Online harassment and Trollingon Facebook pages

Steven De NazarethII MS Communication

St. Joseph's College of Arts and Science

AbstractToday computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been beneficial to users by providing quick and easy communication between humans, separated by time and space. However, it can also providethe safety of anonymity that may encourage a sense of impunity and carelessness to users, from being held accountable for inappropriate online behaviour. The researcher has found this especially on social media and Facebook pages.

The anonymity which internet communication affords its users, changes the communicative behaviours of some users, by allowing them to regulate the amount of identity revealed online and they are able to hide behind a fake persona. That is when trolls are born and they grow to menacing proportions. Generally, a troll makes offensive comments in response to a remark made by a user on his timeline or on a public forum page, which never happens inface-to-face communication. The anonymity gives them courage, which the researcher likes to think they would never indulge in, in real life.

This article examines the pragmatic act of trolling and seeks to provide a schema for classification of the intentions within the practice. The paper will use Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson's Relevance Theory to draw parallels with the theory and Facebook trolls posts. The theory seeks to explain the second method of communication based on implicit inferences. It argues that the "hearer/reader/audience will search for meaning in any given

communication situation and having found meaning that fits their expectation of relevance, will stop processing. Specifically the recipients’ and other readers understanding of the informative and communicative intentions of the troll on Facebook page threads, which the researcher has downloaded from the page archives.

CMC is a perfect space for studying impoliteness, whether it occurs in response to a perceived threat (flaming), or as an end in its own right (trolling). Currently, first and second order definitions of terms such as impoliteness (Brown and Levinson 1987), in-civility (Lakoff 2005), rudeness (Beebe 1995 ), and etiquette (Coulmas 1992), are subject to much discussion and debate, yet the CMC phenomenon of trolling is not adequately captured by any of these terms. Four interrelated conditions of aggression, deception, disruption, and success are discussed.

IntroductionAnonymity with computer-mediated communication (CMC) exposing ourselves to various categories of people has led to an unethicalrise in aggressive behaviour on the internet, which would never occur in face-to-face communication. This communication happens between humans via the computer, such as a desktop, mobile phone,iPad, or tablet (Ferris 1997). However, whilst research has been conducted on the effects of, for instance, aggressive video gamesand their link with offline violence (Scott 1995), little research currently investigates linguistic aggression online, especially on Facebook pages possibly because CMC is perceived asfrivolous, insignificant or marginal (Herring and Nix 1997).

Trolling is becoming increasing common and has become destructivein online communication. Trolls are often seen as intimidating mischief‐makers and the term carries with it negative connotations (Donath 1999). Trolling leads to argumentative conversation that upsets people that create a post, by deliberately annoying them by commenting negatively, which leads to the victim being bombarded with negative posts, or put in an embarrassing position when the troll makes uncalled for remarks.

A Troll is therefore a person who sows discord on the Internet bystarting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages on an online post(such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, Facebook page or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topicdiscussion.

The aim of this paper is to find out who is a considered a troll.Using a questionnaire, the researcher attempts to elicit answers of what the lay persons perception of a troll is.

The research questions that are being attempted to answer are:

RQ1: On social media sites, who are considered trolls?RQ2: Why is the troll considered rude?

Throughout the paper, we will be using the analytic framework based on Sperber & Wilson’s (1993, 1995) on the theory of Relevance in media related communication. The theory would reviewhow their audience understands the thoughts and intension of the speaker.

In the methodology, linguistic reviews are conducted on recent and relevant impolite trolling which has occurred on Facebook Pages. Discussions of the terms “troll”, “troller”, “trolling” asviewed by Facebook Page users and discussing if the four interrelated characteristics of aggression, deception, disruption, and success are manifest in the troll attacks on these pages.

Understanding Terminologies Troll: A Troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet

by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages on an onlinepost with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Harassment: It is understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour that is found threatening or disturbing.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC): CMC is communication by means of email, instant messaging, social, etc.

Quantitative Content Analysis: A selective and structured method, which is based on the principles of social science of measuring and counting.

Qualitative Content Analysis: Broad, general set of methods for analyzing the content of some qualitative material to build or support an argument. Qualitative content analysis is “a systematic, replicable technique for compressing many words of text into fewer content categories based on explicit rules of coding”.

Coding Frame: It is the guiding conceptual scheme for a research study. The creation of coding frames is intrinsically related to a creative approach to variables that exert an influence over textual content.

Classical trolling: It is done for the community’s consensual entertainment in order to build bonds between users.

