
Online spaces have transformed how young people connect with their peers, learn, and play. For many teenagers, social media, video games, and messaging are central to daily life. Nearly half of U.S. teens say they are online “almost constantly.”[1] Time online can help maintain friendships, build community, and give outlets for creativity and self-expression.[2]
However, it’s critical to recognize that messages, images, and conversations that boys see or join online can shape how they think about relationships, consent, and what it means to “be a man” (masculinity).[3],[4] Some of those lessons are harmful.
In this brief, we address common questions that youth-supporting professionals and other caring adults in young people’s lives might have about this harmful content—what it looks like, whether it has real-world effects, how to recognize signs and risk factors, and what to do about it. In each case, our answers are based on current literature and best practice.
Key terms
- Algorithm: The set of rules an app uses to determine what to show you next.
- Consent: A clear, freely given “yes.” Consent can be withdrawn at any time, and silence or coercion are not consent.
- Cyberbullying: Bullying that happens online or by phone.
- Cyberflashing: Sending sexual images (especially of oneself) to others without their consent.
- Image‑based sexual abuse: Sharing intimate images without consent, coercing someone to share images, or cyberflashing.
- Incel: Short for “involuntary celibate.” Some online groups use this label to self-identify and promote hostile or hateful views about women. Other common terms for these types of groups include “red-pill” or “black-pill.”
- Misogyny: Hatred or contempt of women and girls.
- Pile-on: Online attack of one person by a group of people (also called “dog-piling”).
- Pornography: Images or videos that show explicit sexual activity or nudity. Pornography depicting minors is illegal.
- Rape myths: False beliefs that excuse or minimize sexual harm (for example, blaming victims).
- Sexting: Sending or sharing sexual messages or images via messaging apps.
What harmful content do boys see online?
Boys today have easier access to explicit or degrading content than previous generations.[5] They may see harmful material in video game chats, on social media, or via podcasts, video streams, and websites.
In a 2025 national survey of 1,017 U.S. boys, 69 percent said they often see posts that push gender stereotypes.[6] Examples include claims that girls only date certain kinds of boys or use their looks to get what they want, or that they should focus exclusively on home and family. Some posts also say boys are treated unfairly compared with girls. These types of messages may promote hostile masculinity norms like seeking power over women, avoiding anything feminine, or feeling a sense of sexual entitlement. Large studies consistently link these norms to various forms of violence against women.[7],[8],[9]
Pornography is also only a few clicks away, and some of this content is violent or demeaning. Large reviews of studies find that seeing pornography is linked with sexual aggression, although these associations are generally small and inconsistent.[10],[11] The strongest links appear with exposure to violent pornographic content. In short, what boys see can shape their beliefs and, in some cases, their behaviors.
Peers can also reinforce harmful behaviors online. Boys report following a set of “unwritten rules” to avoid being teased. For example, a report from a nonprofit that studies media patterns for children and families found that:
- 46 percent of boys feel they must not cry or show fear.
- 38 percent feel they should not “act gay” or seem “feminine.”[12]
Additional research also supports these findings. For example, research shows that boys who act “very masculine” are more likely to bully their peers who act feminine.[13]
Sexist humor, homophobic teasing, and cyberbullying may seem trivial or unrelated to other behaviors, and some people dismiss these actions as “just joking.” But these behaviors can harm those being teased and can shift what boys see as normal.[14],[15] Research also finds that exposure to sexist humor can make some men more accepting of sexist behavior and reduce empathy for women.[16] Many adolescents—especially boys—are also highly susceptible to peer influence when it comes to engaging in sex and risky sexual behavior.[17]
Boys may also receive messages from social media influencers and other groups who glorify dominance. For example, one high‑profile figure has pushed ideas like “women are property” or that victims of rape are partly to blame for being assaulted.[18] Degrading content reaches wide audiences of young men—and many trust this content and those who produce it. A 2023 national survey of men found that about 1 in 5 young U.S. men (ages 18–23) said they trust the aforementioned influencer.[19]
The risk of boys seeing harmful content online has gained attention from news media, health organizations, and companies calling for safer online practices for boys. For example, the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health published a blog about boys’ exposure to online misogyny, citing a recent study from the United Kingdom showing that 69 percent of young boys have seen content online that promotes harmful views, such as misogyny. [20],[21] Research has also examined the rise of the “incel” (involuntary celibate) community and found evidence that early prevention and support could help reduce risks of violence and mental health concerns for boys.
