- Email: [email protected]
Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research
AVB-00918; No of Pages 6 Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Aggression and Violent Behavior
Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research Justin W. Patchin a, Sameer Hinduja b,⁎ a b
Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 105 Garfield Avenue, Eau Claire, WI 54702, United States School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida Atlantic University, 5353 Parkside Drive, Jupiter, FL 33458-2906, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 17 April 2015 Accepted 13 May 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Cyberbullying Definition Methodology Bullying Adolescence Research
a b s t r a c t Despite a significant amount of attention by both the academic community and society at large, there continues to exist much confusion about both the conceptual and operational definitions of cyberbullying (and by implication, bullying in general). The trouble with this lack of clarity is that it leads to misinformation and misunderstanding about the phenomena at hand, and undermines the ability of various stakeholders to identify, prevent, and respond to these behaviors. In this article, we review the essential elements of cyberbullying that distinguish it from other peer-to-peer online interactions in an effort to inform current-day approaches to its study. We also present a cyberbullying scale that has demonstrated strong initial validity and reliability in ten different surveys involving nearly 15,000 students in the United States. The purpose is to reduce erratic and fitful advancement of our understanding of cyberbullying by fostering more consistency in the way it is measured and analyzed. Through this effort we hope to meaningfully assist those on the front lines of the problem to better know what cyberbullying is, and what it is not. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents 1. 2.
Defining cyberbullying: implications for research The core elements of bullying and cyberbullying 2.1. Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Harm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Imbalance of power . . . . . . . . . . 3. Considerations for research . . . . . . . . . . 4. Operationalizing cyberbullying . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
1. Defining cyberbullying: implications for research It has taken several generations, and numerous tragic accounts of teens suffering from emotional, psychological, behavioral, and physical consequences, but it is safe to say that society has come around to the realization that bullying is a problem that warrants our time, attention, and response (Smith & Brain, 2000). It is now relatively rare to hear a person proclaim that bullying is a “rite of passage,” resiliency training for the “hard knocks of life,” or an otherwise acceptable aspect of adolescent development, even though justifications such as these were regularly offered in the not-so-distant past. But even as we have made ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.W. Patchin), [email protected] (S. Hinduja). URL's: http://www.cyberbullying.us (J.W. Patchin), http://www.cyberbullying.us (S. Hinduja).
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
great strides in illuminating the potential consequences of bullying (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013; Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009), we have struggled to clearly delineate exactly what bullying is (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). The most pernicious forms of bullying are easy to identify. They often involve physical aggression perpetrated against a peer over a long period of time. The more subtle forms, however, can be trickier to pinpoint. For example, what if Student A calls Student B a mean name one time but never again, is it bullying? What if Student A calls Student B that mean name every day for a month? Or what if Student B calls Student A that same name, and both respond with laughter? In each of these cases, the behavior is exactly the same: calling someone a mean name. Among these examples, which is bullying, and which is not? And as researchers, how are we to measure the difference? There has been much debate among scholars, legislators, policymakers, and school administrators about the definition of bullying
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013 1359-1789/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
2
J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
(Finkelhor, Turner, & Hamby, 2012; Smith, del Barrio & Tokunaga, 2013; Volk, Dane, & Marini, 2014). Each seems to conceptualize it differently, largely due to the constraints placed on them by their constituents. For example, researchers need to define it in a way that is measureable; legislators need to refer to it unambiguously so that it can withstand legal scrutiny and not infringe on protected rights; and policymakers need to interpret the research and convert the laws into practical and understandable guidelines for educators. Like traditional bullying, cyberbullying is easy to spot at the extreme end of the spectrum: repeated threats, multiple humiliating posts, and numerous cruel texts are typical examples. But what about that mildly inappropriate online joke directed at no one in particular? Or the post that reads “I'm going to kill you. JK. LOL”? Differentiating the playful, sarcastic, or otherwise innocuous from the deliberately hurtful or patently threatening can be complicated, especially when the content in question lacks context. Researchers have a duty to articulate definitions of bullying and cyberbullying that are valid, reliable, and replicable, but also in ways that can inform the work of school administrators, legislators, and policymakers. Admittedly, this definitional debate matters little for adolescents who are being bullied and cyberbullied, or for the parents and educators charged with addressing it. Whether a particular behavior meets someone's artificially-created criteria for bullying is a lesser priority than dealing with the fallout from victimization. As researchers, however, we are frequently frustrated by the myriad ways bullying (and especially cyberbullying) is defined (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014; Hellström, 2015; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Mehari, Farrell, & Le, 2014; Pieschl, Kuhlmann, & Porsch, 2015; Volk et al., 2014), primarily because these discrepancies make comparisons across different studies difficult, and lead to much confusion about what stakeholders (students, parents, educators, legislators, and other youth-serving professionals) actually are talking about (Ybarra, Boyd, Korchmaros, & Oppenheim, 2012). While all who have explored these problems tend to articulate them in their own unique and varied ways, in this paper we argue that consistency in conceptualization and operationalization is essential. We first discuss the importance of conceptualizing cyberbullying in a way that distinguishes it from other hurtful online peer behaviors by isolating those actions that are repetitive, intentional, harmful, and executed within a relationship where there exists an imbalance of power. While these components are relatively simple to describe, they can prove difficult to operationalize in a research context. We then present our cyberbullying scale, which has been developed and refined over the course of 10 different surveys of over 15,000 middle and high school students in the United States, so that others interested in researching these behaviors can do so with an instrument that has been carefully constructed. Like other scales, ours is not without limitations. We acknowledge these shortcomings and encourage researchers to continue exploring ways to better operationalize bullying and cyberbullying in ways that are valid and reliable. 2. The core elements of bullying and cyberbullying In January of 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Education, and the Health Resources and Services Administration worked with a number of experts across various fields to develop a uniform definition of bullying: Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm. [(Gladden et al., 2014:7)]
This conceptualization is consistent with most previous characterizations of bullying in that a few primary elements stand out. Specifically, bullying is “unwanted aggressive behavior” that “inflicts harm or distress,” and is “repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated” in the context of an “observed or perceived power differential.” This is as good as any definition available, yet it still has limitations. Notably, it fails to acknowledge the importance of intent, a common element in most conceptualizations of bullying. In our first academic paper on the topic, we defined cyberbullying as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text” (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006:152). We very quickly realized, however, that harassing behaviors were also being perpetrated using mediums other than just text (e.g., images) and therefore amended this definition accordingly in subsequent publications (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010, 2015a; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010, 2012). We now conceptually define cyberbullying as: “willful and repeated harm inflicted through computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015a: p11). This definition was informed by, and includes elements common to, longstanding definitions of traditional bullying, focusing on behaviors that are deliberate, occur over time, and result in harm. We don't explicitly refer to an imbalance in power in our definition, but we recognize it as an integral component in many other conceptualizations of bullying and therefore discuss it below as one of the four commonly-included elements that distinguish bullying from other interpersonal harm. 2.1. Repetition Repetition might be the most important, and easily identifiable, element of bullying. If someone accidentally bumps