Cyberbullying Pyschology (Brown University)
Allisan Salazar Cyberbullying Paper for Brown University (Cross registration) Social Psychology class
Content
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
1
From Bullying to Cyberbullying
A Study of Adolescents and the Factors That Nurture
Harassment Across Real and Virtual Platforms
Allisan Salazar
Rhode Island School of Design
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
2
Adolescents Behind Cyberbullying
Allisan Salazar
Youth culture has evolved over time in regards to regards to technology,
language, social norms, and overall attitude about the changing times. The concept of
bullying goes back far in history, but has changed rapidly and significantly due to the
widespread availability of information communication technologies (ICT). Today’s
adolescents now have the potential to interact with others in ways that only a decade ago
we could not envisage. It is through these internet-ready and electronic forms that a new
set of social norms regarding how people socialize is created, and with that a new
population of bullies arises as a result of the unique and dangerous psychological
elements that now play a part in this cyber interaction. Bullying has transformed from
being a physical experience to a virtual one, and this new approach has been coined
“cyberbullying” which combines characteristics of “traditional” bullying, as I will refer to
them throughout this paper, with the detachment inevitable in using the cyber world to
communicate. The level of information that is accessible for the public based on an
individual’s social media profiles are readily available to those who seek to intimidate,
tantalize, or exploit vulnerable others. Researchers have been attempting to tackle this
twenty first century phenomenon, and delved into the psychological social, and
ecological principles behind it, however being a part of the “digital natives generation”
is an inside perspective that is invaluable. In this paper, theoretical perspectives will
provide us with a priming to be able to focus and better understand the progression of
bullying into the hostile nature of online interactions between adolescents, and the many
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
3
psychosocial harms of this new popularized socialization method. The paper will
examine cyberbullying by dissecting the roles of the bullies and victims, expose issues of
psychopathy and anonymity, and explore potential solutions to control this harmful new
method of interaction.
It is essential to define bullying in attempt to dismember its many parts, and is
crucial to delineating the differences between traditional bullying and cyberbullying.
Bullying is defined as “unwanted, aggressive behavior…that involved a real or perceived
power imbalance” (“Bullying definition”, 2013) in the form of physical, emotional, or
mental harm for the victim, and other negative long lasting effects. It is important to note
that defining some of these terms are not to be taken as straightforward and final due to
the complexity of the social interactions that take place within these digital platforms. It
is equally important to establish the adolescent age group we will be studying to narrow
down on some varying factors. For the purposes of this study, the research will be taking
a look at middle school students approximately ages eleven to fourteen, placing the
subjects directly at the beginning of the adolescent spectrum (11-21). This study also
includes all genders as a means of dissecting the differentiating attitudes in their specific
approach to bullying and the statistical levels of male and female perpetration. Through
convergent and divergent analysis we will be able to better pinpoint the reasoning behind
this method of bullying and also observe the contextual variables that are in play.
Understanding the mere possibilities of bullying resides in theoretical principles that have
been stated early in history. Many researchers (Damon & Colby, 1987; Rigy & Slee,
1991; Swearer, 2004) question the general morality and the levels of empathy of
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
4
those who partake in the bullying, or witness it without intervention. Kohlberg’s (1969,
1973) study and conclusive stages of moral development were an extension of the
psychological theory originally formed by Piaget (1932), which exploits moral reasoning
as a behavior that evolves in stages. In multiple studies, (Kohlberg, 1969; Haviland,
1981) when posed with moral dilemma scenarios, the younger end of adolescents based
their decision-making on outcome and punishment: if a deed turned out well, it is good; if
it did not, it was bad. This level of moral decision-making is known as stage one in
Kohlberg’s (1969) theory, and is often seen as the lower level of morality that is present
in cyber bullying, as most do not see the harm they are doing until they are caught by an
authority figure, or the victim ends up harmed. The stage following that begins to include
concern for consequences and a more mature consideration of other people, which is a
deficit in stage one and leads to the detachment required to harm somebody. For the
purpose of this study, Kohlberg’s models of cognitive developmental theory are more
adequate and flexible than others because it takes individuals’ moral thinking as more
than a simple unconscious process that the individual is not aware of (Freud, 1933). He
takes into account social-context adaptation as an impactful environmental factor in how
morality is shaped, agreed upon by modern studied done by Shariff (2009) who states
that “when we define a behavior it is important to remember it as an action that takes
place in a particular context, at a particular time, with various influences operating on the
individuals involved” (p40).
Despite outside perspective views on morality, the more important thing to study
is self-perceived morality of an adolescent, which is dependent upon external and internal
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
5
forces and reactions. In his writings on moral reasoning, Piaget (1932, 1963) suggests
that heteronomous morality requires a clear focus on the external features of a behavior
or action, such as consequence, criticism, and acceptance to judge right and wrong
despite whether or not the action was clearly punished or reinforced. Following that same
thought, Bem’s (1972) behavioristic study of self-perception suggests that individuals
have little access to their own internal cognition concerning morality and that it is
ultimately inferred from the observations of ones own behavior via external forces and/or
the circumstances in which this behavior occurs. From a social learning perspective
(Bandura, 1963) any conclusion of bad behavior resulting in guilt or shame by an
individual is based on a dichotomy between external and internal approval, or an
anticipated disapproval by an audience that is deemed important. At this point is when we
can deeper unpack the importance of peer groups and peer influences as important
interpersonal adolescent relationships.
Some of the most telling factors behind any type of bullying lies in the pressures
and expectations of a person between parents and peer groups, as adolescents try out
various roles and status positions to attempt to mediate between the two (Haviland, 1981,
p.200). Social hierarchy is widely sought after by adolescents, especially of a middle
school age and studies have found that “leaders, in addition to being attractive and well
dressed, tend to come from higher socioeconomic status…are strong and athletic, and
above average in mental alertness” (Haviland, 1981 p.203). In a study done by SavinWilliams (1979) adolescents were observed in summer camps to find out how hierarchy
and power is established and found that individuals’ traits related to dominance overlap
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
6
with Haviland’s including athleticism, ability, puberty maturation, and leadership ability.
The observations in this study begins to delve into some of the reasoning behind bullying,
as they found giving orders, making fun of individuals, exclusion, physical abuse, or
verbal challenges were the norm following the hierarchy. This peer controlled adolescent
mindset is the largest deficit that allows for different types of bullying to evolve over
time, as we will see that with new ICT methods, conformity or neglecting a witnessed
abuse becomes more and more common.
