Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European countries

Guidance and Counselling

Australian Journal of

GC

&Volume 20 Number 2 December 2010

GC

&ContentsEditorial ________________________________________________________iiiMarilyn Campbell

ArticlesCyberbullying: Labels, Behaviours and Definition in Three European ______129CountriesAnnalaura Nocentini, Juan Calmaestra, Anja Schultze-Krumbholz, Herbert Scheithauer, Rosario Ortega and Ersilia Menesini

Cyber-Aggression: Definition and Concept of Cyberbullying______________143

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg

Addressing Cyberbullying in School Using the Quality Circle Approach ____157

Simone Paul, Peter K. Smith, and Herbert H. Blumberg

Analysis of Experts’ and Trainers’ Views on Cyberbullying ______________169

Thomas Jäger, João Amado, Armanda Matos and Teresa Pessoa

Cyberbullying at School: Good Practice and Legal Aspects in the__________182United KingdomMagdalena Marczak and Iain Coyne

Cyber-Victimisation: The Association Between Help-Seeking ____________194Behaviours and Self-Reported Emotional Symptoms in Australia and AustriaJulian J. Dooley, Petra Gradinger, Dagmar Strohmeier, Donna Cross, and Christiane Spiel

Cyberbullying as an Act of Revenge? ________________________________210

Andreas König, Mario Gollwitzer and Georges Steffgen

Cyberbullying Prevention: One Primary School’s Approach ______________225

Donna Tangen and Marilyn Campbell

Book Reviews ________________________________________________235

Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling is publishedtwice a year and issued to all financial ordinary, institutionaland student members of the AGCA.

Copyright in all articles rests with authors. A limited set ofpermanent copyright permission licences has been granted byauthors to the publisher to allow publication in this journal.Rights in the reproduction and distribution of the publishedarticles as visual facsimiles of this published edition by eithermechanical or digital means is controlled by the publisher andany distributions by CAL for copying of an author’s worktherefore are due to the publisher and AGCA only. All other rights in the words contained in this edition are con-trolled by the authors. Authors are therefore free to adaptand/or republish the words making up their own articleseither online or in print.

Published for the AGCA by AUSTRALIAN ACADEMIC PRESS 32 Jeays Street, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006, Australia. www.australianacademicpress.com.au

iii ▲

ED

I TO

RI A

L

GC&

Editorial

Research on Cyberbullying

Welcome to this special edition on cyberbullying. The articles in the issue are fromearly career and established researchers from Australia and Europe who attended atraining school entitled ‘From Research to Policy and Practice: Innovation andSustainability in Cyberbullying Prevention’, held in Melbourne in April 2010. Thetraining school was funded by COST, an intergovernmental framework forEuropean Cooperation in Science and Technology and the Australian GovernmentDepartment of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR). The trainingschool was the first COST-funded school outside of Europe. This was also the firsttraining school in Australia for early researchers on cyberbullying as it is a conceptthat Australia has not yet widely embraced. It provided an opportunity for earlycareer researchers (usually PhD and post-doc students) to learn from experiencedresearchers in a particular field, as well as from each other. For the Europeans, thetraining school gave advanced standing or credit towards their higher degree. It wasan opportunity for early career researchers to network as well as address, alongwith other researchers, the main challenges facing the field of cyberbullying. Thisopportunity would not have occurred without the support of the Australian govern-ment in funding both Australian faculty and Australian early career researchers.

The field of cyberbullying is relatively new and there are many research difficul-ties, such as agreement on definition, measurement issues and the most productivemethodologies for this area. Although the definition of cyberbullying is still not uni-versally agreed upon, most researchers concur it is ‘an aggressive, intentional actcarried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedlyand over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself’ (Smith,Mahdavi, Carvalho, & Tippett, 2006, p.1). There is, however, still controversyabout the necessity for repetition in cyberbullying because of the medium’s abilityfor the abuse to go viral. There is also debate about the concept of imbalance ofpower in this form of bullying. Of course, until the definition is agreed upon, it isdifficult for research to be compared, especially the prevalence. Some researchershave asked if students have ever received a nasty text message, and labelled this asbullying, which it is clearly not. However, measurement issues, such as the benefitsof including a definition in cyberbullying surveys, the different frequencies ofcyberbullying (Every day, Every month or more often) and the time period reported(In the last month, In the past year, Ever) make comparison of studies extremelydifficult. The use of methodologies other than surveys also needs to be explored inrelation to this research area. Of course, what practitioners want to know is how toprevent cyberbullying and how to intervene. This involves all the aforementionedproblems that need to be resolved. However, as a society we want quick answersand a quick fix. There are researchers worldwide who are now trialling interventionprograms for cyberbullying, but we need to be sure that these interventions are evi-dence-based for positive outcomes before widespread implementation.

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. iii–iv

▲

The first article in this issue is by Annalaura Nocentini, Juan Calmaestra, AnjaSchultze-Krumbholz, Herbert Scheithauer, Rosario Ortega and Ersilia Menesini.Their research examined students’ perception of the term used to label cyberbully-ing, together with the perception of different forms and behaviours and of the cri-teria used for its definition in three different European countries: Italy, Spain andGermany. The following paper by Dorothy Grigg also looks at the definition ofcyberbullying by identifying words, terms and definitions used for internet andmobile phone negative acts in both young people and adults in the UnitedKingdom. Following is an article by Simone Paul using the Quality Circle approachto discuss cyberbullying in a high school.

The next set of articles examines some of the issues in cyberbullying in an educa-tional setting. Thomas Jäger, João Amado, Armanda Matos & Teresa Pessoaobtained the views, not of students, but of experts and trainers on the issues ofcyberbullying. The article by Magdalena Marczak and Iain Coyne considers thelegal issues associated with cyberbullying in schools in the United Kingdom. A com-parison between Australian and Austrian help-seeking behaviours of cyber-victimsand traditional victims is presented by Julian Dooley, Petra Gradinger, ThereseShaw, Donna Cross, Dagmar Strohmeier and Christiane Spiel. It was found that inboth countries, students who were cyber-victimised compared to those who werevictimised by more traditional methods were less likely to seek help. AndreasKönig, Mario Gollwitzer and Georges Steffgen examined the role of revenge andretaliation as motives to engage in acts of cyberbullying and the implications thishas for prevention and intervention programs in the following paper. The lastarticle reports on a study by Donna Tangen and Marilyn Campbell comparing thefrequency of ‘traditional’ and cyberbullying of students who had been exposed toPhilosophy for Children for seven years of their primary schooling with a matchedsample of students who had no such exposure.

I hope you enjoy reading this issue and find it helpful in your work.Cyberbullying knows no boundaries and is an international problem. This specialedition of the journal represents a significant outcome from members of the train-ing school. It is gratifying therefore that international researchers are actively col-laborating to attend to matters of prevention and intervention.

Marilyn Campbell, PhDEditor

Editorial

iv▲

129

Address for Correspondence: Annalaura Nocentini, Department of Psychology, Via S. Salvi, 12 – Padiglione 26,50135 Firenze, Italia. E-mail: [email protected]

▲


Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 129–142

▲

Cyberbullying:Labels, Behaviours and Definitionin Three European Countries

Annalaura Nocentini,1 Juan Calmaestra,2 Anja Schultze-Krumbholz,3 Herbert Scheithauer,3Rosario Ortega2 and Ersilia Menesini11 Department of Psychology, University of Florence, Italy2 Department of Psychology, University of Cordoba, Spain3 Department of Educational Science and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

This study aims to examine students’ perception of the term used to label cyberbully-ing, the perception of different forms and behaviours (written, verbal,visual, exclusion and impersonation) and the perception of the criteriaused for its definition (imbalance of power, intention, repetition,anonymity and publicity) in three different European countries: Italy,Spain and Germany. Seventy adolescents took part in nine focusgroups, using the same interview guide across countries. Thematicanalysis focused on three main themes related to: (1) the term used tolabel cyberbullying, (2) the different behaviours representing cyberbul-lying, (3) the three traditional criteria of intentionality, imbalance ofpower and repetition and the two new criteria of anonymity and public-ity. Results showed that the best word to label cyberbullying is ‘cyber-mobbing’ (in Germany), ‘virtual’ or ‘cyber-bullying’ (in Italy), and‘harassment’ or ‘harassment via Internet or mobile phone’ (in Spain).Impersonation cannot be considered wholly as cyberbullying behaviour.In order to define a cyberbullying act, adolescents need to knowwhether the action was done intentionally to harm the victim, the effecton the victim and the repetition of the action (this latter criterion evalu-ated simultaneously with the publicity). Information about theanonymity and publicity contributes to better understand the natureand the severity of the act, the potential effects on the victim and theintentionality.

■ KEYWORDS: cyberbullying, cross-cultural, focus groups, Spain, Italy,Germany

Since the year 2000, a new form of aggression using modern information and com-munication technologies has attracted large attention in the media cross-nationally.Led by Anglophone countries (e.g., Australia, United Kingdom and the United

States), cyberbullying research quickly spread to many countries, indicating theneed for a common understanding of the phenomenon. However, cross-nationalstudies require an investigation of terms and understanding in different countriesand cultures; often the perspective of the subjects of this research field is lacking(cf. Spears, Slee, Owens, & Johnson, 2009). It may be that students do not use thesame terms and definitions as experts and researchers do for what is happening tothem (cf. Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefooghe, 2002). Furthermore, each specificlanguage might have different labels for this phenomenon (Smith et al., 2002; Slee,Ma, & Taki, 2003). Therefore, there needs to be a focus on the target groups’understanding of cyberbullying.

The Label ‘Cyberbullying’Problems related to the term used to label the phenomenon of cyberbullying in dif-ferent languages can be derived from the literature of bullying. The word ‘bullying’is not easy to translate into different languages, and different terms are used bothin any one language and in different languages (Smith et al., 2002); for example,the term ‘mobbing’ is common in Scandinavian and Germanic languages. Wordsfor bullying are less familiar in the Latin languages, although recently they havebeen used more often. In Italy and Spain a plurality of terms exists, all of themconnoting a specific aspect of bullying (Fonzi, Genta, Menesini, Bacchini, Bonino,& Constabile, 1999; Ortega, Del Rey, & Mora-Merchán, 2001). Furthermore, theterm ‘cyber’ can be affected by the same difficulties. For example, the English word‘cyber’ is listed in the Italian dictionary, connoting the use of electronic means andvirtual community (Garzanti, 2007). In Spain, the word ‘ciber’ is listed in the dic-tionary and refers to computer networks (RAE, 2010). In Germany, ‘cyber’ refers tocomputer-generated artificial virtual surroundings that may be perceived as real(Langenscheidt, 2010).

Starting from these considerations we might ask: which is the best term used byadolescents to label cyberbullying and is it the same across countries?

Different Cyberbullying BehavioursThe complexity and the accelerated evolution of new technologies create some dif-ficulties in defining which are the specific cyberbullying behaviours. Different clas-sifications have been proposed: for example covert and overt cyberbullying (Spearset al., 2009), cyberbullying by Phone or by PC (Smith et al., 2008), traditional bul-lying in a new context, relational cyberbullying and technically sophisticated cyber-bullying (Schultze- Krumbholz & Scheithauer, 2009), cyberbullying throughspecific behaviours: flaming, harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing, trick-ery, exclusion and cyberstalking (Willard, 2007). Trying to summarise these eightlast categories in typologies of behaviour, four main types can be identified:written-verbal behaviours behaviours (phone calls, text messages, e-mails, instantmessaging, chats, blogs, social networking communities, websites), visual behav-iours (posting, sending or sharing compromising pictures and videos throughmobile phone or internet), exclusion (purposefully excluding someone from anonline group) and impersonation (stealing and revealing personal information,using another person’s name and account). According to these typologies, we mightask if adolescents perceived all these types of behaviours as cyberbullying and howsevere they are.

Annalaura Nocentini et al.

130▲

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling Volume 20 Number 2 2010▲

The Definition of CyberbullyingEarly studies of cyberbullying used their own definition of this phenomenon, mostof them developed in a top-down approach and based on the definition of tradi-tional bullying proposed by Dan Olweus (1993). A small number of them havebecome widely accepted and are cited regularly in new publications (see Belsey,2005; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell &Tippett, 2008; Willard, 2003). These definitions highlight some fundamentalaspects of (cyber)bullying: (intentional) harm, repetition over time and a powerimbalance between victim and perpetrator(s). Recently, these definitions havebecome subject of a controversy among experts and researchers: it is still unclearwhether these criteria are applicable to cyberbullying. Furthermore, new criteriahave been proposed, such as anonymity and publicity (e.g., Menesini & Nocentini,2009a; Slonje & Smith, 2008).

Intention. It has been argued that due to the indirect nature of cyberbullying it isvery difficult to identify the intention of this behaviour (Menesini & Nocentini,2009b). The question also arises as to whether intention is truly necessary to causeharm, or whether unintentional acts — meaning the students are not aware of theharm caused — have the same effect on the victim, thus underlining that only theimpact on or the perpetrator’s intention perceived by the victim should be regardedas a criterion (COST Training School, personal communication, April 12, 2010).

Repetition. A common argument against the use of the criterion of repetition is thefact that posting contents online in itself constitutes repetition as they can beviewed and forwarded repeatedly (cf., Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008;Menesini & Nocentini, 2009a). Also, online contents are often still accessible yearsafter the original incident. This way, a single act of cyberbullying can lead to count-less incidents of victimisation (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009).

Power imbalance. The inability of a victim to force providers to delete harmful con-tents, higher levels of media literacy or a higher social status of the perpetratorwithin a virtual community might be interpreted as a power imbalance (e.g., Hinduja& Patchin, 2007; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009a). Wolak and colleagues (2007) con-tradict this criterion and state that the victim is rather in a more powerful situationthan it would be in traditional bullying because they have the possibility to terminatenegative interactions easily. However, they allow that this might not be given con-cerning the posting of information or negative comments in ‘public’ virtual places(e.g., websites).

New cyber-specific criteria: anonymity and publicity. Anonymity that occurs when thevictim does not know the identity of the bully may increase feelings of frustrationand powerlessness (e.g., Dooley et al., 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008) and mayreduce the need for power imbalance as a criterion (Fauman, 2008). Publicity — asopposed to private exchanges between two parties — characterises the acts where alarge audience is involved (i.e., e-mails, SMSs, MMSs sent to a large audience, oroffences occurring in a public forum, or videos and pictures distributed via socialnetworking). In previous studies, students declared cyberbullying acts including alarge and public audience as the most severe type of cyberbullying (Slonje & Smith,

Cyberbullying: Labels, Behaviours and Definition in Three European Countries

131 ▲

2008). Incorporating these two criteria (anonymity and publicity) may representcyberbullying more adequately than previous common definitions.

Aims of the Present StudyThe present study examines students’ perception of the term used to label cyberbul-lying, the perception of different forms (written–verbal, visual, exclusion andimpersonation) and the perception of the criteria used for the definition (imbalanceof power, intention, repetition, anonymity and publicity) in three differentEuropean countries: Italy, Spain and Germany. The first aim was to identify themost suitable term to describe cyberbullying behaviour, which can then be used byresearchers and practitioners to assess cyberbullying who are in contact with ado-lescents (e.g., professors, educators, counsellors, and so on). Second, we wanted toexamine if the four typologies of behaviours proposed all represent the cyberbully-ing construct. Finally, the adequacy of the different criteria of the cyberbullyingdefinition was examined, including the three conventional criteria of traditionalbullying and the new ones related to the specific cyber context.

MethodParticipants

Overall, 70 adolescents in nine focus groups took part in the study. Twenty-sevenadolescents were part of the Italian study, 23 participated in the study in Spain and20 participants were recruited in Germany (for further sample details see Table 1).Schools were selected using convenience sampling.

Materials and ProceduresYouths were invited to participate in a group discussion. The school staff wasinstructed to select students who they thought would be comfortable in a groupsetting. For all the students, their parents’ permission was requested. Nine focusgroups were held using the same interview guide across countries and they wereconducted in the native language of the participants. The groups were conducted atthe students’ schools or a youth club, respectively; the moderator and the recorder


132▲

TABLE 1

Sample Characteristics

Italy Spain Germany

Total 27 23 20

Gender distribution 20 boys, 7 girls 9 boys, 14 girls 11 boys, 9 girls

Age 16–18 12–13, 16 11–12, 12–13, 13–16

Number of focus groups 4 2 3

Recruited from School School Schools,youth club

City Florence and Lucca Cordoba Berlin


were the only adults present during the group discussion, except in the oldestGerman focus group, which was assisted by the person in charge of the youth club.Moderators and recorders were active in the field of psychology as psychologyresearchers, young graduate psychologists or psychology students. In conductingthe focus groups, the guidelines of Krueger (1994) and Morgan (1988) were fol-lowed. A moderator and a recorder greeted the adolescents as they arrived to par-ticipate (Welcome). The moderator informed the youths about the purpose of andprocedure for conducting focus group (Our topic is ...). To facilitate the focusgroups, the moderator followed an interview guide that considered the followingsections: Opening Questions (participants presentations), Introductory Questions(general introduction of the topic without using the term Cyberbullying), KeyQuestions (see below), Ending Questions (leave students to discuss other topics ifthey want to), Summary (the moderator try to give a summary) and Thanks/Dismissal (thank students for their help and participation).

The structure of the focus groups followed three key questions: (1) Which is thebest term to label four scenarios describing different situations or behaviours thatcould be considered cyberbullying or not? (see Table 3 for the scenarios descrip-tion). For this purpose, four posters were presented describing four scenarios. Foreach scenario we asked students to write or say the word considered as the bestterm to label the scenario. (2) Do all the four typologies of behaviours representthe cyberbullying construct? Referring to the four posters, we asked adolescents ifany differences existed between the scenarios, if one behaviour is more severe ascompared to the others, and if we can speak about different forms of cyberbully-ing. (3) Are the three criteria for defining bullying (intentionality, imbalance ofpower and repetition) relevant in order to define a cyberbullying act? Are the twoadditional specific criteria for cyberbullying (publicity and anonymity) relevant inorder to define a cyberbullying act? This was investigated using one control sce-nario (where no criteria were present) and five experimental scenarios, one for eachcriterion (for the definition of criteria see Table 2). After the presentation of thetwo scenarios for each criterion (i.e., for the criterion of intentionality: ‘Control:M. sent a nasty text message to C. as a joke’; ‘Experimental: M. sent a nasty textmessage to C. intentionally to hurt C’) we asked participants to discuss the differ-ence between them. Some of the questions proposed were: ‘Is there any differencebetween the two scenarios? If yes, what are the differences? Are both scenariosgood examples of cyberbullying? Why?’


133 ▲

TABLE 2

Definition of the Criteria Used in the Control and Experimental Condition

Criterion Control condition Experimental condition

Intentionality ‘As a joke’ ‘To hurt him/her’

Imbalance of power The victim ‘didn’t care’ The victim ‘was upset and didn’t know how to defend himself/herself’

Repetition ‘Last month’ ‘Every week for a month’

Publicity Sending only to the victim Sending the message ‘to other people to see’

Anonymity ‘A familiar boy/girl’ ‘Using an anonymous number’ and ‘who didn’t know him/her personally’

All focus groups were audiotaped and lasted between 40 and 90 minutes,depending on age and participants’ concentration. The audiotapes were transcribedverbatim and the content of the text was coded in relation to the key questions inthe interview guide (Morgan, 1988). The report for each focus group was preparedin a question-by-question format using amplifying quotes and a descriptivesummary. These coded statements were then compiled under general headings orthemes (e.g., adolescents’ term for each scenario): results by categories of individ-ual focus groups were compared and contrasted. The main themes and quotes wereedited and summarised, reducing the transcripts to a more manageable size. Weselected the most descriptive quotes for each question, capturing the essence of theconversation.

ResultsTheme 1: The Label

Results will be presented separately for the four different scenarios. The specificterms used in each country, including the words in the original language, can befound in Table 3. Excerpts from the transcripts translated in English are includedto illustrate students’ perceptions and reasoning in the adolescents’ words.

Written-verbal behaviours. Some of the terms used for this behaviour in Italyreferred to more general constructs, such as abuse, stalking and psychological vio-lence, whereas others described more specific behaviours, such as offences, threatand blackmail. ‘Abuse’ was used to stress the repetition across time, while ‘stalk-ing’ emphasised the persecuting nature of the behaviour. Psychological violencewas used to underline the indirect nature of aggressive behaviour, particularly toexclude physical behaviour. In Spain, the majority of adolescents called this behav-iour ‘harassment’. However, there were age differences when for younger studentsthe terms ‘nuisance’, and for older students ‘psychological damage’ or ‘abuse’,seemed to be more relevant. The difference between harassment and nuisance liesof the frequency of the behaviours: harassment is more frequent than nuisance.Students in all three countries mentioned the label ‘bullying’ for this behaviour. InGermany, it was the first word that came to mind, followed by harassment and‘knocking’ someone. Spanish adolescents mentioned that they had received schoolsessions about bullying during the previous school year. They also referred to TVprograms and newspapers about the topic, as did the German participants later onin the discussion. However, the Spanish participants could not agree on the exactmeaning of the term ‘bullying’. In contrast to the other countries, German partici-pants emphasised the emotional level of the behaviour in friendships by proposingterms such as ‘backstabbing’, ‘vicious’, ‘dishonest’ and ‘upsetting’.

It is bullying when someone sends a message to another person to ruin him. (Italy)Bullying is a kind of harassment, like the abuse against women: the first is harass-ment between peers, the second one is harassment against women. (Spain)You probably hurt others with it. (Germany)

Visual behaviours. Apart from some of the previously used terms, Italian adolescentsalso mentioned privacy violation, stressing the relevance of using other people’s pic-


134▲


tures or images. The term ‘virtual bullying’ was spontaneously proposed in order todifferentiate bullying across contexts. Spanish participants also stressed the violationof the personal image or intimacy, with both having the same meaning. The intentionto harm the victim was a very important aspect for their definition. The youngerSpanish students also proposed harassment, as did the German participants. Further,German students labelled the behaviour bullying and also public humiliation, puttingtheir focus not on the intention, but rather on the effect, as compared to the Spanishparticipants. The German students even created a new word for this: ‘photing’,which represents a mixture of mobbing (the German term for bullying) and photos.

Virtual because you don’t show your own identity using these electronic means.(Italy).

Impersonation. In all three countries, impersonality behaviour was consideredlegally relevant or even a crime, such as theft when using someone’s password to


135 ▲

TABLE 3

Examples of the Four Different Behaviours (Written–Verbal, Visual, Impersonation and Exclusion) andTerms Used for Each Scenario — English and Original Language Words

Scenarios Italy Spain Germany

Sending nasty Aggressive behaviour Harassment (acoso), Bullying (mobbing),text messages’ (comportamento aggressivo), psychological damage To knock someonewritten–verbal) psychological violence (daño psicológico), (runtermachen),

(violenza psicologica), psychological abuse harassment (Belästigung),offences (offese), (maltrato psicológico), Back-stabbing (hinterhältig)Abuse (abuso), Evil (maldad),Bullying (bullismo) Bullying (bullying),stalking (stalking), nuisance (incómodo/fastidio)Threat (minaccia),blackmail (ricatto/blackmail)

‘Sending a Blackmail Violation of personal ‘Photing’,compromising (ricatto/blackmail), image/intimacy Bullying (Mobbing),photo’ threat (minaccia), (violaciòn de la imagen harassment (Belästigung),(visual) bullying (bullismo), personal e intimidad), Public humiliation

psychological violence harassment (acoso), (öffentliche Demütigung)(violenza psicologica), harm (hacer daño),abuse (abuso), offense (ofensa),Privacy violation cruelty (crueldad)(violazione di privacy),Virtual bullying(bullismo virtuale)

‘Get access to Privacy violation Privacy violation Humiliation (Demütigung),password or (violazione di privacy), (privacy/right violation), Hacking (Hacking),personal information identity theft crime (delito), revenge (Rache), and use them’ (furto di identità) betrayal (traición), psychological hurt(impersonation) lack of respect (seelische Verletzung),

(falta de respeto) theft (klauen)

‘Take off from the Exclusion (esclusione), Exclusion (exclusión), Knock someone (runtermachen),online group’ isolation (isolamento) contempt (desprecio), Put someone down (exclusion) neglect (marginación), (fertigmachen),

discrimination Bullying (mobbing),(discriminación), dissing (dissen),evil (maldad), cyberbullying ,teasing (fastidiar), (cyber-mobbing)anguish (angustiar), Exclusionbullying (bullying) (ausgeschlossenwerden)

steal money (Germany) or identity theft more generally (Italy). Both Italians andSpanish specifically labelled the behaviour as privacy violation. Further, Spanishand German adolescents pointed out the aspect of betrayal when the act was com-mitted by friends. One German group also mentioned an overlap with the visualscenario as having access to someone’s password also gives the person access tophotos, videos and personal secrets.

It is a betrayal: it is not a crime but hurt. (Spain)

Exclusion. All participants in all countries labelled this behaviour as exclusion orisolation. Additional terms referred to the victim’s feelings such as neglect, con-tempt and discrimination in Spain, and knocking someone, putting someone downand ‘dissing’ in Germany. The Spanish participants also included intentionality intheir description. In Germany this was the only scenario that specifically led to theterm ‘cyberbullying’. One German group made a concrete reference to an aware-ness-raising campaign sponsored by the online-initiative ‘Klicksafe’ (EuropeanUnion) that regularly broadcasts a television advertisement against cyberbullyingon German television.

Theme 2: Typologies of BehavioursWhen asked directly whether all the four scenarios represent cyberbullying behav-iours (written–verbal, visual, exclusion and impersonation), all the Italian adoles-cents considered the visual and the written–verbal behaviours as forms ofcyberbullying, but there was more disagreement about impersonation and exclu-sion. Spanish students considered all behaviours as bullying. Although they didn’tconsider each scenario exactly the same, they used the same word to summarise allbehaviours. German participants considered that impersonation does not actuallyconstitute cyberbullying, but rather a criminal act like theft.

When participants were asked about the severity of each scenario in relation tothe others, all adolescents in all countries declared the visual as the most seriousbehaviour. However, some cultural differences emerged, especially between Italyand the other two countries. Spain and Germany considered the visual and theimpersonation scenarios as the most severe, whereas in Italy the visual andwritten–verbal behaviours were considered the most severe.

Theme 3: The Three Traditional Criteria of Bullying and the Two Additional Criteriafor Cyberbullying

Imbalance of power. As became evident from the discussion in all three countries, theimbalance of power cannot be viewed independently of the intent to harm.However, all participants agreed that if the victim is affected by the behaviour thenthe behaviour constitutes bullying. The experimental condition may not be wellchosen though, as Italian adolescents pointed out that there is always a way todefend oneself, such as asking for help. They suggested further aspects of powerimbalance as the cyberbully can be characterised by higher levels of technologicalskills compared to the victim, but only in the case of more technological sophisti-cated behaviour such as impersonation, and not for others. One German groupeven went as far as to say that it is still bullying, even when independent of thevictim’s feelings, because they did not believe that the person in the scenario actu-ally does not care, but rather interpret this as a protective function.


136▲


It depends if it is a real joke or not. (Spain)

When you don’t care and the other one notices it eventually, then he will stop.(Germany)

Intention. In all countries, intention is a strongly relevant criterion to be used forthe definition, but it is strictly related to the criterion of imbalance of power. Forthe Italian girls, this criterion is less important than the feelings and consequencesfor the victim. For the Spanish and German participants, the victim’s interpretationof the intention is critical. If the act is perceived as a joke then it is not consideredbullying. However, the question was raised (and remained unanswered) as to howthe victim should know that the act was not meant seriously.

If there is the intention to hurt someone it is bullying. (Italy)

The aim of the bully is to hurt someone, but if the victim is not hurt this is not bully-ing because the bully did not gain his/her goal. (Italy)

Yes, but you actually don’t do this as a joke. So, this is a [bad] joke, so to say.(Germany)

Repetition. In all three countries the adolescents agreed that the criterion of repeti-tion can differentiate between a joke and an intentional attack and it can charac-terise the severity of the action. One of the German groups stated explicitly that thebehaviour cannot be unintentional if it is repeated. Thus, repetition and intentionare perceived as related. One of the German focus groups disagreed and said thatdefining this behaviour as bullying does not depend on repetition, but rather on thecontent of the text messages. Also, when the Italian moderator asked the Italianparticipants to think about the visual scenario, where the behaviour is done oncebut is then spread to a large audience through the internet, females said that it canbe damaging for the victim although it is a single act.

Given that in this case the picture was sent also to other people, even if it is doneonce it can be very bad for the victim. (Italy)

It is harassment if it is repeated and it is constant, but if it is done once it is notharassment. (Spain)

Yes, then it is not a joke anymore. (Germany)

Publicity. For Italian males publicity can change the intention of the acts, connotingblackmail or defamation. Italian females paid more attention to the relationbetween anonymity, publicity and intentionality: for example, if the behaviour isdone by an anonymous person to a large audience, they cannot perceive if the act isdone intentionally or not. In all countries, students rated public cyberbullying asthe most serious incident, because of the role of the bystanders. The victims mightworry about what others think about them. However, this criterion is not necessaryto define bullying. In the German focus groups, each person receiving the informa-tion about the victim seemed to be counted as an additional incident, manifested inthe terms used for this behaviour such as ‘mass bullying’ or ‘multiple bullying’.

If it is private it is blackmail; if it is public it is defamation. (Italy)

If it’s a joke between two friends, does not care; if other people are involved maybethey can’t understand if it’s a joke or not. (Spain)


137 ▲

Anonymity. In Italy, the criterion of anonymity mainly relates to different reactionsof the victims and connotes the intentionality and the nature of the act. In all coun-tries, anonymity is important for the impact on the victim, but not as a definitionalcriterion to discriminate cyberbullying from non-bullying incidents. Not knowingwho the contents are from can raise insecurity and fear, while if the perpetrator issomeone the students know it could hurt more if it was someone they trusted orwere friends with. On the level of personal relationships, however, coping is easier.The anonymous scenario was perceived as worse than the control scenario.

If you know the person, you can have a talk, positively or negatively and you canbetter understand if it is a joke or not. (Italy)

If you know a person, you can know how he/she could behave, but if you don’tknow ... (Spain)

Yes, it’s actually disappointing when it’s someone you trust and so on. However, onthe other side it’s bad if you don’t know who it is because then, in principle, it couldbe anyone. (Germany)

DiscussionThe present study contributes significantly to our knowledge of adolescents’ under-standing of cyberbullying and provides suggestions about which are the best behav-iours to represent the construct and the relevant criteria to define the phenomenon.Furthermore the cross-cultural comparison between the three non-English speakingcountries — Italy, Spain and Germany — is the first attempt to disentangle some diffi-culties related to the use of English terms to label cyberbullying.

Overall, although the term ‘bullying’ emerged spontaneously through all thefocus groups in each country, the term ‘cyberbullying’ was spontaneously proposedonly by German adolescents (‘cyber-mobbing’). This could be related to the effec-tiveness of an awareness-raising campaign in Germany, supported by the EuropeanUnion. Apart from this, the subject of cyber-mobbing has been covered widely andregularly in the German media during the last year. In Italy, adolescents sponta-neously proposed the term ‘virtual bullying’ and other terms involving electronicbullying, internet or on-line bullying. However, at the end the majority of themchose ‘cyberbullying’. The best labels for cyberbullying in Spain were harassmentand abuse. These are the two terms most often used to label bullying behaviour(Ortega et al., 2001) without any reference to the cyber or virtual network.

In line with the studies on bullying (Smith et al., 2002) cultural specificities forthe translation of bullying are still present; for example, the use of specific words ineach culture such as bullismo in Italy, acoso in Spain and mobbing in Germany. Inrelation to the word ‘cyber’, results from focus groups suggested that not all theadolescents need to differentiate bullying across contexts. Furthermore, the word‘cyber’ is not widely used by adolescents, particularly in Latin languages, althoughit is present in each dictionary.

Thus, trying to answer to the key question which term best to use to label cyber-bullying in each country we propose to use cyber-mobbing in Germany, virtual orcyberbullying in Italy, and harassment or harassment via Internet or mobile phonein Spain.


138▲


Pertaining to the different behaviours representing or not representing the cyber-bullying construct, we can see that Italy and Germany are in accord mentioningsome doubts in relation to whether impersonation is a good example of cyberbully-ing acts, whereas Spanish adolescents declared that all the four types are cyberbul-lying. However, looking at Table 3, impersonation is the only behaviour where nolabel specifically related to bullying or harassment is present across countries.Furthermore, Italian and German adolescents agreed that this behaviour is morerelated to legally relevant matters, and in Spain this is the only case where the termcrime is used. Thus, these results seem to be in contrast with the categorisationproposed by Willard (2007), suggesting that impersonation cannot be consideredfully as a (cyber)bullying behaviour. Further studies need to explore this issue morethoroughly.

A final consideration related to the labels concerned the use and the relevance ofprivacy violation in Italy and Spain, but not in Germany. This result can be affectedby the actual relevance of this issue in each country: for example, in Italy and inSpain the problem of privacy law is a big issue to be resolved, and media are veryfocused on this topic. In Germany, many of the legal areas touched by cyberbully-ing are already mentioned in the criminal code under several different offences,including an anti-stalking law, although none of them specifically refer to the cybercontext.

