Blog

At the Cyberbullying Research Center we strive to approach the issue of teen technology use and misuse from a data-informed perspective. Just to be clear, data doesn’t just mean bar charts. Over the last ten years we have formally surveyed over 12,000 middle and high school students, so yes, we have a lot of bar charts. But we have also spoken to thousands of teens in schools all around the United States (and abroad). We get emails and phone calls daily from teens, parents, educators, and others who care about the online behaviors of young people. We have done focused interviews with small groups of students. We also review research articles written by other scholars (both published and unpublished). All of these are valuable sources of data. Taken together, we can start to develop a more comprehensive understanding of what is really going on.

Some data sources are definitely better than others, and we take into consideration the quality of the source and the sophistication of the methodology when interpreting results. Randomly selecting participants from a known sample is much better, for example, than arbitrarily selecting people who happen to be at a particular place and time.

To illustrate, I was recently at a school where a teacher told me that *every* student at her school that she had talked to had “either seen or engaged in sexting.” When pressed, she admitted that this wasn’t a “scientific survey,” just a questioning of a few of the students coming out of the cafeteria one day. So she extrapolated that to estimate that “everyone” at her school was in some way involved in sexting. Of course this is ridiculous. I haven’t seen a sexting study report prevalence rates higher than 31% for receiving a “sext” and most studies put the rate in the teens. In fact the Crimes Against Children Research Center recently reported that only 7.1% of students between the ages of 10 and 17 had received a “sext” (and this was a nationally representative survey – about as good as you can get methodologically).

So whenever I find a particular statistic cited, the first thing I do is attempt to uncover the original source and then review the methodology. What was the sample? How were participants selected to be in that sample? What specific questions were asked? Take once again the issue of sexting. How exactly is “sexting” defined? If you ask teens whether they have *ever* seen a nude or semi-nude image of another person on a cell phone, the number who say yes will likely be very high (if they are being truthful). If you ask them, on the other hand, if they had seen a nude or semi-nude image of another student from their school in the last 30 days, the number will be much lower. This is the question that we asked in our research, but even it can be misinterpreted. I mean, what exactly is “semi-nude?”

This brings me to the original point of this post. I have seen too many times to count the statistic that “over 160,000 students stay home every school day due to bullying.” Here are some representative examples:

“Bullying Statistics”

“Facts About Bullying”

“Bullied to Death in America’s Schools”

“Things You Should Know About Bullying”

I have also seen it twice in the last week in summaries for bullying prevention programs being offered by experts. I even found it in a 1993 article in the New York Times. Interestingly, I see it most commonly cited in news reports and governmental reports. Do a Google search for that statistic and you will see it thousands of times. But where did it come from? It has been attributed to many different sources (ABC News, National Education Association, and several books).  Most commonly, it is credited to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). At least one CDC report cites a book written in 1998 (Real boys: Rescuing our sons form the myths of boyhood by William Pollack). That book attributes the statistic to the National Association of School Psychologists, but doesn’t provide a specific citation to a specific study or source. So where did it come from? I have put the question to some of the brightest minds in the area of bullying prevention and research and nobody knows. So if anyone out there has a specific study that includes this statistic, I would love to see it.

There is no question that too many students stay home from school every day because of fear of bullying.  The exact number is difficult to really know.  But it does this field a disservice to mis-cite or simply report statistics without being able to substantiate them.  Bullying *is* a serious problem that warrants our attention.  But the case can be made for this using reliable and valid statistics, not hyperbole.

We often have researchers and practitioners call or email us inquiring about our bullying and cyberbullying assessments, offline and online surveys, focus group questions, and interview measures. We are happy to share them with others because we must all continue to work together to collect methodologically-sound data and conduct meaningful and rigorous analysis of those data if we are to make headway in understanding and responding to peer harassment issues. I want to point out that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recently published one of our latest instruments in a freely-available resource entitled: “Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences: A Compendium of Assessment Tools.”