It is primary to reveal the basic principles of traditional bullying as a primer to
better understand the psychology behind and later observe how it has evolved into cyber
bullying. As stated previously, bullying is defined as “unwanted, aggressive
behavior…that involved a real or perceived power imbalance” (“Bullying definition”,
2013) and categorizes the participants involved as bully, victim, and bystanders. Bullying
and victimization by nature is a social phenomenon embedded into a peer relations, and it
is crucial to study in a socio-ecological framework within which bullying should be
understood as being maintained or nurtured across individual, family, peer, school, and
community contexts (Espelage; Swearer, 2004). The individual is at the center of his or
her social ecology, whether that individual is the bully, victim, or bystander. They exist
within a family that may or may not influence bullying behaviors based in upbringing,
neglect, abuse, etc. The bullying itself many times takes place in schools or with school
peers, and questioning how the school and community climate nurtures or inhibits the
bullying is important. Most importantly lies the most macroscopic perspective as each
individual is grandly influenced by their culture, location, and generation in regards to
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
7
norms of actions, moral principles, priorities, and interactivity. Bronfenbrenner (1979)
beautifully summarizes this approach to looking at bullying as he states that the most
crucial idea of the ecological systems theory is that “individuals are part of interrelated
systems that locate the individual at the center and move out from the center to include all
the systems that effect them”, it is to say that bullying never occurs in isolation.
There are a variety of reasons that have been concluded regarding what elements
in the context of an individuals’ life nurtures a bully. “The Cycle of Violence”, described
by Widom (1989) is a violent nature stemming from childhood victimization and abusive
homes, and has been known to be one of the leading causes of traditional bullying. Other
bullies may abuse others as acts that stem from strong desires for economic or social
advancement, or peer approval. Most commonly, however, bullies by nature, have been
categorized in studies by levels of narcissism and psychopathy (Rigy & Slee, 1991;
Swearer & Espelage, 2004; Arseneault, 2006; Rivers, 2013) as they “display a lack of
empathy for the suffering of others” (Rivers, 2013, p13). Psychologists, research, and
guidance counselors have observed that traditional bullies, especially those who inflict
physical harm derive satisfaction from acting out even if it causes emotional or physical
damage, and have an apathetic view about aggression than most peers (Colt, 2009 p 24).
Many bullies have even admitted to bullying through boredom, attention and/or thrill
seeking, revenge, and the need for power, and justify their behavior by claiming that the
victim provoked them in some way and deserved the treatment they received (Rivers,
2013). This antisocial pursuit of power is most commonly sparked by detection of
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
8
weakness, envy of a peer’s success, intolerance of a particular group, or difficulties in
friendship and relationships.
On the other side of bullying are the victims, which are frequently divided into
two types: submissive victims, or ‘pure’ victims, and provocative ‘bully’ victims (Rivers,
2013 p10). Submissive victims are those who signal that they are vulnerable and
insecure, and would not retaliate if attacked, whereas provocative victims exhibit anxious
behavior and often annoy their peers to provoke attacks from bullies. Bateson (1989) has
furthered the distinction between the two types of victims by summarizing the two types
of interactions: symmetrical and complementary. Symmetrical interactions are when a
given behavior leads to the same behavior, in this case bullies becoming bullies.
Complementary interaction is when the behavior of one individual evokes the opposite
behavior in the other, i.e. aggression and dominance evokes submission. Longitudinal
studies (Arseneault, 2006) show that victims who are both bully and bullied are at the
greatest risk for psychological damage due to their combined aggression and
vulnerability. Adolescents that take the role of a bystander also aid in nurturing bullying
when they neglect to express disapproval, or seek consequences, lying in fear of being
bullied themselves, or having the stigma of a “snitch” and many other feared titles.
Studies have shown that “only a minority of students will act as defenders of the victim
and this proportion decreases as the children grow older” (Rigby & Slee, 1991). This
diffusion of responsibility and lack of taking a stance reveals the true malleability of
human nature based on psychological theories of peer influence such as groupthink, and
the bystander affect.
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
9
Historically, bullying wasn’t seen as so problematic, but simply as a part of the
light turmoil of growing up and part of a natural, maturation and learning process.
However, in recent decades schools especially in the United States have been made
increasingly aware of the dangers of bullying being left unresolved, leading to suicides
and school shootings in worst cases. The secret service analysis of schools targeted by
school violence found that 72% of the shooters in the U.S. from 1970-2005 reported
being chronically bullied (Vossekuil, Rein, Reddy, Borum & Modzeleski, 2005). Due to
the neglect of such abuse, the submissive victims in this case then become the bullies, in
retaliation and rage. On a large scale study on bullying in the United States (Nansel,
Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons, & Scheidt, 2003) 15,686 sixth to tenth graders completed
surveys regarding bullying in their schools. 39% reported frequent bullying, 13%
identified as bullies, 10.5% as victims, and 7.3% as bully-victims, and in summary that
more boys were involved than girls in the bullying dynamic. In a study such as this one,
however, its relatively important to question the methods used to collect data because
self-report is not always reliable since there are many stigmas attached to bullying
whether they are undesirable traits, denial, or signs of weakness.
There has been a tremendous amount of research over the last few decades that
focused on gender differences, many of which choose to focus on male aggression, but
oversimplify the distinction between theirs and female aggression (Underwood, 2001).
The plentiful psychological, sociological, and criminal research that has been done on
male aggression, as they offend at higher rates than females, has presented males as
widely more aggressive than girls (Block, 1983; Park & Slaby, 1983; Rodkin, Farmer,
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
10
Peal, and Van Acker, 2000). However research has also investigated a form of
“relational aggression” where the goal is to hurt others by means of damaging or altering
another’s reputation or relationships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), and although the rates of
aggression are lower than males, there is data to suggest they are at a greater risk for
psychological issues (Underwood, 2001). As leave the norms of traditional bullying and
evolve into cyberbullying we begin to observe an entire new population of adolescents
who find themselves participating in the abuse, whether in small or big ways.
Although thorough research can give insight to the psychology behind traditional
bullying, a new field of study has formed to best grasp the concept of cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying is defined by “the use of electronic communication to bully a person,
typically by sending messages of an intimidating or threatening nature” (“Cyberbullying”
definition, 2013). With this change of format and medium in which the bullying exists
and escalates place opens up an entirely new set of obstacles.
When a bully is involved in face-to-face abuse, they’re in a position where they
must look upon the victims face and can see the pain they have caused, reflecting levels
of psychopathy (Rigy & Slee, 1991). In regards to cyber abuse, the bully is removed from
seeing the pain as they are separated by a virtual space and sitting safely in front of a
digital screen, making it easier to hurt others without fully realizing the ramifications of
one’s actions. For this same reason there exists a broader population of bullies and
victims, ranging in gender, age, and social hierarchy, as they are no longer categorized by
aggression and power, but a false sense of power in control and anonymity hiding behind
the web. Cyberbullying has increased the number of ways that an individual is exposed to
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
11
harm and torment (Shariff, 2008; Colt, 2009), because all although cyberbullying may
take place in the virtual world, it affects both virtual and real worlds for the victim. This
kind of abuse many times follows them into the school environment (Shariff, 2008 p.25)
and can cripple the victim’s learning ability and feel psychologically devastated and
unsafe whilst in school. In this day and age “sticks and stones make break my bones but
names will never hurt me” no longer applies when teasing, ridicule, criticism, sarcasm,
and scapegoating act as nuanced versions of traditional bullying and now overpower
adolescents’ social interactions.
