printCyber Aggression and Cybercrime in Russia:
Risk Factors
Shcherbakov R.A.
Doctoral Student, Research Assistant, Laboratory for Science and Technology Studies, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, HSE University, Moscow, Russia rashcherbakov@hse.ru
The article is based on the study funded by the Basic Research Program of the HSE University.
Shcherbakov R.A. Cyber Aggression and Cybercrime in Russia: Risk Factors. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2025. No 10. P. 39-51
The study investigates social groups vulnerable to cyber aggression and cybercrime. The main objective is to examine how socio-demographic conditions, as well as cultural capital in the form of digital skills and everyday internet use shape the distribution of both types of cyber risks. The analysis relies on survey data from the Monitoring of Digital Transformation of Economy and Society, collected by ISSEK NRU HSE in April – May 2024 through face-to-face interviews. The representative sample (N = 10038) reflects the key socio-demographic characteristics of the Russia population. The survey results revealed that approximately one-third of respondents have experienced cyber aggression or cybercrime. Intrusive communication and tactless questions were identified as the most common forms of cyber aggression, while fraudulent emails requesting personal data were а most frequently reсorded type of cybercrime. Regression analysis demonstrated that elderly individuals and those with higher education are more likely to experience a broader range of cybercrime. Younger respondents and individuals without higher education were found to be more exposed to a broader range of cyber aggression. The intensity of internet use in everyday activities significantly predicted vulnerability to both cyber aggression and cybercrime. Users engaged in online communication and gaming face higher exposure to cyber aggression, whereas online communication and online shopping were the strongest predictors of cybercrime. Higher levels of online privacy concerns, security skills, and information literacy were also associated with greater exposure to both threats. Overall, the findings highlight importance of considering both socio-demographic and behavioral factors in understanding digital risks.
Бовина И. Б., Дворянчиков Н. В. Поведение онлайн и офлайн: две реальности или одна? // Психологическая наука и образование. 2020. Т. 25. № 3. С. 101–115. [Bovina I. B., Dvoryanchikov N. V. (2020) Online and Offline Behavior: Two Realities or One? Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education]. Vol. 25. No. 3: 101–115. (In Russ.)]
Вихман А. А. Личностные предикторы кибервиктимности и кибербуллинга в юношеском возрасте // Психология и право. 2023. Т. 13. № 1. С. 94–106. [Vikhman A. A. (2023) Personality Predictors of Cyber-Victimization and Cyber-Bullying in Adolescence. Psikhologiya i pravo [Psychology and Law]. Vol. 13. No. 1: 94–106. (In Russ.)]
Жакупжанов А. Виктомологические факторы киберпреступности // Алтайский юридический вестник. 2019. Т. 27. № 3. С. 75–82. [Zhakupzhanov А. О. (2019) Victimological Factors of Cybercrime. Altajskij Yuridicheskij Vestnik [Altai Law Journal]. Vol. 27. No. 3: 75–82. (In Russ.)]
Жмуров Д. В., Ключко Р. Н. Кибервиктимология как новая реальность технотронного общества (гендерное исследование) // Baikal Research Journal. 2020. Т. 11. № 1. [Zhmurov D. V., Klyuchko R. N. (2020) Cyber-Victimology as a New Reality of the Technotronic Society (Gender Research). Baikal Research Journal. Vol. 11. No. 1. (In Russ.)]
Кабанов П. А. Жертвы кибермошенничества как один из объектов современной кибервиктимологии: краткий статистический анализ показателей криминальной виктимности 2021–2022 гг. // Виктимология. 2023. Т. 10. № 1. С. 17–28. [Kabanov P. A. (2023) Victims of Cyberfraud as one of the Objects of Modern Cybervictimology: a Brief Statistical Analysis of Criminal Victimization Rates 2021–2022. Viktimologiya [Victimology]. Vol. 10. No. 1: 17–28. (In Russ.)]
Balakrishnan V. (2015) Cyberbullying Among Young Adults in Malaysia: The Roles of Gender, Age and Internet Frequency. Computers in Human Behavior. Vol. 46: 149–157.
Barlett C., Coyne S. M. (2014) A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Cyber‐Bullying Behavior: The Moderating Role of Age. Aggressive Behavior. Vol. 40. No. 5: 474–488.
Blank G., Lutz C. (2018) Benefits and Harms from Internet Use: A Differentiated Analysis of Great Britain. New Media & Society. Vol. 20. No. 2: 618–640.
Bossler A. M., Holt T. J. (2009) On-line Activities, Guardianship, and Malware Infection: An Examination of Routine Activities Theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology. Vol. 3. No. 1: 400–420.
Burton A., Cooper, C. et al. (2022) Exploring How, Why and in What Contexts Older Adults Are at Risk of Financial Cybercrime Victimisation: A Realist Review. Experimental Gerontology. Vol. 159: 111678.