In relation to the three bullying criteria, results showed that the imbalance ofpower cannot be viewed independently of the intent to harm. However, all partici-pants agreed that if the victim is affected by the behaviour then the behaviour con-stitutes bullying. Results suggest that imbalance of power cannot be defined interms of higher levels of media literacy of the perpetrator or in terms of the inabil-ity of the victim to defend him/herself. Thus, the issue related to the definition ofpower imbalance in cyberbullying is still open. For the majority of the students, theintention to harm is not the only important characteristic that defines bullying,because the effect on the victims and his/her perception of the acts can also bemore relevant than the intention of the aggressor. Repetition is a very strong crite-rion to be used for the definition because it can differentiate between a joke and anintentional attack and it can characterise the severity of the action. However, par-ticipants in Italy and Germany paid attention to the relation between repetitionand publicity: if the act is public and thus it is sent (or showed) to several people,although it is done only once this can be considered as done several times. Theterms proposed by German adolescents well represent this meaning: ‘mass bullying’or ‘multiple bullying’. The other two additional criteria, anonymity and publicity,do not constitute a requisite for labelling an action as cyberbullying, but they arerelevant because they connote the severity and the nature of the attack and thevictim reaction. Overall, we think that the results associated with the criteria usedfor the definition of cyberbullying are particularly relevant. It seems that in orderto define a cyberbullying act, adolescents need to know if the action is done inten-tionally to harm the victim, the effect on the victim, and the repetition of the action(this latter criterion evaluated simultaneously with the publicity). Our results par-tially confirm the necessity of the three traditional criteria used to define bullying.In particular, it seems that intention is needed, together with the effects on thevictim. Repetition is needed, with the exception of public behaviours. Definitions


139 ▲

proposed by the literature for power imbalance in the cyber context (Hinduja &Patchin, 2007; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009a) were not supported by our results.Thus we may ask whether the problem is the definition of power imbalance or ifthis criterion is appropriate in order to define a cyberbullying act. In relation to thenew criteria proposed by the literature, anonymity and publicity, our resultssuggest that they are not necessary to label an action as cyberbullying, but they canconnote the context (the severity and nature of the attacks, the relationshipbetween actor and victim, the victim’s reactions).

In conclusion, the present study gives some relevant suggestions to researchersand practitioners working on cyberbullying with adolescents. Using the samewords and the same defining aspects as adolescents do to call and to describe thisphenomenon can help adults to better understand what is the meaning, the natureand the severity of the cyber attack, in order to suggest appropriate guidelines andintervention strategies. The use of the same qualitative methodology across coun-tries resulted in a useful strategy to compare terms and definitions of cyberbullyingacross three non-English speaking countries. In spite of these strengths, the studyalso has some limitations. First, the small number of participants for each countryand the convenience sampling limits the generalisability of the results. Second, dif-ferences in ages across countries can affect results; however, we found similarityacross countries although different ages characterise the samples. Finally, culturalaspects related to the European regions can be present and they cannot be gener-alised; for instance, we might ask if results related to the impersonation typologycan be the same for other non-European cultures.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors acknowledge the COST Action IS0801 ‘Cyberbullying: Coping withnegative and enhancing positive uses of new technologies, in relationships in educa-tional settings’, the Training School ‘From research to policy and practice: Innovationand sustainability in cyber bullying prevention’ (funded by the COST ActionIS0801), and the Australian Government Department of Innovation, Industry,Science and Research, for making this collaboration possible. Anja Schultze-Krumbholz and Herbert Scheithauer thank Jana Fiebig (2010) and Jonas Höher(2010) for their invaluable support in recruiting participants and collecting data.

ReferencesBelsey, B. (2005). Cyberbullying: An emerging threat to the ‘always on’ generation.

Retrieved Jan 14, 2010, from http://www.cyberbullying.ca/pdf/Cyberbullying_Article_by_Bill_Belsey.pdf

COST Training School. (2010). Personal communication — Discussion group at theTraining School ‘Research to policy and practice: Innovation and sustainability incyberbullying prevention’, hosted by P.K. Smith, G. Steffgen, M. Valimaki, E. Menesini,P. Slee, D. Cross, M. Campbell & B. Spears. Melbourne, 11-16 April 2010.

Dooley, J.J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying - Atheoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology,217(4), 182–188.


140▲


Fauman, M.A. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the digital age. The American Journal ofPsychiatry, 165(6), 780–781.

Fiebig, J. (2010). Anonymität und Öffentlichkeit — Eine Untersuchung der neuen Kriterienzur Beschreibung des Phänomens Cyberbullying. Unpublished bachelor thesis, FreieUniversität Berlin, Berlin.

Fonzi, A., Genta, M. L., Menesini, E., Bacchini, D., Bonino, S. & Constabile, A. (1999).Italy. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano & P. Slee (Eds.),The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 140–156). London:Routledge.

Garzanti. (2007). Il grande dizionario Garzanti della lingua italiana. Milan: Garzanti.Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization - School

violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89-112.Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and

responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Höher, J. (2010). Cyberbullying: Eine Evaluation der Bullyingkriterien im Cyberspace —

Qualitative Auswertung von Gruppeninterviews mit Jugendlichen. Unpublished bache-lor thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin.

Kowalski, R.M., Limber, S.P., & Agatston, P.W. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in thedigital age. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2 ed.).Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Langenscheidt. (2010). Fremdwörterbuch. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from http://services.langenscheidt.de/fremdwb/fremdwb.html

Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009a). Personal communication (during the meetings of theCOST Action IS0801).

Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009b). Cyberbullying definition and measurement —Some critical considerations. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology,217(4), 230-232.

Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK:

Blackwell.Ortega, R., Del Rey, R., & Mora-Merchán, J.A. (2001). Violencia entre escolares:

Conceptos y etiquetas verbales que definen el fenómeno del maltrato entre iguales.Revista interuniversitaria de formación del profesorado, 41, 95–113.

RAE. (2010). Diccionario de la lengua española. Advance of the twenty-third edition.Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=ciber

Schultze-Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H. (2009). Measuring Cyberbullying andCybervictimisation by Using Behavioral Categories – The Berlin Cyberbullying-Cybervictimisation Questionnaire (BCCQ), COST ACTION ISO801 Workshop, PostConference XIV ECDP, 18–22 August, 2009, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Slee, P.T., Ma, L. & Taki, M. (2003). Bullying in schools. In J.P. Keeves & R. Watanabe(Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp.425–439). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154.

Smith, P.K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R.F., & Liefooghe, A.P.D. (2002). Definitions of bullying:A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-countryinternational comparison. Child Development, 73(4), 1119-1133.

Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.


141 ▲

Spears, B., Slee, P., Owens, L. & Johnson, B. (2009). Behind the scenes and screens —Insights into the human dimension of covert and cyberbullying. Zeitschrift fürPsychologie / Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 189–196.

Willard, N. (2003). Off-campus, harmful online student speech. Journal of School Violence,2(1), 65–93.

Willard, N. (2007). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Center for Safe andResponsible Use of the Internet. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www.cyberbully.org/docs/cbctparents.pdf

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Does online harassment constitute bullying?An exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only contacts. Journalof Adolescent Health, 41, S51–S58.

▲


142▲

143 ▲

Address for Correspondence: Dorothy W. Grigg, Unit for Schools and Family Studies, Department of Psychology,Goldsmiths’ University of London, 16 Lewisham Way, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, United Kingdom.E-mail: [email protected]

Cyber-Aggression: Definition and Concept of Cyberbullying

Dorothy Wunmi GriggGoldsmiths University of London, United Kingdom

This study examined definitions and concepts of cyberbullying. It identified words,terms and definitions used for negative acts on the internet and mobilephones across different age groups in the United Kingdom. Youngpeople and adults’ (N = 32; age = 8–54) constructs and perceptions ofnegative online behaviours were also reported. Focus groups and indi-vidual interviews were employed using qualitative triangulation:Thematic Analysis and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Thestudy examined current definitions and concepts of cyberbullying andhow these differ in its findings; and considered different ways to fosterpositive online behaviour for the context of practitioners. The conceptof cyber-aggression is used to describe a wide range of behavioursother than cyberbullying. The findings indicate that there is a need toinclude a broader definition in line with the current trend of a range ofbehaviours that are common with internet and mobile phone usage.

■ KEYWORDS: definitions, concepts, cyberbullying, cyber-aggression

Using mobile phones and the internet for communication purposes is a fast andreliable means of communication, particularly with the instant feedback they giveto the sender(s) of such messages. Examples of these are short messaging services(SMSs; Gillespie, 2006) delivery status on mobile phones and ‘message sent’reports of emails on the internet. On the one hand, mobile phones open possibili-ties for verbal communications, independent of restrictions of mobility and porta-bility that is associated with landline telephones. The internet, on the other hand,enhances communication across the globe via emails and/or chat rooms. Whilethese instances can be seen as advantages, some experiences can make the use ofmobile phones and internet more devastating than the enjoyment of the spontane-ity they offer. Among such distressing experiences are receiving unwanted aggres-sive messages (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell et al., 2008; Vandebosch& Van Cleemput, 2008), happy slapping (Smith et al., 2008); flaming (Gillespie,2006; Smith et al., 2008), sexting (Bocij & McFarlane, 2003; Gillepsie, 2006;Spears, Slee, Owens, & Johnson, 2009), and other forms of aggressive behavioursusing various media of communication (Slonje & Smith, 2008).


Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 143–156

▲

Some negative acts that have been identified within these media of communica-tion are bullying, harassment, assault, abuse and stalking (Gillespie, 2006; Smith etal., 2008; Dooley, Pyzaski, & Cross, 2009). In the United Kingdom, for instance,cyberbullying has been used as a common phrase for most of these subsets ofaggressive acts. Cyberbullying is defined as ‘an aggressive intentional act carriedout by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and overtime against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself’ (Smith et al., 2008,p. 376). This definition follows traditional definitions of bullying (Olweus, 1993)where one person or a group of people repeatedly demonstrate aggressive behav-iour towards another person or group of persons with an ‘imbalance of power’(Monks, Smith, & Swettenham, 2005; Menesini, Fonzi, & Smith, 2002).

In summary, both definitions share three common criteria and one difference:First, traditional bullying and cyberbullying include an intentional harm and there-fore can be seen as special cases of aggression (for aggression see Anderson &Bushman, 2002; Krahé, 2001). Second, the imbalance of power is another commonaspect, which is an advantage of the perpetrator(s) of aggression. Third, repetitionof victimisation is seen as a common criterion for traditional as well as for cyber-bullying. However, the difference to traditional bullying lies in the fact that incyberbullying, technological devices are being used for carrying out such aggressiveacts (Campbell, 2005; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Spears, et al.,2009; Dooley et al., 2009).

Some researchers have suggested that there is a need to address the definitionissues within the area of aggression and bullying via communication devices(Coyne, Chesney, Logan, & Madden, 2009; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). Isuggest that the definitions of intended harm and the use of technological devicesare not controversial. This study therefore focuses on two criteria for cyberbullyingthat merit more attention: the imbalance of power, and repetition.

Imbalance of PowerIf a target of cyberbullying ‘cannot easily defend him or herself’, there exists animbalance of power in favour of the perpetrator(s) of the aggressive act. But howcan this power imbalance be understood in cases of cyberbullying? Vandeboschand Van Cleemput (2008, p. 499) point out that this imbalance would be based ona ‘real life’ power criterion that consists of physical strength or age, interpreted asmedia expertise in cyberbullying. In traditional bullying, avoiding physical attackand possible intimidating acts seem plausible; however, it may be complicated toapply the analogy of physical strength and age to the cyber environment. More so,an imbalance of power can also lie in the situational advantage(s) that the bullyhas over his or her victim. One such advantage belongs to the same ‘in-group’within social identity repertoire (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). In com-parison to the online sense, the in-group could be those who associate or belong tothe same chatroom(s) and social networking sites. Arguably, the power imbalancemay occur when a group of people start bullying a person or group of people whonewly enter a chatroom, or perhaps make suggestive comments about the group orperson within the social site. This traditional analogy of the influence of social

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg

144▲


identity is also eminent in cyber-interrelationships. Campbell (2005) points outthat old behaviours happen in new forms; in this case this would mean that cyber-bullying is delivered by an online group whose mechanisms function comparableto offline groups.

Furthermore, imbalance of power has been likened to media knowledge (Smithet al., 2008) and a ‘power of technology’ (Dooley et al., 2009) to ‘media expertise’due to the ‘anonymity’ involved in sending unwanted messages in form of videosand pictures or abusive phone calls (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). It maybe worth stating that both those who are cyber-bullied and those who cyberbully,may have similar media knowledge as they both use these technologies for commu-nication purposes. However to my knowledge, it has not been systematicallyresearched and proven that there is an advantage of cyber-bullies in media expert-ise, nor that both parties are comparable in this aspect.

RepetitionIn cyberbullying, some acts may be carried out just once by the primary perpetra-tor and therefore may not fit into ‘repetition of the act’. Examples of these are‘outing’; ‘happy slapping’; ‘flaming’ and ‘sexting’ (Coyne et al., 2009; Dooley, etal., 2009; Spears et al., 2009). In happy slapping, for instance, aggressive ordegrading video(s) are taken by a bystander and then forwarded to other people’sphones or posted on a website. Also in sexting, a perpetrator sends sexual con-tents of someone else (in this case the victim) to another person or a group ofpeople without the victim’s consent (Spears et al., 2009). In other words, the issueof repetition in these situations is likened to the amount of times that the videos ortexts are viewed by various recipients or passed along by various bystanders(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). Consequentially, offen-sive pictures and video clips are perceived as especially devastating, due to thebreadth of audience who view these contents and the resulting psychologicalimpact that these may pose to the targets (Gillespie, 2006; Smith et al., 2008).However, there remains vagueness of clarity as to who performs the repeated acts:primary sender or the bystanders.

The traditional concepts of bullying emphasise repetition on the part of theprimary offender(s). It is acknowledged there are situations that are clearlyrepeated by the primary offender that will, in other words, classify as cyberbully-ing. However, when repetition is likened to the amount of time that the negativecontents are viewed or passed along by other people, it is suggested that perhapsthere is a need to include bystanders in this definitional analogy, as these onlineacts are viewed by bystanders and may have been videoed by them. Thus, cyber-bystanders can reinforce the harassment by passing on the information, or they cansupport the victim by devaluing the negative behaviour or simply ignoring it (Smithet al., 2008). Therefore, when we as researchers refer to a one-time act by theprimary aggressor, it may be plausible to include bystanders in the definition ofcyberbullying, due to the abovementioned ‘pass along’ nature. Research has alsoshown that the role of definition may play a part in how civil, criminal andcommon law punishment and policies could apply within cyberbullying (Bocij &McFarlane, 2003; Gillespie, 2006). Consequently, extreme cases of aggressive inter-net acts do go unpunished (Bocij & McFarlane, 2003; Gillespie, 2006; Spears, et

Definition and Concept of Cyberbullying

145 ▲

al., 2009). The definition of cyberbullying may ignore the seriousness of a particu-lar behaviour, as pointed out in happy slapping and sexting, due to the unclearconcept as to who repeatedly carries out the negative acts.

Aims of the ArticlePast and current researchers have looked at the impact of cyberbullying on stu-dents’ interrelationships both at home and in schools (Smith et al., 2008; Slonje &Smith, 2008; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). Others have examined cyberbullyingexperiences from the points of view of cyber-victims and even cyber-bullies andpractitioners (Campbell, 2005; Dooley et al., 2009; Spears et al., 2009); however,there is no empirical study that has looked at terminologies used for such negativebehaviours from the viewpoint of pupils, students and adults. The aim of thisarticle is to determine what pupils, students and adults perceive as cyberbullying;to examine the broad aspect of negative acts that occur with the use of mobilephones and the internet; and to test participants’ knowledge about cyberbullying.Definitions have focused on ‘unwanted messages’; it would be worth examiningthis further by looking at a range of negative behaviours associated with internetand mobile phone use.

It is proposed that it would be worth examining from a general perspective alayperson’s overview of this phenomenon. It is not suggested that the lay notionwould elucidate our way of defining concepts, rather that it would help practition-ers better understand the experience.

MethodologyA qualitative, interpretative approach, using purposive and convenience samplingwas employed.

ParticipantsN = 32, 8–54 years old.

Subsample 1:Primary school pupils (8–11 years old; 3 girls, 2 boys, n = 5).

Subsample 2:4 x focus groups: Secondary (11–16 yrs old, n = 15):

• Group 1: 12–15 year olds (1 boy, 2 girls). • Group 2: 11–14 year olds (3 boys, 1 girl). • Group 3: 12–16 year olds (2 boys, 2 girls). • Group 4: 11–14 year olds (2 boys, 2 girls).

Subsample 3:

Adult participants (24–54 year olds; 11 men 1 woman, n = 12).

Participants have received one or more unwanted messages or phone calls sinceowning a mobile phone and during the cause of using the internet.

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg

146▲


ProcedureEthical approval was sought from the Department of Psychology Ethics Committeeat Goldsmiths University. Permission was also sought from various school authori-ties to work with children in primary and secondary schools. Permissions from theauthorities involved were granted. Primary and secondary school participants wereselected from different schools in England. Interviews were carried out duringschool visits. Some of the participants were selected by head teachers, while somewere selected by school program coordinators. Students signed additional consentforms to give their approval for participating in the study.

The adult participants were recruited through online social networking sites‘tagged’ and ‘FaceBook’. Participants were then added as ‘buddies’ and interviewedon instant messaging Microsoft Network (MSN). This method of recruitment pro-vided participants with the opportunity to remember some of the negative acts thattake place on the internet as they are within the area of research under investiga-tion. Consequently, participants can easily be distracted and lose concentrationbecause of the absence of a face-to-face interaction. This was evident during threeof the interviews: a participant received a phone call and became unresponsive;after a reminder ‘nudge’ (a form of tone alert that a message was waiting for aresponse); he then apologised and wanted a reschedule. Another participant with-drew from the study, saying he wanted a ‘nice’ chat instead. The last of the threeparticipants withdrew from the study because he was not comfortable giving hisname as a sign of consent to participating in the study.

With the young participants, the interview atmosphere was calm and relaxing, withthe option of light refreshments. All participants were fully informed of their rights towithdraw from the study at any time if they wished to do so. They were advised toturn off their phones. Adult participants were told to close down any other messagingapplications if applicable, so as not to get distracted during interviews. They confirmedthat there were no distractions before the commencement of interviews.

Mainly open-ended questions were used, with one exception: participants wereasked whether or not they used mobile phones and the computers for internet pur-poses. The open-ended questions included: ‘What are the negative things that canhappen with people using mobile phones and the internet?’, ‘What does cyberbully-ing mean to you?’, and ‘How useful is the term “cyberbullying”?’ Participants wereprompted at appropriate times in order to encourage them to stay within theparameters of the matter under investigation.

Individual interviews were undertaken with primary school and adult partici-pants, and four focus group interviews were conducted with secondary school stu-dents. The individual interviews lasted about 20 minutes on average, and the focusgroup interviews lasted about 30 minutes each. At the end of each contact, partici-pants were thanked for contributing to the study and received help sheets regardingwhat to do and who to contact in cases of cyberbullying (see Appendix A).

AnalysesThematic analysis (Milles & Hubberman, 1994) and Interpretative Phenomenolog -ical analysis (IPA: Smith, 1995) were used for individual and focus groups inter-views. Pupils’ and students’ interviews were recorded with a digital recorder, while


147 ▲

adult participants typed out their answers on the MSN chat window. Participants’responses were typed using their own words, then the raw data were coded into sixcontent areas according to the focus of the six questions posed: whether or not par-ticipants use mobile phones and or internet, identifying the negative acts that occurin the use of mobile phones and the internet, describing and naming negative behav-iours that can occur via mobile phones and internet, what can be done about nega-tive behaviours that happen on the internet and mobile phones, the meaning of‘cyberbullying’, and whether or not ‘cyberbullying’ is a useful term. Subthemes wereextracted from the codes to build on participants’ thoughts and feelings. Themesemerged after several revisitations of coded data and subthemes. Finally, using thesethemes and participants’ cases, the phenomena under investigation was interpreted.

The purpose of these combined methods is to enquire into the general perceptionof the phenomena under investigation from participants’ own perspective, and togive a richer and deeper qualitative meaning to the study. Thus, on the one hand,thematic analyses gave an insight into the contents and themes that emerged withina cyberbullying arena; from the participants’ perspective on the other hand, IPAallowed for generalisation of cases by comparing and contrasting emerging themesand their usage by participants (Smith, 1995). The IPA also allows for implicitnessof data to be explicit (Smith, 1995).

ResultsThe themes that emerged from each research question are demonstrated in Table 1.Data were interpreted with selected cases, using similar case responses, so as toavoid repetition and ambiguity of results. Themes are in italics.

Participants Use of Internet and Mobile PhonesBasic media knowledge: All participants’ answers were in the affirmative to this ques-tion; they use both mobile phones and the internet for communication purposes.

Naming and Identifying Negative Acts that Take Place on the Internet andMobile Phones

Participants’ lists of negative behaviours were broad. These acts were described asanonymous, fraudulent, aggressive, unwanted messages, spreading rumours,hacking into people’s email accounts, threats, harassment, attacks, unwantedphone calls, malicious, abusive messages. These acts as a result of senders’ behav-iours resulted in the theme of media abuse and vulnerability. There was no age orgender difference in the way participants perceived these acts.

Media abuse and vulnerability:Boy 8: ‘Horrible things happen, they hide behind people’s identity.’Group 1: ‘They could send offensive messages to you.’Woman 24: ‘You can’t see the face of the person who you’re talking to.’Man 33: ‘Abusive messages, unwarranted texts and calls at any time of the dayand night.’Man 38: ‘Arguing by text, incessant phone calls, sending obscene phone callswithout permission.’

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg

148▲



149 ▲

Man 38: ‘Abusive texts and phone calls, threats, unwanted messages.’Man 43: ‘Personal attacks, aggressive language and threats, malicious and falseinformation being provided by others to undermine relationships.’

Describing Negative Behaviour From Participants’ PerspectiveAnger and frustration in the participants’ tone of voice were deciphered, resultingfrom the feeling of invasion of privacy. From the participants’ points of view,people tend to act in a way they would not normally do on a face-to-face basis dueto the anonymity involved. There was no age difference in participants’ feelings indescribing these negative acts. The feelings are also the same across gender.

Invasion of privacy, anger and frustration:Boy 8: ‘They are just nasty, upsetting, rude and false.’Girl 11: ‘Frustrating, hurtful, swearing … just upset the other person.’Group 4: ‘They can be described as cowards because they do not say things topeople’s faces … they act immature and inappropriate.’Woman 24: ‘Not very social behaviour … there could be chance that people canact colder than they are in real life.’Man 28: ‘It’s possibly exaggerated compared to how it would be face to face.’Man 2, 28: ‘Cruel, vindictive, and sad. It’s usually done by people with low self-esteem; cowardly … if they want to be negative they should have the decency tosay it to someone’s face rather than via a phone.’Man 29: ‘Hostile, inappropriate behaviour … people say things they wouldn’t sayto a person’s face …different personality when using remote technology.’Man 42: ‘It is criminal act and also frustrating.’Man 43: ‘I think it is fraudulent, especially when they try to steal your details fortheir own selfish purposes.’

TABLE 1

Emerging Themes for the 6 Interview Questions

Questions Themes Subthemes

Participants use of internet and Basic media knowledge Affirmation, positivemobile phones

Naming and identifying negative acts Media abuse, vulnerability Bullying, unwanted messages, attack,racism, aggressive language, hatred andintimidation, disrespectful, harassment andaggressive acts

Describing behaviours Invasion of privacy, anger, Intimidating, rude, upsetting, antisocial,frustration unreal, frustrating, cowardly, fraudulent and

intentional, bullying, selfish

Solutions to problems Control, empowerment Awareness, information, blocking, prevention,avoidance information

Meaning of cyberbullying Media knowledge, Threatening via the internet, mobile phonegeneralisation bullying, offensive written or video materials

using remote technology, downloading ofvirus

Is cyberbullying is a useful term? Restriction, vague, Inadequate, not enough, useful to someuncertainty specific cases, narrow, trendy phrase

Solution to Problems About CyberbullyingThere was agreement across all age groups that awareness needs to be raised; peoplehave to be cautious about how they share information on the internet and mobilephones. There is an element of control when participants talked about possiblethings that could be done to minimise mobile phones and aggressive behaviours onthe internet. The theme of vulnerability arose from participants’ stance in having tosuggest ‘... change mobile phones’, losing their email accounts and passwords tohacking, viruses and spam sent via the internet. There was also avoidance in thesense that participants stated how the best approach is to ignore and block peoplewho send them unwanted contents and messages. They suggested not adding peoplethey do not recognise to their email accounts, social networking groups and mobilephone contacts. This avoidance illustrates further control and empowerment fromthe participants’ viewpoint. An example of empowerment is seen where participants(Group 2) stated that there was no need to change mobile phones.

Empowerment, control and avoidance:Group 1: ‘…. speak about it … ignore the phone calls.’Group 2: ‘Inform police and report to teachers, there is no point changing mobilephones just for one person.’Group 3: ‘People should be more aware, it would reduce cyberbullying and makepeople know what bullying really is.’Man 28: ‘… raise awareness … and getting victims to tell their stories.’Man 29: ‘… very little...see the person face to face with video phone may help.’Man 43:‘ … blocking the people … use message as evidence.’Man 42: ‘… change your number.’Man 50: ‘… block them, change your number and get on with your life.’

Meaning of CyberbullyingMost of the participants understood what cyberbullying meant and where it takesplace. Younger participants seemed to know what cyberbullying represented;however, there was an age difference in the sense that three adults aged 38, 43 and54 reported not having heard of the term ‘cyberbullying’.

Media knowledge:Boy 10: ‘Fighting on the internet.’Boy 11:‘Bullying on the internet and mobile phones.’Group 2: ‘On internet forums, people can talk nasty to you, they can easily attackpersonally.’Group 4: ‘Bullying over the internet or mobile phones.’Man 29: ‘Using internet as a tool for bullying as well as phones, not just throughtexts and calls … it’s now happening through applications — you can downloadthem.’Man 38: ‘Bullying via the internet.’Man 38: ‘I don’t know what it means.’Man 43: ‘I have no idea what cyberbullying is.’Man 54: ‘Nothing, never heard of it.’

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg

150▲


Is Cyberbullying a Useful Term?Participants described how ‘cyberbullying’ identifies certain behaviours, but whenit comes to a broader account of what happens on the internet and mobile phones,it is not considered broad enough to describe these behaviours. Participants tendedto generalise negative acts as cyberbullying. Having identified what they thoughtcyberbullying stood for, some participants thought that it was not a useful term.Perhaps this is due to the broad nature of the negative acts that occur via internetand mobile phone. One would have hoped that participants would have mentionedthat the term was useful because it focused on bullying; however, the general use ofthe term may have impeded their initial response that identified what cyberbullyingstood for. These feelings were the same across age generally, and gender, amongschool children.

Vague, inadequate and restricted:Boy 11: ‘No, it is not a useful term, when you say cyberbullying, people just thinkit is only bullying it could be something else.’Group 2: ‘Not useful because it makes people think it’s the same as bullying, butmany other things are involved … it is a bit vague and too restricted they mightthink it is just bullying but also involve photos and videos.’Man 29: ‘… is a simple catch-all phrase that can be shown in headlines and newsreports which will grab people’s attention … it is only a general term … it may alsodetract from face-to-face bullying that is happening at the same time.’Man 33: ‘Some things which are against the law would still be classed as cyberbul-lying, just more severe threats to people’s welfare, child grooming.’Man 38: ‘Not very useful, it only specifies that something bad has taken place onthe phone and internet … could be a better term.’Man 50: ‘It is a trendy phrase that adds just as much as it highlights … same ashappy slapping, cyber-sabotage … on a scale of 1–10 I will say 5.’

DiscussionIt is apparent that there are various acts that take place via mobile phones andinternet beyond the scope and concept of cyberbullying, like hacking into people’saccounts, changing passwords to pose as the original owners so as to sendunwanted messages to potential victims; targeting actions of people and businesses;downloading and uploading viruses. The results suggest that various aggressiveacts can occur when people are involved with mobile phone and internet communi-cations. Some of these acts are cyberbullying, others are forms of aggressive acts,and some are neither bullying nor aggression. Nevertheless, the findings supportprevious research that describes negative internet behaviours as upsetting and psy-chologically frustrating.

Generally, it is apparent that owning a mobile phone or having a computer withinternet access creates an avenue not only for positive experiences, but can alsorender one vulnerable in the sense that having these media of communication mayallow for invasion of privacy by receiving unwanted contents and messages at anytime of the day at the whim of the perpetrator. The sense of vulnerability can be


151 ▲

linked to ‘helplessness’ in the traditional sense of bullying, where a victim is noteasily able to defend him or herself. Participants suggested that perpetrators beblocked when the perpetrating acts persist. It is acknowledged that the mediadevices used for being anonymous by the perpetrators, would fall within the func-tions menu used by the targets to block cyber-aggressors. It is apparent that partici-pants can demonstrate these functions, therefore it is emphasised that the misuse ofthese media functions by the perpetrators is ‘media abuse’ in the place of mediaexpertise. Sequentially, those who cyberbully do possess the ‘intention’ to invadeother cyber-users privacy by sending them unwanted, abusive and offensive con-tents so as to cause them to be frustrated and angered by their actions.

The questions as to what cyberbullying meant to participants, and whether ornot cyberbullying is a useful term tested participants’ knowledge of the meaning ofcyberbullying. Apparently, if participants understood that cyberbullying refers tobullying acts over the internet and mobile phones, then one would assume thatcyberbullying would be a useful term. However, participants’ responses look at thebroadness of negative acts that occur on the internet and mobile phones; hence thevagueness, restrictiveness and ambiguity as to the usefulness of the term.

Perhaps what we as researchers look at online is not just cyberbullying butalso cyber-aggression, going by the broadness of the negative acts that occurwithin these media of communication. Dooley et al. (2009) identify bullying,stalking and harassment as repeated forms of aggression. Monks et al. (2005)also describe bullying as a subdivision of aggression. Aggression is any behaviourcarried out with the intent to cause harm when the target is motivated to avoidthe behaviour (e.g., Baron & Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz, 1993; Geen, 2001). Idefine this term ‘cyber-aggression’ as intentional harm delivered by the use ofelectronic means to a person or a group of people irrespective of their age, whoperceive(s) such acts as offensive, derogatory, harmful or unwanted. My proposi-tion is that behaviours using mobile phones or the internet to carry out bullying,harassment, stalking, abuse, assault or hostility, as well as violent behaviourssuch as ‘happy slapping’, ‘outing’ and ‘flaming’ be classified under the term of‘cyber-aggression’. This definition does not focus on an imbalance of power orrepetition of the act, which may be relevant criteria for cyberbullying as men-tioned above. Instead, it is possible to include bystanders’ role in a cyber-aggres-sive environment (e.g., in cases of ‘happy slapping’) in order to give a clearconstruct for cyber-aggression.

It is acknowledged that the field of cyberbullying is a relatively new one and, assuch, research within this area has to propose a broader concept that embracesnegative behaviours of internet and mobile phone users without current cyberbully-ing definitional and conceptual issues. ‘Cyber-aggression’ describes broad negativebehaviours that may occur when people are engaged in internet behaviours. Thisterm includes repeated and unrepeated acts that are likely to cause harm to theintended recipient(s) of such message(s).

A limitation of this study was the absence of participants in the age group 17to 23 years old. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with participantsaged between 8 to 16 years and 24 to 54 years. The results may be differentwhen other age groups are used for similar studies, but central to the currentstudy were the perspectives of primary school pupils, secondary school students,

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg

152▲


and adults. It is recommended that future studies use more female participantsamong the adult samples, so as to determine whether or not there would be dif-ferences in perception of the measured phenomenon. Also, as cyber-aggression isintended to cover online activities that are not considered acts of bullying, itwould be interesting to have some data that attempts to categorise these in futureresearch. Furthermore, in terms of its methodology, the application of onlinemethods for qualitative analysis may not have the same effect that face-to-faceinterviews may have on participants in terms of the tone of prompts, probes andbody language analysis.

Following from the findings are some ideas for prevention of cyberbullying andcyber-aggression. Research on prevention and intervention of cyberbullying is at itsearly stage, therefore only few insights for empirically established measures ofreduction of aggression and bullying via internet or mobile phones exist (Menesini,2009). For example, Pfetsch, Steffgen and König (2009) highlighted that banningmobile phones at school will neither reduce the frequency of mobile phone use northe prevalence of cyberbullying inside or outside of school. Therefore, a completeban of mobile phones and internet at school will not solve the problem. However,preventive and educational measures should combine to set a functional founda-tion embedded in School Charta and Policy so as to express a zero tolerance forcyber-aggression and cyberbullying (Pfetsch, 2010). These processes should encom-pass the participation of teachers, school governors, heads of school and students,and may be supplemented by technological approaches like password protection ofschool computers and filter software for internet browsers (Pfetsch 2010).Curricular materials focusing on media literacy and cyberbullying could raiseawareness among students about the consequences of cyber-aggression and effec-tive ways to deal with it. This may also include training in media competencies andthe positive use of communication technology, like a video film project or schoolradio project (Pfetsch, 2010). Furthermore, general prevention of traditional bully-ing and aggression can help sustain specific proactive measures against cyberbully-ing — for example, fostering a positive school climate, developing prosocial classrules, and training in constructive conflict resolution (see Wilson & Lipsey, 2007,for an overview). If schools were effective in establishing a prosocial and helpingnorm system among all students, the prevalence of aggression may diminish(Pfetsch, 2010). For example, in an evaluation study of over 1000 participants, stu-dents reported significantly less passive bystanding behaviour, more cognitive andaffective empathy, and less victimisation among students. By transferring theseideas to the prevention of cyber-aggression, schools could foster cyber-civil courageof online or offline bystanders of cyberbullying and cyber-aggression. Also, peers’support for cyber-victims may be a promising way to counteract cyberbullying andcyber-aggression (Smith et al. 2008).

In general, cyber-aggression and cyberbullying are quite prevalent among chil-dren and youth (e.g., Ybarra, Diener-West & Leaf, 2007; Steffgen, Pfetsch, König& Bredemus, 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008) and all personsinvolved can be affected negatively (Gradinger, Strohmeier & Spiel, 2009; Ortega,Elipe, Mora-Merchán, Calmaestra, & Vega, 2009). Therefore, practitioners shouldnot relent in their actions against these negative human phenomenon.


