111816, 823 PMPage 1 of 14aboutblankCyberbullying.docx

11/18/16, 8:23 PM
Page 1 of 14about:blank
Cyberbullying: what's the problem?
Ryan Deschamps and Kathleen McNutt
Canadian Public Administration. 59.1 (Mar. 2016): p45.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 Institute of Public
Administration of Canada
http://www.ipac.ca/CPAJ
Abstract:
Cyberbullying has been a difficult problem for policy makers
and observers to define. For some, cyberbullying is understood
as a public health
problem, while others view it largely as an education issue, and
still others see it as a justice problem. In Canada, while the
definition of
cyberbullying continues to evolve, a nascent approach assumes
that it is similar to traditional face-to-face bullying with
computer-mediated
communication as a new element. This definition is at odds with
recent research on cyberbullying, which may have significant
implications for
policy makers seeking to design effective interventions.
La cyberintimidation est un probleme difficile a definir tant
pour les decideurs de politiques que pour les observateurs.
Certains interpretent la
cyberintimidation comme un probleme de sante publique, pour
d'autres, il s'agit principalement d'une question d'education,
tandis que d'autres

encore y voient un probleme de justice. Au Canada, alors que la
definition de la cyberintimidation continue d'evoluer, une
nouvelle approche
considere qu'elle est semblable a l'intimidation traditionnelle en
face a face, mais comporte un nouvel element de communication
electronique. Cette definition contredit la recherche recente sur
la cyberintimidation, ce qui pourrait avoir des repercussions
importantes pour
les responsables politiques qui cherchent a concevoir des
interventions efficaces.
Full Text:
Introduction
The risk of teen suicide through cyberbullying has emerged as a
major policy issue in Canada. The Federal Justice Minister has
committed to
"holistic" legislation that will produce a national anti-bullying
strategy using both education and criminal law as the principal
policy instruments.
Canadian provinces have responded with a patchwork of
legislation ranging from the creation of a cyberbullying
investigative unit in Nova
Scotia, to preventative programming introduced through the
British Columbia Ministry of Education. In addition, several
municipalities
implemented cyberbullying bylaws, providing local police with
the ability to ticket bullies.
As every student of public policy knows, the policy cycle
begins with problem definition, which is a political activity, not
a rational one
(Rochefort and Cobb 1993). How a policy problem is defined
limits the alternatives considered and imposes specific accounts
of the

appropriate instruments to be implemented. As Janet Weiss
(1989) explains, problem definition is "not merely a label for a
set of facts and
perceptions. It is a package of ideas that includes at least
implicitly an account of the causes and consequences of some
circumstances that
are deemed undesirable, and a theory about how a problem may
be alleviated" (p. 97). Problem abstractions vary with
competing analytical
frames producing differing proposed policy interventions
(Paterson 2010).
Cyberbullying in Canada is still in the problem definition stage
with debate swirling around what constitutes cyberbullying.
Issues of
measurement around prevalence, predictors and outcomes
remain stumbling blocks to developing a comprehensive
definition (Dredge,
Gleeson and de la Piedad Garcia 2014; Kowalski et al. 2014;
Thomas, Connor and Scott 2014). While some consensus exists
around the
main elements of cyberbullying (intent, power differential and
repetition) other factors specific to the online context need to be
incorporated
into the problem definition. For instance, Dooley, Pyzalski and
Cross (2009) and Pieschl, Kuhlmann and Porsch (2014) suggest
that publicity
(public incidents of cyberbullying on social media sites as
opposed to private incidents via email or text) may be a key
element of online
bullying. Thus despite a great deal of research on possible
effects and interventions, researchers are still discerning the
cyber specific aspects
of the behaviour leaving policy makers asking a number of
critical questions. Is cyberbullying different from traditional
face-to-face bullying?

How can governments address the problem? What instruments
should be used--criminal law, provincial legislation, public
awareness
campaigns, youth and parental education or something else?
Experts focus on different aspects of the phenomenon depending
on their frame of reference. For some cyberbullying is
understood as a
public health problem with solutions associated with prevention
through public awareness and victim services (David-Ferdon
and Feldman
Hertz 2007). For others it is largely an education problem with
schools, teachers and other educational officials being the main
sources of
intervention (Willard 2007). Then there are those who view it as
a justice problem concerned with criminal law, policing and
public awareness
(Cesaroni, Downing and Alvi 2012). The justice perspective
typically frames the problem in respect to the bully, the public
health perspective
defines the problem in terms of the victim and associated youth
mental illness and suicide, while the educational lens, views
awareness and
adult intervention as the appropriate responses.
Evidence on the prevalence and nature of cyberbullying in
Canada is varied (Cassidy, Jackson and Brown 2009; Li 2007).
Prevalence rates
have been captured through convenience samples and range
anywhere from as low as four per cent to as high as seventy-two
per cent
depending on how the questions have been asked (Bauman
2013). These discrepancies are often a result of the lack of
standardization
definition and measurement instruments (Cross et al. 2011).
However, these variations may also be partially explained by

youth's tendency to
hide cyberbullying from adults. For example, Li's (2010) survey
of Canadian students from grade seven to twelve found that over
forty per cent
had been bullied but would not tell anyone, while only one in
ten would inform an adult. In another recent survey of
prevalence rates in
Ontario, Paglia-Boak and colleagues (2012) found that one in
five students responded that they had been bullied over the
Internet over the
past twelve months, with females twice as likely to report being
victims. Ipsos Reid (2012) found that eighteen per cent of
Canadian parents
have children who have been cyberbullied and thirty-one per
cent are aware of young people in their community who have
been cyberbullied.
Another Ipsos Reid poll (2013) found that twenty per cent of
teens have witnessed someone being cyberbullied, with the
prevalence
increasing as mobile technology becomes more popular.
http://go.galegroup.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/ps/advancedSear
ch.do?method=doSearch&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&us
erGroupName=lom_oaklandu&inputFieldValue(0)=%22Ryan+D
eschamps%22&inputFieldName(0)=AU&prodId=AONE
erGroupName=lom_oaklandu&inputFieldValue(0)=%22Kathlee
n+McNutt%22&inputFieldName(0)=AU&prodId=AONE
http://go.galegroup.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/ps/aboutJournal.
do?contentModuleId=AONE&resultClickType=AboutThisPublic
ation&actionString=DO_DISPLAY_ABOUT_PAGE&searchTyp
e=BasicSearchForm&docId=GALE%7C4081&userGroupName=l
om_oaklandu&inPS=true&rcDocId=GALE%7CA450037971&pr
odId=AONE&pubDate=120160301
http://www.ipac.ca/CPAJ

http://go.galegroup.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/ps/retrieve.do?ta
bID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType
=SingleTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=3
&docId=GALE%7CA450037971&docType=Report&sort=RELE
VANCE&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE
%7CA450037971&searchId=R3&userGroupName=lom_oakland
u&inPS=true#
u&inPS=true#
u&inPS=true#
u&inPS=true#
11/18/16, 8:23 PM
In this paper we examine cyberbullying in Canada considering
how the problem is defined and what policy instruments are

used to intervene.
We begin with a discussion of the problem definition process
and the challenges associated with a contextualized public
policy definition of
cyberbullying. The following section discusses current research
in the area to demonstrate the complex nature of the problem.
We then turn to
how cyberbullying is being defined by governments in Canada
and the interventions begin implemented to address the
problem. Next a
nascent Canadian problem definition of cyberbullying is
considered in the context of what the research shows and what it
does not. We
conclude with some general comments on the implication of
these disconnects.
Defining the problem
Since 2005, a great deal of scholarly work on the effects of
cyberbullying and the implications for public policy has
accumulated (Brown,
Jackson and Cassidy 2006; Li 2007). However it was not until
2012 that cyberbullying was driven high onto the policy agenda
following the
suicides of three Canadian youth. The events attracted extensive
media attention. The first highly published case was the suicide
of Amanda
Todd who documented her horrific experiences of being bullied
and sexually harassed on a widely viewed YouTube video. The
following year,
Rehtaeh Parsons of Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia hung herself
after a video was released of her allegedly being sexually
assaulted. In 2013
after prolonged bullying, Todd Loik of North Battleford,
Saskatchewan took his own life two weeks before his 16th
birthday. These highly

publicized cases of cyberbullying, and the risk of teen suicide in
response, have propelled the issue to the top of government
agendas.
However, it should be noted that these cases are only the tip of
the iceberg. Courtney Brown, Jenna Bowers-Bryanton and
Marjorie Raymond
have also taken their own lives after experiencing
cyberbullying.
As Cassidy, Faucher and Jackson (2013) highlight "[w]hile
suicides purportedly resulting from cyberbullying have garnered
much media
attention in recent times, suicide is neither the most likely, nor
the most prevalent type of impact on victims" (p. 581). Other
common outcomes
include mental health issues, impacts on academic performance,
feelings of well-being at school and home, maladaptive
behaviours
(aggression, smoking, drinking, shop-lifting) and absenteeism
(Schenk and Fremouw 2012). Thus while media attention has
heightened public
awareness of cyberbullying and subsequent calls for legislation,
the focus is on extreme cases often involving criminal
investigations. Indeed,
there are many forms of cyberbullying that require attention
including flaming (electronic transmission of hostile messages),
harassment,
denigration, cyberstalking (threats of harm or intimidation),
masquerading (impersonation for the purpose of harm) and
outing (rumors, private
information) (Schenk and Fremouw 2012: 22).
Governments' responses to the problem involve various
definitions of the problem leading to a mix of policy instrument
applications. While
some jurisdictions use legal instruments (changes to the

