Turning Assault into a “Harmless Prank”—Teenage Perspectives on Happy Slapping

Abstract

The article describes the ways in which 41 adolescents from three large English cities discussed the phenomenon of happy slapping, which is typically defined as recording a physical assault on an unsuspecting victim on a camera-enabled phone for Internet upload. Using discourse analysis, the construal of motivations for its creation and watching is explored, elaborating on social, cultural, and legal implications. The identified repertoires (creation of comedy, denial of grievous bodily harm, accomplice-witness ambiguity, and reflection of postmodern culture) caution against attributing happy slapping just to boredom, as the mainstream British press does and puts spotlight on other factors, like seeking originality and keeping “pranks” under control. Concluding with the apparent similarities between the discursive worlds inhabited by unconvicted adolescents and convicted offenders, this study provides a theoretical platform for further research on the subtle and intriguing overlap.

Keywords

discourse happy slapping youth violence

In the dystopian novella A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess (1962), which was adapted into a movie under the same title by Stanley Kubrick (1979), a deeply disturbing picture of ultraviolence on English streets was portrayed, featuring members of a youth gang engaging in acts of unprovoked physical assault on unsuspecting people. The idea of such “random” violence, then, is certainly not new, but only in the last few years was it given much attention, which is probably down to the spread of camera phones (Devitt & Roker, 2009) and the Internet (Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Nightingale, 2007). From innocuous and playful slaps that can be simply laughed off by the victim, to nefarious incidents of grievous bodily harm (Duncanin, 2005), rape (Sulaiman, 2005), arson (Reko, 2007), and murder (Murphy, 2010), happy slapping has been covered by all the major newspapers. Thus, despite being usually humorous in intent, it has become increasingly brutal although not necessarily more vicious than cyberbullying that is similar in the use of mobile phones and the Internet, but different in having a repetitive pattern and typically involving perpetrators and victims who know each other (Brough & Sills, 2006; Twyman, Saylor, Taylor, & Comeaux, 2010).

The origin of happy slapping has been the subject of much speculation and is still characterized by a lack of conceptual clarity. Whereas British school officials blamed video-enabled mobile phones, sociologists put it down to the rowdy behavior-connoting British yob culture (Hundley, 2005) and political and media commentators often held stunt and prank shows (like British Dirty Sanchez and American Jackass and Bumfights) accountable (Saunders, 2005). Since the role of violent video games has been shown as instrumental in desensitisation to real-life violence (Wei, 2007), their inspirational impact should be taken into account and, given the spread of happy slapping incidents to France, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, and Australia, so should the sociocultural tapestry (King, Walpole, & Lamon, 2007). The multifactorial attribution of this phenomenon to legal loopholes, “toothless” policy statements, passive (cyber)bystanders, and unwilling social network intermediaries (Mann, 2009) must also be acknowledged.

Even a brief review of such literature, which focuses on attributions and uniquely pathological character of the phenomenon (Chan et al., 2012; Palasinski, 2012), suggests that the information on motivations for creating, uploading, and watching incidents of happy slapping is very limited. In particular, the statistics on it remain nebulous in light of apparently sensationalist media reports (Saunders, 2005), which hampers the introduction of effective countermeasures. Even though the estimates of happy slapping remain difficult to quantify, the support for the study can be found in a related prevalence of cyberbullying; in one recent study, for example, 44.1% of Spanish adolescents reported at least one experience of such bullying (Calvete, Orue, Estévez, Villardón, & Padilla, 2010). The media interest in the problem (Nightingale, 2007) and high rates of violent crime committed by British urban youths (Pitts, 2008; Toy, 2011) lend further support.

Answering the call for research on this phenomenon (King et al., 2007), and staying mindful of sociocultural and technological barriers to its reduction, I decided to adopt an exploratory discursive approach that was already proven insightful in shedding light on young men’s views on knife carrying (Palasinski & Riggs, 2012) and on children’s use of mobile phones in managing and maintaining relationships (Bond, 2010). Rather than exploring happy slapping from forensic science, legal, investigative and psychological perspectives (Chan et al., 2012), however, I put the focus on the construal of happy slapping in talk. In so doing, and acknowledging the epistemological difficulties of treating talk as reflective of underlying cognitive processes (Edwards, 1997), I paid particular attention to its purpose-oriented fact construction (Potter, 1996), including strategic diminishment of one’s personal responsibility (McKenedy, 2006) and presentation of mitigating circumstances (Auburn & Lea, 2003).

