Cyberbullying essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay- final assignment. Scored high...

Description

Bullying is an act whereby individuals or groups with substantial amount of physical and/or mental power intentionally subject weaker individuals or groups to constant aggression (Olweus, 1993 in Dooley, 2009:182). This aggression usually takes the form of humiliation, social exclusion, harassment or mistreatment either directly through physical or verbal actions or indirectly through threats and insults (Olweus, 1999 in Ortega et al., 2009:197; Smith et al., 2008). Such bullying can take place in school, neighbourhood or within the family. But with the advent of technology in the past 20 years, bullying has found a new platform (Kowalski, Limber and Agatston, 2012:2). Especially among the youth, with the increasing availability and use of the internet and electronic devices, bullies have taken advantage of the way technology can help students stay connected all the time (Slonje and Smith, 2008:147; Campbell, 2005). Instead of using technology to keep in touch with their peers, cyberbullies use it to spread rumours, humiliate and induce fear and helplessness through threatening or embarrassing pictures, videos, calls, texts, chats, etc. (Hinduja and Patchin, 2009, Mason, 2008, Strom and Strom, 2005 in Weber and Pelfrey, 2014:4). Therefore cyberbullying is an intentional and repeated form of aggression carried out through technology towards people who cannot easily defend themselves (Smith et al., 2008:376). Given that the intention to be aggressive, the repeated nature of the act as well as the power imbalance between then bully and the victim is similar between traditional and cyber bullying, cyberbullying can be understood as an extension of traditional face-to-face bullying (Raskauskas and Stoltz, 2007; Juvonen and gross, 2008; Sourander et al., 2010 in Kowalski and Limber, 2012:14). But as an extension, it also comes with its own set of issues which make it more impactful than solely traditional bullying. In cyberbullying there is a wider audience, permanence of content, no limitation in terms of time or location, anonymity and lack of physical contact between the bully and the victim. These added factors of cyberbullying yield different consequences for the victims, which can sometimes be more severe. In traditional bullying, one important aspect is repetition since this differentiates it from a single aggressive act. Bullies either constantly abuse their victims physically or verbally or convince others to socially exclude or spread rumours about the victim (Slonje and Smith, 2008, in Guomundsson, 2013:3). But with cyberbullying, the frequency of bullying is less important, especially when the bully performs one aggressive act of uploading a video, image, derogatory email or text. This is because the widespread audience, the permanence of the item as well the option to bully someone 24/7 with that item makes the repetition of bullying less important in cyber space (Dooley, 2009:83). The reliving of the humiliation every time someone watches, comments or shares the item that makes cyberbullying worse for the victim (Tattum, 1989 in Dooley, 2009:183). Guerin and Hennessey (2002 in Dooely, 2009:183) found that 40% of the children in their study believed that the act of uploading or posting something mean even once is considered bullying since the victim is never free from the stress and humiliation (Kowalski, Limber and Agatston, 2012:83). Therefore, even one aggressive act online can cause the same or even more emotional and psychological impact on the victim than traditional bullying. In terms of power imbalance, the bully is physically, mentally and emotionally stronger than the victim making the bully assertive and intimidating (Olweus, 1997 and Rigby, 2007 in Dooley, 2009:184). But in cyberbullying, the power dynamic becomes complicated. To begin with, people who get traditionally bullied also get bullied online because the perpetrator perceives him/her as more powerful than the victim. Therefore the victim is just as powerless online as in real life. Also, if the bully posts something offensive about the victim on their wall or creates a webpage, the victim has no power to delete the item, leaving them helpless. Additionally, the bully can remain in power because to a lot of people having computer or phone privileges revoked is worse than having to

