Cyberbullying in Schools, Workplaces, and Romantic Relationships

The Many Lenses and Perspectives of Electronic Mistreatment

Gary W. Giumetti,Robin M. Kowalski

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351616409
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psicología
• Subtopic: Psicología social

This volume brings together research on cyberbullying across contexts, age groups, and cultures to gain a fuller perspective of the prevalence and impact of electronic mistreatment on individual, group, and organizational outcomes. This is the first book to integrate research on cyberbullying across three contexts: schools, workplaces, and romantic relationships, providing a unique synthesis of lifespan contexts.
For each context, the expert chapter authors bring together three different 'lenses': existing research on the predictors and outcomes of cyberbullying within that context; a cross-cultural review across national borders and cultural boundaries; and a developmental perspective that examines age-related differences in cyberbullying within that context. The book closes by drawing commonalities across these different contexts leading to a richer understanding of cyberbullying as a whole and some possible avenues for future research and practice.
This is fascinating reading for researchers and upper-level students in social psychology, counseling, school psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, and developmental psychology, as well as educators and administrators.

1

Introduction

Cyberbullying Across Contexts, Age Groups, and Cultures

Robin M. Kowalski and Gary W. Giumetti

Research on cyberbullying has been growing steadily over the last 15 years as the Internet and Internet-connected devices take an ever-more prominent place in our lives. Cyberbullying takes place using the Internet or cell phones, and involves multiple acts of aggressive behavior against an individual who cannot easily defend him/herself (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2012). The majority of this research on cyberbullying has focused on children and adolescents in middle school or high school and has demonstrated strong links with both internalizing problems (such as anxiety, depression, or suicidal ideation; Bonanno & Hymel, 2013; Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014; Tsitsika et al., 2015) and externalizing problems (such as aggression, suspensions from school, and drug and alcohol use; Kowalski et al., 2014; Tsitsika et al., 2015). Whereas less research has been conducted on cyberbullying among working adults or romantic partners, the existing findings seem to indicate that electronic mistreatment is also prevalent in these other contexts, and it is associated with a host of negative outcomes for individuals and organizations. For example, recent workplace research has found a link between cyberbullying and increased emotional exhaustion and decreased perceptions of fairness for employees (Farley, Coyne, Axtell, & Sprigg, 2016). Additionally, research on cyberbullying among romantic partners indicates that such mistreatment is associated with perceived stress among college students (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014) as well as depressive symptoms and delinquency among teens (Zweig, Lachman, Yahner, & Dank, 2014).

To date, however, no efforts have been made to bring together this research across contexts, age groups, and cultures to gain a fuller perspective of the impact of cyberbullying and similar forms of electronic mistreatment. Social-ecological analyses have been proposed for understanding cyberbullying by taking into account individual, peer, family, school, and cultural factors. However, as noted by Görzig, Milosevic, and Staksrud (2017, p. 1199),

the evidence to date is limited in terms of understanding the contexts in which cyberbullying takes place … Most research in this tradition [social ecological] has investigated cyberbullying in the context of schools, families, and peers; research looking at the wider cultural context, however, is scarce …

As will be seen in the pages that follow, the field of cyberbullying research, as is often the case with relatively new fields of investigation, has been fraught with a lack of clarity. Even defining cyberbullying remains unclear as definitions depend upon the type of cyberbullying being investigated (e.g., verbal, visual; Nocentini et al., 2010), the country in which the research is being conducted, and, within-country, the setting in which researchers are focusing their efforts (e.g., school, work, relationships). The purpose of the current book is to provide some unity to the disunity currently characterizing the field by examining the different contexts in which cyberbullying may occur, and the different lenses through which we can understand the phenomenon of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying Defined

Over the last 15 years, researchers have failed to reach a consensus on exactly how cyberbullying should be defined (Kowalski et al., 2014; Slonje, Smith, & Friesen, 2013). This lack of consensus in conceptualizing cyberbullying has had implications for how cyberbullying is measured, leading to variations, for example, in prevalence rates across studies. One conceptual sticking point is the extent to which cyberbullying is both similar to and different from traditional bullying (e.g., Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2013). Traditional bullying has been defined as an act of aggression that is intended to cause harm or distress, that is typically repeated over time, and that occurs among individuals whose relationship is characterized by a power imbalance (Olweus, 1993; 2013). Building upon this definition, Smith et al. (2008, p. 376) defined cyberbullying as “an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself.”

