cyberbullying pyschology (brown university)

FROM BULLYING TO CYBERBULLYING

1

From Bullying to Cyberbullying

A Study of Adolescents and the Factors That Nurture

Harassment Across Real and Virtual Platforms

Allisan Salazar

Rhode Island School of Design


2

Adolescents Behind Cyberbullying

Allisan Salazar

Youth culture has evolved over time in regards to regards to technology,

language, social norms, and overall attitude about the changing times. The concept of

bullying goes back far in history, but has changed rapidly and significantly due to the

widespread availability of information communication technologies (ICT). Todays

adolescents now have the potential to interact with others in ways that only a decade ago

we could not envisage. It is through these internet-ready and electronic forms that a new

set of social norms regarding how people socialize is created, and with that a new

population of bullies arises as a result of the unique and dangerous psychological

elements that now play a part in this cyber interaction. Bullying has transformed from

being a physical experience to a virtual one, and this new approach has been coined

cyberbullying which combines characteristics of traditional bullying, as I will refer to

them throughout this paper, with the detachment inevitable in using the cyber world to

communicate. The level of information that is accessible for the public based on an

individuals social media profiles are readily available to those who seek to intimidate,

tantalize, or exploit vulnerable others. Researchers have been attempting to tackle this

twenty first century phenomenon, and delved into the psychological social, and

ecological principles behind it, however being a part of the digital natives generation

is an inside perspective that is invaluable. In this paper, theoretical perspectives will

provide us with a priming to be able to focus and better understand the progression of

bullying into the hostile nature of online interactions between adolescents, and the many


3

psychosocial harms of this new popularized socialization method. The paper will

examine cyberbullying by dissecting the roles of the bullies and victims, expose issues of

psychopathy and anonymity, and explore potential solutions to control this harmful new

method of interaction.

It is essential to define bullying in attempt to dismember its many parts, and is

crucial to delineating the differences between traditional bullying and cyberbullying.

Bullying is defined as unwanted, aggressive behaviorthat involved a real or perceived

power imbalance (Bullying definition, 2013) in the form of physical, emotional, or

mental harm for the victim, and other negative long lasting effects. It is important to note

that defining some of these terms are not to be taken as straightforward and final due to

the complexity of the social interactions that take place within these digital platforms. It

is equally important to establish the adolescent age group we will be studying to narrow

down on some varying factors. For the purposes of this study, the research will be taking

a look at middle school students approximately ages eleven to fourteen, placing the

subjects directly at the beginning of the adolescent spectrum (11-21). This study also

includes all genders as a means of dissecting the differentiating attitudes in their specific

approach to bullying and the statistical levels of male and female perpetration. Through

convergent and divergent analysis we will be able to better pinpoint the reasoning behind

this method of bullying and also observe the contextual variables that are in play.

Understanding the mere possibilities of bullying resides in theoretical principles that have

been stated early in history. Many researchers (Damon & Colby, 1987; Rigy & Slee,

1991; Swearer, 2004) question the general morality and the levels of empathy of


4

those who partake in the bullying, or witness it without intervention. Kohlbergs (1969,

1973) study and conclusive stages of moral development were an extension of the

psychological theory originally formed by Piaget (1932), which exploits moral reasoning

as a behavior that evolves in stages. In multiple studies, (Kohlberg, 1969; Haviland,

1981) when posed with moral dilemma scenarios, the younger end of adolescents based

their decision-making on outcome and punishment: if a deed turned out well, it is good; if

it did not, it was bad. This level of moral decision-making is known as stage one in

Kohlbergs (1969) theory, and is often seen as the lower level of morality that is present

in cyber bullying, as most do not see the harm they are doing until they are caught by an

authority figure, or the victim ends up harmed. The stage following that begins to include

concern for consequences and a more mature consideration of other people, which is a

deficit in stage one and leads to the detachment required to harm somebody. For the

purpose of this study, Kohlbergs models of cognitive developmental theory are more

adequate and flexible than others because it takes individuals moral thinking as more

than a simple unconscious process that the individual is not aware of (Freud, 1933). He

takes into account social-context adaptation as an impactful environmental factor in how

morality is shaped, agreed upon by modern studied done by Shariff (2009) who states

that when we define a behavior it is important to remember it as an action that takes

place in a particular context, at a particular time, with various influences operating on the

individuals involved (p40).

