Doxing: What Adolescents Look for and Their Intentions
1.1. Definition of Doxing
1.2. Online Self-Disclosure and Doxing in Adolescents
1.3. Research Gaps: Lack of Empirical Studies on Doxing
1.4. The Current Study
- Hypothesis 2.1: Adolescents’ doxing behavior increases the probability of disclosing personal information on others.
- Hypothesis 3.1: Adolescents’ intentions for engaging in doxing differs by gender.
- Hypothesis 4.1: Adolescents’ target information of doxing differs by gender.
- Hypothesis 4.2: Adolescents’ target information of doxing differs by the target persons.
- Hypothesis 5.1: Adolescents’ perpetration of doxing is associated with particular demographic characteristics.
- Hypothesis 5.2: Adolescents’ perpetration of doxing is associated with experiences of information disclosure perpetration and victimization.
2.1. Study Design and Sample
2.3.1. Demographic Characteristics
2.3.2. Doxing Experience
2.3.3. Target Information of Doxing
- Social information, including four items: birthday, school name, relationship status, and personal photos or videos. Items in Category 1 and 2 are often publicly accessible, being posted on personal social networking pages.
- Personally identifiable information, including four items: ID card number, passport number, bank account number, and usernames/passwords of online accounts;
- Current living situation, including four items: home telephone number, home address, locations, and parents’ names;
- Education information, including two items: student card and academic performance;
- Private information, including seven items: cell phone number, personal e-mail address, odd habits, intimate photos or videos, obscene/indecent photos or videos, embarrassing photos or videos, and private Internet or text conversations;
- Sensitive information, including six items: sexual orientation, sexual life, racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, and medical records, whose disclosure is prohibited by the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation .
2.3.4. Disclosing Information on Others
2.3.5. Doxing Victimization Experience
2.3.6. Information Disclosure Bystanders
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3.1. Demographic Characteristics and Prevalence of Doxing
3.2. Association between Doxing and Disclosure of Others’ Personal Information
3.3. Intentions of Doxing
3.4. Target Information of Doxing
3.5. Factors Associated with Adolescent Doxing
4.1. Limitations and Implications for Future Research
4.2. Implications for Practice
Conflicts of Interest
- Selkie, E.M.; Fales, J.L.; Moreno, M.A. Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and high School–aged adolescents: A systematic review and quality assessment. J. Adolesc. Health 2016, 58, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wong, D.S.W.; Chan, H.C.; Cheng, C.H.K. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among adolescents in Hong Kong. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 2014, 36, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ang, R.P. Adolescent cyberbullying: A review of characteristics, prevention and intervention strategies. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2015, 25, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, H.J.; Connor, J.P.; Scott, J.G. Integrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Challenges of definition and measurement in adolescents―A review. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 27, 135–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalski, R.M.; Giumetti, G.W.; Schroeder, A.N.; Lattanner, M.R. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychol. Bull. 2014, 140, 1073–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hutson, E. Cyberbullying in Adolescence. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 2016, 39, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Willard, N.E. Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress; Research Press: Champaign, IL, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0878225378. [Google Scholar]
- Sourander, A.; Klomek, A.B.; Ikonen, M.; Lindroos, J.; Luntamo, T.; Koskelainen, M.; Ristkari, T.; Helenius, H. Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: A population-based study. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2010, 67, 720–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cappadocia, M.C.; Craig, W.M.; Pepler, D. Cyberbullying: Prevalence, Stability, and Risk Factors During Adolescence. Can. J. Sch. Psychol. 2013, 28, 171–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fanti, K.A.; Demetriou, A.G.; Hawa, V.V. A longitudinal study of cyberbullying: Examining risk and protective factors. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2012, 9, 168–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, I.; Murgui, S.; Garcia, O.F.; Garcia, F. Parenting in the digital era: Protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 90, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, F.-C.; Lee, C.-M.; Chiu, C.-H.; Hsi, W.-Y.; Huang, T.-F.; Pan, Y.-C. Relationships among cyberbullying, school bullying, and mental health in Taiwanese adolescents. J. Sch. Health 2013, 83, 454–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olweus, D. School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2013, 9, 751–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, J. What is doxing and how does it affect your privacy. Available online: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/what-is-doxing-and-how-does-it-affect-your-privacy-makeuseof-explains/ (accessed on 13 December 2018).
