Cyberbullying - Focus Groups
Cyberbullying - Focus Groups
Cyberbullying - Focus Groups
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266149104
CITATIONS
READS
140
2 AUTHORS:
Katie Crosslin
Mandy Golman
12 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS
5 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Keywords:
Cyberbullying
College students
Interventions
Qualitative
Digital
a b s t r a c t
Cyberbullying is a growing phenomenon in our society with the technological advances that are
occurring. This type of bullying can transpire at all hours via text message, email, or social networking
sites. According to several studies, college students are being affected by cyberbullying, with prevalence
rates ranging from 8% to 21%. Many psychological ramications exist as a result of cyberbullying among
victims and bullies. It is crucial to learn more about how this phenomenon is affecting the social and
learning environments in college, as well as how college students view cyberbullying. First and
second-year students at a southern university were recruited to participate in this qualitative study.
The researchers conducted six focus groups with 54 students. The participants reported reasons for
cyberbullying in the college environment, such as retaliation in relationships. Independence and autonomy were discussed as reasons why college students do not report cyberbullying to others when it
occurs. Participants discussed future interventions to reduce cyberbullying that included coping strategies, utilizing university services, and engaging in legal action. The authors recommend utilizing a
multi-level Socio-Ecological approach to reduce cyberbullying rates. Additionally, evaluation research
needs to be conducted on what works and what does not in the prevention of cyberbullying.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Cyberbullying is a growing phenomenon in our society with the
technological advances that are occurring. While cyberbullying has
been dened as repeated, unwanted harassment using digital
technologies (Adams & Lawrence, 2011; Kraft & Wang, 2010), there
are several other denitions discussed in the literature focusing on
threats of physical harm to online aggression to the use of specic
technology such as web cams (Sabella, Patchin, & Hinduja, 2013).
Although better consensus is needed for a clear denition,
cyberbullying can have potentially long-lasting effects on victims
and further research is needed to understand the context in which
it occurs. Traditional bullying is often contained to the schoolyard;
however, cyberbullying can occur at all hours via text message,
email, or social networking sites. The frequency of victimization
may be greater given the fact that our lives are intricately
2. Method
2.1. Participants
15
16
and negatives of technology. Once the group was comfortable sharing their opinions, the moderator proceeded to ask the planned
discussion questions. The researchers did not dene cyberbullying,
but fully relied on constructivism to explore how college students
viewed this phenomenon. The focus group interviews were audio
recorded, but only rst names were used to protect the identity
of the participants. Each focus group lasted from 60 to 90 min.
2.5. Data analysis
The audio les were transcribed by an administrative assistant
who was hired as an outside consultant. Once the transcriptions
were complete, the researchers read through the data several times
independently. Thematic analysis was conducted and two
researchers independently developed a list of codes based on line
by line analysis of the data. The codes were collapsed into similar
categories to develop overarching themes and sub-themes. For
instance, one of the discussion questions asked what does
cyberbullying mean to you? While reviewing the examples of
cyberbullying provided, the researchers identied reasons for
cyberbullying as a spontaneously emerging theme and looked
for the underlying trends in the data. Codes like teach someone
a lesson or cause relationship problems were condensed into
the sub-theme of inicting harm on relationships. This process
was repeated to identify themes/sub-themes in the data. The
research team re-convened to compare their codes/emerging
themes and found that there was a high degree of similarity, and
any differences were discussed and re-evaluated. Once the themes
and sub-themes were nalized, the researchers reviewed the data
using a content analysis approach to collect the frequencies in
which participants mentioned the various themes.
2.6. Validation
A follow-up focus group was conducted with 10 students who
were representative of the study population to facilitate a member-check of the data. A summary of the data along with quotes
to support participants perspectives were presented and discussed. Participants in the member-check focus group conrmed
many of the ndings, but preferred a different venue for cyberbullying education than some of the original participants. In addition,
an outside researcher reviewed the results and provided helpful
feedback and asked clarifying questions in the form of peer
debrieng.
3. Results
In Fig. 1, the themes and sub-themes are aligned with the
research questions to illustrate the natural ow of data and how
the researchers embodied the ndings. The following themes were
identied: Reections on cyberbullying; Reasons for cyberbullying; Perceptions of cyberbullying terminology; Pertaining to college students; and Awareness & education. The authors have
listed salient quotes below to provide a rich context illustrating
the participants perspectives on cyberbullying.
3.1. Reections on cyberbullying
3.1.1. Mocking
Technology can be utilized to sabotage ones reputation and to
masquerade as another person in order to obtain sensitive information (Walker et al., 2011). Over 50% of participants reported that
cyberbullying is often used to mock others in this manner. For
instance, one person said, I know if you post a picture of somebody behind their back and it is making fun of them, it does not
matter if you post it and you feel bad and you delete it. The student continued to express that the damage was already done since
postings can never be truly erased online.
Participants were affected by masquerading and shared about
situations that escalated. A participant was contacted by another
female student who created this alias and used her cousins pictures. . .he was really attractive, so she just created a Facebook
[account] portraying herself as a guy. . ..and used all of his pictures. . ..she befriended 5 girls in the school and I was one of them
and she just created this huge elaborate story. She even got in a
relationship with a girl at school pretending to be a guy.
