- Email: [email protected]
Some problems with cyberbullying research
Accepted Manuscript Title: Some Problems With Cyberbullying ResearchSome Problems With Cyberbullying Research–> Authors: Dan Olweus, Susan P. Limber PII: DOI: Reference:
S2352-250X(17)30103-3 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012 COPSYC 436
To appear in: Please cite this article as: Dan Olweus, Susan P.Limber, Some Problems With Cyberbullying Research (2010), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Highlights
research on cyberbullying is plagued by inconsistent findings and exaggerated claims
to build a coherent body of knowledge, a consensual definition is important cyberbullying overlaps a lot with traditional bullying it is important to measure cyberbullying in a bullying context cyberbullying should be regarded as a subcategory of bullying
1
Some Problems With Cyberbullying Research
Dan Olweusa Susan P. Limberb
Addresses a
Corresponding author: Psykologkonsult Dan Olweus, Vognstolbakken 16, NO-5096 Bergen, Norway,
[email protected] b
Department of Youth, Family & Community Studies, 2038 Barre Hall, Clemson University, Clemson,
SC 29634, [email protected] Corresponding author: Olweus, Dan ([email protected])
2
Abstract Research on cyberbullying is plagued by inconsistent findings and exaggerated claims about prevalence, development over time, and effects. To build a useful and coherent body of knowledge, it essential to achieve some degree of consensus on the definition of the phenomenon as a scientific concept and that efforts to measure cyberbullying are made in a “bullying context.” This will help to ensure that findings on cyberbullying are not confounded with findings on general cyberaggression or cyberharassment. We tentatively recommend that cyberbullying should be regarded as a subcategory or specific form of bullying, in line with other forms such as verbal, physical, and indirect/relational.
3
“In the abstract, it need hardly be said that before one proceeds to explain or to interpret a phenomenon, it is advisable to establish that the phenomenon actually exists, that it is enough of regularity to require and allow explanation.” - Robert K. Merton
As suggested in the well-known citation of Merton [1], to understand and change a phenomenon, it is very important that the phenomenon is well identified. A first step in identifying a new concept or construct is to provide a preliminary definition of the phenomenon to roughly indicate the concept’s domain and its boundaries — a kind of concept mapping. This step concerns the content validity of the concept [2]. But to make it a useful scientific concept, its construct validity, including analyses of convergent and discriminant validity, must also be gradually established [3, 4]. In the present article, we take a closer look at some aspects of the concepts of bullying and cyberbullying. On the basis of a selection of research findings, we focus in particular on the following issue: Can cyberbullying be conceptualized as a subcategory or form of traditional bullying, or should it be best regarded as a distinct phenomenon with special characteristics that make it partly different from traditional bullying? [5, 6*]. In doing so, bullying defined as a scientific concept – based on but not identical to the everyday use of the term--will serve as a starting point for our examination. In scanning the vast numbers of research publications about cyberbullying in the past 5-10 years, we have been struck and concerned by the many disparate and partly conflicting findings reported. Such heterogeneity suggests that researchers have used different definitions and operationalizations of the concept. It also indicates considerable lack of replicability, which will likely create problems of understanding, intervention, and prevention. Definitions of Bullying and Cyberbullying
4
A common definition of (traditional) bullying is the following: “A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students” [7]. In order to use the term bullying, there should also be an imbalance of power, an asymmetric power relationship [8*]. There are three components to this definition: (1) It concerns purposeful unwanted negative (aggressive) behavior that (2) typically implies a pattern of behavior that is repeated, and (3) occurs in an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power or strength, favoring the perpetrator(s). This definition makes it clear that bullying often may be considered a form of peer abuse. Although the specified criteria of this definition have sometimes been questioned and even rejected [9, 10], they have been widely used in the research literature and seem by and large to be well accepted by the research community [11*, 12*]. This is our basic point of departure in this article. And when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control was given the task of developing a “universal definition of bullying”, they landed on a definition that is basically the same as the one reported above 13*]. However, with the advent of cyberbullying, that is, bullying via electronic forms of contact or communication--such as emails, mobile, chat room, instant messaging, websites--concerns have been raised about whether and possibly how both the repetitiveness and the power imbalance criteria in the general definition can be applied to bullying with electronic means [4]. We generally agree with the tentative conclusion reached by Smith and colleagues [12*] that the key criteria defining traditional bullying are largely applicable to cyberbullying as well. They suggest, for example, that the imbalance of power can be assessed “in terms of differences in technological know-how between perpetrator and victim, relative anonymity, social status, number of friends, or marginalized group position” [12*, p. 36]. Moreover, the criterion of repetition may have to be understood in a somewhat different way with a focus on how many individuals can be reached with a negative
5
