Understanding cyberbullying and prevention

Photo by Niklas Hamann on Unsplash

Understanding cyberbullying and prevention [ podcast ] Michael M. Grant [ Generated by Play.HT audio AI studio ]

I must admit I thought cyberbullying was cut-and-dry as far as a definition goes. I thought it was the translation of traditional school-yard bullying into a digital space, such as texts and social media platforms. But I was really surprised by the lack of consensus on how cyberbullying is both defined and categorized and identified.

Faucher et al. (2015) and Olweus and Limber (2018) rely on Olweus’ (1993) seminal text for the definition of bullying in general:

A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students (p. 9)

Bullying is typically considered to occur face-to-face in K-12 schools or in colleges and universities (and workplaces, see Faucher et al. (2015)).

Smith et al. (2012) and Faucher et al. (2015) identify three key features when defining bullying. One is the repeated aggressive acts. These acts can be verbal, such as with taunting or teasing, or physical, such as hits, kicks, or restraining someone (Olweus, 1993). Second is the intent to cause harm by the negative actions. The third component is a power differential, or asymmetric power relationship (Olweus, 1993), between the perpetrator(s) and the victim. That is, a student who is exposed to bullying has relatively less power to defend him/herself.

Defining cyberbullying

Defining cyberbullying, however, is much less clear. Smith et al. (2012) propose that cyberbullying is distinct with three criteria:

• The intent to do harm (which reflects cyberaggression)
• A specific target to which the harm is directed (i.e., a victim)
• An imbalance of power, between perpetrator and victim, which can be attributed to a difference in technology skills, anonymity, social status, numbers of friends, or group memberships (e.g., a marginalized group v. a dominant group). (p. 36)

Smith et al. (2012) assert that the repetition of a negative act by a perpetrator should be considered a secondary criterion. In cyberbullying and victimization, a single negative act, such as sending a malicious text or meme to an individual, can be repeated by others to others, creating a viral sharing phenomenon (Smith et al., 2012). The permanence of images or messages on the internet also has the potential to revictimize students over time (Faucher et al., 2015).

Prevalence of cyberbullying

Photo by Nik on Unsplash

As unexpected as the complexity and potential usefulness of defining cyberbullying, I was also surprised by the amount of research that demonstrated the overlap between traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Smith et al. (2012) and Olweus and Limber (2018) reported there was “considerable overlap” (Smith et al., 2012, p. 32) between students who were bullied in traditional ways and students who were cyberbullied. Olweus and Limber (2018) reported estimates of an overlap from 50%-90%. Instances where students were only cyberbullied were quite low, about 5%.

In addition, there is an overlap between students who have been victims of cyberbullying and students who have been perpetrators of cyberbullying. Wow! Scheithauer et al. (2021) reported findings from multiple studies that identify individuals as “bully-victims” (p. 127) because of the significant intersection between students who cyberbully and who also are cyberbullied.

The distinctions (or lack of distinction) between bullying and cyberbullying do not negate the need to aid students who are being victimized. Nor does the lesser prevalence of unique cyberbullying incidents contradict that students are still being bullied — just in various ways. Educators and school librarians must continue to work to address victims of all forms of bullying in our school communities and related digital networks.

Bullying prevention

There’s a plethora of bullying and cyberbullying programs and resources available to educators. The lists of programs reviewed by Smith (2019), Gaffney and Farrington (2021), and Keating and Collins (2021), recommendations and lessons from Common Sense Media, and resources from the Cyberbullying Research Center present many options for school librarians to select from.

To help students systemically, it would be beneficial to select a curricular program, such as those reviewed by Gaffney and Farrington (2021), that is a match to a school’s context, demographics, and resources. Gaffney and Farrington’s review identifies programs with reductions in cyberbullying perpetration of 10%-15% and cyberbullying victimization of 12%-14%. Gaffney and Farrington note that we have fewer details for what works for whom and in what contexts, and even less information for marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, minoritized individuals, and individuals with disabilities.

To help students cope with cyberbullying, Spears and Taddeo (2021) recommend developing programs and curricula that offer strategies for help-seeking and social connectedness. This aligns with Faucher et al.’s (2015) findings that reported students, parents, and educators suggested building positive self-esteem and empathy, education in digital literacy and media literacy. Interestingly, parents’ recommendations emphasized punishment, while students feared punishments, such a restrictions on their technology and devices, as rationales for not reporting incidents of cyberbullying. Campbell (2019) emphasizes that any program or strategy should reflect and represent students’ voices. By incorporating students’ voices through language and examples, students are more willing to participate and engage.

References

Campbell, M. (2019). Specific interventions against cyberbullying. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), Making an Impact on School Bullying (pp. 176–201). Routledge.
Faucher, C., Cassidy, W., & Jackson, M. (2015). From the sandbox to the inbox: Comparing the acts, impacts, and solutions of bullying in K-12, higher education, and the workplace. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i6.1033
Gaffney, H., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). A review of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of the effectiveness of school‐based anti‐bullying programs. In P. K. Smith & J. O. Norman (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying: A comprehensive and international review of research and intervention (Vol. 2, pp. 676–706). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118482650.ch69
Keating, S., & Collins, B. (2021). Bullying prevention through curriculum and classroom resources. In P. K. Smith & J. O. Norman (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying: A comprehensive and international review of research and Intervention (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 278–302). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118482650.ch49
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishing.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2018). Some problems with cyberbullying research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012
Scheithauer, H., Schultze‐Krumbholz, A., Pfetsch, J., & Hess, M. (2021). Types of cyberbullying. In P. K. Smith & J. O. Norman (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying (pp. 120–138). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118482650.ch7
Smith, P. K. (Ed.). (2019). Making an impact on school bullying: Interventions and recommendations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351201957
Smith, P. K., del Barrio, C., & Tokunga, R. S. (2012). Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms? In S. Bauman, D. Cross, & J. Walker (Eds.), Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology (pp. 26–40). Taylor & Francis Group.
Spears, B., & Taddeo, C. (2021). Coping with cyberbullying. In P. K. Smith & J. O. Norman (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying: A comprehensive and international review of research and intervention (Vol. 2, pp. 240–259). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118482650.ch47