Wikibooks

Debates in Digital
Culture 2019/Online
Disinhibition
< Debates in Digital Culture 2019

Introduction to
Online Disinhibition
According to the Online Disinhibition
effect, the behaviours one exhibits online
greatly stray from that of the ones they
express offline. According to John R. Suler,
this aspect of online life is like a “double
edged sword.” [1] Whilst on the one hand it
can have positive impacts by encouraging
people to explore and express their true
identities without societal constraints
which dominate the physical world, it can
also be extremely negative. Online
disinhibition has given rise to many toxic
implications such as cyberbullying,
harassment or threatening language. In his
writings on the topic, Suler identifies six
key factors which play a role in the
formation of online disinhibition. Each will
be examined within this essay.
People are becoming more and more reliant on social
media as an outlet for expression. However, this does
not always come without a cost

All in all, this topic looks at comparisons

between online and offline behaviours and
the potential motives that lie behind these
alterations. Whilst some explain these
deviances in behaviour through
psychological theories such as the ‘Social
structure and Social Learning Theory’
which argues that our behaviours often
mimic those of the people we surround
ourselves with [2], the underlying premise
is the same. The online world provides
new ways of expression that are often
what people view as morally unacceptable
offline, but now these same modes of
expression are suddenly viewed in a
completely different light when produced
from behind a screen.

Main Concepts
Benign Disinhibition …

Benign online disinhibition refers to the

positive outcomes which can come from
presenting oneself on the Internet. Being
that online platforms lack the social cues
of face-to-face communication, they come
across as far less intimidating. We no
longer feel a pressure to conform to
societal norms. We can be who we want to
be, expressing ourselves in a way in which
we would not feel comfortable showing
offline in the form of what Suler calls an
“emotional hit and run.” [3]

Benign online disinhibition allows us to grow and

develop our identities in ways that are often denied in
the offline world.
Not only does the fluidity of this platform
allow us to experiment with multiple
identities, but it often encourages us to be
more open and furthermore accepting
than we are in person. If something is
weighing us down but we aren’t ready to
reveal it to our peers face to face, we can
test the water by doing so anonymously
online.

Online platforms not only bring people together within

the LGBT community, but they can also - often through
anonymity - create a 'safe space' for people to express
their sexuality without fear of torment.

As a result, we can “use social media to

connect with people struggling with the
same issues as you; social media can be
an incredibly powerful support network.” [4]

Charles Cheung further emphasizes this

idea in a chapter where he writes about
the powers of ‘personal homepages.’ For
those who struggle with face-to-face
communication, these platforms are the
perfect place for one to unleash their true
identities. [5] Not only that, but they can do
so without the pressure of having to get it
right first time. They can edit and explore
until their heart's content. To put it another
way, as stated by Aija Mayrock, “Social
media is currency for young people. It is a
portal to potential possibilities, even for
people who feel hopeless, uninspired,
scared, and alone.” [6] Therefore, benign
online disinhibition can open doors that
are usually locked by the social norms of
the offline world.

Toxic Disinhibition …

The internet is not always a place of

comfort or support. At times it is a space
polluted by internet trolls, cyber criminals
and cyberbullies. The anonymity and
invisibility that online environments
provide to users, in comparison to the
face-to-face interactions offline, can cause
an increase in negative and abusive
behaviour within online interactions.
Lapidot-Lefler and Barak (2012), [7] identify
that a reason behind this toxic behaviour is
in response to lack of visual and vocal
communication. When there are no
reminders that communication is
genuinely happening with another human
being, and not just a screen, the severity of
an individual’s actions can become lost to
them.
technology mediated communication enables toxic
behaviour through anonymity and/or invisibility of
individual users.

Cyberbullying is a concept that has

become familiar in western society due to
its rising prevalence. [2] [3] [4]
Cyberbullying is associated with varying
degrees of actions that can include
repeated malicious behaviour against an
individual with intent to harass, harm
and/or embarrass.[8][9] The act does not
include physical violence, but invites “other
types of aggression such as verbal
harassment, social exclusion, and cyber
targeting."[10] In relation to the connection
with cyberbullying and toxic online
disinhibition, studies such as Slonje and
Smith (2008) and Vandebosch and Van
Cleemput (2008),[11] recognize that online
anonymity and invisibility are factors
which increase the likelihood of individuals
becoming online abusers, or trolls,
because interactions with others are
mediated through technology rather than
physical engagement with victims -
ultimately making the abuser less likely to
be aware of how damaging their actions
can be. Slonje and Smith commented that
“without such direct feedback there may
be fewer opportunities for empathy or
remorse and there may also be less
opportunity for bystander intervention.”[12]
This type of toxic online disinhibition is a
common issue with children and young
adults, and research indicates that
“cyberbullying may be an even greater risk
factor for suicidal idealization in
adolescents than more traditional types of
bullying”[13]. The abundance of
cyberbullying suicide cases are evident
within media exposure, illustrating clearly
the genuine problems that virtual spaces
can have upon real people in ‘real’ life.
The different forms of harassment experienced by
female journalists due to toxic online disinhibition