Chang P. F., Choi Y. H., Bazarova N. N., Löckenhoff C. E. (2015) Age Differences in Online Social Networking: Extending Socioemotional Selectivity Theory to Social Network Sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. Vol. 59. No. 2: 221–239.
Dodel M., Mesch G. (2018) Inequality in Digital Skills and the Adoption of Online Safety Behaviors. Information, Communication & Society. Vol. 21. No. 5: 712–728.
Erdur-Baker Ö. (2010) Cyberbullying and its Correlation to Traditional Bullying, Gender and Frequent and Risky Usage of Internet-Mediated Communication Tools. New Media & Society. Vol. 12. No. 1: 109–125.
Greitemeyer T. (2022) The Dark and Bright Side of Video Game Consumption: Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Games. Current Opinion in Psychology. Vol. 46: 101326.
Holt T. J., Bossler A. M. (2008) Examining the Applicability of Lifestyle-Routine Activities Theory for Cybercrime Victimization. Deviant Behavior. Vol. 30. No. 1: 1–25.
Huang J., Zhong Z. et al. (2021). Cyberbullying In Social Media and Online Games Among Chinese College Students and Its Associated Factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol. 18. No. 9: 4819.
International Telecommunication Union. (2023) Measuring Digital Development – Facts and Figures 2023. URL: https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2023/11/Measuring-digitaldevelopment-Facts-and-figures‑2023-E.pdf (accessed 09.02.2025).
Kim W., Jeong O. R., Kim C., So J. (2011) The Dark Side of the Internet: Attacks, Costs and Responses. Information Systems. No. 36: 675–705.
Kokolakis S. (2017) Privacy Attitudes and Privacy Behaviour: A Review of Current Research on the Privacy Paradox Phenomenon. Computers and Security. No. 64: 122–134.
Kraft E., Wang J. (2010) An Exploratory Study of the Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking Experiences and Factors Related to Victimization of Students at a Public Liberal Arts College. International Journal of Technoethics. Vol. 1. No. 4: 74–91.
Leukfeldt E. R. (2014) Phishing for Suitable Targets in The Netherlands: Routine Activity Theory and Phishing Victimization. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. Vol. 17. No. 8: 551–555.
Leukfeldt E. R., Yar M. (2016) Applying Routine Activity Theory to Cybercrime: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Deviant Behavior. Vol. 37. No. 3: 263–280.Lowry P. B., Zhang J. et al. (2016) Why Do Adults Engage in Cyberbullying on Social Media? An Integration of Online Disinhibition and Deindividuation Effects with the Social Structure and Social Learning Model.
Information Systems Research. Vol. 27. No. 4: 962–986.
Lupton D. (2016) Digital Risk Society. In: Routledge handbook of risk studies. Ed. by A. Burgess, A. Alemanno, J. Zinn. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 301–309
Ngo F. T., Piquero A. R., LaPrade J., Duong B. (2020). Victimization in Cyberspace: Is It How Long We Spend Online, What We Do Online, or What We Post Online? Criminal Justice Review. Vol. 45. No. 4: 430–451.
Norberg P. A., Horne D. R., Horne D. A. (2007) The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions Versus Behaviors. Journal of Consumer Affairs. Vol. 41. No. 1: 100–126.
Oksanen A., Keipi T. (2013) Young People as Victims of Crime on the Internet: A Population-Based Study in Finland. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies. Vol. 8. No. 4: 298–309.
Polyakova V., Streltsova E. et al. (2024) Irreversible Effects? How the Digitalization of Daily Practices Has Changed After The COVID‑19 Pandemic. Technology in Society. Vol. 76: 102447.
Reep-van Den Bergh C. M.M., Junger M. (2018) Victims of Cybercrime in Europe: A Review of Victim Surveys. Crime Science. Vol. 7. No. 1: 5.
Smith P. K. (2011) Cyberbullying and Cyber Aggression. In: Handbook of School Violence and School Safety. Ed. by S. R. Jimerson, A. Nickerson et al. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Wang M.-J., Yogeeswaran K. et al. (2019) How Common Is Cyberbullying Among Adults? Exploring Gender, Ethnic and Age Differences in the Prevalence of Cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. Vol. 22. No. 11: 736–741.
Whitty M. T. (2019) Predicting Susceptibility to Cyber-Fraud Victimhood. Journal of Financial Crime. Vol. 26. No. 1: 277–292.
Zhu X., Bao Z. (2018) Why People Use Social Networking Sites Passively: An Empirical Study Integrating Impression Management Concern, Privacy Concern and SNS Fatigue. Aslib Journal of Information Management. Vol. 70. No. 2: 158–175.