ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Defining Cyberbullying: a Multifaceted Definition Basedon the Perspectives of Emerging Adults

Alexandra Alipan1& Jason L. Skues1 & Stephen Theiler1 & Lisa Wise1

Published online: 15 April 2019# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

AbstractThe aim of this qualitative study was to address the lack of consensus on the current cyberbullying definition and thelimited research on definitions of cyberbullying made by emerging adults in Australia. Six focus groups were conductedwith a total of 39 participants aged 18 to 25 years. The focus groups used a semi-structured question protocol to gain adeeper understanding of emerging adults’ perceptions, observations, and opinions related to cyberbullying. A thematicanalysis revealed that participants perceive cyberbullying to be an extension of traditional bullying comprising similarkey components (i.e., intent to harm, repetition, and power imbalance). However, despite a consensus on the componentsinvolved, the operationalization of these key components differed among participants depending on whether theyadopted a perpetrator, target, or bystander perspective. The current study extends on previous research by focusing onthe different perspectives of cyberbullying (i.e., perpetrators, targets, and bystanders) rather than assuming a singleperspective, and in turn integrating these perspectives to propose a multifaceted definition of cyberbullying.

Keywords Cyberbullying definition . Victim . Bully . Bystander . Qualitative . Emerging adult

Introduction

Cyberbullying has been the subject of intense mediascrutiny around the world, largely due to the serious neg-ative effects it can have on victims (Mason 2008). Therehas been a dramatic increase in cyberbullying researchover the past decade, with most studies focusing on thedefinition, measurement, prevalence, and correlates ofcyberbullying (Cassidy et al. 2018). Yet, in spite of agrowing body of research, there is still no unequivocaldefinition of what constitutes cyberbullying (Baumanet al. 2012; Corcoran et al. 2015; Olweus and Limber2018; Patchin and Hinduja 2010; Vandebosch and VanCleemput 2008).

Defining Cyberbullying

It is generally agreed upon that cyberbullying is considered anextension of traditional bullying in which intention, aggres-siveness, power imbalance, and repetition are core features.There are, however, some important differences between tra-ditional bullying and cyberbullying (Smith 2019; Vandeboschand Van Cleemput 2009). For instance, the repetitive behaviorthat defines traditional bullying (i.e., more than once or twice)may need to be reconceptualized for cyberbullying.While it isrelatively straightforward to establish cyberbullying in directrepetitive attacks (e.g., multiple abusive text messages), a sin-gle episode of traditional aggression that would have previ-ously been constrained to a particular time and place is nolonger constrained in cyberspace. Aggressive content directedto a target can now be posted as a comment, photograph, orvideo-recording by a perpetrator in a single action, but thiscontent can be repeatedly viewed, shared, saved, commentedon, or BLiked^ by others, and result in a cycle of repetition ofthe original aggression and associated ongoing damage ortrauma for a victim who re-lives the experience (Dooleyet al. 2009; Langos 2012; Patchin and Hinduja 2015; Slonjeand Smith 2008; Vandebosch and Van Cleemput 2009).

* Alexandra Alipanaalipan@swin.edu.au

1 Faculty of Arts, Health and Design - Department of PsychologicalSciences, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street,Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia

International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00018-6

Establishing the intention behind cyberbullying is alsoproblematic, as non-verbal cues are typically absent whencommunicating through technology, which means that certainbehaviors that were not intended to be harmful may bemisinterpreted as cyberbullying, and vice versa (Ackers2012; Mason 2008; Vandebosch and Van Cleemput 2008,2009). As a result, there may be a target or even victim of acertain behavior, but not necessarily a Bbully.^

The power imbalance feature of traditional bullying is oftenbased on physical strength, but in the online world, power ismore about having advanced technological knowledge andkeeping one’s own identity unknown (Langos 2012; Patchinand Hinduja 2015). Although there are forms of traditionalbullying where the perpetrators can remain anonymous, mostforms involve direct interaction between perpetrator andtarget.

In spite of the considerable discussion on howcyberbullying should be defined, most of the researchon cyberbullying has nevertheless utilized adapted ver-sions of the traditional bullying definition and these def-initions have primarily been proposed by academic re-searchers without seeking the perspectives of potentialperpetrators, targets, or bystanders of cyberbullying.That is, cyberbullying researchers have implicitly definedcyberbullying through their choice of questions used inself-report questionnaires that purport to measure levelsof cyberbullying. These questionnaires often include ei-ther one-item scales where a global definition ofcyberbullying is used or multi-item scales that list behav-iors assumed to be indicative of cyberbullying (Menesiniet al. 2011; Vandebosch and Van Cleemput 2009).However, it is not clear whether researchers and individ-uals who complete these questionnaires share the sameunderstanding of which particular behaviors should beconsidered cyberbullying (Corcoran et al. 2015;Nocentini et al. 2010; Vandebosch and Van Cleemput2009). It should also be noted that similar issues alsoremain unresolved in the traditional bullying literature,with past research reporting a discrepancy in how stu-dents, teachers, parents, and researchers define bullying(Campbell et al. 2018; Demaray et al. 2013; Maunderet al. 2010; Naylor et al. 2006; Sawyer et al. 2011). Assuch, there is a need for researchers to clarify how spe-cific populations define cyberbullying and its associatedbehaviors in order to ensure that findings related tocyberbullying are meaningful both in terms of furtherresearch, but more importantly in terms of providing ef-fective interventions.

Measurement of Cyberbullying

Due to the problems surrounding the definition ofcyberbullying, researchers have also experienced difficulties

operationalizing the term and thus providing accurate esti-mates of the prevalence of cyberbullying (Vandebosch andVan Cleemput 2008; Whittaker and Kowalski 2015). For in-stance, self-report questionnaires tend to use closed-ended re-sponse formats such as dichotomous choices and Likertscales, which means that respondents are constrained to re-sponse options that are provided by researchers without beingable to elaborate on their experiences, views, or interpretations(Li 2007; Menesini et al. 2011; Smith 2019). The underlyingassumption of these self-report questionnaires is that victimsof cyberbullying who report being victimized more frequentlyare also cyberbullied more severely. However, it is plausiblethat one severe attack has more of a negative impact thanmultiple mild attacks (Dredge et al. 2014; Menesini et al.2011; Schenk and Fremouw 2012). In other words,cyberbullying may be better captured by words and not num-bers (Smith 2019; Vandebosch and Van Cleemput 2008).Therefore, using a qualitative research design and using qual-itative data to inform the future development of quantitativeinstruments, appears to be a more appropriate methodology touse in order to capture the phenomenology of cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying During Emerging Adulthood

Much of the research on cyberbullying has also primarilyfocused on adolescents, with little attention in the literatureon emerging adulthood. The heavy focus on adolescents incyberbullying research is said to be due to the various risksassociated with this stage of development and identity forma-tion (Francisco et al. 2015; Li 2007). However, it is arguedthat although identity formation begins in adolescence, theperiod of emerging adulthood is when this process is magni-fied where emerging adulthood refers to the stage after ado-lescence and before young adulthood (i.e., 18–25 years old;Arnett 2000; Wood et al. 2018). It is during this stage ofdevelopment where individuals often have to adjust tochanged living conditions, such as moving out of the familyhome and away from friends and in turn can lack social sup-port and suffer from isolation (Tennant et al. 2015;Wood et al.2018). The changed status from secondary school student toemerging adult can bring on anxiety with the perceived de-mands that this developmental stage brings. For instance, thisis where individuals start to become independent in relation tofinancial and residential status and use the Internet to accessgovernment information and services (my.gov, Centrelink,tax, visas, passports, etc.).