- Cambridge Dictionary. Doxing. Available online: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/doxing (accessed on 13 December 2018).
- Douglas, D.M. Doxing: A conceptual analysis. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2016, 18, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snyder, P.; Doerfler, P.; Kanich, C.; McCoy, D. Fifteen minutes of unwanted fame: Detecting and characterizing doxing. In Proceedings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference, London, UK, 1–3 November 2017; pp. 432–444. [Google Scholar]
- Walrave, M.; Poels, K.; Antheunis, M.L.; Van den Broeck, E.; van Noort, G. Like or dislike? Adolescents’ responses to personalized social network site advertising. J. Mark. Commun. 2018, 24, 599–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Public Opinion Programme of The University of Hong Kong. Youth survey on usage of Internet and social network websites. Available online: https://www.hkupop.hku.hk/english/report/microsoft10/content/finding.html (accessed on 13 December 2018).
- China Internet Network Information Center. A report on the Internet behavior of adolescents in China. Available online: http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/qsnbg/201608/P020160812393489128332.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2018).
- Spies Shapiro, L.A.; Margolin, G. Growing up wired: Social networking sites and adolescent psychosocial development. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 2014, 17, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Min, J.; Kim, B. How are people enticed to disclose personal information despite privacy concerns in social network sites? The calculus between benefit and cost. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2014, 66, 839–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Ang, R.P.; Lwin, M.O. Cognitive, personality, and social factors associated with adolescents’ online personal information disclosure. J. Adolesc. 2013, 36, 629–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bryce, J.; Klang, M. Young people, disclosure of personal information and online privacy: Control, choice and consequences. Inf. Secur. Tech. Rep. 2009, 14, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryce, J.; Fraser, J. The role of disclosure of personal information in the evaluation of risk and trust in young peoples’ online interactions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 30, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU General Data Protection Regulation. Available online: https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/special-categories-personal-data/ (accessed on 13 December 2018).
- Lin, W.-Y.; Zhang, X.; Song, H.; Omori, K. Health information seeking in the Web 2.0 age: Trust in social media, uncertainty reduction, and self-disclosure. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 56, 289–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, S.; Pettit, G.S.; Erath, S.A. Peer relations, parental social coaching, and young adolescent social anxiety. J. Appl. Dev. Psycho. 2016, 42, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Landoll, R.R.; La Greca, A.M.; Lai, B.S.; Chan, S.F.; Herge, W.M. Cyber victimization by peers: Prospective associations with adolescent social anxiety and depressive symptoms. J. Adolesc. 2015, 42, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandebosch, H.; Van Cleemput, K. Cyberbullying among youngsters: Profiles of bullies and victims. New Media Soc. 2009, 11, 1349–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walrave, M.; Heirman, W. Cyberbullying: Predicting victimisation and perpetration. Child. Soc. 2010, 25, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Q.Q.; Lo, C.K.; Zhu, Y.; Cheung, A.; Chan, K.L.; Ip, P. Family poly-victimization and cyberbullying among adolescents in a Chinese school sample. Child Abuse Negl. 2018, 77, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McIntyre, V. Do (x) you really want to hurt me: Adapting IIED as a solution to doxing by reshaping intent. Tul. J. Tech. Intell. Prop. 2016, 19, 111–134. [Google Scholar]
- Blessman, S. Doxing and law enforcement: What to look for, how to prevent it. Available online: https://www.officer.com/investigations/article/12219040/doxing-and-law-enforcement-what-to-look-for-and-prevent (accessed on 13 December 2018).
- Ttofi, M.; Farrington, D.; Baldry, A. Effectiveness of Programmes to Reduce School Bullying: A Systematic Review; Swedish Council of Crime Prevention: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008; ISBN 978-91-86027-11-7.
