The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-5659.htm
ITSE
11,2
86
Received 10 April 2014
Revised 15 April 2014
Accepted 16 April 2014
Interactive Technology and Smart
Education
Vol. 11 No. 2, 2014
pp. 86-98
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-5659
DOI 10.1108/ITSE-04-2014-0003
Technology-enabled bullying and
adolescent resistance to report
The need to examine causal factors
Justin Connolly, Pamela Hussey and Regina Connolly
Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to highlight the need to examine the factors that influence adolescents’
resistance to report their cyberbullying experiences to adults.
Design/methodology/approach – It outlines key factors that need to be considered when defining,
operationalizing and examining adolescent cyberbullying as well as providing an examination of the
literature on non-reporting behaviour both internationally and in the specific context of Ireland.
Findings – By doing so, it provides justification for the need to examine the causal factors that
influence adolescent resistance to report their cyberbullying experiences.
Research limitations/implications – As the purpose of the paper is to provide a synthesis of the
literature on cyberbullying and specifically the literature that point to the phenomenon of adolescent
non-reporting of cyberbullying experiences, its contribution is necessarily non-empirical. Instead, it
provides guidance that will assist other researchers seeking to build on this work through empirical
data collection.
Social implications – Adult interventions to address adolescent cyberbullying can only take place
if adolescents report their experiences to adult caregivers, be they parents or teachers. By outlining the
factors that need to be considered when examining cyberbullying, this study will assist researchers
who wish to examine this issue as well as teachers, parents and policy makers who seek to eliminate
cyberbullying behaviour.
Originality/value – Research on cyberbullying and on the factors influencing adolescent
non-reporting is remarkably limited. This study provides a strong academic framework
contribution for other researchers seeking to progress the understanding of an emerging issue.
Keywords Internet, Behaviour
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In its natural form, the term “communication” and “data sharing” suggest a positive role
where (at least) two people are in harmony with a common goal and sharing knowledge
to achieve that goal. The overall purpose is mutual knowledge which will improve
individuals, society or contribute to further research in a particular area. However, as is
the case with many things, information technology can also be used as a virtual weapon.
The problem is that, unlike actual weaponry, it is much harder to restrict this phenomenon
which is open to all ages and all classes of society on a worldwide basis. All that is required
is basic knowledge of internet usage and access to the relevant medium (e.g. mobile phone,
laptop/PC, etc.). If the boundaries are not set by society at different levels (home, school,
work) then corruption and social erosion leaks into that layer of society.
The speed at which the internet developed since the early 1990s has been
phenomenal as computer enthusiasts seeing commercial opportunities developed their
own web servers and access was soon made available to all. Supporting hardware and
software also became cheaper as the demand for internet usage spread among all ages Technology-
and cultures on a worldwide basis. It is speed of growth, however, has meant that it has enabled bullying
proven difficult to regulate and legislation has been slow to implement and proven
difficult in deciding between freedom of speech and abusing the technology to achieve
a darker purpose. In 2012, the Irish Minister for Justice (Alan Shatter, T.D.)
acknowledged that regulation was necessary to contain negative online behaviour. His
statement followed two adolescent deaths by suicide which had occurred within weeks 87
of each other.