criminal code or civil code); others advocate education and
prevention campaigns;
alternatively some rely on administrative instruments where
responses to online abuse involve the use of electronic filters or
to restrict access
to the tools on school grounds. One of the challenges is that
scholarly definitions of cyberbullying can be quite vague. For
example Smith et al.
(2008) define cyberbullying as an "aggressive, intentional act
carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of
contact, repeatedly
and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or
herself" (p. 376). Similarly, Hinduja and Patchin (2009) define
cyberbullying as
"willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of
computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices" (p. 5).
While these definitions
serve to define cyberbullying the act, they do not define
cyberbullying the problem.
For policy makers the "problem" of cyberbullying is
multidimensional, irreducible, and political. Without an
accepted measure of the construct,
competing views among experts will continue to confound
policy responses. Currently, many proposed solutions rely on
traditional definitions
of schoolyard bullying; however, there is a large body of
research that suggests electronic aggression is differently
characterized (Law et al.
2012a). For example, cyberbullying often overlaps with
traditional bullying (Slonje, Smith and Frisen 2013).
Cyberbullying is not always an
intentional act (Talwar, Gomez-Garibello and Shariff 2014) and
there is not always a clear delineation between bully and victim
(Yang and
Salmivalli 2013). Without agreed upon measures of the

construct, policy makers will continue to struggle to provide
effective policy
interventions.
The problem definition stage of policy making is complex,
involving contestation over both the cause(s) of the problem and
the appropriate
responses(s). Identifying the specific origins of a problem is
often difficult as most policy issues are characterized by
multiple causes and
experienced in the context of individual social reality (Ebbin
2011; Hankivsky and Cormier 2011). The question of whether
the problem is
caused by the individual that experiences it, or the social setting
in which it occurs, also directs the framing of a problem and the
implied
solution.
Beyond the importance of problem causation, other key
elements of problem definition include: incidence patterns,
severity, novelty, and
whether the issue is perceived as a crisis (Rochefort and Cobb
1995). The frequency of tire problem occurrence is a key
element in the policy
definition process, often established through incident
measurement and reporting. Novelty effects problem definition
as new problems lack
clarity around appropriate responses. Severity refers to the
extent to which the problem is viewed as threatening to the
well-being of
individuals and whether the problem is perceived to be getting
worse. When a problem is an emergency or crisis, the framing
of the problem
involves a call for immediate attention and a quick response. In
many cases focusing events such as industrial accidents, natural
disasters

and high school shootings can push an issue onto the agenda
and place extensive pressure on decision makers to react
(Birkland 1998;
Lawrence and Birkland 2004).
Often politics and social value play a greater role than evidence
in the problem definition stage (Bardwell 1991; Dery 2000). As
Blumer (1971)
explains:
Social problems lie in and are produced by a process of
collective definition. The process of collective definition is
responsible for the
emergence of social problems, for the way in which they are
seen, for the way in which they are approached and considered,
for the kinds of
remedial plan that is laid out, and for the transformation of the
remedial plan in its application (p. 301).
As there are numerous public problems competing for decision
makers' attention at any given time, moving a problem onto the
government's
u&inPS=true#
11/18/16, 8:23 PM

agenda can be a challenge (Jones and Baumgartner 2005).
However, the availability of a solution, strong public support
and the visibility of
the problem increase the likelihood of a government response
(Portz 1996).
The visibility of cyberbullying has largely been driven by
popular media. News media representations of cyberbullying
typically focus on a
single case but then treat the event as emblematic of a larger
epidemic (Sabella, Patchin and Hinduja 2013). According to
Olweus (2012),
claims made about cyberbullying in the popular media are
exaggerated without adequate empirical evidence. As a result,
the public's
perception is that the severity of cyberbullying is worse than the
evidence would suggest. Finally, the media's tendency to
sensationalize the
phenomena of cyberbullying by featuring the most extreme and
tragic outcomes, pushes government to respond to what the
public perceives
as a crisis (Vandebosch et al. 2013).
With all these factors taken into account, there are a number of
different policy frames used to understand cyberbullying and
the potential
solutions. The prevalence of cyberbullying and the possible
consequences of mental health issues or suicide, combined with
adolescent
victims' predispositions to not report experiences with bullying
all confound the problem definition stage (Li 2006; Totten and
Quigley 2005).
Policy makers must recognize that the negative aggressive
behaviors associated with cyberbullying have unique features
and are distinctive
forms of behaviour.

According to Bauman (2013) key attributes of cyberbullying
include:
[p]erpetrators can conceal their identities; perpetrators have
constant access to targets; the potential audience is huge; the
perpetrator does
not see the target's immediate reaction; there are no nonverbal
clues to the meaning of a message; the power imbalance is
altered (the
perpetrator may have little power in the real world but superior
technological skills) and content that is posted online is
permanent (p. 249).
Definitions that imply cyberbullying is similar to traditional
face-to-face bullying will not provide decision makers with the
accurate information
they need to implement effective policies and legislation.
The problems defining cyberbullying
Cyberbullying is often defined in reference to Olweus' (1993)
traditional elements of bullying, which he "characterized by
three criteria: (1) it is
aggressive behavior and intentional "harmdoing" (2) it is carried
out repeatedly and over time (3) it is an interpersonal
relationship
characterized by an imbalance of power" (p. 9-10). However,
the role of the Internet in bullying behaviour is complex,
involving a range of
aggressive, criminal and noncriminal behaviours, committed by
people of all age groups toward people of all age groups, and
using various
communication technologies in an international context (Katz
2012; Shariff and Churchill 2010). The lack of a standard
problem definition for

cyberbullying has lead decision makers to treat it as a new
manifestation of an old problem, even though these types of
bullying are
differentiated by a number of unique features including
anonymity, access, scope, power relations, permanency,
assumptions concerning
victim versus bully, and distinctions between types of
aggression.
There is an ongoing debate about the criteria of repetition and
power imbalances online (Langos 2012). Traditional definitions
of bullying treat
repetition as a repeated intentional act by the bully, whereas in
an act of cyberbullying the act of repetition may not be at the
hands of the
initial bully. As Slonje, Smith and Frisen (2013) explain "a
single act by one perpetrator may be repeated many times by
others, and
experienced many times by the victim. If the repetition is not
carried out by the perpetrator, is this still cyberbullying?" (p.
27). Just as important
is the question of intent. If the bully has lost control of the
bullying, is the same intent to harm implied? Differences in
power imbalance
between face-to-face and cyberbullying is another feature that
differentiates these types of behaviour. For example,
Vandebosch and Van
Cleemput (2008) found that cyberbullies may have higher levels
of technical expertise. Finally, in a cyber setting, the bully is
not socially
constrained (the bully is not reliant on physical strength)
redirecting the power balance of bullying and making youth
more likely to engage in
the behaviour (Pettalia, Levin and Dickinson 2013). While
youth could simply turn the device off, "... victims report
feeling helpless due to an

inability to escape from online postings that may seem more
permanent than words shouted in the schoolyard" (Cassidy,
Faucher and
Jackson 2013: 585). As such, policy makers must be aware of
the more subtle difference between cyberbullying and
traditional bullying.
Cascardi et al. (2014) focus on how face-to-face bullying and
cyberbullying differ from peer aggression and harassment.
Based largely on
Olweus' classic definition of bullying, they identify repetition
and a power imbalance between bully and victim as the two
major differences
between bullying, aggression and harassment. Peer aggression is
defined as "intent to inflict harm with aggressive acts" (p. 10),
while bullying
includes intentional aggressive acts, repetition and a power
imbalance. Harassment can consist of negative acts that occur
once or many
times, but differs in that the victim defines the action as
harassment while the aggressor may not have harmful
intentions. This
misunderstanding is also present in antibullying statutes and
laws that have been introduced in recent years with much legal
confusion as to
what bullying is, what harassment is and what peer aggression
is in a computer mediated environment.
In Wingate, Minney and Guadagno's (2013) work comparing and
contrasting traditional face-to-face bullying with cyberbullying,
the authors
suggest that there is no "gold standard" (p. 88) when it comes to
defining cyberbullying. Exploring the role of aggression in
bullying, how
computer mediated communications change bullying and the
role of victim and perpetrator, their study identifies key

differences between
traditional face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying. For
example, they found the role of aggression in traditional
definitions of bullying assumes
aggression can be direct (overt/physical) or relational
(covert/social) and that it can also be proactive or reactive. In
most cases, cyberbullying
aggression tends to be proactive and relational aggression rather
than direct and reactive, which is common in face-to-face
bullying.
Doole, Pyzalski and Cross (2009) argue that a key difference
between cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying is the
imbalance of power and
repetition. In face-to-face bullying the power imbalance is often
an outcome of the bully's "physical and/or psychological power
in a real world"
(p. 184) with repetition focused on recurring behaviours
perpetrated by the bully. Alternatively, power imbalances in
cyberbullying may still be
associated with physical and/or psychological elements, but
they are also the result of the power of technology and the
features of online
content, as well as the nature of computer mediated
communication. In addition, one of the more troublesome
aspects of face-to-face bullying
11/18/16, 8:23 PM
involves the role a group can play in perpetuating the
aggressive actions of the bully. Online, that effect can be
magnified because pictures,

videos and messages can be spread quickly and at low cost to
large numbers of people. Finally, the imbalance of power is not
necessarily the
result of the bully possessing power but could be the result of
the victim lacking it. Repetition in cyberbullying is also
different because it goes
beyond the intention and behaviour of the bully, with content
easily shared with an undefined audience.
Cyberbullying has also been shown to display characteristics of
"mob mentality" because the bullies feel a sense of anonymity,
making them
less likely to think of the consequences of their actions. The
lack of nonverbal cues is another characteristic that makes
hurtful messages (in
the case of cyberbullying) more salient to victims. In addition,
cyberbullying is not influenced by proximity--physical distance
doesn't matter as
"proximity can be social, as well as physical" (Wingate, Minney
and Guadagno 2013: 94). Anonymity is a unique characteristic
of cyberbullying
because young people can hide behind a screen where the fear
of being identified and punished is lessened, a phenomenon
called
"disinhibition" (Beale and Hall 2007). The online disinhibition
effect refers to the abandonment of social rules that are
typically present in face-
to-face interactions. The ability to conceal one's identity online
can lead to inhibition from typical social behavior, decreasing
both cognitive
empathy (ability to understand another's emotions) and affective
empathy (ability to share another's emotions) (Ang and Goh
2010).
The relationship between bully and victims is another
significant difference between face-to-face bullying and