suffer from cyberbullying (Kowalski, Limber and Agatston, 2012:84). This allows cyberbullies to remain powerful since they are not held accountable for their actions. Moreover, cyberbullying is 24/7 since victims cannot get away from the bully or their acts. This creates a sense of powerlessness amongst the victims since even if they stay away from their devices, the bully can continue to post videos, pictures or comments and others can view it regardless of the online/offline status of the victim (Dooley, 2009:184). Thus the various possibilities with respect to power relations as well as the 24/7 feature creates more severe consequences than traditional bullying. But with anonymity online, victims often find courage to avenge their bullies since all they need is a basic skill set of taking pictures, writing hurtful comments, posting them or creating fake profiles. Anonymity gives power to the powerless and reduces the need for them to be more powerful in real life (Fauman, 2008 in Dooley, 2009:184). But this anonymity can also make victims feel powerless and helpless since they do not know where the threat is coming from or how serious it is (Dooley, 2009:184). For example, in a survey of 3,700 middle school children, 50% did not know who their bully was and among college students it rose to 60% (Kowalski and Limber 2007 in Kowalski, Limber and Agatston, 2012:86). This is an issue because an ethnographic interview revealed that more than the threatening content it was the anonymity which bothered the victims (Dooley, 2009:184). Therefore in cyberbullying the power imbalance can change. Moreover, being anonymous allows bullies to be more aggressive since they do not have to deal with the consequences. It also allows cyber-victims to become bully-victims since the anonymity protects them from the bully. While it is also true that anonymity is only superficial since there are cyberfootprints (Willard, 2006:47 in Kowalski, Limber and Agatston, 2012:86) in the form of internet history, IP addresses, etc., bullies can easily claim that someone else had been using their device, name or account. This allows bullies to remain anonymous. The anonymous feature is also a stimulant for troubled children to become cyberbullies in order to cope with their situation. For instance, inter-parental conflict is one reason behind children becoming cyberbullies. The social learning theory (Bandura, 1978) suggests that children pick up on cues about their behaviours and personality from their family environment. When they come from a troubled family such as abusive parents, they not only learn the bullying behaviour at home but are also inclined to depression, anxiety or drug usage as a way to cope with that situation (Tanrikulu and Campbell, 2015:140). In order to feel in control of their situation, they might also exercise power over others in the form of bullying. While school is the first place where they can practice bullying, many children turn to cyberbullying because it is anonymous and safe, allowing them to be powerful without being held accountable for consequences (Tanrikulu and Campbell, 2015:140). Therefore cyberbullying encourages children who would not be strong enough to bully in real life to bully online. Given these features of cyberbullying, the impact that it has on its victims is sometimes more severe compared to the impact on victims of traditional bullying. Cyberbullying is of different forms and intensities, making some forms less aggressive and others more aggressive than traditional bullying. The research by Slonje and Smith (2008:152) investigated the impact level of various forms of cyberbullying and traditional bullying acts. They found that texting or emailing had less impact than traditional bullying (-0.34), phone call bullying had a similar impact (-0.01) and video or picture bullying had a higher negative emotional impact than traditional bullying (0.53). The impact is considered worse because the relative permanence of the videos or photos and the easiness in terms of sharing it makes it available to a large group of people to witness at any point of time

(Dooley, 2009:183). Often, the perpetrators even record the harassment and upload pictures/videos of the same to further humiliate the victims (Kowalski, Limber and Agatston, 2012:67). Apart from different forms and intensities, cyberbullying also comes in different types. Denigration is a type of cyberbullying similar to rumours in that untrue and scandalous things such as sexualised pictures are published on a webpage or sent via email and instant messaging to others (Kowalski, Limber and Agatston, 2012:64). Due to its visual nature, permanence on the web, wide audience and viral quality, denigration is much more harmful than its counterpart, rumours. Another type is impersonation. While it is also possible to impersonate in real life, impersonating online can be dangerous because the bully may send hateful messages to others and delete them after sending. This is not only bad for the receiver of messages since they cannot tell who is behind the screen, but also for the victim since they would never know what message was sent to whom. Another form is trickery and outing. The cyberbully may trick the victim to release personal information by pretending to be someone else online and then sending out those personal messages/videos/photos to others online (Kowalski, Limber and Agatston, 2012:65). Since the victim cannot predict how they will be cyberbullied or cannot control the information leaked, cyberbullying can be considered more harmful. What makes cyberbullying worse is that 50% of the victims do not seek help, 35.7% go to their friends, 8.9% tell their parents and almost no one informs the teacher (Slonje and Smith, 2008:152). While some are resilient and emotionally strong enough to not let the cyberbullying affect them, most get deeply affected (Graham and Juvonen, 2001 in Ortega et al., 2009:197). When they do not receive any help over extended periods of time, the negative feelings can affect their social and psychological state (Dyer and Teggart, 2007 in Ortega et al., 2009:197). It can negatively affect their academic performance in terms of grades and standardised tests or increase absenteeism (Kowalski and Limber, 2012:14; Tanrikulu and Cambell, 2015:138). It can exacerbate psychological issues such as depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, guilt, sadness, anger, etc. (Ortega et al., 2012:343; Chin, 2011 in Tanrikulu and Campbell, 2015:138). This further affects their social environment because cybervictims and cyber bully-victims end up having the highest anxiety and lowest self-esteem compared to cyberbullies or any non-bullied party (Kowalski, Limber and Agatston, 2012:112). Such psychological and social problems make it hard for the victims to talk about such issues and the negative impact from this often leads to suicide ideation, self-harm, use of drugs and alcohol, increased chances of carrying weapons, etc. (Hinduja and Patchin, 2007; Ybarra and Mitchel, 2004, 2015:138). Moreover, the correlation between being a cyberbully and being cyberbullied is a high 0.43 whereas the correlation between being a traditional bully and being bullied is a low 0.22 (Kowalksi, Limber and Agatston 2012:109). Features such as widespread audience, anonymity, 24/7 access to bullying, etc., make it easier for cyber-victims to get back at their bullies, thereby feeding the vicious cycle of bully-victims. But in traditional bullying, the victim does not have anonymity to hide behind the powerful and intimidating bully and hence the correlation between being a traditional bully and being bullied is quite low. Therefore victims of both traditional and cyberbullying or victims of pure cyberbullying are more likely to become cyber bully-victims compared to traditional victims (Sontag et al., 2011 in Ortega et al., 2012:343). The reason for this could be supported by the research done by Crimes Against Children Research Centre. Their research concluded that technology amplifies the impact on victims such that victims of both traditional and cyberbullying scored 23.1 for emotional impact and victims of just traditional

bullying scored 19.1 (Mitchell et al., 2015 in Patchin, 2015). Similarly, out of 136 students bullied traditionally, only 13% felt embarrassed whereas out of 117 students bullied both ways, 30% felt embarrassed (Mitchell et al., 2015 in Patchin, 2015). The increased emotional impact could drive their need to avenge their bullies and since cyberbullying can protect and empower them behind a screen, it is these victims who become bully-victims. Since addition of technology amplified emotional impact on the victims, cyberbullying could be said to have more severe consequences. This example goes on to show that even if cyberbullying might not be as bad as traditional bullying, the addition of cyberbullying to traditional bullying can definitely make consequences worse. Considering how cyberbullying could potentially have more severe consequences than traditional bullying, cyberbullying has become a very serious issue today. Generation Y is defined as the ‘always on generation’ since they are avid users of electronic devices which are always connected to the internet (Belsey, n.d.). According to the PEW research centre (Lenhart et al., 2010:4), 58% of 12 year old’s, 75% of teenagers and 93% of young adults own a cell-phone with internet connectivity. Moreover, 93% of these teens and young adults go online, 63% of them go online every day and there has also been a significant increase in their internet usage over the past few years (Figure 1-2) (Lenhart et al., 2010:4-7).

Fig 1: Percentage of internet users

Fig 2: Change in internet use according to age groups

Given such an increase in electronic devices with access to the internet, the chances of these people getting cyberbullied also increases since they often use the internet to chat, blog, upload pictures/videos, comment, etc. (figure 3) (Lenhart, 2007:1). This was further proven by the research undertaken by London School of Economics wherein they found that compared to the results from 2010 where more children were bullied traditionally, in 2014, more children were cyberbullied (Elgot, 2015). Even the charity helpline called Childline raised concern over cyberbullying since compared to 2011-12 when they had 2,410 cases of cyberbullying, in 2012-13 they saw a rise of 87% with 4,507 cases of cyberbullying (Topping, 2014). Even researchers have witnessed the increasing cyberbullying in recent years with 75% of youth being cyberbullied at least once a year (Juvonen and Gross, 2008 and Katzer et al., 2009 in Kowalski et al., 2014).