Flame trolling: Trolling done that has a provocative or offensive message to a public Internet discussion group, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic that the poster often has no real interest in

Literature ReviewThis chapter will examine the existing published literature on how the online harassment and trolling is covered through published research papers and journals that have been read by theresearcher.

The term ‘troll’ has changed in recent years to mean not only theprovocation of internet users, but the abuse of them also. The paper discusses what is called the Relevance Theory by Sperber and Wilson in which "hearer/reader/audience will search for meaning in any given communication situation and having foundmeaning that fits their expectation of relevance, will stop processing." They interpret any media used by the masses for the relevance they can find in the communication. This theory connects with the issue of trolling that this research is analysing. A Social Media user uses Social Media to interact and will look for relevance in this interaction to fulfil his/ her needs.

To quote Jonathan Bishop in his paper – Tackling Internet abuse in Great Britain: Towards a framework for classifying severities of ‘flame trolling’. “The justice system in Great Britain has taken a sporadic approach in dealing with flame trolling, and thewide range of legislation that has existed since the 1980s has nostrategic method to assign its usage on the basis of the nature of the flame trolling as its use often depends on the whim of different police forces.”(Bishop J, 2014) Bishop states that there is no firm legislation to control trolling in the UK and make it a criminal offence and the researcher is not aware if there is one in India.

“Contrary to face‐to‐face communication, online communication is epistemic and based on information, rather than matter. In the physical world, the body provides compelling and convenient

definition of identity, whilst in online environment, identity ispalpable and entirely constructed.” (Donath, 1999:29‐31). Donath explains in detail the difference between physical and online communication. He remarks that identity in an online environment can be hidden as it's a virtual persona, which makes it very different from face-to-face communication where physical identityis visible and recognizable.

In fact in Buckels et al published paper, the remark made is thattrolls have robust associations based on everyday comments and their online behaviour is what make them sadists. Their behaviouris aggressive and meant to hurt and that is what a sadist does, and gains enjoyment from. "It was sadism, however, that had the most robust associations with trolling of any of the personality measures, including those of the Big Five. In fact, the associations between sadism and GAIT scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists." (Buckels et al., 2013).

Researchers and practitioners argue that real names and pseudonyms can help “promote trust, cooperation, and accountability” (Millen and Patterson 2003), whereas anonymity may make communication impersonal and undermine credibility (Hiltz, Johnson, and Turoff 1986; Rains 2007). Social media moghul- Facebook argues that pseudonyms and multiple identities show “a lack of integrity” (Kirkpatrick 2010). In addition, basedon this research, Millen and Patterson explain that trust, cooperation and accountability is built on strong ties that a person has on a social media website. This is shown in a negativelight by Hiltz et al when they explain that by being anonymous, communication loses its credibility and is not personal.

For instance, Shachaf and Hara(2010) conducted interviews of Wikipedia trolls, nding themes of boredom, attention seeking, firevenge, pleasure, and a desire to cause damage to the community among their expressed motivations for trolling. In other

research, Hardaker (2010) conducted a content analysis of Usenet posts that identified four primary characteristics of trolling: aggression, deception, disruption, and success. The deceptive and“pointless” disruptive aspect may distinguish trolling from otherforms of online anti sociality, such as cyber-bullying, where perpetrator identities are usually clear (Lenhardt, 2013) and the intent is more straight forward.

Frequency of activity is an important correlate of anti social uses of technology. For instance, “cyber-bullying is often perpetrated by heavy Internet users” (Juvonen & Gross, 2008), andthey use mobile technologies more than others – “not for socializing, but for personal entertainment” (Phillips & Butt, 2006). As described by Juvonen & Gross that cyber-bullying is mainly done by people that are heavy user and Phillips & Butt remark that this kind of bullying is done to entertain them. Theyget a perverse pleasure from being trolls.

MethodologyThe primary research of trolling on Facebook pages entailed a compilation of data from the survey from which graphs were produced. The survey was distributed via email and Facebook to the 100 respondents who were contacted for their input for this study.

By utilising Facebook, I could reach out to respondents that haveexperienced trolling firsthand and this platform would allow my survey to reach the right target audience for the survey.

Sample Period

The sample period for the research was taken of daily Facebook updates of the months of March, April and May 2015 on Facebook pages "Win Bangalore Back” and " Second to None".

The two research questions that the researcher is attempting to answer are:

Research question 1: On social media sites, who are considered trolls?

Research question 2: Why is the troll considered rude?