Even when boys don’t seek out harmful content, app designs can expose them to it. Algorithms can make provocative content more visible to increase views and engagement, which can affect boys’ behaviors and mental health.[22] Algorithms can also make false or anger-provoking content reach more people faster than content that is true or provides context and justification.[23],[24] Extra exposure can make extreme views feel normal over time and drive further engagement with that type of content. [25], [26]
Further, the ability to be anonymous online can make people bolder. Without real-world accountability, boys may post or “like” hurtful or demeaning messages about women and others.[27] These actions tell the watching group that this behavior is acceptable and can invite others to join in. Even when no one names a specific person, such messages can still harm people who share the targeted identity.[28] The risk of harm peaks when people target a specific person through cyberbullying, perhaps by insulting them or sharing private images without consent. Cyberbullying is consistently linked to higher rates of depression and anxiety for those who are targeted.[29],[30]
Beyond online exposure, “sexting” among youth has also increased in prevalence in recent years.[31] Sexting can be harmful, especially when people do not give consent to send or receive explicit content. Eight to 12 percent of teens have had their pictures shared or shared someone else’s pictures without their consent.[32]
Can these influences turn into real world violence?
The short answer? Sometimes.
The longer answer? Most boys will not become aggressors. However, consistent exposure to degrading, violent, or harmful content online can stack up over time, increasing the risk of offline harm. This risk may be especially true when peers “like” this harmful content.[33]
How does this happen? When boys see a lot of degrading or violent content—and peers reinforce these attitudes—their beliefs can shift. Harmful ideas can start to feel normal and some boys may act in harmful ways online or offline. [34],[35],[36],[37],[38] Research links acceptance of certain gender norms to various forms of violence against women. Across dozens of studies, boys who believe that “being a man” requires dominance, toughness, or sexual conquest are more likely to engage in sexual harassment, sexual coercion, and other violence against women. The connection between these beliefs and harmful behavior isn’t huge, but it shows up again and again—particularly for engaging in sexual harassment.[39],[40],[41]
Once beliefs form and boys’ behaviors shift, patterns of violence can build over time. Studies that follow the same young people over years find a pattern: Bullying and homophobic teasing in early adolescence predict later sexual harassment[42] and, still later, dating violence.[43],[44] Researchers sometimes call this the “bully‑to‑sexual violence pathway.”[45] This pathway does not necessarily mean that one act causes another for every boy; rather, it means the odds of more severe behaviors rise when adults and peers leave bullying unchallenged, reinforce it, and normalize it in early adolescence.
Another way that real-world violence starts is when behaviors begin online but move offline. Image-based sexual abuse (for example, coerced sexting, nonconsensual sharing, or cyberflashing) is increasingly documented among teens, and the same young people who perpetrate it often report other forms of sexual coercion or dating violence. Reviews of research note that some youth who are targeted by nonconsensual image sharing also harm others. Teens who share someone’s image without consent are also more likely to pressure a partner or harass a classmate.[46]
The type of content youth see can amplify risk—especially violent sexual content. In a large U.S. study of 10th graders, boys who had seen violent pornography were two to three times more likely to report sexually aggressive behavior in dating relationships than peers who hadn’t, even after researchers factored in other explanations like substance use and rape myth acceptance.[47] At the same time, research findings on exposure to any form of pornographic material are mixed. One large review of studies links viewing pornography to sexual aggression.[48] Another large review concluded that any links—especially long-term—are generally small and may reflect both exposure and preexisting risk factors.[49] Taken together, the most cautious interpretation of existing research is that violent content carries the clearest risk for future violent behavior.
