Cyber-Bullying and Gender Differences - Literature review Example

CYBER-BULLYING AND GENDER DIFFERENCES IN EDUCATION SID: 1129764 MODULE MOD001293 MODULE RESEARCH 2: DEVELOPING UNDERSTANDING Cyber-Bullying and Gender Differences Literature review This literature review will extensively discuss the effects of cyber bullying and its relationship to gender difference. The review of literature will seek to focus on the correlation between Cyber-Bullying and Gender Differences. The rationale of researching on this topic is to gain insights as to the reasoning and motivation of cyber bullies and the effects in the education system. With the increase in the usage of technology and accessibility of the internet, this topic is highly relevant to the society today. Traditional bullying and gender difference Traditional bullying is defined as the intentional, malicious, verbal or physical harassment of another person with at least one occurrence (Olweus, 1993). It is therefore notable that there are four themes that seem to exist that is; intention, harm, repeated occurrence and an imbalance of power. Repetition is a common theme that is involved in the literature on bullying, this describes the time frame and number of occurrences of the harassment; bullying is said to exist if it occurs over and over again during an extended period of time (Olweus, 1993). There are mixed results in the part of traditional bullying. Some research has concluded that there is no statistical significant in gender difference existence in relation to participation in bullying, as either a bully or a target (Sentenac, M., Gavin, A., Arnaud,C., Molcho,M., Godeau, E., 2011). Some research suggested that males have predominantly succumbed physical harassment while female were primary assailants of psychological bullying (Nabuzoka, 2003). A recent study in the United States have implicated males to be bullied at around 17% while those who bullied others stood at 12% in a frequency of 2-3 times per month (Olweus & Limber, 2011). In a study that was examining bullying behaviors in 40 countries, between 8.6% and 45.6% of males were exposed to bullying (Craig, H., Fogel-Grinvald,D. & Hetland,S., 2009). It was important to note that males reported verbal victimization, physical victimization and verbal bullying and very less relational victimization (Craig, H., Fogel-Grinvald, D. & Hetland,S., 2009). When it comes to females there was as study that was carried out on over 500,000 students nationwide from the results of the study, it was depicted that 16.1% of females reported that they were bullied and 7% acted as bullies 2-3 times over the past month (Olweus and Limber, 2011). According to (Craig, H., Fogel-Grinvald,D. & Hetland,S., 2009), 4.8% to 35.8% of females were exposed to bullying behavior. The participation that females involved themselves in was more psychological bullying activities such as name calling and teasing, as compared to male who engaged in physical forms of bullying (Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B. & Scheidt, P. 2001). This includes fighting and other forms of bodily harm. Forms of Cyber bullying We can’t shy away from the fact that in this generation children and adolescents are growing in a digital era. It is estimated that over 90% of adolescents use the internet, with the estimates ranging from 93% to 97% of American adolescent being online (Lenhart, Madden, Macgill, & Smith, 2007). Although this technological advancement is so much beneficial it is important to bear in mind that it can cause negative influence in the society, notably, cyberspace may become a burgeoning venue for bullying peers (Kowalski &Limber, 2007). Cyber bullying is exclusively a new phenomenon and researchers have indicated that it has lacked so much scholarly devotion and they call upon on more empirical research on this area. There are numerous terms that are used to refer to cyber bullying such as electronic bullying, e-bullying, online harassment, and Internet bullying and online social cruelty. There are different types of cyber bullying that occur through different technological mediums. The behaviors that can take form of cyber bulling can either be directly or indirectly, directly by threatening someone and indirectly by spreading (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Cyber bullying is prevalent through information technology that students access every day, this include internet messaging such as What Sapp or Facebook, cell phones, text messages, email, social networks pictures and video clips. Cyber bullying can take place 24/7 and from anywhere. There are eight distinct forms of harassment which cyber bullying can take form: flaming, harassment, denigration, impersonation, outing and trickery, exclusion, cyber-stalking and cyber-threats (Willard, 2007). Difference between traditional and cyber bullying and the relation to gender differences It has been debated whether traditional bullying and cyber bulling are two different spectacles or if they form part of the same expression. In comparison to traditional bullying, cyber bulling has no distinct definition and this has brought about debate on whether there should be a different definition from that of traditional bullying. The definition of cyber bullying has so much reliance on the definition of traditional bullying. The intentional and recurrent harm that is imposed through the use of computers, cell phone or any other electronic devices is cyber bullying (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Cyber bullying differs from traditional bullying in many important aspects. The youth have wide access to the internet