2. Cyber-bullying: definition and forms

The problem of adolescent bullying has evolved in tandem with the digitization of
society. Bullying is a problem that transcends social boundaries and can result in
devastating psychological and emotional trauma including low self-esteem, poor
academic performance, depression and, in some cases, violence and suicide. In its
traditional context, it has been described as being characterized by the following three
criteria: (1) It is aggressive behavior or intentional “harm doing” (2) which is carried out
repeatedly and over time (3) in an interpersonal relationship characterized by an
imbalance of power. One might add that the bullying behavior often occurs without
“apparent provocation”, and “negative actions” can be carried out by physical contact,
by words, or in other ways, such as making faces or mean gestures and intentional
exclusion from a group (Olweus, 1999, pp. 10-11).
Cyberbullying, which is bullying conducted through the medium of electronic
communication tools (such as e-mail, mobile phone, social networking sites, personal
digital assistants, instant messaging tools and the world wide web) has been defined
by Willard (2007, p. 10) as:
[. . .] being cruel to others by sending or posting harmful material or engaging in other forms
of social cruelty using the internet or other digital technologies, such as cell phones. Young
people may be the target of cyberbullying from others or may engage in such harmful
behavior. Direct cyberbullying involves repeatedly sending offensive messages. More
indirect forms of cyberbullying include disseminating denigrating materials or sensitive
personal information or impersonating someone to cause harm.
As can be seen from the above definitions, both commonalities and distinctions exist
between cyberbullying and bullying in terms of nature and form. The common objective
of traditional forms of bullying and cyberbullying is to inflict harm on a target and they
are both repeated, intentional behaviours rather than reactive single instance outcomes.
However, with traditional forms of bullying, the perpetrator is visible, while
cyberbullying can be anonymous and is not dependent on size of the perpetrator, but
on the ability to communicate. Second, in the case of traditional bullying, the interaction
is location specific and both parties must be present, whereas cyberbullying can happen
anytime regardless of where the target is, including in their home. Third, the
cyberbullying message can be disseminated at an exponentially faster rate (e.g. copy
and paste a message and send it around the world) than is the case for traditional forms
of bullying, thus adding to the humiliation of the victim. Fourth, cyberbullying
messages can be preserved easily and indefinitely (such as saving messages on a phone,
memory stick, disk, etc.). Finally, bullies usually have poor relationships with teachers
but it has been noted that cyberbullies can have good relationship with teachers (Ybarra
and Mitchell, 2004).
ITSE Another distinction relates to form. Trolley et al. (2006, p. 13) observe that
11,2 cyberbullying forms include:
.
Flaming. The sending of angry, rude, vulgar messages about a person to an
online group or to that person via e-mail or other text messaging.
.
Online harassment. Repeatedly sending offensive messages via e-mail or other
text messaging to a person.
88 .
Cyberstalking. Online harassment that includes threats of harm or is excessively
intimidating.
.
Denigration (put-downs). Sending harmful, untrue, or cruel statements about a
person to other people or posting such material online.
.
Masquerade. Pretending to be someone else and sending or posting material that
makes that person look bad.
.
Outing. Sending or posting material about a person that contains sensitive,
private or embarrassing information, including forwarding private messages or
images.
.
Exclusion. Cruelly excluding someone from an online group.

Each of these forms of bullying is distinct from face-to-face bullying. According to

Beran and Li (2005), the severity of cyber-harassment varies with incidents ranging
from “annoying” to “dangerous” and the occurrence of death threats.
Finally, the demographic profile of cyberbullies differs considerably from their offline
counterpart (Aftab, 2008). For example, the anonymity of being online has empowered
those who typically may not have shown aggression in an open forum (Shariff, 2008,
p. 31). No longer is the bully easily identifiable as the bigger, more aggressive boy in the
school playground. Face-to-face situations usually allow the victims to see the bully and
their supporters, but cybervictimization can remove this transparency. As a result,
bullies can now include those previously not suspected, a situation which causes
Goodstein (2007, p. 82) to observe that the internet has “democratized” bullying.
The inability to identify the perpetrator can result in self-doubt and paranoia and as
Chait (2008, p. 7) observes, this can manifest in poor grades, emotional spirals, poor
self-esteem, repeated school absences, depression and in some cases suicide.
Whereas face-to-face bullying allows for the possibility of physical intervention to
stop the occurrence of physical intimidation, cyberbullying is usually experienced on
a 1-1 manner such as text message, phone call, e-mail or when the intended target reads
disparaging comments alone on their computer when out of the school environment.
Therefore, the problem of cyberbullying is compounded by the fact that even when the
perpetrator can, at times, be identified, there is usually only one witness – (the intended
target). This leaves the adolescent experiencing the phenomenon with a choice – to
either speak of their experience to a significant other or to remain silent. Tragically,
research to date suggests that the majority of adolescents facing this dilemma choose
to remain silent.

