Blog

Back in March I wrote about this case, where a federal jury had ordered the Hudson Area School District in Michigan to pay $800,000 in damages to a student who was repeatedly harassed by classmates (and allegedly staff) for a period of several years.  A federal district court had been reviewing the facts of the case and recently overturned the jury’s order, stating that the harassment the student experienced was not sexual in nature and therefore not subject to a Title IX claim.  This despite being called a “queer” and “faggot” on a regular basis and his locker being “covered with shaving cream spelling out sexually oriented words.”  The court also asserted that the plaintiff failed to prove that the school was deliberately indifferent to the harassment that had been taking place.

There are a couple of important lessons that can be learned from this case.  First, holding incompetent school officials accountable for their actions, or lack thereof, can be very difficult.  To be fair, we were not present during the hearings and do not have access to all of the evidence presented.  From court records, however, it seemed clear to me that school officials were ignorant at best and most likely indifferent.  Obviously Federal Circuit Judge Lawrence Zatkoff didn’t agree with me.  Please read the facts of the case here and assess for yourself.

Second, it is important that students who are bullied keep very detailed records about what happened, what they did in response, who they told, and what that person did to fix the problem.  Targets of bullying also may need to fully exhaust all school-level mechanisms for responding to the bullying.  They need to give the school a chance to make things right.  School officials too need to keep very good records pertaining to bullying incidents so that they can articulate the steps that were taken to demonstrate, as apparently the Hudson Area School District did, that they took appropriate actions to remedy the problem.

School officials cannot become complacent and assume that there is zero liability if they ignore bullying that affects their learning environment and interferes with the rights of students to feel safe at school. Our colleague Nancy Willard pointed us to a couple of examples: In Vance v. Spencer County Public School District (2000), a jury ordered the school to pay the target of student-on-student sexual harassment $220,000.  In a similar case (Theno v. Tonganoxi Unified School District, 2005), another jury ordered the school district to pay the target $250,000 for being deliberately indifferent to, once again, student-on-student sexual harassment occurring at school.  Both of these cases involved sexual harassment that occurred at school and both involved jury orders.  Common citizens could clearly see that the schools in these cases were irresponsible, indifferent, and should have done more to protect students.  Interestingly, the facts of the Theno case are very similar to the Patterson case, especially with respect to the names that the target was being called.

If we have learned anything from all of these cases, it is that this is a legal area that is far from clear.  What do you think?  Were staff members at the Hudson Area School District indifferent to the harassment?

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

Several high profile incidents have put cyberbullying at the top of the headlines in recent months.  When Sameer and I first started studying this problem over eight years ago, it was rare to see a cyberbullying story in the media, now they are everywhere.

Larry Magid, a technology journalist who contributes to a number of publications, both online and off, commented on cnet yesterday about the potential development of a “cyberbullying panic.”  We really appreciate his perspective on issues relating to teens and technology and especially the fact that he always supports his viewpoints and arguments with research.

He is right that the public can sometimes view a particular problem as epidemic in nature simply from one or two high profile incidents (for example, the school shootings of the late 1990s, or more recently the panic over online sexual predators).  And many in the media often fan the flames.  I basically agree with his thoughts on this and think he is right on in terms of encouraging teens (and adults) to acknowledge that most kids are not engaging in negative or risky or irresponsible behaviors online.  Research finds that about 20% of kids have been cyberbullied, or admit to cyberbullying others, at some point in their lifetime (this number varies considerably depending on how one measures cyberbullying).  Of course this means that 80% of kids are NOT involved in cyberbullying as an aggressor or target.

Many people ask me if the bullying problem is getting worse with technology.  I simply tell them that technology has allowed us to observe the bullying problem more clearly.  Kids have always been bullying each other.  But technology has brought it to the forefront because we can see exactly what is being done and said.  Historically, maybe, much of these bullying experiences would never come to the attention of adults – technology has made the problem more visible, for better *and* worse.  This visibility likely contributes to the overall harm caused, but also allows parents, school administers, and others to see it more precisely (and most are shocked, even though they too were once adolescents).  I also think that the media attention surrounding these and other high profile incidents over the last year or two (perhaps even the Megan Meier case) has resulted in more students coming forward about their bullying/cyberbullying experiences.  Our research over the last five years or so shows that more teens are now telling adults about their experiences with cyberbullying.  Now we just need to teach adults how to effectively deal with the problem once they are made aware.

We need to remember that most teens are doing great things online and are largely being responsible (our MySpace research shows this clearly).  The high profile examples certainly grab the headlines but represent the exception rather than the rule.  Of course, as Larry points out, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the problem.  It is hard to see a clear path to prevention and response in the midst of a panic.  Good solid research can help us to distill the fact from the fiction, and therefore should be the foundation of any policy and practice.  That said, the rare tragedy is often necessary to remind us of why it is so important to keep moving forward with respect to these issues.

