Exploring Individual Factors Associated with the Prevalence of Cybercrime Victimization Among Students at Egerton University, Kenya
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
In the modern digital epoch, identifying the factors linked to cybercrime victimization is crucial, particularly among the youth, who are often more exposed to such risks. This study examined the role of individual attributes, namely gender, age, and academic level, in influencing university students’ vulnerability to seven distinct cybercrimes. Originating from Egerton University’s primary campus in Njoro sub-county, Nakuru County, Kenya, the research harnessed structured questionnaires to collect quantitative data. Participants’ ages varied from 18 to over 26 years. The gender distribution comprised 57.2% males and 42.8% females. Regarding academic engagement, 4.5% were diploma students, a majority of 92.6% were undergraduate students, and a smaller 2.9% were master’s students. Notably, our analyses indicated that while gender did not significantly influence cybercrime victimization, age, and academic level emerged as influential factors. This paper further explores these findings, highlighting their implications in the broader cybersecurity awareness and education framework.
Introduction
In the wake of the 21st century, the world has witnessed an unprecedented expansion in internet usage and related technologies. This surge has permeated communities, businesses, and individual lives, revolutionizing how we communicate, work, and study (Wang, 2016). Globally, traditional activities like shopping, banking, entertainment, and even socialization have rapidly transitioned online (Bossler & Holt, 2009). A testament to this shift is the remarkable increase in mobile phone usage: from 20% of the global population in 2001 to 75% by 2022. Furthermore, approximately 66% of these individuals access the internet through smartphones, predominantly on 4G and 3G networks (ITU, 2022). The United Nations highlights that mobile broadband (3G or higher) is accessible to 95% of the world’s population, significantly expanding global Internet connectivity (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2024).
However, this digital boon has not come without its challenges. While unlocking countless opportunities for global connectivity and knowledge sharing, the vast expanse of the internet has concurrently opened the floodgates for illicit activities. This newfound digital landscape has given rise to innovative criminal avenues, creating novel forms of crimes and adeptly adapting traditional offenses to the virtual realm (Clough, 2015; Wall, 2007; Wang, 2016; Webster & Drew, 2017). Cybercrimes, ranging from online frauds and scams to identity theft and cyberbullying, have burgeoned, challenging the very fabric of digital trust. The repercussions of these offenses are multifaceted. Victims often suffer consequences, from immediate financial losses to enduring emotional trauma and psychological distress (Webster & Drew, 2017). Moreover, the impersonal nature of these crimes, typically perpetrated from behind screens, adds a layer of complexity to the prevention, detection, and redressal mechanisms.
As we reflect on the myriad challenges the digital landscape poses, a specific demographic emerges at the forefront of concern: university students. In this digital age, these young adults, with their lives intricately woven into the fabric of the internet, stand out as particularly susceptible targets. Their daily routines, be it academic research, submission of assignments, or even casual interactions with peers, revolve around online platforms (Bolimos & Choo, 2017; Mensch & Wilkie, 2011). This constant digital engagement, while advantageous for learning and networking, unfortunately also places them in the crosshairs of potential cyber threats. Recognizing this heightened risk, cyber criminologists globally have intensified their focus on the university student demographic, attempting to unravel the nuances of their online behaviors and vulnerabilities. Yet, even with this magnified scrutiny, a comprehensive understanding of the precise factors making these students prime targets for cybercrimes remains elusive and a subject of ongoing debate.
Building upon exploring vulnerabilities among university students, one cannot overlook the intricate interplay of individual characteristics that might shape these vulnerabilities. At the forefront of these considerations is the topic of gender and its potential influence on cybercrime victimization—a subject that has consistently punctuated academic discourses. The debate is polarized: while some scholars advocate that gender remains inconsequential in determining susceptibility to cybercrimes (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Williams & Guerra, 2007), others highlight distinct disparities, suggesting that males and females navigate the online world differently, leading to varied vulnerabilities and victimization patterns (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Souranderet al., 2010; Tokunaga, 2010).
