Cyberbullying in The World of Teenagers and Social Media:: A Literature Review

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/304536995
Cyberbullying in the World of Teenagers and Social Media:: A

Literature Review
Article in International Journal of Cyber Behavior · April 2016

DOI: 10.4018/IJCBPL.2016040105
CITATIONS READS
3 16,644
1 author:
Sophia Alim
Independent Researcher in Social Media. Areas include research ethics, education, cyberbullying, health and privacy
22 PUBLICATIONS 126 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Sophia Alim on 07 July 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning
Volume 6 • Issue 2 • April-June 2016
Cyberbullying in the World of

Teenagers and Social Media:
A Literature Review
Sophia Alim, Independent Researcher, UK
ABSTRACT
Cyberbullying amongst teenagers is a major issue, due to their increased use of social media. Previous
literature surveys have not covered in detail cyberbullying studies in 2014 and cyberbullying risk
factors. This literature review explores cyberbullying research areas, such as the use of social media
by teenagers, themes from cyberbullying studies carried out since 2012, cyberbullying risk factors
and how teenagers deal with cyberbullying incidents. Current cyberbullying studies highlighted
issues such as the high volume of cyberbullying incidents in school, increased personal information
disclosure on social media, peer influences and the safety of the school environment for both bully
and victim. Studies focusing on cyberbullying risk factors raised debates on factors such as whether
males or females are most likely to be victims/cyberbullies. Tackling cyberbullying requires awareness,
education for actors involved in cyberbullying, development of software to detect cyberbullying and
including actors in the monitoring of cyberbullying.
Keywords
Cyberbullying, Internet, Risk Factors, Social Media, Social Network Sites, Teenagers
INTRODUCTION
The increased use of social media by teenagers, has led to cyberbullying becoming a major issue.
Cyberbullying is the use of information and communication technology to harass and harm in a
deliberate, repetitive and hostile manner (Stopbullying.gov, 2014). Information and communication
technology includes the use of email, text message via mobile and social media. Types of social
media include social networking sites (Facebook, Google+); microblogging (Twitter); blogs; virtual
worlds (Secondlife), social bookmarking sites (Delicious, Digg); photo or video-sharing sites (Flickr,
YouTube); forums and discussion groups.
A study by ditchthelabel (2014) in partnership with Habbo Hotel, surveyed 10,008 teenagers
and young people aged 13–22 years old. They found 37% of teenagers experienced cyberbullying on
a frequent basis. From 75% of the sample that used Facebook, 54% had experienced cyberbullying.
Survey participants originated from the UK, USA, Australia and other countries. Madden, Lenhart,
Duggan, Coresi and Gassar (2014) research into technology and teenagers, discovered that of 802
teenagers aged 12–17 years old surveyed, 95% had access to the Internet, 78% had a mobile phone,
47% owned a smartphone and 23% had a tablet computer. The statistics illustrate the accessibility of
the digital world and the impact this can have on cyberbullying.
One of the reasons social media, especially social networking sites (SNS) by teenagers, has
provided a platform for cyberbullying, is due to the amount of personal data posted and interactions
between users. Teenagers aged 13–18 years use SNS for various activities, such as communicating
with friends, passing time, learning things outside school and raising their confidence when they are
DOI: 10.4018/IJCBPL.2016040105
Copyright © 2016, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
68
down (Seo, Houston, Knight, Kennedy, & Inglish, 2013). This corresponds with a study conducted
by Common Sense Media (2014), who surveyed 1,030 13–17 year olds, to explore the experiences
of US teenagers regarding the role of SNS in their emotional and social lives. Seventy five percent
had social networking profiles, 88% use SNS to keep in touch with friends they do not see regularly,
69% used SNS to build on friendships with other students at school and 57% connected with other
people who share a common interest.
Alternative reasons for joining SNS not covered by Seo et al. (2013) included (a) peer pressure
from friends who already have social network profiles, (b) finding a girlfriend or boyfriend (Siibak,
2009), (c) self-expression, experimenting with their identities which includes aspects such as gender,
sexuality, class, ethnicity, etc. (Davies, 2007), (d) needing to belong, (e) collective self-esteem
(Gangadharbatla, 2008) and (f) creating a private space for intimacy with friends (Livingstone, 2008).
Social media is more than a communication tool. Teenagers’ lives revolve around its usage
and are classed as ‘Generation Y’. A major characteristic for Generation Y is the frequent and early
exposure to technology. Many teenagers have grown up with computers and mobiles, where they have
relied on technology for entertainment and to interact with one another (Park & Gursoy, 2012). For
teenagers, the transition from childhood to adulthood is a time to explore and develop their identity
and personality. The role of social media helps to develop a teenagers’ personality and network of
friends. The traditional interaction model between friends, view teenagers firstly belonging to a
clique, which is a small group of friends that share similar interests and then moving onto a crowd.
A crowd is a larger group of several cliques brought together by shared values and norms (Shaffer &
Kipp, 2010). Social networking sites allow teenagers the possibility to build larger friendship groups.
The aim of this paper is to present a literature review, exploring cyberbullying involving teenagers
by analysing cyberbullying research studies and studies exploring cyberbullying risk factors from
2012–2014. Previous studies, such as (Notar, Padgett & Roden, 2013; Chisholm & Day, 2013; Bauman,
2013), have undertaken literature reviews into areas of cyberbullying, such as cyberbullying definitions,
risk factors, reasons for cyberbullying, intervention, prevention and gender issues. However, the
literature reviews have not covered cyberbullying studies involving social media from the year 2014
and explored in detail cyberbullying risk factors. The literature review in this paper covers areas such
as characteristics of cyberbullying, cyberbullying education, issues in current cyberbullying studies,
cyberbullying risk factors and how teenagers deal with cyberbullying incidents.
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 explores the characteristics of cyberbullying
against traditional bullying, the prevalence of cyberbullying, cyberbullying education and cases of
cyberbullying highlighted in the media. Section 3 examines current cyberbullying studies and their
respective themes. Section 4 explores cyberbullying risk factors. Section 5 explains how teenagers
deal with cyberbullying. Section 6 and 7 discuss and conclude the review.
FEATURES OF CYBERBULLYING
Cyberbullying versus Traditional Bullying

Various factors distinguish cyberbullying from traditional bullying, which involves face to face contact
between the victim and bully. Traditional bullying includes name calling and humiliating someone in
public. The features of cyberbullying include: (a) cyberbullying happens anywhere, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, (b) embarrassing information regarding a person can spread rapidly to a large audience,
(c) behaviour can be repetitive or aggressive, (d) cyberbullies do not have to face their victims, due
to their anonymity, and therefore feel less guilty, (e) it is harder to track down who has carried out
instances of cyberbullying, (f) victims of cyberbullying find it hard to deal with bullies in real life
69
and (g) victims of cyberbullying have trouble interacting socially and therefore have fewer friends
(Moreno & Kota, 2014).
In contrast to traditional bullying, cyberbullying places a net of anonymity between the victim
and bully because it takes place online. Cyberbullies say things to their victims that they might not
be able to communicate in a face to face encounter (Kowalski & Limber, 2007).
However Casas, Del Rey and Ortega-Ruiz (2013) argue that there is a possibility for anonymity
rather than certain anonymity for the cyberbully. This is due to living in an online networked world,
where user profiles from SNS, present personal details online. Some studies found that in 20–30% of
occasions, the victim did not know the identity of the cyberbully (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher,
Russell, & Tippett, 2008). Cyberbullies can hide behind fake screen names which aid communication
with the victim, without feeling responsible for their actions (Zimbardo, 1970).
Cyberbullying can be emotionally charged compared to traditional bullying (Bowler, Mattern
& Knobel, 2014). Cyberbullies are unable to detect a victim’s reaction to cyberbullying. There is
a decreased level of feedback between the cyberbully and victim (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Sticca &
Perren, 2013). A cyberbully’s aggressive behaviour can be influenced by the type of social media and
technology used (Ortega, Elipe, Mora-Merchán, Calmaestra, & Vega, 2009). Due to an absence of
social cues in cyberbullying, i.e. face-to-face contact (Law, Shapka, Domene, & Gagne, 2012; Ortega
et al., 2012), there is an increased likelihood of misinterpretation of communication.
Cyberbullying is more appealing than traditional bullying, due to its impact. There is a large and
captive audience (Del Rey, Elipe, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2012), who can witness the actions of a cyberbully.
The lack of time constraint when cyberbullying means a cyberbully can target more than one person
(Kidshealth, 2014) and this emphasises the impact of cyberbullying in terms of width and speed.
A power imbalance exists between the victim and the cyberbully (Menesini et al., 2012). In the
online world, if a victim has the drive, motivation and power to end the cyberbullying against them,
they feel helpless because it is harder to escape material which is posted online. However, a law in
Europe has given Europeans the right to ask Google to remove search engine results that include their
name (Google, 2014). This is a step towards the right to be forgotten, but there is a long way to go.
How does the right to be forgotten with social media platforms work? Does it work at all?
Scope of Cyberbullying
There are various types of cyberbullying, as illustrated in Table 1.
What is not highlighted in Table 1 is the diverse media that cyberbullying can occur on. The
media includes email, text messages, webpages, SNS, chat rooms, digital images and online games
(Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014).
In terms of the scope of cyberbullying carried out, Mura & Diamantini’s (2014) study showed
that 40% of students received a mean comment on an SNS, 37% were victims of online gossip, 45%
received prank calls, 30% had a private message published without permission, whilst 26% had an
embarrassing photo published without permission, 24% had been excluded from an online forum and
19% had their online ID stolen. Tarapdar and Kellett (2013) explored cyberbullying experiences in
Table 1. Types of cyberbullying adapted from (Willard, 2007)
70
England amongst 12–13-year olds and 14–15-year olds. A survey was distributed to respective age
groups at 29 secondary schools with 1,282 students completing the survey. The most popular form
of cyberbullying was abusive emails. Twenty-eight percent of 12–13 year olds and 25% of 14–15
year olds were victims. Other forms of cyberbullying were similar to Mura and Diamantini (2014),
e.g. prank calls and sharing private information without consent. Different forms of cyberbullying
also existed, e.g. abusive texts, hate websites and happy slapping where people attack a victim for
the purpose of recording the attack.
In contrast, (Kernaghan & Elwood, 2013; Kwan & Skoric, 2013; Schloms-Madlener, 2013)
focused on cyberbullying using specific technologies. Kwan and Skoric (2013) studied Facebook
bullying, which comes in forms such as being insulted, made a fool of, getting excluded from Facebook
groups and being tricked into revealing secrets. Kernaghan and Elwood (2013) highlighted that
bullying via instant messenger can happen in various ways which include: (a) cutting and pasting
private instant messaging conversations and pasting them in a way that the conversations are shared
with other people not involved in the conversation, (b) being impersonated by someone else, (c)
pretending to be someone else and (d) typing hurtful things on instant messengers which would not be
said face to face. Schloms-Madlener (2013) explored the risky behaviour of sexting where teenagers
and adults send sexual images or sexually suggestive text messages to each other or strangers. The
study surveyed teenagers and adults in South Africa, regarding the presence and characteristics of
sexting. A total of 851 participants took part in the survey, with 451 teenagers from independent
high schools in Cape Town. The results indicated younger teenagers (aged 12–15 years old) were
less likely than older teenagers (aged 16–19 years old) to send sexually suggestive text messages
and nude or semi-nude images to someone that they liked. In comparison, older teenagers would go
further with online risk-taking behaviour and sending suggestive text messages to someone they were
in a relationship with. A positive relationship existed between sexting and actual sexual behaviour.
What is highlighted by the studies presented, is since Willard (2007) the scope of cyberbullying
has grown as new methods are discovered to cyberbully teenagers online.
Prevalence of Cyberbullying
The wide scope of cyberbullying and popularity of social media has contributed to increased numbers
of cyberbullying cases around the world. Table 2 presents a variety of cyberbullying studies involving
teenagers between the years 2012 and 2014. The study sample sizes vary from 12 to 15,424 teenagers.
Table 2. Details of cyberbullying studies between the years 2012 and 2014
71
Studies such as (Australia Communications and Media Authority, 2013; Holfeld and Grabe,
2012; Kernaghan & Elwood, 2013; Mura & Diamantini, 2014), contained a high prevalence of
cybervictims amongst medium to large samples of teenagers. Kwan and Skoric (2013) and Mura and
Diamantini (2014) demonstrated a high prevalence of both cyberbullies and cybervictims. Kwan and
Skoric’s (2013) study was based in Singapore, a country with a high technology use. Unlike most
of the studies in Table 2, Park et al. (2014) contained a high prevalence of cyberbully-victims in a
large sample size. More studies need to be done into cyberbully-victims in order to investigate how
teenagers go from being in a position of power to being bullied. What Table 2 has illustrated is the
impact of technology on older children and teenagers.
Cyberbullying Cases Highlighted in the Media

