Coping While Connected

Abstract

The current study explored online preventive coping (privacy settings) and reactive coping (reporting tools) among youth and how the use of these online safety tools related to the frequency of cybervictimization. Surveys were administered to youth in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary school. Results indicated that the prevalence of cybervictimization decreased with grade and did not vary by gender. Gender differences emerged in the use of coping mechanisms, with females more likely to use privacy settings than males. In addition, older females were more likely to use privacy settings compared with younger females. Compared with older females, younger females were more likely to use informal reporting tools (i.e., contacting the person responsible for posting inappropriate content). Only limiting the visibility of posts and comments was uniquely associated with a lower frequency of cybervictimization. Younger adolescents were less likely to engage in the only behaviour that was associated with less frequent cybervictimization. These findings suggest that younger youth may lack the skills and knowledge necessary to cope effectively with cybervictimization.

Keywords

cybervictimization coping online safety privacy settings reporting tools

Youth are staying connected online more than ever before—by Grade 11, 95% of Canadian youth have a Facebook account (Steeves, 2014). Although social media does offer youth certain benefits (e.g., socialization and communication, enhanced learning opportunities, and accessing health information; O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011), social media use also comes with the potential for certain risks, including cybervictimization. Bullying is defined as any unwanted aggressive behaviour that is repeated, and there is a power imbalance between the youth perpetrating the bullying and the youth being victimized (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014). Like traditional victimization, cybervictimization leads to difficulties with school adjustment, including school attendance problems, low marks, poor concentration, and feeling unsafe at school (Beran & Li, 2008; Espinoza, 2015; Glew, Fan, Katon, & Rivara, 2008; Tokunaga, 2010). Furthermore, children who experience online victimization also tend to be targets of traditional bullying (Tokunaga, 2010), suggesting that the harmful outcomes associated with cybervictimization may be compounded by experiences with face-to-face victimization.

Although cybervictimization and traditional victimization overlap, there are some distinctions (Brody & Vangelisti, 2015). In an online context, the power imbalance can be related with technological skill and anonymity (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). In addition, the occurrence or possibility of repetition is different online, as a single message or photograph can be viewed repeatedly (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Tokunaga, 2010). Nearly half of Canadian youth report being victimized online with the past 3 months (Mishna, Cook, Gadalla, Daciuk, & Solomon, 2010). As such, it is important to understand the ways in which youth cope with these threats online. The goal of this article is to investigate the relation between cybervictimization and two forms of online coping: privacy settings and reporting tools.

Coping is the way individuals manage the demands of stressful situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The types of coping strategies implemented can vary based on a number of domains, including whether they are future or present oriented. Future-oriented coping strategies, or “preventive coping,” involve responding to potential stressors before a stressful situation has occurred (Schwarzer & Knoll, 2003). Qualitative research with adolescents demonstrates that when faced with the risk of cybervictimization, youth commonly engage in preventive coping by increasing their online privacy settings (Parris, Varjas, & Meyers, 2014; Parris, Varjas, Meyers, & Cutts, 2012). The use of online privacy settings is a preventive coping strategy because it may decrease the likelihood of being cyberbullied in the future. Privacy settings allow social media users to limit who can access the content they share online (e.g., pictures, comments, personal information). For example, Facebook (2015) users can make their posts public or private and limit who can view their personal contact information.

An alternative way that youth cope with stressful situations is present oriented, or “reactive coping,” which involves dealing with a stressor after it has occurred (Parris et al., 2012). With respect to cybervictimization, this type of coping may involve utilizing reporting tools. These tools allow social media users to report inappropriate and unwanted content to site administrators or to “block” the content from their view. Informal reporting can also occur when individuals directly ask the person responsible to remove the content (Lampinen, Lehtinen, Lehmuskallio, & Tamminen, 2011). Although qualitative research has found that youth use both preventive and reactive coping strategies to deal with cybervictimization (Parris et al., 2012), research has not yet explored whether these coping strategies are related to the frequency of cybervictimization. Such research may serve to inform future educational efforts that encourage youth to engage in evidence-based coping strategies to prevent or reduce their likelihood of experiencing cybervictimization.

