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 We also review research articles written by other scholars (both published and unpublished).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.

This is a common question I receive from many parents: “At what age should I give my child a cell phone or allow them to be on Facebook?” Of course this is not an easy question to answer since every child is different and parents themselves are probably in the best position to determine the most appropriate age. That said, I usually advise parents to think about allowing access to certain devices or web environments a little bit earlier than they might think is the right time. The issue really is that parents need to be the ones who introduce the technology to the child, not the youth’s peers. If parents wait too long or try to convince themselves that their child has no interest in Facebook, then odds are good that the child will learn about the site from a friend and set up a profile without the parent’s knowledge.

I recently spoke to a teacher who is a parent of a 5th grader who asked my opinion about whether her son should be on Facebook. I told her that it probably wasn’t a good idea. It is a violation of Facebook’s terms of use, and agree with them or not, parents shouldn’t encourage their children to break the rules. Thankfully there are many other emerging sites that are designed exclusively for tweens, such as togetherville, which interfaces with Facebook. Admittedly, it is difficult to get younger social networkers excited about these alternatives since “all of their friends are already on Facebook.”

And some data suggests that they are right: Consumer Reports recently reported that as many as 13% of Facebook’s American users are under the age of 13 (about 7.5 million kids). And half or more of the students I speak to Facebook hasn’t completely ignored their rules, however, as they reportedly remove tens of thousands of under-aged youth every day. Of course if a user lies about his or her age when setting up the profile, it is very difficult for Facebook to know whether someone is underage so they rely on reports of violators.

This leads to another question I get: “If I see a person on Facebook who I know to be under 13, should I report the user?” This too is a complicated question. My response used to automatically be “yes.” If they are violating the rules, they should not be on the site. I have tempered my response a bit in recent months, informed by insights from colleagues, educators, and Internet safety experts. In general, whether or not to report an under-aged user depends on whether you have a concern about them being on the site—based on what you know about the user and/or what you see on his or her profile. If you are worried that their activities on Facebook could lead to significant social, educational, physical, or other problems, then you have an obligation to report (to the site or the youth’s parents, or both). If you see a 12-year-old whom you know well who is on the site and they have their privacy settings adjusted so that all of their information is protected to the maximum extent possible, perhaps it isn’t necessary to report the user. You still might want to take the person aside and talk about some of the concerns you have (posting too much personal or identifiable information, meeting someone in real life who they only know online, including gossiping or harassing content, etc.) to encourage him or her to continue making good decisions about their online activities. As Larry Magid, tech journalist and internet safety advocate points out, changing the rules to allow younger users on Facebook would create opportunities for the site to incorporate protections that just aren’t in place when kids lie about their age. This is certainly a perspective that should be considered.

Overall, parents should provide gradual and guided access to technology. Maybe, for example, you give your son a cell phone at age 10, but to start the only persons he can call are mom and dad. After a couple of months if he demonstrates appropriate behaviors you can add selected others. Then add texting. Show him the cell phone bill every month so he knows his contribution to the family expenses. Stress that the phone is a privilege that can be taken away with misuse. If he makes a mistake, take a step back. If he is texting at the dinner table, explain to him why this is unacceptable. If he is talking to friends all hours of the night, confiscate the phone for a while. I suspect that if more parents were actively involved in encouraging the responsible use of technology, even at a relatively young age, there would be fewer and less serious problems later in their adolescent lives.

Recently, a case came up before the Missouri court involving a 40-year-old woman and a 17-year-old girl, with the former having been charged with felony harassment as she posted the girl’s personal contact information and photo on Craigslist in their subsection for individuals seeking “Casual Encounters” (you can imagine what that means).  To note, this is the first application of Missouri’s new cyberharassment and cyberbullying law, which went into effect in June of 2008 following the media coverage of Megan Meier’s suicide.

The defendant and her attorney claim this was simply a practical joke.  Her attorney also claims that had this same information been written on a bathroom wall, she would not have been charged.

I disagree with both of these assertions. First, there must be a line drawn as to what constitutes a practical joke, and that boundary was crossed when the defendant put the plaintiff at risk for actual, tangible harm.  Secondly, to compare the writing on a bathroom wall to posting on the Internet is preposterous when considering the differential size of populations that would view each. Third, I believe it is completely appropriate for a judge and jury to consider the reality of recent Craiglist-related victimizations when interpreting the content and context of this case.  Much like we don’t shrug off facetious statements about bombs in airports, we can’t shrug off the reality that the disclosure of personal information online can lead to serious harm offline.  Finally, minors are (and should be) afforded even greater protection from these types of actions.

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 New York Times last week asked me my thoughts on the Megan Meier case and online misrepresentation, and I thought I’d expand on my perspective here.  First off, we have to understand why this case drew so much attention.  It was because we have a vulnerable and depressed young girl basically driven to suicide by the malicious actions of an adult and her accomplices. The plot was thickened by the fact that the adult was the young girl’s neighbor, and that the actions were carried out through interaction on the most popular online social networking site at the time.  While other youth (sadly) have taken their life in part because of cyberbullying, this case inflames our emotions and sensitivities because of its nature, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and because it is in-line with much of the sensationalism surrounding the dangers of youth Internet use.

When it comes to online misrepresentation, my thoughts differ from many others out there.  I personally don’t think this case has chilling effects for the way individuals participate in Internet-based interactions (for example, by creating fake online identities).  So many do it just for convenience and because they are not comfortable giving out their personal information because of spam or increasing their chance of victimization.  This is just how it is, and I agree with that general motivation.  Eventually we may see technology that allows for age- or identity-verification without the obvious negatives of providing that information, but some of the inherent benefits of Internet-based communication will then be diminished.

Finally, I should make clear that it is still quite easy to pose as a teenager or youth online.  We have no fully useful age- or identity-verification systems in place, although entities in the corporate sector  are furiously competing with each other to develop the best one and achieve widespread adoption.  We are definitely not there yet.  That said, social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace will deal with age- or identity-misrepresentation when it is brought to their attention, but traditionally very few would report it if they stumbled upon it.  Accompanying the notoriety of this case, perhaps the grave consequences stemming from Lori Drew’s misrepresentation will lead many more Internet users to step up and inform the authorities.