3.1.2. Childish
Approximately 17% of participants expressed that cyberbullying
is childish and not something you communicate about with others,
like parents or friends. One participant stated that cyber bullying
is childish, but then again people are going to get hurt by it by the
end of the day. . .and everybody sees it. While understanding the
emotional ramications of cyberbullying, some participants did
not know how to handle the idea of cyberbullying. You just feel
like it is funny. . . I know its not funny but just like seems a little
more childish to me.
3.1.3. Time for contemplation
Six participants (11.3%) noted that people become very bold
online and act foolish when communicating on social networking
sites. One person said, you have time to think about it and devise
a hurtful response on a social networking site. The fact that anonymity can fuel cyberbullying along with the time to contemplate
a response, one participant reported that its the same concept as
when youre in a mascot suit, they can kind of do whatever they
want because nobody can really see who they are. . .when youre
not face to face, you have time to process what someones really
thinking and youre not relying on your true people skills.
3.2. Reasons for cyberbullying
3.2.1. Inict harm on relationships
According to 30% of participants, cyberbullying may be used to
create disagreement or harm romantic relationships by friends,
acquaintances, and ex-signicant others. For instance, one participant stated that some people posted pictures of somebodies
girlfriend. . ..and caused problems relationship-wise or he posted
pictures at parties. . ..situations that could be embarrassing or
could lead to trouble down the road. Other people used cyberbullying as a way to play a mean trick on another person, such as
when a participant posted a picture of one of my brothers and like
you passed out on the couch like look you were really messed
up. . ..we use it more like a reminder. . .wow I need to watch myself
next time I go out to not to drink as much, so I know my limits.
3.2.2. Retaliation
Eleven participants (20.7%) stated that cyberbullying is a way to
retaliate when relationships go awry and in one instance, someone
said she was supposed to go out with a guy and she found out that
the guy wasnt good so she didnt go out for the date and he kept
emailing her and he kept using Blackboard as means to make
repetitive contact. Another participant said that she has an ex
thats just relentless. . .I deleted my Facebook and any type of communication and he will hack into any kind of email. . ..and he sent
photos to my current boyfriend through my email and he uploaded
them through Google chrome. Similarly, an ex-boyfriend of
another student attempted to become Facebook friends with all
of her friends to share the truth about their relationship.
17
18
groups, quite a few students realized that they had in fact been
cyberbullied, but had previously been unable to identify this
phenomenon. As documented in the literature, other researchers
found cyberbullying terminology to be outdated and have
expressed the need for a new term (Dredge, Gleeson, & Garcia,
2014). Several of the reasons discussed in the focus groups for
cyberbullying (e.g., mocking and retaliation) are well dened in
the literature (Doane, Pearson, & Kelley, 2014; Slonje, Smith, &
Frisen, 2013), but having an updated label for this type of bullying
would enable victims to better understand what they are
experiencing.
4.2. Addressing cyberbullying in college
While some students did not think that cyberbullying occurs in
college or that it was important, the majority thought it deserved
more attention. Cyberbullying has not been widely studied in the
college population; however, available studies in the literature
have found a natural carryover into the college setting (Adams &
Lawrence, 2011; CDC, 2011; Zalaquett & Chatters, 2014). As stated
by participants, they were intent on handling cyberbullying occurrences independently or perhaps not even facing these situations
because of the stigma associated with bullying as a young childs
dilemma. For this reason, more discussion is needed on how college students encounter cyberbullying and the fact that this issue
is a recognized problem in the workplace as well.
4.3. Cyberbullying initiatives in college
Based on previous reports and conrmed by the participants in
this study, cyberbullying can result in serious actions that lead to
further school violence (Duncan, 2010; Hinduja & Patchin, 2010).
Therefore, more serious consequences should be established to
raise signicant attention at the college level (Zalaquett &
Chatters, 2014). In the follow-up focus group, substantial discussion took place about the most appropriate way to raise awareness.
While rst-year orientation seems like an obvious place, several
students commented that, I dont really listen and It doesnt
really sink in. Students recommended utilizing RAs to conduct
ongoing workshops for their oor or to pass out iers with information. It was also suggested to include information on cyberbullying as part of the First Year Course a class designated to help
students adjust to their rst year of college which is being offered
on many university campuses. As stated above, students also noted
that if more severe consequences were in place and students knew
about those consequences ahead of time, they might be more likely
to take cyberbullying more seriously.
4.4. Future interventions
The secondary purpose of this study was to determine acceptable interventions to reduce cyberbullying in this population.
Based on the ndings from this study as well as from the literature,
the researchers recommend utilizing a multi-level SEM approach
to addressing cyberbullying in the college setting (Table 1).
Stanbrook (2014) discussed this approach extensively in the secondary school settingthat it is critical to include all key stakeholders if there is to be signicant change.
