Cyberbullying Labels Behaviours and Defi PDF

Australian Journal of
Guidance and r 201

0
mbe
Counselling Num
ber
2 Dece
me 2
0
Volu
G
&Contents
C Editorial ________________________________________________________iii
Marilyn Campbell
Articles
Cyberbullying: Labels, Behaviours and Definition in Three European ______129
Countries
Annalaura Nocentini, Juan Calmaestra, Anja Schultze-Krumbholz, Herbert Scheithauer, Rosario Ortega
and Ersilia Menesini
Cyber-Aggression: Definition and Concept of Cyberbullying______________143

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg
Addressing Cyberbullying in School Using the Quality Circle Approach ____157

Simone Paul, Peter K. Smith, and Herbert H. Blumberg
Analysis of Experts’ and Trainers’ Views on Cyberbullying ______________169

Thomas Jäger, João Amado, Armanda Matos and Teresa Pessoa
Cyberbullying at School: Good Practice and Legal Aspects in the__________182

United Kingdom
Magdalena Marczak and Iain Coyne
Cyber-Victimisation: The Association Between Help-Seeking ____________194

Behaviours and Self-Reported Emotional Symptoms in Australia
and Austria
Julian J. Dooley, Petra Gradinger, Dagmar Strohmeier, Donna Cross, and Christiane Spiel
Cyberbullying as an Act of Revenge? ________________________________210

Andreas König, Mario Gollwitzer and Georges Steffgen
Cyberbullying Prevention: One Primary School’s Approach ______________225

Donna Tangen and Marilyn Campbell
Book Reviews ________________________________________________235

Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling is published
twice a year and issued to all financial ordinary, institutional
and student members of the AGCA.
Copyright in all articles rests with authors. A limited set of

permanent copyright permission licences has been granted by
authors to the publisher to allow publication in this journal.
Rights in the reproduction and distribution of the published
articles as visual facsimiles of this published edition by either
mechanical or digital means is controlled by the publisher and
any distributions by CAL for copying of an author’s work
therefore are due to the publisher and AGCA only. Published for the AGCA by
All other rights in the words contained in this edition are con- AUSTRALIAN ACADEMIC PRESS
trolled by the authors. Authors are therefore free to adapt 32 Jeays Street, Bowen Hills,
and/or republish the words making up their own articles Qld 4006, Australia.
either online or in print. www.australianacademicpress.com.au
AL
G
RI
&C
O
IT
ED
Editorial
Research on Cyberbullying
Welcome to this special edition on cyberbullying. The articles in the issue are from
early career and established researchers from Australia and Europe who attended a
training school entitled ‘From Research to Policy and Practice: Innovation and
Sustainability in Cyberbullying Prevention’, held in Melbourne in April 2010. The
training school was funded by COST, an intergovernmental framework for
European Cooperation in Science and Technology and the Australian Government
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR). The training
school was the first COST-funded school outside of Europe. This was also the first
training school in Australia for early researchers on cyberbullying as it is a concept
that Australia has not yet widely embraced. It provided an opportunity for early
career researchers (usually PhD and post-doc students) to learn from experienced
researchers in a particular field, as well as from each other. For the Europeans, the
training school gave advanced standing or credit towards their higher degree. It was
an opportunity for early career researchers to network as well as address, along
with other researchers, the main challenges facing the field of cyberbullying. This
opportunity would not have occurred without the support of the Australian govern-
ment in funding both Australian faculty and Australian early career researchers.
The field of cyberbullying is relatively new and there are many research difficul-
ties, such as agreement on definition, measurement issues and the most productive
methodologies for this area. Although the definition of cyberbullying is still not uni-
versally agreed upon, most researchers concur it is ‘an aggressive, intentional act
carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly
and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself’ (Smith,
Mahdavi, Carvalho, & Tippett, 2006, p.1). There is, however, still controversy
about the necessity for repetition in cyberbullying because of the medium’s ability
iii
▲
for the abuse to go viral. There is also debate about the concept of imbalance of
power in this form of bullying. Of course, until the definition is agreed upon, it is
difficult for research to be compared, especially the prevalence. Some researchers
have asked if students have ever received a nasty text message, and labelled this as
bullying, which it is clearly not. However, measurement issues, such as the benefits
of including a definition in cyberbullying surveys, the different frequencies of
cyberbullying (Every day, Every month or more often) and the time period reported
(In the last month, In the past year, Ever) make comparison of studies extremely
difficult. The use of methodologies other than surveys also needs to be explored in
relation to this research area. Of course, what practitioners want to know is how to
prevent cyberbullying and how to intervene. This involves all the aforementioned
problems that need to be resolved. However, as a society we want quick answers
and a quick fix. There are researchers worldwide who are now trialling intervention
programs for cyberbullying, but we need to be sure that these interventions are evi-
dence-based for positive outcomes before widespread implementation.
▲
Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. iii–iv
Editorial
The first article in this issue is by Annalaura Nocentini, Juan Calmaestra, Anja
Schultze-Krumbholz, Herbert Scheithauer, Rosario Ortega and Ersilia Menesini.
Their research examined students’ perception of the term used to label cyberbully-
ing, together with the perception of different forms and behaviours and of the cri-
teria used for its definition in three different European countries: Italy, Spain and
Germany. The following paper by Dorothy Grigg also looks at the definition of
cyberbullying by identifying words, terms and definitions used for internet and
mobile phone negative acts in both young people and adults in the United
Kingdom. Following is an article by Simone Paul using the Quality Circle approach
to discuss cyberbullying in a high school.
The next set of articles examines some of the issues in cyberbullying in an educa-
tional setting. Thomas Jäger, João Amado, Armanda Matos & Teresa Pessoa
obtained the views, not of students, but of experts and trainers on the issues of
cyberbullying. The article by Magdalena Marczak and Iain Coyne considers the
legal issues associated with cyberbullying in schools in the United Kingdom. A com-
parison between Australian and Austrian help-seeking behaviours of cyber-victims
and traditional victims is presented by Julian Dooley, Petra Gradinger, Therese
Shaw, Donna Cross, Dagmar Strohmeier and Christiane Spiel. It was found that in
both countries, students who were cyber-victimised compared to those who were
victimised by more traditional methods were less likely to seek help. Andreas
König, Mario Gollwitzer and Georges Steffgen examined the role of revenge and
retaliation as motives to engage in acts of cyberbullying and the implications this
has for prevention and intervention programs in the following paper. The last
article reports on a study by Donna Tangen and Marilyn Campbell comparing the
frequency of ‘traditional’ and cyberbullying of students who had been exposed to
Philosophy for Children for seven years of their primary schooling with a matched
sample of students who had no such exposure.
I hope you enjoy reading this issue and find it helpful in your work.
Cyberbullying knows no boundaries and is an international problem. This special
edition of the journal represents a significant outcome from members of the train-
ing school. It is gratifying therefore that international researchers are actively col-
laborating to attend to matters of prevention and intervention.
iv
▲
Marilyn Campbell, PhD

Editor
Cyberbullying:
Labels, Behaviours and Definition
in Three European Countries
Annalaura Nocentini,1 Juan Calmaestra,2 Anja Schultze-Krumbholz,3 Herbert Scheithauer,3
Rosario Ortega2 and Ersilia Menesini1
1 Department of Psychology, University of Florence, Italy
2 Department of Psychology, University of Cordoba, Spain
3 Department of Educational Science and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
T
his study aims to examine students’ perception of the term used to label cyberbully-
ing, the perception of different forms and behaviours (written, verbal,
visual, exclusion and impersonation) and the perception of the criteria
used for its definition (imbalance of power, intention, repetition,
anonymity and publicity) in three different European countries: Italy,
Spain and Germany. Seventy adolescents took part in nine focus
groups, using the same interview guide across countries. Thematic
analysis focused on three main themes related to: (1) the term used to
label cyberbullying, (2) the different behaviours representing cyberbul-
lying, (3) the three traditional criteria of intentionality, imbalance of
power and repetition and the two new criteria of anonymity and public-
ity. Results showed that the best word to label cyberbullying is ‘cyber-
mobbing’ (in Germany), ‘virtual’ or ‘cyber-bullying’ (in Italy), and
‘harassment’ or ‘harassment via Internet or mobile phone’ (in Spain).
Impersonation cannot be considered wholly as cyberbullying behaviour.
In order to define a cyberbullying act, adolescents need to know
whether the action was done intentionally to harm the victim, the effect
on the victim and the repetition of the action (this latter criterion evalu-
ated simultaneously with the publicity). Information about the
129
▲
anonymity and publicity contributes to better understand the nature

and the severity of the act, the potential effects on the victim and the
intentionality.
■ KEYWORDS: cyberbullying, cross-cultural, focus groups, Spain, Italy,
Germany
Since the year 2000, a new form of aggression using modern information and com-
munication technologies has attracted large attention in the media cross-nationally.
Led by Anglophone countries (e.g., Australia, United Kingdom and the United
Address for Correspondence: Annalaura Nocentini, Department of Psychology, Via S. Salvi, 12 – Padiglione 26,
50135 Firenze, Italia. E-mail: annalaura.nocentini@virgilio.it
▲

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 129–142
Annalaura Nocentini et al.
States), cyberbullying research quickly spread to many countries, indicating the

need for a common understanding of the phenomenon. However, cross-national
studies require an investigation of terms and understanding in different countries
and cultures; often the perspective of the subjects of this research field is lacking
(cf. Spears, Slee, Owens, & Johnson, 2009). It may be that students do not use the
same terms and definitions as experts and researchers do for what is happening to
them (cf. Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefooghe, 2002). Furthermore, each specific
language might have different labels for this phenomenon (Smith et al., 2002; Slee,
Ma, & Taki, 2003). Therefore, there needs to be a focus on the target groups’
understanding of cyberbullying.
The Label ‘Cyberbullying’
Problems related to the term used to label the phenomenon of cyberbullying in dif-
ferent languages can be derived from the literature of bullying. The word ‘bullying’
is not easy to translate into different languages, and different terms are used both
in any one language and in different languages (Smith et al., 2002); for example,
the term ‘mobbing’ is common in Scandinavian and Germanic languages. Words
for bullying are less familiar in the Latin languages, although recently they have
been used more often. In Italy and Spain a plurality of terms exists, all of them
connoting a specific aspect of bullying (Fonzi, Genta, Menesini, Bacchini, Bonino,
& Constabile, 1999; Ortega, Del Rey, & Mora-Merchán, 2001). Furthermore, the
term ‘cyber’ can be affected by the same difficulties. For example, the English word
‘cyber’ is listed in the Italian dictionary, connoting the use of electronic means and
virtual community (Garzanti, 2007). In Spain, the word ‘ciber’ is listed in the dic-
tionary and refers to computer networks (RAE, 2010). In Germany, ‘cyber’ refers to
computer-generated artificial virtual surroundings that may be perceived as real
(Langenscheidt, 2010).
Starting from these considerations we might ask: which is the best term used by
adolescents to label cyberbullying and is it the same across countries?
Different Cyberbullying Behaviours
The complexity and the accelerated evolution of new technologies create some dif-
ficulties in defining which are the specific cyberbullying behaviours. Different clas-
130 sifications have been proposed: for example covert and overt cyberbullying (Spears
▲
et al., 2009), cyberbullying by Phone or by PC (Smith et al., 2008), traditional bul-

lying in a new context, relational cyberbullying and technically sophisticated cyber-
bullying (Schultze- Krumbholz & Scheithauer, 2009), cyberbullying through
specific behaviours: flaming, harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing, trick-
ery, exclusion and cyberstalking (Willard, 2007). Trying to summarise these eight
last categories in typologies of behaviour, four main types can be identified:
written-verbal behaviours behaviours (phone calls, text messages, e-mails, instant
messaging, chats, blogs, social networking communities, websites), visual behav-
iours (posting, sending or sharing compromising pictures and videos through
mobile phone or internet), exclusion (purposefully excluding someone from an
online group) and impersonation (stealing and revealing personal information,
using another person’s name and account). According to these typologies, we might
ask if adolescents perceived all these types of behaviours as cyberbullying and how
severe they are.
Cyberbullying: Labels, Behaviours and Definition in Three European Countries
The Definition of Cyberbullying

Early studies of cyberbullying used their own definition of this phenomenon, most
of them developed in a top-down approach and based on the definition of tradi-
tional bullying proposed by Dan Olweus (1993). A small number of them have
become widely accepted and are cited regularly in new publications (see Belsey,
2005; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell &
Tippett, 2008; Willard, 2003). These definitions highlight some fundamental
aspects of (cyber)bullying: (intentional) harm, repetition over time and a power
imbalance between victim and perpetrator(s). Recently, these definitions have
become subject of a controversy among experts and researchers: it is still unclear
whether these criteria are applicable to cyberbullying. Furthermore, new criteria
have been proposed, such as anonymity and publicity (e.g., Menesini & Nocentini,
2009a; Slonje & Smith, 2008).
Intention. It has been argued that due to the indirect nature of cyberbullying it is
very difficult to identify the intention of this behaviour (Menesini & Nocentini,
2009b). The question also arises as to whether intention is truly necessary to cause
harm, or whether unintentional acts — meaning the students are not aware of the
harm caused — have the same effect on the victim, thus underlining that only the
impact on or the perpetrator’s intention perceived by the victim should be regarded
as a criterion (COST Training School, personal communication, April 12, 2010).
Repetition. A common argument against the use of the criterion of repetition is the
fact that posting contents online in itself constitutes repetition as they can be
viewed and forwarded repeatedly (cf., Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008;
Menesini & Nocentini, 2009a). Also, online contents are often still accessible years
after the original incident. This way, a single act of cyberbullying can lead to count-
less incidents of victimisation (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009).
Power imbalance. The inability of a victim to force providers to delete harmful con-
tents, higher levels of media literacy or a higher social status of the perpetrator
within a virtual community might be interpreted as a power imbalance (e.g., Hinduja
& Patchin, 2007; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009a). Wolak and colleagues (2007) con-
131
▲
tradict this criterion and state that the victim is rather in a more powerful situation
than it would be in traditional bullying because they have the possibility to terminate
negative interactions easily. However, they allow that this might not be given con-
cerning the posting of information or negative comments in ‘public’ virtual places
(e.g., websites).
New cyber-specific criteria: anonymity and publicity. Anonymity that occurs when the
victim does not know the identity of the bully may increase feelings of frustration
and powerlessness (e.g., Dooley et al., 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008) and may
reduce the need for power imbalance as a criterion (Fauman, 2008). Publicity — as
opposed to private exchanges between two parties — characterises the acts where a
large audience is involved (i.e., e-mails, SMSs, MMSs sent to a large audience, or
offences occurring in a public forum, or videos and pictures distributed via social
networking). In previous studies, students declared cyberbullying acts including a
large and public audience as the most severe type of cyberbullying (Slonje & Smith,
Volume 20 Number 2 2010

▲

2008). Incorporating these two criteria (anonymity and publicity) may represent
cyberbullying more adequately than previous common definitions.
Aims of the Present Study

The present study examines students’ perception of the term used to label cyberbul-
lying, the perception of different forms (written–verbal, visual, exclusion and
impersonation) and the perception of the criteria used for the definition (imbalance
of power, intention, repetition, anonymity and publicity) in three different
European countries: Italy, Spain and Germany. The first aim was to identify the
most suitable term to describe cyberbullying behaviour, which can then be used by
researchers and practitioners to assess cyberbullying who are in contact with ado-
lescents (e.g., professors, educators, counsellors, and so on). Second, we wanted to
examine if the four typologies of behaviours proposed all represent the cyberbully-
ing construct. Finally, the adequacy of the different criteria of the cyberbullying
definition was examined, including the three conventional criteria of traditional
bullying and the new ones related to the specific cyber context.
Method
Participants
Overall, 70 adolescents in nine focus groups took part in the study. Twenty-seven
adolescents were part of the Italian study, 23 participated in the study in Spain and
20 participants were recruited in Germany (for further sample details see Table 1).
Schools were selected using convenience sampling.
Materials and Procedures
Youths were invited to participate in a group discussion. The school staff was
instructed to select students who they thought would be comfortable in a group
setting. For all the students, their parents’ permission was requested. Nine focus
groups were held using the same interview guide across countries and they were
132
▲
conducted in the native language of the participants. The groups were conducted at
the students’ schools or a youth club, respectively; the moderator and the recorder
TA B LE 1
Sample Characteristics
Italy Spain Germany
Total 27 23 20
Gender distribution 20 boys, 7 girls 9 boys, 14 girls 11 boys, 9 girls
Age 16–18 12–13, 16 11–12, 12–13, 13–16
Number of focus groups 4 2 3
Recruited from School School Schools,
youth club
City Florence and Lucca Cordoba Berlin
were the only adults present during the group discussion, except in the oldest
German focus group, which was assisted by the person in charge of the youth club.
Moderators and recorders were active in the field of psychology as psychology
researchers, young graduate psychologists or psychology students. In conducting
the focus groups, the guidelines of Krueger (1994) and Morgan (1988) were fol-
lowed. A moderator and a recorder greeted the adolescents as they arrived to par-
ticipate (Welcome). The moderator informed the youths about the purpose of and
procedure for conducting focus group (Our topic is ...). To facilitate the focus
groups, the moderator followed an interview guide that considered the following
sections: Opening Questions (participants presentations), Introductory Questions
(general introduction of the topic without using the term Cyberbullying), Key
Questions (see below), Ending Questions (leave students to discuss other topics if
they want to), Summary (the moderator try to give a summary) and Thanks/
Dismissal (thank students for their help and participation).
The structure of the focus groups followed three key questions: (1) Which is the
best term to label four scenarios describing different situations or behaviours that
could be considered cyberbullying or not? (see Table 3 for the scenarios descrip-
tion). For this purpose, four posters were presented describing four scenarios. For
each scenario we asked students to write or say the word considered as the best
term to label the scenario. (2) Do all the four typologies of behaviours represent
the cyberbullying construct? Referring to the four posters, we asked adolescents if
any differences existed between the scenarios, if one behaviour is more severe as
compared to the others, and if we can speak about different forms of cyberbully-
ing. (3) Are the three criteria for defining bullying (intentionality, imbalance of
power and repetition) relevant in order to define a cyberbullying act? Are the two
additional specific criteria for cyberbullying (publicity and anonymity) relevant in
order to define a cyberbullying act? This was investigated using one control sce-
nario (where no criteria were present) and five experimental scenarios, one for each
criterion (for the definition of criteria see Table 2). After the presentation of the
two scenarios for each criterion (i.e., for the criterion of intentionality: ‘Control:
M. sent a nasty text message to C. as a joke’; ‘Experimental: M. sent a nasty text
message to C. intentionally to hurt C’) we asked participants to discuss the differ- 133
▲
ence between them. Some of the questions proposed were: ‘Is there any difference
between the two scenarios? If yes, what are the differences? Are both scenarios
good examples of cyberbullying? Why?’
TA B LE 2
Definition of the Criteria Used in the Control and Experimental Condition
Criterion Control condition Experimental condition
Intentionality ‘As a joke’ ‘To hurt him/her’

Imbalance of power The victim ‘didn’t care’ The victim ‘was upset and didn’t know how to defend himself/herself’
Repetition ‘Last month’ ‘Every week for a month’
Publicity Sending only to the victim Sending the message ‘to other people to see’
Anonymity ‘A familiar boy/girl’ ‘Using an anonymous number’ and ‘who didn’t know him/her personally’

▲

All focus groups were audiotaped and lasted between 40 and 90 minutes,
depending on age and participants’ concentration. The audiotapes were transcribed
verbatim and the content of the text was coded in relation to the key questions in
the interview guide (Morgan, 1988). The report for each focus group was prepared
in a question-by-question format using amplifying quotes and a descriptive
summary. These coded statements were then compiled under general headings or
themes (e.g., adolescents’ term for each scenario): results by categories of individ-
ual focus groups were compared and contrasted. The main themes and quotes were
edited and summarised, reducing the transcripts to a more manageable size. We
selected the most descriptive quotes for each question, capturing the essence of the
conversation.
Results
Theme 1: The Label
Results will be presented separately for the four different scenarios. The specific
terms used in each country, including the words in the original language, can be
found in Table 3. Excerpts from the transcripts translated in English are included
to illustrate students’ perceptions and reasoning in the adolescents’ words.
Written-verbal behaviours. Some of the terms used for this behaviour in Italy
referred to more general constructs, such as abuse, stalking and psychological vio-
lence, whereas others described more specific behaviours, such as offences, threat
and blackmail. ‘Abuse’ was used to stress the repetition across time, while ‘stalk-
ing’ emphasised the persecuting nature of the behaviour. Psychological violence
was used to underline the indirect nature of aggressive behaviour, particularly to
exclude physical behaviour. In Spain, the majority of adolescents called this behav-
iour ‘harassment’. However, there were age differences when for younger students
the terms ‘nuisance’, and for older students ‘psychological damage’ or ‘abuse’,
seemed to be more relevant. The difference between harassment and nuisance lies
of the frequency of the behaviours: harassment is more frequent than nuisance.
Students in all three countries mentioned the label ‘bullying’ for this behaviour. In
134
▲
Germany, it was the first word that came to mind, followed by harassment and
‘knocking’ someone. Spanish adolescents mentioned that they had received school
sessions about bullying during the previous school year. They also referred to TV
programs and newspapers about the topic, as did the German participants later on
in the discussion. However, the Spanish participants could not agree on the exact
meaning of the term ‘bullying’. In contrast to the other countries, German partici-
pants emphasised the emotional level of the behaviour in friendships by proposing
terms such as ‘backstabbing’, ‘vicious’, ‘dishonest’ and ‘upsetting’.
It is bullying when someone sends a message to another person to ruin him. (Italy)
Bullying is a kind of harassment, like the abuse against women: the first is harass-
ment between peers, the second one is harassment against women. (Spain)
You probably hurt others with it. (Germany)
Visual behaviours. Apart from some of the previously used terms, Italian adolescents
also mentioned privacy violation, stressing the relevance of using other people’s pic-
TA B LE 3
Examples of the Four Different Behaviours (Written–Verbal, Visual, Impersonation and Exclusion) and
Terms Used for Each Scenario — English and Original Language Words
Scenarios Italy Spain Germany
Sending nasty Aggressive behaviour Harassment (acoso), Bullying (mobbing),

text messages’ (comportamento aggressivo), psychological damage To knock someone
written–verbal) psychological violence (daño psicológico), (runtermachen),
(violenza psicologica), psychological abuse harassment (Belästigung),
offences (offese), (maltrato psicológico), Back-stabbing (hinterhältig)
Abuse (abuso), Evil (maldad),
Bullying (bullismo) Bullying (bullying),
stalking (stalking), nuisance (incómodo/fastidio)
Threat (minaccia),
blackmail (ricatto/blackmail)
‘Sending a Blackmail Violation of personal ‘Photing’,

compromising (ricatto/blackmail), image/intimacy Bullying (Mobbing),
photo’ threat (minaccia), (violaciòn de la imagen harassment (Belästigung),
(visual) bullying (bullismo), personal e intimidad), Public humiliation
psychological violence harassment (acoso), (öffentliche Demütigung)
(violenza psicologica), harm (hacer daño),
abuse (abuso), offense (ofensa),
Privacy violation cruelty (crueldad)
(violazione di privacy),
Virtual bullying
(bullismo virtuale)
‘Get access to Privacy violation Privacy violation Humiliation (Demütigung),

password or (violazione di privacy), (privacy/right violation), Hacking (Hacking),
personal information identity theft crime (delito), revenge (Rache),
and use them’ (furto di identità) betrayal (traición), psychological hurt
(impersonation) lack of respect (seelische Verletzung),
(falta de respeto) theft (klauen)
‘Take off from the Exclusion (esclusione), Exclusion (exclusión), Knock someone (runtermachen),
online group’ isolation (isolamento) contempt (desprecio), Put someone down
(exclusion) neglect (marginación), (fertigmachen),
discrimination Bullying (mobbing),
(discriminación), dissing (dissen),
evil (maldad), cyberbullying ,
teasing (fastidiar), (cyber-mobbing)
anguish (angustiar), Exclusion
bullying (bullying) (ausgeschlossenwerden)
135
▲
tures or images. The term ‘virtual bullying’ was spontaneously proposed in order to
differentiate bullying across contexts. Spanish participants also stressed the violation
of the personal image or intimacy, with both having the same meaning. The intention
to harm the victim was a very important aspect for their definition. The younger
Spanish students also proposed harassment, as did the German participants. Further,
German students labelled the behaviour bullying and also public humiliation, putting
their focus not on the intention, but rather on the effect, as compared to the Spanish
participants. The German students even created a new word for this: ‘photing’,
which represents a mixture of mobbing (the German term for bullying) and photos.
Virtual because you don’t show your own identity using these electronic means.
(Italy).
Impersonation. In all three countries, impersonality behaviour was considered

legally relevant or even a crime, such as theft when using someone’s password to

▲

steal money (Germany) or identity theft more generally (Italy). Both Italians and
Spanish specifically labelled the behaviour as privacy violation. Further, Spanish
and German adolescents pointed out the aspect of betrayal when the act was com-
mitted by friends. One German group also mentioned an overlap with the visual
scenario as having access to someone’s password also gives the person access to
photos, videos and personal secrets.
It is a betrayal: it is not a crime but hurt. (Spain)
Exclusion. All participants in all countries labelled this behaviour as exclusion or

isolation. Additional terms referred to the victim’s feelings such as neglect, con-
tempt and discrimination in Spain, and knocking someone, putting someone down
and ‘dissing’ in Germany. The Spanish participants also included intentionality in
their description. In Germany this was the only scenario that specifically led to the
term ‘cyberbullying’. One German group made a concrete reference to an aware-
ness-raising campaign sponsored by the online-initiative ‘Klicksafe’ (European
Union) that regularly broadcasts a television advertisement against cyberbullying
on German television.
Theme 2: Typologies of Behaviours
When asked directly whether all the four scenarios represent cyberbullying behav-
iours (written–verbal, visual, exclusion and impersonation), all the Italian adoles-
cents considered the visual and the written–verbal behaviours as forms of
cyberbullying, but there was more disagreement about impersonation and exclu-
sion. Spanish students considered all behaviours as bullying. Although they didn’t
consider each scenario exactly the same, they used the same word to summarise all
behaviours. German participants considered that impersonation does not actually
constitute cyberbullying, but rather a criminal act like theft.
When participants were asked about the severity of each scenario in relation to
the others, all adolescents in all countries declared the visual as the most serious
behaviour. However, some cultural differences emerged, especially between Italy
and the other two countries. Spain and Germany considered the visual and the
impersonation scenarios as the most severe, whereas in Italy the visual and
written–verbal behaviours were considered the most severe.
136
▲
Theme 3: The Three Traditional Criteria of Bullying and the Two Additional Criteria
for Cyberbullying
Imbalance of power. As became evident from the discussion in all three countries, the
imbalance of power cannot be viewed independently of the intent to harm.
However, all participants agreed that if the victim is affected by the behaviour then
the behaviour constitutes bullying. The experimental condition may not be well
chosen though, as Italian adolescents pointed out that there is always a way to
defend oneself, such as asking for help. They suggested further aspects of power
imbalance as the cyberbully can be characterised by higher levels of technological
skills compared to the victim, but only in the case of more technological sophisti-
cated behaviour such as impersonation, and not for others. One German group
even went as far as to say that it is still bullying, even when independent of the
victim’s feelings, because they did not believe that the person in the scenario actu-
ally does not care, but rather interpret this as a protective function.
It depends if it is a real joke or not. (Spain)

When you don’t care and the other one notices it eventually, then he will stop.
(Germany)
Intention. In all countries, intention is a strongly relevant criterion to be used for

the definition, but it is strictly related to the criterion of imbalance of power. For
the Italian girls, this criterion is less important than the feelings and consequences
for the victim. For the Spanish and German participants, the victim’s interpretation
of the intention is critical. If the act is perceived as a joke then it is not considered
bullying. However, the question was raised (and remained unanswered) as to how
the victim should know that the act was not meant seriously.
If there is the intention to hurt someone it is bullying. (Italy)
The aim of the bully is to hurt someone, but if the victim is not hurt this is not bully-
ing because the bully did not gain his/her goal. (Italy)
Yes, but you actually don’t do this as a joke. So, this is a [bad] joke, so to say.
(Germany)
Repetition. In all three countries the adolescents agreed that the criterion of repeti-
tion can differentiate between a joke and an intentional attack and it can charac-
terise the severity of the action. One of the German groups stated explicitly that the
behaviour cannot be unintentional if it is repeated. Thus, repetition and intention
are perceived as related. One of the German focus groups disagreed and said that
defining this behaviour as bullying does not depend on repetition, but rather on the
content of the text messages. Also, when the Italian moderator asked the Italian
participants to think about the visual scenario, where the behaviour is done once
but is then spread to a large audience through the internet, females said that it can
be damaging for the victim although it is a single act.
Given that in this case the picture was sent also to other people, even if it is done
once it can be very bad for the victim. (Italy)
It is harassment if it is repeated and it is constant, but if it is done once it is not
harassment. (Spain)
Yes, then it is not a joke anymore. (Germany) 137
▲
Publicity. For Italian males publicity can change the intention of the acts, connoting
blackmail or defamation. Italian females paid more attention to the relation
between anonymity, publicity and intentionality: for example, if the behaviour is
done by an anonymous person to a large audience, they cannot perceive if the act is
done intentionally or not. In all countries, students rated public cyberbullying as
the most serious incident, because of the role of the bystanders. The victims might
worry about what others think about them. However, this criterion is not necessary
to define bullying. In the German focus groups, each person receiving the informa-
tion about the victim seemed to be counted as an additional incident, manifested in
the terms used for this behaviour such as ‘mass bullying’ or ‘multiple bullying’.
If it is private it is blackmail; if it is public it is defamation. (Italy)
If it’s a joke between two friends, does not care; if other people are involved maybe
they can’t understand if it’s a joke or not. (Spain)

▲

Anonymity. In Italy, the criterion of anonymity mainly relates to different reactions

of the victims and connotes the intentionality and the nature of the act. In all coun-
tries, anonymity is important for the impact on the victim, but not as a definitional
criterion to discriminate cyberbullying from non-bullying incidents. Not knowing
who the contents are from can raise insecurity and fear, while if the perpetrator is
someone the students know it could hurt more if it was someone they trusted or
were friends with. On the level of personal relationships, however, coping is easier.
The anonymous scenario was perceived as worse than the control scenario.
If you know the person, you can have a talk, positively or negatively and you can
better understand if it is a joke or not. (Italy)
If you know a person, you can know how he/she could behave, but if you don’t
know ... (Spain)
Yes, it’s actually disappointing when it’s someone you trust and so on. However, on
the other side it’s bad if you don’t know who it is because then, in principle, it could
be anyone. (Germany)
Discussion
The present study contributes significantly to our knowledge of adolescents’ under-
standing of cyberbullying and provides suggestions about which are the best behav-
iours to represent the construct and the relevant criteria to define the phenomenon.
Furthermore the cross-cultural comparison between the three non-English speaking
countries — Italy, Spain and Germany — is the first attempt to disentangle some diffi-
culties related to the use of English terms to label cyberbullying.
Overall, although the term ‘bullying’ emerged spontaneously through all the
focus groups in each country, the term ‘cyberbullying’ was spontaneously proposed
only by German adolescents (‘cyber-mobbing’). This could be related to the effec-
tiveness of an awareness-raising campaign in Germany, supported by the European
Union. Apart from this, the subject of cyber-mobbing has been covered widely and
regularly in the German media during the last year. In Italy, adolescents sponta-
neously proposed the term ‘virtual bullying’ and other terms involving electronic
138 bullying, internet or on-line bullying. However, at the end the majority of them
▲
chose ‘cyberbullying’. The best labels for cyberbullying in Spain were harassment
and abuse. These are the two terms most often used to label bullying behaviour
(Ortega et al., 2001) without any reference to the cyber or virtual network.
In line with the studies on bullying (Smith et al., 2002) cultural specificities for
the translation of bullying are still present; for example, the use of specific words in
each culture such as bullismo in Italy, acoso in Spain and mobbing in Germany. In
relation to the word ‘cyber’, results from focus groups suggested that not all the
adolescents need to differentiate bullying across contexts. Furthermore, the word
‘cyber’ is not widely used by adolescents, particularly in Latin languages, although
it is present in each dictionary.
Thus, trying to answer to the key question which term best to use to label cyber-
bullying in each country we propose to use cyber-mobbing in Germany, virtual or
cyberbullying in Italy, and harassment or harassment via Internet or mobile phone
in Spain.
Pertaining to the different behaviours representing or not representing the cyber-

bullying construct, we can see that Italy and Germany are in accord mentioning
some doubts in relation to whether impersonation is a good example of cyberbully-
ing acts, whereas Spanish adolescents declared that all the four types are cyberbul-
lying. However, looking at Table 3, impersonation is the only behaviour where no
label specifically related to bullying or harassment is present across countries.
Furthermore, Italian and German adolescents agreed that this behaviour is more
related to legally relevant matters, and in Spain this is the only case where the term
crime is used. Thus, these results seem to be in contrast with the categorisation
proposed by Willard (2007), suggesting that impersonation cannot be considered
fully as a (cyber)bullying behaviour. Further studies need to explore this issue more
thoroughly.
A final consideration related to the labels concerned the use and the relevance of
privacy violation in Italy and Spain, but not in Germany. This result can be affected
by the actual relevance of this issue in each country: for example, in Italy and in
Spain the problem of privacy law is a big issue to be resolved, and media are very
focused on this topic. In Germany, many of the legal areas touched by cyberbully-
ing are already mentioned in the criminal code under several different offences,
including an anti-stalking law, although none of them specifically refer to the cyber
context.
In relation to the three bullying criteria, results showed that the imbalance of
power cannot be viewed independently of the intent to harm. However, all partici-
pants agreed that if the victim is affected by the behaviour then the behaviour con-
stitutes bullying. Results suggest that imbalance of power cannot be defined in
terms of higher levels of media literacy of the perpetrator or in terms of the inabil-
ity of the victim to defend him/herself. Thus, the issue related to the definition of
power imbalance in cyberbullying is still open. For the majority of the students, the
intention to harm is not the only important characteristic that defines bullying,
because the effect on the victims and his/her perception of the acts can also be
more relevant than the intention of the aggressor. Repetition is a very strong crite-
rion to be used for the definition because it can differentiate between a joke and an
intentional attack and it can characterise the severity of the action. However, par-
139
▲
ticipants in Italy and Germany paid attention to the relation between repetition
and publicity: if the act is public and thus it is sent (or showed) to several people,
although it is done only once this can be considered as done several times. The
terms proposed by German adolescents well represent this meaning: ‘mass bullying’
or ‘multiple bullying’. The other two additional criteria, anonymity and publicity,
do not constitute a requisite for labelling an action as cyberbullying, but they are
relevant because they connote the severity and the nature of the attack and the
victim reaction. Overall, we think that the results associated with the criteria used
for the definition of cyberbullying are particularly relevant. It seems that in order
to define a cyberbullying act, adolescents need to know if the action is done inten-
tionally to harm the victim, the effect on the victim, and the repetition of the action
(this latter criterion evaluated simultaneously with the publicity). Our results par-
tially confirm the necessity of the three traditional criteria used to define bullying.
In particular, it seems that intention is needed, together with the effects on the
victim. Repetition is needed, with the exception of public behaviours. Definitions