Coding FrameTo make sense of the primary data that has been collected, the next step is to organize it into a form that will facilitate understanding of its meaning. “Research must be ultimately based on comparisons” (Fielding, 2002). In order to make comparisons data will have to be coded and organized into categories or instances of occurrence. For this, the researcher will develop a coding frame to understand the different variables that will arise. While coding there are basic rules that must be followed. The researcher has to be aware that codes must be mutually

exclusive, codes must be exhaustive, and codes have to be appliedconsistently throughout.

The coding will include classification of data under:Is the content of the Facebook comments positive and negative? Inthe researcher's qualitative content analysis, the coding framework supports the quantitative content analysis. This helps prove that the research question 2: Why is the troll considered rude?

Qualitative Content Analysis

By using qualitative content analysis, the analyst classifies theinformation into certain categories. These categories are treatedsimilarly to numerical data and can be statistically manipulated to provide scientific information. The researcher can then draw certain conclusions about the information in the text. There are several approaches to doing this including by identifying themes,topics or issues. Different intensities, issues, situations, groups or frequencies may also be observed. These can be defined as directed, conventional or summative. 

Quantitative and Qualitative research are considered two separateparadigms, where epistemological assumptions, values and methods are inextricably interconnected and are incompatible between paradigms” (Bryman, 2004).

Quantitative Content Analysis

Once the information that the researcher required was collected from the sample, the researcher decided to use a Quantitative Content Analysis to analyse it. The researcher is using this method because it is traditionally associated with the analysis of mass media. When doing the content analysis the researcher will measure only the manifest content of texts, what is

explicitly stated rather than the latent content (Berger, 2000). What is meant by this is that when the researcher reads each headline and story, explicit tones by a coding of words under classical and flaming trolling categories will be measured. The researcher will also quantify the number of stories published. Soquantitative will be a physical count of the stories and the researcher can show the slant of the coverage by coding.

FindingsIn the methodology, the researcher has created a questionnaire ofsix questions that were answered by 100 respondents. According to the Oxford dictionary the word troll is a noun and originated from old Norse and Swedish word troll, the Danish word is trold; and was adopted into English in the mid 19th century. According to old European folklore, a troll is an ugly cave-dwelling creature, which could be either a giant or a dwarf. That word hasnow been adapted into social media jargon to give a face and a name to a similar sounding individual.

The pie charts and the table below shows the segregation of the six questions that are in order to formulate the percentages of answers submitted under each category by the respondents in a pie chart below.

1) Do you know what Facebook Trolls are?

Do you know what Facebook Trolls are?

83%9%8%

Answer Choices ResponsesYes 83.00%

83No 9.00%

9Unsure 8.00%

8Total 100

From the survey taken by 100 respondents, we find that 83% say they know what FB trolls are. 9.00% say they do not know what they are and 8% say they are unsure of what trolls are. Therefore, we concluded that Facebook trolls are a name that is familiar among social media users.

2) Where are trolls found?

Where are trolls found?

58.59%38.38%3.03%

Answer Choices ResponsesSocial Media pages 58.59%

58Facebook pages 38.38%

38In the garden 3.03%

3Total 99

The graph shows by the survey with our respondents that trolls are found on Social Media sites only. 58.59% say they are found on Social Media sites. 38.38% are aware that trolls use Facebook pages more than other social media. 3.03% say trolls are found in the garden, which is according to literature, they were found until the term has been taken over by Social Media to give it another meaning.

3) Who is considered a troll? Someone whose comments are

Who is considered a troll? Someone whose comments are

50.51%41.41%8.08%

Answer Choices Responses

Impolite 50.51%50

Uses aggressive language 41.41%41

Any responder to a FB post 8.08%8

Total 99

The graph correctly shows in the survey with our respondents thattrolls are considered impolite. 50.51% say they are impolite. 41.41% say they use aggressive language. 8.08% say they are any responder who writes a comment to a FB post. As per the results, this indicates that trolls make impolite comments on social mediapages.

4) Do you think trolls are rude because?

Do you think trolls are rude because?

65.31%25.51%9.18%

Answer Choices ResponsesThey are faceless on FB 65.31%

64They are naturally rude people 25.51%

25I don't think they are rude 9.18%

9Total 98

The graph shows by the survey conducted with our respondents, that trolls are considered to be rude as they are faceless on Facebook. 65.31% say they are rude because they are faceless on Facebook. 25.51% say they are naturally rude people. 9.18% say that they don't think they are rude.

5) Do you think trolling is gender biased?