Digital youth culture has greatly evolved in terms of technology, social norms,
languages, and the experiences of the wider population that experiences it. The methods
at which we can now share information is phenomenal, and constantly accessible. This
level of ICT is impressive but has a natural dichotomy in which it can be used positively
and beneficially or negatively and for harm. Research has worked to show just how many
people use social media, especially Facebook, in order to emphasize just how many
adolescents are at risk via the web (Lee, 2013; Wolpert, 2008; Shariff, 2008). Consumer
Reports Magazine (Colt, 2009) conducted a survey of 2000 online households, recording
adolescents 16 and younger, and 1440 were active on Facebook. It is easy to conclude,
especially in this day and age that having Facebook, amongst many other popular social
media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, and Vine, is seen as a cultural requirement.
Adolescents were quoted saying “if you’re not on Facebook, you don’t exist” and (Boyd,
2006) explains that in contemporary culture “these sites play a key role in adolescence
because it gives them a space to hang out amongst friends and peers, share cultural
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
12
artifacts, and work out an image of how they see themselves”.
Another dangerous problem with these platforms are the high levels of falsified
identity and anonymity. These are two of the most nuanced elements in technology in
regards to ICT forms of socialization. On sites such as Facebook and Myspace,
individuals create profiles which act as a digital presentation of their taste, and identity
which they are able to hand craft by indicating interests, posting photos, and sharing
opinions publicly, acting as a “cross between a yearbook and a community website”
(Shariff, 2008 p35). However, Consumer Reports Magazine’s study of 2000 online
households also shows that 35% of Facebook users falsified information on their profiles
ranging from false names to completely false identity including photos, address, friends,
and name. This level of anonymity is dangerous because it allows adolescents much more
power and space to live life in a more extreme way as their sculpt their profiles for a
variety of reasons (Lee, 2013). Those adolescents hiding behind the virtual veil of
anonymity create more opportunities for mislead global communication and more
opportunities for global bullying since their identity is concealed. The argument of
morality as discussed earlier by (Kohlberg) is even stronger in the cyber world as most
perpetrators feel completely free to victimize others on websites that allow you to post
anonymously, such as ask.fm or spring.me. These sites are the most dangerous due to the
lack of supervision and level of leniency to criticize and attack a certain individual
without any repercussions.
Despite technological benefits, many platforms have an inevitable “dark side”,
where, with the push of a button, cruel messages, inappropriate or embarrassing photos,
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
12
or hurtful rumors can be instantly accessed and/or disseminated to thousands of people.
The consequences of this level of publicity and outreach can be extremely negative when
used in the form of bullying and harassment, as there an infinite audience, and low
percentages of individuals who protect from this harassment. Thirty percent of bystanders
indirectly support cyberbullies by looking at unwanted shared contact (Boulton, 1993;
Salmivalli, 2001) which creates an overwhelming outnumbering and heightens the power
imbalance which is so crucial to bullying. The concept of virality is a dangerous one and
is another nuance that adds to the variety of ways in which cyberbullying: passive or
aggressive, direct or indirect, can victimize adolescents.
The numerous cases of reported suicide due to unwanted content going viral is
telling as to how today’s digital youth does not have a tight grasp on the severity of their
actions online. Data that states suicide as the third most popular cause of death among
teenagers in the United States (Bauman, Toomey, & Wakler, 2013. p 314) combined with
data that “both perpetrators and targets of bullying are at higher risk of depression,
suicide ideation…and attempts than adolescents not involved in bullying” is too close of
a correlation to ignore. Aside from the devastating number of teen suicides related to
cyber abuse in the past decade alone, the millions of unreported psychological effects
many times go unnoticed by the adolescents themselves. There is a substantive body of
research that confirms the damaging outcomes for adolescents who have suffered from
long term bullying, whether it be via web or traditional bullying. Some of these lasting
effects are undermining sense of self, heightened feelings of loneliness, low self esteem,
fear of leaving the house, and high anxiety, anger, or depression (Boulton, 1999; LaGreca
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
13
& Harrison, 2005; Marini,2006). Furthermore, chronic bullying can lead to
psychosomatic symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, sleep loss, and engagement
in risk behaviors such as drugs or alcohol (Sourander, 2010; Mitchell, 2007).
Unfortunately, there is a lack of realization from the adolescents partaking in the act of
bullying, whether directly or indirectly, and do not recognize the severity of the torment
these victims face, especially with technology only becoming more popular and
accessible.
Although there has been extensive research regarding the psychological factors behind
traditional bullying, the research on cyberbullying is still in its infancy. Researchers have
developed enough knowledge, however to read the effects of cyberbullying to be more
widespread and sever than those of regular bullying in the past, shown in the results of
“increased levels of depression, anxiety, and psychosomatic symptoms in victims”
(Sourander, 2010). Due to the high traffic of the big social media platforms such as
Facebook, Myspace, Instagram, and many more, many find it hard to tackle such a large
problem when 93% of teens are using the internet, and 63% use it daily (Lenhart, 2010).
Parents and educators should play a strong and significant role in the lives of adolescents,
and should continue to inform themselves of the signs and symptoms of cyberbullying in
order to intervene. Although the United States has not taken action as much as some
argue they should, other countries such as the UK, Australia, and France have created
legislations that begin to tackle this very serious, dangerous, twenty first century
phenomena. This should be of concern to the entire nation as it effects such a large
number of adolescents, and people in general. Fortunately, many
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
14
organizations and schools have attempted to tackle the problem and are raising
awareness, but a large impact is necessary. The social media platforms on which so much
of this harassment exists should take a bigger step toward responsibility and filter the
content that is acceptable online. There is no reason for ICT forms of socialization to run
on negativity. Technology will only continue to develop and grow and it will remain a
tool for bullies who want to harm, thus it is crucial to research and practice to further
prevention and intervention methods.
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
15
Self Assessment
My personal goals for this paper were to explore the concept of cyber bullying in a multi-faceted
way. I was very interested in the theoretical research behind morality and peer influences that
lead bullies to become bullies. This topic has always interested me personally, as I have made the
choice to not be on social media as of last year. Since then I have been able to research the
devastating effects that it has on today’s adolescents and have often come up with ideal ways to
prevent or bring attention to it. I felt as though the bulk of my research was understanding what
makes a traditional bully, which I felt was a stable grounding to present the nuanced elements and
issues revolving around cyber bullying. This twenty first century phenomena is very persistent in
our lives, unfortunately creating a large generation gap between us “digital natives” and older
generations, called “digital immigrants”. In this paper I was torn between attempting to present
shocking evidence and statistic to bring forth the problem of cyberbullying, but found myself
much more interested in through what means psychological, and even in medium (electronic
devices) this could even be possible. Since there is so much research that helps explain this
phenomena I found myself only touching on all of them for the sake of the length of this paper.
