Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-1

Episodic and Thematic News Frames: Their Effect and Impact on Blame Assignment and Public

Opinion About Teen Cyberbullying

Hannah Uranich

Department of Journalism, Advertising, and Media Studies

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Email: huranich@uwm.edu

Cell phone: 815-200-0024

 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-2

Introduction

This generation of adolescents is unique for numerous reasons. They are being raised in

an ever-increasing internet world and will never know life without these varying technologies.

Technology has many pros, such as having easily accessible information, high correspondence

speed, learning new social and emotional skills, and getting to be more creative (Hinduja &

Patchin, 2008). However, this revolution of internet technology into our society does not always

bring progressive change; it can also bring about digression. A major digression of technology is

the phenomena known as cyberbullying.

The focus of this study depicts how news frames influence blame assignment.

Particularly, this study attempts to understand how being exposed to episodic or thematic news

frames influence blame assignment of cyberbullying either on individuals or on the school

environment. Based on these frames, the study also measures opinion whether the government

should fund programs to stop cyberbullying.

People have always found unique ways to hurt each other, but the internet fuels

(cyber)bullying in ways that are more harmful than ever before, especially for teens.

Cyberbullying is dangerous because of its elements of reproducibility, uncontrollability,

anonymity, accessibility, permanence, and inescapability (Kowalski et. al, 2014). Thirty-two

percent of teens have experienced a multitude of forms of online harassment (Lenhart, 2010).

Bullied teens experience higher levels of depression and other psychological problems, low self-

esteem, poor health, substance abuse, delinquency and skipping school, weapon carrying, and

poor parent/caregiver relationships (Lenhart, 2010; Kowalski et al, 2014). In severe cases it can

also lead to suicide and mass school shootings (Hinjuja & Patchin, 2008).
 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-3

The legislation in place against cyberbullying is not effective at ceasing it. Many of the

laws that are implemented are just in the book; they are not being enforced. Many of the states’

laws indicate that if cyberbullying happens, schools will lose their funding. However, there is

nothing in place that makes them keep track of incidents, which allows the problem to further

spiral (Associated Press, 2009). If government funding was available to the schools, they would

be able to obtain training materials and programs that prevent against cyberbullying. This could

drastically help reduce the issue of cyberbullying. For schools to be able to receive funding to

prevent cyberbullying, however, the public would have to give enough attention to the problem,

and think it to be a critical issue. If it were to become enough of an issue on the public opinion

docket, then elected officials would recognize the urgency and act.

In order to test this study, an experiment was done. Participants were selected and then

separated, randomly, into two groups. Participants watched videos about cyberbullying. One

group watched a thematically framed one, and the other watched an episodically framed video.

Subjects completed a questionnaire measuring blame assignment on the school environment, on

individuals, and their opinion on if there should be government funding. The implications of this

study concluded mixed findings on who is to blame for cyberbullying, but overall support the

opinion of government intervention for funding programs. It appears that an episodic frame is

slightly more influential, as it supports the hypothesis of individuals being more to blame, than

societal factors. This is noteworthy, because it reveals that news media can influence public

opinion by the way they present the news to the public. This is not only important in the issue of

blame assignment and government funding for cyberbullying, but all news issues.

Why Teen Cyberbullying is a Problem

 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-4

Cyberbullying allows youth to become bullied in ways that could negatively affect their

social, physical, emotional, and cognitive development and well-being (Hinduja & Patchin,

2008). In fact, studies have linked cyberbullying, as a victim or a perpetrator, to tobacco, alcohol,

and drug use, depression, anxiety, decreased self-esteem and self-worth, low self-control,

suicidal ideation, poor physical health, increased likelihood of self-injury, and loneliness

(Kowalski et al, 2014). These effects also appear in the school and work environment:

cyberbullying victims and perpetrators are more likely to be absent from school, receive lower

grades and have poor concentration (Kowalski et al, 2014). Victims in particular tend to have

more detentions and suspensions, truancy issues, and carry a weapon (Kowalski et al, 2014). As

mentioned earlier victims may engage in extreme violence towards themselves and also to

others, such as school shootings (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008).

