Sameer and I have been exploring online social networking generally, and adolescent behaviors on MySpace in particular, for over five years.  Since 2006 we have randomly selected several thousand MySpace profiles each year to determine: 1) who is on MySpace and 2) what kind of information they are posting.  Our latest article, which is forthcoming in the journal New Media and Society is now available online.  We also posted a fact sheet on our site which summarizes the most important findings.  Here is the abstract:

MySpace has received a significant amount of negative attention from the media and many concerned adults, who point to several isolated incidents where predators have contacted, become involved with and even assaulted adolescents whom they met through the popular social networking web site. Furthermore, concerned parents have expressed discontent with the amount and type of personal and private information youth seem to reveal on their profile pages. In 2006, the authors performed an extensive content analysis of approximately 2423 randomly sampled adolescent MySpace profiles, and found that the vast majority of youth were making responsible choices with the information they shared online. In this follow-up study, the authors revisited the profiles one year later to examine the extent to which the content had changed. Though exceptions occur, youth are increasingly exercising discretion in posting personal information on MySpace and more youth are limiting access to their profile. Moreover, a significant number of youth appear to be abandoning their profiles or MySpace altogether.

Because it takes a very long time for a project to go from data collection and analysis to publication, some of the information in this article is a bit dated.  Nevertheless, we think the study does shed some light on the changing nature of social networking online among adolescents.  We would appreciate any thoughts you have about the article.  If you aren’t able to access it on the New Media and Society web site, drop me an email and I will send it to you.  By the way, we are close to completing our third article in this series–a comparison of MySpace profiles from 2006 to 2009.  Stay tuned…

The Cyberbullying Research Center is helping Slate Magazine in their newest initiative to delve into the vivid experiences of those who have been victimized online (primarily through cyberbullying, sexting, and cyberstalking).  This multi-faceted and long-term project seeks to collect stories, interact with those most affected, and deeply understand the problem and what can be done to stop it.  Please seriously think about being a part - by sharing what you’ve gone through, by spreading the word, or by simply following the forthcoming series of articles via Slate, Facebook, or Twitter.  You can read more about the project here.

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 discussing cyberbullying and suicide recently, and even though cases are isolated and rare, the link is worth our attention.  First, it reiterates the fact that all forms of adolescent peer aggression must be taken seriously both at school and at home, and that online harassment can have grave real-world implications.  It also follows that we should make sure a suicide prevention and intervention component is essential within comprehensive bullying response programs implemented in schools.  Without question, the topic is sensitive and its presentation should be age-appropriate, as students in all grade levels must understand the serious consequences associated with peer aggression.  While suicide is an extreme response, proper discussion of its stark reality can vividly portray the extent of harm that peer harassment can exact.  To be sure, educators must be careful not to plant ideas in the minds of youth related to suicide being a viable option to their interpersonal problems.

As evidenced by the increasing number of self-inflicted deaths among youth, though, it is essential to boldly (but delicately) broach the topic to dissuade this form of harm and to remind youth that help is available.  Parents should likewise discuss the link between offline and online peer harassment and suicidal thoughts, and ought to consider utilizing stories in the news to underscore the seriousness of the matter.  It may not be a comfortable conversation, but it seems quite necessary given the frequency with which youth are harassed and the manner in which they sometimes suffer.

There is the oft-invoked concern of “copycat” behaviors - that hearing about it will actually promote its growth rather than reduce it - but we are not finding this claim to be valid based on our experience with schools and youth across the nation.  It could just be the way Justin and I specifically talk about the issues - we’re just not sure.  It is likely worth studying through formal research in the future.  Maybe breaking down the specific ways anti-[insert problematic behavior here] messages are delivered can inform an entire population of youth-serving adults as to the best way we can go about it - since they are succeeding in some areas but failing in others.

One major outcome that we have seen in recent years has been the increase in suicides related to an experience with bullying. As a point of reference, in 2004, suicide was the third-leading cause of deaths among those between the ages of 10 and 24. Even though suicide rates have decreased 28.5 percent between 1990 and 2004 among this age group, upward trends were identified in the 10- to 19-year-old age group in 2003-2004 (the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Though research involving traditional bullying and suicide is plentiful, empirical research involving cyberbullying and suicide is sparse.

We just got word that a research paper we submitted to the journal Archives of Suicide Research has just been accepted for publication. Its general focus is the phenomenon of cyberbullicide, which we define as “suicide indirectly or directly influenced by experiences with online aggression” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). We’ll be posting a new fact sheet summarizing the research soon, but it details the empirical link we have uncovered between suicidal thoughts/actions and online victimization.