In rare cases, online communities can reinforce ideologies that celebrate violence offline. For instance, online communities of individuals who self-identify as “incel” often organize around beliefs that society rewards physical attractiveness and that women are to blame for men’s experiences of romantic or sexual rejection and lack of recognition from women.[50] Those who self-identify as incels frequently have mental health challenges and past experiences of being bullied or rejected.[51] Both law enforcement and researchers have linked instances of real-world violence to online participation in incel communities and to sharing beliefs in incel communities. [52], [53], [54]
Exposure isn’t destiny: Many who browse or participate in incel spaces online do not suffer mental health challenges or commit violence. Context and vulnerability shape whether online exposure leads to offline violence. The risk appears highest for men who feel isolated, believe they were previously wronged, or immerse themselves in feeds that repeatedly reward hostility.[55],[56],[57] Recent interviews with 38 men and one woman in the United Kingdom, all ages 16 to 50, who engage in online incel communities found that many men were skeptical or even critical of misogynist or hateful messages from male influencers and did not adopt violent views.[58]
The bottom line? Digital influences can escalate into offline harm, especially when they stack up and go unchallenged. Adults can help by setting clear expectations, offering tools, and providing support to help boys learn to move through digital life with empathy, respect, and real‑world courage.
What should adults look for?
Based on the research summarized above, adults should know that some online patterns are associated with higher risk of harmful beliefs or actions over time. Pay attention if a boy is:
- Telling or sharing “jokes” that put down girls, LGBTQ+ youth, or any group
- Ignoring, excusing, or justifying harassment
- Sharing or saving sexual memes or images, especially when consent was not given
- Seeing violent sexual content often
- Praising influencers who demean women or celebrate control
What can adults do?
Here are five practical steps for parents, caregivers, and youth‑serving adults to help boys—as well as other teens—use technology with respect and care for themselves and their peers. These tips focus on what boys see, who they “follow,” and how they act—both online and in daily life.
1) Model and name the concepts of “harm” and “respect” every day. Young people watch how adults explain the concept of harm and define examples. When we dismiss cruelty or sexual harassment with lines like “boys will be boys,” we normalize harm. Research links acceptance of rape myths with more victim‑blaming and greater tolerance of sexual violence.[59],[60] However, these beliefs are malleable: Adults’ language matters and can help shape and change harmful beliefs. Adults can name harm plainly (“That’s harassment, not humor”), center consent and respect in everyday conversation, and model apologizing when we miss the mark.[61]
2) Teach and tune an adolescent boy’s social media feeds. Multiple investigations find that algorithms can amplify extreme or misogynistic content to teen accounts, which can normalize hostility toward women.[62],[63] Share this information openly with boys so they can both notice and name hostile or toxic behaviors. Explain how websites’ and apps’ “For You/Explore” pages are trained and why a few taps can change what they see.
Research shows that teens are often willing to work with adults to set healthy boundaries and think more carefully about what they watch or share.[64] Look together at a page and ask questions like, “What is your content teaching you about friendship, dating, or consent?” Show boys how to use “Not interested” and “Don’t recommend channel” feedback options, and teach them to establish and set keyword filters and feed refresh tools on the apps they use (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube).[65],[66],[67] These controls aren’t perfect: Independent testing suggests that some controls (e.g., YouTube’s dislike/“don’t recommend”[68]) only partially suppress similar content. Nevertheless, following such guidance can reduce some categories of unwanted content and give boys agency. Plus, adults can support boys by combining technical tuning with conversation and co‑viewing.
3) Build a pause‑before‑share habit. The United Nation’s “Pause. Take care before you share” campaign is a simple way to curb the spread of harmful content. Encourage boys to ask, “Who made this? What’s the source? Why am I sharing it?”[69] This habit can curb misinformation, pile‑ons, and casual cruelty—and help people make better online choices.