The effectiveness of coping depends on the nature of the stressor, the type of coping strategy used, and individual characteristics, such as age and gender (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). Compared with younger children, older youth have more experience online and may be more aware of the coping methods available online, such as privacy settings and reporting tools. In addition, given that females are more likely to experience cybervictimization than males (Sourander et al., 2010), females may be more inclined to use these coping strategies. Within a particular style of coping, a certain strategy may be more or less effective. For example, seeking social support and speaking to the person who perpetrated the bullying are both present-focused coping strategies; however, cybervictimized youth who seek social support exhibit fewer depressive symptoms, whereas those who find the person who perpetrated the bullying exhibit more depressive symptoms over time (Machmutow, Perren, Sticca, & Alsaker, 2012). Thus, it is possible that youth who rely on different online coping tools may have different experiences with cybervictimization.

The current study aimed to fill this gap by investigating the association among the use of privacy settings, reporting tools, and cybervictimization across age and gender in a sample of Canadian youth. We had several hypotheses as follows:

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Cybervictimization will be more prevalent among females than males.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Cybervictimization will be more prevalent among younger children relative to older youth.

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): The use of privacy settings and reporting tools will increase with grade level

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): The use of privacy settings and reporting tools will be more common in females compared with males.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The use of privacy settings and reporting tools will be negatively associated with the frequency of cybervictimization.

Method

Participants

Seven hundred sixty-three youth responded to the survey. Of these 763 participants, 96 were currently not in school. Given that several of our hypotheses addressed differences in grade level, participants not in school were removed from the analyses. There were no significant differences between those currently in school and those not in school in terms of total privacy settings used, F(1, 642) = 0.59, p = .44, or total reporting tools used, F(1, 642) = 0.40, p = .53. Participants in school experienced more frequent cybervictimization than participants outside of school, F(1, 642) = 4.38, p = .04.

Participants in the current sample were from six continents, with the vast majority of participants coming from Canada (87%), followed by the United States (4%), and Asia (3%). Due to the limited sample size of youth outside of Canada, participants outside of Canada were excluded from analyses. The final sample consisted of the 575 Canadian youth (71% female, 29% male) from Grades 7 to 12, as well as post-secondary school. The majority of the sample was in secondary school (Grades 9-12, 57%), with 8% in elementary school (Grades 7-8), and 35% in post-secondary education. Participants ranged in age from less than 14 years to 21 years: 6% were less than 14 years old, 19% were 14 to 15 years old, 31% were 16 to 17 years old, 22% were 18 to 19 years old, and 22% were 20 to 21 years old. Most participants identified as White (76%), followed by Chinese (8%), South Asian (5%), and Black (3%). See Table 1 for a breakdown of ethnicity by gender and grade.

Table 1.

Percentage of Participants Who Endorsed Each Ethnicity by Gender and Grade.

	Female			Male
	Elementary	High school	Post-secondary	Elementary	High school	Post-secondary
n	30	215	164	15	113	38
Race
White	67%	73%	84%	60%	76%	76%
Chinese	3%	7%	6%	7%	12%	16%
South Asian	10%	6%	5%	20%	4%	3%
Black	0%	5%	2%	7%	3%	0%
Latin	0%	1%	1%	0%	1%	0%
Southeast Asian	0%	1%	2%	7%	1%	3%
Arab	0%	1%	1%	0%	1%	3%
West Asian	3%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Japanese	3%	1%	0%	7%	0%	3%
Korean	0%	1%	0%	7%	0%	5%
North American Indian	10%	1%	0%	0%	1%	0%
Métis	3%	2%	0%	7%	3%	0%
Inuit	0%	0%	0%	0%	1%	0%
Other	10%	5%	0%	0%	3%	5%

Measures

Cybervictimization

To assess frequency of cybervictimization, participants were asked, “How often have you been bullied electronically in the past four weeks?” This was operationally defined for participants as being threatened, embarrassed, singled out, gossiped about, or made to look bad through the Internet, text messages, or pictures. Participants responded on a 0 to 3 Likert-type scale (0 = never, 1 = once or twice, 2 = 3 or 4 times, 3 = more than 4 times), with higher scores reflecting a greater frequency of cybervictimization. To validate this single item, participants were also asked “When did the electronic bullying start?” A similar proportion of the sample reported experiencing some degree of cybervictimization on both of these items (31% and 30%, respectively).

Privacy settings

Participants were asked what types of privacy settings they use online from five options. Privacy settings included limiting the amount of personal information that people can see, limiting visibility of their photos, limiting the visibility of their posts and comments, limiting the visibility of their contact information (i.e., email address or cell phone number), and blocking certain individuals or accounts. Privacy settings were examined individually to look at differences between types.