Emerging adulthood is also where texting and social mediause is a common part of social communication, and thesemedia are no longer being supervised by parents or teachers.Emerging adults are known to be heavy users of mobilephones, computers, and other networked mobile devices aspart of their personal, academic, and professional lives(Agatston et al. 2007; Arıcak 2009; Boulton et al. 2012;

80 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92

Campbell et al. 2012; Cassidy et al. 2018). For example, uni-versity students require computers and the Internet to com-plete their studies (i.e., research, student email, online portals,and submissions), and many employees in the workforce arerequired to use a computer or mobile device as part of theirprofessional duties. Yet, surprisingly, there is limited researchon cyberbullying during emerging adulthood despite esti-mates reporting around 20% of college students have beencyberbullied (e.g., Kowalski et al. 2012; Kowalski et al.2017; MacDonald and Roberts-Pittman 2010). Of the limitedresearch that has been conducted using samples of emergingadults, college students have described the definition ofcyberbullying as ambiguous, outdated, and misleading(Baldasare et al. 2012; Crosslin and Golman 2014).Therefore, while it is argued here that cyberbullying duringthis developmental period may be a serious problem that re-quires further research, it is crucial that researchers gain aclearer understanding of what cyberbullying means to emerg-ing adults before appropriate strategies and interventions canbe recommended.

Purpose of the Current Study

The current study is the first to our knowledge to conduct aqualitative study on how emerging adults in Australia definecyberbullying. The aim of this study is to address the gaps inthe literature by taking a step back from investigating theassociations between cyberbullying and different variablesand discussing with emerging adults their perceptions, views,and opinions of cyberbullying. This information will also in-form future measurement in this field. To this end, the researchquestion was to explore how emerging adults (i.e., 18–25 years) define cyberbullying.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through snowball samplingmethods such as advertising on SNSs (i.e., Facebook andInstagram), email, information flyers and through theResearch Experience Program (REP) where first-yearPsychology students gain a course credit for participating inresearch studies. All individuals interested in participating inthe research contacted the researcher via email. The researcherliaised with participants to organize a time to attend a focusgroup that was conducted in a meeting room on the universitycampus. Participants were notified of the day, time, and loca-tion of the focus groups via email. Participants received areminder email one week before the session containing detailsof the focus group.

The final sample consisted of 39 Australian emergingadults aged 18 to 25 years (M = 21.33; SD = 2.64) who wereinvited to attend one of six semi-structured focus groups forapproximately one hour to discuss their perceptions on thedefinition of cyberbullying. Of the 39, 36 were currently en-rolled in a university degree and three emerging adults wereemployed in full-time work. Around five to eight participantswere allocated to each focus group, which is consistent withthe recommendations of leading qualitative researchers whospecialize in focus groups (Krueger and Casey 2009).

Focus groups were used to gain a deeper understandingand reveal detailed information about emerging adults’perceptions, observations, and opinions of cyberbullying.Since emerging adults’ views are largely underrepresentedin cyberbullying research, focus groups provide a broaderrange of responses and several different perspectives onthe topic rather than individual interviews (Krueger andCasey 2009). For instance, hearing other participants’ per-spectives can allow a participant to clarify or elaborate ontheir own contributions to the discussion, which may beleft underdeveloped in an individual interview (Kitzinger1994; Powell and Single 1996). Focus groups also pro-vide a non-threatening and more naturalistic environmentthat encourages discussion among participants, which inturn provides researchers with insight into how partici-pants conceptualize and describe specific constructs(Wilkinson 1998).

Materials

A semi-structured interview guide was developed for thefocus groups. This helped to ensure that the researchquestion was addressed but the facilitator was free to ex-plore and ask more specific questions if needed.Participants were asked open-ended questions relating tothe definition of cyberbullying, examples of cyberbullyingbehavior, the effects of cyberbullying, and the strategiesused to cope with cyberbullying (please contact the cor-responding author for a copy of the interview guide).

Procedure

This study received ethical clearance from an Australianuniversity Human Research Ethics Committee. Prior tothe commencement of each focus group, participants wererequired to provide signed informed consent. The re-searchers (facilitator and note taker) introduced them-selves and the project and asked if there were any ques-tions before starting the focus group. The facilitator was aregistered clinical and counseling psychologist with expe-rience in conducting qualitative research. The second re-searcher had the responsibility of note taking and askingspecific clarification questions when required. All focus

Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92 81

groups were held in private meeting rooms, audio record-ed, and lasted approximately one hour.

Data Analysis

Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatimfor further analysis. This study employed a general qualitativeframework as only general views and opinions oncyberbullying were collected. That is, other qualitative frame-works (e.g., phenomenology, ethnography, or narrative ap-proaches) were not suited to the aims and research objectivesof the current study (see Creswell 2013). A thematic analysisusing the coding framework outlined by Braun and Clarke(2006) was conducted whereby the first author read and rereadthe transcripts in order to become familiar with the content.This was followed by writing notes and highlighting ideas inthe right margin of each transcript. The first author started toapply initial descriptive coding to the first transcript and triedto apply these codes to the following transcripts or developednew codes that came out of that group. Once 20–30 codeswere developed, the first author defined each code to makesure it was being applied consistently across the data andsupporting evidence for each code was given. In addition,similar codes were grouped together to develop overarchingthemes in which redundant codes were excluded from theanalysis. A thematic map was drawn to see how the story fitstogether (displayed in Fig. 1). The authors employed an iter-ative process, reviewing codes and themes until there was ashared consensus.

Results and Discussion

The thematic analysis identified emerging adults’ views andinterpretations of the definition of cyberbullying (see Fig. 1).In all focus groups, participants described cyberbullying as acomplex phenomenon with many layers, though there was ageneral agreement that it is an extension of traditional bullying(main theme). In particular, participants mentioned thatcyberbullying is Bbullying via technology^ (female, 24; firstsubtheme), such as Bover the [mobile] phone^ (female, 19) orBusing social media^ (female, 24), where Bone or more peopleare essentially bullied^ (male, 22) Bby a group of people or byone person^ (male, 21; second subtheme). The form ofcyberbullying behavior (third subtheme) can be indirect(e.g., Bmaking fun of you [on a Facebook timeline wall post]but just talking amongst us but you can see it,^ male, 23) ordirect (e.g., Bsend[ing] someone an angry text,^ male, 23),which is also similar in traditional bullying.

