Cited by 52Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthMental Health via Writing

Sliding into My DMs: Detecting Uncomfortable or Unsafe Sexual Risk Experiences within Instagram Direct Messages Grounded in the Perspective of Youth

Open access
Razi, Afsaneh, Alsoubai, Ashwaq, Kim, Seunghyun, Ali, Shiza, Stringhini, Gianluca, De Choudhury, Munmun, Wisniewski, Pamela J.·2023·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract

We collected Instagram data from 150 adolescents (ages 13-21) that included 15,547 private message conversations of which 326 conversations were flagged as sexually risky by participants. Based on this data, we leveraged a human-centered machine learning approach to create sexual risk detection classifiers for youth social media conversations. Our Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Random Forest models outperformed in identifying sexual risks at the conversation-level (AUC=0.88), and CNN outperformed at the message-level (AUC=0.85). We also trained classifiers to detect the severity risk level (i.e., safe, low, medium-high) of a given message with CNN outperforming other models (AUC=0.88). A feature analysis yielded deeper insights into patterns found within sexually safe versus unsafe conversations. We found that contextual features (e.g., age, gender, and relationship type) and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) contributed the most for accurately detecting sexual conversations that made youth feel uncomfortable or unsafe. Our analysis provides insights into the important factors and contextual features that enhance automated detection of sexual risks within youths' private conversations. As such, we make valuable contributions to the computational risk detection and adolescent online safety literature through our human-centered approach of collecting and ground truth coding private social media conversations of youth for the purpose of risk classification.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3579522

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Markus Bayer, Marc-André Kaufhold, and Christian Reuter. 2021. A survey on data augmentation for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03158 (2021). · arXiv
  2. Michael Brenner, Jeannie Suk Gersen, Michael Haley, Matthew Lin, Amil Merchant, Richard Jagdishwar Millett, Suproteem K Sarkar, and Drew Wegner. 2020. Constitutional Dimensions of Predictive Algorithms in Criminal Justice. Harv. CR-CLL Rev. 55 (2020), 267.
  3. Maryam Daniali and Edward Kim. 2022. Perception Over Time: Temporal Dynamics for Robust Image Understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.06254 (2022). · arXiv
  4. Allyson L Dir, Ayca Coskunpinar, Jennifer L Steiner, and Melissa A Cyders. 2013. Understanding differences in sexting behaviors across gender, relationship status, and sexual identity, and the role of expectancies in sexting. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 16, 8 (2013), 568-574.
  5. Michael Hind, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, Ravi Nair, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, Alexandra Olteanu, and Kush R Varshney. 2018. Increasing trust in ai services through supplier's declarations of conformity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07261 18 (2018), 2813-2869. · arXiv
  6. Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research 15, 9 (2005), 1277-1288.
  7. Giacomo Inches and Fabio Crestani. 2012. Overview of the International Sexual Predator Identification Competition at PAN-2012.. In CLEF (Online working notes/labs/workshop), Vol. 30.
  8. Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2019. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09635 (2019). · arXiv
  9. James W Pennebaker, Martha E Francis, and Roger J Booth. 2001. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 71, 2001 (2001), 2001.
  10. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe Global Vectors for Word Representation. , 1532-1543 pages. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1162
  11. Gonzalo Ramos, Jina Suh, Soroush Ghorashi, Christopher Meek, Richard Banks, Saleema Amershi, Rebecca Fiebrink, Alison Smith-Renner, and Gagan Bansal. 2019. Emerging Perspectives in Human-Centered Machine Learning. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-8.
  12. Dominik Sacha, Michael Sedlmair, Leishi Zhang, John Aldo Lee, Daniel Weiskopf, Stephen North, and Daniel Keim. 2016. Human-centered machine learning through interactive visualization. ESANN, Bruges, Belgium, 641-646. https://www.elen.ucl.ac.be/Proceedings/esann/esannpdf/es2016-166.pdf
  13. Donald Sharpe. 2015. Chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 20, 1 (2015), 8.
  14. Svetlana Smirnova, Sonia Livingstone, and Mariya Stoilova. 2021. Understanding of user needs and problems: a rapid evidence review of age assurance and parental controls. (2021).
  15. Jessica Vitak and Jinyoung Kim. 2014. " You can't block people offline" examining how facebook's affordances shape the disclosure process. In In Proc 17th ACM CSCW. 461-474.
  16. Michele L Ybarra and Kimberly J Mitchell. 2008. How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics 121, 2 (2008).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Razi, A., Alsoubai, A., Kim, S., Ali, S., Stringhini, G., De Choudhury, M., & Wisniewski, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Drexel University (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
  • Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2023-04-14
Volume
7
Issue
CSCW1
Pages
1-29
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4365999004
Cited by
52
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
4.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • William T. Grant Foundation (#187941)
  • National Science Foundation (IIP-1827700 and IIS-1844881)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
adolescents, sexual safety, online safety, human-centered machine learning, convolutional neural networks, random forest, LIWC, contextual features

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review