Cognitive Load During Problem Solving

Psychology in the Schools, Vol.
45(4), 2008
C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pits.20301
CYBERBULLYING: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL

KIMBERLY L. MASON
Cleveland State University
Because of the advent and growth of technology, a new variation of bullying—cyberbullying—has

transformed from the physical to the virtual. Cyberbullying is a form of psychological cruelty.
Although cyberbullying usually occurs off school grounds, schools are experiencing its repercus-
sions (Li, 2006). This article provides an overview of cyberbullying, defines the difference between
bullying and cyberbullying, and provides a psychological explanation of cyberbullying behaviors
and the psychological impact of cyberbullying. The review of literature suggests that there is a
lapse in preventative intervention to create and maintain awareness and safety for young people.
Implications and guidelines are provided for school personnel to address this problem and develop
prevention strategies. C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Bullying is a widespread problem in our schools and communities. It is an unacceptable

antisocial behavior that can undermine the quality of the school environment, affect students’
academic and social outcomes, cause victims emotional and psychological trauma, and, in extreme
cases, lead to serious violence (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Harris, Petrie, & Willoughby, 2002;
Hoover & Stenhjem, 2003; Kraut et al., 1998; National Training and Technical Assistance Center for
Drug Prevention and School Safety Program Coordinators, 2004; Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum,
& Modzeleski, 2002; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b). Traditionally, bullying behaviors were
face to face (FTF). However, with the advent and popularity of the Internet and other electronic
technologies, along with the introduction of electronic communication into classrooms, bullying has
taken on a new form—cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying is defined as an individual or a group willfully using information and commu-
nication involving electronic technologies to facilitate deliberate and repeated harassment or threat
to another individual or group by sending or posting cruel text and/or graphics using technological
means (Beasley, 2004; Berson, Berson, & Ferron, 2002; Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Wolak, 2000, 2001;
Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Trolley, Hanel, & Shields, 2006; Willard, 2005; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a,
2004b). Cyberbullying, like other forms of bullying, is centered on the systematic abuse of power
and control over another individual that is perceived to be vulnerable and weaker (Naylor, Cowie,
& del Ray, 2001), and this imbalance of strength and power makes it difficult for the person being
bullied to defend him- or herself (Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992, 1993a). It can be distinguished
from peer harassment as a subset of aggressive behaviors because bullying represents a pattern of
behavior committed over a period of time. In other words, cyberbullying is a covert form of verbal
and written bullying.
Cyberbullies harass their victims through two major electronic devices—computers and cellular
phones (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Using a computer, a bully can send harassing messages through
e-mail or instant messaging; post obscene, insulting, and slanderous messages in chat rooms or
online bulletin boards; or develop personal Web sites to promote and disseminate defamatory
content (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Willard, 2005). More recently, social networking communities
have become more popular with adolescents because they combine the features of profiles, personal
Web sites, blogs, discussion groups/boards, chat, gaming, and messaging.
Second, harassing text messages and pictures can be sent to the victim via cellular phone
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Close to half (45%) of the adolescents surveyed reported having a
cell phone and, of these adolescents, 51% said they most often conversed by text through instant
Correspondence to: Department of Counseling, Administration, Supervision, and Adult Learning, Cleveland
State University 2121 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, Ohio 44115. E-mail: kim.mason@csuohio.edu
323
324 Mason
messaging (Lenhart, Madden, & Hitlin, 2005). Furthermore, the inseparability of a cell phone
from its owner makes an individual more susceptible for being a perpetual target for victimization
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Many users carry cell phones for legitimate use (University of California
at Los Angeles Center for Communication Policy, 2003); however, this provides individuals with
malicious intentions an opportunity to send threatening and insulting messages. Consequently, for
victims, there may be no reprieve from being bullied. The fact that almost 8 out of 10 adolescents
connect to the Internet from home (Lenhart, Madden, & Rainie, 2006) suggests that cyberbullying
can be an invasive phenomenon that can harass individuals even when not at or around school.
Subsequently, unlike traditional forms of bullying, home may no longer be a place of refuge.
Although many teachers, administrators, and counselors recognize the problem of traditional
school bullying, few are aware of the extent bullying is occurring off school grounds through
electronic communications (Bernan & Li, 2005). Hence, schools are not equipped with appropriate
ways to deal with this new form of aggression (Li, 2006; Strom & Strom, 2005). Because some
people use electronic communication devices to antagonize and intimidate others, school personnel
should receive information and training about the effects of online hazards on American children
and adolescents (Finkelhor et al., 2000) in order to be prepared to deal with its repercussions, and to
take action to protect them from this violent act of aggression (Li, 2006; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006).
Therefore, the intention of this article is to help school personnel understand cyberbullying, provide
a psychological explanation of cyberbullying behaviors and their psychological impact, discuss the
legal ramifications, and provide ways to develop appropriate preventive and intervention strategies
to ensure the safety of all students (Li, 2006; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b).
D IFFERENCES B ETWEEN T RADITIONAL B ULLYING AND C YBERBULLYING
Traditional Bullying
Research on the correlates of traditional bullying can assist in comprehending the reality and
growth of this new phenomenon called cyberbullying. Olweus (1992, 1993a, 1994) defined bullying
as repeated physical, verbal, or psychological attacks or intimidation directed against a victim
who cannot properly defend him- or herself because of size or strength, or because the victim is
outnumbered or less psychologically resilient. Bullying tends to be more dangerous as it continues
over time, and it has been equated to violence rather than harassment (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel,
2003; Olweus, 1993b, 2001; Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Pellegrini,
2002). According to Roland (1989), bullying is “long standing violence, physical or psychological,
conducted by an individual or a group directed against an individual who is not able to defend
himself in the actual situation” (p. 21).
Children and adolescents who bully are typically stronger and bigger than their peers (Olweus,
1994). Many characteristics such as popularity, physical strength or statue, social competence,
confidence, extroversion, intelligence, age, gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status can
instill an offender with perceived or actual power over a victim (Olweus, 1993b, 1999; Rigby &
Slee, 1993; Roland, 1980; Slee & Rigby, 1993). Bullies are more likely to have positive attitudes
toward violence, poor relationships with parents, and use drugs or alcohol (Limber, 2002; Olweus
et al., 1999). They also tend to be grandiose and psychologically defensive (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen,
Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999).
Olweus (1993a) suggested that there are two distant forms of bullying: direct bullying, in
the form of physical or verbal attacks, and indirect bullying, or relational/social bullying, in the
form of deliberate social exclusion or isolation. Boys are more likely than girls to report being
physically bullied by their peers (Harris et al., 2002; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993a), and girls
are more likely than boys to report being targets of rumor spreading and sexual comments (Nansel
Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Cyberbullying 325
et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993a). In general, male bullies are impulsive, often display a strong need
to dominate others, seem to express or be capable of little empathy for others, and often display
aggressive reactive patterns (Olweus, 1999; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). Conversely, female
bullies tend to use covert, nonphysical methods of harassment to abuse their victims, and may display
a strong need to socially dominate others and be the center of attention of a core group of peers,
have or express little empathy toward others, and exhibit aggressive social reactive patterns (Olweus,
1999; Walker et al., 1995).
Prevalence. Olweus (1993a) conducted the most comprehensive study of bullying in Norway
and Sweden, with 150,000 students in grades 1 through 9. In this sample, 15% of students reported
being involved in bully/victim problems “several times” or more within a 3- to 5-month period.
Approximately 9% reported that they had been bullied by peers “several times or more,” and 7%
reported that they had bullied others. About 2% of all students reported both bullying and being
bullied by their peers. Further studies conducted in the United States estimate that 30% of American
children and adolescents (or nearly 6 million children) in grades 6 through 10 have had experience
with moderate or frequent bullying (Nansel et al., 2001). For instance, Nansel et al. conducted a
nationally representative sample of 15,686 students in grades 6 to 10 and found approximately 11%
of respondents were victims of bullying, 13% were bullies, and 6% were both victims and bullies
during a year.
In another study, Melton et al. (1998) studied the rate of bullying in 6,500 4th to 6th graders in
rural South Carolina. Results indicate that 23% of students reported being bullied “several times” or
more during the previous 3 months, and 9% reported being the victim of frequent bullying—once a
week or more often. One in five reported bullying other students “several times” or more during that
same period. A review of bullying research shows that bullying and victimization are most common
in elementary school and become progressively less common by the end of high school (Nansel
et al., 2001; Smith et al., 1999), with rates of bullied students decreasing from 14% of American 6th
graders to only 2% of the 12th graders (DeVoe et al., 2005).
Consequences of Bullying. Bullying has been found to be related to negative psychosocial

functioning among children who are victimized, including lowered self-esteem (Hodges & Perry,
1996; Olweus, 1993a; Rigby & Slee, 1993) and higher rates of depression (Craig, 1998; Hodges
& Perry, 1996; Olweus, 1993a; Salmon, James, Cassidy, & Javoloyes, 2000; Slee, 1995), anxiety
(Craig, 1998; Hodges & Perry, 1996; Olweus, 1993a; Rigby & Slee, 1993), feelings of loneliness
(Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Nansel et al., 2001), suicidal ideation (Rigby, 1996), and school
absenteeism (Rigby, 1996). More than 16,000 students miss school every day due to fear of bullies
(Fried & Fried, 1996), and 14% of 8th to 12th graders surveyed reported that “bullying diminished
their ability to learn in school” (Hoover & Oliver, 1996, p. 10).
Cyberbullying
Conventional bullying and cyberbullying differ in several aspects. In the past, bullying needed
a physical location to harass the victim. Yet, this is not the case in the 21st century. Bullies have
additional mediums such as the Internet and cell phones to harass victims, often without consequence
(Finkelhor et al., 2000, 2001; National Children’s Home, 2005; Parks & Floyd; 1996; Patchin &
Hinduja, 2006; Roberts, Foehr, Rideout, & Brodie, 1999; Rosenbaum et al., 2000; Ybarra & Mitchell,
2004a, 2004b). In fact, Lenhart et al. (2005) found that 87% of American adolescents, ages 12 to 17,
go online—a finding that indicates electronic devices such as cell phones, computers, and personal
digital assistants allow them to contact others (both for prosocial and antisocial purposes) at all times
and in almost all places.