▲

proposed by the literature for power imbalance in the cyber context (Hinduja &
Patchin, 2007; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009a) were not supported by our results.
Thus we may ask whether the problem is the definition of power imbalance or if
this criterion is appropriate in order to define a cyberbullying act. In relation to the
new criteria proposed by the literature, anonymity and publicity, our results
suggest that they are not necessary to label an action as cyberbullying, but they can
connote the context (the severity and nature of the attacks, the relationship
between actor and victim, the victim’s reactions).
In conclusion, the present study gives some relevant suggestions to researchers
and practitioners working on cyberbullying with adolescents. Using the same
words and the same defining aspects as adolescents do to call and to describe this
phenomenon can help adults to better understand what is the meaning, the nature
and the severity of the cyber attack, in order to suggest appropriate guidelines and
intervention strategies. The use of the same qualitative methodology across coun-
tries resulted in a useful strategy to compare terms and definitions of cyberbullying
across three non-English speaking countries. In spite of these strengths, the study
also has some limitations. First, the small number of participants for each country
and the convenience sampling limits the generalisability of the results. Second, dif-
ferences in ages across countries can affect results; however, we found similarity
across countries although different ages characterise the samples. Finally, cultural
aspects related to the European regions can be present and they cannot be gener-
alised; for instance, we might ask if results related to the impersonation typology
can be the same for other non-European cultures.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the COST Action IS0801 ‘Cyberbullying: Coping with
negative and enhancing positive uses of new technologies, in relationships in educa-
tional settings’, the Training School ‘From research to policy and practice: Innovation
and sustainability in cyber bullying prevention’ (funded by the COST Action
IS0801), and the Australian Government Department of Innovation, Industry,
Science and Research, for making this collaboration possible. Anja Schultze-
140
▲
Krumbholz and Herbert Scheithauer thank Jana Fiebig (2010) and Jonas Höher
(2010) for their invaluable support in recruiting participants and collecting data.
References
Belsey, B. (2005). Cyberbullying: An emerging threat to the ‘always on’ generation.
Retrieved Jan 14, 2010, from http://www.cyberbullying.ca/pdf/Cyberbullying_Article
_by_Bill_Belsey.pdf
COST Training School. (2010). Personal communication — Discussion group at the
Training School ‘Research to policy and practice: Innovation and sustainability in
cyberbullying prevention’, hosted by P.K. Smith, G. Steffgen, M. Valimaki, E. Menesini,
P. Slee, D. Cross, M. Campbell & B. Spears. Melbourne, 11-16 April 2010.
Dooley, J.J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying - A
theoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology,
217(4), 182–188.
Fauman, M.A. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the digital age. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 165(6), 780–781.
Fiebig, J. (2010). Anonymität und Öffentlichkeit — Eine Untersuchung der neuen Kriterien
zur Beschreibung des Phänomens Cyberbullying. Unpublished bachelor thesis, Freie
Universität Berlin, Berlin.
Fonzi, A., Genta, M. L., Menesini, E., Bacchini, D., Bonino, S. & Constabile, A. (1999).
Italy. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano & P. Slee (Eds.),
The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 140–156). London:
Routledge.
Garzanti. (2007). Il grande dizionario Garzanti della lingua italiana. Milan: Garzanti.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization - School
violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89-112.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and
responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Höher, J. (2010). Cyberbullying: Eine Evaluation der Bullyingkriterien im Cyberspace —
Qualitative Auswertung von Gruppeninterviews mit Jugendlichen. Unpublished bache-
lor thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin.
Kowalski, R.M., Limber, S.P., & Agatston, P.W. (2008). Cyber bullying: Bullying in the
digital age. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2 ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Langenscheidt. (2010). Fremdwörterbuch. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from http://services.
langenscheidt.de/fremdwb/fremdwb.html
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009a). Personal communication (during the meetings of the
COST Action IS0801).
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009b). Cyberbullying definition and measurement —
Some critical considerations. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology,
217(4), 230-232.
Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Ortega, R., Del Rey, R., & Mora-Merchán, J.A. (2001). Violencia entre escolares:
Conceptos y etiquetas verbales que definen el fenómeno del maltrato entre iguales.
Revista interuniversitaria de formación del profesorado, 41, 95–113.
RAE. (2010). Diccionario de la lengua española. Advance of the twenty-third edition.
Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS= 141
▲
3&LEMA=ciber
Schultze-Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H. (2009). Measuring Cyberbullying and
Cybervictimisation by Using Behavioral Categories – The Berlin Cyberbullying-
Cybervictimisation Questionnaire (BCCQ), COST ACTION ISO801 Workshop, Post
Conference XIV ECDP, 18–22 August, 2009, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Slee, P.T., Ma, L. & Taki, M. (2003). Bullying in schools. In J.P. Keeves & R. Watanabe
(Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp.
425–439). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147-154.
Smith, P.K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R.F., & Liefooghe, A.P.D. (2002). Definitions of bullying:
A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country
international comparison. Child Development, 73(4), 1119-1133.
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.

▲

Spears, B., Slee, P., Owens, L. & Johnson, B. (2009). Behind the scenes and screens —
Insights into the human dimension of covert and cyberbullying. Zeitschrift für
Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 189–196.
Willard, N. (2003). Off-campus, harmful online student speech. Journal of School Violence,
2(1), 65–93.
Willard, N. (2007). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Center for Safe and
Responsible Use of the Internet. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www.cyberbully.org
/docs/cbctparents.pdf
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Does online harassment constitute bullying?
An exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only contacts. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 41, S51–S58.
142
▲
Cyber-Aggression: Definition
and Concept of Cyberbullying
Dorothy Wunmi Grigg
Goldsmiths University of London, United Kingdom
T
his study examined definitions and concepts of cyberbullying. It identified words,
terms and definitions used for negative acts on the internet and mobile
phones across different age groups in the United Kingdom. Young
people and adults’ (N = 32; age = 8–54) constructs and perceptions of
negative online behaviours were also reported. Focus groups and indi-
vidual interviews were employed using qualitative triangulation:
Thematic Analysis and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. The
study examined current definitions and concepts of cyberbullying and
how these differ in its findings; and considered different ways to foster
positive online behaviour for the context of practitioners. The concept
of cyber-aggression is used to describe a wide range of behaviours
other than cyberbullying. The findings indicate that there is a need to
include a broader definition in line with the current trend of a range of
behaviours that are common with internet and mobile phone usage.
■ KEYWORDS: definitions, concepts, cyberbullying, cyber-aggression
Using mobile phones and the internet for communication purposes is a fast and
reliable means of communication, particularly with the instant feedback they give
to the sender(s) of such messages. Examples of these are short messaging services
(SMSs; Gillespie, 2006) delivery status on mobile phones and ‘message sent’
reports of emails on the internet. On the one hand, mobile phones open possibili-
ties for verbal communications, independent of restrictions of mobility and porta-
bility that is associated with landline telephones. The internet, on the other hand, 143
▲
enhances communication across the globe via emails and/or chat rooms. While
these instances can be seen as advantages, some experiences can make the use of
mobile phones and internet more devastating than the enjoyment of the spontane-
ity they offer. Among such distressing experiences are receiving unwanted aggres-
sive messages (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell et al., 2008; Vandebosch
& Van Cleemput, 2008), happy slapping (Smith et al., 2008); flaming (Gillespie,
2006; Smith et al., 2008), sexting (Bocij & McFarlane, 2003; Gillepsie, 2006;
Spears, Slee, Owens, & Johnson, 2009), and other forms of aggressive behaviours
using various media of communication (Slonje & Smith, 2008).
Address for Correspondence: Dorothy W. Grigg, Unit for Schools and Family Studies, Department of Psychology,
Goldsmiths’ University of London, 16 Lewisham Way, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, United Kingdom.
E-mail: d.grigg@gold.ac.uk
▲

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 143–156
Dorothy Wunmi Grigg
Some negative acts that have been identified within these media of communica-
tion are bullying, harassment, assault, abuse and stalking (Gillespie, 2006; Smith et
al., 2008; Dooley, Pyzaski, & Cross, 2009). In the United Kingdom, for instance,
cyberbullying has been used as a common phrase for most of these subsets of
aggressive acts. Cyberbullying is defined as ‘an aggressive intentional act carried
out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over
time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself’ (Smith et al., 2008,
p. 376). This definition follows traditional definitions of bullying (Olweus, 1993)
where one person or a group of people repeatedly demonstrate aggressive behav-
iour towards another person or group of persons with an ‘imbalance of power’
(Monks, Smith, & Swettenham, 2005; Menesini, Fonzi, & Smith, 2002).
In summary, both definitions share three common criteria and one difference:
First, traditional bullying and cyberbullying include an intentional harm and there-
fore can be seen as special cases of aggression (for aggression see Anderson &
Bushman, 2002; Krahé, 2001). Second, the imbalance of power is another common
aspect, which is an advantage of the perpetrator(s) of aggression. Third, repetition
of victimisation is seen as a common criterion for traditional as well as for cyber-
bullying. However, the difference to traditional bullying lies in the fact that in
cyberbullying, technological devices are being used for carrying out such aggressive
acts (Campbell, 2005; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Spears, et al.,
2009; Dooley et al., 2009).
Some researchers have suggested that there is a need to address the definition
issues within the area of aggression and bullying via communication devices
(Coyne, Chesney, Logan, & Madden, 2009; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). I
suggest that the definitions of intended harm and the use of technological devices
are not controversial. This study therefore focuses on two criteria for cyberbullying
that merit more attention: the imbalance of power, and repetition.
Imbalance of Power
If a target of cyberbullying ‘cannot easily defend him or herself’, there exists an
144 imbalance of power in favour of the perpetrator(s) of the aggressive act. But how
▲
can this power imbalance be understood in cases of cyberbullying? Vandebosch

and Van Cleemput (2008, p. 499) point out that this imbalance would be based on
a ‘real life’ power criterion that consists of physical strength or age, interpreted as
media expertise in cyberbullying. In traditional bullying, avoiding physical attack
and possible intimidating acts seem plausible; however, it may be complicated to
apply the analogy of physical strength and age to the cyber environment. More so,
an imbalance of power can also lie in the situational advantage(s) that the bully
has over his or her victim. One such advantage belongs to the same ‘in-group’
within social identity repertoire (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). In com-
parison to the online sense, the in-group could be those who associate or belong to
the same chatroom(s) and social networking sites. Arguably, the power imbalance
may occur when a group of people start bullying a person or group of people who
newly enter a chatroom, or perhaps make suggestive comments about the group or
person within the social site. This traditional analogy of the influence of social
Definition and Concept of Cyberbullying
identity is also eminent in cyber-interrelationships. Campbell (2005) points out

that old behaviours happen in new forms; in this case this would mean that cyber-
bullying is delivered by an online group whose mechanisms function comparable
to offline groups.
Furthermore, imbalance of power has been likened to media knowledge (Smith
et al., 2008) and a ‘power of technology’ (Dooley et al., 2009) to ‘media expertise’
due to the ‘anonymity’ involved in sending unwanted messages in form of videos
and pictures or abusive phone calls (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). It may
be worth stating that both those who are cyber-bullied and those who cyberbully,
may have similar media knowledge as they both use these technologies for commu-
nication purposes. However to my knowledge, it has not been systematically
researched and proven that there is an advantage of cyber-bullies in media expert-
ise, nor that both parties are comparable in this aspect.
Repetition
In cyberbullying, some acts may be carried out just once by the primary perpetra-
tor and therefore may not fit into ‘repetition of the act’. Examples of these are
‘outing’; ‘happy slapping’; ‘flaming’ and ‘sexting’ (Coyne et al., 2009; Dooley, et
al., 2009; Spears et al., 2009). In happy slapping, for instance, aggressive or
degrading video(s) are taken by a bystander and then forwarded to other people’s
phones or posted on a website. Also in sexting, a perpetrator sends sexual con-
tents of someone else (in this case the victim) to another person or a group of
people without the victim’s consent (Spears et al., 2009). In other words, the issue
of repetition in these situations is likened to the amount of times that the videos or
texts are viewed by various recipients or passed along by various bystanders
(Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). Consequentially, offen-
sive pictures and video clips are perceived as especially devastating, due to the
breadth of audience who view these contents and the resulting psychological
impact that these may pose to the targets (Gillespie, 2006; Smith et al., 2008).
However, there remains vagueness of clarity as to who performs the repeated acts:
primary sender or the bystanders.
The traditional concepts of bullying emphasise repetition on the part of the
primary offender(s). It is acknowledged there are situations that are clearly 145
▲
repeated by the primary offender that will, in other words, classify as cyberbully-
ing. However, when repetition is likened to the amount of time that the negative
contents are viewed or passed along by other people, it is suggested that perhaps
there is a need to include bystanders in this definitional analogy, as these online
acts are viewed by bystanders and may have been videoed by them. Thus, cyber-
bystanders can reinforce the harassment by passing on the information, or they can
support the victim by devaluing the negative behaviour or simply ignoring it (Smith
et al., 2008). Therefore, when we as researchers refer to a one-time act by the
primary aggressor, it may be plausible to include bystanders in the definition of
cyberbullying, due to the abovementioned ‘pass along’ nature. Research has also
shown that the role of definition may play a part in how civil, criminal and
common law punishment and policies could apply within cyberbullying (Bocij &
McFarlane, 2003; Gillespie, 2006). Consequently, extreme cases of aggressive inter-
net acts do go unpunished (Bocij & McFarlane, 2003; Gillespie, 2006; Spears, et

▲

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg
al., 2009). The definition of cyberbullying may ignore the seriousness of a particu-
lar behaviour, as pointed out in happy slapping and sexting, due to the unclear
concept as to who repeatedly carries out the negative acts.
Aims of the Article
Past and current researchers have looked at the impact of cyberbullying on stu-
dents’ interrelationships both at home and in schools (Smith et al., 2008; Slonje &
Smith, 2008; Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). Others have examined cyberbullying
experiences from the points of view of cyber-victims and even cyber-bullies and
practitioners (Campbell, 2005; Dooley et al., 2009; Spears et al., 2009); however,
there is no empirical study that has looked at terminologies used for such negative
behaviours from the viewpoint of pupils, students and adults. The aim of this
article is to determine what pupils, students and adults perceive as cyberbullying;
to examine the broad aspect of negative acts that occur with the use of mobile
phones and the internet; and to test participants’ knowledge about cyberbullying.
Definitions have focused on ‘unwanted messages’; it would be worth examining
this further by looking at a range of negative behaviours associated with internet
and mobile phone use.
It is proposed that it would be worth examining from a general perspective a
layperson’s overview of this phenomenon. It is not suggested that the lay notion
would elucidate our way of defining concepts, rather that it would help practition-
ers better understand the experience.
Methodology
A qualitative, interpretative approach, using purposive and convenience sampling
was employed.
Participants
N = 32, 8–54 years old.
146 Subsample 1:
▲
Primary school pupils (8–11 years old; 3 girls, 2 boys, n = 5).

Subsample 2:
4 x focus groups: Secondary (11–16 yrs old, n = 15):
• Group 1: 12–15 year olds (1 boy, 2 girls).
• Group 2: 11–14 year olds (3 boys, 1 girl).
• Group 3: 12–16 year olds (2 boys, 2 girls).
• Group 4: 11–14 year olds (2 boys, 2 girls).
Subsample 3:
Adult participants (24–54 year olds; 11 men 1 woman, n = 12).
Participants have received one or more unwanted messages or phone calls since
owning a mobile phone and during the cause of using the internet.
Procedure
Ethical approval was sought from the Department of Psychology Ethics Committee
at Goldsmiths University. Permission was also sought from various school authori-
ties to work with children in primary and secondary schools. Permissions from the
authorities involved were granted. Primary and secondary school participants were
selected from different schools in England. Interviews were carried out during
school visits. Some of the participants were selected by head teachers, while some
were selected by school program coordinators. Students signed additional consent
forms to give their approval for participating in the study.
The adult participants were recruited through online social networking sites
‘tagged’ and ‘FaceBook’. Participants were then added as ‘buddies’ and interviewed
on instant messaging Microsoft Network (MSN). This method of recruitment pro-
vided participants with the opportunity to remember some of the negative acts that
take place on the internet as they are within the area of research under investiga-
tion. Consequently, participants can easily be distracted and lose concentration
because of the absence of a face-to-face interaction. This was evident during three
of the interviews: a participant received a phone call and became unresponsive;
after a reminder ‘nudge’ (a form of tone alert that a message was waiting for a
response); he then apologised and wanted a reschedule. Another participant with-
drew from the study, saying he wanted a ‘nice’ chat instead. The last of the three
participants withdrew from the study because he was not comfortable giving his
name as a sign of consent to participating in the study.
With the young participants, the interview atmosphere was calm and relaxing, with
the option of light refreshments. All participants were fully informed of their rights to
withdraw from the study at any time if they wished to do so. They were advised to
turn off their phones. Adult participants were told to close down any other messaging
applications if applicable, so as not to get distracted during interviews. They confirmed
that there were no distractions before the commencement of interviews.
Mainly open-ended questions were used, with one exception: participants were
asked whether or not they used mobile phones and the computers for internet pur-
poses. The open-ended questions included: ‘What are the negative things that can
147
▲
happen with people using mobile phones and the internet?’, ‘What does cyberbully-
ing mean to you?’, and ‘How useful is the term “cyberbullying”?’ Participants were
prompted at appropriate times in order to encourage them to stay within the
parameters of the matter under investigation.
Individual interviews were undertaken with primary school and adult partici-
pants, and four focus group interviews were conducted with secondary school stu-
dents. The individual interviews lasted about 20 minutes on average, and the focus
group interviews lasted about 30 minutes each. At the end of each contact, partici-
pants were thanked for contributing to the study and received help sheets regarding
what to do and who to contact in cases of cyberbullying (see Appendix A).
Analyses
Thematic analysis (Milles & Hubberman, 1994) and Interpretative Phenomenolog-
ical analysis (IPA: Smith, 1995) were used for individual and focus groups inter-
views. Pupils’ and students’ interviews were recorded with a digital recorder, while

▲

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg
adult participants typed out their answers on the MSN chat window. Participants’
responses were typed using their own words, then the raw data were coded into six
content areas according to the focus of the six questions posed: whether or not par-
ticipants use mobile phones and or internet, identifying the negative acts that occur
in the use of mobile phones and the internet, describing and naming negative behav-
iours that can occur via mobile phones and internet, what can be done about nega-
tive behaviours that happen on the internet and mobile phones, the meaning of
‘cyberbullying’, and whether or not ‘cyberbullying’ is a useful term. Subthemes were
extracted from the codes to build on participants’ thoughts and feelings. Themes
emerged after several revisitations of coded data and subthemes. Finally, using these
themes and participants’ cases, the phenomena under investigation was interpreted.
The purpose of these combined methods is to enquire into the general perception
of the phenomena under investigation from participants’ own perspective, and to
give a richer and deeper qualitative meaning to the study. Thus, on the one hand,
thematic analyses gave an insight into the contents and themes that emerged within
a cyberbullying arena; from the participants’ perspective on the other hand, IPA
allowed for generalisation of cases by comparing and contrasting emerging themes
and their usage by participants (Smith, 1995). The IPA also allows for implicitness
of data to be explicit (Smith, 1995).
Results
The themes that emerged from each research question are demonstrated in Table 1.
Data were interpreted with selected cases, using similar case responses, so as to
avoid repetition and ambiguity of results. Themes are in italics.
Participants Use of Internet and Mobile Phones
Basic media knowledge: All participants’ answers were in the affirmative to this ques-
tion; they use both mobile phones and the internet for communication purposes.
Naming and Identifying Negative Acts that Take Place on the Internet and
Mobile Phones
148 Participants’ lists of negative behaviours were broad. These acts were described as
▲
anonymous, fraudulent, aggressive, unwanted messages, spreading rumours,

hacking into people’s email accounts, threats, harassment, attacks, unwanted
phone calls, malicious, abusive messages. These acts as a result of senders’ behav-
iours resulted in the theme of media abuse and vulnerability. There was no age or
gender difference in the way participants perceived these acts.
Media abuse and vulnerability:
Boy 8: ‘Horrible things happen, they hide behind people’s identity.’
Group 1: ‘They could send offensive messages to you.’
Woman 24: ‘You can’t see the face of the person who you’re talking to.’
Man 33: ‘Abusive messages, unwarranted texts and calls at any time of the day
and night.’
Man 38: ‘Arguing by text, incessant phone calls, sending obscene phone calls
without permission.’
TA B LE 1
Emerging Themes for the 6 Interview Questions
Questions Themes Subthemes
Participants use of internet and Basic media knowledge Affirmation, positive

mobile phones
Naming and identifying negative acts Media abuse, vulnerability Bullying, unwanted messages, attack,
racism, aggressive language, hatred and
intimidation, disrespectful, harassment and
aggressive acts
Describing behaviours Invasion of privacy, anger, Intimidating, rude, upsetting, antisocial,
frustration unreal, frustrating, cowardly, fraudulent and
intentional, bullying, selfish
Solutions to problems Control, empowerment Awareness, information, blocking, prevention,
avoidance information
Meaning of cyberbullying Media knowledge, Threatening via the internet, mobile phone
generalisation bullying, offensive written or video materials
using remote technology, downloading of
virus
Is cyberbullying is a useful term? Restriction, vague, Inadequate, not enough, useful to some
uncertainty specific cases, narrow, trendy phrase
Man 38: ‘Abusive texts and phone calls, threats, unwanted messages.’
Man 43: ‘Personal attacks, aggressive language and threats, malicious and false
information being provided by others to undermine relationships.’
Describing Negative Behaviour From Participants’ Perspective
Anger and frustration in the participants’ tone of voice were deciphered, resulting
from the feeling of invasion of privacy. From the participants’ points of view,
people tend to act in a way they would not normally do on a face-to-face basis due
to the anonymity involved. There was no age difference in participants’ feelings in
describing these negative acts. The feelings are also the same across gender.
Invasion of privacy, anger and frustration:
Boy 8: ‘They are just nasty, upsetting, rude and false.’
149
▲
Girl 11: ‘Frustrating, hurtful, swearing … just upset the other person.’
Group 4: ‘They can be described as cowards because they do not say things to
people’s faces … they act immature and inappropriate.’
Woman 24: ‘Not very social behaviour … there could be chance that people can
act colder than they are in real life.’
Man 28: ‘It’s possibly exaggerated compared to how it would be face to face.’
Man 2, 28: ‘Cruel, vindictive, and sad. It’s usually done by people with low self-
esteem; cowardly … if they want to be negative they should have the decency to
say it to someone’s face rather than via a phone.’
Man 29: ‘Hostile, inappropriate behaviour … people say things they wouldn’t say
to a person’s face …different personality when using remote technology.’
Man 42: ‘It is criminal act and also frustrating.’
Man 43: ‘I think it is fraudulent, especially when they try to steal your details for
their own selfish purposes.’

▲

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg
Solution to Problems About Cyberbullying

There was agreement across all age groups that awareness needs to be raised; people
have to be cautious about how they share information on the internet and mobile
phones. There is an element of control when participants talked about possible
things that could be done to minimise mobile phones and aggressive behaviours on
the internet. The theme of vulnerability arose from participants’ stance in having to
suggest ‘... change mobile phones’, losing their email accounts and passwords to
hacking, viruses and spam sent via the internet. There was also avoidance in the
sense that participants stated how the best approach is to ignore and block people
who send them unwanted contents and messages. They suggested not adding people
they do not recognise to their email accounts, social networking groups and mobile
phone contacts. This avoidance illustrates further control and empowerment from
the participants’ viewpoint. An example of empowerment is seen where participants
(Group 2) stated that there was no need to change mobile phones.
Empowerment, control and avoidance:
Group 1: ‘…. speak about it … ignore the phone calls.’
Group 2: ‘Inform police and report to teachers, there is no point changing mobile
phones just for one person.’
Group 3: ‘People should be more aware, it would reduce cyberbullying and make
people know what bullying really is.’
Man 28: ‘… raise awareness … and getting victims to tell their stories.’
Man 29: ‘… very little...see the person face to face with video phone may help.’
Man 43:‘ … blocking the people … use message as evidence.’
Man 42: ‘… change your number.’
Man 50: ‘… block them, change your number and get on with your life.’
Meaning of Cyberbullying
Most of the participants understood what cyberbullying meant and where it takes
place. Younger participants seemed to know what cyberbullying represented;
however, there was an age difference in the sense that three adults aged 38, 43 and
54 reported not having heard of the term ‘cyberbullying’.
150
▲
Media knowledge:
Boy 10: ‘Fighting on the internet.’
Boy 11:‘Bullying on the internet and mobile phones.’
Group 2: ‘On internet forums, people can talk nasty to you, they can easily attack
personally.’
Group 4: ‘Bullying over the internet or mobile phones.’
Man 29: ‘Using internet as a tool for bullying as well as phones, not just through
texts and calls … it’s now happening through applications — you can download
them.’
Man 38: ‘Bullying via the internet.’
Man 38: ‘I don’t know what it means.’
Man 43: ‘I have no idea what cyberbullying is.’
Man 54: ‘Nothing, never heard of it.’
Is Cyberbullying a Useful Term?

Participants described how ‘cyberbullying’ identifies certain behaviours, but when
it comes to a broader account of what happens on the internet and mobile phones,
it is not considered broad enough to describe these behaviours. Participants tended
to generalise negative acts as cyberbullying. Having identified what they thought
cyberbullying stood for, some participants thought that it was not a useful term.
Perhaps this is due to the broad nature of the negative acts that occur via internet
and mobile phone. One would have hoped that participants would have mentioned
that the term was useful because it focused on bullying; however, the general use of
the term may have impeded their initial response that identified what cyberbullying
stood for. These feelings were the same across age generally, and gender, among
school children.
Vague, inadequate and restricted:
Boy 11: ‘No, it is not a useful term, when you say cyberbullying, people just think
it is only bullying it could be something else.’
Group 2: ‘Not useful because it makes people think it’s the same as bullying, but
many other things are involved … it is a bit vague and too restricted they might
think it is just bullying but also involve photos and videos.’
Man 29: ‘… is a simple catch-all phrase that can be shown in headlines and news
reports which will grab people’s attention … it is only a general term … it may also
detract from face-to-face bullying that is happening at the same time.’
Man 33: ‘Some things which are against the law would still be classed as cyberbul-
lying, just more severe threats to people’s welfare, child grooming.’
Man 38: ‘Not very useful, it only specifies that something bad has taken place on
the phone and internet … could be a better term.’
Man 50: ‘It is a trendy phrase that adds just as much as it highlights … same as
happy slapping, cyber-sabotage … on a scale of 1–10 I will say 5.’
Discussion
It is apparent that there are various acts that take place via mobile phones and 151
▲
internet beyond the scope and concept of cyberbullying, like hacking into people’s
accounts, changing passwords to pose as the original owners so as to send
unwanted messages to potential victims; targeting actions of people and businesses;
downloading and uploading viruses. The results suggest that various aggressive
acts can occur when people are involved with mobile phone and internet communi-
cations. Some of these acts are cyberbullying, others are forms of aggressive acts,
and some are neither bullying nor aggression. Nevertheless, the findings support
previous research that describes negative internet behaviours as upsetting and psy-
chologically frustrating.
Generally, it is apparent that owning a mobile phone or having a computer with
internet access creates an avenue not only for positive experiences, but can also
render one vulnerable in the sense that having these media of communication may
allow for invasion of privacy by receiving unwanted contents and messages at any
time of the day at the whim of the perpetrator. The sense of vulnerability can be

▲

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg
linked to ‘helplessness’ in the traditional sense of bullying, where a victim is not

easily able to defend him or herself. Participants suggested that perpetrators be
blocked when the perpetrating acts persist. It is acknowledged that the media
devices used for being anonymous by the perpetrators, would fall within the func-
tions menu used by the targets to block cyber-aggressors. It is apparent that partici-
pants can demonstrate these functions, therefore it is emphasised that the misuse of
these media functions by the perpetrators is ‘media abuse’ in the place of media
expertise. Sequentially, those who cyberbully do possess the ‘intention’ to invade
other cyber-users privacy by sending them unwanted, abusive and offensive con-
tents so as to cause them to be frustrated and angered by their actions.
The questions as to what cyberbullying meant to participants, and whether or
not cyberbullying is a useful term tested participants’ knowledge of the meaning of
cyberbullying. Apparently, if participants understood that cyberbullying refers to
bullying acts over the internet and mobile phones, then one would assume that
cyberbullying would be a useful term. However, participants’ responses look at the
broadness of negative acts that occur on the internet and mobile phones; hence the
vagueness, restrictiveness and ambiguity as to the usefulness of the term.
Perhaps what we as researchers look at online is not just cyberbullying but
also cyber-aggression, going by the broadness of the negative acts that occur
within these media of communication. Dooley et al. (2009) identify bullying,
stalking and harassment as repeated forms of aggression. Monks et al. (2005)
also describe bullying as a subdivision of aggression. Aggression is any behaviour
carried out with the intent to cause harm when the target is motivated to avoid
the behaviour (e.g., Baron & Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz, 1993; Geen, 2001). I
define this term ‘cyber-aggression’ as intentional harm delivered by the use of
electronic means to a person or a group of people irrespective of their age, who
perceive(s) such acts as offensive, derogatory, harmful or unwanted. My proposi-
tion is that behaviours using mobile phones or the internet to carry out bullying,
harassment, stalking, abuse, assault or hostility, as well as violent behaviours
such as ‘happy slapping’, ‘outing’ and ‘flaming’ be classified under the term of
‘cyber-aggression’. This definition does not focus on an imbalance of power or
repetition of the act, which may be relevant criteria for cyberbullying as men-
152 tioned above. Instead, it is possible to include bystanders’ role in a cyber-aggres-
▲
sive environment (e.g., in cases of ‘happy slapping’) in order to give a clear

construct for cyber-aggression.
It is acknowledged that the field of cyberbullying is a relatively new one and, as
such, research within this area has to propose a broader concept that embraces
negative behaviours of internet and mobile phone users without current cyberbully-
ing definitional and conceptual issues. ‘Cyber-aggression’ describes broad negative
behaviours that may occur when people are engaged in internet behaviours. This
term includes repeated and unrepeated acts that are likely to cause harm to the
intended recipient(s) of such message(s).
A limitation of this study was the absence of participants in the age group 17
to 23 years old. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with participants
aged between 8 to 16 years and 24 to 54 years. The results may be different
when other age groups are used for similar studies, but central to the current
study were the perspectives of primary school pupils, secondary school students,
and adults. It is recommended that future studies use more female participants
among the adult samples, so as to determine whether or not there would be dif-
ferences in perception of the measured phenomenon. Also, as cyber-aggression is
intended to cover online activities that are not considered acts of bullying, it
would be interesting to have some data that attempts to categorise these in future
research. Furthermore, in terms of its methodology, the application of online
methods for qualitative analysis may not have the same effect that face-to-face
interviews may have on participants in terms of the tone of prompts, probes and
body language analysis.
Following from the findings are some ideas for prevention of cyberbullying and
cyber-aggression. Research on prevention and intervention of cyberbullying is at its
early stage, therefore only few insights for empirically established measures of
reduction of aggression and bullying via internet or mobile phones exist (Menesini,
2009). For example, Pfetsch, Steffgen and König (2009) highlighted that banning
mobile phones at school will neither reduce the frequency of mobile phone use nor
the prevalence of cyberbullying inside or outside of school. Therefore, a complete
ban of mobile phones and internet at school will not solve the problem. However,
preventive and educational measures should combine to set a functional founda-
tion embedded in School Charta and Policy so as to express a zero tolerance for
cyber-aggression and cyberbullying (Pfetsch, 2010). These processes should encom-
pass the participation of teachers, school governors, heads of school and students,
and may be supplemented by technological approaches like password protection of
school computers and filter software for internet browsers (Pfetsch 2010).
Curricular materials focusing on media literacy and cyberbullying could raise
awareness among students about the consequences of cyber-aggression and effec-
tive ways to deal with it. This may also include training in media competencies and
the positive use of communication technology, like a video film project or school
radio project (Pfetsch, 2010). Furthermore, general prevention of traditional bully-
ing and aggression can help sustain specific proactive measures against cyberbully-
ing — for example, fostering a positive school climate, developing prosocial class
rules, and training in constructive conflict resolution (see Wilson & Lipsey, 2007,
for an overview). If schools were effective in establishing a prosocial and helping 153
▲
norm system among all students, the prevalence of aggression may diminish
(Pfetsch, 2010). For example, in an evaluation study of over 1000 participants, stu-
dents reported significantly less passive bystanding behaviour, more cognitive and
affective empathy, and less victimisation among students. By transferring these
ideas to the prevention of cyber-aggression, schools could foster cyber-civil courage
of online or offline bystanders of cyberbullying and cyber-aggression. Also, peers’
support for cyber-victims may be a promising way to counteract cyberbullying and
cyber-aggression (Smith et al. 2008).
In general, cyber-aggression and cyberbullying are quite prevalent among chil-
dren and youth (e.g., Ybarra, Diener-West & Leaf, 2007; Steffgen, Pfetsch, König
& Bredemus, 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008) and all persons
involved can be affected negatively (Gradinger, Strohmeier & Spiel, 2009; Ortega,
Elipe, Mora-Merchán, Calmaestra, & Vega, 2009). Therefore, practitioners should
not relent in their actions against these negative human phenomenon.

