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>

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….

Both Sameer and I will be at the Ophelia Project National Conference in Evanston, IL, Thursday and Friday this week (Oct. 16-17) talking about cyberbullying.  We will be presenting a couple of breakout sessions covering issues related to preventing and responding to cyberbullying incidents and legal issues facing educators.  If you are there, stop by and say hi!

There has been renewed discussion recently about what behaviors actually constitute cyberbullying.  This is an issue that we have commented about on this blog before and discuss in detail in our book (see especially pages 5 and 49).

One of our favorite Internet safety newsletters, Net Family News, recently reported on an article published last year in the Journal of Adolescent Health by Janis Wolak, Kimberly J. Mitchell, and David Finkelhor.  The article argues that most estimates of cyberbullying are inflated because they include behaviors that aren’t really bullying.  The authors suggest that to be considered cyberbullying, the behavior must be repetitive, represent a power differential among participants, and be “a part of or related to offline bullying.” In sum, Wolak and her colleagues offer the following:

“We do not recommend using the term ‘bullying’ to describe all online interpersonal offenses, because they vary so widely in their characteristics. We suggest using ‘online harassment,’ with disclaimers that it does not constitute bullying unless it is part of or related to offline bullying (page S57).”

In many ways, we agree with these arguments.  In our research we clearly define cyberbullying as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, or other electronic devices.”  While admittedly this is an imperfect definition, it includes the four main components that we feel are important in defining cyberbullying: (1) the behavior is deliberate, not accidental; (2) the behavior is repeated, not just a one-time incident; (3) harm occurs–from the perspective of the target; and, (4) it is executed using the benefit of technology.

We spell this out even more specifically in our research.  For example, in a recent survey of middle schoolers, we informed participants that: “Cyberbullying is when someone repeatedly makes fun of another person online or repeatedly picks on another person through email or text message or when someone posts something online about another person that they don’t like.”  Using this definition, about 18% of the 6th through 8th graders who participated in our survey reported experiencing cyberbullying at some point in their lifetime (details of the sample and method are discussed in our book).

While our definition does not explicitly distinguish between incidents that involve online-only acquaintances and those that have an offline component, we agree that this is something worth identifying.  We agree that those incidents that have proven most hurtful typically involve a personal relationship (the target knows the offender in real life).  That doesn’t mean, however, that we should simply disregard those behaviors that are carried out among “strangers” online.  They too can result in harm.

We also acknowledge that a differential in power between the target and the bully is an important characteristic of traditional bullying definitions, though we feel this component is not as significant a defining feature of cyberbullying.  That’s because in many ways technology levels the playing field, or at least allows someone who may be less powerful socially or physically to neutralize whatever power differential previously existed.  Moreover, technological proficiency by itself may give one person power over another person.

Finally, the “repetition” component of our definition requires additional discussion.  Repetition is almost inherent in cyberbullying incidents.  For example, if someone posts an unflattering picture about another person online without their permission, that might be a “one-time” incident, but the nature of technology is that the target may be victimized over and over again as the picture is repeatedly viewed.  The viral nature of cyberbullying may transform a relatively minor form of harassment into a serious problem very quickly.

In conclusion, while we agree that the majority of cyberbullying behaviors reported in our research and elsewhere represent relatively minor behaviors, we don’t feel that makes them any less important to scrutinize and condemn.  All forms of harassment, however minor, must be addressed by adults so that they do not escalate to the more serious forms.  That said, it is important for researchers to come to a consensus about what constitutes cyberbullying in order to form a clearer picture about the online experiences of adolescents.  In many ways, technology is forcing us to rethink the way we view bullying. Traditional categorical definitions of bullying, applied to instances where technology is employed, may simply be inadequate.  At the very least, researchers must clearly spell out how they define cyberbullying in their studies so that others may be completely informed and to ensure that we are comparing apples to apples.

For those of you who haven’t heard yet, a federal law has been proposed that defines “cyberbullying” and specifies penalties (in the form of fines and up to two years imprisonment) for violators. The bill is formally called the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (HR 6123), and was introduced jointly by Representatives from Missouri and California. We support the creation of well-informed and thought-out laws that are part of a comprehensive plan to address cyberbullying, and we applaud the fact that politicians are increasingly recognizing and formally responding to the problem of online aggression. However, this specific law is just not going to work. The text of the bill reads:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (§ 881)

The bill’s wording seems too broad, and its overbreadth makes me believe that it would be found unconstitutional. IANAL, but intent to cause “substantial emotional distress” through “severe” and “hostile” electronic behaviors will be difficult to prove, especially when it is online. I think courts would (and do) have an easier time identifying and agreeing upon the same behavior when demonstrated offline, in the real world.

On a final note, I like the fact that “cyberbullying” is spelled as one word in the bill.

Illinois is seemingly about to pass a law to criminalize any instances of cyberbullying that involve a direct threat to another person. Penalties include up to one year in jail for the first instance of harassing someone online, with repeat offenses leading to up to three years imprisonment. Oddly, the bill only mentions web sites or web pages and doesn’t cover other mediums through (or other venues in which) cyberbullying can occur. I figure that more and more of these bills will pop up in various state legislatures over the next year or so. I am concerned, however, that they might cause adults to rest on their laurels now that a law is on the books. There is so much to be done in terms of education, prevention, and extralegal responses. Laws are, and will never be, a panacea.

One of the first questions we are asked by media, parents, educators, and others who are unfamiliar with cyberbullying is simply: what is it?  This is a lot more complicated question than one would assume.  In our academic work, we define cyberbullying as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use computers, cell phones, or other electronic devices.”  This definition, while useful, is fairly broad and ambiguous.  When asking youth whether or not they have experienced cyberbullying, it is important to be very specific with what you are talking about.  In fact, one of the primary reasons we see such a range of estimates about how many youth experience cyberbullying is because of definitional differences.  In our most recent study, we informed youth that cyberbullying was: “when someone repeatedly makes fun of another person online or repeatedly picks on another person through email or text message or when someone posts something online about another person that they don’t like.”  Obviously the key feature of cyberbullying that we want to highlight is its repetitive nature.  While the technology or web environment employed may change (cell phone vs. computer; MySpace vs. Yahoo Chat vs. Facebook, etc), cyberbullying behaviors remain relatively consistent: using technology to repeatedly be hurtful to others.  We’ll talk more about definitional issues on this blog because they are so important.  Let us know your thoughts.  Is there one definition of cyberbullying that is better than the others?