Fig 3: Increase in chance of being bullied as an internet user Therefore it is essential that there be prevention systems in place in order to stop cyberbullying from escalating and gradually minimising it. Many states, such as the UK, have made it mandatory for schools to have policies regarding prevention of cyberbullying (Bauman and Yoon, 2014). One such policy is no use of cell-phones during school hours. But increasingly several schools require students to use laptops/computers to do their coursework. Using such devices increases chances of cyberbullying during school. But the UK government has granted teachers the permission to search and delete any inappropriate material, grant detention, solve cyber-bullying cases outside school etc. (Topping, 2014; Elgot, 2015). However teachers cannot interfere too much because of free speech rights of students (Willard, 2007 in Kraft and Wang, 2009:513). The Department of Education, UK, has also devised a new curriculum which teaches students as young as 5 year olds about cyberbullying and safety online (Topping, 2014). While this is good considering the increasing use of technology by a younger age group, school intervention is still not enough since cyberbullying in not limited to just school. Espelage (in Bauman and Yoon, 2014:254) uses the social ecological theory to suggest that in order to prevent cyberbullying, we need to consider the various ecological layers we are embedded in, such as peers, family, school, community, etc. This is essential since cyberbullying can occur at any time and place. For instance, at home, parents can help in preventing cyberbullying by installing parent control features on devices, monitoring their child’s online activities by asking for their passwords or adding them/following them, educating them about possible dangers of sharing passwords, posting something embarrassing, etc. Parents can also assure the child that they would not revoke the child’s use of devices, assure them that they will not blame them if they are the victim and also call the police or the school in case the cyberbullying is sexual or threatening in nature (prevent cyberbullying, n.d.; stop cyber bullying, n.d.). They should also remind the child that they should not retaliate and instead take screenshots or print messages to save as evidence and then block the cyberbully. However, a survey by the charity Young Minds shows that parents consider drug and alcohol abuse as the most worrying issues and teenagers consider cyberbullying as more serious (Elgot, 2015). With these differing outlooks about importance of cyberbullying, children may find it hard to talk to adults about such important issues, making the role of parents in prevention of cyberbullying almost redundant (Slonje and Smith, 2008:153).

Measures taken by the school and family have already been in place for years and the research by Ttofi and Farrington (2011 in Bauman and Yoon, 2014:253) shows that anti-bullying measures are usually effective showing a decrease in bullying by 20-23% and a decrease in victimization by 17-20%. However this is not a huge percentage and other measures are needed. Instead of just saying cyberbullying is bad or laying out rules against use of technology, it would be more effective to teach victims how to cope, bystanders how to react and bullies how to control. Cyberbullies usually use moral disengagement to perform actions which are contrary to basic moral principles (Bandura et al., 1996 in Bauman and Yoon, 2014:254). Therefore Hymel and Bonano (in Bauman and Yoon, 2014:254) suggest that compulsory education about moral disengagement could help bullies realise what they are doing and deter them from their actions. Empathy training for bullies and bystanders as well as anger management and teaching of moral reasoning skills for bullies would help bullies not only learn the causes behind their behaviour but also help them correct it (Sahin, 2012 in Tanrikulu and Campbell, 2015:144-5). Bullies can also be asked to meet the victims physically since looking at the negative impact cause by them can make bullies feel guilty (Slonje and Smith, 2008). Furthermore, since troubled families are one of the causes for perpetration of cyberbullying, anti-bullying prevention schemes can include family therapy/counselling. Schools can also hold an annual event and invite cyberbully victims or experts on cyberbullying to come and hold workshops or seminars. This could help victims learn how to cope with cyberbullying and also ensure them that they have support from within and outside of school. Students could also be taught about the effectiveness of actively ignoring their bully (Machakova et al., 2013). By not retaliating and simply ignoring their actions, cyberbullies might be discouraged from bullying since they would not get the satisfaction of bullying. Lastly, students could also be encouraged to cope with their situation by reading up online, getting help from counsellors on government websites for bullying, etc. Bullying as an aggressive, repeated and intentional act has always had negative consequences on victims such as depression, high anxiety, low self-esteem, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. But the addition of technology expands the horizons o...