Various cases of cyberbullying associated with teenagers have been highlighted in the media. One of
the most recent involved 15-year-old Amanda Todd. In seventh grade, Amanda started to use video
chat to meet new people online. Unfortunately, one stranger encouraged Amanda to appear topless
and took a photo of her. The stranger used the photo to blackmail Amanda and the photo was sent to
her school friends as well as circulated on the Internet. A Facebook profile was set up by the stranger
with the topless photo as the profile picture. Amanda was tormented via social media. Amanda moved
schools but this did not stop her being tormented and being physically attacked by her classmates.
The events led to Amanda committing suicide in 2012 (Wikipedia, 2014). This case demonstrated
the impact cyberbullying can have on the victim and how difficult it is to escape.
Another well-known case was that of 13-year-old Megan Meier, who committed suicide due to
being harassed on MySpace by a cyberbully. The cyberbully was uncovered as the mother of a school
friend. She wanted to get her own back on Megan because she thought Megan was spreading gossip
about her daughter. The mother set up a false MySpace profile and pretended to be a 16-year-old
boy called Josh Evans. The mother used the profile to gather information about Megan in order to
befriend her. Josh was a fictional character that never existed. The mother wanted to see if Megan was
spreading gossip about her daughter. Megan befriended the mother, thinking she was Josh. The danger
lay in the fact that Megan was prone to depression, therefore she was prescribed antidepressants. The
mother knew this and used the MySpace profile to post nasty and insulting comments, which led to
Megan committing suicide (Tokunaga, 2010).
Megan’s case highlighted the issues surrounding Internet risks. Adding strangers to your SNS
friends list can make you vulnerable to cyberbullying. In the case of Megan Meier, Megan never met
Josh face to face so she had nothing with which to validate Josh’s identity. Because she was depressed
and felt alone, this increased the chances of her adding a stranger to her friends list. The friend’s
mother played on Megan’s state of mind and took advantage of her vulnerability.
These cases have shown the impact of cyberbullying on teenage victims and the importance of
educating actors involved in the fight against cyberbullying about how to spot, deal and prevent it.
Actors involved in cyberbullying cases include teachers, victims, students, parents, Internet service
providers, police and social media platforms (Paul, Smith, & Blumberg, 2012).
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT CYBERBULLYING STUDIES
Since 2012, various cyberbullying research studies have been published involving teenagers from
around the world. Studies have originated from the USA (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013; Kupczynski,
Mundy, & Green., 2013; Messias et al., 2014), Canada (Cenat et al., 2014), Belgium (DeSmet et al.,
2014), Singapore (Kwan & Skoric, 2013), the UK (Tarapdar & Kellett, 2013), Cape Town (Schloms-
Madlener, 2013), Korea (Park et al., 2014), Cyprus (Tabak & Koymen, 2014), European countries
(Gorzig & Frumkin, 2013), Sweden and Pakistan (Imran, 2014), Australia (Australia Communications
and Media Authority, 2013). These studies utilised qualitative research methods such as surveys and
interviews.
72
Several studies explored the volume of cyberbullying, which can take place over a short period
of time. Mura and Diamantini (2014) surveyed 359 Columbian high school students (aged 13–19
years old). The results found that 69% of students had been a victim of two episodes of cyberbullying
in the last six months prior to the study, whilst 62% of students had carried out two episodes of
cyberbullying. In contrast Kwan & Skoric (2013) surveyed 1,493 Singaporean teenagers (aged 13–17
years old) regarding cyberbullying. Examples of where a high number of instances of cyberbullying
took place included: (a) 1.4% of students received insulting Facebook messages and comments more
than 10 times during one school year, (b) 4.1% of students felt betrayed by their friends because they
shared private information which the student did not want anybody to know about on Facebook. This
occurred 2–4 times in one school year, (c) 1.9% of students said things on Facebook to make a fool of
someone else. This happened 5–7 times in one school year and (d) 4% of students blocked someone
on Facebook more than 10 times during the school year.
Disclosure of Personal Details via SNS

The use of SNS by teenagers can lead to loss of control of personal information displayed on user
profiles, by private or public information being spread by friends. Depending on the security settings
of a user’s profile and the actions of their profile friends, cyberbullies can find out about users in order
to stalk them, hack profiles to impersonate the user and send inappropriate comments (Kowalski et
al., 2014). Kwan and Skoric (2013) describe SNS usage risks, e.g. befriending strangers by adding
them to your profile friends list or disclosing personal information. However, Staksrud, Olafsson and
Livingstone (2013) focus on risky behaviour, which includes displaying mobile numbers on SNS
profiles and having more than 100 profile friends. Giving out personal details to strangers increases
the chances of being a victim of cyberbullying (Kowalski et al., 2014).
Factors which influence a teenagers’ disclosure of personal details include privacy factors,
personality, parental mediation (Liu, Ang, & Lwin., 2013) and education (Leung & Lee, 2012).
Protecting teenagers from online risks is not just about withholding personal information (Wisniewski,
Xu, Carroll, & Rosson, 2013).
Liu et al. (2013) surveyed 780 teenage Facebook users (aged between 10 and 18 years old), about
their information disclosure behaviours. The results highlighted privacy concerns were a factor in
decreasing the disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) on SNS. If privacy concerns are
increased, restrictive parental mediation can indirectly decrease PII disclosure. Feng and Xie’s (2014)
study into relationships between US teenagers and their parents, discovered a positive relationship
between teenagers’ and parents’ privacy concerns. Parents are more sensitive about their teenagers’
settings on SNS. Livingstone, Kirwil, Ponte and Staksrud’s (2014) study of 10,000 children and
teenagers’ worries about the Internet, showed that of 496 recipients who used SNS, 48% worried
about conduct-related risks, such as sharing personal information or images, bullying, unwelcome
conduct and sexting.
Examining the disclosure of personal details by teenagers compared to adults on SNS, Walrave,
Vanwesenbeeck and Heirman (2012) studied 343 Belgian teenagers (aged 10–19 years old) and 1,141
adults (aged 20–65 years old). Findings of the study emphasised teenagers disclosed more pieces of
personal information on SNS in comparison to adults. Teenagers allow a broader audience access to
their profile data and are less concerned about their online privacy. Teenagers are more susceptible
to influences from peers. Despite these findings, programmes such as ConRed (Ortega-Ruiz et al.,
2012) help to address the issue of information control amongst teenagers.
Psychology of Personal Details Disclosure

Focusing on psychology and personal details disclosure by teenagers, having certain personality
factors, for example narcissism, increases personal details disclosure. Narcissism is the constant
need for admiration. Andangsari, Gumilar and Godwin (2013) and Rao and Madan (2013) explored
issues surrounding insecure attachment and the use of SNS by teenagers. Insecure attachment is
73
where a sense of basic trust is disturbed and this affects the way that one trusts oneself and others.
Insecure attachment is divided into two categories which include: (a) anxiety attachment where people
feel negative about themselves but still have a high desire to attach to others. People with anxiety
attachment feel that other people find it hard to get close to them and (b) avoidant attachment where
people are afraid to attach to other people due to the fear of rejection by others. This person is self-
sufficient and independent.
Rao & Madan’s (2013) exploration of 95 Indian teenagers regarding their attachment styles and
SNS behaviour, found that of 58 students (31 boys and 27 girls) who used Facebook frequently, 73.3%
of girls and 71.4% of boys had insecure attachments. This was due to the need to escape from the
offline world, where face-to-face contact is needed to establish a relationship with another human.
Relationships can be a friendship, working relationship or romantic relationship. The online world
offers anonymity and the platform to establish relationships with a wider audience. Andangsari et al.
(2013) surveyed 169 Indonesian (57 females and 112 males) teenagers regarding attachment issues and
SNS use. Unlike Rao and Medan (2013), they focused on two additional types of attachment which
include: (a) secure where people find it easy to be emotionally close with others and do not worry
too much about being independent and (b) fearful where people find it hard to connect emotionally
and trust others. Findings indicated there were only 14 active Facebook users and 155 non-active
users. There was a significant difference between the user groups in terms of anxiety attachment.
The findings agree with (Rao & Madan, 2013). Having anxiety attachment and high social anxiety,
results in people feeling more comfortable communicating with others via SNS on a regular basis,
due to a lack of belief in their ability to interact openly with others in a face-to-face situation.
School Environment
In contrast to most cyberbullying studies, Imran (2014) explored cyberbullying in Pakistan and
Sweden with a small sample size of 12 students (six Swedish students and six Pakistani students) aged
14–15 years old. Six Pakistani students were involved in cyberbullying whereas in Sweden none of
the students were. Two Swedish students were victims of cyberbullying, compared to four Pakistani
students. There was a higher prevalence of cyberbullying in Pakistan due to a lack of an anti-bullying
policy, lack of adult supervision and a diverse schooling culture
Studies such as (Kernaghan & Elwood, 2013; O’Brien & Moules, 2013; Guarini, et al., 2012)
highlighted the issue of whether or not school was a safe haven for teenage students with regards
to cyberbullying. O’Brien and Moules’s (2013) survey of 473 11–19-year-olds, found that over
a quarter of the students, who had been cyberbullied, chose to stay away from school. This was
validated in Guarini et al.’s (2012) study of 2,326 Italian teenagers from middle and high schools,
which demonstrated the perception of not being safe at school contributed towards cyberbullying.
A lack of adult supervision in a digitally run world can increase the impact of cyberbullying
(Kernaghan & Elwood, 2013) as well as the behaviour of teenagers (Patchin & Hinduja, 2012).
Patchin and Hinduja’s (2012) survey of 4,400 US teenagers aged between 11-18 years old, indicated
the likelihood of being punished by an adult over cyberbullying was a factor in whether to take part
in cyberbullying. Teenagers who thought that adults in their life would punish them for cyberbullying
were less likely to participate in such behaviour.
However Mishna et al.’s (2012) focus groups involving 10–14-year old teenagers, pointed to
the reluctance of teenagers to share their cyberbullying experiences with adults, due to fears of
punishment, such as reduced time on the Internet. This would result in losing touch with the social
world. In contrast, Tarapdar and Kellett’s (2011) findings demonstrated that most 12–13 year-olds
informed their parents, whilst most 14–15 year-olds informed their friends. Some teenagers in the
focus group felt adults would not be able to identify the cyberbully. This presents the issue of digital
education regarding adults and how teenagers view the adults in their world.
74
Cyberbullying Education
For teachers, various resources exist both online and offline to help them address and educate students
about cyberbullying (Boulton, Hardcastle, Down, Fowles, & Simmonds, 2014). An example includes
a video called ‘Let’s Fight it Together’. The film comes with a lesson plan which teachers utilise in
class with students. Prevention of cyberbullying in schools does not just involve educating teachers;
other activities include surveys being sent to parents as well as students themselves, discussion groups,
information on cyberbullying being sent to faculties so staff can identify whether cyberbullying is
occurring and how to deal with it (Beale & Hall, 2007).
Huang and Chou’s (2013) study of 2,821 Taiwanese teachers and their perceptions of cyberbullying
amongst students, discovered that teachers overestimated students’ willingness to report cyberbullying
incidents. The level that the teachers taught and whether they had administrative duties influenced
their view of cyberbullying among students. Generally, teachers were not confident in dealing with
cyberbullying cases and would welcome cyberbullying training. Eden, Heiman and Olenik-Shemesh’s
(2013) research involving 328 teachers with regards to cyberbullying found that teachers suggested
urgent attention was needed in three aspects, coping strategies for parents, policymaking and increasing
the awareness of cyberbullying among school staff. Unlike Huang & Chou (2013), the age of students
the teacher taught, gender and education level influenced the teachers’ perception of cyberbullying.
Female teachers and teachers of younger children expressed more concern than other teachers over
cyberbullying.
Parents of teenagers born in Generation Y have not grown up with current technology. This has
led to parents underestimating the scope of cyberbullying and the various methods used to cyberbully
a person (Smith et al., 2008; Strom, Strom, Walker, Sindel-Arrington, & Beckert, 2011). Parents
need to be aware about cyberbullying, how to identify whether a teenager is being cyberbullied and
how it impacts teenagers inside and outside school. Addressing these aspects may include providing
guidance to parents regarding cyberbullying and including the issue of cyberbullying in the schools’
anti-bullying policy (Smith et al., 2008). The policy can be given to parents and will give parents an
insight in how schools tackle the issue.
Regarding students and their parents together, education courses on social media safety and
Internet safety can help both parties understand the scope of cyberbullying and how it links to risks
taken on the Internet. It will allow both sides to see how cyberbullying can affect the other. However,
with the field of social media growing, education courses need to be updated regularly. Moreno & Kota
(2014) surveyed 356 teachers, clinicians, parents and teenagers regarding Internet safety education.
The findings highlighted the suggested time to start Internet safety education was between six to eight
years old, which corresponds to the early use of technology by children in society today. There was
a general consensus that parents should be held responsible for Internet safety education. This can
be challenging, especially if parents do not use technology on a regular basis and lack confidence.
Other challenges highlighted by Robinson (2014) revolved around those regarding parents monitoring
their child’s use of the Internet.
Factors exist that affect monitoring Internet usage. Parents cannot monitor what their child is
doing all the time, especially with Internet use on mobile phones (Anti-Bullying Alliance, 2012). It
is difficult to fully prevent exposure to inappropriate content, due to the child’s own control of the
Internet. such as deleting web histories as well as passwords and pins for mobile phone. It is the case
with many parents that their children know more about social media and technology than they do.
However from Moreno and Kota’s (2014) findings, parents are willing teachers of Internet safety
education but they need confidence and this can exist from training and experience. Despite these
factors, Lenhart et al.’s (2011) survey of 770 teenagers found that many teenagers refer to parents for
Internet issues. Other sources of information that teenagers have used include Internet safety advice
from teachers or another adult at school and advice from friends, classmates and relatives.
Tarapdar & Kellett (2011) emphasised cyberbullying victims turn to a variety of people, for
example friends, parents, teacher, police, peer mentor and social network company. Most 12–13 year-
75
olds informed their parents, whilst most 14–15-year olds informed their friends. Talking to parents
about Internet safety, as well as parents explaining different scenarios with their teenagers, can help
to improve the digital literacy of the child (Sonck, Livingstone, Kuiper, & De Haan., 2011). Notar
et al. (2013) referred to the importance of working with parents to diffuse cyberbullying situations.
Equipping parents with knowledge can help them understand teenagers. Teenagers and children
need encouragement to report instances of cyberbullying. Holfeld and Grabe’s (2012) work into the
cyberbullying experiences of 665 US middle-school children found that 64% (n=100) of 333 students
who were cyberbullied chose to report it. Sixty four students told their friends most frequently followed
by parents (n=50), siblings (n=20), teachers (n=8) cousins (n=5) and grandparent (n=1).
In terms of teenagers’ understanding surrounding cyberbullying, Paul et al. (2012) surveyed
197 UK 11–14-year-old students about their awareness and understanding of legal aspects regarding
cyberbullying. The study found that despite guidelines and legislation regarding cyberbullying being
available at local, national and school level, the information had not filtered down to the students.
There is a gap between what students should know and what they reported to be aware of in terms
of legal aspects. Kite et al. (2013) studied middle and high school students’ knowledge of Internet
risks and behaviour. The findings revealed that students did not recognise the risks associated with
electronic communication. This was justified by the analysis of the students’ knowledge of Internet
risk and behaviour regarding predators. Students were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with
regards to the following statements:
1. An internet predator can contact me based on what I have posted online.

