Amid the recent news regarding pranks and the things people do in the name of amusement, I started to reflect on the impact this has and may have on the victims and reminded me of an article I contributed to back in 2016.  

At that time, the concept of prank culture was in the news due to the occurrence of ‘killer clowns’ and similar types of pranks being viewed by anybody using the internet and the available streaming platforms. Once the domain of mainstream TV, the opportunity to publish materials is now available to anyone with a camera phone. This is done ‘for a laugh’ without any consideration for the recipients, emphasising the apparent value of shock and lack of respect.  

Behind the shock value is the individuals desire to exist in a spotlight of notoriety even for a moment. In 2012, psychologist Erin Buckles suggested some behaviour "reinforces the sadistic behaviour via pleasurable experiences," going onto suggest this may explain the increasing seriousness of pranks. 

Fast forward to 2023 and the prank culture seems to have escalated and taken a more disturbing direction, to the point where we have recently seen in the news that invading someone’s home and other nuisance behaviours appear to be entertainment. Even following a brief court appearance, there doesn’t appear to be any contrition or repentance in their actions from the individual, more a sense of self-congratulation and defiance providing an indication for more instances of similar behaviours.  

Those continued behaviours testament to the apathetic impertinence of those involved. Some of this is spurred on by the narcissistic behaviour of the individuals creating the content; fortified and vindicated by those clicking, liking and commenting as a means of encouragement with a sense of awe and desire for new content. But also in part, that news outlets engage with those individuals to provide them with yet another platform from which to advertise to their followers.  

To sustain the interest, new and increasing content needs to be created and delivered to an audience apparently unaffected and craving outrageous behaviours. Social media and the available content have grown in the past five to ten years and I wonder if during this time we have become anaesthetised to certain behaviours, so to continue attracting views on their content, those producing the material need to be more shocking to generate likes, clicks and increase followers, becoming influencers and ‘celebrities’ that are looked up to and idolised by future generations. If this is the case and there is a need to increase shock value, what will the next incident entail? Or the one after that?  

Other recent incidents involved leapfrogging over somebody walking along the pavement and taking an old lady’s dog. These may seem innocuous and humorous to some, but what about the impact on the victims? The impact of some of these pranks may not be immediate but the fear and upset caused at the time has longer-term impact on health. What if someone tragically loses their life? Will the pranks still be funny then? And what about someone retaliating to protect themselves or their property and the prankster loses their life, will their defence be that it was okay, it was only a prank that has gone wrong? 

The public appetite for sensationalist subject matter seems to increase daily, the audience demanding more content, oblivious to the impact it may have on individuals. We have to ask, where does it stop? 

Professor Tony Blockley is Head of Criminology, Investigation and Policing at Leeds Trinity University.