326 Mason
The primary means through which cyberbullying can occur include the Internet-enabled per-
sonal computer and cell phone (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Via both, an offender can send hurtful
and denigrating messages and content to a victim, to third parties, or to a public forum or environ-
ment that many other online users visit. This negative experience not only undermines adolescents’
freedom to use and explore valuable online resources, but can also result in severe functional and
physical ramifications (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Willard, 2005; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b).
Cyberbullying Roles. Adolescents who socialize online have probably been involved in cyber-
bullying in some form (Trolley et al., 2006; Willard, 2005). There are six different roles. Entitlement
bullies are individuals who believe that they are superior and have the right to harass or demean oth-
ers, especially if the person is different. Targets of entitlement bullies are individuals who are picked
on because bullies believe that they are different or inferior. Retaliators are individuals who have
been bullied by others and are using the Internet to retaliate. Victims of retaliators are individuals
who have been bullying others, but are now receiving the cruelty of being cyberbullied. Furthermore,
bystanders who are part of the problem are individuals who encourage and support the bully or who
watch the bullying from the sidelines, but do nothing to help the victim. Finally, bystanders who are
part of the solution are individuals who seek to stop the bullying, protest it, and provide support to
the victim (Trolley et al., 2006; Willard, 2005).
Prevalence of Cyberbullying. According to Lenhart et al. (2005) conducted a telephone sur-

vey to study the online habits of adolescents. Using a nationally representative sample of 1,100
adolescents ages 12 to 17 years and their parents, researchers found more than half (51%) of the
adolescents reported using the Internet on a daily basis, almost three-fourths of them (74%) used in-
stant messaging to communicate with their friends, and almost half of them spent between 30 and 60
minutes per session doing so. In another study, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004a) surveyed 1,498 adoles-
cents ages 10 to 17 and found approximately 24% of adolescents e-mailed material that said hateful
things about another person, approximately 26% of adolescents reported visiting chat rooms daily,
and approximately 25% of adolescents reported using instant messaging everyday. These finding
indicate that technology has become a formidable force in the daily lives of today’s adolescents.
The Crimes Against Children Research Center has warned that many children and adolescents
are exposed to dangerous and inappropriate occurrences over the Internet (Wolak, Mitchell, &
Finkelhor, 2006), and are at risk for being cyberbullied (Berson et al., 2002; Wolak et al., 2006;
Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b). Wolak et al. (2006) conducted phone surveys (Youth Internet
Safety Survey-2 [YISS-2]) of 1,501 regular Internet users ages 10 to 17. They asked adolescents
whether they have experienced two types of situations in the past year. The first was feeling “worried
or threatened because someone was bothering or harassing you online,” and the second was someone
“using the Internet to threaten or embarrass you by posting or sending messages about you for other
people to see” (p. 39). In YISS-2, 9% of adolescent Internet users said that they were harassed
online in the past year. Twenty-eight percent (an increase from 14% in YISS-1) of them said they
had “made rude or nasty comments to someone on the Internet,” and 9% (an increase from 1% in
YISS-1) of them said they had “used the Internet to harass or embarrass someone they were mad at.”
These two findings are noteworthy due to the significant increase in online harassment from YISS-1
(Finkelhor et al., 2000) and YISS-2 (Wolak et al., 2006).
In addition, 6% said someone was bothering or harassing them online, and 3% said someone had
posted or sent messages about them for other people to see. Similarly, 3% of adolescents described
an incident of distressing online harassment, which left them feeling very or extremely upset or
afraid. Notably, most online harassment incidents (85%) occurred when adolescents were logged
on at home. Moreover, girls (58%) were more likely targets of online harassment than boys (42%),

Cyberbullying 327
and girls were more likely than boys to experience distressing harassment (68% compared to 32%,
respectively). However, half (50%) of the harassers were male, and 35% were female. This finding
is in contrast to a study conducted by Kowalski et al. (2005) that found girls are twice as likely as
boys to be victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying.
Likewise, Patchin and Hinduja (2006) studied 384 Internet-using adolescents’ experiences with
online bullying and found that more than 29% of adolescents reported being victimized online, almost
11% of respondents admitted to cyberbullying others, and more than 47% witnessed online bullying.
Although most of the instances of cyberbullying involved relatively minor behaviors (50% were
disrespected, 30% were called names), more than 20% of adolescents stated they were threatened.
The researchers also found that many victims (almost 60%) were negatively affected by the online
behaviors at school, at home, or with friends. These findings indicate that bullying is occurring
online and is affecting adolescents in many negative ways (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006).
In a another study, Li (2006) studied 264 seventh- to ninth-grade students and found close to
half of the students were cyberbullied, about one in four students had been cyberbullied, and half
were cyberbullied at school. More than 34% of the students had bullied others in the traditional form,
almost 17% had bullied others using electronic communication tools, and more than 53% of the
students reported that they knew someone being cyberbullied. When male and female cyberbullying
experiences were considered separately, more than 22% of males and close to 12% of females were
cyberbullies; however, there were no significant differences in males (25%) and females (25.6%)
being victims of cyberbullying. In addition, more than 40% of cybervictims did not know the
cyberbully. This fact is noteworthy as power and dominance were exerted online through the ability
to keep the offenders’ identity unknown.
The aforementioned findings indicate that the Internet allows bullies to spread rumors and
gossip to a larger audience. Thus, some adolescents may be using the Internet to extend the everyday
bullying that is widespread among adolescents into online venues (Nansel et al., 2001; Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2004b). “Nasty comments and sexual innuendos are no longer confined to a bathroom wall
or small groups of peers. Now bullies have an ‘electronic bathroom wall’ that allows for widespread
distribution of gossip” (Wolak et al., 2006, p. 42). Furthermore, these findings support the view
that bullying and cyberbullying are significant problems for adolescents on and off school grounds
(Hoover & Olsen, 2001), and the need for school personnel to intervene in this type of harassment
(Li, 2006; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006).
P SYCHOLOGICAL I MPACT OF C YBERBULLYING

In terms of outcomes for the victims, bullying and cyberbullying have similar effects. Suicidal
ideations, eating disorders, and chronic illness have beleaguered many of the victims of bullying,
whereas other victims have run away from home (Borg, 1998; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Marttunen,
Rimpelä, & Rantanen, 1999; Striegel-Moore, Dohm, Pike, Wilfley, & Fairburn, 2002). In addition,
many victims are depressed (Hawker & Boulton, 2000), which may perpetuate into adulthood
(Olweus, 1994). Persistent bullying during the school years may also have long-term negative
effects on the victims many years beyond school (Olweus, 1993b). As young adults (age 23), former
victims (who were bullied primarily in grades 6–9) tended to be more depressed and had poorer
self-esteem than their nonvictimized peers. The pattern of results suggested that earlier, persistent
bullying could leave many scars. Thus, it is obviously crucial to stop bullying in school in order to
reduce and prevent its negative, short- and long-term consequences.
Bullies also experience long-term outcomes related to bullying behavior. For example, many
adults who engaged in antisocial activities later in life were bullies in school (Tattum, 1989). Olweus
et al. (1999) conducted a longitudinal study of bullies and found that approximately 60% of boys
who were characterized as bullies in grades 6 to 9 had been convicted of at least one crime by the

328 Mason
age of 24, compared to 23% of boys who were not characterized as bullies. Furthermore, they found
that 40% of bullies had three or more convictions by the age of 24. Consequently, it is imperative
that adults intervene in bullies’ (and potential bullies’) development along an antisocial pathway and
to redirect it in a more prosocial direction.
Emerging literature suggests that cyberbullying is also correlated with significant health and
psychological issues among young people. Related symptoms and issues include low self-esteem,
poor academic performance, depression, emotionally distress, and, in some cases, violence or even
suicide (Finkelhor et al., 2000; Meadows et al., 2005; Vossekuil et al., 2002). Wolak et al. (2006)
found adolescents rated 30% of harassment incidents as being very or extremely upsetting, 24% as
very or extremely frightening, and 22% were very or extremely embarrassing. In addition, slightly
more than one-third of adolescents (34%) had one or more symptoms of stress, including staying
away from the Internet, being unable to stop thinking about the incident, feeling jumpy or irritable,
and/or losing interest in things. In distressing incidents, close to two-thirds of adolescents (64%) said
they had at least one symptom of stress. Last, adolescents who reported cyberbully/victim behaviors
are likely to reveal psychosocial challenges, including problem behaviors, drinking alcohol, smoking,
depressive symptomatology, and low school commitment (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a). Given these
facts, it is clear that both bullies and victims are at risk for developmental problems that could
persist into adulthood (Chapell et al., 2006; Olweus, 1994, 1999). The following section discusses
several hypotheses as to why cyberbullying occurs and provides subsequent suggestions for how to
intervene and/or prevent this growing problem.
P SYCHOLOGICAL E XPLANATIONS OF C YBERBULLYING B EHAVIORS

The Internet inadvertently undermines the quality of human interaction, allowing destructive
emotional impulses freer reign under specific circumstances. Based on Tresca’s (1998) findings,
three factors may contribute to cyberbullying behaviors among adolescents: (a) the disinhibition
effect, (b) identity transition from private to social self, and (c) lack of adult interaction.
The Disinhibition Effect

There is a small but growing body of research about online relationships that focuses largely
on how anonymity fosters disinhibition (Joinson, 1998; Lea & Spears, 1995; Suler, 2004; Turkle,
1995). According to Joinson (1998), disinhibition on the Internet is any behavior characterized by
an apparent reduction in concerns for self-presentation and judgment of others. In addition, the
disinhibition is based on anonymity that cyberspace provides individuals, which can allow them to
loosen up; thus, freeing them to express themselves more openly (Cooper, 2005; Willard, 2005). In
other words, disinhibition means that normal behavioral restraints can become lost or disregarded.
Moreover, the anonymity associated with computer-mediated communication (CMC) strips away
many aspects of socially accepted roles, leading the Internet to act as a potential arena for aggressive
acts (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004b) and freeing adolescents to be ruder; harsh in their criticisms; and
instill anger, hatred, or even threaten individuals on the other end (Joinson, 1998; Willard, 2005). In
this instance, adolescents begin to dissociate their “real identity” from their “virtual identity” and
may feel less vulnerable about opening up (Joinson, 1998; Suler, 2004). Thus, the Internet behavior
becomes less inhibited than the relative behavior in real life, which creates an online “dissociated”
real self (Joinson, 1998).
The feeling of anonymity fosters the disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004), and creates a new
medium for social interaction and social being (Borzekowski & Richert, 2001; Finkelhor et al.,
2000, 2001; Katz & Aspden, 1997; Parks & Floyd; 1996; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b). Siegal,
Dubrovsky, Kiesler, and McGuire (1986) compared levels of uninhibited verbal behavior in FTF,

