Development of Online Trolling Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

This study aims to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool to determine trolling in online environments. Two different study groups were used in the study. The study group for the exploratory factor analysis consisted of 493 university students (72.2% female; 27.8% male). The study group for confirmatory factor analysis consisted of 690 university students (71.7% female; 28.3% male). As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, it was seen that it consisted of 16 items and 3 sub-dimensions that explained 56.80% of the variance. The model obtained after the exploratory factor analysis was tested with confirmatory factor analysis and it was determined that the fit index values were within acceptable limits. The criterion validity of the scale was carried out with the Revised Cyberbullying Scale for University Students. Whereas the Cronbach alpha value for the entire scale was .89 for all of the scales, the same was found for sub-dimensions as .85, .73, and .66. As a result, it can be stated that the scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Sarcastic and Deviant Trolling in Turkey: Associations With Dark Triad and Aggression

“…However, additional research is needed to replicate these results. Moreover, as past research showed (Hamarta et al, 2021; Sanfilippo et al, 2018), trolling is a multidimensional construct, and the present research demonstrated that sarcastic trolling is one dimension of trolling. Finally, a social desirability scale was used to see whether individuals performing trolling were concerned with obtaining social approval and there was a negative association between trolling measures and social desirability in this study.…”

Motivations for Proactive and Reactive Trolling on Social Media: Developing and Validating a Four-Factor Model

“…This proactive–reactive distinction of trolling indicates that the same trolling behavior can be performed in either a proactive or reactive manner. For example, this two-dimensional framework could potentially be applied to explore other proactive vs. reactive types of deceptive or sarcastic trolling (Demsar et al, 2021; Hamarta et al, 2021; Manuoğlu & Öner-Özkan, 2022), thereby opening avenues for further research. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate that the concept of offline proactive and reactive aggression can be extended to the study of online hostility (Dodge et al, 1997; Raine et al, 2006).…”

“…Demsar et al (2021) categorized online trolling into three types: antagonism (inciting hatred), deception (purposefully deceiving others), and vigilantism (seeking revenge). Similarly, Hamarta et al (2021) developed a trolling scale with three subtypes: harm-, provocation-, and fraudulence-based.…”

“…Moreover, trolling consists of multifaceted behavioral patterns, and several studies have suggested various typologies and methods for classifying and measuring trolling behavior (Demsar et al, 2021;Fichman & Sanfilippo, 2016;Hamarta et al, 2021;Manuoğlu & Öner-Özkan, 2022). Specifically, recent qualitative studies have shown that some users may 1203682S MSXXX10.1177/20563051231203682Social Media <span class="symbol" cstyle="Mathematical">+</span> SocietyMao et al…”

“…Moreover, trolling consists of multifaceted behavioral patterns, and several studies have suggested various typologies and methods for classifying and measuring trolling behavior (Demsar et al, 2021; Fichman & Sanfilippo, 2016; Hamarta et al, 2021; Manuoğlu & Öner-Özkan, 2022). Specifically, recent qualitative studies have shown that some users may take the initiative to provoke and harm others, while trolling activities can also occur in response to the provocation of others (Cook et al, 2018; Demsar et al, 2021), implying that trolling behaviors could be enacted in either a proactive or reactive manner.…”