and mobile phones, due to this fact it can take place outside the school environment anywhere and anytime. This makes cyber bullying to be omnipresent resulting in an increase of victim’s vulnerability (Nabuzoka, 2003). Cyber bullies can maintain a sense of anonymity by using pennames in an online environment. This aspect that cyber bullies can create of anonymity whereby there is no face-to-face contact can cause a great feeling of disinhibit ion among cyber bullies as compared to traditional bullies (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). About 31% of adolescents reported that they had said something in a text message that they would otherwise not have said on a face-to-face scenario. In this case, adolescents use technology to communicate things they would otherwise not have said on direct contact because they feel they are protected by the technology they are using which makes them feel immune. Another significant difference from the traditional bullying is that cyber bullying has the capacity to reach a wide audience; when a cyber-attack is posted in a public forum it is easily shared (Nabuzoka, 2003). As long as people sing in to different social sites and internet websites, they get access to massive forms of content. A cyber-attack attracts a large mass of internet users the moment they sign in the internet. Unlike the tradition forms of bulling where only bullying took place on the playground, cyber bullying now takes place anywhere and in any time since the internet can be accessed anytime through different devices such as phones, tables and iPod’s. More targets can be harassed through cyber bullying with very minimal effort required by the bully who in most cases can use emotional amnipulations and appeals. National Crime Prevention Council conducted a research that indicated that more females (51%) are prone to be cyber bullies as compared to 37% of males. Females are also more susceptible to be targets of cyber bullying than males. The females are also likely to be victims of cyber bullying as compared to the gender of male by means such as of messages and phone calls (Patchin & Hinduja, 2009). Given these differences of traditional and cyber bullying, an important question that may arise is whether the gender differences depicted in the tradition environment also holds for cyber bullying. Some researchers have suggested that girls are more likely to engage in cyber bullying than in traditional forms of bullying (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). The strong verbal abilities that are possessed among girls make it easy for them to deliver attacks on electronic text. Girls feel more disinhibited interacting with others through online media as compared to face-to-face encounters. A meta-analysis research suggested that boys are more physically aggressive than girls, on this note it is important to bear in mind that there are some forms of cyber bullying that involve physical aggression (Nabuzoka, 2003). Cyber bullying and gender differences Numerous studies have attempted to determine if there are any gender differences that are involved within cyber bullying. Most of the researches in this area have indicated that girls are just as likely as, or more likely than boys to be involved with cyber bullying. Patchin & hinduja, (2011), from their study reported that 21.8% of the girls and 19.5% of the boys were victims of cyber bullying. This can somehow suggest that girls are more vulnerable to cyber bulling. Boys tend to involve themselves with bulling that is more aggressive, mostly practice it on the playground. Researches have indicated that girls are involved with an indirect or relational bullying (Slonje & Smith, 2008). This may be caused by interpersonal differences which is very common among adolescent girls. The numerous studies that have been conducted illustrate gender differences have brought about different results. Girls have higher chances to be cyber bullied, as much or more than they are involved in bullying others. Girls at a tender age are more likely to be lured by text messages and phone calls by anonymous callers which have become very common today. Friendship established with such people results in to cyber bullying (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Another study by Li (2006) indicated that there were no any gender difference when it comes to cyber bullying, while another study indicated that there was twice chances for cyber bulling in boys than in girls (Li, 2006). Huang and Chou indicated that male students are more likely to be cyber bullied than female students. It is a statement that is supported by a research conducted by Calvete, (2010). Males were deemed to possess the frequency of cyber bullying than females (Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2008). The manner in which the adolescents perceive cyber bullying so does the existence of gender difference. In a focus group that involved the middle and high school students, girls were more likely than boys to acknowledge that cyber bullying was a menace that affected their school. There was also a response from the adolescents that they would respond to a cyber-bullying depending on the gender of the perpetrator. There was a great admission on the boys that they would respond to confront a perpetrator of cyber bullying than the girls admitted. It is clear from the above that studies have been conducted to depict the gender differences in cyber bullying. It is important to note that most studies have suggested that females are more prone to cyber bullying both as a victim and as a bully (Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2008). Consistency