Cyberbullying 329
anonymous CMC, nonanonymous CMC, and e-mail conditions. When Siegal et al. looked at the level
of uninhibited communication (i.e., hostile comments such as swearing, name calling, and insults),
they found that subjects in the CMC condition exhibited significantly more disinhibited behavior
than those in the FTF condition. This disinhibited behavior, according to the reduced social cues
approach, contributes to a reduction in the influence of social norms and constraints, and thus, leads
to antinormative and deregulated behavior (Kiesler, Siegal, & McGuire, 1984; Siegal et al., 1986).
Adolescents use the Internet for anonymous identity experimentation (Gross, 2004). Just as
Erikson (1963) theorized, the critical developmental task of adolescence is to explore and resolve
the crisis of identity, and the anonymous nature of CMC provides a perfect forum for them to
experiment with multiple identities (Gross, 2004). Identity construction on the Internet allows
experimentation with various possible selves, and allows them to create multiple identities and
personalities (Suler, 2004). Berson and Berson (2003) stated, “Some youth may engage in high
levels of identity reconstruction as part of a playful experience or fantasy, seamlessly transitioning
between honesty and deception” (p. 40).
Cyberspace creates an illusion of invisibility because it is faceless (Suler, 2004). The percep-
tion and feeling of invisibility removes concerns of detection, social disapproval, and punishment
(Willard, 2005). Thus, the opportunity to be physically invisible amplifies the disinhibition effect
(Suler, 2004). Hence, cyberbullies may reveal a side of their character they would normally keep
well hidden offline because cyberspace does not provide them with nonverbal feedback cues from
others (Goleman, 1995; Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 1998; Willard, 2005). Consequently, cyberbullies
can avoid responsibility for their cyber behaviors, thereby reducing the fear of getting caught and
being punished (Cooper, 2005).
The reduction of social and contextual cues, such as body language and tone of voice, can
have a variety of impacts (Trolley et al., 2006; Willard, 2005). Some adolescents lack tangible
feedback regarding the impact of their online actions, which could interfere with their recognition
that they actually caused harm to another person (empathic response). Furthermore, this reduction
in social and affective cues can impede their ability to empathize or be remorseful for the types of
behaviors that they exhibited (Trolley et al., 2006; Willard, 2005). Thus, cyberspace does not foster
an environment where empathic responses can be validated or developed. Furthermore, the lack of
tangible feedback also makes it easier to rationalize an irresponsible or harmful action as not having
caused harm to anyone. Not having to deal with someone’s immediate reaction can be freeing to the
adolescent (Suler, 2004; Trolley et al., 2006; Willard, 2005).
Online disinhibition poses a danger to adolescents (Goleman, 1995). This is due to an underde-
veloped prefrontal cortex, which subsequently affects their reasoning and ethical decision making
(Willard, 2005). Because their prefrontal inhibitory circuitry is among the last part of the brain to be-
come fully mature (Goleman, 1995), CMC interferes with the recognition of the connection between
an action and a harmful consequence (Willard, 2005). In addition, there is a developmental delay
with adolescents having fragile inhibitory capacities and increased emotional impulsivity (Goleman,
1995). It is plausible to assume that cyberbullying behaviors are a resultant from this neural gap.
Strengthening these inhibitory circuits is one task in neural development of the adolescent years
(Goleman, 1995).
Identity Transition from Private to Social Self

According to the social identity model of deindividuation effect (SIDE), CMC behavior comes
from a social identity explanation of deindividuation effects (Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995),
which reinforces existing social boundaries (Postmes et al., 1998). In this model, the anonymity in
CMC deprives people of their individual identity awareness; therefore, a social or a group identity

330 Mason
replaces individual identity. Anonymity, because of the lack of focus on the self as an individual,
tends to lead to the activation of social identities rather that the activation of personal identities
(Reicher et al., 1995). This would lead to the regulation of behavior based on the norms associated
with the salient social group. Although SIDE largely focuses on explaining group-level phenomena,
the ideas behind the two theories are still applicable to the disinhibition effect on the Internet
(Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982).
The disinhibited behavior results from a reduction in accountability (e.g., anonymity reduces
concern for the public consequences of the behavior) and a shift in attention from a personal (private)
level to a social (public) level (reducing the salience of internal standards and self-regulation) in
order to become anonymous and adhere to group norms (Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952;
Postmes et al., 1998; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In other words, one’s
actions stem in part from invisible social norms and identity. Despite the absence of physicality, his
or her actions are mitigated by individual awareness and identity. Zimbardo (1969) found being in
a group provides people with a degree of anonymity, which allows them to avoid responsibility for
their actions. For instance, in a group one does not simply lose a sense of individuality; rather, it is
possible that the person makes a transition from a private or personal identity to a public or social
identity (Reicher, 1987). Subsequently, when social identity becomes salient, people internalize
group norms as their own (e.g., “everyone is like this on the Net”; Turner, 1991). For this reason,
cyberbullies relinquish usual social controls and become more impulsive, irrational, and aggressive
(Festinger et al., 1952; Suler, 2004; Zimbardo, 1969). One American survey showed that teenagers
believed that the Internet freed them up to be their true selves (Lenhart et al., 2006).
Lack of Adult Interaction

Poor Parental Monitoring. Today’s young Internet users have created an interactive world
away from adult knowledge and supervision. Research has found that the percentage of adults
monitoring the use of the Internet is small and is a likely contributor to at-risk behavior among
adolescents (Berson & Berson, 2005; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004b). For example, around 30% of
adolescents use the Internet for 3 hours or more per day (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a). During these
online interactions, more than 50% of adolescents reported poor parental monitoring, 7% reported
that their parents knew where they were, and 9% reported that their caregiver rarely knew with whom
they were with when not at home (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004b). In addition, low caregiver monitoring
versus frequent monitoring was also associated with a 54% increased likelihood of adolescents
harassing others online.
In a similar study of parental monitoring, Odendaal, Malcolm, Savahl, and September (2006)
studied 23 10th-grade students ages 14 to 16 across three middle-income public schools. They found
that students were left on their own when using CMC. Comments such as “I got no boundaries” and
“There are no rules” were echoed in all three groups. The aforementioned studies exemplify how
cyberbullying can go unseen, and how consequences and repercussions can become nonexistent
because of the lack of adult supervision and monitoring.
These findings may suit adolescents well; however, given the negative aspect of digital tech-
nologies such as chat rooms (Suler, 2004) and bullying on cell phones (Davie, Panting, & Charlton,
2004), parents are encouraged to be alerted to what adolescents are engaging with when using CMC
technologies. In addition, parents checking up on their children or surfing the Internet with them,
having the computer out in the open, and the use of effective filtering software can all help reduce in-
appropriate online behaviors (Lenhart, 2005). The majority of current Internet safety guidelines (e.g.,
Magid, 2003, 2005) recommend parental involvement and monitoring of their children’s Internet
use to ensure safe and appropriate online navigation.

Cyberbullying 331
Despite some parents’ efforts to monitor their children’s online behaviors, several research
studies found that many adolescents are hesitant to disclose being cyberbullied to a trusted adult.
For instance, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004b) found that many adolescents were not comfortable telling
an authority figure about their cyberbullying victimization (only 24% told a parent, 14% told a
teacher, 41% told a friend, and 28% did not tell anyone). In addition, Li (2005) found only 30% of
students told an adult. Likewise, Patchin and Hinduja (2006) found that even though most adolescents
confided in an online friend (more than 56%), less than 9% of victims informed an adult. These
findings indicate that the prevalence of adolescents disclosing the information to a trusted adult is
minimal, a finding similar to traditional bullying (Rigby & Slee, 1999).
Poor Relationships Between Parents and Children. The ease and enthusiasm with which
the “net generation” (Wright, 2001, p. 37), or today’s techno-savvy adolescents, engages CMC
technologies may surpass their parent’s enthusiasm and ability to adapt to this new environment
(Berson & Berson, 2003; Montgomery, 2000; Wright, 2001). Consequently, parents may have
become resistant to engage with their children in a discussion about CMC, thus decreasing the
communication and interaction between them (Casas, 1998; September & Savahl, 2002). Hence,
it is reasonable to assume this potential breakdown in the parent –child relationship will likely
influence the emotional bond and trust between parent and child. For example, one study found
that poor parent –child relationships were significantly related to online harassment (Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2004b). In fact, adolescents with a poor caregiver –child emotional bond were more than
twice as likely to engage in online harassment compared to adolescents with a strong emotional
bond; thus, “a poor emotional bond is associated with two-fold increased odds of online harassment
behavior” (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004b, p. 331). Moreover, frequent parental discipline is implicated
in increased odds of an adolescent being an online harasser. For example, 8% of adolescents reported
their caregiver yelled at them, and 4% of them indicated their privileges were restricted most or all of
the time (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004b). These data suggest that professionals working with parents on
safe Internet practices must be cognizant that children who perceive their relationship with caregivers
to be poor are more likely to harass others online (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004b). There is also a need
for parents to become more active in their children’s “online” and “offline” lives (Willard, 2005).
A DDRESSING THE P ROBLEM

Given that cyberbullying is an increasing problem, what can professionals do about it, and what
obstacles might they encounter? To help answer these questions, the following section addresses
legal concerns, as well as the multiple levels of treatment and/or prevention strategies that range
from broad-scale, systemic considerations such as school districts’ responsibilities, to individual
interventions with specific victims and perpetrators.
Legal Issues
Do schools have a responsibility to intervene in cyberbullying since it typically occurs away
from school grounds? The First Amendment places restrictions on school officials when responding
with formal disciplinary actions in situations involving online speech by students (Willard, 2003).
The basic legal standard is that school officials can place educationally based restrictions on student
speech that appear to be school sponsored or that are necessary to maintain an appropriate school
climate (Shariff, 2005; Willard, 2003). Nevertheless, how this standard might be applied to severe
off-campus, online speech by one student against another student is unknown.
When addressing cases of cyberbullying in the school context, courts apply a standard for
protecting student free expression (Servance, 2003). Under these standards, school officials may
impose educationally based restrictions on student speech and may impose discipline for violation

