I recently participated in a joint podcast organized by Sage Publications with fellow social scientists Robert Agnew, Carter Hay, and Paul Mazerolle to chat about the relationship between the sociological concept of strain, traditional bullying, and cyberbullying.

According to Agnew’s General Strain Theory, strain has three sources: (1) the failure to achieve positively-valued goals; (2) the loss of positive-valued stimuli; and (3) the presentation of negative stimuli.  He argues that experiencing strain first produces negative emotions such as anger and frustration, and that crime (or, in terms of what we are studying in this research - traditional bullying and cyberbullying) are adaptations or coping mechanisms that strained individuals may use in response to those negative emotions.

The podcast is worth a listen if you’re interested in learning more about empirical research in this area.  Near the end of the podcast, I briefly discuss a recent manuscript co-written with Justin that is forthcoming in the academic journal Youth and Society (please email us if you would like a copy).  That piece found that middle schoolers who reported experiencing strain were significantly more likely to have engaged in bullying and cyberbullying, that bullying seemed to be related to feelings of negative emotions, and that anger and frustration did not appear to mediate the relationship between strain and either traditional bullying or cyberbullying (which is contrary to Agnew’s Theory).  If you have any questions or thoughts about this, let me know.

Justin and I have been focusing a lot on what I like to call “Facebook Faux Pas” - or, in general, unwise practices on social networking, social media, and microblogging sites.  A new site has been receiving a lot of attention lately - PleaseRobMe.com.  Check it out at your convenience.  Basically, it runs a simple script on Twitter.com to identify and aggregate posts pushed through from one geosocial networking site (Foursquare.com) where users have “checked in” or otherwise updated their current location through their mobile device’s GPS functionality.  Individuals, of course, post these updates to quickly and conveniently inform their friends as to where they are, or where they are going to be.  Obviously, though, revealing of one’s location (or one’s absence from home) may increase the risk of personal victimization or property theft - or both.

When giving talks to youth, I share plenty of real-world examples of how teenagers and young adults unwittingly allow a dossier of contact information to be collected about them through the connecting of their candid posts and messages online.  To note, we’ve actively researched this happening on social networking sites in papers here and here.  To be sure, our research has found that youth overall are becoming more discerning and protective with the contact information they share, but our studies have not included microblogging sites and the content of status updates.  If that is the case, those intent on bullying, abusing, or otherwise harming others have an increasing (or at least steady) amount of access to a meaningful number of potential victims based on those victims’ participation within cyberspace.  In criminology, we have a subfield termed “victimology” that focuses in on how individuals contribute to their own victimization through negligence, precipitation, or provocation.  It seems very applicable as a paradigmatic lens through which to view all of this.

It is remarkable to think how far we have come in such a short period of time as it relates to our level of comfort in sharing personal information online.  Ten years ago, individuals were concerned with sharing their primary email address for fear of spam (and usually had a secondary email address which they more often used across the Web).  Posting one’s first and last name back then was a rarity, as anonymity and pseudonymity were more commonly preferred and adopted.  Now, because of Facebook and similar sites, most of us seem tremendously comfortable using our full name in cyberspace - and posting so much more about who, what, when, why, and where we are.  Youth who have grown up with these technologies are even more inclined towards full disclosure, and so we have GOT to get them thinking about what they type, send, and post before their actions inadvertently invite harm.

We’ve had quite a bit of feedback regarding our recent post that discussed whether or not schools can discipline students for creating a Facebook page that is critical of, or harassing toward, a staff member.  The courts have given their perspective on a few different cases, but I thought I would post this simple poll for readers to weigh in themselves regarding their personal beliefs about what should or should not be allowed. Feel free to add the justification for your answer as a comment.

(if you don’t see a poll below, please try again later…we have been having trouble with the polling software)

Routledge (Taylor and Francis) is making some of their copyrighted journal articles available at no cost through June, and our research piece entitled “Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Analysis of Factors Related to Offending and Victimization,” published in Deviant Behavior, is one of those and is available here.  To date, it is one of the most downloaded articles from that journal.