Support for building a conceptual foundation for cyberbullying out of the traditional bullying model can be found in the relationships between involvement in the two types of behavior across many studies. For example, in their meta-analysis, Kowalski et al. (2014) found correlations of 0.40 between traditional bullying victimization and cybervictimization. Similarly, they found correlations of 0.45 between being a perpetrator of traditional bullying and perpetrating cyberbullying. In addition, Olweus (2013) stated that only 10% of individuals are cyberbullied independently of also being involved in traditional bullying. Together, these findings suggest that if an individual is involved with traditional bullying, he or she also tends to be involved with cyberbullying.

However, although most researchers agree that cyberbullying, like traditional bullying, is an act of aggression whose intent is to harm the victim (see, however, Coyne et al., 2017 and Farley et al., 2016 who note that intent is difficult to establish in workplace cyberbullying, and, therefore, it is left out of their definition), some researchers perceive that cyberbullying differs from traditional bullying in the extent to which cyberbullying is repetitive and the degree to which the relationship between the cyberbullying victim and perpetrator is characterized by a power imbalance (Slonje et al., 2013). Minimally, the concepts of repetition and power imbalance do not necessarily mean the same thing for cyberbullying that they mean for traditional bullying (Vranjes, Baillien, Vandebosch, Erreygers, & de Witte, 2017). Repetition in cyberbullying may mean a single email being disseminated to hundreds of recipients (e.g., Cassidy et al., 2013) or an individual reading a bullying text message over and over again. Whereas in traditional bullying, power imbalance typically refers to differences in physical strength or social status, in the online world, power differentials may take the form of technological expertise or stem from anonymity (e.g., Cassidy et al., 2013; Kowalski et al., 2014).

In addition, not all researchers agree that all three components of intentionality, repetition, and power imbalance are even necessary for cyberbullying to occur (e.g., Nocentini et al., 2010). More specifically, several investigators have suggested that repetition is not essential for a situation to be defined as cyberbullying (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009; Nocentini et al., 2010; Slonje & Smith, 2008). Furthermore, the importance of the components of intentionality, repetition, and power imbalance for defining cyberbullying appear to vary cross-culturally (Menesini et al., 2012; Nocentini et al., 2010; Palladino et al., 2017). Palladino et al. (2017) and Menesini et al. (2012), in their studies of several countries, found that the imbalance of power was the most important component for identifying behavior as cyberbullying. However, Nocentini et al. (2010), in a focus group study with participants from Italy, Germany, and Spain, found intentionality to play a critical role in determinations of cyberbullying.

In addition, the appropriateness of each of these components appears to depend on the context in which cyberbullying is being examined. For example, workplace bullying has been defined as “instances where an employee is repeatedly and over a period of time exposed to negative acts (i.e., constant abuse, offensive remarks or teasing, ridicule, or social exclusion) from co-workers, supervisors, or subordinates” (Hershcovis, 2011, p. 501; see also Einarsen, 2000). Workplace cyberbullying would be the occurrence of these behaviors online. Defined in this way, the power imbalance factor appears less critical as subordinates as well as superiors could perpetrate cyberbullying. Relatedly, Coyne et al. (2017, p. 947), who defined workplace cyberbullying as “repeated and enduring negative behavior in the workplace that occurs via technology,” suggested that intent should not be included within a definition of workplace cyberbullying as workers will often disguise their true intent or attempt to rationalize their actions. Definitional issues surrounding these three components of intentionality, repetition, and power imbalance highlight the need for a book that examines the contextual and cultural lenses through which cyberbullying can be viewed.

Prevalence Rates of Cyberbullying

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the majority of the research on cyberbullying to date has been conducted with middle school students in North American and Europe (see Chapter 4, this volume; Brochado, Soares, & Fraga, 2017). Not only has this largely ignored the international nature of the behavior, but it has also failed to account for other age demographics for whom cyberbullying is an issue and other settings in which cyberbullying might occur (e.g., the workplace).

