Chapter 1:

An introduction in cyberbullying research

Trijntje Völlink, Francine Dehue, Conor Mc Guckin and Niels C. L. Jacobs

[5300 words]

Online internet activities of children and adolescents

The Internet and information communication technologies (ICT) are becoming a
natural part of everyday life for children and adolescents. Many researchers refer to the
generation born after 1980 as ‘the always-on generation’: this generation is growing up in a
world that offers them instant access nearly everywhere to a huge amount of human
knowledge. They have access to a wide range of social media that offer them the
opportunities to connect, create and collaborate with each other. They can play, watch and/or
create games, make videos and photos, and buy the products they want online. The down-side
of these growing opportunities is that they also create more possibilities for negative
experiences such as online bullying. Online bullying, mostly referred to as cyberbullying, is
described as “. . . bullying and harassment of others by means of new electronic technologies,
primary mobile phones and the internet” (Smith, Steffgen, & Sittichai, 2013, p.3). Over the
last 10 years, many studies have been published about cyberbullying that have provided
increased insight into the prevalence, determinants, coping strategies, and (health-)
consequences related to cyberbullying.
However, while the research field of cyberbullying is growing, more critical studies
are appearing about the uniqueness of cyberbullying: is it just a form or an extension of
traditional bullying, or is it a completely new phenomena? In addition, recent critical papers
have been published concerning the different definitions of cyberbullying, instruments to
measure cyberbullying and the poor theoretical background of most available studies.
This book brings together these different insights from international researchers
involved in (cyber-)bullying research. Part I will give a thorough overview of the state of the
art concerning cyberbullying research (e.g., what is cyberbullying, what is the overlap with
traditional bullying, and how is it related to negative consequences?). Part II will give an
overview of the development and content ofevidence based ICT interventions aimed at
preventing and combating (cyber-)bullying. In addition, some of the important outcomes of

1
the effect evaluations will be described. The final chapter concludes with feedback on the
interventions based on the recommendations that resulted from Part I.

Online internet activities of children and adolescents

For a better understanding of the main topics and different perspectives in
cyberbullying research this chapter starts with a brief overview of cyberbullying studies from
the start around 2004 till now. Since cyberbullying can only happen when young people
connect with each other online, this chapter give a brief overview of children’s online
activities and the relation with cyberbullying.
In many studies, researchers state that ‘staying in contact with friends through social
media’ is one of the most important activities of children and adolescents on the Internet.
What do we actually know from the main online activities of children and are these activities
age-dependent? The 2011 EU kids online study measured the frequencies and duration of
online activities of 25.142 European children, between 9-16 years old, from 25 different
countries (see www.eukidsonline.net). The results showed that 33% of the adolescents
between 9 and 10 years old, and 80% of the adolescents between 15 and16 year old, were
online on a daily basis. The same age pattern is visible for the number of different activities
children perform online: younger children performed on average over five activities while
teenagers performed eight or nine activities. When the same children were asked about what
kind of activities they did, they spontaneously mentioned using the internet for homework
(85%), playing games (83%), watching video clips (76%) and using instant messaging
services (62%). Fewer children mentioned posting images (39%), messages (31%), sharing
files (16%) or writing blogs (11%). Nevertheless, online chatting and texting is an important
activity for young people, often combined with doing homework. The time spent online and
having a social network profile increases with age (Ólafsson, Livingstone, & Haddon, 2014).
When the time spent online and using social networks increases, the occurrence of
cyberbullying, increases to (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004).

First studies on cyberbullying

Fourteen years ago, Finkelhor, Mitchell and Wolak (2000) were about the first
researchers in publishing a report about online harassment. In the Netherlands, the first report
‘Online bullying: joke or harm’ was published in 2005 by van den Akker. In 2006 and 2008,
two Dutch, large scale studies on the prevalence of cyberbullying appeared (Dehue, Bolman
& Völlink, 2008; Van den Eijnden, Verhulst, Rooy & Meerker, 2006). Around 2006, studies

2
appeared on a large scale in several European countries that explicitly dealt with
cyberbullying (see for instance a review of Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). In 2007, the first
special issue (i.e. ‘ Youth Violence and Electronic Media: Similar Behaviors, Different
Venues?’) on online bullying was published. Since then, many studies about cyberbullying
have been published all over the world. The prevalence of cyberbullying, the overlap with
traditional bullying, the relation with parenting and mediation styles, coping strategies, health
and (mental) wellbeing as well as other negative consequences have been studied intensively.

