1. Examining Educational Programs Designed to Combat Cyber-Bullying:
Thematic Content Analysis and Key Word in Context Methods
MRP Proposal
Nicolette Reyhani
0899499

2. Reyhani 2
Introduction
With the increasing popularity of social mediums, there has been a growing concern
regarding cyber aggression and victimization in research involving adolescents and mainstream
media (Sontag et al. 2011; Bonanno and Hymel 2013). In the most recent study conducted by
Pew Research Centre, on social media, youth and technology, it was found that 92% of teens
report going online daily (Lenhart 2015), with roughly 24% admitting to going online “almost”
constantly (Lenhart 2015). With three out of four adolescents with access to a smartphones, and
71% of youth admitting to using more than one social networking site, it is difficult to maintain
oversight and monitoring of online behaviour.
Youth rely on these networking tools to maintain their social circles (Mark and Ratcliffe
2011), however these mediums provide the most opportune areas for cyberbullying to occur
(Bonanno and Hymel 2013). In a study conducted by Mark and Ratliffe (2011), the researchers
found that 33% of females and 20% of males had reported being a cyber victim or cyberbully
(Mark and Ratliffe 2011). The ambiguity, and lack of clear distinction between victim and
perpetrator involved in cyberbullying poses as a unique threat to students, parents, school
administration, and law enforcement, while introducing new elements to the old practice of
bullying (Bonanno and Hymel 2013; Kraft and Wang 2009).
One of the most powerful, as well as destructive characteristics of cyberbullying and cyber
victimization is the use of anonymity (Mark and Ratliffe 2011). Marees and Peterman found that
cyberbullying was the result of an overlap of traditional bullying; meaning that the bullying
begins at school, and is continued later through technological devices (Marees and Peterman
2012, 469; Slonje, Smith, and Frisén 2013, 28). The use of anonymity provides an opportunity
to act more aggressively than they would in the traditional face-to-face conduct (Mark and

3. Reyhani 3
Ratliffe 2011). The harming affect is that the youth believes they will not be caught, and since
they cannot see the individual, they do not understand exactly how much harm is being done to
the victim (Mark and Ratliffe 2011; Patchin and Hinduja 2011).
The effects of cyberbullying can be experienced through high levels of anxiety, depression,
poor academic performance and suicide (Korchmaros, Mitchell and Ybarra 2014; Sontag et al.
2011; Mark and Ratliffe 2011; Bonanno and Hymel 2013). Mark and Ratliffe (2011) found that
52% of victims do not know their bullies and as a result are unable to cope in an appropriate
manner (Mark and Ratliffe 2011). Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons are the most recent youth
suicide cases that resulted from online bullying, whereby both Todd and Parsons were victimized
online, unaware of their bully and unable to seek help. 90% of youth do not inform their parents
of being cyberbullying, or being the cyberbully, in fear of losing social privileges, and having
their social lives effected negatively (Mark and Ratliffe 2011; Kraft and Wang 2009). Kraft and
Wang (2009), have found that despite the number of studies focusing on cyber victimization and
related behaviours, youth are not coming forward regarding their cyber encounters and as a result
schools, parents, and law enforcement remain unequipped to deal with the cyberbullying issue
(Kraft and Wang 2009).
While the research is concerned with formulating a concrete definition of cyber-bullying,
as well as understanding the effect of educational programs on youth and ensuring prevention is
successful, the examination of the content and terminology of the programs has yet to be studied
(Grigg 2010, 153; 2012, 203). The proposed study will contribute to the research literature by
critically examining educational policies pertaining to cyberbullying, effectiveness with focus on
terminology used to describe the social phenomenon and whether or not facilitates prevention or
inhibits it.

