Cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs in schools: A systematic review

Cyberbullying in school-aged children

Besides assisting young people in their daily life, information and communication technologies constitute tools for children and adolescents to bully each other, known as cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is defined as ‘any behavior performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on others’ (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 278). Studies have found that cyberbullying is a problem for students of all ages, including primary school (Muller, Skues, & Wise, 2016), middle school (Lou & Lim, 2016), and high school students (Sarı & Camadan, 2016).

The importance of preventing and intervening in cyberbullying in schools

Whereas a prevention study for cyberbullying aims to prevent cyberbullying experiences before they occur, an intervention study for cyberbullying aims to intervene in existing cyberbullying incidences, and provide support to cyber bullies, cyber victims, or cyber bully-victims. Prevention and intervention studies are needed to provide evidence about their effectiveness in preventing and/or intervening in cyberbullying. Some people may argue that designing prevention and intervention studies is not specifically necessary for cyberbullying because of the overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bullying (e.g., Chen, Ho, & Lwin, 2016). However, cyberbullying has been found to have a unique relation to negative outcomes even after controlling for experiencing traditional school bullying (Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross, 2010). Hence, programs to prevent and intervene in cyberbullying are crucial and needed.

An extensive body of research has reported the existence of cyberbullying among school children worldwide (e.g., Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2012; Topcu & Erdur-Baker, 2012). In most countries, cyberbullying experiences are very similar. Li (2008), for instance, found similarities between Canadian and Chinese adolescents' cyberbullying and Vazsonyi, Machackova, Sevcikova, Smahel, and Cerna (2012) reported only minor group differences between 25 European countries in terms of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying has negative consequences for targeted children, shown by correlational studies. The negative outcomes can be grouped into four categories (psychological, physical, social, and academic). In terms of the negative impact on psychological well-being, cyberbullying involvement has been found to be related to depression, anxiety, stress, emotional problems, low self-esteem, and suicidal thoughts (Aoyama, Saxon, & Fearon, 2011; Bonanno & Hymel, 2013; Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift, 2013; Chang et al., 2013; Erdur-Baker & Tanrıkulu, 2010; Hinduja & Patchin, 2010; Ortega, Elipe, & Monks, 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010). Adolescents who have been cybervictimized also report poor physical health (Laftman, Modin, & Östberg, 2013). Both cyber victims (Campbell et al., 2012) and cyber bullies (Campbell et al., 2013) have been found to experience social difficulties in their relationships. Cyberbullying has also been found to have a negative effect on academic performance (Egeberg, Thorvaldsen, & Ronning, 2016).

The importance of evidence-based cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies at school

Due to the worldwide prevalence and the negative outcomes of cyberbullying, researchers have suggested prevention and intervention methods to keep children and adolescents from engaging in cyberbullying and strategies to help cyber victims cope with the negative impacts of cyberbullying. Examples of prevention methods include providing adolescents with empathy training and improving caregiver–child relationships (Ang & Goh, 2010) as well as training educators to increase their awareness of cyberbullying (Cassidy, Brown, & Jackson, 2012). Asking for help from an adult after being cyberbullied has been recommended as an intervention strategy (Machackova, Cerna, Sevcikova, Dedkova, & Daneback, 2013), as well as using technical coping strategies, such as blocking the cyberbully or reporting to the social media company (Riebel, Jager, & Fischer, 2009). However, the effectiveness of these strategies has not been well researched (e.g., Machmutow, Perren, Sticca, & Alsaker, 2012). An evidence-based approach is needed, with research ensuring the generalizability of the sample, randomized control trials and pre-test and post-test scores (Ross & Morrison, 2008).

Based on these principles, the present study reviewed rigorous research yielding evidence-based findings about how to prevent and intervene in cyberbullying in a school context. Criteria for choosing studies for review were: (a) the study sample needed to be students aged between 6 and 19, (b) empirical evidence about the effectiveness of the program had to be provided, (c) the study had to be published as a peer reviewed article or a masters' thesis or a doctoral dissertation, and (d) the language of the study needed to be English or an extended abstract in English had to be given.

