ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Bullying has long been a concern of youth advocates (e.g., educators, counselors, researchers, policy makers). Recently, cyberbullying (bullying perpetrated through online technology) has dominated the headlines as a major current-day adolescent challenge. This article reviews available empirical research to examine the accuracy of commonly-perpetuated claims about cyberbullying. The analysis revealed several myths about the nature and extent of cyberbullying that are being fueled by media headlines and unsubstantiated public declarations. These myths include that (a) everyone knows what cyberbullying is; (b) cyberbullying is occurring at epidemic levels; (c) cyberbullying causes suicide; (d) cyberbullying occurs more often now than traditional bullying; (e) like traditional bullying, cyberbullying is a rite of passage; (f) cyberbullies are outcasts or just mean kids; and (g) to stop cyberbullying, just turn off your computer or cell phone. These assertions are clarified using data that are currently available so that adults who work with youth will have an accurate understanding of cyberbullying to better assist them in effective prevention and response. Implications for prevention efforts in education in light of these revelations are also discussed and include effective school policies, educating students and stakeholders, the role of peer helper programs, and responsive services (e.g., counseling).
No caption available
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
Author's personal copy
Cyberbullying myths and realities
Russell A. Sabella
, Justin W. Patchin
, Sameer Hinduja
Florida Gulf Coast University, Counseling Department, 10501 FGCU BLVD S, Fort Myers, FL 33965-6565, United States
Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, 105 Garfield Avenue, Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004, United States
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida Atlantic University, 5353 Parkside Drive, Jupiter, FL 33458-2906, United States
article info
Article history:
Available online 3 August 2013
School counseling
Youth development
Bullying has long been a concern of youth advocates (e.g., educators, counselors, researchers, policy mak-
ers). Recently, cyberbullying (bullying perpetrated through online technology) has dominated the head-
lines as a major current-day adolescent challenge. This article reviews available empirical research to
examine the accuracy of commonly-perpetuated claims about cyberbullying. The analysis revealed sev-
eral myths about the nature and extent of cyberbullying that are being fueled by media headlines and
unsubstantiated public declarations. These myths include that (a) everyone knows what cyberbullying
is; (b) cyberbullying is occurring at epidemic levels; (c) cyberbullying causes suicide; (d) cyberbullying
occurs more often now than traditional bullying; (e) like traditional bullying, cyberbullying is a rite of
passage; (f) cyberbullies are outcasts or just mean kids; and (g) to stop cyberbullying, just turn off your
computer or cell phone. These assertions are clarified using data that are currently available so that adults
who work with youth will have an accurate understanding of cyberbullying to better assist them in effec-
tive prevention and response. Implications for prevention efforts in education in light of these revelations
are also discussed and include effective school policies, educating students and stakeholders, the role of
peer helper programs, and responsive services (e.g., counseling).
Ó2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction . . . ..................................................................................................... 2703
2. Myth 1: everyone knows what cyberbullying is . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................................... 2704
3. Myth 2: cyberbullying is occurring at epidemic levels . . . . . . . ............................................................... 2705
4. Myth 3: cyberbullying causes suicide . . .................................................................................. 2705
5. Myth 4: cyberbullying occurs more often now than traditional bullying . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................ 2706
6. Myth 5: like traditional bullying, cyberbullying is a rite of passage all teens experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ 2706
7. Myth 6: cyberbullies are outcasts or just mean kids . . . . . . . . . ............................................................... 2706
8. Myth 7: to stop cyberbullying, just turn off your computer or cell phone. . . . . . . . . . . ............................................ 2707
9. Armed with accurate information about cyberbullying, educators can help . . . . . . . . . ............................................ 2707
9.1. Effective school policies . .......................................... .............................................. 2707
9.2. Educating school staff and parents. . . . . . . . . ................... ..................................................... 2708
9.3. Educating students . . . . . ................................................... ..................................... 2708
9.4. Peer helper programs . . . .... ............................................................................... ..... 2708
9.5. Responsive services . . . . . ....................... ................................................................. 2708
10. Conclusion and future directions . . . . .................................................................................. 2709
References . . . . ..................................................................................................... 2709
1. Introduction
Teens now have in their hands the same amount of computing
ability that, just a decade ago, only large businesses could afford.
How does a young person manage ever-increasing access to tech-
nology and, by extension, the power it imbues? Most students
0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 239 590 7782.
E-mail addresses: (R.A. Sabella), (J.W.
Patchin), (S. Hinduja).
Tel.: +1 715 836 4058.
Tel.: +1 561 799 8227.
Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2703–2711
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior
journal homepage:
Author's personal copy
use technology responsibly, but some have chosen to use it in care-
less and inappropriate ways by hurting, humiliating, embarrassing,
and personally attacking others (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012b; Kowal-
ski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010). This phe-
nomenon has been termed cyberbullying, which has been defined
as ‘‘willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers,
cell phones, and other electronic devices’’ (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009,
p. 5, 2012a).
In several ways, cyberbullying may be perceived as more sinis-
ter than ‘‘off-line’’ (i.e., traditional or schoolyard) bullying because
the attacks can be more intense, frequent, unsuspecting, and seem-
ingly difficult to stop (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Compared to tra-
ditional bullies, cyberbullies are not restrained by space or time.
Some cyberbullies may hide under a cloak of anonymity, in essence
allowing them to easily attack others at any time and from any
place they want (Kowalski et al., 2008). With modern technology,
cyberbullying can occur at the ‘‘speed of thought’’ and in front of
much larger audiences than those behaviors confined to the
schoolyard. Online bullies also can potentially be even more cruel
than off-line bullies because, in addition to words, they can incor-
porate as part of their attacks a rich array of media including
sounds, altered photos, text, video, slide shows, and polls (Li,
2007; Sabella, 2008).
Though it occurs in cyberspace, this problem should not be triv-
ialized since it has been linked to real-world consequences. For
example, research has found that cyberbullying is associated with
negative emotions such as sadness, anger, frustration, embarrass-
ment, or fear (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Patchin & Hinduja, 2011;
Ybarra & Mitchell, 2007), and these emotions have been correlated
with delinquency and interpersonal violence among youth and
young adults (Aseltine, Gore, & Gordon, 2000; Broidy & Agnew,
1997; Mazerolle, Burton, Cullen, Evans, & Payne, 2000; Mazerolle
& Piquero, 1998). Furthermore, cyberbullying has been linked to
low self-esteem and suicidal ideation, recent school difficulties,
assaultive conduct, substance use, carrying a weapon to school,
and traditional bullying offending and victimization (Hinduja &
Patchin, 2007, 2008, 2009; Schneider, O’Donnell, Stueve, & Coulter,
2012; Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell,
2004a). It is for these reasons that youth-serving professionals
should seek to gain and share knowledge related to the identifica-
tion, prevention, and response of this problem.
One of the dangers, however, of doing cyberbullying risk-reduc-
tion work is that, in the course of educating students, staff, parents,
and others, we can unwittingly contribute to the ‘‘hype’’ generated
by a mass media that focuses on the dramatic and erratic. Recent
headlines can serve to fuel what may be a distorted and artifi-
cially-inflated view of cyberbullying – one not based on reality (Ma-
gid, 2011). Without a careful review of the professional literature,
counseling or educating students about cyberbullying may uninten-
tionally stem from rumor or extreme and rare cases. Without care-
fully differentiating fact from fallacy, our good intentions can lead to
erroneous decisions, harmful attitudes, and ineffective program-
matic strategies (Kowalski et al., 2008; Willard, 2007a, 2010).
When working with students or others within the school com-
munity, youth educators (which may include, and from hereafter,
refers to school counselors, researchers, policymakers, and, in gen-
eral, youth advocates) must take care to provide accurate informa-
tion and guidance supported by existing research. In this article,
we seek to identify and clarify common myths surrounding cyber-
bullying by presenting research-supported realities that call into
question some of the conventional wisdom concerning this prob-
lem. The myths included in this article were identified through var-
ious sources. First, we conducted an extensive review of the
available professional literature and mass media publications. Sec-
ond, we have heard these myths frequently professed through our
work with thousands of educators and students while providing
consultation, training, and policy development in the area of cyber-
safety. Finally, we informally surveyed the online community
called the Embrace Civility Network (formerly the Youth Risk Online
Professional Network) – a consortium of over 250 recognized ex-
perts in the field, as well as educators, counselors, attorneys,
CEOs/CSOs of online safety organizations, scholars, and legislators.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive as there are unquestion-
ably other statements that frequently appear in popular media and
professional literature that lack adequate substantiation. The cur-
rent work, however, is intended to clarify some of the more com-
monly-referenced ‘‘facts’’ about cyberbullying. It should also be
acknowledged that even the empirical research in this area is still
evolving and therefore needs to be considered with a critical eye on
operationalization and methodology. We begin with myth #1
which discusses this issue and its implications for our understand-
ing of cyberbullying even further.