2. An internet predator can contact me based on what my friends have posted about me.
3. With the contact information I put on Facebook or MySpace, it would be easy for an Internet
predator to find me.
A total of 4,215 students were surveyed aged between 11 and 18 years old. The total number
of high school students (14–18 years old) surveyed was 1,594. In terms of the statements 1–3,
73% of high school students disagreed with statement 1, 81% disagreed with statement 2 and 74%
with statement 3. These results show a significant number of students underestimated the power of
personal data leakage on SNS. Similar findings were identified by Davidson and Martellozzo’s (2013)
investigation of teenagers’ (12–18 year-olds) knowledge and awareness of Internet safety. The study
surveyed teenagers from the UK and Bahrain. The results showed that despite UK teenagers being
knowledgeable about the risks associated with the online world, many of the teenagers did not take
steps to prevent the risks online.
RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CYBERBULLYING
Cyberbullying literature has highlighted various risk factors. The factors increase the likelihood of
teenagers being cyberbullied and are categorized into demographic and psychology factors.
Demographic Factors
Peer Influence
As well as the behaviour of adults in a teenagers’ world, peer behaviour can have an impact on
cyberbullying, as illustrated by (Festl, Scharkow and Quandt, 2013; Guarini et al., 2012; Hinduja,
2012; Kernaghan & Elwood, 2013; Patchin, Kwan & Skoric, 2013). Vanden Abeele, Van Cleemput
and Vandebosch’s (2013) research on peer group dynamics found that teenagers who felt greater peer
pressure and a need for popularity, were more likely to have created and distributed harmful videos
and images of their teachers and peers.
76
A peer’s norms and behaviour influence a teenager and impact on the relationship between a
teenager and their parents. Sasson and Mesch’s (2014) exploration of the peer and parental relationship
regarding Israeli teenagers and risky online behaviour, highlighted restrictive parental supervision can
increase the likelihood of teenagers carrying out risky behaviour online. This, coupled with approval
from peers, resulted in the understanding that peers’ approval reduces the effect of restrictive parental
supervision. Parents can reduce online risky behaviour through education and interaction with the
teenager but influence from peers can increase it (Nikken & de Graaf, 2013). However, teenagers
in Hinduja and Patchin’s (2013) study were more likely to report peers involved in cyberbullying
behaviour. This demonstrates that the behaviour of a peer influences a teenager in a variety of ways.
Festl et al.’s (2013) study of German high school teenagers and cyberbullying, found the school
class environment, in terms of the number of cyberbullies in a class, influenced students to carry out
cyberbullying behaviour. Close peers can affect a teenager’s involvement in cyberbullying. There are
various types of peer, which include members of the same social groups (e.g. relatives, neighbours
and classmates), peers linked to the individual through friendship or professional relationship, peers
linked to other people who they have a similarity with, for example they like the same music.
Gender and Age

There is a debate surrounding cyberbullying and gender. Sampasa-Kanyinga, Roumeliotis and Xu
(2014) surveyed 2,999 Canadian teenagers in relation to cyberbullying and suicide. The study found
that the likelihood of being cyberbullied was twice as high for girls than boys. The finding validated
older studies such as (Snell & Englander, 2005; Walrave et al., 2012).
Exploring recent studies, Gorzig and Frumkin (2013) surveyed 25,142 teenagers from 25 European
countries with regards to being bullied online in comparison to via a mobile phone. The study found
girls were more likely to be at risk from harm. In Cenat et al.’s (2014) survey of 8,194 Quebec
teenagers, 25% of girls, in contrast to 18% of boys, reported at least one instance of cyberbullying in
the past year. This is in comparison to Campbell et al. (2013) who surveyed 3,112 Australian teenage
students and found that out of the 278 students that had been cyberbullied, 55% of males reported
cyberbullying in contrast to 45% of females.
Studies such as (Beckman, Hagquist and Hellstrom, 2013; Connell, Schell-Busey, Pearce &
Negro, 2013) emphasised that girls can be cyberbullies as well as cybervictims. Girls are less violent
in comparison to boys, and boys bully others openly whilst girls are more secretive and often bully in
packs (NoBullying, 2014). However, Kowalski et al. (2014) and Wong, Chan and Cheng (2014) and
argue that boys are more likely to be bullies and victims of cyberbullying than girls.
Exploring the effect of age and cyberbullying, (Barlett & Coyne, 2014; Jung et al., 2014; Robson
& Witenberg, 2013; Van Cleemput, Vandebosch & Pabian, 2014) emphasised a greater likelihood
of older teenagers partaking in cyberbullying in comparison to younger counterparts. Jung et al.
(2014) explored cyberbullying amongst 4,835 Korean school children and teenagers aged 11–14 years
old. They found that of 154 students that were cyberbullies, 52 students were aged between 11-12
years old, whilst 102 students were aged 13–14 years old. However, for the 151 students that were
cyberbullied, 82 students were aged 11–12 years old and 69 were 13–14 years old. Schloms-Madlener
(2013) found that younger teenagers (aged 12–15 years old) were less likely than older teenagers
(aged 16–19 years old) to take part in sexting with 53 older students compared to 22 younger students
taking part in it. A larger study by Van Cleemput et al. (2014) explored the behaviour of bystanders
towards cyberbullying. Data from 2,333 Flemish 9–16 year olds, discovered older teenagers who were
bystanders were more likely to join in cyberbullying or do nothing to help the victim.
However, Gallagher and Dunsmuir’s (2014) study on 239 UK teenagers aged 11–16 years old
concluded there were no age differences in teenagers involved in cyberbullying. This is in contrast
to Barlett and Coyne’s (2014) meta-analysis of cyberbullying, which highlighted that males are less
likely than females to report cyberbullying during early to mid-adolescence. However, males commit
more cyberbullying during older adolescence.
77
Education
Academic achievements of the victim or cyberbully can be a factor in cyberbullying. Zhou et al.’s
(2013) study of 1,438 teenage students in China found that students with low academic achievements,
in contrast to students with high academic achievements, were more likely to be cyberbullies.
This finding was partially validated in Kowalski & Limber’s (2013) research on 931 US teenage
students, which highlighted a significant relation between number of absences, leaving school early
and grades amongst cybervictims and cyberbullies. Cappadocia et al.’s (2013) longitudinal study,
which investigated cyberbullying amongst 1,972 Canadian teenagers, found that one of the risk
factors for cybervictimisation was being in a transition year for high school. In contrast, risk factors
for cyberbullies were high levels of antisocial behaviour.
Victims of cyberbullying often suffered from low academic performance due to factors such
as being absent and poor concentration. Being absent resulted from anxiety about attending school
due to the fear of being bullied again, as well as not feeling safe at school (Schneider et al., 2012).
Teachers need to be educated to deal with cyberbullying victims in terms of offering them support.
Cowie (2013) findings indicated that academic achievement carries the risk of becoming a victim
of cyberbullying.
Wigderson and Lynch’s (2013) investigation involved 388 teenagers and associations between
vicitmisation experiences, academic performance and emotional well-being. It was found that
victimisation was positively associated with emotional problems. However victimisation was
negatively related with academic performance, i.e. Grade point average (GPA) scores, after experiences
of relational and physical victimisation were taken into account. When relational and physical
victimisation interacted with cyber victimisation, this modified the relationship between academic
performance and cybervictimisation.
Moore, Huebner and Hills’ (2012) study of 855 US teenage students and their experiences of
cyberbullying, found a significant correlation between cyberbullying and self-reported grades as well
as victimisation and self-reported grades. Ferro, Camhi, Fasciani and Terjesen (2014) surveyed 18
New York teenage students and discovered a weak correlation between cyberbullying victims and
having a low GPA score, i.e. low academic performance. The same weak correlation finding was
discovered between cyberbullies and low GPA scores.
Social Economic Status