▲

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg
Acknowledgment and Dedication

I am grateful to the Australian Government for the joint collaboration with the
Corporation of Science and Technology IS0801 (COST IS0801) without which this
study would not have been possible. I would like to especially thank Professor
Marilyn Campbell of the Queensland University of Technology for her support and
encouragement for the need for early researchers to establish their work within the
research world. I dedicate this study to the commitment, hard work and a success-
ful training school organised by the Australian Faculty and Chair of the COST
Action Professor Peter K. Smith of the Goldsmiths University of London; and his
Vice Chair Professor Georges Steffgen of the University of Luxemburg. Finally I
would like to show my sincere gratitude to Dr Jan Pfetsch of the Berlin Institute of
Technology and Institute of Education in Germany for his support and insight
despite his busy schedule and family commitments.
References
Anderson, C.J., & Bushman, B.J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 27–51.
Baron, R.A., & Richardson, D.R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd edition). New York: Plenum.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression. Its causes, consequences and control. New York:
McGrath-Hill.
Bocij, P., & McFarlane, L. (2003). The technology of hate. Police Journal, 76, 204.
Campbell, M. A. (2005). Cyber-bullying. An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal
of Guidance and Counselling, 15, 68–76.
Coyne, I., Chesney, T., Logan, B., & Madden, N. (2009). Griefing in a virtual community:
An exploration survey of second life residents. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of
Psychology, 217(4), 214–221.
Dooley, J.J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: A
theoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology,
217(4), 182–188.
Geen, R.G. (2001). Human aggression (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
154 Gillespie, A.A. (2006). Cyber-bullying and harassment of teenagers: The legal response.
▲
Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 28(2), 123–136.

Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying.
Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/
Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 205–213.
Krahé, B. (2001). The social psychology of aggression. Hove: Psychology Press.
Menesini, E. (2009). Discussion group: Intervention and prevention strategies. COST
Action IS0801 Workshop Cyberbullying: Definition and measurement. Vilnius,
Lithuania: Mykolas Romeris University, 22–23. August 2009.
Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., & Smith, P.K. (2002). Attribution of meanings to terms related to
bullying: A comparison between teacher’s and pupil’s perspectives in Italy. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 17, 393–406.
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement: Some critical
considerations. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 23–32.
Miles, M., & Hurberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
London, Beverley Hills.
Monks, C.P., Smith, K.P., & Swettenham, J. (2005). Psychological correlates of peer victimi-
sation in preschool: Social cognitive skills, executive function and attachment profiles.
Journal of Aggressive Behaviour, 31, 571–588.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchán, J.A., Calmaestra, J., & Vega1, E. (2009). The emo-
tional impact on victims of traditional bullying and Cyberbullying. A study of Spanish
adolescents. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 197–204.
Pfetsch, J. (2010). Zivilcourage in der Schule. Konzeption und Evaluation eines
Zivilcourage-Trainings zur Prävention aggressiven Verhaltens unter Schülern [Civil
courage in schools. Development and evaluation of a bystander intervention training
for the prevention of aggressive behaviour among students]. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Luxembourg.
Pfetsch, J., Steffgen, G., & König, A. (2009, November). Banning solves the problem!?
Effects of banning mobile phone use in schools on cyberbullying. Poster presentation at
the 14th Workshop Aggression, 2009, Berlin, Germany.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.
Smith, J.A. (1995) Qualitative Psychology: A practical guide to research methods. London:
Sage.
Spears, B., Slee, P., Owens, L., & Johnson, B. (2009). Behind the scenes and screens: Insights
into the human dimension of covert and cyberbullying. Zeitschrift für
Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 189-196.
Steffgen, G., Pfetsch, J., König, A., & Bredemus, L. (2009). Cyberbullying among school
aged children in Luxembourg. Poster, Abstract in COST Action IS0801 Workshop
Cyberbullying: Definition and measurement (p. 25). Vilnius, Lithuania: Mykolas
Romeris University Publishing Centre.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R.P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and inter-
group behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research
into the perceptions of youngsters. Cyber Psychology & Behaviour, 11, 499–503.
Wilson, S.J., & Lipsey, M.W. (2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and disrup-
tive behavior. Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
33(2S), S130–S143. 155
▲
Ybarra, M.L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P.J. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet
harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, S42–S50.

▲

Dorothy Wunmi Grigg
Appendix A
156
▲
Addressing Cyberbullying in School
Using the Quality Circle Approach
Simone Paul, Peter K. Smith, and Herbert H. Blumberg
Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom
C
yberbullying has become a significant area of concern, yet research is still at an
early stage. The Quality Circle approach allows explorative analysis
of cyberbullying in school settings by identifying issues for further
consideration. In this study of cyberbullying in one UK secondary
school, Quality Circle participants were required to establish a small
anti-bullying taskforce, and then with the guidance of a facilitator,
embark on a problem-solving exercise over a period of time. The
process involves identifying key issues and prioritising concerns,
analysing problems and generating solutions, through participation
in a series of themed workshops. Six Quality Circle groups were
formed, and the work produced during practical activities was docu-
mented and discussions recorded as evidence of emerging themes.
The areas of interest regarding cyberbullying were the differing per-
ceptions reported by each representative group, and collectively the
range of problems and solutions identified.
■ KEYWORDS: bullying, cyberbullying, quality circles, school
‘Safeguarding’ is now at the forefront of practice standards in educational settings.

In the United Kingdom the introduction of the Education Act (2002), Children Act
(2004) and Every Child Matters (2005) form the basis of the statutory requirement
for all practitioners working in a supportive role to ensure the wellbeing of chil-
dren and young people in their care. The five overarching Every Child Matters 157
▲
(ECM) aims are defined as ‘be healthy, stay safe, achieve economic well being,
enjoy and achieve, and make a positive contribution’. The reduction of incidences
relating directly to bullying is linked with two outcomes within the ECM frame-
work. A prerequisite of ‘stay safe’ is that ‘children and young people are safe from
bullying and discrimination’. Another detail in ‘make a positive contribution’ refers
to the importance of ensuring ‘children develop positive relationships and choose
not to bully or discriminate’. Schools’ collaboration with support service providers
is anchored in improving outcomes and inspectorates judging the ability of educa-
tional institutions to meet these targets.
Address for Correspondence: Simone Paul, Psychology Department, Unit for School & Family Studies, Goldsmiths,
University of London, New Cross Gate, SE14 6NW, United Kingdom. E-mail: psp01sp@gold.ac.uk
▲

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 157–168
Simone Paul, Peter K. Smith, and Herbert. H. Blumberg
The legal framework relating to bullying in schools places anti-bullying meas-

ures at the heart of each school community (The Education and Skills Committee,
2007). The School Standards and Framework Act (1998) requires school heads to
actively discourage bullying behaviour specifically within the school environment,
with responsibilities extended outside the school grounds to protect students from
harm. Confusion surrounds the incidence of cyberbullying, as it is not always clear
the event has taken place at school, but often involves relations in school (Smith et
al. 2008). Literature has been produced as part of school guidance on cyberbully-
ing that explains legal duties and powers (DCSF, 2007). A report outlining the legal
framework regarding cyberbullying has also been published in response to con-
cerns regarding such uncertainty (Gillespie, 2006).
Cyberbullying
Differentiating cyberbullying from traditional forms of bullying is based on the
channel through which the behaviour may arise. In this instance, the victims are
targeted using technology, primarily email and text messaging. Smith et al. (2008)
identified forms of media communication where cyberbullying exists: mobile phone
technology (text messages, voicemail, picture imaging) and the Internet (email,
instant messenger, chat rooms, and websites). Cyberbullying is an event predomi-
nantly occurring outside of educational settings but often relates to school-based
relationships; one study found 57% of cyberbullying incidents originated from the
school environment and over half of these were from same class or year group
(Slonje & Smith, 2008). This research also found that incidents of cyberbullying
are underreported, with almost a third of cyber victims unable to identify the
source of harassment. It is difficult to challenge such behaviour when conducted by
anonymous perpetrators. Young people increasingly rely on technology to establish
and maintain social networks; therefore turning off a computer or telephone is no
longer a possible solution as this removes the positive support available, as well as
the negative source of disturbance.
Quality Circles
Until the publication of ‘Safe to Learn’ guidance (DCSF, 2007), anti-bullying prac-
tice in UK schools was guided by the support pack ‘Don’t Suffer in Silence’ (DfES,
158
▲
2000), promoting a move towards empowering young people to participate in pre-

vention and adopt a peer supportive role. The following strategies were noted as
suitable with secondary school age groups:
• A curricular approach to bullying prevention enhances learning development
connected to elements of the national curriculum.
• Circle of Friends supports bullies or victims by offering a social network of
peer mentors who befriend vulnerable pupils and resolve disagreements by
guiding group discussions.
• The Quality Circle approach involves student groups identifying problems
and developing solutions to share with the school governing body.
Similar recommendations were also made during a review of effective action taken
by secondary schools in the prevention of bullying by the Office for the Standards
of Education (2003). An assessment of anti-bullying interventions indicated the

overriding approach adopted was through the curriculum (literature, performing
arts, and group work). The investigation also included reports of multiple methods,
with 72% of secondary schools using peer mediation, 30% working with the circle
of friends, and 17% using Quality Circles (Samara & Smith, 2008).
The Quality Circle (QC) approach has been established as a potential means of
tackling bullying through the curriculum (Smith & Sharp, 1994). The process
involves ongoing work passing through a series of stages, whereby representative
members volunteer to meet as a group and identify key issues of concern.
Participants are encouraged to analyse problems following a sequential process to
find possible causes and develop solutions, then formally present ideas to the man-
aging body for consideration. This is considered an effective tool in promoting a
sense of achievement and empowerment, but can also be marked by confusion and
loss of motivation; therefore a need for facilitation during the initial formation
stage is necessary for a successful program.
The QC approach has been highlighted as a strategy suitable for anti-bullying
work (DfES, 2002; OFSTED, 2003). Despite evidence as an effective method of
intervention within the teaching profession (Lovett & Gilmore, 2003), QC appears
to have been relatively neglected in tackling bullying (Samara & Smith, 2008). This
study presents evidence of the QC approach in enabling explorative analysis of
cyberbullying. Problems reported during group discussions and solutions presented
through QC project activities were recorded and thematic analysis made.
Methods
The primary source of information gathered was in the form of QC project ideas
and work produced by students during each session. Additional consideration was
given to the anecdotal evidence from group discussion transcripts and comments
reported by the whole school survey. This highlighted key issues of concern by
noting responses to questions regarding bullying and cyberbullying problems.
Education Setting 159
▲
This was a secondary school with academy status, educating approximately 900
male and female students aged between 11 and 18 since September 2007. The
borough in which the school was located ranked as the 9th most deprived of 33 in
London, with 80% of secondary students of non-British background, 60% speak
English as a second language, and 36% eligible for free school meals; these
socioeconomic indicators are also representative of the student population in the
school studied.
The school is part of a new educational enterprise that engages in positive use of
technology to promote prosocial behaviour, using a computerised database for
reporting student conduct and performance and an online electronic reward
scheme for pupil behaviour modification. The student population is divided verti-
cally to incorporate all the year groups into three houses. This enables students to
develop a sense of identity, include a wider age range in their social networks, and
strengthen peer-support systems. Students follow an integrated curriculum with

▲

overarching themes of Community and Communication in Year Seven, Global

Citizenship in Year 8, and Business Enterprise in Year 9. Students develop the
themes by engaging in cross-curricular activities combining a range of learning
styles during ‘topic’ tutorial lessons as well as core curriculum subjects.
The school Preventing Bullying Policy incorporates a joint approach with senior
staff, parents and students by conducting ‘no blame’ interviews, or holding discus-
sions that follow a method of ‘shared concern’ involving the bully, victim and
bystanders. Whole-school initiatives encourage information sharing, and curricular
activities are incorporated into themed ‘topic’ tutorials or themed assemblies.
Preventative strategies include protected spaces for vulnerable students, monitoring
behaviour during lunch, break time and after school patrols. Cyberbullying and
racial harassment are both acknowledged as distinct from general bullying and of
noteworthy concern as they are difficult to detect and, in particular, racism requires
a different response guided by the Racial Equality Policy.
Participants
A total of 32 students from Year 7 (n = 5, mean age 11.5), Year 8 (n = 20, mean
age 12.5) and Year 9 (n = 7, mean age 13.5) were selected by the school head as
benefiting from participation in this study and permitted to attend sessions held
during personal tutorial lessons. Participants were assigned by school year group
and allocated a regular QC session where class timetables permitted. There were 6
QC groups, each selected a name to define the group identity; one Y7 QC called
‘WAC’ had five students (one female, four male) from three different classes. Each
of the four Y8 QC groups had students from the same class; Purple HAZL (four
males), Yungah Goonz (five males), Brite Starz (four males), and Anonymous
Speakers (three female, four male). One Y9 QC called ‘Special MNAM
International People’ had seven students (two female, five male) from three sepa-
rate classes.
Procedure
The activities developed for the 12-week program were adapted from published
materials and recommended guidelines (Smith & Sharp, 1994). The initial stage of
160 managing the formation of groups was completed in the first week; the five stages
▲
of problem-solving were followed in successive weeks. Once a solution had taken

the form of an approved project proposal, completion work was planned for a
further six weeks. An outline of the agenda for each hour-long meeting is sum-
marised as follows:
• Week 1: Introduction and Discussion (information session and recorded dis-
cussion about bullying and cyberbullying)
• Week 2: Problem Identification (Students collect information from a range of
sources by conducting a whole school survey)
• Week 3: Problem Analysis (students develop thought shower of initial ideas
for the possible solutions)
• Week 4: Solution Formation (students complete a school opinion poll and
collect votes for their ideas)
• Week 5: Presentation Preparation (students prepare a group video for senior

teaching staff to view)
• Week 6: Presentation Delivery (students hear the panel decision to reject,
consider or approve project idea)
• Week 7: Project Planning (all members of the group collaborate on the
project as a combined effort)
• Week 8: Project Preparation (group organise practical aspects, develop
resources, and design materials)
• Week 9: Project Delivery (group undertake initial stages of project idea and
complete ongoing work)
• Week 10: Project Assessment (group review progress on project, compile
information gained and analyse problems)
• Week 11: Class Presentation (group prepares a script about project work to
deliver during lesson time to student peers)
• Week 12: Presentation Delivery (complete class presentation, group debrief
and evaluation of participation in Quality Circles).
Results
An overview of project work is provided, along with themes identified through
group discussions and school survey. Detailed information about each QC is
addressed in the case studies, including a summary of group membership along
with highlights of group discussions and project proposals.
Project Proposals
Each group was directed to produce three project proposals for consideration and
then collect votes for the most popular idea from other students and teachers. The
161
▲
Anti-Bullying theme was introduced to identify solutions for general bullying or

cyberbullying, and an additional project to combat antisocial behaviour. In total,
four cyberbullying projects and two ideas on antisocial behaviour and bullying
were introduced. Quality Circle project proposals and final approved ideas are pro-
vided below.
• Y7: WAC identified three project ideas: create a private room for victims,
bullies and parents (to solve general bullying problems), design a mail box
for students to report problems (to combat cyberbullying), and organise a
new lunch time queue system in the canteen (to help prevent antisocial
behaviour). The final selected proposal was the solution for cyberbullying;
to design a bully mailbox.
• Y8: Anonymous Speakers identified three project ideas: create a verbal bul-
lying dictionary (bullying), run a bully club helping victims and bullies

▲

(cyberbullying), and design a hat to identify bullies (antisocial behaviour).

The final proposal was for general bullying; a dictionary of cussing words.
• Y8: Purple HAZL identified three project ideas: teach the teachers about the
meaning of verbal bullying words (bullying), set up IT support for students
to pass on emails (cyberbullying), and run a student investigation team for
bullying incidents (antisocial behaviour). The final selected proposal was for
cyberbullying; to set up a student support email account.
• Y8: Yungah Goonz produced one project idea on cyberbullying — a student
survey on prank calling.
• Y8: Brite Starz presented a proposal addressing antisocial behaviour — a
friendship themed film club.
• Y9: Special MNAM International People identified three project ideas: make
an educational film (bullying), conduct an undercover report (cyberbully-
ing), and design a hall monitor rota (antisocial behaviour). The final selected
proposal was for cyberbullying to compile a student report.
Student Perspective
Notable information obtained from recorded group discussions (five transcripts
lasting approximately 30 minutes each) and whole school survey (21 respondents)
reflected a similar perspective and incorporated into a general overview below. In
subsequent results sections the anecdotal evidence collected from each QC group
work will be provided and presented in the form of individual case studies. Each
summarise qualitative information obtained during the initial problem analysis
stage and the process involved in completing the solution formation and project
planning stages.
With regard to general bullying, the overwhelming response noted was of verbal
bullying. Students casually rely on racist, homophobic, sexually explicit or offen-
sive language to communicate with each other. ‘Cussing matches’ are a regular
occurrence with insulting remarks most commonly relating to cultural heritage or
physical appearance. This event is generally tolerated by the students and not nec-
162 essarily considered as bullying; the teachers are typically unaware of this due to the
▲
range of slang words being used. This activity is often initiated as an attempt to
introduce humour but will frequently escalate and other methods of bullying
become evident such as physical (to conclude) or cyber forms (to prolong the argu-
ment). Cussing is not necessarily considered a form of bullying but instead as a
platform for promoting other forms of bullying and therefore identified as a
problem for the students.
The greatest cause for concern with regard to cyberbullying was hacking into
and misusing personal computer accounts or mobile phone records. The popularity
of instant messaging picture images is a cost-free communication available through
Bluetooth on mobile phones. A growing problem was reported whereby hacking
devices activate mobile phone handsets to cause unnecessary distress to others or
disruption to learning in class, with the owner powerless to prevent this. The
general attitude towards cyberbullying is light-hearted and taken with good
humour by the recipients; harassment through this method is not necessarily
regarded as bullying by students. Abusive emails are frequently sent via the school
computer system; students consider this to be more of a nuisance than bullying.
‘Prank calling’ is perceived as an amusing activity to prevent boredom and the
recipients react more with anger rather than fear. Sending videos and picture
images are of huge entertainment value during the school day; participation in this
activity is rife and few consider themselves victims.
QC Case Studies
Collectively, QC groups suggested the school consider introducing the following
ideas: security spot checks, bag searches and handheld metal detectors, classrooms
scanned to detect activated Bluetooth devices, a free phone number for offensive text
messages to be passed on, themed school assemblies and lessons run by students,
lunchtime and after school activities for bullies and victims to attend together, safe
places for vulnerable students and private areas for distressed students.
WAC. The youngest group initially presented challenging behaviour but quickly
gained enthusiasm and engaged in self-directed learning. As part of the discussion
about general bullying issues, the group considered physical fighting to be the most
common form, this was thought to happen most often at lunch because the system
in place causes long wait times, resulting in aggressive pushing and shoving. During
the discussion about cyberbullying problems, students revealed mobile phones are
used most often to send threatening messages and hurt emotions. The reasons were
believed to be different for prank calls (‘Wind people up, to be funny or cause psy-
chological damage’), text messages (‘Don’t want to fight but want to get at the
person’, ‘Bit scared and don’t want to get in trouble’), and Video Imaging
(‘Humiliate the person to show that they are weak and prove it to other people’).
When deciding on the final project proposal, students made preparations for
changing the lunch line and were very excited to put this idea into place, with
detailed plans drawn up. After completing the school opinion poll they began to
work on the idea with the most votes: a room with privacy for distressed students
to compose themselves. As the structure of the program only permitted a set
number of sessions to complete work, this limited the potential for these ideas to
be realised and instead the students changed the agreed project for the more man-
163
▲
ageable option of designing bully boxes. Each student created one mailbox, to be
made available for everybody in the academy to report problems and concerns
anonymously and confidentially.
Anonymous Speakers. The largest group from the same class required continuous
autocratic leadership, direction and motivation. QC interactions were marked by
constant bickering and competition for power, thus hampering progress in com-
pleting final project work. As part of a group discussion about general bullying
issues, verbal bullying was believed to be most common ‘because teachers don’t
understand the slang words so students can get away with cussing each other’ and
racism in the academy is considered to be caused by ‘the different nationalities in
London all inside the school building’ and ‘the uniform makes every one wear the
same clothes so people look at other things like appearance’. During the group dis-
cussion about cyberbullying problems, students revealed text messaging and
picture imaging happens most often because it is cheap or free depending on the

▲

mobile phone contract. Text messages are sent at break times when students can
move around the school and get reception, pictures are often taken when students
are unaware and images are sent to cause ridicule. When deciding on the final project
proposal, the group collected most votes for the bully club and even gained support
from teachers willing to volunteer time to run this with students. The QC group
believed this idea was being piloted already in school and felt that addressing racism
instead would deal with the matter of greatest concern in the school community. The
individual group members broke into smaller pairs to take on parts of the anti-bully-
ing booklet and produced different sections including; a glossary of terms used in
cussing and racist words, two stories about racist bullying, a case study report about
victims of racist bullying in the academy, and information about verbal bullying in
school from peer group surveys detailing responses from over 60 students.
Purple HAZL. These students developed a cooperative approach to working
together, despite the suspension of one member; they adjusted and overcame the
temporary disruption. The group also responded well to facilitation and required
little motivation to complete work independently. As part of the discussion about
general bullying issues, students identified the main problem was verbal bullying,
such as stirring and gossiping, cussing and racism. The group believe students do
this to prevent boredom, to have fun and be entertained. This happens when the
teacher is not in the class but will still occur if learning support or supply teachers
are present, and when outside for free time. It can ‘get serious and out of control’ a
lot of the time when onlookers are ‘bigging up’ the situation and this can also lead
to physical fights. During the group discussion about cyberbullying problems, stu-
dents considered email to be the most popular method, used mostly for gossiping,
hacking, cussing, sending nasty pictures, rude web links or viruses. This can be for
fun, to start fights by ‘mixing things up’, to annoy or embarrass someone, and for
retaliation ‘if the student is scared of the person because they are bigger or older and
they can’t be caught’. The student email support team was selected in response to the
reported need of the general student population. The QC group began investigating
the problem by interviewing the IT department, to discover that no abusive filter
exists and no designated member of staff monitored student emails for inappropriate
content. The group set up an anonymous inbox whereby students could forward
164
▲
emails to this designated account for peer review and reporting to senior staff.
Brite Starz. A group consisting of strong independent characters from the same
class, these students responded best to facilitator guidance instead of leadership.
The students agreed to participate but declined to engage in many of the activities
and instead selected one solution for top-down analysis. Students declined to par-
ticipate in the recorded group discussion activity about general bullying issues and
cyberbullying problems. Instead students reported concerns about knife crime and
the pressure to join gangs. They believed this was a problem because young people
are bored, so they hang around outside and get involved in the wrong friendship
groups. They then feel under pressure to get respect by fighting other gangs and
they carry knives to feel safe and protect themselves from other gang members.
Students designed a survey to find out more about why people carry knives and
decided that the way to reduce knife crime is to get people off the streets, away
from the gangs and encourage friendships by holding free time activities. The film
club was invented to educate young people on negative impact of crime and
encourage positive relationships. The group produced posters advertising the
lunchtime film club for students. The films selected were appropriate for the age
group and were screened during lunchtime.
Yungah Goonz. This was a well-established friendship group from the same class, self-
motivating and readily engaged in task completion, without the explicit direction of
the facilitator. These students required little guidance after group commitment to par-
ticipation was initially challenged. As part of group discussion about general bullying
issues, physical bullying was thought to be the most common activity resulting from
confrontation and the need to gain respect. Interestingly, verbal bullying also seemed
to act as a catalyst, whereby a cussing match that began as ‘something funny’ then
‘goes too far and gets personal’. This can happen in the playground (especially in the
lunch line), classroom and areas in the school building (e.g., staircase, corridors, or
toilets) and even if broken up will continue at a later date for students to save face.
The discussion about cyberbullying problems revealed a more common activity was
sending picture images and videos from mobiles via MSN. This can be for entertain-
ment (spread across social groups to ridicule and laugh at a victim), for ‘talking up’
‘hyping’ and saving face, or to scare and frighten someone. Sending images via MSN
gets noticed more than text messages and also attaches credit to the sender ‘people
get respect for knowing the sender and this stops other people getting rude to them’.
When deciding on the final project proposal, students opted to conduct a student
survey on prank calling. The group developed a questionnaire about prank calling,
which they handed out to 30 students. A third of respondents said they had been
prank-called in the past, and the typical reported response to this was anger; a third
also admitted to prank calling someone for fun because they were bored. The main
source of information for obtaining a number to prank call was through social net-
working sites, mutual friends, or hacking into personal details held on school
records.
Special MNAM International People. The oldest group and the largest number from
different classes, this presented problems during formation, but the maturity of
group members prevailed. Timetabling also disrupted QC meetings on a regular 165
▲
basis, yet project work was partially completed despite this setback. As part of the
discussion about general bullying issues, verbal bullying was revealed as the main
problem. Cussing occurs because ‘students are bored and have nothing better to
do’, ‘they want to show off and be funny’, ‘they are angry or have problems at
home’ and ‘want to make themselves feel better by taking it out on other people’.
During the group discussion about cyberbullying, MSN Instant Messenger was
considered to be the most popular way of ‘stirring up trouble’ by copying people
into gossip conversations to spread nasty lies or rumours: ‘Students want to start
trouble because they are bored and want excitement, they might be scared to do it
face to face and chose this bullying method because it is faster’. When deciding on
the final project proposal, the group collected most votes for the undercover report
on bullying. Questions were developed for student interviews with voices recoded
to protect anonymity. The interviews were to be typed up and presented in an
undercover report-style information leaflet to help educate everyone in school

▲

about the problems of cyberbullying. Unfortunately, the group was unable to fully
complete this project in the time available.
Discussion
Qualitative information was gathered regarding general bullying, cyberbullying
and antisocial behaviour in school. Information was collected from a range of
sources incorporating the examination of evidence for themes emerging during
recorded group discussions, problems identified by the whole school survey, and
the solutions presented by QC project ideas. A summary is presented for the effec-
tiveness of QC methodology as measured by the impact of intervention for QC
participants and the forms of antisocial behaviour in school with particular refer-
ence to characteristics of cyberbullying.
Quality Circles
The feedback from staff and students regarding the impact of this approach on
the school community was positive and encouraging, although preventative
measures require a more educational aspect to inform teachers of the point in a
cussing situation where verbal bullying begins to take place and when escalation
to other forms may arise. In addition, the possible reduction of cyberbullying
may occur through peer education about the lasting negative impact these activi-
ties may have on the victims.
The influence of this work on participants themselves was assessed through a
database of student behaviour records. Analysis of incidents logged by teaching
staff indicated an overall reduction in the number of negative reports and increase
in positive reports during the time since students commenced participation in the
program. An interesting pattern emerged within each group; the most notable
change was evident in Y8 groups sharing an increase in positive behaviour records,
and a slight positive change in Y7 and Y9, demonstrating the opposite, with an
increase in negative behaviour reports. The general improvement in behaviour
might be a naturally occurring change and not attributed to participation but
remains a noteworthy finding worth further exploration in future research.
166
▲
Each group and the individual members presented a unique set of challenges and
potential learning opportunities. Establishing and maintaining QC groups proved
to be most demanding, although once project ideas had taken form, students were
able to self motivate and undertake project work with minimal facilitator contribu-
tion. The level of involvement required for this method of investigation highlights
the need for a standardised approach to ensure the direction of QC projects are not
unwittingly influenced by experimenter bias when working with impressionable
young people.
Cyberbullying
Overall findings about general bullying in the academy based on information
reported by QC groups is that of verbal bullying in the form of ‘cussing’, namely
insulting remarks, frequently with racial undertones. Cyberbullying appears to take
the form of activities enabled through use of Bluetooth as a convenient method of
sharing inappropriate picture or video images. Another opportunistic activity
accessed through Bluetooth is the hacking of mobile phone devices; it is also

common for school computer email accounts to be hacked into. The general atti-
tude among the student population was one of amusement prior to the situation
escalating out of control and a serious incident taking place.
Hacking incidents often arise and fights erupt with angry recipients con-
fronting an unwitting owner unable to assert their innocence when their mobile
network or email account has been anonymously abused. This form of behaviour
appears to provide a link between traditional bullying and cyberbullying,
whereby relational problems occurring inside school are maintained by using
technology outside of school and incidents initially occurring online often emerge
on return to school. This is a difficult problem for school staff to address, espe-
cially with regard to prevention; attempts to monitor such forms of communica-
tion on school grounds by limiting the opportunity for hacking of mobiles and
email accounts presents a possible solution. The reluctance of students to inform
and share knowledge means the school remains unaware and unprepared for the
changing nature of cyberbullying, therefore the most effective approach would be
one involving the students themselves.
The anti-bullying ideas generated by group work and solutions to cyberbullying
in the form of project proposals were similar in approach. With the exception of
the student email support team suggested by one Y8 group, QC ideas for bullying
(such as the information booklet, teacher training, educational film, and student
questionnaire) and cyberbullying (such as the mail box, bully club, student survey
and undercover report) appeared to be interchangeable. It was difficult to differen-
tiate between ideas for the themed projects, and the groups struggled to adopt a
new approach. It would appear the need for creating new ideas for preventing the
emerging problem of cyberbullying is not considered necessary; students were able
to articulate the reasoning behind relying on similar solutions is that bullying,
cyberbullying and anti-social behaviour are all relational problems relevant to
school life.
Conclusion 167
▲
The work contributes to the existing body of knowledge by presenting qualitative

evidence collected from research in education. The QC approach allows explorative
analysis of emerging themes reported by students themselves, providing a favourable
source of information. The evidence amassed as part of group discussions and
project activities, although largely anecdotal and subjective, also provides encourag-
ing support. This asserts the adequacy of the approach to anti-bullying work and
demonstrates the value of QC when exploring cyberbullying in educational settings.
On reflection, the syllabus adopted by the school may have unduly prepared stu-
dents for engaging in QC group work; the unique approach learning undertaken by
academy students is not shared by other schools following the UK National
Curriculum. This aspect may have primed participants and influenced the respon-
siveness to this program, permitting more favourable results rich in content, and
replication may not be possible in education settings adopting more traditional
schooling methods.

▲

Managing the initial stages of the QC process was essential for establishing the
solution-focused approach; similarly, maintaining a positive focus required contin-
ued guidance and group mediation. Conversely, the student-led proposals relating
to anti-social behaviour in school produced a wider range of new ideas and alterna-
tives (creating an alternative lunchtime queue system, designing a bully hat to iden-
tify bullies and victims, introducing a new break time, hall monitor rota). This
non-directional approach, allowing students a free choice in developing plans,
demonstrates how anti-bullying QC groups can differ considerably and requires
further consideration in analysis, but the possibility of results varying quite drasti-
cally among schools presents limitations for future comparative studies.
The study also responds to recommended guidance on cyberbullying (DCSF, 2007).
One approach outlined in the framework of preventative actions is promoting an
understanding of cyberbullying through activities similar to that of the QC approach.
Group project ideas also contribute to the requirement for schools to make reporting
cyberbullying easier and promote positive use of technology. The future direction of
research will incorporate additional guidelines and evaluate prevention activities as
well as update existing practices and policies adopted in education.
References
Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2007). Safe to learn: Embedding anti-bul-
lying work in schools (Cyberbullying Guidance). Nottingham, UK: DCSF Publications.
Department for Education and Skills. (2000). Don’t suffer in silence: An anti-bullying pack
for schools. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education and Skills. (2002). Don’t suffer in silence: An anti-bullying pack
for schools. London: Author.
Department for Education and Skills. (2004). Every child matters: Change for children.
Norwich: The Stationery Office.
Gillespie, A.A. (2006). Cyber-bullying and harassment of teenagers: The legal response.
Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law. 28, 123–136.
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. (2007). Bullying: Third Report of
Session 2006–2007. London: The Stationery Office.
Hutchins, D.C. (1985). The Quality Circles handbook. New York: Pitman Press.
168
▲
Lovett, A., & Gilmore, S. (2003). Teachers learning journeys: The Quality Learning Circle
as a model of professional development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
14, 189–211.
Office for Standards in Education. (2003). Bullying: Effective action in secondary schools.
London: Author.
Samara, M., & Smith, P.K. (2008). How schools tackle bullying, and the use of whole
school policies: Changes over the last decade. Educational Psychology, 28, 663–676.
Psychology and Psychiatry. 49, 376–385.
Smith, P.K., & Sharp, S. (1994). Tackling bullying in your school: Practical handbook for
teachers. London: Routledge.
Sweeting, H., & West, P. (2001). Being different: Correlates of the experience of teasing and
bullying at age 11. Research Papers in Education, 16, 225–246.
Analysis of Experts’ and Trainers’
Views on Cyberbullying
Thomas Jäger,1 João Amado,2 Armanda Matos2 and Teresa Pessoa2
1 Zentrum für empirische pädagogische Forschung, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany
2 Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação, University of Coimbra, Portugal
P
artners from nine European countries developed a cyberbullying training manual
for the benefit of trainers working with parents, school staff and
young people.1 The development of the training manual built on a
two-level qualitative research process that combined elements of the
Delphi method and online focus groups. The two studies outlined in
this article aimed to assess trainers’ and experts’ views on the
problem of cyberbullying while also gathering insight in relation to
their preferences in terms of a training manual. This article outlines
the main outcomes of a content analysis of experts’ and trainers’
views. According to experts and trainers, the sources of cyberbully-
ing were specifically related to new technical developments and new
patterns of usage, a lack of media literacy and media education, and
the lack of appropriate laws, control and reporting mechanisms.
Approaches for tackling cyberbullying suggested by experts and
trainers included the provision of enhanced information on ICT and
e-safety, adequate rules, monitoring mechanisms and sanctions.
Furthermore a range of approaches targeting children and young
people, parents and other adults, schools as well as approaches run
by authorities and IT providers were suggested. In terms of the ele-
ments and style of a training manual, experts and trainers empha-
sised that it should be practically oriented, and that elements like
narratives, case examples or video clips would be vital for the imple-
mentation of training.
169
▲
■ KEYWORDS: cyberbullying, training manual, qualitative, online focus group
In recent years the internet and communication technologies (ICT) have had an
increasingly important impact on our everyday life. Today, approximately 52% of
the European population is online. For young people in Europe aged 6 to 17 years,
internet use is even higher, with an average rate of 75% (Livingstone & Haddon,
2009). Also, cell phone use has increased. In 1996, just seven mobile phone lines
were available per 100 inhabitants, 10 years later this figure had risen to 106 lines
per 100 inhabitants (EuroStat, 2010).
Address for Correspondence: Thomas Jäger, Zentrum für empirische pädagogische Forschung, University of
Koblenz-Landau; Bürgerstrasse 23, 76259 Landau, Germany. E-mail: jaegerth@zepf.uni-landau.de
▲

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 169–181
Despite the numerous benefits of ICT, rapid and constant development has
created a number of rather negative side effects. One of these is the problem of
cyberbullying. According to one widely used definition, cyberbullying is an ‘aggres-
sive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of
contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or
herself’ (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376).
While some researchers suggest that cyberbullying is simply an electronic form
of traditional bullying (Kowalski, Limber, & Agaston, 2008), there are indications
that it is a rather new, distinct phenomenon. However, one factor that makes cyber-
bullying ‘hard to grasp’ is its complexity. For instance, following Willard’s widely
used taxonomy (2005, 2006) cyberbullying can take different forms, including
flaming, harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing and trickery, exclusion,
and cyberstalking. Another popular classification relates to the media channels
used by perpetrators — for example, with phone-call bullying, text-message bully-
ing, picture/videoclip-bullying when using mobile phones, email bullying, bullying
through instant messaging, bullying via websites, chatroom bullying, and bullying
via social networking sites and virtual worlds (Smith, in press; Smith, Mahdavi,
Carvalho, & Tippett, 2006).
In spite of a number of overlaps with traditional bullying, there are aspects that
are unique to cyberbullying. For instance, perpetrators often can conceal their iden-
tity and stay anonymous. Also, cyberbullying transcends the boundaries of time
and space; it can occur 24 hours a day at any time of the day or night, and it is not
restricted to places such as a school, but can occur anywhere (Hinduja & Patchin,
2008; Smith et al., 2008; Willard, 2005).
In recent years, a number of studies have examined the prevalence of cyberbully-
ing in different countries around the globe. Interestingly, the studies suggest that
the frequency of cyberbullying varies considerably, both from country to country
and from study to study within the same country. This does not necessarily mean
that the prevalence of cyberbullying indeed varies considerably from country to
country but could also be an effect of differing cyberbullying definitions, measure-
ment methods and analytical strategies, samples and other factors (Gradinger,
Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2010). One of the few studies that provides a transnational
170 overview of cyberbullying in Europe showed that 29% of the young people consid-
▲
ered themselves victims of cyberbullying (Microsoft, 2009).

