Cyberbullying among youth: A comprehensive review of current international research and its implications and application to policy and practice

On the victim

While suicides purportedly resulting from cyberbullying have garnered much media attention in recent times, suicide is neither the most likely, nor the most prevalent type of impact on victims. In fact, some authors argue that even in cases where young people have committed suicide following experiences with cyberbullying, the suicide cannot directly (or solely) be attributed to the cyberbullying incidents, as there were other significant issues impacting these young victims’ mental health and well-being prior to their death (Kowalski et al., 2012a; Patchin & Hinduja, 2012a).

There are, however, several negative effects stemming from cyberbullying victimization which have been documented in the research literature, many of them overlapping with the effects that have been noted in earlier studies on traditional bullying, such as ‘depression, poor self-esteem, anxiety, suicidal ideation and psychosomatic problems like headaches and sleep disturbances’ (Olweus, 2012a, p. 532; see also Kowalski et al., 2012b; Menesini & Nocentini, 2012; Smith 2012b).

There are considerable variations in students’ perceptions of impact, with some research participants finding cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying, some finding traditional bullying more devastating, and some finding them equally as deleterious (Kowalski et al., 2012a; Menesini & Nocentini, 2012; Monks, Robinson, & Worlidge, 2012; Sakellariou, Carroll, & Houghton, 2012; Smith, 2012a, 2012b; Smith & Slonje, 2010). The impact seems to depend, in part, on one’s personal experience with cyberbullying, with victims finding the impacts greater than self-admitted perpetrators. Also, the type of victimization, nature of the material, and perceived planning/spontaneity or intent impact perceptions of cyberbullying, with pictures/clips being considered far worse than traditional bullying (Dooley et al., 2009; Smith, 2012b).

Features that are specific to cyberbullying, such as anonymity, also affect the perceived impact. While some feel anonymous messages are worse than those from someone you know, others argue that being cyberbullied by someone you know is more damaging. Therefore, both knowing and not knowing the perpetrator has an impact, but the perception varies. The invisibility of those doing the bullying can create a feeling of vulnerability for victims who may feel there is no escaping the cyberbullying. Also, the breadth of the potential audience in cyberbullying can act to aggravate the victims’ feelings of humiliation and isolation (Menesini & Nocentini, 2012; Nocentini et al., 2010). Finally, the lack of awareness of consequences of one’s actions is mentioned by Smith and Slonje (2010) as another feature of cyberbullying, which has differential effects on impact. As explained here, indirect bullying allows for moral disengagement, but for those bullies who enjoy seeing the suffering or demonstrating their power in front of others, cyberbullying may not afford them this feedback.

The impacts range from trivial to serious, depending on the frequency, length, and severity of the cyberbullying (Tokunaga, 2010). The effects may be magnified compared to traditional bullying due to the reality of being unable to escape cyberbullying without cutting oneself off from one’s social communication network. Also, the public nature of the cyberbullying and not knowing who and how many people have seen or perpetrated the behaviour can impact the victims’ perception (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009; Kowalski et al., 2012a; Tokunaga, 2010). Additionally, a victim can be in real danger if someone else has posted hateful messages while impersonating them (for they may face physical retaliation). The degree of impact can also be affected by the wide audience, anonymity, the permanence of a message (they can read it over and over, making it harder to forget than words said in the schoolyard), and the ability to reach the target 24/7 (Campbell, 2005; Kowalski et al., 2012a; Menesini & Nocentini, 2012).

There are a number of ways in which cyberbullying can impact academic performance and school-related well-being, including: Reduced concentration, school avoidance, increased school absences, isolation, alienation, lower academic achievement, negative perceptions of school climate, not feeling safe at school, higher risk for school problems, and a greater likelihood for carrying weapons to school (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; 2008; Marczak & Coyne, 2010; Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007).

While it is noted that cyberbullying occurs most outside of school, it is usually related to incidents that begin at school (Cassidy et al., 2009, 2011; Olweus, 2012a) and that have an impact on the school day (Agatston et al., 2012; Bhat, 2008; Tokunaga, 2010).

There also have been many documented effects of cyberbullying on the mental health of victims, including feelings such as sadness, hurt, anger, frustration, confusion, stress, distress, and loneliness, including more pronounced impacts such as: Depression, low self-esteem, helplessness, social anxiety, suicidal ideation, emotional problems, fear, feeling vulnerable and alone, diminished self-worth, serious relationship disruption, emotional and peer problems (Agatston et al., 2012; Kowalski et al., 2012a; Marczak & Coyne, 2010; Menesini & Nocentini, 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2012a; Smith, 2012b; Sourander et al., 2010; Tokunaga, 2010; von Marées & Petermann, 2012). Some studies have also noted psychosomatic complaints (headaches, abdominal pains), sleeping difficulties, physical symptomatology, with effects strongest for bully-victims, especially males (Agatston et al., 2012; Marczak & Coyne, 2010; Menesini & Nocentini, 2012; Smith, 2012b; Sourander et al., 2010; von Marées & Petermann, 2012).