Socio-economic status measures a combined total measure of an individual’s social and economic
position based on education, occupation and income (Americian Psychological Association, 2014).
Jung et al. (2014) surveyed 2,317 11–12-year-olds and 2,423 teenagers aged 13–14 years old. They
found that most of the sample lived with their mother and father. Some 94.1% belonged to middle-
class families, 62% of fathers, 53% of mothers were college graduates and 9.7% of the sample were
involved in cyberbullying. In contrast, Låftman, Modin and Östberg’s (2013) study of 26,769 Swedish
teenagers, discovered that 4.1% of victims have two original parents compared to 3.3% of cyberbullies
and 1.9% of teenagers who were victims and cyberbullies. In terms of the parents’ education, 4.3%
of victims had one parent who had a degree, 3.3% of cyberbullies had one parent with a degree and
1.9% of victim-bullies had one parent who had a degree.
Zweig, Dank, Lachman and Yahner (2013) explored experiences of cyberdating abuse amongst
5,647 US teenagers. Cyberdating abuse is when romantic partners commit abuse via the use of
technology and media, for example email, SNS and texting. Cyberdating abuse includes actions such
as accessing a partner’s SNS profile and harassing contacts. Of the 3,745 teenagers that were in a
relationship, 944 teenagers suffered from cyberdating abuse. Of those, 61.3% teenagers lived with
both parents and 72.7% of teenagers did not receive a free or subsidised lunch. In terms of education,
92.9% of victims attended school everyday and 95.5% achieved grade C and above at school.
For the 419 cyberbullies, 60.9% lived with both parents and 71% of the teenagers did not receive a
free or subsidised lunch. A total of 92.9% of cyberbullies attended school every day and 87% achieved
78
grade C and above at school. These findings indicated that despite the notion that cyberbullying
victims and cyberbullies suffer from bad academic performance, as illustrated by studies such as
Kowalski and Limber (2013) and Schneider et al. (2012), this study has shown the opposite effect.
Unlike Jung et al. (2014) and Låftman, Modin and Östberg (2013), Pillay, Dunbar-Krige and
Mostert’s (2013) analysis of cyberbullying and teenagers in South Africa, with a sample of 450
12–19 year olds, presents a deeper understanding of social economic status regarding victims and
cyberbullies with regards to the parents. From a sample of 450, 127 teenagers reported being victims
of cyberbullying, whereas 72 reported as being cyberbullies. The study found that in terms of parental
occupation, 17% of victims had semi- fathers and professional mothers. Whereas 26% of cyberbullies
had semi-professional fathers and 39% had unemployed mothers. Generally, the parents of victims
and cyberbullies were less qualified in comparison to parents of teenagers who were not victims or
cyberbullies. The social economic status in this study found that 17% of victims and 46% of cyberbullies
belonged to middle-class families. Victims of cyberbullying also stemmed from wealthy families as
well as families on welfare. Cyberbullies mainly came from families from higher economic status
such as wealthy, upper-middle and middle class.
Ethnicity
Like gender, there are varying results with regards to the relationship between cyberbullying and
ethnicity. Peskin’s (2014) study into sexting amongst 1,034 teenagers aged 15–16 years old found
that black females and males were more likely to take part in sexting behaviour in comparison to
Hispanic males. Hispanic females were least likely to take part in sexting behaviour. On the other
hand, Medarić et al. (2012) explored the experiences of 3,524 teenagers and interethnic violence in
the school environment of five European countries (England, Cyprus, Slovenia, Italy and Austria).
English and Austrian pupils who had non-dominant and mixed ethnicity noticed cyberbullying more
often than pupils from dominant backgrounds. In England, non-dominant ethnicity was non-white
British and in Austria it was non-Austrian.
Schneider, O’Donnell, Stueve and Coulter (2012) explored cyberbullying and traditional bullying
incidents and how they related to psychological distress. A total of 20,406 teenage students aged
14–18 years old took the survey. Of these, 1,271 students had been cyberbullied during the last 12
months, 5.7% of the population were white students (15,265 students) and 8.4% of the population were
non-white/mixed (6,383 students). Hinduja and Patchin (2013) studied the extent to which parents,
teachers and peers influence cyberbullying behaviour of teenagers. The study surveyed teenagers
from a diverse sample and found that white students were less likely to report cyberbullying if their
peers were partaking in cyberbullying behaviour.
Kupczynski et al.’s (2013) research into the link between cyberbullying and emotional effects
amongst 361 teenager students emphasised how ethnicity affects cyberbullying. Analysis of the
results demonstrated that the probability of a student being cyberbullied was 1.65 times more likely
if the student was white as opposed to Hispanic. Also, the probability of a student taking part in
cyberbullying was 1.92 times more likely if the student was white as opposed to Hispanic. Low
and Espelage (2013) explored the relationship between ethnicity and gender in accordance with the
perpetration of cyberbullying and non-physical bullying. The survey was completed by 1,023 teenage
students. The hypothesis for the study was that males and African Americans would have the highest
number of cybercrime perpetrators. Data was collected in three six-month intervals. It was found that
in the first six-month period, African American students did have a higher level of cyberbullying
perpetrators. However, in the third six-month interval, there was an association between parental
monitoring and higher levels of cyberbullying via drugs and alcohol. The association was for white
female teenagers only.
In contrast, Price, Chin, Higa-McMillan, Kim and Frueh (2013) studied cyberbullying experiences
with an ethnic and rural diverse sample of 211 teenagers (aged 10–13 years old). The sample consisted
of mainly racial minorities from a rural area. There were multi-ethnic students as well as students
79
with one ethnicity. The results found that 15 students (7%) had suffered from cyberbullying and 9
students (4%) were cyberbullies. One reason for the low numbers was due to the low prevalence of
cyberbullying in rural areas, where there is limited income and competition for access to technology
(Bauman, 2010).
Psychological Factors
Psychological factors are one of the main drivers for cyberbullying. There are various physiological
factors (e.g. suicide, self-esteem, seeking out risk experiences, depression and loneliness) that are
risk factors for cyberbullying or being a cyberbully.
Self-Esteem
Research by (Anderson et al., 2014; Cenat et al., 2014; Chang et al., 2013; Cowie, 2013; Kowalski et
al., 2014) highlighted low self-esteem is a common predictor of cyberbullying of teenagers. Self-esteem
is associated with a person’s evaluation of their own emotions and worth (Snyder & Lopez, 2009).
Low self-esteem leads to a lack of confidence in one’s own abilities. The planting of a bad thought
by a cyberbully can result in challenges regarding building self-esteem and confidence. Tartakovsky
(2014) explained that building a person’s self-confidence can be particularly challenging if people
struggle to appreciate their positive qualities or lack social structure.
Anderson et al. (2014) emphasised the negative effects of cyberbullying on victims, such as
feelings of powerlessness due to a lack of confidence. What is not mentioned is that as well as victims,
bully victims (people who were cyberbullies and then ended up victims of cyberbullying) were also
more likely to have low self-esteem (Chang et al., 2013). Schwartz (2012) examined, through an
online survey, how Facebook contributed to the development of self-esteem in 13 and 15-year-olds.
Results from 30 respondents indicated that teenagers value the ability to stay socially connected.
Facebook functions such as friend requests, photo tagging, receiving private messages and status
updates generate a positive feeling amongst teenagers.
Depression and Suicide

