Running Head: Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying:

How Physical Intimidation Influences the Way People are Bullied

Tyler Maxwell

University of West Florida

Cyberbullying 2

INTRODUCTION - Cyberbullying 3

Since the beginning of time people have always had to deal with bullies. Just

like anything else, however, things tend to evolve with technology. With the evolution

of social media and technology some adolescence as well as adults are simply unable to

escape harassment from their peers in school and in the workplace. This social

phenomenon is what has come to be known as cyberbullying. According to Willard

(2004) there are eight different forms of cyberbullying, which include Flaming (online

fights), Harassment (sending vulgar messages), Denigration (posting gossip),

impersonation, outing (sharing peoples secrets), trickery (tricking someone into sharing

secrets), exclusion, and cyberstalking.

This study is going to include extensive research into the motivations to cyberbully

as well as its influence on the aggressors and victims and the relationships between the

two. We will also examine the different techniques cyberbullies employ as well as the

techniques that victims use in order to cope with the harassment.

Cyberbullying 4
BODY

Prevelance of Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying is something that is has become a new social phenomenon in

today’s society. It can often times leave students unable to escape their bullies and leave

them feeling alone and helpless. Faucher, Jackson, and Cassidy(2014) performed a study

on 1925 students across four Canadian universities that found 24.1 percent of students

had been the victims of cyberbullying over the last twelve months. These shocking

numbers show that nearly one in every four people have been the victims of this

phenomenon. This statistic is interesting however because when compared to studies that

were done amongst younger age students you see that the numbers are drastically

different. Wegge, Vandebosch, and Eggermont(2014) found that among 1,458 13-14

year old students that considerably less students reported being cyberbullied. This is very

similar to what Vanderbosch and Van Cleemput (2009) found among 2052 students in

the 12-18 ranges which concluded that 11.1 percent of students had been victims of

cyberbullying. This research concludes that cyberbullying appears to be more prevelant

in students as they get older. Wegge et al. (2014) also noted that 30.8 percent had been

victims of traditional bullying.

This raises the question as to why it seems to be less prevalent among younger students. Is it

possible that they simply don’t have as much access to the tools of
Cyberbullying 5

cyberbullying that students at the university level have, or they possibly aren’t as

technologically advances as their older peers? It continues to raise questions about the

issue of cyberbullying as well as what classifies the perpetrators as well as what are

their reasons for harming others.

The types of people who bully. An important factor when analyzing

cyberbullying is trying to understand the types of people who are the aggressors. The first

thing that needs to be discussed when analyzing this is the simple matter of gender when

it comes to who is generally the aggressor. Slonje and Smith (2008) found that when it

comes to cyberbullying males are more often than not the aggressors with males being

reported as the cyberbully far more often than females. Slonje et al (2008) also found that

36.2 percent of students were unaware of the gender of their aggressors. This is

intriguing because for one its is the same percentage as the number of males who bullied,

but most importantly because it shows that over 1 in 3 students don’t actually know who

is bullying them, which adds to the fear and stigma that is related to cyberbullying and

not being able to escape the perpetrators.

The types of people who are victims. Researchers have also conducted various

studies on the types of people who are cyberbullied, or what is often referred to as “cybervictomology”.

Abeele and Cock (2013) conducted a study, which concluded that the gender of victims varied greatly

depending on the form of cyberbullying. Abeele et al. (2013) found that males are more likely to be on the

receiving end of direct cyberbullying while females are more likely to be the victims of indirect

cyberbullying such as online gossip among peers. These findings appear to remain true to social social

norms where males are viewed as more confrontational and females are often stereotyped as gossipers.
Cyberbullying 6

While not many studies look at the gender of the victims many studies do research

things such as the characteristics of the victims. Faucher et al. (2014) found that there

were numerous reasons that people felt they were the victims of cyberbullying such as

their personal appearance, interpersonal problems, as well as simply having discrepancies

about their views. Davis, Randall, Ambrose, and Orand (2015) also conducted a study

about victims and their demographics, which looked at the reasons people, were

cyberbullied. Some of the results in the Davis et al. (2015) study addressed other reasons

for being bullied in which they found that 14 percent of victims had been bullied because

of factors such as their sexual orientation.

These are all very important because it fits the profile of the traditional bully that

many people envision but it shows that it transfers over into the cyber world as well. This

leads on further questions about the relationship between the two and how the

cyberbullying is influencing where and how the harassment is continuing.

The relationship between bully and victim. The relationship between aggressor

and victim is also something that has been heavily research among professionals. Beran and Li (2007)

conducted a study that involved 432 middle school students and concluded that just under half of the

studnets had been victims of cyberbullying as well as traditional bullying. This is true across multiple

studies. Wegge et al. (2014) also concluded that people who were bullied in traditional manners had a

much higher likelihood to become victims of cyberbullying. Another interesting relationship between

bully and victim is that studies have also shown that people who are victims are likely to become

aggressors in the online world. Beran et al. (2007) confirms this by stating, “students who are bullied

through technology are likely to us technology to bully others”.