Although the number of studies and research programs on cyberbullying has
increased significantly in recent years, cyberbullying is still a relatively young field
of research. To a wide extent, cyberbullying developed from previous research pro-
grams on traditional bullying, especially on bullying in schools (Smith, in press). In
Europe, due to the efforts of the Safer Internet Programme co-funded by the
European Union, a big proportion of the rather practical-oriented work such as the
creation of resources and training modules has been done by experts on ICT and
internet safety. For this reason, most of the resources available provide well-
founded information on ICT; however, they often do not consider the vast knowl-
edge from academic research on traditional school bullying.
The CyberTraining project aims to bridge this gap by providing a training
manual that builds on well-grounded research outcomes on cyberbullying as well
on the expertise of project partners that have been key actors in several European
Experts’ and Trainers’ Views on Cyberbullying
research programmes on traditional school bullying. The two studies we present in

this article were part of the CyberTraining project’s first research-based phase that
aimed to explore and analyse experts’ and trainers’ views and experiences in rela-
tion to cyberbullying.
The CyberTraining Project

The two qualitative studies presented in this article were part of the CyberTraining
project.2 The project was co-funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the
European Commission and is a cooperative project of school bullying researchers
from Germany, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom and experts on
ICT and internet culture from Switzerland, Norway and Bulgaria. It aims to
develop a training manual on cyberbullying that provides trainers with clear guid-
ance, support and resources. The training manual primarily addresses trainers
working with schools, parents and young people affected by/or dealing with cyber-
bullying on various levels and aims to be both practical-oriented and well-
grounded in the latest research findings on cyberbullying. The research-based
information, the activities and resources provided in the training manual’s modules
aim to convey background information and skills that help parents, school staff
and young people in understanding the nature of cyberbullying, recognising cyber-
bullying, coping with incidents and supporting young people who report having
been victimised, as well as learning more about preventive measures.
The training manual addresses a rather broad scope of trainers. As mentioned
above, cyberbullying blurs the boundaries between the formerly separated fields,
‘traditional school bullying’ and ‘ICT and internet safety’. Moreover, in different
European countries there are differing understandings, concepts and traditions in
terms of the professional profile of trainers. In order to do justice to the broad
scope of trainers dealing with cyberbullying in different European countries, the
CyberTraining project chose a rather pragmatic approach saying that the training
manual addresses professionals providing training for parents, school staff and
young people in the field of cyberbullying. In order to do justice to the needs to
171
▲
rather inexperienced trainers, the manual also introduces basic training principles
and strategies.
By autumn 2010 the training manual will be made available in form of an eBook
in English, Spanish, Portuguese, German and Bulgarian. The creation of the train-
ing manual builds on an initial research-oriented phase. In order to ensure that the
training manual meets the needs of trainers, the project emphasises the value of
involving its target group — trainers working with parents, school staff and young
people as well as experts — in the process of developing the manual, by means of
assessing their training needs, interests, suggestions and preferences.
Method
The method applied for the initial research-oriented phase of the CyberTraining
project combines elements of the Delphi technique (Hsu & Sandford, 2007;

▲

Linston & Turroff, 1975) alphabetic by first author always and online focus
groups (Kitzinger, 1994; Rezabek, 2000) in a two-level qualitative questioning
process. After an initial Delphi-style online questioning of trainers and experts,
selected outcomes of a content analysis of trainers’ and experts’ answers were
deepened in two online focus groups.
Participants
Experts’ Questioning and Online Focus Group
A selection of experts were invited for the initial online questioning based on an
internal classification system that aimed to reflect different professional back-
grounds and thus also different perspectives on the cyberbullying problem. Apart
from researchers, the classification system included representatives of web sites on
school bullying and cyberbullying, teachers, representatives of companies dealing with
new technologies, representatives of projects, initiatives dealing with internet safety,
youth protection coordinators, lawyers and legal experts, counsellors, mediators and
therapists, policy-makers, ICT experts and online educators and representatives of
regional or national anti-bullying networks, organisations, initiatives, campaigns.
One hundred and twenty-two experts were selected from all categories outlined
above were invited for the experts’ questioning. The experts’ questionnaire was
completed by 41 experts. The majority of experts were from Europe with experts
coming from the UK (n = 10), Germany (n = 5), Greece (n = 3), Belgium,
Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal (n = 2), Austria, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Spain, Finland, Ireland, Latvia and the Netherlands (n = 1). Moreover,
the questionnaire was completed by experts from Australia (n = 2), the United
States (n = 2) and Japan (n = 1). In terms of their professional background, the
predominant group of experts were researchers (n = 17), representatives from
regional or national anti-bullying networks, organisations, initiatives, campaigns,
and so on (n = 8) and representatives of a project or initiative dealing with Internet
safety (n = 4).
Trainers’ Questioning and Online Focus Group
172
The trainers were selected on basis of an internal classification system based on
▲
queries in each of the partner countries. The three main categories included ICT
trainers (e.g., trainers working for IT companies, trainers working for the national
Internet safety initiatives), research and training centres (e.g., trainers with a back-
ground in traditional school bullying, trainers working in teacher training centres)
and police and legal experts. From each of these main groups trainers were invited
to complete the online questionnaire.
From the 121 trainers invited to participate, 55 completed the trainers’ question-
naire. Again, the majority of trainers were from Europe, with experts coming from
Portugal (n = 21), Switzerland (n = 12), Ireland (n = 7) and Spain (n = 5), Bulgaria
(n = 4) and Brazil (n = 2), Germany (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), France (n = 1) and the
United States (n = 1). In terms of their professional profile, the predominant
groups were trainers from research and training centres (21), school staff such as
teachers or counsellors (17) and trainers dealing with information and communica-
tion technologies (ICT) and Internet safety (7).
All in all, 25 experts of the 41 who previously completed the experts’ question-
naire participated actively at the discussions of the online focus group, with 149
postings. Another 10 experts logged in and followed the discussions without
actively contributing to the discussions. From the group of 55 trainers who com-
pleted the trainers’ questionnaire, 13 contributed actively to the online discussions.
Measures and Procedure
Questionings of Experts and Trainers
In Phase 1 of the information-gathering process selected experts and trainers were
asked to fill in a short questionnaire. The questionnaire for experts consisted of
five open questions, the questionnaire for trainers of seven questions. The ques-
tions in both questionnaires resulted from an internal discussion process between
the partners from the CyberTraining project and varied slightly in terms of their
thematic focus. While the focus of the experts’ questioning was on the sources of
cyberbullying, approaches tackling cyberbullying, and future perspectives, the
trainers’ questionnaire focused on information and skills needed by trainers to deal
with cyberbullying, the kind of resources needed for a training manual on cyber-
bullying, and the challenges trainers face when dealing with cyberbullying. The
questionnaires asked for the issues and elements a training manual on cyberbully-
ing should cover. Both questionnaires were made available online.
Both the experts’ and trainers’ answers were categorised and analysed by means
of a content analysis. The first step of the content analysis aimed to develop a
system of overall categories. As most answers consisted of several ‘sub-answers’, each
answer was spilt up into single content units. These content units were coded and allo-
cated to the overall categories that were refined during the analytical process. While
the content analysis of the experts’ questioning was supported by the MAXQDA
text analysis software, the content analysis of the trainers’ questioning was carried
out manually, without the support of content analysis software.
Online Focus Groups
The outcomes of the content analysis were summarized in short reports that
formed the starting point for deepening selected topics in Phase 2 of the informa-
tion-gathering process, the subsequent moderated online focus group for experts 173
▲
and the parallel online focus group for trainers.

The online discussions were held in asynchronous online discussion forums
within a Moodle learning environment. The moderated discussion forums were
open for a period of four weeks. All discussions were moderated; interim outcomes
as well the final outcomes and conclusions of the discussions were summarised and
reported back to the participants within each discussion thread. Again, the postings
that were made in the course of the online discussions from the online focus group
of experts were analysed by means of a content analysis.
Results
In this section we present selected categories that resulted from the content analysis
of answers from the experts’ questionnaires and online focus groups.

▲

As mentioned previously, the thematic focus of both questionnaires and online

focus groups differed. This was partly due to the research interests of the
CyberTraining partners. However, the weight of certain topics also resulted from
the outcomes of the initial online questionings as well as from the course of the dis-
cussions and participants’ interests in the two online focus groups.
Outcomes of the Experts’ Questionnaire and Online Focus Group
For each of the overall categories that resulted from the content analysis of experts’
answers to the questionnaire and the subsequent online discussion, we will provide
an overview in form of tables. The figures in brackets indicate the frequency of
content units within each category and subcategory. Due to space restrictions we
cannot present all outcomes in detail.3
The Sources of Cyberbullying
The outcomes outlined below relate to the question ‘What factors promote the
emergence/development of cyberbullying?’ of the experts’ questionnaire and the
discussion of selected outcomes within the experts’ online focus group. Table 1
gives an overview of all categories and subcategories that resulted from the content
analysis.
As cyberbullying has been influenced by the rapid development of ICT in the
past decade, it is not surprising that experts account for one source of cyberbully-
TA B LE 1
The Sources Of Cyberbullying: Experts’ Questionnaire and Online Focus Group
Overall categories Subcategories
New technical developments and new ) Technological advances (14)

patterns of usage (37 Easy and wide access (13)
New patterns of ICT usage (10)
Characteristics of ICT that promote cyberbullying (23) Sense of anonymity (12)
Wider audience (5)
Lack of direct feedback by pupils (4)
Unreal character of ICT (2)
174 Motivating factors for bullies (34) Sense of anonymity and safety (9)
▲
New possibilities due to enhanced technology (6)

Lack of rules, control and consequences (4)
Lack of direct feedback by pupils (4)
Lower threshold (3)
Others factors within bullies (8)
Lack of knowledge and education (35) Lack of knowledge and strategies (27)
Lack of awareness (8)
Lack of discussion (2)
Lack of tools and programmes (3)
Lack of laws, control and reporting (33) Inadequate/insufficient laws and policies (10)
Lack of control and monitoring (20)
Lack of reporting (3)
Other factors within young people, parents, schools, media
and society (33)
Other factors within young people, parents, New patterns of young people’s lives (7)
schools, media and society (33) Poor quality of child–parent relationships (3)
Factors within school (8)
Role of media (8)
Factors within society (7)
ing in new technical developments and also new patterns of usage in terms of the
internet and mobile phones, which have a considerable impact on people’s lives.
Characteristics of ICT that promote cyberbullying, some of which can also be
considered as motivating factors for bullies, are, for instance, the sense of
anonymity perpetrators have and the fact that perpetrators are not confronted with
immediate reactions from their victims. As one experts stated, ‘Cyberbullying is
becoming increasingly popular due to the level of anonymity, ease and the likeli-
hood to reach as many bystanders as possible’. In most cases they do not have to
be afraid of the punishment and consequences, which may also reduce their inhibi-
tion considerably. As several experts stated, this may also attract new groups of
perpetrators who would be more sensitive to face-to-face interactions.
There was a broad agreement among experts that both young people and adults
lack knowledge and education in ICT. In relation to young people, the lack of
media literacy often leads to an inappropriate usage of new technologies. For many
experts the lack of knowledge in ICT in relation to parents as well as professionals
working with young people is even more obvious. Some even speak of a digital
divide between generations.
Experts also agreed that there is a lack of legislation, control and reporting
related to cyberbullying. In most countries there are few mechanisms that allow
monitoring and controlling of online activities in chat rooms, online communities
or content/video sharing communities. In terms of monitoring their children’s use
of internet, mobiles and other new technologies, many parents neither have the
capacity to monitor continuously, nor have they an adequate knowledge and com-
petences to judge their children’s activities. One expert from Norway stressed the
sheer impossibility of monitoring children’s use of the internet: ‘Youngsters can tell
parents they do homework, bring the laptop (that they get from their schools) to
their room, chat all night, and parents lose control’.
In terms of the category ‘Other factors within young people, parents, schools,
media and society’, the subcategory factors within schools is remarkable. As
several experts stated, schools should play a crucial role in tackling cyberbullying.
Nevertheless, most schools are not addressing cyberbullying in their curricula or
school policies yet, they do not prepare their staff, and also do not provide students
175
▲
with the necessary knowledge on ICT and cyberbullying.

Approaches Tackling Cyberbullying
The outcomes outlined below relate to the question ‘What kind of approaches do
you consider to be helpful when tackling the problem of cyberbullying?’, and the
discussion of selected outcomes within the experts’ online focus group. Table 2
gives an overview about all categories and subcategories that resulted from the
content analysis.
A considerable number of answers were related to rules, monitoring and sanc-
tions. Experts saw a clear need for rules, legislation and restrictions, as well as the
need for monitoring and control (e.g., reporting and filter mechanisms). Experts
also pointed out that there is the clear need for knowledge in ICT and Internet
Safety, not only in terms of the dangers and annoyances of ICT but also in terms of
its positive and appropriate use. As one expert put it, ‘The solution is not to ban
social networking sites, ban the use of mobile phones or limit internet access. It is

▲

TA B LE 2
Approaches Tackling Cyberbullying: Experts’ Questionnaire and Online Focus Group
Knowledge on ICT and Internet Safety (21) Better understanding of ICT, its potentials and dangers (7)
Appropriate, responsible, safe and positive usage of ICT (14)
Rules, monitoring and sanctions (72) Rules, legislation and restrictions on cyberbullying (21)
Monitoring and control (13)
Technical solutions: reporting and filter mechanisms (13)
Consequences, sanctions and punishment (12)
Arguments against restrictions, banning and punishment (13)
Awareness raising and motivational strategies (33) Awareness-raising and campaigns (27)
Creative ideas for reaching target audience (3)
Not merely focusing on technology issues (3)
Approaches targeting children and young people (52) Empowering young people (17)
Increasing knowledge and awareness (9)
Peer based approaches (21)
Conveying respect and traditional values (2)
Involving young people in development of resources (5)
Approaches targeting parents and other adults (22) Information and knowledge for parents: training, courses,
manuals and tools (11)
Encouraging and motivating parents (2)
Help and assistance for parents (4)
Training of professionals (5)
Approaches targeting Schools (57) Policies / whole school approach (13)
Teacher training (22)
Restrict or monitor access to ICT (9)
Education: information on ICT and Internet safety (8)
Approaches on class level (5)
Challenges (26) Rapid change of technology (3)
Costs and funding (5)
Resistance to training and lack of support by schools and
government (7)
Danger of mixing up cyber safety with cyberbullying (6)
Need of enhanced cooperation between Internet safety
experts and experts on school bullying (5)
not the technology that is the problem; it is the misuse of it.’ While a number of
experts expressed their concerns about restrictive and punitive approaches, there
176
▲
was a broad agreement with regards to the need and effectiveness in educating
users in terms of adequate online behaviour and risk management.
The experts also widely agreed on the importance of awareness raising and
motivational strategies in order to attract parents’, teachers’, professionals’ and
young people’s attention on the relevance of the cyberbullying problem. In this
context one expert from the United Kingdom pointed out ‘that educators (need to)
understand that cyberbullying isn’t just “about” technology, particularly as many
educators may lack confidence in this area’.
In terms of approaches targeting children and young people, empowerment and
peer-based approaches were regarded as very effective methods to tackle cyberbul-
lying. As one expert stated, ‘Young people who are being bullied often don’t want
to talk to an adult figure, be it a parent or teacher. They are more comfortable
talking to another young person.’
One of the focuses of approaches targeting parents, teachers, youth workers and
other professionals should be on conveying information and knowledge on ICT
and cyberbullying in form of training, manuals, courses and other resources. Also,
providing help and assistance — for example, by means of help lines as well as
training of professionals — were regarded as being important.
In terms of approaches targeting schools, whole-school approaches and teacher
training were considered to be effective methods. Again, approaches focusing on
restricting and monitoring access to Internet and mobile phones in schools were
not considered as effective by a number of experts.
One major challenge when developing resources on cyberbullying is the rapid
change in technologies. Introductions to the latest state of development of ICT may be
out of date soon. Experiences reported by the experts also suggest that governments,
authorities and schools are hesitant when it comes to financing projects and programs,
though in the long run funding these projects may be less expensive than having to
cope with the negative effects of cyberbullying. The discussions also revealed the need
for enhanced cooperation between anti-bullying and cyber safety experts.
Outcomes of the Trainers’ Questionnaire

The outcomes we present in the following section are the result of a content analy-
sis of trainers’ answers from the questioning and the discussion of selected out-
comes within the experts’ and trainers focus group. Unlike the content analysis of
experts’ answers, the trainers’ contributions to the online discussions have not been
considered in the following presentation of the main outcomes. Again, due to space
restrictions we cannot present all outcomes in detail.4
Difficulties Trainers Face When Dealing With Cyberbullying
The outcomes outlined below relate to the question ‘What are the main difficulties
you face as a trainer when dealing with cyberbullying?’ of the trainers’ question-
naire. Overall, the content analysis revealed three categories: difficulties related to
the topic of cyberbullying itself, difficulties of the training’s target group, and diffi-
culties trainers may have. Table 3 provides an overview about the categories and
177
▲
subcategories that resulted from the content analysis.
TA B LE 3
Trainers’ Difficulties: Trainers’ Questionnaire and Online Focus Group
Difficulties related to the topic of cyberbullying (18) Complexity of the topic

Available of information on cyberbullying
Difficulty/complexity of training needed
Difficulties of the training’s target group (22) Differences in ‘language’ of target audience
Silence of victims and aggressors
Parents and teachers’ lack of awareness
Difficulties in defining responsibilities
False beliefs
Difficulties of trainers (6) Information available for trainers still low
Keeping up-to-date in terms of ICT

▲

The first category focused on difficulties related to the topic of cyberbullying.

According to trainers in many countries there is still relatively little information avail-
able. However, as queries in each of the partner countries in the CyberTraining
project indicated, the number of web sites, brochures, manuals and other resources
is surprisingly large. The trainers’ answers thus may be taken as a hint that they are
not aware of the resources available in their countries.
As trainers stated, one of the difficulties when working with the training
manual’s target group is the differing ‘language’ of these groups and the fact that
many adults are not familiar with a basic ICT terminology. Very often parents and
teachers are not aware of cyberbullying. Trainers also expressed their concerns
about ‘false beliefs’ related to cyberbullying and school bullying in general; for
instance, the fact that many parents or teachers overestimate the effectiveness of
punishment and restrictions.
Information and communication technologies are changing rapidly, so that one
of the main difficulties of trainers themselves is to keep up-to-date in terms of the
latest developments and problems that result from new technologies.
Elements and Resources Needed for a Training Manual
The outcomes presented in this section relate to two questions in the trainers’ ques-
tionnaire: ‘What elements/components should a training manual on cyberbullying
include?’ and ‘What kind of resources would you find useful in your training activ-
ities?’ The categories that resulted from the content analysis of answers stress the
need for well-grounded theoretical information (see Table 4).
For the resources that trainers suggested should be included in the training
manual, they stressed the need for a practical orientation with regards to the
format of the manual. For example, the manual should include narratives (e.g.,
TA B LE 4
Elements Of A Training Manual: Trainers’ Questionnaire And Online Focus Group
178 Introduction to the basics of cyberbullying (47) Definitions of cyberbullying

▲
Differences to and similarities with traditional bullying

Consequences of cyberbullying
Examples
Information about training skills (36) Personal and Interpersonal skills
Communication skills
Cognitive skills
Technological pedagogic skills
Information about strategies for diagnosis Diagnostic skills
and intervention (71) Prevention/intervention strategies
Technological strategies
Strategies for victim support
Strategies for intervention in schools
Strategies for intervention with parents
Police role
Resources needed (75) Narratives
Audiovisual material: images, films, and so on
Digital multimedia resources: CDs, forums, chats, and so on
Written documentation: manuals or other literature
Newspaper article
case examples or fictional narratives), audiovisual material (e.g., images, films),

digital multimedia resources (e.g., CDs), or articles from newspapers, or online
journals.
The content analysis also revealed a broad interest in information on different
training skills as well as information about strategies for diagnosis and interven-
tion. However, as the trainers’ suggestions were not specific to the cyberbullying
problem we will not present them in detail here.
Conclusions
The main aim of the experts’ and trainers’ questionnaires and the discussions in
both online focus groups was to gather information that contributes to the devel-
opment of a training manual that meets trainers’ needs and reflects the current
state of cyberbullying research. The two studies presented in this article, among
others, revealed the trainers’ need for well-grounded information on ICT, basic
information on cyberbullying, and approaches for tackling cyberbullying, as well
as training skills that are needed for dealing with the cyberbullying problem.
Although the outcomes of the studies were not surprising, they gave valuable hints
in terms of the style of a training manual preferred by trainers, as well as the
resources needed. Moreover, the outcomes of the experts’ questionnaires and
online discussion were helpful in clarifying the framework and scope of approaches
for tackling cyberbullying. In the project’s second phase, the main outcomes were
considered when developing the training manual.
Apart from these findings that were of practical use for the CyberTraining
project, the two studies also brought up some results that are of interest both for
cyberbullying research and the rather practical-oriented work — for example,
when providing training. Both studies revealed that cyberbullying is a phenomenon
that blurs the boundaries of formerly separated fields: traditional school bullying
on the one side and ICT and internet safety on the other side. The development of
resources, training, projects and campaigns that tackle cyberbullying makes multi-
179
▲
disciplinary cooperation an imperative. Neither approaches that focus on the bully-

ing related aspects, nor approaches focusing merely on the ICT-related aspects will
do. When dealing with cyberbullying or ICT in general, one also has to be aware of
the digital gap between generations. Adults very often lack awareness and under-
standing of the world that young people are living in and they have clearly differ-
ent concepts of reality and social life. As for many adults, this lack of
understanding often goes along with a lack of confidence when dealing with ICT.
This may need to be considered when designing resources or campaigns. As one
participant of the experts’ online focus group suggested, it can be helpful to point
out that ‘cyberbullying isn’t just about technology … but fundamentally about
behavioural and pastoral issues — areas where most schools and educators have
comprehensive frameworks already in place’. Finally, the controversy between
experts on restrictive and punitive approaches made clear that this issue needs a
clarification in the light of research findings on cyberbullying.

▲

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the ‘Leonardo da Vinci’/Lifelong Learning Programme
of the European Commission for co-funding the CyberTraining project. We also
wish to thank the partners of the CyberTraining project as well as the experts and
trainers who participated at the online questionings and the online focus groups.
Endnotes
1 The development of the training manual was part of the EU-funded project CyberTraining
(http://www.cybertraining-project.org/)
2 http://www.cybertraining-project.org
3 The detailed figures are available online in the report ‘Experts’ Questioning and Online
Focus Group — Outcomes and Implications’ (Jäger, 2009).
4 The detailed findings are available online in the report ‘Trainers’ Needs Analysis —
Outcomes and Conclusions’ (Amado, Matos, & Pessoa, 2009) that is available online.
References
Amado, J., Matos, A., & Pessoa, T. (2009). Trainers’ needs analysis — Outcomes and conclu-
sions. Retrieved from http://www.cybertraining-project.org/reports/CyberTraining%20-
%20Trainers%20Needs%20Analysis%20-%20Outcomes%20and%20Conclusions.doc
Eurostat. (2010). Information society statistics. Retrieved from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.
eu/portal/page/portal/information_society/data/main_tables
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying:
Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Journal of Psychology, 217(4),
205–213.
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B.A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus.
Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8. Retrieved from http://pare-
online.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n = 10
Jäger, T. (2009). Experts’ questioning and online focus group — Outcomes and implications.
Retrieved from http://www.cybertraining-project.org/reports/CyberTraining%
180 20Online%20Focus%20Group%20-%20Outcomes%20and%20Implications.doc
▲
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related
to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 1–29.
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interactions
between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103–121.
Kowalski, R., Limber, S., & Agaston, P. (2008). Cyber Bullying. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Linstone, H.A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and applications.
London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). EU Kids Online: Final Report. Retrieved from
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/EUKidsOnline/Reports/EUKidsOnlineFinalReport.pdf
Microsoft. (2009). Microsoft’s European Online Safety Survey. Retrieved from http://www.
microsoft.com/emea/presscentre/pressreleases/OnlinebullyingPR_100209.mspx
Rezabek, R. (2000). Online focus groups: Electronic discussions for research. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1). Retrieved from
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-00/1-00rezabek-e.htm
Smith, P. (in press). Cyberbullying: the European perspective. In J. Mora-Merchan & T.

Jäger (Eds.), Cyberbullying: A cross-national comparison. Landau, Germany: Verlag
Emprische Padagogik.
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, C., & Tippett, N. (2006). An investigation into cyber-
bullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender
in cyberbullying. A Report to the Anti-Bullying Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RBX03-06.pdf
Cyberbullying, its forms and impact on secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.
Scandanavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.
Willard, N. (2005). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Retrieved from
http://new.csriu.org/cyberbully/docs/cbcteducator.pdf
Willard, N. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Effectively managing internet use risks
in schools. Retrieved from http://www.cyberbully.org/onlinedocs/cbct.pdf
181
▲

▲

Cyberbullying at School:
Good Practice and Legal
Aspects in the United Kingdom
Magdalena Marczak1 and Iain Coyne2
1 Institute of Work, Health & Organisations, Nottingham University, St Andrews Healthcare, United Kingdom
2 Institute of Work, Health & Organisations, Nottingham University, Nottingham University, United Kingdom
C
yberbullying at school has emerged as a new, electronic form of bullying and
harassment and is recognised as a growing problem all over the
world. The ability to use cyberspace to bully others means that
harassment, rumours and intimidation can reach a much wider audi-
ence. Although research has not as yet explored fully the conse-
quences of either cyber-victimisation or cyberbullying, it would
appear that they may be detrimental to the health of young people,
suggesting the need for policies and interventions, which some
European countries (e.g., Germany, Luxemburg, Belgium and the
United Kingdom) have attempted to undertake. Currently, however,
only the United States has implemented specific laws that treat
cyberbullying as a criminal offence per se. After briefly considering
the literature on cyberbullying this article will focus on the legal, reg-
ulatory and good practice frameworks for controlling cyberbullying
in UK educational contexts.
■ KEYWORDS: traditional bullying, cyberbullying, online harassment, law
Cyberbullying is defined as ‘an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or

182
▲
individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a
victim who cannot easily defend him- or herself’ (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376). To date,
cyberbullying has received significant media attention as certain cases have resulted
in civil and criminal law suits filed against a perpetrator and/ or a school. Currently
in the United Kingdom there is no specific law against cyberbullying per se; however,
a number of other civil and criminal laws may be applied to a cyberbullying context.
This article thus highlights the legal aspects of the issue of cyberbullying relevant to
the United Kingdom, and discusses potential problems with such an approach. It also
discusses current good practices to prevent cyberbullying.
Address for Correspondence: Magdalena Marczak, 16 Framefield Drive, Solihull, B91 2SR, UK. E-mail:
lwxmim@nottingham.ac.uk
▲

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 182–193
Cyberbullying at School
Cyberbullying as a New Form of Bullying

The phenomenon of cyberbullying has emerged more recently with the increasing
use of computers and mobile phone usage by young people (Ybarra & Mitchell,
2004a, 2004b; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Smith et al., 2008; Sourander, et al.,
2010). However, like many emerging areas there is currently a lack of agreement
on the definition and the behaviours underlying it (Rivers & Noret, 2010).
Research suggests that a number of factors unique to the online environment may
promote bullying behaviour (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b; Patchin &
Hinduja, 2006; Slonje & Smith, 2008), with anonymity often being identified as
the main factor. Anonymity allows the perpetrator to become ‘invisible’, reducing
the risk of being caught (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006) and creates an environment
that makes it more difficult to be aware of the impact of one’s actions on the victim
(Slonje & Smith, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b). Moreover, it has been
found that the cyber-bully is more skilled than their victim in using technology and
that the victim can be faced with the offending behaviour at any time anywhere in
the world (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Slonje &
Smith, 2008).
Internet surveys of youths in the United States have shown prevalence rates of
12% being aggressive to someone online, 4% being targets of aggression and 3%
being both aggressors and targets (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a). Raskauskas and
Stoltz (2007) surveyed students in the United States aged 13–18 years, of whom
49% were cyber-victims and 21% were cyberbullies. Many cyber-victims were also
traditional victims, and most cyberbullies were also traditional bullies. Among
surveys in other countries, 14% of an Australian sample (Campbell, 2005), 25% of
a Canadian sample (Li, 2006) and 12% of a Swedish sample (Slonje & Smith,
2008) reported being a target of cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying research in the United Kingdom has recently been described as
being ‘at an early stage’ (Smith et al., 2008, p. 376). In the United Kingdom,
studies of school-aged children have reported victimisation rates of: 4% for nasty
text messages and 2% for nasty email messages (Oliver & Candappa, 2003);
14% by text message, 5% through chat rooms, and 4% by email (NCH, 2005).
Rivers and Noret (2010) surveyed 11,000 English pupils from 2002 to 2005; 183
▲
nearly 6% said they had received nasty or threatening text messages or emails
‘once in a while’ or more in 2002 and 2003, but this rose to 7% or more in 2004
and 2005.
Although research has not as yet fully explored the consequences of cyberbully-
ing, it would appear that these may be detrimental to the health of young people
(Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Emerging research has indicated cyberbullying is
associated with a number of psychiatric and psychosomatic problems, including
perceived difficulties, emotional and peer problems, headache, recurrent abdominal
pain, sleeping difficulties, not feeling safe at school, hyperactivity, low prosocial
behaviour, frequent smoking, drunkenness (Sourander et al., 2010) and conduct
problems (Gradinger, Strohmeier & Spiel, 2009). Adjustment problems of cyber-
bullies, cyber-victims and cyber-bully/victims have also been reported in a number
of studies (Gradinger et al., 2009; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Kowalski et al., 2008;
Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b). As is evident from

▲

these consequences, new interventions, as well as drawing upon past experiences

and knowledge of traditional bullying, are required. The use of legal frameworks
to address cyberbullying, however, is but one way of approaching this new form of
bullying behaviour.
Interventions Against Cyberbullying

As cyberbullying is a relatively new phenomenon there is still little known about
the causes and outcomes of the behaviour. This lack of knowledge makes it diffi-
cult to develop appropriate interventions aimed at this behaviour (Dooley, Pyzalski,
& Cross, 2009). To date, however, it has been recognised that one of the best ways
to deal with cyberbullying is to prevent it happening in the first place (Byron,
2008; Erwin-Jones, 2008). Although there is no single solution to the problem of
cyberbullying, the following five key areas have been suggested (Byron, 2008;
Erwin-Jones, 2008), which schools need to address together to put in place a com-
prehensive and effective prevention plan. These draw upon intervention
approaches previously used for traditional bullying, such as whole school
approaches and individual skills approaches, but take into account, the technologi-
cal environment:
1. Understanding and talking about cyberbullying: the whole school commu-
nity needs to be aware of the impact of cyberbullying and the ways in which
it differs from other forms of bullying. Young people and their parents
should be made aware of pupils’ responsibilities in their use of ICT, and
what the sanctions are for misuse.
2. Updating existing policies and practices: review and update the school’s anti-
bullying policy plus other relevant policies — for example, policies on
behaviour, pastoral care and e-learning strategies. Schools should keep good
records of any incidents of cyberbullying and be able to conduct searches of
internet use records at school. Knowing that the school is taking such steps
184 may act as a disincentive for bullies to misuse school equipment and
▲
systems.
3. Making reporting of cyberbullying easier: schools should provide and publi-
cise different ways of reporting cyberbullying, such as a student council task-
force, peer reporting, anonymous reporting, and provide information about
contacting service providers directly.
4. Promoting the positive use of technology: it should be used to support
engaging, positive and effective learning, and to realise and increase the
potential of personalised learning by making learning more flexible, creative
and accessible. Schools should promote and discuss ‘netiquette’, e-safety and
digital literacy.
5. Evaluating the impact of prevention activities: schools should review the
existing anti-bullying policies regularly.
Good Practice in Reducing Cyberbullying