Signs of depression are a common side effect of being cyberbullied. Research carried out by
(Cappadocia, Craig & Pepler, 2013; Gamez-Guadix, Orue, Smith & Calvete, 2013; Kowalski &
Limber, 2013) highlighted the effect of depression on cybervictims. Kowalski and Limber’s (2013)
study of 931 US teenagers (aged 11–19 years) old found a strong correlation between students
that were victims of cyberbullying and depression. Gamez-Guadix et al.’s (2013) research which
analysed the experiences of cyberbullying amongst 1,491 Mexican teenagers (aged 12–18 years old)
found a stronger relationship present between victims of cyberbullying and depression in contrast
to cyberbullies and depression. This validates the perception that cyberbullies lack empathy and do
not think about their actions.
Cappadocia et al.’s (2013) longitudinal study on the prevalence of cyberbullying and risk factors
amongst 1,972 teenagers found that risk factors for victims of cyberbullying included high levels of
traditional bullying, depression and being in a transitional year at school, for example moving from
primary to secondary school. Risks for the cyberbullies included increased antisocial behaviour and
cyberbullies who were not worried about peer influences. However, Cowie’s (2013) study emphasised
that cyberbullies reported suffering from a range of social and emotional difficulties, feelings of being
unsafe at school, having headaches and being unsupported by school staff.
Studies such as (Bonanno & Hymel, 2013; Cowie, 2013; Messias, Kindrick & Castro, 2014;
Sampasa-Kanyinga et al., 2014), highlighted the prevalence of both suicide and depression in
cyberbullying. Sampasa-Kanyinga et al. (2014) surveyed Canadian teenagers about their cyberbullying
experiences. The survey was answered by 2,999 teenagers. Participants who reported cyberbullying
(17.4%) more often spent a lot of time on the computer. In terms of suicide, 10.5% of teenagers
had ideas of suicide, 10.7% had planned a suicide attempt and 10.5% attempted suicide. Schneider,
80
O’Donnell, Stueve and Coulter (2012) and Bauman (2013) illustrated that depression plays a part in
the relationship between cyberbullying and suicide.
In contrast, Messias et al. (2014) surveyed 15,425 US teenagers regarding risky behaviour. The
results found 32.8% of teenagers reported they had been cyberbullied and out of those teenagers
14.7% had suffered from sadness, which can be a sign of depression and feeling suicidal. Bonanno
and Hymel (2013) emphasised that cyberbullies as well as victims of cyberbullying can suffer from
depression and suicide. However, Wachs’ (2012) study of 517 German teenagers demonstrated how
cyberbullies in comparison to traditional bullies have a bad conscience and show greater moral
disengagement. Keelan (2012) and Lazuras, Barkoukis, Ourda and Tsorbatzoudis (2013) validate this
thought by emphasising teenagers who have an attitude of pro-bullying have high moral disengagement
and less empathy for their victims. Cyberbullying can lead to a fear of victimization. Randa’s (2013)
study of 3,500 USA teenagers (aged 12–18 years old) found a positive and significant link between
cyberbullying victimisation and the fear of victimisation. This can have an effect on bystanders who
try to help the victim. Bystanders worry they will be the next victim and hesitate in defending the
victim (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012).
Cowie (2013) emphasised the issue of cyberbullying victims lacking acceptance in peer groups,
ultimately leading to suffering from low self-esteem, depression, feeling lonely and being socially
isolated. In addition to suicidal behaviour, substance abuse, unsafe sexual behaviour and violent
behaviour can also be associated with cyberbullying (Litwiller & Brausch, 2013).
Empathy
One aspect behind cyberbullying is the lack of empathy from the cyberbully. Empathy is described
as one’s ability to relate to another human being, i.e. put oneself in another person’s shoes. There are
two categories of empathy described by (University of Berkeley, 2014) which includes: (a) affective:
feelings and sensations that we receive in response to the emotions of others. This includes feeling
stressed when a person is feeling anxious, (b) empathetic concern, which is close to affective empathy,
is an emotional reaction, i.e. showing compassion and warmth to another person’s emotional response
(sadness and distress) (Lamothe, Boujut, Zenasni & Sultan, 2014) and (c) cognitive: focuses on our
ability to understand and identify the emotions of others.
Cyberbullies suffer from low levels of empathy and empathy concern as highlighted in studies by
(Alloway, Runac, Quershi & Kemp, 2014; Gleeson, 2014; Keelan, 2012; Lazuras et al., 2013); Pettalia,
Levin & Dickinson, 2013); Renati, Berrone & Zanetti, 2012; Schultze-Krumbholz Scheithauer,
2013; Topcu and Erdur-Baker, 2012). Schultze-Krumbholz and Scheithauer’s (2013) longitudinal
study assessed whether initially low cognitive and attentive empathy leads to cyberbullying five
months later. Participants were seventy-seven 7th and 8th grade teenagers. Results showed that low
affective empathy predicted cyberbullying after five months but not cybervictimisation at five months.
Cyberbullying and cybervictimisation did not predict physiological symptoms, i.e. mental disorders,
at five months. Victims of cyberbullying can often feel lonely, as illustrated by Wachs (2012). This
attracts cyberbullies because they are an easy target.
Keelan’s (2012) study of USA college students found a gender difference. Women had higher
levels of empathy in comparison to men. Alloway et al. (2014) explored gender issues surrounding
empathetic concern and Facebook usage. Facebook activities such as chatting and photo features
increased emphatic concern for males and produced higher levels of cognitive empathy. Males are
less sensitive to others having a tough time. For females, viewing videos would allow females to relate
to someone’s distress and hurt. However, using SNS by both males and females can expose them to a
high level of emotions and negative events in the lives of others which can foster emphatic concern.
Topcu and Erdur-Baker (2012) explored the role of cognitive and attentive empathy amongst
795 Turkish teenagers (aged 13–18 years old). Teenagers who were less empathetic were more
likely to engage in cyberbullying. Unlike Schultze-Krumbholz and Scheithauer (2013), it was a
combination of attentive and cognitive empathy that played a big role in influencing teenagers to
81
undertake cyberbullying. Pettalia et al. (2013) found that cybervictims and cyberbully-victims, who
reported bullying, scored high cognitive empathy scores in comparison to students not involved in
cyberbullying. Cyberbully-victims scored higher on the affective empathy scale than cyberbullies
and students not involved. This finding further validates that cyberbullies do not think about the
consequences of their actions unless they experience cyberbullying themselves. Wachs (2012) and
Topcu and Erdur-Baker (2012) emphasised how enhancement and training in empathy, especially
affective empathy, will help cyberbullies understand how their actions affect victims.
Internet Addiction
Due to the increased use of technology in teenagers’ lives, teenagers, especially in countries with high
technology usage, suffer from Internet addiction. Casas et al. (2013) discovered, Internet addiction
and little control of personal information are factors in predicting cyberbullying. Research by Bruno
et al. (2014) (Italy), Adiele and Olatokun (2014) (Nigeria), Gonzalez and Orgaz (2014) (Spain),
Şenormanci, Şenormanci, Güçlü and Konkan (2014) (Finland) and Tang et al. (2014) (China) has
illustrated that Internet addiction regarding teenagers happens all over the world.
Ko et al. (2014) surveyed 2,292 Hong Kong teenagers in relation to Internet addictions and the
effect of depression, social anxiety and hostility, which contribute towards Internet addiction and
cyberbullying. The same survey was repeated a year later. The results found that the group of students
classed as having no Internet addiction in the first assessment and having Internet addiction in the
second assessment, showed increased depression and hostility. In comparison, students who had
Internet addiction in the first assessment and no Internet addiction in the second assessment were
found to have more social anxiety but decreased depression and hostility. Cho, Sung, Shin, Lim and
Shin (2013) discovered that young people with a depressive disorder were more likely to develop
Internet addiction. Socially anxious people are more likely to go online to build relationships. During
online interaction, social anxiety decreases compared to face-to-face conversation. In Kuss, Griffiths,
Karila and Billieux’s (2013) study, 3,105 teenagers in the Netherlands filled out a survey including
the Compulsive Internet Use Scale and the Quick Big Five Scale. Results indicate that 3.7% of the
sample was classified as potentially being addicted to the Internet. The use of online gaming and
social applications (SNS and Twitter) increased the risk for Internet addiction. Kuss et al. (2013)
also validated Ko et al.’s (2014) and Cho et al.’s (2013) findings that depression and hostility can be
factors in Internet addiction.
Studies such as (Ozdemir, Kuzucu & Ak, 2014; Tang et al., 2014; Yen, Chou, Liu, Yang & Hu,
2014; Yang et al., 2014) and highlight the relationship between Internet addiction and psychological
elements, for example higher physical anxiety symptoms, low harm avoidance, violent self-harm,
attempting suicide, self-esteem issues and loneliness.
Focusing on the relationship between cyberbullying and Internet addiction directly, Jung et al.
(2014), surveyed 4,531 Korean youths (aged 11–14 years old), and found that students who had
been victims and cyberbullies had the highest scores when measuring Internet addiction. In contrast,
teenagers who had never been a victim or cyberbully had the least Internet addiction measurement
scores. Jung et al. (2014) validate Ko et al. (2014), who emphasised the link between cyberbullying
and depression. Internet addiction plays a part in this relationship (Pontes, Patrao and Griffiths, 2014).
Pontes et al.’s (2014) study of 131 teenagers from Lisbon regarding their Internet behaviour
showed that when applying Young’s (1998) Internet addiction scale to measure Internet addiction,
13% of students were classed as severely addicted to the Internet. Analysis of the results discovered
there were significant associations between Internet addiction and factors such as weekly Internet
usage, loneliness, cyberbullying and disturbing classroom behaviour. Other predictors of Internet
addiction have included teaching support and empathy (Casas et al., 2013). In Floros, Siomos, Fisoun,
Dafouli and Geroukalis’s (2013) study of 2,017 Greek teenagers (aged between 12 and 19 years old),
high levels of pathological Internet use (Gentile, Coyne and Bricolo, 2012) were linked to being a
victim or cyberbully. ‘Pathological’ refers to obsessive and addictive behaviours involving technology.
82
However, there is debate on whether problematic Internet use actually predicts cyberbullying.
Leung & Lee (2012) and Gamez-Guadix et al. (2013) highlighted that problematic Internet use did
not predict cyberbullying. Mishna et al.’s (2012) survey covered various cyberbullying roles (victim,
cyberbully and bystander) and was completed by 2,186 Canadian middle and high school students.
The results showed students who were cyberbullies were more likely to have heavy computer use,
report people who commit crimes against their friends and take part in risky Internet behaviour, for
example giving their passwords to their friends. Factors such as computer use per day and giving
passwords to friends were common to all three cyberbullying roles.
These findings were validated in Park et al.’s (2014) study into online experiences of teenagers
(aged 12–15 years old) in South Korea. Interviews with 1,200 South Korean teenagers took place.
The results found there was a positive correlation between the time that the teenagers spent online and
SNS usage against those who had been a cyberbully, victim or bystander to others being cyberbullied.
Information uses of the Internet had a positive correlation to bullies, victims and bystanders. Students
who had higher netiquette had less experience of cyberbullying, whether as a bully, victim or bystander.
Netiquette is the social and moral code that applies to the online world. However, spending more
time on the Internet does not necessarily lead to a higher netiquette.
Self-Image
The self-image of a teenager plays a big focus in their lives. Studies such as (DeSmet et al., 2014;
Anderson, Bresnahan and Musatics, 2014) explored the effect of a teenager’s weight on cyberbullying.
DeSmet et al. (2014) highlighted that obese teenagers are 2.5 times more likely to be victims of
cyberbullying compared to their normal-weight counterparts. Obese teenagers, who were bullied via
cyberbullying and traditional methods of bullying suffered from low psychological health. Obese
teenagers who had been cyberbullied suffered from a higher number of suicidal thoughts. Anderson
et al. (2014), in contrast, explored the effect of weight-based cyberbullying on the behaviour of
bystanders. A total number of 181 participants were exposed to message manipulation via Facebook.
The study found that bystander comments were supporting or positive to the victim.
Frisen, Berne and Lunde (2014) examined the relationship regarding body esteem and
cyberbullying amongst 1,076 German students aged 10–15 years old. The findings indicated that
victims of cyberbullying suffered low esteem when it came to their body image. They were not happy
with how they looked. Students believed that when victims of cyberbullying were girls, cyberbullying
occurred because of the victim’s appearance. This is validated by Berne, Frisen and Kling’s (2014)
study of 27 teenagers who participated in four focus groups. They discovered that victims of
appearance-related cyberbullying were usually girls. Girls often received comments about being fat
whereas boys received comments about looking gay. Boys and girls react differently to appearance-
related cyberbullying. Girls experience low self-esteem and depression whereas boys would rebel.
Tiggemann and Slater’s (2013) study of 1,087 high school teenage girls aged 13–15 years old
explored the relationship between Internet usage and body image concerns regarding Facebook.
Their findings indicated increased time spent on the Internet was related to body image concerns
and a drive to be thin.
Overall this section has explored risk factors associated with cyberbullying in recent studies.
Many of the risk factors associated with cyberbullying are interlinked with one another, such as
depression, suicide and Internet addiction.
HOW TEENAGERS DEAL WITH CYBERBULLYING
Teenagers use a variety of methods to deal with instances of cyberbullying, which include: (a) shaking
off attacks, (b) knowing who to trust, (c) being astute in regards to information and communication
technology, (d) respecting others, (e) being in control and (f) face-to-face communication (Fisher,
2013). In terms of acting towards bullying behaviour online, teenagers who have witnessed this
83
behaviour online often see people ignoring cruelty. This was emphasised by Lenhart et al. (2011)
who found that 21% of the US teenagers who witnessed cruel online behaviour would have joined
in the bullying. However, at the same time, other teenagers have seen people stand up for the victim.
Machackova, Cerna, Sevcikova, Dedkova and Daneback’s (2013) study of coping strategies of 451
Czech teenagers who had experienced cyberbullying or online harassment, presented the following
strategies: (a) deleting the cyberbully from their contacts and start avoiding the person in real life,
(b) changing their privacy settings so the cyberbully could not contact them anymore, (c) thinking
that the cyberbully is not worth their time, (d) ignoring the instance of cyberbullying and trying to
focus on something else, (e) thinking that if something similar happened in real life in comparison
to the cyberworld, it would be much worse and (f) seeking support from others.
Strategies that were reported by teenagers to be effective and actually put a stop to the instances
of cyberbullying, included technological solutions such as deleting the profile and adjusting privacy
settings to prevent contact, were moderately helpful to the victims of cyberbullying and online
harassment. Positive thinking, seeking support and focusing on other things were also effective.
This is in contrast to Huang and Chou’s (2010) notion that peers of cyberbullying victims usually
took no action in order to avoid conflict and maintain group harmony. Machackova et al.’s (2013)
highlighted nearly half of the teenagers reported that seeking support stopped cyberbullying. However,
reporting incidents to an administrator and searching for advice on the Internet were not effective.
This indicates that administrators could benefit from more training on how to deal with victims who
report cyberbullying’s.
In contrast to present strategies, Harris Interactive (2007) research on what teenagers found to
work when combating cyberbullying, highlighted that blocking online bullies and refusing to pass on