into another person one time in the hallway at school, for example, most would agree that this is not bullying (even if a serious injury is involved). Relatedly, if someone punches another person in the nose just one time—never before, and never again—this also is not bullying (it may be assault—and the perpetrator most likely deserves to be punished—but it is not bullying). Bullying is a specific and unique form of hurtful behavior in that it creates an almost constant concern within the target that additional attacks are imminent. That is, the ongoing nature of bullying fosters a situation where the target continuously worries about what the aggressor will do next (Randa & Wilcox, 2012). For example, the target might alter his or her daily patterns to avoid personal contact with the bully because it is assumed that something bad will happen if they interact. Repetition is also important when it comes to online behaviors. One mean text message or hurtful social media comment is not necessarily cyberbullying. That said, online content can “go viral” much more readily than offline content, and a single post that is visible and shareable by others could be accurately defined as cyberbullying if there is evidence of distribution. If a student posts a single hurtful comment targeting a peer on a publicly-viewable page, that would constitute cyberbullying if the first student knew (or should have known) that the post was visible to others. Other students who promote the post in any way (by sharing, re-tweeting, or favoriting it) may also be contributing to cyberbullying, as the target may be victimized every time that post is viewed by others. 2.2. Intent Also included in most commonly-accepted definitions of bullying is the concept of intent. To be considered bullying, the act in question must be purposeful or “willful;” that is, deliberately done or said to cause harm. Scandinavian researcher Olweus (1993:9), who is arguably most responsible for the current academic interest in the topic, defines bullying as “negative actions” where someone “intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict, injury or discomfort upon another.” Similarly, Smith et al. (2008:376) definition of cyberbullying as: “an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
easily defend him or herself.” Tattum (1989:10) articulates it as a “willful, conscious desire to hurt another person.” By way of example, assume a situation where experienced online gamers accidentally shoot and kill (in the game) a “newbie” who is just learning how to play the game—instead of the enemy they are meant to collectively battle. The novice might believe that it was done intentionally, perhaps to haze him or otherwise give him grief since he is not yet an accepted member of their social circle. The reality, though, is that it was an accident. It would become cyberbullying, however, if the online gaming veterans started to do it on purpose, to annoy, harass, or terrorize the newcomer. Generally speaking, intent is also a fundamental component of criminal law. In order to hold someone criminally responsible, not only must it be established that the person engaged in a wrongful act, but that he or she did so with mens rea; that is, a guilty mind. As such, many state cyberbullying laws also refer to intentional behaviors (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015b). For instance, Louisiana (House Bill No. 1259, 2010) defines cyberbullying as “the transmission of any electronic textual, visual, written, or oral communication with the malicious and willful intent to coerce, abuse, torment, or intimidate a person.” While it can be difficult to incorporate into operationalizations, intent is another crucial element that distinguishes cyberbullying from other hurtful online behaviors. 2.3. Harm Third, in bullying incidents, the person being targeted has to be harmed in some way. The harm could be physical (Dussich & Maekoya, 2007), social (del Barrio Martínez et al., 2008), emotional (Ortega, Elipe, Mora-Merchán, Calmaestra, & Vega, 2009), psychological (Schneider, O'Donnell, Stueve, & Coulter, 2012), or behavioral (Goebert, Else, Matsu, Chung-Do, & Chang, 2011; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). Harm is sometimes less obvious and more complicated to identify and measure—especially in online environments—but has to be present in some form (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Whereas intent is ascertained from the perspective of the aggressor, harm is determined based on the experiences of the target (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Some people have very thick skin and can withstand significant torment before it bothers them. Others are hurt by the slightest affront. However, a dismissive response toward another's articulable and felt harm is itself callous and cruel. It is not for a third party, or even for the offender, to ascertain whether the actions should have led to harm. We must always empathize with the person on the receiving end and assume their pain is legitimate, instead of trivializing what happened—and including the element of harm in both the conceptualization and operationalization of bullying and cyberbullying accounts for this. 2.4. Imbalance of power Like the experts convened by the U.S. Department of Education who were cited above, many scholars of traditional bullying also include a fourth element: an imbalance of power. That is, to be considered bullying, the behaviors must be carried out by an aggressor who has perceived or actual power over their target. For example, bullying has been defined as: “…longstanding violence, physical or psychological, conducted by an individual or a group directed against an individual who is not able to defend himself in the actual situation.” [(Roland, 1989:21)]
“…a form of social interaction in which a more dominant individual [the bully] exhibits aggressive behavior which is intended to and does, in fact, cause distress to a less dominant individual [the victim].” [(Stephenson & Smith, 1989:45)]
3
“(1) aggressive behavior or intentional harm-doing that is (2) carried out repeatedly over time in (3) an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power.” [(Olweus, 1999:13)] Of course, many characteristics can give an aggressor perceived or actual power over a target, such as: popularity, physical strength or stature, social competence, quick wit, extroversion, confidence, intelligence, age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (Olweus, 1978, 1993, 1999; Rigby & Slee, 1993; Roland, 1980; Slee & Rigby, 1993). While physical strength and stature are ostensibly rendered irrelevant when considering hate and harassment exchanged online, it is possible that malicious words or an embarrassing post from an aggressor physically stronger than the target cause more harm than if issued from an aggressor weaker than the target because of the potential follow-up of realworld bullying (since most targets know their aggressors in real life (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015a)). The point is that this characteristic may still be significant, albeit indirectly. It is important, though, to recognize the ways that power might manifest itself differently online. For example, it may be wielded simply due to proficiency with or the knowledge or possession of some content (information, pictures, or video) that can be used to inflict harm. It could be due to the fact that cyberbullying facilitates back-and-forth communication with much more duration in between, which can allow for more devious planning, more heinous responses, and more calculated malice. When viewing the phenomenon from a macro-level perspective, it might be said that anyone who can utilize technology in a way that allows them to mistreat others is in a position of power—at least at that moment—relative to the target of the attack.
3. Considerations for research While there is fairly widespread agreement on the importance of the aforementioned four elements (repetition, intent, harm, and power differential), the research community has struggled to incorporate these elements into a valid and reliable measure (Greif & Furlong, 2006; Greif, Furlong, & Morrison, 2003). Just as troubling, when students themselves are asked to define bullying, they rarely include mention of these four components (Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2011; Vaillancourt et al., 2008). It therefore sometimes seems that collectively we take one step forward, and then two steps backward while attempting to refine our scholarly inquiry in this area. On its face, repetition would seem the easiest to quantify. If a behavior happens more than once, it is repeated. While that is true, simply dichotomizing incidents in a way where behaviors that happened only once or not at all are distinguished from those that happened twice or more fails to capture the nuances of one's lived experiences. We therefore encourage researchers to allow respondents to report what they have dealt with using categories that account for a wide range of experiences. In our surveys, for example, we ask respondents to tell us about lifetime and recent (the previous 30 days) experiences. We feel that if someone has been cyberbullied at any point in their life, they are likely to remember it. Similarly, if someone faced it in the previous 30 days, they are probably pretty clear about when it happened. This strategy helps to reduce recall bias. Some researchers choose to ask about cyberbullying experienced within the previous 6 months or during the current school year. With this practice, though, the timeline of specific incidents can be difficult for respondents to isolate—especially if surveys were administered at different times throughout an academic year. We also ask respondents to tell us whether it happened never, once, a few times, several times, or many times. While these categories are somewhat ambiguous, it does allow us to differentiate quantity in a way that is meaningful. Someone who was cyberbullied a few times, for example, likely has had a different experience than someone who was targeted many times.
