Running head: CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS

Cyberbullying among Adolescents: Demographic and Previous Risk Factors

Midori K. Shibuya University of La Verne

A Paper Completed for EDUC 596 In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree Master of Education

May 2014

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS Abstract Cyberbullying among adolescents has become a devastating part of high-tech 21st century life. Current literature from the educational community explores the factors that put certain adolescents at a higher risk of being cyberbullied. No one can say with certainty what leads to

cybervictimization, but some of the factors that researchers have studied include the age, gender, SES, overall cyber exposure, and traditional bully victim status of adolescents. When it comes to age, gender, and SES the research is divided. More research needs to be done to determine if these factors play a significant role in cybervictimization. On the other hand, the research is clear about cyber exposure and traditional bully victim status. The majority of studies agree that the more cyber exposure an adolescent has, the more likely they are to fall victim to cyberbullying, and that traditional bully victim status strongly correlates to cyber bully victim status.

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS Cyberbullying among Adolescents: Demographic and Previous Risk Factors In our current digital age, cyber communication tools are quickly emerging as a salient feature of daily life. With these cyber tools comes a new threat, cyberbullying. Compared to other, more established educational research topics, cyberbullying has a relatively small body of research because it is a newer phenomenon. Cyberbullying has a variety of definitions

throughout the literature. One study defines it as, an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a target who cannot easily defend him or herself (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376). Over the past decade, cyberbullying among adolescents has emerged as a serious problem and has become a hot topic of research and debate in the educational community. Bullying that appears in cyberspace, rather than through fist to fist combat, is a growing phenomenon and one that deserves greater attention. The purpose of this literature review is to explore the issue of cyberbullying among adolescents as researched, discussed, and analyzed through current and relevant literature from the educational community. Traditional Bullying Before diving into the issue of cyberbullying, it is worth a look at its more established sibling, traditional bullying. Traditional bullying has been around for thousands and thousands of years; probably for as long as humans have lived together. Although there are dozens of slightly different definitions of bullying in the literature, most definitions agree that, at its core, bullying is a means of one person asserting their dominance over another person who is, for various reasons, not able to fully defend themselves. Traditional bullying has long been a major problem among adolescents. In a mixedmethods study conducted in 1999 of 6,282 Malta youth ranging in age from 9 to 14, the

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS

researcher discovered that 60.5% of the adolescents he surveyed self-identified as a bully victim, while 48.9 % self-identified as a bully (Borg, 1999). The likely age of traditional victims has been well researched and most studies agree that younger adolescents are more likely to be victims than older adolescents (Borg, 1999; Whitney & Smith, 1993; Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Vieira da Fonseca, Garcia, & Perez, 1989). When it comes to the gender of traditional victims, Borg found that overall more boys were victims than girls; however, more girls were victims when it came to verbal and passive forms of bullying, such as lying and exclusion, while more boys were victims of physical assaults, teasing, threats, and the stealing of possessions (Borg, 1999). Cyberbullying Cyberbullying can be extremely damaging and painful, even though it occurs in cyberspace. In his study on traditional bullying, Borg found that the two most common places for bullying to occur are the school playground and the classroom (Borg, 1999). Cyberbullying, on the other hand, happens mostly at home, or wherever the child has the most access to cyber technologies. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004, p. 1313) note in their study on cyberbullying, that for some youth who are bullied, the Internet may simply be an extension of the schoolyard, with victimization continuing after the bell and on into the night. While many traditional victims are also cybervictims, cyberbullying should not be lumped together with traditional bullying. The fact that cyberbullying often accompanies traditional bullying simply makes this a more pressing issue. As recent research and literature stresses, cyberbullying among adolescents has become a serious problem (Jones, Manstead, & Livingstone, 2011; Erdur-Baker, 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Twyman, Saylor, Taylor, & Comeaux, 2010; Katzer, Fetchenhauer, & Belschak, 2009; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009; Mesch, 2009; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Slonje & Smith,