Here is the abstract:

Victimization on the Internet through what has been termed cyberbullying has attracted increased attention from scholars and practitioners.  Defined as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text,” this negative experience not only undermines a youth’s freedom to use and explore valuable online resources, but also can result in severe functional and physical ramifications.  Research involving the specific phenomenon - as well as Internet harassment in general - is still in its infancy, and the current work seeks to serve as a foundational piece in understanding its substance and salience.  Online survey data from 1,378 adolescent Internet-users are analyzed for the purposes of identifying characteristics of typical cyberbullying victims and offenders.  While gender and race did not significantly differentiate respondent victimization or offending, computer proficiency and time spent online were positively related to both cyberbullying victimization and offending.  Additionally, cyberbullying experiences were also linked to respondents who reported school problems (including traditional bullying), assaultive behavior, and substance use.  Implications for addressing this novel form of youthful deviance are discussed.

There have been a few high profile cases recently reviewed by the courts, and summarized in the media, where students have sued their schools arguing that discipline they received as a result of improper online speech was a violation of their First Amendment right.  The most recent case involved a former Florida high school student, Katherine Evans, who created a Facebook page called “Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met!” and encouraged other students to “express [their] feelings of hatred.”  Evans was suspended for three days and removed from her AP classes under a policy prohibiting the bullying and cyberbullying of staff.  With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, the student sued the principal.  Judge Barry Garber ruled in favor of the student, saying the school overstepped its authority in disciplining Evans.

Two other recent cases involved similar facts.  In 2005, 17-year-old Justin Layshock created a “nonthreatening, non‐obscene parody profile making fun of the school principal.”  While the school’s disciplinary action (10 day suspension) was initially upheld in a 2006 hearing, the judge in the case later reversed himself, saying the school went too far.  In February of 2010, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in and agreed.  In 2007, a 14-year-old student from Pennsylvania was disciplined for creating a profile calling her principal “a sex addict and pedophile.”  In this case, the court upheld the actions of the school.  These differing opinions seemingly left everyone wondering what the standard really is.  But in all of these cases, it came down to whether or not the speech resulted in a substantial disruption at school.

Sameer and I discuss the issue of student speech quite often in our workshops for educators, because it is such a tricky matter.  And we hear many examples where students create inappropriate profiles online directed toward other students or staff.  In fact, earlier this week a mother called me to seek my assistance in helping to remove a Facebook page that her son had created disparaging a teacher at his school.

It is important to acknowledge that students certainly do have free speech protections under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  It must be noted, however, that when at school, student speech can be restricted much more than if the student was not physically on campus.  A large body of case law has established that schools can discipline students, and restrict their speech at school, as necessary to maintain an appropriate learning environment (see, for example, Bethel School District v. Fraser, 1986 and Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 1988).  To be sure, case law has also focused on limiting the ability of educators to restrict speech to only that which occurs on school grounds (see Thomas v. Board of Education, Granville Central School District, 1979).

That said, technology has once again created gray areas with respect to these principles.  What about student speech that occurs away from school but that clearly has some impact on the school?  For example, what if a student creates a web site, from home, using their own personal computer, where they harass a student or criticize a staff member?  This is off-campus speech that clearly affects the school.  While there has been some inconsistency, the courts have generally ruled that in order for educators to intervene in off-campus incidents, they must demonstrate that the speech or behavior caused, or has a great likelihood of causing, a substantial disruption at school.  Just because a teacher or administrator is upset by student speech that occurs off-campus, it doesn’t give them the authority to formally discipline the student(s) involved.  To be sure, school officials ought to contact the parents of the offending party and explain to them the problems with such speech (and hopefully, the parents will take care of it from there).  Moreover, even though the school’s proverbial hands might be tied, the target of the harassing off-campus content has the ability to pursue civil remedies for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or false light.  The point is that there are other ways to make sure the student responsible will be held accountable.