of the form in which the cyber bulling takes place among the female is uniform. It takes an indirect form of cyber bullying just as it was with the traditional bullying. Because most cyber bullying is not face to face, the gender balance in bullying might be skewed more towards girls than is found for conventional bullying (Slonje and Smith, 2008). The most unique feature of cyber bullying is the fact that it can be done and create a sense of anonymity. The sheer fact that one can use emails or text message can be a source where by rumors can be spread leading to destruction of friendships. Girls are also involved in cyber bullying as victims. An issue between girls such as spreading of gossips and ill talk can cause cyber bullying when such content is exposed in the internet. A study carried out by (Mesch, 2009) showed that gender was very associated with cyber bullying. Only 39% of the males were victims, while 61% of the girls reported being bullied at least once (Mesch, 2009). A similar research that was conducted by Slonje and Smith (2008) gave an illuminating result that more often than not girls are the victims of cyber bullying. Another study that concurs with the theory that girls are more preferentially involved in cyber bullying is the fact that they are more prone to relational aggression threats. A research survey indicated that girls used gossiping, or by ignoring someone. The same study also indicated that girls were more victims of cyber bulling on platforms such as hacking, MSN, email, name-calling gossiping and blaming (Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2008). The amount of time that one spends on computers or cellphones in matters of socializations can be a determinant of gender vulnerability of cyber bullying. One study found that female are more frequently online for socialization purposes as compared to male who go online to engage themselves in playing games (Dowell, E.B., A.W. Burgess & D.J. Cavanaugh, 2009). In Another study that was conducted by (Juvonen and Gross, 2008), the result indicated that girls were more significantly to be consumers of emails, profile sites, blogs and cell phone as compared to boys. Due to this fact provide a wider opportunity of girls been involved in cybercrime be related behaviors and victimizations. There is so much inconsistency when it comes to cyber bullying and gender differences. Some studies suggest that boys are overrepresented as cyber bullies (Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M. & Tippett, N., 2008), while some suggest that girls are exposed to cyber-victimization and being bully-victims. It is also trend among various studies that gender difference is not reported at all. Tokunaga (2010) described the range of gender difference as very complex and fraught with inconsistent finding. Some studies illustrate boys to be more involved in cyber-bullying. The results are consistent with those of Rivers & Noret, (2010). Cyber bullying in the education system The most cases where cyber bullying prevalent is during the middle school years and it diminishes during high school (Cassidy, Jackson, & Brown, 2009). Some researchers reported that the grades affected by cyber bulling most are grade eleven and twelve. Teacher schools have not made substantial efforts to equip learners with skills of handling cyberbullying in schools. We examine Li’s case study which examined cyberbullying and the perception of pre-service teacher’s towards cyberbullying. The case study indicates that only 4% of the participating teachers were taught how to deal with cyberbullying. This shows that even the teacher’s perception is not serious about the problem of cyberbullying in schools (Li, 2008). The fact that technology is so dynamic is making the school administrators to find it difficult to place policies that will curb and deter cyber bullying in their schools. Another factor is how to stay up-to-date with the changing and developing state and local laws. It is time that schools should enforce serious policies to curb cyber bullying. It goes without doubt that cyber bullying has severe psychological effect in a schooling kid. “When I was being cyberbullied I felt like I wanted to never go out of the house or talk to anyone ever again. It led me to depression, and the person who was bullying me….believed that it was funny.” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011, p.48). This is a quote from a 17year old boy who was telling his experience as a victim of cyber bullying. A child who has experienced cyber bullying won’t want to attend school. Studies have shown that cyber bullying and issues such as low self-esteem, academic problems, school violence, family problem and felonious behaviors are integrated together (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011).the negative implications that are brought about by cyber bullying are much severe in the education system. Some studies have shown that students who have experienced instances of cyber bullying have much suicidal thoughts as compared to students who have not experienced cyber bullying (Dehue, Bolman, & Vollink, 2008). Bibliography Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K. N., 2009. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how can pixels hurt me? School Psychology International, 30, 383-402. Craig, H., Fogel-Grinvald,D. & Hetland,S., 2009, HBSC Bullying Writing Group, Educational Psychology. Calvete, E., 2010. Cyberbullying in adolescents: Modalities and aggressors profile. Computers in Human Behavior archive Journal. Volume 26 Issue 5. Dehue, F., C. Bolman & T. Vollink, 2008. Cyber bullying: Youngsters’ experiences and parental perception. Cyberpsychol. Behav., 11: 217-223. PMID: 18422417 Dowell, E.B., A.W. Burgess & D.J. Cavanaugh, 2009, Clustering of internet risk behaviors in a middle school student population, J. School Health, 79: 547-553, PMID: 19840232 Englander, E.K., 2006. Understanding Violence, 3rdEdn, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Mahwah,New Jersey, ISBN: 10: 0805860908, pp: 256. Englander, E., 2008. Cyber bullying and bullying in Massachusetts: frequency and motivations. Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center. Englander, E., 2009. SNAPSHOT: Massachusetts statistics on frequency of bullying and cyber bullying (2008-09). Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center. Englander, E.K., 2006. Understanding Violence. 3rdEdn., Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, ISBN: 10: 0805860908, pp: 256. Hinduja, S., & Patcjin, J.W., 2009. Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (Corwin Press). Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W., 2011. High-Tech Cruelty. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 48 Juvonen, J., & Gross, E., 2008. Extending the school grounds?--Bullying experiences in cyberspace. J Sch Health. 78(9):496-505. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00335.x. Kowalski, S., &Limber, S., 2007, Electronic Bullying Among Middle School Students, Journal of Adolescent Health: Volume 41, Issue 6, Supplement , Pages S22-S30. Lenhart,A., Madden, M. Macgill, R. & Smith, A., 2007. Teens and Social Media. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Li, Q., 2006. Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27, 157–170. Mesch, G.S., 2009. Parental mediation, online activitiesand cyberbullying. Cyberpsychol. Behav., 12: 387-393. PMID: 19630583 Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B. & Scheidt, P., 2001. Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 285: 2094-2100. PMID: 11311098 Nabuzoka, D., 2003. Teacher ratings and peer nominations of bullying and other behavior of children with and without learning difficulties. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 307-321. Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (2011). The Bullying Prevention Program. In D.S. Elliott (Series Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder: University of Colorado, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science. Olweus, D., 1993. Bullying at School: What We Knowand What We Can Do. 1st Edn., Wiley- Blackwell, Cambridge, MA., ISBN: 10: 0631192417, pp: 152 Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S., 2011. Cyberbullying Prevention and Response: Expert Perspectives. New York: Routledge. Rivers, I. & Noret, N., 2010. ‘I h 8 u’ Finding from a five-year study of text and email bullying. British Educational Research Journal, Routledge. UK. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M. & Tippett, N., 2006. An investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying. Research Brief No. RBX03-06. DfES, London. Sentenac, M., Gavin, A., Arnaud,C., Molcho,M., & Godeau, E., 2011. Victims of Bullying Among Students with a Disability or Chronic Illness and Their Peers: A Cross-National Study Between Ireland and France: Journal of Adolescent Health 48 (2011) 461–466 Slonje, R., & Smith, P., 2008. Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology: Vol 49 Issue 2. Tokunaga, R. S., 2010. Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior 26(3):277-287. Willard, N., 2007. We hate Ashley. District Administration, 44(10), 53-56. Appendix A Table 1.1: Eight Categories of Cyber bullying Type of Bullying Description Flaming • Short lived argument between protagonists • Extended, heated argument leading to threats of violence • Questionable credibility of threats Harassment • Repeated ongoing assault • Usually one sided • Can have multiple protagonists harassing a target • Email, instant messenger, texting • Some protagonists may not even know target • Could be criminal—especially if involving hate or bias • Target is direct recipient of material Denigration • Harmful, untrue, or cruel speech about a target • Posted online and/or circulated via email, texting, instant messenger • Target is not direct recipient • Included public postings and sending of digital images (which may have been digitally altered) • May include defamation or invasion of privacy Impersonation • Falsely identifying as the target • Posting or sending material that shows the target in a bad light or interferes with target’s relationships and friendships • Often a means of the protagonist getting the target in trouble with authorities Outing and Trickery • Posting or otherwise circulating images and other personal communications that are embarrassing to the target • Target is not direct recipient of the attack • Images can often been sexually suggestive and verge on sexual harassment Exclusion • Deliberate exclusion of the target from communications to which he or she was previously privy to • Often occurs when the protagonist convinces multiple people to “defriend” the target Cyber stalking • Repeated harassment including threats of harm • Can be intimidating, offensive, or involve extortion • Protagonist often lulls target into sense of false security before slowly escalating harassment • Often linked to the termination of a sexual relationship Cyber threats • Direct threats which demonstrate intent to harm self or others; often includes detailed information about event • Distressing material intimates that the writer may be at risk for hurting self or others (Adopted from Willard, 2007) Read More