Reporting tools

Participants were asked what types of reporting tools they used to report inappropriate online behaviour from four options. Formal reporting tools included blocking the content, reporting the content as “spam,” and reporting the content to the site administrators; informal reporting tools included sending a message to the person(s) responsible for posting the inappropriate content asking them to remove it. Reporting tools were examined individually to look at differences between types.

Procedure

The questionnaire was designed with the help of Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence Network’s (PREVNet) Youth Advisory Committee to ensure external validity. In other words, the questionnaire items were designed with input from youth to capture relevant online safety behaviours for this population. The questionnaire¹ was accessible online from February 2014 to the end of May 2014. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling. Advertisements were posted on PREVNet’s social media accounts, and youth affiliated with PREVNet were emailed the survey. Ninety-eight percent of youth who started the survey completed all questions. The 2% of youth who did not complete the survey were excluded from data analysis.

Data Analytical Strategy

A series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether gender and grade predicted the frequency of cybervictimization, use of privacy settings, and use of reporting tools. MANOVAs were used to investigate whether use of privacy settings (limiting visibility of personal information, limiting visibility of photos, limiting visibility of posts and comments, limiting visibility of contact information, blocking specific people) could be predicted from the participant’s grade level (elementary, secondary school, post-secondary) in male and female participants. MANOVAs were also used to investigate whether use of reporting tools (blocking content, reporting content as spam, reporting content to administrators, sending a message to the person responsible) could be predicted from the participant’s grade level in female and male participants. Pearson correlations and multiple linear regression were used to examine the relationship between both reporting tools and privacy settings with the frequency of cybervictimization. In all statistical analyses, the standard significance criterion of p < .05 was used. This criterion is widely used in scientific literature and provides appropriate power and protection from Type I error (Bross, 1971).

Results

Online Behaviour

Overall, 32% of the sample was cybervictimized at least once during the past 4 weeks, and 65% of the cybervictimized youth reported that it began more than 1 year ago. The majority of participants reported using prviacy settings and reporting tools (see Table 2). The majority of participants did not learn about privacy settings or reporting tools until high school (57%).

Table 2.

Percentage of Students Who Have Been Cybervictimized in the Past Month, Use at Least One Privacy Setting, and Use at Least One Reporting Tool by Gender and Grade.

	Female				Male
	CV	Use PS	Use RT	n	CV	Use PS	Use RT	n
Elementary	55%	73%	67%	30	40%	80%	67%	15
Secondary	44%	88%	66%	215	28%	75%	55%	113
Post-secondary	18%	93%	63%	164	16%	87%	55%	38
Total	34%	89%	65%	409	26%	78%	56%	166

Note. CV = cybervictimization; PS = privacy settings; RT = reporting tools.

Privacy settings

Participants used privacy settings on a variety of social media sites, including Facebook (82%), Instagram (38%), and YouTube (28%). The most common reasons for using privacy settings included limiting what strangers can see (80%), wanting to block what certain individuals can see (44%), and limiting what employers/co-workers can see (33%). Among those that created privacy settings, most created them because they initially thought they were a good idea (54%), although others set them up after learning about them (34%) or did so after a negative online experience (8%). On average, participants used 3.23 types of privacy settings (SD = 1.78). Across grade and gender, the most commonly used privacy settings included limiting personal information (75%), limiting contact information (68%), limiting visibility of posts and comments (67%), and limiting pictures (61%); blocking certain individuals was the least frequently used privacy setting (51%).

Reporting tools

Youth were most familiar with the reporting tools on Facebook (86%), followed by YouTube (67%) and Instagram (51%). This corresponded with the actual use of reporting tools on these social media sites: Use of reporting tools was most common on Facebook (50%), followed by YouTube (17%) and Instagram (16%). Youth believed that a variety of online behaviours are reportable, including threats (90%), bullying (88%), graphic violence (73%), spam (67%), and sexual content (67%). Across types, participants utilized an average of 1.18 reporting tools (SD = 1.14), with 28% of participants never using a reporting tool. Blocking the content was the most commonly used tool (39%), followed by reporting to site administrators (33%), reporting the content as spam (30%), and sending a message to the person responsible (16%). Despite relatively low rates of use, only 20% of participants believed that reporting tools are ineffective. Finally, participants did not think that social media sites adequately described how to use reporting tools. Only 6% of participants reported that social media sites always effectively described their reporting procedure; the majority (55%) reported that they were only sometimes effectively described.