Cyberbullying 7

Faucher et al. (2014) also found similar results claiming that male and female

students decided to bully people online because they were bullied first.

Research has also been done that looks at how the bullies find their victims.

Wegge et al. (2014) studied the perpetrators preferences in victims and found that 27

percent were in the same grade, 14.2 percent were in different grades and a staggering

49.6 percent were not schoolmates of the bullies. This evidence somewhat contradicts

that of the other studies that state victims are generally bullied at school and at home

because it shows that nearly half of the bullies prefer to bully people they don’t go to

school with and possibly have do not know at all. This continues to build and add to the

idea of cyberbullying in that it allows bullies to create their own personas and images

in order to try and intimidate and influence others without actually providing a physical

intimidation factor.

Effects of Cyberbullying

The first part of this literature review focused on the demographics of the bullies and their

victims, but now we will focus on the lasting effects and the trauma it brings to the victims as well as the

different forms of cyberbullying. While the platforms used are different the lasting effects that the

bullying has on the victims are very similar. Faucher et al. (2014) concluded that one of the main effects

that cyberbullies had on university students was that they were unable to accomplish some of their

school assignments. While many people think of effects of bullying to be simply depression or low self

esteem this study brought light to a much different more unexpected issues. Beran et al. (2007) also

found similar responses from victims of cyberbullying claiming that they often didn’t achieve the same

marks in school and had lower concentration. These

Cyberbullying 8

findings indicate that the lasting impact that a cyberbully has on their victims is

often more harmful than what most people can see on the surface.

Pieschl, Porsch, Kahl, and Klockenbusch (2013) found that cybervictims

generally were less distressed during the second confrontation with a cyberbully. This

interesting finding indicates that victims of cyberbullies may actually become

desensitized to the aggression over time lessening the effects of the bullying.

Victims coping techniques. When being faced by a bully it is important that victims

learn to cope and move on from their experiences in order to prevent them from suffering in their

personal and professional life like some of the victims in previous studies. Davis et al. (2014) conducted a

study on victim coping techniques where they broke the techniques into two distinct categories, which

were behavioral and cognitive strategies. Davis et al. (2014) found that 74 percent of participants

preferred behavioral strategies and of those 74 percent, 69 percent of those people found the strategies

to be effective. These behavioral strategies included seeking social support, making a creative outlet, or

ignoring and blocking the bully. Because of the growing trend of cyberbullying there have been people

who have developed different programs to help raise awareness for cyberbullying as well as offer help to

the victims. One of these programs is known as Cyberprogram 2.0. Garaigordobil and Martinez-Valderrey

(2015) conducted a study testing the effectiveness of this program and found that it was effective in

decreasing the amount of traditional as well as cyberbullying, but also and more importantly it raised

empathy among classmates towards the victims of these actions. This is a big step in combatting bullying

because peers are constantly influencing each other. If the general consensus among the class is that

bullying is not funny and not right because they

Cyberbullying 9

empathize with the victims than it can go a long way in changing the social norm. If the

attention is not longer given to the bully by classmates and victims it could potentially

cut back on the frequency of this act.

With that being said it raises the question instead of trying to cope, why not just

remove yourself from the situation all together and not give the bully what they desire?

Arntfield (2005) discussed the risk associated with using social media and concluded

that “intrinsic rewards that were not tied directly to winning as much as they were to

fantasies of power, celebrity, sexuality, and elevated social status that came with

participating, win or lose.”. This conclusion is one that is very accurate and relevant to

the way adolescence as well as university level students think in today’s society. The fact

of the matter is in order to fit in and be considered “cool” amongst your peers you need

to be on social media to understand many of the things that are talked about amongst

students. Whether it be trending hashtags, viral videos, or popular memes these are all

things that are commonly shared and talked about between peers. While students may

run the risk of being bullied on these sites, they also run the risk of being bullied for not

knowing the newest updates in our culture, it is truly a viscous cycle.

Forms of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying gives the bully a much larger spectrum to

choose from when it comes to how exactly they want to intimidate their victims which may be why it is

often easier for them to carry out the act. Of all the different ways to cyberbully Faucher et al. (2014)

found the most common platforms for cyberbullying to be social media, text messaging, and email which

were used to bully students about half of the time followed up by blogs forums and chat rooms which

were 25 percent. This is no surprise that social media is the most common platform for cyberbullying

because it
Cyberbullying 10

can allow for the bully to remain completely anonymous to your average victim. This

allows people who may not fit the mold of your average bully to create a fake account

and build their own persona in order to bully others. Multiple studies also address a

critical factor of using social media or the Internet to bully others, which is that; the

photos or hurtful comments, can remain in cyberspace virtually forever. Davis et al.