153 ▲

Acknowledgment and DedicationI am grateful to the Australian Government for the joint collaboration with theCorporation of Science and Technology IS0801 (COST IS0801) without which thisstudy would not have been possible. I would like to especially thank ProfessorMarilyn Campbell of the Queensland University of Technology for her support andencouragement for the need for early researchers to establish their work within theresearch world. I dedicate this study to the commitment, hard work and a success-ful training school organised by the Australian Faculty and Chair of the COSTAction Professor Peter K. Smith of the Goldsmiths University of London; and hisVice Chair Professor Georges Steffgen of the University of Luxemburg. Finally Iwould like to show my sincere gratitude to Dr Jan Pfetsch of the Berlin Institute ofTechnology and Institute of Education in Germany for his support and insightdespite his busy schedule and family commitments.

ReferencesAnderson, C.J., & Bushman, B.J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology,

53, 27–51.Baron, R.A., & Richardson, D.R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd edition). New York: Plenum.Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression. Its causes, consequences and control. New York:

McGrath-Hill.Bocij, P., & McFarlane, L. (2003). The technology of hate. Police Journal, 76, 204.Campbell, M. A. (2005). Cyber-bullying. An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal

of Guidance and Counselling, 15, 68–76.Coyne, I., Chesney, T., Logan, B., & Madden, N. (2009). Griefing in a virtual community:

An exploration survey of second life residents. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal ofPsychology, 217(4), 214–221.

Dooley, J.J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: Atheoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology,217(4), 182–188.

Geen, R.G. (2001). Human aggression (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.Gillespie, A.A. (2006). Cyber-bullying and harassment of teenagers: The legal response.

Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 28(2), 123–136.Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying.

Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 205–213.

Krahé, B. (2001). The social psychology of aggression. Hove: Psychology Press.Menesini, E. (2009). Discussion group: Intervention and prevention strategies. COST

Action IS0801 Workshop Cyberbullying: Definition and measurement. Vilnius,Lithuania: Mykolas Romeris University, 22–23. August 2009.

Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., & Smith, P.K. (2002). Attribution of meanings to terms related tobullying: A comparison between teacher’s and pupil’s perspectives in Italy. EuropeanJournal of Psychology of Education, 17, 393–406.

Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement: Some criticalconsiderations. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 23–32.

Miles, M., & Hurberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.London, Beverley Hills.

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg

154▲



155 ▲

Monks, C.P., Smith, K.P., & Swettenham, J. (2005). Psychological correlates of peer victimi-sation in preschool: Social cognitive skills, executive function and attachment profiles.Journal of Aggressive Behaviour, 31, 571–588.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge,MA: Blackwell.

Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J.A., Calmaestra, J., & Vega1, E. (2009). The emo-tional impact on victims of traditional bullying and Cyberbullying. A study of Spanishadolescents. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 197–204.

Pfetsch, J. (2010). Zivilcourage in der Schule. Konzeption und Evaluation einesZivilcourage-Trainings zur Prävention aggressiven Verhaltens unter Schülern [Civilcourage in schools. Development and evaluation of a bystander intervention trainingfor the prevention of aggressive behaviour among students]. Doctoral dissertation,University of Luxembourg.

Pfetsch, J., Steffgen, G., & König, A. (2009, November). Banning solves the problem!?Effects of banning mobile phone use in schools on cyberbullying. Poster presentation atthe 14th Workshop Aggression, 2009, Berlin, Germany.

Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.

Smith, J.A. (1995) Qualitative Psychology: A practical guide to research methods. London:Sage.


Spears, B., Slee, P., Owens, L., & Johnson, B. (2009). Behind the scenes and screens: Insightsinto the human dimension of covert and cyberbullying. Zeitschrift fürPsychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 189-196.

Steffgen, G., Pfetsch, J., König, A., & Bredemus, L. (2009). Cyberbullying among schoolaged children in Luxembourg. Poster, Abstract in COST Action IS0801 WorkshopCyberbullying: Definition and measurement (p. 25). Vilnius, Lithuania: MykolasRomeris University Publishing Centre.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R.P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and inter-group behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.

Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative researchinto the perceptions of youngsters. Cyber Psychology & Behaviour, 11, 499–503.

Wilson, S.J., & Lipsey, M.W. (2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and disrup-tive behavior. Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,33(2S), S130–S143.

Ybarra, M.L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P.J. (2007). Examining the overlap in internetharassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal ofAdolescent Health, 41, S42–S50.

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg

156▲

Appendix A

Addressing Cyberbullying in SchoolUsing the Quality Circle Approach

Simone Paul, Peter K. Smith, and Herbert H. BlumbergGoldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom

Cyberbullying has become a significant area of concern, yet research is still at anearly stage. The Quality Circle approach allows explorative analysisof cyberbullying in school settings by identifying issues for furtherconsideration. In this study of cyberbullying in one UK secondaryschool, Quality Circle participants were required to establish a smallanti-bullying taskforce, and then with the guidance of a facilitator,embark on a problem-solving exercise over a period of time. Theprocess involves identifying key issues and prioritising concerns,analysing problems and generating solutions, through participationin a series of themed workshops. Six Quality Circle groups wereformed, and the work produced during practical activities was docu-mented and discussions recorded as evidence of emerging themes.The areas of interest regarding cyberbullying were the differing per-ceptions reported by each representative group, and collectively therange of problems and solutions identified.

■ KEYWORDS: bullying, cyberbullying, quality circles, school

‘Safeguarding’ is now at the forefront of practice standards in educational settings.In the United Kingdom the introduction of the Education Act (2002), Children Act(2004) and Every Child Matters (2005) form the basis of the statutory requirementfor all practitioners working in a supportive role to ensure the wellbeing of chil-dren and young people in their care. The five overarching Every Child Matters(ECM) aims are defined as ‘be healthy, stay safe, achieve economic well being,enjoy and achieve, and make a positive contribution’. The reduction of incidencesrelating directly to bullying is linked with two outcomes within the ECM frame-work. A prerequisite of ‘stay safe’ is that ‘children and young people are safe frombullying and discrimination’. Another detail in ‘make a positive contribution’ refersto the importance of ensuring ‘children develop positive relationships and choosenot to bully or discriminate’. Schools’ collaboration with support service providersis anchored in improving outcomes and inspectorates judging the ability of educa-tional institutions to meet these targets.

▲

Address for Correspondence: Simone Paul, Psychology Department, Unit for School & Family Studies, Goldsmiths,University of London, New Cross Gate, SE14 6NW, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]

157


Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 157–168

▲

▲ 158

Simone Paul, Peter K. Smith, and Herbert. H. Blumberg

The legal framework relating to bullying in schools places anti-bullying meas-ures at the heart of each school community (The Education and Skills Committee,2007). The School Standards and Framework Act (1998) requires school heads toactively discourage bullying behaviour specifically within the school environment,with responsibilities extended outside the school grounds to protect students fromharm. Confusion surrounds the incidence of cyberbullying, as it is not always clearthe event has taken place at school, but often involves relations in school (Smith etal. 2008). Literature has been produced as part of school guidance on cyberbully-ing that explains legal duties and powers (DCSF, 2007). A report outlining the legalframework regarding cyberbullying has also been published in response to con-cerns regarding such uncertainty (Gillespie, 2006).

CyberbullyingDifferentiating cyberbullying from traditional forms of bullying is based on thechannel through which the behaviour may arise. In this instance, the victims aretargeted using technology, primarily email and text messaging. Smith et al. (2008)identified forms of media communication where cyberbullying exists: mobile phonetechnology (text messages, voicemail, picture imaging) and the Internet (email,instant messenger, chat rooms, and websites). Cyberbullying is an event predomi-nantly occurring outside of educational settings but often relates to school-basedrelationships; one study found 57% of cyberbullying incidents originated from theschool environment and over half of these were from same class or year group(Slonje & Smith, 2008). This research also found that incidents of cyberbullyingare underreported, with almost a third of cyber victims unable to identify thesource of harassment. It is difficult to challenge such behaviour when conducted byanonymous perpetrators. Young people increasingly rely on technology to establishand maintain social networks; therefore turning off a computer or telephone is nolonger a possible solution as this removes the positive support available, as well asthe negative source of disturbance.

Quality CirclesUntil the publication of ‘Safe to Learn’ guidance (DCSF, 2007), anti-bullying prac-tice in UK schools was guided by the support pack ‘Don’t Suffer in Silence’ (DfES,2000), promoting a move towards empowering young people to participate in pre-vention and adopt a peer supportive role. The following strategies were noted assuitable with secondary school age groups:

• A curricular approach to bullying prevention enhances learning developmentconnected to elements of the national curriculum.

• Circle of Friends supports bullies or victims by offering a social network ofpeer mentors who befriend vulnerable pupils and resolve disagreements byguiding group discussions.

• The Quality Circle approach involves student groups identifying problemsand developing solutions to share with the school governing body.

Similar recommendations were also made during a review of effective action takenby secondary schools in the prevention of bullying by the Office for the Standards

▲159

Addressing Cyberbullying in School

of Education (2003). An assessment of anti-bullying interventions indicated theoverriding approach adopted was through the curriculum (literature, performingarts, and group work). The investigation also included reports of multiple methods,with 72% of secondary schools using peer mediation, 30% working with the circleof friends, and 17% using Quality Circles (Samara & Smith, 2008).

The Quality Circle (QC) approach has been established as a potential means oftackling bullying through the curriculum (Smith & Sharp, 1994). The processinvolves ongoing work passing through a series of stages, whereby representativemembers volunteer to meet as a group and identify key issues of concern.Participants are encouraged to analyse problems following a sequential process tofind possible causes and develop solutions, then formally present ideas to the man-aging body for consideration. This is considered an effective tool in promoting asense of achievement and empowerment, but can also be marked by confusion andloss of motivation; therefore a need for facilitation during the initial formationstage is necessary for a successful program.

The QC approach has been highlighted as a strategy suitable for anti-bullyingwork (DfES, 2002; OFSTED, 2003). Despite evidence as an effective method ofintervention within the teaching profession (Lovett & Gilmore, 2003), QC appearsto have been relatively neglected in tackling bullying (Samara & Smith, 2008). Thisstudy presents evidence of the QC approach in enabling explorative analysis ofcyberbullying. Problems reported during group discussions and solutions presentedthrough QC project activities were recorded and thematic analysis made.

MethodsThe primary source of information gathered was in the form of QC project ideasand work produced by students during each session. Additional consideration wasgiven to the anecdotal evidence from group discussion transcripts and commentsreported by the whole school survey. This highlighted key issues of concern bynoting responses to questions regarding bullying and cyberbullying problems.

Education SettingThis was a secondary school with academy status, educating approximately 900male and female students aged between 11 and 18 since September 2007. Theborough in which the school was located ranked as the 9th most deprived of 33 inLondon, with 80% of secondary students of non-British background, 60% speakEnglish as a second language, and 36% eligible for free school meals; thesesocioeconomic indicators are also representative of the student population in theschool studied.

The school is part of a new educational enterprise that engages in positive use oftechnology to promote prosocial behaviour, using a computerised database forreporting student conduct and performance and an online electronic rewardscheme for pupil behaviour modification. The student population is divided verti-cally to incorporate all the year groups into three houses. This enables students todevelop a sense of identity, include a wider age range in their social networks, andstrengthen peer-support systems. Students follow an integrated curriculum with


▲ 160


overarching themes of Community and Communication in Year Seven, GlobalCitizenship in Year 8, and Business Enterprise in Year 9. Students develop thethemes by engaging in cross-curricular activities combining a range of learningstyles during ‘topic’ tutorial lessons as well as core curriculum subjects.

The school Preventing Bullying Policy incorporates a joint approach with seniorstaff, parents and students by conducting ‘no blame’ interviews, or holding discus-sions that follow a method of ‘shared concern’ involving the bully, victim andbystanders. Whole-school initiatives encourage information sharing, and curricularactivities are incorporated into themed ‘topic’ tutorials or themed assemblies.Preventative strategies include protected spaces for vulnerable students, monitoringbehaviour during lunch, break time and after school patrols. Cyberbullying andracial harassment are both acknowledged as distinct from general bullying and ofnoteworthy concern as they are difficult to detect and, in particular, racism requiresa different response guided by the Racial Equality Policy.

ParticipantsA total of 32 students from Year 7 (n = 5, mean age 11.5), Year 8 (n = 20, meanage 12.5) and Year 9 (n = 7, mean age 13.5) were selected by the school head asbenefiting from participation in this study and permitted to attend sessions heldduring personal tutorial lessons. Participants were assigned by school year groupand allocated a regular QC session where class timetables permitted. There were 6QC groups, each selected a name to define the group identity; one Y7 QC called‘WAC’ had five students (one female, four male) from three different classes. Eachof the four Y8 QC groups had students from the same class; Purple HAZL (fourmales), Yungah Goonz (five males), Brite Starz (four males), and AnonymousSpeakers (three female, four male). One Y9 QC called ‘Special MNAMInternational People’ had seven students (two female, five male) from three sepa-rate classes.

ProcedureThe activities developed for the 12-week program were adapted from publishedmaterials and recommended guidelines (Smith & Sharp, 1994). The initial stage ofmanaging the formation of groups was completed in the first week; the five stagesof problem-solving were followed in successive weeks. Once a solution had takenthe form of an approved project proposal, completion work was planned for afurther six weeks. An outline of the agenda for each hour-long meeting is sum-marised as follows:

• Week 1: Introduction and Discussion (information session and recorded dis-cussion about bullying and cyberbullying)

• Week 2: Problem Identification (Students collect information from a range ofsources by conducting a whole school survey)

• Week 3: Problem Analysis (students develop thought shower of initial ideasfor the possible solutions)

• Week 4: Solution Formation (students complete a school opinion poll andcollect votes for their ideas)

▲161


• Week 5: Presentation Preparation (students prepare a group video for seniorteaching staff to view)

• Week 6: Presentation Delivery (students hear the panel decision to reject,consider or approve project idea)

• Week 7: Project Planning (all members of the group collaborate on theproject as a combined effort)

• Week 8: Project Preparation (group organise practical aspects, developresources, and design materials)

• Week 9: Project Delivery (group undertake initial stages of project idea andcomplete ongoing work)

• Week 10: Project Assessment (group review progress on project, compileinformation gained and analyse problems)

• Week 11: Class Presentation (group prepares a script about project work todeliver during lesson time to student peers)

• Week 12: Presentation Delivery (complete class presentation, group debriefand evaluation of participation in Quality Circles).

ResultsAn overview of project work is provided, along with themes identified throughgroup discussions and school survey. Detailed information about each QC isaddressed in the case studies, including a summary of group membership alongwith highlights of group discussions and project proposals.

Project ProposalsEach group was directed to produce three project proposals for consideration andthen collect votes for the most popular idea from other students and teachers. TheAnti-Bullying theme was introduced to identify solutions for general bullying orcyberbullying, and an additional project to combat antisocial behaviour. In total,four cyberbullying projects and two ideas on antisocial behaviour and bullyingwere introduced. Quality Circle project proposals and final approved ideas are pro-vided below.

• Y7: WAC identified three project ideas: create a private room for victims,bullies and parents (to solve general bullying problems), design a mail boxfor students to report problems (to combat cyberbullying), and organise anew lunch time queue system in the canteen (to help prevent antisocialbehaviour). The final selected proposal was the solution for cyberbullying;to design a bully mailbox.

• Y8: Anonymous Speakers identified three project ideas: create a verbal bul-lying dictionary (bullying), run a bully club helping victims and bullies


▲ 162


(cyberbullying), and design a hat to identify bullies (antisocial behaviour).The final proposal was for general bullying; a dictionary of cussing words.

• Y8: Purple HAZL identified three project ideas: teach the teachers about themeaning of verbal bullying words (bullying), set up IT support for studentsto pass on emails (cyberbullying), and run a student investigation team forbullying incidents (antisocial behaviour). The final selected proposal was forcyberbullying; to set up a student support email account.

• Y8: Yungah Goonz produced one project idea on cyberbullying — a studentsurvey on prank calling.

• Y8: Brite Starz presented a proposal addressing antisocial behaviour — afriendship themed film club.

• Y9: Special MNAM International People identified three project ideas: makean educational film (bullying), conduct an undercover report (cyberbully-ing), and design a hall monitor rota (antisocial behaviour). The final selectedproposal was for cyberbullying to compile a student report.

Student PerspectiveNotable information obtained from recorded group discussions (five transcriptslasting approximately 30 minutes each) and whole school survey (21 respondents)reflected a similar perspective and incorporated into a general overview below. Insubsequent results sections the anecdotal evidence collected from each QC groupwork will be provided and presented in the form of individual case studies. Eachsummarise qualitative information obtained during the initial problem analysisstage and the process involved in completing the solution formation and projectplanning stages.

With regard to general bullying, the overwhelming response noted was of verbalbullying. Students casually rely on racist, homophobic, sexually explicit or offen-sive language to communicate with each other. ‘Cussing matches’ are a regularoccurrence with insulting remarks most commonly relating to cultural heritage orphysical appearance. This event is generally tolerated by the students and not nec-essarily considered as bullying; the teachers are typically unaware of this due to therange of slang words being used. This activity is often initiated as an attempt tointroduce humour but will frequently escalate and other methods of bullyingbecome evident such as physical (to conclude) or cyber forms (to prolong the argu-ment). Cussing is not necessarily considered a form of bullying but instead as aplatform for promoting other forms of bullying and therefore identified as aproblem for the students.

The greatest cause for concern with regard to cyberbullying was hacking intoand misusing personal computer accounts or mobile phone records. The popularityof instant messaging picture images is a cost-free communication available throughBluetooth on mobile phones. A growing problem was reported whereby hackingdevices activate mobile phone handsets to cause unnecessary distress to others ordisruption to learning in class, with the owner powerless to prevent this. Thegeneral attitude towards cyberbullying is light-hearted and taken with goodhumour by the recipients; harassment through this method is not necessarily

▲163


regarded as bullying by students. Abusive emails are frequently sent via the schoolcomputer system; students consider this to be more of a nuisance than bullying.‘Prank calling’ is perceived as an amusing activity to prevent boredom and therecipients react more with anger rather than fear. Sending videos and pictureimages are of huge entertainment value during the school day; participation in thisactivity is rife and few consider themselves victims.

QC Case StudiesCollectively, QC groups suggested the school consider introducing the followingideas: security spot checks, bag searches and handheld metal detectors, classroomsscanned to detect activated Bluetooth devices, a free phone number for offensive textmessages to be passed on, themed school assemblies and lessons run by students,lunchtime and after school activities for bullies and victims to attend together, safeplaces for vulnerable students and private areas for distressed students.

WAC. The youngest group initially presented challenging behaviour but quicklygained enthusiasm and engaged in self-directed learning. As part of the discussionabout general bullying issues, the group considered physical fighting to be the mostcommon form, this was thought to happen most often at lunch because the systemin place causes long wait times, resulting in aggressive pushing and shoving. Duringthe discussion about cyberbullying problems, students revealed mobile phones areused most often to send threatening messages and hurt emotions. The reasons werebelieved to be different for prank calls (‘Wind people up, to be funny or cause psy-chological damage’), text messages (‘Don’t want to fight but want to get at theperson’, ‘Bit scared and don’t want to get in trouble’), and Video Imaging(‘Humiliate the person to show that they are weak and prove it to other people’).When deciding on the final project proposal, students made preparations forchanging the lunch line and were very excited to put this idea into place, withdetailed plans drawn up. After completing the school opinion poll they began towork on the idea with the most votes: a room with privacy for distressed studentsto compose themselves. As the structure of the program only permitted a setnumber of sessions to complete work, this limited the potential for these ideas tobe realised and instead the students changed the agreed project for the more man-ageable option of designing bully boxes. Each student created one mailbox, to bemade available for everybody in the academy to report problems and concernsanonymously and confidentially.

Anonymous Speakers. The largest group from the same class required continuousautocratic leadership, direction and motivation. QC interactions were marked byconstant bickering and competition for power, thus hampering progress in com-pleting final project work. As part of a group discussion about general bullyingissues, verbal bullying was believed to be most common ‘because teachers don’tunderstand the slang words so students can get away with cussing each other’ andracism in the academy is considered to be caused by ‘the different nationalities inLondon all inside the school building’ and ‘the uniform makes every one wear thesame clothes so people look at other things like appearance’. During the group dis-cussion about cyberbullying problems, students revealed text messaging andpicture imaging happens most often because it is cheap or free depending on the


▲ 164


mobile phone contract. Text messages are sent at break times when students canmove around the school and get reception, pictures are often taken when studentsare unaware and images are sent to cause ridicule. When deciding on the final projectproposal, the group collected most votes for the bully club and even gained supportfrom teachers willing to volunteer time to run this with students. The QC groupbelieved this idea was being piloted already in school and felt that addressing racisminstead would deal with the matter of greatest concern in the school community. Theindividual group members broke into smaller pairs to take on parts of the anti-bully-ing booklet and produced different sections including; a glossary of terms used incussing and racist words, two stories about racist bullying, a case study report aboutvictims of racist bullying in the academy, and information about verbal bullying inschool from peer group surveys detailing responses from over 60 students.

Purple HAZL. These students developed a cooperative approach to workingtogether, despite the suspension of one member; they adjusted and overcame thetemporary disruption. The group also responded well to facilitation and requiredlittle motivation to complete work independently. As part of the discussion aboutgeneral bullying issues, students identified the main problem was verbal bullying,such as stirring and gossiping, cussing and racism. The group believe students dothis to prevent boredom, to have fun and be entertained. This happens when theteacher is not in the class but will still occur if learning support or supply teachersare present, and when outside for free time. It can ‘get serious and out of control’ alot of the time when onlookers are ‘bigging up’ the situation and this can also leadto physical fights. During the group discussion about cyberbullying problems, stu-dents considered email to be the most popular method, used mostly for gossiping,hacking, cussing, sending nasty pictures, rude web links or viruses. This can be forfun, to start fights by ‘mixing things up’, to annoy or embarrass someone, and forretaliation ‘if the student is scared of the person because they are bigger or older andthey can’t be caught’. The student email support team was selected in response to thereported need of the general student population. The QC group began investigatingthe problem by interviewing the IT department, to discover that no abusive filterexists and no designated member of staff monitored student emails for inappropriatecontent. The group set up an anonymous inbox whereby students could forwardemails to this designated account for peer review and reporting to senior staff.

Brite Starz. A group consisting of strong independent characters from the sameclass, these students responded best to facilitator guidance instead of leadership.The students agreed to participate but declined to engage in many of the activitiesand instead selected one solution for top-down analysis. Students declined to par-ticipate in the recorded group discussion activity about general bullying issues andcyberbullying problems. Instead students reported concerns about knife crime andthe pressure to join gangs. They believed this was a problem because young peopleare bored, so they hang around outside and get involved in the wrong friendshipgroups. They then feel under pressure to get respect by fighting other gangs andthey carry knives to feel safe and protect themselves from other gang members.Students designed a survey to find out more about why people carry knives anddecided that the way to reduce knife crime is to get people off the streets, awayfrom the gangs and encourage friendships by holding free time activities. The film

▲165


club was invented to educate young people on negative impact of crime andencourage positive relationships. The group produced posters advertising thelunchtime film club for students. The films selected were appropriate for the agegroup and were screened during lunchtime.

Yungah Goonz. This was a well-established friendship group from the same class, self-motivating and readily engaged in task completion, without the explicit direction ofthe facilitator. These students required little guidance after group commitment to par-ticipation was initially challenged. As part of group discussion about general bullyingissues, physical bullying was thought to be the most common activity resulting fromconfrontation and the need to gain respect. Interestingly, verbal bullying also seemedto act as a catalyst, whereby a cussing match that began as ‘something funny’ then‘goes too far and gets personal’. This can happen in the playground (especially in thelunch line), classroom and areas in the school building (e.g., staircase, corridors, ortoilets) and even if broken up will continue at a later date for students to save face.The discussion about cyberbullying problems revealed a more common activity wassending picture images and videos from mobiles via MSN. This can be for entertain-ment (spread across social groups to ridicule and laugh at a victim), for ‘talking up’‘hyping’ and saving face, or to scare and frighten someone. Sending images via MSNgets noticed more than text messages and also attaches credit to the sender ‘peopleget respect for knowing the sender and this stops other people getting rude to them’.When deciding on the final project proposal, students opted to conduct a studentsurvey on prank calling. The group developed a questionnaire about prank calling,which they handed out to 30 students. A third of respondents said they had beenprank-called in the past, and the typical reported response to this was anger; a thirdalso admitted to prank calling someone for fun because they were bored. The mainsource of information for obtaining a number to prank call was through social net-working sites, mutual friends, or hacking into personal details held on schoolrecords.

Special MNAM International People. The oldest group and the largest number fromdifferent classes, this presented problems during formation, but the maturity ofgroup members prevailed. Timetabling also disrupted QC meetings on a regularbasis, yet project work was partially completed despite this setback. As part of thediscussion about general bullying issues, verbal bullying was revealed as the mainproblem. Cussing occurs because ‘students are bored and have nothing better todo’, ‘they want to show off and be funny’, ‘they are angry or have problems athome’ and ‘want to make themselves feel better by taking it out on other people’.During the group discussion about cyberbullying, MSN Instant Messenger wasconsidered to be the most popular way of ‘stirring up trouble’ by copying peopleinto gossip conversations to spread nasty lies or rumours: ‘Students want to starttrouble because they are bored and want excitement, they might be scared to do itface to face and chose this bullying method because it is faster’. When deciding onthe final project proposal, the group collected most votes for the undercover reporton bullying. Questions were developed for student interviews with voices recodedto protect anonymity. The interviews were to be typed up and presented in anundercover report-style information leaflet to help educate everyone in school


▲ 166


about the problems of cyberbullying. Unfortunately, the group was unable to fullycomplete this project in the time available.

DiscussionQualitative information was gathered regarding general bullying, cyberbullyingand antisocial behaviour in school. Information was collected from a range ofsources incorporating the examination of evidence for themes emerging duringrecorded group discussions, problems identified by the whole school survey, andthe solutions presented by QC project ideas. A summary is presented for the effec-tiveness of QC methodology as measured by the impact of intervention for QCparticipants and the forms of antisocial behaviour in school with particular refer-ence to characteristics of cyberbullying.

Quality CirclesThe feedback from staff and students regarding the impact of this approach onthe school community was positive and encouraging, although preventativemeasures require a more educational aspect to inform teachers of the point in acussing situation where verbal bullying begins to take place and when escalationto other forms may arise. In addition, the possible reduction of cyberbullyingmay occur through peer education about the lasting negative impact these activi-ties may have on the victims.

The influence of this work on participants themselves was assessed through adatabase of student behaviour records. Analysis of incidents logged by teachingstaff indicated an overall reduction in the number of negative reports and increasein positive reports during the time since students commenced participation in theprogram. An interesting pattern emerged within each group; the most notablechange was evident in Y8 groups sharing an increase in positive behaviour records,and a slight positive change in Y7 and Y9, demonstrating the opposite, with anincrease in negative behaviour reports. The general improvement in behaviourmight be a naturally occurring change and not attributed to participation butremains a noteworthy finding worth further exploration in future research.

Each group and the individual members presented a unique set of challenges andpotential learning opportunities. Establishing and maintaining QC groups provedto be most demanding, although once project ideas had taken form, students wereable to self motivate and undertake project work with minimal facilitator contribu-tion. The level of involvement required for this method of investigation highlightsthe need for a standardised approach to ensure the direction of QC projects are notunwittingly influenced by experimenter bias when working with impressionableyoung people.

CyberbullyingOverall findings about general bullying in the academy based on informationreported by QC groups is that of verbal bullying in the form of ‘cussing’, namelyinsulting remarks, frequently with racial undertones. Cyberbullying appears to takethe form of activities enabled through use of Bluetooth as a convenient method ofsharing inappropriate picture or video images. Another opportunistic activity

▲167


accessed through Bluetooth is the hacking of mobile phone devices; it is alsocommon for school computer email accounts to be hacked into. The general atti-tude among the student population was one of amusement prior to the situationescalating out of control and a serious incident taking place.

Hacking incidents often arise and fights erupt with angry recipients con-fronting an unwitting owner unable to assert their innocence when their mobilenetwork or email account has been anonymously abused. This form of behaviourappears to provide a link between traditional bullying and cyberbullying,whereby relational problems occurring inside school are maintained by usingtechnology outside of school and incidents initially occurring online often emergeon return to school. This is a difficult problem for school staff to address, espe-cially with regard to prevention; attempts to monitor such forms of communica-tion on school grounds by limiting the opportunity for hacking of mobiles andemail accounts presents a possible solution. The reluctance of students to informand share knowledge means the school remains unaware and unprepared for thechanging nature of cyberbullying, therefore the most effective approach would beone involving the students themselves.

The anti-bullying ideas generated by group work and solutions to cyberbullyingin the form of project proposals were similar in approach. With the exception ofthe student email support team suggested by one Y8 group, QC ideas for bullying(such as the information booklet, teacher training, educational film, and studentquestionnaire) and cyberbullying (such as the mail box, bully club, student surveyand undercover report) appeared to be interchangeable. It was difficult to differen-tiate between ideas for the themed projects, and the groups struggled to adopt anew approach. It would appear the need for creating new ideas for preventing theemerging problem of cyberbullying is not considered necessary; students were ableto articulate the reasoning behind relying on similar solutions is that bullying,cyberbullying and anti-social behaviour are all relational problems relevant toschool life.

ConclusionThe work contributes to the existing body of knowledge by presenting qualitativeevidence collected from research in education. The QC approach allows explorativeanalysis of emerging themes reported by students themselves, providing a favourablesource of information. The evidence amassed as part of group discussions andproject activities, although largely anecdotal and subjective, also provides encourag-ing support. This asserts the adequacy of the approach to anti-bullying work anddemonstrates the value of QC when exploring cyberbullying in educational settings.

On reflection, the syllabus adopted by the school may have unduly prepared stu-dents for engaging in QC group work; the unique approach learning undertaken byacademy students is not shared by other schools following the UK NationalCurriculum. This aspect may have primed participants and influenced the respon-siveness to this program, permitting more favourable results rich in content, andreplication may not be possible in education settings adopting more traditionalschooling methods.


▲ 168


Managing the initial stages of the QC process was essential for establishing thesolution-focused approach; similarly, maintaining a positive focus required contin-ued guidance and group mediation. Conversely, the student-led proposals relatingto anti-social behaviour in school produced a wider range of new ideas and alterna-tives (creating an alternative lunchtime queue system, designing a bully hat to iden-tify bullies and victims, introducing a new break time, hall monitor rota). Thisnon-directional approach, allowing students a free choice in developing plans,demonstrates how anti-bullying QC groups can differ considerably and requiresfurther consideration in analysis, but the possibility of results varying quite drasti-cally among schools presents limitations for future comparative studies.

The study also responds to recommended guidance on cyberbullying (DCSF, 2007).One approach outlined in the framework of preventative actions is promoting anunderstanding of cyberbullying through activities similar to that of the QC approach.Group project ideas also contribute to the requirement for schools to make reportingcyberbullying easier and promote positive use of technology. The future direction ofresearch will incorporate additional guidelines and evaluate prevention activities aswell as update existing practices and policies adopted in education.

ReferencesDepartment for Children, Schools and Families. (2007). Safe to learn: Embedding anti-bul-

lying work in schools (Cyberbullying Guidance). Nottingham, UK: DCSF Publications.Department for Education and Skills. (2000). Don’t suffer in silence: An anti-bullying pack

for schools. London: The Stationery Office.Department for Education and Skills. (2002). Don’t suffer in silence: An anti-bullying pack

for schools. London: Author.Department for Education and Skills. (2004). Every child matters: Change for children.

Norwich: The Stationery Office.Gillespie, A.A. (2006). Cyber-bullying and harassment of teenagers: The legal response.

Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law. 28, 123–136.House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. (2007). Bullying: Third Report of

Session 2006–2007. London: The Stationery Office.Hutchins, D.C. (1985). The Quality Circles handbook. New York: Pitman Press.Lovett, A., & Gilmore, S. (2003). Teachers learning journeys: The Quality Learning Circle

as a model of professional development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,14, 189–211.

Office for Standards in Education. (2003). Bullying: Effective action in secondary schools.London: Author.

Samara, M., & Smith, P.K. (2008). How schools tackle bullying, and the use of wholeschool policies: Changes over the last decade. Educational Psychology, 28, 663–676.

Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.

Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry. 49, 376–385.

Smith, P.K., & Sharp, S. (1994). Tackling bullying in your school: Practical handbook forteachers. London: Routledge.

Sweeting, H., & West, P. (2001). Being different: Correlates of the experience of teasing andbullying at age 11. Research Papers in Education, 16, 225–246.

169 ▲

Address for Correspondence: Thomas Jäger, Zentrum für empirische pädagogische Forschung, University ofKoblenz-Landau; Bürgerstrasse 23, 76259 Landau, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]

Analysis of Experts’ and Trainers’Views on Cyberbullying

Thomas Jäger,1 João Amado,2 Armanda Matos2 and Teresa Pessoa2

1 Zentrum für empirische pädagogische Forschung, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany2 Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Partners from nine European countries developed a cyberbullying training manualfor the benefit of trainers working with parents, school staff andyoung people.1 The development of the training manual built on atwo-level qualitative research process that combined elements of theDelphi method and online focus groups. The two studies outlined inthis article aimed to assess trainers’ and experts’ views on theproblem of cyberbullying while also gathering insight in relation totheir preferences in terms of a training manual. This article outlinesthe main outcomes of a content analysis of experts’ and trainers’views. According to experts and trainers, the sources of cyberbully-ing were specifically related to new technical developments and newpatterns of usage, a lack of media literacy and media education, andthe lack of appropriate laws, control and reporting mechanisms.Approaches for tackling cyberbullying suggested by experts andtrainers included the provision of enhanced information on ICT ande-safety, adequate rules, monitoring mechanisms and sanctions.Furthermore a range of approaches targeting children and youngpeople, parents and other adults, schools as well as approaches runby authorities and IT providers were suggested. In terms of the ele-ments and style of a training manual, experts and trainers empha-sised that it should be practically oriented, and that elements likenarratives, case examples or video clips would be vital for the imple-mentation of training.