However, I am very grateful, Mona that you guided me into choosing this topic because I really
do feel inspired as much of my work has revolved around trying to aid in cyberbullying, or reveal
the nature of social media (many times in satirical ways). I really do think this is great research
and a step in a great direction for my degree project, next year, which I have decided to do on this
topic. Thank you so much for allowing me into your class I learned and grew more than I could
have imagined, your teaching style made a very big impact in the way I think, and even design.
References
1. Allport, G.W. (1955). Becoming: Basic Considerations for a Psychology of
Personality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
2. Andreou, E. & Metallidou, P. (2004). The relationship of Academic and Social
Cognition to Behavior in Bullying Situations Among Greek Primary
School Children. Educational Psychology.
3. Arseneault, L. (2006). Bullying Victimization Uniquely Contributes to Adjustment
Problems in Young Children: A Nationally Representative Cohort Study,
Pediatrics, 130-138.
4. Aslanidou, S. and Menexes, G. (2008). Youth and the internet: Uses and Practices in
the Home, Computers & Education, 1375-1391
5. Bandura, A. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Hold,
Rinehart, and Winston Inc,
6. Bateson, G. (1989). The Individual, Communication, and Society, Press Syndicate of
the University of Cambridge.
7. Bem, D.J. (1972). Self Perception Theory. In L Berkowitz (Ed). Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol 6) New York: Academic.
8. Boulton, M.J. (1999). Concurrent and Longitudinal Links Between Friendship and
Peer Victimization, Implications for Befriending Interventions, Journal of
Adolescence. 461-466
9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by
Nature and Design. Cambridge : Harvard University Press
10. Costabile, A. (2012). The Impact of Technology on Relationship in Educational
Settings. New York: Routledge.
11. Crick, N.R. (1995). Relational Aggression, The Role of Intent Attributions, Feelings
of Distress, and Provocation Type, Development and Psychopathology,
12. Damon, W. & Colby, A. (1987). Moral Development Through Social Interaction,
Social Influence and Moral Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons
13. Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity, Youth and Crisis, New York: Norton.
14. Espelage, D. Swearer, S.M. (2004). Bullying in American Schools, a SocialEcological Perspective on Prevention and Intervention. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
15. Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. WJH Sprott, Trans.
New York, Norton.
16. Haviland, J. ; Scarborough H. (1981) Adolescent Development in Contemporary
Society,. New York: Litton Educational Publishing.
17. Herrings, S.C. (2009) Questioning the Generational Divide :Technological Exoticism
and Adult Construction of Online Youth Identity. Youth Identity and the
Digital Media. Buckingam Ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect,
Psychological Review.
19. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.
20. Kemp, J. (2010) A Parent Not a Pal. Bowen Hills: Australian Academic Press.
21. Kik Messenger Description.
Retrieved from
http://www.Kik.com/about
22. Kinney, T. (2009). Anti and Pro-Social Communication: Theories, Methods, and
Applications. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
23. Krenke, I. S. (1995). Stress, Coping, and Relationships in Adolescence. New Jersey:
Lawrenece Erlbaum Associates
24. LaGreca, A. and Harrison, H. (2005). Adolescent Peer Relations, Friendships, and
Romantic Relationships: Do They Predict Social Anxiety and Depression;
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology.
25. Lamb, M.E. (1994). Adolescent Problem Behaviors (Issues and Research). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
26. Lee, N. (2013). Facebook Nation: Total Information Awareness. New York: Springer
Science and Business Media.
27. Marini, Z. (2006). Direct and Indirect Bully–Victims; Differential Psychosocial Risk
Factors Associated With Adolescents Involved in Bullying and
Victimization, Aggressive Behavior, 551-569
28. McQuade, S. & Colt, J.P. (2009) Cyber Bullying: Protecting Kids and Adults from
Online Bullies. Westport: Praeger Publishers
29. McQuade, S.; Colt, J. (2009) Cyber Bullying: Protecting Kids and Adults from Online
Bullies. Praeger Publishers: Westport CT
30. Meier, M. (2014) Cyberbullying & Suicide Statistics. Megan Meier Foundation.
Retrieved from
http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org/statistics.html,
31. Mitchell, K.J. (2007). The Relative Importance of Online Victimization in
Understanding Depression, Delinquency, and Substance Use, Child
Maltreatment. Retrieved from. http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV132.pdf
32. Nansel, Overpeck, PIlla, Ruan , Simons Morton, & Scheidt, (2003). A Review of the
Extent, Nature, Characteristics and Effects of Bullying Behaviour in
Schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Vol. 35 Issue 2, p151-158.
33. Piaget, (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Free Press.
34. Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives: Digital Immigrants : From Digital Immigrants
and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom.
Retrieved from:
http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue3/H._Sapiens_Digital_from
_digital_immidgrants_and_digital nativesto_digital_wisdom.pdf
35. Rigy, K. and Slee, P. (1991). Bullying Among Australian School Children: Reported
Behavior and Attitudes Towards Victims, Journal of Social Psychology,
36. Rivers, I. (2013) Bullying: Experiences and Discourses of Sexuality and Gender.
New York: Rivers and Duncan.
37. Rodkin, P.C. , Farmer, T; Pearly, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of
Popular Boys: Antisocial and Pro-social Configurations. Developmental
psychology (14-24)
38. Savin-Williams, R.C. (1979). Dominance Hierarchies in Groups of Early
Adolescents. Child Development 50, 923-925
39. Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the
Classroom, and the Home. New York: Routledge.
40. Shariff, S. (2009). Confronting Cyber Bullying: What Schools Need to Know to
Control Misconduct and Avoid Legal Consequences. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
41. Siner, E. (2013) Facebook Takes Cyberbullies As More Teens Leave Site. NPR All
Tech Considered.
Retrieved from:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/11/07/243710885/facebo
ok-takes-on-cyberbullies-as-more-teens-leave-facebook
42. Sourander, A. (2010). Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated with Cyberbullying
Among Adolescents, Archive of General Psychiatry, 720-728.
Retrieved from
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=210833
43. Sullivan, H.S. (1970). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict: The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
44. Szteinbaum, S. (2014). Technology Raises Issues Regarding Cyberbullying. The
Daily Targum.
Retrieved from
http://www.dailytargum.com/news/technology-raises-issues-regardingcyberbullying/article_ac9cebf6-d019-11e3-b5d4-0017a43b2370.html,
45. Underwood, M.K. (2001) Top Ten Challenges for Understanding Gender and
Aggression in Children: Why Cant We All Just Get Along?, Social
Development, 248-266.