3. Non-reporting behaviour
Although even early research in this field (Olweus, 1993) has pointed to the fact that
the successful intervention and resolution of bullying incidents is to a large degree
dependent on such incidents being reported to an adult caregiver, the extant literature Technology-
consistently shows that adolescents who have been bullied tend not to inform others enabled bullying
of their experiences (Petrosino et al., 2010; Black et al., 2010; Mishna and Alaggia, 2005;
Naylor and Cowie, 1999; Charach et al., 1995). For example, Ybarra et al. (2006) found
that 33 per cent of victims of cyberbullying in their study did not tell anyone about the
incident. More recent work by Petrosino et al. (2010) is of particular importance given
that their data collection involved a nationally representative sample from American 89
schools and was based on figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey School
Crime Supplement (2007), which showed that 64 per cent of adolescents between the
age of 12 and 18 did not report their experience.
Smith et al.’s (2006) study of 92 students across the UK found that almost one-third
of students who acknowledged being targetted by cyberbullies chose not to speak
about their experience when it happened. This figure is close to the findings of the NCH
(2005) study, which revealed that 28 per cent of those targetted by cyberbullies chose to
remain silent rather than seek help in resolving the problem. Slonje and Smith (2008,
p. 147) state: “cybervictims most often chose to either tell their friends or no one at all
about the cyberbullying, so adults may not be aware of cyberbullying”.
As is the case with victims of traditional bullying, cybervictims are not likely to tell
adults about the mistreatment they are receiving. Statistics show that 58 per cent of
those who are bullied online do not tell an adult/parent or others ( Juvonen and Gross,
2008). This unwillingness to tell is not only due to the fact they feel adults may not
respond appropriately, but because they fear their internet usage may be taken by
those who are trying to protect them.
Technologies can be used aggressively in different ways and therefore it is worth
considering whether the type of communication media might influence the decision to
report experiences of cyberbullying, e.g. that victimization via some media might have
less impact on the target. However, early research in this area (Smith et al., 2008) has
conducted a dual-survey on adolescents (aged 11-16) and found that the type of media
used against a target of cyberbullying had no significant influence on their decision to
report the incident. From a sample of 92 adolescent students, the first study showed that
43.7 per cent reported telling no-one about the experience regardless of the media
through which they had been victimised. Of the 56.3 per cent who did report the
experience, 26.8 per cent told friends, 15.5 per cent told parents/guardians, and only
8.5 per cent told a teacher or member of school staff, whilst 1.4 per cent reported telling
someone else. However, the second study of 533 students focused on conventional or
face-to-face bullying. The results from this study showed that reporting this form of
bullying to be significantly higher (70.2 per cent) than cyberbullying (58.6 per cent).
However, there was considerable disparity between the samples sizes used in this dual
survey, so further research is needed to confirm the generalisability of these findings.
Research by Li (2006) in Canada found that female adolescents who were subjected to
cyberbullying tended to inform an adult caregiver more so than was the case for their
male counterparts. There is no definitive explanation that can explain these
gender-based differences. Some light is thrown on the issue, however, by Tannen
(2004) who reveals subtle social differences between the two genders, which may
influence an adolescent’s decision to talk about their bullying experience such as cultural
and social expectations impressed upon children from an early age. These expectations
are carried through into adolescence and adult life. Gender differences have also been
ITSE identified in young adolescents’ experience related to cyberbullying in Canada.
11,2 For example, research by Li (2006) found that male adolescents were more likely to
intimidate their peers both face-to-face and online.
Compounding the problem is the fact that variation appears to exist between
cultures. For example, a cross-cultural comparative study by Li (2008, p. 7) showed that
9 per cent of Canadian students reported their cyberbully experience to adults and less
90 than one-fifth of those aware of a cyberbullying incident reported the issue to an adult.
In comparison, 66 per cent of Chinese students who experienced cyberbullying
informed an adult and 60 per cent of “bystanders” reported the phenomenon to an
adult. The reason for this significant difference in reporting behaviours between both
countries and cultures may result from a combination of sociological and philosophical
reasons deeply ingrained in the respective cultures. One explanation for this difference
may be the cultural differences between the two countries. For example, Li suggests
that traditional Chinese culture, being heavily influenced by Confucianism throughout
the past 2,500 years, emphasises that children should respect and obey adults,
including parents and teachers, at all times and therefore the relationship between
teachers and students, in traditional Chinese schools, is consequently similar to the
relationship between parents and children. In addition, teachers in China often have
more authoritative powers over students than teachers have over students in Canada.
In Western societies teachers and students may have relatively informal relationships
and teachers are often concerned to empower students and promote students’
independence. All these factors may contribute to the observed differences (p. 231).