2. Myth 1: everyone knows what cyberbullying is
Many individuals may believe that they already fully under-
stand and can recognize what cyberbullying is. The reality,
however, is that there exists much variability in the way cyberbul-
lying is defined and considered – even among cyberbullying
researchers (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009; Oblad, 2012; Ybar-
ra,Boyd, Korchmaros, & Oppenheim, 2012). As discussed by Patchin
and Hinduja (2012), some researchers use very broad definitions of
the problem that include every possible experience with any form
of online aggression. Others focus only on specific types of harm,
such as humiliation or threats to one’s physical safety, without also
including other forms like name-calling, insults, or social exclu-
sion. Some cover any and all media and venues through which
cyberbullying can occur, while others may leave out a few technol-
ogies (such as webcams) or environments (such as in online gam-
ing networks). To confuse matters even further, in many languages
other than English, there is no equivalent word for the term ‘‘bul-
lying,’’ which can affect the reported prevalence rates, especially
when considering data collected internationally (Craig, Henderson,
& Murphy, 2000; Smorti,Menesini, & Smith, 2003).
The varied conceptualizations are not surprising because, in
reality, a continuum of behaviors exists, ranging from annoying
or disappointing to severe, persistent, and pervasive attacks on
others. At what point on the continuum does an incident make
the leap from being one of poor judgment to one that we would
call cyberbullying – or even one that may be criminal? The answers
to these questions are still unclear and in need of further formal in-
quiry and examination.
One problem with not having a reliable and widely-accepted
definition of cyberbullying is that the inconsistencies lead to differ-
ent measurements of the nature and extent of harassment in
cyberspace, which at best provides an incomplete picture and at
worst leads to misinformation and confusion (Mishna, Pepler, &
Wiener, 2006; Patchin & Hinduja, 2012).Another problem with
inconsistent definitions is that the terms ‘‘bullying’’ and ‘‘cyberbul-
lying’’ are arguably now being overused among both adults and
children alike. For example, some students are claiming that they
are being bullied because they were not invited to a popular party,
because they were accidentally pushed in the hallways, or perhaps
teased, lied about, or made fun of one time (Williams & Guerra,
2007; Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2007). It is important for all
members of the school community to understand that peer conflict
does not equate to bullying. To reiterate, arguing, bantering back-
and-forth, ignoring, roughhousing and fighting are not necessarily
instances of bullying, whether they occur online or via traditional
venues (Willard, 2007c). Instead, cyberbullying, liketraditional bul-
lying, is characterized by intention, repetition, harm, and power
imbalance (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Wolak et al., 2007). Not every
2704 R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2703–2711
Author's personal copy
conflict meets these criteria (Baas, de Jong, & Drossaert, 2013).
Educators should help students understand and differentiate be-
tween situations that would and would not be considered bullying,
perhaps through the presentation of examples, scenarios, and even
role-playing exercises (see e.g., Sabella, 2012b).
3. Myth 2: cyberbullying is occurring at epidemic levels
Consider these actual news headlines and stories:
‘‘Cyber bullying is a growing epidemic in communities, including
ours’’ (Chin, 2011).
‘‘Cyberbullying: A National Epidemic’’ (Education Insider, 2010).
‘‘Cyber bullying spiralling out of control in schools’’ (McDougall,
‘‘Curing Utah’s ‘silent epidemic’: Finding a solution to teen suicide.
(Wood, 2013).
‘‘Child advocates say a growing epidemic of ‘‘cyberbullying’’ — the
use of computers, cell phones, social-networking sites and other
technology to threaten or humiliate others’’ (Billitteri, 2008).
These are just a few examples of the many headlines that are
seen through mass media that reinforce the notion that both bul-
lying and cyberbullying have reached sweeping proportions. To
be sure, one incident of any form of bullying is too many. However,
making a serious issue such as cyberbullying seem more problem-
atic than it really is, is in itself problematic. First, some students are
apt to believe that if the majority of their peers are being bullied
and bullying others, then it can be considered normative behavior
and consequently ‘‘not a big deal’’ (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012b). Sec-
ond, the purported cyberbullying epidemic seems to be giving our
youth a bad reputation, contributing to what some have referred to
as ‘‘juvenoia’’ (Finkelhor, 2011). Conventional wisdom suggests
that ‘‘kids these days’’ are more violentand less respectful than a
generation ago. It is doubtful that this is true, especially since every
generation seems to think that the youth of today are worse than
when they were growing up. In fact, strong evidence exists to sug-
gest that violence among youth, especially in schools, has actually
decreased in the last decade (Finkelhor, 2013; National Center for
Education Statistics, 2013). Finally, labeling cyberbullying an epi-
demic leads to some level of hysteria which may contribute to
overzealous adults making uninformed and unwise decisions in
an attempt to control youth behavior (e.g., zero-tolerance policies;
taking away cell phones or other access to technology) (Hinduja &
Patchin, 2009).
A precise measure of the prevalence of cyberbullying among
teens is impossible to determine, partly related to Myth #1 (incon-
sistent definitions)but also due to varied methodological ap-
proaches. Some studies ask their teen participants about any
experience with cyberbullying, while others focus on ‘‘online
youth’’ who experience specific types of high-tech harm within
the previous 30 days. One published study found that 72% of youth
have experienced cyberbullying (Juvonen & Gross, 2008) whereas
other published research has put this number at less than 7%
(Ybarra, 2004; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a). The majority of studies
estimate that anywhere from 6% to 30% of teens have experienced
some form of cyberbullying, while the number of youth who admit
to cyberbullying others at some point in their lives ranges from
about 4% to 20% (Patchin & Hinduja, 2012). Of course this means
that 70–80% of youth have not beencyberbullied, and have not
cyberbullied others.
4. Myth 3: cyberbullying causes suicide
Over the last few years, there have been several high-profile
incidents where teenagers and young adults have taken their
own lives in part because of experiences with bullying and cyber-
bullying (Bazelon, 2010; Boyette, 2013; Halligan, 2006; High,
2007; Jones, 2008; Marr & Field, 2001). The viral nature of these
stories in the media is especially troubling because exposure to
news items on suicide has been cited as one of the numerous risk
factors contributing to suicidal behavior (Beautrais, Collings, & Ehr-
hardt, 2005; Hawton & Williams, 2001). Also, the impact of news
media reporting on suicidal behavior appearsto be strongest
among young people (WHO, 2000). Despite these tragedies, the
vast majority of cyberbullying victims do not kill themselves, and
those who do typically have experienced a constellation of stress-
ors and other issues operating in their lives, making it difficult to
isolate the influence of one specific personal or social problem as
compared to others (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010a).
That said, research has shown that being involved in bullying
(both as a victim and a bully) as a young person increases the risk
for experiencing factors which are associated with suicidal
thoughts, suicidal attempts, and completed suicides (Bauman, Too-
mey, & Walker, 2013; Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2012;
Klomek, Sourander, & Gould, 2010; Klomek et al., 2009; Rigby&
Slee, 1999; Skapinakis et al., 2011). Kim and Leventhal (2008), for
example, conducted a meta-analytical review of 37 different stud-
ies that examined the association between bullying and suicide,
with an emphasis on the strengths and limitations of each of the
study’s research designs. Their review concluded that any partici-
pation in bullying increases risk factors such as depression and
anxiety, which can be associated with suicidal ideation and/or
behaviors in a broad spectrum of youth.
Recently, Hinduja and Patchin (2010a) conducted a study on
teen technology use and misuse involving approximately 2000
randomly-selected middle school students from one of the largest
school districts in the United States. Results showed that youth
who experienced traditional bullying or cyberbullying, as either
an offender or a target, weremore likely to report suicidal thoughts
and to have previously attempted suicide than those who had not
experienced such forms of peer aggression. The authors found that
traditional bullying victims were 1.7 times more likely and tradi-
tional bullying offenders were 2.1 times more likely to have at-
tempted suicide than those who were not traditional victims or
offenders (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010a). Similarly, cyberbullying vic-
tims were 1.9 times more likely and cyberbullying offenders were
1.5 times more likely to have attempted suicide than those who
were not cyberbullying victims or offenders. Winsper, Lereya,
Zanarini, and Wolke (2012) conducted a study that focused on
the prospective link between involvement in bullying (bully, vic-
tim, bully/victim) and subsequent suicide ideation in preadoles-
cent children in the United Kingdom. These authors concluded
that being a target ofbullying, especially as a bully/victim, signifi-
cantly increases the risk of suicide ideation in preadolescent
Given all of this research, one might ask: Why is it a myth that
‘‘cyberbullying causes suicide?’’ The answer to this question lies in
the important difference between the nature of correlation and cau-
sation. While it is true that there exists a relationship between bully-
ing and suicide (a connection or correlation), no conclusive
statistical evidence has shown that a cyberbullying experience di-
rectly ‘‘leads to’’ or causes suicide. As previously stated, most youth
who are cyberbullied do not take their own lives. So, the best that we
can confidently say is that, among some young people, cyberbullying
and suicide may be co-occurring (or are ‘‘co-related’’) with at least
one of many other factors such as depression, social withdrawal, dis-
ability, socialhopelessness, or other psychiatric morbidity (Skapina-
kis et al., 2011). That is, cyberbullying may aggravate the victim’s
already existing vulnerabilities. As Hinduja and Patchin (2010a)
concluded, ‘‘ is unlikely that experience with cyberbullying by it-
self leads to youth suicide. Rather, it tends to exacerbate instability
R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2703–2711 2705
Author's personal copy
and hopelessness in the minds of adolescents already struggling
with stressful life circumstances’’ (p. 217). Unfortunately, some re-
search findings have shown that the primary focus of news items
in this context is on the technology involved in the cyberbullying
and not the suicide events themselves or other important factors
that may have contributed to the suicides, such as victims’ mental
well-being (Thom et al., 2011).