cyberbullying messages were popular effective strategies. Holding assemblies to educate children not
to cyberbully and teaching adults to help children not to cyberbully were not effective. O’Neill and
Dinh’s (2013) study of cyberbullying amongst 9–16 years old teenagers in Ireland, found the most
prevalent technological response to cyberbullying was for the victim to block the person. The least
prevalent response was to report the incident to an online advisor or report it via an online reporting
tool. This validates Machackova et al.’s (2013) findings that technical solutions are the most effective.
Livingstone, Haddon, Görzig & Ólafsson (2011) emphasised that alongside technical solutions,
ignoring the bully, confronting the bully and asking for support are also coping strategies that can be
applied by students, parents and schools.
Hilt’s (2013) tips for children dealing with cyberbullying include blocking the bully’s messages,
avoid responding or retaliating against the bully, work with parents to notify the SNS, log bullying
events and consider working with the school to help address the issue. Overall, the strategies that
teenagers have used to combat cyberbullying have changed over the years. Recent studies have
highlighted that technological solutions and seeking support are effective in combating cyberbullying.
SUMMARY
Overall, the use of social media, especially SNS by teenagers, has led to an increased number of
cyberbullying incidents all over the world. Many actors are involved in cyberbullying, such as the
victims, peers, teachers, parents, SNS platforms and Internet providers. For cyberbullies, peer influence
and possible sanctions have influence the likelihood of cyberbullying taking place.
Analysis of cyberbullying studies between 2012 and 2014 questioned the safety of the school
environment for victims as well as bullies and explored how psychology can affect a teenager’s decision
to disclose personal details on SNS profiles. Risk factors, for example Internet use, gender, age,
psychological elements and education, play a major part in cyberbullying. There are various debates
associated with risk factors such as: (a) are males or females more likely to be cyberbullied or to be
cyberbullies? (b) do older teenagers commit more cyberbullying than their younger counterparts?
84
(c) do low GPA scores lead to an increased likelihood of cyberbullying? and (d) will problematic use
of the Internet predict cyberbullying?
In terms of dealing with cyberbullying, technological solutions and support were found to be
the most effective by teenagers. Preventing cyberbullying for the future requires development in
areas such as education, software to detect cyberbullying on social media, and further research into
motivations of cyberbullies.
Educating actors, equipping teachers and other school staff with training on how to deal with
cyberbullying effectively can contribute to the victim feeling safe at school. Studies such as Akbulut
(2014) and CyberTraining-4-Parents (2012) illustrate effective education of cyberbullying for
teachers and parents. Akbulut (2014) explored the effect of case-based video support on improving
the awareness of cyberbullying amongst 120 teachers. The results of the study highlighted the use of
case-based video support in instructional videos on cyberbullying led to better outcomes.
CyberTraining-4-Parents (2012) was a European Commission project set up to provide adult
educators who work with parents with in-service training courses in cyberbullying. The training
courses for adult educators included face to face training and a resource pack for trainers, whereas
parents received a self-directed online course. The modules for the training courses included an
introduction to social media, introduction to cyberbullying and the detection, intervention and
prevention of cyberbullying. The evaluation of the face-to-face learning and the online courses
for trainers highlighted that trainers felt more confident to train parents about different aspects
of cyberbullying. Different aspects included legal issues associated with cyberbullying, signs of
cyberbullying, intervention and perception measures. What Akbulut (2014) and CyberTraining-4-
Parents (2012) do not cover is the fact that actors such as teachers, parents and students have different
perceptions of what cyberbullying is and the motivations for cyberbullying by teenagers (Compton,
Campbell & Mergler, 2014).
Understanding why teenagers take part in cyberbullying allows effective interventions to keep
the bully safe at school. Parents learning about the digital world, especially cyberbullying, will
increase their confidence in dealing with cyberbullying. Building software to identify instances of
cyberbullying on social media through the use of data and text mining tools will get various actors
involved in monitoring social media activities for cyberbullying.
Margono, Yi and Raikundalia (2014) analysed Indonesian bullying patterns on Twitter by
extracting tweets from Twitter that contained Indonesian bullying words. Data and text mining
techniques were used to process the tweets to access bullying words. In total, 14,000 tweets were
extracted. The bullying patterns found in this study, can be used in the fight against cyberbullying.
Software can be designed to detect offensive messages posted by cyberbullies containing Indonesian
bullying words. The context of the tweet also has to be taken into account.
Research by Dadvar, Trieschnigg, Ordelman and de Jong (2013) collected a data set of comments
from YouTube movies on a variety of topics. The user ID, date and time were stored from each
comment but only users with public profiles were kept. This resulted in 4,625 comments from 3,858
distinct users. For each of the users, their comment history spanning six months was collected.
Data mining techniques were used to detect cyberbullying activity from the data set of YouTube
comments. The results indicated that the incorporation of context from the users’ activity histories
and cyberbullying features such as minority races, physical characteristics and religion, improves the
detection of cyberbullying. These features are also risk factors for cyberbullying.
Vanhove, Leroux, Wauters and De Turck (2013) took the detection of cyberbullying one step
further by proposing a pluggable architecture which detects harmful content and abuse on SNS.
Analysis of image, audio, text and video content on SNS takes place to detect high-risk behaviour
and inappropriate content, which can be signs of cyberbullying. If inappropriate content is found,
user profiles are flagged and SNS moderators will have to examine the flagged profiles for validity.
This concept has the potential to incorporate a variety of actors, such as teachers, parents and law
enforcement, into the monitoring process.
85
Detection of cyberbullying via mining techniques has laid down the foundation for the future.
One issue is questioning the decisions made by cyberbullies. Thirteen year old Trisha Prabhu’s
research involved integrating an alert mechanism for teenagers (12–18 years old) on social media, to
review their decision on whether they wanted to post material that would be hurtful to other users.
Her argument was that teenagers were more impulsive than adults due to a less developed brain, and
if they received an alert, the number of posts would decrease (Google Science Fair, 2014).
This theory was tested by developing two pieces of software. A system named Baseline was
developed. Teenagers were presented with a series of hurtful messages and measured on whether
they would post them on social media. Another system called Rethink would present teenagers with
a series of hurtful messages and measure whether they would post them on social media, however
teenagers would be given the option to pause and rethink their decision on whether to post the message
(Google Science Fair, 2014).
After testing both systems with 300 teenagers (150 for Baseline and 150 for Rethink) who
participated in five trials each, there were a total of 1,500 trials for both systems. The results indicated
that for the Baseline system, 504 of the 750 trials resulted in teenagers willing to post hurtful messages
on social media. For the Rethink system, 533 out of the 750 trials resulted in an initial willingness
to post hurtful messages on social media; however, after having the opportunity to stop, review
and rethink their decision out of the 533 trials, only 35 trials reported a willingness to post hurtful
messages. This finding demonstrated the effectiveness of the alert system (Google Science Fair, 2014).
This literature review has provided an insight into current cyberbullying research and the
various areas which make up the complex nature of cyberbullying research. This study has provided
opportunities for further research, such as: (a) research cyberbullying amongst teenagers in vulnerable
groups of society and (b) investigate initiatives to educate schools and other actors about how to spot
and deal with cyberbullying.
86
REFERENCES
Adiele, I., & Olatokun, W. (2014). Prevalence and determinants of Internet addiction among adolescents.
Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 100–110. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.028
Akbulut, Y. (2014). Effect of case-based video support on cyberbullying awareness. Australian Educational
Computing, 29(1), Retrieved from http://journal.acce.edu.au/index.php/AEC/article/view/35
Alloway, T., Runac, R., Quershi, M., & Kemp, G. (2014). Is Facebook linked to selfishness? Investigating the
relationships among social media use, empathy, and narcissism. Social Networking, 3(03), 150–158. doi:10.4236/
sn.2014.33020
American Psychological Association. (2014). Education & socioeconomic status. Retrieved from http://www.
apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.pdf
Andangsari, E., Gumilar, I., & Godwin, R. (2013). Social networking sites use and psychological attachment
need among Indonesian young adult population. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 1(2), 133–138.
doi:10.11114/ijsss.v1i2.66
Anderson, J., Bresnahan, M., & Musatics, C. (2014). Combating weight-based cyberbullying on Facebook
with the dissenter effect. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(5), 281–286. doi:10.1089/
cyber.2013.0370
Anti-Bullying Alliance. (2014). Anti-bullying alliance. Retrieved from http://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/
latest-news/teens-take-risks-online-and-expose-themselves-to-cyberbullying/
Australia Communications and Media Authority. (2013). Like, post, share: Young Australians’ experience of
social media. Quantitative research report prepared for the Australian Communications and media authority.
Retrieved from http://www.cybersmart.gov.au/About%20Cybersmart/Research/~/media/Cybersmart/About%20
Cybersmart/Documents/Newspoll%20Quantitative%20Like%20Post%20Share%20%20final%20PDF.pdf
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2012). Cyberbullying and the bystander. Retrieved from http://www.
humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/bystanders_results_insights_report.pdf
Barlett, C., & Coyne, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in cyber-bullying behavior: The moderating
role of age. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 474–488. doi:10.1002/ab.21555
Bauman, S. (2010). Cyberbullying in a rural intermediate school: An exploratory study. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 30(6), 803–833. doi:10.1177/0272431609350927
Bauman, S. (2013). Cyberbullying: What does research tell us? Theory into Practice, 52(4), 249–256. doi:10.
1080/00405841.2013.829727
Beale, A., & Hall, K. (2007). Cyberbullying: What school administrators (and parents) can do. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(1), 8–12. doi:10.3200/TCHS.81.1.8-12
Beckman, L., Hagquist, C., & Hellstrom, L. (2013). Discrepant gender patterns for cyberbullying and traditional
bullying: An analysis of Swedish adolescent data. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 1896–1903.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.010
Berne, S., Frisen, A., & Kling, J. (2014). Appearance-related cyberbullying: A qualitative investigation of
characteristics, content, reasons, and effects. Body Image, 11(4), 527–533. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.08.006
Bonanno, R., & Hymel, S. (2013). Cyber bullying and internalizing difficulties: Above and beyond the impact of
traditional forms of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 685–697. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9937-1
Boulton, M., Hardcastle, K., Down, J., Fowles, J., & Simmonds, J. (2014). A comparison of preservice teachers’
responses to cyber versus traditional bullying scenarios similarities and differences and implications for practice.
Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 145–155. doi:10.1177/0022487113511496
Bowler, L., Mattern, E., & Knobel, C. (2014). Developing design interventions for cyberbullying: A narrative-
based participatory approach. In Ischools (pp. 153-162). doi:10.9776/14059
87
Bruno, A., Scimeca, G., Cava, L., Pandolfo, G., Zoccali, R., & Muscatello, M. (2014). Prevalence of Internet
addiction in a sample of southern Italian high school students. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction, (12): 1–8.
Campbell, M., Slee, P., Spears, B., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2013). Do cyberbullies suffer too? Cyberbullies
perceptions of the harm they cause to others and to their own mental health. School Psychology International,
34(6), 613–629. doi:10.1177/0143034313479698
Cappadocia, M., Craig, W., & Pepler, D. (2013). Cyberbullying prevalence, stability, and risk factors during
adolescence. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 28(2), 171–192.
Casas, J., Del Rey, R., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying: Convergent and divergent predictor
variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 580–587. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.015
Cenat, J., Hebert, M., Blais, M., Lavoie, F., Guerrier, M., & Derivois, D. (2014). Cyberbullying, psychological
distress and self-esteem among youth in Quebec schools. Journal of Affective Disorders, 169, 7–9. doi:10.1016/j.
jad.2014.07.019
Chang, F., Lee, C., Chiu, C., Hsi, W., Huang, T., & Pan, Y. (2013). Relationships among cyberbullying, school
bullying, and mental health in Taiwanese adolescents. The Journal of School Health, 83(6), 454–462. doi:10.1111/
josh.12050
Chisholm, J., & Day, S. (2013). Current trends in cyberbullying. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless,
22(1), 35–57. doi:10.1179/1053078913Z.0000000007
Cho, S., Sung, M., Shin, K., Lim, K., & Shin, Y. (2013). Does psychopathology in childhood predict Internet
addiction in male adolescents? Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 44(4), 549–555. doi:10.1007/
s10578-012-0348-4
Common Sense Media. (2012). Social Media, Social Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives. Retrieved
from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/socialmediasociallife-final-061812.pdf
Compton, L., Campbell, M., & Mergler, A. (2014). Teacher, parent and student perceptions of the motives of
cyberbullies. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3), 1–18. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9254-x
Connell, N., Schell-Busey, N., Pearce, A., & Negro, P. (2013). Badgrlz? Exploring sex differences in cyberbullying
behaviors. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12(3), 209–228. doi:10.1177/1541204013503889
Cowie, H. (2013). Cyberbullying and its impact on young people’s emotional health and well-being. The
Psychiatrist, 37(5), 167–170. doi:10.1192/pb.bp.112.040840
CyberTraining-4-Parents. (2012). Cyberbullying and e-literacy training courses for adult educators working
with parents. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/project_reports/documents/grundtvig/gmp_final_
reports_2010/510162_cybertraining_4_parents_cyberbullying_and_eliteracy_training_courses_for_adult_
educators_working_with_parents.pdf
Dadvar, M., Trieschnigg, D., Ordelman, R., & de Jong, F. (2013). Improving cyberbullying detection with user
context. Springer 7418(2013), 693-696.
Davidson, J., & Martellozzo, E. (2013). Exploring young people’s use of social networking sites and digital
media in the Internet safety context: A comparison of the UK and Bahrain. Information Communication and
Society, 16(9), 1456–1476. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.701655
Davies, J. (2007). Display, identity and the everyday: Self-presentation through online image sharing. Discourse
(Abingdon), 28(4), 549–564. doi:10.1080/01596300701625305
Del Rey, R., Elipe, P., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2012). Bullying and cyberbullying: Overlapping and predictive value
of the co-occurrence. Psicothema, 24(4), 608–613.
DeSmet, A., Deforche, B., Hublet, A., Tanghe, A., Stremersch, E., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2014). Traditional
and cyberbullying victimization as correlates of psychosocial distress and barriers to a healthy lifestyle among
severely obese adolescents: A matched case-control study on prevalence and results from a cross-sectional study.
BMC Public Health, 14(1), 224.
88
ditchthelabel. (2014). The Annual Cyberbullying Survey. Retrieved from http://www.ditchthelabel.org/downloads/