The three key components of traditional bullying, namelyintent to harm, repetition, and power imbalance emerged fromparticipant discussions and participants spent a large portionof the focus group trying to define and apply these tocyberbullying. However, when participants delved deeper intodiscussions about how to operationalize these key compo-nents, there was much confusion and debate within the focusgroups. For example, one participant (female, 24) who initial-ly stated that cyberbullying involves an intent to harm laterexpressed, Bnow I’m confused about my own definition ofcyberbullying^ when trying to establish this concept from abystander’s perspective (where the notion of Bvictim^ without

82 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92

Cyberbullying considered an

extension of traditional

bullying

Bullying via

digital

technologies

One or more

individuals

involved

Form of

cyberbullying

Direct

cyberbullying

Indirect

cyberbullying

Key components

(Depend on point

of view adopted)

A perpetrator

perspective

Intent to harm

Repetition

A target/ victim

perspective

Perceived

intent to harm

Single episode

or repetition

Power

imbalance/ lack

of control

A bystander

perspective

Target’s

response

Empathy for

target

Behavior alone

intentional and

aggressive

Fig. 1 Thematic map of emerging adults’ perceptions of the cyberbullying definition

Bperpetrator^ becomes more salient). Interestingly, it becameevident that the way in which individuals define these keycomponents depended on the point of view adopted (fourthsubtheme). For example, participants said that howcyberbullying is defined B…comes down to perception^(male, 19) and Bhow you perceive things might be differentfrom the bully’s perspective^ (female, 22). The focus groupdata revealed that there are multiple overarching perspectiveswhen defining cyberbullying such as a perpetrator, target, andbystander perspective (categories), and within these perspec-tives, there are even more specific types of involvement thatneed to be considered (Fig. 2), which are similar but also buildon those discussed in traditional bullying (Olweus 2001). Thedefinition of cyberbullying from the different perspectives willbe the focus of the BResults and Discussion^ section. Intent toharm was the main focus in the groups with repetition andpower imbalance being spoken about as secondary termswhich help establish intent to harm, rather than viewed inde-pendently from it. It should be noted that participants were notasked to think about the definition from each perspective (e.g.,perpetrator, target, bystander) or asked about their own expe-riences of cyberbullying from these different perspectives.Rather, this discussion and debate was generated by focusgroup participants themselves when considering the definitionof cyberbullying.

Perpetrator Perspective

A number of participants considered the definition ofcyberbullying from the perspective of a bully; however, a the-matic analysis revealed that this group falls within a larger

category of perpetrators that also encompasses benign bullies.In particular, participants acknowledged that there can be be-nign bullies, who unintentionally or accidentally harm a tar-get, and bullies, who intentionally try to cause harm to a target.Therefore, participants viewing cyberbullying from a perpe-trator perspective argued that the motives of the bully are whatis important in classifying cyberbullying behavior, regardlessof how successful the bully is in inflicting harm. For example,two participants stated, Bfrom a bully’s perspective…it has alot to do with intent^ (male, 19) or Bit comes from the bully’sintent to put you down in some way or another, if you weren’taffected by it that’s great, but the bully still has this intention ofwanting to put this person down^ (female, 22). This supportsprevious qualitative research, where young people considerthe bully must have intended to harm the victim in order toconstitute as cyberbullying (Baldasare et al. 2012; Nocentiniet al. 2010; Vandebosch and Van Cleemput 2008).

Alternatively, if a bully did not intend to harm a target, thenthe behavior may not be classified as cyberbullying even if thetarget interpreted the act that way. For example, participantswith this view mentioned, Bhow can it be intent if you’re notknowing you’re doing it?^ (female, 18) or BI question if it’scyberbullying if there is no callous intent behind it^ (male,20). Baldasare et al. (2012) found similar results from collegestudents who reported that if there was no intention, then thebehavior should not be deemed as cyberbullying, even if thevictim interpreted it as such. An example of unintentional,accidental, or benign cyberbullying behavior mentioned byparticipants was when the behavior was in fact intended ashumor. For example, Bsomeone might genuinely be teasingor having a joke but the person who receives it may believe

Fig. 2 Venn diagram of thedifferent types of involvement incyberbullying

Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92 83

Target Perspective Bystander Perspective

Cyberbullying

(Multiple

Perspectives)

Bully-

Victim

Bystander to

Bully

Bystander

to Victim

Perpetrator Perspective

Disengaged

Onlooker

Victim

Bully

Benign

BullyPassive Bully

(passive

aggressiveness)

Passive

supporter

of bully

Passive

supporter

of victim

Joke taken wrong way

Teasing/

friendly

banter

that it’s bullying, and it can result in serious emotional damagewhere in reality it may not have ever been intended that way^(male, 23). Although, there are instances where humor andteasing are used as a disguise for passive bullying, such asBpassive aggressive statuses^ (male, 23) that Btry to get areaction out of you but without directly telling you^ (female,19). In addition, it may be a thoughtless comment, as oneparticipant (male, 25) described he Bsaid something…justdropped something and then they [receiver] have taken it inthe wrong regard and then it’s really hurt them.^ Lastly, ap-propriate behavior, which may be unpleasant for the receiver,could be considered cyberbullying, such as Bpeople who didnot want to talk to you so then they’re ‘bullies’^ (male, 20).

However, participants in the current study highlighted thatBif you did find out that person took a rolling [was hurt] andyou kept doing it^ (female, 22), Bthen that’s when it goes over[the line from teasing or other benign behavior tocyberbullying]^ (male, 21), Bbecause you are now aware ofthe person’s feelings and how they cope with something likethat…that would become an intent to harm that person onyour part^ (female, 22). As such, rather than apologizing orBdebrief[ing] afterwards and say look we didn’t mean it^ (fe-male, 19) this repetition helps establish the bully’s intent toharm the victim.

In regard to repetition, one participant (male, 21) expressedthat for it to be cyberbullying Bit would have to happen morethan one or two times…I wouldn’t say it would be a once offattack because sometimes you have differences with people.^Another participant (female, 18) also agreed that B…it’s got tobe a continuous thing, you can’t just consider it to be bullyingif someone says something and you’re upset by it.^ Theseperceptions are in accordance with some participants’ viewsin previous qualitative studies (Baldasare et al. 2012;Vandebosch and Van Cleemput 2008) and current definitionsof cyberbullying (Smith et al. 2008). However, in the currentstudy, it was not clear from participants’ responses as towhether their perceptions of Brepetition^ were more generaland would change when considering different types ofcyberbullying behaviors. For example, when the participantabove (female, 18) mentioned Bif someone says something,^are they thinking of a direct private text message between theperpetrator and target only, or are they referring to a publiccomment that has the potential to be seen and read by thetarget and many other people? It also was not clear from par-ticipants’ responses how many times a specific act needs to becarried out to qualify as cyberbullying. These responses high-light the perception of repetition from a perpetrator’s perspec-tive, but also the complex nature of repetition in cyberspace.

It should also be noted that participants mainly viewed abully’s intentions as premeditated, proactive, and Bcalculat-ed.^ For example, one participant (male, 24) described, Byoucan sit and take time and think how can I really get to thisperson.^ However, participants in one focus group said the

bully’s intention to harm could also be Breactive^ (female,24) such as, Bmaybe it’s more of an impulsive act…still anintent, but maybe not as well thought out compared to a pre-meditated thing^ (female, 24). This draws attention to twoother roles mentioned in the current study that the perpetratorperspective embraces: (1) bully-victim perspective and (2) by-stander to bully or target perspective. In regard to a bully-victim, the reactive component might be an Bautomatic reac-tion to something as opposed to a deliberate strategy^ (male,24), such as an attempt to Btransfer pain^ (male, 21) and Bpasson the bullying to someone else...it’s a vicious circle^ (male,21). Another participant went on to describe the role of bully-victims:

Typically you will have that distinction between themore powerful individual and a weaker individual eitherphysically or mentally, but you have to look at it morecomplex because that bully per se could be getting bul-lied somewhere else and then it’s just a step down pro-gression and the same thing goes the child that is thebullied could eventually go on to bully someone else…In our generation, once you get older if you get bulliedby someone else it’s just as likely you bully someoneelse (male, 24).