Gender and Grade Differences in Frequency of Cybervictimization

The effect of gender on cybervictimization was not significant, F(1, 563) = 3.58, p = .06. As shown in Table 2, the prevalence of cybervictimization decreased as grade increased for both males and females, F(2, 563) = 10.46, p < .001, η² = .04. Post hoc analyses indicated that participants in elementary school (M = .50, SD = .50) and secondary school (M = .38, SD = .49) experienced cybervictimization more frequently than participants in post-secondary school (M = .17, SD = .38). There were no differences between participants in elementary and secondary school.

Gender and Grade Differences in Use of Privacy Settings

Females were more likely to utilize privacy settings than males, F(1, 573) = 20.19, p < .001, η² = .03 (see Table 2). Given these differences, and our small sample size for elementary school males, we ran the following analyses separate for females (elementary, secondary, post-secondary school) and males (secondary and post-secondary school) to examine grade differences.

For females, there was a main effect of grade level on use of privacy settings using Wilks’s Lambda, Λ = .94, F(10, 804) = 2.56, p = .005, η² = .03. Follow-ups indicated that grade level did not influence whether females blocked specific people, F(2, 408) = 0.92, p = .40. However, grade level did influence whether females limited visibility of their personal information F(2, 408) = 5.21, p = .006, η² = .03; visibility of their photos, F(2, 408) = 6.37, p = .002, η² = .03; visibility of their posts and comments, F(2,408) = 9.22, p < .001, η² = .04; and visibility of their contact information, F(2, 408) = 3.36, p = .04.

To interpret these main effects, we used Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) follow-ups. Females in post-secondary school (M = .87, SD = .34) were more likely to limit the visibility of their personal information than females in elementary (M = .67, SD = .48) or secondary school (M = .75, SD = .43). There were no differences between females in elementary and secondary school. In addition, females in elementary schools (M = .40, SD = .50) were less likely to limit the visibility of their photos than females in secondary (M = .64, SD = .48) or post-secondary school (M = .73, SD = .45). There were no differences between females in secondary school and post-secondary school. Females in post-secondary school (M = .80, SD = .40) were more likely to limit the visibility of their posts and comments than females in elementary (M = .43, SD = .50) or secondary school (M = .70, SD = .46). Females in secondary school were more likely to limit the visibility of their posts and comments than females in elementary school. Finally, females in elementary school (M = .53, SD = .51) were less likely to limit the visibility of their contact information than students in secondary (M = .72, SD = .45) or post-secondary school (M = .76, SD = .43). There were no differences between females in secondary and post-secondary school. For males, the main effect of grade level on use of privacy settings was not significant, Wilks’s Lambda, Λ = .95, F(10, 318) = 0.84, p = .59.

Gender and Grade Differences in Use of Reporting Tools

Results indicated that there were no difference in use of reporting tools among males or females, F(1, 573) = 3.24, p = .07 (see Table 2); however, trends indicate that females may be marginally more likely to use reporting tools than males.

For females, there was a main effect of grade level on use of reporting tools using Wilks’s Lambda, Λ = .96, F(8, 806) = 2.21, p = .03, η² = .02. Follow-ups indicated that grade level did not influence the use of blocking content, reporting content as spam, or reporting content to administrators. Grade level did influence whether females sent a message to the person responsible, F(2, 406) = 6.11, p = .002, η² = .03. Post hoc analyses indicated that elementary school females (M = .33, SD = .48) were significantly more likely to send a message to the person responsible than secondary school (M = .17, SD = .38) or post-secondary females (M = .10, SD = .30). Females in secondary school were more likely to send the person responsible a message than those in post-secondary school. For males, the main effect of grade level on use of reporting tools was not significant, Wilks’s Lambda, Λ = .94, F(8, 320) = 1.35, p = .22.

Relation Between Frequency of Cybervictimization and Use of Privacy Settings and Reporting Tools

Frequency of cybervictimization was negatively correlated with two privacy settings: limiting visibility of personal information (r = −.09, p < .05) and limiting visibility of posts and comments (r = −.16, p < .01). No relation was found between cybervictimization and the following privacy settings (all ps > .05): limiting visibility of photos (r = .05), limiting visibility of contact information (r = −.07), and blocking specific people (r = .08). Cybervictimization was not associated with the following reporting tools (all ps > .05): blocking content (r = .06), reporting content as spam (r = .05), or sending a message to the person responsible (r = .04); however, frequency of cybervictimization was negatively correlated with reporting content to site administrators (r = −.09, p < .05).