the-annual-cyberbullying-survey-2013.pdf
Eden, S., Heiman, T., & Olenik-Shemesh, D. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs and concerns about
cyberbullying. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 1036–1052. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2012.01363.x
Fair, G. S. com. (2014). Your project – Google Science Fair 2014. Retrieved from https://www.googlesciencefair.
com/projects/en/2014/f4b320cc1cedf92035dab51903bdd95a846ae7de6869ac40c9
Feng, Y., & Xie, W. (2014). Teens’ concern for privacy when using social networking sites: An analysis of
socialization agents and relationships with privacy-protecting behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 33,
153–162. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.009
Ferro, P., Camhi, R., Fasciani, L., & Terjesen, M. (2014). A cyberbullying assessment among high school students.
Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/cyberbullying-assessment-high-school/?page=2
Festl, R., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2013). Peer influence, Internet use and cyberbullying: A comparison of
different context effects among German adolescents. Journal of Children and Media, 7(4), 446–462. doi:10.1
080/17482798.2013.781514
Fisher, E. (2013). From cyber bullying to cyber coping: The misuse of mobile technology and social media and
their effects on people’s lives. Business and Economic Review, 3(2), 127–145.
Floros, G., Siomos, K., Fisoun, V., Dafouli, E., & Geroukalis, D. (2013). Adolescent online cyberbullying in
Greece: The impact of parental online security practices, bonding, and online impulsiveness. The Journal of
School Health, 83(6), 445–453. doi:10.1111/josh.12049
Frisen, A., Berne, S., & Lunde, C. (2014). Cybervictimization and body esteem: Experiences of Swedish
children and adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(3), 331–343. doi:10.1080/174
05629.2013.825604
Gallagher, S., & Dunsmuir, S. (2014). Threats among the always-on generation: Cyberbully identification in
a secondary school in the United Kingdom. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 2(1),
1–10. doi:10.1080/21683603.2013.854188
Gamez-Guadix, M., Orue, I., Smith, P., & Calvete, E. (2013). Longitudinal and reciprocal relations of
cyberbullying with depression, substance use, and problematic Internet use among adolescents. The Journal of
Adolescent Health, 53(4), 446–452. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.03.030
Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook me: Collective self–esteem, need to belong, and Internet self–efficacy
as predictors of the iGeneration’s attitudes towards social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising,
8(2), 5–15. doi:10.1080/15252019.2008.10722138
Gentile, D., Coyne, S., & Bricolo, F. (2012). Pathological technology addictions: What is scientifically known
and what remains to be learned. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398809.013.0022
Gleeson, H. (2014). The prevalence and impact of bullying linked to social media on the mental health and
suicidal behaviour among young people. National Office for Suicide Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.
nosp.ie/nosp_literature_review.pdf
Gonzalez, E., & Orgaz, B. (2014). Problematic online experiences among Spanish college students: Associations
with Internet use characteristics and clinical symptoms. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 151–158.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.038
Google. com. (2014). Advisory Council – Google Advisory Council. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/
advisorycouncil/
Gorzig, A., & Frumkin, L. (2013). Cyberbullying experiences on-the-go: When social media can become
distressing. Cyberpsychology (Brno), 7(1). http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/49530/ doi:10.5817/CP2013-1-4
Guarini, A., Passini, S., Melototti, G., & Brighi, A. (2012). Risk and protective factors on perpetration of bullying
and cyberbullying. Adam Mickiewicz University Repository. Retrieved from https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/
jspui/bitstream/10593/5887/1/studia_eduk_23_s_33-56.pdf
89
Hilt, R. (2013). Cyber bullying: What’s a parent to do? Pediatric Annals, 42(12), 481–481. doi:10.3928/00904481-
20131122-03
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among middle and high school
students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 711–722. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9902-4
Holfeld, B., & Grabe, M. (2012). Middle school students’ perceptions of and responses to cyber bullying. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 395–413. doi:10.2190/EC.46.4.e
Huang, Y., & Chou, C. (2010). An analysis of multiple factors of cyberbullying among junior high school students
in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1581–1590. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.005
Huang, Y., & Chou, C. (2013). Revisiting cyberbullying: Perspectives from Taiwanese teachers. Computers &
Education, 63, 227–239. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.023
Imran, S. (2014). Students’ perception of cyber bullying: A comparative analysis in Sweden and Pakistan.
Retrieved from http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:713262/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Interactive, H. (2007). Trends and tudes. Retrieved from http://www.ncpc.org/resources/files/pdf/bullying/
Cyberbullying%20Trends%20-%20Tudes.pdf
Jung, Y., Leventhal, B., Kim, Y., Park, T., Lee, S., Lee, M., & Park, J. I. et al. (2014). Cyberbullying, problematic
Internet use, and psychopathologic symptoms among Korean youth. Yonsei Medical Journal, 55(3), 826–830.
Keelan, C. (2012). Potential empathy deficits, motivations, and desistence in traditional and cyber bullies.
Gradworks.umi.com. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/15/22/1522032.html
Kernaghan, D., & Elwood, J. (2013). All the (cyber) world’s a stage: Framing cyberbullying as a performance.
Cyberpsychology (Brno), 7(1). doi:10.5817/CP2013-1-5
Kidshealth. (2014). Cyberbullying. Retrieved from http://kidshealth.org/teen/school_jobs/bullying/cyberbullying.
html
Kite, S., Gable, R., & Filippelli, L. (2013). Cyber threats: A study of what middle and high school student know
about threatening behaviours and Internet safety. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning
Environments, 1(3), 240–254. doi:10.1504/IJSMILE.2013.055733
Ko, C., Liu, T., Wang, P., Chen, C., Yen, C., & Yen, J. (2014). The exacerbation of depression, hostility, and social
anxiety in the course of Internet addiction among adolescents: A prospective study. Comprehensive Psychiatry,
55(6), 1377–1384. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.05.003
Kowalski, R., Giumetti, G., Schroeder, A., & Lattanner, M. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical
review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.
doi:10.1037/a0035618
Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. The Journal of Adolescent
Health, 41(6), 22–30. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017
Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and
traditional bullying. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), 13–20. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018
Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M., & Green, M. (2013). The prevalence of cyberbullying among ethnic groups of high
school students. International Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 48–53.
Kuss, D., Griffiths, M., Karila, L., & Billieux, J. (2013). Internet addiction: A systematic review of epidemiological
research for the last decade. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 20(25), 4026–4052. doi:10.2174/13816128113
199990617
Kwan, G., & Skoric, M. (2013). Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in school. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29(1), 16–25. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.014
Låftman, S., Modin, B., & Östberg, V. (2013). Cyberbullying and subjective health. Children and Youth
Services Review, 35(1), 112–119. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v35y2013i1p112-119.
html doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.10.020
90
Lamothe, M., Boujut, E., Zenasni, F., & Sultan, S. (2014). To be or not to be empathic: The combined role of
empathic concern and perspective taking in understanding burnout in general practice. BMC Family Practice,
15(1), 15. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-15-15
Law, D., Shapka, J., Domene, J., & Gagne, M. (2012). Are cyberbullies really bullies? An investigation of reactive
and proactive online aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 664–672. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.013
Lazuras, L., Barkoukis, V., Ourda, D., & Tsorbatzoudis, H. (2013). A process model of cyberbullying in
adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 881–887. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.015
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Teens, kindness and cruelty
on social network sites: How American teens navigate the new world of digital citizenship. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/11/09/teens-kindness-and-cruelty-
on-social-network-sites/
Leung, L., & Lee, P. (2012). The influences of information literacy, Internet addiction and parenting styles on
Internet risks. New Media & Society, 14(1), 117–136. doi:10.1177/1461444811410406
Litwiller, B., & Brausch, A. (2013). Cyber bullying and physical bullying in adolescent suicide: The role of violent
behavior and substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 675–684. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9925-5
Liu, C., Ang, R., & Lwin, M. (2013). Cognitive, personality, and social factors associated with adolescents’ online
personal information disclosure. Journal of Adolescence, 36(4), 629–638. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.03.016
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social
networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10(3), 393–411.
doi:10.1177/1461444808089415
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the Internet: The perspective
of European children: Full findings and policy implications from the EU Kids Online survey of 9–16-year-olds
and their parents in 25 countries (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/1/Risks%20and%20
safety%20on%20the%20internet%28lsero%29.pdf
Livingstone, S., Kirwil, L., Ponte, C., & Staksrud, E. (2014). In their own words: What bothers children online?
With the EU Kids Online Network – LSE Research online. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48357/
Low, S., & Espelage, D. (2013). Differentiating cyber bullying perpetration from non-physical bullying:
Commonalities across race, individual, and family predictors. Psychology of Violence, 3(1), 39–52. doi:10.1037/
a0030308
Machackova, H., Cerna, A., Sevcikova, A., Dedkova, L., & Daneback, K. (2013). Effectiveness of coping strategies
for victims of cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology (Brno), 7(3). doi:10.5817/CP2013-3-5
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gassar, U. (2014). Teens and technology 2013 (1st ed.).
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2013/PIP_TeensandTechnology2013.
pdf
Margono, H., Yi, X., & Raikundalia, G. (2014). Mining Indonesian cyber bullying patterns in social networks.
Proceedings of the 37th Australasian Computer Science Conference (ACSC 2014) (pp. 115-124). Darlinghurst,
Australia: Australian Computer Society.
Medarić, Z., Sedmak, M., Ramea, M., Zadel, M., Åakelj, T., Kralj, A., & Greco, D. (2012). Children’s voices:
Exploring interethnic violence and children’s rights in the school environment. Retrieved from http://www.adp.
fdv.uni-lj.si/podatki/glasot12/glasot12_rm4_en_v1_r3.pdf
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B., Frisen, A., Berne, S., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Smith, P. K. et al. (2012).
Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six European countries. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(9), 455–463. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0040
Messias, E., Kindrick, K., & Castro, J. (2014). School bullying, cyberbullying, or both: Correlates of teen
suicidality in the 2011 CDC youth risk behavior survey. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55(5), 1063–1068.
doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.02.005
91
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber
bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 63–70. doi:10.1016/j.
childyouth.2011.08.032
Moore, P., Huebner, E., & Hills, K. (2012). Electronic bullying and victimization and life satisfaction in middle
school students. Social Indicators Research, 107(3), 429–447. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9856-z
Moreno, M., & Kota, R. (2014). Social media. In V. Strasburger, B. Wilson, & A. Jordan (Eds.), Children,
adolescents, and the media (3rd ed., pp. 435–486). California: Sage Publishers.
Mura, G., & Diamantini, D. (2014). Cyberbullying among Colombian students: An exploratory investigation.
European Journal of Investigation in Health. Psychology and Education, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.ejihpe.
es/index.php/journal/article/view/47/pdf
Nikken, P., & de Graaf, H. (2013). Reciprocal relationships between friends and parental mediation of adolescents’
media use and their sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(11), 1696–1707.
doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9873-5
NoBullying. (2014). Cyber bullying girls: Are they more common? Retrieved from http://nobullying.com/is-
cyber-bullying-more-common-with-girls/
Notar, C., Padgett, S., & Roden, J. (2013). Cyberbullying: A review of the literature. Universal Journal Of
Educational Research, 1(1), 1–9.
O’Brien, N., & Moules, T. (2013). Not sticks and stones but tweets and texts: Findings from a national
cyberbullying project. Pastoral Care in Education, 31(1), 53–65. doi:10.1080/02643944.2012.747553
O’Neill, B., & Dinh, T. (2013). Cyberbullying among 9-16-year-olds in Ireland. Dublin Institute of Technology.
Retrieved from http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=cserrep
Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J., Calmaestra, J., & Vega, E. (2009). The emotional impact on victims of