3.1 Gender differences and non-reporting

Research by Li (2006) in Canada found that female adolescents who were subjected to
cyberbullying tended to inform an adult caregiver more so than was the case for their
male counterparts. There is no definitive explanation that can explain these
gender-based differences. Some light is thrown on the issue, however, by Tannen
(2004) who reveals subtle social differences between the two genders, which may
influence an adolescent’s decision to talk about their bullying experience such as
cultural and social expectations impressed upon children from an early age. These
expectations are carried through into adolescence and adult life. Previous research by
Tannen also suggests that girls tend to socialize in pairs where the concept of “best
friend” is a female peer with whom secrets can be shared. Social harmony is achieved
when all in the group feel accepted as equals by downplaying status and focusing on
connecting with peers:
Typically, a girl has a best friend with whom she sits and talks, frequently telling secrets. It’s
the telling of secrets, the fact and the way that they talk to each other, that makes them best
friends. For boys, activities are central: Their best friends are the ones they do things with.
Boys also tend to play in larger groups that are hierarchical. High-status boys give orders and
push low status boys around (Tannen, 1991, p. 1).
This emphasis on the importance of verbal communication being used as a form of
bonding amongst girls may, in part, explain why female targets of cyberbullying are
more inclined to discuss with their peers and/or adults about their experiences. On the
other hand, boys tend to naturally socialize in a hierarchical manner and more
emphasis is placed on physical activities and outward gestures rather than on verbal
communication. Tannen (2004) states:
 The same effort that the boys are putting into proving that they can top each other, the girls Technology-
are putting an equal amount of effort into proving that they’re the same. Even if they’re not.
enabled bullying
Just as with face-to-face bullying, male adolescents may not consider it “macho” to tell
when they are being harassed or bullied online that their perception of what society
expects of them is to be “manly”. Telling a significant other may leave them open to
feelings of weakness and a fear of being labelled a “sissy”. Tannen (1991, p. 24) alludes
to this when she says that “men are more likely to be aware that asking [. . .] for any 91
kind of help, puts them in a one-down position”. On the contrary, for women, “troubles
talk” is seen to unite the friendship – “bond troubles-talk is something that would be
a very good kind of talk for women and a very peculiar kind of talk for many men”
(Tannen, 2004). Though referring to adults in this context, the ingrained sense of
shame and inadequacy can equally be experienced by adolescent males. Therefore, the
natural assumption is that, from a cultural perspective, young adolescent males learn
not to ask for help or inform others about their problems or troubles. To do otherwise,
is perceived to be a sign of weakness.
Gender differences have also been identified in young adolescents’ experience
related to cyberbullying in Canada. For example, research by Li (2006) found that male
adolescents were more likely to intimidate their peers both face-to-face and online.

4. Non-reporting behavior: international research

Despite the fact that many studies have found that adolescents do not report their
bullying or cyberbullying experiences, there is a dearth of empirical work examining
the reasons for same. Two studies deserve particular mention. The first is a quantitative
study by Holfeld and Grabe (2012), which replicated earlier descriptive research on the
prevalence of cyberbullying and examined why students do not report cyberbullying.
Using a sample of 383 students from four middle schools in a North American city
(with average student age of 13.5 years), and using a subset of self developed measures to
capture non-reporting (four questions in relation to own experience and three questions
in relation to reporting of peer experiences), they found that 16 per cent of students
reported being cyberbullied in the previous year and of those 62 per cent were
cyberbullied at least once or twice in the last 30 days. Only 11 per cent of students
reported cyberbullying others at least once in their lifetime and 9 per cent in the last year.
Cell phone cyberbullying was the method used most frequently. As a key point of that
study concerns the reporting aspects of cyberbullying, the findings show that almost
30 per cent of students who were cyberbullied in the past year did not report the incident.
When asked to explain their reporting behaviour, 57 per cent of the responses comprised
they did not feel it was a big deal or they felt they could handle it on their own. 29 per cent
of students considered that reporting would make it worse or were scared to tell. Whilst
this study provides an empirical attempt to understand the issue of non-reporting in
more depth, Holfeld and Grabe’s work is limited in the sense that the number of
questions used to capture non-reporting comprises a small number of self developed
measures that are not validated or tested for reliability and the study was purely
quantitative in nature and not followed up by in depth exploration of the issue. It is likely
that our understanding of the factors that influence adolescent non-reporting would
benefit from a triangulated approach to data collection.
A second study that has sought to bring greater clarity to this issue is that of DeLara
(2012). Using a qualitative approach, she studied the non-reporting problem in four
ITSE schools (two rural and two urban) in the New York Region. The sample comprised
11,2 12 focus groups (three in each school, comprising 97 students) and 51 individual
interviews (with some cross-participation between students being involved in both focus
group and individual interview) of which 52 per cent were female and 48 per cent male
adolescents. A significant finding of the research is that the reasons for non-reporting
appear to be multifactorial with the results indicating that the adolescents in this sample
92 did not report their experiences due to the ubiquitous nature of bullying; a sense of
helplessness; concerns over inappropriate adult action; self-reliance; shame; parental
omniscience; and a different definition of bullying than adults use (DeLara, 2012, p. 288).
Interestingly, students in the research considered bullying to be the norm or
something to be expected whilst witnesses to such behaviour also perceived it as a
normal rite of passage in school. They were despondent about the potential for
successful adult intervention, as they feared that parental intervention could make
things worse or at the other extreme, that adults would not take the concern seriously
enough. It was of particular concern that some reported being told by teachers to deal
with the problem themselves – an obvious flaw in the duty of care by individual
teaching staff. When adolescents seek help from an adult and the bullying continues
unabated despite reporting the issue, the research shows that they are likely to withdraw
from communicating the issue further to the adult caregiver (DeLara, 2008; Garbarino
and DeLara, 2002). This confirms the findings of Petrosino et al. (2010) and Pepler et al.
(2008) whose research shows that between 40 and 65 per cent of adolescents never report
their experience of bullying to an adult.
Whilst the work of DeLara (2012) is valuable in that it represents an attempt to
examine the issue of non-reporting, it was limited to four schools (two urban and two
rural) within the New York Region, the sample was small and therefore the
generalisability of its findings remain uncertain. It is possible that local and cultural
factors may have impacted the reasons for non-reporting behaviour. However, whether
this is the case can only be determined by additional research on this issue in other and
broader contexts. Further study in an Irish context would be particularly valuable not
only in providing insight into this issue in relation to the factors that predict Irish
adolescent non-reporting, but also as a comparative measure to establish the culture
independence of these factors.

