定义和概念化技术促进滥用(“技术滥用”):一项全球德尔菲研究的结果

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Interpersonal Violence Pub Date : 2025-01-18 DOI:10.1177/08862605241310465
Nikolaos Koukopoulos, Madeleine Janickyj, Leonie Maria Tanczer
{"title":"定义和概念化技术促进滥用(“技术滥用”):一项全球德尔菲研究的结果","authors":"Nikolaos Koukopoulos, Madeleine Janickyj, Leonie Maria Tanczer","doi":"10.1177/08862605241310465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Technology-facilitated abuse (TFA) describes the misuse or repurposing of digital systems to harass, coerce, or abuse. It is a global problem involving both existing and emerging technologies. Despite significant work across research, policy, and practice to understand the issue, the field operates within linguistic, conceptual, and disciplinary silos, inhibiting collaboration. To address this, the present study used the Delphi technique to reach a consensus on TFA conceptualization, definition, terminology, and measurement among subject experts. Following a literature review, a global, cross-disciplinary sample of academics, practitioners, and policymakers ( n = 316) reflected on TFA across three survey rounds. The results showed both aligned and opposing perspectives. “Technology” and “facilitated” were the most preferable terms. Still, there was uncertainty regarding the need for additional terminologies to denote the scope of abuse, such as gendered descriptors. Participants had little familiarity with existing TFA measurement tools, with two-thirds unaware of any. Most experts agreed on conceptualizing TFA based on the perpetrator’s behavior, the victim’s harm and impact, and consent. They also supported an expansive TFA definition, beyond intimate relationships, that can involve groups and communities as perpetrators or targets. However, they were more reluctant to perceive TFA as a distinct abuse form, or one guided by social norms, legal thresholds, or involving child perpetrators. The findings are discussed in the context of the current TFA landscape, along with study limitations and steps to achieve a more unified TFA understanding.","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defining and Conceptualizing Technology-Facilitated Abuse (“Tech Abuse”): Findings of a Global Delphi Study\",\"authors\":\"Nikolaos Koukopoulos, Madeleine Janickyj, Leonie Maria Tanczer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08862605241310465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Technology-facilitated abuse (TFA) describes the misuse or repurposing of digital systems to harass, coerce, or abuse. It is a global problem involving both existing and emerging technologies. Despite significant work across research, policy, and practice to understand the issue, the field operates within linguistic, conceptual, and disciplinary silos, inhibiting collaboration. To address this, the present study used the Delphi technique to reach a consensus on TFA conceptualization, definition, terminology, and measurement among subject experts. Following a literature review, a global, cross-disciplinary sample of academics, practitioners, and policymakers ( n = 316) reflected on TFA across three survey rounds. The results showed both aligned and opposing perspectives. “Technology” and “facilitated” were the most preferable terms. Still, there was uncertainty regarding the need for additional terminologies to denote the scope of abuse, such as gendered descriptors. Participants had little familiarity with existing TFA measurement tools, with two-thirds unaware of any. Most experts agreed on conceptualizing TFA based on the perpetrator’s behavior, the victim’s harm and impact, and consent. They also supported an expansive TFA definition, beyond intimate relationships, that can involve groups and communities as perpetrators or targets. However, they were more reluctant to perceive TFA as a distinct abuse form, or one guided by social norms, legal thresholds, or involving child perpetrators. The findings are discussed in the context of the current TFA landscape, along with study limitations and steps to achieve a more unified TFA understanding.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241310465\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241310465","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

技术促进的滥用(TFA)描述了滥用或重新利用数字系统来骚扰,胁迫或滥用。这是一个涉及现有技术和新兴技术的全球性问题。尽管在研究、政策和实践方面做了大量的工作来理解这个问题,但该领域在语言、概念和学科的孤岛中运作,阻碍了合作。为了解决这一问题,本研究使用德尔菲技术在主题专家之间就TFA的概念化,定义,术语和测量达成共识。在文献综述之后,一个由学者、从业者和政策制定者组成的全球跨学科样本(n = 316)在三轮调查中反映了TFA。结果显示了一致和相反的观点。“技术”和“便利”是最可取的用语。但是,对于是否需要其他术语来表示滥用的范围,例如按性别划分的描述词,仍存在不确定性。参与者几乎不熟悉现有的TFA测量工具,三分之二的人不知道任何。大多数专家同意基于加害者的行为、受害者的伤害和影响以及同意来概念化TFA。他们还支持扩大TFA的定义,超越亲密关系,将团体和社区作为犯罪者或目标。然而,他们更不愿意将TFA视为一种独特的虐待形式,或者一种受社会规范、法律门槛指导的虐待形式,或者涉及儿童犯罪者。研究结果在当前TFA的背景下进行了讨论,同时讨论了研究的局限性和实现更统一的TFA理解的步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Defining and Conceptualizing Technology-Facilitated Abuse (“Tech Abuse”): Findings of a Global Delphi Study
Technology-facilitated abuse (TFA) describes the misuse or repurposing of digital systems to harass, coerce, or abuse. It is a global problem involving both existing and emerging technologies. Despite significant work across research, policy, and practice to understand the issue, the field operates within linguistic, conceptual, and disciplinary silos, inhibiting collaboration. To address this, the present study used the Delphi technique to reach a consensus on TFA conceptualization, definition, terminology, and measurement among subject experts. Following a literature review, a global, cross-disciplinary sample of academics, practitioners, and policymakers ( n = 316) reflected on TFA across three survey rounds. The results showed both aligned and opposing perspectives. “Technology” and “facilitated” were the most preferable terms. Still, there was uncertainty regarding the need for additional terminologies to denote the scope of abuse, such as gendered descriptors. Participants had little familiarity with existing TFA measurement tools, with two-thirds unaware of any. Most experts agreed on conceptualizing TFA based on the perpetrator’s behavior, the victim’s harm and impact, and consent. They also supported an expansive TFA definition, beyond intimate relationships, that can involve groups and communities as perpetrators or targets. However, they were more reluctant to perceive TFA as a distinct abuse form, or one guided by social norms, legal thresholds, or involving child perpetrators. The findings are discussed in the context of the current TFA landscape, along with study limitations and steps to achieve a more unified TFA understanding.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
期刊最新文献
How to Evaluate Reports of Intimate Partner Violence? Examining Interpartner Agreement in a Forensic Sample of Different-Sex Couples Where Men are Accused of Intimate Partner Violence. Intimate Partner Violence and Attachment Styles as Factors Associated with Coping Stress Styles Among Iranian Women. Investigating the Impact of Reproductive Coercion and Intimate Partner Violence on Psychological and Sexual Wellbeing. Universal Sexual Violence Intervention Effects in a Cluster-Randomized Trial: Moderation by Sexual Orientation. Institutional Betrayal in the Criminal and Civil Legal Systems: Exploratory Factor Analysis with a Sample of Black and Hispanic Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1