4) Set simple routines that protect boys’ well-being (sleep, meals, focus). Predictable routines make it easier for adolescents to think clearly, regulate emotions, and follow through on good intentions. Consider these research-informed tips:
- Create a 60‑minute “digital sunset.” The U.S. surgeon general advises at least one hour device‑free before bed, and research shows that evening screen exposure suppresses melatonin, delays circadian timing, and shortens sleep.[70] If 60 minutes feels unrealistic at first, start at 20 minutes and step up gradually.
- Keep devices out of bedrooms overnight. Support this practice by having all household members charge phones in a common space overnight and set phones to “Do Not Disturb/Focus” from lights‑out to wake‑up. Studies link access to and use of phones and tablets in the sleep environment to later bedtimes, shorter sleep duration, lower sleep quality, and excessive daytime sleepiness in children and teens.[71]
- Make meals device‑free for everyone in the family. The U.S. surgeon general explicitly recommends device‑free mealtimes to support family conversation and bonding. Research finds that parents’ phone use during meals is linked with fewer parent–child interactions.[72]
- Balance online and offline activities. Encourage at least one daily offline activity, such as going on a walk, practicing sports or music, doing an art project, or completing chores. U.S. guidelines recommend at least 60 minutes of moderate‑to‑vigorous physical activity daily for people ages 6 to 17.[73] Physical activity is also tied to better cognition and academic performance, and to fewer depressive symptoms.[74]
- Support focused homework time. The mere presence of a smartphone can reduce available working memory and make it harder to reason through unfamiliar tasks during homework time. Even just seeing notifications can impair performance, and studies link chronic media multitasking to weaker cognitive control. Brief, structured breaks can help sustain attention and improve study efficiency.[75],[76],[77],[78],[79] Strategies to support focused homework time include the following:
- Putting phones out of reach during homework time
- Closing unnecessary tabs on laptops or other devices being used for homework
- Using pre‑planned short breaks (e.g., 25–30 minutes for homework and then 5 minutes of other device activity)
- Have a reset plan. If routines slip, start fresh the next day—no shaming, just back to the plan. Make a simple “if‑then” plan ahead of time (e.g., “If it’s past 9:00 p.m. and homework’s not done, then the phone goes on the kitchen charger until we finish homework”).[80] These short plans help people follow through on goals, and using natural “fresh start” moments (like Mondays or the first day of a new term) boosts motivation to restart healthy routines.[81],[82]
5) Equip boys to be upstanders, not bystanders. Teach boys the “five D’s”: distract, delegate, document, delay, (be) direct. For example, distract a person who is being harassed to interrupt the moment; delegate monitoring of situations by asking other trusted adults to help or by using in-app tools to report harassment or bullying; document harmful incidents that do occur (possibly via recording); delay harmful effects by checking in with those involved (“I saw that—want support?”); or be direct and call out harmful behaviors when safe to do so (“That’s harassment—not a joke. Please stop.”). Choose the option that keeps everyone safe: The first four options are indirect by design. Practice these interventions in low‑stakes ways, like sending a supportive direct message to someone harmed, posting a kind comment, or quietly reporting harmful content. And teach boys that, when you see harm, document, block, and report it (most platforms and schools ask for evidence, so take screenshots and log dates).[83]
Additional Resources
The following action‑oriented resources can help adults and youth-serving professionals put many of the strategies mentioned above into practice.
Family agreements and day‑to‑day routines
- Create a shared plan for screen‑free times, homework, privacy, and sleep with the American Academy of Pediatrics Family Media Plan.
- Co‑write a digital safety agreement through a guided conversation using The Smart Talk.
Digital‑citizenship lessons and games
- Teach core skills (be kind, alert, strong, smart) with Be Internet Awesome and let kids practice in the Interland game.
Preventing bullying and building upstander skills
- Follow federal steps to document → block → report cyberbullying at StopBullying.gov.
- Practice the “5 D’s” (Distract, Delegate, Document, Delay, (be) Direct) with Right To Be’s bystander guides.