Simultaneous linear regression was used to investigate whether frequency of cybervictimization could be predicted from the use of the privacy settings and the reporting tool associated with cybervictimization (from above correlations). These online safety tools accounted for a significant proportion of the variance within cybervictimization, R² = .03, F(3, 562) = 5.39, p < .001. As shown in Table 3, only limiting the visibility of posts and comments was uniquely associated with less frequent cybervictimization.

Table 3.

Simultaneous Linear Regression Predictors of Cybervictimization Frequency.

	B	t	SE	95% CI B
Limiting visibility of personal information	−.02	−0.29	0.05	[−.12, .09]
Limiting visibility of posts and comments	−0.14**	−2.93	0.05	[−.23, −.05]
Reporting content to site administrators	−0.06	−1.37	0.04	[−.14, .03]

Note. N = 563 due to listwise deletion of cases with missing values. CI = confidence interval.

p < .01.

Discussion

Like face-to-face relationships, online relationships have a potential for conflict. The present study investigated how youth cope with cybervictimization using online safety tools and how the ability to cope with these threats varies across development. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Tokunaga, 2010), we found that the prevalence of cybervictimization was high, but decreased with age. Youth were likely to cope with cybervictimization by using privacy setting and informal reporting tools, with older females more likely to use privacy settings and younger females more likely to send a message to the person responsible. Finally, only limiting the visibility of online posts and comments was uniquely associated with less frequent cybervictimization.

Our results outline a developmental pattern in the experiences of cybervictimization. Younger children are at higher risk of experiencing cybervictimization, regardless of their gender, than older youth. Nevertheless, a high proportion of youth across the age ranges continue to experience cybervictimization.

This is concerning, given that the majority of Canadian schools now have legislated bullying prevention policies in place (e.g., Bill 13, Accepting Schools Act in Ontario). It may be the case that prevention programs for traditional bullying are not effective in preventing cybervictimization. Online, youth must independently navigate relationships that may be more complex than their face-to-face counterparts. Youth cannot rely on strategies that may be effective for defusing traditional victimization, such as relying on behavioural cues to help infer intentions. In addition to these complexities, online harassment can be anonymous, contributing to the complexities of these relationships. Given the complexities, the potential for conflict, and the lack of formalized intervention programs for cybervictimization (Suler, 2004; Wilton & Campbell, 2011), it is important to understand how youth are coping with cybervictimization online.

Our results suggest developmental differences in how female youth protect themselves from cybervictimization. In younger females, engaging in online relationships is relatively new. These children may not be aware of the risks associated with online relationships, and may fail to engage in protective behaviours via privacy settings. While many youth are taught about cybervictimization from their parents and teachers, only 50% of youth receive education about how to use privacy settings from their parents and only 14% receive this education from teachers (Steeves, 2014). Despite the fact that youth are active on social media from as young as Grade 4 (Steeves, 2014), most youth in the current study did not learn about online safety tools until high school.

Our results show that younger females are more likely to cope with a problem online by reporting the content to the site administrators. Although this reporting tool is negatively associated with cybervictimization, it is a present-focused coping strategy and thus requires cybervictimization to occur before the coping mechanism can be utilized. Moreover, this coping strategy was not uniquely associated with cybervictimization frequency once other privacy settings were taken into account. As females get older, they develop the knowledge, skills, and competencies to mitigate online risks by engaging in preventive coping strategies, such as limiting the visibility of their online information. This pattern of results is similar to the developmental trend seen in traditional bullying, as children tend to develop assertiveness and adaptive coping skills with age (Griffin & Gross, 2004; Smith, Madsen, & Moody, 1999) enabling them to maintain healthy face-to-face relationships. Compared with females, older males are less likely to use preventive coping online. Males may be reluctant to engage in these behaviours or may be unfamiliar with privacy settings. Regardless, males may be putting themselves at increased risk for cybervictimization when they do not engage in these protective behaviours. Our study is the first to suggest that preventive coping via privacy settings on social media websites is associated with less frequent cybervictimization. In light of these findings, it is essential to promote online safety skills among youth.