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Li, 2006; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Demographic and Previous Risk Factors Since only certain adolescents fall victim to cyberbullying, it is worth researching why these individuals in particular are targeted. The demographic and previous risk factors of age, gender, SES, cyber exposure, and traditional bully victim status are often addressed in the literature pertaining to cyberbullying. The existing literature has shown that these five topics

play a role in cybervictimization. Once members of the educational community are better able to identify which demographic and previous risk factors most frequently lead to cybervictimization, they will be better prepared to combat and prevent further instances of cyberbullying. The purpose of this paper is to dissect the educational literature pertaining to cyberbullying among adolescents as it relates to cybervictims in particular. The main research question is: How strongly do the demographic and previous risk factors of age, gender, SES, cyber exposure, and traditional bully victim status correlate to being a cybervictim? Age. The literature pertaining to the age of cybervictims is inconsistent. Several studies conclude that cybervictims tend to be older adolescents (Mesch, 2009; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) while other studies find that younger adolescents are more likely to be victims (Slonje & Smith, 2008). In 2009, Mesch surveyed 935 adolescents ranging in age from 12 to 17 and found that cybervictims were, on average, older than nonvictims. In 2004, Ybarra and Mitchell surveyed 1,501 youth ranging in age from 10 to 17 and found that cyberbullies and bully/victims usually fell on the older end of their participant age spectrum.

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS These two studies found that cybervictims, cyberbullies, and bully/victims are all likely to be older, rather than younger, adolescents. A third study that supports these findings was conducted by Kowalski and Limber in 2007. These researchers found that of the 3,767 participants in grades 6th, 7th, and 8th that they surveyed, sixth-graders were the least likely to be involved in any kind of cyberbullying, be it bully or victim (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). Their data found that when bullied, the younger students, the sixth-graders, were cyberbullied significantly less than seventh or eighth- graders

when it came to instant messaging and significantly less than eighth-graders when it came to text messaging (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). The researchers conclude that this variance in age is a result of increased access to and knowledge about various communication technologies as adolescents develop. However, not all research on the topic of age finds that older adolescents are more likely to be involved in cyberbullying and victimization than younger adolescents. A study conducted in Sweden by Slonje and Smith (2008) looked at 360 participants that ranged in age from 12 to 20 and found that the percentage of students who said they had been cyberbullied was much higher for younger students than for older students (lower secondary vs. sixth-form college). In lower secondary, 17.6% of the students identified as cybervictims, while in sixth-form college, only 3.3% identified as cybervictims (Slonje & Smith, 2008). This contradicts the previously discussed findings of Kowalski and Limber, Mesch, and Ybarra and Mitchell. While there are inconsistencies in the literature, more studies conclude that cybervictims tend to be older than nonvictims, with younger students generally less involved in both cyberbullying and cybervictimization (Mesch, 2009; Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). However, the majority of the literature found no significant differences when it

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS came to the age of victims and nonvictims (Jones et al., 2011; Erdur-Baker, 2010; Twyman et al., 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009; Katzer et al., 2009; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Li, 2006). Therefore,

more age specific research needs to be done to both clarify the inconsistent findings and to add to this body of research. Gender. The literature regarding the more likely gender of cybervictims has conflicting and contradictory results. Several studies found that girls are more likely to be the cybervictim and bully/victim than boys (Mesch, 2009; Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2009; Smith et al., 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2007), while other studies found that boys are more likely to be both cybervictim and bully (Erdur-Baker, 2010); other studies still found no significant gender difference (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Li, 2006). The studies that found no significant gender difference did however find that boys were more likely to be the cyberbully than girls (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Li, 2006). The studies that found girls to be the more likely victim and bully/victim include those conducted by Mesch (2009), Vandebosch and Cleemput (2009), Kowalski and Limber (2007), and Smith et al., (2008). Mesch (2009) found that girls were significantly more likely to be the victim of cyberbullying than boys, 61% and 39% respectively. More specifically, Mesch (2009) found that boys were more likely to be victims of cyberbullying when they maintained a profile page on various social networking sites and/or were active YouTube users, and that girls were more likely to be victims of cyberbullying when they were involved in chat rooms and/or social networking sites.