- Spot and respond to sexual cyberbullying with a concise adult quick-reference (warning signs, how to support youth): Activate – How to Decode Signs of Sexual Cyberbullying and Support Teens and Youth.
Consent and healthy relationships
- Ground conversations with clear, age‑appropriate primers via Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network - Consent 101.
- Use a practitioner-friendly guide to help teens understand boundaries, gray areas, and how to give or withhold permission: Activate – A Practice Guide for Understanding Consent.
Image‑based abuse and sextortion (removal and reporting)
- Remove minors’ images from participating platforms using National Center for Missing Exploited Children (NCMEC) - Take It Down.
- For adults’ images, use the privacy‑preserving pathway at StopNCII.org.
- Report suspected online child sexual exploitation through the NCMEC CyberTipline.
- During active sextortion incidents (a request for sexually explicit material followed by a demand for money), follow Federal Bureau of Investigation guidance.
Understanding and managing feeds and algorithms
- See how recommendations can amplify harmful content—and what helps—via the University College London/Association of School and College Leaders brief Safer Scrolling.
- Learn platform controls (hide, mute, not interested, keyword filters, Family Pairing) with ConnectSafely Parent Guides.
Platform‑specific safety education
- Take a 45‑minute course with your teen that covers bullying, sextortion, and in‑app tools at Snap - The Keys.
General digital‑parenting hubs and advisories
- Align family rules with research‑informed recommendations in the American Psychological Association Health Advisory on Adolescent Social Media Use.
- Use checklists, privacy tips, and scripts from United Nations Children’s Fund - Digital Parenting.
- Download “quick wins” and printable one‑pagers from the Family Online Safety Institute.
- Check app, game, and movie content and receive age‑based talking points at Common Sense Media.
For coaches and educators working with boys
- Run short, evidence‑based team talks that build respect with FUTURES - Coaching Boys Into Men.
Closing Note
Most boys navigate digital life with good intentions and use technology positively to connect, learn, and show care. But ignoring the risks leaves space for harmful socialization to flourish. With practical tools, steady expectations, and open conversations between caring adults and youth, boys can learn to use technology in ways that foster empathy, respect, and resilience—helping them build healthy relationships and stand up for others.
Suggested citation
Wilson, A.C., Rivas-Koehl, M., Mihalec-Adkins, B.P., & Scott, M.E. (2025). Helping boys navigate harmful online influences. Child Trends. DOI: 10.56417/168a419b.
Pew Research Center. (2022). Teens, social media and technology 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/
Pew Research Center. (2025, April 22). Social media and teens’ mental health: What teens and their parents say. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/22/teens-social-media-and-mental-health/
Ward, L. M. (2022). A scripted sexuality: Media, gendered sexual scripts, and their impact on our lives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(4), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221101072
Rodgers, K. B., Hust, S. J. T., Li, J., Kang, S., & Garcia, A. L. (2023). Sexual scripts and sexual consent: Gender stereotypes, music-media messages, and sexual consent expectancies among college men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(15–16), 9264–9289. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231165766
Collins, R. L., Martino, S. C., & Shaw, R. (2011, April 14). Influence of new media on adolescent sexual health: Evidence and opportunities. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/influence-new-media-adolescent-sexual-health-evidence-opportunities-0
Robb, M. B., & Mann, S. (2025). Boys in the digital wild: Online culture, identity, and well-being. Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2025-boys-in-the-digital-wild-report_for-web.pdf
Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46(11), 359-375. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020488928736
Krivoshchekov, V., Gulevich, O., & Blagov, I. (2023). Traditional masculinity and male violence against women: A meta-analytic examination. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 24(4), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000426
Krivoshchekov, V., Gulevich, O., & Blagov, I. (2023). Traditional masculinities and men’s sexism: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 24(4), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000444
Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., & Kraus, A. (2016). A meta-analysis of pornography consumption and actual acts of sexual aggression in general population studies. Journal of Communication, 66(1), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12201
Ferguson, C. J., & Hartley, R. D. (2022). Pornography and sexual aggression: Can meta-analysis find a link? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020942754