cyberbullying. In face-to-face
bullying, the delineation between bully and victim is much
clearer. In cyberbullying, youth are often both the perpetrator of
aggression while
simultaneously experiencing victimization (Yang and Salmivalli
2013). Law et al. (2012a) found that students between the ages
of 11 and 18
experience cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying differently
as roles are often blurred between the bully (sender), the victim
(receiver) and
the bystander (witness). In addition the study found that
adolescents categorized electronic aggression by modes of
bullying as opposed to
their role in aggression. This research is further supported by
Law et al.'s (2012b) work on the motivation behind online
aggression and
whether youth were primarily proactive or reactive in their
actions. The study found that online aggression was typically
distinct from traditional
bullying as there was more reciprocal, back and forth
interactions where the same individual would often be both
victim and aggressor. Finally,
bullying rates have traditionally been higher in males than
females; however, online gender differences do not play as
large of a role (Gorzig
and Olafsson 2013; Navarro and Jasinski 2013).
At its core, cyberbullying is a policy problem to the extent that
it causes harm. At its most tragic outcome, constant online
bullying is
associated with suicide, but harm can also include increased
depression, marginalization and anti-social behaviour among
both victims and
perpetrators. Often the level of harm is invisible to those on the
outside. An experiment conducted by Primetime Live showed
that young girls

that are victims of cyberbullying can appear calm and collected
even though "the harm caused by the comments were real for
the girls
involved" (McQuade, Colt and Meyer 2009: 59). The potential
for cyberbullying to be a "hidden" problem cloaked from
parents and teachers is
troubling. Measuring the societal outcomes of cyberbullying is
challenging. For instance, youth suicide rates show no increase
between 2004
and 2009, and rates of depression and other mental health
disorders remain stable. Still the negative physical and
psychological effects
associated with cyber victimization are well known, including
suicide, depression, anxiety, lower self-esteem, increased
substance abuse,
trouble with school work and issues at home (Feldman, Donato,
Wright 2013; Sleglova and Cerna 2011; Wang, Nansel and
Iannotti 2011).
Assessing harm on a societal scale is a major policy challenge
for governments seeking to respond to the problem. As the
problem definition
of cyberbullying expands, it may need to focus on groups that
are marginalized or otherwise vulnerable to online cruelty.
Identifying such
groups is easier in some cases (children and youth) than in
others (those with mental illness).
Another key aspect of the debate is treating cyberbullying as a
form of misconduct. Often education is the principal policy
response to the
problem of cyberbullying. Tools and information provide
instructional advice to parents, teachers and students about the
nature of
cyberbullying, its effect on schools and how to prevent it. One
concern is that cruel behaviour in youth can lead to criminal
behaviour later in

life. Cyberbullying presents a challenge to governments in the
sense that it involves behaviours that may be considered
socially acceptable for
some groups. For instance, name-calling, rumour spreading and
insults can all be aspects of political life, at least as it is
portrayed in the
media. On the one hand, cyberbullying involves an extension of
schoolyard bullying behaviour beyond the classroom; on the
other, it is not
feasible, and even undesirable, to govern all different kinds of
meanness in society. In this context, cyberbullying may be
analogous to
obscenity legislation where "we know it when we see it" but
may have considerable difficulty describing what level of
"meanness" is over the
line.
Government response
Definitional ambiguity surrounding cyberbullying is not unique
to Canada. Different American state level governments' anti-
bullying laws place
emphasis on diverse aspects of bullying (Cascardi et al. 2014).
Canadian decision makers have taken a tentative approach to
defining
cyberbullying. At the federal level, The Senate Standing
Committee on Human Rights and The Coordinating Committee
of Senior Officials has
examined various policy responses to cyberbullying including
changes to the Criminal Code (Canada 2012). At the provincial
and territorial
level, governments have had an ad hoc response producing a
patchwork of anti-bullying legislation and prevention strategies.
Federal response

On 16 October 2013 in its Throne Speech, Canada's Federal
Government announced it would protect "the most vulnerable of
all victims" by
introducing legislation that would make it easier for police and
prosecutors to combat cyberbullying that "involves criminal
invasion of privacy,
intimidation and personal abuse." The legislation would also
make the nonconsensual sharing of intimate pictures a crime.
Weeks earlier, then
Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay had promised "holistic"
legislation to address cyberbullying following the suicides of
Amanda Todd,
Rehtaeh Parsons and Todd Loik. MacKay said the legislation
would focus on education and prevention, as well as changes to
the Criminal
Code. Concerned parents welcomed the announcement. It is
expected the new law will complement legislation that has been
introduced in
several provinces over the past few years.
MacKay introduced Bill C-13 (An Act to amend the Criminal
Code), the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the
Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (short titled Protecting
Canadians from Online Crime Act) in the House of Commons on
November 20,
11/18/16, 8:23 PM
2013. The announcement was made during Bullying Awareness
Week and contained Criminal Code changes that make the
sharing of

intimate images without consent punishable by up to five years
in prison. The bill has drawn criticism in some sectors for
including a variety of
provisions that have little to do with cyberbullying, but seem to
be focused on expanding government and police surveillance
powers (Cohen
2013). Jennifer Stoddart, Canada's Privacy Commissioner at the
time the bill was introduced, said her office would be looking at
the legislation
in more detail but had some initial questions around increased
investigative powers included in the bill and the lack of
oversight mechanisms
to monitor the use of those powers (Canada 2013).
The Federal Government spent considerable time studying the
issue of cyberbullying before taking action. In December 2012,
the Senate
Standing Committee on Human Rights released a report entitled
Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect for Rights in the Digital Age. The
report looked
at the issue in regards to the country's obligations under the
United Nations' Conventions on the Rights of the Child, which
requires signees to
take appropriate steps to protect children from physical and
mental violence. The committee interviewed students, teachers
and experts from
across the country before issuing their report which included six
recommendations designed to improve intergovernmental
cooperation, reach
a national consensus on a definition of cyberbullying and how
to monitor it and promote human rights education and digital
citizenship.
In June 2013, the Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials
(CCSO), Criminal Justice, Cybercrime Working Group (CWG),
released

Cyberbullying and the Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate
Images to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers
Responsible for Justice
and Public Safety. Unlike the Senate report, which was devoted
more towards defining cyberbullying and establishing a national
understanding of the scope of the problem, this report is based
on what changes can (or should) be made to criminal law. On
the issue of
cyberbullying, the report reached two conclusions. The first is
that the term cyberbullying encompasses a broad range of
behaviours that can't
be addressed in one criminal offence. The second conclusion is
that the Criminal Code often addresses cyberbullying and face-
to-face
bullying by looking at core components of the situation such as
uttering threats, harassment, etc. The CWG does include a
number of potential
Criminal Code amendments that could be implemented to better
combat cyberbullying. The report also looks at the issue of the
non-
consensual distribution of intimate images, a component that is
often present in cyberbullying including the case of Rehtaeh
Parsons. The
CWG recommended that this activity be made illegal under a
new law that includes a maximum punishment of five years in
prison, a
recommendation that the government seemingly followed up on
its proposed legislation.
In early 2014, the Federal Government introduced "Stop Hating
Online" the first part of its national campaign designed to
increase youth
awareness of the potential dangers of certain online activities.
The $4 million campaign includes TV and Internet ads designed
to increase
awareness around the potential legal repercussions of online

bullying. One ad shows teenagers sharing a jpeg file named
"jacks_girlfriend"
over their mobile devices. The ad ends with the participants in
their principal's office, confronted by police officers while
Canada.ca/StopHatingOnline appears on the screen. A second ad
in the campaign includes "rapid fire" close ups of hands and
mobile devices
sharing the "jack's girlfriend" file with a set of cuffed hands at
the end showing the legal repercussions of the actions. Visiting
the
StopHatingOnline website brings up a variety of resources,
including separate sections for teens and for parents. The
website is part of a
broader "Get Cyber Safe" campaign managed by the Federal
Government which focuses on general online safety, including
fraud, illegal
downloading and computer viruses.
Provincial responses
Cyberbullying is very commonly identified as a problem within
schools with traditional approaches to bullying (codes of
conduct) considered an
appropriate response even though cyberbullying behaviour
occurs outside the confines of schools, where codes of
behaviour do not apply
(Shariff and Churchill 2010). While the provinces have varied
responses, they all tend to define cyberbullying as either harm
or misconduct
(Table 1). In addition, a number of the provinces still lack a
definition of cyberbullying or define it in the context of
traditional bullying.
Cyberbullying as harm implies that the problem of
cyberbullying lies in its effects: for instance, suicidal ideation,
social isolation and mental

illness. On the other hand, policy makers can look at
cyberbullying as a wrongful act in and of itself, regardless of
whether any negative effect
occurs. Provinces tend to define cyberbullying in terms of harm
(Alberta, Saskatchewan Manitoba for example), while other
provinces view it
as misconduct (British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador,
New Brunswick for example). Interestingly British Columbia
distinguishes
between bullying, harassment and intimidation, although
"cyber" is only defined in terms of bullying, while harassment
and intimidation are not
defined in an online context. It is also common to see
traditional bullying and cyberbullying treated as the same
problem despite evidence to
the contrary.
In the past, bullying has usually been addressed through non-
legislative means focused on prevention and intervention, which
is also
evidenced from the provincial policy responses on
cyberbullying. British Columbia for example has introduced
ERASE (Expect Respect and a
Safe Education) strategy in 2012. It is a program designed to
promote positive mental health and prevent bullying activities
in schools. In
Alberta, Children's Services and Education are leading a cross-
ministry prevention strategy, while Quebec enacted Bill 56: An
Act to prevent
and stop bullying and violence in schools requiring all schools
to develop anti-bullying strategies. Ontario has also introduced
Bill 212:
Progressive Discipline and School Safety Act allowing school
principals to expel students for up to 20 days for cyberbullying.
Across Canada
the most commonly used legislation to prevent and respond to

cyberbullying is Education Acts.
Nova Scotia however is an outlier in the sense that it has sought
to expand responsibility beyond the harm/misconduct dichotomy
to the
expected possibility of a harmful effect and the role of
authoritative bystanders, parents in particular, in ensuring that
cyberbullying does not
result in increased harm. One of the key differences in the Case
of Nova Scotia was the public perception of how severe the
problem was.
While Rehtaeh Parsons' death attracted significant attention
outside Nova Scotia, she was the third teenage girl from the
province to commit
suicide following prolonged cyberbullying. The problem
definition process in the province began earlier than in the rest
of the country when the
Nova Scotia government created a task force to look at the
issues of bullying and cyberbullying. Following the 2012
release of Respectful and
Responsible Relationships: There's No App for That, the report
of the Cyberbullying Task Force, the Nova Scotia Government
implemented
Bill 30, Promotion of Respectful and Responsible Relationships
Act amending the Education Act to include a definition of
cyberbullying,
establish a provincial code of conduct for schools and require
schools to collect incident data and monitor bullying activities.
u&inPS=true#