4. Reyhani 4
Literature Review
Sociologists have been reluctant to define youth into a specific age category, rather
expressing youth in relational terms (Vappu 2009). This reflects the social processes of age as
socially constructed, institutionalized, and controlled in culturally specific means (Vappu 2009).
The social class of youth, then can be characterized by the time in which an individual is either
“partly or fully dependent on others” (Vappu 2009). The United Nations has defined the category
in relational terms to represent youth as between the ages of 10 and 18 years old (Vappu 2009).
Cyber-Bullying
The research on cyberbullying has produced a debate on whether or not cyberbully ing is in
fact an overlap or sub-category of traditional forms of bullying (Riebel, Jager, and Fischer 2009;
Grigg 2012, 205). This has caused concern with regards to how cyberbullying is defined, and the
elements which are important to consider and targeted in prevention programs.
While conducting their study, Navarro and Jasinski found that with a lack of physical
violence existing within cyberbullying, many researchers and social actors believed that there
was an “absence of a crime” (Navarro and Jasinski 2011, 82). However, more recently,
researchers have agreed that cyberbullying is in fact becoming a more dominant form of bullying
(Hopkins, Wood, Taylor, and Bowen 2013, 687) and is considered more serious than forms of
traditional bullying (Mishna, Saini and Solomon 2009, 27).
There is ongoing debate regarding the construction of the cyberbullying definition;
specifically whether or not power imbalance and repetition should be included in the
construction of the definition (Marees and Peterman, 2012; Slonje, Smith, and Frisén, 2013).
During their study on the definition and concept of cyberbullying, Grigg found that an imbalance

5. Reyhani 5
of power and repetition were largely influential and existent in cyberbullying encounters (Grigg
2012, 203), thus needed to be considered in the construction of a universally accepted definition.
They noted that the power imbalance exists when an individual is associated with the same chat-
rooms or social networking sites as the bully, and when there is a power of technology or media
expertise versus lack of technological understanding (Griggs 2012, 205). Repetition was linked
to the number of times an image, video or message was viewed by or passed along to various
recipients (Grigg 2012, 205).
Moreover, illustrating cyber bullying’s ability to develop with advancements in
technology, Butler, Kift, and Campbell found that as technology is provided at a younger age,
the technology will “linger” and the occurrence of cyberbullying will transcend into older age
groups (Butler, Kift, and Campbell 2009, 85; Mishna, Saini, and Solomon 2009, 1224). Proving
once again that cyberbullying can occur at all times, crosses between age groups and will only
continue to develop (Butler, Kift, and Campbell 2009, 87). This identifies and supports the
researchers arguments with including power imbalance, and repetition in the definition of
cyberbullying (Mishna, Saini, and Solomon 2009, 1225).
These concerns further support Navarro and Jasinksi’s finding that cyberbullying, as a
social phenomenon, creates unique challenges for victims, as well as program facilitators and
designers (Navarro and Jasinski 2011, 82). Riebel, Jager and Fischer found that the overlap that
is widely cited exists largely with regards to who will become an online bully, versus who will
become an online victim (Riebel, Jager, and Fischer 2009, 311). Their study on German youth
concluded that if programs target traditional forms of bullying, then cyberbullying will be
prevented as well, meaning that the programs are “basically” the same (Riebel, Jager, and
Fischer 2009, 309).

6. Reyhani 6
Gender
The research and studies illustrate the importance of ensuring that both male and female
experiences are considered when developing the programs to combat cyberbullying. However
there is a lack of studies provided to examine whether the context of the program itself is gender-
specific or gender-neutral with regards to the implementation format, design and concerns
addressed. As some aggressive behaviour may be relatable to both males and females, the way in
which behaviours are managed differ between males and females; further supporting the need to
create a more holistic approach to program design and implementation.
Navarro and Jasinski focused on gender in two studies they conducted and found that
females experience more victimization from cyberbullying than males (Navarro and Jasinski
2013; Navarro and Jasinski, 2011; Marcum, Higgins, Freiburger, and Ricketts, 2014), and
attribute this finding to the notion of female oppression and the reproduction of gender
hierarchies within the Internet (Navarro and Jasinski 2011, 81). Within the study, the researchers
use a theory of “cyber-dysoptian feminism” (Navarro and Jasinski 2013, 288), explaining that
females are more at risk of being bullied online as a result of their “disadvantaged position on the
internet” (Navarro and Jasinski 2013, 288). This disadvantaged position reflects the oppression
females face offline and within the physically interactive world. Furthermore, this addresses the
concern and existence of power imbalances that are widely debated (Grigg 2012). Reflective of
the oppressive conditions that females face; Brody and Agnew found that as a result of these
oppressive conditions, females face significantly different types of strain than males (Brody and
Agnew 1997, 278-279; O’Grady 2007, 107). The lack of positively valued stimuli and presence
of negative stimuli differ from males to females as a result of gender related expectations and
emotional norms (Yourstone, Lindholm and Kristiansson 2008, 375).