4.4.1. Intrapersonal interventions
At an individual level, this study has further demonstrated that
cyberbullying among college students is an issue that requires
more education. Additional training is needed to reinforce the idea
that cyberbullying is not acceptable and should not be considered a
rite of passage, as 20% of participants in this study reported. To
affect change at the individual level, the notion that bullying is
19
Table 1
Utilizing a socio-ecological approach to reduce cyberbullying in college students.
Level of intervention
Individual level
Bullies are going to be bullies whether theyre on the Internet or in person. . .so be prepared and dont take it seriously.
Interventions:
- Expose the idea that bullying is expected or normal
- Create a system for victims to report cyberbullying instances
. . .they would use the Internet as avenues to pick on each other or expose things about each other while living in the dormitory.
Interventions:
- Awareness curriculum for RAs and student life personnel
- Conduct surveys to assess cyberbullying occurrence on college campuses
. . .kids are growing with technology now and thats a different generation versus parents who didnt grow up with it, and were
introduced later on, so more awareness is needed.
Interventions:
- Shape negative perceptions of cyberbullying to foster changes in attitude
- Reinforce positive norms related to acceptable technology use
I feel like it should be the court. . .a lot of people are not threatened by the school. . .people dont even take it seriously."
Interventions:
- Establish guidelines at universities for handling cyberbullying instances
- Align university policies with emerging state and federal laws on cyberbullying
Organizational level
Community level
Policy level
will benet from aligning their policies to support state and federal
laws to better protect the learning environment.
5. Limitations
The researchers utilized a convenience sample of students from
the psychology department at a public, southern university. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to the general public. In
addition, it is possible that only those students that had experience
with or an interest in cyberbullying chose to participate in the
study. However, the results from this study aligned closely with
other studies in the literature.
6. Conclusion and future research recommendations
This was one of the rst qualitative studies that sought to identify
how college students view cyberbullying in a social context. Indepth data, such as this, is very useful in generating theories and
these results can be applied to future interventions to reduce cyberbullying in college students. Future recommendations include follow-up surveys with college level administrators at a variety of
universities to gain further knowledge about their perceptions of
cyberbullying and their view of the university role. In addition, all
stakeholders, such as RAs, student life personnel, counselors, faculty,
and students should be engaged to determine their perceptions of
cyberbullying at the college level and how they have handled
instances in the past. Schenk et al. (2013) discuss the importance
of understanding cyberbullies and designing prevention programs
that address the social factors at play. More research is needed to
further examine those factors. Lastly, as Sabella et al. (2013) point
out, much evaluation research needs to be conducted on what
works and what doesnt in the prevention of cyberbullying.
7. Funding source
This study was funded by the College of Health Sciences Deans
fund at Texas Womans University.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Mr. Matt Crosslin for his expertise
and assistance with the design of the gure. Also, the authors
thank Dr. Jody Terrell for contributing to this study in the area of
data collection. We thank all of the students who participated in
this research project.
20
References
Adams, F. D., & Lawrence, G. J. (2011). Bullying victims: The effects last into college.
American Secondary Education, 90(1), 413.
Adams, F. D., Lawrence, G. J., & Schenck, S. (2008). A survey on bullying: Some
reections on the ndings. NASCD News & Notes, 8, 17.
Boulton, M., Lloyd, J., Down, J., & Marx, H. (2012). Predicting undergraduates selfreported engagement in traditional and cyberbullying from attitudes.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(3), 141147. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0369.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report (2011). Bullying among middle school and high school students
Massachusetts, 2009.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2013). The socialecological
model: A framework for prevention <http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
overview/social-ecologicalmodel.html> Retrieved 21.08.14.
Crosslin, K. L., & Crosslin, M. B. (2014). Cyberbullying at a Texas university A
mixed-methods approach to examining online aggression. Texas Public Health
Journal, 66(3), 2631.
Doane, N., Pearson, M., & Kelley, M. (2014). Predictors of cyberbullying perpetration
among college students: An application of the theory of reasoned action.
Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 154162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2014.03.051.
Dredge, R., Gleeson, J., & Garcia, X. (2014). Cyberbullying in social networking sites:
An adolescent victims perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 1320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.026.
Duncan, S. (2010). College bullies Precursors to campus violence: What should
universities and college administrators know about the law? Villanova Law
Review, 55(2), 269320.
Foderaro, L. (2010). Private moment made public, then a fatal jump. The New York
Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/nyregion/
30suicide.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> Retrieved September 29.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2014). State cyberbullying laws: A brief review of state
cyberbullying
laws
and
policies
<http://www.cyberbullying.us/
Bullying_and_Cyberbullying_Laws.pdf> Retrieved 23.06.14.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2007). Ofine consequences of online victimization:
School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89112. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1300/J202v06n03_06.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of
Suicide
Research,
14(3),
206221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13811118.20104941.33.
Kaminski, J., & Fang, X. (2009). Victimization by peers and adolescent suicide in
three U.S. samples. Journal of Pediatrics, 155(5), 683688.
Kraft, E., & Wang, J. (2010). An exploratory study of the cyberbullying and
cyberstalking experiences and factors related to victimization of students at a
public liberal arts college. International Journal of Technoethics, 1(4), 7491.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jte.2010100106.