CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Melissa Brown
B.A., California State University of Sacramento, 2002
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
CHILD DEVELOPMENT
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2010
CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
A Thesis
by
Melissa Brown
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Juliana Raskauskas
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Sheri Hembree
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Melissa Brown
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Sheri Hembree
Department of Child Development
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
CYBERBULLYING AMONG ADOLESCENTS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
by
Melissa Brown
Traditional bullying among adolescents has become a common problem; however
a new trend of bullying emerging in schools around the world known as cyberbullying.
Two hundred and twenty-six students were surveyed about their experiences with
cyberbullying, and their connection to school. Results indicated that cyberbullying
occurred most often through text messaging and social networking sites. Correlations
between academic performance and the different forms of cyberbullying revealed a
significant relationship between text-bullying and math performance. There was also a
connection between academic performance and connection to school which may suggest
a mediating model. Significant differences were found between boys and girls on
cyberbullying but no significant differences were found between 8th and 9th graders.
Results also indicated that cyber-victims reported significantly more victimization at
school than non-victims.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Juliana Raskauskas
_______________________
Date
iv
DEDICATION
To my husband Taylor, my son Evan, and all of my family and friends, thank you
for all of the support you have given through this adventure.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank my sponsor, Dr. Juliana Raskauskas.
Without her encouragement, feedback and patience I would have been unable to
complete this thesis. I would also like to thank my second reader, Dr. Sheri Hembree.
Thank you both for taking time to work with me to complete my Thesis.
Thank you to the Child Development Department at Sacramento State University
and all of the staff for making my gradate experience one I will never forget. I am proud
to be able to say that my graduate degree is from CSUS.
Also a special thanks to the schools for allowing me to come in and work with
your students and the participants who took the time to fill out the survey. Without you
there would be no study!
Thank you to my husband for all of your support through this long process.
Without your love and support I would have never been able to get to this point. To my
son Evan, you are the most precious gift and we are so blessed to have you in our lives.
A big thank you to Elizabeth Sterba for all you have done to help me through this
process. Your support and guidance helped me reach a goal I never thought possible.
Finally, a big thank you to all of my amazing friends and family who supported me,
listened to me, and encouraged me to never stop. You all mean the world to me!
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ..................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................2
Significance of the Study .................................................................................. 3
Methods..............................................................................................................4
Definition of Terms ...........................................................................................5
Limitations ........................................................................................................6
Organization of the Study .................................................................................7
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .........................................................................9
Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................10
Traditional Bullying .........................................................................................18
Cyberbullying .................................................................................................21
Relationship between Traditional and Cyberbullying ....................................24
Effects of Cyberbullying ..................................................................................26
Academic Performance in Relation to Bullying/Cyberbullying .....................26
Implications for the Present Study ..................................................................28
3. METHODS ...........................................................................................................29
Design and Research Questions ..................................................................... 29
Participants ......................................................................................................30
vii
Measures ..........................................................................................................32
Procedures .......................................................................................................35
Summary ..........................................................................................................37
4. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................38
Prevalence of Cyberbullying ...........................................................................38
Relationship between Cyberbullying and Academic Achievement ................39
Gender and Grade Differences ........................................................................42
Relationship between Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying .....................43
Conclusion ......................................................................................................43
5. DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................45
Prevalence of Cyberbullying ...........................................................................45
Relationship between Cyberbullying and Academic Achievement ................47
Gender and Grade Differences ........................................................................49
Relationship between Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying .....................50
Implications......................................................................................................51
Limitations ......................................................................................................52
Appendix A. Parent Information Sheet for Child Participation ..................................54
Appendix B. Bullying in Schools Survey ....................................................................57
References ....................................................................................................................64
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Executive Summary School Accountability Report ..........................31
Card from 2008-2009
2.
Table 2 Percentage of Students Reporting Forms of Bullying ........................39
3.
Table 3 Intercorrelations Between Study Measures ....................................... 41
4.
Table 4 Gender Comparisons on Cyberbullying ........................................... 42
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Figure 1 Social Cognitive Theory ....................................................................11
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
During adolescence, peer relationships play an increasingly important role in
social and emotional development. These relationships contribute to adolescents’ social
and emotional well-being (Card & Hodges, 2006; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Cowie
(1999) argued that peer relationships are critical during the adolescent period, since it is
through peer relationships that young children learn about self, others, and the social
world around them. If peer relationships are positive experiences for a child, the child
will grow up with a positive outlook on life and relationships. However, if peer
experiences are negative, they can have a negative long-term effect on a child which later
can lead to poor relationships in adulthood (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). This is
particularly true in the case of bullying, a hurtful form of social behavior that can have a
negative impact on adolescents.
Traditional bullying among adolescents has become recognized as a common
problem in schools; however researchers are beginning to see a new trend in bullying
around the world. Cyberbullying is a fairly new form of bullying which is becoming
more common with the spread of social technology. Hinduja and Patchin (2008) define
cyberbullying as any willful and repeated harm inflicted on another person by use of
computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. Cyberbullying involves the use of
2
information and communication using email, cell phone messages, instant messaging,
and defamatory personal web sites (Li, 2005).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research study was to investigate the new trend of
cyberbullying among adolescents attending middle schools and high schools in the
Sacramento area. The aim of the research was to gain a better understanding of how
adolescents are affected by cyberbullying and what impact cyberbullying might have on
academic performance. The main focus of this study was to investigate bullying that
occurs through the Internet with a primary focus on social websites such as Myspace,
Facebook as well as through other electronic devices such as cellular phones. The
research questions that guided this study were: (a) Is there a relationship between
cyberbullying and academic performance among adolescents?; (b) Is there a relationship
between involvement in cyberbullying and grade/gender of the child?; and (c) Are
cyberbullying and traditional bullying associated?
Statement of the Problem
There is a substantial body of research related to traditional bullying, including its
incidence, characteristics and impacts (Fitzpatrick, Akilah, and Piko, 2007; Nansel et al.,
2001; Olweus.1993). However, there is an absence of literature on the relationship
3
between cyberbullying and academic achievement and what impact cyberbullying might
have on adolescents that are faced with this new form of bullying. Therefore research,
such as the current study, that investigates cyberbullying and its relationship to school
academic and social factors is needed.
Significance of the Study
According to Ybarra and Mitchell (2004), there is a great need to identify youth
who have been involved in negative Internet experiences so that effective intervention
and prevention programs can be implemented. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) stated that,
negative Internet experiences such as cyberbullying can have harmful consequences for
youth. For example, MSNBC (2008) reported a story about a young girl named Megan
who was a victim of cyberbullying. In October, 2006, Megan a 13-year-old female who
battled with depression was found dead in her bedroom after she became a victim of
cyberbullying and hung herself. As the Internet is becoming increasingly more accessible
to more youth, stories such as Megan’s are also becoming more frequent. This story is
similar to the student stories reported in research by Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) and
Patchin and Hinduja (2006), these student stories provides evidence of how students can
be affected by cyberbullying.
Previous research has demonstrated the effects traditional bullying can have on
adolescents. Such bullying is linked to depression, suicidal ideation, and running away
from home (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). However, less is know about the impact
4
cyberbullying has on adolescents, therefore a better understanding of this new form of
bullying might help save the next Megan that falls victim to cyberbullying.
Since cyberbullying is a relatively recent phenomenon, there has been very little
research into its characteristics and impacts. In addition, much of the previous research
has focused on middle SES adolescents. Further research investigating cyberbullying
with lower SES adolescents from a diverse population is needed to gain a better
understanding of how adolescents are being affected within these demographic groups.
Methods
The study examined the relationship between cyberbullying and academic
performance in school among adolescent age children. This study used a quantitative
design and the data were collected as part of a larger study. The study sample included
226 students from four middle schools (8th grade 58%), and three high school (9th grade,
42%) in Northern California. These grades were targeted due to the importance of school
transitions to changes in academic performance and the fact that these ages are most at
risk for cyberbullying (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith et al., 2008).
Surveys were administered in classrooms at the various schools. All measures
were administered to participating students at the same time. All information regarding
the proposed study and forms that explain the survey were read out loud and surveys
completed silently and independently by students. Precautions were taken to protect
confidentiality of students’ answers and for their protection no items asked students to
5
identify specific bullies at their school. Consent to participate in this study was obtained
from parents prior to students completing the survey.
The survey for this study (Appendix B) included four sections: demographic
information such as age and gender, relationships the students have at school with other
students, feelings students have regarding their school and the school environment, and
the different types of bullying students encounter at school. The section on bullying at
schools included questions on different bullying forms such as traditional bullying and
cyberbullying. Cyberbullying items were adapted from two instruments: (a) a survey
developed by Li (2005) which focused on cyberbullying in schools and (b) a survey used
in a study by Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007).
Frequencies were computed to examine the prevalence of various forms of
cyberbullying, Pearson correlations were computed to test relationships between
cyberbullying and academic achievement, and t-tests were used to examine gender and
age group differences.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of clarity, this thesis used the following terms as defined below:
Bullying
According to previous research traditional bullying can be defined as (a) harmful
acts done with the intent to harm another; (b) repeated or occurring over a period of time;
and (c) characterized by an imbalance of strength or power, such that the victim does not
6
feel he/she can stop the interaction (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Raskauskas & Stoltz,
2007).
Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying has been defined as any willful and repeated harm inflicted on
another person by use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices (Hinduja &
Patchin, 2008). Often times this type of bullying occurs through text messaging, picture
or video messages, social networking sites, and instant messaging (IM) or email.
Academic Performance
For this study academic performance was measured in two ways: (a) with student
self-report relative to their peers, and (b) using the STAR performance levels for Math
and English. The STAR test is a standardized academic assessment given every year to
students.
Limitations
It is important to note the limitations of the current study. One limitation was the
use of self-report surveys which can be vulnerable to students misreporting or reporting
in a manner that they feel is socially acceptable. Future research should include focus
groups and observations. This would allow researchers to gain a better understanding of
what is happens when teachers are not present. This would also allow for some students
7
to verbalize their feels and what they feel is occurring as far as bullying on their school
campus.
Another limitation in the current study is the relatively small sample size. While
this study included 226 total participants from seven schools in the greater Sacramento
area, the percentage of those with prior experience with cyberbullying was small. With a
small number of participants involved in this total study only a small percentage reported
cyberbullying which makes group comparisons questionable. Future research should
include a large population of participants in order to ensure that group comparisons are
reliable and valid. Finally, the sample was non-random which limits the generalizability
of the findings. These findings should not be interpreted to represent the experiences of
all adolescents at all high schools.
Organization of the Study
This chapter has provided an introduction to the topic and serves as the overview
of the thesis. The next chapter, Chapter 2, presents a review of the literature and
examines the history of traditional and cyberbullying research, the relationship between
traditional bullying and cyberbullying, as well as the impact traditional and cyberbullying
has on academic achievement in school.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology used in this study. It describes methods used
to examine two specific research questions: (a) Is there a relationship between
8
cyberbullying and academic performance among adolescents?; (b) Is there a relationship
between involvement in cyberbullying and grade/gender of the child?
Chapter 4 presents a summary of the results of the study. Chapter 5 includes a
discussion of conclusions reached, the limitations of the study and the major findings of
the study in the context of existing and future research.
9
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A significant number of adolescences are becoming victims of bullying, both
traditional school-based bullying and bullying through cyber-space. The growing use of
technology among youth to bully each other has lead to a recent influx of research
focusing on this new form of bullying known as cyberbullying.
During adolescence, peer groups form and these relationships with peers play a
critical role in adolescents’ social and emotional development (Card & Hodges, 2006;
Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). The impact of these relationships is not always positive.
Negative forms of peer relationships may include peer pressure, exclusion and bullying.
Research has consistently shown that bullying is associated with negative social,
emotional, and academic outcomes (Graham, Bellmore, 2003; Graham, Bellmore, &
Juvonen, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001; Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto & Toblin, 2005).
The majority of adolescents today also have access to technology such as cell
phones and computers which have become an integral part of their interactions with peers
(Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Many create web pages through social networking sites such
as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter and use them to interact with others. Adolescents also
use cell phones to text message friends and social networking sites to post personal
information about themselves (Tokunaga, 2010). Due to this constant access, wider
10
distribution of personal information, and anonymity afforded by many cyber-technologies
some adolescents today are being faced with cyberbullying (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007).
This chapter presents a review of the literature pertaining to bullying, both
traditional and cyberbullying. The first section reviews Social Cognitive Theory the
theoretical framework that guided this study. The second section begins with a discussion
of the review of research related to the major components of bullying: the relationship
between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, the effects of cyberbullying, and finally,
academic performance relative to cyber bullying. The second section reviews Social
Cognitive Theory the theoretical framework that guided this study. The chapter concludes
with a description of the research questions resulting from examination of the literature.
Theoretical Framework
The study of bullying, both traditional and cyberbullying can best be understood
using the theoretical perspective of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT). Proposed by Bandura
(1977, 1986), STC provides a framework for understanding, predicting, and changing
human behavior. The theory identifies human behavior as an interaction of cognition
(personal factors), behavior, and environment (see Figure 1).
11
Figure 1. Social Cognitive Theory
SCT explains that human beings learn through observing others’ behavior,
attitudes, and outcomes of those behaviors. According to Bandura (1977) most human
behavior is learned observationally through modeling. From observing others, one forms
an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and when needed this observation helps in
how one responds and reacts in a situation. SCT explains human behavior in terms of
continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental
influences.
Reciprocal determinism refers to the idea that behavior is not simply the result of
the environmental, personal, and behavioral factors independently but the interactions
between them (Glanz et al, 2002). Reciprocal determinism describes how the world and a
person’s behavior cause each other, and that one’s environment causes one’s behavior,
and that behavior causes environment as well (Bandura, 2001). SCT recognizes that some
sources of influence are stronger than others and that they do not all occur
simultaneously. The interaction between the three factors will differ based on the
12
individual, the actual behavior and the situation in which the behavior is occurring
(Bandura, 1986).
The interaction between the person and behavior involves the influences of a
person’s thoughts and actions (Bandura, 2001). The interaction between the person and
the environment involves human beliefs and cognitive competencies that are developed
and modified by social influences and structures within the environment (Bandura, 2001).
The third interaction, between the environment and behavior, involves a person’s
behavior determining the aspects of their environment and in turn his/her behavior is
modified by that environment (Bandura, 2001). These interactions are key for
understanding and examining cyberbullying.
This theory address the fact that behavior varies from situation to situation, which
indicates that behavior is not always controlled by situations but instead that people are
interpreting and responding to situations differently (Bandura, 2001). Thus, the same
situation can provoke different responses from different people or from the same person
at different times. Although not all of Bandura’s SCT theory is used in this study,
reciprocal determinism is helpful for understanding both individual and group behavior
and the decisions they make and can aid in understanding cyberbullying.
Constructs of SCT and Cyberbullying
In reciprocal determinism the three SCT factors of environment, person and
behavior are constantly influencing each other. In the STC model there are three
interactions (see Figure 1): (a) Person and Behavior; (b) Person and Environment; and (c)
13
Environment and Behavior. Each of these interactions will be discussed below in terms
of cyberbullying.
Personal factors. In the STC model, the interaction of person and behavior
involves the influences of an individual’s thoughts, actions and self-beliefs. What people
think, believe and feel affects how they behave (Bandura, 1986). The effects of the
individual’s actions determine the person’s thoughts and emotions. As human beings we
are constantly using self-reflection to make sense of what is going on in the world and
make sense of experiences through out life (Bandura, 1986). With self-reflection
behaviors change and new thoughts and experiences occur. Experiences through out life
lead to how they think and choices they make in any given situation. For example, one
choice might be whether or not to select technology as a way to bully others.
When an adolescent decides to cyberbully a peer, that individual has cognitively
thought about his/her actions and decided to act out a behavior or emotion based on
previous experiences. With cyberbullying the youth must consider whether bullying or
harmful behavior is justified, their options from the use of technology, the relative risk,
and harm potential when choosing how they are going to bully the other child. Options
often include planning a text message campaign or posting something mean/untrue to a
social site such as Myspace (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). For example, Raskauskas and
Stoltz (2007) gave examples of adolescents that were cyberbullied through websites
created by peers where other peers were encouraged to visit the site and post hurtful/
degrading comments about the victim. Creating a website and giving it a name takes
serious thought and planning on the part of the cyberbully. After a website is created it
14
then takes thought on how to distribute it to other peers to involve them in the bullying
(Mishna et al., 2009). Thoughts about bullying and attitudes about the use of technology
can be related to cyberbullying.
Individual attitudes and beliefs are also related to cyberbullying. In prior research
adolescents have been found to have different attitudes and beliefs about bullying, both
traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Espealge & Swearer, 2003; Frisen et al., 2008;
Mishna et al., 2009). Research has shown that bullies tend to have attitudes that support
the use of aggression and tend to have peers that also support bullying (Espealge &
Swearer, 2003). For cyberbullying there is less research on attitudes. However, Mishna et
al. (2009) discussed the attitudes and perceptions youth have on cyberbullying in focus
groups. Children stated that cyberbullies have attitudes that support or justify bullying
and cyberbullying as a joke. Many youth also do not consider cyberbullying a form of
bullying since it is done within the seemingly anonymous environment of cyberspace.
Therefore, it is imperative to continue to examine attitudes and other personal factors in
order for researchers and educators to use the information for planning prevention and
intervention strategies.
Person and environment. This interaction explains how human beliefs and
cognitive competencies are developed and modified by social influences and structures
within the environment. Behavior is influenced by previous experiences and modeling
within social setting. Every individual’s attitudes and beliefs are influenced by the
environment he/she was raised in (Bandura, 2001). Behaviors are repeated from the
15
modeling which in turn allows for the individual to receive praise from adults and peers
in the person’s life and allows for repeated behaviors (Bandura, 1986).
Through previous experiences and observations within a child’s environment one
learns what happens when children are aggressive towards one another as well as what it
feels like when someone is aggressive towards them. Children cognitively understand
bullying at a young age because it is something they have observed in and out of school.