5. Myth 4: cyberbullying occurs more often now than
traditional bullying
Conventional wisdom would have us believe that since technol-
ogy has proliferated over the last decade and stories of cyberbullying
are frequently mentioned in the news, it is likely more prevalent
than traditional, schoolyard bullying. However, research demon-
strates that this is not the case (at least not yet). For example, accord-
ing to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2013) report,
Indicators of School Crime and Safety, (which reported data from
2011), 27.8% of students reported being the victim of bullying during
the school year while only 9% of students had been cyberbullied.
Ybarra et al. (2012) recently found that 25% of students had been
bullied in person while 10% had beenbullied online. Overall, most re-
search demonstrates that cyberbullying still occurs less frequently
than bullying, though that could change in the future. Jones, Mitch-
ell, and Finkelhor (2013) collected data from students across the US
in 2000, 2005, and 2010 and saw a modest but steady increase in
cyberbullying between 2000 and 2010 (from 6% to 11%).
Beran and Li (2007) reviewed several published studies, all of
which suggest that cyberbullying and traditional bullying occur
at a comparable rate. One possible explanation for the similar rates
of traditional bullying and cyberbullying is that there seems to be a
significant overlap among students who are involved in both forms
(Beran & Li, 2007; Cross et al., 2009; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008;
Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith et al., 2008; Vandebosch & Van
Cleemput, 2009; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a). For example, Beran
and Li (2007) surveyed 432 students from grades 7–9 in Canadian
schools about their victimization experiences, and found that one-
third of children bullied in cyberspace were also bullied at school.
In addition, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004a) found that many cyber-
bullies were also cybervictims, and that almost half of the cyber-
bullies reported having been victims of traditional bullying.
Recognizing this overlap in behaviors is important, since it affects
decision-making that determines a school’s goals/focus and com-
mitment of resources. Focusing on cyberbullying as a priority at
the expense of addressing traditional bullying is a mistake. Both
should be addressed as different manifestations of the same under-
lying issues.
6. Myth 5: like traditional bullying, cyberbullying is a rite of
passage all teens experience
‘‘Boys will be boys.’’ ‘‘It’ll toughen him up.’’ ‘‘It will help her
grow a backbone so she can handle life.’’ ‘‘That which does not kill
you only makes you stronger.’’ These statements are sometimes
used by both children and adults to normalize or minimize hurtful
behavior among children and teens, sometimes even as a way of
coping with cyberbullying after it occurs (Parris, Varjas, Meyers,
& Cutts, 2012). The message that these perspectives send to our
youth is that social cruelty has been common to one degree or an-
other among past generations and, because they survived, experi-
encing bullying is some sort of ritual that we all must go through
during the course of normal maturation. This is simply not true.
In fact, U.S. President Barack Obamacogently emphasized this point
during a conference on preventing bullying at the White House on
March 10th, 2011 when he said:
If there’s one goal of this conference, it’s to dispel the myth that bul-
lying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of grow-
ing up. It’s not. Bullying can have destructive consequences for our
young people. And it’s not something we have to accept. As parents
and students, as teachers and members of the community, we can
take steps – all of us – to help prevent bullying and create a climate
in our schools in which all of our children can feel safe; a climate in
which they all can feel like they belong. As adults, we all remember
what it was like to see kids picked on in the hallways or in the
schoolyard. And I have to say, with big ears and the name that I
have, I wasn’t immune. I didn’t emerge unscathed. But because
it’s something that happens a lot, and it’s something that’s always
been around, sometimes we’ve turned a blind eye to the problem.
We’ve said, ‘‘Kids will be kids.’’ And so sometimes we overlook
the real damage thatbullying can do, especially when young people
face harassment day after day, week after week (2011).
In reality, no matter how prevalent or pervasive bullying has
been in our history, it was not acceptable then and it is not accept-
able now. In her book, Cyberbullying: What Counselors Need to
Know,Bauman (2011) presented a significant body of evidence
supporting the idea that there are negative consequences of bully-
ing for all involved youth. She presented various relevant research
studies that demonstrate that victims and bullies have more social,
emotional, behavioral, and academic problems than others who are
not involved. As described above, victims are more likely to suffer
from depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and loneliness, and
these consequences are still detected when the victims are adults.
Various studies that have found that peer rejection, delinquency,
criminality, violence, and suicidal ideation were additionalout-
comes of involvement in bullying (Bauman, 2008; Farrington,
2012; Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-VanHorick, 2004; Hinduja & Pat-
chin, 2007; Mynard, Joseph, & Alexander, 2000; Sharp, 1995;
Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005). Having a ‘‘thick skin’’ or even notable
coping skills may not be enough for some youth to navigate the
pain, embarrassment, humiliation, and horror of victimization.
Although many students are resilient and may even summon inner
strength they did not know they had in order to deal with bullying
or cyberbullying, some simply are unable to do so. Besides, there is
no valuable life lesson that one can learn from enduring bullying
that cannot be taught in a more humane way.
7. Myth 6: cyberbullies are outcasts or just mean kids
Some seem to believe that the majority of youth who cyberbully
others simply do it for the sake of inflicting harm, as some sort of
antisocial or even sadistic behavior inspired by their online activity
(Finkelhor, 2011). As is often the case, there is a measure of truth to
this, as some adolescent developmental experts and philosophers
view bullying as driven by a need for control and domination by
a child who perceives that his/her actions will lead to greater peer
acceptance and recognition (Adler & Adler, 1995, 1996; Faris &
Felmlee, 2011; Vaillancourt & Hymel, 2006). However, the weight
of the research has shown, instead, that most youth participate
in cyberbullying to get revenge or because they are ‘‘just playin’’’
(König, Gollwitzer, & Steffgen, 2010; Sanders, 2009; Varjas, Talley,
Meyers, Parris & Cutts, 2010). As Elizabeth Englander (2008) con-
cluded after surveying youth who admitted to cyberbullying oth-
ers: ‘‘Cyberbullies themselves identify their own anger and desire for
revenge as the major immediate motive for engaging in cyberbullying.
A second motive is identified by students who report that they engage
in cyberbullying ‘as a joke.’’’ (p. 8)
It seems that many cyberbullies who retaliate are often angry,
frustrated, or otherwise emotionally distraught and are simply act-
ing out using the technology that is readily at their fingertips. Oth-
ers participate in cyberbullying because they want retribution by
2706 R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2703–2711
Author's personal copy
returning a hurt or injury or to seek justice and teach a lesson. Still
others casually dismiss the gravity of their cyberbullying behaviors
because they do not make the connection between their online
behavior and the offline consequences. These aggressors have also
been referred to as ‘‘inadvertent’’ cyberbullies (Willard, 2007c) be-
cause, although their postings were intentional, they intended no
harm. At the time, inadvertent cyberbullies believed that what
they were doing was benign, and they were just ‘‘having fun’’ or
‘‘messing around.’’ Although those who are mean to others in real
life often behave similarly online, this is not always the case. In-
stead, some cyberbullies may be perceived among teachers and
peers as kind and responsible students while in school, even when
they could be actively involved in bullying others outside the pur-
view of adults. For example, Hinduja and Patchin (2012b) found
that those students who reported earning grades of mostly A’s
were just as likely to be involved in cyberbullying (both as a target
and a bully) as those students who reported that they typically
earned C’s or D’s. Just because certain students do well academi-
cally does not mean they are less likely to mistreat others. Those
who subscribe to this myth may also mistakenly conclude that
cyberbullies are easily identified and generally known among stu-
dents and teachers. In fact, some parents and teachers would be
shocked to know that some ‘‘good’’ students are also involved in
the problem behavior.
8. Myth 7: to stop cyberbullying, just turn off your computer or
cell phone
It may seem logical at first to consider turning away from tech-
nology as a means to stopping cyberbullying from occurring (Eng-
lander & Muldowney, 2007). Encouraging youth to turn off or avoid
technology, however, is unrealistic and overall ineffective long
term strategy (Hinduja & Patchin,2009). Technology is ubiquitous
and now integrated in virtually all aspects of their lives (Madden,
Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013). Moreover, technology
is an important social and educational tool for teens, and someone
who is being cyberbullied should not have to miss out on all of the
benefits technology has to offer (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012b). Final-
ly, if the target of the cyberbullying didn’t do anything wrong, why
should he or she be punished by not being able to use their favorite
electronic devices? Since when has it been appropriate to blame
the victim? Advising a student to avoid technology in response
to cyberbullying is like advising someone being bullied at school
to quit going to school. Also consider that turning off the computer
or cell phone does not stop many forms of cyberbullying (Hinduja
& Patchin, 2009). A student does not need to be online for someone
to create a mean or hurtful Web page about him or her. Rumors can
be circulated via cell phone or online text messages without the
victim being involved. A harassing online profile can be created
without a target even knowing about it.