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
4
J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Ascertaining intent from the perspective of the target is very difficult (if not impossible). It is likely that any child who was harmed by another will believe it was intentional. While it is challenging to perfectly determine the intent of the aggressor in many peer conflict situations, it is possible that cyberbullied youth know intuitively (if not factually) that what was done to them involves an element of purposed, unsolicited, deliberate cruelty (based on their conceptions of traditional bullying). One way to determine intent is to observe what happens after a student is confronted about their hurtful behavior. If the behaviors continue, especially after being made aware that what was being done was hurtful, then it is clear that the aggressor intended to cause harm. That said, repetition by itself does not automatically mean a behavior is cyberbullying. An aggressor might do or say something to a target many times, but unless he or she is doing it with the mindset of trying to hurt the target (and it actually does), it is not cyberbullying. Even still, it is questionable whether most aggressors are self-reflective and self-aware enough to sensitively recognize their intent before naturally justifying or rationalizing it away and as such freeing themselves to engage in the behavior (Sykes & Matza, 1957). This adds just one more layer of complexity to including the construct of intent when soliciting experiential feedback from youth aggressors and victims. Even though intent should be measured from the perspective of the offender, harm should not. This is because many times those who bully can trivialize how much their actions really affected the person they targeted, perhaps laughing it off or assuming that a “normal” person should be able to handle it. As mentioned before, though, harm must be taken at face value to the target, and is therefore best measured through self-report methods. Again, it must be articulable—perhaps tied to a negative emotional, psychological, physical, or behavioral outcome. It cannot simply be a vague notion, nor an interpretation of the “wrongness” of the action toward him or her. It has to manifest in some specific, tangible, and describable, maladaptive consequence that compromises or reduces a target's well-being on some level. Finally, as difficult as it is to quantify intent and harm, it might be even more difficult to measure a power differential. Ybarra, Espelage, and Mitchell (2014:294) confronted this challenge by specifically asking respondents who reported that they had been bullied whether it was: “…by someone who had more power or strength than you? This could be because the person was bigger than you, had more friends, was more popular, or had more power than you in another way. (Yes/ no).” While this is not the best approach, it does allow researchers to get some sense of the power dynamics involved in bullying. Interestingly, among the students in this study who reported that they had been bullied, less than half stated that they lacked power in the situation. Here again, students seem to have a different perspective on what bullying is, compared to researchers. That said, Ybarra and colleagues also found that those who lacked power were bullied more often than those who did not. With all this in mind, we must ask the question: is “cyberbullying” as measured by researchers actually what students are experiencing, and what they would term as the behavior? Since research findings are wholly dependent on the interpretation by respondents in the studies conducted, how much should we orient our approach toward fixed definitional constructs, and how much toward real-world, palatable notions that students can connect with and respond to? 4. Operationalizing cyberbullying We have not yet developed a measure for cyberbullying that completely and clearly accounts for all of the elements discussed above (and are unaware of anyone who has). We have, however, constructed and refined a scale that we feel most closely approximates the behaviors experienced by youth. Variants of this scale have been administered to over 15,000 middle and high school students in over 100 schools across the United States over the last decade (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015a). Some of the schools were large and ethnically diverse urban environments,
while others were small rural buildings. We intentionally sought to administer surveys to a variety of students in a variety of school settings. When surveying students, we first inform them that “Cyberbullying is when someone repeatedly harasses, mistreats, or makes fun of another person online or while using cell phones or other electronic devices.” As noted above, we ask if students have been cyberbullied ever in their lifetime and whether or not it has happened to them in the previous 30 days. We next ask students if they have experienced any of the following eight distinct behaviors within the previous 30 days: • • • • • • • •
Someone posted mean or hurtful comments about me online. Someone posted a mean or hurtful picture online of me. Someone posted a mean or hurtful video online of me. Someone created a mean or hurtful web page about me. Someone spread rumors about me online. Someone threatened to hurt me through a cell phone text message. Someone threatened to hurt me online. Someone pretended to be me online and acted in a way that was mean or hurtful to me.
The response set for these eight questions, as well as the global question about whether they have been cyberbullied, is: never (0), once (1), a few times (2), several times (3), and many times (4). We then combine responses to these nine questions into our cyberbullying victimization scale. A summary scale could range from 0 to 36 with higher values representing more experience being the target of cyberbullying. We also ask respondents to report on these same nine questions (the global cyberbullying question and the eight specific behaviors) with respect to their own actions toward others: • • • • • • • •
I posted mean or hurtful comments about someone online. I posted a mean or hurtful picture online of someone. I posted a mean or hurtful video online of someone. I spread rumors about someone online. I threatened to hurt someone online. I threatened to hurt someone through a cell phone text message. I created a mean or hurtful web page about someone. I pretended to be someone else online and acted in a way that was mean or hurtful to them.
Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis. Cyberbullying victimization scale
Loadings
1. I have been cyberbullied. .686–.744 2. Someone posted mean or hurtful comments about me online. .765–.813 3. Someone posted a mean or hurtful picture online of me online. .793–.861 4. Someone posted a mean or hurtful video online of me online. .753–.900 5. Someone created a mean or hurtful web page about me. .688–.910 6. Someone spread rumors about me online. .717–.802 7. Someone threatened to hurt me through a cell phone text message. .764–.855 8. Someone threatened to hurt me online. .784–.870 9. Someone pretended to be me online and acted in a way that was .700–.866 mean or hurtful. All loaded onto 1 component; Eigenvalue range 5.51–6.40 (61.22–71.52% of variance) Cronbach's alpha range 0.892–0.935 Cyberbullying offending scale
Loadings
1. I cyberbullied others. 2. I posted mean or hurtful comments about someone online. 3. I posted a mean or hurtful picture online of someone. 4. I posted a mean or hurtful video online of someone. 5. I spread rumors about someone online. 6. I threatened to hurt someone online. 7. I threatened to hurt someone through a cell phone text message. 8. I created a mean or hurtful web page about someone. 9. I pretended to be someone else online and acted in a way that was mean or hurtful to them.
.537–.776 .780–.857 .919–.949 .910–.968 .742–.916 .853–.923 .910–.930 .910–.942 .877–.938
All loaded onto 1 component; Eigenvalue range 5.13–7.34 (57.08–81.57% of variance). Cronbach's alpha range 0.935–0.969.
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
5
Table 2 Inter-item correlations. Cyberbullying victimization scale
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. I have been cyberbullied. 2. Someone posted mean or hurtful comments about me online. 3. Someone posted a mean or hurtful picture online of me online. 4. Someone posted a mean or hurtful video online of me online. 5. Someone created a mean or hurtful web page about me. 6. Someone spread rumors about me online. 7. Someone threatened to hurt me through a cell phone text message. 8. Someone threatened to hurt me online. 9. Someone pretended to be me online and acted in a way that was mean or hurtful.
.43–.64 .36–.57 .30–.58 .37–.59 .35–.51 .37–.54 .42–.60 .35–.55
.62–.67 .49–.67 .36–.63 .63–.72 .50–.68 .57–.70 .35–.64
.70–.89 .55–.87 .55–.63 .47–.69 .58–.71 .41–.77
.57–.92 .44–.62 .48–.72 .54–.73 .50–.77
.29–.69 .39–.73 .44–.75 .60–.78
.65–.70 .61–.66 .53–.66
.75–.80 .53–.70
.53–.73
Cyberbullying victimization scale
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. I cyberbullied others. 2. I posted mean or hurtful comments about someone online. 3. I posted a mean or hurtful picture online of someone. 4. I posted a mean or hurtful video online of someone. 5. I spread rumors about someone online. 6. I threatened to hurt someone online. 7. I threatened to hurt someone through a cell phone text message. 8. I created a mean or hurtful web page about someone. 9. I pretended to be someone else online and acted in a way that was mean or hurtful to them.
.52–.68 .45–.70 .53–.67 .49–.63 .51–.66 .48–.64 .51–.66 .46–.68
.72–.83 .69–.75 .56–.78 .67–.78 .56–.75 .62–.72 .65–.74
.85–.94 .77–.83 .74–.83 .74–.84 .81–.92 .79–.86
.80–.86 .83–.85 .77–.84 .88–.94 .86–.89
.71–.84 .71–.83 .70–.82 .74–.85
.77–.88 .79–.83 .78–.82
.79–.85 .82–.85
.79–.89
These responses are combined to represent our cyberbullying offending scale. Here too the summary scale can range from 0 to 36 with higher values representing more involvement in cyberbullying behaviors. As mentioned, we have used variations of these questions in 10 surveys of students. The most recent 6 surveys have all been random samples of known populations in schools. As noted in Table 1, these scales have demonstrated strong construct validity and internal reliability across all of these recent studies (Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011). In each of the six studies, all factors loaded onto one component and alpha coefficients for both scales surpassed 0.89. Table 2 presents the inter-item correlations for each item in the scales. Each of the correlations are moderately high and statistically significant (p b .001). The cyberbullying items and methodology we proffer above clearly allow us to gauge the construct of repetition. Furthermore, each item inherently assesses harm felt by the victim by clearly describing behaviors that are ubiquitously believed to be hurtful. For the reasons explained earlier, though, we do not specifically include “intent” and “power differential.” Appraising intentionality, especially from the perspective of the target, is clearly subjective, and the element of power imbalance may be completely implicit and thereby moot in any interpersonal behavior where one person is harmed and the other is not. As such, we opt for parsimony in our operationalization of cyberbullying, instead of confounding youth respondents with a definition involving too many elements, particularly if their valueadded benefit is largely unknown, and especially if those that are markedly unclear may further cloud already murky waters of understanding. We are not opposed, however, to researchers who might be interested in supplementing our scale by adding intent and power differential. One could easily add these constructs to our operational definition provided to respondents at the beginning of the survey: “Cyberbullying is when someone intentionally and repeatedly harasses, mistreats, or makes fun of another person online or while using cell phones or other electronic devices in a way in which they don't feel capable of responding.” One could also use the approach employed by Ybarra et al. (2014) and simply ask respondents whether they believed each of the behaviors was done intentionally or carried out by someone who had power over them. While imperfect, this strategy could help us to better understand the importance of repetition, harm, intent, and power differential from the perspective of students.
