introduction for cyberbullying research paper

Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice (2016)

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

Bullying, long tolerated by many as a rite of passage into adulthood, is now recognized as a major and preventable public health problem, one that can have long-lasting consequences ( McDougall and Vaillancourt, 2015 ; Wolke and Lereya, 2015 ). Those consequences—for those who are bullied, for the perpetrators of bullying, and for witnesses who are present during a bullying event—include poor school performance, anxiety, depression, and future delinquent and aggressive behavior. Federal, state, and local governments have responded by adopting laws and implementing programs to prevent bullying and deal with its consequences. However, many of these responses have been undertaken with little attention to what is known about bullying and its effects. Even the definition of bullying varies among both researchers and lawmakers, though it generally includes physical and verbal behavior, behavior leading to social isolation, and behavior that uses digital communications technology (cyberbullying). This report adopts the term “bullying behavior,” which is frequently used in the research field, to cover all of these behaviors.

Bullying behavior is evident as early as preschool, although it peaks during the middle school years ( Currie et al., 2012 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2010 ). It can occur in diverse social settings, including classrooms, school gyms and cafeterias, on school buses, and online. Bullying behavior affects not only the children and youth who are bullied, who bully, and who are both bullied and bully others but also bystanders to bullying incidents. Given the myriad situations in which bullying can occur and the many people who may be involved, identifying effective prevention programs and policies is challenging, and it is unlikely that any one approach will be ap-

propriate in all situations. Commonly used bullying prevention approaches include policies regarding acceptable behavior in schools and behavioral interventions to promote positive cultural norms.

STUDY CHARGE

Recognizing that bullying behavior is a major public health problem that demands the concerted and coordinated time and attention of parents, educators and school administrators, health care providers, policy makers, families, and others concerned with the care of children, a group of federal agencies and private foundations asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study of what is known and what needs to be known to further the field of preventing bullying behavior. The Committee on the Biological and Psychosocial Effects of Peer Victimization:

Lessons for Bullying Prevention was created to carry out this task under the Academies’ Board on Children, Youth, and Families and the Committee on Law and Justice. The study received financial support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Highmark Foundation, the National Institute of Justice, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Semi J. and Ruth W. Begun Foundation, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The full statement of task for the committee is presented in Box 1-1 .

Although the committee acknowledges the importance of this topic as it pertains to all children in the United States and in U.S. territories, this report focuses on the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Also, while the committee acknowledges that bullying behavior occurs in the school

environment for youth in foster care, in juvenile justice facilities, and in other residential treatment facilities, this report does not address bullying behavior in those environments because it is beyond the study charge.

CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY

This section of the report highlights relevant work in the field and, later in the chapter under “The Committee’s Approach,” presents the conceptual framework and corresponding definitions of terms that the committee has adopted.

Historical Context

Bullying behavior was first characterized in the scientific literature as part of the childhood experience more than 100 years ago in “Teasing and Bullying,” published in the Pedagogical Seminary ( Burk, 1897 ). The author described bullying behavior, attempted to delineate causes and cures for the tormenting of others, and called for additional research ( Koo, 2007 ). Nearly a century later, Dan Olweus, a Swedish research professor of psychology in Norway, conducted an intensive study on bullying ( Olweus, 1978 ). The efforts of Olweus brought awareness to the issue and motivated other professionals to conduct their own research, thereby expanding and contributing to knowledge of bullying behavior. Since Olweus’s early work, research on bullying has steadily increased (see Farrington and Ttofi, 2009 ; Hymel and Swearer, 2015 ).

Over the past few decades, venues where bullying behavior occurs have expanded with the advent of the Internet, chat rooms, instant messaging, social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication. These modes of communication have provided a new communal avenue for bullying. While the media reports linking bullying to suicide suggest a causal relationship, the available research suggests that there are often multiple factors that contribute to a youth’s suicide-related ideology and behavior. Several studies, however, have demonstrated an association between bullying involvement and suicide-related ideology and behavior (see, e.g., Holt et al., 2015 ; Kim and Leventhal, 2008 ; Sourander, 2010 ; van Geel et al., 2014 ).

In 2013, the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested that the Institute of Medicine 1 and the National Research Council convene an ad hoc planning committee to plan and conduct a 2-day public workshop to highlight relevant information and knowledge that could inform a multidisciplinary

___________________

1 Prior to 2015, the National Academy of Medicine was known as the Institute of Medicine.

road map on next steps for the field of bullying prevention. Content areas that were explored during the April 2014 workshop included the identification of conceptual models and interventions that have proven effective in decreasing bullying and the antecedents to bullying while increasing protective factors that mitigate the negative health impact of bullying. The discussions highlighted the need for a better understanding of the effectiveness of program interventions in realistic settings; the importance of understanding what works for whom and under what circumstances, as well as the influence of different mediators (i.e., what accounts for associations between variables) and moderators (i.e., what affects the direction or strength of associations between variables) in bullying prevention efforts; and the need for coordination among agencies to prevent and respond to bullying. The workshop summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c ) informs this committee’s work.

Federal Efforts to Address Bullying and Related Topics

Currently, there is no comprehensive federal statute that explicitly prohibits bullying among children and adolescents, including cyberbullying. However, in the wake of the growing concerns surrounding the implications of bullying, several federal initiatives do address bullying among children and adolescents, and although some of them do not primarily focus on bullying, they permit some funds to be used for bullying prevention purposes.

The earliest federal initiative was in 1999, when three agencies collaborated to establish the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative in response to a series of deadly school shootings in the late 1990s. The program is administered by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice to prevent youth violence and promote the healthy development of youth. It is jointly funded by the Department of Education and by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The program has provided grantees with both the opportunity to benefit from collaboration and the tools to sustain it through deliberate planning, more cost-effective service delivery, and a broader funding base ( Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2015 ).

The next major effort was in 2010, when the Department of Education awarded $38.8 million in grants under the Safe and Supportive Schools (S3) Program to 11 states to support statewide measurement of conditions for learning and targeted programmatic interventions to improve conditions for learning, in order to help schools improve safety and reduce substance use. The S3 Program was administered by the Safe and Supportive Schools Group, which also administered the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act State and Local Grants Program, authorized by the

1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 2 It was one of several programs related to developing and maintaining safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools. In addition to the S3 grants program, the group administered a number of interagency agreements with a focus on (but not limited to) bullying, school recovery research, data collection, and drug and violence prevention activities ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ).

A collaborative effort among the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, and Justice; the Federal Trade Commission; and the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders created the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention (FPBP) Steering Committee. Led by the U.S. Department of Education, the FPBP works to coordinate policy, research, and communications on bullying topics. The FPBP Website provides extensive resources on bullying behavior, including information on what bullying is, its risk factors, its warning signs, and its effects. 3 The FPBP Steering Committee also plans to provide details on how to get help for those who have been bullied. It also was involved in creating the “Be More than a Bystander” Public Service Announcement campaign with the Ad Council to engage students in bullying prevention. To improve school climate and reduce rates of bullying nationwide, FPBP has sponsored four bullying prevention summits attended by education practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and federal officials.

In 2014, the National Institute of Justice—the scientific research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice—launched the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative with a congressional appropriation of $75 million. The funds are to be used for rigorous research to produce practical knowledge that can improve the safety of schools and students, including bullying prevention. The initiative is carried out through partnerships among researchers, educators, and other stakeholders, including law enforcement, behavioral and mental health professionals, courts, and other justice system professionals ( National Institute of Justice, 2015 ).

In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act was signed by President Obama, reauthorizing the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is committed to providing equal opportunities for all students. Although bullying is neither defined nor prohibited in this act, it is explicitly mentioned in regard to applicability of safe school funding, which it had not been in previous iterations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The above are examples of federal initiatives aimed at promoting the

2 The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act was included as Title IV, Part A, of the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. See http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect08-i.html [October 2015].

3 For details, see http://www.stopbullying.gov/ [October 2015].

healthy development of youth, improving the safety of schools and students, and reducing rates of bullying behavior. There are several other federal initiatives that address student bullying directly or allow funds to be used for bullying prevention activities.

Definitional Context

The terms “bullying,” “harassment,” and “peer victimization” have been used in the scientific literature to refer to behavior that is aggressive, is carried out repeatedly and over time, and occurs in an interpersonal relationship where a power imbalance exists ( Eisenberg and Aalsma, 2005 ). Although some of these terms have been used interchangeably in the literature, peer victimization is targeted aggressive behavior of one child against another that causes physical, emotional, social, or psychological harm. While conflict and bullying among siblings are important in their own right ( Tanrikulu and Campbell, 2015 ), this area falls outside of the scope of the committee’s charge. Sibling conflict and aggression falls under the broader concept of interpersonal aggression, which includes dating violence, sexual assault, and sibling violence, in addition to bullying as defined for this report. Olweus (1993) noted that bullying, unlike other forms of peer victimization where the children involved are equally matched, involves a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the target, where the target has difficulty defending him or herself and feels helpless against the aggressor. This power imbalance is typically considered a defining feature of bullying, which distinguishes this particular form of aggression from other forms, and is typically repeated in multiple bullying incidents involving the same individuals over time ( Olweus, 1993 ).

Bullying and violence are subcategories of aggressive behavior that overlap ( Olweus, 1996 ). There are situations in which violence is used in the context of bullying. However, not all forms of bullying (e.g., rumor spreading) involve violent behavior. The committee also acknowledges that perspective about intentions can matter and that in many situations, there may be at least two plausible perceptions involved in the bullying behavior.

A number of factors may influence one’s perception of the term “bullying” ( Smith and Monks, 2008 ). Children and adolescents’ understanding of the term “bullying” may be subject to cultural interpretations or translations of the term ( Hopkins et al., 2013 ). Studies have also shown that influences on children’s understanding of bullying include the child’s experiences as he or she matures and whether the child witnesses the bullying behavior of others ( Hellström et al., 2015 ; Monks and Smith, 2006 ; Smith and Monks, 2008 ).

In 2010, the FPBP Steering Committee convened its first summit, which brought together more than 150 nonprofit and corporate leaders,

researchers, practitioners, parents, and youths to identify challenges in bullying prevention. Discussions at the summit revealed inconsistencies in the definition of bullying behavior and the need to create a uniform definition of bullying. Subsequently, a review of the 2011 CDC publication of assessment tools used to measure bullying among youth ( Hamburger et al., 2011 ) revealed inconsistent definitions of bullying and diverse measurement strategies. Those inconsistencies and diverse measurements make it difficult to compare the prevalence of bullying across studies ( Vivolo et al., 2011 ) and complicate the task of distinguishing bullying from other types of aggression between youths. A uniform definition can support the consistent tracking of bullying behavior over time, facilitate the comparison of bullying prevalence rates and associated risk and protective factors across different data collection systems, and enable the collection of comparable information on the performance of bullying intervention and prevention programs across contexts ( Gladden et al., 2014 ). The CDC and U.S. Department of Education collaborated on the creation of the following uniform definition of bullying (quoted in Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ):

Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm.

This report noted that the definition includes school-age individuals ages 5-18 and explicitly excludes sibling violence and violence that occurs in the context of a dating or intimate relationship ( Gladden et al., 2014 ). This definition also highlighted that there are direct and indirect modes of bullying, as well as different types of bullying. Direct bullying involves “aggressive behavior(s) that occur in the presence of the targeted youth”; indirect bullying includes “aggressive behavior(s) that are not directly communicated to the targeted youth” ( Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ). The direct forms of violence (e.g., sibling violence, teen dating violence, intimate partner violence) can include aggression that is physical, sexual, or psychological, but the context and uniquely dynamic nature of the relationship between the target and the perpetrator in which these acts occur is different from that of peer bullying. Examples of direct bullying include pushing, hitting, verbal taunting, or direct written communication. A common form of indirect bullying is spreading rumors. Four different types of bullying are commonly identified—physical, verbal, relational, and damage to property. Some observational studies have shown that the different forms of bullying that youths commonly experience may overlap ( Bradshaw et al., 2015 ;

Godleski et al., 2015 ). The four types of bullying are defined as follows ( Gladden et al., 2014 ):

• Physical bullying involves the use of physical force (e.g., shoving, hitting, spitting, pushing, and tripping).
• Verbal bullying involves oral or written communication that causes harm (e.g., taunting, name calling, offensive notes or hand gestures, verbal threats).
• Relational bullying is behavior “designed to harm the reputation and relationships of the targeted youth (e.g., social isolation, rumor spreading, posting derogatory comments or pictures online).”
• Damage to property is “theft, alteration, or damaging of the target youth’s property by the perpetrator to cause harm.”

In recent years, a new form of aggression or bullying has emerged, labeled “cyberbullying,” in which the aggression occurs through modern technological devices, specifically mobile phones or the Internet ( Slonje and Smith, 2008 ). Cyberbullying may take the form of mean or nasty messages or comments, rumor spreading through posts or creation of groups, and exclusion by groups of peers online.

While the CDC definition identifies bullying that occurs using technology as electronic bullying and views that as a context or location where bullying occurs, one of the major challenges in the field is how to conceptualize and define cyberbullying ( Tokunaga, 2010 ). The extent to which the CDC definition can be applied to cyberbullying is unclear, particularly with respect to several key concepts within the CDC definition. First, whether determination of an interaction as “wanted” or “unwanted” or whether communication was intended to be harmful can be challenging to assess in the absence of important in-person socioemotional cues (e.g., vocal tone, facial expressions). Second, assessing “repetition” is challenging in that a single harmful act on the Internet has the potential to be shared or viewed multiple times ( Sticca and Perren, 2013 ). Third, cyberbullying can involve a less powerful peer using technological tools to bully a peer who is perceived to have more power. In this manner, technology may provide the tools that create a power imbalance, in contrast to traditional bullying, which typically involves an existing power imbalance.

A study that used focus groups with college students to discuss whether the CDC definition applied to cyberbullying found that students were wary of applying the definition due to their perception that cyberbullying often involves less emphasis on aggression, intention, and repetition than other forms of bullying ( Kota et al., 2014 ). Many researchers have responded to this lack of conceptual and definitional clarity by creating their own measures to assess cyberbullying. It is noteworthy that very few of these

definitions and measures include the components of traditional bullying—i.e., repetition, power imbalance, and intent ( Berne et al., 2013 ). A more recent study argues that the term “cyberbullying” should be reserved for incidents that involve key aspects of bullying such as repetition and differential power ( Ybarra et al., 2014 ).

Although the formulation of a uniform definition of bullying appears to be a step in the right direction for the field of bullying prevention, there are some limitations of the CDC definition. For example, some researchers find the focus on school-age youth as well as the repeated nature of bullying to be rather limiting; similarly the exclusion of bullying in the context of sibling relationships or dating relationships may preclude full appreciation of the range of aggressive behaviors that may co-occur with or constitute bullying behavior. As noted above, other researchers have raised concerns about whether cyberbullying should be considered a particular form or mode under the broader heading of bullying as suggested in the CDC definition, or whether a separate defintion is needed. Furthermore, the measurement of bullying prevalence using such a definiton of bullying is rather complex and does not lend itself well to large-scale survey research. The CDC definition was intended to inform public health surveillance efforts, rather than to serve as a definition for policy. However, increased alignment between bullying definitions used by policy makers and researchers would greatly advance the field. Much of the extant research on bullying has not applied a consistent definition or one that aligns with the CDC definition. As a result of these and other challenges to the CDC definition, thus far there has been inconsistent adoption of this particular definition by researchers, practitioners, or policy makers; however, as the definition was created in 2014, less than 2 years is not a sufficient amount of time to assess whether it has been successfully adopted or will be in the future.

THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH

This report builds on the April 2014 workshop, summarized in Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c ). The committee’s work was accomplished over an 18-month period that began in October 2014, after the workshop was held and the formal summary of it had been released. The study committee members represented expertise in communication technology, criminology, developmental and clinical psychology, education, mental health, neurobiological development, pediatrics, public health, school administration, school district policy, and state law and policy. (See Appendix E for biographical sketches of the committee members and staff.) The committee met three times in person and conducted other meetings by teleconferences and electronic communication.

Information Gathering

The committee conducted an extensive review of the literature pertaining to peer victimization and bullying. In some instances, the committee drew upon the broader literature on aggression and violence. The review began with an English-language literature search of online databases, including ERIC, Google Scholar, Lexis Law Reviews Database, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Web of Science, and was expanded as literature and resources from other countries were identified by committee members and project staff as relevant. The committee drew upon the early childhood literature since there is substantial evidence indicating that bullying involvement happens as early as preschool (see Vlachou et al., 2011 ). The committee also drew on the literature on late adolescence and looked at related areas of research such as maltreatment for insights into this emerging field.

The committee used a variety of sources to supplement its review of the literature. The committee held two public information-gathering sessions, one with the study sponsors and the second with experts on the neurobiology of bullying; bullying as a group phenomenon and the role of bystanders; the role of media in bullying prevention; and the intersection of social science, the law, and bullying and peer victimization. See Appendix A for the agendas for these two sessions. To explore different facets of bullying and give perspectives from the field, a subgroup of the committee and study staff also conducted a site visit to a northeastern city, where they convened four stakeholder groups comprised, respectively, of local practitioners, school personnel, private foundation representatives, and young adults. The site visit provided the committee with an opportunity for place-based learning about bullying prevention programs and best practices. Each focus group was transcribed and summarized thematically in accordance with this report’s chapter considerations. Themes related to the chapters are displayed throughout the report in boxes titled “Perspectives from the Field”; these boxes reflect responses synthesized from all four focus groups. See Appendix B for the site visit’s agenda and for summaries of the focus groups.

The committee also benefited from earlier reports by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine through its Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education and the Institute of Medicine, most notably:

• Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research ( Institute of Medicine, 1994 )
• Community Programs to Promote Youth Development ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002 )
• Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2003 )
• Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009 )
• The Science of Adolescent Risk-Taking: Workshop Report ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2011 )
• Communications and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2012 )
• Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c )
• The Evidence for Violence Prevention across the Lifespan and Around the World: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014a )
• Strategies for Scaling Effective Family-Focused Preventive Interventions to Promote Children’s Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Health: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014b )
• Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015 )

Although these past reports and workshop summaries address various forms of violence and victimization, this report is the first consensus study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the state of the science on the biological and psychosocial consequences of bullying and the risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease bullying behavior and its consequences.

Terminology

Given the variable use of the terms “bullying” and “peer victimization” in both the research-based and practice-based literature, the committee chose to use the current CDC definition quoted above ( Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ). While the committee determined that this was the best definition to use, it acknowledges that this definition is not necessarily the most user-friendly definition for students and has the potential to cause problems for students reporting bullying. Not only does this definition provide detail on the common elements of bullying behavior but it also was developed with input from a panel of researchers and practitioners. The committee also followed the CDC in focusing primarily on individuals between the ages of 5 and 18. The committee recognizes that children’s development occurs on a continuum, and so while it relied primarily on the CDC defini-

tion, its work and this report acknowledge the importance of addressing bullying in both early childhood and emerging adulthood. For purposes of this report, the committee used the terms “early childhood” to refer to ages 1-4, “middle childhood” for ages 5 to 10, “early adolescence” for ages 11-14, “middle adolescence” for ages 15-17, and “late adolescence” for ages 18-21. This terminology and the associated age ranges are consistent with the Bright Futures and American Academy of Pediatrics definition of the stages of development. 4

A given instance of bullying behavior involves at least two unequal roles: one or more individuals who perpetrate the behavior (the perpetrator in this instance) and at least one individual who is bullied (the target in this instance). To avoid labeling and potentially further stigmatizing individuals with the terms “bully” and “victim,” which are sometimes viewed as traits of persons rather than role descriptions in a particular instance of behavior, the committee decided to use “individual who is bullied” to refer to the target of a bullying instance or pattern and “individual who bullies” to refer to the perpetrator of a bullying instance or pattern. Thus, “individual who is bullied and bullies others” can refer to one who is either perpetrating a bullying behavior or a target of bullying behavior, depending on the incident. This terminology is consistent with the approach used by the FPBP (see above). Also, bullying is a dynamic social interaction ( Espelage and Swearer, 2003 ) where individuals can play different roles in bullying interactions based on both individual and contextual factors.