At the age of six years old children can already define bullying and what bullying
behaviors look like (Frisen et al., 2008). Children learn that through certain behaviors
peer relationships are formed and essential (Card & Hodges, 2006; Raskauskas & Stoltz,
2007). When a child is able to understand what type of behavior is appropriate within a
social environment, most children choose behaviors that lead to produce positive
outcomes and generally discard those that bring unrewarding or punishing outcomes
(Bandura, 2001). However, those children that do choose to bully find it rewarding in
some way. Some bullies might feel that if they bullying they will be accepted by peers,
have some kind of social status or social power, and in some way feel good seeing
someone else hurt (Espealge & Swearer, 2003; Mishna et al., 2009; Ybarra, Diener-West,
& Leaf, 2007). In cases of cyberbullying where the bully is able to remain anonymous the
type of feedback students get from cyberbullying is unclear. Often times bullying results
in situations where victims are seen as not adhering to the social rules and bullying itself
can be been as a violation of social rules. Expectations about social interactions can lead
to behaviors that make people more at risk for cyberbullying.
16
Expectations about appropriate social behavior within the peer environment can
make adolescents vulnerable to cyberbullying. Adolescents expect that cyber interactions
are anonymous and that when a cyberbully uses the computer or cell phone to bully
he/she will not have to disclose who they are and the victim will not know who the
individuals are who are doing the cyberbullying (Mishna et al., 2009). It is also an
expectation by many youth that when they share personal information with close friends,
such as passwords and email addresses, their information is safe. However, much like
relational aggression, often times cyberbullying happens within individuals own social
group (Mishna et al., 2009). Given that social groups are key forces in creating the
educational environment for adolescents, social relationships and connection to school
will be examined the in the present study. It is expected that cyberbullying will alter the
perception of the environment and be related to less connection to the school.
Environment and behavior. This interaction describes how a person’s behavior
determines aspects of his/her environment, and in turn, how their behavior is altered by
that environment. According to Bandura (2001), it is not just the exposure to a variety of
stimuli, but the individual exploring, manipulating, and influencing the environment that
counts. Cyberbullying can affect both a child’s behavior and environment (Bandura,
2001; Ybarra et al., 2007). Previous research has shown that children who are
cyberbullied have a higher number of detentions and suspensions, as well as poorer
academic performance (Ybarra et al., 2007). If the child is not able to explore the
environment and feel safe within that environment, the child’s behavior may be affected.
17
Cyberbullying has its own environment which is know as cyberspace. When
cyberbullying is used there is a potential for more retaliation and for the rumors, pictures,
text messages and negative posting on a social networking site spread among peers much
faster than traditional forms of bullying would. For example, when a message is posted
on a social networking site such a Facebook, a large number of peers can view the
posting in a short period of time. Adolescents who have pages on social networking site
and with cell phones place such a high value on the interactions they have on the Internet
and through text messaging, which is the reason bullying is so effective within the cyberenvironment (Mishna et al., 2009; Raskauskas 2008).
In addition to cyberspace being an environment that can influence and contribute
to certain behaviors the school environment has also been found to relate to behavior
such as bullying although the relationship between the school environment and
cyberbullying has not been established. The school environment can affect academic
behavior. Bullying at school has been associated with low connection to school, academic
motivation, and poorer academic performance (Graham, Bellmore, & Juvonen, 2003;
Schwartz et al., 2005). Therefore, the current study investigated whether behavior in
cyberspace is also related to connection to school, academic motivation and performance
at school. The relationship of both traditional bullying at school and cyberbullying to
academic performance will be investigated.
18
Traditional Bullying
Traditional bullying is defined as harmful acts done with the intent to harm
another that are repeated or occurring over a period of time, and are characterized by an
imbalance of strength or power, such that the victim does not feel he/she can stop the
interaction (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Olweus, 1993; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007).
There are three main forms of bullying: (a) physical bullying which includes hitting,
kicking, and shoving; (b) verbal bullying such as name-calling, verbal insults and teasing,
and (c) relational aggression which includes both indirect and direct behaviors towards
others. Crick and Grotpeter (1995) have defined relational aggression as behaviors
intended to harm relationships through exclusion from the group or spreading rumors
with the intent to have other peers reject him/her.
Prevalence of Bullying
Surveys of traditional bullying in schools indicate that approximately one quarter
of students is affected. Fitzpatrick, Akilah, and Piko (2007), investigated the prevalence
of bullying among adolescents and the risk factors associated with engaging in bullying
behavior using a cross-sectional sample of 1,542 African American 5th – 12th grade
students. Results indicated that 26% of students surveyed self-reported that they had
bullied someone else within the past year. Nansel et al. (2001) measured the prevalence
of bullying behaviors among a representative sample of 15,686 adolescents in the United
States in grades six through ten to gain a better understanding of how bullying and being
19
bullied impacted social adjustment. Students completed a self-report survey about
involvement in bullying and being bullied by others. A total of 29.9% reported
involvement in bullying but this was further divided into roles: 13% reported that they
bullied others, 10.6% reported being bullied, and 6.3% reported that they had both bullied
and had been bullied. Bullying occurred most often between the 6th and 8th grade then
declining slowly which is on reason that this study examined middle and high school
students’ experiences (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993).
Although the current study has a focus on cyberbullying, the current study involved a
similar population to the research by Nansel et al. (2001) research, as well as like
surveying tools. Understanding traditional bullying and its affects is imperative to
cyberbullying because often times traditional bullying is a gateway to other types of
bullying (Li, 2005).
Gender Differences in Bullying
Research has consistently found gender differences in bullying form and
frequency (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001). Gender differences have been
found for bullying behaviors across all ages in grades 5 – 12, such that boys engage in
traditional forms of bullying than girls and girls participate in relational aggression and
cyberbullying than boys (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Fitzpatrick, Akilah, & Piko, 2007).
Males report both bullying others and being bullied more than females (Nansel et al.,
2001; Olweus, 1993) and research has shown that boys are more aggressive physically
(hitting, pushing, shoving and other physical acts) than girls (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).
20
Males report being bullied through more traditional forms of bullying such as being hit,
slapped, or pushed; while females report being bullied through rumors or sexual
comments (Nansel et al., 2001). However, researchers are beginning to see a rise in
aggression and bullying among girls (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Nansel et al., 2001).
Rumors, sexual comments and exclusion from a group are classified as bullying
through relational aggression. Much like Nansel et al. (2001), Crick and Grotpeter (1995)
found gender differences in relational aggression. Participants included 491 thirdthrough sixth-grader males and females. Results of a peer assessment of overt physical
and verbal aggression indicated that boys (15.6%) were found to be more overtly
aggressive than girls (0.4%). However, when looking at relational aggression, girls
(17.4%) were found to be more relationally aggressive than boys. Thus, girls were more
likely to attempt to harm or make threats to harm another peer relationship than boys
(2.0%). Research by Crick and Grotpeter (1995) would suggest that girls would be more
likely to cyberbullying than boys.
While there is an immense amount of research on traditional bullying in the field
the topic of cyberbullying is still one that is somewhat new with a limited amount of
research. The previous research and literature on traditional bullying will guide the
current investigation and hypotheses with a focus on cyberbullying. The following
section will discuss the current research on cyberbullying including the various forms,
gender differences, effects of cyberbullying and the relationship between traditional
bullying and cyberbullying.
21
Cyberbullying
Adolescents’ expertise and access to technology has recently given rise to a fairly
new form of bullying that occurs through media and not necessarily via face-to-face
interactions at school: cyberbullying. Cyberbullying reflects the meeting of the cyberenvironment that has become part of adolescent social relationships and bullying
behavior. It has been defined as any willful and repeated harm inflicted on another person
by use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008).
Cyberbullying may be done using cell phones by text messaging (text-bullying) or by
picture taking, and by using web sites such as Myspace and Facebook, emails, and online
“slam books” (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007).
Prevalence of Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying occurs through computers, cell phones, and other electronic
devices. However, some forms of cyberbullying seem to be more popular among
adolescents including the internet and cell phones. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) surveyed
1,501 participants ranging in age from 10 -17 years who used the internet. Results
indicated that 12% were bullying others online and 4% were bullied on the internet.
According to Li (2005), victims reported that 22.7% of cyberbully victims were bullied
through email, 36.4% in chat rooms, and 40.9% had been bullied through multiple
sources which included email, chat-rooms and cell phones. However, when cyberbullies
were asked what forms of cyberbullying they had used on victims, over 9% reported they
22
had only used email, 36.4% used only chat rooms, and almost 55% used multiple sources
to cyberbully. Smith et al. (2008) found that phone calls and text message bullying were
most prevalent among all the ways in which participants were cyberbullied. Instant
message was the second most frequent form of cyberbullying found in this study.
Although video bullying was rarer, participants found it to be the one form with the most
negative impact. Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) found that there is an overlap with victims
of one form of cyberbullying being at increased risk for also experiencing other forms.