5. Conclusion Many young people say or do mean things to others, but the vast majority of them do not engage in what is accurately defined as bullying or cyberbullying. Calling all harmful behaviors between peers “bullying” discounts the nuanced experiences of those involved. As Bazelon (2013) has argued, the tendency to paint with this broad-brush stroke leads to confusion and misinformation about various types of harm—and how best to address them. Under most definitions, bullying is much worse than simply being mistreated, pushed, or generally made fun of. To be sure, the difference might simply be in the frequency with which one is targeted. Being pushed in a one-time altercation with a former friend might not be bullying, whereas being pushed by this same person several times over several days, weeks, or months is. A one-time backhanded comment to another's social media selfie may be considered mean, but doing so every day for weeks clearly crosses a line. Frequency does matter. Without a doubt, being targeted over and over again, even with relatively mild forms of mistreatment, eventually takes a toll. Likewise, characterizing all harmful behaviors as bullying may also diminish the seriousness of incidents that are much worse than the term conveys. For example, if a student is attacked on the playground in a one-time incident, this is not bullying. Even if the student is physically beaten so severely that she ends up in the hospital for a week, it is still not bullying. It is assault, and should be identified and treated as such. If the assault is linked to other behaviors previously or subsequently perpetrated by the aggressor toward the target, then perhaps it is accurate to define the trajectory of events as bullying. In isolation, a one-time act—no matter how serious—is not bullying. Similarly, repeatedly threatening to kill someone online would fall under most definitions of cyberbullying, yet is more accurately described and dealt with as the threat it really is. In the same way, unwanted obscene online comments directed at one's status as a woman should be referred to as sexual harassment, not cyberbullying. The four criteria discussed above (repetition, intent, harm, and power differential) are widely acknowledged to differentiate bullying from other hurtful behaviors, and such parameters contribute to making its examination more manageable and exact. While our operationalization offered here does not solve all of the challenges presented by incorporating conceptual ideals into measurable components, it has demonstrated promising preliminary validity and reliability. Those interested in isolating more precisely the role of intent or power differential (elements not explicitly included in our measures) could easily incorporate those elements into modified versions of our scales or by simply asking specific
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
6
J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
follow-up questions as other researchers have done. We certainly encourage bullying scholars to continue to advance our understanding of these behaviors by brainstorming new approaches, and carefully working to develop instruments that most accurately capture the necessary attributes. References Bazelon, E. (2013). Sticks and stones: Defeating the culture of bullying and rediscovering the power of character and empathy. Random House Incorporated. Copeland, W.E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E.J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry, 70(4), 419–426. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2011). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: Do these criteria conform to teenagers' perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 0886260511431436. del Barrio Martínez, C., Ortega, E.M., García-Celay, I.M., Rodríguez, H.G., Fernández, A.B., & De Dios, M.J. (2008). Bullying and social exclusion in Spanish secondary schools: National trends from 999 to 006. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 8(3), 657–677. Dussich, J.P., & Maekoya, C. (2007). Physical child harm and bullying-related behaviors: A comparative study in Japan, South Africa, and the United States. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Esbensen, F. -A., & Carson, D.C. (2009). Consequences of being bullied results from a longitudinal assessment of bullying victimization in a multisite sample of American students. Youth and Society, 41(2), 209–233. Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–383. Finkelhor, D., Turner, H.A., & Hamby, S. (2012). Let's prevent peer victimization, not just bullying. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(4), 271–274. Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123(3), 1059–1065. Gladden, R.M., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Hamburger, M.E., & Lumpkin, C.D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullyingdefinitions-final-a.pdf Goebert, D., Else, I., Matsu, C., Chung-Do, J., & Chang, J.Y. (2011). The impact of cyberbullying on substance use and mental health in a multiethnic sample. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(8), 1282–1286. Greif, J.L., & Furlong, M.J. (2006). The assessment of school bullying: Using theory to inform practice. Journal of School Violence, 5(3), 33–50. Greif, J.L., Furlong, M.J., & Morrison, G. (2003). Operationally defining bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(11), 1134–1135. Hamburger, M.E., Basile, K.C., & Vivolo, A.M. (2011). Measuring bullying victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment tools. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention. Hellström, L. (2015). Measuring peer victimization and school leadership: A study of definitions, measurement methods and associations with psychosomatic health. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89–112. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1300/J202v06n03_06. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2010.494133. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2015a). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2015b). Bullying and cyberbullying laws — January 2015. http://www.cyberbullying.us/Bullying-and-Cyberbullying-Laws.pdf House Bill No. 1259 (2010). State of Louisiana. Act No. 989. Creates the crime of cyberbullying. Kowalski, R.M., Giumetti, G.W., Schroeder, A.N., & Lattanner, M.R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth.
Mehari, K.R., Farrell, A.D., & Le, A. -T.H. (2014). Cyberbullying among adolescents: Measures in search of a construct. Psychology of Violence, 4(4), 399. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools. Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press (Wiley). Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (1999). Norway. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), Nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 10–11). London: Routledge. Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J.A., Calmaestra, J., & Vega, E. (2009). The emotional impact on victims of traditional bullying and cyberbullying: A study of Spanish adolescents. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 197. Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169. http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/1541204006286288. Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80(12), 616–623. Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Preventing and responding to cyberbullying: Expert perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Routledge. Pieschl, S., Kuhlmann, C., & Porsch, T. (2015). Beware of publicity! Perceived distress of negative cyber incidents and implications for defining cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 14(1), 111–132. Randa, R., & Wilcox, P. (2012). Avoidance at school further specifying the influence of disorder, victimization, and fear. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(2), 190–204. Rigby, K., & Slee, P.T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australian school children and their implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 33–42. Roland, E. (1980). Terror i skolen. Stavanger, Norway: Rogaland Research Institute. Roland, E. (1989). Bullying: The Scandinavian research tradition. In D.P. Tattum, & D.A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 21–32). Stroke-on-Trent, Great Britain: Trentham. Schneider, S.K., O'Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R.W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171–177. Slee, P.T., & Rigby, K. (1993). The relationship of Eysenck's personality factors and self esteem to bully/victim behaviour in Australian school boys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371–373. Smith, P.K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research. Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 1–9. Smith, P.K., del Barrio, C., & Tokunaga, R.S. (2013). Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms. Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures and methodology, 26–45. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610. 2007.01846.x. Stephenson, P., & Smith, D. (1989). Bullying in junior school. In D.P.T.D.A. Lane (Ed.), Bullying in schools (pp. 45–58). Stroke-on-Trent, Great Britain: Trentham. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670. Tattum, D.P. (1989). Violence and aggression in schools. In D.P. Tattum, & D.A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 7–19). Stroke-on-Trent, Great Britain: Trentham. Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., et al. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(6), 486–495. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499–503. Volk, A.A., Dane, A.V., & Marini, Z.A. (2014). What is bullying? A theoretical redefinition. Developmental Review, 34(4), 327–343. Ybarra, M.L., Boyd, D., Korchmaros, J.D., & Oppenheim, J.K. (2012). Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 53–58. Ybarra, M.L., Espelage, D.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: the importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(2), 293–300.
