cyberbullying research paper chapter 3

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
World Psychiatry
v.22(1); 2023 Feb

Cyberbullying: next‐generation research

Elias aboujaoude.

1 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford CA, USA

Matthew W. Savage

2 School of Communication, San Diego State University, San Diego CA, USA

Cyberbullying, or the repetitive aggression carried out over electronic platforms with an intent to harm, is probably as old as the Internet itself. Research interest in this behavior, variably named, is also relatively old, with the first publication on “cyberstalking” appearing in the PubMed database in 1999.

Over two decades later, the broad contours of the problem are generally well understood, including its phenomenology, epidemiology, mental health dimensions, link to suicidality, and disproportionate effects on minorities and individuals with developmental disorders 1 . Much remains understudied, however. Here we call for a “next generation” of research addressing some important knowledge gaps, including those concerning self‐cyberbullying, the bully‐victim phenomenon, the bystander role, the closing age‐based digital divide, cyberbullying subtypes and how they evolve with technology, the cultural specificities of cyberbullying, and especially the management of this behavior.

Defined as the anonymous online posting, sending or otherwise sharing of hurtful content about oneself, “self‐cyberbullying” or “digital self‐harm” has emerged as a new and troubling manifestation of cyberbullying. Rather than a fringe phenomenon, self‐cyberbullying is thought to affect up to 6% of middle‐ and high‐school students 2 . Is this a cry for help by someone who might attempt “real” self‐harm or even suicide if not urgently treated? Is it “attention‐seeking” in nature, meant to drive Internet traffic in a very congested social media landscape where it can be hard to get noticed and where “likes” are the currency of self‐worth? Research is needed to better characterize self‐cyberbullying, including how it relates to depression and offline self‐harm and suicide.

The bully‐victim phenomenon refers to the permeable boundaries between roles that can make it relatively easy for a cyberbullying victim to become a cyberbully and vice versa. Unlike traditional bullying, visible markers of strength are not a requirement in cyberbullying. Assuming the identity of the cyberbully is known, all that the victims need to attack back and become cyberbullies themselves is a digital platform and basic digital know‐how. Do cyberbullying victims feel in any way “empowered” by this permeability, as some do express in clinical settings? And does knowledge that perpetrators can be attacked back have any deterrent effect on them, or is the bi‐directional violence that can ensue an unmitigated race to the bottom that further impairs well‐being?

What of the bystander role? Depending on the platform, the audience witnessing a cyberbullying attack can potentially be limitless – attacks that go viral are an extreme example of this. While this can magnify the humiliation inflicted on the victim, it also introduces the possibility of enlisting bystanders to protect victims and push back against perpetrators. Research examining how to leverage bystanders as part of anti‐cyberbullying interventions would have significant management and public health utility.

Recent scholarship has brought attention to cyberbullying beyond the young age group. What had been called the “digital divide”, which in this context refers to the notion that children and adolescents are more active online and therefore at higher risk, has narrowed to the point where a significant risk of cyberbullying now appears to exist among college students and perhaps adults overall. Cyberbullying is no longer a middle‐ and high‐school problem, as suggested by a 30‐country United Nations‐sponsored survey that recruited nearly 170,000 youth up to 24 years of age and found that 33% of them had been victims of that behavior 3 . To better protect against cyberbullying and implement age‐appropriate interventions, new research should better delineate the upper limits of the high‐risk cyberbullying age bracket, if they exist.

There is also insufficient research into the culturally‐specific dimensions of cyberbullying. Co‐authoring analyses reveal that the most influential cyberbullying scholarship comes from the US, and that the top 5 universities in publication productivity are in the European Union 4 . Given the different relationship to violence across cultures and the diverging definitions of, and reactions to, trauma worldwide, a broader culturally‐centered research perspective is essential for a more thorough understanding of cyberbullying's global impact.

As we “zoom out” and investigate across cultures, we should also “zoom in” on the specific cyberbullying behavior. Are all cyberbullying attacks similar in terms of prevalence, perpetrator and victim profiles, short‐ and long‐term consequences, and management strategies? Several forms of cyberbullying have been identified 5 , but their similarities and differences require elucidation, especially as technology continues to change and new forms emerge. Therefore, future research should compare diverse behaviors, such as cyberstalking, “excluding” (deliberately leaving someone out), “doxing” (revealing sensitive information about the victim), “fraping” (using the victim's social media account to post inappropriate content under the victim's name), “masquerading” (creating a fake identity with which to attack the victim), “flaming” (posting insults against the victim), and sex‐based cyberbullying through the non‐consensual sending of sexual text messages or imagery. To better understand and address cyberbullying, we must explore its existing subtypes – some of which have only been described in blogs – and, as technology evolves, its emerging forms.

Most urgently, the lack of agreement upon “best practices” for the management of cyberbullying must be remedied. Expanding access to psychiatric and psychological care – given the mental health dimension of cyberbullying – is imperative, as is a better understanding of school‐based interventions, which remain the most popular management approach.

Data from school‐based studies suggest that programs which adopt a broad, ecological approach to the school‐wide climate and which include specific actions at the student, teacher and family levels are more effective than those delivered solely through classroom curricula or social skills trainings 6 . However, the best meta‐analytic evidence for school‐based programs demonstrates mostly short‐term effects 7 , while long‐term data suggest small benefits 8 . Further, success appears more likely when programs target cyberbullying specifically as opposed to general violence prevention 7 , and when they are delivered by technology‐savvy content experts as opposed to teachers 8 . Evidence also suggests that programs are most successful when they provide informational support through interactive modalities (e.g., peer tutoring, role playing, group discussion), and when they nurture stakeholder agency (e.g., offer quality teacher training programs, engage parents in program implementation) 9 .

Future research into cyberbullying management should expand on these findings and examine how management interfaces with the legislative process and with law enforcement when it comes to illegal behavior, including privacy breeches and serious threats.

Much has been learned about cyberbullying, but much remains to be explored. The knowledge gaps are all the more challenging given that Internet‐related technologies evolve at a breakneck pace and in a way that reveals new exploitable vulnerabilities. Along with the previously cited statistic that no less than 33% of young people worldwide have been victimized 3 , this should give the field added urgency to “keep up” and investigate some under‐studied areas that are critical to a more nuanced understanding of cyberbullying and its effective management.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology

Related Papers

Danny Voisine

JournalofPharmaceuticalNegativeResults

Recep Nur UZUN

Individuals may commit cyberbullying actions (insult, slander, etc.) to the other party, especially by using technological communication tools (phone, blogs, etc.). It is very important to be conscious of these cyberbullying acts.Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the strategies of university students studying in sports sciences to cope with cyberbullying. The universe of this research consists of university students studying at the faculties of sports sciences. The sample group consists of 200 students studying at Dokuz Eylül University Necat Hepkon Faculty of Sports Sciences. Stratified random sampling, one of the random sampling methods, was used. The “Coping withVirtual Bullying Scale” developed by Koç et al., (2016) was used as a data collection tool. SPSS 28.0 program was used in the analysis of the data. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the obtained data, and Independent T-Test was used to compare the variables. In the findings; A significant difference was found between male and female students in the sub-dimensions of Cognitive Security, Help-Seeking and Information-Seeking (p0.05). The significant difference in the sub-dimensions is in favor of female students.A high level of significant difference was found among students' daily internet use in the sub-dimensions of Help Seeking and Information Seeking (p0.05). The significant difference in the sub-dimensions is in favor of students who use the internet for 5 hours or more. In the Ignoring sub-dimension, there was a significant difference according to the number of social media accounts (p0.05). The significant difference is in favor of students who have 2 or more social media accounts. In the sub-dimensions ofHelp Seeking, Ignoring and Information Seeking, a significant difference was found between keeping social media identity confidential (p0.05). In all dimensions where a significant difference occurred (Help Seeking 18.8±3.90, Ignoring 14.0±3.25, Information Seeking 22.7±1.00) the average was in favor of students who kept their social media accounts private. As a result; It is recommended that social and academic studies be carried out to increase awareness of cyberbullying, especially among young people

Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions

Sinan Keskin

Öz Yakın zamana kadar " zorbalık " fiziksel, sözel ve dolaylı zorbalık şeklinde türlere ayrılırken, son yıllarda tek-nolojinin insan yaşamında giderek daha yaygın hale gelmesiyle birlikte zorbalık olgusunun bağlamı genişle-miş ve yeni bir zorbalık türü olan siber zorbalık ortaya çıkmıştır. Özellikle küçük yaş grupları için en önemli sosyal destek kaynağı olan ailenin, siber zorbalığı önlemede önemli bir yapı olduğu düşünülmektedir. Bu çalışmada öncelikle, algılanan aile desteği değişkeni ile siber zorbalık arasındaki ilişki ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca öğrencilerin cinsiyet, sınıf düzeyi, internet kullanım sıklığı gibi demografik özelliklerine göre siber zorbalık ve algılanan aile destek düzeyleri incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu siber zorbalığın önemli risk gruplarından birini oluşturan ve çocukluktan ergenlik dönemine geçiş aşamasında olan ortaokul öğrencileri oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden betimsel ve ilişkisel araştırma yöntemlerine göre desenlenmiştir. Araştırma verileri Kişisel Bilgi Formu, Siber Zorbalık Ölçeği ve Algılanan Sosyal Destek Öl-çeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde, değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler incelenirken Spearman sıra korelasyon katsayısı, ortalamalar karşılaştırılırken Kruskal-Wallis ve Mann-Whitney U testleri kulla-nılmıştır. Ulaşılan bulgular doğrultusunda; öğrencilerin cinsiyetinden bağımsız olarak, sınıf düzeyleri ve internet kullanım sıklığı arttıkça algılanan aile desteği düşmektedir, diğer taraftan siber zorbalık davranışları ise artış göstermektedir. Öğrencilerin siber zorbalık düzeyleri ile algılanan aile desteği düzeyleri arasında negatif yönde orta düzeyde bir ilişkinin olduğu da tespit edilmiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler Siber zorbalık • Algılanan sosyal destek • Aile desteği • Çocuklarda internet kullanımı •

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Tali Heiman

Most of the research literature on cyberbullying (CB) has focused on adolescents, but due to their intensive, unsupervised use of Information Communication Technologies (ICT), higher education students are at high risk of being involved in CB. The current study examined the nature of CB among 1004 higher education students. In addition, we explored the relationships between cyber-victimization, social support, loneliness, and self-efficacy. For that purpose, we applied a path analysis model (PA) to explain the effect of each variable on the cyber-victimization experience, expecting that high levels of loneliness and low levels of self-efficacy will predict cyber-victimization, but might be moderated and reduced by high levels of social support. Results revealed that social support moderated the relationships between these socio-emotional variables and cyber-victimization, and might serve as a protective factor. These findings on young adults may contribute to the understanding of th...

Ellen Kraft

Applied Quantitative Analysis

mark april barbado

Cyberbullying has emerged as a timely and relevant issue. Almost all students are active in using gadgets and exposed to social media platforms, making them vulnerable to cyberbullying. This study determined the factors associated with cyberbullying involvement of students of Northwestern University. It specifically answered the demographic profile of students, perceived factors influencing students' involvement in cyberbullying, its effects, and their coping mechanisms as the basis of coming up with Information-Education-Communication material. A quantitative-descriptive method was used using IPO. A survey questionnaire was used and distributed online using Google forms. There were 351 participants from different colleges. Frequency, percentage, and weighted mean are used to analyze the data. Findings revealed that Medium and school are the most significant factors influencing students' involvement in cyberbullying. The perceived effects of cyberbullying provide a risk to m...

Baray Hernandez

The Investigation of Predictors of Cyberbullying andCyber Victimization in University Students

Gizem Akcan

Information and communication technologies catch the attention of people via media that some problems like cyber bullying and cyber victimization are also increased with technological developments. The aim of this study is to examine the effects of gender, frequency of internet usage, perceived academic achievement on cyber bullying, and victimization. The research sample consisted of 151 (76 female,75 male) high school and university students. Demographic Information Form, Cyber Bullying and Cyber Victimization Scales were administered to the participants. According to the results of the Mann Whitney U-test, males were more likely to be cyberbulliers than females; however, they were also more likely to be victims. In the correlational analysis, it was determined that cyberbullying correlated positively with cybervictimization. Furthermore, multi regression analysis showed that cyberbullying was predicted by perceived academic achievement. However, the results of the multi regression analysis indicated that cybervictimization was predicted by frequency of internet usage.

Mustafa Tözün

Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma, Eskişehir il merkezinde öğrenim gören 2937 lise öğrencisi üzerinde yapılan kesitsel tipte bir araştırmadır. Çalışmada kullanılan anket formu, öğrencilerin bazı sosyodemografik özelliklerini, siber zorbalık ile ilişkili olduğu düşünülen bazı değişkenleri, Siber Zorbalık Envanteri-II’nin sorularını ve Çok Boyutlu Algılanan Sosyal Destek Ölçeğinin sorularını içermektedir. Verilerin normal dağılıma uygunluğu Shapiro-Wilk testi ile yapılmıştır. Analizler için Ki-kare testi, Lojistik Regresyon Analiz (Backward Wald) ve Mann Whitney U testi kullanılmıştır.

Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research

Humaira Jami

The purpose of the study was to explore modes, strategies, and consequences of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among university students. In-depth interviews of 14 volunteer university students (8 male and 6 female) were conducted who volunteered to participate in the study in which 10 participants were “cybervictims” whereas 4 were “cyberbully-victim”. Interview guide was used for conducting unstructured interviews. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed different experiences in cyberspace with respect to gender and role (cybervictim and cyberbully-victim) in experiencing cyberbullying and cyber-victimization. Three themes emerged that is psychological consequences (emotional, behavioral, and cognitive), social consequences (family and peers), and change in lifestyle (online, offline, and academic). Facebook was found to be the most prevalent mode of cyberbullying. The cyberbully-victim participants derived more happiness while bullying and had revengeful attitud...

Chapter 1: Introduction

Drishti Sharma; Nandini Sharma; and Ritika Bakshi

As access to digital technologies increases rapidly worldwide, it brings risks alongside enormous benefits, especially for the children and adolescents. The magnitude of online risks like cyberbullying is growing across the world, and India is no exception. Studies across the globe suggest that use of electronic communication technologies has a significant impact on the mental, physical and social health of adolescents. Therefore, understanding and mitigating online risks is crucial. This requires a shared understanding of online risks amongst the key stakeholders to work collaboratively to promote well-being of youth in an increasingly digital world. The socio-ecological model provides a framework that can organize important protective and risk factors for preventing cyberbullying and other online threats. These factors are located within multiple systems that constantly interact, broadly involving the youth, their families, peers and schools, communities, and society.

In this chapter, we introduce cyberbullying and other online risks faced by adolescents as well as the overall opportunities offered by digital media, particularly in the developing world. By mitigating the threats, we can avoid the increasing digital divide and ensure continued healthy youth development. We explore what cyberbullying is, the magnitude of the problem, and its harmful impacts. We will also briefly introduce the landscape we intend to cover through this book using the framework of the socio-ecological model. Our goal is to make this information accessible for the use of Indian stakeholders who are invested in preventing cyberbullying and promoting adolescents’ digital citizenship. Throughout the book, we draw insights from scientific work across the globe and apply them to India’s current policy ecosystem.

INDIAN CONTEXT

India is home to 1.3 billion people. [1] It has the largest adolescent population globally. [2] According to the 2011 census, 83% of India’s population lives in rural areas. Despite the record economic growth, literacy remains low. In the 2011 census, 73% of the population was literate. Literacy for girls and women is much lower (64.6%) as compared to boys and men (80.9%).

The World Bank classifies India as a low-middle income economy. Its health system is constrained, with a reported 0.53 hospital beds per 1000 people in 2017. [3] Further, it falls in the low density of healthcare workers, with 0.3 psychiatrists and 0.05 psychologists per 100,000 people. [4]

As with many other low-income countries, in India, the digital revolution skipped the phase of computers and laptops. This means that many households owned mobile devices as their first digital device. In India, in 2019, one in three individuals of age 12 years and above had access to internet. Of these users, 32% were within the age group of 12-19 years. [5] This suggests that adolescents are disproportionately more likely to have access to the Internet compared to adults and older adults. Also, our focus groups with stakeholders revealed that the sharing of electronic communication devices is prevalent within Indian families. The latest IAMAI report stated, “While internet users grew by 4% in urban India reaching 323 million users in 2020, digital adoption continues to be propelled by rural India – registering a 13% growth in internet users over the past year”. [6]

Digital technology has already changed the world. As more and more children have access to the technology, it is increasingly changing the dynamics of the childhood as well. If leveraged strategically and made universally accessible, digital technology can be a game changer for children who are left behind.

In this book we make a case for faster action, focused investment and greater cooperation to protect children from the harms of a more connected world. Along with this, we also focus on harnessing the opportunities of the digital age to benefit every child. [7] Strategic planning is critically relevant for India. If action is not taken soon enough, digital divide will continue to magnify the prevailing economic gaps. This will in turn amplify the advantages of children from wealthier backgrounds and fail to deliver opportunities to the poorest and the underprivileged children.

OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED BY DIGITAL MEDIA

Internet connectivity has ushered in knowledge transfer at a scale which was earlier unknown and unimaginable. Bill Gates once said, “The internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow.”