The second role mentioned by participants, namely bystandersto the bully or target, was described by a participant (male, 18)as Ba friend and plays a pretty similar role to real life…so ifyour friend is in a confrontation with someone else you’regoing to go stick up for them and I think on Facebook it’s stillthe same.^However, it was noted that the bystander can easilybecome a bully:

I’ve had like bantering conversations with friends andI’ve had someone else interject and take it completelyout of context and they were standing up for me butthere was no need, it wasn't bullying, even a little bit,and he just went like way over the line and started threat-ening the other person which he went from being thebystander to the bully (female, 19).

Taken together, when interpreting cyberbullying from a per-petrator perspective, intent to harm appears to be the centralfactor and repetition can help establish the bully’s intentions.From this perspective, benign bullying behavior (i.e., lack ofintent to harm) should not be classified as cyberbullying, evenif the victim was harmed by the behavior. While the bully’sintentions were often classified as premeditated and proactive,it could also be reactive such as in response to previous vic-timization experiences (bully-victim), or a bystanderdefending a bully or target, who rather than intervening withassertive behavior, exhibits aggressive behavior with an inten-tion to harm. On the other hand, individuals who defined

84 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92

cyberbullying from the perspective of a target had a differentinterpretation.

Target/Victim Perspective

A majority of the participants viewed cyberbullying fromthe perspective of a target, with an emphasis on a victim’sinterpretation of the event. It is important to note that par-ticipants identified that it means something different to be atarget of a cyberbullying behavior versus a victim. That is, atarget was viewed more as an overarching category to de-scribe a person who is a target of a cyberbullying behaviorand perceives the behavior as intending to harm. The targetbecomes a victim when the behavior is not only perceived asintentional but is also perceived as inflicting harm. For ex-ample, participants agreed that, BI think to be bullied, any-one can be bullied but then to be a victim is another kind ofside to it^ (male, 19). Another participant (female, 18) fur-ther highlighted the distinction between target and victim bydisclosing her own personal experience with cyberbullying,BI would still consider it to be bullying but then I don’tconsider myself to be a victim,^ with another participant(female, 19) adding Bit’s bullying without the victim thing.^In addition to this, one participant (female, 19) described Btobe considered as a victim you have to be affected by it, youhave to be damaged by the bullying as such...you’re not avictim if it doesn’t affect you.^ This may explain as to whyone-item scales, which ask an individual’s involvement incyberbullying (e.g., BHave you ever been a victim ofcyberbullying?^) have reported lower prevalence ratescompared to multi-item scales that list certain behaviorsassociated with cyberbullying (see Dehue 2013), as to be avictim is interpreted as different from being a target ofcyberbullying and this distinction needs greater focus.

In general, participants of this perspective argued that, Bre-gardless of intent…it’s really down to the victim [or target]…how they see it^ (male, 20). Similarly, another participant(male, 19) mentioned that Bthe person who receives the mes-sage, if they perceive it as bullying then it is bullying becauseyou’ve hurt their feelings.^ This finding coincides with previ-ous qualitative studies where participants reported that thetarget’s interpretation of the incident is the deciding factor inestablishing cyberbullying (Baldasare et al. 2012; Dredgeet al. 2014). Therefore, in contrast to traditional cyberbullyingdefinitions that have typically comprised key features basedon the bully’s behavior (i.e., intention to harm, power imbal-ance, repetitive), these qualitative findings highlight the im-portance of also considering the target’s perspective (Dredgeet al. 2014).

It was also emphasized across each of the discussiongroups that, from a target perspective cyberbullying could beconsidered a Bonce off attack^ as it can result in serious harmfor a person. For example, Bthey might see it, they may deem

it as cyberbullying, just from that one isolated incident^ (male,24) as Bonce it’s on Facebook it’s there forever…the damageis done because everyone’s seen it^ (female, 18) and Bit can bepermanent, people can save that photo or it can stay some-where online, and you could see the photo of yourself againonline and be like that is really horrible, it’s still there^ (fe-male, 20). This view is consistent with previous research,which has reported that a singular public act has a similarfunction to repetition based on the nature of the technologicalarena in which it occurs (Baldasare et al. 2012; Dooley et al.2009; Dredge et al. 2014; Langos 2012; Nocentini et al. 2010;Slonje and Smith 2008). Therefore, cyberbullying scaleswhich employ restrictions for the repetition component (e.g.,Btwo or three times a month^) could potentially exclude tar-gets who have experienced a once off attack, even though itwas just as severe as multiple mild attacks (Dredge et al.2014).

From a target perspective, another defining feature ofcyberbullying is an imbalance of power or lack of control.An example of such behavior is compromising orembarrassing content posted publicly about a target for othersto see, or is posted against his or her will. If this behavior is notrectified by the bully by apologizing, debriefing (clarifying nomalice intent), and/or removing the content perceived asharmful by a target, then this can help establish the bully’sintention to harm a target. For example, one participant’s def-inition of cyberbullying included:

When there is something that is no longer under yourcontrol. If you go to someone, ‘can you stop, it’s startingto hurt my feelings,’ if they say no then it’s out of yourcontrol and I feel that becomes cyberbullying becausethen you’re to a certain degree powerless, or you’vetried to stop it…and you’re no longer in control ofwhether it stops or not (male, 23).

Taken together, in comparison to the perspective of a bully,other participants stated that if a target interprets a behavior asintentional and harmful, and cyberbullying, then it iscyberbullying. A target becomes a victim if, not only do theyperceive the intent to harm, but they also experience thetargeting as inflicting harm. From this perspective, a onceoff attack can be classified as cyberbullying as it may be justas harmful as repetitive attacks. In addition, when the targetperceives there to be a lack of control or an imbalance ofpower this can also help establish cyberbullying and that thebully’s intentions were in fact to harm the target. It is impor-tant to note the definitions and main components ofcyberbullying are similar for both a bully and target perspec-tive, but the perceptions of intent and harm and what counts asrepetition are different. Furthermore, it was only from a targetperspective that power imbalance was mentioned as an impor-tant feature in defining cyberbullying.

Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92 85

The bystander’s perspective further highlights the multifac-eted nature of the definition of cyberbullying. Many partici-pants in each of the focus groups identified themselves asbeing bystanders in cyberbullying and described their opin-ions and perceptions of cyberbullying based on an observer’sperspective.

Bystander Interpretation

There was a range of participants in the focus groups thatreported that they had been bystanders to cyberbullying.However, they often found it difficult to determinecyberbullying situations because Bfrom a bystander’s perspec-tive…looking at harmful comments that someone has writtenabout or to someone else…it’s hard…because you don’t knowin what sense or context they are making those comments^(female, 22) as it Bcan look really ambiguous from the out-side^ (female, 24) and B…it is a grey area if you were lookingat it objectively^ (female, 24). Other participants described,Bsometimes I get confused when I see something and it’s notuntil you read into the comments further and that’s when yourealize this isn’t even serious^ (female, 20) or think Boh they’llbe right, they probably won’t even take that to heart^ (female,18).