46. Wolpert, S. (2008). Crafting Your Image for Your 1000 Friends on Facebook or
Myspace. UCLA Newsroom.
1
From Bullying to Cyberbullying
A Study of Adolescents and the Factors That Nurture
Harassment Across Real and Virtual Platforms
Allisan Salazar
Rhode Island School of Design
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
2
Adolescents Behind Cyberbullying
Allisan Salazar
Youth culture has evolved over time in regards to regards to technology,
language, social norms, and overall attitude about the changing times. The concept of
bullying goes back far in history, but has changed rapidly and significantly due to the
widespread availability of information communication technologies (ICT). Today’s
adolescents now have the potential to interact with others in ways that only a decade ago
we could not envisage. It is through these internet-ready and electronic forms that a new
set of social norms regarding how people socialize is created, and with that a new
population of bullies arises as a result of the unique and dangerous psychological
elements that now play a part in this cyber interaction. Bullying has transformed from
being a physical experience to a virtual one, and this new approach has been coined
“cyberbullying” which combines characteristics of “traditional” bullying, as I will refer to
them throughout this paper, with the detachment inevitable in using the cyber world to
communicate. The level of information that is accessible for the public based on an
individual’s social media profiles are readily available to those who seek to intimidate,
tantalize, or exploit vulnerable others. Researchers have been attempting to tackle this
twenty first century phenomenon, and delved into the psychological social, and
ecological principles behind it, however being a part of the “digital natives generation”
is an inside perspective that is invaluable. In this paper, theoretical perspectives will
provide us with a priming to be able to focus and better understand the progression of
bullying into the hostile nature of online interactions between adolescents, and the many
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
3
psychosocial harms of this new popularized socialization method. The paper will
examine cyberbullying by dissecting the roles of the bullies and victims, expose issues of
psychopathy and anonymity, and explore potential solutions to control this harmful new
method of interaction.
It is essential to define bullying in attempt to dismember its many parts, and is
crucial to delineating the differences between traditional bullying and cyberbullying.
Bullying is defined as “unwanted, aggressive behavior…that involved a real or perceived
power imbalance” (“Bullying definition”, 2013) in the form of physical, emotional, or
mental harm for the victim, and other negative long lasting effects. It is important to note
that defining some of these terms are not to be taken as straightforward and final due to
the complexity of the social interactions that take place within these digital platforms. It
is equally important to establish the adolescent age group we will be studying to narrow
down on some varying factors. For the purposes of this study, the research will be taking
a look at middle school students approximately ages eleven to fourteen, placing the
subjects directly at the beginning of the adolescent spectrum (11-21). This study also
includes all genders as a means of dissecting the differentiating attitudes in their specific
approach to bullying and the statistical levels of male and female perpetration. Through
convergent and divergent analysis we will be able to better pinpoint the reasoning behind
this method of bullying and also observe the contextual variables that are in play.
Understanding the mere possibilities of bullying resides in theoretical principles that have
been stated early in history. Many researchers (Damon & Colby, 1987; Rigy & Slee,
1991; Swearer, 2004) question the general morality and the levels of empathy of
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
4
those who partake in the bullying, or witness it without intervention. Kohlberg’s (1969,
1973) study and conclusive stages of moral development were an extension of the
psychological theory originally formed by Piaget (1932), which exploits moral reasoning
as a behavior that evolves in stages. In multiple studies, (Kohlberg, 1969; Haviland,
1981) when posed with moral dilemma scenarios, the younger end of adolescents based
their decision-making on outcome and punishment: if a deed turned out well, it is good; if
it did not, it was bad. This level of moral decision-making is known as stage one in
Kohlberg’s (1969) theory, and is often seen as the lower level of morality that is present
in cyber bullying, as most do not see the harm they are doing until they are caught by an
authority figure, or the victim ends up harmed. The stage following that begins to include
concern for consequences and a more mature consideration of other people, which is a
deficit in stage one and leads to the detachment required to harm somebody. For the
purpose of this study, Kohlberg’s models of cognitive developmental theory are more
adequate and flexible than others because it takes individuals’ moral thinking as more
than a simple unconscious process that the individual is not aware of (Freud, 1933). He
takes into account social-context adaptation as an impactful environmental factor in how
morality is shaped, agreed upon by modern studied done by Shariff (2009) who states
that “when we define a behavior it is important to remember it as an action that takes
place in a particular context, at a particular time, with various influences operating on the
individuals involved” (p40).
Despite outside perspective views on morality, the more important thing to study
is self-perceived morality of an adolescent, which is dependent upon external and internal
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
5
forces and reactions. In his writings on moral reasoning, Piaget (1932, 1963) suggests
that heteronomous morality requires a clear focus on the external features of a behavior
or action, such as consequence, criticism, and acceptance to judge right and wrong
despite whether or not the action was clearly punished or reinforced. Following that same
thought, Bem’s (1972) behavioristic study of self-perception suggests that individuals
have little access to their own internal cognition concerning morality and that it is
ultimately inferred from the observations of ones own behavior via external forces and/or
the circumstances in which this behavior occurs. From a social learning perspective
(Bandura, 1963) any conclusion of bad behavior resulting in guilt or shame by an
individual is based on a dichotomy between external and internal approval, or an
anticipated disapproval by an audience that is deemed important. At this point is when we
can deeper unpack the importance of peer groups and peer influences as important
interpersonal adolescent relationships.
Some of the most telling factors behind any type of bullying lies in the pressures
and expectations of a person between parents and peer groups, as adolescents try out
various roles and status positions to attempt to mediate between the two (Haviland, 1981,
p.200). Social hierarchy is widely sought after by adolescents, especially of a middle
school age and studies have found that “leaders, in addition to being attractive and well
dressed, tend to come from higher socioeconomic status…are strong and athletic, and
above average in mental alertness” (Haviland, 1981 p.203). In a study done by SavinWilliams (1979) adolescents were observed in summer camps to find out how hierarchy
and power is established and found that individuals’ traits related to dominance overlap
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
6
with Haviland’s including athleticism, ability, puberty maturation, and leadership ability.
The observations in this study begins to delve into some of the reasoning behind bullying,
as they found giving orders, making fun of individuals, exclusion, physical abuse, or
verbal challenges were the norm following the hierarchy. This peer controlled adolescent
mindset is the largest deficit that allows for different types of bullying to evolve over
time, as we will see that with new ICT methods, conformity or neglecting a witnessed
abuse becomes more and more common.