Children and adolescents around the world have embraced technology with ease. They have created new spaces for social interactions. Indeed, the advances have been so rapid that parents and caregivers often struggle to keep up. [8] Digitalization offers seemingly limitless opportunities. It allows children to connect with friends and make decisions for themselves. It gives access to education, which is especially important for those living in remote or marginalized areas. Countless stories and examples illustrate how children worldwide have utilized the digital technologies to learn, socialize, and shape their paths into adulthood. For instance, in Brazil, the Amazon state government’s educational initiative has provided educational content since 2007 to children and youth living remotely. Classes are taught by teachers in rural communities using satellite television. In addition to printed resources, they also have access to digital textbooks and other educational resources through the internet. [9]

Skills and vocational training programs are yet another domain where digital connectivity is opening opportunities to learn. This is particularly true for children hailing from very low- income families. Such children often leave formal schooling to earn livelihood. In Kampala, Uganda, the ‘Women in Technology’ organization offers digital vocational training for young women in under-served communities. The organization teaches young women digital, leadership and life skills. Girls attending the program have reported learning entrepreneurship skills and the use of the internet to identify their business opportunities. [10] Such initiatives of providing access to technology strategically has fostered better educational and economic opportunities to the vulnerable communities.

In addition, digital access is vital during emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Online web-based learning or e-learning played a major role in making the teaching-learning process more student-centered, innovative, and flexible, when the schools and colleges were shut down across the world. [11]

DIGITAL ACCESS DIVIDE

Greater online connectivity has opened new avenues for civic engagement, social inclusion and other opportunities, with the potential to break cycles of poverty and disadvantage. However, disparities in access to internet services vary between groups depending upon income, family education and literacy, and urbanicity/rurality. To be specific, 81 percent of people in developed countries use the internet, while only 40 percent of the people use internet in developing countries. In least developing countries the number is even lower at 15 percent. [12] GSM Association (GSMA) survey in 2015 found that in low- and middle-income countries, various socio-economic and cultural barriers tend to keep girls and women from using mobile phones. [13] Such barriers include social norms, education levels, lack of technical literacy and decision-making, employment and income, etc. The National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS5) reports suggest that gender disparities in usage of internet in India are greater across the rural areas than urban regions. These findings highlight that the gender disparities in the offline world are significantly reflected in the online world as well. [14]

But unless we reduce the disparities, digital technology may create new divides that prevent children from fulfilling their potential. If we don’t act now to keep pace with rapid change, online risks may make vulnerable children more susceptible to exploitation, abuse and even trafficking. It may also result in more subtle threats to their well-being. [15]

DIGITAL RISKS AND SAFETY

Online risks among adolescents are of four kinds [16] —

Cyberbullying or online harassment
Sexual solicitation and risky sexual behaviors
Exposure to explicit content
Information breaches and privacy violations

We elaborate on cyberbullying prevention and response in Chapter 1, 2, 3 and 4. Further, in Chapter 5, we place cyberbullying in the broader context of online digital safety. In Chapter 6, we identify the possible platforms in the Indian policy landscape that can be leveraged to address the situation.

Throughout the book, we make a case for using a common approach of resilience-based frameworks to address all kinds of digital risks. Digital resilience means empowering children to become active, aware, and ethical digital citizens. It requires building capacity to safely navigate the digital world. [17] This approach strikes a balance between teen’s privacy and online safety through active communication and fostering trust between parents and children. It stands in contrast to the current “risk-averse” approach to online safety. This approach emphasizes on protecting adolescents from being exposed to online risks. The underlying fear often culminates in actions that restrict access to electronic communication technologies for youth. It often includes privacy-invasive monitoring. We suggest that this response is ineffective because no matter how much restrictions we place, just as in everyday life, a zero-risk digital environment is unattainable. We have already elaborated on how online interactions can provide social support, belonging, education, entertainment, and other positive conditions for healthy youth development. Online safety therefore, should maximize the benefits of the internet while mitigating some of its unintended consequences. [18]

WHAT IS CYBERBULLYING?

Bullying is a type of aggressive behavior that is traditionally defined as “intentional, repeated negative (unpleasant or hurtful) behavior by one or more persons directed against a person who has difficulty defending himself or herself.” [19] Bullying can be perpetrated in-person or via electronic means. Cyber bullying or online bullying is a form of bullying or harassment using electronic communication technologies means. It includes direct messaging particularly through social media websites , and a range of electronic applications and other websites.

Cyberbullying is often understood as an extension of in-person bullying that occurs in schools. The definition of cyberbullying has been debated, but most definitions specify that cyberbullying is some type of aggression (e.g., harassment, bullying) that occurs through electronic communication technologies. [20]

Aggression among youth includes the following forms of aggression- physical, verbal and relational (or social). Physical aggression causes or threatens to cause physical harm. It may include behaviors such as hitting, kicking, tripping, pinching, pushing or damaging property. Verbal aggression, in contrast, targets a person’s sense of self, agency, or dignity. It includes name-calling, insults, teasing, intimidation, racist remarks, or verbal abuse. Relational or social aggression targets a person’s social relationships, status, image, or reputation. It includes lying, spreading rumors or embarrassing information, making rude or disrespectful negative facial or physical gestures, cracking jokes to embarrass and humiliate someone, mimicking unkindly. It also includes causing social isolation or exclusion, encouraging others to socially exclude someone and damaging someone’s social reputation or social acceptance. [21]

Unfortunately, increased access to the internet through the unmediated use of smartphones exposes children and adolescents to many online risks. Bullying has become a part of our routine interactions on platforms such as WhatsApp, SnapChat, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc. Body-shaming goes unabated; false rumors spread unchecked; and morphed pictures or videos are shared with a limitless audience. Cyberbullying also offers anonymity to the perpetrators allowing them to continue bullying without any fear of the real-world consequences. These factors, combined with the lack of monitoring and regulation in cyberspace, makes the issue more intricate and challenging to address.

Although children are aware of the damage and profound harm that cyberbullying causes, they are not always immediately conscious of the long-term consequences of their actions. Further, though they have superior technological skills, they lack awareness about the need of appropriate protective measures when it comes to sharing personal information. They may not be able to distinguish between online and offline “friends”. Adults struggle to provide support to youth too. Cyberbullying does not require the physical presence of the victim. It is, by its very nature, a hidden kind of behavior. Often adults fail to detect and address cyberbullying, particularly when they take place in spaces beyond adult supervision. [22]

Despite the growing concern, the research on cyberbullying in India is at a nascent stage. A systematic review done by Thakkar et al. in 2020 reported there were very few scientific articles on the topic for a meaningful inference. [23] As with research, the practice of cyberbullying prevention faces challenges too. The point is driven home by a report commissioned by UNICEF to understand online child safety in India in 2016. The report reveals that despite provisions in legislation and policies in India, there is a general lack of understanding of professionals, policymakers, and society of the risks and threats posed to children by information and communication technology (ICT) and social media. [24] Despite the limitation, the urgency of equipping stakeholders with information is clear. Therefore, throughout the book, we attempt to synthesize the available literature to draw actionable inferences for the Indian context.

With the rising internet usage, the rate of cyberbullying incidents is likely to increase in the years to come. Globally, current prevalence estimates for cyberbullying victimization range between approximately 10 and 40 percent. The wide range suggests that estimates of the burden of cyberbullying victimization varies across studies. The variation is attributed to several factors- the manner in which cyberbullying is defined (for a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Chapter 2), differences in the ages and locations of the individuals sampled, the reporting time frame being assessed (e.g., lifetime, 2 months, 6 months), and the frequency rate by which a person is classified as a perpetrator or victim (e.g., at least once, several times a week). [25] Despite the varying estimates, data consistently indicate that a considerable number of youngsters are being cyberbullied across the globe. [26]

Majority of the incidents of cyberbullying are subtle (less harmful). [27] Some, however, cross the line into unlawful or criminal behavior. For instance, cases of cyber stalking or bullying of children rose from 40 in 2018 to 140 in 2020, as reported by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) of India. [28] , [29] These criminal cases essentially represent the tip of the iceberg and reports indicate an increasing trend of such episodes. Also, for every serious case reported, many relatively low-risk incidents of risk exposure go unreported. Clearly, we can respond well to these low-risk exposures by empowering teens with necessary technical and socio-emotional coping skills to avoid catastrophic consequences. [30]

The research also suggests that parents and teachers are often in the dark, unaware of bullying experiences of youth. [31] Youth who face cyberbullying, hesitate to confide in their elders or caregivers due to the perception of the lack of technical know-how amongst elders and fear of losing access to their devices. [32] Hence, surveys that measure children’s self-reports of such incidents are a valuable source of measuring the burden.

As per an Indian survey conducted in 2012, eight percent of 174 youth in Delhi ever perpetrated cyberbullying, and 17 percent reported being victimized. The percentage of boys who were victimized exceeded the percentage of girls. The rate of cyberbullying perpetration was comparable across gender. When the exposure to such events is compared with global figures, we find comparable rates across gender. We suspect that India’s cultural factors and gender roles contribute to limited access to mobile devices for girls thus resulting in lower exposure to such events. That is, limited access may explain the anomaly of higher incidence of victimization among boys. [33] However, a systematic enquiry linking gender and digital access with cyberbullying behavior is required to verify this hypothesis. Also, it is worth reiterating that lower access may drive other socio-economic disadvantages. In this case, limited access due to the risk of exposure to cyberbullying or other digital risks may result in the child losing many opportunities for growth and development.

In Ahmedabad, Gujarat, in 2017, a study was conducted on 240 respondents (120 boys and 120 girls) aged 12-17 years, from standard VII to XII. The findings indicate that nearly 14 percent of respondents reported cyberbullying in their lifetime and seven percent reported cyberbullying involvement in the last thirty days.

