Blog

We’ve been chatting with other Internet safety professionals about different conceptions of “cyberbullying.” I’d like to talk a bit about the concept of power, and get some thoughts from readers of this blog. Traditional bullying (in the schoolyard, lunchroom, on the bus, etc.) typically involves a clear power differential. I always think of Biff and George McFly from “Back to the Future.”  Teens of today may think of Sharpay from “High School Musical” or maybe The Plastics from “Mean Girls.”

Anyway, in these situations, the bully’s power over the victim tends to come from physical size and strength. Basically, the bully could beat the crap out of the victim, and that’s where the power differential is. Power can also be based on: popularity; social competence; quick wit; extroversion; confidence; intelligence; age; sex; race; ethnicity; or socioeconomic status.

Justin and I have chosen to not include “power” in our definition of cyberbullying because power in cyberbullying tends to be very vague, amorphous, and shifting. For example, anyone with a certain characteristic or possession (such as embarrassing information, or the password of an enemy’s Facebook account, or skills to edit and manipulate digital pictures (photoshopping)) within a certain online context has power – and this power can be wielded through one or more forms of cyberbullying. But that power is not fixed – at the very next moment, someone else (even the victim) can hold the proverbial upper hand.  Furthermore, “power” seems implicit in these situations and perhaps goes without saying.  Can anyone think of an example where bullying or cyberbullying occurs without a power differential?

Overall, I don’t want to get lost in a meaningless academic discussion; I want to just try to crystallize what exactly we are talking about, researching, and working to address….

It goes without saying that youth are exploiting new technological developments (even though everyone is saying it).  I wondered if you all saw the story from Maryland over Christmas break discussing how teenagers are punking their peers by impersonating their vehicles while flying past speed cameras.  This is done by taking a digital photo of an “enemy’s” license plate, printing it out with a laser printer, and taping that sheet of paper onto their own license plate.  Then, they drive past cameras that cannot distinguish between real license plate numbers and the laser-printed ones.  Called “speed pimping,” it leads to a $40 citation for the victim.  So, this begs the question we’re always wrestling with as we work with IT companies, educators, and parents – do we just need better technology, or do we need more education and the teaching of ethics and morals, or do we just shrug it off because adolescents will always pull pranks like this?

Also, could this be considered a form of cyberbullying?  The article makes me think of how some other misbehaviors might be “staged” in a creative fashion by youth using hardware and software to make “evidence” that incriminates another person.  We’ve already heard of impersonation where images of parents’ signatures are inserted by their kids into official documents they (the parents) are to sign.  And we’ve heard of youth impersonating their peers through sites that anonymize emails and text messages – which sometimes has led to conflict and violence in the real world.  When we discuss various forms of cyberbullying, impersonation is rare as compared to other types.  I’m thinking, though, that it’s a pretty serious form that merits closer examination.  I also wonder if policy and practice needs to be targeted and specific in highlighting the wrongfulness of impersonation, or simply addressed through general prevention and response strategies for cyberbullying….

As anticipated, the Final Report released yesterday by Berkman Center’s Internet Safety Technical Task Force summarizing the state of knowledge concerning child safety online has come under fire by some state Attorneys General and others with an interest in advancing public fear about the risks inherent in online social networking.  In my view, much of the criticism is misguided and in some cases even inflammatory.

As I pointed out in my post yesterday, Sameer and I were on the Research Advisory Board and involved in assisting with the review of much of the research that was featured in the Final Report.  Our primary area of expertise is cyberbullying, and the Report rightly acknowledged this to be one of the chief threats posed to adolescents who utilize technology.  That does not mean, however, that other risks do not exist.

As expected, one of the primary criticisms of the Report is that it seems to underplay the apparent risks to children with respect to contact with sexual predators.  The state Attorneys General have a very specific perspective in that they unfortunately have to confront these types of cases on a regular basis and therefore perceive it to be a pervasive problem.  But that is akin to me saying that cyberbullying is a universal problem just because the vast majority of folks who contact me have been victimized by a cyberbully.  As a researcher, I have to step back and take an objective assessment of the problem by conducting thoughtful and methodologically sound empirical research.  While the research concerning cyberbullying is growing and improving, we just do not have any reputable research that can adequately elucidate the problem of sexual predators contacting and victimizing adolescents on social networking web sites.

In fact, we really have no idea how many sexual “predators” are online or any particular web site.  The information released last year pointed to nearly 29,000 registered sex offenders that were removed from MySpace.  First of all, as everyone knows, these numbers only include the ones who used their real names or registered email addresses (only the “dumb ones” as Kentucky AG Jack Conway noted).  Second, just because someone is a registered sex offender, doesn’t mean that person is a “predator.”  A number of people have been added to the registry for engaging in consensual sex – not necessarily predatory assaultive acts.  But this isn’t the point.  The point is that we just don’t know the extent to which sexual predators are a problem on social networking web sites.  We don’t have the research.