332 Mason
of those restrictions, but they may not engage in viewpoint discrimination. The rulings of Tinker v.
Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), Bethel School District No. 403 et al. v.
Fraser, a minor, et al. (1986), and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) have been used
in Supreme Court cases addressing students’ First Amendment speech rights.
In the Tinker (1969) case, the court acknowledged that unless the speech materially and sub-
stantially disrupts learning, schools cannot restrict it. Applying this to the cyberbullying context,
research has established (Devlin, 1997; Gati, Tenyi, Tury, & Wildmann, 2002) that harassment in
cyberspace influences learning and emotional well-being. In the case of Bethel School District No.
403 et al. v. Fraser (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that schools may prohibit speech that under-
mines the schools’ basic educational mission. This ruling acknowledged that schools play a vital
role in preparing students to participate in society through civil discourse. Thus, the Court stated
that threatening or offensive speech has little value in a school setting and cannot be ignored by
schools. Extending this ruling to cyberbullying, this ruling indicates schools should teach students
to act in society in appropriate ways (Shariff, 2005). Finally, in the case of Hazelwood (1988), the
courts ruled that schools are entitled to exercise control over school-sponsored speech and that they
are not bound by the First Amendment to accept or tolerate speech that goes against the values held
by the school system. Thus, it is reasonable to extend this ruling to cyberbullying that originates
from school computers (Shariff, 2005).
Current Legal Rulings. Case law is limited and provides unclear guidance when addressing off-
campus speech (Willard, 2003); however, several courts have ruled on cases involving off-campus,
online speech (Willard, 2003). The legal standard these courts applied was that of the previous rulings
stated. In J. S. v. Bethlehem Area School District (2000), J. S. was expelled from school for creating
a Web page that included derogatory comments about his math teacher, including “Why Should
She Die?” The court found that the student’s off-campus speech did cause a substantial disruption.
Because the students discussed the Web site while at school and school-sponsored activities, the
statements on the Web site were also considered by the majority to be a threat, and the teacher, who
was the subject of the Web site, was unable to finish the school year and took a medical leave. The
courts ruled in the school’s favor.
Similarly, in Layshock v. Hermitage School District (2006), Justin Layshock created a profile
that was posted on MySpace and contained a photograph of the principal imported from the school’s
official Web site. As word of the profile spread through the student body, students began accessing
it on school computers. As a result, the school officials placed Layshock in an alternative education
program. He sued, arguing that the disciplinary action violated his right to free speech, and sought
a preliminary injunction. The school district presented ample evidence that his off-campus conduct
resulted in actual disruption of the high school’s day-to-day operations. The number of students
accessing the profile forced school officials to shut down the school’s computer system for 5 days,
and school personnel had to devote an inordinate amount of time to monitoring students accessing
the profile. Thus, the courts ruled in the school favor.
In contrast, in Emmett v. Kent School District No. 415 (2000), Nick Emmett was initially
expelled for creating a Web page entitled “Unofficial Kentlake High Home Page” that included mock
obituaries of students and an online mechanism for students to vote on who should die next. Claiming
the school impeded on his free speech rights, he took the school to court and won. The court ruled
that the school failed to demonstrate that the Web site was “intended to threaten a specific person,
or actually threaten a specific person, or manifest any violent tendencies.” The school did not prove
that it resulted in a significant disturbance at school. Therefore, the court ruled in the student’s favor.
Likewise, in Killion v. Franklin Regular District (2001), Killion published a derogatory “top
10” list about the school athletic director. The school suspended the student. However, the list

Cyberbullying 333
was composed in the student’s home and distributed to friends through his home computer; hence,
Killion sued the school, alleging violation of free expression. The courts ruled in the student’s favor.
The suspension violated the First Amendment because the student’s actions did not cause an actual
disruption in the school and did not interfere with teachers’ control of their classrooms.
For off-campus online speech, the courts have ruled that there must be a substantial and material
threat of disruption on campus (Shariff, 2005; Willard, 2005). The aforementioned studies indicate
that expressions that substantially or materially disrupt learning, interfere with the educational
mission, use school-owned technology to harass, or threaten other students are not protected by
the First Amendment and allow school intervention (Shariff, 2005). However, the school system
must prove that the online material disrupts the school’s ability to teach and create a safe learning
environment.
P REVENTION AND I NTERVENTION M EASURES

In addressing the issue of cyberbullying in the schools, a key element is the recognition
that prevention and intervention efforts should be a joint endeavor among schools, families, and
the community (Berson & Berson, 2005; Li, 2006; Shariff & Gouin, 2005; Ybarra & Mitchell,
2004b). All parties are encouraged to work cooperatively in the process of identifying, resolving,
and preventing cyberbullying incidents from occurring. School personnel are encouraged to take
a leadership role to address ways adolescents become cyberbullies, how cyberbullies can be held
accountable for their actions, empower adolescents not to stand by and allow bullying (in any
form) to be acceptable, and teach them not to ignore the pain cyberbullying has on others (Strom
& Strom, 2005; Willard, 2005). The following suggestions will assist schools in implementing a
cyberbullying program to protect kids from cyberspace harassment, as well as ways to foster a
partnership with families and the community. Prevention efforts should be directed at helping young
people develop prosocial attitudes and behaviors so they can build and maintain healthy relationships
both within and beyond the school setting (Olweus, 1992, 1993a, 1994; Pepler & Craig, 2000). It is
important to note that because cyberbullying is a new form of bullying, there is no empirical evidence
that exists to validate effective prevention or intervention measures; therefore, research into these
areas is warranted. Nevertheless, traditional FTF bullying research will provide the foundation for
cyberbullying prevention and intervention recommendations.
Although cyberbullying begins anonymously in the virtual environment, its consequences
influence learning in the physical school environment (Li, 2006; Shariff, 2005; Shariff & Gouin, 2005;
Willard, 2005). Based on previous rulings, school personnel have a responsibility to intervene on
issues dealing with cyberbullying in order to create a safe, peaceful school climate (Li, 2006; Shariff,
2005; Willard, 2003), and are encouraged to investigate all instances of harassment—including
electronic bullying—and hold responsible parties accountable (Willard, 2003). It is important for
schools to foster a school environment where all students feel included and in which complaints of
cyberbullying are addressed through educational and communicative means (Shariff, 2005).
System-Level Interventions
Existing research indicates that bullying at school may be significantly reduced through com-
prehensive, schoolwide programs that are designed to change norms for behavior (Olweus, 1993a,
1993b, 1994; Olweus et al., 1999; Whitney, Rivers, Smith, & Sharp, 1994). Wolak et al. (2006)
suggested that developing school-based, antibullying programs and strong policies against online
harassment among students could help reduce this type of behavior. Therefore, school personnel are
encouraged to integrate curriculum-based antibullying programs that address both FTF bullying and
cyberbullying (Pepler & Craig, 2000; Willard, 2005; Wolak et al., 2006). Preliminary research into

334 Mason
the effectiveness of the Bully-Proofing Your School program, which includes protective skills and
techniques for how to respond to bullying, have been found to reduce bullying behaviors, increase
prosocial behaviors, and increase students’ perceptions of safety (Beran & Tutty, 2002; Epstein,
Plog, & Porter, 1999). A study conducted by Stevens, de Bourdeaudhui, and Van Oost (2000) further
validates these findings.
The most widely studied and empirically validated antibullying program is the Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program, also known as the Bullying Prevention Program (BPP; Olweus et al., 1999).
This program represents a comprehensive, schoolwide program specifically designed to address
bullying problems at school. It entails increased positive involvement (e.g., increasing awareness of
the extent of bullying, increased monitoring and supervision of students) by adults (both teachers
and parents) in the school system, limits to unacceptable behavior (e.g., clearly communicated rules
against bullying), consistent negative consequences for rule violation, and positive adult role models.
The BPP has been shown through quasiexperimental studies to reduce levels of bullying in
school by 25% to 50% (Olweus & Limber, 1999). Significant improvements in the social culture in
the classrooms that used the BPP were reflected in student reports of improved order and discipline,
more positive social relationships, and a more positive attitude toward schoolwork and school in
general (Olweus, 1994). Furthermore, it significantly reduces bullying behavior in replication studies
in Europe and in the United States (Olweus et al., 1999). Although there is no shortage of bullying
prevention programs, only the BPP has been recognized as a national model and a Blueprint Violence
Prevention Program by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of
Colorado, and as an Exemplary and Model Program by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(Fox, Elliott, Kerlikowske, Newman, & Christeson, 2003). Using the BPP as a model, the following
components will aid school personnel in designing prevention and intervention measures.
School-level interventions are designed to improve overall school climate to create a safe and
positive learning environment, and targets the entire school population (Olweus et al., 1999). The
goal is to reduce, if not eliminate, existing bully/target problems among students within and out-
side the school setting, prevent the development of new problems, and create better peer relations.
System-level interventions include activities such as administration of an anonymous questionnaire
to assess the nature and extent of bully/victim problems on and off school campus, develop a coor-
dinating committee (a representative team from the school) to plan and coordinate the program and
other violence prevention activities, conduct in-services for staff and parents, increase supervision,
implement schoolwide rules, and gain parental involvement (Olweus et al., 1999).
In creating a new antibullying bullying policy, schools are encouraged to include a statement
that prohibits students from using Internet or mobile technology for bullying, as well as serious
consequences for the student who chooses not to follow the guidelines (Willard, 2005). See the
Appendix for an example of a school policy statement on cyberbullying. Furthermore, Olweus
(1992, 1993a, 1994) recommended implementation of cooperative learning activities in the school,
teaching of social skills, and the formation of a council of teachers and administrators to take the
lead in implementation of antibullying programs.
Schools are encouraged to establish guidelines for the appropriate use of computer networks.
Such guidelines are called an acceptable use policy (AUP). By definition, an AUP is a written
agreement in the form of guidelines, signed by students, their parents, and their teachers, outlining
the terms and conditions of Internet use (Virginia Department of Education, Division of Technology,
n.d.). An AUP policy should include definitions of acceptable online behavior d access privileges.
The increased use of computer resources in schools requires that administrators, teachers, library
media specialists, students, and parents take steps to ensure that when used responsibly, these tools
and the resources found by them are appropriate for use in K –12 instruction. For an example, the
Virginia Department of Education’s Division of Technology has created a guide called “Acceptable

