Cyberbullying and adolescent mental healthPresentation Transcript
Rutgers University Symposium:Identity, Connectedness, and Threat in SocialNetworks: Adolescent and Young Adult Use andMisuse of New MediaNovember 14, 2011, Piscataway, NJPanel Discussion in: Cyberbullying, OnlineDisinhibition, and Interpersonal Interactions in OnlineCommunities: Consequences for Youth and YoungAdultsCyberbullying and Adolescent Mental HealthMichele Ybarra MPH PhDCenter for Innovative Public Health Research* Thank you for your interest in thispresentation. Please note that analyses includedherein are preliminary. More recent, finalized analysesmay be available by contacting CiPHR for furtherinformation.
Technology is ubiquitousImage from: http://www.computernewsme.com/2011/04/social-media-essential-to-it-service-
Technology is ubiquitous:RecapMost children and adolescents areonline (93%) – but not all are (7% arenot)Many (73%) are on Face book andother social network sites But very few (8%) are tweeting Constantly text messaging? YES 72% of teens text; at an average of 112texts per day
CyberBullying is everywhereImage from: http://www.definetheline.ca/Asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf
Growing up with MediasurveyThe data we will be discussing today largelycome from the Growing up with Media survey: Longitudinal design: Fielded 2006, 2007, 2008 Data collected online National sample (United States) Households randomly identified from the 4 million-member Harris Poll OnLine (HPOL) Sample selection was stratified based on youthage and sex. Data were weighted to match the US population ofadults with children between the ages of 10 and 15years and adjust for the propensity of adult to beonline and in the HPOL.
Eligibility criteria Youth:◦ Between the ages of 10-15 years◦ Use the Internet at least once in the last 6 months◦ Live in the household at least 50% of the time◦ English speaking Adult:◦ Be a member of the Harris Poll Online (HPOL) opt-inpanel◦ Be a resident in the USA (HPOL has membersinternationally)◦ Be the most (or equally) knowledgeable of the youth‟smedia use in the home◦ English speaking
Youth Demographic Characteristics2006(n=1,577)2007(n=1189)2008(n=1149)Female 50% 50% 51%Age (SE) 12.6 (0.05) 13.7 (0.05) 14.5 (0.05)Hispanic ethnicity 18% 17% 17%Race: White 70% 72% 72%Race: Black / AfricanAmerican15% 13% 14%Race: Mixed race 7% 9% 9%Race: Other 8% 6% 6%Household less than$35,00025% 24% 25%Internet use 1 hour+ perday47% 49% 52%
Teen Health and TechnologySurvey Online survey Conducted between August 4, 2010 toJanuary 17, 2011 Youth recruited through the Harris Poll Online(HPOL) opt-in panel:◦ 13 to 18 year olds directly◦ Adults with a 13 to 17 year old in theirhousehold◦ Adults with a child under 18 in their household◦ A general population of adults Median survey length was 23 minutes Response rate: 7.2%
Eligibility criteria U.S. resident Ages 13 to 18 In 5th grade or above; and Assent to participate in the survey◦ Parental permission requirementswaived Valid responses: >5 minutesurvey, age confirmation atbeginning and end of the survey
Sample characteristics(n=3,777) Demographic characteristics◦ Mean age: 15.7 years (SE: 0.07; Range: 13-18 years)◦ 77% White, 13% Hispanic◦ 57% Female◦ 39% Suburban setting, 28% urban, 33%small town◦ 60% household income „similar‟ to otherpeople‟s 85% attend public school
The definition of bullyingWe follow Olweus‟ definition, which says that bullyingis a specific type of aggression that occurs: Between two people of differential power Over time RepeatedlyBullying can happen through any mode (online, in-person)And in any environment (at school, at home)We tend to talk about different types: Physical (e.g., hitting, kicking) Relational (e.g., social exclusion) Verbal (e.g., threatening and aggressivecomments)
Past-year rates of bullyingamong 13-18 year olds, by type(n=3777)16%40%38%29%34%16%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Some otherwayMean namesNasty teasingSocialexclusionRumorsHitting, kicking,pushing, or…Data are from the Teen Health and Technology study
Past-year rates of bullyingamong 13-18 year olds, by mode(n=3777)10%10%13%17%38%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Some otherwayBy phoneTextmessageOnlineIn-personData are from the Teen Health and Technology study
