Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 25(1) Spring 2014 Review of the Status of Cyberbullying and Cyberbullying Prevention June F. Chisholm, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Pace University New York, 10038, U.S.A. [email protected] ABSTRACT Cyberbullying may be one of the “diseases” of the 21th Century. Despite efforts to curtail its incidence and prevalence over the past 20 years, its direct and indirect harmful effects have made it a public concern about the wellbeing of children, adolescents, and adults. Empirical studies as well as psychological theories have addressed different aspects of cyberbullying (e.g. characteristics of victims, bullies, and bystanders, prevalence rates, specific types of cyberbullying behavior, gender differences, intervention/prevention strategies, legal/legislative measures, etc.). While consensus is evident in some areas researched, significant findings in other areas are inconsistent, indicative of the inherent complexities of this phenomenon and the methodological problems hampering insight into the nature of this problem and its possible solutions. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the current status of the research and theoretical perspectives on cyberbullying in hopes of encouraging good scholarship, improved methodologies and thoughtful inquiries to better inform educators, parents, mental health service providers, policy makers and others so that they can more effectively promote healthy online and offline behaviors among digital users. This discussion reviews the definition and characteristics of cyberbullying, its prevalence, populations affected, gender differences, theoretical perspectives and issues of intervention and prevention. Keywords: Ethics, Information & communication technologies (ICT), Interpersonal skills, Online programming, Social Networking, Student expectations, Student perceptions, Student responsibility, Virtual reality 1. INTRODUCTION the Middle and Far East, North and South America, Africa and Australia (Aficak et al, 2008; Liau et al., 2005; Digital technologies have now become the primary way Livingstone et al, 2011; Smith and Williams, 2004). In the many people, companies, and organizations worldwide past decade, cyberbullying has had an impact on a much communicate, exchange ideas, information and, stay broader age demographic than conventional/traditional connected. For many youth, online communication and bullying. It is now occurring among older adolescents, virtual communities are not construed as virtual realities or college students, young and older adults in the workplace technological subcultures but merely other ways for them to (Pellegrini and Long, 2002; Liau et al., 2005; Smith and connect with their friends in ways that seem seamless with Williams, 2004; Muir, 2005; Aficak et al., 2008; Bhat, 2008; their offline life; indeed some youth, in order to function, Slonje and Smith, 2008; Walrave and Heirman, 2011). feel that they must remain “always on” and “connected” to These developments in the scope and breadth of this their ICT even while engaged in offline activities (Abbott, phenomenon contribute to the difficulty in clearly 1998; Osgerby, 2004). Online communication via the conceptualizing the salience of variables empirically studied Internet and ICTs is popular among youth, in part, because it over the past 20 years. seems to provide a sense of privacy, which encourages What has clearly emerged in the literature among school greater self-disclosure than when communicating face-to- aged youth is that the impact of cyberbullying on the victim, face(Gross, 2004; Menesini et al.,2011). The use of these the bully, and the bystander is associated with poorer technologies by children, adolescents and adults in our academic performance, lack of confidence, low self-esteem, society for communication and social networking has both higher incidences of depression, loneliness, emotional positive and negative outcomes. distress and alienation (Dellasega and Nixon, 2003; Hinduja One of the negative consequences is cyberbullying which and Patchin, 2010). In clinical practice 30% of clients occurs not only in the United States but has become a global presenting with problems related to cyberbullying were phenomenon occurring in countries throughout Asia, Europe, perpetrators; 70% were victims (Mitchell et al., 2005). The 77 Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 25(1) Spring 2014 possible connection between bullycide/cyberbullycide (a of youth between the ages of 10 and 18 had been either the term popularized by the media that refers to suicide perpetrator or victim of cyberbullying (Hinduja and Patchin, supposedly as the result of unrelenting bullying and/or 2010; Ybarra and Mitchell, 