Emoticons were said to be helpful in distinguishing be-tween teasing and cyberbullying; however, it was stressed thata target could say they are fine, send a Bsmiley,^ BLOL,^ orBhaha^ when they are actually hurt by the behavior, whichfurther complicates bystanders’ interpretations of the event.Thus, bystanders expressed that Bunless I was to maybe askthem…^ (female, 24) it’s hard to distinguish if the target hasbeen hurt by the behavior. For example, one participant (fe-male, 24) identified, BI might view something online and ifthat was me I would be really upset but to that group of friendsit was a big joke, so I wouldn’t know if that person was beingbullied or not.^ The lack of visual and verbal cues creates greatchallenges for potential bystanders as Byou don’t pick up toneor anything, just words…so you’re kind of lost, are they beingsarcastic or are they being for real^ (male, 22). This is consis-tent with previous qualitative research where participantsexpressed that a lack of tone and non-verbal cues can leadbystanders to misinterpret behaviors as cyberbullying, whenit is, in fact, a mutual joke between two friends (Baldasareet al. 2012; Van Cleemput et al. 2014; Vandebosch and VanCleemput 2008).

This ambiguity often resulted in bystanders acting as dis-engaged onlookers, which was defined as Bsomeone who is ina position to intervene and decides not to^ (female, 19). Forexample, as one participant (male, 25) stated, Bwe have all satback and went, I don’t want to get into this shit storm, I don’twant a notification coming through all the time, I can’t bebothered with it.^ It was pointed out that, Ba bystander incyberbullying…have the option of turning a blind eye and

no one would know…you can just look at it and…keep goingwith your life because it doesn’t affect you personally^ (fe-male, 18). One participant elaborated on this point:

Some people don’t like getting involved in other peo-ple’s business. It has a lot to sort of dowith the perceivedinvestment I suppose. If you don't have a perceivedinvested interest or something invested in the currentengagement there is no reason for you to get involvedbecause eventually it is just going to cost you some-thing. But say if your partner is getting bullied you’reobviously going to step in (male, 25).

A participant (female, 24) in a different group also had asimilar opinion that, Beither they don’t know these people orfeel very far removed from the situation, but then there isprobably another type of bystander where if a friend of yoursis doing this you actually have some power to intervene.^Thus, disengaged onlookers might become active bystandersto the bully or target when the person or people involved areconsidered close to the bystander, resulting in a perceivedresponsibility to help or intervene (Bastiaensens et al. 2014;Brody and Vangelisti 2016; Van Cleemput et al. 2014).However, as discussed under the BPerpetrator Perspective,^participants expressed that a concern with intervening was thatit could potentially exaggerate the situation, as the bystandermay havemisinterpreted the incident or Bput themselves in thelimelight to potentially become bullied^ (male, 21), or becomea bully.

As a result, individuals may remain passive bystanders orsupporters of the bully or target, and refrain from activelyintervening or providing support. For example, participantsdescribed a passive bystander or supporter of the target as aBperson that is more sensitive to someone’s feelings…hasmore emotional intelligence and knows that it’s actually hurt-ing the person that’s getting bullied and don’t want to contrib-ute to it even though they are watching it^ (male, 23). On theother hand, a passive bystander or supporter to the bully wasdescribed as Bpeople who agree with it^ (male, 19) or whomight text message a friend and say, Blook at this Facebookfight…so you just go on Facebook and have a look and…youlaugh^ (male, 18).

Despite the uncertainty from a bystander’s perspective ofwhat cyberbullying is, and the specific bystander role an indi-vidual engages in (e.g., disengaged onlooker, bystander tobully or target, or passive bystander to bully or target), partic-ipants suggested a general set of criteria that can be used toestablish cyberbullying from a general bystander perspective.

Target’s Response

The target’s response to the situation was suggested as anindicator of distress and potential cyberbullying. As one

86 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92

participant (male, 24) described, Byou can tell through a chainof comments the reaction by the individual^ or when Bsome-one literally says this has upset me^ (female, 19). Similarly,Holfeld (2014) reported that when a target reported orresponded to a cyberbullying situation, the behavior is per-ceived by bystanders as being severe if the target has to notifythe bully about it. On the other hand, less bystander support isreceived when targets do not respond to the behavior or con-front the bully, as a lack of response tends to be interpreted bybystanders as the behavior not affecting the target. Thus, whilebystanders may perceive comments or acts online as subjec-tive, it appears the target’s reaction to the event can help by-standers determine whether a behavior constitutescyberbullying.

Empathy for Target

Furthermore, bystanders also mentioned that by imagining theexperience from a target’s point of view helps with their inter-pretation of a scenario as cyberbullying. For example, oneparticipant (female, 24) described, BI might view somethingonline and if that was me I would be really upset.^ In addition,another participant (female, 24) expressed Bthere is that [uni-versity] Stalkerspace thing I only recently joined…some peo-ple comment on there thinking they are being funny but itseems really mean... I wouldn’t want to be the victim of that.^These responses are similar to the findings of Barlińska et al.(2013) who reported that taking the other person’s perspec-tive, such as the target’s, and focusing on the potential nega-tive consequences of cyberbullying reduced negative bystand-er behaviors. Empathy for a target of cyberbullying has beenshown in previous research to influence bystander responseswhere adolescent bystanders with more empathetic concernare more likely to intervene and help a target (Erreygerset al. 2016; Pabian et al. 2016; Van Cleemput et al. 2014). Itshould be noted that in Australia, and especially inMelbourne, many of the universities have a StalkerspaceFacebook page which has been created by students enrolledat these universities. The purpose of a Stalkerspace page is toconnect students and ask university and course-related ques-tions, though there have been a number of incidents that couldbe classified as cyberbullying, harassment, and stalking.

Behavior Alone Is Intentional and Aggressive

Participants mentioned that the behavior alone could be per-ceived by bystanders as intentional and aggressive. For in-stance, it was suggested that intent to harm might beestablished depending on the number of bullies involved. Aparticipant (female, 24) described, Bif you’re trying to be allnasty online you would include as many people as you couldto make it widespread.^ Similarly, another participant (female,18) pinpointed, Bmaybe it’s a numbers thing too, if someone

said, ‘let’s all delete this person’ and just to upset them 20people delete you off Facebook all at once, I think that’s abig statement.^

Acts that involved public humiliation were also said to helpestablish intent and cyberbullying. Public acts were defined asposting content which Bfriends^ or Bfollowers^ of the targetcan view. As one participant points out:

You don’t actually have to be speaking to that person tobully them, it’s the fact that you can just post stuff aboutthem and all of a sudden there is this huge array ofpeople that can see what you’re saying. It’s not like apersonal thing where you have to be in front of them,you can get the reaction from them by just throwing itout for everyone else to see (male, 25).

Therefore, multiple perpetrators, the presence of bystanderswho endorse the bullying, as well as the nature ofcyberbullying behaviors such as public humiliation, may re-sult in the interpretation of these events as serious cases ofcyberbullying that require bystander intervention. The rela-tionship between the sender and receiver was also said toprovide some context as to whether the interaction betweenthe two parties is friendly banter or cyberbullying. For exam-ple, one participant (female, 22) said, BI think sometimes youwould look at comments and be like ‘oh yeah it was harmful, Iwould judge that as bullying’ or ‘oh no, I know those twopeople and they’re just having a joke’…^ Vandebosch andVan Cleemput (2009) found similar reports where the relation-ship between the bully and victim plays an important role inthe way behavior is perceived.

Therefore, although there are a number of specific bystand-er roles, in general, the definition of cyberbullying from thebystander’s perspective is when it is observed that a behaviorhas negatively affected another person, or that such a behaviorwould likely negatively affect the bystander if directed towardhim or her. A bystander may also perceive the behavior aloneas intentional and aggressive.