Likewise, Microsoft Corporation conducted the ‘Global Youth Online Behavior Survey’, in 2012 on the phenomenon of online bullying. Survey was conducted with 7,644 youth aged eight to seventeen years in twenty-five countries (approximately 300 respondents per country), including six Asian nations. Of the 25 countries surveyed, the three countries in which participants reported the highest rates of online bullying victimization were China (70%), Singapore (58%), and India (53%). Other Asian countries in the study reported the following percentages of online bullying: Malaysia, 33%; Pakistan, 26%; and Japan, 17%. The same three countries with the highest rates of online bullying victimization also reported the highest rates of having bullied someone online- China (58%), India (50%), and Singapore (46%). [34]

Further, in 2020, Child Rights and You (CRY), a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), reported around 9.2% of 630 adolescents surveyed in Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) had experienced cyberbullying. Half of them had not reported it to teachers or guardians of the social media companies concerned. [35]

Notably, these surveys were not representative of national-level estimates. Further information on rates disaggregated across sub-groups, e.g., gender, developmental age-groups, socio-economic class, caste, color, rural or urban residence, ethnicities or region of origin, language, disability, sexual orientation, school-going or out-of-school is yet to be studied.

Some victims of cyberbullying are not upset or disturbed. However, cyberbullying is often associated with many emotional and psychological conditions, including stress, lower self-esteem, and life satisfaction, [36] with far-reaching effects during adolescence and adulthood. Most of the scientific literature reporting the impact of cyberbullying is cross-sectional (i.e., the behavior and its impact is reported at the same instance among individuals), and to establish temporal relationships and potential causal inferences, more longitudinal studies (where subjects are followed over time to study the outcome of a certain behavior) are required. Like the burden estimates, evidence from representative surveys measuring the impact of cyberbullying among adolescents is nearly absent in the Indian context. Therefore, we would try to draw from global literature and as much as possible from comparable regions.

In 2014, Kowalski et al. published a meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth, including 131 studies mainly from the developed world. These studies have linked cyberbullying involvement as a victim or perpetrator to substance use; mental health symptoms, e.g., anxiety and depression; decreased self-esteem and self-worth; low self-control; suicidal ideation; poor physical health (difficulty sleeping, recurrent abdominal pain and frequent headaches); increased likelihood of self-injury; and loneliness. Furthermore, victims of cyberbullying are much more likely to be bullied in person when compared to non-victims. [37]

Additionally, both youth who experience cyberbullying victimization and perpetration are more likely to experience poor performance at school and in the workplace as compared to youth who are not involved in cyberbullying. They reported absenteeism, lower grades and poor concentration. Victims are also more likely to face detentions and suspensions, incidences of truancy, and carrying weapons. [38]

Ruangnapakul et al., in 2019, conducted a systematic review of studies from South Asian countries, i.e. Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The review revealed that cyberbullying behavior (perpetration or victimization) is common among adolescents in these countries. One of the studies from Philippines noted the association of cyberbullying with unpleasant and uncomfortable feelings. Another study from Malaysia reported that cyberbullying was associated with negative academic and emotional outcomes. The review revealed that there were few (not many) studies on cyberbullying in the Southeast Asian region. The issue needs further systematic enquiry. Since most of the studies were cross-sectional, they mainly report associations and not temporality (e.g., which came first- poor adjustment and functioning, or cyberbullying?) which would require longitudinal studies. [39]

Bullying among youth is costly not just for individuals and families but also for countries. Understanding the economic cost and impacts associated with bullying is critical for any country. Such data informs the design of appropriate evidence-informed programs and prevention measures to reduce its occurrence. To move in this direction, India needs to conduct surveys and ensure availability of administrative data with trends to allow estimates of bullying prevalence and consequences. [40]

Reports from elsewhere suggest alarming costs. For instance, youth violence in Brazil alone is estimated to cost nearly $19 billion per year, of which $943 million can be linked to violence in schools. A report commissioned by Australia’s Alannah and Madeline Foundation suggests the costs of bullying victims and perpetrators into adulthood is $1.8 billion over a 20 years period. This includes the costs of bullying for all school students during school as well as long-term impacts after school. [41]

Cyberbullying is a global problem that affects youth’s mental, socio-economic, psychological, and physical health. This requires a multi-disciplinary, cross-cultural and holistic approach to address the issue through programs focused on students and school personnel, parents, health professionals and the wider community. The more extensive ecological system comprising parents, teachers, various stakeholders like media, law enforcement, health professionals, policymakers, and youth themselves all need to work in active collaboration to deal with the problem of cyberbullying. In this context, the social-ecological model proposed by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for violence prevention is useful and merits discussion.

A FRAMEWORK FOR PREVENTION

Through this book, we aim to empower stakeholders who perform an essential role in the dynamic play of factors that lead to cyberbullying. Knowing the range of actors and factors is critical to prevent and respond to the risk. We use a four-level social-ecological model proposed by CDC (Refer Figure 1) to understand violence and the effectiveness of potential prevention strategies. This model considers the complex interplay between individual, relationship, community, and societal levels leading to interpersonal-violence. It allows us to understand the determinants at each level that put individuals at risk for violence or protect them from experiencing the violence.

The model also explains how the factors at one level influence factors at another level, which requires action across multiple levels of the model at the same time to achieve population-level impact. [42] , [43] Throughout the book, we utilize the socio-ecological framework to understand cyberbullying among youth.

The model is understood through four concentric circles. The innermost circle is the one closest to the individual and the outermost circle is the most distant, yet influential at the societal level. The individual level identifies biological, individual characteristics and personal history factors. These factors often increase the probability of becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence. Some of these factors include age, education, family income, impulsivity, or history of adversity such as abuse.

The next level moves out of the individual and examines close relationships. Some close relationships may increase the risk of experiencing cyberbullying as a victim or perpetrator of cyberbullying. For instance, an individual’s family members influence their behavior and contribute to their risk of or protection against cyberbullying. Also, peers play a critical role in influencing children’s behavior, attitude, thinking and judgment.

This model at third level, the community level, explores settings, such as schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. In some settings in which social relationships develop may contribute towards factors that are associated with victimization or perpetration of cyberbullying.

The fourth level looks at the broad societal factors that help create an environment in which violence is either encouraged or discouraged. These factors include political, social and cultural norms of the society in which we live. They also include various factors that help to maintain economic or social inequalities among different groups of the society.

In the following chapters, we have elaborated upon risk and protective factors of cyberbullying using the socio-ecological framework described above. The framework also helps understand the preventive strategies with a systems lens. We use insights gained from review of scientific and grey literature, policy documents and discussions held with youth, teachers, parents, health care providers and policy actors during workshops.

Chapter Two emphasizes the importance of a solid understanding of how best to measure cyberbullying within and across cultural contexts. We review the existing measures of cyberbullying in South Asia and provide guidance on measure development for researchers to generate ecologically valid measures of cyberbullying.

Chapter Three covers individual level determinants, relationships with peers and their effect on cyberbullying behavior. This chapter also conveys the role of school as a community level organization in preventing cyberbullying. Understanding school-and peer-level factors is important in preventing cyberbullying events and mitigating its potentially harmful impacts. By far these are the most studied factors addressed in interventions to prevent cyberbullying.

Chapter Four addresses parents’ and caregivers’ needs for guidance and reassurance on how best maintain their children’s safety online and protect against cyberbullying. We emphasize the importance of parent-child communication, warm parent-child relationships, and parental monitoring that supports adolescents’ search for autonomy. In short, this chapter details the role of family, especially parental relationships and media parenting with respect to cyberbullying behavior among youth.

Chapter Five focuses on the broader research areas of digital risks and online safety. We discuss the three primary types of risks that adolescents navigate in digitally mediated environments that extend beyond cyberbullying – online sexual solicitations and risk behaviors, exposure to explicit content, and information breaches and privacy violations. We advocate for a resilience-based, rather than an abstinence-only approach to online safety. Once again, this chapter focuses on the first two levels of the socio-ecological model; individual and relationship level.