- Vaala, S.E.; Bleakley, A. Monitoring, mediating, and modeling: Parental influence on adolescent computer and Internet use in the United States. J. Child. Media 2015, 9, 40–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, I.; Fuentes, M.; García, F.; Madrid, I. The parenting style as protective or risk factor for substance use and other behavior problems among Spanish adolescents. Adicciones 2013, 25, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Demographic Characteristics||Sex (%)||Have You Ever Conducted Doxing? (%)|
(n = 1123; 53.0)
(n = 997; 47.0)
(n = 259; 12.2)
(n = 1861; 87.8)
|Mean age (SD)||15.16 |
|Year of secondary school|
|Education level of father|
|Lower Secondary (S.1–S.3)||14.5||19.1||14.3||17.0|
|Upper Secondary/Sixth Form (S.4–S.7)||24.4||28.8||29.7||26.1|
|Diploma/Certificate/ Sub-degree course||5.7||8.0||8.0||6.6|
|Degree course or above||12.1||10.5||14.0||11.0|
|Education level of mother|
|Lower Secondary (S.1–S.3)||13.7||17.9||14.6||15.9|
|Upper Secondary/Sixth Form (S.4–S.7)||25.5||31.5||31.1||28.0|
|Diploma/Certificate/ Sub-degree course||7.5||9.1||10.8||7.9|
|Degree course or above||9.3||9.3||12.2||8.9|
|Dependent Variable||B||OR||95% CI||p|
|Social information||1.235||3.438||[2.634, 4.487]||<0.001|
|Personally identifiable information||1.425||4.16||[2.227, 7.77]||<0.001|
|Current living situation||1.237||3.445||[2.338, 5.075]||<0.001|
|Education information||1.08||2.946||[2.036, 4.262]||<0.001|
|Private information||0.995||2.705||[2.018, 3.625]||<0.001|
|Sensitive information||1.645||5.181||[3.352, 8.007]||<0.001|
|Information of Doxing||Male |
(n = 110; %)
(n = 149; %)
(n = 259; %)
|Targets of doxing|
|People whom you like||41.2||62||53.2||11.84||<0.001|
|People whom you dislike||57||45.9||50.7||2.05||0.152|
|Platform of doxing|
|Social networking sites||66.8||86.7||78.2||13.59||<0.001|
|Doxed Information||Sex||Target of Doxing|
(n = 110; %)
(n = 149; %)
|χ 2||p||Someone I Like Only |
(n = 80; %)
|Someone I Dislike Only |
(n = 70; %)
|People I Like and Dislike |
(n = 59; %)
|No Special Targets and Others |
(n = 50; %)
|Personally identifiable information||14.6||6.3||4.31||0.038||3.1||22.1||9.1||3.7||16.25||<0.001||9.8|
|Current living situation||49.9||35.5||4.17||0.041||32.2||58.1||46.0||27||14.27||0.003||41.6|
|Associated Factors||Targets Whom They Like||Targets Whom They Dislike|
|B||OR [95% CI]||p||B||OR [95% CI]||p|
|Male||−0.874||0.417 [0.253, 0.689]||< 0.001||0.359||1.432 [0.875, 2.342]||0.153|
|Age||−0.017||0.983 [0.821, 1.178]||0.856||0.008||1.008 [0.842, 1.207]||0.931|
|Year of secondary school|
|Secondary 2||−0.087||0.917 [0.439, 1.916]||0.817||−0.254||0.776 [0.371, 1.623]||0.5|
|Secondary 3||0.288||1.333 [0.654, 2.717]||0.428||−0.215||0.807 [0.396, 1.643]||0.554|
|Secondary 4||0.348||1.417 [0.656, 3.06]||0.375||−0.167||0.846 [0.393, 1.821]||0.669|
|Victim only||0.093||1.098 [0.478, 2.521]||0.826||0.06||1.062 [0.459, 2.459]||0.888|
|Perpetrator only||0.664||1.942 [1.023, 3.685]||0.042||0.217||1.243 [0.661, 2.335]||0.499|
|Both||0.178||1.194 [0.637, 2.241]||0.58||0.938||2.556 [1.336, 4.889]||0.005|
|Bystander||0.289||1.335 [0.792, 2.249]||0.278||0.491558||1.746 [1.03, 2.96]||0.038|
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Chen, M.; Cheung, A.S.Y.; Chan, K.L. Doxing: What Adolescents Look for and Their Intentions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020218
Chen M, Cheung ASY, Chan KL. Doxing: What Adolescents Look for and Their Intentions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(2):218. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020218Chicago/Turabian Style
Chen, Mengtong, Anne Shann Yue Cheung, and Ko Ling Chan. 2019. "Doxing: What Adolescents Look for and Their Intentions" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 2: 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020218