Advertisement

Narrative Understanding Technologies for Intervention Against Cyberbullying

  • Jamie C. MacbethEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Prevention and intervention against cyberbullying among young people is a challenging and complex problem for parents, schools, and social media providers. Cyberbullying prevention campaigns provide general advice and encouragement, but often the most moving appeals against cyberbullying are videos and messages recorded by regular people and celebrities in which they describe their own real and personal experiences with cyberbullying. In this chapter we discuss a computerised collection of real narratives about cyberbullying that were contributed by visitors to a website as part of an anti-cyberbullying campaign. The database of stories can be used as a resource for victims of cyberbullying and for the education of perpetrators by allowing visitors to search for stories relevant to their situation. The narrative collection can also be used to inform the behaviour of intelligent agents built into the software of a social media platform to detect cyberbullying and intervene against it. For these applications to be practical, the software system must be able to match stories to a query from a user or to a set of interactions between users on the social media platform. We discuss current efforts and future challenges of computer-based story matching, topic modelling, parsing, and building computing systems to apply commonsense knowledge to understand and match stories to each other, in similar ways to people.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Henry Lieberman and the editors of this volume for their thoughtful comments on draft versions of this chapter.

References

  1. Bazelon, E. (2013). Sticks and stones: Defeating the culture of bullying. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  2. Birnbaum, L., & Selfridge, M. (1975). Conceptual analysis of natural language. In R. C. Schank & C. K. Riesbeck (Eds.), Inside computer understanding: Five programs plus miniatures (pp. 318–353). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.Google Scholar
  4. Cambria, E., Poria, S., Hazarika, D., & Kwok, K. (2018). SenticNet 5: Discovering conceptual primitives for sentiment analysis by means of context embeddings. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., Macy, M., & Weber, I. (2017). Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, K., Randall, D. P., Ambrose, A., & Orand, M. (2015). ‘I was bullied too’: Stories of bullying and coping in an online community. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Marneffe, M., Maccartney, B., & Manning, C. D. (2006). Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In Proceedings of International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 449–454).Google Scholar
  8. Dinakar, K., Reichart, R., & Lieberman, H. (2011). Modeling the detection of textual cyberbullying. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (pp. 11–17). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  9. Dinakar, K., Jones, B., Havasi, C., Lieberman, H., & Picard, R. (2012a). Common sense reasoning for detection, prevention, and mitigation of cyberbullying. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 2(3), 18:1–18:30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dinakar, K., Jones, B., Lieberman, H., Picard, R. W., Rosé, C. P., Thoman, M., et al. (2012b). You too?!. Social Media (ICWSM) Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence: Mixed-initiative LDA story matching to help teens in distress.Google Scholar
  11. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holson, L. M. (2018). Instagram unveils a bully filter. The New York Times, May 1st. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/technology/instagram-bully-filter.html. Retrieved September 23, 2018.
  13. Klein, D., & Manning, C. D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 423–430).Google Scholar
  14. Kontostathis, A., Edwards, L., & Leatherman, A. (2010). Text mining and cybercrime. In Text mining: Applications and theory. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), S13–S20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lieberman, H., Dinakar, K., & Jones, B. (2011). Let’s gang up on cyberbullying. Computer, 44(9), 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lieberman, H., Dinakar, K., & Jones, B. (2013). Crowdsourced ethics with personalized story matching. In CHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 709–714). ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Lytinen, S. L. (1992). Conceptual dependency and its descendants. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 23(2), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Macbeth, J., Adeyema, H., Lieberman, H., & Fry, C. (2013). Script-based story matching for cyberbullying prevention. In CHI 2013 Extended Abstracts: ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  20. Macbeth, J. C. (2017). Conceptual primitive decomposition for knowledge sharing via natural language. In Proceedings of The Joint Ontology Workshops, Episode 3: The Tyrolean Autumn of Ontology, The International Association for Ontology and its Applications, Bolzano-Bozen, Italy.Google Scholar