There is also research linking cyberbullying victimization to maladaptive behaviours such as aggressive behaviour, externalizing behaviours, deviant behaviours, more alcohol and drug use/abuse and smoking, and delinquency (shoplifting, property damage, physical assaults, weapons) (Agatston et al., 2012; Marczak & Coyne, 2010; Menesini & Nocentini, 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2012a; Sourander et al., 2010). However, it should be noted that it has not been determined whether these maladaptive behaviours stem from the victimization or if victims are more likely to be engaging in these behaviours in the first place—some of the items discussed under effects may, in fact, be precursors to cyberbullying.

The effects of cyberbullying appear with greatest intensity and frequency among the bully-victim groups, meaning those youths who are both victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying. This group feels less safe at school, feels uncared for by teachers, has lower self-esteem, has more suicidal thoughts and is more likely to attempt suicide (Patchin & Hinduja 2011, 2012a). However, Patchin and Hinduja (2012a) point out that there is no conclusive evidence that cyberbullying causes suicide.

Gender analysis also reveals that boys and girls are differentially affected by cyberbullying. Jackson et al. (2009b) reported that girls were more likely to experience certain forms of cyberbullying (gender-based harassment, exclusion, having personal information about them posted online) and to be more negatively impacted by the messages. Girls reported with greater frequency that they felt their reputation was affected by the cyberbullying they experienced, that their concentration was affected, that it influenced their ability to make friends, that it made them want to bully back, and that it induced suicidal thoughts.

In a study of university students who had been victims of cyber-harassment, Beran, Rinaldi, Bickham, and Rich (2012) noted the following impacts: Anger, sadness, hurt, embarrassment, anxiety, fear, crying, blaming themselves, poor concentration, low academic achievement, and absenteeism. Only 6.83% of respondents in this study of university students reported no negative impact (Beran et al., 2012). These results mirror the effects reported by children in middle schools (Beran & Li, 2005).

There is an increasing recognition of a continuum from childhood to adolescence to adulthood in terms of cyberbullying, suggesting that such behaviour patterns begin well before, and persist far beyond their peak in middle school, into high school, university, and the workplace (see, for example, Agervold, 2007; Bauman, 2012a; Beran et al., 2012; DeSouza, 2011; Leenaars & Rinaldi, 2010; Myers & Cowie, 2012; Walker, Sockman, & Koehn, 2011). That being said, clearly, all young people who cyberbully do not continue to do so later in life, as the rates of cyberbullying decrease considerably over time and into adulthood. We are not aware of any research that would help us to identify which young people are at greater risk for continuing this pattern of behaviour over the long term—a question that should be considered in future research.

While the research literature has provided us with much information about the impacts of cyberbullying on victims, the same cannot be said about the impacts on those who engage in cyberbullying.

On the bully

Less is known about the perpetrators of cyberbullying than about the victims. Some cyberbullies have reported feeling aggressive, vindictive, happy, and pleased, while others felt guilt and regret (Kowalski et al., 2012a). Cyberbullying is also associated with hyperactive behaviour, conduct problems, and less prosocial peer group behaviour (von Marées & Petermann, 2012). Zhou et al. (2013) did find variations in school performance between those students who engaged in cyberbullying and those who did not in their sample of 1438 Chinese high school students. Cyberbullies are more likely to report illicit substance use and participation in delinquent behaviour (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), are more likely to be bullied offline and to display problematic behaviours, less commitment to school, higher alcohol and tobacco use, more aggressive and rule-breaking behaviours (Patchin & Hinduja, 2012a).

Campbell, Slee, Spears, Butler, and Kift (2013) attempt to fill a gap in the research literature by examining cyberbullies’ own perceptions of the impact of their behaviour and of their mental health. The majority of the 3112 students surveyed in this study did not perceive that their behaviour had been harsh or that it had impacted the victim and researchers found the cyberbullies had higher rates of social difficulties, stress, depression, and anxiety than youths uninvolved in bullying.

Although these cited studies show a relationship between cyberbullying and other problematic behaviours (either as outcomes or as precursors), the investigations that we have done indicate that the cyberbully can also be the ‘typical’ young person, that is to say, not the person with identified behavioural problems, or from a marginalized group, or academically challenged (Cassidy et al., 2009, 2011; see also Kowalski et al., 2012a; Patchin & Hinduja, 2012a). While we did not specifically test for this relationship, our analysis of the student data from three different studies (the two noted above and a third which is currently unpublished) suggests that cyberbullies crossed ethnic, social, and class divisions, and are just as likely to be ‘good’ students as ‘poor’ students. Further, cyberbullies often came from the victims’ ‘friendship’ groups, particularly from female ‘friendship’ groups.

On the schools, families, and communities

While we may not automatically think of the school, families, and the community as victims of cyberbullying, cyberbullying does have an impact on the learning environment and the health and well-being of families and communities. Students can be afraid to come to school or go home, for fear of what awaits them on the internet. There are several examples in recent years of teens who have committed suicide as a result of cyberbullying. Those deaths have resonated throughout local, national, and international communities. As such, parents and other relevant stakeholders, including the young people themselves, need to be included into the development of appropriate solutions, as we discuss below.