Parallel to the discourse on gender, age emerges as a significant determinant. The research underscores its role, indicating that victimization patterns may vary across different age groups, with specific age brackets, especially adolescents, potentially at heightened risk (Walrave & Heirman, 2011; Tokunaga, 2010; Turneret al., 2011). Notably, another layer of complexity is introduced when considering the level of study. A consistent observation in literature posits that as students progress academically, transitioning from lower to upper grades, their likelihood of experiencing cyber victimization escalates (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Kowalskiet al., 2014). This suggests that advanced academic engagements, perhaps due to intensified online activities, may expose students to cyber threats more. These factors—gender, age, and level of study—form a triad of critical dimensions warranting comprehensive exploration, setting the stage for a deeper dive into the multifaceted realm of cyber victimization.
In the current digital age, as nations around the globe navigate the opportunities and threats posed by the internet, developing countries like Kenya find themselves at a unique crossroads. While developed nations have accumulated years of experience grappling with cyber threats, Kenya and similar countries are only beginning to understand and mitigate such challenges. The rapid proliferation of internet usage in Kenya and a prevailing lack of cybersecurity awareness have amplified vulnerabilities, especially among the youth. University students, deeply embedded within the digital sphere for academic and social pursuits, emerge as a particularly susceptible group. Unfortunately, Egerton University, a shining emblem of Kenya’s educational aspirations, shares this susceptibility.
Given the above scenario, a pressing concern arises: What makes university students more vulnerable to cybercrimes than their peers? The roles of age, gender, and level of study in influencing this susceptibility remain areas of contention and curiosity. As we focus on institutions like Egerton University, it becomes increasingly important to unravel these dynamics. However, despite the anecdotal concerns and fragmented studies, a comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to cybercrime victimization among university students at Egerton remains elusive.
Against this backdrop of escalating cyber threats and a discernible knowledge gap, this study examined the individual determinants of cybercrime victimization among Egerton University students. It focused on understanding how age, gender, and level of study influence their vulnerability to cybercrime.
Method
This study employed a cross-sectional research design. Such a design was chosen for its efficacy in identifying differences after examining multiple cases, primarily when the research aims to explore variances across different groups or conditions (Bryman, 2012). Data collection was facilitated using structured questionnaires. Using standardized responses in these questionnaires allows for more straightforward comparisons across data sets, enhancing the reliability of findings (Orodho, 2003).
From Egerton University’s Njoro Campus, 311 university students participated in the study, resulting in an 82.3% response rate. The age of the participants ranged from 18 years to over 26 years. Regarding gender distribution, the sample comprised 57.2% males and 42.8% females. Concerning their academic levels, 4.5% were pursuing diplomas, a significant 92.6% were undergraduate students, and 2.9% were enrolled in master’s programs.
The study’s geographic focus was on Egerton University’s main campus in Njoro sub-county. This sub-county is nestled within Nakuru County, a part of Kenya’s Rift Valley region. The Njoro campus of Egerton University stands approximately 25 kilometres (16 miles) southwest of Nakuru town and about 182 kilometres (113 miles) northwest of Nairobi, Kenya’s capital. A significant historical note: Egerton University is known as Kenya’s oldest institution of higher education. Established as a farm school in 1939, it owes its inception to Lord Maurice Egerton of Tatton, a British settler who made Kenya his home during the 1920s.
Results and Discussion
The study reveals its findings based on three primary objectives: exploring the correlation between gender and cybercrime victimization among university students, investigating the relationship between age and cybercrime victimization among university students, and analyzing the connection between the level of study and cybercrime victimization among university students.
Experience of Cybercrime Victimization
The study obtained information on whether the participants had experienced the seven types of cybercrimes under the study. The results are shown in Table I.