message or image, or the length of time that a message or image can remain in cyber space, rather than on the perpetrator’s cyber behavior which is often a single act [4, 12*]. Heterogeneity of Prevalence Estimates Although there is a considerable degree of consensus, in principle at least, about how cyberbullying should be defined, it is obvious that empirical studies published and often meta-analyzed as cyberbullying studies have used very different ways of measuring the phenomenon [14, 15]. One consequence is a bewildering array of prevalence estimates of cyberbullying, varying between 3-4% and 40%, with some studies producing estimates at 50% or even beyond [16, 17*]. As detailed in a recent paper [18], a good deal of this heterogeneity is clearly a function of different lengths of the reference or recall period used. Other differences come from use of different cut-off points or threshold values for classifying a respondent as being cyberbullied. A likely even more important reason for this heterogeneity is that cyberbullying has been studied ‘‘in isolation,’’ that is, outside the general context of (traditional) bullying. To put cyberbullying in proper perspective, it is in our view necessary to study it in the context of (traditional) bullying more generally. One cannot talk about a phenomenon as bullying unless a reasonably precise definition has been provided to the respondents or the formulation of the questions or other measures used make it quite clear that the contents conform to what is implied in (scientific) concept of bullying [19]. It is, of course, important not to use cyberbullying/victimization as a blanket term for any form of negative or aggressive act [4, 20*, 21, 22]. Some Empirical Prevalence Estimates In a large-scale study of a total of 440,000 U.S. students in grades 3-12, we compared the prevalence rates of cyberbullying measured in the context of traditional bullying with the prevalence rates for traditional verbal bullying (the most frequent form of traditional bullying). The participants belonged to four different cohorts providing time series data for four different years, from 2007 to 2010, as
6
shown in Figure 1. The average across-time prevalence for being verbally bullied “2 or 3 times a month or more often” was 17.3%, whereas the corresponding figure for being cyberbullied was 4.5%. A very similar pattern of results, but at a lower level, was obtained in a study of 9000 Norwegian students followed over five years from 2010 to 2010 [6*, 23]. Insert Figure 1 about here Based on these two large-scale studies in different countries (and with different designs), results indicate that cyberbullying measured in the context of traditional bullying is actually a quite lowprevalence phenomenon, representing only some 25 to 35% of the level of traditional bullying by direct verbal means. There is no doubt that there are many more children and youth involved in traditional (verbal) bullying than in cyberbullying. And, in contrast to a common belief often expressed by both researchers and the media, basically no systematic change in prevalence occurred over the time periods studied, from 2006 to 2010 [6*, 23]. Norwegian follow-up data for 2013 and 2014 have continued to indicate no increase. Degree of Overlap with Traditional Bullying Another important issue that has received a good deal of research attention concerns the degree to which cyberbullying overlaps with traditional bullying. In the two studies mentioned [6*, 23], the overlap was very high. Of students who had been exposed to cyberbullying, almost 90% had been bullied in at least one traditional way. This means that only about 10% of the students involved in cyberbullying had only been cyberbullied. In other studies, the degree of overlap has varied from about 50% [24] to 67% [25], 75% [26, Table 2, p. 380], and even 90% [27, p. 64]. Although opinions about the degree of overlap thus may vary somewhat due to differences with regard to conceptualization, measurement instrument and context, authors generally agree that a large proportion of cyberbullied students are also bullied in traditional ways. Possible Negative Effects of Cyberbullying?
7
Although both media and researchers have reported that there are many serious negative effects of cyberbullying, it is difficult to know to what extent such effects actually are a consequence of cyberbullying. This is because a great majority of cyberbullied children and youth are also bullied in traditional ways, as noted above. And it is a well-established fact that there are serious both shortterm and long-term effects of being exposed to traditional bullying [28, 29*]. One way to find out more about this important issue might be to use a regression framework to explore whether a common outcome variable such as depression can be predicted from being cyberbullied over and above being bullied in traditional ways. If being cyberbullied is found to have a significant incremental effect, this is often interpreted as evidence that cyberbullying is a distinct phenomenon with special characteristics that make it different from traditional forms of bullying. (For other approaches, see [6*, 18, 23]. Three cross-sectional studies with depression as the outcome variable have reported significant additive effects of being cyberbullied over and above the effects of being traditionally bullied [30, 31, 32]. (At the same time, a few other cross-sectional studies [33] have produced mixed or nonsignificant findings. More important, a recent longitudinal study [33] with control for traditional bullying reported a significant increase in predicted variance 12 months after Time 1. The amount of variance added by cybervictimization was quite small, however, only 1%. And two other longitudinal studies [34, 35] found no significant additional effects. Should such a collection of partly discrepant results be seen as an indication that being cyberbullied is distinct phenomenon? If one takes as a point of departure the theoretical position that being cyberbullied is just a form of being bullied, on a par with other forms of being bullied, it becomes natural to check if being cyberbullied is more predictive of a relevant outcome variable than other forms of being bullied. An empirical check of this possibility was undertaken, using the outcome variable of low self-esteem (which correlates strongly with depression) from a US study [6*]. The 8