For victims

Most cybervictims do not alert adults (Agatston et al., 2012; Campbell, 2005; Cassidy et al., 2009, 2011; Dooley, Gradinger, Strohmeier, Cross, & Spiel, 2010; Smith, 2012b; Smith & Slonje, 2010; Yilmaz, 2011). Dooley et al. (2010) examined help-seeking behaviours of cyberbullying victims among adolescents in Austria and Australia; in both countries, no relationship between help-seeking and cyberbullying was found, although a relationship exists between help-seeking and traditional bullying. This may be explained by the fear young people have of losing access to their technology if they tell adults, because they fear the cyberbully will retaliate further (Jackson, Cassidy, & Brown, 2009a) and/or because they think that adults could not do anything to stop it even if they tried. Cross et al. (2009) found that of those cyberbullied students who told an adult, 46% said the situation got worse or did not improve after telling.

Other reasons cited by students for not reporting to adults include: They do not know who is doing it; they lack confidence in educators’ ability to understand or address the situation appropriately; if it is occurring outside school, it is not clear to them why they should tell school personnel; they fear they will not be believed or they will be blamed for their own aggressive response to the cyberbullying; they are embarrassed; they fear the situation will be trivialized; they worry about being labelled ‘a rat’ (Agatston et al., 2012; Campbell, 2005; Jackson et al., 2009a; Smith 2012b; Smith & Slonje, 2010; von Marées & Petermann, 2012).

On the other hand, victims often tell their friends (Cassidy et al., 2009, 2011; Smith, 2012b) and according to Perren et al. (2012), social support is probably the coping strategy with the best indicators of success. Social support can encompass emotional support and instrumental support, but does raise the question of the ability of the helpers to offer adequate support. Interventions targeted at empowering support networks, bystanders, and peers may provide the greatest likelihood of success.

Some of the coping strategies used or suggested in the literature include what could be described as passive strategies—do nothing, ignore it, avoid the website (Tokunaga, 2010). Again, the limited evidence-base does not offer clear support for the efficacy of such coping strategies (Perren et al., 2012). When victims avoid a specific online context in order to avoid the cyberbullying, they are excluding themselves from social relationships. Also, it is unclear whether victims who say they are ignoring the messages are in fact just feigning indifference because of feelings of helplessness.

In contrast, other approaches would fall under the category of active strategies: Confront the bully, tell them to stop, or threaten to tell on them (Tokunaga, 2010). In the studies reviewed by Perren et al. (2012), it was found that such approaches may, in fact, increase the problem rather than alleviate it because they are more likely to lead to an escalation of the bullying rather than to deter the cyberbully. Despite this concern, some researchers do offer suggestions in this vein: Block the sender; ignore the message; get the authorities to track down the number or ISP; contact the ISP; report abuse on message board; report the bully (if known) on an anonymous website; alert someone; change address/number; keep a record; ask the bully to stop and fight back (the least popular choice) (Monks et al., 2012; Smith & Slonje, 2010).

Technical solutions such as blocking the cyberbully, implementing privacy settings, changing email address, refraining from visiting a particular site, and keeping evidence of cyberbullying have been suggested as ways of using the technology to counter cyberbullying (Kowalski et al., 2012a; Tokunaga, 2010). However, Perren et al. (2012) suggest that the evidence in support of such approaches is unclear. Such approaches, for example, may serve to return the bullying to the schoolyard. Also, giving a victim the advice to not delete the offending message(s) in order to retain the ‘proof’ may be damaging from an emotional point of view as the message remains accessible and cannot easily be forgotten.

Given the important overlap between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, any effort aimed at reducing traditional bullying should also lead to a reduction in cyberbullying. Approaches that reduce feelings of revenge and increase one’s sense of control should also be promising (König, Gollwitzer, & Steffgen, 2010). Some interventions to reduce traditional bullying (such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program from Norway and other programs inspired by it from around the world, the KiVa program in Finland, and other multi-component, school-based programs that extend outside of the classroom) have been found to reduce bullying by around 20% (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009). Therefore, there is hope that with programs being developed around cyberbullying, similar results may be found. However, one early study by Mishna, Cook, Saini, Wu, and MacFadden (2009) found that three short-term classroom-based intervention programs on cyber abuse (I-SAFE, The Missing program, and HAHASO), while increasing students’ knowledge of on-line safety, had little impact on their attitudes and behaviours and there was no noted decrease in reports of cyberbullying.

For schools

Overwhelmingly, the research literature points to the need to address cyberbullying through education on a number of different levels (Agatston et al., 2012; Cassidy et al., 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Collier, 2012; de Santo & Costabile, 2012; Donlin, 2012; Grigg, 2010; Jackson et al., 2009a; Jäger, Amado, Matos, & Pessoa, 2010; Marczak & Coyne, 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2011; Perren et al., 2012; Sakellariou et al., 2012; Tangen & Campbell, 2010; Topçu & Erdur-Baker, 2012). Incorporating cyberbullying material into the curriculum is one avenue that has been discussed. Although there are currently no evidence-based best practice programs (Donlin, 2012), such programs are in development. Donlin (2012) suggests looking for programs developed by credible people, reputable sources, and materials developed based on best practice (e.g. the Olweus model; see Farrington & Ttofi, 2009) and making sure that content is correct, clear, and current. ‘At one point, keeping the computer in an open area of the house may have been sound advice, but that point is long gone’ (Donlin, 2012, p. 122). As technology evolves rapidly, so too must the school curriculum. In two separate surveys of middle and high school students, the development of programs to teach about cyberbullying and its effects was among the top-three solutions to cyberbullying identified by participants (Cassidy et al., 2011). In a related study (Cassidy, Brown, & Jackson, 2012a), parents also strongly recommended that school personnel develop lessons on cyberbullying and its effects and that students be given the opportunity to engage with the issues through open and frank discussion.