Feel free to use them as you develop your own assessment program to assess what is going on among the youth you care for. If you tweak or modify any of the measures – or add to or subtract from them – we would really like to know what you did and why you did it. We don’t pretend ours is a definitive way of measuring cyberbullying, but rather a continual work in progress. It has been, and will continue to be, refined as the years go on.

You may learn more about the compendium here, where links to download it in PDF format or order a hard copy are also available. Note that our survey measures begin on page 85 of the PDF file or page 79 of the hard copy. We love research and love discussing it with those similarly inclined, so feel free to comment or email us to further delve into the appropriate conceptualization and operationalization of these items!

Here at the Cyberbullying Research Center, in addition to our own projects, Sameer and I work hard to stay on top of all of the cyberbullying research being done by others. When new reports are released, or when articles are published in journals, we are probably among the first to read them. While there has been a dramatic increase in the number of articles published in journals over the last year or so, we find there is wide variation in the descriptive information reported in these articles about how the study was conducted and what results were obtained. In order to continue building a literature-base marked with quality and rigor, I would like to ask all researchers who are studying this problem to work toward reporting some common baseline information in all of their reports and published articles, so that the data can be accurately synthesized, compared, and contrasted. It is hard to learn from a literature-base that is so disparate on many factors. Let me provide just a few examples.

We have previously discussed the vast difference of cyberbullying prevalence rates reported across several published articles (rates range from 5.5% to 72% in the 42 articles I have read). We might better understand why there is such a difference if researchers better documented what they did and how they did it. For example, it makes sense that online-only, opt-in studies would yield higher prevalence rates as they are restricted to individuals who are regularly online and who volunteer to participate. Moreover, studies that include 18- and 19-year-old respondents in their assessment of “teen” cyberbullying will no doubt find higher lifetime prevalence rates than those that focus only on middle-school-aged youth (because, of course, they have been alive for a much longer period of time). And asking about cyberbullying experiences from the previous 30 days will certainly return fewer incidents than those who ask about lifetime experiences. Another major contributor to differences is the way cyberbullying is defined across studies. These are just a few examples of why there are many discrepancies among cyberbullying prevalence rates reported in the research.

If you are collecting data on cyberbullying, I would ask that you collect and report basic demographic characteristics of the sample and thoroughly describe how you carried out your study. We are more than happy to consult with other researchers about what would be best, so feel free to drop us a note. Here are a few elements that should be included in any published report on cyberbullying:

• What are the demographic characteristics of the sample (total number of students included, gender, race, age)?
• When were the data collected (month, year)?
• How did you define and operationalize cyberbullying (What is cyberbullying? How did you measure it? Can one instance of harassment online be considered cyberbullying based on your measure?)?
• What was the response window of experience with cyberbullying (previous 30 days, 6 months, year, lifetime)?
• How was the information collected (classroom survey, in-person interview, online survey, etc.)?
• How was the sample identified and selected (randomly, based on some unique characteristic, because they were in a particular class, etc.)?
• What is the sample representative of (a particular school or district, state, country) and how do you know that it actually is?
• Prevalence rates of experience with cyberbullying—both victimization and offending (total, and broken down by other demographic characteristics, especially gender).

Working together we can shed more meaningful light on the nature, extent, and consequences of cyberbullying and our efforts can be enhanced exponentially if we all use comparable methodologies. At the very least, we need to take care to document what we did, so that any differences that might be attributable to the way cyberbullying was studied can be identified and taken into consideration when discussing the results.

The Committee on Education and Labor’s Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities heard testimony today about how teens are using and misusing technology, with a specific focus on cyberbullying and social networking. A full web cast of the testimony can be found here. The witnesses included a health care provider, an Internet safety advocate, a business-person, a school administrator, a teen, and talk show host Dr. Phil. While each of these persons was able to provide their own unique perspective about the problems facing youth online, I was struck by the fact that the panel did not include any cyberbullying or social networking researchers. This was particularly concerning because some questions about the state of the research were raised by the Representatives, but these queries couldn’t be adequately answered because researchers were not included on the panel.

