Cyberbullying

What Counselors Need to Know

Sheri Bauman

• Publisher: American Counseling Association
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781119026044
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psicologia
• Subtopic: Psicoterapia

This informative book offers complete, up-to-date coverage of the growing problem of cyberbullying. Written for counselors, teachers, school leaders, and others who work with children and teens, Cyberbullying addresses the real-life dangers students face on the Internet.

Benefits and Features

• Discussion of the different types of cyberbullying and cyberbullying environments
• Overview of prominent theories of aggressive behavior
• Examination of the developmental differences in cyberbullying and victimization across the life span
• Proactive responses to cyberbullying
• Effective, nonpunitive strategies for responding to cyberbullying
• Useful information for parents on current technology and popular websites
• Guidance on the role of counselors in prevention, intervention, and advocacy
• Practical tips to identify and follow cyberfootprints
• Chapter on adult cyberbullying
• List of helpful websites, books, and media
• Appendix with review of the latest cyberbullying research

*Requests for digital versions from ACA can be found on www.wiley.com. *To request print copies, please visit the ACA website *Reproduction requests for material from books published by ACA should be directed [email protected]

Chapter 1
Introduction

Access to technological communication in the United States is widespread and growing. Different sources have slightly different data, but the lowest rate I found is that almost 75% of the U.S. population used the Internet as of June 30, 2009 (“Internet World Stats,” 2009). The United States is also one of nine countries in which there is Internet access in 100% of schools. Currently, Internet usage declines as age increases, but 40% of Americans age 66 and older go online (Annenberg School of Communication, 2009). In fact, the greatest increase in Internet use from 2005 to 2009 was in the 70- to 75-year-old age group: In 2005, 26% were online, and in 2009, 45% were (Jones & Fox, 2009). The Center for the Digital Future also reported that the average Internet user now spends 17 hours per week online, with heavy users averaging 42 hours per week (Annenberg School of Communication, 2009). Twenty-four percent of U.S. households have three or more computers. As of the end of 2008, approximately 84% of the U.S. population had cell phone service (Reardon, 2008), with some industry experts predicting 100% access by 2013 (Malik, 2007). In addition, 20% of households now rely on cell phones exclusively (“Wireless Quick Facts,” 2009). With the increase in the use of smart phones, the distinction between Internet and cell phone activities is disappearing.

The popular media has raised public awareness of the dangers of these technological communication tools by publicizing sensational examples and extreme cases with tragic outcomes. Although these cases illustrate many aspects of cyberbullying, which is an increasing and serious problem, it is important to keep in mind that there are many positive aspects of technological communication. My focus in this book is on cyberbullying—clearly a negative element—but I caution readers not to assume that I am discouraging the use of digital communication tools. I am an enthusiastic user of technology. The purpose of the book is to inform counselors about cyberbullying so that they will be in the best position both to assist clients who experience this behavior and to proactively educate their communities about strategies to ensure that these exciting technological tools are used in the most productive manner.

Definition

The term cyberbullying has yet to be included in a dictionary, but people often hear (and use) the term. According to Bill Belsey, the developer of the website http://www.cyberbullying.ca, which was launched in 2003, he was the first to use and define this term. Belsey said (personal communication, November 6, 2009) that he was moderating a website dedicated to bullying prevention; on this website, youths were describing being bullied online. To describe this behavior, Belsey coined the term cyberbullying, which was based on the term cyberspace (a term Belsey indicated was coined by Canadian science fiction author William Gibson). Belsey is credited in many articles (e.g., Aricak et al., 2008; Campbell, 2005; Li, 2007a) as the originator of the term. However, according to the new word team at the Oxford English Dictionary, the first use of the term was by Christopher Bantick in an article in the Canberra (Australia) Times on November 18, 1998 (M. Charlton, personal communication, October 27, 2009). Bantick (personal communication, November 8, 2009) indicated that in his article, he was describing research in which the term had been used, but he was unable to locate his notes about the study in question. Thanks to able library sleuths at my university, the earliest use of the term was revealed to be in a 1995 New York Times article on cyberaddiction (O’Neill, 1995). Although there may be other, earlier uses that haven’t yet been detected, it is safe to assume the term was “created” spontaneously by several users, and the emergence of numerous cyber- compounds in the lexicon meant the meaning was obvious from the context.