Beyond merely teaching about cyberbullying, the curriculum should focus on empowering students in terms of digital literacy, technological skills, critical thinking skills, netiquette, e-safety, assessing their own online risks, measures to protect themselves, their reputation, and their privacy online (Agatston et al., 2012; Collier, 2012; Grigg, 2010; Marczak & Coyne, 2010; Perren et al., 2012). In fact, Yilmaz, (2011) found that, ‘Most students do not know how to keep themselves safe in cyberspace’ (p. 651). Of those who did know particular strategies, only 15.4% said they had learned them at school (Yilmaz, 2011). Rather than trying to remove all risks (which is difficult to do), it would be better to help students cope by strategizing with them about how to avoid harm (Collier, 2012).

Media education, digital literacy, and citizenship curriculum must be in line with what is current and projected in the media now and in the future: Persistence and searchability, replicability, high potential visibility, invisible audiences, blurring of public/private, and online disinhibition. Online safety is also about behaviour: Physical, psychological, reputational, legal, identity, property, community; that is, rights-and-freedoms of the digital citizen. These are essential skills and understandings to learn and practice in school and schools need to offer guidance in this regard. Of course, this means that teachers, psychological service providers, and school administrators need to be better informed about these issues and skills themselves, since too many are unfamiliar with even the basic forms of social networking and technology (Cassidy et al., 2012b).

According to Collier (2012), an approach that blends digital citizenship and new media literacy seems ‘to be the most realistic approach going forward—the approach that directly addresses online behaviour, the source of both cyberbullying and its unfolding solutions’ (p. 9). The concept of representation needs to be incorporated into any curriculum on media education; educators need to give students the tools to deconstruct mass media text, perhaps through encoding-decoding activities. Media education needs to be redefined with respect to new media characteristics: Portability; personalization; multitasking configuration of the newer generations; and teenagers producing media (de Santo & Costabile, 2012). Further, students need to play a role in the development of this curriculum, since they are generally more knowledgeable and also because this ‘bottom up’ approach fosters ownership and relevancy (Cassidy & Bates, 2005) and gives them ‘voice’ (Cook-Sather, 2002).

It is also vital to promote positive uses of ICT. While banning cell phones and the internet from schools or restricting access to technology is often the knee-jerk reaction that accompanies problems such as cyberbullying, it is generally acknowledged that such approaches will have little impact on the incidence of cyberbullying (Agatston et al., 2012; Cassidy et al., 2011, 2012a; Grigg, 2010; Jäger et al., 2010). Rather, ‘the school should promote a socio-constructivist learning environment … Web 2.0 is proving to be a powerful tool for collaboration and the social construction of knowledge’ (Brighi, Fabbri, Guerra, & Pacetti, 2012, p. 46). For example: Class websites where students and teachers are both users and producers; enabling online exchanges and collaboration on learning activities with other classes, schools and families; and the use of forums, wikis, and blogs, are all ways in which information and communication technologies can enhance the classroom experience (Brighi et al., 2012). It also has been suggested that the focus of research and practice should shift to fostering cyber-kindness instead of trying to stop cyberbullying (Cassidy et al., 2011, 2012a). This implies a positive orientation rather than a negative, ‘anti’ stance.

Additionally, the curriculum should include an emphasis on fostering empathy and positive self-esteem. Empathy education—both cognitive and affective empathy, especially for boys, should be part of the curriculum (Topçu & Erdur-Baker, 2012). It is also suggested that prevention and intervention for traditional bullying and cyberbullying should not be identical since empathy stems from feedback from the victim, which is not consistently and readily available online (Topçu & Erdur-Baker, 2012). ‘Work on creating positive self-esteem in students’ was found to be among top three best solutions to cyberbullying suggested by students in two separate surveys (Cassidy et al., 2011). Bystanders also would benefit from empathy education because, if they understand suffering, they are less likely to inflict it (Davis & Nixon, 2012). Of course, any empathy and self-esteem curriculum needs to be reinforced through the informal curriculum of the school culture and practices, including being modelled by the adults in the schools, in order to be effective (Cassidy & Bates, 2005; Noddings, 2002, 2005).

Positive bystander behaviour should be both taught and reinforced (Agatston et al., 2012). Another distinction from traditional forms of bullying is that there is a wider variety of ways in which a person may become a cyberbullying bystander: They may be with the bully at the time of posting or sending the offending message or image, they may be with the victim when he or she receives it, they may be with neither but have the message forwarded to them, or they may visit a website where the cyberbullying has been posted or is occurring (Li, Smith, & Cross, 2012b). Hinduja and Patchin (2012b) remind us that most youth do not cyberbully others; as such the non-bullies are the ‘normative’ group. This knowledge should be used in empowering bystanders to stand up to bullies and reject this behaviour. Davis and Nixon (2012) discuss the need to increase individual self-awareness and accountability. Students must be given the opportunity to practice those empathetic responses so cyberbullying bystanders are not immobilized by fear in the moment (Davis & Nixon, 2012).