Despite outside perspective views on morality, the more important thing to study

is self-perceived morality of an adolescent, which is dependent upon external and internal


5

forces and reactions. In his writings on moral reasoning, Piaget (1932, 1963) suggests

that heteronomous morality requires a clear focus on the external features of a behavior

or action, such as consequence, criticism, and acceptance to judge right and wrong

despite whether or not the action was clearly punished or reinforced. Following that same

thought, Bems (1972) behavioristic study of self-perception suggests that individuals

have little access to their own internal cognition concerning morality and that it is

ultimately inferred from the observations of ones own behavior via external forces and/or

the circumstances in which this behavior occurs. From a social learning perspective

(Bandura, 1963) any conclusion of bad behavior resulting in guilt or shame by an

individual is based on a dichotomy between external and internal approval, or an

anticipated disapproval by an audience that is deemed important. At this point is when we

can deeper unpack the importance of peer groups and peer influences as important

interpersonal adolescent relationships.

Some of the most telling factors behind any type of bullying lies in the pressures

and expectations of a person between parents and peer groups, as adolescents try out

various roles and status positions to attempt to mediate between the two (Haviland, 1981,

p.200). Social hierarchy is widely sought after by adolescents, especially of a middle

school age and studies have found that leaders, in addition to being attractive and well

dressed, tend to come from higher socioeconomic statusare strong and athletic, and

above average in mental alertness (Haviland, 1981 p.203). In a study done by Savin-

Williams (1979) adolescents were observed in summer camps to find out how hierarchy

and power is established and found that individuals traits related to dominance overlap


6

with Havilands including athleticism, ability, puberty maturation, and leadership ability.

The observations in this study begins to delve into some of the reasoning behind bullying,

as they found giving orders, making fun of individuals, exclusion, physical abuse, or

verbal challenges were the norm following the hierarchy. This peer controlled adolescent

mindset is the largest deficit that allows for different types of bullying to evolve over

time, as we will see that with new ICT methods, conformity or neglecting a witnessed

abuse becomes more and more common.

It is primary to reveal the basic principles of traditional bullying as a primer to

better understand the psychology behind and later observe how it has evolved into cyber

bullying. As stated previously, bullying is defined as unwanted, aggressive

behaviorthat involved a real or perceived power imbalance (Bullying definition,

2013) and categorizes the participants involved as bully, victim, and bystanders. Bullying

and victimization by nature is a social phenomenon embedded into a peer relations, and it

is crucial to study in a socio-ecological framework within which bullying should be

understood as being maintained or nurtured across individual, family, peer, school, and

community contexts (Espelage; Swearer, 2004). The individual is at the center of his or

her social ecology, whether that individual is the bully, victim, or bystander. They exist

within a family that may or may not influence bullying behaviors based in upbringing,

neglect, abuse, etc. The bullying itself many times takes place in schools or with school

peers, and questioning how the school and community climate nurtures or inhibits the

bullying is important. Most importantly lies the most macroscopic perspective as each

individual is grandly influenced by their culture, location, and generation in regards to


7

norms of actions, moral principles, priorities, and interactivity. Bronfenbrenner (1979)

beautifully summarizes this approach to looking at bullying as he states that the most

crucial idea of the ecological systems theory is that individuals are part of interrelated

systems that locate the individual at the center and move out from the center to include all

the systems that effect them, it is to say that bullying never occurs in isolation.