Cyberbullying 335
Use Policies—A Handbook” that includes additional resources and templates for AUPs. It can be
accessed at www.pen.k12.va.us/go/VDOE/Technology/AUP/home.shtml.
Classroom Interventions
Classroom interventions are designed to improve an individual classroom’s social climate
(Olweus, 1993a). The goal of student education should be to empower adolescents to independently
prevent and address concerns of cyberbullying and Internet safety (Aftab, 2004; Pepler & Craig,
2000; Willard, 2005). Therefore, schools should incorporate lessons on cyberbullying into life skills
and bullying prevention classes, as well as implement effective social skills and conflict resolution
education (Pepler & Craig, 2000; Willard, 2005). Many schools are already providing this kind of
education. Using the BPP as a model, anticyberbullying programs should concentrate on teaching
students’ effective decision-making, problem-solving, and communication skills, as well as focus on
the value of kindness and respect for one another (Olweus, 1993a; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Pepler
& Craig, 2000; Sprague, Sugai, & Walker, 1998; Sugai & Horner, 2002; Walker et al., 1995; Willard,
2005). In studying 2,500 Norwegian students in grades 4 through 7, Olweus (1994) found teaching
students these skills showed a marked reduction in bullying behaviors in boys and girls for the 8- and
20-month respective periods studied, and a clear reduction in antisocial behaviors such as vandalism,
fighting, substance abuse, and truancy. Furthermore, he found a dose–response relationship at the
classroom level, such that those classrooms that implemented essential components of the BPP
saw greater reductions in bully/victim problems than those classrooms who did not implement
components of BPP.
In addition, teaching empathy to bullies has been recommended as an important component
of any antibullying effort (Hazler, 1996; Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2003; Macklem, 2003; Sullivan,
2000). For example, the Second Step Violence Prevention Program has been efficacious in reducing
aggressive behaviors and increasing prosocial behaviors (Frey, Hirschstein, & Guzzo, 2000). Results
indicated that a positive attitude toward bullying mediated the association between empathic concern
and the frequency of bullying others. Hence, empathy training should include interventions designed
to generate awareness of perspective taking. Last, skills in self-regulation, anger management, and
conflict resolution (Macklem, 2003; Pepler & Craig, 2000; Rigby, 2001, 2002; Sullivan, 2000) have
been identified as important in helping bullies learn both to think before they act and to change their
behaviors.
In examining the Lions-Quest Conflict Management program, which covers areas such as
bullying, prejudice, and classroom conflicts, Laird and Syropoulos (1996) compared 1,900 grade 7
and 8 students and found after one semester students knowledge of how to handle anger and conflict
resolution increased significantly compared to the control group. After 2 years, students showed a
68% decrease in violence-related referrals according to teachers’ daily behavior observations and
logs of misconduct compared to the control groups, which showed no significant improvements. In
addition, students demonstrated five times as many prosocial interactions than students in the control
condition. Results from this study indicated the importance of educating students on using conflict
resolution skills to manage disagreements and including it as a component of any antibullying
program.
Because of the influence of norms in online behavior, promoting Netiquette, a set of rules for
Internet etiquette, may be an important means of reducing disinhibited behavior online (Shea, 1994).
This means adolescents should be polite to others online just as they would be offline. If disinhibition
on the Internet (particularly CMC) is governed by norms, then one way to reduce the incidence of
disinhibited behavior and thereby reduce the negative consequences of such behavior is to attempt
to change those norms (Willard, 2005). Therefore, the district’s information technology staff could

336 Mason
design and deliver K –12 curriculum to acquaint students, teachers, and parents with etiquette on
the Internet, methods of self-protection, and ways of responding to persecution. Netiquette has the
potential to decrease antisocial disinhibited behavior not only by explicit prohibition, but also by
establishing more appropriate norms in online communities (Shea, 1994).
Although some aspects of cyberbullying parallel bullying, materials and discussions should
be tailored for this unique group of aggressive adolescents (Willard, 2005). In a recent survey con-
ducted by the National Centre for Technology in Education (2002), it indicated that 72% of educators
surveyed reported that it was necessary to provide advice and guidance relating to Internet safety
methods, and 60% of them agreed that resources for schools to educate students would promote safer
use of the Internet. Thus, the following three free resources can aid schools in developing an anticy-
berbullying curriculum and delivering Internet safety education to educators, students, and parents.
The first program is i-SAFE Inc. (www.i-safe.org). i-SAFE Inc. has become a leader in pro-
viding Internet safety education. Founded in 1998 and endorsed by U.S. Congress, i-SAFE is a
nonprofit foundation dedicated to protecting the online experiences of adolescents everywhere. i-
SAFE incorporates classroom curriculum with dynamic community outreach to empower students,
teachers, parents, law enforcement, and concerned adults to make the Internet a safer place. The sec-
ond program is NetSmartz (http://www.netsmartz.org). This program is an interactive, educational
safety resource from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and Boys & Girls Clubs
of America for children ages 5 to 17, parents, guardians, educators, and law enforcement that uses
age-appropriate, three-dimensional activities to teach children how to stay safe on the Internet. Last,
the third program is CyberSmart (http://www.cybersmartcurriculum.org/home), which is an online
curriculum developed with support from Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. The curriculum, which is cor-
related to the International Society for Technology in Education’s National Education Technology
Standards, consists of 65 original, nonsequential, and standards-based lesson plans, student activity
sheets, posters, and information for families. Table 1 provides further detail regarding the content
included in each program and its effectiveness. It is important to note that the content provided is
not inclusive of all curriculum content available in the programs; rather, it is an overall review of the
content modules.
Individual Interventions
Individual interventions target specific students who are involved in bullying or cyberbullying,
either as bullies or as targets (Olweus, 1993a). Adolescents need to have a better understanding
of family, school, and legal limits on online speech, negative influences on online behavior, and
Internet privacy protection (Willard, 2005). Students need specific guidelines on how to prevent and
stop cyberbullying. Therefore, school personnel are encouraged to teach adolescents how to respond
to and, more important, when to ignore cyberbullying. In addition, educating bystanders about the
importance of speaking out, providing assistance to victims and reporting concerns is also important
(Li, 2006; Willard, 2005). It is vital that schools and families collaborate in educating adolescents
to develop self-control and concern for the welfare of others (Finkelhor et al., 2001; Peterson &
Seligman, 2004).
Imposing a consequence for cyberbullying can be a challenge for school personnel. Although
traditional FTF victims can easily identify their bully, cyberbullies are typically difficult to trace.
However, cyberbullies can be discovered based on names provided by bystanders, the address from
which the material has been sent, or the site on which the material is posted. Some instances may
involve cyberbullying-by-proxy—whereby the bully solicits involvement of other people who may
not even know the target (Willard, 2005). Other incidents may involve an anonymous cyberbully.
These two instances are similar to the indirect forms of traditional bullying (Olweus, 1993a).

Table 1
Anticyberbullying and Internet Safety Curriculums
Program Content Modules Effectiveness of Program
i-SAFE Inc.a Curriculum Modules include: • 97% of students in grades 3 and 4 agree
they will tell a parent, guardian, or
Personal Safety—This lesson explains the facets of Internet safety and what i-SAFE does to help protect trusted adult when someone online
communities regarding those issues. You learn detailed information on the best way to help students use the makes them feel uncomfortable.∗
Internet safely and responsibly, as well as the hidden dangers that lurk online and how to guard yourself and • 81% of students in grades 5 – 12 report
your community. being less likely to meet someone
face to face whom they have only
Cyber Community Issues—This lesson teaches you about the detours and roadblocks students face online. It met online.∗∗
delves into material found on the Internet that is inappropriate for students, including pornography, gambling, • 55% of students in grades 5 – 12 are
and hate. You also learn more about spam, mouse trapping, and cyberbullying, and find ways to help students more careful about where they go
avoid these problems. and what they do online.∗∗∗
• 56% of students have discussed
Cyber Predator Identification—This lesson details the methods of the grooming process used by predators and Internet safety issues with their
Cyberbullying
how you can recognize them. parents.∗∗

• 42% of students in grades 5 – 12 report
Cyber Security—The lesson explores the growing problem of identity theft. You will learn how to avoid being more careful when sharing
becoming a victim and how to recognize phishing, spy ware, and avoid the risk of exposure to viruses, worms, personal information online.∗∗
and Trojan horses. • 39% of students report making better
choices about what is legal to
Intellectual Property—This lesson will stress the importance of protecting and respecting intellectual property, download from the Internet.∗∗
as well as the moral implications that go with it.
Psychology in the Schools

Effective Outreach—This lesson shows you how to make a difference through the i-Mentor, i-Adopt-a-School,
and i-Parent programs. You will find out about the Community Action Teams and Town Hall Meetings, and
you will learn that the most effective messages are spread peer to peer among adults and students.
(Continued)
337
DOI: 10.1002/pits
338
Table 1
Continued

NetSmartzb Middle/High School Curriculum Content for 2006 – 07 year includes: • 81% of the students reported that NetSmartz
would change their Internet behaviors,
Tracking Teresa—Students understand why it is important for them to protect their personal information while and that they feel safe or very safe when
online. using the Internet.
• 83% of students stated it was not safe to
Cyberbullying: Broken Friendships—Students watch the true story of a girl whose best friend gave out her meet someone in person (increase from
e-mail password to some other girls at school without her knowledge. 43% pretest).
DOI: 10.1002/pits
• 96% of students stated it was not safe to post
Cyberbullying: You Can’t Take It Back—Students watch the true story of a boy who rated girls from school on their picture on the Internet (increase
a Web site, thinking it was a private joke between him and his friends. from 25% pretest).
• 98% of students stated it was not safe to state
Julie’s Journey 1—Students watch Julie’s journey of meeting an Internet predator. their real name on the Internet (increase
from 25% pretest).
Mason
Teen PSA “Promises”—Students watch the Teen PSA: “Promises” twice, listening for promises someone they • 88% of students stated it was not safe to put
first met online could make. They compare the promises and intentions of an unknown person versus their address on the Internet (increase
promises and intentions of the trusted adults in their lives and discuss how they can know whom to turn to from 25% pretest).
when they are feeling sad or alone. • Overall, participation in the NetSmartz
program increased the children’s
Keisha and Angela—Students learn vocabulary dealing with Internet behavior. They watch two stories about awareness of Internet dangers and
online teens put at risk and identify unacceptable online behavior such as flaming and cyberstalking. allowed them to be more comfortable and
confident Internet users.
Amy’s Choice—Students watch a true story about a 15-year-old girl who ran away from home to meet with a
man she first met online. They learn how they can avoid similar situations by communicating with trusted
adults.
(Continued)
Table 1
Anticyberbullying and Internet Safety Curriculums (Continued)
CyberSmartc Curriculum Units for 2006 – 07 year include: No studies regarding the program’s
effectiveness were found. However,
Safety—How can students enjoy the Internet safely? one study indicated that although
the content involved in many of the
Manners—What are students’ social, legal, and ethical responsibilities when they use the Internet? offline activities was relevant and
important, teachers noted that the
Advertising—How can students identify commercial messages online, and how can they protect their privacy? students were not as engaged as
when they were directly in front of
Research—What strategies should students know to effectively mine the resources of the Internet? the computer. They suggested
Cyberbullying
revising the offline lessons so every