7. Reyhani 7
Furthermore, there exist gender differences with regards to engagement in bullying, as
noted within the four types of bullying that Wang, Iannotti and Nansel (2009) identified within
their study (Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel 2009, 371). They found that males were more likely to
engage in physical and verbal bullying, including threatening the life of the victim (Wang,
Iannotti, and Nansel 2009, 370; Ryan and Curwen 2013, 4), whereas their female counterparts
were more involved in relational bullying, often occurring within the same social group,
threatening reputations (Ryan and Curwen 2013, 5; Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel 2009, 371).
Specifically pertaining to cyber-bullying, males were more predominantly the bullies while
females were more likely the victims (Wang, Iannotti and Nansel 2009, 371).
Educational Programs
Despite being in its infancy, cyberbullying research has proved to be rewarding (Kraft and
Wang, 2009). The public policy programs that have been devised and studied largely examine
the experiences from the cybervictims, the cyberbullies themselves and the application of the
programs by practitioners (Grigg, 2010; Frisén, Hasselblad, and Holmqvist, 2012). Youth
programs are largely devised and influenced by adult opinion, with little to no information from
students that engage in the behaviours (Kraft and Wang 2009, 518; Mishna, Saini, and Solomon
2009, 1226). Mishna, Saini, and Solomon suggested that programs should recognize the
importance of communication via technology among youth, and incorporate an understanding of
peer-to-peer victimization through the perspective of the victims (Misha, Saini, and Solomon
2009, 1227).
In their study on prevention strategies, Kraft and Wang examined students’ perspectives on
the effectiveness of a variety of cyberbullying prevention strategies (Kraft and Wang 2009, 521).
They consider cyberbullying as a separate phenomenon from traditional bullying, however there

8. Reyhani 8
exists a relationship or overlap for the victim (Kraft and Wang 2009, 525), which can occur
online, away from the school. They found that students were reluctant to express their concerns
or experiences with professionals at school, and were more likely to speak to their parents, in
hopes they could solve the issue (Kraft and Wang 2009, 515). One of the most effective
prevention strategies that they found from their study was the threat of having their technological
devices taken away, resulting in isolation from their peer groups (Kraft and Wang 2009, 529).
Another view that has been considered and proves to be fulfilling is the study of programs
through the perspective of the victim (Ryan and Curwen 2013). Within their research, the study
highlights the areas of intervention for the victim and for the bully. When discussing intervention
for the victim, Ryan and Curwen encourage programs to specifically address the impacts of
cyber victimization, as they have not been as developed (Ryan and Curwen 2013). Prevention
methods for the cyberbully were considered by means of developing means to alter the behaviour
of the cyberbully (Ryan and Curwen 2013, 4).
Moreover in response to a disconnect between students of cyberbullying or victimization
and adults, studies have advocated for programs to include a school wide intervention (Ryan and
Curwen 2013, 4), including a “safe space” for students to discuss their experiences with adults.
This is done through the transformation of the educational culture, as advocated for by and
Dupre (Dayton and Dupre 2009, 341), as well as improving processes to encourage victims to
report their bullying experiences (Ryan and Curwen 2013, 5).
Theory

9. Reyhani 9
General Strain Theory and Routine Activities Theory will be utilized for this research
project as they provide a theoretical lens suitable for critically analyzing that the public policy
programs used to prevent cyber-bullying.
General Strain Theory
In recognizing the limitation of Merton’s Strain Theory, Robert Agnew developed a
broader version of Strain Theory to encompass strains that are more likely to be experienced by
youth and are associated with emotional, social, and academic characteristics (O’Grady 2007,108
; Patchin and Hinduja 2010, 731; Ryan and Curwen 2013, 2-3; Hay and Meldrum 2010, 446).
In application to cyberbullying, General Strain Theory explains the action of bullying as a
response or coping mechanism to the strain youth experience (Patchin and Hinduja 2010, 731).
There are three sources of strain that are associated with the theory; failure to achieve positively
valued goals, loss of preventative-valued stimuli, and presentation of negative stimuli. The strain
followed by any of these causes increases the chance of deviance by producing “negative
emotional states”, which evokes a need for “corrective action” (Brody and Agnew 1997, 268) in
forms of deviant acts. It is important to keep in mind that not all youth who experience strain will
commit a crime; rather the act is dependent on how the individual reacts to the negative feelings.
This is evident in further youth engagement in technology, as it provides youth the opportunity to
be able to respond to negative stimuli; thus providing them with a sense of power they would not
otherwise have. (Patchin and Hinduja 2010, 736)
Thus, from the research it is seen that within the studies, programs should be designed to
deal with non-economic strains that young individuals may experience and provide social
supports (O’Grady 2007, 109). More specifically, research has voiced that school programs
should provide health, and self-management education to reduce the likelihood of strain, as well