There are a variety of reasons that have been concluded regarding what elements

in the context of an individuals life nurtures a bully. The Cycle of Violence, described

by Widom (1989) is a violent nature stemming from childhood victimization and abusive

homes, and has been known to be one of the leading causes of traditional bullying. Other

bullies may abuse others as acts that stem from strong desires for economic or social

advancement, or peer approval. Most commonly, however, bullies by nature, have been

categorized in studies by levels of narcissism and psychopathy (Rigy & Slee, 1991;

Swearer & Espelage, 2004; Arseneault, 2006; Rivers, 2013) as they display a lack of

empathy for the suffering of others (Rivers, 2013, p13). Psychologists, research, and

guidance counselors have observed that traditional bullies, especially those who inflict

physical harm derive satisfaction from acting out even if it causes emotional or physical

damage, and have an apathetic view about aggression than most peers (Colt, 2009 p 24).

Many bullies have even admitted to bullying through boredom, attention and/or thrill

seeking, revenge, and the need for power, and justify their behavior by claiming that the

victim provoked them in some way and deserved the treatment they received (Rivers,

2013). This antisocial pursuit of power is most commonly sparked by detection of


8

weakness, envy of a peers success, intolerance of a particular group, or difficulties in

friendship and relationships.

On the other side of bullying are the victims, which are frequently divided into

two types: submissive victims, or pure victims, and provocative bully victims (Rivers,

2013 p10). Submissive victims are those who signal that they are vulnerable and

insecure, and would not retaliate if attacked, whereas provocative victims exhibit anxious

behavior and often annoy their peers to provoke attacks from bullies. Bateson (1989) has

furthered the distinction between the two types of victims by summarizing the two types

of interactions: symmetrical and complementary. Symmetrical interactions are when a

given behavior leads to the same behavior, in this case bullies becoming bullies.

Complementary interaction is when the behavior of one individual evokes the opposite

behavior in the other, i.e. aggression and dominance evokes submission. Longitudinal

studies (Arseneault, 2006) show that victims who are both bully and bullied are at the

greatest risk for psychological damage due to their combined aggression and

vulnerability. Adolescents that take the role of a bystander also aid in nurturing bullying

when they neglect to express disapproval, or seek consequences, lying in fear of being

bullied themselves, or having the stigma of a snitch and many other feared titles.

Studies have shown that only a minority of students will act as defenders of the victim

and this proportion decreases as the children grow older (Rigby & Slee, 1991). This

diffusion of responsibility and lack of taking a stance reveals the true malleability of

human nature based on psychological theories of peer influence such as groupthink, and

the bystander affect.


9

Historically, bullying wasnt seen as so problematic, but simply as a part of the

light turmoil of growing up and part of a natural, maturation and learning process.

However, in recent decades schools especially in the United States have been made

increasingly aware of the dangers of bullying being left unresolved, leading to suicides

and school shootings in worst cases. The secret service analysis of schools targeted by

school violence found that 72% of the shooters in the U.S. from 1970-2005 reported

being chronically bullied (Vossekuil, Rein, Reddy, Borum & Modzeleski, 2005). Due to

the neglect of such abuse, the submissive victims in this case then become the bullies, in

retaliation and rage. On a large scale study on bullying in the United States (Nansel,

Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons, & Scheidt, 2003) 15,686 sixth to tenth graders completed

surveys regarding bullying in their schools. 39% reported frequent bullying, 13%

identified as bullies, 10.5% as victims, and 7.3% as bully-victims, and in summary that

more boys were involved than girls in the bullying dynamic. In a study such as this one,

however, its relatively important to question the methods used to collect data because

self-report is not always reliable since there are many stigmas attached to bullying

whether they are undesirable traits, denial, or signs of weakness.

There has been a tremendous amount of research over the last few decades that

focused on gender differences, many of which choose to focus on male aggression, but

oversimplify the distinction between theirs and female aggression (Underwood, 2001).

The plentiful psychological, sociological, and criminal research that has been done on

male aggression, as they offend at higher rates than females, has presented males as

widely more aggressive than girls (Block, 1983; Park & Slaby, 1983; Rodkin, Farmer,


10

Peal, and Van Acker, 2000). However research has also investigated a form of

relational aggression where the goal is to hurt others by means of damaging or altering

anothers reputation or relationships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), and although the rates of

aggression are lower than males, there is data to suggest they are at a greater risk for

psychological issues (Underwood, 2001). As leave the norms of traditional bullying and

evolve into cyberbullying we begin to observe an entire new population of adolescents

who find themselves participating in the abuse, whether in small or big ways.

Although thorough research can give insight to the psychology behind traditional

bullying, a new field of study has formed to best grasp the concept of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying is defined by the use of electronic communication to bully a person,

typically by sending messages of an intimidating or threatening nature (Cyberbullying

definition, 2013). With this change of format and medium in which the bullying exists

and escalates place opens up an entirely new set of obstacles.

When a bully is involved in face-to-face abuse, theyre in a position where they

must look upon the victims face and can see the pain they have caused, reflecting levels

of psychopathy (Rigy & Slee, 1991). In regards to cyber abuse, the bully is removed from

seeing the pain as they are separated by a virtual space and sitting safely in front of a

digital screen, making it easier to hurt others without fully realizing the ramifications of

ones actions. For this same reason there exists a broader population of bullies and

victims, ranging in gender, age, and social hierarchy, as they are no longer categorized by

aggression and power, but a false sense of power in control and anonymity hiding behind

the web. Cyberbullying has increased the number of ways that an individual is exposed to


11

harm and torment (Shariff, 2008; Colt, 2009), because all although cyberbullying may

take place in the virtual world, it affects both virtual and real worlds for the victim. This

kind of abuse many times follows them into the school environment (Shariff, 2008 p.25)

and can cripple the victims learning ability and feel psychologically devastated and

unsafe whilst in school. In this day and age sticks and stones make break my bones but

names will never hurt me no longer applies when teasing, ridicule, criticism, sarcasm,

and scapegoating act as nuanced versions of traditional bullying and now overpower

adolescents social interactions.

Digital youth culture has greatly evolved in terms of technology, social norms,

languages, and the experiences of the wider population that experiences it. The methods

at which we can now share information is phenomenal, and constantly accessible. This

level of ICT is impressive but has a natural dichotomy in which it can be used positively

and beneficially or negatively and for harm. Research has worked to show just how many

people use social media, especially Facebook, in order to emphasize just how many

adolescents are at risk via the web (Lee, 2013; Wolpert, 2008; Shariff, 2008). Consumer

Reports Magazine (Colt, 2009) conducted a survey of 2000 online households, recording

adolescents 16 and younger, and 1440 were active on Facebook. It is easy to conclude,

especially in this day and age that having Facebook, amongst many other popular social

media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, and Vine, is seen as a cultural requirement.

Adolescents were quoted saying if youre not on Facebook, you dont exist and (Boyd,

2006) explains that in contemporary culture these sites play a key role in adolescence

because it gives them a space to hang out amongst friends and peers, share cultural


12

artifacts, and work out an image of how they see themselves.

Another dangerous problem with these platforms are the high levels of falsified

identity and anonymity. These are two of the most nuanced elements in technology in

regards to ICT forms of socialization. On sites such as Facebook and Myspace,

individuals create profiles which act as a digital presentation of their taste, and identity

which they are able to hand craft by indicating interests, posting photos, and sharing

opinions publicly, acting as a cross between a yearbook and a community website

(Shariff, 2008 p35). However, Consumer Reports Magazines study of 2000 online

households also shows that 35% of Facebook users falsified information on their profiles

ranging from false names to completely false identity including photos, address, friends,

and name. This level of anonymity is dangerous because it allows adolescents much more

power and space to live life in a more extreme way as their sculpt their profiles for a

variety of reasons (Lee, 2013). Those adolescents hiding behind the virtual veil of

anonymity create more opportunities for mislead global communication and more

opportunities for global bullying since their identity is concealed. The argument of

morality as discussed earlier by (Kohlberg) is even stronger in the cyber world as most

perpetrators feel completely free to victimize others on websites that allow you to post

anonymously, such as ask.fm or spring.me. These sites are the most dangerous due to the

lack of supervision and level of leniency to criticize and attack a certain individual

without any repercussions.

