The criteria that researchers use to classify aggressive behaviour as bullying are 'repetition', 'power imbalance', and 'intent to hurt'. However, studies that have analyzed adolescents' perceptions of bullying find that most adolescents do not simultaneously consider these three criteria. This paper examines adolescents' perceptions of bullying and of the different forms it takes, and whether these perceptions vary according to the teen's role of victim, aggressor, or witness in a bullying situation. The data acquisition instrument was a questionnaire applied to a sample of 2295 teenagers. The results show that none of these three groups considered the criterion of repetition to be important to define bullying. A further conclusion was that both aggressors and witnesses used the criteria of 'power imbalance' and 'intent to hurt' to identify a situation of bullying, although the aggressors placed especial emphasis on the superiority of power over the victim, while the witnesses emphasized the intent to hurt the victim. One noteworthy finding was that victims do not consider the factor 'power imbalance'. The factor that determined their perceptions was the 'intent to hurt'. Finally, some modes of bullying were seen as forms of typical teen social interactions, and the perception depended significantly on the adolescent's role as aggressor, victim, or witness.
Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization.
Ybarra ML, Boyd D, Korchmaros JD, Oppenheim JK.
Source
Center for Innovative Public Health Research, Irvine, CA, USA. Michele@InnovativePublicHealth.org
Abstract
PURPOSE:
To inform the scientific debate about bullying, including cyberbullying, measurement.
METHODS:
Two split-form surveys were conducted online among 6-17-year-olds (n = 1,200 each) to inform recommendations for cyberbullying measurement.
RESULTS:
Measures that use the word "bully" result in prevalence rates similar to each other, irrespective of whether a definition is included, whereas measures not using the word "bully" are similar to each other, irrespective of whether a definition is included. A behavioral list of bullyingexperiences without either a definition or the word "bully" results in higher prevalence rates and likely measures experiences that are beyond the definition of "bullying." Follow-up questions querying differential power, repetition, and bullying over time were used to examine misclassification. The measure using a definition but not the word "bully" appeared to have the highest rate of false positives and, therefore, the highest rate of misclassification. Across two studies, an average of 25% reported being bullied at least monthly in person compared with an average of 10% bullied online, 7% via telephone (cell or landline), and 8% via text messaging.
CONCLUSIONS:
Measures of bullying among English-speaking individuals in the United States should include the word "bully" when possible. The definition may be a useful tool for researchers, but results suggest that it does not necessarily yield a more rigorous measure of bullying victimization. Directly measuring aspects of bullying (i.e., differential power, repetition, over time) reduces misclassification. To prevent double counting across domains, we suggest the following distinctions: mode (e.g., online, in-person), type (e.g., verbal, relational), and environment (e.g., school, home). We conceptualize cyberbullying as bullying communicated through the online mode.
Longitudinal predictors of cyber and traditional bullying perpetration in Australian secondary school students.
Hemphill SA, Kotevski A, Tollit M, Smith R, Herrenkohl TI, Toumbourou JW, Catalano RF.
Source
School of Psychology, Australian Catholic University, Australia. sheryl.hemphill@acu.edu.au
Abstract
PURPOSE:
Cyberbullying perpetration (using communication technology to engage in bullying) is a recent phenomenon that has generated much concern. There are few prospective longitudinal studies of cyberbullying. The current article examines the individual, peer, family, and school risk factors for both cyber and traditional bullying (the latter is bullying that does not use technology) in adolescents.
METHODS:
This article draws on a rich data set from the International Youth Development Study, a longitudinal study of students in Victoria, Australia and Washington State, United States, which began in 2002. In this article, data from almost 700 Victorian students recruited in grade 5 are analyzed to examine grade 7 (aged 12-13 years) predictors of traditional and cyberbullying perpetration in grade 9 (aged 14-15 years).
RESULTS:
Fifteen per cent of students engaged in cyberbullying, 21% in traditional bullying, and 7% in both. There are similarities and important differences in the predictors of cyber and traditional bullying. In the fully adjusted model, only prior engagement in relational aggression (a covert form of bullying, such as spreading rumors about another student) predicted cyberbullying perpetration. For traditional bullying, previous relational aggression was also predictive, as was having been a victim and perpetrator of traditional bullying, family conflict, and academic failure.
CONCLUSIONS:
The use of evidence-based bullying prevention programs is supported to reduce experiences of all forms of bullying perpetration (cyber, traditional, and relational aggression). In addition, for traditional bullying perpetration, addressing family conflict and student academic support are also important.
