Blog

I was recently thinking about the Mitchell Henderson case (where a seventh-grader from Rochester, Minnesota took his own life in April 2006) and the involvement of 4chan.org site visitors.  As you may recall, Mitchell’s classmates created an online memorial for him on MySpace, but that page and his story attracted the attention of web trolls from 4chan.org, who mercilessly mocked his life and death.  This culminated in the phone number of Mitchell’s family being published, which led to trolls calling them incessantly, pretending to be Mitchell from the cemetery, or his ghost attempting to enter their house.

I was considering this to be a form of cyberbullying.  But then I thought about our conceptual definition and its constituent parts….

First, cyberbullying is intentional and purposed rather than accidental or inadvertent. Accidents happen all of the time on the playground, and some of these result in physical harm. Still, most people recognize that accidental or unintentional behaviors do not constitute bullying.  Second, bullying necessarily involves maliciousness on the part of the aggressor, and that maliciousness is one type of violence.  Third, one instance of aggression is not sufficient to qualify as bullying; behavior must occur on a repetitive basis to be considered bullying.  Fourth, inherent in any conception of bullying is the demonstration (or interpretation) of power by the offender over the target.  Fifth, harm has to be experienced by the victim – otherwise, the interaction may be considered a joke or sarcastic exchange.

When I think about Mitchell Henderson (and, more recently, defamatory, profane, and grossly irreverent content posted by others to memorial pages on MySpace and Facebook for other youth who have committed suicide), I definitely believe that cyberbullying has taken place.  Nevertheless, the victim is no longer alive, and therefore can’t possibly be embarrassed, hurt, or offended by the words that are being shared.  As such, perhaps we have to expand our definition of cyberbullying to include collateral harm inflicted on family members and friends of the victim – because I’m sure that takes place in these situations.  With that said, though, it is arguable that the circle of those negatively affected is much wider.  Cyberbullying, perhaps, rends the moral fabric of society and should thus be considered an act of violence against all people (in keeping with the thoughts of 17th century thinker Thomas Aquinas).  Maybe this is a conceptualization that we should promote.  Maybe envisioning it as such may (may!) deter people more so than just thinking about how it affects or harms just one person.  Does this idea have any merit?  I’d love to hear your thoughts.

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>

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!