Blog

I’ve been seeing a lot of “cyberbullying pledges” surfacing in recent months. Obviously, the intention is good – to enlist and rally the support of youth who belong to a school or another organization to end (or at least reduce) the problem of peer harassment. I think that it is important for us to think through the way that we tackle this initiative. Setting up a pledge campaign is fairly uncreative and cost-efficient, which is probably why so many adults think that it is a good idea to demonstrate that “something” is being done in the way of cyberbullying prevention. But what about its utility? We should never implement programming because it is easy to do and we want to check-off an item on our list of efforts made to combat a problem.

Research on “virginity” pledges based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the mid-1990s and on drug/alcohol abstinence in high schools (such as in the DARE program) has shown that those who truly believe in what they are pledging for/against do definitely hold fast to that commitment as time goes on. However, it has also been shown that pledges are useful ONLY in contexts where there are some – but not too many – individuals who pledge. Pledges lose their meaning if everyone is doing it because it ceases to be non-normative. You can’t try to get everyone in a school to pledge to do something, because everyone will generally do so in name only – just to fit in.

Pledging to do something provides adherence to a group identity – and let’s face it, we all want to belong to a group in cultural or counter-cultural ways. To be sure, this notion is exponentially greater for most adolescents in the throes of identity development and exploration. It seems, then, that a teen making a meaningful choice to refrain from engaging in an attractive but wrongful behavior (such as cyberbullying) should do so outside of peer influence and group dynamics which may shape that choice.

My colleague Stan Davis (whose extensive work on bullying and bystanders I greatly respect) has a great idea which works extremely well. He believes that dialoguing about cyberbullying and its impact with students can really help them internalize the harm that is experienced and the negative outcomes that can result, and – more importantly – can help them envision and then realize their potential for the *positive* outcomes that can result. This involves reflecting on the good deeds they have done while interacting online, and the good deeds that others have done online towards them.

He also suggests that young people “write and sign a letter to themselves outlining their own plans for keeping themselves and others safe in the digital world.” The best way to go about this would be to divide it into two parts – “what I will NOT do, and why” and “what I WILL do, and why.” One of Stan’s friends also recommended that these letters should not be read by adults (and the young people should know that the letters will not be read) because “When it is known that adults will read the letters, young people are likely to write what they think adults want to hear rather than what they really plan to do.” Based on experience, this has been proven true. Stan then proposes that the sealed letters are returned to the teens in the near future to “reinforce the resolve they made.”

Let us know your thoughts about pledges and their value – and if you know of any other research on the topic. Also, let us know if you give Stan’s idea a try with the teens you supervise and care for.

Justin and I were chatting recently about an example cyberbullying case that involves a student who repeatedly is posting comments on her Facebook page about a teacher at school, stating “Mr. Z is a douchebag,” “Mr. Z is a jerk and nobody likes him,” and “Please post ‘I Hate Mr. Z’ comments on my wall!”  Assuming that the student speech is protected because it is not materially disrupting school activities, we were wondering what the ramifications would be if Mr. Z posted his feelings and opinions about specific students on his own personal Facebook page.  Should we hold students and teachers to different standards?  Do we?  What are the long-term consequences of doing so?  Before we share our own perspective, we’d love to hear the thoughts of visitors to this blog!

As I mentioned in my cyberbullying and sexting comments at the National Crime Prevention Council Circle of Respect event two weeks ago, “social norming” continues to bear relevance for dealing with cyberbullying at schools, and I’d like to flesh it out some more since I am a big fan of the concept.  Basically, youth tend to do what others are doing – largely in order to fit in, as they try to figure out who they are and what they stand for.  As they survey the landscape of trends in behaviors and attitudes, they pick up on what is seemingly accepted, endorsed, and done among their peer group.  This influences them consciously or subconsciously, and they then naturally tend to jump “on board” and act similarly in thought, speech, or action.  For example, if an adolescent high school freshmen is told he can’t hang out with friends after Friday night football games because that’s when “everyone” parties and gets drunk, he might begin to view that behavior as commonplace and therefore acceptable.  He may therefore be more inclined to do the same, since it seems “normal” and “known” behavior.

How does this related to reducing online harassment among elementary, middle, and high school students?  Social norming has to do with modifying the environment, or culture within a school, so that appropriate behaviors are not only encouraged, but perceived widely to be the norm.  That is, schools must work to create a climate in which responsible use of Facebook and instant messaging programs (for example), is “what we do around here” and “just how it is at our school and among our students.”  This can occur by focusing attention on the majority of youth who do utilize computers and cell phones in acceptable ways.  If I told you that one in five teenagers are cyberbullied, you wouldn’t focus on spreading that fact around your student body.  Rather, you would reframe and reconceptualize that research finding, and then create cool and relevant messaging strategies emphasizing that the vast majority of your students are using Internet technologies with integrity, discretion, and wisdom, which would hopefully motivate or induce the remainder to get “on board.”  Ideally, the remainder would desire to fit in, would desire to be like everyone else, and would feel an informal compulsion to stop cyberbullying others and start doing the right thing.  Based on this, you can also see how social norming can be used to address sexting.  You can also see how the shaping of social norms is directly related to modifying the overall school climate or culture.

Spending too much time painting cyberbullying in alarmist colors may encourage more youth to act in similar ways, since those youth will perceive the act as “normal” and that “everyone is doing it.”  Are you doing social norming at your school?  In what ways has it worked?  In what ways has it not been as successful as you would have liked? The Cyberbullying Research Center is actively studying its utility, and will keep you updated on what we find.