10. Reyhani 10
as develop appropriate coping mechanisms (Patchin and Hinduja 2010, 741; Hay and Meldrum
2009, 455).
Routine Activities Theory
As a subcategory of Rational Choice Theory (O’Grady 2007, 111), Routine Activities
Theory, has become largely influential in the studying and understanding of what prevention
measures need to consider (O’Grady 2007, 113; Navaro and Jasinski, 2011). The theory is
comprised of three elements that exist to facilitate a deviant opportunity; the lack of a capable
guardian, the suitable target, and the motivated offender (O’Grady 2007, 111).
As youth engage in online social networking forums they provide intimate information to a wide
audience, resulting in a vulnerability of exposer. The individual who engages in the same online
social forums as the motivated offender, or the individual who does not apply appropriate
privacy boundaries from outsiders represents the suitable target. With traditional bullying, there
exists the presence of an adult or guardian that can interrupt and end the event; however
cyberbullying guardianship extends beyond the physical form. The lack of a capable guardian is
evident when youth are unmonitored while interacting online without adequate filtering
programs to prevent viruses and other technological intrusions from occurring. Additionally it
includes the lack of physical parental supervision while youth are at home or school engaging
online. Lastly, the motivated offender is one who responds to the negative stimuli by “lashing
out” (Patchin and Hinduja 2010, 731) online as a result of being bullied or is an active bully
offline. Additionally, cyberbullying presents another type of motivated offender that Routine
Activities Theory supports; one who does not occupy the same physical space as the victim. This
type of offender is permitted to engage in deviant online behaviours from a distance as a result of
having access to intimate information of the victim and lack of privacy boundaries.

11. Reyhani 11
Research Design
The main purpose of the current study is to examine educational programs that have been
designed to combat cyber-bullying. More specifically focusing on the ways in which the
programs are explicitly targeting and preventing the distinguishing elements that makes up
cyber-bullying.
As the study is a critical examination of existing literature, the study will examine those
policy programs designed and implemented within the educational curriculum, as well as a
review of the existing studies that illustrate the overall effect of the program. The educational
departments of Canada, Australia, and Sweden will be considered as they are all at different
phases of the fight against cyberbullying. As one of the first countries to begin the fight against
cyberbullying, Sweden has been a long-standing leader in devising ways to combat the social
phenomenon. Several studies have shown the effectiveness of Sweden’s prevention policies, and
decrease in the number of reported incidents, illustrating the importance of studying the
country’s prevention strategies. The Australian prevention programs and studies of cyberbullying
and victimization support as the middle ground of more recent studies, and are situated between
Sweden’s longstanding history of cyberbullying prevention programs, and Canada’s newly legal
provisions and funding for schools to develop curriculum-based programs.
The educational systems of Australia and Sweden are both governed by National
Ministries of Education, versus Canada’s education system, which is governed provincially. The
current method of attaining information is through examining the publications by the related
ministry officials. With regards to the education system in Canada, the current research will

12. Reyhani 12
examine the Ministry of Education that is provincially govern within Ontario, and publications
from the Canadian government.
As it has been outlined, the included countries provide unique perspectives, as they are all
currently working within different phases of approaching, devising prevention strategies and
combatting the cyberbullying problem. The variations in programs and countries will prove to be
fruitful in comparisons, as well as providing considerations for the continued development of
new programs.
Discussion:
Discussion
To show clear distinction and separation of traditional- and cyberbullying, it is expected
that the terminology used to target cyberbullying behaviours, will illustrate a strict and narrow
focus on cyberbullying, and that prevention strategies are not a combination, targeting traditional
and cyberbullying. In addition to terminology and definition, it is expected that prevention
strategies will not always include those addressing power imbalance and repetition, as the terms
remain widely debated. Lastly and most effectively, the study will provide a sophisticated
understanding of how the prevention polices are effectively targeting specific problem areas
associated with cyberbully. This will be illustrated by the different strategies targeted and the
phases in which they currently exist or are developing to, providing recommendations for those
newer programs, and those being revised.
Conclusion
Completed studies have provided several suggestions as to how to improve cyberbullying
prevention programs within the educational environment. Employing theories General Strain and
Routine Activities, the research will focus on a combination of how youth engage in