Without reporting tools and privacy settings, younger youth may not have effective tools to cope with cybervictimization. Many students do not report incidences of cyberbullying to parents or educators because of the misconception that nothing can be done about it (Parris et al., 2012; Tenenbaum, Varjas, Meyers, & Parris, 2011). Schools are only beginning to include cybervictimization in their bullying prevention policies, and educators are often unsure of how to prevent or solve these issues (Cassidy, Brown, & Jackson, 2012). Compared with traditional bullying, adult intervention in cyberbullying requires a comfort and understanding of technology that can impede education on this issue (Cassidy et al., 2012; Tangen & Campbell, 2010).

Policy makers, researchers, parents, and educators should work together to start a dialogue to enable youth to cope effectively with the threat of cybervictimization. The current study outlines the importance of educating youth on the risks associated with online relationships. Technical methods of coping with cybervictimization are often perceived to be ineffective by youth (Sleglova & Cerna, 2011), possibly explaining why many youth fail to use these tools. This belief may be a misperception, as our results provide preliminary, cross-sectional evidence to suggest that certain privacy settings are negatively associated with the frequency of cybervictimization. If supported by further longitudinal work, educational initiatives may help to correct this misperception and teach youth how to use these online tools effectively. This education should start early, as elementary school-aged youth are active on social media (Steeves, 2014) and are at a greatest risk of experiencing victimization online.

Limitations and Future Research

The current study is cross-sectional, and no conclusions can be made about the directionality of effects. Future longitudinal studies are required to investigate these questions. Furthermore, the self-report nature of the questionnaires may have contributed to biased responses. The current study also did not assess bullying perpetration; thus, we were not able to explore the experience of those who bully others. Despite a large sample size, few males in elementary school completed the survey. As a result, results cannot be generalized to elementary school-aged males. Finally, we did not investigate the direct link between the use of privacy settings and reporting tools, and cybervictimization. Future studies are encouraged to investigate whether the usage of particular coping styles predicts later cybervictimization.

Conclusion

The current study contributes to the relatively sparse literature on coping with cybervictimization. Given the complexities and negative outcomes associated with victimization, it is imperative that parents and educators directly teach youth about the tools available that may mitigate the risks of cybervictimization. In the current study, limiting the visibility of posts and comments was negatively associated with the frequency of cybervictimization. Younger children were less likely to use this strategy, highlighting a potential educational avenue for encouraging healthy online relationships. Indeed, younger children were more likely to use strategies that were not associated with cybervictimization frequency, such as confronting the perpetrator. Social media sites could also contribute to a safer online environment by promoting and facilitating the use of online privacy settings. By working together, researchers, educators, parents, and social media site developers can help prevent cybervictimization.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

C. C. Hudson and L. Lambe contributed equally to this work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work has been supported by a Knowledge Mobilization grant through the Networks of Centres of Excellence of Canada [grant number 343974]. The authors were also supported by a CIHR Fredrick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship, a SSHRC Canada Master’s Scholarship, and Ontario Graduate Scholarships.

Notes

Author Biographies

Chloe C. Hudson is a PhD student in the clinical psychology program at Queen’s University. She completed her master’s in 2015 from Queen’s University. Her current research interests focus on how socio-cognitive factors influence the relation between victimization and depression in adolescents.

Laura Lambe is currently a master’s student in the clinical psychology program at Queen’s University. She completed a BSc (honors) in 2014 from Dalhousie University. Her current research interests focus on both traditional bullying and cyberbullying, coping behaviours among victimized adolescents, and how various risk/protective factors influence the association between bullying and other risk behaviours.

Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence Network’s (PREVNet) National Youth Advisory Committee (NYAC) was created in April 2013 as part of the Networks of Centres of Excellence Knowledge Mobilization initiative, through which PREVNet is committed to creating evidence-based bullying prevention strategies and materials by youth, for youth. PREVNet recruited youth members from its national partners: Canadian Red Cross, Jer’s Vision, Public Health Agency of Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, The Students Commission, Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement, and YOUCAN.

Debra J. Pepler is a distinguished research professor of psychology at York University and scientific co-director of PREVNet, a national network to promote healthy relationships for Canadian children and youth. She conducts research on children at risk, examining aggression and victimization among adolescents. Her research has been honored with a distinguished research professorship at York University, the Contribution to Knowledge Award from the Psychology Foundation of Canada, and most recently, the Canadian Psychological Association’s Donald O. Hebb Award.

