The changing face of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and victimization

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Electronic aggression, or cyberbullying, is a relatively new phenomenon. As such, consistency in how the construct is defined and operationalized has not yet been achieved, inhibiting a thorough understanding of the construct and how it relates to developmental outcomes. In a series of two studies, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFAs and CFAs respectively) were used to examine whether electronic aggression can be measured using items similar to that used for measuring traditional bullying, and whether adolescents respond to questions about electronic aggression in the same way they do for traditional bullying. For Study I (n = 17 551; 49% female), adolescents in grades 8–12 were asked to what extent they had experience with physical, verbal, social, and cyberbullying as a bully and victim. EFA and CFA results revealed that adolescents distinguished between the roles they play (bully, victim) in a bullying situation but not forms of bullying (physical, verbal, social, cyber). To examine this further, Study II (n = 733; 62% female), asked adolescents between the ages of 11 and 18 to respond to questions about their experience sending (bully), receiving (victim), and/or seeing (witness) specific online aggressive acts. EFA and CFA results revealed that adolescents did not differentiate between bullies, victims, and witnesses; rather, they made distinctions among the methods used for the aggressive act (i.e. sending mean messages or posting embarrassing pictures). In general, it appears that adolescents differentiated themselves as individuals who participated in specific mode of online aggression, rather than as individuals who played a particular role in online aggression. This distinction is discussed in terms of policy and educational implications.

Highlights

► Do adolescents interpret cyberbullying items the same way they do offline bullying items? ► Data from two studies reveal they do not. ► Traditional bullying students differentiate between role (bully and victim). ► Cyberbullying they categorize by mode (mean messages/pictures; make mean website). ► Cyberbullying cannot be measured in the same way as offline bullying.

Introduction

Despite the prevalent use of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the lives of adolescents, we are only beginning to understand how the internet or cell phones are influencing adolescents’ communication skills and social relationships. Research shows that adolescents use the internet to seek out opportunities to interact with school-based peers (Gross, Juvonen, & Gable, 2002), overcome shyness, and facilitate social relationships (Maczewski, 2002, Valkenburg et al., 2005). In conjunction with this, however, it also appears that adolescents use the internet as an arena for bullying (Li, 2007, Raskauskas and Stoltz, 2007). As cyberbullying, or internet aggression increase in prominence (e.g., Hinduja and Patchin, 2008, Ybarra and Mitchell, 2004), it becomes important to determine exactly what this form of aggression is, as well as how and why it manifests.

The construct of bullying/aggression that occurs online has yet to be properly defined. The lack of a clear definition prevents a full understanding of this construct and how it relates to developmental outcomes; a task that must be undertaken in order to accurately understand and address the social and emotional outcomes associated with this phenomenon. Indeed, there is little consensus about what to even call it, with terms like online aggression, cyberbullying, internet harassment, and electronic aggression used in the literature (Dooley et al., 2009, Kowalski et al., 2008, Smith, 2009). One approach to this lack of clarity has been to assume that online bullying functions in a manner similar to more traditional forms of bullying – that the nature of it, in essence, is similar, but that the venue is unique (Dooley et al., 2009). This practice has led policy makers and educators to apply a “one size fits all” approach to reducing aggressive incidents that occur online by using the same strategies they would for traditional bullying. Unfortunately, given the lack of evidence that offline and online forms of bullying are functionally similar, the efficacy of these strategies remains questionable. The current work begins to address this gap in the literature. Specifically, in a series of two studies, we first explore the utility of traditional measures of bullying for capturing online experiences, and then use these results to explore more sensitive ways of measuring it.

As noted, some researchers have supported the hypothesis that electronic media is simply another medium through which youth who already aggress offline, can now aggress online (Patterson, Dishion, & Yoerger, 2000; Werner & Crick, 2004; Werner, Bumpus, & Rock, 2010). However, burgeoning literature argues that online and offline aggression are not the same and that more research is warranted to properly examine the underlying differences (Dooley et al., 2009, Werner and Bumpus, 2010; Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007). Examining existing definitions of bullying (Olweus, 1991), different forms of bullying (Craig et al., 2000, Salmivalli et al., 2000, Underwood, 2003) as well as the different roles individuals play in a bullying situation (Macklem, 2003, Rigby, 2008, Salmivalli et al., 1996) can provide some insight into where these differences might lie.