Although the internet is a common way for cyberbullying to occur, text
messaging is also a very common form of cyberbullying. Raskauskas (2010) surveyed
1,738 males and females from 11-18 years old from New Zealand and results indicated
that 43% had experienced bullying through text messaging at least once. Other research
that has compared different forms of cyberbullying has shown that text-message bullying
is the most common (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith et al., 2008). Based on the
previous research, it was anticipated that text-messaging would be reported by
participants as a common form of cyberbullying.
Gender Differences in Relation to Cyberbullying
Several studies have found gender differences among victims of cyberbullying.
Smith et al. (2008) reported that girls were more often victims of cyberbullying and were
reported to be cyberbullies over boys. Agarston, Kowalski, and Limber (2007), also
examined cyberbullying with 148 middle school and high school students. Results
showed that females more than males found cyberbullying to be a problem, though it was
23
rarely discussed at school. According to Smith et al. (2008), peers stated that the reason
girls used cyberbullying over traditional forms is because girls hold grudges and boys
deal with issues in more of a physical manner than girls. The participants also stated that
boys deal with the issue at hand and then move on and get over the problem. Therefore, it
was of interest in the current study to investigate the idea that there might be gender
differences between traditional bullies and those bullied in traditional ways as well as
cyberbullies and those that were cyberbullied.
Cyberbullying Occurs Inside and Outside of School
Previous research has investigated the overlap of cyberbullying occurring inside
and outside of school. Most school campuses do not allow students to use cell phones on
campus, or school computers for personal use. However, some studies have indicated
participants have in fact been cyberbullied on school grounds. Smith et al. (2008)
conducted two studies of cyberbullying among children 11-16 years old using self-report
surveys and focus groups. Results indicated that adolescents who are victims of
cyberbullying report being bullied outside of school more often than in school.
Participants felt that cyberbullying occurred outside of school more often because,
‘phones are excluded from school’, and ‘inside teachers can track them down and take
the phone’ (p.379). Students stated that cyberbullying occurs outside of school because
no one is checking on them, which keeps the bully out of trouble with school staff.
Similarly, both Agarston et al. (2007), and Raskauskas (2010), found that victims
reported that cyberbullying occurred outside of school more often than in school.
24
Raskauskas (2010) found that of those who were text-bully victims 53% were bullied
after school around town and 87% were bullied at home. Still, 44% had been bullied by
text-messages at school, which may indicate that there is an overlap with some students
being bullied both inside and outside of school. Therefore, it is expected that in the
current study results will indicate that participants who report being victims of
cyberbullying will report being cyberbullied inside and outside of school.
Relationship Between Traditional and Cyberbullying
Because it is a topic debated in the field, the current study examined whether
traditional bullying victims are also cyberbully victims. Li (2005) investigated
adolescents’ experiences with cyberbullying, defined in their study as “bullying that
involves the use of information and communication technologies such as email, cell
phone messages, instant messaging, defamatory personal web sites, and defamatory
online personal polling web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by
an individual or group, that is intended to harm other” (p.3). Results indicated that 54%
of students who were victims of traditional bullying had also been victims of cyber
bullying. One in three had bullied other students using traditional forms of bullying and
almost 15% had bullied other using different forms of cyberbullying.
Similarly, Ybarra, Diener-West, and Leaf (2007) argued that bullying face-to-face
can oftentimes be related to internet bullying. Targets of face-to-face bullying are more
likely to be victims of internet bullying (Ybarra et al., 2007). Ybarra et al. (2007)
25
discussed how technology may increase the chances for bullying for those adolescents
who might otherwise not be targeted. Such findings suggest that it is important to
understand the relationship between traditional bullying and cyberbullying.
Although Ybarra et al. (2007), found there to be little overlap between
cyberbullying and traditional bullying, Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) did find an overlap
between involvement in cyberbullying and traditional bullying. The study included 84
participants between the ages of 13 and 18 years old. Results for this study indicate that
students’ roles (bully or victim) in traditional bullying predicted the same role in
electronic bullying. Results also indicated that being a victim of bullying on the internet,
or via text messaging was related to being a bully at school; however victims of
traditional bullying were not found to be electronic bullies as hypothesized. Similarly,
Smith et al. (2008) found that victims of traditional forms of bullying were also victims
of cyberbullying, and traditional bullies were also found to be cyberbullies.
Smith et al. (2008) asked participants why they felt that students used
cyberbullying over traditional bullying. Students reported that they felt that cyberbullying
is done as a form of entertainment and that often times students get bored and use
cyberbullying as a way to entertain them-selves. Students also felt that the bully lacked
the confidence to face up to the person and might be too scared to do bullying face to face
therefore using cyberbullying.
26
Effects of Cyberbullying
With cyberbullying on the rise, it is imperative to investigate the consequences
effects of this type of bullying. Ybarra et al. (2007) found that students who were victims
of cyberbullying reported being depressed, having more detentions, suspensions, and
skipping school, as well as carrying a weapon than those that were not cyberbullied.
Students who reported cyberbullying that occurred through the Internet also reported they
were more likely to carry a weapon with them for protection. Raskauskas (2010) found
that text-bullying both independently and in connection with traditional bullying was
associated with increased depressive symptoms among adolescents. Since peer
relationships and social acceptance are important to adolescents’ self-esteem, it is
important to understand the psychological, emotional, and social affects that
cyberbullying can have (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). It is also essential to understand what
role cyberbullying may play in school and on academic performance, therefore the
current study focuses on what affects cyberbullying has on academic performance.
Academic Performance in Relation to Bullying/Cyberbullying
Patchin and Hinduja (2006) discussed the importance of peer relationships and
social acceptance during adolescents and the influence poor peer relationships can have
on children. One of the main influences poor peer relationships in school can have is on
academic performance. Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, and Toblin (2005), suggest that
27
peer group maltreatment and bullying during adolescents can lead to a negative influence
on children’s academic performance. Children who are distracted in class due to bullying
tend to fall behind in class and have a difficult time catching back up, which in turn
causes academic problems for years to come. This is an example of how SCT can explain
the relationship of bullying to disengagement from school.
Research has previously shown that traditional bullying by peers is related to low
academic performance and high absenteeism (Graham, Bellmore, & Juvonen, 2003;
Schwartz et al., 2005). In a survey of 785 sixth grade students, Graham et al. (2003)
investigated bullying and its impact on academic involvement. The participants were
largely minority students (primarily African American and Latino) from eight middle
schools. Self-report, peer-report, and teacher-reports indicated that victims of bullying
and harassment had less engagement in school than nonvictims.
Academic performance in relation to cyberbullying is an area that has not
previously been examined. However previous research done by Keith and Martin (2004),
Li (2005), Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007), Stomfay-Stitz et al., (2007), Nansel, et al.
(2001), and Ybarra et al.(2007), suggested that cyberbullying is expected to affect
children in ways similar to traditional bullying. The present study seeks to examine
whether cyberbullying is related to academic performance. It is anticipated that
cyberbullying will be negatively correlated with academic performance.
28
Implications for the Present Study
In summary, research has shown that bullying, both traditional bullying and
cyberbullying have become a phenomena that adolescents are facing more often both in
school and outside of school. Research has also indicated that there are gender
differences when examining traditional forms of bullying and cyberbullying, as well the
negative affects cyberbullying may have on adolescents that are victims of cyberbullying.
Since very few studies have examined the affects cyberbullying has on academic
performance the current study was designed to focus on academic performance and what
influences it may have on adolescents’ performance in school.
The current study is an extension of previous research on bullying and
cyberbullying. The data collected in this study expand the current body of research on the
potential effects of this new form of bullying known as cyberbullying. The research
questions that are drawn from the literature and the theoretical framework are (a) Is there
a relationship between cyberbullying and academic achievement/connection to school,
(b) Is there a relationship between cyberbullying incidences/frequency and grade
/gender? and (c) Are cyberbullying and traditional bullying associated?
It was also of interest to examine the overlap between involvement in
cyberbullying and traditional bullying because this issue is surrounded by debate in the
field (Raskauskas, 2010; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith et al., 2008; Ybarra et al.,
2007).
29
Chapter 3
METHODS
This study examined the relationship between cyberbullying and academic
performance/connection to school among 8th and 9th grade students. This chapter
describes the methods that were used in the study. First the research questions are
revisited, and then the sample and measures are presented. Finally the procedures and
information about the population the sample was drawn from are discussed.
Design and Research Questions
The purpose of the present study was to examine cyberbullying among
adolescents. The two specific research questions which guided the analysis were: (a) Is
there a relationship between cyberbullying and academic achievement/connection to
school?, (b) Is there a relationship between cyberbullying incidences and grade/gender?,
and (c) Are cyberbullying and traditional bullying associated.
It was hypothesized that students who were victims of cyberbullying would report
lower academic performance than those who reported being non-victims. Based on
previous research it was also hypothesized that grade and gender would play a role in the
number of incidences and the frequency in which cyberbullying occurred in that girls
would report more incidents of cyberbullying than boys. The research has been split on
30
whether an overlap between traditional and cyber bullying exists so this research will
examine that relationship without making a specific hypothesis.