Doxing (or 'doxxing') as an online practice

is perhaps less recognized than
cyberbullying, yet is potentially one of the
most toxic forms of disinhibition within
online environments. Doxing, as Parul
Khanna et al (2016) defines, is a process
that involves an individual or organization
recovering information (PII) through
searching through publicly available data
from “social media websites, search
engines, password cracking methods [and]
social engineering tools” in order to
“threaten, embarrass, harass and humiliate
the organization or individual” [14]
Furthermore, organizational doxing brings
this process to a wider scale of victims, as
the information obtained and released
involves multiple people's lives being
targeted.

Evidence for Online

Disinhibition
…

Benign Disinhibition Effects …

Patients tend to give more honest answers and report
more health-related problems to a computer than to a
doctor face-to-face

Research has shown that when people feel

that they are visually anonymous online,
they are much more likely to disclose a
greater amount of information than they
would in a face-to-face (FtF) interaction.
This can be seen particularly from a series
of studies carried out by Joinson
(2001)[15]. This study found that
participants engaging in computer-
mediated communication (CMC) portrayed
higher levels of self-disclosure compared
to participants in face-to-face interactions.

People feel more comfortable talking about issues via

online surveys which are text based than they do face-
to-face.
The second study incorporated a video link
for half of those communicated via CMC.
The findings for levels of self-disclosure
here correlated heavily with that found in
FtF interactions suggesting once more
that people feel more willing to share
personal information when it is purely text
based. Joinson (2007) says that "methods
that increase the social presence of the
surveyor have been predicted to lead to a
reduced willingness to answer sensitive
questions."[16] Furthermore, when data
collection regarding health issues is
conducted through computer-aided-self-
interviews, patients tend to give more
honest answers and report more health-
related problems to a computer than to a
doctor face-to-face. This once again
proves that visual anonymity online
encourages people to disclose a greater
amount of information, which in the
occasion of describing symptoms to a
machine instead of a doctor, is highly
beneficial for their health and thus their
real life.

Toxic Disinhibtion Effects …

Toxic online disinhibition can have

devastating consequences. The most well-
known example of this would perhaps be
cyberbullying. However, such harassment
can come in a whole variety of forms, one
of which is known as doxing. Most
recognisable in mainstream media, in the
horrific attack on celebrities in 2014 and
2017 where multiple nude photographs
were published on the anonymous website
4chan.[5] [6] [7] .

"It was so unbelievably violating"[1] Actress Jennifer

Lawrence, addressing the 4chan hack
With this website allowing for “90% of
posts” to be “made by fully anonymous
users”,[17] an environment free of
consequences is ultimately created.
Anonymity may encourage some to
express themselves freely. However, for
others, they see it as an opportunity to get
away with extremely derogatory behaviour
against others in a toxic online
environment where this behaviour is
accepted rather than condemned.

Members of the public, not just celebrities,

have also fallen victim to such toxicity. An
example being, Rebecca Scheffler (a
pseudonym name) who shared her
devastating experience with doxing on the
digital publication page, Narratively.com .
In her post 'Someone Posted My Phone
Number On Craigslist and Said I Wanted
Strange Men to Rape Me' . Being that this
woman had already been a victim of rape
in the real world, such harassment brought
back a whole load of unnecessary trauma
that subsequently impacted her mental
wellbeing. Thus, contrary to popular belief,
what happens online doesn’t stay online. It
impacts real people in ways that are often
extremely difficult to overcome.

Other examples of toxic disinhibition come

from impulsive tweeters like Justine Sacco
who failed to think about how posting
"Going to Africa. Hope I get AIDS. Just
kidding. I'm White!" could potentially lose
her not only her job, but also destroy
personal relationships and leave her
suffering with PTSD and depression.