Robb, M. B., & Mann, S. (2025). Boys in the digital wild: Online culture, identity, and well-being. Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2025-boys-in-the-digital-wild-report_for-web.pdf
Mittleman, J. (2023). Homophobic bullying as gender policing: Population-based evidence. Gender & Society, 37(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432221138091
Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
Ford, T. E., Woodzicka, J. A., Triplett, S. R., & Kochersberger, A. O. (2013). Sexist humor and beliefs that justify societal sexism. Current Research in Social Psychology, 21(7), 64–81. https://crisp.org.uiowa.edu/sites/crisp.org.uiowa.edu/files/2020-04/art9.26.13_1.pdf
Widman, L., Choukas-Bradley, S., Helms, S. W., Golin, C. E., & Prinstein, M. J. (2016). Adolescent susceptibility to peer influence in sexual situations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 48, 45–56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4766019/
Wilding, M. (2022, August 6). Inside the violent, misogynistic world of TikTok’s new star, Andrew Tate. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/06/andrew-tate-violent-misogynistic-world-of-tiktok-new-star
Barker, G., Hayes, C., Heilman, B., & Reichart, M. (2023). The state of American men 2023. Equimundo: Center for Masculinities and Social Justice. https://www.equimundo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/STATE-OF-AMERICAN-MEN-2023.pdf
Albajara Sáenz, A. (2025, July 28). Adolescence at risk: Online misogyny, mental health, and the urgent need for action. ACAMH. https://www.acamh.org/blog/adolescence-at-risk-online-misogyny-mental-health-and-the-urgent-need-for-action/
Vodafone UK. (2024, February 6). AI ‘Aggro-rithms’: Young boys are served harmful content within 60 seconds of being online . Vodafone UK News Centre. https://www.vodafone.co.uk/newscentre/press-release/ai-aggro-rithms/
Gupta, U., Sharma, M. N., Rawat, K. P., Sriram, N., Kumar, A., & Kumar, U. (2025). Understanding the impact of social media algorithms on teenagers’ brain and emotions: A cross-field approach. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 11(22s), 553-559. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394852197_Understanding_the_Impact_of_Social_Media_Algorithms_on_Teenagers'_Brain_and_Emotions_A_Cross-Field_Approach
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(26), e2024292118. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2024292118
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559
Robertson, C. E., Del Rosario, K. S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2024). Inside the funhouse mirror factory: How social media distorts perceptions of norms. Current Opinion in Psychology, 60, 101918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101918
Mrkva, K., & Van Boven, L. (2020). Salience theory of mere exposure: Relative exposure increases liking, extremity, and emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(6), 1118-1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000184
Association of School and College Leaders & ODI/ALIGN. (2024, February 2). Safer scrolling: How algorithms popularize and gamify online hate and misogyny for young people. https://www.alignplatform.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/align-socialmedia-briefingnote-jan24-proof05.pdf
Saunders, A. J., Anderson, J. R., & Hinton, J. D. X. (2025). When their experience becomes mine: Reconceptualizing and measuring vicarious discrimination among LGBTQ+ adults with the Vicarious Discrimination Scale. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000869
Ye, Z., Yang, X., Zeng, C., Li, L., Li, Y., & Wang, S. (2023). Meta-analysis of the relationship between bullying and mental health problems among children and adolescents. BMC Psychiatry, 23, 215. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10061722/
Bolet, D., & Foos, F. (2025). Media platforming and the normalization of extreme right views. British Journal of Political Science, 55, e103. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123425000195
Madigan, S., Ly, A., Rash, C., Van Ouytsel, J., & Temple, J. R. (2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behaviour among youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5314
Madigan, S., Ly, A., Rash, C. L., Van Ouytsel, J., & Temple, J. R. (2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior among youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(4), 327–335. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5875316/
Sherman, L. E., Payton, A. A., Hernandez, L. M., Greenfield, P. M., & Dapretto, M. (2016). The power of the like in adolescence: Effects of peer influence on neural and behavioral responses to social media. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1027-1035. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5387999/
Krahé, B., Möller, I., Huesmann, L. R., Kirwil, L., Felber, J., & Berger, A. (2011). Desensitization to media violence: links with habitual media violence exposure, aggressive cognitions, and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 630. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021711