As well as these, there are examples of broader best practice (on the Internet)
which can help with cyberbullying. These focus on prevention by providing infor-
mation and support on being safe online. A diverse range of UK organisations
provide information to the public about child internet safety. Some key examples of
websites providing information to parents/ guardians and educators on cyberbully-
ing and its prevention include:
• ThinkUKnow: an extensive education programme created by the Child
Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) and currently aimed at
all school age groups from 11–16 years. Supported by the Department for
Education (formerly the Department for Children, Schools and Families) and
Becta (the Government’s educational technology agency), the programme
provides advice and safety information on a range of technology issues,
including gaming and cyberbullying (http:// www.thinkuknow.co.uk/).
• Know IT All: a set of award winning resources developed by children’s inter-
net charity Childnet International containing advice on the safe and positive
use of the internet. It has been developed with the support of the Training
and Development Agency for Schools (TDA), Becta and Microsoft. Primarily
in CD-ROM format, for parents, teachers, trainees and volunteers, it con-
tains information about positive ways young people can use new technolo-
gies, what the risks are, and practical advice in avoiding or minimising risks.
http://www.childnet-int.org/kia/.
• The DirectGov information network — this is the Government’s online
network of sites for communicating with the public. Direct.gov.uk itself
features material on e-safety for young people as does DirectGov Kids (for
younger children) and need2know.co.uk. Information for parents on online
safety is available from http://www.parentscentre.gov.uk.
• Industry resources: a huge range of companies from across the internet chain
produce their own valuable resources as well as distributing resources from
organisations like Childnet. Internet Service Providers, mobile phone net- 185
▲
works and computer retailers routinely provide information in the form of

leaflets and CD-ROMs when families purchase a new product or service.
Content hosts such as social networking sites frequently provide pages
giving safety information and sometimes even integrate this information so
that users are shown a safety message when undertaking certain actions
(e.g., entering personal information or uploading a picture). These technolo-
gies may include reporting abuse, restricting access to age-appropriate
content, reviewing for illegal or inappropriate content, parental control soft-
ware and educational resources.
Websites that specifically target children and young people have also been set up
that aim to educate them about online safety. They include:
• http://www.childnet-int.org: this website gives general safety advice for
parents, young people and teachers as well as more specific advice on key

▲

issues in its fact sheets and targets three main areas: Access, Awareness, and
Protection & Policy.
• http://www.beatbullying.org: CyberMentors is the latest project by
Beatbullying designed to meet this need. CyberMentors.org.uk is a new
service for the digital age: a traditional mentoring system delivered via
a social networking site. Young people, aged 11-25, are trained as
CyberMentors, in schools and online, so that they can offer support to their
peers. The CyberMentors themselves — many of whom have been bullied in
the past – are able to use their own life experiences to help others and
improve their ‘soft skills’ while doing so.
• http://www.missdorothy.com: the Missdorothy.com website and the
Learning programme are endorsed by the government, leading safety agen-
cies and the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund (UK). It is currently being
taught in many schools around the United Kingdom and more are being
encouraged to use it. By teaching youngsters how to manage risk and assist
their decision making in situations of potential danger the Missdorothy.com
website aims to empower them for their future.
• http://www.websafecrackerz.com: WebSafe Crackerz is a ‘spoof world’
providing genuine safety information throughout all the linked sites. It
consists of a game as it is based within a fictional story about ‘gladhanders’,
liars, stalkers, bullies, security bouncers, detectives, fake spam and mobile
phone companies and a big boss (the Baron), who runs the whole show.
Sponsors and partners of this UK program include MSN, the Home Office,
the Cyber Research Unit, Childnet International and ChildLine.
It is not enough, however, to implement any initiative, as understanding the effective-

ness of intervention programs addressing cyberbullying is extremely important for
well-informed decision making by policy-makers and for further development of
appropriate interventions aimed at this behaviour (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009).
As with traditional bullying approaches, it is hoped that with intervention pro-
grams addressing the problem of cyberbullying an increase in students’ awareness
186
▲
of cyber-safety issues and their intended outcome of reducing cyberbullying behav-

iour can be achieved. It is likely that current bullying interventions adopted by
schools may play a role, but they may need to be revised in order to account for
this new form of bullying. Some of these are discussed below.
Interventions Against Traditional Bullying

Since the early 1990s several intervention programs have been developed that
aimed to prevent and reduce traditional bullying in educational settings (Newman
et al., 2000; Bonds & Stoker, 2000; Horne, Bartolomucci, & Newman-Carlson,
2003; Garrity et al., 2004; Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Swearer & Espelage, 2004).
These have covered a wide range of methods including circle time, drama or role
play, group work, peer support and education, restorative justice and support
group methods. Peer support initiatives are particularly popular in the United
Kingdom, with an estimated 62% of all schools using this method (Houlston,
Smith, & Jessel, 2009). The most widely known and extensively developed
program targeting the reduction of bullying and aggressive behaviours was devel-
oped by Olweus (Olweus, 1991, 1993, 1994), and it has been tried in a number of
countries including England, Finland, Germany, Holland, Sweden, and the United
States (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999).
In addition to the Olweus model, a number of other school-based programs
focusing specifically on dealing with bullies have been developed. These focus on
teaching about the power characteristic in bullying and the way in which
bystanders endorse bullies, by being silent or not protesting. These included the
Bully Busters program (Horne, et al., 2003; Newman et al., 2000); the Bully
Proofing program (Bonds & Stoker, 2000; Garrity et al., 2004); Target Bullying:
Ecologically Based Prevention and Intervention for Schools, (Espelage & Swearer,
2004; Swearer & Espelage, 2004); and Life Skills Training (Botvin, Mahalic, &
Grotpeter, 1998).
Other strategies focused on teaching children appropriate methods to address
conflict. The three most common prosocial approaches used were conflict resolu-
tion, peer mediation, and peaceable schools (Cueto, Bosworth, & Sailes, 1993).
While there has been a development of intervention methods, initial evaluations
of the numerous implemented interventions were not positive (e.g., Smith et al.,
2007; Smith et al., 2004). For example, Smith, et al.’s (2004) meta-analysis of
results of published and unpublished evaluations of antibullying programs from
Europe, North America and Australia, showed that the majority of these programs
produced insignificant intervention effects. However, more recently Farrington and
Ttoffi (2009) completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness
of programs designed to reduce school bullying perpetration and victimisation.
Their meta-analysis of 44 different program evaluations showed that ‘school-based
anti-bullying programs are effective in reducing bullying and victimisation (being
bullied)’ (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009, p. 6), with bullying decreasing by 20–23%
and victimisation by 17–20%.
These traditional approaches to dealing with the problem of bullying offer indi-
vidual and school-based approaches, but cyberbullying presents different chal-
187
▲
lenges, with some calling for legal solutions to be considered.
Legal Aspects
In November 1999 it became a legal requirement for all UK schools to have an
anti-bullying policy (the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, Section 61
(4) (b)). The government produced an anti-bullying pack entitled ‘Don’t Suffer in
Silence’, which placed a strong emphasis on seeking help or telling a teacher when
bullied (Department for Education and Employment, 1994, 2000). With more
resources becoming available to schools, bullying, once a taboo topic, became
more openly discussed. Schools were reported to tackle the problem more willingly,
knowing that the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) inspects whether
bullying is a problem in a school and whether the school has taken measures to
combat it (Smith et al., 2000). OFSTED also produced a report in 2003, entitled

▲

‘Bullying: effective action in secondary schools’, that contained guidance on how to

combat bullying. It highlighted the importance of involving pupils in a school’s
approach and of working with parents, the key role of the Local Education
Authority and effective approaches to staff training (OFSTED, 2003). Guidance for
schools in England states that the policy must provide a definition of bullying, pro-
cedures to follow and sanctions. However, there is wide variation in what is
included in each school’s policy (Smith et al., 2008b).
So what are the legal obligations on the UK schools? The School Standards and
Framework Act (1998) places a specific duty on state-maintained schools to
combat bullying, including ensuring that anti-bullying procedures are in place. The
Education (Independent Schools Standards) Regulations (2003) place similar obli-
gations on independent schools. A case in 2001 brought against the Isle of Wight
Council provided an objective assessment of bullying, which gave rise to the advi-
sory pack ‘Don’t Suffer in Silence’, produced by the DCSF. An action against
Enfield London Borough Council a year later established that behaviour needed to
be ‘deliberately targeted and persistent’ in order to constitute bullying. Finally, a
case against West Sussex County Council, also in 2002, reported that the duty of
care that a school duty owes pupils — to take reasonable steps to protect them
from foreseeable harm — was recognised as being applicable not only inside the
school gates, but also outside. It should be noted that this duty of care applies not
only to the school as a whole, but also to each individual teacher. The law accepts
that a teacher would have discharged this duty if they had conformed to the stan-
dards of a reasonably competent member of their profession at the relevant date.
The Education and Inspections Act (2006) contains some legal powers that
relate directly to cyberbullying. Head teachers have the power to regulate the
conduct of pupils when not on school premises or not under the control of a
member of staff, to ‘such an extent as is reasonable’. What is reasonable is defined
in the act in terms of proportionality and therefore becomes a question for the
courts. The act also provides a defence for school staff in confiscating items such as
mobile phones from pupils. A pupil can be requested to reveal a message, or
content on their phone to establish if bullying has occurred. Disciplinary measures
188 may be taken against those who refuse to comply. Providing that school’s policy
▲
specifically gives such possibility and as long as a student is reasonably suspected

of being involved in a cyberbullying incident he or she may be searched for a phone
if appropriate.
However, the legal aspects detailed above are more focused on regulations in an
educational context. The next question is: if cyberbullying continues, can it and
should it lead to a criminal conviction? Bullying and cyberbullying in the United
Kingdom is not a specific criminal offence, but there are laws that can apply to cyber-
bullying in terms of harassing, menacing and threatening communications.
Cyberbullying could be a criminal offence under a number of laws including the
Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Malicious Communications Act (1988),
Communications Act (2003) (s127), Public Order Act (1986), and the Obscene
Publications Act (1959). When cyberbullying takes the form of computer hacking
then criminal penalties under the Computer Misuse Act (1990) may apply. The
Defamation Acts (1952 and 1996) also deal with material published on the internet.
However, to date there have been no prosecutions and cyberbullying continues

not to be perceived as a criminal offence. The implementation of the Education
and Inspections Act 2006 may mean that more cases are brought as the Act gives
teachers a legal right to discipline pupils and strengthens their authority to take
firm action on bullying. This legislation also tries to send a strong message to
parents and pupils that bullying will not be tolerated, with court-imposed parent-
ing orders to compel parents of bullies to attend parenting classes or face fines of
up to £1,000.
One of the main problems with the introduction of specific laws to cover cyber-
bullying emerges from the notion that cyberspace is not a physical space owned by
anyone. The internet is a man-made device created to allow better connectivity
among people. ‘No one fully monitors or censors information entered to servers
interconnected around the world,’ (Barker, 2002, p. 85). National and political
boundaries do not exist in cyberspace and this reality has compounded the
problem of how and where jurisdiction can be established. The proponents of the
Internet state it could not be and should not be regulated because of its openness
and international nature (Netanel, 2000). Therefore, not only legally does it
become a problem to convict an individual who engages in cyberbullying across
different jurisdictions; we also have to consider whether we actually truly want reg-
ulation of the Internet. There is a fine balance here between protecting children in
cyberspace and maintaining the openness and freedom of such environments.
While in the United Kingdom, we have not currently gone down the civil or
criminal legal route to address cyberbullying; more widely, problematic internet use
has increased in both, civil and criminal legal proceedings (Recupero, 2008).
Different laws exist across countries that cover a variety of serious actions, for
example downloading child pornography or sexual solicitation of minors
(Mitchell, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2001), cyberstalking and committing technological
crimes (Recupero, 2008). As discussed, different educational regulatory frame-
works and preventative plans which cover cyberbullying have been developed.
Creating a specific criminal law for cyberbullying in the United Kingdom does,
therefore, not seem to be the way forward, especially as it may mean criminalising
immature youth who may not be aware of the potential impact of their actions
189
▲
(Campbell, Buttler & Kift, 2008). Current civil acts as well as criminal acts seem to
be appropriate to tackle serious forms of cyberbullying and the introduction of pre-
ventative methods (as with traditional bullying) may prove to be more fruitful.
Implications for Professionals

With additional civil legislation put in place and a range of internet-based pro-
grams focusing on prevention by providing information and support on being safe
online educational psychologists, counsellors, teachers and other professionals
working with young people and their parents will be better equipped to assist chil-
dren and their parents staying safe online. It is important for children to take full
advantage of the educational, social and entertainment benefits offered by the
internet communication technologies as they offer a range of opportunities that
were unavailable previously. These include opportunities for learning, communica-

▲

tion, and for skill development as well as for creativity and play. However, it is also
equally crucial to provide adults with the knowledge that will allow them protect
children from the risks posed by technology in an informed way and to provide
children with skills that will allow them to do so safely, as far as possible, without
their being exposed to harmful or inappropriate material. It is hoped that the avail-
able resources and the different educational regulatory frameworks and preventa-
tive plans which cover cyberbullying already put in place will help guide the
professionals involved with children to help them avoid becoming either a bully or
a victim of the new technology.
Conclusion
Currently in the United Kingdom cyberbullying is not a specific criminal offence.
However, prosecution could still occur as some specific cyberbullying acts could be
covered under other existing laws. A number of support services have been set up
to help teachers, parents and students face the challenges posed by new technology.
The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006, Department for Children,
Schools and Families, 2007a: 3) outlines some legal powers that relate more
directly to cyberbullying. Head teachers have the power ‘to such an extent as is
reasonable’ to regulate the conduct of pupils when they are off site. The EIA also
provides a defence for school staff in confiscating items such as mobile phones
from pupils. A range of Education Acts and government initiatives highlight the
duty of the school community to protect all its members and provide a safe,
healthy environment. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 places a spe-
cific duty on state-maintained schools to combat bullying, including ensuring that
anti-bullying procedures are in place. With the growth of cyberbullying research it
is hoped that more specific cyberbullying interventions will be developed.
There are a number of unanswered questions regarding the law and cyberbully-
ing. For example, in cyberspace, boundaries between countries are blurred — what
consequences should therefore be used for somebody who cyber-bullies another
person from a different country? Which country’s law should prevail in such case?
Is there a need to create a specific cyberbullying law or can existing laws be used?
190
▲
Do we want a cyberbullying law that may actually result in increase censorship of

the internet? Our contention is that the way forward is to focus on cyberbullying
prevention using the approaches suggested by Byron (2008) and the good practice
outlined in the websites discussed.
References
Barker, B.O. (2002). The Internet Can Improve Education. In H. Cothran (Ed.), The inter-
net: Opposing viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
Bonds, M., & Stoker, S. (2000). Bully-proofing your school: A comprehensive approach for
middle school students. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Botvin, G.J., Mihalic, S.F., & Grotpeter, J.K. (1998). Life Skills Training: Blueprints for
Violence Prevention, Book Five. Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series (D.S. Elliott,
Series Editor). Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute
of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
Byron, T. (2008). Safer children in a digital world: The report of the Byron Review. Byron
Review — Children and New Technology. Retrieved from http:// http://publications.
education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-00334-2008.pdf
Campbell, M.A. (2005). Cyber bullying: An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal
Campbell, M., Buttler, D., & Kift, S. (2008). A school’s duty to provide a safe learning envi-
ronment: Does this include cyber-bullying? Australia & New Zealand Journal of Law
& Education, 13(2), 21–32.
Caravita, S.C.S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Early adolescents’ participation in
bullying: Is ToM involved? Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(1), 138–170.
Childnet. (2007). E-safety: Evaluation of Key Stage 3 Materials for Initial Teacher
Education. Available at: http://www.childnet-int.org/kia/trainees/
Connolly, J., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Taradash, A. (2000). Dating experiences of bullies in
early adolescence. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 299 – 310.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Talamelli, L., Chauhan, P., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Knowledge, use of
and attitudes towards peer support: A 2-year follow-up to the Prince’s Trust survey.
Journal of Adolescence, 25, 453–467.
Cueto, S., Bosworth, K., & Sailes, J. (1993, April). Promoting peace: Integrating curricula
to deal with violence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education
Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
DCFS. (2007). Safe to learn: Embedding anti-bullying work in schools — cyber-bullying.
DCSF: Teachernet Publications.
DfES. (2007). Bullying: Don’t suffer in silence. An anti-bullying pack for schools. London:
HMSO.
Dooley, J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyber-bullying versus face-to-face bullying.
Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182–188.
Edith Cowan University’s Child Health Promotion Research Centre. (2010). Research
News: ECU researchers awarded national tender to evaluate cyber-bullying. Retrieved
from http://www.ecu.edu.au/news/latestnews/2010/06/ecu-staff-evaluates-cyber-
bullying-program
Erwin-Jones, S. (2008). Dealing effectively with cyber-bullying (Protecting Children Update,
May 2008). London: Optimus Education.
Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S.M. (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological
perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Farrington, D.P., & Ttoffi, M.M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and vic- 191
▲
timisation. Campbell Systematic Review, 6, 1–147.

Garrity, C., Jens, K., Porter, W., Sager, N., & Short-Camilli, C. (2004). Bully-proofing your
elementary school. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyber-bullying:
Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift fur
Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 205–213.
Hawker, D.S.J., & Boulton, M.J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimisation and
psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455.
Horne, A.M., Bartolomucci, C.L., & Newman-Carlson, D. (2003). Bully busters: A
teacher’s manual for helping bullies, victims, and bystanders, grades K-5. Champaign,
IL: Research Press.
Houlston, C., Smith, P.K., & Jessel, J. (2009) Investigating the extent and use of peer
support initiatives in English schools. Educational Psychology, 29, 325–344.
James, A. (2010). School bullying. Research briefing. Goldsmiths, University of London,
NSPCC.

▲

Jouvonen, T., & Gross, E.F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in
cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78, 496–505.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpela, A. (2000). Aggression at school
— an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23,
661–674.
Kowalski, R.M., Limber, S.P., & Agatson, P.W. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Bullying in the
digital age. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Kumpulainen K., & Räsänen E. (2000). Children involved in bullying at elementary school
age: their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in adolescence. An epidemiological
sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(12), 1567–1577.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyber-bullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School
Psychology International, 27, 157–170
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review.
Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68–99.
Mitchell, K.J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2001). Risk factors for and impact of online
sexual solicitation of youth. JAMA, 285(23), 3011–3014.
Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Marton, B. & Schneidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviours among US youth: Prevalence and association with psy-
chosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.
Netanel, N.W. (2000). Cyberspace self-governance: A skeptical view from liberal democratic
theory. California Law Review, 88, 395–498.
Newman, DA., Horne, A.M., & Bartolomucci, C.L. (2000). Bully busters: A teacher’s
manual for helping bullies, victims, and bystanders. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
NCH. (2005). Putting U in the picture: Mobile phone bullying survey 2005. Retrieved from
www.nch.org.uk
Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2003). Tackling bullying: Listening to the views of children and young
people. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of a
school-based intervention program. In D.J. Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and
treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1993) Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1994). 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., & Mihalic, S. (1999). The Bullying Prevention Program. Blueprints
for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
192 Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard. A preliminary
▲
look at cyber-bullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148–169.

Raskauskas, J. & Stoltz, A.D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying
among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564-575.
Recupero, P. R. (2008). Forensic evaluation of preoblematic internet use. Journal of
American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 36(4), 505–514.
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kinglsey.
Rigby, K., & Cox, I.K. (1996). The contributions of bullying and low self-esteem to acts of
delinquency among Australian teenagers. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(4),
609–612.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P.T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australian
school children and their implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social
Psychology, 133(1), 33-42.
Rivers, I., & Noret, N. (2010). ‘Ih8u’: Findings from a five-year study of text and e-mail
bullying. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 643–671.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Another main type of bullying?
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyber-
bullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2006). An investigation into cyber-
bullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender
in cyber-bullying (Research Brief No. RBX03-06). London: DfES.
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyber-
bullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (2000). The
nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. London: Routledge.
Smith, J.D., Ryan, W., & Cousin, J.B. (2007). Antibullying programs: A survey of evalua-
tion activities in public schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 120–134.
Smith, P.K., Smith, C., Osborn, R., & Samara, M. (2008b). A content analysis of school
anti-bullying policies: Progress and limitations. Educational Psychology Practice, 24, 1–
12.
Smith, J.D., Schneider, B.H., Smith, P.K. & Ananaiadou, K.(2004). The effectiveness of
whole school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School
Psychology Review, 33, 548–561.
Sourander, A., Klomek, A. B., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntano, T., Koskelainen, M.,
Ristkari, T., & Helenius, H. (2010). Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated With Cyber-
bullying Among Adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7), 720–728.
Swearer, S.M., & Espelage, D.L. (2004). Research on school bullying and victimisation:
What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32,
365–383.
Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004a). Online aggressors/ targets, aggressors and targets:
A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 45, 1308–1316.
Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004b). Youth engaging in online harassment: Associations
with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 319–336.
193
▲

▲

Cyber-Victimisation: The Association
Between Help-Seeking Behaviours
and Self-Reported Emotional
Symptoms in Australia and Austria
Julian J. Dooley,1 Petra Gradinger,2 Dagmar Strohmeier,2 Donna Cross,1
and Christiane Spiel2
1 Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University, Australia
2 University of Vienna, Austria
M
any young people who are bullied do not tell anyone. School staff therefore
are often unaware of which students are being victimised and when to
provide support or assistance. A critical strategy to overcome this
problem is to encourage victimised students to seek help and report
this bullying. This study aims to examine the relationship between
help-seeking behaviours and self-reported emotional symptoms in
young people from Australia (n = 5959; M age = 12.36 years, SD = 1.46
years) and Austria (n = 1530; M age = 12.68 years, SD = .84 years)
who reported being victimised (via cyber and traditional bullying). In
both countries, students who were cyber-victimised compared to those
who were victimised in more traditional methods were less likely to
seek help. Girls in both countries were significantly more likely to
seek help and endorse more emotional symptoms than boys. No rela-
tionship was found between help-seeking and emotional symptoms in
students who had been cyber-victimised. These preliminary results
have important implications for the types of strategies used to enhance
the approachability of school staff and families to provide appropriate
194 help and support for young people who are being bullied.
▲
■ KEYWORDS: cyber-victimisation, help-seeking, emotional symptoms
Bullying in schools is a universal phenomenon (Eslea, Menesini, Morita, O’Moore,

Mora-Merchan, et al., 2004). It is well established that young people who are
bullied by their peers are at significant risk for serious short- and long-term physi-
cal, social and mental health effects (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008), with internalising
problems, such as depression, anxiety and low self-esteem commonly reported
(Cross et al., 2009). Importantly, several longitudinal studies have demonstrated
Address for Correspondence: Julian Dooley, Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University,
Australia. E-mail: j.dooley@ecu.edu.au
▲

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 194–209
Cyber-Victimisation, Help-Seeking and Emotional Symptoms
the causal relationship between bullying and mental health and emotional problems
in young people who are victimised (Arsenault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2009; Gazelle &
Ladd, 2003; Goodman, Stormshak & Dishion, 2001; Hanish & Guerra, 2002).
Many intervention programs have been developed to reduce bullying behaviours
in schools and to promote a healthy outcome for those who are victimised. These
interventions have variously targeted students who are bullying others, students
being bullied, the student population in general, teachers, parents and/or other
members of the broader school community. Despite the relatively rapid prolifera-
tion of bullying prevention programs, still little is known about the most effective
components of a program, the processes that are responsible for the success (or
otherwise) of a program and the basis for success of one program over another.
Despite the limited evidence describing the positive outcomes associated with
school-based bullying intervention programs, some results are available (Farrington
& Ttofi, 2009).
Help-Seeking and Bullying Behaviours
In a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of bullying interventions, Farrington
and Ttofi (2009) reported that bullying behaviours decreased by 20–23% and vic-
timisation rates decreased by 17–20%. One of the most consistent elements of bul-
lying prevention programs (especially targeted to victimised students) relates to
strategies for students to source help. This form of help-seeking often involves for-
mally involving an adult (e.g., teacher, school counsellor) by reporting the behav-
iour (Novick & Issacs, 2010). Despite the emphasis placed on the importance of
telling, there is strong evidence that students tell teachers about bullying very infre-
quently, with more young people choosing to tell their parents than teachers
(Fekkes et al., 2005; Smith & Shu, 2000). Further, elementary school students are
more likely to tell teachers about bullying (Fekkes et al., 2005; O’Moore, Kirkham,
& Smith, 1997) than secondary school students (Smith & Shu, 2000).
There is strong evidence that the prevalence of peer-to-peer bullying is often
unreported (e.g., Smith et al., 2001), which can affect the support services that are
provided to students (Naylor et al., 2001). A variety of individual level factors have
been used to explain this poor reporting phenomenon. For example, students are
often reluctant to report being bullied for fear of reprisal (Boulton & Underwood, 195
▲
1992; Smith & Sharp, 1994) or because they lack of confidence in adults’ ability to
help (Besag, 1989; Cowie & Olafsson, 1999). More recently, Oliver and Candappa
(2007) reported that a student’s reluctance to tell may be based on either a concern
that teachers might not believe their report or a worry that teachers might reveal
their report (inadvertently or otherwise), which could lead to further victimisation.
One of the strongest predictors of help-seeking is gender, with girls significantly
more likely to report being bullied than boys (Hunter, Boyle, & Warden, 2004). In
addition, there are also several system-level factors that appear to be associated
with students’ reporting. For example, Unnever and Cornell (2004) reported that
students who perceived the school climate as tolerant of bullying were less likely to
report being bullied.
Cyberbullying and Help-Seeking
One of the challenges in addressing bullying behaviours and encouraging students
who are being bullied to seek help is the changing landscape within which bullying

▲

occurs. This changing landscape is especially apparent in relation to information

and communication technology (ICT). The significant increase in the use of ICT
(i.e., the internet and mobile phones) has resulted in significant increases in social-
ising in a virtual environment and, as a consequence, the development of different
benefits as well as risks, including cyberbullying (Dooley, Cross, Hearn, &
Treyvaud, 2009a). Cyberbullying is defined as when an individual or group use the
internet, mobile phones or other communication technology to intentionally and
sometimes repeatedly to hurt another person or group of people.
Cyberbullying shares many theoretical and conceptual similarities with non-
cyberbullying (hereafter referred to as traditional bullying; Dooley, Pyzalski, &
Cross, 2009b). Despite the similarities, the medium in which cyberbullying takes
place can present some important and unique challenges (Smith et al., 2008). For
example, cyberbullying can happen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (Willard, 2007).
Although cyberbullying research is limited due to the recency of this phenomenon,
there appears to be numerous negative consequences associated with this form of
bullying. For example, Mitchell and colleagues (2007) found that students who
were cyberbullied reported higher levels of depressive symptoms, in addition to a
range of problematic behaviours (e.g., increased alcohol consumption, a tendency
to smoke, and poor school grades). Importantly, Smith et al. (2008) reported that
students are less likely to tell someone when they are cyberbullied compared to
other forms of non-cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying Versus Traditional Bullying
One of the most important issues to emerge in the research literature to date relates
to the high correlation between cyber- and traditional bullying behaviour. Cross
and colleagues (2009) found that over 80% of young Australians who reported
being cyberbullied also reported being traditionally bullied; findings which were
also reported in Austrian youth (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009, in press).
Consistently, Twyman, Saylor, Taylor, and Comeaux (2010) reported that almost
two-thirds of those students who were cyberbullied or cyberbullied others were
also students who were traditionally bullied or traditionally bullied others. Recent
evidence also suggests that the relationship between cyber- and traditional bullying
196 is not straightforward. For example, Twyman et al. demonstrated that cyber-vic-
▲
timisation was associated with an increased likelihood of traditional victimisation.

Furthermore, Perren and colleagues found that students who were cyber-victimised
reported significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms, independent of their
involvement in traditional bullying/victimisation (Perren, Dooley, Shaw, & Cross,
in press).
One of the major challenges associated with cyberbullying is the dynamic envi-
ronment within which these behaviours occur (Dooley et al., 2009b). The lack of
familiarity with this virtual environment that many adults report results in a
‘digital divide’. This divide limits the provision of support by adults to young
people who are being victimised, as adults’ inexperience in this environment means
they are often unaware of how to provide help and support. Consistently, Novick
and Issacs (2010) reported that the relation between being told about bullying and
showing students how to manage bullying was most evident when teachers felt
highly prepared to handle bullying situations. Therefore, the more confident and
competent school staff and parents feel, the better able they are to support students
to deal with cyber- and traditional bullying behaviours. Given this difficulty, some
suggest the Internet might provide a useful means to encourage young people who
are victimised to seek help (Yablon, 2008).
Culture and Bullying Behaviours
To date, few studies have investigated the role of culture in relation to bullying
behaviours (see Molcho et al., 2009, and Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, &
Ruan, 2004 for important cross-cultural studies). In one of the few studies to date,
Eslea and colleagues (2004) reported that students who are bullied in traditional
ways were significantly more disadvantaged on all measures (e.g., mental health,
friendships) across seven countries, whereas students who bullied others did not
differ consistently, suggesting that culture plays a role in the outcomes associated
with bullying perpetration and victimisation. We were unable to identify any
studies that examined the cross-cultural context of help-seeking behaviours associ-
ated with bullying, thus the aim of this study was to examine help-seeking behav-
iours and self-reported emotional symptoms in students who reported being bullied
(via cyber and traditional means) and to examine the cultural similarities and/or
differences in these associations.
This study examined the help-seeking behaviour of students who reported being
bullied (cyber and traditional) and the relationship between victimisation and help-
seeking and its association with self-reported emotional symptoms. Given there is
no evidence to date examining cyber-victimisation, help-seeking and emotional
symptoms, the cross-sectional analyses conducted here are exploratory. We did,
however, hypothesise that students who reported being victimised (cyber- and tra-
ditional) would report more emotional symptoms, and girls would report more
help-seeking behaviours than boys. Further, we examined if:
1. gender, cyber-victimisation and traditional victimisation were associated
with emotional symptoms
197
▲
2. gender, cyber-victimisation and traditional victimisation were associated

with help-seeking
3. help-seeking behaviour was associated with emotional symptoms
4. help-seeking helps to explain the relationship between cyber-victimisation
and emotional symptoms.
Finally, we examined if the relationships above were consistent in Australian and
Austrian students.
Method
This study examined help-seeking and emotional symptoms on Australian and
Austrian students who reported being cyber-victimised.

▲

Participants
The Australian cross-sectional sample was from the Australian Covert Bullying
Prevalence Study (ACBPS), designed to determine the prevalence of covert, includ-
ing cyberbullying, behaviours in Australia (Cross et al., 2009). This study was con-
ducted in 2007–2008 by the Child Health Promotion Research Centre (CHPRC) at
Edith Cowan University. Schools were randomly selected within strata defined by
geographic location and school sector. Non-mainstream and smaller schools as well
as those already involved in intervention projects conducted by the CHPRC were
excluded. Surveys were administered by school staff within classrooms to those
students who consented to participate and for whom written parental consent was
provided. The study was approved by the Edith Cowan University Human
Research Ethics Committee.
To increase comparability between the Australian and Austrian data, only results
from ACBPS grades 5–9 (age range 10–15 years) are reported below. This sample
comprised 5959 students (Age M = 12.36, SD = 1.46) from one hundred and six
schools (55 primary, 51 secondary). The final sample was fairly evenly distributed
between year levels (Grade 5: 17%, Grade 6: 17%, Grade 7: 18%; Grade 8: 15%,
Grade 9: 14%), and by gender (52.9% female). Metropolitan schools were over-
represented in the sample (64%). Australian students’ use of technology was wide-
spread: 95% used a computer with the internet at least once monthly (57.4% daily
use) and about 63% used their own mobile phone at least once a month (45.7%
daily use).
The Austrian sample data were drawn from the national intervention evaluation
study, ViSC (Spiel & Strohmeier, under review). The sample comprised 1530 grade
5 and 6 students (727 girls, 803 boys) aged 10 to 15 (M = 12.68, SD = .84) from
16 different schools located in two federal states of Austria (Carinthia and Vienna).
Overall, 82.5% of students used the mobile phone and 70.2% of students used the
Internet, both at least once a day. Participation was voluntary and based on active
parental consent. The data were collected in May and June 2010 (about one month
before the end of the school year) using an internet-based questionnaire that was
198
▲
completed within an hour during school time in each school’s computer lab under
the supervision of one or two trained research assistants.
Measures
Assessment of Traditional Victimisation
Australian sample: Traditional victimisation (this term will be used to refer to other
forms of bullying not including cyberbullying, i.e., covert bullying, overt bullying)
was measured using 12 items that asked about participant’s experiences with non-
cyber types of bullying. These items include being teased in nasty ways, being left
out or excluded, being made to feel afraid, or having secrets/lies told about them.
Students reported how often they experienced each of these behaviours last term at
school (a period of approximately three months) on a 5-point Likert scale with
responses ranging from Never to Most days this term. Cronbach’s alpha for the tra-
ditional victimisation scale was .91.
Austrian sample: Traditional victimisation was measured with five behavioural items
(e.g., ‘How often have others insulted or hurt you by excluding you during the last
two months?’). The items covered the frequency of behaviours within the last two
months. Their response format ranged from Never to Nearly every day. Although the
response scale was structured differently than the Australian sample (0–4 versus 1–5)
the same scoring was used in the analyses to ensure equivalency between the samples.
The scales in both samples were calculated as mean scores of the items. Cronbach’s
alpha for the traditional victimisation scale was .80.
Assessment of Cyber-Victimisation
Australian sample: Cyber-victimisation was measured using eight items that asked
about participants’ experiences with cyberbullying. These items included being sent
nasty emails or nasty messages on the internet, having mean or nasty comments
posted on web sites (i.e., MySpace or Facebook), or being left out or ignored over
the internet. As with traditional victimisation, participants were asked to indicate
how often each of these behaviours occurred on a 5-point Likert scale with
responses ranging from never to most days this term. Cronbach’s alpha for the
cyber-victimisation scale was .87.
Austrian sample: Cyber-victimisation was measured using five behavioural items
which asked about experiences of being bullied via the Internet or mobile phone
(e.g., How often have you been harassed by mean text messages during the last two
months from other students?). The items covered the frequency of behaviours
within the last two months. Their response format ranged from never to nearly
every day on a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha for the cyber-victimisation
scale was .94. As above, the same scoring scale (0–4) was used in the analysis to
ensure comparability between the two samples. The scales in both samples were
calculated as mean scores of the items.
Assessment of Help-Seeking Behaviours
Australian sample: Help-seeking behaviour was measured using one item, which
asked if participants had spoken to anyone about being bullied (e.g., ‘Did you ask
for help, when you were bullied again and again lately in ways not easily seen by
others at school?’). The response format for the item ranged from No (score = 0) to 199
▲
Yes (score = 1). Participants could indicate that they were not bullied or could
refuse to answer. Only those students who were cyber-victimised and indicated that
they had sought help were asked to identify whom they asked for help (i.e., ‘Whom
did you ask for help, when you were bullied again and again lately in ways not
easily seen by others at school?’). Eight different possibilities were given: (1)
parents/guardians, (2) friends from school, (3) friends not from school, (4) teach-
ers, (5) other family members, (6) kids help line, (7) website and (8) others.
Austrian sample: Two specific forms of help-seeking behaviour were measured (i.e.,
‘Did you tell somebody that you have been harassed by mean text messages,
emails, videos or photos?’; ‘Did you ask for help, when you were harassed again
and again lately in ways not easily seen by others at school?’). The response format
for the items ranged from No (score = 0) to Yes (score = 1). Participants could indi-
cate that they were not bullied or could refuse to answer. For the help-seeking vari-
able, a sum score of the 2 help-seeking items was computed. This sum score ranged

▲

between 0 and 2, where 0 indicates No help-seeking, 1 indicates either Help-

seeking in cyber or traditional bullying and 2 indicates Help-seeking for both cyber
and traditional bullying. Only those students who were cyber-victimised and indi-
cated that they had sought help were asked about a third item that explicitly asked
whom the student asked for help (‘Whom did you ask for help, when you were
harassed again and again lately in ways not easily seen by others at school?’). The
same eight different possibilities were given as in the Australian study.
Assessment of Emotional Symptoms — Australia and Austria
Students were asked to complete the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
(SDQ; Goodman, 2001) and the Emotion subscale was used to measure emotional
symptoms. These items ask about psychosomatic symptoms (e.g., headaches), wor-
rying and depression (e.g., feeling unhappy, down-hearted or tearful). The response
format for the items ranged from Not true (score = 0), through Somewhat true
(score = 1), to Certainly true (score = 2). Cronbach’s alpha for the emotional symp-
toms scale for the Australian sample was .70 and for the Austrian sample was .86.
The scales in both samples were calculated as mean scores of the items.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations of the study variables
are presented in Tables 1 and 2. ANOVAs were used to test for the statistically sig-
nificant differences between the three groups and gender. Importantly, given the
different format between the Australian and Austrian help-seeking item, only those
students who indicated they were cyberbullied (on a global cyber-victimisation
item) were included in the analyses using the help-seeking and emotional symptoms
questions. In the Australian sample, girls reported higher rates of victimisation
(cyber or traditional) and emotional symptoms than boys. In the Austrian sample,
girls reported more emotional symptoms than boys, while boys reported more inci-
dences of cyber-victimisation than girls.
Overall, the vast majority of Australian students reported asking for help
200
▲
(85.1% asked for help whereas 14.9% did not) and there was a significant gender
difference was found between girls (89.8%) and boys (78.9%) (χ2 = 81.1, df = 1, p
< .001) with more girls asking for help than boys. In the Austrian sample the stu-
dents answered two general items regarding help-seeking behaviour. The first item
TA B LE 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations Between the Study Variables in the Australian
sample
Australian study variables Girls Boys t df P value 1. 2. 3.
1. Cyber victimisation .11 (.31) .09 (.34) -3.4 5637 .001 — .55*** .22***
2. Traditional victimisation .43 (.59) .38 (.60) -3.2 5900 .002 .48** — .35***
3. Emotional symptoms .60 (.45) .47 (.44) -11.4 5606 < .001 .14*** .31*** —
Note: ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Correlations shown above the diagonal axis are for girls, below are for boys.
TA B LE 2
Means, Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations Between the Study Variables in the Austrian
Sample
Austrian study variables Girls Boys F(1,1528) 1. 2. 3.
1. Cyber victimisation .22 (.62) .30 (.82) 4.71* — .21*** .19***

2. Traditional victimisation .54 (.65) .53 (.76) 0.06 .11** — .27***
3. Emotional symptoms .68 (.60) .54 (.62) 12.20** .17*** .18*** —
Note: ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Correlations shown above the diagonal axis are for girls, below are for boys.
covered help-seeking behaviour after being cyber-bullied. This item was answered
by 559 students (238 girls and 321 boys). Overall, 42% girls stated that they
sought help, while only 19% of boys indicated this (χ2 = 34.22, df = 1, p < .001).
The second item covered help-seeking behaviour after being bullied in a covert
way. This item was answered by 560 students (260 girls and 300 boys). Overall,
49% girls stated that they sought help, while only 34% of boys indicated this (χ2 =
12.12, df = 1, p < .001).
The Australian students who were cyber-victimised were most likely to ask
friends from school, parents or guardians for help, followed by friends outside
school, teachers, and other family members (Table 3). In Austria, parents or
guardians were asked for help most often, followed by friends from school, friends
outside school, teachers, and other family members. Kids help lines and websites
were rarely contacted by students from either country although Australian boys
who were cyber-victimised were significantly more likely than girls to seek help
from a website. No gender differences were found in the Austrian sample but sta-
tistically significant differences were found on several variables in the Australian
sample. In general, Australian girls were more likely to talk to parents/guardians,
friends from school, friends not from school or other family members. In contrast,
Australian boys were more likely to talk to teachers than were girls.
Testing the Hypothesised Model
The associations between gender, cyber-victimisation, traditional victimisation, 201
▲
help-seeking behaviour, and emotional symptoms were examined with a concurrent

structural equation model. The modelling was done using Mplus 5.0 (Muthen &
Muthen, 2007). Maximum likelihood estimation using the MLR estimator of
Mplus were used to provide a standard error and test statistics that are robust to
non-normality of the data and to non-independence of observations. Three criteria
were used in evaluating the model fit: the chi-square (χ²) test, the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and the root mean squared error of approximation
(RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). Nonsignificant chi-square values indicate good model fit.
However, because the chi-square statistic is sensitive to sample size, CFI and
RMSEA were also used. CFI ranges from 0 to 1.00, where a value above 0.95 indi-
cates good fit and a value above 0.90 indicates adequate fit. RMSEA ranges from 0
to ∞, where a value below 0.05 indicates good fit and a value below 0.08 indicates
adequate fit. For clarity the models for the Australian and Austrian samples are
presented separately and then discussed.

▲

TA B LE 3
Where Students Seek Help
Australian girls Austrian boys P value Australian girls Austrian boys P value
(N = 1800) (N = 1189) (N = 127) (N = 103)
Parents/guardian 1059 (58.8%) 603 (50.7%) < .001 63 (50%) 51 (50%) NS

Friends from school 1374 (76.3%) 811 (68.2%) < .001 59 (46%) 49 (48%) NS
Friends not from school 505 (28.1%) 284 (23.9%) .011 34 (27%) 32 (31%) NS
Teachers 724 (40.2%) 534 (44.9%) .011 30 (24%) 33 (32%) NS
Other family members 623 (34.6%) 367 (30.9%) .033 18 (14%) 14 (14%) NS
Kids help line 69 (3.8%) 59 (5.0%) .136 4 (3%) 2 (2%) NS
Website 48 (2.7%) 52 (4.4%) .011 3 (2%) 7 (7%) NS
Other 90 (5.0%) 56 (4.7%) .719 22 (17%) 15 (15%) NS
Note: Multiple answers were possible.
Measurement Model
Australian sample: In the first step, a two latent factors model for victimisation was
constructed. The latent factor ‘cyber-victimisation’ was built using the eight cyber-
victimisation items. The latent factor ‘traditional victimisation’ was used for the 12
traditional victimisation items. The two latent factors were allowed to correlate.
The model fit was good CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.068 (χ2 was not used due to an
extremely large sample size). In a second step, a latent factor model for emotional
symptoms was created using five emotional items. This model fit was also good, CFI
= 0.98, RMSEA = 0.059 (χ2 was not used due to an extremely large sample size).
Austrian sample: In the first step, a two latent factors model for victimisation was
constructed. The latent factor ‘cyber-victimisation’ was built using the five cyber-
victimisation items. The latent factor ‘traditional victimisation’ was used for the
five traditional victimisation items. The two latent factors were allowed to corre-
late. The model fit was excellent, χ2(33) = 155.92, p < .01, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA
0.05. In a second step, a latent factor model for emotional symptoms was created
using the five emotional symptoms items. This model fit was not satisfactory, χ2(5)
202
▲
= 61.75, p < .001, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA 0.09. The modification indices suggested to
correlate the residuals of the item ‘I have many fears, I am easily scared’ with all
other four items. Therefore, we decided to delete this item. The four item model fit
was excellent, χ2(2) = 4.99, p = 0.08, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA 0.03.
Structural Model
Australian sample: In the second step, we constructed the initial, hypothesized
model (Figure 1). The model had an adequate fit, CFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.039 (χ2
was not used due to an extremely large sample size) and it explained 20% of vari-
ance in emotional symptoms (R2 = .20). Statistically significant paths (standardised
coefficients) are shown in Figure 1. Being a girl was positively related to being
cyber-victimised, being traditionally victimised, reporting emotional symptoms and
with seeking help. Of interest, in the Australian sample, cyber-victimisation was
not related to emotional symptoms but traditional victimisation was. In addition,
traditional victimisation was related to help-seeking behaviour whereas cyber-
FIGURE 1
The final Australian model displays standardised coefficients for predicting the direct and indirect effects of
gender, cyber-victimisation, traditional victimisation, and help seeking on emotional symptoms.
victimisation was not. Cyber-victimisation was not related to help-seeking behav-

iour, and, contrary to our expectations, help-seeking behaviour was not related to
emotional symptoms.
Austrian sample: In the second step, we constructed the initial, hypothesized model
(Figure 2). The model had an excellent fit, χ2(96) = 520.37, p < .01, CFI = 0.96,
RMSEA = 0.05 and it explained 11% of variance in emotional symptoms (R2 =
203
▲
.11). Statistically significant paths (standardized coefficients) are shown in Figure

2. Being a boy was positively related to being cyber-victimised, while being a girl
was positively related to reporting emotional symptoms and strongly positively
related with help-seeking behaviour. As predicted, both cyber-victimisation and tra-
ditional victimisation were associated with emotional symptoms and traditional
victimisation was related with help-seeking behaviour. Contrary to our expecta-
tion, cyber-victimisation was not related with help-seeking behaviour, and help-
seeking behaviour was not related with emotional symptoms.
Testing indirect effects. With Mplus (Muthen & Muthen, 2007) total indirect, spe-
cific indirect and total effects were specified. Total effects included all indirect
effects and the direct effect. In sum, five specific indirect effects were estimated.
The hypothesized model suggests that help-seeking behaviour would help to
explain the associations between gender and emotional symptoms, cyber-victimisa-
tion and emotional symptoms, and traditional victimisation and emotional symp-

▲

FIGURE 2
The final Austrian model displays standardised coefficients for predicting the direct and indirect effects of
gender, cyber-victimisation, traditional victimisation, and help seeking on emotional symptoms.
toms. No evidence was found for indirect effects in either sample. Furthermore, the
hypothesised model suggests that cyber-victimisation and traditional victimisation
would help to explain the association between gender and emotional symptoms.
Indeed, a very small specific indirect effect was found for cyber-victimisation in the
Austrian sample (b = 0.01, p = .04). To summarise, help-seeking behaviour was
neither directly nor indirectly associated with emotional symptoms.
204
▲
Discussion
This study examined help-seeking and self-reported emotional symptoms in 10- to
15-year-old students who were bullied via cyber and traditional methods. Seeking
help (by reporting to someone) when being bullied is not a common behaviour,
especially with males (Hunter et al., 2004). However, if incidences of bullying are
under- or unreported, then schools (in addition to teachers and parents) appear
unable to provide the necessary assistance and support. The challenge for school
staff (and parents) is to create an environment (virtual or otherwise) that encour-
ages help-seeking and the reporting of bullying behaviours. Therefore, we were
interested to examine the phenomenon of help-seeking in relation to bullying expe-
riences and the association with self-reported emotional symptoms in young stu-
dents from two countries.
Importantly, a statistically significant positive relationship between victimisation

(cyber or traditional) and self-reported emotional symptoms was found in both
Australia and Austria. Students from Australia and Austria who were victimised
were more likely to report more emotional symptoms. This is consistent with the
research evidence demonstrating negative mental health outcomes associated with
bullying (cyber or traditional) victimisation (e.g., Cross et al., 2009; Ttofi &
Farrington, 2008). Furthermore, several additional noteworthy results were found
in this study. The first of these relates to the lack of a relationship between help-
seeking and cyber-victimisation, but the presence of one between help-seeking and
traditional victimisation — a pattern observed in both countries. This finding is
consistent with Smith et al. (2008) who found that students reported telling
someone less often when being cyberbullied compared to traditional bullying. That
this relationship is demonstrated in Australia, Austria and in the United Kingdom
(by Smith et al.) provides good evidence that young people who are being cyber-
bullied appear less inclined to talk about this bullying than students who are tradi-
tionally bullied. However, the limited research evidence to date makes it difficult to
interpret these findings or to determine what characteristics of cyberbullying may
underlie this relationship. It may be that many young people who are being cyber-
victimised are more reluctant to seek help from the available channels. Cross and
colleagues reported that many young people don’t tell adults they are being cyber-
bullied largely for fear of losing their access to technology (CHPRC, 2008). This
tendency to seek help for traditional bullying versus cyberbullying could also be
more normative and relate to the extent, nature and/or duration of traditional inci-
dences. It may also be related to school reporting methods that are more oriented
toward traditional versus cyberbullying behaviours. Further, as cyberbullying is
more likely to happen at home (Cross et al., 2009), it may be that young people
feel it is less of a concern for teachers and they may feel more comfortable speaking
to peers or parents. Nonetheless, we can only hypothesise what this finding means.
However, most importantly, it strongly indicates that more investigation is neces-
sary to fully understand why young people appear more reluctant to report inci-
dences of cyberbullying compared to traditional bullying.
Still much remains to be understood about the differential effect of various
cyberbullying behaviours and how these relate to traditional behaviours. Smith and 205
▲
colleagues found that some cyberbullying behaviours (e.g., using pictures or videos)
would be considered more harmful than traditional behaviours whereas others
(e.g., via mobile phone text message) may not be viewed as being as harmful as tra-
ditional bullying (Smith et al., 2008). Therefore, it may be that the majority of the
cyberbullying behaviours experienced by the students in this study were less
harmful relative to the traditional behaviours. If it is the case that most of the
cyberbullying behaviours experienced were relatively mild (relative to other bully-
ing behaviours), then it may also be the case that help was not sought as those vic-
timised may have had the skills to deal with these behaviours themselves.
Hunter et al. (2004) reported that students were more likely to report if they felt
that something could be achieved by telling someone. Being cyberbullied in addi-
tion to being bullied by more traditional methods may result in students feeling
more helpless (i.e., there is no easy solution or that the situation can’t be fixed),
thus making it less likely that they will report. This could result in higher levels of

▲

mental health symptoms compared to what would typically be observed in tradi-

tional victimisation incidences (Perren et al., under review).
An additional issue is that not all assistance and support that adults provide may
be useful. Cross et al. (2009) reported that nearly 46% of young people who
reported being bullied (covert bullying including cyber) indicated that things either
got worse or there was no improvement in the situation when it was reported to an
adult. The authors suggested this may be based on a lack of skills among adults
about how to deal with bullying (cyber in particular). This lack of skills could
explain why students from both countries were not inclined to seek help when
cyber-victimised but were willing when victimised by more traditional methods. As
noted, these results are consistent with Smith et al. (2008) who found that students
who were cyberbullied were less likely to seek help than students traditionally
bullied. It is important to highlight that this could be based on the system of
reporting available to students. For example, it may be that, if students are tradi-
tionally bullied first, there is no need to report the cyberbullying episodes sepa-
rately. Clearly, further investigation is warranted.
As predicted, gender was associated with help-seeking and emotional symptoms,
with girls from both countries significantly more likely than boys to seek help and
to report emotional symptoms when bullied. This is consistent with evidence
describing help-seeking behaviours (e.g., Hunter et al., 2004) and suggests that
boys are more disinclined to report being bullied. Of interest for policy and prac-
tice, boys in the Australian sample were significantly more likely than girls to talk
to a teacher or to visit a website to seek help. Hence, online reporting at schools
may hold great value for boys in particular (e.g., using a blend of website and
teacher reporting options). Although the percentages of young people who
reported calling a help phone line or visiting a website were small (in both coun-
tries), there may be some potential benefit to providing boys (and girls) with a safe
avenue to report, when the young person being victimised feels comfortable. Given
the severe nature of some bullying incidences, immediacy of awareness of the bully-
ing may be important. Thus, schools providing the option of reporting online may
assist with this. Although it is not yet clear if the internet holds the same level of
positive benefit in relation to help-seeking as was suggested by Yablon (2008), it is
206
▲
important to ensure that young people who are being victimised have a variety of
strategies that encourage and enable them to report or seek help.
Strengths and Limitations
There are several strengths to this study. First, it is the only study (that we are aware
of) to examine the relationship between different forms of victimisation (cyber and
traditional) and help-seeking behaviours and the relationship to self-reported emo-
tional symptoms. The emergence of cyberbullying and cyber-victimisation has
created a significant amount of concern for teachers, school psychologists, counsel-
lors, pastoral care teams and parents. Of concern is school staff reporting a lack of
awareness of these behaviours occurring. Although many students in this sample
reported seeking help, we did not find a relationship between help-seeking and
self-reported emotional symptoms in students who were cyber-victimised. The cross-
cultural consistency of this result adds weight to the importance of providing clear
avenues that encourage and enable students to report all forms of bullying.
Furthermore, although there were some minor differences in item wording, the key
outcome variables (help-seeking and emotional symptoms) were identically worded.
Overall, there were some limitations with this study. For example, some items that
assessed victimisation (cyber and traditional) were worded differently between the
two countries. Nevertheless, this difference was largely due to the need to ensure the
items best reflected the cultural background of participants to maximise understand-
ing. Another important limitation relates to the way in which the help-seeking ques-
tions were formatted. Although the wording was identical, the fact that the
Australian students could answer this question even though they may not have been
bullied (i.e., if they misunderstood the nature of the question) may have resulted in
an over estimation of the number of students who asked for help. We attempted to
account for this by only selecting those participants who indicated they were cyber-
bullied on a global measure of victimisation. Nonetheless, although we suggest that
these data be interpreted with caution, the consistency with the data collected from
Austria and, as noted, UK students (by Smith et al., 2008) is notable.
Other limitations concern the nature of the data collected. First, all measures
were self-reports. Second, as with all cross-sectional studies the causal direction of
the relationships cannot be determined, and thus our focus is on associations
between the variables involved.
Conclusion
The accurate identification of young people who are being bullied relies, in part, on
these behaviours being reported. Without awareness of the prevalence, types and
extent of bullying behaviours, adults (especially school staff and parents) are less
able to provide support. This is even more the case with less obvious forms of bul-
lying, such as cyberbullying. The results of this study suggest that young people
in Australia and Austria who reported being cyber-victimised indicated they were
less likely to seek help. This lack of help-seeking/reporting is a major concern to
schools and parents and requires the development of strategies to ensure that
young people who are being victimised receive the help and support they need.
References 207
▲
Arsenault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2009). Bullying victimization in youths and mental
health problems: ‘Much ado about nothing’? Psychological Medicine, 29, 1–13.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107(2), 238–246.
Besag, V.E. (1989). Bullies and victims in schools: A guide to understanding and manage-
ment. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Boulton, M.J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bullying/victim problems among middle school
children, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73–87.
Child Health Promotion Research Centre. (2008). Cyber Friendly Student Summit. Perth,
Australia: Author.
Cowie, H., & Olafsson, R. (1999). The role of peer support against bullying. School
Psychology International, 20, 96–105.
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., et al. (2009). Australian
Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS). Perth, Australia: Child Health Promotion
Research Centre, Edith Cowan University.

▲

Dooley, J.J., Cross, D., Hearn, L., & Treyvaud, R. (2009a). A review of the Australian and
international cyber-safety literature (A report prepared for the Department of
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, p. 276). Perth, Australia: Edith
Cowan University.
Dooley, J.J., Pyzalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009b). Cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying:
Similarities and differences. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4),
182–188.
Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Morita, Y., O’Moore, M., Mora-Merchan, J.A., Pereira, B. et al.
(2004). Friendship and loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven coun-
tries. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 71-83.
Farrington, D.P., & Ttofi, M.M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and vic-
timization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, doi: 10.4073/csr.2009.6
Fekkes, M.F., Pijpers, I.M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what,
when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior.
Health Education Research, 20(1), 81–91.
Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G.W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis-stress
model of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74, 257–278.
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Question-
naire (SDQ). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40,
1337–1345.
Goodman, M.R., Stormshak, E.A., & Dishion, T.J. (2001). The significance of peer victim-
ization at two points in development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
22, 507–526.
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying:
Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems. Zeitschrift für Psychologie /
Journal of Psychology, 217, 205–213.
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D. & Spiel, C. (in press). Motives for bullying others in cyber-
space: A study on bullies and bully-victims in Austria. In Q. Li, D. Cross & P. Smith
(Eds.), Bullying in the global village: Research on cyberbullying from an international
perspective.
Hanish, L.D. & Guerra, N.G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment fol-
lowing peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69–89.
Hunter, S.C., Boyle, J.M.E., & Warden, D. (2004). Help seeking amongst child and adoles-
cent victims of peer-aggression and bullying: The influence of school-stage, gender, vic-
timisation, appraisal, and emotion. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
208
▲
375–390.
MacLeod, M., & Morris, S. (1996). Why me? Children talking to ChildLine about bullying.
London: ChildLine.
Mitchell, K.J., Ybarra, M., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). The relative importance of online vic-
timization in understanding depression, delinquency, and substance use. Child
Maltreatment, 12, 314–324.
Molcho, M., Craig, W., Due, P., Pickett, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., & Overpeck, M. (2009). Cross-
national time trends in bullying behaviour 1994–2006: Findings from Europe and
North America. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 225–234.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Nansel, T.R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M.D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W.J. (2004). Cross-national
consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjust-
ment. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 730–736.
Naylor, P., Cowie, H., & del Rey, R. (2001) Coping strategies of secondary school children
in responses to being bullied, Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 6(3), 114–120.
Novick, R.M., & Isaacs, J. (2010). Telling is compelling: The impact of student reports of
bullying on teacher intervention. Educational Psychology, 30(30), 283–296.
O’Moore, A.M., Kirkham, C., & Smith, M. (1997). Bullying behaviour in Irish schools: A
nationwide study. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18(2), 141–169.
Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of telling. Oxford Review of
Education, 33(1), 71–86.
Perren, S., Dooley, J.J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (in press). Being victimised in school and
cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adoles-
cents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4, 28. doi: 10.1186/1753-
2000-4-28.
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.
Smith, P.K., & Sharp. S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Smith, P.K., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Findings from a
decade of research and action. Childhood, 7(2), 193–212.
Smith, P.K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of school bullying:
Developmental changes in coping strategies and skills. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham
(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimised (pp. 332–
351). New York: Guilford Press.
Spiel, C., & Strohmeier, D. (under review). National strategy for violence prevention in the
Austrian public school system: Development and implementation. International Journal
of Behavioral Development.
Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation
approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
Ttofi, M.M., & Farrington, D.P. (2008). Bullying: Short-term and long-term effects, and the
importance of Defiance Theory in explanation and prevention. Victims and Offenders,
3, 289–312.
Twyman, K., Saylor, C., Taylor, L.A., & Comeaux, C. (2010). Comparing children and ado-
lescents engaged in cyberbullying to matched peers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 13(2), 195–199.
Unnever, J.D., & Cornell, D.G. (2004). Middle school victims of bullying: Who reports
being bullied? Aggressive Behavior, 30, 373–388.
Willard, N.E. (2007). Cyber-bullying and cyber-threats: Responding to the challenge of
online social aggression, threats, and distress. Illinois: Research Press.
209
▲
Yablon, Y.B. (2008). Internet as a source of help in dealing with school violence. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 39(3), 205–220.

▲

Cyberbullying as an Act of Revenge?
Andreas König,1 Mario Gollwitzer2 and Georges Steffgen1
1 Research Unit INSIDE, Faculty of University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
2 Mario Gollwitzer, Fachbereich 04 — Psychologie, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany
D
espite significant overlaps between victim status in traditional forms of bully-
ing and cyberbullying, and qualitative results about self-reported
reasons for cyberbullying, the role of revenge and retaliation as a
motive to engage in acts of cyberbullying has not yet been examined
systematically. As a first step, this study investigates whether and to
what extent traditional victims, when they become cyberbullies,
actually choose their former (traditional) perpetrators as targets of
their own cyberbullying behavior. Furthermore, the impact of indi-
vidual differences in relevant traits, such as vengefulness and justice
sensitivity, on the choice of cybervictims is examined. Data from 473
students were collected via an online survey. Of these, 149 were
identified as traditional victims/cyberbullies. Results show that tradi-
tionally bullied students indeed tend to choose their former perpetra-
tors as cybervictims, and that individual differences play a role in the
choice of their victims. Implications for further research, as well as
for interventions and prevention programmes, are discussed.
■ KEYWORDS: cyberbullying, bullying, revenge, justice, empathy
Resulting from the advancement of new communication technologies, cyberbully-

ing has emerged as a quite recent phenomenon. In current definitions, it has been
described as the deliberate and repeated harm inflicted through the use of comput-
ers, cell phones, and other electronic devices (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009), carried
out as an aggressive act by a group or individual against a victim who cannot easily
210 defend him- or herself (Smith et al. 2006). Cyberbullying may occur in various
▲
forms, including flaming/trolling, harassment, cyber-stalking, denigration, imper-

sonation/identity theft, outing, photo shopping, exclusion, threatening with physi-
cal harm, or happy slapping (Willard 2006). Several electronic communication
tools provide opportunities for cyberbullying, including cell phones (e.g., phone
call, text message, picture/video clip bullying), or the Internet (e.g., e-mail, instant
messaging, websites, chat-rooms). Cyberbullying may occur anywhere and at any
time. While there seems to be no place to hide for cybervictims, the perpetrators in
contrast benefit from the breadth of the audience and the greater invisibility com-
pared to traditional forms of bullying.
Address for Correspondence: Andreas König, Université du Luxembourg, FLSHASE, Research Unit INSIDE,
Bâtiment XII, Route de Diekirch, L-7720 Walferdange, Luxembourg. E-mail: andreas.koenig@uni.lu
▲

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 210–224
Cyberbullying as an Act of Revenge
As an aggressive act (Smith, 2006), cyberbullying could be motivated by revenge

(Goberecht, 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Sanders, 2009). As an action in
response to some perceived harm or wrongdoing by another group or person that
is intended to inflict damage, injury, discomfort, or punishment on the party judged
responsible (cf., Aquino, Bies, & Tripp, 2001), revenge is a retaliatory measure by
which people seek satisfaction and try to reestablish justice (Govier, 2002;
Gollwitzer, 2009). As such, revenge encapsulates the full range of aggressive behav-
iors. What makes it uniquely different from other aggression constructs (verbal,
physical, covert/overt, indirect/direct, interpersonally-/organisationally-directed), is
that it is particularly concerned with reactions to perceived injustices (Bies &
Tripp, 2005).
Given that cyberbullying can be regarded a covert form of psychological bully-
ing (Smith et al., 2008), it make sense to assume that it is driven by a similar set of
motivations as traditional bullying. Such motives may include relational concerns
and a ‘need to belong’ (e.g., Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2009), dominance (e.g.,
Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001), power and social status (e.g., Ireland, 2002), social
attention (e.g., Kingston, 2008), self-worth defense (e.g., Salmivalli et al., 1999)
etc. Other factors might include a striving for resources and material gains, venting
anger, jealousy, boredom, and entertainment (Sanders, 2009). So far, there is little
research on the motivational basis of cyberbullying, and to the best of our knowl-
edge, there are no established instruments to systematically assess motives underly-
ing cyberbullying in particular. When asking cyberbullies directly about their
motives, most of them endorse the same set of motives as do traditional bullies
(Sanders, 2009).
While under some circumstances all these motives may be relevant to cyber-
bullying, there is some evidence suggesting that revenge might be of particular
importance: Hinduja and Patchin (2009) report that the most frequent explana-
tion for cyberbullying was ‘to get revenge’ (22.5%; see also Goberecht, 2008), and
another 2.8% stated ‘Because they picked on me in school’, both linking cyberbul-
lying to matters of ‘just revenge’. These numbers might be misleading, however,
because taking revenge requires that cyberbullies actually acted against those who
had previously bullied them. This, however, has not been controlled for in previ-
ous studies. 211
▲
The overlaps between offline and online bullying reported in several studies
could be interpreted as further empirical. For example, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004)
found that most cyberbullies were also cybervictims, and that almost half of the
cyberbullies reported having been victims of traditional bullying. However, these
overlaps between cyberbullies and (cyber)victims still do not reveal any informa-
tion as to whether the targets of cyberbullying are actually those who had been
(traditionally) perpetrating the cyberbully before. Cyberbullying could as well be
directed against known or unknown third persons, in which case one could not call
it revenge, but rather some form of displaced aggression. The present study is the
first to specifically address revenge for being bullied within the relevant subsample
of traditional victims/cyberbullies.
On a conceptual level, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) argue that while for some
cyberbullies, the internet may simply be an extension of the schoolyard, some may
compensate their physical weakness (which precludes them of becoming ‘tradi-

▲

tional bullies’) by using cyberbullying to assert dominance over others. The ability
to remain unidentified as a cyberbully creates an asymmetrical power constellation.
Victims of traditional bullying may seek retribution through technological means,
thereby ‘turning the table’ on their aggressors (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). This is
made possible through the equalising characteristics of the Internet and its ability
to preempt the relevance of physical intimidation (Kowalski & Limber, 2007).
According to Ybarra and Mitchell (2004), these differences in the aspect of asym-
metrical power between conventional and cyberbullying may help explain why
bullies are not always cyberbullies and vice versa.
Based on the aforementioned conceptual and empirical arguments, we expected
a substantial percentage of traditional victims/cyberbullies to be motivated by
revenge. Considering the existing gap in current cyberbullying research, this study
aims to make a first step in addressing this question by examining in how far tradi-
tional victims, when they become cyberbullies, actually choose their former (tradi-
tional) perpetrators as their targets. Only then would it make sense to consider
cyberbullying a form of revenge.
Second, we investigated to what degree cyberbullies’ choice of targets can be
predicted by personality traits that are known to be related to vengeful behavior.
We expected that the extent to which cyberbullies chose their former (traditional)
perpetrators as targets can be predicted by dispositional vengefulness and justice
sensitivity from a victim’s perspective. Vengefulness has been conceptualised as the
degree to which individuals tend to inflict harm or demand retribution for a per-
ceived wrong (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992). Justice sensitivity from a victim’s
perspective (or simply, ‘victim sensitivity’) has been conceptualised as the degree
to which a person responds with anger, moral outrage, and rumination towards
unfair disadvantages and victimisations (cf. Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Förster, &
Montada, 2005). Victim-sensitive individuals have been shown to respond particu-
larly sensitive towards being exploited, deceived, or humiliated (Gollwitzer &
Rothmund, 2009; Gollwitzer, Rothmund, Pfeiffer, & Ensenbach, 2009) and tend
to be more punitive (Schmitt, Neumann, & Montada, 1995). Thus, highly victim-
sensitive individuals should be particularly motivated to avenge prior victimisation.
212 Since revenge is also motivated by a desire to make it clear that one is not the kind
▲
of person to be ‘walked over’ to the offender (Gollwitzer & Denzler, 2009;

Gollwitzer, Meder, & Schmitt, in press), one can expect victim sensitivity to predict
the degree to which cyberbullies pick their former perpetrators as targets.
In line with the reasoning by Smith et al. (2008) that cyberbullies may get peer
rewards through sharing their actions, it might be less important to convey this
message to the former perpetrator rather than to other relevant peers, thereby pro-
tecting one’s social prestige. As cyberbullying is most often anonymous, the best
guarantee that the message is conveyed is to cyberbully it in the presence of peers.
Bullies often tend to have a high status in their peer group (Juvonen et al.,
2003). Aquino, Tripp, and Bies (2001) found that victims were less likely to seek
revenge against higher status aggressors, arguing that victims feared counter-retali-
ation. Considering the nature of cyberbullying, it might indeed be a very attractive
form of revenge: it satisfies the wish to seek justice, to punish the perpetrator, and
to demonstrate to other relevant peers that one is not a person to be walked over,
while at the same time hiding his/her identity from the target. Thus, cyberbullying
allows taking revenge while minimizing the probability of retaliation.
Empathy has also been linked to aggressive behavior in several studies (Jolliffe,
2004). To date, research has mainly focused on the link between empathy and
aggression in general. Only few studies addressed the empathic skills of traditional
bullies. These studies revealed an inconsistent pattern, which seems to be related to
the gender of participants. There is even less research on cyberbullying and
empathy. As mentioned above, cyberbullies remain more anonymous than tradi-
tional face-to-face bullies. This anonymity, or distance between the perpetrator and
the victim, implies that perpetrators will be prevented from observing the immedi-
ate consequences of their behavior. Therefore, cyberbullies may even experience
less empathy for their victims than traditional bullies (Pornari & Wood, 2010).
Alternatively, cyberbullying may particularly attract persons with low trait
empathy. However, and in contrast to findings with traditional bullying, first
research findings do not support this role of empathy for cyberbullying.
Cyberbullies were not found to show a lack of empathy in comparison to victims,
bully-victims, and non-involved persons (Almeida et al., 2008). Therefore, we
decided to control for empathy, but did not have a specific hypothesis.
Method
The methods section will start with a description of the procedure. Next, the meas-
ures used and the study sample will be described.
Procedure
The study was advertised in a popular German online discussion forum for stu-
dents (Schuelervz.net). The link was active for a period of one week in December,
2009. As an incentive, gift vouchers (5 x 20€ and 2 x 30€; redeeming required an
adult) were raffled among participants. Winners could choose between vouchers
either for a clothing store or for an online bookshop. To maintain anonymity, those
who completed the questionnaire were redirected to another webpage, where they
could enter their contact data for the raffle in a separate dataset. 213
▲
Instruments
Cyberbullying. Cyberbullying was assessed with the 18-item Berlin Cyberbullying-

Cybervictimisation-Questionnaire (BCyQ) (Schultze-Krumbholz & Scheithauer,
2008, 2009), using behavioral categories to operationalize the seven categories of
cyberbullying proposed by Willard (2006): Flaming, harassment, denigration,
impersonation, outing/trickery, exclusion and cyber-stalking. Students indicated
how often they had become perpetrators of a given behavioral category within the
last 6 months. Each item used a 5-point ordinal response format (did not
occur/happen at all, once or twice, twice or three times a month, once a week, and
several times a week). Example items are ‘I used someone’s password and wrote
things in his/her name that damaged his/her friendships’ (impersonation) and ‘I
sent or posted secret, embarrassing or insulting photos/videos of a person without
his/her consent’ (outing).