It is primary to reveal the basic principles of traditional bullying as a primer to
better understand the psychology behind and later observe how it has evolved into cyber
bullying. As stated previously, bullying is defined as “unwanted, aggressive
behavior…that involved a real or perceived power imbalance” (“Bullying definition”,
2013) and categorizes the participants involved as bully, victim, and bystanders. Bullying
and victimization by nature is a social phenomenon embedded into a peer relations, and it
is crucial to study in a socio-ecological framework within which bullying should be
understood as being maintained or nurtured across individual, family, peer, school, and
community contexts (Espelage; Swearer, 2004). The individual is at the center of his or
her social ecology, whether that individual is the bully, victim, or bystander. They exist
within a family that may or may not influence bullying behaviors based in upbringing,
neglect, abuse, etc. The bullying itself many times takes place in schools or with school
peers, and questioning how the school and community climate nurtures or inhibits the
bullying is important. Most importantly lies the most macroscopic perspective as each
individual is grandly influenced by their culture, location, and generation in regards to
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
7
norms of actions, moral principles, priorities, and interactivity. Bronfenbrenner (1979)
beautifully summarizes this approach to looking at bullying as he states that the most
crucial idea of the ecological systems theory is that “individuals are part of interrelated
systems that locate the individual at the center and move out from the center to include all
the systems that effect them”, it is to say that bullying never occurs in isolation.
There are a variety of reasons that have been concluded regarding what elements
in the context of an individuals’ life nurtures a bully. “The Cycle of Violence”, described
by Widom (1989) is a violent nature stemming from childhood victimization and abusive
homes, and has been known to be one of the leading causes of traditional bullying. Other
bullies may abuse others as acts that stem from strong desires for economic or social
advancement, or peer approval. Most commonly, however, bullies by nature, have been
categorized in studies by levels of narcissism and psychopathy (Rigy & Slee, 1991;
Swearer & Espelage, 2004; Arseneault, 2006; Rivers, 2013) as they “display a lack of
empathy for the suffering of others” (Rivers, 2013, p13). Psychologists, research, and
guidance counselors have observed that traditional bullies, especially those who inflict
physical harm derive satisfaction from acting out even if it causes emotional or physical
damage, and have an apathetic view about aggression than most peers (Colt, 2009 p 24).
Many bullies have even admitted to bullying through boredom, attention and/or thrill
seeking, revenge, and the need for power, and justify their behavior by claiming that the
victim provoked them in some way and deserved the treatment they received (Rivers,
2013). This antisocial pursuit of power is most commonly sparked by detection of
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
8
weakness, envy of a peer’s success, intolerance of a particular group, or difficulties in
friendship and relationships.
On the other side of bullying are the victims, which are frequently divided into
two types: submissive victims, or ‘pure’ victims, and provocative ‘bully’ victims (Rivers,
2013 p10). Submissive victims are those who signal that they are vulnerable and
insecure, and would not retaliate if attacked, whereas provocative victims exhibit anxious
behavior and often annoy their peers to provoke attacks from bullies. Bateson (1989) has
furthered the distinction between the two types of victims by summarizing the two types
of interactions: symmetrical and complementary. Symmetrical interactions are when a
given behavior leads to the same behavior, in this case bullies becoming bullies.
Complementary interaction is when the behavior of one individual evokes the opposite
behavior in the other, i.e. aggression and dominance evokes submission. Longitudinal
studies (Arseneault, 2006) show that victims who are both bully and bullied are at the
greatest risk for psychological damage due to their combined aggression and
vulnerability. Adolescents that take the role of a bystander also aid in nurturing bullying
when they neglect to express disapproval, or seek consequences, lying in fear of being
bullied themselves, or having the stigma of a “snitch” and many other feared titles.
Studies have shown that “only a minority of students will act as defenders of the victim
and this proportion decreases as the children grow older” (Rigby & Slee, 1991). This
diffusion of responsibility and lack of taking a stance reveals the true malleability of
human nature based on psychological theories of peer influence such as groupthink, and
the bystander affect.
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
9
Historically, bullying wasn’t seen as so problematic, but simply as a part of the
light turmoil of growing up and part of a natural, maturation and learning process.
However, in recent decades schools especially in the United States have been made
increasingly aware of the dangers of bullying being left unresolved, leading to suicides
and school shootings in worst cases. The secret service analysis of schools targeted by
school violence found that 72% of the shooters in the U.S. from 1970-2005 reported
being chronically bullied (Vossekuil, Rein, Reddy, Borum & Modzeleski, 2005). Due to
the neglect of such abuse, the submissive victims in this case then become the bullies, in
retaliation and rage. On a large scale study on bullying in the United States (Nansel,
Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons, & Scheidt, 2003) 15,686 sixth to tenth graders completed
surveys regarding bullying in their schools. 39% reported frequent bullying, 13%
identified as bullies, 10.5% as victims, and 7.3% as bully-victims, and in summary that
more boys were involved than girls in the bullying dynamic. In a study such as this one,
however, its relatively important to question the methods used to collect data because
self-report is not always reliable since there are many stigmas attached to bullying
whether they are undesirable traits, denial, or signs of weakness.
There has been a tremendous amount of research over the last few decades that
focused on gender differences, many of which choose to focus on male aggression, but
oversimplify the distinction between theirs and female aggression (Underwood, 2001).
The plentiful psychological, sociological, and criminal research that has been done on
male aggression, as they offend at higher rates than females, has presented males as
widely more aggressive than girls (Block, 1983; Park & Slaby, 1983; Rodkin, Farmer,
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
10
Peal, and Van Acker, 2000). However research has also investigated a form of
“relational aggression” where the goal is to hurt others by means of damaging or altering
another’s reputation or relationships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), and although the rates of
aggression are lower than males, there is data to suggest they are at a greater risk for
psychological issues (Underwood, 2001). As leave the norms of traditional bullying and
evolve into cyberbullying we begin to observe an entire new population of adolescents
who find themselves participating in the abuse, whether in small or big ways.
Although thorough research can give insight to the psychology behind traditional
bullying, a new field of study has formed to best grasp the concept of cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying is defined by “the use of electronic communication to bully a person,
typically by sending messages of an intimidating or threatening nature” (“Cyberbullying”
definition, 2013). With this change of format and medium in which the bullying exists
and escalates place opens up an entirely new set of obstacles.
When a bully is involved in face-to-face abuse, they’re in a position where they
must look upon the victims face and can see the pain they have caused, reflecting levels
of psychopathy (Rigy & Slee, 1991). In regards to cyber abuse, the bully is removed from
seeing the pain as they are separated by a virtual space and sitting safely in front of a
digital screen, making it easier to hurt others without fully realizing the ramifications of
one’s actions. For this same reason there exists a broader population of bullies and
victims, ranging in gender, age, and social hierarchy, as they are no longer categorized by
aggression and power, but a false sense of power in control and anonymity hiding behind
the web. Cyberbullying has increased the number of ways that an individual is exposed to
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
11
harm and torment (Shariff, 2008; Colt, 2009), because all although cyberbullying may
take place in the virtual world, it affects both virtual and real worlds for the victim. This
kind of abuse many times follows them into the school environment (Shariff, 2008 p.25)
and can cripple the victim’s learning ability and feel psychologically devastated and
unsafe whilst in school. In this day and age “sticks and stones make break my bones but
names will never hurt me” no longer applies when teasing, ridicule, criticism, sarcasm,
and scapegoating act as nuanced versions of traditional bullying and now overpower
adolescents’ social interactions.