Cybercrime | Yes | No | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | |
Cyberharassment through social media | 205 | 65.9% | 106 | 34.1% |
Cyberharassment through email | 38 | 12.2% | 273 | 87.8% |
Cyberharassment through SMS | 216 | 69.5% | 95 | 30.5% |
Cyberharassment through call | 226 | 72.7% | 85 | 27.3% |
Wrongful distribution of obscene or intimate images | 19 | 6.1% | 292 | 93.9% |
Interception of money transfer | 191 | 61.4% | 120 | 38.6% |
Identity theft/Impersonation | 47 | 15.1% | 264 | 84.9% |
Table I illustrates that nearly a three quarter (72.7%) of the sample reported being harassed through a call in the last 12 months, making it the most experienced type of cybercrime among university students. Following closely was harassment through SMS, where 69.5% of the respondents reported having experienced it. Cyberharassment through social media was the third most experienced form of cybercrime among university students, with 65.9% of the respondents reporting having experienced it. On the same note, only 12.2% of the respondents reported experiencing cyberharassment via email, thus making it the least experienced form among university students.
In the context of interception of money transfers through mobile money, a relatively huge percentage of 61.4% indicated that they had been victims of either sending money to a wrong number and failing to get it back or being victims of mobile money scamming. Identity theft is the third least experienced form of cybercrime among university students, with only 15.1% of the respondents reporting having their identity stolen on social media. Wrongful distribution of obscene or intimate images is the least experienced form of cybercrime among university students, with only 6.1% of respondents reporting having their intimate images distributed wrongfully, as shown in Table I.
Gender and Prevalence of Cybercrime Victimization
The objective of the study was to examine the correlation between gender and the occurrence of cybercrimes among university students. Consequently, a Chi-Square association test was employed to investigate the correlation between gender and the occurrence of cybercrimes being examined. The results are shown in Table II.
Gender % within gender | p | Total % within gender | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | |||||
Experience of cybercrimes | Yes | 42.54% | 44.25% | 2.22 | 0.136 | 100% |
No | 57.46% | 55.75% | 100% |
Table II shows that the rate of experience of cybercrimes was higher for female students (44.25%) than for their male counterparts (42.54%). Female students were more likely to experience cybercrime than their male counterparts. However, the results of a Chi-Square test of association revealed that the association between gender and the experience of cybercrimes was not significant, 2 (1, n = 311) = 2.22, p > 0.05. The findings of this study agreed with the results of Hinduja and Patchin (2008), Slonje and Smith (2008), and Williams and Guerra (2007). All the studies above reported no significant gender differences in the experience of cybercrime victimization. However, the studies by Hoff and Mitchell (2009), Kowalski and Limber (2007) and Tokunaga (2010) reported significant gender differences in the experience of cybercrime victimization. They all reported that male respondents in their studies were likelier than their female counterparts to be victims of cybercrime victimization.
Age Differences in the Experience of Cybercrimes
The study sought to establish the association between students’ age and their experience of cybercrimes. Age was converted from a scale variable to a nominal variable by categorizing it into groups 18–21, 22–25 and 26+ years old. Through this conversion, a Chi-Square test of association was possible to determine a significant association between age and experience of cybercrimes among university students. The results are shown in Table III.
Response to experience of cybercrimes (%) | 2 | p | Total | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | |||||
Age groups (Yrs.) | 18–21 | 47.27% | 52.73% | 9.643 | 0.008 | 100% |
22–25 | 41.28% | 58.72% | 100% | |||
26+ | 37.71% | 62.29% | 100% |
Table III shows that the rate of experience of cybercrimes increased from the 18–21 years age group (47.27%) through the 22–25 years age group (41.28%) to the 26 years and older age group (37.71%). Students between 18–21 years were more likely to experience cybercrimes than their counterparts from 22–25 and 26 years and above. The students with 26 years and above were less likely to experience cybercrimes compared to the other two age groups. The results of a Chi-Square test of association showed that the relationship between age and experience of cybercrime was significant (2 (2, n = 311) = 9.643, p < 0.05).