Chapter Six addresses the more distal societal level factors identified by the model. We summarize how the current knowledge can be applied in India across multiple stakeholder groups, including public policy, law enforcement, school administration, health care providers, community-based organizations, tech industry, and research institutes. Also, we highlight the key gaps in knowledge to guide future research.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Increasing digital access enables education, socialization and entertainment among youth thus offering the most marginalized an opportunity to come out of poverty.
Though digital access has improved worldwide, there remains inequality in access, particularly for children, especially girls from low-income families in the rural areas.
Children all around the world are adapting these technologies at earlier ages and are far more adept than their parents in using them.
Online risks are a reality of current connected work. Children, specifically, are exposed to the risk of cyberbullying, online harassment, sexual solicitation and risky sexual behaviors, exposure to explicit content, information breaches and privacy violations.
According to existing literature, cyberbullying rates reported among youth in India range from 5% to 53% based on different studies. This is similar to rates reported elsewhere in developing settings and worldwide.
The cyberbullying studies undertaken in India have methodological weaknesses such as unavailability of data pertaining to sub-groups. More information at the national level is required to inform policies and action on response.
Cyberbullying and cyber victimization are both associated with a range of poor outcomes, including depressive symptoms, low self-esteem, anxiety, loneliness, drug and alcohol use, low academic achievement, and low overall well-being. In addition, cyber victimization has been linked to somatic complaints, perceived stress, and suicide ideation. However, most of this research is cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies are recommended to identify the direction of relationship of these effects.
Nevertheless, the evidence of negative impacts of cyberbullying is sufficient to catalyze the policy ecosystem in India to prioritize digital safety and to strengthen systems to monitor, respond and prevent digital risks.
Population Enumeration Data: Census of India. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India; Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/population_enumeration.html ↵
Adolescent development and participation; UNICEF India. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/india/what-we-do/adolescent-development-participation ↵
Human resources for Health-WHO, World Health Organization. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.who.int/hrh/documents/JLi_hrh_report.pdf ↵
Digital in India-IAMAI CMS. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Previously available from: https://cms.iamai.in/Content/ResearchPapers/d3654bcc-002f-4fc7-ab39-e1fbeb00005d.pdf and now available from: https://www.iamai.in/KnowledgeCentre ↵
By 2025, rural India will likely have more internet users than urban India. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://theprint.in/tech/by-2025-rural-india-will-likely-have-more-internet-users-than-urban-india/671024/ ↵
Children in a Digital World: UNICEF. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/media/48601/file ↵
Swist T, Collin P, McCormack J, Third A. Social media and the wellbeing of children and young people: A literature review. ↵
United Nations Children’s Fund and Move, ‘Igarité: Overview of face-to-face teaching with technological mediation in the state of Amazonas’, UNICEF Brazil, 2017. ↵
Inoue K, Di Gropello E, Taylor YS, Gresham J. Out-of-school youth in Sub-Saharan Africa: A policy perspective. World Bank Publications; 2015 Mar 17. ↵
Dhawan S. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2020 Sep;49(1):5-22. ↵
Sanou B. ICT facts and figures 2016. Geneva: The International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2017 Mar. ↵
GSM Association, ‘Bridging the Gender Gap: Mobile access and usage in low and middle-income countries’, GSMA, London, 2015, pp. 6–9, 29. ↵
NFHS-5: National Family Health Survey: India. 2019-20. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://ruralindiaonline.org/en/library/resource/national-family-health-survey-nfhs-5-2019-20-fact-sheets-key-indicators—22-statesuts-from-phase-i/ ↵
An insider’s view of the games industry and what it offers children’s play. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 25]. Available from: https://digitalfuturescommission.org.uk/blog/an-insiders-view-of-the-games-industry-and-what-it-offers-childrens-play/ ↵
Solberg ME, Olweus D. Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression. 2003 Jun;29(3):239-68. ↵
Hertz MF, David-Ferdon C. Electronic media and youth violence: A CDC issue brief for educators and caregivers. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control; 2008. ↵
Mehari KR, Farrell AD. Where does cyberbullying fit? A comparison of competing models of adolescent aggression. Psychology of violence. 2018 Jan;8(1):31. ↵
Prevention, protection and international cooperation against the use of new information technologies to abuse and/or exploit children. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Twenty-third session. Vienna, 12-16 May 2014. Available from: https://undocs.org/E/CN.15/2014/7 ↵
Thakkar N, van Geel M, Vedder P. A systematic review of bullying and victimization among adolescents in India. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. 2020 Sep 7:1-7. ↵
Child online protection in India; UNICEF. Available from: https://www.icmec.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/UNICEF-Child-Protection-Online-India-pub_doc115-1.pdf ↵
Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological bulletin. 2014 Jul;140(4):1073. ↵
Background paper on protecting children from bullying and cyberbullying. Expert Consultation on protecting children from bullying and cyberbullying. May 2016. Florence, Italy. Office of the special representative of the secretary-general on Violence against Children. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://violenceagainstchildren.un.org/sites/violenceagainstchildren.un.org/files/expert_consultations/bullying_and_cyberbullying/background_paper_expert_consultation_9-10_may.pdf ↵
McHugh BC, Wisniewski PJ, Rosson MB, Xu H, Carroll JM. Most teens bounce back: Using diary methods to examine how quickly teens recover from episodic online risk exposure. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2017 Dec 6;1(CSCW):1-9. ↵
Table 9A.1-Cyber Crimes (State/UT-wise) – 2016-2018. Crime in India Table Contents. National Crime Records Bureau of India [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 18]. Available from: https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-in-india-table-addtional-table-and-chapter-contents?field_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2018&field_select_table_title_of_crim_value=20&items_per_page=10 ↵
Table 9A.1-Cyber Crimes (State/UT-wise) – 2018-2020. National Crime Records Bureau of India [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 18]. Available from: https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-in-india-table-addtional-table-and-chapter-contents?field_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2020&field_select_table_title_of_crim_value=20&items_per_page=10 ↵
Wiśniewski P, Xu H, Rosson MB, Carroll JM. Parents just don’t understand: Why teens don’t talk to parents about their online risk experiences. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing 2017 Feb 25 (pp. 523-540). ↵
Sharma D, Kishore J, Sharma N, Duggal M. Aggression in schools: cyberbullying and gender issues. Asian journal of psychiatry. 2017 Oct 1;29:142-5. ↵
Bhat CB, Chang Shih-Hua, Ragan MA. Cyberbullying in Asia. Cyber Asia and the New Media. 2013;18; 36-39. ↵
Online Safety and Internet Addiction. CRY [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.cry.org/downloads/safety-and-protection/Online-Safety-and-Internet-Addiction-p.pdf ↵
Cyberbullying in New Zealand. 8 October 2018. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.netsafe.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Cyberbullying-in-New-Zealand-Societal-Cost.pdf ↵
Ruangnapakul N, Salam YD, Shawkat AR. A systematic analysis of cyber bullying in Southeast Asia countries. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering. 2019;8(8S):104-11. ↵
Crime, Violence and Economic Development in Brazil: Elements for Effective Public Policy. Report No. 36525. June 2006. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Security/citizensecurity/brazil/documents/docworldbank.pdf ↵
The economic cost of bullying in Australian schools. Alannah and Madeline Foundation. March 2018. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.amf.org.au/media/2505/amf-report-280218-final.pdf ↵
The Social-Ecological Model: A Framework for Prevention – Violence Prevention, CDC [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/social-ecologicalmodel.html ↵
Espelage DL, Polanin JR, Low SK. Teacher and staff perceptions of school environment as predictors of student aggression, victimization, and willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School psychology quarterly. 2014 Sep;29(3):287. ↵

Cyberbullying and Digital Safety: Applying Global Research to Youth in India Copyright © 2022 by Drishti Sharma; Nandini Sharma; and Ritika Bakshi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Qualitative Methods in School Bullying and Cyberbullying Research: An Introduction to the Special Issue

Published: 12 August 2022
Volume 4 , pages 175–179, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

Paul Horton 1 &
Selma Therese Lyng 2

8946 Accesses

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

School bullying research has a long history, stretching all the way back to a questionnaire study undertaken in the USA in the late 1800s (Burk, 1897 ). However, systematic school bullying research began in earnest in Scandinavia in the early 1970s with the work of Heinemann ( 1972 ) and Olweus ( 1978 ). Highlighting the extent to which research on bullying has grown exponentially since then, Smith et al. ( 2021 ) found that there were only 83 articles with the term “bully” in the title or abstract published in the Web of Science database prior to 1989. The numbers of articles found in the following decades were 458 (1990–1999), 1,996 (2000–2009), and 9,333 (2010–2019). Considering cyberbullying more specifically, Smith and Berkkun ( 2017 , cited in Smith et al., 2021 ) conducted a search of Web of Science with the terms “cyber* and bully*; cyber and victim*; electronic bullying; Internet bullying; and online harassment” until the year 2015 and found that while there were no articles published prior to 2000, 538 articles were published between 2000 and 2015, with the number of articles increasing every year (p. 49).

Numerous authors have pointed out that research into school bullying and cyberbullying has predominantly been conducted using quantitative methods, with much less use of qualitative or mixed methods (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ; Hutson, 2018 ; Maran & Begotti, 2021 ; Smith et al., 2021 ). In their recent analysis of articles published between 1976 and 2019 (in WoS, with the search terms “bully*; victim*; cyberbullying; electronic bullying; internet bullying; and online harassment”), Smith et al. ( 2021 , pp. 50–51) found that of the empirical articles selected, more than three-quarters (76.3%) were based on quantitative data, 15.4% were based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, and less than one-tenth (8.4%) were based on qualitative data alone. What is more, they found that the proportion of articles based on qualitative or mixed methods has been decreasing over the past 15 years (Smith et al., 2021 ). While the search criteria excluded certain types of qualitative studies (e.g., those published in books, doctoral theses, and non-English languages), this nonetheless highlights the extent to which qualitative research findings risk being overlooked in the vast sea of quantitative research.