11/18/16, 8:23 PM
In May 2013, the Cyber-Safety Act Bill 61, also called
Rehtaeh's Law, was enacted. The legislation brought into force
an expansion of
cyberbullying for justice responses, the introduction of parental
liability, protection orders, regulations and a "CyberSCAN" unit
to investigate
cyberbullying complaints. The CyberSCAN unit is mandated to
investigate complaints of cyberbullying, but it has also raised a
number of
concerns about online privacy. In addition, the Nova Scotia
government has introduced the Restorative Approaches in
Schools, a crime-
prevention program led by the departments of Justice and
Education, which introduces restorative practices in schools.
They also
implemented the Speak Up, an Action Plan to Address Bullying
and Cyberbullying Behavior, which helps students in terms of
interpersonal
relationships, build public awareness and education, and creates
partnerships among school system participants to develop
greater social
accountability and responsibility.
Municipal responses
Canadian towns and cities have also been proactive on the anti-
bullying front. Many municipalities have passed bylaws to
combat bullying
with fines ranging from a few hundred to several thousand
dollars. Regina was the first city in the country to proceed in

this manner when the
AntiBullying and Public Fighting Bylaw was passed in 2006.
The bylaw gives city police the authority to issue tickets for
bullying, whether it
happens online or in a public place, with fines of up to $2,000.
In the place of a fine, the bylaw also gives the court the power
to force
individuals into antibullying educational courses. Even though
several tickets have been issued under the bylaw, as of
November 2012, none
have followed through to actual payment of a fine and/or
prosecution (Deutsch 2012). The relative lack of use of Regina's
bylaw has not
discouraged other municipalities, including the City of
Edmonton, from attempting to prevent bullying in this manner.
The town of Hanna,
Alberta passed a bylaw in 2012 that makes it an offence not
only to bully, but to encourage bullying. Potential punishment
includes fines, but
also jail terms of up to six months.
Following the suicide of Amanda Todd of Port Coquitlam, B.C.
in 2012, the city looked into anti-bullying measures it had the
power to
implement, including a municipal bylaw. Port Coquitlam Mayor
Greg Moore said that even though the bylaw would include the
ability to issue
tickets and fines, the main focus would be on raising awareness
and preventing bullying (Kurucz 2013). Upon review by the
RCMP and legal
staff, however, the city was told the police force would be
unable to enforce the bylaw as it infringed on portions of the
Criminal Code and the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Kurucz 2013). Mayor Moore
and other city councillors expressed disappointment but said
they were hopeful

the Federal Government would bring about changes to the
Criminal Code to make it easier for communities to offer
programs at the local level
(Strandberg 2013).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED] (1)
Considering the policy response
Governments have a number of policy instruments available to
address cyberbullying including law, education and public
awareness
campaigns. While cyberbullying is not a criminal offense in
Canada, the Criminal Code does cover numerous aspects of
cyberbullying
including criminal harassment, uttering threats, intimidation,
mischief in relation to data, unauthorized use of computer,
identity fraud, extortion,
false messages, indecent or harassing telephone calls,
counseling suicide, defamatory libel, incitement of hatred and
child pornography
offences (Canada. Department of Justice 2013). Canada has also
done a great deal of work around public awareness through both
traditional
and online channels. In class educational initiatives that teach
youth about cyberbullying are also common with schools taking
the lead across
the country. However, due to the poorly defined problem of
cyberbullying, the goals of these activities are not always clear.
In many cases anti-
cyberbullying initiatives are simply updates of existing bullying
interventions. This could produce a layering effect where policy
instruments
become layered on top of each other, over time working towards
specific and often conflicting objectives (Howlett 2009).

The word cloud in Figure 1 identifies several themes in how
governments are defining cyberbullying. Word frequencies
suggest it is
understood as a behavioural problem in the context of Olweus'
(1993) classic bullying criteria including intent to harm and
repetition. Other key
elements of the problem definition include the association with
electronic communications, the assumption that schools are the
institutional
site of the problem/solution and finally that students are the
main recipients of the interventions. This definition of
cyberbullying is troublesome
as it misses a number of important policy considerations.
Closely reflective of Olweus' classic definition with the
addition of computer mediated
communications, it does not assume cyberbullying is much
different than traditional bullying. Indeed the definition
contains several serious
flaws and a number of significant omissions.
The three major flaws with the definition are the assumption
that cyberbullying originates in schools, that youth are the main
victims, and that
the behaviour is intentional. Schools are not the sole site of
cyberbullying with social media and cell phone mobility
allowing people to stay
connected to their online worlds constantly. In many cases
cyberbullying goes beyond schools and enters the victim's
private life (Mishna et al.
2012; Tokunaga 2010). Second, cyberbullying is not limited to
youth. Bullying behaviour among adults has typically been
studied as a social
problem within a specific context such as a workplace,
university or prison. In addition, bullying is frequently seen as
an individual problem
consisting of the "bully" and the "victim" with less

consideration given to the role of groups and organizational
culture (Escartfn et al. 2013;
LaVan and Martin 2008; Rhodes et al. 2010). The prevalence of
bullying by adults is less frequent than for youth, for instance
when adult
prisoners are compared to youth offenders (Ireland 1999).
However, it is still not an uncommon adult behaviour, with
studies showing from ten
to fifteen per cent of workers experiencing some form of
bullying (Branch, Ramsay and Barker 2013; Giorgi et al. 2013;
Zapf et al. 2011).
Finally, recent research suggests that cyberbullying may not be
intentional (Shariff 2013). For example, Talwar, Gomez-
Garibello and Shariff
(2014) found that there are development differences in how
youth morally evaluate bullying activity, suggesting that the
behaviour does not
have to be intentional to cause harm.
Many of the known elements of cyberbullying discussed
previously are also omitted from the definition. First,
cyberbullying involves a vast
audience of bystanders who are often strangers and who may
have different responses to the bullying. There are also current
debates around
the culpability of bystanders (Benzmiller 2013). Second,
cyberbullying is often an anonymous act of aggression. Third,
cognitive and affective
empathy decreases when the aggression is not face-to-face and
the bully does not see the impact of their behaviour. Finally,
research shows

u&inPS=true#
11/18/16, 8:23 PM
that there is often an overlap between traditional bullying and
cyberbullying, with a number of youth engaging in both
activities simultaneously
(Kowalski et al. 2014). As a result, it is possible that existing
intervention programs will also help reduce the rates of
cyberbullying.
Several provinces and a number of school boards have
implemented initiatives around digital citizenship and bystander
education; however,
evaluating the impact of these programs is in very early stages.
Curriculum focused on digital citizenship teaches students
appropriate online
conduct and respect for others. Promoting digital citizenship in
schools was one of the key recommendations coming out of the
Senate
Standing Committee (2012) report Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect
for Rights in the Digital Age. The report defines digital
citizenship "as a
concept encompassing the various moral and ethical
responsibilities we all have, both as members of our
communities and as global citizens
engaging with each other through technology" (p. 60). As youth
become increasingly sophisticated users of social media,
learning appropriate
online behavior and promoting good digital citizens will be key
preventive measures (Kumazaki et al. 2011). Despite the

potential of digital
citizenship initiatives, evaluating this type of program will
require longitudinal studies that provide evidence-based
assessment of the
effectiveness of such interventions (Cassidy, Faucher and
Jackson 2013; Perren et al. 2012).
Bystanders witnessing cyberbullying have varied reactions with
some youth helping the victim, while others join in the bullying,
while others
just passively observe (Van Cleemput, Vandebosch and Pabian
2014). Get Cyber Safe, a national public awareness campaign
around
cyberbullying, includes bystander education to encourage
supportive behavior including confronting the bully, telling an
adult, and speaking
out against the bullying. Research suggests that bystander
education may play a critical role in intervention however;
evidence on possible
determinants of supportive behavior is mixed with question
around situational factors and bystanders' perception of bullying
(Holfeld 2014;
Machackova et al. 2013). As Polanin, Espelage and Pigott
(2012) have observed "best practice guidelines to promote
effective bystander
intervention behaviors remain undefined because research
findings varied widely with regard to their implementation
focuses and
approaches" (p. 50).
Problem definition is a dynamic process, and the current
Canadian public policy definition of cyberbullying will
inevitably evolve as we come to
a clearer understanding of the associated issues and appropriate
responses. Currently the causal explanations of cyberbullying
are poorly

understood, with most research focused on the individual
psychological/sociopsychological attributes of the bully
(Baroncelli and Ciucci 2014).
Identifying the specific origins of cyberbullying is also difficult
as the phenomenon is characterized by multiple causes and
experienced in the
context of individual social reality. Reframing of the problem
will occur over time through changes in incident rates,
standardized research
definitions and measurements and through the deliberative
dialogues that occur in policy formulation processes (Cross et
al. 2011; Dery 2000;
Fischer 2003).
Conclusion
As is so often the case in the problem definition stage, the
current problem definition of cyberbullying relies heavily on
the availability of a
solution (traditional bullying), which is common when a
problem is perceived as a crisis creating public outcry (Birkland
1998; Portz 1996). As
has been discussed, the Canadian media has played a key role in
characterizing the severity and prevalence of cyberbullying,
focusing on
tragic incidences resulting in teen suicide. While public
awareness is high, policy makers' responses are limited by the
lack of a standardized
construct and associated measurement instruments. In addition,
there is a dearth in the public policy and public administration
literature on
cyberbullying leaving analysts to integrate research insights
from diverse disciplinary fields including psychology,
education, criminology, law,
and health studies. The current approach to cyberbullying in
Canada relies heavily on traditional approaches to bullying, and