We need to acknowledge how essential connected technology is
to teens. In particular, text messaging has become the primary way
that teens reach their friends, surpassing face-to-face contact,
email, instant messaging and voice calling as the go-to daily com-
munication tool for the 14–17 year old age group (Madden et al.,
2013). Being forced to disconnect for an extended period of time
is not a realistic long-term solution. Second, telling a child to
ignore noxious messages and postings can be difficult. Once images
and negative content is witnessed, they cannot be‘‘unwitnessed.’’
Asking a child to simply delete unpleasant content does not solve
the problem either. To the contrary, deleting posts, texts, emails,
or other aggressive content destroys the evidence often needed
to eventually identify and respond to the cyberbully (Kowalski
et al., 2008; Willard, 2007b).
In short, it is clear that avoiding technology will do little to solve
the problem of cyberbullying. Instead, counselors need to educate
students with information and skills they can use to effectively re-
spond when it does happen. These might include blocking harass-
ing messages, removing hurtful content (after it is archived), or
talking with a trusted adult to get additional assistance.
9. Armed with accurate information about cyberbullying,
educators can help
This article has identified and clarified several myths that are
associated with adolescent cyberbullying. Existing research has
helped to shed empirical light on the conventional wisdom sur-
rounding the experiences of teens online. For instance, we know
that cyberbullying is not an epidemic inducing large numbers of
teens who commit suicide. However, that certainly does not ex-
empt us from addressing it before and when it happens. Cyberbul-
lying is a significant problem for many teens, and efforts should be
taken to prevent and respond to it, and to equip youth with ways
that empower them to reduce their own victimization risk (Chibar-
ro, 2007). No one person, professional, or even organization will be
able to effectively accomplish the systematic changes that need to
occur and pervade our society. Cyberbullying risk reduction will
require comprehensive and collaborative efforts among various
youth advocates. School counselors in particularcan play a critical
role and can help in significant ways. For instance, Sabella (2012b)
suggests that school counselors take the lead with a comprehen-
sive approach that includes five areas, all of which have a basis
in empirical support (see e.g., Pearce, Cross, Monks, Waters, & Fal-
coner, 2011; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). These include: (1) facilitat-
ing the development of effective school policies; (2) educating
parents; (3) educating students; (4) developing peer helper pro-
grams; and (5) providing responsive services such as reporting
and counseling opportunities. These efforts must include all stake
holders such as teachers, school support services, educational lead-
ers, community leaders, legislators, parents, and, of course,
9.1. Effective school policies
According to the American School Counselor Association’s posi-
tion statement about bullying (ASCA, 2005), leadership in the form
of policy development is an appropriate role and responsibility of
the school counselor:
Professional school counselors collaborate with others to promote
safe schools and confront issues threatening school safety. Profes-
sional school counselors encourage the development of policies
supporting a safe school environment, and they provide leadership
to the school by assisting in the design and implementation of
school wide violence prevention activities and programs.
Hinduja and Patchin (2009) also argue that ‘‘one of the most
important steps a district can take to help protect its students
and protect itself from legal liability is to have a clear and compre-
hensive policy regarding bullying and harassment, technology, and
their intersection: cyberbullying’’ (p.188). Forty-nine states have
bullying laws that require schools to have policies about bullying
and most of these now include requirements to address electronic
forms of harassment (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012a). School counselors
can suggest the development of policies as described by Franek
(2006), who stated that all forms of cyberspace harassment either
during school hours or after school hours should not be tolerated.
An anti-cyberbullying policy should also include establishing a
prevention program and an annual assessment of such a program
to determine its effectiveness (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins,
2008; Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011). In addition to legislation,
most state departments of education have provided model anti-
R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2703–2711 2707
Author's personal copy
bullying policies (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012a) and the United States
Department of Education released a report, Analysis of State Bully-
ing Laws and Policies (Temple et al., 2012), which can serve as help-
ful references for school counselors towards this end. It is essential
that counselors review and understand their school policy con-
cerning cyberbullying so that they are able to respond to behaviors
within the appropriate framework established by the policy.
9.2. Educating school staff and parents
School counselors also can serve as key players in providing
parents, guardians, and school staff with the professional develop-
ment or training they need to work to reduce the risk of cyberbul-
lying among students (Bauman, 2011; Beale & Hall, 2007; Bhat,
2008; Maher, 2008; Winburn, Niemeyer, & Reysen, 2012). At a fun-
damental level, adults, including teachers and parents, need to
keep pace with new technology to understand how students com-
municate online and how cyberbullying happens. The results of
one study indicated that school adults provide limited help, which
might be caused by their lack of understanding and training in how
to deal with the issue (Li, 2010).
In collaboration with community groups and parent/teacher
associations, school counselors also can enhance the way caretak-
ers protect and inform their children by providing them with solu-
tions from both human/relational and technological perspectives
(Bradshaw, Sawyer, & O’Brennan, 2007). This is especially impor-
tant given that there exists some evidence of a familial pattern to
bullying whereby sometimes multiple children from the same
family (and sometimes within the same school) are identified bul-
lying perpetrators (Chan, 2006). Human/relational solutions to
reducing cyberbullying include encouraging the development of
relationships that facilitate trust and open lines of communication
(Sabella, 2008, 2012b). School counselors also should encourage
parents to learn about what their children are doing online and
work to better understand the technology they are using. Under-
standing Facebook’s privacy settings, for example, will enable par-
ents and teachers to educate children about how to protect their
personal information to the maximum extent possible (ASCA &
iKeepSafe, 2011). Parents can also monitor the online activities of
their children by being involved in these environments along with
them such as watching a few funny YouTube videos together, ‘‘Sky-
ping’’ with distant family members, using Pinterest to collect their
favorite pieces of online content, or checking out Tumblr blogs
from around the world.
School counselors can also coordinate efforts among educators
and youth advocates to pass along information to parents about
specific technological solutions (such as filtering, blocking, or
tracking software) that may be helpful in deterring inappropriate
behaviors or in collecting evidence of cyberbullying. To be sure,th-
ese products are never a replacement for active human engage-
ment and intervention. Counselors, parents, and other adults
have an obligation to help children become knowledgeable about
the use (and misuse) of technology, to teach them how to make
good decisions about how they use technology, and to help them
to police themselves (and perhaps each other). Technological solu-
tions can be an effective complement or backup to how youth are
educated and supervised (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004b). These include,
but are not limited to, password protecting home wireless net-
works, using Internet safety services/software, subscribing to a dig-
ital reputation monitoring service, and/or exploring cell phone
parental controls (Kowalski et al., 2008).
9.3. Educating students
In collaboration with other educators, student training (also
known as classroom guidance) should be provided to confront
cyberbullying by including student competencies which help
youth recognize legal and personal consequences of cyberbullying,
improve social problem-solving and anger management skills,
encourage prosocial behavior, and increase the ability to empa-
thize with victims (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, O’Brennan, & Gulemet-
ova, 2011; Hazler, 2006; Limber, Kowalski, & Agatston, 2009;
Lund, Blake, Ewing, & Banks, 2012; Macklem, 2003). Students
who witness or learn about cyberbullying happening to others
should also learn about their responsibilities and how best to sup-
port each other (Li, 2010).
Although an abundance of cyberbullying and Internet safety re-
lated resources are available online, fewsequenced and compre-
hensive lesson plans exist. Moreover, none of these has been
formally evaluated. That said, some promising approaches do exist
(see e.g., Sabella, 2012a for a compilation of recommended cyber-
bullying lesson plans) which include many of the components of
cyberbullying prevention education recommended by other
researchers (e.g., Diamanduros et al., 2008; Hinduja & Patchin,
9.4. Peer helper programs
Together with teachers, parents, and other youth advocates,
school counselors should also take advantage of the expertise that
already exists in their buildings. That is, they can use students to
help educate their classmates about using technology responsibly.