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS

A common risk factor found for both boys and girls involved their information disclosure habits. The more personal information these adolescents disclosed, the greater their likelihood of becoming a cybervictim (Mesch, 2009). Although these findings overlap with the sub-topic of cyber exposure, which will be discussed later, it is worthwhile to note the gender differences that are connected to cyber exposure in reference to cyberbullying. Vandebosch and Cleemput (2009), Kowalski and Limber (2007), and Smith et al. (2008) had similar findings when it came to the likely gender of cybervictims. Vandebosch and Cleemput (2009) found that of their 2,052 Belgium adolescent participants that ranged in age from 10 to 11, the male participants were more likely to try different POPs (potentially offensive internet and mobile phone practices), yet the female participants were more likely to be the victims. In the first part of their study, Study One, Smith et al. (2008) found that of their 92 participants that ranged in age from 11 to 16, girls were more likely to be cybervictims than boys. Kowalski and Limber (2007) found that girls were significantly more involved in cybervictimization and cyberbullying than boys. In fact, when accounting for both victim-only females and bully/victim females, the researchers found that 25% of their female participants had been cyberbullied in the past 2 months (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). The researchers conclude that the gender disparities support the theory that girls are more likely to use indirect forms of aggressions (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). A study conducted by Erdur-Baker (2010) found contradictory results to those of Mesch (2009), Vandebosch and Cleemput (2009), Kowalski and Limber (2007), and Smith et al. (2008). Erdur-Baker (2010) conducted a study with 276 Turkish participants that ranged in age from 14 to 18. He found that boys were more likely to be both cybervictim and cyberbully than girls (Erdur-Baker, 2010). However, he concludes that rather than gender, a better predictor of

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS cybervictimization is frequent and/or risky Internet usage (Erdur-Baker, 2010). His findings overlap with conclusions drawn about cyberexposure and cybervictimization, which will be discussed later. In contrast to the findings of the previously mentioned studies about gender, Li (2006), Slonje and Smith (2008), and Study Two of Smith et al. (2008) found no significant gender differences for being a cybervictim. However, Li (2006) and Slonje and Smith (2008) did find that boys were more likely to be cyberbullies than girls, which contradicts the suggestion made by Kowalski and Limber (2007) that girls are more indirect in their forms of aggression and are

therefore more likely to be involved in cyberbullying. Of the 360 Swedish participants in Slonje and Smiths study, no significant gender differences were found for being a cybervictim (Slonje & Smith, 2008). However, they did find that when it came to email victimization, girls were victimized more often than boys, but boys were overall more likely to be involved in cyberbullying than girls (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Li (2006) had similar gender findings. In Lis study, which involved 264 Canadian participants that ranged from 7th to 9th grade, no significant gender differences were found. The data only varied by .6% with females reporting cybervictimization at 25.6% and males reporting it at 25% (Li, 2006). While these studies did produce some data related to gender and cybervictimization, it was deemed not statistically significant and their overall finding was that no significant gender difference exists. The literature on the likely gender of cybervictims is inconclusive at present. While several studies found that girls are more likely to be both cybervictim and cyberbully/victim than boys (Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2009; Mesch, 2009; Smith et al., 2008; Kowalski & Limber, 2007), other studies found that boys are more likely to be both cybervictim and cyberbully than girls (Erdur-Baker, 2010), while other studies still, found no significant gender differences

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Li, 2006). While the likely gender of cybervictims may not be clear at present, the one thing that is quite clear is the need for additional research. Cyber exposure.

