Full length articleCollege student cyberbullying on social networking sites: Conceptualization, prevalence, and perceived bystander responsibility
Introduction
Cyberbullying (i.e., bullying via technology) occurs among students in higher education, but most cyberbullying research has focused on middle school and high school students (Crosslin & Golman, 2014). Walker, Sockman, and Koehn (2011) indicated “further research is needed to expand our understanding of cyberbullying at the university level” (p. 37). The emerging studies concerning cyberbullying among college students have largely focused on broad digital settings (e.g., the internet), but there is a sparsity of research focused on cyberbullying on specific technology platforms (Schultz, Heilman, & Hart, 2014). Empirical efforts have also primarily focused on the victim and the bully, but not the cyberbullying bystanders (i.e., witnesses; Schultz et al., 2014).
The current exploratory study was designed to increase understanding regarding cyberbullying among college students with a specific focus on the experience of cyberbullying via social networking sites (SNS). Qualitative methodology was employed to contribute to the notable absence in the literature regarding “actual experiences of cyberbullying” (Rafferty & VanderVen, 2014, p. 365). Paullet and Pinchot (2014) advocated for studying “the problem of cyberbullying more holistically” (p. 68) and consistent with this recommendation we examined direct experiences of cyberbullying victimization in addition to bystander experiences. Finally, college students' perceptions regarding their responsibility when they were bystanders to cyberbullying behaviors on SNS were also examined.
Section snippets
College students and social media
Over the last decade, the percentage of young adults ages 18 to 29-years-old who use SNS has drastically increased from only 9% in 2004 to 89% in 2014 (Duggan, Ellison, Lampe, Lenhart, & Madden, 2015). Facebook continues to be the most commonly used SNS among this age demographic with 71% using Facebook, but young adults also report using Instagram (53%) and Twitter (37%; Duggan et al., 2015). The majority of young adults (92%) also report using SNS that focus on video sharing (e.g., YouTube;
Defining cyberbullying
Frequent internet use has been associated with increased instances of cyberbullying (Balakrishnan, 2015). Cyberbullying definitions vary in research, which has resulted in researchers studying critically different phenomena using the same terminology and ultimately limiting cross-study comparisons (Tokunaga, 2010). Tokunaga (2010) synthesized 25 scholarly definitions of cyberbullying in order to create the following collaborative definition: “Any behaviour performed through electronic media by
Prevalence
Most college students do not have a clear understanding of the term cyberbullying and view the term as “outdated” (Crosslin & Golman, 2014). Given the lack of understanding and acceptance of the term cyberbullying among college students, it is difficult to measure the prevalence of cyberbullying within this population. The prevalence rates are often inconsistent because researchers provide different definitions of cyberbullying to participants (Shultz et al., 2014), resulting in a broad range
Purpose of the current study
Presently, most research on cyberbullying among college students focuses on characteristics of cyberbullies (Gibb & Devereux, 2014), the prevalence of cyberbullying (Macdonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010), and the negative outcomes for both victims and cyberbullies (Bonanno & Hymel, 2013). Few studies have focused on cyberbullying occurrences on specific platforms (Shultz et al., 2014). Social networking sites are used by the vast majority of young adults (Duggan et al., 2015) and more research is
Sample
The sample included 196 college students (n = 155 females, n = 41 males; mean age = 21 years old). The participants reported their class standing as follows: 29% freshmen, 21% sophomore, 17% junior, and 33% senior. The majority of participants was Caucasian (89%) and reported a single marital status (86%), while fewer reported that they were married (4%) or cohabiting (10%). Students reported living off campus in single student housing (56%), on campus in single student housing (25%), with
Research question 1
College students (n = 196) detailed their conceptualization of what cyberbullying looks like on SNS. Table 1 includes the 16 coding categories that were the basis of the three major themes. Themes are reported in order of prevalence and ages of participants are presented parenthetically to contextualize the results.
Recognizing cyberbullying on SNS. Participants used negative words such as “mean,” “nasty,” “hateful,” “rude,” “inappropriate,” and “foul” in their descriptions of cyberbullying on
Discussion
The current study aimed at identifying the experience of cyberbullying on SNS among college students. Participants reported that cyberbullying does occur on SNS and they provided descriptions of what cyberbullying on SNS looks like. College students who had experienced cyberbullying or had witnessed someone being cyberbullied on SNS described how they responded to the situation. Finally, participants shared their perceptions regarding a bystander's responsibility when they witness cyberbullying
Limitations and conclusions
The current study was not without limitations; the predominately Caucasian and female sample from one university limits the generalizability of the results. University students from other regions and from different ethnicities may have diverse experiences with cyberbullying victimization and bystander behavior on SNS. However, this study contributes to the literature the much needed college student descriptions of actual experiences (Rafferty & VanderVen, 2014) with the phenomenon of
References (30)
Cyberbullying among young adults in Malaysia: the role of gender, age, and internet frequency
Computers in Human Behavior
(2015)- et al.
Cyberbullying on social network sites. An experimental study into bystanders' behavioural intentions to help the victim or reinforce the bully
Computers in Human Behavior
(2014) - et al.
“Maybe you don't want to face it” – college students' perspectives on cyberbullying
Computers in Human Behavior
(2014) - et al.
Predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among college students: an application of the theory of reasoned action
Computers in Human Behavior
(2014) - et al.
Who does that anyway? predictors and personality correlates of cyberbullying in college
Computers in Human Behavior
(2014) - et al.
Determinants of adolescents' active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying
Journal of Adolescence
(2008) - et al.
Cyberbullying among college students: prevalence and demographic differences
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences
(2010) - et al.
Characteristics of college cyberbullies
Computers in Human Behavior
(2013) - et al.
Online and offline social networks: use of social networking sites by emerging adults
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
(2008) Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization
Computers in Human Behavior
(2010)
An exploratory study of time spent with interactive technology and body mass among young adults
Computers in Human Behavior
Digital metamorphosis: examination of the bystander culture in cyberbullying
Aggression and Violent Behavior
Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: role of the communication medium, form of violence, and empathy
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
Qualitative research for education
Cyber bullying and internalizing difficulties: above and beyond the impact of traditional forms of bullying
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Cited by (91)
Content creators on Instagram—How users cope with stress on social media
2024, Telematics and Informatics ReportsFighting cyberbullying with past: The buffering effect of nostalgia
2023, Computers in Human BehaviorThe Development of a Multi-Dimensional Coding System to Categorise Negative Online Experiences Including Cyberbullying Behaviors Among Adolescents with Lower Socioeconomic Status
2024, International Journal of Developmental Sciences