in follow-up questions. Vignettes have been validated for investigating morality variables, and are an effective measurement tool for exploring deviance and other sensitive topics due to the hypothetical nature which does not incriminate the

respondent for past behaviours (Gattiker & Kelley, 1999). As such, third person vignette techniques may reduce both conscious biases such as social desirability by avoiding direct questions and instead assessing underlying attitudes, as well as removing potential judgement of past delinquency (Alexander & Becker, 1978; Burstin et al., 1980; Choong et al., 2002; Constant et al., 1994; Havlena & Holbrook, 1986; Lewis-Beck et al., 2003; Sanders et al., 2013). In order to also prevent a gender bias in responding, the names of the individual doing the behaviours in the vignettes have been selected from common unisex names (Burstin et al., 1980).

For the present study, online misconduct is conceptualized generally as bad behaviour online or more specifically as minor or major transgressions that are commonly deemed as wrong or improper, and cross either social or legal boundaries. This flexible term is created for this study and explicitly defines online misconduct behaviours for the use in the data analyses. Diverse misbehaviours are consolidated under the term ‘online misconduct’ as a way to explore many different combinations that are not typically presented together in the literature, that range in terms of severity and legality. These specific 10 behaviours serve as important variables in the study and include both interpersonal and individual actions on the internet: cyber-stalking, digital piracy, trolling, flaming, online deception, cyber-vandalism, internet addiction, reading others’ emails, misuse of digital information, and online sexual pushiness. The behaviours have been selected due to their potential relevance to psychopathic traits in the sense that many of these actions are carried out in varying ways that appear to be reflective of reduced empathy and/or heightened manipulativeness and impulsivity. Table 4 (below) outlines the 10 vignettes that represent each of the online misconduct behaviours included as variables in the present study.

Table 4. Vignettes Representing the Online Misconduct Behaviours

Online Misconduct Behaviour Vignette Situation

Cyber-Stalking

Addison broke up with a long-term romantic partner and started surveilling or creeping their Facebook profile very frequently to see what they had been doing and who they had been seeing since the breakup.

Digital Piracy

Sydney discovered a website which allows sharing and downloading media files without the creator's permission. Sydney then downloaded a copy of a new movie made by a high budget production company and shared it with friends and family members.

Trolling

Jamie was participating in a discussion on an online message board and thought it would be fun to derail and disrupt the conversation. Jamie deliberately started arguments and posted off-topic or inflammatory comments that would upset others.

Flaming

Jesse was on Facebook and noticed a recent photo was uploaded by someone who they did not like very much. Jesse replied with mean and insulting comments to the person's post in order to make them feel bad.

Online Deception

Hayden gave false information on an online dating website in order to seem more appealing to potential partners. Hayden's occupation on the profile is now listed as doctor instead of bartender.

Cyber-Vandalism

Casey is a skilled computer engineer. Casey writes some code that changes the format, colour, and text of the website of a large commercial corporation as protest to the company's new policy changes.

Internet Addiction

Jordan discovered a new online computer game and started to play for many hours per day. Jordan made the game a priority and played without paying much attention to other obligations. There were concerns voiced about the gaming affecting Jordan's work and marriage.

Reading Others' Emails

Cameron goes to the library to use the computer and sees that the previous user forgot to sign out of their email account. Cameron reads several emails before logging out.

Misuse of Digital Information

Peyton found a sheet of paper with a username and password for an online dating website. For fun, Peyton logged into the account to see the private details of the person's profile as well as their browsing history on the website. Peyton then logged out and destroyed the paper.

Online Sexual Pushiness

Taylor was visiting an online chatroom and started talking with another person. Taylor started flirting and requested some pictures of the person. Taylor then sent them repeated sexual messages and asked them to "hook up". Despite being turned down multiple times, Taylor continued to pursue this person while they were online.

Note: All vignettes were linked to questions regarding the respondents' acceptability and tendency toward the online misconduct behaviour that were answered on 4-point Likert scales

Following the scenarios, the respondents are asked two follow-up questions about moral acceptability and behavioural tendencies toward the misconduct: a) how acceptable is the individual’s behaviour, and b) how likely would the respondent be to behave in a similar manner as the individual? These questions utilize a 4-point scale without a neutral option in order to encourage participants to take a stance. The Likert-type response anchors for each question are based on the wording of Vagias (2006), such that acceptability ranges from 1=“Totally Unacceptable” to 4=“Perfectly Acceptable”, and tendency ranges from 1=“Extremely Unlikely” to 4=“Extremely Likely”. Ultimately, the vignette questions represent the variables of acceptability and tendencies toward online misconduct behaviours, which will be elaborated now. Comparing moral/ethical dimensions and behavioural intentions of online misconduct behaviours was previously validated by McMahon and Cohen (2009).

Online Misconduct Acceptability (OMA). Respondents are given a hypothetical dilemma and asked to answer the question: “How acceptable is Addison’s behaviour?” with the 4-point Likert options for acceptability. Each of the 10 misconduct behaviours is first measured individually in terms of acceptability for analyses as unique dependent variables. Secondly, all 10 of the misconduct behaviours are added together for analysis as a composite score of overall/average online misconduct acceptability (OMA). This composite score has a range between 10 (minimum), representing complete unacceptability, and 40 (maximum), which represents complete acceptability of online misconduct. The internal consistency of the composite score is Cronbach’s α=0.71.

Online Misconduct Tendency (OMT). Respondents are given a hypothetical dilemma and asked to answer the question: “How likely would you be to behave in a similar manner as Addison?” with the 4-point Likert options for likelihood of engaging in the behaviour. Each of the 10 misconduct behaviours is first measured individually in terms of tendency likelihood for

analyses as unique dependent variables. Secondly, all 10 of the misconduct behaviours are added together for analysis as a composite score of overall/average online misconduct tendency (OMT). This composite score has a range between 10 (minimum), representing extreme unlikelihood, and 40 (maximum), which represents extreme likelihood of engaging in online misconduct. The internal consistency for this composite score is Cronbach’s α=0.63.