Belsey (2008) defined the term cyberbullying this way: “Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group that is intended to harm others” (para. 1). A concise definition was also provided by Patchin and Hinduja (2006), who described it as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text” (p. 152), but that definition omits images and video, which have become popular means by which to cyberbully. A revised definition presented in a later paper added “through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices” to the definition (Burgess-Proctor, Hinduja, & Patchin, 2009, p. 1). Stutsky (2006) offered this definition: “Cyberbullying is the use of modern communication technologies to embarrass, humiliate, threaten, or intimidate an individual in the attempt to gain power and control over them” (para. 1).

Burgess-Proctor et al. (2009) made a distinction between cyberbullying and online harassment, which they described as “less insidious” (p. 1). In their study of 3,141 females who responded to a survey advertised through websites, Burgess-Proctor et al. found that the two behaviors most often reported were being ignored and being disrespected (45.8% and 42.9%, respectively). The authors described these experiences as “mild” and labeled them “online harassment,” in contrast to cyberbullying, a label they reserved to describe the experience of being threatened (11.2%). I respectfully disagree with this distinction for several reasons. First, the term harassment has legal implications and is inappropriately used. (I discuss this topic in more detail later in this chapter.) Second, with all bullying behaviors, there is a range of severity from mild to severe, and I think it is a matter of degree of severity rather than nomenclature. Furthermore, it is challenging to determine the severity level of a particular incident without considering the victim’s perception and reaction. What seems mild to an observer might be otherwise to the recipient of the behavior. This difference in perception is important for counselors to consider when working with those who are involved in cyberbullying; that is, the response of the victim is the determinant of severity and impact. A perpetrator may justify his or her actions by thinking they are trivial or humorous, but if the recipient is hurt, that is the measure of impact that matters.

A definition of cyberbullying that more closely parallels the standard definition of conventional bullying was proposed by Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, and Tippett (2006): “Cyberbullying therefore can be defined 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” (p. 6).

The term cyberbullying implies that these behaviors are a variation on, or extension of, the conventional types of bullying: physical, verbal, and social–relational bullying. I am not convinced that the term is the best one to describe the actions included under this umbrella term (e.g., cruel text messages, forwarding electronic mail [e-mails] or photos without permission, creating websites for the purpose of collecting negative comments about an individual). The defining characteristics of face-to-face bullying are (a) that it is intentionally harmful aggressive behavior, (b) that it is repeated, and (c) that it is directed toward a target who is unable to defend against the aggression. So, bullying implies intention. What if someone accidentally sends information intended for an individual to a group (such as an electronic mailing list) by inadvertently clicking on Reply All instead of Reply in an e-mail message? The information that was intended to be private is now known to a sometimes large group of people, and that information can be embarrassing or harmful. Would this be called cyberbullying even though it was not intentional? What about two peers (friends or coworkers) who engage in an online spat using one of the technological methods available—e-mail, instant messaging (IM), a blog, social networking? Assume that each one is sending mean or cruel messages that are reciprocated by the other, occurring several times over the duration of the conflict. Is this cyberbullying, even though the imbalance of power is not present? And what about a single incident, which does not meet the criterion of repetition? What about posting a humiliating photo on a webpage? The act of posting the photo is singular, but the number of viewers is potentially enormous. Does this qualify as cyberbullying? I believe we have yet to define this term with any precision, but it is used so widely that creating a different term for this book does not seem prudent.

Many measures of cyberbullying list specific behaviors (e.g., “I received mean text messages” or “Someone posted an embarrassing photo of me online without my permission”) that, taken out of context, might mislabel a behavior as cyberbullying. I recently posted a photo of myself and a long-time friend that was taken when we were both gawky preteenagers. I did not request the friend’s permission. The photo could be construed as embarrassing, so I suppose that my behavior could be categorized as cyberbullying, but I don’t think most readers would categorize it as such. In addition, some restrict the definition of cyberbullying to children (e.g., Kerkhof, 2009), whereas others extend the meaning to include adults

I suspect that scholars will eventually refine the definition or change the terminology so that it is more precise and clear. In this book, I use the term cyberbullying to refer to actions using information and communication technology to harm another person. Thus, I include both actions that may not have been deliberate but that cause harm nevertheless and individual incidents that can reach a wide audience; I do not take into consideration the power differential between the bully and the target. It is certainly true that much of cyberbullying is perpetrated by more powerful individuals against those with lower status, but that is not necessarily a defining attribute as it is in conventional bullying.