Technology—What information should students know about the past, present, and future of the Internet? lesson involved substantial
computer use for each student.
Anecdotally, teachers indicated that
they noticed a great improvement in
the self-esteem of their students.
a Data from i-SAFE Statistics (i-SAFE Inc., n.d.) is ∗ based on a 2005 – 06 survey of 17,800 students in grades 3 – 4; ∗∗ based on a 2005 – 06 postassessment of 4,000 students
in grades 5 – 12 several weeks after completion of their i-SAFE training; ∗∗∗ based on a 2005 – 06 postassessment of 35,000 students in grades 5 – 12.
b Data from NetSmartz (n.d.) and Brookshire and Maulhardt (2005).

c Data from CyberSmart (n.d.) and Montgomery County Public Schools (Rockville, Maryland) (n.d.).
339
DOI: 10.1002/pits
340 Mason
Alternatively, a cyberbully may impersonate another to get that person in trouble. Although these
instances may pose difficulty for schools get to the “true identity” of the cyberbully, adolescents are
at times not very good at hiding their identity, and a skillful investigation could result in an accurate
identification (Willard, 2005). Thus, school personnel are encouraged to review all material posted
for clues. Once identified, interviews with bystander students can lead to the identification of the
cyberbully.
School personnel are encouraged to get to the root of the matter for both the victim and the
offender, thereby assisting victims and their parents in trying to figure out the most appropriate
response(s) to the cyberbullying incident. Some of the response options include mediation within
the school; involve the school’s resource officer; and/or direct them to other resources such as
community mediation services, legal assistance, and law enforcement (Willard, 2005). “Involving
school resource officers and other law-enforcement agents who work with adolescents in education
and prevention campaigns could support effective prevention and intervention” (Wolak et al., 2006,
p. 40). The Cyber Law Enforcement Organization (http://www.cyberlawenforcement.org) is an
organization that provides assistance in this area (Aftab, n.d.). Furthermore, the U.S. Department of
Justice’s Web site (www.cybercrime.gov) offers guidelines on cyber ethics for students, parents, and
teachers, and identifies government contacts for reporting Internet crimes.
Working with Students. Adolescents should be encouraged to tell an adult they trust—a
parent, grandparent, teacher, or older sibling—and not keep the bullying to themselves (Willard,
2005; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b). However, this becomes a serious problem when children
are reluctant to get adults involved (Aftab, 2005; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004a, 2004b). Li (2005)
studied 177 seventh-grade students and found that only 67% of the students believed that adults in
school tried to stop cyberbullying when informed. For those students who had been cyberbullied,
only 34% said that they told adults about the incidents. Similarly, only 34% of the bystanders told
an adult. Obviously, the majority of the students chose to be quiet when they were cyberbullied or
knew someone being cyberbullied. Fearing more harassment if they do, they often try to handle it
themselves (Li, 2006). Unfortunately, they have little guidance on how to do that safely.
Finally, adolescents should be warned about the negative consequences of online retaliation
and posting material that could be perceived as a threat. Students need to know that some forms of
cyberbullying can constitute crimes, torts, or statutory violations (Willard, 2005). For example, as of
September 2007, 32 states have enacted legislation that prohibits bullying in the K –12 setting (Bully
Police USA., 2007). Understanding the emergence of cyberbullying as a new form of bullying, on
July 10, 2007, the Ohio State Board of Education adopted a modified version of Ohio House Bill
276, the Anti-harassment, Anti-intimidation or Anti-bullying Model Policy (Ohio Department of
Education, 2007), to include cyberbullying to its current statute. Thus, depending on the content of
the messages, cyberbullies may be liable in tort for defamation, public disclosure of private facts,
invasion of privacy, assault, or intentional infliction of emotional distress (Willard, 2005).
Keeping in mind that most incidents of bullying go unnoticed by adults, parents and educators
may need to take an active role in identifying bullying behavior and working with students to address
it. This is because many teachers may not know the extent of bullying. Teachers intervene in most
physical forms of bullying, but nonphysical or cyberbullying goes unnoticed (Hazler, Miller, Carney,
& Green, 2001; Pepler, Craig, Ziegler, & Charach, 1994). A study of Canadian teachers found that
85% reported that they intervened often or nearly always in a bullying situation; however, students
from the same schools reported that teachers intervened in only 35% of bullying situations (Pepler
et al., 1994). Although there is no substitute for a schoolwide program, there are some specific
things that parents and educators can do to help students one on one as problems with bullying
arise. Probably the most important thing adults can do is to listen (Pepler & Craig, 2000). Too

Cyberbullying 341
often, children and young adults are told to “toughen up” or “ignore it” when they attempt to talk
about bullying encounters at school (Oliver, Hoover, & Hazler, 1994). This kind of response may
make students who are already socially isolated feel even more alone and helpless to prevent the
harassment. It also sends the message that bullying is not taken seriously and may even be their fault
(U.S. Department of Education, 1998).
Supporting the Target. Regardless of the chosen option, school personnel are encouraged to
provide ongoing support to the victim (Pepler & Craig, 2000; Willard, 2005). This support should
address the harm and seek to empower the victim with effective skills to prevent and respond
to bullying. For instance, the school staff works with a victim by developing personal guidelines
for online involvement, making a realistic evaluation of the quality of the online community and
the benefits of remaining in or leaving the environment, recognizing the need to leave an online
situation that has gotten out of control, and conducting a self- assessment of his or her behavior or
communications that may be contributing to victimization (Pepler & Craig, 2000; Willard, 2005).
Furthermore, school personnel are encouraged to teach victims how to respond in an assertive, but
not aggressive, way to any harmful communications, and to know when and how to gain assistance
from an adult (Willard, 2005). Pepler and Craig (2000) recommended further strategies that staff
can implement when supporting the victim. They are as follows: (a) assess their level of support and
create opportunities for them to gain peer support, (b) provide classwide lessons in assertiveness
strategies for standing up to bullies and cyberbullies, (c) identify two or three prosocial peers in
class and provide them with activities to work on with the victim, (d) work collaboratively with
the victim’s family to support and protect the student, and (e) encourage the student to experience
accomplishments in a favored domain.
Working with the Bully. Like traditional bullies, school personnel should remember that the
cyberbully is also a hurt child (Pepler & Craig, 2000; Willard, 2005). Therefore, they are encouraged
to explore the reasons why students are behaving in this matter and harassing other children online
(Willard, 2005). Pepler and Craig (2000) recommended further strategies that school personnel can
implement when working with bullies. School personnel assess the complexity of bullies’ problems,
and advocate for inevitable, consistent nonhostile, and escalating consequences that assist bullies to
consider alternative expressions for their behavior. They hold the bully accountable for his or her
actions by confronting excuses that minimizes the behavior or externalize the cause of the behavior,
emphasizing that the bully had other options, no matter what the provocation, and working with
parents in holding their child accountable for his or her actions and not allowing for rationalizations.
In addition, school personnel implement activities that promote perspective-taking skills and empathy
to help the bully understand and experience the impact his or her behavior has on others. They work
with bullies to help build their conscience by teaching them that their actions can cause them to get
in trouble. After reaching that realization, it is hoped that they can begin to appreciate the impact
of their actions on others. Last, school personnel assist students in finding ways to develop positive
forms of leadership and experience power in a prosocial way.
Involving Parents. In an attempt to resolve a cyberbullying incident, school personnel are

encouraged to support victims and their parents, as well as seek an informal resolution with cyber-
bullies and their parents (Willard, 2005). It is important to involve parents in designing a creative plan
of action, whenever possible (Olweus, 1992). When working with cyberbullies and their parents,
school personnel should recognize that some parents might be unaware that this type of harassment
is occurring. On the positive side, parents may be concerned to find that their child has engaged in
this kind of activity, and they may take action to get the cyberbullying to stop (Pepler & Craig, 2000;
Willard, 2005). However, school personnel are also cautioned that parents of the offender could

342 Mason
be defensive. In this case, school personnel are encouraged to respond to challenging parents of
cyberbullies by (a) listening and not arguing with them, (b) stating the school’s position and goal of
creating safe and caring environment, (c) educating them concerning why this may be a problem, (d)
problem solving how all parties can work together for solutions, (e) informing them of the school’s
response and monitoring, (f) being prepared not to change their perspective, and (g) setting clear
expectations and consequences of cyberbullying (Pepler & Craig, 2000).
Community Interventions
The school, parents, and community members can help facilitate parent and community out-
reach and education (Olweus, 1993a). Parental and community involvement in the planning and
execution of bullying prevention activities are critical to its success (Olweus, 1993a). Information
provided should include an overview of the concerns; ways to prevent, detect, and intervene if
children are targets; ways to prevent children from being cyberbullies; legal consequences; and
strategies to empower and activate bystanders. Information can be provided to parents through
newsletters and parent workshops (Olweus, 1993a). Having “just-in-time” information resources
available in the office and online can be helpful because most parents are not likely to pay attention
until they need the information to respond to a concern. Furthermore, law enforcement officers can
find out the protocol to follow in order to contact social networking sites to have cyberbullying site
profiles removed; speak with students, parents, and educators about some of the dangers that are
present on the Internet; promote cybersafety; and talk to school officials about creating an enforce-
able anticyberbullying policy on school grounds. Last, information can be provided to community
mental health professionals, faith-based organizations, youth organizations, the public library and
community technology centers, and the media (Willard, 2005).
C ONCLUSION
As young people spend increased amounts of time online, there is elevated risk for exposure
to violence and/or exploitation (Cole et al., 2001). Cyberbullying can lead to significant emotional
harm of students, which could result in suicide and school violence (Borg, 1998; Kaltiala-Heino
et al., 1999; Striegel-Moore et al., 2002). Cyberspace holds tremendous promise for creating a
connected world. However, this connection cannot occur if online freedom is not balanced with
personal responsibility. For some adolescents, the Internet may be an extension of the schoolyard,
with victimization continuing long past school hours (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Yet, for other
victims of conventional bullying, the Internet may be a place where they can assert their dominance
over others to compensate for being bullied in person (Willard, 2005), and for those not involved in
conventional bullying, the Internet creates an environment where they can take on a more aggressive
persona that differs from their private persona (Festinger et al., 1952; Zimbardo, 1969).
School personnel are familiar with the schoolyard bullies; yet, with cyberbullying, they are
challenged with ways to address this growing phenomenon (Li, 2006; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006).
Schools already address sex, drugs, and alcohol safety—all activities that occur off-campus but can
cause harm to young people—and cyberbullying should be added to this list. Because cyberbullying
is occurring in the hidden online world of adolescents, it is imperative that responsible adults
“illuminate” the hidden bullying in order to address these concerns. Schools’ personnel can intervene
effectively to reduce bullying and cyberbullying by developing a safe and supportive school climate
(Olweus, 1992, 1993a, 1994; Pepler & Craig, 2000; Willard, 2005).
School personnel are key to providing the community leadership necessary to bring educators,
parents, students, and other community members together to address concerns of cyberbullying
and Internet safety. Thus, school and community leaders are encouraged to keep up with the latest