I have to say that I am concerned by the media attention given to these cases because I am afraid that schools will get the wrong impression and interpret these rulings as evidence that they cannot take actions in any incidents that occur away from school.  And this is simply just not true.  In all cases they have the right to take informal action (calling parents, talking to the students involved, expressing dissatisfaction with the behaviors, an extracurricular sanction such as a temporary ban from participating in a sport or club, or capitalizing on the teachable moment by educating the school body about appropriate discourse).  If they can demonstrate a clear link to a substantial disruption at school, they can definitely take more formal actions.  Schools generally get into trouble when they respond with knee-jerk formal reactions (long-term suspensions or expulsions) without carefully considering all of the facts of the case.

In short, students do have the ability to engage in free speech, but when that speech significantly interferes with the school’s ability to provide a safe and secure learning environment for its students, it falls within the reach of a school’s disciplinary arm.  These issues are discussed in more detail in our book and a paper we have forthcoming in the journal Preventing School Failure.  We also have a fact sheet that details more of the legal and policy implications of these and other rulings.

There have been many high profile and tragic incidents in the media in recent years which have linked adolescent suicides to experiences with cyberbullying.  The connection between suicide and interpersonal aggression is certainly nothing new, as a number of studies have documented the association between bullying and suicide.  Sameer and I have a paper coming out in the coming months that explores the relationship between bullying (both traditional and cyber) and suicidal ideation and attempts.  We find that those who experience bullying (and those who bully) report higher levels of suicidal ideation and are more likely to have attempted suicide.

Here is the abstract:

OBJECTIVE: Empirical studies and some high-profile anecdotal cases have demonstrated a link between suicidal ideation and experiences with bullying victimization or offending.  The current study examines the extent to which a nontraditional form of peer aggression – cyberbullying – is also related to suicidal ideation among adolescents.

METHODS: In 2007, a random sample of 1,963 middle-schoolers from one of the largest school districts in the United States completed a survey of Internet use and experiences.

RESULTS:  Youth who experienced traditional bullying or cyberbullying, as either an offender or a victim, had more suicidal thoughts and were more likely to attempt suicide than those who had not experienced such forms of peer aggression.  Also, victimization was more strongly related to suicidal thoughts and behaviors than offending.

CONCLUSION:  The findings provide further evidence that adolescent peer aggression must be taken seriously both at school and at home, and suggest that a suicide prevention and intervention component is essential within comprehensive bullying response programs implemented in schools.

This research provides additional reasons not to ignore even minor forms of bullying and cyberbullying as they can easily escalate and create long-term and disastrous consequences for those involved.  We have a fact sheet that summarizes the findings in this paper which is available here.  As soon as the full article has been published, we will link to it on this site.

Though we focus on youth, we have had an increasing number of adults who call and email us asking for help regarding their own cyberbullying victimization experiences.  Some of the stories we hear are extremely tragic and horribly malicious.  Many times, we are at a loss for words that might help based on the fact that Internet Service Providers and Content Service Providers historically have not turned over subscriber (perpetrator) records in response to complaints from targets.  This recent article, though, may portend an encouraging change.  Specifically, a New York attorney (Steven Wagner) last year specifically argued that a model who was anonymously defamed online deserved to know the identity behind those insults so that he or she could be sued for defamation.  A Manhattan judge agreed and ordered Google to turn over that information so that the plaintiff and victim could proceed with a civil claim.  Following this ruling, victims of online harassment and defamation of character seem to have new hope that the legal system will help them uncover those who bully under the cloak of anonymity or pseudonymity in cyberspace.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in other cases….