Implications and Contributions

This qualitative study is one of the first comprehensive exam-inations of cyberbullying from the perspective of emergingadults. The findings showed that emerging adults experiencedhesitation and confusion surrounding defining cyberbullying.On the surface, it appeared as though participants generallyunderstood cyberbullying to be an extension of traditionalbullying, identifying the key components as intent to harm,repetition, and power imbalance, though the latter two wereseen as helping to establish intent to harm, rather than viewedindependently from it. When participants tried to elaborate onand operationalize each of these key components in a

Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92 87

technology-mediated environment, this appeared to be a dif-ficult task and was highly subjective depending on the point ofview adopted (i.e., perpetrator, target, or bystanderperspective).

While each perspective highlighted similar key compo-nents, such as intent to harm and repetition, the interpretationof these was different. Moreover, only from a target perspec-tive was power imbalance mentioned. Therefore, it is evidentfrom responses in the focus groups that the current definitionis too simplistic and rather it needs to be multifaceted in orderto capture the perceptions and understandings of emergingadults. The current study extends on previous research byfocusing on the different perspectives of cyberbullying (i.e.,perpetrators, targets, and bystanders) rather than assuming asingle perspective, and in turn integrating these perspectives topropose a multifaceted definition of cyberbullying.

The current study also extends on a previous publishediteration of the multifaceted cyberbullying definition pro-posed by Alipan et al. (2015), which was based on a reviewof the previous literature. Focus group data confirm the pre-viously proposed multifaceted definition but also adds to thecomplexity of the issue, highlighting not only differing per-spectives but also different levels of involvement that need tobe taken into account when trying to understandcyberbullying situations. As such, this study proposes a re-vised three-part cyberbullying definition in the following par-agraph and suggests this be implemented in future researchand practice.

Cyberbullying is defined as using digital technologies totarget one or more people directly or indirectly, whereby:

1. Perpetrator perspective. The goal of the bully is to inten-tionally harm the target. A person is not a bully if there isno intent to harm, regardless of the impact on the target.Repetition can also help establish intentionality andcyberbullying, in which the bully repeatedly carries outa harmful behavior toward the same target.

2. Target perspective. The behavior is perceived as inten-tional and harmful by the target. A once off attack canalso be considered as cyberbullying as the negative im-pact on the intended target may be just as severe as fre-quent attacks. Moreover, that single attack can becomerepetitive even without any input from the original perpe-trator through re-posting. When the target experiences alack of control or power imbalance (e.g., publicly postedcontent about the target or against the target’s consent),this can also help establish intent to harm. A target be-comes a victim if, not only do they perceive that the per-petrator has an intent to harm but also they experience thetargeting as inflicting harm.

3. Bystander perspective. It is observed that a behavior hasnegatively affected another person, or that such a behaviorwould be likely to negatively affect the bystander if

directed toward him or her. A bystander may also perceivethe behavior alone as intentional and aggressive. A by-stander may not understand the context of certain interac-tions, and so bystanders may fail to identify cyberbullyingor, alternatively, can escalate situations to cyberbullyingthrough their own interventions in situations where theoriginal context was misinterpreted.

Importantly, by separating the cyberbullying definition outinto a multifaceted definition, different contexts can focus ondifferent perspectives. For instance, the findings from the cur-rent study have implications for researchers, legal practi-tioners, psychologists, and the education sector as a whole.

For researchers, as the cyberbullying definition appears tobe multifaceted, it is crucial that the current general definitionis separated into the different perspectives. Past definitionsand measures of cyberbullying have intended to outline andcapture an objective account of the phenomenon, though haveoften defined cyberbullying from a perpetrator’s point of viewand not involved others (e.g., Smith et al. 2008). It is assumedthat all respondents hold the same view of cyberbullying whenanswering these measures, but as identified in the currentstudy, the definition and operationalisation of cyberbullyingdepends on the perspective adopted (i.e., perpetrator, target/victim, or bystander). In this regard, this multifaceted defini-tion means that researchers would have a more valid under-standing of what cyberbullying means and what the preva-lence estimates represent, rather than assuming all perspec-tives hold the same view. For instance, researchers could in-clude all three of the perspectives listed above in self-reportmeasures and adapted measures of cyberbullying such as peernominations and investigate the agreement (or disagreement)between different types of involvement to obtain a more ac-curate picture of the cyberbullying situation (see Wegge et al.2016). In addition, if researchers were interested in examininga cyberbullying incident from a target (or victim) perspectiveand the impact of the behavior (regardless of the actual inten-tions of the perceived perpetrator and bystander perspective),the definition from a target’s perspective, as presented above,could be the focus.

Moreover, it emerged from focus groups data that therewere differences between being a target of a behavior (nonegative effect experienced) and being a victim (negative ef-fect experienced). One past study reported different types oftargets of cyberaggression and cyberbullying (e.g., celebrities,close friends, random persons; see Pyżalski 2012) but did notdistinguish between the two main involvement types (i.e.,target vs. victim), a unique finding in the current study, whichcan help clarify whether there are differences in psychologicaloutcomes and if this can be attributed to the appraisal of thebehavior and coping strategies employed. Therefore, the mul-tifaceted definition treats these individuals as being different.This is especially important when testing theoretical models of

88 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92

cyberbullying where often targets and victims are lumped to-gether and therefore some of the uniqueness of these groupsare lost. By participants being able to indicate whether theyhave been a target with or without being a victim, this canresult in more valid examinations and comparisons of similar-ities and differences between these two groups with othervariables, more meaningful conclusions and implications,and, in turn, more accurate recommendations for preventionand intervention programs. Taken together, integrating theperspectives of emerging adults to inform the definition ofcyberbullying can allow the operationalization of the term,which in turn would ensure that data on prevalence rates aremore valid and meaningful. If there is not a clear recognitionof how cyberbullying is perceived from different perspectives,individuals’ responses to self-report questionnaires cannot beaccurately interpreted.

From a forensic or legal standpoint, intent to harm is a vitalaspect of establishing cyberbullying (Langos 2012). As such,the perspective of the bully might be the focus of interest andindependently focused on, irrespective of how successful theperpetrator is in causing harm to the target (e.g., perceivedharm vs. actual harm), although the target’s perspective aswell as the bystander’s may be incorporated to help the per-petrator understand the impact of their actions. It is imperativethat professionals working in this area have an understandingof cyberbullying from different perspectives, since the impacton the target is not taken into consideration in legal workunless the behavior of the perpetrator is defined as a crime,they intended it to be a crime, and there is evidence provingbeyond reasonable doubt that there was an intention to com-mit a crime (Campbell et al. 2010). Gathering enough evi-dence to pursue legal action can be onerous on the target, sincethe target must experience cyberbullying behavior on morethan two occasions, meaning that the target has to suffer insilence during the first or subsequent periods of abuse(Gillespie 2006). However, it is important to note that from atarget perspective, the consequences of one attack can be justas severe as multiple low-level attacks (Campbell et al. 2010).

From a psychological or clinical perspective, the victim’sperspective may be of interest irrespective of whether therewas an intention to harm. From this perspective, what mattersis how the individual perceives the incident and reducing dis-tress (e.g., anxiety, depression, low self-esteem) as subjectiveappraisals of victimization have been found to be more closelyassociated with current adjustment than actual victim status(McCabe et al. 2010). Although psychologists may use otherperspectives (e.g., perpetrator and bystander) to try and im-prove the victim’s own understanding of the situation, it is alsohelpful being able to distinguish between being a target and avictim, as the intervention might be different for these indi-viduals. For example, teaching victims effective coping re-sponses and how to appraise cyberbullying situations differ-ently may help to build resilience in this group. This

multifaceted definition is particularly important incyberbullying as there are instances where the perpetratormay be unaware of the emotional impact of their behavior.Therefore, psychologists can also work with the perpetratorto help them understand the consequences of their actions onthe victim and develop empathetic responses to deter futurecyberbullying behavior.