(2014) mentions how they received viewed several responses that talked about “how

their traditional bullying experience would have been magnified if they had occurred in

todays digital era”. Faucher et al. (2014) also talk about how cyberbullying has a longer

“shelf life” than your average bullying. This plays such a huge role because with the

aggressive material on the internet it can often be revisited and the pain can constantly be

brought back to light for the victims making the experience that much more traumatic.

Social media is very prevelant among cyberbullies but there is also extensive

research done on cell phones and the role they play in the act of cyberbullying. Abeele et

al. (2013) studied various aspects of mobile phone bullying and found that the most

prevalent type was gossiping via text message, followed by gossiping over the phone,

and concluded with threatening others over text message. Abeele et al. (2013) also found

that girls were more often than not the perpetrators of gossiping while boys made slightly

more threats via cell phone. This numbers tend lean towards the stereotype of females

being more of gossipers and males generally being more aggressive and physical. This is

also interesting because shows that that society’s stereotypes appear to remain true even

in a cyberworld.
 REFERENCES

1. Abeele, M., & Cock, R. (2013). Cyberbullying by mobile phone among adolescents:

The role of gender and peer group status. Communications: The European Journal

of Communication Research, 38(1), 107-118. Doi:10.1515/commun-2013-0006

2. Arntfield, M. (2015). Toward a Cybervictimology: Cyberbullying, Routine

Activities Theory, and the Anti-Sociality of Social Media. Canadian Journal Of

Communication, 40(3), 371-388.

3. Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying.

Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1(2), 15-33.

4. Davis, K., Randall, D. P., Ambrose, A., & Orand, M. (2015). ‘I was bullied too’:

stories of bullying and coping in an online community. Information,

Communication & Society, 18(4), 357-375. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.952657

5. Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among

University Students: Gendered Experiences, Impacts, and Perspectives.

Education Research International, 1. doi:10.1155/2014/698545

6. Garaigordobil, M., & Martinez-Valderrey, V. (2015). Effects of cyberprogram

2.0 on 'face-to-face' bullying, cyberbullying, and empathy. Psicothema, 27(1), 45-

51. doi:10.7334/psicothema201478
Cyberbullying 14

7. Pieschl, S., Porsch, T., Kahl, T., & Klockenbusch, R. (2013). Relevant

dimensions of cyberbullying — Results from two experimental studies. Journal

Of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34241-252.

doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2013.04.002

8. Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of

bullying?. Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology, 49(2), 147-154.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x

9. Vanderbosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters:

profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1349-1371.

doi:10.1177/1461444809341263

10. Wegge, D., Vandebosch, H., & Eggermont, S. (2014). Who bullies whom online: A

social network analysis of cyberbullying in a school context. Communications: The

European Journal Of Communication Research, 39(4), 415-433.

doi:10.1515/commun-2014-0019

11. Willard N, 2004, ‘An educator’s guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats’,

<new.csriu.org/cyberbully/docs/cbcteducator.pdf> viewed September, 2015.

 Cyberbullying 13

References

Abeele, M., & Cock, R. (2013). Cyberbullying by mobile phone among adolescents:

The role of gender and peer group status. Communications: The European Journal

of Communication Research, 38(1), 107-118. Doi:10.1515/commun-2013-0006

Arntfield, M. (2015). Toward a Cybervictimology: Cyberbullying, Routine

Activities Theory, and the Anti-Sociality of Social Media. Canadian Journal Of

Communication, 40(3), 371-388.

Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying.

Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1(2), 15-33.

Davis, K., Randall, D. P., Ambrose, A., & Orand, M. (2015). ‘I was bullied too’:

stories of bullying and coping in an online community. Information,

Communication & Society, 18(4), 357-375. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.952657

Faucher, C., Jackson, M., & Cassidy, W. (2014). Cyberbullying among University

Students: Gendered Experiences, Impacts, and Perspectives. Education

Research International, 1. doi:10.1155/2014/698545

Garaigordobil, M., & Martinez-Valderrey, V. (2015). Effects of cyberprogram 2.0

on 'face-to-face' bullying, cyberbullying, and empathy. Psicothema, 27(1), 45-51.

doi:10.7334/psicothema201478
Cyberbullying 14

Pieschl, S., Porsch, T., Kahl, T., & Klockenbusch, R. (2013). Relevant dimensions

of cyberbullying — Results from two experimental studies. Journal Of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 34241-252. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2013.04.002

Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of

bullying?. Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology, 49(2), 147-154.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x

Vanderbosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters:

profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1349-1371.

doi:10.1177/1461444809341263

Wegge, D., Vandebosch, H., & Eggermont, S. (2014). Who bullies whom online: A

social network analysis of cyberbullying in a school context. Communications:

The European Journal Of Communication Research, 39(4), 415-433.

doi:10.1515/commun-2014-0019

Willard N, 2004, ‘An educator’s guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats’,

<new.csriu.org/cyberbully/docs/cbcteducator.pdf> viewed September, 2015.