10

When it comes to cyber exposure, the literature is quite clear in its findings; adolescents who are heavy Internet users are more likely to be cyberbullied than their peers, who dont use the Internet as heavily (Erdur-Baker, 2010; Twyman et al., 2010; Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2009; Katzer et al., 2009; Mesch, 2009; Smith et al., 2008; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Participation in email, instant messaging, message boards, webcams, and chatrooms, along with having an active profile on a social networking site, and overall risky Internet usage were all found to increase the risk of cybervictimization (Erdur-Baker, 2010; Twyman et al., 2010; Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2009; Katzer et al., 2009; Mesch, 2009; Smith et al., 2008; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Cyber technology has seeped into contemporary culture, invading the lives of most Americans, including Americas youth. In 2007, Kowalski and Limber conducted a study with 3,767 participants in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. Their data supported the claim that Americas youth are giving in to the lure of cyber technology. Of the thousands of participants in their study, they found that almost half were frequent cell phone users and that an overwhelming 97% accessed the Internet on a regular basis (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). This study was conducted over 6 years ago, so it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that these percentages have since gone up with the increased use of newer technologies such as Skype, Facebook, Twitter, and smart phones. Adolescents increased exposure to and subsequent use of cyber technologies have left youth vulnerable to cyberbullying. In 2009, Vandebosch and Cleemput conducted a study with

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS 10 and 11-year-old Belgium children and found that 11.1% of their participants had been cybervictims in the past. They found that, The most common forms of POP [potentially offensive internet and mobile phone practices] were: insults or threats via the internet or mobile phone; deception via the

11

internet or mobile phone; spreading gossip via the internet or mobile phone; and breaking into someones computer and changing their password . (Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2009, p. 1361) Other studies also support the theory that increased cyber based participation facilitates cyberbullying, specifically regarding the POPs identified by Vandebosch and Cleemput. Mesch (2009) found a significant link between being a cybervictim and having a social networking profile page, visiting and participating in chat rooms, and contributing to YouTube. It follows logically that youth who do not have a profile on a social networking site cannot run the risk of having their password and profile stolen, while those adolescents that do have a profile site run this risk. The literature shows that increased exposure to and participation in cyber technologies is only half of the equation. The formula that results in the highest odds of cybervictimization among adolescents is an increased exposure to and participation in various technologies plus heavy usage of the technologies. One study that illustrates this effect particularly well was conducted by Juvonen and Gross. These researchers found cybervictimization among heavy Internet users to be so frequent that they called it a common experience (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). In fact, they found that 72% of participants in their study had been the victim of at least one instance of cyberbullying in their life and that the majority of their participants used cyber

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS communication tools such as profile sites, blogs, text messaging, chat rooms, and message boards at least on occasion (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Juvonen and Gross (2008) also found that instant messaging, webcam, and message

12

board use all significantly increased the participants risk of being cyberbullied. They speculate that this may result from the nature of these forms of communication and how they lend themselves to derogatory communication (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). In fact, the participants who used message boards and instant messaging were the most frequent targets of cyberbullying (26% and 20% respectively)( Juvonen & Gross, 2008). This study finds that usage frequency is a major factor in whether or not an adolescent is cyberbullied. Simply using one or more cyber technology will not necessarily make someone a cybervictim. Heavy Internet usage and risky Internet usage combined create the most likely formula for cybervictimization. Through their data, Twyman et al. (2010) and Smith et al. (2008) support the hypothesis that heavy Internet usage along with risky Internet usage increases an adolescents likelihood of being cyberbullied. In Twymans study, 52 cybervictims were paired up with 52 nonvictims to create the final sample of 104 participants that ranged in age from 11 to 17. In the Smith study, which was composed of two separate studies, 92 participants took part in Study One while 533 participants took part in Study Two. In both studies the participants ranged in age from 11 to 16. Both Smith (2008) and Twyman (2010) found that cybervictims used the Internet more frequently than nonvictims. More specifically, Twyman found that cyberbullies and cybervictims were significantly more likely to spend 4+ hours per week on the computer, engaged in activities such as e-mail, instant messaging, and/or chat rooms than non-cyber bullies and victims (Twyman et al., 2010). This study also found that cybervictims were more likely to have a personal Web site than nonvictims (Twyman et al., 2010). Smith (2008) and Twyman