Developing healthy behaviours and social skills more broadly also should be part of the overall curriculum. Patchin and Hinduja (2011) have demonstrated that cyberbullying may stem from strain, anger, and frustration when the would-be bullies are unable to cope with these feelings in a healthy way. As such, they recommend the provision of health education programming and emotional self-management skills to reduce strain (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). This would also be helpful to those ‘traditional’ or cyberbullying victims who lash back at the perpetrator over cyber-space and become cyberbullies themselves.

It goes without saying that prevention is key; however, the import of this truism is not realized early enough. The prevalence of bullying in primary schools points to the need for prevention and intervention programs to start early (Tangen & Campbell, 2010). And increasingly, younger children, even pre-schoolers, are becoming conversant with technology.

Teacher and psychological service provider education and engagement with the online world are necessary. Students view most adults as unknowledgeable about cyberbullying and the online world in general, a perception validated by studies done with educators (Cassidy et al., 2009, 2012b). Students are unlikely to tell school personnel if they do not think that they can help them. School personnel require further education and training regarding engaging in the digital world (Tangen & Campbell, 2010). A commitment to professional development in this area as well as the design and development of collaborative interventions involving psychological service providers, teachers, parents, and youth are needed (Cassidy et al., 2012a, 2012b; Sakellariou et al., 2012). Jäger et al. (2010) suggest that a training manual for educators include: Information about the basics of cyberbullying; a practical orientation; information about training skills and strategies for diagnosis and intervention; a focus on narratives; and multimedia resources.

It has been argued that policy issues for cyberbullying involve tensions between the values of freedom of speech, the best interests of the child, and parental and school protective authority over the child. Thus the complexity of the problem, in addition to its inherent conflicting values, requires the development of effective policy as a collaborative effort, involving all the stakeholders—policymakers, school officials, parents, and youth—and at all levels of governance (Brown, Jackson, & Cassidy, 2006). Indeed, the need for a clear school policy against cyberbullying derived from a process that involves administrators, psychological service providers, teachers, students, and parents has been emphasized by a number of researchers in the area (Agatston et al., 2012; Cassidy et al., 2012a; Grigg, 2010; Jäger et al., 2010; Willard, 2012).

At another level, existing policies (anti-bullying, acceptable usage, etc.) need to be updated and accompanied by monitoring and sanctioning of unacceptable behaviours (Jäger et al., 2010; Marczak & Coyne, 2010). Schools should keep records of internet use and make this practice known (Marczak & Coyne, 2010). Policies and procedures need to be in line with reality; for example, one study reported that 60% of students did not abide by school rules forbidding mobile phones in school and during class time (Sakellariou et al., 2012). Willard (2012) provides a policy checklist for school administrators (p. 44–45), as well as a checklist for policy development (p. 54–55), based on the legal and policy context in the USA. Of particular interest to school administrators in locations outside that country would be the notion that cyberbullying does impact and disrupt the school and may interfere with students’ right to learn in an environment where they feel safe. In addition to the drafting of a policy, it is equally important to evaluate the impact of prevention activities derived from the policy and to review the policy regularly (Marczak & Coyne, 2010).

The existence of a policy only matters inasmuch as it can be applied to particular situations that may arise. If cyberbullying is not reported, it is unlikely that the policy will have any effect. As such, it is recommended that schools find ways to make reporting easier (Agatston et al., 2012; Marczak & Coyne, 2010). More open reporting needs to be encouraged and consistent approaches taken when reports arise (Sakellariou et al., 2012). Students in some studies have suggested that anonymous reporting would help (Cassidy et al., 2009), although care has to be taken that the reporting is legitimate and not another form of harassment.

School climate has been found to bear a significant relationship with students’ well-being, learning, and behaviour (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012b; Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Schools that adopt an ethic-of-care model (Noddings, 2002, 2005) based on a holistic approach, offering students unconditional positive regard, modelling, dialogue, and practice in ethical caring, have much to teach us about addressing problem behaviours in school: ‘Schools that align with ethic-of-care approaches look at creating the right culture, or the right soil, so that students may thrive, rather than looking to behaviouristic models or rules and consequent approaches for managing the school and containing student behaviour’ (Beck & Cassidy, 2009, p. 56).

School norms should be prosocial, promote helping, and encourage civility and courage in bystanders (Grigg, 2010). Students should feel comfortable approaching adults in school to discuss problems (Agatston et al., 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Youth are not inclined to report cyberbullying to adults (even less so than with traditional bullying) for the reasons noted above. However, youth are more inclined to report to adults in schools with a high or positive climate (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012b).

In our first study of cyberbullying, we noted a significant contrast between two schools’ approaches to online bullying problems (Cassidy et al., 2012b). One school was very proactive, made use of student leaders, and encouraged open discussion among students and staff. At another school, the principal had imposed a code-of-silence at the school; the teachers and school counsellors were not allowed to talk about the incidents they knew about, nor were the students, and one student who had badly cyberbullied a teacher was left as a student in that teacher’s classroom. Teachers and counsellors talked to us in whispers during their interviews, afraid that the principal would reprimand them for speaking out. A culture of silence is not conducive to eliciting calls for help from students, nor to engaging students and staff in working toward positive solutions.