Prevalence of cyberbullying
The prevalence of cyberbullying varies considerably, depending on how it is defined
and measured. Tokunaga (2010) reported average prevalence rates between 20-40% of youth
being cyberbullied at least once in their lifetime. When more restricted time frames (i.e. 2 or 3
times a month in the past year) are used, the prevalence of cyberbullying reduces to an
average between 3%-10% (Olweus, 2012; Smith et al., 2008; Tokunaga, 2010; Williams and
& Guerra, 2007; Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, and& Finkelhor, 2006). Cyberbullying
experiences rise from 3% for the 9-10 years old to 8% for the 15-16 years old children
(Livingstone, Haddon, Görzig, & Olafsson, 2011). Furthermore, longitudinal data about
trends in cyberbullying between 2010 and 2013/2014 shows a slight increase in receiving hate
messages (from 13% to 20%) and being cyberbullied (from 7% to 12%) (Hasebrink, 2014).
However, there are still much more children involved in traditional, or offline, bullying
compared to cyberbullying: in a recent meta-analysis by Modecki and colleagues (2014) of 80
studies that measured both cyber- and traditional bullying, mean prevalence rates of 35% for
traditional bullying and 15% for cyberbullying involvement were found.

Perception of cyberbullying
Children do not see all specific negative online behaviours, as measured by many
cyberbullying questionnaires, as cyberbullying. Jacobs, Goossens, Dehue and Völlink ( 2014)
conducted a focus group study with 66 adolescents between 12 and 15 years old and found
that calling names was considered as ‘normal’ communication (i.e. even friends call each
other names) and being lied to was not perceived as cyberbullying. Vandebosch and Van
Cleemput (2008) found that it depends on the power imbalance and intention to hurt whether
or not an online experience is seen as cyberbullying. These findings show that there is a
difference between children’s and researchers’ perception of which behaviours have to be
labelled as cyberbullying. As a consequence, higher scores on a cyberbullying scale do not

3
always mean that these children are in need for help. On the other hand, it is important that
children are aware of the fact that (repeated) aggressive coping to combat cyberbullying will
label them as a bully-victim, although they might perceive it as a justified defence.
Furthermore, if an intervention aims to reach a broad category of cyberbully victims it seems
more effective not to speak about victims but about experiences with negative online
behaviour.

Main streams in Cyberbullying research

Research that has been conducted on cyberbullying until now can be divided into two
dominant groups. On the one hand there are researchers that examine cyberbullying as one of
the online risks, divided into three main types: (1) content risk (e.g., violent and/or
pornographic content); (2) conduct risk (e.g., threats, vulgar language, things that can damage
your reputation); and (3) contact risk (e.g., grooming (see for instance Livingstone, Kirwil,
Ponte & Staksrud, 2014; Mesch, 2007, Staksrud & Livingstone, 2014; Valkenburg & Peter,
2011). On the other hand, there is a group of researchers examining cyberbullying in relation
to traditional bullying (see for instance Cassidy, Li, 2007;Faucher & Jackson, 2013; Hemphill
et al., 2012; Olweus, 2012). The first group of researchers more thoroughly examines the pros
and cons of online communication for adolescents (see Valkenburg and Peter, 2001),
possibilities for the prevention of online risks (i.e. cyber safety), variables that make children
more vulnerable for online risks in general, and opportunities for parents teachers and policy
makers to mediate and minimize online risks for children. An important study about online
risk and parental mediation is the study of Mesch in 2007. He concluded that having a social
network site and having high scores on willingness to provide personal information both
offline and online increases the risk of being bullied online. They also increase the risk to
meet offenders that use the personal information found on social network sites to threat and
humiliate a victim. Furthermore, in this study it was found that evaluative mediation (i.e.
setting rules and talk to children about the online risks) decreases the risk of exposure to
online bullying. In a more recent study of Livingstone et al. (2014), it was found that for the
children who live in the Northern European high risk countries (due to high Internet access),
the frequency of exposure to online risk is fairly high, although most of these children adopt
positive coping strategies such as ignoring, blocking the sender or seek help from friends. The
researchers conclude that risk free Internet for children is an illusion and that we should help
children to cope adequately with- and to develop their resilience for the negative impact of
online risks.