The most common definition of bullying is based on Olweus, 1991, Olweus, 1993 definition, which states that “…a person is being bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons” (p. 9). Three characteristics are emphasized: (1) a power differential between those who bully and those who are victimized; (2) repeated harm over time; and (3) an intention to harm (Olweus, 1991, Pellegrini and Bartini, 2001, Smith and Boulton, 1990, Vaillancourt et al., 2003), although spontaneous lay definitions of bullying by both educators (Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001) and youth (Vaillancourt et al., 2008) do not typically recognize these components. It also remains unclear whether these characteristics are consistently present in online instances of bullying. Even if they are present, they may function in very different ways. For instance, physical bullying often involves a larger individual exerting his/her physical power over a smaller or weaker individual (Atlas & Pepler, 1998). In an online environment, however, physical size no longer holds power, as even the smallest and least physically powerful individual can engage in cyberbullying. Similar arguments have been made regarding the potential power of having high social status. Even the most unpopular, socially ostracized individuals can operate as a bully over the internet. The power differential that distinguishes bullying from other forms of aggression is still present in online bullying situations, but that the nature of this power is different. Those who are more technologically savvy may hold the power. More generally, Dooley and colleagues (2009) contend that power in an online environment is not based on the perpetrator’s possession of power, but rather on the victim’s lack of power.

Although some authors have argued that critical, single incident events can also constitute bullying (e.g., Arora, 1996, Randall, 1996), repetition over time is another distinguishing characteristic of bullying emphasized in the literature (Olweus, 1991). As was the case with power differentials, it is also unclear how this definitional aspect translates to online forms of aggression. We know that young people report being victimized online rather infrequently compared to offline bullying (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009); However, given the archival nature of the internet (i.e. content that is uploaded or posted on the internet is often available in perpetuity; Viegas, 2005), victims (and bullies) can repeatedly re-read, re-look at, or re-watch the aggravating incidents and ‘relive’ the experience. Moreover, with online bullying individuals are no longer restricted by time (Walther, 2007); while offline bullying must occur in “real time”, electronic aggression can be executed anywhere and at any time.

Bullying researchers tend to distinguish among three main forms of bullying: (1) physical bullying, (e.g. hitting, punching, kicking; Craig et al., 2000), (2) verbal bullying (e.g. yelling, cursing, name calling; Salmivalli et al., 2000), and (3) social bullying (e.g. excluding others, gossip and rumour spreading; Underwood, 2003). Initial hypothesizing about cyberbullying suggested that it was simply social bullying being expressed in a virtual way (Beran and Li, 2005, Li, 2007); However, there is evidence to suggest that the degree of visual anonymity afforded by an online environment provides a sense of privacy and protection, such that individuals feel comfortable and powerful saying things they would not normally say offline (Peter et al., 2005, Ward and Tracey, 2004). As such, even if the nature of social bullying is highly consistent with cyberbullying (e.g., gossip, public humiliation, rumour spreading, etc.), there are particular characteristics associated with the medium used for cyberbullying that nullifies our understandings of who the perpetrators are likely to be.

Previous work has demonstrated that individuals can play a variety of roles in a bullying situation (Salmivalli et al., 1996). However, most studies have distinguished among three main roles: bullies, victims, and bystanders (cf., witnesses; Macklem, 2003, Rigby, 2008). Research has found that the number of bystanders observing a bullying situation can be a source of power to the perpetrator (e.g., Twemlow, Fonagy, Sacco, & Hess, 2001). For example, in a schoolyard fight, bullies often report being ‘egged on’ by the crowd that has gathered to watch (Burns, Maycock, Cross, & Brown, 2008). It is unclear whether this transfer of power from bystander to bully occurs in an online setting, given that the number of witnesses in an online environment remains largely unknown, but can range from a few individuals to hundreds or even thousands.

Moreover, there may be a blurring of roles unique to cyberbullying. For example, if a person decides to share or post something that was initiated by somebody else, have they now switched from bystander to bully? Similarly, does the victim who retaliates (often in a rapid-fire fashion) after being persecuted online suddenly become a bully as well as a victim? It is not clear whether these online ‘bully/victims’ are similar to the bully/victims identified by more traditional forms of bullying, who tend to score less favorably on psychosocial measures and report the highest levels of problem behaviors (e.g., Haynie et al., 2001). Given the growing body of research that has identified the high number of bully/victims (e.g., individuals who are both the target and the perpetrator) involved in cyberbullying situation (Authors, submitted; Kowalski and Limber, 2007, Werner and Bumpus, 2010, Ybarra and Mitchell, 2004), and the low frequency of bully/victims in traditional bullying situations (Kaukiainen et al., 2002, Pelligrini, 2001), this is something that needs to be explored further.