Participants
The present study sample included 226 students from four middle schools (8th
grade 58%), and three high school (9th grade, 42%) in Northern California. One hundred
and thirty-three 8th graders and 93 9th graders completed the survey. The age of
participants ranged from 13 to 16 years (M = 14.17, SD = .83), with 37% male and 63%
female. Participants included all students who returned consent forms. .
The population of each school was diverse, both ethnically and economically.
Unlike previous samples, schools with high percentages of Hispanic students and
students receiving free and reduced lunch were well represented in this study. More
information about the schools from which the sample was drawn is provided in Table 1.
31
Table 1
Executive Summary School Accountability Report Card from 2008-2009.
Percentage of Student Enrollment
Caucasian
African
American
Asian
Hispanic
Receiving
free/reduced
lunch
School A
(MS)
5%
24%
27%
39%
99%
School B
(MS)
8%
15%
38%
35%
94%
School C
(MS)
6%
18%
18%
47%
90%
School D
(MS)
6%
26%
40%
22%
91%
School E
(HS)
12%
17%
30%
37%
76%
School F
(HS)
42%
22%
8%
23%
50%
School G
(HS)
17%
23%
32%
21%
48%
Note. MS = Middle School, HS = High School
32
Measures
In this study students were asked to complete a self-report survey. The survey was
part of a larger study being conducted by the researcher’s thesis sponsor and included
several sections and measures (Appendix B). This investigation included the following
sections: (a) Demographic information, (b) Traditional and Cyberbullying, (c) Academic
Performance/Connection to School.
Demographic Information
Students self-reported information on age, gender, grade, and access to cyber
technologies. 100% of students had access to both cell phones and the internet and
therefore were included in this sample.
Cyberbullying
Students were asked five questions about their cyberbullying experiences.
Cyberbullying items were adapted from two instruments: (a) a survey used by Li (2005)
which focused on cyberbullying in schools and (b) a survey used by Raskauskas and
Stoltz (2007). Questions included items about cyberbullying that occur by textmessaging, webpage, posting pictures, chat rooms, social networking sites such as
Myspace, email or instant message, and picture or video phone. Items asked how often
each event had happened from January to the survey completion date at the end of the
Spring semester, a period of five months. Students were given possible responses on a 5-
33
point scale that included: (0) Not at all, (1) Only once, (2) 2 to 3 time a week, (3) Once a
week, and (4) More than once a week. Since Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007), found
differences between different forms of cyberbullying the cyberbullying forms were
examined separately for incidence and frequency and not collapsed into a single scale.
Traditional Bullying
Traditional bullying was assessed using the Peer Relations Questionnaire Short
Form (PRQ; Rigby & Slee, 1993). This self-report measure is commonly used in the field
of bullying and has been found to be valid and reliable with students across this wide
range of ages. Participants were asked 15 PRQ questions which divide across three
subscales: Victimization, Bullying Behavior, and Prosocial Behavior. These included
questions such as, “I like to make new friends”, and “others leave me out of things on
purpose”. Students were given a 4-point scale to answer all questions in this section.
Response selections s consisted of: (1) Never, (2) Once in a while, (3) Petty often, and (4)
Very often. A mean is taken across the items in each subscale to create a subscale score.
All three subscales had acceptable reliability: Victimization (M = .56, SD = .49,
Cronbach alpha = .81), Bullying Behavior (M = .31, SD = .41, Cronbach alpha = .65),
Prosocial Behavior (M = 1.86, SD = .55, alpha = .64).
Academic Performance
Academic performance was assessed in two ways. First, students self-reported their
own academic performance. A single item asked them to rate their performance relative
34
to their peers as below average (0), average (1), or above average (2). In this sample, 9%
of the participants rated themselves as below average, 65% rated themselves as average,
and 26% rated themselves as above average. The overall mean for this scale was 1.17
(SD = .57). Second, Standardized Test and Report (STAR) performance levels in English
and Math were obtained from the district for participating students. The STAR test is a
standardized academic assessment given every year to students. The STAR test results
allowed for the researcher to gain a better understanding of whether and how
cyberbullying was associated with academic performance. The district required name,
year of birth, school, teacher, and gender to be collected to provide STAR test scores.
Therefore, every effort was made to protect the subjects’ right to privacy. The consent
forms and identifying information was kept separate from the surveys.
Math and English STAR test measures were used because these are given to both
grades but they test different content. Because the students came from different grades,
performance level scores rather than raw scores were analyzed. Performance levels are
standardized and indicate performance compared to others in the same grade, whereas
raw scores are not necessarily comparable. STAR test performance levels are as follows
for both English and Math: Far below basic (English, 7.5%; Math, 8.0%), Below Basic
(English, 12.4%; Math, 25.7%), Proficient (English, 25.7%; Math, 22.1%), and Advanced
(English, 15.0%; Math, 8.8%).
35
Connection to School
Scales used by the University of Colorado to conduct a state-wide study of school
violence were included to assess connection to school (Elliott, 2000). Participants were
asked ten questions in this section, including items concerning feelings towards school
such as, “I like school”, and “my teacher really cares about me.” Students were given a 4point Likert scale on which to answer questions: (1) Never true, (2) Sometimes true, (3)
Mostly true, and (4) Always true. A mean was taken across the items for each student (M
= 1.79, SD = .42) to create a composite score. This scale had acceptable internal
consistency with Cronbach alpha of .76.
Procedures
At the beginning of this study, the researcher met with the school district, and
obtained consent to recruit participants from several different school within the district.
At the district’s request schools that were taking part in the California Healthy Kids
survey at this same time were excluded from consideration. Elementary, middle and high
schools within the district were matched for recruitment because the larger study from
which the current sample was drawn was examining behavior across school transitions.
Middle schools were paired with elementary schools that fed into them and a high school
they feed into. Middle schools were selected randomly from the list and then the middle
school and the matched elementary and high schools were invited to participate. Schools
were contacted by email and invited to participate.
36
The student sample for this study was recruited from participating middle schools
and high schools. Only the 8th and 9th grade students are included in the present study
because previous research has shown this to be a critical time period in adolescents’
social and emotional development and the peak of cyber bullying and bullying in schools
(Card & Hodges, 2006; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007).
Three co-occurring classrooms were randomly selected from 8th and 9th grade and
invited to participate. Approximately two weeks before the survey administration the
researcher passed out consent letters describing the purpose and nature of the study for
students to take home for parent signature and return to their classroom teacher
(Appendix A). Consent letters were available to students in English, Spanish and Hmong
to ensure that parents/guardians were properly informed about the nature of the study and
asked parents to choose “yes” or “no” for participation. Surveys were provided only in
English so inability to read English was an exclusion criterion for students. All students
who returned their consent form were given a piece of candy or a glow-in-the dark
silicone bracelet even if parents declined to participate; this was done to encourage return
of consent forms. Of the consent letters sent home with students, 226 completed the
surveys, which is a 29.4% return rate across the schools.
Surveys were administered in classrooms at the various schools by the researcher.
All measures were administered at the same time and all participating students in each
classroom completed the survey at the same time. Students were given as much time as
they needed in order to complete the survey. All information regarding the proposed
study was given orally before the administration then surveys were completed silently
37
and independently by students. Only those students who returned consent forms
participated in the survey; those who did not return consent forms were asked to complete
an alternate assignment quietly at their desks while surveys were being completed.
Precautions were taken to protect confidentiality of students’ answers and for their
protection no items asked students to identify specific bullies at their school.
The cover sheet of the survey asked students for identifying information so that
STAR scores could be obtained from the district. Upon collection of the completed
surveys, the cover sheet was separated from the survey ensuring that survey responses
were kept confidential and separate from any identifying information. The researcher
assigned numbers to match the identifying information and surveys. Student information
was sent to the district as an excel file and STAR test information for the same school
year was returned to the researcher. At no point did the school or district office have
access to student survey responses.
Summary
This chapter described the methods used to conduct a study of bullying,
cyberbullying, and relationships to academic performance and connection to school. The
analysis of these data is reported in the following chapter. The following chapter will
look at frequencies of cyberbullying, look for gender and grade differences using t-tests
and chi square and look for relationship between bullying, cyberbullying, and school
factors such as academic performance, STAR tests, and connection to school.
38
Chapter 4
RESULTS
This chapter reports the results of a survey designed to investigate links between
cyberbullying and academic achievement. The research questions that guided the
analyses focused on: (a) Is there a relationship between cyberbullying and academic
achievement/connection to school?, (b) Is there a relationship between the number of
cyberbullying incidences/frequency and grade /gender?, and (c) Are cyberbullying and
traditional bullying associated?
Prevalence of Cyberbullying
To examine the prevalence of the various forms of cyberbullying, the researcher
computed frequencies for students’ responses related to each form of bullying. These
frequencies are reported as percentages in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, most
participants did not report being cyberbullied “since January.” The majority of
participants that did report bullying reported only one occurrence. Text messaging and
social networking sites were the most frequent forms of cyberbullying identified.
In this study 24.3% of students had been a victim of cyber-bullying at least once
during the current semester and these students were assigned to the cyber-victim group.
Students were classified as victims of cyberbullying if they had been bullied 2 or more
times by any of the cyber means assessed (N = 55). These victim and non-victim groups
were used for comparisons in subsequent analyses.