Digital youth culture has greatly evolved in terms of technology, social norms,
languages, and the experiences of the wider population that experiences it. The methods
at which we can now share information is phenomenal, and constantly accessible. This
level of ICT is impressive but has a natural dichotomy in which it can be used positively
and beneficially or negatively and for harm. Research has worked to show just how many
people use social media, especially Facebook, in order to emphasize just how many
adolescents are at risk via the web (Lee, 2013; Wolpert, 2008; Shariff, 2008). Consumer
Reports Magazine (Colt, 2009) conducted a survey of 2000 online households, recording
adolescents 16 and younger, and 1440 were active on Facebook. It is easy to conclude,
especially in this day and age that having Facebook, amongst many other popular social
media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, and Vine, is seen as a cultural requirement.
Adolescents were quoted saying “if you’re not on Facebook, you don’t exist” and (Boyd,
2006) explains that in contemporary culture “these sites play a key role in adolescence
because it gives them a space to hang out amongst friends and peers, share cultural
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
12
artifacts, and work out an image of how they see themselves”.
Another dangerous problem with these platforms are the high levels of falsified
identity and anonymity. These are two of the most nuanced elements in technology in
regards to ICT forms of socialization. On sites such as Facebook and Myspace,
individuals create profiles which act as a digital presentation of their taste, and identity
which they are able to hand craft by indicating interests, posting photos, and sharing
opinions publicly, acting as a “cross between a yearbook and a community website”
(Shariff, 2008 p35). However, Consumer Reports Magazine’s study of 2000 online
households also shows that 35% of Facebook users falsified information on their profiles
ranging from false names to completely false identity including photos, address, friends,
and name. This level of anonymity is dangerous because it allows adolescents much more
power and space to live life in a more extreme way as their sculpt their profiles for a
variety of reasons (Lee, 2013). Those adolescents hiding behind the virtual veil of
anonymity create more opportunities for mislead global communication and more
opportunities for global bullying since their identity is concealed. The argument of
morality as discussed earlier by (Kohlberg) is even stronger in the cyber world as most
perpetrators feel completely free to victimize others on websites that allow you to post
anonymously, such as ask.fm or spring.me. These sites are the most dangerous due to the
lack of supervision and level of leniency to criticize and attack a certain individual
without any repercussions.
Despite technological benefits, many platforms have an inevitable “dark side”,
where, with the push of a button, cruel messages, inappropriate or embarrassing photos,
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
12
or hurtful rumors can be instantly accessed and/or disseminated to thousands of people.
The consequences of this level of publicity and outreach can be extremely negative when
used in the form of bullying and harassment, as there an infinite audience, and low
percentages of individuals who protect from this harassment. Thirty percent of bystanders
indirectly support cyberbullies by looking at unwanted shared contact (Boulton, 1993;
Salmivalli, 2001) which creates an overwhelming outnumbering and heightens the power
imbalance which is so crucial to bullying. The concept of virality is a dangerous one and
is another nuance that adds to the variety of ways in which cyberbullying: passive or
aggressive, direct or indirect, can victimize adolescents.
The numerous cases of reported suicide due to unwanted content going viral is
telling as to how today’s digital youth does not have a tight grasp on the severity of their
actions online. Data that states suicide as the third most popular cause of death among
teenagers in the United States (Bauman, Toomey, & Wakler, 2013. p 314) combined with
data that “both perpetrators and targets of bullying are at higher risk of depression,
suicide ideation…and attempts than adolescents not involved in bullying” is too close of
a correlation to ignore. Aside from the devastating number of teen suicides related to
cyber abuse in the past decade alone, the millions of unreported psychological effects
many times go unnoticed by the adolescents themselves. There is a substantive body of
research that confirms the damaging outcomes for adolescents who have suffered from
long term bullying, whether it be via web or traditional bullying. Some of these lasting
effects are undermining sense of self, heightened feelings of loneliness, low self esteem,
fear of leaving the house, and high anxiety, anger, or depression (Boulton, 1999; LaGreca
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
13
& Harrison, 2005; Marini,2006). Furthermore, chronic bullying can lead to
psychosomatic symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, sleep loss, and engagement
in risk behaviors such as drugs or alcohol (Sourander, 2010; Mitchell, 2007).
Unfortunately, there is a lack of realization from the adolescents partaking in the act of
bullying, whether directly or indirectly, and do not recognize the severity of the torment
these victims face, especially with technology only becoming more popular and
accessible.
Although there has been extensive research regarding the psychological factors behind
traditional bullying, the research on cyberbullying is still in its infancy. Researchers have
developed enough knowledge, however to read the effects of cyberbullying to be more
widespread and sever than those of regular bullying in the past, shown in the results of
“increased levels of depression, anxiety, and psychosomatic symptoms in victims”
(Sourander, 2010). Due to the high traffic of the big social media platforms such as
Facebook, Myspace, Instagram, and many more, many find it hard to tackle such a large
problem when 93% of teens are using the internet, and 63% use it daily (Lenhart, 2010).
Parents and educators should play a strong and significant role in the lives of adolescents,
and should continue to inform themselves of the signs and symptoms of cyberbullying in
order to intervene. Although the United States has not taken action as much as some
argue they should, other countries such as the UK, Australia, and France have created
legislations that begin to tackle this very serious, dangerous, twenty first century
phenomena. This should be of concern to the entire nation as it effects such a large
number of adolescents, and people in general. Fortunately, many
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
14
organizations and schools have attempted to tackle the problem and are raising
awareness, but a large impact is necessary. The social media platforms on which so much
of this harassment exists should take a bigger step toward responsibility and filter the
content that is acceptable online. There is no reason for ICT forms of socialization to run
on negativity. Technology will only continue to develop and grow and it will remain a
tool for bullies who want to harm, thus it is crucial to research and practice to further
prevention and intervention methods.
FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING
15
Self Assessment
My personal goals for this paper were to explore the concept of cyber bullying in a multi-faceted
way. I was very interested in the theoretical research behind morality and peer influences that
lead bullies to become bullies. This topic has always interested me personally, as I have made the
choice to not be on social media as of last year. Since then I have been able to research the
devastating effects that it has on today’s adolescents and have often come up with ideal ways to
prevent or bring attention to it. I felt as though the bulk of my research was understanding what
makes a traditional bully, which I felt was a stable grounding to present the nuanced elements and
issues revolving around cyber bullying. This twenty first century phenomena is very persistent in
our lives, unfortunately creating a large generation gap between us “digital natives” and older
generations, called “digital immigrants”. In this paper I was torn between attempting to present
shocking evidence and statistic to bring forth the problem of cyberbullying, but found myself
much more interested in through what means psychological, and even in medium (electronic
devices) this could even be possible. Since there is so much research that helps explain this
phenomena I found myself only touching on all of them for the sake of the length of this paper.