while there is
some policy experimentation around bystander education and
digital citizenship, the dominant understanding of the problem
remains
unchanged.
While research suggests that multi-pronged policy instruments
are effective means to prevent and respond to cyberbullying
(Bauman 2013;
Cascardi et al. 2014), the effects of these instruments on policy
outcomes is in the early stages of evaluation. In Canada, the
current definition
of cyberbullying does not provide policy makers with the
analytic precision required to develop and implement effective
interventions, identify
which existing interventions might be used to the same ends and
ensure the proper programming is in place to address the
different elements
of cyberbullying from traditional bullying.
Note
(1) The word cloud presented in Figure 1 was created in
TagCrowd (http://tagcrowd.com/), a free online software
service. It was generated by
entering all of the text contained in Table 1 under the problem
definition heading. For more information on the use of word
clouds as
visualization tools, see Heimerl et al. 2014, Berson and Berson
2009 and McNaught and Lam 2010.
References
Alberta. Alberta Education. School Technology Branch. 2012.
Digital Citizenship Policy Development Guide. Available at
http://education.alberta.ca/admin/technology.aspx.

Ang, Rebecca P. and Dion H. Goh. 2010. "Cyberbullying among
adolescents: The role of affective and cognitive empathy, and
gender." Child
Psychiatry & Human Development 41 (4) August: 387-397.
Bardwell, Lisa V. 1991. "Problem-framing: A perspective on
environmental problem-solving." Environmental Management
15 (5)
September/October: 603-612.
Baroncelli, Andrea and Enrica Ciucci. 2014. "Unique effects of
different components of trait emotional intelligence in
traditional bullying and
cyberbullying." Journal of Adolescence 37 (6) August: 807-815.
Bauman, Sheri. 2013. "Cyberbullying: What does the research
tell us?" Theory into Practice 52 (4) October: 249-256.
u&inPS=true#
11/18/16, 8:23 PM
Beale, A.V. and Kimberly R. Hall. 2007. "Cyberbullying: What
school administrators (and parents) can do." The Clearing
House 81 (1)
September-October: 8-12.

Benzmiller, Heather. 2013. "The Cyber-Samaritans: Exploring
criminal liability for the 'innocent' bystanders of
cyberbullying." [Notes and
Comments] Northwestern University Law Review 107 (2)
Winter: 927-962.
Berson, Ilene R. and Michael J. Berson. 2009. "Making sense of
social studies with visualization tools." Social Education 73(3):
124-126.
Birkland, Thomas A. 1998. "Focusing events, mobilization, and
agenda setting." Journal of Public Policy 18 (01) January: 53-
74.
Blumer, Herbert. 1971. "Social problems as collective
behavior." Social Problems 18 (3) Winter: 298-306.
Branch, Sara, Sheryl Ramsay and Michelle Barker. 2013.
"Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A
review." International
Journal of Management Reviews 15 (3) July: 280-299.
British Columbia. Ministry of Education. 2008. Safe, Caring
and Orderly Schools: A Guide. November. Available at
https://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/sco/guide/scoguide.pdf
--. 2012. Safe and Caring School Communities. Available at
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/ topic.page?
id=7DBB671F61A540F5AC3A89A904C85245
--. 2013. Codes of Conduct. Available at
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.
page?id=F9780A8215EA4D40A606E4CCF20E802F
Brown, Karen, Margaret Jackson and Wanda Cassidy. 2006.

"Cyber-bullying: Developing policy to direct responses that are
equitable and
effective in addressing this special form of bullying." Canadian
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 57 (4)
December: 136.
Canada. Department of Justice. CCSO Cybercrime Working
Group. 2013. "Cyberbullying and the non-consensual
distribution of intimate
images." Report to the Federal/Provincial/ Territorial Ministers
Responsible for Justice and Public Safety. Canada Justice.
Available at
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/cndii-cdncii/
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee
on Human Rights. 2012. Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect for
Rights in the Digital
Age. 10th Report. 41st Parliament, 1st Session. Available:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/411/ridr/dpk/
01dec12/reports-e.htm
Cascardi, Michele, Cathy Brown, Melinda Iannarone and Norma
Cardona. 2014. "The problem with overly broad definitions of
bullying:
Implications for the schoolhouse, the Statehouse, and the ivory
tower." Journal of School Violence 13 (3) May: 253-276.
Cassidy, Wanda, Chantal Faucher and Margaret Jackson. 2013.
"Cyberbullying among youth: A comprehensive review of
current international
research and its implications and application to policy and
practice." School Psychology International 34 (6) May: 575-
612.
Cassidy, Wanda, Margaret Jackson and Karen N. Brown. 2009.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how can pixels hurt

me?
Students' experiences with cyber-bullying." School Psychology
International 30 (4) July: 383-402.
Cesaroni, Carla, Steven Downing and Shahid Alvi. 2012.
"Bullying enters the 21st century? Turning a critical eye to
cyberbullying research."
Youth Justice 12 (3) December: 199-211.
Cohen, Tobi. 2013. "Cyberbully bill includes sweeping changes
to bring Criminal Code into modern era." Canada.com. 20
November.
Available at http://o.canada.com/news/ federalgovemment-
tables-bill-to-crack-down-on-cyberbullying
Cross, Donna, Helen Monks, Margaret Hall, Therese Shaw,
Yolanda Pintabona, Erin Erceg, Greg Hamilton, Clare Roberts,
Stacey Waters and
Leanne Lester. 2011 "Three-year results of the Friendly Schools
whole-of-school intervention on children's bullying behaviour."
British
Educational Research Journal 37 (1) February: 105-129.
David-Ferdon, Corinne and Marci Feldman Hertz. 2007.
"Electronic media, violence, and adolescents: An emerging
public health problem."
Journal of Adolescent Health 41 (6) December: S1-S5.
Dery, David. 2000 "Agenda setting and problem definition."
Policy Studies 21 (1) March: 37-47.
Deutsch, Jeremy. 2012. "Anti-bullying bylaw already in place."
Coquitlam Now. 30 November: Available at
http://www.thenownews.com/news/anti-bullying-bylaw-already-
inplace-1.448220.

Dooley, Julian J., Jacek Pyzalski and Donna Cross. 2009.
"Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying a theoretical and
conceptual review."
Zeitschrift fur Psychologie 217 (4): 182-188.
Dredge, Rebecca, John Gleeson and Xochitl de la Piedad
Garcia. 2014. "Cyberbullying in social networking sites: An
adolescent victim's
perspective." Computers in Human Behavior 36 (July): 13-20.
Ebbin, Syma Alexi. 2011. "The problem with problem
definition: Mapping the discursive terrain of conservation in
two pacific salmon
management regimes." Society and Natural Resources 24 (2)
February: 148-164.
Escartin, Jordi, Johannes Ullrich, Dieter Zapf, Elmar Schliiter
and Rolf van Dick. 2013. "Individual-and group-level effects of
social
11/18/16, 8:23 PM
identification on workplace bullying." European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology 22 (2): 182-193.
Feldman Hertz, Marci, Ingrid Donato and James Wright. 2013.
"Bullying and suicide: A public health approach." Journal of
Adolescent Health
53 (1) July: S1-S3.
Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive
Politics and Deliberative Practices: Discursive Politics and

Deliberative Practices.
New York. Oxford University Press.
Giorgi, Giorgi, Mikayo Ando, Alicia Arenas, Mindy Krischer
Shoss and Jose Maria Leon-Perez. 2013. "Exploring personal
and organizational
determinants of workplace bullying and its prevalence in a
Japanese sample." Psychology of Violence 3 (2) April: 185-197.
Gorzig, Anke and Kjartan Olafsson. 2013. "What makes a bully
a cyberbully? Unraveling the characteristics of cyberbullies
across twenty-five
European countries." Journal of Children and Media 7 (1): 9-27.
Hankivsky, Olena and Renee Cormier. 2011. "Intersectionality
and public policy: Some lessons from existing models."
Political Research
Quarterly 64 (1) March: 217-229.
Heimerl, Florian, Steffen Lohmann, Simon Lange and Thomas
Ertl. 2014 "Word Cloud Explorer: Text Analytics based on
Word Clouds."
Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on
System Science (HICSS 2014), January 6-9th 2014.
http://www.vis.unistuttgart.de/uploads/tx_vispublications/HICS
S2014_Word_Cloud_Explorer_preprint.pdf
Hinduja, Sameer and Justin W. Patchin. . 2009. Cyberbullying:
Identification, Prevention, and Response. Cyberbullying
Research Centre 1.
http://www.cyberbullying.us/Cyberbullying_Identification_Prev
ention_Response_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
Holfeld, Brett. 2014. "Perceptions and attributions of bystanders
to cyber bullying." Computers in Human Behavior 38
(September): 1-7.