global variable of being traditionally bullied predicted 8.3% of the variance in low self-esteem. Adding the being cyberbullied variable increased the predicted variance to 11.0%, representing a 2.7% increase. This result was quite comparable to adding an item on indirect bullying, such as ”being left out of things on purpose…” [36], to the global variable which increased the predicted variance to 11.7%, representing a 3.4% increase. In a similar analysis using the scale of seven items of different forms of being traditionally bullied (with exclusion of the “being left out” variable), the amount of added variance for the being left out variable was somewhat smaller but still larger than the added variance predicted by the being cyberbullied variable. Very likely, most items representing different forms of being bullied contain some portion of specific variance that may correlate with a suitable outcome variable over and above the prediction by a global variable of being traditionally bullied or a sum scale of the bullied items. Obviously, finding that being cyberbullied predicts significant incremental variance in a suitable outcome variable cannot, without further analyses, be taken as an indication that cyberbullying should best be regarded as a distinct phenomenon. A Tentative Conclusion In conclusion, most of the empirical facts and deliberations about cyberbullying reported above are consistent with the view of cyberbullying as a form of bullying, in line with other forms such as verbal, physical, and indirect/relational bullying. Because some of the reported facts are based a limited amount of research, such a conclusion should be regarded as tentative. The emerging field of cyberbullying is in a relatively early phase, and there is a clear need for more conceptual, methodological, and empirical research on many of the issues discussed in this article [37]. However, to build a useful and coherent body of knowledge, it essential that future research efforts measure the phenomenon of cyberbullying in a “bullying context.” This is to ensure that findings on cyberbullying are not confounded with findings on general cyberaggression or cyberharassment where the perpetrator(s) and the targeted youth don’t belong to the same classroom, school, or other common social unit, and the youth exposed may have no idea of who the perpetrator is.
9
We want to emphasize that our intention in writing this article has not been to downplay or trivialize cyberbullying. There is no doubt that some relatively rare forms of cyberbullying such as having embarrassing pictures or videos posted very likely will have considerable negative effects on the targeted youth [26]. Such events must be taken seriously, as should cyberbullying in general. From a practical and prevention/intervention perspective, attention to cyberbullying cases can often represent a useful new approach to change and also lead to a disclosure of what actually goes on in terms of bullying in the school context.
10
References 1. Merton RK: Three fragments from a sociologist’s notebooks: establishing the phenomenon. Specified ignorance, and strategic research materials. Ann Rev Sociol 1987, 13:1-28. 2. Nunnally JC, Bernstein JH: Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill; 1994. 3. Campbell DT, Fiske DW: Convergent and discriminant validation by the MultitraitMultimethod Matrix. Psych Bull 1959, 56:81-105. 4. Olweus D: School Bullying: Development and Some Important Challenges. Rev Clin Psychol 2013, 14:1-30. 5. Menesini E: Cyberbullying: the right value of the phenomenon. Comment on the paper: cyberbullying: an overrated phenomenon? Eur J Dev Psychol 2012, 9:544-552. 6. *Olweus D: Invited discussion paper. Cyber bullying: An overrated phenomenon. Eur J Dev Psychol 2012: 9:520-538. This paper and its follow-up paper [23] argue and document that several claims about cyberbullying made in the media and by many researchers are greatly exaggerated. Some measurement issues are also discussed. 7. Olweus D: Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Blackwell Publishers; 1993. 8. *Olweus D: Sweden. In The Nature of School Bullying. Edited by Smith PK, Morita Y, JungerTas-J, Catalano R, Slee P. Routledge; 1999:7-27. This chapter contains a discussion of the criteria for the definition of bullying and how bullying is related to the concepts of aggression and violence. It also briefly discusses how legislation against bullying, in spite of original political opposition, became incorporated in Scandinavian school laws. 9. Bauman M, Underwood MK, Card NA: Definitions: another perspective and a proposal for beginning with cyberaggression. In Principles of Cyberbullying Research: Definition, Measures, and Methods. Edited by Bauman S, Walker J, Cross D. Routledge; 2013:41-46. 11
10. Canty J, Stubbert M, Steers D, Collings S: The trouble with bullying—deconstructing the conventional definition of bullying for a child-centered investigation into children’s use of social media. Child and Soc 2016, 30:48-58. 11. *Smith PK, Brain P: Bullying in schools: lessons from two decades of research. Aggr Behav 2000, 26:1-9. The history of research and intervention on bullying in schools during the two decades up to 2000 is summarized. School bullying emerges as an international issue, and there is an increasing knowledge of its nature and effects. The paper is an introduction to 10 different articles in this issue of Aggressive Behavior. 12. *Smith PK del Barrio C Tokunaga R: Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms? In Principles of Cyberbullying Research: Definitions, Measures, and Methods. Edited by Bauman S, Walker J, Cross D. Routledge; 2013:26-40. This paper contains a detailed and thoughtful examination of whether and how the key criteria of traditional bullying can be applied to cyberbullying. The author’s conclusion is affirmative. 13. *Gladden RM, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Hamburger ME, Lumpkin CD: Bullying Surveillance Among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprenention/pdf/bullyingdefinitions-fina-a.pdf. After several years of discussion with researchers and other stakeholders, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ended with the definition presented in this report. The definition is very close to the one formulated by Olweus in the early 1980s as also acknowledged in the report. 14. Berne S, Frisén A, Schultze-Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H, Naruskov K, Luik P, Katzer C, Erentaite R, Zukauskiene R: Cyberbullying assessment instruments: a systematic review. Aggr and Viol Behav 2013, 18:320-334.