Do you think trolling is gender biased?

15.15%10.10%74.75%

Answer Choices ResponsesIt is directed mainly towards 15.15%

women 15Directed against educated women 10.10%

10No, there is no gender bias 74.75%

74Total 99

The graph shows with the survey with our respondents that trolls are not gender biased at all. 15.15% of our respondents say theircomments are directed mainly towards women. 10.10% say their comments are directed against educated women. While 74.75% say that there is no gender bias in their comments at all.

6) What would you define a troll as?

What would you define a troll as?

30.30%8.08%61.62%

Answer Choices ResponsesA faceless person on FB who enjoys being aggressive

30.30%30

A person who wants to attack a female responder who seems educated and threatened his perceived male superiority

8.08%8

A vindictive person who loves being nasty but cannot, in reallife.

61.62%61

Total 99

The graph shows as a result of the survey with our respondents how trolls are defined. 30.30% say they are a faceless person on Facebook who enjoy being aggressive. 8.08% say they are a person who wants to attack a female responder who seems educated and threatened his perceived male superiority. While an overwhelming 61.62% say that they are vindictive persons who love being nasty but cannot in real life.

From the pie charts which have been produced from the Quantitative Content Analysis of 6 questions, we are able to draft the answer to the first research question posed.

Research question 1: On social media sites, who are considered trolls?Answer: By collating the answers that have the highest results from the pie charts, we are able to create a working definition for trolls.

“Trolls are found on social media pages. They are impolite, are faceless on Facebook, and are vindictive persons, who love being nasty but cannot in real life.”

Research question 2: Why is the troll considered rude?

In two Facebook pages, “Second to None" and "Win Bangalore Back" we have screen grabs from which the linguistics used in comments

will be coded according to a coding frame in order to get out Qualitative analysis.

Win Bangalore Back - Lisa N Don's post - So its ok to throw organic waste onto the road!!!! This guy is eating fruits and throwing the skin onto the road. After it happens a couple of times I thought I should make him infamous for his act. And then he flips me the finger.

Flaming Trolling Classical TrollingVarzhan IIango: Someone should throw a pile of other organic waste in his house and give himthe same argument. Such a shame!

Yamuna Mukherjee: As you should. Its disgusting behaviour.

Manish Rao: You should have f***** his case when he showed his middle finger.

G Shiva Kumar: Uncultured behaviour

Gloria Joseph: We need to put peels of fruits and veggies into the soil but doesnt mean we need to throw them on the road. Bury it in ur garden.

This Facebook post is about a commenter took a photo of a man throwing fruit peels on the road and was shown the finger. The flaming trolls respond by suggesting ways to hit back at the man while the classical trolls respond in a milder manner.

Win Bangalore Back - Siddhart Srinivasan's post - Just had an altercation with some idiots on the road going in a one way. There were goons and I was in half a mind to punch them in the face. What can we do such people? The road etiquette is deteriorating in the city coupled with the growth of vehicles and

the decreased in the road length on key arterial roads is a causeof more people going on footpaths and accessing one ways. I am sofrustrated by feeling so helpless. Is following rules a bad thing? Pointing out mistakes worse?

Flaming Trolling Classical TrollingHarry Khubchandani: use a stun gun. shock them out of their skin.

Rishipratim Mazumdar: Don't know if it always feasible - But click a photo and upload onBTP public eye. Hopefully they will take some action.

Siddharth Srinivasan: I swear guys I had more to lose than them. They have no dignity in the society! Goons..

Siddharth Srinivasan: I carry aSwiss knife in the car just in case things go ugly.

Manoharao Sirahatti: Keep your cool and move on. We cant correct the society so quickly and individually. Be safe. Oncewe lose calm our BP raises. These guys some day or other will be cot and get punished for their misdeeds. They cant have sunshine always

Hitender Kumar Goyal: Its best that we collect a few volunteers and start catching these guys and questioning them

Manoharao Sirahatti: Let's appreciate those who follow alltraffic rules. Out of almost 40lakh vehicle user only a smallnumber violate rules. But there's a problem. But the media highlights only violations and not compliance. So its better to ignore that small number of violators and move on.

This Facebook post provides information on a commenter that angrily posts about a motorist travelling down a one way. The

flaming trolls respond angrily and suggest ways to deal with the matter by attacking the motorist.

On another Facebook page called 'Win Bangalore Back' - This is Sharan's post: "Since there is no board mentioning what is going on behind the ambulance, I will honk", even after I mentioning that it's common sense if an ambulance is parked outside an hospital then there must be a patient in it". After this he has the audacity to ask me "Do you want to teach me common sense". This guys spoke good English, well dressed and a complete A******.