So what is the current state of cyberbullying research? Well, this is a question that deserves a very long response, but I would like to briefly highlight a couple of issues here. When we first started exploring cyberbullying in 2002, there was literally no research that existed. Since then, we have conducted seven studies which include over 12,000 adolescents from over 80 schools using a variety of methodologies (a brief summary of the methods and findings from each can be found here). We have written several academic articles and a book which details results from this research.

We also summarize the major findings of our research projects in fact sheets that are posted on our web site. While our methods have evolved over the course of our research program, the five most recent surveys have been based on random samples of known populations using a measure of cyberbullying that has proven reliable and valid.

And this is just a summary of our activities. There are several other very competent researchers from a variety of academic disciplines doing excellent work that is complementary to ours. Based on our studies and that of others, we know that a good proportion of adolescents have experienced cyberbullying at some point in their lifetimes but that the majority of those experiences were relatively minor in nature. Anywhere from 15-35% of teens have experienced some form of cyberbullying, depending on who is sampled and how cyberbullying is defined and measured (see chart with our rates here). Some studies report lower or much higher rates, but we feel reasonably confident in estimating that about 20% of teens have been the victim of cyberbullying at some point in their lifetime (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell, & Tippett, 2008). As expected, this number drops to between 5% and 10% when focusing on recent experiences (within the previous 30 days).

The percent of youth who admit to cyberbullying others at some point in their lives is a bit lower, though comparable. Across all of our studies (see chart here), the rates range from about 11% to as high as 20%. These too are consistent with the weight of the available research conducted by others (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008; Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell, 2007).

A couple of other broad generalizations can be made about cyberbullying, based on the extant literature:

- Adolescent girls are just as likely, if not more likely than boys to experience cyberbullying (as a victim and offender) (Kowalski et al., 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009)

- Cyberbullying is related to low self-esteem, suicidal ideation, anger, frustration, and a variety of other emotional and psychological problems (Hinduja & Patchin, forthcoming; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Patchin & Hinduja, in review)

- Cyberbullying is related to other issues in the ‘real world’ including school problems, antisocial behavior, substance use, and delinquency (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008)

- Traditional bullying is still more common than cyberbullying (Lenhart, 2007; Smith et al., 2008)

- Traditional bullying and cyberbullying are closely related: those who are bullied at school are bullied online and those who bully at school bully online (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007)

Despite the strides that have been made in more fully understanding cyberbullying, it is clear that more work is necessary. We as researchers need to better coordinate our efforts so that our results can more easily be understood by the public and more precisely be integrated into our own prevention and response efforts. This means settling on a uniform definition of cyberbullying – or at least clearly specifying how cyberbullying was operationalized in the work that researchers do.

We as researchers also need to utilize the most rigorous methods possible for the particular situation, and describe exactly how the study was conducted to enable thorough analysis and replication. Longitudinal, nationally-representative samples are not always feasible, but we shouldn’t sacrifice rigor for convenience.

We also need to move toward evaluating programs and curriculum designed to address cyberbullying. About 75 minutes into the hearings, Representative Bobby Scott from Virginia asked the panel if there was any research concerning effective bullying prevention programs. The panel didn’t have a good response. Actually, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program has demonstrated effectiveness at reducing traditional bullying in a variety of school contexts, and has been formally vetted and evaluated by a number of reputable researchers. This said, no similar evaluations have yet been conducted to better understand the processes and outcomes of initiatives focused on addressing cyberbullying.