12
15. Patchin JW, Hinduja S: Measuring cyberbullying: implications for research. Aggr and Viol Behav 2015, 23:69-74. 16. Brochado S, Soares S, Fraga S: A scoping review on studies of cyberbullying prevalence among adolescents. Trauma Violence and Abuse 2016, 1:1-9. 17. *Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Latanner MR: Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psych Bull 2014, 140:1073-1137. This paper is a careful meta-analytic review of 131 studies of cyberbullying/cybervictimization. However, effect sizes for outcome variables are not controlled for traditional bullying/victimization. 18. Olweus D: Cyber bullying: A critical overview. In Aggression and Violence: A Social Psychological Perspective. Edited by Bushman B. Routledge; 2016:225-240. 19. Schwartz N: Self-reports. How the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol 1999, 54:91105. 20. *Hunter SC, Boyle JME, Warden D: Perceptions and correlates of peer-victimization and bullying. Br J Educ Psychol 2007, 77: 797-810. This is one of the first papers to document empirically that the power imbaalance implicated in the definition of bullying makes bullying and exposure to general aggression somewhat different phenomena. 21. Olweus D: Understanding and researching bullying: some critical issues. In Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective. Edited by Jimerson SS, Swearer SM, Espelage DL. Routledge; 2010:9-33. 22. Solberg ME, Olweus D, Endresen IM: Bullies and victims at school: are they the same pupils? Br J Educ Psychol 2007, 77:441-464.
13
23. Olweus D: Commentary. Comments on cyberbullying article: a rejoinder. Eur J Devel Psychol 2012, 9:559-568. 24. Ybarra ML, Mitchell JK: Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: a comparison of associated youth characteristics. J Ch Psychol Psych 2004, 45:1308-1316. 25. Hinduja S, Patchin JW: Cyberbullying: neither an epidemic nor a rarity. Eur J Devel Psychol 2012, 9:539-543. 26. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Cavalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippett N: Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol and Psych 2008, 49:376-385. 27. Salmivalli C, Pöyhönen V: Cyberbullying in Finland. In Cyberbullying in the Global Playground: Research from International Perspectives. Edited by Li Q, Cross D, Smith PK. Wiley-Blackwell; 2012:57-72. 28. Olweus, D, Breivik, K: Plight of victims of school bullying: The opposite of well-being. In Handbook of Child Well-Being. Edited by Ben-Arieh A, Casas F, Frønes I, Korbin JE; 2014:25932616. 29. *Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F, Loeber R: Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Aggr Confl and Peace Rsh 2011, 3:63-73. This meta-analysis reviews and synthesizes 28 longitudinal studies with an average follow-up period of seven years. Overall results indicate that bullying victimization is a major childhood risk factor that uniquely contributes to later depression. 30. Bonanno RA, Hymel S: Cyber bullying and internalizing difficulties: Above and beyond the impact of tradition forms of bullying. J Youth and Adol 2013, 42:685-697. 31. Perren S, Dooley J, Shaw T, Cross D: Bullying in schools and cyberspace: associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Ch and Adol Psych and MH 2010, 4:28-39.
14
32. Menesini E, Calussi P, Nocentini A: Cyberbullying and traditional bullying: unique, additive and synergistic effects on psychological health symptoms. In Cyberbullying in the Global Playground: Research from International Perspectives. Edited by Li Q, Cross D, Smith PK. Wiley-Blackwell; 2012:245-262. 33. Cole DA, Zelkowitz RL, Nick E, Martin NC, Roeder KM, Sinclair-McBride K, Spinelli T: Longitudinal and incremental relation of cybervictimization to negative self-cognitions and depressive symptoms in young adolescents. J Ab Psychol 2016, 44:1321-1332. 34. Machmutow K, Perren S, Sticca F, Alsaker FD: Peer victimization and depressive symptoms: can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cyber victimization? Em Behav Diff 2012, 17:389-401. 35. Salmivalli C, Sainio M, Hodges EVE: Electronic victimization: correlates, antecedents, and consequences among elementary and middle school students. J Clin Ch Adol Psychol 2013, 42:442-453. 36. Olweus D: Olweus Bullying Questionnaire. Hazelden Foundation; 2007. 37. Tokunaga RS: Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Comp Hum Behav 2010, 26:277-287.