Howlett, Michael. 2009. "Governance modes, policy regimes
and operational plans: A multilevel nested model of policy
instrument choice and
policy design. Policy Sciences 42 (1) February: 73-89.
Ipsos Reid. 2012. One in Ten (12%) Parents Online, Around the
World Say Their Child Has Been Cyberbullied, 24% Say They
Know of a
Child Who Has Experienced Same in Their Community. [Blog
post], 9 January. Available at http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-
14_ISTE_Standards-S_PDF.pdf
--. 2013. Bullies Taking to Social Networking as Teens Become
More Mobile. [Press Release], 26 February. Available at
http://www.ipsos-
na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx7id=6010
Ireland, Jane L. 1999. "Bullying behaviors among male and
female prisoners: A study of adult and young offenders."
Aggressive Behavior 25
(3) April: 161-178.
Jones, Bryan D. and Frank R. Baumgartner. 2005. The Politics
of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago,
IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Katz, Adrienne. 2012. Cyberbullying and E-Safety: What
Educators and Other Professionals Need to Know. London:
Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Kowalski, Robin M., Gary W. Giumetti, Amber N. Schroeder
and Micah R. Lattanner. 2014. "Bullying in the digital age: A
critical review and

meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth."
Psychological Bulletin 140 (4) July: 1073-1137.
Kumazaki, Ayuchi, Kanae Suzuki, Rui Katsura, Akira Sakamoto
and Megumi Kashibuchi. 2011. "The effects of netiquette and
ICT skills on
school-bullying and cyberbullying: The two-wave panel study
of Japanese elementary, secondary, and high school students."
Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences 29 December: 735-741.
Kurucz, John. 2013. "PoCo decides not to pass an anti-bullying
bylaw." Coquitlam Now. 15 May. Available at
http://www.thenownews.com/news/anti-bullying-bylaw-backed-
l. 444903.
Langos, Colette. 2012. "Cyberbullying: The challenge to
define." Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15
(6) June: 285-289.
LaVan, Helen and Wm. Marty Martin. 2008. "Bullying in the
U.S. workplace: Normative and process-oriented ethical
approaches." Journal of
Business Ethics 83 (2) December: 147-165.
Law, Danielle M., Jennifer D. Shapka, Jose F. Domene and
Monique H. Gagne. 2012a. "Are cyberbullies really bullies? An
investigation of
reactive and proactive online aggression." Computers in Human
Behavior 28 (March): 664-672.
Law, Danielle M., Jennifer D. Shapka, Shelley Hymel, Brent F.
Olson and Terry Waterhouse. 2012b. "The changing face of
bullying: An
empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying
and victimization. Computers in Human Behavior 28 (January):

226-232.
Lawrence, Regina G. and Thomas A. Birkland. 2004. "Guns,
Hollywood, and school safety: Defining the school the shooting
problem across
public arenas." Social Science Quarterly 85 (5) December:
1193-1207.
Li, Qing. 2006. "Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender
differences." School Psychology International Y1 (2) May: 157-
170.
u&inPS=true#
11/18/16, 8:23 PM
--. 2007. "New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying
in schools." Computers in Human Behavior 23 Quly): 1777-
1791.
--. 2010. "Cyberbullying in high schools: A study of students'
behaviors and beliefs about this new phenomenon." Journal of
Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma 19 (4) May: 372-392.
Machackova, Hana, Lenka Dedkova, Anna Sevcikova and Alena
Cema. 2013. "Bystanders' support of cyberbullied schoolmates."

Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology 23 (1): 25-36.
McNaught, Carmel and Paul Lam. 2010. "Using Wordle as a
supplementary research tool." Qualitative Report 15 (3): 630-
643.
McQuade, Samuel C, James P. Colt and Nancy B.B. Meyer.
2009. Cyber Bullying: Protecting Kids and Adults from Online
Bullies. Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers.
Mishna, Faye, Mona Khoury-Kassabri, Tahany Gadalla and
Joanne Daciuk. 2012. "Risk factors or involvement in cyber
bullying: Victims,
bullies and bully-victims." Children and Youth Services Review
34 (1): 63-70.
Navarro, Jordana N. and Jana L. Jasinski. 2013. "Why girls?
Using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying
experiences between girls
and boys." Women & Criminal Justice 23 (4) October: 286-303.
Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Education. 2006.
Safe and Caring Schools Policy. Available at
http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/studentsupportservices/publica
tions/
Olweus, Dan. 1993. Bullying at School: What We Know and
What We Can Do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
--. 2012. "Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon?" European
Journal of Developmental Psychology 9 (5): 520-538.
Paglia-Boak, Angela, Edward M. Adlaf, Hayley A. Hamilton,
Joseph H. Beitchman, David Wolfe and Robert E. Mann. 2012.

"The Mental
Health and Well-being of Ontario Students, 1991-2011." CAMH
Research Document Series No. 35. Toronto, ON: Centre for
Addiction and
Mental Health.
Paterson, Stephanie. 2010. "What's the problem with gender-
based analysis? Gender mainstreaming policy and practice in
Canada."
Canadian Public Administration 53 (3) September: 395-416.
Perren, Sonja, Lucie Corcoran, Helen Cowie, Francine Dehue,
D'Jamila Garcia, Conor McGuckin, Anna Sevcikova, Panayiota
Tsatsou and
Trijntje Vollink. 2012. "Tackling cyberbullying: Review of
empirical evidence regarding successful responses by students,
parents, and
schools." International Journal of Conflict and Violence 6 (2):
283-292.
Pettalia, Jennifer L., Elizabeth Levin and Joel Dickinson. 2013.
"Cyberbullying: Eliciting harm without consequence."
Computers in Human
Behavior 29 (November): 27582765.
Piesclil, Stephanie, Christina Kuhlmann and Torsten Porsch.
2014. "Beware of publicity! Perceived distress of negative cyber
incidents and
implications for defining cyberbullying." Journal of School
Violence 14 (1): 111-132.
Polanin, Joshua R., Dorothy L. Espelage and Therese D. Pigott.
2012. "A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention
programs' effects
on bystander intervention behavior." School Psychology Review
41 (1): 47-65.

Portz, John. 1996. "Problem definitions and policy agendas."
Policy Studies Journal 24 (3) September: 371-386.
Rhodes, Carl, Alison Pullen, Margaret H. Vickers, Stewart R.
Clegg and Alexandra Pitsis. 2010. "Violence and workplace
bullying: What are
an organization's ethical responsibilities?" Administrative
Theory & Praxis 32 (1) March: 96-115.
Rochefort, David A. and Roger W. Cobb. 1993. "Problem
definition, agenda access, and policy choice." Policy Studies
journal 21 (1) March:
56-71.
--. 1995. "Problem definition: An emerging perspective." In The
Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda,
edited by David A.
Rochefort and Roger W. Cobb. Lawrence, KS: University Press
of Kansas.
Sabella, Russell A., Justin W. Patchin and Sameer Hinduja.
2013. "Cyberbullying myths and realities." Computers in Human
Behavior 29
(November): 2703-2711.
Saskatchewan. Ministry of Education. 2013. Saskatchewan's
Action Plan to Address Bullying and Cyberbullying. 13
November. Available at
http://www.saskatchewan.ca7~/media/
news%20archive/2013/november/14/govemment%20takes%20ac
tion%20against%20bullying/campeau%20report%20on%20bully
ing%20and%
20cyberbullying.pdf
Schenk, Allison M. and William J. Fremouw. 2012. "Prevalence,

psychological impact, and coping of cyberbully victims among
college
students." journal of School Violence 11 (1) January: 21-37.
Shariff, Shaheen. 2013. Define the Line: Clarifying Boundaries
Between Cyberbullying and Socially Responsible Digital
Citizenship. Available
at http://definetheline.ca/images/FB-FINALREPORT-SHARIFF-
DIGITAL -CITIZENSHIP-JANUARY28-2014-PDF2-NEW-
VERSION-1.pdf
11/18/16, 8:23 PM
Shariff, Shaheen and Andrew H. Churchill, eds. 2010.
"Appreciating complexity: Detangling the web of stakeholder
influence and
responsibility." Truths and Myths of Cyberbullying:
International Perspectives on Stakeholder Responsibility and
Children's Safety. New York:
Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Sleglova, Veronika and Alena Cerna. 2011. "Cyberbullying in
adolescent victims: Perception and coping." Cyberpsychology:
Journal of
psychosocial research on cyberspace 5 (2): 4.
Slonje, Robert, Peter K. Smith and Ann Frisen. 2013 "The
nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention."
Computers in Human
Behavior 29 (January): 26-32.
Smith, Peter K., Jess Mahdavi, Manuel Carvalho, Sonja Fisher,

Shanette Russell and Neil Tippett. 2008. "Cyberbullying: Its
nature and impact
in secondary school pupils." journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry 49 (4) April: 376-385.
Strandberg, Diane. 2013. "Port Coquitlam nixes anti-bullying
bylaw plan." The Tri-City News 15 May.
Thomas, Hannah J., Jason P. Connor and James G. Scott. 2014.
"Integrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Challenges
of definition
and measurement in adolescents-a review." Educational
Psychology Review 27 (1): 135-152.
Talwar, Victoria, Carlos Gomez-Garibello and Shaheen Shariff.
2014. "Adolescents' moral evaluations and ratings of
cyberbullying: The effect
of veracity and intentionality behind the event." Computers in
Human Behavior 36(July): 122-128.
Tokunaga, Robert S. 2010. "Following you home from school: A
critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying
victimization."
Computers in Human Behavior 26 (May): 277-287.
Totten, Mark and Perpetua Quigley. . 2005. "Parental
knowledge of child-reported bully-victim and sexual harassment
problems in several
Canadian schools: Implications for policy and program
development." Canadian Public Health Association. November
8, 2005.
Van Cleemput, Katrien, Heidi Vandebosch and Sara Pabian.
2014. "Personal characteristics and contextual factors that
determine 'helping,'
'joining in,' and 'doing nothing' when witnessing

cyberbullying." Aggressive Behavior 40 (5): 383-396.
Vandebosch, Heidi and Katrien Van Cleemput. 2008. "Defining
cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of
youngsters."
Cyberpsychology & Behavior 11 (4) August: 499-503.
Vandebosch, Heidi, Roma Simulioniene, Magdalena Marczak,
Anne Vermeulen and Luigi Bonetti. 2013. "The role of the
media." In
Cyberbullying through the New Media: Findings from an
International Network, edited by Peter K. Smith and Georges
Steffgen. UK:
Psychology Press, pp. 99-118.
Wang, Jing, Tonja R. Nansel and Ronald J. Iannotti. 2011.
"Cyber and traditional bullying: Differential association with
depression." Journal of
Adolescent Health 48 (4) April: 415-417.
Weiss, Janet A. 1989. "The powers of problem definition: The
case of government paperwork." Policy Sciences 22 (2) May:
97-121.
Willard, Nancy E. 2007. "The authority and responsibility of
school officials in responding to cyberbullying." Journal of
Adolescent Health 41 (6)
December: S64r-S65.
Wingate, Skye V., Jessy A. Minney and Rosanna E. Guadagno.
2013. "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will
always hurt
you: A review of Cyberbullying." Social Influence 8 (2-3)
April: 87-106.
Yang, An and Christina Salmivalli. 2013. "Different forms of