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS (2010) illustrate the combined force of heavy Internet usage and risky Internet usage and its possible cybervictimization consequences. Status of traditional bully victim. The literature pertaining to the status of traditional bully victims in relation to cybervictims was almost unanimous. The vast majority of the literature found being a cybervictim and being a traditional victim to be closely correlated (Twyman et al., 2010;

13

Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2009; Katzer et al., 2009; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). However, as Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) note, their data, like most other researchers data on this topic, is correlational; no direction of causality can be determined with certainty. Of the studies that show a correlation between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, most hypothesize that being a traditional victim leads to being a cybervictim and not the other way around, although this cannot be proven with correlational studies. Staggering statistics have been recorded in study after study that connect being a traditional victim to being a cybervictim. In adolescents between 12 and 17-year-olds, Juvonen and Gross (2008) found a significant correlation between being both types of victim. Their study found that students who reported being bullied 7+ times in the past year were almost 7 times more likely to fall victim to cyberbullying than their nonbullied peers (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Twyman et al. (2010) and Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) had similar findings; both of their studies found that adolescents who are bullied in school are much more likely to also be bullied in cyberspace, than adolescents who are not bullied in school. Vandebosch and Cleemput (2009, p. 1368) sum up the literatures findings nicely with a quote from their study of 10 to 11-year-old

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS

14

Belgium students; when it comes to victimization, Perpetrators remain perpetrators and victims remain victims. Socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status (SES) is a major demographic factor in a childs life. It determines the types of cyber tools the child is exposed to and the duration of exposure. For example, a child from a low SES family may not have a computer in his home and may only have access to a computer at school, while a child from a higher SES family may have several computers at home and constant access to them. Also, coming from a low SES family may lead to becoming a traditional bully victim. It is possible that a traditional bully would target a victim for torment because of his SES; the victim may not have the fancy brands or new clothes that the other students have. The amount of cyber exposure an adolescent receives, the kind of cyber exposure he receives, and his involvement in traditional bullying, are all key factors that have been shown in the literature to affect cybervictimization (Erdur-Baker, 2010; Twyman et al., 2010; Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2009; Mesch, 2009; Katzer et al., 2009; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). However, even with this possibly significant correlation, the majority of the current literature on cyberbullying pays little, if any, attention to their participants SES (Twyman et al., 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2009; Katzer et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2008; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Li, 2006). Of the studies that did mention SES, very little attention was given to this demographic factor. Erdur-Baker (2010) notes that almost 52% of his participants came from low or middle SES families; however, he either found no significant correlation to cybervictimization or he

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS chose to keep SES simply as a demographic statistic and not look further into its connection to

15

cybervictimization. Slonje and Smith (2008) mention that their participants came from a variety of SES levels, but fail to elaborate further on the subject. Mesch (2009) measured SES to include in the demographic statistics of his participants, but found no significant information relating to cyberbullying or cybervictimization. Kowalski and Limber (2007) determined the SES of their participants by their eligibility for free or reduced-cost lunches and found that, of the 6 schools they surveyed, low SES families ranged from 6% to 37.6% of the schools total population. However, while Kowalski and Limber did measure the SES of their participants, they did not draw any conclusions from their data about how SES affects the likelihood of cybervictimization. Of the reviewed literature, the only study that measured the SES of its participants and found noteworthy data was Ybarra and Mitchell. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) determined SES by categorizing families whose income was one standard deviation above the mean versus families whose income was one standard deviation below the mean. However, they only reported on the income results for the high income family participants (above $75,000 per year). They found that 32.6% of their high income family participants were aggressor/victims, 28.4% were aggressor-only, and 20% were victim-only (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). This data suggests that high income family adolescents are more likely to be either a cyberbully or cyberbully/victim and less likely to be a cybervictim-only. It is reasonable to hypothesize that the SES of an adolescents family significantly affects their life. SES can affect the cyber exposure of adolescents, with higher SES children having more technology available to them than lower SES children. Data supports the theory that the more cyber exposure a child has, the more likely they are to be engaged in some form of