Youth prefer support and advice from adults rather than approaches that are punitive in nature. They will seek out adults who are open-minded, trustworthy, and who do not blame the victim (Agatston et al., 2012). The idea of whole-school policies that address the wider school culture and are proactive, not merely reactive, have been given much consideration among scholars and practitioners addressing both traditional and cyberbullying (Cowie & Jennifer, 2008; Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Jäger et al., 2010; MacKay, 2012; Richard, Schneider, & Mallet, 2012; Rigby & Griffiths, 2011; Tangen & Campbell, 2010).

There is also some evidence to support general anti-bullying strategies as means of preventing and curtailing cyberbullying (Perren et al., 2012). Given the considerable overlap between cyber and traditional bullying victimization and perpetration (Agatston et al., 2012; König et al., 2010; Kowalski et al., 2012a, 2012b; Monks et al., 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2012a; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith, 2012b; Smith & Slonje, 2010; Tokunaga, 2010; von Marées & Petermann, 2012) it stands to reason that interventions effective at reducing traditional bullying would also produce a reduction in cyberbullying (DiBasilio, 2008; König et al., 2010). As noted by Farrington and Ttofi (2009), there is an evidence base regarding which anti-bullying programs are effective and which elements of those programs are most important for reducing bullying. Therefore, it is imperative that we recognize that not all programs are equal in their impact. Fear-based and punitive programs are generally ineffective and possibly counter-productive (MacKay, 2012; Shariff, 2003, 2009). Effective anti-bullying programs are those that, like the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, involve the ‘whole school’ in the effort, including teachers, students, and parents, raise awareness of the issues and provide training for teachers and parents, incorporate it into the curriculum, publicize anti-bullying policies, and use disciplinary methods and enhanced supervision (especially in the schoolyard) (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Rigby & Griffiths, 2011).

Findings indicate that teachers and psychological service providers in schools need to be as overt in teaching strategies about cyberbullying as they are in sharing strategies about reducing face-to-face bullying (Tangen & Campbell, 2010). Adult supervision of electronic media use at school and home has also been mentioned; supervision reduces traditional bullying, so it may also reduce cyberbullying (Sakellariou et al., 2012). However, given the differences between traditional and cyber forms of bullying, it is important to tackle cyberbullying more specifically. Further, supervision alone is not enough to prevent cyberbullying and can be quite ineffective. Liau, Khoo, and Ang (2008), for example, found that even when parents sat with their child to review their online activities, inspected their child’s web history, and utilized filters, none of these were effective in reducing risky online behaviour. The same may be the case for online monitoring in school settings.

Awareness needs to be raised about the issue of cyberbullying and its impact as well as the resources that are available and how to respond when faced with these situations (Grigg, 2010; Jäger et al., 2010; Marczak & Coyne, 2010; Sakellariou et al., 2012). Also, for adults (educators, psychological service providers, and parents), greater awareness of the online world more generally is needed (e.g. privacy, terminology).

Students respond positively to peer-led interventions (e.g. student mentors); this approach also can develop their cyber skill-set (Agatston et al., 2012). Evidence supports the idea for peer-led and peer support interventions to reduce bullying, to produce active involvement, and students taking responsibility for the issue. The same could be inferred for cyberbullying as young people play a dominant role, given the ‘digital divide’, and peers are often actors and bystanders in cyberbullying. This approach allows youth to inform and contribute to our understanding of cyberbullying (Menesini & Nocentini, 2012). Menesini and Nocentini found some support for the peer educator model, but the effect was greatest on those students who completed the full training, much more so than in the group of students who had only undergone awareness raising activities. A program called CyberMentors (originated in the UK but delivered online to an international audience) has had positive results because it harnesses the power of peers to do good and it transforms the features of the internet which are linked to cyberbullying and turns them around (24-hour accessibility, anonymity, etc.). Program evaluation is on-going, but preliminary results indicate significant reductions in bullying and cyberbullying in schools that have implemented this program (Von Kaenel-Flatt & Douglas, 2012). ²

For parents

It has been shown that students are more likely to confide in their parents than in school personnel when they are victims of cyberbullying (Cassidy et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2013); therefore, it is important that parents be prepared to respond in helpful ways if such a situation arises. A survey of parents from three schools in British Columbia, Canada, found that parents’ knowledge of the newer social networking sites their children use was limited as was their awareness of the extent of cyberbullying among their children (Cassidy et al., 2012a). Although 32% of these parents’ children reported being victims of cyberbullying and 36% reported participating in cyberbullying, only 11% of parents reported that their child had been a victim and less than 1% a cyberbully. Parents need to provide an environment where their children feel free to talk openly about their experiences online.

It is also important that parents partner with schools in finding appropriate solutions, since there is a strong interrelationship between negative interactions on the school grounds and cyberbullying on the home computer (Agatston et al., 2012; Cassidy et al., 2009). What works, according to Patchin (2012), is when parents are involved and receive training alongside educators (see also Jäger et al., 2010), and they are able to work collaboratively with school personnel and their children to find effective solutions (Cassidy et al., 2012a). While some parents in the Cassidy et al. (2012a) study favoured punitive-oriented responses, most recognized the importance of modelling the right behaviour at home and in the school, of providing opportunities for dialogue, of developing appropriate curriculum, and of providing support to their child when an event occurred. Punitive responses, in fact, may be counter-productive, preventing children from seeking the help they need.

The research on parental monitoring of online activity is mixed in terms of its effectiveness in curtailing cyberbullying. Perren and colleagues (2012) found some evidence to suggest that monitoring online activity and restricting certain websites may help somewhat in preventing cyberbullying. Eastin, Greenberg, and Hofschire (2006) found that when the child has a computer in the bedroom, away from parental eyes, computer time increases, as does the opportunity to cyberbully. Similarly Sun et al. (2005) found that lack of parental supervision led to more online activity and chat room use, which can lead to more cyberbullying. On the other hand, several studies have shown that parental supervision is fleeting and sporadic at best, and therefore generally ineffective, and that parents feel inundated by the flurry of social networking sites, instant messages, video clips, and other media such that they do not know how to provide appropriate guidance (Cassidy et al., 2012a; Davies, 2011).

Role of providers of psychological services to schools

First and foremost, psychological service providers must inform themselves about the issues youth face in relation to cyberbullying. Psychological service providers are generally involved in two important functions that are relevant to working on cyberbullying issues: Guidance regarding curriculum-content; and providing responsive services (Sabella, 2012). More specifically, school personnel can assist efforts to counter cyberbullying in a number of ways: (1) advocating effective policies and practices [empowering students, or acting on their behalf in the school community and the general public]; (2) policy development [establishing and implementing a prevention program and conducting an annual assessment of effectiveness]; (3) classroom guidance [psycho-educational training, recognizing legal and personal consequences, training for victims, improved problem-solving and anger management skills]; (4) counselling victims [do not trivialize, express empathy and concern, recognize the importance of technology to young people] and counselling cyberbullies [work on developing empathy, non-punitive approach]; (5) consultation and training with parents, staff, and other care-takers [to help them reduce the risk of cyberbullying, human/relational solutions, negotiation, teaching children the ‘rules of the road’, technological solutions such as blocking or using filtering software, monitoring online activity]; and (6) leadership in developing a peer helper program (Bauman, 2011; Sabella, 2012, p. 75–82; Appendix A).

Importance of the school’s informal curriculum

The unilateral imposition of school rules does little to engage students in a grounded understanding of why such policies are needed and should be respected. The educational atmosphere and school climate offer at least as much insight into why behaviours are occurring as do analyses of individual wrongdoers’ circumstances (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012b; Shariff, 2009). Hinduja and Patchin (2012b) provide evidence that schools with higher ratings of their climate, even without a formal anti-cyberbullying curriculum, have fewer problems with cyberbullying. More specifically, students who rate their school’s climate higher also report fewer online problems. In addition, these students have greater faith that, if problems do arise, teachers and school authorities will handle them appropriately.

Hinduja and Patchin (2012b) suggest that cyberbullying can be reduced through measures aimed at improving school climate such as learning students’ names so they do not feel anonymous, community-building through recognizing and rewarding good behaviour, staying technologically-contemporary to know what students are interested in and how they are spending their time, setting and communicating clear limits, monitoring behaviour and responding fairly and consistently, encouraging student participation in decision-making, and encouraging reporting of inappropriate behaviours (including anonymous reporting). ³

Further it is important that every adult in the school (administrative staff, psychological staff, teachers and counsellors, secretarial and support staff, custodians) model what they are advocating through policies and codes of conduct, so that there is no disconnect between what is said and what is done in the daily life of the school. We know that moral messages are communicated to students informally through many different means and that this informal curriculum is often the most powerful teacher (Jackson, Boostrom, & Hansen, 1993).

Role of parents

Cyberbullying often originates from personal electronic devices while the student is at home, not at school. Parents are key partners with educators in working toward identifying solutions to cyberbullying. The lack of recognition of this role by many parents may be explained in part by their lack of awareness about the technological environment of their children, the behaviours that go on in that space, and about the ineffectiveness of punitive responses. Therefore, education and training for parents is equally important to what can be done for students and educators. When given the opportunity, parents can and do recognize that they play an important role in modelling appropriate online behaviour, opening up dialogue with their children and collaborating with the school (Cassidy et al., 2012a).

Role of the wider community

Part of the reframing of this issue, which needs to occur, is to move from viewing cyberbullying as a child-problem or a school-problem to a community-problem. If everyone tries to help rather than expecting someone else to do it, then we will have a greater chance of addressing this problem successfully. Also, the importance of modelling is not just for parents and the school community, but also in fact for the whole community. What happens in schools, to a certain degree, mirrors what happens in larger society.

Wider policy deliberations and cultural changes need to occur if we wish to eradicate a problem such as this one. Legislation and court cases are becoming part of the landscape as far as addressing cyberbullying outside of school. For instance, a number of jurisdictions in North America have enacted legislation specifically to deal with cyberbullying (Define the Line, 2012; MacKay, 2012) and many other countries around the world are considering the adequacy of applying existing legislation to this type of behaviour. It also would appear that courts in Western jurisdictions are becoming more involved in taking a stance against cyberbullying.

While law reform is not the best or most important type of change that is needed, it can be part of the solution. The law should be derived from, and help to further establish core social values. As such, it does have an important role to play in bringing about social change. The areas of British common law which are seen as applicable in the context of cyberbullying include: Criminal law; tort law (in terms of negligence and libel); human rights law (harassment and discrimination); constitutional law (freedom of expression and privacy); administrative law; and education law (MacKay, 2012; Marczak & Coyne, 2010; Shariff, 2009; see also Willard, 2007, 2012, for legal aspects in the American context). It has been argued that schools have a duty to act, even when the cyberbullying is occurring off campus using personal or home computers, when it can be shown that the cyberbullying is impacting the learning environment (Shariff, 2009; Willard, 2012). School psychology, administrative, and teaching personnel should increase their awareness of the legal context that applies to them in order to frame their responses in terms of policies and practices.

Internationally, researchers and policymakers have been interested in the role of human rights in relation to this question. The international legal framework, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, stipulates the right of children to be protected from violence, to be provided with education and socialization, to freedom of expression, to access to information (including information and communication technology), and to privacy. Jaffé et al.’s (2012) analysis suggests that this legal framework is out-dated for addressing the legal ramifications of cyberbullying. Children who experience cyberbullying (as victims, bullies, or bystanders) are exposed to violence, those whose phones or computers are taken away are deprived of what has become for them an educational resource and source of information and knowledge, and those whose records are searched have their right to privacy infringed. These researchers advocate that children and youth should be implicated in the drafting of intervention protocols and that educational and rehabilitative approaches are needed. They also imply that the challenges posed by the transnational side of cyberbullying have not begun to be adequately contemplated.

Role of students

It has been suggested that students should play a greater role in developing approaches for dealing with cyberbullying. Peer-led interventions have been found to be effective, especially when the peers receive extensive training (Agatston et al., 2012; Cross, Campbell, & Spears, 2012a; Menesini & Nocentini, 2012; Van Kaenel-Flatt & Douglas, 2012). Additionally, students may respond better to initiatives where they play a leading role, due to a pervasive belief that youth understand technology better than do adults. Thus, those to whom it is addressed may perceive a peer-led program as inherently more credible. The Cyber-Friendly Schools Project in Australia made use of trained student cyber-leaders. Attendance at parent meetings for this program was much better when the meetings were student-led and when younger students were invited too (Cross et al., 2012a).

We should also consider the impact of empowerment. When we assist students in taking the lead on a problem such as cyberbullying and provide them with training to support that role, we are giving them skills and confidence, which by itself is beneficial. Further, empowerment extends to bystanders. Helping bystanders to know what to do and to feel capable of intervening can play a role in reducing cyberbullying and its negative impacts on victims and schools.

Implications for schools and society

An initial step in addressing the problem of cyberbullying is to assess the level of electronic bullying which is actually occurring in a school (Beale & Hall, 2007). That provides a basis from which to determine what preventative strategies or actions may be appropriate for a particular school or location. Preventive responses that have been identified in the research literature include suggestions for both the school environment and for school outreach to the community (Agatston et al., 2012; Beale & Hall, 2007; Brighi et al., 2012; Cassidy et al., 2011; 2012a; 2012b; Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008; Grigg, 2010; Hinduja & Patchin, 2012b; Marczak & Coyne, 2010; Noddings, 2002; 2005; Patchin & Hinduja, 2011; Sakellariou et al., 2012; Shariff, 2009; Sharples, Graber, Harrison, & Logan, 2009; von Marées & Petermann, 2012; Willard, 2012; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004):

In the school environment

Implications for research

It is important to recognize that the topic of online interaction is renewed every day, so tools aimed at assessing cyberbullying need to be less focused on particular applications than on the underlying behaviours (Topçu & Erdur-Baker, 2010). For example, the original Cyber-Bullying Inventory (CBI) was developed when social networking sites were not popular. On the other hand, chat rooms were very popular about ten years ago and some youth today do not even know about them. Also Twitter was not yet popular when the Revised Cyber-Bullying Inventory (RCBI) was being developed, so it is really difficult to keep pace if we focus on applications. Topçu and Erdur-Baker (2010) suggest it is better to just refer to them in general such as internet-mediated communication tools or information and communication technologies.

More targeted analyses may be required. Given the different patterns of cyberbullying observed by gender, it would be important to maintain efforts to separate gender analysis. Also, analyses of cultural and class differences have not yielded much so far in terms of findings; however, these areas require further exploration. Comparison on cross-national studies conducted by EUKidsOnline and by the World Health Organization suggest important variations in prevalence rates by country and more accounting needs to be made of these variations.

In terms of research, it has also been noted that more longitudinal research is needed to evaluate the success of programs aimed at cyberbullying. It is difficult to formulate evidence-based recommendations without further studies that use outcome variables to measure success and start from a baseline assessment, use randomization and control groups, and also control for inadvertent variations in traditional bullying which may be linked to prevention or intervention programs aimed at cyberbullying (Perren et al., 2012).

Cyberbullying is a problem that elicits interest in a number of fields of inquiry including psychology, sociology, criminology, education, law, and information technology, to name only a few. The interdisciplinary nature of cyberbullying studies should be preserved and enhanced, as should the collaboration between research and practice. Overall, we would suggest that it is time to widen the scope in terms of the questions being asked, to build up the evidence base and more meaningful analyses in order to go to the next step. We can take this foundation that has been laid over the past few years and build upon it to advance research and analysis in the area by asking other questions, by thinking not only horizontally, but also vertically and developing more specific studies. We also wish to re-emphasize that research must be used to inform policy and practice.