Understanding online disinhibition
Digital interactions often create a distance that makes us forget the real presence of people behind screens, profiles and avatars. This phenomenon of online disinhibition, the fact that a person feels released from ordinary social constraints when sheltered by a screen, is one of the most powerful drivers of cyberbullying.
This sequence aims to make concrete what remains abstract behind a screen, and to restore a moral continuity between what one allows oneself online and what one would allow oneself face to face.
Fundamental principle: respect, responsibility and attention to others should apply whether we are face to face with someone or behind a screen.
Main competence
Recognising the mechanisms of online disinhibition and understanding why some people behave differently on social networks than they do in real life.
Cross-curricular competences
Developing empathy in digital contexts, analysing the emotional impact of online exchanges, and building structured and defensible argumentation.
Putting students in a position to deliberate
Ethical framework for the debate
This sequence does not invite students to debate whether humiliation, intimidation or harassment can be justified. The aim is to understand the mechanisms, identify responsibilities and construct fair responses.
Examples must remain generic or fictional. No student should be asked to disclose publicly a personal situation they have experienced or witnessed.
Questions to begin the discussion
- What are the signs of an online harassment situation? What consequences might it have for the targeted person?
- Why do some people behave differently on social networks than they do in real life?
- How can digital uses lead us to take less account of others behind a screen?
Phase 1, Preparation
45 to 60 minutes. Researching arguments and building a structured plea. AI may be used as a research tool, provided that students retain control over the reasoning. The Accompanying Dialogue with AI method can frame this use through clear intention, verification, personal reformulation and a final decision made by the student.
Phase 2, Oral presentations
Ten minutes per group: five minutes for the “for” plea, five minutes for the “against” plea.
Possible questions for the groups
- On the internet, people say more easily what they think. Is that a freedom or a danger?
- Does anonymity foster freedom of expression or cowardice?
- Should certain kinds of comments on social networks be forbidden?
- Can one truly feel another person’s emotions through a screen?
- Do emojis replace our real emotions?
- Behind a username, are we the same person we are face to face?
- If someone is humiliated in a group, is it better to react publicly, privately, or not at all?
- If you “like” a cruel message, are you taking part in the violence?
- If a classmate posts a humiliating photo, who is responsible: the person who posts it, those who comment, or the platform?
- Should one always reply to a hurtful message?
- Do social networks bring people together more than they drive them apart?
Compact sequence map
- Collective debate (30–45 min), exploring the mechanisms of online disinhibition and analysing concrete situations.
- Preparation of pleadings (45–60 min), building contradictory arguments in groups of four.
- Oral presentations (10 min per group), confronting the “for” and “against” arguments before the class.
Restoring moral continuity between online and offline life
Possible extension
A collective drafting of a class charter for digital communication: students formulate for themselves the rules they commit to respecting, online as well as offline.
Assessment criteria for the pleadings
- Quality of the argumentation
- Capacity to place oneself in another person’s position
- Attention paid to the emotional dimension
- Ability to propose concrete solutions
- Clarity of oral expression
Frequently asked questions
Who is this teaching sequence for? It is intended for classes dealing with online disinhibition, cyberbullying and the difficulty of maintaining moral continuity between online and offline life.
What are its learning objectives? Students learn to recognise the effects of online disinhibition, consider another person’s position and build a reasoned debate about online responsibility without reducing cyberbullying to a simple lack of empathy.
What precautions are needed before the debate? The framework must be explicit: humiliation and harassment are not being justified, and no student should be asked to disclose a personal experience publicly.
Can AI be used to prepare the pleadings? Yes, as a research or clarification tool, provided that intention, verification, personal reformulation and the final decision remain with the student.
What practical extension can follow the sequence? The most natural extension is a class charter for digital communication, written by the students themselves.