Blog

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.

I was in Naperville, Illinois about two weeks ago for a cyberbullying summit sponsored by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.  The audience was comprised of select stakeholders in education, law enforcement, and technology industry.  The most relevant companies and constituencies were there.  Attorney General Lisa Madigan was on hand to kick the event off with some opening remarks.  Michelle Collins from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) followed with some general comments about cyberbullying and sexting and highlighted some of the efforts of the NCMEC in online safety education and prevention.  Next, I participated in a panel of experts along with Hemanshu Nigam from MySpace, Andrew Chaulk from the Vermont Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force, and Nancy Willard from the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.  We each provided a short introduction to our background and initiatives, then opened it up to the audience for questions and discussion.  As expected, it was a great discussion.

During lunch, Sarah Migas from the Illinois AG’s office described their efforts to educate youth, parents, educators and others about online safety issues.  In the afternoon we all were broken up into smaller groups to discuss in depth a particular scenario.  My group (Go Red Team!) discussed a sexting case from a few months ago.  We brainstormed possible prevention and response solutions and then presented our analysis to the larger group as a whole.  All in all it was a great event.

It is essential to bring all of these players together on a regular basis to develop a coordinated community response to cyberbullying.  Having pretty much everyone at the table really made for some interesting discussions.  The Illinois AG’s office is very much ahead of the curve with respect to these issues.  Stay tuned for more great resources from this group in the future.

I was fortunate to be given the opportunity to present alongside Tina Meier last week at a cyberbullying event in Detroit sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League.  I have spoken to Tina on the phone several times in the past, but this was the first time that I was able to meet her in person.  By now just about everyone is familiar with the nightmare that Tina has been forced to live with over the past few years after the untimely death of her teenaged daughter Megan.  It is a tragic story no matter how you read it.

I am happy to see Tina taking this horrible situation and turning it into a movement to educate others about the harmful effects of online aggression left unchecked.  At the event I expected Tina to simply recount her story, but she in fact went way beyond that.  In the relatively short time since being thrust into this area, she has come to understand quite a bit about the online activities of adolescents and did a commendable job moving beyond her unique story to educate the audience about the varied issues involved.  Her presentation was a very good compliment to mine and I was encouraged to see that we were on the same page regarding a variety of issues.

Sometimes as researchers I think there is a risk that we can become too detached from that which we are studying.  A lot of times we are simply working with numbers—nameless, faceless statistics.  We need to be constantly reminded that behind every cyberbullying victim or offender or parent or teacher there is a story that needs to be told.  Thankfully, Sameer and I speak to teens, parents, educators, and others involved in dealing with cyberbullying on a regular basis so it is difficult to become callous to the issues.  Talking with Tina last week reaffirmed my commitment to continuing to work toward better understanding the causes and consequences of cyberbullying so that efforts can be undertaken to prevent these negative behaviors from taking a toll on our youth.

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.