Even with these concerns, I am hopeful for the future of cyberbullying research. Sameer and I are aware of a number of studies under way that should shed more light on the relevant issues and recent high-profile incidents have pushed cyberbullying to the forefront of a national dialogue. And while we are glad to see cyberbullying finally receiving attention in the media, we all need to be mindful that media reports can sometimes misrepresent and slant research findings to serve a certain purpose. Please take some time to read the actual research yourself so that you can be personally educated and well-informed about these issues. If you have questions about how or why something was done in a study, we encourage you to contact the authors. Of course, we welcome any comments or questions you have about our work and we are sure that our colleagues are also open to your thoughts.

In short, there currently exists a meaningful and growing body of knowledge regarding the correlates and consequences of cyberbullying which can supplement the volumes of information published about traditional bullying. How we use this information to direct future studies, prevention and intervention efforts, and policy is the real question. The first step, in my view, is to make sure that the researchers are at the table.

References:

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89-112.

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129-156.

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (forthcoming). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Forthcoming in Archives of Suicide Research.

Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P. & Agatston, P.W. (2008). Cyber Bullying: Bullying in the Digital Age. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lenhart, A. (2007). Cyberbullying and Online Teens. Pew Internet & American Life Project, June 27. (http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/216/report_display.asp).

Patchin, J. W. & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 123-147.

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., and Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49(4): 376–385.

Ybarra, M., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the Overlap in Internet Harassment and School Bullying: Implications for School Intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41: S42–S50.

Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). The Co-occurrence of Internet Harassment and Unwanted Sexual Solicitation Victimization and Perpetration: Associations with Psychosocial Indicators, Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S31-S41.

See also:

Enhancing Child Safety & Online Technologies: Final Report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force

I greatly enjoyed being a part of a distinguished panel of guests at the National Crime Prevention Council’s Circle of Respect event on Friday, January 15th in Washington, DC.  Speaking alongside Deborah Norville (the anchor of Inside Edition), Chris Moessner (a very experienced researcher and Senior Vice President with Stewart and Partners), Rachel Simmons (author of Odd Girl Out and The Curse of the Good Girl), and Rosalind Wiseman (author of Queen Bees and Wannabees) was extremely enjoyable and enlightening.

Ann M. Harkins (National Crime Prevention Council’s President and CEO) emceed the event and it really was perfect how each speaker’s contribution led smoothly into the next contribution, and how together they built a comprehensive picture of the relevant issues surrounding bullying, relational aggression, cyberbullying, sexting, and respect.  All of my fellow panelists knew their stuff, and it was refreshing that no one shared cliched statements about Internet safety that everyone already knows.  What was shared was based on critical and original thoughts, and I loved that.

You can view the video of the event in its entirety here, cued up to my talk.  We then opened it up for Questions and Answers from the audience.

The majority of my prepared remarks are below.  We only had a few minutes to cover a great deal – and so I was constrained in all that I would have liked to say.  To note, I also covered the concept of social norming as a solution in reducing the misuse of technology by youth, but I want to save those sentiments for an expanded and exclusive blog entry in the very near future.

<PREPARED REMARKS>

Thank you for the opportunity to be on this panel of distinguished guests, and to be able to share with you on the topics of cyberbullying and sexting.  Adolescents have been bullying each other for generations. The latest generation, however, has been able to utilize technology to expand their reach and the extent of their harm. This phenomenon is being called cyberbullying, which we define as: “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.”  In general, cyberbullying is bullying carried out using these technologies.

In our research, we have found that:
•    Approximately 15-35% of youth have been victims of cyberbullying
•    About 10-20% of youth admit to cyberbullying others
•    That girls are just as likely, if not more likely, to be involved in cyberbullying as boys
•    That involvement seems to peak in the middle school years (grades 6-8)
•    And that most victims know, or at least think they know, who the cyberbully is.

Our research studies have consistently demonstrated that cyberbullying bears significant real-world consequences.   Specifically, we have found that cyberbullying leads to negative emotions such as sadness, anger, frustration, and fear, which have been linked to delinquency and interpersonal violence among youth.  Cyberbullying has also been tied to low self-esteem and suicidal ideation, problems with academic achievement, substance use and abuse, traditional bullying, carrying a weapon to school, and other forms of school violence.