traditional bullying and cyberbullying. The Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 197–204.
Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J., Genta, M., Brighi, A., Guarini, A., & Tippet, N. et al. (2012). The
emotional impact of bullying and cyberbullying on victims: A European cross-national study. Aggressive
Behavior, 38(5), 342–356.
Ortega-Ruiz, R., Del Rey, R., & Casas, J. (2012). Knowing, building and living together on Internet and social
networks: The ConRed cyberbullying prevention program. International Journal of Conflict and Violence,
6(2), 302–312.
Ozdemir, Y., Kuzucu, Y., & Ak, S. (2014). Depression, loneliness and Internet addiction: How important is low
self-control? Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 284–290. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.009
Park, J., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Generation effects on work engagement among U.S. hotel employees. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 4(31), 1195–1202. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.007
Park, S., Na, E., & Kim, E. (2014). The relationship between online activities, netiquette and cyberbullying.
Children and Youth Services Review, 42, 74–81. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.04.002
Patchin, J., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Cyberbullying prevention and response. New York: Routledge.
Paul, S., Smith, P., & Blumberg, H. (2012). Investigating legal aspects of cyberbullying. Psicothema, 24(4),
640–645.
Peskin, M. (2014). Adolescent dating violence. Hcdvcc.org. Retrieved from http://hcdvcc.org/2014/wp-content/
uploads/2014/10/DV-among-Adolescents_October-2014.pptx
Pettalia, J., Levin, E., & Dickinson, J. (2013). Cyberbullying: Eliciting harm without consequence. Computers
in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2758–2765. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.020
Pillay, J., Dunbar-Krige, H., & Mostert, J. (2013). Learners with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties’
experiences of reintegration into mainstream education. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 18(3), 310–326.
doi:10.1080/13632752.2013.769709
92
Pontes, H., Patrao, I., & Griffiths, M. (2014). Portuguese validation of the Internet Addiction Test: An empirical
study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(2), 107–114. doi:10.1556/JBA.3.2014.2.4
Price, M., Chin, M., Higa-McMillan, C., Kim, S., & Frueh, B. (2013). Prevalence and internalizing problems of
ethnoracially diverse victims of traditional and cyber bullying. School Mental Health, 5(4), 183–191. doi:10.1007/
s12310-013-9104-6
Randa, R. (2013). The influence of the cyber-social environment on fear of victimization: Cyberbullying and
school. Security Journal, 26(4), 331–348. doi:10.1057/sj.2013.22
Rao, G., & Madan, A. (2013). A study exploring the link between attachment styles and social networking habits
of adolescents in urban Bangalore. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(1), 1–12.
Renati, R., Berrone, C., & Zanetti, M. (2012). Morally disengaged and unempathic: Do cyberbullies fit these
definitions? An exploratory study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(8), 391–398.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0046
Robinson, E. (2014). Parental involvement in preventing and responding to cyberbullying: Family Matters No.
92, 2013 – AIFS Journal – Publications – Australian Institute of Family Studies. Aifs.gov.au. Retrieved from
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2013/fm92/fm92g.html
Robson, C., & Witenberg, R. (2013). The influence of moral disengagement, morally based self-esteem, age,
and gender on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 12(2), 211–231. doi:10.108
0/15388220.2012.762921
Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., Roumeliotis, P., & Xu, H. (2014). Associations between cyberbullying and school
bullying victimization and suicidal ideation, plans and attempts among Canadian schoolchildren. PLoS ONE,
9(7), e102145. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102145
Sasson, H., & Mesch, G. (2014). Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online behavior among adolescents.
Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 32–38.
Schloms-Madlener, K. (2013). The prevalence and characteristics of sexting behaviours among adolescents and
adults in Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from http://uctscholar.uct.ac.za/PDF/169607_Sholms_Madlener_
Kim.pdf
Schneider, S., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. (2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological
distress: A regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171–177.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300308
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2013). Is cyberbullying related to lack of empathy and social–
emotional problems? International Journal of Developmental Science, 7(3), 161–166.
Schwartz, S. (2012). Does Facebook influence well-being and self-esteem amongst early adolescents. Sophia.
stkate.edu. Retrieved from http://sophia.stkate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=msw_papers
Şenormanci, S., Şenormanci, G. S., Güçlü, O., & Konkan, R. (2014). Attachment and family functioning in patients
with Internet addiction. General Hospital Psychiatry, 36(2), 203–207. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.10.012
Seo, H., Houston, J., Knight, L., Kennedy, E., & Inglish, A. (2013). Teens’ social media use and collective
action. New Media & Society, 3(13), 1–20.
Shaffer, D. R., & Kipp, K. (2010). Developmental psychology: Childhood & adolescence (8th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Thomson.
Siibak, A. (2009). Constructing the Self through the Photo selection - Visual Impression Management on Social
Networking Websites. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(1), article 1.
Retrieved from http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009061501&article=17
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 49(2), 147–154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x
Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and
impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 49(4),
376–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x
93
Snell, P., & Englander, E. (2005). Cyberbullying victimization and behaviors among girls: Applying research
findings in the field. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 510–514. doi:10.3844/jssp.2010.510.514
Snyder, C., & Lopez, S. (2009). Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sonck, N., Livingstone, S., Kuiper, E., & De Haan, J. (2011). Digital literacy and safety skills. LSE, London:
EU Kids Online. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33733/1/Digital%20literacy%20and%20safety%20
skills%20%28lsero%29.pdf
Staksrud, E., Olafsson, K., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Does the use of social networking sites increase children’s
risk of harm? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 40–50. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.026
Steinmetz, J. (2013). Cyberbullying and the digital divide: Student and teacher perceptions and reactions.
Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1373884140&disposition=inline
Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles
of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
42(5), 739–750. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3
Stopbullying.gov. (2014). What is Cyberbullying? StopBullying.gov. Retrieved from http://www.stopbullying.
gov/cyberbullying/what-is-it/index.html
Strom, P., Strom, R., Walker, J., Sindel-Arrington, T., & Beckert, T. (2011). Adolescent bullies on cyber island.
NASSP Bulletin, 95(3), 195–211. doi:10.1177/0192636511418641
Tabak, F., & Köymen, Ü. (2014). Student experiences with cyberbullying in northern Cyprus. Procedia: Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 5200–5209. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1100
Tang, J., Yu, Y., Du, Y., Ma, Y., Zhang, D., & Wang, J. (2014). Prevalence of internet addiction and its association
with stressful life events and psychological symptoms among adolescent Internet users. Addictive Behaviors,
39(3), 744–747. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.12.010
Tarapdar, S., & Kellett, M. (2011). Young people’s voices on cyber bullying: What can age comparisons tell us?
Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/32271/1/Diana_-_Young_Peoples_Voices_Report.pdf
Tarapdar, S., & Kellett, M. (2013). Cyberbullying: Insights and age-comparison indicators from a youth-led
study in England. Child Indicators Research, 6(3), 461–477. doi:10.1007/s12187-012-9177-z
Tartakovsky, M. (2014). Self-esteem struggles and strategies that can help. Psych Central.com. Retrieved from
http://psychcentral.com/lib/self-esteem-struggles-and-strategies-that-can-help/0006320
Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2013). NetGirls: The Internet, Facebook, and body image concern in adolescent
girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46(6), 630–633. doi:10.1002/eat.22141
Tokunaga, R. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on
cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014
Topcu, C., & Erdur-Baker, O. (2012). Affective and cognitive empathy as mediators of gender differences in
cyber and traditional bullying. School Psychology International, 33(5), 550–561. doi:10.1177/0143034312446882
University of Berkeley. (2014). Empathy definition. Retrieved from http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/
empathy/definition#what_is
Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal characteristics and contextual factors that
determine helping, joining in and doing nothing when witnessing cyberbullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5),
383–396. doi:10.1002/ab.21534
Vanden Abeele, M., Van Cleemput, K., & Vandebosch, H. (2013). Perceived peer pressure and need for
popularity as predictors of adolescents’ use of the mobile phone for making hurtful pictures and videos of peers
and teachers. Retrieved from https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/397511
Vanhove, T., Leroux, P., Wauters, T., & Turck, F. D. (2013). Towards the design of a platform for abuse
detection in OSNs using multimedial data analysis. In 2013 IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated
Network Management (IM 2013), Ghent, Belgium. Retrieved from https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/4181445/
file/4181449.pdf
94
Wachs, S. (2012). Moral disengagement and emotional and social difficulties in bullying and cyberbullying:
Differences by participant role. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3-4), 347–360. doi:10.1080/136327
52.2012.704318
Walrave, M., Vanwesenbeeck, I., & Heirman, W. (2012). Connecting and protecting? Comparing predictors of
self-disclosure and privacy settings use between adolescents and adults. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
Research on Cyberspace, 6(1). Article, 3. doi:10.5817/CP2012-1-3
Wigderson, S., & Lynch, M. (2013). Cyber-and traditional peer victimization: Unique relationships with adolescent
well-being. Psychology of Violence, 3(4), 297–309. doi:10.1037/a0033657
Wikipedia. (2014). Suicide of Amanda Todd. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Amanda_
Todd
Willard, N. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Champaign, Ill.: Research Press.
Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Carroll, J., & Rosson, M. (2013). Grand challenges of researching adolescent online
safety: A family systems approach. Retrieved from http://faculty.ist.psu.edu/xu/papers/amcis2013.pdf
Wong, D., Chan, H., & Cheng, C. (2014). Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among adolescents in
Hong Kong. Children and Youth Services Review, 36, 133–140. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.006
Yang, L., Sun, L., Zhang, Z., Sun, Y., Wu, H., & Ye, D. (2014). Internet addiction, adolescent depression, and
the mediating role of life events: Findings from a sample of Chinese adolescents. International Journal of
Psychology, 49(5), 342–347. doi:10.1002/ijop.12063
Yen, C., Chou, W., Liu, T., Yang, P., & Hu, H. (2014). The association of Internet addiction symptoms with anxiety,
depression and self-esteem among adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 55(7), 1601–1608. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.05.025
Young, K. (1998). Caught in the net. New York: J. Wiley.
Zhou, Z., Tang, H., Tian, Y., Wei, H., Zhang, F., & Morrison, C. (2013). Cyberbullying and its risk factors among
Chinese high school students. School Psychology International, 8(6), 630–647. doi:10.1177/0143034313479692
Zimbardo, P. (1970). A social-psychological analysis of vandalism: Making sense out of senseless violence. Ft.
Belvoir. Defense Technical Information Center.
Zweig, J., Dank, M., Lachman, P., & Yahner, J. (2013). Technology, teen dating violence and abuse, and
bullying. The urban institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412891-Technology-Teen-
Dating-Violence-and-Abuse-and-Bullying.pdf
95
View publication stats

Cyberbullying in The World of Teenagers and Social Media:: A Literature Review

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cyberbullying in The World of Teenagers and Social Media:: A Literature Review

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Cyberbullying in the World of Teenagers and Social Media:: A

Article in International Journal of Cyber Behavior · April 2016

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cyberbullying in the World of

Cyberbullying versus Traditional Bullying

Table 1. Types of cyberbullying adapted from (Willard, 2007)

Cyberbullying Cases Highlighted in the Media

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT CYBERBULLYING STUDIES

Disclosure of Personal Details via SNS

Psychology of Personal Details Disclosure

1. An internet predator can contact me based on what I have posted online.

RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CYBERBULLYING

Gender and Age

Social Economic Status

Depression and Suicide

HOW TEENAGERS DEAL WITH CYBERBULLYING

ditchthelabel. (2014). The Annual Cyberbullying Survey. Retrieved from http://www.ditchthelabel.org/downloads/

Вам также может понравиться