In this post Sharan is openly negative in his post and only one troll named Estherkshama who has used obscene language while the others have been openly negative.

Flaming Trolling Classical TrollingChaitanya Krishnamurthy: Yea, please give him one tight slap he earned it

Chaitanya Krishnamurthy: Shouldhave taken a photo of the car and posted it here and also on the BTP page.

Achinthya Bhat: It's always better to be well mannered thanwell dressed and well spoken.

Vinay Nambiar: Sharan Kumar: Salute!

Estherkshama: Please let me know when you find this a**. Will join you in taking him fora ride. Such people can be taught manners only the donkeysway.

Raja Povaiah: Should have takensteps to teach him the rules

In this Facebook post, the trolls provide negative support to an angry comment that is posted on the page.

Win Bangalore Back - Nivedita's post - I want to start a neighbourhood campaign against idiots who insist on washing theirfront yards and cars with copious amounts of water every day, running through the corporation water, and then order tankers every two days. I am sick of seeing this kind of wastage and wantto attack this menace. How's the best way to go about it? Posters? Also, once we start, can we make this thing across Bangalore, maybe even with the BWSSB cooperation? It needs to be tackled really urgently, don't you think?

Flaming Trolling Classical TrollingVivek Na: Ok, you adopt the stranded polar bear cubs, I’ll use the teaspoon

Karthik Rao: Nivedita jus don listen to d cynics! People linkanything and everything to oneanother!

Nivedita Rajan: I will. And go,there’s a cutlery factory waiting for you to buy them up

Deepika Sadasivan: taps are left running while brushing teeth - while working in the kitchen - while washing vesselsthey are opened to the maximum.There are many ways to save water if one has the will to doso. I use kitchen waste water for plants and taps run a little over a trickle while washing vessels.Ravi Shankar: Go for it Nivedita. There will always be people to criticize and commendand you have no control over what people think and perceive.

This Facebook post is a battle of words between the one that posted the comment and the trolls. Note that both equally post

negative comments. Finally there is nothing positive achieved by the posting.

Win Bangalore Back - Sowmya Pillai's post - Humanity how we forget! Yesterday while my husband and I were leaving Tadka Singh, Indiranagar, post lunch a young boy around 5-6 years old &unable to bear the heat begged for some juice. We decided to parcel for him 2 healthy lime juices or chaas instead of spoilinghim by handing over cash. Just while entering the restaurant again, the security guard rushed and told us the kid can't enter as the owner would fire him for not doing his job well. It pains me to see this attitude. I live with hope that someday it will change through baby steps or giant leaps, whatever it takes! #tadkasinghhaveaheart #hopeinblrstill

Flaming Trolling Classical TrollingRahul Lodhas: Good he did that , else some fools will make every joint a beggars paradise. It’s easy to post herbut think, will you be able to go out and eat if everyone starts bringing beggars to the joint.

And what point are you trying to make, showing off that you tried to do any favour? Get a life. What you were doing is a stupid act and in a way you were encouraging beggars.

Ramesh Rao: Disgusting! But in this age of Social Media, we have the power to fight back!

Sherry Balachandran: Rahul Lodhas, you think it’s a stupidthing to give a young boy

Shobha Ravishankar: You have a beautiful soul! Kudos! I guess we are the only ones

something to drink in this heat? Do you think a 6 year oldboy wants to beg for something to drink?

responsible. Change in us can surely bring a change around us.

Nick Francis: Rahul Lodhas, youdisgust me, how heartless can you be? What if beggars and under privileged come to a restaurant that you are going to eat. Its not like they are going to take it from your plate and eat. She didn’t give him money, she tried to give him food, its not wrong to maketheir day.

This Facebook post provides information on how the commenter reaches out to a poor child. But is argued nastily by a troll andit goes on with other people reacting negatively to the troll's post.

Second to none - Sale Declutter's post ---- Swift diesel, 80000 km done, 3rd owner, service due, overall in excellent condition, Sale for 3.4 Lakhs.

In this Facebook post, the troll is the one who posted it hiding behind a name -- Sale Declutter and you can see his negative comments in the thread below. The comments are coded below.

Flaming Trolling Classical TrollingSale Declutter: Lol. I will pm you next year

Arun Kumar S: Why dont you try with Maruthi true value, they would surely provide a better

price.Sale Declutter: Ur being very realistic with the offer. U won't get a petrol for two lakhs in bangalore.