Led by the school counselor, educators can train students towork
with and educate younger peers so that they make wise decisions
online starting at an early age. Students can also work with others
who are ‘‘at risk’’ as well as with those who are experiencing typ-
ical childhood problems and concerns, and thereby play important
roles in both intervention and prevention (ASCA, 2008). Myrick,
Highland, and Sabella (1995) indicated that the advantages of
using peer helpers in general may include: better communication
and relationships among students; the generation of positive sen-
timents and a healthier climate across campus; wider message
delivery, higher visibility, and the promotion of positive public
relations to the school; evaluation of lesson plans, content, or
learning activities by those who likely have the most insight into
what works and what does not; and the provision of platforms
on which peer helpers can model appropriate behaviorfor others
to emulate. Along similar lines, Mustacchi (2009) has eloquently
described how her students assisted her in developing lesson
plans, materials, and ultimately teaching other students about
cyberbullying and other technology related issues:
When I began implementing this curriculum the next fall, I noticed
how much the 8th graders knew and were eager to impart to one
another – with almost desperate urgency. As if riding a roller-
coaster, students relayed stories and advice to one another, hitting
highs and lows at breakneck speed. They were experts in some
aspects of online interaction and risks but complete novices in oth-
ers. I realized that their knowledge and thirst to exchange informa-
tion provided a rare opportunity. So I charged my 8th grade
students with the job of teaching my 6th graders....Their talks,
materials, and activities kept the younger students fully engaged.
They asked questions and got their peers to think and reflect, some-
times with creative tactics (p. 80).
9.5. Responsive services
Finally, school counselors, social workers, psychologists and
community mental health workers (those who can provide per-
sonal/social counseling services) should provide help to both
cyberbullies and their targets in the form of responsive services.
2708 R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2703–2711
Author's personal copy
This refers to specific activities designed to meet students’ imme-
diate needs and concerns such as individual or small-group coun-
seling and crisis response (ASCA, 2012). Through these
mechanisms, appropriate student support service personnel can
help perpetrators to better understand the consequences of their
actions, find better ways to resolve anger and conflict, and make
more thoughtful and responsible choices about social interactions
(Beaty &Alexeyev, 2008; Borg, 1998; Camodeca & Goossens, 2004;
Haynie et al., 2001; Pellegrini, Bartini, & Brooks, 1999). Counselors
also can help cyberbullying victims who may need help with issues
of post-traumatic stress. Many counseling approaches exist that
can be helpful in working with students involved in cyberbullying
situations. Sabella (2012b) recommended three models in particu-
lar that are effective for both victims and perpetrators: Solution Fo-
cused Brief Counseling (SFBC), Reality Therapy (RT), and Rational
Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT). All three models can help
aggressors to take responsibility for their actions and correct their
behaviors while also empowering targets to successfully cope and
It should be noted that small group counseling has been spe-
cially recognized as an effective way to help students who experi-
ence bullying. For example, Young (1998) described a procedure
and process for how school counselors can conduct support groups
among the victim’s identified supporters, the perpetrator, and
those perceived to be supporters of the perpetrator. Reber (2012)
provides some evidence about the positive impact of an eight (8)
session group counseling experience on the self-esteem levels of
students who have been identified as the targets of bullying
aggressors. In another example, Hall (2006) proposed a ‘‘Solving
Problems Together’’ (SPT) group in which the school counselor
can help students develop the knowledge, attitude, and skills that
will enable them to deal more effectively with bullying. Relatedly,
Perkins and Williamson (2010) described how they incorporated
cyberbullying prevention groups in schools as part of aservice
learning project designed and implemented by counseling gradu-
ate students. These suggested efforts hold much promise if coun-
selors can take the lead and perform the required steps to
educate and enlist youth (and other educators on campus) towards
the common goal.
10. Conclusion and future directions
The current work is certainly not exhaustive in its attempt to
illuminate the facts and debunk the myths about cyberbullying,
as other misconceptions about the behaviors of teens online exist
and warrant empirical scrutiny. An even more systematic review
of popular media accounts of these problems would no doubt re-
veal additional unsubstantiated, questionable, or patently false
claims about the nature, extent, causes, and consequences of
cyberbullying behaviors. It is essential to compare these assertions
to the body of scientific evidencethat is available to separate fact
from fiction. To be sure, there is still much that is not known about
cyberbullying, especially about the efficacy of efforts to intervene.
For instance, as of this writing, there have been no formal process
or outcome evaluations of programs designed to prevent or re-
spond specifically to cyberbullying.
Anecdotally, there is much talk about ‘‘what works’’ and ‘‘what
doesn’t,’’ but data need to be collected about the short and long-
term outcomes associated with these initiatives. And, because
cyberbullying includes so many different people and organizations
(e.g., students, school personnel, parents, cell phone service provid-
ers, social networking companies, gaming companies, legislators,
and police), future research must be comprehensive in scope. Many
important questions still remain unanswered such as: (a) What
types of parental actions/responses are most effective in prevent-
ing and responding to cyberbullying? (b) Howeffective are peer
helpers as compared to adults when delivering cyberbullying
risk-reduction strategies? (c) How effective are self-led online
tutorials (e.g., videos or interactive games) in reducing the preva-
lence and incidence of cyberbullying? (d) What reporting proce-
dures and processes are best for preventing and responding to
cyberbullying? and, (e) What specific supervising and monitoring
techniques, both human and technological, work best?
According to Pearce, Cross, Monks, Waters, and Falconer (2011),
the special characteristics of cyberbullying pose new challenges to
future anti-bullying research. As mentioned earlier, these include
the anonymous nature of the problem, greater breadth of audience,
the lack of authority in cyberspace, and 24-h access to technology,
as well rapid technological changes continually providing new
means by which harm can be inflicted. These challenges, together
withthe rapidly changing landscape of technology, will continue to
make future research in this area as difficult as it is necessary. In
the meantime, educators and other youth advocates should be
careful to use information, curricula, and other resources that are
informed by the most current and valid research available. Other-
wise, by default, they risk falling into the trap of relying on conven-
tional wisdom and media hyperbole in their well-intentioned
efforts to address cyberbullying.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in preadolescent
cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(3), 145–162.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1996). Preadolescent clique stratification and the hierarchy
of identity. Sociological Inquiry, 66, 111–142.
ASCA (2005). The professional school counselor and bullying, harassment and violence-
prevention programs: Supporting safe and respectful schools (Position Statement).
American School Counselor Association. <
ASCA (2008). The professional school counselor and peer helping (Position Statement).
American School Counselor Association. <http://asca2.timberlakepublishing.
ASCA & iKeepSafe (2011). Facebook for School Counselors.<https://www.>.
ASCA (2012). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs
(3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association.
Aseltine, R. H., Gore, S., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, and
delinquency: An empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 41(3), 256–275.
Baas, N., de Jong, M., & Drossaert, C. (2013). Children’s perspectives on
cyberbullying: Insights based on participatory research. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(4), 248–253.
Bauman, S. (2008). Effects of gender, grade, and acculturation on overt and
relational victimization and depression in Mexican American elementary school
students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 528–554.
Bauman, S. (2011). Cyberbullying: What counselors need to know. Alexandria, VA:
American Counseling Association.
Bauman, S., Toomey, R. B., & Walker, J. L. (2013). Associations among bullying,
cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of Adolescence, 36(2),
Bazelon, E. (2010). What really happened to Phoebe Prince? (Retrieved 12.06.13).
Beale, A. V., & Hall, K. R. (2007). Cyberbullying: What schools administrators (and
parents) can do. The Clearing House, 81(1), 8–12.
Beaty, L. A., & Alexeyev, E. B. (2008). The problem of school bullies: What the
research tells us. Adolescence, 43(169), 1–11.
Beautrais, A. L., Collings, S. C., & Ehrhardt, P. (2005). Suicide prevention: A review of
evidence of risk and protective factors, and points of effective intervention.
Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school
bullying. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1(2), 15–33.
Bhat, C. S. (2008). Cyber bullying: Overview and strategies for school counselors,
guidance officers, and all school personnel. Australian Journal of Guidance and
Counseling, 18(1), 53–66.
R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2703–2711 2709
Author's personal copy
Billitteri, T. J. (2008, May 2). Cyberbullying (Retrieved 28.02.13). <http://
libr ary .cq pre ss. com/cqr ese arc her /do cum ent.php ?id =cq res rre 2008050200
Borg, M. G. (1998). The emotional reaction of school bullies and their victims.
Educational Psychology, 18(4), 433–444.
Boyette, C. (2013). N.Y. police proble possible cyberbullying after girl found hanged
(Retrieved 12.06.13). <
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A., & O’Brennan, L. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization
at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School
Psychology Review, 36(3), 361–383.
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., O’Brennan, L. M., & Gulemetova, M. (2011). Findings
from the National Education Association’s nationwide study of bullying: Teachers’
and education support professionals’ perspectives. Washington, DC: National
Education Association.
Broidy, L. M., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain
theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3),
Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2004). Aggression, social cognitions, anger and
sadness in bullies and their victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
46, 186–197.
Campbell, M., Spears, B., Slee, P., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2012). Victims’ perceptions of
traditional and cyberbullying, and the psychosocial correlates of their
victimisation. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3/4), 389–401. http://
Chan, J. H. F. (2006). Systemic patterns in bullying and victimization. School
Psychology International, 27(3), 352–369.
Chibarro, J. S. (2007). School counselors and the cyberbully: Interventions and
implications. Professional School Counseling, 11(1), 65–68.
Chin, A. (2011). Police try to prevent cyber bullying.<
Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J. G. (2000). Prospective teachers’ attitudes
toward bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 21(1), 5–21.
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., et al. (2009).
Australian covert bullying prevalence study. Safe Schools Research. <http://>.
Diamanduros, T., Downs, E., & Jenkins, S. J. (2008). The role of school psychologists
in the assessment, prevention, and intervention of cyberbullying. Psychology in
the Schools, 45(8), 693–704.
Education Insider (2010). Cyberbullying: A national epidemic.<http://education->.
Englander, E. K. (2008). Research brief: Cyberbullying & bullying in Massacusetts:
Frequency & motivations.<
Englander, E. K., & Muldowney, A. (2007). Just turn the darn thing off: Understanding
cyberbullying. In D. L. White, B. C. Glenn, & A. Wimes (Eds.), Proceedings of
persistently safe schools: The 2007 national conference on safe schools (pp. 83–92).
Washington, DC: Hamilton Fish Institute, The George Washington University.
Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles: Network centrality and gender
segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review,
76(1), 48–73.
Farrington, D. P. (2012). Childhood risk factors for young adult offending: Onset and
persistence. In F. Losel, A. Bottoms, & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Young adult
offenders: Lost in transition? (pp 48–64). London: Routledge.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-VanHorick, S. P. (2004). Bullying behavior
and associations with psychosomatic complaints and depression in victims.
Journal of Pediatrics, 144(1), 17–22.
Finkelhor, D. (2011). The Internet, youth deviance and the problem of Juvenoia.
Finkelhor, D. (2013). Trends in bullyign and peer Victimization.<
Franek, M. (2006). Foiling cyberbullies in the new wild west. Educational Leadership,
63(4), 39–43.
Hall, K. R. (2006). Solving problems together: A psychoeducational group model for
victims of bullies. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 31(3), 201–217.
Halligan, J. (2006). Ryan Patrick Halligan (Retrieved 23.01.08). <http://>.
Hamburger, M. E., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo, A. M. (2011). Measuring bullying
victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of
assessment tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. <
ViolencePrevention/pub/measuring_bullying.html> (Retrieved 02.03.13).
Hawton, K., & Williams, K. (2001). The connection between media and suicidal
behavior warrants serious attention., 22(22), 137–140.
Haynie, D., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A., Saylor, K., & Yu, K. (2001). Bullies, victims
and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence,
21(1), 29–49.
Hazler, R. J. (2006, March 18, 2006). Essential techniques for successful intervention
and prevention of bullying, Carrollton, GA.
High, B. (2007). Bullycide in America – Moms speak out about the bullying/suicide
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and
responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (Corwin
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012a). School climate 2.0: Preventing cyberbullying and
sexting one classroom at a time.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012b). Bullying and cyberbullying laws.<http://>.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization:
School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89–112.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors
related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 1–29.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010a). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of
Suicide Research, 14(3).
Jones, T. (2008). A deadly Web of deceit: A teen’s online ‘friend’ proved false, and cyber-
vigilantes are avenging her.<
article/2008/01/09/AR2008010903367_pf.html> (Retrieved 10.01.08).
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?—Bullying
experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496–505.
Kim, Y. S., & Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide. A review. International
Journal of Adolescent Medical Health, 20(2), 133–154.
Klomek, A. B., Sourander, A., & Gould, M. (2010). The association of suicide and
bullying in childhood to young adulthood: Review of cross-sectional and
longitudinal research findings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 55(5), 282–288.
Klomek, A. B., Sourander, A., Niemela, S., Kumpulainen, K., Piha, J., Tamminen, T.,
et al. (2009). Childhood bullying behaviors as a risk for suicide attempts and
completed suicides: A population-Based birth cohort study. Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 48(3), 254–261.
König, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Steffgen, G. (2010). Cyberbullying as an act of revenge?
Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20(2), 210–224.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the
digital age. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Li, Q. (2007). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and
cyber victimisation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4),
Li, Q. (2010). Cyberbullying in high schools: A study of students’ behaviors and
beliefs about this new phenomenon. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma, 19(4), 372–392.
Limber, S. P., Kowalski, R. M., & Agatston, P. W. (2009). Cyberbullying: A prevention
curriculum for grades 6–12. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Lund, E. M., Blake, J. J., Ewing, H. K., & Banks, C. S. (2012). School counselors’ and
school psychologists’ bullying prevention and intervention strategies: A look
into real-world practices. Journal of School Violence, 11(3), 246–265. http://<
pdf/10.1080/15388220.2012.682005> (Retrieved 02.03.13).
Macklem, G. L. (2003). Bullying and teasing: Social power in children’s groups. New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and
technology 2013.<
Tech.aspx> (Retrieved 12.06.13).
Magid, L. (September 17, 2011). Cyberbullying is a serious problem, but is it an
epidemic? Huff Post.<
Maher, D. (2008). Cyberbullying: An ethnographic case of one Australian upper
primary school class. Youth Studies Australia, 27(4), 50–57.
Marr, N., & Field, T. (2001). Bullycide: Death at playtime – An expose of child suicide
caused by bullying. London: Success Unlimited.
Mazerolle, P., Burton, V., Cullen, F. T., Evans, D., & Payne, G. L. (2000). Strain, anger,
and delinquent adaptations: Specifying general strain theory. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 28, 89–101.
Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Linking exposure to strain with anger: An
investigation of deviant adaptations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26(3), 195–211.
McDougall, B. (2011). Cyber bullying spiralling out of control in schools. The Daily
Telegraph. <
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement:
Some critical considerations. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology,
217(4), 230–232.
Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2006). Factors associated with perceptions and
responses to bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals.
Victims & Offenders, 1(3), 255–288.
Mustacchi, J. (2009). R U safe? Educational Leadership, 66(6), 78–82.
Mynard, H., Joseph, S., & Alexander, J. (2000). Peer victimization and
posttraumatic stress in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences,
29(5), 815–821.
Myrick, R. D., Highland, W. H., & Sabella, R. A. (1995). Peer helpers and perceived
effectiveness. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 29(4), 278–288.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2013). Indicators of school crime and
safety: 2012.<
Obama, B. (2011). Remarks by the president and first lady at the White House
conference on bullying prevention.<
office/2011/03/10/remarks-presid ent-and-first-lady-white-house-conference-
Oblad, T. (2012). Understanding cyberbullying in the net generation: A meta-analytic
review. Masters thesis. <>.
2710 R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2703–2711
Author's personal copy
Parris, L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Cutts, H. (2012). High school students’ perceptions
of coping with cyberbullying. Youth & Society, 44(2), 284–306.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A
preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2),
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Changes in adolescent online social networking
behaviors from 2006 to 2009. Computers and Human Behavior, 26, 1818–1821.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2011). Traditional and nontraditional bullying among
youth: A test of general strain theory. Youth and Society.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Preventing and responding to cyberbullying: Expert
perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Routledge.
Pearce, N., Cross, D., Monks, H., Waters, S., & Falconer, S. (2011). Current evidence of
best practice in whole-school bullying intervention and its potential to inform
cyberbullying interventions. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 21(1),
Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and
aggressive victims. Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in
early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 216–224.
Perkins, G. W., & Williamson, M. L. (2010). A service learning approach to
cyberbullying prevention. Ideas and research you can use: VISTAS 2010.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and
electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3),
Reber, C. (2012). The impact of group counseling on the selfesteem levels of students
who have been identified as the targets of bullying aggressors.<http://> (Retrieved 02.03.13).
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1999). Suicidal ideation among adolescent school children,
involvement in bully-victim problems, and perceived social support. Suicide and
Life Threatening Behavior, 29(2), 119–130.
Sabella, R. A. (2008). A practical guide to keeping kids out of high-
tech trouble. Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media.
Sabella, R. A. (2012a). Cyberbullying/technology safety lesson plans.<
Sabella, R. A. (2012b). Cyberbullying: How school counselors can help. In J. W.
Patchin & S. Hinduja (Eds.), Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert
perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Sanders, J. (2009). Cyberbullies: Their motives, characteristics, and types of
bullying. In Paper presented at the XIV European conference of developmental
psychology, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Schneider, S. K., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. S. (2012). Cyberbullying,
school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school
students. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171–177.
Sharp, S. (1995). How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bullying on the
personal well-being and educational progress of secondary aged students.
Educational and Child Psychology, 12, 81–88.
Skapinakis, P., Bellos, S., Gkatsa, T., Magklara, K., Lewis, G., Araya, R., et al. (2011).
The association between bullying and early stages of suicidal ideation in late
adolescents in Greece. Psychiatry, 11(1), 22.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
Smokowski, P. R., & Kopasz, K. H. (2005). Bullying in schools: An overview of types,
effects, family characteristics and intervention strategies. Children & Schools,
27(2), 101–110.
Smorti, A., Menesini, E., & Smith, P. K. (2003). Parents’ definitions of children’s
bullying in a five-country comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
34(4), 417–432.