From an education perspective, the bystander perspectivemay be of initial interest as bystanders are assumed to act asobjective arbitrators and can decrease bullying and increasesupport for victims (Pozzoli and Gini 2010). However, whilethe idea around bystander interventions is to affect the behav-ior of the bystanders, many individuals who witness bullyingdo nothing to intervene and stop it (Pepler and Slaby 1994).Based on the findings of the current study, this may be attrib-uted to the difficulty in determining whether the behavior iscyberbullying, or being fearful he or she will be targeted onceintervening or that they will create a drama where none cur-rently exists by interfering with peer banter. This is concerningas this means that the first two stages of the BystanderIntervention Model (Latané and Darley 1968; Latané andDarley 1970), notice the event and interpret the event as anemergency, are potentially not being met and that the subse-quent stages of the model, such as accept responsibility tointervene, decide how to help, and perform the interventionwill not be engaged in (Latané and Darley 1968). As such, thecurrent study has provided criteria, which can be built intointerventions and programs to help bystanders identifycyberbullying situations, and thus meet the first two stagesof the Bystander Intervention Model, so they can progressthrough the model and intervene safely. This can empowerbystanders to not only take a stand but also provide them withthe knowledge and resources on how to appropriately mediatedifficult situations without amplifying them or placing them-selves at risk for victimization. In addition, it is also vital thatthere is a balance of all three perspectives when developingcyberbullying interventions to promote healthier environ-ments such as more resilient victims, more empathetic devel-opment in bullies, and more educated bystanders so incidentsdo not escalate to a point that they become cyberbullying andthus a criminal or clinical matter.

Taken together, professionals in different contexts may beinterested in particular perspectives, and that it is importantwhen reporting instances of cyberbullying that it is made clearwhich context and perspective this experience is being viewedfrom. Understanding this context offers one solution to theproblem proposed by Corcoran et al. (2015) where intent toharm, for instance, is considered a key characteristic ofcyberbullying, though it is less clear whether the perpetrator(actual intent to harm) or target/victim perspective (perceptionof intent to harm where there may or may not be any) is moreimportant. Furthermore, incorporating the other perspectives,if possible, can be used to gain a more comprehensive

Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92 89

understanding of the event or situation and determine whetheror not it is in fact cyberbullying. The findings in the currentresearch should also be used to develop educational programsfor emerging adults in educational and work environments asmost awareness campaigns and prevention strategies havebeen aimed at helping children and adolescents make senseof and respond to traditional bullying from a singleperspective.

Limitations

One limitation of the study was that while some participantsexpressed that they had personally been involved in, orwitnessed, cyberbullying, the facilitator did not directly askabout the personal experiences of emerging adults. This wasto protect participants from potentially disclosing distressingexperiences and to avoid legal ramifications associated withcyberbullying. However, participants may have beenresponding with how they think the different perspectives in-terpret a situation without actually experiencing it firsthandthemselves. It should be noted that there were a few partici-pants in each group who did describe their own personal ex-periences of cyberbullying, though this was to provide anexample or clarify a point rather than to vent about it. In thefuture, researchers should consider gathering more genericnegative behaviors online and then ask participants whetherany of these instances are cyberbullying behaviors (see Gingand O’Higgins Norman 2016). This approach may captureproblematic behaviors that participants do not include in theirdefinition of cyberbullying and at the same time provide someinsight into which perspective these online behaviors are be-ing interpreted.

Conclusion

Since there is a lack of consensus on the definition ofcyberbullying and limited research on emerging adults, it iscrucial that researchers understand what cyberbullying meansto this age group. Data from the focus groups suggested thatemerging adults perceive cyberbullying to be an extension oftraditional bullying, as it comprises similar key features (i.e.,intent to harm, repetition, and power imbalance). However,when attempting to operationalize the term and the key com-ponents, this was highly subjective and dependent on the pointof view adopted. Therefore, this study has incorporatedemerging adult perceptions to develop a multifacetedcyberbullying definition from the perspective of perpetratorsof potentially bullying behaviors, targets of perceived bullyingbehaviors, and bystanders. By breaking the definition downinto the multiple perspectives, in different contexts (e.g., re-search, legal, psychological, education), there can be a focus

on different perspectives or all perspectives to help gain abetter understanding of cyberbullying.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict ofinterest.

References

Ackers, M. J. (2012). Cyberbullying: through the eyes of children andyoung people. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28, 141–157.https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2012.665356.

Agatston, P. W., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students’ perspec-tives on cyber bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 59–60.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.003.

Alipan, A., Skues, J., Theiler, S., & Wise, L. (2015). Definingcyberbullying: A multiple perspectives approach. In Annual reviewof cybertherapy and telemedicine: Virtual reality in Healthcare:Medical simulation and experiential interface (Vol. 219, pp. 219,9–13). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-595-1-9.

Arıcak, O. T. (2009). Psychiatric symptomatology as a predictor ofcyberbullying among university students. Eurasian Journal ofEducational Research, 34(1), 167–184 Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pd f v i ewe r ?v i d=1&s i d=741a368e - 4021 -407c - 96e5 -9f11a20d9972%40sessionmgr4009.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: a theory of development fromthe late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.5.469.

Baldasare, A., Bauman, S., Goldman, L., & Robie, A. (2012). Chapter 8cyberbullying? Voices of college students. In L. A. Wankel & C.Wankel (Eds.), Misbehavior online in higher education (pp. 127–155). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2044-9968(2012)0000005010.

Barlińska, J., Szuster, A., &Winiewski, M. (2013). Cyberbullying amongadolescent bystanders: role of the communication medium, form ofviolence, and empathy. Journal of Community & Applied SocialPsychology, 23, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2137.

Bastiaensens, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., DeSmet,A., &DeBourdeaudhuij, I. (2014). Cyberbullying on social networksites. An experimental study into bystanders’ behavioural intentionsto help the victim or reinforce the bully. Computers in HumanBehavior, 31, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.036.

Bauman, S. A., Underwood, M. K., & Card, N. A. (2012). Definitions:another perspective and a proposal for beginning withcyberaggression. In Bauman, S. A., Cross, D., & Walker, J.Principles of Cyberbullying Research: Definitions, Measures, andMethodology (pp. 41–45). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203084601.

Boulton, M., Lloyd, J., Down, J., & Marx, H. (2012). Predicting under-graduates’ self-reported engagement in traditional and cyberbullyingfrom attitudes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,15, 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0369.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Brody, N., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2016). Bystander intervention incyberbullying. Communication Monographs, 83, 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1044256.

Campbell, M. A., Cross, D., Spears, B., & Slee, P. (2010). Cyberbullying:legal implications for schools. The Centre for Strategic Education,

90 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92

118. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/40772/1/COVERSHEETC40772.pdf.

Campbell, M., Spears, B., Slee, P., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2012). Victims’perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying, and the psychosocialcorrelates of their victimisation. Emotional and BehaviouralDifficulties, 17, 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704316.