5. Cyberbullying research in Ireland

Despite awareness of a considerable number of adolescent deaths in Ireland that have
been related to cyberbullying (most notably Lara Burns, Erin Gallagher, Ciara Pugsley
and Leanne Wolfe), empirical research on this issue remains remarkably limited. The
death by suicide in America of another Irish adolescent, Phoebe Prince, brought
worldwide attention to the gravity of the problem but the factors linking cyberbullying
and death by suicide need deeper research.
Whilst there is a dearth of empirical research on cyberbullying in Ireland, concern
about this issue is widespread and would appear to be justified. For example, a joint
Irish Independent (2008) and “Prime Time Investigates” survey of students found that
approximately 30 per cent of students have endured all types of bullying at secondary
schools within a three-month period of 2008. It also found that one in five schoolgirls
had experienced cyberbullying as compared to one in eight boys. The research data
provided by the Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre at Trinity College Dublin
in 2008 revealed an unsettling picture of the growth in online and mobile phone Technology-
intimidation among secondary school pupils and showed that children as young as enabled bullying
12 are being targeted through mobile phone calls, text messages, e-mails, internet
forums, chat rooms and social networking sites. Recent research on the prevalence and
nature of cyberbullying was conducted by Cotter and McGilloway (2011) and
comprised a sample of 122 adolescents from two secondary schools in the South of
Ireland. The findings showed that although cyberbullying within that sample 93
appeared to be less prevalent than traditional bullying, the adolescents concerned
considered it to be worse than traditional bullying, with the exception of e-mail.
Whether individual factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, family cohesion (unity) or
religious belief influences cyberbullying remains undetermined. Equally, the influence
of situational factors such as attendance at public or private school on cyberbullying
outcomes has not received adequate attention. Understanding the influence of these
variables would contribute to parents and educators’ insight into the problem and
increase their ability to address it (O’Higgins-Norman and Connolly, 2011).
Such research would equally assist those involved in policy development, bearing in
mind that the Irish Department of Education (1993) guidelines on countering bullying do
not include any recognition or reference to cyberbullying. In 2006, the Department of
Education and Science issued a template to post-primary schools to assist in the creation
of anti-bullying policies. However, there has been a surge in the acquisition of mobile
devices by adolescents in the past few years and technology has evolved rapidly since
then. The Department of Education is currently working on an update to this template.
The same department’s Action Plan on Bullying (published January 2013) makes
reference to cyberbullying and advises promoting a positive school culture and climate,
incorporating the term:
[. . .] cyberbullying into the generic definition of bullying under the new national guidelines
and providing schools with a standard template from which schools can formulate school
codes of behaviour and anti-bullying policies.
Though many of the 12 measures suggested in the above-mentioned plan to counter
bullying are positive, the burden of responsibility is given to each individual school in
addressing the ever-evolving threat of cyberbullying behaviour. This requires school
boards of management having a thorough understanding of the complexities involved
and the sophisticated nature of this modern form of bullying. Most boards of
management generally have older, more mature and experienced teaching staff with
knowledge of the issues surrounding student school life and academic performance.
However, given the age factor of many members on these Boards of Management,
the question must be asked regarding their awareness of and ability to understand the
complex nature of cyberbullying and technology in general, given that such knowledge
decides the framework for each school implementing the stipulatory Code of Behaviour
and Anti-Bullying Policy required for each school nationwide.
Fortunately, the government does acknowledge that school anti-bullying
procedures need to be updated to incorporate an understanding and response to
cyberbullying and these updated procedures will be issued to all schools in Ireland for
the school year commencing in 2013.
However, it is important that future anti-bullying guidelines devised by the
government for schools nationwide also incorporate methods to redress the issue of
ITSE non-reporting and where incidents of cyberbullying are reported that school staff are
11,2 clear regarding procedures in dealing with same. Just as a lack of inaction can foster a
culture of bullying in schools, equally student confidence in teaching staff in
successfully dealing with these issues will change the culture of silence. This can only be
achieved in staff understanding the nature of this relatively new form of bullying and
having confidence in school policy when dealing with cases of such cyberbullying
94 behaviour.
Indeed, such polices need to reflect the opinions and behaviours of the modern
adolescent. The main body of literature on cyberbullying tends to be written from the
perspective of the adult, to focus on how adults understand the issue and what they
perceive the best practices to be in addressing cyberbullying. There is scant research
addressing the viewpoints of adolescents and their experiences of cyberbullying
despite the fact that it is their perceptions which have the potential to increase our
understanding of how best to address the problem.
In order to understand the hesitance that predicts adolescent non-reporting of
bullying experiences, it is important that the views of those who experience and witness
such behaviour should be understood and factored into any intervention or policy
formulation processes. However, as school policies are directed from government level
and implemented by individual school boards which are constituted by adults and
therefore such policies are designed and implemented from an adult perspective.
Therefore, in order to effectively address the problem of bullying, it is imperative that
research on this issue should consider the views of the adolescents who actually
experience the behaviour. As DeLara (2012, p. 288) states:
The preponderance of research on bullying tends to neither include the perceptions of
students nor provide understanding about their reluctance to rely on adults for intervention.
Research has found that students may not tell adults about bullying experienced or witnessed
despite repeated encouragement and directives from adults.