In our quantitative study, we found that youth who experienced traditional bullying or cyberbullying, as either an offender or a victim, scored higher on a well-validated suicidal ideation scale than those who had not experienced those two forms of peer aggression. Moreover, bullying and cyberbullying victimization was a stronger predictor of suicidal thoughts and behaviors than bullying and cyberbullying offending.

We also found that traditional bullying victims were 1.7 times more likely and traditional bullying offenders were 2.1 times more likely to have attempted suicide than those who were not traditional victims or offenders. Similarly, cyberbullying victims were 1.9 times more likely and cyberbullying offenders were 1.5 times more likely to have attempted suicide than those who were not cyberbullying victims or offenders.

My next post will offer some policy and programming suggestions to address this problem. Even though cyberbullicide occurs quite rarely, it still merits purposed and informed prevention and response efforts.

I really liked this article on “Cyber-Mentors”, a relatively new program from BeatBullying (based in the UK) that is gaining traction. Justin and I believe strongly in the power of older students and youth to provide guidance and advice to younger students as it relates to peer conflict (especially the online variant). Many of the mentors who participate in this program have experienced or witnessed cyberbullying, and are therefore in a unique position to offer counsel as they are personally and emotionally invested in helping the target of harassment in cyberspace. BeatBullying is working to become a 24/7 resource, and provide help to American youth as well; they currently work with hundreds of kids a week in a direct, physical capacity and thousands in a virtual capacity. They have recently elected Professor Tanya Byron to be their president.  This is really encouraging to me because she believes in the importance of rigorous research as the foundation of any program.

Justin and I study and work to reduce various forms of deviance and crime on social networking sites, and this recent article on CNN.com prompted me to talk about some of the issues therein.

The main thrust of the story is that cybercriminals are now using Facebook and Twitter to victimize unsuspecting individuals through “phishing” techniques, where targets click on a link and are taken to a site that convinces them to reveal personal information.  This parallels the phenomenon of email phishing, where people receive what appears to be legitimate communication from their bank, cable Internet company, or an e-commerce site like eBay asking them to follow a link to fix a time-critical password/account/payment problem by typing in their private data.

The criminal usage of these links (and the convincing content that surrounds them) can be characterized as social engineering, which often involves some amount of emotional pressure to lead an individual to make a quick online decision based on invalid or unvalidated information.  Undergirding these schemes is the promotion of urgency - basically saying that if you don’t click on this link and do the needful immediately, you’ll lose online access, or your reputation may be damaged, or you’ll suffer from other serious consequences.

The bottom line is that we need to make sure that we cautiously evaluate the legitimacy of the sites we visit from links within Facebook and Twitter.  If you think you might actually have a password/account/payment problem on a site, go to that site directly (i.e., type the URL into your browser’s address bar) rather than clicking on a link to get there.  Secondly, use your browser’s (Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer, Opera) built-in anti-phishing features to verify the legitimacy of sites that you visit (whether directly linked from a social networking or microblogging site, or accessed another way).

Web 2.0 sites have provided us with many benefits, but are now being exploited to perpetrate identity theft and fraud.  Carefully think about what you’re doing - and the validity of the information being presented to you - as you follow links across the WWW from these online environments.

I had a recent exchange with several colleagues about whether or not we need cyberbullying legislation, and if so, what that legislation should look like.  I thought perhaps others would be interested in my perspective so I am posting my thoughts here.  As always, you are welcome to provide your thoughts…

My experience working with school administrators and others suggests that they are looking for specific guidance.  While I am not sure legislation is necessary for that, it could be a potential vehicle.  While I agree in principle in the value in keeping the legislation very broad so as to allow for individual ‘customization’ for each district, that kind of approach can also leave folks confused about what they really “have to do.”

Many cyberbullying laws, for example, simply direct school districts to deal with cyberbullying by updating their bullying/harassment policies.  But they stop short of specifically guiding them about what elements ought to be included.  Merely appending “and by electronic means” is clearly not enough.  Almost all policies that I have seen in schools that I have worked with have taken this approach.  No mention of off-campus speech or how a school would respond to incidents that are initiated and carried out exclusively away from the classroom.  No mention of ’substantial disruption.’ No discussion of prevention, investigation, or the roles of particular players in the school.  They may have satisfied the mandate, but will have nothing to stand on should they need to take action.

“Substantial disruption” is important to the extent that it is a standard used to determine whether or not schools have the authority to discipline students for off campus behavior/speech.  As ambiguous as the term is (I would like to see it clarified for folks—perhaps through legislation), it does provide educators with a benchmark.  Just because educators disapprove of the cyberbullying that occurs away from the school doesn’t mean they can formally take action against it (though informally there are many things that can/should be done).  Unless they can demonstrate a clear link to disruption at school, formal discipline may not be allowed.  Similarly, just because the behavior occurs off campus doesn’t mean educators can’t/shouldn’t get involved.  They have a responsibility to ensure that everyone has equal access to a safe and secure learning environment.