  21. Macbeth, J. C., & Barionnette, M. (2016). The coherence of conceptual primitives. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems, The Cognitive Systems Foundation, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
  22. Macbeth, J.C., & Grandic, S. (2017). Crowdsourcing a parallel corpus for conceptual analysis of natural language. In Proceedings of The Fifth AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (pp. 128–136). Quebec City, Canada: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  23. Macbeth, J.C., & Roberts, M. (2018). Exploring connections between primitive decomposition of natural language and hierarchical planning. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive Systems, The Cognitive Systems Foundation, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Macbeth, J. C., Gromann, D., & Hedblom, M. M. (2017). Image schemas and conceptual dependency primitives: A comparison. In Proceedings of The Joint Ontology Workshops, Episode 3: The Tyrolean Autumn of Ontology, The International Association for Ontology and its Applications, Bolzano-Bozen, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  25. Nixon, C. L. (2014). Current perspectives: The impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health. Adolescent Health, Medicine And Therapeutics, 5, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Riesbeck, C. K. (1975). Conceptual analysis. In R. C. Schank (Ed.), Conceptual information processing (pp. 83–156). New York, NY: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Royen, K. V., Poels, K., Daelemans, W., & Vandebosch, H. (2015). Automatic monitoring of cyberbullying on social networking sites: From technological feasibility to desirability. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Royen, K. V., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., & Adam, P. (2017). “Thinking before posting?” Reducing cyber harassment on social networking sites through a reflective message. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., Roumeliotis, P., & Xu, H. (2014). Associations between cyberbullying and school bullying victimization and suicidal ideation, plans and attempts among canadian schoolchildren. PLoS ONE, 9(7), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schank, R. C. (1972). Conceptual dependency: A theory of natural language understanding. Cognitive Psychology, 3(4), 552–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schank, R. C. (1975). Conceptual information processing. New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  32. Schank, R. C., Goldman, N. M., Rieger, C. J. I. I. I., & Riesbeck, C. K., (1975). Inference and paraphrase by computer. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 22(3), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singh, P., Lin, T., Mueller, E. T., Lim, G., Perkins, T., & Zhu, W. L. (2002). Open mind common sense: Knowledge acquisition from the general public. OTM Confederated International Conferences “On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems” (pp. 1223–1237). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Slonje, R., Smith, P. K., & Frisn, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Speer, R., & Havasi, C. (2012) Representing general relational knowledge in ConceptNet 5. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 3679–3686). Istanbul: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
  36. Walker, J. A. (2010). Variation in linguistic systems. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Weinstein, E. C., & Selman, R. L. (2016). Digital stress: Adolescents personal accounts. New Media & Society, 18(3), 391–409.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weinstein, E. C., Selman, R. L., Thomas, S., Kim, J. E., White, A. E., & Dinakar, K. (2016). How to cope with digital stress: The recommendations adolescents offer their peers online. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(4), 415–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilks, Y., & Fass, D. (1992). The preference semantics family. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 23(2–5), 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams, B., Lieberman, H., & Winston, P. (2017). Understanding stories with large-scale commonsense. In The Thirteenth International Symposium on Commonsense Reasoning, CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, London, UK.Google Scholar
  41. Winston, P. H. (2011). The strong story hypothesis and the directed perception hypothesis. Papers from the 2011 AAAI Fall Symposium on Advances in Cognitive Systems (pp. 345–352). Arlington, VA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  42. Winston, P. H. (2012a). The next 50 years: A personal view. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures,1(Supplement, C), 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Winston, P. H. (2012b). The right way. Advances in Cognitive Systems, 1, 23–36.Google Scholar
  44. Winston, P. H. (2014). The Genesis story understanding and story telling system: A 21st century step toward artificial intelligence. Technical report, Center for Brains, Minds and Machines. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceSmith CollegeNorthamptonUSA

Personalised recommendations