School bullying and cyberbullying are complex phenomena, and a range of methodological approaches is thus needed to understand their complexity (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000 ; Thornberg, 2011 ). Indeed, over-relying on quantitative methods limits understanding of the contexts and experiences of bullying (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ; Patton et al., 2017 ). Qualitative methods are particularly useful for better understanding the social contexts, processes, interactions, experiences, motivations, and perspectives of those involved (Hutson, 2018 ; Patton et al., 2017 ; Thornberg, 2011 ; Torrance, 2000 ).

Smith et al. ( 2021 ) suggest that the “continued emphasis on quantitative studies may be due to increasingly sophisticated methods such as structural equation modeling … network analysis … time trend analyses … latent profile analyses … and multi-polygenic score approaches” (p. 56). However, the authors make no mention of the range or sophistication of methods used in qualitative studies. Although there are still proportionately few qualitative studies of school bullying and cyberbullying in relation to quantitative studies, and this gap appears to be increasing, qualitative studies have utilized a range of qualitative data collection methods. These methods have included but are not limited to ethnographic fieldwork and participant observations (e.g., Eriksen & Lyng, 2018 ; Gumpel et al., 2014 ; Horton, 2019 ), digital ethnography (e.g., Rachoene & Oyedemi, 2015 ; Sylwander, 2019 ), meta-ethnography (e.g., Dennehy et al., 2020 ; Moretti & Herkovits, 2021 ), focus group interviews (e.g., Odenbring, 2022 ; Oliver & Candappa, 2007 ; Ybarra et al., 2019 ), semi-structured group and individual interviews (e.g., Forsberg & Thornberg, 2016 ; Lyng, 2018 ; Mishna et al., 2005 ; Varjas et al., 2013 ), vignettes (e.g., Jennifer & Cowie, 2012 ; Khanolainen & Semenova, 2020 ; Strindberg et al., 2020 ), memory work (e.g., Johnson et al., 2014 ; Malaby, 2009 ), literature studies (e.g., Lopez-Ropero, 2012 ; Wiseman et al., 2019 ), photo elicitation (e.g., Ganbaatar et al., 2021 ; Newman et al., 2006 ; Walton & Niblett, 2013 ), photostory method (e.g., Skrzypiec et al., 2015 ), and other visual works produced by children and young people (e.g., Bosacki et al., 2006 ; Gillies-Rezo & Bosacki, 2003 ).

This body of research has also included a variety of qualitative data analysis methods, such as grounded theory (e.g., Allen, 2015 ; Bjereld, 2018 ; Thornberg, 2018 ), thematic analysis (e.g., Cunningham et al., 2016 ; Forsberg & Horton, 2022 ), content analysis (e.g., Temko, 2019 ; Wiseman & Jones, 2018 ), conversation analysis (e.g., Evaldsson & Svahn, 2012 ; Tholander, 2019 ), narrative analysis (e.g., Haines-Saah et al., 2018 ), interpretative phenomenological analysis (e.g., Hutchinson, 2012 ; Tholander et al., 2020 ), various forms of discourse analysis (e.g., Ellwood & Davies, 2010 ; Hepburn, 1997 ; Ringrose & Renold, 2010 ), including discursive psychological analysis (e.g., Clarke et al., 2004 ), and critical discourse analysis (e.g., Barrett & Bound, 2015 ; Bethune & Gonick, 2017 ; Horton, 2021 ), as well as theoretically informed analyses from an array of research traditions (e.g., Davies, 2011 ; Jacobson, 2010 ; Søndergaard, 2012 ; Walton, 2005 ).

In light of the growing volume and variety of qualitative studies during the past two decades, we invited researchers to discuss and explore methodological issues related to their qualitative school bullying and cyberbullying research. The articles included in this special issue of the International Journal of Bullying Prevention discuss different qualitative methods, reflect on strengths and limitations — possibilities and challenges, and suggest implications for future qualitative and mixed-methods research.

Included Articles

Qualitative studies — focusing on social, relational, contextual, processual, structural, and/or societal factors and mechanisms — have formed the basis for several contributions during the last two decades that have sought to expand approaches to understanding and theorizing the causes of cyber/bullying. Some have also argued the need for expanding the commonly used definition of bullying, based on Olweus ( 1993 ) (e.g., Allen, 2015 ; Ellwood & Davies, 2010 Goldsmid & Howie, 2014 ; Ringrose & Rawlings, 2015 ; Søndergaard, 2012 ; Walton, 2011 ). In the first article of the special issue, Using qualitative methods to measure and understand key features of adolescent bullying: A call to action , Natalie Spadafora, Anthony Volk, and Andrew Dane instead discuss the usefulness of qualitative methods for improving measures and bettering our understanding of three specific key definitional features of bullying. Focusing on the definition put forward by Volk et al. ( 2014 ), they discuss the definitional features of power imbalance , goal directedness (replacing “intent to harm” in order not to assume conscious awareness, and to include a wide spectrum of goals that are intentionally and strategically pursued by bullies), and harmful impact (replacing “negative actions” in order to focus on the consequences for the victim, as well as circumventing difficult issues related to “repetition” in the traditional definition).

Acknowledging that these three features are challenging to capture using quantitative methods, Spadafora, Volk, and Dane point to existing qualitative studies that shed light on the features of power imbalance, goal directedness and harmful impact in bullying interactions — and put forward suggestions for future qualitative studies. More specifically, the authors argue that qualitative methods, such as focus groups, can be used to investigate the complexity of power relations at not only individual, but also social levels. They also highlight how qualitative methods, such as diaries and autoethnography, may help researchers gain a better understanding of the motives behind bullying behavior; from the perspectives of those engaging in it. Finally, the authors demonstrate how qualitative methods, such as ethnographic fieldwork and semi-structured interviews, can provide important insights into the harmful impact of bullying and how, for example, perceived harmfulness may be connected to perceived intention.

In the second article, Understanding bullying and cyberbullying through an ecological systems framework: The value of qualitative interviewing in a mixed methods approach , Faye Mishna, Arija Birze, and Andrea Greenblatt discuss the ways in which utilizing qualitative interviewing in mixed method approaches can facilitate greater understanding of bullying and cyberbullying. Based on a longitudinal and multi-perspective mixed methods study of cyberbullying, the authors demonstrate not only how qualitative interviewing can augment quantitative findings by examining process, context and meaning for those involved, but also how qualitative interviewing can lead to new insights and new areas of research. They also show how qualitative interviewing can help to capture nuances and complexity by allowing young people to express their perspectives and elaborate on their answers to questions. In line with this, the authors also raise the importance of qualitative interviewing for providing young people with space for self-reflection and learning.

In the third article, Q methodology as an innovative addition to bullying researchers’ methodological repertoire , Adrian Lundberg and Lisa Hellström focus on Q methodology as an inherently mixed methods approach, producing quantitative data from subjective viewpoints, and thus supplementing more mainstream quantitative and qualitative approaches. The authors outline and exemplify Q methodology as a research technique, focusing on the central feature of Q sorting. The authors further discuss the contribution of Q methodology to bullying research, highlighting the potential of Q methodology to address challenges related to gaining the perspectives of hard-to-reach populations who may either be unwilling or unable to share their personal experiences of bullying. As the authors point out, the use of card sorting activities allows participants to put forward their subjective perspectives, in less-intrusive settings for data collection and without disclosing their own personal experiences. The authors also illustrate how the flexibility of Q sorting can facilitate the participation of participants with limited verbal literacy and/or cognitive function through the use of images, objects or symbols. In the final part of the paper, Lundberg and Hellström discuss implications for practice and suggest future directions for using Q methodology in bullying and cyberbullying research, particularly with hard-to-reach populations.

In the fourth article, The importance of being attentive to social processes in school bullying research: Adopting a constructivist grounded theory approach , Camilla Forsberg discusses the use of constructivist grounded theory (CGT) in her research, focusing on social structures, norms, and processes. Forsberg first outlines CGT as a theory-methods package that is well suited to meet the call for more qualitative research on participants’ experiences and the social processes involved in school bullying. Forsberg emphasizes three key focal aspects of CGT, namely focus on participants’ main concerns; focus on meaning, actions, and processes; and focus on symbolic interactionism. She then provides examples and reflections from her own ethnographic and interview-based research, from different stages of the research process. In the last part of the article, Forsberg argues that prioritizing the perspectives of participants is an ethical stance, but one which comes with a number of ethical challenges, and points to ways in which CGT is helpful in dealing with these challenges.

In the fifth article, A qualitative meta-study of youth voice and co-participatory research practices: Informing cyber/bullying research methodologies , Deborah Green, Carmel Taddeo, Deborah Price, Foteini Pasenidou, and Barbara Spears discuss how qualitative meta-studies can be used to inform research methodologies for studying school bullying and cyberbullying. Drawing on the findings of five previous qualitative studies, and with a transdisciplinary and transformative approach, the authors illustrate and exemplify how previous qualitative research can be analyzed to gain a better understanding of the studies’ collective strengths and thus consider the findings and methods beyond the original settings where the research was conducted. In doing so, the authors highlight the progression of youth voice and co-participatory research practices, the centrality of children and young people to the research process and the enabling effect of technology — and discuss challenges related to ethical issues, resource and time demands, the role of gatekeepers, and common limitations of qualitative studies on youth voice and co-participatory research practices.