Thus, given the current research deficit, the bottom-up qualitative approach might be more likely to complement the broader stance adopted by Chan et al. (2012) than the top-down quantitative approach. Aiming to lift the lid on street perspectives, the primary objective of this article, then, is to analyze the construal of happy slapping and associated issues that are raised spontaneously by interviewees. In light of the popular media attributions of happy slapping to boredom, deviance, and peer pressure (Brownstein, 2011; Gibb, 2008; Honingsabum, 2005; Wright, 2010), I will also examine these factors by relevant open-ended questions. However, I will not stake claims to any grand narratives or “great truths” about happy slapping. Instead, I will offer a context-depending polyphony of young voices and an insightful set of understandings at different levels. In so doing, and in addressing an important research gap, the main point I shall be arguing here is that, contrary to most accounts of the British press, happy slapping can be a complex phenomenon whose dynamic evaluations are dependent on a mix of social context, category relations, and consequences.

Method

Participants

Following institutional ethics approval, the recruitment took a rather circuitous route as an earlier pilot study suggested that direct and personally relevant questions about happy slapping had an inhibitory effect, creating mistrust and often leading to withdrawal from the study. To overcome this obstacle, I adopted the technique of projective questions about other people’s attitudes to the phenomenon, which was already proven effective and insightful in research on teenage knife carrying (Riggs & Palasinski, 2011). Since women are less direct in enacting physical aggression than men (Björkqvist, 1994) and their aggression is higher toward intimate partners rather than strangers (Cross & Campbell, 2011), only male participants took part in the study.

One hundred and twenty-two British male adolescents (aged 16-17) were informally and randomly approached at seven inner city youth centers in three large English cities and invited to one-to-one interviews on the influence of the Internet on street crime, violence, and community safety. The centers were similar in the provision of sports, musical, and learning activities as well as personal and professional guidance. Only 41 of 122 college-attending participants qualified for the main 15- to 20-min-long interview by giving a positive answer to the question about watching a happy slapping incident on the Internet in the last 6 months.¹ Five of them came from Center A (London), 6 from Center B (London), 4 from Center C (London), 7 from Center D (Birmingham), 8 from Center E (Birmingham), 5 from Center F (Manchester), and 6 from Center G (Manchester). Four of them were Black, 9 were Asian, and 28 were White.

Procedure

All participants were asked for signed informed consent and permission for the anonymous one-to-one interviews to be audio-recorded. They were also advised that they could withdraw their consent and leave anytime they wished (nobody did) and asked not to communicate with each other (apparently they did not). They were all asked a few introductory questions about their center, community safety, and neighborhood so that the central focus could then be gradually put on happy slapping.

To minimize the presence of potentially confounding factors, like drug abuse, social deprivation, or early exit from the educational system (Chu, Daffern, & Thomas, 2009), they were asked, Have you got a criminal record? Are you a college student? Aiming to increase the generalizability of my findings, I focused on participants who might be relatively representative of the largely law-abiding population of British youths although these two questions could not guarantee it. Following a negative answer to the former and a positive to the next, which allowed for the inclusion of participants who were likely quite representative of the largest youth group in the United Kingdom, a sample of main questions was asked: How safe is your neighborhood? Why do people create and upload happy slapping video clips? Why do people watch such clips? What could be the background of such people? What could be the reasons behind happy slapping? and What could shape attitudes to happy slapping?

In trying to increase participants’ spontaneity, however much it could be possible in audio-recorded interviews with a stranger, I remained largely passive and limited my role to paraphrasing the questions and encouraging participants to talk freely, which is purposefully reflected in the structural presentation of the unedited extracts without any prompting input. In the end, all participants were thanked for their time and advised on how they could learn more about the study.