4
The second, more recent and dominant group of researchers examines the specific prevalence
and overlap between traditional and cyberbullying. One of the first studies by Li (2007),
entitled ‘New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools’, shows that 54% of
the 177 seventh grade students in Canada had been bullied offline, and 25% had been bullied
online. About a third of the victims that had been bullied offline reported that they also had
been bullied online. In a study among 1221 Dutch children of 10-14 years old it was found
that 7% of the children were only involved in cyberbullying, 30% were involved in only
traditional bullying and 31% were involved in both forms of bullying (Dehue, Bolman,
Völlink & Pouwelse, 2008). Modecki et al. (2014) found a strong correlation between offline
and online perpetration and victimization in their meta-analysis. They also found strong
behavioural similarities across online and offline settings. However, Ybarra, Diener-West and
Leaf (2007) found that among the less frequent cyberbullied children (a few times a year, or
less), the overlap between being traditionally and being cyberbullied was much lower.
Because of these contrasting findings, more information about the similarities and differences
between traditional and cyberbullying is needed.
Although most researchers in this area agree that traditional and cyberbullying are (tightly)
interwoven (i.e. at least for the frequently involved children) and share some important
background variables, there is still a lot of discussion going on about the uniqueness of
cyberbullying, the prevalence of cyberbullying and whether or not cyberbullying needs
specific interventions.

Coping, cyberbullying and negative consequences

In most studies it is found that being (cyber-)bullied can have tremendous negative
(long term) consequences on for example children’s (mental) wellbeing, social functioning
and school results (see chapter five). According to many researchers, effective coping can
help to avoid escalation of cyberbullying and/or can help to buffer against the negative impact
of (cyber-)bullying (see for instance Völlink, Bolman, Eppingbroek, & Dehue, 2013). Lazarus
and Folkman (1987) postulate that coping has two main functions: (1) to change the actual
terms of the troubled person-environmental relationship (i.e. problem-focused coping); and
(2) to regulate emotional distress (i.e. emotion-focused or cognitive coping). In a study by
Völlink, Bolman, Dehue and Jacobs (2013), it was found that coping strategies in daily life
are highly correlated to cyber specific coping strategies: Bully-victims more frequently react
to stressful situation in an aggressive way and passive victims use more avoidance and
depressive coping to combat stressful situation. These results suggest that children use the

5
same coping styles on- and offline. Does this mean that we need a broader intervention to help
children to react more adequately to stressful situations in general? Or is it more effective to
develop specific intervention for cyberbullying, and for traditional bullying?

Interventions to prevent and combat cyberbullying

Many professional groups like educators, teachers and healthcare workers are aware of
the negative consequences of (cyber-) bullying experiences on health and well-being. On the
Internet, these professionals, as well as hands-on experts, express their worry and their belief
that it is vital to stop cyberbullying and to help the victims. A host of sites with tips, advice
and recommendations regarding cyberbullying are provided, and there is a proliferation of
prevention and intervention programs regarding both traditional and cyberbullying. The
problem is, however, that many of these materials and programs, whilst well intentioned, do
not have a theoretical base, nor has the effectiveness of their materials been investigated.
Hence, there is an urgent need for prevention and intervention programs on cyberbullying
which are developed on the basis of scientific theories and research, and whose effectiveness
is scientifically investigated. Only by doing so can we be confident that our well-intentioned
efforts to help are targeted in an evidence-informed manner.
On a positive note, intervention programs specially developed to tackle traditional
bullying based on scientific theories and tested for effectiveness exist already. For example,
the peer support intervention approach (Cowie, 2000) and the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program (OBPP) (Olweus & Limber, 2010). However, the results of the peer support
intervention are not unequivocal. According to Menesini, Codecasa, Benelli, and Cowie
(2003), the intervention seems to prevent the escalation of negative behaviours and negative
attitudes. Cowie and Olafsson (2000), on the other hand, found significant increases in
bullying behaviour among students who received the peer support intervention, a result that is
corroborated by Ttoffi and Farrington’s (2009) scholarly review. According to Houston and
Smith (2009), the peer support intervention approach yields an increase in self-esteem, but the
impact of the intervention on bullying experiences was less clear. The OBPP is a “whole
school” based intervention and seems to be more effective in reducing bullying. Findings
from the initial study, the First Bergen Project Against Bullying (Olweus, 1994), and from the
six follow-up evaluations in Norway, demonstrated a decrease in teachers’ ratings and
students’ self-reports of being bullied and bullying others (Limber, 2011).
Many other bullying prevention programs are based on the OBPP. One of them is The
Flemish Anti-Bullying Intervention (Stevens &Van Oost, 1994). A study on the effectiveness