Cyberbullying 343
technological advances so they are equipped with the tools and knowledge to identify and address
this problem before significant victimization occurs. Furthermore, they are encouraged to focus on
empowering young people with the values, skills, and motivation to protect themselves, avoid doing
harm to others, and take personal responsibility to promote a kind and respectful online world.
Cyberbullying is everyone’s business, and the best response to combat it is a proactive or preventive
approach.
A PPENDIX
Sample School Policy Statement on Cyberbullying

Neither the school’s network nor the broader Internet (whether accessed on or off campus
during or after school hours) may be used for the purpose of harassment. All forms of harassment
in cyberspace, often called cyberbullying, are unacceptable.
Cyberbullying includes, but is not limited to, the following misuses of technology: harassing,
teasing, intimidating, threatening, or terrorizing another person by sending or posting inappropriate
and hurtful e-mail messages, instant messages, text messages, digital pictures or images, or Web
site postings (including blogs). Often the author (sender or poster) of the inappropriate material is
disguised (logged on) as someone else.
Community members who believe that they have been the victims of such misuses of technology
should not erase the offending material from the system. They should print a copy of the material
and immediately report the incident to a school official (principal, assistant principal, counselor,
teacher, or director of technology). All reports of harassment in cyberspace will be investigated
fully. Sanctions may include, but are not limited to, the loss of computer privileges, detention,
suspension, separation, or expulsion from school.
R EFERENCES
Aftab, P. (2004). Understanding the cyber-harassment problem. Information Week. Retrieved March 23, 2005, from
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showarticle.jhtml?articleID=29116706
Aftab, P. (n.d.) The Cyber Law Enforcement Organization. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.
cyberlawenforcement.org
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Self-regulation and the executive function of the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney
(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 197 – 217). New York: Guilford Press.
Beasley, B. (2004). What is cyberbullying? Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://www.cyberbullying.org
Beran, T. N., & Tutty, L. (2002). An evaluation of the Dare to Care: Bully Proofing Your School pro-
gram in Calgary schools. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: RESOLVE Alberta. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
http://www.ucalgary.ca/resolve/violenceprevention/English/reviewprog/bullyprogs.htm
Bernan, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 32(3), 137 – 153.
Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2003). Digital literacy for effective citizenship. Social Education, 67, 164 – 175.
Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2005). Challenging online behaviors of youth: Findings from a comparative analysis of young
people in the United States and New Zealand. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 29 – 38.
Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). Emerging risks of violence in the digital age: Lessons for educators from
online study of adolescent girls in the United States. Journal of School Violence, 1(2), 51 – 71.
Bethel School District No. 403 et al. v. Fraser, a minor, et al. (1986). 478 U.S. 675.
Borg, M. G. (1998). The emotional reaction of school bullies and their victims. Educational Psychology, 18, 433 –
444.
Borzekowski, D., & Richert, V. (2001). Adolescent cybersurfing for health information: A new resource that crosses barriers.
Archives in Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 155, 813 – 817.
Brookshire, M., & Maulhardt, C. (2005). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the NetSmartz program. A study of
Maine public schools. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
http://www.netsmartz.org/pdf/gw evaluation.pdf

344 Mason
Bully Police USA. (2007). Does your state have an anti bullying law? Retrieved September 17, 2007, from
http://www.bullypolice.org/
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariepy, J. L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 320 – 330.
Casas, F. (1998). Videogames: Between parents and children. The Second International Conference on Children and Com-
petence: Children, Technology, and Culture. London: Brunel University.
Chapell, M. S., Hasselman, S. L., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S. N., MacIver, K. W., & Sarullo, P. L. (2006). Bullying in elementary
school, high school, and college. Adolescence, 41(164), 633 – 648.
Cole, J. I., Suman, M., Schramm, P., Lunn, R., Coget, J., Firth, D., et al. (2001). UCLA Internet report 2001: Surveying the
digital future year two. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Communication Policy.
Cooper, G. (2005). Cyberspace bullying. Psychotherapy Networker, 29(3), 19 – 22.
Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary
school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123 – 130.
CyberSmart. (n.d.). Be CyberSmart. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from http://www.cybersmartcurriculum.org/home
Davie, R., Panting, C., & Charlton, T. (2004). Mobile phone ownership and usage among pre- adolescents. Telematics and
Informatics, 21, 359 – 373.
Devlin, A. (1997). Offenders at school: Links between school failure and aggressive behaviour. In D. Tattum & H. Graham
(Eds.), Bullying: Home, school and community (pp. 149 – 158). London: David Fulton.
DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T. D., & Baum, K. (2005). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2005 (NCES
2006-001/NCJ 210697). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Emmett v. Kent School District No. 415 (2000).
Epstein, L., Plog, A. E., & Porter, W. (1999). Bully proofing your school: Results of a four year intervention. Unpublished
manuscript.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer group contextual effects on aggressive behavior
during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205 – 220.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where
do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365 – 383.
Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 47, 382 – 389.
Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000, June). Online victimization: A report on the nation’s youth. Na-
tional Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Retreived November 20, 2007, from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/
Victimization Online Survey.pdf
Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., & Wolak, J. (2001). Highlights of the Youth Internet Safety Survey. Juvenile Justice Fact
Sheet-FS200104 (p. 1 – 2). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV46.pdf
Fox, J. A., Elliott, D. S., Kerlikowske, R. G., Newman, S. A., & Christeson, W. (2003). Bullying prevention is crime
prevention. Washington, DC: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.fightcrime.
org/reports/BullyingReport.pdf
Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., & Guzzo, B. A. (2000). Second step: Preventing aggression by promoting social competence.
Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 8, 102 – 113.
Fried, S., & Fried, P. (1996). Bullies & victims: Helping your child survive the schoolyard battlefield. New York: M. Evans.
Gati, A., Tenyi, T., Tury, E., & Wildmann, M. (2002). Anorexia nervosa following sexual harassment on the Internet: A case
report. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31(4), 474 – 477.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report? Applied Developmental Psychology,
636(25), 633 – 649.
Harris, S., Petrie, G., & Willoughby, W. (2002). Bullying among 9th graders: An exploratory study. National Association of
Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 86, 3 – 14.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychological maladjustment:
A meta-analysis review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441 – 445.
Hazler, R. (1996). Breaking the cycle of violence: Interventions for bullying and victimization. Washington, DC: Accelerated
Development, Taylor & Francis.
Hazler, R. J., Miller, D. L., Carney, J. V., & Green, S. (2001). Adult recognition of school bullying situation. Education
Residence, 43, 133 – 146.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). 484 U.S. 260

Cyberbullying 345
Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1996). Victims of peer abuse: An overview. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems,
5, 23 – 28.
Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1996). The bullying prevention handbook: A guide for principals, teachers, and counselors.
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Hoover, J., & Olsen, G. (2001). Teasing and harassment: The frames and scripts approach for teachers and parents. Bloom-
ington, IN: National Educational Services.
Hoover, J., & Stenhjem, P. (2003). Bullying and teasing of youth with disabilities: Creating positive school environments for
effective inclusion. Examining Current Challenges in Secondary Education and Transition, 2(3). Retrieved November
20, 2007, from http://www.ncset.org/publications/printresource.asp?id=1332
i-SAFE Inc. (n.d.). i-SAFE Inc. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http://www.i-safe.org.
i-SAFE Inc. (n.d.). i-SAFE statistics. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.isafe.org/imgs/pdf/mediakit/i-
SAFE Stats.pdf
Joinson, A. (1998). Causes and effects of disinhibition on the Internet. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), The psychology of the Internet:
Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (pp. 43 – 60). New York: Academic Press.
J. S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 757 A.2d 412 (Pa. Commw. 2000).
Kaiser, B., & Rasminsky, J. S. (2003). Challenging behavior in young children: Understanding, preventing, and responding
effectively. Boston: Pearson.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpelä, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999). Bullying, depression, and suicidal
ideation in Finnish adolescents: School survey. British Medical Journal, 319(7206), 348 – 351.
Katz, J. E., & Aspden, P. (1997). A nation of strangers? Communications of the ACM, 40(12), 81 – 86.
Kiesler, S., Siegal, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American
Psychologist, 39, 1123 – 1134.
Killion v. Franklin Regular School District, 136 F. Supp. 2d 446 (W.D. Pa. 2001).
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child
Development, 67, 1305 – 1317.
Kowalski, R., Limber, S. P., Scheck, A., Redfearn, M., Allen, J., Calloway, A., et al. (2005, August). Electronic bully-
ing among school-aged children and youth. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social
technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017 – 1031.
Laird, M., & Syropoulos, M. (1996). Aggression and violence: The challenge for Detroit schools. Findings from an evaluation
of Lions-Quest “Working Toward Peace.” Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Lions-Quest Canada.
Layshock v. Hermitage School District, F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 240655 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2006).
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 197 – 233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lenhart, A. (2005, March 17). Protecting teens online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
November 20, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP Filters Report.pdf
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005, July 25). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully
wired and mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP Teens Tech July2005web.pdf
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Rainie, L. (2006, July 11). Teens and the Internet: Findings submitted to the
House Subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American
Life Project. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/ppt/Pew%20Internet%20findings%20-
%20teens%20and%20the%20internet%20-%20final.pdf
Li, Q. (2005, April). Cyber-bullying in schools: The nature extent of adolescents’ experience. Paper presented at the American
Education Research Association conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27(2), 157 –
170.
Limber, S. P. (2002). Addressing youth bullying behaviors. In Proceedings of the Educational Forum on Adolescent Health
on Youth Bullying. Chicago: American Medical Association.
Macklem, G. L. (2003). Bullying and teasing: Social power in children’s groups. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Magid, L. (2003). Teen safety on the information highway. Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Retrieved
September 20, 2005, from http://www.safeteens.com/safeteens.htm
Magid, L. (2005). Child safety on the information highway. Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Retrieved
November 20, 2007, from http://www.missingkids.com/en US/publications/NC03.pdf
Meadows, B., Bergal, J., Helling, S., Odell, J. Piligian, E., Howard, C., et al. (2005). The web: The bully’s new playground.
People, March 21, 152 – 155.