Search strategy

Peer reviewed articles presenting empirical evidence about the effectiveness of a school-based cyberbullying prevention or intervention program published before August 2016 were searched between June 2016 and July 2016. The search for the articles was carried out in Academic Search Complete, Ebscohost, Google Scholar, National Thesis Databases of Council of Higher Education in Turkey, Sciencedirect, and Ulakbim databases. In addition, the reference lists of the articles retrieved were manually scrutinized. The keywords used in the search were ‘cyberbullying + prevention/intervention program’, ‘cyber victimization + prevention/intervention program’, ‘cyber bully + prevention/intervention program’, ‘cyber victim + prevention/intervention program’.

Inclusion criteria

Studies were suitable for the review if (a) the study participants were students aged between 6 and 19; (b) the study evaluated and presented quantitative and/or qualitative empirical evidence for the effectiveness of a cyberbullying prevention or intervention program; (c) the study was published as a peer reviewed article, masters' thesis or doctoral dissertation; and (d) the study was written in English or an extended abstract was provided in English. Regarding the age of the participants, every country owns different age-related regulations for school year levels. Yet, year levels by age groups needed to be clarified for this present research. Therefore, students aged between 6 and 19 were considered school-aged children in the current study. On the basis of these criteria, the author of this study selected 17 studies for review. Then, a colleague of the author, who has expertise in cyberbullying research, checked whether the selected studies were compliant with the inclusion criteria. Suitability of the selected 17 studies was validated by the colleague.

Implications for practice and research

By systematically reviewing the nature and the implementation procedures of school-based cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs, the results of this study offer important information to the researchers, school policy-makers as well as educators about how to develop and apply cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs at schools. The findings revealed that the school-based prevention and intervention programs reviewed in this current study were developed in nine different countries, which implies the international nature of cyberbullying as a problem among school-aged children. Given the global relevance of this problem, it is likely that more cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs designed for school contexts are anticipated in other countries in the future.

The programs examined in the present study were mostly for students aged from 11 to 15 (e.g., Williford et al., 2013) or students aged between 16 and 19 (e.g., Menesini et al., 2012). Prevention or intervention programs for cyberbullying intended for students aged between 6 and 11 were not located. Considering that the age of the children using information and communication technologies has declined to two years old (Aslan, 2016), educators and especially parents may benefit from cyberbullying prevention or intervention programs aimed for students aged between 6 and 11. Thus, programs for students aged between 6 and 11 may contribute to future prevention and intervention endeavors if shown to have a long-lasting impact.

Nedim-Bal and Kahraman's (2015) program aiming to prevent cyberbullying among gifted students is the only school-based prevention program included in this study that was designed specifically for students with special needs. Recent evidence shows that the possibility of experiencing cyberbullying is higher for students with special needs compared to typically developing students (Kowalski, Morgan, Draka-Lavelle, & Allison, 2016). Therefore, researchers should develop and test more programs to prevent and intervene in cyberbullying among school age children with special needs. Such programs have the potential to help educators and school policy-makers to handle cyberbullying in school settings more effectively.

To guide stakeholders (e.g., policy-makers, educators, or parents) in carrying out cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs in schools, researchers should present evidence-based data about the effectiveness of the programs at reducing cyberbullying incidents. Follow-up examinations and longitudinal research designs are the two main methods to produce evidence-based data indicating what the positive impact of the program is long-term. However, only eight of the 17 studies reviewed in this study tested the stability of the program's impact by a follow-up examination or by a longitudinal research design (e.g., Schultze-Krumbholz et al., 2016). Researchers who desire to develop and test a cyberbullying prevention or an intervention program should use research designs which will supply evidence-based data proving that the influence of the program persists over time.

An examination of the common components of existing school-based cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs was conducted but a clear pattern did not emerge. The prevention and/or intervention strategies reviewed in this study were quite distinctive in terms of duration, theory, sampling, design, and measurement tools. Thus, a very rich source of school-based cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs which can be adapted to different cultures, various age groups or diverse needs is available for educators and policy-makers. The intention to prevent or reduce cyberbullying among school children appears to be the most functional element of the programs. As Tangen and Campbell (2010) highlighted, school-based cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs should be overtly on schools' agendas, and the program implementers should openly and determinedly teach school youth about the methods of preventing cyberbullying.

The duration of the programs also varied across studies. Whereas some programs lasted for over a year, for months or for weeks, others continued only for a day (Palladino et al., 2016; Wölfer et al., 2014). Interestingly, regardless of their duration, most prevention and intervention programs were effective against cyberbullying. Although future research is needed, this finding offers an important implication suggesting that it may not be the duration of the program but the genuine intention that determines its impact to prevent or reduce cyberbullying among school children. Hence, it can be claimed that as long as educators and school policy-makers are aware of the risks of cyberbullying, and willing to intervene against cyberbullying, prevention and intervention programs may have the potential to be effective regardless of their duration.

Findings of this study documented that various instruments for cyberbullying have been utilized in the world. Different instruments have unique psychometric properties and may measure different constructs while trying to measure cyberbullying. Such a possibility creates a problem of external validity. Thus, one should be cautious about generalizing the findings of the reported prevention and intervention studies in this current review. To improve the generalizability of the findings of the prevention and intervention programs, an internationally agreed, valid and reliable instrument to measure cyberbullying seem to be needed. Otherwise, it will be difficult to claim that the positive impact of the existing prevention and intervention programs on cyberbullying can be generalized to different contexts.

According to the findings, most of the cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs (e.g., Chaux et al., 2016; Williford et al., 2013) also addressed traditional bullying. They revealed that a program developed for traditional bullying can be effective on cyberbullying or vice versa. Considering that cyberbullying and traditional bullying are experienced by school children in complicated patterns (e.g., Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015), focusing on both cyberbullying and traditional bullying seems reasonable for prevention and intervention efforts. This implies that prevention and intervention programs can offer multi-purpose impact to curb bullying among school children in physical and cyber environments.

Findings of this current review showed that only four studies (Cross et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2013; Menesini et al., 2012; Palladino et al., 2016) used technological strategies to intervene against cyberbullying. Considering cyberbullying is a technological problem in nature, such a low number of studies utilizing technology seems interesting. Technology may offer new methods to address cyberbullying. In fact, evidence is present about computer software identifying and stopping cyberbullying incidents before they happen (e.g., Dadvar, Trieschnigg, Ordelman, & Jong, 2013). Hence, to fill this gap, researchers should become more engaged in multi-disciplinary research, especially including technological strategies, to combine shared knowledge to combat against cyberbullying.

Treatment integrity is closely related to the internal validity, and it ensures that the result obtained from implementing a program is only due to the intervention itself, not to anything else. Findings of this current review indicated that treatment integrity was only reported by three investigations as can be seen on Table 1 (Palladino et al., 2016; Williford et al., 2013; Wölfer et al., 2014). In other words, whether the developed program was carried out as it was intended beforehand was taken into consideration by three studies of the 17 reviewed research. Thus, the internal validity of the 14 of the 17 reviewed programs seems questionable. For this reason, researchers as well as implementers planning to work on cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs should consider treatment integrity to increase the internal validity of their intervention.

Implications for theory

The school-based cyberbullying prevention and intervention programs reviewed in this study use many theoretical bases. These range from the Theory of Planned Behavior to the Socioecological Approach and underlie effective practices. Therefore, literature is quite rich in terms of theory and, practices to reduce cyberbullying in schools can be based on various theoretical frameworks. The theoretical background of the programs reviewed, however, were often not detailed, which makes it difficult to fully understand the theoretical basis of the programs. Moreover, some of the reviewed programs were not explicitly based on any particular theory. As pointed out by Cross et al., (2016), the effectiveness of a program can be enhanced by helping program implementers (e.g., school counselors, teachers, or policy-makers) comprehend the underlying theoretical structure of the program. Unless the theoretical mechanisms behind a program can be clearly described to educators as well as policy-makers, researchers cannot explain how their program works to impact cyberbullying behavior. Hence, a theory and more detailed explanation of the theoretical framework for future school-based prevention and intervention cyberbullying programs should be provided.

Limitations of the study

The current study has some limitations. First, the present review is confined to six databases which may not include all the relevant studies. Second, only studies written in English were incorporated. Moreover, the findings were presented in descriptive often not in inferential statistics. Furthermore, two school-based prevention and intervention programs were excluded from the current review because they did not meet the criterion of being published in a peer-reviewed publication. One of these studies was published as a book chapter (Szuster, Barlinska, & Kozubal, 2016) and the other is a software program developed by Prabhu (2014) and named ‘Rethink’. Finally, this review is confined to the studies published prior to August 2016.