Data Analysis

The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed orthographically and then examined using the general recommendations for discourse analysis (Wetherell & Potter, 1992), relying in particular on the concept of interpretative repertoires identified as “broadly discernable clusters of terms, descriptions and figures of speech often assembled around metaphors or vivid images” (Wetherell & Potter, 1992, p. 90). Adopting the middle ground-level approach, which neither overemphasizes discourse at the broader social level nor at the micro level of interaction, was deemed appropriate as it was already proved insightful in a discursive study of young masculinity and heroic violence (Andersson, 2008).

Having read and reread the whole data set, I searched for coherent patterns of argumentation, rhetorical and semantic moves, and any similar shapes that these took. The patterns were then broken up into coherent numbered units that were defined by change of subject and inspected for consistent informational threads that could be woven together into different repertoires. The number of such discerned repertoires was then brought down to fewer and progressively more succinct repertoires that were systematically checked back with the transcript and cross-examined between and within the interviews. In this way, four main repertoires, which did not apply to all participants, were identified: (1) Creation of Comedy, (2) Denial of Grievous Bodily Harm, (3) Accomplice Bystander Ambiguity and (4) Reflection of Postmodern Culture. Repertoires 2 and 4 were most common, followed by Repertoires 1 and 3. Although my two assistants and I initially differed slightly on the criteria of representativeness and extract inclusion, we based such criteria on the requirement that all germane narrative properties should be represented consistently in similar cases. Scanning the whole transcript for coherent clusters of individual references comprising the repertoires, we thus tried to minimize their subjectivity and our personal biases. To protect participants’ anonymity no actual names are provided.

Findings

Repertoire 1: Creation of Comedy

In the first repertoire, participants made light of happy slapping, minimizing its seriousness and portraying its usual media presentation as sensationalist and unfair. In the following extract, for example, Daniel draws an important line between “harmless” happy slapping and what can be inferred as “injury-lasting unhappy slapping.” Whereas he attributes the former to humor, he puts the latter down to bad luck. He also normalizes happy slapping in general by emphasizing the universal imperfection of the natural world:

Daniel:

Real happy slapping isn’t . . . Most of it is all about playing pranks. . But sometimes . . . Sometimes things can go wrong . . . Y’know . . . Accidents happen everywhere . . .

Unhappy slapping was also partially attributed to a small minority (“morons” and “psychos”) whose dispositional character was abnormalized (Potter, 1996, p. 194) by their implicit lack of judgment, morality, and responsibility. Stressing the media preoccupation with this minority and the alleged media blindness to the difference between the prevalent happy slapping and occasional unhappy slapping, Peter normalizes happy slapping in general. He does so by criticizing its supposedly uninformed detractors and attributing sensation-seeking to them rather than to the majority of happy slappers:

Peter:

Occasionally you will find morons going beyond the limit and causing injury . . . And then the media lump such psychos together with pranksters . . . And they ignore the fact that most happy slapping . . . Is quite . . . Harmless . . .

In the next extract, Hassan begins with a disclaimer, which acts to inoculate against criticism and allows him to present himself as sensitive. He legitimates happy slapping by its defining characteristic—happy—the message being that not only should it hence be treated as tolerable but that it should also be considered as an almost universally accessible and affordable form of popular art with more creative potential than the mainstream film industry:

Hassan:

As long as nobody gets hurt I see nothing wrong with happy slapping . . . It could be quite original . . . hhh . . . And more interesting than yet another boring cinema flick . . .

Repertoire 2: Denial of Grievous Bodily Harm

In the second repertoire, the camera is construed as a safety net that allegedly deters happy slappers from causing lasting injury. Such “effect-oriented legitimation” is a part of instrumental rationalization that sanctions “the pranks” (Van Leeuwen, 2007, p. 105). Here, this argument is also strengthened by the generic pronoun “you” that invites consent and warrants status of general knowledge (Gastil, 1992) to John’s statement. Such further defense of happy slapping can be found in the minimizer “silly” and descriptive disclaimer “wouldn’t normally go too far.” Thus, although John frowns on going too far, he construes going far as being permissible as long as it stays silly (i.e., “quite harmless”) and does not become stupid:

John:

If you were being recorded doing something silly . . . Then you wouldn’t normally go too far . . . Would you? You would know that the footage might be used as . . . Evidence against you . . . And put you in deep trouble . . .