bullying and victimization: Bully-victims versus bullies and
victims." European
Journal of Developmental Psychology 10 (6) May: 723-738.
Yukon. Yukon Education. 2008. Safe and Caring Schools Policy
1011: Records File # 3500-31011. 31 January. Available at
http://www.education.gov.yk.ca/pdf/policy_ safe_schools.pdf
Zapf, Dieter, Jordi Escartin, Stale Einarsen, Helge Hoel and
Maarit Vartia. 2011. "Empirical findings on prevalence and risk
groups of bullying
in the workplace." In Bullying and Harassment in the
Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice,
2nd edition, edited by
Stale Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf and Cary L. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Ryan Deschamps is a PhD candidate, and Kathleen McNutt is
Executive Director, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of
Public Policy,
University of Regina.
Caption: Figure 1. Word Frequency in Cyberbullying Problem
Definitions (1)
Table 1. Provincial Response to Cyberbullying
Jurisdiction Instrument Problem definition
Ontario Education Act Cyberbullying defined: (1.2)
Bill 13 Without limiting the generality of
19 June 2012 the definition of "bullying" in
11/18/16, 8:23 PM

of 14about:blank
Bill 212: subsection (1), bullying includes
Progressive bullying, known as cyberbullying,
Disciplineand that is done through any form of
School Safety electronic means using any
Act technique, including, (a) creating
a web page or a blog in which the
creator assumes the identity of
another person; (b) impersonating
another person as the author of
posted content or messages; and (c)
communicating material to more than
one person or posting material on
an electronic medium that may be
accessed by one or more persons.
Quebec Education Act Cyberbullying defined: "any
Act Respecting behavior, speech, actions or
Private gestures, including cyberbullying,
Education Bill expressed directly or indirectly,
56 15 June 2012 in particular through social
media,
prevention plan having the aim of injuring,
hurting, oppressing or ostracizing
an individual"
Alberta The Education Cyberbullying defined:
"repeated
Act and hostile or demeaning behaviour
by an individual in the school
community where the behaviour is
intended to cause harm, fear or
distress to one or more other
individuals in the school

community, including psychological
harm or harm to an individual's
reputation." The Act requires
students to "refrain from, report
and not tolerate bullying or
bullying behaviour directed toward
others in the school, whether or
not it occurs within the school
building, during the school day or
by electronic means," while school
boards must "establish, implement
and maintain a policy respecting
the board's obligation under
subsection (l)(d) to provide a
welcoming, caring, respectful and
safe learning environment that
includes the establishment of a
code of conduct for students that
addresses bullying behaviour."
Nova Scotia Education Act Cyberbullying defined:
"bullying by
electronic means that occurs
through the use of technology,
including computers or other
electronic devices, social
networks, text messaging, instant
messaging, websites or e-mail."
Bill 30, the Passed in May 14, 2012 to amend
the
Promotion of Education act to include
Respectful and definitions of cyberbullying and
Respon-sible bullying (cited above). Amend
Relationships Chapter 1 of the Acts of 199596,
Act the Education Act, to Address

Bullying by Promoting Respectful
and Responsible Relationships
11/18/16, 8:23 PM
Bill 61, Cyber- "Cyberbullying" means any
safety Act electronic communication through
the use of technology including,
without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, computers, other
electronic devices, social
net-works, text messaging, instant
messaging, websites and electronic
mail, typically repeated or with
continuing effect, that is intended
or ought reasonably [to] be
expected to cause fear,
intimidation, humiliation, distress
or other damage or harm to another
person's health, emotional
wellbeing, self-esteem or
reputation, and includes assisting
or encouraging such communication
in any way
New Education Act Cyberbullying defined in the
Brunswick (Bill 45) context of misconduct: Students
are
13 June 2012 guaranteed a "positive learning
and
Reporting working environment" free from
Prevention "bullying, cyberbullying,

Action harassment and other forms of
disruptive or non-tolerated
behaviour or misconduct, including
behaviour or misconduct that occurs
outside school hours and off the
school grounds to the extent the
behaviour or misconduct affects the
school environment."
Prince School Act N/A--school officials may
suspend
Edward Focused on use or expel students based on
Island of suspension regulations set by the
Department.
for misconduct.
Newfound- Strategy N/A--focused on a code of
conduct,
land and Safe and Caring rather than specific definitions
of
Labrador Schools Policy behaviour.
May 2006
Manitoba Bill 24 The Cyberbullying defined: "using
the
Public Schools Internet or other information or
Amendment Act communication technologies,
such as
Safe Schools e-mail messages or text messages
Charter sent by cell phone or pager, to
support deliberate, repeated and
hostile behaviour by an individual
or group that is intended to harm
someone else."
Saskatchewan Action plan to Cyberbullying defined:

"emotional,
address bullying psychological or social bullying
and cyberbullying- that occurs using technology to
2013. forward or spread hurtful messages
and/or images through email,
texting, social media or other
forms of electronic communication.
Cyberbullying is simply a different
setting for bullying. Those who are
the target of cyberbullying may be
the target of other types of
bullying as well."
11/18/16, 8:23 PM
Alberta Education Act Cyberbullying defined in the
Bill 3 context of bullying: "repeated and
10 December 2012 hostile or demeaning behaviour
by
an individual in the school
community where: the behaviour is
intended to cause harm, fear or
distress to one or more other
individuals in the school
community, including psychological
harm or harm to an individual's
reputation."
British Safe and Caring Cyberbullying defined:
"bullying
Columbia School behaviour which is carried out
Communities June through an internet service such

as
2012 Code of email, chat room, blog, discussion
Conduct group or instant messaging. It can
also include bullying through
mobile phone technologies and new
internet technologies in the
future."
Yukon Safe and Caring Cyberbullying defined in the
Schools Policy context of bullying: "Bullying is a
January 2008 pattern of repeated aggressive
behaviour, with negative intent,
directed from one person to
another, or from one group to
another. In many cases bullying
occurs when there is a power
imbalance. Repeated bullying
behaviors can take many forms and
are not limited to; physical (e.g.
pushing, tripping), verbal (e.g.
name calling, put-downs), social
(e.g. social isolation, gossip),
intimidation (extortion, defacing
property or clothing) or
cyberbullying (threats or harmful
and demeaning text messages, photos
or videos distributed or published
to the internet)."
Northwest Passed a motion N/A
Territories for a strategy
Territory-wide
anti-bullying
campaign
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)

Deschamps, Ryan, and Kathleen McNutt. "Cyberbullying:
what's the problem?" Canadian Public Administration, vol. 59,
no. 1, 2016, p. 45+.
Academic OneFile, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?
p=AONE&sw=w&u=lom_oaklandu&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA450
037971&it=r&asid=5e91deb83675b55ef3dc3128c24f8af0.
Accessed 18
Nov. 2016.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A450037971
11/18/16, 8:26 PM
The dangers of cyberbullying
Christopher B. Davison and Carl H. Stein
North American Journal of Psychology. 16.3 (Dec. 2014): p595.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2014 North American Journal of
Psychology
http://najp.8m.com/
Abstract:
With so many social media avenues available for the masses,
the Internet is becoming a dangerous, threatening, yet
enticing place for all. It is important to look at the growing
number of negative social media aspects of which children can
be subjected to on a daily basis. This paper will discuss the
research literature on cyberbullying, including causality and
predictive factors, consequences of cyberbullying from
economic, health, and social perspectives. Additionally, the
authors

will make suggestions to identify and protect against
cyberbullying. The literature provides an eye opening
realization that,
if left on the current path social media are on, the dangers will
continue to increase. Educators, parents and children need
to be aware of the damage that can occur and understand that
cyberbullying can be just as harmful as physical bullying. In
order to better understand the cyberbullying phenomena, it is
essential for everyone to become awareness of the issue
relating to cyberbullying. This is especially true as the social
media frenzy continues to increase.
Full Text:
With an ever-growing number of people using social media it is
important to protect the children from bullies. As much as
they can be made aware of physical bullies, they must be aware
of cyberbullies. The Internet has provided a new medium
with which people can commit inappropriate, harmful activity.
The damaging activities include, but are not limited to, cyber-
hacking, cyber-stalking, and other forms of harmful behavior
including bullying (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2012). The
literature discusses cyberbullying instances that include all age
groups of children from early childhood to adolescence.
This paper will review the international cyberbullying literature
for those varying age groups among minors.
Cyberbullying is reported as an aggressive, intentional act
distributed by an individual or group, using contact in an
electronic medium, continuously and relentlessly against
someone who cannot stand up for himself or herself easily
(Smith
et al., 2008). Menesini & Nocentini (2009) found cyberbullying
is an imbalance of perceived power wherein victims have a
hard time defending themselves from bullies.