I have also been asked to speak about the phenomenon of sexting.  We define sexting as “youth rendering themselves vulnerable to emotional, psychological, and physical victimization through the posting and sending of sexually-explicit or sexually-suggestive text, images or video.”

The actual extent of sexting among youth is somewhat unclear when looking across existing studies, and varies depending on how sexting is defined, whether it includes only cell phone use or other forms of online communication, the specific age group studied, and the study’s methodology and sampling.  We have seen estimates as low as 4% and as high as 19% for the proportion of youth who have sent a sexually suggestive picture or video of themselves to someone else.  We have seen estimates as low as 15% and as high as 31% for the proportion of youth who have received a sexually suggestive picture or video from someone else.  Our Cyberbullying Research Center is currently collecting data from a random sample of middle- and high-schoolers this week and next week, and will then be able to share with you a demographic and personality profile of those most likely to participate in sexting, contributive factors that make some youth more susceptible than others, and the range of consequences that can befall victims.

Sexting is largely an adolescent development issue.  Youth seek to figure out who they are and what they stand for during this tenuous period of life, and the process by which this occurs is greatly dependent upon cues from their social environment.  That is, peer perceptions and cultural norms are a large determinant in their own self-worth.  As such, adolescents often seek to present themselves to their peers in a way that attracts positive attention and increases social status.  This then serves to meet their inherent needs for affection, affirmation, and validation.

A teenage girl might hesitate for a moment when asked to send a semi-nude or nude picture of herself to a boyfriend or boy she’s interested in, but if it may improve that boy’s perception of her and consequently her perception of herself – and if it is deemed socially acceptable – she may do it.  This problem is exacerbated by the incessant cultural messages that describe and promote teen sexuality in arguably unhealthy ways – where “hooking up” may be preferred over “dating”, and where having personal privacy boundaries is viewed as “old-school” and “lame.”  My fellow panelists have keenly pointed out that respect – especially self-respect, or the lack thereof – also perpetuates this problem.

A few states are using traditional child pornography statutes to prosecute youth who engage in sexting.  Many argue these actions are outside of the original intentions of legislators who formulated the laws to prosecute adults who prey on youth.  Others believe that such strict interpretation of existing law is necessary in order to prevent tragedies like the Jesse Logan case from Ohio and the Hope Witsell case from Florida, both recent suicides stemming from sexting.

Similarly, school districts are seeking to reduce sexting through formal policies.  Based on my experience working with youth, and having been a youth myself, I don’t believe that formal law and policy is the best way to go – because adolescents tend not to be deterred by rules and laws.  It just doesn’t work as well as we would like to think.  I also don’t want the presence of law and policy to take the place of purposed educational efforts to teach teens about the responsible use of technology.  This sometimes happens when laws or policies are implemented as a way of quickly “dealing” with an issue, without understanding its fundamental causes.

I believe in the need for education and outreach to change prevailing social norms regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable in the minds of youth.  I feel that our prevention and response efforts are going to be less than ideal if we cannot effectively counter what society is hammering into the minds of adolescents.  If the dominant message our kids are hearing is that teen sexuality leads to romantic love, personal fulfillment, popularity, and celebrity status with very little (if any) public or personal fallout, youth will continue to push the proverbial envelope and the line between right and wrong in this area will be increasingly obscured.  I believe that social norming can counter this, and can help youth cultivate a deeper measure of self-respect.  This will serve as an insulating factor against participation in sexting and help them to stand firm when faced with very strong peer and cultural pressures.

I am pleased to be partnering with the National Crime Prevention Council in their far-reaching efforts to address the problems of cyberbullying and sexting, and believe that together we are making a very tangible difference through research, education, and outreach.   Thank you for your time and attention.

</PREPARED REMARKS>