Skip to main content

Exploring the value of feminist theory in understanding digital crimes: Gender and cybercrime types

Suleman Lazarus ; Mark Button ; Richard Kapend (2022) — The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
77
Average per calendar year
15.4

Count checked .

77 citations ÷ 5 calendar years (2022–2026). The first and last years may be partial. This is a lifetime average, not a year-by-year citation history.

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12485 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United Kingdom
Tags:   Cybercrime Perceptions, Feminist Criminology, Gender Differences, Measurement, Online Fraud, Romance Scams, Tripartite Cybercrime Framework
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This study investigates whether men and women perceive different forms of digital crime in ways that align with the Tripartite Cybercrime Framework (TCF) and feminist criminology. Building on Lazarus’s distinction between socio-economic cybercrime (online fraud) and psychosocial cybercrime (online harassment, cyberstalking, revenge pornography, cyberbullying), the authors aim to see if gender shapes perceived severity across these categories. The research is framed as an empirical test of the synergy between feminist criminology and the TCF, asking whether gender differences exist in perceptions of cybercrime types and whether those differences are more pronounced for psychosocial versus socio-economic forms. Methodologically, the article reports an online survey of 403-407 UK respondents (predominantly women) who rated the severity of five cybercrime types on a 1–10 scale. Participants were given definitions of online fraud, cyberbullying, revenge porn, cyberstalking, and online harassment, and then asked to assess their seriousness. The main findings indicate that women perceive psychosocial cybercrimes as more severe than men do, with statistically significant differences for cyberstalking, revenge porn, and cyberbullying. By contrast, there is no gender difference in perceived severity of socio-economic cybercrime (online fraud). The authors interpret these results as evidence that psychosocial cybercrimes are more gendered than socio-economic ones and argue that this supports a need to distinguish cybercrime forms rather than generalizing about “cybercrime” or categorizing them as cyber-enabled or people-centered. Limitations noted include a non-probability sample, a binary treatment of gender, and questions about generalizability beyond the study’s UK, largely female sample. The article calls for further research to test these distinctions with broader samples and to deepen understanding of how feminist perspectives can be integrated with the TCF in studying digital crimes.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies no prior empirical examination of whether perceptions differ across the Tripartite Cybercrime Framework categories, or of its synergy with feminist criminology. It also identifies a need for cybercrime research to avoid broad classifications that obscure gendered differences between offense types. For romance scams specifically, the article offers conceptual discussion but no direct empirical measurement of scam experiences, victimization, offender behavior, or prevention.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
An anonymous online cross-sectional survey measured perceived seriousness of five cybercrime types among 407 staff and students recruited through three United Kingdom universities and associated Facebook groups. Respondents rated each offense from 1 to 10 after receiving definitions. Analyses compared men’s and women’s ratings using independent-samples t-tests; a Pearson chi-squared test assessed gender differences in computer skill and proficiency.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The nonprobability, ad hoc sample was recruited from university-linked participants and was not representative, so population inferences and statistical significance require caution. The sample overrepresented women, was relatively small (n=407), measured perceptions rather than respondents’ exposure to cybercrime, and used a binary gender focus that excluded transgender, bigender, and other nonbinary identities. The authors also note that boundaries between Tripartite Cybercrime Framework categories can be blurred.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Test the initial findings in a larger, representative sample; include nonbinary gender identities and examine their lived experiences; measure respondents’ exposure to cybercrime; and further test differences between socio-economic and psychosocial cybercrime types using the Tripartite Cybercrime Framework and feminist criminology.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.