Blog

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.

One of the more popular criminological theories floating around these days suggests that individuals engage in deviance as a response to experiencing stressful life events or strain.  For example, youth who are abused at home or who break up with a serious significant other, or who move to a new town, are more at risk to participate in criminal activities.  Of course not everyone who moves, experiences abuse, or loses a close friend, or any of the other myriad of stresses common in adolescence is destined to become a criminal.  Contemporary strain theorists argue that when those strains lead to a feeling of anger or frustration, a deviant response is more likely.  For more on this theory, see Agnew, 2006.

For the past couple of years, we have been trying to see whether this framework could be useful in explaining cyberbullying behaviors.  We published an article in the Journal of School Violence last year that examined cyberbullying as a source of strain and found a significant relationship between cyberbullying and other offline problem behaviors (alcohol use, school problems, assault, etc.).  That is, youth who experienced cyberbullying were at a greater risk to engage in problem behaviors at school and elsewhere.  This relationship disappeared when we included other common measures of strain, suggesting that cyberbullying victimization could be a potent source of strain.

We are currently working on another paper that examines whether or not cyberbullying could also be a response to strainful experiences.  The question here is: are youth who become angry or frustrated as a result of strain more likely to engage in cyberbullying?  Youth may turn to cyberbullying as a way to seek redress for any perceived wrongdoing.  That is, if I was being bullied at school (a source of strain) I might use technology to get the upper hand on my aggressor.  Indeed, one of the most common reasons kids engage in cyberbullying is to get revenge.  Kids who have no control over anything in their lives might feel as though they can exercise control over others using technology.  Anyway, preliminary results indicate modest support for this hypothesis.  We’re hoping to get this manuscript out to a journal sometime in the next couple of weeks.  We’ll keep you posted.

I was recently talking to a colleague (who is an economist at my University) and he told me of an experience that recently happened with his daughter.  She was at a get-together at a hotel in our city where alcohol was being served. Somehow the police found out about the party and busted all of the under-aged drinkers.  My friend’s 18-year-old daughter had very little to drink, so the cops just sent her home with a warning.  Others in the group weren’t as lucky.  The students who were busted later learned that the cops found out about the party because one particular person who was on her way to the party was pulled over by the police and she had told them that she was on her way to a party at that particular hotel.  It goes without saying that those who got busted were not happy about this.  In response, my friend’s daughter “anonymously” created a Facebook page making fun of this girl and calling her out for being a “rat,” among other disparaging remarks. This is an example of cyberbullying.

This anecdote is consistent with our research which demonstrates that many cyberbullies engage in online aggression because they feel they have been affronted (either online or off).  They also don’t think they will get caught or fully think through the consequences of their actions.  Well, the Facebook page was easily traced back to my friend’s daughter and, of course, he had a good talk with his daughter.  My friend doesn’t consider his daughter to be a bully; nor does his daughter view herself as a bully.  Nevertheless, even good kids make mistakes, and, unfortunately with the age of technology, small lapses in judgment can result in serious problems.  Do yourself a favor if you have teen-aged kids who are online: talk to them about these issues NOW so you don’t have to do it after an incident occurs.  Good luck.

Indictments were filed yesterday in the Megan Meier case. For those of you unfamiliar with the case, you can read the story here. In short, Megan Meier was the 13-year-old from Missouri who committed suicide after being cyberbullied on MySpace. To make matters worse, the offender was a fictitious 16-year-old boy who was created by the mother of one of Megan’s friends. Megan’s mother, Tina, has become an instant cyberbullying activist, appearing on many national news programs lobbying for cyberbullying legislation.

While I feel those responsible for Megan’s untimely death need to be punished, I’m not sure the current indictments are the best approach. Our reading of the indictment suggests that Lori Drew, the mother allegedly responsible for the harassment, is being charged with violating MySpace’s terms of service which prohibits “promoting conduct that was abusive, threatening, obscene, defamatory, or libelous.” So she is essentially being criminally charged (in federal court) for committing (and conspiring to commit) a civil crime (a “tortious” act).

This indictment really speaks to the problem facing cyberbullying advocates. The problem is that there are no good, clear laws that govern this behavior. If society feels as though those who cyberbully should be held criminally responsible, then legislators should get to work on creating the legislation. Because they have largely failed to do so, special prosecutors, and in this case federal prosecutors, are forced to shoe-horn cyberbullying cases into existing legislation. Many states have recently passed laws concerning cyberbullying – but they all simply direct school districts to deal with it. Instead of providing meaningful direction to educators, parents, and prosecutors, the laws merely require school districts to update their harassment policies to include electronic variants. But again, they stop short of giving specific directions.

I’m not advocating here that we should criminalize cyberbullying. The vast majority of cyberbullying cases can usually be most effectively dealt with informally by parents, with the help of others (educators, school counselors, maybe even local law enforcement). In the rare case that cyberbullying behaviors result in significant harm and/or death, however, well then those responsible need to be held accountable. The real question is whether the indictments filed yesterday will hold up. Any thoughts? How about from our two resident lawyers?

So…I’m sure by now you all have heard the news story and seen the attendant video of the cheerleader in Lakeland, Florida who was lured into a “friend’s” home and then severely beaten by that friend and other cheerleaders. All of this for basically talking smack over MySpace (cyberbullying?) about those friends. So what we have is a vivid depiction of six girls who carefully coordinated (with two male lookouts and everything) a vicious attack (to where she suffered a concussion and fell unconscious) on an unsuspecting girl at a home where no parents were around…and where she was detained with no freedom to leave…and where the violence was recorded for the purposes of uploading it to YouTube and MySpace…. Then she was taken in a car, dropped off at some random location, and threatened with more beatings if she went to the authorities.
Points to consider:
1. What is the deal with these girls being so horrifically violent? Is this not out of the ordinary, but seems so because the recording has so starkly shown us the hostility and aggression of which some girls are capable? Is it possible that girls are actually *just as prone to violence* as boys (not withstanding testosterone and so forth) but have been constrained by social acceptability…but perhaps those standards are eroding or fading or being diluted as the years go by?
2. Is our culture being desensitized to female violence? For example, you turn on The Real World on MTV and we are seeing more frequently verbal violence and even physical violence among girls.
3. Were the girls playing to the camera…performing, if you will? Were they, to some degree, looking for their 15 minutes of fame by recording themselves in this video?
4. What were the girls thinking, in terms of escaping identification, apprehension, and punishment, with the recording of the criminal assault?
5. Are the parents at fault?
6. Has anyone seen the MySpace postings, as I’d like to consider their contents?
7. Has anyone figured out how to download flash video, because I’d like to archive those videos linked from that site to show others?

Article and unedited video here.