One of the reasons cyberbullying is such a prevalent problem is because the internet has

become an integral part of life, especially for adolescents. For teens ages 12-17, 93% go online

and 63% go online daily (Lenhart, 2010). Teens are also doing a variety of things online: 94% do

research for school assignments, 81% go to websites about movies, television shows, music

groups, or sports stars, 64% have created some kind of content on line, 62% go online to get

news, 57% have watched videos on sites like YouTube or Google Video, 55% go online to get

information about college or universities they are thinking about attending, 48% buy things

online, and 31% have looked online for health, dieting, or physical information (Lenhart, 2010).

Cellphones are one of the major ways teens are connecting and 75% of teens have one

(Lenhart, 2010). Cellphones make all the possibilities of the internet portable and accessible at

any time, which means they are connected at all times. It has been estimated that 50% of teens

with cellphones talk to friends daily and 54% send text messages daily (Lenhart, 2010).
 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-5

Cellphones also allow connecting through social media sites; in fact, 73% of teens use online

social network sites. Another problem related to cyberbullying that happens through a cell phone

(usually) is sexting; although it is technically not a form of cyberbullying, when sexual images

are shared to others it can lead to harassment and bullying (Lenhart, 2010). Teens also connect

and interact with each other online through games (Lenhart, 2010). These gaming platforms and

other online options such as email, Instant Messaging, and social networks are all used to interact

with each other. The cell phone, therefore acts as a vehicle for this connection which opens up

opportunities for bullying which allows reproducibility and uncontrollability.

The internet allows for a multitude of creativity and opportunity for cyberbullying, which

is why it has become a major problem faced by teens. It has been reported that between 9-33% of

youths, ages 10-18, experience cyberbullying (Lenhart, 2010). When broken down by various

channels, the graveness of this issue becomes clear: 15% of teens reported having private

material (IM, text, email) forwarded without permission, 13% had received threatening

messages, 13% said someone spread a rumor about them online, 6% had someone post an

embarrassing picture of them without permission, and 26% have been harassed via their cell

phones (Lenhart, 2010).

There are also characteristics that show who is more susceptible to cyberbullying. Social

network users are also more likely to report online harassment, as 39% of users have also

experienced it (Lenhart, 2010). It is also not just on social networking, but online in general, as

studies have found that almost 40% of victims and perpetrators spent at least three hours a day

online (Kowalski et al., 2014). Both perpetrators and victims also have higher levels of

depression and other psychological problems, substance abuse, delinquency/school avoidance,

 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-6

weapon carrying, weaker emotional bonds with parents, experience offline victimization, and

sexual/physical abuse (Lenhart, 2010).

Possible Solutions to Teen Cyberbullying—Changing School Climate

Schools are one of the main socializing units for children and influence their intellectual,

emotional, and behavioral development (Kasen et al, 2004). When this environment for learning

and growing becomes a negative climate, it helps breed an area in which (cyber)bullying begins.

School policies, attitudes, and behaviors of teachers, administrators, student body, and overall

atmosphere or school ethos help determine the climate of the school (Kasen et al, 2004). For

example, a high level of student-student and teacher-student conflict had significantly greater

increases in attentional, oppositional, and conduct problems, which led to risks in alcohol abuse

and criminal conviction (Kasen et al, 2004). It has also been found that students who attended

well-organized schools that emphasized learning had greater declines in oppositional, conduct,

and alcohol problems, so they were less at risk for dropping out, engaging in criminal activities,

and having anti-social personality disorders (Kasen et al, 2004). In middle school there are

specific risks; students have different teachers and are constantly moving around, so school

becomes a more impersonal and less protective place (Kasen et al, 2004). This kind of

environment opens up more possibilities for bullying, and more ways for victims to feel helpless

and alone.

It has been found that many schools have policies that deal with traditional bullying and

its consequences, but many do not have specific guidelines about cyberbullying or how to deal

with it at school (Kowalski et al, 2014). There are many ways to improve the school

environment. This includes changes in policy on disciplinary action, increased teacher support

and professional training, enhancing classroom management skills, encouraging student

 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-7

motivation, making the classroom less competitive and individual progress based, teaching about

empathy, and having authorities use fair strategies for classroom control (Kasen et al, 2004).