Cyberbullying is inescapable(?)56%21%11%6%3% 3%# of different modes one is bullied inNo bullying1 mode2 modes3 modes4 modesall 5 modesTeen Health and Technology (n=3,777)
Cyberbullying is inescapable(?)15%83%4% 7%0%20%40%60%80%% of youth reportingbeing bullied online92%6%2%# of differentenvironments one isbullied among thosebullied online1 2 3Data are from Teen Health and Technology(n=3,777)
A comparison of distress among youthbullied across environments and modes35% 38%16% 15%23%33%35%39%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%Bullied 12-15 y.o. All bullied youthSchoolInternetPhoneOn the way to and from scholDistress = very or extremely upset about self-defined most “serious” timeData are from Growing up with Media 2007 and 2008, sample sizes vary based upon n reporting eachexperience
Suicidal ideation based upon past-yearbullying experiences15%37%24%35%61%28%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Suicidal ideation in the past 2weeksNo suicidal ideation in the past 2weeksNo bullyingInfrequent bullyingFrequent bullyingTeen Health and Technology Study, LGBQ comparative data (n=5542)
Relative odds of current suicidalideation given past year bullyingexperiences0.8 0.62.34.21.4 18.104.22.168.11.010.0Heterosexual youth Questioning, unsureyouthBisexual youth Gay, lesbian, queeryouthNo bullying Infrequent bullying Frequent bullyingTeen Health and Technology Study, LGBQ comparative data (n=5542)
Psychosocial issues for victims Interpersonal victimization / bullying offline(Ybarra, Mitchell, Espelage, 2007;Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, Finkelhor, 2006; Ybarra, 2004) Depressive symptomatology and suicidalideation (Ybarra, 2004; Mitchell, Finkelhor, Wolak, 2000; TheBerkman Center for Internet & Society, 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, inpress) Alcohol use (Ybarra, Mitchell, Espelage, 2007) Social problems (Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, Finkelhor, 2006) School behavior problems (Ybarra, Diener-West, Leaf, 2007) Poor caregiver-child relationships (Ybarra, Diener-West, Leaf, 2007)
CyberBullying: Recap• More than 4 in 5 youthwho use the Internetare *not* cyberbulliedCyberbullying(bullyingonline) affectsbetween 15-17% of youtheach year• For a concerningminority (12%), bullyingis ubiquitous (inperson, online, via text)Bullying ismostcommonly anin-personexperience.
CyberBullying: Recap• 5 out of 6 cyberbullied youth are lessaffectedAbout 1/6 ofcyberbullied youthare very orextremely upset• Frequent bullying may be particularlyharmful for LGB youthBullying is relatedto suicidal ideation• More than twice as many youth bulliedat school (38%) are distress comparedto those bullied online (15%)Cyberbullying isnot moredistressing than in-person bullying
Prevention musingsInternet versus school-basedprograms• Motivated versus captive audiencesPrograms for bullies versusbullied youth• Behavior change versuspsychosocial support
AcknowledgementsGrowing up with Media: This survey was supported by CooperativeAgreement number U49/CE000206 from the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this presentation aresolely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily representthe official views of the CDC. I would like to thank the entire Growing upwith Media Study team from Center for Innovative Public HealthResearch, Harris Interactive, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School ofPublic Health, and the CDC, who contributed to the planning andimplementation of the study. Finally, we thank the families for their timeand willingness to participate in this study.Teen Health and Technology : The project described was supportedby Award Number R01 HD057191 from the National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibilityof the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views ofthe National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or theNational Institutes of Health. We would like to thank the entire Studyteam from Internet Solutions for Kids, the University of NewHampshire, the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network(GLSEN), Labtrobe University, and Harris Interactive, who contributedto the planning and implementation of the study. Finally, we thank thestudy participants for their time and willingness to participate in thisstudy.