39
Table 2
Percentage of Students Reporting Forms of Bullying
Text
Message
n= 226
Webpage
n= 225
Social
Sites
n= 223
IM/Email
n= 222
Pictures/Video
n= 224
Not at all
88.1
89.8
87.9
90.5
93.3
Only once
7.5
6.2
7.6
5.4
4.0
2 or 3 times
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.2
1.3
Once a week or
more
.4
0.0
0.8
1.0
1.3
Relationship between Cyberbullying and Academic Achievement
To examine the relationship between types of cyberbullying and academic
achievement, correlations were conducted between each form of cyberbullying, the selfreport measure of academic achievement, STAR performance levels, and the related
factor of connection to school (Table 3). The majority of correlations between academic
achievement and the different forms of cyberbullying were low, ranging from .02 to .13,
none of which were significant.
The exception was STAR Math performance level which showed a low to
moderate relationship with text-message cyberbullying, r = -.22, p < .01. This negative
correlation indicates that students reporting more text-message bullying had lower levels
40
of performance in Math, but this was not the case for English performance levels or selfreport academic performance.
When looking at connection to school scores there were no significant relations
with cyberbullying forms, but there was a moderate correlation between academic
achievement and connection to school. This was true for self-reported academic
achievement (r = .27, p < .01), STAR Math (r = .17, p < .05), and STAR English (r = .18,
p < .05). This indicates that the higher the reported connection to school the higher the
student’s academic performance. A comparison of cyberbullying victims (N = 54, M =
1.69, SD = 1.16) and non-cyber-victims (N = 151, M = 2.09, SD = 1.10) showed that they
differed significantly on the STAR Math Performance level, t(203) = 2.262, p = .03, d = .35, but not on STAR English or self-report of academic performance.
All forms of cyberbullying were shown to be significantly correlated with each
other. As shown in Table 3, the highest correlations were between social networking sites
and IM/emails, r = .69, p < .01. Webpages and Pictures/Video bullying also showed a
higher correlation, r = .60, p < .01 and webpages and IM/Emails r = .50, p < .01. It was
also of interest that most correlations were positive correlations with very few negative
correlations found between the different forms of bullying. This indicates that the various
forms of cyberbullying may co-occur, which is consistent with Raskauskas and Stoltz’s
(2007) findings.
41
Table 3
Intercorrelations between Study Measures
1
1
S.A.R.P.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.00
2
English
.41**
1.00
3
Math
.32**
.65**
-.02
-.05
-.22**
1.00
5
Web-page
.04
-.03
-.01
.18**
1.00
6
Social Sites
-.05
-.01
-.03
.20**
.37**
1.00
7
IM/Email
.02
-.08
-.03
.25**
.50**
.69**
1.00
.13
-.08
-.04
.22**
.60**
.28**
.41**
1.00
.27**
.18*
.17*
-.11
-.06
.01
.04
.01
4
Text
Message
8
Pictures/
Video
9
Connect to
School
9
1.00
1.00
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01; S.R.A.P = Self Report Academic Performance, English = STAR
English Performance Level, Math = STAR Math Performance Level.
42
Gender and Grade Differences
To gain a better understanding of the differences of incidence and frequency
between boys and girls, they were compared on cyberbullying scores. First, a Chi Square
analysis was conducted to compare boys and girls on whether or not they had been
victims of cyberbullying. The Chi Square indicated a significant difference with girls
(74%) making up more victims than boys (26%), χ2 (1, N = 226) = 4.271, p < .05. Nonvictims meanwhile were 41% boys and 59% girls.
Independent t- tests were used to compare boys and girls on the frequency of
different forms of cyberbullying (Table 4). Significant differences were found between
boys and girls on cyberbullying by webpage with girls reporting being cyberbullied more
by webpages than boys. Other comparisons failed to reach significance.
Table 4
Gender Comparisons on Cyberbullying
Males
M
SD
.53
Females
M
SD
t
df
p
d
.20
.52
.91
224
.36
-0.13
Text
.13
Webpages
.05
.27
.20
.52
2.87
218
.01
-0.38
Social Sites
.11
.35
.22
.63
1.71
219
.09
-0.22
IM/Email
.08
.32
.19
.61
1.64
217
.10
-0.24
Pictures/Video .05
.27
.16
.65
1.83
205
.07
-0.24
43
Chi square and t-tests were also conducted done to examine grade differences
among victims and frequency of cyberbullying forms; however there were no significant
differences between eighth and ninth graders on incidence or frequency of cyberbullying.
Relationship between Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying
It was also of interest to examine the relationship between cyberbullying and
traditional bullying. The two groups; cyber-victims (n = 55) and non-victims (n =171)
were compared on the subscales of the PRQ. For comparison on the victimization
subscale findings indicated that cyber-victims (M = .87, SD = .56) reported significantly
more victimization at school than non-victims (M = .47, SD = .43), t (224) = -5.53,
p = .000, d = 0.81. T-tests comparing cyber-victims and students who had not been
cyberbullied on traditional bullying behavior and prosocial behavior were not significant.
Conclusion
As discussed above, most participants did not report being cyberbullied during the
time period this study focused on. However, participants who did report cyberbullying
indicated that text messaging and social networking sites were the most common forms
of cyberbullying. The correlations between academic achievement and the different
forms of cyberbullying failed to reach significance, except for STAR Math. There was,
however, a moderate correlation between academic achievement and connection to
school. A relationship between traditional victimization and cyberbullying was found.
44
When comparing gender and age there was a significant differences found between boys
and girls on cyberbullying by webpage with girls reporting more bullying. This study
found no significant differences between 8th and 9th grade students and cyberbullying.
The following chapter discusses the results of this study in further detail.
45
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
This study investigated cyberbullying that occurs through the internet and through
other electronic devices such as cellular phones. The aim was to gain a better
understanding of how serious and frequent a problem cyberbullying is for 8th and 9th
grade students. This research contributes to the existing research on cyberbullying and
provides a better understanding of how cyberbullying varies by gender, and how
cyberbullying relates to academic performance and students’ connection to school. The
following chapter discusses the findings of the research with a focus on, (a) the
prevalence of cyberbullying; (b) the relationship between cyberbullying and academic
achievement; (c) gender and grade differences; and (d) relationship between
cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Finally, limitations, recommendations, and areas
of future research are discussed.
Prevalence of Cyberbullying
Students in this study did not report frequent cyberbullying. A total of 24.3% of
students had been cyberbullied at least once in the present semester, but the majority of
participants reported only one occurrence. As found in previous research text messaging
and social networking sites were the most frequent forms of cyberbullying identified
46
(Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Picture and video messaging was reported most by those
that were cyberbullied more than once a week. According to Raskauskas and Stoltz
(2007) and Patchin and Hinduja (2006), this may be due to the fact that cell phones have
become popular among adolescents, are easily available, are perceived as a status
symbol, and allow for conversation with friends in different physical space, making it a
common way for adolescents to communicate and bully one another.
It is interesting to note that pictures and video message bullying has not been
identified as a common form of cyberbullying in previous studies however in the current
study it was reported most by those that reported cyberbullying more than once a week.
According to Smith et al. (2008), it is expected that this form of cyberbullying can be
chosen by students because it can be sent to a wide audience in real time from cell phones
with photo and email capabilities. Li (2005) discussed an important point about why
cyberbullying, specifically text bullying and picture/video bullying, occurs most often.
Text bullying and picture/video bullying allows for anonymity and children are
less afraid that they will be caught, therefore making it a common form of cyberbullying.
Another reason for the higher number of students reporting this type of bullying is most
likely due to the age of the participants. Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) stated that middle
school and high school aged children tend to use forms of cyberbullying that allow for
anonymity. The cell phone also allows adolescents to communicate through picture and
video messaging. This allows for inappropriate pictures, videos of students fighting and
other forms of bullying to circulated among adolescents - which in this study was a
common way in which bullying occurred.
47
Results also indicated that all forms of cyberbullying were significantly correlated
with each other. The highest correlations were between social networking sites and
IM/emails. Webpages and Pictures/Video bullying also showed a higher correlation as
well as webpages and IM/Emails. This indicates that there was a relationship between the
various forms of cyberbullying such that victims of one type were more at risk for others.
The various forms of cyberbullying may co-occur and victims may experience
cyberbullying through more than one form at any given time. These findings are similar
to those of previous studies that also found there to be an overlap between various forms
of victimization by cyberbullying (Raskauskas, 2010; Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007; Smith
et al., 2008).
Relationship between Cyberbullying and Academic Achievement
Previous research has shown that children who are cyberbullied have issues in the
school environment with negative behaviors such as a higher number of detentions and
suspensions (Ybarra et al., 2007). According to SCT, the environment and the individuals
behavior determines aspects of their environment, and in turn, how their behavior is
altered by that environment. Therefore it is important to understand how cyberbullying
affects the school environment in terms of academics. This is the first study to examine
the relationship of cyberbullying to academic performance and connection to school.