An important distinction must be made between bullying (including cyberbullying) and harassment. Bullying is the abuse of power as described above. Harassment is a legal term that describes hostile behavior toward someone with legally protected status, such as religion, age, gender, race, or disability (e.g., see Appel, 2009). Stein (2003) discussed the danger of subsuming harassment under the broad category of bullying; harassment is against federal law, whereas bullying is generally a violation of school policy (see Chapter 8 for more detailed discussion of this distinction). Both harassment and bullying can be perpetrated via electronic communication methods, but the key distinction is the basis for the mistreatment. If the action is directed toward a person in a legally protected category, then harassment is the more accurate—and actionable—label.

Well-Known Cases

Several incidents of cyberbullying have become public knowledge because of broad coverage by the popular media. They are illustrative of the types of cyberbullying that have occurred—and the potential devastation that can result—and also provide information regarding possible legal ramifications. Although some of these incidents received notoriety because they ultimately led to the suicide of the victim, I want to be clear that the decision to take one’s life is not the result of a single event; rather, an event may overwhelm a vulnerable individual who generally has other risk factors for suicidal behavior.

The Star Wars Kid

The first case of cyberbullying to gain widespread attention occurred in 2002. An overweight teenage boy from Quebec, Canada, made a 2-minute video of himself practicing Star Wars–like moves with a “light saber” (actually, a golf ball retriever). Gyslain Raza’s private video, which was made in his high school studio, was found by another student and then uploaded to the website Kazaa without Gyslain’s knowledge or permission (“Star Wars Kid Files Lawsuit,” 2003). The video was eventually viewed more than 900 million times and was the single most widely viewed online video of 2003 (BBC News, 2006); Gyslain became known as the “Star Wars Kid.” After the initial video was posted, edited versions (with music, lights, and other effects) were also posted, and the number of mocking comments the videos generated was enormous. The taunting about the video that he received at school was so extreme that Gyslain eventually dropped out of school and received psychiatric care. His parents eventually sued the families of four classmates who were responsible for posting the original video, claiming that the ongoing harassment caused severe psychological harm. The case was settled out of court. Because the case was not heard in a court of law, one is left to wonder how a jury or judge might have ruled. The offense in this case was “harassment.” This case highlights how easily material can be disseminated to infinite audiences. Once the offenders in this case obtained the video, it was an easy task to upload it (and alter it with so-called enhancements to further humiliate the victim), making it available to the world. The importance of keeping one’s data and material private cannot be overstated.

Megan Meier

Arguably the best known case of cyberbullying in the United States is that of Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl in Missouri. Megan had been bullied throughout her school career. With the reluctant approval of her mother, Megan joined MySpace, a popular social networking site, presumably to meet and interact with other youths. It is important to note that MySpace restricts membership to persons over the age of 14, but age is determined by the birth date provided by the user. Megan formed an online friendship—soon romance—with a boy named Josh Evans, whose attentions delighted Megan. After about 6 months of pleasant exchanges, Josh sent hurtful and mean comments to Megan (including the oft-quoted, “The world would be better off without you”), and as Megan became increasingly upset, her mother, sitting with her by the computer, insisted she sign off. When Megan did not, her mother was irritated and scolded Megan for ignoring her instructions. Megan rushed upstairs to her room, where her mother later found Megan hanging by a belt in her closet. Attempts to save her failed, and Megan died the next day. Her parents, distraught by the suicide, eventually attempted to locate Josh Evans to tell him of the damage he had done. However, Josh Evans’s MySpace page had been removed. The Meiers discovered that Josh Evans was not a real individual but a fictitious persona created by a neighbor who was the mother of one of Megan’s sometime friends. The mother, Lori Drew, apparently thought the fictitious Josh’s page (created by a 19-year-old family friend, Ashley Grills, and Lori’s own daughter) would be a way to find out what Megan was saying about the Drew daughter. When the interaction became tedious, the nasty exchange was, according to Ashley Grills, an attempt to anger Megan so that s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• About the Author
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Conventional Bullying Versus Cyberbullying
• Chapter 3: Cyberenvironments
• Chapter 4: Types of Cyberbullying
• Chapter 5: Theories of Aggressive Behavior
• Chapter 6: Developmental Factors in Cyberbullying
• Chapter 7: Strategies to Prevent and Reduce Cyberbullying
• Chapter 8: Responding to Cyberbullying
• Chapter 9: Counseling Strategies to Combat Cyberbullying
• Chapter 10: Adult Cyberbullying
• Chapter 11: The Role of Counselors
• Chapter 12: Additional Resources
• Appendix: Cyberbullying Research
• References
• Index
• Technical Support
• End User License Agreement