Blog

There was an article published in the New York Times last week which discussed the case of Katherine Evans.  Katherine was displeased with her high school English teacher and posted about this displeasure on Facebook: “To those select students who have had the displeasure of having Ms. Sarah Phelps, or simply knowing her and her insane antics: Here is the place to express your feelings of hatred.”

Katherine apparently removed the post only after a few days, but a couple of months later was suspended by her school for “cyberbullying.”  [point of order: we typically do not refer to online harassment involving an adult as cyberbullying]  From the media reports, Katherine’s actions neither constituted a threat nor resulted in a disruption at school—the two common features of cyberbullying incidents that would warrant a significant formal response from the school.   Did Katherine cross the line?   Without question her actions were inappropriate.  Were they subject to discipline at school?  Maybe—but probably not suspension.  Students are allowed to criticize teachers and other school officials, again, as long as it is not threatening or disruptive to the school.  This can be a fine line indeed.  It will be interesting to see how the courts rule in this case.  My gut is telling me that the school could have handled this case differently, but I’m sure we do not have all of the details yet.  Stay tuned.

We recently received this email and I thought I would respond to it here so that others too can add their thoughts:

Dear CyberBullying.us ~

I recently discovered your website as I was wandering the internet.  I read some of the stories on your site and I would just love it if you could publish my words.  I am 18 from the UK.  I have been using the internet since I was 4 years old. And I have had some experiences with ‘cyber-bullying’, as it is now called. Funny, we used to call it “people being idiots”.

As most people who have been actually bullied in real life will tell you, cyberbullying is really stupid. “Oh no. Some girl said to me in an email “ur fat lulz”. I’m scarred for the rest of my life.” Nowhere NEAR as bad as getting hit, punched, abused, ect.

I myself have had many arguements over the internet, ranging from ones that are deeply personal to stupid things. (Such as who runs the police department on a game.)

However, I feel that people are getting used to a cushy real life, going on the internet and expecting it to be all cuddles and joy. It is NOT. And it isn’t in the ‘real world’, either. I’m not saying that bullying isn’t wrong, but I am just saying that it’s a tad immature to go whinge on and on about some immature kid who called another immature kid names OVER THE DAMN INTERNET. ITS THE INTERNET, SERIOUSLY, COME ON. THEY CAN’T HURT YOU. Just dish out what they say right back to them.

Always letting my opinions be heard.

Thanks —

Alastair

Dear Alastair,

Thanks for your thoughts.  We agree that all forms of bullying are hurtful and that the physical effects of “real life” bullying can be very damaging.  I will disagree with you, however, when you assert that the effects of cyberbullying are trivial or inconsequential.  To be fair, a lot of things said and done online are relatively minor and should be ignored, but there are a lot of very serious instances of cyberbullying that result in long term harm to those who experience it.

As an 18-year-old adult, it may be hard for you to understand, but as a young teenager developing through adolescence, peer approval is everything and what your peers say to you online and off can have dramatic effects on your daily life.  And the fact that a victim can never really remove him or herself from an online bully makes it even more difficult to handle.  Some people say that victims can simply turn off their computers or cell phones to remove themselves from the situation.  Those who have been to our presentations know that this simply isn’t an adequate response.  For one thing, you don’t have to be online to be cyberbullied (e.g., if I create a web site containing rumors about you and then circulate it among others at school).  Also, since when has it been appropriate to blame the victim?  So I am being cyberbullied, and now I can’t use my computer or cell phone?  Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.  But, if you don’t believe me, and still feel that cyberbullying really isn’t that bad, feel free to contact John Halligan or Tina Meier, or any of the other parents here in the U.S. who recently lost their children due, at least in part, to the effects of peer harassment carried out online.  Cyberbullying was so unbearable for these teens that taking their own life was evidently a better option for them than living with the torment.

Thanks again for the comment and I am hopeful that you will come to understand that even though cyberbullying is not physical in nature, it is still harmful.  In the words of a 14-year-old girl who told us about her cyberbullying experience: “They say sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. That quote is a lie and I don’t believe in it. Sticks and stones may cause nasty cuts and scars but those cuts and scars will heal. Insultive words hurt and sometimes take forever to heal.”

In the last several months, we have received more calls and emails from school administrators about issue related to cell phones than probably anything else.  The concerns about cell phones are varied.  For example, students are texting on them all hours of the school day, cell phones can be used to take pictures or video of students or staff members (in the classroom or even places where privacy is expected such as in a locker room or bathroom), and they can be used to cheat on exams.  In addition, one principal told us that her school had a problem with parents actually calling their children during the school day and expecting a response even when they knew the student was in class.

This is a complicated issue.  First of all, many parents want their kids to have a cell phone so that they can be contacted for routine or emergency purposes.  Schools that attempt to ban cell phones from classrooms have a difficult time enforcing the policy, short of searching students as they pass through the doors.  At the very least, schools need to have a conversation about this and come up with a clear policy that outlines where and when students are allowed to use/possess cell phones – and specifies the consequences for violations of the policy.

On a related note, a friend recently made me aware of ChaCha (see www.chacha.com), a cell phone service that allows anyone to send a text message to ChaCha (242242) with a question and they will receive the answer in text message.  And the service is free.  Apparently, ChaCha receives about 300,000 questions a day and utilizes around 25,000 people to research and respond to the questions.  Employees of ChaCha earn between 10-20 cents for basically Googling the question, finding the answer, and texting it back to the sender. They boast a 93% accuracy rate and state that questions are answered within three minutes.  So imagine a student texting ChaCha to ask: What is the capital of Montana?  Clear implications for schools.

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.