In this study results indicated few connections between academic achievement
and the different forms of cyberbullying. Neither self-reported academic performance nor
48
STAR English performance level were significantly related with any form of
cyberbullying. STAR Math performance level was negatively associated with
cyberbullying, specifically text-message bullying. It is possible this is spurious due to
Type I error, and may be because an additional variable was influencing one or more of
the variables. There is a chance that STAR Math performance level and cyberbullying
were associated because people who are comfortable and score high in math tend to also
be people who use technology more often, which gives greater opportunity to be
cyberbullied. Previous research on traditional bullying has not looked at differential
associations between cyberbullying and different areas of academics so there is no
research to guide speculation. Future research should further explore the relationship of
bullying and cyberbullying to different areas of academic especially among middle and
high school students. Future research should also attempt to replicate these findings with
different samples and including objective measures such as student grade point average
(GPA).
Interestingly, there was what may be an indirect relationship between academic
performance and cyberbullying through connection to school. A moderate correlation
between all measures of academic performance and connection to school was found, as
well as connection to school and cyberbullying which may indicate a mediating
relationship. According to Schwartz et al. (2005), children fall behind in class when they
are distracted by unpleasant experiences with peers which in turn, lead to low academic
performance. Further research is needed to test such mediating models of the relationship
between connection to school and academic performance, with the use of more objective
49
measures. The fact that this study used self-report may be masking effects on academic
performance.
Gender and Grade Differences
Based on previous research it was also hypothesized that grade and gender would
play a role in the number of incidences and the frequency in which cyberbullying
occurred. More specifically, it was expected that girls would report more incidents of
cyberbullying than boys. Consistent with previous research, the results of the current
study indicated that more victims of cyberbullying were girls than boys. Significant
differences were found between boys and girls on frequency of cyberbullying but only by
webpage with girls reporting more bullying than boys. It was not a surprise to find that
more girls reported bullying through webpages and other forms of cyberbullying. Girls
also reported cyberbullying by social networking sites and pictures/videos over boys.
Smith et al. (2008) had similar finding and stated that girls are more involved in indirect
and relational bullying than boys. It is unclear why gender differences were not found for
the other forms. Future research should try to replicate and explain these differences.
In the current study there were no significant differences between eighth and ninth
graders on incidence or frequency of forms of cyberbullying. However, previous research
has indicated that 6th through 8th grade students report higher numbers of incidents of
bullying and victimization than 9th and 10th grade students (Smith et al., 2008). Similarly,
Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) and Smith et al. (2008), found that older children (15 and
50
older) were more often found to be using the internet and other forms of cyberbullying.
Younger children tend to use more traditional forms of bullying such as hitting and
pushing and move towards the indirect and relational forms of bullying (Smith et al.,
2008). Ybarra and Mitchell found that youth who were 15-17 years old where more likely
than youth 10-12 year old to report engaging in cyberbullying. It is not clear why these
findings differ, results of the current study may have shown differences in age had there
been a larger sample size population surveyed or if a larger percentage of students had
reported cyberbullying. Future research should continue to investigation these
relationships with larger samples and samples with larger representation of cyber victims
to increase the statistical power to identify differences and trends.
Relationship between Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying
Findings from the current study indicated that cyber-victims reported more
traditional victimization at school than non-victims. According to Raskauskas and Stoltz
(2007), bullies and victims often carry their roles across context, with those who are
bullies in school through traditional forms also engaging in cyberbullying, and those who
are victims of traditional bullying also experiencing cyberbullying. Smith et al. (2008)
had similar findings in that many victims reported being both cyberbully victims as well
as traditional victims, and those that were cyberbullies were also found to be traditional
bullies. These findings are not consistent with Ybarra et al. (2007) who showed no
significant overlap with cyberbullying and traditional bullying. However, their definition
51
of cyberbullying was more limited than the one used in the current study which may
account for the different findings. However, the nature of this overlap is a topic still
debated in the field. Therefore, future studies need to take a deeper look at the
relationship between cyberbullying and traditional bullying.
Implications
Although the current study reflects a small population of adolescents that are being
affected by cyberbullying, this study and its finding are beneficial to both parents and
school staff. Many schools have a “no bullying” policy which is enforced when the
bullying becomes known. However, much cyberbullying occurs off school campus
(Raskauskas, 2010; Smith et al., 2008). Schools then imagine that it is not their problem.
However this research indicates that it is the responsibility of schools because (a) it is
related to bullying at school, and (b) it is associated with poorer academic performance
both directly and indirectly through connection to school. Therefore, schools need to
consider including cyberbullying in school polices and training staff to be aware of it and
its possible effects. Using the framework of SCT teachers and school personnel may also
gain a better understanding of how behavioral, cognitive, and environmental factors can
interact to show how cyberbullying can potentially affect a child academically.
52
Limitations
It is important to report the limitations of the current study for those interested in
doing future research. One limitation was the methods used to collect the data. Self-report
surveys were used to collect data for all variables, except the STAR test. This may
introduce bias either by using the same format for all variables or by students reporting
incorrectly or in a manner that they feel is socially acceptable. Future research should
include focus groups, and playground and classroom observations. This will allow
researchers to gain a better understanding of what is happening in the classroom as well
as on the playground when teachers are not present. This would also allow for some
students to verbalize their feels and what they feel is occurring as far as bullying on their
school campus.
A second limitation was the way academic performance was measured. The use
of self-report and Standardized STAR Test performance levels for Math and English
gives a limited academic picture. Future research should use more objective measure,
such as GPA or other related factors such as whether they go to college or complete high
school, participation in school activities, academic motivation or attitudes to school.
The current study was correlational in design. As such, no cause can be inferred,
therefore future research should look longitudinal to see whether cyberbullying is causing
reductions in academic performance or whether those with poor performance are targeted
at a higher rate for bullying.
53
A final limitation concerns the relatively small sample size. Previous research on
bullying has included a much larger number of participants. This study however included
226 total participants but they were from across seven schools in the greater Sacramento
area and only represented 29% of eligible students. With a small number of participants
involved in this total study only a small percentage reported cyberbullying which makes
group comparisons questionable and may have contributed to small effect sizes. Future
research should include a larger and more diverse population of participants. Despite
these limitations, these findings add to our understanding of cyberbullying and its
potential consequences for academic achievement.
54
APPENDIX A
Parent Information Sheet for Child Participation
55
Bullying And Academic Performance At School
PARENT INFORMATION SHEET FOR CHILD PARTICIPATION
Researcher Introduction
My name is Dr. Juliana Raskauskas and I am an Assistant Professor of Child Development at
Sacramento State University’s College of Education. I am interested in bullying in schools,
specifically how it affects students’ feelings about school and performance on standardized tests.
All of the students in your child’s class are being invited to participate in this research.
Importance of the Research
Understanding the relationship between bullying and academic achievement may help in the
formation of bullying prevention programs. It is important that participants represent all students’
experiences and include those who have been bullied, those who bully others, and those who have
not been bullied.
Participant Recruitment
Eight (8) schools in the Sacramento area have been selected to participate in this study
(elementary, middle school, and high schools). At the elementary schools all students in 5th grade
are being invited to participate. A random selection of 6th and 8th grade classrooms at the middle
schools, and 9th grade classrooms at the high schools are being invited to take part.
Approximately 800 students across all of the schools are eligible.
Project Procedures
If your child takes part in this study, he or she will be asked to complete a confidential
questionnaire. Questions ask about their experiences with bullying at school, their perceptions of
their school climate, and their academic motivation. No questions ask your child to identify
specific bullies. You may request to see a copy of the survey from the researcher, please email or
call using the contact information at the end of this letter. A copy of the survey is also available
in the school office for you to review.
To examine the relationship of bullying to academic performance your child’s STAR test scores
in Mathematics and English/Language Arts will be obtained from the school district office and
matched with their scores on the survey.
Your child’s name will be used to obtain STAR test scores but will not be associated with the
surveys they complete. The STAR scores and survey responses will be entered into a password
protected data file on my office computer for analysis and surveys will be stored in a filing
cabinet at the University. Students will be assigned identification (ID) numbers and their scores
will not be associated with their name in the data file. After five years the surveys will be
destroyed.
This research will be used for scholarly journal articles and presentations; however no child or
school will be identifiable. Scores will be reported as a group and not individually.
56
Participant Involvement
As stated above, if your child takes part in this research they will be asked to complete a
confidential questionnaire. This will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your child will
complete the questionnaire in their classroom with the researcher, while students who do not
participate will work with the classroom teacher on another task.
Risks and Benefits
Some children are uncomfortable or distressed by answering questions about bullying, especially
if in a classroom that includes the child bullying them. Questions ask about specific bullying
incidents however no questions will ask them to name specific bullies. Children have the right to
skip any questions they do not want to answer or to stop at any time. Your child will be reminded
of the school counseling services and school procedures for reporting bullying prior to the survey
in case they wish to use these resources. A school counselor will be on site the day of the survey
to talk to any children who are upset by survey items.
You or your child will not receive any direct compensation for participating in this study.
However, a summary of results will be made available to participating schools and parents.
Findings will be pooled across schools and no individual classrooms or students will be
identified. If you would like to receive a copy of the summary of results please provide your
mailing information below.