However, I am very grateful, Mona that you guided me into choosing this topic because I really
do feel inspired as much of my work has revolved around trying to aid in cyberbullying, or reveal
the nature of social media (many times in satirical ways). I really do think this is great research
and a step in a great direction for my degree project, next year, which I have decided to do on this
topic. Thank you so much for allowing me into your class I learned and grew more than I could
have imagined, your teaching style made a very big impact in the way I think, and even design.
References
1. Allport, G.W. (1955). Becoming: Basic Considerations for a Psychology of
Personality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
2. Andreou, E. & Metallidou, P. (2004). The relationship of Academic and Social
Cognition to Behavior in Bullying Situations Among Greek Primary
School Children. Educational Psychology.
3. Arseneault, L. (2006). Bullying Victimization Uniquely Contributes to Adjustment
Problems in Young Children: A Nationally Representative Cohort Study,
Pediatrics, 130-138.
4. Aslanidou, S. and Menexes, G. (2008). Youth and the internet: Uses and Practices in
the Home, Computers & Education, 1375-1391
5. Bandura, A. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Hold,
Rinehart, and Winston Inc,
6. Bateson, G. (1989). The Individual, Communication, and Society, Press Syndicate of
the University of Cambridge.
7. Bem, D.J. (1972). Self Perception Theory. In L Berkowitz (Ed). Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol 6) New York: Academic.
8. Boulton, M.J. (1999). Concurrent and Longitudinal Links Between Friendship and
Peer Victimization, Implications for Befriending Interventions, Journal of
Adolescence. 461-466
9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by
Nature and Design. Cambridge : Harvard University Press
10. Costabile, A. (2012). The Impact of Technology on Relationship in Educational
Settings. New York: Routledge.
11. Crick, N.R. (1995). Relational Aggression, The Role of Intent Attributions, Feelings
of Distress, and Provocation Type, Development and Psychopathology,
12. Damon, W. & Colby, A. (1987). Moral Development Through Social Interaction,
Social Influence and Moral Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons
13. Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity, Youth and Crisis, New York: Norton.
14. Espelage, D. Swearer, S.M. (2004). Bullying in American Schools, a SocialEcological Perspective on Prevention and Intervention. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
15. Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. WJH Sprott, Trans.
New York, Norton.
16. Haviland, J. ; Scarborough H. (1981) Adolescent Development in Contemporary
Society,. New York: Litton Educational Publishing.
17. Herrings, S.C. (2009) Questioning the Generational Divide :Technological Exoticism
and Adult Construction of Online Youth Identity. Youth Identity and the
Digital Media. Buckingam Ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect,
Psychological Review.
19. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.
20. Kemp, J. (2010) A Parent Not a Pal. Bowen Hills: Australian Academic Press.
21. Kik Messenger Description.
Retrieved from
http://www.Kik.com/about
22. Kinney, T. (2009). Anti and Pro-Social Communication: Theories, Methods, and
Applications. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
23. Krenke, I. S. (1995). Stress, Coping, and Relationships in Adolescence. New Jersey:
Lawrenece Erlbaum Associates
24. LaGreca, A. and Harrison, H. (2005). Adolescent Peer Relations, Friendships, and
Romantic Relationships: Do They Predict Social Anxiety and Depression;
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology.
25. Lamb, M.E. (1994). Adolescent Problem Behaviors (Issues and Research). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
26. Lee, N. (2013). Facebook Nation: Total Information Awareness. New York: Springer
Science and Business Media.
27. Marini, Z. (2006). Direct and Indirect Bully–Victims; Differential Psychosocial Risk
Factors Associated With Adolescents Involved in Bullying and
Victimization, Aggressive Behavior, 551-569
28. McQuade, S. & Colt, J.P. (2009) Cyber Bullying: Protecting Kids and Adults from
Online Bullies. Westport: Praeger Publishers
29. McQuade, S.; Colt, J. (2009) Cyber Bullying: Protecting Kids and Adults from Online
Bullies. Praeger Publishers: Westport CT
30. Meier, M. (2014) Cyberbullying & Suicide Statistics. Megan Meier Foundation.
Retrieved from
http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org/statistics.html,
31. Mitchell, K.J. (2007). The Relative Importance of Online Victimization in
Understanding Depression, Delinquency, and Substance Use, Child
Maltreatment. Retrieved from. http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV132.pdf
32. Nansel, Overpeck, PIlla, Ruan , Simons Morton, & Scheidt, (2003). A Review of the
Extent, Nature, Characteristics and Effects of Bullying Behaviour in
Schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Vol. 35 Issue 2, p151-158.
33. Piaget, (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Free Press.
34. Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives: Digital Immigrants : From Digital Immigrants
and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom.
Retrieved from:
http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue3/H._Sapiens_Digital_from
_digital_immidgrants_and_digital nativesto_digital_wisdom.pdf
35. Rigy, K. and Slee, P. (1991). Bullying Among Australian School Children: Reported
Behavior and Attitudes Towards Victims, Journal of Social Psychology,
36. Rivers, I. (2013) Bullying: Experiences and Discourses of Sexuality and Gender.
New York: Rivers and Duncan.
37. Rodkin, P.C. , Farmer, T; Pearly, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of
Popular Boys: Antisocial and Pro-social Configurations. Developmental
psychology (14-24)
38. Savin-Williams, R.C. (1979). Dominance Hierarchies in Groups of Early
Adolescents. Child Development 50, 923-925
39. Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the
Classroom, and the Home. New York: Routledge.
40. Shariff, S. (2009). Confronting Cyber Bullying: What Schools Need to Know to
Control Misconduct and Avoid Legal Consequences. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
41. Siner, E. (2013) Facebook Takes Cyberbullies As More Teens Leave Site. NPR All
Tech Considered.
Retrieved from:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/11/07/243710885/facebo
ok-takes-on-cyberbullies-as-more-teens-leave-facebook
42. Sourander, A. (2010). Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated with Cyberbullying
Among Adolescents, Archive of General Psychiatry, 720-728.
Retrieved from
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=210833
43. Sullivan, H.S. (1970). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict: The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
44. Szteinbaum, S. (2014). Technology Raises Issues Regarding Cyberbullying. The
Daily Targum.
Retrieved from
http://www.dailytargum.com/news/technology-raises-issues-regardingcyberbullying/article_ac9cebf6-d019-11e3-b5d4-0017a43b2370.html,
45. Underwood, M.K. (2001) Top Ten Challenges for Understanding Gender and
Aggression in Children: Why Cant We All Just Get Along?, Social
Development, 248-266.
46. Wolpert, S. (2008). Crafting Your Image for Your 1000 Friends on Facebook or
Myspace. UCLA Newsroom.