The results matched Hadlington and Chivers’s (2020) and Oksanen and Keipi’s (2013) findings. Both studies were conducted among the general public, and they reported that younger populations were more likely to be victims of cybercrime than older populations. They reported that the likelihood of cybercrime victimization increased with a decrease in age. However, the current study disagreed with the findings by Kowalskiet al. (2014) and Walrave and Heirman (2011) among teenagers. Both studies reported that the likelihood of cybercrime victimization increased with age. Similar findings were reported by Alamet al. (2019) in their study on cybercrime victimization on Facebook among female college students. They reported that the likelihood of cybercrime victimization increased with age.
Experience of Cybercrime and the Level of Study
The study sought to determine the relationship between the cybercrime experience and students’ study levels. Therefore, a Cross tabulation was conducted to determine the association between the experience of cybercrimes and the level of study. The results are shown in Table IV.
Response to experience of cybercrimes (%) | 2 | p | Total | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | |||||
Level of study | Diploma | 47.96% | 52.04% | 7.721 | 0.021 | 100% |
Bachelors | 34.92% | 65.08% | 100% | |||
Master’s | 30.16% | 69.84% | 100% |
Table IV shows a downward trend in the experiences of cybercrimes from diploma (47.96%) through bachelor’s (34.92%) to master’s students (30.16%). The level of experience decreases as we move up the levels of study, with diploma students having the highest rate of experience and master students having the lowest rate of experience with cybercrimes. The results of a Chi-Square test of association revealed that the relationship between the level of study and experience of cybercrimes was significant, 2 (2, n = 311) = 7.721, p < 0.05.
The downward trend in the rate of experience of cybercrimes can be attributed to a likelihood of the students in the immediately higher level of study being more informed and exposed to issues of cybercrime prevention than their counterparts in the immediate lower level. The findings on the existence of a relationship were in tandem with findings by Hinduja and Patchin (2008) and Kowalskiet al. (2014), who reported a significant association between the study level and cybercrime victimization experience. However, their studies were done among teenagers, and they reported an upward trend in the rate of experience of cybercrime victimization. They reported that the likelihood of cybercrime victimization increased as they increased the level of studies.
Conclusion
The study found no statistically significant difference in the number of male and female students who fell victim to cybercrime. As a result, we found no indication that one gender was more likely to be a victim of cybercrime than the other. On the other hand, there was a significant relationship between student age and being a victim of cybercrime. Younger students are more likely to be victims of cybercrime than older ones. The study found a significant relationship between students’ levels of education and the frequency with which they were victims of cybercrime. Students at lower educational levels are more likely to experience cybercrime than those at higher educational levels.
Recommendations
The findings call for cybercrime prevention initiatives specifically geared toward college students. The study found no statistically significant difference in the rates of cybercrime victimization between male and female students, suggesting that both sexes are equally at risk. Nonetheless, the research shows that age and education level are both significantly linked to being a victim of cybercrime. Therefore, these aspects must be considered when planning preventative measures. Given the increasing prevalence of cybercrime victimization with students’ advancing age, it is imperative to implement age-specific cyber safety measures and educational programs that cater to the unique challenges faced by university students. Moreover, considering the higher likelihood of cybercrime among students in lower levels of education, it is essential to develop comprehensive prevention strategies that target this specific group. By acknowledging these findings and focusing on tailored prevention programs, universities can effectively mitigate the risks associated with cybercrime and foster a safer digital environment for their students.
References
-
Alam, M. A., Akter, M., & Santona, S. A. (2019). Victimization of Facebook users: An empirical study among female students in Tangail. Asian Journal of Humanity, Art and Literature, 6(2), 157-169.
Google Scholar
1
-
Bolimos, I. A., & Choo, K.-K. R. (2017). Online fraud offending within an Australian jurisdiction. Journal of Financial Crime, 24(2), 277–308.
Google Scholar
2
-
Bossler, A., & Holt, T. (2009). Online activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), 400–420.
Google Scholar
3
-
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
4
-
Clough, J. (2015). Principles of cybercrime (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
5
-
Hadlington, L., & Chivers, S. (2020). Segmentation analysis of susceptibility to cybercrime: Exploring individual differences in information security awareness and personality factors. Policing, 14(2), 479-492.