6
of this intervention in primary and secondary schools showed no effects on self- and teacher-
reported victimization and positive interactions between pupils, and only a decrease in self-
and teacher-reported bullying in primary schools (Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, & Van Oost,
2000). In a second study with two post-tests, Stevens, Van Oost, and De Bourdeaudhuij
(2000) found that in primary schools, seeking a teacher’s help decreased and support for
victims increased in the second post-test. However, in secondary schools, the positive results
on attitudes found in the first post-test were not evident in the second post-test. KiVa, an
intervention developed in Finland (Salmivalli, Kärnä & Poskiparta, 2010), is also a whole
school approach that is based on the developers’ research-based view of bullying as a group
process, and is focused on the bystanders of bullying behaviour. A study on the effects of
KiVa shows that the KiVa program is effective in reducing bullying and victimization, but
effect sizes are small. For peer-reported victimization and bullying, they were .33 and .14 and
for self-reported victimization and bullying, they were .17 and .10 (Kärnä et al., 2011). This
means that although the difference in bullying frequency between the experimental group and
control group(s) is significant, the intervention does not influence bullying behaviour that
much. A second study that has explored the effects of KiVa compared the effects on 9
different forms of bullying. Results of the study showed a decrease in percentage of
victimization ranging from 0.3% on material bullying to 0.8% on cyberbullying and 2.1% on
verbal bullying (Salmivalli, Kärnä, & Poskiparta, 2011). Williford et al. (2013) further
investigated the effect of the KiVa program on cyberbullying and found an effect size of .14
for victimization. The effect of KiVa for bullying depended on age: no effect was found for
children above 12.9 years but for younger children they found an effect size of .29.
Other whole school approaches often have been compared in meta-analytic studies.
Smith, Schneider, Smith, and Ananiadou (2004), for example, conducted a meta-analysis of
14 studies from 10 countries on whole school interventions and concluded that the majority of
these studies did not find significant results with regards to self-reported bullying and
victimization experiences. On the other hand, Vreeman and Caroll (2007) found that out of 10
studies, seven revealed a decrease in bullying, but that the decrease was less profound among
younger children. Ttofi, Farrington, and Baldry (2008) concluded that the effectiveness of
whole school programs varies and seems to depend on the way the interventions are
implemented. Programs in which implementation was systematically monitored seemed to be
more effective than programs without systematic monitoring (Smith, Schneider, Smith, &
Ananiadou, 2004). In addition, according to Vreeman and Caroll (2007), the involvement of
schools is directly related to the effectiveness of the intervention. Indeed, Olweus and Limber

7
(2010, p. 379) state that teachers are “key agents of change with regard to adoption and
implementation of the OBPP”. Apparently, whole school interventions require a serious
investment by schools: all children, staff, and parents need to be involved and motivated,
teachers need to be trained, activities need to be planned on a school-wide, classroom-wide
and individual level, and activities should start in primary grades and continue throughout all
school years (National Safe Schools Framework, 2011). Hence, it is highly likely that not all
schools can meet these requirements, which may explain the conflicting results.
Until now it has been unclear whether these whole-school approaches are also
effective in decreasing or preventing cyberbullying. In the above-mentioned interventions,
almost no attention is paid to the effects on cyberbullying. Consequently, there is hardly any
evidence that these interventions are also effective in preventing bullying through the Internet
and other communication methods. Some advocates of whole-school interventions state that
bullying behaviour has many forms and that cyberbullying is just one form of bullying (e.g.,
Olweus, 2012). Salmivalli et al. (2011) also consider cyberbullying as one of the nine forms
of bullying. This approach corresponds to the first approach described by Menesini,
Nocentini, and Palladino in chapter 2 of this book.
A lot of questions remained unanswered in the brief introduction of cyberbullying
research we summarized above. Based on the interpretation of available research this books
provides answers and recommendations that will increase insight in the characteristics, and
the consequences of cyberbullying. In addition we describe in detail evidence baced ICT
interventions to prevent and combat cyberbullying that will help to improve future
intervention methods.