Throughout the interviews, happy slapping was consistently euphemized and its seriousness was minimized, valorizing the role of the camera. Using an ideologically laden cause-effect relation (Chang & Mehan, 2008), Adam creates an impression of causality so that the camera appears to provide security rather than to encourage violence. The reference to the sensationalist media lends further support to his argument and endows it with a quality of out-there-ness (Potter, 1996, p. 15) that builds up its facticity in which the subjectivity of his personal opinion becomes hidden:

Adam:

Pranks are more dangerous when . . . When they aren’t controlled . . . I mean . . . People forget that . . . And the media ignore the fact that most GBH [grievous bodily harm] isn’t caused by happy slapping . . .

Repertoire 3: Accomplice–Witness Ambiguity

The dominant theme in this repertoire is focused on the allegedly unclear distinction between perpetrators and bystanders. In his rhetorical question, James minimizes the dangers of happy slapping, disavowing their seriousness and sanctioning the act of recording happy slapping by positioning the cameraman as acting within legal boundaries. Thus the act of recording violence, although seen as posing the risk of running afoul of the law, is construed as a grey area that could be invested with the meanings that are powerful enough to exempt the cameraman from legal accountability on the grounds that proving his actual involvement could be unviable. In making room for exceptions, James also guards against putting his argument in question:

James:

How could it be wrong to record anything unlikely to result in more than a red mark on the cheek? Even if anything serious happened . . . Then the camera guy wouldn’t be really in on the act . . .

Rob takes an even softer line on happy slapping by framing the act of recording it in terms of using a weapon that might effectively empower bystanders, potentially reducing violence by inhibiting assailants and aiding in their subsequent identification. His argument hence serves to denounce any strict legislation against happy slapping on the grounds of alleged evidence collection that would be undermined if video-recording bystanders were treated like perpetrators. This functions to transcend the accomplice–witness dichotomy and subtly vests more accountability for any future serious injury in legislators rather than in happy slappers:

Rob:

If happy slapping got banned completely . . . Or if recording it became illegal . . . Then bystanders would have their hands tied and . . . And key witnesses could be driven into inaction . . . They would fear being mistaken for accomplices . . .

Repertoire 4: Reflection of Postmodern Culture

In this repertoire, what is quite interesting is that the discursive logic behind it seems to be geared toward shifting the responsibility for happy slapping, and breakdown in morality in general, from individuals to culture and society that are construed as complex, stressing, and contradictory in their demands. Asserting the categorical certainty of happy slapping multicausality, Steven effectively downplays the mediacized role of boredom so as to highlight the importance of other factors and to raise the issue of social class. He does so by implicitly marginalizing the influence of poor background and by emphasizing the pejorative influence of peer pressure and sociocultural demands imposed on young people:

Steven:

Kids must get involved in happy slapping for many reasons . . . Boredom is just one of them . . . Y’know . . . There are no role models to follow . . . And everywhere you get the message . . . That you can’t be successful without money and friends . . . So it’s no wonder that even rich kids try to become popular . . . And do stupid things . . .

Presenting happy slappers as sociocultural victims, Ahmed locates pathology within the generally accepted social and legal norms, portraying young people as deprived of constructive forms of popular entertainment. Ideologically, he recognizes young men’s need for visual action and indirectly casts the highbrow culture as unsuitable or insufficient for the majority of them. His “culture as a cause” (Hanson-Easey & Augoustinos, 2010, p. 314) argument diminishes their individual moral responsibility and implicitly accuses the general authorities and commercial industry of irresponsibility. By associating the pressure of modern life with higher risk of violence, he also lends credence to the research on the positive correlation between adolescents’ perceptions of life satisfaction, risky acts, and self-reported acts of violence (MacDonald, Piquero, Valois, & Zullig, 2005).

