Detection of Cyberbullying Incidents on the Instagram Social Network
Open accessAbstract
Cyberbullying is a growing problem affecting more than half of all American teens. The main goal of this paper is to investigate fundamentally new approaches to understand and automatically detect incidents of cyberbullying over images in Instagram, a media-based mobile social network. To this end, we have collected a sample Instagram data set consisting of images and their associated comments, and designed a labeling study for cyberbullying as well as image content using human labelers at the crowd-sourced Crowdflower Web site. An analysis of the labeled data is then presented, including a study of correlations between different features and cyberbullying as well as cyberaggression. Using the labeled data, we further design and evaluate the accuracy of a classifier to automatically detect incidents of cyberbullying.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most efforts in toxicity detection focus on social media comments.
“Most efforts in the domain of toxicity detection are focusing on social media comments (Cheng et al. 2022;Hosseinmardi et al. 2015;Ghosh et al. 2021;Bensalem, Rosso, and Zitouni 2024).”
From Benchmark on Peer Review Toxic Detection: A Challenging Task with a New Dataset (2025) · cites this paper as Hosseinmardi et al. 2015
The Introduction (p. 1) says prior cyberbullying and cyberaggression studies largely used text analysis of online comments. That supports the comment-focused part of the claim, but the paper does not establish that most toxicity-detection efforts generally focus on social media comments. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Araujo, C. S.; Correa, L. P. D.; da Silva, A. P. C.; Prates, R. O.; and Jr, W. M. 2014. It is not just a picture: Revealing some user practices in instagram. In Web Congress (LAWEB), 2014 9th Latin American , 19 - 23. IEEE.
- Dadvar, M.; de Jong, F. M. G.; Ordelman, R. J. F.; and Trieschnigg, R. B. 2012. Improved cyberbullying detection using gender information. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Dutch-Belgian Information Retrieval Workshop (DIR 2012), Ghent, Belgium , 23-25. Ghent: University of Ghent.
- Dinakar, K.; Jones, B.; Havasi, C.; Lieberman, H.; and Picard, R. 2012. Common sense reasoning for detection, prevention, and mitigation of cyberbullying. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 2(3):18:1-18:30.
- Dooley, J. J.; Py˙ zalski, J.; and Cross, D. 2009. Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology 217(4):182-188.
- E. Menesini, A. N. 2009. Cyberbullying definition and measurement. some critical considerations. Journal of Psychology 217(4):320-323.
- H. Sanchez, S. K. 2012. Twitter bullying detection. NSDI'12, 15-15. Berkeley, CA, USA: USENIX Association.
- Hosseinmardi, H.; Rafiq, R. I.; Li, S.; Yang, Z.; Lv, Q.; Han, R.; and Mishra, S. 2014b. A comparison of common users across instagram and ask. fm to better understand cyberbullying. In Big Data and Cloud Computing (BdCloud), 2014 IEEE Fourth International Conference on , 355-362. IEEE.
- Hunter, S. C.; Boyle, J. M.; and Warden, D. 2007. Perceptions and correlates of peer-victimization and bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology 77(4):797-810.
- K. Reynolds, A. K., and Edwards, L. 2011. Using machine learning to detect cyberbullying. Machine Learning and Applications, Fourth International Conference on 2:241-244.
- Kontostathis, A.; Reynolds, K.; Garron, A.; and Edwards, L. 2013. Detecting cyberbullying: query terms and techniques. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference , 195-204. ACM.
- Kowalski, R. M.; Limber, S.; Limber, S. P.; and Agatston, P. W. 2012. Cyberbullying: Bullying in the digital age . John Wiley & Sons.
- Kowalski, R. M.; Giumetti, G. W.; Schroeder, A. N.; and Lattanner, M. R. 2014. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth.
- Monks, C. P., and Smith, P. K. 2006. Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term, and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 24(4):801-821.
- Nahar, V.; Unankard, S.; Li, X.; and Pang, C. 2012. Sentiment analysis for effective detection of cyber bullying. In Web Technologies and Applications . Springer. 767-774.
- Olweus, D. 2013. School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual review of clinical psychology 9:751-780.
- Silva, T. H.; de Melo, P. O. S. V.; Almeida, J. M.; Salles, J.; and Loureiro, A. A. F. 2013. A picture of Instagram is worth more than a thousand words: Workload characterization and application. In DCOSS , 123-132. IEEE.
- Smith, P. K.; del Barrio, C.; and Tokunaga, R. 2012. In book: Principles of Cyberbullying Research. Definitions, measures and methodology, Chapter: Definitions of Bullying and Cyberbullying: How Useful Are the Terms? Routledge.
- Sood, S.; Antin, J.; and Churchill, E. 2012. Profanity use in online communities. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1481-1490. ACM.
- Weilenmann, A.; Hillman, T.; and Jungselius, B. 2013. Instagram at the museum: Communicating the museum experience through social photo sharing. In Proc. of the SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '13, 1843-1852.
- Xu, J.-M.; Jun, K.-S.; Zhu, X.; and Bellmore, A. 2012. Learning from bullying traces in social media. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , 656-666. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Y. Hu, L. Manikonda, S. K. 2014. What we instagram: A first analysis of instagram photo content and user types. In Proc. of the 8th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM'14).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Offensive, aggressive, and hate speech analysis: From data-centric to human-centered approach
Kocoń, J., Figas, A., Gruza, M., Puchalska, D., Kajdanowicz, T., & Kazienko, P. (2021) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102643 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Hierarchical Attention Networks for Cyberbullying Detection on the Instagram Social Network
Cheng, L., Guo, R., Silva, Y., Hall, D., & Liu, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining · doi:10.1137/1.9781611975673.27 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
A multi-platform dataset for detecting cyberbullying in social media
Van Bruwaene, D., Huang, Q., & Inkpen, D. (2020) · Language Resources and Evaluation · doi:10.1007/s10579-020-09488-3 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Cyberbullying Detection Based on Emotion
Al-Hashedi, M., Soon, L.-K., Goh, H.-N., Lim, A. H. L., & Siew, E.-G. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3280556 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Modeling temporal patterns of cyberbullying detection with hierarchical attention networks
Cheng, L., Guo, R., Silva, Y. N., Hall, D., & Liu, H. (2021) · ACM/IMS Transactions on Data Science · doi:10.1145/3441141 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Cyberbullying Detection: A Survey on Multilingual Techniques
Haidar, B., Chamoun, M., & Yamout, F. (2016) · 2016 European Modelling Symposium (EMS) · doi:10.1109/ems.2016.037 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Benchmark on Peer Review Toxic Detection: A Challenging Task with a New Dataset
Luo, M., Peterson, B., Gan, R., Ramalingame, H., Gangrade, N., Dimarogona, A., Banerjee, I., & Howard, P. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01676 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hosseinmardi, H., Mattson, S. A., Rafiq, R. I., Han, R., Lv, Q., & Mishra, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2015
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1503.03909
- OpenAlex
- W4394658982
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Keywords
- cyberbullying detection, Instagram, social media images, online aggression, crowdsourced labeling, imaging features, classification accuracy
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