Francis Goni: Dude be realistic, it's 80k, U know theexpenses.

Sale Declutter: I c all car experts but no buyers

Shiraz Ali: Best buy for 2008 LDI is max 2.60 Lakhs, subject if the tyres are replaced and good.

The researchers Social Media is considered a free and democratic space where people can air their view points. But like any other space there should be a code of ethics and mode of behaviour while interacting which does not seem to be the case because trolls are virtual and hide behind a faceless persona.

Sperber & Wilson’s theory of relevance in media related communication can be viewed by the reactions of the quantitative survey. This can also be seen in the qualitative coding of the text.

ConclusionWith the results and findings of the qualitative and quantitativedata, the researcher concludes this paper by providing an answer to who is considered a troll and has analysed from the data that troll comments were rude.

The relevance theory by Sperber and Wilson is used in this paper as it helps the reader get an insight into what the audience feels about trolling. The audience will search for meaning in each post and will continue searching till it fits their expectation of relevance. That is the basis of Social Media and its relevance in today's world of CMC.

By collating the survey, we were able to derive a working definition of what a troll is. This was done by taking the answers with the highest percentage of votes and then by creatively stitching together the phrases to form a working definition.

With the linguistic coding framework, the researcher creates a code of positive and negative phrases using the designed coding framework. Scanning through the comments in the Facebook comments, the researcher could find that the posts by trolls wererude. This was also supported by the survey, where the respondents expressed that the posts by trolls are not rude.

The researcher concludes that the qualitative coding analysis supports the quantitative analysis through the survey.

Finally, the researcher would like to believe that people should be able to handle trolls on Facebook pages without getting drawn emotionally into their nastiness. It not only in ignoring the comments that the trolls post, but in commenting in a manner thatwould dissuade them from further comments. The commenter should

not be discouraged by his post and should learn not to reply in haste and in anger. A better response would be to take time and post a well informed comment with a fitting argument that supports the first post.

Bibliography Beebe, Leslie. M. 1995. Polite fictions: Instrumental

rudeness as pragmatic competence. In James E. Alatis, Carolyn A. Straehle, Brent Gallenberger and Maggie Ronkin (eds.), Linguistics and the education of language teachers: Ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistics and sociolinguistic aspects (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics), 154168. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 

Berger, A. (2000). Media and Communication Research Methods, SagePublications.

Bishop, J. Int. J. Web Based Communities, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2014

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 [1978]. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods, Oxford UniversityPress. 

Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Behavioral confirmation of everyday sadism. Psychological Science, 24, 2201–2209

Coulmas, Florian. 1992. Linguistic etiquette in Japanese society. In Richard J.Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice, 1st edn., 283323. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Donath, Judith S. 1999. Identity and deception in the virtual community. In Marc A.Smith and Peter Kollock (eds.),Communities in Cyberspace, 29 59. London:Routledge.

Ferris, Pixy 1997. What is CMC? An overview of scholarly definitions. CMC

Magazine.January. http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/jan/ferris.html (Accessed 09 March 2010).

Fielding, J. (2002). In Qualitative Research in Action by May , T.,Sage Publications. 

Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication:From user discussions to academic de nitions.fi  Journal of Politeness Research

Herring, Susan C. and Carole G. Nix. 1997. Is “serious chat”an oxymoron? Pedagogical vs. social uses of internet relay chat. Paper presented at the American Association of AppliedLinguistics Annual Conference, Orlando,

Hiltz, S.; Johnson, K.; and Turoff, M. 1986. Experiments in group decision making communication process and outcome in face-toface versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research 13(2):225–252.

Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health

Kirkpatrick, D. 2010. The Facebook Effect. Simon & Schuster. Lakoff, Robin T. 2005. Civility and its discontents: Or,

getting in your face. In Robin T. Lakoff and Sachiko Ide (eds.), 2343. Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Lenhardt, A. (2013). Teens, smartphones & texting  Washington, DC: Pew ResearchCenter’s Internet & American Life Project.

Millen, D. R., and Patterson, J. F. 2003. Identity disclosure and the creation of social capital. In Proc. of CHI, 720–721.

Phillips, J. G., & Butt, S. (2006). Personality and self-reported use of mobile phones for games. Cyber Psychology & Behavior

Scott, Derek. 1995. The effect of video games on feelings ofaggression. The Journal of Psychology 129.

Shachaf, P., & Hara, N. (2010). Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science, 36, 357–370.