■ KEYWORDS: cyberbullying, training manual, qualitative, online focus group

In recent years the internet and communication technologies (ICT) have had anincreasingly important impact on our everyday life. Today, approximately 52% ofthe European population is online. For young people in Europe aged 6 to 17 years,internet use is even higher, with an average rate of 75% (Livingstone & Haddon,2009). Also, cell phone use has increased. In 1996, just seven mobile phone lineswere available per 100 inhabitants, 10 years later this figure had risen to 106 linesper 100 inhabitants (EuroStat, 2010).


Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 169–181

▲

Despite the numerous benefits of ICT, rapid and constant development hascreated a number of rather negative side effects. One of these is the problem ofcyberbullying. According to one widely used definition, cyberbullying is an ‘aggres-sive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms ofcontact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him orherself’ (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376).

While some researchers suggest that cyberbullying is simply an electronic formof traditional bullying (Kowalski, Limber, & Agaston, 2008), there are indicationsthat it is a rather new, distinct phenomenon. However, one factor that makes cyber-bullying ‘hard to grasp’ is its complexity. For instance, following Willard’s widelyused taxonomy (2005, 2006) cyberbullying can take different forms, includingflaming, harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing and trickery, exclusion,and cyberstalking. Another popular classification relates to the media channelsused by perpetrators — for example, with phone-call bullying, text-message bully-ing, picture/videoclip-bullying when using mobile phones, email bullying, bullyingthrough instant messaging, bullying via websites, chatroom bullying, and bullyingvia social networking sites and virtual worlds (Smith, in press; Smith, Mahdavi,Carvalho, & Tippett, 2006).

In spite of a number of overlaps with traditional bullying, there are aspects thatare unique to cyberbullying. For instance, perpetrators often can conceal their iden-tity and stay anonymous. Also, cyberbullying transcends the boundaries of timeand space; it can occur 24 hours a day at any time of the day or night, and it is notrestricted to places such as a school, but can occur anywhere (Hinduja & Patchin,2008; Smith et al., 2008; Willard, 2005).

In recent years, a number of studies have examined the prevalence of cyberbully-ing in different countries around the globe. Interestingly, the studies suggest thatthe frequency of cyberbullying varies considerably, both from country to countryand from study to study within the same country. This does not necessarily meanthat the prevalence of cyberbullying indeed varies considerably from country tocountry but could also be an effect of differing cyberbullying definitions, measure-ment methods and analytical strategies, samples and other factors (Gradinger,Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2010). One of the few studies that provides a transnationaloverview of cyberbullying in Europe showed that 29% of the young people consid-ered themselves victims of cyberbullying (Microsoft, 2009).

Although the number of studies and research programs on cyberbullying hasincreased significantly in recent years, cyberbullying is still a relatively young fieldof research. To a wide extent, cyberbullying developed from previous research pro-grams on traditional bullying, especially on bullying in schools (Smith, in press). InEurope, due to the efforts of the Safer Internet Programme co-funded by theEuropean Union, a big proportion of the rather practical-oriented work such as thecreation of resources and training modules has been done by experts on ICT andinternet safety. For this reason, most of the resources available provide well-founded information on ICT; however, they often do not consider the vast knowl-edge from academic research on traditional school bullying.

The CyberTraining project aims to bridge this gap by providing a trainingmanual that builds on well-grounded research outcomes on cyberbullying as wellon the expertise of project partners that have been key actors in several European


170▲


research programmes on traditional school bullying. The two studies we present inthis article were part of the CyberTraining project’s first research-based phase thataimed to explore and analyse experts’ and trainers’ views and experiences in rela-tion to cyberbullying.

The CyberTraining ProjectThe two qualitative studies presented in this article were part of the CyberTrainingproject.2 The project was co-funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of theEuropean Commission and is a cooperative project of school bullying researchersfrom Germany, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom and experts onICT and internet culture from Switzerland, Norway and Bulgaria. It aims todevelop a training manual on cyberbullying that provides trainers with clear guid-ance, support and resources. The training manual primarily addresses trainersworking with schools, parents and young people affected by/or dealing with cyber-bullying on various levels and aims to be both practical-oriented and well-grounded in the latest research findings on cyberbullying. The research-basedinformation, the activities and resources provided in the training manual’s modulesaim to convey background information and skills that help parents, school staffand young people in understanding the nature of cyberbullying, recognising cyber-bullying, coping with incidents and supporting young people who report havingbeen victimised, as well as learning more about preventive measures.

The training manual addresses a rather broad scope of trainers. As mentionedabove, cyberbullying blurs the boundaries between the formerly separated fields,‘traditional school bullying’ and ‘ICT and internet safety’. Moreover, in differentEuropean countries there are differing understandings, concepts and traditions interms of the professional profile of trainers. In order to do justice to the broadscope of trainers dealing with cyberbullying in different European countries, theCyberTraining project chose a rather pragmatic approach saying that the trainingmanual addresses professionals providing training for parents, school staff andyoung people in the field of cyberbullying. In order to do justice to the needs torather inexperienced trainers, the manual also introduces basic training principlesand strategies.

By autumn 2010 the training manual will be made available in form of an eBookin English, Spanish, Portuguese, German and Bulgarian. The creation of the train-ing manual builds on an initial research-oriented phase. In order to ensure that thetraining manual meets the needs of trainers, the project emphasises the value ofinvolving its target group — trainers working with parents, school staff and youngpeople as well as experts — in the process of developing the manual, by means ofassessing their training needs, interests, suggestions and preferences.

MethodThe method applied for the initial research-oriented phase of the CyberTrainingproject combines elements of the Delphi technique (Hsu & Sandford, 2007;

Experts’ and Trainers’ Views on Cyberbullying

171 ▲

Linston & Turroff, 1975) alphabetic by first author always and online focusgroups (Kitzinger, 1994; Rezabek, 2000) in a two-level qualitative questioningprocess. After an initial Delphi-style online questioning of trainers and experts,selected outcomes of a content analysis of trainers’ and experts’ answers weredeepened in two online focus groups.

ParticipantsExperts’ Questioning and Online Focus Group

A selection of experts were invited for the initial online questioning based on aninternal classification system that aimed to reflect different professional back-grounds and thus also different perspectives on the cyberbullying problem. Apartfrom researchers, the classification system included representatives of web sites onschool bullying and cyberbullying, teachers, representatives of companies dealing withnew technologies, representatives of projects, initiatives dealing with internet safety,youth protection coordinators, lawyers and legal experts, counsellors, mediators andtherapists, policy-makers, ICT experts and online educators and representatives ofregional or national anti-bullying networks, organisations, initiatives, campaigns.

One hundred and twenty-two experts were selected from all categories outlinedabove were invited for the experts’ questioning. The experts’ questionnaire wascompleted by 41 experts. The majority of experts were from Europe with expertscoming from the UK (n = 10), Germany (n = 5), Greece (n = 3), Belgium,Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal (n = 2), Austria, the Czech Republic,Denmark, Spain, Finland, Ireland, Latvia and the Netherlands (n = 1). Moreover,the questionnaire was completed by experts from Australia (n = 2), the UnitedStates (n = 2) and Japan (n = 1). In terms of their professional background, thepredominant group of experts were researchers (n = 17), representatives fromregional or national anti-bullying networks, organisations, initiatives, campaigns,and so on (n = 8) and representatives of a project or initiative dealing with Internetsafety (n = 4).

Trainers’ Questioning and Online Focus Group The trainers were selected on basis of an internal classification system based onqueries in each of the partner countries. The three main categories included ICTtrainers (e.g., trainers working for IT companies, trainers working for the nationalInternet safety initiatives), research and training centres (e.g., trainers with a back-ground in traditional school bullying, trainers working in teacher training centres)and police and legal experts. From each of these main groups trainers were invitedto complete the online questionnaire.

From the 121 trainers invited to participate, 55 completed the trainers’ question-naire. Again, the majority of trainers were from Europe, with experts coming fromPortugal (n = 21), Switzerland (n = 12), Ireland (n = 7) and Spain (n = 5), Bulgaria(n = 4) and Brazil (n = 2), Germany (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), France (n = 1) and theUnited States (n = 1). In terms of their professional profile, the predominantgroups were trainers from research and training centres (21), school staff such asteachers or counsellors (17) and trainers dealing with information and communica-tion technologies (ICT) and Internet safety (7).


172▲


All in all, 25 experts of the 41 who previously completed the experts’ question-naire participated actively at the discussions of the online focus group, with 149postings. Another 10 experts logged in and followed the discussions withoutactively contributing to the discussions. From the group of 55 trainers who com-pleted the trainers’ questionnaire, 13 contributed actively to the online discussions.

Measures and ProcedureQuestionings of Experts and Trainers

In Phase 1 of the information-gathering process selected experts and trainers wereasked to fill in a short questionnaire. The questionnaire for experts consisted offive open questions, the questionnaire for trainers of seven questions. The ques-tions in both questionnaires resulted from an internal discussion process betweenthe partners from the CyberTraining project and varied slightly in terms of theirthematic focus. While the focus of the experts’ questioning was on the sources ofcyberbullying, approaches tackling cyberbullying, and future perspectives, thetrainers’ questionnaire focused on information and skills needed by trainers to dealwith cyberbullying, the kind of resources needed for a training manual on cyber-bullying, and the challenges trainers face when dealing with cyberbullying. Thequestionnaires asked for the issues and elements a training manual on cyberbully-ing should cover. Both questionnaires were made available online.

Both the experts’ and trainers’ answers were categorised and analysed by meansof a content analysis. The first step of the content analysis aimed to develop asystem of overall categories. As most answers consisted of several ‘sub-answers’, eachanswer was spilt up into single content units. These content units were coded and allo-cated to the overall categories that were refined during the analytical process. Whilethe content analysis of the experts’ questioning was supported by the MAXQDAtext analysis software, the content analysis of the trainers’ questioning was carriedout manually, without the support of content analysis software.

Online Focus GroupsThe outcomes of the content analysis were summarized in short reports thatformed the starting point for deepening selected topics in Phase 2 of the informa-tion-gathering process, the subsequent moderated online focus group for expertsand the parallel online focus group for trainers.

The online discussions were held in asynchronous online discussion forumswithin a Moodle learning environment. The moderated discussion forums wereopen for a period of four weeks. All discussions were moderated; interim outcomesas well the final outcomes and conclusions of the discussions were summarised andreported back to the participants within each discussion thread. Again, the postingsthat were made in the course of the online discussions from the online focus groupof experts were analysed by means of a content analysis.

ResultsIn this section we present selected categories that resulted from the content analysisof answers from the experts’ questionnaires and online focus groups.


173 ▲


174▲

As mentioned previously, the thematic focus of both questionnaires and onlinefocus groups differed. This was partly due to the research interests of theCyberTraining partners. However, the weight of certain topics also resulted fromthe outcomes of the initial online questionings as well as from the course of the dis-cussions and participants’ interests in the two online focus groups.

Outcomes of the Experts’ Questionnaire and Online Focus GroupFor each of the overall categories that resulted from the content analysis of experts’answers to the questionnaire and the subsequent online discussion, we will providean overview in form of tables. The figures in brackets indicate the frequency ofcontent units within each category and subcategory. Due to space restrictions wecannot present all outcomes in detail.3

The Sources of CyberbullyingThe outcomes outlined below relate to the question ‘What factors promote theemergence/development of cyberbullying?’ of the experts’ questionnaire and thediscussion of selected outcomes within the experts’ online focus group. Table 1gives an overview of all categories and subcategories that resulted from the contentanalysis.

As cyberbullying has been influenced by the rapid development of ICT in thepast decade, it is not surprising that experts account for one source of cyberbully-

TABLE 1

The Sources Of Cyberbullying: Experts’ Questionnaire and Online Focus Group

Overall categories Subcategories

New technical developments and new ) Technological advances (14)patterns of usage (37 Easy and wide access (13)

New patterns of ICT usage (10)

Characteristics of ICT that promote cyberbullying (23) Sense of anonymity (12)Wider audience (5)Lack of direct feedback by pupils (4)Unreal character of ICT (2)

Motivating factors for bullies (34) Sense of anonymity and safety (9)New possibilities due to enhanced technology (6)Lack of rules, control and consequences (4)Lack of direct feedback by pupils (4)Lower threshold (3)Others factors within bullies (8)

Lack of knowledge and education (35) Lack of knowledge and strategies (27)Lack of awareness (8)Lack of discussion (2)Lack of tools and programmes (3)

Lack of laws, control and reporting (33) Inadequate/insufficient laws and policies (10)Lack of control and monitoring (20)Lack of reporting (3)Other factors within young people, parents, schools, mediaand society (33)

Other factors within young people, parents, New patterns of young people’s lives (7)schools, media and society (33) Poor quality of child–parent relationships (3)

Factors within school (8)Role of media (8)Factors within society (7)


ing in new technical developments and also new patterns of usage in terms of theinternet and mobile phones, which have a considerable impact on people’s lives.

Characteristics of ICT that promote cyberbullying, some of which can also beconsidered as motivating factors for bullies, are, for instance, the sense ofanonymity perpetrators have and the fact that perpetrators are not confronted withimmediate reactions from their victims. As one experts stated, ‘Cyberbullying isbecoming increasingly popular due to the level of anonymity, ease and the likeli-hood to reach as many bystanders as possible’. In most cases they do not have tobe afraid of the punishment and consequences, which may also reduce their inhibi-tion considerably. As several experts stated, this may also attract new groups ofperpetrators who would be more sensitive to face-to-face interactions.

There was a broad agreement among experts that both young people and adultslack knowledge and education in ICT. In relation to young people, the lack ofmedia literacy often leads to an inappropriate usage of new technologies. For manyexperts the lack of knowledge in ICT in relation to parents as well as professionalsworking with young people is even more obvious. Some even speak of a digitaldivide between generations.

Experts also agreed that there is a lack of legislation, control and reportingrelated to cyberbullying. In most countries there are few mechanisms that allowmonitoring and controlling of online activities in chat rooms, online communitiesor content/video sharing communities. In terms of monitoring their children’s useof internet, mobiles and other new technologies, many parents neither have thecapacity to monitor continuously, nor have they an adequate knowledge and com-petences to judge their children’s activities. One expert from Norway stressed thesheer impossibility of monitoring children’s use of the internet: ‘Youngsters can tellparents they do homework, bring the laptop (that they get from their schools) totheir room, chat all night, and parents lose control’.

In terms of the category ‘Other factors within young people, parents, schools,media and society’, the subcategory factors within schools is remarkable. Asseveral experts stated, schools should play a crucial role in tackling cyberbullying.Nevertheless, most schools are not addressing cyberbullying in their curricula orschool policies yet, they do not prepare their staff, and also do not provide studentswith the necessary knowledge on ICT and cyberbullying.

Approaches Tackling CyberbullyingThe outcomes outlined below relate to the question ‘What kind of approaches doyou consider to be helpful when tackling the problem of cyberbullying?’, and thediscussion of selected outcomes within the experts’ online focus group. Table 2gives an overview about all categories and subcategories that resulted from thecontent analysis.

A considerable number of answers were related to rules, monitoring and sanc-tions. Experts saw a clear need for rules, legislation and restrictions, as well as theneed for monitoring and control (e.g., reporting and filter mechanisms). Expertsalso pointed out that there is the clear need for knowledge in ICT and InternetSafety, not only in terms of the dangers and annoyances of ICT but also in terms ofits positive and appropriate use. As one expert put it, ‘The solution is not to bansocial networking sites, ban the use of mobile phones or limit internet access. It is


175 ▲


176▲

not the technology that is the problem; it is the misuse of it.’ While a number ofexperts expressed their concerns about restrictive and punitive approaches, therewas a broad agreement with regards to the need and effectiveness in educatingusers in terms of adequate online behaviour and risk management.

The experts also widely agreed on the importance of awareness raising andmotivational strategies in order to attract parents’, teachers’, professionals’ andyoung people’s attention on the relevance of the cyberbullying problem. In thiscontext one expert from the United Kingdom pointed out ‘that educators (need to)understand that cyberbullying isn’t just “about” technology, particularly as manyeducators may lack confidence in this area’.

In terms of approaches targeting children and young people, empowerment andpeer-based approaches were regarded as very effective methods to tackle cyberbul-lying. As one expert stated, ‘Young people who are being bullied often don’t wantto talk to an adult figure, be it a parent or teacher. They are more comfortabletalking to another young person.’

TABLE 2

Approaches Tackling Cyberbullying: Experts’ Questionnaire and Online Focus Group


Knowledge on ICT and Internet Safety (21) Better understanding of ICT, its potentials and dangers (7)Appropriate, responsible, safe and positive usage of ICT (14)

Rules, monitoring and sanctions (72) Rules, legislation and restrictions on cyberbullying (21)Monitoring and control (13)Technical solutions: reporting and filter mechanisms (13)Consequences, sanctions and punishment (12)Arguments against restrictions, banning and punishment (13)

Awareness raising and motivational strategies (33) Awareness-raising and campaigns (27)Creative ideas for reaching target audience (3)Not merely focusing on technology issues (3)

Approaches targeting children and young people (52) Empowering young people (17)Increasing knowledge and awareness (9)Peer based approaches (21)Conveying respect and traditional values (2)Involving young people in development of resources (5)

Approaches targeting parents and other adults (22) Information and knowledge for parents: training, courses,manuals and tools (11)Encouraging and motivating parents (2)Help and assistance for parents (4)Training of professionals (5)

Approaches targeting Schools (57) Policies / whole school approach (13)Teacher training (22)Restrict or monitor access to ICT (9)Education: information on ICT and Internet safety (8)Approaches on class level (5)

Challenges (26) Rapid change of technology (3)Costs and funding (5)Resistance to training and lack of support by schools andgovernment (7)Danger of mixing up cyber safety with cyberbullying (6)Need of enhanced cooperation between Internet safetyexperts and experts on school bullying (5)



177 ▲

One of the focuses of approaches targeting parents, teachers, youth workers andother professionals should be on conveying information and knowledge on ICTand cyberbullying in form of training, manuals, courses and other resources. Also,providing help and assistance — for example, by means of help lines as well astraining of professionals — were regarded as being important.

In terms of approaches targeting schools, whole-school approaches and teachertraining were considered to be effective methods. Again, approaches focusing onrestricting and monitoring access to Internet and mobile phones in schools werenot considered as effective by a number of experts.

One major challenge when developing resources on cyberbullying is the rapidchange in technologies. Introductions to the latest state of development of ICT may beout of date soon. Experiences reported by the experts also suggest that governments,authorities and schools are hesitant when it comes to financing projects and programs,though in the long run funding these projects may be less expensive than having tocope with the negative effects of cyberbullying. The discussions also revealed the needfor enhanced cooperation between anti-bullying and cyber safety experts.

Outcomes of the Trainers’ QuestionnaireThe outcomes we present in the following section are the result of a content analy-sis of trainers’ answers from the questioning and the discussion of selected out-comes within the experts’ and trainers focus group. Unlike the content analysis ofexperts’ answers, the trainers’ contributions to the online discussions have not beenconsidered in the following presentation of the main outcomes. Again, due to spacerestrictions we cannot present all outcomes in detail.4

Difficulties Trainers Face When Dealing With CyberbullyingThe outcomes outlined below relate to the question ‘What are the main difficultiesyou face as a trainer when dealing with cyberbullying?’ of the trainers’ question-naire. Overall, the content analysis revealed three categories: difficulties related tothe topic of cyberbullying itself, difficulties of the training’s target group, and diffi-culties trainers may have. Table 3 provides an overview about the categories andsubcategories that resulted from the content analysis.

TABLE 3

Trainers’ Difficulties: Trainers’ Questionnaire and Online Focus Group


Difficulties related to the topic of cyberbullying (18) Complexity of the topicAvailable of information on cyberbullyingDifficulty/complexity of training needed

Difficulties of the training’s target group (22) Differences in ‘language’ of target audienceSilence of victims and aggressorsParents and teachers’ lack of awarenessDifficulties in defining responsibilitiesFalse beliefs

Difficulties of trainers (6) Information available for trainers still lowKeeping up-to-date in terms of ICT


178▲

The first category focused on difficulties related to the topic of cyberbullying.According to trainers in many countries there is still relatively little information avail-able. However, as queries in each of the partner countries in the CyberTrainingproject indicated, the number of web sites, brochures, manuals and other resourcesis surprisingly large. The trainers’ answers thus may be taken as a hint that they arenot aware of the resources available in their countries.

As trainers stated, one of the difficulties when working with the trainingmanual’s target group is the differing ‘language’ of these groups and the fact thatmany adults are not familiar with a basic ICT terminology. Very often parents andteachers are not aware of cyberbullying. Trainers also expressed their concernsabout ‘false beliefs’ related to cyberbullying and school bullying in general; forinstance, the fact that many parents or teachers overestimate the effectiveness ofpunishment and restrictions.

Information and communication technologies are changing rapidly, so that oneof the main difficulties of trainers themselves is to keep up-to-date in terms of thelatest developments and problems that result from new technologies.

Elements and Resources Needed for a Training ManualThe outcomes presented in this section relate to two questions in the trainers’ ques-tionnaire: ‘What elements/components should a training manual on cyberbullyinginclude?’ and ‘What kind of resources would you find useful in your training activ-ities?’ The categories that resulted from the content analysis of answers stress theneed for well-grounded theoretical information (see Table 4).

For the resources that trainers suggested should be included in the trainingmanual, they stressed the need for a practical orientation with regards to theformat of the manual. For example, the manual should include narratives (e.g.,

TABLE 4

Elements Of A Training Manual: Trainers’ Questionnaire And Online Focus Group


Introduction to the basics of cyberbullying (47) Definitions of cyberbullyingDifferences to and similarities with traditional bullyingConsequences of cyberbullyingExamples

Information about training skills (36) Personal and Interpersonal skillsCommunication skillsCognitive skillsTechnological pedagogic skills

Information about strategies for diagnosis Diagnostic skillsand intervention (71) Prevention/intervention strategies

Technological strategiesStrategies for victim supportStrategies for intervention in schoolsStrategies for intervention with parentsPolice role

Resources needed (75) NarrativesAudiovisual material: images, films, and so onDigital multimedia resources: CDs, forums, chats, and so onWritten documentation: manuals or other literatureNewspaper article


case examples or fictional narratives), audiovisual material (e.g., images, films),digital multimedia resources (e.g., CDs), or articles from newspapers, or onlinejournals.

The content analysis also revealed a broad interest in information on differenttraining skills as well as information about strategies for diagnosis and interven-tion. However, as the trainers’ suggestions were not specific to the cyberbullyingproblem we will not present them in detail here.

ConclusionsThe main aim of the experts’ and trainers’ questionnaires and the discussions inboth online focus groups was to gather information that contributes to the devel-opment of a training manual that meets trainers’ needs and reflects the currentstate of cyberbullying research. The two studies presented in this article, amongothers, revealed the trainers’ need for well-grounded information on ICT, basicinformation on cyberbullying, and approaches for tackling cyberbullying, as wellas training skills that are needed for dealing with the cyberbullying problem.Although the outcomes of the studies were not surprising, they gave valuable hintsin terms of the style of a training manual preferred by trainers, as well as theresources needed. Moreover, the outcomes of the experts’ questionnaires andonline discussion were helpful in clarifying the framework and scope of approachesfor tackling cyberbullying. In the project’s second phase, the main outcomes wereconsidered when developing the training manual.

Apart from these findings that were of practical use for the CyberTrainingproject, the two studies also brought up some results that are of interest both forcyberbullying research and the rather practical-oriented work — for example,when providing training. Both studies revealed that cyberbullying is a phenomenonthat blurs the boundaries of formerly separated fields: traditional school bullyingon the one side and ICT and internet safety on the other side. The development ofresources, training, projects and campaigns that tackle cyberbullying makes multi-disciplinary cooperation an imperative. Neither approaches that focus on the bully-ing related aspects, nor approaches focusing merely on the ICT-related aspects willdo. When dealing with cyberbullying or ICT in general, one also has to be aware ofthe digital gap between generations. Adults very often lack awareness and under-standing of the world that young people are living in and they have clearly differ-ent concepts of reality and social life. As for many adults, this lack ofunderstanding often goes along with a lack of confidence when dealing with ICT.This may need to be considered when designing resources or campaigns. As oneparticipant of the experts’ online focus group suggested, it can be helpful to pointout that ‘cyberbullying isn’t just about technology … but fundamentally aboutbehavioural and pastoral issues — areas where most schools and educators havecomprehensive frameworks already in place’. Finally, the controversy betweenexperts on restrictive and punitive approaches made clear that this issue needs aclarification in the light of research findings on cyberbullying.


179 ▲

AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to thank the ‘Leonardo da Vinci’/Lifelong Learning Programmeof the European Commission for co-funding the CyberTraining project. We alsowish to thank the partners of the CyberTraining project as well as the experts andtrainers who participated at the online questionings and the online focus groups.

Endnotes1 The development of the training manual was part of the EU-funded project CyberTraining

(http://www.cybertraining-project.org/)2 http://www.cybertraining-project.org3 The detailed figures are available online in the report ‘Experts’ Questioning and Online

Focus Group — Outcomes and Implications’ (Jäger, 2009).4 The detailed findings are available online in the report ‘Trainers’ Needs Analysis —

Outcomes and Conclusions’ (Amado, Matos, & Pessoa, 2009) that is available online.

ReferencesAmado, J., Matos, A., & Pessoa, T. (2009). Trainers’ needs analysis — Outcomes and conclu-

sions. Retrieved from http://www.cybertraining-project.org/reports/CyberTraining%20-%20Trainers%20Needs%20Analysis%20-%20Outcomes%20and%20Conclusions.doc

Eurostat. (2010). Information society statistics. Retrieved from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/information_society/data/main_tables

Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying:Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Journal of Psychology, 217(4),205–213.

Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B.A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus.Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8. Retrieved from http://pare-online.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n = 10

Jäger, T. (2009). Experts’ questioning and online focus group — Outcomes and implications.Retrieved from http://www.cybertraining-project.org/reports/CyberTraining%20Online%20Focus%20Group%20-%20Outcomes%20and%20Implications.doc

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors relatedto offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 1–29.

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interactionsbetween research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103–121.

Kowalski, R., Limber, S., & Agaston, P. (2008). Cyber Bullying. Malden, MA: BlackwellPublishing.

Linstone, H.A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and applications.London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). EU Kids Online: Final Report. Retrieved fromhttp://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/EUKidsOnline/Reports/EUKidsOnlineFinalReport.pdf

Microsoft. (2009). Microsoft’s European Online Safety Survey. Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.com/emea/presscentre/pressreleases/OnlinebullyingPR_100209.mspx

Rezabek, R. (2000). Online focus groups: Electronic discussions for research. ForumQualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1). Retrieved fromhttp://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-00/1-00rezabek-e.htm


180▲



181 ▲

Smith, P. (in press). Cyberbullying: the European perspective. In J. Mora-Merchan & T.Jäger (Eds.), Cyberbullying: A cross-national comparison. Landau, Germany: VerlagEmprische Padagogik.

Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, C., & Tippett, N. (2006). An investigation into cyber-bullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and genderin cyberbullying. A Report to the Anti-Bullying Alliance. Retrieved fromhttp://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RBX03-06.pdf

Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).Cyberbullying, its forms and impact on secondary school pupils. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.

Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?Scandanavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.

Willard, N. (2005). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Retrieved fromhttp://new.csriu.org/cyberbully/docs/cbcteducator.pdf

Willard, N. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Effectively managing internet use risksin schools. Retrieved from http://www.cyberbully.org/onlinedocs/cbct.pdf

▲

182▲


Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 182–193

▲

Address for Correspondence: Magdalena Marczak, 16 Framefield Drive, Solihull, B91 2SR, UK. E-mail:[email protected]

Cyberbullying at School:Good Practice and LegalAspects in the United Kingdom

Magdalena Marczak1 and Iain Coyne2

1 Institute of Work, Health & Organisations, Nottingham University, St Andrews Healthcare, United Kingdom2 Institute of Work, Health & Organisations, Nottingham University, Nottingham University, United Kingdom

Cyberbullying at school has emerged as a new, electronic form of bullying andharassment and is recognised as a growing problem all over theworld. The ability to use cyberspace to bully others means thatharassment, rumours and intimidation can reach a much wider audi-ence. Although research has not as yet explored fully the conse-quences of either cyber-victimisation or cyberbullying, it wouldappear that they may be detrimental to the health of young people,suggesting the need for policies and interventions, which someEuropean countries (e.g., Germany, Luxemburg, Belgium and theUnited Kingdom) have attempted to undertake. Currently, however,only the United States has implemented specific laws that treatcyberbullying as a criminal offence per se. After briefly consideringthe literature on cyberbullying this article will focus on the legal, reg-ulatory and good practice frameworks for controlling cyberbullyingin UK educational contexts.

■ KEYWORDS: traditional bullying, cyberbullying, online harassment, law

Cyberbullying is defined as ‘an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group orindividual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against avictim who cannot easily defend him- or herself’ (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376). To date,cyberbullying has received significant media attention as certain cases have resultedin civil and criminal law suits filed against a perpetrator and/ or a school. Currentlyin the United Kingdom there is no specific law against cyberbullying per se; however,a number of other civil and criminal laws may be applied to a cyberbullying context.This article thus highlights the legal aspects of the issue of cyberbullying relevant tothe United Kingdom, and discusses potential problems with such an approach. It alsodiscusses current good practices to prevent cyberbullying.


Cyberbullying as a New Form of BullyingThe phenomenon of cyberbullying has emerged more recently with the increasinguse of computers and mobile phone usage by young people (Ybarra & Mitchell,2004a, 2004b; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Sourander, et al.,2010). However, like many emerging areas there is currently a lack of agreementon the definition and the behaviours underlying it (Rivers & Noret, 2010).Research suggests that a number of factors unique to the online environment maypromote bullying behaviour (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b; Patchin &Hinduja, 2006; Slonje & Smith, 2008), with anonymity often being identified asthe main factor. Anonymity allows the perpetrator to become ‘invisible’, reducingthe risk of being caught (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006) and creates an environmentthat makes it more difficult to be aware of the impact of one’s actions on the victim(Slonje & Smith, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b). Moreover, it has beenfound that the cyber-bully is more skilled than their victim in using technology andthat the victim can be faced with the offending behaviour at any time anywhere inthe world (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Slonje &Smith, 2008).

Internet surveys of youths in the United States have shown prevalence rates of12% being aggressive to someone online, 4% being targets of aggression and 3%being both aggressors and targets (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a). Raskauskas andStoltz (2007) surveyed students in the United States aged 13–18 years, of whom49% were cyber-victims and 21% were cyberbullies. Many cyber-victims were alsotraditional victims, and most cyberbullies were also traditional bullies. Amongsurveys in other countries, 14% of an Australian sample (Campbell, 2005), 25% ofa Canadian sample (Li, 2006) and 12% of a Swedish sample (Slonje & Smith,2008) reported being a target of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying research in the United Kingdom has recently been described asbeing ‘at an early stage’ (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376). In the United Kingdom,studies of school-aged children have reported victimisation rates of: 4% for nastytext messages and 2% for nasty email messages (Oliver & Candappa, 2003);14% by text message, 5% through chat rooms, and 4% by email (NCH, 2005).Rivers and Noret (2010) surveyed 11,000 English pupils from 2002 to 2005;nearly 6% said they had received nasty or threatening text messages or emails‘once in a while’ or more in 2002 and 2003, but this rose to 7% or more in 2004and 2005.

Although research has not as yet fully explored the consequences of cyberbully-ing, it would appear that these may be detrimental to the health of young people(Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Emerging research has indicated cyberbullying isassociated with a number of psychiatric and psychosomatic problems, includingperceived difficulties, emotional and peer problems, headache, recurrent abdominalpain, sleeping difficulties, not feeling safe at school, hyperactivity, low prosocialbehaviour, frequent smoking, drunkenness (Sourander et al., 2010) and conductproblems (Gradinger, Strohmeier & Spiel, 2009). Adjustment problems of cyber-bullies, cyber-victims and cyber-bully/victims have also been reported in a numberof studies (Gradinger et al., 2009; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Kowalski et al., 2008;Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b). As is evident from

Cyberbullying at School

183 ▲

these consequences, new interventions, as well as drawing upon past experiencesand knowledge of traditional bullying, are required. The use of legal frameworksto address cyberbullying, however, is but one way of approaching this new form ofbullying behaviour.

Interventions Against CyberbullyingAs cyberbullying is a relatively new phenomenon there is still little known aboutthe causes and outcomes of the behaviour. This lack of knowledge makes it diffi-cult to develop appropriate interventions aimed at this behaviour (Dooley, Pyzalski,& Cross, 2009). To date, however, it has been recognised that one of the best waysto deal with cyberbullying is to prevent it happening in the first place (Byron,2008; Erwin-Jones, 2008). Although there is no single solution to the problem ofcyberbullying, the following five key areas have been suggested (Byron, 2008;Erwin-Jones, 2008), which schools need to address together to put in place a com-prehensive and effective prevention plan. These draw upon interventionapproaches previously used for traditional bullying, such as whole schoolapproaches and individual skills approaches, but take into account, the technologi-cal environment:

1. Understanding and talking about cyberbullying: the whole school commu-nity needs to be aware of the impact of cyberbullying and the ways in whichit differs from other forms of bullying. Young people and their parentsshould be made aware of pupils’ responsibilities in their use of ICT, andwhat the sanctions are for misuse.

2. Updating existing policies and practices: review and update the school’s anti-bullying policy plus other relevant policies — for example, policies onbehaviour, pastoral care and e-learning strategies. Schools should keep goodrecords of any incidents of cyberbullying and be able to conduct searches ofinternet use records at school. Knowing that the school is taking such stepsmay act as a disincentive for bullies to misuse school equipment andsystems.