Fanti, K. A., Vanman, E., Henrich, C. C., & Avraamides, M. N. (2009). Desensitization to media violence over a short period of time. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 35(2), 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20295
Bullo, A., & Schulz, P. J. (2022). Do peer and parental norms influence media content-induced cyber aggression?. Computers in Human Behavior, 129, 107136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107136
Swartout, K. M. (2013). The company they keep: How peer networks influence male sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 3(2), 157-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029997
Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., & Oppenheim, J. K. (2022). Violent media in childhood and seriously violent behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 71(3), 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.03.003
Agadullina, E., Lovakov, A., Balezina, M., & Gulevich, O. A. (2022). Ambivalent sexism and violence toward women: A meta‐analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(5-6), 819-859. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2855
Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46(11), 359-375. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020488928736
Krivoshchekov, V., Gulevich, O., & Blagov, I. (2023). Traditional masculinity and male violence against women: A meta-analytic examination. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 24(4), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000426
Espelage, D. L., Hong, J. S., Valido, A., Naegeli, K. M., & Rose, C. A. (2018). Longitudinal examination of the bullying–sexual violence pathway across early to late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63(6), 1–8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4699677/
Miller, S., Williams, J., Cutbush, S., Gibbs, D., Clinton-Sherrod, M., & Jones, S. (2013). Dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: Longitudinal profiles and transitions over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 607-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9914-8
Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., De La Rue, L., & Hamburger, M. E. (2015). Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(14), 2541-2561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553113
Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., De La Rue, L., & Hamburger, M. E. (2015). Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(14), 2541-2561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553113
Henry, N., Flynn, A., & Powell, A. (2022). Image-based sexual abuse: A systematic review of perpetration and victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(2), 519–541. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10126554/
Rostad, W. L., Gittins-Stone, D., Huntington, C., Rizzo, C. J., Pearlman, D., & Orchowski, L. M. (2019). The association between exposure to violent pornography and teen dating violence in Grade 10 high school students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(7), 2137–2147. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31309432/
Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., & Kraus, A. (2016). A meta-analysis of pornography consumption and actual acts of sexual aggression in general population studies. Journal of Communication, 66(1), 183–205. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcom.12201
Ferguson, C. J., & Hartley, R. D. (2022). Pornography and sexual aggression: Can meta-analysis find a link? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 278–287. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32691692/
Pelzer, B., Kaati, L., Cohen, K., & Fernquist, J. (2021). Toxic language in online incel communities. SN Social Sciences, 1(8), 213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00220-8
Moskalenko, S., González, J. F. G., Kates, N., & Morton, J. (2022). Incel ideology, radicalization and mental health: A survey study. The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare, 4(3), 1-29. https://journals.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/jicw/article/view/3817
Public Safety Canada. (2020, August 31). Violent extremism motivated by misogynistic “incel” ideology. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20200831/062/index-en.aspx
Baele, S. J., Brace, L., & Coan, T. G. (2021). From “Incel” to “Saint”: Analyzing the violent worldview behind the 2018 Toronto attack. Terrorism and Political Violence, 33(8), 1667-1691. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1638256
Hoffman, B., Ware, J., & Shapiro, E. (2020). Assessing the threat of incel violence. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 43(7), 565-587. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2020.1751459
Ofcom. (2025, June 13). Experiences of engaging with the manosphere. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/research-statistics-and-data/protecting-children/experiences-of-engaging-with-the-manosphere.pdf
Sparks, B., Zidenberg, A. M., & Olver, M. E. (2024). One is the loneliest number: Involuntary celibacy (incel), mental health, and loneliness. Current Psychology, 43, 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z
Costello, W., Rolón, V., Thomas, A. G., & Schmitt, D. P. (2022). Levels of well-being among men who are incel (involuntarily celibate). Evolutionary Psychological Science, 8(4), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-022-00336-x
Ofcom. (2025, June 13). Experiences of engaging with the manosphere. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/research-statistics-and-data/protecting-children/experiences-of-engaging-with-the-manosphere.pdf
Hockett, J. M., Smith, S. J., Klausing, C. D., & Saucier, D. A. (2010). Reducing the tendency to blame the victim: Meta-analysis of rape myth acceptance education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2010–2035. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260509354503
O’Connor, J., Pfeiffer, C., & Hannemann, N. (2021). The longitudinal effects of rape myth beliefs and rape proclivity on sexual aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 47(2), 1–13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9380434/
RAINN. (n.d.). Consent 101: Respecting boundaries and building trust. https://rainn.org/share-the-facts/consent-101-respect-boundaries-and-building-trust/
University College London. (2024, February 5). Social media algorithms amplify misogynistic content to teens. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/feb/social-media-algorithms-amplify-misogynistic-content-teens
Phys.org. (2024, February 5). Social media algorithms amplify misogynistic content to teens. https://phys.org/news/2024-02-social-media-algorithms-amplify-misogynistic.html
Park, J. K., Ma, R., Ali, N. S., Baptiste, N. J., Agha, Z., & Wisniewski, P. (2025). Teens, privacy, and algorithms: Navigating and co-designing solutions for interpersonal boundary management on social media. In Proceedings of the 24th Interaction Design and Children Conference (pp. 589–607). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3713043.3728840
TikTok. (n.d.). How TikTok recommends content (For You). TikTok Support. https://support.tiktok.com/en/using-tiktok/exploring-videos/how-tiktok-recommends-content
Instagram. (n.d.). How Instagram Feed works. Instagram Help Center. https://help.instagram.com/423267105807548
YouTube. (n.d.). Manage your recommendations and search results. YouTube Help. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6342839
Ricks, B., & Mozilla Foundation. (2022, September 20). YouTube’s ‘Dislike’ button doesn’t do what you think. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-dislike-button-mozilla-research/
United Nations Verified. (n.d.). #PledgeToPause. https://shareverified.com/pledge-to-pause/
U.S. Surgeon General. (2023). Social media and youth mental health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf
Carter, B., Rees, P., Hale, L., Bhattacharjee, D., & Paradkar, M. S. (2016). Association between portable screen-based media device access or use and sleep outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(12), 1202–1208. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27802500/
U.S. Surgeon General. (2023). Social media and youth mental health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Guidelines: Physical education and physical activity. https://www.cdc.gov/physical-activity-education/guidelines/index.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Benefits of physical activity for children. https://www.cdc.gov/physical-activity-basics/health-benefits/children.html
Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691462
Stothart, C., Mitchum, A., & Yehnert, C. (2015). The attentional cost of receiving a cell phone notification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 893–897. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26121498/
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19706386/
Ariga, A., & Lleras, A. (2011). Brief and rare mental ‘breaks’ keep you focused: Deactivation and reactivation of task goals preempt vigilance decrements. Cognition, 118(3), 439–443. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21211793/
Biwer, F., de Jong, N. M., & Op den Kamp, E. J. C. (2023). Comparing ‘Pomodoro’ breaks and self‑regulated breaks: Effects on mental effort, task experiences and task completion in real‑life study sessions. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1121656. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36859717/
National Cancer Institute. (2020, June). Goal intent and attainment—implementation intentions. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/goal_intent_attain.pdf
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‑analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260106380021
Dai, H., Milkman, K. L., & Riis, J. (2014). The fresh start effect: Temporal landmarks motivate aspirational behavior. Management Science, 60(10), 2563–2582. https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Dai_Fresh_Start_2014_Mgmt_Sci.pdf
StopBullying.gov. (n.d.). Prevent cyberbullying. https://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/prevention