▲

Because of the ordinal response format, no scale was computed. Instead, stu-
dents who indicated performing at least one of the mentioned behaviors once or
twice within the last 6 months were categorised as cyberbullies. If, for example, a
participant indicated that he or she denigrated someone once or twice within the
last 6 months, this was considered a relevant cyberbullying behaviour, even if he or
she performed no other form of cyberbullying during that time.
Traditional victimization. Students indicated how often they had become the victim
of traditional bullying within the last 6 months on a single item, using the same 5-
point ordinal response format as for cyberbullying, preceded by a description of
(traditional) bullying (Scheithauer, Hayer & Petermann, 2003) in order to ensure
that participants would not include acts of cyberbullying in their answer concern-
ing their overall involvement in (traditional) bullying. For the purpose of this study,
students who indicated being bullied at least once or twice within the last 6 months
were categorized as ‘traditional victims’. Note that our operationalisation of
(cyber)bullying differs from typical operationalisations of bullying, where a child
would only be categorised as a ‘bully’ if he or she repeatedly engaged in such
behaviour. For the present purpose, we decided to omit this criterion since our
research question is mainly correlational, and a valid estimation of the prevalence
of cyberbullying is not important for our hypotheses.
Vengefulness. Dispositional vengefulness was assessed with a German version
(Werner & Appel, 2004) of the revenge subscale of the Transgression-Related
Interpersonal Motivations Inventory (TRIM; McCullough et al., 1998). An item
example is ‘I want him/her to get what he/she deserves’ (5 items; α = .88). Responses
were given on a 6-point Likert scale (1–6). For further analyses, mean scores were
computed for all measures with a continuous (equidistant) response format.
Victim sensitivity. A brief version (cf. Faccenda, Pantaléon, Bois & Schmitt, 2008)
of Schmitt et al.’s (2005) victim sensitivity for befallen injustice (SBI) scale was
employed in this study. An item example is ‘It annoys me when I’m treated worse
than others’ (5 items; α = .77).
214
▲
Choice of last victim. Participants who were classified as cyberbullies as a function of

their response to the first question were then asked to think about the last person
they chose as target for an act of cyberbullying, and to indicate whether — prior to
this act — this person had previously bullied them traditionally or not.
Proportion of traditional perpetrators among cybervictims. Second, participants were
asked to indicate how many of their cybervictims had ‘traditionally’bullied them
before (None of them, About a quarter, Approximately half of them, About three
quarters, About all of them).
Empathy. Five context-specific items operationalising ‘empathy for cybervictims’
were formulated (e.g., ‘I can well imagine how someone feels who is being harassed
via mobile phone or internet’). Students indicated their agreement with these state-
ments on a 6-point Likert scale (Totally disagree to Fully agree). Reliability of the
scale was Cronbach’s α = .70).
Demographic and other control variables. Along with age and sex of participants, they
were asked about their self-assessed technological competency in matters of mobile
phone and Internet and about the presence of peers during acts of cyberbullying
with one item each. No further demographic or SES data were collected. This was
done in order to reduce participation time to a minimum, and to foster a sense of
anonymity among participants.
Participants/Sample
Out of 777 participants starting with the online questionnaire, 77 already dropped
on the first page and another 63 on the second page when asked about their age
and sex. In general, the dropout rate increased by 2–4% per page after that.
Testing for differences between those who did vs. did not complete the question-
naire did not yield any significant results. Only a few questions were programmed
to be obligatory to prevent page skipping, so not every participant reaching the last
page answered to every single question. Eventually, 473 (60.9%) had a sufficient
completion rate to be retained for further analyses.
Three-hundred and seventy-five (79.3%) persons were classified as cyberbullies.
Of these, 47.7% were male (52.3% female), 46.4% were less than 18 years old
(Range: 11 to 17; M = 14.63) and 53.6% were older than 18 years (Range: 18 to
25; M = 20.9). These rates are higher than usual (cf. Slonje & Smith, 2008), but, as
argued earlier, this might be the result of our method, and it could also be due to
the greater anonymity connected to an online survey. It is, however, of no conse-
quence for the present purpose and our analyses.
One-hundred and seventy-nine (30.9%) participants reported being traditionally
victimised at least once or twice within the last 6 months. Of these, 58.1% were
male (41.9% female), 69.3% were less than 18 years old (Range: 11 to 17; M =
14.57), and 30.7% were older than 18 years (Range: 18 to 25; M = 20.60).
Results
To answer our research questions, the overlapping category of both cyberbullies/tra-
ditional victims had to be identified first. Out of 179 traditional victims, 83.3% (N =
215
▲
149) were also cyberbullies. Of these, 56.4% were male (43.6% female), 65.8%
were less than 18 years old (Range: 11 to 17; M = 14.61), and 34.2% were older
than 18 years (Range: 18 to 25; M = 20.80). The following analyses refer to this cate-
gory of cyberbullies/traditional victims only, with a varying N depending on the
number of complete answers on the according third variables.
Choice of Last Victim
Of all cyberbullies/traditional victims, N = 133 answered to the question of
whether or not they had chosen a traditional perpetrator as their last online target
(see Table 1). Of these, 41.4% (N = 55, subsequently referred to as ‘avengers’) indi-
cated choosing a target who had traditionally bullied them before (which equals
14.7% among all 375 cyberbullies), whereas 58.6% chose another person as their
last cybervictim (subsequently referred to as ‘non-avengers’). There was no effect of
sex on this frequency: Male (58.2%) and female respondents (41.8%) did not
differ with regard to the extent to which they targeted a former traditional bully,

▲

χ2(1; N = 133) = 0.04; p = .86. Also, there were no age differences between
avengers (M = 16.65 years; SD = 3.32) and non-avengers (M = 17.14 years; SD =
3.58) (t = 0.79; p = .43; df = 131). However, a marginally significant difference
were found for self-assessed technological competence (t = -1.66; p = .099; df =
131), with a higher competency for avengers (M = 4.20; SD = 0.99) than for non-
avengers (M = 3.86; SD = 1.27).
Reported Proportion of Traditional Perpetrators
Our second dependent variable was the self-reported proportion of ‘traditional’
perpetrators among respondents’ cybervictims on a scale from 1 to 5. Using this
continuous measure allowed us to use more sophisticated methods of data analysis.
Of 149 traditional victims/cyberbullies, 144 answered this question. Of these,
47.9% indicated not having any of their traditional perpetrators among their
cybervictims at all; 20.1% indicated that about a quarter were persons who tradi-
tionally bullied them prior to choosing them as cybervictims; 11.8% indicated
about half of them, 10.4% about three quarters, and 9.7% said about all of their
cybervictims were former traditional perpetrators. In sum, 52.1% of traditional
victims/cyberbullies stated that at least about a quarter of their victims were
persons who bullied them before.
In order to analyse the relationship between the degree of traditional victimisa-
tion and the proportion to which these victims later chose their former perpetrators
as targets for cyberbullying, we used the frequency with which those who were
classified as traditional victims indicated being bullied for further differentiation;
that is, only the four ordinal scale values from Once or twice to Several times a
week were used. This allowed us to compute an ordinal correlation coefficient
(Kendall`s tau) regarding the relationship between prior victimisation and the pro-
portion of traditional perpetrators among targets.
Does a more frequent victimisation lead to more vengeful behaviour? Apparently
yes: There was a significant correlation between the frequency of traditional victimi-
sation and the reported proportion of traditional perpetrators (r = .19; p < .01; N =
144). Separated by age or sex, the strength of this correlation differs just marginally
216 from the entire sample with r = .22 (p = .02; N = 63) for females vs. r = .17 (p = .04;
▲
N = 81) for males, and r = .21 (p = .05; N = 51) for participants older than 18 years
vs. r = .14 (p = .07; N = 93) for those younger than 18 years. Thus, neither sex nor
TABLE 1
Traditional Victimisation Within Last 6 Months and Choice of Former Perpetrator as Last Cybervictim
Traditional victimisation
Once or twice Two or three Once a week Several times Total

times a month a week
N 93 16 13 11 133
% choice of traditional perpetrator 36.60% 50.00% 53.80% 36.40% 41.40%
as last cybervictim (N = 34) (N = 8) (N = 6) (N = 7) (N = 55)
% choice of other (third) person 63.40% 50.00% 46.20% 63.60% 58.60%
as last cybervictim (N = 59) (N = 8) (N = 7) (N = 4) (N = 78)
age moderate the relation between frequency of victimisation and the proportion of
traditional perpetrators among one’s cybervictims.
Effects of Vengefulness and Victim Sensitivity
The effects of dispositional vengefulness and victim sensitivity on the proportion of
former perpetrators as targets of cyberbullying were tested via regression analyses.
As before, all analyses were performed only for those cyberbullies who reported
being victims of traditional bullying as well. Did vengefulness and victim sensitivity
predict the extent to which cyberbullies targeted a prior perpetrator? Unexpectedly,
victim sensitivity did not significantly predict the proportion of one’s traditional
perpetrators (R2corr = .04; p = .17). This did not change when controlling for age
and sex. In contrast, vengefulness turned out to be a significant predictor in a
simple regression model (R2corr = .03; p = .02). Even when controlling for age and
sex, vengefulness proved to be a significant predictor for the proportion of one’s
traditional bullies chosen as cybervictims (see Table 2).
Next, in order to assess the relevance of these traits and to identify the strongest
predictors in the context of other potentially relevant variables, a stepwise hierar-
chical multiple regression was computed, controlling for sex and age in a first
block and vengefulness, victim sensitivity, presence of peers when cyberbullying,
self-assessed technical competency and empathy in a second block (see Table 3).
Again, vengefulness emerged as a significant predictor of the proportion of former
perpetrators as targets of cyberbullying. In addition, the more peers were present, the
higher the proportion of former perpetrators among targets, which is in line with the
significant bivariate correlation between these two variables (r = .25; p = .002; N =
134). Although the proportion of former perpetrators deviated from normality, the
distribution is well within the critical limits proposed by West, Finch and Curran
(1995) with skewness = .91 (SD = .20), and kurtosis = -.50 (SD = .40).
Discussion
The substantial overlap of involvement in traditional and cyberbullying led to the
assumption that revenge might be an important motive for cyberbullying (Ybarra
217
▲
& Mitchell, 2004; Smith et al., 2008). Also, some authors found that youth, when
asked why they cyberbully others, frequently mention revenge as a motive (e.g.,
Goberecht, 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Sanders, 2009). Previous studies have,
TA B LE 2
Regression of the Proportion of Traditional Bullies Among Cybervictims on TRIM-R
R2corr Beta t F p
Model .062 4.172 .007**
TRIM-R .20 2.35 .020*

Age -.19 -2.31 .023*
Sex .10 1.23 .222
Note: Age And Sex As Predictors.

N = 144 (df1 = 3; df2 = 140); *p < .05; **p < .01.

▲

TA B LE 3
Stepwise Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Proportion of Traditional Bullies Among Cybervictims
on TRIM-R, SBI, Empathy, Presence of Peers and Technological Competency of Traditional Victims/
Cyberbullies, Controlling for Age and Sex
R 2corr Beta t F p
Model .096 4.315 .003**
Included variables
Age -.125 -1.748 .083
Sex .119 1.344 .181
TRIM-R .184 2.076 .040*
Peer presence .212 2.432 .016*
Excluded variables
SBI .103 1.176 .242
Empathy .121 1.314 .191
Technical competency .121 1.400 .164
Note: N = 126 (df1 = 4; df2 = 121); *p < .05; **p < .01.
however, not explicitly investigated whether and to what extent cyberbullies actu-
ally choose their prior perpetrators as targets — only then would it make sense to
consider their cyberbullying behavior as an act of revenge. The present study aimed
to overcome this problem: Cyberbullies were directly asked whether their last
cybervictim was someone who had bullied them before, and they were asked how
many of their cybervictims were former ‘traditional’ bullies.
Our data do confirm qualitative evidence about revenge-as-a-motive and are in
line with the prevalence data concerning the overlap of traditional victimization
and involvement in cyberbullying. Within this group of traditional victims/cyber-
bullies, 41.4% chose their former perpetrator as their last victim of cyberbullying.
Taking a closer look at the proportion of perpetrators among targets, more than
half (52.1%) of traditional victims who became cyberbullies stated that at least a
quarter of their cybervictims were their former traditional perpetrators within a 6-
month period. This can be seen as an important first step in the examination of
revenge as a motive, because actually choosing a prior traditional perpetrator as
218 target for cyberbullying instead of a third person is a necessary condition for classi-
▲
fying an act as being motivated by revenge.

One might argue that in our operationalisation, the criteria of repetition might not
sufficiently be met. But although the defining components of cyberbullying men-
tioned in the introduction are widely accepted, there is no terminal consensus in
defining cyberbullying (cf. Messini & Nocentini, 2009). This is especially true for the
aspect of repetition. There are disagreements about what ‘repeatedly’ actually
includes, and over how long a period of time the cyberbullying has to occur (Slonje
& Smith 2008; Messini & Nocentini, 2009). For example, the younger students are,
the less important repetition is in their subjective definition of cyberbullying (Monks
& Smith, 2006). Concerning ‘objective’ definitions, even if a single individual act can
be circulated widely, be copied by others, or can be accessible on a website for a long
time for different persons to see, meeting the criteria of repetition.
Note that we also introduced a 6-month timeframe only, while other studies
(e.g., Smith, 2008, Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) often use the period an entire
(school)year, so even bullying behavior that occurred once or twice within this time
frame could potentially have occurred repeatedly. Also, the asymmetrical constella-
tion between perpetration and victimisation should be taken into account: If two
traditional victims independently take revenge by cyberbullying the same perpetra-
tor ‘once or twice’ within the last months, then this person might well be cybervic-
timised three or four times within that timeframe, meeting the usual defining
criteria of repetition from the cybervictim’s perspective (or vice versa, if a once or
twice traditionally victimised person decides to cyberbully this perpetrator several
times). Also, even a single aggressive threat can cause emotional damage and
concern about the future (Dzuka & Dalbert, 2007).
In the light of the social prestige hypothesis (Smith, 2008), the significant corre-
lation between presence of peers and the proportion of former perpetrators among
targets raises the question about the role of peers especially for cyber-avengers.
Taking revenge might be a way of gaining prestige that is socially more acceptable
than choosing innocent third persons as cybervictims. On the other hand, peers
might also propose and reinforce cyber-revenge. Further research could elaborate
how revenge and social prestige are interconnected. It is important to note,
however, that our results suggest that cyber-revenge is not taken ‘alone in a dark-
ened room’, but more likely with peers being present. By punishing the perpetrator,
the cyber-avenger can at the same time demonstrate to other relevant peers that
he/she is not a person ‘to be walked over’. This could then encourage other victims
to avenge against the same bully (if he/she perpetrated them, too), or to express
solidarity with the traditional victim by copying the behaviour and further punish-
ing the same traditional bully as a cyber-target.
According to Fiske & Morling (1996), the more power someone perceives in the
interaction with a powerful other, the more anxiety is experienced. Consequently,
the lack of power leads to coping with anxiety to restore some form of control.
Cyberbullying might help to restore such a sense of control by asserting dominance
from a safe ground. The sense of powerlessness facing a bully could therefore help
explain why some avenge against their perpetrator using traditional bullying, while
others tend to restore a sense of control by engaging in cyberbullying. However, it
does not explain why some seek cyber-revenge while others show displaced aggres-
sion directed against third persons. At this point, the victims sense of justice might 219
▲
become relevant: The venting of anger and restoring a sense of control can be
realised by (cyber)bullying anyone less powerful in a given constellation, but justice
can only be served by punishing the perpetrator. In our study, victim sensitivity was
not a significant predictor of the extent of perpetrators among cybervictims.
However, statistical power to find a small effect was only about 1-β = .39 (α = .05).
Therefore, larger sample sizes could yield significant effects. Further, being bullied
may so clearly be perceived as threatening and unjust (Dzuka & Dalbert, 2007), that
even low sensitive individuals interpreted the situation as highly unfair. Thus, no
additional variance could be explained. Further research could consider other ways
to address the role of (retributive) justice for cyberbullying by assessing direct justice
judgements, norms of ‘a just response’ or attributions of responsibility.
Engaging in cyber-revenge might also be seen from the perspective of fear of
retaliation (cf. Lawler & Bacharach, 1987): In relationships with powerful others,
individuals are less likely to confront others, but tend to avoid the target and use

▲

indirect/passive strategies to reduce retaliation (Cloven & Roloff, 1993). Aquino,

Tripp, and Bies (2001) found that victims were less likely to seek revenge against
higher status aggressors, arguing that victims feared counter-retaliation.
Cyberbullying allows the avenger to hide his/her identity from the target. Thus,
cyberbullying allows taking revenge while minimizing the probability of retaliation.
While there might be a certain risk that witnesses snitch on the cyberbully, they are
at least safe for the moment, allowing them to do what they might feel incapable of
facing their perpetrator in person. Therefore, given that there is a wish for revenge
and punishment of the perpetrator, fear of retaliation might a central variable in
explaining the difference between those victims who avenge against their perpetra-
tor using traditional bullying from those who seek cyber-revenge.
Cyberbullying-as-revenge could also be examined from the perspective of reac-
tive vs. proactive aggression (cf. Crick & Dodge, 1996): While proactive aggression
is unprovoked, deliberate and goal-directed behaviour used to influence or coerce a
peer, reactive aggression is a defensive, retaliatory response to a perceived provoca-
tion. Reactive individuals, who tend to interpret a peer’s ambiguous behaviour as
intentionally harmful to the self, might more readily engage in cyberbullying as a
retaliation or defence against the peer, while non-avenging cyberbullying might
rather relate to a proactive style. Therefore, the individual style of social informa-
tion processing could be an important factor for revenge and a topic for further
research. In order to minimise the subsumption of ambiguous peer behaviour
under ‘being victimised’, we included a comprehensible description of ‘traditional
bullying’ in our study before asking about own victimisation.
The relationship between traditional victimisation and cyberbullying is obvi-
ously not clear-cut. As the focus of the study was revenge in the group of tradi-
tional victims/cyberbullies, future research should also take into account more
complex relationships between other possible combinations of offline and online
bullying and victimisation. In particular, more complex relationships of (ongoing)
reciprocity in offline and online victimisation should be addressed, because in
ongoing circular dynamics, asking about revenge for a prior attack might yield a
response resulting from an individual punctuation1 that is basically arbitrary.
As a practical implication, the results of this study foster the notion that, espe-
220 cially for the overlapping group of traditional victims/cyberbullies, there is a strong
▲
link between both forms of bullying, and that there might even be a causal rela-
tionship. They further corroborate that a traditional victimisation is a risk factor of
cyberbullying behaviour. Therefore, findings also have important implications for
prevention and intervention. Approaches that address the reduction of bullying in
general might be promising in decreasing traditional bullying as well as cyberbully-
ing. Inhibiting the experience of victimisation seems to be important for preventing
cyber-revenge, which seems to appear quite frequently, but is only one way to cope
with this experience. Hence, the findings of this study should be considered during
the design and development of new anti-cyberbullying trainings, taking other forms
of handling and processing one’s own victimisation into account. Approaches that
address the reduction of revenge feelings might also be promising, as well as those
fostering a sense of control. However, the success of such approaches has to await
future evaluation. ‘Occasional cyberbullies’ might not be considered the primary
targets when thinking about preventive measures, if they do so only once or twice
to take revenge for being bullied in person. But regarding the positive relationship
between cyber-revenge and the presence of peers, these occasional cyberbullies
might also significantly contribute to a culture where cyberbullying may be consid-
ered an appropriate answer to traditional victimisation.
The present study also has some limitations. For example, data were collected
via an online survey, which has its advantages and disadvantages (cf. Welter et al.,
2005). On the one hand, it seems plausible that there is a self-selection bias in
online surveys studying an ‘online topic’. By collaborating with Germany’s largest
discussion forum for students, we tried to minimise unrepresentative data.
Although our study was only advertised for a short period of time, it therefore had
a good chance of reaching at least a representative sample of those who use such
forums. If among this sample certain individuals were particularly attracted to our
study, it would probably be those who experienced either (cyber)bullying or victim-
isation themselves. While this would lead to an overestimation of prevalence rates,
relative proportions within the according overestimated subsamples (e.g., cyber-
avengers among cyberbullies) should hardly be affected. One might even argue that
for the sake of statistical power, this kind of self-selection is advantageous for
studies where statistical analyses are only to be performed with a subpopulation
(e.g., those who qualify for two distinct categories at the same time) that is particu-
larly more likely to participate, especially if it only accounts for a small percentage
in the entire population.
Online studies often have higher dropout rates. However, our quote of about
60%, reaching the last page of the survey can be considered satisfactory (cf. Welter
et al., 2005) and is probably due to the incentive. As far as the prevalence of the
behaviours measured is concerned, generalisation of findings may be limited.
Finally, the cross-sectional design and the methodology used do not allow inter-
preting for causal effects, even if we explicitly assessed traditional victimisation
prior to cyberbullying as a prerequisite for causality. Rather, experimental or longi-
tudinal study designs have to be realised. In sum, this study highlights the role of
revenge for traditional bullying victims in cyberbullying.
221
▲
Endnote
1 Punctuation refers to the process of dividing and organising ongoing interactions into
meaningful patterns. Although actions are interconnected by loop-backs to form a cir-
cular pattern, each participant uses their own individualised punctuation of the commu-
nication behaviours present into a sequence presuming linear causation, therefore
interpreting their own behaviour as merely a reaction on the other’s behaviour
(Watzlawick, Beavin-Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967).
References
Almeida, A., Marinho, S., Esteves, C., Gomes, S., & Correia, I. (2008). Virtual but not less
real: A study of cyber bullying and its relations with moral disengagement and
empathy. In Abstracts book 20th Biennial ISSBD Meeting. Würzburg, Germany.

▲

Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M., & Bies, R.J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense:
The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and rec-
onciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 52–59.
Bies, R.J., & Tripp, T.M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual, ideo-
logical, and empirical issues. In S. Fox & P.E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work
behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 65–81). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Crick, N.R., & Dodge, K.A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive
and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993–1002.
Knobloch, L.K., & Solomon, D.H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational
uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 261–278.
Dzuka, J., & Dalbert, C. (2007). Aggression at School: Belief in a Personal Just World and
Well-Being of Victims and Aggressors. Studia Psychologica, 49, 313–320.
Faccenda, L., Pantaléon, N., Bois, J.E., & Schmitt, M. (2008). Adaptation and validation of
the German Justice Sensitivity Scales into French. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 24, 141–149.
Fiske, S., & Morling, B. 1996. Stereotyping as a function of personal control motives and
capacity constraints: The odd couple of power and anxiety. In R. Sorrentino & E.T.
Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 322–346). New
York: Guilford.
Goberecht, T. (2008). Onderzoek naar het verband tussen emotionele en gedragsproblemen
en cyberpesten bij jongeren uit de eerste graad secundair onderwijs. Brussel: VUB.
Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Pfeiffer, A., & Ensenbach, C. (2009). Why and when Justice
Sensitivity leads to pro- and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality,
43(6), 999–1005.
Gollwitzer, M., & Denzler, M. (2009). What makes revenge so sweet: Seeing the offender
suffer or delivering a message? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 840–
844.
Gollwitzer, M. (2009). Justice and revenge. In M.E. Oswald, S. Bieneck & J. Hupfeld-
Heinemann (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 137–156). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2009). When the need to trust results in unethical behav-
ior: The Sensitivity to Mean Intentions (SeMI) model. In D. De Cremer (Ed.),
Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 135–152).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
222 Gollwitzer, M., Meder, M., & Schmitt, M. (in press). What gives victims satisfaction when
▲
they seek revenge? European Journal of Social Psychology.

Govier, T. (2002). Forgiveness and revenge. New York: Routledge.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and
responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ireland, J.E. (2002). Bullying in prisons. The Psychologist, 15(3), 130–133.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2006): Examining the relationship between low empathy
and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 540–550.
Juvonen J., Graham S., & Schuster, M.A.(2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The
strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231–1237.
Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 22–30.
Kingston, S. (2008). Bullying as a social process: Factors influencing bystander behaviour.
Masters thesis, Brock University St. Catharines, Canada.
Lawler, E.J., & Bacharach, S.B. (1987). Comparison of dependence and punitive form of
power. Social Forces, 66, 446–462.
McCullough, M.E., Rachal, K.C., Sandage, S.J., Worthington, E.L., Jr., Brown, S.W., &
Hight, T.L. (1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elabo-
ration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1586–1603.
McCullough, M.E. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Messini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement: Some criti-
cal considerations. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 230–232.
Monks, C.P., & Smith, P.K. (2006). Definitions of ‘bullying’: Age differences in understand-
ing of the term, and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 24, 802–821.
Pellegrini, A.D., & Bartini, M. (2001.) Dominance in early adolescent boys: Affiliative and
aggressive dimensions and possible functions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(1), 142–
163.
Pornari, C., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students:
The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies.
Aggressive Behavior, 36, 81–13.
Pronk, R.E., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J. (2009). It’s ‘Mean’, but what does it mean to ado-
lescents? Relational aggression described by victims, aggressors, and their peers.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(2), 175–204.
Sanders, J. (2009, August). Cyberbullies: Their motives, characteristics, and types of bully-
ing. Presentation at the XIV. European Conference of Developmental Psychology,
Vilnius, Lithuania.
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K. (1999). Self-evaluated self-
esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as predictors of adolescents’
participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,
1268–1278.
Scheithauer, H., Hayer, T., & Petermann, F. (2003). Bullying unter Schülern —
Erscheinungsformen, Risikobedingungen und Interventionskonzepte. Göttingen:
Hogrefe.
Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Fetchenhauer, D., Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Schlösser, T.
(2009). Sensibilität für Ungerechtigkeit. Psychologische Rundschau, 60 (1), 8–22.
Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J. & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment
and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
21(3), 202–211.
Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen
injustice. Social Justice Research, 8, 385–407.
223
▲
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2008). Der Berlin Cyberbullying —

Cybervictimisation Questionnaire (BCyQ). Freie Universität Berlin: Unveröffentlichtes
Manuskript.
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2009, August). Measuring Cyberbullying and
Cybervictimisation by Using Behavioral Categories — The Berlin Cyberbullying
Cybervictimisation Questionnaire (BCyQ). Poster presented at the Post Conference
Workshop ‘COST ACTION IS0801: Cyberbullying: Coping with negative and enhanc-
ing positive uses of new technologies, in relationships in educational settings’, Vilnius.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147-154.
Smith P.K., Mahdavi J., Carvalho M., & Tippett N. (2006). An investigation into cyberbul-
lying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in
cyberbullying (Unit for school and family studies). London: Goldsmiths College,
University of London.

▲

Steffgen, G., König, A., Pfetsch, J., & Melzer, A. (in press). The role of empathy for adoles-
cents’ cyberbullying behaviour. Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny.
Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development of a measure of
attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 25–42.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin-Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communica-
tion: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: W.W.
Norton.
Welker, J., Werner, A., & Scholz, J. (2005). Online research [Markt und Sozialforschung mit
dem Internet]. Heidelberg: dpunkt.verlag.
Werner, R., & Appel, C. (2004). Deutscher Vergebungsfragebogen nach McCullough et al.
(1998). In A. Glöckner-Rist (Hrsg.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches
Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente. Version 12.00.
West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal
variables: Problems and remedies. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling:
Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Willard N. (2006), Cyberbullying and cyberthreads: responding to the challenge of online
social cruelty, threats, and distress, Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use,
Champaign, Illinois.
Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004). Online aggressor/ targets, aggressors, and targets: A
comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308–1316.
224
▲
Cyberbullying Prevention:
One Primary School’s Approach
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
B
ullying in all its forms, including cyberbullying, is a continuing problem in
schools. Given the severe consequences it can have on students
(socially, psychologically and physically) it is not surprising that a
number of intervention programs have been developed, with most
advocating a whole-school approach. The current study compared
students’ self-reports on bullying between schools with and without
a Philosophy for Children (P4C) approach. A sample of 35 students
in the P4C school and a matched sample of 35 students in other
schools between the ages of 10 and 13 completed the Student
Bullying Survey. Results indicated that while there were significant
differences in incidences of face-to-face bullying, there were similar
results from both cohorts in relation to cyberbullying. Both groups
of students felt that teachers were more likely to prevent face-to-face
bullying than cyberbullying. Findings indicate that teachers and
guidance counsellors need to be as overt in teaching strategies about
cyberbullying as they are in teaching strategies about reducing face-
to-face bullying.
■ KEYWORDS: cyberbullying, philosophy, children, bullying
Cyberbullying has become a growing problem in schools. It mirrors other forms of

bullying in the three elements that identify bullying: the behaviour is repetitive,
there is an intention to harm, and it involves some form of power imbalance
(Jacobsen & Bauman, 2007; Parada, 2008; Turkel, 2007). While cyberbullying is 225
▲
the newest form of bullying there are many others with which teachers and stu-
dents have had to deal: physical (hitting, kicking), non-physical (exclusion, manip-
ulation), verbal (taunting, teasing), relational (forced to comply with rules of
others), and sexual (demean, embarrass, humiliate or control another on the basis
of gender or sexual orientation) (Beaty & Alexeyev, 2008; Bhat, 2008; Hawker &
Boulton, 2000). Covert bullying, a less direct, ‘hidden’ kind of bullying, can take
the form of spreading gossip, deliberate social exclusion and cyberbullying (Cross
et al., 2009). Recent statistics released from the Australian Covert Bullying
Prevalence Study (ACBPS; Cross et al., 2009) revealed that one in four students in
Address for Correspondence: Donna Tangen, A Block, Level 3 301, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria
Park Road, Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia. E-mail: d.tangen@qut.edu.au
▲

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 225–234
Australia between Years 4 to 9 had been bullied, with the majority of them (61%)
having experienced covert bullying. Of these students, 60% had also been teased in
‘nasty’ ways, 24% had been physically hurt, and 13% had been sent nasty mes-
sages on the internet. It would seem that bullying for school-aged children remains
a difficult dilemma for schools to resolve.
Cyberbullying is used by young people to harm others repeatedly through the
use of technology such as social networking sites and other chat rooms, mobile
phones, websites and web-cameras (Campbell, 2005; Keith & Martin, 2005). Until
recently there has been little research into this form of bullying (Harewald, 2008).
However, the ACBPS study (Cross et al., 2009) reported that 7–10% of students in
Years 4 to 9 had experienced cyberbullying. Slightly higher rates were found
among secondary students, suggesting that cyberbullying may be related to age or
access to technology. Shariff and Johnny (2007) suggested that schools have too
much information but too little knowledge on the complexities of cyberbullying to
deal with it effectively. Difficulties arise because of the anonymity of the offender
and the fact that a high percentage of bullying goes unreported.
Whole School Approach to Prevent Bullying
Given the incidence of bullying in schools and the severe consequences it can have
on students (socially, psychologically and physically) it is not surprising that a
number of intervention programs have been developed. For example, a whole-
school approach to bullying looks at prevention and intervention from multiple
angles and across a broad spectrum of the school community (Smith, Schneider,
Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004). Generally, a whole-school approach takes into
account the style and quality of leadership and management practices of the
school, the quality and delivery of the curriculum, playground activities, the quality
of supervision, as well as formalised and agreed procedures to deal with a bullying
incident (Suckling & Temple, 2001). However, there is limited positive evidence that
a whole-school approach will prevent bullying (Ttofi & Farrington, 2009). While
these approaches have led to some reductions in bullying, very few programs achieve
a reduction of near or above the 50% mark, and some studies have reported minimal
or no improvement (McGrath, 2006). However, while there is very limited solid evi-
226 dence that whole-school approaches work, there is no evidence that other kinds of
▲
intervention are superior to the whole-school approach in dealing with bullying, nor
that the whole-school approach should be abandoned (Smith et al., 2004). Indeed,
there is strong support that such an intervention can succeed, but not enough is
known to indicate exactly how and when (Woods & Wolke, 2003).
A different approach to reducing bullying has a focus on dealing directly with
bullying incidents, whatever kind of bullying has occurred. Some researchers
(Galloway & Roland, 2004), however, have argued that this direct approach is not
necessarily the most effective in the long term as an explicit focus on a particular
bullying incident cannot address all the factors that may contribute to the problem.
For example, teachers’ moral orientation in response to bullying, their training and
skills to deal with problems of bullying or, indeed, their ability to recognise bully-
ing when it occurs need to be taken into consideration (Ellis & Shute, 2007). The
argument here is not that individual bullying incidents should not be addressed
explicitly but rather it should be addressed within the wider context of social interac-
Cyberbullying Prevention
tions. This view is supported by Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, and Feinberg (2005) who
identified the need for social skills training, promotion of social competency (by
teaching students how to interact more effectively with peers and adults through
enhanced conflict resolution, developing problem solving skills), developing skills in
negotiation, and developing friendship-building abilities. One approach that aims to
address the above needs is through a Philosophy for Children (P4C) approach, devel-
oped by Matthew Lipman in the 1960s (Haynes, 2008).
The Philosophy for Children Approach
The Philosophy for Children (P4C) approach argues that through philosophy a
classroom can become a pluralistic community centred in dialogue and collabora-
tive activity where critical, creative and complex thinking are present (Cam, 2006).
The program is based not only on cognitive development but also, through partici-
pation in the community of enquiry, students’ develop social skills leading to a
strengthening of social competency. At its simplest, P4C is based on encouraging
children to think for themselves about issues, to question assumptions and to join
with other children in open-ended discussions about these issues. This process
allows children to be exposed to a view range of viewpoints on ideas in which they
themselves are interested (Shaw, 2003). However, there is a structure to the
program based on the principles of constructivism. In the P4C approach, both cog-
nitive and social constructivism interact, allowing students opportunities to solve
real-life problems. Cognitive constructivism (Powell & Kalina, 2009) has its origins
in Piaget’s work, where ideas are constructed through an individual process. In
order for learning to be effective it must be presented at students’ personal level of
logical and intellectual capabilities. Social constructivism is derived from
Vygotsky’s work (Adams, 2006; Powell & Kalina, 2009). In this approach, per-
sonal critical thinking processes are integrated through social interactions. Both
approaches focus on the learner; the teacher becomes a facilitator in the learning
process, who aids in guiding the learner and explaining complex ideas so the
learner can gain understanding. The learner is the one who constructs their under-
standing of concepts. Both approaches value inquiry as a method for learning,
where the teacher poses a puzzling situation and the students try to solve the
problem through gathering data and working towards a solution. 227
▲
The P4C approach has many aims that are derived from the principles of con-
structivism, which include encouraging curiosity and questioning, strengthening
judgment and reasoning skills, improving understanding and encouraging consider-
ation of different viewpoints (Cam, 2006; Fisher, 1998). The process involves chil-
dren reading or viewing a stimulus (such as a dilemma a person may face),
developing questions in relation to the stimulus and then participating in a dia-
logue with each other (Haynes, 2008). Trickey and Topping (2004) undertook a
systematic review of 10 studies in philosophy in education, and while the results
showed positive outcomes in developing children’s problem-solving skills, their
review concluded that it was not possible to assert that any use of P4C would
always lead to positive outcomes because implementation is highly variable.
However, there is a wide range of evidence to suggest that given certain conditions,
children can gain significantly both academically and socially by participating in
such a program.

▲

The current study compares students’ self-reports on bullying between schools

with and without a P4C approach. A focus school has implemented a P4C
program for over 13 years, starting in 1997. All students at the school participate
in a one-hour weekly philosophic discussion designed to improve their reasoning
and inquiry skills by social dialogue. These discussions are a core subject
timetabled into the curriculum. Lessons are planned and taught by the classroom
teachers (from Prep to Year 7). All teachers at the school have undertaken training
in teaching P4C, a component of which may include addressing the issues associ-
ated with bullying, depending on the stimulus material for the day and where the
children take the discussion. However, while there may be discussions about bully-
ing, the philosophy program at the school does not include it as a feature topic
apart from any other topics. The main thrust of the program is the development of
students’ critical thinking capabilities based on a set of predetermined readings. It
was suggested by staff at the school that, through the readings and subsequent dis-
cussion students would develop a philosophical stance in their learning and the
ability to reason through difficult issues such as bullying. In fact a reduction in bul-
lying has been claimed for this program (Hinton, 2003).
Bullying programs are implemented in state schools. The Australian government
recognises the extreme effects bullying can have on students and in response has
provided an anti-bullying resource pack and implementation manual for all schools
to use (see the National Safety Schools Framework, DEEWR). All schools are
required to address issues of bullying. The current study examined the incidence of
TA B LE 1
Participants’ Demographics
P4C Others
Male 17 17
Female 18 18
Age 10 years 2 2
11 years 15 15
228
▲
12 years 17 17
13 years 1 1
Mother’s education to Y10 2 1
Y12 0 5
Technical 2 2
University 11 17
Don’t know 18 10
Father’s education to Y10 0 3
Y12 2 5
Technical 1 3
University 10 16
Don’t know 22 8
Internet access at home 27 (77.1%) 19 (54.3%)
Mobile phone ownership 19 (54.3%) 23 (65.7%)
bullying (including cyberbullying) and students’ perceptions of their school’s

response to bullying from the P4C school and matched control students from other
schools in the same state. It was hypothesised that there would be less bullying in
all forms in the P4C school compared to students from other schools and that there
would be more of a whole school response to bullying at the P4C school.
Method
Participants
Purposive sampling of Years 6 and 7 students was undertaken, where 35 students
in Years 6 and 7 from a P4C school were matched from a pool of 465 students
from other schools in the same state. The response rate from the P4C school was
72%. One student from each non-P4C schools was matched to each student in the
focus P4C school based on a list of criteria. The criterion by which they were
matched were gender, age, mother’s highest level of education, father’s highest level
of education, internet access and mobile phone ownership. If a single match was
still not discovered after this, a random number generator was used to choose one
of the remaining matching students from the list. There were 17 boys and 18 girls
in each matched group, ages ranged from 10 and 13 years, with the mean age of
11.49 years (SD = 0.654; See Table 1).
Measure
The Student Bullying Survey (Campbell, Slee, Spears, Kift, & Butler, 2007). The
survey contains a total of 87 multiple choice and short answer questions on bully-
ing, both cyber and other forms. As this study was part of a larger study the results
of the whole survey will be published in another paper. Only demographics, bully
and victim questions and the section on school response was utilised for this
article. Examples of questions included: (Q.12) ‘Have you been cyberbullied this
year?’ (Yes/No); (Q.23) ‘Have you cyberbullied someone this year?’ (Yes/No);
(Q.42b) ‘Do you think adults at your school would … discipline the person who
cyberbullied?’
229
▲
Procedure
Parents were sent home letters informing them of the study, with requests for
parental permission forms to be signed and returned if permission was granted for
their children to participate in the study. The self-report questionnaires were com-
pleted by students during a 45-minute class period. Those students who were not
given parental permission to participate were excused from the classroom and
worked on other lessons during this time period.
Results
A crosstabs (Chi square) analysis was conducted to investigate the distribution of
victims and perpetrators of bullying in the P4C school and other schools. A higher
percentage of P4C school students claimed to have both been face-to-face bullied
and bullied others face-to-face in the last year than matched students at other

▲

TA B LE 2
Percentage of Students Who Self-Identified as Victims and Bullies of Face-To-Face and Cyber Bullying
(With Chi Square Analysis)
P4C (35) Other school students (35)
Victims face-to-face 62.9% (22) 42.9% (15)

Cyber bullying 17.1% (6) 17.1% (6)
Bullies face-to-face 25.7% (9) 20.0% (7)
Cyber bullying 5.7% (2) 2.9% (1)
Victim of both face-to-face and cyber bullying 17.1% (6) 2.9% (1)
Bully both face-to-face and cyber bullying 8.6% (3) 0.0% (0)
schools (62.9% and 42.9%). Interestingly, there were no significant differences

between the two cohorts in reporting cyberbullying as either victims (17.1% and
17.1%) or cyberbullies (5.7% and 2.9%; see Table 2).
There were also no differences between the two groups of students on their per-
ceptions of adults dealing with bullying in their schools. However, there were dif-
ferences in both cohorts between students’ perceptions of how adults dealt with
cyberbullying as opposed to face-to-face bullying. While 94.2% believed that
adults try to prevent face-to-face bullying at their school (11.4% sometimes,
27.1% often and 55.7% always) only 84.3% thought that they tried to prevent
cyberbullying (38.6% said sometimes, 20% often and 25.7% always).
Furthermore, while about 84.3% of students said they were given lessons on face-
to-face bullying (41.4% sometimes, 30% often and 12.9% always) only about
54.3% reported that they were given lessons on cyberbullying (45.7% sometimes,
5.7% often and 2.9% always). Similarly, while about 88.6% of students said
adults told them about their school’s anti-bullying policy for face-to-face bullying
(38.6% sometimes, 34.3% sometimes and 15.7% always), only about 52.8%
(37.1% sometimes, 10% often and 5.7% always) said they were told about any
policy about cyberbullying (See Table 3).
230
▲
Discussion
The current study compared the incidence of both bullying and cyberbullying at a
school that offers a whole-school P4C approach to learning with students from
other schools who do not use this approach in upper primary. It was found that
students at the P4C school reported significantly more face-to-face bullying, as
both bullies and victims, than matched students at the other schools. However,
there were no differences in reports of cyberbullying. These results are surprising as
students at the P4C school have been participating in the P4C program for their
entire school life, which for some is 6 years prior to this study. While the P4C
program is not an anti-bullying program as such, a main feature is having weekly
discussions with a focus on helping students to become critical thinkers, especially
in relation to their behaviour towards others and how others behave towards them.
One might expect, then, that these students would have developed enough critical
thinking skills by Grades 6 and 7 to be consciously aware of the consequences of

peer interactions and would have developed the skills to handle conflict with others
in more appropriate ways than through bullying. Perhaps, however, the children’s
raised awareness of social relationships made them more aware of incidents of bul-
lying and they therefore reported all incidents, whereas the other students might
not have. On the other hand, it may be that while the students at the P4C school
are learning how to conduct discussions to problem-solve situations from story
books, they may not see these stories as necessarily relating to their own lives and
so may have difficulty transferring solutions presented in the story to their own
lives. To date there is little research as to the effects of the P4C approach on pre-
venting bullying in school; more research into this important area is warranted.
It is interesting to note (despite small numbers) that the incidence of cyberbully-
ing in these primary schools is equivalent to secondary school cyberbullying (Cross,
et al., 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2007). One implication of this finding could be that
students need to be explicitly taught about bullying and cyberbullying and not just
rely on general critical thinking skills about social relationships. This finding has
implications for primary school communities and guidance counsellors in that cyber-
bullying is not confined to older students and that prevention and intervention pro-
grams need to be put in place much earlier for cyberbullying than was previously
thought. As well as the small sample size, a further limitation to the study might be
that the data was gleaned through student self-reports and that young students might
not be truthful in their responses, especially in regard to the sensitive nature of the
context of this study. However, Espelage, Holt and Henkel (2003) compared self-
report and peer nominations of bullying and found them to be similar. This suggests
anonymous student self-reports tend to be truthful accounts.
Both cohorts of students reported that adults were twice as likely to prevent
face-to-face bullying at their school then they would prevent cyberbullying. Eighty
per cent of students reported that they felt teachers would try to prevent face-to-
face bullying but that only 46% felt that teachers would try to prevent cyberbully-
ing. This supports the students’ perceptions that adults at their school were
231
▲
TA B LE 3
Student Perceptions of Adult Behaviour About Bullying at Their School (By Student Report of
Combined Often and Always or Some and A Lot Responses)
Face-to Face-to Cyberbullying Cyberbullying
-face P4C -face Others P4C Others
How much awareness do 88.6% (31) 85.7% (30) 77.2% (27) 77.1% (27)
adults at your school have
of bullying?
How often do adults try 82.8% (28) 82.9% (30) 45.7% (16) 45.7% (16)
to prevent bullying?
How often would adults at 54.3% (19) 48.6% (17) 45.7% (16) 54.3% (19)
your school discipline bullies?
How often do adults give 42.8% (15) 42.9% (15) 8.6% (3) 8.6% (3)
lessons to you on bullying?
How often do adults tell you 37.1% (13) 62.9% (22) 11.4% (4) 20.0% (7)
about anti-bullying policies?

▲

generally not as aware of cyberbullying as of face-to-face bullying. This is a

concern that these young students perceive their teachers do not know enough
about the digital world as they do and that less than half think teachers would try
to prevent cyberbullying. It is also of concern that while less than half of students
say adults gave them lessons on face-to-face bullying only about 10% had any
lessons on cyberbullying.
There are clear indications from these results that teachers and guidance counsel-
lors need to extend both prevention and intervention programs about cyberbullying
to much younger students. Cassidy, Jackson and Brown (2009) reported that students
were more likely to report cyberbullying to school personnel if they witnessed the
incident rather than experiencing it themselves, but were more inclined to tell their
friends than an adult (70% if they witnessed cyberbullying; 74.5% if they experienced
it). Findings from the current research concur with these results in that students are
not likely to tell a teacher about cyberbullying if they do not believe the teacher can
help them. All school personnel need be more direct in how they present anti-cyber-
bullying programs and how they guide students to report incidents of cyberbullying.
This will require training of school personnel in engaging in the digital world of the
students so that the students have more confidence in the adults at their school.
Conclusion
There appears to be a disconnect between the capabilities teachers anticipate stu-
dents will develop to solve their own problems (by learning problem-solving tech-
niques in the P4C program) compared to how capable students feel they are to
solve problems of bullying without adult intervention and/or support. These results
hold true not only for P4C but for all schools. However, the interesting finding of
the differences in incidence between face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying
involved the whole sample, as did the differences in children’s perceptions of teach-
ers’ involvement in cyberbullying. More research involving school programs such
as this need to be conducted. Teachers cannot assume that students will be able to
deal with cyberbullying. They need to offer explicit teaching to help students not
engage in bullying behaviours and to develop the skills and strategies to address
such problems.
232
▲
References
Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education,
34, 243–257.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2010). The
National Safe Schools Framework. Retrieved October 1 2010, from http://www.deewr.
gov.au/Schooling/NationalSafeSchools/Pages/overview.aspx
Beaty, L.A., & Alexeyev, E.G. (2008). The problem of school bullies: What the research tells
us. Adolescence, 43, 1–11.
Bhat, C.S. (2008). Cyber bullying: Overview and strategies for school counsellors, guidance offi-
cers and all school personnel. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 18, 53–66.
Cam, P. (2006). 20 Thinking tools: Collaborative inquiry for the classroom. Melbourne,
Australia: ACER Press.
Campbell, M.A. (2005). Cyber bullying: An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal
Campbell, M.A., Slee, R., Spears, B., Kift, S., & Bulter, D. (2007). Student bullying survey.
Unpublished manuscript.
Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K.N. (2009). Sticks and stones can break my bones,
but how can pixels hurt me? Students’ experiences with cyber bullying. School
Psychology International, 30, 383–402.
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L. et al. (2009). Australian
Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS). Perth, Australia: Child Health Promotion
Research Centre, Edith Cowan University.
Ellis, A. A., & Shute, A. (2007). Teacher responses to bullying in relation to moral orientation
and seriousness of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 649–663.
Espelage, D.L., Holt, M.K., & Henkel, R.R. (2003). Examination of peer group contextual
effects on aggressive behavior during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205–220.
Galloway, D., & Roland, E. (2004). Is the direct approach to reducing bullying always the
best? In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful
can interventions be? (pp. 37–54). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, R. (1998). Teaching thinking: Philosophical enquiry in the classroom. London:
Cassell.
Harewald, R. (2008). Confronting the pedagogical challenge of cyber safety. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 1–16.
Hawker, D.S.J., & Boulton, M.J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and
psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal
of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 41, 441–455.
Haynes, J. (2008). Children as philosophers: Learning through enquiry and dialogue in the
primary classroom. New York: Routledge.
Hinton, L. (2003). Reinventing a school. Critical and Creative Thinking, 11, 47–60.
Jacobsen, K.E., & Bauman, S. (2007). Bullying in schools: School counselors’ responses to
three types of bullying incidents. ASCA Professional School Counseling, 11(1), 1–9.
Keith, S., & Martin, M.E. (2005). Cyber-bullying: Creating a culture of respect in a cyber
world. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13, 224–228.
Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R.f., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole-school posi-
tive behaviour support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic perform-
ance. Educational Psychology, 25(2–3), 183–198.
McGrath, H. (2006). What research tells us about whole-school programs for preventing bul-
lying. In H. McGrath & T. Noble (Eds.), Bullying solutions: Evidence-based approaches
to bullying in Australian schools (pp. 49–66). Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education
Australia.
233
▲
Parada, R. (2008). Beyond bullying: A whole school approach. Teacher, 1, 23–26.

Powell, K.C., & Kalina, C.J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools
for an effective classroom. Education, 130, 241–250.
Samara, M., & Smith, P.K. (2008). How schools tackle bullying and the use of whole school
policies: Changes over the last decade. Educational Psychology, 28, 663–676.
Shariff, S., & Johnny, L. (2007). Cyber-libel and cyber-bullying: Can schools protect student
reputations and fee-expression in virtual environments? Education Law Journal, 16 ,
307–342.
Shaw, R. (2003). Philosophy in the classroom. Melbourne, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P., (2007). Cyber-bullying: Another main type of bullying?
Smith, J.D., Schneider, B.H., Smith, P.K., & Anaiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of
whole-school anti-bullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School
Psychology Review, 33, 547–560.
Suckling, A., & Temple, C. (2001). Bullying: A whole school approach. Melbourne,
Australia: ACER Press.

▲

Ttofi, M., & Farrington, D. (2009). What works in preventing bullying: Effective elements of
anti-bullying programmes. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1, 13–24.
Trickey, S., & Topping, K.J. (2004). Philosophy for children: A systematic review. Research
Papers in Education, 19, 365–380.
Turkel, A.R. (2007). Sugar and spice and puppy dog’s tails: The psychodynamics of bully-
ing. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 35,
243–257.
Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2003). Does the content of anti-bullying policies inform us about
the prevalence of direct and relational bullying behaviour in primary schools?
Educational Psychology, 23, 381–401.
234
▲
G
S
EW
&C
VI
RE
Memory Flowers
By Donna Ellis, illustrated by Philippa Morton
ISBN 978-0-646-53016-1
Memory Flowers is a colourful book on grieving, designed for primary-aged chil-

dren, and integrates the four components of children’s understanding of death: irre-
versibility, finality, inevitability, and causality.
Using a picture book format, Ellis explains what ‘grieving’ is for children. The
author explains that all of the different feelings in their heart, head, and body are
components of grief. These feelings are normal and are a part of the process of
grieving. Without such understanding many children are confused by their emo-
tions and fears.
Few people have the necessary skills and experience to help their children grieve.
Tools and conversation-starters have great value in guiding families toward healthy
coping strategies. Grief is complex. It encompasses a wide range of emotions that
can come and go in waves.
Memory Flowers is a wonderful story about the loss of the family dog, Charlie.
Ellis incorporates tips that are meant to help you and your family deal with a death
of a loved one and provides an overview of how young children understand death,
and offers heartfelt strategies for talking to children about death and their reaction
to it.
Ellis gives examples of how adults need to be willing to listen and allow the chil-
dren to talk about the animal/person that died. Adults need to be prepared to
discuss children’s feelings with the child. Recalling memories might have great value
to one child, while others might not be ready to talk about the animal/person. If
they do want to talk about the animal/person that died, then let them talk and
remember both good things and not-so-good things. They might ask you to tell
them stories of family activities or remind them about the person. If prompted by a
child to recall the animal/person, consider creating a memory-book with photos 235
▲
and memories.
Some children will ask about how or why someone died, the rituals around the
funeral, where the person has gone, and what else will change in their lives.
Questions express fears, uncertainty, and concerns. This book gives a means to be
able to talk to children about ways to try and feel better when feeling sad.
Resources are suggested to let children know that they can come up with ideas for
themselves, also. This will empower them to feel in some ‘control’ and learn skills
that might help them in other life challenges.
Memory Flowers is an excellent resource for parents who wish to help their chil-
dren cope with grief and loss. Children need to go at their own pace in addressing
questions. This book makes the answers easier to explain in a gentle, honest and
direct manner.
The colourful illustrations by Philippa Morton are adequate, but one feels that
more could have been made to highlight the strengths of the text. The figures of the
▲

Volume 20 Number 2 2010 ▲ pp. 235–241
Book Reviews
family in the story resemble old-fashioned peg dolls. I am not sure this resemblance
is deliberate, but it leaves the family looking rather unemotional. I believe this
would make it more difficult for a child to identify realistic feelings.
To sum up, Ellis promotes spending time with your children, and doing things
together that make both you and them happy. This book presents as a wonderful,
colourful and articulate resource for both parents and professionals such as coun-
sellors or psychologists to use with children.
Reviewed by: Julia Tilling
Counselling Adolescents
— The Proactive Approach
for Young People
By Kathryn Geldard and David Geldard
ISBN 978-1-84860-642-5
When you consider that the teen years are a period of intense growth, not only phys-
ically but morally and intellectually, it’s understandable that it’s a time of confusion
and upheaval for many families … Despite some adults’ negative perceptions about
teens, they are often energetic, thoughtful, and idealistic, with a deep interest in
what’s fair and right. (Dowshen, 2007 )
Into this world of confusion, change and mistaken perceptions comes the ideal
resource guide for counsellors, parents, teachers and all those people who are
struggling with the stress and challenges of dealing with adolescents, and the
demands of this stage in the adolescent life. This book not only provides a basic
236 level of knowledge about the major approaches to adolescent counselling, it is also
▲
a key resource book for the acquisition of crucial interpersonal skills that is essen-
tial for interaction with young people. This revised edition builds upon the founda-
tions laid down in the first and second editions, with a more comprehensive
coverage on the latest developments in the adolescent counselling field.
Drawing on four major themes with a wide range of topics (with the latest inclu-
sion on professional and ethical issues relating specifically to young people, as well
as a chapter dedicated to issues on forming collaborative relationships with young
people), this latest edition of Counselling Adolescents — The Proactive Approach
for Young People is indeed a ‘must-have’ guide for all those interested in working
with young people.
This latest edition integrates three areas salient to counsellors or experienced
practitioners’ reference needs. It includes the following areas: understanding the
young person, proactive counselling for young people, and the different strategies
and skills pertinent to adolescent counselling. It thus covers all the pertinent areas
Book Reviews
that one would need to know when dealing with young people. The fact that this
book is well presented, with headings to address the important ideas in the text, as
well as useful explanations illuminating complex issues, makes it an ideal guide not
only for counsellors and practitioners, but also for parents who would like to gain
a better understanding of the issues of adolescents and acquire valuable and simple
strategies to deal with the issues of their young teenager. Coming from the perspec-
tive of a parent of a 14-year-old boy, I was able to relate to most of the issues that
surfaced in the book, which makes it a practical guide for parents of adolescents,
myself included. Furthermore, the use of illustrative examples in some segments of
the book provides readers with real-life experiences on how issues highlighted are
addressed in practice. More of such clearly defined examples would be ideal as
they would enable readers to gain a more in-depth understanding of the issues dis-
cussed, allowing them to better relate to the experiences of the subjects and hence
gain a more personal insight into the issues explored.
The depth of clarity in this edition is enhanced by the inclusion of ‘Key Points’ at
the end of the chapters, which provides the readers with a summarised reflection of
the salient ideas presented in the chapter. This not only helps to reiterate the perti-
nent ideas presented but allows for further reflections where necessary. At the same
time, it helps to ease readers, particularly the layperson, into the content in the
upcoming chapters, thus facilitating a smooth transition of ideas from chapter to
chapter.
I found the first theme, ‘Understanding the Young Person’, an ideal start to
learning about the complex issues of adolescent life. It covers all the pertinent areas
and provides the readers with a basic understanding of the important factors that
affect the adolescent life. I find myself having a better understanding of this critical
age group and empathising with some of the challenges that young people face,
such as environmental stresses and hazards. The next theme highlights the proac-
tive approach towards counselling and provides the readers with a better under-
standing of the proactive process for counselling young people, complete with
well-defined and useful micro-skills counselling.
The final chapter, which provides sample case studies of the proactive coun-
selling process, has managed to illustrate all the important theories and techniques
that were described in the earlier chapters on proactive counselling. This is defi- 237
▲
nitely a must-read chapter for those interested in putting theory into practice.
Basically, each chapter makes a significant contribution, and together they offer an
all-encompassing breadth and depth of information on adolescent issues that touch
every aspect of ‘normal’ life.
This handbook is absolutely an essential companion guide and an invaluable
resource for all those working with adolescents. It is amazingly comprehensive,
well-written and generously dosed with practical anecdotes, presenting the perti-
nent issues on counselling adolescents in an accessible and reliable manner.
Reviewed by: Suraiya Bte Hameed

University of Queensland, St Lucia

▲

Book Reviews
Cyberbullying: What Counsellors

Need to Know
By Sheri Bauman
(2011). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. (ISBN 978-1-55620-294-0)
‘Cyberbullying’ is a relatively recent term used to describe bullying behaviours that

occur via information and communication technologies (ICT). While many schools
and school staff are aware of cyberbullying, often they are unaware of how to
respond to this issue for reasons including incidents occurring out-of-school hours
and away from school sites, lack of technological capabilities, and the anonymous
nature of some forms of cyberbullying.
As is often the case with emerging issues, the research that provides the evidence
for the effectiveness of interventions takes time to develop and refine. In the mean-
time, school staff can be at a loss as to how to respond effectively but are keen to
further advance their knowledge and understanding of this increasingly prevalent
issue. While cyberbullying is a new issue, traditional forms of bullying have been
studied for many years now and lend evidence to support schools around this issue.
In her book, Bauman provides an overview of the complexities in defining
cyberbullying and discusses in easy-to-read language what cyberbullying is, where
it happens, how to respond to it, and from where to seek more information.
Written for counsellors, this book would also be appropriate for all school staff in
pastoral care roles, and some sections (Chapters 1–8) relevant to all school staff in
general. To provide consistent action to reduce and prevent cyberbullying, it is
important that all staff are aware of the issue and understand the school’s response
to it.
While written for an American context, much of the content in this book is rele-
vant to schools and school counsellors in Australia. However, caution should be
238 used in applying legal descriptions and cases recorded in this book in Australia due
▲
to variations in laws pertaining to cyberbullying, harassment and school district

responsibilities.
As with all material written about technology, a risk exists that the content will
be out of date before the book is published. Bauman’s book provides a good
balance of recent data and the most commonly visited social networking sites, so
the reader can apply information about types of cyberbullying to a variety of
online settings and applications. Her use of nonscientific jargon and carefully
detailed technical processes allow readers of all levels of computer literacy to
understand and apply the strategies described in this book.
My only criticism of this book relates to the chapter about cyberbullying among
adults. While cyberbullying is an issue that can affect all individuals, regardless of
age, race, gender, disability, or technological capability, I feel that this chapter was
an unnecessary addition to the book. Had the author related this section back to
the school setting by discussing the implications for school staff and strategies that
Book Reviews
could be undertaken in this setting to role model appropriate technology use and
increase staff members’ awareness of how to use technology safely and effectively
(bridging the digital divide), I feel this chapter would have had more relevance and
significance for the reader.
In my opinion, Bauman’s book provides a timely discussion of an important,
emerging issue. Having worked as a school counsellor, her description of strategies
available to respond to cyberbullying incidents provide practical tips to aid the
reader to implement these immediately, as well as guidance about where to seek
further practical advice. I would recommend this book to all school staff, in par-
ticular those who work in pastoral care roles and counsellors outside of school
settings who work with school-aged children and adolescents, as a helpful intro-
duction to the issue of cyberbullying. Moreover, this book provides a description
of a large number of additional practical and evidence-based resources, for those
keen to expand their understanding of the issue.
Laura Thomas
Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University
Relationship Counselling for

Children, Young People and Families
By Kathryn Geldard and David Geldard
(2009). London: SAGE. ISBN 978-1-84787-551-8
I grew up in a family where, like most other children I knew, separation and/or
divorce was virtually unheard of — a mystery. Aunts, uncles, grandparents and
great-grandparents had remained married ‘til death us do part’. In my world it was
not at all surprising for a couple to celebrate their silver, and ultimately their
239
▲
golden wedding anniversary. Only a few years ago I was commenting to a neigh-
bour on how lovely it was that some very dear friends, who were so fully commit-
ted to each other in every way possible, were about to celebrate their golden
anniversary, having been married for 50 years. My neighbour’s 13-year-old daugh-
ter, who had been silently listening to our conversation then added her own
comment, ‘But that would be boring’. Her mother and I endeavoured to offer some
explanation for the positive nature of the situation, only to be met with the reply,
‘No! Divorce is what makes the world go round’.
Another friend recently shared with me her concern regarding an information
sheet that was sent home from a local sports organisation of which her son is an
active member. On behalf of the child, parents were asked to respond to the ques-
tion, ‘Do you live with your mother or your father?’ My friend, who has been
married for over 20 years and embraces a traditional family lifestyle, was quite
aghast at the assumption that very few, if any, children would actually be living
with both parents.

▲

Book Reviews
In a nutshell, families have changed. The definition of a family, the composition

of a family and therefore the dynamics of family have taken on new meaning. As
counsellors we must be both informed and equipped to deal with the difficulties
which can arise as a result of ongoing change.
Relationship Counselling for Children, Young People and Families is a publica-
tion that has embraced this reality. Its five key sections address the basic forms of
family counselling as the authors highlight significant elements of relationship
counselling and the need for differing approaches for the whole family, the
child/ren, young people within the family structure, and finally the parents. In rela-
tion to family structure, the nuclear family is declared to be ‘only one of many
types of family’ (p. 52). Other family structures, which must be considered by the
counsellor, include the extended family unit, the single-parent family, the blended
family, couples without children, or same-sex relationships either with or without
children. Each of these units can be formed in a variety of ways. For example, the
single-parent family can be the result of divorce, the death of a partner, or an
unmarried mother with a child/ren. The authors encourage counsellors to reflect
upon the diverse compositions of the families with whom they may be working.
In addition to overviewing a number of theories such as systems theory or con-
structivist theory, the Geldards offer a model of integrative relationship counselling
which they refer to as the CACHO (Communication; Awareness; CHoice;
Outcome) model. This model has its roots in Gestalt therapy and focuses primarily
on the raising of awareness among family members, thereby offering each individ-
ual both the opportunity for understanding, and the subsequent choice to make
changes within the family relationship structure. As a further suggestion, the
authors offer guidance for those counsellors who wish to utilise a co-therapist or a
reflective team approach to family counselling.
The family counsellor can encounter a number of challenges, such as carefully
balancing or juggling the perception of each family member without appearing to
favour one above the other; managing the balance of talk for individual members
of the group by not permitting one person to dominate the conversation; or
encouraging and supporting those individuals whose position may be disregarded
by others as ‘it is often the case that children are disempowered within their fami-
240 lies’ (p. 129). As part of this role the counsellor may also need to identify and
▲
clarify information that appears to have been minimised.

Relationship Counselling for Children, Young People and Families also provides
a range of creative ideas for working with children of various ages. Options include
the use of toy animals, puppets, sand trays, pretend play or working with clay,
depending upon the age of the child. Clear, often step-by-step, guidance is provided
regarding the use of each technique.
Counselling situations can, at times, prove difficult for young people who are
often seeking to establish their own identity and find their place within their family,
among their peers and also within society in general. From their many years of
experience the Geldards offer a number of strategies which can assist the counsel-
lor in his/her ongoing dealings with young people.
Relationship Counselling for Children, Young People and Families is presented
in a clear, easy-to-follow style and includes practical suggestions for interacting
with the different members of a family. Each chapter concludes with a set of
Book Reviews
summary points highlighting the key issues addressed throughout that chapter, and
a selection of questions for reflection or discussion. This volume could prove useful
to those counsellors who find themselves working across a range of clients, particu-
larly those whose primary focus is the family.
Reviewed by: Lynne M. Baker PhD

University of Queensland
241
▲

▲

QUALITY Publishing
Behaviour Change
Long regarded as a leader in its field, Behaviour Change, is devoted to
the publication of high quality research on the application of behav-
ioural and cognitive-behavioural principles and techniques to the
assessment and treatment of a wide variety of health, psychiatric,
social, organisational, community and educational problems. It is a
fully refereed journal with an international editorial board.
Criminology
For over thirty years, the Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Criminology has been presenting a professional
eclectic approach to the respected tertiary field of criminology by
promoting quality research and debate on crime and criminal justice.
The journal’s high editorial standards are supported by peer review
and an impressive editorial board. A diversity of theoretical and
methodological articles are well complimented by reviews of con-
temporary issues and special topic features such as “History and
Crime” and “Indigenous Crime and Justice”.
Disciplines covered by the journal include psychology, law, politics,
history, sociology and the forensic sciences.
Brain Impairment
The official journal of the distinguished Australian Society for the
Study of Brain Impairment (ASSBI), Brain Impairment builds on 25
years of quality study and practice in all disciplines seeking to improve
the quality of life for people with brain impairment. Brain Impairment
is a truly multidisciplinary journal covering neurology, neuropsychol-
ogy, psychiatry, clinical psychology, neuropathology, occupational
therapy, physiotherapy, speech pathology and anatomy. Brain Impairment is fully peer-
reviewed with an impressive international Editorial Board.
Audiology
Since 1979, the Australian Journal of Audiology has been showcasing
242 scientific articles offering original contributions to the field of audi-
▲
ology in such diverse areas as clinical practice, cochlear implants,

psychoacoustics, speech perception, paediatric assessment and habili-
tation. It is a fully refereed journal with an international editorial
board and publishes manuscripts in various formats including
research reports, case studies and review articles.
“ Australian owned. Global reach.”

Cyberbullying Labels Behaviours and Defi PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cyberbullying Labels Behaviours and Defi PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Australian Journal of

Guidance and r 201

Cyber-Aggression: Definition and Concept of Cyberbullying______________143

Addressing Cyberbullying in School Using the Quality Circle Approach ____157

Analysis of Experts’ and Trainers’ Views on Cyberbullying ______________169

Cyberbullying at School: Good Practice and Legal Aspects in the__________182

Cyber-Victimisation: The Association Between Help-Seeking ____________194

Cyberbullying as an Act of Revenge? ________________________________210

Cyberbullying Prevention: One Primary School’s Approach ______________225

Book Reviews ________________________________________________235

Copyright in all articles rests with authors. A limited set of

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Marilyn Campbell, PhD

anonymity and publicity contributes to better understand the nature

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

States), cyberbullying research quickly spread to many countries, indicating the

et al., 2009), cyberbullying by Phone or by PC (Smith et al., 2008), traditional bul-

The Definition of Cyberbullying

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Aims of the Present Study

Intentionality ‘As a joke’ ‘To hurt him/her’

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Sending nasty Aggressive behaviour Harassment (acoso), Bullying (mobbing),

‘Sending a Blackmail Violation of personal ‘Photing’,

‘Get access to Privacy violation Privacy violation Humiliation (Demütigung),

Impersonation. In all three countries, impersonality behaviour was considered

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Exclusion. All participants in all countries labelled this behaviour as exclusion or

It depends if it is a real joke or not. (Spain)

Intention. In all countries, intention is a strongly relevant criterion to be used for

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Anonymity. In Italy, the criterion of anonymity mainly relates to different reactions

Pertaining to the different behaviours representing or not representing the cyber-

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

can this power imbalance be understood in cases of cyberbullying? Vandebosch

identity is also eminent in cyber-interrelationships. Campbell (2005) points out

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Primary school pupils (8–11 years old; 3 girls, 2 boys, n = 5).

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

anonymous, fraudulent, aggressive, unwanted messages, spreading rumours,

Participants use of internet and Basic media knowledge Affirmation, positive

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Solution to Problems About Cyberbullying

Is Cyberbullying a Useful Term?

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

linked to ‘helplessness’ in the traditional sense of bullying, where a victim is not

sive environment (e.g., in cases of ‘happy slapping’) in order to give a clear

Volume 20 Number 2 2010

Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Acknowledgment and Dedication

Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 28(2), 123–136.