Suler's Factors for

Online Disinhibition
Dissociative Anonymity …

Anonymity is one of the main factors

behind Online Disinhibition according to
John Suler.
People feel more confident when they don't have to
show who they really are.

Unlike in the real world, online we are given

full control over how much - if any - of our
‘real’ identity we want to make known. By
using multiple usernames/titles we can
feel as though, when online, our actions
are completely separate from that of our
offline selves. In other words, by utilising
the anonymity that social networking
platforms provide, we often are just as
fooled as those lapping up our disguise.

'On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.' - Peter

Steiner

Anonymity can have positive and negative

impacts. However, in the grand scheme of
things, it has been more commonly
associated with toxic online disinhibition.
The sad truth is, when people feel they are
anonymous, they feel almost invincible.
Many have completely abandoned their
morals, and as a result, often forget that
there is in fact a living, breathing human
being on the other end of the screen
receiving their unnecessary torment and
abuse. Such negativity is growing more
and more prevalent amongst teenagers
according to statistics. Worryingly, 81% of
teens have said they partake in
cyberbullying because the lack of face-to-
face communication makes them see it as
a harmless 'joke'. As a result, not only are
we more likely to partake in such
derogatory behaviours, but we are also
more likely to “disown responsibility” for
them [18]

This is further emphasised by an article

written about cyberbullying amongst
children and adolescents, “Being
anonymous allows for reduced
accountability, which may encourage
inappropriate behavior online.” [19] This
lack of regulation and authority gives us a
whole new conception of power. We feel
we can say or do whatever we want, all the
while forgetting that whilst “the typed text
provides the mask” [20], by no means is this
mask full proof.
The anonymity that the online world provides leads
many to feel like they are invincible in this
communicative platform.

The toxicity which has far too often

emerged from anonymity online has led to
debates as to whether anyone should be
allowed to be anonymous in the online
world . As social media becomes more
and more a part of the “fabric” of day to
day life, we are being asked to place an
extreme amount of trust in these
communication platforms. Thus, we want
to be certain we know who we are talking
to, hence why anonymity is becoming far
less desirable than it once was. The
“always on” culture in which we are
immersed means that “our various online
personas are all digital breadcrumbs of
the same persona; different symptoms of
our same core self.” [21]. In other words,
the unidentifability that anonymity
seemingly promotes is nothing more than
an illusion.

Studies such as the one carried out by Fox,

Crux and Young Lee [22], emphasise that
no matter how much those who are for
online anonymity stress the idea of the
digital self being a “compartmentalised
self” which is separate from our offline
identities, this is simply not the case. Their
work proved that toxic and sexist
behaviour carried out online subsequently
increased levels of sexist attitudes offline.

Anonymity online, therefore, is like a

ticking time-bomb. For, no matter how
much we try to convince ourselves
otherwise, it is only a matter of time before
our trail of ‘digital breadcrumbs’ come full
circle and reveal our true identities. The
moment where our anonymous mask slips
once and for all.
Invisibility …

Being invisible online gives the illusion we can't be

detected.

Another factor which leads to online

disinhibition is invisibility. By putting up a
metaphorical and physical barrier, users
are met with far less pressures in regards
to how they present themselves. [23] Unlike
in the physical world, we don’t have to
worry about how we look, how we sound.
All that matters is how well we can write.

Furthermore, not having to see other

peoples reaction and, more importantly,
knowing that they cannot see you means
that our inhibitions are significantly
lowered for the social cues which
dominate the real world are erased.[24]

The invisibility of the online world is

therefore an opportunity to reinvent
oneself.[25] Whilst this can be beneficial in
some cases, it can also lead to
misinterpretations of the identity you are
trying to convey. Yet, at the end of the day,
although not foolproof, people take
comfort in knowing that the invisible cloak
they can wear online makes it that little bit
harder for their online actions to be linked
back to them, unlike in the real world.

Asynchronicity …

Emails are the perfect place for online disinhibition

because they are asynchronous.
For the most part, computer-mediated
communication is text based. As a result,
immediacy is fundamentally lacking in this
communication platform. These
technologies alter our relationship with
space and time, providing us with a gift of
time that is simply impossible in the offline
world. We are granted an opportunity to
pause, reflect and thoroughly plan out
what it is we wish to say before we press
the send button. In other words, we can
concoct the ‘perfect’ response through
mediated communication, without having
to worry about the mishaps that occur
with the pressures that emerge from
communicating face-to-face [26]. Suler
argues that this furthermore allows for
one to portray “deeper expressions of
benign and toxic disinhibition that avert
social norms.” [27]

This is further promoted by the ideas

outline by Sherry Turkle in regards to the
‘tethered self.’ [28] Being that we live in a
world where we are never far from some
form of communicative device. Such
accessibility means we have more time to
muse over what we want to say, and
therefore, in the online world, time is not
such a burden. Yet, this is not always a
positive thing, for our reliance on the
ability to edit and modify our self-
presentations means we are becoming
more and more secluded from the realities
of the offline world. Face-to-face
communication is a dying trend, with
people becoming increasingly prone to
avoiding it wherever possible [29]. Hence
the irony of online disinhibition in this
sense is that, at the same time we are
being encouraged to be more open, we are
further reclining from the idea of
communicating without the assistance of
a screen.

Solipsistic Introjection …
Through Solipsistic Introjection, we create an internal
dialogue that, whilst feeling incredibly real, is just as
fictitious as a play we would see at the theatre.

Solipsistic Introjection is the idea that due

to the lack of vocal communication in the
online world, our minds begin to fill in the
blanks, providing an internal voice to the
text being consumed. If said text is
coming from someone we know, we
imagine their voice in our heads. However,
if it is coming from someone we don’t
know, we assign them a voice based on
the personality traits they have expressed
via their online persona. In other words,
online communication means that
“cyberspace may become a stage, and we
are merely players.” [30]

However, logging off does not draw the

final curtain on this internal performance.
We often find ourselves daydreaming
about them long after we have logged off.
This comes with numerous dangers, for
being that we are given a ‘safe space’ to
carry out these conversations - which feel
incredibly real in our own minds, we are
becoming more and more reluctant to
express ourselves without the assistance
of text-based communications. In other
words, whilst to some extent solipsistic
introjection does provide a feeling of
confidence for us, “it distracts… from face-
to-face communication.” ultimately
making us more susceptible to online
disinhibition.

Dissociative imagination …

The freedom and fluidity of online

platforms has led many users viewing the
medium as “a kind of game with rules that
do not apply to everyday living.” [31] This is
what is known as Dissociative
Imagination.
This diagram represents the idea of 'Mixed Reality' put
forward by Milgram and Kishino which suggests a
strong interrelation between the real and the virtual
world

Immersing ourselves in the online world,

we often forget that our actions can still
have serious consequences offline.
Commonly associated with fantasy/role
playing games and toxic disinhibition, this
factor illustrates the lack of responsibility
many users take in regards to their online
actions. Rather, they view them as no more
real than the stories they read as kids.
However, this is far from the truth as seen
by the case of Thomas Montgomery .
After starting an online affair, which many
like him would claim “"exists only in
cyberspace" he began a double life. Yet,
his justifications backfired on him when,
after learning that his co-worker - in the
real world - was also having an online
affair with the same woman, Montgomery
became so enraged that he shot him dead
in the car park. Furthermore proving,
“emotions don’t turn on when we log on
and turn off when we log off.”

Minimisation of status and

authority
…
The lack of face-to-face communication
online ultimately reduces social context
cues which dominate the offline world.
This furthermore provides the illusion that
the internet is an authority free zone. Being
that we cannot see who we are
communicating with in the same way that
we can in person, it feels as though
everyone is on a level playing field,
ultimately abolishing social hierarchies
and giving users a feeling of great power.

Social context cues are not as visible on text-based

communications apps like Facebook Messenger.

Danah Boyd points out this behaviour is

especially prevalent with teenagers who
although “may be comfortable having
strangers overhear their exchange, the
sudden appearance of someone with
social authority changes the context
entirely.”[32] Thus, due to the fact that it is
harder to see authority figures within many
online platforms, many are guilty of
straying from their moral inhibitions.

This has had many negative

consequences, such as cyberbullying.
Reinis Udris’ study into cyberbullying
among high school students in Japan
highlights that: “It is easy to write insulting
things online, because there are no
repercussions.” [33] This is ultimately
helped by the anonymity that many online
platforms provide [34], however, it does not
always need to be a factor. The case of a
prison official in Maryland who lost his job
in 2015 after he posted on Facebook
making fun of sexual assaults in prisons
being a prime example. [35] Cases such as
this one highlight the true dangers of
online disinhibition. Although many would
beg to differ, and although it may be harder
to spot, authority does still exist on the
internet. Allowing yourself to believe
otherwise can have life shattering
consequences.

Conclusion
This essay clearly demonstrates that
whilst online disinhibition can have benign
consequences by encouraging people to
be more open and accepting online, it can
also go in the opposite direction. However,
either way one thing remains
fundamentally clear. What we do online
does not stay online. It travels with us
every time we step away from the
computer screen and, thus, can greatly
impact our offline lives.
One's lack of inhibitions online clearly
comes from a variety of factors as outline
by Suler. Yet, the one which appears to
present itself the most prevalently is the
idea of anonymity. Being able to mask who
we are online and furthermore feeling like
we are not constantly being monitored in
the same way we are offline, one feels
motivated to abandon their morals in a
way they would never dare to in the
physical world. When used right, this can
help us grow as individuals both on and
offline. However, when used negatively, we
are opening ourselves up to all kinds of
backlash, for one thing is for certain;
“although the internet may have provided
an escapism from everyday life, it is
mostly mimicking it.”

Further Reading
1. Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2015).
The benign online disinhibition effect:
Could situational factors induce self-
disclosure and prosocial behaviors? in
Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
Research on Cyberspace, 9(2), article 3.
doi: 10.5817/CP2015-2-3

2. Tidwell, L., Walther, J. (2002). Computer-

Mediated Communication Effects on
Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal
Evaluations in Human Communication
Research, 28(3), 317-348

3. McKenna, K., Bargh, J. (1998). Coming

Out in the Age of the Internet: Identity
“Demarginalization” Through Virtual Group
Participation in Small Groups: Key
Readings in Social Psychology, 450-469

4. Jourard, S. M., & Friedman, R. (1970).

Experimenter-subject "distance" and self-
disclosure in Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 15(3), 278-282.

5. Suler, J. (1999). To Get What You Need:

Healthy and Pathological Internet Use in
CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 2(5), 385-
393

6. Ibrahim Y. (2018) Self-Love and Self-

Curation Online in Production of the 'Self' in
the Digital Age, 37-56

7. Wallace P. (1999). The Psychology of

the Internet, Cambridge University Press

8. Vilanova, F., Beria, F.M., Costa, A.B.,

Silvia, H.K. (2017). Deindividuation: From
Le Bon to the social identity model of
deindividuation effects in Cogent
Psychology, 1-21
9. Oldberg, C.J.A. (2016). Organizational
Doxing: Disaster on the Doorstep, journal
on telecommunications and high
technology law, 15(1), 181-206.