As such, I believe the concept should be in school policies.  Or at least some language should be included that clearly states the conditions under which the school will get involved in off campus behavior.  Parents (and some educators) often assume that if it doesn’t occur at school the school doesn’t have the authority to discipline.  That simply isn’t true.  If the policy is clear about these standards, then all should be on the same page if (when?) an issue arises.  In an ideal world parents, teachers, and others would work together to solve these problems without need for a formal law or policy.

I would like to see legislation that informs school districts about what actions they can/must take.  Under what circumstances can/should/must educators formally respond to cyberbullying?  Sameer and I suggest that the vast majority of cyberbullying incidents can be handled informally—by parents, educators, etc.—but they should be handled.  Again, what is needed is clarity about what circumstances would warrant formal response.  Perhaps many of the types of cases that would fall under this category are already legally proscribed—stalking, true treats, criminal harassment, etc.—but to clarify this under one heading for educators would be useful.

As you know, we are endlessly working to have our finger on the pulse of how adults are educating youth about online technology.  The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) and Educational Technology Policy, Research, and Outreach (ETPRO) recently found that less than 25% of educators feel comfortable teaching students about Internet safety issues.  You and I might ask ourselves - what is the reason behind that?   Is it because teachers and administrators feel ignorant and unfamiliar with the latest forms of Web 2.0 communications?  Is it because educators don’t have the resources at hand to use in instructional capacities?  Is it because they perceive it as less important when compared to all of the other scholastic and curricular material they have to cover during the day?  Is it because they are underpaid and overworked and simply cannot do anymore?  I don’t know the answer to that question, but I think it’s probably a combination of all of these factors, to varying degrees.

Looking at the latest data coming out of our Research Center, we’ve found that among the population of approximately 1,000 randomly-selected teens we’ve recently studied from one district, 48.1% revealed that a teacher has talked to them about being safe on the computer over the last 30 days.  A comparatively small 14.9% of youth indicated that an educator has talked to them about online safety many times or practically every day over the last month.  Maybe most school personnel are just expecting parents to discuss these issues with their kids at home.  Well, it just so happens that we have new data on whether parents are stepping up and broaching the subject matter…

We found that 40.8% of the students we surveyed in June 2009 were counseled by their parents about Internet safety issues in the last 30 days.  That said, more than 1 out of every 5 students (22%) reported that online safety matters was discussed by their parents many times or practically every day, over the last month.  Moreover, we found that 43.4% of youth reported that their mom or dad *never* goes on the computer with them.  This is to be compared with 5.5% who state that a parent goes online with them “often” or “very often.”  With all of this said, it is quite apparent that a very small proportion of youth consciences are being piqued about the tremendous importance of participating in cyberspace with wisdom, discretion, and civility.

I want to reiterate that this is brand new data.  I was really hoping that the numbers would show a more encouraging finding in this area.  The only appropriate response, it seems, is to further dig our heels in and redouble our efforts to educate and embolden youth-serving adults.  The new school year is almost upon us, and there is much to be done.

Thankfully, Facebook is soon going to restructure the way it displays privacy settings to users.  Currently, those settings are scattered across multiple pages, and it is a chore for individuals to customize them to their liking.   When we talk to elementary, middle, and high-schoolers, we ask about those settings - and have found that very few youth take extensive time to lock down their Facebook page on a granular level.  Rather, most simply go with the default privacy settings - which are much more open than I would personally prefer.  Hopefully by consolidating these settings into one page, it’ll be much easier for users to run through each privacy option and make appropriate selections based on what content they want to reveal (and how it is done).   Even more important is that they carve out the necessary time to do it - something we highly encourage.  Take the fifteen or so minutes to fully understand what each setting means, and then customize them to your comfort level.  Overall, I am quite pleased about this.

Another issue, though, has to do with Facebook’s soon-to-be-released Transition Tool, which will subtly suggest to (encourage?) users to make some of their content available (or shared to) “Everyone” with the reasoning that friends will find you more easily (which is true).  However, it’s likely this content will also be indexed by Google and other search engines - which is beneficial to Facebook as they try to compete with Twitter as the premier source of real-time information and status updates being posted and distributed by the masses.  However, it’s more palatable for my Twitter page to be found by search engines and individuals that I don’t know at all; it’s less acceptable for content on my Facebook page to be similarly found.  To each his own, but just make sure you completely know what you’re doing.  After all, it is *your* information out there - and it’s going to be out there for a really, really long time.  I’ll share more of my thoughts after I get to play around with the new tool.