Cyberbullying is not limited to a specific area or region; it has no limits. However, there

is a lack of consensus in government and anti-bullying laws regarding cyberbullying (Kowalski

et al, 2014). Because of this confusion, it makes it easier to get away with it. People may be

“unsure” they are doing it, and there are no specific consequences to these types of actions so

they see no reason to stop. This also makes victims perceive that if they do tell an authority

figure they are being (cyber)bullied, nothing will be done to help them. In fact, 11% did not tell

anyone they were being cyberbullied because they did not think it would stop it (Hinduja &

Patchin, 2008). Governmental/anti-bullying laws could significantly help increase the school

environment because victims could feel safe reporting their experiences, know that something

would be done about it, and not feel like they are facing it on their own.

Thirty-six states include specific statutes addressing cyberbullying or use of electronic

communications to inflict harm on victims (Stuart-Cassel et al, 2010). The majority of the states

show active or pending bullying legislation that aim to amend existing laws, reflect new issues

related to school bullying, and how to explicitly target and respond to cyberbullying (Stuart-

Cassel et al, 2010). Although progress is growing in implementing laws in addressing

cyberbullying, many states have very different terms and definitions of it. For example,

Alabama’s law refers to cyberbullying as an “electronic act,” Missouri refers to it as

“cyberbullying/electronic communication,” and North Dakota refers to it as “technology or other

electronic media” (Stuart-Cassel et al, 2010). Because they are referred to by a myriad of

different names, they each have different definitions and characteristics.

 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-8

This means there is not a united front towards cyberbullying, and these laws that are

meant to limit cyberbullying are largely ineffective (Associated Press, 2009). The problem stems

from these laws not being enforced (Associated Press, 2009). Some schools say they keep track

of complaints and incidents but have no legal obligation to do so (Associated Press, 2009). For

example, the state of Georgia threatens to strip state funding if there are three instances of

bullying, but school officials do not do anything with complaints and no school has actually lost

funding (Associated Press, 2009).

Role of Public Opinion in Changing the Status Quo of (Cyber)bullying Laws/Policies

Public Opinion can help change the role that government should play in addressing an

issue (Hart, 2011). It has been reported that issues in which the public has a more well-defined

opinion and shows more concern for policy issues, tend to move “in harmony” (Page & Shapiro,

1983). When there is a consensus of opinion, the political system should mirror the public’s

wants in policy (Page & Shapiro, 1983). This can be seen in how there has been a great deal of

congruence between changes in public opinion and policy during the last half century with issues

in America such as abortion, civil rights, civil liberties, most foreign policies, and economic or

welfare policies (Page & Shapiro, 1983).

The relationship between opinion and policy becomes vitally important because policy

congruence is higher on salient issues than non-salient issues. When a topic is mentioned more

and more, it becomes an indicator to the public that it is important and their attention is drawn to

it, therefore making them believe that it in fact is something policy should address (Page &

Shapiro, 1983). As cyberbullying becomes a major issue for teens, with devastating

consequences and extreme outcomes, such as suicide and school shootings, it should be

introduced to the public through the news, so policies could be made to address it. People would
 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-9

begin to think of it as a critical issue, and want the government to intervene for solutions. The

government could then create a unified definition, punishment, and solutions for cyberbullying.

The Impacts of News Frames on Public Opinion

The impact of an issue greatly depends on how it is framed. The “framing of an issue”

refers to how issues are presented to the public and subtly direct attention to specific

considerations (Iyengar, 1990). These considerations affect predispositions for individual

behavior change, and support for polices to address the issue, which in this case would be

(cyber)bullying (Hart, 2011). The two frames under study for the purpose of this research are

episodic and thematic framing. Thematic framing means presenting information in general trends

or matters of public policy which are abstract and impersonal (Iyengar, 1990). Episodic framing

provides a specific case study of an issue or particular instance that focuses on an individual or

family, which is presented in a very personal way (Iyengar, 1990). These two types of framing

devices are important because the attributions of responsibility influence attitudes and behaviors

(Iyengar, 1990).