Taken together, the five articles illustrate the diversity of qualitative methods used to study school bullying and cyberbullying and highlight the need for further qualitative research. We hope that readers will find the collection of articles engaging and that the special issue not only gives impetus to increased qualitative focus on the complex phenomena of school bullying and cyberbullying but also to further discussions on both methodological and analytical approaches.

Allen, K. A. (2015). “We don’t have bullying, but we have drama”: Understandings of bullying and related constructs within the school milieu of a U.S. high school. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment , 25 (3), 159–181.

Barrett, B., & Bound, A. M. (2015). A critical discourse analysis of No Promo Homo policies in US schools. Educational Studies, 51 (4), 267–283.

Article Google Scholar

Bethune, J., & Gonick, M. (2017). Schooling the mean girl: A critical discourse analysis of teacher resource materials. Gender and Education, 29 (3), 389–404.

Bjereld, Y. (2018). The challenging process of disclosing bullying victimization: A grounded theory study from the victim’s point of view. Journal of Health Psychology, 23 (8), 1110–1118.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Bosacki, S. L., Marini, Z. A., & Dane, A. V. (2006). Voices from the classroom: Pictorial and narrative representations of children’s bullying experiences. Journal of Moral Education, 35 (2), 231–245.

Burk, F. L. (1897). Teasing and Bullying. Pedagogical Seminary, 4 (3), 336–371.

Clarke, V., Kitzinger, C., & Potter, J. (2004). ‘Kids are just cruel anyway’: Lesbian and gay parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43 (4), 531–550.

Cunningham, C. E., Mapp, C., Rimas, H., Cunningham, S. M., Vaillancourt, T., & Marcus, M. (2016). What limits the effectiveness of antibullying programs? A thematic analysis of the perspective of students. Psychology of Violence, 6 (4), 596–606.

Davies, B. (2011). Bullies as guardians of the moral order or an ethic of truths? Children & Society, 25 , 278–286.

Dennehy, R., Meaney, S., Walsh, K. A., Sinnott, C., Cronin, M., & Arensman, E. (2020). Young people’s conceptualizations of the nature of cyberbullying: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 51 , 101379.

Ellwood, C., & Davies, B. (2010). Violence and the moral order in contemporary schooling: A discursive analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7 (2), 85–98.

Eriksen, I. M., & Lyng, S. T. (2018). Relational aggression among boys: Blind spots and hidden dramas. Gender and Education, 30 (3), 396–409.

Evaldsson, A. -C., Svahn, J. (2012). School bullying and the micro-politics of girls’ gossip disputes. In S. Danby & M. Theobald (Eds.). Disputes in everyday life: Social and moral orders of children and young people (Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, Vol. 15) (pp. 297–323). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Forsberg, C., & Horton, P. (2022). ‘Because I am me’: School bullying and the presentation of self in everyday school life. Journal of Youth Studies, 25 (2), 136–150.

Forsberg, C., & Thornberg, R. (2016). The social ordering of belonging: Children’s perspectives on bullying. International Journal of Educational Research, 78 , 13–23.

Ganbaatar, D., Vaughan, C., Akter, S., & Bohren, M. A. (2021). Exploring the identities and experiences of young queer people in Mongolia using visual research methods. Culture, Health & Sexuality . Advance Online Publication: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2021.1998631

Gillies-Rezo, S., & Bosacki, S. (2003). Invisible bruises: Kindergartners’ perceptions of bullying. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 8 (2), 163–177.

Goldsmid, S., & Howie, P. (2014). Bullying by definition: An examination of definitional components of bullying. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 19 (2), 210–225.

Gumpel, T. P., Zioni-Koren, V., & Bekerman, Z. (2014). An ethnographic study of participant roles in school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40 (3), 214–228.

Haines-Saah, R. J., Hilario, C. T., Jenkins, E. K., Ng, C. K. Y., & Johnson, J. L. (2018). Understanding adolescent narratives about “bullying” through an intersectional lens: Implications for youth mental health interventions. Youth & Society, 50 (5), 636–658.

Heinemann, P. -P. (1972). Mobbning – gruppvåld bland barn och vuxna [Bullying – group violence amongst children and adults]. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.

Hepburn, A. (1997). Discursive strategies in bullying talk. Education and Society, 15 (1), 13–31.

Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of mixed methods research on bullying and peer victimization in school. Educational Review, 64 (1), 115–126.

Horton, P. (2019). The bullied boy: Masculinity, embodiment, and the gendered social-ecology of Vietnamese school bullying. Gender and Education, 31 (3), 394–407.

Horton, P. (2021). Building walls: Trump election rhetoric, bullying and harassment in US schools. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics , 8 (1), 7–32.

Hutchinson, M. (2012). Exploring the impact of bullying on young bystanders. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28 (4), 425–442.

Hutson, E. (2018). Integrative review of qualitative research on the emotional experience of bullying victimization in youth. The Journal of School Nursing, 34 (1), 51–59.

Jacobson, R. B. (2010). A place to stand: Intersubjectivity and the desire to dominate. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29 , 35–51.

Jennifer, D., & Cowie, H. (2012). Listening to children’s voices: Moral emotional attributions in relation to primary school bullying. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17 (3–4), 229–241.

Johnson, C. W., Singh, A. A., & Gonzalez, M. (2014). “It’s complicated”: Collective memories of transgender, queer, and questioning youth in high school. Journal of Homosexuality, 61 (3), 419–434.

Khanolainen, D., & Semenova, E. (2020). School bullying through graphic vignettes: Developing a new arts-based method to study a sensitive topic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1–15.

Lopez-Ropero, L. (2012). ‘You are a flaw in the pattern’: Difference, autonomy and bullying in YA fiction. Children’s Literature in Education, 43 , 145–157.

Lyng, S. T. (2018). The social production of bullying: Expanding the repertoire of approaches to group dynamics. Children & Society, 32 (6), 492–502.

Malaby, M. (2009). Public and secret agents: Personal power and reflective agency in male memories of childhood violence and bullying. Gender and Education, 21 (4), 371–386.

Maran, D. A., & Begotti, T. (2021). Measurement issues relevant to qualitative studies. In P. K. Smith & J. O’Higgins Norman (Eds.). The Wiley handbook of bullying (pp. 233–249). John Wiley & Sons.

Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers’ understandings of bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 28 (4), 718–738.

Moretti, C., & Herkovits, D. (2021). Victims, perpetrators, and bystanders: A meta-ethnography of roles in cyberbullying. Cad. Saúde Pública, 37 (4), e00097120.

Newman, M., Woodcock, A., & Dunham, P. (2006). ‘Playtime in the borderlands’: Children’s representations of school, gender and bullying through photographs and interviews. Children’s Geographies, 4 (3), 289–302.

Odenbring, Y. (2022). Standing alone: Sexual minority status and victimisation in a rural lower secondary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26 (5), 480–494.

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

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools – Bullies and the whipping boys . Wiley.

Google Scholar

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

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S., & Kral, M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18 (1), 3–16.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (3), 699–725.

Rachoene, M., & Oyedemi, T. (2015). From self-expression to social aggression: Cyberbullying culture among South African youth on Facebook. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research , 41 (3), 302–319.

Ringrose, J., & Rawlings, V. (2015). Posthuman performativity, gender and ‘school bullying’: Exploring the material-discursive intra-actions of skirts, hair, sluts, and poofs. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics , 3 (2), 80–119.

Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2010). Normative cruelties and gender deviants: The performative effects of bully discourses for girls and boys in school. British Educational Research Journal, 36 (4), 573–596.

Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., & Sandhu, D. (2015). Using the PhotoStory method to understand the cultural context of youth victimization in the Punjab. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 7 (1), 52–68.

Smith, P., Robinson, S., & Slonje, R. (2021). The school bullying research program: Why and how it has developed. In P. K. Smith & J. O’Higgins Norman (Eds.). The Wiley handbook of bullying (pp. 42–59). John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, P. K., & Berkkun, F. (2017). How research on school bullying has developed. In C. McGuckin & L. Corcoran (Eds.), Bullying and cyberbullying: Prevalence, psychological impacts and intervention strategies (pp. 11–27). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.

Strindberg, J., Horton, P., & Thornberg, R. (2020). The fear of being singled out: Pupils’ perspectives on victimization and bystanding in bullying situations. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41 (7), 942–957.

Sylwander, K. R. (2019). Affective atmospheres of sexualized hate among youth online: A contribution to bullying and cyberbullying research on social atmosphere. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1 , 269–284.

Søndergaard, D. M. (2012). Bullying and social exclusion anxiety in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33 (3), 355–372.

Temko, E. (2019). Missing structure: A critical content analysis of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Children & Society, 33 (1), 1–12.

Tholander, M. (2019). The making and unmaking of a bullying victim. Interchange, 50 , 1–23.