15
Figure 1. Time series data for 2007-2010 for verbal bullying (being bullied) and cyber bullying (bullied electronically). Data from all over the USA. Total n= 447 000.
16
S2352-250X(17)30103-3 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012 COPSYC 436
To appear in: Please cite this article as: Dan Olweus, Susan P.Limber, Some Problems With Cyberbullying Research (2010), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Highlights
research on cyberbullying is plagued by inconsistent findings and exaggerated claims
to build a coherent body of knowledge, a consensual definition is important cyberbullying overlaps a lot with traditional bullying it is important to measure cyberbullying in a bullying context cyberbullying should be regarded as a subcategory of bullying
1
Some Problems With Cyberbullying Research
Dan Olweusa Susan P. Limberb
Addresses a
Corresponding author: Psykologkonsult Dan Olweus, Vognstolbakken 16, NO-5096 Bergen, Norway,
[email protected] b
Department of Youth, Family & Community Studies, 2038 Barre Hall, Clemson University, Clemson,
SC 29634, [email protected] Corresponding author: Olweus, Dan ([email protected])
2
Abstract Research on cyberbullying is plagued by inconsistent findings and exaggerated claims about prevalence, development over time, and effects. To build a useful and coherent body of knowledge, it essential to achieve some degree of consensus on the definition of the phenomenon as a scientific concept and that efforts to measure cyberbullying are made in a “bullying context.” This will help to ensure that findings on cyberbullying are not confounded with findings on general cyberaggression or cyberharassment. We tentatively recommend that cyberbullying should be regarded as a subcategory or specific form of bullying, in line with other forms such as verbal, physical, and indirect/relational.
3
“In the abstract, it need hardly be said that before one proceeds to explain or to interpret a phenomenon, it is advisable to establish that the phenomenon actually exists, that it is enough of regularity to require and allow explanation.” - Robert K. Merton
As suggested in the well-known citation of Merton [1], to understand and change a phenomenon, it is very important that the phenomenon is well identified. A first step in identifying a new concept or construct is to provide a preliminary definition of the phenomenon to roughly indicate the concept’s domain and its boundaries — a kind of concept mapping. This step concerns the content validity of the concept [2]. But to make it a useful scientific concept, its construct validity, including analyses of convergent and discriminant validity, must also be gradually established [3, 4]. In the present article, we take a closer look at some aspects of the concepts of bullying and cyberbullying. On the basis of a selection of research findings, we focus in particular on the following issue: Can cyberbullying be conceptualized as a subcategory or form of traditional bullying, or should it be best regarded as a distinct phenomenon with special characteristics that make it partly different from traditional bullying? [5, 6*]. In doing so, bullying defined as a scientific concept – based on but not identical to the everyday use of the term--will serve as a starting point for our examination. In scanning the vast numbers of research publications about cyberbullying in the past 5-10 years, we have been struck and concerned by the many disparate and partly conflicting findings reported. Such heterogeneity suggests that researchers have used different definitions and operationalizations of the concept. It also indicates considerable lack of replicability, which will likely create problems of understanding, intervention, and prevention. Definitions of Bullying and Cyberbullying
4
A common definition of (traditional) bullying is the following: “A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students” [7]. In order to use the term bullying, there should also be an imbalance of power, an asymmetric power relationship [8*]. There are three components to this definition: (1) It concerns purposeful unwanted negative (aggressive) behavior that (2) typically implies a pattern of behavior that is repeated, and (3) occurs in an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power or strength, favoring the perpetrator(s). This definition makes it clear that bullying often may be considered a form of peer abuse. Although the specified criteria of this definition have sometimes been questioned and even rejected [9, 10], they have been widely used in the research literature and seem by and large to be well accepted by the research community [11*, 12*]. This is our basic point of departure in this article. And when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control was given the task of developing a “universal definition of bullying”, they landed on a definition that is basically the same as the one reported above 13*]. However, with the advent of cyberbullying, that is, bullying via electronic forms of contact or communication--such as emails, mobile, chat room, instant messaging, websites--concerns have been raised about whether and possibly how both the repetitiveness and the power imbalance criteria in the general definition can be applied to bullying with electronic means [4]. We generally agree with the tentative conclusion reached by Smith and colleagues [12*] that the key criteria defining traditional bullying are largely applicable to cyberbullying as well. They suggest, for example, that the imbalance of power can be assessed “in terms of differences in technological know-how between perpetrator and victim, relative anonymity, social status, number of friends, or marginalized group position” [12*, p. 36]. Moreover, the criterion of repetition may have to be understood in a somewhat different way with a focus on how many individuals can be reached with a negative
5