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS

16

cyberbullying, be it victim, bully, or both, and the less cyber exposure a child has the less likely they are to be engaged in cyberbullying (Erdur-Baker, 2010; Twyman et al., 2010; Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2009; Katzer et al., 2009; Mesch, 2009; Smith et al., 2008; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). The study done by Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) found noteworthy data on the connection between SES, cyberbullying, and victimization. However, the fact that the majority of studies done on the subject fail to look into SES proves that this is a topic that deserves further research. Conclusion Cyberbullying is similar to traditional bullying, but with the added dimension of cyberspace. Both forms of bullying involve a perpetrator, or perpetrators, inflicting some type of harm, be it mental, verbal, physical, or emotional, onto their victim, who is, for various reasons, unable to defend him or herself. Both forms of bullying can have equally harmful consequences and both should be taken seriously. Cyberbullying is a much newer phenomenon than traditional bullying because, only recently, have online communication tools become advanced enough to facilitate the type of derogatory comments involved in cyberbullying. Various demographic and previous risk factors contribute to an adolescents likelihood of being cybervictimized. The five factors highlighted in this review were age, gender, SES, cyber exposure, and traditional bully victim status. When it comes to the likely age of a cybervictim it becomes clear that more research is needed. A fair number of studies found that cybervictims tend to be older than non-victims, which could be due to an increase in technological exposure and understanding as adolescents grow older. Other studies found that younger adolescents are more often victims. However, the majority of studies found no significant gender differences. When it comes to the likely gender of cybervictims it again becomes clear that more research is

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS needed. The literature is still unclear if more girls or boys are cybervictims. Various studies support both claims, while other studies claim that there is no significant gender difference. When it comes to the cyber exposure and traditional bully victim status of cybervictims the literature becomes more conclusive. Most studies agree that heavier Internet users are more likely to become cybervictims than less Internet dependent adolescents, and that a strong relationship exists between being a traditional bully victim and being a cybervictim. Cyberbullying is a very serious issue that deserves additional research; it could be considered an issue that is in its infancy, since it has only been a serious problem for the past

17

decade or so. However, because of its infantile nature, it should be easier to control than other, more established issues, such as traditional bullying. Personal Reaction Researchers strive to design their studies with as few limitations and threats as possible; however, every study has its limitations along with internal and external validity threats. In the study conducted by Juvonen and Gross (2008), they used an anonymous Web-based survey to collect cyberbullying data about 1,454 adolescents ranging in age from 12 to 17 years old. The three main validity threats in this study include: the internal threats of selection, instrumentation, and the external threat of selection. The internal validity threat of selection is present because of how the researchers chose their sample. Participants self-selected for the survey through a teen website (www.bolt.com). This was the only website that the researchers gained participants from. Because the researchers drew participants from only one online source, they cannot generalize their findings to encompass all adolescents in the 12 to 17 year old age range; they can only generalize to adolescents who frequent that particular website. Instrumentation is another internal validity threat of this study. Whenever researchers use a survey that they

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS

18

specifically designed for their own study and that hasnt been peer reviewed, the instrumentation threat comes into play. The researchers cant know for certain if their survey accurately measures what they want it to measure. In the study conducted by Mesch (2009), he interviewed 935 adolescents ranging in age from 12 to 17 over the phone. He asked participants if they had ever experienced a variety of cyberbullying type actions online before and recorded their answers. Selection is the main internal validity threat of this study and the Halo Effect as well as selection are the main external validity threats. The participants were chosen at random from a list of telephone numbers that the Pew Internet and American Life projects had collected in 2004, 2005, and 2006. The researchers only pulled from telephone numbers that were already on these lists. Therefore, the study can only generalize its findings to include 12 to 17 year-olds who have a home telephone number and whose telephone number appears on the Pew Internet and American Life list. The Halo Effect is a major threat to this study. Since the participants were answering very personal questions in their own home they could have lied, or given an answer that would make them look good in front of their parents. Even if participants went into a different room of the house for privacy they could have still worried about siblings or parents listening through other phone lines in the house. The most common internal and external validity threat that I observed in these studies was selection. Often researchers are limited in who they can study, be it for geographical reasons, monetary restrictions, time constraints, or ethical issues; it is rare for a study to be able to look at an entire population. Therefore, how researchers select their sample frequently can lead to an internal validity threat. Selection is also a common threat to external validity. A nonrepresentative sample results in not being able to generalize the findings to other groups.