Sameer and I have been exploring online social networking generally, and adolescent behaviors on MySpace in particular, for over five years.  Since 2006 we have randomly selected several thousand MySpace profiles each year to determine: 1) who is on MySpace and 2) what kind of information they are posting.  Our latest article, which is forthcoming in the journal New Media and Society is now available online.  We also posted a fact sheet on our site which summarizes the most important findings.  Here is the abstract:

MySpace has received a significant amount of negative attention from the media and many concerned adults, who point to several isolated incidents where predators have contacted, become involved with and even assaulted adolescents whom they met through the popular social networking web site. Furthermore, concerned parents have expressed discontent with the amount and type of personal and private information youth seem to reveal on their profile pages. In 2006, the authors performed an extensive content analysis of approximately 2423 randomly sampled adolescent MySpace profiles, and found that the vast majority of youth were making responsible choices with the information they shared online. In this follow-up study, the authors revisited the profiles one year later to examine the extent to which the content had changed. Though exceptions occur, youth are increasingly exercising discretion in posting personal information on MySpace and more youth are limiting access to their profile. Moreover, a significant number of youth appear to be abandoning their profiles or MySpace altogether.

Because it takes a very long time for a project to go from data collection and analysis to publication, some of the information in this article is a bit dated.  Nevertheless, we think the study does shed some light on the changing nature of social networking online among adolescents.  We would appreciate any thoughts you have about the article.  If you aren’t able to access it on the New Media and Society web site, drop me an email and I will send it to you.  By the way, we are close to completing our third article in this series–a comparison of MySpace profiles from 2006 to 2009.  Stay tuned…

The Cyberbullying Research Center is helping Slate Magazine in their newest initiative to delve into the vivid experiences of those who have been victimized online (primarily through cyberbullying, sexting, and cyberstalking).  This multi-faceted and long-term project seeks to collect stories, interact with those most affected, and deeply understand the problem and what can be done to stop it.  Please seriously think about being a part - by sharing what you’ve gone through, by spreading the word, or by simply following the forthcoming series of articles via Slate, Facebook, or Twitter.  You can read more about the project here.

As I mentioned in my cyberbullying and sexting comments at the National Crime Prevention Council Circle of Respect event two weeks ago, “social norming” continues to bear relevance for dealing with cyberbullying at schools, and I’d like to flesh it out some more since I am a big fan of the concept.  Basically, youth tend to do what others are doing - largely in order to fit in, as they try to figure out who they are and what they stand for.  As they survey the landscape of trends in behaviors and attitudes, they pick up on what is seemingly accepted, endorsed, and done among their peer group.  This influences them consciously or subconsciously, and they then naturally tend to jump “on board” and act similarly in thought, speech, or action.  For example, if an adolescent high school freshmen is told he can’t hang out with friends after Friday night football games because that’s when “everyone” parties and gets drunk, he might begin to view that behavior as commonplace and therefore acceptable.  He may therefore be more inclined to do the same, since it seems “normal” and “known” behavior.

How does this related to reducing online harassment among elementary, middle, and high school students?  Social norming has to do with modifying the environment, or culture within a school, so that appropriate behaviors are not only encouraged, but perceived widely to be the norm.  That is, schools must work to create a climate in which responsible use of Facebook and instant messaging programs (for example), is “what we do around here” and “just how it is at our school and among our students.”  This can occur by focusing attention on the majority of youth who do utilize computers and cell phones in acceptable ways.  If I told you that one in five teenagers are cyberbullied, you wouldn’t focus on spreading that fact around your student body.  Rather, you would reframe and reconceptualize that research finding, and then create cool and relevant messaging strategies emphasizing that the vast majority of your students are using Internet technologies with integrity, discretion, and wisdom, which would hopefully motivate or induce the remainder to get “on board.”  Ideally, the remainder would desire to fit in, would desire to be like everyone else, and would feel an informal compulsion to stop cyberbullying others and start doing the right thing.  Based on this, you can also see how social norming can be used to address sexting.  You can also see how the shaping of social norms is directly related to modifying the overall school climate or culture.

Spending too much time painting cyberbullying in alarmist colors may encourage more youth to act in similar ways, since those youth will perceive the act as “normal” and that “everyone is doing it.”  Are you doing social norming at your school?  In what ways has it worked?  In what ways has it not been as successful as you would have liked? The Cyberbullying Research Center is actively studying its utility, and will keep you updated on what we find.