message or image, or the length of time that a message or image can remain in cyber space, rather than on the perpetrator’s cyber behavior which is often a single act [4, 12*]. Heterogeneity of Prevalence Estimates Although there is a considerable degree of consensus, in principle at least, about how cyberbullying should be defined, it is obvious that empirical studies published and often meta-analyzed as cyberbullying studies have used very different ways of measuring the phenomenon [14, 15]. One consequence is a bewildering array of prevalence estimates of cyberbullying, varying between 3-4% and 40%, with some studies producing estimates at 50% or even beyond [16, 17*]. As detailed in a recent paper [18], a good deal of this heterogeneity is clearly a function of different lengths of the reference or recall period used. Other differences come from use of different cut-off points or threshold values for classifying a respondent as being cyberbullied. A likely even more important reason for this heterogeneity is that cyberbullying has been studied ‘‘in isolation,’’ that is, outside the general context of (traditional) bullying. To put cyberbullying in proper perspective, it is in our view necessary to study it in the context of (traditional) bullying more generally. One cannot talk about a phenomenon as bullying unless a reasonably precise definition has been provided to the respondents or the formulation of the questions or other measures used make it quite clear that the contents conform to what is implied in (scientific) concept of bullying [19]. It is, of course, important not to use cyberbullying/victimization as a blanket term for any form of negative or aggressive act [4, 20*, 21, 22]. Some Empirical Prevalence Estimates In a large-scale study of a total of 440,000 U.S. students in grades 3-12, we compared the prevalence rates of cyberbullying measured in the context of traditional bullying with the prevalence rates for traditional verbal bullying (the most frequent form of traditional bullying). The participants belonged to four different cohorts providing time series data for four different years, from 2007 to 2010, as
6
shown in Figure 1. The average across-time prevalence for being verbally bullied “2 or 3 times a month or more often” was 17.3%, whereas the corresponding figure for being cyberbullied was 4.5%. A very similar pattern of results, but at a lower level, was obtained in a study of 9000 Norwegian students followed over five years from 2010 to 2010 [6*, 23]. Insert Figure 1 about here Based on these two large-scale studies in different countries (and with different designs), results indicate that cyberbullying measured in the context of traditional bullying is actually a quite lowprevalence phenomenon, representing only some 25 to 35% of the level of traditional bullying by direct verbal means. There is no doubt that there are many more children and youth involved in traditional (verbal) bullying than in cyberbullying. And, in contrast to a common belief often expressed by both researchers and the media, basically no systematic change in prevalence occurred over the time periods studied, from 2006 to 2010 [6*, 23]. Norwegian follow-up data for 2013 and 2014 have continued to indicate no increase. Degree of Overlap with Traditional Bullying Another important issue that has received a good deal of research attention concerns the degree to which cyberbullying overlaps with traditional bullying. In the two studies mentioned [6*, 23], the overlap was very high. Of students who had been exposed to cyberbullying, almost 90% had been bullied in at least one traditional way. This means that only about 10% of the students involved in cyberbullying had only been cyberbullied. In other studies, the degree of overlap has varied from about 50% [24] to 67% [25], 75% [26, Table 2, p. 380], and even 90% [27, p. 64]. Although opinions about the degree of overlap thus may vary somewhat due to differences with regard to conceptualization, measurement instrument and context, authors generally agree that a large proportion of cyberbullied students are also bullied in traditional ways. Possible Negative Effects of Cyberbullying?
7
Although both media and researchers have reported that there are many serious negative effects of cyberbullying, it is difficult to know to what extent such effects actually are a consequence of cyberbullying. This is because a great majority of cyberbullied children and youth are also bullied in traditional ways, as noted above. And it is a well-established fact that there are serious both shortterm and long-term effects of being exposed to traditional bullying [28, 29*]. One way to find out more about this important issue might be to use a regression framework to explore whether a common outcome variable such as depression can be predicted from being cyberbullied over and above being bullied in traditional ways. If being cyberbullied is found to have a significant incremental effect, this is often interpreted as evidence that cyberbullying is a distinct phenomenon with special characteristics that make it different from traditional forms of bullying. (For other approaches, see [6*, 18, 23]. Three cross-sectional studies with depression as the outcome variable have reported significant additive effects of being cyberbullied over and above the effects of being traditionally bullied [30, 31, 32]. (At the same time, a few other cross-sectional studies [33] have produced mixed or nonsignificant findings. More important, a recent longitudinal study [33] with control for traditional bullying reported a significant increase in predicted variance 12 months after Time 1. The amount of variance added by cybervictimization was quite small, however, only 1%. And two other longitudinal studies [34, 35] found no significant additional effects. Should such a collection of partly discrepant results be seen as an indication that being cyberbullied is distinct phenomenon? If one takes as a point of departure the theoretical position that being cyberbullied is just a form of being bullied, on a par with other forms of being bullied, it becomes natural to check if being cyberbullied is more predictive of a relevant outcome variable than other forms of being bullied. An empirical check of this possibility was undertaken, using the outcome variable of low self-esteem (which correlates strongly with depression) from a US study [6*]. The 8