Episodic framing assigns blame assignment to the individuals who are featured (Hart,

2011). Thematic framing assigns a stronger sense of blame to societal responsibility (Iyengar,

1990). This is important because news coverage of different instances of an issue has the effect

of raising or lowering the degree to which people choose a party responsible for the issue

(Iyengar, 1990). Episodic and thematic framing therefore can then weaken or strengthen public

support for the specific issue (Iyengar, 1990). An episodic news frame, therefore, influences

blame as more of a personal problem and the blame of a thematic frame to a more external

problem. The problem then has different entities, and it changes how the solution of the problem

should be addressed.
 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-10

These two types of framing effects alter the perception of the cause of the problem and

how it relates to the solution for it. This study measures whether episodic and thematic news

frames influence blame assignment to individuals or the school environment, and if people will

be more likely to support government funding for school programs that would prevent

cyberbullying. These perceptions of cause then determine whether government intervention is at

all needed. As mentioned before, people who are exposed to a thematic news frame are more

likely to blame societal and structure inequality factors, than individuals (Iyengar, 1990). If

participants are exposed to a thematic news frame, they would be more likely to blame the

school environment for cyberbullying and support government intervention. The public would

then support outside or government intervention. This would then allow schools to get funding

for programs that could prevent cyberbullying. Laws and policies could also be specifically put

into place. However, if participants are exposed to an episodic frame, they would be more likely

to think that the cyberbullying was a personal problem and that individuals would need to change

their attitudes and behaviors. In this case, the public would not support government intervention.

Solutions would not include government regulation or intervention but would be dealt with by

having parents monitor their children’s internet use, for example. The three hypotheses for this

study were:

• H1a: Compared to people exposed to news with an episodic frame, those watching news

with a thematic frame will be more likely to blame the school environment for the

problem of teen cyberbullying.

• H1b: Compared to people exposed to news with an episodic frame, those watching news

with a thematic frame will be less likely to blame individuals for the problem of teen

cyberbullying.
 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-11

• H2: Compared to people exposed to news with an episodic frame, those watching news

with a thematic frame will be more likely to support government funding to school

programs that help prevent teen cyberbullying.

Method

To test the hypotheses, an experiment was conducted. There were two conditions in the

study, which were two news frames: episodic and thematic. Subjects watched two videos and

then answered a questionnaire after. Half of the subjects watched one video that framed the news

story thematically to measure the effects of blame assignment and opinion on funding. The other

half of the subjects watched a video episodically framed, to also measure the effects of blame

assignment and opinion on funding.

Material Two videos were used in the study. The thematically framed video was around

ten minutes long. This video began with the story of a boy named Jeffery, who was cyberbullied

and ended up committing suicide because of it. The video then focuses on Dr. Jaana Juvonen and

her study of why (cyber)bullying happens and what can be done about it, specifically in schools

by helping teachers and students understand the emotional impact of (cyber)bullying and

responding to it more effectively. The second video, the episodic video was around three

minutes. It focused on a girl, Rebecca, who was cyberbullied and ended up committing suicide

because of it. The video shows how cyberbullying impacted her, the investigation, and the

reactions from her family.

Participants There were a total of 18 subjects. Participants were recruited through email

invites and over social media through Facebook and Twitter. Most participants did the

questionnaire through social media. The age of the participants was measured through ranges:

50% were aged 18-24, 11.11% were aged 25-30, 5.56% were aged 31-34, 0% were aged 35-40,
 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-12

5.56% were aged 41-44, and 27.78% were aged 45 or 45+. The female percentage of participants

was measured at 66.67%, male percentage was 27.78%, and other was measured at 5.56%.

Procedure After the participants were recruited, they completed a questionnaire. They

first read the introduction to the survey which explained that the questionnaire was voluntary and

thanked them for their participation. Subjects were then randomly assigned to watch either

videos that focused on a specific victim of cyberbullying or that dealt with the suicide of a boy

which tied into why (cyber)bullying is such a problem and ways to better respond to it. After the

subjects watched the videos, they then answered eleven questions that measured assignment of

blame to schools and individuals, demographics, and the importance of cyberbullying and

preventing it.