How many registered sex offenders visit public malls or city parks every day?  How many of those offenders observe or interact with our children?  We have no idea.  Clearly we don’t want them there, though.  Should we then legislate that malls and municipalities be responsible for identifying these individuals and finding a way to keep them out?  The obvious challenges associated with this demand are equally as applicable when trying to keep “bad people” off of social networking web sites and away from online youth.

The fact that registered sex offenders are on social networking web sites is not the issue in my view.  The reality is that there is no viable way to keep them off.  They can lie about their names and the social networking sites would have no way to identify them.  Companies are working on identity verification software and hardware, but we aren’t there yet.  And even if we were, I’m skeptical that this would be a foolproof remedy as all technological “solutions” are susceptible to circumvention.

A better approach would be to teach the users of those sites (and visitors of malls and parks) how to be safe and responsible so that they are able to protect themselves from anyone with ill intent.  Parents need to talk with their children about Internet safety and responsibility and follow-up to make sure they are abiding by appropriate standards.  Educators need to teach students about these things as well so that youth receive a consistent message from the meaningful adults in their lives.  Law enforcement officials need to be proactive in identifying and arresting people who are engaged in illegal behavior while online.  Finally, researchers need to more thoroughly study this and other problems associated with teens and technology so that informed decisions can be made about effective policies and practices.  We are all in this together.

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University released the final report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force entitled “Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies.”  The Report was commissioned by the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking which is made up of the 50 state Attorneys General who asked the Task Force to help clarify online risks to children and what is being done to alleviate those risks.

Sameer and I served on the Task Force’s Research Advisory Board and were involved in helping to identify and summarize the available empirical research that has been conducted concerning adolescent Internet use and associated risks.  As you might imagine, our contribution primarily centered on cyberbullying and adolescent personal information disclosure on MySpace.  The report highlighted the available research regarding cyberbullying and online harassment and accurately noted that cyberbullying is one of the “most frequent threats that minors face.”  It was interesting to note that among all of the issues explored in this report, the research concerning cyberbullying seemed to be the most developed and thorough.  There have actually been quite a few very good studies and we seem to have a relatively good grasp of the problem – at least compared to many of the other online safety concerns described in the report.

In fact, one of the primary issues of concern highlighted in the report was that there was little research available concerning Internet sexual predators and their participation in social networking web sites.  Several commentators criticized early drafts of the report for “underplaying” the importance of sexual predators, but our response was simply that there has not been any empirical research conducted that we can point to.  While there is no shortage of anecdotal evidence to suggest that sexual predators are a serious problem, we just don’t have any reputable research from which we can draw conclusions.

In short, this is a very comprehensive report of encyclopedic proportions that summarizes the current state of knowledge, policy, and practice concerning adolescent Internet safety.  It will be interesting to see how the media and state Attorneys General respond.  What thoughts do you have about the report?

Findings from a new content analysis of MySpace profiles were released yesterday – something of keen interest to us as we’ve written empirical articles and presented extensively on the use of that social networking site by youth.  The study is methodologically sound and well done, overall.  The researchers found that over half (54%) of 500 profiles created by self-reported 18-year-olds contained “references” to “risky behaviors” in words and photos, including sexual behaviors (24%), substance use (41%), and violence (14%).

More specifically, they found 37% of profiles owned by 18-year-olds referenced alcohol use, 13% referenced tobacco use, and 10.2% referenced drug use.  I find these numbers incredibly high.

In our own research of youth (17 years of age and younger) based on data from the summer of 2007 (the same time the other study was published), we found 13.8% referenced alcohol use, 4.3% referenced tobacco use, and 2.0% referenced marijuana use .  We have a paper being published in the near future that will elaborate on these findings – if you want a copy, just let us know.

I can’t imagine that once a person turns 18, they start rapidly modifying their profile to include more of these references to risky behaviors.  So, I don’t understand how their numbers are so high.

In our own research, we also found that teens seem to be moving in a direction of restricting access to their information and being more wise about what they are posting online (i.e., less frequently posting references to risky behaviors) – irrespective of any intervention.  That is just the general trend.

The lives of these individuals is definitely important, and I agree with the article that MySpace can be used for health promotion since these individuals are displaying risk behaviors on the site.  I’m curious, though, whether this is any different from the risk behaviors they talk about in person, out loud, to friends or acquaintances.  Young adults often joke about and discuss these matters constantly when they are hanging out – and it’s not clear if they are just words or if they are definitely indicative of actual participation in the behaviors.  I have to approach these findings with the same perspective.  Furthermore, these individuals are legal adults (18 years of age), and would seemingly feel completely free to joke about and discuss these matters on their profile page because educational initiatives about safe and responsible use of social networking sites have not really targeted adults.  Again, the purpose of the article is to point to how MySpace might serve as a venue for promoting positive behaviors among a population.  I just want to make sure that consumers of this research do not misinterpret the findings.  Adults referencing risky behaviors (such as these) in person or online is to be expected and not out of the ordinary, and not dependent in any way on MySpace or any other social networking site.