Cyberbullying research is still growing worldwide, focusing on
the commonness of the occurrence, the relation between
customary and electronic bullying, and on potential associations
or risk matters related to cyberbullying (Menesini &
Nocentini, 2009). Lenhart (2010) found that 68% of students
use the Internet while at school (2010). Additionally,
adolescents spend 17 hours per week on the Internet on average,
with some spending as much as 40 hours or more
(Center for Digital Future at the USC Annenberg School, 2010).
With this ever increasing use of the Internet, cyberbullying
is likely to be a growing problem.
Due to the nature of cyberbullying, it can occur in many unique
forms. Whether the origin is Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,
or any other form of online communications, cyberbullying has
begun to include the distribution of explicit videos and
occurs via a range of websites, including online gaming sites
(Rideout, Roberts, & Foehr, 2005). According to Katzer,
Fetchenhauer, & Belschak (2009), nearly 75% of school-age
minors experienced cyberbullying aggression at least once in
the last year. Goebert, Else, Matsu, Chung-Do and Chang
(2011) studied Hawaiian natives. They sampled 677 high school
students and examined the relationship between cyberbullying
and mental health. They reported that more than half
(56.1%) of the students had been a victim of cyberbullying
within the last year (Goebert et. al., 2011). Their research found
that cyberbully victims were 2.5 times more likely to abuse
drugs and alcohol, had a higher instance of depression and
were more than 3 times more likely to attempt suicide.
Cyberbullying research and understanding is critical for many
reasons. To begin with, adolescence is one of the most
critical stages in the development of emotional and cognitive
schemes and will shape and evolve the "adult personality"
(Ortega et al., 2012). Secondly, cyberbullying is a difficulty
faced by more than half of all high school students (Goebert et.

al., 2011) that can result in mental health consequences,
including abusing drugs and alcohol as well as suicidal
tendencies (Baker & Helm, 2010). Baker and Helm (2010) also
found that being bullied was widely accepted among youth,
showing that most students expect to be harassed in one form or
another. The implication of these research studies is that
society is beginning to not only accept, but expect, electronic
communication behaviors that are emotionally and physically
damaging.
CYBERBULLYING COMPARED TO PHYSICAL BULLYING
erGroupName=lom_oaklandu&inputFieldValue(0)=%22Christop
her+B.+Davison%22&inputFieldName(0)=AU&prodId=AONE
erGroupName=lom_oaklandu&inputFieldValue(0)=%22Carl+H.
+Stein%22&inputFieldName(0)=AU&prodId=AONE
http://go.galegroup.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/ps/aboutJournal.
do?contentModuleId=AONE&resultClickType=AboutThisPublic
ation&actionString=DO_DISPLAY_ABOUT_PAGE&searchTyp
e=BasicSearchForm&docId=GALE%7C0BXQ&userGroupName
=lom_oaklandu&inPS=true&rcDocId=GALE%7CA392177618&
prodId=AONE&pubDate=120141201
http://najp.8m.com/
u&inPS=true#

u&inPS=true#
u&inPS=true#
u&inPS=true#
u&inPS=true#
11/18/16, 8:26 PM
Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, and Lattanner (2014) found that
while face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying share many
similarities, there are differences. They found that cyberbullies
feel anonymous, which gives them more of an incentive to

be aggressive as they feel there will be no consequences.
Additionally, the physical stature of a victim or the bully is not
taken into account because the threat of physical harm is not
present. In face-to-face bullying the bully can see the impact
as the attack happens whereas the cyberbully cannot see any of
the outcomes, perhaps resulting in further aggression.
Vannucci, Nocentini, Mazzoni, and Menesini (2012) further add
that the reward for cyberbullying often has a temporal delay
as the impact could take minutes or days to reverberate and
reach its target.
Another notable manner in which the two types of bullying
differ is the accessibility of victims. The opportunity to bully
someone in a cyber-manner can happen at any time, to anyone,
and it increases the possibility for a greater audience.
Cyberbullying can have a large, even worldwide target, or a
small scale audience. In traditional bullying, only those within
proximity are privy to the bullying.
Although traditional bullying and cyberbullying share
similarities, the research literature examines notable differences
in
perception, affect, controllability, and permanence. Ortega et al.
(2012) reinforce this with a study showing that emotional
responses differ between face-to-face bullying and
cyberbullying. People who were cyberbullied felt less anger
than those
who experienced traditional face-to-face bullying. This could be
due to perception with regard to the different bullying
modalities. Traditional face-to-face bullying can be perceived
as more of a physical attack on an actual person, whereas
cyberbullying can just be viewed as slanderous. The lack of
emotion is caused by the lack of face-to-face interaction as
well as the lack of verbal and nonverbal cues. The
uncontrollability is caused by the lack of any person viewing
the bullying

and being able to stop the activities. The permanence is
synonymous with the digital age: almost everything online is
available to everyone, everywhere. Once information
(slanderous, libelous, bullying, or otherwise) goes on the
Internet it is
next to impossible to erase all evidence of it (Pearson,
Andersson, & Porath, 2005).
CHARACTERISTICS AND FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH
CYBERBULLYING
The variables associated with cyberbullying are as diverse as
could be imagined. As cyberbullying takes place online,
there is an indirect (i.e., non-physical) nature to its
manifestation. When a minor becomes a cyberbully it is often a
result of
the lack of parental communication and/or understanding of the
phenomena, including the enabling technology.
Unique traits of online communications, including the ease to
repeat and replicate, lack of emotion, the lack of control from
the victim, the permanent nature of the Internet, the ease of
access to the Internet, all make for a greater likelihood of
inappropriate online behavior to occur (Pearson, Andersson, &
Porath, 2005). The ease of repeatability allows for the
hurtful actions to continue with a simple keystroke, sometimes
returning to victimize the aggressor.
Bullies and victims share a double-edged sword regarding the
interaction between them. Harassment via cyberbullying
leads to revenge bullying as a coping method as well as a
protective strategy. Ironically, cyberbullies place themselves at
a
greater risk of being bullied in return and a vicious cycle is
induced (Arslan, Savaser, Hallett, & Balci, 2012). One study
showed that being a cyberbully contributes to a twenty-fold

increase of also being a victim (Arslan, Savaser, Hallett, &
Balci, 2012). Additionally, bullies are likely to believe that
bullying is normal and to morally disengage with regard to the
conduct (Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014).
Arslan et al. (2012) found that the strongest predictor of being
bullied online was being bullied face-to-face. A child that is
bullied in the physical world is likely to engage in this behavior
to the virtual world. Indeed, Kowalski, et al. (2014) found that
cyberbullying victims have a greater risk of becoming bullies
themselves.
The indirect nature of cyberbullying makes it difficult to
evaluate the deliberate or responsive nature of the occurrence
(Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). Additionally, harassment can be
easily spread across a wider medium because of the nature
of the Internet. Kowalski and Limber (2007) discovered that
instant messaging (66.6%) is used most frequently for
cyberbullying. With the ever increasing number of social media
sites, these sites will likely become the new forum for
cyberbullying and targeting in the near future.
Juvonen and Gross (2008) found that only one in three teens
that were victims of cyberbullying mentioned the harassment
to their parents or guardians. This low reporting could be
because the children are afraid they will face reduced Internet
and cellphone privileges or other punishments. Parents need to
inquire more about the actions and feelings their children
are displaying, or often times, not displaying directly. Instead,
they seem more interested in what is defined as the 4Ps:
Privacy, Predators, Pornography and Pop-Ups. Therefore, they
are not privy to the day-to day harassment their child may
be giving or receiving (WiredKids, nd).
Arslan, Savaser, Hallett, and Balci (2012) found that boys were
much more prone to carrying out an act of cyberbullying

u&inPS=true#
11/18/16, 8:26 PM
than girls. Boys have a greater tendency towards aggressive
behavior even in a potentially anonymous online
environment. This difference is exacerbated by the fact that
aggressive behavior may be more tolerated in boys (Erdur-
Baker, 2010). This gender difference is supported by the
research of Wang, Lannotti, and Nansel (2009). Looking
specifically at the United States, they found that boys bully
more than girls. Relatedly, the research of cyberbully victim
status by gender appears unresolved. Research by Arslan et al.
(2012) found boys more likely than girls to be victims of
cyberbullying, conversely, Li (2007) found more girls to report
being a victim than boys. Mishna, Cook, Gadalla, Daciuk,
and Solomon (2010) report mixed results as well with regard to
victimization status and type of cyberbullying experienced.
Paternal unemployment is associated with a two-fold increase in
the likelihood of being a cyberbully or a victim (Arslan et
al., 2012). In their research, a notable predictive factor was
whether the child's father was employed. They discovered that
children with unemployed fathers were at more than two times
greater risk of becoming a cyberbully. Additionally, children
with unemployed fathers were almost two times more like to
suffer cyber victimization as opposed to those whose father

was employed. This shows support that home-related stressors
and the parent-child bond played a significant role in
cyberbullying. (Arslan et al., 2012).
Another study supporting socio-economic association with
cyberbullying was performed by Jankauskiene, Kardelis, Sukys,
and Kardeliene (2008). Compared to the high socio-economic
status (SES) families, children from the low SES families
were almost three times more likely to be bullied. Children from
the high SES families were slightly more inclined to engage
in bullying behavior that their low SES counterparts.
The literature demonstrates that cyberbullying varies between
gender and socio-economic circumstances. Additionally,
ethnic backgrounds differ in frequency of cyberbullying
instances and can be a factor in bullying instances (Mischna,
Cook,
Gadalla, Daciuk, & Solomon, 2010). Research has found that
"cyberbullying is widespread with serious potential
consequences among Asian and Pacific Islander youth"
(Goebert, Else, Matsu, Chung-Do, & Chang, 2011, p. 1282). In
the
Gobert et al (2011) multiethnic study, Caucasians reported the
highest instance of being cyberbullied and Asian and Pacific
Islander youths demonstrated the most likelihood of serious
mental health problems.
CONSEQUENCES OF CYBERBULLYING TO WELL-BEING
The effects of cyberbullying lead to both negative long term and
short term consequences. Cyberbullying exposure (as
both a bully and a victim) was significantly associated with low
levels of self-reported school satisfaction and achievement
(Arslan et al., 2012; Bernan & Li, 2007). Children who are
already not doing well academically may begin to target their
peers as a coping mechanism. Victims of cyberbullying could

111816, 823 PMPage 1 of 14aboutblankCyberbullying.docx

111816, 823 PMPage 1 of 14aboutblankCyberbullying.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 111816, 823 PMPage 1 of 14aboutblankCyberbullying.docx

Similar to 111816, 823 PMPage 1 of 14aboutblankCyberbullying.docx (17)

More from moggdede

More from moggdede (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

111816, 823 PMPage 1 of 14aboutblankCyberbullying.docx