13. Reyhani 13
cyberbullying, as well as what forces allow and influence youth to engage in the act. This
combination of theories is rarely done, as they are often considered separate of each other during
practical application. The current research study aims to assist in the development and
implementation of educational prevention programs combatting cyberbullying by analyzing the
thematic content within the programs to ensure they are appropriately and effectively equipped.
As it has been found, this type of research is slowly being developed and considered,
predominately studies have been focusing on the perspectives of the victim, whether programs
work in practicality and why youth engage in this deviant behaviour. As the project of studying
cyber aggression and victimization in relation to how it is combatted within the educational
system, is fraught by lack of support and great limitations, it is imperative that this area of
research continues to develop. Programs are found to be practically effective, as a result of their
theoretical and literal development.

14. Reyhani 14
References
Atchison, Chris and Ted Palys. 2014. “Chapter 11: Text, Image, Audio, ad Video:
Making Sense of Non-Numeric Data” In Research Decisions: Quantitative, Qualitative,
and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th
, 303-333.
Bonanno, Rina and Hymel, Shelley. 2013. “Cyber bullying and internalizing difficulties: above
and beyond the impact of traditional forms of bullying” Journal of Youth Adolescence. 42
685-697 DOI: 10.1007/s10964-013-9937-1
Braun, Virginia., & Clark, Victoria. (2006). “Using thematic analysis in psychology.”
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Brody, Lisa, and Agnew, Robert. (1997). “Gender and crime: a general strain theory
perspective” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 34. 275-306.
Brotheridge, Céleste M. 2013. “Explaining bullying: using theory to answer practical questions”
Team Performance Management. 19. 185-200. DOI: 10.1108/TPM-07-2012-0023
Butler, Des, Kift, Sally, and Campbell, Marilyn. 2009. “Cyber bullying in schools and the law:
is there an effective means of addressing the power imbalance?” Murdoch University
Electronic Journal of Law. 16. 84-114.
Corcoran, Lucie, and Guckin Conor Mc. 2014. “Addressing bullying problems in schools and in
cyberspace: a challenge for school management.” Educational Research. 56. 48-64. DOI:
10.1080/00131881.2013.874150
Dayton, John, and Dupre, Anne Proffitt. 2009. “A child’s right to human dignity: reforming
anti-bullying laws in the Unted States” Irish Educational Studies. 28. 333-350. DOI:
10.1080/03323310903335435
Frisén, Ann, Hasselblad, Tove, and Holmqvist Kristina. 2012. “What actually makes bullying
stop? Reports from former victims.” Journal of Adolescence. 35. 981-990. DOI:

15. Reyhani 15
10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.001
Grigg, Dorothy. 2010. “Cyber-aggression: definition and concept of cyberbullying” Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling. 20. 143-156
Grigg, Dorothy. 2012. “Definitional constructs of cyber-bullying and cyber-aggression from a
triangulatory overview: a preliminary study into elements of cyber-bullying.” Journal of
Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research. 4. 202-215. DOI:
10.1108/17596591211270699
Hay, Carter and Meldrum, Ryan. 2010. “Bullying victimization and adolescent self-harm: testing
hypotheses from general strain theory.” Journal of Youth Adolescence. 39. 446-459.
DOI: 10.1007/s10964-009-9502-0
Lenhart, Amanda. 2015. “Teens, social media and technology overview 2015” Pew Research
Centre, Internet, Science and Tech. 2015. URL:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/
Hopkins, Lisa, Taylor, Laura, Bowen, Erica, and Wood, Clare. 2013. “A qualitative study
investigating aadolescents’ understanding of aggression, bullying and violence.” Children
and Youth Services Review. 35. 685-693. DOI 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.01.012
Jang, Hyunseok Song, Juyoung, and Kim, Ramhee. 2014. “Does the offline bully-victimization
influence cyberbullying behaviour among youths? Application of general-strain theory.”
Computers in Human Behaviour. 31. 85-93. DOI: 0.1016/j.chb.2013.10.007
Kigerl, Alex. 2011. “Routine activity theory and the determinants of high cybercrime countries”
Social Science Computer Review. 30. 470-486. DOI: 10.1177/0894439311422689
Korchmaros, Josephine D., Mitchelle, Kimberly J., and Ybarra, Michele L. 2014. “Technology-
based interpersonal victimization: predictors of patterns of victimization over time”