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Aggression and Violent Behavior
Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research Justin W. Patchin a, Sameer Hinduja b,⁎ a b
Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 105 Garfield Avenue, Eau Claire, WI 54702, United States School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida Atlantic University, 5353 Parkside Drive, Jupiter, FL 33458-2906, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 17 April 2015 Accepted 13 May 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Cyberbullying Definition Methodology Bullying Adolescence Research
a b s t r a c t Despite a significant amount of attention by both the academic community and society at large, there continues to exist much confusion about both the conceptual and operational definitions of cyberbullying (and by implication, bullying in general). The trouble with this lack of clarity is that it leads to misinformation and misunderstanding about the phenomena at hand, and undermines the ability of various stakeholders to identify, prevent, and respond to these behaviors. In this article, we review the essential elements of cyberbullying that distinguish it from other peer-to-peer online interactions in an effort to inform current-day approaches to its study. We also present a cyberbullying scale that has demonstrated strong initial validity and reliability in ten different surveys involving nearly 15,000 students in the United States. The purpose is to reduce erratic and fitful advancement of our understanding of cyberbullying by fostering more consistency in the way it is measured and analyzed. Through this effort we hope to meaningfully assist those on the front lines of the problem to better know what cyberbullying is, and what it is not. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents 1. 2.
Defining cyberbullying: implications for research The core elements of bullying and cyberbullying 2.1. Repetition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Harm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Imbalance of power . . . . . . . . . . 3. Considerations for research . . . . . . . . . . 4. Operationalizing cyberbullying . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
1. Defining cyberbullying: implications for research It has taken several generations, and numerous tragic accounts of teens suffering from emotional, psychological, behavioral, and physical consequences, but it is safe to say that society has come around to the realization that bullying is a problem that warrants our time, attention, and response (Smith & Brain, 2000). It is now relatively rare to hear a person proclaim that bullying is a “rite of passage,” resiliency training for the “hard knocks of life,” or an otherwise acceptable aspect of adolescent development, even though justifications such as these were regularly offered in the not-so-distant past. But even as we have made ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.W. Patchin), [email protected] (S. Hinduja). URL's: http://www.cyberbullying.us (J.W. Patchin), http://www.cyberbullying.us (S. Hinduja).
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
great strides in illuminating the potential consequences of bullying (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013; Esbensen & Carson, 2009; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009), we have struggled to clearly delineate exactly what bullying is (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). The most pernicious forms of bullying are easy to identify. They often involve physical aggression perpetrated against a peer over a long period of time. The more subtle forms, however, can be trickier to pinpoint. For example, what if Student A calls Student B a mean name one time but never again, is it bullying? What if Student A calls Student B that mean name every day for a month? Or what if Student B calls Student A that same name, and both respond with laughter? In each of these cases, the behavior is exactly the same: calling someone a mean name. Among these examples, which is bullying, and which is not? And as researchers, how are we to measure the difference? There has been much debate among scholars, legislators, policymakers, and school administrators about the definition of bullying
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013 1359-1789/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
2
J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
(Finkelhor, Turner, & Hamby, 2012; Smith, del Barrio & Tokunaga, 2013; Volk, Dane, & Marini, 2014). Each seems to conceptualize it differently, largely due to the constraints placed on them by their constituents. For example, researchers need to define it in a way that is measureable; legislators need to refer to it unambiguously so that it can withstand legal scrutiny and not infringe on protected rights; and policymakers need to interpret the research and convert the laws into practical and understandable guidelines for educators. Like traditional bullying, cyberbullying is easy to spot at the extreme end of the spectrum: repeated threats, multiple humiliating posts, and numerous cruel texts are typical examples. But what about that mildly inappropriate online joke directed at no one in particular? Or the post that reads “I'm going to kill you. JK. LOL”? Differentiating the playful, sarcastic, or otherwise innocuous from the deliberately hurtful or patently threatening can be complicated, especially when the content in question lacks context. Researchers have a duty to articulate definitions of bullying and cyberbullying that are valid, reliable, and replicable, but also in ways that can inform the work of school administrators, legislators, and policymakers. Admittedly, this definitional debate matters little for adolescents who are being bullied and cyberbullied, or for the parents and educators charged with addressing it. Whether a particular behavior meets someone's artificially-created criteria for bullying is a lesser priority than dealing with the fallout from victimization. As researchers, however, we are frequently frustrated by the myriad ways bullying (and especially cyberbullying) is defined (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014; Hellström, 2015; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Mehari, Farrell, & Le, 2014; Pieschl, Kuhlmann, & Porsch, 2015; Volk et al., 2014), primarily because these discrepancies make comparisons across different studies difficult, and lead to much confusion about what stakeholders (students, parents, educators, legislators, and other youth-serving professionals) actually are talking about (Ybarra, Boyd, Korchmaros, & Oppenheim, 2012). While all who have explored these problems tend to articulate them in their own unique and varied ways, in this paper we argue that consistency in conceptualization and operationalization is essential. We first discuss the importance of conceptualizing cyberbullying in a way that distinguishes it from other hurtful online peer behaviors by isolating those actions that are repetitive, intentional, harmful, and executed within a relationship where there exists an imbalance of power. While these components are relatively simple to describe, they can prove difficult to operationalize in a research context. We then present our cyberbullying scale, which has been developed and refined over the course of 10 different surveys of over 15,000 middle and high school students in the United States, so that others interested in researching these behaviors can do so with an instrument that has been carefully constructed. Like other scales, ours is not without limitations. We acknowledge these shortcomings and encourage researchers to continue exploring ways to better operationalize bullying and cyberbullying in ways that are valid and reliable. 2. The core elements of bullying and cyberbullying In January of 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Education, and the Health Resources and Services Administration worked with a number of experts across various fields to develop a uniform definition of bullying: Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm. [(Gladden et al., 2014:7)]
This conceptualization is consistent with most previous characterizations of bullying in that a few primary elements stand out. Specifically, bullying is “unwanted aggressive behavior” that “inflicts harm or distress,” and is “repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated” in the context of an “observed or perceived power differential.” This is as good as any definition available, yet it still has limitations. Notably, it fails to acknowledge the importance of intent, a common element in most conceptualizations of bullying. In our first academic paper on the topic, we defined cyberbullying as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text” (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006:152). We very quickly realized, however, that harassing behaviors were also being perpetrated using mediums other than just text (e.g., images) and therefore amended this definition accordingly in subsequent publications (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010, 2015a; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010, 2012). We now conceptually define cyberbullying as: “willful and repeated harm inflicted through computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015a: p11). This definition was informed by, and includes elements common to, longstanding definitions of traditional bullying, focusing on behaviors that are deliberate, occur over time, and result in harm. We don't explicitly refer to an imbalance in power in our definition, but we recognize it as an integral component in many other conceptualizations of bullying and therefore discuss it below as one of the four commonly-included elements that distinguish bullying from other interpersonal harm. 2.1. Repetition Repetition might be the most important, and easily identifiable, element of bullying. If someone accidentally bumps into another person one time in the hallway