In sum, it is clear that current research has not yet determined how online and offline bullying are related and/or distinct. One reason for this is the lack of a clear definition for cyberbullying and the absence of a well-accepted measure of the construct. The present study is a preliminary step toward exploring whether youth respond to questions about the role they play in online aggressive situations in the same way they do when it comes to traditional bullying. In a series of two studies, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to explore whether cyberbullying/electronic aggression can be measured using the same types of items used for measuring traditional bullying.

Section snippets

Study I

The primary purpose of Study I was to determine whether online aggression was a unique construct, or whether it functioned similarly to traditional bullying constructs for adolescents. Accordingly, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to determine whether adolescents differentiated cyberbullying/victimization items from physical, verbal, and social bullying/victimization items. Based on the literature review above, which calls into question assumed similarities between

Study II

The results of Study I underscore the need to investigate electronic aggression more closely, and, when it comes to online aggression, it may be important to examine the role adolescents play, rather than the form of aggression (physical, verbal, social). Using the findings from Study I, and previous work on bullying as a guide, the questionnaire administered at Study I was modified for Study II in order to focus specifically on the role (bully, victim, witness) adolescents might identify with

Discussion

The goal of this research was to examine whether student reports of experiences with cyberbullying were similar to their reports of more traditional forms of interpersonal harassment. Results of Study I indicated that student responses to offline and online aggression questions differ significantly. Specifically, both the EFA and the CFA results revealed that adolescents interpreted items pertaining to traditional, offline aggression as either about bullying or victimization, with little

Acknowledgements

The research reported herein is part of the doctoral dissertation of the first author. Portions of this research were presented at the Society for Research on Child Development and Society for Research on Adolescence conferences. The authors wish to acknowledge the Edith Lando Charitable Foundation, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council’s (SSHRC) Prevention Science Cluster, the British Columbia Ministry of Public Safety, Solicitor General-Crystal Meth Secretariat, SSHRC Doctoral

References (51)

  • Q. Li

    New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (2007)
  • J.B. Walther

    Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (2007)
  • C.M.J. Arora

    Defining bullying: Towards a clearer general understanding and more effective intervention strategies

    School Psychology International

    (1996)
  • R.S. Atlas et al.

    Observations of bullying in the classroom

    The Journal of Educational Research

    (1998)
  • T. Beran et al.

    Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior

    Journal of Educational Computing Research

    (2005)
  • M.W. Browne et al.

    Alternative ways of assessing model fit

  • S. Burns et al.

    The power of peers: Why some students bully others to conform

    Qualitative Health Research

    (2008)
  • A.L. Comrey et al.

    A first course in factor analysis

    (1992)
  • W.M. Craig et al.

    Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom

    School Psychology International

    (2000)
  • N.R. Crick et al.

    Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression

    Child Development

    (1996)
  • K.A. Dodge et al.

    Social information processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1987)
  • K.A. Dodge et al.

    Peer status and aggression in boys’ groups: Developmental and contextual analyses

    Child Development

    (1990)
  • J.J. Dooley et al.

    Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A theoretical and conceptual review

    Journal of Psychology

    (2009)
  • P. Gradinger et al.

    Traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems

    Journal of Psychology

    (2009)
  • E.F. Gross et al.

    Internet use and well-being in adolescence

    Journal of Social Issues

    (2002)
  • D.L. Haynie et al.

    Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth

    Journal of Adolescence

    (2001)
  • R.J. Hazler et al.

    Adult recognition of school bullying situations

    Educational Research

    (2001)
  • Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying.us. <http://www.cyberbullying.us/shareyourstory.php> Retrieved...
  • K.G. Joreskog et al.

    LISREL 8: User’s reference guide

    (1993)
  • A. Kaukiainen et al.

    Learning difficulties, social intelligence, and self-concept: Connections to bully-victim problems

    Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

    (2002)
  • R.M. Kowalski et al.

    Electronic bullying among middle school students

    Journal of Adolescent Health

    (2007)
  • R.M. Kowalski et al.

    Cyberbullying

    (2008)
  • R.C. MacCallum et al.

    Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling

    Psychological Methods

    (1996)
  • G.L. Macklem

    Bullying and teasing: Social power in children’s groups

    (2003)
  • M. Maczewski

    Exploring identities through the Internet: Youth experiences online

    Child and Youth Care Forum

    (2002)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text