Despite technological benefits, many platforms have an inevitable dark side,

where, with the push of a button, cruel messages, inappropriate or embarrassing photos,


12

or hurtful rumors can be instantly accessed and/or disseminated to thousands of people.

The consequences of this level of publicity and outreach can be extremely negative when

used in the form of bullying and harassment, as there an infinite audience, and low

percentages of individuals who protect from this harassment. Thirty percent of bystanders

indirectly support cyberbullies by looking at unwanted shared contact (Boulton, 1993;

Salmivalli, 2001) which creates an overwhelming outnumbering and heightens the power

imbalance which is so crucial to bullying. The concept of virality is a dangerous one and

is another nuance that adds to the variety of ways in which cyberbullying: passive or

aggressive, direct or indirect, can victimize adolescents.

The numerous cases of reported suicide due to unwanted content going viral is

telling as to how todays digital youth does not have a tight grasp on the severity of their

actions online. Data that states suicide as the third most popular cause of death among

teenagers in the United States (Bauman, Toomey, & Wakler, 2013. p 314) combined with

data that both perpetrators and targets of bullying are at higher risk of depression,

suicide ideationand attempts than adolescents not involved in bullying is too close of

a correlation to ignore. Aside from the devastating number of teen suicides related to

cyber abuse in the past decade alone, the millions of unreported psychological effects

many times go unnoticed by the adolescents themselves. There is a substantive body of

research that confirms the damaging outcomes for adolescents who have suffered from

long term bullying, whether it be via web or traditional bullying. Some of these lasting

effects are undermining sense of self, heightened feelings of loneliness, low self esteem,

fear of leaving the house, and high anxiety, anger, or depression (Boulton, 1999; LaGreca


13

& Harrison, 2005; Marini,2006). Furthermore, chronic bullying can lead to

psychosomatic symptoms such as headaches, abdominal pain, sleep loss, and engagement

in risk behaviors such as drugs or alcohol (Sourander, 2010; Mitchell, 2007).

Unfortunately, there is a lack of realization from the adolescents partaking in the act of

bullying, whether directly or indirectly, and do not recognize the severity of the torment

these victims face, especially with technology only becoming more popular and

accessible.

Although there has been extensive research regarding the psychological factors behind

traditional bullying, the research on cyberbullying is still in its infancy. Researchers have

developed enough knowledge, however to read the effects of cyberbullying to be more

widespread and sever than those of regular bullying in the past, shown in the results of

increased levels of depression, anxiety, and psychosomatic symptoms in victims

(Sourander, 2010). Due to the high traffic of the big social media platforms such as

Facebook, Myspace, Instagram, and many more, many find it hard to tackle such a large

problem when 93% of teens are using the internet, and 63% use it daily (Lenhart, 2010).

Parents and educators should play a strong and significant role in the lives of adolescents,

and should continue to inform themselves of the signs and symptoms of cyberbullying in

order to intervene. Although the United States has not taken action as much as some

argue they should, other countries such as the UK, Australia, and France have created

legislations that begin to tackle this very serious, dangerous, twenty first century

phenomena. This should be of concern to the entire nation as it effects such a large

number of adolescents, and people in general. Fortunately, many


14

organizations and schools have attempted to tackle the problem and are raising

awareness, but a large impact is necessary. The social media platforms on which so much

of this harassment exists should take a bigger step toward responsibility and filter the

content that is acceptable online. There is no reason for ICT forms of socialization to run

on negativity. Technology will only continue to develop and grow and it will remain a

tool for bullies who want to harm, thus it is crucial to research and practice to further

prevention and intervention methods.


15

Self Assessment

My personal goals for this paper were to explore the concept of cyber bullying in a multi-faceted

way. I was very interested in the theoretical research behind morality and peer influences that

lead bullies to become bullies. This topic has always interested me personally, as I have made the

choice to not be on social media as of last year. Since then I have been able to research the

devastating effects that it has on todays adolescents and have often come up with ideal ways to

prevent or bring attention to it. I felt as though the bulk of my research was understanding what

makes a traditional bully, which I felt was a stable grounding to present the nuanced elements and

issues revolving around cyber bullying. This twenty first century phenomena is very persistent in

our lives, unfortunately creating a large generation gap between us digital natives and older

generations, called digital immigrants. In this paper I was torn between attempting to present

shocking evidence and statistic to bring forth the problem of cyberbullying, but found myself

much more interested in through what means psychological, and even in medium (electronic

devices) this could even be possible. Since there is so much research that helps explain this

phenomena I found myself only touching on all of them for the sake of the length of this paper.

However, I am very grateful, Mona that you guided me into choosing this topic because I really

do feel inspired as much of my work has revolved around trying to aid in cyberbullying, or reveal

the nature of social media (many times in satirical ways). I really do think this is great research

and a step in a great direction for my degree project, next year, which I have decided to do on this

topic. Thank you so much for allowing me into your class I learned and grew more than I could

have imagined, your teaching style made a very big impact in the way I think, and even design.

References

1. Allport, G.W. (1955). Becoming: Basic Considerations for a Psychology of Personality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

2. Andreou, E. & Metallidou, P. (2004). The relationship of Academic and Social Cognition to Behavior in Bullying Situations Among Greek Primary

School Children. Educational Psychology.

3. Arseneault, L. (2006). Bullying Victimization Uniquely Contributes to Adjustment Problems in Young Children: A Nationally Representative Cohort Study,

Pediatrics, 130-138.

4. Aslanidou, S. and Menexes, G. (2008). Youth and the internet: Uses and Practices in the Home, Computers & Education, 1375-1391

5. Bandura, A. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Hold, Rinehart, and Winston Inc,

6. Bateson, G. (1989). The Individual, Communication, and Society, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

7. Bem, D.J. (1972). Self Perception Theory. In L Berkowitz (Ed). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol 6) New York: Academic.

8. Boulton, M.J. (1999). Concurrent and Longitudinal Links Between Friendship and Peer Victimization, Implications for Befriending Interventions, Journal of

Adolescence. 461-466

9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge : Harvard University Press

10. Costabile, A. (2012). The Impact of Technology on Relationship in Educational Settings. New York: Routledge.

11. Crick, N.R. (1995). Relational Aggression, The Role of Intent Attributions, Feelings of Distress, and Provocation Type, Development and Psychopathology,

12. Damon, W. & Colby, A. (1987). Moral Development Through Social Interaction, Social Influence and Moral Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons

13. Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity, Youth and Crisis, New York: Norton.

14. Espelage, D. Swearer, S.M. (2004). Bullying in American Schools, a Social- Ecological Perspective on Prevention and Intervention. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

15. Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. WJH Sprott, Trans. New York, Norton.

16. Haviland, J. ; Scarborough H. (1981) Adolescent Development in Contemporary Society,. New York: Litton Educational Publishing.

17. Herrings, S.C. (2009) Questioning the Generational Divide :Technological Exoticism and Adult Construction of Online Youth Identity. Youth Identity and the

Digital Media. Buckingam Ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

18. Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect, Psychological Review.

19. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.

20. Kemp, J. (2010) A Parent Not a Pal. Bowen Hills: Australian Academic Press.

21. Kik Messenger Description. Retrieved from

http://www.Kik.com/about

22. Kinney, T. (2009). Anti and Pro-Social Communication: Theories, Methods, and Applications. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

23. Krenke, I. S. (1995). Stress, Coping, and Relationships in Adolescence. New Jersey: Lawrenece Erlbaum Associates

24. LaGreca, A. and Harrison, H. (2005). Adolescent Peer Relations, Friendships, and Romantic Relationships: Do They Predict Social Anxiety and Depression;

Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology.

25. Lamb, M.E. (1994). Adolescent Problem Behaviors (Issues and Research). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

26. Lee, N. (2013). Facebook Nation: Total Information Awareness. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.

27. Marini, Z. (2006). Direct and Indirect BullyVictims; Differential Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated With Adolescents Involved in Bullying and

Victimization, Aggressive Behavior, 551-569

28. McQuade, S. & Colt, J.P. (2009) Cyber Bullying: Protecting Kids and Adults from Online Bullies. Westport: Praeger Publishers

29. McQuade, S.; Colt, J. (2009) Cyber Bullying: Protecting Kids and Adults from Online Bullies. Praeger Publishers: Westport CT

30. Meier, M. (2014) Cyberbullying & Suicide Statistics. Megan Meier Foundation. Retrieved from

http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org/statistics.html,

31. Mitchell, K.J. (2007). The Relative Importance of Online Victimization in Understanding Depression, Delinquency, and Substance Use, Child

Maltreatment. Retrieved from. http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV132.pdf

32. Nansel, Overpeck, PIlla, Ruan , Simons Morton, & Scheidt, (2003). A Review of the Extent, Nature, Characteristics and Effects of Bullying Behaviour in

Schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Vol. 35 Issue 2, p151-158.

33. Piaget, (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Free Press.

34. Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Natives: Digital Immigrants : From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom.

Retrieved from:

http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue3/H._Sapiens_Digital_from

_digital_immidgrants_and_digital nativesto_digital_wisdom.pdf

35. Rigy, K. and Slee, P. (1991). Bullying Among Australian School Children: Reported Behavior and Attitudes Towards Victims, Journal of Social Psychology,

36. Rivers, I. (2013) Bullying: Experiences and Discourses of Sexuality and Gender. New York: Rivers and Duncan.

37. Rodkin, P.C. , Farmer, T; Pearly, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of Popular Boys: Antisocial and Pro-social Configurations. Developmental

psychology (14-24)

38. Savin-Williams, R.C. (1979). Dominance Hierarchies in Groups of Early Adolescents. Child Development 50, 923-925

39. Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the Classroom, and the Home. New York: Routledge.

40. Shariff, S. (2009). Confronting Cyber Bullying: What Schools Need to Know to Control Misconduct and Avoid Legal Consequences. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

41. Siner, E. (2013) Facebook Takes Cyberbullies As More Teens Leave Site. NPR All Tech Considered.

Retrieved from:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/11/07/243710885/facebo

ok-takes-on-cyberbullies-as-more-teens-leave-facebook

42. Sourander, A. (2010). Psychosocial Risk Factors Associated with Cyberbullying Among Adolescents, Archive of General Psychiatry, 720-728.

Retrieved from

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=210833

43. Sullivan, H.S. (1970). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict: The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

44. Szteinbaum, S. (2014). Technology Raises Issues Regarding Cyberbullying. The Daily Targum.

Retrieved from

http://www.dailytargum.com/news/technology-raises-issues-regarding-

cyberbullying/article_ac9cebf6-d019-11e3-b5d4-0017a43b2370.html,

45. Underwood, M.K. (2001) Top Ten Challenges for Understanding Gender and Aggression in Children: Why Cant We All Just Get Along?, Social

Development, 248-266.

46. Wolpert, S. (2008). Crafting Your Image for Your 1000 Friends on Facebook or Myspace. UCLA Newsroom.

cyberbullying pyschology (brown university)

Documents