at school, for example, most would agree that this is not bullying (even if a serious injury is involved). Relatedly, if someone punches another person in the nose just one time—never before, and never again—this also is not bullying (it may be assault—and the perpetrator most likely deserves to be punished—but it is not bullying). Bullying is a specific and unique form of hurtful behavior in that it creates an almost constant concern within the target that additional attacks are imminent. That is, the ongoing nature of bullying fosters a situation where the target continuously worries about what the aggressor will do next (Randa & Wilcox, 2012). For example, the target might alter his or her daily patterns to avoid personal contact with the bully because it is assumed that something bad will happen if they interact. Repetition is also important when it comes to online behaviors. One mean text message or hurtful social media comment is not necessarily cyberbullying. That said, online content can “go viral” much more readily than offline content, and a single post that is visible and shareable by others could be accurately defined as cyberbullying if there is evidence of distribution. If a student posts a single hurtful comment targeting a peer on a publicly-viewable page, that would constitute cyberbullying if the first student knew (or should have known) that the post was visible to others. Other students who promote the post in any way (by sharing, re-tweeting, or favoriting it) may also be contributing to cyberbullying, as the target may be victimized every time that post is viewed by others. 2.2. Intent Also included in most commonly-accepted definitions of bullying is the concept of intent. To be considered bullying, the act in question must be purposeful or “willful;” that is, deliberately done or said to cause harm. Scandinavian researcher Olweus (1993:9), who is arguably most responsible for the current academic interest in the topic, defines bullying as “negative actions” where someone “intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict, injury or discomfort upon another.” Similarly, Smith et al. (2008:376) definition of cyberbullying as: “an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
easily defend him or herself.” Tattum (1989:10) articulates it as a “willful, conscious desire to hurt another person.” By way of example, assume a situation where experienced online gamers accidentally shoot and kill (in the game) a “newbie” who is just learning how to play the game—instead of the enemy they are meant to collectively battle. The novice might believe that it was done intentionally, perhaps to haze him or otherwise give him grief since he is not yet an accepted member of their social circle. The reality, though, is that it was an accident. It would become cyberbullying, however, if the online gaming veterans started to do it on purpose, to annoy, harass, or terrorize the newcomer. Generally speaking, intent is also a fundamental component of criminal law. In order to hold someone criminally responsible, not only must it be established that the person engaged in a wrongful act, but that he or she did so with mens rea; that is, a guilty mind. As such, many state cyberbullying laws also refer to intentional behaviors (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015b). For instance, Louisiana (House Bill No. 1259, 2010) defines cyberbullying as “the transmission of any electronic textual, visual, written, or oral communication with the malicious and willful intent to coerce, abuse, torment, or intimidate a person.” While it can be difficult to incorporate into operationalizations, intent is another crucial element that distinguishes cyberbullying from other hurtful online behaviors. 2.3. Harm Third, in bullying incidents, the person being targeted has to be harmed in some way. The harm could be physical (Dussich & Maekoya, 2007), social (del Barrio Martínez et al., 2008), emotional (Ortega, Elipe, Mora-Merchán, Calmaestra, & Vega, 2009), psychological (Schneider, O'Donnell, Stueve, & Coulter, 2012), or behavioral (Goebert, Else, Matsu, Chung-Do, & Chang, 2011; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007). Harm is sometimes less obvious and more complicated to identify and measure—especially in online environments—but has to be present in some form (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Whereas intent is ascertained from the perspective of the aggressor, harm is determined based on the experiences of the target (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). Some people have very thick skin and can withstand significant torment before it bothers them. Others are hurt by the slightest affront. However, a dismissive response toward another's articulable and felt harm is itself callous and cruel. It is not for a third party, or even for the offender, to ascertain whether the actions should have led to harm. We must always empathize with the person on the receiving end and assume their pain is legitimate, instead of trivializing what happened—and including the element of harm in both the conceptualization and operationalization of bullying and cyberbullying accounts for this. 2.4. Imbalance of power Like the experts convened by the U.S. Department of Education who were cited above, many scholars of traditional bullying also include a fourth element: an imbalance of power. That is, to be considered bullying, the behaviors must be carried out by an aggressor who has perceived or actual power over their target. For example, bullying has been defined as: “…longstanding violence, physical or psychological, conducted by an individual or a group directed against an individual who is not able to defend himself in the actual situation.” [(Roland, 1989:21)]
“…a form of social interaction in which a more dominant individual [the bully] exhibits aggressive behavior which is intended to and does, in fact, cause distress to a less dominant individual [the victim].” [(Stephenson & Smith, 1989:45)]
3
“(1) aggressive behavior or intentional harm-doing that is (2) carried out repeatedly over time in (3) an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power.” [(Olweus, 1999:13)] Of course, many characteristics can give an aggressor perceived or actual power over a target, such as: popularity, physical strength or stature, social competence, quick wit, extroversion, confidence, intelligence, age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (Olweus, 1978, 1993, 1999; Rigby & Slee, 1993; Roland, 1980; Slee & Rigby, 1993). While physical strength and stature are ostensibly rendered irrelevant when considering hate and harassment exchanged online, it is possible that malicious words or an embarrassing post from an aggressor physically stronger than the target cause more harm than if issued from an aggressor weaker than the target because of the potential follow-up of realworld bullying (since most targets know their aggressors in real life (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015a)). The point is that this characteristic may still be significant, albeit indirectly. It is important, though, to recognize the ways that power might manifest itself differently online. For example, it may be wielded simply due to proficiency with or the knowledge or possession of some content (information, pictures, or video) that can be used to inflict harm. It could be due to the fact that cyberbullying facilitates back-and-forth communication with much more duration in between, which can allow for more devious planning, more heinous responses, and more calculated malice. When viewing the phenomenon from a macro-level perspective, it might be said that anyone who can utilize technology in a way that allows them to mistreat others is in a position of power—at least at that moment—relative to the target of the attack.
3. Considerations for research While there is fairly widespread agreement on the importance of the aforementioned four elements (repetition, intent, harm, and power differential), the research community has struggled to incorporate these elements into a valid and reliable measure (Greif & Furlong, 2006; Greif, Furlong, & Morrison, 2003). Just as troubling, when students themselves are asked to define bullying, they rarely include mention of these four components (Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2011; Vaillancourt et al., 2008). It therefore sometimes seems that collectively we take one step forward, and then two steps backward while attempting to refine our scholarly inquiry in this area. On its face, repetition would seem the easiest to quantify. If a behavior happens more than once, it is repeated. While that is true, simply dichotomizing incidents in a way where behaviors that happened only once or not at all are distinguished from those that happened twice or more fails to capture the nuances of one's lived experiences. We therefore encourage researchers to allow respondents to report what they have dealt with using categories that account for a wide range of experiences. In our surveys, for example, we ask respondents to tell us about lifetime and recent (the previous 30 days) experiences. We feel that if someone has been cyberbullied at any point in their life, they are likely to remember it. Similarly, if someone faced it in the previous 30 days, they are probably pretty clear about when it happened. This strategy helps to reduce recall bias. Some researchers choose to ask about cyberbullying experienced within the previous 6 months or during the current school year. With this practice, though, the timeline of specific incidents can be difficult for respondents to isolate—especially if surveys were administered at different times throughout an academic year. We also ask respondents to tell us whether it happened never, once, a few times, several times, or many times. While these categories are somewhat ambiguous, it does allow us to differentiate quantity in a way that is meaningful. Someone who was cyberbullied a few times, for example, likely has had a different experience than someone who was targeted many times.