The committee used “cyberbullying” to refer to bullying that takes place using technology or digital electronic means. “Digital electronic forms of contact” comprise a broad category that may include e-mail, blogs, social networking Websites, online games, chat rooms, forums, instant messaging, Skype, text messaging, and mobile phone pictures. The committee uses the term “traditional bullying” to refer to bullying behavior that is not cyberbullying (to aid in comparisons), recognizing that the term has been used at times in slightly different senses in the literature.

Where accurate reporting of study findings requires use of the above terms but with senses different from those specified here, the committee has noted the sense in which the source used the term. Similarly, accurate reporting has at times required use of terms such as “victimization” or “victim” that the committee has chosen to avoid in its own statements.

4 For details on these stages of adolescence, see https://brightfutures.aap.org/Bright%20Futures%20Documents/3-Promoting_Child_Development.pdf [October 2015].

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This report is organized into seven chapters. After this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides a broad overview of the scope of the problem.

Chapter 3 focuses on the conceptual frameworks for the study and the developmental trajectory of the child who is bullied, the child who bullies, and the child who is bullied and also bullies. It explores processes that can explain heterogeneity in bullying outcomes by focusing on contextual processes that moderate the effect of individual characteristics on bullying behavior.

Chapter 4 discusses the cyclical nature of bullying and the consequences of bullying behavior. It summarizes what is known about the psychosocial, physical health, neurobiological, academic-performance, and population-level consequences of bullying.

Chapter 5 provides an overview of the landscape in bullying prevention programming. This chapter describes in detail the context for preventive interventions and the specific actions that various stakeholders can take to achieve a coordinated response to bullying behavior. The chapter uses the Institute of Medicine’s multi-tiered framework ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009 ) to present the different levels of approaches to preventing bullying behavior.

Chapter 6 reviews what is known about federal, state, and local laws and policies and their impact on bullying.

After a critical review of the relevant research and practice-based literatures, Chapter 7 discusses the committee conclusions and recommendations and provides a path forward for bullying prevention.

The report includes a number of appendixes. Appendix A includes meeting agendas of the committee’s public information-gathering meetings. Appendix B includes the agenda and summaries of the site visit. Appendix C includes summaries of bullying prevalence data from the national surveys discussed in Chapter 2 . Appendix D provides a list of selected federal resources on bullying for parents and teachers. Appendix E provides biographical sketches of the committee members and project staff.

Berne, S., Frisén, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., Katzer, C., Erentaite, R., and Zukauskiene, R. (2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 (2), 320-334.

Bradshaw, C.P., Waasdorp, T.E., and Johnson, S.L. (2015). Overlapping verbal, relational, physical, and electronic forms of bullying in adolescence: Influence of school context. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44 (3), 494-508.

Burk, F.L. (1897). Teasing and bullying. The Pedagogical Seminary, 4 (3), 336-371.

Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Currie, D., de Looze, M., Roberts, C., Samdal, O., Smith, O.R., and Barnekow, V. (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe.

Eisenberg, M.E., and Aalsma, M.C. (2005). Bullying and peer victimization: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (1), 88-91.

Espelage, D.L., and Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 365-383.

Farrington, D., and Ttofi, M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 5 (6).

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., and Turner, H.A. (2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect , 31 (1), 7-26.

Gladden, R.M., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Hamburger, M.E., and Lumpkin, C.D. (2014). Bullying Surveillance among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0 . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education.

Godleski, S.A., Kamper, K.E., Ostrov, J.M., Hart, E.J., and Blakely-McClure, S.J. (2015). Peer victimization and peer rejection during early childhood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44 (3), 380-392.

Hamburger, M.E., Basile, K.C., and Vivolo, A.M. (2011). Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Hellström, L., Persson, L., and Hagquist, C. (2015). Understanding and defining bullying—Adolescents’ own views. Archives of Public Health, 73 (4), 1-9.

Holt, M.K., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Polanin, J.R., Holland, K.M., DeGue, S., Matjasko, J.L., Wolfe, M., and Reid, G. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135 (2), e496-e509.

Hopkins, L., Taylor, L., Bowen, E., and Wood, C. (2013). A qualitative study investigating adolescents’ understanding of aggression, bullying and violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 35 (4), 685-693.

Hymel, S., and Swearer, S.M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 293.

Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research. Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders. P.J. Mrazek and R.J. Haggerty, Editors. Division of Biobehavioral Sciences and Mental Disorders. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2011). The Science of Adolescent Risk-taking: Workshop Report . Committee on the Science of Adolescence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2012). Communications and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014a). The Evidence for Violence Prevention across the Lifespan and around the World: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014b). Strategies for Scaling Effective Family-Focused Preventive Interventions to Promote Children’s Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Health: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014c). Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2015). Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Kim, Y.S., and Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide. A review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 133-154.

Koo, H. (2007). A time line of the evolution of school bullying in differing social contexts. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8 (1), 107-116.

Kota, R., Schoohs, S., Benson, M., and Moreno, M.A. (2014). Characterizing cyberbullying among college students: Hacking, dirty laundry, and mocking. Societies, 4 (4), 549-560.

McDougall, P., and Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence: Pathways to adjustment and maladjustment. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 300.

Monks, C.P., and Smith, P.K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24 (4), 801-821.

National Institute of Justice. (2015). Comprehensive School Safety Initiative. 2015. Available: http://nij.gov/topics/crime/school-crime/Pages/school-safety-initiative.aspx#about [October 2015].

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community Programs to Promote Youth Development . Committee on Community-Level Programs for Youth. J. Eccles and J.A. Gootman, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2003). Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence . Case Studies of School Violence Committee. M.H. Moore, C.V. Petrie, A.A. Barga, and B.L. McLaughlin, Editors. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth, and Young Adults: Research Advances and Promising Interventions. M.E. O’Connell, T. Boat, and K.E. Warner, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School. What We Know and Whal We Can Do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects, 26 (2), 331-359.

Slonje, R., and Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49 (2), 147-154.

Smith, P. ., and Monks, C. . (2008). Concepts of bullying: Developmental and cultural aspects. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 101-112.

Sourander, A. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: A review of cross-sectional and longitudinal research findings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55 (5), 282.

Sticca, F., and Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (5), 739-750.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015). Safe Schools/Healthy Students. 2015. Available: http://www.samhsa.gov/safe-schools-healthy-students/about [November 2015].

Tanrikulu, I., and Campbell, M. (2015). Correlates of traditional bullying and cyberbullying perpetration among Australian students. Children and Youth Services Review , 55 , 138-146.

Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (3), 277-287.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Safe and Supportive Schools . Available: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-awards-388-million-safe-and-supportive-school-grants [October 2015].

Vaillancourt, T., Trinh, V., McDougall, P., Duku, E., Cunningham, L., Cunningham, C., Hymel, S., and Short, K. (2010). Optimizing population screening of bullying in school-aged children. Journal of School Violence, 9 (3), 233-250.

van Geel, M., Vedder, P., and Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association. Pediatrics, 168 (5), 435-442.

Vivolo, A.M., Holt, M.K., and Massetti, G.M. (2011). Individual and contextual factors for bullying and peer victimization: Implications for prevention. Journal of School Violence, 10 (2), 201-212.

Vlachou, M., Andreou, E., Botsoglou, K., and Didaskalou, E. (2011). Bully/victim problems among preschool children: A review of current research evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 23 (3), 329-358.

Wolke, D., and Lereya, S.T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 100 (9), 879-885.

Ybarra, M.L., Espelage, D.L., and Mitchell, K.J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55 (2), 293-300.

This page intentionally left blank.

Bullying has long been tolerated as a rite of passage among children and adolescents. There is an implication that individuals who are bullied must have "asked for" this type of treatment, or deserved it. Sometimes, even the child who is bullied begins to internalize this idea. For many years, there has been a general acceptance and collective shrug when it comes to a child or adolescent with greater social capital or power pushing around a child perceived as subordinate. But bullying is not developmentally appropriate; it should not be considered a normal part of the typical social grouping that occurs throughout a child's life.

Although bullying behavior endures through generations, the milieu is changing. Historically, bulling has occurred at school, the physical setting in which most of childhood is centered and the primary source for peer group formation. In recent years, however, the physical setting is not the only place bullying is occurring. Technology allows for an entirely new type of digital electronic aggression, cyberbullying, which takes place through chat rooms, instant messaging, social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication.

Composition of peer groups, shifting demographics, changing societal norms, and modern technology are contextual factors that must be considered to understand and effectively react to bullying in the United States. Youth are embedded in multiple contexts and each of these contexts interacts with individual characteristics of youth in ways that either exacerbate or attenuate the association between these individual characteristics and bullying perpetration or victimization. Recognizing that bullying behavior is a major public health problem that demands the concerted and coordinated time and attention of parents, educators and school administrators, health care providers, policy makers, families, and others concerned with the care of children, this report evaluates the state of the science on biological and psychosocial consequences of peer victimization and the risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease peer victimization behavior and consequences.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: a comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures.

• 1 School of Political Science and Public Administration, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
• 2 School of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
• 3 College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

Background: Cyberbullying is well-recognized as a severe public health issue which affects both adolescents and children. Most extant studies have focused on national and regional effects of cyberbullying, with few examining the global perspective of cyberbullying. This systematic review comprehensively examines the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures taken worldwide to fight cyberbullying among adolescents and children.

Methods: A systematic review of available literature was completed following PRISMA guidelines using the search themes “cyberbullying” and “adolescent or children”; the time frame was from January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2019. Eight academic databases pertaining to public health, and communication and psychology were consulted, namely: Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL, and PsycArticles. Additional records identified through other sources included the references of reviews and two websites, Cyberbullying Research Center and United Nations Children's Fund. A total of 63 studies out of 2070 were included in our final review focusing on cyberbullying prevalence and risk factors.

Results: The prevalence rates of cyberbullying preparation ranged from 6.0 to 46.3%, while the rates of cyberbullying victimization ranged from 13.99 to 57.5%, based on 63 references. Verbal violence was the most common type of cyberbullying. Fourteen risk factors and three protective factors were revealed in this study. At the personal level, variables associated with cyberbullying including age, gender, online behavior, race, health condition, past experience of victimization, and impulsiveness were reviewed as risk factors. Likewise, at the situational level, parent-child relationship, interpersonal relationships, and geographical location were also reviewed in relation to cyberbullying. As for protective factors, empathy and emotional intelligence, parent-child relationship, and school climate were frequently mentioned.

Conclusion: The prevalence rate of cyberbullying has increased significantly in the observed 5-year period, and it is imperative that researchers from low and middle income countries focus sufficient attention on cyberbullying of children and adolescents. Despite a lack of scientific intervention research on cyberbullying, the review also identified several promising strategies for its prevention from the perspectives of youths, parents and schools. More research on cyberbullying is needed, especially on the issue of cross-national cyberbullying. International cooperation, multi-pronged and systematic approaches are highly encouraged to deal with cyberbullying.

Introduction

Childhood and adolescence are not only periods of growth, but also of emerging risk taking. Young people during these periods are particularly vulnerable and cannot fully understand the connection between behaviors and consequences ( 1 ). With peer pressures, the heat of passion, children and adolescents usually perform worse than adults when people are required to maintain self-discipline to achieve good results in unfamiliar situations. Impulsiveness, sensation seeking, thrill seeking, and other individual differences cause adolescents to risk rejecting standardized risk interventions ( 2 ).

About one-third of Internet users in the world are children and adolescents under the age of 18 ( 3 ). Digital technology provide a new form of interpersonal communication ( 4 ). However, surveys and news reports also show another picture in the Internet Age. The dark side of young people's internet usage is that they may bully or suffer from others' bullying in cyberspace. This behavior is also acknowledged as cyberbullying ( 5 ). Based on Olweus's definition, cyberbullying is usually regarded as bullying implemented through electronic media ( 6 , 7 ). Specifically, cyberbullying among children and adolescents can be summarized as the intentional and repeated harm from one or more peers that occurs in cyberspace caused by the use of computers, smartphones and other devices ( 4 , 8 – 12 ). In recent years, new forms of cyberbullying behaviors have emerged, such as cyberstalking and online dating abuse ( 13 – 15 ).

Although cyberbullying is still a relatively new field of research, cyberbullying among adolescents is considered to be a serious public health issue that is closely related to adolescents' behavior, mental health and development ( 16 , 17 ). The increasing rate of Internet adoption worldwide and the popularity of social media platforms among the young people have worsened this situation with most children and adolescents experiencing cyberbullying or online victimization during their lives. The confines of space and time are alleviated for bullies in virtual environments, creating new venues for cyberbullying with no geographical boundaries ( 6 ). Cyberbullying exerts negative effects on many aspects of young people's lives, including personal privacy invasion and psychological disorders. The influence of cyberbullying may be worse than traditional bullying as perpetrators can act anonymously and connect easily with children and adolescents at any time ( 18 ). In comparison with traditional victims, those bullied online show greater levels of depression, anxiety and loneliness ( 19 ). Self-esteem problems and school absenteeism have also proven to be related to cyberbullying ( 20 ).

Due to changes in use and behavioral patterns among the youth on social media, the manifestations and risk factors of cyberbullying have faced significant transformation. Further, as the boundaries of cyberbullying are not limited by geography, cyberbullying may not be a problem contained within a single country. In this sense, cyberbullying is a global problem and tackling it requires greater international collaboration. The adverse effects caused by cyberbullying, including reduced safety, lower educational attainment, poorer mental health and greater unhappiness, led UNICEF to state that “no child is absolutely safe in the digital world” ( 3 ).

Extant research has examined the prevalence and risk factors of cyberbullying to unravel the complexity of cyberbullying across different countries and their corresponding causes. However, due to variations in cyberbullying measurement and methodologies, no consistent conclusions have been drawn ( 21 ). Studies into inconsistencies in prevalence rates of cyberbullying, measured in the same country during the same time period, occur frequently. Selkie et al. systematically reviewed cyberbullying among American middle and high school students aged 10–19 years old in 2015, and revealed that the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization ranged from 3 to 72%, while perpetration ranged from 1 to 41% ( 22 ). Risk and protective factors have also been broadly studied, but confirmation is still needed of those factors which have more significant effects on cyberbullying among young people. Clarification of these issues would be useful to allow further research to recognize cyberbullying more accurately.

This review aims to extend prior contributions and provide a comprehensive review of cyberbullying of children and adolescents from a global perspective, with the focus being on prevalence, associated risk factors and protective factors across countries. It is necessary to provide a global panorama based on research syntheses to fill the gaps in knowledge on this topic.

Search Strategies

This study strictly employed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We consulted eight academic databases pertaining to public health, and communication and psychology, namely: Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL, and PsycArticles. Additional records identified through other sources included the references of reviews and two websites, Cyberbullying Research Center and United Nations Children's Fund. With regard to the duration of our review, since most studies on cyberbullying arose around 2015 ( 9 , 21 ), this study highlights the complementary aspects of the available information about cyberbullying during the recent 5 year period from January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2019.

One researcher extracted keywords and two researchers proposed modifications. We used two sets of subject terms to review articles, “cyberbullying” and “child OR adolescent.” Some keywords that refer to cyberbullying behaviors and young people are also included, such as threat, harass, intimidate, abuse, insult, humiliate, condemn, isolate, embarrass, forgery, slander, flame, stalk, manhunt, as well as teen, youth, young people and student. The search formula is (cyberbullying OR cyber-bullying OR cyber-aggression OR ((cyber OR online OR electronic OR Internet) AND (bully * OR aggres * OR violence OR perpetrat * OR victim * OR threat * OR harass * OR intimidat * OR * OR insult * OR humiliate * OR condemn * OR isolate * OR embarrass * OR forgery OR slander * OR flame OR stalk * OR manhunt))) AND (adolescen * OR child OR children OR teen? OR teenager? OR youth? OR “young people” OR “elementary school student * ” OR “middle school student * ” OR “high school student * ”). The main search approach is title search. Search strategies varied according to the database consulted, and we did not limit the type of literature for inclusion. Journals, conference papers and dissertations are all available.

Specifically, the inclusion criteria for our study were as follows: (a). reported or evaluated the prevalence and possible risk factors associated with cyberbullying, (b). respondents were students under the age of 18 or in primary, junior or senior high schools, and (c). studies were written in English. Exclusion criteria were: (a). respondents came from specific groups, such as clinical samples, children with disabilities, sexual minorities, specific ethnic groups, specific faith groups or samples with cross-national background, (b). review studies, qualitative studies, conceptual studies, book reviews, news reports or abstracts of meetings, and (c). studies focused solely on preventive measures that were usually meta-analytic and qualitative in nature. Figure 1 presents the details of the employed screening process, showing that a total of 63 studies out of 2070 were included in our final review.

Figure 1 . PRISMA flow chart diagram showing the process of study selection for inclusion in the systematic review on children and adolescents cyberbullying.

Meta-analysis was not conducted as the limited research published within the 5 years revealed little research which reported odds ratio. On the other hand, due to the inconsistency of concepts, measuring instruments and recall periods, considerable variation could be found in research quality ( 23 ). Meta-analysis is not a preferred method.

Coding Scheme

For coding, we created a comprehensive code scheme to include the characteristics. For cyberbullying, we coded five types proposed by Willard ( 24 – 26 ), which included verbal violence, group violence, visual violence, impersonating and account forgery, and other behaviors. Among them, verbal violence is considered one of the most common types of cyberbullying and refers to the behavior of offensive responses, insults, mocking, threats, slander, and harassment. Group violence is associated with preventing others from joining certain groups or isolating others, forcing others to leave the group. Visual violence relates to the release and sharing of embarrassing photos and information without the owners' consent. Impersonating and account forgery refers to identity theft, stealing passwords, violating accounts and the creation of fake accounts to fraudulently present the behavior of others. Other behaviors include disclosure of privacy, sexual harassment, and cyberstalking. To comprehensively examine cyberbullying, we coded cyberbullying behaviors from both the perspectives of cyberbullying perpetrators and victims, if mentioned in the studies.

In relation to risk factors, we drew insights from the general aggression model, which contributes to the understanding of personal and situational factors in the cyberbullying of children and adolescents. We chose the general aggression model because (a) it contains more situational factors than other models (e.g., social ecological models) - such as school climate ( 9 ), and (b) we believe that the general aggression model is more suitable for helping researchers conduct a systematic review of cyberbullying risk and protective factors. This model provides a comprehensive framework that integrates domain specific theories of aggression, and has been widely applied in cyberbullying research ( 27 ). For instance, Kowalski and colleagues proposed a cyberbullying encounter through the general aggression model to understand the formation and development process of youth cyberbullying related to both victimization and perpetration ( 9 ). Victims and perpetrators enter the cyberbullying encounter with various individual characteristics, experiences, attitudes, desires, personalities, and motives that intersect to determine the course of the interaction. Correspondingly, the antecedents pertaining to cyberbullying are divided into two broad categories, personal factors and situational factors. Personal factors refer to individual characteristics, such as gender, age, motivation, personality, psychological states, socioeconomic status and technology use, values and perceptions, and other maladaptive behaviors. Situational factors focus on the provocation/support, parental involvement, school climate, and perceived anonymity. Consequently, our coders related to risk factors consisting of personal factors and situational factors from the perspectives of both cyberbullying perpetrators and victims.

We extracted information relating to individual papers and sample characteristics, including authors, year of publication, country, article type, sampling procedures, sample characteristics, measures of cyberbullying, and prevalence and risk factors from both cyberbullying perpetration and victimization perspectives. The key words extraction and coding work were performed twice by two trained research assistants in health informatics. The consistency test results are as follows: the Kappa value with “personal factors” was 0.932, and the Kappa value with “situational factors” was 0.807. The result shows that the coding consistency was high enough and acceptable. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with other authors.

Quality Assessment of Studies

The quality assessment of the studies is based on the recommended tool for assessing risk of bias, Cochrane Collaboration. This quality assessment tool focused on seven items: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias ( 28 ). We assessed each item as “low risk,” “high risk,” and “unclear” for included studies. A study is considered of “high quality” when it meets three or more “low risk” requirements. When one or more main flaw of a study may affect the research results, the study is considered as “low quality.” When a lack of information leads to a difficult judgement, the quality is considered to be “unclear.” Please refer to Appendix 1 for more details.

This comprehensive systematic review comprised a total of 63 studies. Appendices 2 , 3 show the descriptive information of the studies included. Among them, 58 (92%) studies measured two or more cyberbullying behavior types. The sample sizes of the youths range from several hundred to tens of thousands, with one thousand to five thousand being the most common. As for study distribution, the United States of America, Spain and China were most frequently mentioned. Table 1 presents the detail.

Table 1 . Descriptive information of studies included (2015–2019).

Prevalence of Global Cyberbullying

Prevalence across countries.

Among the 63 studies included, 22 studies reported on cyberbullying prevalence and 20 studies reported on prevalence from victimization and perpetration perspectives, respectively. Among the 20 studies, 11 national studies indicated that the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and cyberbullying perpetration ranged from 14.6 to 52.2% and 6.3 to 32%, respectively. These studies were conducted in the United States of America ( N = 4) ( 29 – 32 ), South Korea ( N = 3) ( 33 – 35 ), Singapore ( N = 1) ( 36 ), Malaysia ( N = 1) ( 37 ), Israel ( N = 1) ( 38 ), and Canada ( N = 1) ( 39 ). Only one of these 11 national studies is from an upper middle income country, and the rest are from highincome countries identified by the World Bank ( 40 ). By combining regional and community-level studies, the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and cyberbullying perpetration ranged from 13.99 to 57.5% and 6.0 to 46.3%, respectively. Spain reported the highest prevalence of cyberbullying victimization (57.5%) ( 41 ), followed by Malaysia (52.2%) ( 37 ), Israel (45%) ( 42 ), and China (44.5%) ( 43 ). The lowest reported victim rates were observed in Canada (13.99%) and South Korea (14.6%) ( 34 , 39 ). The reported prevalence of cyberbullying victimization in the United States of America ranged from 15.5 to 31.4% ( 29 , 44 ), while in Israel, rates ranged from 30 to 45% ( 26 , 42 ). In China, rates ranged from 6 to 46.3% with the country showing the highest prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration (46.30%) ( 15 , 43 , 45 , 46 ). Canadian and South Korean studies reported the lowest prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration at 7.99 and 6.3%, respectively ( 34 , 39 ).

A total of 10 studies were assessed as high quality studies. Among them, six studies came from high income countries, including Canada, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and South Korea ( 13 , 34 , 39 , 46 – 48 ). Three studies were from upper middle income countries, including Malaysia and China ( 37 , 43 ) and one from a lower middle income country, Nigeria ( 49 ). Figures 2 , 3 describe the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration respectively among high quality studies.

Figure 2 . The prevalence of cyberbullying victimization of high quality studies.

Figure 3 . The prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration of high quality studies.

Prevalence of Various Cyberbullying Behaviors

For the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration, the data were reported in 18 and 14 studies, respectively. Figure 4 shows the distribution characteristics of the estimated value of prevalence of different cyberbullying behaviors with box plots. The longer the box, the greater the degree of variation of the numerical data and vice versa. The rate of victimization and crime of verbal violence, as well as the rate of victimization of other behaviors, such as cyberstalking and digital dating abuse, has a large degree of variation. Among the four specified types of cyberbullying behaviors, verbal violence was regarded as the most commonly reported behaviors in both perpetration and victimization rates, with a wide range of prevalence, ranging from 5 to 18%. Fewer studies reported the prevalence data for visual violence and group violence. Studies also showed that the prevalence of impersonation and account forgery were within a comparatively small scale. Specific results were as follows.

Figure 4 . Cyberbullying prevalence across types (2015–2019).

Verbal Violence

A total of 13 studies reported verbal violence prevalence data ( 15 , 26 , 34 , 37 – 39 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 ). Ten studies reported the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranging from 2.8 to 47.5%, while seven studies claimed perpetration prevalence ranging from 1.5 to 31.8%. Malaysia reported the highest prevalence of verbal violence victimization (47.5%) ( 37 ), followed by China (32%) ( 43 ). China reported that the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranged from 5.1 to 32% ( 15 , 43 ). Israel reported that the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranged from 3.4 to 18% ( 26 , 38 , 42 ). For perpetration rate, Malaysia reported the highest level at 31.8% ( 37 ), while a study for Spain reported the lowest, ranging from 3.2 to 6.4% ( 51 ).

Group Violence

The prevalence of group violence victimization was explored within 4 studies and ranged from 5 to 17.8% ( 26 , 34 , 42 , 43 ), while perpetration prevalence was reported in three studies, ranging from 10.1 to 19.07% ( 34 , 43 , 47 ). An Israeli study suggested that 9.8% of respondents had been excluded from the Internet, while 8.9% had been refused entry to a group or team ( 26 ). A study in South Korea argued that the perpetration prevalence of group violence was 10.1% ( 34 ), while a study in Italy reported that the rate of online group violence against others was 19.07% ( 47 ).

Visual Violence

The prevalence of visual violence victimization was explored within three studies and ranged from 2.6 to 12.1% ( 26 , 34 , 43 ), while the perpetration prevalence reported in four studies ranged from 1.7 to 6% ( 34 , 43 , 47 , 48 ). For victimization prevalence, a South Korean study found that 12.1% of respondents reported that their personal information was leaked online ( 34 ). An Israel study reported that the prevalence of outing the picture was 2.6% ( 26 ). For perpetration prevalence, a South Korean study found that 1.7% of respondents had reported that they had disclosed someone's personal information online ( 34 ). A German study reported that 6% of respondents had written a message (e.g., an email) to somebody using a fake identity ( 48 ).

Impersonating and Account Forgery

Four studies reported on the victimization prevalence of impersonating and account forgery, ranging from 1.1 to 10% ( 15 , 42 , 43 ), while five studies reported on perpetration prevalence, with the range being from 1.3 to 9.31% ( 15 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 51 ). In a Spanish study, 10% of respondents reported that their accounts had been infringed by others or that they could not access their account due to stolen passwords. In contrast, 4.5% of respondents reported that they had infringed other people's accounts or stolen passwords, with 2.5% stating that they had forged other people's accounts ( 51 ). An Israeli study reported that the prevalence of being impersonated was 7% ( 42 ), while in China, a study reported this to be 8.6% ( 43 ). Another study from China found that 1.1% of respondents had been impersonated to send dating-for-money messages ( 15 ).

Other Behaviors

The prevalence of disclosure of privacy, sexual harassment, and cyberstalking were also explored by scholars. Six studies reported the victimization prevalence of other cyberbullying behaviors ( 13 , 15 , 34 , 37 , 42 , 43 ), and four studies reported on perpetration prevalence ( 34 , 37 , 43 , 48 ). A study in China found that 1.2% of respondents reported that their privacy had been compromised without permission due to disputes ( 15 ). A study from China reported the prevalence of cyberstalking victimization was 11.9% ( 43 ), while a Portuguese study reported that this was 62% ( 13 ). In terms of perpetration prevalence, a Malaysian study reported 2.7% for sexual harassment ( 37 ).

Risk and Protective Factors of Cyberbullying

In terms of the risk factors associated with cyberbullying among children and adolescents, this comprehensive review highlighted both personal and situational factors. Personal factors referred to age, gender, online behavior, race, health conditions, past experiences of victimization, and impulsiveness, while situational factors consisted of parent-child relationship, interpersonal relationships, and geographical location. In addition, protective factors against cyberbullying included: empathy and emotional intelligence, parent-child relationship, and school climate. Table 2 shows the risk and protective factors for child and adolescent cyberbullying.

Table 2 . Risk and protective factors of cyberbullying among children and adolescents.

In terms of the risk factors associated with cyberbullying victimization at the personal level, many studies evidenced that females were more likely to be cyberbullied than males ( 13 , 26 , 29 , 38 , 43 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 58 ). Meanwhile, adolescents with mental health problems ( 61 ), such as depression ( 33 , 62 ), borderline personality disorder ( 63 ), eating disorders ( 41 ), sleep deprivation ( 56 ), and suicidal thoughts and suicide plans ( 64 ), were more likely to be associated with cyberbullying victimization. As for Internet usage, researchers agreed that youth victims were probably those that spent more time online than their counterparts ( 32 , 36 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 60 ). For situational risk factors, some studies have proven the relationship between cyberbullying victims and parental abuse, parental neglect, family dysfunction, inadequate monitoring, and parents' inconsistency in mediation, as well as communication issues ( 33 , 64 , 68 , 73 ). In terms of geographical location, some studies have reported that youths residing in city locations are more likely to be victims of cyberbullying than their peers from suburban areas ( 61 ).

Regarding the risk factors of cyberbullying perpetration at the personal level, it is generally believed that older teenagers, especially those aged over 15 years, are at greater risk of becoming cyberbullying perpetrators ( 55 , 67 ). When considering prior cyberbullying experiences, evidence showed that individuals who had experienced cyberbullying or face-to-face bullying tended to be aggressors in cyberbullying ( 35 , 42 , 49 , 51 , 55 ); in addition, the relationship between impulsiveness and cyberbullying perpetration was also explored by several pioneering scholars ( 55 , 72 , 80 ). The situational factors highlight the role of parents and teachers in cyberbullying experiences. For example, over-control and authoritarian parenting styles, as well as inharmonious teacher-student relationships ( 61 ) are perceived to lead to cyberbullying behaviors ( 74 , 75 ). In terms of differences in geographical locations, students residing in cities have a higher rate of online harassment than students living in more rural locations ( 49 ).

In terms of the protective factors in child and adolescent cyberbullying, scholars have focused on youths who have limited experiences of cyberbullying. At the personal level, high emotional intelligence, an ability for emotional self-control and empathy, such as cognitive empathy ability ( 44 , 55 ), were associated with lower rates of cyberbullying ( 57 ). At the situational level, a parent's role is seen as critical. For example, intimate parent-child relationships ( 46 ) and open active communication ( 19 ) were demonstrated to be related to lower experiences of cyberbullying and perpetration. Some scholars argued that parental supervision and monitoring of children's online activities can reduce their tendency to participate in some negative activities associated with cyberbullying ( 31 , 46 , 73 ). They further claimed that an authoritative parental style protects youths against cyberbullying ( 43 ). Conversely, another string of studies evidenced that parents' supervision of Internet usage was meaningless ( 45 ). In addition to conflicting roles of parental supervision, researchers have also looked into the role of schools, and posited that positive school climates contribute to less cyberbullying experiences ( 61 , 79 ).

Some risk factors may be protective factors under another condition. Some studies suggest that parental aggressive communication is related to severe cyberbullying victims, while open communication is a potential protective factor ( 19 ). Parental neglect, parental abuse, parental inconsistency in supervision of adolescents' online behavior, and family dysfunction are related to the direct or indirect harm of cyberbullying ( 33 , 68 ). Parental participation, a good parental-children relationship, communication and dialogue can enhance children's school adaptability and prevent cyberbullying behaviors ( 31 , 74 ). When parental monitoring reaches a balance between control and openness, it could become a protective factor against cyberbullying, and it could be a risk factor, if parental monitoring is too low or over-controlled ( 47 ).

Despite frequent discussion about the risk factors associated with cyberbullying among children and adolescents, some are still deemed controversial factors, such as age, race, gender, and the frequency of suffering on the internet. For cyberbullying victims, some studies claim that older teenagers are more vulnerable to cyberbullying ( 15 , 38 , 52 , 53 ), while other studies found conflicting results ( 26 , 33 ). As for student race, Alhajji et al. argued that non-white students were less likely to report cyberbullying ( 29 ), while Morin et al. observed no significant correlation between race and cyberbullying ( 52 ). For cyberbullying perpetration, Alvarez-Garcia found that gender differences may have indirect effects on cyberbullying perpetration ( 55 ), while others disagreed ( 42 , 61 , 68 – 70 ). Specifically, some studies revealed that males were more likely to become cyberbullying perpetrators ( 34 , 39 , 56 ), while Khurana et al. presented an opposite point of view, proposing that females were more likely to attack others ( 71 ). In terms of time spent on the Internet, some claimed that students who frequently surf the Internet had a higher chance of becoming perpetrators ( 49 ), while others stated that there was no clear and direct association between Internet usage and cyberbullying perpetration ( 55 ).

In addition to personal and situational factors, scholars have also explored other specific factors pertaining to cyberbullying risk and protection. For instance, mindfulness and depression were found to be significantly related to cyber perpetration ( 76 ), while eating disorder psychopathology in adolescents was associated with cyber victimization ( 41 ). For males who were familiar with their victims, such as family members, friends and acquaintances, they were more likely to be cyberstalking perpetrators than females or strangers, while pursuing desired closer relationships ( 13 ). In the school context, a lower social likability in class was identified as an indirect factor for cyberbullying ( 48 ).

This comprehensive review has established that the prevalence of global childhood and adolescent victimization from cyberbullying ranges from 13.99 to 57.5%, and that the perpetration prevalence ranges from 6.0 to 46.3%. Across the studies included in our research, verbal violence is observed as one of the most common acts of cyberbullying, including verbal offensive responses, insults, mocking, threats, slander, and harassment. The victimization prevalence of verbal violence is reported to be between 5 and 47.5%, and the perpetration prevalence is between 3.2 and 26.1%. Personal factors, such as gender, frequent use of social media platforms, depression, borderline personality disorder, eating disorders, sleep deprivation, and suicidal tendencies, were generally considered to be related to becoming a cyberbullying victim. Personal factors, such as high school students, past experiences, impulse, improperly controlled family education, poor teacher-student relationships, and the urban environment, were considered risk factors for cyberbullying perpetration. Situational factors, including parental abuse and neglect, improper monitoring, communication barriers between parents and children, as well as the urban environment, were also seen to potentially contribute to higher risks of both cyberbullying victimization and perpetration.

Increasing Prevalence of Global Cyberbullying With Changing Social Media Landscape and Measurement Alterations

This comprehensive review suggests that global cyberbullying rates, in terms of victimization and perpetration, were on the rise during the 5 year period, from 2015 to 2019. For example, in an earlier study conducted by Modecki et al. the average cyberbullying involvement rate was 15% ( 81 ). Similar observations were made by Hamm et al. who found that the median rates of youth having experienced bullying or who had bullied others online, was 23 and 15.2%, respectively ( 82 ). However, our systematic review summarized global children and adolescents cyberbullying in the last 5 years and revealed an average cyberbullying perpetration rate of 25.03%, ranging from 6.0 to 46.3%, while the average victimization was 33.08%, ranging from 13.99 to 57.5%. The underlying reason for increases may be attributed to the rapid changing landscape of social media and, in recent years, the drastic increase in Internet penetration rates. With the rise in Internet access, youths have greater opportunities to participate in online activities, provided by emerging social media platforms.

Although our review aims to provide a broader picture of cyberbullying, it is well-noted in extant research that difficulties exist in accurately estimating variations in prevalence in different countries ( 23 , 83 ). Many reasons exist to explain this. The first largely relates poor or unclear definition of the term cyberbullying; this hinders the determination of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration ( 84 ). Although traditional bullying behavior is well-defined, the definition cannot directly be applied to the virtual environment due to the complexity in changing online interactions. Without consensus on definitions, measurement and cyberbullying types may vary noticeably ( 83 , 85 ). Secondly, the estimation of prevalence of cyberbullying is heavily affected by research methods, such as recall period (lifetime, last year, last 6 months, last month, or last week etc.), demographic characteristics of the survey sample (age, gender, race, etc.), perspectives of cyberbullying experiences (victims, perpetrators, or both victim and perpetrator), and instruments (scales, study-specific questions) ( 23 , 84 , 86 ). The variety in research tools and instruments used to assess the prevalence of cyberbullying can cause confusion on this issue ( 84 ). Thirdly, variations in economic development, cultural backgrounds, human values, internet penetration rates, and frequency of using social media may lead to different conclusions across countries ( 87 ).

Acknowledging the Conflicting Role of the Identified Risk Factors With More Research Needed to Establish the Causality

Although this review has identified many personal and situational factors associated with cyberbullying, the majority of studies adopted a cross-sectional design and failed to reveal the causality ( 21 ). Nevertheless, knowledge on these correlational relationships provide valuable insights for understanding and preventing cyberbullying incidents. In terms of gender differences, females are believed to be at a higher risk of cyberbullying victimization compared to males. Two reasons may help to explain this. First, the preferred violence behaviors between two genders. females prefer indirect harassment, such as the spreading of rumors, while males tend toward direct bullying (e.g., assault) ( 29 ) and second, the cultural factors. From the traditional gender perspective, females tended to perceive a greater risk of communicating with others on the Internet, while males were more reluctant to express fear, vulnerability and insecurity when asked about their cyberbullying experiences ( 46 ). Females were more intolerant when experiencing cyberstalking and were more likely to report victimization experiences than males ( 13 ). Meanwhile, many researchers suggested that females are frequent users of emerging digital communication platforms, which increases their risk of unpleasant interpersonal contact and violence. From the perspective of cultural norms and masculinity, the reporting of cyberbullying is also widely acknowledged ( 37 ). For example, in addition, engaging in online activities is also regarded as a critical predictor for cyberbullying victimization. Enabled by the Internet, youths can easily find potential victims and start harassment at any time ( 49 ). Participating in online activities directly increases the chance of experiencing cyberbullying victimization and the possibility of becoming a victim ( 36 , 45 ). As for age, earlier involvement on social media and instant messaging tools may increase the chances of experiencing cyberbullying. For example, in Spain, these tools cannot be used without parental permission before the age of 14 ( 55 ). Besides, senior students were more likely to be more impulsive and less sympathetic. They may portray more aggressive and anti-social behaviors ( 55 , 72 ); hence senior students and students with higher impulsivity were usually more likely to become cyberbullying perpetrators.

Past experiences of victimization and family-related factors are another risk for cyberbullying crime. As for past experiences, one possible explanation is that young people who had experienced online or traditional school bullying may commit cyberbullying using e-mails, instant messages, and text messages for revenge, self-protection, or improving their social status ( 35 , 42 , 49 , 55 ). In becoming a cyberbullying perpetrator, the student may feel more powerful and superior, externalizing angry feelings and relieving the feelings of helplessness and sadness produced by past victimization experiences ( 51 ). As for family related factors, parenting styles are proven to be highly correlated to cyberbullying. In authoritative families, parents focus on rational behavioral control with clear rules and a high component of supervision and parental warmth, which have beneficial effects on children's lifestyles ( 43 ). Conversely, in indulgent families, children's behaviors are not heavily restricted and parents guide and encourage their children to adapt to society. The characteristics of this indulgent style, including parental support, positive communication, low imposition, and emotional expressiveness, possibly contribute to more parent-child trust and less misunderstanding ( 75 ). The protective role of warmth/affection and appropriate supervision, which are common features of authoritative or indulgent parenting styles, mitigate youth engagement in cyberbullying. On the contrary, authoritarian and neglectful styles, whether with excessive or insufficient control, are both proven to be risk factors for being a target of cyberbullying ( 33 , 76 ). In terms of geographical location, although several studies found that children residing in urban areas were more likely to be cyberbullying victims than those living in rural or suburban areas, we cannot draw a quick conclusion here, since whether this difference attributes to macro-level differences, such as community safety or socioeconomic status, or micro-level differences, such as teacher intervention in the classroom, courses provided, teacher-student ratio, is unclear across studies ( 61 ). An alternative explanation for this is the higher internet usage rate in urban areas ( 49 ).

Regarding health conditions, especially mental health, some scholars believe that young people with health problems are more likely to be identified as victims than people without health problems. They perceive health condition as a risk factor for cyberbullying ( 61 , 63 ). On the other hand, another group of scholars believe that cyberbullying has an important impact on the mental health of adolescents which can cause psychological distress consequences, such as post-traumatic stress mental disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and drug abuse ( 70 , 87 ). It is highly possible that mental health could be risk factors, consequences of cyberbullying or both. Mental health cannot be used as standards, requirements, or decisive responses in cyberbullying research ( 13 ).

The Joint Effort Between Youth, Parents, Schools, and Communities to Form a Cyberbullying-Free Environment

This comprehensive review suggests that protecting children and adolescents from cyberbullying requires joint efforts between individuals, parents, schools, and communities, to form a cyberbullying-free environment. For individuals, young people are expected to improve their digital technology capabilities, especially in the use of social media platforms and instant messaging tools ( 55 ). To reduce the number of cyberbullying perpetrators, it is necessary to cultivate emotional self-regulation ability through appropriate emotional management training. Moreover, teachers, counselors, and parents are required to be armed with sufficient knowledge of emotional management and to develop emotional management capabilities and skills. In this way, they can be alert to the aggressive or angry emotions expressed by young people, and help them mediate any negative emotions ( 45 ), and avoid further anti-social behaviors ( 57 ).

For parents, styles of parenting involving a high level of parental involvement, care and support, are desirable in reducing the possibility of children's engagement in cyberbullying ( 74 , 75 ). If difficulties are encountered, open communication can contribute to enhancing the sense of security ( 73 ). In this vein, parents should be aware of the importance of caring, communicating and supervising their children, and participate actively in their children's lives ( 71 ). In order to keep a balance between control and openness ( 47 ), parents can engage in unbiased open communication with their children, and reach an agreement on the usage of computers and smart phones ( 34 , 35 , 55 ). Similarly, it is of vital importance to establish a positive communication channel with children ( 19 ).

For schools, a higher priority is needed to create a safe and positive campus environment, providing students with learning opportunities and ensuring that every student is treated equally. With a youth-friendly environment, students are able to focus more on their academic performance and develop a strong sense of belonging to the school ( 79 ). For countries recognizing collectivist cultural values, such as China and India, emphasizing peer attachment and a sense of collectivism can reduce the risk of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization ( 78 ). Besides, schools can cooperate with mental health agencies and neighboring communities to develop preventive programs, such as extracurricular activities and training ( 44 , 53 , 62 ). Specifically, school-based preventive measures against cyberbullying are expected to be sensitive to the characteristics of young people at different ages, and the intersection of race and school diversity ( 29 , 76 ). It is recommended that school policies that aim to embrace diversity and embody mutual respect among students are created ( 26 ). Considering the high prevalence of cyberbullying and a series of serious consequences, it is suggested that intervention against cyberbullying starts from an early stage, at about 10 years old ( 54 ). Schools can organize seminars to strengthen communication between teachers and students so that they can better understand the needs of students ( 61 ). In addition, schools should encourage cyberbullying victims to seek help and provide students with opportunities to report cyberbullying behaviors, such as creating online anonymous calls.

Conclusions and Limitations

The comprehensive study has reviewed related research on children and adolescents cyberbullying across different countries and regions, providing a positive understanding of the current situation of cyberbullying. The number of studies on cyberbullying has surged in the last 5 years, especially those related to risk factors and protective factors of cyberbullying. However, research on effective prevention is insufficient and evaluation of policy tools for cyberbullying intervention is a nascent research field. Our comprehensive review concludes with possible strategies for cyberbullying prevention, including personal emotion management, digital ability training, policy applicability, and interpersonal skills. We highlight the important role of parental control in cyberbullying prevention. As for the role of parental control, it depends on whether children believe their parents are capable of adequately supporting them, rather than simply interfering in their lives, restricting their online behavior, and controlling or removing their devices ( 50 ). In general, cyberbullying is on the rise, with the effectiveness of interventions to meet this problem still requiring further development and exploration ( 83 ).

Considering the overlaps between cyberbullying and traditional offline bullying, future research can explore the unique risk and protective factors that are distinguishable from traditional bullying ( 86 ). To further reveal the variations, researchers can compare the outcomes of interventions conducted in cyberbullying and traditional bullying preventions simultaneously, and the same interventions only targeting cyberbullying ( 88 ). In addition, cyberbullying also reflects a series of other social issues, such as personal privacy and security, public opinion monitoring, multinational perpetration and group crimes. To address this problem, efforts from multiple disciplines and novel analytical methods in the digital era are required. As the Internet provides enormous opportunities to connect young people from all over the world, cyberbullying perpetrators may come from transnational networks. Hence, cyberbullying of children and adolescents, involving multiple countries, is worth further attention.

Our study has several limitations. First, national representative studies are scarce, while few studies from middle and low income countries were included in our research due to language restrictions. Many of the studies included were conducted in schools, communities, provinces, and cities in high income countries. Meanwhile, our review only focused on victimization and perpetration. Future studies should consider more perspectives, such as bystanders and those with the dual identity of victim/perpetrator, to comprehensively analyze the risk and protective factors of cyberbullying.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

SH, CZ, RE, and WZ conceived the study and developed the design. WZ analyzed the result and supervised the study. CZ and SH wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909/full#supplementary-material

1. Ang RP. Adolescent cyberbullying: a review of characteristics, prevention and intervention strategies. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 25:35–42. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Reyna VF, Farley F. Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychol Sci Public Interest. (2006) 7:1–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. UNICEF ed. Children in a Digital World . New York, NY: UNICEF (2017).

Google Scholar

4. Thomas HJ, Connor JP, Scott JG. Integrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying: challenges of definition and measurement in adolescents - a review. Educ Psychol Rev. (2015) 27:135–52. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9261-7

5. Baldry AC, Farrington DP, Sorrentino A. “Am I at risk of cyberbullying”? A narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and cybervictimization: the risk and needs assessment approach. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:36–51. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.014

6. Olweus D. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do . Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell (1993).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

7. Dooley JJ, Pyzalski J, Cross D. Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: a theoretical and conceptual review. J Psychol. (2009) 217:182–8. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182

8. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippett N. Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2008) 49:376–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x

9. Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychol Bull. (2014) 140:1073–137. doi: 10.1037/a0035618

10. León Vicente I. Cybervictimization by cyberbullying: children at risk and children as risk (dissertation). University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain (2016).

11. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Identification, Prevention, and Response. (2020).

12. Jadambaa A, Thomas HJ, Scott JG, Graves N, Brain D, Pacella R. Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents in Australia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. (2019) 53:878–88. doi: 10.1177/0004867419846393

13. Pereira F, Matos M. Cyber-stalking victimization: what predicts fear among Portuguese adolescents? Eur J Crim Policy Res. (2016) 22:253–70. doi: 10.1007/s10610-015-9285-7

14. Reed LA, Ward LM, Tolman RM, Lippman JR, Seabrook RC. The association between stereotypical gender and dating beliefs and digital dating abuse perpetration in adolescent dating relationships. J Interpers Violence . (2018). doi: 10.1177/0886260518801933

15. Huang CL, Yang SC, Hsieh LS. The cyberbullying behavior of Taiwanese adolescents in an online gaming environment. Children Youth Serv Rev. (2019) 106:104461. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104461

16. Raskauskas J, Huynh A. The process of coping with cyberbullying: a systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:118–25. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.019

17. Bradshaw J, Crous G, Rees G, Turner N. Comparing children's experiences of schools-based bullying across countries. Children Youth Serv Rev. (2017) 80:171–80. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.060

18. Hutson E, Kelly S, Militello LK. Systematic review of cyberbullying interventions for youth and parents with implications for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. (2018) 15:72–9. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12257

19. Larranaga E, Yubero S, Ovejero A, Navarro R. Loneliness, parent-child communication and cyberbullying victimization among Spanish youths. Comp Hum Behav. (2016) 65:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.015

20. van Geel M, Vedder P, Tanilon J. Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. (2014) 168:435–42. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143

21. Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R. Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:1–21. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001

22. Selkie EM, Kota R, Chan Y-F, Moreno M. Cyberbullying, depression, and problem alcohol use in female college students: a multisite study. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. (2015) 18:79–86. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0371

23. Brochado S, Soares S, Fraga S. A scoping review on studies of cyberbullying prevalence among adolescents. Trauma Violence Abus. (2017) 18:523–31. doi: 10.1177/1524838016641668

24. Nocentini A, Calmaestra J, Schultze-Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H, Ortega R, Menesini E. Cyberbullying: labels, behaviours and definition in three European Countries. Aust J Guid Couns. (2010) 20:129–42. doi: 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129

25. Willard NE. Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress . Champaign: Research Press (2007).

26. Aizenkot D, Kashy-Rosenbaum G. Cyberbullying victimization in whatsapp classmate groups among Israeli Elementary, Middle, and High School Students. J Interpers Violence . (2019). doi: 10.1177/0886260519842860

27. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Human aggression. Ann Rev Psychol. (2002) 53:27–51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231

28. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions . (2011). Available online at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ (accessed January 17, 2021).

29. Alhajji M, Bass S, Dai T. Cyberbullying, mental health, and violence in adolescents and associations with sex and race: data from the 2015 youth risk behavior survey. Global Pediatr Health . (2019) 6:2333794X19868887. doi: 10.1177/2333794X19868887

30. Grinshteyn E, Yang YT. The association between electronic bullying and school absenteeism among high school students in the United States. J School Health. (2017) 87:142–9. doi: 10.1111/josh.12476

31. Mesch GS. Parent-child connections on social networking sites and cyberbullying. Youth Soc. (2018) 50:1145–62. doi: 10.1177/0044118X16659685

32. Sam J, Wisniewski P, Xu H, Rosson MB, Carroll JM. How are social capital and parental mediation associated with cyberbullying and cybervictimization among youth in the United States? In: Stephanidis C, editor. HCI International 2017 – Posters' Extended Abstracts Communications in Computer Information Science Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 638–644.

33. Hong JS, Kim DH, Thornberg R, Kang JH, Morgan JT. Correlates of direct and indirect forms of cyberbullying victimization involving South Korean adolescents: an ecological perspective. Comput Hum Behav. (2018) 87:327–36. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.010

34. Lee C, Shin N. Prevalence of cyberbullying and predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among Korean adolescents. Comp Hum Behav. (2017) 68:352–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.047

35. You S, Lim SA. Longitudinal predictors of cyberbullying perpetration: evidence from Korean middle school students. Person Ind Differ. (2016) 89:172–6. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.019

36. Holt TJ, Fitzgerald S, Bossler AM, Chee G, Ng E. Assessing the risk factors of cyber and mobile phone bullying victimization in a nationally representative sample of Singapore Youth. Int J Offend Ther Comp Criminol. (2016) 60:598–615. doi: 10.1177/0306624X14554852

37. Marret MJ, Choo WY. Factors associated with online victimisation among Malaysian adolescents who use social networking sites: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. (2017) 7:e014959. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014959

38. Tesler R, Nissanholtz-Gannot R, Zigdon A, Harel-Fisch Y. The association of cyber-bullying and adolescents in religious and secular schools in Israel. J Relig Health. (2019) 58:2095–109. doi: 10.1007/s10943-019-00938-z

39. Beran T, Mishna F, McInroy LB, Shariff S. Children's experiences of cyberbullying: a Canadian National Study. Child School. (2015) 37:207–14. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdv024

40. World Bank Country and Lending Groups – World Bank Data Help Desk. Available online at: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups [accessed January 25, 2021).

41. Marco JH, Tormo-Irun P. Cyber victimization is associated with eating disorder psychopathology in adolescents. Front Psychol. (2018) 9:987. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00987

42. Olenik-Shemesh D, Heiman T. Cyberbullying victimization in adolescents as related to body esteem, social support, and social self-efficacy. J Genet Psychol. (2017) 178:28–43. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2016.1195331

43. Rao J, Wang H, Pang M, Yang J, Zhang J, Ye Y, et al. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimisation among junior and senior high school students in Guangzhou, China. Inj Prev. (2019) 25:13–9. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042210

44. Lee C. Weak Commitment to School, Deviant Peers, and Cyberbullying Victimization-Strain in Adolescent Cyberbullying . (2017). Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1937915933/abstract/9D85437600564444PQ/30 (accessed June 17, 2020).

45. Lin MT. Risk factors associated with cyberbullying victimization and perpetration among Taiwan children (dissertation). The University of Texas, Austin, TX, United States (2019).

46. Pieschl S, Porsch T. The complex relationship between cyberbullying and trust. Int J Dev Sci. (2017) 11:9–17. doi: 10.3233/DEV-160208

47. Brighi A, Menin D, Skrzypiec G, Guarini A. Young, bullying, and connected. Common pathways to cyberbullying and problematic internet use in adolescence. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1467. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01467

48. Festl R. Perpetrators on the internet: analyzing individual and structural explanation factors of cyberbullying in school context. Comp Hum Behav. (2016) 59:237–48. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.017

49. Olumide AO, Adams P, Amodu OK. Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyberbullying among in-school adolescents in Oyo State, Nigeria. Int J Adolesc Med Health. (2016) 28:183–91. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2015-0009

50. Baldry AC, Sorrentino A, Farrington DP. Cyberbullying and cybervictimization versus parental supervision, monitoring and control of adolescents' online activities. Child Youth Serv Rev. (2019) 96:302–7. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.058

51. Garaigordobil M. Cyberbullying in adolescents and youth in the Basque Country: prevalence of cybervictims, cyberaggressors, and cyberobservers. J Youth Stud. (2015) 18:569–82. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2014.992324

52. Morin HK, Bradshaw CP, Kush JM. Adjustment outcomes of victims of cyberbullying: the role of personal and contextual factors. J School Psychol. (2018) 70:74–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.07.002

53. Baraldsnes D. The prevalence of cyberbullying and the views of 5-12 grade pupils and teachers on cyberbullying prevention in Lithuanian Schools. Uinv J Educ Res. (2015) 3:949–59. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2015.031201

54. Razjouyan K, Mobarake AH, Sadr SS, Ardestani SMS, Yaseri M. The relationship between emotional intelligence and the different roles in cyberbullying among high school students in Tehran. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. (2018) 12:UNSP e11560. doi: 10.5812/ijpbs.11560

55. Alvarez-Garcia D, Carlos Nunez J, Garcia T, Barreiro-Collazo A. Individual, family, and community predictors of cyber-aggression among adolescents. Eur J Psychol Appl Legal Context. (2018) 10:79–88. doi: 10.5093/ejpalc2018a8

56. Horzum MB, Ayas T, Randler C, Dusunceli B. The effects of empathy and circadian preference on cyberbullying of adolescents in Turkey. Biol Rhythm Res . (2019). doi: 10.1080/09291016.2019.1603839

57. Carmen Martinez-Monteagudo M, Delgado B, Manuel Garcia-Fernandez J, Rubio E. Cyberbullying, aggressiveness, and emotional intelligence in adolescence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:5079. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16245079

58. Sasson H, Mesch G. The role of parental mediation and peer norms on the likelihood of cyberbullying. J Genet Psychol. (2017) 178:15–27. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2016.1195330

59. Wang X, Lei L, Liu D, Hu H. Moderating effects of moral reasoning and gender on the relation between moral disengagement and cyberbullying in adolescents. Person Ind Differ. (2016) 98:244–9. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.056

60. Simsek N, Sahin D, Evli M. Internet addiction, cyberbullying, and victimization relationship in adolescents a sample from Turkey. J Addict Nurs. (2019) 30:201–10. doi: 10.1097/JAN.0000000000000296

61. McQuillan BE. Ecological Factors Associated with Middle School Students' Experiences of Cyberbullying . (2016). Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1794167537/abstract/9D85437600564444PQ/4 (accessed June 17, 2020).

62. Rose CA, Tynes BM. Longitudinal associations between cybervictimization and mental health among U.S. adolescents. J Adolesc Health. (2015) 57:305–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.05.002

63. Stockdale LA, Coyne SM, Nelson DA, Erickson DH. Borderline personality disorder features, jealousy, and cyberbullying in adolescence. Pers Individ Differ. (2015) 83:148–53. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.003

64. Chen Q, Lo Camilla KM, Yuhong Z, Anne C, Ling CK, Patrick I. Family poly-victimization and cyberbullying among adolescents in a Chinese school sample. Child Abuse Negl. (2018) 77:180–7. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.015

65. Landoll RR, La Greca AM, Lai BS, Chan SF, Herge WM. Cyber victimization by peers: prospective associations with adolescent social anxiety and depressive symptoms. J Adolesc. (2015) 42:77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.002

66. Iranzo B, Buelga S, Cava M-J, Ortega-Baron J. Cyberbullying, psychosocial adjustment, and suicidal ideation in adolescence. Psychosoc Interv. (2019) 28:75–81. doi: 10.5093/pi2019a5

67. Buelga S, Cava MJ, Musitu G, Torralba E. Cyberbullying aggressors among Spanish secondary education students: an exploratory study. Interact Tech Smart Ed. (2015) 12:100–15. doi: 10.1108/ITSE-08-2014-0025

68. Katz I, Lemish D, Cohen R, Arden A. When parents are inconsistent: parenting style and adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying. J Adolesc. (2019) 74:1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.04.006

69. Cénat JM, Blais M, Lavoie F, Caron P-O, Hébert M. Cyberbullying victimization and substance use among Quebec high schools students: the mediating role of psychological distress. Comp Hum Behav. (2018) 89:207–12. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.014

70. Hoareau N, Bages C, Allaire M, Guerrien A. The role of psychopathic traits and moral disengagement in cyberbullying among adolescents. Crim Behav Ment Health. (2019) 29:321–31. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2135

71. Khurana A, Bleakley A, Jordan A, Romer D. The protective effects of parental monitoring and internet restriction on adolescents' risk of online harassment. J Youth Adolesc. (2015) 44:1039–47. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0242-4

72. Martínez I, Murgui S, Garcia OF, Garcia F. Parenting in the digital era: protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Comp Hum Behav. (2019) 90:84–92. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.036

73. Yusuf S, Salleh H, Bahaman A, Shamsul M, Ramli N, Ramli AN, et al. Parental attachment and cyberbullying experiences among Malaysian children. Pertanika J Scholarly Res Rev . (2018) 4:67–80.

74. Martinez-Ferrer B, Leon-Moreno C, Musitu-Ferrer D, Romero-Abrio A, Callejas-Jeronimo JE, Musitu-Ochoa G. Parental socialization, school adjustment and cyber-aggression among adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:4005. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16204005

75. Moreno–Ruiz D, Martínez–Ferrer B, García–Bacete F. Parenting styles, cyberaggression, and cybervictimization among adolescents. Comp Hum Behav. (2019) 93:252–9. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.031

76. Ho SS, Chen L, Ng APY. Comparing cyberbullying perpetration on social media between primary and secondary school students. Comp Educ. (2017) 109:74–84. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.004

77. Gómez-Ortiz O, Romera EM, Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R. Parenting practices as risk or preventive factors for adolescent involvement in cyberbullying: contribution of children and parent gender. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:2664. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122664

78. Wright MF, Kamble SV, Soudi SP. Indian adolescents' cyber aggression involvement and cultural values: the moderation of peer attachment. Sch Psychol Int. (2015) 36:410–27. doi: 10.1177/0143034315584696

79. Holfeld B, Leadbeater BJ. Concurrent and longitudinal associations between early adolescents' experiences of school climate and cyber victimization. Comput Hum Behav. (2017) 76:321–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.037

80. Álvarez-García D, Núñez JC, González-Castro P, Rodríguez C, Cerezo R. The effect of parental control on cyber-victimization in adolescence: the mediating role of impulsivity and high-risk behaviors. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1159. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01159

81. Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC. Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. J Adolesc Health. (2014) 55:602–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007

82. Hamm MP, Newton AS, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Sundar P, et al. Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: a scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatr. (2015) 169:770. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944

83. Gaffney H, Farrington DP, Espelage DL, Ttofi MM. Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggress Violent Behav. (2019) 45:134–53. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.002

84. Selkie EM, Fales JL, Moreno MA. Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and high school-aged adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment. J Adolesc Health. (2016) 58:125–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026

85. Ybarra ML, Boyd D, Korchmaros JD, Oppenheim J. Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. J Adolesc Health. (2012) 51:53–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.031

86. Kowalski RM, Limber SP, McCord A. A developmental approach to cyberbullying: prevalence and protective factors. Aggress Violent Behav. (2019) 45:20–32. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.009

87. Dilmac B, Yurt E, Aydin M, Kasarci I. Predictive relationship between humane values of adolescents cyberbullying and cyberbullying sensibility. Electron J Res Educ Psychol. (2016) 14:3–22. doi: 10.14204/ejrep.38.14123

88. Reed KP, Cooper RL, Nugent WR, Russell K. Cyberbullying: a literature review of its relationship to adolescent depression and current intervention strategies. J Hum Behav Soc Environ. (2016) 26:37–45. doi: 10.1080/10911359.2015.1059165

Keywords: cyberbullying, children, adolescents, globalization, risk factors, preventive measures

Citation: Zhu C, Huang S, Evans R and Zhang W (2021) Cyberbullying Among Adolescents and Children: A Comprehensive Review of the Global Situation, Risk Factors, and Preventive Measures. Front. Public Health 9:634909. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909

Received: 29 November 2020; Accepted: 10 February 2021; Published: 11 March 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Zhu, Huang, Evans and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Wei Zhang, weizhanghust@hust.edu.cn

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Drishti Sharma; Nandini Sharma; and Ritika Bakshi

As access to digital technologies increases rapidly worldwide, it brings risks alongside enormous benefits, especially for the children and adolescents. The magnitude of online risks like cyberbullying is growing across the world, and India is no exception. Studies across the globe suggest that use of electronic communication technologies has a significant impact on the mental, physical and social health of adolescents. Therefore, understanding and mitigating online risks is crucial. This requires a shared understanding of online risks amongst the key stakeholders to work collaboratively to promote well-being of youth in an increasingly digital world. The socio-ecological model provides a framework that can organize important protective and risk factors for preventing cyberbullying and other online threats. These factors are located within multiple systems that constantly interact, broadly involving the youth, their families, peers and schools, communities, and society.

In this chapter, we introduce cyberbullying and other online risks faced by adolescents as well as the overall opportunities offered by digital media, particularly in the developing world. By mitigating the threats, we can avoid the increasing digital divide and ensure continued healthy youth development. We explore what cyberbullying is, the magnitude of the problem, and its harmful impacts. We will also briefly introduce the landscape we intend to cover through this book using the framework of the socio-ecological model. Our goal is to make this information accessible for the use of Indian stakeholders who are invested in preventing cyberbullying and promoting adolescents’ digital citizenship. Throughout the book, we draw insights from scientific work across the globe and apply them to India’s current policy ecosystem.

INDIAN CONTEXT

India is home to 1.3 billion people. [1] It has the largest adolescent population globally. [2] According to the 2011 census, 83% of India’s population lives in rural areas. Despite the record economic growth, literacy remains low. In the 2011 census, 73% of the population was literate. Literacy for girls and women is much lower (64.6%) as compared to boys and men (80.9%).

The World Bank classifies India as a low-middle income economy. Its health system is constrained, with a reported 0.53 hospital beds per 1000 people in 2017. [3] Further, it falls in the low density of healthcare workers, with 0.3 psychiatrists and 0.05 psychologists per 100,000 people. [4]

As with many other low-income countries, in India, the digital revolution skipped the phase of computers and laptops. This means that many households owned mobile devices as their first digital device. In India, in 2019, one in three individuals of age 12 years and above had access to internet. Of these users, 32% were within the age group of 12-19 years. [5] This suggests that adolescents are disproportionately more likely to have access to the Internet compared to adults and older adults. Also, our focus groups with stakeholders revealed that the sharing of electronic communication devices is prevalent within Indian families. The latest IAMAI report stated, “While internet users grew by 4% in urban India reaching 323 million users in 2020, digital adoption continues to be propelled by rural India – registering a 13% growth in internet users over the past year”. [6]

Digital technology has already changed the world. As more and more children have access to the technology, it is increasingly changing the dynamics of the childhood as well. If leveraged strategically and made universally accessible, digital technology can be a game changer for children who are left behind.

In this book we make a case for faster action, focused investment and greater cooperation to protect children from the harms of a more connected world. Along with this, we also focus on harnessing the opportunities of the digital age to benefit every child. [7] Strategic planning is critically relevant for India. If action is not taken soon enough, digital divide will continue to magnify the prevailing economic gaps. This will in turn amplify the advantages of children from wealthier backgrounds and fail to deliver opportunities to the poorest and the underprivileged children.

OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED BY DIGITAL MEDIA

Internet connectivity has ushered in knowledge transfer at a scale which was earlier unknown and unimaginable. Bill Gates once said, “The internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow.”

Children and adolescents around the world have embraced technology with ease. They have created new spaces for social interactions. Indeed, the advances have been so rapid that parents and caregivers often struggle to keep up. [8] Digitalization offers seemingly limitless opportunities. It allows children to connect with friends and make decisions for themselves. It gives access to education, which is especially important for those living in remote or marginalized areas. Countless stories and examples illustrate how children worldwide have utilized the digital technologies to learn, socialize, and shape their paths into adulthood. For instance, in Brazil, the Amazon state government’s educational initiative has provided educational content since 2007 to children and youth living remotely. Classes are taught by teachers in rural communities using satellite television. In addition to printed resources, they also have access to digital textbooks and other educational resources through the internet. [9]

Skills and vocational training programs are yet another domain where digital connectivity is opening opportunities to learn. This is particularly true for children hailing from very low- income families. Such children often leave formal schooling to earn livelihood. In Kampala, Uganda, the ‘Women in Technology’ organization offers digital vocational training for young women in under-served communities. The organization teaches young women digital, leadership and life skills. Girls attending the program have reported learning entrepreneurship skills and the use of the internet to identify their business opportunities. [10] Such initiatives of providing access to technology strategically has fostered better educational and economic opportunities to the vulnerable communities.

In addition, digital access is vital during emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Online web-based learning or e-learning played a major role in making the teaching-learning process more student-centered, innovative, and flexible, when the schools and colleges were shut down across the world. [11]

DIGITAL ACCESS DIVIDE

Greater online connectivity has opened new avenues for civic engagement, social inclusion and other opportunities, with the potential to break cycles of poverty and disadvantage. However, disparities in access to internet services vary between groups depending upon income, family education and literacy, and urbanicity/rurality. To be specific, 81 percent of people in developed countries use the internet, while only 40 percent of the people use internet in developing countries. In least developing countries the number is even lower at 15 percent. [12] GSM Association (GSMA) survey in 2015 found that in low- and middle-income countries, various socio-economic and cultural barriers tend to keep girls and women from using mobile phones. [13] Such barriers include social norms, education levels, lack of technical literacy and decision-making, employment and income, etc. The National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS5) reports suggest that gender disparities in usage of internet in India are greater across the rural areas than urban regions.  These findings highlight that the gender disparities in the offline world are significantly reflected in the online world as well. [14]

But unless we reduce the disparities, digital technology may create new divides that prevent children from fulfilling their potential. If we don’t act now to keep pace with rapid change, online risks may make vulnerable children more susceptible to exploitation, abuse and even trafficking. It may also result in more subtle threats to their well-being. [15]

DIGITAL RISKS AND SAFETY

Online risks among adolescents are of four kinds [16] —

• Cyberbullying or online harassment
• Sexual solicitation and risky sexual behaviors
• Exposure to explicit content
• Information breaches and privacy violations

We elaborate on cyberbullying prevention and response in Chapter 1, 2, 3 and 4.  Further, in Chapter 5, we place cyberbullying in the broader context of online digital safety. In Chapter 6, we identify the possible platforms in the Indian policy landscape that can be leveraged to address the situation.

Throughout the book, we make a case for using a common approach of resilience-based frameworks to address all kinds of digital risks.  Digital resilience means empowering children to become active, aware, and ethical digital citizens. It requires building capacity to safely navigate the digital world. [17] This approach strikes a balance between teen’s privacy and online safety through active communication and fostering trust between parents and children. It stands in contrast to the current “risk-averse” approach to online safety. This approach emphasizes on protecting adolescents from being exposed to online risks. The underlying fear often culminates in actions that restrict access to electronic communication technologies for youth. It often includes privacy-invasive monitoring. We suggest that this response is ineffective because no matter how much restrictions we place, just as in everyday life, a zero-risk digital environment is unattainable. We have already elaborated on how online interactions can provide social support, belonging, education, entertainment, and other positive conditions for healthy youth development. Online safety therefore, should maximize the benefits of the internet while mitigating some of its unintended consequences. [18]

WHAT IS CYBERBULLYING?

Bullying is a type of aggressive behavior that is traditionally defined as “intentional, repeated negative (unpleasant or hurtful) behavior by one or more persons directed against a person who has difficulty defending himself or herself.” [19] Bullying can be perpetrated in-person or via electronic means. Cyber bullying or online bullying is a form of bullying or harassment using electronic communication technologies means. It includes direct messaging particularly through social media websites , and a range of electronic applications and other websites.

Cyberbullying is often understood as an extension of in-person bullying that occurs in schools. The definition of cyberbullying has been debated, but most definitions specify that cyberbullying is some type of aggression (e.g., harassment, bullying) that occurs through electronic communication technologies. [20]

Aggression among youth includes the following forms of aggression- physical, verbal and relational (or social). Physical aggression causes or threatens to cause physical harm. It may include behaviors such as hitting, kicking, tripping, pinching, pushing or damaging property. Verbal aggression, in contrast, targets a person’s sense of self, agency, or dignity. It includes name-calling, insults, teasing, intimidation, racist remarks, or verbal abuse. Relational or social aggression targets a person’s social relationships, status, image, or reputation. It includes lying, spreading rumors or embarrassing information, making rude or disrespectful negative facial or physical gestures, cracking jokes to embarrass and humiliate someone, mimicking unkindly. It also includes causing social isolation or exclusion, encouraging others to socially exclude someone and damaging someone’s social reputation or social acceptance. [21]

Unfortunately, increased access to the internet through the unmediated use of smartphones exposes children and adolescents to many online risks. Bullying has become a part of our routine interactions on platforms such as WhatsApp, SnapChat, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc. Body-shaming goes unabated; false rumors spread unchecked; and morphed pictures or videos are shared with a limitless audience. Cyberbullying also offers anonymity to the perpetrators allowing them to continue bullying without any fear of the real-world consequences. These factors, combined with the lack of monitoring and regulation in cyberspace, makes the issue more intricate and challenging to address.

Although children are aware of the damage and profound harm that cyberbullying causes, they are not always immediately conscious of the long-term consequences of their actions. Further, though they have superior technological skills, they lack awareness about the need of appropriate protective measures when it comes to sharing personal information. They may not be able to distinguish between online and offline “friends”. Adults struggle to provide support to youth too. Cyberbullying does not require the physical presence of the victim. It is, by its very nature, a hidden kind of behavior. Often adults fail to detect and address cyberbullying, particularly when they take place in spaces beyond adult supervision. [22]

Despite the growing concern, the research on cyberbullying in India is at a nascent stage. A systematic review done by Thakkar et al. in 2020 reported there were very few scientific articles on the topic for a meaningful inference. [23] As with research, the practice of cyberbullying prevention faces challenges too. The point is driven home by a report commissioned by UNICEF to understand online child safety in India in 2016. The report reveals that despite provisions in legislation and policies in India, there is a general lack of understanding of professionals, policymakers, and society of the risks and threats posed to children by information and communication technology (ICT) and social media. [24] Despite the limitation, the urgency of equipping stakeholders with information is clear. Therefore, throughout the book, we attempt to synthesize the available literature to draw actionable inferences for the Indian context.

With the rising internet usage, the rate of cyberbullying incidents is likely to increase in the years to come. Globally, current prevalence estimates for cyberbullying victimization range between approximately 10 and 40 percent. The wide range suggests that estimates of the burden of cyberbullying victimization varies across studies. The variation is attributed to several factors- the manner in which cyberbullying is defined (for a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Chapter 2), differences in the ages and locations of the individuals sampled, the reporting time frame being assessed (e.g., lifetime, 2 months, 6 months), and the frequency rate by which a person is classified as a perpetrator or victim (e.g., at least once, several times a week). [25] Despite the varying estimates, data consistently indicate that a considerable number of youngsters are being cyberbullied across the globe. [26]

Majority of the incidents of cyberbullying are subtle (less harmful). [27] Some, however, cross the line into unlawful or criminal behavior. For instance, cases of cyber stalking or bullying of children rose from 40 in 2018 to 140 in 2020, as reported by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) of India. [28] , [29] These criminal cases essentially represent the tip of the iceberg and reports indicate an increasing trend of such episodes. Also, for every serious case reported, many relatively low-risk incidents of risk exposure go unreported. Clearly, we can respond well to these low-risk exposures by empowering teens with necessary technical and socio-emotional coping skills to avoid catastrophic consequences. [30]

The research also suggests that parents and teachers are often in the dark, unaware of bullying experiences of youth. [31] Youth who face cyberbullying, hesitate to confide in their elders or caregivers due to the perception of the lack of technical know-how amongst elders and fear of losing access to their devices. [32] Hence, surveys that measure children’s self-reports of such incidents are a valuable source of measuring the burden.

As per an Indian survey conducted in 2012, eight percent of 174 youth in Delhi ever perpetrated cyberbullying, and 17 percent reported being victimized. The percentage of boys who were victimized exceeded the percentage of girls. The rate of cyberbullying perpetration was comparable across gender. When the exposure to such events is compared with global figures, we find comparable rates across gender. We suspect that India’s cultural factors and gender roles contribute to limited access to mobile devices for girls thus resulting in lower exposure to such events. That is, limited access may explain the anomaly of higher incidence of victimization among boys. [33] However, a systematic enquiry linking gender and digital access with cyberbullying behavior is required to verify this hypothesis. Also, it is worth reiterating that lower access may drive other socio-economic disadvantages. In this case, limited access due to the risk of exposure to cyberbullying or other digital risks may result in the child losing many opportunities for growth and development.

In Ahmedabad, Gujarat, in 2017, a study was conducted on 240 respondents (120 boys and 120 girls) aged 12-17 years, from standard VII to XII.  The findings indicate that nearly 14 percent of respondents reported cyberbullying in their lifetime and seven percent reported cyberbullying involvement in the last thirty days.

Likewise, Microsoft Corporation conducted the ‘Global Youth Online Behavior Survey’, in 2012 on the phenomenon of online bullying. Survey was conducted with 7,644 youth aged eight to seventeen years in twenty-five countries (approximately 300 respondents per country), including six Asian nations. Of the 25 countries surveyed, the three countries in which participants reported the highest rates of online bullying victimization were China (70%), Singapore (58%), and India (53%). Other Asian countries in the study reported the following percentages of online bullying: Malaysia, 33%; Pakistan, 26%; and Japan, 17%. The same three countries with the highest rates of online bullying victimization also reported the highest rates of having bullied someone online- China (58%), India (50%), and Singapore (46%). [34]

Further, in 2020, Child Rights and You (CRY), a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), reported around 9.2% of 630 adolescents surveyed in Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) had experienced cyberbullying. Half of them had not reported it to teachers or guardians of the social media companies concerned. [35]

Notably, these surveys were not representative of national-level estimates. Further information on rates disaggregated across sub-groups, e.g., gender, developmental age-groups, socio-economic class, caste, color, rural or urban residence, ethnicities or region of origin, language, disability, sexual orientation, school-going or out-of-school is yet to be studied.

Some victims of cyberbullying are not upset or disturbed. However, cyberbullying is often associated with many emotional and psychological conditions, including stress, lower self-esteem, and life satisfaction, [36] with far-reaching effects during adolescence and adulthood. Most of the scientific literature reporting the impact of cyberbullying is cross-sectional (i.e., the behavior and its impact is reported at the same instance among individuals), and to establish temporal relationships and potential causal inferences, more longitudinal studies (where subjects are followed over time to study the outcome of a certain behavior) are required. Like the burden estimates, evidence from representative surveys measuring the impact of cyberbullying among adolescents is nearly absent in the Indian context. Therefore, we would try to draw from global literature and as much as possible from comparable regions.

In 2014, Kowalski et al. published a meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth, including 131 studies mainly from the developed world. These studies have linked cyberbullying involvement as a victim or perpetrator to substance use; mental health symptoms, e.g., anxiety and depression; decreased self-esteem and self-worth; low self-control; suicidal ideation; poor physical health (difficulty sleeping, recurrent abdominal pain and frequent headaches); increased likelihood of self-injury; and loneliness. Furthermore, victims of cyberbullying are much more likely to be bullied in person when compared to non-victims. [37]

Additionally, both youth who experience cyberbullying victimization and perpetration are more likely to experience poor performance at school and in the workplace as compared to youth who are not involved in cyberbullying. They reported absenteeism, lower grades and poor concentration. Victims are also more likely to face detentions and suspensions, incidences of truancy, and carrying weapons. [38]

Ruangnapakul et al., in 2019, conducted a systematic review of studies from South Asian countries, i.e. Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines.  The review revealed that cyberbullying behavior (perpetration or victimization) is common among adolescents in these countries. One of the studies from Philippines noted the association of cyberbullying with unpleasant and uncomfortable feelings. Another study from Malaysia reported that cyberbullying was associated with negative academic and emotional outcomes. The review revealed that there were few (not many) studies on cyberbullying in the Southeast Asian region. The issue needs further systematic enquiry. Since most of the studies were cross-sectional, they mainly report associations and not temporality (e.g., which came first- poor adjustment and functioning, or cyberbullying?) which would require longitudinal studies. [39]

Bullying among youth is costly not just for individuals and families but also for countries. Understanding the economic cost and impacts associated with bullying is critical for any country. Such data informs the design of appropriate evidence-informed programs and prevention measures to reduce its occurrence. To move in this direction, India needs to conduct surveys and ensure availability of administrative data with trends to allow estimates of bullying prevalence and consequences. [40]

Reports from elsewhere suggest alarming costs. For instance, youth violence in Brazil alone is estimated to cost nearly $19 billion per year, of which $943 million can be linked to violence in schools. A report commissioned by Australia’s Alannah and Madeline Foundation suggests the costs of bullying victims and perpetrators into adulthood is $1.8 billion over a 20 years period. This includes the costs of bullying for all school students during school as well as long-term impacts after school. [41]

Cyberbullying is a global problem that affects youth’s mental, socio-economic, psychological, and physical health. This requires a multi-disciplinary, cross-cultural and holistic approach to address the issue through programs focused on students and school personnel, parents, health professionals and the wider community. The more extensive ecological system comprising parents, teachers, various stakeholders like media, law enforcement, health professionals, policymakers, and youth themselves all need to work in active collaboration to deal with the problem of cyberbullying. In this context, the social-ecological model proposed by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for violence prevention is useful and merits discussion.

A FRAMEWORK FOR PREVENTION

Through this book, we aim to empower stakeholders who perform an essential role in the dynamic play of factors that lead to cyberbullying. Knowing the range of actors and factors is critical to prevent and respond to the risk. We use a four-level social-ecological model proposed by CDC (Refer Figure 1) to understand violence and the effectiveness of potential prevention strategies. This model considers the complex interplay between individual, relationship, community, and societal levels leading to interpersonal-violence. It allows us to understand the determinants at each level that put individuals at risk for violence or protect them from experiencing the violence.

The model also explains how the factors at one level influence factors at another level, which requires action across multiple levels of the model at the same time to achieve population-level impact. [42] , [43] Throughout the book, we utilize the socio-ecological framework to understand cyberbullying among youth.

The model is understood through four concentric circles. The innermost circle is the one closest to the individual and the outermost circle is the most distant, yet influential at the societal level. The individual level identifies biological, individual characteristics and personal history factors. These factors often increase the probability of becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence. Some of these factors include age, education, family income, impulsivity, or history of adversity such as abuse.

The next level moves out of the individual and examines close relationships. Some close relationships may increase the risk of experiencing cyberbullying as a victim or perpetrator of cyberbullying. For instance, an individual’s family members influence their behavior and contribute to their risk of or protection against cyberbullying. Also, peers play a critical role in influencing children’s behavior, attitude, thinking and judgment.

This model at third level, the community level, explores settings, such as schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. In some settings in which social relationships develop may contribute towards factors that are associated with victimization or perpetration of cyberbullying.

The fourth level looks at the broad societal factors that help create an environment in which violence is either encouraged or discouraged. These factors include political, social and cultural norms of the society in which we live. They also include various factors that help to maintain economic or social inequalities among different groups of the society.

In the following chapters, we have elaborated upon risk and protective factors of cyberbullying using the socio-ecological framework described above. The framework also helps understand the preventive strategies with a systems lens. We use insights gained from review of scientific and grey literature, policy documents and discussions held with youth, teachers, parents, health care providers and policy actors during workshops.

Chapter Two emphasizes the importance of a solid understanding of how best to measure cyberbullying within and across cultural contexts. We review the existing measures of cyberbullying in South Asia and provide guidance on measure development for researchers to generate ecologically valid measures of cyberbullying.

Chapter Three covers individual level determinants, relationships with peers and their effect on cyberbullying behavior. This chapter also conveys the role of school as a community level organization in preventing cyberbullying. Understanding school-and peer-level factors is important in preventing cyberbullying events and mitigating its potentially harmful impacts. By far these are the most studied factors addressed in interventions to prevent cyberbullying.

Chapter Four addresses parents’ and caregivers’ needs for guidance and reassurance on how best maintain their children’s safety online and protect against cyberbullying. We emphasize the importance of parent-child communication, warm parent-child relationships, and parental monitoring that supports adolescents’ search for autonomy. In short, this chapter details the role of family, especially parental relationships and media parenting with respect to cyberbullying behavior among youth.

Chapter Five focuses on the broader research areas of digital risks and online safety. We discuss the three primary types of risks that adolescents navigate in digitally mediated environments that extend beyond cyberbullying – online sexual solicitations and risk behaviors, exposure to explicit content, and information breaches and privacy violations. We advocate for a resilience-based, rather than an abstinence-only approach to online safety. Once again, this chapter focuses on the first two levels of the socio-ecological model; individual and relationship level.

Chapter Six addresses the more distal societal level factors identified by the model. We summarize how the current knowledge can be applied in India across multiple stakeholder groups, including public policy, law enforcement, school administration, health care providers, community-based organizations, tech industry, and research institutes. Also, we highlight the key gaps in knowledge to guide future research.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Increasing digital access enables education, socialization and entertainment among youth thus offering the most marginalized an opportunity to come out of poverty.
• Though digital access has improved worldwide, there remains inequality in access, particularly for children, especially girls from low-income families in the rural areas.
• Children all around the world are adapting these technologies at earlier ages and are far more adept than their parents in using them.
• Online risks are a reality of current connected work. Children, specifically, are exposed to the risk of cyberbullying, online harassment, sexual solicitation and risky sexual behaviors, exposure to explicit content, information breaches and privacy violations.
• According to existing literature, cyberbullying rates reported among youth in India range from 5% to 53% based on different studies. This is similar to rates reported elsewhere in developing settings and worldwide.
• The cyberbullying studies undertaken in India have methodological weaknesses such as unavailability of data pertaining to sub-groups. More information at the national level is required to inform policies and action on response.
• Cyberbullying and cyber victimization are both associated with a range of poor outcomes, including depressive symptoms, low self-esteem, anxiety, loneliness, drug and alcohol use, low academic achievement, and low overall well-being. In addition, cyber victimization has been linked to somatic complaints, perceived stress, and suicide ideation. However, most of this research is cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies are recommended to identify the direction of relationship of these effects.
• Nevertheless, the evidence of negative impacts of cyberbullying is sufficient to catalyze the policy ecosystem in India to prioritize digital safety and to strengthen systems to monitor, respond and prevent digital risks.
• Population Enumeration Data: Census of India. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India; Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/population_enumeration.html ↵
• Adolescent development and participation; UNICEF India. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/india/what-we-do/adolescent-development-participation ↵
• Human resources for Health-WHO, World Health Organization. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.who.int/hrh/documents/JLi_hrh_report.pdf ↵
• Digital in India-IAMAI CMS. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Previously available from: https://cms.iamai.in/Content/ResearchPapers/d3654bcc-002f-4fc7-ab39-e1fbeb00005d.pdf and now available from: https://www.iamai.in/KnowledgeCentre ↵
• By 2025, rural India will likely have more internet users than urban India. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://theprint.in/tech/by-2025-rural-india-will-likely-have-more-internet-users-than-urban-india/671024/ ↵
• Children in a Digital World: UNICEF. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/media/48601/file ↵
• Swist T, Collin P, McCormack J, Third A. Social media and the wellbeing of children and young people: A literature review. ↵
• United Nations Children’s Fund and Move, ‘Igarité: Overview of face-to-face teaching with technological mediation in the state of Amazonas’, UNICEF Brazil, 2017. ↵
• Inoue K, Di Gropello E, Taylor YS, Gresham J. Out-of-school youth in Sub-Saharan Africa: A policy perspective. World Bank Publications; 2015 Mar 17. ↵
• Dhawan S. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2020 Sep;49(1):5-22. ↵
• Sanou B. ICT facts and figures 2016. Geneva: The International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2017 Mar. ↵
• GSM Association, ‘Bridging the Gender Gap: Mobile access and usage in low and middle-income countries’, GSMA, London, 2015, pp. 6–9, 29. ↵
• NFHS-5: National Family Health Survey: India. 2019-20. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://ruralindiaonline.org/en/library/resource/national-family-health-survey-nfhs-5-2019-20-fact-sheets-key-indicators—22-statesuts-from-phase-i/ ↵
• An insider’s view of the games industry and what it offers children’s play. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 25]. Available from: https://digitalfuturescommission.org.uk/blog/an-insiders-view-of-the-games-industry-and-what-it-offers-childrens-play/ ↵
• Solberg ME, Olweus D. Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression. 2003 Jun;29(3):239-68. ↵
• Hertz MF, David-Ferdon C. Electronic media and youth violence: A CDC issue brief for educators and caregivers. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control; 2008. ↵
• Mehari KR, Farrell AD. Where does cyberbullying fit? A comparison of competing models of adolescent aggression. Psychology of violence. 2018 Jan;8(1):31. ↵
• Prevention, protection and international cooperation against the use of new information technologies to abuse and/or exploit children. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Twenty-third session. Vienna, 12-16 May 2014. Available from: https://undocs.org/E/CN.15/2014/7 ↵
• Thakkar N, van Geel M, Vedder P. A systematic review of bullying and victimization among adolescents in India. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. 2020 Sep 7:1-7. ↵
• Child online protection in India; UNICEF. Available from: https://www.icmec.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/UNICEF-Child-Protection-Online-India-pub_doc115-1.pdf ↵
• Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological bulletin. 2014 Jul;140(4):1073. ↵
• Background paper on protecting children from bullying and cyberbullying. Expert Consultation on protecting children from bullying and cyberbullying. May 2016. Florence, Italy. Office of the special representative of the secretary-general on Violence against Children. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://violenceagainstchildren.un.org/sites/violenceagainstchildren.un.org/files/expert_consultations/bullying_and_cyberbullying/background_paper_expert_consultation_9-10_may.pdf ↵
• McHugh BC, Wisniewski PJ, Rosson MB, Xu H, Carroll JM. Most teens bounce back: Using diary methods to examine how quickly teens recover from episodic online risk exposure. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2017 Dec 6;1(CSCW):1-9. ↵
• Table 9A.1-Cyber Crimes (State/UT-wise) – 2016-2018. Crime in India Table Contents. National Crime Records Bureau of India [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 18]. Available from: https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-in-india-table-addtional-table-and-chapter-contents?field_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2018&field_select_table_title_of_crim_value=20&items_per_page=10 ↵
• Table 9A.1-Cyber Crimes (State/UT-wise) – 2018-2020. National Crime Records Bureau of India [Internet]. [cited 2021 Oct 18]. Available from: https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-in-india-table-addtional-table-and-chapter-contents?field_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Byear%5D=2020&field_select_table_title_of_crim_value=20&items_per_page=10 ↵
• Wiśniewski P, Xu H, Rosson MB, Carroll JM. Parents just don’t understand: Why teens don’t talk to parents about their online risk experiences. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing 2017 Feb 25 (pp. 523-540). ↵
• Sharma D, Kishore J, Sharma N, Duggal M. Aggression in schools: cyberbullying and gender issues. Asian journal of psychiatry. 2017 Oct 1;29:142-5. ↵
• Bhat CB, Chang Shih-Hua, Ragan MA. Cyberbullying in Asia. Cyber Asia and the New Media. 2013;18; 36-39. ↵
• Online Safety and Internet Addiction. CRY [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.cry.org/downloads/safety-and-protection/Online-Safety-and-Internet-Addiction-p.pdf ↵
• Cyberbullying in New Zealand. 8 October 2018. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.netsafe.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Cyberbullying-in-New-Zealand-Societal-Cost.pdf ↵
• Ruangnapakul N, Salam YD, Shawkat AR. A systematic analysis of cyber bullying in Southeast Asia countries. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering. 2019;8(8S):104-11. ↵
• Crime, Violence and Economic Development in Brazil: Elements for Effective Public Policy. Report No. 36525. June 2006. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Security/citizensecurity/brazil/documents/docworldbank.pdf ↵
• The economic cost of bullying in Australian schools. Alannah and Madeline Foundation. March 2018. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.amf.org.au/media/2505/amf-report-280218-final.pdf ↵
• The Social-Ecological Model: A Framework for Prevention – Violence Prevention, CDC [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/social-ecologicalmodel.html ↵
• Espelage DL, Polanin JR, Low SK. Teacher and staff perceptions of school environment as predictors of student aggression, victimization, and willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School psychology quarterly. 2014 Sep;29(3):287. ↵

Cyberbullying and Digital Safety: Applying Global Research to Youth in India Copyright © 2022 by Drishti Sharma; Nandini Sharma; and Ritika Bakshi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• West J Emerg Med
• v.11(3); 2010 Aug

High School Students’ Perceptions of Motivations for Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Study

Objectives:.

Internet usage has increased in recent years resulting in a growing number of documented reports of cyberbullying. Despite the rise in cyberbullying incidents, there is a dearth of research regarding high school students’ motivations for cyberbullying. The purpose of this study was to investigate high school students’ perceptions of the motivations for cyberbullying.

We undertook an exploratory qualitative study with 20 high school students, conducting individual interviews using a semi-structured interview protocol. Data were analyzed using Grounded Theory.

The developed coding hierarchy provides a framework to conceptualize motivations, which can be used to facilitate future research about motivations and to develop preventive interventions designed to thwart the negative effects of cyberbullying. The findings revealed that high school students more often identified internally motivated reasons for cyberbullying (e.g., redirect feelings) than externally motivated (no consequences, non-confrontational, target was different).

Conclusion:

Uncovering the motivations for cyberbullying should promote greater understanding of this phenomenon and potentially reduce the interpersonal violence that can result from it. By providing a framework that begins to clarify the internal and external factors motivating the behavior, there is enhanced potential to develop effective preventive interventions to prevent cyberbullying and its negative effects.

INTRODUCTION

Cyberbullying has been defined as a type of bullying that involves the use of communication technologies. 1 , 2 Like traditional bullying, it is intentional and repetitive. 3 Unlike in traditional bullying, researchers have not agreed that an imbalance of power is a necessary component. 4 We identify the behavior’s unique characteristics as 1) the cyberbullies may be anonymous; 2) the perpetrators and targets are disassociated from the physical and social cues of a cyberbullying incident; and 3) adults may feel less empowered to intervene due to the role of technology. 3 Examples of cyberbullying include sending harassing texts, instant messages, or e-mails. 5

Researchers have begun to investigate motivations for cyberbullying. 2 , 6 Two common and inter-related motivations include anonymity and the disinhibition effect. 3 , 5 – 10 , 12 , 13 Mason described how anonymity breeds disinhibition due to the distance provided by electronic communication, normal self control can be lost or greatly reduced for potential bullies. Thus, anonymity can protect adolescents from the consequences of their actions in cyberspace. 6 , 8 Some adolescents may feel free to do and say things they would never do in person. 6 , 7 Raskaukas and Stoltz 10 stated that cyberbullies were physically and emotionally removed from their victims; therefore, they did not experience the impact of their actions (i.e., disinhibition effect).

Additional motivations include homophobia, racial intolerance, and revenge. 1 , 2 , 14 Adolescents reported engaging in cyberbullying because they gained satisfaction or pleasure from hurting their victims. 1 , 2 , 8 While some cyber-perpetrators reported victimizing targets in order to feel better about themselves, 10 others cyberbullied because the perpetrators believed they were provoked by their victims 2 and sought revenge. 1 , 4 , 12 In addition, some cyberbullies may torment their victims because they dislike the person 1 or are jealous of them. 8 Further, adolescents may cyberbully just “for fun.” 9 , 11 This motivation differs from gaining pleasure by hurting others because adolescents who bully just for entertainment may not be concerned about whether or not their targets are hurt.

Rationale for Study

Despite preliminary efforts to investigate motivations for cyberbullying, 1 , 2 there is a dearth of information on this topic, 15 particularly among high school populations. 16 The purpose of this study was to investigate high school students’ perceptions of the motivations for cyberbullying. We used qualitative methodology to provide an in-depth understanding of this phenomenon from the adolescents’ perspective. 17

Participants

Our research team used convenience, targeted, and snowball sampling techniques. 16 Criteria for inclusion in this study required participants to be enrolled in high school and to have experience with technology. Recruitment procedures involved displaying flyers and daily public announcements. The sample was comprised of 20 students from one suburban high school. Their ages ranged from 15 to 19 [mean ( M ) = 18; standard deviation ( SD ) = 1.05] with grade levels from 10–12. The participant sample was ethnically diverse, including: 40% African American; 30% Caucasian; 15% Hispanic; 5% Asian; 5% Trinidadian; and 5% Middle Eastern. The gender breakdown was 35% female and 65% male. Ninety percent of the participants used a cell phone, 100% had a computer at home, 100% had internet access at home, and 90% reported having a social networking site profile. Participants reported four hours of daily technology usage.

Procedures and Instrumentation

A semi-structured individual interview format allowed the researchers to further investigate topics as necessary. 18 Eight questions (e.g., “What contributes to threatening electronic communication?”) were asked to each student with follow-up questions (e.g., “What are the sender’s motivations?) posed as needed. Please contact the author for a copy of the interview protocol. Students age 18 and older signed consent forms prior to participating in the interview. Participants younger than 18 returned a signed parental consent form and completed an assent form prior to the interview. Students completed a demographic form on age, grade level, ethnicity and technology use. The one-on-one interviews ranged from 45 to 90 minutes. All forms and procedures were approved by the university Institutional Review Board.

Data Analysis

The students’ responses were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The researchers imported the transcriptions into Atlas-Ti 5.0, a software program designed for the management of qualitative data. Grounded theory 20 was used due to the exploratory nature of this study and the limited literature available regarding the motivations for cyberbullying. The sample size of 20 was consistent with the recommended number of participants for studies using in-depth interviews and grounded theory. 21

The research team developed the coding manual using an inductive-deductive process. 22 Inductive coding involved the identification of codes from the current data set to develop an informed coding manual. Deductive coding used preexisting data, research, or theory to develop codes. A second researcher with expertise in the content area of cyberbullying, reviewed the coding manual, discussed disagreements to clarify definitions, and identified exemplar quotes. Once the coding manual was finalized, researchers independently coded interviews to establish inter-rater reliability (IRR). 23 IRR is defined as the level of agreement among coders on identifying codes and subcodes within the interviews. In this study, researchers defined blocks for coding as question-and-answer responses. The researchers reached 95% IRR and discussed coding disagreements until 100% consensus was obtained. Coders determined that theoretical saturation 20 had been achieved once information redundancy 17 occurred. Researchers maintained an audit trail, which involved maintaining the raw records of data analysis. 17

Level one codes ( internal motivations, external motivations ) emerged regarding high school students’ perceived motivations for cyberbullying ( Figure 1 ). We identified level two codes under each level one code. Each code will be defined and presented with illustrative quotations from the students.

Coding hierarchy

Internal Motivations

The level one theme, internal motivations , described high school students’ motivations for bullying that were perceived to be influenced by the cyberbully’s emotional state. There were ten level two codes ( redirect feelings, revenge, make themselves feel better, boredom, instigation, protection, jealousy, seeking approval, trying out a new persona, anonymity/disinhibition effect ) categorized as internal motivations .

The level two code, redirect feelings , described a motivation that involved previous hurtful experiences. The cyberbully may have been bullied or hurt in the past and in response bullied an innocent person online as a motivation to take their feelings out on someone else other than the perpetrator. A student stated: “You know, people have been doing it to me for so long, I deserved to be able to do it to someone.”

The level two code, revenge , described situations in which the cyberbully was provoked or angered and wanted to get back at the perpetrator. This code was different from redirect feelings because the cyberbully is going after the specific person who “wronged them” to feel better, rather than randomly targeting anyone vulnerable. A student admitted to cyberbullying, stating “I was really angry and he was not nice to me and he deserved it.”

The level two code, make themselves feel better , was defined as when the perpetrator cyberbullies someone else in an attempt to make themselves feel better. This code was differentiated from redirect feelings because the cyberbully may or may not have been hurt in the past and from revenge because the person may not have been provoked. One student stated, “Personally, that’s what I think, that’s why anybody tears a person down, to make themselves feel better.”

The level two code, boredom , was characterized by the fact that the cyberbully was motivated to victimize others in an effort to fill time or create entertainment. A student described that someone may be “bullying because they have nothing better to do.” Another student talked about youth online and how “they have nothing better to do than to go on the web, on a web video and just talk bad about it.”

The level two code, instigation , was defined as the use of cyberbullying to provoke a response out of someone else, sometimes with no specific reason given in order to feel better. One student reported that when a person that “…post[s] something like that [a bad rumor], like on a bulletin, they want someone to talk to.” Occasionally a student may cyberbully in response to events outside of the internet.

In the level two code, protection, the perpetrator was motivated to cyberbully others to be the toughest person and avoid being picked on by others. This student stated that “growing up in a rough part of town, they have been the predator of the area and that’s the only way they know how to survive so they prey on other people.”

The level two code, jealousy , was used when the person was motivated to bully someone else out of envy or resentment. One student reported that he talked to a girl whose boyfriend then became jealous. The student said “he [the boyfriend] gets jealous and says it all through MySpace.”

The level two code, seeking approval , was defined as cyberbullying to gain approval or attention. For example, cyberbullies may bully others to impress their friends. One student reported that cyberbullies “want attention. They crave the attention, which is why they are arguing over something that’s so little and petty like that. In my opinion I guess it’s making them feel better to hear their friends’ opinions.”

The level two code, Trying out a new persona , was defined as wanting to represent himself or herself in a different way in cyberspace than he or she may be perceived in real life (e.g., tougher, cooler). In one example, a student stated:

I was just trying to seem bad and would never consider doing something like that to anyone, but it’s like I was really pissed off and I was like you ever say anything like that about me again I will kill you. It’s so funny to think about now.

The level two code, anonymity/disinhibition effect , was the final code for internal motivations . These two motivations were combined since we found that the ability to be anonymous has a direct effect on feelings of disinhibition. In Anonymity , either the cyberbully may not know his online victim or the perpetrator did not reveal his identity to the cybervictim. In the disinhibition effect the cyberbully feels that she can say or do things that she may not do face to face. A student described the anonymity/disinhibition effect :

If this person probably doesn’t even know me then they are not going to know who is saying those things about them, so they are probably going to have less inhibiting from saying more and doing more.

External Motivations

The level one code external motivations, was defined as the reasons for cyberbullying provoked by the characteristic of the cybervictim or by something specific to the situation. Three level two codes ( no consequences, non-confrontational, target was different ) were categorized as external motivations .

In the level two code , no consequences , the cyberbully feels that he or she can get away with cyberbullying without fear of ramifications, physical retaliation from the victim, a permanent consequence (e.g., jail time), or witnessing an emotional reaction from the victim. Examples included a student quoted saying, “Well, I don’t know the person and they’re not going to try to come beat me up if I say this to them. So I’ll say whatever I want to.”

The level two code, non-confrontational was identified when a cyberbully did not want to have a face-to- face encounter with the victim or expressed fear of actually facing the person. One student stated, “because they [cyberbullies] don’t like the confrontation.”

The level two code, target was different , referred to a cyberbullying motivation based on the victim appearing different, having a negative reputation, or standing out in a way that the cyberbully perceived as negative. When asked why cyberbullying happens, a student stated, “because somebody doesn’t like somebody else because the way they look or what people say about them.”

An important contribution of this study was the finding that high school students reported a range of internal and external motivations for cyberbullying ( Figure 1 ). This illustration provides a framework to conceptualize motivations that may be useful for guiding future research and to develop preventive interventions designed to thwart the negative effects of cyberbullying. In this study internal motivations were associated with the perpetrators’ emotional states and external motivations were derived from factors specific to the situation or the target. This information may be helpful for adults working with perpetrators in developing preventive interventions to address the emotional state and internal needs (e.g., to feel better) of the cyberbully, as well as focusing on external motivators.

A significant finding was that the students in this study reported internal motivations with greater frequency than external motivations . In addition, although the anonymity/disinhibition effect was confirmed as a motivation for cyberbullying, it was mentioned less often than other internal motivations. This finding was interesting due to the emphasis in the literature on anonymity as a primary motivation for perpetrators. 3 , 5 – 10 , 12 , 13 Further research is needed to investigate the reasons for these findings to enhance the understanding of motivations and to develop ideas about how adults and students can effectively intervene to prevent cyberbullying, particularly for vulnerable populations [e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth (LGBT)].

Another unique finding of this study was the discovery of motivations for cyberbullying not reported in the current literature (i.e., protection ) or were not explicated in prior research (i.e., redirect feelings ). For example, redirect feelings in this study emphasized the need of the perpetrator to release negative feelings rather than targeting a victim based on target characteristics. Protection was defined as the cyberbully wanting to protect himself/herself from being hurt so the perpetrator targeted others. Future research is needed to replicate and extend these findings.

LIMITATIONS

Because this was an exploratory study, future research is needed to continue to develop an understanding of the motivations for cyberbullying among high school students. The current sample included cyberbullies, cybervictims and bystanders. Future research should interview cyberbullies to confirm the initial findings from this study. The small sample from one suburban high school in the southeastern U.S. limits the generalizability of these findings and suggests the need for research to broaden the population of respondents and to include those from rural and urban settings, those with a wider age range, and those from diverse regions in the U.S. Males (65%) were overrepresented in this sample, prohibiting data analysis by gender. Future research is needed to systematically evaluate gender differences and similarities in the motivations for cyberbullying. Although this sample included heterosexual and gay students, it would be important for researchers to interview LGBT youth regarding their experiences with and their perceived motivations for cyberbullying. As the database about the motivations for cyberbullying continues to grow there will be a stronger basis for developing ideas for research about treatment and prevention of this behavior.

This study made several contributions to the literature regarding high school students’ motivations for cyberbullying that should promote greater understanding and potentially help reduce injury associated with the interpersonal violence that can result from cyberbullying. By providing a framework that begins to explicate the internal and external factors that may motivate cyberbullying, we can begin to develop effective preventive interventions to prevent the behavior and its negative effects. This investigation illustrates one way to use qualitative methodology to produce in-depth information on the motivations of cyberbullying in a local context (e.g., culture specificity) that may be a useful model for future research on this topic. 22

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the youth who shared their stories about their lives in cyberspace.

Conflicts of Interest : By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources, and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. Funding for this work was provided through the Center for School Safety, School Climate, and Classroom Management and the Educational Research Bureau in the College of Education at Georgia State University.

Reprints available through open access at http://escholarship.org/uc/uciem_westjem

Cyberbullying Detection: An Overview

• November 2018
• Conference: 2018 Cyber Resilience Conference (CRC)

• Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

• Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Srinadh Unnava
• Sankara Rao Parasana
• CMC-COMPUT MATER CON

• Mohammed Abbas Alkherallah

• Dimitri Mahayana

• S Ambareesh

• MULTIMED TOOLS APPL
• Saurav Kumar
• Mrinmoy Mondal
• Tanuja Dutta

• Bahaddin Demirdiş
• Semra Demirdiş

• Sarah Rajtmajer
• Sarah Nizam

• Sanjeev Kukreti
• Gagan Dangwal
• A. Saravanaraj

• Homa Hosseinmardi

• Joanna Lumsden

• Karthik Dinakar

• Catherine Havasi

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Language selection

• Français

Notice to readers:

There have been recent reports of fraudulent phone calls that appear to be from the Department of Justice. Learn more .

Cyberbullying and the Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images

• Previous Page

Introduction

Cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images are related social phenomena, the latter often being referred to as a type of cyberbullying. The core activities of both types of behaviour are not new (i.e., bullying and vengeful breaches of privacy), but the manner in which they are being carried out (i.e., via electronic means) has increased the reach and the scope of their impact.

Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies that support deliberate, hostile, and often repeated behaviour by an individual or group that is intended to hurt others. Although it is possible for anyone to be the victim of cyberbullying, as with bullying more generally, children and youth are the most common perpetrators and targets of this type of conduct.

The non-consensual distribution of intimate images involves the sharing of intimate images, often of a former partner, with third parties (either via the Internet or otherwise) without the consent of the person depicted in the image. Often the motivation is to take revenge against their former partner. Its effect is a violation of the former partner's privacy in relation to images, the distribution of which is likely to be embarrassing, humiliating, harassing, or degrading to that person.

Cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images is gaining increased attention across Canada, due in part, to a number of high profile cases reported in the media in which these activities were cited as factors in teen suicide. Footnote 1

I. Cyberbullying

Bullying is not a new phenomenon, but the widespread adoption of new communications technologies has enabled the migration of bullying behaviour to cyberspace, a phenomenon widely characterized as "cyberbullying." Cyberbullying is of growing concern to parents, police, educators and the public in general because of its increased prevalence and the fact that it has been implicated as a factor in a number of teen suicides.

Bullying behaviour involves the systematic abuse of power through unjustified and repeated acts intended to hurt or inflict some form of harm. Footnote 2 Its impact can be direct (physical and verbal teasing) or indirect (relational, such as social exclusion and spreading nasty rumours). Footnote 3 Bullying is increasingly a problem for young persons and educators, especially given the heightened use of new technologies which permits easy and wide distribution of communication. Footnote 4 Traditionally, bullying behaviour was typically associated with school settings; however, this is no longer the case as new technologies allow for victimization to occur outside of school and at any time of the day. Footnote 5

At present, there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes cyberbullying, although common elements can be found in many of the definitions examined. The Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights Report entitled, Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect for Rights in the Digital Age Footnote 6 (Senate Report) acknowledges the difficulty in achieving consensus upon a single definition of cyberbullying, primarily because there is no common understanding of what comprises this activity. The Senate Report found support for the notion that cyberbullying is a form of traditional bullying, and noted that cyberbullying includes acts intended to intimidate, embarrass, threaten or harass the targeted victims.

Cyberbullying takes on various forms, including using emails, instant messaging, and text messages to send harassing and threatening messages or posting such messages in chat rooms, on "bash boards" and on other social networking websites. Another common method of cyberbullying is the online posting or electronic distribution of embarrassing pictures or videos. It may also involve the creation of websites that mock, torment and harass the intended victim or victims. Some websites can even be used by cyberbullies to create online polling or voting booths, allowing users of the website to vote on things such as the "ugliest" or "fattest" classmate. Footnote 7

A recent Quebec study reveals that 1 in 3 high school students have been subjected to some form of bullying or cyberbullying. Footnote 8 In Statistics Canada's Self-reported Internet Victimization in Canada, 2009 Footnote 9 (based on the General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization), it reported that 7% of Internet users aged 18 or older had been the victim of cyberbullying in their lifetime. The most common form of cyberbullying involved threatening or aggressive e-mails or instant messages, reported by almost three-quarters (73%) of cyberbullying victims, followed by hateful comments by over half (55%) of the victims. Eight percent of adults surveyed had their identity assumed by someone who then sent threatening e-mails. Internet users of chat sites and social networking sites were almost three times more likely to experience cyberbullying than Internet users who did not use these sites. The majority of adults over 25 years old were cyberbullied by a stranger (49%). Individuals between 15 and 24 years old were most likely to be bullied by a friend, classmate or an acquaintance (64%). Men were more likely to be bullied by a stranger than women (46% versus 34%), and women were more likely than men to be bullied by a classmate or co-worker (13% versus 6%).

The survey also asked adult respondents whether any of the children or youth (aged 8 to 17) living in their household had been the victim of cyberbullying or child luring. The results showed that 9% of adults living in a household that includes a child knew of a case of cyberbullying against at least one of the children in their household. Of these adults, 74% responded that the cyberbullying was in the form of threatening or aggressive e-mails or instant messages. This was followed by hateful comments sent by e-mail or instant messaging or posted on a website (72%), and having someone use the child's identity to send threatening messages (16%). Most adults responded that the children were bullied by someone they knew, such as a classmate (40%), a friend (20%) or acquaintance (11%), rather than by a stranger (21%).

Moreover, the GSS found that relatively few incidents of cyberbullying were reported to the police (7% of adults and 14% of children). The GSS noted "given that cyberbullying is not always criminal in nature and, thus, may not warrant reporting to police, other measures may be more appropriate." Data indicated that victims were more likely to block messages from the sender (60%), leave the Internet site (51%), or report the situation to their Internet or e-mail service provider (21%). In addition to this, testimony provided to the Standing Senate Committee indicates other reasons for not reporting cyberbullying may include fear of escalation, ineffectual responses in the past and fear of being deprived of access to their technology.

General statements about prevalence rates of cyberbullying are difficult to make, as research indicates that rates of cyberbullying vary considerably depending on numerous factors. Footnote 10 Nonetheless, it is clear from recent Canadian studies on the nature and prevalence of cyberbullying, that cyberbullying occurs frequently and is a widespread phenomenon affecting predominately youth but also some adults. Footnote 11

The Senate Report also highlighted that youth who belong to minority groups or who are perceived to be different are at increased risk of being targeted, such as those who have a disability, are overweight, are members of ethnic minority groups and those who identify as, or are perceived to be, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered.

Cyberbullying can be particularly destructive because it can spread to so many people worldwide, instantaneously, anonymously or through impersonation, and may remain online indefinitely. Children and youth who are victimized by cyberbullying are at an increased risk of experiencing psychological harm, such as chronic stress, academic and acting out problems (e.g., weapon carrying). Footnote 12 Cyberbullying may cause victims to feel helpless, which in turn can lead to school violence and suicidal ideation. Footnote 13 These effects are thought to result from the major role that electronic communications play in the social lives of Canadians (particularly youth), Footnote 14 the extensive audience reached through electronic communications, and the permanence of cyberspace (which includes the general lack of control a person has over material once it becomes available online).

• Get new issue alerts Get alerts
• Submit a Manuscript

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Knowledge, attitude and psychological impact of cyberbullying among adolescents. A cross-sectional study

Afroze, Tazeen 1 ; Kittur, Reeda M. 2 ; Quadri, Syed S. M. 2 ; Fathima, Samreen 2 ; Jacob, Daya M. 2 ; Mohammmad, Burhanullah H. S. 2

1 Department of Family Medicine, Nadd AlHamar Health Center, Dubai, UAE

2 Community Medicine Department, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, UAE

Address for correspondence: Dr. Tazeen Afroze, Flat No 216, Building No R440, Opposite UPIS School, Muhaisinah-4, Dubai, UAE. E-mail: [email protected]

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Purpose: 

To identify the awareness, behaviour and psychological impact of cyberbullying among adolescent.

Method: 

A Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study conducted on secondary school students from grades 9-12 th . The study got approval from the Institutional Research Board. The Inclusion criterion was school students of all nationalities who were willing to participate. Signed informed consent signed was taken. We used a P value of < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Result: 

Out of 513 enrolled, 450 completed the survey (response rate 87.7%). Age ranged between 13 to 20 years of them 303 (67.3%) were female. Awareness of cyberbullying was 96.2%. The prevalence of cyberbullying among adolescence was 22.2% (95% CI: 18.89-26.93). 42% of Victims reported cyberbully event leading to stoppage in 78.6% of cases. Most of the victims reported to their parents followed by friends then cyber helpline or Police. Characteristics of perpetrators were males, below-average academic performance and social relations, from same batch, and had emotionally unstable personalities. Association of being a victim does not relate to their Age, gender, grade, or parent’s education but relate to their nationality ( P < 0.001) and being younger siblings ( P < 0.027). Association between event reporting and gender was not significant ( P < 0.859). Association between worsening social relationships (teachers and parents) ( P < 0.001), feeling neglected ( P < 0.001), personality type (agreeableness and emotional instability) ( P < 0.016) and being a Cyberbully victim was statistically significant. Association of depression and anxiety with being a cyberbully victim was statistically significant ( P < 0.001) and directly proportional to the severity.

Conclusion: 

High rate of awareness and Low prevalence of cyberbullying was found among adolescence. High risk of psychological problems was reported and a good social relationship (teachers and parents) was an important protective factor from it.

Introduction

Digital technology is an enabling tool to interact, communicate, and continue their responsibilities. [ 1 ] A surge in the utilization of the Internet has been reported in the general population. [ 2 ] However, this has led to an issue of concern among the population regarding online harassment or cyberbullying. [ 3 ] Cyberbullying is not limited by boundaries and have been recognized as a severe public health problem. [ 4 , 5 ] Cyberbullying reaches an unlimited audience affecting frequently, emotionally, severely and may leave a permanent mark. [ 2 , 4 ] It has been suggested that the perpetrators tend to lack accountability and awareness of the consequences of their actions as they cannot see the faces of the victims. [ 4 ] Cyberbullying may lead to negative emotional, social, and psychological consequences causing depression, anxiety, anger, and low academic performance. [ 5 ]

Worldwide studies indicate a global rise in the Cyberbullying phenomenon. [ 2 , 6 ] Adolescents are at high risk due to their internet use for interaction and academic purposes. [ 5 ] Adolescence is the phase of life between childhood and adulthood. [ 7 ] Cyberbullying represents a threat to the mental development and well-being of adolescents. [ 5 ] 20 to 40% of adolescents experienced cyberbullying at least once in their lifetime. [ 2 ] Studies found wide variations in cyberbullying prevalence rates worldwide. [ 5 , 7 ] These varying results could be due to different measurement factors and methodologies. [ 4 ] However, all research concluded that all victims suffered psychological impacts. [ 6 , 7 ] Physical problems also tend to develop as a result of the psychological impact. [ 8 ] About 48% admit the use of social media applications without adult supervision and are likely to avoid seeking help in situations like cyberbullying because they fear they will be restricted from using social media. [ 3 ] Studies show that victims may display externalizing behaviors due to their inability to express thoughts and feelings verbally. [ 9 ] Most of them distance themselves from their friends and family, resulting in even greater loneliness as technology is intended to expand connections. [ 8 ] Unfortunately, articles have reported cases of youngsters who have committed suicide after being subjected to online harassment. [ 8 , 10 ]

UAE being an international hub and the highest social media users among Gulf nations, is also a victim of cyberbullying. [ 7 ] 60% in Gulf countries confessed to having cyberbullying among peers and in UAE it was 20.9%. [ 3 ] Available data on the prevalence of cyberbullying amongst the adolescent population in UAE are varying and scarce. [ 7 ] UNICEF also states that “no child is absolutely safe in the digital world. [ 4 ] Some study reports the prevalence of Cyberbullying being 4.7% others to be 33.3%. [ 6 , 7 ] Studies show inconsistencies in the prevalence rates of cyberbullying, measured in the same country during the same period. [ 4 ] Furthermore, Lockdowns and social distancing during the COVID pandemic have increased the use of the internet and the risk of exposure to cyberbullying. [ 1 , 3 ] Since there are wide variations in cyberbullying rates in UAE, It needs of hour to collect data on the prevalence of cyberbullying amongst the adolescent population to tackle the undisclosed endemic of cyberbullying. [ 7 ] This study will help to identify the graveness of problem and psychological impact among adolescents and provide data to be used by Authorities to develop procedures to limit this problem.

Materials and Method

This is a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. The study duration was from Nov 2021 to Jan 2022. The study got approval from the Institutional Research Board Ref. No. IRB/COM/STD/34/Nov-2021. The study population was secondary school students from grades 9-12 th from two selected schools. The Inclusion criterion was school students of all nationalities who were willing to participate. Those who refused to participate or were absent were excluded. Informed consent signed by the parent for participants less than 18 years old and by students aged 18 years or above were taken. The data collection was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. For calculating the sample size of the survey among a population of 100,000, we assumed that the prevalence of Cyberbullying among adolescents would be 20.9%. [ 3 ] To achieve a 95% confidence interval (CI), 5% error margin and 1% design effect, 254 individuals were required. To compensate for the loss of data/nonresponse, we increased the sample by 10%, so the calculated minimum sample size was 280. OpenEpi, Version 3, the open-source calculator was used.

Questionnaire was specially designed for this study from a validated research instrument. It comprised questions on demographics, history of being bullied, and factors related to cyberbullying. Two standardized questionnaires CES-D and BAI were used to assess depression and anxiety among participants. Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) comprises 20 items measuring depression. [ 11 ] Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) comprises 21 items to measure anxiety. [ 12 ] The questionnaire was validated by a psychologist and a physician. The suggestions of the experts were taken into consideration and a pilot study was conducted involving 5 participants with the final questionnaire. No issues were observed. Final approval was obtained from the selected schools and the research team. Medical students interacted with participants by giving a brief description of the purpose of the study, its objectives, and brief instructions to fill out the questionnaire. The final questionnaire was provided in online and printed forms, as required. They were allowed to proceed only if they agreed to participate and were allowed to withdraw themselves at any stage if they were not willing to proceed. No incentives or rewards were offered to the participants, and their confidentiality was ensured.

SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 27) statistical software was used for data analysis. Descriptive data were presented as frequencies and percentages. A Chi-square test was used to show the significant association between cyberbullying and the selected variables. We used a P value of < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Out of 513 enrolled, 450 completed the survey (response rate 87.7%). Age of the participants ranged between 13 to 20 years (Median 16, Iqr 2) of them 303 (67.3%) were female [ Table 1 ]. There were 61.6% between 17 to 20 years of age and 64% were from grade 11-12 th . 96.2% of them were aware of cyberbullying. School and internet played an important role in awareness compared to parents and friends. The prevalence of cyberbullying was found to be 22.2% (95% CI: 18.89 – 26.93). 61% of the victims were aware of their bully’s identity. 42% of Victims reported cyberbullying. Most of the victims reported the event to their parents (40%), followed by their friends (31%), School faculty (14%), Cyber helpline (10%) and police (5%) [ Figure 1 ]. Cyberbullying stopped in 78.6% of cases reported [ Figure 2 ]. Characteristics of perpetrators described by the victims were males, below-average academic performance and social relations, from the same batch, and had emotionally unstable personalities [ Table 2 ].

Cyberbullying is significantly associated with the nationality ( P < 0.001) and the order of siblings ( P < 0.027) Table 3 . The association of cyberbullied with Other sociodemographic factors like Age, gender, grade, and parent’s education was not significant.

Association between reporting the event and gender was not significant ( P < 0.859) [ Table 4 ]. A strong and significant association was reported with worsening social relationships (teachers and parents) and being cyberbullied ( P < 0.001). Additionally, individuals who felt they were neglected by their parents were observed to have a greater likelihood of being cyberbullied ( P < 0.001). Association between personality type (agreeableness and emotional instability) and being cyberbullied was significantly associated ( P < 0.016). Association between academic performance and being cyberbullied was not significantly associated ( P < 0.978). Association between screen time being monitored by parents and being cyberbullied is not significantly associated ( P < 0.192). A significantly associated and directly proportional association was found to be between time spent on social media and being cyberbullied ( P < 0.001).

Association between depression and being a victim was significantly associated ( P < 0.001) [ Table 5 ]. 77% of victims suffer from depression and majority of them have severe depression. Association of the severity of depression and increased frequency of being a victim was also significantly associated ( P < 0.003). The Association between cyberbullying and anxiety was statistically significant and directly proportional to the severity of anxiety ( P < 0.001). About 42% of victim faces anxiety and 25% of them have severe anxiety.

Awareness of cyberbullying was high among participants. About one-fifth of participants faced cyberbullying and less than half of them reported the event. Association of being a victim does not relate to their Age, gender, grade, or parent’s education but relate to their Nationality and being younger siblings. Association between event reporting and gender was not significant. Association between worsening social relationships (teachers and parents), feeling neglected, personality type (agreeableness and emotional instability) and being a victim was statistically significant. Association of depression and anxiety with being a victim was statistically significant and directly proportional to the severity.

Awareness of cyberbullying was high among participants. Abaido [ 13 ] also reported 91%. Among the participants, half learned about cyberbullying from their school, while one-third learned through the internet and friends, parents playing a minor role. Schools have played their part in raising awareness, but a major part of a child’s understanding comes from the parents. It is the responsibility of parents to teach their children about such issues and how to be safe in an online environment, but unfortunately, the majority of them failed to do so.

About one-fifth of participants faced cyberbullying. Our results are consistent with the finding of Kazarian and Ammar [ 14 ] Slightly lesser prevalence reported by Alomosh et al. , AlQaderi et al. , and Al-Darmaki et al . [ 6 , 9 , 15 ] Two separate studies conducted in Saudi Arabia indicated the prevalence as 31.5% and 29.6%. [ 9 ] Barragán Martín et al . [ 5 ] also reported a range between 20-40% among adolescents. It is important to note that approximately nine percent of victims reported being bullied every week or more, which is highly alarming. Negative experiences on such a frequent basis are harmful to anyone and can interfere with their daily activities, especially when they involve children, who are at such a vulnerable age. With the increase of digitalization, it’s expected to increase. [ 1 ]

About less than half of victims reported the event. Abaido [ 16 ] found it to be 37%. The common response to cyberbullying includes ignoring and not telling family or teachers. [ 2 ] The social and cultural constraints among youth in Arab may cause less reporting or silence towards cyberbullying due to feared getting into trouble. [ 16 ] Parents or friends were preferred for reporting compared to Authorities in our study. Abaido [ 16 ] found only 8.2% report to the police or authority and the majority prefer family members or friends. This is a cause of concern, initiatives should be taken to encourage children to inform their parents or the authorities about these events so that proper action can be taken. Our study found perpetrators were known to victims in 61% of cases. Alomosh et al . [ 6 ] also found it to be 78.4%. Known perpetrators were easy to identify and proper action can be taken in time. Majority of cyberbullying stopped after reporting in our study. This should be used as an encouragement for the victims that hesitate to report such events. While this percentage is significant, there is still room for improvement, since ideally none of the reported cases should continue facing these situations.

Most perpetrators were males, had below-average academic performance and social relations, were from same batch, and had emotionally unstable personalities. Though male were more compared to female but both do not lose chance to bully someone, as a study revealed that adolescents who cyberbullies are inclined to do so to impress their peers and gain a greater social standing. [ 9 ] About 44.6% of bullies were below average in academic performance and 50% had below-average social relations. Perpetrators were also more likely to be the victim’s batchmates. According to the victims, 46.8% of bullies displayed a neurotic (emotional instability) personality, although the victim may have a bias against their respective bullies. Several studies that identified the characteristics of the perpetrators observed that bullies were more likely to be angry, frustrated, sad, and emotionally unstable. [ 17-19 ] These attributes can further cause a bully to manifest internalized problems as they might fail to achieve the social power they desire. [ 9 ]

Association of being victim does not statistically relate to their Age, gender, grade, or parent’s education. Participants of all age groups experienced similar rates of cyberbullying and therefore age was statistically insignificant. Although contrary to our result some studies found young age group more bullied. [ 6 ] In the current study, boys were more likely to become victims than girls, but no statistically significant association between gender and victimization was found. Zhou et al . also reported the involvement of boys more than girls but Ngo et al . found vice-versa. [ 2 , 20 ] Others found both genders could be subject to cyberbullying. [ 16 ] We also agree that both genders have an equal chance of being cyberbullied. All grades in our study are equally exposed to cyberbullying. A parent’s education level is a unique factor that shapes the behavior of children. [ 19 ] However, in the current study, neither mother’s nor father’s education level had a statistically significant association with being cyberbullied. Educated families can easily identify and act as a protective factor from cyberbullying. [ 19 ] Nationality was found to be a statistically significant factor of cyberbullying in our study. Though the results are significant, it is important to contextualize them and apply them to the diversity of the school setting, since most of the respondents came from schools in which Southeast Asians dominated. However, Park et al . [ 21 ] reported that a sociocultural difference in perceptions of what constitutes bullying, and self-construal amongst Asians may serve as a protective factor for cyberbullying. The order of siblings was found to have a strong association with being cyberbullied in the current study. The younger siblings are prone to cyberbullying. However, the results of this study were in contrast with the results by Bruhn, [ 22 ] who found no significant difference between the order of siblings.

Association between event reporting and gender was not statistically significant. Park et al . [ 21 ] identified that females were much more likely to report the incident compared to males. Although there was a higher percentage of females among the victims who reported the event in our study but it was not statistically significant. Relationship with parents was found to be one of the most significant predictors of cybervictimization. Participants with bad and average relationships with their parents were more prone to be cyberbullied. [ 19 , 20 ] Perceived neglect from one or both parents was also strongly associated with being cyberbullied in our study. Neglect from a parent would likely stem from having a bad relationship with the parent initially and students who regularly communicated with their parents were less likely to be cyberbullied. [ 2 , 19 , 23 ] Relationship with teachers was also found to be strongly associated with cyberbullying in the present study. Other Study also reported a close relationship with teachers being a protective factor. [ 20 , 24 ] Many studies have argued that the academic performance of student affects whether they would be cyberbullied or not. [ 25 ] Park et al . [ 21 ] found those adolescents with lower academic achievement might get victimized because they lack social status. However, in this study, no association was established between academics and being cyberbullied. A significant relationship between the amount of time spend on internet and the risk of being cyberbullied was observed in this study. The risk of cyberbullying was observed to increase with the amount of time spent on social media. This is in agreement with the studies that reported an increase in victimization rates with increased screen time. [ 18 , 20 , 26 ] Many parents monitor their children’s social media and control what they are allowed to do online, in the hopes that it will protect them from harm. [ 27 ] However, the current study showed that screen time monitoring was not associated with cyberbullying. An approach based on trust and good communication instead of one built on authority may be more appropriate for this situation. [ 22 ] A strong association between different personality types (agreeableness and emotional instability) and being cyberbullied was observed in this study. Different studies have reported contrary findings with being agreeableness or kind but most of them concluded that emotional instability personality is related with cybervictimization.

Association between depression and being victim was significant in our study. Nearly 3/4 th of victims have depression, among which 2/3 rd have severe depression. Association between the severity of depression and the increased frequency of being victim was also significant. The majority of victims who experienced bullying at least once a week were afflicted with severe depression. cyberbullying is a predictor of depressive symptoms, and repeated exposure to cyberbullying increases the risk of developing depressive symptoms. [ 28 ] About less than half of victims suffer anxiety and one-fourth of them have severe anxiety in our study. several studies have documented stress, anxiety, and depression as significant psychological problems associated with cyberbullying victimization. [ 29 ] AlQaderi et al . [ 9 ] found Young Adults using digital devices among Arabs have statistically significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression compared to non-Arab. Cyberbullying been linked with significant negative outcomes such as anxiety, and depression. [ 16 ] Most studies are in agreement with our study that anxiety and depression are experienced by almost every cyber victim. [ 9 , 16 , 28 ] Cyberbullying has been linked with low self-esteem, suicidal ideation, anger, frustration, and a variety of other emotional and psychological problems. [ 16 ] Support from family and friends plays an important role in preventing victims from the mental consequences of cyberbullying. [ 2 ] It is documented that a lesser number of students felt anxiety and lower levels of depressive symptoms if they had family support. [ 2 ]

Limitations

The findings need to be interpreted with caution as data obtained from two schools, the results cannot be generalized to the entire nation. No randomization was done, it was voluntary participation that may have affected the data. This study used information collected on a self-reported basis and is therefore prone to recall bias. The cross-sectional design is useful for identifying associations but cannot attribute causation; hence, further studies are needed to study any cause and effect relationship.

Our study suggested a high rate of awareness and a low rate of prevalence of cyberbullying among adolescents. A high risk of psychological problems among those experiencing cyberbullying was found. Initiatives should be taken to encourage children to inform their parents or the authorities about these events so that proper action can be taken. Moreover, social support (family and teachers) was an important protective source and helped mediate the relationship between cyberbullying and psychological problems.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

• Cited Here |
• Google Scholar

Adolescence; anxiety; cyberbully; depression; psychology

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

An integrated indicator for evaluating scientific papers: considering academic impact and novelty

• Published: 13 September 2024

Cite this article

• Zhaoping Yan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8198-5574 1 &
• Kaiyu Fan   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-8884-4073 2  

The assessment of scientific papers has long been a challenging issue. Although numerous studies have proposed quantitative indicators for assessing scientific papers, these studies overlooked the citation characteristics and the novelty of scientific knowledge implied in the textual information of papers. Therefore, this paper constructs an integrated indicator to evaluate scientific papers from both citation and semantic perspectives. Firstly, we propose weighted citations to measure the academic impact of scientific papers, which takes time heterogeneity and citation sentiment factors into consideration. Secondly, we capture the novelty of scientific papers from a semantic perspective, utilizing FastText to represent papers as text embeddings and applying the local outlier factor to calculate it. To validate the performance of our approach, the bullwhip effect domain and the ACL Anthology corpus are used for case studies. The results demonstrate that our indicator can effectively identify outstanding papers, thus providing a more comprehensive evaluation method for evaluating academic research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Beltagy, I., Lo, K., & Cohan, A. (2019). SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. arXiv Preprint . https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.10676

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64 (1), 45–80.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bornmann, L., Tekles, A., Zhang, H. H., & Fred, Y. Y. (2019). Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime data. Journal of Informetrics, 13 (4), 100979.

Breunig, M. M., Kriegel, H. P., Ng, R. T., & Sander, J. (2000, May). LOF: Identifying density-based local outliers. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 93–104).

Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30 (1–7), 107–117.

Chai, S., & Menon, A. (2019). Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention. Research Policy, 48 (3), 733–747.

Chan, H. F., Frey, B. S., Gallus, J., & Torgler, B. (2014). Academic honors and performance. Labour Economics, 31 , 188–204.

Dai, L., Xu, Q., Liang, L., Li, X., & Su, L. (2016). Quantitative measures of novelty in scientific publications. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (4), 969–982.

Google Scholar  

Dinh, T. N., Pham, P., Nguyen, G. L., & Vo, B. (2024). Enhancing local citation recommendation with recurrent highway networks and SciBERT-based embedding. Expert Systems with Applications, 243 , 122911.

Donovan, C. (2007). Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: Metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact. Science and Public Policy, 34 (8), 538–542.

Dunaiski, M., Visser, W., & Geldenhuys, J. (2016). Evaluating paper and author ranking algorithms using impact and contribution awards. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (2), 392–407.

Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69 (1), 131–152.

Farys, R., & Wolbring, T. (2017). Matched control groups for modeling events in citation data: An illustration of Nobel Prize effects in citation networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68 (9), 2201–2210.

Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80 (5), 875–908.

Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2013). The ripple effect: Citation chain reactions of a Nobel Prize. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (3), 437–447.

Funk, R. J., & Owen-Smith, J. (2017). A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management Science, 63 (3), 791–817.

Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122 (3159), 108–111.

Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178 (4060), 471–479.

Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995). A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature. Journal of Information Science, 21 (1), 37–53.

Grave, E., Bojanowski, P., Gupta, P., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2018). Learning word vectors for 157 languages. In Proceedings of the international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC) .

He, X., & Liu, Y. (2024). Knowledge evolutionary process of artificial intelligence in E-commerce: Main path analysis and science mapping analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 238 , 121801.

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520 (7548), 429–431.

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102 (46), 16569–16572.

Hirschberg, J., & Manning, C. D. (2015). Advances in natural language processing. Science, 349 (6245), 261–266.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Huang, Z., & Zhao, W. (2022). A semantic matching approach addressing multidimensional representations for web service discovery. Expert Systems with Applications, 210 , 118468.

Joulin, A., Grave, E., Bojanowski, P., & Mikolov, T. (2017). Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. arXiv Preprint . https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01759

Just, J., Ströhle, T., Füller, J., & Hutter, K. (2024). AI-based novelty detection in crowdsourced idea spaces. Innovation, 26 (3), 359–386.

Kammari, M. (2023). Time-stamp based network evolution model for citation networks. Scientometrics, 128 (6), 3723–3741.

Kazi, P., Patwardhan, M., & Joglekar, P. (2016). Towards a new perspective on context based citation index of research articles. Scientometrics, 107 , 103–121.

Lee, C., Kwon, O., Kim, M., & Kwon, D. (2018). Early identification of emerging technologies: A machine learning approach using multiple patent indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127 , 291–303.

Lee, Y. N., Walsh, J. P., & Wang, J. (2015). Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44 (3), 684–697.

Lin, W., & Liao, L. C. (2024). Lexicon-based prompt for financial dimensional sentiment analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 244 , 122936.

Liu, J. S., Lu, L. Y., & Ho, M. H. C. (2019). A few notes on main path analysis. Scientometrics, 119 , 379–391.

Liu, Y., Wu, Q., Wu, S., & Gao, Y. (2021). Weighted citation based on ranking-related contribution: A new index for evaluating article impact. Scientometrics, 126 (10), 8653–8672.

Luo, Z., Lu, W., He, J., & Wang, Y. (2022). Combination of research questions and methods: A new measurement of scientific novelty. Journal of Informetrics, 16 (2), 101282.

Matsumoto, K., Shibayama, S., Kang, B., & Igami, M. (2021). Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: Validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach. Scientometrics, 126 (8), 6891–6915.

Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (10), 1988–2002.

Mukherjee, S., & Uzzi, B. (2021). A new method for identifying recombinant innovations reveals the role of collaboration networks. Science Advances, 7 (22), eabb2417.

Nassiri, I., Masoudi-Nejad, A., Jalili, M., & Moeini, A. (2013). Normalized Similarity Index: An adjusted index to prioritize article citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7 (1), 91–98.

Otter, D. W., Medina, J. R., & Kalita, J. K. (2020). A survey of the usages of deep learning for natural language processing. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 32 (2), 604–624.

Persson, O. (2010). Identifying research themes with weighted direct citation links. Journal of Informetrics, 4 (3), 415–422.

Peters, M. E., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018). Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies (Vol. 1 (Long Papers), pp. 2227–2237). New Orleans, Louisiana: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Purkayastha, A., Palmaro, E., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., & Baas, J. (2019). Comparison of two article-level, field-independent citation metrics: Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). Journal of Informetrics, 13 (2), 635–642.

Qu, G., Chen, J., Zhang, R., Wang, L., & Yang, Y. (2023). Technological search strategy and breakthrough innovation: An integrated approach based on main-path analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 196 , 122879.

Radev, D. R., Muthukrishnan, P., Qazvinian, V., & Abu-Jbara, A. (2013). The ACL anthology network corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation, 47 , 919–944.

Rahimmi, A. (2020). Drawbacks to h-index, as a factor assessing the scientific impact and the scientific credit of a researcher. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 14 (2), 331–333.

Ruan, X., Zhu, Y., Li, J., & Cheng, Y. (2020). Predicting the citation counts of individual papers via a BP neural network. Journal of Informetrics, 14 (3), 101039.

Song, B., Luan, C., & Liang, D. (2023). Identification of emerging technology topics (ETTs) using BERT-based model and sematic analysis: A perspective of multiple-field characteristics of patented inventions (MFCOPIs). Scientometrics, 128 (11), 5883–5904.

Stefan, S., Isabel, V., & Verhoef, P. C. (2007). The quest for citations: Drivers of article impact. Journal of Marketing, 71 (3), 171–193.

Stegehuis, C., Litvak, N., & Waltman, L. (2015). Predicting the long-term citation impact of recent publications. Journal of Informetrics, 9 (3), 642–657.

Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342 (6157), 468–472.

Veugelers, R., & Wang, J. (2019). Scientific novelty and technological impact. Research Policy, 48 (6), 1362–1372.

Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (2), 365–391.

Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94 (3), 851–872.

Wang, R., Li, S., Yin, Q., Zhang, J., Yao, R., & Wu, O. (2024). Improved pagerank and new indices for academic impact evaluation using AI papers as case studies. Journal of Information Science, 50 (3), 690–702.

Wang, S., Ma, Y., Mao, J., Bai, Y., Liang, Z., & Li, G. (2023). Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (2), 150–167.

Wang, Y. (2024). Comparison of citation impact between pre-and post-publication peer-selected best papers: The case of Best Paper Awards recipients at computer science conferences. Scientometrics, 129 , 641–662.

Wu, L., Wang, D., & Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566 (7744), 378–382.

Yang, A. J., Gong, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, C., & Deng, S. (2024). Rescaling the disruption index reveals the universality of disruption distributions in science. Scientometrics, 129 (1), 561–580.

Yu, D., & Pan, T. (2021). Tracing the main path of interdisciplinary research considering citation preference: A case from blockchain domain. Journal of Informetrics, 15 (2), 101136.

Yu, D., & Yan, Z. (2022). Combining machine learning and main path analysis to identify research front: From the perspective of science-technology linkage. Scientometrics, 127 (7), 4251–4274.

Yu, D., & Yan, Z. (2023). Main path analysis considering citation structure and content: Case studies in different domains. Journal of Informetrics, 17 (1), 101381.

Zhang, F. (2017). Evaluating journal impact based on weighted citations. Scientometrics, 113 , 1155–1169.

Zhu, X., Turney, P., Lemire, D., & Vellino, A. (2015). Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (2), 408–427.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript was supported by the Postgraduate Reaserch & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (No. KYCX24_0108).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

Zhaoping Yan

School of Data Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong - Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaiyu Fan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yan, Z., Fan, K. An integrated indicator for evaluating scientific papers: considering academic impact and novelty. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05150-9

Download citation

Received : 10 March 2024

Accepted : 30 August 2024

Published : 13 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05150-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Paper assessment
• Academic impact
• Academic novelty
• Weighted citation count
• Citation sentiment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research