3. Making reporting of cyberbullying easier: schools should provide and publi-cise different ways of reporting cyberbullying, such as a student council task-force, peer reporting, anonymous reporting, and provide information aboutcontacting service providers directly.

4. Promoting the positive use of technology: it should be used to supportengaging, positive and effective learning, and to realise and increase thepotential of personalised learning by making learning more flexible, creativeand accessible. Schools should promote and discuss ‘netiquette’, e-safety anddigital literacy.

5. Evaluating the impact of prevention activities: schools should review theexisting anti-bullying policies regularly.

Magdalena Marczak and Iain Coyne

184▲


Good Practice in Reducing CyberbullyingAs well as these, there are examples of broader best practice (on the Internet)which can help with cyberbullying. These focus on prevention by providing infor-mation and support on being safe online. A diverse range of UK organisationsprovide information to the public about child internet safety. Some key examples ofwebsites providing information to parents/ guardians and educators on cyberbully-ing and its prevention include:

• ThinkUKnow: an extensive education programme created by the ChildExploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) and currently aimed atall school age groups from 11–16 years. Supported by the Department forEducation (formerly the Department for Children, Schools and Families) andBecta (the Government’s educational technology agency), the programmeprovides advice and safety information on a range of technology issues,including gaming and cyberbullying (http:// www.thinkuknow.co.uk/).

• Know IT All: a set of award winning resources developed by children’s inter-net charity Childnet International containing advice on the safe and positiveuse of the internet. It has been developed with the support of the Trainingand Development Agency for Schools (TDA), Becta and Microsoft. Primarilyin CD-ROM format, for parents, teachers, trainees and volunteers, it con-tains information about positive ways young people can use new technolo-gies, what the risks are, and practical advice in avoiding or minimising risks.http://www.childnet-int.org/kia/.

• The DirectGov information network — this is the Government’s onlinenetwork of sites for communicating with the public. Direct.gov.uk itself features material on e-safety for young people as does DirectGov Kids (foryounger children) and need2know.co.uk. Information for parents on onlinesafety is available from http://www.parentscentre.gov.uk.

• Industry resources: a huge range of companies from across the internet chainproduce their own valuable resources as well as distributing resources fromorganisations like Childnet. Internet Service Providers, mobile phone net-works and computer retailers routinely provide information in the form ofleaflets and CD-ROMs when families purchase a new product or service.Content hosts such as social networking sites frequently provide pagesgiving safety information and sometimes even integrate this information sothat users are shown a safety message when undertaking certain actions(e.g., entering personal information or uploading a picture). These technolo-gies may include reporting abuse, restricting access to age-appropriatecontent, reviewing for illegal or inappropriate content, parental control soft-ware and educational resources.

Websites that specifically target children and young people have also been set upthat aim to educate them about online safety. They include:

• http://www.childnet-int.org: this website gives general safety advice forparents, young people and teachers as well as more specific advice on key


185 ▲

issues in its fact sheets and targets three main areas: Access, Awareness, andProtection & Policy.

• http://www.beatbullying.org: CyberMentors is the latest project byBeatbullying designed to meet this need. CyberMentors.org.uk is a newservice for the digital age: a traditional mentoring system delivered via a social networking site. Young people, aged 11-25, are trained asCyberMentors, in schools and online, so that they can offer support to theirpeers. The CyberMentors themselves — many of whom have been bullied inthe past – are able to use their own life experiences to help others andimprove their ‘soft skills’ while doing so.

• http://www.missdorothy.com: the Missdorothy.com website and theLearning programme are endorsed by the government, leading safety agen-cies and the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund (UK). It is currently beingtaught in many schools around the United Kingdom and more are beingencouraged to use it. By teaching youngsters how to manage risk and assisttheir decision making in situations of potential danger the Missdorothy.comwebsite aims to empower them for their future.

• http://www.websafecrackerz.com: WebSafe Crackerz is a ‘spoof world’ providing genuine safety information throughout all the linked sites. It consists of a game as it is based within a fictional story about ‘gladhanders’,liars, stalkers, bullies, security bouncers, detectives, fake spam and mobilephone companies and a big boss (the Baron), who runs the whole show.Sponsors and partners of this UK program include MSN, the Home Office,the Cyber Research Unit, Childnet International and ChildLine.

It is not enough, however, to implement any initiative, as understanding the effective-ness of intervention programs addressing cyberbullying is extremely important forwell-informed decision making by policy-makers and for further development ofappropriate interventions aimed at this behaviour (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009).

As with traditional bullying approaches, it is hoped that with intervention pro-grams addressing the problem of cyberbullying an increase in students’ awarenessof cyber-safety issues and their intended outcome of reducing cyberbullying behav-iour can be achieved. It is likely that current bullying interventions adopted byschools may play a role, but they may need to be revised in order to account forthis new form of bullying. Some of these are discussed below.

Interventions Against Traditional BullyingSince the early 1990s several intervention programs have been developed thataimed to prevent and reduce traditional bullying in educational settings (Newmanet al., 2000; Bonds & Stoker, 2000; Horne, Bartolomucci, & Newman-Carlson,2003; Garrity et al., 2004; Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Swearer & Espelage, 2004).These have covered a wide range of methods including circle time, drama or roleplay, group work, peer support and education, restorative justice and supportgroup methods. Peer support initiatives are particularly popular in the United


186▲


Kingdom, with an estimated 62% of all schools using this method (Houlston,Smith, & Jessel, 2009). The most widely known and extensively developedprogram targeting the reduction of bullying and aggressive behaviours was devel-oped by Olweus (Olweus, 1991, 1993, 1994), and it has been tried in a number ofcountries including England, Finland, Germany, Holland, Sweden, and the UnitedStates (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999).

In addition to the Olweus model, a number of other school-based programsfocusing specifically on dealing with bullies have been developed. These focus onteaching about the power characteristic in bullying and the way in whichbystanders endorse bullies, by being silent or not protesting. These included theBully Busters program (Horne, et al., 2003; Newman et al., 2000); the BullyProofing program (Bonds & Stoker, 2000; Garrity et al., 2004); Target Bullying:Ecologically Based Prevention and Intervention for Schools, (Espelage & Swearer,2004; Swearer & Espelage, 2004); and Life Skills Training (Botvin, Mahalic, &Grotpeter, 1998).

Other strategies focused on teaching children appropriate methods to addressconflict. The three most common prosocial approaches used were conflict resolu-tion, peer mediation, and peaceable schools (Cueto, Bosworth, & Sailes, 1993).

While there has been a development of intervention methods, initial evaluationsof the numerous implemented interventions were not positive (e.g., Smith et al.,2007; Smith et al., 2004). For example, Smith, et al.’s (2004) meta-analysis ofresults of published and unpublished evaluations of antibullying programs fromEurope, North America and Australia, showed that the majority of these programsproduced insignificant intervention effects. However, more recently Farrington andTtoffi (2009) completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectivenessof programs designed to reduce school bullying perpetration and victimisation.Their meta-analysis of 44 different program evaluations showed that ‘school-basedanti-bullying programs are effective in reducing bullying and victimisation (beingbullied)’ (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009, p. 6), with bullying decreasing by 20–23%and victimisation by 17–20%.

These traditional approaches to dealing with the problem of bullying offer indi-vidual and school-based approaches, but cyberbullying presents different chal-lenges, with some calling for legal solutions to be considered.

Legal AspectsIn November 1999 it became a legal requirement for all UK schools to have ananti-bullying policy (the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, Section 61(4) (b)). The government produced an anti-bullying pack entitled ‘Don’t Suffer inSilence’, which placed a strong emphasis on seeking help or telling a teacher whenbullied (Department for Education and Employment, 1994, 2000). With moreresources becoming available to schools, bullying, once a taboo topic, becamemore openly discussed. Schools were reported to tackle the problem more willingly,knowing that the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) inspects whetherbullying is a problem in a school and whether the school has taken measures tocombat it (Smith et al., 2000). OFSTED also produced a report in 2003, entitled


187 ▲

‘Bullying: effective action in secondary schools’, that contained guidance on how tocombat bullying. It highlighted the importance of involving pupils in a school’sapproach and of working with parents, the key role of the Local EducationAuthority and effective approaches to staff training (OFSTED, 2003). Guidance forschools in England states that the policy must provide a definition of bullying, pro-cedures to follow and sanctions. However, there is wide variation in what isincluded in each school’s policy (Smith et al., 2008b).

So what are the legal obligations on the UK schools? The School Standards andFramework Act (1998) places a specific duty on state-maintained schools tocombat bullying, including ensuring that anti-bullying procedures are in place. TheEducation (Independent Schools Standards) Regulations (2003) place similar obli-gations on independent schools. A case in 2001 brought against the Isle of WightCouncil provided an objective assessment of bullying, which gave rise to the advi-sory pack ‘Don’t Suffer in Silence’, produced by the DCSF. An action againstEnfield London Borough Council a year later established that behaviour needed tobe ‘deliberately targeted and persistent’ in order to constitute bullying. Finally, acase against West Sussex County Council, also in 2002, reported that the duty ofcare that a school duty owes pupils — to take reasonable steps to protect themfrom foreseeable harm — was recognised as being applicable not only inside theschool gates, but also outside. It should be noted that this duty of care applies notonly to the school as a whole, but also to each individual teacher. The law acceptsthat a teacher would have discharged this duty if they had conformed to the stan-dards of a reasonably competent member of their profession at the relevant date.

The Education and Inspections Act (2006) contains some legal powers thatrelate directly to cyberbullying. Head teachers have the power to regulate theconduct of pupils when not on school premises or not under the control of amember of staff, to ‘such an extent as is reasonable’. What is reasonable is definedin the act in terms of proportionality and therefore becomes a question for thecourts. The act also provides a defence for school staff in confiscating items such asmobile phones from pupils. A pupil can be requested to reveal a message, orcontent on their phone to establish if bullying has occurred. Disciplinary measuresmay be taken against those who refuse to comply. Providing that school’s policyspecifically gives such possibility and as long as a student is reasonably suspectedof being involved in a cyberbullying incident he or she may be searched for a phoneif appropriate.

However, the legal aspects detailed above are more focused on regulations in aneducational context. The next question is: if cyberbullying continues, can it andshould it lead to a criminal conviction? Bullying and cyberbullying in the UnitedKingdom is not a specific criminal offence, but there are laws that can apply to cyber-bullying in terms of harassing, menacing and threatening communications.Cyberbullying could be a criminal offence under a number of laws including theProtection from Harassment Act (1997), the Malicious Communications Act (1988),Communications Act (2003) (s127), Public Order Act (1986), and the ObscenePublications Act (1959). When cyberbullying takes the form of computer hackingthen criminal penalties under the Computer Misuse Act (1990) may apply. TheDefamation Acts (1952 and 1996) also deal with material published on the internet.


188▲


However, to date there have been no prosecutions and cyberbullying continuesnot to be perceived as a criminal offence. The implementation of the Educationand Inspections Act 2006 may mean that more cases are brought as the Act givesteachers a legal right to discipline pupils and strengthens their authority to takefirm action on bullying. This legislation also tries to send a strong message toparents and pupils that bullying will not be tolerated, with court-imposed parent-ing orders to compel parents of bullies to attend parenting classes or face fines ofup to £1,000.

One of the main problems with the introduction of specific laws to cover cyber-bullying emerges from the notion that cyberspace is not a physical space owned byanyone. The internet is a man-made device created to allow better connectivityamong people. ‘No one fully monitors or censors information entered to serversinterconnected around the world,’ (Barker, 2002, p. 85). National and politicalboundaries do not exist in cyberspace and this reality has compounded theproblem of how and where jurisdiction can be established. The proponents of theInternet state it could not be and should not be regulated because of its opennessand international nature (Netanel, 2000). Therefore, not only legally does itbecome a problem to convict an individual who engages in cyberbullying acrossdifferent jurisdictions; we also have to consider whether we actually truly want reg-ulation of the Internet. There is a fine balance here between protecting children incyberspace and maintaining the openness and freedom of such environments.

While in the United Kingdom, we have not currently gone down the civil orcriminal legal route to address cyberbullying; more widely, problematic internet usehas increased in both, civil and criminal legal proceedings (Recupero, 2008).Different laws exist across countries that cover a variety of serious actions, forexample downloading child pornography or sexual solicitation of minors(Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2001), cyberstalking and committing technologicalcrimes (Recupero, 2008). As discussed, different educational regulatory frame-works and preventative plans which cover cyberbullying have been developed.Creating a specific criminal law for cyberbullying in the United Kingdom does,therefore, not seem to be the way forward, especially as it may mean criminalisingimmature youth who may not be aware of the potential impact of their actions(Campbell, Buttler & Kift, 2008). Current civil acts as well as criminal acts seem tobe appropriate to tackle serious forms of cyberbullying and the introduction of pre-ventative methods (as with traditional bullying) may prove to be more fruitful.

Implications for ProfessionalsWith additional civil legislation put in place and a range of internet-based pro-grams focusing on prevention by providing information and support on being safeonline educational psychologists, counsellors, teachers and other professionalsworking with young people and their parents will be better equipped to assist chil-dren and their parents staying safe online. It is important for children to take fulladvantage of the educational, social and entertainment benefits offered by theinternet communication technologies as they offer a range of opportunities thatwere unavailable previously. These include opportunities for learning, communica-


189 ▲

tion, and for skill development as well as for creativity and play. However, it is alsoequally crucial to provide adults with the knowledge that will allow them protectchildren from the risks posed by technology in an informed way and to providechildren with skills that will allow them to do so safely, as far as possible, withouttheir being exposed to harmful or inappropriate material. It is hoped that the avail-able resources and the different educational regulatory frameworks and preventa-tive plans which cover cyberbullying already put in place will help guide theprofessionals involved with children to help them avoid becoming either a bully ora victim of the new technology.

ConclusionCurrently in the United Kingdom cyberbullying is not a specific criminal offence.However, prosecution could still occur as some specific cyberbullying acts could becovered under other existing laws. A number of support services have been set upto help teachers, parents and students face the challenges posed by new technology.The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006, Department for Children,Schools and Families, 2007a: 3) outlines some legal powers that relate moredirectly to cyberbullying. Head teachers have the power ‘to such an extent as isreasonable’ to regulate the conduct of pupils when they are off site. The EIA alsoprovides a defence for school staff in confiscating items such as mobile phonesfrom pupils. A range of Education Acts and government initiatives highlight theduty of the school community to protect all its members and provide a safe,healthy environment. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 places a spe-cific duty on state-maintained schools to combat bullying, including ensuring thatanti-bullying procedures are in place. With the growth of cyberbullying research itis hoped that more specific cyberbullying interventions will be developed.

There are a number of unanswered questions regarding the law and cyberbully-ing. For example, in cyberspace, boundaries between countries are blurred — whatconsequences should therefore be used for somebody who cyber-bullies anotherperson from a different country? Which country’s law should prevail in such case?Is there a need to create a specific cyberbullying law or can existing laws be used?Do we want a cyberbullying law that may actually result in increase censorship ofthe internet? Our contention is that the way forward is to focus on cyberbullyingprevention using the approaches suggested by Byron (2008) and the good practiceoutlined in the websites discussed.

ReferencesBarker, B.O. (2002). The Internet Can Improve Education. In H. Cothran (Ed.), The inter-

net: Opposing viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.Bonds, M., & Stoker, S. (2000). Bully-proofing your school: A comprehensive approach for

middle school students. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Botvin, G.J., Mihalic, S.F., & Grotpeter, J.K. (1998). Life Skills Training: Blueprints for

Violence Prevention, Book Five. Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series (D.S. Elliott,Series Editor). Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Instituteof Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.


190▲


Byron, T. (2008). Safer children in a digital world: The report of the Byron Review. ByronReview — Children and New Technology. Retrieved from http:// http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-00334-2008.pdf

Campbell, M.A. (2005). Cyber bullying: An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journalof Guidance and Counselling, 15, 68–76.

Campbell, M., Buttler, D., & Kift, S. (2008). A school’s duty to provide a safe learning envi-ronment: Does this include cyber-bullying? Australia & New Zealand Journal of Law& Education, 13(2), 21–32.

Caravita, S.C.S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Early adolescents’ participation inbullying: Is ToM involved? Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(1), 138–170.

Childnet. (2007). E-safety: Evaluation of Key Stage 3 Materials for Initial TeacherEducation. Available at: http://www.childnet-int.org/kia/trainees/

Connolly, J., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Taradash, A. (2000). Dating experiences of bullies inearly adolescence. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 299 – 310.

Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Talamelli, L., Chauhan, P., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Knowledge, use ofand attitudes towards peer support: A 2-year follow-up to the Prince’s Trust survey.Journal of Adolescence, 25, 453–467.

Cueto, S., Bosworth, K., & Sailes, J. (1993, April). Promoting peace: Integrating curriculato deal with violence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationResearch Association, Atlanta, GA.

DCFS. (2007). Safe to learn: Embedding anti-bullying work in schools — cyber-bullying.DCSF: Teachernet Publications.

DfES. (2007). Bullying: Don’t suffer in silence. An anti-bullying pack for schools. London:HMSO.

Dooley, J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyber-bullying versus face-to-face bullying.Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182–188.

Edith Cowan University’s Child Health Promotion Research Centre. (2010). ResearchNews: ECU researchers awarded national tender to evaluate cyber-bullying. Retrievedfrom http://www.ecu.edu.au/news/latestnews/2010/06/ecu-staff-evaluates-cyber-bullying-program

Erwin-Jones, S. (2008). Dealing effectively with cyber-bullying (Protecting Children Update,May 2008). London: Optimus Education.

Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S.M. (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecologicalperspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Farrington, D.P., & Ttoffi, M.M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and vic-timisation. Campbell Systematic Review, 6, 1–147.

Garrity, C., Jens, K., Porter, W., Sager, N., & Short-Camilli, C. (2004). Bully-proofing yourelementary school. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyber-bullying:Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift furPsychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 205–213.

Hawker, D.S.J., & Boulton, M.J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimisation andpsychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journalof Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455.

Horne, A.M., Bartolomucci, C.L., & Newman-Carlson, D. (2003). Bully busters: Ateacher’s manual for helping bullies, victims, and bystanders, grades K-5. Champaign,IL: Research Press.

Houlston, C., Smith, P.K., & Jessel, J. (2009) Investigating the extent and use of peersupport initiatives in English schools. Educational Psychology, 29, 325–344.

James, A. (2010). School bullying. Research briefing. Goldsmiths, University of London,NSPCC.


191 ▲

Jouvonen, T., & Gross, E.F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences incyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496–505.

Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpela, A. (2000). Aggression at school— an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23,661–674.

Kowalski, R.M., Limber, S.P., & Agatson, P.W. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Bullying in thedigital age. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Kumpulainen K., & Räsänen E. (2000). Children involved in bullying at elementary schoolage: their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in adolescence. An epidemiologicalsample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(12), 1567–1577.

Li, Q. (2006). Cyber-bullying in schools: A research of gender differences. SchoolPsychology International, 27, 157–170

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review.Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68–99.

Mitchell, K.J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2001). Risk factors for and impact of onlinesexual solicitation of youth. JAMA, 285(23), 3011–3014.

Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Marton, B. & Schneidt, P.(2001). Bullying behaviours among US youth: Prevalence and association with psy-chosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.

Netanel, N.W. (2000). Cyberspace self-governance: A skeptical view from liberal democratictheory. California Law Review, 88, 395–498.

Newman, DA., Horne, A.M., & Bartolomucci, C.L. (2000). Bully busters: A teacher’smanual for helping bullies, victims, and bystanders. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

NCH. (2005). Putting U in the picture: Mobile phone bullying survey 2005. Retrieved fromwww.nch.org.uk

Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2003). Tackling bullying: Listening to the views of children and youngpeople. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of aschool-based intervention program. In D.J. Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds.), The development andtreatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Olweus, D. (1993) Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention

program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171–1190.Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. (1999). The Bullying Prevention Program. Blueprints

for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard. A preliminary

look at cyber-bullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169.Raskauskas, J. & Stoltz, A.D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying

among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564-575.Recupero, P. R. (2008). Forensic evaluation of preoblematic internet use. Journal of

American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 36(4), 505–514.Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kinglsey.Rigby, K., & Cox, I.K. (1996). The contributions of bullying and low self-esteem to acts of

delinquency among Australian teenagers. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(4),609–612.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P.T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australianschool children and their implications for psychological well-being. Journal of SocialPsychology, 133(1), 33-42.

Rivers, I., & Noret, N. (2010). ‘Ih8u’: Findings from a five-year study of text and e-mailbullying. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 643–671.

Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Another main type of bullying?Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.


192▲



193 ▲

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.

Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2006). An investigation into cyber-bullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and genderin cyber-bullying (Research Brief No. RBX03-06). London: DfES.

Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.

Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (2000). Thenature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. London: Routledge.

Smith, J.D., Ryan, W., & Cousin, J.B. (2007). Antibullying programs: A survey of evalua-tion activities in public schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 120–134.

Smith, P.K., Smith, C., Osborn, R., & Samara, M. (2008b). A content analysis of schoolanti-bullying policies: Progress and limitations. Educational Psychology Practice, 24, 1–12.

Smith, J.D., Schneider, B.H., Smith, P.K. & Ananaiadou, K.(2004). The effectiveness ofwhole school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. SchoolPsychology Review, 33, 548–561.

Sourander, A., Klomek, A. B., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntano, T., Koskelainen, M.,Ristkari, T., & Helenius, H. (2010). Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated With Cyber-bullying Among Adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7), 720–728.

Swearer, S.M., & Espelage, D.L. (2004). Research on school bullying and victimisation:What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32,365–383.

Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004a). Online aggressors/ targets, aggressors and targets:A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 45, 1308–1316.

Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004b). Youth engaging in online harassment: Associationswith caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal ofAdolescence, 27, 319–336.

▲

194▲


Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 194–209

▲

Address for Correspondence: Julian Dooley, Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University,Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Cyber-Victimisation: The AssociationBetween Help-Seeking Behavioursand Self-Reported EmotionalSymptoms in Australia and Austria

Julian J. Dooley,1 Petra Gradinger,2 Dagmar Strohmeier,2 Donna Cross,1

and Christiane Spiel21 Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University, Australia2 University of Vienna, Austria

Many young people who are bullied do not tell anyone. School staff thereforeare often unaware of which students are being victimised and when toprovide support or assistance. A critical strategy to overcome thisproblem is to encourage victimised students to seek help and reportthis bullying. This study aims to examine the relationship betweenhelp-seeking behaviours and self-reported emotional symptoms inyoung people from Australia (n = 5959; M age = 12.36 years, SD = 1.46years) and Austria (n = 1530; M age = 12.68 years, SD = .84 years)who reported being victimised (via cyber and traditional bullying). Inboth countries, students who were cyber-victimised compared to thosewho were victimised in more traditional methods were less likely toseek help. Girls in both countries were significantly more likely toseek help and endorse more emotional symptoms than boys. No rela-tionship was found between help-seeking and emotional symptoms instudents who had been cyber-victimised. These preliminary resultshave important implications for the types of strategies used to enhancethe approachability of school staff and families to provide appropriatehelp and support for young people who are being bullied.

■ KEYWORDS: cyber-victimisation, help-seeking, emotional symptoms

Bullying in schools is a universal phenomenon (Eslea, Menesini, Morita, O’Moore,Mora-Merchan, et al., 2004). It is well established that young people who arebullied by their peers are at significant risk for serious short- and long-term physi-cal, social and mental health effects (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008), with internalisingproblems, such as depression, anxiety and low self-esteem commonly reported(Cross et al., 2009). Importantly, several longitudinal studies have demonstrated


the causal relationship between bullying and mental health and emotional problemsin young people who are victimised (Arsenault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2009; Gazelle &Ladd, 2003; Goodman, Stormshak & Dishion, 2001; Hanish & Guerra, 2002).

Many intervention programs have been developed to reduce bullying behavioursin schools and to promote a healthy outcome for those who are victimised. Theseinterventions have variously targeted students who are bullying others, studentsbeing bullied, the student population in general, teachers, parents and/or othermembers of the broader school community. Despite the relatively rapid prolifera-tion of bullying prevention programs, still little is known about the most effectivecomponents of a program, the processes that are responsible for the success (orotherwise) of a program and the basis for success of one program over another.Despite the limited evidence describing the positive outcomes associated withschool-based bullying intervention programs, some results are available (Farrington& Ttofi, 2009).

Help-Seeking and Bullying BehavioursIn a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of bullying interventions, Farringtonand Ttofi (2009) reported that bullying behaviours decreased by 20–23% and vic-timisation rates decreased by 17–20%. One of the most consistent elements of bul-lying prevention programs (especially targeted to victimised students) relates tostrategies for students to source help. This form of help-seeking often involves for-mally involving an adult (e.g., teacher, school counsellor) by reporting the behav-iour (Novick & Issacs, 2010). Despite the emphasis placed on the importance oftelling, there is strong evidence that students tell teachers about bullying very infre-quently, with more young people choosing to tell their parents than teachers(Fekkes et al., 2005; Smith & Shu, 2000). Further, elementary school students aremore likely to tell teachers about bullying (Fekkes et al., 2005; O’Moore, Kirkham,& Smith, 1997) than secondary school students (Smith & Shu, 2000).

There is strong evidence that the prevalence of peer-to-peer bullying is oftenunreported (e.g., Smith et al., 2001), which can affect the support services that areprovided to students (Naylor et al., 2001). A variety of individual level factors havebeen used to explain this poor reporting phenomenon. For example, students areoften reluctant to report being bullied for fear of reprisal (Boulton & Underwood,1992; Smith & Sharp, 1994) or because they lack of confidence in adults’ ability tohelp (Besag, 1989; Cowie & Olafsson, 1999). More recently, Oliver and Candappa(2007) reported that a student’s reluctance to tell may be based on either a concernthat teachers might not believe their report or a worry that teachers might revealtheir report (inadvertently or otherwise), which could lead to further victimisation.One of the strongest predictors of help-seeking is gender, with girls significantlymore likely to report being bullied than boys (Hunter, Boyle, & Warden, 2004). Inaddition, there are also several system-level factors that appear to be associatedwith students’ reporting. For example, Unnever and Cornell (2004) reported thatstudents who perceived the school climate as tolerant of bullying were less likely toreport being bullied.

Cyberbullying and Help-SeekingOne of the challenges in addressing bullying behaviours and encouraging studentswho are being bullied to seek help is the changing landscape within which bullying

Cyber-Victimisation, Help-Seeking and Emotional Symptoms

195 ▲

occurs. This changing landscape is especially apparent in relation to informationand communication technology (ICT). The significant increase in the use of ICT(i.e., the internet and mobile phones) has resulted in significant increases in social-ising in a virtual environment and, as a consequence, the development of differentbenefits as well as risks, including cyberbullying (Dooley, Cross, Hearn, &Treyvaud, 2009a). Cyberbullying is defined as when an individual or group use theinternet, mobile phones or other communication technology to intentionally andsometimes repeatedly to hurt another person or group of people.

Cyberbullying shares many theoretical and conceptual similarities with non-cyberbullying (hereafter referred to as traditional bullying; Dooley, Pyzalski, &Cross, 2009b). Despite the similarities, the medium in which cyberbullying takesplace can present some important and unique challenges (Smith et al., 2008). Forexample, cyberbullying can happen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (Willard, 2007).Although cyberbullying research is limited due to the recency of this phenomenon,there appears to be numerous negative consequences associated with this form ofbullying. For example, Mitchell and colleagues (2007) found that students whowere cyberbullied reported higher levels of depressive symptoms, in addition to arange of problematic behaviours (e.g., increased alcohol consumption, a tendencyto smoke, and poor school grades). Importantly, Smith et al. (2008) reported thatstudents are less likely to tell someone when they are cyberbullied compared toother forms of non-cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying Versus Traditional BullyingOne of the most important issues to emerge in the research literature to date relatesto the high correlation between cyber- and traditional bullying behaviour. Crossand colleagues (2009) found that over 80% of young Australians who reportedbeing cyberbullied also reported being traditionally bullied; findings which werealso reported in Austrian youth (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009, in press).Consistently, Twyman, Saylor, Taylor, and Comeaux (2010) reported that almosttwo-thirds of those students who were cyberbullied or cyberbullied others werealso students who were traditionally bullied or traditionally bullied others. Recentevidence also suggests that the relationship between cyber- and traditional bullyingis not straightforward. For example, Twyman et al. demonstrated that cyber-vic-timisation was associated with an increased likelihood of traditional victimisation.Furthermore, Perren and colleagues found that students who were cyber-victimisedreported significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms, independent of theirinvolvement in traditional bullying/victimisation (Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross,in press).

One of the major challenges associated with cyberbullying is the dynamic envi-ronment within which these behaviours occur (Dooley et al., 2009b). The lack offamiliarity with this virtual environment that many adults report results in a‘digital divide’. This divide limits the provision of support by adults to youngpeople who are being victimised, as adults’ inexperience in this environment meansthey are often unaware of how to provide help and support. Consistently, Novickand Issacs (2010) reported that the relation between being told about bullying andshowing students how to manage bullying was most evident when teachers felthighly prepared to handle bullying situations. Therefore, the more confident and

Julian J. Dooley, Petra Gradinger, Dagmar Strohmeier, Donna Cross, and Christiane Spiel

196▲


competent school staff and parents feel, the better able they are to support studentsto deal with cyber- and traditional bullying behaviours. Given this difficulty, somesuggest the Internet might provide a useful means to encourage young people whoare victimised to seek help (Yablon, 2008).

Culture and Bullying BehavioursTo date, few studies have investigated the role of culture in relation to bullyingbehaviours (see Molcho et al., 2009, and Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, &Ruan, 2004 for important cross-cultural studies). In one of the few studies to date,Eslea and colleagues (2004) reported that students who are bullied in traditionalways were significantly more disadvantaged on all measures (e.g., mental health,friendships) across seven countries, whereas students who bullied others did notdiffer consistently, suggesting that culture plays a role in the outcomes associatedwith bullying perpetration and victimisation. We were unable to identify anystudies that examined the cross-cultural context of help-seeking behaviours associ-ated with bullying, thus the aim of this study was to examine help-seeking behav-iours and self-reported emotional symptoms in students who reported being bullied(via cyber and traditional means) and to examine the cultural similarities and/ordifferences in these associations.

This study examined the help-seeking behaviour of students who reported beingbullied (cyber and traditional) and the relationship between victimisation and help-seeking and its association with self-reported emotional symptoms. Given there isno evidence to date examining cyber-victimisation, help-seeking and emotionalsymptoms, the cross-sectional analyses conducted here are exploratory. We did,however, hypothesise that students who reported being victimised (cyber- and tra-ditional) would report more emotional symptoms, and girls would report morehelp-seeking behaviours than boys. Further, we examined if:

1. gender, cyber-victimisation and traditional victimisation were associatedwith emotional symptoms

2. gender, cyber-victimisation and traditional victimisation were associatedwith help-seeking

3. help-seeking behaviour was associated with emotional symptoms

4. help-seeking helps to explain the relationship between cyber-victimisationand emotional symptoms.

Finally, we examined if the relationships above were consistent in Australian andAustrian students.

MethodThis study examined help-seeking and emotional symptoms on Australian andAustrian students who reported being cyber-victimised.


197 ▲

ParticipantsThe Australian cross-sectional sample was from the Australian Covert BullyingPrevalence Study (ACBPS), designed to determine the prevalence of covert, includ-ing cyberbullying, behaviours in Australia (Cross et al., 2009). This study was con-ducted in 2007–2008 by the Child Health Promotion Research Centre (CHPRC) atEdith Cowan University. Schools were randomly selected within strata defined bygeographic location and school sector. Non-mainstream and smaller schools as wellas those already involved in intervention projects conducted by the CHPRC wereexcluded. Surveys were administered by school staff within classrooms to thosestudents who consented to participate and for whom written parental consent wasprovided. The study was approved by the Edith Cowan University HumanResearch Ethics Committee.

To increase comparability between the Australian and Austrian data, only resultsfrom ACBPS grades 5–9 (age range 10–15 years) are reported below. This samplecomprised 5959 students (Age M = 12.36, SD = 1.46) from one hundred and sixschools (55 primary, 51 secondary). The final sample was fairly evenly distributedbetween year levels (Grade 5: 17%, Grade 6: 17%, Grade 7: 18%; Grade 8: 15%,Grade 9: 14%), and by gender (52.9% female). Metropolitan schools were over-represented in the sample (64%). Australian students’ use of technology was wide-spread: 95% used a computer with the internet at least once monthly (57.4% dailyuse) and about 63% used their own mobile phone at least once a month (45.7%daily use).

The Austrian sample data were drawn from the national intervention evaluationstudy, ViSC (Spiel & Strohmeier, under review). The sample comprised 1530 grade5 and 6 students (727 girls, 803 boys) aged 10 to 15 (M = 12.68, SD = .84) from16 different schools located in two federal states of Austria (Carinthia and Vienna).Overall, 82.5% of students used the mobile phone and 70.2% of students used theInternet, both at least once a day. Participation was voluntary and based on activeparental consent. The data were collected in May and June 2010 (about one monthbefore the end of the school year) using an internet-based questionnaire that wascompleted within an hour during school time in each school’s computer lab underthe supervision of one or two trained research assistants.

MeasuresAssessment of Traditional Victimisation

Australian sample: Traditional victimisation (this term will be used to refer to otherforms of bullying not including cyberbullying, i.e., covert bullying, overt bullying)was measured using 12 items that asked about participant’s experiences with non-cyber types of bullying. These items include being teased in nasty ways, being leftout or excluded, being made to feel afraid, or having secrets/lies told about them.Students reported how often they experienced each of these behaviours last term atschool (a period of approximately three months) on a 5-point Likert scale withresponses ranging from Never to Most days this term. Cronbach’s alpha for the tra-ditional victimisation scale was .91.


198▲


Austrian sample: Traditional victimisation was measured with five behavioural items(e.g., ‘How often have others insulted or hurt you by excluding you during the lasttwo months?’). The items covered the frequency of behaviours within the last twomonths. Their response format ranged from Never to Nearly every day. Although theresponse scale was structured differently than the Australian sample (0–4 versus 1–5)the same scoring was used in the analyses to ensure equivalency between the samples.The scales in both samples were calculated as mean scores of the items. Cronbach’salpha for the traditional victimisation scale was .80.