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
4
J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Ascertaining intent from the perspective of the target is very difficult (if not impossible). It is likely that any child who was harmed by another will believe it was intentional. While it is challenging to perfectly determine the intent of the aggressor in many peer conflict situations, it is possible that cyberbullied youth know intuitively (if not factually) that what was done to them involves an element of purposed, unsolicited, deliberate cruelty (based on their conceptions of traditional bullying). One way to determine intent is to observe what happens after a student is confronted about their hurtful behavior. If the behaviors continue, especially after being made aware that what was being done was hurtful, then it is clear that the aggressor intended to cause harm. That said, repetition by itself does not automatically mean a behavior is cyberbullying. An aggressor might do or say something to a target many times, but unless he or she is doing it with the mindset of trying to hurt the target (and it actually does), it is not cyberbullying. Even still, it is questionable whether most aggressors are self-reflective and self-aware enough to sensitively recognize their intent before naturally justifying or rationalizing it away and as such freeing themselves to engage in the behavior (Sykes & Matza, 1957). This adds just one more layer of complexity to including the construct of intent when soliciting experiential feedback from youth aggressors and victims. Even though intent should be measured from the perspective of the offender, harm should not. This is because many times those who bully can trivialize how much their actions really affected the person they targeted, perhaps laughing it off or assuming that a “normal” person should be able to handle it. As mentioned before, though, harm must be taken at face value to the target, and is therefore best measured through self-report methods. Again, it must be articulable—perhaps tied to a negative emotional, psychological, physical, or behavioral outcome. It cannot simply be a vague notion, nor an interpretation of the “wrongness” of the action toward him or her. It has to manifest in some specific, tangible, and describable, maladaptive consequence that compromises or reduces a target's well-being on some level. Finally, as difficult as it is to quantify intent and harm, it might be even more difficult to measure a power differential. Ybarra, Espelage, and Mitchell (2014:294) confronted this challenge by specifically asking respondents who reported that they had been bullied whether it was: “…by someone who had more power or strength than you? This could be because the person was bigger than you, had more friends, was more popular, or had more power than you in another way. (Yes/ no).” While this is not the best approach, it does allow researchers to get some sense of the power dynamics involved in bullying. Interestingly, among the students in this study who reported that they had been bullied, less than half stated that they lacked power in the situation. Here again, students seem to have a different perspective on what bullying is, compared to researchers. That said, Ybarra and colleagues also found that those who lacked power were bullied more often than those who did not. With all this in mind, we must ask the question: is “cyberbullying” as measured by researchers actually what students are experiencing, and what they would term as the behavior? Since research findings are wholly dependent on the interpretation by respondents in the studies conducted, how much should we orient our approach toward fixed definitional constructs, and how much toward real-world, palatable notions that students can connect with and respond to? 4. Operationalizing cyberbullying We have not yet developed a measure for cyberbullying that completely and clearly accounts for all of the elements discussed above (and are unaware of anyone who has). We have, however, constructed and refined a scale that we feel most closely approximates the behaviors experienced by youth. Variants of this scale have been administered to over 15,000 middle and high school students in over 100 schools across the United States over the last decade (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015a). Some of the schools were large and ethnically diverse urban environments,
while others were small rural buildings. We intentionally sought to administer surveys to a variety of students in a variety of school settings. When surveying students, we first inform them that “Cyberbullying is when someone repeatedly harasses, mistreats, or makes fun of another person online or while using cell phones or other electronic devices.” As noted above, we ask if students have been cyberbullied ever in their lifetime and whether or not it has happened to them in the previous 30 days. We next ask students if they have experienced any of the following eight distinct behaviors within the previous 30 days: • • • • • • • •
Someone posted mean or hurtful comments about me online. Someone posted a mean or hurtful picture online of me. Someone posted a mean or hurtful video online of me. Someone created a mean or hurtful web page about me. Someone spread rumors about me online. Someone threatened to hurt me through a cell phone text message. Someone threatened to hurt me online. Someone pretended to be me online and acted in a way that was mean or hurtful to me.
The response set for these eight questions, as well as the global question about whether they have been cyberbullied, is: never (0), once (1), a few times (2), several times (3), and many times (4). We then combine responses to these nine questions into our cyberbullying victimization scale. A summary scale could range from 0 to 36 with higher values representing more experience being the target of cyberbullying. We also ask respondents to report on these same nine questions (the global cyberbullying question and the eight specific behaviors) with respect to their own actions toward others: • • • • • • • •
I posted mean or hurtful comments about someone online. I posted a mean or hurtful picture online of someone. I posted a mean or hurtful video online of someone. I spread rumors about someone online. I threatened to hurt someone online. I threatened to hurt someone through a cell phone text message. I created a mean or hurtful web page about someone. I pretended to be someone else online and acted in a way that was mean or hurtful to them.
Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis. Cyberbullying victimization scale
Loadings
1. I have been cyberbullied. .686–.744 2. Someone posted mean or hurtful comments about me online. .765–.813 3. Someone posted a mean or hurtful picture online of me online. .793–.861 4. Someone posted a mean or hurtful video online of me online. .753–.900 5. Someone created a mean or hurtful web page about me. .688–.910 6. Someone spread rumors about me online. .717–.802 7. Someone threatened to hurt me through a cell phone text message. .764–.855 8. Someone threatened to hurt me online. .784–.870 9. Someone pretended to be me online and acted in a way that was .700–.866 mean or hurtful. All loaded onto 1 component; Eigenvalue range 5.51–6.40 (61.22–71.52% of variance) Cronbach's alpha range 0.892–0.935 Cyberbullying offending scale
Loadings
1. I cyberbullied others. 2. I posted mean or hurtful comments about someone online. 3. I posted a mean or hurtful picture online of someone. 4. I posted a mean or hurtful video online of someone. 5. I spread rumors about someone online. 6. I threatened to hurt someone online. 7. I threatened to hurt someone through a cell phone text message. 8. I created a mean or hurtful web page about someone. 9. I pretended to be someone else online and acted in a way that was mean or hurtful to them.
.537–.776 .780–.857 .919–.949 .910–.968 .742–.916 .853–.923 .910–.930 .910–.942 .877–.938
All loaded onto 1 component; Eigenvalue range 5.13–7.34 (57.08–81.57% of variance). Cronbach's alpha range 0.935–0.969.
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
5
Table 2 Inter-item correlations. Cyberbullying victimization scale
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. I have been cyberbullied. 2. Someone posted mean or hurtful comments about me online. 3. Someone posted a mean or hurtful picture online of me online. 4. Someone posted a mean or hurtful video online of me online. 5. Someone created a mean or hurtful web page about me. 6. Someone spread rumors about me online. 7. Someone threatened to hurt me through a cell phone text message. 8. Someone threatened to hurt me online. 9. Someone pretended to be me online and acted in a way that was mean or hurtful.
.43–.64 .36–.57 .30–.58 .37–.59 .35–.51 .37–.54 .42–.60 .35–.55
.62–.67 .49–.67 .36–.63 .63–.72 .50–.68 .57–.70 .35–.64
.70–.89 .55–.87 .55–.63 .47–.69 .58–.71 .41–.77
.57–.92 .44–.62 .48–.72 .54–.73 .50–.77
.29–.69 .39–.73 .44–.75 .60–.78
.65–.70 .61–.66 .53–.66
.75–.80 .53–.70
.53–.73
Cyberbullying victimization scale
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. I cyberbullied others. 2. I posted mean or hurtful comments about someone online. 3. I posted a mean or hurtful picture online of someone. 4. I posted a mean or hurtful video online of someone. 5. I spread rumors about someone online. 6. I threatened to hurt someone online. 7. I threatened to hurt someone through a cell phone text message. 8. I created a mean or hurtful web page about someone. 9. I pretended to be someone else online and acted in a way that was mean or hurtful to them.
.52–.68 .45–.70 .53–.67 .49–.63 .51–.66 .48–.64 .51–.66 .46–.68
.72–.83 .69–.75 .56–.78 .67–.78 .56–.75 .62–.72 .65–.74
.85–.94 .77–.83 .74–.83 .74–.84 .81–.92 .79–.86
.80–.86 .83–.85 .77–.84 .88–.94 .86–.89
.71–.84 .71–.83 .70–.82 .74–.85
.77–.88 .79–.83 .78–.82
.79–.85 .82–.85
.79–.89
These responses are combined to represent our cyberbullying offending scale. Here too the summary scale can range from 0 to 36 with higher values representing more involvement in cyberbullying behaviors. As mentioned, we have used variations of these questions in 10 surveys of students. The most recent 6 surveys have all been random samples of known populations in schools. As noted in Table 1, these scales have demonstrated strong construct validity and internal reliability across all of these recent studies (Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011). In each of the six studies, all factors loaded onto one component and alpha coefficients for both scales surpassed 0.89. Table 2 presents the inter-item correlations for each item in the scales. Each of the correlations are moderately high and statistically significant (p b .001). The cyberbullying items and methodology we proffer above clearly allow us to gauge the construct of repetition. Furthermore, each item inherently assesses harm felt by the victim by clearly describing behaviors that are ubiquitously believed to be hurtful. For the reasons explained earlier, though, we do not specifically include “intent” and “power differential.” Appraising intentionality, especially from the perspective of the target, is clearly subjective, and the element of power imbalance may be completely implicit and thereby moot in any interpersonal behavior where one person is harmed and the other is not. As such, we opt for parsimony in our operationalization of cyberbullying, instead of confounding youth respondents with a definition involving too many elements, particularly if their valueadded benefit is largely unknown, and especially if those that are markedly unclear may further cloud already murky waters of understanding. We are not opposed, however, to researchers who might be interested in supplementing our scale by adding intent and power differential. One could easily add these constructs to our operational definition provided to respondents at the beginning of the survey: “Cyberbullying is when someone intentionally and repeatedly harasses, mistreats, or makes fun of another person online or while using cell phones or other electronic devices in a way in which they don't feel capable of responding.” One could also use the approach employed by Ybarra et al. (2014) and simply ask respondents whether they believed each of the behaviors was done intentionally or carried out by someone who had power over them. While imperfect, this strategy could help us to better understand the importance of repetition, harm, intent, and power differential from the perspective of students.