Ahmed:

Nowadays it can be really hard to find a good video game that isn’t all about killing or . . . Slashing and shooting . . . It doesn’t surprise me that some people get lost and . . . Act such violence out on the street . . .

In saying “I’ve never heard,” Michael fends off the impression of sounding dogmatic, which increases the cogency of his denial of mobile phones and the Internet being the root causes of happy slapping. Ignoring the fact that most British media rarely report on individual incidents of street violence overseas, he uses such underreporting to claim that the apparent absence of evidence can be taken as evidence of absence. Thus, he leaves no other potential cause of happy slapping than the British culture of treating young people with apparently excessive leniency. In so doing, he lays the ground for implicitly exempting them from moral responsibility for happy slapping and subtly suggests that such responsibility should be assumed by the proverbial upholders of British values, like their parents, teachers, and authorities:

Michael:

I’ve never heard of happy slapping in Japan or Germany . . . And in these countries most young people have access to the Internet . . . And they also have cool mobiles . . . So it can’t just be our technology . . . It must come from . . . The lack of respect and from being spoilt . . .

Discussion

The study demonstrates that happy slapping can be tolerated as a form of entertainment that does not have to stem just from boredom or be limited to a poor socioeconomic background. It also shows how its dangers are rhetorically minimized and normalized as part and parcel of any prank, and how it might allegedly deter assailants from inflicting grievous bodily harm, the ultimate moral responsibility for which is attributed to the culture and society rather than to individuals. Despite the declared lack of criminal record, the interviewees used diverse discursive strategies to legitimize happy slapping, drawing parallels with the strategies employed by convicted criminals explaining their sex offences (Auburn & Lea, 2003) and domestic violence (Hyden & McCarthy, 1994). Illustrating that such strategies are readily available to unconvicted adolescents, this research invites a detailed analysis of the differences between the discursive worlds inhabited by them and the convicted ones. The borders between such worlds may be far more overlapping and subtle than the research on violent offenders (Baker & Hornan, 2007; Farrington, 1998; Presser, 2003) suggests. In the long run, and with the active help of community workers, distinguishing them is likely to facilitate the process of putting a question mark over the construal of aggressiveness and violence (Andersson, 2008; Clement, 2010; Cooper, 2011).

That said, what I hope to have achieved is to show that the immersion in the discursive worlds of violence denial that adolescents inhabit might potentially facilitate the process of shedding light on their attitudes. Such an approach, which should be developed further in consultation with youth workers (Alison, Edmonds, Wilson, Pope, & Farrell, 2011; Sabol, Coulton, & Korbin, 2004), might represent a way forward in helping them question at least some of their attitudes. Simple demonization of happy slapping, on the other hand, is only likely to perpetuate the issues of power and control, posing the risk of alienating adolescents and further diminishing their responsibility and respect for the law and authorities.

The lack of evidence concerning avowing responsibility and recidivism (Maruna & Mann, 2006) suggests that simple demonization might even incline some adolescents to see happy slapping as driven by enduring internal pathological qualities, which might actually increase the likelihood of fuelling antisocial behavior. Extrapolating from this, and taking into account the theoretical implications, the attempts to respond to happy slapping by simplistically pathologizing young men as just sensation-seeking or deviant might hence fail to capture the complexity of factors involved in their behaviors and potentially enact a self-fulfilling prophecy. Taken together, it appears that more attention should be paid to those with active interest in happy slapping rather than to the popular media accounts. Needless to say, casting doubt on the alleged comedy, supposed harmlessness, and legal ambiguity is not easy (Palasinski, 2012), but it might be easier if theoreticians and practitioners start working closer together to help young men take more personal responsibility for their choices.

Naturally, when analyzing all the findings, a few important words of caution are due. Given that participants denied having a criminal record, the implications should not be generalized to young men with a legal history of violence. The upside of focusing on those without such history, however, is that the emergent discursive picture might thus be more representative of the views on happy slapping held by youths living in large English cities. Such youths, and young men in general, are statistically more likely to engage in or fall victim to happy slapping than a much smaller minority whose happy slapping activities have already attracted police attention. Such fuller representativeness, as well as the views on happy slapping in other cultures might be explored in further research. Although no noticeable differences were found across the three cities and three races, it remains to be explored if and how individuals who watch happy slapping on the Internet differ from those who actively engage in it, particularly given the research showing that exposure to violence in the media does not necessarily lead to aggressive behavior (Ferguson, 2009).