Assessment of Cyber-VictimisationAustralian sample: Cyber-victimisation was measured using eight items that askedabout participants’ experiences with cyberbullying. These items included being sentnasty emails or nasty messages on the internet, having mean or nasty commentsposted on web sites (i.e., MySpace or Facebook), or being left out or ignored overthe internet. As with traditional victimisation, participants were asked to indicatehow often each of these behaviours occurred on a 5-point Likert scale withresponses ranging from never to most days this term. Cronbach’s alpha for thecyber-victimisation scale was .87.

Austrian sample: Cyber-victimisation was measured using five behavioural itemswhich asked about experiences of being bullied via the Internet or mobile phone(e.g., How often have you been harassed by mean text messages during the last twomonths from other students?). The items covered the frequency of behaviourswithin the last two months. Their response format ranged from never to nearlyevery day on a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha for the cyber-victimisationscale was .94. As above, the same scoring scale (0–4) was used in the analysis toensure comparability between the two samples. The scales in both samples werecalculated as mean scores of the items.

Assessment of Help-Seeking BehavioursAustralian sample: Help-seeking behaviour was measured using one item, whichasked if participants had spoken to anyone about being bullied (e.g., ‘Did you askfor help, when you were bullied again and again lately in ways not easily seen byothers at school?’). The response format for the item ranged from No (score = 0) toYes (score = 1). Participants could indicate that they were not bullied or couldrefuse to answer. Only those students who were cyber-victimised and indicated thatthey had sought help were asked to identify whom they asked for help (i.e., ‘Whomdid you ask for help, when you were bullied again and again lately in ways noteasily seen by others at school?’). Eight different possibilities were given: (1)parents/guardians, (2) friends from school, (3) friends not from school, (4) teach-ers, (5) other family members, (6) kids help line, (7) website and (8) others.

Austrian sample: Two specific forms of help-seeking behaviour were measured (i.e.,‘Did you tell somebody that you have been harassed by mean text messages,emails, videos or photos?’; ‘Did you ask for help, when you were harassed againand again lately in ways not easily seen by others at school?’). The response formatfor the items ranged from No (score = 0) to Yes (score = 1). Participants could indi-cate that they were not bullied or could refuse to answer. For the help-seeking vari-able, a sum score of the 2 help-seeking items was computed. This sum score ranged


199 ▲


200▲

between 0 and 2, where 0 indicates No help-seeking, 1 indicates either Help-seeking in cyber or traditional bullying and 2 indicates Help-seeking for both cyberand traditional bullying. Only those students who were cyber-victimised and indi-cated that they had sought help were asked about a third item that explicitly askedwhom the student asked for help (‘Whom did you ask for help, when you wereharassed again and again lately in ways not easily seen by others at school?’). Thesame eight different possibilities were given as in the Australian study.

Assessment of Emotional Symptoms — Australia and AustriaStudents were asked to complete the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire(SDQ; Goodman, 2001) and the Emotion subscale was used to measure emotionalsymptoms. These items ask about psychosomatic symptoms (e.g., headaches), wor-rying and depression (e.g., feeling unhappy, down-hearted or tearful). The responseformat for the items ranged from Not true (score = 0), through Somewhat true(score = 1), to Certainly true (score = 2). Cronbach’s alpha for the emotional symp-toms scale for the Australian sample was .70 and for the Austrian sample was .86.The scales in both samples were calculated as mean scores of the items.

ResultsDescriptive Statistics

The means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations of the study variablesare presented in Tables 1 and 2. ANOVAs were used to test for the statistically sig-nificant differences between the three groups and gender. Importantly, given thedifferent format between the Australian and Austrian help-seeking item, only thosestudents who indicated they were cyberbullied (on a global cyber-victimisationitem) were included in the analyses using the help-seeking and emotional symptomsquestions. In the Australian sample, girls reported higher rates of victimisation(cyber or traditional) and emotional symptoms than boys. In the Austrian sample,girls reported more emotional symptoms than boys, while boys reported more inci-dences of cyber-victimisation than girls.

Overall, the vast majority of Australian students reported asking for help(85.1% asked for help whereas 14.9% did not) and there was a significant genderdifference was found between girls (89.8%) and boys (78.9%) (χ2 = 81.1, df = 1, p< .001) with more girls asking for help than boys. In the Austrian sample the stu-dents answered two general items regarding help-seeking behaviour. The first item

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations Between the Study Variables in the Australiansample

Australian study variables Girls Boys t df P value 1. 2. 3.

1. Cyber victimisation .11 (.31) .09 (.34) -3.4 5637 .001 — .55*** .22***

2. Traditional victimisation .43 (.59) .38 (.60) -3.2 5900 .002 .48** — .35***

3. Emotional symptoms .60 (.45) .47 (.44) -11.4 5606 < .001 .14*** .31*** —

Note: ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Correlations shown above the diagonal axis are for girls, below are for boys.



201 ▲

covered help-seeking behaviour after being cyber-bullied. This item was answeredby 559 students (238 girls and 321 boys). Overall, 42% girls stated that theysought help, while only 19% of boys indicated this (χ2 = 34.22, df = 1, p < .001).The second item covered help-seeking behaviour after being bullied in a covertway. This item was answered by 560 students (260 girls and 300 boys). Overall,49% girls stated that they sought help, while only 34% of boys indicated this (χ2 =12.12, df = 1, p < .001).

The Australian students who were cyber-victimised were most likely to askfriends from school, parents or guardians for help, followed by friends outsideschool, teachers, and other family members (Table 3). In Austria, parents orguardians were asked for help most often, followed by friends from school, friendsoutside school, teachers, and other family members. Kids help lines and websiteswere rarely contacted by students from either country although Australian boyswho were cyber-victimised were significantly more likely than girls to seek helpfrom a website. No gender differences were found in the Austrian sample but sta-tistically significant differences were found on several variables in the Australiansample. In general, Australian girls were more likely to talk to parents/guardians,friends from school, friends not from school or other family members. In contrast,Australian boys were more likely to talk to teachers than were girls.

Testing the Hypothesised ModelThe associations between gender, cyber-victimisation, traditional victimisation,help-seeking behaviour, and emotional symptoms were examined with a concurrentstructural equation model. The modelling was done using Mplus 5.0 (Muthen &Muthen, 2007). Maximum likelihood estimation using the MLR estimator ofMplus were used to provide a standard error and test statistics that are robust tonon-normality of the data and to non-independence of observations. Three criteriawere used in evaluating the model fit: the chi-square (χ²) test, the Comparative FitIndex (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and the root mean squared error of approximation(RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). Nonsignificant chi-square values indicate good model fit.However, because the chi-square statistic is sensitive to sample size, CFI andRMSEA were also used. CFI ranges from 0 to 1.00, where a value above 0.95 indi-cates good fit and a value above 0.90 indicates adequate fit. RMSEA ranges from 0to ∞, where a value below 0.05 indicates good fit and a value below 0.08 indicatesadequate fit. For clarity the models for the Australian and Austrian samples arepresented separately and then discussed.

TABLE 2

Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations Between the Study Variables in the AustrianSample

Austrian study variables Girls Boys F(1,1528) 1. 2. 3.

1. Cyber victimisation .22 (.62) .30 (.82) 4.71* — .21*** .19***

2. Traditional victimisation .54 (.65) .53 (.76) 0.06 .11** — .27***

3. Emotional symptoms .68 (.60) .54 (.62) 12.20** .17*** .18*** —

Note: ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Correlations shown above the diagonal axis are for girls, below are for boys.


202▲

Measurement ModelAustralian sample: In the first step, a two latent factors model for victimisation wasconstructed. The latent factor ‘cyber-victimisation’ was built using the eight cyber-victimisation items. The latent factor ‘traditional victimisation’ was used for the 12traditional victimisation items. The two latent factors were allowed to correlate.The model fit was good CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.068 (χ2 was not used due to anextremely large sample size). In a second step, a latent factor model for emotionalsymptoms was created using five emotional items. This model fit was also good, CFI= 0.98, RMSEA = 0.059 (χ2 was not used due to an extremely large sample size).

Austrian sample: In the first step, a two latent factors model for victimisation wasconstructed. The latent factor ‘cyber-victimisation’ was built using the five cyber-victimisation items. The latent factor ‘traditional victimisation’ was used for thefive traditional victimisation items. The two latent factors were allowed to corre-late. The model fit was excellent, χ2(33) = 155.92, p < .01, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA0.05. In a second step, a latent factor model for emotional symptoms was createdusing the five emotional symptoms items. This model fit was not satisfactory, χ2(5)= 61.75, p < .001, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA 0.09. The modification indices suggested tocorrelate the residuals of the item ‘I have many fears, I am easily scared’ with allother four items. Therefore, we decided to delete this item. The four item model fitwas excellent, χ2(2) = 4.99, p = 0.08, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA 0.03.

Structural ModelAustralian sample: In the second step, we constructed the initial, hypothesizedmodel (Figure 1). The model had an adequate fit, CFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.039 (χ2

was not used due to an extremely large sample size) and it explained 20% of vari-ance in emotional symptoms (R2 = .20). Statistically significant paths (standardisedcoefficients) are shown in Figure 1. Being a girl was positively related to beingcyber-victimised, being traditionally victimised, reporting emotional symptoms andwith seeking help. Of interest, in the Australian sample, cyber-victimisation wasnot related to emotional symptoms but traditional victimisation was. In addition,traditional victimisation was related to help-seeking behaviour whereas cyber-

TABLE 3

Where Students Seek Help

Australian girls Austrian boys P value Australian girls Austrian boys P value(N = 1800) (N = 1189) (N = 127) (N = 103)

Parents/guardian 1059 (58.8%) 603 (50.7%) < .001 63 (50%) 51 (50%) NS

Friends from school 1374 (76.3%) 811 (68.2%) < .001 59 (46%) 49 (48%) NS

Friends not from school 505 (28.1%) 284 (23.9%) .011 34 (27%) 32 (31%) NS

Teachers 724 (40.2%) 534 (44.9%) .011 30 (24%) 33 (32%) NS

Other family members 623 (34.6%) 367 (30.9%) .033 18 (14%) 14 (14%) NS

Kids help line 69 (3.8%) 59 (5.0%) .136 4 (3%) 2 (2%) NS

Website 48 (2.7%) 52 (4.4%) .011 3 (2%) 7 (7%) NS

Other 90 (5.0%) 56 (4.7%) .719 22 (17%) 15 (15%) NS

Note: Multiple answers were possible.



203 ▲

victimisation was not. Cyber-victimisation was not related to help-seeking behav-iour, and, contrary to our expectations, help-seeking behaviour was not related toemotional symptoms.

Austrian sample: In the second step, we constructed the initial, hypothesized model(Figure 2). The model had an excellent fit, χ2(96) = 520.37, p < .01, CFI = 0.96,RMSEA = 0.05 and it explained 11% of variance in emotional symptoms (R2 =.11). Statistically significant paths (standardized coefficients) are shown in Figure2. Being a boy was positively related to being cyber-victimised, while being a girlwas positively related to reporting emotional symptoms and strongly positivelyrelated with help-seeking behaviour. As predicted, both cyber-victimisation and tra-ditional victimisation were associated with emotional symptoms and traditionalvictimisation was related with help-seeking behaviour. Contrary to our expecta-tion, cyber-victimisation was not related with help-seeking behaviour, and help-seeking behaviour was not related with emotional symptoms.

Testing indirect effects. With Mplus (Muthen & Muthen, 2007) total indirect, spe-cific indirect and total effects were specified. Total effects included all indirecteffects and the direct effect. In sum, five specific indirect effects were estimated.The hypothesized model suggests that help-seeking behaviour would help toexplain the associations between gender and emotional symptoms, cyber-victimisa-tion and emotional symptoms, and traditional victimisation and emotional symp-

FIGURE 1The final Australian model displays standardised coefficients for predicting the direct and indirect effects ofgender, cyber-victimisation, traditional victimisation, and help seeking on emotional symptoms.


204▲

toms. No evidence was found for indirect effects in either sample. Furthermore, thehypothesised model suggests that cyber-victimisation and traditional victimisationwould help to explain the association between gender and emotional symptoms.Indeed, a very small specific indirect effect was found for cyber-victimisation in theAustrian sample (b = 0.01, p = .04). To summarise, help-seeking behaviour wasneither directly nor indirectly associated with emotional symptoms.

DiscussionThis study examined help-seeking and self-reported emotional symptoms in 10- to15-year-old students who were bullied via cyber and traditional methods. Seekinghelp (by reporting to someone) when being bullied is not a common behaviour,especially with males (Hunter et al., 2004). However, if incidences of bullying areunder- or unreported, then schools (in addition to teachers and parents) appearunable to provide the necessary assistance and support. The challenge for schoolstaff (and parents) is to create an environment (virtual or otherwise) that encour-ages help-seeking and the reporting of bullying behaviours. Therefore, we wereinterested to examine the phenomenon of help-seeking in relation to bullying expe-riences and the association with self-reported emotional symptoms in young stu-dents from two countries.

FIGURE 2The final Austrian model displays standardised coefficients for predicting the direct and indirect effects ofgender, cyber-victimisation, traditional victimisation, and help seeking on emotional symptoms.


Importantly, a statistically significant positive relationship between victimisation(cyber or traditional) and self-reported emotional symptoms was found in bothAustralia and Austria. Students from Australia and Austria who were victimisedwere more likely to report more emotional symptoms. This is consistent with theresearch evidence demonstrating negative mental health outcomes associated withbullying (cyber or traditional) victimisation (e.g., Cross et al., 2009; Ttofi &Farrington, 2008). Furthermore, several additional noteworthy results were foundin this study. The first of these relates to the lack of a relationship between help-seeking and cyber-victimisation, but the presence of one between help-seeking andtraditional victimisation — a pattern observed in both countries. This finding isconsistent with Smith et al. (2008) who found that students reported tellingsomeone less often when being cyberbullied compared to traditional bullying. Thatthis relationship is demonstrated in Australia, Austria and in the United Kingdom(by Smith et al.) provides good evidence that young people who are being cyber-bullied appear less inclined to talk about this bullying than students who are tradi-tionally bullied. However, the limited research evidence to date makes it difficult tointerpret these findings or to determine what characteristics of cyberbullying mayunderlie this relationship. It may be that many young people who are being cyber-victimised are more reluctant to seek help from the available channels. Cross andcolleagues reported that many young people don’t tell adults they are being cyber-bullied largely for fear of losing their access to technology (CHPRC, 2008). Thistendency to seek help for traditional bullying versus cyberbullying could also bemore normative and relate to the extent, nature and/or duration of traditional inci-dences. It may also be related to school reporting methods that are more orientedtoward traditional versus cyberbullying behaviours. Further, as cyberbullying ismore likely to happen at home (Cross et al., 2009), it may be that young peoplefeel it is less of a concern for teachers and they may feel more comfortable speakingto peers or parents. Nonetheless, we can only hypothesise what this finding means.However, most importantly, it strongly indicates that more investigation is neces-sary to fully understand why young people appear more reluctant to report inci-dences of cyberbullying compared to traditional bullying.

Still much remains to be understood about the differential effect of variouscyberbullying behaviours and how these relate to traditional behaviours. Smith andcolleagues found that some cyberbullying behaviours (e.g., using pictures or videos)would be considered more harmful than traditional behaviours whereas others(e.g., via mobile phone text message) may not be viewed as being as harmful as tra-ditional bullying (Smith et al., 2008). Therefore, it may be that the majority of thecyberbullying behaviours experienced by the students in this study were lessharmful relative to the traditional behaviours. If it is the case that most of thecyberbullying behaviours experienced were relatively mild (relative to other bully-ing behaviours), then it may also be the case that help was not sought as those vic-timised may have had the skills to deal with these behaviours themselves.

Hunter et al. (2004) reported that students were more likely to report if they feltthat something could be achieved by telling someone. Being cyberbullied in addi-tion to being bullied by more traditional methods may result in students feelingmore helpless (i.e., there is no easy solution or that the situation can’t be fixed),thus making it less likely that they will report. This could result in higher levels of


205 ▲

mental health symptoms compared to what would typically be observed in tradi-tional victimisation incidences (Perren et al., under review).

An additional issue is that not all assistance and support that adults provide maybe useful. Cross et al. (2009) reported that nearly 46% of young people whoreported being bullied (covert bullying including cyber) indicated that things eithergot worse or there was no improvement in the situation when it was reported to anadult. The authors suggested this may be based on a lack of skills among adultsabout how to deal with bullying (cyber in particular). This lack of skills couldexplain why students from both countries were not inclined to seek help whencyber-victimised but were willing when victimised by more traditional methods. Asnoted, these results are consistent with Smith et al. (2008) who found that studentswho were cyberbullied were less likely to seek help than students traditionallybullied. It is important to highlight that this could be based on the system ofreporting available to students. For example, it may be that, if students are tradi-tionally bullied first, there is no need to report the cyberbullying episodes sepa-rately. Clearly, further investigation is warranted.

As predicted, gender was associated with help-seeking and emotional symptoms,with girls from both countries significantly more likely than boys to seek help andto report emotional symptoms when bullied. This is consistent with evidencedescribing help-seeking behaviours (e.g., Hunter et al., 2004) and suggests thatboys are more disinclined to report being bullied. Of interest for policy and prac-tice, boys in the Australian sample were significantly more likely than girls to talkto a teacher or to visit a website to seek help. Hence, online reporting at schoolsmay hold great value for boys in particular (e.g., using a blend of website andteacher reporting options). Although the percentages of young people whoreported calling a help phone line or visiting a website were small (in both coun-tries), there may be some potential benefit to providing boys (and girls) with a safeavenue to report, when the young person being victimised feels comfortable. Giventhe severe nature of some bullying incidences, immediacy of awareness of the bully-ing may be important. Thus, schools providing the option of reporting online mayassist with this. Although it is not yet clear if the internet holds the same level ofpositive benefit in relation to help-seeking as was suggested by Yablon (2008), it isimportant to ensure that young people who are being victimised have a variety ofstrategies that encourage and enable them to report or seek help.

Strengths and LimitationsThere are several strengths to this study. First, it is the only study (that we are awareof) to examine the relationship between different forms of victimisation (cyber andtraditional) and help-seeking behaviours and the relationship to self-reported emo-tional symptoms. The emergence of cyberbullying and cyber-victimisation hascreated a significant amount of concern for teachers, school psychologists, counsel-lors, pastoral care teams and parents. Of concern is school staff reporting a lack ofawareness of these behaviours occurring. Although many students in this samplereported seeking help, we did not find a relationship between help-seeking andself-reported emotional symptoms in students who were cyber-victimised. The cross-cultural consistency of this result adds weight to the importance of providing clearavenues that encourage and enable students to report all forms of bullying.


206▲


Furthermore, although there were some minor differences in item wording, the keyoutcome variables (help-seeking and emotional symptoms) were identically worded.

Overall, there were some limitations with this study. For example, some items thatassessed victimisation (cyber and traditional) were worded differently between thetwo countries. Nevertheless, this difference was largely due to the need to ensure theitems best reflected the cultural background of participants to maximise understand-ing. Another important limitation relates to the way in which the help-seeking ques-tions were formatted. Although the wording was identical, the fact that theAustralian students could answer this question even though they may not have beenbullied (i.e., if they misunderstood the nature of the question) may have resulted inan over estimation of the number of students who asked for help. We attempted toaccount for this by only selecting those participants who indicated they were cyber-bullied on a global measure of victimisation. Nonetheless, although we suggest thatthese data be interpreted with caution, the consistency with the data collected fromAustria and, as noted, UK students (by Smith et al., 2008) is notable.

Other limitations concern the nature of the data collected. First, all measureswere self-reports. Second, as with all cross-sectional studies the causal direction ofthe relationships cannot be determined, and thus our focus is on associationsbetween the variables involved.

ConclusionThe accurate identification of young people who are being bullied relies, in part, onthese behaviours being reported. Without awareness of the prevalence, types andextent of bullying behaviours, adults (especially school staff and parents) are lessable to provide support. This is even more the case with less obvious forms of bul-lying, such as cyberbullying. The results of this study suggest that young peoplein Australia and Austria who reported being cyber-victimised indicated they wereless likely to seek help. This lack of help-seeking/reporting is a major concern toschools and parents and requires the development of strategies to ensure thatyoung people who are being victimised receive the help and support they need.

ReferencesArsenault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2009). Bullying victimization in youths and mental

health problems: ‘Much ado about nothing’? Psychological Medicine, 29, 1–13.Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,

107(2), 238–246.Besag, V.E. (1989). Bullies and victims in schools: A guide to understanding and manage-

ment. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Boulton, M.J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bullying/victim problems among middle school

children, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73–87.Child Health Promotion Research Centre. (2008). Cyber Friendly Student Summit. Perth,

Australia: Author.Cowie, H., & Olafsson, R. (1999). The role of peer support against bullying. School

Psychology International, 20, 96–105.Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., et al. (2009). Australian

Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS). Perth, Australia: Child Health PromotionResearch Centre, Edith Cowan University.


207 ▲

Dooley, J.J., Cross, D., Hearn, L., & Treyvaud, R. (2009a). A review of the Australian andinternational cyber-safety literature (A report prepared for the Department ofBroadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, p. 276). Perth, Australia: EdithCowan University.

Dooley, J.J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009b). Cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying:Similarities and differences. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4),182–188.

Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Morita, Y., O’Moore, M., Mora-Merchan, J.A., Pereira, B. et al.(2004). Friendship and loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven coun-tries. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 71-83.

Farrington, D.P., & Ttofi, M.M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and vic-timization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, doi: 10.4073/csr.2009.6

Fekkes, M.F., Pijpers, I.M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what,when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior.Health Education Research, 20(1), 81–91.

Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G.W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis-stressmodel of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74, 257–278.

Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Question -naire (SDQ). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40,1337–1345.

Goodman, M.R., Stormshak, E.A., & Dishion, T.J. (2001). The significance of peer victim-ization at two points in development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,22, 507–526.

Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying:Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift für Psychologie /Journal of Psychology, 217, 205–213.

Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D. & Spiel, C. (in press). Motives for bullying others in cyber-space: A study on bullies and bully-victims in Austria. In Q. Li, D. Cross & P. Smith(Eds.), Bullying in the global village: Research on cyberbullying from an internationalperspective.

Hanish, L.D. & Guerra, N.G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment fol-lowing peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69–89.

Hunter, S.C., Boyle, J.M.E., & Warden, D. (2004). Help seeking amongst child and adoles-cent victims of peer-aggression and bullying: The influence of school-stage, gender, vic-timisation, appraisal, and emotion. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,375–390.

MacLeod, M., & Morris, S. (1996). Why me? Children talking to ChildLine about bullying.London: ChildLine.

Mitchell, K.J., Ybarra, M., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). The relative importance of online vic-timization in understanding depression, delinquency, and substance use. ChildMaltreatment, 12, 314–324.

Molcho, M., Craig, W., Due, P., Pickett, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., & Overpeck, M. (2009). Cross-national time trends in bullying behaviour 1994–2006: Findings from Europe andNorth America. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 225–234.

Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:Muthén & Muthén.

Nansel, T.R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M.D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W.J. (2004). Cross-nationalconsistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjust-ment. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 730–736.

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., & del Rey, R. (2001) Coping strategies of secondary school childrenin responses to being bullied, Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 6(3), 114–120.


208▲



209 ▲

Novick, R.M., & Isaacs, J. (2010). Telling is compelling: The impact of student reports ofbullying on teacher intervention. Educational Psychology, 30(30), 283–296.

O’Moore, A.M., Kirkham, C., & Smith, M. (1997). Bullying behaviour in Irish schools: Anationwide study. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18(2), 141–169.

Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of telling. Oxford Review ofEducation, 33(1), 71–86.

Perren, S., Dooley, J.J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (in press). Being victimised in school andcyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adoles-cents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4, 28. doi: 10.1186/1753-2000-4-28.

Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.

Smith, P.K., & Sharp. S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London:Routledge.

Smith, P.K., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Findings from adecade of research and action. Childhood, 7(2), 193–212.

Smith, P.K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of school bullying:Developmental changes in coping strategies and skills. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimised (pp. 332–351). New York: Guilford Press.

Spiel, C., & Strohmeier, D. (under review). National strategy for violence prevention in theAustrian public school system: Development and implementation. International Journalof Behavioral Development.

Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimationapproach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.

Ttofi, M.M., & Farrington, D.P. (2008). Bullying: Short-term and long-term effects, and theimportance of Defiance Theory in explanation and prevention. Victims and Offenders,3, 289–312.

Twyman, K., Saylor, C., Taylor, L.A., & Comeaux, C. (2010). Comparing children and ado-lescents engaged in cyberbullying to matched peers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, andSocial Networking, 13(2), 195–199.

Unnever, J.D., & Cornell, D.G. (2004). Middle school victims of bullying: Who reportsbeing bullied? Aggressive Behavior, 30, 373–388.

Willard, N.E. (2007). Cyber-bullying and cyber-threats: Responding to the challenge ofonline social aggression, threats, and distress. Illinois: Research Press.

Yablon, Y.B. (2008). Internet as a source of help in dealing with school violence. Journal ofEducational Computing Research, 39(3), 205–220.

▲

210▲


Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 210–224

▲

Cyberbullying as an Act of Revenge?

Andreas König,1 Mario Gollwitzer2 and Georges Steffgen1

1 Research Unit INSIDE, Faculty of University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg2 Mario Gollwitzer, Fachbereich 04 — Psychologie, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany

Despite significant overlaps between victim status in traditional forms of bully-ing and cyberbullying, and qualitative results about self-reportedreasons for cyberbullying, the role of revenge and retaliation as amotive to engage in acts of cyberbullying has not yet been examinedsystematically. As a first step, this study investigates whether and towhat extent traditional victims, when they become cyberbullies,actually choose their former (traditional) perpetrators as targets oftheir own cyberbullying behavior. Furthermore, the impact of indi-vidual differences in relevant traits, such as vengefulness and justicesensitivity, on the choice of cybervictims is examined. Data from 473students were collected via an online survey. Of these, 149 wereidentified as traditional victims/cyberbullies. Results show that tradi-tionally bullied students indeed tend to choose their former perpetra-tors as cybervictims, and that individual differences play a role in thechoice of their victims. Implications for further research, as well asfor interventions and prevention programmes, are discussed.

■ KEYWORDS: cyberbullying, bullying, revenge, justice, empathy

Resulting from the advancement of new communication technologies, cyberbully-ing has emerged as a quite recent phenomenon. In current definitions, it has beendescribed as the deliberate and repeated harm inflicted through the use of comput-ers, cell phones, and other electronic devices (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009), carriedout as an aggressive act by a group or individual against a victim who cannot easilydefend him- or herself (Smith et al. 2006). Cyberbullying may occur in variousforms, including flaming/trolling, harassment, cyber-stalking, denigration, imper-sonation/identity theft, outing, photo shopping, exclusion, threatening with physi-cal harm, or happy slapping (Willard 2006). Several electronic communicationtools provide opportunities for cyberbullying, including cell phones (e.g., phonecall, text message, picture/video clip bullying), or the Internet (e.g., e-mail, instantmessaging, websites, chat-rooms). Cyberbullying may occur anywhere and at anytime. While there seems to be no place to hide for cybervictims, the perpetrators incontrast benefit from the breadth of the audience and the greater invisibility com-pared to traditional forms of bullying.

Address for Correspondence: Andreas König, Université du Luxembourg, FLSHASE, Research Unit INSIDE,Bâtiment XII, Route de Diekirch, L-7720 Walferdange, Luxembourg. E-mail: [email protected]


As an aggressive act (Smith, 2006), cyberbullying could be motivated by revenge(Goberecht, 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Sanders, 2009). As an action inresponse to some perceived harm or wrongdoing by another group or person thatis intended to inflict damage, injury, discomfort, or punishment on the party judgedresponsible (cf., Aquino, Bies, & Tripp, 2001), revenge is a retaliatory measure bywhich people seek satisfaction and try to reestablish justice (Govier, 2002;Gollwitzer, 2009). As such, revenge encapsulates the full range of aggressive behav-iors. What makes it uniquely different from other aggression constructs (verbal,physical, covert/overt, indirect/direct, interpersonally-/organisationally-directed), isthat it is particularly concerned with reactions to perceived injustices (Bies &Tripp, 2005).

Given that cyberbullying can be regarded a covert form of psychological bully-ing (Smith et al., 2008), it make sense to assume that it is driven by a similar set ofmotivations as traditional bullying. Such motives may include relational concernsand a ‘need to belong’ (e.g., Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2009), dominance (e.g.,Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001), power and social status (e.g., Ireland, 2002), socialattention (e.g., Kingston, 2008), self-worth defense (e.g., Salmivalli et al., 1999)etc. Other factors might include a striving for resources and material gains, ventinganger, jealousy, boredom, and entertainment (Sanders, 2009). So far, there is littleresearch on the motivational basis of cyberbullying, and to the best of our knowl-edge, there are no established instruments to systematically assess motives underly-ing cyberbullying in particular. When asking cyberbullies directly about theirmotives, most of them endorse the same set of motives as do traditional bullies(Sanders, 2009).

While under some circumstances all these motives may be relevant to cyber-bullying, there is some evidence suggesting that revenge might be of particularimportance: Hinduja and Patchin (2009) report that the most frequent explana-tion for cyberbullying was ‘to get revenge’ (22.5%; see also Goberecht, 2008), andanother 2.8% stated ‘Because they picked on me in school’, both linking cyberbul-lying to matters of ‘just revenge’. These numbers might be misleading, however,because taking revenge requires that cyberbullies actually acted against those whohad previously bullied them. This, however, has not been controlled for in previ-ous studies.

The overlaps between offline and online bullying reported in several studiescould be interpreted as further empirical. For example, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004)found that most cyberbullies were also cybervictims, and that almost half of thecyberbullies reported having been victims of traditional bullying. However, theseoverlaps between cyberbullies and (cyber)victims still do not reveal any informa-tion as to whether the targets of cyberbullying are actually those who had been(traditionally) perpetrating the cyberbully before. Cyberbullying could as well bedirected against known or unknown third persons, in which case one could not callit revenge, but rather some form of displaced aggression. The present study is thefirst to specifically address revenge for being bullied within the relevant subsampleof traditional victims/cyberbullies.

On a conceptual level, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) argue that while for somecyberbullies, the internet may simply be an extension of the schoolyard, some maycompensate their physical weakness (which precludes them of becoming ‘tradi-

Cyberbullying as an Act of Revenge

211 ▲

tional bullies’) by using cyberbullying to assert dominance over others. The abilityto remain unidentified as a cyberbully creates an asymmetrical power constellation.Victims of traditional bullying may seek retribution through technological means,thereby ‘turning the table’ on their aggressors (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). This ismade possible through the equalising characteristics of the Internet and its abilityto preempt the relevance of physical intimidation (Kowalski & Limber, 2007).According to Ybarra and Mitchell (2004), these differences in the aspect of asym-metrical power between conventional and cyberbullying may help explain whybullies are not always cyberbullies and vice versa.

Based on the aforementioned conceptual and empirical arguments, we expecteda substantial percentage of traditional victims/cyberbullies to be motivated byrevenge. Considering the existing gap in current cyberbullying research, this studyaims to make a first step in addressing this question by examining in how far tradi-tional victims, when they become cyberbullies, actually choose their former (tradi-tional) perpetrators as their targets. Only then would it make sense to considercyberbullying a form of revenge.

Second, we investigated to what degree cyberbullies’ choice of targets can bepredicted by personality traits that are known to be related to vengeful behavior.We expected that the extent to which cyberbullies chose their former (traditional)perpetrators as targets can be predicted by dispositional vengefulness and justicesensitivity from a victim’s perspective. Vengefulness has been conceptualised as thedegree to which individuals tend to inflict harm or demand retribution for a per-ceived wrong (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992). Justice sensitivity from a victim’sperspective (or simply, ‘victim sensitivity’) has been conceptualised as the degreeto which a person responds with anger, moral outrage, and rumination towardsunfair disadvantages and victimisations (cf. Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Förster, &Montada, 2005). Victim-sensitive individuals have been shown to respond particu-larly sensitive towards being exploited, deceived, or humiliated (Gollwitzer &Rothmund, 2009; Gollwitzer, Rothmund, Pfeiffer, & Ensenbach, 2009) and tendto be more punitive (Schmitt, Neumann, & Montada, 1995). Thus, highly victim-sensitive individuals should be particularly motivated to avenge prior victimisation.Since revenge is also motivated by a desire to make it clear that one is not the kindof person to be ‘walked over’ to the offender (Gollwitzer & Denzler, 2009;Gollwitzer, Meder, & Schmitt, in press), one can expect victim sensitivity to predictthe degree to which cyberbullies pick their former perpetrators as targets.

In line with the reasoning by Smith et al. (2008) that cyberbullies may get peerrewards through sharing their actions, it might be less important to convey thismessage to the former perpetrator rather than to other relevant peers, thereby pro-tecting one’s social prestige. As cyberbullying is most often anonymous, the bestguarantee that the message is conveyed is to cyberbully it in the presence of peers.

Bullies often tend to have a high status in their peer group (Juvonen et al.,2003). Aquino, Tripp, and Bies (2001) found that victims were less likely to seekrevenge against higher status aggressors, arguing that victims feared counter-retali-ation. Considering the nature of cyberbullying, it might indeed be a very attractiveform of revenge: it satisfies the wish to seek justice, to punish the perpetrator, andto demonstrate to other relevant peers that one is not a person to be walked over,


212▲


while at the same time hiding his/her identity from the target. Thus, cyberbullyingallows taking revenge while minimizing the probability of retaliation.