346 Mason
Melton, G. B., Limber, S. P., Cunningham, P., Osgood, D.W., Chambers, J., Flerx, V., et al. (1998). Violence among rural
youth. Final report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Offices.
Montgomery, K. (2000). Youth and digital media: A policy research agenda. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 61 –
68.
Montgomery County Public Schools (Rockville, Maryland). (n.d.) After school technology club: Program guide.
Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/technology/nonpublic/ASPmatrls/
SHallProgramGuide.pdf
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Aggression behaviors among
US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of American Medical Association, 285,
2094 – 2100.
National Centre for Technology in Education. (2002). Be wise on the net: Information and advice for schools. Retrieved
November 20, 2007, from http://www.ncte.ie/InternetSafety/Publications/d1551.PDF
National Children’s Home. (2005). Putting U in the picture. Mobile bullying survey 2005. Retrieved November 20, 2007,
from http://www.nch.org.uk/uploads/documents/Mobile bullying %20report.pdf
National Training and Technical Assistance Center for Drug Prevention and School Safety Program Co-
ordinators. (2004). Exploring the nature and prevention of bullying. Retrieved June 7, 2004, from
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/training/bullying/index.html
Naylor, P., Cowie, H., & del Ray, R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school children in response to being bullied.
Child Psychology & Psychiatry Review, 6(3), 114 – 120.
NetSmartz. (n.d.). NetSmartz Workshop: Keeping kids and teens safer on the Internet. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from
http://www.netsmartz.org
Odendaal, W., Malcolm, C., Savahl, S., & September, R. (2006) Adolescents, their parents, and information and com-
munication technologies: Exploring adolescents’ perceptions on how these technologies present in parent – adolescent
relationships. The Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 6(1), 1 – 8.
Ohio Department of Education. (2007, May 14). Anti-Harassment, Anti-Intimidation or Anti-Bullying Model Policy
(Rev.03, 05/14/07) Per House Bill 276. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.ebasedprevention.org/pdf/
Anti Harassment Intimidation Bullying Model Policy Rev03 051407.pdf
Oliver, R., Hoover, J. H., & Hazler, R. (1994). The perceived roles of bullying in small-town Midwestern schools. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 72, 416 – 420.
Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention. In R. Peters, R. McMahon, & V. Quinsey
(Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the life span. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Olweus, D. (1993a). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Williston, VT: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1993b). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorf (Eds.),
Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness (pp. 315 – 341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171 – 1190.
Olweus, D. (1999). Norway. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), Nature of
school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 28 – 48). London: Routledge.
Olweus, D. (2001). Olweus’ core program against bullying and antisocial behavior: A teacher handbook. Bergen, Norway:
Author.
Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. (1999). Bullying prevention program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention
of Violence.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 80 – 97.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148 – 169.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying and victimization in middle school: A dominance relations perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 151 – 163.
Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. (2000, April). Making a difference in bullying. Report # 60. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
http://psycserver.psyc.queensu.ca/craigw/Craig Pepler 2000 REPORT Making a Difference in Bullying.pdf
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1994). An evaluation of an anti-bullying intervention in Toronto schools.
Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 13, 95 – 110.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE- effects of computer-mediated
communication. Communication Research, 25, 689 – 715.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R.W. (1982) Effects of private and public self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 503 – 513.

Cyberbullying 347
Reicher, S. D. (1987). Crowd behavior as social action. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S.
Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 171 – 202). Oxford, England: Basil
Blackwell.
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. In W. Stroebe & M.
Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 6. (pp. 161 – 198) Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley.
Rigby, K. (2001). Stop the bullying: A handbook for teachers. Markham: Pembroke.
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australian school children and their implications
for psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 33 – 42.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1999). Suicidal ideation among adolescent school children, involvement in bully – victim problems,
and perceived social support. Suicide and Life- Threatening Behavior, 29(2), 119 – 130.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., Rideout, V. J., & Brodie, M. (1999). Kids & media at the new millennium: A comprehen-
sive analysis of children’s media use. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Kids-Media-The-New-Millennium-Report.pdf
Roland, E. (1980). Terror i skolen {Terrorism in school}. Stravanger, Norway: Rogaland Research Institute.
Roland, E. (1989). Bullying: Scandinavian research tradition. In D.P. Tattum & D. A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools
(pp. 21 – 32). Stroke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.
Rosenbaum, M., Altman, D., Brodie, M., Flournoy, R., Blendon, R. J., & Benson, J. (2000). School kids & technology
survey. NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy. Retreived March 1, 2000, from http:www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/technology/
index.html
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L. & Lagerspetz, K. (1999). Self-evaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-
esteem, and defensive egotism as predictors of adolescents’ participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1268 – 1278.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant
roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1 – 15.
Salmon, G., James, A., Cassidy, E. L., & Javoloyes, M. A. (2000). Bullying—A review: Presentations to an adolescent
psychiatric service and within a school for emotionally and behaviorally disturbed children. Clinical Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 5, 563 – 579.
September, R., & Savahl, S. (2002). The influence of new information and communication technologies on children’s lives.
The South African study. Unpublished report, Child and Youth Research and Training Programme, University of the
Western Cape, Bellville.
Servance, R. (2003). Cyber-bullying, cyber-harassment, and the conflict between schools and the First Amendment. Wisconsin
Law Review, Vol. 2003, 1213.
Shariff, S. (2005). Cyber-dilemmas in the new millennium: School obligations to provide student safety in a virtual school
environment. McGill Journal of Education, 40(3), 467 – 487.
Shariff, S., & Gouin, R. (2005, September 8). Cyber-dilemmas: Gendered hierarchies, free expression and cyber-safety
in schools. Paper presented at the Oxford Internet Institute conference at Oxford University, Oxford, UK. Retrieved
November 20, 2007, from www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/cybersafety/extensions/pdfs/papers/shaheen shariff.pdf
Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette [electronic version]. San Francisco: Albion Books. Retrieved December 6, 2006, from
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html
Siegal, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group processes in computer- mediated communication.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157 – 187.
Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993). The relationship of Eysenck’s personality factors and self-esteem to bully/victim behavior in
Australian school boys. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 371 – 373.
Slee, R. T. (1995). Peer victimization and its relationship to depression among Australian primary school students. Personality
and Individual Differences, 18, 57 – 62.
Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (Eds.). (1999). The nature of school bullying.
London: Routledge.
Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Walker, H. (1998). Antisocial behavior in schools. In T. S. Watson & F. M. Gresham (Eds.),
Handbook of child behavior therapy (pp. 451 – 474). New York: Plenum.
Stevens, V., de Bourdeaudhui, I., & Van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools: An evaluation of anti-
bullying intervention in primary and secondary school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 195 –
210.
Striegel-Moore, R. H., Dohm, F.A., Pike, K. M., Wilfley, D. E., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Abuse, bullying, and discrimination
as risk factors for binge eating disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 1902 – 1907.
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2005). Cyberbullying by adolescents: A preliminary assessment. The Educational Forum, Fall.
Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi qa4013/is 200510/ai n15715128

348 Mason
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child &
Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1/2), 23 – 50.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7(3), 321 – 326.
Sullivan, K. (2000). The anti-bullying handbook. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations. (pp. 7 – 24) Chicago: Nelson- Hall.
Tattum, D. P. (1989). Violence and aggression in schools. In D. P. Tattum & D. A. Lane (Eds.), Bullying in schools (pp.
7 – 19). Stroke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). 393 U.S. 503.
Tresca, M. (1998). The impact of anonymity on disinhibitive behavior through computer- mediated communication. Unpub-
lished manuscript, Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI.
Trolley, B. C., Hanel, C., & Shields, L. (2006). Demystifying & deescalating cyber bullying in the schools: A resource guide
for counselors, educators, and parents. Booklocker.com, Inc. Bangor, ME.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
University of California at Los Angeles Center for Communication Policy. (2003, February). The UCLA Internet
report: Surveying the digital future, year three. Los Angeles: Author. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.
digitalcenter.org/pdf/InternetReportYearThree.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Preventing bullying: A manual for schools and communities. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2005). Cybercrime. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
www.cybercrime.gov
Virginia Department of Education, Division of Technology. (n.d.). Acceptable use policies: A handbook. Retrieved November
20, 2007, from http://www.pen.k12.va.us/go/VDOE/Technology/AUP/home.shtml#intro
Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002, May). The final report and findings of
the Safe School Initiatives: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington,
DC: United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi final report.pdf
Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Whitney, I., Rivers, I., Smith, P., & Sharp, S. (1994). The Sheffield project: Methodology and findings. In P. Smith & S. Sharp
(Eds.), School bullying: Insights and perspectives (pp. 20 – 56). London: Routledge.
Willard, N. E. (2003). Safe and responsible use of the Internet: A guide for educators. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from
http://www.csriu.org/onlinedocs/pdf/srui/intro.pdf
Willard, N. (2005). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social
aggression, threats, and distress. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.csriu.org/cyberbully/docs/cbcteducator.pdf
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: Five years later. National Center for Missing
& Exploited Children. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV138.pdf
Wright, C. (2001). Children and technology: Issues, challenges, and opportunities. Childhood Education, 78, 37 – 49.
Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. (2004a). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth
characteristics. Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308 – 1316.
Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. (2004b). Youth engaging in online harassment: associations with caregiver-child relationships,
Internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 319 – 336.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order vs. deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J.
Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 237 – 307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Cognitive Load During Problem Solving

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cognitive Load During Problem Solving

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Psychology in the Schools, Vol.

CYBERBULLYING: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL

Because of the advent and growth of technology, a new variation of bullying—cyberbullying—has

Bullying is a widespread problem in our schools and communities. It is an unacceptable

D IFFERENCES B ETWEEN T RADITIONAL B ULLYING AND C YBERBULLYING

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Consequences of Bullying. Bullying has been found to be related to negative psychosocial

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Prevalence of Cyberbullying. According to Lenhart et al. (2005) conducted a telephone sur-

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

P SYCHOLOGICAL I MPACT OF C YBERBULLYING

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

P SYCHOLOGICAL E XPLANATIONS OF C YBERBULLYING B EHAVIORS

The Disinhibition Effect

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Identity Transition from Private to Social Self

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Lack of Adult Interaction

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

A DDRESSING THE P ROBLEM

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

P REVENTION AND I NTERVENTION M EASURES

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Program Content Modules Effectiveness of Program

how you can recognize them. parents.∗∗

Psychology in the Schools

Program Content Modules Effectiveness of Program

Psychology in the Schools

Program Content Modules Effectiveness of Program

revising the offline lessons so every

Psychology in the Schools

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Involving Parents. In an attempt to resolve a cyberbullying incident, school personnel are

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Sample School Policy Statement on Cyberbullying

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi