- Email: [email protected]
Recent and emerging technologies: Implications for women's safety
Technology in Society 58 (2019) 101108
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technology in Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc
Recent and emerging technologies: Implications for women's safety Lauren F. Cardoso , Susan B. Sorenson, Olivia Webb, Sara Landers
T
∗
University of Pennsylvania, United States
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Cyberstalking Intimate partner violence Stalking Technology
New technologies have multiple implications for women's safety and well-being. As emerging scholarship begins to capture the scope and psychosocial impact of technology-related violence, the literature can become outpaced by the rapid development of technologies, some of which are designed to protect women. This exploratory study conducted a series of online searches to document and describe new technologies that can be used to enhance or reduce women's safety. A total 23,100 web-based articles, including but not limited to news stories and marketing materials, were identified and screened; 495 were reviewed and key constructs were coded. Two thirds of the articles addressed how technology could protect women and over half addressed perpetration; 18.8% addressed both. Protection focused largely on two technologies –mobile telephones (37.2%) and wearable devices (19.4%) – and sexual or physical assault (57.2%). Perpetration focused on mobile telephones (58.4%) and e-mail (43.9%) and cyber- or in-person stalking (63.2%). Women are advised to alter their online behavior; negligible attention is given to tech companies' responsibilities. Of the 98 products identified, most (80.2%) – typically a wearable device or app – were described as protecting women from sexual or physical assault. The products are marketed, with little evidence, as a way for women to protect themselves from assault. The introduction of corporate messaging and profit into the long-standing issue of violence against women is changing the means by which women can be abused and simultaneously and perhaps inadvertently is reinforcing norms that hold women accountable for their victimization.
1. Introduction The current rate of technology development and adoption is remarkable. There is a reason “there's an app for that” rings true: currently more than 2 million apps are available in Apple's online store, up from 5000 in 2008, the store's inaugural year [1]. Mobile telephones offer another example: global subscriptions increased from 738 million in 2000 to over 7 billion in 2015 [2]. Implications of new technologies are wide-ranging [3,4]; herein, we focus on implications for women's safety. The popular press regularly documents gender-based harassment and threats of violence against online journalists and Internet-users [5,6]. Such hostility is so common that the United Nations issued a report urging a “worldwide wake-up call.” [7] They noted that nearly 75% of female Internet users have experienced online gender-based hostility ranging from harassment to threats of physical and sexual harm. Moreover, technology extends the reach of abusive intimate partners. Abusers (typically men) restrict their victims’ (typically women) social world such that victims become increasingly dependent on their abuser. In this context, mobile phones, global positioning systems ∗
(GPS), computer software, and more can be used to stalk, monitor, and control women [8–10]. Threats of intimate partner violence (IPV) via texts and social media as well as the posting of intimate photographs and videos also are common [11,12]. Emerging research on the topic focuses primarily on teenagers and college students and examines the nature and scope of cyber partner abuse [11,13–24]. In the only nationally-representative study to date, 15% of teens with dating experience reported having been pressured via technology into unwanted sexual activity [19]. A recent college study suggests that cyber dating aggression might be more common than in-person aggression: nearly three fourths of undergraduates reported some form of intimate partner cyber-aggression, about half reported in-person IPV [25]. The measures, definitions, and sampling strategies vary among studies, making comparison difficult, but the pattern of findings points to a substantial problem among young people. Cyber violence victimization is reported to be associated with depression and anti-social behavior [20,26], diminished self-esteem [27], and fear and anxiety [28]. Some assert that cyber violence actually might be more damaging than in-person abuse because it has a wide audience, can be anonymous, and is insufficiently regulated [29]. Initial
Corresponding author. 3815 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.F. Cardoso).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.01.001 Received 22 November 2017; Received in revised form 31 December 2018; Accepted 14 January 2019 Available online 17 January 2019 0160-791X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Technology in Society 58 (2019) 101108
L.F. Cardoso, et al.
evidence supports this contention: In a longitudinal study of 570 adolescents, cyber victimization predicted negative thoughts and depressive symptoms over and above traditional forms of peer victimization [30]. The emotional toll of cyber and in-person IPV is difficult to disentangle as the two often co-occur [13,15,17,25,31]. For instance, among undergraduates at a Midwestern university, cyber victimization was associated with substantially higher odds of in-person psychological, physical, and sexual abuse [25]. Notably, little attention has been given to how technology can be used to enhance women's safety and support victims. The existing evidence indicates that mobile phones and the Internet can facilitate victims' access to information and services, strengthen their support network, and play a vital role in safety and escape planning [8,32]. It is important to consider potentially positive uses of technology. Scholarship on technology and violence against women (VAW) has begun to elucidate the nature and scope of the phenomenon; however, it struggles to capture a timely depiction of technologies currently in use. Therefore, this exploratory study uses an innovative method of data collection to achieve three aims: (1) to inventory current technologies used to increase or reduce women's risk of harm, (2) to describe the nature of these technologies and their use for violence perpetration or protection, and (3) to offer overarching observations about these technologies and associated messaging as they relate to VAW. Findings are considered within the context of the agenda-setting function of media. The frequency, type of coverage, and framing of an issue by media can influence, and therefore potentially mirror, how a mediaconsuming audience perceives an issue [33]. This is true of traditional [33] and new media [34] and in the case of this study helps inform observations of the nature and use of, and messaging about technologies related to VAW.
2.1. Data management Each article was coded for type of website (e.g., news), date, function (e.g., protection), type of technology (e.g., wearable device), and type of violence (e.g., stalking). Two considerations merit mention. First, few articles distinguished between mobile and landline telephones although the information described seemed unique to mobile phone functionality (e.g., app use) so all telephone technology was categorized as “mobile telephone.” Second, sexual and physical assault could not be coded separately because the articles typically did not distinguish between them (e.g., sexual and dating violence). A brief description of the key points of each retrieved item was recorded. At the beginning of the screening process, each research team member checked 20% of another's work to assess consistency in article inclusion. Team members discussed discrepancies. Inter-rater reliability was near perfect after 25% of the articles were screened, after which quality checks were continued on 10% of the results. Overall, the interrater reliability for screening was 95.9%. Subsequent quality checks on 10% of each other's coding resulted in an inter-rater reliability of 95.4%. 2.2. Analyses Frequencies were tabulated for the key constructs: type of technology, type of violence, and function (i.e., perpetration, protection). Furthermore, an abridged thematic analysis was used to determine patterns, or “themes,” among the articles collected [41]. These themes, derived from multiple readings of articles and discussions among research team members, informed broad observations about the nature and use of, and messaging about the identified technologies. Specifically, we used the following questions (derived from the aims of the study) to frame the analysis and interpretation: What existing technologies have implications for VAW? How are these technologies used to prevent or facilitate the perpetration of VAW? What does the messaging about these technologies convey about the association between technology and VAW?
2. Methods We conducted a series of online searches to identify new technologies that could enhance or reduce women's safety. We chose to rely on information published on the Internet and retrieved by Google, the leading search engine [35], to capture the most up-to-date technologies. Google searches are tailored using algorithms driven by an individual's search and web history, location, and use of social networks [36]. To reduce this source of potential bias, we followed steps identified by Google: delete search history, turn off location detection, and search in private browsing mode [37]. The chosen terms related to three constructs: type of technology (e.g., mobile telephone), type of violence (e.g., harassment), and action of interest (i.e., to protect or perpetrate). We defined technology broadly – tools that can be used to perpetrate or protect against violence – in order to identify the widest range of articles. Therefore, technology search terms ranged from specific (e.g., social media) to general (e.g., tech). Violence search terms reflected the most common types of VAW, as identified by the UN and WHO [38,39]. All possible combinations of terms were used, for a total of 1155 unique searches. To retrieve the information of a typical Google user, we followed common search behavior. A reported 96.3% of searchers stop at the second page of search results [40]. We retained the first two pages of results for each search, yielding 23,100 articles for screening. Articles addressing violence against women or girls and the use of technology for perpetration or protection were logged for subsequent review. We included articles that discussed technologies and did not specifically mention but had obvious implications for VAW (e.g., apps that facilitate hacking a mobile telephone). We focused on technology use by individuals and excluded articles related to technology used for primary prevention or service provision. We also excluded results related to legislation, books, videos, and podcasts. After screening, 766 articles remained, 271 of which were duplicates, resulting in a final N of 495.
3. Results Nearly one half (46.5%) of the 495 articles focused solely on how technology could protect women from violence; a third (34.7%) highlighted the ways technology could be used to perpetrate violence, and 18.8% discussed both protection and perpetration. Thus, as shown in Table 1, there were in 320 articles that addressed protection (64.6%) and 269 that addressed perpetration (58.6%). 3.1. Technology used for protection Sexual or physical assault was the most commonly cited type of violence (57.2%) that technology could protect against, followed by cyber or in-person stalking (36.6%) and cyber or in-person harassment (29.7%). The types of protective technologies included mobile telephones (37.2%), wearable devices (19.4%), apps (18.8%), and social media (18.4%). As reported in Table 2, nearly all (95.6%) of the retrieved articles discussed an individual's use of technology for protection rather than the creation of technology-related policy solutions (5.9%). The articles described multiple ways individuals could use technology: Half (53.0%) described technologies that alert a potential victim's support network, for example, the app, Circle of 6, that sends a text message and GPS coordinates to the user's six friends and family members [42]. Over one third (38.5%) highlighted the use of technology for cyber protection. For instance, Google's AppNotifier can send email notifications if any software has been installed on a smartphone [43]. An additional 24.3% addressed how technology can provide information useful for protection. For instance, Harassmap provides crowd-sourced geographical data regarding street harassment incidents 2
Technology in Society 58 (2019) 101108
L.F. Cardoso, et al.
Table 1 Types of technology and types of violence, 495 online articles, %.
Table 3 Types of technology among 98 products that can be used to protect against or perpetrate various types of violence, %.
Primary theme
Type of technology Mobile telephone Wearable devices Apps Social media Computer Website E-mail GPS Text messaging Software Camera Online training Video Game General tech Other Type of violence Sexual or physical assault Stalking (cyber or in person) Harassment (cyber or in person) Violence (general) Posting images online
Protection
Perpetration
n = 320
n = 269
37.2 19.4 18.8 18.4 17.5 16.3 11.9 9.1 8.8 5.0 3.8 3.4 2.2 1.3 0.0 4.4
58.4 0.7 14.5 40.9 22.3 34.9 43.9 24.5 40.1 21.2 4.5 0.0 24.5 16.4 4.1 13.4
57.2 36.6 29.7 4.7 0.0
4.8 63.2 43.5 17.8 30.9
Use/purpose
n = 86
n = 12 45.4 41.9 3.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
8.3 58.3 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0
80.2 4.7 3.5 11.6
8.3 75.0 0.0 16.7
Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 because some articles described more than one type of violence.
for protection were designed to prevent sexual or physical assault (80.2%) and were in the form of wearable devices (45.3%) or apps (41.9%) and functioned as alert systems (51.1%). Apps can be used in several ways including to alert a social network of distress or to provide access to support or emergency services. An example of a wearable device is Athena, a pin that “protects women with the touch of a button” and sounds an audible alert and sends distress text messages and location information to a user-designated list of individuals [45]. Most of the technologies used for perpetration were apps (58.3%) or software (33.3%). The products were described as being used primarily (75.0%) for cyber- or in-person stalking. One example is Girls Around Me, an app that employed GPS and social networking platforms such as Facebook to locate women in the immediate vicinity without their knowledge [46]. After criticism for its potential to facilitate predatory behavior, the app was pulled by its developer [47]. Even if not designed to facilitate perpetration, some products could be used for such purposes. For instance, Waze, Google's navigation app, can be used to track drivers' movement in real time [48], a criticism to which Google responded by publicizing how to disable the function [49]. Two thirds (66.5%) of the articles retrieved were published in 2013 or later. News outlets were the most common (26.9%) source of articles. Other sources, including research institutes, advocacy organizations, blogs, government agencies, universities, and private companies each contributed about 10% of the remaining articles.
Table 2 Means and functions by which technology is purported to protect women, 320 online articles, %. Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 because some articles discussed more than one means to accomplish protection and more than one use. Means to accomplish protection (n = 320) 95.6 5.9
How technology protects with use by an individual (n = 306) Alarm/alert Cyber-protection Incident documentation Self defense Other
Perpetration
Type of technology Wearable device App Text messaging Mobile telephone Software Website Multiple Type of violence Sexual or physical assault Stalking (cyber or in person) Harassment (cyber or in person) Multiple types
Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 because some articles discussed more than one technology and more than one type of violence.
Individual uses technology Policy change
Protection
53.0 38.5 24.3 5.9 8.9
that women can take into account when planning a transit route [44]. 3.2. Technology used for perpetration
4. Discussion
About two thirds (63.2%) of the perpetration articles described technology's use for cyber or in-person stalking, such as the use of spyware, which can facilitate surveillance and send copies of passwords, websites visited, and emails to a perpetrator undetected. Cyber or in-person harassment was discussed in 43.5% of the perpetration articles, whereas 30.9% addressed the use of technology to post images or videos without a woman's consent. The most commonly discussed technologies used for perpetration were mobile telephones (58.4%), email (43.9%), social media (40.9%), and text messaging (40.1%).
Our inventory of new technologies updates the list of stalking-related technologies published a decade ago [9]. Although there is some overlap in the technologies identified – mobile phones and spyware, for instance – ten years ago fax machines and caller ID were of consequence, but Facebook was still in its infancy and apps did not exist. Other recent products include wearable devices designed to protect women from imminent danger: nail polish that detects date rape drugs [50], jewelry that provides location information to family and friends [51], and underwear that shocks potential rapists [52]. The continual development of products underscores the importance of current information. In-depth review and careful consideration of the identified articles resulted in multiple observations. Four key conclusions follow.
3.3. Types of technological products We identified 98 unique products in development or already on the market. The majority (86 devices; 87.8%) were designated as protective; 12 devices (12.2%) involved perpetration. Most technologies used 3
Technology in Society 58 (2019) 101108
L.F. Cardoso, et al.
4.1. Technology is portrayed most often as a means to enhance women's safety
Abusive behaviors such as monitoring someone online and tracking them via GPS do not occur in isolation. As previous research has shown, it is likely that women being cyber-stalked or monitored by a current or former partner are experiencing concurrent in-person psychological, physical, or sexual abuse [13,15,17,25,31]. For this reason, we agree with Henry and Powell [59] that it is problematic to construct a dichotomy between “virtual” and “real” victimization; in many ways “real” and “virtual” are inextricably linked.
Over half of the articles we identified focused on how technology can protect women from violence. Recurring topics were tips about cyber protection, the safe use of devices when experiencing IPV, and reviews of products designed to guard against violence in public space. Mobile telephones were the most commonly cited type of protective technology. With the advent of smartphone technology, not only can individuals call for help in emergencies, but they can film violent incidents and injuries, retain threatening text messages, and use apps to summon friends, all of which can provide evidence of wrongdoing. The scholarly literature to date has focused primarily on technology's use and psychological impact as a means of violence perpetration; few studies have assessed technology's use as a tool for protection [8,32,53]. Given the mainstream interest in technology as a protective tool, there is an opportunity to build on the current study to further examine the protective uses of emerging technology as well as the positive impacts these technologies might have on psychological wellbeing.
4.4. The onus is on women to protect themselves from abuse Companies developing safety technologies have been criticized for placing responsibility on women to protect themselves from sexual assault.[60] About one-third of the protection articles discussed using technology to prevent cyber-stalking and nearly all emphasized how women should alter their use of technology to defend against the abuse. Few addressed the responsibility of tech companies to reduce the problem of misuse. Holding women responsible for protecting themselves from abuse clearly predates the development of the technologies addressed herein. Likewise, rape myths [61] are not creations of recent technologies. What is new is the introduction of corporate messaging and profit. The sheer volume of products identified to protect women from sexual and physical assault suggests that in this cultural moment we are more enamored with the ease of technological innovation than concerned about confronting norms that hold the victim responsible. The novelty of the products might obscure the fact that they reinforce, perhaps unwittingly, a victim-blame perspective.
4.2. Technology is described primarily as a means of protection against sexual and/or physical assault Articles describing technology as protective typically cited sexual or physical assault as the type of violence it could protect against. Of the products identified for protection, most were wearable devices or apps that produce an alarm. Many of the devices appeared specifically to address sexual assault and to be based on an inaccurate understanding of the circumstances and likely perpetrator of such assaults. For example, Safelet, a bracelet that doubles as an alert system, uses a promotional video showing a young woman dressed as Little Red Riding Hood navigating a forest that transforms into dim city streets [54]. Such imagery perpetuates the misperception that strangers present the greatest risk despite decades of research documenting that a woman is most likely to be sexually assaulted by a man she knows [38,55]. Many such products are prototypes and the efficacy of those that have reached the market is unknown. Some products might be useful in contexts not previously considered. For instance, just as established technologies such as mobile phones and the Internet can help women seek assistance [8,32], these new products can be a discreet way for a woman being stalked or otherwise abused by an intimate partner to summon help.
5. Study strengths and limitations Study findings should be considered in light of two limitations. First, online search results are based, obviously, on the information available online. New information is posted continuously, thus, the set of data on which the current study is based cannot be duplicated. The study can be replicated, however, by following the methodology specified in the methods section (to delete search history, turn off location detection, search in private browsing mode, etc.). Second, sources reviewed articles varied in quality and therefore may not have provided robust descriptions of how technology can put women at risk or protect their safety. A key strength of the study is that the spectrum of retrieved articles reflects the information consumers obtain online, a primary source of technology-related information.
4.3. New technologies facilitate cyber- and in-person stalking Nearly one-third of the perpetration-related articles addressed how technology can be used to carry out cyber- and in-person stalking and almost all of the perpetration products could be used for this purpose. These technologies can facilitate electronic monitoring (e.g., apps that can be covertly installed on someone's phone to intercept messages) and pinpoint physical location. The latter represents the juncture of virtual and in-person violence and coincides with national data indicating that over one-quarter (26.1%) of in-person stalking victims also have been cyber-stalked [56]. Although some technologies might be created for the express purpose of stalking, others are designed for more conscionable functions but can be used to stalk. FlexiSpy software, for example, facilitates the monitoring of social media messages, intercepts and records calls, and tracks location. The product is marketed explicitly to persons “in a committed relationship” who want to “find out the truth.” [57] The app for Uber, a ride-hailing service also can be used to monitor the whereabouts of drivers [58]. Many of the articles retrieved focused on popular apps and downloadable spyware, thus, such technologies appear to be easy to obtain and, with the exception of fine-print disclaimer, there is little preventing the use of technology for stalking.
6. Conclusions and implications The rapid evolution of technology has implications – both beneficial and detrimental – for the well-being of women and girls. Entrepreneurs, non-profit organizations, telecommunications companies, and others create a fast-paced technology market. This exploratory investigation and others like it will generate an expeditious understanding of the technologies and their implications for women's safety. Technology can extend abuse and serve as a lifeline for victims. Unfortunately, victim-blame and misleading stranger-danger messaging are embedded in the marketing and guidelines for use of some of the new products. Considering how best to test the efficacy of the technologies, as well as challenging unverified claims of efficacy, are wise next steps for those concerned about the safety and well-being of women. Author disclosure statement No competing financial interests exist. 4
Technology in Society 58 (2019) 101108
L.F. Cardoso, et al.
Acknowledgements
545–550. [27] J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja, Cyberbullying and self-esteem, J. Sch. Health 80 (12) (2010) 614–621. [28] L.P. Sheridan, T. Grant, Is cyberstalking different? Psychol. Crime Law 13 (6) (2007) 627–640. [29] H. McGrath, Young people and technology: a review of the current literature, http://www.ncab.org.au/media/1371/2ndedition_youngpeopleandtechnology_ litreview_june202009.pdf, (2009). [30] D.A. Cole, R.L. Zelkowitz, E. Nick, N.C. Martin, K.M. Roeder, K. Sinclair-McBride, T. Spinelli, Longitudinal and incremental relation of cybervictimization to negative self-cognitions and depressive symptoms in young adolescents, J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 44 (7) (2016) 1321–1332. [31] M.R. Nobles, B.W. Reyns, K.A. Fox, B.S. Fisher, Protection against pursuit: a conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample, Justice Q. JQ 31 (6) (2014) 986–1014. [32] A.U. Zaidi, S. Fernando, N. Ammar, An exploratory study of the impact of information communication technology (ICT) or computer mediated communication (CMC) on the level of violence and access to service among intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors in Canada, Technol. Soc. 41 (2015) 91–97. [33] ComScore, ComScore releases March 2015 U.S. desktop search engine rankings, April 15, 2015. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings/comScore-ReleasesApril-2015-US-Desktop-Search-Engine-Rankings. [34] Google, Algorithms, http://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/ algorithms/, (2016). [35] Google, How to search and browse privately, https://support.google.com/ websearch/answer/4540094?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en, (2016). [36] C. Garcia-Moreno, C. Pallitto, K. Devries, H. Stöckl, C. Watts, N. Abrahams, Global and Regional Estimates of Violence against Women: Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Non-partner Sexual Violence, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2013. [37] United Nations, Cyber violence against women and girls, http://www.unwomen. org/∼/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2015/ cyber_violence_gender.report.pdf, (2015). [38] Chitika Insights, The value of Google result positioning, http://info.chitika.com/ uploads/4/9/2/1/49215843/chitikainsights-valueofgoogleresultspositioning.pdf, (2013) , Accessed date: 10 July 2016. [39] V. Braun, V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2) (2006) 77–101. [40] Circle of 6, Circle of 6, http://www.circleof6app.com/, (2015) , Accessed date: 29 June 2017. [41] Google Play, AppNotifier, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fr. chronosweb.android.appnotifier&hl=en, (2017) , Accessed date: 29 June 2017. [42] Harassmap, (2015). [43] ROAR for Good, Athena safety jewelry, http://www.roarforgood.com/-what-isathena, (2016). [44] N. Bilton, Girls Around Me: an app takes creepy to a new level, March 30, 2012. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/girls-around-me-ios-app-takes-creepyto-a-new-level/?_r=0. [45] I. Paul, Girls Around Me app voluntarily pulled after privacy backlash, April 2, 2012. http://www.pcworld.com/article/252996/girls_around_me_app_voluntarily_ pulled_after_privacy_backlash.html. [46] D. Meyer, Here's how Google's Waze can reportedly be used to stalk drivers, http:// fortune.com/2016/04/27/waze-stalking-flaw/, (2016). [47] Waze, Privacy and Waze, https://support.google.com/waze/answer/6071193?hl= en, (2016). [48] Undercover colors, http://www.undercovercolors.com/, (2015). [49] Stiletto, (2016). [50] A. Edelman, Engineers in India create electronic rape-preventing underwear, GPS included, April 2, 2013. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/engineerscreate-rape-preventing-underwear-article-1.1305842. [51] O.M. Gur, P.R. Ibarra, E. Erez, Specialization and the use of GPS for domestic violence by pretrial programs: findings from a national survey of US practitioners, J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 34 (1) (2016) 32–62. [52] Safelet, Feel safe with a safe bracelet, http://safelet.com/, (2016). [53] S.B. Sorenson, J.A. Stein, J.M. Siegel, J.M. Golding, M.A. Burnam, The Prevalence of adult sexual assault: the Los Angeles epidemiologic catchment area project, Am. J. Epidemiol. 126 (6) (1987) 1154–1164. [54] K. Baum, Stalking victimization in the United States, https://victimsofcrime.org/ docs/src/baum-k-catalano-s-rand-m-rose-k-2009.pdf?sfvrsn=0, (2011). [55] Flexispy, Spy on Mobile Phones, Cellphones, & Tablets, (2016). [56] J. Bhuiyan, Men are using Uber's lost-and-found feature to harass female drivers, February 10, 2015. http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/faced-withharassment-female-uber-drivers-often-left-to-fend?utm_term=.rmZvLX8oAgdAm9L2vW. [57] N. Henry, A. Powell, Embodied harms gender, shame, and technology-facilitated sexual violence, Violence Against Women 21 (6) (2015) 758–779. [58] T. Culp-Ressler, Profit and peril in the anti-rape industry, September 10, 2014. https://thinkprogress.org/profit-and-peril-in-the-anti-rape-industrye497c017b0ec/. [59] E. Suarez, T.M. Gadalla, Stop blaming the victim: a meta-analysis on rape myths, J. Interpers Violence 25 (11) (2010).
The study was supported by the Evelyn Jacobs Ortner Center on Family Violence. References [1] S. Perez, App Store to reach 5 million apps by 2020, with games leading the way, https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/10/app-store-to-reach-5-million-apps-by-2020with-games-leading-the-way/, (2016). [2] ITU, ICT Facts and Figures, (2015). [3] E. Montague, J. Perchonok, Health and wellness technology use by historically underserved health consumers: systematic review, J. Med. Internet Res. 14 (3) (2012) e78. [4] S. Thomée, A. Härenstam, M. Hagberg, Mobile phone use and stress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression among young adults-a prospective cohort study, BMC Public Health 11 (1) (2011) 1. [5] C. Winterton, Online violence: just because it's virtual doesn't make it any less real, April 4, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clare-winterton/online-violencejust-beca_b_7055566.html. [6] C. Buni, S. Chemaly, The unsafety net: how social media turned against women, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-unsafety-net-howsocial-media-turned-against-women/381261/, (2014). [7] UNESCO, Combatting online violence against women & girls: a worldwide wake-up call: highlights, http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/ images/wsis/HighlightDocumentEnglish.pdf, (2015). [8] J. Finn, T. Atkinson, Promoting the safe and strategic use of technology for victims of intimate partner violence: evaluation of the technology safety project, J. Fam. Violence 24 (1) (2009) 53–59. [9] C. Southworth, J. Finn, S. Dawson, C. Fraser, S. Tucker, Intimate partner violence, technology, and stalking, Violence Against Women 13 (8) (2007) 842–856. [10] S.C. Burke, M. Wallen, K. Vail-Smith, D. Knox, Using technology to control intimate partners: an exploratory study of college undergraduates, Comput. Hum. Behav. 27 (3) (2011) 1162–1167. [11] J. Dimond, C. Fiesler, A. Bruckman, Domestic violence and information communication technologies, Interact. Comput. 23 (5) (2011) 413–421. [12] N. Henry, A. Powell, Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence A Literature Review of Empirical Research, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, (2016). [13] D.C. Bennett, E.L. Guran, M.C. Ramos, G. Margolin, College students' electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors, Violence Vict. 26 (4) (2011) 410–429. [14] J.D. Korchmaros, M.L. Ybarra, J. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, D. Boyd, A. Lenhart, Perpetration of teen dating violence in a networked society, Cyberpsychol., Behav. Soc. Netw. 16 (8) (2013) 561–567. [15] M.J. Brem, L.C. Spiller, M.A. Vandehey, Online mate-retention tactics on Facebook are associated with relationship aggression, J. Interpers Violence 30 (16) (2015) 2831–2850. [16] B.H. Spitzberg, G. Hoobler, Cyberstalking and the Technologies of Interpersonal Terrorism vol. 4, New Media & Society, 2002, pp. 71–92 1. [17] J.M. Zweig, M. Dank, J. Yahner, P. Lachman, The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence, J. Youth Adolesc. 42 (7) (2013) 1063–1077. [18] P.A. Leisring, G.W. Giumetti, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but abusive text messages aso hurt: development and validation of the cyber psychological abuse scale, Partner Abuse 5 (3) (2014) 323–341. [19] A. Lenhart, A. Smith, M. Anderson, Teen, technology, and romantic relationships, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/01/teens-technology-and-romanticrelationships/, (2015). [20] C. Wolford-Clevenger, H. Zapor, H. Brasfield, J. Febres, J. Elmquist, M. Brem, R.C. Shorey, G.L. Stuart, An examination of the Partner Cyber Abuse Questionnaire in a college student sample, Psychol. Violence 6 (1) (2016) 156. [21] D. Felmlee, R. Faris, Toxic ties: networks of friendship, dating, and cyber victimization, Soc. Psychol. Q. 79 (3) (2016) 243–262. [22] L.A. Reed, R.M. Tolman, L.M. Ward, Gender matters: experiences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating relationships, J. Adolesc. 59 (2017) 79–89. [23] C. Barter, N. Stanley, M. Wood, A. Lanau, N. Aghtaie, C. Larkins, C. Øverlien, Young people's online and face-to-face experiences of interpersonal violence and abuse and their subjective impact across five European countries, Psychol. Violence 7 (3) (2017) 375. [24] M.F. Peskin, C.M. Markham, R. Shegog, J.R. Temple, E.R. Baumler, R.C. Addy, B. Hernandez, P. Cuccaro, E.K. Gabay, M. Thiel, Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyber dating abuse among early adolescents, J. Youth Adolesc. 46 (2) (2017) 358–375. [25] A. Marganski, L. Melander, Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber and real world: examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its association with in-person dating violence, J. Interpers Violence 33 (7) (2015) 1071–1095. [26] K.S. Sargent, A. Krauss, E.N. Jouriles, R. McDonald, Cyber victimization, psychological intimate partner violence, and problematic mental health outcomes among first-year college students, Cyberpsychol., Behav. Soc. Netw. 19 (9) (2016)
5
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technology in Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc
Recent and emerging technologies: Implications for women's safety Lauren F. Cardoso , Susan B. Sorenson, Olivia Webb, Sara Landers
T
∗
University of Pennsylvania, United States
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Cyberstalking Intimate partner violence Stalking Technology
New technologies have multiple implications for women's safety and well-being. As emerging scholarship begins to capture the scope and psychosocial impact of technology-related violence, the literature can become outpaced by the rapid development of technologies, some of which are designed to protect women. This exploratory study conducted a series of online searches to document and describe new technologies that can be used to enhance or reduce women's safety. A total 23,100 web-based articles, including but not limited to news stories and marketing materials, were identified and screened; 495 were reviewed and key constructs were coded. Two thirds of the articles addressed how technology could protect women and over half addressed perpetration; 18.8% addressed both. Protection focused largely on two technologies –mobile telephones (37.2%) and wearable devices (19.4%) – and sexual or physical assault (57.2%). Perpetration focused on mobile telephones (58.4%) and e-mail (43.9%) and cyber- or in-person stalking (63.2%). Women are advised to alter their online behavior; negligible attention is given to tech companies' responsibilities. Of the 98 products identified, most (80.2%) – typically a wearable device or app – were described as protecting women from sexual or physical assault. The products are marketed, with little evidence, as a way for women to protect themselves from assault. The introduction of corporate messaging and profit into the long-standing issue of violence against women is changing the means by which women can be abused and simultaneously and perhaps inadvertently is reinforcing norms that hold women accountable for their victimization.
1. Introduction The current rate of technology development and adoption is remarkable. There is a reason “there's an app for that” rings true: currently more than 2 million apps are available in Apple's online store, up from 5000 in 2008, the store's inaugural year [1]. Mobile telephones offer another example: global subscriptions increased from 738 million in 2000 to over 7 billion in 2015 [2]. Implications of new technologies are wide-ranging [3,4]; herein, we focus on implications for women's safety. The popular press regularly documents gender-based harassment and threats of violence against online journalists and Internet-users [5,6]. Such hostility is so common that the United Nations issued a report urging a “worldwide wake-up call.” [7] They noted that nearly 75% of female Internet users have experienced online gender-based hostility ranging from harassment to threats of physical and sexual harm. Moreover, technology extends the reach of abusive intimate partners. Abusers (typically men) restrict their victims’ (typically women) social world such that victims become increasingly dependent on their abuser. In this context, mobile phones, global positioning systems ∗
(GPS), computer software, and more can be used to stalk, monitor, and control women [8–10]. Threats of intimate partner violence (IPV) via texts and social media as well as the posting of intimate photographs and videos also are common [11,12]. Emerging research on the topic focuses primarily on teenagers and college students and examines the nature and scope of cyber partner abuse [11,13–24]. In the only nationally-representative study to date, 15% of teens with dating experience reported having been pressured via technology into unwanted sexual activity [19]. A recent college study suggests that cyber dating aggression might be more common than in-person aggression: nearly three fourths of undergraduates reported some form of intimate partner cyber-aggression, about half reported in-person IPV [25]. The measures, definitions, and sampling strategies vary among studies, making comparison difficult, but the pattern of findings points to a substantial problem among young people. Cyber violence victimization is reported to be associated with depression and anti-social behavior [20,26], diminished self-esteem [27], and fear and anxiety [28]. Some assert that cyber violence actually might be more damaging than in-person abuse because it has a wide audience, can be anonymous, and is insufficiently regulated [29]. Initial
Corresponding author. 3815 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.F. Cardoso).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.01.001 Received 22 November 2017; Received in revised form 31 December 2018; Accepted 14 January 2019 Available online 17 January 2019 0160-791X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Technology in Society 58 (2019) 101108
L.F. Cardoso, et al.
evidence supports this contention: In a longitudinal study of 570 adolescents, cyber victimization predicted negative thoughts and depressive symptoms over and above traditional forms of peer victimization [30]. The emotional toll of cyber and in-person IPV is difficult to disentangle as the two often co-occur [13,15,17,25,31]. For instance, among undergraduates at a Midwestern university, cyber victimization was associated with substantially higher odds of in-person psychological, physical, and sexual abuse [25]. Notably, little attention has been given to how technology can be used to enhance women's safety and support victims. The existing evidence indicates that mobile phones and the Internet can facilitate victims' access to information and services, strengthen their support network, and play a vital role in safety and escape planning [8,32]. It is important to consider potentially positive uses of technology. Scholarship on technology and violence against women (VAW) has begun to elucidate the nature and scope of the phenomenon; however, it struggles to capture a timely depiction of technologies currently in use. Therefore, this exploratory study uses an innovative method of data collection to achieve three aims: (1) to inventory current technologies used to increase or reduce women's risk of harm, (2) to describe the nature of these technologies and their use for violence perpetration or protection, and (3) to offer overarching observations about these technologies and associated messaging as they relate to VAW. Findings are considered within the context of the agenda-setting function of media. The frequency, type of coverage, and framing of an issue by media can influence, and therefore potentially mirror, how a mediaconsuming audience perceives an issue [33]. This is true of traditional [33] and new media [34] and in the case of this study helps inform observations of the nature and use of, and messaging about technologies related to VAW.
2.1. Data management Each article was coded for type of website (e.g., news), date, function (e.g., protection), type of technology (e.g., wearable device), and type of violence (e.g., stalking). Two considerations merit mention. First, few articles distinguished between mobile and landline telephones although the information described seemed unique to mobile phone functionality (e.g., app use) so all telephone technology was categorized as “mobile telephone.” Second, sexual and physical assault could not be coded separately because the articles typically did not distinguish between them (e.g., sexual and dating violence). A brief description of the key points of each retrieved item was recorded. At the beginning of the screening process, each research team member checked 20% of another's work to assess consistency in article inclusion. Team members discussed discrepancies. Inter-rater reliability was near perfect after 25% of the articles were screened, after which quality checks were continued on 10% of the results. Overall, the interrater reliability for screening was 95.9%. Subsequent quality checks on 10% of each other's coding resulted in an inter-rater reliability of 95.4%. 2.2. Analyses Frequencies were tabulated for the key constructs: type of technology, type of violence, and function (i.e., perpetration, protection). Furthermore, an abridged thematic analysis was used to determine patterns, or “themes,” among the articles collected [41]. These themes, derived from multiple readings of articles and discussions among research team members, informed broad observations about the nature and use of, and messaging about the identified technologies. Specifically, we used the following questions (derived from the aims of the study) to frame the analysis and interpretation: What existing technologies have implications for VAW? How are these technologies used to prevent or facilitate the perpetration of VAW? What does the messaging about these technologies convey about the association between technology and VAW?
2. Methods We conducted a series of online searches to identify new technologies that could enhance or reduce women's safety. We chose to rely on information published on the Internet and retrieved by Google, the leading search engine [35], to capture the most up-to-date technologies. Google searches are tailored using algorithms driven by an individual's search and web history, location, and use of social networks [36]. To reduce this source of potential bias, we followed steps identified by Google: delete search history, turn off location detection, and search in private browsing mode [37]. The chosen terms related to three constructs: type of technology (e.g., mobile telephone), type of violence (e.g., harassment), and action of interest (i.e., to protect or perpetrate). We defined technology broadly – tools that can be used to perpetrate or protect against violence – in order to identify the widest range of articles. Therefore, technology search terms ranged from specific (e.g., social media) to general (e.g., tech). Violence search terms reflected the most common types of VAW, as identified by the UN and WHO [38,39]. All possible combinations of terms were used, for a total of 1155 unique searches. To retrieve the information of a typical Google user, we followed common search behavior. A reported 96.3% of searchers stop at the second page of search results [40]. We retained the first two pages of results for each search, yielding 23,100 articles for screening. Articles addressing violence against women or girls and the use of technology for perpetration or protection were logged for subsequent review. We included articles that discussed technologies and did not specifically mention but had obvious implications for VAW (e.g., apps that facilitate hacking a mobile telephone). We focused on technology use by individuals and excluded articles related to technology used for primary prevention or service provision. We also excluded results related to legislation, books, videos, and podcasts. After screening, 766 articles remained, 271 of which were duplicates, resulting in a final N of 495.
3. Results Nearly one half (46.5%) of the 495 articles focused solely on how technology could protect women from violence; a third (34.7%) highlighted the ways technology could be used to perpetrate violence, and 18.8% discussed both protection and perpetration. Thus, as shown in Table 1, there were in 320 articles that addressed protection (64.6%) and 269 that addressed perpetration (58.6%). 3.1. Technology used for protection Sexual or physical assault was the most commonly cited type of violence (57.2%) that technology could protect against, followed by cyber or in-person stalking (36.6%) and cyber or in-person harassment (29.7%). The types of protective technologies included mobile telephones (37.2%), wearable devices (19.4%), apps (18.8%), and social media (18.4%). As reported in Table 2, nearly all (95.6%) of the retrieved articles discussed an individual's use of technology for protection rather than the creation of technology-related policy solutions (5.9%). The articles described multiple ways individuals could use technology: Half (53.0%) described technologies that alert a potential victim's support network, for example, the app, Circle of 6, that sends a text message and GPS coordinates to the user's six friends and family members [42]. Over one third (38.5%) highlighted the use of technology for cyber protection. For instance, Google's AppNotifier can send email notifications if any software has been installed on a smartphone [43]. An additional 24.3% addressed how technology can provide information useful for protection. For instance, Harassmap provides crowd-sourced geographical data regarding street harassment incidents 2
Technology in Society 58 (2019) 101108
L.F. Cardoso, et al.
Table 1 Types of technology and types of violence, 495 online articles, %.
Table 3 Types of technology among 98 products that can be used to protect against or perpetrate various types of violence, %.
Primary theme
Type of technology Mobile telephone Wearable devices Apps Social media Computer Website E-mail GPS Text messaging Software Camera Online training Video Game General tech Other Type of violence Sexual or physical assault Stalking (cyber or in person) Harassment (cyber or in person) Violence (general) Posting images online
Protection
Perpetration
n = 320
n = 269
37.2 19.4 18.8 18.4 17.5 16.3 11.9 9.1 8.8 5.0 3.8 3.4 2.2 1.3 0.0 4.4
58.4 0.7 14.5 40.9 22.3 34.9 43.9 24.5 40.1 21.2 4.5 0.0 24.5 16.4 4.1 13.4
57.2 36.6 29.7 4.7 0.0
4.8 63.2 43.5 17.8 30.9
Use/purpose
n = 86
n = 12 45.4 41.9 3.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
8.3 58.3 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0
80.2 4.7 3.5 11.6
8.3 75.0 0.0 16.7
Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 because some articles described more than one type of violence.
for protection were designed to prevent sexual or physical assault (80.2%) and were in the form of wearable devices (45.3%) or apps (41.9%) and functioned as alert systems (51.1%). Apps can be used in several ways including to alert a social network of distress or to provide access to support or emergency services. An example of a wearable device is Athena, a pin that “protects women with the touch of a button” and sounds an audible alert and sends distress text messages and location information to a user-designated list of individuals [45]. Most of the technologies used for perpetration were apps (58.3%) or software (33.3%). The products were described as being used primarily (75.0%) for cyber- or in-person stalking. One example is Girls Around Me, an app that employed GPS and social networking platforms such as Facebook to locate women in the immediate vicinity without their knowledge [46]. After criticism for its potential to facilitate predatory behavior, the app was pulled by its developer [47]. Even if not designed to facilitate perpetration, some products could be used for such purposes. For instance, Waze, Google's navigation app, can be used to track drivers' movement in real time [48], a criticism to which Google responded by publicizing how to disable the function [49]. Two thirds (66.5%) of the articles retrieved were published in 2013 or later. News outlets were the most common (26.9%) source of articles. Other sources, including research institutes, advocacy organizations, blogs, government agencies, universities, and private companies each contributed about 10% of the remaining articles.
Table 2 Means and functions by which technology is purported to protect women, 320 online articles, %. Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 because some articles discussed more than one means to accomplish protection and more than one use. Means to accomplish protection (n = 320) 95.6 5.9
How technology protects with use by an individual (n = 306) Alarm/alert Cyber-protection Incident documentation Self defense Other
Perpetration
Type of technology Wearable device App Text messaging Mobile telephone Software Website Multiple Type of violence Sexual or physical assault Stalking (cyber or in person) Harassment (cyber or in person) Multiple types
Note: Percentages do not add to 100.0 because some articles discussed more than one technology and more than one type of violence.
Individual uses technology Policy change
Protection
53.0 38.5 24.3 5.9 8.9
that women can take into account when planning a transit route [44]. 3.2. Technology used for perpetration
4. Discussion
About two thirds (63.2%) of the perpetration articles described technology's use for cyber or in-person stalking, such as the use of spyware, which can facilitate surveillance and send copies of passwords, websites visited, and emails to a perpetrator undetected. Cyber or in-person harassment was discussed in 43.5% of the perpetration articles, whereas 30.9% addressed the use of technology to post images or videos without a woman's consent. The most commonly discussed technologies used for perpetration were mobile telephones (58.4%), email (43.9%), social media (40.9%), and text messaging (40.1%).
Our inventory of new technologies updates the list of stalking-related technologies published a decade ago [9]. Although there is some overlap in the technologies identified – mobile phones and spyware, for instance – ten years ago fax machines and caller ID were of consequence, but Facebook was still in its infancy and apps did not exist. Other recent products include wearable devices designed to protect women from imminent danger: nail polish that detects date rape drugs [50], jewelry that provides location information to family and friends [51], and underwear that shocks potential rapists [52]. The continual development of products underscores the importance of current information. In-depth review and careful consideration of the identified articles resulted in multiple observations. Four key conclusions follow.
3.3. Types of technological products We identified 98 unique products in development or already on the market. The majority (86 devices; 87.8%) were designated as protective; 12 devices (12.2%) involved perpetration. Most technologies used 3
Technology in Society 58 (2019) 101108
L.F. Cardoso, et al.
4.1. Technology is portrayed most often as a means to enhance women's safety
Abusive behaviors such as monitoring someone online and tracking them via GPS do not occur in isolation. As previous research has shown, it is likely that women being cyber-stalked or monitored by a current or former partner are experiencing concurrent in-person psychological, physical, or sexual abuse [13,15,17,25,31]. For this reason, we agree with Henry and Powell [59] that it is problematic to construct a dichotomy between “virtual” and “real” victimization; in many ways “real” and “virtual” are inextricably linked.
Over half of the articles we identified focused on how technology can protect women from violence. Recurring topics were tips about cyber protection, the safe use of devices when experiencing IPV, and reviews of products designed to guard against violence in public space. Mobile telephones were the most commonly cited type of protective technology. With the advent of smartphone technology, not only can individuals call for help in emergencies, but they can film violent incidents and injuries, retain threatening text messages, and use apps to summon friends, all of which can provide evidence of wrongdoing. The scholarly literature to date has focused primarily on technology's use and psychological impact as a means of violence perpetration; few studies have assessed technology's use as a tool for protection [8,32,53]. Given the mainstream interest in technology as a protective tool, there is an opportunity to build on the current study to further examine the protective uses of emerging technology as well as the positive impacts these technologies might have on psychological wellbeing.
4.4. The onus is on women to protect themselves from abuse Companies developing safety technologies have been criticized for placing responsibility on women to protect themselves from sexual assault.[60] About one-third of the protection articles discussed using technology to prevent cyber-stalking and nearly all emphasized how women should alter their use of technology to defend against the abuse. Few addressed the responsibility of tech companies to reduce the problem of misuse. Holding women responsible for protecting themselves from abuse clearly predates the development of the technologies addressed herein. Likewise, rape myths [61] are not creations of recent technologies. What is new is the introduction of corporate messaging and profit. The sheer volume of products identified to protect women from sexual and physical assault suggests that in this cultural moment we are more enamored with the ease of technological innovation than concerned about confronting norms that hold the victim responsible. The novelty of the products might obscure the fact that they reinforce, perhaps unwittingly, a victim-blame perspective.
4.2. Technology is described primarily as a means of protection against sexual and/or physical assault Articles describing technology as protective typically cited sexual or physical assault as the type of violence it could protect against. Of the products identified for protection, most were wearable devices or apps that produce an alarm. Many of the devices appeared specifically to address sexual assault and to be based on an inaccurate understanding of the circumstances and likely perpetrator of such assaults. For example, Safelet, a bracelet that doubles as an alert system, uses a promotional video showing a young woman dressed as Little Red Riding Hood navigating a forest that transforms into dim city streets [54]. Such imagery perpetuates the misperception that strangers present the greatest risk despite decades of research documenting that a woman is most likely to be sexually assaulted by a man she knows [38,55]. Many such products are prototypes and the efficacy of those that have reached the market is unknown. Some products might be useful in contexts not previously considered. For instance, just as established technologies such as mobile phones and the Internet can help women seek assistance [8,32], these new products can be a discreet way for a woman being stalked or otherwise abused by an intimate partner to summon help.
5. Study strengths and limitations Study findings should be considered in light of two limitations. First, online search results are based, obviously, on the information available online. New information is posted continuously, thus, the set of data on which the current study is based cannot be duplicated. The study can be replicated, however, by following the methodology specified in the methods section (to delete search history, turn off location detection, search in private browsing mode, etc.). Second, sources reviewed articles varied in quality and therefore may not have provided robust descriptions of how technology can put women at risk or protect their safety. A key strength of the study is that the spectrum of retrieved articles reflects the information consumers obtain online, a primary source of technology-related information.
4.3. New technologies facilitate cyber- and in-person stalking Nearly one-third of the perpetration-related articles addressed how technology can be used to carry out cyber- and in-person stalking and almost all of the perpetration products could be used for this purpose. These technologies can facilitate electronic monitoring (e.g., apps that can be covertly installed on someone's phone to intercept messages) and pinpoint physical location. The latter represents the juncture of virtual and in-person violence and coincides with national data indicating that over one-quarter (26.1%) of in-person stalking victims also have been cyber-stalked [56]. Although some technologies might be created for the express purpose of stalking, others are designed for more conscionable functions but can be used to stalk. FlexiSpy software, for example, facilitates the monitoring of social media messages, intercepts and records calls, and tracks location. The product is marketed explicitly to persons “in a committed relationship” who want to “find out the truth.” [57] The app for Uber, a ride-hailing service also can be used to monitor the whereabouts of drivers [58]. Many of the articles retrieved focused on popular apps and downloadable spyware, thus, such technologies appear to be easy to obtain and, with the exception of fine-print disclaimer, there is little preventing the use of technology for stalking.
6. Conclusions and implications The rapid evolution of technology has implications – both beneficial and detrimental – for the well-being of women and girls. Entrepreneurs, non-profit organizations, telecommunications companies, and others create a fast-paced technology market. This exploratory investigation and others like it will generate an expeditious understanding of the technologies and their implications for women's safety. Technology can extend abuse and serve as a lifeline for victims. Unfortunately, victim-blame and misleading stranger-danger messaging are embedded in the marketing and guidelines for use of some of the new products. Considering how best to test the efficacy of the technologies, as well as challenging unverified claims of efficacy, are wise next steps for those concerned about the safety and well-being of women. Author disclosure statement No competing financial interests exist. 4
Technology in Society 58 (2019) 101108
L.F. Cardoso, et al.
Acknowledgements
545–550. [27] J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja, Cyberbullying and self-esteem, J. Sch. Health 80 (12) (2010) 614–621. [28] L.P. Sheridan, T. Grant, Is cyberstalking different? Psychol. Crime Law 13 (6) (2007) 627–640. [29] H. McGrath, Young people and technology: a review of the current literature, http://www.ncab.org.au/media/1371/2ndedition_youngpeopleandtechnology_ litreview_june202009.pdf, (2009). [30] D.A. Cole, R.L. Zelkowitz, E. Nick, N.C. Martin, K.M. Roeder, K. Sinclair-McBride, T. Spinelli, Longitudinal and incremental relation of cybervictimization to negative self-cognitions and depressive symptoms in young adolescents, J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 44 (7) (2016) 1321–1332. [31] M.R. Nobles, B.W. Reyns, K.A. Fox, B.S. Fisher, Protection against pursuit: a conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample, Justice Q. JQ 31 (6) (2014) 986–1014. [32] A.U. Zaidi, S. Fernando, N. Ammar, An exploratory study of the impact of information communication technology (ICT) or computer mediated communication (CMC) on the level of violence and access to service among intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors in Canada, Technol. Soc. 41 (2015) 91–97. [33] ComScore, ComScore releases March 2015 U.S. desktop search engine rankings, April 15, 2015. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings/comScore-ReleasesApril-2015-US-Desktop-Search-Engine-Rankings. [34] Google, Algorithms, http://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/ algorithms/, (2016). [35] Google, How to search and browse privately, https://support.google.com/ websearch/answer/4540094?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en, (2016). [36] C. Garcia-Moreno, C. Pallitto, K. Devries, H. Stöckl, C. Watts, N. Abrahams, Global and Regional Estimates of Violence against Women: Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Non-partner Sexual Violence, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2013. [37] United Nations, Cyber violence against women and girls, http://www.unwomen. org/∼/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2015/ cyber_violence_gender.report.pdf, (2015). [38] Chitika Insights, The value of Google result positioning, http://info.chitika.com/ uploads/4/9/2/1/49215843/chitikainsights-valueofgoogleresultspositioning.pdf, (2013) , Accessed date: 10 July 2016. [39] V. Braun, V. Clarke, Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2) (2006) 77–101. [40] Circle of 6, Circle of 6, http://www.circleof6app.com/, (2015) , Accessed date: 29 June 2017. [41] Google Play, AppNotifier, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fr. chronosweb.android.appnotifier&hl=en, (2017) , Accessed date: 29 June 2017. [42] Harassmap, (2015). [43] ROAR for Good, Athena safety jewelry, http://www.roarforgood.com/-what-isathena, (2016). [44] N. Bilton, Girls Around Me: an app takes creepy to a new level, March 30, 2012. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/girls-around-me-ios-app-takes-creepyto-a-new-level/?_r=0. [45] I. Paul, Girls Around Me app voluntarily pulled after privacy backlash, April 2, 2012. http://www.pcworld.com/article/252996/girls_around_me_app_voluntarily_ pulled_after_privacy_backlash.html. [46] D. Meyer, Here's how Google's Waze can reportedly be used to stalk drivers, http:// fortune.com/2016/04/27/waze-stalking-flaw/, (2016). [47] Waze, Privacy and Waze, https://support.google.com/waze/answer/6071193?hl= en, (2016). [48] Undercover colors, http://www.undercovercolors.com/, (2015). [49] Stiletto, (2016). [50] A. Edelman, Engineers in India create electronic rape-preventing underwear, GPS included, April 2, 2013. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/engineerscreate-rape-preventing-underwear-article-1.1305842. [51] O.M. Gur, P.R. Ibarra, E. Erez, Specialization and the use of GPS for domestic violence by pretrial programs: findings from a national survey of US practitioners, J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 34 (1) (2016) 32–62. [52] Safelet, Feel safe with a safe bracelet, http://safelet.com/, (2016). [53] S.B. Sorenson, J.A. Stein, J.M. Siegel, J.M. Golding, M.A. Burnam, The Prevalence of adult sexual assault: the Los Angeles epidemiologic catchment area project, Am. J. Epidemiol. 126 (6) (1987) 1154–1164. [54] K. Baum, Stalking victimization in the United States, https://victimsofcrime.org/ docs/src/baum-k-catalano-s-rand-m-rose-k-2009.pdf?sfvrsn=0, (2011). [55] Flexispy, Spy on Mobile Phones, Cellphones, & Tablets, (2016). [56] J. Bhuiyan, Men are using Uber's lost-and-found feature to harass female drivers, February 10, 2015. http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/faced-withharassment-female-uber-drivers-often-left-to-fend?utm_term=.rmZvLX8oAgdAm9L2vW. [57] N. Henry, A. Powell, Embodied harms gender, shame, and technology-facilitated sexual violence, Violence Against Women 21 (6) (2015) 758–779. [58] T. Culp-Ressler, Profit and peril in the anti-rape industry, September 10, 2014. https://thinkprogress.org/profit-and-peril-in-the-anti-rape-industrye497c017b0ec/. [59] E. Suarez, T.M. Gadalla, Stop blaming the victim: a meta-analysis on rape myths, J. Interpers Violence 25 (11) (2010).
The study was supported by the Evelyn Jacobs Ortner Center on Family Violence. References [1] S. Perez, App Store to reach 5 million apps by 2020, with games leading the way, https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/10/app-store-to-reach-5-million-apps-by-2020with-games-leading-the-way/, (2016). [2] ITU, ICT Facts and Figures, (2015). [3] E. Montague, J. Perchonok, Health and wellness technology use by historically underserved health consumers: systematic review, J. Med. Internet Res. 14 (3) (2012) e78. [4] S. Thomée, A. Härenstam, M. Hagberg, Mobile phone use and stress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression among young adults-a prospective cohort study, BMC Public Health 11 (1) (2011) 1. [5] C. Winterton, Online violence: just because it's virtual doesn't make it any less real, April 4, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clare-winterton/online-violencejust-beca_b_7055566.html. [6] C. Buni, S. Chemaly, The unsafety net: how social media turned against women, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-unsafety-net-howsocial-media-turned-against-women/381261/, (2014). [7] UNESCO, Combatting online violence against women & girls: a worldwide wake-up call: highlights, http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/ images/wsis/HighlightDocumentEnglish.pdf, (2015). [8] J. Finn, T. Atkinson, Promoting the safe and strategic use of technology for victims of intimate partner violence: evaluation of the technology safety project, J. Fam. Violence 24 (1) (2009) 53–59. [9] C. Southworth, J. Finn, S. Dawson, C. Fraser, S. Tucker, Intimate partner violence, technology, and stalking, Violence Against Women 13 (8) (2007) 842–856. [10] S.C. Burke, M. Wallen, K. Vail-Smith, D. Knox, Using technology to control intimate partners: an exploratory study of college undergraduates, Comput. Hum. Behav. 27 (3) (2011) 1162–1167. [11] J. Dimond, C. Fiesler, A. Bruckman, Domestic violence and information communication technologies, Interact. Comput. 23 (5) (2011) 413–421. [12] N. Henry, A. Powell, Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence A Literature Review of Empirical Research, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, (2016). [13] D.C. Bennett, E.L. Guran, M.C. Ramos, G. Margolin, College students' electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors, Violence Vict. 26 (4) (2011) 410–429. [14] J.D. Korchmaros, M.L. Ybarra, J. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, D. Boyd, A. Lenhart, Perpetration of teen dating violence in a networked society, Cyberpsychol., Behav. Soc. Netw. 16 (8) (2013) 561–567. [15] M.J. Brem, L.C. Spiller, M.A. Vandehey, Online mate-retention tactics on Facebook are associated with relationship aggression, J. Interpers Violence 30 (16) (2015) 2831–2850. [16] B.H. Spitzberg, G. Hoobler, Cyberstalking and the Technologies of Interpersonal Terrorism vol. 4, New Media & Society, 2002, pp. 71–92 1. [17] J.M. Zweig, M. Dank, J. Yahner, P. Lachman, The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence, J. Youth Adolesc. 42 (7) (2013) 1063–1077. [18] P.A. Leisring, G.W. Giumetti, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but abusive text messages aso hurt: development and validation of the cyber psychological abuse scale, Partner Abuse 5 (3) (2014) 323–341. [19] A. Lenhart, A. Smith, M. Anderson, Teen, technology, and romantic relationships, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/01/teens-technology-and-romanticrelationships/, (2015). [20] C. Wolford-Clevenger, H. Zapor, H. Brasfield, J. Febres, J. Elmquist, M. Brem, R.C. Shorey, G.L. Stuart, An examination of the Partner Cyber Abuse Questionnaire in a college student sample, Psychol. Violence 6 (1) (2016) 156. [21] D. Felmlee, R. Faris, Toxic ties: networks of friendship, dating, and cyber victimization, Soc. Psychol. Q. 79 (3) (2016) 243–262. [22] L.A. Reed, R.M. Tolman, L.M. Ward, Gender matters: experiences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating relationships, J. Adolesc. 59 (2017) 79–89. [23] C. Barter, N. Stanley, M. Wood, A. Lanau, N. Aghtaie, C. Larkins, C. Øverlien, Young people's online and face-to-face experiences of interpersonal violence and abuse and their subjective impact across five European countries, Psychol. Violence 7 (3) (2017) 375. [24] M.F. Peskin, C.M. Markham, R. Shegog, J.R. Temple, E.R. Baumler, R.C. Addy, B. Hernandez, P. Cuccaro, E.K. Gabay, M. Thiel, Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyber dating abuse among early adolescents, J. Youth Adolesc. 46 (2) (2017) 358–375. [25] A. Marganski, L. Melander, Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber and real world: examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its association with in-person dating violence, J. Interpers Violence 33 (7) (2015) 1071–1095. [26] K.S. Sargent, A. Krauss, E.N. Jouriles, R. McDonald, Cyber victimization, psychological intimate partner violence, and problematic mental health outcomes among first-year college students, Cyberpsychol., Behav. Soc. Netw. 19 (9) (2016)
5