Empathy has also been linked to aggressive behavior in several studies (Jolliffe,2004). To date, research has mainly focused on the link between empathy andaggression in general. Only few studies addressed the empathic skills of traditionalbullies. These studies revealed an inconsistent pattern, which seems to be related tothe gender of participants. There is even less research on cyberbullying andempathy. As mentioned above, cyberbullies remain more anonymous than tradi-tional face-to-face bullies. This anonymity, or distance between the perpetrator andthe victim, implies that perpetrators will be prevented from observing the immedi-ate consequences of their behavior. Therefore, cyberbullies may even experienceless empathy for their victims than traditional bullies (Pornari & Wood, 2010).Alternatively, cyberbullying may particularly attract persons with low traitempathy. However, and in contrast to findings with traditional bullying, firstresearch findings do not support this role of empathy for cyberbullying.Cyberbullies were not found to show a lack of empathy in comparison to victims,bully-victims, and non-involved persons (Almeida et al., 2008). Therefore, wedecided to control for empathy, but did not have a specific hypothesis.

MethodThe methods section will start with a description of the procedure. Next, the meas-ures used and the study sample will be described.

ProcedureThe study was advertised in a popular German online discussion forum for stu-dents (Schuelervz.net). The link was active for a period of one week in December,2009. As an incentive, gift vouchers (5 x 20€ and 2 x 30€; redeeming required anadult) were raffled among participants. Winners could choose between voucherseither for a clothing store or for an online bookshop. To maintain anonymity, thosewho completed the questionnaire were redirected to another webpage, where theycould enter their contact data for the raffle in a separate dataset.

Instruments

Cyberbullying. Cyberbullying was assessed with the 18-item Berlin Cyberbullying-Cybervictimisation-Questionnaire (BCyQ) (Schultze-Krumbholz & Scheithauer,2008, 2009), using behavioral categories to operationalize the seven categories ofcyberbullying proposed by Willard (2006): Flaming, harassment, denigration,impersonation, outing/trickery, exclusion and cyber-stalking. Students indicatedhow often they had become perpetrators of a given behavioral category within thelast 6 months. Each item used a 5-point ordinal response format (did notoccur/happen at all, once or twice, twice or three times a month, once a week, andseveral times a week). Example items are ‘I used someone’s password and wrotethings in his/her name that damaged his/her friendships’ (impersonation) and ‘Isent or posted secret, embarrassing or insulting photos/videos of a person withouthis/her consent’ (outing).


213 ▲

Because of the ordinal response format, no scale was computed. Instead, stu-dents who indicated performing at least one of the mentioned behaviors once ortwice within the last 6 months were categorised as cyberbullies. If, for example, aparticipant indicated that he or she denigrated someone once or twice within thelast 6 months, this was considered a relevant cyberbullying behaviour, even if he orshe performed no other form of cyberbullying during that time.

Traditional victimization. Students indicated how often they had become the victimof traditional bullying within the last 6 months on a single item, using the same 5-point ordinal response format as for cyberbullying, preceded by a description of(traditional) bullying (Scheithauer, Hayer & Petermann, 2003) in order to ensurethat participants would not include acts of cyberbullying in their answer concern-ing their overall involvement in (traditional) bullying. For the purpose of this study,students who indicated being bullied at least once or twice within the last 6 monthswere categorized as ‘traditional victims’. Note that our operationalisation of(cyber)bullying differs from typical operationalisations of bullying, where a childwould only be categorised as a ‘bully’ if he or she repeatedly engaged in suchbehaviour. For the present purpose, we decided to omit this criterion since ourresearch question is mainly correlational, and a valid estimation of the prevalenceof cyberbullying is not important for our hypotheses.

Vengefulness. Dispositional vengefulness was assessed with a German version(Werner & Appel, 2004) of the revenge subscale of the Transgression-RelatedInterpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM; McCullough et al., 1998). An itemexample is ‘I want him/her to get what he/she deserves’ (5 items; α = .88). Responseswere given on a 6-point Likert scale (1–6). For further analyses, mean scores werecomputed for all measures with a continuous (equidistant) response format.

Victim sensitivity. A brief version (cf. Faccenda, Pantaléon, Bois & Schmitt, 2008)of Schmitt et al.’s (2005) victim sensitivity for befallen injustice (SBI) scale wasemployed in this study. An item example is ‘It annoys me when I’m treated worsethan others’ (5 items; α = .77).

Choice of last victim. Participants who were classified as cyberbullies as a function oftheir response to the first question were then asked to think about the last personthey chose as target for an act of cyberbullying, and to indicate whether — prior tothis act — this person had previously bullied them traditionally or not.

Proportion of traditional perpetrators among cybervictims. Second, participants wereasked to indicate how many of their cybervictims had ‘traditionally’bullied thembefore (None of them, About a quarter, Approximately half of them, About threequarters, About all of them).

Empathy. Five context-specific items operationalising ‘empathy for cybervictims’were formulated (e.g., ‘I can well imagine how someone feels who is being harassedvia mobile phone or internet’). Students indicated their agreement with these state-ments on a 6-point Likert scale (Totally disagree to Fully agree). Reliability of thescale was Cronbach’s α = .70).


214▲


Demographic and other control variables. Along with age and sex of participants, theywere asked about their self-assessed technological competency in matters of mobilephone and Internet and about the presence of peers during acts of cyberbullyingwith one item each. No further demographic or SES data were collected. This wasdone in order to reduce participation time to a minimum, and to foster a sense ofanonymity among participants.

Participants/SampleOut of 777 participants starting with the online questionnaire, 77 already droppedon the first page and another 63 on the second page when asked about their ageand sex. In general, the dropout rate increased by 2–4% per page after that.Testing for differences between those who did vs. did not complete the question-naire did not yield any significant results. Only a few questions were programmedto be obligatory to prevent page skipping, so not every participant reaching the lastpage answered to every single question. Eventually, 473 (60.9%) had a sufficientcompletion rate to be retained for further analyses.

Three-hundred and seventy-five (79.3%) persons were classified as cyberbullies.Of these, 47.7% were male (52.3% female), 46.4% were less than 18 years old(Range: 11 to 17; M = 14.63) and 53.6% were older than 18 years (Range: 18 to25; M = 20.9). These rates are higher than usual (cf. Slonje & Smith, 2008), but, asargued earlier, this might be the result of our method, and it could also be due tothe greater anonymity connected to an online survey. It is, however, of no conse-quence for the present purpose and our analyses.

One-hundred and seventy-nine (30.9%) participants reported being traditionallyvictimised at least once or twice within the last 6 months. Of these, 58.1% weremale (41.9% female), 69.3% were less than 18 years old (Range: 11 to 17; M =14.57), and 30.7% were older than 18 years (Range: 18 to 25; M = 20.60).

ResultsTo answer our research questions, the overlapping category of both cyberbullies/tra-ditional victims had to be identified first. Out of 179 traditional victims, 83.3% (N =149) were also cyberbullies. Of these, 56.4% were male (43.6% female), 65.8%were less than 18 years old (Range: 11 to 17; M = 14.61), and 34.2% were olderthan 18 years (Range: 18 to 25; M = 20.80). The following analyses refer to this cate-gory of cyberbullies/traditional victims only, with a varying N depending on thenumber of complete answers on the according third variables.

Choice of Last Victim Of all cyberbullies/traditional victims, N = 133 answered to the question ofwhether or not they had chosen a traditional perpetrator as their last online target(see Table 1). Of these, 41.4% (N = 55, subsequently referred to as ‘avengers’) indi-cated choosing a target who had traditionally bullied them before (which equals14.7% among all 375 cyberbullies), whereas 58.6% chose another person as theirlast cybervictim (subsequently referred to as ‘non-avengers’). There was no effect ofsex on this frequency: Male (58.2%) and female respondents (41.8%) did notdiffer with regard to the extent to which they targeted a former traditional bully,


215 ▲


216▲

TABLE 1

Traditional Victimisation Within Last 6 Months and Choice of Former Perpetrator as Last Cybervictim

Traditional victimisation

Once or twice Two or three Once a week Several times Totaltimes a month a week

N 93 16 13 11 133

% choice of traditional perpetrator 36.60% 50.00% 53.80% 36.40% 41.40%as last cybervictim (N = 34) (N = 8) (N = 6) (N = 7) (N = 55)

% choice of other (third) person 63.40% 50.00% 46.20% 63.60% 58.60%as last cybervictim (N = 59) (N = 8) (N = 7) (N = 4) (N = 78)

χ2(1; N = 133) = 0.04; p = .86. Also, there were no age differences betweenavengers (M = 16.65 years; SD = 3.32) and non-avengers (M = 17.14 years; SD =3.58) (t = 0.79; p = .43; df = 131). However, a marginally significant differencewere found for self-assessed technological competence (t = -1.66; p = .099; df =131), with a higher competency for avengers (M = 4.20; SD = 0.99) than for non-avengers (M = 3.86; SD = 1.27).

Reported Proportion of Traditional PerpetratorsOur second dependent variable was the self-reported proportion of ‘traditional’perpetrators among respondents’ cybervictims on a scale from 1 to 5. Using thiscontinuous measure allowed us to use more sophisticated methods of data analysis.Of 149 traditional victims/cyberbullies, 144 answered this question. Of these,47.9% indicated not having any of their traditional perpetrators among theircybervictims at all; 20.1% indicated that about a quarter were persons who tradi-tionally bullied them prior to choosing them as cybervictims; 11.8% indicatedabout half of them, 10.4% about three quarters, and 9.7% said about all of theircybervictims were former traditional perpetrators. In sum, 52.1% of traditionalvictims/cyberbullies stated that at least about a quarter of their victims werepersons who bullied them before.

In order to analyse the relationship between the degree of traditional victimisa-tion and the proportion to which these victims later chose their former perpetratorsas targets for cyberbullying, we used the frequency with which those who wereclassified as traditional victims indicated being bullied for further differentiation;that is, only the four ordinal scale values from Once or twice to Several times aweek were used. This allowed us to compute an ordinal correlation coefficient(Kendall`s tau) regarding the relationship between prior victimisation and the pro-portion of traditional perpetrators among targets.

Does a more frequent victimisation lead to more vengeful behaviour? Apparentlyyes: There was a significant correlation between the frequency of traditional victimi-sation and the reported proportion of traditional perpetrators (r = .19; p < .01; N =144). Separated by age or sex, the strength of this correlation differs just marginallyfrom the entire sample with r = .22 (p = .02; N = 63) for females vs. r = .17 (p = .04;N = 81) for males, and r = .21 (p = .05; N = 51) for participants older than 18 yearsvs. r = .14 (p = .07; N = 93) for those younger than 18 years. Thus, neither sex nor



217 ▲

TABLE 2

Regression of the Proportion of Traditional Bullies Among Cybervictims on TRIM-R

R2corr Beta t F p

Model .062 4.172 .007**

TRIM-R .20 2.35 .020*

Age -.19 -2.31 .023*

Sex .10 1.23 .222

Note: Age And Sex As Predictors.N = 144 (df1 = 3; df2 = 140); *p < .05; **p < .01.

age moderate the relation between frequency of victimisation and the proportion oftraditional perpetrators among one’s cybervictims.

Effects of Vengefulness and Victim SensitivityThe effects of dispositional vengefulness and victim sensitivity on the proportion offormer perpetrators as targets of cyberbullying were tested via regression analyses.As before, all analyses were performed only for those cyberbullies who reportedbeing victims of traditional bullying as well. Did vengefulness and victim sensitivitypredict the extent to which cyberbullies targeted a prior perpetrator? Unexpectedly,victim sensitivity did not significantly predict the proportion of one’s traditionalperpetrators (R2

corr = .04; p = .17). This did not change when controlling for ageand sex. In contrast, vengefulness turned out to be a significant predictor in asimple regression model (R2

corr = .03; p = .02). Even when controlling for age andsex, vengefulness proved to be a significant predictor for the proportion of one’straditional bullies chosen as cybervictims (see Table 2).

Next, in order to assess the relevance of these traits and to identify the strongestpredictors in the context of other potentially relevant variables, a stepwise hierar-chical multiple regression was computed, controlling for sex and age in a firstblock and vengefulness, victim sensitivity, presence of peers when cyberbullying,self-assessed technical competency and empathy in a second block (see Table 3).

Again, vengefulness emerged as a significant predictor of the proportion of formerperpetrators as targets of cyberbullying. In addition, the more peers were present, thehigher the proportion of former perpetrators among targets, which is in line with thesignificant bivariate correlation between these two variables (r = .25; p = .002; N =134). Although the proportion of former perpetrators deviated from normality, thedistribution is well within the critical limits proposed by West, Finch and Curran(1995) with skewness = .91 (SD = .20), and kurtosis = -.50 (SD = .40).

DiscussionThe substantial overlap of involvement in traditional and cyberbullying led to theassumption that revenge might be an important motive for cyberbullying (Ybarra& Mitchell, 2004; Smith et al., 2008). Also, some authors found that youth, whenasked why they cyberbully others, frequently mention revenge as a motive (e.g.,Goberecht, 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Sanders, 2009). Previous studies have,


218▲

TABLE 3

Stepwise Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Proportion of Traditional Bullies Among Cybervictims on TRIM-R, SBI, Empathy, Presence of Peers and Technological Competency of Traditional Victims/Cyberbullies, Controlling for Age and Sex

R2corr Beta t F p

Model .096 4.315 .003**

Included variablesAge -.125 -1.748 .083Sex .119 1.344 .181TRIM-R .184 2.076 .040*Peer presence .212 2.432 .016*

Excluded variablesSBI .103 1.176 .242Empathy .121 1.314 .191Technical competency .121 1.400 .164

Note: N = 126 (df1 = 4; df2 = 121); *p < .05; **p < .01.

however, not explicitly investigated whether and to what extent cyberbullies actu-ally choose their prior perpetrators as targets — only then would it make sense toconsider their cyberbullying behavior as an act of revenge. The present study aimedto overcome this problem: Cyberbullies were directly asked whether their lastcybervictim was someone who had bullied them before, and they were asked howmany of their cybervictims were former ‘traditional’ bullies.

Our data do confirm qualitative evidence about revenge-as-a-motive and are inline with the prevalence data concerning the overlap of traditional victimizationand involvement in cyberbullying. Within this group of traditional victims/cyber-bullies, 41.4% chose their former perpetrator as their last victim of cyberbullying.Taking a closer look at the proportion of perpetrators among targets, more thanhalf (52.1%) of traditional victims who became cyberbullies stated that at least aquarter of their cybervictims were their former traditional perpetrators within a 6-month period. This can be seen as an important first step in the examination ofrevenge as a motive, because actually choosing a prior traditional perpetrator astarget for cyberbullying instead of a third person is a necessary condition for classi-fying an act as being motivated by revenge.

One might argue that in our operationalisation, the criteria of repetition might notsufficiently be met. But although the defining components of cyberbullying men-tioned in the introduction are widely accepted, there is no terminal consensus indefining cyberbullying (cf. Messini & Nocentini, 2009). This is especially true for theaspect of repetition. There are disagreements about what ‘repeatedly’ actuallyincludes, and over how long a period of time the cyberbullying has to occur (Slonje& Smith 2008; Messini & Nocentini, 2009). For example, the younger students are,the less important repetition is in their subjective definition of cyberbullying (Monks& Smith, 2006). Concerning ‘objective’ definitions, even if a single individual act canbe circulated widely, be copied by others, or can be accessible on a website for a longtime for different persons to see, meeting the criteria of repetition.

Note that we also introduced a 6-month timeframe only, while other studies(e.g., Smith, 2008, Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) often use the period an entire


(school)year, so even bullying behavior that occurred once or twice within this timeframe could potentially have occurred repeatedly. Also, the asymmetrical constella-tion between perpetration and victimisation should be taken into account: If twotraditional victims independently take revenge by cyberbullying the same perpetra-tor ‘once or twice’ within the last months, then this person might well be cybervic-timised three or four times within that timeframe, meeting the usual definingcriteria of repetition from the cybervictim’s perspective (or vice versa, if a once ortwice traditionally victimised person decides to cyberbully this perpetrator severaltimes). Also, even a single aggressive threat can cause emotional damage andconcern about the future (Dzuka & Dalbert, 2007).

In the light of the social prestige hypothesis (Smith, 2008), the significant corre-lation between presence of peers and the proportion of former perpetrators amongtargets raises the question about the role of peers especially for cyber-avengers.Taking revenge might be a way of gaining prestige that is socially more acceptablethan choosing innocent third persons as cybervictims. On the other hand, peersmight also propose and reinforce cyber-revenge. Further research could elaboratehow revenge and social prestige are interconnected. It is important to note,however, that our results suggest that cyber-revenge is not taken ‘alone in a dark-ened room’, but more likely with peers being present. By punishing the perpetrator,the cyber-avenger can at the same time demonstrate to other relevant peers thathe/she is not a person ‘to be walked over’. This could then encourage other victimsto avenge against the same bully (if he/she perpetrated them, too), or to expresssolidarity with the traditional victim by copying the behaviour and further punish-ing the same traditional bully as a cyber-target.

According to Fiske & Morling (1996), the more power someone perceives in theinteraction with a powerful other, the more anxiety is experienced. Consequently,the lack of power leads to coping with anxiety to restore some form of control.Cyberbullying might help to restore such a sense of control by asserting dominancefrom a safe ground. The sense of powerlessness facing a bully could therefore helpexplain why some avenge against their perpetrator using traditional bullying, whileothers tend to restore a sense of control by engaging in cyberbullying. However, itdoes not explain why some seek cyber-revenge while others show displaced aggres-sion directed against third persons. At this point, the victims sense of justice mightbecome relevant: The venting of anger and restoring a sense of control can berealised by (cyber)bullying anyone less powerful in a given constellation, but justicecan only be served by punishing the perpetrator. In our study, victim sensitivity wasnot a significant predictor of the extent of perpetrators among cybervictims.However, statistical power to find a small effect was only about 1-β = .39 (α = .05).Therefore, larger sample sizes could yield significant effects. Further, being bulliedmay so clearly be perceived as threatening and unjust (Dzuka & Dalbert, 2007), thateven low sensitive individuals interpreted the situation as highly unfair. Thus, noadditional variance could be explained. Further research could consider other waysto address the role of (retributive) justice for cyberbullying by assessing direct justicejudgements, norms of ‘a just response’ or attributions of responsibility.

Engaging in cyber-revenge might also be seen from the perspective of fear ofretaliation (cf. Lawler & Bacharach, 1987): In relationships with powerful others,individuals are less likely to confront others, but tend to avoid the target and use


219 ▲

indirect/passive strategies to reduce retaliation (Cloven & Roloff, 1993). Aquino,Tripp, and Bies (2001) found that victims were less likely to seek revenge againsthigher status aggressors, arguing that victims feared counter-retaliation.Cyberbullying allows the avenger to hide his/her identity from the target. Thus,cyberbullying allows taking revenge while minimizing the probability of retaliation.While there might be a certain risk that witnesses snitch on the cyberbully, they areat least safe for the moment, allowing them to do what they might feel incapable offacing their perpetrator in person. Therefore, given that there is a wish for revengeand punishment of the perpetrator, fear of retaliation might a central variable inexplaining the difference between those victims who avenge against their perpetra-tor using traditional bullying from those who seek cyber-revenge.

Cyberbullying-as-revenge could also be examined from the perspective of reac-tive vs. proactive aggression (cf. Crick & Dodge, 1996): While proactive aggressionis unprovoked, deliberate and goal-directed behaviour used to influence or coerce apeer, reactive aggression is a defensive, retaliatory response to a perceived provoca-tion. Reactive individuals, who tend to interpret a peer’s ambiguous behaviour asintentionally harmful to the self, might more readily engage in cyberbullying as aretaliation or defence against the peer, while non-avenging cyberbullying mightrather relate to a proactive style. Therefore, the individual style of social informa-tion processing could be an important factor for revenge and a topic for furtherresearch. In order to minimise the subsumption of ambiguous peer behaviourunder ‘being victimised’, we included a comprehensible description of ‘traditionalbullying’ in our study before asking about own victimisation.

The relationship between traditional victimisation and cyberbullying is obvi-ously not clear-cut. As the focus of the study was revenge in the group of tradi-tional victims/cyberbullies, future research should also take into account morecomplex relationships between other possible combinations of offline and onlinebullying and victimisation. In particular, more complex relationships of (ongoing)reciprocity in offline and online victimisation should be addressed, because inongoing circular dynamics, asking about revenge for a prior attack might yield aresponse resulting from an individual punctuation1 that is basically arbitrary.

As a practical implication, the results of this study foster the notion that, espe-cially for the overlapping group of traditional victims/cyberbullies, there is a stronglink between both forms of bullying, and that there might even be a causal rela-tionship. They further corroborate that a traditional victimisation is a risk factor ofcyberbullying behaviour. Therefore, findings also have important implications forprevention and intervention. Approaches that address the reduction of bullying ingeneral might be promising in decreasing traditional bullying as well as cyberbully-ing. Inhibiting the experience of victimisation seems to be important for preventingcyber-revenge, which seems to appear quite frequently, but is only one way to copewith this experience. Hence, the findings of this study should be considered duringthe design and development of new anti-cyberbullying trainings, taking other formsof handling and processing one’s own victimisation into account. Approaches thataddress the reduction of revenge feelings might also be promising, as well as thosefostering a sense of control. However, the success of such approaches has to awaitfuture evaluation. ‘Occasional cyberbullies’ might not be considered the primarytargets when thinking about preventive measures, if they do so only once or twice


220▲


to take revenge for being bullied in person. But regarding the positive relationshipbetween cyber-revenge and the presence of peers, these occasional cyberbulliesmight also significantly contribute to a culture where cyberbullying may be consid-ered an appropriate answer to traditional victimisation.

The present study also has some limitations. For example, data were collectedvia an online survey, which has its advantages and disadvantages (cf. Welter et al.,2005). On the one hand, it seems plausible that there is a self-selection bias inonline surveys studying an ‘online topic’. By collaborating with Germany’s largestdiscussion forum for students, we tried to minimise unrepresentative data.Although our study was only advertised for a short period of time, it therefore hada good chance of reaching at least a representative sample of those who use suchforums. If among this sample certain individuals were particularly attracted to ourstudy, it would probably be those who experienced either (cyber)bullying or victim-isation themselves. While this would lead to an overestimation of prevalence rates,relative proportions within the according overestimated subsamples (e.g., cyber-avengers among cyberbullies) should hardly be affected. One might even argue thatfor the sake of statistical power, this kind of self-selection is advantageous forstudies where statistical analyses are only to be performed with a subpopulation(e.g., those who qualify for two distinct categories at the same time) that is particu-larly more likely to participate, especially if it only accounts for a small percentagein the entire population.

Online studies often have higher dropout rates. However, our quote of about60%, reaching the last page of the survey can be considered satisfactory (cf. Welteret al., 2005) and is probably due to the incentive. As far as the prevalence of thebehaviours measured is concerned, generalisation of findings may be limited.

Finally, the cross-sectional design and the methodology used do not allow inter-preting for causal effects, even if we explicitly assessed traditional victimisationprior to cyberbullying as a prerequisite for causality. Rather, experimental or longi-tudinal study designs have to be realised. In sum, this study highlights the role ofrevenge for traditional bullying victims in cyberbullying.

Endnote1 Punctuation refers to the process of dividing and organising ongoing interactions into

meaningful patterns. Although actions are interconnected by loop-backs to form a cir-cular pattern, each participant uses their own individualised punctuation of the commu-nication behaviours present into a sequence presuming linear causation, thereforeinterpreting their own behaviour as merely a reaction on the other’s behaviour(Watzlawick, Beavin-Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967).

ReferencesAlmeida, A., Marinho, S., Esteves, C., Gomes, S., & Correia, I. (2008). Virtual but not less

real: A study of cyber bullying and its relations with moral disengagement andempathy. In Abstracts book 20th Biennial ISSBD Meeting. Würzburg, Germany.


221 ▲

Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M., & Bies, R.J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense:The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and rec-onciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 52–59.

Bies, R.J., & Tripp, T.M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual, ideo-logical, and empirical issues. In S. Fox & P.E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive workbehavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 65–81). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Crick, N.R., & Dodge, K.A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactiveand proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993–1002.

Knobloch, L.K., & Solomon, D.H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relationaluncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 261–278.

Dzuka, J., & Dalbert, C. (2007). Aggression at School: Belief in a Personal Just World andWell-Being of Victims and Aggressors. Studia Psychologica, 49, 313–320.

Faccenda, L., Pantaléon, N., Bois, J.E., & Schmitt, M. (2008). Adaptation and validation ofthe German Justice Sensitivity Scales into French. European Journal of PsychologicalAssessment, 24, 141–149.

Fiske, S., & Morling, B. 1996. Stereotyping as a function of personal control motives andcapacity constraints: The odd couple of power and anxiety. In R. Sorrentino & E.T.Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 322–346). NewYork: Guilford.

Goberecht, T. (2008). Onderzoek naar het verband tussen emotionele en gedragsproblemenen cyberpesten bij jongeren uit de eerste graad secundair onderwijs. Brussel: VUB.

Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Pfeiffer, A., & Ensenbach, C. (2009). Why and when JusticeSensitivity leads to pro- and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality,43(6), 999–1005.

Gollwitzer, M., & Denzler, M. (2009). What makes revenge so sweet: Seeing the offendersuffer or delivering a message? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 840–844.

Gollwitzer, M. (2009). Justice and revenge. In M.E. Oswald, S. Bieneck & J. Hupfeld-Heinemann (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 137–156). Hoboken,NJ: Wiley.

Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2009). When the need to trust results in unethical behav-ior: The Sensitivity to Mean Intentions (SeMI) model. In D. De Cremer (Ed.),Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 135–152).Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Gollwitzer, M., Meder, M., & Schmitt, M. (in press). What gives victims satisfaction whenthey seek revenge? European Journal of Social Psychology.

Govier, T. (2002). Forgiveness and revenge. New York: Routledge.Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and

responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Ireland, J.E. (2002). Bullying in prisons. The Psychologist, 15(3), 130–133.Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2006): Examining the relationship between low empathy

and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 540–550.Juvonen J., Graham S., & Schuster, M.A.(2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The

strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231–1237.Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 22–30.Kingston, S. (2008). Bullying as a social process: Factors influencing bystander behaviour.

Masters thesis, Brock University St. Catharines, Canada.Lawler, E.J., & Bacharach, S.B. (1987). Comparison of dependence and punitive form of

power. Social Forces, 66, 446–462.


222▲


McCullough, M.E., Rachal, K.C., Sandage, S.J., Worthington, E.L., Jr., Brown, S.W., &Hight, T.L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elabo-ration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1586–1603.

McCullough, M.E. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Messini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement: Some criti-cal considerations. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 230–232.

Monks, C.P., & Smith, P.K. (2006). Definitions of ‘bullying’: Age differences in understand-ing of the term, and the role of experience. British Journal of DevelopmentalPsychology, 24, 802–821.

Pellegrini, A.D., & Bartini, M. (2001.) Dominance in early adolescent boys: Affiliative andaggressive dimensions and possible functions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(1), 142–163.

Pornari, C., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students:The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies.Aggressive Behavior, 36, 81–13.

Pronk, R.E., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J. (2009). It’s ‘Mean’, but what does it mean to ado-lescents? Relational aggression described by victims, aggressors, and their peers.Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(2), 175–204.

Sanders, J. (2009, August). Cyberbullies: Their motives, characteristics, and types of bully-ing. Presentation at the XIV. European Conference of Developmental Psychology,Vilnius, Lithuania.

Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K. (1999). Self-evaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as predictors of adolescents’participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,1268–1278.

Scheithauer, H., Hayer, T., & Petermann, F. (2003). Bullying unter Schülern —Erscheinungsformen, Risikobedingungen und Interventionskonzepte. Göttingen:Hogrefe.

Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Fetchenhauer, D., Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Schlösser, T.(2009). Sensibilität für Ungerechtigkeit. Psychologische Rundschau, 60 (1), 8–22.

Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J. & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessmentand location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,21(3), 202–211.

Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befalleninjustice. Social Justice Research, 8, 385–407.

Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2008). Der Berlin Cyberbullying —Cybervictimisation Questionnaire (BCyQ). Freie Universität Berlin: UnveröffentlichtesManuskript.

Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2009, August). Measuring Cyberbullying andCybervictimisation by Using Behavioral Categories — The Berlin CyberbullyingCybervictimisation Questionnaire (BCyQ). Poster presented at the Post ConferenceWorkshop ‘COST ACTION IS0801: Cyberbullying: Coping with negative and enhanc-ing positive uses of new technologies, in relationships in educational settings’, Vilnius.

Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147-154.

Smith P.K., Mahdavi J., Carvalho M., & Tippett N. (2006). An investigation into cyberbul-lying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender incyberbullying (Unit for school and family studies). London: Goldsmiths College,University of London.



223 ▲


224▲

Steffgen, G., König, A., Pfetsch, J., & Melzer, A. (in press). The role of empathy for adoles-cents’ cyberbullying behaviour. Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny.

Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development of a measure ofattitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 25–42.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin-Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communica-tion: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: W.W.Norton.

Welker, J., Werner, A., & Scholz, J. (2005). Online research [Markt und Sozialforschung mitdem Internet]. Heidelberg: dpunkt.verlag.

Werner, R., & Appel, C. (2004). Deutscher Vergebungsfragebogen nach McCullough et al.(1998). In A. Glöckner-Rist (Hrsg.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. ElektronischesHandbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente. Version 12.00.

West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormalvariables: Problems and remedies. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling:Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Willard N. (2006), Cyberbullying and cyberthreads: responding to the challenge of onlinesocial cruelty, threats, and distress, Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use,Champaign, Illinois.

Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004). Online aggressor/ targets, aggressors, and targets: Acomparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 45(7), 1308–1316.

▲

225

Address for Correspondence: Donna Tangen, A Block, Level 3 301, Queensland University of Technology, VictoriaPark Road, Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

▲

Cyberbullying Prevention:One Primary School’s Approach

Donna Tangen and Marilyn CampbellQueensland University of Technology, Australia

Bullying in all its forms, including cyberbullying, is a continuing problem inschools. Given the severe consequences it can have on students(socially, psychologically and physically) it is not surprising that anumber of intervention programs have been developed, with mostadvocating a whole-school approach. The current study comparedstudents’ self-reports on bullying between schools with and withouta Philosophy for Children (P4C) approach. A sample of 35 studentsin the P4C school and a matched sample of 35 students in otherschools between the ages of 10 and 13 completed the StudentBullying Survey. Results indicated that while there were significantdifferences in incidences of face-to-face bullying, there were similarresults from both cohorts in relation to cyberbullying. Both groupsof students felt that teachers were more likely to prevent face-to-facebullying than cyberbullying. Findings indicate that teachers andguidance counsellors need to be as overt in teaching strategies aboutcyberbullying as they are in teaching strategies about reducing face-to-face bullying.

■ KEYWORDS: cyberbullying, philosophy, children, bullying

Cyberbullying has become a growing problem in schools. It mirrors other forms ofbullying in the three elements that identify bullying: the behaviour is repetitive,there is an intention to harm, and it involves some form of power imbalance(Jacobsen & Bauman, 2007; Parada, 2008; Turkel, 2007). While cyberbullying isthe newest form of bullying there are many others with which teachers and stu-dents have had to deal: physical (hitting, kicking), non-physical (exclusion, manip-ulation), verbal (taunting, teasing), relational (forced to comply with rules ofothers), and sexual (demean, embarrass, humiliate or control another on the basisof gender or sexual orientation) (Beaty & Alexeyev, 2008; Bhat, 2008; Hawker &Boulton, 2000). Covert bullying, a less direct, ‘hidden’ kind of bullying, can takethe form of spreading gossip, deliberate social exclusion and cyberbullying (Crosset al., 2009). Recent statistics released from the Australian Covert BullyingPrevalence Study (ACBPS; Cross et al., 2009) revealed that one in four students in


Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 225–234

▲

Australia between Years 4 to 9 had been bullied, with the majority of them (61%)having experienced covert bullying. Of these students, 60% had also been teased in‘nasty’ ways, 24% had been physically hurt, and 13% had been sent nasty mes-sages on the internet. It would seem that bullying for school-aged children remainsa difficult dilemma for schools to resolve.

Cyberbullying is used by young people to harm others repeatedly through theuse of technology such as social networking sites and other chat rooms, mobilephones, websites and web-cameras (Campbell, 2005; Keith & Martin, 2005). Untilrecently there has been little research into this form of bullying (Harewald, 2008).However, the ACBPS study (Cross et al., 2009) reported that 7–10% of students inYears 4 to 9 had experienced cyberbullying. Slightly higher rates were foundamong secondary students, suggesting that cyberbullying may be related to age oraccess to technology. Shariff and Johnny (2007) suggested that schools have toomuch information but too little knowledge on the complexities of cyberbullying todeal with it effectively. Difficulties arise because of the anonymity of the offenderand the fact that a high percentage of bullying goes unreported.

Whole School Approach to Prevent BullyingGiven the incidence of bullying in schools and the severe consequences it can haveon students (socially, psychologically and physically) it is not surprising that anumber of intervention programs have been developed. For example, a whole-school approach to bullying looks at prevention and intervention from multipleangles and across a broad spectrum of the school community (Smith, Schneider,Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004). Generally, a whole-school approach takes intoaccount the style and quality of leadership and management practices of theschool, the quality and delivery of the curriculum, playground activities, the qualityof supervision, as well as formalised and agreed procedures to deal with a bullyingincident (Suckling & Temple, 2001). However, there is limited positive evidence thata whole-school approach will prevent bullying (Ttofi & Farrington, 2009). Whilethese approaches have led to some reductions in bullying, very few programs achievea reduction of near or above the 50% mark, and some studies have reported minimalor no improvement (McGrath, 2006). However, while there is very limited solid evi-dence that whole-school approaches work, there is no evidence that other kinds ofintervention are superior to the whole-school approach in dealing with bullying, northat the whole-school approach should be abandoned (Smith et al., 2004). Indeed,there is strong support that such an intervention can succeed, but not enough isknown to indicate exactly how and when (Woods & Wolke, 2003).