As technology has become increasingly available, younger and younger children are using it in some form (see Chapter 2, this volume), increasing the likelihood that they, too, will become involved with cyberbullying (Çelik, Atak, & Erguzen, 2012). While data are limited on victimization and perpetration prevalence rates among very young children, existing data suggest that the rates are highly variable across studies and across countries. In one study, 18% of children in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade in a US sample reported being victims of cyberbullying (DePaolis & Williford, 2014). Monks and colleagues conducted two studies with elementary school aged youth in the United Kingdom (Monks, Robinson, & Worlidge, 2009; Monks, Worlidge, Robinson, & Ortega, 2012). In the first study (2009), 23% of the youth ages 7 to 11 reported cyberbullying victimization and 5% reported cyberbullying perpetration. In a second study, Monks et al. (2012) found prevalence rates of victimization and perpetration of 21% and 5%, respectively, among youth of the same age. Similarly, among Italian youth, also 7 to 11 years of age, 21% said they had been victims of cyberbullying (Livingstone & Haddad, 2009). Among Turkish youth, however, between the ages of 8 and 11, rates were higher, with the children reporting a victimization rate of 27% and a perpetration rate of 18% (Arslan, Savaser, Hallett, & Balci, 2012). The most common venue by which cyberbullying seems to occur among elementary school aged youth appears to be online gaming (Englander, 2012).

While the venue by which cyberbullying occurs changes as children enter middle and high school, shifting more to social media and text messaging, prevalence rates of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration remain stable or increase, depending on the study (Kowalski et al., 2012). Kowalski and Limber (2007), in a study of over 3600 middle school youth, found that 18% reported being a victim of cyberbullying and 11% reported perpetrating cyberbullying during the preceding two months. Mishna and colleagues, in their study of middle and high school students, reported victimization and perpetration rates of 50% and 33%, respectively (Mishna, Cook, Gadella, Daciuk, & Solomon, 2010). Meta-analyses of cyberbullying victimization rates among middle school students place the prevalence rate at around 15% (Modecki, Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra, & Runions, 2014). (For more detailed coverage of cyberbullying prevalence rates among youth, see Chapter 2 and Chapter 5, this volume.)

Similar to traditional bullying (Chapell et al., 2006), involvement in cyberbullying in college as victim, perpetrator, or bully/victim seems to reflect the continuation of a behavior that started in elementary school and continued through middle and high school (Beran, Rinaldi, Bickham, & Rich, 2012; Selkie, Kota, Chen, & Moreno, 2015; Watts, Wagner, Velasquez, & Behrens, 2017). In a review of the literature of prevalence rates of bullying and cyberbullying victimization and perpetration among college students, Lund and Ross (2017) observed rates of cyberbullying victimization between 10 and 15% and a rate of cyberbullying perpetration of 5%. They found that college males were more likely than college females to report perpetrating cyberbullying, but no differences between males and females were observed for victimization. Another study reported cyberbullying victimization rates of 27.9% and cyberbullying perpetration rates of 8% among college students (Francisco, Simao, Ferreiro, & Martins, 2015; see also Kowalski, Morgan, Drake-Lavelle, & Allison, 2016; Selkie, Kota, & Moreno, 2016).

Cyberbullying is certainly not limited to individuals in school, although research on cyberbullying among adults is much more limited and much of it focuses on college students (Jenaro, Flores, & Frias, 2018). Outside the university setting, increasing attention is being directed toward cyberbullying as it occurs in the workplace and in romantic relationships. Kowalski, Toth, and Morgan (2018) found that 20% of the 3,699 participants in their sample reported that the majority of the cyberbullying victimization they had experienced occurred in adulthood, much of this at work. Privitera and Campbell (2009) found that 11% of Australian male workers reported having been cyberbullied. Gardner et al. (2016) found that 2.8% of the workers in their study had similarly been cyberbullied. Cyberabuse in romantic relationships can occur through any of a number of different channels, including text messages, emails, and social media platforms. Individuals who abuse their partners can use electronic forms of communication to harass, stalk, humiliate, or threaten their romantic partner, to name just a few forms the abuse can take (Bennett, Guran, Ramos, & Margolin, 2011; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014).

In examining the considerable variability in prevalence estimates across studies, it is important to keep in mind a number of variables. First, as noted earlier, researchers have yet to reach a consensus on how cyberbullying should be defined (Slonje et...