5. Conclusion Many young people say or do mean things to others, but the vast majority of them do not engage in what is accurately defined as bullying or cyberbullying. Calling all harmful behaviors between peers “bullying” discounts the nuanced experiences of those involved. As Bazelon (2013) has argued, the tendency to paint with this broad-brush stroke leads to confusion and misinformation about various types of harm—and how best to address them. Under most definitions, bullying is much worse than simply being mistreated, pushed, or generally made fun of. To be sure, the difference might simply be in the frequency with which one is targeted. Being pushed in a one-time altercation with a former friend might not be bullying, whereas being pushed by this same person several times over several days, weeks, or months is. A one-time backhanded comment to another's social media selfie may be considered mean, but doing so every day for weeks clearly crosses a line. Frequency does matter. Without a doubt, being targeted over and over again, even with relatively mild forms of mistreatment, eventually takes a toll. Likewise, characterizing all harmful behaviors as bullying may also diminish the seriousness of incidents that are much worse than the term conveys. For example, if a student is attacked on the playground in a one-time incident, this is not bullying. Even if the student is physically beaten so severely that she ends up in the hospital for a week, it is still not bullying. It is assault, and should be identified and treated as such. If the assault is linked to other behaviors previously or subsequently perpetrated by the aggressor toward the target, then perhaps it is accurate to define the trajectory of events as bullying. In isolation, a one-time act—no matter how serious—is not bullying. Similarly, repeatedly threatening to kill someone online would fall under most definitions of cyberbullying, yet is more accurately described and dealt with as the threat it really is. In the same way, unwanted obscene online comments directed at one's status as a woman should be referred to as sexual harassment, not cyberbullying. The four criteria discussed above (repetition, intent, harm, and power differential) are widely acknowledged to differentiate bullying from other hurtful behaviors, and such parameters contribute to making its examination more manageable and exact. While our operationalization offered here does not solve all of the challenges presented by incorporating conceptual ideals into measurable components, it has demonstrated promising preliminary validity and reliability. Those interested in isolating more precisely the role of intent or power differential (elements not explicitly included in our measures) could easily incorporate those elements into modified versions of our scales or by simply asking specific
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013
6
J.W. Patchin, S. Hinduja / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
follow-up questions as other researchers have done. We certainly encourage bullying scholars to continue to advance our understanding of these behaviors by brainstorming new approaches, and carefully working to develop instruments that most accurately capture the necessary attributes. References Bazelon, E. (2013). Sticks and stones: Defeating the culture of bullying and rediscovering the power of character and empathy. Random House Incorporated. Copeland, W.E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E.J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry, 70(4), 419–426. Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2011). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: Do these criteria conform to teenagers' perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 0886260511431436. del Barrio Martínez, C., Ortega, E.M., García-Celay, I.M., Rodríguez, H.G., Fernández, A.B., & De Dios, M.J. (2008). Bullying and social exclusion in Spanish secondary schools: National trends from 999 to 006. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 8(3), 657–677. Dussich, J.P., & Maekoya, C. (2007). Physical child harm and bullying-related behaviors: A comparative study in Japan, South Africa, and the United States. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Esbensen, F. -A., & Carson, D.C. (2009). Consequences of being bullied results from a longitudinal assessment of bullying victimization in a multisite sample of American students. Youth and Society, 41(2), 209–233. Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–383. Finkelhor, D., Turner, H.A., & Hamby, S. (2012). Let's prevent peer victimization, not just bullying. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(4), 271–274. Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123(3), 1059–1065. Gladden, R.M., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Hamburger, M.E., & Lumpkin, C.D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullyingdefinitions-final-a.pdf Goebert, D., Else, I., Matsu, C., Chung-Do, J., & Chang, J.Y. (2011). The impact of cyberbullying on substance use and mental health in a multiethnic sample. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(8), 1282–1286. Greif, J.L., & Furlong, M.J. (2006). The assessment of school bullying: Using theory to inform practice. Journal of School Violence, 5(3), 33–50. Greif, J.L., Furlong, M.J., & Morrison, G. (2003). Operationally defining bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(11), 1134–1135. Hamburger, M.E., Basile, K.C., & Vivolo, A.M. (2011). Measuring bullying victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment tools. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention. Hellström, L. (2015). Measuring peer victimization and school leadership: A study of definitions, measurement methods and associations with psychosomatic health. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89–112. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1300/J202v06n03_06. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2010.494133. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2015a). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2015b). Bullying and cyberbullying laws — January 2015. http://www.cyberbullying.us/Bullying-and-Cyberbullying-Laws.pdf House Bill No. 1259 (2010). State of Louisiana. Act No. 989. Creates the crime of cyberbullying. Kowalski, R.M., Giumetti, G.W., Schroeder, A.N., & Lattanner, M.R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth.
Mehari, K.R., Farrell, A.D., & Le, A. -T.H. (2014). Cyberbullying among adolescents: Measures in search of a construct. Psychology of Violence, 4(4), 399. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools. Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press (Wiley). Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (1999). Norway. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), Nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 10–11). London: Routledge. Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J.A., Calmaestra, J., & Vega, E. (2009). The emotional impact on victims of traditional bullying and cyberbullying: A study of Spanish adolescents. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 197. Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169. http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/1541204006286288. Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80(12), 616–623. Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Preventing and responding to cyberbullying: Expert perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Routledge. Pieschl, S., Kuhlmann, C., & Porsch, T. (2015). Beware of publicity! Perceived distress of negative cyber incidents and implications for defining cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 14(1), 111–132. Randa, R., & Wilcox, P. (2012). Avoidance at school further specifying the influence of disorder, victimization, and fear. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(2), 190–204. Rigby, K., & Slee, P.T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australian school children and their implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 33–42. Roland, E. (1980). Terror i skolen. Stavanger, Norway: Rogaland Research Institute. Roland, E. (1989). Bullying: The Scandinavian research tradition. In D.P. Tattum, & D.A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 21–32). Stroke-on-Trent, Great Britain: Trentham. Schneider, S.K., O'Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R.W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171–177. Slee, P.T., & Rigby, K. (1993). The relationship of Eysenck's personality factors and self esteem to bully/victim behaviour in Australian school boys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371–373. Smith, P.K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research. Aggressive Behavior, 26(1), 1–9. Smith, P.K., del Barrio, C., & Tokunaga, R.S. (2013). Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms. Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures and methodology, 26–45. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610. 2007.01846.x. Stephenson, P., & Smith, D. (1989). Bullying in junior school. In D.P.T.D.A. Lane (Ed.), Bullying in schools (pp. 45–58). Stroke-on-Trent, Great Britain: Trentham. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670. Tattum, D.P. (1989). Violence and aggression in schools. In D.P. Tattum, & D.A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp. 7–19). Stroke-on-Trent, Great Britain: Trentham. Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., et al. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(6), 486–495. Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499–503. Volk, A.A., Dane, A.V., & Marini, Z.A. (2014). What is bullying? A theoretical redefinition. Developmental Review, 34(4), 327–343. Ybarra, M.L., Boyd, D., Korchmaros, J.D., & Oppenheim, J.K. (2012). Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 53–58. Ybarra, M.L., Espelage, D.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: the importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(2), 293–300.
Please cite this article as: Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013