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS One observation that I made while reading these studies was that a sizable gap exists in

19

the current literature when it comes to SES as it affects cybervictimization. If I were to conduct my own study on cyberbullying, I would consider addressing this point. A possible research question for a future study could be, Does the SES of an adolescent affect their likelihood of being cyberbullied? It is reasonable to hypothesize that higher SES adolescents will have more technology available to them which may result in more instances of cybervictimization and that lower SES adolescents will have less technology available to them, but may resort to using the technology that is available. My study would aim to find out if SES has a significant impact on the rate of cybervictimization for adolescents. Another area that deserves additional research includes the emotional factors that lead to cyberbullying. New directions in this area of research could include, but are not limited to, the parent/child relationship, the single parent home versus the married parents home, heterosexual parents versus homosexual parents, the childs self-esteem, and any pre-existing behavioral problems. I found it odd and concerning that few studies exist which specifically mention techniques or programs to prevent or minimize cybervictimization; however, the literature does suggest that a program that encourages more parental involvement would be beneficial. Mesch (2009, p. 391) wrote, The results indicate that participation in online communication of any type increases the risk of victimization and that parental monitoring providing guidance and restrictions to Web sites is effective as a protective mechanism. The more parents are aware of the various online communication tools that exist and their childs involvement with them, the more likely they will be to impose restrictions, appropriate filters, and make rules for their child as to which websites they are allowed to visit and which they are not.

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS

20

I was also surprised that the literature reviewed for this paper did not suggest any specific intervention techniques or programs to prevent or minimize cybervictimization. However, when it came to parental involvement with cyber exposure, several studies did find that cybervictims were more likely than non-victims to have personal cyber accounts that were not accessible to their parents such as e-mail, MySpace, and Facebook (Twyman et al., 2010). Other studies found that poor or infrequent parental monitoring of cyber exposure increased a childs risk of becoming either a cyberbully or a cybervictim, or both (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Mesch (2009) found proactive parental involvement to have positive effects on the cyber status of their child, decreasing their childs risk of becoming a cybervictim. From the literature that does exist on parental involvement with cyberexposure, it is clear that the more parental involvement, the less likely an adolescent is to become either a cybervictim or a cyberbully. While few prevention programs have been established to combat cyberbullying, the literature does suggest that prevention programs that involve the parents of victims would be one effective way to decrease cybervictimization. Cyberbullying isnt going to go away on its own, but with a few prevention tactics, it could be effectively reduced.

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS References Borg, M.G. (1999). The extent and nature of bullying among primary and secondary schoolchildren. Educational Research, 41(2), 137-153.

21

Boulton, M.J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73-87. Erdur-Baker, O. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. new media & society, 12(1), 109-125. Jones, S.E., Manstead, A.S.R., & Livingstone, A.G. (2011). Ganging up or sticking together? Group processes and children's responses to text-message bullying. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 71-96. Juvonen, J., & Gross, E.F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?- bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496-505. Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: who are the victims?. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(1), 25-36. Kowalski, R.M., & Limber, S.P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S22-S30. Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbulling in schools: a research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27(2), 157-170. Mesch, G.S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 387-393. Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80(12), 614-621.

CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS

22

Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A.D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564-575. Slonje, R. & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154. Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385. Twyman, K., Saylor, C., Taylor, L.A., & Comeaux, C. (2010). Comparing children and adolescents engaged in cyberbullying to matched peers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(2), 195-199. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters: profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1349-1371. Vieira Da Fonseca, M.M., Garcia, I.F., & Perez, G.Q. (1989). Violence, bullying and counseling in the Iberian peninsula. Bullying: An International Perspective. Whitney, I., & Smith, P.K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle And secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3-25. Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: a Comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308-1316.