Participant Rights
Participation is completely voluntary; you and your child are under no obligation to participate.
Refusal to participate will not disadvantage your student in any way. Your child has the right to
decide not to answer any particular question and to stop the survey at any time.
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact Dr. Juliana Raskauskas at (916)
278-7029 or by e-mail at jraskauskas@csus.edu.
Your child’s participation in this research is entirely voluntary. Your signature below indicates
that you have read this consent form and agree to allow your child to participate.

YES I give permission for my child, _____________________________ to complete the
survey. I also authorize Sacrament Unified School District to release information on my
child’s STAR test scores for 2008 to researchers at Sacramento State University.
________________________________
Signature of Parent/Guardian

____________________
Date
NO, I do not give permission for my child to participate in this study.
If you would like to receive a copy of the summary of findings at the conclusion of this research,
please provide your mailing address below:
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
57
APPENDIX B
Bullying in Schools Survey
58
Bullying in Schools Survey
Thank you for agreeing to complete our survey. Before you begin the questions please
complete the personal information below. This information will be removed from your
survey and stored in a separate place. This information is important for matching your
survey with your STAR test scores. Remember that all information you provide here
and on the survey will be kept confidential.
Your full name ____________________________________________________
Your school ______________________________________________________
Your teacher’s name_______________________________________________
Year you were born _________________________
How old are you now:_______ years old
What grade are you in school (Circle one):
5
What is your gender (Circle one):
Boy
6
7
8
9
10
Girl
How are you doing in school? Would you say your grades are…
□ Above average
□ Average
□ Below average
Which of the following electronic devices do you have access to? (check all that apply)
□ Computer with email
□ Webpage (Myspace, Facebook, Classmate)
□ Cell phone with text-messaging capabilities
□ Cell phone with picture taking capabilities
□ Cell phone with video recording capabilities
59
Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey. Please choose the best response to each
item below. The questions will ask about your relationships at school, bullying at
school, and your attitudes to school.
Tell Us About Your Relationships At School
Written below is a list of things that some people do at school. For each statement you
need to decide how often this is true of you. To do this circle one of the answers
underneath each statement.
2.
I get called names by other kids.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
3.
I like to make new friends.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
4.
I get picked on by other kids.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
5.
I am part of a group that goes around teasing other kids.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
6.
I like to help people who are being harassed.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
7.
I like to make others scared of me.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
8.
Others leave me out of things on purpose.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
9.
I get into fights at school.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
10.
I like to show others that I’m the boss.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
11.
I share things with other kids.
Never
Once in a while
Very Often
13.
Pretty Often
I like to get into a fight with someone I can easily beat.
60
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
14.
Others make fun of me.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
15.
I get hit and pushed around by other kids.
Never
Once in a while
Pretty Often
Very Often
16.
I enjoy helping others.
Never
Once in a while
Very Often
Pretty Often
61
Tell Us About Your School
Now you will be given some statements of how some kids feel about school. Please
circle how true each statement is for you.
17.
I like school.
Never True
Sometimes True
Mostly True
Always True
18.
Most days I look forward to going to school.
Never True
Sometimes True
Mostly True
Always True
19.
I try hard in school.
Never True
Sometimes True
Mostly True
Always True
20.
My teacher tells me when I do a good job.
Never True
Sometimes True
Mostly True
Always True
21.
My teacher listens when I have something to say.
Never True
Sometimes True
Mostly True
Always True
22.
My teacher really cares about me.
Never True
Sometimes True
Mostly True
Always True
23.
I like my teacher.
Never True
Sometimes True
Mostly True
Always True
24.
I feel lonely at school
Never True
Sometimes True
Mostly True
Always True
25.
I have a friend my age at school who cares about me.
Never True
Sometimes True
Mostly True
Always True
26.
I have enough friends at school.
Never True
Sometimes True
Always True
Mostly True
62
Bullying At School
The following questions will ask about bullying that occurs at school. Please choose the
best answer for each item. Bullying means that these things happened more than once,
that the action hurt you, either physically or so that you felt bad, and that they were
hard to stop. Bullying can include hitting, kicking, or the use of force in any way. It can
also be teasing, making rude gestures, name-calling, or leaving you out. It is not
considered bullying if people of equal strength fight or fighting are done in a playful
manner.
27.
This year how often have you been picked on by kids at school?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week
More than once a week
28.
This year how often have you been pushed around or hit at school?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week
29.
This year how often have kids said mean things to you at school?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week
More than once a week
30.
This year how often have kids say mean things about you to other kids behind
your back?
Not at all
Only Once 2 or 3 Times
Once a Week More than once a week
31.
This year how often have you picked on other kids?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week
32.
This year how often have you pushed around or hit kids at school?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week
33.
This year how often have you said mean things to kids at school?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week
34.
This year how often have you said mean things about other kids behind their
back?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week
63
35.
This year how often have you been bullied by text-messages?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week
a. If yes, did you know who was bullying you? Yes
No
b. If yes, was it someone from school? Yes
No
c. If yes, was it someone who was also bullying you at school? Yes
No
35.
This year how often have you been bullied online by creating webpages or
posting pictures?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week
a. If yes, did you know who was bullying you? Yes
No
b. If yes, was it someone from school? Yes
No
c. If yes, was it someone who was also bullying you at school? Yes
No
36.
This year how often have you been bullied in chatrooms or group sites like
MySpace?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week
a. If yes, did you know who was bullying you? Yes
No
b. If yes, was it someone from school? Yes
No
c. If yes, was it someone who was also bullying you at school? Yes
No
37.
This year how often have you been bullied by email or instant messaging?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week
a. If yes, did you know who was bullying you?
Yes
No
b. If yes, was it someone from school? Yes
No
c. If yes, was it someone who was also bullying you at school? Yes
No
38.
This year how often have you been bullied by picture or video phone?
Not at all
Only Once
2 or 3 Times Once a Week More than once a week
a. If yes, did you know who was bullying you?
Yes
No
b. If yes, was it someone from school? Yes
No
c. If yes, was it someone who was also bullying you at school? Yes
No
64
REFERENCES
Agatston, P., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students’ perspective on cyber bullying.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S59-S60.
Bandura, A. (1977) Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.
Psychology Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective, Annual Review of
Psychology, 52 (1), 1-26.
Card, N. & Hodges, E. (2006). Shared targets for aggression by early adolescent friends.
Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1327-1338.
Cowie, H. (1999). Children in need: The role of peer support. In M. Woodhead, D.
Faulkner & K. Littleton (Eds.), Making Sense of Social Development, 137150). New York, Routledge.
Crick, N. & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological
Adjustment. Child Development, 66, 610-722.
Elliott, D.S., Grady, J.M., Shaw, T. E., & Beaulieu, M. T. (2000). Safe Communities,
Safe Schools planning guide: A tool for community violence prevention.
Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
Espelage, D. & Swearer, S. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What
have we learned & where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3),
pp. 365-383.
Fitzpatrick, K., Akilah, D., & Bettina, P. (2007). Not pushing and shoving: School
bullying among adolescents. Journal of School Health, 77(1), 16-22.
Frisen, A., Holmqvist, K., & Oscarsson, D. (2008). 13-year-olds’ perception of bullying:
definitions, reasons for victimization and experience of adults’ response.
Educational Studies , 34(2), 105-117.
Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health Behavior and Health Education.
Theory, Research and Practice. San Fransisco: Wiley & Sons.
65
Graham, S., Bellmore, A., & Juvonen, J. (2003). Peer victimization in middle school:
When self- and peer views diverge. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19,
117 – 137.
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors
related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129-156.
Keith, S. & Martin, M. (2004).Cyber-Bullying: Creating a culture of respect in a cyber
world. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and
Cognition, 33(2),137-157.
Li, Q. (2005). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1777-1791.
Miller, P.H. (2002). Theories of developmental psychology, fourth edition.
New York: Worth Publishers.
Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s
perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31,
1222-1228.
MSNBC (2008). Cyberbullying Death. MSNBC Online News. Retrieved from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id.21844203.
Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., Simons-Morton, B., Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with
psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16),
2094-2100.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Patchin, J.W. & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary
look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2): 148-169.
Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying
among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564-575.
Raskauskas, J. (2010). Text-bullying: Associations with traditional bullying and
depression among New Zealand adolescents. Journal of School Violence, 9,
74-97.
66
Rigby, K. & Slee, P.T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relating among Australian
school children and their implications for psychological well-being. Journal of
Social Psychology, 133(1), 33-42
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamota, J., & Tobin, R. L. (2005). Victimization in the
peer group and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97(3) 425 – 435.
Smith, P., Mahavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49:4, 376-385.
Stomfay-Stitz, A. & Wheeler, E. (2007). Cyberbullying and our middle school girls.
Childhood Education, 83(5), 308.
Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and
synthesis of research on cyberbullying and victimization. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26, 277-287.
Ybarra, M., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. (2007). Examining the overlap in the internet
harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, S42-S50.
Ybarra, M. & Mitchell, K. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressor, and targets: A
comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 45(7), 1308-1316.