Measures Blame assignment was captured by measuring the extent of the school

environment (administration, teacher, etc.) and the individual (perpetrator, parents, bystander)

impact. Specifically, subjects were asked how responsible is each of the following parties for

preventing teen cyberbullying: school administrators (M= 3.67; SD= .82), teachers (M=3.94;

SD= .73), parents (M=4.29; SD=.67) and bystanders (M=3.71; SD=.75). These were measured on

a five-point scale. Participants were also asked to what extent the perpetrator was responsible.

The question was measured on a four-point scale (M=3.72; SD=.45).

The questionnaire then asked how participants felt towards funding cyberbullying

prevention programs. Participants were specifically asked to answer “yes” or “no” if they would

be willing to pay more in taxes to fund cyberbullying prevention programs in your local schools,

and if they believed an increase in school-based cyberbullying prevention programs would be

effective in reducing the occurrence of bullying. Sixty-one-point eleven percent of participants

answered “yes” to the question, while 38.89% answered “no.”

 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-13

Analytical Procedure To test the effects of the two news frames on the outcome

variables under study, participants’ responses were indicated by the mean percentage and were

then compared across two experimental conditions.

Results

The goal of this questionnaire was to test the effects of news frames and how they

influenced blame assignment and opinion. The two news frames that were depicted were

thematic and episodic. It was then measured how the two frames impacted the blame assignment

on the school environment or individuals, and if it would impact their opinion on government

funding for school programs to prevent against cyberbullying.

The first hypothesis was: compared to people exposed to news with an episodic frame,

those watching news with a thematic frame will be more likely to blame the school environment

for the problem of teen cyberbullying. When participants were exposed to the thematic video, the

mean score assigned to blaming school administrators was 3.67, while for teachers the mean

score was 4.00. When participants were exposed to the episodic video, the mean assigned to

blaming school administrators was 3.67 and for teachers it was 3.88. The scores were very

similar, although the mean score for teachers did decrease when exposed to the episodic frame.

Therefore, the results only supported the hypothesis when measuring the blame on the teacher.

This indicates mixed findings in support of the hypothesis. This goes against what Iyengar found

in his study of episodic and thematic framing effects, in which the thematic frame “engenders a

stronger sense of societal responsibility” (Iyengar, 1990).

The second hypothesis was: compared to people exposed to news with an episodic frame,

those watching news with a thematic frame will be less likely to blame individuals for the

problem of teen cyberbullying. When participants were exposed to the thematic frame, the mean
 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-14

score assigned to blaming parents was 4.22, while the mean score for blaming bystanders was

3.44, and for perpetrators was 3.78. When participants were exposed to the episodic frame, the

mean score for blaming parents was 4.38, for bystanders the mean score was 4.00, and for

perpetrators it was 3.67. The findings regarding parents and bystanders were consistent with the

hypothesis, but when looking at the findings for the perpetrators, they were not. The data then,

provides mixed support for the hypothesis. This also goes against previous research and what

Iyengar found in his study, which was that “the episodic frame engenders a stronger sense of

individual responsibility” (Iyengar, 1990).

The third hypothesis was: compared to people exposed to news with an episodic frame,

those watching news with a thematic frame will be more likely to support government funding to

school programs that help prevent teen cyberbullying. When participants were exposed to the

thematic frame, it was measured that 77.78% said yes and supported government funding to

school programs to help prevent teen cyberbullying, while it was measured that 22.2% said no

and did not support government funding. When participants were exposed to the episodic frame,

it was measured that 44.4% said yes and supported government funding to school programs to

help prevent teen cyberbullying, while it was measured that 55.56% said no and did not support

it. These findings support the H2 hypothesis. They show and prove that when exposed to media

that is framed thematically, people will be significantly likely to be persuaded and support

government funding in helping solve the problem. This also supports existing research that states

the people’s increased acknowledgement of responsibility to societal factors increased their

support of government policies to address the respective public issue (Hart, 2011).