Wendy M. Craig is a Queen’s University professor of psychology and scientific co-director of PREVNet, a Canada-wide research network bringing together organizations that work with children and youth, governments, university researchers and graduate students, and child-health practitioners to address bullying and victimization. Her work has been recognized through a national citation by the Canadian Red Cross, the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, and election as fellow to the Royal Society of Canada.

References

Beran

(2008). The relationship between cyberbullying and school bullying. The Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1, 16-33.

Brody

Vangelisti

A. L.

(2015). Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communication Monographs, 1-26. doi:10.1080/03637751.2015.1044256

Bross

I. D. J.

(1971). Critical levels, statistical language and scientific inference. In Godambe

V. P.

Sprott

D. A.

(Eds.), Foundations of statistical inference (pp. 500-513). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Cassidy

Brown

Jackson

(2012). “Under the radar”: Educators and cyberbullying in schools. School Psychology International, 33, 520-532. doi:10.1177/0143034312445245

Espinoza

(2015). Daily cybervictimization among Latino adolescents: Links with emotional, physical and school adjustments. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 38, 39-48. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2015.04.003

Facebook. (2015, July 14). Help center: Basic privacy settings and tools. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/help/325807937506242/

Folkman

Moskowitz

J. T.

(2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745-774. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456

Gladden

R. M.

Vivolo-Kantor

A. M.

Hamburger

M. E.

Lumpkin

C. D.

(2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education.

Glew

G. M.

Fan

M. Y.

Katon

Rivara

F. P.

(2008). Bullying and school safety. The Journal of Pediatrics, 152, 123-128. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.05.045

10.

Griffin

R. S.

Gross

A. M.

(2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 379-400. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00033-8

11.

Lampinen

Lehtinen

Lehmuskallio

Tamminen

(2011, May). We’re in it together: Interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 3217-3226.

12.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

13.

Machmutow

Perren

Sticca

Alsaker

F. D.

(2012). Peer victimisation and depressive symptoms: Can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimisation? Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 17, 403-420. doi:10.1080/13632752.2012.704310

14.

Mishna

Cook

Gadalla

Daciuk

Solomon

(2010). Cyber bullying behaviors among middle and high school students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 362-374. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01040.x

15.

O’Keeffe

G. S.

Clarke-Pearson

(2011). The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127, 800-804. doi:10.1542/peds.20110054

16.

Parris

L. N.

Varjas

Meyers

(2014). “The Internet is a mask”: High school students’ suggestions for preventing cyberbullying. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15, 587-592. doi:10.5811/westjem.2014.4.20725

17.

Parris

L. N.

Varjas

Meyers

Cutts

(2012). High school students’ perceptions of coping with cyberbullying. Youth & Society, 44, 284-306. doi:10.1177/0044118X11398881

18.

Schwarzer

Knoll

(2003). Positive coping: Mastering demands and searching for meaning. In Nezu

A. M.

Nezu

C. M.

Geller

P. A.

(Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology (Vol. 9, pp 393-409). New York, NY: Wiley.

19.

Sleglova

Cerna

(2011). Cyberbullying in adolescent victims: Perception and coping. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 5, article 1.

20.

Slonje

Smith

P. K.

(2008). Cyberbullying:Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x

21.

Smith

P. K.

Madsen

K. C.

Moody

J. C.

(1999). What causes the age decline in reports of being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied. Educational Research, 41, 267-285. doi:10.1080/ 0013188990410303

22.

Sourander

Klomek

A. B.

Ikonen

Lindroos

Luntamo

Koskelainen

. . . Henenius

(2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 720-728. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.79

23.

Steeves

(2014). Young Canadians in a wired world, phase III: Life online. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Mediasmarts.

24.

Suler

(2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 321-326.

25.

Tangen

Campbell

(2010). Cyberbullying prevention: One primary school’s approach. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20, 225-234. doi:10.1375/ajgc.20.2.225

26.

Tenenbaum

L. S.

Varjas

Meyers

Parris

(2011). Coping strategies and perceived effectiveness in fourth through eighth grade victims of bullying. School Psychology International, 32, 263-287. doi:10.1177/0143034311402309

27.

Tokunaga

R. S.

(2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277-287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014

28.

Vandebosch

Van Cleemput

(2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 499-503. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0042

29.

Wilton

Campbell

M. A.

(2011). An exploration of the reasons why adolescents engage in traditional and cyberbullying. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, 1, 101-109.