Overview of the book content

In Chapter two, Menesini, Nocentini, and Palladino summarise recent studies
regarding the definition of cyberbullying. They discuss aspects of the overlap and distinctions
in the theoretical definitions of traditional and cyberbullying. Additionally, they outline the
impact of several definitions for the empirical findings related to the prevalence of
cyberbullying. In Chapter three, Wolke, Lereya, and Tippett explore the findings of recent
studies to determine key similarities and differences between traditional and cyberbullying.
They assess whether cyberbullying arises from a unique set of social and individual risk
factors, or results from similar circumstances to traditional bullying, and can therefore be
considered as an extension of traditional bullying behaviours. Based on these findings they
discuss whether interventions should specifically tackle cyberbullying, or address this as just a

8
component of traditional bullying behaviour among peers. In Chapter four, Gunther, DeSmet,
Jacobs, and De Bourdeaudhuij describe the current research on the negative outcomes of
traditional and cyberbullying concerning psychological health, physical health, social
functioning, and behaviour problems. They explore these problems from the perspective of
bullies, victims, bully/victims, and bystanders, and discuss whether the impact of
cyberbullying compared to traditional bullying on the outcomes is equal, less, or more severe.
Furthermore, they discuss the interrelatedness between (cyber-)bullying and negative (health)
outcomes.
In Part II of this book, four interventions aimed at reducing and/or preventing (cyber-)
bullying are explored. Each of these interventions have several common features: (a) they
focus on cyberbullying as well as on traditional bullying; (b) they are theoretically based; (c)
they use aspects of interventions developed for traditional bullying; (d) they do not require a
substantial investment from schools; and (e), they use electronic communication tools.
The first intervention (Chapter five) written by Sapouna, Enz, Samaras and Wolke is a
game that focuses on the reduction of victimization by letting the participant “experience”
victimisation and by giving them an active role: children are asked to help the victims and the
game shows them the effects of their support. The intervention consists of a virtual simulation
of a primary school environment in which cartoon-like virtual characters can take the role of a
bully, victim, bully-assistant, victim-defender, or bystander. It is based on the proven benefits
of experiential learning and on the assumption that children learn to cope effectively with
bullying by role-playing different coping strategies.
The second intervention is a serious game for bystanders of bullying. It is an online,
one-player puzzle game with a virtual character and virtual bullying experience scenarios in
which players can choose a role and several behavioural alternatives, like ignoring the bully,
stand up for the victim, etc. Thereafter, they receive immediate feedback about the
consequences of the choice they made.
The third intervention (chapter 7) has been developed for victims and bully/victims of
cyberbullying, and contains three online tailored modules. The first module aims to teach
participants about the connection between thoughts and behaviour. In the second module
participants learn effective coping strategies in order to stop the (cyber-)bullying and to
decrease negative effects of victimization. In the third module participants learn how to use
the Internet in a safe and secure manner and how to prevent/solve cyberbullying experiences.
The second and third intervention were developed via the Intervention Mapping
protocol. This protocol consists of six steps that can be used as an iterative process for theory-