Google Scholar
6
-
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–156.
Google Scholar
7
-
Hoff, D. L., & Mitchell, S. N. (2009). Cyberbullying: Causes, effects, and remedies. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 652–665.
Google Scholar
8
-
ITU. (2022). Global Connectivity Report 2022. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). https://www.itu.int/hub/publication/d-ind-global-01-2022/
Google Scholar
9
-
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
Google Scholar
10
-
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 22–30.
Google Scholar
11
-
Mensch, S., & Wilkie, L. (2011). Information security activities of college students: An exploratory study. Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal, 14(2), 91-116.
Google Scholar
12
-
Oksanen, A., & Keipi, T. (2013). Young people as victims of crime on the internet: A population-based study in Finland. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 8(4), 298-309.
Google Scholar
13
-
Orodho, A. J. (2003). Essentials of educational and social science research methods. Masola Publishers.
Google Scholar
14
-
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.
Google Scholar
15
-
Sourander, A., Brunstein Klomek, A., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen, M., Ristkari, T., & Helenius, H. (2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7), 720–728.
Google Scholar
16
-
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyber bullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277–287.
Google Scholar
17
-
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S. L., Shattuck, A., & Ormrod, R. K. (2011). Specifying the type and location of peer victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 40, 1052–1067.
Google Scholar
18
-
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2024). Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal9#progress_and_info
Google Scholar
19
-
Wall, D. (2007). Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age (Vol. 4). Polity.
Google Scholar
20
-
Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2011). Cyberbullying: Predicting victimization and perpetration. Children & Society, 25(1), 59–72.
Google Scholar
21
-
Wang, Q. (2016). A comparative study of cybercrime in criminal law: China, US, England, Singapore and the Council of Europe (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154412815.pdf
Google Scholar
22
-
Webster, J., & Drew, J. M. (2017). Policing advance fee fraud (AFF): Experiences of fraud detectives using a victim-focused approach. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 19(1), 39-53.
Google Scholar
23
-
Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 14–21.
Google Scholar
24
Most read articles by the same author(s)
-
Douglas R. Mwiraria,
Kibet Ngetich,
Panuel Mwaeke,
Factors Associated with Cybercrime Awareness Among University Students in Egerton University, Njoro Campus, Nakuru County, Kenya , European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol. 2 No. 3 (2022) -
Tonui Paul Kiprugut,
Panuel Mwaeke,
Wokabi Mwangi,
Supermarket Operators’ Perception of Effects: Shoplifting Crimes Within the CBD In Nairobi County, Kenya , European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol. 1 No. 6 (2021) -
Kenwilliams Nyakomitah,
Panuel Mwaeke,
Lydia Mareri,
Media’s Role in Televised Media Coverage and Its Influence on Terrorist Attacks in Nairobi County, Kenya , European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol. 1 No. 6 (2021) -
Obadiah K. Kiplagat,
Kibet Ngetich,
Samwel Auya,
Nature and Types of Motorcycle-Related Crimes in Nakuru East Sub-County, Nakuru County, Kenya , European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol. 4 No. 1 (2024) -
Abdul Galgallo Diba,
Panuel Mwaeke,
Samuel Auya,
Influence of Illicit Brews on Security in Rongai Sub-County, Nakuru County Kenya , European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol. 3 No. 4 (2023) -
Erick M. Mwangi,
Eric K. Bor,
Panuel Mwaeke,
Samwel Auya,
Influence of Victim-Offender Relationship on Reporting of Property Crime to the Police by Victims in Gilgil Ward, Nakuru County, Kenya , European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol. 2 No. 6 (2022) -
Mohamed Abdul Mmaka,
Panuel Mwaeke,
Erick Bor,
Social Networking User Sites and Their Implication on Personal Security of Dagoretti North Constituency Residents in Nairobi County , European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences: Vol. 1 No. 6 (2021)