The social context of discussing happy slapping with a voice-recording stranger must also be acknowledged as having had a likely inhibitory effect despite the conversational warm-up and assured anonymity. When in an earlier pilot study I asked personally relevant questions about happy slapping, I was met with noticeable mistrust and frequent withdrawal from the study and I hence turned to a more subtle set of projective and indirect questions. Despite the inherent methodological and ethical challenges of exploring sensitive research topics (Seale, Gobo, Gubrium, & Silverman, 2004), like the alleged ambiguity between “pranks” and grievous bodily harm, the presented findings lift the lid on discursive perspectives on happy slapping and allow us to gain a better understanding of its complex evaluations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Marek Palasinski completed his PhD in Psychology. His current interests lie in conflicts, violence and cybersecurity.

References

Alison

K. W.

Edmonds

Wilson

Pope

Farrell

A. D.

(2011). Connecting youth violence prevention, positive youth development, and community mobilization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1(48), 8-20.

Andersson

(2008). Constructing young masculinity: A case study of heroic discourse on Violence. Discourse & Society, 19, 139-161.

Auburn

Lea

(2003). Doing cognitive distortions: A discursive psychology analysis of sex offender treatment talk. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 281-298.

Baker

Hornan

(2007). Rap, recidivism and the creative self: A popular music programme for young offenders in detention. Journal of Youth Studies, 10, 459-476.

Björkqvist

(1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177-188.

Bond

(2010). Managing mobile relationships: Children’s perceptions of the impact of the mobile phone on relationships in their everyday lives. Childhood, 17, 514-529.

Brough

Sills

(2006). Multimedia bullying using a website. Archives of disease in childhood, 91, 202.

Brownstein

(2011). Montreal World Film Festival 2011: Happy slapping has high tech and teen terror. The Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/festivalcentral/Film+fest+Happy+Slapping+high+tech+teen+terror/5295937/story.html

Burgess

(1962). A clockwork orange. London, UK: William Heinemann.

10.

Calvete

Orue

Estévez

Villardón

Padilla

(2010). Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors’ profile. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1128-1135.

11.

Chan

Khader

Ang

Tan

Khoo

Chin

(2012). Understanding happy slapping. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 14(1), 42-57.

12.

Chang

G. C.

Mehan

H. B.

(2008). Why we must attack Iraq: Bush’ reasoning practices and argumentation system. Discourse & Society, 19, 453-482.

13.

Chu

C. M.

Daffern

Thomas

(2012). Violence risk and gang affiliation in youth offenders: A recidivism study. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 299-315.

14.

Clement

(2010). Teenagers under the knife: A decivilising process. Journal of Youth Studies, 13, 439-451.

15.

Cooper

(2011). Imagining “radical” youth work possibilities—Challenging the “symbolic violence” within the mainstream tradition in contemporary state-led youth work practice in England. Journal of Youth Studies, 15(1), 53-71.

16.

Cross

C. P.

Campbell

(2011). Women’s aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 390-398.

17.

Devitt

Roker

(2009). The role of mobile phones in family communication. Children & Society, 23, 189-202.

18.

Duncanin

(2005). Teen arrested after “happy slap” attack filmed on phone. Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/teen-arrested-after-happy-slap-attackfilmed-on-phone-260339.html

19.

Edwards

(1997). Discourse and cognition. London, UK: Sage.

20.

Farrington

D. P.

(1998). Predictors, causes and correlates of youth violence. Crime and Justice, 24, 421-475.

21.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2009). Media violence effects: Confirmed truth or just another X-File? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 9(2), 103-126.

22.

Gastil

(1992). Undemocratic discourse: A review of theory of and research on political discourse. Discourse & Society, 3, 469-500.

23.

Gibb

(2008). Girl faces jail for “happy slap” pictures. The Times. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3372199.ece

24.