Temple, J. R., Paul, J. A., van den Berg, P., Le, V. D., McElhany, A., & Temple, B. W.
(2012). Teen sexting and its association with sexual behaviors. Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1–6.
Thom, K., Edwards, G., Nakarada-Kordic, I., McKenna, B., O’Brien, A., & Nairn, R.
(2011). Suicide online: Portrayal of website-related suicide by the New Zealand
media. New Media & Society, 13(8), 1355–1372.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to
reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 2011(7), 1.
Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: The moderating
roles of sex and peer-valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 408–596.
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters:
Profiles of bullies and victims. New Media and Society, 11(8), 1349–1371.
Varjas, K., Talley, J., Meyers, J., Parris, L., & Cutts, H. (2010). High school students’
perceptions of motivations for cyberbullying: An exploratory study. Western
Journal of Emergency Medicine, 11(3), 269–273.
WHO (2000). Preventing suicide. A resource for media professionals. Geneva: Mental
and behavioural disorders. Department of Mental Health, World Health
Willard, N. E. (2007a). The authority and responsibility of school officials in
responding to cyberbullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S64–S65.
Willard, N. E. (2007b). Cyber-safe kids, cyber-savvy teens, helping young people use the
internet safety and responsibly. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Willard, N. E. (2007c). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of
online social aggression, threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Willard, N. E. (2010). School response to cyberbullying and sexting: The legal
challenges. Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use. <
Williams, K., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of Internet bullying.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S14–S21.
Winburn, A., Niemeyer, R., & Reysen, R. (2012). Mississippi principals perceptions of
cyberbullying. Delta Journal of Education, 2(2), 1–15. <http://www.>.
Winsper, C. C., Lereya, T. T., Zanarini, M. M., & Wolke, D. D. (2012). O-61 –
Involvement in bullying in childhood and suicide ideation at 11 years: A
prospective birth cohort study. European Psychiatry, 271.
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Does online harassment constitute
bullying? An exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only
contacts. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S51–S58.
Wood, B. (2013, Feburary 24). Curing Utah’s ‘silent epidemic’: Finding a solution to
teen suicide. Desert News. <
Curing-Utahs-silent-epidemic.html> (Retrieved 28.02.13).
Ybarra, M. L. (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and Internet
harassment among young regular Internet users. CyberPsychology and Behavior,
7(2), 247–257.
Ybarra, M. L., Boyd, D., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. (2012). Defining and
measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 53–58.
Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet
harassment and school bullying: implications for school intervention. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, S42–S50.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, J. K. (2004a). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors and
targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1308–1316.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, J. K. (2004b). Youth engaging in online harassment:
Associations with caregiver–child relationships, Internet use, and personal
characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27(3), 319–336.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). Prevalence and frequency of internet
harassment instigation: Implications for adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 41, 189–195.
Young, S. (1998). The support group approach to bullying in schools. Educational
Psychology in Practice, 14(1), 32–39.
R.A. Sabella et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 2703–2711 2711
... For example, Fahy et al. (2016) found a relationship between exposure to cyberbullying and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Studies have further suggested that cyberbullying victims tend to develop antisocial online behavior, including the perpetration of cyberbullying themselves (Cao and Lin 2015;König et al. 2010;Sabella, Patchin and Hinduja 2013;Wong, Chan and Cheng 2014). Despite the growing attention that researchers have devoted to exploring cyberbullying, only a few studies have been conducted in the context of the workplace and explored its intrapersonal outcomes (Coyne et al. 2017;Park and Choi 2019). ...
... Based on ego depletion theory, we developed a moderated mediation model to explain the mechanism of the relationship between workplace cyberbullying and interpersonal deviance (see Figure 1). We conducted multilevel analysis to analyze fluctuations in workplace cyberbullying and interpersonal deviance at the episode level to test our conceptual model and to leverage the management of workplace cyberbullying in Chinese enterprises (Ferguson and Barry 2011;Sabella et al. 2013;Trougakos et al. 2015). ...
... As recent workplace cyberbullying literature has ignored the potential effects of interpersonal influences, they have not offered an adequate picture of the detrimental effects of workplace cyberbullying. Furthermore, workplace cyberbullying fluctuates from day to day (Sabella et al. 2013) and therefore a dynamic perspective is necessary to deepen our insights into how workplace cyberbullying induces negative behavioral outcomes. This study extends previous research at the theoretical and methodological levels. ...
With the spread of information communication technologies (ICTs) in the business world, workplace cyberbullying has become a prominent problem alongside traditional face‐to‐face bullying. This research aimed to explore the daily influence of workplace cyberbullying on interpersonal deviance by using an experience sampling method. We collected 750 matched data over 5 consecutive days from 150 full‐time employees working in China. A multilevel analysis was then performed to construct a moderated mediation model. The results showed that daily workplace cyberbullying increased interpersonal deviance by enhancing personal ego depletion. Furthermore, the indirect effect of workplace cyberbullying was stronger when perceived supervisor support was at a low level. This study successfully determined that workplace cyberbullying can result in interpersonal deviance on a daily basis. Our research provides a comprehensive insight into the relationship and dynamics of workplace cyberbullying and interpersonal deviance with practical implications for personnel administration.
... The phenomenon of bullying and its online presentation as cyberbullying is common in Israel (Heiman & Olenik-Shemesh, 2016;Lapidot-Leffler, 2017;Lefler & Dolev-Cohen, 2015;Lapidot-Lefler & Hosri, 2016) and around the world (Rajbhandari & Rana, 2022;Sabella et al., 2013). The numerous negative outcomes have long been known and continue to be of concern (Kowalski et al., 2019;Mehari et al., 2022). ...
Full-text available
This paper examines the relationship between parental monitoring and control, parents’ perceived knowledge of their adolescent’s online activities, and parents’ perceived knowledge of their adolescent’s involvement in cyberbullying, among Israeli Jewish and Arab parents of adolescents. The 407 participants consisted of two groups: Jewish (n = 194) and Arab (n = 213) parents of adolescents in Israel, who were recruited via online social networks and completed an online survey. The self-report questionnaire included the Stattin and Kerr Parental Control and Parental Monitoring Questionnaire (Stattin & Kerr in Developmental Psychology 36:366, 2000), as well as parental knowledge of child online activities and witnessing and experiencing cyberbullying. Parental monitoring and control were perceived as higher by Jewish than Arab parents, while no group differences were found for perceived child disclosure or parental knowledge of adolescent online activity. Parental knowledge of the adolescent witnessing cyberbullying was higher among Arab than Jewish parents, while the opposite was found for parental knowledge of the adolescent experiencing cyberbullying. Parental knowledge of the adolescent both witnessing and experiencing cyberbullying was related to group affiliation, lower parental education, and higher parental perceived knowledge of the adolescent’s online activities. Parents’ perceived knowledge of the adolescent witnessing cyberbullying was further related to higher perceived adolescent disclosure. The study increases our understanding of perceived parental involvement and its relationship with parents’ perceived knowledge of the adolescent’s involvement in cyberbullying in a diverse and multicultural society.
... Adolescent cyberbullying varies in motivation from the conventional form, according to some studies. Quoting research to date on the myths of cyberbullying, Sabella, Patchin and Hinduja (2013) assert that one common motive for adolescents to engage in cyberbullying is not so much to do harm or exercise domination as to have fun; they are "just playing" (p. 2706). ...
Full-text available
Offering the world countless remarkable benefits, computer mediated communication has become an essential feature of modern life. However, it has also become a medium for personal aggression and abuse of diverse kinds. The discourse of online vilification has been the topic of much research, for instance on the behaviour of trolls. This study focuses on a little researched phenomenon, the discourse of cyberbullying, in particular a subtype, cybermobbing, in which a group of participants gather online to attack an individual over a period of time. The study takes up an example of such participants who joined a Facebook group dedicated to abusing a prominent sportsman. The purpose of the study is to identify the chief discourse characteristics of cybermobbing that bind the participants together. The analysis reveals a high degree of solidarity among the participants expressed through profanity, humour, and play. The results will also throw light on the mentality of those who engage in cybermobbing.
... Another ramification of a physically distant society is the elevated importance of cyber platforms and digital media, which has spurred their utilization by journalists as well as in the social and economic sectors. As a result, various negative consequences have appeared and are increasing from the acceleration of the information era, including cyber-ostracization, verbal abuse, personal information leaks, and defamation [1][2][3][4]. Cyberbullying-intentionally excluding a particular person or continually harassing a person or group in the cyber environment-has been gaining attention as a social problem that is related to the stay-at-home period of the COVID-19 pandemic, as it has been rapidly increasing. A key characteristic of cyberbullying is that people do not recognize it as an act of violent aggression nor do they realize that exposure to it is not limited to school environments, but that rather, students are covertly harassed or abused twenty-four hours a day, making it a challenge to detect and repress. ...