Tholander, M., Lindberg, A., & Svensson, D. (2020). “A freak that no one can love”: Difficult knowledge in testimonials on school bullying. Research Papers in Education, 35 (3), 359–377.

Thornberg, R. (2011). ‘She’s weird!’ – The social construction of bullying in school: A review of qualitative research. Children & Society, 25 , 258–267.

Thornberg, R. (2018). School bullying and fitting into the peer landscape: A grounded theory field study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39 (1), 144–158.

Torrance, D. A. (2000). Qualitative studies into bullying within special schools. British Journal of Special Education, 27 (1), 16–21.

Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Kiperman, S., & Howard, A. (2013). Technology hurts? Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth perspectives of technology and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 12 (1), 27–44.

Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A Theoretical Redefinition, Developmental Review, 34 (4), 327–343.

Walton, G. (2005). Bullying widespread. Journal of School Violence, 4 (1), 91–118.

Walton, G. (2011). Spinning our wheels: Reconceptualizing bullying beyond behaviour-focused Approaches. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 32 (1), 131–144.

Walton, G., & Niblett, B. (2013). Investigating the problem of bullying through photo elicitation. Journal of Youth Studies, 16 (5), 646–662.

Wiseman, A. M., & Jones, J. S. (2018). Examining depictions of bullying in children’s picturebooks: A content analysis from 1997 to 2017. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32 (2), 190–201.

Wiseman, A. M., Vehabovic, N., & Jones, J. S. (2019). Intersections of race and bullying in children’s literature: Transitions, racism, and counternarratives. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47 , 465–474.

Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., Valido, A., Hong, J. S., & Prescott, T. L. (2019). Perceptions of middle school youth about school bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 75 , 175–187.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the authors for sharing their work; Angela Mazzone, James O’Higgins Norman, and Sameer Hinduja for their editorial assistance; and Dorte Marie Søndergaard on the editorial board for suggesting a special issue on qualitative research in the journal.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning (IBL), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Paul Horton

Work Research Institute (WRI), Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway

Selma Therese Lyng

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Horton .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Horton, P., Lyng, S.T. Qualitative Methods in School Bullying and Cyberbullying Research: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 4 , 175–179 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00139-5

Download citation

Published : 12 August 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00139-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

IMAGES

Cyber Bullying Research Paper
Cyberbullying: Overview and Description Free Essay Example
Cyberbullying Research Paper
Educator's Guide to Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats
(PDF) An Introduction in Cyberbullying Research
(PDF) Cyberbullying: A Sociological Approach

VIDEO

Cyberbullying
Issues of Cyberbullying in Today's Modern World
Cyberbullying Prevention #NoCyberbullying #FamiSafe : Words have power
Confronting Bullying in the Cyber Age
The World's Most Interesting Market
What parents need to know about cyberbullying

COMMENTS

(PDF) Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology. Introduction. The purpose of the study is to examine the impact social support (e.g., psych services, peers, family, bullying support groups) has on ...
Cyberbullying and its influence on academic, social, and emotional
A research, of 187 undergraduate students matriculated at a large U.S. Northeastern metropolitan Roman Catholic university (Webber and Ovedovitz, 2018), found that 4.3% indicated that they were victims of cyberbullying at the university level and a total of 7.5% students acknowledged having participated in bullying at that level while A survey ...
Cyberbullying Among Adolescents and Children: A Comprehensive Review of
Although cyberbullying is still a relatively new field of research, cyberbullying among adolescents is considered to be a serious public health issue that is closely related to adolescents' behavior, mental health and development (16, 17). The increasing rate of Internet adoption worldwide and the popularity of social media platforms among the ...
(PDF) Cyber Bullying
1. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2360-5.ch001. ABSTRACT. Cyberbullying is t he usage of computerized transmission t o threat en an individual, typically by forwarding messages of an intimidating or ...
PDF Youth and Cyberbullying: Another Look
This paper presents an aggregation and summary of recent, primarily academic literature on youth (12-18-year-olds) and cyberbullying. It is important to note that this spotlight is not intended to stand alone. Rather, it seeks to serve as a brief update of a rich corpus of research literature on cyberbullying and is meant as an addendum to
(PDF) Cyberbullying: A Review of the Literature
cyberbullying, in which individuals or groups of individuals use the media to inflict emotional distress on. other individuals (Bocij 2004). According to a rece nt study of 743 teenager s and ...
PDF Recommendations for Cyberbullying Prevention Methods: Offline and
This paper explains the role that parents, schools, and young people play in preventing cyberbullying. Research that explains the importance of a combination of efforts will be utilized, as multiple sources agree that preventing cyberbullying is a result of multidisciplinary teams that work together to address the issue (Mehari et al., 2018).
Researching Cyberbullying: A Colourful Palette of Methods and
Abstract. Cyberbullying is a specific form of online aggression that has mainly been investigated amongst children, adolescents, and emerging adults. They can be involved in cyberbullying as a victim, perpetrator, and/or bystander. Cyberbullying research has made use of quantitative methods (such as cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys and ...
PDF Qualitative Methods in School Bullying and Cyberbullying Research: An
School bullying research has a long history, stretching all the way back to a questionnaire study undertaken in the USA in the late 1800s (Burk, 1897). However, systematic school bullying research began in earnest in Scandinavia in the early 1970s with the work of Heinemann (1972) and Olweus (1978). Highlighting the extent to which research on ...
Research on Cyberbullying: Strengths and Limitations
Prevalence rates vary hugely (Kowalski et al., 2014; Modecki et al., 2014), even when limiting studies to self-reports of peer cyber bullying/victimization (the most common source).Relatively low rates are reported in some studies. For example Olweus (), for the period 2007 to 2010, quoted cyber victim rates of around 4-5% for 8-19 year olds in the U.S.A., and of around 3-4% for 9-17 ...
Cyberbullying in schools: A research study on school policies and
Cyberbullying in Schools: A Research Study on School Policies and Procedures . by Brian Wiseman Dr. Pamela Salazar, Ed.D., Examination Committee Chair Professor of Educational Leadership University of Nevada, Las Vegas A mixed-methods research design first using quantitative then qualitative data was
Cyberbullying: next‐generation research
Cyberbullying is no longer a middle‐ and high‐school problem, as suggested by a 30‐country United Nations‐sponsored survey that recruited nearly 170,000 youth up to 24 years of age and found that 33% of them had been victims of that behavior 3. To better protect against cyberbullying and implement age‐appropriate interventions, new ...
(PDF) An Introduction in Cyberbullying Research
In book: Cyberbullying: From theory to intervention. (pp.3-14) Chapter: An introduction in cyberbullying research. Publisher: Routledge; Editors: Conor Mc Guckin ...
Cyberbullying in High Schools: A Study of Students' Behaviors and
Cyberbullying Defined. Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies, such as e-mail, cell phone and pager text messages, instant messaging, defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory online personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group that is intended to harm others (Citation Belsey, 2004).
A Thesis Submitted to The Graduate Division of The University of Hawai
Cyber bullying and sexting are new and emerging phenomena. There has been a number of news stories and police reports published about cyber incidents in different parts of the world. Research in the area of cyber bullying has utilized online, telephone, and in-person surveys. Cyber bullying studies conducted in the United States have
Chapter 3: Cyberbullying Within the Context of Peers and School
Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin 2014;140(4):1073-1073-1137. ↵; Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth.
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology
View PDF. Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology Introduction The purpose of the study is to examine the impact social support (e.g., psych services, peers, family, bullying support groups) has on academic success, self-esteem, and self-efficacy among college students who are cyberbullying victims.
(PDF) Cyberbullying Prevention and Reduction Strategies ...
The study aims to gain a better understanding of cyberbullying and identify strategies to minimize and prevent this growing societal problem. Our study findings show that it is crucial for victims ...
NSUWorks
NSUWorks - Nova Southeastern University Institutional Repository
Chapter 1: Introduction
We elaborate on cyberbullying prevention and response in Chapter 1, 2, 3 and 4. Further, in Chapter 5, we place cyberbullying in the broader context of online digital safety. In Chapter 6, we identify the possible platforms in the Indian policy landscape that can be leveraged to address the situation.
Cyberbullying
Abstract. Cyberbullying has become a major focus of not only youths, educators, and researchers, but also among the general population, due to high profile cases of cyberbullying victimization involving suicide and the increasing prevalence of these behaviors. The purpose of this chapter is to examine cyberbullying among children and ...
Chapter 3
The Respondents The respondents of this research are the Grade 4 to 6 students of UNCA. There are a total of 114 students. They are my chosen respondents because my research is about bullying in grade school department and grade 4 to 6 students are old enough to answer and understand my research questions unlike with grade 1 to 3 students.
Qualitative Methods in School Bullying and Cyberbullying Research: An
School bullying research has a long history, stretching all the way back to a questionnaire study undertaken in the USA in the late 1800s (Burk, 1897).However, systematic school bullying research began in earnest in Scandinavia in the early 1970s with the work of Heinemann and Olweus ().Highlighting the extent to which research on bullying has grown exponentially since then, Smith et al. found ...