5.1 Evidence of Irish adolescent non-reporting behaviour

In Ireland, the issue of non-reporting of cyberbullying behaviour was initially identified
by O’Moore and Minton (2011) who found that a distinct contradiction exists between
intent and actual practice in terms of Irish adolescents reporting their cyberbullying
experiences to adults. For example, they reported that whilst 14.6 per cent of pupils
stated that they would inform an adult at school if they were cyberbullied, in reality, only
6 per cent of these pupils had actually reported their cyberbullying experience. Instead,
the found that pupils were over twice as likely to do nothing at all, five times more likely
to send an angry message back, and five times more likely to talk to a friend.
Recent research by Cotter and McGilloway (2011) of 122 adolescents from two schools
in the South of Ireland found that one quarter of victims did not confide in anybody.
However, as only 25 respondents answered the question about whether they would
report their experience or not to another individual, a broader sample of respondents is
needed in order to have confidence that these results provide an accurate reflection of the
general adolescent response pattern in relation to reporting cyberbullying.
The recently published HBSC report – “Irish Health Behaviour in School-aged
Children” (Kelly et al., 2012) – found that statistically significant differences exist by
gender and age group – with more boys reporting having being bullied compared to girls
and younger children more likely to report ever being bullied as compared to
older children. These findings are particularly concerning in light of consistent evidence Technology-
that girls tend to suffer more cyberbullying experiences than boys and that cyberbullying enabled bullying
experiences tend to increase during adolescence. Whilst valuable in that it highlights age
and gender distinctions regarding the self-reporting of bullying experiences in general,
the HBSC measurement instrument does not provide the level of granularity necessary
to determine the factors that are influencing adolescent resistance to report their
cyberbullying experiences. Similarly, whilst providing evidence of adolescent resistance 95
to report cyberbullying, O’Moore and Minton’s (2011) study does not provide insight as to
the causal reasons for that resistance. The authors speculate that the explanation for
adolescent non-reporting may be a perception of greater self-efficacy than teacher
efficacy in dealing with online problems or a lack of confidence in the school’s abilities
to deal with bullying (2011, p. 40). However, these are merely speculations, they are not
empirically derived and simply are the interpretation of the authors. Consequently,
neither study progresses our understanding of the factors underlying Irish adolescents’
resistance to report cyberbullying experiences, nor provide insight as to whether
individual or situational characteristics influence that resistance.
As previously noted, adolescent resistance to reporting is equally prevalent in the
traditional (face-to-face) bullying context with evidence (Smith and Shu, 2000; Whitney
and Smith, 1993) to show that 30-50 per cent of pupils do not inform a parent or teacher
that they had been a target of bullies. The influence of age on reporting behaviour is
evident in Rigby and Slee’s (1993) study which found that whilst approximately half of
Australian students aged between eight and 12 stated that they would like help prevent
others being bullied, as they increased in age, they became more reluctant to confide in or
seek seeking adult intervention. However, the reasons underlying adolescents’ reluctance
to seek adult intervention or discuss the bullying experiences remain undetermined.
Similarly, the degree to which gender, age or other variables apply in the case of Irish
adolescents’ resistance to report cyberbullying experiences has yet to be established.