A different approach to reducing bullying has a focus on dealing directly withbullying incidents, whatever kind of bullying has occurred. Some researchers(Galloway & Roland, 2004), however, have argued that this direct approach is notnecessarily the most effective in the long term as an explicit focus on a particularbullying incident cannot address all the factors that may contribute to the problem.For example, teachers’ moral orientation in response to bullying, their training andskills to deal with problems of bullying or, indeed, their ability to recognise bully-ing when it occurs need to be taken into consideration (Ellis & Shute, 2007). Theargument here is not that individual bullying incidents should not be addressedexplicitly but rather it should be addressed within the wider context of social interac-


226▲


tions. This view is supported by Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, and Feinberg (2005) whoidentified the need for social skills training, promotion of social competency (byteaching students how to interact more effectively with peers and adults throughenhanced conflict resolution, developing problem solving skills), developing skills innegotiation, and developing friendship-building abilities. One approach that aims toaddress the above needs is through a Philosophy for Children (P4C) approach, devel-oped by Matthew Lipman in the 1960s (Haynes, 2008).

The Philosophy for Children ApproachThe Philosophy for Children (P4C) approach argues that through philosophy aclassroom can become a pluralistic community centred in dialogue and collabora-tive activity where critical, creative and complex thinking are present (Cam, 2006).The program is based not only on cognitive development but also, through partici-pation in the community of enquiry, students’ develop social skills leading to astrengthening of social competency. At its simplest, P4C is based on encouragingchildren to think for themselves about issues, to question assumptions and to joinwith other children in open-ended discussions about these issues. This processallows children to be exposed to a view range of viewpoints on ideas in which theythemselves are interested (Shaw, 2003). However, there is a structure to theprogram based on the principles of constructivism. In the P4C approach, both cog-nitive and social constructivism interact, allowing students opportunities to solvereal-life problems. Cognitive constructivism (Powell & Kalina, 2009) has its originsin Piaget’s work, where ideas are constructed through an individual process. Inorder for learning to be effective it must be presented at students’ personal level oflogical and intellectual capabilities. Social constructivism is derived fromVygotsky’s work (Adams, 2006; Powell & Kalina, 2009). In this approach, per-sonal critical thinking processes are integrated through social interactions. Bothapproaches focus on the learner; the teacher becomes a facilitator in the learningprocess, who aids in guiding the learner and explaining complex ideas so thelearner can gain understanding. The learner is the one who constructs their under-standing of concepts. Both approaches value inquiry as a method for learning,where the teacher poses a puzzling situation and the students try to solve theproblem through gathering data and working towards a solution.

The P4C approach has many aims that are derived from the principles of con-structivism, which include encouraging curiosity and questioning, strengtheningjudgment and reasoning skills, improving understanding and encouraging consider-ation of different viewpoints (Cam, 2006; Fisher, 1998). The process involves chil-dren reading or viewing a stimulus (such as a dilemma a person may face),developing questions in relation to the stimulus and then participating in a dia-logue with each other (Haynes, 2008). Trickey and Topping (2004) undertook asystematic review of 10 studies in philosophy in education, and while the resultsshowed positive outcomes in developing children’s problem-solving skills, theirreview concluded that it was not possible to assert that any use of P4C wouldalways lead to positive outcomes because implementation is highly variable.However, there is a wide range of evidence to suggest that given certain conditions,children can gain significantly both academically and socially by participating insuch a program.

Cyberbullying Prevention

227 ▲

The current study compares students’ self-reports on bullying between schoolswith and without a P4C approach. A focus school has implemented a P4Cprogram for over 13 years, starting in 1997. All students at the school participatein a one-hour weekly philosophic discussion designed to improve their reasoningand inquiry skills by social dialogue. These discussions are a core subjecttimetabled into the curriculum. Lessons are planned and taught by the classroomteachers (from Prep to Year 7). All teachers at the school have undertaken trainingin teaching P4C, a component of which may include addressing the issues associ-ated with bullying, depending on the stimulus material for the day and where thechildren take the discussion. However, while there may be discussions about bully-ing, the philosophy program at the school does not include it as a feature topicapart from any other topics. The main thrust of the program is the development ofstudents’ critical thinking capabilities based on a set of predetermined readings. Itwas suggested by staff at the school that, through the readings and subsequent dis-cussion students would develop a philosophical stance in their learning and theability to reason through difficult issues such as bullying. In fact a reduction in bul-lying has been claimed for this program (Hinton, 2003).

Bullying programs are implemented in state schools. The Australian governmentrecognises the extreme effects bullying can have on students and in response hasprovided an anti-bullying resource pack and implementation manual for all schoolsto use (see the National Safety Schools Framework, DEEWR). All schools arerequired to address issues of bullying. The current study examined the incidence of


228▲

TABLE 1

Participants’ Demographics

P4C Others

Male 17 17

Female 18 18

Age 10 years 2 2

11 years 15 15

12 years 17 17

13 years 1 1

Mother’s education to Y10 2 1

Y12 0 5

Technical 2 2

University 11 17

Don’t know 18 10

Father’s education to Y10 0 3

Y12 2 5

Technical 1 3

University 10 16

Don’t know 22 8

Internet access at home 27 (77.1%) 19 (54.3%)

Mobile phone ownership 19 (54.3%) 23 (65.7%)


bullying (including cyberbullying) and students’ perceptions of their school’sresponse to bullying from the P4C school and matched control students from otherschools in the same state. It was hypothesised that there would be less bullying inall forms in the P4C school compared to students from other schools and that therewould be more of a whole school response to bullying at the P4C school.

MethodParticipants

Purposive sampling of Years 6 and 7 students was undertaken, where 35 studentsin Years 6 and 7 from a P4C school were matched from a pool of 465 studentsfrom other schools in the same state. The response rate from the P4C school was72%. One student from each non-P4C schools was matched to each student in thefocus P4C school based on a list of criteria. The criterion by which they werematched were gender, age, mother’s highest level of education, father’s highest levelof education, internet access and mobile phone ownership. If a single match wasstill not discovered after this, a random number generator was used to choose oneof the remaining matching students from the list. There were 17 boys and 18 girlsin each matched group, ages ranged from 10 and 13 years, with the mean age of11.49 years (SD = 0.654; See Table 1).

MeasureThe Student Bullying Survey (Campbell, Slee, Spears, Kift, & Butler, 2007). Thesurvey contains a total of 87 multiple choice and short answer questions on bully-ing, both cyber and other forms. As this study was part of a larger study the resultsof the whole survey will be published in another paper. Only demographics, bullyand victim questions and the section on school response was utilised for thisarticle. Examples of questions included: (Q.12) ‘Have you been cyberbullied thisyear?’ (Yes/No); (Q.23) ‘Have you cyberbullied someone this year?’ (Yes/No);(Q.42b) ‘Do you think adults at your school would … discipline the person whocyberbullied?’

ProcedureParents were sent home letters informing them of the study, with requests forparental permission forms to be signed and returned if permission was granted fortheir children to participate in the study. The self-report questionnaires were com-pleted by students during a 45-minute class period. Those students who were notgiven parental permission to participate were excused from the classroom andworked on other lessons during this time period.

ResultsA crosstabs (Chi square) analysis was conducted to investigate the distribution ofvictims and perpetrators of bullying in the P4C school and other schools. A higherpercentage of P4C school students claimed to have both been face-to-face bulliedand bullied others face-to-face in the last year than matched students at other


229 ▲

schools (62.9% and 42.9%). Interestingly, there were no significant differencesbetween the two cohorts in reporting cyberbullying as either victims (17.1% and17.1%) or cyberbullies (5.7% and 2.9%; see Table 2).

There were also no differences between the two groups of students on their per-ceptions of adults dealing with bullying in their schools. However, there were dif-ferences in both cohorts between students’ perceptions of how adults dealt withcyberbullying as opposed to face-to-face bullying. While 94.2% believed thatadults try to prevent face-to-face bullying at their school (11.4% sometimes,27.1% often and 55.7% always) only 84.3% thought that they tried to preventcyberbullying (38.6% said sometimes, 20% often and 25.7% always).Furthermore, while about 84.3% of students said they were given lessons on face-to-face bullying (41.4% sometimes, 30% often and 12.9% always) only about54.3% reported that they were given lessons on cyberbullying (45.7% sometimes,5.7% often and 2.9% always). Similarly, while about 88.6% of students saidadults told them about their school’s anti-bullying policy for face-to-face bullying(38.6% sometimes, 34.3% sometimes and 15.7% always), only about 52.8%(37.1% sometimes, 10% often and 5.7% always) said they were told about anypolicy about cyberbullying (See Table 3).

DiscussionThe current study compared the incidence of both bullying and cyberbullying at aschool that offers a whole-school P4C approach to learning with students fromother schools who do not use this approach in upper primary. It was found thatstudents at the P4C school reported significantly more face-to-face bullying, asboth bullies and victims, than matched students at the other schools. However,there were no differences in reports of cyberbullying. These results are surprising asstudents at the P4C school have been participating in the P4C program for theirentire school life, which for some is 6 years prior to this study. While the P4Cprogram is not an anti-bullying program as such, a main feature is having weeklydiscussions with a focus on helping students to become critical thinkers, especiallyin relation to their behaviour towards others and how others behave towards them.One might expect, then, that these students would have developed enough critical


230▲

TABLE 2

Percentage of Students Who Self-Identified as Victims and Bullies of Face-To-Face and Cyber Bullying (With Chi Square Analysis)

P4C (35) Other school students (35)

Victims face-to-face 62.9% (22) 42.9% (15)

Cyber bullying 17.1% (6) 17.1% (6)

Bullies face-to-face 25.7% (9) 20.0% (7)

Cyber bullying 5.7% (2) 2.9% (1)

Victim of both face-to-face and cyber bullying 17.1% (6) 2.9% (1)

Bully both face-to-face and cyber bullying 8.6% (3) 0.0% (0)


thinking skills by Grades 6 and 7 to be consciously aware of the consequences ofpeer interactions and would have developed the skills to handle conflict with othersin more appropriate ways than through bullying. Perhaps, however, the children’sraised awareness of social relationships made them more aware of incidents of bul-lying and they therefore reported all incidents, whereas the other students mightnot have. On the other hand, it may be that while the students at the P4C schoolare learning how to conduct discussions to problem-solve situations from storybooks, they may not see these stories as necessarily relating to their own lives andso may have difficulty transferring solutions presented in the story to their ownlives. To date there is little research as to the effects of the P4C approach on pre-venting bullying in school; more research into this important area is warranted.

It is interesting to note (despite small numbers) that the incidence of cyberbully-ing in these primary schools is equivalent to secondary school cyberbullying (Cross,et al., 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2007). One implication of this finding could be thatstudents need to be explicitly taught about bullying and cyberbullying and not justrely on general critical thinking skills about social relationships. This finding hasimplications for primary school communities and guidance counsellors in that cyber-bullying is not confined to older students and that prevention and intervention pro-grams need to be put in place much earlier for cyberbullying than was previouslythought. As well as the small sample size, a further limitation to the study might bethat the data was gleaned through student self-reports and that young students mightnot be truthful in their responses, especially in regard to the sensitive nature of thecontext of this study. However, Espelage, Holt and Henkel (2003) compared self-report and peer nominations of bullying and found them to be similar. This suggestsanonymous student self-reports tend to be truthful accounts.

Both cohorts of students reported that adults were twice as likely to preventface-to-face bullying at their school then they would prevent cyberbullying. Eightyper cent of students reported that they felt teachers would try to prevent face-to-face bullying but that only 46% felt that teachers would try to prevent cyberbully-ing. This supports the students’ perceptions that adults at their school were


231 ▲TABLE 3

Student Perceptions of Adult Behaviour About Bullying at Their School (By Student Report ofCombined Often and Always or Some and A Lot Responses)

Face-to Face-to Cyberbullying Cyberbullying -face P4C -face Others P4C Others

How much awareness do 88.6% (31) 85.7% (30) 77.2% (27) 77.1% (27)adults at your school haveof bullying?

How often do adults try 82.8% (28) 82.9% (30) 45.7% (16) 45.7% (16)to prevent bullying?

How often would adults at 54.3% (19) 48.6% (17) 45.7% (16) 54.3% (19)your school discipline bullies?

How often do adults give 42.8% (15) 42.9% (15) 8.6% (3) 8.6% (3)lessons to you on bullying?

How often do adults tell you 37.1% (13) 62.9% (22) 11.4% (4) 20.0% (7)about anti-bullying policies?

generally not as aware of cyberbullying as of face-to-face bullying. This is aconcern that these young students perceive their teachers do not know enoughabout the digital world as they do and that less than half think teachers would tryto prevent cyberbullying. It is also of concern that while less than half of studentssay adults gave them lessons on face-to-face bullying only about 10% had anylessons on cyberbullying.

There are clear indications from these results that teachers and guidance counsel-lors need to extend both prevention and intervention programs about cyberbullyingto much younger students. Cassidy, Jackson and Brown (2009) reported that studentswere more likely to report cyberbullying to school personnel if they witnessed theincident rather than experiencing it themselves, but were more inclined to tell theirfriends than an adult (70% if they witnessed cyberbullying; 74.5% if they experiencedit). Findings from the current research concur with these results in that students arenot likely to tell a teacher about cyberbullying if they do not believe the teacher canhelp them. All school personnel need be more direct in how they present anti-cyber-bullying programs and how they guide students to report incidents of cyberbullying.This will require training of school personnel in engaging in the digital world of thestudents so that the students have more confidence in the adults at their school.

ConclusionThere appears to be a disconnect between the capabilities teachers anticipate stu-dents will develop to solve their own problems (by learning problem-solving tech-niques in the P4C program) compared to how capable students feel they are tosolve problems of bullying without adult intervention and/or support. These resultshold true not only for P4C but for all schools. However, the interesting finding ofthe differences in incidence between face-to-face bullying and cyberbullyinginvolved the whole sample, as did the differences in children’s perceptions of teach-ers’ involvement in cyberbullying. More research involving school programs suchas this need to be conducted. Teachers cannot assume that students will be able todeal with cyberbullying. They need to offer explicit teaching to help students notengage in bullying behaviours and to develop the skills and strategies to addresssuch problems.

ReferencesAdams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education,

34, 243–257.Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2010). The

National Safe Schools Framework. Retrieved October 1 2010, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSafeSchools/Pages/overview.aspx

Beaty, L.A., & Alexeyev, E.G. (2008). The problem of school bullies: What the research tellsus. Adolescence, 43, 1–11.

Bhat, C.S. (2008). Cyber bullying: Overview and strategies for school counsellors, guidance offi-cers and all school personnel. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 18, 53–66.

Cam, P. (2006). 20 Thinking tools: Collaborative inquiry for the classroom. Melbourne,Australia: ACER Press.

Campbell, M.A. (2005). Cyber bullying: An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journalof Guidance and Counselling, 15, 68–76.


232▲


Campbell, M.A., Slee, R., Spears, B., Kift, S., & Bulter, D. (2007). Student bullying survey.Unpublished manuscript.

Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K.N. (2009). Sticks and stones can break my bones,but how can pixels hurt me? Students’ experiences with cyber bullying. SchoolPsychology International, 30, 383–402.

Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L. et al. (2009). AustralianCovert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS). Perth, Australia: Child Health PromotionResearch Centre, Edith Cowan University.

Ellis, A. A., & Shute, A. (2007). Teacher responses to bullying in relation to moral orientationand seriousness of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 649–663.

Espelage, D.L., Holt, M.K., & Henkel, R.R. (2003). Examination of peer group contextualeffects on aggressive behavior during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205–220.

Galloway, D., & Roland, E. (2004). Is the direct approach to reducing bullying always thebest? In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successfulcan interventions be? (pp. 37–54). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, R. (1998). Teaching thinking: Philosophical enquiry in the classroom. London:Cassell.

Harewald, R. (2008). Confronting the pedagogical challenge of cyber safety. AustralianJournal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 1–16.

Hawker, D.S.J., & Boulton, M.J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization andpsychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journalof Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 41, 441–455.

Haynes, J. (2008). Children as philosophers: Learning through enquiry and dialogue in theprimary classroom. New York: Routledge.

Hinton, L. (2003). Reinventing a school. Critical and Creative Thinking, 11, 47–60.Jacobsen, K.E., & Bauman, S. (2007). Bullying in schools: School counselors’ responses to

three types of bullying incidents. ASCA Professional School Counseling, 11(1), 1–9.Keith, S., & Martin, M.E. (2005). Cyber-bullying: Creating a culture of respect in a cyber

world. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13, 224–228.Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R.f., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole-school posi-

tive behaviour support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic perform-ance. Educational Psychology, 25(2–3), 183–198.

McGrath, H. (2006). What research tells us about whole-school programs for preventing bul-lying. In H. McGrath & T. Noble (Eds.), Bullying solutions: Evidence-based approachesto bullying in Australian schools (pp. 49–66). Sydney, Australia: Pearson EducationAustralia.

Parada, R. (2008). Beyond bullying: A whole school approach. Teacher, 1, 23–26.Powell, K.C., & Kalina, C.J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools

for an effective classroom. Education, 130, 241–250.Samara, M., & Smith, P.K. (2008). How schools tackle bullying and the use of whole school

policies: Changes over the last decade. Educational Psychology, 28, 663–676.Shariff, S., & Johnny, L. (2007). Cyber-libel and cyber-bullying: Can schools protect student

reputations and fee-expression in virtual environments? Education Law Journal, 16 ,307–342.

Shaw, R. (2003). Philosophy in the classroom. Melbourne, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.Slonje, R., & Smith, P., (2007). Cyber-bullying: Another main type of bullying?

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.Smith, J.D., Schneider, B.H., Smith, P.K., & Anaiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of

whole-school anti-bullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. SchoolPsychology Review, 33, 547–560.

Suckling, A., & Temple, C. (2001). Bullying: A whole school approach. Melbourne,Australia: ACER Press.


233 ▲

Ttofi, M., & Farrington, D. (2009). What works in preventing bullying: Effective elements ofanti-bullying programmes. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1, 13–24.

Trickey, S., & Topping, K.J. (2004). Philosophy for children: A systematic review. ResearchPapers in Education, 19, 365–380.

Turkel, A.R. (2007). Sugar and spice and puppy dog’s tails: The psychodynamics of bully-ing. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 35,243–257.

Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2003). Does the content of anti-bullying policies inform us aboutthe prevalence of direct and relational bullying behaviour in primary schools?Educational Psychology, 23, 381–401.

▲


234▲

235 ▲

Memory Flowers

By Donna Ellis, illustrated by Philippa MortonISBN 978-0-646-53016-1

Memory Flowers is a colourful book on grieving, designed for primary-aged chil-dren, and integrates the four components of children’s understanding of death: irre-versibility, finality, inevitability, and causality.

Using a picture book format, Ellis explains what ‘grieving’ is for children. Theauthor explains that all of the different feelings in their heart, head, and body arecomponents of grief. These feelings are normal and are a part of the process ofgrieving. Without such understanding many children are confused by their emo-tions and fears.

Few people have the necessary skills and experience to help their children grieve.Tools and conversation-starters have great value in guiding families toward healthycoping strategies. Grief is complex. It encompasses a wide range of emotions thatcan come and go in waves.

Memory Flowers is a wonderful story about the loss of the family dog, Charlie.Ellis incorporates tips that are meant to help you and your family deal with a deathof a loved one and provides an overview of how young children understand death,and offers heartfelt strategies for talking to children about death and their reactionto it.

Ellis gives examples of how adults need to be willing to listen and allow the chil-dren to talk about the animal/person that died. Adults need to be prepared todiscuss children’s feelings with the child. Recalling memories might have great valueto one child, while others might not be ready to talk about the animal/person. Ifthey do want to talk about the animal/person that died, then let them talk andremember both good things and not-so-good things. They might ask you to tellthem stories of family activities or remind them about the person. If prompted by achild to recall the animal/person, consider creating a memory-book with photosand memories.

Some children will ask about how or why someone died, the rituals around thefuneral, where the person has gone, and what else will change in their lives.Questions express fears, uncertainty, and concerns. This book gives a means to beable to talk to children about ways to try and feel better when feeling sad.Resources are suggested to let children know that they can come up with ideas forthemselves, also. This will empower them to feel in some ‘control’ and learn skillsthat might help them in other life challenges.

Memory Flowers is an excellent resource for parents who wish to help their chil-dren cope with grief and loss. Children need to go at their own pace in addressingquestions. This book makes the answers easier to explain in a gentle, honest anddirect manner.

The colourful illustrations by Philippa Morton are adequate, but one feels thatmore could have been made to highlight the strengths of the text. The figures of the

RE

VI E

WSG

C&


Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 235–241

▲

family in the story resemble old-fashioned peg dolls. I am not sure this resemblanceis deliberate, but it leaves the family looking rather unemotional. I believe thiswould make it more difficult for a child to identify realistic feelings.

To sum up, Ellis promotes spending time with your children, and doing thingstogether that make both you and them happy. This book presents as a wonderful,colourful and articulate resource for both parents and professionals such as coun-sellors or psychologists to use with children.

Reviewed by: Julia Tilling

Counselling Adolescents — The Proactive Approach for Young People

By Kathryn Geldard and David GeldardISBN 978-1-84860-642-5

When you consider that the teen years are a period of intense growth, not only phys-ically but morally and intellectually, it’s understandable that it’s a time of confusionand upheaval for many families … Despite some adults’ negative perceptions aboutteens, they are often energetic, thoughtful, and idealistic, with a deep interest inwhat’s fair and right. (Dowshen, 2007 )

Into this world of confusion, change and mistaken perceptions comes the idealresource guide for counsellors, parents, teachers and all those people who arestruggling with the stress and challenges of dealing with adolescents, and thedemands of this stage in the adolescent life. This book not only provides a basiclevel of knowledge about the major approaches to adolescent counselling, it is alsoa key resource book for the acquisition of crucial interpersonal skills that is essen-tial for interaction with young people. This revised edition builds upon the founda-tions laid down in the first and second editions, with a more comprehensivecoverage on the latest developments in the adolescent counselling field.

Drawing on four major themes with a wide range of topics (with the latest inclu-sion on professional and ethical issues relating specifically to young people, as wellas a chapter dedicated to issues on forming collaborative relationships with youngpeople), this latest edition of Counselling Adolescents — The Proactive Approachfor Young People is indeed a ‘must-have’ guide for all those interested in workingwith young people.

This latest edition integrates three areas salient to counsellors or experiencedpractitioners’ reference needs. It includes the following areas: understanding theyoung person, proactive counselling for young people, and the different strategiesand skills pertinent to adolescent counselling. It thus covers all the pertinent areas

Book Reviews

236▲


that one would need to know when dealing with young people. The fact that thisbook is well presented, with headings to address the important ideas in the text, aswell as useful explanations illuminating complex issues, makes it an ideal guide notonly for counsellors and practitioners, but also for parents who would like to gaina better understanding of the issues of adolescents and acquire valuable and simplestrategies to deal with the issues of their young teenager. Coming from the perspec-tive of a parent of a 14-year-old boy, I was able to relate to most of the issues thatsurfaced in the book, which makes it a practical guide for parents of adolescents,myself included. Furthermore, the use of illustrative examples in some segments ofthe book provides readers with real-life experiences on how issues highlighted areaddressed in practice. More of such clearly defined examples would be ideal asthey would enable readers to gain a more in-depth understanding of the issues dis-cussed, allowing them to better relate to the experiences of the subjects and hencegain a more personal insight into the issues explored.

The depth of clarity in this edition is enhanced by the inclusion of ‘Key Points’ atthe end of the chapters, which provides the readers with a summarised reflection ofthe salient ideas presented in the chapter. This not only helps to reiterate the perti-nent ideas presented but allows for further reflections where necessary. At the sametime, it helps to ease readers, particularly the layperson, into the content in theupcoming chapters, thus facilitating a smooth transition of ideas from chapter tochapter.

I found the first theme, ‘Understanding the Young Person’, an ideal start tolearning about the complex issues of adolescent life. It covers all the pertinent areasand provides the readers with a basic understanding of the important factors thataffect the adolescent life. I find myself having a better understanding of this criticalage group and empathising with some of the challenges that young people face,such as environmental stresses and hazards. The next theme highlights the proac-tive approach towards counselling and provides the readers with a better under-standing of the proactive process for counselling young people, complete withwell-defined and useful micro-skills counselling.

The final chapter, which provides sample case studies of the proactive coun-selling process, has managed to illustrate all the important theories and techniquesthat were described in the earlier chapters on proactive counselling. This is defi-nitely a must-read chapter for those interested in putting theory into practice.Basically, each chapter makes a significant contribution, and together they offer anall-encompassing breadth and depth of information on adolescent issues that touchevery aspect of ‘normal’ life.

This handbook is absolutely an essential companion guide and an invaluableresource for all those working with adolescents. It is amazingly comprehensive,well-written and generously dosed with practical anecdotes, presenting the perti-nent issues on counselling adolescents in an accessible and reliable manner.

Reviewed by: Suraiya Bte HameedUniversity of Queensland, St Lucia

Book Reviews

237 ▲

Cyberbullying: What CounsellorsNeed to Know

By Sheri Bauman(2011). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. (ISBN 978-1-55620-294-0)

‘Cyberbullying’ is a relatively recent term used to describe bullying behaviours thatoccur via information and communication technologies (ICT). While many schoolsand school staff are aware of cyberbullying, often they are unaware of how torespond to this issue for reasons including incidents occurring out-of-school hoursand away from school sites, lack of technological capabilities, and the anonymousnature of some forms of cyberbullying.

As is often the case with emerging issues, the research that provides the evidencefor the effectiveness of interventions takes time to develop and refine. In the mean-time, school staff can be at a loss as to how to respond effectively but are keen tofurther advance their knowledge and understanding of this increasingly prevalentissue. While cyberbullying is a new issue, traditional forms of bullying have beenstudied for many years now and lend evidence to support schools around this issue.

In her book, Bauman provides an overview of the complexities in definingcyberbullying and discusses in easy-to-read language what cyberbullying is, whereit happens, how to respond to it, and from where to seek more information.Written for counsellors, this book would also be appropriate for all school staff inpastoral care roles, and some sections (Chapters 1–8) relevant to all school staff ingeneral. To provide consistent action to reduce and prevent cyberbullying, it isimportant that all staff are aware of the issue and understand the school’s responseto it.

While written for an American context, much of the content in this book is rele-vant to schools and school counsellors in Australia. However, caution should beused in applying legal descriptions and cases recorded in this book in Australia dueto variations in laws pertaining to cyberbullying, harassment and school districtresponsibilities.

As with all material written about technology, a risk exists that the content willbe out of date before the book is published. Bauman’s book provides a goodbalance of recent data and the most commonly visited social networking sites, sothe reader can apply information about types of cyberbullying to a variety ofonline settings and applications. Her use of nonscientific jargon and carefullydetailed technical processes allow readers of all levels of computer literacy tounderstand and apply the strategies described in this book.

My only criticism of this book relates to the chapter about cyberbullying amongadults. While cyberbullying is an issue that can affect all individuals, regardless ofage, race, gender, disability, or technological capability, I feel that this chapter wasan unnecessary addition to the book. Had the author related this section back tothe school setting by discussing the implications for school staff and strategies that

Book Reviews

238▲


could be undertaken in this setting to role model appropriate technology use andincrease staff members’ awareness of how to use technology safely and effectively(bridging the digital divide), I feel this chapter would have had more relevance andsignificance for the reader.

In my opinion, Bauman’s book provides a timely discussion of an important,emerging issue. Having worked as a school counsellor, her description of strategiesavailable to respond to cyberbullying incidents provide practical tips to aid thereader to implement these immediately, as well as guidance about where to seekfurther practical advice. I would recommend this book to all school staff, in par-ticular those who work in pastoral care roles and counsellors outside of schoolsettings who work with school-aged children and adolescents, as a helpful intro-duction to the issue of cyberbullying. Moreover, this book provides a descriptionof a large number of additional practical and evidence-based resources, for thosekeen to expand their understanding of the issue.

Laura ThomasChild Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University

Relationship Counselling forChildren, Young People and Families

By Kathryn Geldard and David Geldard(2009). London: SAGE. ISBN 978-1-84787-551-8

I grew up in a family where, like most other children I knew, separation and/ordivorce was virtually unheard of — a mystery. Aunts, uncles, grandparents andgreat-grandparents had remained married ‘til death us do part’. In my world it wasnot at all surprising for a couple to celebrate their silver, and ultimately theirgolden wedding anniversary. Only a few years ago I was commenting to a neigh-bour on how lovely it was that some very dear friends, who were so fully commit-ted to each other in every way possible, were about to celebrate their goldenanniversary, having been married for 50 years. My neighbour’s 13-year-old daugh-ter, who had been silently listening to our conversation then added her owncomment, ‘But that would be boring’. Her mother and I endeavoured to offer someexplanation for the positive nature of the situation, only to be met with the reply,‘No! Divorce is what makes the world go round’.

Another friend recently shared with me her concern regarding an informationsheet that was sent home from a local sports organisation of which her son is anactive member. On behalf of the child, parents were asked to respond to the ques-tion, ‘Do you live with your mother or your father?’ My friend, who has beenmarried for over 20 years and embraces a traditional family lifestyle, was quiteaghast at the assumption that very few, if any, children would actually be livingwith both parents.

Book Reviews

239 ▲

In a nutshell, families have changed. The definition of a family, the compositionof a family and therefore the dynamics of family have taken on new meaning. Ascounsellors we must be both informed and equipped to deal with the difficultieswhich can arise as a result of ongoing change.

Relationship Counselling for Children, Young People and Families is a publica-tion that has embraced this reality. Its five key sections address the basic forms offamily counselling as the authors highlight significant elements of relationshipcounselling and the need for differing approaches for the whole family, thechild/ren, young people within the family structure, and finally the parents. In rela-tion to family structure, the nuclear family is declared to be ‘only one of manytypes of family’ (p. 52). Other family structures, which must be considered by thecounsellor, include the extended family unit, the single-parent family, the blendedfamily, couples without children, or same-sex relationships either with or withoutchildren. Each of these units can be formed in a variety of ways. For example, thesingle-parent family can be the result of divorce, the death of a partner, or anunmarried mother with a child/ren. The authors encourage counsellors to reflectupon the diverse compositions of the families with whom they may be working.

In addition to overviewing a number of theories such as systems theory or con-structivist theory, the Geldards offer a model of integrative relationship counsellingwhich they refer to as the CACHO (Communication; Awareness; CHoice;Outcome) model. This model has its roots in Gestalt therapy and focuses primarilyon the raising of awareness among family members, thereby offering each individ-ual both the opportunity for understanding, and the subsequent choice to makechanges within the family relationship structure. As a further suggestion, theauthors offer guidance for those counsellors who wish to utilise a co-therapist or areflective team approach to family counselling.

The family counsellor can encounter a number of challenges, such as carefullybalancing or juggling the perception of each family member without appearing tofavour one above the other; managing the balance of talk for individual membersof the group by not permitting one person to dominate the conversation; orencouraging and supporting those individuals whose position may be disregardedby others as ‘it is often the case that children are disempowered within their fami-lies’ (p. 129). As part of this role the counsellor may also need to identify andclarify information that appears to have been minimised.

Relationship Counselling for Children, Young People and Families also providesa range of creative ideas for working with children of various ages. Options includethe use of toy animals, puppets, sand trays, pretend play or working with clay,depending upon the age of the child. Clear, often step-by-step, guidance is providedregarding the use of each technique.

Counselling situations can, at times, prove difficult for young people who areoften seeking to establish their own identity and find their place within their family,among their peers and also within society in general. From their many years ofexperience the Geldards offer a number of strategies which can assist the counsel-lor in his/her ongoing dealings with young people.

Relationship Counselling for Children, Young People and Families is presentedin a clear, easy-to-follow style and includes practical suggestions for interactingwith the different members of a family. Each chapter concludes with a set of

Book Reviews

240▲


summary points highlighting the key issues addressed throughout that chapter, anda selection of questions for reflection or discussion. This volume could prove usefulto those counsellors who find themselves working across a range of clients, particu-larly those whose primary focus is the family.

Reviewed by: Lynne M. Baker PhDUniversity of Queensland

Book Reviews

241 ▲

242▲

Behaviour ChangeLong regarded as a leader in its field, Behaviour Change, is devoted tothe publication of high quality research on the application of behav-ioural and cognitive-behavioural principles and techniques to theassessment and treatment of a wide variety of health, psychiatric,social, organisational, community and educational problems. It is afully refereed journal with an international editorial board.

CriminologyFor over thirty years, the Australian and New

Zealand Journal of Criminology has been presenting a professionaleclectic approach to the respected tertiary field of criminology bypromoting quality research and debate on crime and criminal justice.The journal’s high editorial standards are supported by peer reviewand an impressive editorial board. A diversity of theoretical andmethodological articles are well complimented by reviews of con-temporary issues and special topic features such as “History and

Crime” and “Indigenous Crime and Justice”.Disciplines covered by the journal include psychology, law, politics,history, sociology and the forensic sciences.

Brain ImpairmentThe official journal of the distinguished Australian Society for theStudy of Brain Impairment (ASSBI), Brain Impairment builds on 25years of quality study and practice in all disciplines seeking to improvethe quality of life for people with brain impairment. Brain Impairmentis a truly multidisciplinary journal covering neurology, neuropsychol-ogy, psychiatry, clinical psychology, neuropathology, occupational

therapy, physiotherapy, speech pathology and anatomy. Brain Impairment is fully peer-reviewed with an impressive international Editorial Board.

AudiologySince 1979, the Australian Journal of Audiology has been showcasingscientific articles offering original contributions to the field of audi-ology in such diverse areas as clinical practice, cochlear implants,psychoacoustics, speech perception, paediatric assessment and habili-tation. It is a fully refereed journal with an international editorialboard and publishes manuscripts in various formats includingresearch reports, case studies and review articles.

QUALITY Publishing

“Australian owned. Global reach.”

Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European countries

Documents

Transcript of Cyberbullying: Labels, behaviours and definition in three European countries