Hanson-Easey

Augoustinos

(2010). Out of Africa: Accounting for refugee policy and the language of causal attribution. Discourse and Society, 21, 295-323.

25.

Honingsabum

(2005). Concern over rise of “happy slapping” craze. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/apr/26/ukcrime.mobilephones

26.

Hundley

(2005). “Happy slap” yobs breed fear, anger. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-06-19/news/0506190250_1_youths-yobgangs

27.

Hyden

McCarthy

I. C.

(1994). Woman battering and father-daughter incest disclosures: Discourse and denial of acknowledgement. Discourse and Society, 5, 543-565.

28.

King

J. E.

Walpole

C. E.

Lamon

(2007). Surf and turf wars online—Growing implications of Internet gang violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 66-68.

29.

Livingstone

Helsper

(2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the Internet: The role of online skills and Internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 12, 309-329.

30.

MacDonald

J. M.

Piquero

J. R.

Valois

R. F.

Zullig

K. J.

(2005). The relationship between life satisfaction, risk-taking behaviors, and youth violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1495-1518.

31.

Mann

B. L.

(2009). Social networking websites—A concatenation of impersonation, denigration, sexual aggressive solicitation, cyber-bullying or happy slapping videos. International Journal of Law and Information, 17, 252-267.

32.

Maruna

Mann

R. E.

(2006). A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 155-177.

33.

McKenedy

J. P.

(2006). I am very careful about that: Narrative and agency of men in prison. Discourse & Society, 17, 473-502.

34.

Murphy

(2010). “Happy-slapping” pair jailed for street attack on granddad. Daily Mirror. Retrieved from http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/07/27/killed-for-kicks-115875-22443090/

35.

Nightingale

(2007). The cameraphone and online image sharing. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 21, 289-301.

36.

Palasinski

(2012). Implications of urban adolescent discourses of (un)happy slapping. Safer Communities, 11, 159-164.

37.

Palasinski

Riggs

(2012). Young White British men and knife-carrying in public: Discourses of masculinity, protection and vulnerability. Critical Criminology, 20, 463-476. Retrieved from http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10612-012-9161-4

38.

Pitts

(2008). Reluctant gangsters: The changing face of youth crime. Cullompton, UK: Willan.

39.

Potter

(1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, UK: Sage.

40.

Presser

(2003). Remorse and neutralization among violent male offenders. Justice Quarterly, 20, 801-825.

41.

Reko

(2007). Teens face DVD porn charges. The Age (Melbourne). http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/03/08/1173166839072.html

42.

Riggs

W. R.

Palasinski

(2011, May). Tackling knife crime. Young men view things differently. British Medical Journal, 342, d2903.

43.

Sabol

W. J.

Coulton

C. J.

Korbin

J. E.

(2004). Building community capacity for violence prevention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 322-340.

44.

Saunders

(2005). Happy slapping: Transatlantic contagion or home-grown, mass-mediated nihilism. Static, 1, 1-11. http://static.londonconsortium.com/issue01/saunders_happyslapping.pdf

45.

Seale

Gobo

Gubrium

Silverman

(2004). Qualitative research practice. London, UK: Sage.

46.

Sulaiman

(2005). Girl’s rape filmed by teenagers on mobile. The Times (London). Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article534788.ece

47.

Toy

(2011). Urban gang violence: The implications for practice. Safer Communities, 10(2), 11-17.

48.

Twyman

Saylor

Taylor

L. A.

Comeaux

(2010). Comparing children and adolescents engaged in cyberbullying to matched peers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13, 195-199.

49.

Van Leeuwen

(2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91-112.

50.

Wei

(2007). Effects of playing violent videogames on Chinese adolescents’ pro-violence attitudes, attitudes toward others, and aggressive behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 10, 371-380.

51.

Wetherell

Potter

(1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse the legitimation of exploitation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

52.

Wright

(2010). Teenage “happy slappers” who killed grandfather outside mosque sent down for a total eight years . . . but could walk free in months. Daily Mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297742/Happy-slapper-grandfather-killerssent-total-8-years.html