It is not often that students are charged in criminal court for their participation in bullying.  But that is what happened this week.  As has been well-publicized, 15-year-old Phoebe Prince of South Hadley, Massachusetts, committed suicide in January after experiencing extreme levels of bullying from her classmates.  After conducting a thorough investigation, District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel announced that nine teens who were implicated in the bullying have now been charged with various crimes, including: violation of civil rights, criminal harassment, and disturbing a school assembly.  Two male students have also been charged with statutory rape.  We will closely follow this case through the courts as it represents an extreme response to an extreme incident, and may well serve as precedent for future cases.

No matter how you view this case, it is tragic.  A 15-year-old girl took her own life after what appears to be relentless emotional and psychological bullying from her peers.  Unfortunately “bullicide,” as it has been termed, is not altogether uncommon.  Many parents experience a horrific void for the rest of their lives after losing a child to suicide stemming directly or indirectly from experiences with bullying.  Adults who dismiss bullying as simple “kids will be kids” behavior or a “rite of passage” should pay close attention to these worst case scenarios.  I have been asked many times by naïve adults over the years: “What’s the big deal, it is only text?”  I simply tell them to ask John Halligan or Mark Neblett or Debbie Johnston or now Anne O’Brien Prince, or any one of the other parents who have had children take their own lives as a result of bullying.  It can take an unimaginable toll on the loved ones left behind.

While the bullying actions of the teens involved are reprehensible, I am interested in where the adults were during all of this and what their response was.  I am especially interested in learning more about what the school (teachers and administrators) knew.  There is conflicting information in the media reports about whether administrators knew about the bullying, and the specific actions that were taken.  The law is clear that if it can be shown that schools are ‘deliberately indifferent’ to harassment, they could be found liable for damages.  Burying one’s head in the proverbial sand and pretending that bullying isn’t occurring is not a legitimate response.  Not morally, and not legally.

If parents, teachers, and administrators would have identified and responded to the bullying of Phoebe Prince in a meaningful way, the loss of life may not have occurred.  If you are an educator or a parent, don’t think that your students and children are safe just because bullying is not a major, visible problem in your school.  Be proactive about educating youth regarding appropriate behaviors and empower them to let you know about any actions or interactions that may compromise the safe and secure environment that should be in place on campus. Teens are reluctant to tell adults about their bullying experiences because they are afraid it will only make the situation.  Parents and educators need to present a clear and unified front against all forms of bullying, and let would-be bullies know that disciplinary action will be taken.  While I am not convinced that criminal action is the most appropriate course to take in all cases, it certainly sends a strong message to teachers, parents, and students.

Sameer and I have talked a lot about this issue in recent months, and while we both basically agree that teacher-student interactions online are risky business, we struggle with how to best approach the issue.  Earlier today he posted his thoughts on the issue.  I would like to take this opportunity to re-articulate mine to continue the dialog.

As I have argued here before, most will agree that a lot of value could come from teachers interacting online in a professional/educational manner with their students.  Again, assuming teachers and students both establish and maintain appropriate boundaries, these interactions could be very positive.  The most serious risk would be if teachers failed to preserve proper limits or if students misperceived the online attention as something more than educational.  In his earlier post, Sameer points out several terrible examples of these – though we all agree these are extremely rare.  Of course these potential concerns are also present in off-line communications between teachers and students that occur as well (both in school and outside of it).

To be sure, teachers should refrain from friending students on social networking profiles they use for personal purposes.  Clearly separating their work and personal lives is important.  Moreover, teachers have an obligation to intervene if they see inappropriate content or evidence of a violation of school policy (or the law) on a student’s profile.  That is a cost of engaging in online communications.

Instead of prohibiting good teachers from utilizing all available tools to educate their students and promote their healthy development, focus should be placed on informing both students and staff about these concerns and fire or discipline teachers who engage in inappropriate behaviors, no matter where the occur.  Sameer theorizes that online interactions make it easier for inappropriate relationships to develop between students and staff.  That may be true, but we shouldn’t hold that against the vast majority of great teachers who will do the right thing.

Schools probably should have a clear policy that establishes the professional standard in online student-teacher interactions.  But they shouldn’t outright prohibit it.  That said, many teachers may feel, for whatever reason, that interacting with students online just isn’t for them.  Either way, it should be their choice.  But they need to be made aware of the issues so that they can make an informed decision.

Sameer and I agree that this issue is complicated and demanding of public discourse.  You have our thoughts, what do you think? Here’s another poll!