2004). cyberbullying) and social media has raised concern, Slonje and Smith (2008) found that 25% of cyberbullies especially in light of the highly publicized suicides of Megan and their victims were identified as being from the same Meier in 2006, Tyler Clementi in 2010, and Amanda Todd in school, thus more likely to result in face-to-face encounters 2012, Rebecca Sedgwick in 2013, to name a few. Shah as well. More lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (2010) found that the prevalence of Internet users was (LGBT) youth are reported victims of cyberbullying than positively correlated with general population suicide rates other “minority” groups (Cassidy et al., 2009). Cyberbullies based on a cross-national study that examined the association and cybervictims are generally heavy Internet users between general population suicide rates and the prevalence (Kowalski et. al., 2008). Over 50% of cyberbullies claim to of Internet users, using data from the World Health be expert Internet users, compared to one third of children Organization’s and the United Nations Development who do not bully (Ybarra and Mitchell, 2004). While these Program’s Websites. Hinduja and Hatchin (2010) indicate statistics offer some information about the prevalence of that cyberbullies were 1 ½ times more likely to report having cyberbullying among children and adolescents, other studies attempted suicide than children who were not bullies or have suggested that cyberbullying records are victims. underestimated (Dehue, Bolman, and Vollink, 2008; Kowalski and Limber, 2007). 2. CYBERBULLYING DEFINED 4. PREVALENCE OF CYBERBULLYING: Cyberbullying has been defined as the intentional and AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, or other electronic devices (Kowalski et al, 2007; Over the past 15 years, we have witnessed a trend of Patchin and Hinduja, 2010, Hinduja and Patchin, 2009). It cyberbullying involving a much broader age demographic has been compared to traditional bullying by some research than conventional/traditional bullying and what was reported which has found similarities in terms of the characteristics earlier in the literature on cyberbullying. In retrospect, outlined in the American Psychological Association public awareness and research to better understand document (2004) i.e. some cyberbullies also bully in cyberbullying and develop preventative strategies to combat conventional ways (Smith et al., 2008; Williams and Guerra, cyberbullying have lagged behind its proliferation within this 2007). Thus, theories on the psychological processes and older demographic group. Cyberbullying is now reported consequences of traditional bullying might be applied to the among college students, as well as young and older adults in study of a subset of individuals who cyberbully. the workplace (Pellegrini and Long, 2002; Smith and Others suggest that cyberbullying is a distinct, separate Williams, 2004; Finn, 2004; Liau et al., 2005; Muir, 2005; category of bullying behavior because of the unique Aricak et al., 2008; Bhat, 2008; Slonje and Smith, 2008; psychological processes involved in cyberbullying and being Kraft and Wang, 2010; Walrave and Heirman, 2011). cyberbullied (Aboujaoude, 2011; Beckerman and Nocero, Chapell et al (2004) found that: 1) 24.6% of 1,025 2003; Harris et al, 2002; Mishna et. al, 2009; Van der Wal, undergraduate respondents in an exploratory study on de Wit and Hirasing, 2003; Willard, 2003; Ybarra and bullying had been bullied; 2) 70% of undergraduate students Mitchell, 2004). Before a much larger audience of known who were bullied in high school and elementary school, and anonymous observers, spanning continents, cultures, bullied others in college; 3) more than 50% of students who nationalities as well as time, the cyberbully can act quickly, had been bully/victims or bullies respectively in elementary anonymously without fear of punishment,. and high school repeated the pattern in college. Walker et al. (2011) report, in their university sample of 3. PREVALENCE OF CYBERBULLYING: 131 undergraduate students that: 1) 54% of respondents AMONG CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS indicated knowing someone who had been cyberbullied; 2) 11% of the respondents indicated that they had been Until recently, empirical studies addressing concerns about cyberbullied via Facebook (64%), cellphones (43%) and the abuse and misuse of ICTs as well as the harmful effects AIM (43%); 3) of those respondents who were cyberbullied, on victims, bystanders and the bullies of some online activity 14% were bullied more than 10 times whereas 57% were have focused primarily on children and adolescents in bullied less than four times; 4) 71% of the respondents middle and high school settings (Bruno, 2004; Cowie and indicated