global variable of being traditionally bullied predicted 8.3% of the variance in low self-esteem. Adding the being cyberbullied variable increased the predicted variance to 11.0%, representing a 2.7% increase. This result was quite comparable to adding an item on indirect bullying, such as ”being left out of things on purpose…” [36], to the global variable which increased the predicted variance to 11.7%, representing a 3.4% increase. In a similar analysis using the scale of seven items of different forms of being traditionally bullied (with exclusion of the “being left out” variable), the amount of added variance for the being left out variable was somewhat smaller but still larger than the added variance predicted by the being cyberbullied variable. Very likely, most items representing different forms of being bullied contain some portion of specific variance that may correlate with a suitable outcome variable over and above the prediction by a global variable of being traditionally bullied or a sum scale of the bullied items. Obviously, finding that being cyberbullied predicts significant incremental variance in a suitable outcome variable cannot, without further analyses, be taken as an indication that cyberbullying should best be regarded as a distinct phenomenon. A Tentative Conclusion In conclusion, most of the empirical facts and deliberations about cyberbullying reported above are consistent with the view of cyberbullying as a form of bullying, in line with other forms such as verbal, physical, and indirect/relational bullying. Because some of the reported facts are based a limited amount of research, such a conclusion should be regarded as tentative. The emerging field of cyberbullying is in a relatively early phase, and there is a clear need for more conceptual, methodological, and empirical research on many of the issues discussed in this article [37]. However, to build a useful and coherent body of knowledge, it essential that future research efforts measure the phenomenon of cyberbullying in a “bullying context.” This is to ensure that findings on cyberbullying are not confounded with findings on general cyberaggression or cyberharassment where the perpetrator(s) and the targeted youth don’t belong to the same classroom, school, or other common social unit, and the youth exposed may have no idea of who the perpetrator is.
9
We want to emphasize that our intention in writing this article has not been to downplay or trivialize cyberbullying. There is no doubt that some relatively rare forms of cyberbullying such as having embarrassing pictures or videos posted very likely will have considerable negative effects on the targeted youth [26]. Such events must be taken seriously, as should cyberbullying in general. From a practical and prevention/intervention perspective, attention to cyberbullying cases can often represent a useful new approach to change and also lead to a disclosure of what actually goes on in terms of bullying in the school context.
10
References 1. Merton RK: Three fragments from a sociologist’s notebooks: establishing the phenomenon. Specified ignorance, and strategic research materials. Ann Rev Sociol 1987, 13:1-28. 2. Nunnally JC, Bernstein JH: Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill; 1994. 3. Campbell DT, Fiske DW: Convergent and discriminant validation by the MultitraitMultimethod Matrix. Psych Bull 1959, 56:81-105. 4. Olweus D: School Bullying: Development and Some Important Challenges. Rev Clin Psychol 2013, 14:1-30. 5. Menesini E: Cyberbullying: the right value of the phenomenon. Comment on the paper: cyberbullying: an overrated phenomenon? Eur J Dev Psychol 2012, 9:544-552. 6. *Olweus D: Invited discussion paper. Cyber bullying: An overrated phenomenon. Eur J Dev Psychol 2012: 9:520-538. This paper and its follow-up paper [23] argue and document that several claims about cyberbullying made in the media and by many researchers are greatly exaggerated. Some measurement issues are also discussed. 7. Olweus D: Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Blackwell Publishers; 1993. 8. *Olweus D: Sweden. In The Nature of School Bullying. Edited by Smith PK, Morita Y, JungerTas-J, Catalano R, Slee P. Routledge; 1999:7-27. This chapter contains a discussion of the criteria for the definition of bullying and how bullying is related to the concepts of aggression and violence. It also briefly discusses how legislation against bullying, in spite of original political opposition, became incorporated in Scandinavian school laws. 9. Bauman M, Underwood MK, Card NA: Definitions: another perspective and a proposal for beginning with cyberaggression. In Principles of Cyberbullying Research: Definition, Measures, and Methods. Edited by Bauman S, Walker J, Cross D. Routledge; 2013:41-46. 11
10. Canty J, Stubbert M, Steers D, Collings S: The trouble with bullying—deconstructing the conventional definition of bullying for a child-centered investigation into children’s use of social media. Child and Soc 2016, 30:48-58. 11. *Smith PK, Brain P: Bullying in schools: lessons from two decades of research. Aggr Behav 2000, 26:1-9. The history of research and intervention on bullying in schools during the two decades up to 2000 is summarized. School bullying emerges as an international issue, and there is an increasing knowledge of its nature and effects. The paper is an introduction to 10 different articles in this issue of Aggressive Behavior. 12. *Smith PK del Barrio C Tokunaga R: Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms? In Principles of Cyberbullying Research: Definitions, Measures, and Methods. Edited by Bauman S, Walker J, Cross D. Routledge; 2013:26-40. This paper contains a detailed and thoughtful examination of whether and how the key criteria of traditional bullying can be applied to cyberbullying. The author’s conclusion is affirmative. 13. *Gladden RM, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Hamburger ME, Lumpkin CD: Bullying Surveillance Among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprenention/pdf/bullyingdefinitions-fina-a.pdf. After several years of discussion with researchers and other stakeholders, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ended with the definition presented in this report. The definition is very close to the one formulated by Olweus in the early 1980s as also acknowledged in the report. 14. Berne S, Frisén A, Schultze-Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H, Naruskov K, Luik P, Katzer C, Erentaite R, Zukauskiene R: Cyberbullying assessment instruments: a systematic review. Aggr and Viol Behav 2013, 18:320-334.