9
and evidence-based development of health promotion interventions (Bartholomew, Parcel,
Kok, Gottlieb, & Fernández, 2011). The six steps include: (a) conducting a needs assessment
of the problem and the at risk-group and forming a logic model of the health problem based
on the PRECEDE/PROCEED model (Green & Kreuter, 2005); (b) defining performance
objectives for the intervention participants and combining them with relevant determinants to
form change objectives; (c) translating change objectives into practical strategies by selecting
theory-based intervention methods; (d) developing, selecting, testing, and producing
intervention components in which all strategies are integrated; (e) planning for adoption and
implementation of the program; and (f) anticipating the process and effect evaluation of the
program.
The fourth intervention again focuses on bystanders of bullying behaviour (Chapter
nine). The intervention is based on the assumption that peers learn from, and influence each
other, and aims to change group norms through peer interactions. Peer educators are selected
by nomination and are trained in communication and social skills in real and virtual situations
and in empathy and adaptive coping strategies.
The last chapter of the book (Chapter nine) will be devoted to an integration of Part I
and Part II. It will combine the ‘know-how’ of Part I with the practical applications of Part II.
The main topics that are discussed are (a) the adequacy of the definition of cyberbullying for
the selection of children who need help; (b) the differences in methods, practical applications,
and content of the four intervention programs; and (c) the effects of the four interventions on
the harmful effects of cyberbullying.
This book gives an in-depth and up-to-date overview of what is known about
cyberbullying based on research of the past decade. It also shows the challenges that remain
in understanding the cyberbullying phenomenon, to help children to stop cyberbullying, and
to develop their resilience against the negative impact.

References
Akker, H., van den (2005). Online pesten: Geintje of kwetsend? [online bullying: a joke or

hurtful?] (Retrieved July 10, 2009, from:

http://www.planet.nl/upload/1539825_8482_1115049310581-
Persrapport_pestonderzoek.pdf).

Bartholomew, L.K., Parcel, G.S., Kok, G., Gottlieb, H.H., & Fernández (2011). Planning

10
 health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: a

comprehensive review of current international research and its implications and

application to policy and practice. School Psychology International, 34(6),575-612.
doi: 10.1177/0143034313479697.

Cowie, H. (2000). By standing or standing by: Gender issues in coping with bullying in

English schools. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 85–97. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-

2337(2000)26.

Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Völlink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: youngsters’ experiences and

parental perception. Cyberpsychology & Behavior : The Impact of the Internet,

Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 11(2), 217–23.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0008.

Dehue, F., Bolman, C., Völlink, T., & Pouwelse, M. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional

bullying in relation with adolescents’ perception of parenting. Journal of

CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation, 5(1), 25–34.

Eijnden, R., van den, Vermulst, A., Rooy, T., van, & Meerkerk, G.J. (2006). Monitor internet

en jongeren: Pesten op internet en het psychosociale welbevinden van jongeren.

Factsheet van IVO: wetenschappelijk bureau voor onderzoek, expertise en advies op
het gebied van leefwijzen, verslaving en daaraan gerelateerde maatschappelijke
ontwikkelingen.

Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online victimization: A report on the

nation’s youth (NCMEC 6–00–020). Alexandria, VA:National Center for Missing &
Exploited Children.

Green, L.W., & Kreuter, M.W. (2005). Health program planning: An educational and

ecological approach (4th ed.) New York:McGraw Hill Profesional.

11
Hasebrink, U. (2014). Children's changing online experiences in a longitudinal perspective.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60083/.

Hemphill, S. A., Psych, A.K.D., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T.I., Toumbourou, J.W., &

Catalano, R.F. (2012). Longitudinal predictors of cyber and traditional bullying

perpetration in Australian secondary schools students. Journal of Adolescent Health,
51, 59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.11.019.

Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T.D., Poskiparta, E., Kalijonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A

large scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4–6. Child
Development, 82, 311–330. doi: 10.1111=j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x

Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing children’s

responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention

in Italian middle schools. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 1–14. doi: 10.1002/ab.80012.

National Safe Schools Framework, 2011. Anti-Bullying policy-school audit checklist and

support information. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from

http://www.decd.sa.gov.au/speced2/files/links/Draft_for_web_Anti_bullyin.pdf.

Niels C.L. Jacobs N.C.L., Goossens, L., Dehue, F., Völlink, T., & Lechner, L. (2014). Dutch

Cyberbullying Victims’ Experiences, Perceptions, Attitudes and Motivations Related

to (Coping with) Cyberbullying: Focus Group Interviews. Societies, 4,
doi:10.3390/soc40x000x (in press).

Kiriakidis, S. P., & Kavoura, A. (2010). A Review of the Literature on Harassment Through

the Internet and Other Electronic Means. Family & Community Health, 11(2), 82–93.

Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in

Human Behavior, 23(4), 1777–1791. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005.

Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Olafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the

12
 internet: the perspective of European children: full findings and policy implications
from the EU Kids Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents in 25 countries.

Livingstone, S., Kirwil, L., Ponte, C., & Staksrud, E. (2014). In their own words: what

bothers children online? European Journal of Communication, 29 (3), 271-288. doi:

10.1177/0267323114521045.

Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental Mediation, Online Activities, and Cyberbullying.

CyberPsychology & Behavior,12 (4), 387-393. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0068.

Modecki, K.L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A.G., Guerra, N.G., & Runions, K.C. (2014). Bullying

prevalence across context: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying.

Journal of Adolescents Health, 55, 602-611. and Medicine.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007.

Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2014). Children’s Use of Online Technologies in

Europe. A review of the European evidence base. LSE, London: EU Kids Online
Revised edition.

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based

intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171_/1190.

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program:

Implementation and evaluation over two decades. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M.Swearer, &

D. L. Espelage (Eds.) The handbook of school bullying: An international perspective
(pp. 377–402). New York, NY: Routledge.

Olweus, D. (2012). Invited expert discussion paper Cyberbullying: An overrated

phenomenon? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 1–19.

Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2010). From peer putdowns to peer support: A

theoretical model and how it translated into a national anti-bullying program. In S.

Shimerson, S. Swearer, & D. Espelage (Eds.) The handbook of bullying in
schools: An international perspective (pp. 441–454). New York, NY: Routledge.

13
Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Counteracting bullying in Finland: The

KiVa program and its effects on different forms of being bullied. International Journal
of Behavioral Development,35, 405–411. doi: 10.1177=0165025411407457

Smith, J.D., Schneider, B.H., Smith, P.K., & Ananiadou, A. (2004). The effectiveness of

whole-school anti bullying programs: a synthesis of evaluation research. School

psychology Review, 33, 4, 547-560.

Smith, P.K., Steffgen, G., & Sittichai R. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and an

international network. In P.K. Smith, & G. Steffgen (Eds.), Cyberbullying through the
new media. Findings from an international network. London: Psychology Press.

Staksrud, E., & Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and online risk. Powerless victims or

resourceful participants? Information, Communication & Society, 12 (3), 364-387.

doi: 10.1080/13691180802635455.

Stevens, V. and Van Oost, P. (1994). Pesten op School: een actieprogramma. Kessel-Lo:

Garant Uitgevers.

Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools: An

evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 195-210. doi: 10.1348/000709900158056

Stevens, V., Oost, van, P., & Bourdeaudhuij, de , I. (2000). The effects of an anti-bullying

intervention program on peers' attitudes and behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 23,

1, 21-34.

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to

reduce bullying. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of

research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–

287. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.

14
Valkenburg, P.M., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: an

integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 48, 121-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020.

Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: a qualitative research

into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyberpsychology & Behavior : The Impact of the
Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 11(4), 499–503.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0042.

Völlink, T., Bolman, C. A. W., Dehue, F., & Jacobs, N. C. L. (2013). Coping with

Cyberbullying: Differences Between Victims, Bully-victims and Children not

Involved in Bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 7–
24. doi:10.1002/casp.2142.

Vreeman, R.C. & Caroll, A.E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to

prevent bullyin. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78-88. doi:
10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78.

Williams, K.R., & Guerra, N.G. (2007). Prevalence and Predictors of Internet Bullying.

Journal of Adolescent Health,41,14-21.doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.018.

Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment: associations

with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of

Adolescence, 27(3), 319–36. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.03.007.

Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Examining characteristics

and associated distress related to Internet harassment: findings from the Second Youth
Internet Safety Survey. Pediatrics, 118(4), e1169–77. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0815.

Ybarra, M.L.; Diener-West, M.; Leaf, P.J. Examining the Overlap in Internet Harassment and

School Bullying: Implications for School Intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health

41, S42–S50. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.004.

15