16. Reyhani 16
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29:7 1297-1317
Kraft, Ellen M., and Wang, Jimchang. 2009. “Effectiveness of cyberbullying prevention
strategies: a study on student’s perspectives.” International Journal of Cyber
Criminology. 3. 513-535.
Li, Qing. 2007. “New bottle but old wine: a research of cyberbullying in schools.” Computers in
Human Behaviour. 23. 1777-1791
Marcum, Catherine D., Higgins, George E., Freiburger, Tina L., and Ricketts, Melissa L. 2014.
“Exploration of the cyberbullying victim/offender overlap by sex.” American Journal of
Criminal Justice. 39. 538-548. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-013-9217-3
Mark, Lauren and Ratliffe, Katherine T. 2011. “Cyber worlds: new playground for bullying”
Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal Practice, Theory, and Applied
Research. 28:2 92-116. DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2011.575753
Mishna, Faye, Saini, Michael, and Solomon, Steven. 2009. “Ongoing and online: children and
youth’s perceptions of cyber bullying” Children and Youth Services Review. 31. 1222-
1228. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.004
Monks, Claire P., Smith, Peter K., Naylor, Paul, Barter, Christine, Ireland, Jane., and Coyne,
Iain. 2009. “Bullying in different contexts: commonalities, differences and the role of
theory.” Aggression and Violent Behaviour. 14. 146-156.
DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.004
Navarro, Jordana N., and Jasinski, Jana L. 2011. “Going cyber: using routine activities theory to
predict cyberbullying experiences.” Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological

17. Reyhani 17
Association. 32. 81-94. DOI: 10.1080/02732173.2012.628560
Navarro, Jordana N., and Jasinski, Jana L. 2013. “Why girls? Using routine activities theory to
predict cyber-bullying experiences between girls and boys” Women and Criminal Justice.
23. 286-303. DOI: 10.1080/08974454.2013.784225
O’Grady, William. 2007. Crime and Canadian Context: Debates and Controversies. Don Mills:
Oxford University Press.
Patchin, Justin W., and Hinduja, Sameer. 2010. “Traditional and nontraditional bullying among
youth: a test of general strain theory.” Youth Society. 43. 727-751.
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X10366951
Riebel, Julia, Jager, Reinhold S., and Fischer, Uwe C. 2009. “Cyberbullying in Germany: an
exploration of prevalence, overlapping with real life bullying and coping strategies.”
Psychology Science Quarterly. 51. 298-314.
Ryan, Gery W., and Bernard, Russell H. (2003). “Techniques to identify themes” Field
Methods. 15. 85-109. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X02239569
Ryan, Kaitlyn N., and Curwen, Tracey. 2013. “Cyber-victimized students: incidence, impact,
and intervention”. SAGE Open. 1-7. DOI: 10.1177/2158244013516772
Slonje, Robert, Smith, Peter K., and Frisén, Anne. 2013. “The nature of cyberbuylling, and
strategies for prevention.” Computers in Human Behaviour. 29. 26-32. DOI:
10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024
Sontag, Lisa M., Clemans, Katherine H., Graber, Julia A., and Lyndon, Sarah T. 2011.
“Traditional and cyber aggressors and victims: a comparison of psychosocial
characteristics”. Journal Youth Adolescence 40 392-404. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-010-
9575-9

18. Reyhani 18
Sugarman, David B., and Willoughby, Teena. 2013. “Technology and violence: conceptual
issues raised by the rapidly changing social environment.” Psychology of Violence. 3. 1-
8. DOI: 0.1037/a0031010
Vappu, Tyyskä. 2009. “Youth and society: the long and winding road” Canadian
Scholars’ Press Inc. 1-309
Von Marees, Nandoli, and Peterman, Franz. 2012. “Cyberbullying: an increasing challenge for
schools.” School Psychological International. 33. 467-476. DOI:
10.1177/0143034312445241
Wang, Jim, Iannotti, Ronald J., Nansel, Tonja R. 2009. “School bullying among adolescents in
the United States: physical, verbal, relational and cyber.” Journal of Adolescent Health.
45. 368-375. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
Yourstone, Jenny, Lindholm, Torun, and Kristiansson, Marianne. (2008). “Women who
kill: a comparison of the psychosocial background of female and male perpetrators”
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 31. 374-383.
DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.06.005

19. Reyhani 19