6. Conclusion
The literature on cyberbullying is embryonic and as a consequence many deficits exist
in relation to our understanding of the phenomenon. A growing body of evidence points
to the fact that many adolescents who have been the target of cyberbullying behaviour
choose to confide in peers rather than adult caregivers or teachers, despite having
previously stated their intention to inform the latter should they themselves become the
target of such behaviour. As a result, this behaviour remains unchecked and its impact
unaddressed. The literature provides evidence that this chasm between reporting
intention and actual behavioral outcome is consistent regardless of national differences.
Despite this fact, remarkably little attention has been paid to understanding the factors
underlying this resistance and the ensuring silence on the part of adolescents regarding
their experiences of cyberbullying. In an Irish context, despite evidence of widespread
adolescent experiences of cyberbullying and adolescent resistance to report such
experiences to adult caregivers, no research has been conducted to identify the causal
factors that underlie that non-reporting behaviour. Such insights are necessary if
parents, teachers and those involved in the formulation of anti-bullying school policies
are to be successful in their attempts to counter and eliminate cyberbullying behaviour.
Research on the factors underlying adolescent resistance-to-report is therefore urgently
mandated.
ITSE References
11,2 Aftab, P. (2008), “What methods work with the different kinds of cyberbullies?”, available at:
www.stopcyberbullying.org/educators/howdoyouhandleacyberbully.html (accessed
December 29, 2013).
Beran, T. and Li, Q. (2005), “Cyber-harassment: a new method for an old behavior”, Journal of
Educational Computing Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 265-277.
96 Black, S., Weinles, D. and Washington, E. (2010), “Victim strategies to stop bullying”,
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 138-147.
Chait, J. (2008), Cyberbullying Statistics, available at: http://safety.lovetoknow.com/Cyber_
Bullying_Statistics
Charach, A., Pepler, D. and Ziegler, S. (1995), “Bullying at school: a Canadian perspective”,
Education Canada, Spring.
Cotter, P. and McGilloway, S. (2011), “Living in an ‘electronic age’: cyberbullying among Irish
adolescents”, The Irish Journal of Education, Vol. 39 Nos 44-56.
DeLara, E. (2008), “Developing a philosophy about bullying and sexual harassment: cognitive
coping strategies among secondary school students”, Journal of School Violence, Vol. 7,
pp. 72-96.
DeLara, E. (2012), “Why adolescents don’t disclose incidents of bullying and harassment”,
Journal of School Violence, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 288-305.
Department of Education and Science (1993), Guidelines on Countering Bullying Behaviour in
Primary and Post Primary Schools, DES, Dublin, available at: www.education.ie/en/
Parents/Information/Complaints-Bullying-Child-Protection-Discrimination/Guidelines-on-
countering-bullying-behaviour-in-primary-and-post-primary-schools.pdf
Department of Education and Science (2013), Anti-Bullying Policy, DES Action Plan on Bullying –
Report of the Anti-Bullying Working Group to the Minister for Education and Skills, DES,
January, available at: www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/Action-Plan-
On-Bullying-2013.pdf
Garbarino, J. and DeLara, E. (2002), And Words Can Hurt Forever: How to Protect Adolescents
from Bullying, Harassment, and Emotional Violence, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Goodstein, A. (2007), Totally Wired: What Teens and Tweens are Really Doing Online,
St Martin’s Griffin, New York, NY.
Holfeld, B. and Grabe, M. (2012), “An examination of the history, prevalence, characteristics, and
reporting of cyberbullying in the United States”, in Li, Q., Cross, D. and Smith, P.K. (Eds),
Cyberbullying in the Global Playground: Research from International Perspectives,
Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.
Irish Independent (2008), “Cyberbullying ‘widespread’ but parents kept in the dark’ by Louise
Hogan”, available at: www.independent.ie/national-news/cyber-bullying-widespread-
but-parents-kept-in-the-dark-1380630.html
Juvonen, J. and Gross, E.F. (2008), “Extending the school grounds? Bullying experiences in
cyberspace”, Journal of School Health, Vol. 78 No. 9, pp. 496-505.
Kelly, C., Gavin, A., Molcho, M. and Nic Gabhainn, S. (2012), The Irish Health Behaviours in
School-aged Children (HBSC) Study 2010, Department of Health, Dublin.
Li, Q. (2006), “Cyberbullying in schools: a research of gender differences”, School Psychology
International, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 157-170.
Li, Q. (2008), “A cross-cultural comparison of adolescents’ experience related to cyberbullying”,
Educational Research, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 223-234.
Mishna, F. and Alaggia, R. (2005), “Weighing the risks: a child’s decision to disclose peer Technology-
victimization”, Children Schools, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 217-226.
enabled bullying
Naylor, P. and Cowie, H. (1999), “The effectiveness of peer support systems in challenging school
bullying: the perspectives and experiences of teachers and pupils”, Journal of Adolescence,
Vol. 22, pp. 467-479.
NCH (2005), Putting U in the Picture – Mobile Phone Bullying Survey 2005, available at: www.
nch.org.uk/uploads/documents/Mobile_bullying_%20report.pdf 97
O’Higgins-Norman, J. and Connolly, J. (2011), “Mimetic theory and scapegoating in the age of
cyberbullying: the case of Phoebe Prince”, Pastoral Care in Education, Vol. 29 No. 4.
Olweus, D. (1993), Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do, Blackwell, Oxford.
Olweus, D. (1999), “Sweden”, in Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R.
and Slee, P. (Eds), The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Routledge,
London.
O’Moore, A.M. and Minton, S.J. (2011), Cyber-Bullying: The Irish Experience, Nova Science
Publishers, New York, NY.
Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W. and Connolly, J. (2008), “Developmental trajectories of bullying
and associated factors”, Child Development, Vol. 79, pp. 325-338.
Petrosino, A., Guckenburg, S., DeVoe, J. and Hanson, T. (2010), “What characteristics of bullying,
bullying victims, and schools are associated with increased reporting of bullying to school
officials?”, Issues & Answers Report, REL 2010, No. 092, US Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands, Washington, DC.
Rigby, K. and Slee, P.T. (1993), “Children’s attitudes towards victims”, in Tattum, D.P. (Ed.),
Understanding and Managing Bullying, Heinemann Books, London, pp. 119-135.
Shariff, S. (2008), Cyberbullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the Classroom and the Home,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Slonje, R. and Smith, P.K. (2008), “Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying?”, Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 147-154.
Smith, P.K. and Shu, S. (2000), “What good schools can do about bullying: findings from a survey
in English schools after a decade of research and action”, Childhood, Vol. 7 No. 2.
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M. and Tippett, N. (2006), “UK report: an investigation into
cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and
gender in cyberbullying”, Research Brief No. RBX03-06, DfES, London.
Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S. and Tippett, N. (2008),
“Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils”, Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 376-385.
Tannen, D. (1991), You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, Ballantine
Books, New York, NY.
Tannen, D. (2004), Modern Scholar: He Said, She Said: Gender, Language and Communication,
Narrated by Deborah Tannen, Recorded Books, San Diego, CA.
Trolley, B., Hanel, C. and Shields, L. (2006), Demystifying & Deescalating Cyber Bullying in the
Schools: A Resource Guide for Counselors, Educators & Parents, Book Locker, Bangor, ME.
Whitney, I. and Smith, P.K. (1993), “A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in
junior/middle and secondary schools”, Education Research, Vol. 35, pp. 3-25.
Willard, N. (2007), Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social
Aggression, Threats, and Distress, Research Press, Champaign, IL.
ITSE Ybarra, M.L. and Mitchell, K.J. (2004), “Youth engaging in online harassment: associations with
caregiver-child relationships, internet use, and personal characteristics”, Journal of
11,2 Adolescence, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 319-336.
Ybarra, M.L., Mitchell, K.J., Wolak, J. and Finkelhor, D. (2006), “Examining characteristics and
associated distress related to internet harassment: findings from the second youth internet
safety survey”, Pediatrics, Vol. 118, pp. 1169-1177.
98
Further reading
Agatston, P.W., Kowalski, R. and Limber, S. (2007), “Students’ perspectives on cyber bullying”,
Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 41, pp. 59-60.
Cornell, D. and Brockenborough, K. (2004), “Identification of bullies and victims: a comparison of
methods”, Journal of School Violence, Vol. 3 Nos 2/3.
Houghton, S.J., Nathan, E. and Taylor, M. (2012), “To bully or not to bully, that is not the
question: Western Australian early adolescents’ in search of a reputation”, Journal of
Adolescent Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 498-522.
Li, Q. (2007), “New bottle but old wine: a research on cyberbullying in schools”, Computers and
Human Behaviour, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 1777-1791.
Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008), Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital
Natives, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Pellegrini, A. and Bartini, M. (2000), “A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer
affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school”, American
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 699-725.
Rigby, K. and Slee, P.T. (2008), “Interventions to reduce bullying”, International Journal of
Adolescent Medicine and Health, Vol. 20, pp. 165-183.
Smith, P.K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R.F. and 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, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 1119-1133.
Trach, J., Hymel, S., Waterhouse, T. and Neale, K. (2010), “Age differences in bystander
responses to school bullying: a cross-sectional investigation”, Canadian Journal of School
Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 114-130.
(The) Wall Street Journal (2007), “Article: in study, Facebook users share with stranger”, Wall
Street Journal, August 14, available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB118705987780496951.html

Corresponding author
Regina Connolly can be contacted at: Regina.Connolly@dcu.ie

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints