4.7 Article

Cyber offending predictors and pathways in middle adolescence: Evidence from the UK Millennium Cohort Study

期刊

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
卷 151, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.108011

关键词

Cyber crime; Hacking; Offending; Deviancy; Adolescence; Millennium cohort study; Longitudinal data

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines predictors of self-reported engagement in cyber crime in middle adolescence. The findings indicate that young cyber offenders are often males and those who have experienced a range of risk factors that are connected to poorer wellbeing and engaging in multiple risky/offending behaviours.
Despite the pervasiveness of cyber crime victimisation, knowledge is limited regarding the prevalence, characteristics and pathways of offenders. The present study examines predictors of self-reported engagement in cyber crime in middle adolescence in a large (N = 13,277) longitudinal dataset from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. We adopted an ecological systems approach to examine a range of multicausal, intersecting factors across individual, familial, psychosocial and environmental systems. The overall prevalence of self-reported cyber offending (account hacking or the deployment of viruses) was 5.6% at age 14 and 3.8% at age 17, although persistence over time by the same individuals was relatively low (1.1%). Significant predictors of cyber offending at age 17 were being male, domestic violence between parents, low parental monitoring, low wellbeing, selfharm, exclusion from school, spending more time online gaming, participating in offline leisure activities, and engaging in serious violence (weapon carrying or use), assault, and cyber crime at age 14. Findings indicate that young cyber offenders are often males and those who have experienced a range of risk factors that are connected to poorer wellbeing and engaging in multiple risky/offending behaviours. Implications for theory, policy and practice are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据