References …

1. Suler, J. (2004). The Online

Disinhibition Effect, Cyberpsychology
& behaviour, 7(3)
2. Moore, R. (2010). Social Structure and
Social Learning Theory. Cybercrime:
Investigating high-technology
 computer crime. (pp.269-71). United
Kingdom: Andersen Press
3. Suler, J. (2016). The disinhibited self.
Psychology of the digital age: Humans
become electric (pp. 99). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
4. Rideout, V., & Robb, M., B. (2018).
Social media, social life: Teens reveal
their experiences. (p.3). San Fransisco:
Common Sense. Retrieved from [8]
5. Cheung, C. (2007). Identity and self-
presentation on personal homepages.
In D. Bell, & B. M. Kennedy (Eds.), The
cybercultures reader (Second ed.,
 pp.274-83). Abington, Oxon:
Routledge.
6. Rideout, V., & Robb, M., B. (2018).
Social media, social life: Teens reveal
their experiences. (p.3). San Fransisco:
Common Sense. Retrieved from [9]
7. Lapidot-Lefler, N; Barak, A. (2012)
Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and
lack of eye-contact on toxic online
disinhibition. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(2), 434–443.
8. Vandebosch, H. Van Cleemput, (2008)
Defining Cyberbullying: A Qualitative
Research into the Perceptions of
 Youngsters, Cyberpsychology &
Behaviour, 11(4), 499-503.
9. Offline Consequences of Online
Victimization: School Violence and
Delinquency by Sameer Hinduja Justin
W. Patchin in Journal of School
Violence, Vol. 6(3) 2007 p89-112
10. Alavi, N. Reshetukha, T. Prost, E.
Antoniak, K. Patel, C. Sajid, S, Groll, D.
(2017). Relationship between Bullying
and Suicidal Behaviour in Youth
presenting to the Emergency
Department, Journal of the Canadian
Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 26(2): p.71.
11. Vandebosch, H. Van Cleemput, (2008)
Defining Cyberbullying: A Qualitative
Research into the Perceptions of
Youngsters, Cyberpsychology &
Behaviour, 11(4), 499-503.
12. Slonje, R. & Smith, P. K. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Another main type of
bullying? Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 49, p.148
13. Hinduja & Patchin, 2010 cited in Alavi,
N. Reshetukha, T. Prost, E. Antoniak, K.
Patel, C. Sajid, S, Groll, D. (2017).
Relationship between Bullying and
Suicidal Behaviour in Youth presenting
to the Emergency Department, Journal
 of the Canadian Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(2): p.71.
14. Khanna, P. Zavarsky, P. Lindskog, D.
(2016) Experimental Analysis of Tools
Used for Doxing and Proposed New
Transforms to Help Organizations
Protect against Doxing Attacks in
Procedia Computer Science, 94, 459-
464.
15. Joinson, A. (2001) Self-disclosure in
computer-mediated communication:
The role of self-awareness and visual
anonymity, European Journal of Social
Psychology 31, 177-192.
16. Joinson A. (2007) Disinhibition and the
Internet in Psychology and the
Internet : Intrapersonal, Interpersonal,
and Transpersonal Implications, 75-92.
17. Bernstein, M.S. Monroy-Hernández, A.
Harry, D. André, P. Panovich, K. Vargas
G. (2011). 4chan and /b/: An Analysis
of Anonymity and Ephemerality in a
Large Online Community, AAAI
Publications, Fifth International AAAI
Conference on Weblogs and Social
Media. p.50, 10/03/19 Retrieved from:
[10]
18. Suler, J. (2016). The disinhibited self.
Psychology of the digital age: Humans
 become electric (p. 99). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
19. Twyman, K., Saylor, C., Taylor, L. A., &
Comeaux, C. (2010). Comparing
children and adolescents engaged in
cyberbullying to matched peers.
Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and
Social Networking, 13(2), Retrieved
from: [11]
20. Danet, B. (1998). Text as mask:
Gender, play and performance on the
internet In S. G. Jones (Ed.),
Cybersociety 2.0 (2nd ed., p. 129).
Chicago, USA: SAGE Publications.
21. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2015). How
different are your online and offline
personalities? The Guardian, Retrieved
from [12]
22. Fox, J. Cruz, C. & Young Lee, J. (2015).
Perpetuating online sexism offline:
Anonymity, interactivity, and the
effects of sexist hashtags on social
media. Computers in Human
Behaviour, 52(1). pp. 436-442.
23. Suler, J. (2004). The Online
Disinhibition Effect, Cyberpsychology
& behaviour, 7(3)
24. Lapidot-Lefler, N. & Barak, A. (2011).
Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and
 lack of eye-contact on toxic online
disinhibition. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(2). pp. 434-443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10
.014
25. Cheung, C. (2007). Identity and self-
presentation on personal homepages.
In D. Bell, & B. M. Kennedy (Eds.), The
cybercultures reader (Second ed., pp.
273-285). Abington, Oxon: Routledge.
26. Henderson, S. Gilding, M. (2014).‘I’ve
never clicked this much with anyone in
my life’: trust and hyperpersonal
communication in online friendships,
New Media & Society, 6(4), p.487-506
27. Suler, J.(2004). The Online
Disinhibition Effect, Cyberpsychology
& behaviour, 7(3), p.321-326
28. Turkle, S. (2011).Alone together : Why
we expect more from technology and
less from each other. New York: Basic
Books
29. Millennials Are Struggling With Face
To Face Communication: Here's Why
Forbes, 4 May 2017. Retrieved 18
March 2019
30. Suler, J. (2016). The disinhibited self.
Psychology of the digital age: Humans
become electric (p. 323). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
31. Suler, J (2016). "The disinhibited self"
in Psychology of the digital age:
humans become electric, p. 103
32. Boyd, D. (2014). Its complicated: The
social lives of networked teens, Yale
University Press.
33. Udris, R. (2014). {Cyberbullying among
high school students in Japan:
Development and validation of the
Online Disinhibition Scale in
Computers in Human Behavior, 41(0),
p.253-261
34. Lapidot-Lefler, N. (2012). Effects of
anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-
contact on toxic online disinhibition,
 Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2),
p.434-443
35. Social Media Stupidity Rolling Stone.
13 July 2015. Retrieved 16 March
2019.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?
title=Debates_in_Digital_Culture_2019/Online_Disin
hibition&oldid=3665312"

Last edited 2 months ago by 99.254.145.55

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.