Campbell, M.,Whiteford, C., &Hooijer, J. (2018). Teachers’ and parents’understanding of traditional and cyberbullying. Journal of SchoolViolence, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2018.1507826.

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (Eds.). (2018). Cyberbullying atuniversity in international context. Oxford: Routledge.

Corcoran, L., Mc Guckin, C., & Prentice, G. (2015). Cyberbullying orcyber aggression? A review of existing definitions of cyber-basedpeer-to-peer aggression. Societies, 5, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc5020245.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosingamong five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Crosslin, K., & Golman, M. (2014). BMaybe you don’t want to face it^ –college students’ perspectives on cyberbullying. Computers inHuman Behavior, 41, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.007.

Dehue, F. (2013). Cyberbullying research: new perspectives and alterna-tive methodologies. Introduction to the special issue. Journal ofCommunity & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2139.

Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. K., Secord, S. M., & Lyell, K. M. (2013).Agreement among students’, teachers’, and parents’ perceptions ofvictimization by bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 35,2091–2100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.10.018.

Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: a theoretical and conceptual review. Zeitschrift fürPsychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182.

Dredge, R., Gleeson, J., & de la Piedad Garcia, X. (2014). Cyberbullyingin social networking sites: an adolescent victim’s perspective.Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.026.

Erreygers, S., Pabian, S., Vandebosch, H., & Baillien, E. (2016). Helpingbehavior among adolescent bystanders of cyberbullying: the role ofimpulsivity. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.03.003.

Francisco, S. M., Veiga Simão, A. M., Ferreira, P. C., & Martins, M. J. D.(2015). Cyberbullying: the hidden side of college students.Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.045.

Gillespie, A. A. (2006). Cyber-bullying and harassment of teenagers: thelegal response. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 28, 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649060600973772.

Ging, D., & O’Higgins Norman, J. (2016). Cyberbullying, conflict man-agement or just messing? Teenage girls’ understandings and expe-riences of gender, friendship, and conflict on Facebook in an Irishsecond-level school. Feminist Media Studies, 16, 805–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2015.1137959.

Holfeld, B. (2014). Perceptions and attributions of bystanders to cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.012.

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance ofinteraction between research participants. Sociology of Health andIllness, 16, 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023.

Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Reese, H. H.(2012). Cyber bullying among college students: evidence from mul-tiple domains of college life. Cutting-edge Technologies in. HigherEducation, 5, 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2044-9968(2012)0000005016.

Kowalski, R. M., Toth, A., & Morgan, M. (2017). Bullying andcyberbullying in adulthood and the workplace. The Journal ofSocial Psychology, 158, 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1302402.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: a practical guidefor applied research (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Langos, C. (2012). Cyberbullying: the challenge to define.Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15, 285–289.https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0588.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander inter-vention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 10, 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026570.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: whydoesn’t he help? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: a research of cyberbullying inschools.Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777–1791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005.

MacDonald, C. D., & Roberts-Pittman, B. (2010). Cyberbullying amongcollege students: prevalence and demographic differences.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 2003–2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.436.

Mason, K. L. (2008). Cyberbullying: a preliminary assessment for schoolpersonnel. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20301.

Maunder, R. E., Harrop, A., & Tattersall, A. J. (2010). Pupil and staffperceptions of bullying in secondary schools: comparing behaviour-al definitions and their perceived seriousness. EducationalResearch, 52, 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2010.504062.

McCabe, R. E., Miller, J. L., Laugesen, N., Antony, M. M., & Young, L.(2010). The relationship between anxiety disorders in adults andrecalled childhood teasing. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24, 238–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.11.002.

Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Calussi, P. (2011). The measurement ofcyberbullying: dimensional structure and relative item severity anddiscrimination. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,14, 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0002.

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., Cossin, F., de Bettencourt, R., & Lemme, F.(2006). Teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 76, 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X52229.

Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H.,Ortega, R., & Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: labels, behav-iours and definition in three European countries. Journal ofPsychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 20, 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129.

Olweus, D. (2001). The bullying circle. Bergen, Norwegen. Retrievedfrom: http://schools.hcdsb.org/mich/Safe%20Schools/Bully%20Circle%20Handout.pdf.

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2018). Some problems with cyberbullyingresearch. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012.

Pabian, S., Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., Van Cleemput, K., & Bastiaensens,S. (2016). Exposure to cyberbullying as a bystander: an investiga-tion of desensitization effects among early adolescents. Computersin Human Behavior, 62, 480–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.022.

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem.Journal of School Health, 80, 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00548.x.

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015). Measuring cyberbullying: implica-tions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 69–74.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.013.

Pepler, D. J., & Slaby, R. G. (1994). Theoretical and developmentalperspectives on youth and violence. In L. D. Eron, J. H. Gentry, &

Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92 91

P. Schlegel (Eds.), Reason to hope: a psychosocial perspective onviolence & youth (pp. 27–58). https://doi.org/10.1037/10164-001.

Powell, R. A., & Single, H. M. (1996). Focus groups. InternationalJournal for Quality in Health Care, 8, 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/8.5.499.

Pozzoli, T., & Gini, G. (2010). Active defending and passive bystandingbehavior in bullying: the role of personal characteristics and per-ceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38,815–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9399-9.

Pyżalski, J. (2012). From cyberbullying to electronic aggression: typolo-gy of the phenomenon. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17,305–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704319.

Sawyer, J. L., Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2011). The missingvoice: parents’ perspectives of bullying. Children and YouthServices Review, 33, 1795–1803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.05.010.

Schenk, A. M., & Fremouw, W. J. (2012). Prevalence, psychologicalimpact, and coping of cyberbully victims among college students.Journal of School Violence, 11, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2011.630310.

Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: another main type ofbullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.x.

Smith, P. K. (2019). Research on cyberbullying: strengths and limitations.In H. Vandebosch & L. Green (Eds.), Narratives in research andinterventions on cyberbullying among young people. Cham:Springer.

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett,N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary schoolpupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376–385.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x.

Tennant, J. E., Demaray, M. K., Coyle, S., & Malecki, C. K. (2015). Thedangers of the web: cybervictimization, depression, and social

support in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,348–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.014.

Van Cleemput, K., Vandebosch, H., & Pabian, S. (2014). Personal char-acteristics and contextual factors that determine Bhelping,^ Bjoiningin,^ and Bdoing nothing^ when witnessing cyberbullying.Aggressive Behavior, 40, 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21534.

Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: aqualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters.CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11, 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0042.

Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying amongyoungsters: profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society,11, 1349–1371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341263.

Wegge, D., Vandebosch, H., Eggermont, S., Van Rossem, R., &Walrave,M. (2016). Divergent perspectives: exploring a multiple informantapproach to cyberbullying victimization and perpetration. EuropeanJournal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22, 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9287-5.

Whittaker, E., & Kowalski, R. M. (2015). Cyberbullying via social me-dia. Journal of School Violence, 14, 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.949377.

Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus groups in health research. Journal of HealthP s y cho l ogy, 3 , 3 29–348 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 10 . 1177 /135910539800300304.

Wood, D., Crapnell, T., Lau, L., Bennett, A., Lotstein, D., Ferris, M., &Kuo, A. (2018). Emerging adulthood as a critical stage in the lifecourse. In N. Halfon, C. B. Forrest, R. M. Lerner, & E. M. Faustman(Eds.), Handbook of life course health development (pp. 123–143).Cham: Springer.

92 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2020) 2:79–92