Conclusion
 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-15

The results of the study found mixed results for both notions predicted about the intended

effects of episodic and thematic frames on blame assignment. There was no conclusive support

to prove the notion that compared to people exposed to news with an episodic frame, those

watching news with a thematic frame will be more likely to blame the school environment for

the problem of teen cyberbullying. Although there was slightly more evidence for the hypothesis

that compared to people exposed to news with an episodic frame, those watching news with a

thematic frame will be less likely to blame individuals for the problem of teen cyberbullying, the

scores were still too similar. The study did support the notion that compared to people exposed to

news with an episodic frame, those watching news with a thematic frame will be more likely to

support government funding to school programs that help prevent teen cyberbullying.

The study did, however, have several limitations that should be kept in mind while

analyzing the results. The sample of subjects was not representative; it was a convenience

sample and not random. There were only 18 subjects, and many of them were recruited through

email invites sent by myself, or completed through social media. The sample was also not

diverse as the two main age ranges that participated were participants between the ages of 18-24

(50%) and 45-45+ (27.78%). There were also more women (66.67%) than men (27.78%), who

participated in the study which may have some effect on the results as well.

Because the impact of episodic and thematic news frames on blame assignment of the

school environment or individuals resulted in mixed findings, not much can be concluded as to

how news frames influence blame assignment. Some conclusive evidence does show the

intended notion that when people are exposed to a thematic news frame, they will be less likely

to blame individuals for teen cyberbullying. However, the data only slightly proves this

hypothesis and the limitations of the study must be considered. The results of the study do
 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-16

indicate the perceptions of the importance of the public’s opinion on government intervention in

the problem with cyberbullying, when they were exposed to a thematic news frame. This is

important because it shows an insight into the public perception of their relationship with the

government: that they believe the government does take into account their opinions [a populist

view] and how effective they believe its intervention can be. This also portrays how the public

believes that cyberbullying requires an external source for a solution. It also reinforces the idea

that news organizations could potentially control or set the agenda for which topics the public

deems important, and which ones the government should intercede on.

The directions of future research should be based on first and foremost, a larger and more

representative sample of the American public. With a more random and representative sample,

the specific effects of episodic and thematic news frames and their impact on blame assignment

of individuals or school environment could be fully measured. Building off this direction, it

could then be more accurately measured to see if being exposed to certain news frames, would in

fact make the public more likely to support government funding for programs to prevent

cyberbullying. Studies should also take a closer look at the regulations and policies that schools

have in place towards (cyber)bullying, to see if more precautions are being taken, and if these

regulations are actually being enforced. Studies could focus on whether one news frame or the

other is more effective, but also measure the trend of why news organizations chose these certain

frames. This could reveal more about people’s understanding of cyberbullying and the possible

solution of government intervention.

 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-17

Bibliography

Associated Press. (2009, Sept, 14). School bullying laws give scant protection. Retrieved from

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-09-14-bullying-laws_N.htm

Hart, P. (2011, Mar.) One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change

frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Retrieved from

http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2008, Feb. 1) Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors

related to offending and victimization. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620701457816

Iyengar, S. (1990, Mar.) Framing responsibility for political issues: the case of poverty.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/586283?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Kasen, S., Berenson, K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. (2004). The effects of school climate on

changes in aggressive and other behaviors related to bullying. Retrieved from

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-00070-010

Kowalski, R., Giumetti, Gary., Lattanner, M., & Schroeder, A. (2014, Feb.) Bullying in the

digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth.

Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260151324_Bullying_in_the_Digital_Age_A_

Critical_Review_and_Meta-

Analysis_of_Cyberbullying_Research_Among_Youth?enrichId=rgreq-

979401c7a0e036a2bacb2391aeeed2d7-

XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2MDE1MTMyNDtBUzoxNjU5Nzk2NTcwO
 Running Head: NEWS FRAMES AND PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT CYBERBULLYING-18

DkwNDBAMTQxNjU4NDA0MjgxMQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPd

Lenhart, A. (2010, May 6). Cyberbullying: what the research is telling us… Retrieved from

https://www.pewinternet.org/2010/05/06/cyberbullying-2010-what-the-research-tells-us/

Page B. & Shapiro R. (1983, Mar.) Effects of public opinion on policy. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1956018?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Stuart-Cassel, V., Bell, A., & Springer, J. (2010). Analysis of state bullying laws and policies.

Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bullying/state-bullying-laws/state-

bullying-laws.pdf