Full-text available
Because of the implementation of social distancing measures following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face interaction has plummeted, which has resulted in the prolific use of social networking services (SNS) and increased activity in the cyberspace environment. This is especially true for teenagers and young adults with the shift to online classes in the education sector, which has increased the chances of being exposed to cyberbullying. This study attempts to determine a strategy for counteracting cyberbullying in the post-COVID-19 era by identifying the factors that have contributed toward greater aggression by adolescents in South Korea in 2020 when the spread of COVID-19 was at its height. To achieve this, we employed the Cyberbullying Circumstance Analysis dataset from the Korea Communications Commission for the time frame of between 2019 and 2020, with 4779 and 4958 participants, respectively. The causes and effects that led to cyberbullying were investigated using binary logistic regression analysis. By reviewing the research data targeted towards Korean adolescents, our analysis found that the average age of those who engage in cyberbullying decreased in 2020 compared to 2019. In addition, cyberbullying awareness at school and the school’s capability of controlling it influenced the number of cyberbullies from a statistical grounding, which could be found only in the 2020 dataset. An approach to establishing policies in schools to contain preemptive measures and increase cyberbullying awareness has been proposed to prevent such mishaps in the post-COVID-19 era.
... However, the inherent peculiarities of the digital world make it difficult to align these traditional criteria of school bullying with those of cyberbullying [8,9]. There are currently authors who defend that cyberbullying should be understood as a subtype of bullying [10] and others who describe it as a separate phenomenon to offline or school bullying [11,12]. This debate generated around the conceptualisation and operationalisation of cyberbullying has been reflected in the disparity of prevalence reported in the literature [13,14], which joins the previous controversy and variability of rates reported for school bullying [15,16]. ...
Full-text available
School bullying and cyberbullying represent the most common forms of victimization during childhood and adolescence in many countries across the globe. Although they can be studied as distinct phenomena with their own defining characteristics, there is evidence to suggest that they are related and often co-occur. The present research aimed to estimate the rates of school bullying and cyberbullying, studied their evolution by age, and analyzed any possible overlap between the two. An empirical study was carried out with a large sample of children and adolescents in Galicia, Spain (N = 2083), where 10–17 year olds were presented with The European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire and European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire. School bullying was found to be more prevalent than cyberbullying, with 25.1% involved as victims and 14.3% as bully-victims, while the cyberbullying rates were 9.4% for victims and 5.8% for bully-victims. Perpetration rates were similar for school and cyberbullying (4.4% and 4.3% respectively). The overlap between both phenomena adds to the evidence for a whole-community approach to tackling all types of bullying and victimization experiences, as opposed to each in silo. The clear age differences in bullying behaviours also suggest the appropriateness of tailoring anti-bullying programs to target specific age groups.
... The negative impact certainly appears to the victims and even to the perpetrators, especially psychological effects. Adolescents who experience cyberbullying both as victims and perpetrators are reported to have high levels of anxiety, high levels of depression (Ayas 2014); (Nixon 2014), increased problems in schools and participation in other real-world behavioral problems (Editorial 2013), even has the idea to kill or commit suicide (Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja 2010a); (Sabella, R. A., Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja 2013). Psychological problems arising from the phenomenon of cyberbullying cannot be considered trivial since several suicides due to cyberbullying are reported in the United States, such as Ryan Halligan, Daniel Briggs, Megan Meier, and Rebecca Sedwick ( ...
Full-text available
Nowadays, with the rapid development of information and communication technologies, smart phones, tablets, computers and the Internet, which are defined as digital media tools, have become indispensable and essential tools in our daily life practices. Children and young people have adapted themselves to this digitalization period more quickly than adults, and perform a high level of frequency of use. While digitalization offers children and young people a liberating way to expand their learning opportunities, access information, express themselves, and maintain social connections with family/friends, it also poses threats coming from the dangerous and dark side of the digital environment. The present study aims to examine the risks of digital applications for children and young people, what the cyber risks that result in bullying and victimization are, and the effects of exposure to these cyber risks on mental health. Raising the awareness of parents, educators and mental health professionals will contribute to develop and apply the protective and preventive mental health approaches for children and young people.
Full-text available
The current study examined cyberbullying of teachers through reports of the victims themselves and those of bystanders who witnessed cyberbullying against their colleagues. Respondents included 269 teachers from across the country who answered self-report questionnaires. The research findings reveal a high incidence of online bullying of teachers, with 52% reporting being victims of online bullying and 77% of the bystanders reporting witnessing such abuse against fellow teachers. Moreover, in middle school homeroom teachers tend to report higher frequency of cyberbullying than do subject-area teachers. Only 22.7% of the bystanders and 21.4% of the victims themselves reported bullying incidents to those in positions of authority. These findings shed light on a behavior that occurs with considerable frequency, though very little attention is paid to it in the field of education. The article discusses the findings’ implications both with respect to the teachers' experience and to the consequences for the students
Detecting Cyberbullying is still an important issue. Existing approaches often rely on advanced techniques including machine learning and Natural Language Processing algorithms. In this paper, we propose an ontology and classifiers-based approach to detect cyberbullying cases in the context of social media. We propose a cyberbullying ontology in terms of cyberbullying categories and representative terms vocabulary. This ontology is used to build and annotate the toxicity of our training dataset extracted from different data sources. Various unit classifiers are used including messages toxicity detection, gender classifier, age estimation, and personality estimation. Outputs of these classifiers can be combined to intercept contents that could be cyberbullying cases.
Full-text available
The occurrence of bullying, victimization, and aggressive victimization was documented in a sample of 5th graders. Bullies comprised about 14% of the sample, whereas aggressive victims and victims comprised, respectively, 5% and 18%. Bullying and aggressive victimization was positively related to youngsters' emotionality and activity and negatively related to peer popularity. Although proactive and reactive aggression was related to bullying scores within the group of bullies, only proactive aggression was related to within-group popularity for bullies. Having friends and being liked by one's peers were protective factors against victimization, although the latter was more powerful than the former. Suggestions for future research, school policy, and intervention are made.
Full-text available
It is estimated that one out of every four teens in the United States has been a victim of bullying. Victims of bullying deal with significant long-term psychological consequences that may include low self-esteem, depression, suicide, and/or violence. In our present day society where the Internet and cell phones are accessed by those of any age, school administrators in particular are having to deal with cyberbullying related issues. The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions that educational leaders and educational leadership students have of cyberbullying in the state of Mississippi. Our results indicate that leaders and students are not only concerned about cyberbullying but also have the desire to ameliorate this issue. In addition, the majority of participants agreed that there is a great need to receive more training on the topic of cyberbullying identification, management, and dissolution.
This study examines the nature and extent of adolescents' cyberbullying experiences, and explores the extent to which various factors, including bullying, culture, and gender, contribute to cyberbullying and cyber victimisation in junior high schools. In this study, one in three adolescents was a cyber victim, one in five was a cyberbully, and over half of the students had either experienced or heard about cyberbullying incidents. Close to half of the cyber victims had no idea who the predators were. Culture and engagement in traditional bullying were strong predictors not only for cyberbullying, but also for cyber victimisation. Gender also played a significant role, as males, compared to their female counterparts, were more likely to be cyberbullies.
This research brief reports the results of a National Education Association (NEA) survey of teachers and education support professionals (ESPs)i thataddresses the problem of bullying in America's public schools. The studyfinds that bullying is not only pervasive in the nation's schools but also widelyperceived by school staff to be a serious problem, particularly in middleschools and in schools located in urban areas. The vast majority of school staffreported that their district had implemented a bullying prevention policy.However, ESPs were significantly less likely than teachers to have receivedformal training or to have been involved in bullying prevention activities, suchas committees, teams, or prevention programs. In light of these disparities, it isnot surprising that, although ESPs were nearly as likely as their teachercounterparts to indicate that it was "their job" to intervene, they expressedsignificantly less comfort in taking action in a wide range of bullyingsituations. The fact that ESPs report high levels of connectedness to theirrespective school communities, combined with evidence that such subjectivefeelings tend to be associated with a greater willingness to intervene, suggeststhat ESPs represent an invaluable resource and should be included in thedesign and implementation of future prevention programs. The very presenceof ESPs in areas throughout the school where bullying regularly occurs-onplaygrounds, school busses, cafeterias and hallways- further substantiatesthis conclusion.
Although bullying and other forms of peer victimization at school are a growing concern, there has been little research examining the potential differences between student and staff perceptions of the frequency of bullying, most common location and forms of bullying, severity of the problem, social norms related to bullying, and responses to witnessing bullying. The data for this study came from a district-wide survey of student (n = 15,185) and staff (n = 1,547) perceptions of and experiences with bullying conducted in 75 elementary, 20 middle, and 14 high schools. Results indicated that staff at all school levels (elementary, middle, and high) underestimated the number of students involved in frequent bullying. Both middle school students and staff tended to report the greatest exposure to and concern about bullying. Staff with greater efficacy for handling bullying situations were more likely to intervene and less likely to make the bullying situation worse. Staff members' own experiences with bullying were predictive of their attitudes toward bullying and perceived efficacy for handling a bullying situation. Implications for prevention and intervention by school psychologists are provided.