12
15. Patchin JW, Hinduja S: Measuring cyberbullying: implications for research. Aggr and Viol Behav 2015, 23:69-74. 16. Brochado S, Soares S, Fraga S: A scoping review on studies of cyberbullying prevalence among adolescents. Trauma Violence and Abuse 2016, 1:1-9. 17. *Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Latanner MR: Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psych Bull 2014, 140:1073-1137. This paper is a careful meta-analytic review of 131 studies of cyberbullying/cybervictimization. However, effect sizes for outcome variables are not controlled for traditional bullying/victimization. 18. Olweus D: Cyber bullying: A critical overview. In Aggression and Violence: A Social Psychological Perspective. Edited by Bushman B. Routledge; 2016:225-240. 19. Schwartz N: Self-reports. How the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol 1999, 54:91105. 20. *Hunter SC, Boyle JME, Warden D: Perceptions and correlates of peer-victimization and bullying. Br J Educ Psychol 2007, 77: 797-810. This is one of the first papers to document empirically that the power imbaalance implicated in the definition of bullying makes bullying and exposure to general aggression somewhat different phenomena. 21. Olweus D: Understanding and researching bullying: some critical issues. In Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective. Edited by Jimerson SS, Swearer SM, Espelage DL. Routledge; 2010:9-33. 22. Solberg ME, Olweus D, Endresen IM: Bullies and victims at school: are they the same pupils? Br J Educ Psychol 2007, 77:441-464.
13
23. Olweus D: Commentary. Comments on cyberbullying article: a rejoinder. Eur J Devel Psychol 2012, 9:559-568. 24. Ybarra ML, Mitchell JK: Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: a comparison of associated youth characteristics. J Ch Psychol Psych 2004, 45:1308-1316. 25. Hinduja S, Patchin JW: Cyberbullying: neither an epidemic nor a rarity. Eur J Devel Psychol 2012, 9:539-543. 26. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Cavalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippett N: Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol and Psych 2008, 49:376-385. 27. Salmivalli C, Pöyhönen V: Cyberbullying in Finland. In Cyberbullying in the Global Playground: Research from International Perspectives. Edited by Li Q, Cross D, Smith PK. Wiley-Blackwell; 2012:57-72. 28. Olweus, D, Breivik, K: Plight of victims of school bullying: The opposite of well-being. In Handbook of Child Well-Being. Edited by Ben-Arieh A, Casas F, Frønes I, Korbin JE; 2014:25932616. 29. *Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F, Loeber R: Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Aggr Confl and Peace Rsh 2011, 3:63-73. This meta-analysis reviews and synthesizes 28 longitudinal studies with an average follow-up period of seven years. Overall results indicate that bullying victimization is a major childhood risk factor that uniquely contributes to later depression. 30. Bonanno RA, Hymel S: Cyber bullying and internalizing difficulties: Above and beyond the impact of tradition forms of bullying. J Youth and Adol 2013, 42:685-697. 31. Perren S, Dooley J, Shaw T, Cross D: Bullying in schools and cyberspace: associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Ch and Adol Psych and MH 2010, 4:28-39.
14
32. Menesini E, Calussi P, Nocentini A: Cyberbullying and traditional bullying: unique, additive and synergistic effects on psychological health symptoms. In Cyberbullying in the Global Playground: Research from International Perspectives. Edited by Li Q, Cross D, Smith PK. Wiley-Blackwell; 2012:245-262. 33. Cole DA, Zelkowitz RL, Nick E, Martin NC, Roeder KM, Sinclair-McBride K, Spinelli T: Longitudinal and incremental relation of cybervictimization to negative self-cognitions and depressive symptoms in young adolescents. J Ab Psychol 2016, 44:1321-1332. 34. Machmutow K, Perren S, Sticca F, Alsaker FD: Peer victimization and depressive symptoms: can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cyber victimization? Em Behav Diff 2012, 17:389-401. 35. Salmivalli C, Sainio M, Hodges EVE: Electronic victimization: correlates, antecedents, and consequences among elementary and middle school students. J Clin Ch Adol Psychol 2013, 42:442-453. 36. Olweus D: Olweus Bullying Questionnaire. Hazelden Foundation; 2007. 37. Tokunaga RS: Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Comp Hum Behav 2010, 26:277-287.
15
Figure 1. Time series data for 2007-2010 for verbal bullying (being bullied) and cyber bullying (bullied electronically). Data from all over the USA. Total n= 447 000.
16